Bibliometric analysis of Estonian folklore research and folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore.
Lauk, Kalmer
1. Background
The research areas in Estonia that are most often considered to
have a strong impact on the world based on their citations per
publication are molecular biology and genetics (18th in the world on the
Essential Science Indicator), environment/ ecology (15th on the ESI),
and plant and animal science (12th on the ESI). Overall the level on
Estonian research is a small miracle considering Estonia's size and
history (Allik 2015). But what is not known is that there is an area of
research where Estonia is at world level--and it is an area not visible
in either ESI or Journal Citation Reports because it is an area in arts
and humanities.
The humanitarian researchers in Estonia are skeptical about
bibliometrics and how or if it can display their impact on a local or on
a larger scale, and for the most part this is true (Allik 2012). It is
no secret that the humanities with their publishing and citation
practices are largely different from most of the other research areas in
science and for this they are not ideal for bibliometrical comparisons
or analysis. The citation tradition in the humanities is not as strong
as it is in science. An art historian may not formally cite such works
as Guernica or Mona Lisa. A literary critic would not cite Shakespeare
every time he mentions Hamlet (Garfield 1980a). The citations to
articles are slow to grow and in many subfields of the humanities
articles do not even have any great impact (because of the book-oriented
nature of the fields) (Stern 1983). Also most of the research done in
the humanities are with localized conceptions, meaning that linguistic
studies on Estonian or Finnish will be published in Estonian or Finnish
for Estonian or Finnish readers and researchers.
But there is still a remarkable amount of documents on arts and
humanities in the Web of Science Arts & Humanities Citation Index
(A&HCI) and this data is bibliometrically analyzable and actually
quite interesting (Ho et al. 2015, Konur 2012).
The following paper tries to answer these questions: How does an
Estonian folklore researcher compare with its neighbors and with the
whole world? What kind of impact has the Estonian folklore journal The
Electronic Journal of Folklore (EJoF) had and how has it changed the
area in Estonia?
2. Methodology
To measure, compare and visualize the area of folklore in Estonia,
100 documents published from 2005-2014 and 73 documents published from
2010-2014 indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) Arts & Humanities
Citation Index (A&HCI) were analyzed. For comparison with Estonia,
Finland was naturally chosen because of its neighboring location and its
similar culture to Estonia. Also Latvia, Sweden, the United Kingdom
(England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales in total) and the United
States of America were chosen because of their location to Estonia and
their history and their role in the area of folklore. The analysis on
the journal the Estonian Electronic Journal of Folklore (EJoF) was made
by using data from Thomson Reuters Web of Science Core Collection (WoS)
Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), Journal Citation
Report (JCP), Scopus, and SCImago. To compare the impact of EJoF to a
Finnish journal FF Communications was chosen since it has published the
most cited and important work in folklore (Aarne, Stith 1928). Folk
Life--Journal of Ethnological Studies from the United Kingdom, Folklore,
the journal for the Folklore Society of England, which is one of the
earliest English-language journals in the area of folkloristics, first
published in 1879 and the Journal of Folklore Research from the Indiana
University in the United States of America were chosen. The analysis was
done in InCites (InCites is a customized, web-based research evaluation
tool that allows users to analyze institutional productivity and
benchmark research output against peers worldwide) during the last week
(23-29) of November 2015.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. The research area of folklore in Estonia
When looking at the research that was done in Estonia from
2010-2014 in WoS research evaluation tool InCites nothing unusual can be
seen at first. Most active were environmental researchers with 503
documents (folklore was 84th with 73 documents). Most cited were the
areas of genetics & heredity (10 448) and physics (10 318) with
folklore being 210th with 16 citations. And with Citation Impact
(Average (mean) number of citations per paper) the areas in the top were
similar (physics--59.33; genetics & heredity--31.65) and folklore
was at the 232th place with 0.22. Such low Citation Impact of
publications in folklore probably indicates an independent research
topic and a wide disparity in research focuses (Ho et al. 2015).
The average impact (citations per item) of all papers published by
some country is certainly a more meaningful indicator of scientific
quality than a mere number of published papers (Allik 2013).
But there are indicators that show folklore in the top part of the
table and this indicator is Average Percentile. The percentile of a
publication is determined by creating a citation frequency distribution
for all the publications in the same year, subject category and of the
same document type (arranging the papers in descending order of citation
count), and determining the percentage of papers at each level of
citation, i.e., the percentage of papers cited more often than the paper
of interest. A percentile indicates how a paper has performed relative
to others in its field, year and document type and is therefore a
normalized indicator. The Average Percentile can apply to any set of
papers, such as an author's body of work, all the publications in a
journal or the accumulated publications of an institution, country or
region (InCites Indicators Handbook 2014). The average percentile of
folklore in Estonia is 86.42 and it is 14th in Estonia. And this is
because Incites sorts the data in a descending order and with Average
Percentile the smaller number is better.
By other indicators folklore is not visible in the top part of the
table. As it becomes clear, folklore in Estonia is not practically
visible amongst other areas of research but both its impact and activity
is actually as high as its neighbors' or even higher (Table 1).
These numbers above show the similarities and dissimilarities of
folklore between these countries. As it can be seen, the United States
of America is way ahead of everybody because of its mass. Like with all
research, out of the three Baltic states only Estonia managed to do
both, increase substantially the number of publications along with their
average impact (Allik 2013). But to bring this data into a bigger
context the data from all over the world should be looked at. Table 2
shows the indicators by which Estonia is in the top 10 in the world of
folklore from 2010-2014.
As it can be seen, Estonia is not the first in any of the
indicators but it should be noted that Estonia is the only country who
has both a high productivity and also a high number of citations.
Countries like Argentina, Greece, and South Africa have a higher impact
because they have a small number of documents but their low number of
citations is somewhat higher relative to the document number, so
considering that Estonia has both a high number of documents and a high
number of cites the impact of Estonia is remarkably high. Even if there
is doubt over the individual indicators and how they can show the level
of Estonian folklore research, the overall fact that we are in most
(important) of the top 10 tables should show a high level of research in
the area of folklore.
The different types of documents published by Estonian researchers
from 2010-2014 can be seen in Table 3. Article is the most common form
of document type.
An interesting fact is that the high place amongst other countries
is not because of highly cited papers, since only one of the most cited
papers in folklore by Estonian researchers is from 2010-2014:
Valk, U. Ghostly possession and real estate: The dead in
contemporary Estonian folklore. Journal of Folklore Research. 2006. Vol.
43 No. 1 P. 31- + (cited 5 times)
Leete, A, Vallikivi, L. Imitating Enemies or Friends Comparative
Notes on Christianity in the Indigenous Russian Arctic during the Early
Soviet Period. Asian Ethnology. 2011. Vol. 70 No. 1 P. 81-104 (cited 4
times)
Johanson, K. The changing meaning of "thunderbolts"
Folklore-Electronic Journal of Folklore. 2009. No. 1 P. 129-174 (cited 3
times)
This implicates that the Estonian research in folklore had
citations before the last five years. So what can be seen if the data
from the last ten years would be analyzed?
Similar to the papers published in Estonia from 2010-2014 the same
thing is with 2005-2014. Folklore is not a top research area in Estonia
by any indicator but the following tables (Tables 4, 5) show the
indicators by which Estonia is in the top 10 in the world of folklore
from 2005-2014.
Interestingly, Estonia has had a high level of citations and
document numbers from 2005-2014. But these two tables also show that the
impact the Estonian researchers had from 2005-2014 is lower and not even
in the world top 10 (Citation Impact--0.31 and 20th in the world; Impact
Relative to World--0.038 and 20th in the world) from the impact from
2010-2014. This strongly implicates that something has happened that has
pushed the impact to new heights for the last five years.
The number of citations and the number of publications has had a
steady rise since 2008 and the lower numbers from 2005-2007 pull the
10-year impact down (Fig. 1). The citation numbers for 2013 and 2014 are
low because citations in folklore as in all areas in the arts and
humanities take time to aggregate. So what happened in 2008? This is the
year when WoS A&HCI started indexing the Estonian folklore journal
the Electronic Journal of Folklore.
3.2. The Electronic Journal of Folklore
A journal impact analysis is one way for a journal to gauge its
contribution to an area using quantitative measures. Although it is not
possible to definitively capture all variables associated with a
journal's impact, using a variety of tools we can create a
reasonable approximation of its role and standing in the scholarly
community (Behles 2014).
Most (65.3% out of 104 documents from 1998-2014) of the papers by
Estonian folklore researchers is published in the Electronic Journal of
Folklore (EJoF). EJoF is indexed both in WoS (Arts & Humanities
Citation Index) (from 2008) and in Scopus (from 2012). The journals in
Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) do not have an Impact
Factor (IF) provided by the Journal Citation Report (JCR). This makes
comparison harder but not impossible. For journal-level metrics Scopus
uses the portal SCImago which allows to compare journals quite easily.
JCR provides quantifiable statistical data about journal titles and
enables users to sort data by various fields such as the journal impact
factor and cited half-life (ISI 1994). However, it was realized that
citation characteristics of the arts and humanities journal articles
were quite different from those of sciences and social sciences and this
is why JCRs for A&HCI has never materialized (Al, et al. 2006). But
the IF for journals in A&HCI could still be calculated and for the
comparison of journals in this paper this calculation was made.
To get the IF for the journals not in JCR a calculation should be
made based on the data from WoS. For the comparison of journals in this
review, IF for 2014 was calculated by dividing the number of citations
in 2014 to articles published in 2012 and 2013 by the number of
publications in 2012 and 2013. The same formula was used to calculate
the IF for 2013 and 2012. Table 6 shows the IF of selected folklore
journals in 2014, 2013 and 2012.
From Table 6 it is clear why IF for journals in the A&HCI is
not calculated. The numbers are very low or they just are not there.
From these numbers it is also clear that the EJoF has an IF that is not
very high considering some of the other journals. On the other hand,
most of these journals have a long history in both being published and
indexed in the A&HCI and EJoF is quite new (Table 7). This
implicates that the impact of EJoF is evident. Relying on the impact
factor alone, however, is not sufficient to situate any journal in this
field.
For journal evaluation Scopus uses SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). SJR
(score) is weighted by the prestige of a journal. Subject field,
quality, and reputation of the journal have a direct effect on the value
of a citation. Apart from JCR and IF SJR is calculated for all journals
indexed in Scopus (Guerrero-Bote, et al. 2012)
In SJR Folklore (Estonia) (the name of EJoF in Scopus) is based in
two categories: Anthropology and Cultural Studies. In 2014 Folklore
(Estonia) was in the second quartile in the Culture Studies category and
in third quartile in Anthropology. The Quartile in Category or the
Quartile Score, on the other hand, shows the relative location of a
journal along the range of an SJR distribution. In Anthropology the
third quartile means 190th place out of 276 journals and in Culture
Studies the second quartile means 330th place out of 689 journals. It
should be noted that in 2013 Folklore (Estonia) was in the fourth
quartile in both of these categories. So a visible rise has occurred.
Table 8 indicates that since it was first indexed in Scopus, EJoF
has made a mark in all indicators in a very short time. As in WoS EJoF
has a better SJR (IF in WoS) than the Finnish journal FF Communication
and it is catching up with journals that have been indexed for much
longer then EJoF.
These journal-level metrics display only what the documents or
citations sum up to and how they relate to other journals. For core
knowledge about a journal the documents and citations must be analyzed
to see if the journal is used and cited locally or internationally. As
mentioned at the start of the paper, the humanities and folklore as a
part of them have a very localized use.
3.3. Articles and authors in the Electronic Journal of Folklore
Table 7 demonstrates that by the end of 2014 there were 305
publications from EJoF in WoS, which were cited 39 times. The average
citation per publication was 0.12 and h-index was 2. Figure 2 shows that
there is a clear rising trend in EJoF citations.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The most common document type in WoS from 2010-2014 was Article
(Table 9). Articles were also the type with the highest impact per
publication. The same thing occured with the documents that were
published by Estonian researchers from 2010-2014 (Table 3). The impact
of EJoF is much lower than other journals but one peculiar fact is that
other journals have published much more book reviews in them (Folklore,
Journal for the Folklore Society of England --56.44% out of 1788;
Journal of Folklore Research--22% out of 640). This indicates that
folklore is very similar to other fields in the arts and humanities in
general where book reviews are a considerable means of scholarly
communication (Lindholm-Romantschuk, et al. 1996).
The author of this paper is not sure if this choice of publishing
more articles was intentional or not, but it has certainly been an
advantages since the articles seem to have a bigger impact.
Contributing authors to EJoF documents in WoS originate most often
from Estonia (68), Finland (24), Russia (18), Norway (8), England (8),
and USA (7). All together, EJoF has authors from 37 countries.
Figure 3 illustrates the impact that sometimes the research
published from other countries seem to have a higher impact then the
research published from Estonia. This implicates that EJoF is not just
an Estonian journal for Estonian researchers. Besides this the citations
to Latvian and British documents are not coming just from Estonian or
Latvian or British journals - they are international citations from
different areas, and not just folklore.
One way to decide if a journal is internationally orientated is to
look at the percentile of international collaboration. Since InCites do
not have the indicator for international collaboration for A&HCI
journals, this must be calculated by the number of contributing
countries. Of course the author of a document can be from Estonia just
working or studying in another country.
The 45 citations to EJoF came from 37 articles. Out of 37 articles,
8 were from Estonia, 2 from USA, 2 from Russia, and 2 from Finland. The
most often citing journals other than EJoF were the Journal of Baltic
Studies (3) and FF Communications (2).
Table 10 shows that EJoF is one of the most international sources
with the majority of citations not coming from Estonia. Indeed, the
numbers that some of these percentiles are taken from are fairly small,
but if not this then what implicates more clearly the international
scope of a journal in an area that is not analyzable? And this can apply
also to other areas in the arts and humanities.
The impact of EJoF has not only been evident in folklore. The 37
articles cited by EJoF are not only from the area of folklore. Actually
only 35% (13) of them were from folklore. The other areas from citations
came from: area studies (10% - 4), archaeology (8% - 3), biology (5% -
2), and zoology (5% - 2), altogether from 32 different areas of research
in the arts and humanities and also in science. This means that EJoF has
a growing impact outside of the immediate area of study.
The most contributing authors are Ventsel, A. (15), Voolaid, P.
(9), Leete, A (9) and Koiva, M. (9). The number of citations and the
impact of the most contributing authors are visualized in Figure 4.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
The most cited paper in EJoF with three cites is Johanson, K. The
changing meaning of "thunderbolts " that was published in
2009. All the citations are self-citations from EJoF.
Self-citation can be an issue and it keeps coming up from time to
time since sometimes journals use it to boost their impact factors. But
self-citation is a natural thing that occurs in all journals
disregarding the research area. Given the cumulative nature of the
production of new knowledge, self-citations constitute a natural part of
the communication process (Costas et al. 2010).
Among all journals listed in the 2010 JCR Science Edition, for
example, 85% have self-citation rates of less than 15% (Testa 2012).
By the end of 2014 EJoF had been cited 45 times with 10 being
self-citations (22.3%). This number of citations is not relevant
compared to other journals review in this paper (Table 11).
4. Conclusion
It is easy to get lost in huge numbers and forget everything else.
Large numbers of citations and WoS documents attract attention and
admiration yet in many cases they do not show the full potential and
impact of a researcher, researcher's area, institution or a
country. Sometimes looking into the subject inside its own area or peers
may paint a totally different picture. Smaller areas of research deserve
also notification since they are analyzable.
Folklore in Estonia and in the world is microscopic amongst the
wide specter of research areas and invisible by most of the popular
indicators. Yet researchers are working and publishing and their papers
have an impact on the area. History (Yalcin 2010, Behles 2014) and
present have proven that bibliometrics can be used to measure the area
of folklore and other areas in the field of arts and humanities.
This paper has answered the questions raised at the beginning.
Estonian folklore researchers are very active compared to their
neighbors and they are remarkably visible amongst other big research
countries from all over the world. The impact of the works published in
Estonia is also comparable to other countries. Considering its size,
Estonia and its folklore researchers have had global level numbers in
all indicators in the last five years. The Electronic Journal of
Folklore has had the main role in bringing Estonia to this level. It
publishes works from authors all over the world and receives citations
from all over the world. Its impact is still small considering other
journals in this paper but the rise to the place at the moment has been
quick and if it continues on a mission to be more than a local journal
there is no question that its impact will rise even more.
These results confirm that EJoF is becoming a leading influential
journal in the area; they also suggest that EJoF has disproportionate
strength in the area given its smaller size and recent rise to the
A&HCI in comparison to other journals (Behles 2014).
Kalmer Lauk
University of Tartu
Address:
Kalmer Lauk
Office of Research and Development
University of Tartu
Lossi 3 - 319
51003 Tartu, Estona
E-mail: kalmer.lauk@ut.ee
Tel.: +372 737 6532
References
Aarne, A. and T. Stith (1928) Types of folktale: a classification
and bibliography. (Folklore Fellows' Communications, 74.) Helsinki:
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Aarne, A. and T. Stith (1961) Types of folktale: a classification
and bibliography. 2nd rev. ed. (Folklore Fellows' Communications,
184.) Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Al, U., M. Sahiner, and Y. Tonta (2006) "Arts and humanities
literature: bibliometric characteristics of contributions by Turkish
authors". Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology 57, 1011-1022. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20366
Allik, J. (2012) "Humanitaaride halin ja raev". [Wail and
wrath of the humanities.] Postimees 17. September 17. Available online
at <http://arvamus.postimees.ee/974950/juri-allikhumanitaaride-halin-ja-raev>. Accessed on 18.01.2016.
Allik, J. (2013) "Factors affecting bibliometric indicators of
scientific quality". Trames 17, 3, 199-214. DOI:
10.3176/tr.2013.3.01
Allik, J. (2015) "Eesti teaduse lugu". [The story of
Estonian science.] Akadeemia 7, 1210-1229.
Behles, C. (2014) "Citation analysis, Journal of Folklore
Research (1983-2010)". Journal of Folklore Research 51, 5-12.
Costas, R., T. N. van Leeuwen, and M. Bordons (2010)
"Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: effects of
different calculation methods". Scientometrics 82, 517-537. DOI:
10.1007/s11192-010-0187-7
Garfield, E. (1980a) "Is information retrieval in the arts and
humanities inherently different from that in science? The effect that
ISI's citation index for the arts and humanities is expected to
have on future scholarship". Library Quarterly 50, 40-57.
Guerrero-Bote, V. P. and F.Moya-Anegon (2012) "A further step
forward in measuring journals' scientific prestige: the SJR2
indicator". Journal of Informetrics 6, 674-688. DOI:
10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.001
Ho, H.-C. and Y.-S. Ho (2015) "Publications in dance field in
Arts & Humanities Citation Index: a bibliometric analysis".
Scientometrics 105, 1031-1040. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1716-1
InCites Indicators Handbook (2014) Thomson Reuters. Available
online at <http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/indicators-handbook.pdf>. Accessed on 01.11.2015.
ISI/The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor (1994) Thomson Reuters.
Available online at <http://wokinfo.com/essays/impact-factor/>.
Accessed on 01.11.2015.
Konur, O. (2012) "The evaluation of the research on the arts
and humanities in Turkey: a scientometric approach". Energy
Education Science and Technology. Part B Social and Educational Studies
4, 1603-1618.
Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. and J. Warner (1996) "The role of
monographs in scholarly communication: An empirical study of philosophy,
sociology and economics". Journal of Documentation 52, 389-404.
DOI: 10.1108/eb026972
Stern, M. (1983) "Characteristics of the literature of
literary scholarship". College & Research Libraries 44,
199-209.
Testa, J. (2012) "The Thomson Reuters journal selection
process". Available online at
<http://wokinfo.com/essays/journal-selection-process/>. Accessed
on 01.11.2015.
Yalcin, H. (2010) "Bibliometric profile of Journal of National
Folklore (2007-2009)". Milli Folklor 205-211.
Table 1. Comparison of Estonia, Finland, England and USA
in the areas of folklore (2010-2014)
Country Web of Category Times Citation
Science Normalized Cited Imapact
Documents Citation
Impact
ESTONIA 73 1.08 16 0.22
UK 242 0.94 25 0.10
FINLAND 35 0.43 2 0.06
SWEDEN 19 3.13 4 0.21
LATVIA 5 * 0.00 1 0.20
LITHUANIA 4 ** 0.00 0 0.00
USA 853 1.81 157 0.18
WORLD 4543 0.85 498 0.11
Country Average % Impact
Percentile Documents Relative to
in Top World
10%
ESTONIA 86.42 5.48% 0.045
UK 92.26 4.12% 0.022
FINLAND 94.90 2.86% 0.012
SWEDEN 80.69 15.79% 0.045
LATVIA 100.00 0.00% 0.000
LITHUANIA 0.00 0.00% 0.000
USA 89.83 7.03% 0.039
WORLD 94.51 3.17% 0.023
* All published in the Estonian journal
Electronic Journal of Folklore
** 50 % published in the Estonian journal
Electronic Journal of Folklore
Table 2. The top 10 in the world from 2010-2014
Web of Times
Science Cited
Documents
USA 853 USA 157
TURKEY 372 GERMANY 26
(FED REP GER)
GERMANY 196 ENGLAND 19
(FED REP GER)
ENGLAND 158 TURKEY 18
SPAIN 133 ESTONIA 16
AUSTRIA 119 AUSTRIA 11
ESTONIA 73 SPAIN 11
SWITZERLAND 64 NETHERLANDS 7
BELGIUM 57 CANADA 7
SCOTLAND 48 FRANCE 6
Impact Category
Relative to Normalized
World *(2) Citation
Impact
SOUTH 0.107 NORWAY 4.09
AFRICA
ARGENTINA 0.107 SWEDEN 3.13
GREECE 0.071 SOUTH AFRICA 2.57
NEW ZEALAND 0.071 ARGENTINA 2.43
RUSSIA 0.059 USA 1.81
ICELAND 0.058 ICELAND 1.61
FRANCE 0.053 RUSSIA 1.59
NORWAY 0.049 FRANCE 1.52
ESTONIA 0.047 GREECE 1.39
SWEDEN 0.045 ESTONIA 1.08
Citation
Impact *(1)
SOUTH 0.5
AFRICA
ARGENTINA 0.5
GREECE 0.33
NEW ZEALAND 0.33
RUSSIA 0.28
ICELAND 0.27
FRANCE 0.25
NORWAY 0.23
ESTONIA 0.22
SWEDEN 0.21
*(1) Citation impact (citations per paper) normalized for subject,
year and document type (Incites Indicators Handbook. 2014).
*(2) Impact Relative to World indicator is the ratio of the
Citation Impact of a set of documents divided by the world
Citation Impact for a given period of time
(InCites Indicators Handbook. 2014).
Table 3. Document types and average citation per document
of folklore documents in WoS by Estonian researchers
from 2010-2014
Article Book Editorial
review material
Number of documents 49 17 4
% of 73 67.123% 23.288% 5.479%
CPP 0.37 0 0.25
News Proceedings Book
idem paper chapter
Number of documents 3 2 1
% of 73 4.110% 2.740% 1.370%
CPP 0 0 0
Table 4. Number of Web of Science documents 2005-2014
Web of Science Documents
1. USA 1687
2. TURKEY 532
3. GERMANY (FED REP GER) 308
4. ENGLAND 298
5. SPAIN 250
6. AUSTRIA 243
7. SWITZERLAND 101
8. ESTONIA 100
9. BELGIUM 94
10. CANADA 88
Table 5. Number of times cited 2005-2014
Times Cited
1. USA 740
2. ENGLAND 82
3. GERMANY (FED REP GER) 73
4. TURKEY 40
5. NETHERLANDS 37
6. SPAIN 37
7. CANADA 35
8. ESTONIA 31
9. FRANCE 19
10. SWITZERLAND 19
Table 6. Impact Factor of folklore journals from 2012-2014
Journal IF in 2012 IF in 2013 IF in 2014
FF Communications 0 0 0
Folklore, The Journal for the 0.077 0.064 0.068
Folklore Society of England
The Journal of Folklore 0.172 0.153 0.346
Research
Folk Life--Journal of
Ethnological Studies from 0 0 0
United Kingdom
Electronic Journal of Folklore 0.035 0.049 0.035
Table 7. Folklore journals and their history in WoS until 2014
Journal First Number of Number of
publication publication citations
in WoS
FF Communications 1980 199 5
Folklore, The Journal 1980 1788 1232
for the Folklore
Society of England
The Journal of 1983 640 1136
Folklore Research
Folk Life--Journal 2005 103 5
of Ethnological
Studies from
United Kingdom
Electronic Journal 2008 305 39
of Folklore
Journal CPP h-index Journal
Normalized
citation
Impact *(1)
FF Communications 0.02 1 0.06
Folklore, The Journal 0.68 11 0.49
for the Folklore
Society of England
The Journal of 1.77 13 0.76
Folklore Research
Folk Life--Journal 0.04 1 0.29
of Ethnological
Studies from
United Kingdom
Electronic Journal 0.12 2 0.57
of Folklore
Journal Category % Docs
Normalized Cited
citation
Impact *(2)
FF Communications 0.08 2%
Folklore, The Journal 1.20 23%
for the Folklore
Society of England
The Journal of 2.26 45%
Folklore Research
Folk Life--Journal 0.72 5%
of Ethnological
Studies from
United Kingdom
Electronic Journal 0.59 10%
of Folklore
*(1) The Journal Normalized Citation Impact (JNCI)
indicator is a similar indicator to the Normalized Citation
Impact, but instead of normalizing per subject area or field,
it normalizes the citation rate for the journal in which
the document is publishing.
*(2) Citation impact (citations per paper) normalized
for category, year and document type.
Table 8. Folklore journals and their history
in Scopus and SCImago to 2014
Journal First Number of Number of
publication publication citations
in Scopus
FF Communications 2002 66 11
Folklore (United Kingdom) 1980 335 773
(Folklore, The Journal
for the Folklore
Society of England)
The Journal of 2002 189 397
Folklore Research
Folk Life--Journal of 2002 109 49
Ethnological Studies
from United Kingdom
Folklore (Estonia) 2012 112 14
(Electronic Journal
of Folklore)
Journal CPP h-index SJR 2012
FF Communications 0.166 2 0.106
Folklore (United Kingdom) 2.307 12 0.16
(Folklore, The Journal
for the Folklore
Society of England)
The Journal of 2.100 9 0.177
Folklore Research
Folk Life--Journal of 0.449 3 0.133
Ethnological Studies
from United Kingdom
Folklore (Estonia) 0.125 2 0
(Electronic Journal
of Folklore)
Journal SJR 2013 SJR 2014
FF Communications 0.126 0.101
Folklore (United Kingdom) 0.123 0.139
(Folklore, The Journal
for the Folklore
Society of England)
The Journal of 0.168 0.15
Folklore Research
Folk Life--Journal of 0.101 0.159
Ethnological Studies
from United Kingdom
Folklore (Estonia) 0.101 0.125
(Electronic Journal
of Folklore)
Table 9. Document types and average citation
per document in WoS of EJoF
Article News Book Editorial
idem review material
Number of 165 62 49 17
documents
% of 867 54.09% 20.32% 16.06% 5.57%
CPP 0.24 0.06 0 0,06
Proceedings Biographical Review Letter
paper item
Number of 11 8 3 1
documents
% of 867 3.60% 2.62% 0.98% 0.32%
CPP 0 0 0 0
Table 10. Percentile of publications from the countries
of folklore and the origin of their citations until 2014
Journal Country % of documents % of citing
from origin articles from
country origin country
FF Communications Finland 5% 0%
Folklore, The Journal England 21% 17%
for the Folklore Society
of England
The Journal of Folklore USA 66% 50%
Research
Folk Life--Journal of United 32% * 40%
Ethnological Studies Kingdom
from United Kingdom
Electronic Journal of Estonia 22% 29%
Folklore
* England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland combined
Table 11. Self-citations to documents published until 2014
Journal % of self-citation
FF Communications 0%
Folklore, The Journal for the 22.4%
Folklore Society of England
The Journal of Folklore Research 9.9%
Folk Life--Journal of Ethnological 40%
Studies from United Kingdom
Electronic Journal of Folklore 22.3%
Figure 1. Estonian folklore research from 2005-2014.
#OF PUB #OF CITES
2005 3 1
2006 5 3
2007 2 1
2008 5 2
2009 14 6
2010 7 1
2011 11 6
2012 14 8
2013 20 1
2014 21 0
Note: Table made from line graph.
Figure 3. Number of documents, number of cites to the documents and
the impact of the countries contributing to EJoF 2008-2014.
# of doc # of cites Impact
ESTONIA 19 0.28
FINLAND 3 0.12
RUSSIA 5 0.28
NORWAY 0 0
ENGLAND 3 0.38
USA 1 0.14
SWEDEN 0 0
LATVIA 6 2 0.33
BULGARIA 0 0
ISRAEL 1 0.25
Note: Table made from bar graph.
