TL;DR
This paper analyzes the impact of the 1999 reorganization of SIAM Review, finding that it did not improve the journal overall and highlighting the influence of a highly cited article on its impact factor.
Contribution
It provides an empirical assessment of SIAM Review's reorganization effects and offers suggestions for further improvements.
Findings
Reorganization did not enhance overall journal quality
A single highly cited article skewed impact factor
Referee delays and paper length issues persist
Abstract
SIAM Review is examined for referee delay, citations, and paper length after the reorganization of the journal in 1999. A single, very-highly cited article was responsible for all the increase to the impact factor during the past decade; the reorganization did not improve the journal overall. Some suggestions are made for additional changes.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsComplex Network Analysis Techniques · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence · scientometrics and bibliometrics research