{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02641232575201761, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01173881144534116, 'mean_word_length': 5.2, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
From the Editors’ Desk

Impact factors, double-blind reviews, and other matters of importance to peer-reviewed journals are generating controversy and conversation. We invited Nuno S. Themudo, an ARNOVA member and contributor to NVSQ, who has examined journal impact factors especially as they relate to NVSQ, to write a brief report. His report also examines the influence of NVSQ on current scholarship. Professor Themudo’s analysis presented below certainly suggests the considerable influence of the articles published in NVSQ. The use of the ubiquitous 2-year Impact Factor (IF) metric (Garfield, 2005), which favors the natural science disciplines, is not favorable to NVSQ or most other social science journals. Indeed, in the overall field of all social sciences indexed journals, the top five ranked journals which attracted the highest total citations between January 1, 1997 and August 31, 2007 deal with some aspect of medicine. Using the IF as well as other metrics that are more appropriate for the social sciences, Professor Themudo shows that NVSQ’s overall impact on scholarship has grown over the past decade; when one considers the various other metrics generally used to asses a journal’s impact, NVSQ’s influence tends to increase significantly even as compared with leading disciplinary journals. Below we reproduce excerpts from his report.