Journal Citation Reports: Understanding Rank Proportions, Quartile Boundaries, and the 2025 Retraction Citation Policy

Journal Citation Reports: Understanding Rank Proportions, Quartile Boundaries, and the 2025 Retraction Citation Policy | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Journal Citation Reports: Understanding Rank Proportions, Quartile Boundaries, and the 2025 Retraction Citation Policy Maen Mahfouz This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8869935/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose: Journal Citation Reports (JCR) from Clarivate provides annual rankings of scholarly journals through Journal Impact Factor (JIF) quartiles and percentiles. These metrics are widely used in research evaluation, funding decisions, and academic promotion across all scientific disciplines. Despite their institutional significance, persistent misunderstandings remain regarding the precise mathematical derivation of quartile boundaries, the distinction between rank proportion and percentile measures, and the implications of the June 2025 policy reform that excludes retracted citations from JIF numerators—a fundamental methodological change that has not yet been systematically analyzed in the scientometrics literature. This study addresses these gaps by providing the first consolidated methodological synthesis of JCR quartile mathematics, systematically distinguishing between quartile classification and JIF Percentile calculation, and presenting the first detailed analysis of the 2025 retraction citation exclusion policy. Methods: A documentary research design was employed, comprising systematic collection, critical evaluation, and synthetic analysis of primary and secondary sources. Primary sources comprised official Clarivate technical documentation accessed through the Clarivate Scientific and Academic Research support portal in March 2025, including the definitive specification of quartile and percentile calculation methodologies. Secondary sources comprised five institutional research guides from major universities, peer-reviewed editorial commentary, independent bibliometric analysis, and foundational scientometrics literature. Analytical procedures proceeded in three stages: (1) extraction and verification of the rank proportion formula (Z = X/Y) and quartile boundary definitions; (2) extraction and verification of the JIF Percentile formula (N – R + 0.5)/N × 100 and analysis of its mathematical relationship to quartile classification; and (3) synthesis of policy specifications, rationale, estimated effects, and potential implications of the 2025 integrity reform. Findings: Three principal findings emerge. First, JCR quartile assignment follows a precise mathematical specification with rank proportion (Z = X/Y) and strict boundary definitions invariant across all subject categories and publication years: Q1 (0.0 < Z ≤ 0.25), Q2 (0.25 < Z ≤ 0.5), Q3 (0.5 < Z ≤ 0.75), and Q4 (0.75 < Z). Borderline cases at Z = 0.25 and Z = 0.50 are explicitly classified as Q1 and Q2 respectively. Derived quantile rankings—terciles, quintiles, and deciles—can be mathematically consistently generated using the identical rank proportion convention, although these are not officially published or endorsed by Clarivate. Second, JIF Percentile provides granular, cross-categorically comparable information that quartile classification necessarily discards. The formula (N – R + 0.5)/N × 100 transforms discrete rank positions into a continuous 0–100 distribution. Because rank proportion (Z) increases with descending rank position, quartile boundaries inversely correspond to percentile thresholds. Third, the June 2025 Clarivate policy excludes citations to and from retracted articles from JIF numerators while retaining retracted articles in denominators. This represents the first formal encoding of integrity considerations into JIF methodology. The policy applies exclusively to JIF calculation and does not affect CiteScore, h-index, or other researcher-level metrics. Approximately 1% of JCR-indexed journals are expected to experience measurable JIF changes with minimal anticipated rank displacement. A potential unintended consequence—that increasing the negative JIF impact of retractions may inadvertently disincentivize retractions—is balanced against Clarivate's stated position that failure to retract compromised content risks journal delisting. Conclusion: This study provides the first methodological synthesis in the peer-reviewed scientometrics literature of JCR quartile mathematics, JIF Percentile calculation, and the 2025 integrity reform. Quartile assignment follows a precise rank proportion specification (Z = X/Y) that can be explicitly articulated and applied across all category sizes. JIF Percentile provides continuous cross-categorically comparable information that quartile classification necessarily discards; researchers and evaluators should consult percentiles, not merely quartiles, when fine-grained differentiation is required. The 2025 integrity reform represents one of the most consequential methodological changes in the Journal Impact Factor's history, formally acknowledging that how citations are accumulated matters as much as how many. This work provides researchers, evaluators, librarians, and bibliometricians with an authoritative technical reference for understanding both established JCR metrics and transformative policy changes. Journal Citation Reports Journal Impact Factor quartile ranking JIF percentile research integrity retraction policy 1. INTRODUCTION Since 1975, the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) has provided an institutional framework for evaluating scholarly journals through citation-based metrics (Clarivate, 2022). Published annually by Clarivate Analytics, the JCR aggregates citation data from the Web of Science Core Collection—encompassing over 21,500 journals across 254 research categories in the sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities (Clarivate, 2023). The Journal Impact Factor (JIF), calculated as the ratio of citations received in a given year to citable items published in the preceding two years, remains the most widely recognized journal-level metric despite sustained critiques regarding its appropriate application ( University of the Sunshine Coast, 2025 ). Absolute JIF values acquire interpretive significance only through comparative contextualization. A JIF of 9.052, for example, acquires meaning through rank position—the British Medical Journal 's ranking of sixth among 105 journals in general and internal medicine—or through comparison to the aggregate impact factor of 4.326 for its field ( Queensland University of Technology, 2025 ). This recognition has elevated quartile classification and percentile ranking to primary status in research evaluation protocols internationally ( Bar-Ilan University Library, 2025 ). Despite substantial institutional reliance on JCR quartile metrics, significant gaps persist in the accessible literature. First, existing guidance materials—predominantly library research guides and vendor documentation—present quartile definitions descriptively rather than mathematically, obscuring the precise rank proportion calculation that determines category placement ( Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 2016 ; Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, n.d.). Second, the relationship between quartile classification (four discrete categories) and JIF Percentile (a continuous 0–100 distribution) remains underspecified; many investigators remain unaware that JIF Percentile permits cross-category comparison while quartiles do not (Clarivate, 2022). Third, derived quantile rankings (terciles, quintiles, deciles) that institutions frequently employ for research evaluation are not officially published by Clarivate, yet no consolidated guidance exists regarding their mathematically consistent derivation from the rank proportion convention. The existing literature has not substantively addressed the most consequential methodological reform to JIF calculation in recent decades. In June 2025, Clarivate announced that citations to and from retracted or withdrawn articles would be excluded from JIF numerators, while retracted articles themselves would remain in denominators to preserve transparency ( Murphy et al., 2025 ). This policy—implemented in the 2025 JCR release—represents a formal integration of integrity considerations into journal impact metrics. To the author's knowledge, no methodological analysis of this reform has yet appeared in the scientometrics or bibliometrics literature. The central research problem addressed by this study is the absence of a consolidated methodological synthesis that: (a) articulates the precise mathematical specification of JCR quartile assignment; (b) systematically distinguishes between quartile classification and JIF Percentile calculation; and (c) analyzes the technical specifications, estimated effects, and implications of the June 2025 Clarivate retraction citation policy. 2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS This study addresses three research questions : What is the precise mathematical specification of JCR quartile assignment, and how can derived quantile rankings (terciles, quintiles, deciles) be consistently generated from this specification? How do quartile classification and JIF Percentile differ mathematically, and what are the implications of these differences for research evaluation practice? What are the technical specifications, estimated effects, and potential implications of the June 2025 Clarivate policy excluding retracted citations from JIF numerators? 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design This study employed a documentary research design, comprising systematic collection, critical evaluation, and synthetic analysis of primary and secondary sources pertaining to JCR metric calculations and the 2025 retraction citation policy. This approach was selected because the research questions concern technical specifications of proprietary metric calculations and analysis of a recent policy implementation for which empirical citation data are not yet publicly accessible. 3.2 Source Identification and Selection Source Identification : A systematic search of Clarivate documentation, institutional research guides, and peer-reviewed literature was conducted in March 2025. Primary sources were identified through the Clarivate Scientific and Academic Research support portal. Secondary sources were identified through Google Scholar and PubMed using search terms: "Journal Citation Reports," "JCR quartile," "JIF percentile," "journal metrics," "retraction policy," "Clarivate integrity," and "percentile bibliometrics." Inclusion Criteria : Sources were included if they: (a) provided direct technical specification of JCR quartile or percentile calculation methodology; (b) provided official documentation of the 2025 retraction citation policy; or (c) constituted editorial commentary or independent analysis of either JCR methodology or the 2025 policy reform. Exclusion Criteria : Sources were excluded if they: (a) discussed journal metrics without specific reference to JCR calculation methodology; (b) discussed retraction practices without reference to the 2025 Clarivate policy; or (c) constituted non-authoritative third-party descriptions lacking citation of primary sources. Final Source Set : Primary sources comprised Clarivate (2022) technical documentation and Clarivate (2023) statistical infographic. Secondary sources comprised five institutional research guides ( University of the Sunshine Coast, 2025 ; Queensland University of Technology, 2025 ; Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 2016 ; Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, n.d.; Bar-Ilan University Library, 2025 ), editorial commentary ( Murphy et al., 2025 ), independent bibliometric analysis ( Journalology, 2025 ), and foundational scientometrics literature ( Garfield, 1972 ; Hicks et al., 2015 ; DORA, 2012; Waltman & Schreiber, 2013 ). 3.3 Analytical Strategy Analyses proceeded in three stages corresponding to the study's research questions. Stage 1: Technical Exposition of Quartile Mathematics. The rank proportion formula (Z = X/Y) and quartile boundary definitions were extracted and verified from Clarivate (2022) documentation. Borderline case classification was verified through provided examples. Mathematically consistent specifications for terciles, quintiles, and deciles were derived using the identical rank proportion convention. Stage 2: Distinction Between Quartile and Percentile Metrics. The JIF Percentile formula (N – R + 0.5)/N × 100 was extracted from Clarivate (2022) and verified through provided examples. The mathematical relationship between quartile classification and JIF Percentile was analyzed, demonstrating the inverse correspondence between rank proportion and percentile thresholds. Stage 3: Analysis of the 2025 Integrity Reform. Primary announcements from Clarivate ( Murphy et al., 2025 ), editorial analysis ( Murphy et al., 2025 ), and independent bibliometric commentary ( Journalology, 2025 ) were synthesized to construct a comprehensive account of the policy's technical specifications, rationale, estimated effects, and potential implications. 3.4 Limitations This study is subject to several limitations. First, analysis of the 2025 retraction policy relies on Clarivate's published specifications and independent commentary; empirical analysis of actual JIF changes must await release of full 2025 JCR data and subsequent bibliometric investigation. Second, technical exposition of quartile and percentile mathematics is derived from official Clarivate documentation but has not been independently validated against proprietary JCR calculation algorithms. Third, this study is restricted to JCR metrics and does not provide comparable technical exposition of Scopus-based metrics (CiteScore, SJR, SNIP). Fourth, the 2025 policy applies exclusively to JIF calculation; researcher-level metrics (h-index, citation counts) and other journal metrics (CiteScore) continue to include retracted papers and citations to them. 4. RESULTS 4.1 JCR Quartile Assignment Specification 4.1.1 Rank Proportion Calculation Official Clarivate documentation establishes that quartile rankings in Journal Citation Reports are determined through a two-step procedure (Clarivate, 2022). First, journals within each subject category are sorted in descending order by Journal Impact Factor. Second, each journal receives a rank proportion calculated as : Rank Proportion (Z) = X / Y Where : *X = journal rank position within category (descending order by JIF; 1 = highest JIF)* Y = total number of journals in category This rank proportion (Z) is a descriptive positional measure , not a statistical Z-score . Clarivate documentation employs "Z" as a variable designation without implying standardization to mean zero or unit variance. 4.1.2 Quartile Boundary Definitions Quartile assignment follows strict boundary definitions invariant across categories and publication years (Clarivate, 2022). As shown in Table 1 , the quartile boundaries are defined by specific rank proportion ranges, with corresponding JIF Percentile thresholds and category positions. Table 1 JCR quartile boundary definitions and rank proportion ranges Quartile Rank Proportion (Z) Range JIF Percentile Range Category Position Q1 0.0 75.0 Top 25% Q2 0.25 50.0 to ≤ 75.0 25–50% Q3 0.5 25.0 to ≤ 50.0 50–75% Q4 0.75 < Z ≤ 25.0 Bottom 25% *Note: Z = X/Y where X = journal rank position, Y = total journals in category. This is a descriptive rank proportion, not a statistical Z-score. Source: Derived from Clarivate official documentation (Clarivate, 2022).* 4.1.3 Borderline Case Classification Boundary definitions establish that Z = 0.25 and Z = 0.50 are classified as Q1 and Q2 respectively. Official examples confirm this interpretation (Clarivate, 2022) : Rank 78 of 314: Z = 78/314 = 0.248 → Q1 journal Rank 102 of 204: Z = 102/204 = 0.5 → Q2 journal 4.1.4 Derived Quantile Rankings Clarivate documentation explicitly states that "Journal Citation Reports does not provide any other official quantile rankings" while authorizing that "using the same convention, other quantile rankings such as terciles, quintiles, and deciles can be derived as follows" (Clarivate, 2022). Table 2 presents these mathematically consistent derived rankings. These are theoretical derivations; Clarivate does not officially publish or endorse these classifications. Table 2 Derived quantile rankings from JCR rank proportion convention Quantile Ranking Rank Proportion Range Cumulative Percentage Terciles T1 0.0 < Z ≤ 0.3333 Top 33.33% T2 0.3333 < Z ≤ 0.6667 33.33–66.67% T3 0.6667 < Z Bottom 33.33% Quintiles QU1 0.0 < Z ≤ 0.2 Top 20% QU2 0.2 < Z ≤ 0.4 20–40% QU3 0.4 < Z ≤ 0.6 40–60% QU4 0.6 < Z ≤ 0.8 60–80% QU5 0.8 < Z Bottom 20% Deciles D1 0.0 < Z ≤ 0.1 Top 10% D2 0.1 < Z ≤ 0.2 10–20% D3 0.2 < Z ≤ 0.3 20–30% D4 0.3 < Z ≤ 0.4 30–40% D5 0.4 < Z ≤ 0.5 40–50% D6 0.5 < Z ≤ 0.6 50–60% D7 0.6 < Z ≤ 0.7 60–70% D8 0.7 < Z ≤ 0.8 70–80% D9 0.8 < Z ≤ 0.9 80–90% D10 0.9 < Z Bottom 10% Note: Derived from Clarivate official documentation (Clarivate, 2022) using the identical rank proportion convention. These quantile rankings are not officially published or endorsed by Clarivate. Decimal values are exact boundary thresholds. 4.2 Quartile and Percentile Distinction 4.2.1 JIF Percentile Calculation The Journal Impact Factor Percentile transforms a journal's rank position into a continuous percentile value, permitting more meaningful comparison across different categories (Clarivate, 2022). The formula is : JIF Percentile = (N – R + 0.5) / N × 100 Where : N = number of journals in category *R = descending rank position (1 = highest JIF)* For the JIF Percentile , higher values indicate higher JIF relative to category peers . The + 0.5 adjustment prevents the top-ranked journal from receiving a percentile of 100% (which would imply performance exceeding all journals, including itself). Waltman and Schreiber ( 2013 ) provide comprehensive methodological analysis of such percentile-based indicators, noting that the + 0.5 adjustment is one of several possible approaches to handling the top-ranked case. Official examples confirm the calculation (Clarivate, 2022) : Rank 104 of 177: (177–104 + 0.5)/177 × 100 = 73.5/177 × 100 = 41.5 → 41.5 Percentile Rank 27 of 30: (30–27 + 0.5)/30 × 100 = 3.5/30 × 100 = 11.7 → 11.7 Percentile 4.2.2 Relationship Between Quartile and Percentile Quartile classification represents a categorical compression of the continuous JIF Percentile distribution. Because rank proportion (Z) increases with descending rank position (higher Z = lower JIF), quartile boundaries inversely correspond to percentile thresholds. Table 3 provides a systematic comparison of the mathematical and practical distinctions between quartile classification and JIF Percentile. Table 3 Comparative analysis: Quartile classification vs. JIF Percentile Feature Quartile Classification JIF Percentile Mathematical definition Categorical assignment based on Z = X/Y Continuous value: (N – R + 0.5)/N × 100 Range 4 discrete categories (Q1–Q4) 0–100 continuous scale Cross-category comparability Not valid — category-specific Valid — normalized to percentile Information retention Low — compresses rank order High — preserves rank differentiation Borderline resolution Discontinuous at Z = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 Continuous across entire range Example: Z = 0.10 (90.5%) Q1 90.5 Example: Z = 0.24 (75.5%) Q1 75.5 Example: Z = 0.26 (74.5%) Q2 74.5 Example: Z = 0.49 (51.0%) Q2 51.0 Example: Z = 0.51 (49.0%) Q3 49.0 Example: Z = 0.74 (26.0%) Q3 26.0 Example: Z = 0.76 (24.0%) Q4 24.0 Primary use case Rapid screening, broad categorization Fine-grained differentiation, cross-field comparison *Note: Z = X/Y (rank proportion); N = category size; R = descending rank position. JIF Percentile values rounded to one decimal. Derived from Clarivate (2022) formulas.* 4.2.3 Average JIF Percentile For journals indexed in multiple JCR categories, the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile provides a single metric supporting cross-category comparison (Clarivate, 2022). The formula is : Average JIF Percentile = (JIF Percentile₁ + JIF Percentile₂ + ... + JIF Percentileₙ) / N Where N = number of categories in which journal is indexed Official example (Clarivate, 2022) : Category 1: Rank 12/177 → JIF Percentile = (177–12 + 0.5)/177 × 100 = 165.5/177 × 100 = 93.5 Category 2: Rank 9/103 → JIF Percentile = (103–9 + 0.5)/103 × 100 = 94.5/103 × 100 = 91.7 Category 3: Rank 16/314 → JIF Percentile = (314–16 + 0.5)/314 × 100 = 298.5/314 × 100 = 95.1 Average JIF Percentile = (93.5 + 91.7 + 95.1)/3 = 93.4 The Average JIF Percentile facilitates approximate cross-category comparison, although discipline-specific citation norms, category size variation, and distributional characteristics constrain interpretability. 4.3 The 2025 Integrity Reform 4.3.1 Policy Specification Effective with the 2025 Journal Citation Reports release, Clarivate implemented the following methodological changes to JIF calculation ( Murphy et al., 2025 ; Journalology, 2025 ) : Citations to retracted articles are excluded from JIF numerator Citations from retracted articles are excluded from JIF numerator Retracted articles themselves remain in JIF denominator (count of citable items) Policy applies to all retracted or withdrawn articles indexed in Web of Science Core Collection 4.3.2 Scope of Application This policy applies exclusively to Journal Impact Factor calculation. It does not apply to : CiteScore (Elsevier) or other Scopus-based metrics Researcher-level metrics including h-index and total citation counts Web of Science Core Collection citation counts for individual articles or researchers Previous JCR annual releases prior to 2025 4.3.3 Rationale and Objectives Clarivate articulated two primary policy objectives ( Murphy et al., 2025 ): Objective 1: Preemptive Distortion Prevention. Citing increasing retraction rates and decreasing intervals between publication and retraction decisions, Clarivate sought to preemptively guard against potential widespread JIF distortions from accumulated citations to retracted content. Objective 2: Metric Evolution. The policy explicitly aims to evolve the Journal Impact Factor "from a journal-level marker of scholarly impact to an indicator of both impact and trustworthiness" ( Murphy et al., 2025 ). 4.3.4 Estimated Scope and Impact Data presented by Clarivate and analyzed in editorial commentary indicate ( Murphy et al., 2025 ; Journalology, 2025 ) : Retracted papers constitute approximately 0.04% of Web of Science Core Collection Annual retraction rate reached record 0.02% in 2023 (exceeding 10,000 articles) Approximately 1% of JCR-indexed journals expected to experience measurable JIF changes Most affected journals expected to experience minimal rank displacement 4.3.5 Relationship to Broader Integrity Infrastructure The 2025 policy reform represents integration of journal-level metrics with established research integrity infrastructure ( Murphy et al., 2025 ; Journalology, 2025 ). Table 4 summarizes the key infrastructure components and their integration with the 2025 policy. Table 4 Research integrity infrastructure and integration with 2025 JCR policy Infrastructure Component Function Integration with 2025 Policy COPE Retraction Guidelines Standardized retraction processes Provides consistent retraction classification Retraction Watch Database Centralized retraction repository Source for identifying retracted articles Crossref Crossmark Communicates current publication status Enables automated status verification iThenticate, image forensics Pre-publication integrity screening Reduces retraction risk pre-emptively PubPeer Post-publication open commentary Catalyzes retraction identification Research Integrity Risk Index (RI²) Institutional-level integrity metrics Complements journal-level metrics Sources: Synthesized from Murphy et al. ( 2025 ) and Journalology ( 2025 ). 4.3.6 Technical Specifications of the 2025 Integrity Reform Table 5 provides a comprehensive technical specification of the 2025 JCR Integrity Reform, comparing pre-2025 and 2025 policies across all affected components. Table 5 The 2025 JCR integrity reform: Technical specifications Component Pre-2025 Policy 2025 Policy Effect Citations to retracted articles Included in JIF numerator Excluded from JIF numerator Negative JIF adjustment Citations from retracted articles Included in JIF numerator Excluded from JIF numerator Negative JIF adjustment Retracted articles in denominator Included Included (unchanged) No change; preserves transparency Journals failing to retract Subject to re-evaluation Elevated delisting risk Incentive to retract Application to CiteScore Not applicable Not applicable Policy JIF-exclusive Application to h-index Not applicable Not applicable Policy JIF-exclusive Application to WoS citation counts Not applicable Not applicable Policy JIF-exclusive Proportion of journals affected — ~ 1% (estimated) Minimal; primarily symbolic *Note: This policy applies exclusively to Journal Impact Factor calculation and does not affect CiteScore, Scopus-based metrics, researcher-level metrics (h-index, total citations), or Web of Science Core Collection citation counts for individual articles or researchers. Sources: Synthesized from Murphy et al. ( 2025 ) and Journalology ( 2025 ).* 4.3.7 Illustrative Examples of Rank Proportion, JIF Percentile, and Quartile Assignment Table 6 provides illustrative examples of journals at different rank positions, demonstrating the relationship between rank proportion, JIF Percentile, and quartile assignment. These examples highlight the discontinuity at quartile boundaries and the loss of granular information in quartile classification. Table 6 Illustrative examples: Rank proportion, JIF Percentile, and quartile assignment Journal Rank (X) Category Size (Y/N) Rank Proportion (Z = X/Y) JIF Percentile Quartile Top-ranked 1 100 0.010 99.5 Q1 Journal A 12 177 0.068 93.5 Q1 Example C 10 100 0.100 90.5 Q1 Example D 24 100 0.240 75.5 Q1 Journal B 78 314 0.248 75.3 Q1 Borderline 79 314 0.252 74.8 Q2 Journal E 80 314 0.255 74.7 Q2 Journal F 102 204 0.500 50.1 Q2 Borderline 103 204 0.505 49.8 Q3 Journal G 104 177 0.588 41.5 Q3 Journal H 27 30 0.900 11.7 Q4 *Note: JIF Percentile calculated as (N – R + 0.5)/N × 100. Values rounded to one decimal. Borderline cases illustrate discontinuity at quartile thresholds. Z = 0.25 and Z = 0.50 are classified as Q1 and Q2 respectively per Clarivate (2022).* 4.3.8 Potential Unintended Consequences and Safeguards Independent bibliometric commentators have identified a potential unintended consequence: by increasing the negative JIF impact of retractions (articles remain in denominator, citations removed from numerator), the policy may inadvertently disincentivize retractions among journals prioritizing metric preservation over integrity ( Journalology, 2025 ). Clarivate has addressed this concern through two mechanisms. First, the policy statement emphasizes that "journals indexed in Web of Science Core Collection are subject to periodic re-evaluation and those that no longer meet our 24 quality criteria are delisted. A journal risks being delisted if they do not retract compromised content" ( Murphy et al., 2025 ). Second, the 2023 expansion of JIF indexing to all Web of Science Core Collection journals—including ESCI—means delisting carries substantial visibility consequences (Clarivate, 2023). 5. DISCUSSION 5.1 Summary of Principal Findings This study provides a methodological synthesis of JCR quartile ranking methodology, JIF Percentile calculation, and the 2025 retraction citation exclusion policy. Three principal findings emerge. First, JCR quartile assignment follows a precise mathematical specification (rank proportion Z = X/Y) with strict boundary definitions invariant across categories and publication years (see Table 1 ). Borderline cases at Z = 0.25 and Z = 0.50 are classified as Q1 and Q2 respectively, confirmed by official examples (Clarivate, 2022). Derived quantile rankings—terciles, quintiles, and deciles—can be mathematically consistently generated using the identical rank proportion convention (see Table 2 ), although these are not officially published by Clarivate and should be employed with appropriate caveats regarding their non-official status. Second, JIF Percentile provides granular, cross-categorically comparable information that quartile classification necessarily discards (see Table 3 ). The formula (N – R + 0.5)/N × 100 transforms discrete rank positions into a continuous 0–100 distribution, with higher values indicating superior JIF performance. The Average JIF Percentile facilitates approximate comparison of journals indexed in multiple categories. The inverse relationship between rank proportion and JIF Percentile—because Z increases with descending rank position—must be explicitly understood to correctly interpret the correspondence between quartile boundaries and percentile thresholds. Table 6 demonstrates that journals at substantially different rank positions (Z = 0.10, 90.5 percentile; Z = 0.24, 75.5 percentile) receive identical quartile classification (Q1), illustrating the substantial information loss inherent in categorical compression. Third, the 2025 retraction citation exclusion policy represents a consequential methodological reform (see Tables 4 and 5 ). For the first time in the Journal Impact Factor's five-decade history, integrity considerations have been formally encoded into JIF methodology. Citations to and from retracted articles are excluded from numerators while retracted articles remain in denominators, ensuring compromised content no longer contributes positively to journal citation counts while preserving transparency regarding publication history. This policy applies exclusively to JIF calculation, affects approximately 1% of JCR journals with minimal anticipated rank displacement, and carries substantive symbolic importance for the relationship between bibliometric evaluation and research integrity ( Murphy et al., 2025 ; Journalology, 2025 ). 5.2 Contribution to the Literature Contribution 1: Methodological Synthesis of Quartile Mathematics. This study provides one of the first methodological syntheses of official JCR quartile calculation specifications. Prior guidance materials describe quartile rankings descriptively without articulating the precise rank proportion mathematics that operationalize these categories ( Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 2016 ; Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, n.d.). This synthesis enables researchers and evaluators to calculate exact quartile boundaries for any category size, assess stability of borderline journals, and understand the mathematical relationship between rank position and quartile classification. Tables 1 , 2 , and 3 provide comprehensive reference data for these calculations. Contribution 2: Systematic Distinction Between Quartile and Percentile Metrics. This study clarifies a persistent source of confusion in research evaluation practice. Quartile classification and JIF Percentile serve distinct purposes with distinct mathematical properties. Quartiles provide intuitive categorical classification suitable for rapid screening and broad categorization. JIF Percentile provides continuous, cross-categorically comparable information essential for fine-grained differentiation, particularly for journals near quartile boundaries or competing across disciplines. Table 3 provides a systematic comparative framework for selecting appropriate metrics for specific evaluation contexts. Contribution 3: Analysis of the 2025 Integrity Reform. This study provides, to the author's knowledge, one of the first analyses of the June 2025 Clarivate policy change. By synthesizing official announcements, editorial commentary, and independent bibliometric analysis, this study constructs an account of the policy's technical specifications, rationale, estimated effects, and potential implications (see Tables 4 and 5 ). This analysis situates the policy within broader integrity infrastructure developed over the past decade. 5.3 Implications for Research Evaluation Practice For Researchers and Evaluators : Consult JIF Percentile, not merely quartile, when differentiating among journals within the same quartile (see Table 6 for illustrative comparisons) Recognize borderline journals (Z near 0.25 or 0.5) face elevated reclassification risk across annual releases For interdisciplinary work, evaluate journals using Average JIF Percentile while acknowledging cross-category comparison constraints Note that the 2025 integrity reform applies only to JIF, creating potential divergence between journal-level and researcher-level integrity incentives For Bibliometricians and Metric Developers : The widespread institutional use of derived quantile rankings that are not officially validated by Clarivate (see Table 2 ) suggests a gap between proprietary metric provision and research evaluation practice The 2025 reform raises questions regarding which integrity considerations should be encoded into quantitative metrics and through what governance processes The divergence between JIF and other metrics regarding retracted citation treatment creates natural experiments for studying the behavioral effects of metric design For Publishers and Editors : Ensure robust retraction policies aligned with COPE guidelines Integrate Crossref Crossmark functionality to communicate retraction status transparently Recognize the tension between JIF preservation incentive and delisting risk—and the expectation that integrity should take precedence 5.4 Policy Implications The 2025 integrity reform raises broader questions regarding appropriate use of journal metrics in research assessment. First, metric misuse risks persist despite methodological refinement. The Leiden Manifesto ( Hicks et al., 2015 ) and DORA (2012) articulated longstanding concerns regarding inappropriate substitution of journal metrics for qualitative assessment of individual research contributions. The JIF remains a journal-level metric; its application to individual articles or researchers constitutes misuse regardless of methodological refinements. Second, integrity metrics are not value-neutral. Encoding integrity considerations into JIF methodology represents a normative judgment regarding what constitutes meritorious scholarly contribution. While reducing citation benefit from retracted content aligns with widely shared norms, future policy decisions regarding which integrity considerations to encode—and how—will require transparent governance and broad stakeholder input. Third, metric divergence creates new complexities for research assessment. The 2025 policy applies exclusively to JIF; researcher metrics and competing journal metrics continue to include retracted citations. This creates potential divergence between journal-level and researcher-level integrity incentives that researchers, evaluators, and institutions must navigate. Fourth, the relationship between retraction disincentives and editorial behavior requires empirical investigation. The potential unintended consequence identified by Journalology ( 2025 ) highlights the importance of studying the behavioral effects of metric design. 5.5 Future Research Directions Several avenues for subsequent investigation are identified : Empirical bibliometric analysis of JIF changes attributable to the 2025 retraction citation exclusion policy, examining magnitude and distribution of effects across disciplines, journal sizes, and retraction frequencies Investigation of whether the 2025 policy affects retraction timing or frequency, testing the hypothesis of potential unintended disincentive effects Comparative analysis of how different metric providers (Clarivate, Elsevier/Scopus) address retracted citations in their respective journal metrics Parallel methodological expositions of Scopus-based metrics (CiteScore, SJR, SNIP) to enable informed cross-platform comparisons Examination of the divergence between journal-level and researcher-level integrity incentives created by the JIF-exclusive application of the 2025 policy Longitudinal analysis of the stability of borderline journals (Z near 0.25 or 0.5) across annual JCR releases 6. CONCLUSION Journal Citation Reports quartile rankings, JIF Percentile calculations, and the 2025 retraction citation exclusion policy together constitute the contemporary technical architecture of journal-level research evaluation. This study has demonstrated that quartile assignment follows a precise mathematical specification (rank proportion Z = X/Y) that can be explicitly articulated (see Tables 1 and 2 ); that JIF Percentile provides granular cross-categorically comparable information that quartile classification necessarily discards (see Tables 3 and 6 ); and that the 2025 integrity reform represents one of the most consequential methodological changes in the Journal Impact Factor's five-decade history (see Tables 4 and 5 ). By synthesizing these three elements into a single consolidated technical reference with comprehensive tables—all explicitly cited throughout the manuscript—this work addresses gaps in the literature that have left researchers, evaluators, and bibliometricians without an authoritative source for understanding both established JCR metrics and recent transformative policy changes. As the scholarly publishing landscape continues to evolve—with expanding journal coverage, emerging AI-based integrity tools, and increasing integration of quality considerations into quantitative metrics—methodologically rigorous, technically precise, and critically balanced analysis will remain essential. The 2025 reform makes explicit what scientometrics scholars have long argued: journal metrics are social and political instruments, encoding particular values and incentivizing particular behaviors. By formally encoding integrity considerations into JIF methodology, Clarivate has acknowledged that how citations are accumulated matters as much as how many. This evolution from impact as mere frequency toward impact as trustworthy contribution represents a maturation of the bibliometric enterprise. Declarations Author Contribution M.M.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization. All work was completed solely by the author. The author read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgement The author thanks university librarians and research support professionals whose publicly available guides provided valuable contextual information regarding practical application of JCR metrics. References Bar-Ilan University Library. (2025). Metrics for evaluating journals. https://lib.biu.ac.il/en/node/3290 Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2014). The journal Impact Factor and alternative metrics: A variety of bibliometric measures has its own benefits. EMBO Reports, 15(5), 487–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/embr.201338323 Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1), 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0147-4 Callaway, E. (2015). Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature, 535(7611), 210–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224 Clarivate Analytics. (2022). Journal Citation Reports: Quartile rankings and other metrics. Scientific and Academic Research Support. https://clarivateanalytics.my.site.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Journal-Citation-Reports-Quartile-rankings-and-other-metrics Clarivate Analytics. (2023). JCR 2023 statistics & infographic. https://test.clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-analytics-evaluation-and-management-solutions/journal-citation-reports/infographic/ Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4060.471 Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014848323806 Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: Possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance (pp. 121–139). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_8 Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a Journalology. (2025). Journalology #117: Citing retractions. https://ck.journalology.com/posts/journalology-117-citing-retractions Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2019). The Journal Impact Factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 3–24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1 Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Opthof, T. (2011). Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1370–1381. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21534 Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3714-7 Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 1988–2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23314 Murphy, C. A., Weaver, F., Thomas, F. P., & Botticello, A. (2025). Metrics, integrity, and editorial responsibility: Responding to Clarivate's new policy. The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 48(5), 761–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2025.2541501 Queensland University of Technology. (2025). Library guides: Publication metrics: Journal Impact Factor (JIF). https://libguides.library.qut.edu.au/c.php?g=980833&p=7145432 San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). (2012). DORA. https://sfdora.org/read/ Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), 497. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497 Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. (n.d.). FAQS: What are quartile ranking and which one do I choose for my application in RADIS? https://library.utm.my/support/faqs/ Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. (2016). LibGuides UTP: Research support: Journal Citation Reports (JCR). https://libguides.utp.edu.my/c.php?g=506004&p=6361630 University of the Sunshine Coast. (2025). Guides: Research metrics: Journal quality. https://libguides.usc.edu.au/c.php?g=977998&p=7120480 Van Noorden, R. (2023). Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival. Nature, 613(7945), 612–613. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00155-9 Waltman, L., & Schreiber, M. (2013). On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 372–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22775 Wouters, P., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., McVeigh, M. E., Pulverer, B., de Rijcke, S., & Waltman, L. (2019). Rethinking impact factors: Better ways to judge a journal. Nature, 569(7758), 621–623. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8869935","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":591245739,"identity":"737c6c2d-467a-46a6-8566-bd44501064b8","order_by":0,"name":"Maen Mahfouz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Private Practice","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maen","middleName":"","lastName":"Mahfouz","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-13 09:24:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8869935/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8869935/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103506412,"identity":"1d925e61-3934-485e-ad3c-85c39f7101db","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-26 13:36:10","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1370221,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8869935/v1/ff9b5039-5375-41c2-8ee5-fddb1daf8556.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Journal Citation Reports: Understanding Rank Proportions, Quartile Boundaries, and the 2025 Retraction Citation Policy","fulltext":[{"header":"1. INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSince 1975, the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) has provided an institutional framework for evaluating scholarly journals through citation-based metrics (Clarivate, 2022). Published annually by Clarivate Analytics, the JCR aggregates citation data from the Web of Science Core Collection\u0026mdash;encompassing over 21,500 journals across 254 research categories in the sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities (Clarivate, 2023). The Journal Impact Factor (JIF), calculated as the ratio of citations received in a given year to citable items published in the preceding two years, remains the most widely recognized journal-level metric despite sustained critiques regarding its appropriate application (\u003c/span\u003eUniversity of the Sunshine Coast, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eAbsolute JIF values acquire interpretive significance only through comparative contextualization. A JIF of 9.052, for example, acquires meaning through rank position\u0026mdash;the\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" class=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eBritish Medical Journal\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e's ranking of sixth among 105 journals in general and internal medicine\u0026mdash;or through comparison to the aggregate impact factor of 4.326 for its field (\u003c/span\u003eQueensland University of Technology, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e). This recognition has elevated quartile classification and percentile ranking to primary status in research evaluation protocols internationally (\u003c/span\u003eBar-Ilan University Library, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eDespite substantial institutional reliance on JCR quartile metrics, significant gaps persist in the accessible literature. First, existing guidance materials\u0026mdash;predominantly library research guides and vendor documentation\u0026mdash;present quartile definitions descriptively rather than mathematically, obscuring the precise rank proportion calculation that determines category placement (\u003c/span\u003eUniversiti Teknologi PETRONAS, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia, n.d.). Second, the relationship between quartile classification (four discrete categories) and JIF Percentile (a continuous 0\u0026ndash;100 distribution) remains underspecified; many investigators remain unaware that JIF Percentile permits cross-category comparison while quartiles do not (Clarivate, 2022). Third, derived quantile rankings (terciles, quintiles, deciles) that institutions frequently employ for research evaluation are not officially published by Clarivate, yet no consolidated guidance exists regarding their mathematically consistent derivation from the rank proportion convention.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe existing literature has not substantively addressed the most consequential methodological reform to JIF calculation in recent decades. In June 2025, Clarivate announced that citations to and from retracted or withdrawn articles would be excluded from JIF numerators, while retracted articles themselves would remain in denominators to preserve transparency (\u003c/span\u003eMurphy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis policy\u0026mdash;implemented in the 2025 JCR release\u0026mdash;represents a formal integration of integrity considerations into journal impact metrics. To the author's knowledge, no methodological analysis of this reform has yet appeared in the scientometrics or bibliometrics literature.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe central research problem addressed by this study is the absence of a consolidated methodological synthesis that: (a) articulates the precise mathematical specification of JCR quartile assignment; (b) systematically distinguishes between quartile classification and JIF Percentile calculation; and (c) analyzes the technical specifications, estimated effects, and implications of the June 2025 Clarivate retraction citation policy.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis study addresses three research questions\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eWhat is the precise mathematical specification of JCR quartile assignment, and how can derived quantile rankings (terciles, quintiles, deciles) be consistently generated from this specification?\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eHow do quartile classification and JIF Percentile differ mathematically, and what are the implications of these differences for research evaluation practice?\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eWhat are the technical specifications, estimated effects, and potential implications of the June 2025 Clarivate policy excluding retracted citations from JIF numerators?\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"3. METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e3.1 Research Design\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis study employed a documentary research design, comprising systematic collection, critical evaluation, and synthetic analysis of primary and secondary sources pertaining to JCR metric calculations and the 2025 retraction citation policy. This approach was selected because the research questions concern technical specifications of proprietary metric calculations and analysis of a recent policy implementation for which empirical citation data are not yet publicly accessible.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e3.2 Source Identification and Selection\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSource Identification\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eA systematic search of Clarivate documentation, institutional research guides, and peer-reviewed literature was conducted in March 2025. Primary sources were identified through the Clarivate Scientific and Academic Research support portal. Secondary sources were identified through Google Scholar and PubMed using search terms: \"Journal Citation Reports,\" \"JCR quartile,\" \"JIF percentile,\" \"journal metrics,\" \"retraction policy,\" \"Clarivate integrity,\" and \"percentile bibliometrics.\"\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eInclusion Criteria\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSources were included if they: (a) provided direct technical specification of JCR quartile or percentile calculation methodology; (b) provided official documentation of the 2025 retraction citation policy; or (c) constituted editorial commentary or independent analysis of either JCR methodology or the 2025 policy reform.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eExclusion Criteria\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSources were excluded if they: (a) discussed journal metrics without specific reference to JCR calculation methodology; (b) discussed retraction practices without reference to the 2025 Clarivate policy; or (c) constituted non-authoritative third-party descriptions lacking citation of primary sources.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFinal Source Set\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ePrimary sources comprised Clarivate (2022) technical documentation and Clarivate (2023) statistical infographic. Secondary sources comprised five institutional research guides (\u003c/span\u003eUniversity of the Sunshine Coast, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Queensland University of Technology, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia, n.d.;\u003c/span\u003e Bar-Ilan University Library, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e), editorial commentary (\u003c/span\u003eMurphy et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eindependent bibliometric analysis (\u003c/span\u003eJournalology, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e), and foundational scientometrics literature (\u003c/span\u003eGarfield, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e; Hicks et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eDORA, 2012;\u003c/span\u003e Waltman \u0026amp; Schreiber, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e3.3 Analytical Strategy\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eAnalyses proceeded in three stages corresponding to the study's research questions.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eStage 1: Technical Exposition of Quartile Mathematics.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe rank proportion formula (Z = X/Y) and quartile boundary definitions were extracted and verified from Clarivate (2022) documentation. Borderline case classification was verified through provided examples. Mathematically consistent specifications for terciles, quintiles, and deciles were derived using the identical rank proportion convention.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eStage 2: Distinction Between Quartile and Percentile Metrics.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe JIF Percentile formula (N – R + 0.5)/N × 100 was extracted from Clarivate (2022) and verified through provided examples. The mathematical relationship between quartile classification and JIF Percentile was analyzed, demonstrating the inverse correspondence between rank proportion and percentile thresholds.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eStage 3: Analysis of the 2025 Integrity Reform.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ePrimary announcements from Clarivate (\u003c/span\u003eMurphy et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eeditorial analysis (\u003c/span\u003eMurphy et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eand independent bibliometric commentary (\u003c/span\u003eJournalology, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e) were synthesized to construct a comprehensive account of the policy's technical specifications, rationale, estimated effects, and potential implications.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e3.4 Limitations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis study is subject to several limitations. First, analysis of the 2025 retraction policy relies on Clarivate's published specifications and independent commentary; empirical analysis of actual JIF changes must await release of full 2025 JCR data and subsequent bibliometric investigation. Second, technical exposition of quartile and percentile mathematics is derived from official Clarivate documentation but has not been independently validated against proprietary JCR calculation algorithms. Third, this study is restricted to JCR metrics and does not provide comparable technical exposition of Scopus-based metrics (CiteScore, SJR, SNIP). Fourth, the 2025 policy applies exclusively to JIF calculation; researcher-level metrics (h-index, citation counts) and other journal metrics (CiteScore) continue to include retracted papers and citations to them.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.1 JCR Quartile Assignment Specification\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.1.1 Rank Proportion Calculation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eOfficial Clarivate documentation establishes that quartile rankings in Journal Citation Reports are determined through a two-step procedure (Clarivate, 2022). First, journals within each subject category are sorted in descending order by Journal Impact Factor. Second, each journal receives a rank proportion calculated as\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eRank Proportion (Z)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;X / Y\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" class=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eWhere\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e*X\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;journal rank position within category (descending order by JIF; 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;highest JIF)*\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" class=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eY\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;total number of journals in category\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis rank proportion (Z) is a descriptive positional measure\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003enot a statistical Z-score\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eClarivate documentation employs \"Z\" as a variable designation without implying standardization to mean zero or unit variance.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.1.2 Quartile Boundary Definitions\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eQuartile assignment follows strict boundary definitions invariant across categories and publication years (Clarivate, 2022). As shown in\u003c/span\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ethe quartile boundaries are defined by specific rank proportion ranges, with corresponding JIF Percentile thresholds and category positions.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eJCR quartile boundary definitions and rank proportion ranges\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuartile\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRank Proportion (Z) Range\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJIF Percentile Range\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory Position\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;75.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop 25%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.25\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50.0 to \u0026le;\u0026thinsp;75.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u0026ndash;50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;25.0 to \u0026le;\u0026thinsp;50.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50\u0026ndash;75%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;25.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBottom 25%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e*Note: Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;X/Y where X\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;journal rank position, Y\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;total journals in category. This is a descriptive rank proportion, not a statistical Z-score. Source: Derived from Clarivate official documentation (Clarivate, 2022).*\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.1.3 Borderline Case Classification\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eBoundary definitions establish that Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25 and Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.50 are classified as Q1 and Q2 respectively. Official examples confirm this interpretation (Clarivate, 2022)\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eRank 78 of 314: Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;78/314\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.248 \u0026rarr;\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eQ1 journal\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eRank 102 of 204: Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;102/204\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5 \u0026rarr;\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eQ2 journal\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.1.4 Derived Quantile Rankings\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eClarivate documentation explicitly states that \"Journal Citation Reports does not provide any other official quantile rankings\" while authorizing that \"using the same convention, other quantile rankings such as terciles, quintiles, and deciles can be derived as follows\" (Clarivate, 2022).\u003c/span\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003epresents these mathematically consistent derived rankings. These are theoretical derivations; Clarivate does not officially publish or endorse these classifications.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eDerived quantile rankings from JCR rank proportion convention\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantile\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRanking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRank Proportion Range\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCumulative Percentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTerciles\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.3333\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop 33.33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3333\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.6667\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33.33\u0026ndash;66.67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6667\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBottom 33.33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQuintiles\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQU1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop 20%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQU2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;40%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQU3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u0026ndash;60%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQU4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60\u0026ndash;80%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQU5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBottom 20%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDeciles\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop 10%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u0026ndash;20%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;30%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u0026ndash;40%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u0026ndash;50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50\u0026ndash;60%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60\u0026ndash;70%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70\u0026ndash;80%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80\u0026ndash;90%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;Z\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBottom 10%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cspan type=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" class=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eNote: Derived from Clarivate official documentation (Clarivate, 2022) using the identical rank proportion convention. These quantile rankings are not officially published or endorsed by Clarivate. Decimal values are exact boundary thresholds.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.2 Quartile and Percentile Distinction\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.2.1 JIF Percentile Calculation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe Journal Impact Factor Percentile transforms a journal's rank position into a continuous percentile value, permitting more meaningful comparison across different categories (Clarivate, 2022). The formula is\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eJIF Percentile = (N \u0026ndash; R\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.5) / N \u0026times; 100\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" class=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eWhere\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" class=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;number of journals in category\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e*R\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;descending rank position (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;highest JIF)*\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFor the JIF Percentile\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ehigher values indicate higher JIF relative to category peers\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe +\u0026thinsp;0.5 adjustment prevents the top-ranked journal from receiving a percentile of 100% (which would imply performance exceeding all journals, including itself).\u003c/span\u003e Waltman and Schreiber (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e) provide comprehensive methodological analysis of such percentile-based indicators, noting that the +\u0026thinsp;0.5 adjustment is one of several possible approaches to handling the top-ranked case.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eOfficial examples confirm the calculation (Clarivate, 2022)\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eRank 104 of 177: (177\u0026ndash;104\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.5)/177 \u0026times; 100\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;73.5/177 \u0026times; 100\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41.5 \u0026rarr;\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e41.5 Percentile\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eRank 27 of 30: (30\u0026ndash;27\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.5)/30 \u0026times; 100\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.5/30 \u0026times; 100\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.7 \u0026rarr;\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e11.7 Percentile\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.2.2 Relationship Between Quartile and Percentile\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eQuartile classification represents a categorical compression of the continuous JIF Percentile distribution. Because rank proportion (Z) increases with descending rank position (higher Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;lower JIF), quartile boundaries inversely correspond to percentile thresholds.\u003c/span\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eprovides a systematic comparison of the mathematical and practical distinctions between quartile classification and JIF Percentile.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eComparative analysis: Quartile classification vs. JIF Percentile\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeature\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuartile Classification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJIF Percentile\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMathematical definition\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategorical assignment based on Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;X/Y\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContinuous value: (N \u0026ndash; R\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.5)/N \u0026times; 100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRange\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 discrete categories (Q1\u0026ndash;Q4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;100 continuous scale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCross-category comparability\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot valid \u0026mdash; category-specific\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValid \u0026mdash; normalized to percentile\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInformation retention\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow \u0026mdash; compresses rank order\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh \u0026mdash; preserves rank differentiation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBorderline resolution\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscontinuous at Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25, 0.5, 0.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContinuous across entire range\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExample: Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.10 (90.5%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExample: Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.24 (75.5%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExample: Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.26 (74.5%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExample: Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.49 (51.0%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExample: Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.51 (49.0%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExample: Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.74 (26.0%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExample: Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.76 (24.0%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePrimary use case\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRapid screening, broad categorization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFine-grained differentiation, cross-field comparison\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e*Note: Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;X/Y (rank proportion); N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;category size; R\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;descending rank position. JIF Percentile values rounded to one decimal. Derived from Clarivate (2022) formulas.*\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.2.3 Average JIF Percentile\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFor journals indexed in multiple JCR categories, the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile provides a single metric supporting cross-category comparison (Clarivate, 2022). The formula is\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eAverage JIF Percentile = (JIF Percentile₁ + JIF Percentile₂ + ... + JIF Percentileₙ) / N\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" class=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eWhere N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;number of categories in which journal is indexed\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eOfficial example (Clarivate, 2022)\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCategory 1: Rank 12/177 \u0026rarr; JIF Percentile = (177\u0026ndash;12\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.5)/177 \u0026times; 100\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;165.5/177 \u0026times; 100\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;93.5\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCategory 2: Rank 9/103 \u0026rarr; JIF Percentile = (103\u0026ndash;9\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.5)/103 \u0026times; 100\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;94.5/103 \u0026times; 100\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;91.7\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCategory 3: Rank 16/314 \u0026rarr; JIF Percentile = (314\u0026ndash;16\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.5)/314 \u0026times; 100\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;298.5/314 \u0026times; 100\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;95.1\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eAverage JIF Percentile = (93.5\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;91.7\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;95.1)/3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;93.4\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe Average JIF Percentile facilitates approximate cross-category comparison, although discipline-specific citation norms, category size variation, and distributional characteristics constrain interpretability.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.3 The 2025 Integrity Reform\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.3.1 Policy Specification\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eEffective with the 2025 Journal Citation Reports release, Clarivate implemented the following methodological changes to JIF calculation (\u003c/span\u003eMurphy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Journalology, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCitations to retracted articles\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eare excluded from JIF numerator\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCitations from retracted articles\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eare excluded from JIF numerator\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eRetracted articles themselves remain in JIF denominator\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e(count of citable items)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ePolicy applies to all retracted or withdrawn articles indexed in Web of Science Core Collection\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.3.2 Scope of Application\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis policy applies exclusively to Journal Impact Factor calculation.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eIt does not apply to\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCiteScore (Elsevier) or other Scopus-based metrics\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eResearcher-level metrics including h-index and total citation counts\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eWeb of Science Core Collection citation counts for individual articles or researchers\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ePrevious JCR annual releases prior to 2025\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.3.3 Rationale and Objectives\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eClarivate articulated two primary policy objectives (\u003c/span\u003eMurphy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eObjective 1: Preemptive Distortion Prevention.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCiting increasing retraction rates and decreasing intervals between publication and retraction decisions, Clarivate sought to preemptively guard against potential widespread JIF distortions from accumulated citations to retracted content.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eObjective 2: Metric Evolution.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe policy explicitly aims to evolve the Journal Impact Factor \"from a journal-level marker of scholarly impact to an indicator of both impact and trustworthiness\" (\u003c/span\u003eMurphy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.3.4 Estimated Scope and Impact\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eData presented by Clarivate and analyzed in editorial commentary indicate (\u003c/span\u003eMurphy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Journalology, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eRetracted papers\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstitute approximately\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e0.04%\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eof Web of Science Core Collection\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eAnnual retraction rate reached record\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e0.02%\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ein 2023 (exceeding 10,000 articles)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eApproximately\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e1%\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eof JCR-indexed journals expected to experience measurable JIF changes\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eMost affected journals expected to experience\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eminimal rank displacement\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.3.5 Relationship to Broader Integrity Infrastructure\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe 2025 policy reform represents integration of journal-level metrics with established research integrity infrastructure (\u003c/span\u003eMurphy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Journalology, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003esummarizes the key infrastructure components and their integration with the 2025 policy.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eResearch integrity infrastructure and integration with 2025 JCR policy\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfrastructure Component\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegration with 2025 Policy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCOPE Retraction Guidelines\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStandardized retraction processes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvides consistent retraction classification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRetraction Watch Database\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentralized retraction repository\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource for identifying retracted articles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCrossref Crossmark\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunicates current publication status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnables automated status verification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eiThenticate, image forensics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePre-publication integrity screening\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReduces retraction risk pre-emptively\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePubPeer\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePost-publication open commentary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCatalyzes retraction identification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch Integrity Risk Index (RI\u0026sup2;)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional-level integrity metrics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComplements journal-level metrics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" class=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSources: Synthesized from\u003c/span\u003e Murphy et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) \u003cspan type=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" class=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eand\u003c/span\u003e Journalology (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" class=\"ItalicSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.3.6 Technical Specifications of the 2025 Integrity Reform\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eprovides a comprehensive technical specification of the 2025 JCR Integrity Reform, comparing pre-2025 and 2025 policies across all affected components.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe 2025 JCR integrity reform: Technical specifications\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComponent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePre-2025 Policy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2025 Policy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCitations \u003cem\u003eto\u003c/em\u003e retracted articles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncluded in JIF numerator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExcluded from JIF numerator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative JIF adjustment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCitations \u003cem\u003efrom\u003c/em\u003e retracted articles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncluded in JIF numerator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExcluded from JIF numerator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative JIF adjustment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRetracted articles in denominator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncluded\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncluded (unchanged)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo change; preserves transparency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJournals failing to retract\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubject to re-evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElevated delisting risk\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncentive to retract\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplication to CiteScore\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy JIF-exclusive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplication to h-index\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy JIF-exclusive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplication to WoS citation counts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy JIF-exclusive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProportion of journals affected\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e~\u0026thinsp;1% (estimated)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMinimal; primarily symbolic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e*Note: This policy applies exclusively to Journal Impact Factor calculation and does not affect CiteScore, Scopus-based metrics, researcher-level metrics (h-index, total citations), or Web of Science Core Collection citation counts for individual articles or researchers. Sources: Synthesized from\u003c/span\u003e Murphy et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eand\u003c/span\u003e Journalology (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e).*\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.3.7 Illustrative Examples of Rank Proportion, JIF Percentile, and Quartile Assignment\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eprovides illustrative examples of journals at different rank positions, demonstrating the relationship between rank proportion, JIF Percentile, and quartile assignment. These examples highlight the discontinuity at quartile boundaries and the loss of granular information in quartile classification.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eIllustrative examples: Rank proportion, JIF Percentile, and quartile assignment\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJournal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRank (X)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory Size (Y/N)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRank Proportion (Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;X/Y)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJIF Percentile\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuartile\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop-ranked\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e99.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJournal A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e177\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.068\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e93.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExample C\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExample D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.240\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJournal B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e314\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.248\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBorderline\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e79\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e314\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.252\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e74.8\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJournal E\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e314\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.255\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJournal F\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e204\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBorderline\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e103\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e204\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.505\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e49.8\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJournal G\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e104\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e177\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.588\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJournal H\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ4\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e*Note: JIF Percentile calculated as (N \u0026ndash; R\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.5)/N \u0026times; 100. Values rounded to one decimal. Borderline cases illustrate discontinuity at quartile thresholds. Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25 and Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.50 are classified as Q1 and Q2 respectively per Clarivate (2022).*\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e4.3.8 Potential Unintended Consequences and Safeguards\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eIndependent bibliometric commentators have identified a potential unintended consequence: by increasing the negative JIF impact of retractions (articles remain in denominator, citations removed from numerator), the policy may inadvertently disincentivize retractions among journals prioritizing metric preservation over integrity (\u003c/span\u003eJournalology, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eClarivate has addressed this concern through two mechanisms. First, the policy statement emphasizes that \"journals indexed in Web of Science Core Collection are subject to periodic re-evaluation and those that no longer meet our 24 quality criteria are delisted. A journal risks being delisted if they do not retract compromised content\" (\u003c/span\u003eMurphy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSecond, the 2023 expansion of JIF indexing to all Web of Science Core Collection journals\u0026mdash;including ESCI\u0026mdash;means delisting carries substantial visibility consequences (Clarivate, 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e5.1 Summary of Principal Findings\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis study provides a methodological synthesis of JCR quartile ranking methodology, JIF Percentile calculation, and the 2025 retraction citation exclusion policy. Three principal findings emerge.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFirst, JCR quartile assignment follows a precise mathematical specification\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e(rank proportion Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;X/Y) with strict boundary definitions invariant across categories and publication years (see\u003c/span\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e). Borderline cases at Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25 and Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.50 are classified as Q1 and Q2 respectively, confirmed by official examples (Clarivate, 2022). Derived quantile rankings\u0026mdash;terciles, quintiles, and deciles\u0026mdash;can be mathematically consistently generated using the identical rank proportion convention (see\u003c/span\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e), although these are not officially published by Clarivate and should be employed with appropriate caveats regarding their non-official status.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSecond, JIF Percentile provides granular, cross-categorically comparable information\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ethat quartile classification necessarily discards (see\u003c/span\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e). The formula (N \u0026ndash; R\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.5)/N \u0026times; 100 transforms discrete rank positions into a continuous 0\u0026ndash;100 distribution, with higher values indicating superior JIF performance. The Average JIF Percentile facilitates approximate comparison of journals indexed in multiple categories. The inverse relationship between rank proportion and JIF Percentile\u0026mdash;because Z increases with descending rank position\u0026mdash;must be explicitly understood to correctly interpret the correspondence between quartile boundaries and percentile thresholds.\u003c/span\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003edemonstrates that journals at substantially different rank positions (Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.10, 90.5 percentile; Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.24, 75.5 percentile) receive identical quartile classification (Q1), illustrating the substantial information loss inherent in categorical compression.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThird, the 2025 retraction citation exclusion policy represents a consequential methodological reform\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e(see\u003c/span\u003e Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e). For the first time in the Journal Impact Factor's five-decade history, integrity considerations have been formally encoded into JIF methodology. Citations to and from retracted articles are excluded from numerators while retracted articles remain in denominators, ensuring compromised content no longer contributes positively to journal citation counts while preserving transparency regarding publication history. This policy applies exclusively to JIF calculation, affects approximately 1% of JCR journals with minimal anticipated rank displacement, and carries substantive symbolic importance for the relationship between bibliometric evaluation and research integrity (\u003c/span\u003eMurphy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Journalology, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e5.2 Contribution to the Literature\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eContribution 1: Methodological Synthesis of Quartile Mathematics.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis study provides one of the first methodological syntheses of official JCR quartile calculation specifications. Prior guidance materials describe quartile rankings descriptively without articulating the precise rank proportion mathematics that operationalize these categories (\u003c/span\u003eUniversiti Teknologi PETRONAS, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia, n.d.). This synthesis enables researchers and evaluators to calculate exact quartile boundaries for any category size, assess stability of borderline journals, and understand the mathematical relationship between rank position and quartile classification.\u003c/span\u003e Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eprovide comprehensive reference data for these calculations.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eContribution 2: Systematic Distinction Between Quartile and Percentile Metrics.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis study clarifies a persistent source of confusion in research evaluation practice. Quartile classification and JIF Percentile serve distinct purposes with distinct mathematical properties. Quartiles provide intuitive categorical classification suitable for rapid screening and broad categorization. JIF Percentile provides continuous, cross-categorically comparable information essential for fine-grained differentiation, particularly for journals near quartile boundaries or competing across disciplines.\u003c/span\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eprovides a systematic comparative framework for selecting appropriate metrics for specific evaluation contexts.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eContribution 3: Analysis of the 2025 Integrity Reform.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis study provides, to the author's knowledge, one of the first analyses of the June 2025 Clarivate policy change. By synthesizing official announcements, editorial commentary, and independent bibliometric analysis, this study constructs an account of the policy's technical specifications, rationale, estimated effects, and potential implications (see\u003c/span\u003e Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e). This analysis situates the policy within broader integrity infrastructure developed over the past decade.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e5.3 Implications for Research Evaluation Practice\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFor Researchers and Evaluators\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eConsult JIF Percentile, not merely quartile, when differentiating among journals within the same quartile (see\u003c/span\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003efor illustrative comparisons)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eRecognize borderline journals (Z near 0.25 or 0.5) face elevated reclassification risk across annual releases\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFor interdisciplinary work, evaluate journals using Average JIF Percentile while acknowledging cross-category comparison constraints\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eNote that the 2025 integrity reform applies only to JIF, creating potential divergence between journal-level and researcher-level integrity incentives\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFor Bibliometricians and Metric Developers\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe widespread institutional use of derived quantile rankings that are not officially validated by Clarivate (see\u003c/span\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e) suggests a gap between proprietary metric provision and research evaluation practice\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe 2025 reform raises questions regarding which integrity considerations should be encoded into quantitative metrics and through what governance processes\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe divergence between JIF and other metrics regarding retracted citation treatment creates natural experiments for studying the behavioral effects of metric design\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFor Publishers and Editors\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eEnsure robust retraction policies aligned with COPE guidelines\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eIntegrate Crossref Crossmark functionality to communicate retraction status transparently\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eRecognize the tension between JIF preservation incentive and delisting risk\u0026mdash;and the expectation that integrity should take precedence\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e5.4 Policy Implications\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe 2025 integrity reform raises broader questions regarding appropriate use of journal metrics in research assessment.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFirst, metric misuse risks persist despite methodological refinement.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe Leiden Manifesto (\u003c/span\u003eHicks et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eand DORA (2012) articulated longstanding concerns regarding inappropriate substitution of journal metrics for qualitative assessment of individual research contributions. The JIF remains a journal-level metric; its application to individual articles or researchers constitutes misuse regardless of methodological refinements.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSecond, integrity metrics are not value-neutral.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eEncoding integrity considerations into JIF methodology represents a normative judgment regarding what constitutes meritorious scholarly contribution. While reducing citation benefit from retracted content aligns with widely shared norms, future policy decisions regarding which integrity considerations to encode\u0026mdash;and how\u0026mdash;will require transparent governance and broad stakeholder input.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThird, metric divergence creates new complexities for research assessment.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe 2025 policy applies exclusively to JIF; researcher metrics and competing journal metrics continue to include retracted citations. This creates potential divergence between journal-level and researcher-level integrity incentives that researchers, evaluators, and institutions must navigate.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"BoldSmallCaps\" class=\"BoldSmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFourth, the relationship between retraction disincentives and editorial behavior requires empirical investigation.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe potential unintended consequence identified by\u003c/span\u003e Journalology (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e) highlights the importance of studying the behavioral effects of metric design.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e5.5 Future Research Directions\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSeveral avenues for subsequent investigation are identified\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eEmpirical bibliometric analysis of JIF changes attributable to the 2025 retraction citation exclusion policy, examining magnitude and distribution of effects across disciplines, journal sizes, and retraction frequencies\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eInvestigation of whether the 2025 policy affects retraction timing or frequency, testing the hypothesis of potential unintended disincentive effects\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eComparative analysis of how different metric providers (Clarivate, Elsevier/Scopus) address retracted citations in their respective journal metrics\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eParallel methodological expositions of Scopus-based metrics (CiteScore, SJR, SNIP) to enable informed cross-platform comparisons\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eExamination of the divergence between journal-level and researcher-level integrity incentives created by the JIF-exclusive application of the 2025 policy\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eLongitudinal analysis of the stability of borderline journals (Z near 0.25 or 0.5) across annual JCR releases\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eJournal Citation Reports quartile rankings, JIF Percentile calculations, and the 2025 retraction citation exclusion policy together constitute the contemporary technical architecture of journal-level research evaluation. This study has demonstrated that quartile assignment follows a precise mathematical specification (rank proportion Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;X/Y) that can be explicitly articulated (see\u003c/span\u003e Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e); that JIF Percentile provides granular cross-categorically comparable information that quartile classification necessarily discards (see\u003c/span\u003e Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e); and that the 2025 integrity reform represents one of the most consequential methodological changes in the Journal Impact Factor's five-decade history (see\u003c/span\u003e Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eBy synthesizing these three elements into a single consolidated technical reference with comprehensive tables\u0026mdash;all explicitly cited throughout the manuscript\u0026mdash;this work addresses gaps in the literature that have left researchers, evaluators, and bibliometricians without an authoritative source for understanding both established JCR metrics and recent transformative policy changes. As the scholarly publishing landscape continues to evolve\u0026mdash;with expanding journal coverage, emerging AI-based integrity tools, and increasing integration of quality considerations into quantitative metrics\u0026mdash;methodologically rigorous, technically precise, and critically balanced analysis will remain essential.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe 2025 reform makes explicit what scientometrics scholars have long argued: journal metrics are social and political instruments, encoding particular values and incentivizing particular behaviors. By formally encoding integrity considerations into JIF methodology, Clarivate has acknowledged that how citations are accumulated matters as much as how many. This evolution from impact as mere frequency toward impact as trustworthy contribution represents a maturation of the bibliometric enterprise.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eM.M.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing \u0026ndash; Original Draft Preparation, Writing \u0026ndash; Review \u0026amp; Editing, Visualization. All work was completed solely by the author. The author read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author thanks university librarians and research support professionals whose publicly available guides provided valuable contextual information regarding practical application of JCR metrics.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBar-Ilan University Library. (2025). Metrics for evaluating journals. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://lib.biu.ac.il/en/node/3290\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://lib.biu.ac.il/en/node/3290\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBornmann, L., \u0026amp; Marx, W. (2014). The journal Impact Factor and alternative metrics: A variety of bibliometric measures has its own benefits. EMBO Reports, 15(5), 487\u0026ndash;488. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/embr.201338323\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/embr.201338323\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun, T., Gl\u0026auml;nzel, W., \u0026amp; Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1), 169\u0026ndash;173. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0147-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11192-006-0147-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCallaway, E. (2015). Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature, 535(7611), 210\u0026ndash;211. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/nature.2016.20224\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClarivate Analytics. (2022). Journal Citation Reports: Quartile rankings and other metrics. Scientific and Academic Research Support. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://clarivateanalytics.my.site.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Journal-Citation-Reports-Quartile-rankings-and-other-metrics\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://clarivateanalytics.my.site.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Journal-Citation-Reports-Quartile-rankings-and-other-metrics\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClarivate Analytics. (2023). JCR 2023 statistics \u0026amp; infographic. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://test.clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-analytics-evaluation-and-management-solutions/journal-citation-reports/infographic/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://test.clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-analytics-evaluation-and-management-solutions/journal-citation-reports/infographic/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471\u0026ndash;479. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4060.471\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/science.178.4060.471\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGl\u0026auml;nzel, W., \u0026amp; Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171\u0026ndash;193. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014848323806\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/A:1014848323806\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaustein, S., \u0026amp; Larivi\u0026egrave;re, V. (2015). The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: Possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, \u0026amp; M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance (pp. 121\u0026ndash;139). Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., \u0026amp; Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429\u0026ndash;431. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/520429a\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/520429a\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJournalology. (2025). Journalology #117: Citing retractions. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ck.journalology.com/posts/journalology-117-citing-retractions\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ck.journalology.com/posts/journalology-117-citing-retractions\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLarivi\u0026egrave;re, V., \u0026amp; Sugimoto, C. R. (2019). The Journal Impact Factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. In W. Gl\u0026auml;nzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, \u0026amp; M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 3\u0026ndash;24). Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., \u0026amp; Opthof, T. (2011). Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1370\u0026ndash;1381. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21534\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/asi.21534\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3714-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/1-4020-3714-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoed, H. F., \u0026amp; Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 1988\u0026ndash;2002. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23314\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/asi.23314\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMurphy, C. A., Weaver, F., Thomas, F. P., \u0026amp; Botticello, A. (2025). Metrics, integrity, and editorial responsibility: Responding to Clarivate's new policy. The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 48(5), 761\u0026ndash;762. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2025.2541501\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10790268.2025.2541501\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQueensland University of Technology. (2025). Library guides: Publication metrics: Journal Impact Factor (JIF). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://libguides.library.qut.edu.au/c.php?g=980833\u0026amp;p=7145432\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://libguides.library.qut.edu.au/c.php?g=980833\u0026amp;p=7145432\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSan Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). (2012). DORA. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sfdora.org/read/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sfdora.org/read/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), 497. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia. (n.d.). FAQS: What are quartile ranking and which one do I choose for my application in RADIS? \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://library.utm.my/support/faqs/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://library.utm.my/support/faqs/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUniversiti Teknologi PETRONAS. (2016). LibGuides UTP: Research support: Journal Citation Reports (JCR). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://libguides.utp.edu.my/c.php?g=506004\u0026amp;p=6361630\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://libguides.utp.edu.my/c.php?g=506004\u0026amp;p=6361630\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUniversity of the Sunshine Coast. (2025). Guides: Research metrics: Journal quality. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://libguides.usc.edu.au/c.php?g=977998\u0026amp;p=7120480\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://libguides.usc.edu.au/c.php?g=977998\u0026amp;p=7120480\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Noorden, R. (2023). Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival. Nature, 613(7945), 612\u0026ndash;613. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00155-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/d41586-023-00155-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaltman, L., \u0026amp; Schreiber, M. (2013). On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 372\u0026ndash;379. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22775\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/asi.22775\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWouters, P., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivi\u0026egrave;re, V., McVeigh, M. E., Pulverer, B., de Rijcke, S., \u0026amp; Waltman, L. (2019). Rethinking impact factors: Better ways to judge a journal. Nature, 569(7758), 621\u0026ndash;623. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Journal Citation Reports, Journal Impact Factor, quartile ranking, JIF percentile, research integrity, retraction policy","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8869935/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8869935/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose:\u003c/strong\u003e Journal Citation Reports (JCR) from Clarivate provides annual rankings of scholarly journals through Journal Impact Factor (JIF) quartiles and percentiles. These metrics are widely used in research evaluation, funding decisions, and academic promotion across all scientific disciplines. Despite their institutional significance, persistent misunderstandings remain regarding the precise mathematical derivation of quartile boundaries, the distinction between rank proportion and percentile measures, and the implications of the June 2025 policy reform that excludes retracted citations from JIF numerators—a fundamental methodological change that has not yet been systematically analyzed in the scientometrics literature. This study addresses these gaps by providing the first consolidated methodological synthesis of JCR quartile mathematics, systematically distinguishing between quartile classification and JIF Percentile calculation, and presenting the first detailed analysis of the 2025 retraction citation exclusion policy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods:\u003c/strong\u003e A documentary research design was employed, comprising systematic collection, critical evaluation, and synthetic analysis of primary and secondary sources. Primary sources comprised official Clarivate technical documentation accessed through the Clarivate Scientific and Academic Research support portal in March 2025, including the definitive specification of quartile and percentile calculation methodologies. Secondary sources comprised five institutional research guides from major universities, peer-reviewed editorial commentary, independent bibliometric analysis, and foundational scientometrics literature. Analytical procedures proceeded in three stages: (1) extraction and verification of the rank proportion formula (Z = X/Y) and quartile boundary definitions; (2) extraction and verification of the JIF Percentile formula (N – R + 0.5)/N × 100 and analysis of its mathematical relationship to quartile classification; and (3) synthesis of policy specifications, rationale, estimated effects, and potential implications of the 2025 integrity reform.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings:\u003c/strong\u003e Three principal findings emerge. First, JCR quartile assignment follows a precise mathematical specification with rank proportion (Z = X/Y) and strict boundary definitions invariant across all subject categories and publication years: Q1 (0.0 \u0026lt; Z ≤ 0.25), Q2 (0.25 \u0026lt; Z ≤ 0.5), Q3 (0.5 \u0026lt; Z ≤ 0.75), and Q4 (0.75 \u0026lt; Z). Borderline cases at Z = 0.25 and Z = 0.50 are explicitly classified as Q1 and Q2 respectively. Derived quantile rankings—terciles, quintiles, and deciles—can be mathematically consistently generated using the identical rank proportion convention, although these are not officially published or endorsed by Clarivate. Second, JIF Percentile provides granular, cross-categorically comparable information that quartile classification necessarily discards. The formula (N – R + 0.5)/N × 100 transforms discrete rank positions into a continuous 0–100 distribution. Because rank proportion (Z) increases with descending rank position, quartile boundaries inversely correspond to percentile thresholds. Third, the June 2025 Clarivate policy excludes citations to and from retracted articles from JIF numerators while retaining retracted articles in denominators. This represents the first formal encoding of integrity considerations into JIF methodology. The policy applies exclusively to JIF calculation and does not affect CiteScore, h-index, or other researcher-level metrics. Approximately 1% of JCR-indexed journals are expected to experience measurable JIF changes with minimal anticipated rank displacement. A potential unintended consequence—that increasing the negative JIF impact of retractions may inadvertently disincentivize retractions—is balanced against Clarivate's stated position that failure to retract compromised content risks journal delisting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion:\u003c/strong\u003e This study provides the first methodological synthesis in the peer-reviewed scientometrics literature of JCR quartile mathematics, JIF Percentile calculation, and the 2025 integrity reform. Quartile assignment follows a precise rank proportion specification (Z = X/Y) that can be explicitly articulated and applied across all category sizes. JIF Percentile provides continuous cross-categorically comparable information that quartile classification necessarily discards; researchers and evaluators should consult percentiles, not merely quartiles, when fine-grained differentiation is required. The 2025 integrity reform represents one of the most consequential methodological changes in the Journal Impact Factor's history, formally acknowledging that how citations are accumulated matters as much as how many. This work provides researchers, evaluators, librarians, and bibliometricians with an authoritative technical reference for understanding both established JCR metrics and transformative policy changes.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Journal Citation Reports: Understanding Rank Proportions, Quartile Boundaries, and the 2025 Retraction Citation Policy","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-18 08:35:44","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8869935/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"14444f99-726e-425b-aac5-f76e96224577","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-24T14:56:04+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-18 08:35:44","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8869935","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8869935","identity":"rs-8869935","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}