Table 2. Mentions of the JIF in RPT documents, overall and by institution type.
Note that percentages do not sum to one hundred in any given column, since many institutions had more than one JIF mention that could be classified differently. For example, an institution was marked as having a supportive mention if at least one RPT document from that institution, or any of its academic units, had a supportive mention. The same institution could also be counted under ‘cautious’ if a different academic unit within that institution had such a mention.
| All | R-type | M-type | B-type | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How many institutions mention the JIF? | n | 129 | 57 | 39 | 33 |
| JIF mentioned | 30 (23%) | 23 (40%) | 7 (18%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Are the JIF mentions supportive or cautionary? | n | 30 | 23 | 7 | 0 |
| supportive | 26 (87%) | 19 (83%) | 7 (100%) | - | |
| cautious | 4 (13%) | 3 (13%) | 1 (14%) | - | |
| neutral | 5 (17%) | 4 (17%) | 1 (14%) | - | |
| What do institutions measure with the JIF? | n | 30 | 23 | 7 | 0 |
| quality | 19 (63%) | 14 (61%) | 5 (71%) | - | |
| impact/importance/significance | 12 (40%) | 8 (35%) | 4 (57%) | - | |
| prestige/reputation/status | 6 (20%) | 5 (22%) | 1 (14%) | - | |
| unspecified | 23 (77%) | 17 (74%) | 6 (86%) | - |