Impact and co‑publication indicators are based on Web of Science publications only.
Overall Web of Science coverage for peer reviewed publications in this unit is moderate, 63.8%.
The bibliometric indicators referred are based on publications registered in DiVA. Only publications from currently employed researchers at KTH are included. The rolling nature of this report means that it provides more of a current overview and less of a historic stable trend, since it excludes publications written by researchers that are no longer affiliated to KTH, but have been at some point in time.
Statistics regarding citations and co‑publishing are based on the subset of publications in DiVA that are registered in Web of Science.
For further questions, contact the KTH Library at biblioteket@kth.se.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Science Citation Index Expended (SCIE), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Sciences (CPCI-S) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Sciences & Humanities (CPCI -SSH) (2020) of Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC. All rights reserved. No part of these materials may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photographic, magnetic or other means without the expressed permission of the KTH Library.
| DiVA publication type | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | Publications | WoS coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article, peer review | 4.8 | 9.4 | 8.5 | 7.3 | 9.7 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 53.7 | 92.6% |
| Conference paper, peer review | 8.0 | 5.7 | 6.2 | 4.5 | 3.7 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 32.7 | 16.5% |
| Conference paper, other | 0.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 1.2 | NA | 0.5 | 5.4 | 0.0% |
| Book | NA | 3.0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 3.0 | 0.0% |
| Chapter in book | NA | NA | NA | 0.1 | NA | NA | NA | 0.1 | 0.0% |
| Report | 0.7 | 0.3 | NA | 1.0 | NA | NA | NA | 2.0 | 0.0% |
| Patent, approved | NA | NA | NA | 0.2 | 0.3 | NA | NA | 0.5 | 0.0% |
| Publication Year | Publications | Average Citations | Total Citations | Uncited publications | Share uncited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 9.2 | 1.4 | 13.0 | 3.5 | 38.4% |
| 2013 | 8.8 | 2.6 | 23.2 | 2.6 | 29.7% |
| 2014 | 6.1 | 1.7 | 10.6 | 1.9 | 32.2% |
| 2015 | 7.1 | 1.5 | 10.9 | 2.8 | 39.4% |
| 2016 | 9.4 | 2.8 | 26.2 | 2.8 | 30.0% |
| Total | 40.5 | 83.8 | 2.1 | 13.7 | 33.8% |
| Publication years | Publications | Average Cf | Top 10% publications | Share Top 10% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-2014 | 18.8 | 1.30 | 2.8 | 15.0% |
| 2013-2015 | 21.3 | 1.16 | 2.8 | 13.3% |
| 2014-2016 | 21.8 | 0.99 | 1.2 | 5.6% |
| 2015-2017 | 22.3 | 1.06 | 1.9 | 8.4% |
| Total | 41.1 | 1.17 | 4.7 | 11.4% |
This table is based on Web of Science publication types Article, Proceedings paper, Review, Letter and Editorial.
Rows are based on at least 17 (full counted) publications with poor Web of Science coverage (at least 41.3%).
(DiVA publication types Article, peer review and Conference paper, peer review)
Indicators based on < 50 publications are considered unreliable
This table is based on Web of Science publication types Article and Review.
Rows are based on at least 48 (full counted) publications with good Web of Science coverage (at least 85.6%).
(DiVA publication type Article, peer review)
Indicators based on < 50 publications are considered unreliable
| Publication years | Publications | Average Journal Cf | Publications in Top 20% journals | Share Top 20% journals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-2014 | 18.8 | 1.08 | 4.1 | 21.8% |
| 2013-2015 | 21.3 | 1.01 | 3.8 | 17.8% |
| 2014-2016 | 21.8 | 1.08 | 4.5 | 20.8% |
| 2015-2017 | 22.3 | 1.07 | 4.3 | 19.4% |
| 2016-2018 | 23.3 | 1.16 | 5.7 | 24.7% |
| Total | 49.0 | 1.10 | 10.7 | 21.9% |
This table is based on Web of Science publication types Article and Review.
Rows are based on at least 48 (full counted) publications with good Web of Science coverage (at least 85.6%).
(DiVA publication type Article, peer review)
Indicators based on < 50 publications are considered unreliable
| Publication years | Publications | Swedish non-university co-publications | Share Swedish non-university | International co-publications | Share international |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-2014 | 47 | 1 | 2.1% | 21 | 44.7% |
| 2013-2015 | 57 | 6 | 10.5% | 31 | 54.4% |
| 2014-2016 | 59 | 6 | 10.2% | 32 | 54.2% |
| 2015-2017 | 60 | 6 | 10.0% | 32 | 53.3% |
| 2016-2018 | 59 | 4 | 6.8% | 30 | 50.8% |
| Total | 125 | 10 | 8.0% | 61 | 48.8% |
This table is based on Web of Science publication types Article and Review.
Rows are based on at least 47 (full counted) publications with good Web of Science coverage (at least 88.1%).
(DiVA publication type Article, peer review)
Indicators based on < 50 publications are considered unreliable
| Publication Year | Publications | Open Access publications | OA gold | OA hybrid | OA green | OA bronze | Not OA | Share OA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 19 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 21.1% |
| 2013 | 22 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 9.1% |
| 2014 | 19 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 13 | 31.6% |
| 2015 | 22 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 12 | 45.5% |
| 2016 | 26 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 20 | 23.1% |
| 2017 | 17 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 23.5% |
| 2018 | 19 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 10.5% |
| Total | 144 | 34 | 9 | 4 | 19 | 2 | 110 | 23.6% |
The Open Access type of the publications was fetched from the Unpaywall REST API. The method to determine the OA type is presented here.
In summary, the different OA types can be described as follows:
Gold: The full text has been found on a publisher website, in a journal that is fully OA.
Hybrid: The full text has been found on a publisher website, in a journal that is not fully OA.
Green: The full text has been found in an institutional repository, such as DiVA.
Bronze: The full text has been found on a publisher website but no OA license could be identified.
N.B.: This table is based on peer-reviewed publications for which Unpaywall could determine the OA type (necessary condition: have a DOI number). Unpaywall’s method is empirical and does not strictly equate to copyright license. As a consequence, the OA status of a given publication may vary with time — for example turning from “Not OA” to “Green” when a full text is added to DiVA.
