Quality Factor Approach

Quality Factor is a system that seeks to improve the publication services with an emphasis on future results. It involves based on the Deming’s Method of PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) Cycle to measure the standard of the journals/Publications. If necessary, the plan may be revised on the basis of the results, so that the improvement is ongoing.

Quality factor Policy

Quality Factor dedicated to Journals, by providing high performance quality factor results and continuously educating our system and practices.

  1. We provide superior quality services to clients with the following method.
  2. Provide free services and high quality results.
  3. Do it right every time.
  4. PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) method will follow in our Quality Factor.
  5. Leverage collective knowledge and drive good collaboration among publication.

Quality Factor Process Map

Quality Factor Calculation

Journal Selection Criteria: Academic journal necessity to have ISSN number is the eligible criteria to get Quality Factor Measurement.

Quality Factor is calculated using the below formula.

Quality Factor = Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+Q5+Q6+Q7+Q8+Q9+Q10+Q11+Q12+Q13+Q14+Q15

The Audit parameters and grid for Quality Factor calculation purpose are listed below.

Based on the above criteria all journals will be measured yearly and share the Quality Factor ranking to improve the journal standards. The Journal Quality factor Reports (JQR) will be published and also includes a previous year quality factor. The JQR also shows rankings of journals by Quality Factor.

Quality Factor Criticisms

Frequent criticisms have been made of the use of aquality factor. For one thing, the quality factor might not be consistently reproduced in an independent audit bases on the journal data we evaluate the Quality Factor. There is a more universalargument on the rationality of the quality factor as a measure of journal standards and the effect of strategies that editors/publishers may adopt to improvement their Quality factor. Other criticism emphases on the consequence of the quality factor on performance of scholars, editors and other patrons. Another reason that can undermine this system is that there is a general inclination on the fragment of a mentioning individual to be prejudiced by the already specified QF. Of any kind criticisms about Quality Factor may not be true, public have to understand benefit of the Quality Factor.

Difference between Quality Factor and Impact Factor

Analysis: It's been quantified that impact factors is citation analysis and Quality Factor is journal standard analysis which should not compare.

Arithmetic Method: The impact factor is based on the arithmetic mean number of citations per paper, yet citation counts follow a Bradford distribution (i.e., a power law distribution) and therefore the arithmetic mean is a statistically inappropriate measure. Quality Factor is basic operations of arithmetic. The addition of 15 whole gird numbers is the total of those quantities combined is Quality Factor.

Forte: Impact Factor (IF) is product of Thomson Reuters'. The impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information. Impact factors are calculated yearly starting from 1975 for those journals that are indexed in the Journal Citation Reports. Quality Factor is the product of Non-Olympic Times. The Quality Factor was planned by Professor Dr.Mohemmed Seraj Ansari (President of International Non-Olympic Committee) (Concept was taken from Q Factor originated with K.S. Johnson of Western Electric Company's Engineering Department). Quality Factor calculated yearly for those journals that are indexed in the Journal Quality Factor Reports. To strength impact factors of journals is only based on the Quality Factor.

Metric: It is important to note that impact factor is a journal metric and quality factor is a journal standard metric both should not be used to assess individual researchers or institutions.

Categories of Quality Factor Status

There are three classes of Quality factor Status defined by NOT-2016/21, General, Special & Roster. These classes were the equivalent of Category I, Category II & Roster status that were defined in NOT-2016/21. Below are the current definitions.

  1. General Status: A system with high quality factor (QF: 5 & above) is said to be General Status Journal.
  2. Special Status: A system with Intermediate quality factor (QF: 3.5 to 4.9) is said to be Special Status Journal.
  3. Roster Status: A system with Low quality factor (QF: Below 3.4) is said to be Roster Status Journal.

Application procedure

A Journal/Publication that wishes to obtain Quality factor status must submit an application online for evaluation. After the application is screened by the NOT Branch, it will be reviewed by the reviewers Committee. The Committee decides to recommend, or not recommend, granting status to the Journals/publications. The final decision is taken by the NOT committee at its annual meeting (February). Although the review made by the reviewer Committee is theoretically or practically.

  • "Quality Factor review session, Non-Olympic Times board has been accepted 182 journals for Quality Factor Category Status to list in the Journal Quality Factor Reports" The Non-Olympic Times board today concluded its journal review session with the acceptance of its journal report, in which it recommended to grant Quality Factor Category Status to 182 of the 465 journals it considered during its review session. , Click Here