The ICL journal Landslides - 16 years of capacity development for landslide risk reduction

Matjaž Mikoš, Kyoji Sassa, Željko Arbanas

Abstract Capacity building and capacity development for landslide risk reduction is an important pillar of the International Consortium on Landslides, Kyoto, Japan. This non-governmental organization with close to 100 full members, associates and supporters was established in 2001, and among many activities in this first two decades we may raise the latest overreaching one, namely the Sendai Partnerships 2015- 2025 as the free commitment to Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. The Kyoto Commitment 2020 to be discussed and accepted at 5th World Landslide Forum in Kyoto in November 2020, again stresses the importance for the ICL to raise awareness and enhance preparedness for landslide disasters as the ICL efforts for capacity building and capacity development in this field. The ICL stimulates landslide research that has to support capacity building for landslide risk reduction. Springer Nature publishes the journal Landslides: Journal of the International Consortium on Landslides since 2004. Being examined in the past by different authors from bibliometric and editorial point of view, this review paper focuses on the journal's 16 years of achievements (2004-2019). In these 16 years, 1313 papers were published on 16,286 pages, written by 5,534 authors and with more than 1.1 million downloads and nearly 25,000 citations as in early 2020. The bibliometric analysis of Landslides and its comparison with a few selected similar journals of high reputation, among them Engineering Geology and Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, confirmed high rankings of Landslides in the research categories of geological & geotechnical engineering and engineering geology. Strong and weak points are discussed from the bibliometric point of view, stressing the need for higher internationality of co-authorship of published articles in order to be true international journal. Continuous publishing and the move to a monthly journal in 2018 has further increase journal's h-index and cited half-life of citations, but further editorial efforts should be directed to attract excellent review papers and focused technical notes to increase cites per paper and the number of Highly Cited papers. Until 2020, Landslides is the foremost journal in the field of landslide disaster risk reduction, and the top young international journal in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology. Keywords Capacity development, citation analysis, education, international collaboration, journal metrics, scientometric analysis

Introduction The main aim of Landslides is to promote landslide science, technology, capacity building and capacity The first issue of the international journal Landslides: development, and to strengthen global cooperation for Journal of International Consortium on Landslides was landslide risk reduction within the United Nations published in April 2004 (Springer 2020). Nowadays it is International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction published by the international publishing company (ISDR). Landslides is one of the main achievements of Springer Nature. The Editor-in-Chief is Professor the International Consortium on Landslides, based in Emeritus Kyoji Sassa, the Assistant Editor-in-Chief is Kyoto, Japan. Landslides presents also an important ICL Professor Željko Arbanas (both co-authors of this contribution to the world efforts within the Sendai paper), there are eleven Associate Editors (one of them Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. is first author of this paper) and ten Advisory Members. Critically analyzing a journal from a bibliometric The journal is supported by over hundred editors and and editorial point of view is an important task. Sassa et over thousand reviewers, and the whole process is al. (2009) reviewed the achievements of Landslides in supported by a web-based manuscript submission and the first 5 years (2004–2008), and Sassa et al. (2015) did peer-review tracking system (e.g. Editorial Manager®). the same for the next 5 years (2009–2013). Sassa and M. Mikoš, K. Sassa, Ž. Arbanas

Arbanas (2017) discussed the achievements of  Review papers: review of current research and Landslides from 2004 until September 2016. They development of technology in a thematic area of stressed the importance of the Journal landslide studies. (Clarivate Analytics) for visibility and reputation of the  Recent Landslides: reports of recent landslides journal. They presented data on annual impact factors, including location. 5-year impact factors, and citation data for most cited  Technical Notes: research notes, reviews notes, papers and for single journal volumes. Furthermore, case studies, progress of technology, and best they discussed and presented the view of the journal practice in monitoring, testing, investigation and Editorial Board and some aspects of their editorial mitigation measures. policy, such as article categories, classification of  IPL/WCoE Activities: Progress of IPL projects, articles, editorial workflow, article downloading rates, World Centres of Excellence on Landslide Risk and journal’s best paper award. Reduction (WCoEs), and other IPL activities. Mikoš (2011) used data from ISI Web of Knowledge  News/Kyoto Commitment: news, reports, and for the first seven volumes of Landslides announcement of meetings, and all types of (2004–2010). He evaluated the current position of the articles promoting the Kyoto Landslide journal in the landslide research community from a Commitment 2020. broader perspective than just using impact factor, The description of categories changed during the journal ranking in a subject category and article period 2004-2019, some categories were omitted (e.g. downloading data. Other journal metrics, available at Technical Development, ICL/IPL Activities), and some the time of the analysis, such as journal relatedness to were introduced (Thematic papers) in a later publishing other journals in the same field of science, citations stage of Landslides. In this review paper, category half-life, immediacy impact, journal self-citations, Thematic papers was added to category Original papers, Eigenfactors, Article Influence Score, and journal h- category Technical Development was added to category index, give a more detailed picture of Landslides. Technical Notes, category ICL/IL Activities was added to Mikoš (2017) addressed the question from the category IPL/WCoE Activities, category News was paper’s title—is Landslides a top international journal added to category News/Kyoto Commitment, all other in the field of geological engineering and engineering published documents in Landslides were associated to geology? To answer this question, he performed a the category Other items, including editorials, prefaces, bibliometric (scientometric) analysis of the first 13 discussions and replies, correction, erratum, retraction volumes of Landslides (2004–2016). He used different and book reviews. journal metrics (impact factor, 5-year impact factor, the number of highly cited papers, cited half-life of Journal Metrics published papers, and Hirsch h-index) derived from the The idea of the Impact Factor (IF) was introduced in (Clarivate Analytics 2017), Scopus 1951 by Eugen Garfield (Garfield, 1955), and it has ( 2017), and Google Scholar (Google 2017) for received support and criticism ever since (Garfield, journals in the SCI category “geological engineering” 2006). Today, the quality of a journal can be measured and SCI category “multidisciplinary geosciences”. by numerous bibliometric parameters: impact factor Furthermore, he examined the journal’s internationality (IF), 5-year impact factor, number of highly-cited in publishing articles using data on the domicile papers, cited half-life, citing half-life, journal h-index, (country, institution) of authors and classification of etc. Many more indices have been proposed, for a articles published in Landslides. recent overview see Lando and Bertoli-Barsotti (2014). This paper follows the approach of the paper Mikoš The main databases now used for journal (2017) by using Web of Science, Journal Citation bibliometric analyses are the Web of Science (WoS) by Reports, InCites and Essential Science Indicators Clarivate Analytics, and Elsevier’s Scopus database. database produced by Clarivate Analytics, and SCOPUS Recently, Google Scholar is frequently used, especially database by Elsevier in considering the first 16 years of as it is free of charge and it yields higher bibliometric Landslides (2004–2019) in the view of capacity values due to its wide coverage of literature and development for landslide risk reduction. documents. Therefore, when evaluating a journal for its

reputation, it would be an advantage and less biased to Materials and Methods use several databases and several journal metrics. In Categories of Articles in Landslides this review paper Google Scholar data were not used. The journal Landslides publishes articles in six major categories (Sassa, 2019b): Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Knowledge (WoK)  Original papers: original research and investigation InCites Benchmarking & Analytics is a customized, results. web-based evaluation and research tool for bibliometric

2 The ICL journal Landslides – 16 years of capacity development for landslide risk reduction

research among others (Clarivate Analytics, 2020).  SNIP - Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) (JCRs) annually show Journal measures contextual citation impact by weighting Impact Factors (JIF) that are calculated by dividing the citations based on the total number of citations in a number of current year citations from all journals in the subject field. It helps to compare a journal with Web of Science (WoS) to the source items published in competing journals in a subject area. that journal during the previous two years. The journal  IPP - The Impact per Publication (IPP) is based on Landslides is indexed in WoS in the SCI-Expanded citations in one year to articles, reviews, and categories: EG – Engineering, Geological (38 journals in conference papers published in the preceding three 2020), and GM – Geosciences, Multidisciplinary (195 years, divided by the number of articles, reviews, and journals in 2020). conference papers published in those three years. The WoS Core Collection covers peer-reviewed New as of December 2016, the metric called CiteScore journals, dividing publication citations into several measures average citations received per document indices, those for journals are: published in the serial – citations are considered that  Expanded (SCI-Exp), have been received in a given year for the documents  Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), published in the previous 3 years (note that a 2-year  Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), and window is used for the Clarivate Analytics IF  Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). computation). A 3-year publication window is long It is clear from this development that a journal impact enough to capture the citation peak of the majority of factor may rise annually not only because a journal disciplines covered by Scopus. The new Scopus journal reputation and impact is increasing but also because metric CiteScore could be a significant rival to the WoS database is expanding, covering more and more Journal Impact Factor (Van Noorden, 2016). There are literature and therefore finding more and more differences between IF and CiteScore rankings of citations to already published articles in journals. journals. Furthermore, increasing the average number of It is also important that Scopus is a large database references in published and citable items in WoS that covers more journals than WoS uses to compute IF. journals will increase the average impact factors. These Scopus includes sources beyond journals such as books facts should be kept in mind when analyzing a journal’s and conference proceedings (WoS covers these items reputation. by Book Citation Indices and Conference Proceedings Clarivate Analytics Essential Science Indicators (ESI, Indices). CiteScore includes different document types 2020) as a part of InCites offer analysis of top research from journals, not only research papers and review output and is based on WoS journal article publication papers, but also editorials, prefaces, letters to the editor, counts and citation data. As of March 24, 2020, we can corrections, news, and similar. CiteScore Rank indicates get WoS data on the number of documents, the the rank position of the title in its subject area; number of citations and cites per paper and the therefore, it is very important for a journal to be number of Highly Cited Papers for 96,782 authors, 6,581 properly classified into a journal category. Namely, institutions, 9,172 journals, and 149 countries/territories, across the various scientific domains, significant as well as for 22 research fields. The highly cited papers differences occur with respect to research publishing must reach citations above the citation thresholds, i.e. formats, frequencies and citing practices, the nature the minimum number of citations obtained by ranking and organization of research and the number and papers in a research field in descending order by impact of a given domain’s academic journals. Cerovšek citation count and then selecting the top fraction or and Mikoš (2014) studied the relationships among percentage of papers. The Highly Cited Threshold citations, most-cited papers and h-indices across reveals the minimum number of citations received by domains (Field of Science), confirming previously the top 1% of papers from each of 10 database years. For mentioned differences in citing practices. papers published in Landslides, the research field Landslides is indexed in Scopus in the area of Geosciences is relevant. Physical Sciences, under Earth and Planetary Sciences subject area (including 2,262 journals in 2020), and in Elsevier SCOPUS database the sub-subject area “Geotechnical Engineering and Developing its own Scopus database, Elsevier offers Engineering Geology” (including 176 journals in 2020). different journal metrics, such as (Elsevier, 2017):  SJR - SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) considers both the number of citations received by a journal and the prestige of the journal based on where those citations come from.

3 M. Mikoš, K. Sassa, Ž. Arbanas

Table 1 Overview of the published articles in Landslides in the period 2004 – 2019 for the first 16 volumes (Springer Nature, 2020) – data collected early in January 2020.

Article category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 sum Original paper 26 28 30 30 35 21 28 25 25 39 63 53 84 107 119 94* 807* Review paper - - - - - 1 - - - - 2 2 2 1 2 1 11 Recent Landslides 4 7 4 5 3 6 7 11 11 8 7 15 7 14 26 31 166 Technical Note 1 1 5 4 7 5 11 8 14 16 23 20 37 152 IPL/WCoE Activities 4 2 1 1 1 1 6 4 3 9 5 9 4 9 6 5 70 News/Kyoto Commitment ------3 9 12 24 Other Items 3 3 6 1 2 6 6 2 3 1 1 5 8 5 17 14 83 Sum of published items 37 41 41 37 42 40 51 49 47 68 86 98 121 162 199 194 1313 Articles in Web of Science 34 39 41 37 40 38 45 46 44 64 86 97 120 161 199 194 1285 Articles in SCOPUS 37 39 41** 37 40 38 50 46 47 65 85 96 118 159 192 199 1289** Landslides volume 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Number of issues 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 12 12 90 Number of pages published 305 352 358 381 440 335 485 534 544 819 1119 1203 1538 2108 2426 2419 15386 Number of references used 680 988 849 2264 1176 925 1305 1438 1473 2378 4087 3825 6106 7091 8982 8465 52032 Number of citations received in WoS 1645 1763 1094 1478 1578 1552 2053 1099 1512 1510 2634 1571 2040 1687 1092 270 24578 Number of downloads in Springer 27095 27637 22592 26935 30256 31646 45979 31543 45482 70260 103447 97669 117549 145166 174739 102830 1100825 * including 5 thematic papers * * there is an error in SCOPUS database, in 2006 they are having 74 articles (i.e. preface and 32 papers from Evans et al., 2006), the total number of articles in SCOPUS is therefore 1322 articles

4 The ICL journal Landslides – 16 years of capacity development for landslide risk reduction

Results and Discussion over 170,000 a year in 2018 and over 100,000 in 2019, and the number of cited references in published Impact and rankings of Landslides articles increased from starting about 1000 references Landslides started in 2004 with 4 issues per volume per year to 8982 references in 2018 and to 8465 and 1 volume per year, was expanded to 6 issues per references in 2019. year in 2013 (bimonthly journal), and finally to a 12 The journal exhibits a steady growth in two most issues per year in 2018 (monthly journal) (Table 1). important WoS-related journal parameters (Table 2 The number of pages annually published increased upper part): citable items in WoS (from ~30 to 174 from 305 pages in 2004 to over 2500 published pages items), and the total number of citations (over 4000 in 2018 and 2019, and the number of annually in 2018). The only troublesome year in this steady published documents increased from 37 items in growth was 2009 (Vol. 6), when only 38 citable items 2004 to 199 items in 2018 and 194 items in 2019. and out of them only 21 research papers were The number of annual web downloads in published. SpringerLink increased from about 27,000 a year to

Table 2 Basic bibliometric parameters of Landslides in the period 2004 – 2019, using WoS (Clarivate Analytics, 2020) and Scopus (Elsevier, 2020) data. journal metric 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 WoS Total Cites 155 231 460 461 535 760 1067 1310 1839 2388 3182 4187 WoS Citable items 37 40 38 45 46 44 64 86 97 120 161 199 WoS Cites used for IF 69 52 126 117 164 180 242 287 439 640 766 1131 IF 0.986 0.754 1.703 1.625 2.216 2.093 2.814 2.870 3.049 3.657 3.811 4.252 5year IF 2.374 1.938 1.841 2.358 3.045 3.205 3.616 3.684 4.360 4.667 IF without Self Cites 0.728 0.637 1.297 1.472 1.702 1.790 2.313 2.430 2.548 3.120 3.049 3.266 Immediacy Index 0.057 0.154 0.364 0.220 0.289 0.512 0.407 0.329 0.456 0.486 1.065 1.322 CiteScore 2.15 2.22 3.40 2.53 2.83 3.57 4.03 4.53 SJR 0.778 0.857 1.455 1.101 1.513 1.324 1.763 1.171 1.565 1.365 1.802 1.638 SNIP 1.066 0.966 1.269 1.414 1.942 1.859 1.873 1.596 1.789 2.047 2.259 1.928

Fig. 1 Selected journal metrics for Landslides in the period 2007-2018.

5 M. Mikoš, K. Sassa, Ž. Arbanas

Looking at the WoS citations, Landslides received this period. The newly introduced Cite Score is even during this period 2004-2016 expressed by the more in favor of the journal, ranking it into top 10% Journal Impact Factor (JIF), the first IF was assigned in this category since 2011, and ranking it #1 in 2013 in 2007. The fluctuations in IF and 5•year IF observed and again in 2016. We compared WoS and Scopus in the period 2007-2018 can be partially ascribed to journal metrics in Fig. 1. variations in the number of citable items (Fig. 1). The Pearson coefficients between IF and IF without Self Impact and rankings of Landslides Cites is 99.29% (2007-2018, n=12), and between IF Journal Impact Factor is determined using cited and 5-year IF is 95.20% (2009-2018, n=10); both are references in all journals screened by WoS. An very high and close to 100%. increase in a journal’s impact factor is a combined Looking at IF without self-citations, from 2009 effect of a higher journal quality measured by its on the journal exhibits a steady increase (from 1.297 citation record due to a higher visibility, but also due to 3.266). Looking at IF, from 2012 on the journal to rising average number of references in all journals’ exhibits a steady increase (from 2.093 to 4.252). In articles in the database if this number overtakes the this period the journal established itself as one of the increasing number of published articles in journals. leading journals in the SCI-Expanded category Since the WoS database is continuously “Engineering, geological” (rank #1 since 2013), and as expanding its coverage (adding new journals) plus a member of Q1 journals in the SCI-Expanded the journals covered already by the database are category of “Geological Sciences, multidisciplinary” publishing more articles (with more references) that (top 20% since 2013). immediately give more citations to previously The journal also exhibits a steady growth in two published articles, thus increasing journals’ impact important Scopus-related journal parameters (Table factors. 2 lower part): source documents in Scopus (from 37 Therefore, we analyzed the average number of in 2004 to 192 documents in 2018), and the total references per published article in three main article number of cites (as of March 11, 2020: 1980 citations categories in Landslides: for Original papers (Fig. 2), to 37 documents published in 2004 and 1350 citations Recent landslides (Fig. 3), and Technical notes (Fig. to 192 documents published in 2018). 4). We present the distribution of the number of Elsevier offers several journal metrics references per article for all volumes of Landslides (https://journalmetrics.scopus.com/); looking at (left hand side on Figs. 2 to 4), and then also the SNIP the journal achieved Q1 and was close to the normalized number of references by dividing the top 10% in the Scopus category “Geotechnical total number of references by the total number of Engineering and Engineering Geology”. The same is published articles of this category in each year. true looking at Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) values in

Fig. 2 Box plot of the number of references per article (left) and the normalized number of references per article by the total number of published articles (right) for 802 published Original papers in Landslides.

6 The ICL journal Landslides – 16 years of capacity development for landslide risk reduction

Fig. 3 Box plot of the number of references per article (left) and the normalized number of references per article by the total number of published articles (right) for 166 published Recent landslides in Landslides.

Fig. 4 Box plot of the number of references per article (left) and the normalized number of references per article by the total number of published articles (right) for 150 published Technical notes in Landslides in the period 2005-2019.

In the category Technical notes, before 2009 (Vol. 6) published articles in the category Recent landslides, there were not enough articles published in this there is no clear trend for this category. category to present meaningful data. The total number of references per published article increases Highly Cited Papers in Landslides for all three article’s categories. Considering the In Landslides, altogether there are 17 Highly Cited rising number of published articles that must receive Papers (HCP) out of 1313 published papers in the citations in the next two years after the publication period 2004-2019 (1.29%). The 10 most cited out of 17 in order to maintain a journal’s impact factor, the HCP are given in Table 3. normalized number of references shows a decreasing trend in two categories: Original papers and Table 3 Ten most cited Highly Cited Papers in Technical notes. Due to the fluctuating number of Landslides published after 2009 from Essential Science

7 M. Mikoš, K. Sassa, Ž. Arbanas

Indicators database – data sampled on March 27, 2020 Most downloaded papers in Landslides (OA – ). As of early January 2020, in Springer Link the number of downloads of 1313 published papers in # paper Citations OA Citation Landslides in the period 2004-2019 exceeded 1.1 WoS*/Springer Threshold** 1 Hungr et al. (2014) 629/637 no 109 million (on average 838 downloads per paper). The 2 Yin et al. (2009) 313/334 no 221 relationship between the number of downloads a 3 Bui et al. (2016) 292/292 yes 63 paper received and the number of citations in WoS 4 Akgun (2012) 204/219 no 158 of this paper is rather poor with a coefficient of 5 Kavzoglu et al. 173/185 no 109 2 (2014) linear correlation R = 0.3869 (Figure 5). The Pearson 6 Xu et al. (2014) 165/170 yes 109 coefficient is 0.631, and when omitting papers 7 Youssef et al. 139/164 no 63 without any citations the Pearson coefficient is (2016) comparable at 0.622. 8 Bui et al. (2017) 93/100 no 44 9 Tsangaros & Ilia 73/77 no 63 The 10 most downloaded papers are given in (2016) Table 4. The numbers of downloads are well above 10 Fan et al. (2017) 59/62 no 444 the average of 838 downloads. The citations rate for * only citations from WoS Core Collection these highly downloaded papers are quite different. ** threshold for research field Geosciences (available since 2009) Yin et al. (2009), Hungr et al. (2014), Xu et al. (2014),

and Bui et al. (2016) are also Highly Cited Papers (see The HCP are collected since 2009. Out of 17 HCP, 6 Table 4). The paper by Guzzetti et al. (2008) would are open access papers (35.3%). Four HCPs are from certainly qualify, but HCPs can be only tracked since 2019, three HCPs are from 2018, 2016 and 2014, 2 2009. HCPs are from 2017 and one HCP was published in

2012 and 2009. All papers in Landslides are put into Table 4 Ten most downloaded papers in Landslides research field of Geosciences, and citation thresholds from Springer Link database – data sampled on March for this research field for top 1% of papers published 27, 2020. are also given in Table 3.

# paper downloads Open Citations access WoS*/Springer 1 Hungr et al. 14,000 no 629/637 (2014) 2 Ahmed (2015) 9,190 yes 41/49 3 Guzzetti et al. 8,482 no 560/608 (2008) 4 Intrieri et al. 7,000 yes 51/45 (2018) 5 Xu et al. (2014) 6,538 no 165/170 6 Tang et al. 6,141 no 7/7 (2015) 7 Carla et al. 6,031 yes 28/34 (2017) 8 Liu et al. (2016) 6,026 no 7/7 9 Bui et al. (2016) 5,938 yes 292/292 10 Yin et al. (2009) 5,523 no 313/334 * only citations from WoS Core Collection

Landslides’ Best Paper Award The Best Paper Award for the best paper published in Landslides has been given annually, beginning with the Fig. 5 Number of citations in Web of Science as a year 2004 for the first volume (Vol. 1) of the Journal. function of the number of downloads from Springer The selection of the Best Paper Award is carried out by Nature web application Springer Link database – data the Best Paper Award Subcommittee. The judging and sampled in early January 2020 – only 1159 papers are ranking of papers were based on a numerical grading shown with at least one citation. system that involved three elements in the final score of the paper:

8 The ICL journal Landslides – 16 years of capacity development for landslide risk reduction

Table 5 The Landslides Best Paper Awards from Vol. 1 to Vol. 15 (2004–2018) – data sampled on March 27, 2020.

Year Vol. No. Authors Title OA* Citations Downloads Number Number of WoS**/Springer Springer of figures references 2004 1 1 Margottini C Instability and geotechnical problems of the Buddha niches no 14/18 397 24 16 and surrounding cliff in Bamiyan Valley, central Afghanistan. 2005 2 4 Baum RL, Coe JA, Godt JW, Regional landslide-hazard assessment for Seattle, no 76/76 1499 71 9 Harp EL, Reid ME, Savage WZ, Washington, USA. Schulz WH, Brien DL, Chleborad AF, McKenna JP, Michael JA 2006 3 2 Nadim F, Kjekstad O, Peduzzi Global landslide and avalanche hotspots. no 197/209 3266 14 14 P, Herold C, Jaedicke C 2007 4 4 Leynaud D, Sultan N, Mienert J The role of sedimentation rate and permeability in the slope no 37/39 499 28 21 stability of the formerly glaciated Norwegian continental margin: the Storegga slide model. 2008 5 4 Prochaska AB, Santi PM, A study of methods to estimate debris flow velocity. no 57/60 1179 62 16 Higgins JD, Cannon SH 2009 6 1 Lundström K, Larsson R, Mapping of quick clay formations using geotechnical and no 49/51 579 35 21 Dahlin T geophysical methods. 2010 7 3 Massey CI, Manville V, Hancox Out-burst flood (lahar) triggered by retrogressive landsliding, no 20/26 777 29 11 GH, Keys HJ, Lawrence C, 18 March 2007 at Mt Ruapehu, New Zealand—a successful McSaveney M early warning. 2011 8 2 Brideau MA, Pedrazzini A, Three-dimensional slope stability analysis of South Peak, no 33/33 1085 46 25 Stead D, Froese C, Jaboyedoff Crowsnest Pass, Alberta, Canada. M, van Zeyl D 2012 9 1 Pinyol NM, Alonso EE, Canelles landslide: modelling rapid drawdown and fast no 44/44 858 17 33 Corominas J, Moya J potential sliding. 2012 9 3 Sosio R, Crosta GB, Hungr O Numerical modeling of debris avalanche propagation from no 38/38 818 55 12 collapse of volcanic edifices. 2013 10 5 Staley DM, Kean JW, Cannon Objective definition of rainfall intensity – duration thresholds no 98/103 1471 62 11 SH, Schmidt KM, Laber JL for the initiation of post-fire debris flows in southern California. 2014 11 2 Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update. no 629/637 14,000 162 37 2015 12 5 Huang D, Cen D, Ma G, Huang Step-path failure of rock slopes with intermittent joints. no 34/35 1624 57 15 R 2016 13 6 Yavari-Ramshe S, Ataie-Astiani Numerical modelling of subaerial and submarine landslide- no 44/44 2209 477 16 B generated tsunami waves - recent advances and future challenges. 2017 14 3 Ruiz-Carulla R, Corominas J, A fractal fragmentation model for rockfalls. no 16/18 1109 53 17 Mavrouli O 2018 15 6 Frattini P, Crosta GB, Rossini Activity and kinematic behaviour of deep-seated landslides N0 9/10 1484 64 12 M, Allievi J from PS-InSAR displacement rate measurements. * OA – open access ** only citations from WoS Core Collection

9 M. Mikoš, K. Sassa, Ž. Arbanas

Table 6 A comparison between selected SCI journals: – data sampled on March 28, 2020. indicator Landslides Engineering Geology Earth-Science Reviews Geomorphology Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment Publisher Springer Nature Elsevier Elsevier Elsevier Springer Nature ISSN & eISSN 1612-510X 0013-7952 0012-8252 0169-555X 1435-9529 1612-5118 1872-6917 1872-6828 1872-695X 1435-9537 Published since 2004 1965 1966 1987 1970 Publication frequency 12 issues/year 12 issues/year 12 issues/year 24 issues/year 8 issues/year** IF 2018 4.252 3.909 9.530 3.681 2.138 IF 2018 without self-cities (5 of IF 3.266 (76.8%) 3.156 (90.7%) 9.087 (95.4%) 3.295 (89.5%) 2.008 (93.9%) 2018) IF 2017 3.811 3.100 7.491 3.308 1.825 IF 2016 3.657 2.569 7.051 2.985 1.901 IF 5 years 4.667 4.420 10.640 3.873 2.349 Immediacy Index 1.322 0.960 2.380 0.798 1.532 Cited Half-Life (years) 4.6 8.2 7.3 8.1 6.1 Citing Half-Life (years) 8.6 9.8 11.7 11.4 11.9 Articles in JCR 2018 172 297 142 329 126 Reviews in JCR 2018 2 6 63 12 - Average references per article 49.2 44.3 186.3 70.2 41.3 Average references per review 139.0 72.8 193.3 144.4 - Open access papers in WoS 2009- 151 out of 1,094 (13.8%) 161 out of 2,437 (6.6%) 282 out of 1,391 (20.3%) 490 out of 4,136 (11.8%) 58 out of 1,379 (4.2%) 2019 open access HCP of total HCP - % 6 out of 17 – 1.55% HCP 1 out of 21 – 0.86% HCP 31 out of 115 – 8.27% 6 out of 29 – 0.70% HCP 1 out of 24 – 1.74% HCP HCP in WoS papers 2009-2019 in 1,094 papers in 2,437 papers HCP in 1,391 papers in 4,136 papers in 1,379 papers Citations of top 10 HCP (open 629, 313, 292, 204, 173, 285, 152, 143, 131, 127, 1606, 790, 711, 664, 553, 1094, 341, 286, 250, 242, 285, 67, 61, 45, 40, 36, access HCP in bold & italic) 165, 139, 93, 73, 59 113, 85, 83, 83, 81 523, 508, 443, 421, 421 238, 237, 222, 183, 177 36, 33, 24, 21, WoS h-index (average citations per 68 (18.6) 117 (22.59) 192 (63.79) 143 (30.2) 43 (8.29) paper) SCOPUS h-index (average citations 73 (20.76) 134 (26.64) 199 (65.70) 156 (33.51) 55 (10.85) per paper) SCOPUS coverage since 2004- since 1965- since 1966- since 1987- since 1987- Documents in SCOPUS: 2015-2019 86, 118, 159, 192, 199 268, 236, 249, 310, 304 137, 154, 147, 221, 251 476, 354, 389, 357, 351 93, 124, 120, 131, 508 CiteScore 2018 4.53 4.70 9.54 3.88 2.37 CiteScore Rank (Category) #6/176 (Geotechnical #4/176 (Geotechnical #3/181 (General Earth #10/136 #41/176 (Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering and and Planetary Sciences) (Earth-Surface Processes) Engineering and Engineering Geology) Engineering Geology) Engineering Geology) CiteScore 2019* 5.47 5.62 10.81 4.12 2.97 SJR 2018 1.638 2.209 3.657 1.454 0.839 SNIP 2018 1.928 2.338 3.794 1.564 1.249 * as of April 9, 2020 ** since 2019

10 The ICL journal Landslides – 16 years of capacity development for landslide risk reduction

(i) Scientific and technical quality of the paper (up to (20.3%) that is reflected in a way also to the share 50%), (and number) of Highly Cited Papers in these (ii) Impact on the profession and society (up to 35%), journals, leading journal is definitely ERS with 8.27% and HCP in the period 2009-2019, followed by Bull IAEG (iii) Quality of figures and tables (up to 15%). (1.74%) and Landslides (1.55%); below average of 1% The proposal of Best Paper Award should be approved are Eng Geol (0.86%) and Geomorphology (0.70%) – by the Board of Representatives of the International as HCPs are top 1% of published papers in a research Consortium on Landslides. The Landslides Best Paper field, Eng Geol and Geomorphology are well below Awards from the Vol. 1 to Vol. 15 are listed in Table 5. average, Landslides and Bull IAEG are well above None of these papers is an open-access paper, two average, and ESR excels in this regard. papers are review papers (Hungr et al., 2014; Yavari- These relations are to a certain extent influenced Ramshe and Ataie-Astiani, 2016) and paper Hungr et al. by the share of the published open-access papers, (2014) is also Highly Cited Paper and at the top of the where this is visible when looking at the top HCPs top 10 papers in Landslides regarding the number of and their citations – many such HCP in ESR are downloads (Tables 3 and 4). The number of downloads open-access papers, and much less in other journals. is above the average of 838 downloads per paper in Also, journal bibliometrics from SCOPUS supports Landslides. The number of references is average (~ 44 the excellent position of ESR when compared to the per paper), but the number of figures is good with other journals, especially through their policy of average of 18±8 and median of 16. publishing a lot of review papers (close to one third in 2018), and also other articles in ESR are citing a lot Comparison between SCI journals: Landslides, of references (close to 200 on average), and are Engineering Geology, Earth-Science Reviews, therefore useful as state-of-the-art papers in specific Geomorphology, and Bulletin of Engineering Geology and fields of knowledge. A way forward for Landslides the Environment would be to publish more review papers, to popularize the policy of publishing open access, and Mikoš (2017) made a comparison among selected to lower a bit the journal self-citation rate that is for journals in the field of engineering geology and Landslides well above 20% - still not a problem, but geotechnical engineering – we will follow this should be kept in mind. approach but will only compare Landslides to four

SCI journals: Engineering Geology (Eng Geol), Earth- International cooperation as seen through multi- Science Reviews (ESR), Geomorphology, and Bulletin authorship of published articles in Landslides of Engineering Geology and the Environment (Bull IAEG). The first three journals are highly estimated Sassa et al. (2009) analyzed for the first 5-year period journals published by Elsevier and the fourth journal (2004-2009) of Landslides the number of individual is the official journal of the International Association authors from each country, counting them only once, for Engineering Geology and the Environment regardless of the number of published papers, and (IAEG) that all cover topics from landslide research. each coauthor other than the first/corresponding We used selected journal bibliometric data from author was counted as one. The number of authors Web of Science, InCities and SCOPUS (Table 6). found to be the greatest from Italy, then, China, The journals in comparison to Landslides are Japan, the United States, Canada, India and Spain are (much) older journals, two of them being published following. since mid-1960’s – their h-index in WoS or SCOPUS We looked at the period of 16 years (2004-2019) database is above 100, with the only exception of Bull and analyzed the distribution of the number of IAEG with h-index lower that of Landslides. Also authors per Landslide article category. The median Cited Half-life and Citing Half-Life for references in number of authors for 1313 articles in the database is all journals under comparison is larger than that for 4 (20.2% of all papers in this category). The highest Landslides. median number of authors (5) is for the category Share of review articles in Landslides as well Eng Recent landslides (22.3% of all papers in this Geol and Geomorphology is low (non-existent in Bull category), followed by 4 authors for the category IAEG) when compared to ESR (i.e. the journal title Original papers (23.9% of all papers in this category), says it), in which papers have very large average 3 authors for the category Technical note (18.7% of all number of references per article (close to 200). articles in this category), 2 authors for the category The share of open-access papers published in the News/KC2020 (27.3% of all papers in this category), period 2009-2019 in Eng Geol (6.6%) and in Bull and 1 author for the category ICL/IPL Activities IAEG (4.2%) is rather low if compared to (37.1% of all papers in this category). Differences Geomorphology (11.8%), Landslides (13.8%) and ESR between categories are not very apparent except for

11 M. Mikoš, K. Sassa, Ž. Arbanas

the category ICL/IPL Activities (Fig. 6), where close to 50% of the articles are single-author contributions.

Fig. 6 Relative distribution of the number of authors given for 5 major article categories in Landslides (the number of articles per category is given in brackets).

Fig. 7 Relative distribution of the number of countries of all contributing authors given for 5 major article categories in Landslides (the number of articles per category is given in brackets).

Apart from the News/KC paper by Sassa et al. (2019b) about landslide databases in the Geological Surveys on invited and accepted speakers of the Fifth World in Europe by Herrera et al. (2018) with 41 authors Landslide Forum in Kyoto, 2o2o, the multi- from 25 countries, ii) about fatal landslides in Europe authorship “winning” articles are Technical notes: i) by Haque et al. (2016) with 22 authors coming from

12 The ICL journal Landslides – 16 years of capacity development for landslide risk reduction

18 different countries; and iii) on impact of landslides University of CAS 35 papers, China Geological Survey on transportation routes during the 2016–2017 25 papers), 4 from Italy (CNR 53 papers, University of Central Italy seismic sequence by Martino et al. Florence 50 papers, IRPI CNR 31 papers, University of (2019) by 21 authors from two countries. Salerno 22 papers), 2 from Czech Republic (Charles Furthermore, we looked at the period of 16 years University Prague 24 papers, Czech Academy of (2004-2019) and have analyzed the distribution of Sciences 22 papers), Japan (Kyoto University 81 the number of countries from which co-authors are papers, ICL 27 papers) and USA (US Department of coming, per Landslide article category. The majority Interior 25 papers, USGS 25 papers), and 1 from of 1313 articles are published by author(s) coming France (CNRS 34 papers), Hong Kong (Hong Kong from the same country (over 60% for all article University of Science and Technology 37 papers), categories in Landslides), the leading category is the Slovenia (University of Ljubljana 20 papers), and Technical note category with 69.3% (Fig. 7). Spain (Polytechnic University of Catalunya 22 Out of the total of 1313 articles in Landslides, 1305 papers). These institutions also contributed 8 Highly articles has a corresponding author with a known Cited Papers out of 17 published in Landslides so far. country or territory, they are coming from 57 Unquestionably, the leading countries with different entities, the order is (i.e. contributions to Landslides are China and Italy that countries/territories with more than 10 records): are also strongly present as members in the People’s Republic of China (287 – 22.0%), Italy (202 – International Consortium on Landslides, Kyoto, 15.5%), Japan (146 - 11.2%), USA (68 – 5.2%), Canada Japan. (59 – 4.5%), Spain (52), Switzerland (39), France (34), UK (30), Czech Republic (29), Taiwan (27), India (23), Conclusions New Zealand (23), Slovenia (23), Hong Kong (20), We analyzed all articles published in the first 16 Germany (18), Norway (16), Netherlands (10), South years of the SCI journal Landslides using Clarivate Korea (16), Austria (15), Australia (14), Iran (12), Analytics’ WoS, InCites, Journal Citation Reports and Mexico (11), Belgium (10), Greece (10), and Turkey Essential Science Indicators, and Elsevier’s SCOPUS (10). databases, we can draw the following conclusions: Similar results are obtained from SCOPUS  Landslides was founded in 2004, got his first database with 1322 articles (1289 articles, reduced for papers in Evans et al., 2006) in Landslides, if all impact factor in 2007, and soon rose to Q1 among journals in several categories: SCI-Expanded authors of all papers are considered, not only “Engineering, Geological”, SCI-Expanded corresponding ones, the order is (minus in brackets are papers to be subtracted since published in the “Geosciences, Multidisciplinary”, and Scopus “Geological Engineering and Engineering Geology”. book by Evans et al., 2006): People’s Republic of China (329), Italy (258-7), Japan (181), USA (120-4), In 2019, it is rank #4 in the last-mentioned SCOPUS category. Canada (91-9), Switzerland (82-2), UK (81-6), Spain (71-1), France (54-2), Hong Kong (49), Czech  Landslides is on a good way to compete with two Republic (42), New Zealand (37-1), Taiwan (36), well established journals that publish in the field of Germany (34-1), Australia (32), Norway (32-1), India landslide research, namely Engineering Geology, (28), South Korea (27), Netherlands (26-1), Slovenia Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the (25), Austria (22). Environment, Geomorphology and Earth-Science Sassa (2019b) presented an overview of the ICL Reviews. The other journals are several decades members (full, associates, supporters) – ICL has 99 older than Landslides and therefore exhibit mature members from 37 countries/regions, mainly from values in WoS and Scopus h-index over 100 Japan (17), Italy (14), and China (10), followed by (exception is Bull IAEG), well over 20 citations on South Korea (5), Czech Republic (4), Indonesia (4), average per paper (again exception is Bull IAEG), Russian Federation (4), and Slovenia (4). cited half-life and citing half-life close or over 10 Looking at the authors’ institution, the top 20 years, and rank in their respective SCI and Scopus institutions with more than 20 published articles in journal category in the top 10. Landslides in the period 2004-2019 published jointly  Thus, after an analysis using different journal 535 papers (more than one third of all published metrics, we may conclude that Landslides has papers) and these institutions are: 6 from China steadily increased its visibility since its release in (CAS - Chinese Academy of Sciences 95 papers, 2004, and is today one of a few leading Chengdu University of Technology 65 papers, international journals dealing with all aspects of Institute of Mountain Hazards Environment of CAS landslide risk and disaster reduction. 54 papers, China University of Geosciences 48 papers,  Landslides should stay with its very strict editorial policy (acceptance rate ~36%), should try to

13 M. Mikoš, K. Sassa, Ž. Arbanas

publish more (invited) review papers per year, as vector machines inference model and artificial bee well as focused technical notes on state-of-the art colony optimization. Landslides, 14(2), 447-458. in monitoring, simulation and technology for Carlà T, Intrieri E, Di Traglia F, Nolesini T, Gigli G, Casagli N effective landslide risk reduction. (2017) Guidelines on the use of inverse velocity method  Landslides should popularize open-access policy as a tool for setting alarm thresholds and forecasting (at least among ICL members) to be able to raise landslides and structure collapses. Landslides, 14(2), the share of Highly Cited Papers well above 1% of 517-534. all published papers. Cerovšek T, Mikoš M (2014) A comparative study of cross- The ICL journal Landslides is explicitly mentioned in domain research output and citations: Research impact Action 10 of the Kyoto 2020 Commitment for Global cubes and binary citation frequencies. Journal of Promotion of Understanding and Reducing Landslide Informetrics, 8, 147–161. Disaster Risk (Sassa, 2019a) and is one of the most ESI (2020) InCites Essential Science Indicators. Clarivate important pillars of the international activities of the Analytics. Available at: International Consortium on Landslides and of its https://esi.clarivate.com/IndicatorsAction.action dedication to landslide disaster risk reduction in the Evans SG, Mugnozza GS, Strom A, Hermanns RL (Eds.) world. (2006) Landslides from Massive Rock Slope Failure. Nato Science Series, IV. Earth and Environmental Sciences, vol. Acknowledgments 49. Springer, Dordrecht, 662 p., Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978- This bibliometric analysis of Landslides was performed 1-4020-4037-5.pdf. using databases that are available through the Fan XM, Xu Q, Scaringi G, Dai LX, Li WL, Dong XJ, Zhu X, Pei consortium to the University of Ljubljana staff and XJ, Dai KR, Havenith HB (2017) Failure mechanism and students. The analysis was partially financed by the kinematics of the deadly June 24th 2017 Xinmo Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) and their financial landslide, Maoxian, Sichuan, China. Landslides, 14(6), support is greatly acknowledged - through the national 2129-2146. Research Programme P2-0180 “Water Science and Frattini P, Crosta GB, Rossini M, Allievi J (2018) Activity and Technology, and Geotechnics”. kinematic behaviour of deep-seated landslides from PS- InSAR displacement rate measurements. Landslides, References 15(6), 1053-1070. Ahmed B (2015) Landslide susceptibility mapping using Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes to science: a new multi-criteria evaluation techniques in Chittagong dimension in documentation through association of Metropolitan Area, Bangladesh. Landslides, 12(6), 1077- ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. 1095. Garfield E (2006) The History and Meaning of the Journal Akgun A (2012) A comparison of landslide susceptibility Impact Factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93. maps produced by logistic regression, multi-criteria Guzzetti F, Peruccacci S, Rossi M, Stark CP (2008) The decision, and likelihood ratio methods: a case study at rainfall intensity–duration control of shallow landslides Izmir, Turkey. Landslides, 9(1), 93–106. and debris flows: an update. Landslides, 5(1), 3-17. Baum RL, Coe JA, Godt JW, Harp EL, Reid ME, Savage WZ, Haque U, Blum P, da Silva PF, Andersen P, Pilz J, Chalov SR, Schulz WH, Brien DL, Chleborad AF, McKenna JP, Malet J-P, Jemec Auflič M, Andres N, Poyiadji E, Lamas Michael JA (2005) Regional landslide-hazard assessment PC, Zhang W, Peshevski I, Pétursson HG, Kurt T, Dobrev for Seattle, Washington, USA. Landslides, 2(4), 266–279. N, García-Davalillo JC, Halkia M, Ferri S, Gaprindashvili G, Brideau MA, Pedrazzini A, Stead D, Froese C, Jaboyedoff M, Engström J, Keellings D (2016) Fatal landslides in Europe. van Zeyl D (2011) Three-dimensional slope stability Landslides, 13(6), 1545–1554. analysis of South Peak, Crowsnest Pass, Alberta, Canada. Herrera G, Mateos RM, García-Davalillo JC, Grandjean G, Landslides, 8(2), 139–158. Poyiadji E, Maftei R, Filipciuc T-C, Jemec Auflič M, Jež J, Bui DT, Tuan TA, Klempe H, Pradhan B, Revhaug I (2016) Podolszki L, Trigila A, Iadanza C, Raetzo H, Kociu A, Spatial prediction models for shallow landslide hazards: Przyłucka M, Kułak M, Sheehy M, Pellicer XM, a comparative assessment of the efficacy of support McKeown C, Ryan G, Kopačková V, Frei M, Kuhn D, vector machines, artificial neural networks, kernel Hermanns RL, Koulermou N, Smith CA, Engdahl M, logistic regression, and logistic model tree. Landslides, Buxó P, Gonzalez M, Dashwood C, Reeves H, Cigna F, 13(2), 361-378. Liščák P, Pauditš P, Mikulėnas V, Demir V, Raha M, Bui DT, Tuan TA, Hoang ND, Thanh NQ, Nguyen DB, Liem Quental L, Sandić C, Fusi B, Jensen OA (2018) Landslide NV, Pradhan B (2017) Spatial prediction of rainfall- databases in the Geological Surveys of Europe. induced landslides for the Lao Cai area (Vietnam) using Landslides, 15(2), 359-379. a hybrid intelligent approach of least squares support

14 The ICL journal Landslides – 16 years of capacity development for landslide risk reduction

Huang D, Cen D, Ma G, Huang R (2015) Step-path failure of Pinyol NM, Alonso EE, Corominas J, Moya J (2012) Canelles rock slopes with intermittent joints. Landslides, 12(5), landslide: modelling rapid drawdown and fast potential 911–926. sliding. Landslides, 9(1), 33-51. Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L (2014) The Varnes Prochaska AB, Santi PM, Higgins JD, Cannon SH (2008) A classification of landslide types, an update. Landslides, study of methods to estimate debris flow velocity. 11(2), 167–194. Landslides, 5(4), 413–444. Intrieri E, Raspini F, Fumagalli A, Lu P, Del Conte S, Farina P, Ruiz-Carulla R, Corominas J, Mavrouli O (2017) A fractal Allievi J, Ferretti A, Casagli N (2018) The Maoxian fragmentation model for rockfalls, Landslides, 14(3), landslide as seen from space: detecting precursors of 875-889. failure with Sentinel-1 data. Landslides, 15(1), 123-133. Sassa K (2019a) The Fifth World Landslide Forum and the Kavzoglu T, Sahin EK, Colkesen I (2014) Landslide final draft of the Kyoto 2020 Commitment. Landslides, susceptibility mapping using GIS-based multi-criteria 16(2), 201-221. decision analysis, support vector machines, and logistic Sassa K (2019b) Journal Landslides, the International regression. Landslides, 11(3), 425-439. Consortium on Landslides, and the Kyoto Landslide Lando T, Bertoli-Barsotti L (2014) A New Bibliometric Index Commitment 2020. Landslides, 16(9), 1623-1628. Based on the Shape of the Citation Distribution. PLoS Sassa K, Tsuchiya S, Ugai K, Wakai A, Uchimura T (2009) ONE 9(12): e115962. Available at: Landslides: a review of achievements in the first 5 years https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115962 (2004–2009). Landslides, 6, 275–286. Leynaud D, Sultan N, Mienert J (2007) The role of Sassa K, Tsuchiya S, Fukuoka H, Mikos M, Doan L (2015) sedimentation rate and permeability in the slope Landslides: review of achievements in the second 5-year stability of the formerly glaciated Norwegian period (2009–2013). Landslides, 12(2), 213–223. continental margin: the Storegga slide model. Landslides, Sassa K, Arbanas Ž (2017) Landslides: Journal of the 4(4), 297–309. International Consortium on Landslides. In: Sassa K, Liu J, You Y, Chen X, Chen X (2015) Mitigation planning Mikoš M, Yin Y (eds) Advancing Culture of Living with based on the prediction of river blocking by a typical Landslides. WLF 2017. Springer, Cham, 257–267. large-scale debris flow in the Wenchuan earthquake Avalaible at: area. Landslides, 13(5), 1231-1242. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319- Lundström K, Larsson R, Dahlin T (2009) Mapping of quick 59469-9_21 clay formations using geotechnical and geophysical Sassa K, Dang K, Guzzetti F, Casagli N, Tiwari B, Mikoš M, methods. Landslides, 6(1), 1–15. Vilimek V, Bobrowsky P, Konagai K, Arbanas Ž, Mihalić Margottini C (2004) Instability and geotechnical problems Arbanas S, Lu P, Sasahara K, Alcantara-Ayala I, Strom A, of the Buddha niches and surrounding cliff in Bamiyan Hendry M, Yamagishi H, Tofani V, Cuomo S, Fathani F, Valley, central Afghanistan. Landslides, 1(1), 41–51. Klimeš J, Wang F, Reichenbach P, Gokceoglu C, Higaki D, Martino S., Bozzano F, Caporossi P, D’Angiò D, Della Seta M, Koyama T (2019) Invited and accepted speakers of the Esposito C, Fantini A, Fiorucci M, Giannini LM, Iannucci R, Fifth World Landslide Forum in Kyoto, 2020. Landslides, Marmoni GM, Mazzanti P, Missori C, Moretto S, 16(2), 431-446. Piacentini D, Rivellino S, Romeo RW, Sarandrea P, Sosio R, Crosta GB, Hungr O (2012) Numerical modeling of Schilirò L, Troiani F, Varone C (2019) Impact of debris avalanche propagation from collapse of volcanic landslides on transportation routes during the 2016– edifices. Landslides, 9(3), 315-334. 2017 Central Italy seismic sequence. Landslides, 16(6), Springer (2020) Landslides: Journal of the International 1221-1241. Consortium on Landslides – home page. Massey C, Manville V, Hancox GH, Keys HJ, Lawrence C, http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geograp McSaveney M (2010) Out-burst flood (lahar) triggered hy/natural+hazards/journal/10346. by retrogressive landsliding, 18 March 2007 at Mt Staley DM, Kean JW, Cannon SH, Schmidt KM, Laber JL Ruapehu, New Zealand—a successful early warning. (2013) Objective definition of rainfall intensity— Landslides, 7(3), 303–315. duration thresholds for the initiation of post-fire debris Mikoš M (2011) Landslides: a state-of-the art on the flows in southern California. Landslides, 10(5), 547–562. current position in the landslide research community. Tang Y, Zhang Z, Wang C, Zhang H, Meng FW (2015) Landslides, 8, 541–551. Characterization of the giant landslide at Wenjiagou by Mikoš M (2017) Landslides: a top international journal in the insar technique using TSX-TDX CoSSC data. geological engineering and engineering geology? Landslides, 12(5), 1015-1021. Landslides, 14(5), 1843-1854. Tsangaratos P, Ilia I (2016) Landslide susceptibility mapping Nadim F, Kjekstad O, Peduzzi P, Herold C, Jaedicke C (2006) using a modified decision tree classifier in the Xanthi Global landslide and avalanche hotspots. Landslides, Perfection, Greece. Landslides, 13(2), 305-320. 3(2), 159–173.

15 M. Mikoš, K. Sassa, Ž. Arbanas

Van Noorden R (2016) Impact factor gets heavyweight rival - CiteScore uses larger database and gets different results. Nature, 540, 325–326. Xu C, Xu XW, Yao X, Dai FC (2014). Three (nearly) complete inventories of landslides triggered by the May 12, 2008 Wenchuan Mw 7.9 earthquake of China and their spatial distribution statistical analysis. Landslides, 11(3), 441– 461. Yavari-Ramshe S, Ataie-Astiani B (2016) Numerical modelling of subaerial and submarine landslide- generated tsunami waves - recent advances and future challenges. Landslides, 13(6), 1325-1368. Yin YP, Wang FW, Sun P (2009) Landslide hazards triggered by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Sichuan, China. Landslides, 6(2), 139–152. Youssef AM, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS, Al-Katheeri MM (2016) Landslide susceptibility mapping using random forest, boosted regression tree, classification and regression tree, and general linear models and comparison of their performance at Wadi Tayyah Basin, Asir Region, Saudi Arabia. Landslides, 13(5), 839-856.

Matjaž Mikoš ( ) University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Jamova c. 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: [email protected]

Kyoji Sassa International Consortium on Landslides (ICL), Kyoto, Japan e-mail: [email protected]

Željko Arbanas University of Rijeka, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Radmile Matejčić 3, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia e-mail: [email protected]

16