[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Evaluating journal performance metrics

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Journals have been ranked on the basis of impact factors for a long time. This is a quality indicator, and often favours review journals with few articles. Integrated impact indicators try to factor in size (quantity) as well, and are correlated with total number of citations. The total number of papers in a portfolio can be considered a zeroth order performance indicator and the total number of citations a first order performance indicator. Indicators like the h-Index and the g-Index are actually performance indicators in that they integrate both quality and quantity assessment into a single number. The p-Index is another variant of this class of performance indicators and is based on the cubic root of a second order performance indicator called the exergy indicator. The Eigenfactor score and article influence are respectively first order quantity and quality indicators. In this paper, we confirm the above relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbas, A. M. (2010). Analysis of generalized impact factor and indices of journals. arXiv:1011.4879, 1–7.

  • Abbas, A. M. (2011). Bounds and inequalities relating h-index, g-index, e-index and generalized impact factor. arXiv:1103.5045v1.

  • Althouse, B. M., West, J. D., Bergstrom, C. T., & Bergstrom, T. (2008). Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, C. T. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, C. T., West, J. D., & Wiseman, M. A. (2008). The Eigenfactor metrics. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(45), 11433–11434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006a). An improvement of the h-index: The g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(1), 8–9.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006b). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes to science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2005). The agony and the ecstasy: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdf.

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s research output. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). Integrated impact indicators (I3) compared with impact factors (IFs): An alternative design with policy implications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2133–2146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendlebury, D. A., & Adams, J. (2012). Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor. Scientometrics,. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0689-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prathap, G. (2010). Is there a place for a mock h-index? Scientometrics 84(1), 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prathap, G. (2011a). A comment to the papers by Opthof and Leydesdorff, Scientometrics, 88, 1011–1016, 2011 and Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 88, 1017–1022, 2011. Scientometrics, doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0500-0.

  • Prathap, G. (2011b). The energy–exergy–entropy (or EEE) sequences in bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics 87(3), 515–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prathap, G. (2011c). Energy indicators and percentile ranking normalization. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0620-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raj, R. G., & Zainab, Z. N. (2012). Relative measure index: A metric to measure quality. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0675-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, J. K. (2012). Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIR National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources, New Delhi, 110 012, India

    Gangan Prathap

Authors
  1. Gangan Prathap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gangan Prathap.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prathap, G. Evaluating journal performance metrics. Scientometrics 92, 403–408 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0746-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0746-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation