Correlation between journal citation indices for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Journals

This paper investigated the possibility of utilizing SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Eigenfactor Score and Google H5 index indicator as an alternative to the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for quality assessment in the field of biochemistry and molecular biology. Principal factors such as researchers and librarians concerns of methods of scientific journal ranking, publication of language, analysis time and self-citation impact are looked into across indicated options and alternatives. The SJR, ES, Google H5 and JIF scores and ranking order of biochemistry and molecular biology journals were downloaded from their relevant websites. Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients were gauged to weigh relationship between these journal quality metrics. Nominated coefficients were embraced for evaluating direct and monotonic relationships of chosen variables and ranking measures. A constructive correlation was detected among the scores and ranking order based on SJR, ES, Google H5 and JIF of selected biochemistry and molecular biology journals. Consequently, scholars, academics and researchers in biochemistry and molecular biology can use the SJR, ES and Google H5 indicators as replacements to JIF for appraisal of scientific journals in the field

Correlating altmetrics and h5-Index using Google Scholar metrics for journals in Library and Information Science

The purpose of this paper is to correlate altmetrics and h5-index using Google Scholar metrics for journals in Library and Information Science, in order to clarify the relative significance of altmetrics in evaluating research impact. This paper adopted the behavioural bibliometrics to analyse data that was collected from Google Scholar metrics for three systematically selected journals in LIS. We obtained altmetrics scores for selected articles from Altmetrics.com. This paper focuses on: (i) the extent in which altmetrics indicators correlate with the journal’s h5-index; (ii) the disproportions amongst altmetrics indicators, and; (iii) the comparison of article altmetrics scores in journals with different h5-index. The results of this paper reveal noteworthy independence of altmetrics from h5-index. Therefore, the journal’s h5-index does not impact or reflect on its article altmetrics. Amongst other altmetrics indicators, Mendeley dominates in all articles altmetrics. The results further confirmed the possibility of articles in journals with low h5-index to attained greater social media attention than articles in journals with high h5-index. This paper adds to the body of knowledge in LIS, informetrics in particular. It is hoped that the results of this study will help create better understanding of altmetrics and prevent its misuse

A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics

Scientometrics is the study of the quantitative aspects of the process of science as a communication system. It is centrally, but not only, concerned with the analysis of citations in the academic literature. In recent years it has come to play a major role in the measurement and evaluation of research performance. In this review we consider: the historical development of scientometrics, sources of citation data, citation metrics and the “laws" of scientometrics, normalisation, journal impact factors and other journal metrics, visualising and mapping science, evaluation and policy, and future developments

Modeling quality and prestige in applied linguistics journals: A bibliometric and synthetic analysis

The importance of academic journals in second language (L2) research is evident on at least two levels. Journals are, first of all, central to the process of disseminating scientific findings. Journals are also critical on a professional level as most L2 researchers must publish articles to advance their careers. However, not all journals are perceived as equal; some may be considered more prestigious or of higher quality and may, therefore, achieve a greater impact on the field. It is therefore necessary that we understand the identity and quality of L2 research journals, yet very little research (e.g., Egbert, 2007; VanPatten & Williams, 2002) has considered these issues to date. The current study sought to explore L2 journal identity and quality, and the relationship between these constructs. In order to do so, a database was compiled based on three different types of sources: (1) a questionnaire eliciting L2 researchers’ perceptions of the quality and prestige of 27 journals that publish L2 research (N = 327); (2) manual coding of different types of articles (e.g., empirical studies, review papers), data (quantitative, qualitative, mixed), research settings, and authorship patterns (K = 2,024) using the same 27 journals; and (3) bibliometric and submission data such as impact factors, citation counts, and acceptance rates. Descriptive statistics were applied to explore overall quality and prestige ratings as well as publication trends found in each journal. The relationships between those patterns and subjective ratings were also examined. In addition, regression models were built to determine the extent to which perceptions of journal quality and prestige could be explained as a function of journal and article features. We discuss the findings of the study in terms of on-going debates concerning publication practices, study quality, impact factors, journal selection, and the “journal culture” in applied linguistics

Will This Paper Increase Your h-index? Scientific Impact Prediction

Scientific impact plays a central role in the evaluation of the output of scholars, departments, and institutions. A widely used measure of scientific impact is citations, with a growing body of literature focused on predicting the number of citations obtained by any given publication. The effectiveness of such predictions, however, is fundamentally limited by the power-law distribution of citations, whereby publications with few citations are extremely common and publications with many citations are relatively rare. Given this limitation, in this work we instead address a related question asked by many academic researchers in the course of writing a paper, namely: "Will this paper increase my h-index?" Using a real academic dataset with over 1.7 million authors, 2 million papers, and 8 million citation relationships from the premier online academic service ArnetMiner, we formalize a novel scientific impact prediction problem to examine several factors that can drive a paper to increase the primary author's h-index. We find that the researcher's authority on the publication topic and the venue in which the paper is published are crucial factors to the increase of the primary author's h-index, while the topic popularity and the co-authors' h-indices are of surprisingly little relevance. By leveraging relevant factors, we find a greater than 87.5% potential predictability for whether a paper will contribute to an author's h-index within five years. As a further experiment, we generate a self-prediction for this paper, estimating that there is a 76% probability that it will contribute to the h-index of the co-author with the highest current h-index in five years. We conclude that our findings on the quantification of scientific impact can help researchers to expand their influence and more effectively leverage their position of "standing on the shoulders of giants."Comment: Proc. of the 8th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM'15

An Assessment of Journal Quality Indicators: A Comparative Study of Selected Medical Journals

The purpose of the study was to assess the correlation between four bibliometric indicators (Impact Factor-IF, Eigenfactor Score-ES, SCImago Journal Rank-SJR, and H5 index) of typical online medical journals were selected from the medical group. Findings from the study evident that in accordance with Pearson’s (r) statistical correlation there is a high significance between four indicators and as per Spearman’s rho statistical correlation there is an association between the three indicators i.e. JIF, SJR, and H5. The above-mentioned indicators are correlated with one a different and it is chiefly true for medical journals when used as communal indicators to estimate the impact or reputation of medical journals or journals of other groups

Mapping Literacies in the Tourism Labor Market: A Cross-Database Comparison

This book chapter conducts a comparative bibliometric analysis of literacies in the tourism labor market, drawing from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. The objective is to assess scientific outputs and identify key patterns of scientific collaboration. Findings suggest a statistically significant difference between the two databases with an overlap level of 35.71%. However, there is a gradual and correlated increase in the number of publications over time. Scopus stands out for its broader impact and enduring citation relevance, suggesting its academic contributions have a longer-lasting effect. Conversely, WoS is characterized by a focus on more recent influential publications and exhibits a marginally more intense collaboration network