Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices

被引:0
作者
Mark R. Elkins
Christopher G. Maher
Robert D. Herbert
Anne M. Moseley
Catherine Sherrington
机构
[1] Royal Prince Alfred Hospital,Department of Respiratory Medicine
[2] The University of Sydney,The George Institute for International Health
来源
Scientometrics | 2010年 / 85卷
关键词
Bibliometric analysis; Citation analysis; Impact factor;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
To determine the degree of correlation among journal citation indices that reflect the average number of citations per article, the most recent journal ratings were downloaded from the websites publishing four journal citation indices: the Institute of Scientific Information’s journal impact factor index, Eigenfactor’s article influence index, SCImago’s journal rank index and Scopus’ trend line index. Correlations were determined for each pair of indices, using ratings from all journals that could be identified as having been rated on both indices. Correlations between the six possible pairings of the four indices were tested with Spearman’s rho. Within each of the six possible pairings, the prevalence of identifiable errors was examined in a random selection of 10 journals and among the 10 most discordantly ranked journals on the two indices. The number of journals that could be matched within each pair of indices ranged from 1,857 to 6,508. Paired ratings for all journals showed strong to very strong correlations, with Spearman’s rho values ranging from 0.61 to 0.89, all p < 0.001. Identifiable errors were more common among scores for journals that had very discordant ranks on a pair of indices. These four journal citation indices were significantly correlated, providing evidence of convergent validity (i.e. they reflect the same underlying construct of average citability per article in a journal). Discordance in the ranking of a journal on two indices was in some cases due to an error in one index.
引用
收藏
页码:81 / 93
页数:12
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]  
Adam D(2002)The counting house Nature 415 726-729
[2]  
Banks MA(2008)Emerging alternatives to the impact factor OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives 24 167-173
[3]  
Dellavalle R(2009)A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures PLoS One 4 e6022-201
[4]  
Bollen J(2008)Audience matters: A study of how authors select educational journals The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 17 191-2189
[5]  
Cheung CK(2008)Eigenfactor: Does the principle of repeated improvement result in better estimates than raw citation counts? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 2186-58
[6]  
Davis PM(1996)A comparison of Australian university output using journal impact factors Scientometrics 35 45-517
[7]  
Davis G(2006)Can electronic journal usage data replace citation data as a measure of journal use? An empirical examination The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 512-2628
[8]  
Royle P(2008)Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor The FASEB Journal 22 2623-957
[9]  
Duy J(2001)Academic anesthesiologists’ views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals: A North American and European survey Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 48 953-479
[10]  
Vaughan L(2006)Cash for papers: Putting a premium on publication Nature 441 792-93