Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

 

Citation

Abrizah, A., Zainab, A. N., Kiran, K., & Raj, R. G. (2013). LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 94(2), 721-740.

Ascaso, F. J. (2011). [Impact factor, eigenfactor and article influence]. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol, 86(1), 1-2. doi:10.1016/j.oftal.2010.12.005

Bergstrom, C. a. W., Jevin. (2007). Eigenfactor® Project. Retrieved from http://www.eigenfactor.org/about.php

Cantín, M., Muñoz, M., & Roa, I. (2015). Comparison between Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Score, and SCImago Journal Rank Indicator in Anatomy and Morphology Journals. International Journal of Morphology, 33(3).

Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2013). Ranking journals: could Google scholar metrics be an alternative to journal citation reports and Scimago journal rank? Learned publishing, 26(2), 101-113.

Elkins, M. R., Maher, C. G., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Sherrington, C. (2010). Correlation between the journal impact factor and three other journal citation indices. Scientometrics, 85(1), 81-93.

Franceschet, M. (2010). The difference between popularity and prestige in the sciences and in the social sciences: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 55-63.

Jacsó, P. (2010). Comparison of journal impact rankings in the SCImago Journal & Country Rank and the Journal Citation Reports databases. Online Information Review, 34(4), 642-657.

Kianifar, H., Sadeghi, R., & Zarifmahmoudi, L. (2014). Comparison between impact factor, Eigenfactor metrics, and Scimago journal rank indicator of pediatric neurology journals. Acta Informatica Medica, 22(2), 103.

Mañana-Rodríguez, J. (2014). A critical review of SCImago journal & country rank. Research evaluation, 24(4), 343-354.

Pajić, D. (2015). On the stability of citation-based journal rankings. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 990-1006.

Ramin, S., & Shirazi, A. S. (2012). Comparison between Impact factor, SCImago journal rank indicator and Eigenfactor score of nuclear medicine journals. Nuclear Medicine Review, 15(2), 132-136.

Waris, A., Ahmad, S., Isam, C., Abdel-Magid, M., & Hussain, A. (2017). Comparison among Journal Quality Indicators of Sports Science Journals. Library Herald, 55(3), 339-351.

Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2010). Weighted citation: An indicator of an article's prestige. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1635-1643.

Yin, C.-Y. (2011). Do impact factor, h-index and Eigenfactor™ of chemical engineering journals correlate well with each other and indicate the journals' influence and prestige? Current Science, 648-653.

Comments

Dear Editor-in-Chief, Library Practice and Philosophy Greetings. We wish to submit a new manuscript entitled “Correlation between journal citation indices for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Journals” for consideration by the Library and Practice Philosophy. We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. In this paper, we report on public health journals as per quality bibliometric indicators and scientometric instruments. Journal quality review targeted comparisons between indicators of significance and merit from reputable databases. This is significant because this research stressed on performance of well cited journals and their informational correlations as predicted by selected indicators complex algorithms. The paper should be of interest to readers in the areas of bibliometric and scientometric studies under library and information science and related discipline. I would be grateful if you could let me know whether there has been any further progress on my submission. Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript. Sincerely, Shakil Ahmad Lecturer & Technical Services Librarian

Abstract

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.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.