Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

 

Date of this Version

2019

Citation

  1. Garfield, E., (2006) the history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90-3, doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90.
  2. Google Scholar, (2017) Google Scholar Metrics. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html#metrics. (Accessed: 3 April 2019).
  3. Hussain, A., & Swain, D. K. (2011). A citation analysis of top research papers of computer science. International Research: Journal of Library and Information Science, 1(2).
  4. Jamali, J., Salehi-Marzijarani, M., & Ayatollahi, S. M. T. (2014). Factors Affecting Journal Quality Indicator in Scopus (SCImago Journal Rank) in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals: a Longitudinal Study (1999-2013). Acta Informática Médica, 22(6), 385.
  5. Kim, Y. S., Hong, R., (2016) About the Eigenfactor® Project, The University of Washington, Available at http://www.eigenfactor.org/about.php. (Accessed: 3 April 2019).
  6. Nagaraja, A., & Vasanthakumar, M. (2011). Comparison of Web of Science and Scopus impact factors of Indian journals. Library Philosophy and Practice(1), 86.
  7. Ramin, S., Sarraf, Shirazi A., (2012) Comparison between Impact factor, SCImage journal rank indicator and Eigenfactor score of nuclear medicine journals, Nucl Med Rev Cen East Eur, 15(2), 132-6.
  8. SCImago, (2007) SJR – SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Available at: http://scimagojr.com. (Accessed: 3 April 2019).

Comments

Dear Editor

Library Philosophy and Practice

Greetings.

We wish to submit a new manuscript entitled “A scientific influence and reflectivity of Saudi Arabia research journals” for consideration by the Library Philosophy and Practice. 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 Saudi Arabia 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 the performance of well-cited journals and their informational correlations as predicted by selected indicators of 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.

Thanking you with regards

Abstract

This research has continued to evaluate Saudi Arabia's journals by quality bibliometric indicators and scientific tools and is likely to highlight comparisons between the significance and the rates of indicators. The research has also illustrated the achievements and the information correlated between the selected indicators of well-cited journals and used sophisticated algorithms and reputable databases to evaluate journals ' quality rankings.

The research aims primarily to review the scientific journal quality indices that are currently used (2015), with emphasis on the generally used indicators, such as the Journal impact factor (JIF), the Eigenfactor Score (ES), the SCImago Journal Rank Indicator (SJR) and the Google H-5 index. JIF and ES were obtained from the Journal Citation Report and the SJR from SCImago Journal and country-ranked websites. Special Saudi Arabia research journals are selected from their category from Web Science.

The ten (10) chosen Saudi Arabia research journals were noted, and their related data and information reclaimed from their primary websites in linking associated Journal impact factor, SJR, ES and Google H-5 quality indicators for ranking and refereeing their quality. Correlations between indicators were represented employing Pearson’s and Spearman’s statistical correlations, calculated using SPSS software. All retrieved journals are indexed in Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar Metrics. Examined JIFs fluctuated between 3.613 and 0.311; ES ranged between 0.00396 and 0.00052, while JSR extended between 0.552, 0.24, and Google H-5 varied between 29 and 20.

A high Pearson (r) statistical correlation between the JIF and SJR indicators (r = 0.607), as well as a rather low statistical relation between JIF and Google H-5 index for the category in which journals were selected (r = 0.522, is apparent from the bivariate correlation between the JIF, ES, SJR, and Google H-5 index indicators for selected journals. This is the lowest correlation of JIF with ES values (r = 0.461). Concerning Spearman’s rho statistical correlation, a high correlation was observed between JIF and each of Google H-5 and SJR indicators for Saudi Arabia research journals (coefficient values of 0.821 and 0.782, respectively), while a low correlation was recorded between JIF and ES rankings (coefficient value = 0.556).

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.