Journal Metrics
Fiore, Steve
Hi Everyone - A colleague in administration sent me this ad for Scopus' "CiteScore", noting that journals like Nature and Science are
not doing well according to this journal metric calculator. Has anyone seen much discussion/analysis of this? I found a few, but I'd be curious to see what else has been written. As an example, Phil Davis, writing for Scholarly Kitchen, wrote about it in
late 2016. He noted that "getting into the metrics business put Elsevier into a conflict of interest. Departing from idle speculation, Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West demonstrated in a series of scatterplots how Elsevier journals benefited generally from CiteScore
over competitors’ journals." Davis also pointed out: "that many high Impact Factor journals performed very poorly in CiteScore, the result of including non-research material (news, editorials, letters, etc.) in its denominator. Based on their CiteScore rank,
top medical journals, like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, and general multidisciplinary science
journals, like Nature and Science, rank well below mid-tier competitors. This kind of head-scratching ranking creates
bad optics for the validity of the CiteScore metric." Links are below, but if anyone has seen any others, let me know.
Thanks,
Steve
CiteScore–Flawed But Still A Game Changer
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/12/12/citescore-flawed-but-still-a-game-changer/
Elsevier’s CiteScore uses a larger database — and provides different results for the quality of journals.
--------
Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D.
Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy
Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/)
University of Central Florida
David Wojick
Hi Everyone - A colleague in administration sent me this ad for Scopus' "CiteScore", noting that journals like Nature and Science are not doing well according to this journal metric calculator. Has anyone seen much discussion/analysis of this? I found a few, but I'd be curious to see what else has been written. As an example, Phil Davis, writing for Scholarly Kitchen, wrote about it in late 2016. He noted that "getting into the metrics business put Elsevier into a conflict of interest. Departing from idle speculation, Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West demonstrated in a series of scatterplots how Elsevier journals benefited generally from CiteScore over competitors’ journals." Davis also pointed out: "that many high Impact Factor journals performed very poorly in CiteScore, the result of including non-research material (news, editorials, letters, etc.) in its denominator. Based on their CiteScore rank, top medical journals, like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, and general multidisciplinary science journals, like Nature and Science, rank well below mid-tier competitors. This kind of head-scratching ranking creates bad optics for the validity of the CiteScore metric." Links are below, but if anyone has seen any others, let me know.
Thanks,
Steve
CiteScore–Flawed But Still A Game Changer
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/12/12/citescore-flawed-but-still-a-game-changer/
Comparing Impact Factor and Scopus CiteScore
Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival
Elsevier’s CiteScore uses a larger database — and provides different results for the quality of journals.
<pastedImage.png>
--------
Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D.
Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy
Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/)
University of Central Florida
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Anthony Watkinson
I wonder how many researchers actually use or even look at CiteScore. In the work I am doing on early career researchers a few mention SOPUS but none mention CiteScore though Impact Factors are always known and regarded though their defects for individual papers are known
Anthony
--
David Wojick
I wonder how many researchers actually use or even look at CiteScore. In the work I am doing on early career researchers a few mention SOPUS but none mention CiteScore though Impact Factors are always known and regarded though their defects for individual papers are known
Anthony
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fiore, Steve
Sent: 08 June 2018 22:55
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Journal Metrics
Hi Everyone - A colleague in administration sent me this ad for Scopus' "CiteScore", noting that journals like Nature and Science are not doing well according to this journal metric calculator. Has anyone seen much discussion/analysis of this? I found a few, but I'd be curious to see what else has been written. As an example, Phil Davis, writing for Scholarly Kitchen, wrote about it in late 2016. He noted that "getting into the metrics business put Elsevier into a conflict of interest. Departing from idle speculation, Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West demonstrated in a series of scatterplots how Elsevier journals benefited generally from CiteScore over competitors’ journals." Davis also pointed out: "that many high Impact Factor journals performed very poorly in CiteScore, the result of including non-research material (news, editorials, letters, etc.) in its denominator. Based on their CiteScore rank, top medical journals, like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, and general multidisciplinary science journals, like Nature and Science, rank well below mid-tier competitors. This kind of head-scratching ranking creates bad optics for the validity of the CiteScore metric." Links are below, but if anyone has seen any others, let me know.
Thanks,
Steve
CiteScore–Flawed But Still A Game Changer
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/12/12/citescore-flawed-but-still-a-game-changer/
Comparing Impact Factor and Scopus CiteScore
Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival
Elsevier’s CiteScore uses a larger database — and provides different results for the quality of journals.
<image001.png>
--------
Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D.
Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy
Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/)
University of Central Florida
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.