Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comprehensive indicator comparisons intelligible to non-experts: the case of two SNIP versions

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A framework is proposed for comparing different types of bibliometric indicators, introducing the notion of an Indicator Comparison Report. It provides a comprehensive overview of the main differences and similarities of indicators. The comparison shows both the strong points and the limitations of each of the indicators at stake, rather than over-promoting one indicator and ignoring the benefits of alternative constructs. It focuses on base notions, assumptions, and application contexts, which makes it more intelligible to non-experts. As an illustration, a comparison report is presented for the original and the modified source normalized impact per paper indicator of journal citation impact (SNIP).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bornmann, L., Marx, W., & Schier, H. (2009). Hirsch-type index values for organic chemistry journals: A comparison of new metrics with the journal impact factor. European Journal of Organic Chemistry, 2009, 1471–1476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (2011). Empirical study of journal impact factors obtained using the classical two-year citation window versus a five-year citation window. Scientometrics, 87, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal, 22, 2623–2628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fersht, A. (2009). The most influential journals: Impact factor and Eigenfactor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 6883–6884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1979). Citation Indexing. Its theory and application in science, technology and humanities. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1996). How can impact factors be improved? British Medical Journal, 313, 411–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzel, W. (2009). The multi-dimensionality of journal impact. Scientometrics, 78, 355–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. G., & Moed, H. F. (2013). Opinion paper: Thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 96, 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Thijs, B., & Debackere, K. (2011). A priori vs. a posteriori normalisation of citation indicators. The case of journal ranking. Scientometrics, 87, 415–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of informetrics, 4(3), 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W., & Van der Wal, R. (2009). A Google Scholar h-index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 62, 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Scopus source-normalized impact factor (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 61, 2365–2369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (2014). Problems with the SNIP indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 8, 890–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 1-4020-3713-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2011). The source normalized impact per paper is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact (Letter to the Editor). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 211–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., & van Leeuwen, Th N. (1995). Improving the accuracy of Institute for Scientific Information’s journal impact factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46, 461–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pislyakov, V. (2009). Comparing two “thermometers”: Impact factors of 20 leading economic journals according to Journal Citation Reports and Scopus. Scientometrics, 79, 541–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scopus. (2014). Scopus increases interoperability with SciVal and introduces new journal metric. http://blog.scopus.com/posts/scopus-increases-interoperability-with-scival-and-introduces-new-journal-metric.

  • Seglen, P. O. (1994). Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. G., & Sweeney, E. (1985). Clustering the science citation index using co-citations. A comparison of methods. Scientometrics, 7, 391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L.(2015). Private communication.

  • Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., Van Leeuwen, Th N, & Visser, M. S. (2013). Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 272–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, C.-Y., Aris, M., & Chen, X. (2010). Combination of Eigenfactor and h-index to evaluate scientific journals. Scientometrics, 84, 639–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: A cross- and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 360–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M. (2011). Behind citing-side normalization of citations: Some properties of the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 89, 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., & Small, H. (2008). Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1856–1860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank two anonymous referees for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper, and also the participants to the Workshop on Bibliometric Indicators, held at Leiden University, and organized by the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) on September 2, 2014, especially Dr. Ludo Waltman, for their feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering A. Ruberti, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Ariosto 25, 00185, Rome, Italy

    Henk F. Moed

Authors
  1. Henk F. Moed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henk F. Moed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moed, H.F. Comprehensive indicator comparisons intelligible to non-experts: the case of two SNIP versions. Scientometrics 106, 51–65 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1781-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1781-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation