Abstract
To date, the journal impact factor (JIF), owned by Thomson Reuters (now Clarivate Analytics), has been the dominant metric in scholarly publishing. Hated or loved, the JIF dominated academic publishing for the better part of six decades. However, a rise in the ranks of unscholarly journals, academic corruption and fraud has also seen the accompaniment of a parallel universe of competing metrics, some of which might also be predatory, misleading, or fraudulent, while others yet may in fact be valid. On December 8, 2016, Elsevier B.V. launched a direct competing metric to the JIF, CiteScore (CS). This short communication explores the similarities and differences between JIF and CS. It also explores what this seismic shift in metrics culture might imply for journal readership and authorship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Azer, S. A., Holen, A., Wilson, I., & Skokauskas, N. (2016). Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices: Can any of them support academic promotion criteria? Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 62(1), 32–39.
Beall J. (2017). Misleading metrics [Internet]. [cited Dec 30, 2016]. https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/.
Callaway, E. (2016). Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature, 535(7611), 210–211.
Casadevall, A., Bertuzzi, S., Buchmeier, M. J., Davis, R. J., Drake, H., Fang, F. C., et al. (2016). ASM journals eliminate impact factor information from journal websites. mSystems, 1(4), e00088-16.
Davis P. (2016). CiteScore—Flawed but still a game changer [Internet]. [cited Dec 30, 2016]. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/12/12/citescore-flawed-but-still-a-game-changer/.
Kulkarni S. (2016). Elsevier announces the launch of a new metric CiteScore [Internet]. [cited Dec 30, 2016]. http://www.editage.com/insights/elsevier-announces-the-launch-of-a-new-metric-citescore?placement=5-exceed-return.
Minnick J. (2016). CiteScore: A non rival for the journal impact factor [Internet] [cited Dec 30, 2016]. http://www.ipscience.thomsonreuters.com/blog/citescore-a-non-rival-for-the-journal-impact-factor/.
Nature Editorial. (2016). Time to remodel the journal impact factor. Nature, 535(7617), 466.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013). The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor: Critical questions that scientists should be asking. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(1), 81–83.
Van Noorden, R. (2016). Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival. Nature, 540(7633), 325–326.
Waltman L. (2016). Q&A on Elsevier’s CiteScore metric [Internet]. [cited Dec 30, 2016]. https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-q2y254.
Wikipedia. (2017a). Impact factor [Internet]. [cited Dec 30, 2016]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor.
Wikipedia. (2017b). RELX Group [Internet]. [cited Dec 30, 2016]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RELX_Group.
Zijlstra H, & McCullough R. (2016). CiteScore: A new metric to help you track journal performance and make decisions [Internet]. [cited Dec 30, 2016]. https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/journal-metrics/citescore-a-new-metric-to-help-you-choose-the-right-journal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Memon, A.R. CiteScore: A cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric?. Scientometrics 111, 553–556 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2250-0
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2250-0