The impact of publications is currently measured by the average number of citations received for a journal article. But there are 3 different models for this in the biggest repositories. The classic 2-year JCR model, the new model implemented by Scopus last year (citations to 3-year publications during those same 3 years) and the ScimagoJR method, using a Google-style algorithm to decide the most prestigious sources.
Which one do you think is more suitable, or in your case, what are the strengths and weaknesses of each one?
Its actually good to have a measure of the impacts of ones publications, however the three (3) measured listed share common shortcoming - they are citation-based. In addition, not all journals are indexed in Scopus nor indexing bodies that use JCR, so how would their impacts be evaluated. Other drawbacks are stated here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424879/
Indeed, measuring scientific relevance using citation analysis exclusively is restricting the scientific impact to a single dimension. New strategies could be used but I do not see institutions (at least in my country) as being concerned with this. That is why the question of how to measure IF can be more appropriate to describe the phenomenon.
Dear Lluís Albarracín
Actually, number of citations is the most logical measure of quality. The first two mentioned methods are preferable.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Zoology
- Ornithology
- birds
- Scopus