Two, three or five years? leaving aside the advantages and disadvantages of the Impact Factor, CiteScore and h5-index, what evaluation period do you think is fairer for a bibliometric index to evaluate the quality of a journal?
it depends on journal policy but three months is the average
Hi Cássio. The question or reflection you ask is interesting and short-term. I think it is necessary to ask other questions before this one. Because with this question parts of the base that quality should be measured. Should quality be measured? Who does this data serve? Let's think about more domestic and everyday issues, what are our parameters or how do we establish that we are facing something of quality? For what others say, because I have verified or proven it, because according to my purchasing power it is what I can obtain ... the answers can be several. In the case of academic journals, those that do not have indicators are not of quality?
I agree with you César, it is interesting to note that there are good articles outside these databases. In addition, these metrics may be manipulated through self-citations and affected by the particularities of databases and editorial policies.
By itself, the notion of journal quality is a very controversial issue, and a widely accepted definition of journal quality simply does not exist. However, you are looking for an answer (a number), and based on my experience, 10 years is a fair period for a journal to get established and gain recognition/citations.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor