Source: http://eprints.rclis.org/14401/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:20:43+00:00

Document:
The evaluation of scientific journals with bibliometric indicators has been dominated by the Impact factor since the 70s. However Thomson has recently included in the Journal Citation Reports the Eigen factor and the Article influence score. On the other hand Elsevier has included in Scopus the Source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) and the SCImago journal rank (SJR). In this paper we introduce and describe these indicators. Secondly, to study the similarities we analyze correlations of the traditional indicators and the new ones, detailing the results across 27 scientific fields. It was noted that some couples of indicators such as Eigen-Citations, Impact factor-ArticleScore, Impact factor–SJR and SJR-ArticleScore do correlate in many areas. Correlations showed different trends in Science and Social science; therefore, in the last section we discuss the need to take into account the scientific area when selecting an indicator.
Bibliometric indicators, Indicadores bibliométricos, Thomson-Reuters, Elsevier, Scopus, Scientific journals, Revistas científicas, Rankings, Impact factor, Factor de impacto, Eigen factor, SJR, SNIP.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HA. Periodicals, Newspapers.
Bergstrom, Carl T.; West, Jevin D.; Wiseman, Marc A. “The Eigenfactor™ Metrics”. The Journal of Neuroscience, 2008, v. 28, n. 45, pp. 11433–11434.
Bergstrom, Carl T. “Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals”. College & Research Libraries News, 2007, v. 68, n. 5.
Bollen, J.; Van de Sompel, H.; Hagberg, A.; Chute, R. “A Principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures”. PLoS ONE, 2009, v. 4, n. 6, e6022.
Bordons, M; Fernandez, MT; Gomez, I. “Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance in a peripheral country”. Scientometrics, 2002, v. 53, n. 2, pp. 195–206.
Butler, Declan. “Free journal-ranking tool enters citation market”. Nature, 2008, v. 451, n. 3, pp. 6.
Davis, Philip M. “Eigenfactor: Does the principle of repeated improvement result in better journal impact estimates than raw citation counts?”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, v. 59, n. 13, pp. 2186-2188.
Falagas, Matthew E.; Kouranos, Vasilios D.; Arencibia-Jorge, Ricardo; Karageorgopoulos, Drosos E. “Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor”. The FASEB Journal, 2008, v. 22, pp. 2623-2628.
Garfield, Eugene. “Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation”. Science, 1972, v. 178, n. 60, pp. 471-9.
Grupo Scimago. Description of scimago journal rank indicator. 2007a.
Información, 2007b, noviembre-diciembre, v. 16, n. 6, pp. 645-646.
Jacsó, P. “Five-year impact factor data in the Journal Citation Reports". Online Information Review, 2009, v. 33, n. 3, pp. 603-614.
Pinski, G.; Narin, F. “Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics”. Information Processing and Management, 1976, v. 12, n. 5, pp. 297-312.
Saha, Somnath; Saint, Sanjay; Christakis, Dimitri A. “Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality?”. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 2003, v. 91, n. 1, pp. 42-46.
Seglen, Per O. “Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research”. British Medical Journal, 1997, v. 314, n. 7079, pp. 498-502.
Seglen, Per O. “The skewness of science”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 1999, v. 43, n. 9, pp. 628 – 638.
Smith, LC. “Citation analysis”. Library Trends, 1981, v. 30, n. 1, pp. 83-106.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.