beyond the impact factor: taking a wider view of journal evaluation

Clicks: 368
ID: 129644
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #3 of 34 articles by views in glossa

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Publishers, librarians, funders and researchers are faced with the task of evaluating academic journals. Journals have often been ranked using misapplied metrics or through a single indicator used without appropriate context. The latter usage is controversial as a single indicator only measures one aspect of journal performance and is subject to interpretation. For a more meaningful analysis, a range of different measures should be used, combining both productivity (such as document and citation counts) and also normalized values for wider comparisons and contextualization. Analyses at the journal level should consider the impact of individual published articles. As citation-based measures look at a single aspect of article performance, a more thorough analysis should include a wider set of quantitative and qualitative measures.
Reference Key
potter2016insights:beyond Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Ian Potter
Journal glossa
Year 2016
DOI
10.1629/uksg.287
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.