Group items tagged

Ryan Whalen. "Context is everything: Making the case for more nuanced citation impact measures." LSE (London School of Economics), 6 janvier 2016

Google Scholar. "Journal Scholar Metrics: An international and open access alternative for measuring the citation impact of Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences journals ", 5 mai 2016

Last Thursday, Elsevier announced CiteScore metrics, a free citation reporting service for the academic community. The primary metric promoted by this service is also aptly named CiteScore and is similar, in many ways, to the Impact Factor. Both CiteScore and the Impact Factor are journal-level indicators built around a ratio of citations to documents.

Discussing the Journal Impact Factor inevitably leads one down a rabbit hole. While the numerator of the ratio (total citations) to the journal is clear enough, the denominator (citable items) causes great confusion, and getting a clear answer to its construction requires real work.

Le Web of Science et le JCR n'ont pas les mêmes modalités de calcul de cumul de citations. Les calculs de médianes sur le JCR sont impossibles en raison de la dichotomie des deux produits. On reste bloqué sur des calculs de moyennes parce que le JCR ne permet pas de faire autre chose. Il se contente de mentionner à la marge l'Eigenfactor (sans l'expliquer) et le JIF percentile comme alternatives à ses calculs bruts.

Associer la littérature grise aux aires d'impact des publications classiques. Peut-être une autre vision de l'Altmetrics ?

PLOS ONE's 2015 Impact Factor is expected to rise, the result of its shrinking size. As reported earlier this year, the open access mega-journal has experienced two successive declines in article output, from a peak of 31,509 research papers in 2013 to 28,107 in 2015-a reduction of 3,402 papers or 11%.

Bonne synthèse des éléments critiques afférents à la bibliométrie classique

Sur la tendance croissante à citer d'anciens articles