Relationships between expert ratings of business/economics journals and key citation metrics: The impact of size-independence, citing-journal weighting, and subject-area normalization

IF 2.5 3区管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Journal of Academic Librarianship Pub Date : 2024-05-14 DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102882

William H. Walters

{"title":"Relationships between expert ratings of business/economics journals and key citation metrics: The impact of size-independence, citing-journal weighting, and subject-area normalization","authors":"William H. Walters","doi":"10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study uses data for >3300 business and economics journals to explore the relationships between 5 subjective (expert) journal ratings and 10 citation metrics including 5IF (5-year Impact Factor), Article Influence (AI) score, CiteScore, Eigenfactor, Impact per Publication, SJR, and SNIP. Overall, AI and SJR are the citation metrics most closely related to the expert journal ratings. Comparisons of paired citation metrics that are similar in all but a single key characteristic confirm that expert journal ratings are more closely related to size-independent citation metrics than to size-dependent metrics, more closely related to weighted metrics than to unweighted metrics, and more closely related to normalized metrics than to non-normalized metrics. These results, which are consistent across the 5 expert ratings, suggest that evaluators consider the average impact of an article in each journal rather than the total impact of the journal as a whole, that they give more credit for citations in high-impact journals than for citations in lesser journals, and that they assess each journal's relative standing within its own field or subfield rather than its broader scholarly impact. No single citation metric is a good substitute for any of the expert ratings considered here.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","volume":"50 4","pages":"Article 102882"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Librarianship","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0099133324000430","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study uses data for >3300 business and economics journals to explore the relationships between 5 subjective (expert) journal ratings and 10 citation metrics including 5IF (5-year Impact Factor), Article Influence (AI) score, CiteScore, Eigenfactor, Impact per Publication, SJR, and SNIP. Overall, AI and SJR are the citation metrics most closely related to the expert journal ratings. Comparisons of paired citation metrics that are similar in all but a single key characteristic confirm that expert journal ratings are more closely related to size-independent citation metrics than to size-dependent metrics, more closely related to weighted metrics than to unweighted metrics, and more closely related to normalized metrics than to non-normalized metrics. These results, which are consistent across the 5 expert ratings, suggest that evaluators consider the average impact of an article in each journal rather than the total impact of the journal as a whole, that they give more credit for citations in high-impact journals than for citations in lesser journals, and that they assess each journal's relative standing within its own field or subfield rather than its broader scholarly impact. No single citation metric is a good substitute for any of the expert ratings considered here.

查看原文本刊更多论文

专家对商业/经济学期刊的评级与主要引用指标之间的关系：规模无关性、引文期刊加权和学科领域归一化的影响

本研究利用 3300 种商业和经济学期刊的数据，探讨了 5 种主观（专家）期刊评级与 10 种引文指标之间的关系，这些指标包括 5IF（5 年影响因子）、文章影响力（AI）评分、CiteScore、特征因子、每篇出版物影响、SJR 和 SNIP。总体而言，AI 和 SJR 是与专家期刊评级关系最密切的引文指标。除了一个关键特征外，其他所有特征都相似的成对引文指标的比较证实，专家期刊评级与规模无关的引文指标的关系比与规模相关的指标的关系更密切，与加权指标的关系比与非加权指标的关系更密切，与归一化指标的关系比与非归一化指标的关系更密切。这些结果在 5 个专家评级中都是一致的，表明评价者考虑的是文章在每种期刊中的平均影响，而不是期刊整体的总影响；他们更看重高影响力期刊的引文，而不是较低影响力期刊的引文；他们评估的是每种期刊在自身领域或子领域中的相对地位，而不是更广泛的学术影响。没有一种单一的引文指标能很好地替代本文所考虑的任何一种专家评级。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Academic Librarianship INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

15.40%

发文量

120

审稿时长

29 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Academic Librarianship, an international and refereed journal, publishes articles that focus on problems and issues germane to college and university libraries. JAL provides a forum for authors to present research findings and, where applicable, their practical applications and significance; analyze policies, practices, issues, and trends; speculate about the future of academic librarianship; present analytical bibliographic essays and philosophical treatises. JAL also brings to the attention of its readers information about hundreds of new and recently published books in library and information science, management, scholarly communication, and higher education. JAL, in addition, covers management and discipline-based software and information policy developments.