Scholarly Metrics | Reference eReviews, April 15, 2015 2015-04-29


"THESE DAYS, scholarly metrics are a high-stakes game and a lot of effort is being directed toward finding relevant and credible methods to assess and present scholarship. In LJ 1/15 (, we analyzed Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters) in which Impact Factor, the most consistently accepted metric for scholarly assessment, has held sway since 1975 (see also 'InCites Gets a Makeover,'—Ed.). We also evaluated two approaches for delivering article level alternatives—Plum Analytics (EBSCO) and Altmetric for Institutions (Altmetric)—and reviewed Cabell’s Directories of Publishing Opportunities (Cabell Publishing), in which directory-type information is combined with Cabell’s journal analysis and ranking system. This time, we briefly revisit an updated Cabell’s and consider Impactstory, whose stated goal is 'to build a new scholarly reward system that values and encourages web-native scholarship,' along with another Thomson Reuters product, Book Citation Index, which aims to turn the static book citation into a dynamic research tool. Since several publishers now incorporate scholarly metrics into their own titles, we also take a look at the various approaches of BioMed Central (Springer), the Public Library of Science, the Nature Publishing Group (Macmillan), and Scopus (Elsevier) ..."


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) »

Tags: oa.comment oa.impact oa.altmetrics oa.metrics

Date tagged:

04/29/2015, 12:04

Date published:

04/29/2015, 08:03