The revised SNIP indicator of Elsevier's Scopus

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 859-860

  Leydesdorff, Loet ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883748971     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.003     Document Type: Letter

References (21)

1. Brumback R.A. Worshiping false idols: The impact factor dilemma. Journal of Child Neurology 2008, 23(4):365.
2. Gingras Y., Larivière V. There are neither "king" nor "crown" in scientometrics: Comments on a supposed "alternative" method of normalization. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(1):226-227.
3. Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies 1994, Sage, London.
4. Guerrero-Bote V.P., Moya-Anegón F. A further step forward in measuring journals' scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(4):674-688.
5. Leydesdorff L. Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10%(or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers. Scientometrics 2012, 92(2):355-365.
6. Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L. Integrated impact indicators (I3) compared with impact factors (IFs): An alternative design with policy implications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(11):2133-2146.
7. Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L. Testing differences statistically with the Leiden ranking. Scientometrics 2012, 92(3):781-783.
8. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. Scopus' source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus the journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(11):2365-2396.
9. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. Scopus' SNIP indicator: Reply to Moed. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(1):214-215.
10. Leydesdorff L., Zawdie G. The Triple Helix perspective of innovation systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 2010, 22(7):789-804.
11. McVeigh M.E., Mann S.J. The journal impact factor denominator. The Journal of the American Medical Association 2009, 302(10):1107-1109.
12. Moed H.F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(3):265-277.
13. Moed H.F. The source-normalized impact per paper (SNIP) is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011, 62(1):211-213.
14. Moed H.F., Van Leeuwen T.N. Impact factors can mislead. Nature 1996, 381(6579):186.
15. Opthof T., Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(3):423-430.
16. Seglen P.O. The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1992, 43(9):628-638.
17. Seglen P.O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 1997, 314:498-502.
18. Spaan J.A.E. The danger of pseudo science in Informetrics. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(3):439-440.
19. Wagner C.S., Leydesdorff L. An integrated impact indicator: A new definition of 'impact' with policy relevance. Research Evaluation 2012, 21(3):183-188.
20. Waltman L., Calero-Medina C., Kosten J., Noyons E., Tijssen R.J.W., van Eck N.J., et al. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 63(12):2419-2432.
21. Waltman L., van Eck N.J., van Leeuwen T.N., Visser M.S. Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(2):272-285.