Problems with the SNIP indicator

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 890-894

  Mingers, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84908669407     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.004     Document Type: Letter

References (21)

1. Baumgartner S.E., Leydesdorff L. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) of citations in scholarly literature: Dynamic qualities of "transient" and "sticky knowledge claims". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65(4):797-811.
2. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 1972, 178:471-479.
3. Garfield E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. Scientometrics 1979, 1(4):359-375.
4. Larivière V., Archambault É., Gingras Y., Vignola-Gagné É. The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2006, 57(8):997-1004.
5. Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59:278-287.
6. Leydesdorff L. The revised SNIP indicator of Elsevier's Scopus. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7:859-860.
7. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61:2365-2369.
8. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. Scopus SNIP indicator: Reply to Moed. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 62:214-215.
9. Leydesdorff L., Opthof T. Remaining problems with the "New Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5:224-225.
10. Mingers J. Exploring the dynamics of journal citations: Modelling with S-curves. Journal Operational Research Society 2008, 59:1013-1025.
11. Mingers J., Lipitakis E. Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google scholar in the field of management. Scientometrics 2010, 85:613-625.
12. Mingers J., Lipitakis E. Evaluating a department's research: Testing the Leiden methodology in business and management. Information Processing & Management 2013, 49:587-595.
13. Moed H. CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group's publication oeuvre. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4:436-438.
14. Moed H. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4:265-277.
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. Schubert A., Braun T. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 1986, 9(5):281-291.
17. van Raan A. The use of bibliometric analysis in research performance assessment and monitoring of interdisciplinary scientific developments. Technology Assessment - Theory and Practice 2003, 1:20-29.
18. van Raan A. Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics 2005, 62:133-143.
19. van Raan F., Moed H., van Leeuwen N. Scoping study on the use of bibliometric analysis to measure the quality of research in UK higher education institutions. Report, Centre for Science and Technology Studies 2007, Leiden University, Leiden, http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2007/rd18_07/.
20. Waltman L., van Eck N., van Leeuwen T., Visser M. Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7:272-285.
21. Zitt M., Small H. Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59:1856-1860.