Elsevier's Scopus has a revised SNIP indicator for journal ranking

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  2013

• Venue

  arXiv.org

• Publication date

  Unknown publication date

• Fields of study

  Not labeled

• Identifiers

  No identifiers available.

• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator

  2012cited by this paper
• A further step forward in measuring journals' scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator

  2012cited by this paper
• An Integrated Impact Indicator (I3): A New Definition of "Impact" with Policy Relevance

  2012cited by this paper
• The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation

  2012cited by this paper
• Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers

  2012cited by this paper
• There are neither "king" nor "crown" in scientometrics: Comments on a supposed "alternative" method of normalization

  2011cited by this paper
• Testing differences statistically with the Leiden ranking

  2011cited by this paper
• Scopus' SNIP indicator: Reply to Moed

  2011cited by this paper
• Integrated Impact Indicators (I3) compared with Impact Factors (IFs): An alternative research design with policy implications

  2011cited by this paper
• The danger of pseudo science in Informetrics

  2010cited by this paper
• The source normalized impact per paper is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact

  2010cited by this paper
• Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance

  2010cited by this paper
• Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals

  2009cited by this paper
• Worshiping False Idols: The Impact Factor Dilemma

  2008cited by this paper
• Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research

  1997cited by this paper
• Impact factors can mislead

  1996cited by this paper
• The Skewness of Science

  1992cited by this paper

• No citing papers are available for this paper.