A Review of Unconventional Citation Metrics for Scientific Publications

Shikha Gupta; Sakshi Wadhwa; Samarth Gupta

doi:10.58421/misro.v4i3.409

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/misro.v4i3.409

Authors

Shikha Gupta Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0121-572X
Sakshi Wadhwa Jawaharlal Nehru University
Samarth Gupta University of Delhi https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3142-0178

Keywords:

Journal Ranking, Conference, Evaluation, Scientometrics, Bibliometrics

Abstract

Citation metrics play a crucial role in evaluating the impact and significance of scientific publications within the research community. Among the widely recognised indicators are the journal impact factor and the h-index, the latter often used to evaluate and rank academic conferences. Despite the prominence of these metrics, many scholars remain unfamiliar with a range of alternative measures available for assessing scholarly output. This review examines various citation-based metrics employed to assess scientific publications. Although some of these metrics offer distinct advantages, they have not yet been widely adopted by journals, funding bodies, or researchers. This review aims to provide a detailed overview of lesser-known citation indicators and to support researchers in making more informed evaluations of academic influence and research quality.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

S. Gupta, N. Kumar, and S. Bhalla, “Citation metrics and evaluation of journals and conferences,” Journal of Information Science, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1177/01655515231151411.

E. Garfield, “Citation indexes for science,” science, vol. 122, no. 3159, pp. 108–111, Jul. 1955, doi: 10.1126/science.122.3159.108.

J. E. Hirsch, “An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple co-authorship,” Scientometrics, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 741–754, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0193-9.

“Eigenfactor.” EIGENFACTOR.org. http://www.eigenfactor.org/whyeigenfactor.php. (accessed: Apr. 17, 2016).

“SJR Scimago Journal and country rank.” scimago. https://www.scimagojr.com/ (accessed: Apr. 18, 2016).

“Clarivates analytics: Incites help.” Clarivates analytics: Incites help. http://help.incites.clarivate.com (accessed: Jun. 22, 2022).

“Scopus journal metrics.” Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/metrics (accessed: Sept. 13, 2019).

L. Waltman, N. J. Van Eck, T. N. Van Leeuwen, and M. S. Visser, “Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 272–285, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.011.

“Conference ranks.” Conference Ranks. http://www.conferenceranks.com/ (accessed: Jul. 28, 2018).

S. Effendy and R. H. C. Yap, “Investigations on Rating Computer Sciences Conferences,” Www - World Wide Web Consortium (W3c), Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1145/2872518.2890525.

“Microsoft academic.” Microsoft academic. https://academic.microsoft.com/home (accessed: Jul. 24, 2018).

Wang, K., Shen, Z., Huang, C.-Y., Wu, C.-H., Eide, D., Dong, Y., . . . Rogahn, R. (2019). A review of microsoft academic services for science of science studies. Frontiers in Big Data, 2, 45.

P. Küngas, S. Karus, S. Vakulenko, M. Dumas, C. Parra, and F. Casati, “Reverse-engineering conference rankings: what does it take to make a reputable conference?,” Scientometrics, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 651–665, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0938-8.

“News & Publications - Australian Business Deans Council,” Australian Business Deans Council. https://abdc.edu.au/research/abdc-journal-list/ (accessed Aug, 23, 2019).

A. W. Harzing, “Journal Quality List.” Harzing.com https://harzing.com/resources/journal-quality-list (accessed: May 14, 2025). “News & Publications - Australian Business Deans Council,” Australian Business Deans Council. https://abdc.edu.au/research/abdc-journal-list/ (accessed Aug, 23, 2019).

“Core Rankings Portal.” CORE. http://www.core.edu.au/conference-portal (accessed: Jul. 28, 2018).

“The GII-GRIN-SCIE (GGS) Conference Rating.” http://valutazione.unibas.it/gii-grin-scie-rating/ (accessed: Aug. 17, 2018).

https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/Brief_on_India-Brazil_Relations__unclassified___22.1.24_.pdf

I. C. De Souza Almeida, R. G. De Almeida, and L. R. De Carvalho, “Academic rankings and pluralism: The case of Brazil and the new version of Qualis,” EconomiA, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 293–313, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.econ.2018.03.003.

Andriolo et al., “Classification of journals in the QUALIS System of CAPES URGENT need of changing the criteria!,” Arquivos De Neuro-Psiquiatria, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 327–329, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1590/s0004-282x2010000200037.

M. R. Farias, B. H. Storb, S. Storpirtis, and S. N. Leite, “Impact Factor: an appropriate criterion for the Qualis journals classification in the Pharmacy area?,” Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 53, no. 3, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1590/s2175-97902017000301001.

P. Chand, “Knowledge indexation and research productivity in India: Experience with Indian Citation Index,” in Fourth CODESRIA Conference. on Electronic Publishing, 2016.

R. Giri and A. K. Das, “Indian Citation Index: a new web platform for measuring performance of Indian research periodicals,” Library Hi Tech News, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 33–35, May 2011, doi: 10.1108/07419051111145154.

“Indian citation index.” Indian Citation Index. http://www.indiancitationindex.com/ici.aspx (accessed: Sept, 09, 2019).

“LiveSHINE.” LiveSHINE. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/liveshinebeta/obohlnnfogkjeknnfgcfmacjbgekmana (accessed Sept. 13, 2019).

A. Sidiropoulos, D. Katsaros, and Y. Manolopoulos, “Generalised Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks,” Scientometrics, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 253–280, Jun. 2007, doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1722-z.

Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.

C.-T. Zhang, “The e-Index, complementing the H-Index for excess citations,” PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 5, p. e5429, May 2009, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005429.

M. Schreiber, “A modification of the h-index: The hmh_mhm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 211–216, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001.

A. W. Harzing, “Publish or perish.” Harzing.com. Feb. 06, 2016. Available: https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish (accessed Feb. 06, 2016).

M. Schreiber, “To share the fame in a fair way, hmh_mhm modifies hhh for multi-authored manuscripts,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 040201, 2008, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/040201.

B. Jin, L. Liang, R. Rousseau, and L. Egghe, “The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index,” Chinese Science Bulletin, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 855–863, Mar. 2007, doi: 10.1007/s11434-007-0145-9.

M. Franceschet, “The difference between popularity and prestige in the sciences and in the social sciences: A bibliometric analysis,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 55–63, Sep. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.08.001.

G. Pinski and F. Narin, “Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 297–312, Jan. 1976, doi: 10.1016/0306-4573(76)90048-0.

L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd, “The PageRank citation ranking : Bringing order to the web,” The Web Conference, vol. 98, pp. 161–172, Nov. 1999, Available: http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/1999-66/.

C. Bergstrom, “Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals,” College & Research Libraries News, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 314–316, May 2007, doi: 10.5860/crln.68.5.7804.

X. Liu, J. Bollen, M. L. Nelson, and H. Van De Sompel, “Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1462–1480, Jun. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.012.

P. Chen, H. Xie, S. Maslov, and S. Redner, “Finding scientific gems with Google’s PageRank algorithm,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 8–15, Dec. 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2006.06.001.

D. Fiala, F. Rousselot, and K. Ježek, “PageRank for bibliographic networks,” Scientometrics, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 135–158, May 2008, doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1908-4.

S. R. Group, Description of Scimago Journal Rank Indicator, 2008.

X. Liu, J. Bollen, M. L. Nelson, and H. Van De Sompel, “Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1462–1480, Jun. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.012.

N. Ma, J. Guan, and Y. Zhao, “Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 800–810, Aug. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2007.06.006.

S. Maslov and S. Redner, "Promise and pitfalls of extending Google’s PageRank algorithm to citation networks," Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 28, no. 44, pp. 11103–11105, 2008, doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0002-08.2008.

A. Sidiropoulos and Y. Manolopoulos, “Generalised comparison of graph-based ranking algorithms for publications and authors,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 79, no. 12, pp. 1679–1700, Feb. 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.01.011.

A. Pritchard, “Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics,” Journal of Documentation, vol. 25, p. 348, Jan. 1969.

V. Durieux and P. A. Gevenois, “Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication,” Radiology, vol. 255, no. 2, pp. 342–351, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1148/radiol.09090626.

V. V. Nalimov and Z. M. Mul’chenko, Naukometriya: Izuchenie razvitiya nauki kak informatsionnogo protsessa Naukometriya: The Study of the Development of Science as an Information Process. Moscow: Nauka, 1969.

Y. Manolopoulos and D. Katsaros, “Metrics and Rankings: Myths and Fallacies,” in Communications in computer and information science, 2017, pp. 265–280. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-57135-5_19.

A Review of Unconventional Citation Metrics for Scientific Publications

DOI:

Authors

Keywords:

Abstract

Downloads

References

Downloads

Published

How to Cite

Issue

Section

License

SideBar

Contact Us

visitor