Evaluatingjournalquality Areviewofjournalcitationindicatorsandrankinginlibraryandinformationsciencecorejournals

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/349710526
COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management Evaluating

journal quality : A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in library
and information science cor...
Article in Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management · March 2020
CITATIONS READS
0 6
6 authors, including:
Shakil Ahmad Abu Waris

Imam Abdul Rahman bin Faisal University Imam Abdul Rahman bin Faisal University
38 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Isam Mohammed Abdel-Magid Abdurahiman Pattukuthu

Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University Imam Abdul Rahman bin Faisal University
217 PUBLICATIONS 464 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
environmental engineering View project
bibliography View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Shakir Azad on 02 March 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information
Management
ISSN: 0973-7766 (Print) 2168-930X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsim20
Evaluating journal quality : A review of journal

citation indicators and ranking in library and
information science core journals
Shakil Ahmad, Md Sohail, Abu Waris, Isam Mohammed Abdel-Magid,

Abdurahiman Pattukuthu & Muhammed Shakir Azad
To cite this article: Shakil Ahmad, Md Sohail, Abu Waris, Isam Mohammed Abdel-Magid,
Abdurahiman Pattukuthu & Muhammed Shakir Azad (2019) Evaluating journal quality : A
review of journal citation indicators and ranking in library and information science core journals,
COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 13:2, 345-363, DOI:
10.1080/09737766.2020.1718030
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2020.1718030
Published online: 31 Mar 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 59
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsim20
COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management
ISSN : 0973 – 7766 (Print) 2168 – 930X (Online)
Vol. 13(2) December 2019, pp. 345–363
DOI : 10.1080/09737766.2020.1718030
Evaluating journal quality : A review of

Shakil Ahmad
Deanship of Library Affairs
journal citation indicators and ranking
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University
P.O.Box 1982
in library and information science core
Dammam 34212
Saudi Arabia
journals
shahmad@iau.edu.sa
Shakil Ahmad
Md. Sohail
Nazarbayev University Md. Sohail
Nur Sultan City 010000
Abu Waris
Kazakhstan
sohailmlis@gmail.com Isam Mohammed Abdel-Magid
Abu Waris Abdurahiman Pattukuthu
Deanship of Library Affairs
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal
Muhammed Shakir Azad
University
P.O.Box 1982
Dammam 34212
Saudi Arabia The main objective of this study is to evaluate the influence and qual-
abuwaris@iau.edu.sa ity of library and Information Science journals. Currently used bib-
Isam Mohammed Abdel-Magid liometric indicators include: Journal Impact Factor (JIF), Eigenfactor
Department of Environmental Score (ES), SCImago Journal Rank indicator (SJR), Cite Score (CS), and
Engineering
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) indicator rank. Specific li-
Water Resources and Environmental
Engineering brary and Information Science journals were collected from their class
College of Engineering within Web of Science. JIFs and ESs were composed of Journal Citation
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal
University Report and the SJR, Cite Score and SNIP from the SCOPUS, SCImago
P.O.Box 1982 Journal, and country rank website respectively.
Dammam 34212
Saudi Arabia The researchers randomly selected and examined eighty-nine Library
isam.abdelmagid@gmail.com and Information Science journals detailed with necessary data derived
from the principal and original sites as related to JIF, ES, SJR, CS and
Abdurahiman Pattukuthu
Deanship of Library Affairs SNIP quality ranking indexes. Correlations amid meters were explained
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal by Pearson’s and Spearman’s statistical correlations employing SPSS
University
P.O.Box 1982
23.0 package. Concerning Spearman’s rho statistical correlation, a high
Dammam 34212 correlation was observed between JIF and ES rank (coefficient value of
Saudi Arabia 0.843) for Information Science journals and a lesser value between JIF
asali@iau.edu.sa and SJR rank (coefficient value of 0.759) and a rather low correlation
between both JIF and SNIP rank (coefficient value = 0.618). An overall
Muhammed Shakir Azad
Deanship of Library Affairs Journal Quality Index is proposed to utilise the potentiality of all vari-
Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz ous indicators used for measuring journal quality.
University
Al-Kharj 16278 Keywords: Journal Rank, Bibliometric Indicators, Journal Impact Factor, SCI-
Saudi Arabia mago Indicator, Eigenfactor Score, SNIP, CS Rank-Index, Library and Informa-
m.azad@psau.edu.sa tion Science Journals
©
S. Ahmad, M. Sohail, A. Waris, I. M. A. Magid, A. Pattukuthu and M. S. Azad
Foreword
Academic and scientific journals are considered as the main channel of data exchange,
critical means for the dissemination of research results, principal disseminators of scien-
tific information, leading transferors of knowledge and the primary avenue for scholarly
communication within the academic community [1, 2]. Franceschet [3] pointed out that its
popularity commonly determines the status of a journal for counting citations and its pres-
tige for recursively weighting them. Miller [4] argued that the journal should be measured
by how well it serves the scientific community, the integrity of its review and publication
process, and how it adds to the base of knowledge through high-quality publications.
The main objective of this study was to measure ranking the impact, and citation vis-
ibility trend of library and Information Science journals based on cited reference search by
Web of Science indexed Journals. Database exposure was established for selected library
and Information Science journals in Scopus and Web of science. Thence, quality bibliomet-
ric of each of the nominated journals were compared to each other as guided by indicators
of JIF, ES, SJR, CS, and SNIP ranking indexes.
Literature review
Citations are acknowledged and accredited as proper intellectual information account-
ability to published research findings. Recommendations are carried from an ordinary
original journal or a set of selected articles over a specified period. Publishing articles in
high impact and quality journals enables attracting larger audiences and users. Likewise,
also, it may function as an indicator of reputation and status [5].
The impact factor (JIF) quantifies the frequency with which an average article in a jour-
nal has been cited in a specific year. It is estimated by dividing the number of present
citations to papers published in the two previous years by the total number of papers
published in the same two years [6]. JIF is a commonly applied indicator. Nonetheless, it
has been frequently criticized for limitations that incorporate inclusion of citations of ar-
ticles that calculation formula has not included in the denominator (editorials, letters, etc.),
restraints of analysis period to two years, insertion of self-citations, lack of assessment of
quality of origin citation and incurred risk of manipulation [7, 8].
SCImago (SJR indicator) have advantages of including more journals, giving journal
rank for each of the single years of an examined time interval, performing further precise
analysis in the year that an article was published, covering a more extended period for
including citations (3 years), spanning more extensive range of countries and languages,
limits self-citations and it weighs citations according to journal importance were published
and quality of the citing journal. Likewise, SCImago is powered by SCOPUS that makes
it more compatible with specific articles database, it is an open-access resource offering
more excellent coverage and quality aspects, and it uses different weights to citations us-
ing an algorithm similar to that of Google Page Rank [8, 9]. Both Webs of Science and
Scopus ranked the journals they index according to the subject classification assigned to
346 COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 13(2) DECEMBER 2019
Evaluating journal quality : A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in library...
each journal [10]. The SJR indicator contains the total number of documents of a journal in
the denominator of the relevant calculation, whereas the JIF includes only “citable” articles
(mainly original articles and reviews) [11].
Eigenfactor score (ES) uses a similar algorithm like Page Rank of Google. An iterative
method is used to calculate ES and journals are vital if they are cited by other renowned
journals more often [12]. ES doesn’t have denominator and is influenced only by total
citations, not the citable items of a journal [13]. ES reflects both the quality and quantity
[14]. Cantín et al. [15] pointed out that SJR and ES can be more accurate quality indexes in
certain conditions.
Source normalised impact per paper (SNIP) is s field normalized evaluation of journal
impact. It is assessed by the ratio of a source’s average citation count and citation poten-
tial. Citation potential is calculated as the number of citations that the journal would be
expected to receive for its subject field. The longer reference list of a citing publication,
the lower the value of a citation originating from that publication. It allows for the direct
comparison of the area of research with different publication and citation practices. SNIP
is calculated as the number of citations given in the present year to publications in the past
three years, divided by the total number of publications in the past three years. SNIP only
considers peer-reviewed articles, conference papers and reviews. SNIP scores are available
at the two databases viz. CWTS Journal Indicators and Scopus [16].
Ahmad et al. [17]) measured the qualities of sixty-one journals published in the area
of construction and building technology and found that journal Impact Factor (JIF) is the
primary indicator applied by investigators and academics for ranking construction and
building technology journals, periodicals, bulletins and publications.
Ahmad et al. [18) conducted a similar kind of study of in water resources journals and
found strong positive correlations between the scores and rank order based on the SJR,
ES, H5 and JIF of selected journals. Hence, researchers in the previously mentioned field
can use the SJR, ES and H5 indicators as alternatives to JIF for evaluation and judgment of
scientific journals.
Ahmad et al. [19]) opined another similar kind of work and judged four bibliometric
research quality indices (JIF, SJR, ES, and H5) that were inspected and scrutinised for repu-
table United Arab Emirates Research Journals.
Materials and methods

Identifiable Information Science journals were named and analysed for this study. Per-
tinent information and involved data were retrieved from source files and databases from
journal ranking sector of SCImago journal and country ranking website, and Web of Sci-
ence (WoS) Core Collection official website and citations. ISI- and Scopus-indexed journals
were used for the assessment of reliable journal indicators. The 2018 JIFs and ESs were ob-
tained from Journal Citation Report® (JCR) through WoS. SJR, CS and SNIP were obtained
from the SCOPUS database. The SCImago Journal withdrew the 2018 SJR, CS and SNIP
rank indicators, and country rank is given by Scopus.
COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 13(2) DECEMBER 2019 347
The relationships amongst selected indicators were weighed employing Pearson’s and
Pearson’s’ correlation coefficients using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 23.0, 2016 release.
Results and discussions

Classified Information Science journals are linked to all five selected indicators (IF, ES,
SJR, CS, and SNIP rank) that were thoroughly fitted and related. Correlations between in-
dices were reviewed using Pearson and Spearman correlations using SPSS 23.0. In general,
89 Information Science journals were arranged for study comparison purposes.
Table (1) shows the ISI- and Scopus-indexed and detailed information and compara-
tive rankings for the 89 chosen Information Science journals by 2018 JIF, ES, CS, SJR, and
SNIP rank indexes accessed during December 2018. The table shows that a minority of the
picked journals had the same ranking through these five indices. This observation-initi-
ated inconveniencies in comparing metrics across the various indicators. Table (1) plainly
shows that JIF top five (5) journals are kept by International Journal of Information Man-
agement (JIF 5.063), Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JIF4.896), Journal of
Knowledge Management (JIF 4.604), MIS Quarterly (JIF 4.373) and Government Informa-
tion Quarterly (JIF 4.311).
Top five (5) ranked journals, as depicted by Eigenfactor score, were chronicled for Jour-
nal of the American Medical Informatics Association: Jamia (ES 0.01951), Scientometrics
(ES 0.01157), MIS Quarterly (ES 0.0099), Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology (ES 0.00885) and Information Systems Research (ES 0.00841).
SCImago journal rank reserved top five places to MIS Quarterly (SJR 4.212), Informa-
tion Systems Research (SJR 3.476), Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (SJR
3.311), Journal of Management Information Systems (SJR 2.388) and Journal of Information
Technology (SJR 2.115). Content seems to harvest the lowest record approximately in all
indexes.
CS rank index offered a ranking scheme for top five journals to be MIS Quarterly (CS
rank = 11.8), International Journal of Information Management (CS rank = 8.81), Journal of
Information Technology (CS rank = 7.56), Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
(CS rank = 7.41) and Government Information Quarterly (CS rank = 7.1).
Further SNIP Indicators categories the top five (5) Journals as MIS Quarterly (SNIP
3.729), Journal of Information Technology (SNIP 3.656), International Journal of Informa-
tion Management (SNIP 3.225), Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (SNIP
3.018) and Information Processing and Management (SNIP 2.895).
Table (1)
Comparative Rankings of Library and Information Science Journals by 2018 JIF, ES, SJR, CS,
and SNIP
JIF_ ES_ SJR_ CS_ SNIP_

Full Journal Title JIF ES SJR CiteScore SNIP
Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank
International Journal
of Information 5.063 1 0.00505 9 1.711 11 8.81 2 3.225 3
Management
Journal of
Computer-Mediated 4.896 2 0.00504 11 3.311 3 7.41 4 3.018 4
Communication
Journal of
Knowledge 4.604 3 0.0018 22 1.284 25 5.63 12 2.07 12
Management
MIS Quarterly 4.373 4 0.0099 3 4.212 1 11.8 1 3.729 1
Government
Information 4.311 5 0.00246 18 1.408 20 7.1 5 2.417 7
Quarterly
Journal of the
American Medical
4.292 6 0.01951 1 1.711 11 4.43 16 2.043 13
informatics
Association
Information &
4.12 7 0.0046 12 1.727 10 6.97 6 2.351 8
Management
Journal of Strategic
4 8 0.0011 31 1.432 17 6.26 10 2.237 9
Information Systems
Information
Processing & 3.892 9 0.0029 15 1.043 31 5.51 13 2.895 5
Management
Journal of
3.879 10 0.00505 9 1.952 7 3.48 23 1.815 19
Informetrics
Telematics and
3.714 11 0.0036 13 1.206 26 4.94 15 1.82 18
Informatics
of Geographical 3.545 12 0.00553 8 1.291 24 3.87 20 1.766 21
Information Science
Information Systems
3.286 13 0.00172 23 1.432 17 6.17 11 2.237 9
Journal
Journal of
Information 3.225 14 0.00165 25 2.115 5 7.56 3 3.656 2
Technology
Contd...
Journal of the
Association for 3.103 15 0.00209 19 1.818 9 6.51 8 1.741 23
Information Systems
Qualitative Health
3.03 16 0.00788 6 1.437 16 3.48 23 1.823 17
Research
Journal of
Management 3.013 17 0.00351 14 2.388 4 5.04 14 1.854 16
Information Systems
Social Science
2.922 18 0.00274 16 1.421 19 4.21 17 1.73 24
Computer Review
Research Evaluation 2.875 19 0.00191 21 1.589 14 3.21 26 1.701 26
Scientometrics 2.77 20 0.01157 2 1.113 27 2.92 29 1.439 35

Journal of the
Association for
2.738 21 0.00885 4 1.443 15 3.68 22 1.97 14
Information Science
and Technology
European Journal of
2.603 22 0.00255 17 2.036 6 6.58 7 2.225 11
Information Systems
Information Systems
2.457 23 0.00841 5 3.476 2 6.33 9 1.958 15
Research
Journal of the
Medical Library 2.42 24 0.0014 29 0.807 34 1.36 52 1.533 32
Association
Ethics and
Information 2.34 25 0.00076 39 0.591 48 2.55 31 1.754 22
Technology
Journal of
2.327 26 0.00156 26 0.636 45 2.97 28 1.581 29
Information Science
Information and
2.269 27 0.00081 37 1.105 28 4.08 19 1.714 25
Organization
of Computer-
Supported 2.206 28 0.00074 41 1.853 8 3.31 25 1.701 26
Collaborative
Learning
MIS Quarterly
2.206 28 0.00059 48 1.366 21 4.18 18 2.661 6
Executive
Learned Publishing 2.2 30 0.00095 34 1.078 29 1.89 40 1.034 50
Journal of Enterprise
Information 2.126 31 0.00073 43 0.69 42 3.83 21 1.557 30
Management
Contd...
Telecommunications
2 32 0.00207 20 0.753 37 2.54 32 1.538 31
Policy
College & Research
1.946 33 0.00125 30 1.674 13 1.92 39 1.798 20
Libraries
Online Information
1.928 34 0.00152 27 0.656 44 2.7 30 0.974 54
Review
Information Society 1.86 35 0.00104 32 0.702 40 2.19 35 1.135 42
Journal of Health
1.773 36 0.00766 7 1.007 32 2.37 33 1.082 45
Communication
ASLIB Journal
of Information 1.702 37 0.00076 39 0.609 46 2.12 36 0.999 53
Management
Journal of Academic
1.608 38 0.00171 24 1.292 23 2.1 37 1.66 28
Librarianship
Journal of
1.573 39 0.0015 28 0.789 36 1.69 42 1.427 36
Documentation
Profesional De La
1.505 40 0.00079 38 0.601 47 1.39 48 1.037 49
Informacion
Information
Technology for 1.493 41 0.00053 50 0.559 49 2.33 34 1.248 38
Development
Knowledge
Management 1.485 42 0.00042 54 0.396 61 2.02 38 0.877 58
Research & Practice
Library &
Information Science 1.425 43 0.00099 33 0.79 35 1.66 43 1.159 40
Research
Journal of Scholarly
1.27 44 0.00026 60 0.371 62 1.08 57 1.405 37
Publishing
Information
1.265 45 0.00061 46 0.428 57 1.33 53 0.958 55
Development
Information
Technology & 1.265 45 0.00035 56 0.397 60 1.8 41 1.097 43
Management
Information
1.263 47 0.00091 35 0.83 33 3.16 27 0.891 57
Technology & People
Library Hi Tech 1.256 48 0.00065 45 0.746 38 1.59 45 1.049 47
Reference Services
1.25 49 0.00061 46 1.069 30 1.18 54 0.808 59
Review
Library Quarterly 1.24 50 0.00033 58 0.717 39 1.08 57 1.153 41
Contd...
Journal of
Librarianship and 1.203 51 0.00051 51 0.552 50 1.1 56 1.081 46
Information Science
Health Information
and Libraries 1.179 52 0.00067 44 0.522 52 1.08 57 0.923 56
Journal
Data Base for
Advances in 1.103 53 0.00021 66 0.458 54 1.38 50 0.717 64
Information Systems
Journal of Global
Information 1.098 54 0.00013 74 0.312 66 1.61 44 0.692 67
Management
Journal of
Organizational
1.093 55 0.00016 70 0.292 68 1.45 47 0.577 70
and End User
Computing
Portal-Libraries and
1.037 56 0.00074 41 1.366 21 1.39 48 1.507 34
the Academy
Malaysian Journal
of Library & 1 57 0.00018 68 0.441 56 0.77 64 0.469 72
Information Science
Revista Espanola
De Documentacion 0.985 58 0.00027 59 0.415 58 0.81 63 1.014 52
Cientifica
Knowledge
0.979 59 0.00023 64 0.507 53 0.77 64 1.086 44
Organization
Journal of Global
Information
0.923 60 0.0001 77 0.319 64 1 61 0.393 76
Technology
Management
Electronic Library 0.886 61 0.00049 52 0.537 51 1.47 46 1.017 51
Program-Electronic
Library and 0.868 62 0.00024 62 0.223 72 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Information Systems
Information
Technology and 0.8 63 0.00013 74 0.699 41 1.12 55 1.508 33
Libraries
Information
Research-An
0.799 64 0.00084 36 0.458 54 1.01 60 0.726 63
International
Electronic Journal
Social Science
Information Sur Les 0.763 65 0.00047 53 0.304 67 0.91 62 0.736 62
Sciences Sociales
Contd...
Library Collections
Acquisitions & 0.667 66 0.0001 77 0.147 79 0.4 72 0.756 61
Technical Services
Library Trends 0.627 67 0.00034 57 0.353 63 0.63 68 0.693 66
Interlending &
0.563 68 0.0002 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Document Supply
LIBRI 0.553 69 0.00017 69 0.314 65 0.71 66 0.626 69
Scientist 0.493 70 0.00038 55 0.106 83 N/A N/A 0.013 82

Library Resources &
0.459 71 0.00014 72 0.663 43 0.58 69 1.171 39
Technical Services
Reference & User
0.444 72 0.00023 64 0.402 59 0.51 70 0.705 65
Services Quarterly
Library Journal 0.438 73 0.00054 49 0.158 77 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Restaurator-
for the Preservation 0.394 74 0.00007 79 0.213 73 0.26 77 0.41 75
of Library and
Archival Material
Transinformacao 0.373 75 0.00015 71 0.209 74 0.37 73 0.775 60
Journal of the
Australian Library
0.348 76 0 87 0.226 71 0.42 71 0.653 68
and Information
Association
Australian Library
0.346 77 0.00014 72 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Journal
African Journal of
Library Archives
0.345 78 0.00004 82 0.156 78 0.3 75 0.499 71
and Information
Science
Serials Review 0.311 79 0.00024 62 0.247 70 0.31 74 0.451 74
Information &
0.302 80 0.00026 60 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Culture
Canadian Journal
of Information and
Library Science-
Revue Canadienne 0.258 81 0.00012 76 0.28 69 0.65 67 0.457 73
Des Sciences De L
information Et De
Bibliotheconomie
Contd...
Informacios
0.222 82 0.00001 84 0.123 82 0.13 79 0.107 80
Tarsadalom
Investigacion
0.176 83 0.00006 80 0.141 80 0.2 78 0.293 78
Bibliotecologica
Informacao &
0.173 84 0.00001 84 0.175 75 0.08 80 0.275 79
Sociedade-Estudos
Law Library Journal 0.151 85 0.00006 80 0.169 76 0.3 75 0.359 77
Zeitschrift Fur
Bibliothekswesen 0.08 86 0 87 0.139 81 0.05 81 0.068 81
Und Bibliographie
Library and
0.056 87 0.00002 83 0.101 84 0 83 0 83
Information Science
Econtent 0.047 88 0.00001 84 0.1 85 0.03 82 N/A N/A
Data Technologies
N/A N/A 0 87 N/A N/A 1.38 50 1.045 48
and Applications
N/A= Not Available*
Table (2) exhibits a bivariate correlation between the five indicators (JIF, ES, SJR, CS
and SNIP rank) for ranking of the chosen Information Science journals. As presented in
table (2), there is a high Pearson’s (r) statistical correlation between JIF and CS rank indica-
tors (r = 0.900) and a slightly lesser statistical relationship between JIF and SNIP indicators
for journals in the nominated class (r = 0.875). The correlation is lowest between JIF and ES
values (r = 0.625).
In terms of Spearman’s rho statistical correlation, a significant relationship existed be-
tween JIF and ES rank (coefficient values of 0.843) and a somewhat lower relationship
between JIF and SJR (coefficient value = 0.759) and lowest rank between JIF and SNIP
(coefficient values of 0.618) indicators for Information Science journals.
Table (2)
Bivariate correlation between four indicators for ranking of Library and
Information Science journals.
Correlation statistic Coefficient value Sig.

Pearson’s r between JIF and ES values 0.625 .000
Pearson’s r between JIF and SJR values 0.790 .000
Pearson’s r between JIF and CS values 0.900 .000
Pearson’s r between JIF and SNIP values 0.875 .000
Spearman’s rho between JIF and ES rankings 0.843 .000
Spearman’s rho between JIF and SJR rankings 0.759 .000
Spearman’s rho between JIF and CS rankings 0.674 .000
Spearman’s rho between JIF and SNIP rankings 0.618 .000
Figure (1) exemplifies a bump chart for the top ten JIF-ranked Information Science jour-
nals in comparison with their own ES ranking. The figure designates the changing array of
a ranking of both indicators for the chosen Information Science journals.
Figure (2) conveys a bump chart for the top ten JIF-ranked Information Science journals
concerning their corresponding SJR ranking. The figure distinctly reveals the fluctuating
range of ranking of both meters for the selected Information Science journals.
Figure (3) signifies a bump chart for the top ten JIF-ranked Information Science jour-
nals in association with their corresponding CS ranking. The figure noticeably tells the
wavering assortment of the ranking of both meters for the identified Information Science
journals.
Figure (4) expresses a bump chart for the top ten JIF ranked Information Science jour-
nals with their respective SNIP rankings. The figure explicitly reveals the scattering of
ranks with the change of SNIP ranking.
Fig. (1)
Bump chart for top 10 JIF ranked Library and Information Science journals in comparison with
ES ranking.
Fig. (2)
SJR ranking.
Fig. (3)
CS ranking.
Fig. (4)
SNIP ranking.
Figure (5) elucidates eight scatter plots displaying the correlation between JIF, ES, SJR,
CS, and SNIP for both their values and rankings besides their fit lines for 89 Information
Science journals included in this research study. Figures (5-a) and (5-b) indicate a linear
correlation between the values and ranks of JIF and ES indices. Figures (5-c) and (5-d)
discloses an apparent relationship between the values and ranks of JIF and SJR indices.
Figures (5-e) and (5-f) displays the same for the correlation between the values and ranks
of JIF and CS rank and Figure 5-g and 5-h reveals the correlation between the values of JIF
and SNIP Indices for the journals. A linear correlation between the various estimates of
indices (ES versus JIF, and SJR versus JIF) is directly exposed in the figures. Likewise, the
linearity of relationship is noticeable between ranks of ES set against JIF, SJR against JIF
and CS rank versus JIF and further JIF Versus SNIP.
Contd...
Fig. (5)
Scatter plots showing a correlation between JIF, ES, CS, SJR and SNIP(values and rankings) as
well as their fit lines for 89 Library and Information Science journals.
Assembled and analyzed statistical data and information would advocate the use of
all tested indicators to regulate the Information Science journals classification system. SCI-
mago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) is free access warranting its utilization as an alter-
native or an addition to the JIF and other indexes for Information Science journals quality
assessment. A further gain from using ES and SJR is the significance of journal status on
journal citations. As such, citations from more prominent journals would have more im-
pact on citation results. Similarly, the CS rank metric is a dependable and reliable means
for quality assessment of Information Science journals.
JIF, ES, SJR, CS and SNIP rank indicators ought to be promoted in combination and
in an integrated style to advocate a more holistic and all-inclusive view of Information
Science journals quality value and prestige. This finding is in agreement with Ahmad et
al. [18] and Mahmood and Khan [20]. This condition would call for advocating an overall
journal quality index (JQI).
Journal quality index (JQI) is a 100-point scale that summarizes results from several
different indices. The mostly used Journal quality indicators were selected. Some of these
indicators were judged more important than others. Therefore, a weighted mean is used
to combine the values. Each indicator is graphed (in a specific indicator curve) to reflect an
absolute indicator quality index or level ranging between 0 to 100, corresponding to actual
determined value by its matrix. Indicators’ curves were then averaged, as per the weight of
each to represent the overall Journal quality index. Table (3) shows the proposed influence
selected for each journal quality indicator of significance.
Table (3)
Proposed weight for journal quality indicator.
Journal index Weight (Wi)

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) 0.22
SCImago (SJR indicator) 0.21
Eigenfactor 0.19
Cite Score Rank 0.19
SNIP 0.19
Overall Journal Quality Index 1.00
Journal Quality Index (JQI) approach may be summarized as follows:

1) Journal indicator assortment and selection: mostly utilized journal quality indicators
were incorporated in the analysis. Examples are JIF, SJR, ES, Cite Score, and SNIP…
etc.
2) The setting of journal quality index specific function or curve: This is to be carried out
for each journal indicator to be considered as the sub-index. Such a sub-index would
be transformed to quality scale values ranging from 0 to 100, reflecting affecting pa-
rameters influencing its determination (ppm, saturation percentage, counts/volume,
etc.).
3) Computation of overall journal quality index: such aggregation or summation would
be based on a multiplication of each journal quality index by its corresponding
weight. Weights were governed pending publicity of index, method of determina-
tion, and impact on quality and journal prestige.
Journal quality index (JQI) merits may include the following:

Introduction of an appropriate integrated procedure to assess journal quality of any

specific specialization or field area or particular source using known bibliometric
indices.
Utilizes journal quality data and information to modify publication policies and pub-

licity and spread of knowledge and technology.
Augmenting and reducing the bulk of journal information and data into a single logi-

cal value and simplified form.
Combines the advantages of individual journal quality indicators and connects them

to develop an overall quality status of the journal.
Increases community and general public awareness towards journal quality issues.

Table (4)
Overall journal quality index, JQI index
JQI value Rating of journal quality Grading

90 - 100 Excellent A
70 - 90 Good B
60 -70 Medium C
Less than 60 Average D
Journal quality index was advocated and developed by paying high rigor in selecting
indices, initializing a standard scale, and assigning specific weights. The proposed method
for comparing the journal quality is based on individual journal quality parameters such
as Journal Impact Factor (JIF) Eigenfactor, SCImago (SJR indicator), Cite Score, and Source
Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) Rank, etc. The journal quality data are recorded
and transferred to a weighting curve chart, where a numerical value of or journal index
(JI) is obtained. The index is free from the arbitration in weighting the indices and em-
ploys the concept of harmonic averaging. The mathematical expression for JQI is given by
equation 1.
∑
n
JQI T
= J ∗ Wi
i =1 i
(1)
Where:
JQIT = Total journal quality index
Ji = sub-index for ith journal quality indicator (JIF, ES, SJR, CS, SNIP, etc.)
Wi = weight associated with ith journal quality index
n = number of journal quality index
Table (4) offers a potential framework for journal classification in accord with the JQI
initiative.
5. Conclusions
The journal evaluation through bibliometric tools like Impact Factor is considered the
best quality indicator for assessment of journals but has been pointed out on many ac-
counts, and its limitations have already been described widely in the academic commu-
nity. In this modern era, there are several bibliometric indicators, accepted by the scientific
community and also been considered to measure a journal’s quality ranking using more
sophisticated algorithms and other databases. In this research, there are eighty-nine cho-
sen Information Science journals that were tabulated, analyzed, and their associated infor-
mation retrieved from their original sites with related JIF, ES, SJR, CS and SNIP indexes
for quality ranking. For all journals, correlations between indicators were described using
Pearson’s and Spearman’s statistical correlations of the SPSS 23 statistical tool. To conclude
this research, the researchers found that all the five (JIF, ES, SJR, CS, and SNIP Rank) bib-
liometric research quality indices examined and judged Library and Information Science
journals. Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is the primary index used by researchers and acade-
micians for ranking Information Science journals, bulletins and periodicals. While several
shortcomings appear in only using JIF indicator, all ES, SJR, CS, and SNIP rank could be
more detailed quality indices for Information Science journals, in an integrated fashion.
Accordingly, it is recommended to use all five indices when determining the quality of
Information Science journals.
References
[1] Davarpana, M.R. and H. Behrouzfar, International visibility of Iranian ISI journals: A
citation study. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 2009. 61(4): p. 407-419.
[2] Pajić, D., On the stability of citation-based journal rankings. Journal of Informetrics,
2015. 9(4): p. 990-1006.
[3] Franceschet, M., The difference between popularity and prestige in the sciences and
the social sciences: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 2010. 4(1): p. 55-63.
[4] Miller, G.W., Toxicological Sciences: Measuring the true impact of the journal. Toxico-
logical Sciences, 2015. 147(1): p. 2-4.
[5] Naheem, K.T., Library and Information Science Journals with Impact Factor (IF): An
Empirical Study with Special reference to JCR 2015. LIS TODAY, 2016. 3(1-2): p. 50-56.
[6] Pouris, A. An assessment of the impact and visibility of South African journals. Scien-
tometrics, 2005. 62(2): p. 213-222.
[7] Elkins, M.R., et al., Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other
journal citation indices. Scientometrics, 2010. 85(1): p. 81-93.
[8] García-Pachón, E. and R. Arencibia-Jorge, A Comparison of the Impact Factor and the
SCImago Journal Rank Index in Respiratory System Journals. Archives of Bronchology
(Archivos de Bronconeumología, English Edition), 2013. 50(7): p. 308-309.
[9] Ebadi, A. and A. Schiffauerova, Analyzing Scientific Activities of the Top Ten Cana-
dian Universities. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2015.
9(1): p. 93-106.
[10] Abrizah, A., et al., LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a compari-
son between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 2013. 94(2): p. 721-740.
[11] Falagas, M.E., et al., Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal im-
pact factor. FASEB Journal, 2008. 22(8): p. 2623-2628.
[12] Ramin, S. and A.S. Shirazi, Comparison between impact factor, SCImago journal rank
indicator, and eigenfactor score of nuclear medicine journals. Nuclear Medicine Review,
2012. 15(2): p. 132-136.
[13] Kianifar, H., R. Sadeghi, and L. Zarifmahmoudi, Comparison between impact factor,
eigenfactor metrics, and SCimago journal rank indicator of pediatric neurology jour-
nals. Acta Informatica Medica, 2014. 22(2): p. 103-106.
[14] Ahmad, A., et al., Comparison of Selected Journal Quality Indicators of Analytical
Chemistry Journals. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 2017. 54(4): p. 175.
[15] Cantín, M., Muñoz, and I. Roa, Comparison between Impact Factor, Eigenfactor
Score, and SCImago Journal Rank Indicator in Anatomy and Morphology Journals.
International Journal of Morphology, 2015. 33(3): p. 1183-1188.
[16] Rannard, S. 2019. Library Guides: Using Research Indicators: SNIP and SJR [Online].
James Cook University. Available: https://libguides.jcu.edu.au/research-indicators/
snip-and-sjr [Accessed 25 December 2019].
[17] Ahmad, S., Sohail, M., Waris, A., Elginaid, A., & Mohammed Abdel-Magid, I. (2018).
SCImago, Eigenfactor Score, and H5 Index Journal Rank Indicator: A Study of Journals
in the area of Construction and Building Technologies. DESIDOC Journal of Library &
Information Technology, 38(4), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.38.4.11503
[18]
Ahmad, S., Sohail, M., & Abdel-Magid, I. M. (2017). SCImago, Eigenfactor Score and
H5 Index Journal Rank Indicator: Alternatives to the Journal Impact Factor for Water
Resources Journals. LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal,
27(2), 97-111.
[19]
Ahmad, S., Abdel-Magid, I. M., Waris, A., & Sohail, M. (2018). An assessment of the
impact and visibility of United Arab Emirates Journals. Library Philosophy and Practice
[20]
Mahmood, K., & Khan, M. A. (2019). Comparison among Journal Impact Factor, Ei-
genfactor Score, and SCImago Journal Rank Indicator of LIS journals. Pakistan Li-
brary & Information Science Journal, 50(1), 4-14.
View publication stats

Evaluatingjournalquality Areviewofjournalcitationindicatorsandrankinginlibraryandinformationsciencecorejournals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluatingjournalquality Areviewofjournalcitationindicatorsandrankinginlibraryandinformationsciencecorejournals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management Evaluating

Article in Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management · March 2020

Shakil Ahmad Abu Waris

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Isam Mohammed Abdel-Magid Abdurahiman Pattukuthu

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

environmental engineering View project

bibliography View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 0973-7766 (Print) 2168-930X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsim20

Evaluating journal quality : A review of journal

Shakil Ahmad, Md Sohail, Abu Waris, Isam Mohammed Abdel-Magid,

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2020.1718030

Published online: 31 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Evaluating journal quality : A review of

Materials and methods

Results and discussions

JIF_ ES_ SJR_ CS_ SNIP_

Scientometrics 2.77 20 0.01157 2 1.113 27 2.92 29 1.439 35

Scientist 0.493 70 0.00038 55 0.106 83 N/A N/A 0.013 82

Correlation statistic Coefficient value Sig.

Journal index Weight (Wi)

Journal Quality Index (JQI) approach may be summarized as follows:

Journal quality index (JQI) merits may include the following:

JQI value Rating of journal quality Grading

You might also like