A hybrid indicator for journal ranking

Abstract

Purpose – Although journal rankings are important for authors, readers, publishers, promotion, and tenure committees, it has been argued that the use of different measures (e.g. the journal impact factor (JIF), and Hirsch’s h-index) often lead to different journal rankings, which render it difficult to make an appropriate decision. A hybrid ranking method based on the Borda count approach, the Standardized Average Index (SA index), was introduced to solve this problem. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Citations received by the articles published in 85 Health Care Sciences and Services (HCSS) journals in the period of 2009-2013 were analyzed with the use of the JIF, the h-index, and the SA index. Findings – The SA index exhibits a high correlation with the JIF and the h-index (γ > 0.9, p < 0.01) and yields results with higher accuracy than the h-index. The new, comprehensive citation impact analysis of the 85 HCSS journals shows that the SA index can help researchers to find journals with both high JIFs and high h-indices more easily, thereby harvesting references for paper submissions and research directions. Originality/value – The contribution of this study is the application of the Borda count approach to combine the HCSS journal rankings produced by the two widely accepted indices of the JIF and the h-index. The new HCSS journal rankings can be used by publishers, journal editors, researchers, policymakers, librarians, and practitioners as a reference for journal selection and the establishment of decisions and professional judgment.

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures

“…Certain alternatives were found to combine multiple bibliometrics in a type of composite score, such as free disposable hull [40] and standardized average index [41]. Free disposable hull is an aggregation of four citation metrics (JIF, AI, h-index, and discounted impact factor) while standardized average index utilizes two metrics (JIF and h-index).…”

“…Free disposable hull is an aggregation of four citation metrics (JIF, AI, h-index, and discounted impact factor) while standardized average index utilizes two metrics (JIF and h-index). The combination of multiple factors provides better journal ranking by diversifying the number of outputs considered within one metric; however, these combinations may not be the most effective for optimal accuracy [40,41]. Further analysis and research is needed to optimize metric combinations; however, these factors still utilize JIF and the reported disadvantages -although offset by other metrics -still apply.…”

“…I3 appears to correct for the most reported disadvantage of JIF, inability to account for the skewedness of citation distributions [47,48]. Additionally, I3 and many other factors (h-index [41,49,50], hw-index [51], hg-index [36], g-index [36,52,53], D-index [54], e-index [52,62], m-quotient [36,51,56], L-index [63], R-index [53], A-index [51,53,55], AR-index [36,51,56] and M-index [51]), are metrics developed to be applicable to individual researchers and allow for comparison at the author level. Since, I3 shows substantial utility as well as corrects for several highly reported disadvantages of JIF, it shows promise as a valid alternative.…”