Utjecaj (citiranost) pojedinog rada / autora / ustanove
broj radova
broj citata
H-index
Ugled i utjecaj časopisa
Provjera indeksiranosti u relevantnim bazama podataka
Hrvatski časopisi u međunarodnim bibliografskim bazama i popisima
Lokalni pretraživač za utvrđivanje referiranosti
Tablica s popisom baza relevantnih za društvene znanosti (prema pravilniku) s linkovima
Metrički pokazatelji o časopisima
Izvori:
http://www.journalmetrics.com/
Faktor odjeka (Impact Factor, IF)
An Impact Factor of two means an average of two citations per article/review published in that journal.
SJR, or SCImago Journal Rank, is a measure of the scientific prestige of scholarly sources.
SJR assigns relative scores to all of the sources in a citation network. Its methodology is inspired by the Google PageRank algorithm, in that not all citations are equal. A source transfers its own 'prestige', or status, to another source through the act of citing it. A citation from a source with a relatively high SJR is worth more than a citation from a source with a lower SJR.
SJR is based on a random-walk model. It calculates the percentage of time a researcher would spend reading content from each journal if they randomly followed references from one article to another. An SJR of two means that two percent of the researcher’s time is spent reading this particular journal.
Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)
SNIP, or Source-Normalized Impact per Paper, measures a source’s contextual citation impact. It takes into account characteristics of the source's subject field, especially the frequency at which authors cite other papers in their reference lists, the speed at which citation impact matures, and the extent to which the database used in the assessment covers the field’s literature. SNIP is the ratio of a source's average citation count per paper, and the ‘citation potential’ of its subject field. It aims to allow direct comparison of sources in different subject fields.
A SNIP value that is higher than one means that the journal has an above average SNIP for its field. A SNIP that is lower than one means that the journal has a below average SNIP for its field. If SNIP = 1, the journal is absolutely average for its field.
Eigenfactor Score (EF)
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/24/googles-new-scholar-metrics-have-potential-but-also-prove-problematic/
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/24/universal-citation-paper-lacks-universality/
http://www.library.tufts.edu/hsl/subjectguides/Authormetrics.html
Article-Level Metrics | Peter Binfield | April 12, 2012
Post-Publication Peer Review: What Value Do Usage-Based Metrics Offer?
Is Google Scholar Useful for Bibliometrics? A Webometric Analysis
Open Access Will Open New Ways to Measure Scientific Output
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/library/research/bibliometrics/
http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/erih-european-reference-index-for-the-humanities.html
--
http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2012-01/
http://www.researchtrends.com/issue22-march-2011/the-research-excellence-framework-revisiting-the-rae-2/
http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/ausbiblioconference/Charles_OPPENHEIM-Keynote.pdf
http://www.tonybates.ca/2009/03/23/meaning-and-metrics-assessment-in-the-humanities/
http://www.ria.ie/getmedia/10a6457b-2fe6-4605-9e93-3def083ff7c5/KPI-Humanities-Barkhoff-presentation-March-09.pdf.aspx
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/01/21/metrics-for-the-humanitie/
Isobel Stark and Michael Whitton - Southampton - Google Scholar: Can it be used for bibliometrics?
Pros:
Easy to use and free. Wide range of articles e.g. book chapters and conference proceedings so it's especially useful for law, humanities, social sciences. Metrics tend to be a higher number because more material is indexed but also there is some duplication.
Cons:
Data can be poor quality and it is not transparent where the data comes from; there's a lack of de-dupe; there are big gaps in subject coverage; the indexing (esp. subject indexing) is naff and this makes it difficult to narrow to a particular authors work; citation matching can be flaky (relies on algorithms to do this).
some services that are good with scholar: Quadsearch; Scholar H-index calculator (FF add-on); Scholarometer. Publisher or perish.
useful references to the literature on the subject:
Bar-Illan (2008) - Israeli highly cited researchers - differences between Wos and scopus.
Jasco (2008) - problems with the data, issues around transparency.
you need to know the work well as Scholar doesn't deduplicate and doesn't have institutional affiliation.
