Abstract
Very little research has been conducted to investigate new journal impact factors that have emerged to rank open access (OA) journals as an alternative to the Journal Citation Reports and SCImago Journal & Country Rank. The few existing studies have found these metrics misleading. Our study examined the criteria used by these impact factors to see whether they are fake metrics or represent early efforts for developing new standards to advance journal evaluations. We analysed as many available alternative impact factors as possible and discovered that their methodologies were either unreproducible or based on unreliable or opaque criteria. We hope this study will help shed light on the ecosystem of OA publishing and identify both possibly unprofessional behaviours and potential improvements in bibliometric algorithms.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
