Are link-based and citation-based journal metrics correlated? An Open Access megapublisher case study

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Quantitative Science Studies Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1162/qss_a_00199

E. Orduña-Malea, Isidro F. Aguillo

{"title":"Are link-based and citation-based journal metrics correlated? An Open Access megapublisher case study","authors":"E. Orduña-Malea, Isidro F. Aguillo","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The current value of link counts as supplementary measures of the formal quality and impact of journals is analyzed, considering an open access megapublisher (MDPI) as a case study. We analyzed 352 journals through 21 citation-based and link-based journal-level indicators, using Scopus (523,935 publications) and Majestic (567,900 links) as data sources. Given the statistically significant strong positive Spearman correlations achieved, it is concluded that link-based indicators mainly reflect the quality (indexed in Scopus), size (publication output), and impact (citations received) of MDPI’s journals. In addition, link data are significantly greater for those MDPI journals covering many subjects (generalist journals). However, nonstatistically significant differences are found between subject categories, which can be partially attributed to the “series title profile” effect of MDPI. Further research is necessary to test whether link-based indicators can be used as informative measures of journals’ current research impact beyond the specific characteristics of MDPI.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"793-814"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00199","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract The current value of link counts as supplementary measures of the formal quality and impact of journals is analyzed, considering an open access megapublisher (MDPI) as a case study. We analyzed 352 journals through 21 citation-based and link-based journal-level indicators, using Scopus (523,935 publications) and Majestic (567,900 links) as data sources. Given the statistically significant strong positive Spearman correlations achieved, it is concluded that link-based indicators mainly reflect the quality (indexed in Scopus), size (publication output), and impact (citations received) of MDPI’s journals. In addition, link data are significantly greater for those MDPI journals covering many subjects (generalist journals). However, nonstatistically significant differences are found between subject categories, which can be partially attributed to the “series title profile” effect of MDPI. Further research is necessary to test whether link-based indicators can be used as informative measures of journals’ current research impact beyond the specific characteristics of MDPI.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

基于链接和基于引用的期刊指标是否相关?一个开放获取的大型出版商案例研究

摘要以一家开放获取的大型出版商（MDPI）为例，分析了作为衡量期刊形式质量和影响力的补充指标的链接数的现值。我们使用Scopus（523935篇出版物）和Majestic（567900个链接）作为数据源，通过21个基于引用和基于链接的期刊水平指标分析了352篇期刊。鉴于获得了具有统计学意义的强正Spearman相关性，可以得出结论，基于链接的指标主要反映了MDPI期刊的质量（以Scopus为索引）、规模（出版物产出）和影响力（收到的引文）。此外，那些涵盖许多学科的MDPI期刊（多面手期刊）的链接数据要高得多。然而，受试者类别之间存在非统计显著差异，这可以部分归因于MDPI的“系列标题档案”效应。有必要进行进一步的研究，以检验基于链接的指标是否可以作为衡量期刊当前研究影响的信息指标，而不仅仅是MDPI的具体特征。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊