Abstract
In December 2016, Elsevier launched CiteScore, a new indicator of a journal´s impact based on similar principles as the journal impact factor but improving some issues that had been raised about the latter. The inclusion of all document types, an extension on the period of time for its calculation and the access of CiteScore free of charge made this indicator more transparent and comprehensive. However, many sources display “N/A” instead of a CiteScore value. Since no explanation has been provided by Scopus regarding the significance of this abbreviation form, all the sources categorized by Scopus under the sub-subject category “Library and Information Science” were examined. This study shows that 78 sources that displayed the abbreviation form included sources that had been discontinued, others that had a name change, some that had recently been indexed by Scopus and one particular journal that has been covered by Scopus since 2000 that unexplainably has not been assigned a CiteScore. Certainly, explaining the complex use of this abbreviation form would improve the clarity of CiteScore. In fact, it would be advisable to use different abbreviation forms to denote the reasons why any given indexed journal has not been assigned a CiteScore value.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Campanario, J. M. (2011). Empirical study of journal impact factors obtained using the classical two-year citation window versus a five-year citation window. Scientometrics,87(1), 189–204.
Elsevier (2016) CiteScore: a new metric to help you track journal performance and make decisions, Retrieved November 18, 2019 https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/journal-metrics/citescore-a-new-metric-to-help-you-choose-the-right-journal.
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science,122, 108–111.
James, C., Colledge, L., Meester, W., Azoulay, N., & Plume, A. (2019). CiteScore metrics: Creating journal metrics from the Scopus citation index. Learned Publishing,32, 367–374.
Krauskopf, E. (2011). The unforeseen impact of meeting abstract on cancer research. Annals of Oncology,22(10), 2342.
Krauskopf, E. (2013). Deceiving the research community through the manipulation of the impact factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(11), 2403.
Krauskopf, E. (2018). An analysis of discontinued journals by Scopus. Scientometrics,116(3), 1805–1815.
Lariviere, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018) The journal impact factor: A brief history, critique and discussion of adverse effects. In Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 1–33). Retrieved from November 14, 2019 https://arxiv.org/1801.08992.pdf.
Martin, B. R. (2016). Editors’ JIF-boosting stratagems—Which are appropriate, and which are not? Research Policy,45, 1–7.
Rossner, M., Van Epps, H., & Hill, E. (2007). Show me the data. Journal of Cell Biology,179(6), 1091–1092.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Memon, A. R. (2017). CiteScore: A cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric? Scientometrics,111(1), 553–556.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krauskopf, E. Sources without a CiteScore value: more clarity is required. Scientometrics 122, 1801–1812 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03350-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03350-7