The Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact

Computer Science – Digital Libraries

Scientific paper

Rate now

  [ 0.00 ] – not rated yet Voters 0   Comments 0

Details

Scientific paper

This paper is a reply to the article "Scopus's Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) versus a Journal Impact Factor based on Fractional Counting of Citations", published by Loet Leydesdorff and Tobias Opthof (arXiv:1004.3580v2 [cs.DL]). It clarifies the relationship between SNIP and Elsevier's Scopus. Since Leydesdorff and Opthof's description of SNIP is not complete, it indicates four key differences between SNIP and the indicator proposed by the two authors, and argues why the former is more valid than the latter. Nevertheless, the idea of fractional citation counting deserves further exploration. The paper discusses difficulties that arise if one attempts to apply this principle at the level of individual (citing) papers.

No associations

LandOfFree

Say what you really think

Search LandOfFree.com for scientists and scientific papers. Rate them and share your experience with other people.

Rating

The Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with The Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and The Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

     

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-606904

  Search
All data on this website is collected from public sources. Our data reflects the most accurate information available at the time of publication.