Jennifer Crebs - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Jennifer Crebs
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 2016
Google Scholar citation data for articles appearing in the journal, <i>Interpretation</i... more Google Scholar citation data for articles appearing in the journal, <i>Interpretation</i>, from 2013–2020. Captured using Harzing's Publish or Perish software on 7 July 2020.<br>
Google Scholar citation data for articles appearing in the journal, <i>Interpretation</i... more Google Scholar citation data for articles appearing in the journal, <i>Interpretation</i>, from 2013–2020. Captured using Harzing's Publish or Perish software on 7 July 2020.<br>
Interpretation
The last 10 years have seen a proliferation of metrics for journalssome useful, others merely cur... more The last 10 years have seen a proliferation of metrics for journalssome useful, others merely curious. All provide points of departure to explore features associated with a title. In studying metrics, the objective is to identify meaningful measures that may inform editorial strategy and, ultimately, ensure that a journal is serving its community well. As citation tracking options have expanded, SEG has participated in more projects designed to enrich scholarly metadatafrom disambiguating author identities on papers via ORCID, enriching funder metadata by compliance with CHORUS, and democratizing access to citation data with the Initiative for Open Citations (Bakamjian, 2019). As of this writing, more than 58 million bibliographic recordsincluding those from Interpretationare open to researchers via the OpenCitations Index of Crossref (COCI, 2020). More recently, SEG endorsed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (SEG, 2020), which advocates for the use of better methods to assess scholarly output. For publishers and editors, this means de-emphasizing reliance on standalone metrics, such as Journal Impact Factor or CiteScore, when evaluating journal performance. In accordance with best practice (Hicks et al., 2015), SEG also reports suites of indicators for every journal online (e.g., https://library.seg .org/page/inteio/about). To support those ends, this article is meant to survey Interpretation's current and historical performance across key indicators, as well as briefly explore related citation dynamics. Citation sources Journal metrics do not occur in a vacuum. They are derived from source data extracted from citation indexes. Likewise, not every journal is well represented across all databases, primarily due to differences in how source metadata are captured and curated. Major databases in bibliometrics research include commercial sources such as Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), as well as free databases, including Google Scholar (established 2004, with metrics added in 2012), Microsoft Academic (2016), Crossref (2017), and Dimensions (2018). The first large-scale meta-analysis of coverage across these sources recently was published, and the primary finding was that, overall, Google Scholar features the
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 2016
Google Scholar citation data for articles appearing in the journal, <i>Interpretation</i... more Google Scholar citation data for articles appearing in the journal, <i>Interpretation</i>, from 2013–2020. Captured using Harzing's Publish or Perish software on 7 July 2020.<br>
Google Scholar citation data for articles appearing in the journal, <i>Interpretation</i... more Google Scholar citation data for articles appearing in the journal, <i>Interpretation</i>, from 2013–2020. Captured using Harzing's Publish or Perish software on 7 July 2020.<br>
Interpretation
The last 10 years have seen a proliferation of metrics for journalssome useful, others merely cur... more The last 10 years have seen a proliferation of metrics for journalssome useful, others merely curious. All provide points of departure to explore features associated with a title. In studying metrics, the objective is to identify meaningful measures that may inform editorial strategy and, ultimately, ensure that a journal is serving its community well. As citation tracking options have expanded, SEG has participated in more projects designed to enrich scholarly metadatafrom disambiguating author identities on papers via ORCID, enriching funder metadata by compliance with CHORUS, and democratizing access to citation data with the Initiative for Open Citations (Bakamjian, 2019). As of this writing, more than 58 million bibliographic recordsincluding those from Interpretationare open to researchers via the OpenCitations Index of Crossref (COCI, 2020). More recently, SEG endorsed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (SEG, 2020), which advocates for the use of better methods to assess scholarly output. For publishers and editors, this means de-emphasizing reliance on standalone metrics, such as Journal Impact Factor or CiteScore, when evaluating journal performance. In accordance with best practice (Hicks et al., 2015), SEG also reports suites of indicators for every journal online (e.g., https://library.seg .org/page/inteio/about). To support those ends, this article is meant to survey Interpretation's current and historical performance across key indicators, as well as briefly explore related citation dynamics. Citation sources Journal metrics do not occur in a vacuum. They are derived from source data extracted from citation indexes. Likewise, not every journal is well represented across all databases, primarily due to differences in how source metadata are captured and curated. Major databases in bibliometrics research include commercial sources such as Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), as well as free databases, including Google Scholar (established 2004, with metrics added in 2012), Microsoft Academic (2016), Crossref (2017), and Dimensions (2018). The first large-scale meta-analysis of coverage across these sources recently was published, and the primary finding was that, overall, Google Scholar features the
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery