Determining Official Scopus Journal Quartile: Why SCImago SJR Is Not Appropriate
Research Article
How to Cite
Mzhelsky A.A. Determining Official Scopus Journal Quartile: Why SCImago SJR Is Not Appropriate. Science Management: Theory and Practice. 2023. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 31-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2023.5.3.3
Abstract
There are several metrics for calculating journal quartiles across different platforms in science. The official metric for determining journal quartiles in the Web of Science database is Impact Factor, and for Scopus it is CiteScore. The quartiles for the journals on the SCImago platform are formed based on the SJR metric (which is calculated with a different methodology than CiteScore). Moreover, the data used on SCImago and Scopus are slightly different. SCImago also assigns quartiles even to journals excluded from Scopus. For this reason,SCImago quartiles are not appropriate for substituting official Scopus quartiles. To obtain the correct Scopus values anyone should use this database, which even in the free Preview version provides such opportunity.
Keywords:
SCImago, SJR, Scopus, journal quartile, misuse, science policy, bibliometrics
References
1. Gureev, V. N. and Mazov, N. A. (2023). Increased Role of Open Bibliographic Data in the Context of Restricted Access to Proprietary Information Systems. Science Management: Theory and Practice. Vol. 5, no. 2. P. 49–76. DOI 10.19181/smtp.2023.5.2.4 (In Russ.).
2. Tsvetkova, V. A. and Mokhnacheva, Y. V. (2023). Russian Scientific Journals in the Structure of Research Process Assessments. Science Management: Theory and Practice. Vol. 5, no. 2. P. 77–88. DOI 10.19181/smtp.2023.5.2.5 (In Russ.).
3. Mokhnacheva, Yu. V. and Kalashnikova, G. V. (2023). Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo s metodicheskimi rekomendatsiyami po ispol’zovaniyu besplatnykh servisov Web of Science i Scopus [A practical guide with methodological recommendations on the use of free Web of Science and Scopus services]. Moscow: Library for Natural Science RAS. 32 p. (In Russ.).
4. Mzhelsky, A. A. (2022). Marginalizing Russian science. What to expect for Russian publishers and authors. Science Management: Theory and Practice. Vol. 4, no. 3. P. 35–43. DOI 10.19181/smtp.2022.4.3.3. (In Russ.).
5. Оnline guide to scientometry. HSE. URL: https://sciguide.hse.ru/sources/ (accessed: 04.09.2023). (In Russ.).
6. Akoev, M. A., Markusova, V. A., Moskaleva, O. V. and Pislyakov, V. V. (2021). Handbook for Scientometrics: Science and Technology Development Indicators. Ed. by M. A. Akoev. Ekaterinburg: Izdatelstvo Uralskogo universiteta. 358 p. (In Russ.).
7. Guerrero-Bote V. P. and Moya-Anegón F. (2012). A Further Step Forward in Measuring Journals’ Scientific Prestige: The SJR2 Indicator. Journal of Informetrics.
8. Mzhelsky A. A. (2022). Data and reproducibility. Interpretation of international guidelines and journals’ best policies and practices. Science Editor and Publisher. Т. 7, № 2. Р. 143–165. DOI 10.24069/SEP-22-53 (In Russ.).
9. Gorbachev, V. I., Netesin, E. S., Itygilov, M. Yu. [et al.] (2022). Legal regulations of errors and complications in anesthesiology and intensive care in Russian Federation: a review. Annals of Critical Care. No. 4. P. 83–100. DOI 10.21320/1818-474X-2022-4-83-100. (In Russ.).
10. Gorbachev, V. I., Netesin, E. S., Kozlov, A. I. [et al.] (2022). Analytical review on criminal cases against doctors anesthesiologists-reanimatologists for the last five years. Annals of Critical Care. No. 1. P. 19–24. DOI 10.21320/1818-474X-2020-1-19-24. (In Russ.).
2. Tsvetkova, V. A. and Mokhnacheva, Y. V. (2023). Russian Scientific Journals in the Structure of Research Process Assessments. Science Management: Theory and Practice. Vol. 5, no. 2. P. 77–88. DOI 10.19181/smtp.2023.5.2.5 (In Russ.).
3. Mokhnacheva, Yu. V. and Kalashnikova, G. V. (2023). Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo s metodicheskimi rekomendatsiyami po ispol’zovaniyu besplatnykh servisov Web of Science i Scopus [A practical guide with methodological recommendations on the use of free Web of Science and Scopus services]. Moscow: Library for Natural Science RAS. 32 p. (In Russ.).
4. Mzhelsky, A. A. (2022). Marginalizing Russian science. What to expect for Russian publishers and authors. Science Management: Theory and Practice. Vol. 4, no. 3. P. 35–43. DOI 10.19181/smtp.2022.4.3.3. (In Russ.).
5. Оnline guide to scientometry. HSE. URL: https://sciguide.hse.ru/sources/ (accessed: 04.09.2023). (In Russ.).
6. Akoev, M. A., Markusova, V. A., Moskaleva, O. V. and Pislyakov, V. V. (2021). Handbook for Scientometrics: Science and Technology Development Indicators. Ed. by M. A. Akoev. Ekaterinburg: Izdatelstvo Uralskogo universiteta. 358 p. (In Russ.).
7. Guerrero-Bote V. P. and Moya-Anegón F. (2012). A Further Step Forward in Measuring Journals’ Scientific Prestige: The SJR2 Indicator. Journal of Informetrics.
8. Mzhelsky A. A. (2022). Data and reproducibility. Interpretation of international guidelines and journals’ best policies and practices. Science Editor and Publisher. Т. 7, № 2. Р. 143–165. DOI 10.24069/SEP-22-53 (In Russ.).
9. Gorbachev, V. I., Netesin, E. S., Itygilov, M. Yu. [et al.] (2022). Legal regulations of errors and complications in anesthesiology and intensive care in Russian Federation: a review. Annals of Critical Care. No. 4. P. 83–100. DOI 10.21320/1818-474X-2022-4-83-100. (In Russ.).
10. Gorbachev, V. I., Netesin, E. S., Kozlov, A. I. [et al.] (2022). Analytical review on criminal cases against doctors anesthesiologists-reanimatologists for the last five years. Annals of Critical Care. No. 1. P. 19–24. DOI 10.21320/1818-474X-2020-1-19-24. (In Russ.).
Article
Received: 24.05.2023
Accepted: 25.09.2023
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
APA
Mzhelsky, A. A. (2023). Determining Official Scopus Journal Quartile: Why SCImago SJR Is Not Appropriate. Science Management: Theory and Practice, 5(3), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2023.5.3.3
Section
Discussion
