The use of the Percentage Rank Position index for comparative evaluation of journals

In the present paper the Percentage Rank Position (PRP) index concluding from the principle of Similar Distribution of Information Impact in different fields of science (Vinkler, 2013), is suggested to assess journals in different research fields comparatively. The publications in the journals dedicated to a field are ranked by citation frequency, and the PRP-index of the papers in the elite set of the field is calculated. The PRP-index relates the citation rank number of the paper to the total number of papers in the corresponding set. The sum of the PRP-index of the elite papers in a journal, PRP(j,F) may represent the eminence of the journal in the field. The non-parametric and non-dimensional PRP(j,F) index of journals is believed to be comparable across fields.

[1]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Do Scientific Advancements Lean on the Shoulders of Giants? A Bibliometric Investigation of the Ortega Hypothesis , 2010, PloS one.

[2]  Peter Vinkler.  The Garfield impact factor, one of the fundamental indicators in scientometrics , 2012, Scientometrics.

[3]  Marek Kosmulski,et al.  Successful papers: A new idea in evaluation of scientific output , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[4]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  The ź-index , 2009 .

[5]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  From P100 to P100_: Conception and improvement of a new citation-rank approach in bibliometrics , 2013, 1307.0667.

[6]  Péter Vinkler,et al.  The case of scientometricians with the "absolute relative" impact indicator , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[7]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Application of the distribution of citations among publications in scientometric evaluations , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  L. Bornmann,et al.  The Usefulness of Peer Review for Selecting Manuscripts for Publication: A Utility Analysis Taking as an Example a High-Impact Journal , 2010, PloS one.

[9]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Integrated Impact Indicators (I3) compared with Impact Factors (IFs): An alternative research design with policy implications , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[10]  Marek Kosmulski.  Family-tree of bibliometric indices , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[11]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Comparative rank assessment of journal articles , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[12]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[13]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  From P100 to P100': A new citation‐rank approach , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[14]  E. Garfield.  Significant journals of science , 1976, Nature.

[15]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) paper , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[16]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[17]  L. Egghe,et al.  Theory and practise of the g-index , 2006, Scientometrics.

[18]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  The Evaluation of Research by Scientometric Indicators , 2010 .

[19]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  The πv-index: a new indicator to characterize the impact of journals , 2010, Scientometrics.

[20]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers , 2012, Scientometrics.

[21]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Turning the tables in citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents by using an “Integrated Impact Indicator” (I3) , 2011 .

[22]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Using ‘core documents’ for the representation of clusters and topics , 2011, Scientometrics.

[23]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  An Integrated Impact Indicator (I3): A New Definition of "Impact" with Policy Relevance , 2012, ArXiv.