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.
翻译：本文件是对Loet Leydesdorff和Tobias opthof(arXiv:1004.3580v2 [cs.DL])发表的文章“Scopus的每份纸张源源源标准化影响(SNIP)与基于分数计算引文的杂志影响因素”的答复,它澄清了SnIP与Elsevier的Scopus之间的关系。由于Leydesdorf和Opthof对SnIP的说明不完全,它指出了SnIP与两位作者提出的指标之间的四个关键差异,并说明了前者为何比后者更为有效。然而,点数引用的概念值得进一步探讨。本文讨论了如果试图在个人(引用)文件一级适用这一原则,会出现的困难。
相关内容
微信扫码咨询专知VIP会员