arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1303.5870

Ranking journals: Could Google Scholar Metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago Journal Rank?

Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cozar·Alvaro Cabezas-Clavijo
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The launch of Google Scholar Metrics as a tool for assessing scientific journals may be serious competition for Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, and for Scopus powered Scimago Journal Rank. A review of these bibliometric journal evaluation products is performed. We compare their main characteristics from different approaches: coverage, indexing policies, search and visualization, bibliometric indicators, results analysis options, economic cost and differences in their ranking of journals. Despite its shortcomings, Google Scholar Metrics is a helpful tool for authors and editors in identifying core journals. As an increasingly useful tool for ranking scientific journals, it may also challenge established journals products

Explore related subjects

cs.DL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cozar, Alvaro Cabezas-Clavijo. 2013-03-23. Ranking journals: Could Google Scholar Metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago Journal Rank?. https://doi.org/10.1087/20130206

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Submission Responsibility Matters: Role-Aware Submission Quotas under Coauthorship

Author-level submission quotas are increasingly used to control growing peer-review load. Recent coauthorship-sensitive quota rules improve over fixed per-author limits by reducing the quota cost of multi-author submissions, often using harmonic authorship-credit models to prevent simple author-list padding. However, these rules conflate three distinct quantities: review burden, authorship credit, and submission responsibility. As a result, they can penalize genuine solo-authored work, treat all coauthors as equally responsible for a submission, and create bottlenecks for student-led papers when a faculty advisor appears on multiple unrelated submissions. We argue that submission quotas should be designed around the responsibility structure of a paper rather than only its number of coauthors. We formalize desiderata for quota rules, including venue-load control, padding resistance, role sensitivity, solo neutrality, and student non-blocking. We then propose a role-aware quota framework that assigns author-specific quota costs based on constrained roles such as lead author, regular coauthor, and designated advisor. The framework includes fixed, per-capita, and harmonic-style rules as special or limiting cases, while allowing venues to distinguish lead authors, corresponding authors, advisors, and peripheral contributors. We show how simple role constraints can preserve resistance to manipulation while avoiding several structural disadvantages of coauthor-symmetric quota rules. Our analysis suggests that role-aware quota mechanisms provide a more faithful and flexible foundation for managing peer-review load under modern collaborative authorship.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Enhancing RAMOSE, a Framework for Implementing REST APIs and Semantic-Actionable Outputs Over Data Sources

Scholarly infrastructures increasingly expose their data through REST APIs that follow shared specifications, such as the Scientific Knowledge Graphs - Interoperability Framework (SKG-IF), which defines a common data model, exchange format, and REST API for research information. Implementing such specifications over existing data sources, however, requires a development effort that many open infrastructures cannot afford. RAMOSE, the RESTful API Manager Over SPARQL Endpoints, is an open-source Python framework that reduces this effort by turning a declarative configuration file into a documented REST API over RDF triplestores. This article presents its second major version, which addresses nine new requirements. The new features include query orchestration across multiple SPARQL endpoints and non-RDF sources, with joins across their results; pluggable output formats and request parameters; pagination and caching; OpenAPI export; and write operations, with authentication for both API consumers and protected endpoints. A built-in module packages the format and filters that SKG-IF prescribes, letting a provider expose a compliant endpoint only through configuration. A functional comparison with nine similar tools, grounded in reproducible tests, shows that RAMOSE is the only one able to serve both RDF and non-RDF sources simultaneously within a single API operation, joining their results on arbitrary keys. Its first version served the OpenCitations REST APIs, which peaked at almost 38 million monthly requests between May 2025 and May 2026. The new version extends this deployment to the OpenCitations SKG-IF endpoint and is adopted by the GRAPHIA project to onboard data sources into its SKG-IF-based federation.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Scoring Grant Applications with Large Language Models

Purpose: Assessing grant applications is time-consuming and difficult, adding to the overall burden of academic peer review. Whilst funders are exploring whether AI can help, there is no published research into the accuracy of Large Language Models (LLMs) for scoring contemporary grants. Design/methodology/approach: This study investigates whether six open-weight LLMs (Gemma 3 1B/4B/12B/27B, DeepSeek R1 32B, Qwen 3 32B) can give useful scores for 2267 recent UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant applications, comparing them with scores from the original reviewers and funding panel members. Findings: Although the LLM scores are individually inaccurate, when averaged and converted to ranks they correlate positively with expert average scores. The best performing LLM, Gemma 3 27B (10 iterations with varied prompts), had moderate rank correlations with average reviewer scores (mean rho=0.26). Gemma 3 27B's average correlation with individual reviewers was 0.19, which is lower than the inter-reviewer mean correlation of 0.24, suggesting that it scores are slightly weaker than individual reviewer scores. Gemma 3 27B had weak rank correlations with average panel member scores (mean rho=0.17), with lower average correlations with individual panellists (mean rho=0.14), which is substantially lower than the inter-panellist correlation (mean rho=0.38). Whilst the correlations seem too weak to replace expert review at the final panel stage, LLM scores might help with the initial reviewing state, such as by helping identify the weakest proposals for fast-track desk rejections, to replace one human reviewer, or for triangulation to check for bias.

cs.DL↗