Comparison among Selected Journal Quality indicators of Public Health Journals

Abstract

Purpose– The research work undertaken herein analysed research quality indicators and parameters of significance towards assessment of scientific journals published in the domain of public health. Selected research appraisal instruments highlighted comparisons between indicators and disparities amid different values. Likewise, research apprehended performance features of highly cited journals and displayed level and sort off correlations within
tested indicators to enable predicting journals informational values. Bibliometric indicators and Scientometrics tools used to assess journals quality ranking benefit from complex algorithms and reputable databases. The main objective of this research work is to judge currently employed (2015) scientific journal quality indices with stress on the widely used four
indicators, namely: Journal Impact Factor (JIF), Eigenfactor score (ES), Scimago Journal Rank indicator (SJR) and H5. Particular public health journals were chosen from their category within Web of Science. JIFs and ESs are obtained from Journal Citation Report and the SJR from the Scimago Journal and country rank website.
Design/Methodology/approach– The 260 selected public health journals were recorded but in discussion area 50 journals data is displayed only and their associated information retrieved from their original sites in relating associated JIF, SJR, ES and H5-indexquality indexes for ranking and judging their quality. All journals were considered to selected indices.
Similarly, correlations between indicators were depicted using Pearson’s and Spearman’s statistical correlations, calculated using SPSS software. All journals surveyed have the leading standard of quality as being indexed in prominent and esteemed databases such as: Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus.
Findings–Examined JIFs ranged between 14.722 and 0.13; ES varied between 0.08229 and 0.00007, while JSR oscillated between 7.227 and 0.129 and H5-index swung between 92 and 4. A high Pearson’s (r) statistical correlation occurred between JIF and both SJR and H5 indicators for journals in this category (r = 0.898 and r = 0.8577, respectively), while being
rather lower between JIF and ES values (r = 0.544). With respect to Spearman’s rho statistical correlation, a high correlation appeared between JIF and each of SJR and ES indicators for journals in Public health (coefficient value of 0.811 and 0.700, respectively) and a nearly similar correlation between JIF and H5 rankings (coefficient value = 0.642).
Practical implications: The study is highly applicable in understanding the importance and application of various
indices like JIF, SJR, ES and H5-index to determine the quality of Journals. Further, it provides an insight towards determining the correlations between the indicators in determining the global ranking of public health journals.
Research Type: Research Paper