Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor

535 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart’s Law in action (2018, methodology): “Likewise, the SJR indicator [42] and simple citation distributions [43] are offered as alternatives to the impact factor.”
A network DEA quantity and quality-orientated production model: An application to Australian university research services (2016, methodology): “Recent studies using the SJR include [48], who used it as a tool for evaluating journals in the Scopus database, [49], who compared the SJR with the Thomson Scientific impact factor, and [50], who grouped the impact factor and the SJR together to examine both bibliometric and usage indicators.”
A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases (2013, unknown): “Jacso (2005) and Falagas et al. (2008) compare the weaknesses and strengths of WOS and Scopus.”
Big Macs and Eigenfactor scores: Don't let correlation coefficients fool you (2009, methodology): “al (2008) presented a similar comparison of Impact Factor and the SJR indicator (a per-article measure of prestige) [7].”
A review of theory and practice in scientometrics (2015, result): “Values for the JIF are significantly higher than for SJR. Falagas et al. (Falagas et al., 2008) also compared the SJR favourably with the JIF.”