Ranking forestry journals using the h-index

Abstract

An expert ranking of forestry journals was compared with journal impact factors and h-indices computed from the ISI Web of Science and internet-based data. Citations reported by Google Scholar appear to offer the most efficient way to rank all journals objectively, in a manner consistent with other indicators. This h-index exhibited a high correlation with the journal impact factor (r=0.92), but is not confined to journals selected by any particular commercial provider. A ranking of 180 forestry journals is presented, on the basis of this index.

21 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables. New table added in response to reviewer comments

References in corpus (4)

• An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output
• On the robustness of the h-index
• A case study of the Hirsch index for 26 non-prominent physicists
• Bias in the journal impact factor

Cited by in corpus (6)

• An evaluation of the Australian Research Council's journal ranking
• A Proposal to Classify Latinamerican Scientific Journals using Citation Indicators: Case Study in Colombia
• The suitability of h and g indexes for measuring the research performance of institutions. Scientometrics, 97(3), 555-570
• Assessing the accuracy of the h and g indexes for measuring researchers' productivity
• Metrics to evaluate research performance in academic institutions: A critique of ERA 2010 as applied in forestry and the indirect H2 index as a possible alternative
• Publication patterns of award-winning forest scientists and implications for the ERA journal ranking