Comprehensive indicator comparisons intelligible to non-experts: The case of two SNIP versions

TL;DR

This paper introduces a framework for comparing bibliometric indicators, exemplified by contrasting two versions of the SNIP metric, to enhance understanding among non-experts by highlighting their differences, strengths, and limitations.

Contribution

It presents a novel Indicator Comparison Report framework that systematically compares bibliometric indicators, focusing on assumptions and contexts to improve interpretability for non-experts.

Findings

Comparison highlights differences and similarities of SNIP versions

Framework clarifies strengths and limitations of each indicator

Enhances non-expert understanding of bibliometric metrics

Abstract

A framework is proposed for comparing different types of bibliometric indicators, introducing the notion of an Indicator Comparison Report. It provides a comprehensive overview of the main differences and similarities of indicators. The comparison shows both the strong points and the limitations of each of the indicators at stake, rather than over-promoting one indicator and ignoring the benefits of alternative constructs. It focuses on base notions, assumptions, and application contexts, which makes it more intelligible to non-experts. As an illustration, a comparison report is presented for the original and the modified SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) indicator of journal citation impact.