Abstract:Defining and measuring internationality as a function of influence diffusion of scientific journals is an open problem. There exists no metric to rank journals based on the extent or scale of internationality. Measuring internationality is qualitative, vague, open to interpretation and is limited by vested interests. With the tremendous increase in the number of journals in various fields and the unflinching desire of academics across the globe to publish in “international” journals, it has become an absolute necessity to evaluate, rank and categorize journals based on internationality. Authors, in the current work have defined internationality as a measure of influence that transcends across geographic boundaries. There are concerns raised by the authors about unethical practices reflected in the process of journal publication whereby scholarly influence of a select few are artificially boosted, primarily by resorting to editorial maneuvers. To counter the impact of such tactics, authors have come up with a new method that defines and measures internationality by eliminating such local effects when computing the influence of journals. A new metric, Non-Local Influence Quotient is proposed as one such parameter for internationality computation along with another novel metric, Other-Citation Quotient as the complement of the ratio of self-citation and total citation. In addition, SNIP and international collaboration ratio are used as two other parameters. As these journal parameters are not readily available in one place, algorithms to scrape these metrics are written and documented as a part of the current manuscript. Cobb–Douglas production function is utilized as a model to compute Journal Internationality Modeling Index. Current work elucidates the metric acquisition algorithms while delivering arguments in favor of the suitability of the proposed model. Acquired data is corroborated by different supervised learning techniques. As part of future work, the authors present a bigger picture, Reputation and Global Influence Score, that will be computed to facilitate the formation of clusters of journals of high, moderate and low internationality.

Scopus' SNIP Indicator

The Revised SNIP Indicator of Elsevier's Scopus

The Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact

Scopus' SNIP Indicator: Reply to Moed

Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations

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

Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals

Remaining Problems with the "new Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS.

ScientoBASE: a framework and model for computing scholastic indicators of non-local influence of journals via native data acquisition algorithms

A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators

Revisiting Relative Indicators and Provisional Truths.

The Citation-Based Indicator and Combined Impact Indicator-New Options for Measuring Impact

A Comment to the Paper by Waltman Et Al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011

How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox?

Normalization at the Field Level: Fractional Counting of Citations

A scientists' view of scientometrics: Not everything that counts can be counted

The Role of Positive and Negative Citations in Scientific Evaluation

Sources without a CiteScore value: more clarity is required

Citation Analysis Cannot Legitimate the Strategic Selection of Excellence

Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator

Normalization of zero-inflated data: An empirical analysis of a new indicator family