Abstract:This paper explores a new indicator of journal citation impact, denoted as source normalized impact per paper (SNIP). It measures a journal's contextual citation impact, taking into account characteristics of its properly defined subject field, especially the frequency at which authors cite other papers in their reference lists, the rapidity of maturing of citation impact, and the extent to which a database used for the assessment covers the field's literature. It further develops Eugene Garfield's notions of a field's ‘citation potential’ defined as the average length of references lists in a field and determining the probability of being cited, and the need in fair performance assessments to correct for differences between subject fields. A journal's subject field is defined as the set of papers citing that journal. SNIP is defined as the ratio of the journal's citation count per paper and the citation potential in its subject field. It aims to allow direct comparison of sources in different subject fields. Citation potential is shown to vary not only between journal subject categories – groupings of journals sharing a research field – or disciplines (e.g., journals in mathematics, engineering and social sciences tend to have lower values than titles in life sciences), but also between journals within the same subject category. For instance, basic journals tend to show higher citation potentials than applied or clinical journals, and journals covering emerging topics higher than periodicals in classical subjects or more general journals. SNIP corrects for such differences. Its strengths and limitations are critically discussed, and suggestions are made for further research. All empirical results are derived from Elsevier's Scopus.

An indicator of journal impact that is based on calculating a journal's percentage of highly cited publications

An indicator of the impact of journals based on the percentage of their highly cited publications

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

I3: A Non-Parametric Alternative to the Journal Impact Factor.

An Integrated Impact Indicator: A new definition of 'Impact' with policy relevance

A field- and time-normalized Bayesian approach to measuring the impact of a publication

Alternatives to the Journal Impact Factor: I3 and the Top-10% (or Top-25%?) of the Most-Highly Cited Papers

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

How Can Journal Impact Factors Be Normalized Across Fields of Science? an Assessment in Terms of Percentile Ranks and Fractional Counts

Model-based evaluation of scientific impact indicators

Is There a Need for a New Journal Metric? Correlations between Jcr Impact Factor Metrics and the Journal Citation Indicator - Jci

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

Impact maturity times and citation time windows: The 2-year maximum journal impact factor

Providing impact: The distribution of JCR journals according to references they contribute to the 2-year and 5-year journal impact factors

How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators

The Integrated Impact Indicator Revisited (I3*): a Non-Parametric Alternative to the Journal Impact Factor

Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals

Field-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of Rescaling versus Fractionally Counted IFs

A Comparison among Citation-Based Journal Indicators and Their Relative Changes with Time

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Turning the tables in citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents