Elsevier’s Scopus CiteScore may be a practically more useful journal-based metric than Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Impact Factor (JIF) because it is open and transparent about the background data used to derive the metric and because it confers a metric to Scopus-indexed journals that do not carry a JIF. In this study, we wanted to assess whether the CiteScore and JIF of library and information science (LIS) journals was in any way correlated. Drawing on a sample of 212 LIS journals indexed in Scopus and carrying a CiteScore, the top quartile was compared with 43 top-ranking JIF-carrying LIS journals. The average CiteScore (3.27) of the 43 LIS journals was higher than their average JIF (2.425), indicating different citation patterns in Scopus and Web of Science, respectively. Their CiteScore and JIF showed a strong significant positive correlation ( r = 0.787; r s = 0.828). The relationship between CiteScore and JIF is valid between 42.6 and 68.6% of all 43 top-ranked LIS journals.

中文翻译：

---

一流图书馆和信息科学期刊的 CiteScore 与期刊影响因子之间的相关性

Elsevier 的 Scopus CiteScore 可能是一个实际上比 Clarivate Analytics 的期刊影响因子 (JIF) 更有用的基于期刊的指标，因为它对于用于导出指标的背景数据是公开透明的，并且因为它为 Scopus 索引的期刊提供了一个指标不要携带 JIF。在本研究中，我们想评估图书馆和信息科学 (LIS) 期刊的 CiteScore 和 JIF 是否有任何关联。利用在 Scopus 中索引并带有 CiteScore 的 212 种 LIS 期刊的样本，将前四分位数与 43 种带有 JIF 的顶级 LIS 期刊进行比较。43 种 LIS 期刊的平均 CiteScore (3.27) 高于其平均 JIF (2.425)，分别表明 Scopus 和 Web of Science 中的引用模式不同。他们的 CiteScore 和 JIF 显示出很强的显着正相关（r = 0.787；rs = 0.828）。CiteScore 和 JIF 之间的关系在所有 43 种顶级 LIS 期刊的 42.6% 和 68.6% 之间有效。