A multidimensional analysis of Aslib proceedings – using everything but the impact factor

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to show that the journal impact factor (IF) is not able to reflect the full impact of scholarly journals and provides an overview of alternative and complementary methods in journal evaluation.

Design/methodology/approach

Aslib Proceedings (AP) is exemplarily analyzed with a set of indicators from five dimensions of journal evaluation, i.e. journal output, content, perception and usage, citations and management to accurately reflect its various strengths and weaknesses beyond the IF.

Findings

AP has become more international in terms of authors and more diverse regarding its topics. Citation impact is generally low and, with the exception of a special issue on blogs, remains world average. However, an evaluation of downloads and Mendeley readers reveals that the journal is an important source of information for professionals and students and certain topics are frequently read but not cited.

Research limitations/implications

The study is limited to one journal.

Practical implications

An overview of various indicators and methods is provided that can be applied in the quantitative evaluation of scholarly journals (and also to articles, authors and institutions).

Originality/value

After a publication history of more than 60 years, this analysis takes stock of AP, highlighting strengths and weaknesses and developments over time. The case study provides an example and overview of the possibilities of multidimensional journal evaluation.

Citation

Haustein, S. and Larivière, V. (2014), "A multidimensional analysis of Aslib proceedings – using everything but the impact factor", Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 358-380. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-11-2013-0127