WRITING & PUBLICATION

CiteScore

Bibliometric metric launched by Elsevier in December 2016, based on Scopus data. Computes citations received in one year to documents published in the four preceding years. Open, free, and covers more journals than JIF.

Extended definition

CiteScore is a bibliometric metric launched by Elsevier on December 8, 2016, calculated from Scopus data, as a direct competitor to Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor. Unlike the JIF — which covers only journals in the Web of Science Core Collection and uses a 2-year window — CiteScore covers all Scopus-indexed journals (more than 41,000 titles), includes all citable document types, and uses a 4-year window. The 2020 methodological reformulation standardized the current formula:

CiteScoreY=∑citations in Y to documents of Y,Y−1,Y−2,Y−3∑documents published in Y,Y−1,Y−2,Y−3\text{CiteScore}_Y = \frac{\sum \text{citations in } Y \text{ to documents of } Y, Y{-}1, Y{-}2, Y{-}3}{\sum \text{documents published in } Y, Y{-}1, Y{-}2, Y{-}3}

The central advantage over JIF is transparency: CiteScore is open, free, and Elsevier publishes the calculation base for each journal. James et al. (2018) described the methodology from Elsevier’s own perspective; Teixeira da Silva and Memon (2017) offered the first independent critical analysis after launch.

When it applies

CiteScore is appropriate in within-field comparisons among Scopus journals, especially when the goal is to evaluate journals that do not carry a JIF (very common in applied sciences, humanities, and regional journals). It is also useful in institutional decisions where transparency and broad coverage are priorities, and in bibliometric studies requiring calculation reproducibility. For new journals, CiteScore Tracker is updated monthly with an estimate in construction of the annual figure.

When it does not apply

It does not apply in cross-field comparisons — citation cultures vary by discipline and make cross-field comparison statistically invalid. It does not apply as a metric of individual article quality (same limit as JIF: skewed citation distribution within any journal). It does not apply in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions — DORA (2012) and CoARA (2022) explicitly recommend abandoning single journal metrics in these decisions. It does not replace direct reading of the work; transparency of the formula does not correct the epistemological problem of evaluating research by proxy.

Applications by field

— Applied sciences: primary alternative to JIF in areas with Scopus coverage broader than WoS. — Regional and non-English journals: many have only CiteScore (not JIF), making it the only comparable metric. — Engineering and computer science: conference proceedings literature is better covered in Scopus, and CiteScore reflects this. — Applied humanities: the 4-year window matches citation timing in the field better than the JIF’s 2-year window.

Common pitfalls

The first pitfall is assuming that openness of the formula corrects the structural vices of journal metrics — it does not; CiteScore inherits the same limits as JIF (mean over a long tail, editorial gaming, absence of relation to individual quality). The second is confusing coverage with quality: many predatory journals have CiteScore. The third is using CiteScore as a direct substitute for JIF in career decisions; correlation is strong but ranking differs in specific quartiles, and the choice between one and the other can favor or disadvantage authors in particular fields. The fourth is ignoring self-citation in interpretation — variants proposed by Okagbue et al. (2019) attempt to correct, but are not part of the official metric. The fifth is treating CiteScore presence as a prestige signal; it is only a Scopus-indexing signal.

Last updated —