Talk:Journal of Robotic Surgery

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Deprodding

I am deprodding this article, as the journal is indexed in Scopus (sourcerecord ID=6400153172 in the referenced excel file) and has an impact factor. By WP:NJournals note #1, this indicates notability of the journal. --Mark viking (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The home page link went to the wrong page, so I didn't see the services that index this journal here. I tried to find this page before, but was unable to do so. At the same time, it does not appear to have an impact factor because there is no Thomson Reuters lisiting. Please see the Web of Science - Master Journal List - List of Journals (alphabetized) here and it can be seen this journal is probably not listed on the Web of Science. Also, the link that you provided shows that this journal i slisted in Scopus. Additionally, I think it makes the cut with the indexing services listed on the [corrected http://www.springer.com/medicine/surgery/journal/11701 home page]. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, I extracted the impact factor from the record for the journal in the excel file. I could be misreading the 2011 SNIP2 as an impact factor. This page says Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) measures contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field. --Mark viking (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's something that comes close to the IF, but will likely be ifnlated because Scopus includes many more journals (and is much less selective) than the Science Citation Index, used to calculate the generally-accepted impact factor. --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I've been thinking of 'impact factor' as a class of similar journal metrics, but will stick to the canonical Science Citation Index version in the future. --Mark viking (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have to do that, because otherwise we'll get a bunch of statistics that are incomparable. Also, there must be a reason why Scopus doesn't call their statistic an "impact factor" (could be that it's a trademark). --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]