| Abstract: | Recent years have seen an increased reliance on the Thomson Reuters Journal Impact Factor (JIF) as a method of evaluating the prestige of academic journals. While the JIF has existed for many years, the increased use of technology to track publications and citations has resulted in other methods of measuring prestige, including Google Scholar’s H-index and Elsevier’s Cite Score. It is unclear, however, whether these “objective” methods of evaluation are correlated with the journals’ reputations among scholars. This paper compares objective and subjective evaluations of journals in criminal justice and criminology among a sample of ASC and ACJS members. Our findings indicate that subjective evaluations of experts are more strongly correlated with Google’s H-Index and Elsevier’s Cite Score than with impact factors. We conclude that for criminal justice and criminology scholars, Thomson Reuters’ JIF may not be the best measure of quality. |
