Disciplinary Differences in SCImago Source Classification: SJR Values and Quartile Rankings
Abstract
This study examines disciplinary and subject-category-specific patterns in SJR values and quartile rankings in the 2025 SCImago Journal & Country Rank. The analysis covers 32,193 SCImago source records, 27 subject areas, and 308 subject categories. Descriptive statistical methods are used to examine SJR values associated with Q1–Q4 rankings, with particular attention to Q1 sources and the Q1–Q2 boundary. The results reveal substantial within-quartile SJR heterogeneity and boundary effects: in 51.3% of the 308 categories, the difference between the minimum SJR in Q1 and the maximum SJR in Q2 is no greater than 0.010. Multiple category assignments may also result in the same source receiving different quartile rankings; consequently, Best Q may obscure less favourable positions in other categories by highlighting only the source’s highest quartile. Quartile rankings therefore provide useful information on relative position but should not be interpreted as stand-alone indicators of quality; their use requires subject-category-specific bibliometric context.
Keywords:
SCImago, SJR, quartile ranking, journal evaluation, research assessmentCitation data from Crossref
References
Bornmann, L. (2020) How can citation impact in bibliometrics be normalized? A new approach combining citing-side normalization and citation percentiles. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(4), p. 1553–1569. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00089
Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., Mutz, R. (2020) Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching. Journal of Informetrics, 14(4), Art. 101098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101098
Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment [CoARA] (2022) Agreement on reforming research assessment. Elérhető: https://www.coara.org/resources/agreement-on-reforming-research-assessment-full-text/
DORA (2012) San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Elérhető: https://sfdora.org/read/
Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008) Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal, 22(8), p. 2623–2628. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.08-107938
González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Moya-Anegón, F. (2010) A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), p. 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015) Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), p. 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Holl, A., Soós, S. (2026) A tudománymetria és az MTMT korlátairól és lehetőségeiről. Magyar Tudomány, 187(1), p. 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1556/2065.187.2026.1.14
Leydesdorff, L., Wouters, P., Bornmann, L. (2016) Professional and citizen bibliometrics: Complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—A state-of-the-art report. Scientometrics, 109, p. 2129–2150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2150-8
Mañana-Rodríguez, J. (2015) A critical review of SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Research Evaluation, 24(4), p. 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu008
Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-3714-6
SCImago. (n.d.) SCImago Journal & Country Rank: Help. Elérhető: https://www.scimagojr.com/help.php (Utolsó elérés: 2026. 07. 07.)
Soós, S. (2017) Az impaktfaktor után – mi történik a hazai tudományos kibocsátással a Scimago Journal Rank bevezetésével? Hatások az „impaktfaktoros” publikációk körében. Magyar Tudomány, 178(5), p. 583–593. https://real.mtak.hu/79694/
Waltman, L. (2016) A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), p. 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
