Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 96 - 122
Artículo original. Revista multidisciplinaria investigación Contemporánea.
Vol. 3 - No. 1, pp. 96 - 122. Enero-junio, 2025. e-ISSN: 2960-8015
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology
Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility
Evaluación Bibliométrica de Revistas de Psicología en
Scimago: Impacto y Visibilidad Cientíca
Información del artículo:
Recibido: 25-04-2024
Aceptado: 04-09-2024
Publicado: 21-10-2024
Nota del editor:
REDLIC se mantiene neutral con respecto a
reclamos jurisdiccionales en mensajes publi-
cados y aliaciones institucionales.
Editorial:
Red Editorial Latinoamericana de Investigación
Contemporánea (REDLIC) www.editorialredlic.com
Fuentes de nanciamiento:
La investigación fue realizada con recursos propios.
Conictos de interés:
No presentan conicto de intereses.
Este texto está protegido por una licencia Creative Commons 4.0.
Usted es libre para Compartir —copiar y redistribuir el material en cual-
quier medio o formato— y Adaptar el documento —remezclar, transformar
y crear a partir del material— para cualquier propósito, incluso para nes
comerciales, siempre que cumpla la condición de:
Atribución: Usted debe dar crédito a la obra original de manera adecuada,
proporcionar un enlace a la licencia, e indicar si se han realizado cambios.
Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugie-
ra que tiene el apoyo del licenciante o lo recibe por el uso que hace de la obra.
1 Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; aramirezc1@ups.edu.ec. Cuenca, Ecuador.
2 Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; jquito@ups.edu.ec . Ciudad, País.
3 Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; lcanizares@ups.edu.ec . Cuenca, Ecuador.
4 Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; pmunoza@ups.edu.ec . Cuenca, Ecuador.
5 Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; aloja@ups.edu.ec. Cuenca, Ecuador.
Andrés Ramírez 1*, Vanessa Quito 2, Lorena Cañizares 3,
Pedro Muñoz 4, Ana Loja 5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Cómo citar:
Ramírez , A., Quito, V., Cañizares, L. ., Muñoz, P. ., & Loja , A. . (2024). Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Jour-
nals in Scimago: Impact and Scientic Visibility. Revista Multidisciplinaria Investigación Contemporánea, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 97 - 122
Resumen
Introduction: This study aims to analyze psychology journals indexed in the 2023
Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) to understand their impact and scientic visibility.
Methodology: A descriptive and analytical approach was employed based on secon-
dary data collected from the SJR database. The main metrics considered include the
SJR index, quartile ranking, and impact factor. Dynamic tables, visualizations, and
advanced statistical analyses such as correlations were used for the analysis. Results:
The results indicate a growing diversication in the eld of psychology, with a notable
increase in interdisciplinary and open-access journals. While high-impact journals
remain dominant, there is signicant growth in emerging journals with rising SJR
indices. The internationalization of psychology research is evident, with broader
global representation. A strong correlation between citation rates and academic im-
pact highlights the importance of visibility and accessibility. Conclusion: The study
provides a comprehensive view of the editorial landscape in psychology and suggests
future research directions, such as evaluating the impact of emerging journals and
tracking the evolution of trends in international publications.
Keywords: psychology, bibliometrics, evaluation
Abstract
Introducción: Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar las revistas indexadas en el
campo de la psicología, según el Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) 2023, para comprender
su impacto y visibilidad cientíca.Metodología: Se empleó un enfoque descriptivo y
analítico basado en la recopilación de datos secundarios de la base SJR. Las principales
métricas consideradas incluyen el índice SJR, ranking de cuartil y factor de impacto.
Para el análisis, se utilizaron tablas dinámicas, grácos de visualización y análisis
estadísticos avanzados, como correlaciones. Resultados: Los resultados indican una
creciente diversicación en el ámbito de la psicología, con un notable aumento de
revistas interdisciplinarias y de acceso abierto. Aunque las revistas con alto impacto
continúan siendo preeminentes, se observa un crecimiento signicativo en el nú-
mero de revistas emergentes con índices SJR en ascenso. La internacionalización de
la investigación en psicología es evidente, con una mayor representación global. Se
destaca una fuerte correlación entre las tasas de citación y el impacto académico, lo
que resalta la importancia de la visibilidad y la accesibilidad. Conclusión: El estudio
proporciona una visión integral del panorama editorial en psicología y proponer fu-
turas líneas de investigación, como la evaluación del impacto de revistas emergentes
y la evolución de tendencias en publicaciones internacionales.
Palabras clave: psicología, bibliometría, evaluación
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 98 - 122
1. Introduction
The landscape of scientic research is evolving rapidly, with increasing emphasis
on understanding and quantifying the impact of scholarly work (Diaz et al., 2021;
Lewis, 2021). In this context, the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) and the H-index have
emerged as prominent metrics for evaluating scientic productivity and impact
(Banasik-Jemielniak et al., 2022). The SJR, which reects the average number of
citations received per document published in a journal, weighted by the prestige
of the citing journals, provides a nuanced view of journal inuence (Adair &
Vohra, 2003). It accounts for both the quantity and quality of citations, offering a
more sophisticated measure of a journal’s impact compared to traditional citation
counts. Meanwhile, the H-index, developed by physicist Jorge Hirsch, combines
productivity (the number of publications) and impact (the number of citations)
into a single metric, aiming to capture a researcher’s overall contribution to their
eld (Ball, 2002).
Despite their widespread use, these metrics have inherent limitations. The
SJR, while incorporating citation quality, may still be inuenced by citation
practices that vary across disciplines and publication types (Tortosa-Pérez et
al., 2020). For example, certain elds may exhibit higher citation rates due to
their nature or audience, which can skew comparisons between journals from
different disciplines (Badenes-Sastre & Expósito, 2021). Additionally, the H-index
may favor researchers with a large number of publications and high citations over
those with fewer, potentially groundbreaking works, thus overlooking signicant
but less frequently cited contributions.
Moreover, both the SJR and H-index have been critiqued for their potential
to reinforce existing biases in the academic publishing world (Carey et al., 2023).
For instance, journals and researchers that are already well-established may
benet disproportionately from these metrics, perpetuating a cycle where
inuential work receives more recognition simply due to its prior acclaim.
This can undermine efforts to highlight emerging voices and interdisciplinary
research that do not t neatly into traditional categories (Yang & Shao, 2024).
In light of these challenges, it is essential to explore how the SJR and H-index
align with contemporary research evaluation goals and to consider alternative
or supplementary metrics that might offer a more comprehensive assessment
(Kalita et al., 2018; Roldan-Valadez et al., 2019). The current study aims to critically
assess the effectiveness of the SJR and H-index in capturing the full spectrum of
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 99 - 122
research productivity and impact. By investigating their strengths and limitations,
this research seeks to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of scientic
evaluation (Liu & Yang, 2024).
We will explore how these metrics reect the complexity of modern research,
including the increasing prominence of interdisciplinary studies and the varying
citation practices across elds (Mejia et al., 2021). Additionally, the study will
consider how socio-economic and institutional factors inuence research output
and impact, potentially affecting the validity of these metrics (Yang & Shao, 2024).
By proposing an integrated evaluation framework that balances quantitative
data with qualitative insights, the research aims to offer a more holistic view of
scientic achievement.
Ultimately, the goal is to enhance the effectiveness and fairness of research
evaluation processes, ensuring that they accurately reect the diverse and evolving
nature of scientic inquiry. This will be of great importance for researchers,
institutions, and policymakers who seek to promote excellence and innovation
in the global research community, ensuring that all valuable contributions are
recognized and supported. This study analyzes psychology (Muthukrishna et al.,
2021) journals indexed in the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) for 2023.
2. Materials and Methods
The methodology for analyzing indexed journals in the eld of psychology
for 2023, using the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) database, encompasses a
comprehensive approach designed to capture a detailed understanding of journal
metrics, trends, and patterns. This methodology is structured through several
key phases, including research design, data collection, and data analysis (Ansari
et al., 2020; Savage & Olejniczak, 2022; Szomszor et al., 2021).
The research design adopts a descriptive and analytical framework aimed
at assessing the current landscape of psychology journals. The primary goal is
to discern the top journals based on their impact, identify emerging trends, and
evaluate the distribution of journals across various quartiles. This design enables
a holistic understanding of journal inuence and its implications for the eld
of psychology.
For data collection, secondary data were sourced from the Scimago Journal
Rank (SJR) database (Manjarres et al., 2023), specically targeting psychology
journals for the year 2023. The dataset includes crucial metrics such as the journal
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 100 - 122
name, SJR index, quartile ranking, citation counts, and impact factor (Fister et al.,
2016). These metrics were systematically downloaded in CSV format to ensure
compatibility with analysis tools and to facilitate subsequent processing.
The analysis process was methodically executed in several stages. Initially,
data extraction involved gathering the relevant information from the Scimago
database (Shkulipa, 2020). This was followed by a rigorous data cleaning phase
to address any inconsistencies, duplicates, or errors present in the dataset. The
cleaned data were then organized into a structured database, allowing for detailed
statistical analysis.
Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the key metrics of the
journals. This included calculating mean, median, and range for the SJR indices
to gauge the central tendency and dispersion of journal impact. Furthermore,
frequency distributions were analyzed to determine the number of journals
within each quartile and to identify the concentration of high-impact journals.
Trend analysis was a critical component of the methodology. This phase
involved examining publication trends such as the rise of interdisciplinary
journals, the increasing prominence of open-access publications, and shifts in
thematic focus within the eld of psychology. Visualization tools such as graphs
and tables were utilized to depict these trends clearly.
In addition to descriptive statistics, more advanced statistical analyses were
conducted to uncover signicant patterns and relationships within the data.
Correlation analyses were performed to explore the relationship between SJR
indices and other metrics, such as citation counts and impact factors. This helped
in identifying any signicant associations or anomalies within the dataset.
Excel was used extensively for data mapping and visualization. After
importing the cleaned data into Excel, various charts and graphs were created to
visually represent the distribution and trends of journals. Scatter plots were used
to analyze the relationship between SJR indices and other metrics, while heat
maps provided a visual representation of the concentration and geographical
distribution of high-impact journals. Pivot tables and data lters in Excel allowed
for detailed exploration of the data and facilitated the generation of customized
reports.
The results of the analysis were synthesized into a comprehensive report.
This report includes graphical representations, detailed tables, and discussions
on observed trends and their implications. The ndings offer valuable insights
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 101 - 122
into the current state of psychology journals, highlighting key trends, the impact
of journals, and the evolving dynamics within the discipline. This methodological
approach ensures a thorough and nuanced understanding of the psychology
journal landscape for the year 2023.
2. Results
In 2023, the vast majority of publications registered in Scimago were journals,
accounting for an overwhelming 99.3% of the total (1367), highlighting the
dominance of journal-based academic dissemination. In contrast, book series
made up only 0.7% (9), and conferences and proceedings represented an even
smaller fraction, just 0.1% (1). This heavy skew toward journals reects the
established preference for peer-reviewed journal articles as the primary medium
for scholarly communication in academia (Table 1).
When examining the SJR best quartile rankings, the distribution was
relatively balanced among the top four quartiles, with 25.3% of publications
falling into Q4, 25.0% in Q3, 24.9% in Q1, and 24.3% in Q2. These gures suggest
that while a large number of journals were in the lower quartiles, a substantial
portion were also of high quality, as indicated by the presence of nearly a quarter
of the publications in Q1. Only 0.5% of the publications did not have a quartile
designation, showing that the vast majority of outlets were ranked and recognized
in terms of their impact and reach.
Geographically, there was a clear concentration of academic output in
Western Europe, which contributed 47.9% of the total publications, followed
by North America with 37.0%. These regions have traditionally been hubs of
scholarly activity, supported by strong research infrastructure and funding. In
contrast, other regions like Eastern Europe (6.5%), Latin America (3.6%), and
the Asiatic Region (2.5%) contributed signicantly less, underscoring ongoing
disparities in global academic production. Africa (0.4%) and the Middle East
(1.2%) had even smaller representations, with a combined output of less than 2%,
suggesting barriers to research participation and publication in these regions.
The Pacic Region and mixed regions like Africa/Middle East had minimal
contributions, reecting geographic and resource limitations.
In terms of thematic areas, psychology was the most represented eld,
accounting for 20.1% of the total publications. However, interdisciplinary
combinations were also common, with 23.2% of publications covering both
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 102 - 122
psychology and social sciences. This highlights the growing recognition of the
importance of integrating psychological insights with broader social science
frameworks to better understand human behavior and societal trends. Medicine
and psychology together comprised 16.8% of the publications, pointing to the
close relationship between psychological research and healthcare, particularly
in areas like mental health, patient care, and health behavior.
The remaining publications spanned a wide array of interdisciplinary
combinations, reecting the increasingly collaborative nature of modern
research. Fields such as business, management, and accounting alongside
psychology contributed 2.3%, while smaller intersections like neuroscience and
psychology (1.9%) or arts and humanities with psychology (3.8%) reected the
diverse applications of psychological principles across different domains. Other
notable combinations included medicine, neuroscience, and psychology (3.1%),
medicine, nursing, and psychology (0.4%), and computer science with psychology
(0.4%), underscoring the growing use of technology in psychological research
and practice.
These interdisciplinary combinations demonstrate a broader trend toward
collaboration across elds, driven by the need for comprehensive solutions to
complex global challenges. For example, the integration of psychology with health
professions (1.2%) and social sciences highlights the importance of psychological
perspectives in addressing issues like mental health, education, and organizational
behavior. Similarly, the intersection of business and psychology (seen in 2.3%
of the publications) reects the increasing relevance of psychological research
in understanding consumer behavior, decision-making, and organizational
dynamics.
This comprehensive representation across regions and disciplines illustrates
a dynamic academic landscape, where psychology not only stands as a major
eld but also acts as a bridge between various domains. The signicant presence
of psychology in combination with elds like medicine, neuroscience, social
sciences, and business underscores its vital role in addressing diverse research
questions that cut across health, society, and human behavior. Furthermore, the
predominance of publications from Western Europe and North America points to
the need for greater global inclusion and investment in underrepresented regions
to foster a more equitable distribution of academic knowledge production.
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 103 - 122
The table presents a comprehensive breakdown of the geographical
distribution of 1,377 publications, highlighting the countries that contributed
to the scholarly output. The United States stands out as the most prolic,
contributing 502 publications, which represents 36% of the total. This positions
the U.S. as the leading country in research productivity within this sample. The
United Kingdom follows closely behind, contributing 360 publications (26%),
making it the second-largest contributor. Together, these two countries account
for more than half of the total publications, underscoring their dominance in
academic output (Figure 1).
European countries play a signicant role in the overall distribution as
well. For instance, the Netherlands (68 publications, 4.9%), Germany (59, 4.3%),
Switzerland (36, 2.6%), and Spain (43, 3.1%) are among the key contributors.
The robust presence of these nations points to a strong research infrastructure
in Western Europe. Notably, Eastern Europe is also represented, with countries
like Poland (23, 1.7%) and Russia (24, 1.7%) making visible contributions.
In addition to these major players, several countries contributed a smaller
number of publications, often accounting for less than 1% of the total. These
include Hungary (n = 7 publications, 0.5%), Italy (n = 32, 2.3%), and France (n = 37,
2.7%). Latin American nations also feature in the table, with Brazil contributing 21
publications (1.5%), Colombia with 13 (0.9%), and Mexico with 5 (0.4%). Smaller
nations like Chile (n = 5, 0.4%), Uruguay (n = 1, <0.1%), and Peru (n = 1, <0.1%)
reect a more limited academic output in this region.
Countries from other parts of the world also make appearances, albeit with
more modest contributions. For example, Australia (n = 3 publications, 0.2%),
India (n = 7, 0.5%), and Japan (n = 5, 0.4%) are notable contributors from Asia and
the Pacic region. China and South Korea each contributed 6 (0.4%) and 3 (0.2%)
publications, respectively. In the Middle East, Turkey is the largest contributor
(10 publications, 0.7%), while Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel each
contributed less than 1%.
Several countries, including Ethiopia, Lithuania, and Costa Rica, contributed
just one publication each, representing less than 0.1% of the total output. Similarly,
nations like Finland, Malaysia, and Malta also accounted for less than 0.1% of the
publications. This highlights the vast disparity in research productivity across
regions.
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 104 - 122
In summary, the table illustrates a clear concentration of scholarly output
in a few key regions, with the United States and the United Kingdom leading
the way. Western Europe, particularly countries like the Netherlands, Germany,
and Switzerland, plays a signicant role, while other regions, including Latin
America, Asia, and Africa, have a more modest presence in this global distribution
of research. Despite this, the contributions from a wide range of countries reect
the growing internationalization of academic research.
Table 1.
Journals, book series, conference and proceedings registered in Scimago 2023.
n (%)
Type
book series 9 (0.7%)
conference and proceedings 1 (0.1%)
journal 1367 (99.3%)
SJR Best Quartile
without quartile 7 (0.5%)
Q1 343 (24.9%)
Q2 335 (24.3%)
Q3 344 (25.0%)
Q4 348 (25.3%)
Region
Africa 5 (0.4%)
Africa/Middle East 2 (0.1%)
Asiatic Region 35 (2.5%)
Eastern Europe 90 (6.5%)
Latin America 50 (3.6%)
Middle East 17 (1.2%)
Northern America 509 (37.0%)
Pacic Region 9 (0.7%)
Western Europe 660 (47.9%)
Areas
Psychology 277 (20.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Psychology 52 (3.8%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Psychology 32 (2.3%)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 105 - 122
Medicine; Psychology 231 (16.8%)
Neuroscience; Psychology 26 (1.9%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Psychology; Social Sciences 21 (1.5%)
Psychology; Social Sciences 320 (23.2%)
Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology 43 (3.1%)
Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 54 (3.9%)
Arts and Humanities; Computer Science; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Mathematics; Psychology 5 (0.4%)
Arts and Humanities; Mathematics; Medicine; Psychology 2 (0.1%)
Medicine; Nursing; Psychology; Social Sciences 4 (0.3%)
Arts and Humanities; Psychology; Social Sciences 54 (3.9%)
Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Computer Science;
Decision Sciences; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Decision Sciences; Psychology; Social
Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Medicine; Psychology 21 (1.5%)
Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Psychology 16 (1.2%)
Health Professions; Psychology; Social Sciences 13 (0.9%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance;
Medicine; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Psychology; Social Sciences 6 (0.4%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Business, Management and Accounting;
Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Mathematics; Psychology; Social Sciences 5 (0.4%)
Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 18 (1.3%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Arts and Humanities; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Medicine; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Psychology 3 (0.2%)
Arts and Humanities; Environmental Science; Medicine; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Medicine; Psychology 3 (0.2%)
Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; Social Sciences 5 (0.4%)
Computer Science; Neuroscience; Psychology 4 (0.3%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Decision Sciences; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance;
Psychology 4 (0.3%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology
4 (0.3%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Nursing; Psychology 3 (0.2%)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 106 - 122
Engineering; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Computer Science; Engineering; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Medicine; Nursing; Psychology 5 (0.4%)
Computer Science; Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology 6 (0.4%)
Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Economics,
Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Environmental Science; Psychology 2 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 3 (0.2%)
Decision Sciences; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 8 (0.6%)
Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Decision Sciences;
Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology 3 (0.2%)
Arts and Humanities; Computer Science; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Neuroscience; Psychology 5 (0.4%)
Health Professions; Medicine; Psychology 8 (0.6%)
Health Professions; Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 4 (0.3%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Engineering; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Psychology; Social Sciences 4 (0.3%)
Health Professions; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Decision Sciences; Mathematics; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; Social
Sciences 3 (0.2%)
Computer Science; Engineering; Psychology; Social Sciences 3 (0.2%)
Medicine; Neuroscience; Nursing; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Neuroscience; Psychology 5 (0.4%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance;
Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social
Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Neuroscience; Nursing; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Decision Sciences; Psychology; Social Sciences 3 (0.2%)
Arts and Humanities; Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Medicine;
Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Nursing; Psychology; Social Sciences 3 (0.2%)
Computer Science; Health Professions; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Psychology 3 (0.2%)
Decision Sciences; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Immunology and Microbiology; Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 107 - 122
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Health Professions; Medicine;
Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology;
Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Arts and Humanities; Computer Science;
Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Computer Science; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Environmental Science; Psychology
1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Computer Science; Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Materials Science; Psychology; Social
Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Earth and Planetary Sciences; Mathematics; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Computer Science; Decision Sciences; Economics,
Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Decision Sciences; Engineering; Medicine; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Decision Sciences; Mathematics; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Immunology and Microbiology;
Medicine; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Engineering; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Health Professions; Medicine;
Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Mathematics; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Medicine; Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Mathematics; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Health Professions; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Computer Science; Psychology; Social
Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Neuroscience; Psychology; Social
Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance;
Neuroscience; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Environmental Science; Materials Science; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Decision Sciences; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Psychology; Social
Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Energy; Engineering; Materials Science; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Multidisciplinary; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Medicine; Neuroscience; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Psychology
1 (0.1%)
Engineering; Environmental Science; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 108 - 122
Business, Management and Accounting; Health Professions; Medicine; Psychology;
Social Sciences 2 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Environmental Science; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Health Professions; Medicine;
Multidisciplinary; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Decision Sciences; Medicine; Psychology; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Mathematics; Medicine; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Psychology; Veterinary 1 (0.1%)
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Medicine; Social Sciences 1 (0.1%)
Business, Management and Accounting; Mathematics; Psychology; Social Sciences
1 (0.1%)
Health Professions; Medicine; Nursing; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
Computer Science; Engineering; Psychology 1 (0.1%)
The map illustrates the global distribution of psychology journals indexed
in Scimago for the year 2023, highlighting signicant contributions from specic
regions. The United States stands out as the most dominant country, contributing
36% of all indexed psychology journals. This indicates a strong presence of
American academic output in the eld. Following the U.S., the United Kingdom
makes a substantial contribution with 26%, further reinforcing the inuence of
English-speaking countries in psychological research (Figure 1).
In Western Europe, several countries also play a pivotal role. Nations like
the Netherlands (4.9%), Germany (4.3%), Switzerland (2.6%), France (2.7%),
and Spain (3.1%) show moderate levels of contributions. These gures suggest
that Europe, particularly Western Europe, remains a key player in psychology
publications. However, other European countries contribute smaller percentages,
reecting a more concentrated research output in specic nations.
In Latin America, Brazil stands out with 1.5% of the journals, followed by
Colombia with 0.9%, indicating a growing but still limited presence in global
psychology research. Other Latin American countries such as Mexico and Chile
have smaller contributions, each around 0.4% and 0.1%, respectively. This
suggests that Latin American representation in psychology publications is still
developing, with room for growth.
Across Asia, countries like India, China, and Japan contribute between 0.4%
and 0.5% of the indexed journals. While these contributions are relatively small
compared to Western countries, they represent an emerging presence of Asian
countries in psychology research. Similarly, Africa shows limited contributions,
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 109 - 122
with Egypt and South Africa accounting for less than 1% of the indexed journals,
signaling minimal representation from the African continent. In summary, the
map showcases the regional disparity in psychology research publications,
with the United States and United Kingdom dominating the eld, followed by
moderate contributions from Western Europe. Other regions, including Latin
America, Asia, and Africa, show smaller but growing contributions to global
psychology research.
Figure 1.
Percentages of journals indexed in Scimago 2023 (Psychology)
The table 2 provides a detailed overview of scientic production and
publication visibility for various countries according to Scimago's criteria for
2023. This includes metrics such as the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) index, the
H-index, the total number of documents published, and citations, among other
relevant indicators.
Firstly, the United States, accounting for 37% of the sample, stands out
with an SJR index of 0.79, an H-index of 60, and an average of 2.35 citations per
document. These metrics indicate a high level of production and visibility in
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 110 - 122
comparison to other countries. The United States not only leads in the number
of documents published but also shows substantial citation totals, reecting its
signicant inuence and leadership in the global scientic research landscape.
The United Kingdom, representing 26% of the sample, follows with an SJR
index of 0.69 and an H-index of 47. Although slightly lower than the United States,
the United Kingdom remains a major player in scientic publication and citation.
Its relatively high citation rate per document underscores the quality and impact
of its research output, indicating that UK-based research is frequently referenced
and holds considerable academic value.
Switzerland, with a much smaller percentage of 2.6%, has an SJR index of
0.70 and an H-index of 28. While its production and visibility are less prominent
compared to leading countries like the United States and the United Kingdom,
Switzerland's publications still demonstrate a notable impact. The good citation
rate per document suggests that Swiss research contributes signicantly to its
elds of study, albeit on a smaller scale.
In contrast, countries such as Hungary and Germany, with lower shares in
the sample, exhibit signicantly lower SJR and H-index values. Hungary's SJR
index stands at 0.23 with an H-index of 16, while Germany has an SJR index of
0.34 and an H-index of 22. These gures reect lower levels of scientic output
and visibility compared to top-ranking countries. The lower citation rates suggest
that while these countries are contributing to the scientic community, their
impact and recognition are not as pronounced.
Countries with smaller scientic presences, such as Iceland, Malaysia,
and Malta, also show lower SJR and H-index values. Iceland's research output
is limited, with modest citation rates, while Malaysia and Malta exhibit similar
trends. Despite their smaller scale, these countries still contribute to their
respective elds, although their impact is comparatively less signicant.
Overall, the table highlights the disparities in scientic production
and impact across different countries. It illustrates how nations with greater
resources and broader collaboration networks tend to achieve higher visibility
and inuence in the global scientic arena. This disparity underscores the role
of institutional support, research funding, and international collaboration in
shaping the global landscape of scientic research and publication.
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 111 - 122
Table 2.
Impact of the Scimago 2023 criteria in terms of the country.
Characteristic SJR H index Total
Docs.
(2023)
Total
Docs.
(3years)
Total
Refs.
Total
Cites
(3years)
Citable
Docs.
(3years)
Cites
/ Doc.
(2years)
Ref. /
Doc.
%Female
Overton
SDG
n 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372
United States N =
501 (37%)
0.79
(0.45,
1.29)
60 (32,
102)
44 (24,
83)
127 (75,
219)
2,533
(1,240,
4,974)
359
(139,
853)
119 (69,
213)
2.35
(1.41,
3.51)
56 (46,
65)
56 (47,
64)
0 (0, 1) 10 (4,
21)
United Kingdom
N = 360 (26%)
0.69
(0.41,
1.04)
47 (22,
85)
50 (27,
94)
134 (77,
225)
2,679
(1,168,
5,544)
281 (99,
747)
120 (69,
212)
1.96
(1.21,
3.23)
54 (44,
65)
57 (46,
66)
0 (0, 1) 10 (5,
24)
Switzerland N =
36 (2.6%)
0.70
(0.46,
0.91)
28 (16,
54)
36 (24,
69)
108 (79,
182)
2,048
(1,589,
4,949)
256 (131,
724)
94 (74,
164)
2.20
(1.44,
3.01)
60 (49,
67)
51 (45, 59) 0 (0, 1) 10 (5,
38)
Netherlands N =
67 (4.9%)
0.70
(0.30,
1.09)
42 (14,
89)
62 (21,
124)
131 (53,
322)
3,416
(1,040,
7,584)
281 (46,
1,117)
127 (46,
302)
2.27
(0.86,
3.17)
58 (45,
68)
50 (35,
60)
0 (0, 1) 10 (3,
27)
Hungary N = 7
(0.5%)
0.23
(0.18,
0.37)
16 (12,
22)
21 (16,
30)
55 (44,
90)
1,199
(844,
1,712)
30 (16,
86)
53 (44,
78)
0.80
(0.36,
1.84)
63 (55,
73)
49 (42,
59)
0 (0, 0) 4 (3, 5)
Germany N = 59
(4.3%)
0.34
(0.30,
0.71)
22 (13,
43)
28 (18,
50)
86 (58,
146)
1,108
(714,
1,855)
86 (37,
176)
72 (52,
126)
1.21
(0.40,
1.89)
48 (30,
56)
52 (43,
59)
0 (0, 0) 4 (1, 11)
Spain N = 43
(3.1%)
0.30
(0.21,
0.50)
17 (12,
28)
22 (16,
32)
73 (54,
110)
1,164
(747,
1,490)
88 (70,
158)
72 (50,
106)
0.91
(0.62,
1.62)
51 (41,
58)
57 (44,
64)
0 (0, 0) 8 (5, 12)
Sweden N = 4
(0.3%)
0.52
(0.40,
0.87)
7 (7, 24) 10 (7,
20)
32 (27,
52)
718
(405,
1,214)
48 (38,
172)
32 (27,
52)
1.22
(1.06,
2.31)
60 (48,
68)
54 (42,
56)
0 (0, 0) 3 (2, 4)
Italy N = 32 (2.3%) 0.19
(0.14,
0.31)
12 (6,
17)
16 (8,
33)
74 (56,
114)
845
(411,
1,408)
30 (21,
66)
70 (55,
106)
0.42
(0.18,
0.71)
48 (32,
56)
58 (44,
67)
0 (0, 0) 3 (2, 8)
Canada N = 7
(0.5%)
0.44
(0.19,
0.46)
18 (14,
44)
12 (10,
20)
88 (85,
124)
538
(288,
833)
118 (70,
148)
84 (74,
121)
0.64
(0.43,
1.49)
45 (38,
54)
68 (59,
80)
0 (0, 0) 1 (0, 8)
Egypt N = 2 (0.1%) 0.64
(0.39,
0.88)
23 (16,
30)
34 (22,
45)
94 (70,
118)
1,210
(937,
1,483)
125 (80,
170)
90 (69,
112)
1.41
(0.82,
2.01)
49 (40,
58)
51 (44, 57) 0 (0, 0) 18 (11,
26)
India N = 7 (0.5%) 0.34
(0.29,
0.41)
15 (10,
18)
32 (26,
56)
83 (58,
118)
1,038
(960,
2,301)
80 (56,
179)
78 (52,
95)
0.92
(0.86,
1.27)
38 (37,
46)
44 (39,
57)
0 (0, 0) 11 (8,
20)
New Zealand N =
6 (0.4%)
0.60
(0.24,
0.92)
43 (26,
50)
56 (5,
148)
275 (48,
491)
3,230
(422,
5,793)
507 (96,
1,438)
269 (48,
488)
2.04
(0.84,
3.13)
44 (9,
60)
46 (11, 46) 0 (0, 0) 10 (0,
23)
Taiwan N = 2
(0.1%)
0.55
(0.37,
0.73)
17 (12,
22)
38 (37,
39)
95 (86,
104)
2,454
(2,399,
2,510)
230
(146,
313)
95 (86,
104)
2.52
(1.51,
3.54)
65 (62,
68)
43 (39,
47)
0 (0, 0) 18 (17,
20)
France N = 37
(2.7%)
0.14
(0.11,
0.18)
10 (5,
16)
27 (15,
57)
94 (69,
138)
782
(336,
1,458)
15 (6,
42)
85 (64,
131)
0.14
(0.04,
0.44)
26 (7,
44)
53 (36,
61)
0 (0, 0) 3 (0, 6)
Czech Republic N
= 7 (0.5%)
0.19
(0.17,
0.23)
8 (4, 14) 23 (10,
36)
70 (62,
120)
879
(334,
1,644)
40 (30,
52)
70 (58,
116)
0.48
(0.26,
0.73)
36 (29,
42)
29 (20,
52)
0 (0, 0) 7 (2, 12)
Japan N = 5 (0.4%) 0.15
(0.11,
0.23)
19 (14,
21)
14 (7,
32)
66 (44,
78)
537
(413,
1,301)
25 (8,
34)
57 (41,
78)
0.20
(0.09,
0.54)
39 (36,
41)
38 (34,
41)
0 (0, 0) 1 (0, 5)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 112 - 122
Australia N = 3
(0.2%)
0.31
(0.25,
0.43)
13 (10,
18)
13 (9,
22)
45 (44,
66)
196 (98,
664)
50 (40,
119)
43 (42,
58)
1.12
(0.78,
1.52)
37 (18,
38)
55 (37,
69)
0 (0, 0) 4 (2, 8)
Singapore N = 3
(0.2%)
0.53
(0.32,
0.53)
11 (6,
20)
44 (34,
50)
67 (53,
96)
2,170
(1,860,
2,446)
114 (60,
246)
62 (50,
93)
1.23
(0.72,
2.14)
49 (49,
57)
51 (47, 51) 0 (0, 0) 10 (8,
16)
Ukraine N = 3
(0.2%)
0.17
(0.17,
0.35)
6 (5, 8) 31 (30,
32)
90 (72,
104)
1,268
(1,065,
1,299)
87 (83,
104)
88 (68,
104)
1.02
(0.86,
2.02)
41 (35,
41)
58 (58,
61)
0 (0, 0) 10 (8,
10)
Austria N = 2
(0.1%)
0.31
(0.21,
0.41)
12 (8,
16)
23 (12,
34)
61 (39,
83)
608
(304,
912)
66 (33,
98)
38 (27,
50)
0.71
(0.36,
1.06)
13 (7,
20)
26 (13,
39)
0 (0, 0) 6 (3, 8)
Brazil N = 21
(1.5%)
0.15
(0.13,
0.19)
11 (6, 17) 18 (5,
35)
111 (92,
128)
620
(143,
1,409)
33 (16,
68)
111 (92,
125)
0.19
(0.07,
0.37)
31 (22,
36)
56 (47,
66)
0 (0, 0) 4 (0, 10)
Turkey N = 10
(0.7%)
0.21
(0.17,
0.25)
7 (5, 11) 33 (27,
42)
103 (65,
128)
1,576
(1,234,
2,344)
54 (37,
136)
100 (63,
128)
0.56
(0.40,
0.84)
45 (40,
60)
57 (48,
60)
0 (0, 0) 7 (5, 15)
Indonesia N = 4
(0.3%)
0.19
(0.16,
0.27)
5 (4, 6) 22 (18,
27)
49 (47,
54)
1,132
(952,
1,344)
43 (35,
65)
49 (47,
54)
1.02
(0.80,
1.33)
50 (44,
56)
43 (37,
45)
0 (0, 0) 6 (6, 7)
Iran N = 5 (0.4%) 0.29
(0.22,
0.30)
10 (7,
10)
59 (32,
60)
108
(107,
154)
1,922
(1,606,
1,971)
124 (96,
179)
102
(100,
153)
0.84
(0.62,
1.49)
33 (32,
37)
47 (31, 49) 0 (0, 0) 16 (13,
22)
China N = 6
(0.4%)
0.19
(0.12,
0.31)
6 (4, 8) 108 (43,
162)
216
(104,
457)
4,008
(1,884,
6,974)
78 (69,
83)
214
(104,
456)
0.45
(0.21,
1.15)
41 (33,
49)
43 (39,
48)
0 (0, 0) 20 (8,
35)
Ireland N = 2
(0.1%)
0.28
(0.19,
0.36)
4 (3, 5) 4 (2, 7) 34 (33,
34)
252
(126,
378)
29 (14,
44)
29 (28,
30)
0.94
(0.47,
1.40)
28 (14,
42)
29 (14,
43)
0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 1)
Finland N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.43
(0.43,
0.43)
14 (14,
14)
24 (24,
24)
50 (50,
50)
1,241
(1,241,
1,241)
135 (135,
135)
47 (47,
47)
2.82
(2.82,
2.82)
52 (52,
52)
45 (45,
45)
0 (0, 0) 5 (5, 5)
Malaysia N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.43
(0.43,
0.43)
17 (17,
17)
12 (12,
12)
61 (61,
61)
733
(733,
733)
151 (151,
151)
61 (61,
61)
2.29
(2.29,
2.29)
61 (61,
61)
58 (58,
58)
0 (0, 0) 4 (4, 4)
Poland N = 23
(1.7%)
0.22
(0.18,
0.30)
11 (8,
12)
31 (23,
36)
84 (68,
98)
1,293
(974,
2,082)
64 (38,
100)
81 (64,
96)
0.66
(0.42,
0.94)
47 (41,
54)
55 (52,
63)
0 (0, 0) 7 (4, 12)
Belgium N = 6
(0.4%)
0.14
(0.12,
0.18)
10 (8,
16)
21 (5,
22)
86 (81,
96)
370 (73,
714)
16 (8,
55)
83 (75,
90)
0.14
(0.06,
0.60)
16 (3,
20)
54 (13,
60)
0 (0, 0) 4 (1, 6)
Colombia N = 13
(0.9%)
0.19
(0.15,
0.28)
13 (7,
18)
23 (11,
29)
89 (72,
100)
1,413
(394,
1,695)
61 (30,
81)
76 (66,
96)
0.43
(0.24,
0.93)
49 (44,
54)
49 (37,
52)
0 (0, 0) 8 (4, 11)
Slovakia N = 2
(0.1%)
0.25
(0.19,
0.31)
18 (15,
20)
22 (21,
23)
62 (56,
69)
1,112
(1,079,
1,144)
63 (40,
86)
62 (56,
68)
0.74
(0.55,
0.94)
51 (50,
52)
51 (48,
54)
0 (0, 0) 6 (5, 6)
South Africa N = 4
(0.3%)
0.32
(0.24,
0.37)
13 (8,
21)
22 (14,
29)
103 (86,
113)
1,092
(534,
1,676)
134 (93,
160)
102 (84,
112)
0.95
(0.64,
1.25)
46 (40,
54)
64 (57,
70)
0 (0, 0) 8 (6, 12)
Chile N = 5 (0.4%) 0.25
(0.25,
0.33)
21 (9,
23)
19 (18,
28)
69 (49,
74)
1,061
(567,
1,226)
67 (52,
91)
69 (44,
72)
0.99
(0.96,
1.00)
47 (37,
59)
52 (50,
53)
0 (0, 0) 9 (4, 16)
Serbia N = 4
(0.3%)
0.22
(0.19,
0.26)
11 (5, 17) 22 (21,
29)
68 (61,
87)
1,298
(1,132,
1,526)
64 (32,
92)
68 (61,
85)
0.64
(0.48,
0.76)
51 (45,
57)
65 (60,
70)
0 (0, 0) 8 (5, 12)
Malta N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.34
(0.34,
0.34)
14 (14,
14)
23 (23,
23)
38 (38,
38)
1,020
(1,020,
1,020)
50 (50,
50)
35 (35,
35)
0.79
(0.79,
0.79)
44 (44,
44)
78 (78,
78)
0 (0, 0) 7 (7, 7)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 113 - 122
Portugal N = 4
(0.3%)
0.17
(0.15,
0.22)
11 (8,
18)
22 (16,
51)
80 (73,
154)
869
(831,
2,082)
35 (22,
232)
78 (71,
144)
0.50
(0.32,
0.85)
46 (41,
49)
67 (59,
69)
0 (0, 0) 8 (5, 32)
Russian
Federation N = 23
(1.7%)
0.19
(0.17,
0.26)
7 (5, 11) 49 (35,
59)
146 (121,
183)
1,648
(1,262,
1,804)
76 (40,
115)
145 (117,
181)
0.50
(0.34,
0.71)
33 (26,
40)
67 (63,
73)
0 (0, 0) 12 (7,
18)
Romania N = 5
(0.4%)
0.21
(0.19,
0.22)
10 (7,
17)
11 (11,
17)
51 (47,
52)
663
(530,
711)
38 (24,
60)
50 (46,
52)
0.58
(0.48,
0.89)
48 (42,
56)
54 (52,
62)
0 (0, 0) 3 (1, 7)
Mexico N = 5
(0.4%)
0.16
(0.15,
0.21)
12 (5,
20)
37 (0,
39)
64 (33,
104)
374 (0,
1,387)
12 (7,
26)
60 (26,
104)
0.23
(0.12,
0.29)
9 (0, 36) 42 (0, 43) 0 (0, 0) 1 (0, 6)
United Arab
Emirates N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.28
(0.28,
0.28)
39 (39,
39)
22 (22,
22)
60 (60,
60)
1,112
(1,112,
1,112)
86 (86,
86)
57 (57,
57)
1.45
(1.45,
1.45)
51 (51,
51)
49 (49,
49)
0 (0, 0) 5 (5, 5)
Thailand N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.27
(0.27,
0.27)
9 (9, 9) 25 (25,
25)
69 (69,
69)
1,733
(1,733,
1,733)
108
(108,
108)
69 (69,
69)
1.28
(1.28,
1.28)
69 (69,
69)
46 (46,
46)
0 (0, 0) 10 (10,
10)
Greece N = 3
(0.2%)
0.19
(0.17,
0.23)
5 (4, 9) 10 (10,
22)
45 (40,
72)
609
(524,
1,648)
30 (28,
34)
45 (38,
70)
0.33
(0.32,
0.65)
61 (52,
69)
60 (53,
63)
0 (0, 0) 4 (2, 6)
Argentina N = 2
(0.1%)
0.20
(0.17,
0.22)
10 (9,
12)
62 (49,
76)
102 (86,
118)
3,343
(2,634,
4,052)
89 (60,
118)
102 (86,
118)
0.66
(0.52,
0.80)
53 (53,
53)
55 (54, 57) 0 (0, 0) 24 (15,
33)
Denmark N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.22
(0.22,
0.22)
25 (25,
25)
30 (30,
30)
100
(100,
100)
894
(894,
894)
44 (44,
44)
70 (70,
70)
0.54
(0.54,
0.54)
30 (30,
30)
66 (66,
66)
0 (0, 0) 10 (10,
10)
Croatia N = 5
(0.4%)
0.18
(0.13,
0.21)
10 (8,
11)
17 (8,
34)
68 (32,
79)
391
(388,
1,238)
12 (10,
44)
62 (31,
71)
0.18
(0.17,
0.43)
31 (28,
49)
80 (70,
89)
0 (0, 0) 5 (1, 6)
Uruguay N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.21
(0.21,
0.21)
5 (5, 5) 25 (25,
25)
61 (61,
61)
1,189
(1,189,
1,189)
44 (44,
44)
61 (61,
61)
0.75
(0.75,
0.75)
48 (48,
48)
51 (51, 51) 0 (0, 0) 7 (7, 7)
Pakistan N = 2
(0.1%)
0.18
(0.17,
0.19)
8 (8, 9) 42 (41,
42)
126 (124,
129)
1,860
(1,744,
1,977)
90 (70,
110)
126 (124,
128)
0.77
(0.55,
0.98)
45 (42,
47)
60 (50,
71)
0 (0, 0) 17 (15,
19)
Venezuela N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.19
(0.19,
0.19)
5 (5, 5) 18 (18,
18)
57 (57,
57)
946
(946,
946)
44 (44,
44)
56 (56,
56)
0.76
(0.76,
0.76)
53 (53,
53)
48 (48,
48)
0 (0, 0) 5 (5, 5)
Bulgaria N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.19
(0.19,
0.19)
9 (9, 9) 19 (19,
19)
76 (76,
76)
1,025
(1,025,
1,025)
40 (40,
40)
70 (70,
70)
0.50
(0.50,
0.50)
54 (54,
54)
38 (38,
38)
0 (0, 0) 4 (4, 4)
Peru N = 1 (<0.1%) 0.19
(0.19,
0.19)
10 (10,
10)
40 (40,
40)
104
(104,
104)
1,974
(1,974,
1,974)
59 (59,
59)
100
(100,
100)
0.48
(0.48,
0.48)
49 (49,
49)
50 (50,
50)
0 (0, 0) 10 (10,
10)
South Korea N = 3
(0.2%)
0.12
(0.12,
0.15)
8 (7, 9) 31 (24,
40)
108 (82,
116)
1,140
(936,
1,226)
10 (10,
31)
108 (82,
114)
0.24
(0.16,
0.34)
41 (32,
41)
47 (46,
49)
0 (0, 0) 5 (3, 12)
Slovenia N = 6
(0.4%)
0.11
(0.10,
0.14)
6 (4, 8) 16 (7,
21)
47 (36,
86)
628
(185,
941)
8 (4, 13) 43 (33,
83)
0.15
(0.04,
0.24)
27 (19,
50)
26 (0, 58) 0 (0, 0) 2 (0, 4)
Cyprus N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.14
(0.14,
0.14)
3 (3, 3) 11 (11,
11)
15 (15,
15)
648
(648,
648)
7 (7, 7) 14 (14,
14)
0.71
(0.71,
0.71)
59 (59,
59)
0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0)
Belarus N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.13
(0.13,
0.13)
4 (4, 4) 41 (41,
41)
175 (175,
175)
1,255
(1,255,
1,255)
37 (37,
37)
175 (175,
175)
0.18
(0.18,
0.18)
31 (31,
31)
60 (60,
60)
0 (0, 0) 11 (11,
11)
Bosnia and
Herzegovina N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.12
(0.12,
0.12)
3 (3, 3) 38 (38,
38)
56 (56,
56)
1,158
(1,158,
1,158)
13 (13,
13)
55 (55,
55)
0.26
(0.26,
0.26)
30 (30,
30)
64 (64,
64)
0 (0, 0) 16 (16,
16)
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 114 - 122
Costa Rica N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.12
(0.12,
0.12)
2 (2, 2) 13 (13,
13)
18 (18,
18)
699
(699,
699)
8 (8, 8) 18 (18,
18)
0.44
(0.44,
0.44)
54 (54,
54)
53 (53,
53)
0 (0, 0) 4 (4, 4)
Ethiopia N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.11
(0.11,
0.11)
3 (3, 3) 19 (19,
19)
55 (55,
55)
880
(880,
880)
7 (7, 7) 52 (52,
52)
0.08
(0.08,
0.08)
46 (46,
46)
0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 11 (11,
11)
Lithuania N = 1
(<0.1%)
0.11
(0.11,
0.11)
6 (6, 6) 3 (3, 3) 22 (22,
22)
118 (118,
118)
4 (4, 4) 21 (21,
21)
0.19
(0.19,
0.19)
39 (39,
39)
100 (100,
100)
0 (0, 0) 2 (2, 2)
p-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
q-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
3. Discussion
The data presented in the table underscores signicant disparities in scientic
production and visibility among different countries. It reveals how factors such as
research infrastructure, funding, and institutional support can greatly inuence
a country's position in the global scientic landscape (Adair & Vohra, 2003; Ansari
et al., 2020).
The United States emerges as a dominant force in global scientic research,
with the highest Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) index and H-index among the
countries listed. The substantial volume of publications and high citation rates
per document reect not only a vast output of scientic work but also a high
level of impact and recognition within the international research community
(Ball, 2002). This prominence can be attributed to the extensive resources
available to U.S. institutions, including substantial research funding, advanced
research facilities, and a strong network of academic collaborations (Carey et al.,
2023; Banasik-Jemielniak et al., 2022). The leading position of the United States
indicates its role as a central hub for groundbreaking research and scholarly
inuence (Hanson et al., 2024; Diaz et al., 2021).
In comparison, the United Kingdom, while slightly behind the United
States in SJR and H-index metrics, still demonstrates a strong presence in the
scientic community. The UK's research output and citation rates highlight its
signicant contributions to global knowledge (Muthukrishna et al., 2021). The
country's ability to maintain high-quality research despite having fewer resources
compared to the United States reects its effective use of available resources and
its strong academic institutions (Tortosa-Pérez et al., 2020). The UK's performance
illustrates how strategic investment in research and collaboration can elevate a
country's scientic prole (Manjarres et al., 2023).
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 115 - 122
Switzerland, though having a much smaller share of the global scientic
output, shows a commendable SJR index and H-index relative to its size. This
suggests that Swiss research, while less voluminous, has a considerable impact
in its specialized elds (Fister et al., 2016). The high citation rates per document
point to the quality and relevance of Swiss research, which, despite its smaller
scale, is recognized and valued by the international academic community (Lewis,
2021). This example highlights that impact and quality of research can be achieved
even with relatively smaller research outputs (Liu & Yang, 2024).
In contrast, countries like Hungary and Germany exhibit lower SJR and
H-index values, reecting less prominence in the global scientic arena. The lower
citation rates suggest that while these countries are active in research, their work
does not achieve the same level of recognition and inuence as that of leading
nations (Yang & Shao, 2024). Factors such as limited research funding, fewer
international collaborations, and less institutional support may contribute to
these lower metrics (Adair & Vohra, 2003). This disparity points to the challenges
faced by countries with fewer resources in achieving high visibility and impact
in the global scientic landscape (Ansari et al., 2020).
Smaller scientic presences, such as Iceland, Malaysia, and Malta, also show
lower SJR and H-index values, indicating their relatively minor role in global
scientic research. The limited research output and citation rates reect the
challenges these countries face in terms of scale and resources. However, it is
important to recognize that these countries still contribute to their respective
elds, and their research can be valuable within specic contexts or regions
(Carey et al., 2023; Banasik-Jemielniak et al., 2022).
Overall, the data underscores the signicant role of institutional support,
research funding, and international collaboration in shaping a country’s
scientic output and visibility. Countries with greater resources and robust
research infrastructures tend to achieve higher visibility and impact. Conversely,
countries with fewer resources may struggle to attain similar levels of recognition,
despite their contributions to scientic knowledge (Ball, 2002; Muthukrishna et
al., 2021). Addressing these disparities requires targeted investment in research
infrastructure, support for international collaborations, and policies aimed at
enhancing the visibility and impact of scientic work across all nations (Fister
et al., 2016).
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 116 - 122
4. Conclusion
The United States stands out as the global leader in scientic research, with its
dominance reected in its high Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) index and H-index.
This leadership is attributed to substantial investments in research infrastructure,
extensive funding, and the development of extensive collaborative networks.
The sheer volume of research output from the U.S. and the high citation rates
of its publications emphasize its central role in advancing scientic knowledge
worldwide. The U.S. research ecosystem benets from a well-established
framework that supports innovation and knowledge dissemination, reinforcing
its position at the forefront of global science.
The United Kingdom, although slightly behind the United States, maintains
a strong position in the global scientic landscape. This strong performance
demonstrates the effective use of resources and the strength of its academic
institutions. Despite its smaller scale compared to the U.S., the high impact of
UK research shows that signicant contributions to scientic knowledge can
be achieved with relatively fewer resources. The UK's success can be attributed
to its strategic approach to research funding, a culture of academic excellence,
and the fostering of international collaborations that enhance the visibility and
impact of its research.
Switzerland exemplies how a smaller nation can achieve signicant
research impact. Despite its limited size, Switzerland’s high SJR index and
H-index indicate that its research, though not as voluminous as that of larger
nations, is highly inuential and well-regarded. This success underscores that
high-impact research can be produced even with limited resources, highlighting
the importance of research quality and strategic focus over sheer volume.
Switzerland’s notable scientic contributions illustrate that smaller countries
can exert substantial inuence in their areas of expertise through dedicated
efforts and strategic investments.
On the other hand, countries such as Hungary, Germany, Iceland, Malaysia,
and Malta face challenges in achieving high levels of scientic visibility and
impact, as reected in their lower SJR and H-index values. These challenges are
often linked to limited research funding, fewer opportunities for international
collaboration, and less robust research infrastructures. Addressing these
challenges is crucial for enhancing the scientic proles of these nations. This
involves increasing research support, fostering international partnerships, and
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 117 - 122
building stronger research institutions to elevate their research output and
impact.
The data highlights the critical role that investment in research infrastructure
and international collaboration plays in shaping a country’s scientic output
and global visibility. Nations with substantial resources and well-developed
support systems tend to achieve higher levels of research recognition and impact.
In contrast, countries with fewer resources face greater obstacles in reaching
similar levels of scientic prominence. To bridge these gaps, it is essential to
focus on improving research funding, encouraging international collaborations,
and strengthening institutional support. These measures can help enhance
the research proles of nations with fewer resources and contribute to a more
equitable global scientic landscape.
Addressing the disparities in scientic research output and impact
between nations requires targeted policy interventions. Governments and
research institutions should prioritize increasing research funding, supporting
international collaborative projects, and enhancing institutional capacities.
Implementing these policies will not only support the development of individual
nations' research capabilities but also contribute to a more balanced and inclusive
global scientic community.
Limitations and future research
Despite the insights gained from this study, several limitations must be
acknowledged. First, the research primarily relies on quantitative metrics such as
Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) and H-index to evaluate scientic impact. While these
metrics provide valuable information, they may not fully capture the nuances of
research quality or the broader impact of scientic work. The reliance on these
indicators may overlook important factors such as the socio-economic context
of research and the varied contributions of different types of scientic work.
Additionally, the study's focus on specic countries may limit the
generalizability of the ndings. While the selected countries provide a broad
perspective, there may be signicant variations in research impact and practices
within these nations that are not fully represented in the analysis. Future research
should consider a more comprehensive range of countries and regions to offer a
more nuanced understanding of global research dynamics.
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 118 - 122
Another limitation is the lack of qualitative analysis of the factors
inuencing research output and impact. Understanding the underlying causes of
disparities in scientic productivity and inuence requires a deeper exploration
of institutional practices, funding mechanisms, and international collaborations.
Incorporating qualitative methods, such as interviews with researchers and
policymakers, could provide richer insights into these dynamics.
Future research should address these limitations by incorporating a wider
array of indicators and qualitative approaches. Expanding the study to include a
broader range of countries and research metrics will enhance the understanding
of global research disparities. Additionally, examining the impact of specic
policies and institutional practices on research productivity could provide
actionable insights for improving research outcomes across different contexts.
Ultimately, addressing these limitations and pursuing these avenues
for future research will contribute to a more comprehensive and equitable
assessment of global scientic impact, leading to better-informed strategies for
enhancing research productivity and inuence worldwide.
7. Authors' contribution
AR: Data collection, analysis of results, discussion, nal revision of the article.
VQ: Data collection, discussion and nal revision of the article.
LC: Conceptualization and nal revision of the article.
PM: Discussion and nal revision of the article.
AL: Conceptualization and nal revision of the article.
8. Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Universidad Politécnica Salesiana-Ecuador, particularly to
Father Rector Juan Cárdenas Tapia, SDB, Ph.D., for granting access to the infor-
mation necessary to complete this study.
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 119 - 122
References
Adair J. G., Vohra N. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations.
Psychology’s unique response to a crisis. The American Psychologist, 58 (1),
15–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.1.15
Ansari, K. M., Rahaman, S., & Al-Attas, H. H. (2020). Gauging the quality of beha-
vioral science journals by using bibliometric indicators.
COLLNET Journal
of Scientometrics and Information Management, 14(1), 135-152. https://doi.org
/10.1080/09737766.2020.1819173
Badenes-Sastre, M., & Expósito, F. (2021). Perception and detection of gender
violence, and identication as victims: A bibliometric study. Anales de
Psicología, 37(2), 341. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.434611
Ball P. (2002). Paper trail reveals references go unread by citing authors. Nature,
420 (6916), 594. https://doi.org/10.1038/420594a
Banasik-Jemielniak, N., Jemielniak, D., & Wilamowski, M. (2022). Psychology
and Wikipedia: Measuring Psychology Journals’ Impact by Wikipedia
Citations. Social Science Computer Review, 40(3), 756-774. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0894439321993836
Carey, L. B., Kumar, S., Goyal, K., & Ali, F. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of the jour-
nal of religion and health: Sixty years of publication (1961–2021).
Journal of
Religion and Health, 62(1), 8-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-022-01704-4
Diaz, A. P., Soares, J. C., Brambilla, P., Young, A. H., & Selvaraj, S. (2021). Journal
Metrics in Psychiatry: What do the rankings tell us?.
Journal of Affective
Disorders, 287, 354-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.03.039
Fister I., Fister I., Perc M. (2016). Toward the discovery of citation cartels in
citation networks. Frontiers of Physics, 4(49). https://doi.org/10.3389/
fphy.2016.00049
Hanson, M. A., Barreiro, P. G., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D. (2024). The stra-
in on scientic publishing. Quantitative Science Studies, 1-29. https://doi.
org/10.1162/qss_a_00327
Kalita, D., Baba, M. S., & Deka, D. (2018). An empirical study on the asymmetric
behavior of a scientometric indicator for journal: A comparative evaluation
of SJR and h-Index. Journal of Information and Knowledge, 128-140. https://
doi.org/10.17821/srels/2018/v55i3/122795
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 120 - 122
Lewis, N. A., Jr. (2021). What counts as good science? How the battle for methodo-
logical legitimacy affects public psychology. American Psychologist, 76(8),
1323–1333. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000870
Liu, S., & Yang, Y. (2024). Identifying Research Hotspots and Future Development
Trends in Current Psychology: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Past Decade's
Publications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13495. https://doi.org/10.48550/
arXiv.2407.13495
Manjarres, M. T., Duarte, D. P. M., Navarro-Obeid, J., Álvarez, M. L. V., Martinez,
I., Cudris-Torres, L., ... & Bermúdez, V. (2023). A bibliometric analysis and
literature review on emotional skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1040110.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1040110
Mejia, C., Wu, M., Zhang, Y., & Kajikawa, Y. (2021). Exploring topics in bibliome-
tric research through citation networks and semantic analysis. Frontiers
in Research Metrics and Analytics, 6, 742311. https://doi.org/10.3389/
frma.2021.742311
Muthukrishna, M., Henrich, J., & Slingerland, E. (2021). Psychology as a historical
science. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 717-749. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-psych-082820-111436
Roldan-Valadez, E., Salazar-Ruiz, S. Y., Ibarra-Contreras, R., & Rios, C. (2019).
Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor,
Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised
Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics. Irish Journal of Medical
Science, 188, 939-951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5
Tortosa-Pérez, M., González-Sala, F., Santolaya-Prego de Oliver, J., & Aguilar-
Bustamante, C. (2020). The role of the Association of Psychologists-COP
in the international ranking of Spanish Psychology (1979-2018). Anales de
Psicología, 36(1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.388691
Savage, W. E., & Olejniczak, A. J. (2022). More journal articles and fewer books:
Publication practices in the social sciences in the 2010’s. Plos one, 17(2),
e0263410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263410
Shkulipa, L. (2020). Accounting Journals: Scopus, Web of Science, SCImago. Sciendo.
Szomszor, M., Adams, J., Fry, R., Gebert, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Potter, R. W., &
Rogers, G. (2021). Interpreting bibliometric data.
Frontiers in Research Metrics
and Analytics, 5, 628703. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.628703
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 121 - 122
Yang, Y. H., & Shao, Y. H. (2024). Education journal rankings: a diversity-based
Author Afliation Index assessment methodology. Scientometrics, 129(5),
2677-2700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04979-4
Revista multidisciplinaria
Investigación Contemporánea 01 - 2025 Vol. 3 - No. 1 ISSN-e: 2960-8015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v3.n1.a85
Bibliometric Evaluation of Psychology Journals in Scimago: Impact and
Scientic Visibility 122 - 122
Copyright (c) 2025 Andrés Ramírez, Vanessa Quito, Lorena Cañizares, Pedro Muñoz,
Ana Loja.
Este texto está protegido por una licencia Creative Commons 4.0.
Usted es libre para Compartir —copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o
formato — y Adaptar el documento —remezclar, transformar y crear a partir del mate-
rial— para cualquier propósito, incluso para nes comerciales, siempre que cumpla la
condición de:
Atribución: Usted debe dar crédito a la obra original de manera adecuada, proporcionar
un enlace a la licencia, e indicar si se han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo en cualquier
forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera que tiene el apoyo del licenciante o lo
recibe por el uso que hace de la obra.
Resumen de licencia - Texto completo de la licencia
