Abstract
Publishers, librarians, funders and researchers are faced with the task of evaluating academic journals. Journals have often been ranked using misapplied metrics or through a single indicator used without appropriate context. The latter usage is controversial as a single indicator only measures one aspect of journal performance and is subject to interpretation. For a more meaningful analysis, a range of different measures should be used, combining both productivity (such as document and citation counts) and also normalized values for wider comparisons and contextualization. Analyses at the journal level should consider the impact of individual published articles. As citation-based measures look at a single aspect of article performance, a more thorough analysis should include a wider set of quantitative and qualitative measures.