共查询到19条相似文献，搜索用时 296 毫秒
1.
2.
以2011年JCR报告计算机学科下人工智能领域收录60种期刊为讨论对象,将IF5、H指数、IF2、特征因子值、SJR指标共5个指标评价结果与同行评议进行描述性统计分析,结果为:①与同行评议整体偏差由小到大依次为IF5(5.08)、H指数(5.63)、SJR指数(6.35)、IF2(7.81)、特征因子(8.52),IF5与H指数明显优于其余三个指标。②在最主要的一区、二区上与同行评议分组偏差由小到大依次为H指数(2.2)、IF5(2.55)、SJR指数(3.9)、IF2(4.35)、特征因子(4.5)。综合看,H指数与IF5指数与同行评议结果最接近。 相似文献
3.
SJR与影响因子、H指数的比较及SJR的扩展设想 总被引：15，自引：3，他引：12
介绍了SCImago Journal Rank(SJR)及其计算过程,使用因子分析、回归及相关分析等方法实证研究了SJR与期刊影响因子、期刊h指数的关系。结果表明:SJR与期刊影响因子和期刊h指数均有较强正相关性;SJR与期刊影响因子的联合判定可区别出期刊在流行与声望两个维度上的特点;SJR和期刊引文及参考文献的平均性指标具有较强内部关联性,而期刊h指数则与总体性指标内部关联较强。提出了标准化SJR用于解决SJR不能跨学科比较的问题,提出了期刊声望演化指数用于衡量期刊声望的演变趋势,并将SJR的运用范围扩展到了学科和国家层次。 相似文献
4.
JIF作为一种更为科学的期刊计量评价指标,已经成为衡量学术期刊办刊质量和学术水平的重要"标尺"之一。本文简要介绍了JIF评价体系的指标特点,阐述了CSSCI及《中文核心期刊要目总览》两大核心期刊评价指标体系的不足,并分析了JIF在期刊评价方面具备诸多突出优势。指出学术期刊建设应以JIF为"标尺",同时勾画出JIF在持续提高学术期刊办刊质量方面极为广阔的应用前景。 相似文献
5.
篇均来源期刊标准影响(SNIP)为荷兰学者Moed教授于2010年提出的全新期刊评价指标,旨在对不同主题领域的期刊影响力进行评价,为验证这一评价指标在期刊评价实践中的效用,利用SPSS18.0数据统计分析软件对Scopus数据库中24种外文期刊的SNIP与SJR、h指数以及影响因子进行实证对比分析;以CSSCI为来源数据库统计分析国内6种图书情报学期刊的IF值与SNIP值。分析结果证明,SNIP与其他3个指标之间存在较强的相关性,在期刊评价实践中具有可行性。 相似文献
6.
引用质量加权影响因子评价学术期刊研究-以CSSCI图书情报学期刊评价为例 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
构建一种考虑引用质量的加权影响因子:IFwh指数,该指数既能反映影响因子与H指数计算简便、设计巧妙的优点,又体现SJR指数与Eigenfactor计算算法中考虑引用质量的思想,以期客观科学地反映期刊的影响力。在详细阐述IFwh指数设计思想的基础上,以CSSCI收录的我国图书情报学期刊为例进行实证研究,一方面检验利用IFwh指数评价学术期刊的可行性;另一方面通过分析IFwh指数评价与影响因子、H指数评价以及CSSCI评价的关系,研究IFwh指数的特性。IFwh指数同样适用于学科专业和科教人员等层面的学术影响力评价。 相似文献
7.
8.
使用2015—2022年Clarivate Analytics发布的期刊引证报告(JCR)数据进行统计分析,探究近年来SCI期刊的影响因子(JIF)变化特征及其对科研评价的影响。研究发现,2015—2022年期间高JIF的SCI期刊比例增加,低JIF的SCI期刊比例下降,JIF整体出现连年上涨趋势,且2021、2022年涨幅显著增加。这说明SCI期刊的JIF正在经历泡沫式膨胀且情况日益加剧,而中国SCI期刊的JIF增长率更甚于世界平均水平。JIF膨胀表面是论文数量和参考文献列表长度扩张的产物,但受益期刊精英群体和受益作者群体的推崇才是其增长的内在驱动,其侧面反映了追求高JIF的学术风气依然高涨,将造成JIF指标的进一步强化和滥用,引发更多有关结构性歧视和学术公平性的矛盾。此外,JIF前50位期刊多数保持稳定,其中知名期刊家族占有举足轻重的地位;而中国SCI期刊数量仅占世界总量的1.45%,在2022年JIF前50位期刊中只有1家,国际影响力较小。培育国内高影响力期刊,完善学术期刊评价体系,进行期刊质量、效益、贡献多维评价,并结合同行评议开展科研综合评价,是破“SCI至上”、弱化JIF膨... 相似文献
9.
给出一定条件,实现了SJR算法向特征因子算法的转化。选取CSSCI收录的图书情报学期刊2007年互引矩阵,分别计算被引量、EF、SJR、IF、AI、SJRQ,并分成两类进行相关度分析。结果表明,在一定条件下,SJR算法可转化成特征因子算法,并且期刊评价指标EF与SJR指标显著相关,它们完全可以作为被引频次与IF的参考、补充甚至替代。 相似文献
10.
期刊评价指标实证研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
本文选取F1000数据库中免疫学与生物信息学论文近2000篇,通过相关分析、聚类分析以及因子分析将对应260种期刊的影响因子、5年期影响因子、特征因子、论文影响分值、即时指数、SJR、SNIP、期刊h-指数进行相关性检验及分类,并对各项指标与同行评议结果即F1000因子进行相似性比较.结果表明各项指标虽源于WoS和Scopus不同数据库,计算方法也不尽相同,但其间具有较好的一致性,从而为WoS与Scopus在科学评价中的可选择性与替代性提供依据.本文论述中结合期刊评价进化历程,并通过各项指标优缺点的剖析,指出期刊评价的发展趋向. 相似文献
11.
Zahiruddin Khurshid 《期刊图书馆员》2013,64(1):81-98
This research study evaluates the quality of articles published by Saudi and expatriate authors in foreign Library and Information Science (LIS) journals using three popular metrics for ranking journals—Journal Impact Factor (JIF), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Google Scholar Metrics (GSM). The reason for using multiple metrics is to see how closely or differently journals are ranked by the three different methods of citation analysis. However, the 2012 JIF list of journals is too small, almost half the size of the SJR and GSM lists, which inhibited one-to-one comparison among the impact factors of the thirty-six journals selected by Saudi authors for publishing articles. Only seventeen journals were found common to all the three lists, limiting the usefulness of the data. A basic problem is that Saudi LIS authors generally lack the level of competency in the English language required to achieve publication in the most prominent LIS journals. The study will have implications for authors, directors, and deans of all types of academic libraries; chairmen and deans of library schools; and the Saudi Library Association. Hopefully these entities will take necessary steps to prepare and motivate both academics and practicing librarians to improve the quality of their research and publications and thus get published in higher ranked journals. 相似文献
12.
Borja González-Pereira Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote Félix Moya-Anegón 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(3):379-391
A size-independent indicator of journals’ scientific prestige, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator, is proposed that ranks scholarly journals based on citation weighting schemes and eigenvector centrality. It is designed for use with complex and heterogeneous citation networks such as Scopus. Its computation method is described, and the results of its implementation on the Scopus 2007 dataset is compared with those of an ad hoc Journal Impact Factor, JIF(3y), both generally and within specific scientific areas. Both the SJR indicator and the JIF distributions were found to fit well to a logarithmic law. While the two metrics were strongly correlated, there were also major changes in rank. In addition, two general characteristics were observed. On the one hand, journals’ scientific influence or prestige as computed by the SJR indicator tended to be concentrated in fewer journals than the quantity of citation measured by JIF(3y). And on the other, the distance between the top-ranked journals and the rest tended to be greater in the SJR ranking than in that of the JIF(3y), while the separation between the middle and lower ranked journals tended to be smaller. 相似文献
13.
A new size-independent indicator of scientific journal prestige, the SJR2 indicator, is proposed. This indicator takes into account not only the prestige of the citing scientific journal but also its closeness to the cited journal using the cosine of the angle between the vectors of the two journals’ cocitation profiles. To eliminate the size effect, the accumulated prestige is divided by the fraction of the journal's citable documents, thus eliminating the decreasing tendency of this type of indicator and giving meaning to the scores. Its method of computation is described, and the results of its implementation on the Scopus 2008 dataset is compared with those of an ad hoc Journal Impact Factor, JIF(3y), and SNIP, the comparison being made both overall and within specific scientific areas. All three, the SJR2 indicator, the SNIP indicator and the JIF distributions, were found to fit well to a logarithmic law. Although the three metrics were strongly correlated, there were major changes in rank. In addition, the SJR2 was distributed more equalized than the JIF by Subject Area and almost as equalized as the SNIP, and better than both at the lower level of Specific Subject Areas. The incorporation of the cosine increased the values of the flows of prestige between thematically close journals. 相似文献
14.
引文评价新指标SNIP旨在评价不同主题领域期刊影响力。从理论上对比分析SNIP与IF、h指数、SJR指标值的原理、关系,各自的优缺点以及它们的应用区别。结果表明,理论上SNIP与其他3个指标存在关联性,具有一定的优势,可用于期刊评价实践中。 相似文献
15.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):181-196
The journal impact factor (JIF) reported in journal citation reports has been used to represent the influence and prestige of a journal. Whereas the consideration of the stochastic nature of a statistic is a prerequisite for statistical inference, the estimation of JIF uncertainty is necessary yet unavailable for comparing the impact among journals. Using journals in the Database of Research in Science Education (DoRISE), the current study proposes bootstrap methods to estimate the JIF variability. The paper also provides a comprehensive exposition of the sources of JIF variability. The collections of articles in the year of interest and in the preceding years both contribute to JIF variability. In addition, the variability estimate differs depending on the way a database selects its journals for inclusion. In the bootstrap process, the nested structure of articles in a journal was accounted for to ensure that each bootstrap replication reflects the actual citation characteristics of articles in the journal. In conclusion, the proposed point and interval estimates of the JIF statistic are obtained and more informative inferences on the impact of journals can be drawn. 相似文献
16.
《Journal of Informetrics》2020,14(1):101007
This study compares the two-year impact factor (JIF2), JIF2 without journal self-citation (JIF2_noJSC), five-year impact factor (JIF5), eigenfactor score and article influence score (AIS) and investigates their relative changes with time. JIF2 increased faster than JIF5 overall. The relative change between JIF2 and JIF_noJSC shows that the control of JCR over journal self-citation is effective to some extent. JIF5 is more discriminative than JIF2. The correlation between JIF5 and AIS is stronger than that between JIF5 and the eigenfactor score. The relative change in journal rank according to different indicators varies with the ratio of the indicators and can be up to 60 % of the number of journals in a subject category. There is subject category discrepancy in the average AIS and its change over time. Through the screening of journals according to variations in the ratio of JIF2 to JIF5 for journals in individual subject categories, we found that journals in the same subject categories can have considerably different citation patterns. To provide a fair comparison of journals in individual subject categories, we argue that it is better to replace JIF2 with the ready-made JIF5 when ranking journals. 相似文献
17.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(2):369-383
Subject classification arises as an important topic for bibliometrics and scientometrics, searching to develop reliable and consistent tools and outputs. Such objectives also call for a well delimited underlying subject classification scheme that adequately reflects scientific fields. Within the broad ensemble of classification techniques, clustering analysis is one of the most successful.Two clustering algorithms based on modularity – the VOS and Louvain methods – are presented here for the purpose of updating and optimizing the journal classification of the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) platform. We used network analysis and Pajek visualization software to run both algorithms on a network of more than 18,000 SJR journals combining three citation-based measures of direct citation, co-citation and bibliographic coupling. The set of clusters obtained was termed through category labels assigned to SJR journals and significant words from journal titles.Despite the fact that both algorithms exhibited slight differences in performance, the results show a similar behaviour in grouping journals. Consequently, they are deemed to be appropriate solutions for classification purposes. The two newly generated algorithm-based classifications were compared to other bibliometric classification systems, including the original SJR and WoS Subject Categories, in order to validate their consistency, adequacy and accuracy. In addition to some noteworthy differences, we found a certain coherence and homogeneity among the four classification systems analysed. 相似文献
18.
[目的/意义]针对现有评价方法对期刊影响因素考虑不全面的问题,提出一种将期刊被引频次、被引时间异质性与被引分布均衡性相结合的期刊综合评价方法。[方法/过程]首先,基于期刊被引时间的异质性计算加权篇均被引频次;其次,利用改进后的泰尔指数衡量期刊被引分布的均衡性;最后,利用熵权法与灰色关联分析法将被引时间异质性与被引频次均衡性相结合,构建期刊综合评价指数——关联度指数(Relevance Index,简称RI)。[结果/结论]通过对国外图书情报领域的40种期刊进行实证分析,结果发现:相比于JIF和h指数,RI指数能够考虑期刊被引时间的异质性,时效性更强,权重分配更合理;RI指数能兼顾期刊被引分布的均衡性,能够识别平均影响力较强的期刊,评价结果更加客观、全面。 相似文献
19.
The journal impact factor (JIF) is the average of the number of citations of the papers published in a journal, calculated according to a specific formula; it is extensively used for the evaluation of research and researchers. The method assumes that all papers in a journal have the same scientific merit, which is measured by the JIF of the publishing journal. This implies that the number of citations measures scientific merits but the JIF does not evaluate each individual paper by its own number of citations. Therefore, in the comparative evaluation of two papers, the use of the JIF implies a risk of failure, which occurs when a paper in the journal with the lower JIF is compared to another with fewer citations in the journal with the higher JIF. To quantify this risk of failure, this study calculates the failure probabilities, taking advantage of the lognormal distribution of citations. In two journals whose JIFs are ten-fold different, the failure probability is low. However, in most cases when two papers are compared, the JIFs of the journals are not so different. Then, the failure probability can be close to 0.5, which is equivalent to evaluating by coin flipping. 相似文献