共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2017,43(5):434-442
This study uses citation data and survey data for 55 library and information science journals to identify three factors underlying a set of 11 journal ranking metrics (six citation metrics and five stated preference metrics). The three factors—three composite rankings—represent (1) the citation impact of a typical article, (2) subjective reputation, and (3) the citation impact of the journal as a whole (all articles combined). Together, they account for 77% of the common variance within the set of 11 metrics. Older journals (those founded before 1953) and nonprofit journals tend to have high reputation scores relative to their citation impact. Unlike previous research, this investigation shows no clear evidence of a distinction between the journals of greatest importance to scholars and those of greatest importance to practitioners. Neither group's subjective journal rankings are closely related to citation impact. 相似文献
2.
以《复印报刊资料》(下称资料)研究论文定量分析和2000—2003年图书馆学情报学期刊全文转载排名为基础，通过比较其综合排名与《中文核心期刊要目总览》、《中文社会科学引文索引》、《中国人文社会科学核心期刊要览》的差异和CNKI、《中文科技期刊引文数据库》收录期刊基金论文和被引频次验证排名合理性，结果表明《资料》期刊排名有一定的合理性，基金论文和被引频次是衡量期刊排名的客观指标。 相似文献
3.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of Pakistani Medical Journals using the principles of citation analysis. METHODS: References of articles published in 2006 in three selected Pakistani medical journals were collected and examined. The number of citations for each Pakistani medical journal was totalled. The first ranking of journals was based on the total number of citations; second ranking was based on impact factor 2006 and third ranking was based on the 5-year impact factor. Self-citations were excluded in all the three ratings. RESULTS: A total of 9079 citations in 567 articles were examined. Forty-nine separate Pakistani medical journals were cited. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association remains on the top in all three rankings, while Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons-Pakistan attains second position in the ranking based on the total number of citations. The Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences moves to second position in the ranking based on the impact factor 2006. The Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad moves to second position in the ranking based on the 5-year impact factor. CONCLUSION: This study examined the citation pattern of Pakistani medical journals. The impact factor, despite its limitations, is a valid indicator of quality for journals. 相似文献
4.
期刊引用认同指标在期刊评价中的适用性分析 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
论文以CSSCI图书情报领域的18种期刊为例,以这些期刊在2009年全年登载论文的参考文献为研究对象,从CSSCI数据库中获取数据,统计分析各期刊的引用认同。结果显示:期刊引用认同指标(引文量、篇均引文量、英文引文比、期刊引用广度、自施引率、引用半衰期、期刊集中因子、认同期刊影响力等指标)与CSSCI来源期刊定量与定性评价指标并不明显相关,但这类指标可以反映期刊载文的内容特征与偏好、对国外科学文献和对其他学科文献的利用程度、期刊的办刊定位、学科的发展模式等等,在综合评价期刊方面具有一定意义。 相似文献
5.
Assessing the scholarly impact of academic institutions has become increasingly important. The achievements of editorial board members can create benchmarks for research excellence and can be used to evaluate both individual and institutional performance. This paper proposes a new method based on journal editor data for assessing an institution’s scholarly impact. In this paper, a journal editorship index (JEI) that simultaneously accounts for the journal rating (JR), editor title (ET), and board size (BS) is constructed. We assess the scholarly impact of economics institutions based on the editorial boards of 211 economics journals (which include 8640 editorial board members) in the ABS Academic Journal Guide. Three indices (JEI/ET, JEI/JR, and JEI/BS) are also used to rank the institutions. It was found that there was only a slight change in the relative institutional rankings using the JEI/ET and JEI/BS compared to the JEI. The BS and ET weight factors did not have a substantial influence on the ranking of institutions. It was also found that the journal rating weight factor had a large effect on the ranking of institutions. This paper presents an alternative approach to using editorial board memberships as the basis for assessing the scholarly impact of economics institutions. 相似文献
6.
László Csató 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(4):100975
Journal ranking is becoming more important in assessing the quality of academic research. Several indices have been suggested for this purpose, typically on the basis of a citation graph between the journals. We follow an axiomatic approach and find an impossibility theorem: any self-consistent ranking method, which satisfies a natural monotonicity property, should depend on the level of aggregation. Our result presents a trade-off between two axiomatic properties and reveals a dilemma of aggregation. 相似文献
7.
8.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(1):102484
Although there are at least six dimensions of journal quality, Beall's List identifies predatory Open Access journals based almost entirely on their adherence to procedural norms. The journals identified as predatory by one standard may be regarded as legitimate by other standards. This study examines the scholarly impact of the 58 accounting journals on Beall's List, calculating citations per article and estimating CiteScore percentile using Google Scholar data for more than 13,000 articles published from 2015 through 2018. Most Beall's List accounting journals have only modest citation impact, with an average estimated CiteScore in the 11th percentile among Scopus accounting journals. Some have a substantially greater impact, however. Six journals have estimated CiteScores at or above the 25th percentile, and two have scores at or above the 30th percentile. Moreover, there is considerable variation in citation impact among the articles within each journal, and high-impact articles (cited up to several hundred times) have appeared even in some of the Beall's List accounting journals with low citation rates. Further research is needed to determine how well the citing journals are integrated into the disciplinary citation network—whether the citing journals are themselves reputable or not. 相似文献
9.
Michelle Wilde 《资料收集管理》2013,38(2):102-107
The Local Journal Utilization Report (LJUR) is a customized report about an institution's citation and publishing history. Based on data from the Web of Science database, LJUR can be a useful tool for libraries in a variety of capacities, from informing journal cancellation decisions to quantifying institutional research trends. 相似文献
10.
Henk F. Moed 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(3):265-277
This paper explores a new indicator of journal citation impact, denoted as source normalized impact per paper (SNIP). It measures a journal's contextual citation impact, taking into account characteristics of its properly defined subject field, especially the frequency at which authors cite other papers in their reference lists, the rapidity of maturing of citation impact, and the extent to which a database used for the assessment covers the field's literature. It further develops Eugene Garfield's notions of a field's ‘citation potential’ defined as the average length of references lists in a field and determining the probability of being cited, and the need in fair performance assessments to correct for differences between subject fields. A journal's subject field is defined as the set of papers citing that journal. SNIP is defined as the ratio of the journal's citation count per paper and the citation potential in its subject field. It aims to allow direct comparison of sources in different subject fields. Citation potential is shown to vary not only between journal subject categories – groupings of journals sharing a research field – or disciplines (e.g., journals in mathematics, engineering and social sciences tend to have lower values than titles in life sciences), but also between journals within the same subject category. For instance, basic journals tend to show higher citation potentials than applied or clinical journals, and journals covering emerging topics higher than periodicals in classical subjects or more general journals. SNIP corrects for such differences. Its strengths and limitations are critically discussed, and suggestions are made for further research. All empirical results are derived from Elsevier's Scopus. 相似文献
11.
12.
The purpose of this study is to test for the presence of order-effect bias in journal ranking surveys. Data were obtained from 379 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers who rated 25 journals on a 7-point scale. Five different versions of the survey instrument were utilized. Consistent with the cognitive elaboration model, the satisficing theory, and the Gricean maxim of orderliness, order-effect bias was observed in journal ranking surveys. Journals that appear in the beginning of the ranking list delivered to survey respondents consistently receive higher scores than journals at the end of the list. Overall, the position of the journal in the list explains over 10% of its score. Therefore, authors of journal ranking studies are recommended to use multiple versions of the survey instrument with randomized journal orders. 相似文献
13.
Sergio Copiello 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(3):249-258
This paper takes the cue from the case of a retracted paper, cited both by the retraction notice and by an article published later in the same journal. This led to analysis and discussion on the skewness of citations in the journal Sustainability and within Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) journals, particularly investigating self‐citations at journal and publisher levels. I analysed articles published by Sustainability in 2015 and found that self‐citations are higher than expected under a uniform probability distribution. Self‐citations in this journal make a 36% difference to the journal's impact factor. This research raises the question of what citation patterns can be expected as normal, and where the boundary between normal and anomaly lies. I suggest the issue deserves further investigation because self‐citations have several implications, ranging from impact factors to visibility and influence of scientific journals. 相似文献
14.
Konstantinos Petridis Chrisovalantis Malesios Garyfallos Arabatzis Emmanuel Thanassoulis 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(2):505-521
In this paper we attempt to assess the impact of journals in the field of forestry, in terms of bibliometric data, by providing an evaluation of forestry journals based on data envelopment analysis (DEA). In addition, based on the results of the conducted analysis, we provide suggestions for improving the impact of the journals in terms of widely accepted measures of journal citation impact, such as the journal impact factor (IF) and the journal h-index. More specifically, by modifying certain inputs associated with the productivity of forestry journals, we have illustrated how this method could be utilized to raise their efficiency, which in terms of research impact can then be translated into an increase of their bibliometric indices, such as the h-index, IF or eigenfactor score. 相似文献
15.
学术界目前大多从静态角度评价学术期刊影响力,比较缺乏动态角度的相关研究。文章借助牛顿第二定律的原理,旨在探索评价学术期刊动态影响力的指标和方法,从期刊影响速度、加速度及影响强度三个角度展开研究,并提出期刊影响强度的概念。以CSSCI经济学期刊为研究对象,基于中国知网CNKI的引文数据库,综合采用相关分析、回归分析、Kappa一致性检验等方法进行研究。研究结果表明:期刊影响强度可以作为一个期刊评价的新指标;期刊影响强度具有较好的区分度;期刊影响强度与h指数、篇均被引量具有正相关关系;建议采用期刊影响速度、加速度与影响强度评价期刊。 相似文献
16.
《资料收集管理》2013,38(3):29-36
A comparison of a Bradford-ranked list of journals in the field of mathematics with a list of the same journals ranked by citation counts finds little correlation between the two. A previous study by Lamb shows a high correlation between a ranking based on citation frequency for these journals and a ranking based on the prestige of individual contributors. Lamb's study suggests that a selection policy based on choosing journals publishing the most papers on a topic will result in the acquisition of high quality papers. The results of this study cast doubt on Lamb's conclusions. 相似文献
17.
期刊学术影响力、期刊对稿件的录用标准和期刊载文的学术影响力三者之间存在同向加强的机制,来自较高影响力期刊的引用具有较高的评价意义。作者的择刊引用和择刊发表使得较低学术影响力的期刊较少被较高影响力期刊引用。因而,可以通过同时考察构成期刊引证形象的施引期刊的学术影响力及其施引频次来评价被引期刊的学术影响力。以综合性期刊Nature和Science 2010年的引证形象为例,将期刊影响因子作为学术影响力的初评结果,提出了以施引频次对施引期刊影响因子加权的计算方法,以期通过量化的引证形象实现对期刊的评价。 相似文献
18.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(6):102618
PurposeThis paper aims to examine whether Altmetric data can be used as an indicator for identifying predatory journals.Design/methodology/approachThis is an applied study which uses citation and Altmetrics methods. The study selected 21 predatory journals from the Beall's list and Kscien's list, as well as 18 non-predatory open access journals from the DOAJ's list, in the field of Library and Information Science. The Altmetric score for articles published in these journals was obtained from the Altmetric Explorer, a service provided by Altmetric.com. Web of Science was used to search for citation data of articles published in these journals.FindingsThe predatory journals almost have no presence in social media, with poor Altmetric score. In contrast, non-predatory open access journals have a high presence rate and Altmetric score. There is a significant positive correlation between the number of articles cited and the number of articles having Altmetric score among non-predatory open-access journals, but not among predatory journals. Poor Altmetric score may be viewed as a potential characteristic of predatory journals, but other indicators would also need to be considered to determine whether a journal is predatory.Originality/valueDistinct from the traditional research methods, this study combined citation analysis and Altmetrics analysis. By comparing the characteristics of predatory journals and non-predatory open access journals, the findings contribute to the identification of predatory journals. 相似文献
19.
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
20.
以《中国天然药物》为例,探讨青年编辑如何在工作实践基础上,依托期刊发展平台,不断提高自身业务素质,包括:依托期刊国际化平台,提高英语水平,拓宽知识面;通过定期组稿和召开学术会议,培养跟踪学科前沿的能力;借助期刊主办大型学术活动,锻炼组织沟通能力;以给编委提供检索情报为契机,开展文献计量学课题研究;总结期刊发展经验,提高撰写编辑学论文的能力。期望本文能为青年编辑的成长提供借鉴。 相似文献