共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 855 毫秒
1.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(2):406-418
The journal impact factor is not comparable among fields of science and social science because of systematic differences in publication and citation behavior across disciplines. In this work, a source normalization of the journal impact factor is proposed. We use the aggregate impact factor of the citing journals as a measure of the citation potential in the journal topic, and we employ this citation potential in the normalization of the journal impact factor to make it comparable between scientific fields. An empirical application comparing some impact indicators with our topic normalized impact factor in a set of 224 journals from four different fields shows that our normalization, using the citation potential in the journal topic, reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a higher proportion than the rest of indicators analyzed. The effect of journal self-citations over the normalization process is also studied. 相似文献
2.
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
3.
4.
期刊引用认同及其被引评价新指标有效性分析 总被引：2，自引：1，他引：1
以影响因子等引文数据为核心的期刊评价指标体系虽广为使用,但也备受争议.本文从期刊引用认同、期刊被引及期刊国际化等三个方面分析了不仅仅依赖于"影响因子"的评价期刊的新指标,并对相关指标的有效性问题进行讨论.分析表明,基于期刊引用认同视角和基于期刊被引网络视角的很多指标可以与期刊影响因子指标相印证,可用作国内期刊评价的新尝试,而相关期刊国际化评价指标还需在实践中进一步检验. 相似文献
5.
《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
6.
SCI的引文统计指标及其与研究评价的关系 总被引：16，自引：1，他引：15
从引证类型和检索系统统计源期刊组成分析SCI的引文统计数据及相关指标与期刊和论文学术水平间的不对应关系，并从引文统计时段、论文类型和期刊大小等方面探讨影响因子本身的不确定性；通过分析中国科技期刊的被引情况指出SCI中引文数据的统计错误。认为在我国的科研成果和学术期刊评价中，一定要具体分析SCI的统计数据，适度、合理地使用引证分析方法。 相似文献
7.
8.
文章对我国6个学科的社科学术期刊3类评价指标及其相互间的相关性进行分析。研究表明:分学科而言,3个特征指标之间相关性不明显;3个转载指标间具有较强的相关关系,特别是综合指数和转载量、转载率之间具有强相关性;除了复合即年指标外,其他引用指标间均呈现出一定程度的正相关关系,影响力指数与其他引用指标间呈现出较强的相关关系,复合影响因子、复合他引影响因子、5年复合影响因子两两间呈强相关关系;期刊特征指标与转载指标、引用指标之间的相关性均不显著。转载指标与引用指标间具有中度的相关关系。评价体系不宜同时使用正相关度较强的多项指标,或者应适当控制其总权重;期刊选文时不应太注重基金论文比、平均引文数等特征指标,应注重论文的学术质量。总体上看,高等院校学报和专业社科期刊相比,3类评价指标之间的相关性差异不明显,高等院校学报人不必因为影响力的原因而纠结是否进行专业化发展,而应该根据自身资源条件选择发展策略。 相似文献
9.
历史影响因子:一个新的学术期刊存量评价指标 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
[目的/意义]期刊评价指标是期刊某个视角水平的综合体现,因此有必要必须不断深化和发展;提出一个新的期刊存量指标--历史影响因子,就是期刊总被引频次除以载文量再除以办刊年限。[方法/过程]以科技管理类期刊为例,基于中国知网数据库CNKI,采用相关系数、聚类分析、岭回归进行了实证。[结果/结论]研究表明,历史影响因子兼有影响因子和h指数的优点,克服了传统期刊评价指标存量指标过少、不考虑期刊办刊时间、不考虑期刊载文数量等局限,是一个较好的期刊评价指标。历史影响因子没有考虑期刊自引问题,而且不同的引文数据库对历史影响因子的影响也比较大,在具体应用时可根据需要排除自引或选择其他引文数据库。 相似文献
10.
针对Z指数不能实现跨学科领域期刊评价的缺陷,文章通过引入学科规范化引文影响力修正不同学科的引用差异,改进Z指数并提出ZCNCI指数。通过分析ZCNCI指数与Z指数、P指数、SNIP、标准化特征因子、影响因子百分位等指标的相关性和差异性,验证ZCNCI指数跨学科期刊评价的效力。结果表明,ZCNCI指数延续了Z指数综合反映期刊数量、质量和被引分布特征的优势,与Z指数、P指数、标准化特征因子的相关性较高,且克服了SNIP、影响因子百分位的评价缺陷,在跨学科期刊评价中的综合表现较好。ZCNCI指数具有跨学科期刊评价效力,可用于跨学科期刊评价。 相似文献
11.
如何提高英文版科技期刊的被引频次和影响因子 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
从总被引频次和影响因子2方面分析我国英文版科技期刊的引用指标的现状和引用指标偏低的原因.提出了提高英文版科技期刊被引频次和影响因子的措施:1)注重期刊的国内外发行工作;2)通过建立英文网站及加入国内外知名数据库,提高文章的点击率及浏览量;3)请专家把语言关. 相似文献
12.
13.
《Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory #》1994,18(4):447-458
Following a brief introduction of citation-based journal rankings as potential serials management tools, the most frequently used citation measure—impact factor—is explained. This paper then demonstrates a methodological bias inherent in averaging Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (SSCI JCR) impact factor data from two or more consecutive years. A possible method for correcting the bias, termed adjusted impact factor, is proposed. For illustration, a set of political science journals is ranked according to three different methods (crude averaging, weighted averaging, and adjusted impact factor) for combining SSCI JCR impact factor data from successive years. Although the correlations among the three methods are quite high, one can observe noteworthy differences in the rankings that could impact on collection development decisions. 相似文献
14.
《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
15.
通过研究中国SCIE期刊学科分布,为中国英文期刊的学科布局提供依据,以提高我国英文期刊水平、吸引优质稿源回流.利用WoS和JCR,获取我国SCIE期刊的刊名、学科领域、影响因子等指标,对比分析出我国没有SCIE期刊的空白学科领域,并研究相关领域的论文产出情况.结果显示:我国SCIE收录期刊学科分布不均,具有Ql区期刊的学科有12个,期刊数大于或等于5刊次的学科有13个,尚有71个学科没有SCIE期刊;有些空白领域已有大量SCIE论文发表,有实力创办高水平英文期刊. 相似文献
16.
《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
17.
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
18.
There is an overall perception of increased interdisciplinarity in science, but this is difficult to confirm quantitatively owing to the lack of adequate methods to evaluate subjective phenomena. This is no different from the difficulties in establishing quantitative relationships in human and social sciences. In this paper we quantified the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals and science fields by using an entropy measurement based on the diversity of the subject categories of journals citing a specific journal. The methodology consisted in building citation networks using the Journal Citation Reports® database, in which the nodes were journals and edges were established based on citations among journals. The overall network for the 11-year period (1999–2009) studied was small-world and followed a power-law with exponential cutoff distribution with regard to the in-strength. Upon visualizing the network topology an overall structure of the various science fields could be inferred, especially their interconnections. We confirmed quantitatively that science fields are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, with the degree of interdisplinarity (i.e. entropy) correlating strongly with the in-strength of journals and with the impact factor. 相似文献
19.
OBJECTIVES: Patterns of use of electronic versions of journals supplied by an academic health sciences library were examined to determine whether they differed from patterns of use among corresponding print titles and to relate the applicability of print collection development practices to an electronic environment. METHODS: Use data supplied by three major vendors of electronic journals were compared to reshelving data for corresponding print titles, impact factors, and presence on Brandon/Hill Lists. RESULTS: In collections where one-click access from a database record to the full text of articles was possible, electronic use correlated with print use across journal pairs. In both versions, Brandon/Hill titles were used more frequently than non-Brandon/Hill titles, use had modest correlations with journals' impact factors, and clinical use appeared to be higher than research use. Titles that had not been selected for the library's print collections, but which were bundled into publishers' packages, received little use compared to electronic titles also selected in print. CONCLUSIONS: Collection development practices based on quality and user needs can be applied with confidence to the electronic environment. Facilitating direct connections between citation databases and the corresponding journal articles regardless of platform or publisher will support scholarship and quality health care. 相似文献
20.
《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