共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Computer science is a relatively young discipline combining science, engineering, and mathematics. The main flavors of computer science research involve the theoretical development of conceptual models for the different aspects of computing and the more applicative building of software artifacts and assessment of their properties. In the computer science publication culture, conferences are an important vehicle to quickly move ideas, and journals often publish deeper versions of papers already presented at conferences. These peculiarities of the discipline make computer science an original research field within the sciences, and, therefore, the assessment of classical bibliometric laws is particularly important for this field. In this paper, we study the skewness of the distribution of citations to papers published in computer science publication venues (journals and conferences). We find that the skewness in the distribution of mean citedness of different venues combines with the asymmetry in citedness of articles in each venue, resulting in a highly asymmetric citation distribution with a power law tail. Furthermore, the skewness of conference publications is more pronounced than the asymmetry of journal papers. Finally, the impact of journal papers, as measured with bibliometric indicators, largely dominates that of proceeding papers. 相似文献
2.
How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Ismael Rafols Loet LeydesdorffAlice O’Hare Paul NightingaleAndy Stirling 《Research Policy》2012,41(7):1262-1282
This study provides quantitative evidence on how the use of journal rankings can disadvantage interdisciplinary research in research evaluations. Using publication and citation data, it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of a number of Innovation Studies units with that of leading Business & Management Schools (BMS) in the UK. On the basis of various mappings and metrics, this study shows that: (i) Innovation Studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary in their research than Business & Management Schools; (ii) the top journals in the Association of Business Schools’ rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower-ranked journals; (iii) this results in a more favourable assessment of the performance of Business & Management Schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. This citation-based analysis challenges the journal ranking-based assessment. In short, the investigation illustrates how ostensibly ‘excellence-based’ journal rankings exhibit a systematic bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of these phenomena, in particular how the bias is likely to affect negatively the evaluation and associated financial resourcing of interdisciplinary research organisations, and may result in researchers becoming more compliant with disciplinary authority over time. 相似文献
3.
4.
This paper considers the use of the h-index as a measure of a journal’s research quality and contribution. We study a sample of 455 journals in business and management all of which are included in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) and the Association of Business School’s peer review journal ranking list. The h-index is compared with both the traditional impact factors, and with the peer review judgements. We also consider two sources of citation data – the WoS itself and Google Scholar. The conclusions are that the h-index is preferable to the impact factor for a variety of reasons, especially the selective coverage of the impact factor and the fact that it disadvantages journals that publish many papers. Google Scholar is also preferred to WoS as a data source. However, the paper notes that it is not sufficient to use any single metric to properly evaluate research achievements. 相似文献
5.
The 2008 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK involved the peer review of over 12,500 research outputs in Business and Management, of which 92% were journal articles. Each output was graded on a 4-point scale from “world leading” to “national” with a fifth point being unclassified. These grades were accumulated for each department to provide an overall quality profile in terms of the proportions of its outputs in each category. The assessments of individual papers were not made public but the papers submitted by each department were. This data provides a major opportunity for addressing issues of concern about the evaluation of research and the effects of journal rankings, as well as the possibility of reconstructing the judgements made by the Panel about journal quality. Given the submission details and the resulting grade profile for each department, we have used linear programming to produce the best estimate of the grades awarded to papers from each journal that had more than three entries. This provides both a grade profile for each journal and a single quality estimate. The results are shown to have good validity in comparison with other journal rankings. Apart from providing a ranking of 700 journals based on the RAE results, the paper is also able to shed light on issues such as the accuracy and coverage of the ABS ranking; the degree of selectivity of submissions; the dispersion of grades for a journal; and differences between different subject areas. 相似文献
6.
In this work we develop new journal classification methods based on the h-index. The introduction of the h-index for research evaluation has attracted much attention in the bibliometric study and research quality evaluation. The main purpose of using an h-index is to compare the index for different research units (e.g. researchers, journals, etc.) to differentiate their research performance. However the h-index is defined by only comparing citations counts of one’s own publications, it is doubtful that the h index alone should be used for reliable comparisons among different research units, like researchers or journals. In this paper we propose a new global h-index (Gh-index), where the publications in the core are selected in comparison with all the publications of the units to be evaluated. Furthermore, we introduce some variants of the Gh-index to address the issue of discrimination power. We show that together with the original h-index, they can be used to evaluate and classify academic journals with some distinct advantages, in particular that they can produce an automatic classification into a number of categories without arbitrary cut-off points. We then carry out an empirical study for classification of operations research and management science (OR/MS) journals using this index, and compare it with other well-known journal ranking results such as the Association of Business Schools (ABS) Journal Quality Guide and the Committee of Professors in OR (COPIOR) ranking lists. 相似文献
7.
8.
学术期刊评价中不同利益主体关系研究 总被引：6，自引：0，他引：6
分析了学术期刊评价中政府、专业评价机构、期刊社、科研人员之间的关系.认为学术期刊适当多分级有利于调动科研力量相对薄弱的高校与科研院所科研人员的积极性;对科研人员的评价要重视学术质量而不是看重发表其论文的学术期刊级别;对专业评价机构数量的增加要适当进行控制;在学术期刊评价中不能光评优而不评劣,要整顿偏离学术期刊正确办刊道路的少数不合格期刊;要加强学术期刊评价的管理与监督. 相似文献
9.
Highly skilled return migrants contribute to the establishment of ties between the home and host systems. This paper studies how the professional ties, which Argentinean researchers built up during the time spent in foreign research systems, influence their collaboration patterns and their research outputs upon return. It confirms the expectation that having foreign work experience helps to explain the propensity to co-publish internationally and it also shows that researchers collaborate to a higher degree with their former host system. Another central finding is that foreign work experience has a positive effect on the propensity to publish in journals with a high impact factor. Additionally, a large share of this type of research is published without international co-authorship. We therefore do no not find evidence of a lack of publication autonomy in the case of Argentinean returnees. 相似文献
10.
《Research Policy》2022,51(1):104407
In 2020, China's government implemented a new research evaluation policy that requires Chinese scholars to both publish at least one third of their works in Chinese journals and continue engaging with the international research community. This policy may challenge how universities have evaluated the respective worth of faculty who have gained their qualifications in China and abroad. To theorize on and assist practitioners in confronting this possibility, we compare the contributions made to China's journals by academic economists with foreign qualifications (Returnees) and by their peers with Chinese degrees (Domestics) across a fifteen-year period. We find that Returnees publish higher quality papers than Domestics, that the concentration of Returnees in academic departments impacts the research quality of both Domestic and Returnee faculty, and that the spillover effect is pronounced where intradepartmental collaboration is encouraged. On this basis, we advise that university administrators charged with determining their institution's talent management policy should continue to prioritize the appointment of Returnees and actively strive to promote research collaboration within departments. 相似文献
11.
12.
13.
Ana Maru?i? Mario Mali?ki Erik von Elm 《Biochemia medica : ?asopis Hrvatskoga dru?tva medicinskih biokemi?ara / HDMB》2014,24(2):211-216
Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research. 相似文献
14.
[目的/意义]互联网时代出现看多种新论文发表系统,对多种论文发表系统之间逻辑分类关系以及彼此之间的中长期格局演化进行讨论。[方法/过程]从论文发表系统对一篇论文是否进行评议、评议是否分级、是否拒稿3个维度提出论文交流系统分类框架,将期刊、预印本、F1000 Research、在线评级平台4种论文发表系统全部统一在一个分类框架中。另外,基于研究者与研究管理部门对论文交流系统的不同需求,定性分析了论文交流系统的中长期演化格局。[结果/结论]中长期看,在线评级平台将对期刊系统形成明显冲击,期刊内部两极分化。 相似文献
15.
《Research Policy》2023,52(7):104797
We document an affiliation bias in top Chinese journals and the gender gap in the current affiliation effect. We find that papers written by researchers who are affiliated with the journals' host institutions on average receive fewer citation counts than those written by non-affiliated researchers. Moreover, we show that this affiliation bias is greater for men than for women. We propose that the current effect can be accounted for by a social capital mechanism, and we provide evidence consistent with our proposition. In addition, the results of our analyses demonstrate heterogeneity of the affiliation bias and the gender gap with regard to researcher status. We discuss alternative mechanisms of the current effect and implications of our research. 相似文献
16.
[目的]反映我国中文学术期刊采用国际通用学术诚信控制机制的现状。[方法]依据《中文核心期刊要目总览(2011年版)》,采用简单随机抽样法,从各个一级学科中分别抽取20%的期刊(共401种)作为研究样本,以各个期刊2015年第1期印本及其官方网站为依据,调查各期刊采用作者贡献声明、采用潜在利益冲突声明、要求研究数据公开、要求责任编辑公开的情况。[结果]样本期刊中99%以上期刊没有提供作者贡献声明,98%以上期刊未提及任何原始数据信息,没有一种样本期刊提供潜在利益冲突声明,48.38%期刊给出了每篇论文的责任编辑。[结论]我国中文学术期刊很少采用国际通用的学术诚信控制机制。建议学术期刊应全面采用学术诚信控制机制,提高对学术诚信进行细化、可操作、可检验、可比较以及可问责的检验能力。 相似文献
17.
[目的/意义]在新技术环境下,图书情报学领域期刊影响力评价与排名的需求正在发生变化。为了完善学科排名体系,文章基于社会网络分析法提出一种新的排名思路--从知识传播角度考虑期刊排名。[方法/过程]文章以近十年的中文社会科学引文索引(CSSCI)数据库中图书馆、情报与文献学(简称LIS)专业的来源期刊为研究对象,应用社会网络分析的研究方法,运用UCINET软件,对这些期刊的知识传播模式进行分析,在知识传播网络中按不同特性对期刊进行排名,并且探究了LIS期刊在知识传播网络中子群的构成。[结果/结论]LIS各个期刊知识传播的出度与入度差距较大,少数的期刊传播领域内大量知识。按照LIS期刊在知识网络中的不同特性排名与按照影响因子排名有差异,在知识传播网络中也可提取出具有相似的出度入度的LIS期刊的子群,以便对LIS期刊影响力进行更好的研究。 相似文献
18.
19.
《Research Policy》2019,48(7):1617-1632
This study examines the relationship between gender diversity and research outcomes. Existing research on the topic primarily focuses on how team gender diversity influences scholarly productivity in terms of citations and publication rates. Far less attention has been devoted to the question of how the intellectual contents of research disciplines change as they become more gender diverse. Drawing on a global sample of more than 25,000 management papers, we use natural language processing techniques, correspondence analysis and regression models to illuminate impact-, content- and status-related dimensions of gender diversity in management research. In regression models adjusting for geographical setting, institutional prestige and collaboration patterns, we find no discernable effects of team gender diversity on per-paper scientific impact. In contrast, our analyses converge to yield a broadly consistent pattern of gender-related variations in research focus: women are well-represented in social- and human-centered areas of management, while men comprise the vast majority in areas addressing more technical and operational aspects. Our findings corroborate recent sociological research suggesting that cultural norms and expectations are channeling women and men towards different areas of work and study. We argue that the broadened repertoire of perspectives, values and questions resulting from gender diversity may render management research more responsive to the full gamut of societal needs and expectations. 相似文献
20.
【目的】对2012-2014年高校主办科技期刊入选"百种中国杰出学术期刊" 的典型特征进行研究。【方法】 分析入选期刊重要文献指标的变化。【结果】 指出在所属学科中期刊综合评价总分领先和影响因子、学科影响指标、他引率等文献计量指标居前是科技期刊入选百种杰出学术期刊的关键,用影响因子当量值可预测今后入选的期刊。结合《中国矿业大学学报》蝉联百种杰出学术期刊的工作实践,提出编辑在初审来稿创新时应注重的3个层次和关注的3个方面因素。【结论】 把握期刊组稿优先方向,注重在稿源、评审质量、编辑水平和传播速度4个方面提高期刊的竞争力,有助于期刊今后入选百种杰出学术期刊。 相似文献