共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
An expert ranking of forestry journals was compared with Journal Impact Factors and h-indices computed from the ISI Web of Science and internet-based data. Citations reported by Google Scholar offer an efficient way to rank all journals objectively, in a manner consistent with other indicators. This h-index exhibited a high correlation with the Journal Impact Factor (r = 0.92), but is not confined to journals selected by any particular commercial provider. A ranking of 180 forestry journals is presented, on the basis of this index. 相似文献
2.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):13-24
The time evolution of mean received citations is calculated on a sample of journals from two ISI subject categories (“Chemistry, multidisciplinary”, ISI Science Edition, and “Management”, ISI Social Science edition) with the use of an original methodology. Mean received citations are plotted against the time gap in years existing between publication of the cited article and received citations. For most Chemistry journals in the sample the maximum number of average received citations occurs two years after publication, and then a decrease is experimented. Some peculiar cases present a different trend. Management journals, conversely, do not present in most cases a peak of citations: average received citations instead grow from year of publication to the age of 10 years (maximum time gap studied). A subsample of journals show similar results for longer time series (up to 23 years). Medians of average received citations per year partly show a similar behavior. Results suggest that citedness follows very different trends in very different fields, and partly suggest why differences in Journal Impact Factor exist between different categories. At the end of the work conclusions are drawn, together with suggestions for future research. 相似文献
3.
Ugo Finardi 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(2):357-370
Since its introduction, the Journal Impact Factor has probably been the most extensively adopted bibliometric indicator. Notwithstanding its well-known strengths and limits, it is still widely misused as a tool for evaluation, well beyond the purposes it was intended for. In order to shed further light on its nature, the present work studies how the correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and the (time-weighed) article Mean Received Citations (intended as a measure of journal performance) has evolved through time. It focuses on a sample of hard sciences and social sciences journals from the 1999 to 2010 time period. Correlation coefficients (Pearson's Coefficients as well as Spearman's Coefficients and Kendall's τα) are calculated and then tested against several null hypotheses. The results show that in most cases Journal Impact Factors and their yearly variations do not display a strong correlation with citedness. Differences also exist among scientific areas. 相似文献
4.
Thomas E. Gaston Francesca Ounsworth Tessa Senders Sarah Ritchie Emma Jones 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):154-162
Previous research has found that researchers rank journal reputation and impact factor (IF) amongst the key selection criteria when choosing where to submit. We explored the actual effect upon submission numbers of several possible factors. We retrieved 10 years of submission data from over a thousand journals, as well as data on IF, retractions, and other factors. We performed statistical analysis and identified correlations. We also undertook case study research on the 55 most significant submission decreases. We found a statistically significant correlation between changes in IF, ISI percentage ranking, and changes in submissions numbers in subsequent years. We also found a statistically significant effect on submission numbers in the year following the publication of a retraction. Our case studies identified other factors, including negative feedback on the peer review process. Our findings regarding IF confirm previous indications about the significance of IF on submissions. We explain the correlation with retractions through the concept of ‘peer review reputation’. These results indicate that editors and publishers need to focus on a journal's peer review practices, as well as a journal's IF, if they are to maintain and grow submissions. 相似文献
5.
Alexander Serenko 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(4):447-459
This study presents a ranking of 182 academic journals in the field of artificial intelligence. For this, the revealed preference approach, also referred to as a citation impact method, was utilized to collect data from Google Scholar. This list was developed based on three relatively novel indices: h-index, g-index, and hc-index. These indices correlated almost perfectly with one another (ranging from 0.97 to 0.99), and they correlated strongly with Thomson's Journal Impact Factors (ranging from 0.64 to 0.69). It was concluded that journal longevity (years in print) is an important but not the only factor affecting an outlet's ranking position. Inclusion in Thomson's Journal Citation Reports is a must for a journal to be identified as a leading A+ or A level outlet. However, coverage by Thomson does not guarantee a high citation impact of an outlet. The presented list may be utilized by scholars who want to demonstrate their research output, various academic committees, librarians and administrators who are not familiar with the AI research domain. 相似文献
6.
针对期刊参考文献中《中国学术期刊影响因子年报》的著录格式的混乱现象,分析《中国学术期刊影响因子年报》的文献属性,对照GB/T 7714-2015《信息与文献参考文献著录规则》的相关要求,提出了比较规范的著录格式. 相似文献
7.
Kanwal Ameen 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(2):133-142
This paper aims to investigate the practices of Pakistani academic researchers with respect to using, citing, and publishing their scholarly work. The quantitative survey method adopted to collect data from local researchers was based on an instrument developed and used by CIBER. Their notions and practices involved in deciding trust and quality of scholarly journals were obtained. The findings revealed that national and institutional policies have significantly influenced their decisions regarding the publishing outlets. The credibility of indexing services was found to be an important factor in choosing the journal for publishing research. ISI Web of Science Impact Factor was not considered as the top source for determining quality and trustworthiness. This study is the first of its kind that targets the top two universities of the country. A comparison of the findings with another international study shows that some of the behavioural traits are compatible with scholars from less‐developed countries like India and China, while others are more similar to the ones from highly developed countries like USA and UK. 相似文献
8.
9.
Zhigang Hu Wencan Tian Shenmeng Xu Chunbo Zhang Xianwen Wang 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(4):1133-1145
InCites Essential Science Indicators is becoming increasingly used to identify top-performing research and evaluate the impact of institutes. Unfortunately, our study shows that ESI indicators, as well as other normalized citation indicators, have the following flaws. First, the publication month and the online-to-print delay affect a paper’s probability of becoming a Highly Cited Paper (HCP). Papers published in the earlier months of the year are more likely to accumulate enough citation counts to rank at the top 1% compared with those published in later months of the year. Papers with longer online-to-print delays have an apparent advantage for being selected as HCPs. Research field normalizations lead to the third pitfall. Different research fields have different citation thresholds for HCPs, making research field classification important for a journal. In addition, the uniform thresholds for both articles and reviews in ESI affect the reliability of HCP selection because, on average, reviews tend to have higher citation rates than articles. ESI’s selection of HCPs provides an intuitive feel for the problems of normalized citation impact indicators, such as those provided in InCites and SciVal. 相似文献
10.
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
11.
12.
Noel McGlinchey Tom Hunter Jack Bromley Ruth Fisher Anna Debiec‐Waszak Thomas Gaston 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):37-46
The study aimed to find whether journal editorial office administrators were as effective as editors at assigning rigorous reviewers. We analysed four journals using blended systems of editor‐selected reviewers (ESR) and Journal Administrator‐selected reviewers (JASR) from four disciplines: medicine, sociology, education, and business/applied psychology. In blended journals, both editors and Journal Administrators select authors to review using web‐based expert‐finding tools. All reviewers selected were both authors and reviewers. We primarily wanted to assess the quality of reviews from both ESR and JASR reviewer selection methodologies. Reviewer rigour was defined as differences between editor decisions and reviewer recommendations. Timeliness data were also recorded and analysed separately as an indicator of efficiency. Reviewer rigour, the quality of reviewers’ evaluations, was estimated from the level of agreement between editors and reviewers. Timeliness was not considered a direct measure of rigour. For two journals, no statistically significant differences were observed; for two, in a small proportion of cases, ESR reviews were more negative. One journal showed some statistically significant major differences but only in 2% of reviews. Timeliness data indicated some statistically significant trends that JASR return reviews more promptly. Therefore, where editors rely on at least two reviewers’ recommendations, JASR is equally rigorous as ESR. 相似文献
13.
利用Google的PageRank原理进行期刊引文分析,提出期刊在引文网络中的影响力测度指标--引文网络影响力序位(Journal Impact Rank in Citation Net,Impact Rank或IR).通过对118种生物学领域的期刊进行期刊引文网络影响力测度,并将IR结果与JCR提供的影响因子(Impact Factor, IF)值进行统计学分析以考察二者的相关性和差异性.结果表明,IR值与IF值的相关性较弱,其差异性具有统计学意义.分析其原因,IR考虑了引证期刊的权重和期刊间的相互影响,更适于反映期刊在其相关学科或领域的引文网络中的相对影响力;IF值因其实质上是期刊论文篇均被引频次,其计算不考虑期刊之间的相互联系和引证期刊的权威性,因而更适用于期刊自身的纵向评价;IR与IF从两种不同角度评价期刊影响力,可互为补充. 相似文献
14.
JCR五年期影响因子探析 总被引：6，自引：0，他引：6
使用期刊引证报告(JCR)6015种期刊数据,以统计学方法探索性地分析5年期影响因子IF5的特点.结果显示,IF5作为具有代表性的平均性期刊评价指标,能更好地反映多数期刊被引高峰,总体符合布拉德福分布.IF5与2年期影响因子IF存在排序相关,也有显著统计学差异,两者测评结果在较好和较差期刊上相对一致,但在多数水平居中的期刊上存在区别.最后,给出Ifa指数测度两种影响因子的差别和Ifb指数综合两种影响因子的评价信息. 相似文献
15.
This paper focuses on a fresh and fair way to determine a ranking of science journals according to the “number of citations-to
and articles published,” data used by SCI Journal Citation Reports of ISI to determine journal ranking by “impact factor.”
Impact is considered a latent variable defined by a set of items (citations and articles published). The theoretical background
is Item Response Theory, which suggests that, if we can understand how each item in a set of items operates with an object,
then we can estimate a measure for the object. The Rasch model is the most common formulation of that theory. This technique
is here applied to the citations and articles published of 62 medical journals (objects) to provide a Rasch measure for these
journals which is compared with the current “impact factor” computation. 相似文献
16.
中文期刊影响因子与网络影响因子和外部链接数的关系研究 总被引：49，自引：2，他引：47
学术期刊是科学信息的重要载体,而Internet是方便信息交流的新兴场所.因此,现在越来越多的学术期刊建立了自己的网站,于是期刊网站的评价也越来越受到人们的关注.本文以部分工程类中文期刊为例,利用AllTheWeb搜索它们网站的外部链接数,并计算其网络影响因子,然后将中国科学技术信息研究所(ISTIC)2001年底公布的2000年期刊影响因子与它们一一对应比较,发现期刊的影响因子与期刊网站的网络影响因子和外部链接数之间均存在着有意义的相关关系,因此,网站的外部链接数和网络影响因子均可作为网站评价的重要指标. 相似文献
17.
选择期刊Scientometrics、Journal of Informetrics 2003-2012年期间发表的论文和国际科学计量学与信息计量学大会(ISSI大会)论文集论文为样本,对中国大陆和台湾地区科学计量学与信息计量学的发展进行比较研究。研究从4个方面展开:论文计量分析、引文计量分析、合作研究以及研究内容考察。研究结果表明,中国大陆和台湾地区已经成为国际上科学计量学与信息计量学论文产出大户,但是中国大陆地区论文年篇均引文略低于世界平均水平,AR指数低于台湾地区;两地区学者已经产出合著论文,但合作局限于少数学者和少数机构之间;两地区的研究对象和研究方法有共性又各有特色,中国大陆地区学者更重视科学计量,台湾地区学者更重视技术测度。最后提出促进两地区科学计量学与信息计量学发展需要深入讨论的几个问题。 相似文献
18.
Frances Johnson 《Health information and libraries journal》2020,37(3):245-247
The 2020 virtual issue of the Health Information and Libraries Journal (HILJ) is published to link to the CILIP Health Libraries Group Conference which was to take place in Scotland 22–25th July. Whilst the conference was postponed in light of the coronavirus (COVID‐19) pandemic, its themes of (i) Working in Partnership; (ii) Resilience and Well‐being; (iii) Public and Patient involvement; (iv) Quality Impact and Metrics; and (v) Improvement and Innovation have nevertheless provided the basis on which to compile this virtual issue. Overarching these themes is a core value of the HIL profession, to provide relevant, timely and sustainable information services, and the articles selected from HILJ (2018 through to March 2020) contribute to the aim of meeting and going beyond these goals under the conference banner of ‘not your average day in the office’. The virtual issue mirrors the format of a regular issue of HILJ, a review article, four original articles and three from our regular features: ‘Dissertations into Practice’, ‘International Perspectives and Initiatives’ and ‘Teaching and Learning in Action’. The authors come from Canada, China, Croatia, Sweden and the UK. All articles included in this issue are available online. 相似文献
19.
Web JCR数据库的检索与评价功能的实现 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
介绍美国科技信息研究所(ISI)出版的网络版《期刊引文报告》Web JCR数据库的概况、检索功能与特点，调查、统计、分析、评价了2003年SCI收录我国科技期刊的状况，就我国科技成果如何尽快与国际接轨提出建议，即鼓励科研人员向影响因子高的国际重要期刊投稿，争取我国更多科技期刊被SCI收录。 相似文献
20.
Salisbury University and the University of Maryland, College Park, both undertook projects to evaluate the effectiveness of EBSCO Information Service’s EBSCONET® Usage Consolidation product and the usefulness of the extracted data for collection development decisions. The goals of implementation were to centralize the collection and analysis of e-resource usage data and to allow collection management librarians easy access to usage and cost per use data to aid in their decision making. The presenters discussed how staff at each institution populated Usage Consolidation and presented usage reports to collection managers; how collection managers responded to the data; and how they used the data to inform collection management decisions. 相似文献