共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
[目的/意义]针对同行评议与影响因子在期刊评价中的争议,对两种期刊评价方法得出评价结果的关系进行分析,客观认识两种方法的相关性和差异性,以便更好地设计评价指标,开展评价工作。[研究设计/方法]以人文社会科学33个学科共计1,291种期刊为统计样本,采用调查问卷形式由专家对这些期刊进行同行评议,然后对同行评议与期刊即年影响因子、影响因子和五年影响因子的相关性做比较分析,并对学科、期刊载文量、创刊时间长短等因素对两者相关性影响进行分析。[结论/发现]同行评议和影响因子两种方法对期刊进行评价时,两者得到的评价结果具有较高的一致性,社会科学领域的一致性高于人文科学领域;同行评议结果与即年影响因子、影响因子和五年影响因子的一致性依次递增;同行评议专家更愿意给载文量少的期刊打高分,但载文量和期刊影响因子之间的相关性不大。[创新/价值]使用4,500多份专家调查问卷,以定量统计分析的方法对同行评议与期刊影响因子两者在期刊评价中评价结果的一致性进行研究。 相似文献
2.
[目的/意义]探讨被引频次位置指标在科技期刊评价中的作用,确定合适时间窗口的最优位置指标。[方法/过程]从Web of Science数据库中选取符合条件的14种眼科期刊作为研究对象,分别计算各期刊2014年度不同位置指标,包括2年、5年、8年和10年引证时间窗口(citation time window,CTW)的h指数(h2、h5、h8和h10)、累计h指数(a-h2、a-h5、a-h8和a-h10)以及相对应的期刊2014年度被引频次百分位数位置(percentage rank position,PRP)指标(Top1%、Top5%、Top10%、Top25%Top50%)和累计PRP指标(a-Top1%、a-Top5%、a-Top10%、a-Top25%和a-Top50%)。比较影响因子、不同CTW位置指标与期刊问卷调查评分的相关度,确定不同位置指标应用于期刊评价的效果。[结果/结论]合理的位置指标在期刊影响力评价中优于影响因子和5年影响因子,累计被引频次位置指标普遍优于年度指标,2年CTW的h指数优于其他CTW的h指数,5年CTW的a-h2、h2,5年和8年CTW的a-Top50%和Top50%与影响因子和5年影响因子相比具有更理想的期刊评价效果。 相似文献
3.
4.
现行期刊的评价指标以正向评价指标为主。为探究期刊的反向评价指标,研究与高被引论文相对应的零被引论文的占比情况与期刊影响力的关系,基于Web of Knowledge数据库中的经济学学科发文量位居前10位的期刊所发表的论文在2-6年后的零被引率,并通过相关分析探究其与JCR 2012年期刊评价指标的相关关系,包括影响因子、总被引频次、5年影响因子和h指数等指标,并探究其变化趋势与时间窗口间的关系。研究结果表明：期刊零被引率用于期刊反向评价是合理的,对于经济学这种综合实力较强的学科,时间窗口定为2-3年更为合理,随着年限的变长,论文零被引率与期刊的综合实力的关系越来越弱。 相似文献
5.
Journal metrics are employed for the assessment of scientific scholar journals from a general bibliometric perspective. In this context, the Thomson Reuters journal impact factors (JIFs) are the citation-based indicators most used. The 2-year journal impact factor (2-JIF) counts citations to one and two year old articles, while the 5-year journal impact factor (5-JIF) counts citations from one to five year old articles. Nevertheless, these indicators are not comparable among fields of science for two reasons: (i) each field has a different impact maturity time, and (ii) because of systematic differences in publication and citation behavior across disciplines. In fact, the 5-JIF firstly appeared in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in 2007 with the purpose of making more comparable impacts in fields in which impact matures slowly. However, there is not an optimal fixed impact maturity time valid for all the fields. In some of them two years provides a good performance whereas in others three or more years are necessary. Therefore, there is a problem when comparing a journal from a field in which impact matures slowly with a journal from a field in which impact matures rapidly. In this work, we propose the 2-year maximum journal impact factor (2M-JIF), a new impact indicator that considers the 2-year rolling citation time window of maximum impact instead of the previous 2-year time window. Finally, an empirical application comparing 2-JIF, 5-JIF, and 2M-JIF shows that the maximum rolling target window reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a random sample of about six hundred journals from eight different fields. 相似文献
6.
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
7.
论影响因子的衍生意义 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
以文献引用关系为核心,讨论影响因子的本质意义,分析影响因子的衍生意义.认为学术期刊的影响因子不仅体现期刊的总体性,表征论文的学术水平和期刊的学术质量,而且标示着期刊作者群的信息和期刊内容代表的科学技术水平,具有从总体上定性评价和定量评价期刊论文质量和学术水平的特定功能,用作期刊评价指标的科学性较强. 相似文献
8.
[目的/意义] 分析JCR最新公布的"影响因子百分位"指标的特点以及其对期刊评价的影响。[方法/过程] 从影响因子百分位的内涵分析入手,比较其与影响因子的统计学特征,在因子分析的基础上,采用多元回归和分位数回归研究影响因子百分位与其他文献计量指标之间的关系,同时采用Spearman相关系数分析其与其他文献计量指标的关系。[结果/结论] 研究结果表明,影响因子百分位改变了影响因子的统计学特征;影响因子较低的一些期刊,转换成影响因子百分位后相对值更低,其他期刊转换成影响因子百分位后相对值更高;影响因子百分位与其他文献计量指标相关程度中等;当影响因子百分位较低时,影响因子相关指标的弹性系数较高,当影响因子百分位处于中等时,总量指标及特征因子指标的回归系数较低;影响因子百分位并不适宜作为其中一个指标用于期刊多属性评价。 相似文献
9.
10.
Journal weighted impact factor: A proposal 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
The impact factor of a journal reflects the frequency with which the journal's articles are cited. It is the best available measure of journal quality. For calculation of impact factor, we just count the number of citations, no matter how prestigious the citing journal is. We think that impact factor as a measure of journal quality, may be improved if in its calculation, we not only take into account the number of citations, but also incorporate a factor reflecting the prestige of the citing journals relative to the cited journal. In calculation of this proposed “weighted impact factor,” each citation has a coefficient (weight) the value of which is 1 if the citing journal is as prestigious as the cited journal; is >1 if the citing journal is more prestigious than the cited journal; and is <1 if the citing journal has a lower standing than the cited journal. In this way, journals receiving many citations from prestigious journals are considered prestigious themselves and those cited by low-status journals seek little credit. By considering both the number of citations and the prestige of the citing journals, we expect the weighted impact factor be a better scientometrics measure of journal quality. 相似文献
11.
[目的/意义]近年来，热点论文逐渐受到学术界重视，为数不多的研究成果已开始探索热点论文自身的特征，但在影响因素等规律方面的研究工作尚不充分。[方法/过程]本研究利用TF-IDF算法和负二项回归模型，试图探究热点论文的分布特征、影响因素、时间窗口差异和学科类型差异。[结果/结论]研究结果表明，热点论文的分布特征侧重于发达国家、知名研究机构、交叉学科和权威期刊；并且受到精炼的标题、国家间合作、研究型产出、开放获取、高影响因子期刊等因素影响；热点论文存在时间窗口效应，甚至改变了标题、摘要、开放获取等因素影响热点论文的具体轨迹；学科间差异对热点论文具有影响，在标题、摘要、科研合作、文献类型、开放获取、期刊影响因子方面均存在差异。 相似文献
12.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(4):904-911
It is well-known that the distribution of citations to articles in a journal is skewed. We ask whether journal rankings based on the impact factor are robust with respect to this fact. We exclude the most cited paper, the top 5 and 10 cited papers for 100 economics journals and recalculate the impact factor. Afterwards we compare the resulting rankings with the original ones from 2012. Our results show that the rankings are relatively robust. This holds both for the 2-year and the 5-year impact factor. 相似文献
13.
Jill O'Neill 《Learned Publishing》2000,13(2):105-109
The journal impact factor, as a metric developed in the mid‐1960s by Dr Eugene Garfield and Dr Irving Sher, represents the influence that an ‘average article’ published in a specific journal has on the scholarly discipline and audience that it serves. Originally intended to serve as an equalizer for use by the Institute for Scientific Information® (ISI®) in making comparative evaluations of large and small journals in a particular discipline, the impact factor now has numerous applications for publishers, librarians, and researchers. Ideally, the journal impact factor should be seen by publishers as a useful tool in gauging the effectiveness of their publication product in serving the needs of a particular scholarly community. The significance of a journal impact factor, its appropriate usage by the scholarly publishing community and its extension into the electronic environment are discussed. 相似文献
14.
《资料收集管理》2013,38(1-2):95-110
Science journal managers should exercise care in preparing data for testing correlations between use and citation data. Correlations should be sought only among journals of fairly similar subject specialty, scope, purpose, and language rather than among journals in a broad field, e.g., science overall. Either gross citation ranking or impact factor will usually correlate well with use, except in cases where a journal is either new or characteristically publishes a few papers. In these cases impact factor must be used comparisons. In order for the comparisons to have statistical validity there should be relatively heavy overall use, an average of 25 potential borrowings per title in the subject specialty being analyzed. The authors present tables showing good correlations when these conditions are met and other tables showing poor correlations are analyzed in terms of unmet conditions. 相似文献
15.
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.
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
18.
《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
19.
This is an update of the authors’ annotated bibliography of Iranian peer-reviewed scholarly journals that was published in 2010 in the Serials Librarian. The total number of scholarly journals published in Iran increased from 503 to 1,176 journals in 2017. The forty top journals ranked by impact factor from eight different disciplines are presented in this article. The entry for each journal includes the following information: title, subject, date founded, frequency, editor, language, publisher, address, phone number, FAX number, web address, International Standard Serial Number, indexing/abstracting sources, impact factor, ministry, and an abstract/annotation. 相似文献
20.
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