共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):241-251
This study established a technological impact factor (TIF) derived from journal impact factor (JIF), which is proposed to evaluate journals from the aspect of practical innovation. This impact factor mainly examines the influence of journal articles on patents by calculating the number of patents cited to a journal divided by the number of articles published in that particular journal. The values of TIF for five-year (TIF5) and ten-year (TIF10) periods at the journal level and aggregated TIF values (TIFAGG_5 and TIFAGG_10) at the category level were provided and compared to the JIF. The results reveal that journals with higher TIF values showed varied performances in the JCR, while the top ten journals on JIF5 showed consistent good performance in TIFs. Journals in three selected categories – Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Research & Experimental Medicine, and Organic Chemistry – showed that TIF5 and TIF10 values are not strongly correlated with JIF5. Thus, TIFs can provide a new indicator for evaluating journals from the aspect of practical innovation. 相似文献
2.
P指数用于中文社会科学学术期刊评价的适用性分析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
认为P指数在期刊绩效评价中体现了数量(被引次数C)与质量(平均被引率C/N)的平衡,应用P指数进行学术期刊评价是一种有益的探索。以法学期刊和教育学期刊为研究对象,对比分析P指数在不同学科期刊中与期刊载文量(N),被引次数(C),自被引率(SCR),5年影响因子(IF5)、期刊h指数、特征因子组合(EFS,AIS)等指标的差异,进行相关性分析,并得出以下结论:P指数简洁易计算,区分度好、支持动态变化排名、与多个关键评价指标相关性好,且在优秀学术期刊识别方面具有较好的可靠性,具有一定的现实应用前景。 相似文献
3.
[目的/意义] 研究基于开放式引文数据库提出的新型期刊评价指标Jfactor以及其与传统文献计量学指标的关系,分析Jfactor的特点,并对我国期刊评价提出启示。[方法/过程] 结合统计学方法,利用SPSS软件对高能物理领域期刊的指标数据进行相关性分析,主要包括Jfactor与impact factor、5-year impact factor、eigenfactor score,同时将指标之间作比较研究。[结果/结论] 相关分析结果表明,Jfactor与impact factor相关性最强,其次是5-year impact factor,与eigenfactor score的相关性相对最弱。相对于impact factor,Jfactor的计算数据更加透明,而且充分考虑了开放数据对论文引用的影响,对我国期刊评价具有重要的研究价值。 相似文献
4.
《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
5.
Thirty‐six ophthalmology journals indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) in 2003 were selected to study the role of the ‘papers cited rate’ in scientific journal evaluation. The 2‐year, 3‐year, 5‐year, 8‐year, and 10‐year cited rates of these papers were calculated to analyze statistically the correlations with impact factor, 5‐year impact factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, article influence score, and total cites. The results of questionnaires sent to 8,525 ophthalmologists were used to analyse the correlations between the papers cited rates for different years and traditional bibliometric indicators. The results showed that eigenfactor score and total cites were better than other indicators, and impact factor was better than the 5‐year impact factor. The 2‐year and 3‐year cited rates of papers were reasonable for evaluating science journals, and the 2‐year cited rate was better than the 3‐year cited rate. The 5‐year (and more than 5 years) cited rates were not significant in evaluating science journals. 相似文献
6.
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
7.
期刊评价中的关键指标评析及相关性研究 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
8.
William H. Walters 《The Reference Librarian》2013,54(1):13-22
This guide describes several information sources that can be used to assist faculty interested in quantitative and qualitative assessments of journal reputation and scholarly impact: Journal Citation Reports, Eigenfactor, Google Scholar Metrics, Elsevier Journal Metrics, Excellence in Research for Australia, Cabell’s International, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Beall’s List. It also introduces the indicators most often used to represent citation impact: impact factor, article influence score, eigenfactor, h5-index, source normalized impact per paper, impact per publication, and SCImago journal rank. Methods of assessing the influence of individual articles are also presented, along with strategies for the identification of predatory or low-quality journals. 相似文献
9.
10.
[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
11.
The journal impact factor (JIF) has been questioned considerably during its development in the past half-century because of its inconsistency with scholarly reputation evaluations of scientific journals. This paper proposes a publication delay adjusted impact factor (PDAIF) which takes publication delay into consideration to reduce the negative effect on the quality of the impact factor determination. Based on citation data collected from Journal Citation Reports and publication delay data extracted from the journals’ official websites, the PDAIFs for journals from business-related disciplines are calculated. The results show that PDAIF values are, on average, more than 50% higher than JIF results. Furthermore, journal ranking based on PDAIF shows very high consistency with reputation-based journal rankings. Moreover, based on a case study of journals published by ELSEVIER and INFORMS, we find that PDAIF will bring a greater impact factor increase for journals with longer publication delay because of reducing that negative influence. Finally, insightful and practical suggestions to shorten the publication delay are provided. 相似文献
12.
不同水平特征因子与文献计量指标的关系研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
13.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):123-135
Journal self-citations strongly affect journal evaluation indicators (such as impact factors) at the meso- and micro-levels, and therefore they are often increased artificially to inflate the evaluation indicators in journal evaluation systems. This coercive self-citation is a form of scientific misconduct that severely undermines the objective authenticity of these indicators. In this study, we developed the feature space for describing journal citation behavior and conducted feature selection by combining GA-Wrapper with RelifF. We also constructed a journal classification model using the logistic regression method to identify normal and abnormal journals. We evaluated the performance of the classification model using journals in three subject areas (BIOLOGY, MATHEMATICS and CHEMISTRY, APPLIED) during 2002–2011 as the test samples and good results were achieved in our experiments. Thus, we developed an effective method for the accurate identification of coercive self-citations. 相似文献
14.
The journal impact factor (JIF) is the average of the number of citations of the papers published in a journal, calculated according to a specific formula; it is extensively used for the evaluation of research and researchers. The method assumes that all papers in a journal have the same scientific merit, which is measured by the JIF of the publishing journal. This implies that the number of citations measures scientific merits but the JIF does not evaluate each individual paper by its own number of citations. Therefore, in the comparative evaluation of two papers, the use of the JIF implies a risk of failure, which occurs when a paper in the journal with the lower JIF is compared to another with fewer citations in the journal with the higher JIF. To quantify this risk of failure, this study calculates the failure probabilities, taking advantage of the lognormal distribution of citations. In two journals whose JIFs are ten-fold different, the failure probability is low. However, in most cases when two papers are compared, the JIFs of the journals are not so different. Then, the failure probability can be close to 0.5, which is equivalent to evaluating by coin flipping. 相似文献
15.
The paper introduces a new journal impact measure called The Reference Return Ratio (3R). Unlike the traditional Journal Impact Factor (JIF), which is based on calculations of publications and citations, the new measure is based on calculations of bibliographic investments (references) and returns (citations). A comparative study of the two measures shows a strong relationship between the 3R and the JIF. Yet, the 3R appears to correct for citation habits, citation dynamics, and composition of document types – problems that typically are raised against the JIF. In addition, contrary to traditional impact measures, the 3R cannot be manipulated ad infinitum through journal self-citations. 相似文献
16.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(3):101305
This study examined the development of English-language journals indexed by the database of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and owned by six non-English-speaking countries (China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy, and Spain) and four countries where English is an official national language (Australia, Canada, India, and Singapore) over a 21-year period. Four types of journals were identified based on changes in journal impact factor (JIF) and rank percentage per year. The results suggest that “growth” journals with trends of increasing JIF and rank percentage outnumbered other types of journals for each country and were not concentrated in particular subject categories. Over half of the growth journals in eight countries were positioned at Q3 and Q4 levels. No significant differences in the average age of growth journals were identified between countries. Although China possessed the highest percentage of growth journals, its journals with the highest growth were at the Q4 level. This study concluded that China and South Korea should monitor their development of JCR journals due to their faster improvement in the average annual rank percentage per growth journal. One limitation is that a considerable proportion of junior English journals were not analyzed in this study. 相似文献
17.
18.
人文社会科学期刊特征因子评价研究——基于CSSCI法学期刊 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
19.
[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
20.
近年来,期刊影响因子的人为操纵受到学术界广泛关注,期刊过度自引成为人为操纵影响因子的重要手段.期刊自引率是识别影响因子人为操纵的敏感指标,但对小集团内部期刊互引和其他形式人为操纵的识别却无能为力.在该研究中,深度挖掘了自引率、扩散因子、被引半衰期、开放因子和互引指数在期刊影响因子人为操纵识别中的应用. 相似文献