共查询到19条相似文献，搜索用时 328 毫秒
1.
为评价H指数与影响因子、总被引频次的关系,以2009年《中国期刊引证报告》（扩刊版）中166种医学期刊的H指数、影响因子、总被引频次、引用刊数和来源文献量为源数据,采用SPSSl6．0软件作线性、对数、二次多项式、三次多项式回归拟合和Logistic回归。二维散点图和曲线回归拟合分析均发现,H指数与影响因子、总被引频次、引用刊数呈密切相关,但与来源文献量的相关性不强。因此,H指数、影响因子、总被引频次应相互补充,共同用于医学类期刊学术影响力的评价。 相似文献
2.
3.
提高学术期刊影响因子的途径 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
美国科技信息研究所所长尤金·加菲尔德首先用论文的被引证频次来测度期刊的影响力,1963年美国科技信息研究所正式提出和使用影响因子这一术语.期刊在某年的影响因子是指该刊前两年发表论文在统计当年被引用的总次数除以该刊前两年发表论文的总数.由影响因子的定义可知,期刊的影响因子反映在一定时期内期刊论文的平均被引率. 相似文献
4.
5.
6.
基于PrestigeRank算法与同行评议的科技论文评价研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
利用PrestigeRank算法对2004～2008年<中国科技论文与引文数据库>(CSTPCD)中收录的科技论文进行了评价研究,并选取了预防医学领域中PrestigeRank算法排序靠前的论文进行同行评议研究.对不同学科、不同发表时间论文的被引次数、PrestigeRank算法进行了比较研究,也对预防医学领域论文进行了PrestigeRank算法、同行评议的比较研究.研究表明,被引次数、PrestigeRank算法具有正相关性,但被引次数与PrestigeRank算法的Spearman 相关系数随被引次数的增加而减少.另外,相关性在不同学科、不同发表时间等方面存在差异.地学、生物、物理、化学和力学等基础领域的论文其被引次数与PrestigeRank算法的一致性相对较高;而药物学、预防与卫生、临床医学等医学领域的论文其被引次数与PrestigeRank算法的一致性相对较低.PrestigeRank算法比被引次数方法更有利于更新和更老发布的论文.利用同行评议方法对预防医学领域论文的创新性、论文效益和学术水平三个方面进行了评价,结果表明,同行评议结果的分类指标中存在一致性差异,其中创新性与论文效益间更是没有明显相关性.专家对论文创新性的评价结果与被引次数和PrestigeRank排序结果不相关,而专家对于论文学术水平、论文效益的评价与被引次数和PrestigeRank排序基本吻合.被引次数、PrestigeRank与同行评议的总分之间存在正相关关系,这说明同行评议结果与被引次数和PrestigeRank排序结果具有一定的一致性. 相似文献
7.
8.
9.
在学术期刊的计量评价指标体系中,影响因子和总被引频次是2项最为重要的指标,占据了较高的权重;但是,期刊办刊历史长短、发表论文多少、出版周期长短、学科人群多少等都会影响总被引频次的大小.尤其是一些发表大量低水平论文的期刊,依靠论文数量众多,依然可以获得较高的总被引频次;但其影响因子却很低,论文质量很差.如何客观甄别这类论文数量巨大而质量效益不高的期刊？本文提出一个全新的衡量期刊量效关系的指标——期刊量效指数(journal mass index,JMI).“量”指期刊的发文量,“效”则引入期刊影响因子.JMI定义为某刊影响因子与该刊影响因子对应的发文量的比值,意义是平均每篇文献对该刊影响因子的贡献值.JMI能客观反映同一个学科中量大质低的期刊的“臃肿程度”.在《中国学术期刊影响因子年报(2016版)》中,JMI被应用于修正期刊影响力指数(CI)排序,使CI排序更准确地反映学术期刊的学科影响力排名.实践证明,JMI是一个对学术期刊量效关系进行客观评判的有用的计量指标. 相似文献
10.
《科技与出版》2014,(50种)
目的—查找2013年被中国科技核心期刊剔除期刊的相关指标数据,分析被剔除的主要原因。方法—通过比对2012年和2013年的《中国科技期刊引证报告(核心版)》,找出被剔除的期刊;在2012年核心版中查出相关数据,包括核心总被引频次及学科内排名、核心影响因子及学科内排名、核心他引率、核心即年指标、基金论文比、文献选出率、平均引文、核心引用刊、综合评价学科内排名、总排名等12项。结果—找出50种被剔除的期刊,核心总被引频次在200次以下的有15种(30.0%),核心影响因子小于0.200的有30种(60.0%),核心他引率低于0.70的有17种(34.0%),核心即年指标通讯作者。在0.010以下的有19种(38.0%);学科内排名靠后的有39种(78.0%),其中学科内末位的有9种;总排名在1 998种期刊中排名1 600位以后的有35种(70.0%),其中有多种期刊多项指标均靠后;文献选出率低于0.50的期刊有3种。结论—核心总被引频次、核心影响因子、核心他引率、核心即年指标过低,学科内排名及总排名靠后,均是被剔除的主要原因;其次,文献选出率也应当引起重视。 相似文献
11.
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
12.
链接分析对引文分析的启示:从PageRank到Paperank 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
链接分析的发展受引文分析理论的影响,在基本假设前提与应用等方面,链接分析都与引文分析相似,例如,网络影响因子来源于期刊影响因子,共链分析来源于共被引分析.另一方面,网络的动态性赋予了链接分析一些特性,这些特性对于引文分析研究有启示作用.本文在简要介绍引文分析与链接分析的相关理论之后,基于链接分析中的PageRank算法提出了Paperank算法,用于引文分析.在对算法的论证过程中,笔者选取了SCEI中的"Webometrics"相关论文为样本,通过比较这些论文的Paperank值与被引次数,凸显Paperank算法的优点.最后,本文提出了Paperank算法的应用前景--学术期刊论文数据库的检索结果排序. 相似文献
13.
基于C-value与TF-IDF的文献簇主题识别研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
引文分析是科技情报分析的一种重要方法和技术,特别是建立在共耦合和共被引基础上的引文聚类分析逐渐发展成为科技情报分析中最活跃的研究领域之一.引文聚类分析形成一系列由科技文献组成的文献簇,并不能直接体现出文献簇的主题,因此需要识别这些文献簇的内容特征.本文分析了引文分析中文献簇主题识别的典型方法及局限,提出了结合C-value和TF-IDF算法的文献簇主题识别方法.实验表明,该方法可以充分地利用C-value和TF-IDF算法的优点,对C-value和TF-IDF算法中不合理的地方予以了改进,从而可以更好地应用于引文分析中文献簇的主题识别. 相似文献
14.
Faye A. Chadwell 《资料收集管理》2013,38(2):69-78
This paper provides information on a research project undertaken at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville to study publications by the campus researchers with an emphasis on the STEM (agricultural sciences, physical science, biological sciences, engineering and mathematics, etc.) disciplines at the macro level for a 3-year period. The overall objective of the study was to provide evidence-based data of periodical use to assist with collection decisions and to identify collection strengths at the university level. We used the Web of Knowledge database (Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index) to identify the periodical literature in which our researchers published and those that they cite in their publications. We also determined the extent to which our researchers are publishing in and citing periodicals from the Elsevier, Wiley, and IEEE journal packages. A methodology for extracting citations from Web of Knowledge into an Excel spreadsheet is also provided. 相似文献
15.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(3):101315
In 2021, Clarivate published a new version of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) including a new indicator. The Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) is a new field-normalized metric at journal-level, which is calculated by averaging the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) of the journal's articles and reviews published in the preceding three-year period. Unlike the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), it is also calculated for the journals of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) and the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), which are now included in the JCR. To better understand this new indicator, this article analyses its main statistical characteristics in comparison with the other JCR indicators using all JCR journals and categories. The results highlight the similarities between the JCI and JIF, with a high Pearson correlation (0.853) and a similar distribution. This correlation is also high and homogeneous in the different categories, both for Science and Social Sciences. The JCI is therefore a perfect complement to the JIF, as well as representing an alternative to resolve the well-known problems of the JCR. 相似文献
16.
Questions of definition and measurement continue to constrain a consensus on the measurement of interdisciplinarity. Using Rao-Stirling (RS) Diversity sometimes produces anomalous results. We argue that these unexpected outcomes can be related to the use of “dual-concept diversity” which combines “variety” and “balance” in the definitions (ex ante). We propose to modify RS Diversity into a new indicator (DIV) which operationalizes “variety,” “balance,” and “disparity” independently and then combines them ex post. “Balance” can be measured using the Gini coefficient. We apply DIV to the aggregated citation patterns of 11,487 journals covered by the Journal Citation Reports 2016 of the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index as an empirical domain and, in more detail, to the citation patterns of 85 journals assigned to the Web-of-Science category “information science & library science” in both the cited and citing directions. We compare the results of the indicators and show that DIV provides improved results in terms of distinguishing between interdisciplinary knowledge integration (citing references) versus knowledge diffusion (cited impact). The new diversity indicator and RS diversity measure different features. A routine for the measurement of the various operationalization of diversity (in any data matrix) is made available online. 相似文献
17.
Marta Somoza‐Fernández Josep‐Manuel Rodríguez‐Gairín Cristóbal Urbano 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(3):199-204
The Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) was created recently, in 2015, but few assessments of its journal coverage have been made. The present study tries to fill that gap by comparing its coverage with that of other international abstracting and indexing (A&I) databases. Using this measure, it is feasible to benchmark this index against the other citation indexes for acceptance criteria. We analysed 6,296 ESCI‐indexed journals, 8,889 Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), 3,258 Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), 1,784 Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), and 22,749 Scopus journals as indexed in July 2017 to determine their inclusion in 105 databases. We found that 19.3% of the ESCI journals are not covered by any other A&I databases, a high figure compared with only 0.5% SCIE, 0.3% SSCI, 0.3% AHCI, and 5.5% Scopus journals. This low coverage suggests that the selection criteria for ESCI journals are not consistent with the overall trend in the other classical citation indexes. 相似文献
18.
Daniel Torres-Salinas Rosa Rodríguez-Sánchez Nicolás Robinson-García J. Fdez-Valdivia J.A. García 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(2):412-424
In this paper we provide the reader with a visual representation of relationships among the impact of book chapters indexed in the Book Citation Index using information gain values and published by different academic publishers in specific disciplines. The impact of book chapters can be characterized statistically by citations histograms. For instance, we can compute the probability of occurrence of book chapters with a number of citations in different intervals for each academic publisher. We predict the similarity between two citation histograms based on the amount of relative information between such characterizations. We observe that the citation patterns of book chapters follow a Lotkaian distribution. This paper describes the structure of the Book Citation Index using ‘heliocentric clockwise maps’ which allow the reader not only to determine the grade of similarity of a given academic publisher indexed in the Book Citation Index with a specific discipline according to their citation distribution, but also to easily observe the general structure of a discipline, identifying the publishers with higher impact and output. 相似文献
19.
In this paper, we conduct a comparative analysis to examine the characteristics and evolutionary trends of open access (OA) publications in natural and social sciences. We use data recorded by Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Journal Citation Reports during 2001–2015 as the main source. We then comparatively analyse the characteristics of natural and social sciences in terms of historical evolution, main contributors, and distribution of OA journals and publications across different languages, disciplines, and impact factor quartiles. Our results suggest that both natural and social sciences experienced dramatic growth of OA journals since 2009, but the share of social science OA journals within journal impact factor quartile 1 is much lower than that of natural sciences. While natural and social sciences share some similarities in OA publishing activities, such as main countries of contribution, they differ greatly in dimensions such as OA ratio across specific disciplines, countries, and publishing languages. We acknowledge that OA publishing offers a level playing field for traditionally disadvantaged languages, countries, and scientific disciplines, but meanwhile, the advancement of high‐quality OA publishing needs more targeted and sophisticated approaches to tackle differences in natural and social sciences. 相似文献