共查询到19条相似文献，搜索用时 125 毫秒
1.
SCI、SSCI收录的图书情报学学科期刊评价指标 总被引：20，自引：2，他引：18
文章按照影响因子的高低介绍了35种被SCI、SSCI收录的图书情报学期刊，介绍了SCI、SSCI收录期刊的原则和范围，提出鼓励图书情报人员向影响因子高的国际重要学术期刊投稿，并希望我国图书情报学期刊早日入选SCI、SSCI。 相似文献
2.
从SSCI谈我国图书情报学期刊的国际化发展 总被引：9，自引：0，他引：9
介绍了SSCI目前收录的图书情报学期刊的基本情况及SSCI对我国图书情报学期刊的意义。分析了我国图书情报学期刊与SSCI存在的现实差距,并探讨了我国图书情报学期刊国际化发展过程中应采取的具体措施。 相似文献
3.
4.
SSCI与中国图书情报学期刊国际化 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
从SSCI（JCR2007）收录的61种图书情报学期刊特征出发,分析了他们先进的办刊理念和经验,提出了中国图书情报学期刊国际化发展的对策。 相似文献
5.
SSCI收录的图书馆学情报学期刊——基于JCR网络版（2003）的分析 总被引：3，自引：1，他引：2
以SSCI JCR（2003）为依据,对其所收录的图书馆学情报学期刊在SSCI源期刊的比重及其国家分布、语种分布、平均引文率、发文量、被引半衰期、出版频次和影响因子的布拉德福分区进行统计分析。根据统计结果,对国外图书馆专业期刊的选择、图书馆学情报学专业研究以及我国图书馆学情报学期刊的国际化发展提出相应建议。 相似文献
6.
1998-2007年图书情报类知识管理论文统计报告——基于SCI及SSCI的定量分析 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
以SCI和SSCI为数据源基础,对1998—2007年间SCI和SSCI收录的图书情报类知识管理论文的情况,从论文的发表时间分布、期刊分布、被引频次分布、作者分布等方面进行统计与分析,指出当前图书情报类知识管理的研究有进一步深入拓展的必要。 相似文献
7.
利用网络版JCR（2007年社会科学版）,对其所收录的56种图书馆学与情报学来源期刊从载文量、总被引次数、语种、国别、出版频率、影响因子、半衰期等角度分析了该类期刊各主要文献计量指标的分布状况。提出了中国图书馆学情报学期刊进入SSCI的对策。 相似文献
8.
研究基于形式概念分析（FCA）的学科知识结构探测方法,提出基于FCA的学科知识结构的定义和表示模型,详细阐述基于FCA的学科知识结构的构建方法。以图书情报学为例,以SCI和SSCI收录的16种图书情报学期刊在2001-2013年间的数据为样本,对基于FCA的学科知识结构探测方法进行实证分析。研究探测到新世纪以来图书情报学的9个主要研究主题,并揭示每个研究主题的核心关键词和活跃作者。与传统的知识结构探测方法相比,基于FCA的方法不仅能有效、合理地描述复杂概念及其层次关系,还能客观地显示出聚类和关联特征。 相似文献
9.
于澄洁 《科技文献信息管理》2010,24(1):4-5
笔者继2008年对SCKE）、SSCI和A＆HCI收录中国期刊的统计分析之后,对2009年SCI（E）、SSCI和A＆HCI收录中国期刊的新变化作了表述分析。 相似文献
10.
近五年来国外图书馆学情报学研究成果的文献计量分析 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
本文对SSCI(《社会科学引文索引》)收录的国外近五年图书情报学的16种期刊共计4055篇文献进行计量分析,着重对此专业高产作者、主要研究成果的地域分布和机构分布、学科分布以及引文情况等进行分析研究,以期在科学量化指标基础上,揭示国外图书情报学的发展状况和研究特点。 相似文献
11.
《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
12.
13.
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
14.
《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
15.
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
16.
《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
17.
In a recent paper in the Journal of Informetrics, Habibzadeh and Yadollahie [Habibzadeh, F., & Yadollahie, M. (2008). Journal weighted impact factor: A proposal. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 164–172] propose a journal weighted impact factor (WIF). Unlike the ordinary impact factor, the WIF of a journal takes into account the prestige or the influence of citing journals. In this communication, we show that the way in which Habibzadeh and Yadollahie calculate the WIF of a journal has some serious problems. Due to these problems, a ranking of journals based on WIF can be misleading. We also indicate how the problems can be solved by changing the way in which the WIF of a journal is calculated. 相似文献
18.
文章阐述了网络时代对印刷型期刊工作的影响 ,论述了网络期刊的出现和发展对印刷型期刊的冲击 ,但印刷型期刊仍具有顽强的生命力 ,探索了印刷型期刊工作在当前网络时代中发展 相似文献
19.
[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