共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
论文发表时滞与优先数字出版 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
将论文发表时滞分为审稿时滞与等待印刷时滞,解释了论文从投稿到发表的过程中各个环节所产生的时滞及其所产生的负面影响。分析优先数字出版在大幅缩短论文发表时滞方面的功能与意义,统计表明,优先数字出版能将期刊影响因子提高约15％。提出了优先数字出版中值得讨论的问题。 相似文献
2.
《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
3.
《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
4.
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
5.
The journal impact factor (JIF) proposed by Garfield in the year 1955 is one of the most prominent and common measures of the prestige, position, and importance of a scientific journal. The JIF may profit from its comprehensibility, robustness, methodological reproducibility, simplicity, and rapid availability, but it is at the expense of serious technical and methodological flaws. The paper discusses two core problems with the JIF: first, citations of documents are generally not normally distributed, and, furthermore, the distribution is affected by outliers, which has serious consequences for the use of the mean value in the JIF calculation. Second, the JIF is affected by bias factors that have nothing to do with the prestige or quality of a journal (e.g., document type). For solving these two problems, we suggest using McCall's area transformation and the Rubin Causal Model. Citation data for documents of all journals in the ISI Subject Category “Psychology, Mathematical” (Journal Citation Report) are used to illustrate the proposal. 相似文献
6.
期刊影响因子的偏差分析 总被引：17，自引：2，他引：15
从影响因子的定义出发,对各种能对影响因子产生不利影响的因素进行了分析.引证行为的不确定性、学科、源期刊库等的差异都给影响因子带来较大的偏差.在充分肯定影响因子的积极作用的前提下,也不容忽视其不利因素. 相似文献
7.
工程技术学科期刊出版时滞研究 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
以工程技术学科的5种核心期刊组成的学科期刊系统为研究对象,统计分析该学科期刊1998-2005年的出版时滞情况,得出该学科期刊文献的平均出版时滞年代分布;在期刊平均出版时滞指标的基础上,提出了通过解决整个系统的积压稿件问题从而根本解决学科期刊系统的平均出版时滞问题的方法,为我国期刊管理部门对整个期刊系统出版的宏观调控提供了一个良好的借鉴模式. 相似文献
8.
《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
9.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(2):318-328
Citation based approaches, such as the impact factor and h-index, have been used to measure the influence or impact of journals for journal rankings. A survey of the related literature for different disciplines shows that the level of correlation between these citation based approaches is domain dependent. We analyze the correlation between the impact factors and h-indices of the top ranked computer science journals for five different subjects. Our results show that the correlation between these citation based approaches is very low. Since using a different approach can result in different journal rankings, we further combine the different results and then re-rank the journals using a combination method. These new ranking results can be used as a reference for researchers to choose their publication outlets. 相似文献
10.
《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
11.
12.
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
13.
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
14.
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
15.
如何提高英文版科技期刊的被引频次和影响因子 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
从总被引频次和影响因子2方面分析我国英文版科技期刊的引用指标的现状和引用指标偏低的原因.提出了提高英文版科技期刊被引频次和影响因子的措施:1)注重期刊的国内外发行工作;2)通过建立英文网站及加入国内外知名数据库,提高文章的点击率及浏览量;3)请专家把语言关. 相似文献
16.
Experimental data [Mansilla, R., Köppen, E., Cocho, G., & Miramontes, P. (2007). On the behavior of journal impact factor rank-order distribution. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 155–160] reveal that, if one ranks a set of journals (e.g. in a field) in decreasing order of their impact factors, the rank distribution of the logarithm of these impact factors has a typical S-shape: first a convex decrease, followed by a concave decrease. In this paper we give a mathematical formula for this distribution and explain the S-shape. Also the experimentally found smaller convex part and larger concave part is explained. If one studies the rank distribution of the impact factors themselves, we now prove that we have the same S-shape but with inflection point in μ, the average of the impact factors. These distributions are valid for any type of impact factor (any publication period and any citation period). They are even valid for any sample average rank distribution. 相似文献
17.
影响因子在我国科技期刊评价中的作用分析 总被引：57，自引：9，他引：48
通过分析目前我国科技期刊中作者和期刊自引过度的问题，认为要提高我国科技期刊的影响力，应从期刊评价系统本身、期刊管理及评价部门以及期刊编辑部3个方面加强工作，使影响因子能客观反映出期刊在学术思想传播中的深度和广度，并有效地发挥其评价作用。 相似文献
18.
由Web of Science数据库分析高影响力中华医学会系列期刊引发的思考 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
通过Web of Science数据库的“被引参考文献检索”途径,将中华医学会123种非SCI期刊作为国内大量的非SCI科技期刊的代表,统计其刊载文献被SCI期刊引用的情况;以被引文献数量大于50篇作为高影响力期刊的筛选条件,分析其中高影响力期刊的被引文献数量、单篇被引文献最高引用频次、施引文献数量、施引文献最高被引频次以及施引文献的国家地区分布、出版年份分布,从而了解这些非SCI科技期刊的国际影响力.基于这一分析,认为SCI期刊并非是获得同行认可的唯一途径,国内大量的非SCI科技期刊应走“立足国内,面向世界”的发展道路,以踏实做专业领域内有影响力的期刊为目标;同时呼吁国家有关部门能对现行科研评价指标进行调整,鼓励质量上乘的稿件能选择具有影响力的国内期刊发表. 相似文献
19.
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
20.
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