共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 328 毫秒
1.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):147-161
Across the various scientific domains, significant differences occur with respect to research publishing formats, frequencies and citing practices, the nature and organisation of research and the number and impact of a given domain's academic journals. Consequently, differences occur in the citations and h-indices of the researchers. This paper attempts to identify cross-domain differences using quantitative and qualitative measures. The study focuses on the relationships among citations, most-cited papers and h-indices across domains and for research group sizes. The analysis is based on the research output of approximately 10,000 researchers in Slovenia, of which we focus on 6536 researchers working in 284 research group programmes in 2008–2012.As comparative measures of cross-domain research output, we propose the research impact cube (RIC) representation and the analysis of most-cited papers, highest impact factors and citation distribution graphs (Lorenz curves). The analysis of Lotka's model resulted in the proposal of a binary citation frequencies (BCF) distribution model that describes well publishing frequencies. The results may be used as a model to measure, compare and evaluate fields of science on the global, national and research community level to streamline research policies and evaluate progress over a definite time period. 相似文献
2.
Cristiano Giuffrida Giovanni Abramo Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):500-514
Bibliometricians have long recurred to citation counts to measure the impact of publications on the advancement of science. However, since the earliest days of the field, some scholars have questioned whether all citations should be worth the same, and have gone on to weight them by a variety of factors. However sophisticated the operationalization of the measures, the methodologies used in weighting citations still present limits in their underlying assumptions. This work takes an alternative approach to resolving the underlying problem: the proposal is to value citations by the impact of the citing articles, regardless of the length of their reference list. As well as conceptualizing a new indicator of impact, the work illustrates its application to the 2004–2012 Italian scientific production indexed in the WoS. The proposed impact indicator is highly correlated to the traditional citation count, however the shifts observed between the two measures are frequent and the number of outliers not negligible. Moreover, the new indicator shows greater “sensitivity” when used to identify the highly-cited papers. 相似文献
3.
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
4.
[目的/意义]在学术交流日趋国际化的背景下,本文拟探索引文国际化与被引量之间的关系,力图回答良好的国际视野是否有助于提升论文的学术影响力这一学界普遍关注的问题。[研究设计/方法]以社会科学为研究对象,选取管理学、图书情报学和新闻传播学的181,406篇CSSCI论文为研究样本,采用相关分析、非参数检验与回归分析的方法研究引用外文期刊论文的数量、学术质量、学科领域、时效性对论文被引量的影响。[结论/发现]在控制了文献类型、期刊声誉等若干可能影响论文被引量的因素后,发现样本论文的引文国际化水平对其被引量具有显著的正向影响。具体而言,引用外文期刊论文的数量越多、平均学术质量越高、学科专属度越高、平均时效性越强的论文具有更高的被引量。[创新/价值]证实了国际视野有助于提升中文社科论文的学术影响力,并提出了有针对性的建议。 相似文献
5.
《Journal of Informetrics》2023,17(1):101356
Scholarly citations – widely seen as tangible measures of the impact and significance of academic papers – guide critical decisions by research administrators and policy makers. The citation distributions form characteristic patterns that can be revealed by big-data analysis. However, the citation dynamics varies significantly among subject areas, countries etc. The problem is how to quantify those differences, separate global and local citation characteristics. Here, we carry out an extensive analysis of the power-law relationship between the total citation count and the h-index to detect a functional dependence among its parameters for different science domains. The results demonstrate that the statistical structure of the citation indicators admits representation by a global scale and a set of local exponents. The scale parameters are evaluated for different research actors – individual researchers and entire countries – employing subject- and affiliation-based divisions of science into domains. The results can inform research assessment and classification into subject areas; the proposed divide-and-conquer approach can be applied to hidden scales in other power-law systems. 相似文献
6.
7.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):485-499
With the growing number of published scientific papers world-wide, the need to evaluation and quality assessment methods for research papers is increasing. Scientific fields such as scientometrics, informetrics, and bibliometrics establish quantified analysis methods and measurements for evaluating scientific papers. In this area, an important problem is to predict the future influence of a published paper. Particularly, early discrimination between influential papers and insignificant papers may find important applications. In this regard, one of the most important metrics is the number of citations to the paper, since this metric is widely utilized in the evaluation of scientific publications and moreover, it serves as the basis for many other metrics such as h-index. In this paper, we propose a novel method for predicting long-term citations of a paper based on the number of its citations in the first few years after publication. In order to train a citation count prediction model, we employed artificial neural network which is a powerful machine learning tool with recently growing applications in many domains including image and text processing. The empirical experiments show that our proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art methods with respect to the prediction accuracy in both yearly and total prediction of the number of citations. 相似文献
8.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(4):100977
Main path analysis is a popular method for extracting the backbone of scientific evolution from a (paper) citation network. The first and core step of main path analysis, called search path counting, is to weight citation arcs by the number of scientific influence paths from old to new papers. Search path counting shows high potential in scientific impact evaluation due to its semantic similarity to the meaning of scientific impact indicator, i.e. how many papers are influenced to what extent. In addition, the algorithmic idea of search path counting also resembles many known indirect citation impact indicators. Inspired by the above observations, this paper presents the FSPC (Forward Search Path Count) framework as an alternative scientific impact indicator based on indirect citations. Two critical assumptions are made to ensure the effectiveness of FSPC. First, knowledge decay is introduced to weight scientific influence paths in decreasing order of length. Second, path capping is introduced to mimic human literature search and citing behavior. By experiments on two well-studied datasets against two carefully created gold standard sets of papers, we have demonstrated that FSPC is able to achieve surprisingly good performance in not only recognizing high-impact papers but also identifying undercited papers. 相似文献
9.
[目的/意义]探索中文学术期刊论文的引文模式及时间窗口的选择对引文模式的影响，建立引文模式的分析框架。[方法/过程]以2006-2008年出版的图书情报领域期刊论文作为研究对象，采用两步聚类法对单篇论文在7年内的绝对被引量与相对被引量进行聚类分析，研究论文主要特征因子与引文模式的相关性。[结果/结论]在绝对被引量视角下，期刊论文均表现为先上升后下降的经典引文模式；在相对下载量视角下，期刊论文共有6种引文模式，其中3种可以归纳为经典引文模式，另外3种分别为"类睡美人型"、正偏型和马拉松型。相对被引量视角下，首年被引量与总被引量呈现了中等甚至较强的相关性，并且平均被引量越高，相关性越强，绝对被引量视角下的结果正好相反。结果表明，期刊论文的初始被引量与总被引量的相关性高低主要取决于引文曲线的峰度而非总被引量的大小。 相似文献
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.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):515-539
Counting of number of papers, of citations and the h-index are the simplest bibliometric indices of the impact of research. We discuss some improvements. First, we replace citations with individual citations, fractionally shared among co-authors, to take into account that different papers and different fields have largely different average number of co-authors and of references. Next, we improve on citation counting applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among papers. Being time-ordered, this reduces to a weighted counting of citation descendants that we call PaperRank. We compute a related AuthorRank applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among authors. These metrics quantify the impact of an author or paper taking into account the impact of those authors that cite it. Finally, we show how self- and circular-citations can be eliminated by defining a closed market of Citation-coins. We apply these metrics to the InSpire database that covers fundamental physics, presenting results for papers, authors, journals, institutes, towns, countries for all-time and in recent time periods. 相似文献
12.
首先通过对期刊以及机构评价中的标准化指标进行较深入的比较,分析在学术期刊评价中不同类型指标对评价结果有效性的理解,探寻学术期刊影响力的主要属性特征及等效测度指标。其后按照普赖斯提出的知识累积金字塔式模式,构建基于非参数统计的评价指标-分布权秩得分(分布得分),该指标按照对数法则对不同引用量区间的文献赋予不同权重,并考虑研究领域引文网络的节点中心度,选择入度中心度(被引量)衡量文献在知识传播中的位置。最后,选择核心版SCI生物学领域的46种期刊作实证分析,并将本文所构建的分布得分指标与常用的期刊评价指标做对比分析。 相似文献
13.
开放存取对期刊影响力绩效研究综述 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
文章归纳了国内外主要的OA绩效研究方法,并将它们分为三类：对某个期刊群中OA期刊和非OA期刊影响因子的比较、对某个领域大样本OA论文与非OA论文被引频次的统计比较,以及对某个混合OA期刊中OA论文和非OA论文影响因子平均值的比较,并介绍了其中五个代表性研究的方法和结论。这些研究成果表明,OA对提高期刊影响力有着积极的立竿见影的作用。针对未来需要,文章提出了OA论文比例演变、文献引文中OA文献比例演变、搜索引擎对OA绩效影响的研究方案。该文为《数字图书馆论坛》2．009年第11期本期话题“Open Access”的文章之一。 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.
In this paper we present a first large-scale analysis of the relationship between Mendeley readership and citation counts with particular documents’ bibliographic characteristics. A data set of 1.3 million publications from different fields published in journals covered by the Web of Science (WoS) has been analyzed. This work reveals that document types that are often excluded from citation analysis due to their lower citation values, like editorial materials, letters, news items, or meeting abstracts, are strongly covered and saved in Mendeley, suggesting that Mendeley readership can reliably inform the analysis of these document types. Findings show that collaborative papers are frequently saved in Mendeley, which is similar to what is observed for citations. The relationship between readership and the length of titles and number of pages, however, is weaker than for the same relationship observed for citations. The analysis of different disciplines also points to different patterns in the relationship between several document characteristics, readership, and citation counts. Overall, results highlight that although disciplinary differences exist, readership counts are related to similar bibliographic characteristics as those related to citation counts, reinforcing the idea that Mendeley readership and citations capture a similar concept of impact, although they cannot be considered as equivalent indicators. 相似文献
16.
Gui-Yuan Shi Yi-Xiu Kong Guang-Hui Yuan Rui-Jie Wu An Zeng Matúš Medo 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):717-725
Identifying the future influential papers among the newly published ones is an important yet challenging issue in bibliometrics. As newly published papers have no or limited citation history, linear extrapolation of their citation counts—which is motivated by the well-known preferential attachment mechanism—is not applicable. We translate the recently introduced notion of discoverers to the citation network setting, and show that there are authors who frequently cite recent papers that become highly-cited in the future; these authors are referred to as discoverers. We develop a method for early identification of highly-cited papers based on the early citations from discoverers. The results show that the identified discoverers have a consistent citing pattern over time, and the early citations from them can be used as a valuable indicator to predict the future citation counts of a paper. The discoverers themselves are potential future outstanding researchers as they receive more citations than average. 相似文献
17.
18.
通过分析比较我国医学核心期刊、统计源期刊和一般期刊的出版参数和主要文献计量学指标,为医学中文核心期刊的编辑出版策划提供参考依据.结果显示: 中文核心期刊的论文平均长度、有英文摘要论文比、影响因子、总被引频次和基金论文比均显著高于统计源期刊和一般期刊.而中文核心期刊的出版频率、年总页码数显著高于统计源期刊,但低于一般期刊.在办刊实践中,必须采取综合措施,根据自身情况合理设置出版周期,在保证稿件质量的前提下适当扩大信息容量,多发表学术水平高的研究原著,论文尽可能附英文摘要,刊登论文适当向基金论文倾斜,以提高期刊的学术水平和影响力. 相似文献
19.
Henk F. Moed 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(3):265-277
This paper explores a new indicator of journal citation impact, denoted as source normalized impact per paper (SNIP). It measures a journal's contextual citation impact, taking into account characteristics of its properly defined subject field, especially the frequency at which authors cite other papers in their reference lists, the rapidity of maturing of citation impact, and the extent to which a database used for the assessment covers the field's literature. It further develops Eugene Garfield's notions of a field's ‘citation potential’ defined as the average length of references lists in a field and determining the probability of being cited, and the need in fair performance assessments to correct for differences between subject fields. A journal's subject field is defined as the set of papers citing that journal. SNIP is defined as the ratio of the journal's citation count per paper and the citation potential in its subject field. It aims to allow direct comparison of sources in different subject fields. Citation potential is shown to vary not only between journal subject categories – groupings of journals sharing a research field – or disciplines (e.g., journals in mathematics, engineering and social sciences tend to have lower values than titles in life sciences), but also between journals within the same subject category. For instance, basic journals tend to show higher citation potentials than applied or clinical journals, and journals covering emerging topics higher than periodicals in classical subjects or more general journals. SNIP corrects for such differences. Its strengths and limitations are critically discussed, and suggestions are made for further research. All empirical results are derived from Elsevier's Scopus. 相似文献
20.
中国高校学报“垃圾论”辨析——基于农业高校与非高校学术期刊影响力的比较 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
通过分析我国农业高校学报与研究院所、学会主办学术期刊之间的差别,论证高校学报并非垃圾产品。将农业类学术期刊分为省属高校类、省级学会类和国家级学会类3种不同类型,综合分析比较3种不同类型农业类期刊在影响因子、基金论文比等5项指标上的差异。统计结果表明:国家级学会学术期刊总被引频次、影响因子、他引影响因子、基金论文比4个指标极显著地高于省级学会学术期刊(P<0.01);省属高校学报的影响因子、他引影响因子、基金论文也极显著地高于省级学会学术期刊(P<0.01),而且基金论文比、他引总引比略高于国家级学会学术期刊,差异不显著(P>0.05)。综合分析表明:国家级学会学术期刊的大部分指标高于省属高校学报,而省属高校学报均高于省级学会学术期刊,部分指标接近国家级学会学术期刊;近3年,农业类学术期刊总体上的各项评价指标正在逐年提高,农业高校学术期刊的综合影响力较高。 相似文献