共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
Alexander Serenko 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(4):447-459
This study presents a ranking of 182 academic journals in the field of artificial intelligence. For this, the revealed preference approach, also referred to as a citation impact method, was utilized to collect data from Google Scholar. This list was developed based on three relatively novel indices: h-index, g-index, and hc-index. These indices correlated almost perfectly with one another (ranging from 0.97 to 0.99), and they correlated strongly with Thomson's Journal Impact Factors (ranging from 0.64 to 0.69). It was concluded that journal longevity (years in print) is an important but not the only factor affecting an outlet's ranking position. Inclusion in Thomson's Journal Citation Reports is a must for a journal to be identified as a leading A+ or A level outlet. However, coverage by Thomson does not guarantee a high citation impact of an outlet. The presented list may be utilized by scholars who want to demonstrate their research output, various academic committees, librarians and administrators who are not familiar with the AI research domain. 相似文献
2.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(6):102618
PurposeThis paper aims to examine whether Altmetric data can be used as an indicator for identifying predatory journals.Design/methodology/approachThis is an applied study which uses citation and Altmetrics methods. The study selected 21 predatory journals from the Beall's list and Kscien's list, as well as 18 non-predatory open access journals from the DOAJ's list, in the field of Library and Information Science. The Altmetric score for articles published in these journals was obtained from the Altmetric Explorer, a service provided by Altmetric.com. Web of Science was used to search for citation data of articles published in these journals.FindingsThe predatory journals almost have no presence in social media, with poor Altmetric score. In contrast, non-predatory open access journals have a high presence rate and Altmetric score. There is a significant positive correlation between the number of articles cited and the number of articles having Altmetric score among non-predatory open-access journals, but not among predatory journals. Poor Altmetric score may be viewed as a potential characteristic of predatory journals, but other indicators would also need to be considered to determine whether a journal is predatory.Originality/valueDistinct from the traditional research methods, this study combined citation analysis and Altmetrics analysis. By comparing the characteristics of predatory journals and non-predatory open access journals, the findings contribute to the identification of predatory journals. 相似文献
3.
The study explores the publication trends of scholarly journal articles in two core Library and Information Science (LIS) journals indexed under ScienceDirect Database during the period for the period 2000–2010, and for the “Top 25 Hottest Papers” for 2006–2010. It examines and presents an analysis of 1000 research papers in the area of LIS published in two journals: The International Information & Library Review (IILR) and Library & Information Science Research (LISR). The study examines the content of the journals, including growth of the literature, authorship patterns, geographical distributions of authors, distribution of papers by journal, citation pattern, ranking pattern, length of articles, and most cited authors. Collaboration was calculated using Subramanyam's formula, and Lotka's law was used to identify authors' productivity. The results indicated that authors' distributions did not follow Lotka's law. The study identified the eight most productive authors with a high of 19 publications in this field. The findings indicate that these publications experienced rapid and exponential growth in literature production. The contributions by scientists from India are examined. 相似文献
4.
The study explores the publication trends of scholarly journal articles in two core Library and Information Science (LIS) journals indexed under ScienceDirect Database during the period for the period 2000–2010, and for the “Top 25 Hottest Papers” for 2006–2010. It examines and presents an analysis of 1000 research papers in the area of LIS published in two journals: The International Information & Library Review (IILR) and Library & Information Science Research (LISR). The study examines the content of the journals, including growth of the literature, authorship patterns, geographical distributions of authors, distribution of papers by journal, citation pattern, ranking pattern, length of articles, and most cited authors. Collaboration was calculated using Subramanyam's formula, and Lotka's law was used to identify authors' productivity. The results indicated that authors' distributions did not follow Lotka's law. The study identified the eight most productive authors with a high of 19 publications in this field. The findings indicate that these publications experienced rapid and exponential growth in literature production. The contributions by scientists from India are examined. 相似文献
5.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2017,43(5):434-442
This study uses citation data and survey data for 55 library and information science journals to identify three factors underlying a set of 11 journal ranking metrics (six citation metrics and five stated preference metrics). The three factors—three composite rankings—represent (1) the citation impact of a typical article, (2) subjective reputation, and (3) the citation impact of the journal as a whole (all articles combined). Together, they account for 77% of the common variance within the set of 11 metrics. Older journals (those founded before 1953) and nonprofit journals tend to have high reputation scores relative to their citation impact. Unlike previous research, this investigation shows no clear evidence of a distinction between the journals of greatest importance to scholars and those of greatest importance to practitioners. Neither group's subjective journal rankings are closely related to citation impact. 相似文献
6.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of Pakistani Medical Journals using the principles of citation analysis. METHODS: References of articles published in 2006 in three selected Pakistani medical journals were collected and examined. The number of citations for each Pakistani medical journal was totalled. The first ranking of journals was based on the total number of citations; second ranking was based on impact factor 2006 and third ranking was based on the 5-year impact factor. Self-citations were excluded in all the three ratings. RESULTS: A total of 9079 citations in 567 articles were examined. Forty-nine separate Pakistani medical journals were cited. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association remains on the top in all three rankings, while Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons-Pakistan attains second position in the ranking based on the total number of citations. The Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences moves to second position in the ranking based on the impact factor 2006. The Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad moves to second position in the ranking based on the 5-year impact factor. CONCLUSION: This study examined the citation pattern of Pakistani medical journals. The impact factor, despite its limitations, is a valid indicator of quality for journals. 相似文献
7.
以《复印报刊资料》(下称资料)研究论文定量分析和2000—2003年图书馆学情报学期刊全文转载排名为基础，通过比较其综合排名与《中文核心期刊要目总览》、《中文社会科学引文索引》、《中国人文社会科学核心期刊要览》的差异和CNKI、《中文科技期刊引文数据库》收录期刊基金论文和被引频次验证排名合理性，结果表明《资料》期刊排名有一定的合理性，基金论文和被引频次是衡量期刊排名的客观指标。 相似文献
8.
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
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.
This study determined how useful Google Scholar (GS) is for the evaluation of non‐English journals based on a sample of 150 Chinese journals listed in the Report on Chinese Academic Journals Evaluation of Research Center for Chinese Science Evaluation (2013–2014). This study investigated two disciplines: Library, Information & Documentation Science and Metallurgical Engineering & Technology. We collected data from GS and the Chongqing VIP database to evaluate GS as a citation database for Chinese journals on its resource coverage, journal ranking, and citation data. We found that GS covered 100% of the sample journals but indexed 22% more article records than the number of articles published. The ranking of Chinese journals by GS Metrics was not suitable to present a dependable ranking of Chinese journals. GS appeared suitable to provide an alternative source of Chinese citation data, even though there existed coverage problems, including article duplication and citation omission and potential duplication. The GS Metric average citation provided results highly correlated to traditional citation results, showing that it would be suitable for evaluating Chinese journals. 相似文献
11.
通过同方知网数字资源库,调查我国优先数字出版的科技期刊标注DOI的现状。结果显示,标注DOI的期刊比例低,DOI标注混乱,引用格式不规范。认为:优先数字出版的科技论文标注DOI,有利于快速检索、资源共享,有利于提升期刊的国际影响力;我国科技期刊应积极推广、普及DOI,规范DOI标注,推荐DOI的引用格式,使优先数字出版的科技论文快速融入全球链接系统。 相似文献
12.
《资料收集管理》2013,38(1-2):147-152
Patterns of the publishing of papers in journals by Indian space technologists and their use and citation were studied Pearson correlation coefficient has been calculated to find out the correlation and to test the null hypothesis that there is no correlation among publishing in journals, citing from journals and use of journals by a defined set of researchers. A slight positive correlation between citing from journals and publishing in journals is indicated by the study. It is concluded that a more tightly controlled study with a larger and homogeneous sample might result in a better correlation. 相似文献
13.
通过研究中国SCIE期刊学科分布,为中国英文期刊的学科布局提供依据,以提高我国英文期刊水平、吸引优质稿源回流.利用WoS和JCR,获取我国SCIE期刊的刊名、学科领域、影响因子等指标,对比分析出我国没有SCIE期刊的空白学科领域,并研究相关领域的论文产出情况.结果显示:我国SCIE收录期刊学科分布不均,具有Ql区期刊的学科有12个,期刊数大于或等于5刊次的学科有13个,尚有71个学科没有SCIE期刊;有些空白领域已有大量SCIE论文发表,有实力创办高水平英文期刊. 相似文献
14.
V. S. Lazarev A. V. Skalaban I. V. Yurik P. A. Lis D. A. Kachan 《Scientific and Technical Information Processing》2017,44(3):196-206
A comprehensive methodology for selecting the world’s scientific periodicals that are necessary to carry out research on specific natural science and technical directions is given based on the use of citation analysis taking into account both citation indexes of selected publications in specialized journals and their citation of specialized journals. A list of world journals and other publications is obtained based on which it is suggested to create the corresponding scientific and information environment. 相似文献
15.
本文基于引文分析方法,对2006—2015年国内学者参与发表的环境卫生与职业卫生学领域的6995篇SCI论文进行文献计量分析。采用HistCite引文编年可视化分析工具,绘制引文编年图,分析环境卫生与职业卫生学研究现状,找出该领域的重要机构、期刊和核心文献。结果本研究分析SCI文献6995篇,涉及机构5275家,包含作者18571位,分布于162种期刊,施引文献173354条,关键词10287个。2006—2015年国内环境卫生与职业卫生领域SCI发文量年均增长率1.14%。研究结果帮助了解2006—2015年该学科领域的研究规律和发展趋势,识别重要的研究机构、期刊和著作,为开展后续科研工作加以指导。 相似文献
16.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(1):102484
Although there are at least six dimensions of journal quality, Beall's List identifies predatory Open Access journals based almost entirely on their adherence to procedural norms. The journals identified as predatory by one standard may be regarded as legitimate by other standards. This study examines the scholarly impact of the 58 accounting journals on Beall's List, calculating citations per article and estimating CiteScore percentile using Google Scholar data for more than 13,000 articles published from 2015 through 2018. Most Beall's List accounting journals have only modest citation impact, with an average estimated CiteScore in the 11th percentile among Scopus accounting journals. Some have a substantially greater impact, however. Six journals have estimated CiteScores at or above the 25th percentile, and two have scores at or above the 30th percentile. Moreover, there is considerable variation in citation impact among the articles within each journal, and high-impact articles (cited up to several hundred times) have appeared even in some of the Beall's List accounting journals with low citation rates. Further research is needed to determine how well the citing journals are integrated into the disciplinary citation network—whether the citing journals are themselves reputable or not. 相似文献
17.
Between 1929 and 2002 over 200 English‐language scientific journals were founded in China. The number of China's English edition journals in each discipline is, however, not correlated to the corresponding output of China's articles listed in the ISI's Science Citation Index. Clearly, the goal of these journals is to be internationally recognized. It is shown that this goal is rarely achieved. We think that lack of good‐quality papers, low international visibility and a citation ‘Matthew effect’ are the main causes for the small role played by China's English‐language journals. 相似文献
18.
开放存取论文下载与引用情况计量研究 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
基于"中国科技论文在线"的论文引用、下载数据,对开放存取论文被引用的年代分布情况、被引频次与下载频次的相关关系进行研究。结果表明:①开放存取论文达到被引峰值的时间在延长,互联网并没有加快开放存取论文的老化,反而有延缓之势;②单篇论文的下载频次与被引频次之间的相关性不显著;③应用性、综述性论文更容易出现"高下载低引用"现象;④从长期、整体角度来看,开放存取论文的下载频次与被引频次之间呈现正相关趋势;⑤被引频次侧重于反映开放存取论文的内在质量,下载频次则反映外部评价指标(可识别性、可获得性、传播速率等)。图3。表2。参考文献39。 相似文献
19.
Hajar Sotudeh Hakimeh Arabzadeh Mahdieh Mirzabeigi 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2019,45(4):377-385
Hybrid open access journals generally authorize self-archiving along with Author-pays model. Given the dependence of the Author-pays model on APCs paid by authors, it is expected to have a negative association with the free-of-charge Green model. By exploring a sample of 52,150 papers published in 47 Elsevier's hybrid journals, the study compares the OA models' citation performances to non-open access (NOA) model's and investigates the relationship between the quantities of their papers.Three OA groups are identified, including Green-only, APC-only and Green-APC. The OA papers show a citation advantage over the NOA articles, despite their lower number. The mixed APC-Green, gains the highest citation compared to the three other access models. However, the number of Green and APC-funded papers are revealed to have a negative association. Although, the combination of the Green and APC models magnifies the impact of OA papers, the inverse association between the quantities of their papers signifies that the lower number of the latter can be partially explained by the prevalence of the former. The results help academic librarians involved in advocating and managing OA to better understand authors' behaviors towards OA models and adopt a more supportive role for OA according to their preferences. 相似文献