共查询到18条相似文献，搜索用时 421 毫秒
1.
JCR五年期影响因子探析 总被引：6，自引：0，他引：6
使用期刊引证报告(JCR)6015种期刊数据,以统计学方法探索性地分析5年期影响因子IF5的特点.结果显示,IF5作为具有代表性的平均性期刊评价指标,能更好地反映多数期刊被引高峰,总体符合布拉德福分布.IF5与2年期影响因子IF存在排序相关,也有显著统计学差异,两者测评结果在较好和较差期刊上相对一致,但在多数水平居中的期刊上存在区别.最后,给出Ifa指数测度两种影响因子的差别和Ifb指数综合两种影响因子的评价信息. 相似文献
2.
为了验证《中国学术期刊(光盘版)》电子杂志社提出的新型期刊评价指标——期刊影响力指数(Journal Clout Index,CI)的科学性,首先采用JCR数据分析影响因子(IF)与5年影响因子(IF5)、IF与即年指标(IM)、IF与总被引频次(TC)之间的相关性,得出结论:IF、IF5、IM是相关性显著的同类指标,IF与TC的相关性较弱;因而认为,TC和IF是可用来评价期刊影响力的主要指标,基于这2个指标的综合评价指标——期刊影响力指数(CI)具有合理性.进一步实证分析了CI这一综合指标对国际期刊的排序结果比采用单一指标——影响因子(IF)排序更符合实际经验认识. 相似文献
3.
P指数用于中文社会科学学术期刊评价的适用性分析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
认为P指数在期刊绩效评价中体现了数量(被引次数C)与质量(平均被引率C/N)的平衡,应用P指数进行学术期刊评价是一种有益的探索。以法学期刊和教育学期刊为研究对象,对比分析P指数在不同学科期刊中与期刊载文量(N),被引次数(C),自被引率(SCR),5年影响因子(IF5)、期刊h指数、特征因子组合(EFS,AIS)等指标的差异,进行相关性分析,并得出以下结论:P指数简洁易计算,区分度好、支持动态变化排名、与多个关键评价指标相关性好,且在优秀学术期刊识别方面具有较好的可靠性,具有一定的现实应用前景。 相似文献
4.
给出一定条件,实现了SJR算法向特征因子算法的转化。选取CSSCI收录的图书情报学期刊2007年互引矩阵,分别计算被引量、EF、SJR、IF、AI、SJRQ,并分成两类进行相关度分析。结果表明,在一定条件下,SJR算法可转化成特征因子算法,并且期刊评价指标EF与SJR指标显著相关,它们完全可以作为被引频次与IF的参考、补充甚至替代。 相似文献
5.
期刊h型指数与论文数量和被引的关系实证 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
6.
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
7.
利用文献计量指标提高科技期刊质量 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
0引言衡量科技期刊学术、业务水平的标准有多种,包括载文量、文摘率、流通率(借阅率)、引文率、专家评审等。将这些标准量化为文献计量指标[1],借助文献计量学的统计数据可以使编辑部能够快速地对自己所办的科技期刊进行综合评价,了解期刊在本学科中所处的地位,及时调整编辑和出版策略。1被引指标与被引情况相关的文献计量指标有:总被引频次、Web即年下载率、影响因子(IF)、即年指标、他引率、自引率、被引半衰期、h指数。这些指标的统计数据均针对期刊影响力和期刊学术水平进行评估,反映了期刊的有用性(被利用程度)和显示度。总被引频次… 相似文献
8.
本文以5个学科的SCI期刊和论文为研究对象,取不同底数的对数对每一学科论文被引频次进行转换,计算各期刊对数矫正影响因子(IFlog),以各期刊IFlog除以所在学科所有期刊IFlog平均值,进行学科标准化处理,创建学科标准化影响因子(cnIFlog),探讨cnIFlog在学术期刊跨学科评价中的优越性。研究结果显示,5个学科期刊的IFlog均呈正态分布,且无论同一学科还是不同学科期刊的IFlog1.5、IFln、IFlog5、IFlog10之间均呈100%正相关(r=1.000,P=0.000)。与影响因子(IF2018)、平均影响因子百分位(average impact factor percentile,aJIFP)、期刊PR8指数(journal index of eight percentile rank classes,JIPR8)、IFlog和相对影响因子(relative IF2018,rIF2018)等指标相比,cnIFlog1.5(category normalization for IFlog1.5)在5个学科期刊中变异程度最小、与aJIFP和JIPR8的相关度最高,具有理想的区分度和稳定性。无论同一学科还是跨学科期刊评价,cnIFlog1.5均是理想的评价指标。 相似文献
9.
以2015年自然科学版JCR(S04CR)收录的8 778种期刊为研究对象,计算各期刊总被引频次构成中的自引率(self-citation rate for total citations,RSC,TC)和影响因子构成中的自引率(self-citation rate for impact factor,RSC,IF),全方位比较二者差异程度,揭示不同国家和地区人为操纵期刊影响因子的倾向.结果显示:8 778种期刊集合RSC,TC为0.072,集合RSC,IF为0.112,RSC,TC平均值为0.093,RSC,IF平均值为0.132.排除17种无RSC,IF者,8 761种期刊中,RSC,IF＞RSC,TC者6 954种(79.2％),RSC,TC＞ RSC,IF者1 599种(18.2％),RSC,IF=RSC,TC者208种.Wilcoxon秩检验结果是,Z=59.836,P＜0.001,2组差异有统计学意义.SCI来源期刊中RSC,IF显著高于RSC,TC,捷克、印度、日本、匈牙利和加拿大等国家期刊尤为突出.RSC,IF过度高于RSC,TC,怀疑有人为操纵的可能. 相似文献
10.
编辑出版类核心期刊综合评价指标的比较研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
本文归纳统计了5种编辑出版类核心期刊2003—2011年共计9年的资料,对期刊的总被引频次、影响因子、他引率、基金论文比、平均引文数这5个指标作了简单比较。结果表明：各期刊的总被引频次和平均引文数呈现逐年上升的趋势;影响因子呈波动变化,但各个期刊的他引率数值差别很大;基金论文比相差很大,《编辑学报》和《中国科技期刊研究》基金论文比相对较高。通过几种指标的分析与比较,反映出了目前我国编辑出版类核心期刊的发展现状。 相似文献
11.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(2):421-430
Unlike Impact Factors (IF), Article Influence (AI) scores assign greater weight to citations that appear in highly cited journals. The natural sciences tend to have higher citation rates than the social sciences. We might therefore expect that relative to IF, AI overestimates the citation impact of social science journals in subfields that are related to (and presumably cited in) higher-impact natural science disciplines. This study evaluates that assertion through a set of simple and multiple regressions covering seven social science disciplines: anthropology, communication, economics, education, library and information science, psychology, and sociology. Contrary to expectations, AI underestimates 5IF (five-year Impact Factor) for journals in science-related subfields such as scientific communication, science education, scientometrics, biopsychology, and medical sociology. Journals in these subfields have low AI scores relative to their 5IF values. Moreover, the effect of science-related status is considerable—typically 0.60 5IF units or 0.50 SD. This effect is independent of the more general finding that AI scores underestimate 5IF for higher-impact journals. It is also independent of the very modest curvilinearity in the relationship between AI and 5IF. 相似文献
12.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):77-88
One of the flaws of the journal impact factor (IF) is that it cannot be used to compare journals from different fields or multidisciplinary journals because the IF differs significantly across research fields. This study proposes a new measure of journal performance that captures field-different citation characteristics. We view journal performance from the perspective of the efficiency of a journal's citation generation process. Together with the conventional variables used in calculating the IF, the number of articles as an input and the number of total citations as an output, we additionally consider the two field-different factors, citation density and citation dynamics, as inputs. We also separately capture the contribution of external citations and self-citations and incorporate their relative importance in measuring journal performance. To accommodate multiple inputs and outputs whose relationships are unknown, this study employs data envelopment analysis (DEA), a multi-factor productivity model for measuring the relative efficiency of decision-making units without any assumption of a production function. The resulting efficiency score, called DEA-IF, can then be used for the comparative evaluation of multidisciplinary journals’ performance. A case study example of industrial engineering journals is provided to illustrate how to measure DEA-IF and its usefulness. 相似文献
13.
Wen‐Yau Cathy Lin 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(3):193-204
This research explores the performance of Asian S&T journals based on the outcomes of various citation indicators. Indexed by Journal Citation Reports – Science Citation Index Expanded (JCR‐SCIE), journals published in China, Japan, India, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan between the years 2008 and 2012 are collected and analysed using bibliometrics and statistics methods. Results showed that the mean impact factor (IF) value of the journals from all countries was less than 1.3 throughout the period. Only journals from China and Japan had a mean IF or 5‐year IF (5Y‐IF) value exceeding 1. The self‐cited rate of the journals from South Korea remained the highest among selected countries but showed a declining trend every year. The self‐cited rates among journals from all the six Asian countries did not considerably affect the journals’ IF values. The results revealed that the IF‐based ranking factor (IF‐RF) of Chinese and Japanese journals in various subject fields constantly improved from 2008 to 2012, but this improvement trend was not observed in journals from the other four countries. Overall, the journals from Japan and China demonstrated stronger impacts than those from the other countries. 相似文献
14.
Manolis Antonoyiannakis 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(4):1072-1088
Citation averages, and Impact Factors (IFs) in particular, are sensitive to sample size. Here, we apply the Central Limit Theorem to IFs to understand their scale-dependent behavior. For a journal of n randomly selected papers from a population of all papers, we expect from the Theorem that its IF fluctuates around the population average μ, and spans a range of values proportional to , where σ2 is the variance of the population's citation distribution. The dependence has profound implications for IF rankings: The larger a journal, the narrower the range around μ where its IF lies. IF rankings therefore allocate an unfair advantage to smaller journals in the high IF ranks, and to larger journals in the low IF ranks. As a result, we expect a scale-dependent stratification of journals in IF rankings, whereby small journals occupy the top, middle, and bottom ranks; mid-sized journals occupy the middle ranks; and very large journals have IFs that asymptotically approach μ. We obtain qualitative and quantitative confirmation of these predictions by analyzing (i) the complete set of 166,498 IF & journal-size data pairs in the 1997–2016 Journal Citation Reports of Clarivate Analytics, (ii) the top-cited portion of 276,000 physics papers published in 2014–2015, and (iii) the citation distributions of an arbitrarily sampled list of physics journals. We conclude that the Central Limit Theorem is a good predictor of the IF range of actual journals, while sustained deviations from its predictions are a mark of true, non-random, citation impact. IF rankings are thus misleading unless one compares like-sized journals or adjusts for these effects. We propose the Φ index, a rescaled IF that accounts for size effects, and which can be readily generalized to account also for different citation practices across research fields. Our methodology applies to other citation averages that are used to compare research fields, university departments or countries in various types of rankings. 相似文献
15.
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
16.
目的：评估中国科学引文数据库（CSCD）收录的7种儿科类期刊质量。方法：通过“中国科技期刊引证指标数据库”获得7种儿科类期刊2013年的篇均参考文献、被引半衰期、H 指数、引用半衰期、自引率、影响因子、即年指数、自被引率等数据,并将指标按其与期刊质量的正、负相关关系分为两组,分别绘制蛛网图,然后结合7种儿科类期刊的发文情况进行质量评估。结果：以篇均参考文献、影响因子、H 指数、即年指数为一组进行蛛网图法评估,排在前3位的期刊是《中华儿科杂志》《中华实用儿科临床杂志》、《中国循证儿科杂志》;以引用半衰期、自引率、被引半衰期、自被引率为一组进行蛛网图法评估,排在前3位的期刊是《中国循证儿科杂志》、《中华儿科杂志》、《临床儿科杂志》。结论：7种儿科类期刊整体质量较高,《中国循证儿科杂志》、《中华儿科杂志》综合评价最好,其他各刊还有提升空间。 相似文献
17.
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
18.
Konstantinos Petridis Chrisovalantis Malesios Garyfallos Arabatzis Emmanuel Thanassoulis 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(2):505-521
In this paper we attempt to assess the impact of journals in the field of forestry, in terms of bibliometric data, by providing an evaluation of forestry journals based on data envelopment analysis (DEA). In addition, based on the results of the conducted analysis, we provide suggestions for improving the impact of the journals in terms of widely accepted measures of journal citation impact, such as the journal impact factor (IF) and the journal h-index. More specifically, by modifying certain inputs associated with the productivity of forestry journals, we have illustrated how this method could be utilized to raise their efficiency, which in terms of research impact can then be translated into an increase of their bibliometric indices, such as the h-index, IF or eigenfactor score. 相似文献