共查询到18条相似文献，搜索用时 156 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
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
4.
5.
10种国际权威科技期刊影响因子构成特征及其启示 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
利用Web of Science(WoS)数据库和Journal Citation Reports(期刊引证报告,JCR)的引证分析功能,从3个方面探讨10种国际权威期刊影响因子的结构特征:1)自引对影响因子的贡献;2)不同类型文献对影响因子的贡献;3)高被引论文对影响因子的贡献。结果显示:10种国际权威期刊自引对其影响因子的贡献率均较低;研究论文(article)和综述(review)对影响因子的贡献率均在80%以上,述评(editorial)、信稿(letter)和科技新闻(news item)对科技期刊影响因子的贡献不容忽视,其他类型的文献对影响因子贡献较小;各期刊高被引论文对影响因子的贡献率普遍较高。提示:增加期刊自引在一定程度上可以提高影响因子,但依靠增加自引来提高期刊实际影响力几乎是不可能的;科学规划期刊的文献类型,多发表一些述评、信稿和科技新闻等类型的文献对提高期刊的影响因子和影响力是很有价值的;通过引文分析寻找相关学科领域的研究前沿和热点,加强高被引论文的选题策划是提高科技期刊影响因子的有效方法。 相似文献
6.
《科技与出版》2014,(50种)
目的—查找2013年被中国科技核心期刊剔除期刊的相关指标数据,分析被剔除的主要原因。方法—通过比对2012年和2013年的《中国科技期刊引证报告(核心版)》,找出被剔除的期刊;在2012年核心版中查出相关数据,包括核心总被引频次及学科内排名、核心影响因子及学科内排名、核心他引率、核心即年指标、基金论文比、文献选出率、平均引文、核心引用刊、综合评价学科内排名、总排名等12项。结果—找出50种被剔除的期刊,核心总被引频次在200次以下的有15种(30.0%),核心影响因子小于0.200的有30种(60.0%),核心他引率低于0.70的有17种(34.0%),核心即年指标通讯作者。在0.010以下的有19种(38.0%);学科内排名靠后的有39种(78.0%),其中学科内末位的有9种;总排名在1 998种期刊中排名1 600位以后的有35种(70.0%),其中有多种期刊多项指标均靠后;文献选出率低于0.50的期刊有3种。结论—核心总被引频次、核心影响因子、核心他引率、核心即年指标过低,学科内排名及总排名靠后,均是被剔除的主要原因;其次,文献选出率也应当引起重视。 相似文献
7.
学术期刊的影响主要是指其学术影响,评价期刊学术影响的指标有许多,主要的也是国际通用的指标有影响因子、总引文频次和他引比等.但是不同学科、不同领域的期刊的影响因子、总引文频次和他引比的绝对值缺乏可比性.如生物科学领域的期刊影响因子和工程技术领域期刊的影响因子相差较大,一个学科中的排名第一的期刊甚至比另一个学科中排名最后的期刊的影响因子还要低!引文频次也有类似的现象.…… 相似文献
8.
学术期刊的影响主要是指其学术影响,评价期刊学术影响的指标有许多,主要的也是国际通用的指标有影响因子、总引文频次和他引比等.但是不同学科、不同领域的期刊的影响因子、总引文频次和他引比的绝对值缺乏可比性.如生物科学领域的期刊影响因子和工程技术领域期刊的影响因子相差较大,一个学科中的排名第一的期刊甚至比另一个学科中排名最后的期刊的影响因子还要低!引文频次也有类似的现象.…… 相似文献
9.
本研究以2010~2014年版《中国科技期刊引证报告（核心版）》收录的我国果树学5种相关专业期刊为研究对象,对期刊总被引频次、影响因子、即年指标和他引率等8项文献计量学指标进行德尔菲法综合指标加权值分析,发现5种期刊的5年平均综合指数排名和5年平均影响因子排名完全相同,《园艺学报》《果树学报》的综合指标加权值和影响因子明显高于其他3种期刊,证明《园艺学报》《果树学报》是果树学领域的学术权威期刊。 相似文献
10.
期刊影响因子操纵行为及抑制策略 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
国内外一些学术期刊利用期刊影响因子定义与计算方法存在的漏洞,采取多种操纵行为拉高影响因子。由于期刊影响因子被广泛应用于学术评价与科研管理,不客观期刊影响因子对学术评价与科研管理造成不能忽略的较大负面影响。本文总结了过度自引、同盟引用、引用奖金等代表性期刊影响因子操纵行为,并提出抑制策略。 相似文献
11.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):123-135
Journal self-citations strongly affect journal evaluation indicators (such as impact factors) at the meso- and micro-levels, and therefore they are often increased artificially to inflate the evaluation indicators in journal evaluation systems. This coercive self-citation is a form of scientific misconduct that severely undermines the objective authenticity of these indicators. In this study, we developed the feature space for describing journal citation behavior and conducted feature selection by combining GA-Wrapper with RelifF. We also constructed a journal classification model using the logistic regression method to identify normal and abnormal journals. We evaluated the performance of the classification model using journals in three subject areas (BIOLOGY, MATHEMATICS and CHEMISTRY, APPLIED) during 2002–2011 as the test samples and good results were achieved in our experiments. Thus, we developed an effective method for the accurate identification of coercive self-citations. 相似文献
12.
《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
13.
《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
14.
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
15.
《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
16.
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
17.
We use data on economic, management and political science journals to produce quantitative estimates of (in)consistency of the evaluations based on six popular bibliometric indicators (impact factor, 5-year impact factor, immediacy index, article influence score, SNIP and SJR). We advocate a new approach to the aggregation of journal rankings. Since the rank aggregation is a multicriteria decision problem, ranking methods from social choice theory may solve it. We apply either a direct ranking method based on the majority rule (the Copeland rule, the Markovian method) or a sorting procedure based on a tournament solution, such as the uncovered set and the minimal externally stable set. We demonstrate that the aggregate rankings reduce the number of contradictions and represent the set of the single-indicator-based rankings better than any of the six rankings themselves. 相似文献