《中国中药杂志》量化考核机制的建立与实践     

李禾  吕冬梅  周驰 《编辑学报》2013,25(5):448-451

《中国中药杂志》根据现阶段期刊发展需求,探索出一套特色化、全方位的绩效考核管理机制。将编辑分为纸质版编辑、网络与信息编辑2种类型,并分设了不同的管理考核标准。对纸质版编辑的考核综合了选题组稿,文章的下载频次、被引频次、刊用周期,举办或参加会议与培训,参与基金项目,创收等多个方面;对网络与信息编辑的考核则侧重于激励研发与创新。对于编委会,也打破常规,采取量化考核与竞争机制。通过对编辑部和编委会实行特色化的量化考核、绩效管理制度,将编辑和专家的个人贡献与期刊整体发展紧密结合,充分发挥了其潜能和资源优势,使期刊综合实力得到迅速提升。  相似文献   

Impact maturity times and citation time windows: The 2-year maximum journal impact factor     

P. Dorta-González  M.I. Dorta-González 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(3):593-602

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   

审视与反思：高职学报稿源问题——以《襄阳职业技术学院学报》为例     

漆福刚 《襄樊职业技术学院学报》2013,(5):134-136,140

新形势下,高职学报因为高职院校科研人员能力的制约,评价机制的不合理,办刊特色不鲜明,影响因子较低,编辑工作的主动性、积极性不够,办刊经费不足等原因,造成高职学报稿源量少质差的状况.要从根本上提升高职学报的办刊质量,必须从多措并举留住校内稿源,办出特色,提升学报影响,吸纳稿源,强化编辑危机感、责任感等方面来改变现有高职学报稿源的现状.  相似文献   

如何利用中国期刊网审稿   总被引：36，自引：9，他引：27  

王淑华 《编辑学报》2001,13(4):225-226

学科的交叉和渗透给科技期刊编辑初审稿件和送审稿件带来了很大困难。利用中国期刊网有助于稿件的初审，节约初审的时间和精力，同时可以找到合适的审稿专家。举例说明该过程常用的几种检索方式。  相似文献   

《情报学报》与我国情报学发展(Ⅱ)--《情报学报》创刊20年来引用文献的计量分析   总被引：6，自引：0，他引：6  

邱均平  王宏鑫  冯新霞 《情报学报》2002,21(6)

《情报学报》是公认的我国情报学权威期刊 ,不仅发表了大量情报学论文 ,同时其引用文献更是覆盖了中外情报学及其相关领域的重要文献。其引用文献的数量、语种、类型、年代分布、学科分布、来源期刊、自引等数据不仅可以客观公正地评价《学报》的学科地位 ,也可以更加全面地把握我国情报学发展的动态过程、特点和规律 ,以及与相关学科的关系  相似文献   

学报出版中信息失衡问题解析     

汤有娣 《天津职业院校联合学报》2006,8(6):107-112

学报出版中经常存在的信息失衡现象严重影响杂志质量提高.应当根据编辑、作者、读者三个群体掌握信息的原始优势、劣势解析产生信息不对称的原因,并且有针对性地采取措施争取达到信息平衡.  相似文献   

美国《图书馆杂志》“年度图书馆”奖获得者服务特色分析     

谈大军  王梦迪 《图书情报工作》2020,64(7):145-152

[目的/意义] 对美国《图书馆杂志》从1992年开始设立的"年度图书馆"奖的评选标准以及获奖图书馆的特色服务进行研究，旨在为我国图书馆开展特色化服务提供借鉴。[方法/过程] 通过网络调查法和案例分析法，对2000-2018年获得"年度图书馆"奖的19所图书馆开展的特色服务进行比较分析。[结果/结论] 获奖图书馆的服务特色：重视公民教育，强化教育职能；强调均等服务理念，体现人文关怀；提供多元社区信息服务，参与社区建设；树立品牌意识，打造品牌项目。对我国图书馆界的启示：科学合理地进行角色定位；积极参与社区贫困计划；强化特色服务品牌意识；拓宽合作领域。  相似文献   

英文学术期刊防范及控制学术不端的实践与思考——以《Journal of Sport and Health Science》为例     

张慧 《编辑学报》2017,29(5):452-455

近年来,学术不端事件在全球范围呈蔓延之势,在中国也屡有发生.英文学术期刊如何防范、控制学术不端？文章根据《Journal of Sport and Health Science》(《JSHS》)工作实践,介绍《JSHS》在学习国际出版伦理规范、制定日常工作指南、有效利用识别检测工具、整理归类各种文档、持续提升编辑专业素养等方面的举措.  相似文献   

Empire Redefined,Part 3     

Lorraine A. Busby 《期刊图书馆员》2017,73(2):84-88

The examination of publishing empires as paralleled by their geopolitical counterparts continues. The transition from a print-based industry into the digital era opened up new opportunities to build a corporate empire that intentionally seeks dominance and market control. As the biggest publishing corporations maneuvered for self-interests, their researcher and library customers have pushed back with sometimes clandestine responses to register their opposition, just as peasantry periodically revolted in previous eras. As the publishing empires and the researchers and libraries that use their products fight for support in the forum of public opinion, interesting contrasts in messaging are offered.  相似文献   

Impact Factors and the Central Limit Theorem: Why citation averages are scale dependent     

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 $\sigma /\sqrt{n}$, where σ² is the variance of the population's citation distribution. The $1/\sqrt{n}$ 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