共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 750 毫秒
1.
We present a comparative study of four impact measures: the h-index, the g-index, the R-index and the j-index. The g-index satisfies the transfer principle, the j-index satisfies the opposite transfer principle while the h- and R-indices do not satisfy any of these principles. We study general inequalities between these measures and also determine their maximal and minimal values, given a fixed total number of citations. 相似文献
2.
This paper studies mathematical properties of h-index sequences as developed by Liang [Liang, L. (2006). h-Index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics,69(1), 153–159]. For practical reasons, Liming studies such sequences where the time goes backwards while it is more logical to use the time going forward (real career periods). Both type of h-index sequences are studied here and their interrelations are revealed. We show cases where these sequences are convex, linear and concave. We also show that, when one of the sequences is convex then the other one is concave, showing that the reverse-time sequence, in general, cannot be used to derive similar properties of the (difficult to obtain) forward time sequence. We show that both sequences are the same if and only if the author produces the same number of papers per year. If the author produces an increasing number of papers per year, then Liang’s h-sequences are above the “normal” ones. All these results are also valid for g- and R-sequences. The results are confirmed by the h-, g- and R-sequences (forward and reverse time) of the author. 相似文献
3.
An h-type index is proposed which depends on the obtained citations of articles belonging to the h-core. This weighted h-index, denoted as hw, is presented in a continuous setting and in a discrete one. It is shown that in a continuous setting the new index enjoys many good properties. In the discrete setting some small deviations from the ideal may occur. 相似文献
4.
[目的]为丰富期刊学术影响力评价指标体系,提出了一种新的期刊学术影响力评价指标-f(x)指数。[方法]以《中国科技期刊引证报告》2012年期刊目录中的34种图书情报学期刊为例,通过CNKI获取各期刊2012年的载文量、篇被引频次,利用excel、c++计算相应评价指标的得分,并根据f(x)指数的得分对期刊进行排名。[结果]与当年遴选出的CSSCI核心期刊相比,评价结果准确率达94.12%;对各指标进行相关分析,发现f(x)指数与包括影响因子在内的多种期刊评价指标存在较强的正相关。[结论]f(x)指数利用对数函数的性质,考虑了期刊的载文量、总被引、篇均被引等因素,考虑了低被引和高被引论文的差异性,可作为期刊学术影响力评价的指标。 相似文献
5.
Pandelis Perakakis is a clinical psychophysiologist, an active advocate of green open access and a proponent of a new research evaluation model called ‘author-guided peer review’. In 2012, he and others founded Open Scholar, a not-for-profit community organization concerned with the way scientists and the rest of the world access research. Its flagship project is LIBRE (LIBerating REsearch). Michael Taylor is a mathematician working on the impact of aerosols and the use of satellites for weather forecasting. 相似文献
6.
Discovering author impact: A PageRank perspective 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
This article provides an alternative perspective for measuring author impact by applying PageRank algorithm to a coauthorship network. A weighted PageRank algorithm considering citation and coauthorship network topology is proposed. We test this algorithm under different damping factors by evaluating author impact in the informetrics research community. In addition, we also compare this weighted PageRank with the h-index, citation, and program committee (PC) membership of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) conferences. Findings show that this weighted PageRank algorithm provides reliable results in measuring author impact. 相似文献
7.
《Research Policy》2019,48(7):1855-1865
Quantitative research evaluation requires measures that are transparent, relatively simple, and free of disciplinary and temporal bias. We document and provide a solution to a hitherto unaddressed temporal bias – citation inflation – which arises from the basic fact that scientific publication is steadily growing at roughly 4% per year. Moreover, because the total production of citations grows by a factor of 2 every 12 years, this means that the real value of a citation depends on when it was produced. Consequently, failing to convert nominal citation values into real citation values produces significant mis-measurement of scientific impact. To address this problem, we develop a citation deflator method, outline the steps to generalize and implement it using the Web of Science portal, and analyze a large set of researchers from biology and physics to demonstrate how two common evaluation metrics – total citations and h-index – can differ by a remarkable amount depending on whether the underlying citation counts are deflated or not. In particular, our results show that the scientific impact of prior generations is likely to be significantly underestimated when citations are not deflated, often by 100% or more of the nominal value. Thus, our study points to the need for a systemic overhaul of the counting methods used evaluating citation impact – especially in the case of researchers, journals, and institutions – which can span several decades and thus several doubling periods. 相似文献
9.
Google Scholar集成了多个中英文学术文献数据库,能够更客观地反映文献的被引情况,因此已逐渐成为国内外流行的学术文献搜索平台。本文以Google Scholar为文献来源,对我国CSSCI中排名靠前的6种图书馆学情报学期刊5年来的学术影响力进行了比较分析。主要考查了每一年中各个期刊的总引用次数、篇均引用次数、h指数以及g指数。基于计算机软件工具和统计结果,分析了6种期刊5年来的学术影响力,并对它们的未来学术影响力趋势进行了分析。 相似文献
10.
In this study, we propose and validate social networks based theoretical model for exploring scholars’ collaboration (co-authorship) network properties associated with their citation-based research performance (i.e., g-index). Using structural holes theory, we focus on how a scholar’s egocentric network properties of density, efficiency and constraint within the network associate with their scholarly performance. For our analysis, we use publication data of high impact factor journals in the field of “Information Science & Library Science” between 2000 and 2009, extracted from Scopus. The resulting database contained 4837 publications reflecting the contributions of 8069 authors. Results from our data analysis suggest that research performance of scholars’ is significantly correlated with scholars’ ego-network measures. In particular, scholars with more co-authors and those who exhibit higher levels of betweenness centrality (i.e., the extent to which a co-author is between another pair of co-authors) perform better in terms of research (i.e., higher g-index). Furthermore, scholars with efficient collaboration networks who maintain a strong co-authorship relationship with one primary co-author within a group of linked co-authors (i.e., co-authors that have joint publications) perform better than those researchers with many relationships to the same group of linked co-authors. 相似文献
11.
Jadranka Stojanovski 《Biochemia medica : ?asopis Hrvatskoga dru?tva medicinskih biokemi?ara / HDMB》2015,25(1):12-21
Introduction
The aim of our study was to investigate the extent to which Instructions to authors of the Croatian open access (OA) journals are addressing ethical issues. Do biomedical journals differ from the journals from other disciplines in that respect? Our hypothesis was that biomedical journals maintain much higher publication ethics standards.Materials and methods
This study looked at 197 Croatian OA journals Instructions to authors to address the following groups of ethical issues: general terms; guidelines and recommendations; research approval and registration; funding and conflict of interest; peer review; redundant publications, misconduct and retraction; copyright; timeliness; authorship; and data accessibility. We further compared a subset of 159 non-biomedical journals with a subset of 38 biomedical journals. Content analysis was used to discern the ethical issues representation in the instructions to authors.Results
The groups of biomedical and non-biomedical journals were similar in terms of originality (χ2 = 2.183, P = 0.140), peer review process (χ2 = 0.296, P = 0.586), patent/grant statement (χ2 = 2.184, P = 0.141), and timeliness of publication (χ2 = 0.369, P = 0.544). We identified significant differences among categories including ethical issues typical for the field of biomedicine, like patients (χ2 = 47.111, P < 0.001), and use of experimental animals (χ2 = 42.543, P < 0.001). Biomedical journals also rely on international editorial guidelines formulated by relevant professional organizations heavily, compared with non-biomedical journals (χ2 = 42.666, P < 0.001).Conclusion
Low representation or absence of some key ethical issues in author guidelines calls for more attention to the structure and the content of Instructions to authors in Croatian OA journals.Key words: instructions to authors, publication ethics, publication standards, open access, OA, research integrity 相似文献12.
【目的】对影响开放式同行评议实践的相关因素进行实证研究,发掘开放式同行评议的关键影响因素。【方法】以Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)中开放式同行评议期刊为研究对象,通过网络爬取相关数据。采用变量分类赋值的方式,对影响开放式同行评议的相关定性因素进行量化分析。采用多重对应分析图展示开放式同行评议相关影响因素及其不同类别的内在关联;采用最优尺度回归模型揭示相关影响因素对开放评议类型的影响程度。【结果】开放评议类型与评议专家身份的公开类别具有极密切的关联,评议专家身份对开放评议类型有显著正向影响,且重要性程度值非常高。【结论】评议专家身份是否公开成为开放式同行评议实践模式的关键影响因素,透明性同行评议是当前开放评议行之有效的实践模式。 相似文献
13.
《Information processing & management》2023,60(1):103156
Hiring appropriate editors, chairs and committee members for academic journals and conferences is challenging. It requires a targeted search for high profile scholars who are active in the field as well as in the publication venue. Many author-level metrics have been employed for this task, such as the h-index, PageRank and their variants. However, these metrics are global measures which evaluate authors’ productivity and impact without differentiating the publication venues. From the perspective of a venue, it is also important to have a localised metric which can specifically indicate the significance of academic authors for the particular venue. In this paper, we propose a relevance-based author ranking algorithm to measure the significance of authors to individual venues. Specifically, we develop a co-authorship network considering the author-venue relationship which integrates the statistical relevance of authors to individual venues. The RelRank, an improved PageRank algorithm embedding author relevance, is then proposed to rank authors for each venue. Extensive experiments are carried out to analyse the proposed RelRank in comparison with classic author-level metrics on three datasets of different research domains. We also evaluate the effectiveness of the RelRank and comparison metrics in recommending editorial boards of three venues using test data. Results demonstrate that the RelRank is able to identify not only the high profile scholars but also those who are particularly significant for individual venues. 相似文献
14.
《Information processing & management》2020,57(5):102267
Merging the citation counts of arXiv-deposited e-prints (arXiv version) with those of their corresponding published journal articles (publisher version) is an important issue in citation analysis. Using examples of arXiv-deposited e-prints, this article adopts a manual approach to investigate the processing methods used by bibliographic repositories such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Astrophysics Data System (ADS), and INSPIRE for the citation merging. Both Google Scholar and ADS consolidate all citations from the two versions into the publisher one, whereas the consolidated citations are accumulated into the arXiv version in the INSPIRE repository. All these methods ignore the categories of the arXiv-deposited versions and the corresponding availability dates. As for Web of Science and Scopus, they count the citations of the two versions separately, which is likely regarding them as two independent articles. Focusing on journal articles that also appeared as arXiv e-prints, we classify them into two categories and identify two public availability dates of articles as the starting point of citation statistics. We present four feasible schemes to consolidate citation counts for the articles with both versions and also propose a universal scheme based on the research output. Furthermore, we investigated 2,662 e-prints in the “Computer Science - Digital Libraries” subject (cs.DL) from 1998 to 2018 in arXiv.org and manually calculated the consolidated citation counts of arXiv-deposited articles with the corresponding citation merging schemes. Furthermore, these citation consolidation methods are applied to the evaluation of articles, authors, and journals. Such empirical testing proves the feasibility of the schemes proposed in this article. 相似文献
15.
《International Journal of Information Management》2014,34(2):257-271
Bibliometrics and citation analysis have become important sets of methods for library and information science, as well as exceptional sources of information and knowledge for many other areas. Their main sources are citation indices, which are bibliographic databases like Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, etc. However, bibliographical databases lack perfection and standardization. There are several software tools that perform useful information management and bibliometric analysis importing data from them. A comparison has been carried out to identify which of them perform certain pre-processing tasks. Usually, they are not strong enough to detect all the duplications, mistakes, misspellings and variant names, leaving to the user the tedious and time-consuming task of correcting the data. Furthermore, some of them do not import datasets from different citation indices, but mainly from Web of Science (WoS).A new software tool, called STICCI.eu (Software Tool for Improving and Converting Citation Indices – enhancing uniformity), which is freely available online, has been created to solve these problems. STICCI.eu is able to do conversions between bibliographical citation formats (WoS, Scopus, CSV, BibTex, RIS), correct the usual mistakes appearing in those databases, detect duplications, misspellings, etc., identify and transform the full or abbreviated titles of the journals, homogenize toponymical names of countries and relevant cities or regions and list the processed data in terms of the most cited authors, journals, references, etc. 相似文献
16.
本文通过利用Google Scholar、EI和SCIE的作者检索功能,对这3种检索工具的检索结果进行了比较分析。研究表明Google Scholar是比较权威和全面的免费学术检索工具,但Google Scholar在中文学术文献检索中文献重复率高达2837%,且由于来源数据库的局限,文献的漏检现象比较严重。 相似文献
17.
Assessments of quality and productivity of academic research programs become more and more important in gaining financial support, in hiring and promoting research staff, and in building academic reputation. Most assessments are based on peer review or on bibliometric information. In this paper we analyze both bibliometric data and peer review assessments of 169 research groups in economics, econometrics and business administration. The evaluations are achieved in two independent rounds in 1995 and in 2001, permitting replication of our study.The purpose of this study is twofold. In the first part we want to see to what degree bibliometric information relates to peer review judgments. The results convey how evaluators weight different output categories in their final overall judgment of academic quality. The results also have practical meaning, since they indicate what the predictive ability of bibliometric data is for future peer review outcomes. In the second part of this study we aim at explaining differences in research output quality and productivity by organizational factors, like size of the research group, composition of staff, sources of research funding and academic discipline. In this part, a composite indicator is used to represent the review committees’ overall assessment. The bibliometric data most strongly related to the peer reviews’ overall assessment are used to construct data envelopment analyses’ efficiency scores as measure of research productivity.The main conclusions from our study are that the number of publications in international top journals is the best predictor of peer review assessment results. Changes in the classification of bibliometric information, as introduced in the second evaluation round, do not alter this conclusion. Size of the research group appears to be the only permanent characteristic associated with research quality and productivity. Size is positively related to research quality but negatively related to research productivity. Larger groups appear to have the potential to improve quality, but as groups become larger, they also experience problems in maintaining the research productivity of the research team's members. The remaining organizational characteristics appear to be temporarily related to research quality and productivity. In the first evaluation round, research productivity and quality are associated with the discipline variable: research programs in more quantitative areas and characterized by a higher level of paradigm development like econometrics and operations research achieved higher levels of research quality and productivity than programs in more diverse and less quantitative areas like business administration. This relation however is not permanent, since it becomes insignificant in the second evaluation round. Instead, funding relations become more apparent in the second review round. The relative amount of national funding in the research group's funding becomes positively related to academic quality, whereas the portion of income from committed research is negatively related to academic quality of the programs’ research output. This may have been caused by the increased importance of alternative sources of research funding in the period of the second review. 相似文献
18.
Web of Science与Google Scholar的引文分析比较研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
本文以图书情报领域期刊为研究样本,分别从引文数量、引文出版年、引文类型、引文语种和引文重合率几个方面对Web of Science和Google Scholar两个引文分析工具进行比较,并对Google Scholar的引文特征进行深入探讨,对二者分别作为引文分析工具的优劣势进行总结。 相似文献
19.
[目的/意义]旨在为国内学术期刊改进同行评议及国内同行评议理论研究提供参考。[方法/过程]以Richard-PaSCal-W ang[2017]同行评议模式分类模型精简版框架为分析工具,使用多维可视化方法,梳理欧美期刊13种同行评议模式,分析同行评议模式现状以及未来发展趋势。[结果/结论]欧美期刊同行评议模式呈现出参与度、透明度、自由度“三增加”的趋势。 相似文献
20.
Although there is some general agreement that increasing levels of collaboration amongst academics produce research papers that receive more citations, and that larger numbers of citations often imply higher quality, the issue of collaboration and its effect upon research output remains a controversial area with a wide range of views of what role collaboration plays and its general implications for quality. This paper re-examines the process of collaboration within research networks. It considers the role of collaboration and its effect on quality by studying the relationship between the level of interaction within research networks (collaboration) and the extent of variability of quality within those research networks. Twenty-two scientific networks from Austria are examined. The findings of the analysis are that increasing levels of collaboration are strongly associated with lower levels of variability of quality within each network. The conclusion is therefore drawn that collaboration at the level of the research network acts upon research quality qua peer review and that this peer review effect is inherent throughout the research process. 相似文献