首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 315 毫秒
1.
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   

2.
肖宏  伍军红  孙隽 《编辑学报》2017,29(4):340-344
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   

3.
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   

4.
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 σ/n, where σ2 is the variance of the population's citation distribution. The 1/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   

5.
篇均来源期刊标准影响(SNIP)为荷兰学者Moed教授于2010年提出的全新期刊评价指标,旨在对不同主题领域的期刊影响力进行评价,为验证这一评价指标在期刊评价实践中的效用,利用SPSS18.0数据统计分析软件对Scopus数据库中24种外文期刊的SNIP与SJR、h指数以及影响因子进行实证对比分析;以CSSCI为来源数据库统计分析国内6种图书情报学期刊的IF值与SNIP值。分析结果证明,SNIP与其他3个指标之间存在较强的相关性,在期刊评价实践中具有可行性。  相似文献   

6.
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   

7.
伍军红  孙秀坤  孙隽  肖宏 《编辑学报》2017,29(5):500-504
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   

8.
The distributions of citations L, two- (IF2) and five-year impact factors (IF5), and citation half-lives λ of journals published in different selected countries are analyzed using Langmuir-type relation: yn = y0 {1 ? αKn/(1 + Kn)}, where yn denotes Ln, IF2n or IF5n of n-ranked journal, y0 is the value of yn when journal rank n = 0, α is an empirical effectiveness parameter, and K is the Langmuir constant. It was found that: (1) the general features of the distribution of Ln, IF2n or IF5n of the journals published in different individual countries are similar to the results obtained before by the author from the analysis of the citation distribution data of papers of individual authors (K. Sangwal, Journal of Informetrics 7 (2013) 36–49), (2) in contrast to the theoretically expected value of the effectiveness parameter α = 1, the calculated values of α > 1 for journals published in different countries, (3) the trends of the distribution of cited half-lives λn of journals differ from those of Ln, IF2n and IF5n data for different countries, and show one, two or three linear regions, the longest linear regions with low slopes are observed in the case of countries publishing relatively high number of journals, and (4) the product of the Langmuir constant K and the number N of journals for the processes of citations and two- and five-year impact factors of journals published in different countries is constant for a process. The results suggest that: (1) the values of α > 1 are associated with a process that retards the generation of items (i.e. citations or impact factors), the difference (α ? 1) being related to the dissemination of contents of the journals published by a country, and (2) the constancy of KN is related to the publication potential of a country.  相似文献   

9.
引文评价新指标SNIP旨在评价不同主题领域期刊影响力。从理论上对比分析SNIP与IF、h指数、SJR指标值的原理、关系,各自的优缺点以及它们的应用区别。结果表明,理论上SNIP与其他3个指标存在关联性,具有一定的优势,可用于期刊评价实践中。  相似文献   

10.
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   

11.
Previous research has found that researchers rank journal reputation and impact factor (IF) amongst the key selection criteria when choosing where to submit. We explored the actual effect upon submission numbers of several possible factors. We retrieved 10 years of submission data from over a thousand journals, as well as data on IF, retractions, and other factors. We performed statistical analysis and identified correlations. We also undertook case study research on the 55 most significant submission decreases. We found a statistically significant correlation between changes in IF, ISI percentage ranking, and changes in submissions numbers in subsequent years. We also found a statistically significant effect on submission numbers in the year following the publication of a retraction. Our case studies identified other factors, including negative feedback on the peer review process. Our findings regarding IF confirm previous indications about the significance of IF on submissions. We explain the correlation with retractions through the concept of ‘peer review reputation’. These results indicate that editors and publishers need to focus on a journal's peer review practices, as well as a journal's IF, if they are to maintain and grow submissions.  相似文献   

12.
This article analyzes the bibliometric features (the number of pages, completion years, the fields of subject, the number of citations, and their distribution by types of sources and years) of 100 theses and dissertations completed at the Department of Librarianship of Hacettepe University between 1974 and 2002. Almost a quarter (24%) of all dissertations were on university libraries, followed by public libraries (9%). Doctoral dissertations were, on average, twice as long as master's theses and contained 2.5 times more citations. Monographs received more citations (50%) than journal articles did (42%). Recently completed theses and dissertations contained more citations to electronic publications. Fourteen (or 3.2% of all) journal titles (including Türk Kütüphaneciliği, College & Research Libraries, and Journal of the American Society for Information Science) received almost half (48.9%) of all citations. Eighty percent of journal titles were cited infrequently. No correlation was found between the frequency of citations of the most frequently cited journals and their impact factors. Cited journal titles in master's and doctoral theses and dissertations overlapped significantly. Similarly, journal titles cited in dissertations also overlapped significantly with those that were cited in the journal articles published in the professional literature. The distribution of citations to foreign journal titles fit Bradford's Law of Scattering. The mean half-life of all cited sources was 9 years. Sources cited in master's dissertations were relatively more current. Single authorship was the norm in cited resources. Coupled with in-library use data, findings of the present study can be used to identify the core journal titles in librarianship as well as to evaluate the existing library collections to decide which journal titles to keep, discard, or relegate to off-site storage areas.  相似文献   

13.
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   

14.
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   

15.
Growing cooperation between Chinese journals and international publishers invites an investigation of the effect of this cooperation, based on an analysis of journal IF changes. Data from 23 Chinese academic journals were chosen from about 50 English-language academic journals indexed by SCI or SCIE and with a long history of cooperation. The data do not suggest that cooperation has improved the journals’ IF thus far. It appears that cooperation is generally limited to international distribution, and this has a weak influence on the quality of the journal and its IF, even though the papers can be accessed by worldwide users through publishers’ international distribution networks. Cooperation with international publishers is one step, but actively working on the quality of the journals is a more important step.  相似文献   

16.
This study aims to present a quantitative analysis of open access (OA) journals in the field of medicine indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The bibliographic data for this study was extracted from DOAJ and inserted into an Excel sheet for analysis. The retrieved data was analyzed by using different quantitative techniques to disclose the findings. The findings disclosed that 3627 OA journals related to the field of medicine are indexed in DOAJ, which represents a substantial increase from just 8 in 2002. Moreover, most of the medical journals (n = 1874 or 51.7%) do not charge any Author Processing Charges (APC) from the authors. The United Kingdom leads the world with 878 (24%) open access journal titles, whereas English is the top language of publication with 3149 (86.8%) OA journals in medicine. Elsevier is the leading publisher with 236 (6.5%) journal titles. A majority of the journals (n = 1595 or 44%) follow a double blind, peer-review process. About 2046 (56.4%) journals publish their contents under the Creative Commons (CC BY) licensing model to enable access and use of scholarly content for educational purposes.  相似文献   

17.
In spite of the increasing use of qualitative research methods in library and information studies, it is unclear whether using qualitative methods (grounded theory, ethnography, and phenomenology) results in an above average impact in library and information science (LIS). Articles using any of the three qualitative methods published from 2003 to 2013 and indexed in Web of Science in the category of “Information Science & Library Science” (N?=?299) were studied. The number of citations and Mendeley readers for each article was compared to the other articles published in the same journal and same volume using mean normalised rank (rank-1/articles-1). The results showed no statistically significant difference between the citation rates of qualitative articles with those of other articles. Qualitative articles on average had a smaller Mendeley readership than the other articles did and the difference was statistically significant. Given the increasing interest in qualitative methods, it is suggested that LIS schools in their education programs and journals in their editorial policies should put more emphasis on issues related to the rigour of qualitative research.  相似文献   

18.
付中静 《出版科学》2016,24(4):77-82
收集 Web of Science（WoS）数据库的高被引撤销论文数据,分析其分布规律和引证特征。结果发现,TOP20%高被引撤销论文430篇,分布于31个国家,多学科领域最多,35种期刊>3篇。高被引撤销论文撤销时滞和撤销论文总被引频次相关性较弱（P=0.014）,和撤销前被引频次相关性较强（P=0.000）。期刊 IF和撤销论文数量、撤销论文总被引频次、撤销论文篇均被引频次正相关（P=0.017、P=0.000、P=0.005）。撤销后年均被引频次低于撤销前（P=0.000）。本研究说明 IF 高的期刊发表的撤销论文对学术界带来的负面影响较大,撤销时滞延长增加了撤销前引用,撤销起到了一定的净化效果,但是净化效果还不理想,建议国内外学者加强对撤销论文及其不良影响的关注。  相似文献   

19.
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   

20.
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   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号