共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
退稿转投时带来的发表延误和同行评审重负是一个受到各界重视但未能得到有效解决的问题。结合文献和国际著名期刊网站的调研与分析表明,便携式同行评审与稿件转投服务为解决这一问题提供了方向。退稿及其同行评审的转投推荐能提高转投稿件处理效率、缓解同行评审压力,也是提升作者科学素养的现实途径,对我国科技期刊改善同行评审和期刊合作、缩短稿件出版周期具有借鉴价值。 相似文献
4.
5.
Lutz Bornmann Werner Marx Hermann Schier Erhard Rahm Andreas Thor Hans-Dieter Daniel 《Journal of Informetrics》2009,3(1):27-35
Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n = 1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the convergent validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of convergent validity of the citation analysis based on the GS data. 相似文献
6.
The scientific impact of a publication can be determined not only based on the number of times it is cited but also based on the citation speed with which its content is noted by the scientific community. Here we present the citation speed index as a meaningful complement to the h index: whereas for the calculation of the h index the impact of publications is based on number of citations, for the calculation of the speed index it is the number of months that have elapsed since the first citation, the citation speed with which the results of publications find reception in the scientific community. The speed index is defined as follows: a group of papers has the index s if for s of its Np papers the first citation was at least s months ago, and for the other (Np ? s) papers the first citation was ≤s months ago. 相似文献
7.
8.
Yunrong Li Filippo Radicchi Claudio Castellano Javier Ruiz-Castillo 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(3):746-755
Wide differences in publication and citation practices make impossible the direct comparison of raw citation counts across scientific disciplines. Recent research has studied new and traditional normalization procedures aimed at suppressing as much as possible these disproportions in citation numbers among scientific domains. Using the recently introduced IDCP (Inequality due to Differences in Citation Practices) method, this paper rigorously tests the performance of six cited-side normalization procedures based on the Thomson Reuters classification system consisting of 172 sub-fields. We use six yearly datasets from 1980 to 2004, with widely varying citation windows from the publication year to May 2011. The main findings are the following three. Firstly, as observed in previous research, within each year the shapes of sub-field citation distributions are strikingly similar. This paves the way for several normalization procedures to perform reasonably well in reducing the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices. Secondly, independently of the year of publication and the length of the citation window, the effect of such differences represents about 13% of total citation inequality. Thirdly, a recently introduced two-parameter normalization scheme outperforms the other normalization procedures over the entire period, reducing citation disproportions to a level very close to the minimum achievable given the data and the classification system. However, the traditional procedure of using sub-field mean citations as normalization factors yields also good results. 相似文献
9.
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
10.
E. Z. Suleimenov 《Scientific and Technical Information Processing》2010,37(1):33-36
The purpose of the Kazakh publication citation indicator that has been developed in Kazakhstan since 2005 is to carry out
scientometric analysis of scientific publications to determine their citation rate. At present, the bibliographic database
(BDB) on citation includes information on the publication activities and citation index of approximately 30000 Kazakh scientists
and specialists. They had over 18000 scientific papers published in over 500 domestic and foreign journals. The total quantity
of references to papers by Kazakh scientists was more than 28000. The Kazakh analogue of the science citation index determination
system is an efficient tool for analytical work with the BDB of scientific publications, which makes it possible to calculate
publication activities and citation parameters, which are used to define the value and demand for the results of scientific
work in various fields of domestic science. 相似文献
11.
12.
13.
14.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(3):683-692
This paper explores a possible approach to a research evaluation, by calculating the renown of authors of scientific papers. The evaluation is based on the citation analysis and its results should be close to a human viewpoint. The PageRank algorithm and its modifications were used for the evaluation of various types of citation networks. Our main research question was whether better evaluation results were based directly on an author network or on a publication network. Other issues concerned, for example, the determination of weights in the author network and the distribution of publication scores among their authors. The citation networks were extracted from the computer science domain in the ISI Web of Science database. The influence of self-citations was also explored. To find the best network for a research evaluation, the outputs of PageRank were compared with lists of prestigious awards in computer science such as the Turing and Codd award, ISI Highly Cited and ACM Fellows. Our experiments proved that the best ranking of authors was obtained by using a publication citation network from which self-citations were eliminated, and by distributing the same proportional parts of the publications’ values to their authors. The ranking can be used as a criterion for the financial support of research teams, for identifying leaders of such teams, etc. 相似文献
15.
[目的/意义]在总结国内外科研数据出版及数据引用规范发布现状的基础上,一方面梳理现有数据出版模式及优劣势,分析数据出版的主要流程;另一方面结合经典案例,提出不同出版模式下相应的推荐引用策略.[方法/过程]通过分析数据出版领域的相关研究报告及论文,对比各数据出版模式,对各出版模式的优劣势、数据出版流程及引用策略进行综合分析.[结果/结论]现有出版模式主要有4种,分别是数据独立出版、数据论文出版、合作出版以及期刊自行出版,每种出版模式下引用策略不同.数据出版的一般流程需要经历5个阶段,未来的研究可以从克服各数据出版模式的局限以及数据出版体系的构建入手. 相似文献
16.
选择2009—2010年《第三军医大学学报》因存在学术不端行为而退稿的84篇稿件,2011年10月利用全文数据库追踪其是否在其他期刊发表。结果显示:有34篇(40.50%)已公开发表,其中仅6篇有所修改,其余均原文发表,仍然存在学术不端;其中17篇(50.00%)在退稿7个月后发表,有7篇(20.59%)在3个月内发表。针对其可能原因,建议所有期刊联合起来,主动防范学术不端,重视稿件查重工作,规范学术不端行为的判断标准,提高编辑责任心及对学术不端的鉴别能力,依托学术不端检测系统建立共享问题数据库,以及加强对作者的宣传教育,建立有效的监督机制。 相似文献
17.
18.
19.
20.
《Library & information science research》2006,28(3):374-389
One aspect of faculty effectiveness can be measured through research productivity, and publication and citation rates can serve as an indicator of that productivity. This study, the fourth in a series to examine LIS faculty and program productivity as measured by publication and citation, uses the same methodology as the previous investigations. A consistent data instrument (the Social Science Citation Index) provided publication and citation data for LIS faculty, covering the years 1999 to 2004. Tables show the faculty and programs with the highest publication and citation rates, both overall and per capita, as well as a cumulative ranking of LIS programs based on faculty research productivity. This study, in conjunction with the three previous, documents an increase in LIS research productivity, suggesting an increase in faculty effectiveness. 相似文献