共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 140 毫秒
1.
六种图书馆学情报学核心期刊引文的定量分析 总被引：13，自引：0，他引：13
依据原始文献，采用文献计量学的方法，通过对2006年我国6种图书馆学睛报学核心期刊的引文的数量、引文的语种、引文的类型、被引期刊分布进行统计分析，找出我国图书馆争睛报学研究人员吸收和利用文献信息的一般规律和特点。 相似文献
2.
林业类科技核心期刊文献引用研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
为全面、深入分析文献引用对林业类科技核心期刊质量的影响,通过资料分析,采用数理统计方法,选择同一层次的5家林业类科技核心期刊,对其2014年全年的参考文献的引用情况(篇均引文量、引文类型、引文语种、引文的时效性、期刊自引率)进行统计和分析.结果表明:5家期刊参考文献的引用情况不尽相同,篇均引文量需要提高;参考文献来源类型主要是期刊;语种以中文为主,其次是英文,其他语种引用比较少;参考文献时效性和期刊自引率控制较为合理,但有提升空间.通过统计数据分析,希望期刊编辑重视刊发文章引文的各项指标,从而提高刊发文章质量. 相似文献
3.
根据2008年版《中文核心期刊要目总览》,选取具有代表性的10种图书馆学核心期刊,应用中国知网（CNKI）学术文献总库中的中国引文数据库、中国期刊全文数据库,统计获得10种图书馆学核心期刊2003-2012年发表的、总被引频次≥80次的84篇高被引论文.研究分析了84篇高被引论文的期刊分布、发表年代、作者和作者的机构,以及高被引论文的研究主题等,探讨了最近10年我国图书馆学的研究热点和发展趋向. 相似文献
4.
5.
科学引文的聚散性探讨 总被引：9，自引：0，他引：9
以《中文核心期刊要目总览》第二版为依据,对其中的４０个学科的科学引文进行统计。结果表明,科学引文具有明显的聚散性,聚散程度的高低与学科性质有关。采用引文分析方法揭示期刊文献的分布规律并确定核心期刊,最关键的是要选择好引文统计源期刊。对于期刊文献尚未形成明显的离散区和集聚区的学科不宜用引文分析方法来确定其核心期刊。 相似文献
6.
图书馆学核心期刊的引文分析与互引分析 总被引：26，自引：0，他引：26
从数量分布、年代分布、期刊互引、期刊情报能力值、影响因子和即年指数等角度对１３种图书馆学核心期刊１９９９年度２０５７篇载文的８５４５条引文文献作了文献计量和比较分析,为图书馆学期刊年度文献比较研究和期刊质量评价提供依据。 相似文献
7.
《图书馆》及图书馆学期刊学术水平与影响评价—图书馆学期刊1998年被引排序与分析 总被引：3，自引：1，他引：2
阐述了引文索引思想及加菲尔德引文分析理论，运用加菲尔德引文分析法对34种图书馆学期刊进行被引频次、影响因子和当年被引指数的测定和排序，对其学术质量和影响力进行评价，并得出图书馆学核心期刊。对《图书馆》进行了被引作者、引用期刊分布及被引年代分析。 相似文献
8.
从CSSCI引文年代分布看中国社会科学期刊影响因子的计算 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Garfield等在20世纪60年代提出的期刊影响因子是评价期刊的重要指标之一。对中文社会科学引文索引(CSSCI)来源论文之引文年代分布及其与美国社会科学引文索引(SSCI)的比较分析说明两者基本一致,对CSSCI引文中中文期刊、中文社科学术期刊及CSSCI来源期刊的年代分布分析说明:中文社科期刊的被引高峰期与国际期刊被引高峰期相同,均在其出版后的第二年和第三年。国际通用的影响因子算法完全适用于中国的中文人文社会科学期刊。 相似文献
9.
本文利用中文社会科学引文索引(CSSCI)统计了《图书馆建设》从1999年至2002年的被引情况，对该刊的被引分布、被引文献的著者分布、被引文献的年代分布进行了分析，通过计算CSSCI收录的主要图书馆学、情报学期刊的被引总篇次、影响因子及即年指标等数据，分析了《图书馆建设》在我国图书馆学、情报学期刊中的学术影响和地位，最后得出总结性结论。 相似文献
10.
我国情报学主要期刊引文定量分析 总被引：42，自引：1，他引：42
运用文献计量方法 ,通过对《情报学报》等我国情报学四种主要期刊2 0 0 1年所发表论文的引用文献 (包括引文的数量、语种、类型、学科、年代和被引期刊分布 )的定量调查分析 ,得出我国情报学研究文献引文的一般规律。 相似文献
11.
以SJR为数据来源,比较分析了1996-2008年巴西、印度、中国、韩国4个国家发表科技论文数量、可引用文献量、文献被引量、自引量、篇均被引量、去除自引后的篇均被引量、H指数、文献引用率、国际合作量等9个指标。中国发表论文数最多,2003年后每年增加约3万篇。巴西、韩国文献引用率、篇均引用量高,且自引率低;印度居中等水平;中国文献引用率、篇均引用率低且自引率高;国际合作度巴西最高、中国最低。可见中国的科技论文质量与其他3个国家相比,还有一定的差距。 相似文献
12.
Qing Ke 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(3):706-717
Traditionally, the number of citations that a scholarly paper receives from other papers is used as the proxy of its scientific impact. Yet citations can come from domains outside the scientific community, and one such example is through patented technologies—paper can be cited by patents, achieving technological impact. While the scientific impact of papers has been extensively studied, the technological aspect remains less known in the literature. Here we aim to fill this gap by presenting a comparative study on how 919 thousand biomedical papers are cited by U.S. patents and by other papers over time. We observe a positive correlation between citations from patents and from papers, but there is little overlap between the two domains in either the most cited papers, or papers with the most delayed recognition. We also find that the two types of citations exhibit distinct temporal variations, with patent citations lagging behind paper citations for a median of 6 years for the majority of papers. Our work contributes to the understanding of the technological impact of papers. 相似文献
13.
Marek Kosmulski 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(3):257-264
Scientific papers are usually assessed by a number of direct citations. The number of citations received by direct citations (2nd generation citations) has been considered as an alternative criterion of evaluation. Such an approach overrates the papers, which received citation(s) in one or in a few very highly cited papers. Hirsch-type approach to the 2nd generation citations suggested by Schubert was used to combine the impact and quantity of 1st generation citations into one number. 相似文献
14.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(4):863-872
Delayed recognition is a concept applied to articles that receive very few to no citations for a certain period of time following publication, before becoming actively cited. To determine whether such a time spent in relative obscurity had an effect on subsequent citation patterns, we selected articles that received no citations before the passage of ten full years since publication, investigated the subsequent yearly citations received over a period of 37 years and compared them with the citations received by a group of papers without such a latency period. Our study finds that papers with delayed recognition do not exhibit the typical early peak, then slow decline in citations, but that the vast majority enter decline immediately after their first – and often only – citation. Middling papers’ citations remain stable over their lifetime, whereas the more highly cited papers, some of which fall into the “sleeping beauty” subtype, show non-stop growth in citations received. Finally, papers published in different disciplines exhibit similar behavior and did not differ significantly. 相似文献
15.
从5种国家一级学术期刊中选择理论型论文、实验型论文、综述型论文共300篇,统计引文共7857篇。对7857篇引文在三种体裁论文中的引言、本论、结论各部分分布的数量和被引用的内容进行详细调查。结果表明:引文在论文各部分分布的数量与论文的体裁形式有关,被引用内容体现了学科上的相关性、横向上的对应性和纵向上的继承性。 相似文献
16.
基于WEB OF SCIENCE的理科学者H指数实证研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
通过ESI中科学家的Citations排序和CPP排序取交集选出数学、物理、化学、生物、地球科学5个理科学科代表性学者,基于Web of Science(WoS)查出这些学者的累积被引篇数P、被引次数C、篇均被引次数CPP和h指数。分析表明被引篇数P和被引次数C与h指数都有一定相关性;计算表明所有理科学者的h指数落在Hirsch公式和Egghe-Rousseau公式估计值之间,Egghe-Rousseau公式估计值、Hirsch公式估计值和真实h指数之间存在Pearson相关性。 相似文献
17.
[目的/意义]探索中文学术期刊论文的引文模式及时间窗口的选择对引文模式的影响，建立引文模式的分析框架。[方法/过程]以2006-2008年出版的图书情报领域期刊论文作为研究对象，采用两步聚类法对单篇论文在7年内的绝对被引量与相对被引量进行聚类分析，研究论文主要特征因子与引文模式的相关性。[结果/结论]在绝对被引量视角下，期刊论文均表现为先上升后下降的经典引文模式；在相对下载量视角下，期刊论文共有6种引文模式，其中3种可以归纳为经典引文模式，另外3种分别为"类睡美人型"、正偏型和马拉松型。相对被引量视角下，首年被引量与总被引量呈现了中等甚至较强的相关性，并且平均被引量越高，相关性越强，绝对被引量视角下的结果正好相反。结果表明，期刊论文的初始被引量与总被引量的相关性高低主要取决于引文曲线的峰度而非总被引量的大小。 相似文献
18.
To explore the citation evolution of papers published in the same year but different month, we selected papers from a discipline (physical geography), a subject (diabetes: endocrine and metabolism) and a journal (Journal of Biological Chemistry) published in 2005 as research objects. These papers were divided into six groups according to the difference in publication month, and we analyzed citations to these papers for the 9 years after publication. The results showed that within 5 years after papers from physical geography were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); after that, the differences were not statistically significant. Within 5 years after papers from diabetes (endocrine and metabolism) were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); thereafter, the differences were not statistically significant. Within 7 years after papers from the Journal of Biological Chemistry were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); thereafter, the differences were not statistically significant. Citations of papers followed the same pattern irrespective of discipline, subject or journal: citations of papers published in the same year but different month were obviously different in the first few publishing years, but as time went on, only the difference in publication month in a calendar year did not affect the papers' longer‐term citation. 相似文献
19.
《编辑学报》高被引论文分析 总被引：5，自引：1，他引：4
以中国知网<中国学术文献网络出版总库>为统计源,从文献引证的角度分析<编辑学报>高被引论文的分布规律.研究结果表明:该数据库共收录<编辑学报>1989-2009年原文3 508篇,被引文献2545篇,被引率为73%,总被引频次为1万5 863,单篇最高被引频次71;较少的论文拥有较高的被引频次,基本符合"二八定律";前100篇高被引论文中,栏目高被引论文数最多的是<理论研究>(46篇),个人高被引论文数最多的是游苏宁(6篇);前10篇高被引论文每年都在被引用,具有旺盛的生命力. 相似文献
20.
The journal impact factor (JIF) is the average of the number of citations of the papers published in a journal, calculated according to a specific formula; it is extensively used for the evaluation of research and researchers. The method assumes that all papers in a journal have the same scientific merit, which is measured by the JIF of the publishing journal. This implies that the number of citations measures scientific merits but the JIF does not evaluate each individual paper by its own number of citations. Therefore, in the comparative evaluation of two papers, the use of the JIF implies a risk of failure, which occurs when a paper in the journal with the lower JIF is compared to another with fewer citations in the journal with the higher JIF. To quantify this risk of failure, this study calculates the failure probabilities, taking advantage of the lognormal distribution of citations. In two journals whose JIFs are ten-fold different, the failure probability is low. However, in most cases when two papers are compared, the JIFs of the journals are not so different. Then, the failure probability can be close to 0.5, which is equivalent to evaluating by coin flipping. 相似文献