共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 390 毫秒
1.
如何提高英文版科技期刊的被引频次和影响因子 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
从总被引频次和影响因子2方面分析我国英文版科技期刊的引用指标的现状和引用指标偏低的原因.提出了提高英文版科技期刊被引频次和影响因子的措施:1)注重期刊的国内外发行工作;2)通过建立英文网站及加入国内外知名数据库,提高文章的点击率及浏览量;3)请专家把语言关. 相似文献
2.
In this paper, we develop a novel methodology within the IDCP measuring framework for comparing normalization procedures based on different classification systems of articles into scientific disciplines. Firstly, we discuss the properties of two rankings, based on a graphical and a numerical approach, for the comparison of any pair of normalization procedures using a single classification system for evaluation purposes. Secondly, when the normalization procedures are based on two different classification systems, we introduce two new rankings following the graphical and the numerical approaches. Each ranking is based on a double test that assesses the two normalization procedures in terms of the two classification systems on which they depend. Thirdly, we also compare the two normalization procedures using a third, independent classification system for evaluation purposes. In the empirical part of the paper we use: (i) a classification system consisting of 219 sub-fields identified with the Web of Science subject-categories; an aggregate classification system consisting of 19 broad fields, as well as a systematic and a random assignment of articles to sub-fields with the aim of maximizing or minimizing differences across sub-fields; (ii) four normalization procedures that use the field or sub-field mean citations of the above four classification systems as normalization factors; and (iii) a large dataset, indexed by Thomson Reuters, in which 4.4 million articles published in 1998–2003 with a five-year citation window are assigned to sub-fields using a fractional approach. The substantive results concerning the comparison of the four normalization procedures indicate that the methodology can be useful in practice. 相似文献
3.
期刊学术影响力、期刊对稿件的录用标准和期刊载文的学术影响力三者之间存在同向加强的机制,来自较高影响力期刊的引用具有较高的评价意义。作者的择刊引用和择刊发表使得较低学术影响力的期刊较少被较高影响力期刊引用。因而,可以通过同时考察构成期刊引证形象的施引期刊的学术影响力及其施引频次来评价被引期刊的学术影响力。以综合性期刊Nature和Science 2010年的引证形象为例,将期刊影响因子作为学术影响力的初评结果,提出了以施引频次对施引期刊影响因子加权的计算方法,以期通过量化的引证形象实现对期刊的评价。 相似文献
4.
《Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services》2004,28(2):180-195
This study examines how the social sciences' debate between qualitative and quantitative methods is reflected in the citation patterns of sociology journal articles. Citation analysis revealed that quantitative articles were more likely to cite journal articles than monographs, while qualitative articles were more likely to cite monographs than journals. Quantitative articles cited other articles from their own quantitative-dominated journals but virtually excluded citations to articles from qualitative journals, while qualitative articles cited articles from the quantitative-dominated journals as well as their own qualitative-specialized journals. Discussion and conclusions include this study's implications for library collection development. 相似文献
5.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(2):406-418
The journal impact factor is not comparable among fields of science and social science because of systematic differences in publication and citation behavior across disciplines. In this work, a source normalization of the journal impact factor is proposed. We use the aggregate impact factor of the citing journals as a measure of the citation potential in the journal topic, and we employ this citation potential in the normalization of the journal impact factor to make it comparable between scientific fields. An empirical application comparing some impact indicators with our topic normalized impact factor in a set of 224 journals from four different fields shows that our normalization, using the citation potential in the journal topic, reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a higher proportion than the rest of indicators analyzed. The effect of journal self-citations over the normalization process is also studied. 相似文献
6.
Using 17 open-access journals published without interruption between 2000 and 2004 in the field of library and information science, this study compares the pattern of cited/citing hyperlinked references of Web-based scholarly electronic articles under various citation ranges in terms of language, file format, source and top-level domain. While the patterns of cited references were manually examined by counting the live hyperlinked-cited references, the patterns of citing references were examined by using the cited by tag in Google Scholar. The analysis indicates that although language, top-level domain, and file format of citations did not differ significantly for articles under different citation ranges, sources of citation differed significantly for articles in different citation ranges. Articles with fewer citations mostly cite less-scholarly sources such as Web pages, whereas articles with a higher number of citations mostly cite scholarly sources such as journal articles, etc. The findings suggest that 8 out of 17 OA journals in LIS have significant research impact in the scholarly communication process. 相似文献
7.
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
8.
V. S. Lazarev A. V. Skalaban I. V. Yurik P. A. Lis D. A. Kachan 《Scientific and Technical Information Processing》2017,44(3):196-206
A comprehensive methodology for selecting the world’s scientific periodicals that are necessary to carry out research on specific natural science and technical directions is given based on the use of citation analysis taking into account both citation indexes of selected publications in specialized journals and their citation of specialized journals. A list of world journals and other publications is obtained based on which it is suggested to create the corresponding scientific and information environment. 相似文献
9.
Henk F. Moed 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(3):265-277
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
10.
SCI的引文统计指标及其与研究评价的关系 总被引：16，自引：1，他引：15
从引证类型和检索系统统计源期刊组成分析SCI的引文统计数据及相关指标与期刊和论文学术水平间的不对应关系，并从引文统计时段、论文类型和期刊大小等方面探讨影响因子本身的不确定性；通过分析中国科技期刊的被引情况指出SCI中引文数据的统计错误。认为在我国的科研成果和学术期刊评价中，一定要具体分析SCI的统计数据，适度、合理地使用引证分析方法。 相似文献
11.
目的：比较SCIE、Scopus与SciFinder的收录范围、检索结果与引证关系。方法：对3个数据库的基本信息、引证分析功能,以及从关键词、机构与期刊名称3个字段进行实例检索得到的结果进行对比分析。结果：SCIE入选期刊最严格,Scopus收录期刊最多,SciFinder文献类型最全面。结论：SciFinder作为专业检索数据库,检索课题更全面,对检索结果的处理功能更强大。SCIE和Scopus更侧重期刊评价和引文分析,方便特定课题的溯源与追踪,也是写作和投稿很好的参考工具。 相似文献
12.
Michel Zitt 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(3):392-406
The principle of a new type of impact measure was introduced recently, called the “Audience Factor” (AF). It is a variant of the journal impact factor where emitted citations are weighted inversely to the propensity to cite of the source. In the initial design, propensity was calculated using the average length of bibliography at the source level with two options: a journal-level average or a field-level average. This citing-side normalization controls for propensity to cite, the main determinant of impact factor variability across fields. The AF maintains the variability due to exports–imports of citations across field and to growth differences. It does not account for influence chains, powerful approaches taken in the wake of Pinski–Narin's influence weights. Here we introduce a robust variant of the audience factor, trying to combine the respective advantages of the two options for calculating bibliography lengths: the classification-free scheme when the bibliography length is calculated at the individual journal level, and the robustness and avoidance of ad hoc settings when the bibliography length is averaged at the field level. The variant proposed relies on the relative neighborhood of a citing journal, regarded as its micro-field and assumed to reflect the citation behavior in this area of science. The methodology adopted allows a large range of variation of the neighborhood, reflecting the local citation network, and partly alleviates the “cross-scale” normalization issue. Citing-side normalization is a general principle which may be extended to other citation counts. 相似文献
13.
Melissa L. Rethlefsen Alicia A. Livinski 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2013,101(1):55-62
Objectives:
The research identified the publication types and ages most frequently cited in the infectious diseases literature and the most commonly cited journals.Methods:
From 2008–2010, 5,056 articles in 5 infectious diseases journals cited 166,650 items. Two random samples were drawn: one (n = 1,060) from the total set of citations and one (n = 1,060) from the citations to journal articles. For each sample citation, publication type and date, age of cited item, and inclusion of uniform resource locator (URL) were collected. For each item in the cited journal articles sample, journal title, publication date, and age of the cited article were collected. Bradford zones were used for further analysis.Results:
Journal articles (91%, n = 963) made up the bulk of cited items, followed by miscellaneous items (4.6%, n = 49). Dates of publication for cited items ranged from 1933–2010 (mean = 2001, mode = 2007). Over half (50.2%, n = 483) of cited journal articles were published within the previous 5 years. The journal article citations included 358 unique journal titles.Discussion:
The citations to current and older publications in a range of disciplines, heavy citation of journals, and citation of miscellaneous and government documents revealed the depth and breadth of resources needed for the study of infectious diseases.Highlights
- Literature on infectious diseases is multidisciplinary, encompassing medical specialties, public health, and the medical sciences.
- Infectious disease publications cite journal articles more than 90% of the time. Cited journal articles greatly range in age at citation: more than a quarter were over 10 years old.
- Infectious disease citation patterns resemble clinical medicine citation patterns more than public health citation patterns.
Implications
- Infectious disease professionals need access to general medicine titles as well as infectious disease, immunology, virology, microbiology, and public health literature.
- Librarians serving infectious disease researchers and practitioners should provide access to older materials, especially journal back files, to support the cyclical needs of their patrons.
14.
《资料收集管理》2013,38(1-2):95-110
Science journal managers should exercise care in preparing data for testing correlations between use and citation data. Correlations should be sought only among journals of fairly similar subject specialty, scope, purpose, and language rather than among journals in a broad field, e.g., science overall. Either gross citation ranking or impact factor will usually correlate well with use, except in cases where a journal is either new or characteristically publishes a few papers. In these cases impact factor must be used comparisons. In order for the comparisons to have statistical validity there should be relatively heavy overall use, an average of 25 potential borrowings per title in the subject specialty being analyzed. The authors present tables showing good correlations when these conditions are met and other tables showing poor correlations are analyzed in terms of unmet conditions. 相似文献
15.
We investigate the contributions of scientific software to library and information science (LIS) research using a sample of 572 English language articles published in 13 journals in 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017. In particular, we examine the use and citation of software freely available for academic use in the LIS literature; we also explore the extent to which researchers follow software citation instructions provided by software developers. Twenty-seven percent of the LIS journal articles in our sample explicitly mention and use software. Yet although LIS researchers are becoming increasingly reliant on software that is freely available for academic use, many still fail to include formal citations of such software in their publications. We also find that a substantial proportion of researchers, when documenting software use, do not cite the software in the manner recommended by its developers. 相似文献
16.
This study investigates the use, citation and diffusion of three bibliometric mapping software tools (CiteSpace, HistCite and VOSviewer) in scientific papers. We first conduct a content analysis of a sample of 481 English core journal papers—i.e., papers from journals deemed central to their respective disciplines—in which at least one of these tools is mentioned. This allows us to understand the predominant mention and citation practices surrounding these tools. We then employ several diffusion indicators to gain insight into the diffusion patterns of the three software tools. Overall, we find that researchers mention and cite the tools in diverse ways, many of which fall short of a traditional formal citation. Our results further indicate a clear upward trend in the use of all three tools, though VOSviewer is more frequently used than CiteSpace or HistCite. We also find that these three software tools have seen the fastest and most widespread adoption in library and information science research, where the tools originated. They have since been gradually adopted in other areas of study, initially at a lower diffusion speed but afterward at a rapidly growing rate. 相似文献
17.
历史影响因子:一个新的学术期刊存量评价指标 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
[目的/意义]期刊评价指标是期刊某个视角水平的综合体现,因此有必要必须不断深化和发展;提出一个新的期刊存量指标--历史影响因子,就是期刊总被引频次除以载文量再除以办刊年限。[方法/过程]以科技管理类期刊为例,基于中国知网数据库CNKI,采用相关系数、聚类分析、岭回归进行了实证。[结果/结论]研究表明,历史影响因子兼有影响因子和h指数的优点,克服了传统期刊评价指标存量指标过少、不考虑期刊办刊时间、不考虑期刊载文数量等局限,是一个较好的期刊评价指标。历史影响因子没有考虑期刊自引问题,而且不同的引文数据库对历史影响因子的影响也比较大,在具体应用时可根据需要排除自引或选择其他引文数据库。 相似文献
18.
19.
Janice E. Cox 《资料收集管理》2013,38(3):219-234
This study, conducted at the Indiana University School of Dentistry Library using citation analysis, examined graduate dental student theses citations to determine the nature of materials cited, journal ownership, journal citation frequency, and citation age distribution. The results were compared to other scientific discipline citation analyses. Study results indicated that for the period studied, masters dental students, like medical and science students, cited recently published scholarly dental journal literature. The majority of the journals cited were owned by Indiana University system libraries. Areas for further research include faculty resource usage, e-journal impact, and interdisciplinary resource use. 相似文献
20.
By examining citations in international relations journal articles published between 2000 and 2005, this study reveals that international relations scholars more heavily rely on books rather than on journals. Less than 2% of the citations are from electronic resources. Materials in foreign languages are utilized insignificantly, with English language citations dominating the research literature. The analysis of subject scatter details the main disciplines that are associated with international relations research. Qualitative scholars cite a higher proportion of monographic literature, while quantitative scholars display a higher journal citation rate. 相似文献