共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of Pakistani Medical Journals using the principles of citation analysis. METHODS: References of articles published in 2006 in three selected Pakistani medical journals were collected and examined. The number of citations for each Pakistani medical journal was totalled. The first ranking of journals was based on the total number of citations; second ranking was based on impact factor 2006 and third ranking was based on the 5-year impact factor. Self-citations were excluded in all the three ratings. RESULTS: A total of 9079 citations in 567 articles were examined. Forty-nine separate Pakistani medical journals were cited. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association remains on the top in all three rankings, while Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons-Pakistan attains second position in the ranking based on the total number of citations. The Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences moves to second position in the ranking based on the impact factor 2006. The Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad moves to second position in the ranking based on the 5-year impact factor. CONCLUSION: This study examined the citation pattern of Pakistani medical journals. The impact factor, despite its limitations, is a valid indicator of quality for journals. 相似文献
2.
3.
4.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(2):101293
We study the effects of an article featured on the cover of the journal Nature on citations to all articles published by its authors. Based on 30 years of bibliometric data, we find that cover articles are cited significantly more than non-cover articles, with this difference being long-lasting. However, when considering all articles (past and future) by Nature authors, we find that the publication of a cover article causes citations to previous articles by its authors to decline relative to citations to articles by non-cover authors. 相似文献
5.
我国大陆港台医学期刊外文参考文献差错情况对照分析 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
分别从大陆、香港及台湾选取医学期刊,随机抽取2004年卷的80条文献,按照文献的6个项目进行核查.结果显示:存在差错的文献数量分别为大陆期刊48条(60.0%),台湾期刊40条(50.0%),香港期刊37条(46.3%);三者的差错率差异无统计学意义,同时3组统计文献差错类型的构成差别也没有统计学意义;差错情况中以作者姓名和题名最为突出.认为在知识信息时代,提高科技论文的文献著录质量和规范化水平,是作者、审稿人及期刊编辑均应重视的问题. 相似文献
6.
Philip M. DAVIS 《Learned Publishing》2011,24(4):287-298
Prior research has suggested that providing free and discounted access to the scientific literature to researchers in low‐income countries increases article production and citation. Using traditional bibliometric indicators for institutions in sub‐Saharan Africa, we analyze whether institutional access to TEEAL (a digital collection of journal articles in agriculture and allied subjects) increases: (i) article production; (ii) reference length; and (iii) number of citations to journals included in the TEEAL collection. Our analysis is based on nearly 20,000 articles – containing half a million references – published between 1988 and 2009 at 70 institutions in 11 African countries. We report that access to TEEAL does not appear to result in higher article production, although it does lead to longer reference lists (an additional 2.6 references per paper) and a greater frequency of citations to TEEAL journals (an additional 0.4 references per paper), compared to non‐subscribing institutions. We discuss how traditional bibliometric indicators may not provide a full picture of the effectiveness of free and discounted literature programs. 相似文献
7.
《Library & information science research》2006,28(2):281-296
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
8.
Do academic journals favor authors who share their institutional affiliation? To answer this question we examine citation counts, as a proxy for paper quality, for articles published in four leading international relations journals during the years 2000–2015. We compare citation counts for articles written by “in-group members” (authors affiliated with the journal’s publishing institution) versus “out-group members” (authors not affiliated with that institution). Articles written by in-group authors received 18% to 49% fewer Web of Science citations when published in their home journal (International Security or World Politics) vs. an unaffiliated journal, compared to out-group authors. These results are mainly driven by authors who received their PhDs from Harvard or MIT. The findings show evidence of a bias within some journals towards publishing papers by faculty from their home institution, at the expense of paper quality. 相似文献
9.
Penetration of Nigerian predatory biomedical open access journals 2007–2012: a bibliometric study 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 This paper presents the bibliometric characteristics of 32 biomedical open access journals published by Academic Journals and International Research Journals – the two Nigerian publishers in Jeffery Beall's list of 23 predatory open access publishers in 2012. Data about the journals and the authors of their articles were collected from the websites of the publishers, Google Scholar and Web of Science. As at December 2012, the journals had together produced a total of 5,601 papers written by 5,599 authors, and received 12,596 citations. Authors from Asia accounted for 56.79% of the publications; those from Africa wrote 28.35% while Europe contributed 7.78%. Authors from Africa accounted for 18.25% of the citations these journals received, and this is about one‐third the number of citations by authors in Asia (54.62%). At country level, India ranks first in the top 10 citer countries, while Nigeria, the host country of the journals, ranked eighth. More in‐depth studies are required to develop further information about the journals such as how much scientific information the journals contain, as well as the science literacy of the authors and the editorial. 相似文献
10.
This study shows how a journal's influence can be calculated by using citations obtained from Google Scholar and other methods even though the journal is not covered by any citation databases. Influence is measured in terms of foreign contributions, ‘equivalent’ immediacy scores of recent articles, and the calculation of citations and ‘equivalent’ impact factor. A total of 580 articles published in the Medical Journal of Malaysia (MJM) between 2004 and 2008 served as the sample. Very few foreign authors contributed to MJM (12.5%), implying its low regional acceptance as a channel for research communication. Immediacy scores for each year indicate citations were received by recently published articles. A total of 1,164 citations were received by 446 of the 580 articles and the main citing sources were journals (1,083) with reasonable h index and impact factor. Yearly impact scores ranged between 0.367 and 0.616. Higher impact factor scores were obtained by older articles. 相似文献
11.
Dean Hendrix 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2008,96(4):324-334
Objective:
The objective of this study was to analyze bibliometric data from ISI, National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funding data, and faculty size information for Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) member schools during 1997 to 2007 to assess research productivity and impact.Methods:
This study gathered and synthesized 10 metrics for almost all AAMC medical schools (n = 123): (1) total number of published articles per medical school, (2) total number of citations to published articles per medical school, (3) average number of citations per article, (4) institutional impact indices, (5) institutional percentages of articles with zero citations, (6) annual average number of faculty per medical school, (7) total amount of NIH funding per medical school, (8) average amount of NIH grant money awarded per faculty member, (9) average number of articles per faculty member, and (10) average number of citations per faculty member. Using principal components analysis, the author calculated the relationships between measures, if they existed.Results:
Principal components analysis revealed 3 major clusters of variables that accounted for 91% of the total variance: (1) institutional research productivity, (2) research influence or impact, and (3) individual faculty research productivity. Depending on the variables in each cluster, medical school research may be appropriately evaluated in a more nuanced way. Significant correlations exist between extracted factors, indicating an interrelatedness of all variables. Total NIH funding may relate more strongly to the quality of the research than the quantity of the research. The elimination of medical schools with outliers in 1 or more indicators (n = 20) altered the analysis considerably.Conclusions:
Though popular, ordinal rankings cannot adequately describe the multidimensional nature of a medical school''s research productivity and impact. This study provides statistics that can be used in conjunction with other sound methodologies to provide a more authentic view of a medical school''s research. The large variance of the collected data suggests that refining bibliometric data by discipline, peer groups, or journal information may provide a more precise assessment.Highlights
- Principal components analysis discovered three clusters of variables: (1) institutional research productivity, (2) research influence or impact, and (3) individual faculty research productivity.
- The associations between size-independent measures (e.g., average number of citations/article) were more significant than associations between size-independent bibliometric measures and size-dependent (e.g., number of faculty) bibliometric measures and vice versa, except in the case of total National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding.
- The factor coefficients, or loadings, for total NIH funding may associate more with the quality of research rather than the quantity of research.
- The removal of twenty outliers, fourteen highly productive or influential medical schools and six medical schools with relatively low research profiles, changed the results of the analysis significantly.
- This study''s broad institutional bibliometric data sets cannot be extrapolated to specific departments at the studied medical schools.
Implications
- Librarians, administrators, and faculty should use several methodologies in tandem with bibliometric data when evaluating institutions'' research impact and productivity.
- Health sciences librarians should not make use of university rankings materials lacking strong methodological foundations.
- This study''s bibliometric data may provide a starting point or point of comparison for future assessments.
12.
13.
14.
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
15.
16.
《Library & information science research》1999,21(2):227-245
A citation analysis of 61 library science and information science dissertations revealed some interesting publication patterns. About 80% of the citations are to single authors, and as in analyses of periodical literature, males are cited more than females overall (about 61% to 39%). In dissertations related to school or public libraries, the male/female distribution is less disparate; for studies in academic or special libraries two thirds of the authors are male, and male authorship is 75% when only information science dissertations are analyzed. Journal articles are cited more than books, book chapters, proceedings, theses, and other formats with College & Research Libraries and Journal of the American Society for Information Science used most. Library and information science is impacted by several other disciplines, primarily education, computer science, health/medicine, psychology, communications, and business. Authors cited in dissertations represent a somewhat less parochial list in terms of citing U.S. publications than authors cited in studies analyzing journal citations; over half of all works cited were published within the last 10 years. 相似文献
17.
18.
In 2008, the type of document “proceedings paper” (PP) was assigned in the WoS database to journal articles which were initially presented at a conference and later adapted for publication in a journal. Since the use of two different labels (“article” and “proceedings paper”) might lead to infer differences in their relevance and/or quality, this paper presents a comparative study of standard journal articles and PP in journals to explore potential differences between them. The study focuses on the Library and Information Science field in the Web of Science database and covers the 1990–2008 period. PP approximately account for 9% of the total number of articles in this field, two-thirds of which are published in monographic issues devoted to conferences, which tend to be concentrated in specific journals. Proceedings papers emerge as an heterogeneous set comprising PP in ordinary issues, similar to standard articles in structure and impact of research; and PP in monographic issues, which seem to be less comprehensive and tend to receive less citations. Faster publication of PP in monographic than in ordinary issues may conceal differences in the review process undergone by either type of paper. The main implications of these results for authors, bibliometricians, journal editors and research evaluators are pointed out. 相似文献
19.
OBJECTIVE: The authors characterized the output of MEDLINE papers by language and country of publication during a thirty-four-year time period. METHODS: We classified MEDLINE's journal articles by country of publication (Anglos/Non-Anglos) and language (English/Non-English) for the years 1966 and from 1970 to 2000 at five-year intervals. Eight English-speaking countries were considered Anglos. Linear regression analysis of number of papers versus time was performed. RESULTS: The global number of papers increased linearly at a rate of 8,142 papers per year. Anglo and English papers also increased linearly (6,740 and 9,199, respectively). Journals of Non-Anglo countries accounted for 25% of the English language increase (2,438 per year). Only Non-English papers decreased at a rate of 1,056 fewer papers per year. These trends have led to overwhelming shares of English and Anglo papers in MEDLINE. In 2000, 68% of all papers were published in the 8 Anglo countries and 90% were written in English. CONCLUSIONS: The Anglo and English preponderances appear to be a consequence of at least two phenomena: (1) editorial policy changes in MEDLINE and in some journals from Non-Anglo countries and (2) factors affecting Non-Anglo researchers in the third world (publication constraints, migration, and undersupport). These are tentative conclusions that need confirmation. 相似文献
20.
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