共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
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
2.
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
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.
《资料收集管理》2013,38(3-4):119-128
Earlier citation studies have shown that the humanist relies heavily on recent publications, and that monographic and journal publications are of equal importance. Such findings suggest that better current awareness service may benefit humanists. This paper presents a bibliometric study of journal articles on the subject of the American Revolution using items contained in a standard indexing journal. Results confirm that a larger group of journals is devoted to this subject than is generally suspected. Moreover, a substantial number of journals of high quality are found to be productive in this area. 相似文献
5.
Journal weighted impact factor: A proposal 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
The impact factor of a journal reflects the frequency with which the journal's articles are cited. It is the best available measure of journal quality. For calculation of impact factor, we just count the number of citations, no matter how prestigious the citing journal is. We think that impact factor as a measure of journal quality, may be improved if in its calculation, we not only take into account the number of citations, but also incorporate a factor reflecting the prestige of the citing journals relative to the cited journal. In calculation of this proposed “weighted impact factor,” each citation has a coefficient (weight) the value of which is 1 if the citing journal is as prestigious as the cited journal; is >1 if the citing journal is more prestigious than the cited journal; and is <1 if the citing journal has a lower standing than the cited journal. In this way, journals receiving many citations from prestigious journals are considered prestigious themselves and those cited by low-status journals seek little credit. By considering both the number of citations and the prestige of the citing journals, we expect the weighted impact factor be a better scientometrics measure of journal quality. 相似文献
6.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):241-251
This study established a technological impact factor (TIF) derived from journal impact factor (JIF), which is proposed to evaluate journals from the aspect of practical innovation. This impact factor mainly examines the influence of journal articles on patents by calculating the number of patents cited to a journal divided by the number of articles published in that particular journal. The values of TIF for five-year (TIF5) and ten-year (TIF10) periods at the journal level and aggregated TIF values (TIFAGG_5 and TIFAGG_10) at the category level were provided and compared to the JIF. The results reveal that journals with higher TIF values showed varied performances in the JCR, while the top ten journals on JIF5 showed consistent good performance in TIFs. Journals in three selected categories – Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Research & Experimental Medicine, and Organic Chemistry – showed that TIF5 and TIF10 values are not strongly correlated with JIF5. Thus, TIFs can provide a new indicator for evaluating journals from the aspect of practical innovation. 相似文献
7.
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
8.
9.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):77-88
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
10.
Sergio Copiello 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(3):249-258
This paper takes the cue from the case of a retracted paper, cited both by the retraction notice and by an article published later in the same journal. This led to analysis and discussion on the skewness of citations in the journal Sustainability and within Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) journals, particularly investigating self‐citations at journal and publisher levels. I analysed articles published by Sustainability in 2015 and found that self‐citations are higher than expected under a uniform probability distribution. Self‐citations in this journal make a 36% difference to the journal's impact factor. This research raises the question of what citation patterns can be expected as normal, and where the boundary between normal and anomaly lies. I suggest the issue deserves further investigation because self‐citations have several implications, ranging from impact factors to visibility and influence of scientific journals. 相似文献
11.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):181-196
The journal impact factor (JIF) reported in journal citation reports has been used to represent the influence and prestige of a journal. Whereas the consideration of the stochastic nature of a statistic is a prerequisite for statistical inference, the estimation of JIF uncertainty is necessary yet unavailable for comparing the impact among journals. Using journals in the Database of Research in Science Education (DoRISE), the current study proposes bootstrap methods to estimate the JIF variability. The paper also provides a comprehensive exposition of the sources of JIF variability. The collections of articles in the year of interest and in the preceding years both contribute to JIF variability. In addition, the variability estimate differs depending on the way a database selects its journals for inclusion. In the bootstrap process, the nested structure of articles in a journal was accounted for to ensure that each bootstrap replication reflects the actual citation characteristics of articles in the journal. In conclusion, the proposed point and interval estimates of the JIF statistic are obtained and more informative inferences on the impact of journals can be drawn. 相似文献
12.
[目的/意义]针对同行评议与影响因子在期刊评价中的争议,对两种期刊评价方法得出评价结果的关系进行分析,客观认识两种方法的相关性和差异性,以便更好地设计评价指标,开展评价工作。[研究设计/方法]以人文社会科学33个学科共计1,291种期刊为统计样本,采用调查问卷形式由专家对这些期刊进行同行评议,然后对同行评议与期刊即年影响因子、影响因子和五年影响因子的相关性做比较分析,并对学科、期刊载文量、创刊时间长短等因素对两者相关性影响进行分析。[结论/发现]同行评议和影响因子两种方法对期刊进行评价时,两者得到的评价结果具有较高的一致性,社会科学领域的一致性高于人文科学领域;同行评议结果与即年影响因子、影响因子和五年影响因子的一致性依次递增;同行评议专家更愿意给载文量少的期刊打高分,但载文量和期刊影响因子之间的相关性不大。[创新/价值]使用4,500多份专家调查问卷,以定量统计分析的方法对同行评议与期刊影响因子两者在期刊评价中评价结果的一致性进行研究。 相似文献
13.
14.
CSSCI的研究成功对于人文社会科学文献检索以及促进相关学科核心期刊的形成具有重要意义.针对CSSCI收录的管理学领域25种学术期刊,采用引文分析方法中的影响因子、总被引频次、被引期刊数、5年影响因子、即年指数、被引半衰期、他引率、指数、Web即年下载量、载文量、基金论文比指标对其进行全面的单指标学术影响力分析,根据引文分析评价指标及期刊实际数据,采用层次分析方法对CSSCI收录的管理学领域学术期刊进行综合评价,在此基础上,指出管理学CSSCI检索期刊学术影响力分析中反映出的问题,并给出改进建议. 相似文献
15.
[目的/意义] 随着社交媒体和电子出版平台的兴起,利用期刊在Twitter上的关注度来评价期刊能够对传统的期刊评价方式进行补充,发现该指标与传统指标之间的相关性关系,并以期最终构建合理的期刊社交网络影响力评价指标。[方法/过程] 根据《期刊引用报告》(Journal Citation Reports,JCR)的社会科学版,选取国际图书情报学领域影响因子前30位的期刊作为该领域的国际顶级期刊。为了研究altmetrics指标与传统的基于引文的评价指标间的相关关系,利用Spearman非参数相关性分析对期刊Twitter提及频次与8个传统指标(总被引数、影响因子、5年期影响因子、即年指标、论文数、引文半衰期、特征因子和论文影响分值)之间的相关性进行分析。[结果/结论] 统计结果显示,JASIST、College & Research Libraries和Scientometrics是本领域中在Twitter上受关注度最高的期刊。期刊Twitter提及频次仅与期刊特征因子间存在中等的显著相关性,与其他指标间存在较弱的相关性。值得注意的是,相比其他期刊,在Twitter上设有官方账号的期刊明显得到更高的关注度。 相似文献
16.
Takeo Nakayama Nobuko Hirai Shigeaki Yamazaki Mariko Naito 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2005,93(2):237-242
BACKGROUND: The use of a structured abstract has been recommended in reporting medical literature to quickly convey necessary information to editors and readers. The use of structured abstracts increased during the mid-1990s; however, recent practice has yet to be analyzed. OBJECTIVES: This article explored actual reporting patterns of abstracts recently published in selected medical journals and examined what these journals required of abstracts (structured or otherwise and, if structured, which format). METHODS: The top thirty journals according to impact factors noted in the "Medicine, General and Internal" category of the ISI Journal Citation Reports (2000) were sampled. Articles of original contributions published by each journal in January 2001 were examined. Cluster analysis was performed to classify the patterns of structured abstracts objectively. Journals' instructions to authors for writing an article abstract were also examined. RESULTS: Among 304 original articles that included abstracts, 188 (61.8%) had structured and 116 (38.2%) had unstructured abstracts. One hundred twenty-five (66.5%) of the abstracts used the introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) format, and 63 (33.5%) used the 8-heading format proposed by Haynes et al. Twenty-one journals requested structured abstracts in their instructions to authors; 8 journals requested the 8-heading format; and 1 journal requested it only for intervention studies. CONCLUSIONS: Even in recent years, not all abstracts of original articles are structured. The eight-heading format was neither commonly used in actual reporting patterns nor noted in journal instructions to authors. 相似文献
17.
Jingfeng XIA 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(1):69-74
This study examines the payment policies of a list of standalone predatory open access journals available on scholarlyoa.com . It is found that 72% do charge article publication fees (APCs), which is a higher percentage than found in DOAJ journals. The mean number of articles published during 2013 was 227, but ranged from 4 to 2,286 articles. The majority of journals charge low APCs and can be assumed to have modest annual incomes. There was no correlation between the amount of APC charged and the number of articles published. Comparing the number of journals charging APCs compared to the percentage from DOAJ, the findings suggest a connection between predatory practices and charging author fees. However, a comprehensive assessment of the dynamics of open access journal publishing beyond author charges should be done to avoid using APCs alone as a measure of whether a journal is predatory or not. 相似文献
18.
Jerome K. Vanclay 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(2):265-271
Analysis of 131 publications during 2006–2007 by staff of the School of Environmental Science and Management at Southern Cross University reveals that the journal impact factor, article length and type (i.e., article or review), and journal self-citations affect the citations accrued to 2012. Authors seeking to be well cited should aim to write comprehensive and substantial review articles, and submit them to journals with a high impact factor which has previously carried articles on the topic. Nonetheless, strategic placement of articles is complementary to, and no substitute for careful crafting of good quality research. Evidence remains equivocal regarding the contribution of an author's prior publication success (h-index) and of open-access journals. 相似文献
19.
OBJECTIVES: Patterns of use of electronic versions of journals supplied by an academic health sciences library were examined to determine whether they differed from patterns of use among corresponding print titles and to relate the applicability of print collection development practices to an electronic environment. METHODS: Use data supplied by three major vendors of electronic journals were compared to reshelving data for corresponding print titles, impact factors, and presence on Brandon/Hill Lists. RESULTS: In collections where one-click access from a database record to the full text of articles was possible, electronic use correlated with print use across journal pairs. In both versions, Brandon/Hill titles were used more frequently than non-Brandon/Hill titles, use had modest correlations with journals' impact factors, and clinical use appeared to be higher than research use. Titles that had not been selected for the library's print collections, but which were bundled into publishers' packages, received little use compared to electronic titles also selected in print. CONCLUSIONS: Collection development practices based on quality and user needs can be applied with confidence to the electronic environment. Facilitating direct connections between citation databases and the corresponding journal articles regardless of platform or publisher will support scholarship and quality health care. 相似文献
20.
Vincent KIERNAN 《Learned Publishing》2014,27(1):5-13
Many publishers of medical journals actively court coverage by the news media. However, the extent and effect of these practices are poorly understood. After reviewing prior literature regarding the impact of news coverage on the citation rate of journal articles, this paper seeks to measure the extent to which medical journals with clinical significance use public relations practices to encourage news coverage of their articles, and the success that those practices had in increasing coverage by newspapers. Editors of 120 medical journals published worldwide with clinical relevance were surveyed; the response rate was 54%. Eighty per cent of respondents reported that their journal offered journalists at least one of press releases, access to full‐text articles, or press conferences. Editors whose journals used the practices in conjunction with an embargo reported higher‐quality news coverage than editors of journals that did not, but editors and journalists held differing views about the justifications for the specific practice known as an embargo. 相似文献