共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 93 毫秒
1.
《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
2.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(2):101294
Questionable publications have been accused of “greedy” practices; however, their influence on academia has not been gauged. Here, we probe the impact of questionable publications through a systematic and comprehensive analysis with various participants from academia and compare the results with those of their unaccused counterparts using billions of citation records, including liaisons, i.e., journals and publishers, and prosumers, i.e., authors. Questionable publications attribute publisher-level self-citations to their journals while limiting journal-level self-citations; yet, conventional journal-level metrics are unable to detect these publisher-level self-citations. We propose a hybrid journal-publisher metric for detecting self-favouring citations among QJs from publishers. Additionally, we demonstrate that the questionable publications were less disruptive and influential than their counterparts. Our findings indicate an inflated citation impact of suspicious academic publishers. The findings provide a basis for actionable policy-making against questionable publications. 相似文献
3.
《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
4.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):123-135
Journal self-citations strongly affect journal evaluation indicators (such as impact factors) at the meso- and micro-levels, and therefore they are often increased artificially to inflate the evaluation indicators in journal evaluation systems. This coercive self-citation is a form of scientific misconduct that severely undermines the objective authenticity of these indicators. In this study, we developed the feature space for describing journal citation behavior and conducted feature selection by combining GA-Wrapper with RelifF. We also constructed a journal classification model using the logistic regression method to identify normal and abnormal journals. We evaluated the performance of the classification model using journals in three subject areas (BIOLOGY, MATHEMATICS and CHEMISTRY, APPLIED) during 2002–2011 as the test samples and good results were achieved in our experiments. Thus, we developed an effective method for the accurate identification of coercive self-citations. 相似文献
5.
6.
We evaluate author impact indicators and ranking algorithms on two publication databases using large test data sets of well-established researchers. The test data consists of (1) ACM fellowship and (2) various life-time achievement awards. We also evaluate different approaches of dividing credit of papers among co-authors and analyse the impact of self-citations. Furthermore, we evaluate different graph normalisation approaches for when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs.We find that PageRank outperforms citation counts in identifying well-established researchers. This holds true when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs but also when PageRank is computed on paper graphs and paper scores are divided among co-authors. In general, the best results are obtained when co-authors receive an equal share of a paper's score, independent of which impact indicator is used to compute paper scores. The results also show that removing author self-citations improves the results of most ranking metrics. Lastly, we find that it is more important to personalise the PageRank algorithm appropriately on the paper level than deciding whether to include or exclude self-citations. However, on the author level, we find that author graph normalisation is more important than personalisation. 相似文献
7.
The paper introduces a new journal impact measure called The Reference Return Ratio (3R). Unlike the traditional Journal Impact Factor (JIF), which is based on calculations of publications and citations, the new measure is based on calculations of bibliographic investments (references) and returns (citations). A comparative study of the two measures shows a strong relationship between the 3R and the JIF. Yet, the 3R appears to correct for citation habits, citation dynamics, and composition of document types – problems that typically are raised against the JIF. In addition, contrary to traditional impact measures, the 3R cannot be manipulated ad infinitum through journal self-citations. 相似文献
8.
9.
Questions of definition and measurement continue to constrain a consensus on the measurement of interdisciplinarity. Using Rao-Stirling (RS) Diversity sometimes produces anomalous results. We argue that these unexpected outcomes can be related to the use of “dual-concept diversity” which combines “variety” and “balance” in the definitions (ex ante). We propose to modify RS Diversity into a new indicator (DIV) which operationalizes “variety,” “balance,” and “disparity” independently and then combines them ex post. “Balance” can be measured using the Gini coefficient. We apply DIV to the aggregated citation patterns of 11,487 journals covered by the Journal Citation Reports 2016 of the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index as an empirical domain and, in more detail, to the citation patterns of 85 journals assigned to the Web-of-Science category “information science & library science” in both the cited and citing directions. We compare the results of the indicators and show that DIV provides improved results in terms of distinguishing between interdisciplinary knowledge integration (citing references) versus knowledge diffusion (cited impact). The new diversity indicator and RS diversity measure different features. A routine for the measurement of the various operationalization of diversity (in any data matrix) is made available online. 相似文献
10.
Sergio Copiello 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(1):238-254
Spatial analysis approaches have been long since adopted in citation studies. For instance, already in the early eighties, two works relied on input-output matrices to delve into citation transactions among journals (Noma, 1982; Price, 1981). However, the techniques meant to analyze spatial data have evolved since then, experiencing a major step change starting from the turn of the century or so. Here I aim to show that citation analysis may benefit from the development and latest improvements of spatial data analysis, primarily by borrowing the spatial autoregressive models commonly used to identify the occurrence of the so-called peer and neighborhood effects. I discuss features and potentialities of the suggested method using an Italian narrow academic sector as a test bed. The approach proves itself useful for identifying possible citation behavior and patterns. Especially, I delve into the relationships between citation frequency at author level and years of activity, references, references used by the closest peers, self-citations, number of co-authors, conference papers, and conference papers authored by the nearby researchers. 相似文献
11.
Journal metrics are employed for the assessment of scientific scholar journals from a general bibliometric perspective. In this context, the Thomson Reuters journal impact factors (JIFs) are the citation-based indicators most used. The 2-year journal impact factor (2-JIF) counts citations to one and two year old articles, while the 5-year journal impact factor (5-JIF) counts citations from one to five year old articles. Nevertheless, these indicators are not comparable among fields of science for two reasons: (i) each field has a different impact maturity time, and (ii) because of systematic differences in publication and citation behavior across disciplines. In fact, the 5-JIF firstly appeared in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in 2007 with the purpose of making more comparable impacts in fields in which impact matures slowly. However, there is not an optimal fixed impact maturity time valid for all the fields. In some of them two years provides a good performance whereas in others three or more years are necessary. Therefore, there is a problem when comparing a journal from a field in which impact matures slowly with a journal from a field in which impact matures rapidly. In this work, we propose the 2-year maximum journal impact factor (2M-JIF), a new impact indicator that considers the 2-year rolling citation time window of maximum impact instead of the previous 2-year time window. Finally, an empirical application comparing 2-JIF, 5-JIF, and 2M-JIF shows that the maximum rolling target window reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a random sample of about six hundred journals from eight different fields. 相似文献
12.
Paul Donner 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(1):330-343
A standard procedure in citation analysis is that all papers published in one year are assessed at the same later point in time, implicitly treating all publications as if they were published at the exact same date. This leads to systematic bias in favor of early-months publications and against late-months publications. This contribution analyses the size of this distortion on a large body of publications from all disciplines over citation windows of up to 15 years. It is found that early-month publications enjoy a substantial citation advantage, which arises from citations received in the first three years after publication. While the advantage is stronger for author self-citations as opposed to citations from others, it cannot be eliminated by excluding self-citations. The bias decreases only slowly over longer citation windows due to the continuing influence of the earlier years’ citations. Because of the substantial extent and long persistence of the distortions, it would be useful to remove or control for this bias in research and evaluation studies which use citation data. It is demonstrated that this can be achieved by using the newly introduced concept of month-based citation windows. 相似文献
13.
自然科学期刊自引对影响因子的"调控" 总被引：14，自引：0，他引：14
本文利用《中国科技期刊引证报告》,重新计算了其中几个学科的一些期刊除去自引后的影响因子,并对去除前和去除后的影响因子与期刊排名进行了对比,以考察期刊自引对影响因子和期刊排名的影响。调查发现目前个别期刊过度自引已经使期刊排名发生了失真。最后对如何遏制这种现象提出了一些建议。 相似文献
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.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(1):102484
Although there are at least six dimensions of journal quality, Beall's List identifies predatory Open Access journals based almost entirely on their adherence to procedural norms. The journals identified as predatory by one standard may be regarded as legitimate by other standards. This study examines the scholarly impact of the 58 accounting journals on Beall's List, calculating citations per article and estimating CiteScore percentile using Google Scholar data for more than 13,000 articles published from 2015 through 2018. Most Beall's List accounting journals have only modest citation impact, with an average estimated CiteScore in the 11th percentile among Scopus accounting journals. Some have a substantially greater impact, however. Six journals have estimated CiteScores at or above the 25th percentile, and two have scores at or above the 30th percentile. Moreover, there is considerable variation in citation impact among the articles within each journal, and high-impact articles (cited up to several hundred times) have appeared even in some of the Beall's List accounting journals with low citation rates. Further research is needed to determine how well the citing journals are integrated into the disciplinary citation network—whether the citing journals are themselves reputable or not. 相似文献
16.
《中山大学学报(自然科学版)》的引文评价分析 总被引：12，自引：0，他引：12
根据文献计量学的基本原理,对《中山大学学报(自然科学版)》2000～2003年刊登的论文引文进行统计分析,从引文数量、引文类型、引文文种、总被引频次、影响因子、基金项目等方面进行具体的探讨。 相似文献
17.
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
18.
Recent advances in methods and techniques enable us to develop interactive overlays to a global map of science based on aggregated citation relations among the 9162 journals contained in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index 2009. We first discuss the pros and cons of the various options: cited versus citing, multidimensional scaling versus spring-embedded algorithms, VOSViewer versus Gephi, and the various clustering algorithms and similarity criteria. Our approach focuses on the positions of journals in the multidimensional space spanned by the aggregated journal–journal citations. Using VOSViewer for the resulting mapping, a number of choices can be left to the user; we provide default options reflecting our preferences. Some examples are also provided; for example, the potential of using this technique to assess the interdisciplinarity of organizations and/or document sets. 相似文献
19.
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
20.
Ludo Waltman Nees Jan van Eck Thed N. van Leeuwen Martijn S. Visser 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(2):272-285
The SNIP (source normalized impact per paper) indicator is an indicator of the citation impact of scientific journals. The indicator, introduced by Henk Moed in 2010, is included in Elsevier's Scopus database. The SNIP indicator uses a source normalized approach to correct for differences in citation practices between scientific fields. The strength of this approach is that it does not require a field classification system in which the boundaries of fields are explicitly defined.In this paper, a number of modifications that were recently made to the SNIP indicator are explained, and the advantages of the resulting revised SNIP indicator are pointed out. It is argued that the original SNIP indicator has some counterintuitive properties, and it is shown mathematically that the revised SNIP indicator does not have these properties. Empirically, the differences between the original SNIP indicator and the revised one turn out to be relatively small, although some systematic differences can be observed. Relations with other source normalized indicators proposed in the literature are discussed as well. 相似文献