共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 312 毫秒
1.
2.
以被引频次、H指数、相对H指数为评价指标,对国内10种图书馆学核心期刊,重点对H指数最高的《中国图书馆学报》和《大学图书馆学报》的论文作者进行评价。结果发现《中国图书馆学报》、《大学图书馆学报》的H指数、相对H指数、被引频次和最高被引频次均在我国图书馆学期刊中名列前茅,拥有高素质作者群,所载论文综合质量高,说明这两种期刊及相关作者具有较高的学术影响力。 相似文献
3.
以中国知网《中国学术期刊网络出版总库》和《中国引文数据库》为统计源,分析2006—2010年国内期刊出版专题研究高被引论文的分布规律。中国知网共收录2006—2010年国内期刊出版专题研究论文5万3 702篇,被引1万4 696篇,被引频次4万773次;前50篇高被引论文总被引频次2 019次,最高被引93次,最低28次,篇均被引40.38次。对50篇高被引论文的研究方向、源期刊及其地区、作者情况进行了统计和分析,以为出版专题的研究和编辑工作提供参考。 相似文献
4.
基于论文发表的普赖斯定律,以5本高被引核心期刊《科学学研究》《科研管理》《科学学与科学技术管理》《中国科技论坛》《研究与发展管理》刊载的1141篇文献为样本,实证检验论文被引频次的影响因素。结果表明：（1）论文被引频次整体程度不高,论文被引频次对刊载时间有较强依赖性的同时,二者之间也存在非线性关系;（2）作者是否合作、论文是否定量研究、论文下载次数、期刊影响因子与论文被引频次之间显著正相关,而期刊年发文量与论文被引频次之间显著负相关,且第一作者所在机构、性别以及论文受到基金资助的数量、期刊主办方等与论文被引频次之间不存在显著相关性。本研究的主要发现是论文特征决定论文被引频次,并得出相关启示,提出研究不足及未来方向。 相似文献
5.
对2002～2008年学科馆员研究高被引论文从年代、作者、期刊、机构、主题等方面进行统计分析.国内学科馆员研究高被引论文共134篇,总被引频次达4868次,形成了研究相关重要期刊、重要学者、重要基地,发现学科馆员研究文献处于被引高峰期,但相关研究尚处于探索发展阶段. 相似文献
6.
内容质量决定论文的被引频次 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
通过对2篇发表在国内期刊的高被引论文的分析,认为论文的被引频次决定于其内容质量,即发表在影响因子不高期刊上的论文同样可以获得很高的关注度和被引频次。进而认为争取优秀稿件、扩大显示度并力求尽快发表,是提升刊物影响力和被引频次的重要手段。 相似文献
7.
汇编期刊文章的版权浅析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
问题的提出 在编辑工作中,经常会遇到一些作者为开展某一科研领域研究的需要,将发表在国内外期刊中的有关文章汇集成书出版的情况.那么,将已公开发表的文章结集出版,是否需要向期刊社购买"出版权"和向作者支付稿酬? 相似文献
8.
我国省级公共图书馆(1979-2008)科研实力分析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
根据CNKI的《中国期刊全文数据库》和《中国引文数据库》统计了我国31个省级公共图书馆(1979-2008)发表论文的被引频次、被引频次区间分布、论文下载量、H值分布、高频被引论文和高频被引作者,从而揭示了我国省级公共图书馆学术研究的现状。 相似文献
9.
采用文献计量学方法,以CNKI的“中国学术期刊网络出版总库”为统计源,对东北地区27所高校图书馆2003～2012年间的发文总量、核心期刊发文量、核心期刊发文量占总发文量比、基金论文数、被引论文篇数、被引频次、篇均被引频次、h指数、总下载量、核心作者数这10项指标进行了分析,并对高产作者、高频被引论文以及学术论文在19种核心期刊的分布进行了统计,从而揭示了东北地区27所高校图书馆学术研究的现状. 相似文献
10.
由Web of Science数据库分析高影响力中华医学会系列期刊引发的思考 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
通过Web of Science数据库的“被引参考文献检索”途径,将中华医学会123种非SCI期刊作为国内大量的非SCI科技期刊的代表,统计其刊载文献被SCI期刊引用的情况;以被引文献数量大于50篇作为高影响力期刊的筛选条件,分析其中高影响力期刊的被引文献数量、单篇被引文献最高引用频次、施引文献数量、施引文献最高被引频次以及施引文献的国家地区分布、出版年份分布,从而了解这些非SCI科技期刊的国际影响力.基于这一分析,认为SCI期刊并非是获得同行认可的唯一途径,国内大量的非SCI科技期刊应走“立足国内,面向世界”的发展道路,以踏实做专业领域内有影响力的期刊为目标;同时呼吁国家有关部门能对现行科研评价指标进行调整,鼓励质量上乘的稿件能选择具有影响力的国内期刊发表. 相似文献
11.
12.
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
13.
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
14.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2017,43(5):434-442
This study uses citation data and survey data for 55 library and information science journals to identify three factors underlying a set of 11 journal ranking metrics (six citation metrics and five stated preference metrics). The three factors—three composite rankings—represent (1) the citation impact of a typical article, (2) subjective reputation, and (3) the citation impact of the journal as a whole (all articles combined). Together, they account for 77% of the common variance within the set of 11 metrics. Older journals (those founded before 1953) and nonprofit journals tend to have high reputation scores relative to their citation impact. Unlike previous research, this investigation shows no clear evidence of a distinction between the journals of greatest importance to scholars and those of greatest importance to practitioners. Neither group's subjective journal rankings are closely related to citation impact. 相似文献
15.
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
16.
《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
17.
18.
19.
20.
针对目前各图书馆的核心期刊评价不能准确反映读者对期刊的实际需求与馆藏期刊实际利用情况的问题,及不同署名位次的作者对文后参考文献的利用程度不同,提出了基于期刊加权被引次数的馆藏期刊评价方法,并以第二军医大学作者引用较多的风湿病学西文期刊为例进行期刊评价,结果证明利用该方法进行期刊评价要优于基于引文分析的传统期刊评价方法。 相似文献