共查询到15条相似文献，搜索用时 125 毫秒
1.
篇均来源期刊标准影响(SNIP)为荷兰学者Moed教授于2010年提出的全新期刊评价指标,旨在对不同主题领域的期刊影响力进行评价,为验证这一评价指标在期刊评价实践中的效用,利用SPSS18.0数据统计分析软件对Scopus数据库中24种外文期刊的SNIP与SJR、h指数以及影响因子进行实证对比分析;以CSSCI为来源数据库统计分析国内6种图书情报学期刊的IF值与SNIP值。分析结果证明,SNIP与其他3个指标之间存在较强的相关性,在期刊评价实践中具有可行性。 相似文献
2.
引文评价新指标SNIP旨在评价不同主题领域期刊影响力。从理论上对比分析SNIP与IF、h指数、SJR指标值的原理、关系,各自的优缺点以及它们的应用区别。结果表明,理论上SNIP与其他3个指标存在关联性,具有一定的优势,可用于期刊评价实践中。 相似文献
3.
以2011年JCR报告计算机学科下人工智能领域收录60种期刊为讨论对象,将IF5、H指数、IF2、特征因子值、SJR指标共5个指标评价结果与同行评议进行描述性统计分析,结果为:①与同行评议整体偏差由小到大依次为IF5(5.08)、H指数(5.63)、SJR指数(6.35)、IF2(7.81)、特征因子(8.52),IF5与H指数明显优于其余三个指标。②在最主要的一区、二区上与同行评议分组偏差由小到大依次为H指数(2.2)、IF5(2.55)、SJR指数(3.9)、IF2(4.35)、特征因子(4.5)。综合看,H指数与IF5指数与同行评议结果最接近。 相似文献
4.
文章以2016JCR中SSCI收录信息科学与图书馆学学科期刊为来源数据,采用Spearman分析2年影响因子百分位、5年影响因子百分位和他引影响因子百分位与WoS数据库其他文献计量学指标、与h指数及累积h指数、与Scopus数据指标的相关度的不同.5年影响因子百分位与WoS数据库计量指标总被引频次、5年影响因子、被引半衰期、论文影响分值、引用半衰期、特征因子和标准特征因子的相关度高于2年影响因子百分位和他引影响因子百分位;5年影响因子百分位与相同引证时间窗口h指数、累积h指数全部表现为最强相关性,与Scopus数据库计量指标CiteScore、SNIP和SJR均表现显著相关性.5年影响因子百分位对期刊的评价效力更高,更适用于期刊的学术评价. 相似文献
5.
通过对比F1000因子与被引频次、F1000因子与期刊评价指标,并对主要指标进行相关性分析,来验证同行评议与引文分析间的相关性。结果表明,F1000因子与被引频次呈正相关性,即专家打分与被引频次变动方向相同;但也存在专家打分高的论文被引频次低,而专家打分低的论文被引频次高的事实。相关性分析的结果表明：在特征因子、SNIP等主要指标中,SJR、IF与专家评议值相关度最大。 相似文献
6.
期刊评价指标SJR、JIF和H指数的关系研究 总被引：4，自引：1，他引：3
7.
Scopus数据库引文评价新指标SNIP原理及可行性探讨 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
介绍期刊评价新指标SNIP的基本原理和计算方法,通过与IF的对比,分析其优势和不足,初步验证它的可行性,并针对SNIP在我国期刊评价中的应用提出建议,以为我国期刊评价指标研究提供参考。 相似文献
8.
期刊评价指标实证研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
本文选取F1000数据库中免疫学与生物信息学论文近2000篇,通过相关分析、聚类分析以及因子分析将对应260种期刊的影响因子、5年期影响因子、特征因子、论文影响分值、即时指数、SJR、SNIP、期刊h-指数进行相关性检验及分类,并对各项指标与同行评议结果即F1000因子进行相似性比较.结果表明各项指标虽源于WoS和Scopus不同数据库,计算方法也不尽相同,但其间具有较好的一致性,从而为WoS与Scopus在科学评价中的可选择性与替代性提供依据.本文论述中结合期刊评价进化历程,并通过各项指标优缺点的剖析,指出期刊评价的发展趋向. 相似文献
9.
为了验证《中国学术期刊(光盘版)》电子杂志社提出的新型期刊评价指标——期刊影响力指数(Journal Clout Index,CI)的科学性,首先采用JCR数据分析影响因子(IF)与5年影响因子(IF5)、IF与即年指标(IM)、IF与总被引频次(TC)之间的相关性,得出结论:IF、IF5、IM是相关性显著的同类指标,IF与TC的相关性较弱;因而认为,TC和IF是可用来评价期刊影响力的主要指标,基于这2个指标的综合评价指标——期刊影响力指数(CI)具有合理性.进一步实证分析了CI这一综合指标对国际期刊的排序结果比采用单一指标——影响因子(IF)排序更符合实际经验认识. 相似文献
10.
以天津大学订购的ScienceDirect数据库为例,以成本作为基准变量,以5年影响因子、即时指数、特征因子、论文影响值、SJR、SNIP和H指数作为参考变量,对代表性电子期刊进行层次聚类分析。研究结果表明,各类期刊在质量和使用成本方面都具有显著特征,据此确定期刊订购原则,可使图书馆的电子期刊订购更加科学合理。 相似文献
11.
12.
Zahiruddin Khurshid 《期刊图书馆员》2013,64(1):81-98
This research study evaluates the quality of articles published by Saudi and expatriate authors in foreign Library and Information Science (LIS) journals using three popular metrics for ranking journals—Journal Impact Factor (JIF), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Google Scholar Metrics (GSM). The reason for using multiple metrics is to see how closely or differently journals are ranked by the three different methods of citation analysis. However, the 2012 JIF list of journals is too small, almost half the size of the SJR and GSM lists, which inhibited one-to-one comparison among the impact factors of the thirty-six journals selected by Saudi authors for publishing articles. Only seventeen journals were found common to all the three lists, limiting the usefulness of the data. A basic problem is that Saudi LIS authors generally lack the level of competency in the English language required to achieve publication in the most prominent LIS journals. The study will have implications for authors, directors, and deans of all types of academic libraries; chairmen and deans of library schools; and the Saudi Library Association. Hopefully these entities will take necessary steps to prepare and motivate both academics and practicing librarians to improve the quality of their research and publications and thus get published in higher ranked journals. 相似文献
13.
Thomas E. Gaston Francesca Ounsworth Tessa Senders Sarah Ritchie Emma Jones 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):154-162
Previous research has found that researchers rank journal reputation and impact factor (IF) amongst the key selection criteria when choosing where to submit. We explored the actual effect upon submission numbers of several possible factors. We retrieved 10 years of submission data from over a thousand journals, as well as data on IF, retractions, and other factors. We performed statistical analysis and identified correlations. We also undertook case study research on the 55 most significant submission decreases. We found a statistically significant correlation between changes in IF, ISI percentage ranking, and changes in submissions numbers in subsequent years. We also found a statistically significant effect on submission numbers in the year following the publication of a retraction. Our case studies identified other factors, including negative feedback on the peer review process. Our findings regarding IF confirm previous indications about the significance of IF on submissions. We explain the correlation with retractions through the concept of ‘peer review reputation’. These results indicate that editors and publishers need to focus on a journal's peer review practices, as well as a journal's IF, if they are to maintain and grow submissions. 相似文献
14.
SJR与影响因子、H指数的比较及SJR的扩展设想 总被引：15，自引：3，他引：12
介绍了SCImago Journal Rank(SJR)及其计算过程,使用因子分析、回归及相关分析等方法实证研究了SJR与期刊影响因子、期刊h指数的关系。结果表明:SJR与期刊影响因子和期刊h指数均有较强正相关性;SJR与期刊影响因子的联合判定可区别出期刊在流行与声望两个维度上的特点;SJR和期刊引文及参考文献的平均性指标具有较强内部关联性,而期刊h指数则与总体性指标内部关联较强。提出了标准化SJR用于解决SJR不能跨学科比较的问题,提出了期刊声望演化指数用于衡量期刊声望的演变趋势,并将SJR的运用范围扩展到了学科和国家层次。 相似文献
15.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(4):985-996
We study the correlation between citation-based and expert-based assessments of journals and series, which we collectively refer to as sources. The source normalized impact per paper (SNIP), the Scimago Journal Rank 2 (SJR2) and the raw impact per paper (RIP) indicators are used to assess sources based on their citations, while the Norwegian model is used to obtain expert-based source assessments. We first analyze – within different subject area categories and across such categories – the degree to which RIP, SNIP and SJR2 values correlate with the quality levels in the Norwegian model. We find that sources at higher quality levels on average have substantially higher RIP, SNIP, and SJR2 values. Regarding subject area categories, SNIP seems to perform substantially better than SJR2 from the field normalization point of view. We then compare the ability of RIP, SNIP and SJR2 to predict whether a source is classified at the highest quality level in the Norwegian model or not. SNIP and SJR2 turn out to give more accurate predictions than RIP, which provides evidence that normalizing for differences in citation practices between scientific fields indeed improves the accuracy of citation indicators. 相似文献