共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 281 毫秒
1.
随着破除"唯论文""SCI至上"的逐步推进,科技期刊分级目录的探索和应用也在不断变化.对不同类型的科技期刊分级分区进行溯源分析,从优秀期刊和资助期刊评比、影响因子和核心期刊认定,到期刊分区与分级目录,科技期刊被划分成层次鲜明的期刊等级.科技期刊的分区分级在进行期刊评价的同时,也带来了不可忽视的问题:科技期刊"三六九"等分,无法形成共同发展的良好行业生态;"内卷"严重,助长以刊评文的不良学术风气;科技论文和科研经费外流严重,造成版权割让.我们认为:改善科技期刊发展生态,需要发挥学会学术引领作用,以期刊质量为发展着力点;推进出版社科技期刊集约化发展,实现规模化经营;优化政府扶持办法,营造公平市场环境;建立期刊预警和论文撤稿机制,强化科研诚信监控;探索代表作评价制度,破除以刊评文错误导向. 相似文献
2.
近年来我国英文科技期刊发展迅速,但在期刊出版、评价、管理等过程中,唯SCI影响因子的现象越发明显.由于影响因子本身的局限性,唯影响因子在期刊基础设施建设、论文选择与评审、期刊竞争力提升等方面带来严重的不利影响,消除唯SCI影响因子对我国科技期刊发展的危害刻不容缓.不局限于少数指标,让不同类型的期刊都能得到充分发展,这样才能壮大中国科技期刊的整体实力. 相似文献
3.
文章对"中国科技期刊卓越行动计划"领军期刊和重点期刊载文量与影响力趋势进行评估.运用R语言"trend"包对期刊载文量与期刊影响力进行M-K趋势分析,使用SPSS软件Wilcoxon符号秩检验对领军期刊与重点期刊进行差异分析.结果显示,纳入研究的24种期刊中有22种影响力提升,但仅4种期刊载文量提升;4种载文量上升的期刊中3种影响力提升,1种影响力下降,其他19种载文量保持不变或减少的期刊影响力均提升,还有1种期刊载文量和影响因子变化趋势均不显著.从影响力增长速度来看,领军期刊和重点期刊两者没有显著性差异,但是重点期刊的影响因子增长速度更有潜力.全球科技期刊竞争激烈,对于领军期刊和重点期刊而言,学科排名提升的难度要高于影响因子提升的难度,不同排名区间的期刊上升空间不同.期刊载文量也是反映期刊影响力的一个重要指标,建议各期刊依据自身实际情况合理制定发展目标,在期刊载文量稳步上升的同时提升期刊的影响力. 相似文献
4.
文章以SCIE收录期刊为研究对象,统计了期刊的出版国家、语种以及学科分布,并从刊均被引频次、影响因子和分区角度揭示中国科技期刊的国际影响力.结果发现中国高质量科技期刊的数量不足,英文期刊和顶级期刊比重极低;期刊载文量低于世界平均水平,这在一定程度上降低了期刊影响力;期刊在学科分布上不平衡,大部分学科期刊数量低于世界平均水平. 相似文献
5.
6.
7.
评价科技期刊和论文应正确利用其影响因子 总被引：24，自引：1，他引：23
分析了美国科学情报所（ISI）编辑出版所收录的8个学科的文献源期于刊的影响因子的学科评价值及其6年的变化。结果看出：当前世界科学研究的热点已转向生命科学包括生物学、医学和环境科学等,化学也呈明显上升之势。认为期刊影响因子的高低与学科特点有关存在着学科间的系统差别对科技期刊或科技论文的质量评估不能孤立地看待影响因子的高低应在同一类期刊中进行比较结合其他指标综合评定。 相似文献
8.
参考文献的评价功能及其对我国学术期刊评价的影响 总被引：50，自引：11，他引：39
影响因子是一种最直接体现引文关系的期刊评价指标，但是，影响因子是一个相对的概念，有一定的局限性：由于一论文发表的时滞和研究时期不同、引文峰出现的时间不同、期刊源不同以及期刊自引现象等这些不确定因素的影响，经统计和计算得出的影响因子必然不同。这些都决定了利用参考文献的评价功能所得到的期刊评价指标只能是一种参考性的评价指标，所以构建科学的学术类科技期刊的评价体系已势在必行。 相似文献
9.
学术期刊的影响主要是指其学术影响,评价期刊学术影响的指标有许多,主要的也是国际通用的指标有影响因子、总引文频次和他引比等.但是不同学科、不同领域的期刊的影响因子、总引文频次和他引比的绝对值缺乏可比性.如生物科学领域的期刊影响因子和工程技术领域期刊的影响因子相差较大,一个学科中的排名第一的期刊甚至比另一个学科中排名最后的期刊的影响因子还要低!引文频次也有类似的现象.…… 相似文献
10.
学术期刊的影响主要是指其学术影响,评价期刊学术影响的指标有许多,主要的也是国际通用的指标有影响因子、总引文频次和他引比等.但是不同学科、不同领域的期刊的影响因子、总引文频次和他引比的绝对值缺乏可比性.如生物科学领域的期刊影响因子和工程技术领域期刊的影响因子相差较大,一个学科中的排名第一的期刊甚至比另一个学科中排名最后的期刊的影响因子还要低!引文频次也有类似的现象.…… 相似文献
11.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(2):318-328
Citation based approaches, such as the impact factor and h-index, have been used to measure the influence or impact of journals for journal rankings. A survey of the related literature for different disciplines shows that the level of correlation between these citation based approaches is domain dependent. We analyze the correlation between the impact factors and h-indices of the top ranked computer science journals for five different subjects. Our results show that the correlation between these citation based approaches is very low. Since using a different approach can result in different journal rankings, we further combine the different results and then re-rank the journals using a combination method. These new ranking results can be used as a reference for researchers to choose their publication outlets. 相似文献
12.
[目的/意义]近年来，热点论文逐渐受到学术界重视，为数不多的研究成果已开始探索热点论文自身的特征，但在影响因素等规律方面的研究工作尚不充分。[方法/过程]本研究利用TF-IDF算法和负二项回归模型，试图探究热点论文的分布特征、影响因素、时间窗口差异和学科类型差异。[结果/结论]研究结果表明，热点论文的分布特征侧重于发达国家、知名研究机构、交叉学科和权威期刊；并且受到精炼的标题、国家间合作、研究型产出、开放获取、高影响因子期刊等因素影响；热点论文存在时间窗口效应，甚至改变了标题、摘要、开放获取等因素影响热点论文的具体轨迹；学科间差异对热点论文具有影响，在标题、摘要、科研合作、文献类型、开放获取、期刊影响因子方面均存在差异。 相似文献
13.
本文以5个学科的SCI期刊和论文为研究对象,取不同底数的对数对每一学科论文被引频次进行转换,计算各期刊对数矫正影响因子(IFlog),以各期刊IFlog除以所在学科所有期刊IFlog平均值,进行学科标准化处理,创建学科标准化影响因子(cnIFlog),探讨cnIFlog在学术期刊跨学科评价中的优越性。研究结果显示,5个学科期刊的IFlog均呈正态分布,且无论同一学科还是不同学科期刊的IFlog1.5、IFln、IFlog5、IFlog10之间均呈100%正相关(r=1.000,P=0.000)。与影响因子(IF2018)、平均影响因子百分位(average impact factor percentile,aJIFP)、期刊PR8指数(journal index of eight percentile rank classes,JIPR8)、IFlog和相对影响因子(relative IF2018,rIF2018)等指标相比,cnIFlog1.5(category normalization for IFlog1.5)在5个学科期刊中变异程度最小、与aJIFP和JIPR8的相关度最高,具有理想的区分度和稳定性。无论同一学科还是跨学科期刊评价,cnIFlog1.5均是理想的评价指标。 相似文献
14.
This article explores the evolution of the role of academic journal articles submitted to the UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). By reviewing their role, it is possible to see how the changes from quantitative to qualitative assessment (and the resulting problems surrounding the definition of ‘quality’ journals) has impacted both on the journals selected by academics for publishing their research and the assessment of them. Although only one part of RAE submissions, the listing of published research outputs provides the primary evidence for research quality to most RAE panels, and is a significant driver of the final grade awarded, and thus the funding received by submitting institutions. The RAE, being a peer‐reviewed assessment exercise, mirrors in some ways the peer‐review process immured within scholarly publication. The developing role of journal publications as a vehicle for academic research output is examined via the chronology of the RAE, before assessing the current situation in which published journal output formed almost 70% of all output assessed by RAE panels in the latest exercise. The impact of this increased importance of academic journals in the assessment process is considered not only for academics but also for the wider community, i.e. publishers and libraries. 相似文献
15.
《Library & information science research》2014,36(3-4):163-170
The preferences of the authors of Chinese library and information science (LIS) journal articles in citing Internet sources were investigated using eight premium Chinese LIS journals from Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (the observation group) and 10 journals in other disciplines (the control group) from the same database from 1999 to 2008. A total of 252,881 citations were analyzed in terms of count, domain name, and citing purposes. The results show that (a) in comparison to the disciplines in the control group, LIS articles in Chinese journals indicated a strong preference for citing Internet sources, and this preference is increasing; (b) LIS articles did not seem to discriminate against domain names when citing Internet sources; and (c) LIS articles cited more Internet sources as evidence to support research results and conclusions. Excessive dependency on Internet sources may raise concerns over the quality, research ethics, and credibility of research publications. Chinese LIS researchers should place more emphasis on the disadvantages of Internet sources as supporting material. Guidelines and criteria to help researchers, journal editors, students, and librarians assess information on the Web need to be developed. 相似文献
16.
In recent years, substantial investments in science and technology have led to an increase in Chinese academic journals. Previous investigations have used international indexes to track growth, but this article uses the China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database along with Web of Science and SCImago to avoid inclusion bias and analyse the complete landscape of Chinese academic journals (in all disciplines). This article investigated the rate of growth of new journals, the regional distribution of journals, and the quality of the journals (calculated domestically and internationally). Our results indicate that: (1) the average annual growth rate of Chinese academic journals has been 2.74%, but this might probably be affected by different periods of China’s economic and cultural development; (2) the number of journals published in Eastern China is higher than that in Central and Western China; (3) journal quality has improved somewhat in recent years; (4) 84.48% of journals demonstrate domestic impact factors below 1; and (5) China performs better than other developing countries when using the impact factor but equals them when using the SCImago Journal and Country Rank indicator. 相似文献
17.
当前的期刊评价研究主要集中在影响力、声誉、质量等方面,针对期刊内容差异性的定量研究相对较少。本文从差异性视角来对期刊进行评价分析,提出期刊区分度指标来对期刊内容的差异程度进行度量。以LIS (library and information science)等5个学科的各20种核心期刊为研究对象,首先对LIS期刊的内容差异性进行定量分析与评价,然后从时间维度对LIS学科期刊区分度的变化规律进行了探测,最后从学科维度对不同学科期刊个体和总体区分度的特征进行了分析和探讨。实验结果表明,利用该指标能够很好地度量期刊研究内容差异性,期刊区分度在时间维度上呈现出明显的变化规律,不同学科期刊个体和总体的区分度均具有显著的学科特征。 相似文献
18.
《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
19.
Assessing the scholarly impact of academic institutions has become increasingly important. The achievements of editorial board members can create benchmarks for research excellence and can be used to evaluate both individual and institutional performance. This paper proposes a new method based on journal editor data for assessing an institution’s scholarly impact. In this paper, a journal editorship index (JEI) that simultaneously accounts for the journal rating (JR), editor title (ET), and board size (BS) is constructed. We assess the scholarly impact of economics institutions based on the editorial boards of 211 economics journals (which include 8640 editorial board members) in the ABS Academic Journal Guide. Three indices (JEI/ET, JEI/JR, and JEI/BS) are also used to rank the institutions. It was found that there was only a slight change in the relative institutional rankings using the JEI/ET and JEI/BS compared to the JEI. The BS and ET weight factors did not have a substantial influence on the ranking of institutions. It was also found that the journal rating weight factor had a large effect on the ranking of institutions. This paper presents an alternative approach to using editorial board memberships as the basis for assessing the scholarly impact of economics institutions. 相似文献
20.
期刊PR8指数:一个新的跨学科期刊评价指标及其实证研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
[目的/意义] 基于论文被引频次8个区段百分位数排序（percentile rank 8,PR8）赋分,尝试构建新的跨学科期刊评价指标：期刊PR8指数（journal index for PR8,JIPR8）,并检验JIPR8的跨学科期刊评价效果。[方法/过程] 选择JCR中8个学科301种期刊作为研究对象,分别计算每种期刊的JIPR8,并与其他几个跨学科期刊评价指标进行比较,检验JIPR8跨学科期刊评价的敏感度和稳定性,以及与其他跨学科期刊评价指标的相关性。[结果/结论] 在选择的所有指标中,8个学科301种期刊JIPR8的变异程度最低,说明其用于跨学科期刊评价的稳定性最好;不同分区期刊（Q1、Q2、Q3和Q4） JIPR8的组间差异性较为明显,仅次于期刊影响因子百分位（journal impact factor pencentile,JIFP）,表明其对优秀和一般期刊的区分度较好。认为JIPR8是一个非常理想的跨学科期刊评价指标。 相似文献