共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
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
2.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(4):840-853
A similarity comparison is made between 120 journals from five allied Web of Science disciplines (Communication, Computer Science-Information Systems, Education & Educational Research, Information Science & Library Science, Management) and a more distant discipline (Geology) across three time periods using a novel method called citing discipline analysis that relies on the frequency distribution of Web of Science Research Areas for citing articles. Similarities among journals are evaluated using multidimensional scaling with hierarchical cluster analysis and Principal Component Analysis. The resulting visualizations and groupings reveal clusters that align with the discipline assignments for the journals for four of the six disciplines, but also greater overlaps among some journals for two of the disciplines or categorizations that do not necessarily align with their assigned disciplines. Some journals categorized into a single given discipline were found to be more closely aligned with other disciplines and some journals assigned to multiple disciplines more closely aligned with only one of the assigned disciplines. The proposed method offers a complementary way to more traditional methods such as journal co-citation analysis to compare journal similarity using data that are readily available through Web of Science. 相似文献
3.
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
4.
5.
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
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.
8.
社会科学引文的离散性研究——基于JCR社科版指标分析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
《期刊引证报告》(JCR)是美国科技信息研究所于1975年出版的一种独特的多学科期刊分析评价工具。通过对2005年的JCR社会科学版数据的统计分析可知,社会科学引文在基本符合布拉德福定律的情况下离散程度有所缩小,在社会科学领域较多的期刊承担着学术交流任务,因此不能笼统地说社会科学引文在期刊中的分布符合布拉德福定律,而应该注意到它的集中分散有一定的特殊性。 相似文献
9.
JCR五年期影响因子探析 总被引：6，自引：0，他引：6
使用期刊引证报告(JCR)6015种期刊数据,以统计学方法探索性地分析5年期影响因子IF5的特点.结果显示,IF5作为具有代表性的平均性期刊评价指标,能更好地反映多数期刊被引高峰,总体符合布拉德福分布.IF5与2年期影响因子IF存在排序相关,也有显著统计学差异,两者测评结果在较好和较差期刊上相对一致,但在多数水平居中的期刊上存在区别.最后,给出Ifa指数测度两种影响因子的差别和Ifb指数综合两种影响因子的评价信息. 相似文献
10.
［目的/意义］建立一种能够量化评估专业期刊被需求程度、学术价值及其在图书馆馆藏中的保障率和保障质量的有效、可操作方法,从而了解专业教师对期刊种类的有序需求和图书馆保障水平,为图书馆期刊资源规划和建设提供全面、准确的量化依据。［方法/过程］以吉林大学哲学专业为研究样本,通过引入期刊使用率和保障质量的概念,将该专业教师发表论文所选期刊和论文中引用期刊排序,定量描述期刊在该专业中的被需求程度和学术价值;通过综合考虑馆藏缺失期刊是否是核心或SCI期刊及其在被引频次和使用率排序中的位置,评估图书馆对期刊的保障质量。［结果/结论］得出期刊引频和使用率随期刊排序号的变化遵从e指数衰减规律。与传统的被引频次排序和保障率排序相比,使用率排序能更准确地描述学科对期刊的需求程度,保障质量能更好地反映图书馆对期刊需求的保障水平。 相似文献
11.
基于期刊引用形象和期刊引用认同的期刊评价 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
介绍了期刊引用形象和期刊引用认同的概念;修正了Bonnevie-Nebelong选择的期刊评价指标;对现有期刊评价指标从期刊引用形象和期刊引用认同的角度进行划分;提出了新的期刊引用认同评价指标:新学科扩散指标、新学科影响指标、新即年指标、新引用刊数、新他引率;分析新指标的期刊评价意义;最后以图情领域的三种期刊进行实证分析。 相似文献
12.
《Journal of Informetrics》2020,14(1):101007
This study compares the two-year impact factor (JIF2), JIF2 without journal self-citation (JIF2_noJSC), five-year impact factor (JIF5), eigenfactor score and article influence score (AIS) and investigates their relative changes with time. JIF2 increased faster than JIF5 overall. The relative change between JIF2 and JIF_noJSC shows that the control of JCR over journal self-citation is effective to some extent. JIF5 is more discriminative than JIF2. The correlation between JIF5 and AIS is stronger than that between JIF5 and the eigenfactor score. The relative change in journal rank according to different indicators varies with the ratio of the indicators and can be up to 60 % of the number of journals in a subject category. There is subject category discrepancy in the average AIS and its change over time. Through the screening of journals according to variations in the ratio of JIF2 to JIF5 for journals in individual subject categories, we found that journals in the same subject categories can have considerably different citation patterns. To provide a fair comparison of journals in individual subject categories, we argue that it is better to replace JIF2 with the ready-made JIF5 when ranking journals. 相似文献
13.
14.
Cassidy R. Sugimoto Vincent Larivière Chaoqun Ni Blaise Cronin 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(4):897-906
There are many indicators of journal quality and prestige. Although acceptance rates are discussed anecdotally, there has been little systematic exploration of the relationship between acceptance rates and other journal measures. This study examines the variability of acceptance rates for a set of 5094 journals in five disciplines and the relationship between acceptance rates and JCR measures for 1301 journals. The results show statistically significant differences in acceptance rates by discipline, country affiliation of the editor, and number of reviewers per article. Negative correlations are found between acceptance rates and citation-based indicators. Positive correlations are found with journal age. These relationships are most pronounced in the most selective journals and vary by discipline. Open access journals were found to have statistically significantly higher acceptance rates than non-open access journals. Implications in light of changes in the scholarly communication system are discussed. 相似文献
15.
《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
16.
17.
利用网络版JCR（2007年社会科学版）,对其所收录的56种图书馆学与情报学来源期刊从载文量、总被引次数、语种、国别、出版频率、影响因子、半衰期等角度分析了该类期刊各主要文献计量指标的分布状况。提出了中国图书馆学情报学期刊进入SSCI的对策。 相似文献
18.
19.
《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
20.
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