共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 265 毫秒
1.
2.
[目的/意义]分析和研究环境/生态学科的现状及国际学术合作情况,旨在了解我国在该领域范围内的优势及不足,为我国未来生态环境领域的科研活动以及国家合作方向提供借鉴。[方法/过程]本文以2009—2019年WOS核心数据库中的5640篇环境/生态学科高被引论文为数据源,对时空分布与影响力进行计量分析,同时运用复杂网络分析法,构建国际合作网络结构,探析合作的现状和特点。[结果/结论]结果显示:环境/生态学高被引论文的国际合作研究呈现积极上升态势,各国间知识流动日益频繁,但国家间合作分布异质性明显。中国在该学科高被引论文发表数以绝对优势占居领先地位,但论文国际合作比例偏低,未来需要加强论文的原始创新,提高研究成果的国际影响力。 相似文献
3.
[目的/意义] 文章的被引频次一直是量化评价一篇论文学术影响力的重要指标。但在不同学科不同年份发表的论文会因该领域研究论文数、引用滞后等因素呈现较大的差异。因此在对比两篇论文时，难以简单依据被引频次的绝对值来评判论文影响力大小。为此，本文设计了一个新的可计算数学模型，使得每篇论文可以有一个标准化的指标，以便对不同学科不同年份发表的论文的学术影响力进行直接比较。[方法/过程] 通过分析2006、2017两年中国科技类学术期刊各学科论文的被引频次分布规律，采用同学科论文被引频次的分布形态最接近对数正态分布的先设条件，提出一种被引频次标准化指数——Paper Citation Standardized Index （简称PCSI，中文"论文引证标准化指数"）。最后以中国科协优秀科技期刊论文评选结果为例，将它们与论文所属学科全部论文进行实证对比研究。[结果/结论] 结果证明，PCSI对不同年份、不同学科论文的被引频次进行了标准化，反映了被引频次的线性差距，是一种较为理想的单篇论文学术影响力比较评价工具。 相似文献
4.
[目的/意义] 文章的被引频次一直是量化评价一篇论文学术影响力的重要指标。但在不同学科不同年份发表的论文会因该领域研究论文数、引用滞后等因素呈现较大的差异。因此在对比两篇论文时，难以简单依据被引频次的绝对值来评判论文影响力大小。为此，本文设计了一个新的可计算数学模型，使得每篇论文可以有一个标准化的指标，以便对不同学科不同年份发表的论文的学术影响力进行直接比较。[方法/过程] 通过分析2006、2017两年中国科技类学术期刊各学科论文的被引频次分布规律，采用同学科论文被引频次的分布形态最接近对数正态分布的先设条件，提出一种被引频次标准化指数——Paper Citation Standardized Index （简称PCSI，中文"论文引证标准化指数"）。最后以中国科协优秀科技期刊论文评选结果为例，将它们与论文所属学科全部论文进行实证对比研究。[结果/结论] 结果证明，PCSI对不同年份、不同学科论文的被引频次进行了标准化，反映了被引频次的线性差距，是一种较为理想的单篇论文学术影响力比较评价工具。 相似文献
5.
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.
文章利用维普中文期刊服务平台7.0的数据对2008—2018年我国图书馆学科领域的高被引论文进行了统计与分析,并对如何提升公共图书馆科研能力进行了思考,以期提升我国图书馆学科领域的科研实力和影响力。 相似文献
8.
9.
高被引论文是科技期刊学术影响力建立的基石,反映了期刊聚焦前沿热点,受读者关注度高,学术影响力大。本研究分析了综合性农业科学类中文核心期刊发表的高被引论文的期刊分布、发表年限和次数分布、作者所属机构和专业学科领域特征,结果表明：2011-2020年,31种综合性农业科学类核心期刊共发表了217篇被引频次超过100次的高被引论文。其中,《中国农业科学》发表的高被引论文数量最多,期刊影响力最大。各大学学报、各省农业科学和农业学报发表的高被引论文作者所属机构多数为期刊主办单位,或与期刊主办单位处于同一行政区域的单位;在综合性农业科学期刊中,农学、园艺和植物保护方向的高被引论文数量较多。基于此,提出综合性农业科学期刊编辑在选题策划和组稿时,可根据以上特征调整工作重心,旨在助力高影响力论文的产出和期刊影响力的提升。 相似文献
10.
文章以中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)为基础,采用文献计量学方法,从科技论文产出、发表期刊、学科分布、核心作者、高被引等方面统计了西安科技大学2007-2016年被CSCD收录的科技论文,并分析了我国科技论文的发展现状,旨在为提高高校的科研产出力以及科研影响力提供一些建议. 相似文献
11.
12.
《Journal of Informetrics》2020,14(1):100989
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is linearly sensitive to self-citations because each self-citation adds to the numerator, whereas the denominator is not affected. Pinski and Narin (1976) Influence Weights (IW) are not or marginally sensitive to these outliers on the main diagonal of a citation matrix and thus provide an alternative to JIFs. Whereas the JIFs are based on raw citation counts normalized by the number of publications in the previous two years, IWs are based on the eigenvectors in the matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations without a reference to size: the cited and citing sides are normalized and combined by a matrix approach. Upon normalization, IWs emerge as a vector; after recursive multiplication of the normalized matrix, IWs can be considered a network measure of prestige among the journals in the (sub)graph under study. As a consequence, the self-citations are integrated at the field level and no longer disturb the analysis as outliers. In our opinion, this independence of the diagonal values is a very desirable property of a measure of quality or impact. As an example, we elaborate Price’s (1981b) matrix of aggregated citation among eight biochemistry journals in 1977. Routines for the computation of IWs are made available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/iw. 相似文献
13.
《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
14.
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
15.
以SJR为数据来源,比较分析了1996-2008年巴西、印度、中国、韩国4个国家发表科技论文数量、可引用文献量、文献被引量、自引量、篇均被引量、去除自引后的篇均被引量、H指数、文献引用率、国际合作量等9个指标。中国发表论文数最多,2003年后每年增加约3万篇。巴西、韩国文献引用率、篇均引用量高,且自引率低;印度居中等水平;中国文献引用率、篇均引用率低且自引率高;国际合作度巴西最高、中国最低。可见中国的科技论文质量与其他3个国家相比,还有一定的差距。 相似文献
16.
参考文献的著录质量亟待提高 总被引：14，自引：6，他引：8
指出参考文献著录中存在的9个方面的问题,包括机械式转引,非必要的引用,著录时效性不强,引用非正式文献,引用地域性窄,文献引用过少,不恰当自引,剽窃及文献著录形式上的错误,并提出一些在编辑加工过程中保证参考文献著录质量的措施. 相似文献
17.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(4):101350
This study explores the impact of different collaboration modes on the cited frequency of publications. Though several studies have obtained some research results, most of them exploit association or regression-based methods, which may not lead to causal conclusions. To overcome the above challenges, we use the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method to analyze and compare the citation frequencies resulting from four groups of collaboration models: international versus domestic, international multilateral versus international bilateral, domestic inter-organizational versus domestic intra-organizational, and domestic multi-author versus domestic single-author. More specifically, we conduct this analysis by exploring the publications with three computer science subfields from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The experimental results show that international collaboration, especially international multilateral collaboration, has a significant role in increasing the frequency of citations to scientific publications, showing that internationalization and collaboration are critical factors in the growth of the impact of the papers. Among national co-publications, collaborative publications within national organizations receive a higher citation impact. Multi-author collaborations significantly increase citation frequency compared to single-author publications. Our heterogeneity analysis across the different subfields of the computer science domain finds that the treatment effects for the three subfields differ modestly and mostly significant from the whole sample. Moreover, besides the implications for developing research policy and scientist collaboration, our study can capture the causal effect between author collaboration patterns and citation frequency to reveal their causal effects. 相似文献
18.
This study assesses whether eleven factors associate with higher impact research: individual, institutional and international collaboration; journal and reference impacts; abstract readability; reference and keyword totals; paper, abstract and title lengths. Authors may have some control over these factors and hence this information may help them to conduct and publish higher impact research. These factors have been previously researched but with partially conflicting findings. A simultaneous assessment of these eleven factors for Biology and Biochemistry, Chemistry and Social Sciences used a single negative binomial-logit hurdle model estimating the percentage change in the mean citation counts per unit of increase or decrease in the predictor variables. The journal Impact Factor was found to significantly associate with increased citations in all three areas. The impact and the number of cited references and their average citation impact also significantly associate with higher article citation impact. Individual and international teamwork give a citation advantage in Biology and Biochemistry and Chemistry but inter-institutional teamwork is not important in any of the three subject areas. Abstract readability is also not significant or of no practical significance. Among the article size features, abstract length significantly associates with increased citations but the number of keywords, title length and paper length are insignificant or of no practical significance. In summary, at least some aspects of collaboration, journal and document properties significantly associate with higher citations. The results provide new and particularly strong statistical evidence that the authors should consider publishing in high impact journals, ensure that they do not omit relevant references, engage in the widest possible team working, when appropriate, and write extensive abstracts. A new finding is that whilst is seems to be useful to collaborate and to collaborate internationally, there seems to be no particular need to collaborate with other institutions within the same country. 相似文献
19.
近年来,期刊影响因子的人为操纵受到学术界广泛关注,期刊过度自引成为人为操纵影响因子的重要手段.期刊自引率是识别影响因子人为操纵的敏感指标,但对小集团内部期刊互引和其他形式人为操纵的识别却无能为力.在该研究中,深度挖掘了自引率、扩散因子、被引半衰期、开放因子和互引指数在期刊影响因子人为操纵识别中的应用. 相似文献
20.
National culture is among those societal factors which could influence research and innovation activities. In this study, we investigated the associations of two national culture models with citation impact of nations (measured by the proportion of papers belonging to the 10 % and 1 % most cited papers in the corresponding fields, PPtop10% and PPtop 1%). Bivariate statistical analyses showed that of six Hofstede’s national culture dimensions (HNCD), uncertainty avoidance and power distance had a statistically significant negative association, while individualism and indulgence had a statistically significant positive association with both citation impact indicators (PPtop10% and PPtop1%). The study also revealed that of two Inglehart-Welzel cultural values (IWCV), the value survival versus self-expression is statistically significantly related to both citation impact indicators (PPtop10% and PPtop 1%). We additionally calculated multiple regression analyses controlling for the possible effects of confounding factors including national self-citations, international co-authorships, investments in research and development, international migrant stock, number of researchers of each nation, language, and productivity. The results revealed that the statistically significant associations of HNCD with citation impact indicators disappeared. But the statistically significant relationship between survivals versus self-expression values and both citation impact indicators remained stable even after controlling for the confounding variables. Thus, the freedom of expression and trust in society might contribute to better scholarly communication systems, higher level of international collaborations, and further quality research. 相似文献