共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
2.
《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
3.
4.
A faculty publication fund is a fairly new concept in scholarly communication, and academic institutions are experimenting with different models for the administration of funds designed to assist faculty who face prohibitive journal publication charges. Findings are reported from a survey-based, qualitative study of small and medium-sized academic libraries involved with open access faculty publication funds. The survey results and a case study of one library's involvement in fund development are considered in light of the broader research questions: How are libraries engaging as facilitators of scholarly publishing, and what successes and challenges are they facing in this new role? 相似文献
5.
《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
6.
7.
《Journal of Web Librarianship》2013,7(4):145-161
The Invisible Web—defined as Web information that cannot be found by using general-purpose search engines—has been studied primarily as an access issue. In this article, the authors consider, for the first time, the economic and political implications of the Invisible Web. The article is divided into two parts; the first looks at the “open” Web, accessible through URLs, while the second delves into the Dark Web, hidden behind veils of anonymity. The two main questions asked are: How is the Invisible Web shaped by economic and political factors and how, in turn, does the Invisible Web shape those circumstances? With the answers to these questions, the authors hope to bring more awareness of the Invisible Web to the information literacy classroom. 相似文献
8.
Irene Hames 《Learned Publishing》2001,14(4):247-256
Most journals have editorial boards. Their composition, what the individual members do, and how they operate will vary, but they are generally recognized as having certain central roles. What makes a good editor? How can potential editors be identified and then persuaded to join an editorial board? Once on the board, what can be done to keep them happy, committed, and working productively for the journal? What sorts of problems can arise, and how can they be avoided? These are some of the questions dealt with in this article. 相似文献
9.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(4):904-911
It is well-known that the distribution of citations to articles in a journal is skewed. We ask whether journal rankings based on the impact factor are robust with respect to this fact. We exclude the most cited paper, the top 5 and 10 cited papers for 100 economics journals and recalculate the impact factor. Afterwards we compare the resulting rankings with the original ones from 2012. Our results show that the rankings are relatively robust. This holds both for the 2-year and the 5-year impact factor. 相似文献
10.
Carlos Garcia-Zorita Ronald Rousseau Sergio Marugan-Lazaro Elias Sanz-Casado 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(3):567-578
Scientific journals are ordered by their impact factor while countries, institutions or researchers can be ranked by their scientific production, impact or by other simple or composite indicators as in the case of university rankings. In this paper, the theoretical framework proposed in Criado, R., Garcia, E., Pedroche, F. & Romance, M. (2013). A new method for comparing rankings through complex networks: Model and analysis of competitiveness of major European soccer leagues. Chaos, 23, 043114 for football competitions is used as a starting point to define a general index describing the dynamics or its opposite, stability, of rankings. Some characteristics to study rankings, ranking dynamics measures and axioms for such indices are presented. Furthermore, the notion of volatility of elements in rankings is introduced. Our study includes rankings with ties, entrants and leavers. Finally, some worked out examples are shown. 相似文献
11.
马克·哈克林 《自然科学博物馆研究》2016,1(4):11-16
STEM教育能够发展学科知识和智力技能,这对于推动创新从而应对全球经济、社会和环境挑战是十分重要的。在全球化和数字技术颠覆传统科学教育的情况下,STEM教育的能力也是年轻人掌控就业主动权的关键。科学中心在直接实施STEM教育以及间接提升社区对STEM重要性认识的方面发挥着重要作用。本文主要阐述三个问题:亚太地区国家实行STEM教育的现状如何？新的就业环境如何影响年轻人对STEM教育能力方面的预期和他们的要求是什么？科学中心如何优化其对STEM的贡献？ 相似文献
12.
Rankings of journals and rankings of scientists are usually discussed separately. We argue that a consistent approach to both rankings is desirable because both the quality of a journal and the quality of a scientist depend on the papers it/he publishes. We present a pair of consistent rankings (impact factor for the journals and total number of citations for the authors) and we provide an axiomatic characterization thereof. 相似文献
13.
自然科学期刊自引对影响因子的"调控" 总被引：14，自引：0，他引：14
本文利用《中国科技期刊引证报告》,重新计算了其中几个学科的一些期刊除去自引后的影响因子,并对去除前和去除后的影响因子与期刊排名进行了对比,以考察期刊自引对影响因子和期刊排名的影响。调查发现目前个别期刊过度自引已经使期刊排名发生了失真。最后对如何遏制这种现象提出了一些建议。 相似文献
14.
Scopus and Web of Science are the two major citation databases that collect and disseminate bibliometric statistics about research articles, journals, institutions, and individual authors. Liaison librarians are now regularly called upon to utilize these databases to assist faculty in finding citation activity on their published works for tenure and promotion, grant applications, and more. But questions about the accuracy, scope, and coverage of these tools deserve closer scrutiny. Discrepancies in citation capture led to a systematic study on how Scopus and Web of Science compared in a real-life situation encountered by liaisons: comparing three different disciplines at a medical school and nursing program. How many articles would each database retrieve for each faculty member using the author-searching tools provided? How many cited references for each faculty member would each tool generate? Results demonstrated troubling differences in publication and citation activity capture between Scopus and Web of Science. Implications for librarians are discussed. 相似文献
15.
Manolis Antonoyiannakis 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(4):1072-1088
Citation averages, and Impact Factors (IFs) in particular, are sensitive to sample size. Here, we apply the Central Limit Theorem to IFs to understand their scale-dependent behavior. For a journal of n randomly selected papers from a population of all papers, we expect from the Theorem that its IF fluctuates around the population average μ, and spans a range of values proportional to , where σ2 is the variance of the population's citation distribution. The dependence has profound implications for IF rankings: The larger a journal, the narrower the range around μ where its IF lies. IF rankings therefore allocate an unfair advantage to smaller journals in the high IF ranks, and to larger journals in the low IF ranks. As a result, we expect a scale-dependent stratification of journals in IF rankings, whereby small journals occupy the top, middle, and bottom ranks; mid-sized journals occupy the middle ranks; and very large journals have IFs that asymptotically approach μ. We obtain qualitative and quantitative confirmation of these predictions by analyzing (i) the complete set of 166,498 IF & journal-size data pairs in the 1997–2016 Journal Citation Reports of Clarivate Analytics, (ii) the top-cited portion of 276,000 physics papers published in 2014–2015, and (iii) the citation distributions of an arbitrarily sampled list of physics journals. We conclude that the Central Limit Theorem is a good predictor of the IF range of actual journals, while sustained deviations from its predictions are a mark of true, non-random, citation impact. IF rankings are thus misleading unless one compares like-sized journals or adjusts for these effects. We propose the Φ index, a rescaled IF that accounts for size effects, and which can be readily generalized to account also for different citation practices across research fields. Our methodology applies to other citation averages that are used to compare research fields, university departments or countries in various types of rankings. 相似文献
16.
Abstract Understanding visitors is a necessary and complex undertaking. In this article, we present K‐means cluster analysis as one strategy that is particularly useful in unpacking the complex nature of museum visitors. Three questions organize the article and are as follows: 1) What is K‐means cluster analysis? 2) How is K‐means cluster analysis conducted? 3) Most importantly: What are the applications of K‐means cluster analysis for museum practitioners? To answer these questions, we present five steps that are vital to conducting a K‐means cluster analysis. We also present three cases studies to demonstrate differences among the results of three K‐means cluster analyses and provide practical applications of the findings. 相似文献
17.
Yanping LU 《Learned Publishing》2012,25(1):56-61
Journal peer review has been the subject of much research. However, the learning process through which reviewers acquire their reviewing ability, and reviewers' own perceptions of their capability have rarely been a focus. This interview study asked three questions about reviewer capability and training. At what stage did you gain confidence in reviewing? How did you learn how to review? Is formal training necessary? The interview is part of a mixed‐method project studying experienced Australian reviewers. The respondents indicate that learning to review is a continuous cycle in which formal training will not work. Following a mostly self‐guided initiation, new reviewers establish personal reviewing patterns. By trial and error, the patterns are consolidated and the reviewers eventually feel ‘confident’. ‘Decisiveness' is a good sign of becoming confident. Most respondents emphasized that journals could play a crucial role in producing good reviewers, e.g. by specifying unambiguously their expectations of ‘good reviews’. 相似文献
18.
《Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve》2013,23(2):153-180
Abstract In spring 2006, 404 medium-sized academic libraries participated in a survey to determine their reference-staffing practices. A medium-sized academic library is one affiliated with a bachelor's degree granting institution where the FTE enrollment is 3,000-9,999. Libraries reported their type of service model, number of questions asked, number of staff, variety of service points, types of staff utilized, hours and other factors used to make staffing decisions. What are the staffing practices in reference departments at medium-sized academic libraries? How many reference and non-reference librarians are scheduled to work at reference service points? How many questions are typically asked during a week? Are students or support staff utilized? What type of model is most prevalent-one central desk with one librarian, several distributed desks with one or more staff members, a tiered service model or something else? What factors do reference managers consider when determining the hours and types of staff scheduled? These questions, and more, are explored in this report. 相似文献
19.
学界对于《民国暂行报律》的最早颁布时间,目前有1912年3月2日与3月4日两种看法,我们何去何从?记载《民国暂行报律》内容的重要史料(第一手和第二手史料)具体有哪些?学界对《民国暂行报律》风波已有的解读还有哪些地方需要补充和进一步发展完善的?本文拟对这三个问题发表一孔之见。 相似文献
20.
Kaisa Maliniemi 《Archival Science》2009,9(1-2):15-27
The Kven and Sámi peoples of northern Norway have been represented as groups without a voice in public records. Through the project ‘National Minorities in Public Records in Norway,’ however, hundreds of documents written in the Sámi and Kven languages were found inside the public archives. These documents were neither labeled, nor cataloged in any way as non-Norwegian-language documents. This essay raises a number of questions related to how a lack of knowledge has influenced our understanding of ethnic minorities both in archives and in research related to minorities. Furthermore, recent experience leads us to a few more questions concerning the usage of sources. How do Norwegian ministries treat requests for access to official documents less than 60-years old related to the Kven and Sámi peoples? How were documents in minority languages arranged and archived by archival personnel? How can an oppressed collective memory serve as a counter-memory for minorities? How can archival documents change our understanding of minorities? What might archivists do to make minorities more visible in archives? This paper describes my personal experiences and reflections in connection with the project. 相似文献