|
|
|
| Impact Factor Based on Logarithmic Correction for the Papers' Citations and the Studies on Its Category Normalization |
| Liu Xueli1, Guo Jia2, Shen Lan2, Wang Yan1, Sheng Lina1, Fang Hongling1, Li Jianhua1, Ding Jun1 |
1.Periodicals Publishing House/Henan Research Center for Science Journals, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang 453003
2.Management Institute, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang 453003 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Taking SCI journals and papers from five disciplines as research objects, this study converts the citations of the papers into normal distribution using different base logarithms and calculates the logarithmic correction impact factor (IFlog) of each journal. Category normalization for IFlog (cnIFlog) is conducted by dividing the IFlog of each journal by the average value of IFlog of all journals in the field. The superiorities of cnIFlog in the evaluation of academic journals across different fields are also demonstrated through empirical research. The results showed that different base logarithms could convert the citations of the journal papers into an approximate normal distribution. The IFlog of the five field journals was normally distributed, and the IFlog1.5, IFln, IFlog5, and IFlog10 of the journals were 100% positively related (r = 1.000, P = 0.000) both in the same or different fields. Compared with the impact factor (IF2018), average impact factor percentile (aJIFP), journal index of eight percentile rank classes (JIPR8), IFlog and relative impact factor (rIF2018), and other indicators, cnIFlog1.5 exhibited the smallest variation among the five field journals. Moreover, compared with aJIFP and JIPR8, it had the highest correlation and exhibited ideal discrimination and stability. It is concluded that cnIFlog1.5 is an extremely ideal journal evaluation indicator for use in both the same or different fields.
|
|
Received: 15 June 2020
|
|
|
|
1 刘雪立. 全球性SCI现象和影响因子崇拜[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2012, 23(2): 185-190.
2 Katritsis D G. Journal impact factor: widely used, misused and abused[J]. Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review, 2019, 8(3): 153-155.
3 Simons K. The misused impact factor[J]. Science, 2008, 322(5899): 165.
4 王贤文, 方志超, 王虹茵. 连续、动态和复合的单篇论文评价体系构建研究[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2015, 36(8): 37-48.
5 叶鹰. 国际学术评价指标研究现状及发展综述[J]. 情报学报, 2014, 33(2): 215-224.
6 Vanclay J K. Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 92(2): 211-238.
7 刘雪立, 申蓝, 王燕, 等. 学术期刊的跨学科评价指标JIPR8及其应用[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019, 30(6): 663-670.
8 Leydesdorff L, Zhou P, Bornmann L. How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(1): 96-107.
9 Adam D. The counting house[J]. Nature, 2002, 415(6873): 726-729.
10 Oelrich B, Peters R, Jung K. A bibliometric evaluation of publications in urological journals among European union countries between 2000-2005[J]. European Urology, 2007, 52(4): 1238-1248.
11 胡升华. 出版集团化战略对科技期刊发展的启示——兼论SCI导向的科学价值观偏差[J]. 编辑学报, 2020, 32(2): 119-127.
12 王晴, 袁鹤. 新形势下科技期刊发展路径——基于教育部、科技部印发的两文件的思考[J]. 编辑学报, 2020, 32(2): 128-131.
13 Mingers J, Leydesdorff L. A review of theory and practice in scientometrics[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2015, 246(1): 1-19.
14 Hsu J W, Huang D W. A scaling between impact factor and uncitedness[J]. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 2012, 391(5): 2129-2134.
15 刘雪立, 任胜利, 程维红, 等. 不同学科期刊CiteScore与影响因子的比较研究[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2017, 28(9): 837-841.
16 Sen B K. Normalised impact factor[J]. Journal of Documentation, 1992, 48(3): 318-325.
17 Logan B E. Relative impact factors[J]. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 2016, 3(7): 255-256.
18 Marshakova-Shaikevich I. The standard impact factor as an evaluation tool of science fields and scientific journals[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 35(2): 283-290.
19 熊晓英. 相对影响因子及其意义[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2005, 16(6): 912-914.
20 杨兵, 彭超群, 袁赛前, 等. 相对影响因子在期刊评价和科研评价中的应用[J]. 编辑学报, 2008, 20(5): 466-468.
21 刘雪立, 魏雅慧, 盛丽娜, 等. 期刊PR8指数: 一个新的跨学科期刊评价指标及其实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(11): 116-123.
22 俞立平, 袁永仪, 王作功. 学术期刊影响力指数CI改进研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2018, 41(11): 69-72.
23 Abramo G, D’Angelo C A. A comparison of university performance scores and ranks by MNCS and FSS[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2016, 10(4): 889-901.
24 王凌峰. 中科院SCI期刊分区方法的不足与改进[J]. 科技成果管理与研究, 2013(2): 36-38.
25 蒋悟生. JCR与期刊分区——以生物学期刊为例[J]. 农业图书情报学刊, 2010, 22(10): 8-12.
26 García J A, Rodriguez-Sánchez R, Fdez-Valdivia J, et al. On first quartile journals which are not of highest impact[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 90(3): 925-943.
27 Liu W S, Hu G Y, Gu M D. The probability of publishing in first-quartile journals[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 106(3): 1273-1276.
28 Pudovkin A I, Garfield E. Rank-normalized impact factor: a way to compare journal performance across subject categories[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2004, 41(1): 507-515.
29 刘雪立, 魏雅慧, 孟君. 影响因子百分位在学术期刊跨学科评价中的局限性[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2018, 29(10): 1018-1021.
30 俞立平. “影响因子百分位”指标的特点研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(10): 103-107.
31 Thelwall M. The discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions for complete citation data: best options for modelling and regression[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2016, 10(2): 336-346.
32 Perneger T V. Online accesses to medical research articles on publication predicted citations up to 15 years later[J]. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2015, 68(12): 1440-1445.
33 楼文高, 王莹莹, 张博. 学术期刊影响力新修正指数的研究与实证分析[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019, 30(11): 1233-1239.
34 Clauset A, Shalizi C R, Newman M E J. Power-law distributions in empirical data[J]. SIAM Review, 2009, 51(4): 661-703.
35 Sundaram M, Hodler J, Rosenthal D I. On the relevance of the impact factor and other factors[J]. Skeletal Radiology, 2012, 41(2): 125-126.
36 刘雪立. 期刊累积影响因子与年度影响因子的比较研究[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2016, 27(7): 774-778.
37 Clarivate Analytics. Journal impact factor percentile[EB/OL]. [2020-06-07]. http://help.incites.clarivate.com/incitesLiveJCR/glossaryAZgroup/g8/9586-TRS.html.
38 刘雪立. 10种国际权威科技期刊影响因子构成特征及其启示[J]. 编辑学报, 2014, 26(3): 296-300. |
|
|
|
