学科交叉期刊的影响力评价方法研究

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2019.10.004

情报学报

2019, Vol. 38

Issue (10): 1030-1040 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2019.10.004

情报理论与应用

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

学科交叉期刊的影响力评价方法研究

张慧玲¹, 许海云^1,2, 岳增慧³, 刘春江¹

1.中国科学院成都文献情报中心，成都 610041
2.中国科学技术信息研究所，北京 100038
3.济宁医学院医学信息工程学院，日照 276826

Research on the Influence Evaluation Method of Interdisciplinary Journals

Zhang Huiling¹, Xu Haiyun^1,2, Yue Zenghui³, Liu Chunjiang¹

1.Chengdu Documentation and Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041
2.Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (ISTIC), Beijing 100038
3.School of Medical Information Engineering, Jining Medical College, Rizhao 276826

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (13)

全文: PDF (1391 KB) HTML (155 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要当前关于学科交叉期刊影响力评价方法虽有诸多讨论，但尚未形成完善的可操作性的评价指标与评价体系。本文首先系统梳理国内外期刊影响力评价方法的研究进展，分析归纳出该领域研究现状，之后，针对学科交叉期刊特点，通过期刊评价指标引文分布的标准化与学科间引文归一化两方面，提出既考虑引文偏态又注重学科间引文多样性的学科交叉期刊评价指标——基于期刊论文篇均引用的CS系列指标，并构建了学科交叉期刊影响力评价的模型和可操作步骤。最后，考虑领域引文差异，本文选取“综合类”、“物理化学”以及“生命科学”三个学科交叉特征差异显著的领域期刊作为实证领域，论证CS系列指标的效用性和指标的适用性。实证表明，CS系列指标在三个学科领域都具有适用性，可整合运用JCR期刊评价指标的CS值，提升学科交叉期刊评价的精准度。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	张慧玲
	许海云
	岳增慧
	刘春江

关键词 ：期刊评价, 学科交叉, 跨学科, 评价指标

收稿日期: 2019-01-31

基金资助:国家自然科学基金项目“基于科学-技术主题关联分析的创新演化路径识别方法研究”（71704170）；中国科学院青年创新促进会项目（2016159）。

作者简介: 张慧玲，女，1993年生，硕士，研究方向为科学计量、网络信息资源管理与利用

引用本文:

张慧玲, 许海云, 岳增慧, 刘春江. 学科交叉期刊的影响力评价方法研究[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(10): 1030-1040.
Zhang Huiling, Xu Haiyun, Yue Zenghui, Liu Chunjiang. Research on the Influence Evaluation Method of Interdisciplinary Journals. 情报学报, 2019, 38(10): 1030-1040.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2019.10.004 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2019/V38/I10/1030

1 张慧玲, 董坤, 许海云. 学术期刊影响力评价方法研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(16): 132-143.
2 GarfieldE. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation[J]. Science, 1972, 178(4060): 471-479.
3 PendleburyD A. The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators[J]. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 2009, 57(1): 1-11.
4 VinklerP. Introducing the Current Contribution Index for characterizing the recent, relevant impact of journals[J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 79(2): 409-420.
5 许海云, 方曙. 非参数统计的期刊影响力评价方法研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2013, 57(5): 107-113.
6 HirschJ E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102(46): 16569-16572.
7 KosmulskiM. A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index[J]. ISSI Newsletter, 2006, 2(3): 4-6.
8 PrathapG. Is there a place for a mock h-index?[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 84(1): 153-165.
9 PrathapG. The iCE approach for journal evaluation[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 85(2): 561-565.
10 HaleviG, MoedH, Bar-IlanJ. Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the literature[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, 11(3): 823-834.
11 FerraraA, MontanelliS, VerzilloS. Google Scholar as a citation database for non-bibliometric areas: The EVA project results[M]// The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. Cham: Springer, 2018: 271-293.
12 HugS E, OchsnerM, Br?ndleM P. Citation analysis with microsoft academic[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 111(1): 371-378.
13 ThelwallM. Microsoft Academic: A multidisciplinary comparison of citation counts with Scopus and Mendeley for 29 journals[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, 11(4): 1201-1212.
14 MaflahiN, ThelwallM. When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2016, 67(1): 191-199.
15 MaflahiN, ThelwallM. How quickly do publications get read? The evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2017, 69(1): 158-167.
16 HarhoffD, NarinF, SchererF M, et al. Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions[J]. Review of Economics & Statistics, 1999, 81(3): 511-515.
17 何学锋, 彭超群, 张曾荣. 科技期刊影响因子的优化修正和使用方式[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2003, 14(5): 489-491.
18 TomerC. A statistical assessment of two measures of citation: The impact factor and the immediacy index[J]. Information Processing & Management, 1986, 22(3): 251-258.
19 BharathiD G. Methodology for the evaluation of scientific journals: Aggregated citations of cited articles[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 86(3): 563-574.
20 杭文文, 谢靖. 我国肿瘤学期刊引用半衰期研究[J]. 江苏科技信息, 2015(26): 19-21.
21 MoedH F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 265-277.
22 VinklerP. Comparative rank assessment of journal articles[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7(3): 712-717.
23 李华, 张学梅, 刘文芝. PRP指标: 一种跨学科期刊评价方法及与期刊H指数之比较[J]. 情报杂志, 2015, 34(8): 60-64.
24 BornmannL, MutzR. Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 228-230.
25 张学梅. 一种跨研究领域科技期刊质量比较方法理论及实证研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2011, 30(10): 59-63.
26 李倩楠, 陈仕吉. 期刊排名对跨学科研究评价的影响研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2015, 34(5): 81-86.
27 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.
28 LeydesdorffL, BornmannL. The integrated impact indicator (I3), the top-10% excellence indicator, and the use of non-parametric statistics[J]. Research Trends, 2012, 29(7): 5-8.
29 ZittM, SmallH. Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 2008, 59(11): 1856-1860.
30 ZittM. Citing-side normalization of journal impact: A robust variant of the audience factor[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 392-406.
31 MoedH F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 265-277.
32 LeydesdorffL, OpthofT. Scopus’s Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2014, 61(11): 2365-2369.
33 Gl?nzelW, SchubertA, ThijsB, et al. A priori vs. a posteriori normalisation of citation indicators. The case of journal ranking[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 87(2): 415-424.
34 WaltmanL, van EckN J, van LeeuwenT N, et al. Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 37-47.
35 中国科学技术信息研究所. 2018年版中国科技期刊引证报告(核心版): 自然科学卷[M]. 北京: 科学技术文献出版社, 2018: 10.
36 陈卫静, 张宇娥, 蔺梅芳. 引文分布视角下期刊评价的P指数研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(17): 122-130.
37 张慧玲, 许海云, 刘春江. 学科交叉期刊的识别方法研究[J]. 情报学报, 2018, 37(11): 1140-1153.