|
|
|
| Research on the Influence Evaluation Method of Interdisciplinary Journals |
| Zhang Huiling1, Xu Haiyun1,2, 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 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Although there is much discussion on the influence evaluation methods of interdisciplinary journals, there is no perfect evaluation index and evaluation system for operability. First, this paper systematically combs the research progress of domestic and foreign journalsinfluence evaluation methods and analyzes the research status of the field. Then, based on the characteristics of interdisciplinary journals, through the standardization of an evaluation index based on citation distribution and the normalization of citations between disciplines, this paper proposes an evaluation index of interdisciplinary journals that considers both citation skewness and interdisciplinary citation diversity—the CS[citation normalization (Cn) and subject normalization (Sn)] index based on the journal articles—and the model and operational steps of the interdisciplinary journal impact evaluation are constructed. Finally, considering the differences in citations in the field, this paper selects “comprehensive,” “physical chemistry,” and “biology” as the empirical fields and demonstrates the utility of CS series indicators and the applicability of indicators. The empirical results show that the CS index has applicability in three subject areas. It can integrate the CS correction value of the traditional evaluation index, improve the accuracy of the evaluation of interdisciplinary journals, and, finally, summarize research gaps and possible future improvement directions.
|
|
Received: 31 January 2019
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
