Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals

This paper explores a new indicator of journal citation impact, denoted as source normalized impact per paper (SNIP). It measures a journal's contextual citation impact, taking into account characteristics of its properly defined subject field, especially the frequency at which authors cite other papers in their reference lists, the rapidity of maturing of citation impact, and the extent to which a database used for the assessment covers the field's literature. It further develops Eugene Garfield's notions of a field's ‘citation potential’ defined as the average length of references lists in a field and determining the probability of being cited, and the need in fair performance assessments to correct for differences between subject fields. A journal's subject field is defined as the set of papers citing that journal. SNIP is defined as the ratio of the journal's citation count per paper and the citation potential in its subject field. It aims to allow direct comparison of sources in different subject fields. Citation potential is shown to vary not only between journal subject categories – groupings of journals sharing a research field – or disciplines (e.g., journals in mathematics, engineering and social sciences tend to have lower values than titles in life sciences), but also between journals within the same subject category. For instance, basic journals tend to show higher citation potentials than applied or clinical journals, and journals covering emerging topics higher than periodicals in classical subjects or more general journals. SNIP corrects for such differences. Its strengths and limitations are critically discussed, and suggestions are made for further research. All empirical results are derived from Elsevier's Scopus.     

The Web impact of open access social science research

For a long time, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) journal citations have been widely used for research performance monitoring of the sciences. For the social sciences, however, the Social Sciences Citation Index® (SSCI®) can sometimes be insufficient. Broader types of publications (e.g., books and non-ISI journals) and informal scholarly indicators may also be needed. This article investigates whether the Web can help to fill this gap. The authors analyzed 1530 citations from Google™ to 492 research articles from 44 open access social science journals. The articles were published in 2001 in the fields of education, psychology, sociology, and economics. About 19% of the Web citations represented formal impact equivalent to journal citations, and 11% were more informal indicators of impact. The average was about 3 formal and 2 informal impact citations per article. Although the proportions of formal and informal online impact were similar in sociology, psychology, and education, economics showed six times more formal impact than informal impact. The results suggest that new types of citation information and informal scholarly indictors could be extracted from the Web for the social sciences. Since these form only a small proportion of the Web citations, however, Web citation counts should first be processed to remove irrelevant citations. This can be a time-consuming process unless automated.     

The interdisciplinarity of research data: How widely is shared research data reused in the STEM fields?

The aim of this study was to examine the interdisciplinarity of research data in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The findings revealed that interdisciplinarity was not distributed evenly across journals serving the STEM fields. Based on the diversity of the references as measured by the Gini coefficient index, the mathematical sciences showed the greatest inequality, followed by astronomy/physics, the earth sciences, the biological sciences, and technology. Based on the number of Essential Science Indicator (ESI) fields, the biological sciences showed the greatest variety, followed by the earth sciences, technology, the mathematical sciences, chemistry, and computing, while engineering showed no variety. Lastly, based on the Leydesdorff interdisciplinarity formula outcomes, the earth sciences showed the greatest diversity, but earth sciences articles were cited in articles in fewer fields than biological sciences articles. This study contributes to the study of interdisciplinary data citation for data sharing and reuse in STEM fields with respect to the measurement of the balance, variety, and diversity of research data.     

Fine-Tuning the Institutional Repository: Evaluating the Self-Archiving Behavior of Researchers in Music

While self-archiving gains more traction as a means for scholars to make their research freely available, a perception persists that certain disciplines in the humanities lag behind the sciences in this regard. This article investigates the rate of self-archiving by scholars contributing to the top journals in the field of music, a discipline that traditionally falls within the humanities, although research in the field is highly interdisciplinary and draws heavily on multiple scientific fields. The contributors to these journals come from a range of background and interests, and represent colleges and universities from six continents.     

Accidentality in journal citation patterns

We study an agent-based model for generating citation distributions in complex networks of scientific papers, where a fraction of citations is allotted according to the preferential attachment rule (rich get richer) and the remainder is allocated accidentally (purely at random, uniformly). Previously, we derived and analysed such a process in the context of describing individual authors, but now we apply it to scientific journals in computer and information sciences. Based on the large DBLP dataset as well as the CORE (Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia) journal ranking, we find that the impact of journals is correlated with the degree of accidentality of their citation distribution. Citations to impactful journals tend to be more preferential, while citations to lower-ranked journals are distributed in a more accidental manner. Further, applied fields of research such as artificial intelligence seem to be driven by a stronger preferential component – and hence have a higher degree of inequality – than the more theoretical ones, e.g., mathematics and computation theory.     

基于深度学习的期刊分群与科学知识结构测度方法研究

准确地研究和测度科学知识之间的逻辑关系和结构体系,是进行科学政策研究和科研项目资助布局等科研管理活动的重要基础。学术期刊作为科学知识传播和交流的重要平台,是探测科学知识结构的一种有效载体,但是不同的学术期刊分类体系对科学知识结构的测度结构会产生直接而广泛的影响。文章从学术期刊分群的角度出发,考虑期刊在共被引过程中的距离因素,通过采用深度学习算法,来进行期刊的相似度计算与分群问题研究,在此基础上进行科学知识结构测度方法研究,并以中国人文社会科学期刊引文数据库为实验对象进行了实证研究。从实证结果来看,我国人文社会科学学科知识结构存在较为明显的结构划分,不同学科类别或不同研究领域的期刊都被分到了相应的群组,表明从期刊使用的角度来看,我国人文社会科学知识结构边界是相对较为清晰的。在此基础上重点对法学期刊的两个群组的科学研究主题进行了挖掘,从关键词的共现网络中可以明显看出,两个期刊群体内的研究主题虽有一定的交叉,但是两者在具体研究内容上也存在着显著区别。     

Quantifying the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals and fields

There is an overall perception of increased interdisciplinarity in science, but this is difficult to confirm quantitatively owing to the lack of adequate methods to evaluate subjective phenomena. This is no different from the difficulties in establishing quantitative relationships in human and social sciences. In this paper we quantified the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals and science fields by using an entropy measurement based on the diversity of the subject categories of journals citing a specific journal. The methodology consisted in building citation networks using the Journal Citation Reports^® database, in which the nodes were journals and edges were established based on citations among journals. The overall network for the 11-year period (1999–2009) studied was small-world and followed a power-law with exponential cutoff distribution with regard to the in-strength. Upon visualizing the network topology an overall structure of the various science fields could be inferred, especially their interconnections. We confirmed quantitatively that science fields are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, with the degree of interdisplinarity (i.e. entropy) correlating strongly with the in-strength of journals and with the impact factor.     

我国植物科学领域9种SCI期刊出版情况分析

文章以我国相关机构主办且被SCI收录的植物科学领域的9种期刊为研究对象,从期刊基本信息、影响力和办刊策略等三方面进行统计分析,认为植物科学领域期刊应根据自身特点积极调整办刊策略,努力提升国际影响力,为我国植物科学的发展服务。     

Journal rankings by citation analysis in health sciences librarianship

The purpose of this study was to identify objectively a hierarchical ranking of journals for health sciences librarians with faculty status. Such a guideline can indicate a journal's value for promotion and tenure consideration. Lists of recent research articles (1982-1986) in health sciences librarianship, and articles written by health sciences librarians, were compiled by searching Social SCISEARCH and MEDLINE. The journals publishing those articles are presented. Results show BMLA as the most prominent journal in the field. Therefore, citations from articles in BMLA from 1982 to 1986 were chosen as a sample for citation analysis. Citation analysis was employed to identify the most frequently cited journals. Some characteristics of the citations in BMLA are also discussed. The ranking of journals based on citation frequency, as a result, was identified.     

基于被引频次对数矫正的影响因子及其学科标准化研究

本文以5个学科的SCI期刊和论文为研究对象,取不同底数的对数对每一学科论文被引频次进行转换,计算各期刊对数矫正影响因子(IFlog),以各期刊IFlog除以所在学科所有期刊IFlog平均值,进行学科标准化处理,创建学科标准化影响因子(cnIFlog),探讨cnIFlog在学术期刊跨学科评价中的优越性。研究结果显示,5个学科期刊的IFlog均呈正态分布,且无论同一学科还是不同学科期刊的IFlog1.5、IFln、IFlog5、IFlog10之间均呈100%正相关(r=1.000,P=0.000)。与影响因子(IF2018)、平均影响因子百分位(average impact factor percentile,aJIFP)、期刊PR8指数(journal index of eight percentile rank classes,JIPR8)、IFlog和相对影响因子(relative IF2018,rIF2018)等指标相比,cnIFlog1.5(category normalization for IFlog1.5)在5个学科期刊中变异程度最小、与aJIFP和JIPR8的相关度最高,...     

An assessment of social sciences coverage by four prominent full-text online aggregated journal packages

The cost effectiveness and quality of full-text journals are analyzed for four prominent online aggregated journal packages: EBSCOhost Academic Search FullTEXT, UMI Proquest Direct Periodicals Research II, IAC’s Expanded Academic ASAP, and H.W. Wilson’s OmniFile. Price data from EBSCO’s Librarians’ Handbook are used to assess the total and average value of social sciences journals in each package. Quality of social sciences journals coverage is compared based on citation impact factors as recorded in Journal Citation Reports—Social Sciences Edition.     

Not so different after all: Malaysian researchers' cross‐discipline view of quality and trustworthiness in citation practices

This paper reports a survey on citation behaviour of Malaysian researchers. It is part of a wider study gauging quality and trustworthiness in scholarly communication in the emerging digital environment. The survey questionnaire was distributed between 1 October 2014 and 31 January 2015. A total of 391 respondents, from four research areas (humanities, life sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences) completed the questionnaire. The finding indicated that motivations for citing were complex and multi‐faceted, but in all four disciplines, researchers cite a work because they regard it as an authoritative and trustworthy source, which provides a context or building block to their own research. Although researchers have moved from a print‐based system to a digital one, it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. Peer reviewed journals are still the most influential. Open access journals will be cited if they have been peer reviewed. Citing on the basis of high altmetrics and other social judgements, such as mentions, likes, and use, was not prevalent. Measures of establishing trust and authority do not seem to have changed profoundly in Malaysia.     

Open access publications in sciences and social sciences: A comparative analysis

In this paper, we conduct a comparative analysis to examine the characteristics and evolutionary trends of open access (OA) publications in natural and social sciences. We use data recorded by Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Journal Citation Reports during 2001–2015 as the main source. We then comparatively analyse the characteristics of natural and social sciences in terms of historical evolution, main contributors, and distribution of OA journals and publications across different languages, disciplines, and impact factor quartiles. Our results suggest that both natural and social sciences experienced dramatic growth of OA journals since 2009, but the share of social science OA journals within journal impact factor quartile 1 is much lower than that of natural sciences. While natural and social sciences share some similarities in OA publishing activities, such as main countries of contribution, they differ greatly in dimensions such as OA ratio across specific disciplines, countries, and publishing languages. We acknowledge that OA publishing offers a level playing field for traditionally disadvantaged languages, countries, and scientific disciplines, but meanwhile, the advancement of high‐quality OA publishing needs more targeted and sophisticated approaches to tackle differences in natural and social sciences.     

中国高校自然科学学报的现在与未来

从学科覆盖、作者队伍、读者群、期刊统计数据以及学术环境5个方面分析高校学报的优势.通过高校学报与专业期刊的总被引频次、影响因子指标的对比发现,专业期刊并不具特别的优势,高校学报的影响力正在稳步提升.高校学报通过正确定位、重塑编委团队、以内容为王、融入创新、改革管理策略、建立健全编辑队伍激励机制等途径,提升高校学报的学术水平,走依靠高校学科特色、服务高校学科与科研、服务广大师生、发现并培养人才的正确办刊之路.     

我国林业科技期刊定位及发展方向探讨

基于科技期刊发展的现状与趋势,依据2014年中国知网、万方数据库等的期刊数据就林业科技期刊的发展定位做相关分析.通过探讨林业科技期刊发展现状中显现的优劣势,分析期刊定位的重要性和影响因素,确定林业科技期刊的定位方法,从而划定全国性学会、国家级研究院所的综合类期刊为基础研究型期刊,各大学所办刊物为技术研究型期刊,各省的林业科技期刊为技术开发型期刊.统计近5年全国林业科技期刊的数量变化,结合这些数量变化,选取部分代表性较强的林业科技期刊,分析其刊发文章的归属范围,进行期刊定位结果的数理论证.基于数理统计的林业科技期刊定位方法也可供其他学科领域参考.     

国内图书馆学、情报学与档案学生态研究

文章以相关数据库中检索到的国内图书馆学、情报学和档案学中涉及生态研究的420篇文献作为数据源,运用可视化软件Citespace进行知识图谱分析,揭示1998—2014年以来国内图书馆学、情报学和档案学中生态研究现状,并进行学科间的对比分析,揭示三个学科生态研究中存在的共性与个性,指出研究的不足并剖析原因,提出未来促进三个学科生态研究的建议。     

国内外期刊并列第一作者论文分析与建议

对国内外3个期刊数据库中的并列第一作者论文从学科分布、年代分布和期刊分布等方面进行统计分析。发现并列第一作者是国外期刊比较常见的一种署名方式,尤其是在高影响力期刊和某些科研领域。与国外相比,我国期刊中这类论文较少,且标注方式比较混乱。认为应鼓励科研人员进行科研合作,并以并列第一作者署名方式发表论文。还提出了防范不端署名的措施。     

Publishing in Open Access Education Journals: The Authors’ Perspectives

Open access publishing is now an accepted method of scholarly communication. However, the greatest traction for open access publishing thus far has been in the sciences. Penetration of open access publishing has been much slower among the social sciences. This study surveys 309 authors from recent issues of open access journals in education to determine why they choose to publish in open access journals and to gain insight into the ways publishing practices within the discipline itself impact the willingness of authors to engage in open access publishing.     

Op. cit.: publishing in the humanities and social sciences

Do the humanities and social sciences have the same publishing requirements as the sciences? What can be done to counter perceptions that acquisition funds have migrated away from publications in the fields of the humanities and social sciences to meet the escalating cost of electronic and print journals in the natural and applied sciences? With university presses, non-profit publishers, and the academy itself under strain, we examine the problems, discuss the continuing requirements of scholarship, the implications for funding strategies, and the role of technology, and give examples of new ventures that suggest possible solutions to the problems. We conclude that the primary values that scholars in the humanities and social sciences hold are not dramatically different from those of other academic disciplines and make recommendations for building a broader base of support for scholarship in these areas.     

中国高校学报“垃圾论”辨析——基于农业高校与非高校学术期刊影响力的比较

通过分析我国农业高校学报与研究院所、学会主办学术期刊之间的差别,论证高校学报并非垃圾产品。将农业类学术期刊分为省属高校类、省级学会类和国家级学会类3种不同类型,综合分析比较3种不同类型农业类期刊在影响因子、基金论文比等5项指标上的差异。统计结果表明:国家级学会学术期刊总被引频次、影响因子、他引影响因子、基金论文比4个指标极显著地高于省级学会学术期刊(P<0.01);省属高校学报的影响因子、他引影响因子、基金论文也极显著地高于省级学会学术期刊(P<0.01),而且基金论文比、他引总引比略高于国家级学会学术期刊,差异不显著(P>0.05)。综合分析表明:国家级学会学术期刊的大部分指标高于省属高校学报,而省属高校学报均高于省级学会学术期刊,部分指标接近国家级学会学术期刊;近3年,农业类学术期刊总体上的各项评价指标正在逐年提高,农业高校学术期刊的综合影响力较高。