10种国际权威科技期刊影响因子构成特征及其启示

利用Web of Science(WoS)数据库和Journal Citation Reports(期刊引证报告,JCR)的引证分析功能,从3个方面探讨10种国际权威期刊影响因子的结构特征:1)自引对影响因子的贡献;2)不同类型文献对影响因子的贡献;3)高被引论文对影响因子的贡献。结果显示:10种国际权威期刊自引对其影响因子的贡献率均较低;研究论文(article)和综述(review)对影响因子的贡献率均在80%以上,述评(editorial)、信稿(letter)和科技新闻(news item)对科技期刊影响因子的贡献不容忽视,其他类型的文献对影响因子贡献较小;各期刊高被引论文对影响因子的贡献率普遍较高。提示:增加期刊自引在一定程度上可以提高影响因子,但依靠增加自引来提高期刊实际影响力几乎是不可能的;科学规划期刊的文献类型,多发表一些述评、信稿和科技新闻等类型的文献对提高期刊的影响因子和影响力是很有价值的;通过引文分析寻找相关学科领域的研究前沿和热点,加强高被引论文的选题策划是提高科技期刊影响因子的有效方法。     

从引文分析看档案学与图书馆学、情报学的学科融合

从引文分析的角度,利用档案期刊论文的参考文献来研究档案学借鉴图书情报领域相关知识情况及其随时间变化的发展趋势,同时,对学科交叉部分进行词频分析,把握图情档三学科关注的共同问题。从而体现出信息化战略背景下,档案学的研究对象和研究内容的拓展和延伸。     

Impacts of government website information on social sciences and humanities in China: A citation analysis

The purpose of this research is to investigate the current state and trend of government website information cited by social science and humanities (SS&H) journal articles in China. The Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) was used as the benchmark and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) journals as the reference samples. It analyzed 204,019 web citations (N = 5,063,237) found in 925,506 articles that were published in CSSCI journals during the 1998–2009 period. The findings unveil that web citations accounted for only 4.03% of the total number of citations (N = 5,063,237), and that citations of Chinese government websites constituted 6.6% of the total number of web citations (N = 204,019). The study disclosed detailed information regarding citations derived from ministries and commissions directly under the State Council websites (N = 69), government online media (N = 7), government website citation subjects (N = 21), and various types of government website information (N = 5). Although government website information has limited influence on SS&H, their impact is currently growing rapidly. In comparison with international research community, influence of government web information on Chinese social science is higher, while its influence on humanities is lower. Essentially, Chinese scholars put emphasis on citing information from authoritative central government websites or highly visible state-owned media information as supporting evidences in their articles. In general, the citation of information from Chinese government website tends to hot social issues of society. Finally, it is necessary to promote the visibility of local government websites, to develop policies and guidelines to encourage the disclosure and the diversity of data, so that there will be more citation balances between social and technological topics.     

运用JCR和Web of Science了解学科发展状况——以核科学与技术科学为例

熟练运用数据库检索系统有利于期刊编辑快速把握学科的发展动态.以核科学与技术科学为例,说明利用Journal Citation Reports和Web of Science数据库可以了解某一领域关注度较高的期刊,科研工作领先的国家,研究工作突出的作者团队,便于编辑快速把握学科发展动态,以便约得高质量的稿件.     

图书Z指数及其在影响力评价研究中的应用

[目的/意义]基于学术授信思想提出一种能够衡量图书学术影响力的指标--图书Z指数。[方法/过程]根据图情领域高影响力（h指数≥5）学者名单,从CSSCI采集这些学者的图书被引信息,利用批量统计法计算全部相关图书的Z指数,并从作者、出版社、机构等视角进行实证研究,证明图书Z指数的有效性与应用价值。[结果/结论]将Z指数应用于图书评价,可以描述高影响力施引者的数量和学术地位,为评估不同图书的学术影响力提供较为精细的测度工具,在学者、机构影响力评价方面也有一定的应用价值。     

Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor

The journal impact factor is not comparable among fields of science and social science because of systematic differences in publication and citation behavior across disciplines. In this work, a source normalization of the journal impact factor is proposed. We use the aggregate impact factor of the citing journals as a measure of the citation potential in the journal topic, and we employ this citation potential in the normalization of the journal impact factor to make it comparable between scientific fields. An empirical application comparing some impact indicators with our topic normalized impact factor in a set of 224 journals from four different fields shows that our normalization, using the citation potential in the journal topic, reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a higher proportion than the rest of indicators analyzed. The effect of journal self-citations over the normalization process is also studied.     

Impact maturity times and citation time windows: The 2-year maximum journal impact factor

Journal metrics are employed for the assessment of scientific scholar journals from a general bibliometric perspective. In this context, the Thomson Reuters journal impact factors (JIFs) are the citation-based indicators most used. The 2-year journal impact factor (2-JIF) counts citations to one and two year old articles, while the 5-year journal impact factor (5-JIF) counts citations from one to five year old articles. Nevertheless, these indicators are not comparable among fields of science for two reasons: (i) each field has a different impact maturity time, and (ii) because of systematic differences in publication and citation behavior across disciplines. In fact, the 5-JIF firstly appeared in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in 2007 with the purpose of making more comparable impacts in fields in which impact matures slowly. However, there is not an optimal fixed impact maturity time valid for all the fields. In some of them two years provides a good performance whereas in others three or more years are necessary. Therefore, there is a problem when comparing a journal from a field in which impact matures slowly with a journal from a field in which impact matures rapidly. In this work, we propose the 2-year maximum journal impact factor (2M-JIF), a new impact indicator that considers the 2-year rolling citation time window of maximum impact instead of the previous 2-year time window. Finally, an empirical application comparing 2-JIF, 5-JIF, and 2M-JIF shows that the maximum rolling target window reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a random sample of about six hundred journals from eight different fields.     

我国“图书馆、情报与文献学”图书学术影响力报告——基于CSSCI的分析

为考量我国"图书馆、情报与文献学"图书学术影响力的大小,本文借助<中文社会科学引文索引>(2000-2007)数据,利用引文分析法,对"图书馆、情报与文献学"学科论文引用的图书进行统计,推出该学科领域最有学术影响的137种国内外学术著作.研究发现,在各类型图书中,对图书馆、情报与文献学领域产生最大学术影响力的是国内学术著作;国外学术著作被引种数排在第二,但被引篇次和篇均被引次数都明显偏低,显示国外学术著作对本领域学术影响有限.     

Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community

The new web-based academic communication platforms do not only enable researchers to better advertise their academic outputs, making them more visible than ever before, but they also provide a wide supply of metrics to help authors better understand the impact their work is making. This study has three objectives: a) to analyse the uptake of some of the most popular platforms (Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley and Twitter) by a specific scientific community (bibliometrics, scientometrics, informetrics, webometrics, and altmetrics); b) to compare the metrics available from each platform; and c) to determine the meaning of all these new metrics. To do this, the data available in these platforms about a sample of 811 authors (researchers in bibliometrics for whom a public profile Google Scholar Citations was found) were extracted. A total of 31 metrics were analysed. The results show that a high number of the analysed researchers only had a profile in Google Scholar Citations (159), or only in Google Scholar Citations and ResearchGate (142). Lastly, we find two kinds of metrics of online impact. First, metrics related to connectivity (followers), and second, all metrics associated to academic impact. This second group can further be divided into usage metrics (reads, views), and citation metrics. The results suggest that Google Scholar Citations is the source that provides more comprehensive citation-related data, whereas Twitter stands out in connectivity-related metrics.     

The use of the Percentage Rank Position index for comparative evaluation of journals

In the present paper the Percentage Rank Position (PRP) index concluding from the principle of Similar Distribution of Information Impact in different fields of science (Vinkler, 2013), is suggested to assess journals in different research fields comparatively. The publications in the journals dedicated to a field are ranked by citation frequency, and the PRP-index of the papers in the elite set of the field is calculated. The PRP-index relates the citation rank number of the paper to the total number of papers in the corresponding set. The sum of the PRP-index of the elite papers in a journal, PRP(j,F) may represent the eminence of the journal in the field. The non-parametric and non-dimensional PRP(j,F) index of journals is believed to be comparable across fields.     

The memory of science: Inflation,myopia, and the knowledge network

Scientific production is steadily growing, exhibiting 4% annual growth in publications and 1.8% annual growth in the number of references per publication, together producing a 12-year doubling period in the total supply of references, i.e. links in the science citation network. This growth has far-reaching implications for how academic knowledge is connected, accessed and evaluated. Against this background, we analyzed a citation network comprised of 837 million references produced by 32.6 million publications over the period 1965–2012, allowing for a detailed analysis of the ‘attention economy’ in science. Our results show how growth relates to ‘citation inflation’, increased connectivity in the citation network resulting from decreased levels of uncitedness, and a narrowing range of attention – as both very classic and very recent literature are being cited increasingly less. The decreasing attention to recent literature published within the last 6 years suggests that science has become stifled by a publication deluge destabilizing the balance between production and consumption. To better understand these patterns together, we developed a generative model of the citation network, featuring exponential growth, the redirection of scientific attention via publications’ reference lists, and the crowding out of old literature by the new. We validate our model against several empirical benchmarks, and then use perturbation analysis to measure the impact of shifts in citing behavior on the synthetic system's properties, thereby providing insights into the functionality of the science citation network as an infrastructure supporting the memory of science.     

A comparative study of cross-domain research output and citations: Research impact cubes and binary citation frequencies

Across the various scientific domains, significant differences occur with respect to research publishing formats, frequencies and citing practices, the nature and organisation of research and the number and impact of a given domain's academic journals. Consequently, differences occur in the citations and h-indices of the researchers. This paper attempts to identify cross-domain differences using quantitative and qualitative measures. The study focuses on the relationships among citations, most-cited papers and h-indices across domains and for research group sizes. The analysis is based on the research output of approximately 10,000 researchers in Slovenia, of which we focus on 6536 researchers working in 284 research group programmes in 2008–2012.As comparative measures of cross-domain research output, we propose the research impact cube (RIC) representation and the analysis of most-cited papers, highest impact factors and citation distribution graphs (Lorenz curves). The analysis of Lotka's model resulted in the proposal of a binary citation frequencies (BCF) distribution model that describes well publishing frequencies. The results may be used as a model to measure, compare and evaluate fields of science on the global, national and research community level to streamline research policies and evaluate progress over a definite time period.     

科技期刊总被引频次和影响因子构成中的自引率比较——兼谈影响因子的人为操纵倾向

以2015年自然科学版JCR(S04CR)收录的8 778种期刊为研究对象,计算各期刊总被引频次构成中的自引率(self-citation rate for total citations,RSC,TC)和影响因子构成中的自引率(self-citation rate for impact factor,RSC,IF),全方位比较二者差异程度,揭示不同国家和地区人为操纵期刊影响因子的倾向.结果显示:8 778种期刊集合RSC,TC为0.072,集合RSC,IF为0.112,RSC,TC平均值为0.093,RSC,IF平均值为0.132.排除17种无RSC,IF者,8 761种期刊中,RSC,IF＞RSC,TC者6 954种(79.2％),RSC,TC＞ RSC,IF者1 599种(18.2％),RSC,IF=RSC,TC者208种.Wilcoxon秩检验结果是,Z=59.836,P＜0.001,2组差异有统计学意义.SCI来源期刊中RSC,IF显著高于RSC,TC,捷克、印度、日本、匈牙利和加拿大等国家期刊尤为突出.RSC,IF过度高于RSC,TC,怀疑有人为操纵的可能.     

Archival Science in Brazil: the establishment of a scientific discipline and its impact on training archivists in the era of information and knowledge

This article addresses the trajectory of Archival Science in Brazil, its extracurricular characteristics and its particular relationship with Information Science within academics, its institutional associations, and some considerations regarding current training for archivists in Brazil. The methodological procedures used included analyzing documents from the National Archive Fonds of Brazil, reviewing archive literature, and interviewing people involved in consolidating Archival Science. This study concludes that Archival Science research is taking place in graduate programs throughout public Brazilian universities and points out that people working with archives now have more advanced training, such as undergraduate degrees in Archival Science or other. This study also focuses on archives as information units, while presenting and reflecting on the demands of training archivists who are faced with the challenges of the working world and the era of information and knowledge—challenges that go beyond merely technical procedures and encompass dynamic planning and orientation activities.     

试用h指数评价科技期刊

2005年,Hirsch提出了用h指数评价科学工作者的个人成就。文章对2003年被中国科技引文数据库收录的化学和土木建筑领域类期刊按h指数和相对h指数排名情况进行分析,目的在于说明h指数、相对h指数与影响因子排名的不同,及h指数和相对h指数用于评价期刊的现实意义。最后指出在使用h指数和相对h指数评价期刊时,应该全面、综合性地考虑。     

大陆和台湾地区图书馆学期刊引文抽样调查与分析

论文从定量的角度对我国大陆和台湾地区图书馆学期刊的引文进行了抽样调查，分析了两地期刊引文在数量、类型、语种及著录格式等方面的异同。     

Patently Obvious: The place for patents in information literacy in the sciences

Patents are an underutilized source of scientific information, particularly in the life and health sciences. Patents and patent applications usually contain the first disclosure of new technologies and processes and serve to link theory with practice, providing ‘real world’ examples of the application of scientific research. Increasingly, scientific discoveries are reported first in the patent literature, rather than in academic journals. To ensure that science students have the skills that match the information resources they will use as professionals, patent searching must become part of their information literacy instruction. This article will discuss how valuable the patent literature can be to students, and how to incorporate patent searching into library instruction. By way of illustration, a case study will document how students in one class, Biochemistry 561, were introduced to patents.     

The problem of citation impact assessments for recent publication years in institutional evaluations

Bibliometrics has become an indispensable tool in the evaluation of institutions (in the natural and life sciences). An evaluation report without bibliometric data has become a rarity. However, evaluations are often required to measure the citation impact of publications in very recent years in particular. As a citation analysis is only meaningful for publications for which a citation window of at least three years is guaranteed, very recent years cannot (should not) be included in the analysis. This study presents various options for dealing with this problem in statistical analysis. The publications from two universities from 2000 to 2011 are used as a sample dataset (n = 2652, univ 1 = 1484 and univ 2 = 1168). One option is to show the citation impact data (percentiles) in a graphic and to use a line for percentiles regressed on ‘distant’ publication years (with confidence interval) showing the trend for the ‘very recent’ publication years. Another way of dealing with the problem is to work with the concept of samples and populations. The third option (very related to the second) is the application of the counterfactual concept of causality.     

Stochastic block model reveals maps of citation patterns and their evolution in time

In this study we map out the large-scale structure of citation networks of science journals and follow their evolution in time by using stochastic block models (SBMs). The SBM fitting procedures are principled methods that can be used to find hierarchical grouping of journals that show similar incoming and outgoing citations patterns. These methods work directly on the citation network without the need to construct auxiliary networks based on similarity of nodes. We fit the SBMs to the networks of journals we have constructed from the data set of around 630 million citations and find a variety of different types of groups, such as communities, bridges, sources, and sinks. In addition we use a recent generalization of SBMs to determine how much a manually curated classification of journals into subfields of science is related to the group structure of the journal network and how this relationship changes in time. The SBM method tries to find a network of blocks that is the best high-level representation of the network of journals, and we illustrate how these block networks (at various levels of resolution) can be used as maps of science.     

图苑并蒂莲:新世纪图书馆学基础理论教材——浅评《图书馆学基础教程》与《图书馆学导论》

《图书馆学基础教程》和《图书馆学导论》是新世纪出版的两部图书馆学基础理论教材，两位作者在前人的基础上写出了自己的特色，堪称当今中国图苑的并蒂莲花，各自绽放着自己独特的光彩。本文就两部著作的编著思想、知识体系、编排体系3个方面予以比较。