特征因子与论文影响力指标初探

针对汤森路透近日推出的量化学术评价方法——特征因子计量方法及其指标特征因子值和论文影响值的原理、优势、不足,进行理论和量化分析,指出特征因子计量方法的潜力和利用时所需注意的问题,以期为特征因子计量方法的研究和利用提供科学的依据。     

Do Article Influence scores overestimate the citation impact of social science journals in subfields that are related to higher-impact natural science disciplines?

Unlike Impact Factors (IF), Article Influence (AI) scores assign greater weight to citations that appear in highly cited journals. The natural sciences tend to have higher citation rates than the social sciences. We might therefore expect that relative to IF, AI overestimates the citation impact of social science journals in subfields that are related to (and presumably cited in) higher-impact natural science disciplines. This study evaluates that assertion through a set of simple and multiple regressions covering seven social science disciplines: anthropology, communication, economics, education, library and information science, psychology, and sociology. Contrary to expectations, AI underestimates 5IF (five-year Impact Factor) for journals in science-related subfields such as scientific communication, science education, scientometrics, biopsychology, and medical sociology. Journals in these subfields have low AI scores relative to their 5IF values. Moreover, the effect of science-related status is considerable—typically 0.60 5IF units or 0.50 SD. This effect is independent of the more general finding that AI scores underestimate 5IF for higher-impact journals. It is also independent of the very modest curvilinearity in the relationship between AI and 5IF.