论文部分内容阅读
【目的】针对期刊影响因子分子和分母所使用的来源文献类型不统一问题,结合不同类型文献的引证特征,从可被引文献和非可被引文献角度对IF进行矫正,使其能够更加合理地用于期刊评价。【方法】以2014年版JCR收录的30种美国眼科学期刊为研究对象,提出了5种矫正方法:IF_(Total/Total)、IF_(Total/AREL)、IF_(AR/AR)、IF_(AREL/AR)和IF_(AREL/AREL),以美国眼科医生和研究人员对美国眼科学期刊学术影响力的问卷调查评分为期刊真实影响力标准,通过实证分析验证矫正后IF的期刊评价效果。【结果】IFAR/AR与问卷调查评分之间的相关度最高,其次是IF_(AREL/AR)和IF_(Total/Total),IF_(Total/AREL)、IF_(AREL/AREL)与问卷调查评分之间的相关度最低。【结论】对于眼科学期刊,5种矫正IF的期刊评价效果均优于传统IF。IF_(AR/AR)的期刊评价效果最理想,IF_(AREL/AR)次之。
【Objective】 In view of the inconsistent source document types used by journals’ influential factor numerator and denominator and by combining the citation characteristics of different types of documents, IF can be corrected from the perspective of citable documents and non-citable documents to make it more reasonable For journal evaluation. 【Methods】 Thirty kinds of American ophthalmology journals included in the 2014 edition of JCR were used as research objects. Five correction methods were put forward: IF_ (Total / Total), IF_ (Total / AREL), IF_ (AR / AR) / AR) and IF (AREL / AREL), the American ophthalmologists and researchers rated the academic influence of the American ophthalmology journals as the real influence standard of journals, and verified the correctness of IF journals by empirical analysis. 【Results】 The correlation between IFAR / AR and questionnaire score was highest, followed by IF_ (AREL / AR) and IF_ (Total / Total), IF_ (Total / AREL), IF_ (AREL / AREL) and questionnaire score The lowest correlation between. 【Conclusion】 For the ophthalmology journals, the evaluation results of the five kinds of journals that correct IF are superior to the traditional IF. IF_ (AR / AR) journals rated the best results, followed by IF_ (AREL / AR).