基于动态权重的百分位数指标在期刊评价实践中的应用研究
|
摘要
【目的】将动态权重百分位数(Dynamic Weight Percentile Rank Score,DPRS)指标应用于跨学科期刊的评价,并与现有的文献计量指标进行对比。【方法】以《期刊引证报告》数据库中5个学科的期刊作为评价对象,对期刊的DPRS、百分位数(Percentiles Rank Scores,PRS)、5年影响因子、篇均被引频次、平均百分位、来源标准化篇均影响力(Source Normalized Impact per Paper,SNIP)等指标进行相关性分析,在此基础上针对DPRS和PRS 2个指标在期刊评价中的效果与区别进行了实证研究。【结果】DPRS与篇均被引频次、5年影响因子、平均百分位、SNIP指标均高度相关,可以消除学科不同带来的引文差异性,并且能够充分综合期刊在各百分位区间"相对数量"和"相对质量"2个方面的信息,且具有比其他类似指标更高的区分度和精准度。【结论】DPRS指标能合理综合论文数量和被引频次分布2个方面的信息,可以实现跨学科期刊的评价,并且能够揭示期刊学术影响力的更多细节。
[Purposes]The dynamic weight percentile rank score( DPRS) is applied to the interdisciplinary journal evaluation,and it is compared with the existing bibliometric indicators. [Methods]Taking the journals of five subjects in Journal Citation Report database as evaluation objects,DPRS,percentiles rank scores( PRS),5-year impact factor( IF),average citation frequency,average percentile,and source normalized impact per paper( SNIP) were analyzed by correlation analysis. On this basis,we made an empirical study on the effect and difference between the two indicators of DPRS and PRS in journal evaluation. [Findings]The empirical results show that DPRS is significantly correlated with indicators of 5-year IF,average citation frequency,average percentile,SNIP,and the DPRS indicator. The DPRS can eliminate the citation differences in different disciplines,and also can fully integrate the two aspects of " relative quantity" and " relative quality" in the percentile intervals of journal. It has high degree of division and precision compared with other similar indicators. [Conclusions] The DPRS indicator can integrate the two aspects of total number of papers and total citation frequency. It can be used for the interdisciplinary journal evaluation and shows the details of the academic influence of journals preferably.
[Purposes]The dynamic weight percentile rank score( DPRS) is applied to the interdisciplinary journal evaluation,and it is compared with the existing bibliometric indicators. [Methods]Taking the journals of five subjects in Journal Citation Report database as evaluation objects,DPRS,percentiles rank scores( PRS),5-year impact factor( IF),average citation frequency,average percentile,and source normalized impact per paper( SNIP) were analyzed by correlation analysis. On this basis,we made an empirical study on the effect and difference between the two indicators of DPRS and PRS in journal evaluation. [Findings]The empirical results show that DPRS is significantly correlated with indicators of 5-year IF,average citation frequency,average percentile,SNIP,and the DPRS indicator. The DPRS can eliminate the citation differences in different disciplines,and also can fully integrate the two aspects of " relative quantity" and " relative quality" in the percentile intervals of journal. It has high degree of division and precision compared with other similar indicators. [Conclusions] The DPRS indicator can integrate the two aspects of total number of papers and total citation frequency. It can be used for the interdisciplinary journal evaluation and shows the details of the academic influence of journals preferably.
引文
[1] Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation[J].Science,1972,178(4060):471-479.
[2] Leydesdorff L,Opthof T. Scopus's source normalized impact per paper(SNIP)versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science&Technology,2010,61(11):2365-2369.
[3]顾欢.“标准特征因子”“标准论文影响分值”与SNIP在跨学科评价中的相关性分析[J].情报杂志,2017,36(8):120-123.
[4]邓佳,詹华清.基于引文的期刊评价指标SNIP及其改进[J].情报科学,2015,33(5):72-75.
[5]王璞,刘雪立,刘睿远,等. SNIP、SJR及其修正指标SNIP2、SJR2在期刊评价中的应用[J].中国科技期刊研究,2014,25(6):833-838.
[6]陈卫静,郑颖.期刊引文评价指标SNIP与SNIP2的对比分析[J].情报杂志,2013,32(12):123-126,206.
[7]程小娟,杨晶晶. Scopus数据库引文评价新指标SNIP原理及可行性探讨[J].图书情报工作,2012,56(10):6-9,34.
[8] Opthof T,Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS(“Leiden”)evaluations of research performance[J]. Journal of Informetrics,2010,4(3):423-430.
[9]俞立平,张全,刘爱军.不同学科多属性评价横向比较研究——以数学、物理学、生物学期刊为例[J].图书情报工作,2014,58(20):100-105.
[10] Bornmann L,Mutz R. Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance:The avoidance of citation(ratio)averages in field-normalization[J]. Journal of Informetrics,2011,1(5):228-230.
[11] Leydesdorff L. Alternatives to the journal impact factor:I3 and the top-10%(or top-25%?)of the most-highly cited papers[J]. Scientometrics,2012,92(2):355-365.
[12] Vinkler P. The use of the Percentage Rank Position index for comparative evaluation of journals[J]. Journal of Informetrics,2014,8(2):340-348.
[13]汪莉.基于核心论文数量和被引频次双重分布的百分位数指标改进研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(4):400-405.
[14]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.
[15]舒予,张黎俐.基于动态权重的百分位数指标在学术影响力评价中的应用[J].图书情报工作,2016,60(11):93-99.
[2] Leydesdorff L,Opthof T. Scopus's source normalized impact per paper(SNIP)versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science&Technology,2010,61(11):2365-2369.
[3]顾欢.“标准特征因子”“标准论文影响分值”与SNIP在跨学科评价中的相关性分析[J].情报杂志,2017,36(8):120-123.
[4]邓佳,詹华清.基于引文的期刊评价指标SNIP及其改进[J].情报科学,2015,33(5):72-75.
[5]王璞,刘雪立,刘睿远,等. SNIP、SJR及其修正指标SNIP2、SJR2在期刊评价中的应用[J].中国科技期刊研究,2014,25(6):833-838.
[6]陈卫静,郑颖.期刊引文评价指标SNIP与SNIP2的对比分析[J].情报杂志,2013,32(12):123-126,206.
[7]程小娟,杨晶晶. Scopus数据库引文评价新指标SNIP原理及可行性探讨[J].图书情报工作,2012,56(10):6-9,34.
[8] Opthof T,Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS(“Leiden”)evaluations of research performance[J]. Journal of Informetrics,2010,4(3):423-430.
[9]俞立平,张全,刘爱军.不同学科多属性评价横向比较研究——以数学、物理学、生物学期刊为例[J].图书情报工作,2014,58(20):100-105.
[10] Bornmann L,Mutz R. Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance:The avoidance of citation(ratio)averages in field-normalization[J]. Journal of Informetrics,2011,1(5):228-230.
[11] Leydesdorff L. Alternatives to the journal impact factor:I3 and the top-10%(or top-25%?)of the most-highly cited papers[J]. Scientometrics,2012,92(2):355-365.
[12] Vinkler P. The use of the Percentage Rank Position index for comparative evaluation of journals[J]. Journal of Informetrics,2014,8(2):340-348.
[13]汪莉.基于核心论文数量和被引频次双重分布的百分位数指标改进研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(4):400-405.
[14]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.
[15]舒予,张黎俐.基于动态权重的百分位数指标在学术影响力评价中的应用[J].图书情报工作,2016,60(11):93-99.