Library and Information Service >
Journal Influence Evaluation Methods Based on Nonparametric Statistics
Received date: 2012-10-30
Revised date: 2013-02-05
Online published: 2013-03-05
By deeply comparing the standardized indicators of journal and institution evaluations, this paper analyzes the comprehensibility difference to the validity of the evaluation results, to explore the influence property of academic journals and equivalent measurement indicators. According with Gold tower mode of knowledge accumulation proposed by Derek de Solla Price, we construct an indicator based on nonparametric statistics. This indicator gives different weights to the different documents with different citations range according to logarithmic law, considers the node centrality of the research field citation network, and selects the in-degree centrality-the citations to measure the location of the papers in the dissemination of knowledge. Finally, it chooses 46 journals in the field of biology according with the core version of the SCI as the evaluation objects, and makes a comparative analysis on the distribution score index with other popular journal evaluation indicators.
Xu Haiyun , Fang Shu . Journal Influence Evaluation Methods Based on Nonparametric Statistics[J]. Library and Information Service, 2013 , 57(05) : 107 -113 . DOI: 10.7536/j.issn.0252-3116.2013.05.019
[1] Steele C, Butler L,Kingsley D. The publishing imperative: The pervasive influence of publication metrics[J]. Learned Publishing, 2006,19(4): 277-290.
[2] Garfield E. Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas[J]. Science, 1955,122(3159): 108-111.
[3] Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation[J].Science,1972,178(4060):471-479.
[4] Vinkler P. Characterization of the impact of sets of scientific papers: The Garfield (impact) factor[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2004,55(5): 431-435.
[5] Seglen P O. The skewness of science[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1992,43(9): 628-638.
[6] Glänzel W. Seven myths in bibliometrics. About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies[OL].[2012-12-08].http://fizl.fh-potsdam.de/volltext/wiso8/09019.pdf.
[7] [EB/OL].[2012-01-12].http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=1898&do=blog&id=230683.
[8] Bornmann L, Mutz R, Neuhaus C, et al. Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results[J]. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics(ESEP), 2008,8(1): 93-102.
[9] Leydesdorff L, Rafols I. Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011,5(1): 87-100.
[10] Vinkler P. Introducing the current contribution index for characterizing the recent, relevant impact of journals[J]. Scientometrics, 2008,79(2): 409-420.
[11] Vinkler P. Application of the distribution of citations among publications in scientometric evaluations[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011,62(10):1963-1978.
[12] De Solla Price D J, Weber L. Science since Babylon[J].American Journal of Physics, 1961,29(12):863-864.
[13] 许海云,方曙. 中文学术期刊评价中引文分析指标间关系的实证研究——基于2010年版中国期刊引证报告(扩刊版)[J]. 图书情报知识, 2011(4): 71-77.
[14] Redner S. How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution[J]. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 1998,4(2): 131-134.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
