Library and Information Service >
Effect on Academic Journals Evaluation of Index Data Distribution and the Internal Gap: Taking JCR Mathematics Journals as an Example
Received date: 2014-08-19
Revised date: 2014-09-23
Online published: 2014-11-07
This paper takes JCR 2012 mathematics journals as an example, using skewness, kurtosis, JB test, maximum and minimum value ratio, dispersion coefficient, the average median ratio analysis the data distribution characteristics of periodical evaluation indicator. And for the first time using the Gini coefficient to analyze the internal gap of journal evaluation indicators, it has found that the periodical evaluation indicator is generally skewed to the right, and do not obey the normal distribution; there is a wide internal gap among total citations, characteristic factor and immediacy index. The order from good to bad of journal evaluation indicators in bias is impact factor and 5-year impact factor> cited half-life> papers affect scores> immediacy index> features factor> total citations. The paper comes to the conclusions as follows: indicator data bias affects data standardization of evaluation indicator; index data bias affects the judgment of journal general level; indicator data skewed to the right will cause low journal evaluation value; it's better to select the relatively good indicators in data bias to evaluate journals' average level; data bias has a greater impact on measurement research which based on traditional regression; the above conclusions are pending further testing in this paper.
Key words： academic journals; evaluation index; date bias; the Gini coefficient
Yu Liping , Liu Aijun . Effect on Academic Journals Evaluation of Index Data Distribution and the Internal Gap: Taking JCR Mathematics Journals as an Example[J]. Library and Information Service, 2014 , 58(21) : 105 -110 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2014.21.015
[1] Moed H F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals[J]. Journal of Informetrics,2010,4(3):265-277.
[2] Kosmulski M. Successful papers: A new idea in evaluation of scientific output[J]. Journal of Informetrics,2011,5(3):481-485.
[3] Vinkler P. Introducing the current contribution index for characterizing the recent, relevant impact of journals[J].Scientometrics,2008,79(2):409-420.
[4] Seglen P O. The skewness of science[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1992,43(9):628-638.
[5] Adler R, Ewing J,Taylor P. Citation statistics[J]. Statistical Science, 2009,24(1): 1-26.
[6] Glänzel W. Seven myths in bibliometrics about facts and fiction in quantitative science studies[J]. ISSI Newsletter,2008,4(2):24-32.
[7] 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,2008,8(1):93-102.
[8] van Raan A F J. Measurement of central aspects of scientific research: Performance, interdisciplinarity, structure[J]. Measurement,2005,3(1):1-19.
[9] Davis P M. Eigenfactor: Does the principle of repeated improvement result in better estimates than raw citation counts[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2008,59(13):2186- 2188.
[10] 邓三鸿,梁勇,杨建林. 改进型 h 型指数在期刊评价上的应用探讨[J]. 西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),2012(7):226-229.
[11] 胡祖光.基尼系数理论最佳值及其简易计算公式研究[J]. 经济研究,2004(9):60-68.
[12] 俞立平,潘云涛,武夷山. 学术期刊综合评价数据标准化方法研究[J]. 图书情报工作,2009,53(12):136-139.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
