科技论文关键词使用小知识

正关键词是反映文章最主要内容的术语,对文献检索有重要作用。凡期刊文章的文献标识码为A、B、C三类者均应标注中文关键词,有英文摘要者应同时给出英文关键词。中、英文关键词应一一对应。一般每篇文章可选3~8个关键词,如有可能,尽量用《汉语主题词表》等词表提供的规范词;未被词表收录的新学科、新技术中的重要术语以及文章题名中的人名、地名也可以作为关键词标出。多个关键词应按词条外延层次     

《电镀与环保》

《电镀与环保》是我国表面处理领域内具有影响、在技术上具有先进性与实用性的专业杂志之一。荣获国家、部、省市级优秀科技期刊奖。系中国科技论文统计源期刊（中国科技核心期刊）、中国学术期刊（光盘版）全文收录期刊、“万方数据-数字化期刊群”收录期刊、“中国核心期刊（遴选）数据库”收录期刊。     

动态

2005年度SCI收录我国科技期刊影响因子超过1的期刊序号期刊名称(英文)期刊名称(中文)语种影响因子1CELLRES细胞研究英文2.1612PEDOSPHERE土壤圈英文1.8173ACTA GEOL SIN-ENGL地质学报英文1.4694NEW CARBON MATER新型炭材料中文1.4635ASIAN J ANDROL亚洲男性学英文1.3026CHINESE PHYS LETT物理快报英文1.2767CHINESE PHYS中国物理(物理学报-海外版)英文1.2568EPISODES地质幕英文1.2229FUNGAL DIVERS真菌多样性英文1.20210ACTA PHARMACOL SIN中国药理学报英文1.12311ACTA PETROL SIN…     

《低温工程》入网启示

本刊为中国中文核心期刊,中国科技论文统计源刊,被中文科技期刊数据库、中国学术期刊（光盘版）、中国学术期刊网、万方数据一数字化期刊群等数据库收录。     

《复合材料学报》征稿简则

《复合材料学报》为中国复合材料学会和北京航空航天大学主办的学术性刊物 ,为双月刊。它的任务是刊载我国复合材料基础研究和应用研究方面具有创造性的、高水平的和有重要意义的最新研究成果的论文 ,以促进国内外的学术交流。　　目前所刊登的论文英文摘要已全部被《Ei》收录 ,并成为美国化学文摘《CA》、剑桥科学文摘 (工程类 )《CSA》、国际航宇文摘《IAA》、美国金属文摘《Metal Abstracts》等国际检索系统用刊、以及美国应用力学评论《Appl. Mech. Rev.》的核心期刊。此外 ,《复合材料学报》还为《中国科技期刊引证报告》、《中…     

《新型炭材料》2004年ISI影响因子为1．165

据美国科学信息研究所(ISI)2004年度期刊引证报告自然科学版(2004Journal Citation Reports(JCR)Science Edition载,《新型炭材料》2004年度的影响因子为1.165。《新型炭材料》自2002年被ISI的《科学引文索引扩展版(SCIE)》收录,这是JCR首次报道本刊的文献计量指标。按影响因子排序,《新型炭材料》在2004年被SCI收录并有JCR指标的71种中国期刊中名列第7位。据悉,中国期刊影响因子超过1的仅有10种,其中8种期刊为英文版,2种期刊为中文版。2004年度ISI收录我国科技期刊的引证指标(影响因子前10名)序号期刊名称(英文)期刊名称(中文)…     

《新型炭材料》2004年ISI影响因子为1．165

据美国科学信息研究所(ISI)近日发布的2004年度期刊引证报告自然科学版(2004Journal CitationReports(JCR)Science Edition载,《新型炭材料》2004年度的影响因子为1.165。《新型炭材料》自2002年被ISI的《科学引文索引扩展版(SCIE)》收录,这是JCR首次报道本刊的文献计量指标。按影响因子排序,《新型炭材料》在2004年被SCI收录并有JCR指标的71种中国期刊中名列第7位。据悉,中国期刊影响因子超过1的仅有10种,其中8种期刊为英文版,2种期刊为中文版。2004年度ISI收录我国科技期刊的引证指标(影响因子前10名)序号期刊名称(英文)期刊…     

欢迎订阅《工业工程》杂志北大核心

《工业工程》杂志(Industrial Engineering Journal,简称IEJ),由广东工业大学主办,中国机械工程学会协办。本刊为全国高校优秀科技期刊、广东省优秀科技期刊。《工业工程》入编《中文核心期刊要目总览》2017年版(即第8版)之工业经济类核心期刊和2018年中国科技核心期刊(自然科学卷),是中国科技论文统计源期刊(中国科技核心期刊),被俄罗斯《文摘杂志》及英国《科学文摘》等十多家国内外权威数据库或文摘杂志收录。     

《合成树脂及塑料》2015年征订启事

<正>《合成树脂及塑料》创刊于1984年,经国家有关部门批准在国内外公开发行,由中国石化集团资产经营管理有限公司北京燕山石化分公司、橡塑新型材料合成国家工程研究中心联合主办,是我国仅有报道合成树脂研制、生产与加工应用全过程的专业科技期刊。本刊曾被评为第三届国家期刊奖百种重点期刊,为全国中文核心期刊、中国科技核心期刊、中国石化集团公司核心科技期刊,也是CA收录期刊,并被《中国期刊网》及《万方数据网》全文收录。本刊坚持面向科研、生产、企业和市场,宣传报道、推广我国合成树脂及塑料领域中的新技术、新成果;     

科技论文关键词使用小知识

正关键词是反映文章最主要内容的术语,对文献检索有重要作用。凡期刊文章的文献标识码为A、B、C三类者均应标注中文关键词,有英文摘要者应同时给出英文关键词。中、英文关键词应一一对应。一般每篇文章可选3~8个关键词,如有可能,尽量用《汉语主题词表》等词表提供的规范词;未被词表收录的新学科、新技术中的重要术语以及文章题名中的人名、地名也可以作为关键词标出。多个关键词应按词条外延层次     

Non-English journals and papers in physics and chemistry: bias in citations?

This study investigates, at the journal as well as the article level, if there is a difference in citations between English-language and non-English publications. The Web of Knowledge is used as data source. The investigation focuses on the fields of physics and chemistry. Using a precise definition of a “non-English journal”, we filter out nine physics and thirty-four chemistry non-English journals, scattered over six physics and seven chemistry subfields. Average received citations per paper (CpP) of the non-English journal(s) are compared with the CpP of pure English journals, and this in the same subfield. We clearly observe that non-English journals are inferior—in number of citations received—to pure English journals and this in all physics and chemistry subfields studied. Further, twelve physics journals and ten chemistry journals were chosen as sample journals to compare the CpP of non-English papers with that of English language papers in the same journal. The result of this comparison is that for the majority of these journals and for most of the publication years the CpP of non-English papers is lower than that of the English language papers. Finally, analyzing linguistic characteristics of the citing literature confirms the own-language preference in non-English physics and chemistry journals.     

Papers written by Nobel Prize winners in physics before they won the prize: an analysis of their language and journal of publication

In this paper, we analyzed data relating to the language of papers written by winners of Nobel Prizes in physics before they won the prize and their journals of publication, and we identified the change in scientific language corresponding with shifts of the center of the scientific world. Using the science citation index as the main data source, we also collected information on the distribution of prize-winning scientists by country, by each scientist’s number of published papers, and by language. We then analyzed their papers in terms of the different journals based in different countries. The results are presented in three parts: (1) the main languages used in the papers are English and German. The proportion of papers in English is gradually increasing, while that of papers in German is decreasing. (2) The prize winning scientists’ papers have been published mainly in journals in their own nation and in the United States. (3) Journals based in their own countries are very helpful to these scientists early in their careers.     

The business of being an editor: Norman Lockyer,Macmillan and Company,and the editorship of Nature, 1869–1919

Broadly speaking, Victorian scientific periodicals fell into one of two categories: specialist periodicals aimed at publishing original research for an audience of scientific researchers, or popularizing periodicals meant to share news about science with a broader readership. When astronomer Norman Lockyer founded Nature in 1869, he envisioned his new weekly as a member of the latter group. That vision resulted partly from his own wish to raise science's profile in Great Britain and partly from the interests of his publisher Macmillan and Company, which bankrolled Nature with its eye on eventual profit. This paper shows that the pressure for Nature to be a financial success shaped Lockyer's approach to editing and thus shaped Nature's content, leading the magazine to occupy an unusual space in the landscape of Victorian science publishing and placing unique burdens on its editor. Nature quickly moved away from Lockyer's initial vision of a popularizing magazine and became known as a periodical by and for researchers. The magazine's popularity among scientific researchers set it apart from its closest inspiration, the commercial weekly Chemical News. But in contrast to contemporary editors at learned society journals, such as George Gabriel Stokes at the Philosophical Transactions, Lockyer did not linger over the scientific details of Nature's papers. Instead, articles for Nature were usually either accepted or rejected immediately, with little editorial involvement shaping their scientific content. The difference between editing Nature and editing other research periodicals is clearly visible in the selection of Richard Gregory as Lockyer's successor in 1919. Most research periodicals selected eminent men of science as their editors-in-chief. Gregory, a science writer and long-time subeditor at Nature, did not lend scientific prestige to the masthead, but was eminently qualified to maintain Nature's distinctive content and its profitability for Macmillan and Company.     

Neophilia ranking of scientific journals

The ranking of scientific journals is important because of the signal it sends to scientists about what is considered most vital for scientific progress. Existing ranking systems focus on measuring the influence of a scientific paper (citations)—these rankings do not reward journals for publishing innovative work that builds on new ideas. We propose an alternative ranking based on the proclivity of journals to publish papers that build on new ideas, and we implement this ranking via a text-based analysis of all published biomedical papers dating back to 1946. In addition, we compare our neophilia ranking to citation-based (impact factor) rankings; this comparison shows that the two ranking approaches are distinct. Prior theoretical work suggests an active role for our neophilia index in science policy. Absent an explicit incentive to pursue novel science, scientists underinvest in innovative work because of a coordination problem: for work on a new idea to flourish, many scientists must decide to adopt it in their work. Rankings that are based purely on influence thus do not provide sufficient incentives for publishing innovative work. By contrast, adoption of the neophilia index as part of journal-ranking procedures by funding agencies and university administrators would provide an explicit incentive for journals to publish innovative work and thus help solve the coordination problem by increasing scientists’ incentives to pursue innovative work.     

Croatian scholarly productivity 1991–2005 measured by journals indexed in Web of Science

The purpose of the research was to establish and inform about the features of productivity across all scholarly fields measured through journals indexed in WoS in which Croatian authors working in Croatian institutions published since independence (1991) to 2005. Total 19,929 papers in 2,946 journals were found. Of these, 17,875 papers were published in 2,690 science, technology and medicine (STM) journals, 1,869 papers were published in 178 social science journals, and 185 were published in 78 A&H journals according to custom classification used in the research. Special attention was given to publishing features of specific scholarly fields. The number of different journals in which the papers were published per year has doubled in the period (from 404 in 1991 to 894 in 2005). To support additional insight, a distinction between national and international journals was made and top 10% journals according to JCR 2005 categories were identified by IF. National journals accounted for 15.9% of STM papers, 77.6% of social science papers and 25.9% of A&H papers. Top 10% journals accounted for a total of 368 journals and 2,336 papers with significant variations across the subfields.     

The growth of biophysical literature

The enormous growth of biophysical literature has created great difficulties in tracking out the significant literature of the subject. To cope with this unprecedented growth of literature, a new bibliometric technique has been applied to rank periodicals in the field based on 4228 citation data collected from the bibliographic data base published in the source journal namely,Annual Review of Biophysics. This list is expected to reflect the impact of literature on the advancement of knowledge in the field of biophysics. A striking feature of the ranking list is the high positions occupied by multidisciplinary science journals and biochemical journals as compared to journals exclusively and specifically devoted to biophysics or any particular aspects of it. Other remarkable findings are the wide scatter of biophysics literature; dominance of the USA journals and status attained by English as the preferred medium of communications of the working biophysicists. The data are also analysed according to subject categorization of the ranked periodicals. The results of the present study have been discussed in relation to Bradford's Law of Scattering and validity of the extension of the law, suggested earlier, has been well established. It is expected that the present ranking list will enable the working biophysicists to select journals from the viewpoint of their significance to the active areas of present-day biophysical research.     

Characteristics of papers published in journals: an analysis of open access journals,country of publication,and languages used

This study explores how the citation of open access (OA) journal articles occurs by analyzing the impact of certain journal characteristics, namely, whether the journal is OA and whether its country of publication is the same as the affiliation of a paper’s author. As the language of a paper is an important factor contributing to paper citations, this study uses papers in English. This analysis included publications from 77 countries from 2010 to 2012. This analysis included 19,530 journals and 3,215,742 papers without duplication. The results showed that papers published in OA and international journals were cited in more countries than non-OA and domestic journals, and a higher percentage of these were being cited by foreign countries. From these findings, it was determined that the more widely accessible OA journals were effectively being accessed by researchers from multiple countries. However, of the top 10% most cited papers in international journals, a higher percentage of these came from non-OA compared to OA journals. Among domestic journals, no such difference was found. Papers published in non-OA international journals were most cited in foreign countries with a large number of published papers. Hence, the effect of OA’s expanded accessibility, while having an apparent effect on heightening the interest of foreign readership, has a limited impact in terms of increasing citations.     

A bibliometric analysis of physics publications from Middle Eastern countries

I studied the publication efforts in physics in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey in terms of a total number of 2368 papers from these countries in international journals for 1990–1994. I looked for the national contributions, main subjects of activity, journal preferences of authors, and co-authorship patterns. Comparisons show that physicists from Egypt and Turkey combined, produced 75% of the total publication output. Half of the Egyptian papers went only to 16% of a set of 115 journals that publish papers from this country. Such a high concentration of papers in a few journals was not the case for the rest of the countries. Condensed matter physics was found to be among the three most active subjects for the countries except Iran. Iranian authors tended to be more active in astrosciences, and nuclear science and technology. I found a change in the publication patterns of the Middle Eastern physicists in the direction of decreasing isolation and increasing collaboration.     

Fish science research in China: How does it compare with fish research in India?

Fish and aquaculture research in the People's Republic of China over the six years 1994-1999 has been mapped using data from six databases– three abstracting services and three citation indexes. The results are compared with fish science research in India. During the six years China has published 2035 papers (roughly 4.5 –5% of the world output) and India 2454. More than 95% of China's papers are journal articles, compared to 82.8% of Indian papers. About 78% of China's journal paper output has appeared in 143 domestic journals compared to 70% from India in 113 Indian journals. Less than one-eighth of the journal articles published by Chinese researchers are published in journals indexed in SCI, compared to 30% of journal articles by Indian researchers. Less than a dozen papers from each of these countries have appeared in journals of impact factor greater than 3.0. Fish research institutes and fishery colleges are the major contributors of the Chinese research output in this area. In India academic institutions are the leading contributors (61%), followed by central government institutions (>25%). Qingdao, Wuhan, Beijing and Shanghai are the cities and Shandong, Hubei and Fujian are the provinces contributing a large number of papers. As we do not have addresses of all authors in most of the papers, we are unable to estimate the extent of international collaboration. Although China's research output and its citation impact are less than those of India, China's fish production and export earnings are far higher than those of India. Probably China is better at bridging the gap between knowhow (research) and do-how (technology and creation of employment and wealth). China is pretty strong in extension. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.