Measuring the citation impact of research journals in clinical neurology: A structural equation modelling analysis

This study develops and tests an integrated conceptual model of journal evaluation from varying perspectives of citation analysis. The main objective is to obtain a more complete understanding of the external factors affecting journal citation impact; that is, a theoretical construct measured by a number of citation indicators. Structural equation modelling (SEM) with partial least squares (PLS) is used to test the conceptual model with empirical data from journals in clinical neurology. Interrelationships among journal citation impact and four external factors (journal characteristics, journal accessibility, journal visibility and journal internationality) have been successfully explored, and the conceptual model of journal evaluation has been examined. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Gaining scientific recognition by position: Does editorship increase citation rates?

We investigated three rival hypotheses concerning scientific communication and recognition: the performance hypothesis and two alternative assumptions, the reputation hypothesis and the resource hypothesis. The performance hypothesis reflects the norm of universalism in the sense given byMerton, the reputation hypothesis predicts a Matthew Effect (scientists receive communications and recognition on the basis of their reputation), and the resource hypothesis assumes that communication with other scientitis is used as a form of asset to defend one's own research results. Using bibliometric methods, we assessed whether assuming an important scientific position enhances scientific impact and prestige. Specifically, we explored whether a person's assumption of editorship responsibilities of a psychology journal increases the frequency with which that person is cited in theSocial Sciences Citation Index. The data base consisted of ten psychology journals, seven premier American and three German journals, covering the years 1981 to 1995. Citation rates for the years prior to, during, and following periods of editorship were compared for three groups: editors cited in the journal they edited, editors cited in a journal they did not edit, and non-editors. The results showed that during their editorship, editors showed an increased citation rate in the journal edited; this result was found for American journals, but not for German journals. These findings indicate that, for American journals, assuming editorship responsibilities for a major psychology journal increases one's scientific impact, at least as reflected by a measure of citation rate. A careful examination of ages of the non-editors' citations reveals that the post-editorship citation rates of editors and comparable non-editors do not differ significantly. The reputation hypothesis (Matthew Effect) is therefore preferred for interpreting the results, because it shows the cumulative nature of prestige-oriented citations. The results contradict the convention of using citation rates as pure performance measures.     

Validation of bibliometric indicators in the field of mathematics

Bibliometric analyses of scientific publications provide quantitative information that enables evaluators to obtain a useful picture of a team's research visibility. In combination with peer judgements and other qualitative background knowledge, these analyses can serve as a basis for discussions about research performance quality. However, many mathematicians are not convinced that citation counts do in fact provide useful information in the field of mathematics. According to these mathematicians, citation and publication habits differ completely from scholarly fields such as chemistry or physics. Therefore, it is impossible to derive valid information regarding research performance from citation counts. The aim of this study is to obtain more insight into the significance of citation-based indicators in the field of mathematics. To which extent do citation-scores mirror to the opinions of experts concerning the quality of a paper or a journal? A survey was conducted to answer this question.Top journals, as qualified by experts, receive significantly higher citation rates thangood journals. Thesegood journals, in turn, have significantly higher scores than journals with the qualificationless good. Top publications, recorded in the ISI database, receive on the average 15 times more citations than the mean score within the field of mathematics as a whole. In conclusion, the experts' views on top publications or top journals correspond very well to bibliometric indicators based on citation counts.     

Field normalized citation rates, field normalized journal impact and Norwegian weights for allocation of university research funds

We compared three different bibliometric evaluation approaches: two citation-based approaches and one based on manual classification of publishing channels into quality levels. Publication data for two universities was used, and we worked with two levels of analysis: article and department. For the article level, we investigated the predictive power of field normalized citation rates and field normalized journal impact with respect to journal level. The results for the article level show that evaluation of journals based on citation impact correlate rather well with manual classification of journals into quality levels. However, the prediction from field normalized citation rates to journal level was only marginally better than random guessing. At the department level, we studied three different indicators in the context of research fund allocation within universities and the extent to which the three indicators produce different distributions of research funds. It turned out that the three distributions of relative indicator values were very similar, which in turn yields that the corresponding distributions of hypothetical research funds would be very similar.     

An approach to improve the indicator weights of scientific and technological competitiveness evaluation of Chinese universities

As indicator weights obtaining is often difficult in all types of evaluation, this paper describes an approach to improve the indicator weights of scientific and technological competitiveness evaluation of Chinese universities. As a public institution funded by Chinese government, the research center for Chinese science evaluation of Wuhan University has completed five annual evaluations for the scientific and technological competitiveness of Chinese universities since 2005, whose abundant and reliable data motivated us to try to improve the weights obtained by the AHP (analytical hierarchy process). Based on these data, we calculated the objective weights of the indicator using the representative mathematical methods of the least square and the variation coefficient. As the weights of AHP can be influenced by the knowledge, experience and preference of experts and the calculated objective weights neglect the subjective judgement information, we integrated the subjective and objective weights by respectively using the additive and multiplicative model to reflect both the subjective considerations of experts and the objective information, and obtained three kinds of integrative weights. Finally, we selected the integrative weights of multiplicative model as the best weights by comparing and analyzing the evaluation results in 2005 and 2009 of each kind of weights. The results show that the evaluation effect of the weights of multiplicative model is indeed the best for all types of Chinese universities among these kinds of weights, and the experts and university principals enquired also basically reached a consensus on the university rankings of the integrative weights of multiplicative model.     

Researchers" and users" perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals

Journal citation impact factors, which are frequently used as a surrogate measure of research quality, do not correlate well with UK researchers" subjective views of the relative importance of journals as media for communicating important biomedical research results. The correlation varies with the sub-field: it is almost zero in nursing research but is moderate in more “scientific” sub-fields such as multiple sclerosis research, characterised by many authors per paper and appreciable foreign co-authorship. If research evaluation is to be based on journal-specific indicators, then these must cover different aspects of the process whereby research impacts on other researchers and on healthcare improvement. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The journal download immediacy index (DII): experiences using a Chinese full-text database

Relationships between the journal download immediacy index (DII) and some citation indicators are studied. The Chinese full-text database CNKI is used for data collection. Results suggest that the DII can be considered as an independent indicator, but that it also has predictive value for other indicators, such as a journal’s h-index. In case a journal cannot yet have an impact factor—because its citation history within the database is too short—the DII can be used for a preliminary evaluation. The article provides results related to the CNKI database as a whole and additionally, some detailed information about agricultural and forestry journals.     

The use of bibliometric techniques for institutional research evaluation: A study of avian virology research

A bibliometric analysis was made of an area of veterinary research, avian virology, in the context of seeking quantitative indicators to assist research evaluation for the UK Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC). In one approach, a list was made of world publications in avian virology using the CAB database which is the most appropriate literature source in terms of subject specificity and breadth of coverage. Means were sought to minimise the labour input required for citation studies of this kind; results based on peak-year citations only were similar to those from the more widely used four-year count, in terms of country-ranking and time trends. In the second method, the publication outputs of several avian virology research groups were assessed in terms of expected citations i.e. the average number of citations per paper received by the journals in which the groups published, as compared to the actual citations received. The rankings of the groups were the same in both methods. This second approach, while giving only approximate citation rates, has the advantage of requiring only in-house data. It seems more appropriate for the ex-post evaluation of the output of research groups in the context of agricultural and food research, and it is suggested that further studies on journal-based indicators are warranted.     

Research on impact evaluation of open access journals

Scientometrics - Impact evaluation of open access journals represent how citation indicator and open metric indicators may be affected by open access. Citation indicators and open metric indicators...     

Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)

Characterizing the structure of knowledge, the evolution of research topics, and the emergence of topics has always been an important part of information science (IS). Our previous scientometric review of IS provided a snapshot of this fast-growing field up to the end of 2008. This new study aims to identify emerging trends and new developments appearing in the subsequent 7574 articles published in 10 IS journals between 2009 and 2016, including 20,960 references. The results of a document co-citation analysis show great changes in the research topics in the IS domain. The positions of certain core topics found in the previous study, namely, information retrieval, webometrics, and citation behavior, have been replaced by scientometric indicators (H-index), citation analysis (citation performance and bibliometrics), scientific collaboration, and information behavior in the most recent period of 2009–2016. Dual-map overlays of journals show that the knowledge base of IS research has shifted considerably since 2010, with emerging topics including scientific evaluation indicators, altmetrics, science mapping and visualization, bibliometrics, citation analysis, and scientific collaboration.     

Source normalized indicators of citation impact: an overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison

Different scientific fields have different citation practices. Citation-based bibliometric indicators need to normalize for such differences between fields in order to allow for meaningful between-field comparisons of citation impact. Traditionally, normalization for field differences has usually been done based on a field classification system. In this approach, each publication belongs to one or more fields and the citation impact of a publication is calculated relative to the other publications in the same field. Recently, the idea of source normalization was introduced, which offers an alternative approach to normalize for field differences. In this approach, normalization is done by looking at the referencing behavior of citing publications or citing journals. In this paper, we provide an overview of a number of source normalization approaches and we empirically compare these approaches with a traditional normalization approach based on a field classification system. We also pay attention to the issue of the selection of the journals to be included in a normalization for field differences. Our analysis indicates a number of problems of the traditional classification-system-based normalization approach, suggesting that source normalization approaches may yield more accurate results.     

Indices of journal citation relatedness and citation relationships among aquatic biology journals

Simple quantitative indices of pair-wise journal citation relatedness (based on the numbers of references given to and received from a journal title, which are provided by Science Citation Index database) are translated by an automatic clustering procedure into a meaningful map diagram reflecting topical relatedness of journals within a field of science. Such a map for 60 journals in marine and freshwater biology and related sciences published in 1987 reveals a tight cluster of marine biology journals quite distinct from the freshwater biology journal cluster and from the fisheries cluster. The journals within the marine biology cluster and those with strongest pair-wise links with them can be regarded as the core journals in marine biology. Indices of unilateral citation relatedness are used to obtain diagrams, which we term citograms. The citograms visualize patterns of citation relatedness of a journal (its citing and being cited). Journal self-citation can be meaningfully estimated using the bilateral index of relatedness. Self-citation is high in specialized or regional journal titles. It also appears to be quite substantial in journals of broader scope, which possibly reflect authors' subjective preferences.     

技术特征优先度评估的组合赋权法简

 研究利用质量功能配置进行产品规划时确定技术特征优先度的问题,提出先分别利用质量屋中主观和客观信息进行赋权计算、再加权集成的组合赋权法.主观赋权中,考虑多名决策者参加多粒度多语义的情况,使用语言加权平均算子与语言混和集成算子集结群体评估信息,体现数据本身及其所在位置的重要性;客观赋权中,以区间数形式表示无法明确的技术特征值,将含有区间数的技术竞争性数据转化为目标相离度矩阵,然后使用熵值法赋权.综合集成结果既反映了专家的经验判断,又反映了对现实数据的逻辑推理,实现了主观和客观的协调统一.     

Citation ranking versus expert judgment in evaluating communication scholars: Effects of research specialty size and individual prominence

Numerous attempts have been made to validate the use of citation as an evaluation method by comparing it with peer review. Unlike past studies using journals, research articles or universities as the subject matter, the present study extends the comparison to the ranking of individual scholars. Results show that citation ranking and expert judgment of communication scholars are highly correlated. The citation method and the expert judgment method are found to work better in smaller research areas and yield more valid evaluation results for more prominent scholars.     

竞品车急加速进气噪声品质评价方法研究

从主客观评价角度出发,针对竞品车急加速进气噪声建立了声品质物理评价模型.通过测试竞品车急加速进气噪声,对获取的声音样本采用等级评分法进行主观评价与典型声品质客观参量的计算.利用相关分析与主成分分析对获取的主客观指标的关联性进行研究,并分别以相关分析和主成分分析结果为输入建立反向传播(Back Propagation,B...     

Determining the core of journals of a research centre: The example of researchers from the Department of Rural Economy and Sociology of the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique,France

This paper analyses the determination of visibility of journals in which researchers of INRA (National Institute for Agricultural Research) publish. The corpus is comprised of 671 articles published over a period of four years in 258 journals. The advantage of the method applied for determining the visibility of journals is that it combines two approaches: a) bibliometric indicators (coverage by the ISI-publications and by two specific French databases) and b) experts' opinions (10 economists and sociologists). The main results are: a) There is a convergence between the opinion of the experts and «visibility» in the databases, b) The impact factor confirms the main opinions of the experts. The first journals ranked by the experts and JCR Social Sciences are the same but represent only 40 per cent of the total journals analysed. The other journals were revealed by the experts and French databases.«Whoever seeks to pass a balanced but lucid judgement on the general trends of the activity carried out by the profession to which he belongs, is liable to say either banalities or to hurt his colleagues»The notion which we retain of core is that which is successively and conjointly validated by the experts and by the major databases representative of the field.This study was financed by the Department of Rural Economy and Sociology of INRA.     

The effect of citations on the significance of decimal places in the computation of journal impact factors

Journal impact factors (JIF) are computed by Thomson Reuters to three decimal places. Some authors have cast doubt on the validity of the third decimal place in JIFs. In this paper I present a new approach to evaluate the significance of decimal places in JIFs. To do so, two modified JIFs were computed by adding or removing one citation to the number used by Thomson Reuters to compute the JIF for journals listed in the 2008 Journal Citation Report. The rationale is that one citation is the minimum amount of impact that can be observed and analyzed. Next, the modified JIFs were compared with the original JIF to identify the decimal place that changed as consequence of adding or removing one citation. The results suggest that for about two-third of journals, the number of places used by Thomson Reuters to compute JIFs can be considered appropriate for the most part.     

基于美学质量评价的条件生成对抗网络线稿图像彩色化方法

目的 为了更好地实现包装设计中符合用户美学感知需求的动漫图像元素,生成美感更高的彩色线稿图像,提出一种基于美学质量评价的条件生成对抗网络线稿图像彩色化方法(Conditional Image Colorization with Image Aesthetics GANs,IM-GAN).方法 采用Mish函数作为生成模型激活函数,并使用美学质量评价优化生成模型损失函数,实现线稿图像的自动彩色化任务.结果 使用图像美学质量评分作为客观评价指标,观察者打分作为主观评价指标,对算法进行评价.IM-GAN生成的彩色图像具有更高美学质量评分和主观打分.结论 文中方法能够完成线稿图像自动彩色化任务,在包装设计动漫形象应用方面具有一定的参考和使用价值.     

基于AHP-熵权法的电火花线切割机床设计

目的 为了研究并解决电火花线切割机床在设计中存在的问题,反映技术人员对机床设计的满意度。方法 通过AHP和熵权法对评价指标赋权,搭建模糊评价模型;通过调研和专家意见,从技术人员物理尺度、安全性、功能与操作、美学和操作人员期望等5个层面建立评价指标体系;运用AHP层次分析法进行主观权重分析,通过熵权法对指标进行客观权重分析,最后通过模糊综合评价法对设计满意度进行评价。结果 以机床操作人员的需求为基础,通过对专家和技术人员调研数据的分析,设计了较为完善的电火花线切割机床。结论 AHP-熵权法较大程度地保留了技术人员的客观评价和行业专家的主观判断,体现了主客观相结合赋权的科学性。评价模型为机床外观设计的改进提供了理论依据和量化指标,同时对提升技术人员操作满意度具有重要作用。     

基于AHP-CRITIC-TOPSIS的智能养老辅助产品设计研究

目的 针对目前智能养老辅助产品研究优选过程中,权重计算时主观权重信息占比过大的问题,将主客观权重与逼近理想解的排序方法相结合,运用于产品评价和优选体系,进行科学有效性排序。方法 首先,运用德尔菲法、调查问卷等方法,整理出老年人对智能辅助产品的需求,提出设计评价指标;其次,运用层次分析法(AHP)计算出主观权重,运用客观赋权法(CRITIC)计算出客观权重。进一步用公式将主、客观权重进行组合,计算出各指标的组合权重;最后,结合逼近理想解的排序方法(TOPSIS)对设计方案进行优选。以三种老年智能助行器设计方案为例,详解框架及流程。结果 实践证明,智能养老辅助产品评价体系准则层中功能需求最重要,在要素层中操作简易、群体互动和多样附属功能是评价智能辅助产品的重要指标。根据指标计算出三种方案相对贴近度,贴近度最高的方案二为最佳方案。结论 所分析的产品评价体系、提出的设计策略和方案比选方法可以为智能养老辅助产品设计提供参考。事实证明,综合运用AHP、CRITIC、TOPSIS方法的老年助行器设计方法优选模型更科学,多维数据下结合主客观权重方法得到的综合权重值更加合理,更能证明设计的针对性和有效性。