论文引用率影响因素——中外生态学期刊比较

本文选择8种有代表性中外生态学期刊,对其一定发表周期内的论文引用率进行分析,探讨生态学论文引用率的影响因素及中外生态学期刊的差异.结果表明：4种英文期刊的年均被引次数均远大于4种中文期刊;英文期刊1位作者的论文数量百分比相对较高;所有期刊的合著论文比例均较高,体现了合作性在现代生态学研究中的重要性;论文作者数量与引用率之间有一定的正相关关系,但不显著;英文期刊论文的长度显著高于中文论文;随着论文长度的增加,年均被引次数增多.对中外期刊论文的引用率变化动态进行分析表明,英文期刊中总被引次数高的论文其增长速率也较快,表明其持续影响力强于中文生态学论文.我们希望这些结果会对生态学者以及相关期刊工作者有所裨益.     

Data archiving in ecology and evolution: best practices

Many ecology and evolution journals have recently adopted policies requiring that data from their papers be publicly archived. I present suggestions on how data generators, data re-users, and journals can maximize the fairness and scientific value of data archiving. Data should be archived with enough clarity and supporting information that they can be accurately interpreted by others. Re-users should respect their intellectual debt to the originators of data through citation both of the paper and of the data package. In addition, journals should consider requiring that all data for published papers be archived, just as DNA sequences must be deposited in GenBank. Data are another valuable part of the legacy of a scientific career and archiving them can lead to new scientific insights. Archiving also increases opportunities for credit to be given to the scientists who originally collected the data.     

Dissemination biases in ecology: effect sizes matter more than quality

Publication and citation decisions in ecology are likely influenced by many factors, potentially including journal impact factors, direction and magnitude of reported effects, and year of publication. Dissemination bias exists when publication or citation of a study depends on any of these factors. We defined several dissemination biases and determined their prevalence across many sub‐disciplines in ecology, then determined whether or not data quality also affected these biases. We identified dissemination biases in ecology by conducting a meta‐analysis of citation trends for 3867 studies included in 52 meta‐analyses. We correlated effect size, year of publication, impact factor and citation rate within each meta‐analysis. In addition, we explored how data quality as defined in meta‐analyses (sample size or variance) influenced each form of bias. We also explored how the direction of the predicted or observed effect, and the research field, influenced any biases. Year of publication did not influence citation rates. The first papers published in an area reported the strongest effects, and high impact factor journals published the most extreme effects. Effect size was more important than data quality for many publication and citation trends. Dissemination biases appear common in ecology, and although their magnitude was generally small many were associated with theory tenacity, evidenced as tendencies to cite papers that most strongly support our ideas. The consequences of this behavior are amplified by the fact that papers reporting strong effects were often of lower data quality than papers reporting much weaker effects. Furthermore, high impact factor journals published the strongest effects, generally in the absence of any correlation with data quality. Increasing awareness of the prevalence of theory tenacity, confirmation bias, and the inattention to data quality among ecologists is a first step towards reducing the impact of these biases on research in our field.     

Incorrect Citations Give Unfair Credit to Review Authors in Ecology Journals

The number of citations that papers receive has become significant in measuring researchers'' scientific productivity, and such measurements are important when one seeks career opportunities and research funding. Skewed citation practices can thus have profound effects on academic careers. We investigated (i) how frequently authors misinterpret original information and (ii) how frequently authors inappropriately cite reviews instead of the articles upon which the reviews are based. To reach this aim, we carried a survey of ecology journals indexed in the Web of Science and assessed the appropriateness of citations of review papers. Reviews were significantly more often cited than regular articles. In addition, 22% of citations were inaccurate, and another 15% unfairly gave credit to the review authors for other scientists'' ideas. These practices should be stopped, mainly through more open discussion among mentors, researchers and students.     

What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers?

Citation frequencies of scientific articles are increasingly used for academic evaluation in various disciplines, including ecology. However, the factors affecting citation rates have not been extensively studied. Here, we examine the association between the citation frequency of ecological articles and various characteristics of journals, articles and authors. Our analysis shows that the annual citation rates of ecological papers are affected by the direction of the study outcome with respect to the hypothesis tested (supportive versus unsupportive evidence), by article length, by the number of authors, and by their country and university of affiliation. These results cast doubt on the validity of using citation counts as an objective and unbiased tool for academic evaluation in ecology.     

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors

Double-blind peer review, in which neither author nor reviewer identity are revealed, is rarely practised in ecology or evolution journals. However, in 2001, double-blind review was introduced by the journal Behavioral Ecology. Following this policy change, there was a significant increase in female first-authored papers, a pattern not observed in a very similar journal that provides reviewers with author information. No negative effects could be identified, suggesting that double-blind review should be considered by other journals.     

A reverse engineering approach to the suppression of citation biases reveals universal properties of citation distributions

The large amount of information contained in bibliographic databases has recently boosted the use of citations, and other indicators based on citation numbers, as tools for the quantitative assessment of scientific research. Citations counts are often interpreted as proxies for the scientific influence of papers, journals, scholars, and institutions. However, a rigorous and scientifically grounded methodology for a correct use of citation counts is still missing. In particular, cross-disciplinary comparisons in terms of raw citation counts systematically favors scientific disciplines with higher citation and publication rates. Here we perform an exhaustive study of the citation patterns of millions of papers, and derive a simple transformation of citation counts able to suppress the disproportionate citation counts among scientific domains. We find that the transformation is well described by a power-law function, and that the parameter values of the transformation are typical features of each scientific discipline. Universal properties of citation patterns descend therefore from the fact that citation distributions for papers in a specific field are all part of the same family of univariate distributions.     

SP-index: The measure of the scientific production of researchers

Ability to assess how solidly one is participating in their research arena is a metric that is of interest to many persons in academia. Such assessment is not easily defined, and differences exist in terms of which metric is the most accurate. In reality, no single production metric exists that is easy to determine and acceptable by the entire scientific community. Here we propose the SP-index to quantify the scientific production of researchers, representing the product of the annual citation number by the accumulated impact factors of the journals whereby the papers appeared, divided by the annual number of published papers. This article discusses such a productivity measure and lends support for the development of unified citation metrics for use by all participating in science research or teaching.     

Content Factor: A Measure of a Journal's Contribution to Knowledge

Impact Factor, the pre-eminent performance metric for medical journals, has been criticized for failing to capture the true impact of articles; for favoring methodology papers; for being unduly influenced by statistical outliers; and for examining a period of time too short to capture an article's long-term importance. Also, in the era of search engines, where readers need not skim through journals to find information, Impact Factor's emphasis on citation efficiency may be misplaced. A better metric would consider the total number of citations to all papers published by the journal (not just the recent ones), and would not be decremented by the total number of papers published. We propose a metric embodying these principles, "Content Factor", and examine its performance among leading medical and orthopaedic surgery journals. To remedy Impact Factor's emphasis on recent citations, Content Factor considers the total number of citations, regardless of the year in which the cited paper was published. To correct for Impact Factor's emphasis on efficiency, no denominator is employed. Content Factor is thus the total number of citations in a given year to all of the papers previously published in the journal. We found that Content Factor and Impact Factor are poorly correlated. We further surveyed 75 experienced orthopaedic authors and measured their perceptions of the "importance" of various orthopaedic surgery journals. The correlation between the importance score and the Impact Factor was only 0.08; the correlation between the importance score and Content Factor was 0.56. Accordingly, Content Factor better reflects a journal's "importance". In sum, while Content Factor cannot be defended as the lone metric of merit, to the extent that performance data informs journal evaluations, Content Factor- an easily obtained and intuitively appealing metric of the journal's knowledge contribution, not subject to gaming- can be a useful adjunct.     

Terrestrial ecologists ignore aquatic literature: Asymmetry in citation breadth in ecological publications and implications for generality and progress in ecology

The search for generality in ecology should include assessing the influence of studies done in one system on those done in other systems. Assuming generality is reflected in citation patterns, we analyzed frequencies of terrestrial, marine, and freshwater citations in papers categorized as terrestrial, marine and freshwater in high-impact “general” ecological journals. Citation frequencies were strikingly asymmetric. Aquatic researchers cited terrestrial papers ~ 10 times more often than the reverse, implying uneven cross-fertilization of information between aquatic and terrestrial ecologists. Comparisons between citation frequencies in the early 1980s and the early 2000s for two of the seven journals yielded similar results. Summing across all journals, 60% of all research papers (n = 5824) published in these journals in 2002–2006 were terrestrial vs. 9% freshwater and 8% marine. Since total numbers of terrestrial and aquatic ecologists are more similar than these proportions suggest, the representation of publications by habitat in “general” ecological journals appears disproportional and unrepresentative of the ecological science community at large. Such asymmetries are a concern because (1) aquatic and terrestrial systems can be tightly integrated, (2) pressure for across-system understanding to meet the challenge of climate change is increasing, (3) citation asymmetry implies barriers to among-system flow of understanding, thus (4) impeding scientific and societal progress. Changing this imbalance likely depends on a bottom-up approach originating from the ecological community, through pressure on societies, journals, editors and reviewers.     

The feature of papers and citation analysis of eleven journals in tropical medicine indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded

To determine the features of papers, authors, and citation of eleven journals in tropical medicine indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded, the database of the Institute for Scientific Information, we analyzed original articles, editorials, reviews, corrections, letters, biographies, and news published in these journals. The results show that these journals covered 107 countries or regions on six continents. The average number of reference was 23.05, with 87.89% of the references from periodicals. The Price Index was 31.43% and the self-citing rate was 7.02%. The references in the first 20 journals ranked by the amount of citation accounted for 36.71% of the total citations. Brazil, United States, India, and England are more advanced in tropical medicine research. The conclusion is that these journals covered most research done in these countries or regions. Most researches were done by cooperation of the researchers, but many of the publications used outdated articles and should include newer information.     

Characterizing and modeling citation dynamics

Citation distributions are crucial for the analysis and modeling of the activity of scientists. We investigated bibliometric data of papers published in journals of the American Physical Society, searching for the type of function which best describes the observed citation distributions. We used the goodness of fit with Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics for three classes of functions: log-normal, simple power law and shifted power law. The shifted power law turns out to be the most reliable hypothesis for all citation networks we derived, which correspond to different time spans. We find that citation dynamics is characterized by bursts, usually occurring within a few years since publication of a paper, and the burst size spans several orders of magnitude. We also investigated the microscopic mechanisms for the evolution of citation networks, by proposing a linear preferential attachment with time dependent initial attractiveness. The model successfully reproduces the empirical citation distributions and accounts for the presence of citation bursts as well.     

A call for more transparent reporting of error rates: the quality of AFLP data in ecological and evolutionary research

Despite much discussion of the importance of quantifying and reporting genotyping error in molecular studies, it is still not standard practice in the literature. This is particularly a concern for amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) studies, where differences in laboratory, peak‐calling and locus‐selection protocols can generate data sets varying widely in genotyping error rate, the number of loci used and potentially estimates of genetic diversity or differentiation. In our experience, papers rarely provide adequate information on AFLP reproducibility, making meaningful comparisons among studies difficult. To quantify the extent of this problem, we reviewed the current molecular ecology literature (470 recent AFLP articles) to determine the proportion of studies that report an error rate and follow established guidelines for assessing error. Fifty‐four per cent of recent articles do not report any assessment of data set reproducibility. Of those studies that do claim to have assessed reproducibility, the majority (~90%) either do not report a specific error rate or do not provide sufficient details to allow the reader to judge whether error was assessed correctly. Even of the papers that do report an error rate and provide details, many (≥23%) do not follow recommended standards for quantifying error. These issues also exist for other marker types such as microsatellites, and next‐generation sequencing techniques, particularly those which use restriction enzymes for fragment generation. Therefore, we urge all researchers conducting genotyping studies to estimate and more transparently report genotyping error using existing guidelines and encourage journals to enforce stricter standards for the publication of genotyping studies.