2000-2006年《中国应用生理学杂志》载文分析

目的:分析<中国应用生理学杂志>2000-2006年的载文特点,了解该刊的编辑质量和期刊论文的学术水平,为进一步办好刊物提供依据.方法:依据<中国期刊网全文期刊数据库>(CNKI)与手工检索,统计2000-2006年出版的<中国应用生理学杂志>所载论文的多项文献定量指标.结果:<中国应用生理学杂志>7年总载文量为968篇,期均篇数为34.6篇,篇均页数为3.1页.在栏目中,研究论文发文数量最多,占总发文量的66.22%.在引文统计中,含引文文章逐年增加,2004-2006年引文率为100%,英文引文条数很高,平均占76.52%.在文章时滞统计中,最长为510 d,最短为60 d,平均为196.5 d.在基金资助文章统计中,受资助级别越来越高,获资助篇数越来越多,最多是2005年,为97篇.在作者职称和学位统计中,作者的级别越来越高.在作者分布统计中,北京作者人数最多,有162人,占16.74%.结论:<中国应用生理学杂志>所载文献质量较高.该刊不仅是我国生理学研究领域最重要的信息源之一,也是我国医学领域的主要核心期刊.     

《中国微生态学杂志》2005年引文概况分析

利用引文分析方法,对本学科科技论文引用文献的被掌握及利用情况进行研究,了解期刊的自引率、他引率,影响程度,以及刊载论文的连续性、系统性和累积性,以便更好地办好期刊.为此,笔者对《中国微生态学杂志》2005年的文后引用文献进行了量化分析研究.     

1997—2009年《生命科学研究》载文、作者、基金资助论文和影响因子统计分析

对<生命科学研究)1997-2009年的载文、作者、基金支持论文和影响因子情况进行了统计分析,得出该刊13年来发展的一些规律,为进一步提高该刊的学术水平和影响力提供依据.利用维普(VIP)资讯系统(中文科技期刊数据库),采用文献计量法,分析<生命科学研究>1997-2009年的载文量、作者合作度、合作率、以及地域分布、基金支持、影响因子等指标和内容.13年共检出886篇文献,作者3 544人次,合作度为4,合著率为94.92%.作者分布在全国29个省、自治区和直辖市,高等医药院校作者最多.占作者总数的84.76%.13年<生命科学研究>共发表各类基金资助论文734篇.影响因子和总被引频次逐年提升.该刊因其著者整体学术水平高,在生命科学研究领域有较大的影响.已成为我国生命科学研究领域具有普遍的指导意义、影响深远的重要学术性期刊和中文核心期刊.     

2000～2005年《生物化学与生物物理进展》载文被引分析

依据美国《科学引文索引(扩展版)》(ScienceCitationIndexExpanded,SCIE)和期刊引证报告(JournalCitationReports,JCR),采用文献计量方法对2000～2005年《生物化学与生物物理进展》载文被引用情况进行统计分析及评价.该刊论文平均单篇被引次数为1.70次,被引作者分布于国内23个省(直辖市)和部分国外作者,北京、湖南和广东发表在《生物化学与生物物理进展》上的论文被引比率较高.在被引机构中来自中南大学湘雅医学院的论文被引频次最高.共有115种期刊引用《生物化学与生物物理进展》.     

《亚热带植物科学》2005～2009年载文与作者计量分析

以《亚热带植物科学》2005～2009年刊载的学术论文数据为样本,采用文献计量学方法,对其近五年的载文、作者、被引、出版时滞等数量指标进行统计分析。2005～2009年《亚热带植物科学》总载文量为463篇,期均发文23.2篇,每篇页数为3.60页。其中,基金资助论文数277篇,基金论文比为59.83%。研究报告是该刊重点栏目,论文篇数占载文量的71.92%,且比重正在加大。论文的出版时滞最长为400 d,最短20 d,平均170.6 d。对该刊论文作者的分析表明,作者合著率较高,为86.18%,但核心作者发文量不多,且其论文质量有待提高。为此,文章对今后编辑工作提出一些改善建议。     

《亚热带植物科学》2005—2009年载文与作者计量分析

以《亚热带植物科学》2005～2009年刊载的学术论文数据为样本,采用文献计量学方法,对其近五年的载文、作者、被引、出版时滞等数量指标进行统计分析。2005～2009年《亚热带植物科学》总载文量为463篇,期均发文23.2篇,每篇页数为3.60页。其中,基金资助论文数277篇,基金论文比为59.83%。研究报告是该刊重点栏目,论文篇数占载文量的71.92%,且比重正在加大。论文的出版时滞最长为400 d,最短20 d,平均170.6 d。对该刊论文作者的分析表明,作者合著率较高,为86.18%,但核心作者发文量不多,且其论文质量有待提高。为此,文章对今后编辑工作提出一些改善建议。     

1994年SCI“影响因子”较大的生物化学期刊

１９９４年ＳＣＩ“影响因子”较大的生物化学期刊毕家正（中国科学院上海文献情报中心,上海２０００３１）关键词生物化学期刊影响因子某种学术期刊质量的高低,一般均以这种期刊所刊用的论文被别种期刊上所载论文引用的频率来衡量。但是期刊的被引率往往受到各种因素的...     

4种生理类中文核心期刊载文与引文分析

目的:总结4种生理类中文核心期刊的办刊现状,分析本刊的不足,旨在更好的为读者服务.方法:利用文献计量学的方法,对4种生理类中文核心期刊进行载文和引文分析.结果:<中国应用生理学杂志>年载文量高于<生理学报>和<生理科学进展>,但低于<中国病理生理杂志>;2006年基金论文比为61.6% ,低于其他3种杂志;影响因子呈递增趋势,但仍低于其他3种杂志;期刊被引篇数和总被引频次与<生理学报>和<生理科学进展>基本持平,但低于<中国病理生理杂志>; 高频次被引文献所占比例为50%,高于其他3种杂志.结论:<中国应用生理学杂志>自创刊以来,取得了不少的成绩,同时也应看到与其他同类期刊相比在基金资助率和影响因子等方面存在的差距,还应争取进一步提高.     

《基因组学与应用生物学》入编北大《中文核心期刊要目总览》(2014版)

正据《中文核心期刊要目总览》2014年版编委会来信通知,《基因组学与应用生物学》入编《中文核心期刊要目总览》2014年版(即第七版)之生物科学类的核心期刊。至此,《基因组学与应用生物学》已连续入编三版《中文核心期刊要目总览》。《中文核心期刊要目总览》(2014版),定量评价指标体系采用了被索量、被摘量、被引量、他引量、被摘率、影响因子、他引影响因子、被重要检索系统收录、基金论文比、Web下载量、论文被引指数、互引指数等12个评价指标,选作评价指标统计源的数据库及文摘刊物达50余种,统计文献量达65亿余篇次,涉及期刊14728余种。参加了核心期刊     

《环境昆虫学报》2001-2010年载文被引统计分析

利用"中国学术期刊文献评价统计分析系统",对《环境昆虫学报》载文在2001～2010年所刊载论文的被引用情况进行统计分析。结果表明,在2001～2010年间《环境昆虫学报》10年共载文504篇,有343篇论文,被引率为68.06%;被引用1904次,篇均被引次数为5.55,单篇被引最高次数为40次;被引用5次以下的论文占63.57%;引证期刊262种,引用3次以下的期刊占74.81%。同时,对被引论文作者进行了系统分析,特别阐述了高被引论文的详细信息,从而提出从统计得出的高被引频次论文作者及研究热点着手,加强组稿,突出栏目特色,提高刊物对高质量论文的吸纳能力。     

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.     

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.     

From Excessive Journal Self-Cites to Citation Stacking: Analysis of Journal Self-Citation Kinetics in Search for Journals,Which Boost Their Scientometric Indicators

Bibliometric indicators increasingly affect careers, funding, and reputation of individuals, their institutions and journals themselves. In contrast to author self-citations, little is known about kinetics of journal self-citations. Here we hypothesized that they may show a generalizable pattern within particular research fields or across multiple fields. We thus analyzed self-cites to 60 journals from three research fields (multidisciplinary sciences, parasitology, and information science). We also hypothesized that the kinetics of journal self-citations and citations received from other journals of the same publisher may differ from foreign citations. We analyzed the journals published the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Nature Publishing Group, and Editura Academiei Române. We found that although the kinetics of journal self-cites is generally faster compared to foreign cites, it shows some field-specific characteristics. Particularly in information science journals, the initial increase in a share of journal self-citations during post-publication year 0 was completely absent. Self-promoting journal self-citations of top-tier journals have rather indirect but negligible direct effects on bibliometric indicators, affecting just the immediacy index and marginally increasing the impact factor itself as long as the affected journals are well established in their fields. In contrast, other forms of journal self-citations and citation stacking may severely affect the impact factor, or other citation-based indices. We identified here a network consisting of three Romanian physics journals Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A, Romanian Journal of Physics, and Romanian Reports in Physics, which displayed low to moderate ratio of journal self-citations, but which multiplied recently their impact factors, and were mutually responsible for 55.9%, 64.7% and 63.3% of citations within the impact factor calculation window to the three journals, respectively. They did not receive nearly any network self-cites prior impact factor calculation window, and their network self-cites decreased sharply after the impact factor calculation window. Journal self-citations and citation stacking requires increased attention and elimination from citation indices.     

Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar,Scopus and Web of Science

Background

Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged – Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each.

Methods

Eleven journal titles with varying impact factors were selected from each discipline (oncology and condensed matter physics) using the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). All articles published in the selected titles were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003, and a stratified random sample of articles was chosen, resulting in four sets of articles. During the week of November 7–12, 2005, the citation counts for each research article were extracted from the three sources. The actual citing references for a subset of the articles published in 2003 were also gathered from each of the three sources.

Results

For oncology 1993 Web of Science returned the highest average number of citations, 45.3. Scopus returned the highest average number of citations (8.9) for oncology 2003. Web of Science returned the highest number of citations for condensed matter physics 1993 and 2003 (22.5 and 3.9 respectively). The data showed a significant difference in the mean citation rates between all pairs of resources except between Google Scholar and Scopus for condensed matter physics 2003. For articles published in 2003 Google Scholar returned the largest amount of unique citing material for oncology and Web of Science returned the most for condensed matter physics.

Conclusion

This study did not identify any one of these three resources as the answer to all citation tracking needs. Scopus showed strength in providing citing literature for current (2003) oncology articles, while Web of Science produced more citing material for 2003 and 1993 condensed matter physics, and 1993 oncology articles. All three tools returned some unique material. Our data indicate that the question of which tool provides the most complete set of citing literature may depend on the subject and publication year of a given article.

     

Is There a Relationship between Research Sponsorship and Publication Impact? An Analysis of Funding Acknowledgments in Nanotechnology Papers

This study analyzes funding acknowledgments in scientific papers to investigate relationships between research sponsorship and publication impacts. We identify acknowledgments to research sponsors for nanotechnology papers published in the Web of Science during a one-year sample period. We examine the citations accrued by these papers and the journal impact factors of their publication titles. The results show that publications from grant sponsored research exhibit higher impacts in terms of both journal ranking and citation counts than research that is not grant sponsored. We discuss the method and models used, and the insights provided by this approach as well as it limitations.     

An increasing citation black hole in ecology and evolution

Citations published in online supplementary material (OSM) are invisible to search engines used to calculate citation counts, potentially negatively impacting popular performance indices and journal rankings that rely on citation counts for quantification. To quantify the number of citations that are “lost” in OSM, we conducted a systematic survey of supplementary citation practices in four high‐ranking, society‐run journals from two geographical locations (Europe and North America). In 2012, 6% of all citations were only included in the OSM and were therefore not included in citation counts. We found a significant increase in the number of references invisible to citation counting services over the last two decades. A solution to this problem is urgently required and could include journal indexing of citations in OSM or the inclusion of all references in the main text.     

Citation Classics in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Who Wrote the Top 100 Most Cited Articles?

Background

Systematic reviews of the literature occupy the highest position in currently proposed hierarchies of evidence. The aims of this study were to assess whether citation classics exist in published systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM), examine the characteristics of the most frequently cited SRM articles, and evaluate the contribution of different world regions.

Methods

The 100 most cited SRM were identified in October 2012 using the Science Citation Index database of the Institute for Scientific Information. Data were extracted by one author. Spearman’s correlation was used to assess the association between years since publication, numbers of authors, article length, journal impact factor, and average citations per year.

Results

Among the 100 citation classics, published between 1977 and 2008, the most cited article received 7308 citations and the least-cited 675 citations. The average citations per year ranged from 27.8 to 401.6. First authors from the USA produced the highest number of citation classics (n=46), followed by the UK (n=28) and Canada (n=15). The 100 articles were published in 42 journals led by the Journal of the American Medical Association (n=18), followed by the British Medical Journal (n=14) and The Lancet (n=13). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between number of authors (Spearman’s rho=0.320, p=0.001), journal impact factor (rho=0.240, p=0.016) and average citations per year. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between average citations per year and year since publication (rho = -0.636, p=0.0001). The most cited papers identified seminal contributions and originators of landmark methodological aspects of SRM and reflect major advances in the management of and predisposing factors for chronic diseases.

Conclusions

Since the late 1970s, the USA, UK, and Canada have taken leadership in the production of citation classic papers. No first author from low or middle-income countries (LMIC) led one of the most cited 100 SRM.     

Fifty-Year Fate and Impact of General Medical Journals

Background

Influential medical journals shape medical science and practice and their prestige is usually appraised by citation impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor. However, how permanent are medical journals and how stable is their impact over time?

Methods and Results

We evaluated what happened to general medical journals that were publishing papers half a century ago, in 1959. Data were retrieved from ISI Web of Science for citations and PubMed (Journals function) for journal history. Of 27 eligible journals publishing in 1959, 4 have stopped circulation (including two of the most prestigious journals in 1959) and another 7 changed name between 1959 and 2009. Only 6 of these 27 journals have been published continuously with their initial name since they started circulation. The citation impact of papers published in 1959 gives a very different picture from the current journal impact factor; the correlation between the two is non-significant and very close to zero. Only 13 of the 5,223 papers published in 1959 received at least 5 citations in 2009.

Conclusions

Journals are more permanent entities than single papers, but they are also subject to major change and their relative prominence can change markedly over time.     

中国生态学期刊现状分析

通过对我国12种主要生态学期刊的出版指标、引用指标和网络传播能力的现状分析,得出《生态学报》、《应用生态学报》、《植物生态学报》和《生态学杂志》已经成为我国生态学期刊的第一方阵,出版能力和引用表现都要优于其他期刊,但是期刊特色不明显。生态学期刊已经不能满足生态学快速发展的需要,应该有新的期刊来承载新生分支学科的内容,同时生态学期刊需要进一步加强网络传播能力的建设。最重要的是生态学期刊应该从散落在其他学科的状态中聚集起来形成生态学期刊集群。