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。     

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.     

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.     

努力打造一流学术期刊,积极推动植物科学发展——庆祝《广西植物》创刊40周年

在庆祝《广西植物》创刊40周年之际,回顾了《广西植物》的发展历程,可分为4个阶段:初创内部刊物,萌芽起步; 国内外公开发行,期刊影响力提升; 抓住机遇,实现期刊跨越式发展; 打造期刊品牌特色,以特色栏目带动期刊整体发展。以创刊以来发表的学术论文为研究对象,基于中国知网和CNKI中国引文数据库的数据,使用引证分析法,从发文信息量、报道对象、稿源及作者队伍特点、论文资助项目、被国内期刊引用情况、发表文章下载量等方面分析了期刊的学术影响力。总结了期刊在以下方面所取得的成绩:发现人才和培养人才,为人才的成长提供优良平台; 期刊评价的各项指标提升,期刊影响力扩大; 围绕国家战略和重大社会需求,策划研究热点,打造学科特色栏目; 扩大作者群和读者群,加强编委会建设等。展望未来,面临巨大挑战。对此,笔者提出以下设想:第一,围绕创新型国家和科技强国建设任务,提升期刊的学术引领能力和品牌影响力; 第二,聚焦国家重大战略需求,围绕重大主题打造重点专栏、组织专题和专刊,服务经济社会发展主战场。第三,顺应媒体融合发展趋势,适应移动化、智能化的发展方向,探索全媒体出版等新型出版模式,加快期刊融合发展。第四,适度增加国际编委比例,提供论文英文长摘要,加强双语学术网站建设,提升开放办刊水平和国际传播能力,努力打造国内一流并具有国际影响力的学术期刊。     

Open by default: a proposed copyright license and waiver agreement for open access research and data in peer-reviewed journals

ABSTRACT: Copyright and licensing of scientific data, internationally, are complex and present legal barriers to data sharing, integration and reuse, and therefore restrict the most efficient transfer and discovery of scientific knowledge. Much data are included within scientific journal articles, their published tables, additional files (supplementary material) and reference lists. However, these data are usually published under licenses which are not appropriate for data. Creative Commons CC0 is an appropriate and increasingly accepted method for dedicating data to the public domain, to enable data reuse with the minimum of restrictions. BioMed Central is committed to working towards implementation of open data-compliant licensing in its publications. Here we detail a protocol for implementing a combined Creative Commons Attribution license (for copyrightable material) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver (for data) agreement for content published in peer-reviewed open access journals. We explain the differences between legal requirements for attribution in copyright, and cultural requirements in scholarship for giving individuals credit for their work through citation. We argue that publishing data in scientific journals under CC0 will have numerous benefits for individuals and society, and yet will have minimal implications for authors and minimal impact on current publishing and research workflows. We provide practical examples and definitions of data types, such as XML and tabular data, and specific secondary use cases for published data, including text mining, reproducible research, and open bibliography. We believe this proposed change to the current copyright and licensing structure in science publishing will help clarify what users -- people and machines -- of the published literature can do, legally, with journal articles and make research using the published literature more efficient. We further believe this model could be adopted across multiple publishers, and invite comment on this article from all stakeholders in scientific research.     

Nothing to see here

Based on one company's past poor publishing practices, a top-tier medical journal misguidedly stigmatizes any paper from industry.     

Citation Analysis May Severely Underestimate the Impact of Clinical Research as Compared to Basic Research

Background

Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research.

Methodology

A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact.

Results

Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields: Cardiac & cardiovascular systems, Clinical neurology, and Surgery. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research.

Conclusions

Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research.     

Citability of Original Research and Reviews in Journals and Their Sponsored Supplements

Background

The contents of pharmaceutical industry sponsored supplements to medical journals are perceived to be less credible than the contents of their parent journals. It is unknown if their contents are cited as often. The objective of this study was to quantify the citability of original research and reviews contained in supplements and compare it with that for the parent journal.

Methodology/Principal Findings

This was a cohort study of 446 articles published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (JCP) and its supplements for calendar years 2000 and 2005. The total citation counts for each article up to October 5, 2009 were retrieved from the ISI Web of Science database. The main outcome measure was the number of citations received by an article since publication. Regular journal articles included 114 from calendar year 2000 and 190 from 2005. Articles from supplements included 90 from 2000 and 52 from 2005. The median citation counts for the 3 years post-publication were 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 4–20), 14 (IQR, 8–20), 13.5 (IQR, 8–23), and 13.5 (IQR, 8–20), for the 2000 parent journal, 2000 supplements, 2005 parent journal, and 2005 supplements, respectively. Citation counts were higher for the articles in the supplements than the parent journal for the cohorts from 2000 (p = .02), and no different for the year 2005 cohorts (p = .88). The 2005 parent journal cohort had higher citation counts than the 2000 cohort (p = .007), in contrast to the supplements where citation counts remained the same (p = .94).

Conclusions/Significance

Articles published in JCP supplements are robustly cited and thus can be influential in guiding clinical and research practice, as well as shaping critical thinking. Because they are printed under the sponsorship of commercial interests, they may be perceived as less than objective. A reasonable step to help improve this perception would be to ensure that supplements are peer-reviewed in the same way as regular articles in the parent journal.     

Good Time for Cell Adhesion and Migration

Our understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms controlling cell adhesion and migration has never been so high. The era of “molecular interactions” requires an appropriate tool for exchanging views, presenting outstanding results and discussing new concepts in the field. This is why we decided to launch Cell Adhesion and Migration (CAM), a multi-disciplinary journal publishing original research articles and reviews covering the latest aspects of cellular and molecular mechanisms and their regulation both during physiological and pathological processes.     

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.     

The Measurement of the Effect on Citation Inequality of Differences in Citation Practices across Scientific Fields

This paper has two aims: (i) to introduce a novel method for measuring which part of overall citation inequality can be attributed to differences in citation practices across scientific fields, and (ii) to implement an empirical strategy for making meaningful comparisons between the number of citations received by articles in 22 broad fields. The number of citations received by any article is seen as a function of the article’s scientific influence, and the field to which it belongs. A key assumption is that articles in the same quantile of any field citation distribution have the same degree of citation impact in their respective field. Using a dataset of 4.4 million articles published in 1998–2003 with a five-year citation window, we estimate that differences in citation practices between the 22 fields account for 14% of overall citation inequality. Our empirical strategy is based on the strong similarities found in the behavior of citation distributions. We obtain three main results. Firstly, we estimate a set of average-based indicators, called exchange rates, to express the citations received by any article in a large interval in terms of the citations received in a reference situation. Secondly, using our exchange rates as normalization factors of the raw citation data reduces the effect of differences in citation practices to, approximately, 2% of overall citation inequality in the normalized citation distributions. Thirdly, we provide an empirical explanation of why the usual normalization procedure based on the fields’ mean citation rates is found to be equally successful.     

Why Perspectives?

Perspectives in Ecology, Evolution and Systematics is a new, international refereed journal which publishes reviews and monographs. It has been launched by the Rübel Foundation, a private trust associated with the Geobotanical Institute of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, in association with the publishing firm Gustav Fischer Verlag. We set out here how this journal came into being, and what we hope it will achieve.     

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.     

Future Prospects: Scientific Quality Relies on the Critical Reviews from Our Peers

From Executive Editor to Editor-in-Chief is a big jump for me, and means many more responsibilities.I could feel the pressure on my shoulders;from the hopes of my predecessors,my colleagues, and the board members. As a journal with a 57-year history,JIPB has built its credit over the years,publishing many original works in both Chinese and English.However,in the international scientific community,JIPB is still a minor player, especially under the current not-so-healthy impact factor-driven publishing environment.     

Citing a Data Repository: A Case Study of the Protein Data Bank

The Protein Data Bank (PDB) is the worldwide repository of 3D structures of proteins, nucleic acids and complex assemblies. The PDB’s large corpus of data (> 100,000 structures) and related citations provide a well-organized and extensive test set for developing and understanding data citation and access metrics. In this paper, we present a systematic investigation of how authors cite PDB as a data repository. We describe a novel metric based on information cascade constructed by exploring the citation network to measure influence between competing works and apply that to analyze different data citation practices to PDB. Based on this new metric, we found that the original publication of RCSB PDB in the year 2000 continues to attract most citations though many follow-up updates were published. None of these follow-up publications by members of the wwPDB organization can compete with the original publication in terms of citations and influence. Meanwhile, authors increasingly choose to use URLs of PDB in the text instead of citing PDB papers, leading to disruption of the growth of the literature citations. A comparison of data usage statistics and paper citations shows that PDB Web access is highly correlated with URL mentions in the text. The results reveal the trend of how authors cite a biomedical data repository and may provide useful insight of how to measure the impact of a data repository.     

Impact beyond the impact factor

The journal impact factor is an annually calculated number for each scientific journal, based on the average number of times its articles published in the two preceding years have been cited. It was originally devised as a tool for librarians and publishers to provide information about the citation performance of a journal as a whole, but over the last few decades it has increasingly been used to assess the quality of specific articles and the research performance of individual investigators, institutions, and countries. In addition to this clear abuse of the journal impact factor, several conceptual and technical issues limit its usability as a measure of journal reputation, especially when journals are compared across different fields. An author’s decision regarding the suitability of a scholarly journal for publication should, therefore, be based on the impact that this journal makes in the field of research, rather than on the journal impact factor.     

I Publish in I Edit? - Do Editorial Board Members of Urologic Journals Preferentially Publish Their Own Scientific Work?

Scientists who are members of an editorial board have been accused of preferentially publishing their scientific work in the journal where they serve as editor. Reputation and academic standing do depend on an uninterrupted flow of published scientific work and the question does arise as to whether publication mainly occurs in the self-edited journal. This investigation was designed to determine whether editorial board members of five urological journals were more likely to publish their research reports in their own rather than in other journals. A retrospective analysis was conducted for all original reports published from 2001–2010 by 65 editorial board members nominated to the boards of five impact leading urologic journals in 2006. Publications before editorial board membership, 2001–2005, and publications within the period of time as an editorial board member, 2006–2010, were identified. The impact factors of the journals were also recorded over the time period 2001–2010 to see whether a change in impact factor correlated with publication locality. In the five journals as a whole, scientific work was not preferentially published in the journal in which the scientists served as editor. However, significant heterogeneity among the journals was evident. One journal showed a significant increase in the amount of published papers in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship, three journals showed no change and one journal showed a highly significant decrease in publishing in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship.     

Wiki Surveys: Open and Quantifiable Social Data Collection

In the social sciences, there is a longstanding tension between data collection methods that facilitate quantification and those that are open to unanticipated information. Advances in technology now enable new, hybrid methods that combine some of the benefits of both approaches. Drawing inspiration from online information aggregation systems like Wikipedia and from traditional survey research, we propose a new class of research instruments called wiki surveys. Just as Wikipedia evolves over time based on contributions from participants, we envision an evolving survey driven by contributions from respondents. We develop three general principles that underlie wiki surveys: they should be greedy, collaborative, and adaptive. Building on these principles, we develop methods for data collection and data analysis for one type of wiki survey, a pairwise wiki survey. Using two proof-of-concept case studies involving our free and open-source website www.allourideas.org, we show that pairwise wiki surveys can yield insights that would be difficult to obtain with other methods.