我国SCI期刊的跨学科评h(hun):aPSA?qing)cnIF的应?/span>
甛_|刘雪立，郭佳Q申?/span>
摘要Q?/strong>
【目的?/strong>应用期刊论文学科领域q_癑ֈ?Average Percentile in Subject Area, aPSA)?qing)学U标准化影响因子(Category Normalized Impact Factor,cnIF)指标,客观评h(hun)我国不同学科领域U技期刊的学术媄响力,为推动我国“世界一”科技期刊提供参考?strong>【方法?/strong>以我国被SCI数据库收录的全部期刊为研I对?q取2019q版JCR收录?78个学U全部期刊作助研I对象。计学U标准化期刊评h(hun)指标aPSA?qing)cnIF,q与其他主要评h(hun)指标q行比较?strong>【结果?/strong>Spearman相关验结果显C?aPSA与IF(r=-0.839)、cnIF与IF(r=0.834)有较高的相关?aPSA与cnIF有极高的相关?r=-0.956,P<0.001),但期刊的aPSA、cnIF排序与IF排序仍有明显差异;无论是从期刊数量q是从期刊媄响力指标来看,各学U间差异较ؓ(f)明显;我国大陆期刊的aPSA?qing)cnIFl计学特征D现突?期刊数量,aPSAq_倹{中位数,cnIFq_倹{中位数均排名第1;领军期刊和重Ҏ(gu)刊相?aPSA、cnIF和IF的差异均有统计学意义,两组期刊aPSA和cnIF差异更加明显,无论是领军期刊还是重Ҏ(gu)?aPSA和cnIF的变异系数均明显于IF?strong>【结论?/strong>我国期刊aPSA、cnIF排序与IF排序l果差异明显,不同学科期刊的发展极不均衡。与港台期刊相比,大陆期刊占有l对优势。与IF相比,aPSA和cnIF更能揭示领军期刊和重Ҏ(gu)刊之间的差异,与同行评议结果更接近?/p>
关键?SCI期刊,期刊评h(hun),跨学U评?期刊论文被引频次q_癑ֈ?学科标准化媄响因?/p>
Abstract:
[Purposes]This paper intends to evaluate the academic impact of Chinese scientific journals in different disciplines with Average Percentile in Subject Area (aPSA) and Category Normalized Impact Factor (cnIF), which is expected to provide a reference for the development of world-class scientific journals in China.[Methods]All the SCI-indexed Chinese journals and journals of 178 disciplines included inJournal Citation Reports(JCR, 2019) were studied. The aPSA and cnIF were calculated and compared with other main evaluation indexes.[Findings]Spearman's correlation analysis demonstrated the strong correlation of aPSA (r=-0.839) and cnIF (r=0.834) with IF, the high correlation between aPSA and cnIF (r=-0.956,P<0.001), and significant difference between the ranking of journals based on aPSA and cnIF and that according to IF. Different disciplines had significant difference in terms of both the journal number and journal impact indexes. Journals from the mainland of China were superior in regard of statistical characteristic values of aPSA and cnIF, as the number of journals, mean and median of aPSA, and mean and median of cnIF all took the first place among all the included journals from China. As for the journals included in the Excellence Action Plan for China STM Journals, leading journals and key journals demonstrated significant differences in aPSA, cnIF, and IF, particularly aPSA and cnIF. For both the leading journals and key journals, the coefficients of variation of aPSA and cnIF were significantly smaller than that of IF.[Conclusions]The ranking of Chinese journals based on aPSA and cnIF is significantly different from that as per IF and journals witness unbalanced development among disciplines. Compared with journals of Hong Kong and Taiwan, journals from the mainland of China have absolute advantage. The difference in aPSA and cnIF between leading journals and key journals is more significant than in IF.
Key words:SCI-indexed journal,Journal evaluation,Evaluation in different disciplines,Average percentile in subject area,Category normalized impact factor
链接本文:http://www.cjstp.cn/CN/10.11946/cjstp.202106060468
http://www.cjstp.cn/CN/Y2021/V32/I8/1060