SHAN Wei-hua.Comparative Analysis on CiteScore and Impact Factor for the Information Science & Library Science in SSCI[J].Chinese Journal of Library and Information Science for Traditional Chinese Medicine,2019,43(1):70-74.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-5707.2019.01.020]
CiteScore与影响因子在SSCI信息科学与图书馆学期刊中的对比分析
- Title:
- Comparative Analysis on CiteScore and Impact Factor for the Information Science & Library Science in SSCI
- 文章编号:
- 2095-5707(2019)01-0070-05
- Keywords:
- impact factor; 5-year impact factor (5IF); CiteScore (CS); journal evaluation; correlation
- 分类号:
- G353.1
- 文献标志码:
- A
- 摘要:
- 目的 对比分析CiteScore（CS）与影响因子（IF）、5年影响因子（5IF）在社会科学引文索引（SSCI）信息科学与图书馆学期刊中对期刊评价效果的异同。方法 在Web of Science数据库（WoS）期刊引证报告（JCR）内获得2016年信息科学与图书馆学各期刊IF、5IF及其他相关指标，在Scopus数据库获得2016年收录的信息科学与图书馆学各期刊的CS及其相关指标，选取两种数据库中共同收录的53种期刊为研究对象，将数据整理到Excel 2007表格，并采用SPSS 17.0软件对IF、5IF和CS进行相关性分析。结果 ⑴53种期刊IF和CS均值分别为1.282和1.616，二者差异有统计学意义（Z＝4.546，P＝0.000），5IF均值（1.588）和CS均值差异无统计学意义（Z＝1.138，P＝0.255）。⑵53种期刊中IF＞CS的有12种（22.6%），其余41种（77.4%）期刊均是IF＜CS。5IF＞CS的有25种（47.2%），5IF＜CS的有27种（50.9%）。⑶IF、5IF和CS的排序并不完全一致，有的甚至相差较大。⑷48种期刊（90.6%）在Scopus数据库中的分区均优于SSCI内的分区。⑸CS与IF、5IF大小具有显著正相关（r＝0.789，0.842，均P＝0.000），排序具有高度正相关（r＝0.936，0.956，均P＝0.000）。结论 IF、5IF和CS指标对期刊影响力评价具有一致性，但CS和5IF的相关性更强。
- Abstract:
- Objective To conduct comparative analysis on the similarities and differences among CiteScore (CS) and impact factor (IF), 5-year impact factor (5IF) in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) information science and library science journals. Methods The indexes of IF, 5IF and CS of the 2016 information science & library science journals were obtained from JCR and WoS, respectively, and the indexes of CS of the 2016 information science & library science journals were obtained from Scopus. 53 kinds of information science & library science journals published in the two kinds of databases were selected as the research object, and the data were collated to the Excel form, and the correlation between the IF (or 5IF) and the CS was analyzed by using the SPSS17.0 software. Results (1) The IF, 5IF and CS average values of the 53 journals were 1.282, 1.588 and 1.616, respectively, with statistical significance (Z＝4.546, P＝0.000), but the difference was not statistically significant between 5IF and CS (Z＝1.138, P＝0.255). (2) 12 kinds (22.6%) of journals’ IF were more than CS in the 53 journals, and the other 41 kinds (77.4%) of journals’ IF were all less than CS. 25 kinds (47.2%) of journals’ 5IF were more than CS, and 27 kinds (50.9%）of journals’ 5IF were less than CS. (3) The rank of IF, 5IF, and CS was not exactly the same, and some even had a large difference. (4) 48 kinds of journals (90.6%) in the Scopus database were better than those in SSCI. (5) There was significant positive correlation between CS and IF values (r＝0.789, P＝0.000), CS and 5 IF value (r＝0.842, P＝0.000). There was significant positive correlation between CS and IF rank (r＝0.936, P＝0.000) and CS and 5IF rank (r＝0.956, P＝0.000). Conclusion The indexes of IF, 5IF and CS have consistency in the evaluation of journal impact, but CS and 5IF have stronger correlation.
参考文献/References:
[1] 刘雪立,任胜利,程维红,等.不同学科期刊CiteScore与影响因子的比较研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2017,28(9):837-841.
[2] 张李义,叶艳.Google H5指数与CiteScore指数的期刊定量评价方法对比分析——基于知识扩散的视角[J].情报杂志,2017,36(11):175-179,174.
[3] 叶艳,张李义.基于CiteScore指数与影响因子的期刊评价研究——以经济管理领域期刊为例[J].情报科学,2017,35(7):126-131,137.
[4] 肖仙桃,曲建升,王玏,等.CiteScore与JCR期刊评估指标的比较分析[J].中国科技期刊研究,2017,28(10):954-958.
[5] SILVA J A T D, MEMON A R. CiteScore: A cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric?[J]. Scientometrics, 2017,111(1):553-556.
[6] POLJAK M. Coverage of Acta Dermatovenerologica Alpina, Pannonica et Adriatica in Elsevier’s CiteScore index: a new tool for measuring the citation impact of academic journals[J]. Acta Dermatovenerologica Alpina Pannonica et Adriatica, 2017,26(1):1-2.
[7] VANCLAY J K. Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification[J]. Scientometrics, 2012,92(2):211-238.
[8] 刘雪立,盖双双,张诗乐,等.不同引证时间窗口影响因子的比较研究——以SCI数据库眼科学期刊为例[J].中国科技期刊研究,2014,25(12): 1509-1512.
[9] DELLA S S, GRAFMAN J. Five-year impact factor[J]. Cortex, 2009,45(8):911.
[10] 刘雪立,盖双双,张诗乐,等.“非可被引文献”的引证特征及其对科技期刊影响因子的贡献[J].编辑学报,2015,27(5):495-499.
[11] 盛丽娜,顾欢.基于文献类型矫正影响因子在信息科学与图书馆学期刊中的实证分析[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(11):1202-1207.
[12] FALAGAS M E, PITSOUNI E I, MALIETZIS G A, et al. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses[J]. FASEB Journal, 2008,22(2):338-342.
[13] 刘筱敏,孙媛,和婧.Scopus与SCI来源期刊影响力差异化分析[J].中国科技期刊研究,2014,25(9):1171-1177.
[14] MONGEON P, PAUL-Hus A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis[J]. Scientometrics, 2016,106(1):213-228.
[15] Hernández-González V, Sans-Rosell N, Jové-Deltell M C, et al. Comparación entre Web of Science y Scopus, Estudio Bibliométrico de las Revistas de Anatomía y Morfología[J]. Int J Morphol, 2016,34(4):1369-1377.
备注/Memo
收稿日期：2018-07-12
更新日期/Last Update:
2019-01-16