期刊文献+

相关性视角下的WoS与Scopus之比较 被引量:10

Comparision Between WoS and Scopus from the Perspective of Correlation
原文传递
导出
摘要 以F1000数据库中生物信息学和免疫学近2 000篇文献为样本,多角度探讨WoS与Scopus数据库的优劣,其中包括两个数据库中被引频次的相关性、与F1000因子的相关性、主要评价指标数值及排序的相关性、历年被引累积量与被引总量相关性、多维空间感知图下的指标间相关性。结论指出:虽然各项指标源于WoS与Scopus不同的数据库,但是就被引频次及与F1000因子关系而言,两库具有较好的一致性;两库的主要评价指标,无论是数值抑或是排序,均体现出高度相关。上述结果可为科研评价中两个数据库的替代性和选择性提供借鉴,同时为定位在开源Scopus系统的利用提供有力依据。 Based on a sample of nearly 2000 documents from bioinformatics and immunology in F1000 database , the paper makes a comparision between WoS and Scopus. For this, the correlation analysis is used for the study of cited frequency, the number and rank of indexes, the accumulated number over the years and the total from two databases. Beside these, MDS is proceeded. Results show that although those indicators are calculated with different methods and even use different databases, they are strongly correlated with the WoS IF and among each other. These findings corroborate results published by several papers and show the feasibility of using free alternatives to the Web of Science for evaluating scientific journals.
出处 《图书情报工作》 CSSCI 北大核心 2012年第4期22-26,共5页 Library and Information Service
基金 天津市哲学社会科学规划课题"h-指数视角下的新一代科学评价指标与体系研究"(项目编号:TJTQ10-673)研究成果之一
关键词 WOS SCOPUS 相关分析 WoS Scopus correlation analysis
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

  • 1Leydesdorff L. Scopus' s source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations[ J] . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology ,2010,61 ( 11 ) :2365 -2369.
  • 2Gorraiz J, Schlogl C. A bibliometfic analysis of pharmacology and pharmacy journals : Seopus versus Web of Science [ J] . Journal of Inforamtion Science, 2008,34(5 ) :715 -725.
  • 3Leydesdorff L. How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? [ J] . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009,60 ( 7 ) : 1327 - 1336.
  • 4Bollen J, Van de Sompel H. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures[EB/OL ]. [ 2011 - 07 - 12 ]. http :// scieng, library, ubc. ca/blog/category/news/podcasts/.
  • 5MoedHF.新的期刊计量指标:SNIP与SJR[EB/OL].[2011-07 -12 ] . http://chinal, elsevier, com/ElsevierDNN/Portals/7/ China/File/% E6% 96% BO% E7% 9A% 84% E6% 9C% 9F% E5 % 88%8A% E8% AE% Al% E9% 87% 8F% E6% 8C% 87% E6% A0% 87 -Henk. pdf.
  • 6Archambauh E, Campbell D. Comparing bibliometric statistics ob- tained from the web of science and scopus [ EB/OL]. [ 2011 -07 - 12 ] . http://arxiv, org/abs/0903. 5254.

同被引文献142

  • 1王广瑞.社科类学术期刊“走出去”的路径探析[J].新闻潮,2020(9):11-13. 被引量:1
  • 2贺贤孝.算术平均──几何平均不等式的经典证明[J].数学通报,1995,34(3):39-43. 被引量:3
  • 3陈为钢.刑事证据链研究[J].国家检察官学院学报,2007,15(4):128-136. 被引量:29
  • 4SAAD G. Convergent validity between metrics of journal prestige:the Eigen factor, article influence, and h-index scores.Preprint.
  • 5Ronald Rousseau, the Stimulate 8 Group. On the relationbetween the Wos impact factor, the Eigen factor, the SCImagoJournal Rank, the Article Influence Score and the journalh-index. Preprint.
  • 6LANE J. Let's make science metrics more scientific [J].Nature,2010, 464(25): 488-489.
  • 7Report on the pilot exercise to develop bibliometric indicatorsfor the Research Excellence Framework [EB/OL]. [2013-10-02].http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_39/09_39.pdf.
  • 8HARNAD S. Validating research performance metrics againstpeer rankings [J]. Ethics in Science and EnvironmentalPolitics, 2008, 8(11): 103-107.
  • 9Burnham, JF. Scopus database : a review [ J ]. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 2006,3 ( 1 ) : 1 - 8.
  • 10Codina, L. Scopus: El Mayor Navegador Cientifico de la Web[J]. E1 Profesional de la Informaci6n, 2005,14 (1) :44 -49.

引证文献10

二级引证文献57

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部