我国眼科学期刊自引率与自被引率的比较及演进趋势

Comparison and evolution trend of the self-citing rate and self-cited rate of journals of ophthalmology in China

[目的]探讨我国眼科学期刊自引率(Rate of Self-citing;R_(RSC-ing))与自被引率(Rate of Self-cited;R_(RSC-ed))的关系及演进趋势,分析期刊自引程度,以了解我国眼科学期刊引文行为的演进趋势。[方法]以2019年版《中国科技期刊引证报告(核心版)》收录的8种眼科学期刊为研究对象,计算2003年、2008年、2013年、2015年和2018年期刊的中文引文率、英文引文率、R_(RSC-ing)与R_(RSC-ed),并提出中文文献自引率(Chinese Rate of Self-citing;R_(cRSC-ing)),通过比较中文引文率与英文引文率、R_(RSC-ing)和R_(cRSC-ing)与R_(RSC-ed),以获得我国眼科学期刊R_(RSC-ing)与R_(RSC-ed)的关系及演进趋势。[结果]英文引文率总体呈上升趋势,中文引文率总体呈下降趋势。8种眼科学期刊R_(RSC-ing)较低且总体保持稳定,而R_(RSC-ed)高于R_(RSC-ing),部分期刊R_(RSC-ed)的演进趋势与R_(RSC-ing)不同R_(cRSC-ing)高于R_(RSC-ed),二者演进趋势大不相同;自引量和R_(cRSC-ing)与R_(RSC-ed)均不相关(r=0.338、r=0.321,P均>0.05),R_(RSC-ing)与R_(RSC-ed)呈弱相关(r=0.393,P<0.05)。[结论]水平越高、影响力越大的期刊引用的英文文献越多;自引量并不是R_(RSC-ed)的决定性因素;个别期刊存在过度自引。

[Purposes]We explored the correlation and evolution trend of the rate of self-citing(R_(RSC-ing))and rate of self-cited(R_(RSC-ed))of journals of ophthalmology in China,aiming at clarifying the citation trend of journals on this discipline.[Methods]We calculated the rate of Chinese references,rate of English references,R_(RSC-ing),and R_(RSC-ed) of 8 ophthalmology journals in Chinese S&T Journal Citation Reports(2019)in the time-window of 2003,2008,2013,2015,and 2018,proposed the Chinese rate of self-citing(R_(cRSC-ing)),and compared the rate Chinese references with rate of English references and R_(RSC-ing) and R_(cRSC-ing) with R_(RSC-ed) to conclude the correlation and development trend of R_(RSC-ing) and R_(RSC-ed) in ophthalmology journals in China.[Findings]The rate of English references of 8 ophthalmology journals in China showed an overall upward trend,while that of Chinese references demonstrated an opposite trend.R_(RSC-ing) of these journals was low but stable,while R_(RSC-ed) was higher than R_(RSC-ing).Moreover,the R_(RSC-ed) trend of some journals was different from that of R_(RSC-ing).R_(cRSC-ing) was higher than R_(RSC-ed) and the trends of them were quite different.Selfcitations had no correlation with R_(cRSC-ing) or R_(RSC-ed)(r=0.338,r=0.321;P>0.05),but R_(RSC-ing) was correlated with R_(RSC-ed)(r=0.393,P<00.5).[Conclusions]More English documents are cited in Chinese journals of high level and high impact.Self-citations are not among the determinants of R_(RSC-ed) and excessive self-citation is found in some journals.