不同期刊分区方法技术合理性定量比较:规则集与应用

Quantitative Comparison on Technical Rationality of Journal Partitioning Methods:Rule Sets and Applications

期刊评价研究领域的一个重要问题是期刊分区。目前期刊分区方法众多,对一些期刊的处理存在分歧,给科研人事管理、各种场合的学术评价带来不便。为此,需要对不同期刊分区方法的技术合理性大小进行比较。为减少主观评价带来的误差与利益纠纷,此种比较宜量化进行。以“同一分区论文质量应尽量接近”为逻辑起点,设计了期刊分区技术合理性定量比较规则集,采集2020—2021年WoS与Scopus数据库17个学科期刊论文被引次数为研究样本,对24种期刊分区方法技术合理性进行了定量比较。结果表明:第一,期刊分区技术合理性定量比较规则集可以有效量化评价不同期刊分区方法优劣,规则集可直接供科研人事管理和学术评价使用。第二,推荐H指数+剩余影响因子形成的HRIF指标为期刊分区方法基础指标。

An important problem in journal evaluation research field is journal ranking.At present,there are many methods to rank journals.Different journal ranking methods may have differences in ranking of same journal,these differences bring inconvenience to scientific research personnel management and academic evaluations.Therefore,it is necessary to compare technical rationality dgrees of different journal rankin methods.Taking“paper quality in same rank should be as close as possible”as logical starting point,this paper designes rule sets for quantitative comparison on technical rationality of different journal ranking methods,collects paper citation counts of 17 subject journals in WoS and Scopus databases as research samples during 2020-2021,and quantitatively compares technical rationality of 24 journal ranking methods.Results show that:firstly,quantitative comparison rule set can quantify the degree of technical rationality of different journal ranking methods;secondly,HRIF index formed by H index+residual impact factor is recommended as a key index for journal ranking method.