中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2019, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (10): 1122-1128.doi: 10.11946/cjstp.201905050334

• 评价与分析 • 上一篇    

自引率与其派生指标的历年变化及其在识别期刊过度自引中的应用与比较

温芳芳   

  1. 河南科技大学管理学院,河南省洛阳市开元大道263号 471023
  • 收稿日期:2019-05-05 修回日期:2019-08-03 出版日期:2019-10-15 发布日期:2019-10-15
  • 作者简介:温芳芳(ORCID:0000-0002-4679-2520),博士,副教授,硕士生导师,E-mail:wenfangfang2013@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    河南省哲学社会科学规划项目“基于专利家族计量的企业技术布局及扩张路径研究”(2018CZH012)

Dynamic change of self-citation rates and derived indicators and their application in identifying journals involved in excessive self-citation

WEN Fangfang   

  1. School of Management, Henan University of Science and Technology, 263 Kaiyuan Avenue, Luoyang 471023, China
  • Received:2019-05-05 Revised:2019-08-03 Online:2019-10-15 Published:2019-10-15

摘要:

【目的】 研究2009—2018年图书情报学期刊的自引率及其派生指标的历时变化,对其在识别期刊过度自引中的应用效果进行检验和比较。【方法】 从Web of Science中获取样本期刊各年度的发文和引文数据,计算自引证率与自被引率、两年自引证率与两年自被引率的年度值,并提出相对两年自引证率与相对两年自被引率指标,利用上述4种自引率指标和2种派生指标识别疑似过度自引的期刊,并对各类指标的有效性和敏感性进行比较。【结果】 不同类型的自引率指标分别从不同角度反映了期刊的自引属性,识别结果存在显著差异,自引证率和两年自引证率不适用于识别过度自引,两年自被引率更具敏感性,所提出的2个派生指标能够实现对原有指标的互补。【结论】 任何单一的自引率指标都不足以成为过度自引的有效判定依据,应结合多种指标和方案进行综合分析和交叉检验。

关键词: 期刊自引, 过度自引识别, 自引证率, 自被引率

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper intends to investigate the dynamic change of journal self-citation rates and their derived indicators in the domain of library and information science from 2009 to 2018, and examine and compare the application effects of identifying self-citations in journals. [Methods] Based on the metadata collected from Web of Science, this study calculated the annual values of journal self-citation rates (including self-citing rate, self-cited rate, 2-year self-citing rate, and 2-year self-cited rate), and proposed the other two derived indicators (including relative 2-year self-citing rate and relative 2-year self-cited rate). All these indicators were used to identify suspicious journals and their results were examined to compare their effectiveness and sensitivity. [Findings] There is a significant difference among the results deduced from different indicators which reflect self-citation patterns from different aspects. Self-citing rate and 2-year self-citing rate are not effective in identifying excessive self-citations. The indicator of 2-year self-cited rate is more sensitive. The two derived indicators proposed in this paper can complement the original indicators. [Conclusions] Any single indicator is not sufficient as a valid basis for identifying excessive self-citations. Multiple indicators and approaches should be integrated for comprehensive analysis and cross-checking.

Key words: Journal self-citation, Excessive self-citation identification, Self-citing rate, Self-cited rate