摘要：

【目的】对WoS和CSCD数据库中1000篇肿瘤类高被引文献的特点进行分析,以期为杂志组稿约稿提供依据。【方法】分别检索2005—2014年间WoS和CSCD数据库中年被引频次前50的肿瘤类文献,分析其第一作者、总被引频次、发表后1~5年内被引频次、文章类型、作者单位、基金情况、学科分布、研究内容和研究方向等,并对其进行统计分析。【结果】WoS数据库中高被引文献的被引频次远高于CSCD数据库[（29218.5±16693.9）次vs.（552.3±308.7）次]。高被引文献中,论著类文章占比重较高（72.8%）,且在文章发表后5年内,年被引频次波动不大。流行病学研究、大型临床多中心试验研究、指南类文章以及知名专家述评是被引用的热点文章。【结论】国内外文献学术质量仍存在较大差距。杂志组稿应从流行病类文章、知名专家述评以及多中心临床试验入手,以提高整体被引频次以及学术质量。

关键词: 高被引文章, 引文分析, 肿瘤, Web of Science, 中国科学引文数据库

Abstract:

[Purposes]The research analyzed the characteristic of 1000 highly cited cancer articles in Web of Science（WoS）database and Chinese Science Citation Database（CSCD）,and was to provide the base for soliciting contribution.[Methods] The articles about cancerw ith top 50 citation frequency in these two databases from 2005 to 2014 were searched out in last10 years.The characteristics of first author,citation frequency,citation frequency w ithin 5 years after publishing,article type,authors'units,funding,subjectdistribution,research contents,etc.were explained.[Findings] We found that the citation frequency of the articles in WOSwas farmore than those in CSCD[（29218.5 ±16693.9）times vs.（552.3±308.7）times].72.8%of highly cited papers were articles,and therewas no difference in citation frequency w ithin 5 years after the articleswere published.We need to paymore attention to the epidem iologic study,themulti-center clinical study,guidelines and reviews of famous experts which can get high citation frequency.[Conclusions] There is still a large gap of the academ ic quality between the articles in these two databases.We should pay more attention to articles of the epidem iologic study,multi-center clinical study,guidelines and reviews of famous experts for raising the citation frequency and academic quality of our journals.

Key words: Highly cited article, Citation analysis, Cancer, Web of Science, Chinese Science Citation Database