摘要：

【目的】针对期刊影响因子分子和分母所使用的来源文献类型不统一问题,结合不同类型文献的引证特征,从可被引文献和非可被引文献角度对IF进行矫正,使其能够更加合理地用于期刊评价。【方法】以2014年版JCR收录的30种美国眼科学期刊为研究对象,提出了5种矫正方法:IF_Total/Total、IF_Total/AREL、IF_AR/AR、IF_AREL/AR和IF_AREL/AREL,以美国眼科医生和研究人员对美国眼科学期刊学术影响力的问卷调查评分为期刊真实影响力标准,通过实证分析验证矫正后IF的期刊评价效果。【结果】IF_AR/AR与问卷调查评分之间的相关度最高,其次是IF_AREL/AR和IF_Total/Total,IF_Total/AREL、IF_AREL/AREL与问卷调查评分之间的相关度最低。【结论】对于眼科学期刊,5种矫正IF的期刊评价效果均优于传统IF。IF_AR/AR的期刊评价效果最理想,IF_AREL/AR次之。

关键词: 影响因子, 科技期刊, 期刊评价, 文献类型, 问卷调查

Abstract:

[Purposes] Considering the incongruence of document types between the numerator and denom inator for calculating the impact factor,we try to combine the citation characteristics of different types of documents to correct it from the Citable Items and Non-citable Items perspectives so that the IF can be more reasonable for journal evaluation.[Methods] We select 30 American ophthalmologic journals included by JCR in 2014 as research objects and present five kinds of correction methods including IF_Total/Total, IF_Total/AREL, IF_AR/AR, IF_AREL/AR and IF_AREL/AREL.We obtain the academ ic impactof American ophthalmologic journals by a questionnaire survey on American ophthalmologic doctors or researchers about their gold standards of actual influence.We verify the journal evaluation results of different corrected IFs by empirical analysis.[Findings] There is the highest correlation between IFAR/ARand the questionnaire score,followed by IF_AREL/AR and IF_Total/Total.The correlations are the lowestbetween the questionnaire score and IF_Total/AREL, IF_AREL/AREL.[Conclusions] For ophthalmology, the journal evaluation effect of corrected IFs are all superior to the traditional IF.The journal evaluation effect of IFAR/AR is optimal,followed by IF_AREL/AR.

Key words: Impact factor, Scientific journal, Journal evaluation, Document type, Questionnaire survey