摘要：

目的 探讨期刊累积影响因子（cumulative impact factor,CIF）与年度影响因子（annual impact factor,AIF）应用于期刊评价的效果。方法 选择符合条件的14种眼科学SCI来源期刊,分别计算各期刊不同时间窗口的CIF。以期刊问卷调查评分（SQJ）作为期刊真实影响力的近似标准,比较CIF与AIF的期刊评价效果。结果 AIF与SQJ呈高度正相关（r=0.811,P=0.000）,CIF与SQJ的相关度除了9年累积影响因子（9CIF）和10CIF低于影响因子外,其他时间窗口的CIF与SQJ的相关度均高于AIF,4CIF、3CIF与SQJ的相关度最高（r=0.930和0.916,P=0.000）。结论 在期刊评价中CIF优于AIF。对眼科学期刊来讲,4CIF和3CIF是最佳的评价指标。

关键词: 累积影响因子, 年度影响因子, 期刊问卷调查评分, 期刊评价

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to investigate the effects of cumulative impact factor of journals（CIF） and the annual impact factor（AIF） （namely the traditional2-year impact factor） used in journal evaluation.[Methods] The 14 kinds of qualified ophthalmological journals indexed in Science Citation Index,the CIFs w ith different time w indows of each journal were calculated respectively.Selecting the score of questionnaire for journals（SQJ） as the approximate standard of journals'impact, we compared the journal evaluation effects of CIF and AIF.[Findings] Itwas highly correlated between the annual impact factor and SQJ（r=0.811,P=0.000）,the correlations of SQJw ith 9-year cumulative impact factor（9CIF） and 10CIFwere lower than thosew ith the annual impact factor,but the correlation of other time w indows'CIFsw ith the impact factor were higher than those w ith the annual impact factor.The4CIF and 3CIF had the highest correlationsw ith SQJ（r=0.930 and 0.916, P=0.000）.[Conclusions] In the journal evaluation,the CIF is better than the AIF.The 4CIF and 3CIF are the best indicators for the evaluation of ophthalmological journals.

Key words: Cumulative impact factor, Annual impact factor, Score of questionnaire for journals, Journal evaluation