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