【目的】 应用期刊论文学科领域平均百分位(Average Percentile in Subject Area, aPSA)及学科标准化影响因子(Category Normalized Impact Factor,cnIF)指标,客观评价我国不同学科领域科技期刊的学术影响力,为推动我国“世界一流”科技期刊建设提供参考。【方法】 以我国被SCI数据库收录的全部期刊为研究对象,并选取2019年版JCR收录的178个学科全部期刊作为辅助研究对象。计算学科标准化期刊评价指标aPSA及cnIF,并与其他主要评价指标进行比较。【结果】 Spearman相关检验结果显示,aPSA与IF(r=-0.839)、cnIF与IF(r=0.834)有较高的相关度,aPSA与cnIF有极高的相关度(r=-0.956,P<0.001),但期刊的aPSA、cnIF排序与IF排序仍有明显差异;无论是从期刊数量还是从期刊影响力指标来看,各学科间差异较为明显;我国大陆期刊的aPSA及cnIF统计学特征值表现突出,期刊数量,aPSA平均值、中位数,cnIF平均值、中位数均排名第1;领军期刊和重点期刊相比,aPSA、cnIF和IF的差异均有统计学意义,两组期刊aPSA和cnIF差异更加明显,无论是领军期刊还是重点期刊,aPSA和cnIF的变异系数均明显小于IF。【结论】 我国期刊aPSA、cnIF排序与IF排序结果差异明显,不同学科期刊的发展极不均衡。与港台期刊相比,大陆期刊占有绝对优势。与IF相比,aPSA和cnIF更能揭示领军期刊和重点期刊之间的差异,与同行评议结果更接近。
[Purposes] This paper intends to evaluate the academic impact of Chinese scientific journals in different disciplines with Average Percentile in Subject Area (aPSA) and Category Normalized Impact Factor (cnIF), which is expected to provide a reference for the development of world-class scientific journals in China. [Methods] All the SCI-indexed Chinese journals and journals of 178 disciplines included in Journal Citation Reports (JCR, 2019) were studied. The aPSA and cnIF were calculated and compared with other main evaluation indexes. [Findings] Spearman's correlation analysis demonstrated the strong correlation of aPSA (r=-0.839) and cnIF (r=0.834) with IF, the high correlation between aPSA and cnIF (r=-0.956, P<0.001), and significant difference between the ranking of journals based on aPSA and cnIF and that according to IF. Different disciplines had significant difference in terms of both the journal number and journal impact indexes. Journals from the mainland of China were superior in regard of statistical characteristic values of aPSA and cnIF, as the number of journals, mean and median of aPSA, and mean and median of cnIF all took the first place among all the included journals from China. As for the journals included in the Excellence Action Plan for China STM Journals, leading journals and key journals demonstrated significant differences in aPSA, cnIF, and IF, particularly aPSA and cnIF. For both the leading journals and key journals, the coefficients of variation of aPSA and cnIF were significantly smaller than that of IF. [Conclusions] The ranking of Chinese journals based on aPSA and cnIF is significantly different from that as per IF and journals witness unbalanced development among disciplines. Compared with journals of Hong Kong and Taiwan, journals from the mainland of China have absolute advantage. The difference in aPSA and cnIF between leading journals and key journals is more significant than in IF.
Evaluation in different disciplines,
Average percentile in subject area,
Category normalized impact factor