中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2022, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (3): 391-398. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.202109130723

• 评论与分析 • 上一篇    下一篇

开放科学视角下期刊影响力评价指标体系研究

程铭1)(), 潘云涛1), 马峥1),2), 俞征鹿1),2), 盖双双1)   

  1. 1)中国科学技术信息研究所,北京市海淀区复兴路15号 100038
    2)医学期刊知识挖掘与服务重点实验室,北京市海淀区复兴路15号 100038
  • 收稿日期:2021-09-13 修回日期:2022-02-09 出版日期:2022-03-15 发布日期:2022-04-15
  • 作者简介:程铭(ORCID:0000-0003-0821-4962),硕士研究生,E-mail: chengm2019@istic.ac.cn|潘云涛,硕士,研究员|马峥,博士,研究员|俞征鹿,硕士,研究员|盖双双,博士,助理研究员
  • 基金资助:
    中国科学技术信息研究所创新研究基金面上项目“开放科学背景下科技期刊评价方法发展研究”(MS2021-09)

Evaluation indicator system for journal impact amid open science

CHENG Ming1)(), PAN Yuntao1), MA Zheng1),2), YU Zhenglu1),2)   

  1. 1)Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China, 15 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100038, China
    2)Key Laboratory of Knowledge Mining and Service for Medical Journals, 15 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100038, China
  • Received:2021-09-13 Revised:2022-02-09 Online:2022-03-15 Published:2022-04-15

摘要:

【目的】 传统期刊评价体系与开放科学环境下期刊出版、学术传播方式不相适应,本研究尝试建立开放科学视角下的期刊影响力评价思路,以期有效地评价期刊在开放科学环境下的表现。【方法】 通过文献调研和网络调研的方式,结合开放科学的内涵,总结期刊在开放科学视角下出版与传播的特点,建立开放科学视角下的期刊影响力评价思路。从总结的期刊出版与传播特征中提炼相关指标,最终确定以出版的透明开放度、获取的便捷度等为一级指标,包括15个二级指标的期刊评价模型。【结果】 将评价结果与影响因子、《高质量科技期刊分级目录总汇》的期刊等级进行对比和分析,发现所设计的开放科学视角下期刊影响力评价指标可以从更丰富的角度表现影响因子等指标不能反映的期刊影响力。【结论】 所构建的期刊评价体系是合理、可行的,新的指标可以对传统的期刊评价体系进行补充。

关键词: 开放科学, 期刊评价, 数据出版, 开放获取, 增强出版

Abstract:

[Purposes] Conventional journal evaluation system fails to keep up with the modern publishing and dissemination modes of journals in the background of open science. We intend to design a route for journal impact evaluation amid open science for effective assessment of the performance of journals. [Methods] We summarized the connotation of open science, then summed up the characteristics of journal publication and dissemination in terms of open science with the methods of literature research and network research, and developed the route for journal impact evaluation against the backdrop of open science. Thereby, relevant indicators were extracted, and a journal evaluation model with the opening prevalence and accessibility as the primary indicators and 15 secondary indicators was established. [Findings] The evaluation results were compared with the impact factors and the ratings in the Hierarchical Catalog of Quality Scientific Journals, and it was found that the evaluation indexes of journal impact from the perspective of open science designed in this paper reflected the impact of journals in a more comprehensive way than impact factor and other indexes. [Conclusions] The journal evaluation system developed in this paper is reasonable and feasible, and the new indexes can supplement the conventional journal evaluation system.

Key words: Open science, Journal evaluation, Data publishing, Open access, Enhanced publishing