Abstract: ［Purposes］ Based on different document types, we try to correct 5-year impact factor (5IF) of information science and library science journals, in order to clarify the application value of correcting 5IF in information science and library science journals. ［Methods］ We selected 30 information science and library science journals which were included in SSCI, analyzed the document types, and presented five kinds of correction methods. The traditional 5IF was also obtained by calculation. The Spearman correlation analysis was made on the traditional 5IF, correction 5IF and total citation frequency, 2-year IF, characteristic factor, SJR value and SNIP value. ［Findings］ There are strong correlations between traditional 5IF and corrected 5IFs, and as well as among five corrected 5IFs.The traditional 5IF and corrected 5IFs were significantly positive related to SJR, SNIP, total cites, 2IF and Eigenfactor. The correlation coefficients are similar. ［Conclusions］The corrected 5IFs which are based on different document types applied to information science and library science journals are not recommended.

摘要： 【目的】基于不同文献类型，对信息科学与图书馆学期刊的5年影响因子（5IF）进行矫正，以期明确基于文献类型矫正影响因子在信息科学与图书馆学期刊中的应用价值。 【方法】 以SSCI信息科学与图书馆学30种期刊为研究对象，在分析文献类型的基础上，提出5种矫正5IF，传统5IF也由计算获得；将各刊的传统5IF、矫正5IF与总被引频次、2年影响因子、特征因子、SJR值、SNIP值做Spearman相关性分析。【结果】 各矫正5IF与传统5IF在期刊评价中有较强的一致性，各矫正5IF之间也有强相关性；传统5IF和各矫正5IF与期刊其他各评价指标间均呈显著正相关，且相关系数差异很小。【结论】基于文献类型矫正影响因子的方法不建议应用于信息科学与图书馆学期刊。