Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals ›› 2025, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (4): 512-521. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.202411071210

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Journal disruption index based on citation data source optimization and its empirical study

LIU Xueli1,2)()(), JIANG Yuyan2)()()   

  1. 1) School of Health Management, Xinxiang Medical University, 601 Jinsui Road, Xinxiang 453003, China
    2) Henan Research Center for Science Journals, Xinxiang Medical University, 601 Jinsui Road, Xinxiang 453003, China
  • Received:2024-11-07 Revised:2025-01-06 Online:2025-04-25 Published:2025-04-30
  • Contact: JIANG Yuyan

基于引证数据来源优化的期刊颠覆性指数及其实证研究

刘雪立1,2)()(), 姜育彦2),*()()   

  1. 1) 新乡医学院卫生健康管理学院,河南省新乡市金穗大道601号 453003
    2) 新乡医学院河南省科技期刊研究中心,河南省新乡市金穗大道601号 453003
  • 通讯作者: 姜育彦
  • 作者简介:

    刘雪立(ORCID:0000-0002-8353-5179),二级教授,硕士研究生导师,E-mail:

    作者贡献声明: 刘雪立:提出研究选题与思路,确定研究内容,数据的分析和解释,修改完善论文; 姜育彦:数据采集、处理与运算,数据分析和解释,撰写论文初稿。
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金项目“颠覆性指数引证数据来源和结构优化及其应用效果评价研究”(23BTQ085)

Abstract:

[Purposes] To solve the interference of low-quality and random citations in the calculation of disruption index, the journal disruptive index (JDI) was optimized from the perspective of citation data source, and the innovative evaluation effect of the optimized index was verified and analyzed. [Methods] In this study, 112 comprehensive internal medicine journals and 82 Nature Index journals were used as the object of study and source of citation data, respectively. JDI, JIDI, and JIDI-N were calculated separately for each journal and compared with the peer-reviewed indicators of the H1Connect (H1C, formerly F1000) database. [Findings] There is a positive correlation among the innovation evaluation indicators, impact indicators and peer review indicators. Journals in the top rank of impact indicators are usually in the top rank of innovation indicators, but the average difference between innovation indicator ranking and impact indicator ranking of journals included in the study is close to 20, which shows that innovation evaluation and impact evaluation are both unified and different. Compared with peer review indicators, JIDI-N has a higher degree of correlation. [Conclusions] Optimizing JDI at the level of citation data source helps to improve the evaluation effect of disruptive innovation in the scientific and technical journals.

Key words: Journal disruption index, Innovative evaluation, Nature Index, Journal evaluation, Open citation data

摘要:

【目的】为解决参考文献低质量和随意性引用对颠覆性指数计算造成的干扰,拟从引证数据来源层面对期刊颠覆性指数(JDI)进行优化,并验证分析优化指标的创新性评价效果。【方法】以112种综合性内科医学期刊和82种Nature Index期刊作为研究对象和引证数据来源,分别计算各期刊的JDI、JIDI和JIDI-N,并与H1Connect(简称H1C,原F1000)数据库的同行评议指标进行对比。【结果】期刊创新性评价指标、影响力指标和同行评议指标之间均呈正相关关系。在影响力指标排名中位居前列的期刊,在创新性排名中通常也位居前列,但被纳入研究的期刊的创新性排名和影响力排名位次平均差异接近20位,说明创新性评价与影响力评价既有统一性又有差异性。与同行评议指标对比,优化后的JIDI-N具有更高的相关度。【结论】从引证数据来源层面对JDI进行优化,有助于提升科技期刊颠覆性创新的评价效果。

关键词: 期刊颠覆性指数, 创新性评价, Nature Index, 期刊评价, 开放引文数据