一种兼顾协调发展的学术期刊评价方法——因子几何平均法
|
摘要
[目的/意义]在期刊评价中,影响力与时效性是非常重要的两个方面,应该协调发展,但目前的绝大多数多属性评价方法,都是取长补短式性质的弥补式评价,难以评价期刊协调发展,需要解决这个问题。[方法/过程]提出因子几何平均法(FGM),首先通过因子分析提取公共因子,然后标准化后进行几何平均。以JCR 2015数学期刊为例进行了说明,发现影响力与时效性较高的期刊评价得分较高,因子几何平均法具有较高的区分度。由于因子分析在提取公共因子时存在信息损失,也会导致评价数据存在信息损失,另外要求评价指标具有较高的相关性。[结果/结论]要重视非弥补式评价的协调发展评价方法研究;因子几何平均法是一种有效的协调发展评价方法,适合比较成熟领域的学术期刊协调发展评价;采用因子几何平均法评价要注意学科差异。
[Purposes/Significance]In journal evaluation,the influence and timeliness,which are most important aspects,should develop harmoniously,but most of the multiple attribute evaluation methods are redeeming evaluation,which means that scores of evaluation index complement each other to make up their deficiencies in the total scores of evaluation,it is hard to evaluate harmonious development of periodicals.[Method/Process]In order to solve this problem,this paper puts forward factor geometric method( FGM),firstly,the common factors are extracted by factor analysis,and then implemented geometric mean after standardization.It takes JCR 2015 mathematical journal as an example,and finds FGMhaving good discrimination. The journals which have higher impact and timeliness can get better score.[Result/Conclusion]This paper shows that we should attach importance to the evaluation method of coordinated development of non-compensation evaluation; Factor geometric method is an effective method for the evaluation of coordinated development,which is suitable for the evaluation of more mature fields and the evaluation of coordinated development of academic journals; The difference of academic disciplines need be noticed with implementing the factor geometric method.
[Purposes/Significance]In journal evaluation,the influence and timeliness,which are most important aspects,should develop harmoniously,but most of the multiple attribute evaluation methods are redeeming evaluation,which means that scores of evaluation index complement each other to make up their deficiencies in the total scores of evaluation,it is hard to evaluate harmonious development of periodicals.[Method/Process]In order to solve this problem,this paper puts forward factor geometric method( FGM),firstly,the common factors are extracted by factor analysis,and then implemented geometric mean after standardization.It takes JCR 2015 mathematical journal as an example,and finds FGMhaving good discrimination. The journals which have higher impact and timeliness can get better score.[Result/Conclusion]This paper shows that we should attach importance to the evaluation method of coordinated development of non-compensation evaluation; Factor geometric method is an effective method for the evaluation of coordinated development,which is suitable for the evaluation of more mature fields and the evaluation of coordinated development of academic journals; The difference of academic disciplines need be noticed with implementing the factor geometric method.
引文
[1]刘雪立.论科技期刊编辑出版过程中的十大关系[J].中国科技期刊研究,2009,20(5):799-802.
[2]郝秋红.对学术期刊科学发展的一些思考[J].河北北方学院学报,2013,29(2):43-45,49.
[3]李建英,石晓峰,王飞,等.对体育学科均衡、协调发展的探讨[J].体育科学,2007,27(5):83-87.
[4]陈景春.高校科技学术期刊科学发展的3个维度[J].编辑学报,2015,27(1):5-8.
[5]康兰媛.科技期刊发展的经济学思考[J].农业图书情报学刊,2008,20(12):168-171.
[6]张惠.科技期刊与出版环境的协调发展———基于生态学视野的分析[J].编辑学报,2010,22(4):291-294.
[7]桂文林,韩兆洲.我国统计类学术期刊协调发展问题研究[J].统计研究,2009,26(5):7-11.
[8]李咏梅,袁学良.论纸本资源与电子资源协调发展的基本原则[J].图书馆,2010(2):57-58,64.
[9]俞立平,潘云涛,武夷山.衡量学术期刊均衡发展的新指标———和谐指数[J].中国科技期刊研究,2009,20(4):621-623.
[10]俞立平,刘骏.学科协调发展水平测度方法研究[J].情报杂志,2016,35(9):130-134
[11] Shotton D. The five stars of online journal articles-a frameworkfor article evaluation[EB/OL].(2015-09-15). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january12/shotton/01shotton.html.
[12] Franceschet M. The difference between popularity and prestige inthe sciences and in the social sciences:A bibliometric analysis[J]. Journal of Informetrics,2010,4(1):55-63.
[13] Mark J M,Christopher MS. A model of academic journal quali-ty with applications to open access journals[EB/OL].(2015-09-15). http://www. lib. utk. edu/news/scholcomm/archives/2004/11.
[14]叶继元.学术“全评价”分析框架与创新质量评价的难点及其对策[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),2016,56(5):151-156.
[15]赖茂生,屈鹏,赵康.论期刊评价的起源和核心要素[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2009,15(3):67-72.
[16]李海燕,安静,夏旭.医学期刊评价指标体系的构建[J].科技管理研究,2009,29(11):151-152.
[17]张晓雪.我国科技期刊评价指标体系的现状考察及未来发展思考[J].中国出版,2014(1):39-31.
[18]魏晓峰.国内学术期刊质量评价指标体系构建探索与实证研究[J].图书馆理论与实践,2013(12):53-56.
[19]俞立平,潘云涛,武夷山.科技评价中不同客观评价方法权重的比较研究[J].科技管理研究,2009,29(7):148-150.
[20]邱均平,李爱群,舒明全.中国学术期刊分类分等级评价的实证研究[J].中国出版,2009(4):38-42.
[2]郝秋红.对学术期刊科学发展的一些思考[J].河北北方学院学报,2013,29(2):43-45,49.
[3]李建英,石晓峰,王飞,等.对体育学科均衡、协调发展的探讨[J].体育科学,2007,27(5):83-87.
[4]陈景春.高校科技学术期刊科学发展的3个维度[J].编辑学报,2015,27(1):5-8.
[5]康兰媛.科技期刊发展的经济学思考[J].农业图书情报学刊,2008,20(12):168-171.
[6]张惠.科技期刊与出版环境的协调发展———基于生态学视野的分析[J].编辑学报,2010,22(4):291-294.
[7]桂文林,韩兆洲.我国统计类学术期刊协调发展问题研究[J].统计研究,2009,26(5):7-11.
[8]李咏梅,袁学良.论纸本资源与电子资源协调发展的基本原则[J].图书馆,2010(2):57-58,64.
[9]俞立平,潘云涛,武夷山.衡量学术期刊均衡发展的新指标———和谐指数[J].中国科技期刊研究,2009,20(4):621-623.
[10]俞立平,刘骏.学科协调发展水平测度方法研究[J].情报杂志,2016,35(9):130-134
[11] Shotton D. The five stars of online journal articles-a frameworkfor article evaluation[EB/OL].(2015-09-15). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january12/shotton/01shotton.html.
[12] Franceschet M. The difference between popularity and prestige inthe sciences and in the social sciences:A bibliometric analysis[J]. Journal of Informetrics,2010,4(1):55-63.
[13] Mark J M,Christopher MS. A model of academic journal quali-ty with applications to open access journals[EB/OL].(2015-09-15). http://www. lib. utk. edu/news/scholcomm/archives/2004/11.
[14]叶继元.学术“全评价”分析框架与创新质量评价的难点及其对策[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),2016,56(5):151-156.
[15]赖茂生,屈鹏,赵康.论期刊评价的起源和核心要素[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2009,15(3):67-72.
[16]李海燕,安静,夏旭.医学期刊评价指标体系的构建[J].科技管理研究,2009,29(11):151-152.
[17]张晓雪.我国科技期刊评价指标体系的现状考察及未来发展思考[J].中国出版,2014(1):39-31.
[18]魏晓峰.国内学术期刊质量评价指标体系构建探索与实证研究[J].图书馆理论与实践,2013(12):53-56.
[19]俞立平,潘云涛,武夷山.科技评价中不同客观评价方法权重的比较研究[J].科技管理研究,2009,29(7):148-150.
[20]邱均平,李爱群,舒明全.中国学术期刊分类分等级评价的实证研究[J].中国出版,2009(4):38-42.