اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدThe utilization of paper-level classification system on the evaluation of journal impact
193
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
CAS Journal Ranking, a ranking system of journals based on the bibliometric indicator of citation impact, has been widely used in meso and macro-scale research evaluation in China since its first release in 2004. The rankings coverage is journals which contained in the Clarivates Journal Citation Reports (JCR). This paper will mainly introduce the upgraded version of the 2019 CAS journal ranking. Aiming at limitations around the indicator and classification system utilized in earlier editions, also the problem of journals interdisciplinarity or multidisciplinarity, we will discuss the improvements in the 2019 upgraded version of CAS journal ranking (1) the CWTS paper-level classification system, a more fine-grained system, has been utilized, (2) a new indicator, Field Normalized Citation Success Index (FNCSI), which ia robust against not only extremely highly cited publications, but also the wrongly assigned document type, has been used, and (3) the calculation of the indicator is from a paper-level. In addition, this paper will present a small part of ranking results and an interpretation of the robustness of the new FNCSI indicator. By exploring more sophisticated methods and indicators, like the CWTS paper-level classification system and the new FNCSI indicator, CAS Journal Ranking will continue its original purpose for responsible research evaluation.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
New researchers are usually very curious about the recipe that could accelerate the chances of their paper getting accepted in a reputed forum (journal/conference). In search of such a recipe, we investigate the profile and peer review text of author
s whose papers almost always get accepted at a venue (Journal of High Energy Physics in our current work). We find authors with high acceptance rate are likely to have a high number of citations, high $h$-index, higher number of collaborators etc. We notice that they receive relatively lengthy and positive reviews for their papers. In addition, we also construct three networks -- co-reviewer, co-citation and collaboration network and study the network-centric features and intra- and inter-category edge interactions. We find that the authors with high acceptance rate are more `central in these networks; the volume of intra- and inter-category interactions are also drastically different for the authors with high acceptance rate compared to the other authors. Finally, using the above set of features, we train standard machine learning models (random forest, XGBoost) and obtain very high class wise precision and recall. In a followup discussion we also narrate how apart from the author characteristics, the peer-review system might itself have a role in propelling the distinction among the different categories which could lead to potential discrimination and unfairness and calls for further investigation by the system admins.
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is, by far, the most discussed bibliometric indicator. Since its introduction over 40 years ago, it has had enormous effects on the scientific ecosystem: transforming the publishing industry, shaping hiring practices a
nd the allocation of resources, and, as a result, reorienting the research activities and dissemination practices of scholars. Given both the ubiquity and impact of the indicator, the JIF has been widely dissected and debated by scholars of every disciplinary orientation. Drawing on the existing literature as well as on original research, this chapter provides a brief history of the indicator and highlights well-known limitations-such as the asymmetry between the numerator and the denominator, differences across disciplines, the insufficient citation window, and the skewness of the underlying citation distributions. The inflation of the JIF and the weakening predictive power is discussed, as well as the adverse effects on the behaviors of individual actors and the research enterprise. Alternative journal-based indicators are described and the chapter concludes with a call for responsible application and a commentary on future developments in journal indicators.
Peer-review system has long been relied upon for bringing quality research to the notice of the scientific community and also preventing flawed research from entering into the literature. The need for the peer-review system has often been debated as
in numerous cases it has failed in its task and in most of these cases editors and the reviewers were thought to be responsible for not being able to correctly judge the quality of the work. This raises a question Can the peer-review system be improved? Since editors and reviewers are the most important pillars of a reviewing system, we in this work, attempt to address a related question - given the editing/reviewing history of the editors or re- viewers can we identify the under-performing ones?, with citations received by the edited/reviewed papers being used as proxy for quantifying performance. We term such review- ers and editors as anomalous and we believe identifying and removing them shall improve the performance of the peer- review system. Using a massive dataset of Journal of High Energy Physics (JHEP) consisting of 29k papers submitted between 1997 and 2015 with 95 editors and 4035 reviewers and their review history, we identify several factors which point to anomalous behavior of referees and editors. In fact the anomalous editors and reviewers account for 26.8% and 14.5% of the total editors and reviewers respectively and for most of these anomalous reviewers the performance degrades alarmingly over time.
This paper investigates the impact of institutes and papers over time based on the heterogeneous institution-citation network. A new model, IPRank, is introduced to measure the impact of institution and paper simultaneously. This model utilises the h
eterogeneous structural measure method to unveil the impact of institution and paper, reflecting the effects of citation, institution, and structural measure. To evaluate the performance, the model first constructs a heterogeneous institution-citation network based on the American Physical Society (APS) dataset. Subsequently, PageRank is used to quantify the impact of institution and paper. Finally, impacts of same institution are merged, and the ranking of institutions and papers is calculated. Experimental results show that the IPRank model better identifies universities that host Nobel Prize laureates, demonstrating that the proposed technique well reflects impactful research.
The association between productivity and impact of scientific production is a long-standing debate in science that remains controversial and poorly understood. Here we present a large-scale analysis of the association between yearly publication numbe
rs and average journal-impact metrics for the Brazilian scientific elite. We find this association to be discipline-specific, career-age dependent, and similar among researchers with outlier and non-outlier performance. Outlier researchers either outperform in productivity or journal prestige, but they rarely do so in both categories. Non-outliers also follow this trend and display negative correlations between productivity and journal prestige but with discipline-dependent intensity. Our research indicates that academics are averse to simultaneous changes in their productivity and journal-prestige levels over consecutive career years. We also find that career patterns concerning productivity and journal prestige are discipline-specific, having in common a raise of productivity with career age for most disciplines and a higher chance of outperforming in journal impact during early career stages.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
