基于影响因子分析我国护理学期刊学术影响力变化趋势

目的:从影响因子角度定量分析我国护理学期刊学术影响力变化趋势。方法:采用文献计量法、比较研究法,统计《中国科技期刊引证报告》核心版近10年收录护理学期刊的影响因子最大值、最小值和平均值等。结果:《中国科技期刊引证报告》核心版收录的护理学期刊影响因子平均值从2000年的0.1735上升到2009年的0.5621;最高值从2000年的0.373上升到2009年1.485,最低值从2000年的0.075上升到2009年的0.106;高影响力(影响因子≥1.0)期刊数量基本没变,但所占百分比逐渐减小。结论:我国护理学期刊质量和数量均逐年提高,且增长速度较快;学术影响力呈上升趋势,但仍然较弱,需加大期刊建设力度和提高护理人员的科研能力,以促进护理学科向纵深发展。     

我国护理类科技核心期刊近10年影响因子变化趋势分析及建议

目的 分析我国护理类科技核心期刊近10年影响因子变化情况,以促进我国护理期刊学术影响力的提升,推动护理学科的发展.方法 采用二手资料分析法、比较研究法,统计《中国科技期刊引证报告(核心版)》(CJCR)近10年收录的主要护理类科技核心期刊的影响因子最大值、最小值、平均值、总体排名、区间分布及占比等.结果 CJCR收录的...     

我国护理期刊学术影响力排名分析

[目的]分析我国护理期刊学术影响力排名,综合评价我国21种护理学统计源期刊学术影响力。[方法]以2014年版《中国科技期刊引证报告》(扩刊版)中21种护理期刊为研究对象,以总被引频次、影响因子、他引总引比、高被引论文数、来源文献量、平均引文数、地区分布数、Web下载量共8项指标为依据,赋予各项指标不同的权重,运用归一化加权法综合评价21种护理期刊的学术影响力。[结果]2014年21种护理学统计源期刊与全国6 345种科技期刊6项评价指标比较显示,总被引频次、影响因子、他引总引比、来源文献量、地区分布数5项评价指标均显著高于科技期刊平均水平,但平均引文数显著低于我国科技期刊的平均水平;运用多指标归一化加权法得出21种护理学统计源期刊的综合值,排名前5位的依次为《中华护理杂志》《护理研究》《中国实用护理杂志》《护士进修杂志》和《护理学杂志》;将本研究护理核心期刊排名情况与《中国科技期刊引证报告》进行比较,部分期刊在2个评价体系中排名有不同程度的上升或下降,存在综合值排名与影响因子排名分离的现象。[结论]我国护理期刊整体影响力较科技期刊平均水平高,但护理科研论文质量较其他科技期刊存在较大差距;运用多指标数据归一化加权法综合评价我国21种护理学统计源期刊的学术影响力,能作出全面、科学、准确的评价,真实反映护理期刊的影响力,能够为护理学术期刊自身发展及提高期刊影响力提供改进方向。     

基于InCites数据库的护理学文献计量分析

目的对InCites数据库1995-2014年收录的护理学文献进行文献计量学分析,为护理学研究提供借鉴。方法选择1995-2014年InCites数据库收录的护理学文献和护理学期刊为研究对象,以发文量和被引频次为主要指标进行统计分析。结果 1995-2014年,InCites数据库中护理学领域的发文量稳步上升,被引频次在2008年前稳步上升而后出现下降;美国、英国、澳大利亚、加拿大等国护理学领域的发文量和总被引频次均居于世界前10位;中国大陆护理学领域的发文量为815(位居世界第18),总被引频次为3311(位居世界第21)。全球护理学领域发文量排名前10位的机构有8所来自美国,总被引频次排名前10位的机构分别来自美国、英国、加拿大和瑞典,发文量和总被引频次排名前10位的护理学期刊均来自美国和英国。结论我国应加大护理学科的发展力度,提高护理研究水平,创办高水平的英文护理学期刊,以提升学科影响力。     

本刊影响因子居国内同类期刊之首

<正>据《2017年版中国科技期刊引证报告(核心版)》,2017年本刊的影响因子和总被引频次等主要期刊评价指标再创新高。影响因子为1.034,总被引频次为2860,综合评价总分为88.6。影响因子、总被引频次、综合评价总分均居国内同类期刊之首,其中综合评价总分在中国科技核心期刊数据库收录的2008种期刊中排名居第22位。感谢所有读者和作者对本刊的关注!感谢为本刊付出辛勤劳动的审稿专家团队和把握本刊导向的本刊主编团队!     

2006－2015年科学引文索引收录护理学期刊的论文刊出情况

目的：探讨2006－2015年科学引文索引(science citation index,SCI)收录护理学期刊的论文刊出情况.方法2016年1月,检索SCI数据库,以2014年期刊引用报告(journal citation reports,JCR)中所有护理学期刊的ISSN号作为检索对象,时间限定为2006－2015年,论文类型为Article 和Review.采用Web of Science自带软件及Excel 2007、TDA 等软件进行定量分析.结果2006－2015年,SCI收录护理学期刊共刊出论文57640篇,刊出论文数量前三位的是美国、澳大利亚、英国.中国刊出的论文中,按刊出量从高到低依次为中国台湾地区(1812篇)、中国大陆地区(722篇)、中国香港地区(623篇),其中：中国大陆地区论文刊出年均增长率最高(50．02％);中国台湾地区论文总被引频次最高(10951次,57．14％),篇均被引6．04次;中国大陆地区论文总被引频次为3341次,篇均被引4．63次;中国香港地区论文总被引频次为4949次,篇均被引频次最高(7．94次).结论 SCI收录护理学期刊的论文刊出最多的仍为美国等西方发达国家,中国护理学研究在国际上的影响力逐渐上升,中国大陆地区的影响力越来越大,但与中国台湾地区相比仍有较大的上升空间,且高质量研究不及中国香港地区.     

2015年本刊文献计量学指标再创新高

<正>《2015年版中国科技期刊引证报告(核心版)》统计数据显示:2015年本刊的影响因子和总被引频次等主要期刊评价指标较2014年比继续提升,再创新高。影响因子由0.823提高到0.922,总被引频次由2570提高到2747,综合评价总分由68.8提到89.40。本刊综合评价总分位居国内同类期刊之首。综合评价总分是根据科学计量学原理,系统性地综合考虑被评价期刊的各影响力指标(核心总被引频次、核心影响因子、核心他引率、基金论文比、引文率等)在其所在学科中的相对位置,并按照一定     

2019年本刊影响因子与总被引频次连续领跑同类期刊

2019年本刊影响因子与总被引频次连续领跑同类期刊 据《2019年版中国科技期刊引证报告（核心版）》,2019年本刊影响因子、总被引频次、综合评价总分连续领跑同类期刊,影响因子为1.184,总被引频次为3294,综合评价总分为83.7分。综合评价总分在中国科技核心期刊数据库收录的2049种自然科学类核心期刊中排名居第47位。 感谢所有读者和作者对本刊的支持与关注！为本刊审稿专家团队、编委团队、主编团队、编辑部团队的辛勤付出点赞！ 《中国康复医学杂志》编辑部     

《中国疼痛医学杂志》位列《中国学术期刊影响因子年报》Q1区

近日,《中国学术期刊影响因子年报》2021版正式发布,《中国疼痛医学杂志》位列临床医学综合类Q1区。复合影响因子在被收录的126种临床医学综合类期刊中名列第14位。《中国学术期刊影响因子年报》是中国知网·中国科学文献计量评价研究中心对中国学术期刊的国内影响力进行定量统计和分析的年度评价报告。报告中被评价期刊共计6099种,其中自然科学与工程技术期刊3966种。报告中发布了反映期刊学术影响力的综合评价指标-学术期刊影响力指数(CI),把总被引频次和影响因子二者结合起来考量,更全面准确地反映期刊学术影响力状况。     

《实验与检验医学》被江西省列为国家级期刊

经江西省有关部门研究批准,《实验与检验医学》自2013年起列为国家级期刊,在卫生系列正高职称评审中,在我刊发表的学术论文与中文核心期刊一样可作为评审重要条件之一。近年来我刊影响因子、总被引频次、学科影响指标等指标大幅上升,其学术影响力不断提高,已列为美国《化学文摘》、美国《乌利希期刊指南》收录期刊,先后被评为江西省优秀期刊、华东地区优秀期刊和全国优秀医学期刊。     

护理学术期刊科研论文质量评价方法研究进展

从科技期刊学术论文角度出发,分别阐述了几种常见的论文质量评价的方法,如对论文定性的评价方法(同行审议),以及对论文的计量学指标来反映体现论文质量(影响因子、被引频次、H因子等)。无论何种评价方法,都力求能真正体现论文本身的学术水平。影响论文内在质量评价的因素包括政治思想性、伦理道德性、科学性、创新性、实用性、书写格式规范性等。分析影响论文本身质量的因素,可为科学判断和评价论文质量提供可靠的指导,对论文从源头上把关以保证期刊论文学术水平,为保证期刊影响力具有非常重要的意义。     

《检验医学》2004至2007年载文被引分析

目的分析《检验医学》2004至2007年载文被引情况,以评价期刊的学术水平和载文质量。方法利用中国知识资源总库（CNKI）检索《检验医学》2004至2007年所载的论文,采用文献计量学和引文分析法对载文量、被引频次、作者群分布和关联期刊等进行分析。结果2004至2007年共载文1062篇,其中487篇论文被引用1292次,单篇平均被引次数为2．7次,单篇被引最高频次为32次,单篇被引用5次以上者76篇;载文被引≥10次的作者共21位,其33篇论文共被引用301次;载文引证期刊352种,平均每种期刊引用3．2次。结论《检验医学》是我国检验医学领域中质量较高的学术期刊。     

Risk factors for citation errors in peer-reviewed nursing journals

BACKGROUND: Citation errors are common among nursing journals. But, there are no data regarding the factors that predispose to these errors. OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk factors that predispose to citation error in peer-reviewed nursing journals. METHODS: Five hundred and fifty references were selected randomly from articles published in eleven nursing journals for the year 1998. The incidences of major and minor citation errors were determined by comparing with the original articles. The relative odds of citation errors for the number of authors, collaborating institutions and the length of the reference list were calculated. The correlation between the scientific quality of the journal (by means of journal impact factor and immediacy index) and the incidence of citation error were also determined. RESULTS: The incidence of citation errors is comparable to those reported previously. Long reference lists in articles written by a single author predicted strongly the occurrence of minor citation errors. Journals with a high impact factor and immediacy index tend to contain fewer minor mistakes. None of these factors affect the incidence of major errors. CONCLUSION: Contributors to journals should be aware of the various risk factors for citation errors. Citation accuracy may be improved by modifying these factors.     

《护理管理杂志》2004年文献计量学分析

目的分析《护理管理杂志》2004年刊载论文及其引文,以了解该刊的现状和地位,评价其学术水平和期刊质量。方法采用文献计量学方法,对《护理管理杂志》2004年刊载的论文进行载文和引文分析。结果载文量358篇;载文作者分布在30个省及直辖市,合著率为2.6人/篇;总引文量1725条,平均引文量4.82条/篇;中文引文率88.8%,英文引文率11.0%,日文引文率0.2%;期刊引文率76.5%,图书引文率21.6%;刊物自引率为4.1%;中文核心期刊共16种。结论《护理管理杂志》虽然创刊时间较短,但在护理领域已有一定影响力。它拥有一批优秀的作者群体,论文学术质量较高,已成为该学科的核心期刊。     

Impact factors in nursing journals

Journal impact factors (IFs), a measure of citation frequency, are published annually in Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Journal IFs, although controversial because of the uses to which they have been put in academic arenas, remain a metric about which nurses should be informed. This paper discusses key issues in the controversy, explains how IFs are computed, and presents historical and 2009 IF data for nursing journals. The number of nursing journals indexed in JCR has grown from 35 in 2004 to 74 in 2009. The journals currently indexed are diverse in terms of focus (practice vs research), specialty areas, and country of publication. The median IF score for nursing journals (0.91 in 2009) is similar to that for several other health care categories. Given the controversies surrounding IFs, it may be useful for nurses to play a more active role in furthering the debate by undertaking research relating to IFs, including studies of how they affect nurses’ scholarly pursuits and publication decisions.     

How well does journal impact work in the assessment of papers onclinical physiology and nuclear medicine?

This study reports a citation analysis of 217scientific papers on clinical physiology and nuclear medicine published in 69 different journalsduring the years 1985–92. The actual citation frequency was compared with the journal‘impact factor’ (i.e. the average number of times a paper is cited in a particularjournal in the year of publication and the subsequent year). The average impact factor per paperwas 1·96 and per journal 1·92 (range 0·0–22·8). Adirect relation was found between the journal impact factor and the citation factor (i.e. theactual citations in the year of publication and the subsequent year) (journals with five or morepapers R=0·69, P<0·01; all journals R=0·40, P<0·001). However, the citation factor wassignificantly below the journal impact factor (P<0·0001). An almostlinear relation was found between cumulated citations and time (R=0·99, P<0·02–0·0001), but an initial phase of nocitation was identified, and the number of citations per year reached a maximum or plateau3–7 years after publication, which was later than the general maximum of 2–3years for all medical specialities. In a sample of 200 known autocitations, 75% of thepapers had full recovery, 3% mixed recovery and 22% no recovery, giving anoverall recovery of 70%. In conclusion, although a phase of no citation was identified,which gave a lower citation factor than the journal impact factor, the citation frequencyincreased over time, and altogether there seems to be a good agreement between journalimpact factor and overall citation frequency of papers on clinical physiology and nuclearmedicine.     

Journal impact factors: implications for the nursing profession

BACKGROUND: The journal impact factor (IF) has become widely used as an absolute measure of the quality of professional journals. It is also increasingly used as a tool for measuring the academic performance of researchers and to inform decisions concerning the appointment and tenure of academic staff as well as the viability of their departments/schools. In keeping with these IF-related trends, nurse researchers and faculty the world over are being increasingly expected to publish only in journals that have a high IF and to abandon all other forms of publishing (including books and book chapters) that do not attract IF rankings. ISSUES: The IF obsession is placing in jeopardy the sustainability and hence viability of nursing journals and academic nursing publication lists (academic texts). If nurse authors abandon their publishing agenda and publish only in 'elite' journals (many of which may be outside nursing), the capacity of the nursing profession to develop and control the cutting edge of its disciplinary knowledge could be placed at risk. ACTIONS: Other means for assessing the quality and impact of nursing journals need to be devised. In addition, other works (such as books and book chapters) need also to be included in quality metrics. Nurse authors and journal editors must work together and devise ways to ensure the sustainability and viability of nursing publications.     

Predicting citation impact from altmetric attention in clinical and translational research: Do big splashes lead to ripple effects?

Publications are commonly used to evaluate the productivity and impact of research programs. Traditional metrics examine publication impact through slowly accumulating academic citations. “Altmetrics” are a new way to describe early publication influence in nonacademic media/community spheres (news, tweets, and blogs). Articles with significant altmetric attention make a big splash of immediate impact, whereas papers with high rates of academic citation reflect ripple effects of influence over time. Past research has found weak associations between altmetrics and academic citations. However, no previous research has focused on clinical/translational research, which aims to translate scientific discoveries to public use. Further, no previous research has assessed the relationship between altmetrics and modern citation impact factors like the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). It is also unclear whether publication in journals with higher journal impact factors (JIFs) may drive both public attention and academic impact. We investigated whether early altmetric indicators of splash predict citation ripples, beyond the effect of the JIF. For a portfolio of 2188 publications supported by the NIH’s Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance from 2007–2020, we collected 2020 Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS), 2020 JIFs, and 2021 RCRs. All three were significantly correlated with one another. Regression analyses revealed that AAS significantly predicts later RCR, controlling for JIF and publication year. Findings indicate that in clinical/translational science, articles that make a big splash of altmetric attention have ripple effects through increased citation influence, which is not entirely due to publication in higher impact journals. Altmetric attention may be a useful early indicator of eventual influence and potential for translational advancement.

Study Highlights

• WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC?

Past research, in many fields of research, has found weak associations between publication altmetrics and raw academic citation count. It unclear whether any association is due to publication in higher impact journals.

• WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS?

We investigated whether, within clinical/translation publications, early altmetric scores predict later citation influence (using the Relative Citation Ratio, a citation impact factor adjusted for field and time since publication), beyond the effect of the journal’s impact factor.

• WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE?

Using regression analyses, we found that in clinical/translational science, articles that make a big splash of altmetric attention have ripple effects through increased citation influence, which is not entirely due to publication in higher impact journals.

• HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE?

Altmetric attention may be a useful early tool for gauging the eventual influence and potential for translational advancement of published clinical/translational research.