Search results

This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis to evaluate the current situation of journals, examine the factors that influence their development, and establish an evaluation index system and model. The objective is to enhance the theory and methodologies used for journal evaluation and provide guidance for their positive development.

This study uses empirical data from economics journals to analyse their evaluation dimensions, methods, index system and evaluation framework. This study then assigns weights to journal data using single and combined evaluations in three dimensions: influence, communication and novelty. It calculates several evaluation metrics, including the explanation rate, information entropy value, difference coefficient and novelty degree. Finally, this study applies the concept of fuzzy mathematics to measure the final results.

The use of affiliation degree and fuzzy Borda number can synthesize ranking and score differences among evaluation methods. It combines internal objective information and improves model accuracy. The novelty of journal topics positively correlates with both the journal impact factor and social media mentions. In addition, journal communication power indicators compensate for the shortcomings of traditional citation analysis. Finally, the three-dimensional representative evaluation index serves as a reminder to academic journals to avoid the vortex of the Matthew effect.

This paper proposes a journal evaluation model comprising academic influence, communication power and novelty dimensions. It uses fuzzy Borda evaluation to address issues related to the weighing of single evaluation methods. This study also analyses the relationship of the three dimensions and offers insights for journal development in the new media era.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce altmetric indicators and combine with traditional citation indicators to comprehensively evaluate the impact of academic journals from the perspective of multidimensional and multi-indicator fusion.

The authors take international multidisciplinary journals as an example, combining 14 traditional citation indicators of academic journals and introducing 14 altmetric indicators to build a comprehensive evaluation model of the impact of academic journals (academic impact and societal impact). At the same time, the authors systematically construct a journal evaluation indicator system from three dimensions. Then, the indicators data of three dimensions are evaluated by normalized processing, correlation analysis, reliability and validity analysis, PCA and factor analysis.

Two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses can exactly provide some useful information for academic journals’ location in the respective coordinate systems. There are strong positive correlations among the measured indicators in the three dimensions, and each indicator has a significant consistency between whole and internal. The correlation coefficient between FD1 and FD2 is 0.888 with a strong positive correlation. It shows that the traditional citation indicators provided by WoS and Scopus database are highly consistent, and they are comparable and alternative in evaluating the academic impact of journals. The correlation coefficients of FD1, FD2 with FD3 are 0.831 and 0.798. There are strong positive correlations among them, which indicate that the evaluation of journals’ societal impact based on altmetrics indicator can be considered as a potential supplement to academic impact evaluation based on citation and to reflect the multidimensional nature of journals impact in an immediate way.

Multidimensional and multi-indicator perspective evaluation can provide references for the selection of impact evaluation indicators and model optimization of academic journals, and also provide new ideas for improving the status of the impact evaluation of academic journals.

Under the background of open science, this paper integrates altmetrics data and combines multiple evaluation methods to analyze and evaluate the indicators' characteristics of discourse leading for academic journals, which is of great significance to enrich and improve the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

This paper obtained 795,631 citations and 10.3 million altmetrics indicators data for 126,424 published papers from 151 medicine, general and internal academic journals. In this paper, descriptive statistical analysis and distribution rules of evaluation indicators are first carried out at the macro level. The distribution characteristics of evaluation indicators under different international collaboration conditions are analyzed at the micro level. Second, according to the characteristics and connotation of the evaluation indicators, the evaluation indicator system is constructed. Third, correlation analysis, factor analysis, entropy weight method and TOPSIS method are adopted to evaluate and analyze the discourse leading in medicine, general and internal academic journals by integrating altmetrics. At the same time, this paper verifies the reliability of the evaluation results.

Six features of discourse leading integrated with altmetrics indicators are obtained. In the era of open science, online academic exchanges are becoming more and more popular. The evaluation activities based on altmetrics have fine-grained and procedural advantages. It is feasible and necessary to integrate altmetrics indicators and combine the advantages of multiple methods to evaluate the academic journals' discourse leading of which are in a diversified academic ecosystem.

This paper uses descriptive statistical analysis to analyze the distribution characteristics and distribution rules of discourse leading indicators of academic journals and to explore the availability of altmetrics indicators and the effectiveness of constructing an evaluation system. Then, combining the advantages of multiple evaluation methods, The author integrates altmetrics indicators to comprehensively evaluate the discourse leading of academic journals and verify the reliability of the evaluation results. This paper aims to provide references for enriching and improving the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

Given the magnitude of the literature, a researcher must be selective of research papers and publications in general. In other words, only papers that meet strict standards of academic integrity and adhere to reliable and credible sources should be referenced. The purpose of this paper is to approach this issue from the prism of scientometrics according to the following research questions: Is it necessary to judge the quality of scientific production? How do we evaluate scientific production? What are the tools to be used in evaluation?

This paper presents a comparative study of scientometric evaluation practices and tools. A systematic literature review is conducted based on articles published in the field of scientometrics between 1951 and 2022. To analyze data, the authors performed three different aspects of analysis: usage analysis based on classification and comparison between the different scientific evaluation practices, type and level analysis based on classifying different scientometric indicators according to their types and application levels and similarity analysis based on studying the correlation between different quantitative metrics to identify similarity between them.

This comparative study leads to classify different scientific evaluation practices into externalist and internalist approaches. The authors categorized the different quantitative metrics according to their types (impact, production and composite indicators), their levels of application (micro, meso and macro) and their use (internalist and externalist). Moreover, the similarity analysis has revealed a high correlation between several scientometric indicators such as author h-index, author publications, citations and journal citations.

The interest in this study lies deeply in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of research groups and guides their actions. This evaluation contributes to the advancement of scientific research and to the motivation of researchers. Moreover, this paper can be applied as a complete in-depth guide to help new researchers select appropriate measurements to evaluate scientific production. The selection of evaluation measures is made according to their types, usage and levels of application. Furthermore, our analysis shows the similarity between the different indicators which can limit the overuse of similar measures.

The link between social interaction and entrepreneurial activity has attracted considerable attention in the entrepreneurship literature. In this study, we focus on individual cultural values, shaped by interactions in the social space, as they relate to opportunity evaluation, a cornerstone of the entrepreneurial process. We test our predictions in India, a non-Western society that has sustained one of the highest rates of entrepreneurial activity in the world. Our findings suggest that value orientation of high power distance is negatively associated with opportunity evaluation whereas uncertainty avoidance, collectivism, and femininity are positively associated with opportunity evaluation.

To improve the deficiencies of the existing journal influencing evaluation indexes, which have single influencing factors and are greatly affected by the number of papers published, this paper proposes a new evaluation of the journal influence method based on the RA index.

In the metrics create, the paper introduces the RA index for evaluating the impact of authors and analyzing its feasibility in journal evaluation. Then the RA index is divided by the number of journal's published papers to obtain the RAQ index to evaluate journal impact. In the metrics analysis, the authors analyze the statistical characteristics of the RAQ index using statistical analysis, and t-test, Roc curve and PLS were used to analyze the relationship between the RAQ index and other indicators.

Empirical results show that the RAQ index can effectively identify high-quality journals and reduce the number of published papers on journal evaluation. The empirical results show that the RAQ index has higher stability and discrimination than the h-index and g-index. Compared with other indexes, the RAQ index has better evaluation effects and statistical characteristics.

The current study proposes journals' RAQ index, which integrates the influence of high-, low- and zero-cited papers. It solves the problem of the virtual high of the h-type index. The findings will contribute to the evaluation of journal influence by offering a new research idea that facilitates the fairness and rationality of journal evaluation.

The main purpose of this paper is to measure the status and quality of library and information science (LIS) open-access (OA) journals in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI).

The study selected 86 source journals of LIS in the SSCI as a sample and measured their status of open access. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to analyze 36 OA journals of 86 source journals, especially their production capability, academic influence and network communication ability.

The results indicate that OA journals have become an increasingly important part of LIS journals. Production capability, academic influence and network communication ability are important factors affecting the quality of OA journals. These three evaluation indicators of LIS OA journals are high, but many still have room for improvement.

As the paper is limited by collecting data, the indicators of OA journals’ quality are not all-around. So, they cannot reflect the quality of LIS OA journals. In the selection of the evaluation method, the evaluation results are limited because only one AHP method is used.

The research on evaluation of OA journals can help library and scientific research personnel use OA journals effectively. Identifying key factors on evaluation can help researchers to construct OA journals better.

The research on OA journals’ quality can also promote the study on OA process in academic circles and promote the communication, development and utilization of academic information. Such research can also enrich the theory of OA, and provide some new perspectives for the study of journals’ evaluation.

This paper measures the quality of LIS OA journals by analyzing production capability, academic influence and network communication ability. Rather than the traditional research methods, the focus of this study is on the value of the Web as a source of impact indices. It contributes to the scholarly impact measurements of OA journals.

The purpose of this article is to describe a proposition for the evaluation of citations of scientific papers, which could serve as a supplement to the existing Rule Book of the Ministry of the Republic of Serbia, which is used in the procedure of electing candidates for particular academic and research titles. The evaluation and quantitative presentation of the results and evaluation of citations were carried out on data taken from the database of the Current Research Information System of the University of Novi Sad (CRIS UNS), which is harmonized with the Rule Book of the Ministry with respect to the evaluation of published scientific results of researchers.

There are different criteria to evaluate the quality of scientific papers based on their citations. The pertinent parameters can be the total number of citations, the number of citations in a defined time period and by assigning the appropriate weighting values to the citations. This work proposes a procedure of assigning the citation weighting values based on the evaluation of the scientific results in which the citation appeared according to the Rule Book in the Republic of Serbia. Based on this, the authors introduced the impact factor of researchers as the ratio of the number of points of the evaluated citations and the number of points of the evaluated papers of the researcher.

Results showed that the research information system CRIS UNS can be extended to the evaluation of citations for a single researcher, groups of researchers and institutions.

The proposed solution enables the evaluation of citations in the process of election and promotion of academic staff. In this way, there is a means for measuring the scientific influence of a researcher in the relevant scientific area.

The evaluation of citations may be included in the national strategies of scientific development, funding and evaluation of research projects; for promotions of academic staff at the universities and other academic institutions; and ranking of researchers and research organizations.

The main idea presented in the paper is the definition of a rule book (or several rule books) for the evaluation of citations. Based on the evaluation of citations, the authors proposed the term “the impact factor of researcher”.

This paper aims to analyze the relationships between discourse leading indicators and citations from perspectives of integrating altmetrics indicators and tries to provide references for comprehending the quantitative indicators of scientific communication in the era of open science, constructing the evaluation indicator system of the discourse leading for academic journals and then improving the discourse leading of academic journals.

Based on the theory of communication and the new pattern of scientific communication, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. This paper obtains 874,119 citations and 6,378,843 altmetrics indicators data from 65 international multidisciplinary academic journals. The relationships between indicators of discourse leading (altmetrics) and citations are studied by using descriptive statistical analysis, correlation analysis, principal component analysis, negative binomial regression analysis and marginal effects analysis. Meanwhile, the connotation and essential characteristics of the indicators, the strength and influence of the relationships are further analyzed and explored. It is proposed that academic journals' discourse leading is composed of news discourse leading, social media discourse leading, peer review discourse leading, encyclopedic discourse leading, video discourse leading and policy discourse leading.

It is discovered that the 15 altmetrics indicators data have a low degree of centralization to the center and a high degree of polarization dispersion overall; their distribution patterns do not follow the normal distributions, and their distributions have the characteristics of long-tailed right-peaked curves. Overall, 15 indicators show positive correlations and wide gaps exist in the number of mentions and coverage. The academic journals' discourse leading significantly affects total cites. When altmetrics indicators of international mainstream academic and social media platforms are used to explore the connotation and characteristics of academic journals' discourse leading, the influence or contribution of social media discourse, news discourse, video discourse, policy discourse, peer review discourse and encyclopedia discourse on the citations decreases in turn.

This study is innovative from the academic journal level to analyze the deep relationships between altmetrics indicators and citations from the perspective of correlation. First, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. Second, this paper integrates altmetrics indicators to study the correlation between discourse leading indicators and citations. This study will help to enrich and improve basic theoretical issues and indicators’ composition, provide theoretical support for the construction of the discourse leading evaluation system for academic journals and provide ideas for the evaluation practice activities.

In order to solve the current imbalance of academic resources within the discipline, this article builds a three-dimensional talent evaluation model based on the topic–author–citation based on the z index and proposes the ZAS index to evaluate scholars on different research topics within the discipline.

Based on the sample data of the CSSCI journals in the discipline of physical education in the past five years, the keywords were classified into 13 categories of research topics including female sports. The ZAS index of scholars on topic of female sports and so on was calculated, and quantitative indexes such as h index p index and z index were calculated. Comparative analysis of the evaluation effect was performed.

It is found that compared with the h index and p index, the z index achieves a better balance between the quantity, quality and citation distribution of scholars' results and effectively recognizes that the citation quality is higher and the number of citations of each paper is more balanced. In addition, compared to the z index, this article is based on a ZAS index model with an improved three-dimensional topic–author–citation relationship in research fields such as female sports.

It can identify some outstanding scholars who are engaged in small-scale or emerging topic research such as female sports and are excellent in different research areas. Talents create an objective and fair evaluation environment. At the same time, the ranking ability of ZAS indicators in the evaluation of talents is the strongest, and it is expected to be used in practical evaluations.