Liu Xue-Li, Gai Shuang-Shuang, Zhou Jing
Henan Research Center for Science Journals, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, Henan Province, China.
Periodicals Publishing House, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, Henan Province, China.
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 15;11(3):e0151414. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151414. eCollection 2016.
To correct the incongruence of document types between the numerator and denominator in the traditional impact factor (IF), we make a corresponding adjustment to its formula and present five corrective IFs: IFTotal/Total, IFTotal/AREL, IFAR/AR, IFAREL/AR, and IFAREL/AREL. Based on a survey of researchers in the fields of ophthalmology and mathematics, we obtained the real impact ranking of sample journals in the minds of peer experts. The correlations between various IFs and questionnaire score were analyzed to verify their journal evaluation effects. The results show that it is scientific and reasonable to use five corrective IFs for journal evaluation for both ophthalmology and mathematics. For ophthalmology, the journal evaluation effects of the five corrective IFs are superior than those of traditional IF: the corrective effect of IFAR/AR is the best, IFAREL/AR is better than IFTotal/Total, followed by IFTotal/AREL, and IFAREL/AREL. For mathematics, the journal evaluation effect of traditional IF is superior than those of the five corrective IFs: the corrective effect of IFTotal/Total is best, IFAREL/AR is better than IFTotal/AREL and IFAREL/AREL, and the corrective effect of IFAR/AR is the worst. In conclusion, not all disciplinary journal IF need correction. The results in the current paper show that to correct the IF of ophthalmologic journals may be valuable, but it seems to be meaningless for mathematic journals.
为纠正传统影响因子（IF）分子与分母文献类型不一致的问题，我们对其公式进行了相应调整，并提出了五个修正后的影响因子：IFTotal/Total、IFTotal/AREL、IFAR/AR、IFAREL/AR和IFAREL/AREL。基于对眼科和数学领域研究人员的调查，我们得出了样本期刊在同行专家心目中的实际影响排名。分析了各种影响因子与问卷得分之间的相关性，以验证它们对期刊的评价效果。结果表明，使用五个修正后的影响因子对眼科和数学期刊进行评价是科学合理的。对于眼科而言，五个修正后的影响因子对期刊的评价效果优于传统影响因子：IFAR/AR的修正效果最佳，IFAREL/AR优于IFTotal/Total，其次是IFTotal/AREL，IFAREL/AREL最差。对于数学学科而言，传统影响因子对期刊的评价效果优于五个修正后的影响因子：IFTotal/Total的修正效果最佳，IFAREL/AR优于IFTotal/AREL和IFAREL/AREL，IFAR/AR的修正效果最差。总之，并非所有学科的期刊影响因子都需要修正。本文结果表明，修正眼科期刊的影响因子可能有价值，但对数学期刊而言似乎毫无意义。
