| 查看: 2847 | 回复: 14 | ||||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | ||||
marineman至尊木虫 (知名作家)
爱八卦爱生活
|
[交流]
大家对Plos One的影响因子如何预测？
|
|||
|
请评价！！！ [ Last edited by bingyulin3 on 2008-12-28 at 09:15 ] |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 学术借鉴 |
» 猜你喜欢
281求调剂（0805）
已经有12人回复
-
一志愿西南交大，求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
0854可跨调剂，一作一项核心论文五项专利，省、国级证书40+数一英一287
已经有7人回复
-
297求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
材料专硕306英一数二
已经有13人回复
-
0703化学调剂 ，六级已过，有科研经历
已经有10人回复
-
0817 化学工程 299分求调剂 有科研经历 有二区文章
已经有6人回复
-
收复试调剂生
已经有4人回复
-
材料专硕274一志愿陕西师范大学求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
331求调剂（0703有机化学
已经有8人回复
2楼2008-12-12 09:10:29
marineman
至尊木虫 (知名作家)
爱八卦爱生活
- 应助: 486 (硕士)
- 金币: 25938.4
- 散金: 7934
- 红花: 36
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 7768
- 在线: 279.7小时
- 虫号: 255556
- 注册: 2006-05-28
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 等离子体物理
3楼2008-12-12 09:20:30
★ ★
cxksama(金币+2,VIP+0):鼓励新虫，感谢积极回复 4-24 23:25
cxksama(金币+2,VIP+0):鼓励新虫，感谢积极回复 4-24 23:25
| PLoS One现在还未收录到SCI中，因此今年ISI可能不会统计它的2008年影响因子了。不过，有人早已利用Google Scholar对PLoS One在2007年发表的文章进行了引用统计，结果计算出其IF=5.68。虽然他们没有统计该杂志2006年文章的运用情况，但PLoS One在2006才刊登137篇论文（而2007年为1229篇），所以对统计结果影响不大。就算2006年全部文章引用为零（这是不可能的），PLoS One的IF也达到5.11。所以说，2008年PLoS One的影响因子应该在5以上。 |
4楼2009-04-24 23:19:51
kernelflyer
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 3 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1513.8
- 散金: 886
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 511
- 在线: 367.2小时
- 虫号: 255559
- 注册: 2006-05-28
- 专业: 电路与系统
5楼2009-04-24 23:33:29
6楼2009-04-25 08:36:53
|
PLoS One民间统计的影响因子出自这里： http://lampreylinux.wordpress.co ... factor-of-plos-one/ 再看看另一处关于PLoS One的走势分析，大致与PLoS Computational Biology相当： http://www.medsci.cn/shownews.asp?id=132 [ Last edited by javaen on 2009-4-26 at 19:08 ] |
7楼2009-04-26 18:56:17
|
另外还有一些关于PLoS One的讨论： http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=220746 http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=17 也许，看过这些讨论后，很少再有人会认为PLoS One的IF<3了。 |
8楼2009-04-26 19:06:57
|
看看plos one网页上的这句话，PLoS ONE will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them). 即使plos one发表一些高水平论文，总的影响因子也不会太高。ISI的SCIE迟迟不肯收录它可能也是这个原因。有人误把ISI web of knowledge 收录当成了SCI收录，目前ISI的web of science并没有收录这一期刊。 顺便多说几句，要想在plos one上发表论文，就要放弃拿着期刊做宣传的想法。这个期刊的审稿不审你论文的水平高低，而是可靠与否。也就是说，即使它的影响因子达到100，作者也不能因为在上面发表了论文，而宣称自己的研究水平如何高。这一点不同于传统期刊（以及plos系列的其他期刊）。要证明自己的水平，还要耐性等待他人引用或者被F1000等机构评价一下。 我并没有贬低plos one作者群的意思。好的论文不需要沾期刊的光，而是期刊沾论文的光。只有差的论文才整天宣传自己发表在什么期刊上。俄国数学家佩雷尔曼，因拒领菲尔兹奖而在中国新闻上反复出现，他的论文就没有发表在著名期刊上，甚至可以说没有正式发表，没有经过审稿等过程自己放到网上（arXiv）的。这位人物显然足够自信，没有必要投给严格审稿的顶级数学期刊或综合性期刊。 "the IFs of the journal where a paper is published is a very poor measure of a papers importance" [ Last edited by darwinists on 2009-5-1 at 14:32 ] |
9楼2009-05-01 14:12:58
|
http://pbeltrao.blogspot.com/200 ... -impact-factor.html Guestimating PLoS ONE impact factor Abhishek Tiwari did some analysis on the number of citations that PLoS ONE is getting so far using Scopus database. We had a small discussion over the numbers on FriendFeed and I ended up looking at different set of values also from Scopus. I tried to predict the first Impact Factor for PLoS ONE that might be out sometime this year. Before showing the numbers I will repeat again that I think the IFs of the journal where a paper is published is a very poor measure of a papers importance. Although it is probably a good measure of the relative value of a journal (within a given field) we should be striving to pick what we read based on the value of a paper instead of the journal. The Impact Factors that will be published this year are calculated as the total number of citations from 2008 to papers published in 2006 and 2007, divided by the number of citable units in 2006-2007 (articles and reviews). The data I am looking at is from Scopus so it varies a bit from the one in ISI. The variability comes from the decision of what to include as "citable" articles and from the journals that are covered in Scopus versus ISI. One problem I found with Scopus data was that, for some journals, the database has multiple entries due to small variations in article titles. For PLoS Biology, PLoS Computational Biology and PLoS Genetics the number of articles published should be less than half of what is reported. This does not appear to be the case for PLoS ONE. I downloaded the tables of published articles and tried to removed redundancies looking at the tittles and authors. I counted only articles and reviews as citable items but used all articles published in 2006-2007 to get the number of citations in the year 2008. I also did the same calculations for the impact factor of the previous year to be able to compare with the data from ISI. The results were comparable but not the same. In summary, PLoS ONE might get an impact factor of about half of the expected for PLoS Computational Biology. The usual disclaimers should be said: I have no idea of how complete Scopus data is and how exactly it relates to ISI. [ Last edited by darwinists on 2009-5-1 at 14:37 ] |
10楼2009-05-01 14:35:26
