Самоцитирование и его влияние на оценку научной деятельности: обзор литературы. Часть II

This review summarizes papers which analyze the impact of self-citation on research evaluation. We introduce a generalized definition of self-citation and its variants: author, institutional, country, journal, discipline, and publisher selfcitation. Formulae of the basic self-citation measures are given, namely self-citing and self-cited rates. World literature on author, institutional, country, and journal self-citation is studied in more detail. Current views on the role and impact of self-citation are compiled and analyzed. It is found that there is a general consensus on some points: a) excessive self-citation and its total absence are both seen as pathological; b) self-citation has low impact on large research entities but may be critical for the analysis of individual researchers; c) share of self-citations is generally higher for entities with poor bibliometric performance, while top scientists, institutions, journals receive the majority of their citations from outside. This review also considers how bibliometric tools and databases respond to the challenge of possible manipulation by self-citations and how some bibliometric indicators are adjusted by them. The first part of the review presented here deals with the fundamental terms and definitions, and the most discussed and studied type of the self-citation, author self-citation.This second and final part of the review considers institutional, country and journal self-citation. It also examines new bibliometric indicators which adjust for self-citation.Представлен обзор литературы, посвящённой влиянию самоцитирования и возникающим от этого возможным искажениям при библиометрическом анализе. Вводится обобщённое определение самоцитирования и его частных вариантов: авторского, институционального, странового, журнального, дисциплинарного, издательского. Приведены формулы основных метрик самоцитирования – коэффициентов самоцитирования и самоцитируемости. Подробно рассмотрена мировая литература по авторскому, институциональному, страновому и журнальному самоцитированию. Обобщены текущие взгляды на роль и влияние самоцитирования при оценке научной деятельности. При аналитическом рассмотрении статей, посвящённых самоцитированию, выясняется, что у исследователей существует консенсус по ряду позиций, например: а) патологией является как гипертрофированное самоцитирование, так и его отсутствие; б) самоцитирование мало влияет на оценку крупных научных единиц, но может быть критическим при анализе отдельных учёных; в) влияние самоцитирования наиболее выражено у научных единиц со слабыми библиометрическими показателями, в то время как топовые учёные, организации, журналы и др. получают наибольшее число ссылок извне. Рассмотрено реагирование самих библиометрических инструментов и баз данных с целью корректировки индикаторов в случае манипулирования самоцитированием.Вторая, заключительная часть обзора посвящена институциональному, страновому и журнальному самоцитированию, а также введению новых библиометрических индикаторов, так или иначе учитывающих наличие самоцитирования

Effect of Common Extraneous Citation Optimizing Factors on Journal Impact Indicators

This study examines nineteen Scopus index Library and Information Science (LIS) journals to understand the individual as well as unified effects of three optimizing factors such as Author self-citation (ASC), Journal self-citation (JSC) and Recitation (RC) on three popular impact indicators i.e., 2-year JIF, 3-year JIF and JII. Authors found that ASC and JSC have noticeable effects on these impact indicators. Further, it is observed that these impact indicators exhibit very poor correlation among them when their values are deduced from raw citation counts, though all of them express simple arithmetic mean values. The authors concluded that a more refined method that can automatically exclude the effect of these optimizing factors in their derivation may be needed for a fair assessment of a journal’s relative impact in scholarly communication

Trademarks as an indicator: systematic review and bibliometric analysis of literature

Objective. The study aims to investigate, present and discuss the concepts, contexts and applications regarding the use of trademarks as indicators, revealing what can be understood from trademark applications and which conclusions can be inferred based on the publications found. Method. To meet the objectives, techniques of systematic review, bibliometric and systemic analyzes were employed. Using the Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer programs, evaluations of publications per year, periodic impact factor, citations, and network analyzes about co-authorship, citations, filiation, terms used and cocitation of references were made. Results. The biliometric analysis found a low number of publications, a trend of non-evolution in the annual number of publications and the presence of publications lacking editorial evaluation. While other documents have been published in journals with high impact factor and have a notable incidence of citations. The systemic analysis showed a wide range of possibilities for the use of brands as indicators, as indicators of new economic activities, to predict economic changes, to explore regional innovation systems, an indicator of international competitiveness, but especially for its use as an indicator of innovation. Which occurred more frequently. Conclusions. Faced with so many possibilities, it is important to note the importance the not yet explored adoption of trademarks for the most varied purposes. Particularly when related to innovation and services, in view of the phenomenon of the servitization of economies. As well as the need to advance and deepen the research and its potential impact, revealed by the existing publications

The influence of journal self-citations on journal impact factor and immediacy index

[[abstract]]Purpose – The purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between journal self-citation and journal impact factor (JIF)/journal immediacy index (JII). Design/methodology/approach – This research examined research papers in 20 key journals in environmental engineering with a publication year range of 1999 to 2008. The bibliographical information of cited references was obtained from the Science Citation Index Expanded of the Web of Science. Findings – The findings indicated that JIF and JII values changed only slightly regardless of the inclusion or exclusion of self-citations, suggesting that the influence of self-citation on journals was insignificant. Consequently there is no need for evaluations to exclude journal self-citations in journal or researcher evaluations. In addition the findings indicated that JIF and five-year JIF were highly correlated, suggesting that it would not be necessary to extend the calculation of JIF to five years. Considering the cost in terms of time and effort, the two-year JIF is sufficient in the discipline of environmental engineering. Originality/value – This research provides a better understanding of journal self-citations in journal or researcher evaluation with JIF and JII as indicators.[[notice]]補正完畢[[journaltype]]國外[[incitationindex]]SCI[[ispeerreviewed]]Y[[booktype]]紙本[[booktype]]電子版[[countrycodes]]US