Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

English (EN)·Polski (PL)·Yкраїнський (UK)
Przejdź do strony domowej biblioteki Centralna Biblioteka Wojskowa Link otwiera się w nowym oknie Logo biblioteki Prolib Integro - strona głównaCentralna Biblioteka Wojskowa

Wyszukujesz frazę "bibliometric indicators" wg kryterium: Temat

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-4 z 4
    Tytuł:
    Scientific publications in public, environmental and occupational health journals by authors from China, Japan and Korea in East Asia: A 10-year literature survey from 2003 to 2012
    Autorzy:
    Li, Meina
    Liu, Xiaodong
    Zhang, Lulu
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2177232.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2015-06-03
    Wydawca:
    Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. dra Jerzego Nofera w Łodzi
    Tematy:
    occupational health
    environmental health
    publication research
    impact factor
    bibliometric indicators
    East Asia
    Opis:
    Objectives To compare the number and quality of public, environmental and occupational health articles published in international journals from the 3 major non-English speaking countries of East Asia: China, Japan and Korea. Material and Methods Public, environmental and occupational health articles from China, Japan and Korea that were published in 161 journals from 2003 to 2012 were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database. We recorded the numbers of total articles, impact factors (IF), citations, number of articles in top 10 journals, references as well as the article distribution from various regions in China. Results From 2003 to 2012, China, Japan and Korea published 5713, 3802 and 1967 papers respectively, with accumulated impact factor of 14 934.55, 8758.36 and 6189.25, the average impact factor of 2.61, 2.30 and 3.15 and the average citation numbers per document of 5.08, 6.49 and 5.25. In the top 10 high-impact public, environmental and occupational health journals, China, Japan and Korea accounted for 50.19%, 20.34% and 29.47% of all the papers published in those journals, respectively. Total impact factors of the most popular 10 papers for China, Japan and Korea were: 26.23, 27.08 and 26.91. Distribution of scientific papers among regions was unbalanced in China, for Hong Kong and Taiwan it accounted for 47.31% of the papers from China. Conclusions From 2003 to 2012, both the quality and number of papers from China published in public, environmental and occupational health journals have greatly improved. China exceeded Japan and Korea in the number, accumulated impact factor, total citation times and the average number of references, while Korea had the highest average impact factor. Japan had the highest journal impact factor among the most popular journals, and the highest average citation number per document.
    Źródło:
    International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health; 2015, 28, 4; 663-673
    1232-1087
    1896-494X
    Pojawia się w:
    International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Impact of GDP, spending on R&D, the number of universities and scientific journals on research publications in environmental sciences in the Middle East
    Autorzy:
    Meo, Sultan A.
    Al Masri, Abeer A.
    Usmani, Adnan M.
    Halepoto, Dost M.
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2179074.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2013-10-01
    Wydawca:
    Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. dra Jerzego Nofera w Łodzi
    Tematy:
    bibliometric indicators
    financing science
    expenditures on science
    research publications
    Middle East
    Opis:
    Objectives: This study aimed to assess the impact of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), spending on Research and Development (R&D), the number of universities and scientific journals on the published research documents, citable documents, citations per document and H-index in environmental sciences in the Middle East countries. Materials and Methods: All the 16 Middle East countries were included in the study. Information regarding the GDP, spending on R&D, the total number of universities and indexed journals was collected. Total number of research documents (papers), citable documents, citations per document and H-index in environmental sciences during the period 1996-2011 was recorded. The study used the World Bank, SCI-mago/Scopus, Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters) as the main sources of information. Results: The mean GDP per capita of all the Middle East countries amounted to 18 125.49±5386.28 US$, spending on R&D was 0.63±0.28 US$, the number of universities equaled 36.56±11.33 and mean ISI indexed journals amounted to 8.25±3.93. The mean number of research documents published in environmental sciences in the Middle East countries during the period 1996-2011 was 2202.12±883.98; citable documents: 2156.87±865.09; citations per document: 8.74±0.73; and the H-index: 35.37±6.17. There was a positive correlation between the money spent on R&D and citations per documents (r = 0.6, p = 0.01), H-Index (r = 0.6, p = 0.01); the number of universities and a total of research documents (r = 0.65, p = 0.006), citable documents (r = 0.65, p = 0.006), H-Index (r = 0.50, p = 0.04), as well as ISI indexed journals and total research documents (r = 0.94, p = 0.0001), citable documents (r = 0.94, p = 0.0001), H-Index (r = 0.73, p = 0.001). Conclusions: The Middle East countries which spend more on R&D and which have a large number of universities and ISI indexed journals are likely to produce more significant volume of research papers in the field of environmental science.
    Źródło:
    International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health; 2013, 26, 5; 702-709
    1232-1087
    1896-494X
    Pojawia się w:
    International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Doing Hirsch proud; shaping H-index in engineering sciences
    Autorzy:
    Czarnecki, L.
    Kaźmierkowski, M.
    Rogalski, A.
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/202004.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2013
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Czytelnia Czasopism PAN
    Tematy:
    bibliometric indicators
    citations
    citation metrics
    h-index
    country rank
    SCImago indicator
    disciplines
    domestic Engineering sub-disciplines
    statistics
    Opis:
    The h-index concept has been analysed in aspects of a contemporary tendency of parameterisation of everything and as the potential measure of the knowledge progress, which recognises individuals, institutions and Engineering sub-disciplines that best generate new knowledge. Considerations have been presented at the level of universality of knowledge which implies permanent progress and on the base of careful thoughts of the domestic experience. The h-nature of things has been described, and several axiomatic characterisations of the Hirsch index have been gathered. The mechanism how to increase the h-index has been presented. Some similarities between h-index and the journal impact factor (JIF) have been stressed. Also the universal role of H-index in ranking countries in all areas and in Engineering has been exampled in extended tables. The Glänzel’s model which connects the h-index with two fundamental scientometric indicators: number of publications and the rate of citation, has been analysed. Following the Microsoft Academic Search, the lists of 15 top scientists from various academic disciplines and separately in Engineering have been composed. It has been found that the population of the best keeps basically the same relations between the h-index and a number of publication, and between the h-index and a citation number. However, even the best in Engineering should publish 2 times a year or more papers to receive the same h-index as top scientists in overall domains. The h-index distribution of domestic Engineering sub-disciplines has been presented and analysed in statistic categories. The suitable hhistograms and the cumulative probability density function (CPDF) have been elaborated for 21 sub-disciplines and thereupon the Engineering sub-disciplines have been arranged into three clusters. It has been demonstrated that Engineering as the whole and Engineering sub-disciplines are underestimated, compared to other academic disciplines. The adequate normalisation factors have been suggested. Several other conclusions considered the h,H-indices as the measure of the knowledge progress addressed to individual researchers and to collective, e.g., journals, institutions, organisations, countries, adequately have been written. The h,H-indices are the general measure of the position of the given subject (person or organisation) but cannot be universal.
    Źródło:
    Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Technical Sciences; 2013, 61, 1; 5-21
    0239-7528
    Pojawia się w:
    Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Technical Sciences
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    “Lists of journals of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland 2017 & 2019”, “ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017”, and the Polish journals on the history of science, history, philosophy of science and science of science
    Autorzy:
    Kokowski, Michał
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/783494.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2019
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Umiejętności
    Tematy:
    List of journals of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland 2017 & 2019, ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017, Polish journals, history of science, history, science of science, ERIH+, Google Scholar, Scopus, bibliometric indicators
    Wykaz czasopism MNiSW 2017 i 2019, ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017, polskie czasopisma, historia nauki, filozofia nauki, naukoznawstwo, „Wsparcie dla czasopism naukowych 2019–2020” WCN, ERIH+, DOAJ, Scopus, Google Scholar, wskaźniki bibliometryczne
    Opis:
    The article presents the results of the evaluation of the Polish journals from the history of science, history, philosophy of science, and science of science, based on the “List of journals of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland 2017 & 2019” and “ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017”. A comment has also been added to these results. The following facts were noted:a) the fact that there is a negative correlation between the journal’s rating in the “List of journals MNiSW 2019” and the journal’s ratings in the “ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017” for journals from the history and history of science;b) the fact that the presence of the journal in the DOAJ does not raise the ministerial rating of the journal;c) the fact that the evaluation of the journal in the Scopus database has not significantly affected the increase in the ministerial rating: the rating depends on the discipline and sub-discipline;d) the fact that journals from the ministerial program “Support for scientific journals 2019–2020” (WCN 2019–2020) and ERIH+ received 20 to 70 points; their ministerial ratings depend on discipline and sub-discipline.In addition, it was hoped that for the good of Polish science, some errors of the “List of journals of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Polish Republic 2019” would be removed in a short time, as some magazines received too low marks (this statement results from a comparison of journals’ achievements, including bibliometric indicators).
    W artykule przedstawiono wyniki ewaluacji czasopism z historii nauki, historii, filozofii nauki oraz naukoznawstwa na podstawie „Wykazu czasopism MNiSW 2017”, „Wykazu czasopism MNiSW  2019” oraz „ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017”. Dodano także komentarz do tych wyników. Zwrócono uwagę na następujące fakty:a) fakt istnienia ujemnej korelacji między oceną czasopisma w „Wykazie czasopism MNiSW 2019” a oceną czasopisma na „ICI Journal Master List 2014–2017” dla czasopism z historii i historii nauki;b) fakt, że obecność czasopisma w DOAJ nie podniosła oceny ministerialnej czasopisma;c) fakt, że ocena czasopisma w bazie danych Scopus nie wpłynęła w znaczący sposób na wzrost oceny ministerialnej: ocena ta zależy od dyscypliny i subdyscypliny;d) fakt, że czasopisma z listy programu ministerialnego „Wsparcie dla czasopism naukowych 2019–2020” (WCN 2019–2020) oraz ERIH+ otrzymały od 20 do 70 punktów; ich ministerialna ocena zależy od dyscypliny i subdyscypliny.Ponadto wyrażono nadzieję, że dla dobra polskiej nauki w krótkim czasie usunięte zostaną pewne błędy „Wykazu czasopism MNiSW 2019”, gdyż niektóre czasopisma otrzymały nieadekwatne oceny (stwierdzenie to wynika z porównania dokonań czasopism, w tym wskaźników bibliometrycznych).
    Źródło:
    Studia Historiae Scientiarum; 2019, 18
    2451-3202
    Pojawia się w:
    Studia Historiae Scientiarum
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-4 z 4

      Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies