arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 1803.02436physics.soc-phcs.DL
收藏

影响因子和中心极限定理:为什么引用量依赖于规模

Impact Factors and the Central Limit Theorem: Why Citation Averages Are Scale Dependent

Manolis Antonoyiannakis

摘要:

引文平均值,特别是影响因子(IF),对样本量很敏感。我们将中心极限定理(CLT)应用于IF,以了解它们的尺度依赖行为。对于从所有论文的总体中随机选择的$n$论文的期刊,我们从CLT中期望其IF围绕总体平均$μ$波动,并且跨越与$σ/\sqrt[]{n}$成比例的值范围,其中$σ^2$是总体引用分布的方差。$1/\sqrt[]{n}$依赖性对IF排名有着深远的影响:期刊越大,其IF所在的$μ$范围就越窄。因此,IF排名分配了一个不公平的优势,小期刊在高IF排名,并在低IF排名较大的期刊。我们预计,在IF排名中,期刊会出现规模依赖性分层,小型期刊占据顶部、中间和底部排名;中型期刊占据中间排名;超大型期刊的IF逐渐接近$μ$。我们通过分析(i)1997- 2016年Clarivate Analytics期刊引文报告中的166,498个IF \&期刊大小的数据对,(ii)2014- 2015年发表的276,000篇物理学论文的最高引用部分,以及(iii)任意抽样的物理学期刊列表的引用分布来证实这些预测。我们的结论是,CLT是一个很好的预测实际期刊的IF范围,而持续偏离其预测是一个真正的,非随机的,引用影响的标志。因此,如果不比较类似规模的期刊或调整这些影响,IF排名是误导性的。我们提出了$Φ$指数,一个重新缩放的IF调整大小,它可以推广到也占不同的引文实践跨研究领域。我们的方法也适用于用于比较研究领域,大学部门或国家在各种排名中的引用平均值。

英文摘要:

Citation averages, and Impact Factors (IFs) in particular, are sensitive to sample size. We apply the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) to IFs to understand their scale-dependent behavior. For a journal of $n$ randomly selected papers from a population of all papers, we expect from the CLT that its IF fluctuates around the population average $μ$, and spans a range of values proportional to $σ/\sqrt[]{n}$, where $σ^2$ is the variance of the population's citation distribution. The $1/\sqrt[]{n}$ dependence has profound implications for IF rankings: The larger a journal, the narrower the range around $μ$ where its IF lies. IF rankings therefore allocate an unfair advantage to smaller journals in the high IF ranks, and to larger journals in the low IF ranks. We expect a scale-dependent stratification of journals in IF rankings, whereby small journals occupy top, middle, and bottom ranks; mid-sized journals occupy middle ranks; and very large journals have IFs that asymptotically approach $μ$. We confirm these predictions by analyzing (i) 166,498 IF \& journal-size data pairs in the 1997--2016 Journal Citation Reports of Clarivate Analytics, (ii) the top-cited portion of 276,000 physics papers published in 2014--2015, and (iii) the citation distributions of an arbitrarily sampled list of physics journals. We conclude that the CLT is a good predictor of the IF range of actual journals, while sustained deviations from its predictions are a mark of true, non-random, citation impact. IF rankings are thus misleading unless one compares like-sized journals or adjusts for these effects. We propose the $Φ$ index, a rescaled IF adjusted for size, which can be generalized to account also for different citation practices across research fields. Our methodology applies also to citation averages used to compare research fields, university departments or countries in various rankings.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑