对不同学科期刊学术影响力比较中的常见问题进行详细描述，分析问题产生的根源，在此基础上系统梳理现有的解决方案，最后从实证角度以学科归一化的期刊评价指标相对期刊影响因子（relative impact factor，RIF）和平均百分比等级指标（mean percentile rank，MPR）为例，引入“公平性测试”（fairness test）方法来检验这两个学科归一化评价指标在不同学科比较中的适用性。
This paper describes the common issues about comparing the academic impact of journals of different disciplines and analyzes their origin. Then it makes a systematical classification of the existing solutions. Finally, it figures out which is better of relative impact factor(RIF) and mean percentile rank(MPR) to evaluate the academic impact using the fairness test method.
[1] 党亚茹.学科影响因子的时间因素差异分析[J].情报学报, 2002, 21(3):328-333.
[2] 杨兵, 彭超群, 袁赛前, 等.相对影响因子在期刊评价和科研评价中的应用[J].编辑学报, 2008, 20(5):466-468.
[3] 任胜利, 王庆宝, 郭志明.应慎重使用期刊的影响因子评价科研成果[J].科学通报, 2000, 45(2):218-221.
[4] 邱均平, 李爱群.国内外期刊评价的比较研究[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2007, 13(3):60-65.
[5] 袁培国, 吴向东, 马晓军.多指标加权值对多学科学术期刊排序初探[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2009, 15(4):74-82.
[6] 贾贤, 黄冬华.学术期刊评价中存在的问题[J].北京科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2011, 27(2):39-43.
[7] 杜志波, 汤先忻.标准化影响因子在不同学科期刊比较中的应用[J].编辑学报, 2007, 19(2):158-160.
[8] Radicchi F, Castellano C. Testing the fairness of citation indicators for comparison across scientific domains: The case of fractional citation counts[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2012, 6(1): 121-130.
[9] Garfield E, Merton R K.Citation indexing:Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities[M].New York:Wiley, 1979.
[10] Moed H F. The source-normalized impact per paper(SNIP)is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact[OL].[2013-11-20].http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4906.
[11] Leydesdorff L, Opthof T. Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations[OL].[2013-11-20].http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2896.
[12] Waltman L, Van Eck N J. A general source normalized approach to bibliometric research performance assessment[OL].[2013-11-20].http://www.ludowaltman.nl/doc/STI2010.pdf.
[13] Herranz N, Ruiz-Castillo J. Sub-field normalization in the multiplicative case:verage-based citation indicators[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2012, 6(4): 543-556.
[14] Colliander C, Ahlgren P. The effects and their stability of field normalization baseline on relative performance with respect to citation impact: A case study of 20 natural science departments[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 101-113.
[15] Zitt M.Citing-side normalization of journal impact: A robust variant of the audience factor[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 392-406.
[16] Zitt M, Small H. Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(11): 1856-1860.
[17] Moed H F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 265-277.
[18] Moed H F. CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group's publication oeuvre[OL].[2013-11-20].http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5884.
[19] Leydesdorff L, Bornmann L. Percentile ranks and the integrated impact indicator (I3)[J].[2013-11-20].http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.6281.
[20] Leydesdorff L, Radicchi F, Bornmann L, et al. Field-normalized impact factors: A comparison of rescaling versus fractionally counted IFs[OL].[2013-11-20].http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2571.
[21] Leydesdorff L, Bornmann L. Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors: An alternative research design with policy implications[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(11): 2133-2146.
