{"title":"Google Scholar Metrics e a proposta do novo Qualis: impacto dos periódicos brasileiros de Ciência da Informação","authors":"H. Costa, Fábio Lorensi do Canto, A. Pinto","doi":"10.22478/ufpb.1809-4783.2020v30n1.50676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present work measures the impact of Brazilian Information Science journals using the methodology proposed by the new Qualis. It analyses the journals in the “Revistas Brasileiras” collection of the Information Science Database (BRAPCI), which were designated to the area 31 of Qualis in 2016 and which had their classification published in the Qualis’ preliminary list in 2019. The FI (JCR), the CiteScore (SJR) and the h5 Index (GSM) of the indexed journals were identified. The Publish or Perish software was used to calculate the h5 index of the non-indexed journals, as well as to collect citation data of articles published in the last five years. The data received a treatment for the elimination of duplicate records and non-citable documents. The average number of citations per article, the standard deviation, the number of citations received by the most cited article and the percentage of articles without citation were calculated. The results suggest that, although most journals have increased their level of classification, the proposal for the new Qualis methodology did not favor Brazilian Information Science, considering the non-permanence of publications in A1 stratum. On the other hand, the adoption of the GSM h5 index for the evaluation of journals without FI or CiteScore is positive. It was also found that the preliminary Qualis classification (2019) presents inconsistencies, considering the classification of similar h5 index journals in different strata. Finally, it was found that the use of Publish or Perish software implies the need for data treatment, considering the various errors presented.","PeriodicalId":44127,"journal":{"name":"Informacao & Sociedade-Estudos","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informacao & Sociedade-Estudos","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1809-4783.2020v30n1.50676","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
The present work measures the impact of Brazilian Information Science journals using the methodology proposed by the new Qualis. It analyses the journals in the “Revistas Brasileiras” collection of the Information Science Database (BRAPCI), which were designated to the area 31 of Qualis in 2016 and which had their classification published in the Qualis’ preliminary list in 2019. The FI (JCR), the CiteScore (SJR) and the h5 Index (GSM) of the indexed journals were identified. The Publish or Perish software was used to calculate the h5 index of the non-indexed journals, as well as to collect citation data of articles published in the last five years. The data received a treatment for the elimination of duplicate records and non-citable documents. The average number of citations per article, the standard deviation, the number of citations received by the most cited article and the percentage of articles without citation were calculated. The results suggest that, although most journals have increased their level of classification, the proposal for the new Qualis methodology did not favor Brazilian Information Science, considering the non-permanence of publications in A1 stratum. On the other hand, the adoption of the GSM h5 index for the evaluation of journals without FI or CiteScore is positive. It was also found that the preliminary Qualis classification (2019) presents inconsistencies, considering the classification of similar h5 index journals in different strata. Finally, it was found that the use of Publish or Perish software implies the need for data treatment, considering the various errors presented.
目前的工作测量的影响,巴西信息科学期刊使用的方法提出了新的质量。它分析了信息科学数据库(BRAPCI)“Revistas Brasileiras”集合中的期刊,这些期刊于2016年被指定为Qualis的31区,并于2019年在Qualis的初步列表中公布了其分类。对被索引期刊的FI (JCR)、CiteScore (SJR)和h5 Index (GSM)进行了鉴定。使用出版或灭亡软件计算未被索引期刊的h5指数,并收集近5年发表的文章的被引数据。对数据进行了处理,以消除重复记录和不可引用的文件。计算文章的平均被引次数、标准差、被引次数最多的文章被引次数和未被引文章的百分比。结果表明,尽管大多数期刊已经提高了它们的分类水平,但考虑到A1层出版物的非持久性,新的Qualis方法的建议并不有利于巴西信息科学。另一方面,采用GSM h5指数对没有FI和CiteScore的期刊进行评价是积极的。考虑到h5指数相似的期刊在不同层次的分类,初步的Qualis分类(2019)也存在不一致性。最后,发现使用Publish or destroy软件意味着需要对数据进行处理,考虑到出现的各种错误。