图书情报领域核心期刊的引文分析--以《情报资料工作》2012年引文为例

采用引文分析法对《情报资料工作》2012年刊发的6期共133篇载文的引文数量、引文类型、引文语种、引文年代、引文期刊、引文作者等指标进行统计分析，反映出图书情报领域核心期刊的载文情况和文献引用规律，以及该研究领域内科研人员的文献利用特点。     

我国管理科学重要期刊的遴选及其认定

从科学文献的角度阐述了管理科学类期刊的现状。介绍了管理科学重要期刊遴选的原则、遴选工作过程及最终认定的管理科学重要学术期刊。从期刊论文与引文统计的角度分析了在管理科学期刊中存在的一些问题并提出了改进建议     

欢迎订阅2014年《管理评论》

《管理评论》是中国科学院大学主办的学术月刊,系国家自然科学基金委员会管理科学部认定的少数几种核心期刊之一,已被中文社会科学引文索引(CSSCI)期刊,中国科学引文数据库来源期刊、国家中文核心期刊收录。《管理评论》本着前瞻、务实、创新的宗旨,评论管理学的学科前沿,传播、传承管理学界的新思想,发掘管理学理论支撑的新技术和新方法,并持续关注企业管理、公共管理、金融管理和产业组织领域内,理论与实践中出现的热点和难点问题,循序渐进地推动管理学学科发展和应用水平的提高。目前,《管理评论》     

欢迎订阅2015年《管理评论》

《管理评论》是中国科学院大学主办的学术月刊,系国家自然科学基金委员会管理科学部认定的少数几种核心期刊之一,已被中文社会科学引文索引(CSSCI)期刊、中国科学引文数据库来源期刊、国家中文核心期刊收录。《管理评论》本着前瞻、务实、创新的宗旨,评论管理学的学科前沿,传播、传承管理学界的新思想,发掘管理学理论支撑的新技术和新方法,并持续关注企业管理、公共管理、金融管理和产业组织领域内,理论与实践中出现的热点和难点问题,循序渐进地推动管理学学科发展和应用水平的提高。目前,     

欢迎订阅2015年《管理评论》

《管理评论》是中国科学院大学主办的学术月刊,系国家自然科学基金委员会管理科学部认定的少数几种核心期刊之一,已被中文社会科学引文索引(CSSCI)期刊、中国科学引文数据库来源期刊、国家中文核心期刊收录。《管理评论》本着前瞻、务实、创新的宗旨,评论管理学的学科前沿,传播、传承管理学界的新思想,发掘管理学理论支撑的新技术和新方法,并持续关注企业管理、公共管理、金融管理和产业组织领域内,理论与实践中出现的热点和难点问题,循序渐进地推动管理学学科发展和应用水平的提高。目前,     

欢迎订阅2022年《管理评论》北大核心CSSCI

《管理评论》是中国科学院大学主办的学术月刊,系国家自然科学基金委员会管理科学部认定的少数几种核心期刊之一,已被中文社会科学引文索引(CSSCI)期刊、中国科学引文数据库来源期刊、国家中文核心期刊收录。《管理评论》本着前瞻、务实、创新的宗旨,评论管理学的学科前沿,传播、传承管理学界的新思想,发掘管理学理论支撑的新技术和新方法,并持续关注企业管理、公共管理、金融管理和产业组织领域内,理论与实践中出现的热点和难点问题,循序渐进地推动管理学学科发展和应用水平的提高。目前,《管理评论》已经被管理学界公认为一本学术价值居领先地位的期刊。     

关于举办2009年全国档案管理高级研修班的通知

各机关、企业、事业单位： 《档案学通讯》是由教育部主管、中国人民大学主办的国家级学术期刊，是《中文核心期刊要目总览》确定的档案学、档案事业类首位核心期刊，是中寒社会科学引文索引来源期刊，是我国档案管理理论与技术研究、宣传、推广的重要基地。     

《管理科学》投稿须知

《管理科学》为国家自然科学基金委员会管理科学部认定管理科学A级重要期刊、中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)来源期刊、中国科技论文统计源期刊、《中国核心期刊(遴选)数据库》收录期刊、中文社会科学引文索引来源期刊(CSSCI)、中文核心期刊要目总览入编期刊、中国学术期刊综合评价数据库统计源期刊、中国期刊全文数据库全文收录期刊、中国     

关于举办2009年全国档案管理高级研修班的通知

各机关、企业、事业单位： 《档案学通讯》是由教育部主管、中国人民大学主办的国家级学术期刊，是《中文核心期刊要目总览》确定的档案学、档案事业类首位核心期刊，是中文社会科学引文索引来源期刊，是我国档案管理理论与技术研究、宣传、推广的重要基地。     

国家自然科学基金委员会管理科学部重要期刊异质知识交流能力研究

将不同期刊刊载知识视为异质信息,若一种期刊的个体引文网络中存在联系较为紧密的小团体,则小团体刊载知识被视为该刊的异质信息源。以国家自然科学基金委员会管理科学部认定的30种重要期刊在1980～2009年间形成的互引网络为分析对象,运用社会网络分析工具从异质知识传播、吸收及流动3个角度探讨重要期刊个体引文网络的结构洞情况。发现《管理世界》等期刊跨越较多的结构洞,比较容易与其他重要期刊进行异质知识交流,交流途径非常高效、稳健,且异质知识交流数量和质量受某一种期刊的影响很小。     

Journal Rankings in Business and Management and the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK

The public availability of detailed data from the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK allows an analysis of the publications cited in submissions to the Business and Management panel. Eighty per cent of the 9,942 publications submitted were journal articles. Submissions to the RAE can be scored in terms of the number of citations they make to journals that appear on various lists, such as the Financial Times list. The concentration of articles in a minority of journals, with 50% of all citations to just 126 journals, means that a core list of business and management journals can be compiled. The core list presented contains 562 journals out of the 1582 journal titles that were cited in Business and Management submissions. It includes all journals with more than two citations overall at least one citation in a 5^*, 5 or 4 rated submission. It also includes all journals cited in the RAE from Starbuck's ranked lists of journals and the Financial Times list.     

What makes articles highly cited?

We examined drivers of article citations using 776 articles that were published from 1990 to 2012 in a broad-based and high-impact social sciences journal, The Leadership Quarterly. These articles had 1191 unique authors having published and received in total (at the time of their most recent article published in our dataset) 16,817 articles and 284,777 citations, respectively. Our models explained 66.6% of the variance in citations and showed that quantitative, review, method, and theory articles were significantly more cited than were qualitative articles or agent-based simulations. As concerns quantitative articles, which constituted the majority of the sample, our model explained 80.3% of the variance in citations; some methods (e.g., use of SEM) and designs (e.g., meta-analysis), as well as theoretical approaches (e.g., use of transformational, charismatic, or visionary type-leadership theories) predicted higher article citations. Regarding statistical conclusion validity of quantitative articles, articles having endogeneity threats received significantly fewer citations than did those using a more robust design or an estimation procedure that ensured correct causal estimation. We make several general recommendations on how to improve research practice and article citations.     

Ein Forschungsleistungsranking auf der Grundlage von Google Scholar

Regarding the evaluation of academic research performance, the currently predominant method of judging an individual paper according to the academic journal it was published in implies a few drawbacks: Monographs and edited volumes cannot be assessed, and estimating the quality of an individual article by looking at the journal it was published in is problematic. Based on the work of Harzing (The publish or perish book: your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Tarma Software Research, Melbourne, 2010), this article applies a different approach by measuring the individual impact of each researcher. As a data source we use Google Scholar because it offers the best coverage available in the field of German academic literature in business administration. However, Google Scholar implies qualitative shortcomings that deserve a careful inspection and revision. We analyse all recent publications (2005–2009) of all members of the German Academic Association for Business Research (VHB). Among the researchers, the citations are distributed highly unequal and follow Pareto’s Law: Few scholars gather a large part of all citations. Between the different subfields of business administration there exist large differences regarding their publication and citation cultures. This should be considered carefully when interpreting the results of the ranking.     

A data envelopment analysis approach for ranking journals

We create a data envelopment analysis (DEA) model to rank business journals, using data from the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports^® (JCR). As opposed to previous models that ranked journals in only one field and mostly relied on survey data, this model is used to rank 358 business journals from five different JCR categories according to such citation-based factors as the number of articles, the number of citations, impact factor, five-year impact factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, and article influence score. We compute relative efficiencies of the journals and thereby create plausible journal rankings that largely, but not completely, corroborate three widely used business publication journal ranking lists. In addition, we show how the different characteristics of the JCR data impact the DEA ranking model. Finally, we identify journals that are not on the business publication lists but consistently perform very well relative to those benchmark journals, and should possibly be included in the business publication ranking lists. We also identify journals whose inclusion in widely used business publication rankings cannot be justified by our methodology.     

Journal of International Management: A 25-year review using bibliometric analysis

The Journal of International Management (JIM) is a leading international academic journal in the field of international business. This study presents a retrospect of the publications in JIM for the last 25 years (as JIM was founded in 1995) through a bibliometric methodology using the Scopus database and Web of Science. The study graphically maps the bibliographic material using VOS viewer software and applies co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and co-occurrence of author keywords. We identify that the journal has expanded consistently and steadily in terms of both number of publications and citations. The collaboration network has expanded over the years, and the geographical focus is more global, encompassing Asia and Oceania. Bibliographic coupling of JIM publications reveals several distinct, major themes in the international management/business domain. Conventional international management themes that have emerged include market entry modes, globalization, international human resource management, cross-cultural management/leadership, and expatriate management. New emerging themes include emerging markets, global sourcing, innovation performance, digital firms, diversity of global teams, internationalization in uncertain environments, and virtual teams. A summary of the shifting research trends and themes in the discipline and their development is presented in this review, culminating in future directions for prospective publishers of JIM.     

Relationships among the academic business disciplines: a multi-method citation analysis

A great number of papers have been published that compare the quality or impact of academic journals. This article seeks to broaden the debate on journal evaluation by showing how top journals in various academic business disciplines, as defined by the Financial Times list of top research outlets, relate to one other. Using large-scale sociometric analyses on about 140,000 citations we found that the integration of the citation network has increased over time. Moreover, the information flow from Finance and Economics to Management has become stronger and, within Management, a polarization between information generators and users has taken place. We also found that most business academics published in distinct and mostly non-overlapping disciplines. The only exceptions were Finance and Economics as well as Strategic Management and OB/HR. Surprisingly, we also found that the general business journals, which could be assumed to be cited by most other journals across the management disciplines, are not central to the entire field. For instance, they are not complementary at all to Finance and Economics. Instead, Operations Research (OR) and Management Information Systems journals occupy the central space on the perceptual map. This indicates that these disciplines (and OR in particular) are complementary with Management and with Finance and Economics.     

中国管理科学学科发展态势计量分析

本文从国家自然科学基金资助情况和在国际重要期刊上发表论文情况两个维度，梳理中国管理科学2009-2018年的发展态势。研究结果显示国家自然科学基金是管理科学研究资助的主渠道，资助项数和资助金额稳步增加。中国学者在国际重要期刊上发表的论文数量增长迅速，从2009年的1314篇增长到2018年的6309篇，年均增长19.04%。此外，第一作者或通讯作者论文占比也从2009年的69.03%增长到2018年的88.57%。2009-2018年中国学者的发文总量居世界第三，2018年单年发文量居世界第二，国际合作论文数稳步增长，表明近年来中国管理科学研究呈现出快速发展态势。结合基金资助和发表论文的增速来看，发文量的年均增长率高于基金资助的增长率，并且受资助论文数量和占比逐年增加，表明国家自然科学基金对中国管理科学研究的资助效果明显。     

The journal readership survey

In the early part of last year the Editorial Board commissioned a study to investigate readers' attitudes to this journal. The journal is produced for a highly specialist audience, located in a wide spectrum of industries and institutions, with considerable diversity in their application of the planning function. The board was therefore concerned to discover the extent to which the journal satisfied the varied interests of readers and to identity any aspects of the content and presentation of the journal which could be improved in the future.     

DIVERSITY IN ECONOMICS: AN ANALYSIS OF JOURNAL QUALITY PERCEPTIONS

It is still debatable whether scientific diversity is a virtue or a disadvantage for the development of a discipline. Nonetheless, diversity among scientists with respect to their journal quality perceptions plays an important role in hiring and promotion decisions. In this article we examine the degree of diversity within economics based on the journal quality perceptions of 2,103 AEA economists worldwide. Specifically, we empirically test for factors that might explain differences in an economist's journal quality perceptions. These factors include an economist's geographic origin, school of thought, journal affiliation, field of specialization and research orientation. Indeed, we find that a significant degree of diversity in journal quality perceptions exists between economists that belong in different subgroups. These results might explain the frequent debates in tenure and promotion committees where journal standings are used for the evaluation of a researcher's output. (JEL: A12, D12)     

Interpreting MSHA Citations Through the Lens of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems: Investigating Their Impact on Mine Injuries and Illnesses 2003–2010

Since the late 1980s, the U.S. Department of Labor has considered regulating a systems approach to occupational health and safety management. Recently, a health and safety management systems (HSMS) standard has returned to the regulatory agenda of both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Because a mandated standard has implications for both industry and regulating bodies alike, it is imperative to gain a greater understanding of the potential effects that an HSMS regulatory approach can have on establishment‐level injuries and illnesses. Through the lens of MSHA's regulatory framework, we first explore how current enforcement activities align with HSMS elements. Using MSHA data for the years 2003–2010, we then analyze the relationship between various types of enforcement activities (e.g., total number of citations, total penalty amount, and HSMS‐aligned citations) and mine reportable injuries. Our findings show that the reduction in mine reportable injuries predicted by increases in MSHA enforcement ranges from negligible to 18%. The results suggest that the type and focus of the enforcement activity may be more important for accident reduction than the total number of citations issued and the associated penalty amount.