本頁只刊出中文翻譯與中文說明；英文原文請見下方原文連結。
原文連結
論文資訊
- 類型：已發表論文
- 日期：2010
摘要
The Eigenfactor (TM) Metrics provide an alternative way of evaluating scholarly journals based on an iterative ranking procedure analogous to Google's Page Rank algorithm. These metrics have recently been adopted by Thomson Reuters and are listed alongside the Impact Factor in the Journal Citation Reports. But do these metrics differ sufficiently so as to be a useful addition to the bibliometric toolbox? Davis (2008) has argued that they do not, based on his finding of a 0.95 correlation coefficient between Eigenfactor score and Total Citations for a sample of journals in the field of medicine. This conclusion is mistaken; in this article, we illustrate the basic 統計 fallacy to which Davis succumbed. We provide a complete analysis of the 2006 Journal Citation Reports and demonstrate that th
※ 此為已發表論文，全文需透過期刊付費取得