【作者】 胡德华；

【导师】 孙振球；

【作者基本信息】 中南大学 ， 社会医学与卫生事业管理， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 研究背景:由于传统学术期刊价格猛涨以及图书馆订阅经费的严重不足,引发了全球范围内的“学术期刊危机”。为了解决学术期刊危机,国际出版界,学术界、图书情报界、政府机构开展了大规模的“开放存取”（OA）运动,作为OA出版战略之一的开放存取期刊（OA期刊）应运而生。OA期刊是一种具有强大的生命力、充满生机活力的新型期刊,呈现出良好的发展势头,越来越得到了传统文摘/索引工具的认可并广泛被文摘/索引工具收录、报道;越来越得到出版商的认同和支持,并积极参与生物医学类OA期刊创办、发行和和推广;越来越受到广大科研人员和读者的青睐和认同,在学术交流体系中发挥着越来越重要的作用。但是生物医学类OA期刊在保持出版快捷和成本低廉的前提下,能否真正履行高质量的同行评议,并保持编辑的完整性和期刊高质量是学术界、出版界、图书情报界以及广大作者和读者最为关心的问题。其学术质量及其评价一直是争论的焦点和研究的重点。目前生物医学类OA期刊学术质量的评价较多从引文的角度进行评价研究,较少从网络影响力、学术绩效等方面进行研究,综合评价指标体系和模型的研究更少。因此,开展生物医学类OA期刊学术质量评价及其评价体系研究尤为必要,并且具有非常重要的理论意义与实践指导意义。研究目的:1.分析生物医学OA期刊的整体质量和学术影响力及其学科差异,深入比较生物医学OA期刊与非OA期刊学术影响力的优势,探讨免费状态对生物医学OA期刊学术影响力的影响。2.探索多种科学、适用、操作性强的生物医学类OA期刊网络计量学指标,筛选出反映生物医学类OA期刊网络影响力的主要指标和主要因素;通过区组分析、相关性分析、主成分分析,探索网络计量学指标应用于生物医学类OA期刊网络影响力评价的可行性、科学性和适用性。3.分析生物医学类OA期刊h指数分布特点,探索h指数在生物医学类OA期刊学术绩效评价中的应用;探讨h指数与传统文献计量学指标的关系,深入比较它们在评价生物医学类OA期刊学术绩效的一致性和差异性,找出h指数的优势与弱势;探索相对h指数、g指数、hc指数在生物医学类OA期刊学术绩效评价中的意义和作用,以评价其可行性和适用性;比较WOS与Google Scholar不同统计数据库h指数的一致性和差异性。4.在分析目前学术期刊评价体系和评价指标基础上,从学术质量的内涵出发,提出生物医学类OA期刊学术质量评价指标框架,进行指标筛选和权重确定,构建一套具有科学性、合理性、客观性和可操作性的生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价指标体系,建立科学有效的生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价模型。通过实证研究,验证上述建立的生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价指标体系和综合评价模型的科学性、合理性和可行性。研究方法:1.文献调研法。通过对国内外大量相关研究文献的调查分析,掌握目前本课题研究的发展状况和动态。2.网上调研法。通过对OA期刊网站,Google Scholar、Alltheweb、AltaVista等搜索引擎,Web of Science、JCR、乌利希期刊指南等数据库,以及PoP软件等收集了400多种生物医学类OA期刊相关信息和评价指标数据。3.问卷调查法。设计两轮OA期刊学术质量综合评价指标问卷调查表,进行两轮专家调查,筛选综合评价指标和确定指标权重。4.比较分析法。通过对生物医学类OA期刊与非OA期刊的学术质量进行比较研究,探索生物医学类OA期刊的学术质量优势;通过对生物医学类OA期刊不同排名的比较,探索不同评价方法的优缺点、科学性和适用性。5.文献计量学、网络计量学、h指数等理论和方法。通过采用网络计量学、文献计量学、h指数等理论和方法从不同的角度评价了生物医学类OA期刊的学术影响力、网络影响力和学术绩效。6.统计分析法。通过采用SPSS 15.0统计软件,运用统计描述、相关性分析、多元线性回归分析、主成分分析、聚类分析以及多种综合评价方法,探索生物医学类OA期刊学术质量评价的理论与方法。7.数据库技术与方法。采用SQL Server数据库技术建立《OA期刊基础数据库》,运用SQL查询分析器对数据进行处理和分析。8.属性数学理论、联系数学理论以及属性测度法,建立生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价模型。9.实证验证法。通过实证研究,验证生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价指标体系以及综合评价模型的科学性、合理性和实用性。研究结果:1.采用影响因子（IF）百分位数排序、即年指数（ImInd）百分位数排序、平均IF、平均ImInd、平均载文量、平均被引频次等指标,对483种生物医学类OA期刊学术影响力进行了评价研究,结果如下:（1）从总体上看,生物医学类OA期刊的平均Ⅲ百分位数:61.26,中位数:70.42;平均即年指数百分位数:61.75,中位数:68.47。（2）从OA期刊的平均IF和平均ImInd来看,生物医学、人文与社会科学、综合性学科3个学科的平均IF和平均ImInd均显著高于非OA期刊。（3）从各学科环平均百分位数和ImInd平均百分位数来看,生物医学、综合性学科OA期刊的IF平均百分位数和ImInd平均百分位数均在第60位以上。而化学化工与材料科学、工程与技术、农业与食品科学、物理与天文学、数学与统计学5个学科OA期刊的IF平均百分位数和ImInd平均百分位数均排在第50位以下;地球与环境科学、人文与社会科学2个学科OA期刊的IF平均百分位数和ImInd平均百分位数位于第50～60位之间。（4）从生物医学类OA期刊与非OA期刊学术质量的优势比较来看,除了平均被引半衰期外,其他各指标如平均总被引频次、篇均被引频次、平均IF、平均ImInd、平均载文量,OA期刊均比非OA期刊表现出较大的优势,其平均优势系数分别为3.15、0.97、0.77、1.13和1.10。但是随着时间的推移,生物医学类OA期刊的优势日渐丧失,并且OA期刊与非OA期刊学术影响力优势呈现出明显的学科差异。（5）从免费状态对生物医学OA期刊学术影响力的影响来看,2001-2007年,无论是平均IF还是平均ImInd,非完全免费访问期刊均大于完全免费访问期刊（IF:3.228＞1.394;ImInd:0.542＞0.292）,但是它们的增长趋势却正好相反,完全免费访问期刊的平均IF和平均ImInd的增长速率高于非完全免费访问期刊（IF:0.122＞0.028;ImInd:0 03＞0 026）。2.采用网络文献量、网页数、站内链接数、Web引文量、网络影响因子、外部网络影响因子、链接数、外部链接数、IP访问量、PV页面浏览量、人均页面浏览量11个指标,对483种生物医学OA期刊网络影响力进行了评价研究,结果如下:（1）网络文献量主要集中在0到1000之间,年均网络文献量只有100篇左右。其中100到1000篇的OA期刊303种,占总数（483种）的62.73%,中位数502。但是WOS收摘量是网络文献量的近2倍,平均每一种期刊的WOS收摘量比网络文献量多出近800篇。而OA期刊网页数的分布呈离散趋势,差异性较大。（2）网络引文量主要集中在100～100000,占93.99%;网络引文量的总和、平均数（分别为6760055、13995.9731）均分别高于WOS引文量的总和、平均数（分别为5897869、12210.9089）。（3）总链接数在0-100区间的期刊数较少,为52种,占10.77%,而外部链接数、站内链接数在这些区间的期刊数较多,分别为176种和131种,占36.44%和27.12%。总链接数大于100的OA期刊有43 1种,占89.23%,而外部链接数大于100的OA期刊只有307种,占63.56%,内部链接数大于100的OA期刊只有352种,占72.88%。（4）OA期刊网站的外部影响因子分布比较集中,平均外部影响因子仅为0.17,并且其标准差较小。总网络影响因子变异比较大,极差为171.69,标准差为12.08。（5）IP访问量、PV浏览量主要集中于10000以下,分别占总期刊数的95.86%、87.37%。IP访问量、PV浏览量在0-100的期刊较多,分别有127种、102种,分别占28.04%和21.12%。人均页面浏览量主要分布在0～3之间,占93.17%,均数为2.042,标准差为0.7602。（6）网络引文量、网络文献量、网页数、总链接数、外部链接数、站内链接数、外部网络影响因子、IP访问量、PV浏览量9个指标与期刊影响因子之间存在中等偏弱相关性,Pearson相关系数分别为0.550、0.243、0.243、0.232、0.238、0.230、0.152、0.173、0.128,显著性检验P值均小于0.01（双侧）;总网络影响因子（总WIF）、人均页面浏览量与期刊影响因子之间没有明显的相关性（p＞0.05）,Pearson相关系数分别为0.045,0.039。（7）将10个指标综合成四个主成分,其特征值均大于1,它们的累积方差贡献率达89.619%。3.采用h指数、类h指数、h_GS指数,对483种生物医学类OA期刊的学术绩效进行了评价研究,并与传统文献计量学指标评价结果进行了对比研究,结果如下:（1）h指数频数分布向右倾斜,绝大多数生物医学类OA期刊的h指数在5-50之间。h指数大于50的期刊有96种,占19.88%。h指数缺乏唯一性,一个h指数对应一种期刊的只有14种,其他都是一个h指数对应多种期刊,如h指数为5,有10种,h指数为7,有20种,h指数为14,有23种。并且h指数越低,对应的OA期刊越多。（2）生物医学类OA期刊2003-2007各年、总h指数与被引频次呈正相关（P＜0.01）,其pearson相关系数分别为0.786,0.775,0.769,0.750,0.751,0.777,并且均在0.01水平存在显著相关性;与载文量呈正相关（P＜0.01）,pearson相关系数分别为0.517、0.545、0.545、0.537、0.539、0.551;总h指数与平均被引率存在显著正相关（P＜0.01）,其pearson相关系数为0.620;总h指数和影响因子之间呈正相关（P＜0.01）,pearson相关系数为0.678。（3）采用传统文献计量学指标聚类的结果主要集中在D等,占93%左右,而其它3等（A、B、C）合计仅占7%。采用h指数聚类的结果较为科学合理,A、B、C、D4等的期刊数分别占0.4%、7.7%、29%、62.9%,其聚类结果更符合客观实际。（4）h指数排名与被引频次排名、载文量排名、平均被引率排名、IF排名均呈显著正相关（P＜0.01）,Pearson相关系数分别为0.979、0.764、0.830、0.882;由此可见,h指数与被引频次、IF、平均被引率密切相关。（5）在类h指数中,相对h指数五年总和排名前6位的都是综述性期刊,其次是一些小型优质的非综述性的期刊,特别是近年创办的OA期刊,排名都有显著的上升。大部份期刊的相对h指数随时间后移呈现出递减趋势,少部分期刊的相对h指数呈波动变化较大。g指数都高于h指数,并且g指数和h指数对期刊的排名基本保持一致,并且解决了h指数缺乏区分度和灵敏度的问题。hc指数更能反映期刊的当前影响力和活跃程度。（6）483种生物医学类OA期刊中,有330种h_GS指数高于h_WOS指数,平均提高了6.58。只有43种OA期刊的h指数不变。110种OA期刊的h_GS指数低于h_WOS指数,平均下降了6.53。从总体上看,h_GS指数高于h_WOS指数,平均提高了3.01。h_GS与h_WOS存在显著正相关（p＜0.01）,相关系数为0.967。h_GS、h_WOS与2007年的期刊影响因子也存在显著正相关（p＜0.01）,相关系数分别为0.647、0.678,两者相差较小。4.从生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价指标体系及其综合评价模型两个方面建立了生物医学类OA期刊学术质量评价体系,并进行了实证验证。（1）从学术含量、学术影响力、网站丰余度、网络影响力和学术绩效五个方面筛选出了20个OA期刊学术质量评价指标,采用Saaty氏法确定了指标权重,构建了一套5个一级指标、20个二级指标的生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价指标体系。该指标体系不仅包括量效指标如发文国家地区广度、权威数据库收摘量、网络文献量、站内链接数、IP访问量等,而且包括质效指标如影响因子、即年指数、总被引频次等,还包括量效、质效综合指标如h指数、g指数等。该指标体系涵盖了学术含量、学术影响力、网站丰余度、网络影响力和学术绩效5个一级指标20个二级指标,不仅包括来自于OA期刊本身的指标,如影响因子等,而且包括来自于OA期刊网站的指标,如外部网络影响因子等,还包括来自两者综合所表现出来的绩效指标,如h指数等。并且所有指标数据来源广泛且均可量化,标准化。因此,该指标体系全面、系统,具有可操作性和适用性。（2）将属性数学理论和联系数学理论有机结合,提出基于属性数学与联系数学的生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价模型。建立了20个指标的单指标分级标准,构建了100个单指标属性测度函数,阐述了该模型的实现过程,论证了该模型的实用性和可行性。（3）利用构建的指标体系和评价模型,对随机抽取的10种OA期刊进行了单指标属性测度、多指标综合属性测度和属性联系数综合评价序位和等级划分,并与加权秩和比法、加权TOPSIS法序位结果进行比较。实证表明,与加权秩和比法、加权TOPSIS法序位具有较好的一致性,与单指标IF评价相比,该评价体系能揭示更丰富的系统结构信息,因而该评价结果更客观、科学、全面。研究结论:1.生物医学类OA期刊学术影响力评价研究,结论如下:（1）从整体上看,生物医学类OA期刊的整体质量和学术影响力处于中等偏上水平,并且仍在不断提高,出现了一些学术影响力较大的OA期刊。（2）OA期刊的学术影响力存在学科差异性,主要表现在:生物医学、人文与社会科学、综合性学科3个学科OA期刊的学术影响力均超过了非OA期刊。化学化工与材料科学、工程与技术、农业与食品科学、地球与环境科学、物理与天文学、数学与统计学6个学科OA期刊与非OA期刊的学术影响力差别不大。就具体学科而言,OA期刊的学术影响力存在较大差异。（3）生物医学OA期刊较非OA期刊有较强的优势,即OA对期刊学术质量具有正向促动作用,有助于提高OA期刊的质量。但是这种OA优势正在日渐丧失,并且呈现明显的学科差异。（4）完全免费访问期刊的质量和学术影响力较非完全免费访问期刊低,但是其质量和学术影响力的增长率却高于非完全免费访问期刊。这表明完全OA出版模式比非完全OA出版模式更能提高期刊的学术影响力。2.生物医学类OA期刊网络影响力评价研究,结论如下:（1）目前生物医学类OA期刊文献的网络化程度偏低（主要是非完全OA期刊）或者尚未完全被搜索引擎收录和揭示（完全OA期刊）,并且OA期刊网站建设规模参差不齐。（2）生物医学类OA期刊因为具有OA优势,更容易获得大量非ISI收录期刊的引文,所以能获得更多的网络引文。因此,网络引文更适用于OA期刊的网络影响力评价。（3）生物医学类OA期刊网站因期刊OA特性而产生较大的网络影响力,获得较多的链接数和较大的网络影响力;但是外部网络影响力和内在结构完备性有待进一步加强。（4）生物医学类OA期刊的IP访问量、PV浏览量、人均页面浏览量均偏低。因此,要增加OA期刊的访问量、浏览量和网站粘度,OA期刊应该加强自身学术质量建设、网络建设,同时加强宣传,促使科研人员经常访问和利用这类学术期刊,获取其中信息或在其上发表自己的研究成果。（5）网络引文量、网络文献量、网页数、总链接数、外部链接数、站内链接数、外部网络影响因子、IP访问量、PV浏览量9个指标与影响因子之间存在中度或低度相关性,可以作为生物医学类OA期刊质量评价指标。而总网络影响因子、人均页面浏览量与期刊的学术质量没有直接的关联。（6）网络引文量、网络文献量、网页数、总链接数、外部链接数、站内链接数、外部网络影响因子、总网络影响因子、IP访问量、PV浏览量10个网络计量学指标之间存在低度相关性,而人均页面浏览量与其他任一网络计量学指标均不存在相关性,加之它的区分度较小,因此,人均页面浏览量不宜作为OA期刊网络影响力的评价指标。（7）从4个方面综合各指标对评价值的影响,第一主成分的决定因素是网页数、链接数、外部链接数和站内链接数;第二主成分的决定因素是IP访问量和PV浏览量;第三主成分的决定因素是网络引文量和网络文献量;第四主成分的决定因素是外部WIF和总WIF。各主成分是各评价指标的线性组合,根据其贡献率,计算其综合得分,才能对OA期刊网络影响力进行排序和评价。3.生物医学类OA期刊学术绩效评价研究,结论如下:（1）从h指数评价来看,目前生物医学类OA期刊的整体学术绩效质量中等偏上。h指数适用于生物医学类OA期刊学术质量评价,但区分度和灵敏度不够,利用h指数进行生物医学类OA期刊学术质量评价结果相同时,需要增加其他指标进行区分。（2）h指数与传统文献计量学指标有较好的相关性,弥补了后者的不足,并且和传统文献计量学指标相结合,优势互补,从不同角度对生物医学类OA期刊的学术质量作出客观、公正的评价。（3）类h指数在一定程度上弥补了h指数的不足,相对h指数提高了对综述性期刊、小型优质期刊和新创刊期刊的评价,揭示了生物医学类OA期刊学术质量的稳定性和活跃性,但是不宜作为一项独立的OA期刊评价指标。g指数在评价生物医学类OA期刊学术质量方面具有和h指数类似的效力,克服h指数区分度和灵敏度不够等缺点。hc指数比h指数更能反映期刊的当前影响力,可以作为h指数评价的重要补充。（4）h_GS指数与h_WOS指数存在显著性差异;h_GS指数比h_WOS指数提供了更准确、更全面的信息,可以作为h_WOS指数的替代或补充。因此,对生物医学类OA期刊学术质量进行h指数评价时,应充分注意统计源数据库所收录范围、文献类型、数量、搜索机制等因素对h指数的影响。4.生物医学类OA期刊学术质量评价体系研究,结论如下:（1）构建了一套5个一级指标、20个二级指标的生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价指标体系,该指标体系全面、系统、客观,具有科学性、合理性、可操作性和适用性。（2）将属性数学理论和联系数学理论应用于生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价,建立了基于属性数学与联系数学的生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价模型,该模型客观、有效,应用、可行,为生物医学类OA期刊学术质量综合评价、分级评定提供一种新的方法。（3）利用构建的评价体系,对随机抽取的10种生物医学类OA期刊进行了单指标属性测度、多指标综合属性测度和属性联系数综合评价序位和等级划分,实证表明,与加权秩和比法、加权TOPSIS法序位具有较好的一致性。与单指标IF评价相比,该评价体系能揭示更丰富的系统结构信息,因而使评价结果更客观、科学、全面。因此,该评价体系具有科学性、合理性和可行性。更多还原

【Abstract】 BackgroundBecause of soaring prices of traditional academic journals as well as the library’s subscription of a serious shortage of funds,has led to a global "Serials Crisis".In order to solve the crisis,a large-scale "open access"（OA） movement has been launched in the international publishing industries,academic circles,library and information sectors, government agencies.Open Access journals（OA journals）,as one of OA publishing strategies,came into being.OA journals are a great vitality,full of vigor and vitality of the new periodicals and are showing a good momentum of development.OA journals are a great vitality,full of vigor and vitality of the new journals,showing a good momentum of development.They have been included and reported by more and more traditional abstracts/indexing tools; received recognition and supported by more and more publishers;more and more obtained the widespread approval of scientific researchers and readers.They are playing an increasingly important in the academic exchange system.However,under the premise of maintaining fast and low in cost,the most concern by academic circles,publishing industries,library and information sectors,extensive authors and readers,is whether biomedical OA journals can really carry out high-quality peer review,and maintain editorial integrity and high quality.Its academic quality and quality evaluation issues are always the point of debate and the focus of research.Nowadays,Academic quality of biomedical OA journals is evaluated more from the perspective of citations,and less from the perspective of web impact,academic performance,and much less from the synthetical evaluation index system and models.So, it is necessary to study Academic Quality Assessment and its Evaluation System of biomedical OA Journals,which is also of great theoretical and practical importance.Objective1.To analyze the overall quality,academic impact and discipline differences of biomedical OA journals,to compare deeply the advantages of biomedical OA journals with Non-OA journals,and to explore the impact of the free status on the academic quality of biomedical OA journals.2.To explore the scientific,applied,operational webometrics indexes of biomedical OA journals,to select the main indexes and factors that can reflect the web impact of biomedical OA journals,and to explore the feasibility,scientificalness and applicability of Webometrics indexes used in the evaluation of web impact of OA journals by block analysis,correlation analysis,principal components analysis.3.To analyze the distribution characteristics of h-index of biomedical OA journals, to probe into the application of h-index in the academic performance evaluation;to investigate the relationship between h-index and the index of traditional Bibliometrics,to make a deeply comparison about the consistency and difference when the indexes evaluate journals’ academic performance,so as to find the advantages and disadvantages of h-index;To investigate the significance and effect of h-index,g-index and hc-index in academic performance evaluation,and then to evaluate their feasibility and applicability; to compare the consistency and difference of h-index between WOS and Google Scholar.4.Based on analyzing current evaluation systems and evaluation indexes of academic journals,the evaluation index framework of biomedical OA journals was proposed from the connotation of academic quality,evaluation indexes selected and their weight estimated,and then construct a set of synthetical evaluation index system of academic quality of biomedical OA journals,which are scientificalness,rationality and maneuverability,and to build a kind of scientific and effective synthetical evaluation model of academic quality of biomedical OA journals.To verify the scientificity, rationality,and feasibility what built above by empirical research.Methods1.The method of literature survey.To grasp the status of development and trends currently on which this paper studies,through investigation and analysis of numerous related research works all over the world.2.The method of online investigation.More than 400 kinds of biomedical OA journals and its related information and data of evaluating index were collected from OA journals’ sites,search engines such as Google Scholar,Alltheweb and AltaVista, databases such as Web of Science,JCR and Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory,and software such as PoP,etc.3.Questionnaire method.After designing two rounds of questionnaires about synthetical evaluation index of academic of quality of biomedical OA journals,to carry out two rounds of expert investigation,then to select synthetical evaluation indexes and to estimate weight.4.Comparative analysis.Compared with Non-OA journals’ academic quality,it finds the advantages of biomedical OA journals.After comparing different rankings of biomedical OA journals,it explores the advantages and disadvantages,scientificalness and applicability of each evaluating method.5.Some theories and methods as Bibliometrics,Webometrics and h-index.The academic impact,web impact and academic performance of biomedical OA journals were evaluated from different perspectives using these theories and methods.6.Statistical analysis.It studies the theories and methods of academic quality evaluation of biomedical OA journals by using the statistical analysis soft SPSS15.0,and some methods such as statistical description,correlation analysis,multiple linear regression analysis,principal components analysis,cluster analysis and many kinds of synthetical evaluation methods.7.Technique and methods of Database.The biomedical OA journals Basic Database was built by using database technology of SQL Server and data were processed and analyzed using SQL.8.Attribute mathematics theory,connection mathematics theory and the method of attribute measure.The synthetical evaluation model of academic quality of biomedical OA journals was built Using these theory above.9.Empirical research.We verify the scientificity,rationality,and feasibility of the synthetical evaluation’s index system and model of academic of quality of biomedical OA journals by empirical research.Results1.The academic impact of 483 kinds of biomedical OA journals were evaluated using the indexes such as impact factors（IF）,immediacy index（ImInd） percentile rank,the average IF,the average ImInd,the average annual article quantity,and the average cited frequency,etc.The results are as follows:（1） On the whole,the average IF percentile of OA journals is 61.26,median is 70.42, the average immediacy index percentile is 61.75,and median is 68.47.（2） From the average IF and the average ImInd of OA journals,there are three kinds of OA journals whose average IF and the average immediacy index are obviously higher than Non-OA journals’,namely Biomedicine,Humanities & Social Sciences and General Science.（3） From the average IF percentile and the average ImInd percentile of each subject, Biomedicine and General Science are all above the 60^th;Chemistry and Chemical engineering & Material science,Engineering and Technology,Agriculture and Food Science,Physics and Astronomy,Mathematics and Statistics are under the 50^th;Earth and Environmental Sciences,Humanities & Social Sciences are between the 50^th and the 60^th.（4） From the comparison of the advantages of academic quality between biomedical OA journals and Non-OA journals,biomedical OA journals show greater advantage than Non-OA journals in terms of the average total cited frequency,the cited frequency every article,the average IF,the average ImInd,the average annual article quantity,besides the average cited half-life,and the average odds ratios are 3.15、0.97、0.77、1.13 and 1.10 respectively.However,as time goes on,the advantages of biomedical OA journals decline day by day.There are obviously discipline differences in the academic quality advantage compared OA journals with Non-OA journals.（5） From the Free State impact on the academic quality of biomedical OA journals, whatever the average IF or the average ImInd,partly OA journals is greater than completely OA journals from 2001 to 2007（IF:3.228＞1.394;ImInd:0.542＞0.292）.But their rising tendency are opposite,the rising tendency of the average IF or the average ImInd（namely the slope of the fitting line） of biomedical completely OA journals is clearly higher than partly OA journals（IF:0.122＞0.028;ImInd:0.03＞0.026）.2.The web impact of 483 kinds of biomedical OA journals were evaluated using 11 indexes,namely the web literature volume,web pages,internal links number,web citations volume,web impact factor,total external web impact factor,total links number, external links number,IP visits,PV views and per capita page views.The results are as follows:（1） The web literature volume is between 0 and 1000 based on the biomedical OA journals from 2003 to 2007,the annual web literature volume is around 100.Among them there are 303 kinds of OA journals’ web literature volume between 100 and 1000,which is 62.73%of the total（483）,and the median is 502.But the amount of collection in WOS is about twice as the amount of web literature volume and the average the amount of collection in WOS exceeds the web literature volume nearly by 800 for each journal.The distribution of biomedical OA journals’ web pages shows the discrete tendency and they are completely different.（2） The web citation volume is between 100 and 100000,accounted for 93.99%.The total number and the mean of web quotations（6760055 and 13995.9731 respectively） are both higher than that of WOS（5897869 and 12210.9089 respectively）.（3） The total links number of journals between 0 and 100 is fewer,and the kind number is 52,accounted for 10.77%.But the number of journals’ extemal links number and internal links number are in the interval which is 176 and 131 respectively,accounted for 36.44%and 27.12%respectively.There are 431 kinds of journal whose total links number is greater than 100,accounted for 89.23%,and 307 kinds whose external links number is greater than 100,accounted for 63.56%,and 352 kinds whose internal links number is greater than 100,accounted for 72.88%.（4） The distribution of biomedical OA journals websites’ external impact factor is centralized,the average external impact factor is just 0.17,and its standard deviation is smaller.The total impact factor is much different,and its range is 171.60,its standard deviation is 12.08.（5） The IP visits and PV views are mainly below 1000,taking share of the total number of journal at 95.86%and 87.37%respectively.The journal’s IP visits and PV views are between 0 and 100 is more,127 kinds and 102 kinds respectively,accounted for 28.04%and 21.12%respectively.Per capita page views are mainly between 0 and 3, accounted for 93.17%,and its mean is 2.042,its standard deviation is 0.7602. （6） The correlation between 9 indexes（namely the web citations volume,web literature volume,web pages,total links number,external links number,internal links number,external web impact factor,IP visits and PV views） and the IF of journals are low to intermediate,and the Pearson correlation coefficient are 0.550,0.243,0.243,0.232, 0.238,0.230,0.152,0.173 and 0.128 respectively.The values of P of significance test are all less than 0.01（bilateral）.The total web impact factor（total WIF）,Per capita page views and the IF of journals has no obvious correlation（P＞0.05）,and the Pearson correlation coefficient are 0.045 and 0.039 respectively.（7） Put 10 indexes together into 4 principal constituents,their eigenvalues are all greater than 1,their cumulated variance contribution ratio amounts to 89.619%.3.The academic performance of 483 kinds of biomedical OA journals were evaluated and compared using h-index,h-like index and h_GS-index and traditional bibliometrics indexes.The results are as follows:（1） The distribution frequency of h-index is right-oblique,and h-index of most biomedical OA journals are between 5 and 50.The h-index of 96 kinds journals is greater than 50,accounted for 19.88%.The h-index lacks of uniqueness,that is to say,only 14 kinds journals where one h-index is corresponding to one journal,and one h-index is corresponding to many journal in others,for instance,there are 10 kinds journals when h-index is 5,20 kinds journals when h-index is 7,and 23 kinds journals when h-index is 14.And the lower h-index is,the more number of OA journals are.（2） There is a positive correlation（P＜0.01） between overall h-index and cited frequency of biomedical OA journals each year from 2003 to 2007,the Pearson correlation coefficient are 0.786,0.775,0.769,0.750,0.751 and 0.777 respectively,and significant correlation exists based on the level of 0.01;And there is a positive correlation （P＜0.01） between overall h-index and article quantity,the Pearson correlation coefficient are 0.517,0.545,0.545,0.537,0.539 and 0.551 respectively;there is also a positive correlation（P＜0.01） between overall h-index and average citation rates,the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.620;there is a positive correlation（P＜0.01） between overall h-index and IF,the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.678.（3） The results based on the clustering of traditional Bibliometrics indexes mainly concentrate on grade D,accounted for around 93%,and the total of others（grade A,B,C）is just accounted for 7%.When based on the clustering of h-index,the results are more scientific and rational,and the journals number of grade A,B,C,D are accounted for0.4%,7.7%,29%and 62.9%respectively,which are more realistic.（4） The h-index ranking has a positive correlation（P＜0.01） with the cited frequency ranking,the article quantity ranking,the average citation rates,and the IF ranking respectively,the Pearson correlation coefficient are 0.979,0.764,0.830 and 0.882 respectively.So h-index is much related to cited frequency,IF and the average citation rates.（5） The top 6 high-ranks are all review journals according to the total values of relative h-index of five years.Secondly,some small but excellent Non-Review journals’ ranks are all on the rise,especially biomedical OA journals founded in recent years.The relative h-indexes of most journals have digressive tendency over time（increase gradually when back to time）,and the relative h-indexes of a few journals fluctuate wildly.g-index is higher than h-index of biomedical OA journals,and the rank of journals according to g-index keeps in step with that of h-index.And g-index also solves the problems about h-index’s lacking of discrimination and sensitivity.hc-index better reflect the current impact and the level of activity of biomedical OA journals.（6） In the 483 kinds of biomedical OA journals,the h-index of 330 kinds of them in Google Scholar is higher than that in WOS,and increases by an average of 6.58.The h-index is not changed only for 43 kinds of biomedical OA journals.The h-index of 110 kinds of them in Google Scholar is lower than that in WOS,and decreases by an average of 6.53.As a whole,h-index in Google Scholar is higher than that in WOS,and increases by an average of 3.01.The h_GS has a significant positive correlation（p＜0.01） with h_WOS,and the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.967.The h_GS and h_WOS also have a significant positive correlation（p＜0.01） with IF of 2007,and the Pearson correlation coefficient are 0.647 and 0.678 respectively,and The difference is smaller.4.The evaluation system of academic quality of biomedical OA journals has been built from the synthetical evaluation index system of academic quality and synthetical evaluation model.The results are as follows:（1）20 evaluation indexes of academic quality of biomedical OA journals have been screened out from 5 aspects such as academic content,academic impact,network richness,web impact and academic performance,and the index weight has been set up by using Saaty’s method.Thus a set of synthetical evaluation index system of academic quality of biomedical OA journals has been built,which includes 2 levels and 20 indexes.The index system not only includes dose-effect indexes such as the extent of dispatch countries or regions,the volume of being included by authoritative data bank, the web literature volume,internal link number,IP visits,etc,but also includes quality efficiency indexes such as IF,ImInd and total cited frequency,etc,and more includes some academic performance indexes such as h-index,g-index,etc.The index system covers 5 indexes in the first level（academic content,academic impact,network richness,web impact and academic performance）,and 20 indexes in the second level.The indexes not only come from biomedical OA journals itself,such as IF, but also come from biomedical OA journals websites,such as external web impact factor, and more come from performance indexes integrated by both,such as h-index.All the data of the indexes are abundantly available,quantifiable and standardized.So the system is comprehensive,systematic,maneuverable and applicable.（2） Combining organically the theory of attribute mathematics with connection mathematics,a synthetical evaluation model of academic quality of biomedical OA journals is proposed based on attribute mathematics and connection mathematics.The single index classification criteria of 20 indexes and 100 attribute measure functions of single index have been built too.Its implementation procedure has been elaborated on, and the model is practical and feasible is proved by empirical research.（3） Using the index system and the evaluation model,10 kinds of biomedical OA journals are selected by stratified random sampling method,and then are synthetically evaluated and graded using attribute measure of single index,synthetical attribute measure of multi-index and attribute connection mathematics,and the findings are compared with the one of weighted rank sum ratio and weighted TOPSIS.The results have good consistency,and compare with the results of IF,the evaluation system to reveal more information of system structure.So the results are scientific,rational and feasible.Conclusion1.Through the evaluation research of academic impact of biomedical OA journals, the conclusions are as follows:（1） In general,the academic impact of biomedical OA journals is above the average, and gradually raised,some biomedical OA journals which have greater influence come into being.（2） There are discipline differences in biomedical OA journals’ academic impact, main show is:there are three kinds of biomedical OA journals whose academic impact are obviously higher than Non-OA journals’,namely Biomedicine,Humanities &Social Sciences and General Science,but there are not much different in the academic impact between biomedical OA journals and Non-OA journals compared the subject of Chemistry and Chemical engineering & Material science,Engineering and Technology, Agriculture and Food Science,Earth and Environmental Sciences,Physics and Astronomy,Mathematics and Statistics.In terms of specific subject,there are many differences in the academic impact among OA journals.（3） Biomedical OA journals show greater advantage than Non-OA journals,that is, biomedical OA journals have the positive promotion for academic quality of journals.As time goes on,the advantages of biomedical OA journals decline day by day,besides, there are obviously discipline differences.（4） The quality and academic impact of completely OA journals are lower than partly OA journals’,but the growth rate in quality and academic impact is higher than partly OA journals’.So,it indicates that the completely OA publishing model has better academic impact than the partly OA publishing model.2.Through the evaluation research of web impact of biomedical OA journals,the conclusions are as follows:（1） Currently,the network degree of OA journals document is on the low side （mainly are incomplete OA journals）,or has not been included and showed by search engine completely（full OA journals）.And the construction scale of OA journals website is irregularly.（2） Biomedical OA journals can get more citations since it has the advantage of open access and can get many citations which are not included in ISI;thereby it can acquire more web citations.So,web citations are more applicable to the evaluation of web impact of OA journals.（3） Biomedical OA journals website can bring about greater web impact for its OA, and can get more link numbers and greater total web impact,but the external web impact and the completeness of inner structure remain to be further improved.（4） The IP visits,PV views and per capita page views are on the low side. Biomedical OA journals must strengthen its academic quality construction and network construction so as to increase biomedical OA journals’ visits,views and stickiness of website.At the same time,we should strengthen propaganda to impel researchers to make use of these journals frequently which has access to information from them or publish his research findings on these journals.（5） The correlation between 9 indexes（namely the web citations volume,web literature volume,web pages,total links number,external links number,internal links number,external web impact factor,IP visits and PV views） and the IF of journals are low to intermediate,so they could be the evaluation indexes of academic quality of OA journals.But the total web impact factor and per capita page views are not related directly to academic quality of biomedical OA journals.（6） Among the web citation volume,web literature volume,web pages,total links number,external links number,internal links number,external web impact factor,total web impact factor,IP visits and PV views,one or more weak correlations exists,and between per capita page views and any other Webometrics indexes there is no correlation, besides,its dipartite degree is lower,therefore,per capita page views cannot be the evaluation index of academic quality of biomedical OA journals.（7） We summarize how all the indexes impact on the evaluation from four aspects, and the findings are below:the determinants of the first principal component are web pages,links number,external links number and internal links number,IP visits and PV views is in the second,the third one are web citation volume and web literature volume, and external WIF and total WIF is at last.Each principal component is the linear combination of each evaluation index,and it could not evaluate journals in some aspects by using one principal component.We should rank and evaluate journals based on contribution ratio of each principal component and the composite scores.3.Through the evaluation research of academic performance of biomedical OA journals,the conclusions are as follows:（1） In terms of h-index,the whole academic quality of OA journals is above the average currently.h-index is applicable to the evaluation of academic quality of OA journals,but lacking of discrimination and sensitivity.So we should add other indexes to discriminate when the h-index is equal used in the evaluation.（2） h-index,which can make up for the disadvantages of indexes of traditional Bibliometrics,has a good correlation with indexes of traditional Bibliometrics,and can be combined with traditional Bibliometrics,so as to mutual complement,and to make a objective and fair judgment on academic quality of OA journals from different perspectives.（3） The h-like index relative can make up for the disadvantages of h-index to a certain extent.,and the relative h-index improves the evaluation of review journals and the small but excellent journals,which can reveal the stability and activeness of academic quality of OA journals and it can be used with h-index.g-index has the similar effects as h-index when evaluating the academic quality of OA journals,and it can solve the problems on h-index’s lacking of discrimination and sensitivity,he index better reflect current impacts of OA Journals than h index and it can be used as an important supplement to the h-index evaluation.（4） There are significant differences between h_GS and h_WOS.The h_GS can provide more accurate and more comprehensive information than that h_WOS can provide,so it can be the substitution or supplement to h_WOS.So when to evaluate academic quality of OA journals by using h-index,we should take various factors which have effects on it into account,such as collection scope,document type,quantity,search mechanism and so on of statistical source databases. 4.Through the evaluation research of Evaluation System of biomedical OA journals,the conclusions are as follows:（1） A set of synthetical evaluation index system of academic of quality of biomedical OA journals has been built,which includes 5 indexes in the first level and 20 indexes in the second level.And the system is scientific,rational,comprehensive, systematic,maneuverable and applicable.（2） The theories of attribute mathematics and connection mathematics are applied to the comprehensive evaluation of academic of quality of biomedical OA journals,and a synthetical evaluation model of academic quality of biomedical OA journals has been built,which is based on attributive mathematics and connection mathematics.The model is objective,effective and practical,and it provides a new way to comprehensively assess the classification of academic quality of biomedical OA journals.（3） Using the index system and the evaluation model,the classification criteria of 20 indexes of academic quality of biomedical OA journals and 100 attribute measure functions of single index have been built.We select 10 kinds of OA journals by using stratified random sampling,then to make comprehensive evaluation and grade using attribute measure of single index,synthetical attribute measure of multi-index and attribute connection mathematics,and the findings are compared with the one of weighted rank sum ratio and weighted TOPSIS.The results have good consistency,and compare with the results of IF,the evaluation system to reveal more information of system structure.So the results are more objective,scientific,and comprehensive. Therefore,the evaluation system is scientific,rational and feasible.更多还原