共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
国外网络引文研究的现状及展望 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
国外的网络引文研究可分为四个方面,侧莺点各不相同:Print-Print引文研究着重于网络环境下传统引文数据库的分析;Print-Web引文研究大多集中在网络引文的可获得性方面;Web-Print引文研究注重实证与传统引文的比较;Web-Web引文研究则是将来引文发展的总趋向.网络引文数据的动态件和不可靠性、网络文献缺乏有效控制与规范,以及数据的精确性问题,都给引文分析带来一定困难.目前相关的研究还处于开创性和探索性阶段,未来的网络引文研究将重点从理论体系的构建、研究方法的完善与实践应用的深化三个层面展开. 相似文献
2.
[目的/意义]鉴于当前对于引用动机的研究缺乏一致性的总结和归类,对于不同的引用动机之间的相互影响关系也缺乏研究,根据前人的研究成果归纳出5个重要的引用动机,在将引用动机的类型分为内在引用动机和外在引用动机两类的基础上,检验引用动机对引用行为以及不同的引用动机间的影响关系.[方法/过程]利用量表式问卷对科研人员进行调查,通过结构方程建模的方法对所回收调查问卷进行分析.[结果/结论]科研人员的论文引用行为会受到"知识主张"、"价值感知"、"信息源便利性"、"引用输出"和"引用重要性"等引用动机的影响.从引用动机间的相互影响关系看,内在引用动机--"知识主张"会影响科研人员对"信息源便利性"、"引用输出"和"引用重要性"的感知程度;另一个内在引用动机--"价值感知"会影响科研人员对"引用输出"和"引用重要性"的感知程度. 相似文献
3.
The outgrow index measures to which extent an article outgrows – in terms of citations – the references on which it is based. In this article, three types of time series of outgrow indices and one outgrow index matrix are introduced. Examples of these time series are given illustrating the newly introduced concepts. These time series expand the toolbox for citation analysis by focusing on a specific subnetwork of the global citation network. It is stated that citation analysis has three application areas: information retrieval, research evaluation and structural citation network studies. This contribution is explicitly placed among structural network studies. 相似文献
4.
5.
学术文献引文推荐研究进展 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
[目的/意义]学术文献引文推荐是指对于给定的学术文献,自动化地为其推荐合适的引文和参考文献。借助于引文推荐,用户可以在一定程度上提高撰写学术文献的效率,降低对重要相关文献的漏引。[方法/过程]分析国内外引文推荐研究的最新进展,阐述引文推荐问题的演化过程,从局部引文推荐和全局引文推荐等方面对引文推荐进行梳理,重点归纳文档相似性、主题模型、翻译模型、协同过滤和混合推荐等5种引文推荐常用方法,并总结引文推荐常用数据集和测评方法。[结果/结论]已有引文推荐研究的主要问题在于未考虑用户偏好的动态变化性及研究领域的综合性,在用户研究和实际应用方面仍有所欠缺;未来引文推荐的研究可运用语义化表达方法和自然语言生成技术,从基于上下文的引文推荐和跨语言引文推荐等方面进行展开。 相似文献
6.
引用认同—— 一个值得注意的概念 总被引：9，自引：1，他引：8
7.
8.
9.
自存档文章引用优势案例分析研究 总被引：2，自引：1，他引：1
通过对自存档文章典型案例的引用情况进行分析研究,得出自存档文章存在引用优势的结论,并进一步对自存档文章引用优势的成因进行了分析,发现除了开放获取模式之外,先见优势、质量歧视、质量优势等因素都对自存档文章的引用优势做出了贡献。为了扩大研究影响和提高被引率,建议科学家应该积极将文章自存档。 相似文献
10.
Paul Donner 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(1):330-343
A standard procedure in citation analysis is that all papers published in one year are assessed at the same later point in time, implicitly treating all publications as if they were published at the exact same date. This leads to systematic bias in favor of early-months publications and against late-months publications. This contribution analyses the size of this distortion on a large body of publications from all disciplines over citation windows of up to 15 years. It is found that early-month publications enjoy a substantial citation advantage, which arises from citations received in the first three years after publication. While the advantage is stronger for author self-citations as opposed to citations from others, it cannot be eliminated by excluding self-citations. The bias decreases only slowly over longer citation windows due to the continuing influence of the earlier years’ citations. Because of the substantial extent and long persistence of the distortions, it would be useful to remove or control for this bias in research and evaluation studies which use citation data. It is demonstrated that this can be achieved by using the newly introduced concept of month-based citation windows. 相似文献
11.
12.
《Legal Reference Services Quarterly》2013,32(2-3):99-112
Abstract Several studies have compared the frequency of citation to law reviews, comparing citation rates for all or most law reviews being published at the time of the study. This article compares the citation rates of general law reviews published by seven public law schools in close geographic proximity. The results show that citation rates are influenced by several factors, including whether articles published by the journals have a state or national focus, the subject matter of the articles, and whether articles are published as part of symposia. 相似文献
13.
The rise of software as a research object is mirrored by increasing interests in quantitative studies of scientific software. However, inconsistent citation practices have led most existing studies of this type to base their analysis of software impact on software name mentions, as identified in full-text publications. Despite its limitations, citation data exists in much greater quantities and covers a broader array of scientific fields than full-text data, and thus can support investigations with much wider scope. This paper aims to analyze the extent to which citation data can be used to reconstruct the impact of software. Specifically, we identify the variety of citable objects related to the lme4 R package and examine how the package’s impact is dispersed across these objects. Our results shed light on a little-discussed challenge of using citation data to measure software impact: even within the category of formal citation, the same software object might be cited in different forms. We consider the implications of this challenge and propose a method to reconstruct the impact of lme4 through its citations nonetheless. 相似文献
14.
基于引用内容的论文影响力研究——以诺贝尔奖获得者论文为例 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
[目的/意义]论文被引频次只能反映论文的宏观影响力,无法揭示论文在他人研究中的具体作用和影响,因此,本文提出从引用内容的主题和功能两方面对论文的影响力进行分析。[方法/过程]以2014年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖获得者J.O'Keefe的高被引论文为实例,首先,采用文献计量学方法对引用内容主题进行分析;对其,影响范围及领域进行可视化分析;其次,从引用性质和功能角度,将引用内容分成正面引用、负面引用和中性引用;最后,将中性引用进一步划分为3类,分别是研究背景介绍、理论基础和实验基础。[结果/结论]结果表明,共词分析可以很好地表达论文影响的主题领域;引用内容的分类可以提供一篇论文被引用的多方面原因。在本实验中没有负面引用,多于10%的引用为正面引用,大约50%的中性引用都是作者在研究背景章节中介绍与施引文献相关的研究工作。 相似文献
15.
Contributing factors to long‐term citation count in marine and freshwater biology articles 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Researchers have investigated factors thought to affect the total number of citations in various academic disciplines, and some general trends have emerged. However, there are still limited data for many fields, including aquatic sciences. Using papers published in 2003–2005 (n = 785), we investigated marine and freshwater biology articles to identify factors that may contribute to the probability of citation and for cumulative citation counts over 10 years. We found no relationships with probability of citation; however, we found evidence that for those that were cited at least once, cumulative citations were related to several factors. Articles cited by books received more citations than those never cited by books, which we hypothesized to be indicative of the impact an article may have in the field. We also found that articles first cited within 2 years of publication received more cumulative citations than those first cited after 2 years. We found no evidence that self‐citation (as the first citation) had a significant effect on total citations. Our findings were compared with previous studies in other disciplines, and it was found that aquatic science citation patterns are comparable to fields in science and technology but less so to humanities and social sciences. 相似文献
16.
利用美国科学情报所出版的ＳＣＩ引文数据和《中国科技论文统计分析》的引文数据,用科学计量学方法,对我国基础性研究的学科发展水平与世界的相应水平进行比较研究,以期为管理者提供决策依据。 相似文献
17.
从高被引与零被引论文的引文结构差异看Research Front与Research Frontier的区别 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
[目的/意义]借助引文分析与其他文献计量学研究方法对特定领域的"研究前沿"进行分析,是目前情报学研究的重要课题。但是中文"研究前沿"实际对应于Research Front与Research Frontier两个具有不同内涵的英文术语,厘清这两个术语关系有助于学者改进并正确应用"研究前沿"分析方法。[方法/过程]在分析Research Frontier与Research Front两个概念交集关系模型的基础上,以Scientometrics和JASIST两种期刊为样本,检验了常见Research Front引文分析指标的可靠性。[结果/结论]实证研究结果显示,尽管高被引论文比零被引在引文的新颖性、热点性、耦合关联性上具有相对显著的优势,但这些特征指标并不能高效地映射潜在的高被引论文。因此,Research Front与Research Frontier是具有显著差异的不同概念,学者们应该对这两组概念进行更为深入的讨论。 相似文献
18.
本文以共被引和共词分析方法,以SCI中2000年至2013年的有关专利引文的研究文献为对象,分析了其知识基础与研究主题.结果表明,专利引文研究主要是建立在Jaffe AB(1993)、Narin F(1997)、Griliches Z(1990)和Trajtenberg M(1990)等人研究基础之上,核心研究领域集中在企业/产业的创新能力与绩效评价,涉及知识溢出、技术扩散、竞争优势等内容.关键词聚类在战略坐标中的象限分布则表明专利引文研究处于既定范式下的深度研究,缺少对范式扩展的广度研究.另外,研究还发现专利引文研究较少关注基础研究与应用技术间的互动关系. 相似文献
19.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(1):101225
Citation behaviour is the source driver of scientific dynamics, and it is essential to understand its effect on knowledge diffusion and intellectual structure. This study explores the effect of citation behaviour on disciplinary knowledge diffusion and intellectual structure by comparing three types of citation behaviour trends, namely the high citation trend, medium citation trend, and low citation trend. The diffusion power, diffusion speed, and diffusion breadth were calculated to quantify knowledge diffusion. The properties of the global and local citation network structure were used to reflect the particular influences of citation behaviour on the scientific intellectual structure. The primary empirical results show that (a) the high citation behaviour trend could improve the knowledge diffusion speed for papers with a short citation history span. Additionally, the medium citation trend has the broadest diffusion breadth whereas the low citation behaviour trend might make the citation counts take off for papers with a long citation history span; (b) the high citation trend has a stronger influence and greater control over the intellectual structure, but this relationship is true only for papers with a short or normal citation history span. These findings could play important roles in scientific research evaluation and impact prediction. 相似文献
20.
Jiang Li Mark Sanderson Peter Willett Michael Norris Charles Oppenheim 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(4):554-563
This paper studies the correlations between peer review and citation indicators when evaluating research quality in library and information science (LIS). Forty-two LIS experts provided judgments on a 5-point scale of the quality of research published by 101 scholars; the median rankings resulting from these judgments were then correlated with h-, g- and H-index values computed using three different sources of citation data: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar (GS). The two variants of the basic h-index correlated more strongly with peer judgment than did the h-index itself; citation data from Scopus was more strongly correlated with the expert judgments than was data from GS, which in turn was more strongly correlated than data from WoS; correlations from a carefully cleaned version of GS data were little different from those obtained using swiftly gathered GS data; the indices from the citation databases resulted in broadly similar rankings of the LIS academics; GS disadvantaged researchers in bibliometrics compared to the other two citation database while WoS disadvantaged researchers in the more technical aspects of information retrieval; and experts from the UK and other European countries rated UK academics with higher scores than did experts from the USA. 相似文献