共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
Percentiles have been established in bibliometrics as an important alternative to mean-based indicators for obtaining a normalized citation impact of publications. Percentiles have a number of advantages over standard bibliometric indicators used frequently: for example, their calculation is not based on the arithmetic mean which should not be used for skewed bibliometric data. This study describes the opportunities and limits and the advantages and disadvantages of using percentiles in bibliometrics. We also address problems in the calculation of percentiles and percentile rank classes for which there is not (yet) a satisfactory solution. It will be hard to compare the results of different percentile-based studies with each other unless it is clear that the studies were done with the same choices for percentile calculation and rank assignment. 相似文献
2.
This study investigates the use, citation and diffusion of three bibliometric mapping software tools (CiteSpace, HistCite and VOSviewer) in scientific papers. We first conduct a content analysis of a sample of 481 English core journal papers—i.e., papers from journals deemed central to their respective disciplines—in which at least one of these tools is mentioned. This allows us to understand the predominant mention and citation practices surrounding these tools. We then employ several diffusion indicators to gain insight into the diffusion patterns of the three software tools. Overall, we find that researchers mention and cite the tools in diverse ways, many of which fall short of a traditional formal citation. Our results further indicate a clear upward trend in the use of all three tools, though VOSviewer is more frequently used than CiteSpace or HistCite. We also find that these three software tools have seen the fastest and most widespread adoption in library and information science research, where the tools originated. They have since been gradually adopted in other areas of study, initially at a lower diffusion speed but afterward at a rapidly growing rate. 相似文献
3.
《Journal of Informetrics》2023,17(1):101378
Quantitative analyses on delayed recognition indicated by slow-cited papers, including delayed papers and durable papers, have long been discussed to reveal why outstanding discoveries remain unnoticed. However, these analyses include contradictory arguments, such as which combinations of knowledge, over-specialization, or transdisciplinary factors have led to undervaluation. We claim that this is because the indicators of delayed recognition are methodologically similar but capture conceptually different phenomena. Subsequently, this paper examined the overlap of 11 slow-cited measures to identify the uniformity and inconsistency of delayed recognition. Consequently, each measure practically obtained different papers as delayed recognition objectively classified into four groups by citation feature clustering, albeit based on similar concepts. Despite the ambiguity, we found that all delayed recognition measures extract papers that are more likely to be single-author projects that make disruptive contributions to more diverse fields without extremely novel nor conventional knowledge combinations that have been gradually awakened, compared to the null models. This result is robust when applying other hyperparameters, research topic-controlled null models, year-controlled null models, and other fields. This strongly indicates that delayed recognition leads to the reconstruction of a new direction of science and contributes to pioneering a revolutionary research topic. The source code for extracting slow-cited papers is available online.1 相似文献
4.
The general aim of this paper is to show the results of a study in which we combined bibliometric mapping and citation network analysis to investigate the process of creation and transfer of knowledge through scientific publications. The novelty of this approach is the combination of both methods. In this case we analyzed the citations to a very influential paper published in 1990 that contains, for the first time, the term Absorptive Capacity. A bibliometric map identified the terms and the theories associated with the term while two techniques from the citation network analysis recognized the main papers during 15 years. As a result we identified the articles that influenced the research for some time and linked them into a research tradition that can be considered the backbone of the “Absorptive Capacity Field”. 相似文献
5.
Tove Faber Frandsen 《Journal of Informetrics》2009,3(2):124-133
The use of scholarly publications that have not been formally published in e.g. journals is widespread in some fields. In the past they have been disseminated through various channels of informal communication. However, the Internet has enabled dissemination of these un-published and often unrefereed publications to a much wider audience. This is particularly interesting seen in relation to the highly disputed open access advantage as the potential advantage for low visibility publications has not been given much attention in the literature. The present study examines the role of working papers in economics during a 10-year period (1996–2005). It shows that working papers are increasingly becoming visible in the field specific databases. The impact of working papers is relatively low; however, high impact working paper series have citation rate levels similar to the low impact journals in the field. There is no tendency to an increase in impact during the 10 years which is the case for the high impact journals. Consequently, the result of this study does not provide evidence of an open access advantage for working papers in economics. 相似文献
6.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(3):449-477
This paper analyzes several well-known bibliometric indices using an axiomatic approach. We concentrate on indices aiming at capturing the global impact of a scientific output and do not investigate indices aiming at capturing an average impact. Hence, the indices that we study are designed to evaluate authors or groups of authors but not journals. The bibliometric indices that are studied include classic ones such as the number of highly cited papers as well as more recent ones such as the h-index and the g-index. We give conditions that characterize these indices, up to the multiplication by a positive constant. We also study the bibliometric rankings that are induced by these indices. Hence, we provide a general framework for the comparison of bibliometric rankings and indices. 相似文献
7.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2023,49(4):102746
PurposeThis mixed-methods study integrates bibliometric and altmetric investigation with a qualitative method in order to assess the prevalence and societal-impact of Open-Access (OA) publications, and to reveal the considerations behind researchers' decision to publish articles in closed and open-access.Design/methodology/approachThe bibliometric-altmetric study analyzed 584 OA and closed publications published between 2014 and 2019 by 40 Israeli researchers: 20 from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) and 20 from SSH (Social Sciences and Humanities) discipline. We used a multistage cluster sampling method to select a representative sample for the STEM disciplines group (engineering, computer science, biology, mathematics, and physics), and for the SSH disciplines group (sociology, economics, psychology, political science, and history). Required data were extracted from Scopus and Unpaywall databases, and the PlumX-platform. Among the 40 researchers who were selected for the bibliometric-altmetric study, 20 researchers agreed to be interviewed for this study.FindingsComparing bibliometrics and altmetrics for the general publications did not reveal any significant differences between OA and closed publications. These were found only when comparing OA and closed publications across disciplines. STEM-researchers published 59 % of their publications in OA, compared to just 29 % among those in SSH, and they received significantly more bibliometric and altmetric citations from SSH OA publications and from their own closed-access publications. The altmetrics findings indicate that researchers are well acquainted and active in social media. However, according to the interviewees, there is no academic contribution for sharing research findings on social-media; it is viewed as a “public-service”. Researchers' primary consideration for publishing in closed or OA was the journal impact-factor.Research limitations/implicationsOur findings contribute to the increasing body of research that addresses OA citations and societal-impact advantages. The findings suggest the need to adopt an OA-policy after a thorough assessment of the consequences for SSH disciplines. 相似文献
8.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):515-539
Counting of number of papers, of citations and the h-index are the simplest bibliometric indices of the impact of research. We discuss some improvements. First, we replace citations with individual citations, fractionally shared among co-authors, to take into account that different papers and different fields have largely different average number of co-authors and of references. Next, we improve on citation counting applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among papers. Being time-ordered, this reduces to a weighted counting of citation descendants that we call PaperRank. We compute a related AuthorRank applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among authors. These metrics quantify the impact of an author or paper taking into account the impact of those authors that cite it. Finally, we show how self- and circular-citations can be eliminated by defining a closed market of Citation-coins. We apply these metrics to the InSpire database that covers fundamental physics, presenting results for papers, authors, journals, institutes, towns, countries for all-time and in recent time periods. 相似文献
9.
Is more always better? We address this question in the context of bibliometric indices that aim to assess the scientific impact of individual researchers by counting their number of highly cited publications. We propose a simple model in which the number of citations of a publication depends not only on the scientific impact of the publication but also on other ‘random’ factors. Our model indicates that more need not always be better. It turns out that the most influential researchers may have a systematically lower performance, in terms of highly cited publications, than some of their less influential colleagues. The model also suggests an improved way of counting highly cited publications. 相似文献
10.
Faculty publications have been collected in universities, health, and medical institutions for many years, and Cincinnati Children’s is no exception. Since 1949, a yearly list of faculty publications was manually compiled using multiple data sources and disseminated by the Edward L. Pratt Research Library. Products to centralize faculty publication collection and analysis with bibliometric tools are growing in popularity. This article will review the collaborative decision to choose a Research Information Management System and the implementation process including successes, challenges, and future opportunities. 相似文献
11.
12.
《Journal of Informetrics》2020,14(1):100998
Biomedical research encompasses diverse types of activities, from basic science (“bench”) to clinical medicine (“bedside”) to bench-to-bedside translational research. It, however, remains unclear whether different types of research receive citations at varying rates. Here we aim to answer this question by using a newly proposed paper-level indicator that quantifies the extent to which a paper is basic science or clinical medicine. Applying this measure to 5 million biomedical papers, we find a systematic citation disadvantage of clinical oriented papers; they tend to garner far fewer citations and are less likely to be hit works than papers oriented towards basic science. At the same time, clinical research has a higher variance in its citation. We also find that the citation difference between basic and clinical research decreases, yet still persists, if longer citation-window is used. Given the increasing adoption of short-term, citation-based bibliometric indicators in funding decisions, the under-cited effect of clinical research may provide disincentives for bio-researchers to venture into the translation of basic scientific discoveries into clinical applications, thus providing explanations of reasons behind the existence of the gap between basic and clinical research that is commented as “valley of death” and the commentary of “extinction” risk of translational researchers. Our work may provide insights to policy-makers on how to evaluate different types of biomedical research. 相似文献
13.
F1000是一个新的科研文献在线评估系统,它提供了一种系统的结构化的专家评议机制.通过与ISI Web Of Science中由被引次数所确定的影响力较高的文献对比,F1000 的专家评议机制能够及时准确的对优秀文献做出推荐,并给出推荐的评语和文献重要程度等级,对文献质量的评定具有极高的参考性,也对科研工作者快速选择相... 相似文献
14.
Yu Zhang Min Wang Florian Gottwalt Morteza Saberi Elizabeth Chang 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):616-634
As the volume of scientific articles has grown rapidly over the last decades, evaluating their impact becomes critical for tracing valuable and significant research output. Many studies have proposed various ranking methods to estimate the prestige of academic papers using bibliometric methods. However, the weight of the links in bibliometric networks has been rarely considered for article ranking in existing literature. Such incomplete investigation in bibliometric methods could lead to biased ranking results. Therefore, a novel scientific article ranking algorithm, W-Rank, is introduced in this study proposing a weighting scheme. The scheme assigns weight to the links of citation network and authorship network by measuring citation relevance and author contribution. Combining the weighted bibliometric networks and a propagation algorithm, W-Rank is able to obtain article ranking results that are more reasonable than existing PageRank-based methods. Experiments are conducted on both arXiv hep-th and Microsoft Academic Graph datasets to verify the W-Rank and compare it with three renowned article ranking algorithms. Experimental results prove that the proposed weighting scheme assists the W-Rank in obtaining ranking results of higher accuracy and, in certain perspectives, outperforming the other algorithms. 相似文献
15.
The purpose of this study is to find a theoretically grounded, practically applicable and useful granularity level of an algorithmically constructed publication-level classification of research publications (ACPLC). The level addressed is the level of research topics. The methodology we propose uses synthesis papers and their reference articles to construct a baseline classification. A dataset of about 31 million publications, and their mutual citations relations, is used to obtain several ACPLCs of different granularity. Each ACPLC is compared to the baseline classification and the best performing ACPLC is identified. The results of two case studies show that the topics of the cases are closely associated with different classes of the identified ACPLC, and that these classes tend to treat only one topic. Further, the class size variation is moderate, and only a small proportion of the publications belong to very small classes. For these reasons, we conclude that the proposed methodology is suitable to determine the topic granularity level of an ACPLC and that the ACPLC identified by this methodology is useful for bibliometric analyses. 相似文献
16.
国内外颠覆性技术发现方法研究综述 总被引：6，自引：1，他引：5
[目的/意义] 对国内外颠覆性技术发现方法进行系统梳理,分析存在问题,提出未来研究方向,为今后颠覆性技术识别方法的研究奠定基础。[方法/过程] 在辨析颠覆性技术与相关技术概念的基础上,分析总结目前各种颠覆性技术发现方法及优缺点,并整理归纳各方法所依据的主要评判思想和指标。[结果/结论] 现有的颠覆性技术发现方法主要是基于技术管理与应用角度的主观分析,基于专利或科学论文统计分析的客观性探测研究也开始少量出现,但均处于待发展阶段,仍然存在许多不足之处;颠覆性技术发现方法未来研究方向应该是利用情报学理论方法,基于专利与论文两者相结合的数据源,从客观性角度建立颠覆性技术识别的合理、适用的指标体系,提升技术发现的准确性和有效性。 相似文献
17.
V. V. Ivanov V. A. Markusova L. E. Mindeli A. V. Zolotova 《Scientific and Technical Information Processing》2018,45(3):182-191
The review of the research of the Open-Access system of journals and its advantages and disadvantages are presented. The bibliometric analysis was carried out for the array of Russian papers published in the journals of the Gold Open Access system and reflected in the SCI-E database for 2008–2017. The results of the analysis of the publication activity showed that, despite the high payments for papers, there was a steady increase in the share of Russian publications in such journals compared to the overall publication activity of Russia: from 7.8% in 2008 to 13.7% in 2017. This is largely due to active international cooperation of Russian organizations with funding agencies from the United States (31%), Germany (29%), and other industrialized countries. Analysis of the array of Gold OA publications in large research areas made it possible to establish a significant difference in its structure compared to the general array of publications in Russia. As an example, the most important scientific field in the world, Research Area Scientific Technologies, was ranked the third in comparison with the ninth rank in the general array.russian scientists widely use high-quality foreign journals of the Gold OA system, which includes one Russian journal, Solid State Physics. 相似文献
18.
指出文献计量作为一种有效的评价手段,在生物医药领域,主要应用于学术期刊评价和科研绩效评价;传统的文献计量评价方法存在一些固有局限性,为此人们已作出许多创新和改进。分析讨论评价学术期刊的新模型和指标--渐进曲线模型和特征因子以及评价科研绩效的两种方法创新--多指标综合分析和基于社会网络的分析,并论述文献计量与经济社会因素的结合使用。从这些新型方法和指标的出现和应用可以看出,文献计量评价的发展呈现出借助数学模型和计算机手段,由单指标向多指标转换,结合复杂的社会网络特征和经济社会因素进行分析的大趋势。 相似文献
19.
基于F1000与WoS的同行评议与文献计量相关性研究 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
为比较同行评议与文献计量方法在科学评价中的有效性及相关性,选取F1000以及Web of Science数据库,采用SPSS16.0软件,将近2000篇论文的F1000因子与Web of Science数据库中指标进行相关性比较。结果显示,F1000因子与统计区间内的被引频次呈显著正相关,同时一些F1000因子很高的论文并没有高频被引,反之亦然。结论指出:从统计学的视角,文献计量指标与同行评议结果具有正向相关性,但是无论是同行评议还是文献计量,单独作为科学评价标准都会有失偏颇,以引文分析为代表的定量指标与同行评议方法的结合将是未来科学评价的主流。 相似文献
20.
The process of assessing individual authors should rely upon a proper aggregation of reliable and valid papers’ quality metrics. Citations are merely one possible way to measure appreciation of publications. In this study we propose some new, SJR- and SNIP-based indicators, which not only take into account the broadly conceived popularity of a paper (manifested by the number of citations), but also other factors like its potential, or the quality of papers that cite a given publication. We explore the relation and correlation between different metrics and study how they affect the values of a real-valued generalized h-index calculated for 11 prominent scientometricians. We note that the h-index is a very unstable impact function, highly sensitive for applying input elements’ scaling. Our analysis is not only of theoretical significance: data scaling is often performed to normalize citations across disciplines. Uncontrolled application of this operation may lead to unfair and biased (toward some groups) decisions. This puts the validity of authors assessment and ranking using the h-index into question. Obviously, a good impact function to be used in practice should not be as much sensitive to changing input data as the analyzed one. 相似文献