共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 406 毫秒
1.
[目的/意义] 进一步探讨Web 2.0环境下选择性计量指标的有效性。[方法/过程] 以"data mining"为检索词,获得Mendeley与Web of Science两平台的交叉文献集合,分别对交叉文集的被引频数与阅读数、被引频数与标签数进行相关性检验后,从每组选取指标值差异最大与最小的各100篇文献进行具体分析。[结果/结论] 传统计量指标被引频数与Mendeley中的阅读数和标签数均存在弱相关性,证实了以阅读数和标签数为代表的选择性计量指标可以在一定程度上评估文献的影响力,且文献类型、出版年份和作者h指数会对用户阅读、引用等文献利用行为产生影响。未来文献影响力评价的发展方向应为传统文献计量方法与选择性计量方法的结合。 相似文献
2.
专利计量指标研究进展及层次分析 总被引：2，自引：1，他引：1
3.
专利计量指标研究述评 总被引：7，自引：2，他引：5
4.
随着我国出版社大规模企业化转型,学术出版社在取得显著经济效益的同时也出现了各种问题。有效平衡学术出版社"经济市场"与"学术市场"之间关系,不但需要经济效益测评,更需要利用学术影响力指标加以分学科引导。用于出版社学术影响力分析的三类文献计量指标,是指学术性指标、专业性指标与辐射性指标,它们分别反映出版社的整体学术影响力、分学科影响力与跨学科辐射力。实证研究结果表明,这三类文献计量指标可以从引文分析角度客观揭示出版社的学术影响力及其学科分布,从而有效引导学术出版社保持学科独特性,发挥应有的学术影响力。 相似文献
5.
首先对文献计量指标的信息源与统计对象进行分析,包括投入、产出和效率三大类型以及不同数量研究人员的研究单元。然后对可GIS空间展现的文献计量指标进行综述,主要汇总一些常规的指标、h指标及其衍生指标、基于引用的知识流指标等。在此基础上,从空间展现模式和平台两个方面分析文献计量指标GIS空间展现的可行性。在展现模式方面,分析文献计量指标空间数据制备的过程,通过点、线、面3种方式进行展示,并进一步拓展空间分析的功能。在展示平台方面,从商用软件、开源软件和WebGIS 3个方面讨论平台的适用性。 相似文献
6.
学科评价之文献计量指标分析 总被引：8，自引：0，他引：8
立足学科评价,重点在于对文献计量评价指标的研究。筛选国内外当前用于学科评价的文献计量指标,给出了一套科学常用的学科评价之文献计量指标参考集。设计指标分析过程和指标集成结构图,对指标参考集中指标进行功能分析和识别标志分析,试图发掘文献计量评价指标的内在特征和规律。 相似文献
7.
新浪微博替代计量指标特征分析 总被引：4，自引：1，他引：3
通过对新浪微博替代计量指标进行统计分析,探索中文环境下替代计量指标的特征和规律。研究发现:新浪微博替代计量指标覆盖率不足1%,但由于追踪时间和追踪对象的局限,该数字可能被严重低估;新浪微博关注和讨论较多的论文来自"综合""生物化学、遗传学与分子生物学""保健科学""医学"及"生命科学"等学科;新浪微博替代计量指标的期刊分布满足对数曲线规律,除著名的综合性期刊如Nature等,预印本平台arXiv和开放存取期刊PLoS ONE等也获得了较多关注,生物学和医学的"明星期刊"最多;新浪微博主要关注最新论文,正式出版180天内受到关注的论文比例高达68.66%,同时也会关注经典论文;新浪微博发布者倾向宣传、推介和评论贴近生活、趣味性强、实用性高、涉及生命健康的学术论文,传递出引文无法体现的社会价值和学术价值;新浪微博替代计量指标呈现出显著的离散和集中分布特点,5.1%的学术论文获得了50%的新浪微博关注。此外,受新浪微博关注的论文在全球范围内获得远高于平均水平的关注度。 相似文献
8.
《科学计量评价指标》评述 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
9.
10.
理论(Theory)、应用(Application),输入(Input)、处理(Process)、输出(Output)是探讨某一学科或领域发展的五要素,以五要素构成TAIPO模型,利用该模型对文献计量分析研究的发展趋势进行探讨.文献计量分析研究将朝着以下几大方向发展:统计规律与理论总结得到更多关注;计量指标与评价体系不断完善;数据量越来越大,异构异源数据互连分析越来越多;计量粒度越来越小,从篇章层次向句段层次发展;自动化程度越来越高,实现信息可视化与报告的自动生成. 相似文献
11.
This study aims to investigate the altmetric activity of papers published by the University of Zagreb School of Medicine in internationally visible journals and to identify differences in altmetric activity between the papers published in international and local journals and between those published in English and Croatian. We also investigated changes in altmetric activity over time and the characteristics of papers with the highest Twitter and Mendeley activity.The sample included 390 papers collected from the bibliographic database Scopus. Their altmetric and citation activities were measured at three time points: in July 2014, 2015, and 2016.The findings generally correspond to those observed in the large-scale studies of medical papers. Papers in renowned journals, and papers reporting clinical guidelines and multicentric studies had the most intense altmetric activity. In contrast, papers published in local, Croatian journals showed minimal altmetric activity, especially the papers published in Croatian. These results indicate that the local publishing community has not yet recognised social media as a tool for promoting research and that non-English language publications have minimal chances to receive attention, even in social media.The evaluative potential of altmetric indicators has to be further explored in a broader context. 相似文献
12.
不同类型论文层面计量指标间的相关性研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
对补充计量学的研究背景进行梳理,总结出补充计量学的5个特点,并对论文层面计量指标体系和当前常用的补充计量工具进行介绍。为探究综合性指标Altmetric score与引用指标之间的关系,分别对PLOS和F1000网站中提供的论文数据和指标数据进行收集,检测两个指标之间的相关性,并对比两组实验结果。结果表明,Altmetric score与引用指标存在正相关关系,且在评价论文时具有一定的一致性。 相似文献
13.
Altmetrics from Altmetric.com are widely used by publishers and researchers to give earlier evidence of attention than citation counts. This article assesses whether Altmetric.com scores are reliable early indicators of likely future impact and whether they may also reflect non-scholarly impacts. A preliminary factor analysis suggests that the main altmetric indicator of scholarly impact is Mendeley reader counts, with weaker news, informational and social network discussion/promotion dimensions in some fields. Based on a regression analysis of Altmetric.com data from November 2015 and Scopus citation counts from October 2017 for articles in 30 narrow fields, only Mendeley reader counts are consistent predictors of future citation impact. Most other Altmetric.com scores can help predict future impact in some fields. Overall, the results confirm that early Altmetric.com scores can predict later citation counts, although less well than journal impact factors, and the optimal strategy is to consider both Altmetric.com scores and journal impact factors. Altmetric.com scores can also reflect dimensions of non-scholarly impact in some fields. 相似文献
14.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(4):935-950
Can altmetric data be validly used for the measurement of societal impact? The current study seeks to answer this question with a comprehensive dataset (about 100,000 records) from very disparate sources (F1000, Altmetric, and an in-house database based on Web of Science). In the F1000 peer review system, experts attach particular tags to scientific papers which indicate whether a paper could be of interest for science or rather for other segments of society. The results show that papers with the tag “good for teaching” do achieve higher altmetric counts than papers without this tag – if the quality of the papers is controlled. At the same time, a higher citation count is shown especially by papers with a tag that is specifically scientifically oriented (“new finding”). The findings indicate that papers tailored for a readership outside the area of research should lead to societal impact.If altmetric data is to be used for the measurement of societal impact, the question arises of its normalization. In bibliometrics, citations are normalized for the papers’ subject area and publication year. This study has taken a second analytic step involving a possible normalization of altmetric data. As the results show there are particular scientific topics which are of especial interest for a wide audience. Since these more or less interesting topics are not completely reflected in Thomson Reuters’ journal sets, a normalization of altmetric data should not be based on the level of subject categories, but on the level of topics. 相似文献
15.
Altmetrics have been proposed as a way to assess the societal impact of research. Although altmetrics are already in use as impact or attention metrics in different contexts, it is still not clear whether they really capture or reflect societal impact. This study is based on altmetrics, citation counts, research output and case study data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF), and peers’ REF assessments of research output and societal impact. We investigated the convergent validity of altmetrics by using two REF datasets: publications submitted as research output (PRO) to the REF and publications referenced in case studies (PCS). Case studies, which are intended to demonstrate societal impact, should cite the most relevant research papers. We used the MHq’ indicator for assessing impact – an indicator which has been introduced for count data with many zeros. The results of the first part of the analysis show that news media as well as mentions on Facebook, in blogs, in Wikipedia, and in policy-related documents have higher MHq’ values for PCS than for PRO. Thus, the altmetric indicators seem to have convergent validity for these data. In the second part of the analysis, altmetrics have been correlated with REF reviewers’ average scores on PCS. The negative or close to zero correlations question the convergent validity of altmetrics in that context. We suggest that they may capture a different aspect of societal impact (which can be called unknown attention) to that seen by reviewers (who are interested in the causal link between research and action in society). 相似文献
16.
[目的/意义] 探索用不同的方法对学术期刊进行评价,以获得更加有效、公平和有价值的信息,促进期刊评价理论与实践的发展。[方法/过程] 将经济学中的自由处置壳（FDH）效率评价模型引入到文献计量学中,对传统FDH模型进行调整,构建一种新的期刊评价方法,选取7个指标对图书情报类的41种期刊进行评价,并将评价结果与其他期刊排名进行相关性分析。[结果/结论] 基于FDH模型的期刊评价方法的评价结果更客观,与其他期刊排名显著相关;该方法将期刊评价指标融合在一起,不仅可以测算出每一个被评期刊的得分,还能够提供更多的有价值的信息,为期刊部门提供决策参考。例如,FDH模型可以识别出被评期刊的"标杆"控制期刊"等,期刊通过与其各指标表现接近的期刊进行对比、分析,发现自身存在的不足和差距,达到持续改进乃至超越的目的。 相似文献
17.
影响h指数、g指数、影响因子因素的相关性研究 总被引：2，自引：1，他引：1
18.
[目的/意义] 多样化的科研成果、数字化的出版方式、网络化的科研交流呼唤新的机构影响力评价指标,探讨Altmetrics指标与传统科研机构影响力评价指标以及Altmetrics指标内部之间的相关性,有益于更好地探索数字环境下如何更加客观、有效地开展科研机构影响力评价。[方法/过程]以 Plum Analytics为数据源,基于样本机构2012-2015年间的引用数据与Altmetrics数据,开展指标之间的相关性分析。[结果/结论] 多元化的Altmetrics指标可反映多维化的机构影响力信息,故应当引入Altmetrics指标以全面审视机构影响力;指标数据源的属性在一定程度上决定了指标所反映的信息性质;要因评价对象的不同而遴选适宜的评价指标;对Altmetrics指标分类需作小范围调整。 相似文献
19.
选择科普人才、科普场地和科普经费三个表征指标,专利申请数量、新产品销售收入作为衡量国家创新能
力的重要指标,基于2006—2014年面板数据,采用灰色关联分析法定量分析这些指标与国家创新能力的关联性。结果
表明：科普经费与国家创新能力的关联性最强,科普场地的个数与面积次之,科普人才与国家创新能力关联度最低 相似文献
20.
中文学术期刊评价中引文分析指标间关系的实证研究——基于2010年版中国期刊引证报告（扩刊版） 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
本文针对用于中文学术期刊评价的引文分析指标,尝试通过相关性分析、因子分析来探寻这些指标之间的定量关系。通过对《2010年版中国期刊引证报告（扩刊版）》中的引文分析指标数据进行实证分析发现,这些引文指标之间存在重叠,但又不可完全替代,同时也揭示出不同学科领域的各个引文分析指标的确存在差异。 相似文献