共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
For comparisons of citation impacts across fields and over time, bibliometricians normalize the observed citation counts with reference to an expected citation value. Percentile-based approaches have been proposed as a non-parametric alternative to parametric central-tendency statistics. Percentiles are based on an ordered set of citation counts in a reference set, whereby the fraction of papers at or below the citation counts of a focal paper is used as an indicator for its relative citation impact in the set. In this study, we pursue two related objectives: (1) although different percentile-based approaches have been developed, an approach is hitherto missing that satisfies a number of criteria such as scaling of the percentile ranks from zero (all other papers perform better) to 100 (all other papers perform worse), and solving the problem with tied citation ranks unambiguously. We introduce a new citation-rank approach having these properties, namely P100; (2) we compare the reliability of P100 empirically with other percentile-based approaches, such as the approaches developed by the SCImago group, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), and Thomson Reuters (InCites), using all papers published in 1980 in Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS). How accurately can the different approaches predict the long-term citation impact in 2010 (in year 31) using citation impact measured in previous time windows (years 1–30)? The comparison of the approaches shows that the method used by InCites overestimates citation impact (because of using the highest percentile rank when papers are assigned to more than a single subject category) whereas the SCImago indicator shows higher power in predicting the long-term citation impact on the basis of citation rates in early years. Since the results show a disadvantage in this predictive ability for P100 against the other approaches, there is still room for further improvements. 相似文献
2.
本文对新近提出的学术迹和影响矩指标应用于单篇论著的评价效果进行比较研究,以JASIST 2005—2014年间发表的25篇高被引论文和ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL 2011—2014年间发表的24篇高被引论文为两个样本集,研究学术迹和影响矩相对于总被引数和h指数等学术评价指标的异同,发现各指标排序既具有一定相关性,也呈现出一定独立性,说明这些指标均有独立存在价值,而学术迹和影响矩能提供更全面的测度信息。图3。表6。参考文献25。附录2。 相似文献
3.
In the recent debate on the use of averages of ratios (AoR) and ratios of averages (RoA) for the compilation of field-normalized citation rates, little evidence has been provided on the different results obtained by the two methods at various levels of aggregation. This paper provides such an empirical analysis at the level of individual researchers, departments, institutions and countries. Two datasets are used: 147,547 papers published between 2000 and 2008 and assigned to 14,379 Canadian university professors affiliated to 508 departments, and all papers indexed in the Web of Science for the same period (N = 8,221,926) assigned to all countries and institutions. Although there is a strong relationship between the two measures at each of these levels, a pairwise comparison of AoR and RoA shows that the differences between all the distributions are statistically significant and, thus, that the two methods are not equivalent and do not give the same results. Moreover, the difference between both measures is strongly influenced by the number of papers published as well as by their impact scores: the difference between AoR and RoA is greater for departments, institutions and countries with low RoA scores. Finally, our results show that RoA relative impact indicators do not add up to unity (as they should by definition) at the level of the reference dataset, whereas the AoR does have that property. 相似文献
4.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):147-161
Across the various scientific domains, significant differences occur with respect to research publishing formats, frequencies and citing practices, the nature and organisation of research and the number and impact of a given domain's academic journals. Consequently, differences occur in the citations and h-indices of the researchers. This paper attempts to identify cross-domain differences using quantitative and qualitative measures. The study focuses on the relationships among citations, most-cited papers and h-indices across domains and for research group sizes. The analysis is based on the research output of approximately 10,000 researchers in Slovenia, of which we focus on 6536 researchers working in 284 research group programmes in 2008–2012.As comparative measures of cross-domain research output, we propose the research impact cube (RIC) representation and the analysis of most-cited papers, highest impact factors and citation distribution graphs (Lorenz curves). The analysis of Lotka's model resulted in the proposal of a binary citation frequencies (BCF) distribution model that describes well publishing frequencies. The results may be used as a model to measure, compare and evaluate fields of science on the global, national and research community level to streamline research policies and evaluate progress over a definite time period. 相似文献
5.
以引文上下文为研究对象,探讨来自于引文上下文、目标文献摘要以及目标文献自标医学主题词（下称主题词）三者间的符合程度,定量分析引文上下文在表征目标文献内容特征时的作用。以被Circulation杂志高频引证的5篇研究类论文作为目标文献,提取其施引文献的全部引文上下文,并对其进行分词及主题词匹配;将其结果与目标文献摘要提取的主题词以及文献自标的主题词进行两两比较。结果表明,引文上下文与目标文献摘要具有较高的符合度,而且在表征被引文献内容特征的效果上明显具有优势。 相似文献
6.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(4):101333
The number of clinical citations received from clinical guidelines or clinical trials has been considered as one of the most appropriate indicators for quantifying the clinical impact of biomedical papers. Therefore, the early prediction of clinical citation count of biomedical papers is critical to scientific activities in biomedicine, such as research evaluation, resource allocation, and clinical translation. In this study, we designed a four-layer multilayer perceptron neural network (MPNN) model to predict the clinical citation count of biomedical papers in the future by using 9,822,620 biomedical papers published from 1985 to 2005. We extracted ninety-one paper features from three dimensions as the input of the model, including twenty-one features in the paper dimension, thirty-five in the reference dimension, and thirty-five in the citing paper dimension. In each dimension, the features can be classified into three categories, i.e., the citation-related features, the clinical translation-related features, and the topic-related features. Besides, in the paper dimension, we also considered the features that have previously been demonstrated to be related to the citation counts of research papers. The results showed that the proposed MPNN model outperformed the other five baseline models, and the features in the reference dimension were the most important. In all the three dimensions, the citation-related and topic-related features were more important than the clinical translation-related features for the prediction. It also turned out that the features helpful in predicting the citation count of papers are not important for predicting the clinical citation count of biomedical papers. Furthermore, we explored the MPNN model based on different categories of biomedical papers. The results showed that the clinical translation-related features were more important for the prediction of clinical citation count of basic papers rather than those papers closer to clinical science. This study provided a novel dimension (i.e., the reference dimension) for the research community and could be applied to other related research tasks, such as the research assessment for translational programs. In addition, the findings in this study could be useful for biomedical authors (especially for those in basic science) to get more attention from clinical research. 相似文献
7.
Henk F. Moed 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(3):265-277
This paper explores a new indicator of journal citation impact, denoted as source normalized impact per paper (SNIP). It measures a journal's contextual citation impact, taking into account characteristics of its properly defined subject field, especially the frequency at which authors cite other papers in their reference lists, the rapidity of maturing of citation impact, and the extent to which a database used for the assessment covers the field's literature. It further develops Eugene Garfield's notions of a field's ‘citation potential’ defined as the average length of references lists in a field and determining the probability of being cited, and the need in fair performance assessments to correct for differences between subject fields. A journal's subject field is defined as the set of papers citing that journal. SNIP is defined as the ratio of the journal's citation count per paper and the citation potential in its subject field. It aims to allow direct comparison of sources in different subject fields. Citation potential is shown to vary not only between journal subject categories – groupings of journals sharing a research field – or disciplines (e.g., journals in mathematics, engineering and social sciences tend to have lower values than titles in life sciences), but also between journals within the same subject category. For instance, basic journals tend to show higher citation potentials than applied or clinical journals, and journals covering emerging topics higher than periodicals in classical subjects or more general journals. SNIP corrects for such differences. Its strengths and limitations are critically discussed, and suggestions are made for further research. All empirical results are derived from Elsevier's Scopus. 相似文献
8.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(2):406-418
The journal impact factor is not comparable among fields of science and social science because of systematic differences in publication and citation behavior across disciplines. In this work, a source normalization of the journal impact factor is proposed. We use the aggregate impact factor of the citing journals as a measure of the citation potential in the journal topic, and we employ this citation potential in the normalization of the journal impact factor to make it comparable between scientific fields. An empirical application comparing some impact indicators with our topic normalized impact factor in a set of 224 journals from four different fields shows that our normalization, using the citation potential in the journal topic, reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a higher proportion than the rest of indicators analyzed. The effect of journal self-citations over the normalization process is also studied. 相似文献
9.
Gui-Yuan Shi Yi-Xiu Kong Guang-Hui Yuan Rui-Jie Wu An Zeng Matúš Medo 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):717-725
Identifying the future influential papers among the newly published ones is an important yet challenging issue in bibliometrics. As newly published papers have no or limited citation history, linear extrapolation of their citation counts—which is motivated by the well-known preferential attachment mechanism—is not applicable. We translate the recently introduced notion of discoverers to the citation network setting, and show that there are authors who frequently cite recent papers that become highly-cited in the future; these authors are referred to as discoverers. We develop a method for early identification of highly-cited papers based on the early citations from discoverers. The results show that the identified discoverers have a consistent citing pattern over time, and the early citations from them can be used as a valuable indicator to predict the future citation counts of a paper. The discoverers themselves are potential future outstanding researchers as they receive more citations than average. 相似文献
10.
《Journal of Informetrics》2023,17(1):101356
Scholarly citations – widely seen as tangible measures of the impact and significance of academic papers – guide critical decisions by research administrators and policy makers. The citation distributions form characteristic patterns that can be revealed by big-data analysis. However, the citation dynamics varies significantly among subject areas, countries etc. The problem is how to quantify those differences, separate global and local citation characteristics. Here, we carry out an extensive analysis of the power-law relationship between the total citation count and the h-index to detect a functional dependence among its parameters for different science domains. The results demonstrate that the statistical structure of the citation indicators admits representation by a global scale and a set of local exponents. The scale parameters are evaluated for different research actors – individual researchers and entire countries – employing subject- and affiliation-based divisions of science into domains. The results can inform research assessment and classification into subject areas; the proposed divide-and-conquer approach can be applied to hidden scales in other power-law systems. 相似文献
11.
[目的/意义] 文章的被引频次一直是量化评价一篇论文学术影响力的重要指标。但在不同学科不同年份发表的论文会因该领域研究论文数、引用滞后等因素呈现较大的差异。因此在对比两篇论文时，难以简单依据被引频次的绝对值来评判论文影响力大小。为此，本文设计了一个新的可计算数学模型，使得每篇论文可以有一个标准化的指标，以便对不同学科不同年份发表的论文的学术影响力进行直接比较。[方法/过程] 通过分析2006、2017两年中国科技类学术期刊各学科论文的被引频次分布规律，采用同学科论文被引频次的分布形态最接近对数正态分布的先设条件，提出一种被引频次标准化指数——Paper Citation Standardized Index （简称PCSI，中文"论文引证标准化指数"）。最后以中国科协优秀科技期刊论文评选结果为例，将它们与论文所属学科全部论文进行实证对比研究。[结果/结论] 结果证明，PCSI对不同年份、不同学科论文的被引频次进行了标准化，反映了被引频次的线性差距，是一种较为理想的单篇论文学术影响力比较评价工具。 相似文献
12.
[目的/意义] 文章的被引频次一直是量化评价一篇论文学术影响力的重要指标。但在不同学科不同年份发表的论文会因该领域研究论文数、引用滞后等因素呈现较大的差异。因此在对比两篇论文时，难以简单依据被引频次的绝对值来评判论文影响力大小。为此，本文设计了一个新的可计算数学模型，使得每篇论文可以有一个标准化的指标，以便对不同学科不同年份发表的论文的学术影响力进行直接比较。[方法/过程] 通过分析2006、2017两年中国科技类学术期刊各学科论文的被引频次分布规律，采用同学科论文被引频次的分布形态最接近对数正态分布的先设条件，提出一种被引频次标准化指数——Paper Citation Standardized Index （简称PCSI，中文"论文引证标准化指数"）。最后以中国科协优秀科技期刊论文评选结果为例，将它们与论文所属学科全部论文进行实证对比研究。[结果/结论] 结果证明，PCSI对不同年份、不同学科论文的被引频次进行了标准化，反映了被引频次的线性差距，是一种较为理想的单篇论文学术影响力比较评价工具。 相似文献
13.
In citation network analysis, complex behavior is reduced to a simple edge, namely, node A cites node B. The implicit assumption is that A is giving credit to, or acknowledging, B. It is also the case that the contributions of all citations are treated equally, even though some citations appear multiply in a text and others appear only once. In this study, we apply text-mining algorithms to a relatively large dataset (866 information science articles containing 32,496 bibliographic references) to demonstrate the differential contributions made by references. We (1) look at the placement of citations across the different sections of a journal article, and (2) identify highly cited works using two different counting methods (CountOne and CountX). We find that (1) the most highly cited works appear in the Introduction and Literature Review sections of citing papers, and (2) the citation rankings produced by CountOne and CountX differ. That is to say, counting the number of times a bibliographic reference is cited in a paper rather than treating all references the same no matter how many times they are invoked in the citing article reveals the differential contributions made by the cited works to the citing paper. 相似文献
14.
《Journal of Informetrics》2020,14(1):100989
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is linearly sensitive to self-citations because each self-citation adds to the numerator, whereas the denominator is not affected. Pinski and Narin (1976) Influence Weights (IW) are not or marginally sensitive to these outliers on the main diagonal of a citation matrix and thus provide an alternative to JIFs. Whereas the JIFs are based on raw citation counts normalized by the number of publications in the previous two years, IWs are based on the eigenvectors in the matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations without a reference to size: the cited and citing sides are normalized and combined by a matrix approach. Upon normalization, IWs emerge as a vector; after recursive multiplication of the normalized matrix, IWs can be considered a network measure of prestige among the journals in the (sub)graph under study. As a consequence, the self-citations are integrated at the field level and no longer disturb the analysis as outliers. In our opinion, this independence of the diagonal values is a very desirable property of a measure of quality or impact. As an example, we elaborate Price’s (1981b) matrix of aggregated citation among eight biochemistry journals in 1977. Routines for the computation of IWs are made available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/iw. 相似文献
15.
期刊学术影响力、期刊对稿件的录用标准和期刊载文的学术影响力三者之间存在同向加强的机制,来自较高影响力期刊的引用具有较高的评价意义。作者的择刊引用和择刊发表使得较低学术影响力的期刊较少被较高影响力期刊引用。因而,可以通过同时考察构成期刊引证形象的施引期刊的学术影响力及其施引频次来评价被引期刊的学术影响力。以综合性期刊Nature和Science 2010年的引证形象为例,将期刊影响因子作为学术影响力的初评结果,提出了以施引频次对施引期刊影响因子加权的计算方法,以期通过量化的引证形象实现对期刊的评价。 相似文献
16.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(3):650-658
Preferential Attachment (PA) models the scientific citation process. In the PA model, a new paper attaches itself to the citation network based only on the popularity of the currently existing papers. This invariably leads to a network whose degree distribution satisfies the Power Law. Yet, empirical results show that paper age should also play a role in the citation process. In other words, when references are chosen for a new paper, the age of an existing paper may also affect the choice for citing. In this paper, we derive a generalized PA model that includes the effect of aging, with analytical solution. Such a model can be used to analyze the competing influence of preferential attachment and aging effect quantitatively in citation process and explain differences in various research domains by the extent of aging. It may also serve as a general model of network formation. 相似文献
17.
A proposal is made in this paper for a broadening of perspective in evaluative bibliometrics by complementing the (standard) times cited with a cited reference analysis for a field-specific citation impact measurement. The times cited approach counts the citations of a given publication set. In contrast, we change the perspective and start by selecting all papers dealing with a specific research topic or field (the example in this study is research on Aspirin). Then we extract all cited references from the papers of this field-specific publication set and analyse which papers, scientists, and journals have been cited most often. In this study, we use the Chemical Abstracts registry number to select the publications for a specific field. However, the cited reference approach can be used with any other field classification system proposed up to now. 相似文献
18.
高被引论文与“睡美人”论文引用曲线及影响因素研究 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
[目的/意义]通过对潜在“睡美人”论文的引用分布分析,提炼其特征,以期为“睡美人”论文的预判研究提供思路。[方法/过程]采用引用曲线这一更为直观的反映论文引用分布的方法,以“天文学和天体物理”这一领域为例,构建其10的高被引论文、“睡美人”论文的10-20年被引用数据并进行引文分布的对比分析。[结果/结论]研究发现两类文献的引用曲线模式及特点——高被引论文的持续增长型、显峰型、双峰型、振荡型,“睡美人”论文的持续增长型、显峰型、双峰型、振荡型、稳定型等被引用曲线模式;针对施引文献、研究主题演化方向探讨了各模式引用曲线形成的相关因素,发现两类文献达到引用高峰的时间存在差异。 相似文献
19.
本文基于引文分析方法,对2006—2015年国内学者参与发表的环境卫生与职业卫生学领域的6995篇SCI论文进行文献计量分析。采用HistCite引文编年可视化分析工具,绘制引文编年图,分析环境卫生与职业卫生学研究现状,找出该领域的重要机构、期刊和核心文献。结果本研究分析SCI文献6995篇,涉及机构5275家,包含作者18571位,分布于162种期刊,施引文献173354条,关键词10287个。2006—2015年国内环境卫生与职业卫生领域SCI发文量年均增长率1.14%。研究结果帮助了解2006—2015年该学科领域的研究规律和发展趋势,识别重要的研究机构、期刊和著作,为开展后续科研工作加以指导。 相似文献