共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 765 毫秒
1.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(3):618-627
Equalizing bias (EqB) is a systematic inaccuracy which arises when authorship credit is divided equally among coauthors who have not contributed equally. As the number of coauthors increases, the diminishing amount of credit allocated to each additional coauthor is increasingly composed of equalizing bias such that when the total number of coauthors exceeds 12, the credit score of most coauthors is composed mostly of EqB. In general, EqB reverses the byline hierarchy and skews bibliometric assessments by underestimating the contribution of primary authors, i.e. those adversely affected by negative EqB, and overestimating the contribution of secondary authors, those benefitting from positive EqB. The positive and negative effects of EqB are balanced and sum to zero, but are not symmetrical. The lack of symmetry exacerbates the relative effects of EqB, and explains why primary authors are increasingly outnumbered by secondary authors as the number of coauthors increases. Specifically, for a paper with 50 coauthors, the benefit of positive EqB goes to 39 secondary authors while the burden of negative EqB befalls 11 primary authors. Relative to harmonic estimates of their actual contribution, the EqB of the 50 coauthors ranged from <−90% to >350%. Senior authorship, when it occurs, is conventionally indicated by a corresponding last author and recognized as being on a par with a first author. If senior authorship is not recognized, then the credit lost by an unrecognized senior author is distributed among the other coauthors as part of their EqB. The powerful distortional effect of EqB is compounded in bibliometric indices and performance rankings derived from biased equal credit. Equalizing bias must therefore be corrected at the source by ensuring accurate accreditation of all coauthors prior to the calculation of aggregate publication metrics. 相似文献
2.
We evaluate article-level metrics along two dimensions. Firstly, we analyse metrics’ ranking bias in terms of fields and time. Secondly, we evaluate their performance based on test data that consists of (1) papers that have won high-impact awards and (2) papers that have won prizes for outstanding quality. We consider different citation impact indicators and indirect ranking algorithms in combination with various normalisation approaches (mean-based, percentile-based, co-citation-based, and post hoc rescaling). We execute all experiments on two publication databases which use different field categorisation schemes (author-chosen concept categories and categories based on papers’ semantic information).In terms of bias, we find that citation counts are always less time biased but always more field biased compared to PageRank. Furthermore, rescaling paper scores by a constant number of similarly aged papers reduces time bias more effectively compared to normalising by calendar years. We also find that percentile citation scores are less field and time biased than mean-normalised citation counts.In terms of performance, we find that time-normalised metrics identify high-impact papers better shortly after their publication compared to their non-normalised variants. However, after 7 to 10 years, the non-normalised metrics perform better. A similar trend exists for the set of high-quality papers where these performance cross-over points occur after 5 to 10 years.Lastly, we also find that personalising PageRank with papers’ citation counts reduces time bias but increases field bias. Similarly, using papers’ associated journal impact factors to personalise PageRank increases its field bias. In terms of performance, PageRank should always be personalised with papers’ citation counts and time-rescaled for citation windows smaller than 7 to 10 years. 相似文献
3.
Abstract as a promotional genre has been an increasing interest in recent years, leading to an intriguing debate on the objectivity of scientific writing. The present study investigated the promotion and caution in research article abstracts through the use of positive, negative and hedge words across disciplines and rankings based on a large and principled dataset (more than 12.6 million words). The corpus was designed and built with full consideration of representativeness, structure, balance, and size in terms of discipline and ranking. The results showed that positive words were more frequently used than negative words in terms of both discipline and ranking, positive and negative words were more frequently used in hard sciences than those in soft sciences and high ranking journals than those in low ranking journals, and hedge words were more frequently used in high ranking journals and soft sciences. Further investigation also found a complexity of frequency patterns when two disciplines were broken down into specific categories. The more frequent use of positive words in abstracts to promote scientific research was discussed from the perspective of disciplinary knowledge construction in addition to the publication bias, the outcome reporting bias, and universal linguistic positivity bias. 相似文献
4.
Nils T. Hagen 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(4):784-791
In this paper the accuracy of five current approaches to quantifying the byline hierarchy of a scientific paper is assessed by measuring the ability of each to explain the variation in a composite empirical dataset. Harmonic credit explained 97% of the variation by including information about the number of coauthors and their position in the byline. In contrast, fractional credit, which ignored the byline hierarchy by allocating equal credit to all coauthors, explained less than 40% of the variation in the empirical dataset. The nearly 60% discrepancy in explanatory power between fractional and harmonic credit was accounted for by equalizing bias associated with the omission of relevant information about differential coauthor contribution. Including an additional parameter to describe a continuum of intermediate formulas between fractional and harmonic provided a negligible or negative gain in predictive accuracy. By comparison, two parametric models from the bibliometric literature both had an explanatory capacity of approximately 80%. In conclusion, the results indicate that the harmonic formula provides a parsimonious solution to the problem of quantifying the byline hierarchy. Harmonic credit allocation also accommodates specific indications of departures from the basic byline hierarchy, such as footnoted information stating that some or all coauthors have contributed equally or indicating the presence of a senior author. 相似文献
5.
We analyse the difference between the averaged (average of ratios) and globalised (ratio of averages) author-level aggregation approaches based on various paper-level metrics. We evaluate the aggregation variants in terms of (1) their field bias on the author-level and (2) their ranking performance based on test data that comprises researchers that have received fellowship status or won prestigious awards for their long-lasting and high-impact research contributions to their fields. We consider various direct and indirect paper-level metrics with different normalisation approaches (mean-based, percentile-based, co-citation-based) and focus on the bias and performance differences between the two aggregation variants of each metric. We execute all experiments on two publication databases which use different field categorisation schemes. The first uses author-chosen concept categories and covers the computer science literature. The second covers all disciplines and categorises papers by keywords based on their contents. In terms of bias, we find relatively little difference between the averaged and globalised variants. For mean-normalised citation counts we find no significant difference between the two approaches. However, the percentile-based metric shows less bias with the globalised approach, except for citation windows smaller than four years. On the multi-disciplinary database, PageRank has the overall least bias but shows no significant difference between the two aggregation variants. The averaged variants of most metrics have less bias for small citation windows. For larger citation windows the differences are smaller and are mostly insignificant.In terms of ranking the well-established researchers who have received accolades for their high-impact contributions, we find that the globalised variant of the percentile-based metric performs better. Again we find no significant differences between the globalised and averaged variants based on citation counts and PageRank scores. 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
The objective assessment of the prestige of an academic institution is a difficult and hotly debated task. In the last few years, different types of university rankings have been proposed to quantify it, yet the debate on what rankings are exactly measuring is enduring.To address the issue we have measured a quantitative and reliable proxy of the academic reputation of a given institution and compared our findings with well-established impact indicators and academic rankings. Specifically, we study citation patterns among universities in five different Web of Science Subject Categories and use the PageRank algorithm on the five resulting citation networks. The rationale behind our work is that scientific citations are driven by the reputation of the reference so that the PageRank algorithm is expected to yield a rank which reflects the reputation of an academic institution in a specific field. Given the volume of the data analysed, our findings are statistically sound and less prone to bias, than, for instance, ad–hoc surveys often employed by ranking bodies in order to attain similar outcomes. The approach proposed in our paper may contribute to enhance ranking methodologies, by reconciling the qualitative evaluation of academic prestige with its quantitative measurements via publication impact. 相似文献
9.
Ludo Waltman 《Journal of Informetrics》2012,6(4):700-711
There are different ways in which the authors of a scientific publication can determine the order in which their names are listed. Sometimes author names are simply listed alphabetically. In other cases, authorship order is determined based on the contribution authors have made to a publication. Contribution-based authorship can facilitate proper credit assignment, for instance by giving most credits to the first author. In the case of alphabetical authorship, nothing can be inferred about the relative contribution made by the different authors of a publication.In this paper, we present an empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Our analysis covers all fields of science. We find that the use of alphabetical authorship is declining over time. In 2011, the authors of less than 4% of all publications intentionally chose to list their names alphabetically. The use of alphabetical authorship is most common in mathematics, economics (including finance), and high energy physics. Also, the use of alphabetical authorship is relatively more common in the case of publications with either a small or a large number of authors. 相似文献
10.
Christopher Nkiko Promise Ilo Chidi Segun-Adeniran 《New Review of Academic Librarianship》2015,21(3):325-338
The article investigated the nexus between academic libraries and accreditation in the higher institutions with special focus on the Nigerian experience. It showed that all accreditation agencies place a high premium on library provisions as a major component of requisite benchmarks in determining the status of the program or institutions being assessed. Academic libraries help to enrich formal classroom curricular and act as a broadening influence on lecturers and students as well as nurture in them the virtue of independent inquiry. State-of-the-art academic libraries confer prestige on the institutions and have tremendous impact on student retention, rankings, and high profiling of parent institution during accreditation. The article noted that there exists strong intrinsic and sometimes imperceptible relationship between academic libraries and higher education. It recommended institutionalization of global and regional ranking of academic libraries, among others. 相似文献
11.
We evaluate author impact indicators and ranking algorithms on two publication databases using large test data sets of well-established researchers. The test data consists of (1) ACM fellowship and (2) various life-time achievement awards. We also evaluate different approaches of dividing credit of papers among co-authors and analyse the impact of self-citations. Furthermore, we evaluate different graph normalisation approaches for when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs.We find that PageRank outperforms citation counts in identifying well-established researchers. This holds true when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs but also when PageRank is computed on paper graphs and paper scores are divided among co-authors. In general, the best results are obtained when co-authors receive an equal share of a paper's score, independent of which impact indicator is used to compute paper scores. The results also show that removing author self-citations improves the results of most ranking metrics. Lastly, we find that it is more important to personalise the PageRank algorithm appropriately on the paper level than deciding whether to include or exclude self-citations. However, on the author level, we find that author graph normalisation is more important than personalisation. 相似文献
12.
Research was undertaken that examined what, if any, correlation there was between the h-index and rankings by peer assessment, and what correlation there was between the 2008 UK RAE rankings and the collective h-index of submitting departments. About 100 international scholars in Library and Information Science were ranked by their peers on the quality of their work. These rankings were correlated with the h and g scores the scholars had achieved. The results showed that there was a correlation between their median rankings and the indexes. The 2008 RAE grade point averages (GPA) achieved by departments from three UoAs – Anthropology, Library and Information Management and Pharmacy were compared with each of their collective h and g index scores. Results were mixed, with a strong correlation between pharmacy departments and index scores, followed by library and information management to anthropology where negative and non-significant results were found. Taken together, the findings from the research indicate that individual ranking by peer assessment and their h-index or variants was generally good. Results for the RAE 2008 gave correlations between GPA and successive versions of the h-index which varied in strength, except for anthropology where, it is suggested detailed cited reference searches must be undertaken to maximise citation counts. 相似文献
13.
The journal impact factor (JIF) has been questioned considerably during its development in the past half-century because of its inconsistency with scholarly reputation evaluations of scientific journals. This paper proposes a publication delay adjusted impact factor (PDAIF) which takes publication delay into consideration to reduce the negative effect on the quality of the impact factor determination. Based on citation data collected from Journal Citation Reports and publication delay data extracted from the journals’ official websites, the PDAIFs for journals from business-related disciplines are calculated. The results show that PDAIF values are, on average, more than 50% higher than JIF results. Furthermore, journal ranking based on PDAIF shows very high consistency with reputation-based journal rankings. Moreover, based on a case study of journals published by ELSEVIER and INFORMS, we find that PDAIF will bring a greater impact factor increase for journals with longer publication delay because of reducing that negative influence. Finally, insightful and practical suggestions to shorten the publication delay are provided. 相似文献
14.
15.
学科排名对美国iSchool教师就业的影响 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
[目的/意义] 探索学科排名对美国iSchool教师就业的影响,以发现学科建设现状,为我国图情档学科的师资建设提供参考。[方法/过程] 在教师就职流动性视角下,分析美国27个iSchool的880位教师的现任学校与毕业院校的学科排名前后变化。[结果/结论] 研究发现：学科排名越高的毕业生有越多的就业选择权和机会,大部分iSchool毕业生工作于比毕业学校排名低的学校,iSchool教师就业存在明显性别差异,男性比女性更容易就职于排名高的学校。我国建设"双一流"过程中,应该着手利用评价和排名给师资建设带来的积极影响,关注并改善负面影响。 相似文献
16.
The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
In an age of intensifying scientific collaboration, the counting of papers by multiple authors has become an important methodological issue in scientometric based research evaluation. Especially, how counting methods influence institutional level research evaluation has not been studied in existing literatures. In this study, we selected the top 300 universities in physics in the 2011 HEEACT Ranking as our study subjects. We compared the university rankings generated from four different counting methods (i.e. whole counting, straight counting using first author, straight counting using corresponding author, and fractional counting) to show how paper counts and citation counts and the subsequent university ranks were affected by counting method selection. The counting was based on the 1988–2008 physics papers records indexed in ISI WoS. We also observed how paper and citation counts were inflated by whole counting. The results show that counting methods affected the universities in the middle range more than those in the upper or lower ranges. Citation counts were also more affected than paper counts. The correlation between the rankings generated from whole counting and those from the other methods were low or negative in the middle ranges. Based on the findings, this study concluded that straight counting and fractional counting were better choices for paper count and citation count in the institutional level research evaluation. 相似文献
17.
Felix de Moya-Anegon Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote Carmen Lopez-Illescas Henk F. Moed 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(4):1251-1262
This paper presents a statistical analysis of the relationship between three science indicators applied in earlier bibliometric studies, namely research leadership based on corresponding authorship, international collaboration using international co-authorship data, and field-normalized citation impact. Indicators at the level of countries are extracted from the SIR database created by SCImago Research Group from publication records indexed for Elsevier’s Scopus. The relationship between authorship and citation-based indicators is found to be complex, as it reflects a country’s phase of scientific development and the coverage policy of the database. Moreover, one should distinguish a genuine leadership effect from a purely statistical effect due to fractional counting. Further analyses at the level of institutions and qualitative validation studies are recommended. 相似文献
18.
[目的/意义] 针对日益棘手的科研团队合作中成员荣誉分配问题,设计系统可行的实践指导方法。[方法/过程] 首先明确界定单个科研成果合著贡献度的概念内涵和前提假设,归纳出均分式、顺序式、哑铃式和比例式4种合著场景;然后在综合对比国外机构知名合著标准基础上,制定合著者6阶段基本标准和辅助说明;最后总结出合著贡献度的整体计算流程,为4种不同场景下合著贡献度设计和计算提供详细的步骤和计算方法。[结果/结论] 将投稿时科研成果署名权标准的制定和发表后科研成果的荣誉分配连成一体,兼顾客观定量和主观协商,为单个科研成果荣誉分配提供有益参考。 相似文献
19.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(2):318-328
Citation based approaches, such as the impact factor and h-index, have been used to measure the influence or impact of journals for journal rankings. A survey of the related literature for different disciplines shows that the level of correlation between these citation based approaches is domain dependent. We analyze the correlation between the impact factors and h-indices of the top ranked computer science journals for five different subjects. Our results show that the correlation between these citation based approaches is very low. Since using a different approach can result in different journal rankings, we further combine the different results and then re-rank the journals using a combination method. These new ranking results can be used as a reference for researchers to choose their publication outlets. 相似文献
20.
The numerical-algorithmic procedures of fractional counting and field normalization are often mentioned as indispensable requirements for bibliometric analyses. Against the background of the increasing importance of statistics in bibliometrics, a multilevel Poisson regression model (level 1: publication, level 2: author) shows possible ways to consider fractional counting and field normalization in a statistical model (fractional counting I). However, due to the assumption of duplicate publications in the data set, the approach is not quite optimal. Therefore, a more advanced approach, a multilevel multiple membership model, is proposed that no longer provides for duplicates (fractional counting II). It is assumed that the citation impact can essentially be attributed to time-stable dispositions of researchers as authors who contribute with different fractions to the success of a publication’s citation. The two approaches are applied to bibliometric data for 254 scientists working in social science methodology. A major advantage of fractional counting II is that the results no longer depend on the type of fractional counting (e.g., equal weighting). Differences between authors in rankings are reproduced more clearly than on the basis of percentiles. In addition, the strong importance of field normalization is demonstrated; 60% of the citation variance is explained by field normalization. 相似文献