排序方式： 共有87条查询结果，搜索用时 31 毫秒
41.
Mike Thelwall 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(4):1031-1041
There are known gender imbalances in participation in scientific fields, from female dominance of nursing to male dominance of mathematics. It is not clear whether there is also a citation imbalance, with some claiming that male-authored research tends to be more cited. No previous study has assessed gender differences in the readers of academic research on a large scale, however. In response, this article assesses whether there are gender differences in the average citations and/or Mendeley readers of academic publications. Field normalised logged Scopus citations and Mendeley readers from mid-2018 for articles published in 2014 were investigated for articles with first authors from India, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the USA in up to 251 fields with at least 50 male and female authors. Although female-authored research is less cited in Turkey (?4.0%) and India (?3.6%), it is marginally more cited in Spain (0.4%), the UK (0.4%), and the USA (0.2%). Female-authored research has fewer Mendeley readers in India (?1.1%) but more in Spain (1.4%), Turkey (1.1%), the UK (2.7%) and the USA (3.0%). Thus, whilst there may be little practical gender difference in citation impact in countries with mature science systems, the higher female readership impact suggests a wider audience for female-authored research. The results also show that the conclusions from a gender analysis depend on the field normalisation method. A theoretically informed decision must therefore be made about which normalisation to use. The results also suggest that arithmetic mean-based field normalisation is favourable to males. 相似文献
42.
通过选取不同的数据源和分析方法探究Altmetrics文献计量方式对传统的引文计量方式的影响,以及这些计量指标如何评价单篇论文的影响力。结合ESI数据库热点文章的被引频次与Scopus平台提供的Altmetrics各项计量指标,尝试利用SPSS统计软件来分析传统的引文评价指标与Altmetrics各评价指标之间的相关性和差异性。通过研究分析发现:以引文为评价基础的ESI热点文章并不一定对应Altmetrics的高分值文献;进一步的研究从评价论文影响力的5个指标中简化为2个公因子——社交传媒因子和学术引用因子,可从不同群体对文献的不同传播利用方式来评价一篇论文的影响力;不同出版模式的文献在各评价指标上也有显著的差异。 相似文献
43.
Language distribution in scientific communication reflects the influence of different languages on science in global perspective. The study, based on over 450 thousand scientific tweets of all publications indexed by Scopus in June 2015, reveals the language distribution in informal scientific communication. Moreover, this result is compared with the language distribution in formal scientific communication reflected in scientific publications. Results show: (1) The language of scientific tweets is concentrated in English (91%), Japanese (2.4%) and Spanish (1.7%), while the language of scientific publications is concentrated in English (90.6%), Chinese (5%) and German (1.1%). (2) Both scientific tweets and scientific publications present disciplinary differences in language distribution, reflecting the different amount of attention that authors of different languages have on certain disciplines. (3) Except Saudi Arabia, investigated countries all over the world, regardless of whether their native language is English or not, all have English scientific tweets in the dominant position. For the vast majority of these countries, the native language scientific tweets only rank the second position. (4) Overall, 26% of tweeters use more than one language to tweet scientific products, while 49% of scientific tweeters tweet everything in English only. The results indicate that English has undoubtedly become the lingua franca in informal scientific communication. 相似文献
44.
José Luis Ortega 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(3):579-589
The main objective of this study is to describe the life cycle of altmetric and bibliometric indicators in a sample of publications. Altmetrics (Downloads, Views, Readers, Tweets, and Blog mentions) and bibliometric counts (Citations) (in this study, the indicators will be capitalized to differentiate them from the general language) of 5185 publications (19,186 observations) were extracted from PlumX to observe their distribution according to the publication age. Correlations between these metrics were calculated from month to month to observe the evolution of these relationships. The results showed that mention metrics (Tweets and Blog mentions) are the earliest metrics that become available most quickly and have the shortest life cycle. Next, Readers are the metrics with the highest prevalence and with the second fastest growth. Views and Downloads show a continuous growth, being the indicators with the longest life cycles. Finally, Citations are the slowest indicators and have a low prevalence. Correlations show a strong relationship between mention metrics and Readers and Downloads, and between Readers and Citations. These results enable us to create a schematic diagram of the relationships between these metrics from a longitudinal view. 相似文献
45.
[目的/意义] Altmetrics诞生十周年之际，对其前期发展情况进行总结，有助于推动其往积极方向发展。[方法/过程] 利用文献计量方法进行量化研究以展现Altmetrics领域的总体研究和发展情况；从术语变迁、定义等方面揭示其内涵；提出三种理论假说寻求Altmetrics存在合理性的理论支撑；划分不同阶段梳理其发展程度；分析它与其他学科的关系以明确学科属性及价值。[结果/结论] Altmetrics为计量学提供了一种新思维、新方法；开放科学假说、数字学术假说和学术传承假说符合新环境Altmetrics发展的新特点，有效支撑了Altmetrics的存在与发展；Altmetrics发展迅速，但现阶段处于发展初期，且国内外发展程度存在差异；在辨析与其密切相关学科之间关系的基础上，认为需推动Altmetrics自身学科纵深发展以及加强跨学科的合作研究。 相似文献
46.
以引文数为主的科学计量学评价方法因其方法和指标的局限性,加上复杂因素导致的引文评价质量下降,激发了学术界对影响力定量评价新方法的探索。Altmetrics 的逐渐兴起提供了在定量评价中使用更多源数据的可能性,也引发了我们利用更宽广的数据范围开展定量评价研究的新思路。本文借助批判实在论的因果观探讨因果关系和证据链,尝试以Altmetrics 和引文数据为基础挖掘并建立学术成果从公开发表到产生学术影响力的证据链,并通过期刊学术影响力评价的实证研究探讨了基于证据链的定量评价方法。实证结果表明了该方法的优越性,比起传统定量评价方法为科研管理提供了新视角与新思路。 相似文献
47.
本文基于Altmetrics指标、《乌利希国际期刊指南》和期刊引证报告(JCR)等数据,对中国英文科技期刊社会影响力进行统计分析.截至2020年5月,中国正式出版(取得CN号)英文科技期刊371种,约占中国科技期刊总数的7.5％.本文对当前主流Altmetrics工具进行了分析,并对中国英文科技期刊的社会影响力指标进行了统计.结果显示:有63.6％的期刊被Altmetrics的统计源提及,被提及文章数少于100篇的期刊占到58.1％.中国英文科技期刊的社会影响力相对较高的主要集中于生物医学领域,近10年新创办期刊社会影响力表现突出.本文对提高科技期刊社会影响力的途径进行了归纳,包括同国际出版商的多样性合作、提高编委国际化程度、适当扩大论文规模、加快出版流程、加强市场营销意识、塑造国际品牌形象以及关注国内外出版及评价领域新动向等. 相似文献
48.
49.
《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
50.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(4):895-903
Today, it is not clear how the impact of research on other areas of society than science should be measured. While peer review and bibliometrics have become standard methods for measuring the impact of research in science, there is not yet an accepted framework within which to measure societal impact. Alternative metrics (called altmetrics to distinguish them from bibliometrics) are considered an interesting option for assessing the societal impact of research, as they offer new ways to measure (public) engagement with research output. Altmetrics is a term to describe web-based metrics for the impact of publications and other scholarly material by using data from social media platforms (e.g. Twitter or Mendeley). This overview of studies explores the potential of altmetrics for measuring societal impact. It deals with the definition and classification of altmetrics. Furthermore, their benefits and disadvantages for measuring impact are discussed. 相似文献