排序方式： 共有87条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
61.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(4):963-971
Citations are increasingly used for research evaluations. It is therefore important to identify factors affecting citation scores that are unrelated to scholarly quality or usefulness so that these can be taken into account. Regression is the most powerful statistical technique to identify these factors and hence it is important to identify the best regression strategy for citation data. Citation counts tend to follow a discrete lognormal distribution and, in the absence of alternatives, have been investigated with negative binomial regression. Using simulated discrete lognormal data (continuous lognormal data rounded to the nearest integer) this article shows that a better strategy is to add one to the citations, take their log and then use the general linear (ordinary least squares) model for regression (e.g., multiple linear regression, ANOVA), or to use the generalised linear model without the log. Reasonable results can also be obtained if all the zero citations are discarded, the log is taken of the remaining citation counts and then the general linear model is used, or if the generalised linear model is used with the continuous lognormal distribution. Similar approaches are recommended for altmetric data, if it proves to be lognormally distributed. 相似文献
62.
63.
[目的/意义]开展颠覆性技术的社会影响力研究,可以探究颠覆性技术社会影响力的扩散特征,为潜在颠覆性技术的识别提供新的思路。[方法/过程]文章以政、产、学三方认可的颠覆性技术领域作为研究对象,以Altmetric.com平台为数据来源,获取各颠覆性技术领域内科学研究成果的多种社会媒体关注度指标,将这些关注度指标作为颠覆性技术产生的社会影响力的量化表征;最后,立足于时间和空间分布特征,探析各技术社会影响力所具有共通的扩散性、差异性、持续性、多样性、均衡性和积聚性特征。[结果/结论]从扩散性、差异性、持续性、多样性、均衡性和集聚性等6个方面获取了12项颠覆性技术具有的共性特征与结论的应用场景。 相似文献
64.
Meredith Brown 《期刊图书馆员》2013,64(1):27-30
The research community is continually trying to find the quickest method for evaluating the quality of a scholarly article. Today’s technological advancements and growing communication outlets complicate the meaning of a quality article. Altmetrics attempts to take the place of impact factor and citation counting by predicting the outcome of an article based on the previous behavior of statistics. Perhaps, the best way to evaluate the quality of an article is to look at all of the Altmetrics methods and their relationship to each other. Context explains every Altmetric and is more significant than an article’s popularity. Librarians should guide patrons and researchers alike through these statistics’ advantages and disadvantages. 相似文献
65.
论推动替代计量学发展的若干基本问题 总被引：6，自引：5，他引：1
替代计量学快速发展,同时也造成了一些困扰,主要表现在替代计量学的研究内涵存在争议,替代计量指标内在价值不够明朗,替代计量指标可信度遭到质疑。本文对近年来替代计量学的研究论著进行追踪和梳理,利用狭义、广义二分法归纳替代计量学的研究内涵,明确提出狭义的替代计量学专门研究相对传统引文指标的在线新型计量指标及其应用,广义的替代计量学研究在线新型科学交流体系和面向学术成果的全面影响力评价指标体系。若根据应用情境对替代计量指标和数据源进行细分,既能反映学术成果的社会影响力,也能反映学术成果的学术影响力。从规避数据操纵、数据严谨性和数据一致性三个方面,论证了替代计量指标具备实用的可信度。替代计量学研究有利于增加发展中国家科学家的话语权,对创新型科学交流机制起到促进作用。对应Altmetrics这个英文术语,"替代计量学"是最合适的中文译名。 相似文献
66.
[目的/意义]Altmetrics是社交媒体环境下"五计学"的新发展,对Altmetrics的发展趋势进行系统把握,为国内外相关研究和实践提供参考和借鉴。[方法/过程]从系统视角构建发展趋势分析框架,运用文献调研和实践考察的方法,从理论、方法、应用三个层面,结合历史现状、前沿趋势、社会环境和内部问题四个维度分析Altmetrics的发展趋势。[结果/结论]Altmetrics朝着融合、开放、深化方向发展,具体表现为十大发展趋势:概念定义的统一、动机机理的明晰、理论框架的形成、学科体系的构建、数据来源的规范、指标体系的改进、方法体系的形成、工具体系的完善、标准规范的确立和应用研究的深化。 相似文献
67.
[目的/意义]用数理统计的方法探索PLoS平台开放获取的学术论文在网络媒体中浏览量的累积规律,丰富对Altmetrics指标的研究方法。[方法/过程]跟踪记录PLoS Biology和PLoS Medicine期刊2016年11月份发表的38篇研究论文的浏览量数据,数据收集截止到2017年10月16日。利用曲线拟合和计算特别节点等方法对所记录数据进行统计学分析及检验,探索总浏览量指标的累积规律。[结果/结论]总浏览量累积曲线与对数曲线拟合优度最高,平均为0.97;计算出累积曲线的特别节点S （x,y）,将总浏览量累积过程分为集中浏览期和分散浏览期两个阶段,其中集中浏览期约占总阶段的10%,而浏览量却超过了全部浏览量的55%。 相似文献
68.
Alberto Martín-Martín Enrique Orduna-Malea Emilio Delgado López-Cózar 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(2):494-509
The new web-based academic communication platforms do not only enable researchers to better advertise their academic outputs, making them more visible than ever before, but they also provide a wide supply of metrics to help authors better understand the impact their work is making. This study has three objectives: a) to analyse the uptake of some of the most popular platforms (Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley and Twitter) by a specific scientific community (bibliometrics, scientometrics, informetrics, webometrics, and altmetrics); b) to compare the metrics available from each platform; and c) to determine the meaning of all these new metrics. To do this, the data available in these platforms about a sample of 811 authors (researchers in bibliometrics for whom a public profile Google Scholar Citations was found) were extracted. A total of 31 metrics were analysed. The results show that a high number of the analysed researchers only had a profile in Google Scholar Citations (159), or only in Google Scholar Citations and ResearchGate (142). Lastly, we find two kinds of metrics of online impact. First, metrics related to connectivity (followers), and second, all metrics associated to academic impact. This second group can further be divided into usage metrics (reads, views), and citation metrics. The results suggest that Google Scholar Citations is the source that provides more comprehensive citation-related data, whereas Twitter stands out in connectivity-related metrics. 相似文献
69.
Giovanni Abramo 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(3):590-597
The development of scientometric indicators and methods for evaluative purposes, requires a multitude of assumptions, conventions, limitations, and caveats. Given this, we cannot permit ambiguities in the key concepts forming the basis of scientometric science itself, or research assessment exercises would rest on quicksand. This conceptual work attempts to spell out some principles leading to a clear definition of “impact” of research, and above all, of the appropriate scientometric indicator to measure it. The aim is to stimulate a discussion aimed at a definitive convergence on the meaning and measurement of a fundamental concept of the scientometric science. 相似文献
70.