Enhancing Research Impact in Heritage Conservation     

Theocharis Katrakazis  Cath Dillon  Petra Juvan  Stavroula Golfomitsou 《文物保护研究》2018,63(8):450-465

This paper examines how research impact is defined, measured, and generated – with a view to understanding how it can be enhanced within heritage conservation. It examines what is meant by ‘impact’ and how it can be promoted within heritage science through effective inter-disciplinary collaboration. Following a general examination of the current discourse concerning research impact, the study examined: (i) active research networks within heritage science; (ii) research planning and evaluation practices within heritage science; and (iii) the experiences of users (i.e. conservators and other heritage professionals) within research collaborations. Terminologies surrounding the notion of impact and the various phases of the research process were reviewed – from the initial identification of a knowledge gap to the eventual application of new findings in practice. Next, the reach and diversity of research collaborations (as identified through publication co-authorship) were studied to characterise the inter-disciplinary nature of heritage science and its connectedness to users. Findings showed substantial growth in international research collaborations over recent years, predominantly involving academic- and research-oriented institutions – although the engagement of heritage institutions has proportionally decreased. In addition, a worldwide survey of institutional planning and evaluation practices revealed a general reliance on processes driven by the interests of researchers – the systematic consideration of stakeholder opinion and evaluation of research outcomes being less common. Finally, a series of semi-structured interviews with senior heritage professionals explored their experience of collaborative research. The results identified key areas where strategic support is needed to promote user participation and enhance impact. These include training for research readiness, engagement, and impact for both researchers and users; better methods for needs and outcome assessment; affordable open access options and greater diversity of knowledge exchange opportunities. Finally, the need for ethical guidelines for responsible research, and greater emphasis on non-academic impact within research rating systems are discussed.  相似文献   

面向学术图书的Altmetrics指标分析     

韩雨彤  周雨涵  杨伟超  刘晓娟 《图书情报工作》2018,62(14):91-97

[目的/意义] 探讨Altmetrics指标对学术图书影响力进行评价的有效性,为学术图书评价工作提出合理建议。[方法/过程] 获取Twitter提及量、Mendeley阅读量、在线书评数量以及馆藏量指标数据,对数据集的覆盖率、分位数等统计量分析后,将被引频数与Altmetrics指标进行了指标间相关系数检验,再对高Altmetrics指标值的学术图书进行年份分布、学科差异及图书主题等实证分析,探究各指标在学术图书影响力评价中的应用。[结果/结论] 传统计量指标被引频数与Altmetrics指标之间的相关性较低,说明Altmetrics可以作为学术图书评价的一个新视角,不同Altmetrics指标反映了学术图书影响力的不同维度。未来的学术图书影响力评价建议结合学术图书的年份、学科等特征,将传统的引文与Altmetrics指标相结合,探索更全面有效的评价机制。  相似文献   

The Changing Research Data Landscape and the Experiences of Ethics Review Board Chairs: Implications for Library Practice and Partnerships     

Brian Jackson 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2018,44(5):603-612

Academic libraries have to a large extent taken the lead in facilitating new approaches to research data management, but changes to the research data landscape have had an impact on numerous areas of academic work, including ethics review. Using interpretive phenomenological analysis of interviews with chairs of Canadian research ethics boards, this study explores how ethics review boards have experienced changes to data policy and related technologies in order to describe the ethical implications of new approaches to data management and to explore ways in which the library, ethics review boards, and other campus partners might harmonize efforts to support emerging data practices. While ethics review boards in Canada are keenly aware of open data policies, data publishing in practice is still nascent. There is uncertainty about the adoption of changing technologies for research and their impacts on privacy protection. Where responsibility lies for addressing these uncertainties is often unclear. Academic libraries and research ethics boards are well-suited to engage in mutual knowledge transfer and to integrate data management planning and ethics review processes. Institutional-level oversight that includes all campus departments impacted by changes to the research data landscape may facilitate improved communication and reduce role ambiguity.  相似文献   

Sampling Methods and Sample Populations in Quantitative Mass Communication Research Studies: A 15-Year Census of Six Journals     

Joseph Erba  Brock Ternes  Piotr Bobkowski  Tara Logan  Yuchen Liu 《Communication Research Reports》2018,35(1):42-47

This study evaluated the sampling methods and sample populations used in all U.S.-based survey and experimental mass communication studies published between 2000 and 2014 in six major journals (N = 1,173). Most studies used nonprobability samples, and more than half used student samples. Experiments used more nonprobability and student samples than surveys. Funded studies used more probability and nonstudent samples than nonfunded studies. Implications of results pertaining to population validity and interpretations of findings for mass communication research are discussed.  相似文献   

科研模式变革中的数据管理服务:实现开放获取、开放数据、开放科学的途径   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  

顾立平 《中国图书馆学报》2018,44(6):43-58

随着信息技术的发展与普及,全球学术交流模式总体朝着开放获取的趋势发展,信息时代的科学活动需要更多的数据开放和共享。开放数据是公众参与科学、推动社会进步的必要条件。无论是对于图书馆工作还是对于信息服务、知识服务来说,科研模式的变革都是一种新的挑战。与此同时,在此背景下,也产生了一种新的机遇,即与科研数据管理相关的一系列新内容,包括:明确科研数据管理各利益方;明确数据管理服务的主要内容;塑造科研数据开放共享文化,开展各个利益相关者之间的数据对话;进行科学数据开放共享各个环节的政策研究;明确数据馆员发挥的作用和职业价值。表6。参考文献70。  相似文献   

Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts?     

Mike Thelwall  Tamara Nevill 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(1):237-248

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   

Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences,research activity level,and social networks formed     

Weiwei Yan  Yin Zhang 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(1):385-400

As one of the largest active academic social networking sites, ResearchGate (RG) has been utilized by scholars to share publications, seek collaborators, communicate work in progress, and build scholarly reputation. This study collects data from RG users from 61 U.S. research universities at different research activity levels, as categorized by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, to examine the impact of institutional differences on RG reputational metrics. The results confirm that RG is a research-oriented academic social networking site that closely and realistically mirrors the research activity level of institutions. With an increase in the research activity level of a university, its affiliated RG users tend to have higher RG scores, more publications and citations, and more profile views and followers, while the average number of reads of their publications and followees tend to be lower and fluctuant. In addition, RG users primarily follow others from institutions of a higher research activity level, forming virtual social networks centered around esteemed institutions. The study suggests academic social networks can serve as indicators in evaluation of research activities among research institutions, and such sites can be helpful and credible for acquiring resources, keeping informed about research, and promoting academic influence.  相似文献   

Four pitfalls in normalizing citation indicators: An investigation of ESI’s selection of highly cited papers     

Zhigang Hu  Wencan Tian  Shenmeng Xu  Chunbo Zhang  Xianwen Wang 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(4):1133-1145

InCites Essential Science Indicators is becoming increasingly used to identify top-performing research and evaluate the impact of institutes. Unfortunately, our study shows that ESI indicators, as well as other normalized citation indicators, have the following flaws. First, the publication month and the online-to-print delay affect a paper’s probability of becoming a Highly Cited Paper (HCP). Papers published in the earlier months of the year are more likely to accumulate enough citation counts to rank at the top 1% compared with those published in later months of the year. Papers with longer online-to-print delays have an apparent advantage for being selected as HCPs. Research field normalizations lead to the third pitfall. Different research fields have different citation thresholds for HCPs, making research field classification important for a journal. In addition, the uniform thresholds for both articles and reviews in ESI affect the reliability of HCP selection because, on average, reviews tend to have higher citation rates than articles. ESI’s selection of HCPs provides an intuitive feel for the problems of normalized citation impact indicators, such as those provided in InCites and SciVal.  相似文献   

A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list     

Giovanni Abramo  Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo  Lin Zhang 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(4):1182-1193

This study investigates the convergence of two bibliometric approaches to the measurement of interdisciplinary research: one based on analyzing disciplinary diversity in the reference list of publications, the other based on the disciplinary diversity of authors of publications. In particular we measure the variety, balance, disparity and integrated diversity index of, respectively, single-author, multi-author single-field, and multi-author multi-field publications. We find that, in general, the diversity of the reference list grows with the number of fields reflected in a paper’s authors’ list and, to a lesser extent, with the number of authors being equal the number of fields. Further, we find that when fields belonging to different disciplines are reflected in the authors’ list, the disparity in the reference list is higher than in the case of fields belonging to the same discipline. However, this general tendency varies across disciplines, and noticeable exceptions are found at individual paper level.  相似文献   

Technological research in the EU is less efficient than the world average. EU research policy risks Europeans’ future     

Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro  Ricardo Brito 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(3):718-731

We have studied the efficiency of research in the EU by a percentile-based citation approach that analyzes the distribution of country papers among the world papers. Going up in the citation scale, the frequency of papers from efficient countries increases while the frequency from inefficient countries decreases. In the percentile-based approach, this trend, which is uniform at any citation level, is measured by the e_p index that equals the P_{top 1%}/P_{top 10%} ratio. By using the e_p index we demonstrate that EU research on fast-evolving technological topics is less efficient than the world average and that the EU is far from being able to compete with the most advanced countries. The e_p index also shows that the USA is well ahead of the EU in both fast- and slow-evolving technologies, which suggests that the advantage of the USA over the EU in innovation is due to low research efficiency in the EU. In accord with some previous studies, our results show that the European Commission’s ongoing claims about the excellence of EU research are based on a wrong diagnosis. The EU must focus its research policy on the improvement of its inefficient research. Otherwise, the future of Europeans is at risk.  相似文献