The balance of knowledge flows     

Giovanni Abramo  Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo  Massimiliano Carloni 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(1):1-9

  相似文献   

Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)     

Lutz Bornmann  Robin Haunschild  Jonathan Adams 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(1):325-340

Altmetrics have been proposed as a way to assess the societal impact of research. Although altmetrics are already in use as impact or attention metrics in different contexts, it is still not clear whether they really capture or reflect societal impact. This study is based on altmetrics, citation counts, research output and case study data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF), and peers’ REF assessments of research output and societal impact. We investigated the convergent validity of altmetrics by using two REF datasets: publications submitted as research output (PRO) to the REF and publications referenced in case studies (PCS). Case studies, which are intended to demonstrate societal impact, should cite the most relevant research papers. We used the MHq’ indicator for assessing impact – an indicator which has been introduced for count data with many zeros. The results of the first part of the analysis show that news media as well as mentions on Facebook, in blogs, in Wikipedia, and in policy-related documents have higher MHq’ values for PCS than for PRO. Thus, the altmetric indicators seem to have convergent validity for these data. In the second part of the analysis, altmetrics have been correlated with REF reviewers’ average scores on PCS. The negative or close to zero correlations question the convergent validity of altmetrics in that context. We suggest that they may capture a different aspect of societal impact (which can be called unknown attention) to that seen by reviewers (who are interested in the causal link between research and action in society).  相似文献   

On the Shapley value and its application to the Italian VQR research assessment exercise     

Camil Demetrescu  Francesco Lupia  Angelo Mendicelli  Andrea Ribichini  Francesco Scarcello  Marco Schaerf 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(1):87-104

Research assessment exercises have now become common evaluation tools in a number of countries. These exercises have the goal of guiding merit-based public funds allocation, stimulating improvement of research productivity through competition and assessing the impact of adopted research support policies. One case in point is Italy's most recent research assessment effort, VQR 2011–2014 (Research Quality Evaluation), which, in addition to research institutions, also evaluated university departments, and individuals in some cases (i.e., recently hired research staff and members of PhD committees). However, the way an institution's score was divided, according to VQR rules, between its constituent departments or its staff members does not enjoy many desirable properties well known from coalitional game theory (e.g., budget balance, fairness, marginality). We propose, instead, an alternative score division rule that is based on the notion of Shapley value, a well known solution concept in coalitional game theory, which enjoys the desirable properties mentioned above. For a significant test case (namely, Sapienza University of Rome, the largest university in Italy), we present a detailed comparison of the scores obtained, for substructures and individuals, by applying the official VQR rules, with those resulting from Shapley value computations. We show that there are significant differences in the resulting scores, making room for improvements in the allocation rules used in research assessment exercises.  相似文献   

Measuring scientific contributions with modified fractional counting     

Gunnar Sivertsen  Ronald Rousseau  Lin Zhang 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):679-694

We develop and propose a new counting method at the aggregate level for contributions to scientific publications called modified fractional counting (MFC). We show that, compared to traditional complete-normalized fractional counting, it eliminates the extreme differences in contributions over time that otherwise occur between scientists that mainly publish alone or in small groups and those that publish with large groups of co-authors. As an extra benefit we find that scientists in different areas of research turn out to have comparable average contributions to scientific articles. We test the method on scientists at Norway’s largest universities and find that, at an aggregate level, it indeed supports comparability across different co-authorship practices as well as between areas of research. MFC is thereby useful whenever the research output from institutions with different research profiles are compared, as e.g., in the Leiden Ranking. Finally, as MFC is actually a family of indicators, depending on a sensitivity parameter, it can be adapted to the circumstances.  相似文献   

When research assessment exercises leave room for opportunistic behavior by the subjects under evaluation     

《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(3):830-840

This study inserts in the stream of research on the perverse effects that PBRF systems can induce in the subjects evaluated. The authors’ opinion is that more often than not, it is the doubtful scientific basis of the evaluation criteria that leave room for opportunistic behaviors. The work examines the 2004–2010 Italian national research assessment (VQR) to test the lack of possible opportunistic behavior by universities in order to limit the penalization of their performance (and funding) due to the presence of scientifically unproductive professors in faculty. In particular, institutions may have favored “gift authorship” practices. The analysis thus focuses on the output of professors who were unproductive in the VQR publication window, but became productive (“new productives”) in the following five years. A number of universities show a higher than average share of publications by new productives that are in co-authorship exclusively with colleagues from the same university. Although this might be thought to reflect opportunistic behavior by universities, the empirical evidence does not support this assumption.  相似文献   

Research characteristics on health law in China: Social network analysis     

Qing Chang  Chao Long  Mark A. Hall  Zhiguang Duan 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2019,45(2):126-136

To determine the nature and extent of the emerging field of “health law” scholarship in China, we retrieved 2956 publications about various aspects of health law published up through 2014 in 268 journals from the “Chinese Social Science Citation Index” and from the list of Chinese “Core Journals” maintained by the Peking University Library. By bibliometric analysis, we observed some interesting results which were different from our expectations. The collaboration network among Chinese health law (CHL) authors was relatively small, loose, unstable and early in its development. Kan Tian and Lixin Yang were leading authors, Renmin University of China was the primary institution, and Beijing was the predominant region studying Chinese health law (CHL). Kan Tian ranked 1st in the collaboration network and Lixin Yang published the most number of articles on CHL. Comprehensive universities made up the majority of institutions studying CHL, while medical colleges did not focus on health law research, possibly due to medical schools focusing mainly on clinical education and not attaching as much importance to social and humanistic aspects of medicine. Food safety, health administration, and the general principles of civil law were the main areas of focus in CHL research, which is basically in line with what we expected.  相似文献   

从中美合著论文状况看中美科技合作   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  

金炬  马峥  梁战平 《科学学与科学技术管理》2007,28(5):41-47

用文献计量学方法,采集、整理和分析了大量数据,对中美科技合著论文的总体规模和比例及其变化、学科分布、机构分布和期刊分布等历史情况和现状进行了统计排名与评价,对国际科技合作绩效评估方法进行了初步探讨。  相似文献   

我国新闻传播学期刊在WoS数据库被引的计量分析          下载免费PDF全文

邓备 《中国科技期刊研究》2016,27(5):542-546

【目的】 探讨我国新闻传播学期刊的国际影响力,为我国新闻传播学的研究以及相关期刊的评价提供一定的参考。 【方法】 运用文献计量学方法, 对11种CSSCI新闻传播学期刊2006年至2015年期间被Web of Science数据库引用的164篇论文进行了计量分析。 【结果】 我国新闻传播学刊物整体而言在国际上缺乏影响力。我国具有国际影响力的新闻传播学学者还为数不多。十年来,我国新闻传播学研究在国际上的“能见度”变化不大。 【结论】 我国的新闻传播学研究水平不高,国际影响力不大。  相似文献   

中国科技评价研究热点述评     

张硕  陶蕊  施筱勇 《科技管理研究》2021,41(18):58-65

构建高效规范的科技评价体系是我国科技治理体系和治理能力现代化的重要标志.以中国知网数据库2017-2019年科技评价领域的期刊论文为对象,分析近年来的研究热点分布及演化特征、主要研究机构及合作关系.研究发现:我国科技评价领域的研究热点包括高质量科技成果评价、学科评估、绩效评价、多元化评价方法等,符合国家科技评价改革方向;领域宽泛但缺少统一的学术语言和共同的认知理念,给学术研究和评价实践带来挑战;对评价方法的探索已成为主要研究方向,定量分析、大数据分析以及针对"分类评价""破四唯"等改革导向的分析已成趋势;研究机构以高校为主,学术研究与实践工作存在一定脱节.对未来我国科技评价体系的改革提出四点建议,包括坚持政策引导、建立行业共识、加强方法探索、促进研用结合等.  相似文献   

Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology     

Martin Meyer 《Research Policy》2006,35(10):1646-1662

This paper explores the relationship between scientific publication and patenting activity. More specifically, it examines for the field of nano-science and nano-technology whether researchers who both publish and patent are more productive and more highly cited than their peers who concentrate on scholarly publication in communicating their research results. This study is based on an analysis of the nano-science publications and nano-technology patents of a small set of European countries. While only a very few nano-scientists appear to hold patents in nano-technology, many nano-inventors seem to be actively publishing nano-science research. Overall, the patenting scientists appear to outperform their solely publishing (non-inventing) peers in terms of publication counts and citation frequency. However, a closer examination of the highly active and highly cited nano-authors points to a slightly different situation. While still over-represented among the highly cited authors, inventor-authors appear not to be among the most highly cited authors in that category, with a single notable exception. One policy implication is that, generally speaking, patenting activity does not appear to have an adverse impact on the publication and citation performance of researchers.  相似文献