排序方式： 共有18条查询结果，搜索用时 546 毫秒
1.
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
2.
Dissertations can be the single most important scholarly outputs of junior researchers. Whilst sets of journal articles are often evaluated with the help of citation counts from the Web of Science or Scopus, these do not index dissertations and so their impact is hard to assess. In response, this article introduces a new multistage method to extract Google Scholar citation counts for large collections of dissertations from repositories indexed by Google. The method was used to extract Google Scholar citation counts for 77,884 American doctoral dissertations from 2013 to 2017 via ProQuest, with a precision of over 95%. Some ProQuest dissertations that were dual indexed with other repositories could not be retrieved with ProQuest-specific searches but could be found with Google Scholar searches of the other repositories. The Google Scholar citation counts were then compared with Mendeley reader counts, a known source of scholarly-like impact data. A fifth of the dissertations had at least one citation recorded in Google Scholar and slightly fewer had at least one Mendeley reader. Based on numerical comparisons, the Mendeley reader counts seem to be more useful for impact assessment purposes for dissertations that are less than two years old, whilst Google Scholar citations are more useful for older dissertations, especially in social sciences, arts and humanities. Google Scholar citation counts may reflect a more scholarly type of impact than that of Mendeley reader counts because dissertations attract a substantial minority of their citations from other dissertations. In summary, the new method now makes it possible for research funders, institutions and others to systematically evaluate the impact of dissertations, although additional Google Scholar queries for other online repositories are needed to ensure comprehensive coverage. 相似文献
3.
为了探讨同行评议、影响计量学以及传统文献计量指标在科学评价中的有效性,本文选取F1000、Mendeley以及Web of Science、Google Scholar数据库,采用SPSS 19.0软件,将心理学与生态学的1,3篇论文的同行评议结果即F1000因子、Mendeley阅读统计、期刊影响因子,以及Web of Science、Google Scholar数据库中被引频次进行相关分析。结果表明:同行评议结果、传统引文分析指标以及以Mendeley为代表的影响计量指标具有低度正相关性,这意味着上述指标在科学评价中审视视角的不同以及数字时代科学评价的多维构成;心理学筛选数据中F1000因子与期刊影响因子相关度几近为0,这一结论进一步证实了期刊影响因子与单篇论文影响力的严重背离;生态学与心理学指标相关分析结果的不同折射出科学评价中自然科学、社会科学的差异。图3。表4。参考文献10。 相似文献
4.
[目的/意义] 进一步探讨Web 2.0环境下选择性计量指标的有效性。[方法/过程] 以"data mining"为检索词,获得Mendeley与Web of Science两平台的交叉文献集合,分别对交叉文集的被引频数与阅读数、被引频数与标签数进行相关性检验后,从每组选取指标值差异最大与最小的各100篇文献进行具体分析。[结果/结论] 传统计量指标被引频数与Mendeley中的阅读数和标签数均存在弱相关性,证实了以阅读数和标签数为代表的选择性计量指标可以在一定程度上评估文献的影响力,且文献类型、出版年份和作者h指数会对用户阅读、引用等文献利用行为产生影响。未来文献影响力评价的发展方向应为传统文献计量方法与选择性计量方法的结合。 相似文献
5.
常用文献管理软件功能比较 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
赵飞 《现代图书情报技术》2012,(3):67-72
从用户的使用角度出发,在选择和使用文献管理软件方面对国内外7款常用文献管理软件的一些细节功能进行比较,分析各自的优势和不足,同时探讨文献管理软件的发展趋势。 相似文献
6.
In the past, librarians taught reference management by training library users to use established software programs such as RefWorks or EndNote. In today's environment, there is a proliferation of Web-based programs that are being used by library clientele that offer a new twist on the well-known reference management programs. Basically, these new programs are PDF-manager software (e.g., Mendeley or Papers). Librarians are faced with new questions, issues, and concerns, given the new workflows and pathways that these PDF-manager programs present. This article takes a look at some of those. 相似文献
7.
8.
[目的/意义] 对不同学术社交网络中不同学科用户的文献阅读差异进行分析,以了解在不同学术社交网络中的学科分布情况,掌握在不同学术社交网络中的学科研究热点。[方法/过程] 通过Altmetric. com获取24个学科的4 800篇热点文献,利用爬虫采集这些文献在Mendeley和ResearchGate的被阅读次数,再对文献进行内容分析,得到关键词,最后对比分析不同学术社交网络中文献阅读差异以及学科关注热点的一致性。[结果/结论] 不同学科的读者身份、读者所属领域具有显著差异,ResearchGate中的文献阅读次数普遍高于Mendeley,且社会科学等软学科的文献阅读相对优势更为明显,而物理学等硬学科的文献阅读相对优势较低。Mendeley和ResearchGate在地球与地理科学、化学和环境科学等学科中的关注热点具有较高的一致性,而物理学等部分学科中的关注热点表现出较低的一致性。 相似文献
9.
Scholarly communication is often thought of as the preservation of knowledge. In fact, it also influences the creation, transformation, and dissemination of knowledge. The new norms of scholarly communication are multiple authorships, inter-institutional and international collaboration, and use of social media. The evolving norms for the librarians and consortial groups are supporting research data management, aiding discovery of collaborators, and dissemination and preservation of results, especially in digital formats. Librarians are viewed as experts in scholarly communication on many campuses but their leadership is not always recognized. 相似文献
10.
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