| 不同学科分类体系对机构科研影响力评价的影响研究 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 耿海英,杨立英,沈哲思.不同学科分类体系对机构科研影响力评价的影响研究[J].图书情报工作,2022,66(23):104-114. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 耿海英 杨立英 沈哲思 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 1. 中国社会科学评价研究院 北京 100732;2. 中国科学院文献情报中心 北京 100190;3. 中国科学院大学经济与管理学院图书情报与档案管理系 北京 100190 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 目的/意义] 探讨不同学科分类体系在机构科研影响力评价中的差异及对评价结果的影响。方法/过程] 以Incites数据库为数据来源,选择5种分类体系、8种分类方案。首先对14 955个机构不同分类方案下的学科标准化引文影响力(Category Normalized Citation Impact,CNCI)进行相关性分析,考察不同分类体系下评价结果的整体相似性。然后以国内双一流建设中的36所高校为例,比较和分析不同分类方案下机构CNCI值的变化情况及差异产生的具体原因,研究分类体系对个体机构评价的影响。结果/结论] 不同学科分类方案下得到的CNCI值相关性显著(最低相关性达到0.85),即不同分类体系得到的整体评价结果具有较高的相似度。但是不同分类体系下的评价结果也存在聚类特征,OECD、ESI、SCADC、CT1相互之间相关系数高、结果更相近,WoS、CT2和CT3评价结果更接近,分类体系的粒度是决定评价结果的重要因素。36所高校在不同的分类体系下评价结果的整体相关性较高,但个别高校CNCI值变化较大,特别是在热点主题上有突出发文的机构。评价结果的巨大差异其根本原因是论文划分到不同类目中,不同类目下的引用基准值不同。在评价过程中更加推荐粒度较细的分类体系,减少热点主题等对引用基准值的影响。
|
| 关 键 词： | 学科分类 机构评价 学科标准化引文影响力 |
| 收稿时间： | 2022-07-26 |
| 修稿时间： | 2022-10-13 |
The Impact of Different Subject Classification Systems on the Evaluation of Scientific Research Impact of Institutes |
| |
| Geng Haiying,Yang Liying,Shen Zhesi.The Impact of Different Subject Classification Systems on the Evaluation of Scientific Research Impact of Institutes[J].Library and Information Service,2022,66(23):104-114. |
| |
| Authors: | Geng Haiying Yang Liying Shen Zhesi |
| |
| Institution: | 1.Chinese Academy of Social Science Evaluation Studies, Beijing 100732;2.National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190;3.Department of Library, Information and Archives Management, School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190 |
| |
| Abstract: | Purpose/Significance] This paper analyzes the difference of institute impact evalution based on different subject classification systems and their impact on the evaluation results. Method/Process] The study selected 5 classification systems, and 8 classification schemes from Incites database. Firstly, it conducted correlation analysis on CNCI of 14,955 institutions based on different classification schemes to study the similariy of the evaluation results under different classification systems. Then it selected 36 double first-class universities in China, compared the changes of CNCI values based on different classification schemes, analyzed the specific reasons for the differences, and studied the effect of classification system on the evaluation of individual institutions. Result/Conclusion] The CNCI values obtained under different subject classification schemes were significantly correlated (the lowest correlation reached 0.85).This indicates that the evaluation results obtained by different classification systems have high similarity. However, the evaluation results under different classification systems also have clustering characteristics. OECD, ESI, SCADC and CT1 have high correlation coefficients and more similar results, and WoS, CT2 and CT3 evaluation results are more similar. The granularity of classification system is an important factor to determine the evaluation result. The overall correlation of the evaluation results of 36 universities under different classification systems is high, but the CNCI values of some universities vary greatly, especially those institutions with prominent publications on hot topics. The fundamental reason for the great difference in the evaluation results is that the same paper is divided into different categories and the citation baselines under different categories are different. In the evaluation process, more fine-grained classification system is recommended to reduce the influence of hot topics on the citation baselines. |
| |
| Keywords: | subject classification institute impact Category Normalized Citation Impact |
|
| 点击此处可从《图书情报工作》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《图书情报工作》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
