多源数据的期刊复合引文分析均值方法探析

doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2015.19.013

图书情报工作 ›› 2015, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (19): 100-107.DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2015.19.013

多源数据的期刊复合引文分析均值方法探析

苏林伟¹, 于霜¹, 许鑫¹, 赵星²

1. 华东师范大学商学院信息学系上海 200241;
2. 中国科学技术信息研究所北京 100038

收稿日期:2015-08-03 修回日期:2015-09-13 出版日期:2015-10-05 发布日期:2015-10-05
通讯作者: 赵星(ORCID:0000-0001-9347-590X),研究员,博士,E-mail:xzhao@infor.ecnu.edu.cn
作者简介:苏林伟(ORCID:0000-0003-2812-2889),硕士研究生;于霜(ORCID:0000-0001-8886-1478),硕士研究生;许鑫(ORCID:0000-0001-7020-3135),副教授,博士。
基金资助:
本文系ISTIC-ELSEVIER期刊评价研究中心开放基金资助项目"基于Scopus、GS与WoS多源数据的期刊复合引文分析方法研究"研究成果之一。

Mean Algorithms for Composite Journal Citation Analysis Based on Multi-source Data

Su Linwei¹, Yu Shuang¹, Xu Xin¹, Zhao Xing²

1. Business school, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241;
2. The Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China(ISTIC), Beijing 100038

Received:2015-08-03 Revised:2015-09-13 Online:2015-10-05 Published:2015-10-05

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

[目的/意义] 鉴于Scopus、Web of Science(WoS)与Google Scholar(GS)3个单源数据库在计量学研究和应用中的局限,发展综合利用多源数据信息的复合型引文分析方法可为计量学分析提供一种补充思路。[方法/过程] 以期刊总被引次数这一底层参量为切入点,用图书情报学国际期刊2009-2014年数据为实证基础,尝试对多源数据复合引文算术均值、几何均值及调和均值方法进行比较讨论。[结果/结论] 结果发现,算术均值、几何均值和调和均值虽有差异,但亦有线性关联,应用中可选其一;累计算术均值、几何均值和调和均值与期刊数之间未证实存在布拉德福定律,但在期刊数量等同的三分区内,累计被引均值满足形如n²:n:1的经验分布;多源数据复合引文与单个数据库引文的期刊排名差异呈现"两端小、中间大"之现象;期刊的算术均值排名与GS排名结果更接近,几何均值排名则与Scopus相似度更高,而调和均值与WoS的排名差异最小。

关键词: Scopus, WoS, Google Scholar, 多源数据, 复合引文分析

Abstract:

[Purpose/significance] As three single-source databases, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar all have limits in informetric researches and applications. The composite citation analysis method, which utilizes multi-source data, can provide a supplemental method. [Method/process] Based on the journal's total citations and the cases of international LIS journals, this paper attempts to compare the mean algorithms of composite citation analysis, including arithmetic mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean. [Result/conclusion] The results show that, though arithmetic mean is different from geometric mean or harmonic mean, there is a strong correlation between them. The cumulative arithmetic mean, cumulative geometric mean and harmonic mean do not follow Brad Ford's law, but with the same number of journals in three sub-zone, the cumulative value satisfies the model of "n²:n:1". The difference between journal rankings in single-source database and multi-source data appears as the phenomenon of "balance in ends, difference in mid". The journal ranking of arithmetic mean is closer to GS, while geometric mean is closer to Scopus and harmonic mean is closer to WoS.

Key words: Scopus, WoS, Google Scholar, Multi-source data, Composite citation analysis

中图分类号:

G250

苏林伟, 于霜, 许鑫, 赵星. 多源数据的期刊复合引文分析均值方法探析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(19): 100-107.

Su Linwei, Yu Shuang, Xu Xin, Zhao Xing. Mean Algorithms for Composite Journal Citation Analysis Based on Multi-source Data[J]. LIS, 2015, 59(19): 100-107.

参考文献

[1] Falagas M E,Pitsouni E I,Malietzis G A,et al.Comparison of PubMed,Scopus,Web of Science,and Google Scholar:Strengths and weaknesses[J].The FASEB Journal,2008,22(2):338-342.
[2] Meho L I,Yang Kiduk.Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty:Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2007,58(13):2105-2125.
[3] Adriaanse L S,Rensleigh C.Web of Science,Scopus and Google Scholar:A content comprehensiveness comparison[J].The Electronic Library,2013,31(6):727-744.
[4] 王春蕾,刘青华,刘万国.基于用户体验的Scopus与WoS对比分析研究[J].图书馆学研究,2012(3):72-76.
[5] Jacso P.Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar,Scopus,and Web of Science for FW Lancaster[J].Library Trends,2008,56(4):784-815.
[6] Zarifmahmoudi L,Kianifar H R,Sadeghi R.Citation analysis of iranian journal of basic medical sciences in ISI Web of Knowledge,Scopus,and Google Scholar[J].Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences,2013,16(10):1027-1030.
[7] De Groote S L,Raszewski R.Coverage of Google Scholar,Scopus,and Web of Science:A case study of the h-index in nursing[J].Nursing Outlook,2012,60(6):391-400.
[8] Jacso P.Deflated,inflated and phantom citation counts[J].Online Information Review,2006,30(3):297-309.
[9] Kulkarni A V,Aziz B,Shams I,et al.Comparisons of citations in Web of Science,Scopus,and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals[J].Jama,2009,302(10):1092-1096.
[10] Miri S M,Raoofi A,Heidari Z.Citation analysis of hepatitis monthly by journal citation Report(ISI),Google Scholar,and Scopus[J].Hepatitis Monthly,2012,12(9).
[11] Bar-Ilan J.Citations to the "Introduction to informetrics" indexed by WoS,Scopus and Google Scholar[J].Scientometrics,2010,82(3):495-506.
[12] Bar-Ilan J.Which h-index? A comparison of WoS,Scopus and Google Scholar[J].Scientometrics,2008,74(2):257-271. opus and Web of Science[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2008,59(11):1711-1726.
[13] Franceschet M.A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar[J].Scientometrics,2010,83(1):243-258.
[14] 宋丽萍,王建芳,孙斌.相关性视角下的WoS 与Scopus 之比较[J].图书情报工作,2012,56(4):22-26.
[15] Meho L I,Rogers Y.Citation counting,citation ranking,and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers:A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2008,59(11):1711-1726.
[16] 黄常锋,何伦志,刘凌.基于相对资源承载力模型的研究[J].经济地理,2010,30(10):1612-1618.
[17] 王殿元,姜春霞.调和平均数不可替代[J].中国统计,1999(2):27-29.
[18] 贺贤孝.算术平均-几何平均不等式的经典证明[J].数学通报,1995(3):39-43.
[19] Zhao Star Xing, Ye Fred Ying. Exploring the directed h-degree in directed weighted networks[J].Journal of Informetrics,2012,6(4):619-630.
[20] 赵星.JCR五年期影响因子探析[J].中国图书馆学报,2010,36(3):120-126.

多源数据的期刊复合引文分析均值方法探析

Mean Algorithms for Composite Journal Citation Analysis Based on Multi-source Data

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 14

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	范春竹, 邓小昭, 韩毅. 社交媒体用户消极使用行为：多源数据融合视角[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(15): 76-85.
[2]	张雪, 张志强, 曹玲静, 阮伟南, 任晓亚, 冯志刚. 学科领域研究前沿识别方法研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(12): 139-151.
[3]	裘惠麟, 邵波. 多源数据环境下科研热点识别方法研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(5): 78-88.
[4]	谢慧珍. 学科分类差异对高校图书馆学科评价服务的影响研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(2): 85-93.
[5]	庞弘燊. 基于科技文献多重共现的数据模型理论与知识发现应用范例研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(9): 61-72.
[6]	祝振媛, 李广建. 多视角下的情报分析模型研究综述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(19): 136-147.
[7]	董坤, 许海云, 隗玲, 方曙. 基于多源数据的技术产业化潜力分析方法研究——以基因工程疫苗技术为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(2): 89-99.
[8]	范晓玉, 窦永香, 赵捧未, 周潇. 融合多源数据的科研人员画像构建方法研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(15): 31-40.
[9]	闵超, 孙建军. 中文网络灰色文献分布探析——基于Google Scholar的样本分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2014, 58(24): 73-79.
[10]	和晋飞, 吕锋昌, 房俊民. 利用Google Scholar自动统计引文年度被引频次的方法[J]. 图书情报工作, 2014, 58(07): 88-94,118.
[11]	宋丽萍王建芳孙斌. 相关性视角下的WoS与Scopus之比较[J]. 图书情报工作, 2012, 56(04): 22-26.
[12]	王华华,潘,卫. 不同数据库H指数的差异分析及改进[J]. 图书情报工作, 2008, 52(11): 36-39.
[13]	樊怡菁 . SCIE和Scopus数据库的比较研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2006, 50(01): 106-108.
[14]	朱佳鸣. Google Scholar Beta检索性能的初步分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2005, 49(12): 115-119.