基于动态权重的百分位数指标在学术影响力评价中的应用

doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2016.11.013

图书情报工作 ›› 2016, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (11): 93-99.DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2016.11.013

基于动态权重的百分位数指标在学术影响力评价中的应用

舒予, 张黎俐

四川大学图书馆成都 610065

收稿日期:2016-03-16 修回日期:2016-04-29 出版日期:2016-06-05 发布日期:2016-06-05
作者简介:舒予(ORCID:0000-0003-1849-6414),馆员,硕士,E-mail:shuyu@scu.edu.cn;张黎俐(ORCID:0000-0003-0928-2617),馆员,硕士。
基金资助:
本文系四川大学2016年青年教师科研启动基金项目“学科标准化的科研评估指标体系构建及实证研究”（项目编号：2016SCU11059）研究成果之一。

Application of Percentile Indicator Based on Dynamic Weight in the Evaluation of Academic Influence

Shu Yu, Zhang Lili

Sichuan University Library, Chengdu 610065

Received:2016-03-16 Revised:2016-04-29 Online:2016-06-05 Published:2016-06-05

摘要/Abstract

摘要： ［目的/意义］在对MNCS和百分位数两种指标机制进行阐述、对比和分析的基础上，对百分位数指标的计算框架进行改进，提出一种动态权重的百分位数指标用于学术影响力的评价。［方法/过程］以ESI学科为评价对象，分别选取同一研究实体下的不同学科和不同研究实体下的同一学科作为两个实例进行实证研究。［结果/结论］实证结果表明这种动态权重的百分位数指标与MNCS和百分位数指标相比更能展现评价对象学术影响力的细节。

关键词: 文献计量, MNCS, 百分位数, 动态权重, 学术影响力

Abstract: [Purpose/significance] Based on the elaboration, comparison and analysis of the mechanism of the two indicators between MNCS and percentile rank score, the calculation framework of the percentile rank score is improved, and a dynamic-weight percentile rank score indicators for the evaluation of academic influence is put forward.[Method/process] Taking the ESI disciplines as evaluation object,the evaluation of different disciplines of one research entity and same discipline of different research entities are selected as two examples for empirical research.[Result/conclusion] The empirical result shows that the dynamic weight of the percentile indicator can better show the details of the academic influence of the research entities than the MNCS and percentile rank score indicators.

Key words: bibliometric, MNCS, percentile rank score, dynamic-weight, academic influence

中图分类号:

G250

舒予, 张黎俐. 基于动态权重的百分位数指标在学术影响力评价中的应用[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(11): 93-99.

Shu Yu, Zhang Lili. Application of Percentile Indicator Based on Dynamic Weight in the Evaluation of Academic Influence[J]. LIS, 2016, 60(11): 93-99.

参考文献

[1] BORNMANN L, DANIEL H D. Functional use of frequently and infrequently cited articles in citing publications: a content analysis of citations to articles with low and high citation counts[J]. European science editing, 2008, 34(2): 35-38.
[2] MOED H F. Citation analysis in research evaluation[M]. Dordrecht:Springer, 2006.
[3] DANIEL H D. Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity[J]. Learned publishing, 2005, 18(2): 143-148.
[4] VAN RAAN A. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36(3): 397-420.
[5] Moed H F, BURGER W J M, FRANKFORT J G, et al. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance[J]. Research policy, 1985, 14(3): 131-149.
[6] VAN RAAN A. Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 67(3): 491-502.
[7] OPTHOF T, LEYDESDORFF L. Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 423-430.
[8] WALTMAN L, VAN ECK N J, VAN LEEUWEN T N, et al. Towards a new crown indicator: some theoretical considerations[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 37-47.
[9] WALTMAN L, VAN ECK N J, VAN LEEUWEN T N, et al. Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 87(3): 467-481.
[10] BORNMANN L. Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) paper[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 441-443.
[11] LEYDESDORFF L, OPTHOF T. Remaining problems with the "new crown indicator" (mncs) of the cwts[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 224-225.
[12] BORNMANN L, MUTZ R. Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: the avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 228-230.
[13] BORNMANN L, ANEGON F D, LEYDESDORFF L. The new excellence indicator in the world report of the scimago institutions rankings 2011[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2012, 6(2): 333-335.
[14] LEYDESDORFF L, BORNMANN L, MUTZ R, et al. Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: principles for comparing sets of documents[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(7): 1370-1381.
[15] 陈仕吉,史丽文,左文革. 基于ESI的学术影响力指标测度方法与实证[J]. 图书情报工作,2013,57(2):97-102,123.

基于动态权重的百分位数指标在学术影响力评价中的应用

Application of Percentile Indicator Based on Dynamic Weight in the Evaluation of Academic Influence

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	孟凡, 黄文彬, 李孟阳. 文献老化的编码化表示及分析方法[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(15): 14-22.
[2]	赵蓉英, 朱伟杰, 常茹茹, 刘卓著. 话语权研究可视化分析：溯源、审视与演进[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(11): 4-13.
[3]	张硕, 汪雪锋, 乔亚丽, 刘玉琴. 技术预测研究现状、趋势及未来思考:数据分析视角[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(10): 4-18.
[4]	王铮, 张奕乐, 杨佳欣. 图书馆发展的“技术尺度”:基于涉图书馆专利的图书馆技术演进比较研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(10): 89-97.
[5]	高志, 张志强. 杰出科学家的科研合作与学术影响力的关系研究——基于诺贝尔自然科学奖获得者的面板数据分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(20): 50-58.
[6]	高嵩, 张智雄, 丁颖. 不为繁华易匠心潜心钻研结硕果——孟连生在文献计量学和引文数据库建设方面的探索与影响[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(15): 22-29.
[7]	包鑫, 柯平. 访谈法在我国图书情报领域的应用探析——基于534篇文献的文献计量与内容分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(15): 71-77.
[8]	陈欣, 曹朝金, 叶春森, 汪传雷. 社会科学数据的创建和使用研究——二次匹配数据采集规则的应用[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(10): 90-104.
[9]	伍军红, 肖宏, 任美亚, 冯士雍, 丁哲. PCSI:一种单篇论文被引频次标准化方法[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(23): 22-30.
[10]	王怡玫, 刘秀文. 独立第三方学科评价服务的方法与实践——以北京大学图书馆支持药学国际评估的评价分析为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(16): 29-35.
[11]	邱科达, 马建玲. 机器学习在术语抽取研究中的文献计量分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(14): 94-103.
[12]	刘小玲, 谭宗颖. 新兴技术主题识别方法研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(11): 145-152.
[13]	丁敬达, 王新明. 基于作者贡献声明的合著者贡献率测度方法[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(16): 95-102.
[14]	黄月. 面向科研服务的多层次作者分析模型及实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(9): 112-122.
[15]	郝若扬. 高Altmetrics指标论文的特征分析及影响力分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(8): 107-114.