两类学术评价指标比较研究——以影响因子和谷歌学术指标期刊评价为观察视角

doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2017.03.014

图书情报工作 ›› 2017, Vol. 61 ›› Issue (3): 109-117.DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2017.03.014

两类学术评价指标比较研究——以影响因子和谷歌学术指标期刊评价为观察视角

许广奎¹, 涂志芳²

1. 烟台大学图书馆烟台 264005;
2. 北京大学信息管理系北京 100871

收稿日期:2016-11-04 修回日期:2017-01-05 出版日期:2017-02-05 发布日期:2017-02-05
通讯作者: 涂志芳(ORCID:0000-0002-8323-5205),硕士研究生,通讯作者,E-mail:tuzhifang@pku.edu.cn
作者简介:许广奎(ORCID:0000-0002-6141-7593),副研究馆员

Comparative Research on Two Scholar Metrics: From the Perspectives of Journal Impact Factors and Google Scholar Metrics

Xu Guangkui¹, Tu Zhifang²

1. Library of YanTai University, Yantai 264005;
2. Department of Information Management of Peking University, Beijing 100871

Received:2016-11-04 Revised:2017-01-05 Online:2017-02-05 Published:2017-02-05

摘要/Abstract

摘要： [目的/意义]学术评价对整个学术生态系统的发展具有重要意义。以影响因子和谷歌学术指标为视角，跟踪国内外学术评价指标发展的新动态，思考和探索学术评价指标优化发展的可能方向。[方法/过程]分别选取h5指数排名前50的中英文出版物并查询对应影响因子，分析并检验h5指数与影响因子的关系；对比中英文出版物在学科分布、时间范围、"被引"统计标准等方面的异同和优缺点，总结学术评价指标应考虑的诸多因素。从评价主体、评价对象等维度对网络环境下新的学术评价方式进行探索，对Altmetrics、RCR、PubPeer的创新性学术评价实践进行案例分析。[结果/结论]学术评价体系系统而复杂，与学术出版、交流与传播、保存利用等各环节密切关联，科学合理的评价体系应平衡数量与质量、保持客观中立、兼顾内容与形式，应分层次、多维度、全方位进行学术评价。

关键词: 学术评价指标, 谷歌学术指标, h指数, h5指数, 影响因子

Abstract: [Purpose/significance] The academic assessment is of great significance to the academic ecosystem. From the perspectives of impact factors and Google scholar metrics, this paper aims at tracking the trends of the scholar metrics at home and abroad and discussing its possible directions of optimization.[Method/process] This paper firstly selected the top 50 Chinese and English publications ranked by h5-index and inquired their corresponding impact factors, analyzed and verified the relationship between h5-index and impact factors. Comparing the similarities, differences, advantages and disadvantages of Chinese and English publications in terms of discipline distribution, time coverage and statistical standards, this paper summarized the elements that should be considered in scholar metrics. Exploring new methods of scholar metrics from the dimension of subject and object under the network environment, this paper made the case study of Altmetrics, RCR, and PubPeer for their innovative scholar metrics practices.[Result/conclusion] The scholar metric is systematic and comprehensive, having strong association with scholarly publishing, communication, storage and usage. Scientific and rational scholar metrics are expected to be able to balance the quantity and quality, contents and forms of academic achievements and stand on a neutral side as well. Eventually, assessing the journals and individual researchers should be from multiple levels, multiple dimensions and all rounds.

Key words: scholar metric, Google scholar metric, h-index, h5 index, impact factor

中图分类号:

G250

许广奎, 涂志芳. 两类学术评价指标比较研究——以影响因子和谷歌学术指标期刊评价为观察视角[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(3): 109-117.

Xu Guangkui, Tu Zhifang. Comparative Research on Two Scholar Metrics: From the Perspectives of Journal Impact Factors and Google Scholar Metrics[J]. LIS, 2017, 61(3): 109-117.

参考文献

[1] 图书馆员.谷歌推出学术指标,影响因子面临颠覆?[EB/OL].[2016-10-10].http://lib.notefirst.com/techlibrary/19454/default.aspx.
[2] Thomson Reuters. Clarivate analytics[EB/OL].[2016-12-23].http://ipscience.thomsonreuters.com/.
[3] 中国科技网-科技日报.期刊影响因子的"含金量"[EB/OL].[2016-10-10]. http://h.wokeji.com/kbjh/zxbd_10031/201607/t20160722_2717751.shtml.
[4] 新华网.新闻调查:是否该让SCI"走下神坛"[EB/OL].[2016-10-10]. http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2016-07/26/c_129178334.htm.
[5] American Society for Microbiology.ASM media advisory:ASM no longer supports Impact actors for its Journals[EB/OL].[2016-10-10]. https://www.asm.org/index.php/asm-newsroom2/press-releases/94299-asm-media-advisory-asm-no-longer-supports-impact-factors-for-its-journals.
[6] Garfield E. Citation indexes to science:a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science. 1955,122(3159):108-111.
[7] Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor[J].The journal of the American medical association, 2006, 295(1):90-93.
[8] Hirsch J E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output[J].Scientometrics, 2010, 102(3):16569-16572.
[9] Google Scholar Blog[EB/OL].[2016-10-16].https://scholar.googleblog.com/2016/07/2016-scholar-metrics-released_14.html.
[10] Google Scholar Metrics.[EB/OL].[2016-10-16].https://scholar.google.com/scholar/metrics.html.
[11] MILLER C W. Superiority of the h-index over the Impact Factor for Physics[EB/OL].[2916-10-16].https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608183v1.pdf.
[12] HODGE D R, LACASSE J R. Evaluating journal quality:is the h-index a better measure than Impact Factors?[J]. Research on social work practice, 2010, 20(5):222-230.
[13] 姜春林.期刊h指数与影响因子之间关系的案例研究[J].科技进步与对策, 2007, 24(9):78-80.
[14] 马云彤.影响因子与h指数、复合影响因子相关性研究——以新闻出版和图书情报类期刊为样本[J].西安文理学院学报(自然科学版), 2013, 16(4):123-128.
[15] PRIEM J, TARABORELLI D.,GROTH P., et al. Altmetrics:a manifesto[EB/OL]/[2016-10-29]. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto.
[16] SEGLEN P O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research[J].BMJ clinical research, 1997, 314(7079):498-502.
[17] BARILAN J. Which h-index?——A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar[J]. Scientometrics, 2008, 74(2):257-271.
[18] 余厚强,邱均平.替代计量学视角下的在线科学交流新模式[J].图书情报工作, 2014(15):42-47.
[19] 邱均平, 余厚强.替代计量学的提出过程与研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2013, 57(19):5-12.
[20] 邱均平, 余厚强.论推动替代计量学发展的若干基本问题[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2015(1):4-15.
[21] 百道网.订阅期刊市场国模萎缩,新的学术文章评价方式正在取代影响因子[EB/OL].[2016-12-23]. http://www.bookdao.com/article/391318/.
[22] NAIK G. The quiet rise of the NIH's hot new metric[EB/OL].[2016-12-23].http://www.nature.com/news/the-quiet-rise-of-the-nih-s-hot-new-metric-1.20957.
[23] Altmetrics.org. Tools[EB/OL].[2016-12-24].http://altmetrics.org/tools/.
[24] ImpactStory[EB/OL].[2016-12-24].https://impactstory.org/.
[25] ScienceCard[EB/OL].[2016-12-24].http://sciencecard.org/.
[26] HUTCHINS B I, YUAN XIN, ANDERSON J M, et al. Relative citation ratio (RCR):A new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level[J/OL].[2016-12-24].http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541#authcontrib.
[27] NIH.iCite[EB/OL].[2016-12-24].https://icite.od.nih.gov/.
[28] PubPeer[EB/OL].[2016-12-24].https://pubpeer.com/about.
[29] 台湾国际信息整合联盟协会·李绍迪.PubPeer与开放、透明化的学术研究[EB/OL].[2016-12-24]. http://www.ifii.org.tw/focus_trend_login.php?num=358&utm_source=Library+Watch&utm_campaign=3fcc84100.

两类学术评价指标比较研究——以影响因子和谷歌学术指标期刊评价为观察视角

Comparative Research on Two Scholar Metrics: From the Perspectives of Journal Impact Factors and Google Scholar Metrics

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]	宋丽萍, 王建芳, 付婕, 苑珊珊. 以共引网络识别研究领域的引文评价方法有效性分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(23): 100-105.
[2]	刘佳程, 马廷灿, 岳名亮. HHa中心性算法:一种基于h指数和Ha指数的复杂网络节点排序算法[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(20): 92-100.
[3]	卢文辉, 叶继元. 链接分析法在国内网站实证研究中的应用现状分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(18): 119-130.
[4]	龙艺璇, 赵庆峰, 赵星辉. Q指数——一种考虑了时间因素的新型h指数[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(7): 91-95.
[5]	刘运梅, 李长玲, 冯志刚, 刘小慧. 改进的p指数测度单篇论文学术质量的探讨[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(21): 106-113.
[6]	周春雷, 蔡程瑞, 张坦, 陈艳云. 国内图情学者历时h指数研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(19): 96-101.
[7]	张琳, 董颖, 毕德强, 屠宏庆, 刘慧南. 基于动态数据整合的学者影响力h指数趋势监测与分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(17): 116-121.
[8]	刘雪立, 魏雅慧, 盛丽娜, 王燕, 付中静, 郑成铭, 董建军, 苗馨之. 期刊PR8指数:一个新的跨学科期刊评价指标及其实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(11): 116-123.
[9]	侯剑华, 王仲禹. 研究主题的知识流动测度及其实证分析——以H指数研究为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(10): 87-93.
[10]	刘雪立, 周晶, 盖双双, 盛丽娜, 付中静, 董建军, 方红玲. 基于被引频次分布特征的影响因子缺陷矫正——位置指标应用于期刊评价的实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(9): 99-105,115.
[11]	俞立平. 期刊影响力指标的时间异质性及其重构研究——基于多属性评价的视角[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(12): 109-114.
[12]	申东阳, 伍玉, 韩毅. 科研人员首次被引速度指数的构建及实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(11): 86-92.
[13]	俞立平. “影响因子百分位”指标的特点研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(10): 103-107.
[14]	袁思本, 朱云霞. 高h指数学者在科学共同体中的作用研究——以我国图书情报学为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(23): 72-79.
[15]	俞立平. 历史影响因子:一个新的学术期刊存量评价指标[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(2): 89-92.