基于创新扩散理论的学术论文影响力广度研究

doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2019.02.011

图书情报工作 ›› 2019, Vol. 63 ›› Issue (2): 91-98.DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2019.02.011

基于创新扩散理论的学术论文影响力广度研究

梁国强^1,2, 侯海燕¹, 高桐³, 孔祥杰^2,3, 胡志刚¹

1. 大连理工大学科学学与科学技术管理研究所暨WISE实验室大连 116023;
2. 印第安纳大学伯明顿分校信息、计算与工程学院伯明顿 47408;
3. 大连理工大学软件学院大连 116024

收稿日期:2018-07-01 修回日期:2018-08-12 出版日期:2019-01-20 发布日期:2019-01-20
通讯作者: 胡志刚(ORCID:0000-0003-1835-4264),副教授,硕士生导师,通讯作者,E-mail:huzhigang@dlut.edu.cn
作者简介:梁国强(ORCID:0000-0002-9669-4048),博士研究生;侯海燕(ORCID:0000-0002-2790-9973),教授,博士,博士生导师;高桐(ORCID:0000-0002-5464-9433),本科生;孔祥杰(ORCID:0000-0003-2698-3319),副教授,硕士生导师。
基金资助:
本文系国家社会科学基金项目"高科技前沿监测中的知识图谱方法与应用研究"（项目编号：14BTQ030）研究成果之一。

Impact Breadth of Scientific Papers Based on Innovation Diffusion Theory

Liang Guoqiang^1,2, Hou Haiyan¹, Gao Tong³, Kong Xiangjie^2,3, Hu Zhigang¹

1. WISE Lab of Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116023;
2. School of Informatic and computing, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington 47408;
3. School of Software, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024

Received:2018-07-01 Revised:2018-08-12 Online:2019-01-20 Published:2019-01-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： [目的/意义]采用被引次数衡量学术论文影响力存在诸多弊端。本文认为学术论文影响力包括其传播的深度、速度和广度3个方面，熵可用于衡量学术论文影响力传播的广度。[方法/过程]选择1901-2017年生物医学领域的诺贝尔奖论文作为最具影响力的论文纳入实验组，并根据1：1配对原则设立对照组，比较两组论文发表后5年内其施引文献所属学科数量、熵以及熵与被引次数的相关性。[结果/结论]实验组中65%以上的论文施引文献学科数量高于对照组；实验组熵的均值介于0.552-0.772，对照组介于0.251-0.481，有显著性差异（P<0.05）；两组论文的被引次数与熵的相关性较弱，均小于0.3。结果表明：①70%以上的高影响力论文在发表早期能够影响较多的学科；②采用熵对论文影响力广度进行识别具有可行性。

关键词: 创新扩散, 熵, 诺奖论文, 生物医学

Abstract: [Purpose/significance] Using citations as a measurement of the impact of an article have long been criticized. This study argues that the impact of scientific paper includes its depth, speed, and breadth in diffusion. We can measure the impact breadth of an article by using entropy.[Method/process] This study regards Nobel Prizes winning articles in Physiology and Medicine field as the most influential scientific research, collecting Nobel Prizes winning articles into the test group and matching them at a ratio of 1:1 into the control group. The citing articles' disciplinary diversity, within five years after these papers' publishing, was explored. In addition, this study employs entropy to measure the diversity.[Result/conclusion] 65 percent of articles in the test group have relatively higher disciplinary diversity compared to the control group. The values of entropy in the test group are between 0.552 and 0.772, and between 0.251 and 0.481 in the control group (p<0.05). There is a weak correlation, which below 0.3, between citation counts and values of entropy. The paper argues that above 70 percent of highly influential articles have a high disciplinary diversity in their early stage, and it is possible by using entropy as an indicator to measure the breadth of an article's impact.

Key words: innovation diffusion, entropy, Nobel Prizes winnings articles, Physiology and Medicine

中图分类号:

G301

梁国强, 侯海燕, 高桐, 孔祥杰, 胡志刚. 基于创新扩散理论的学术论文影响力广度研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(2): 91-98.

Liang Guoqiang, Hou Haiyan, Gao Tong, Kong Xiangjie, Hu Zhigang. Impact Breadth of Scientific Papers Based on Innovation Diffusion Theory[J]. LIS, 2019, 63(2): 91-98.

参考文献

[1] ROGERS E M. Diffusion of innovations[M]. New York:The Free Press, 2010.
[2] ZHANG L, PENG T-Q. Breadth, depth, and speed:diffusion of advertising messages on microblogging sites[J]. Internet research, 2015, 25(3):453-470.
[3] 伊斯利,克莱因伯格. 网络、群体与市场[M]. 北京:清华大学出版社, 2011.
[4] JONES A Z. What is velocity in physics?[EB/OL].[2018-10-08]. https://www.thoughtco.com/velocity-definition-in-physics-2699021.
[5] WANG D, SONG C, BARABASI A L. Quantifying long-term scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6154):127-132.
[6] UZZI B, MUKHERJEE S, STRINGER M, et al. A typical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157):468-472.
[7] GARFIELD E. Citation indexes for science:a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas[J]. Science, 1955, 122(3159):108-111.
[8] MIN C, SUN J, DING Y. Quantifying the evolution of citation cascades[J]. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 54(1):761-763.
[9] MIN C, DING Y, LI J, et al. Innovation or imitation:the diffusion of citations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 69(10):1271-1282.
[10] ZHAI Y, DING Y, WANG F. Measuring the diffusion of an innovation:a citation analysis[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 69(3):368-379.
[11] 闵超, DING Y, 李江, 等. 单篇论著的引文扩散[J]. 情报学报, 2018, 37(4):341-350.
[12] KISS I Z, BROOM M, CRAZE P G, et al. Can epidemic models describe the diffusion of topics across disciplines?[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2010, 4(1):74-82.
[13] CHEN C, HICKS D. Tracing knowledge diffusion[J]. Scientometrics, 2004, 59(2):199-211.
[14] JAFFE A B, TRAJTENBERG M. Flows of knowledge from universities and federal laboratories:modeling the flow of patent citations over time and across institutional and geographic boundaries[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1996, 93(23):12671-12677.
[15] TIJSSEN R J W. Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science:patent citation analysis of science-technology interactions and knowledge flows[J]. Research policy, 2001, 30(1):35-54.
[16] ZHU Y, YAN E. Dynamic subfield analysis of disciplines:an examination of the trading impact and knowledge diffusion patterns of computer science[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 104(1):335-359.
[17] VAN LEEUWEN T, TIJSSEN R. Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science:analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows[J]. Research evaluation, 2000, 9(3):183-187.
[18] YAN E. Disciplinary knowledge production and diffusion in science[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(9):2223-2245.
[19] SILVA F N, RODRIGUES F A, OLIVEIRA O N, et al. Quantifying the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals and fields[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2013, 7(2):469-477.
[20] Clarivate Analytics. GIPP mapping table[EB/OL].[2018-10-08]. http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/inCites2Live/indicatorsGroup/aboutHandbook/appendix/mappingTable.html.
[21] GROSS P L, GROSS E M. College libraries and chemical education[J]. Science, 1927, 66(1713):385-389.
[22] LU C, DING Y, ZHANG C. Understanding the impact change of a highly cited article:a content-based citation analysis[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 112(2):927-945.
[23] ZENG A, SHEN Z, ZHOU J, et al. The science of science:from the perspective of complex systems[J]. Physics reports, 2017, 714-715:1-73.
[24] 梁国强,侯海燕,任佩丽,等. 高质量论文使用次数与被引次数相关性的特征分析[J]. 情报杂志, 2018, 37(4):147-153.
[25] OECD. OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2017:the digital transformation[EB/OL].[2018-10-08]. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-scoreboard-2017_9789264268821-en#page1.
[26] IOANNIDIS J P, BOYACK K W, SMALL H, et al. Bibliometrics:is your most cited work your best?[J]. Nature, 2014, 514(7524):561-562.
[27] HIRSCH J E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of American, 2005, 102(46):16569-16572.
[28] EGGHE L. Theory and practise of the g-index[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 69(1):131-152.
[29] GARFIELD E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor[J]. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006, 295(1):90-93.
[30] BERGSTROM C. Eigenfactor:measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals[J]. College & research libraries news, 2007, 68(5):314-316.
[31] 任胜利. 基于引证网络分析期刊和论文的重要性[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2009, 20(3):415-418.
[32] FOSTER J G, RZHETSKY A, EVANS J A. Tradition and innovation in scientists' research strategies[J]. American sociological review, 2015, 80(5):875-908.
[33] WANG J, VEUGELERS R, STEPHAN P. Bias against novelty in science:a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators[J]. Research policy, 2017, 46(8):1416-1436.

基于创新扩散理论的学术论文影响力广度研究

Impact Breadth of Scientific Papers Based on Innovation Diffusion Theory

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]	邱玉红, 焦红, 杨波. 多元数据出版模式下生物医学领域科研人员数据引用行为研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(16): 92-104.
[2]	郑赛硕, 王学昭, 陈小莉. 共性技术识别方法构建与实证研究——以集成电路行业为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(15): 130-139.
[3]	林平, 何思奇, 段尧清. 数据与用户视角下政府开放数据服务水平评价研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(2): 23-29.
[4]	张海涛, 张会然, 魏萍, 尹慧子. 微信公众号影响力评价模型研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(4): 23-31.
[5]	刘建准, 唐霈雯, 石密, 刘春雷, 阎耀军. 突发事件应急管理中情报介入与融合模型研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(18): 78-86.
[6]	李贺, 侯力铁, 祝琳琳. 移动图书馆情景感知信息推荐服务用户接受行为研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(12): 94-104.
[7]	何振宇, 董祥祥, 朱庆华. 多维度视角下百度百科词条评价指标构建[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(12): 114-120.
[8]	邢云菲, 王晰巍, 韩雪雯, 张长亮. 基于信息熵的新媒体环境下网络节点影响力研究——以微信公众号为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(5): 76-86.
[9]	田波, 郑羽莎, 刘鹏远, 李春好. 移动APP用户隐私信息泄露风险评价指标及实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(19): 101-110.
[10]	奉国和, 周榕鑫, 武佳佳. 基于熵权TOPSIS及因子分析的学术期刊综合评价研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(17): 84-95.
[11]	唐惠燕, 陈蓉蓉, 郑新艳, 张倩, 蔡自峥, 刘玉仙. 馆员合作研究中馆员多样性的考察与分析——基于南京农业大学图书馆的案例分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(11): 64-71.
[12]	李纲, 徐伟, 王馨平. 基于事件要素的组合模型微博热点事件摘要提取[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(1): 96-105.
[13]	宋歌. 科研成果创新力指标S指数的设计与实证[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(5): 77-86,124.
[14]	章成志, 徐庶睿, 卢超. 利用引文内容监测多学科交叉现象的方法与实证[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(19): 108-115.
[15]	陈锐, 冯占英, 李焱, 陈建青, 董瑞玉. 大数据对生物医学信息服务各环节的影响研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(9): 68-72,63.