融入评论指标的中文图书综合评价体系适应性研究

doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.09.003

图书情报工作 ›› 2021, Vol. 65 ›› Issue (9): 23-31.DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.09.003

融入评论指标的中文图书综合评价体系适应性研究

朱世琴, 邱悦, 陈红英

华东理工大学科技信息研究所上海 200237

收稿日期:2020-12-25 修回日期:2021-02-27 出版日期:2021-05-05 发布日期:2021-06-02
作者简介:朱世琴(ORCID:0000-0001-5646-9287),副主任,副研究馆员,硕士生导师,E-mail:shqzhu@ecust.edu.cn;邱悦(ORCID:0000-0003-0455-0504),硕士研究生;陈红英(ORCID:0000-0002-4075-3774),硕士研究生。

Research on the Adaptability of Chinese Book Comprehensive Evaluation System Incorporated with Review Indicators

Zhu Shiqin, Qiu Yue, Chen Hongying

Institute of Science & Technology Information, East China University of Science & Technology, Shanghai 200237

Received:2020-12-25 Revised:2021-02-27 Online:2021-05-05 Published:2021-06-02

摘要/Abstract

摘要： [目的/意义] 为改进当前图书评价体系在反映图书内容质量方面的不足，将图书评论指标纳入评价体系，并应用不同学科图书分析评价体系的适应性，探索中文图书质量评价。[方法/过程] 从传统计量指标、Altmetrics指标和图书评论指标中筛选出16个指标，构建以CRITIC方法赋权的中文图书综合评价体系，同时选取经济学、计算机科学和物理学图书进行实证研究，分析图书评论指标在图书质量评价中的效用，并检验该评价体系在评价不同学科图书方面的适应性。[结果/结论] 实证结果表明，中文图书综合评价体系对不同学科图书具有较好的适应性，评价结果可以对总被引、入藏馆量反映的图书影响力和质量进行补充；图书评论指标可以反映不同学科图书读者的阅读倾向，有助于筛选出具有较高可读性、科学性与知识性的学科图书，为阅读推广、书目推荐等图书质量评价活动提供参考。

关键词: 图书评价, 质量评价, 图书评论, 综合评价体系, 适应性

Abstract: [Purpose/significance] To improve the inadequacy of the current book evaluation system in reflecting the quality of book content, book review indicators are adopted into the evaluation system, and different disciplines of book are applied to analyze the adaptability of the evaluation system to explore the evaluation of Chinese book quality.[Method/process] Sixteen indicators were selected from traditional measurement indicators, Altmetrics indicators and book review indicators to construct a comprehensive evaluation system for Chinese books empowered by the CRITIC method, while economics, computer science and physics books were selected for an empirical study to analyze the utility of book review indicators in book quality evaluation and to test the adaptability of the evaluation system in evaluating books of different disciplines.[Result/conclusion] The empirical results show that the comprehensive evaluation system of Chinese books has good adaptability for books of different disciplines, and the evaluation results can complement the influence and quality of books reflected by total citations and libcitations; the book review indicators can reflect the reading tendency of readers in different disciplines, and help screen out disciplinary books with high readability, scientificity and knowledge, thus providing reference for book quality evaluation activities such as reading promotion and bibliographic recommendation.

Key words: book evaluation, quality evaluation, book review, comprehensive evaluation system, adaptability

中图分类号:

G250

朱世琴, 邱悦, 陈红英. 融入评论指标的中文图书综合评价体系适应性研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(9): 23-31.

Zhu Shiqin, Qiu Yue, Chen Hongying. Research on the Adaptability of Chinese Book Comprehensive Evaluation System Incorporated with Review Indicators[J]. Library and Information Service, 2021, 65(9): 23-31.

参考文献

[1] KOUSHA K, THELWALL M, REZAIE S. Assessing the citation impact of books:the role of Google books, Google Scholar, and Scopus[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(11):2147-2164.
[2] WHITE H D, BOELL S K, YU H, et al. Libcitations:a measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009, 60(6):1083-1096.
[3] LINMANS A J M. Why with bibliometrics the Humanities does not need to be the weakest link[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 83(2):337-354.
[4] CABEZAS-CLAVIJO L, ROBINSON-GARCÍA N, TORRES-SALINAS D, et al. Most borrowed is most cited? library loan statistics as a proxy for monograph selection in citation indexes[EB/OL].[2020-11-01]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1488.
[5] BJÖRN H. Using Altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1419-1430.
[6] ZUCCALA A A, VERLEYSEN F T, CORNACCHIA R, et al. Altmetrics for the humanities:comparing goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books[J]. Aslib journal of information management, 2015, 67(3):320-336.
[7] ERFANMANESH M, NOORHIDAWATI A, ABRIZAH A. What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature's books[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 121(1):521-536.
[8] NAN X, LI M, SHI J. Using altmetrics for assessing impact of highly-cited books in Chinese Book Citation Index[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 122(3):1651-1669.
[9] KOUSHA K, THELWALL M. Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books?[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(3):566-581.
[10] KOUSHA K, THELWALL M, ABDOLI M. Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2017,68(8):2004-2016.
[11] 章成志,童甜甜,周清清.整合不同评论平台的图书综合影响力评价研究[J].情报学报, 2018,37(9):861-873.
[12] 李雁翎,孙晓慧,陈玖冰.五维图书评价体系及分析模型的建构[J].情报科学,2013, 31(8):77-80,140.
[13] 刘利,袁曦临.外文学术图书质量评价实证研究[J].图书情报工作,2011(21):93-97, 102.
[14] 杨毓丽,丁媛,张苏.基于ESI单本外文图书质量评价体系实证研究——以计算机学科为例[J].图书馆杂志,2015(7):11-18.
[15] 何峻,蔡蓉华.中文图书评价体系研究[J].大学图书馆学报,2016,34(3):51-58,15.
[16] 肖敖夏,杨思洛.Bookmetrix指标在学术图书影响力评价中的应用[J].图书馆论坛, 2020,40(9):79-85.
[17] 周清清,章成志.图书影响力评价研究进展与展望[J].大学图书馆学报,2020,38(3):24-33.
[18] 李明,李江,陈铭,等.中文学术图书引文量与Altmetrics指标探索性分析及其启示[J].情报学报,2019,38(6):557-567.

融入评论指标的中文图书综合评价体系适应性研究

Research on the Adaptability of Chinese Book Comprehensive Evaluation System Incorporated with Review Indicators

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]	严炜炜, 黄为, 温馨. 学术社交网络问答质量智能评价与服务优化研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(6): 129-137.
[2]	彭秋茹, 何贝, 黄水清. 中文人文社会科学学术图书的影响力评价——以图书馆情报与文献学为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(21): 108-117.
[3]	王伟, 杨建林. 人文社会科学外译图书评价指标体系研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(4): 61-69.
[4]	郭顺利, 张向先, 陶兴, 张莉曼. 社会化问答社区用户生成答案质量自动化评价研究——以“知乎”为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(11): 118-130.
[5]	刘丽帆, 朱紫阳. 基于“全评价”理论的高校图书馆热门TOP图书推荐模型研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(7): 47-53.
[6]	王伟军, 汤璐, 侯银秀, 张婷婷. 基于语言评价信息的移动电子商务服务质量评价研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(4): 83-89.
[7]	毕强. 网络环境中信息质量评价研究的开拓与创新——评《网络环境中基于用户视角的信息质量评价研究》[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(4): 138-142.
[8]	闫晶, 毕强, 李洁. 数字图书馆资源聚合质量评价指标构建[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(24): 5-12.
[9]	王伟, 冀宇强, 王洪伟, 郑丽娟. 中文问答社区答案质量的评价研究:以知乎为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(22): 36-44.
[10]	刘宛珍. 馆际互借型PDA图书质量评价及思考[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(3): 59-64.
[11]	肖晨冉, 刘敏榕. 基于用户需求的高校图书馆学科馆员服务质量评价体系研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(24): 63-68.
[12]	宋雪雁, 张岩琛, 孟欣欣, 邓君. 国内外档案馆服务质量研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(16): 6-13.
[13]	宋雪雁, 张岩琛, 王小东, 孟欣欣, 邓君. 公共档案馆微信公众平台服务质量评价研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(16): 39-49.
[14]	孟伟花, 向菲. 基于情感分析的altmetrics学术质量评价方法研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(11): 107-112.
[15]	周艳玫, 王衍喜, 郝丹, 高宇璇, 刘东苏. 嵌入学科服务过程的信息服务平台设计与实现[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(8): 97-102.