［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。
[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.
[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.
