[目的/意义]针对当前学术图书评价环境，探讨利用TOPSIS法建立学术图书综合评价的可行性，提供一种学术图书综合评价的新思路和方法。[方法/过程]首先，选取图书情报领域高被引学术图书为研究对象，采用高频指标筛选和变异系数相结合的方法构建综合评价指标。其次，利用CRITIC法计算指标权重值，最后运用加权TOPSIS法对样本图书进行实证分析并得到影响力综合排名。[结果/结论]通过结果分析，发现CRITIC法与加权TOPSIS相结合的综合评价方法扩展了当前学术图书评价方法的单一性，且操作性更强，结果更加合理，为学术图书评价提供了一种兼顾定性和定量的综合评价方法。
[Purpose/significance] In view of the current academic book evaluation environment, the feasibility of using TOPSIS to establish a comprehensive evaluation of academic books is discussed, and a new idea and method for comprehensive evaluation of academic books is provided.[Method/process] Firstly, the high-cited academic books in the field of library and information are selected as the research object, and a comprehensive evaluation index is constructed by combining high-frequency index screening and coefficient of variation. Secondly, the CRITIC method is used to calculate the index weights. Finally, a weighted TOPSIS method is used to conduct empirical analysis on sample books and obtain a comprehensive ranking of influence.[Result/conclusion] Through the analysis of the results, it is found that the CRITIC method and the weighted TOPSIS method combined the comprehensive evaluation methods to expand the singleness of current academic book evaluation methods, and is more operative and more reasonable. Also it provides a qualitative and quantitative comprehensive evaluation method for academic book evaluation.
[1] 国家新闻出版广电总局.2016年全国新闻出版业基本情况[EB/OL].[2017-07-25]. http://www.chinaxwcb.com/2017-07/25/content_358637.htm.
[2] THELWALL M, KOUSHA K.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.
[3] ABRIZAH A, THEWALL M.Can the impact of non-western academic books bo measured?An investigation of google books and google scholar for Malaysia[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2014,65(12):2498-2508.
[4] THELWALL M, KOUSHA K.Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2017,68(8):2004-2016.
[5] ELEA G T, JORGE M R,TIM E,et al.Taking scholarly books into account:current developments in five European countries[J].Scientometrics,2016,107(2):1-15.
[6] 齐东峰,陈文珏.图书引文索引(BKCI)——新的图书评价及参考工具[J].图书馆杂志,2013,32(4):45-48.
[7] 熊霞,高凡,郭丽君.外文电子图书学术影响力评价方法探讨——基于BKCI、Scopus Article Metrics、Bookmetrix的实例比较[J].现代情报,2016,36(10):118-122.
[8] 任红娟.我国图书评价方法研究述评[J].图书情报知识,2016(5):22-29.
[9] 张艳丽.学术图书质量评价方法与评价指标研究评述[J].出版发行研究,2015(12):18-21.
[10] 王兰敬,叶继元.中文人文社会科学学术图书评价的瓶颈因素及对策研究[J].图书与情报,2014(6):82-87.
[11] 袁辉.学术图书书评的内容分析与信息优化——结构化书评的探索[J].大学图书馆学报,2016,34(5):46-50.
[12] 张玉,潘云涛,袁军鹏,等.论多维视角下中文科技图书学术影响力评价体系的构建[J].图书情报工作,2015,59(7):69-76.
[13] 匡登辉.外文学术电子图书评价研究——基于Bookmetrix的实证分析[J].现代情报,2018,38(5):110-116.
[14] 雷淑义,吕先竞.Altmetrics视角下的学术图书影响力评价研究[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2017,38(6):225-231.
[15] 李明,陈铭.学术图书Altmetrics评价指标分层框架探析[J].现代情报,2018,38(5):106-109.
[16] 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.
[17] 叶继元.《中文图书引文索引·人文社会科学》示范数据库研制过程、意义及其启示[J].大学图书馆学报,2013,31(1):48-53.
[18] 中国科学文献计量评价研究中心.中国图书学术影响力评价专家研讨会隆重召开暨《中国高被引图书年报》[2016版]正式发布[EB/OL].[2017-01-21]. http://piccache.cnki.net/index/images2009/other/2017/zgtsxsyxlpj/test.html.
[19] DIAKOULAKI D, MAVROTAS G, PAPAYANNAKIS L. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems:the critic method[J].Computers & operations research,1995,22(7):763-770.
[20] 叶继元.学术图书、学术著作、学术专著概念辨析[J].中国图书馆学报,2016,42(1):21-29.
