图书情报工作

图书情报工作 >

2020 , Vol. 64 >Issue 2: 94 - 104

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2020.02.011

工作研究

替代计量视角下学术成果影响力评估:NISO AMMP项目剖析

  • 张雪蕾 ,
  • 邵晶 ,
  • 尹飞 ,
  • 南希 ,
  • 邹秀英 ,
  • 王晓彤
展开
  • 1. 西安交通大学图书馆 西安 710049;
    2. 克莱蒙特大学图书馆 克莱蒙特 91711;
    3. 俄勒冈大学图书馆 尤金 97403
张雪蕾(ORCID:0000-0001-5466-9816),馆员,硕士;尹飞(ORCID:0000-0003-4369-1692),馆员,硕士;南希(ORCID:0000-0001-5991-2520),馆员,硕士;邹秀英(ORCID:0000-0001-5528-3771),馆长;王晓彤(ORCID:0000-0002-8646-6113),东亚编目部主任,研究员。

收稿日期: 2019-05-14

  修回日期: 2019-08-23

  网络出版日期: 2020-01-20

基金资助

本文系国家社会科学基金项目"中美电子资源国家标准比较研究"（项目编号：16BTQ027）研究成果之一。

收起

The Impact Assessment of Academic Output in the Altmetrics Perspective: NISO AMMP Analysis

  • Zhang Xuelei ,
  • Shao Jing ,
  • Yin Fei ,
  • Nan Xi ,
  • Zou Xiuying ,
  • Wang Xiaotong
Expand
  • 1. Xi'an Jiaotong University Library, Xi'an 710049;
    2. Claremont Graduate University Library, Claremont 91711;
    3. University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene 97403

Received date: 2019-05-14

  Revised date: 2019-08-23

  Online published: 2020-01-20

Fold

摘要

[目的/意义] 对美国国家信息标准协会（NISO）发布的"替代计量评价指标的推荐实施规范"（AMMP）进行研究，以推动我国图书馆界对AMMP项目的深入了解，突破传统学术评价局限，促进替代计量在国内的应用以及新科学交流评价体系的构建。[方法/过程] 介绍AMMP产生的背景、发展、主要内容及特点，同时对该推荐实践规范推广和相关组织应用进行总结。在此基础上，对国内Altmetrics未来发展、一流期刊建设和研究数据集平台建设等提出建议。[结果/结论] AMMP通过分析利益相关者共性需求，明确替代计量适用成果类型，针对研究数据、永久标识符、数据质量等方面提出一系列推荐实施规范，为数据提供者或数据集成者的实践提供依据，有益于促进替代计量评价指标的标准化建设。

关键词： AMMP; 替代计量; 研究数据; 数据质量

本文引用格式

张雪蕾 , 邵晶 , 尹飞 , 南希 , 邹秀英 , 王晓彤 . 替代计量视角下学术成果影响力评估:NISO AMMP项目剖析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020 , 64(2) : 94 -104 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2020.02.011

Abstract

[Purpose/significance] Research on the output of the NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics Project(AMMP) issued by the National Information Standards Organization to promote the in-depth understanding of the AMMP in the Chinese library community, break through the limitations of traditional academic evaluation, and promote the application of the Altmetrics in our country and the construction of new scientific exchange evaluation system.[Method/process] This peper introduced the background, progress, main content and characteristics of the AMMP and concluded the promotion and application of the recommended practices at the same time. On the basis of above, suggestions were made for the future domestic development of Altmetircs, the construction of research dataset platforms and so on.[Result/conclusion] By analyzing the common needs of stakeholders, the AMMP clarifies the types of the achievements adapted to the Altmetrics, comes up with a series of recommended practices on the aspects of research data, persistent identifier, data quality and so on. It provides a basis for the practice of data providers or data integrators, which is beneficial for standardization of Altmetrics.

Key words： AMMP; Altmetrics; research data; data quality

参考文献

[1] NISO. NISO rp-25-2016 outputs of the NISO alternative assessment metrics project[EB/OL].[2019-01-10].https://groups.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/17091/NISO%20RP-25-2016%20Outputs%20of%20the%20NISO%20Alternative%20Assessment%20Project.pdf.
[2] TARABORELLI D. Soft peer review:social software and distributed scientific evaluation[EB/OL].[2019-02-10].http://nitens.org/docs/spr_coop08.pdf.
[3] NEYLON C,WU S. Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact[J]. PLoS biology, 2009, 7(11):e1000242.
[4] FINBAR G, SHARON D. Altmetrics:rethinking the way we measure[J]. Serials review, 2013, 39(1):56-61.
[5] JENSEN M. The new metrics of scholarly authority[J]. Chronicle of higher education, 2007, 53(41):1.
[6] PATTERSON M. Article-level metrics at PLoS addition of usage data[EB/OL].[2019-01-04].https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2009/09/article-level-metrics-at-plos-addition-of-usage-data/.
[7] PRIEM J, HEMMINGER B M. Scientometrics 2.0:toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web[J]. First monday, 2010, 15(7):379-382.
[8] HAUSTEIN S,PETER I,SUGIMOTO C R,et al.Tweeting biomedicine:an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 2014, 65(4):656-669.
[9] SHUAI X, PEPE A,BOLLEN J.How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints:article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations[EB/OL].[2019-02-08]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2461v1.
[10] LI X M,THELWALL M,GIUSTINI D. Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 91(2):461-471.
[11] BAR-ILAN J. JASIST 2001-2010[J]. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 2012, 38(6):24-28.
[12] PRIEM J, PIWOWAR H A, HEMMINGER B M.Altmetrics in the wild:using social media to explore scholarly impact[EB/OL].[2019-01-08].https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745.
[13] ZAHEDI Z,COSTAS R,WOUTERS P.How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1491-1513.
[14] BORNMANN L. What do altmetrics counts mean? A plea for content analyses[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(4):1016-1017.
[15] THWLWALL M, TSOU A, WEINGART S, et al.Tweeting links to academic articles[J].Cybermetrics,2013,17(1):1-8.
[16] PRIEM J,TARABORELLI D,Groth P,et al. Altmetrics:a manifesto[EB/OL].[2019-01-12]. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
[17] Tracking scholarly impact on the social Web:an altmetrics workshop[EB/OL].[2019-01-02]. https://blog.mendeley.com/2011/03/22/tracking-scholarly-impact-on-the-social-web-an-altmetrics-workshop/.
[18] 刘春丽. Altmetrics工具的发展、现况及相关问题[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016,60(5):87-92,117.
[19] PROCTER R,WILLIAMS R,STEWART J,et al. Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications[J]. Philosophical transactions of the royal society A:mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, 2010, 368(1926):4039-4056.
[20] LIU J, ADIE E. Five challenges in altmetrics:a toolmaker's perspective[J]. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 39(4):31-34.
[21] MIKE T,STEFANIE H, VINCENT L, et al. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social Web services[J]. PLoS ONE, 2013, 8(5):e64841.
[22] CHEUNG M K. Altmetrics:too soon for use in assessment[J]. Nature, 2013, 494(7436):176.
[23] NISO.Alternative metrics initiative phase 1 white paper[EB/OL].[2019-01-10]. https://docplayer.net/4271006-Alternative-metrics-initiative-phase-1-white-paper.html.
[24] 余厚强,任全娥,张洋,等. Altmetrics的译名分歧:困扰、影响及其辨析[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2019, 45(1):49-61.
[25] NISO.Scholarly outputs[EB/OL].[2019-01-09]. https://sites.google.com/a/niso.org/scholarlyoutputs/.
[26] KRATZ J E, STRASSER C. Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data[J]. Plos One, 2015, 10(2):e0117619.
[27] FORCE11.Joint declaration of data citation principles-final[EB/OL].[2019-04-09]. https://www.force11.org/datacitationprinciples.
[28] COUNTER.Counting online usage of networked electronic resources[EB/OL].[2017-01-14]. https://www.projectcounter.org/.
[29] KRATZ J E, STRASSER C. Making data count[J]. Scientific data, 2015(2):150039.
[30] HAAK L L, MEADOWS A, BROWN J. Using orcid, doi, and other open identifiers in research evaluation[J]. Frontiers in research,metrics and analytics, 2018, 3:1-7.
[31] 刘晓娟,赵卓婧,韦娱.生命周期视角下的Altmetrics数据质量研究[J].图书情报知识,2019(2):4,12-18.
[32] CROSSREF.Altmetrics-crossref[EB/OL].[2019-04-29].https://www.crossref.org/categories/altmetrics/.
[33] NISO.Advancing altmetrics:best practices and emerging ideas[EB/OL].[2019-04-29]. https://www.niso.org/events/2017/12/advancing-altmetrics-best-practices-and-emerging-ideas.
[34] NISO.Metrics case studies[EB/OL].[2019-04-29]. https://www.niso.org/events/2017/12/metrics-case-studies-training-thursday.
[35] ALTMETRIC.COM.Altmetric reveals most-mentioned articles of 2017[EB/OL].[2019-04-19]. https://www.altmetric.com/top100/2017/.
[36] ALTMETRIC.COM.Altmetric reveals most-mentioned articles of 2018[EB/OL].[2019-08-19]. https://www.altmetric.com/top100/2018/.
[37] Journal of Altmetrics[EB/OL].[2019-08-20].https://www.journalofaltmetrics.org.
[38] 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.
[39] 刘春丽. Altmetrics工具的发展、现况及相关问题[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016,50(5):87-92.
[40] 刘恩涛, 李国俊, 邱小花,等. Altmetrics工具比较研究[J]. 图书馆杂志, 2015(8):85-92.
[41] 王睿, 胡文静, 郭玮. 常用Altmetrics工具比较[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2014(12):18-26.
[42] 由庆斌, 韦博, 汤珊红. 基于补充计量学的论文影响力评价模型构建[J]. 图书情报工作, 2014, 58(22):5-11.
[43] 王贤文, 刘趁, 毛文莉. 数字出版时代的科学论文综合评价研究[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2014, 25(11):1391-1396.
[44] 杨柳, 陈贡. Altmetrics视角下科研机构影响力评价指标的相关性研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(15):106-114.
[45] 王聪,刘春丽. Altmetrics在我国高校机构知识库应用分析[J]. 情报杂志, 2016, 35(12):116-120.
[46] 刘春丽. Altmetrics工具与机构知识库的整合与效果——以PlumX为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(24):39-46.
[47] 赵蓉英, 郭凤娇, 谭洁. 基于Altmetrics的学术论文影响力评价研究——以汉语言文学学科为例[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2016, 42(1):96-108.
[48] 赵蓉英, 魏明坤, 汪少震. 基于Altmetrics的开源软件学术影响力评价研究[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2017, 43(2):80-95.
[49] 赵蓉英, 郭凤娇. Altmetrics:学术影响力评价的新视角[J]. 情报科学, 2017(1):16-20.
[50] 王鹏飞,刘烜贞. 基于内容分析的Altmetrics本质研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017(2):115-120.
[51] 杨柳, 丁楠, 田稷. Altmetrics视角下机构知识库学者影响力评价研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2017, 40(6):104-110.
[52] 郭颖,肖仙桃. 国内学者影响力评价Altmetrics指标研究[J]. 情报理论与实践,2019,42(4):64-70.
[53] 曹丽江. 基于Altmetrics的学者影响力综合评价研究[D]. 苏州:苏州大学,2017.
[54] 邹丹.融合传统指标与Altmetrics指标的学者影响评估研究[D].重庆:西南大学,2018.
[55] 余厚强, 曹雪婷. 替代计量数据质量评估体系构建研究[J]. 图书情报知识, 2019, 188(2):21-29,52.
[56] 许健. 基于Altmetrics的高校图书馆服务能力评价指标体系构建研究[D]. 南昌:南昌大学,2018.
[57] 中国科协.四部门联合印发《关于深化改革培育世界一流科技期刊的意见》[EB/OL].[2019-08-19].http://www.xinhuanet.com/science/2019-08/19/c_138320888.htm.
[58] 匡登辉. 从Altmetrics热点论文看科技期刊影响力——以Altmetric.com Top 100论文为例[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2016, 27(11):1188-1194.
[59] 新媒体联盟. 新媒体联盟地平线报告(2015图书馆版)[J]. 开放学习研究, 2015(5):39-49.
[60] 国务院办公厅.国务院办公厅关于印发科学数据管理办法的通知[EB/OL].[2019-02-17]. http://www.most.gov.cn/mostinfo/xinxifenlei/fgzc/gfxwj/gfxwj2018/201804/t20180404_139023.htm.
[61] 中国科学院.中国科学院科学数据管理与开放共享办法[EB/OL].[2019-02-20]. http://www.cas.cn/tz/201902/t20190220_4679797.shtml.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉