[目的/意义]探索颠覆性指数的稳定时间窗，分析其学科差异，揭示颠覆性指数稳定度与被引半衰期、被引频次稳定度之间的关系，为各学科合理应用该指数提供时间窗参考。[方法/过程]分别计算22个学科在不同引文时间窗下的颠覆性指数稳定度，得到各学科颠覆性指数达到0.8稳定度所需的时间窗；进而分别分析颠覆性指数与被引半衰期、被引频次稳定时间窗之间的关系。[结果/结论]颠覆性指数达到0.8稳定度所需的时间窗存在较大学科差异；达到被引半衰期时，各学科的颠覆性指数稳定度均达到了0.8，可使用被引半衰期作为颠覆性指数计算的参考时间窗；学科特质和指标算法都是影响颠覆性指数稳定度的重要因素，受算法的影响，颠覆性指数一般会晚于被引频次达到较高稳定度。
[Purpose/significance] Exploring the stable time window of disruption index and revealing the relationship between the reliability of disruption index, cited half-life and the reliability of citation are to provide valid time window suggestions for its application in different disciplines.[Result/conclusion] The reliability of the disruption index under the citation time window in different disciplines was calculated respectively, this paper obtained the needed time window for the reliability of disruption index reach to 0.8, and the relationship between disruption index, cited half-life and the reliability of citation were analyzed respectively.[Result/conclusion] There are big differences in disciplines among the needed time window for the reliability of disruption index reach to 0.8; at the time of reaching cited half-life, the reliability of disruption index in all disciplines has reached to 0.8, the cited half-life can be used as a reference for the time window of disruption index calculation; discipline characteristics and indicator algorithms are both important factors affecting the reliability of disruption index, but under the impact of the algorithm, the disruption index may achieve higher reliability after citation.
[1] 胡锦绣. 高校科研评价制度的国际比较研究[J]. 评价与管理, 2016, 14(1):30-34.
[2] 李晓轩, 杨国梁. 中国科学院研究所评价的逻辑模型研究[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2009, 30(4):5-8.
[3] VAN R. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36:397-420.
[4] WU L, WANG D, EVANS J. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technol ogy[J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744):378-382.
[5] FUNK R, SMITH J. A dynamic network measure of technological change[J]. Management science, 2017, 63(3):791-817.
[6] BORNMANN L. Disruption index depends on length of citation window[J]. EI profesional de la informacion, 2019, 2(28):1-2.
[7] BORNMANN L, DEVARAKONDA S, TEKLES A, et al. Disruptive papers published in Scientometrics:meaningful results by using an improved variant of the disruption index originally proposed by Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019)[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 123(2):1149-1155.
[8] 刘小慧, 沈哲思, 廖宇, 等.科研论文颠覆性指数的改进及其影响因素研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(24):84-91.
[9] WALTERS D. The citation life cycle of articles published in 13 American Psychological Association journals:a 25-year longitudinal analysis[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(8):1629-1636.
[10] COSTAS R, LEEUWEN T, RAAN A. The "Mendel syndrome" in science:durability of scientific literature and its effects on bibliometric analysis of individual scientists[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 89(1):177-205.
[11] LEVITT J, THELWALL M. Patterns of annual citation of highly cited articles and the prediction of their citation ranking:a comparison across subjects[J]. Scientometrics, 2008, 77(1):41-60.
[12] WALTMAN L, VAN ECK N. Towards a new crown indicator:an empirical analysis[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 3(87):467-481.
[13] NEDERHOF A, VAN L, CLANCY P. Calibration of bibliometric indicators in space exploration research:a comparison of citation impact measurement of the space and ground-based life and physical sciences[J]. Research evalution, 2012, 21(1):79-85.
[14] ABRAMO G, CICERO T. A sensitivity analysis of researchers' productivity rankings to the time of citation observation[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2012, 6(2):192-201.
[15] COSTAS R, LEEUWEN T, RAAN A. Effects of the durability of scientific literature at the group level:case study of chemistry research groups in the Netherlands[J]. Research policy, 2013, 42(4):886-894.
[16] ABRAMO G, CICERO T, ANGELO C. A sensitivity analysis of research institutions' productivity rankings to the time of citation observation[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2012, 6(2):298-306.
[17] JONATHAN A. Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact[J]. Scientometrics, 2005, 63(3):567-581.
[18] ABRAMO G, CICERO T, ANGELO C. Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2011, 5(4):659-667.
[19] WANG J. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 94(3):851-872.
[20] WANG X, ZHANG Z. Improving the reliability of short-term citation impact indicators by taking into account the correlation between short- and long-term citation impact[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2020, 14(2):101019.
[21] 任胜利, 李家林, 金碧辉, 等.我国部分科技期刊参考文献和被引用情况统计分析[J]. 编辑学报, 2001, 4(5):261-263.
[22] TSAY M, CHEN Y.Journals of general & internal medicine and surgery:an analysis and comparison of citation[J]. Scientometrics, 2005(1):17-30.
[23] 周二强.SSCI收录图书情报学期刊2013-2017年被引半衰期变化及其影响因素研究[J]. 江苏科技信息, 2020, 37(12):12-16.
[24] 何文, 叶继元.期刊影响因子与被引半衰期关系之比较研究——以图书情报学期刊为例[J]. 新世纪图书馆, 2015, 4(4):39-43.
[25] 戴丽琼.肿瘤医学期刊被引半衰期及其与影响因子、总被引频次等计量指标的关系[J]. 医学信息学杂志, 2012, 33(6):61-64.
[26] 张黄群.期刊被引半衰期与有关指标的相关性[J]. 学报编辑论丛, 2011, 4(1):114-116.
[27] CLARIVATE ANALYTICS. Journal list[EB/OL]. [2021-05-23]. https://help.incites.clarivate.com/incitesLiveESI/ESIGroup/overviewESI/esiJournalsList.html.
[28] 单卫华, 周二强, 李建华, 等.Medline数据库中文期刊论文发表时滞分析[J]. 情报探索, 2016, 4(4):37-39.
[29] 刘雪立.医学论文发表时滞与医学期刊出版周期的控制[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2003, 14(2):153-155.作者贡献说明:刘小慧:设计论文结构, 数据采集与处理, 撰写初稿; 沈哲思:指导论文结构, 修改论文; 廖宇:数据处理, 可视化呈现, 修改论文; 朱曼曼:数据处理, 修改论文; 杨立英:指导论文结构, 修改论文。
