图书情报工作

图书情报工作 >

2022 , Vol. 66 >Issue 20: 148 - 161

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2022.20.016

北京大学信息管理系成立75周年学术专辑

守正能否创新？——基于我国图情领域论文新颖性和传统性的分析

  • 梁兴堃
展开
  • 北京大学信息管理系 北京 100871
梁兴堃,助理教授,博士,E-mail:lxk@pku.edu.cn。

收稿日期: 2022-08-01

  修回日期: 2022-09-21

  网络出版日期: 2022-11-17

收起

Novelty, Conventionality, and Scientific Impact of Papers in Library and Information Science in China:Evidence from Papers in CSSCI (2000-2019)

  • Liang Xingkun
Expand
  • Department of Information Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871

Received date: 2022-08-01

  Revised date: 2022-09-21

  Online published: 2022-11-17

Fold

摘要

[目的/意义] 以我国图情领域为例,测量论文的新颖性和传统性并探究其对论文学术影响力的作用进而揭示学术创新的规律。[方法/过程] 采用基于马尔科夫链蒙特卡罗(Markov chain Monte Carlo,MCMC)的方法,对我国2000年至2019年20年间在中文社会科学引文索引(CSSCI)中收录的图书馆学情报学领域的70 207篇研究论文的新颖性、传统性进行测量,并分析论文新颖性和传统性对论文学科影响力的作用。[结果/结论] 结果显示,其他因素不变时,论文新颖性提高1个单位,论文成为高被引论文的优势比增加11%,而论文传统性提高1个单位,论文成为高被引论文的优势比增加33%。边际效应分析显示,同时具有较高的新颖性和传统性的论文较之于其他类型的论文具有更高的成为高被引论文的可能性。此外,随着时间推移,新颖性对论文成为高被引论文概率的影响逐渐削弱,而传统性的影响逐渐增强。同时,作者团队规模对于论文的新颖性存在显著影响,这种影响随着时间的推移而增强。这些发现凸显我国图情领域守正创新的特点,为理解我国图情领域的学术创新规律提供新的实证基础。同时,也提出一种不同于传统信息计量的基于贝叶斯统计的新方法。

关键词： 新颖性; 传统性; 学科影响力; 高被引论文; 论文被引量; 马尔科夫链蒙特卡洛方法(MCMC); 团队作者; 贝叶斯统计

本文引用格式

梁兴堃 . 守正能否创新？——基于我国图情领域论文新颖性和传统性的分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022 , 66(20) : 148 -161 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2022.20.016

Abstract

[Purpose/Significance] With papers in the field of library and information science in China, this study measures the novelty and conventionality of these papers and explores their effects on the scientific impacts of these papers, in order to reveal the law of scientific innovation in this field. [Method/Process] This paper adopted a variation of the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach to measuring novelty and conventionality of 70 207 papers in library and information science (n=70 207) from the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) in two decades, specifically, from 2000 to 2019. With robust logistic regression, this paper examined the impacts of papers' novelty and conventionality on their papers' scientific impacts. [Result/Conclusion] The results show that, ceteris paribus, the novelty of a paper increases by 1 unit, the odds ratio of the paper becoming a highly cited paper increases by 11% (p<0.000 1), and the conventionality of a paper increases by 1 unit, and the odds ratio of the paper becoming a highly cited paper increases by 33% (p<0.000 1). The marginal effect analysis shows that papers with high novelty and conventionality are more likely to be highly cited papers than other types of papers. In addition, over time, the impact of novelty on the probability of a paper being highly cited gradually weakens, while the impact of conventionality gradually increases. Meanwhile, author team size has a significant effect on the novelty of the paper, and such a effect increases over time. These findings highlight the characteristics of scientific innovation in the field of library and information in China, and provide novel empirical evidence to understand the law of scientific innovation in the field of library and information in China. Last but not least, this paper, based on Bayesian statistics, also proposes an alternative method for informetrics.

Key words： novelty; conventionality; scientific impact; hit paper; paper citation; MCMC; team authors; Bayesian statistics

参考文献

[1] 吴慰慈,罗志勇.面向21世纪图书馆学研究的新趋向[J].中国图书馆学报,2000(6):3-6.
[2] 赖茂生.21世纪情报学学科的新起点[J].情报学报,2000(1):81.
[3] 赖茂生.信息管理学科发展如何破解瓶颈悖论?[J].大学图书情报学刊,2019,37(5):3-7.
[4] 吴慰慈.对新时代图书馆学研究与学科发展的一点思考——在2018年第12届全国图书馆学博士生学术论坛上的讲话[J].图书馆杂志,2019,38(6):24.
[5] 张久珍.图情档学科建设需要与新时代发展接轨[J].图书与情报,2020(6):17-18.
[6] 马费成,李志元.新文科背景下我国图书情报学科的发展前景[J].中国图书馆学报, 2020,46(6):4-15.
[7] 孙建军,李阳,裴雷."数智"赋能时代图情档变革之思考[J].图书情报知识,2020(3):22-27.
[8] 柯平.新图情档——新文科建设中的图书情报与档案管理一级学科发展[J].情报资料工作,2021,42(1):15-20.
[9] UZZI B, MUKHERJEE S, STRINGER M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013,342(6157): 468-472.
[10] WEITZMAN M L. Recombinant growth[J]. Quarterly journal of economics, 1998,113(2):331-360.
[11] MCKNIGHT S L. Unconventional wisdom[J]. Cell, 2009,138(5): 817-819.
[12] SCHILLING M A, GREEN E. Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: an analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences[J]. Research policy, 2011,40(10):1321-1331.
[13] ARTS S, FLEMING L. Paradise of novelty-or loss of human capital? exploring new fields and inventive output[J]. Organization science, 2019,29(6): 1074-1092.
[14] MUKHERJEE S, UZZI B, JONES B, et al. A new method for identifying recombinations of existing knowledge associated with high-impact innovation[J]. Journal of product innovation management, 2016,33(2):224-236.
[15] FOSTER J G, RZHETSKY A, EVANS J A. Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies[J]. American sociological review, 2015,80(5):875-908.
[16] WAGNER C S, WHETSELL T A, MUKHERJEE S. International research collaboration: novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination[J]. Research policy, 2019,48(5):1260-1270.
[17] LEAHEY E, BECKMAN C M, STANKO T L. Prominent but less productive: the impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research[J]. Administrative science quarterly, 2017,62(1):105-139.
[18] WANG J, VEUGELERS R, STEPHAN P. Bias against novelty in science: a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators[J]. Research policy, 2017,46(8): 1416-1436.
[19] 刘兹恒.再论图书馆学本土化[J].图书与情报,2005(4):13-16.
[20] 王世伟.论智慧图书馆的三大特点[J].中国图书馆学报,2012,38(6):22-28.
[21] 张晓林.走向知识服务:寻找新世纪图书情报工作的生长点[J].中国图书馆学报,2000(5):30-35.
[22] KAPLAN S, VAKILI K. The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation[J]. Strategic management journal, 2015,36(10): 1435-1457.
[23] IARIA A, SCHWARZ C, WALDINGER F. Frontier knowledge and scientific production: evidence from the collapse of international science[J]. Quarterly journal of economics, 2018,133(2): 927-991.
[24] HOFSTRA B, KULKARNI V V, MUNOZ-NAJAR GALVEZ S, et al. The diversity-innovation paradox in science[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2020,117(17):9284-9291.
[25] BOUDREAU K J, GUINAN E C, LAKHANI K R, et al. Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science[J]. Management science, 2016,62(10):2765-2783.
[26] LU S, BARTOL K M, VENKATARAMANI V, et al. Pitching novel ideas to the boss: the interactive effects of employees’ idea enactment and influence tactics on creativity assessment and implementation[J]. Academy of management journal, 2019,62(2): 579-606.
[27] CRISCUOLO P, DAHLANDER L, GROHSJEAN T, et al. Evaluating novelty: the role of panels in the selection of R&D projects[J]. Academy of management journal, 2017, 60(2): 433-460.
[28] COONEY G, GILBERT D T, WILSON T D. The novelty penalty: why do people like talking about new experiences but hearing about old ones?[J]. Psychological science, 2017,28(3):380-394.
[29] DEWEY M. The profession[J]. American library journal, 1876, 1(1): 5-6.
[30] 王重民.論《四庫全书总目》[J].北京大学学报(人文科学),1964(2):63-78.
[31] 王子舟.学术创新必先从学术史研究入手[J].图书情报工作,2007(3):5.
[32] LEE Y, WALSH J P, & WANG J. Creativity in scientific teams: unpacking novelty and impact[J]. Research policy, 201, 544(3): 684-697.
[33] TEODORIDIS F. Understanding team knowledge production: the interrelated roles of technology and expertise[J]. Management science, 2018,64(8): 3625-3648.
[34] SINGH J, FLEMING L. Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: myth or reality? [J]. Management science, 2010,56(1): 41-56.
[35] LEAHEY E. From sole investigator to team scientist: trends in the practice and study of research collaboration[J]. Annual review of sociology, 2016,42(1): 81-100.
[36] 魏瑞斌.我国图书馆学情报学的科研合作现状研究——以CSSCI 1998-2004年数据为例[J].图书情报工作,2006(1):41-43,48.
[37] 李长玲,魏绪秋,崔斌,等.2004-2013年我国图书情报学科研合作网络结构特征分析[J].情报杂志,2015,34(3):119-124,143.
[38] 周晓英,董伟,朱小梅,等.图书馆学情报学高影响力论文特征及所反映的学科差异分析[J].中国图书馆学报,2012,38(4):99-109.
[39] BORNMANN L. How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics:the statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes, and top-cited papers[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013,64(3): 587-595.
[40] BORNMANN L, LEYDESDORFF L, MUTZ R. The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: opportunities and limits[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2013,7(1): 158-165.
[41] AKSNES D W, LANGFELDT L, WOUTERS P. Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: an overview of basic concepts and theories[J]. SAGE open, 2019, 9(1):215824401982957.
[42] RADICCHI F, FORTUNATO S, CASTELLANO C. Universality of citation distributions: toward an objective measure of scientific impact[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008,105(45): 17268-17272.
[43] PRICE D D S. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1976,27(5): 292-306.
[44] BARRAT A, BARTHLEMY M, PASTOR-SATORRAS R, et al. The architecture of complex weighted networks[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2004,101(11):3747-3752.
[45] SMOLINSKY L, LERCHER A, MCDANIEL A. Testing theories of preferential attachment in random networks of citations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(10): 2132-2145.
[46] WANG M, YU G, YU D. Measuring the preferential attachment mechanism in citation networks[J]. Physica a, 2008,387(18): 4692-4698.
[47] TEH Y W, JORDAN M I, BEAL M J, et al. Hierarchical dirichlet processes[J]. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2006,101(476): 1566-1581.
[48] 梁兴堃.图情档研究中的回归分析:基本原理[J].图书情报知识,2021,38(3):154-164.
[49] 梁兴堃.图情档研究中的回归分析:常见问题[J].图书情报知识,2021,38(3):165-176.
[50] FONTANA M, IORI M, MONTOBBIO F, et al. New and atypical combinations: an assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity[J]. Research policy, 2020,49(7): 104063.
[51] 叶继元, CHEN C M.坚守与拓展:中美图书馆学情报学教育科学定位的思考[J].中国图书馆学报,2007(2):18-23.
[52] 范并思.图书馆学理论道路的迷茫、艰辛与光荣——中国图书馆学暨《中国图书馆学报》六十年[J].中国图书馆学报,2017,43(1):4-16.
[53] 刘国钧.中国图书分类法的发展——附现在中国图书馆图书分类法情况简述[J].图书馆学通讯,1981(2):46-59.
[54] 田盛慧,苏林伟,赵星.多层次施引源项与总被引的幂律关系实证[J].情报学报,2015,34(10):1024-1030.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉