情报研究

重大科技基础设施实验站通用性及其学术产出创新质量相关性研究

  • 董璐 ,
  • 樊潇潇 ,
  • 李玥 ,
  • 王志强 ,
  • 陶治宇 ,
  • 张鸿 ,
  • 魏韧 ,
  • 李泽霞
展开
  • 1 中国科学院文献情报中心 北京 100190;
    2 中国科学院大学经济与管理学院信息资源管理系 北京 100190;
    3 中国科学院科技基础能力局 北京 100864
董璐,馆员,硕士,提出研究思路,设计研究方法,撰写论文初稿;樊潇潇,副研究员,博士,研究结果解释说明;李玥,高级工程师,博士,资料调研,研究结果解释说明;王志强,硕士,参与研究方法设计和实证研究;陶治宇,硕士研究生,研究方法调研,参与实证研究;张鸿,硕士研究生,研究进展调研,参与实证研究;魏韧,副研究馆员,硕士,资料调研,修改论文。

收稿日期: 2024-03-19

  修回日期: 2024-06-29

  网络出版日期: 2024-11-09

Correlation Analysis Between the Genericity of Experimental Stations of Major Research Infrastructures and the Innovation Quality of Their Academic Outputs

  • Dong Lu ,
  • Fan Xiaoxiao ,
  • Li Yue ,
  • Wang Zhiqiang ,
  • Tao Zhiyu ,
  • Zhang Hong ,
  • Wei Ren ,
  • Li Zexia
Expand
  • 1 National Science Library of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190;
    2 Department of Information Resources Management, School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190;
    3 Bureau of Basic Science and Technology Capacity, Beijing 100864

Received date: 2024-03-19

  Revised date: 2024-06-29

  Online published: 2024-11-09

摘要

[目的/意义] 探讨平台型重大科技基础设施实验站通用性与学术产出创新质量之间的相关性,以期为我国平台型重大科技基础设施实验站的建设方案选择提供参考。[方法/过程] 以欧洲同步辐射光源(ESRF)和美国阿贡国家实验先进光子源(APS)为研究对象,利用跨学科性指标从学科丰富性、平衡性、差异性及综合性角度测度平台型重大科技基础设施实验站的通用性,并通过论文创新依赖性指数和学科规范化影响力指数分别评估实验站学术产出的创新性和影响力。采用最小二乘回归模型(OLS)对实验站通用性与其学术产出的创新性和影响力之间的关系进行探讨。[结果/结论] 分析发现平台型重大科技基础设施实验站具有显著的跨学科性,能够支持多个学科领域的基础研究。通用性较高的实验站能提供满足多学科需求的实验设备和技术支持,学术产出数量相对较多;而聚焦于特定学科领域的实验站尽管通用性相对较低,通过集中资源开展深度研究,学术产出创新性相对较高。建议在规划布局平台型重大科技基础设施实验站时,应当充分权衡通用型与专用型实验站的比例,通过优化科技创新的设施条件体系以提升科学研究的整体效率和质量。

本文引用格式

董璐 , 樊潇潇 , 李玥 , 王志强 , 陶治宇 , 张鸿 , 魏韧 , 李泽霞 . 重大科技基础设施实验站通用性及其学术产出创新质量相关性研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2024 , 68(21) : 107 -119 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2024.21.010

Abstract

[Purpose/Significance] This paper explores the correlation between the genericity of experimental stations of major research infrastructures and the innovation quality of their academic output. It aims to offer references for construction decisions of such facilities in China. [Method/Process] Taking the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) and the Advanced Photon Source (APS) at Argonne National Laboratory in the United States as case studies, the article employed interdisciplinary indicators to measure the genericity of experimental stations of the platform-based major research infrastructure from four dimensions: disciplinary variety, balance, disparity and completeness. The innovativeness and impact of the academic outputs were assessed by the Paper Innovation Dependency Index and the Subject Area Normalized Impact Factor Index, respectively. A least squares regression model was utilized to analyze the relationship between the genericity of the facilities and the innovativeness and impact of its academic outputs. [Result/Conclusion] The analysis reveals that experimental stations of major research infrastructures demonstrate significant interdisciplinarity, supporting basic research across multiple disciplinary fields. Experimental stations with a higher genericity can provide experimental equipment and technical support for multidisciplinary needs, and the number of academic outputs is relatively high. In contrast, experimental stations that focus on specific subject areas have a relatively low degree of genericity, but show a higher degree of innovation in their academic output. It recommends that in the planning and layout of experimental stations, the balance between general-purpose and specialized stations should be carefully considered to optimize the system of facilities and conditions for scientific and technological innovation, thus improving the overall efficiency and quality of scientific research.

参考文献

[1] FABRE R, EGRET D, SCHÖPFEL J, et al. Evaluating the scientific impact of research infrastructures: the role of current research information systems[J]. Quantitative science studies, 2021, 2(1): 42-64.
[2] SÖDERSTRÖM K R, ÅSTRÖM F, HALLONSTEN O. Generic instruments in a synchrotron radiation facility[J]. Quantitative science studies, 2022, 3(2): 420-442.
[3] 《重大科技基础设施的产出及影响分析》研究组. 重大科技基础设施的产出及影响分析[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2021.(The research team on the output and impact analysis of large research infrastructure. Analysis of the output and impact of large research infrastructure[M]. Beijing: China Science Publishing & Media, 2021.)
[4] 王贻芳. 中国重大科技基础设施的现状和未来发展[J]. 科技导报, 2023, 41(4): 5-13. (WANG Y F. Current status and future prospects of the national major infrastructure for science and technology[J]. Science & technology review, 2023, 41(4): 5-13.)
[5] ROSENBERG N. Scientific instrumentation and university research[J]. Research policy, 1992, 21(4): 381-390.
[6] JOERGES B, SHINN T. Instrumentation between science, state and industry[M]. Dordrecht: Springer, 2001.
[7] HENTSCHEL K. A periodization of research technologies and of the emergency of genericity[J]. Studies in history and philosophy of science Part B: studies in history and philosophy of modern physics, 2015, 52: 223-233.
[8] GRIBBE J, HALLONSTEN O. The emergence and growth of materials science in Swedish universities[J]. Historical studies in the natural sciences, 2017, 47(4): 459-493.
[9] 韩正琪, 刘小平, 徐涵. 基于Rao-Stirling指数的学科交叉文献发现——以纳米科学与纳米技术为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(1): 125-131. (HAN Z Q, LIU X P, XU H. Interdisciplinary literature discovery based on Rao-Stirling diversity indices: case studies in nanoscience and nanotechnology[J]. Library and information service, 2018, 62(1): 125-131.)
[10] ZHANG L, LEYDESDORFF L. The scientometric measurement of interdisciplinarity and diversity in the research portfolios of Chinese universities[J]. Journal of data and information science, 2021, 6(4): 13-35.
[11] LEIBEL C, BORNMANN L. What do we know about the disruption index in scientometrics? An overview of the literature[J]. Scientometrics, 2024, 129(1): 601-639.
[12] 汪雪锋, 于慧妍, 郑思佳, 等. 学术论文创新质量评价研究——以多能干细胞技术为例[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2024, 8(5): 127-138. (WANG X F, YU H Y, ZHENG S J, et al. Research on innovation quality evaluation of academic papers: a case study in the field of pluripotent stem cells[J]. Data analysis and knowledge discovery, 2024, 8(5): 127-138.)
[12] 杨建林, 钱玲飞. 基于关键词对逆文档频率的主题新颖度度量方法[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2013, 36(3): 99-102. (YANG J L, Qian L F. Topic novelty measurement based on inverse document frequency of keyword pairs [J]. Information studies: theory & application, 2013, 36(3): 99-102.)
[14] 孔德婧, 董放, 陈子婧, 等. 离群专利视角下的新兴技术预测——基于BERT模型和深度神经网络[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(17): 131-141. (KONG D J, DONG F, CHEN Z J, et al. Prediction of emerging technologies from the perspective of outlier patents: based on bert model and deep neural networks[J]. Library and information service, 2021, 65(17): 131-141.)
[15] ARTHUR W B. The nature of technology: what it is and how it evolves[M]. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009.
[16] UZZI B, MUKHERJEE S, STRINGER M, et al. A typical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157): 468-472.
[17] WAGNER K, BYRD G. Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical medical librarian programs: a systematic review of the literature[J]. Journal of the medical library association, 2012, 100(4): 14-33.
[18] 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.
[19] 迟培娟, 丁洁兰, 冷伏海. 突破性论文的三元计量特征及识别研究——以生物医学领域为例[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(7): 663-675. (CHI P J, DING J L, LENG F H. Characteristics of the technology impact of breakthrough papers in biology and medicine[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 2022, 41(7): 663-675.)
[20] HEFFERNAN K, TEUFEL S. Identifying problems and solutions in scientific text [J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 116(2): 1367-1382.
[21] 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.
[22] SHIBAYAMA S, YIN D, MATSUMOTO K. Measuring novelty in science with word embedding [J]. PLoS one, 2021, 16(7): e0254034
[23] 罗卓然, 陆伟, 蔡乐, 等. 学术文本词汇功能识别——在论文新颖性度量上的应用[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(7): 720-732. (LUO Z R, LU W, CAI L, et al. Application of lexical functions in novelty measurement of academic papers[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 2022, 41(7): 720-732.)
[24] 钱佳佳, 罗卓然, 陆伟. 基于问题—方法组合的科技论文新颖性度量与创新类型识别[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(14): 82-89. (QIAN J J, LUO Z R, LU W. Novelty measurement and innovation type identification of scientific literature based on question-method combination[J]. Library and information service, 2021, 65(14): 82-89.)
[25] FUNK R J, OWEN-SMITH J. A dynamic network measure of technological change [J]. Management science, 2017, 63(3): 791-817.
[26] WU L, WANG D, EVANS J A. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology [J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744): 378-382.
[27] BORNMANN L, TEKLES A. Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts [J]. Journal of informetrics, 2021, 15(3): 101-159.
[28] BU Y, WALTMAN L, HUANG Y. A multidimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of scientific publications [J]. Quantitative science studies, 2021, 2(1): 155-183.
[29] 刘佳程, 马廷灿, 岳名亮. 融合创新性与影响力的论文代表作遴选方法研究[J].数据分析与知识发现, 2024, 8(4): 88-98. (LIU J C, MA T C, YUE M L. Selection method of representative papers that integrates innovation and influence[J]. Data analysis and knowledge discovery, 2024, 8(4): 88-98.)
[30] BORNMANN L, DANIEL H. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior[J]. Journal of documentation, 2008, 64(1): 45-80.
[31] WALTMAN, L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2016, 10(2): 365-391.
[32] Incites[EB/OL]. [2023-01-28]. https://clarivate.com.cn/products/incites/.
[33] 宋丽萍, 王建芳. 基于学科规范引文影响力与同行评议相关性的科学评价实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(18): 122-128. (SONG L P, WANG J F. An empirical study of scientific evaluation based on the correlation between CNCI and peer review[J]. Library and information service, 2018, 62(18): 122-128.)
[34] HIRSCH J E. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 2005, 102(46): 16569-16572.
[35] YANG A J, WU L, ZHANG Q, et al. The k-step h-index in citation networks at the paper, author, and institution levels[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2023, 17(4): 101456.
[36] ZHAI L, YAN X, ZHANG G. The bi-directional h-index and b-core decomposition in directed networks[J]. Physica A: statistical mechanics and its applications, 2019, 531: 121715.
[37] BAO P, WANG J. Identifying your representative work based on credit allocation[C]//WWW’18: companion proceedings of the the web conference 2018. Lyon: ACM Press, 2018: 5-6.
[38] CHEN P, XIE H, MASLOV S, et al. Finding scientific gems with Google’s PageRank algorithm[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2007, 1(1): 8-15.
[39] BAI X, ZHANG F, LIU J, et al. Quantifying the impact of scientific collaboration and papers via motif-based heterogeneous networks[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2023, 17(2): 101397.
[40] YIN Y. Essays on the science of science and innovation [D]. Evanston: Northwestern University, 2023.
[41] 张雪, 张志强, 陈秀娟, 等. 合成生物学领域的基础研究与技术创新关联分析[J]. 情报学报, 2020, 39(3): 231-242. (ZHANG X, ZHANG Z Q, CHEN X J, et al. Correlation analysis of basic research and technological innovation in synthetic biology[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 2020, 39(3): 231-242.)
[42] 石丽, 秦萍, 李小涛. 高被引论文的跨学科性与Altmetrics指标相关性分析[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2021, 44(5): 60-65, 91. (SHI L, QIN P, LI X T. Analysis on relationship between interdisciplinarity and altmetrics indicators of highly cited papers[J]. Information studies: theory & application, 2021, 44(5): 60-65, 91.)
[43] CHEN S, QIU J, ARSENAULT C, et al. Exploring the interdisciplinarity patterns of highly cited papers[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2021, 15: 101124.
[44] OKAMURA K. Interdisciplinarity revisited: evidence for research impact and dynamism[J]. Palgrave communications, 2019, 5: 141.
[45] 刘嘉明, 孙建军. 参考文献跨学科性与论文学术影响力的关系研究[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(5): 525-536. (LIU J M, SUN J J. Research on the relationship between interdisciplinarity of references and academic influence[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 2023, 42(5): 525-536.)
[46]PONOMAREV I V, LAWTON B K, WILLIAMS D E, et al. Breakthrough paper indicator 2.0: can geographical diversity and interdisciplinarity improve the accuracy of outstanding papers prediction? [J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 100(3): 755-65.
[47] SOLEIL Synchrotron. Research interdisciplinarity and results[EB/OL]. [2024-06-19]. https://wwwpreprod.synchrotron-soleil.fr/en/file/7272.
[48] 张玲玲, 王蝶, 张利斌. 跨学科性与团队合作对大科学装置科学效益的影响研究[J]. 管理世界, 2019, 35(12): 199-212. (ZHANG L L, WANG D, ZHANG L B. Research of the influence of interdisciplinarity and team cooperation on the scientific effects based on large-scale scientific facilities[J]. Journal of management world, 2019, 35(12): 199-212.)
[49] CHEN S, GUO Y, DING A S, et al. Is interdisciplinarity more likely to produce novel or disruptive research?[J]. Scientometrics, 2024, 129(5): 2615-32.
[50] 吕冬晴, 阮选敏, 李江, 等. 跨学科知识融合对D指数的影响[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(3): 263-274. (LVU D Q, RUAN X M, LI J, et al. Research on the relationship between the interdisciplinarity and radicalness of papers from the perspective of knowledge integration[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 2022, 41(3): 263-274.)
[51] 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.
[52] The Advanced Photon Source. APS publications[EB/OL]. [2024-06-09]. https://www.aps.anl.gov/Science/Publications.
[53] The European Synchrotron. ESRF publications[EB/OL]. [2024-06-10]. https://www.esrf.fr/UsersAndScience/Publications.
[54] BORNMANN L, TEKLES A. Disruption index depends on length of citation window[J]. El profesional de la información, 2019, 28(2): e280207.
[55] PORTER A L, CHUBIN D E. An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics[J]. 1985, 8(3/4): 161-176.
[56] LEYDESDORFF L, RAFOLS I. Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: diversity, centrality, and citations[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 87-100.
[57] HAMERS L, HEMERYCK Y, HERWEYERS G, et al. Similarity measures in scientometric research-the Jaccard index versus salton cosine formula[J]. Information processing & management, 1989, 25(3): 315-318.
[58] LEYDESDORFF L, WAGNER C S, BORNMANN L. Diversity measurement: steps towards the measurement of interdisciplinarity?[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2019, 13(3): 904-905.
[59] LEYDESDORFF L, WAGNER C S, BORNMANN L. Interdisciplinarity as diversity in citation patterns among journals: Rao-stirling diversity, relative variety, and the gini coefficient[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2019, 13(1): 255-269.
[60] STIRLING A. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and societyt[J]. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2007, 4(15): 707-719.
[61] LEYDESDORFF L. Diversity measures[EB/OL]. [2024-06-19]. http://www.leydesdorff.net/software.
[62] BITTMANN F, TEKLES A, BORNMANN L. Applied usage and performance of statistical matching in bibliometrics: the comparison of milestone and regular papers with multiple measurements of disruptiveness as an empirical example[J]. Quantitative science studies, 2021, 2: 1246-1270.
[63] VIEIRA E S, GOMES J A N F. Citations to scientific articles: its distribution and dependence on the article features[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2010, 4(1): 1-13.
[64] 陶立方, 杜利民. 文后参考文献数量与影响因子的关系探究[J]. 浙江师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 43(1): 115-120. (TAO L F, DU L M. Research on the relationship between the number of references and the impact factor[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Normal University (natural sciences edition), 2020, 43(1): 115-120.)
[65] CARD D, DELLAVIGNA S. Page limits on economics articles: evidence from two journals[J]. Journal of economic perspectives, 2014, 28(3): 149-168.
[66] SUGIMOTO C R, NI C, RUSSELL T G, et al. Academic genealogy as an indicator of interdisciplinarity: an examination of dissertation networks in library and information science[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(9): 1808-1828.
[67] JONES B F, WUCHTY S, UZZI B. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science[J]. Science, 2008, 322(5905): 1259-62.
[68] SCHMITT J B, GOLDMANN A, SIMON S T, et al. Conception and interpretation of interdisciplinarity in research practice: findings from group discussions in the emerging field of digital transformation[J]. Minerva, 2023, 61(2): 199-220.
文章导航

/

〈 〉