Library and Information Service >
2013 >Issue 07: 134 - 138
Innovation and Improvement of Bibliometric Evaluation in the Field of Biology and Medicine
Received date: 2012-11-06
Revised date: 2013-03-12
Online published: 2013-04-05
As an effective means of evaluation, bibliometric is mainly used in academic journals evaluation and research performance evaluation, in the field of biology and medicine. The traditional bibliometric evaluation methods have some inherent limitations. People have made a lot of innovations and improvements for that. In this paper, we discuss the new methods of assessing academic journals-asymptotic curve model and eigenfactor, the two innovations in evaluating research performance-analyzing multiple indicators comprehensively and analysis based on social network, as well as the combination of bibliometric and economic or social factors. These new methods and indicators show that trend of the bibliometric evaluation method is using mathematical models and computer technology, conversing to multiple indicators from a single indicator and analyzing combined with complex social network characteristics and economic and social factors.
Key words： bibliometric; biology; and; medicine; indicator; evaluation
Su Yan , Sun Jilin , Yu Jianrong , Xu Ping . Innovation and Improvement of Bibliometric Evaluation in the Field of Biology and Medicine[J]. Library and Information Service, 2013 , (07) : 134 -138 . DOI: 10.7536/j.issn.0252-3116.2013.07.024
[1] 李爱群, 黄玉舫, 邱均平. 我国学术期刊文献计量评价体系的客观性与评价结果的准确性探讨[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2009,20( 4): 609-613.
[2] Jones A W. Impact factors of forensic science and toxicology journals: What do the numbers really mean[J]. Forensic Science International, 2003, 133(1-2): 1-7.
[3]Oelrich B, Peters R, Jung K. A bibliometric evaluation of publications in urological journals among European Union Countries Between 2000-2005[J]. European Urology, 2007, 52 (4): 1238-1248.
[4]Xu Yanli, Li Miaojing, Liu Zhijun, et al.Scientific literature addressing detection of monosialoganglioside:A 10-year bibliometric analysis[J]. Neural Regeneration Research, 2012, 10(7): 795.
[5] Stringer M J, Sales-Pardo M, Amaral LAN. Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information[J]. PLoS One, 2008, 3(2): 1-7.
[6] West J D, Bergstrom T C, Bergstrom C T,et al. 特征因子网站[EB/OL]. [2012-08-20]. http://www.eigenfactor.org/about.htm.
[7] Rizkallah J, Sin D D. Integrative approach to quality assessment of medical journals using impact factor, eigenfactor, and article influence scores[J]. PLoS One, 2010, 5(4): e10204.
[8] Sillet A, Katsahian S, Rang H, et al. The eigenfactor (TM) score in highly specific medical fields: The dental model[J]. Journal of Dental Research, 2012, 91(4): 329-333.
[9] Davis P M. Eigenfactor:Does the principle of repeated improvement result in better estimates than raw citation counts[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(13):2186-2188.
[10] Waltman L, Van Eck N J. The relation between eigenfactor, audience factor, and influence weight[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(7): 1476-1486.
[11] Hung Kuangchen, Lan Shoujen, Liu Jungtung. Global trend in articles related to stereotactic published in science citation index-expanded[J]. British Journal of Neurosurgery, 2012, 26(2): 258-264.
[12] Estabrooks C A, Winther C, Katz S. A bibliometric analysis of the research utilization literature in nursing[J]. Nursing Research, 2004, 53(5): 293-303.
[13] Wagstaff A, Culyer A J. Four decades of health economics through a bibliometric lens[J]. Journal of Health Economics, 2011, 31(2): 406-439.
[14] 刘璇. 社会网络分析法运用于科研团队发现和评价的实证研究[D]. 上海:华东师范大学, 2011.
[15] Katerndahl D. Co-evolution of departmental research collaboration and scholarly outcomes[J]. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2012, 18(6): 1241-1247.
[16] Sittig D F,Kaalaas-Sittig J. A quantitative ranking of the biomedical informatics serials[J]. Methods of Information in Medicine, 1995, 34(4): 397-400.
[17] Ugolini D, Mela G S. Oncological research overview in the European Union:A 5-year survey[J]. European Journal of Cancer, 2003, 39(13): 1888-1894.
[18] Meadows A J. Scientific collaboration and status in communication in science[M]. London: Butterworths Press, 1974.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
