[Purpose/significance] Research productivity has been the scholars' research interested focus, which has been studied from both papers' quantity and quality(citations). As it is presented that scientists have various citation behaviors or papers' quality is various in different fields, and it is not only necessary that their productivities can be evaluated in different fields, but also it needs to measure and evaluate the scientists' productivities concerning different professional levels, different-size institutions, and papers in different journals. However, in the existing indices, the context characteristics are not considered, while there are different requirement thresholds for the same professional level or different professional levels in the same or various institutions, the characteristics of scientists' situated context is precisely the reference criterion of their efforts, and the co-authors' contributions are ignored for analyzing scientists' productivities, which is not corresponding to the research requirements of big science era.[Method/process] Based on the efforts and shortcomings of the existing evaluation indices, the Q2 SRC-index is presented to evaluate scientists' research productivities, with concerns of papers' quantity and quality(Q&Q, Q2), subject fields(S), scientists' rankings in papers(R), and different requirement thresholds for the same or different professional levels indicating scientists' contexts (C), which is more emphasized.[Result/conclusion] The measure is not only the theory model to be used to evaluate the scientists' research productivities comprehensively and compare them from different disciplinary backgrounds, but also it is practical and can be considered as the basis for scientists' professional promotions when there are limited professional positions in their institutions.
[1] LOTKA A. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity[J]. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 1926, 16(12), 317-323.
[2] SOBRINO M I M, CALDES A I P, GUERRERO A P. Lotka law applied to the scientific production of information science area[J]. Brazilian journal of information science, 2008, 2(1):16-30.
[3] HIRSCH J E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output[J]. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 2005, 102(46):16569-16572.
[4] EGGHE L. An econometric property of the g-index[J]. Information processing & management, 2009, 45(4):484-489.
[5] DODSON M V, DUARTE M D S, DIAS L A D S. SP-index:The measure of the scientific production of researchers[J]. Biochemical and biophysical research communications, 2012, 425(4):701-702.
[6] WU J. Investigating the universal distributions of normalized indicators and developing field-independent index[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2013, 7(1):63-71.
[7] LIU C, SHAN W, YU J. Shaping the interdisciplinary knowledge network of China:a network analysis based on citation data from 1981 to 2010[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 89(1):89-106.
[8] FRANCESCHINI F, GALETTO M, MAISANO D, et al. The success-index:an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individuals research output[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 92(2):624-641.
[9] 谭雷,庄新田,韩鹏.基于数据挖掘的高校人才科研能力综合评价方法研究[J].东北大学学报(社会科学版), 2014, 16(6):596-600.
[10] 黄富琨.我国图情档学科科研生产力——基于C-100指数的分析[J].图书馆论坛, 2018, 38(3):52-59.
[11] 李玉凤,杨芳.基于论文指标的宁夏科技创新主体创新能力评价研究[J].科技管理研究, 2016, 36(22):72-77.
[12] 叶鹰.一种学术排序新指数-f指数探析[J].情报学报, 2009, 28(1):142-149.
[13] 薛霏,莱兹多夫,叶鹰.学术评价的多变量指标探讨[J].中国图书馆学报, 2017, 43(4):63-73.
[14] ALLISON P D, PRICE D D S, GRIFFITH B C, et al. Lotka's law:a problem in its interpretation and application[J]. Social studies of science, 1976, 6(2):269-276.
[15] NAH I W, KANG D S, LEE D H, et al. A bibliometric evaluation of research performance in different subject categories[J]. Journal of the society for information science and technology, 2009(60):1138-1143.
[16] LIU X Z, FANG H. Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution[J].Journal of informetrics, 2012, 6(4), 557-565.
[17] SHENHAV Y A, HABERFELD Y. The various faces of scientific productivity:a contingency analysis[J]. Quality & quantity, 1988, 22(4):365-380.
[18] ZHAO L M, ZHANG Q P, WANG L. Benefit distribution mechanism in the team members' scientific research collaboration network[J]. Scientometrics, 2014,100(2):363-389.
[19] 刘永,许烨婧.面向情境的情报服务理论问题研究[J].情报理论与实践, 2013, 36(11):1-4,19.
[20] 曹高辉,徐元,梁梦丽,等.基于情境的信息融合模型研究[J].情报学报, 2017, 36(6):537-546.
[21] 辛文卿.知识转移过程中的社会互动与情境转换分析[J].情报杂志, 2010, 29(S2):162-164.
[22] 李容.科研成果在职称晋升中的信号与甄别作用研究[J].科研管理, 2013, 34(11):114-123.
[23] 盛楠, 孟凡祥, 姜滨, 等.创新驱动战略下科技人才评价体系建设研究[J].科研管理, 2016, 37(S1):602-606.
[24] WASSERMAN S, FAUST K. Social network analysis:methods and applications[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[25] ZHANG C T. A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank[J]. EMBO reports, 2009, 10(5):416-417.
[26] RIESENBERG D, LUNDBERG G D. The order of authorship:who's on first?[J]. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 264(14):1857.
[27] LAKE D. Who's on first? Listing authors by relative contribution trumps the alphabet[J]. Political science and politics, 2009, 43(1):43-47.
[28] OSBORNE J W, HOLLAND A. What is authorship, and what should it be? a survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications[J]. Practical assessment, research & evaluation, 2009, 14(15):1-19.
[29] DANCE A. Who's on first?[J]. Nature, 2012(489):591-593.
[30] TSCHARNTKE T, HOCHBERG M, RAND T, et al. Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications[J]. Plos biology, 2007, 5(1):13-14.
[31] FINE M A, KURDEK L A. Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations[J]. American psychologist, 1993, 48(11):141-1147.
[32] AZIZ N A, ROZING M P. Profit(p)-index:The degree to which authors profit from co-authors[J]. Plos ONE, 2013, 8(4):1-7.
[33] LI D F. Multiattribute decision making models and methods using intuitionistic fuzzy sets[J]. Journal of computer and system sciences, 2005, 70(1):73-85.
[34] XU Z S. Some similarity measure of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications to multiple attribute decision making[J]. Fuzzy optimization and decision making, 2007, 6(2):109-121.
[35] SIT A, WU Z J. Solving a generalized distance geometry problem for protein structure determination[J]. Bulletin of mathematical biology, 2011, 73(12):2809-2836.
[36] KIM D S, SON T Q. Some new properties of the lagrange function and its applications[J]. Fixed point theory and applications, 2012(1):1-7.
