收稿日期: 2012-08-16
修回日期: 2012-11-19
网络出版日期: 2013-01-20
基金资助
本文系北京市优秀人才培养资助项目"重点学科国际影响力评价研究——以中国农业大学重点学科为例"(项目编号:2010D009007000001)研究成果之一。
Theoretical and Empirical Study on Measure Method of Academic Influence Indicator Based on ESI
Received date: 2012-08-16
Revised date: 2012-11-19
Online published: 2013-01-20
引文分析已成为学术影响力评价的一种重要文献计量工具和方法。国内外在引文分析的基础上提出各种学术影响力的评价指标,其中荷兰莱顿大学CWTS(Centre for Science and Technoloy Studies)提出的Crown Indicator和L.Bornman等提倡的百分位数是两种广泛应用的计量指标。在学术影响力评价实践中,由于指标计算所需的引文数据难以获取,指标的计算往往存在困难。以ESI数据库为基础,结合Web of Science构建一套简易的学术影响力指标计算框架和方法,并以中国农业大学为例进行学术影响力评价,以期为机构或其他各种研究实体的学术影响力评价提供参考。
陈仕吉 , 史丽文 , 左文革 . 基于ESI的学术影响力指标测度方法与实证[J]. 图书情报工作, 2013 , 57(02) : 97 -102,123 . DOI: 10.7536/j.issn.0252-3116.2013.02.019
Citation Analysis is an important bibliometric tool and method in academic influence evaluation. There are various academic influence evaluation indicators based on the citation analysis. Two representative indicators of Crown indicator of CWTS and percentiles proposed by Bornman are widely applied. Computing of Indicator is often tedious because it is hard to acquire the necessary citation data. This paper proposes a simple framework for computing indicators based on ESI and Web of Science. It realizes the academic influence evaluation of China Agricultural University, to provide the reference for academic influence evaluation of other institute or research entities.
Key words： ESI; academic influence; relative citation rate; MNCS; percentiles
[1] Schubert A, Braun T. Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36(3): 311-324.
[2] Schubert A, Braun T. Reference standards for citation based assessments[J]. Scientometrics, 1993, 26(1): 21-35.
[3] Schubert A, Braun T. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact[J]. Scientometrics, 1986, 9(5): 281-291.
[4] Vinkler P. Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36(2): 223-236.
[5] Vinkler P. Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications[J]. Scientometrics, 1986, 10(3): 157-177.
[6] Glanzel W, Thijs B, Schubert A, et al. Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance[J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 78(1): 165-188.
[7] van Raan A F J. The use of bibliometric analysis in research performance assessment and monitoring of interdisciplinary scientific developments[J]. Assessment Theory and Practice, 2003, 1(12): 20-29.
[8] Seglen P O. The skewness of science[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1992, 43(9): 628-638.
[9] Bornmann L. Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the opthof and leydesdorff (2010) paper [J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 441-443.
[10] Bornmann L, Mutz R, Neuhaus C, et al. Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results[J]. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2008, 8: 93-102.
[11] National Science Board. Science and engineering indicators 2010[R]. Arlington: National Science Foundation, 2010.
[12] SCImago research group. SCIMago institutions rankings [R/OL]. [2012-08-10]. http://www.scimagoir.com/pdf/sir_2011_world_report_ni.pdf.
[13] Centre for science and technology studies, Leiden University the netherlands. Leiden ranking[EB/OL]. [2012-02-13]. http://www.leidenranking.com/default.aspx.
[14] Zhou Ping, Leydesdorff L. Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: A cross and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(3): 360-368.
[15] Colliander C, Ahlgren P. The effects and their stability of field normalization baseline on relative performance with respect to citation impact: A case study of 20 natural science departments[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 101-113.
[16] 陈仕吉,史丽文,左文革. 科研机构潜势学科的识别方法与实证分析——以中国农业大学为例[J]. 情报杂志, 2012,31(2): 43-47.
[17] Waltman L, van Eck N, van Leeuwen T, et al. Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 87(3): 467-481.
[18] Waltman L, van Eck N J, van Leeuwen T N, et al. Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 37-47.
[19] Radicchia F, Fortunato S, Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008, 105 (45): 17268-17272.
[20] Waltman L, van Eck N J, van Raan A F J. Universality of citation distributions revisited[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(1): 72-77.
[21] Bornmann L, Daniel H. Universality of citation distributions–A validation of Radicchi et al.'s relative indicator cf = c/c0 at the micro level using data from chemistry[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009, 60(8): 1664-1670.
[22] Bornmann L, Mutz R. Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 228-230.
[23] Rousseau R. 评价科研机构的文献计量学和经济计量学指标[C]// 蒋国华. 科研评价与指标: 大学科研评价量化问题国际研讨会暨第五次全国科学计量学与情报计量学学术年会论文集. 北京: 红旗出版社, 2000:17-23.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
