收稿日期: 2013-09-18
修回日期: 2013-10-15
网络出版日期: 2013-11-05
基金资助
本文系国家社会科学基金一般项目“基于链接分析的网络科技论文学术影响评价研究”（项目编号：09BTQ019） 研究成果之一。
Empirical Research on Network Comprehensive Evaluation of Academic Influence of Sci-tech Papers
Received date: 2013-09-18
Revised date: 2013-10-15
Online published: 2013-11-05
基于引文评价与同行评审方法相结合进行论文评价的思路，利用F1000数据库随机获取同行评审指标论文131篇，利用WoS、JCR、ESI及ImpactStory检索工具获取每篇论文的常用网络计量指标，探讨与同行评价相关联的网络计量指标，并将其替代同行评价纳入学术影响力综合评价模型。研究结果显示，综合评价能弥补单一类型指标评价的缺陷，实际的计量评价中采用相对指标和标准化处理，可以消除不同学科领域的影响因素和期刊数量的差异性，使评价具有跨学科、跨时间的可比性，通过对指标间相关性和相似性分析，可简化、替代或扩展指标。通过调整指标权重，突出同行评审在评价模型中作用，并具有一定的可操作性。
沈小玲 , 徐勇 , 严卫中 . 基于网络文献计量的科技论文学术影响力综合评价研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2013 , 57(21) : 95 -103 . DOI: 10.7536/j.issn.0252-3116.2013.21.017
Based on both the citation evaluation and the peer review methods of paper evaluation, using F1000 database randomly, this article gets 131 peer review indicators papers. By using WOS, JCR, ESI and the ImpactStory retrieved tools, this paper gets the common network measurement indicators of each article. Then it explored the indicators involved with peer evaluation, and formed academic influence integrated evaluation model without the process of peer review. The results show that integrated evaluation can make up the defects of single indicator evaluation. The actual relative indicators used in the evaluation and standardization of measurement, eliminated the different influence factors in various subject areas and the number of periodicals to enable interdisciplinary evaluation comparability across time. Through the analysis of similarities and correlations among indicators, it is possible to simplify, substitute or expand indicators. By adjusting the weights, highlighting the role of peer review in evaluation model, this model has a good maneuverability.
[1] Coupe T. Peer review versus citations-An analysis of best paper prizes[J].Research Policy, 2013, 42(1): 295-301.
[2] Waltman L, van Eck N J, van Leeuwen T N, et al. On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 88(3): 1017-1022.
[3] 郭红梅, 何苗, 邢星, 等.不同自然科学门类间论文学术影响力多指标综合评价的合理性研究[J].图书情报工作, 2012, 56(22):62-68.
[4] 邱均平, 马瑞敏, 程妮. 利用SCI进行科研工作者成果评价的新探索[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2007, 29(4):11-16.
[5] 宋丽萍, 王建芳. 基于F1000与WoS的同行评议与文献计量相关性研究[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2012, 34(2):62-69.
[6] 曹兴, 周密, 刘芳. 网络科技论文学术影响力评价指标体系研究[J]. 科学决策, 2010(7):30-37, 52.
[7] Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7(2): 286-291.
[8] 李冲. 引文分析的本质与学术评价功能的条件性[J].科学学研究, 2013(8):1121-1127.
[9] 沈小玲, 严卫中.网络科技论文学术影响力评价指标的选择[J].图书情报工作, 2013, 57(3):69-77.
[10] 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.
[11] 张立军, 袁能文.线性综合评价模型中指标标准化方法的比较与选择[J].统计与信息论坛, 2010(8):10-15.
[12] 郭晓晶, 何倩, 张冬梅, 等. 综合运用主客观方法确定科技评价指标权重[J]. 科技管理研究, 2012(20): 64-67, 71.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
