认为传统的科研绩效定量评价指标，如发文量、被引频次、引用率，由于受规模效应以及学科引用差异的影响，在不同团体或不同学科间并不具备可比性。通过引入个体、整体以及比较基准的概念，应用归一化方法，得出具有可比性的3个绩效评价指标：产出指数、影响指数、效率指数。为说明3个绩效指标的实用价值及有效性，给出机构以及国家层面的绩效水平评价实例。最后，分析讨论这3个指标在表征个体绩效水平变化方面所具有的优势以及推广应用的可能性。
The traditional indicators for research performance evaluation, such as numbers of articles,citations and cited rate, are not comparable for different units and different disciplines, due to the influence of scale effect and difference in citing behavior. Three new relative indicators: disciplinary output index, disciplinary impact index and discipline efficiency index are proposed, by introduction of concepts of unit, entirety and comparison benchmark, to characterize an unit's relative ability in output, influence and efficiency in a discipline. To verify their effectiveness, two samples to evaluate the research performance in institution and nation levels are given. Finally, both the advantages of these indexes in characterization of the relative change in the research strength of the evaluation object, and the possibility of their expanding application are discussed.
[1] 朱春奎. 公共部门绩效评估方法与应用[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社, 2007:3.
[2] 胡税根. 公共部门绩效管理迎接效能革命的挑战[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社, 2005:6.
[3] 米哈依洛夫. 科学交流与情报学[M].徐新民, 张国华, 孙荣科, 等译.北京: 科学技术文献出版社, 1980: 173-176.
[4] Schubert A, Glanzel W, Braun T. Relative citation rate: A new indicator for measuring the impact of publications[J]. Scientometrics, 1986, 9(5-6): 281-291.
[5] 布劳温. 科学计量学指标 32国自然科学文献与引文影响的比较分析[M]. 赵红州, 蒋国华, 译.北京:科学出版社, 1989.
[6] Frame J D. Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribbean[J]. Interciencia, 1977(2):143-148.
[7] Vinkler P. Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications[J]. Scientometrics, 1986(10):157-177.
[8] May R M. The scientific wealth of nations[J]. Science, 1997, 275(5301):793-796.
[9] Adams J. Benchmarking international research[J]. Nature, 1998, 396(6712):615-618.
[10] Zitt M, Ramanana-Rahary S, Bassecoulard E. Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation[J]. Scientometrics, 2005, 63(2): 373-401.
[11] 俞立平, 武夷山. 学术期刊评价中标准分与原始分的比较研究——科技评价方法必须进行革命性改良[J]. 情报学报, 2011, 30(11):1187-1193.
