高被引论文与“睡美人”论文引用曲线及影响因素研究

[目的/意义]通过对潜在“睡美人”论文的引用分布分析,提炼其特征,以期为“睡美人”论文的预判研究提供思路。[方法/过程]采用引用曲线这一更为直观的反映论文引用分布的方法,以“天文学和天体物理”这一领域为例,构建其10的高被引论文、“睡美人”论文的10-20年被引用数据并进行引文分布的对比分析。[结果/结论]研究发现两类文献的引用曲线模式及特点——高被引论文的持续增长型、显峰型、双峰型、振荡型,“睡美人”论文的持续增长型、显峰型、双峰型、振荡型、稳定型等被引用曲线模式;针对施引文献、研究主题演化方向探讨了各模式引用曲线形成的相关因素,发现两类文献达到引用高峰的时间存在差异。     

国内与国际跨学科研究人员文献需求的对比分析——以南海争端问题为例

[目的/意义]分析国内与国际跨学科研究人员文献需求的特点并比较异同,为跨学科研究的文献保障工作提供依据,以促进跨学科研究的国际合作。[方法/过程]使用引文分析法,以1998-2016年发表在CSSCI和Web of Science上南海争端相关文章的期刊与图书类引文为样本,从年代分布、被引频次、学科分布与出版机构等方面,分析国内与国际南海争端研究引文的特点与差异。[结果/结论]国内研究对较新中文期刊和经典外文图书依赖度高,中文图书缺乏国际认同。南海争端研究整体偏向人文社会科学领域,但国际研究较国内研究在引文学科的分布上更加广泛与均衡。权威、主流出版社是国内与国际研究共同的选择,少数研究机构出版社开始进入了跨学科研究者的视野。     

Discoverers in scientific citation data

Identifying the future influential papers among the newly published ones is an important yet challenging issue in bibliometrics. As newly published papers have no or limited citation history, linear extrapolation of their citation counts—which is motivated by the well-known preferential attachment mechanism—is not applicable. We translate the recently introduced notion of discoverers to the citation network setting, and show that there are authors who frequently cite recent papers that become highly-cited in the future; these authors are referred to as discoverers. We develop a method for early identification of highly-cited papers based on the early citations from discoverers. The results show that the identified discoverers have a consistent citing pattern over time, and the early citations from them can be used as a valuable indicator to predict the future citation counts of a paper. The discoverers themselves are potential future outstanding researchers as they receive more citations than average.     

基于引文内容分析的高被引论文主题识别研究

基于被引次数的引文分析无法直接揭示论文的研究内容,利用关键词或从标题、摘要和全文中抽取的主题词很难客观反映论文的被引原因。本文以碳纳米管纤维研究领域的高被引论文为研究对象进行引文内容抽取和主题识别,经人工判读验证：基于引文内容分析的高被引论文识别的核心主题能够较好地揭示高被引论文的被引原因（引用动机）,而且与论文的研究内容相符合;与基于全文、基于标题和摘要的主题识别相比,在引文内容分析基础上识别的主题具有更好的主题代表性,能够有效揭示被引文献的研究内容,是对原文相关信息的重要补充。本文的实验表明基于引文内容分析的高被引论文主题识别是可行而且有效的。图4。表4。参考文献31。     

The citation disadvantage of clinical research

Biomedical research encompasses diverse types of activities, from basic science (“bench”) to clinical medicine (“bedside”) to bench-to-bedside translational research. It, however, remains unclear whether different types of research receive citations at varying rates. Here we aim to answer this question by using a newly proposed paper-level indicator that quantifies the extent to which a paper is basic science or clinical medicine. Applying this measure to 5 million biomedical papers, we find a systematic citation disadvantage of clinical oriented papers; they tend to garner far fewer citations and are less likely to be hit works than papers oriented towards basic science. At the same time, clinical research has a higher variance in its citation. We also find that the citation difference between basic and clinical research decreases, yet still persists, if longer citation-window is used. Given the increasing adoption of short-term, citation-based bibliometric indicators in funding decisions, the under-cited effect of clinical research may provide disincentives for bio-researchers to venture into the translation of basic scientific discoveries into clinical applications, thus providing explanations of reasons behind the existence of the gap between basic and clinical research that is commented as “valley of death” and the commentary of “extinction” risk of translational researchers. Our work may provide insights to policy-makers on how to evaluate different types of biomedical research.     

Interpreting CNCIs on a country-scale: The effect of domestic and international collaboration type

Greater collaboration generally produces higher category normalised citation impact (CNCI) and more influential science. Citation differences between domestic and international collaborative articles are known, but obscured in analyses of countries’ CNCIs, compromising evaluation insights. Here, we address this problem by deconstructing and distinguishing domestic and international collaboration types to explore differences in article citation rates between collaboration type and countries. Using Web of Science article data covering 2009–2018, we find that individual country citation and CNCI profiles vary significantly between collaboration types (e.g., domestic single institution and international bilateral) and credit counting methods (full and fractional). The ‘boosting’ effect of international collaboration is greatest where total research capacity is smallest, which could mislead interpretation of performance for policy and management purposes. By incorporating collaboration type into the CNCI calculation, we define a new metric labelled Collab-CNCI. This can account for collaboration effects without presuming credit (as fractional counting does). We recommend that analysts should: (1) partition all article datasets so that citation counts can be normalised by collaboration type (Collab-CNCI) to enable improved interpretation for research policy and management; and (2) consider filtering out smaller entities from multinational and multi-institutional analyses where their inclusion is likely to obscure interpretation.     

Academic in-group bias: An empirical examination of the link between author and journal affiliation

Do academic journals favor authors who share their institutional affiliation? To answer this question we examine citation counts, as a proxy for paper quality, for articles published in four leading international relations journals during the years 2000–2015. We compare citation counts for articles written by “in-group members” (authors affiliated with the journal’s publishing institution) versus “out-group members” (authors not affiliated with that institution). Articles written by in-group authors received 18% to 49% fewer Web of Science citations when published in their home journal (International Security or World Politics) vs. an unaffiliated journal, compared to out-group authors. These results are mainly driven by authors who received their PhDs from Harvard or MIT. The findings show evidence of a bias within some journals towards publishing papers by faculty from their home institution, at the expense of paper quality.     

电子政务研究的国际进展与分布格局——基于Web of Science论文的计量分析

以2000～2009年间Web of Science数据库收录的1542篇电子政务研究领域的论文为研究对象,采取文献计量学的方法,对论文的年度、期刊、国家/地区、语种、研究机构、作者、关键词以及学科分布及其影响等方面进行分析,从定量和定性的角度揭示国际上电子政务的研究热点、分布格局和发展趋势,以期加深我国对国际电子政务研究的了解,进而为提高我国电子政务研究的步伐提供可借鉴的参考。     

2001～2006年国际情报学研究的引文分析

目的:了解当前国际情报学研究现状,总结研究热点,提供参考信息。方法:采用引文分析方法,对国外6种情报学核心期刊2001～2006年发表的学术论文进行调查分析,并用SPSS对高频被引文献进行同被引聚类分析。根据各个类中的文献内容分析当前研究的热点。结果:检得SSCI数据库中相关文献2320篇,其参考文献出现频次高于30次的论文47篇。高被引论文聚类分析树图分6类。结论:当前情报学研究热点主要集中于六个方面:网络信息资源评价、文献及作者同被引分析、信息组织处理、用户信息检索行为研究、情报学在医学领域的应用及基本理论阐述。     

Public-private collaboration and scientific impact: An analysis based on Danish publication data for 1995–2013

In the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in public-private collaboration, which has motivated lengthy discussion of the implications of collaboration in general, and co-authorship in particular, for the scientific impact of research. However, despite this strong interest in the topic, there is little systematic knowledge on the relation between public-private collaboration and citation impact. This paper examines the citation impact of papers involving public-private collaboration in comparison with academic research papers. We examine the role of a variety of factors, such as international collaboration, the number of co-authors, academic disciplines, and whether the research is mainly basic or applied. We first examine citation impact for a comprehensive dataset covering all Web of Science journal articles with at least one Danish author in the period 1995–2013. Thereafter, we examine whether citation impact for individual researchers differs when collaborating with industry compared to work only involving academic researchers, by looking at a fixed group of researchers that have both engaged in public-private collaborations and university-only publications. For national collaboration papers, we find no significant difference in citation impact for public-only and public-private collaborations. For international collaboration, we observe much higher citation impact for papers involving public-private collaboration.     

Paper-patent citation linkages as early signs for predicting delayed recognized knowledge: Macro and micro evidence

In this study, we investigate the extent to which patent citations to papers can serve as early signs for predicting delayed recognized knowledge in science using a comparative study with a control group, i.e., instant recognition papers. We identify the two opposite groups of papers by the Bcp measure, a parameter-free index for identifying papers which were recognized with delay. We provide a macro (Science/Nature papers dataset) and micro (a case chosen from the dataset) evidence on paper-patent citation linkages as early signs for predicting delayed recognized knowledge in science. It appears that papers with delayed recognition show a stronger and longer technical impact than instant recognition papers. We provide indication that in the more recent years papers with delayed recognition are awakened more often and earlier by a patent rather than by a scientific paper (also called “prince”). We also found that patent citations seem to play an important role to avoid instant recognition papers to level off or to become a so called “flash in the pan”, i.e., instant recognition. It also appears that the sleeping beauties may firstly encounter negative citations and then patent citations and finally get widely recognized. In contrast to the two focused fields (biology and chemistry) for instant recognition papers, delayed recognition papers are rather evenly distributed in biology, chemistry, psychology, geology, materials science, and physics. We discovered several pairs of “science sleeping”-“technology inducing”, such as “biology-biotechnology/pharmaceuticals”, “chemistry-chemical engineering”, as well as some trans-fields science-technology interactions, such as “psychology - computer technology/control technology/audio-visual technology”, “physics - computer technology”, and “mathematics-computer technology”. We propose in further research to discover the potential ahead of time and transformative research by using citation delay analysis, patent & NPL analysis, and citation context analysis.     

Are all citations worth the same? Valuing citations by the value of the citing items

Bibliometricians have long recurred to citation counts to measure the impact of publications on the advancement of science. However, since the earliest days of the field, some scholars have questioned whether all citations should be worth the same, and have gone on to weight them by a variety of factors. However sophisticated the operationalization of the measures, the methodologies used in weighting citations still present limits in their underlying assumptions. This work takes an alternative approach to resolving the underlying problem: the proposal is to value citations by the impact of the citing articles, regardless of the length of their reference list. As well as conceptualizing a new indicator of impact, the work illustrates its application to the 2004–2012 Italian scientific production indexed in the WoS. The proposed impact indicator is highly correlated to the traditional citation count, however the shifts observed between the two measures are frequent and the number of outliers not negligible. Moreover, the new indicator shows greater “sensitivity” when used to identify the highly-cited papers.     

Identification of highly-cited papers using topic-model-based and bibliometric features: the consideration of keyword popularity

The number of received citations have been used as an indicator of the impact of academic publications. Developing tools to find papers that have the potential to become highly-cited has recently attracted increasing scientific attention. Topics of concern by scholars may change over time in accordance with research trends, resulting in changes in received citations. Author-defined keywords, title and abstract provide valuable information about a research article. This study performs a latent Dirichlet allocation technique to extract topics and keywords from articles; five keyword popularity (KP) features are defined as indicators of emerging trends of articles. Binary classification models are utilized to predict papers that were highly-cited or less highly-cited by a number of supervised learning techniques. We empirically compare KP features of articles with other commonly used journal-related and author-related features proposed in previous studies. The results show that, with KP features, the prediction models are more effective than those with journal and/or author features, especially in the management information system discipline.     

我国图书情报领域期刊论文的科学数据引用特征研究

[目的/意义] 探索期刊论文科学数据引用特征与规律不仅有助于描述学科领域对科学数据的利用情况，还能够揭示学术成果表达中的数据引用模式。[方法/过程] 以我国图书情报领域6种期刊2017年与2018年第一期刊载论文为样本，结合国家标准《信息技术科学数据引用》的引用元素，采用内容分析法从9个维度对样本论文的科学数据引用行为进行数据编码，应用统计学方法描述图书情报领域期刊论文科学数据引用特征并探索不同维度特征间的关联关系。[结果/结论] 图书情报领域期刊论文广泛引用来自国内外的统计整理类科学数据，对期刊论文中个人研究科学数据的引用量较大；科学数据引用标注方式与科学数据类型存在一定对应关系，但多样化的标注方式缺乏统一性；二手引用现象较为突出，二手引用程度与科学数据创建者类型相关。     

基于知识图谱的国内外数字资源研究现状与前沿分析

论文以SSCI和CSSCI数据库收录的以数字资源为主题的文献为研究对象,通过信息可视化软件(CiteSpaceⅡ、HistCite及Netdraw)的分析和处理,用知识图谱的方式展示了国内外数字资源领域的重要学术文献和代表性的研究力量,得出了各阶段的研究热点,并分析探讨了国内外研究状况的差异及其产生原因。     

How scholars implement trust in their reading,citing and publishing activities: Geographical differences

In an increasingly digital environment, many factors influence how academic researchers decide what to read, what to cite, where to publish their work, and how they assign trust when making these decisions. This study focuses on how this differs according to the geographical location of the researcher, specifically in terms of the country's level of development. Data were collected by a questionnaire survey of 3650 authors who had published articles in international journals. The human development index (HDI) was used to compare authors' scholarly behavior. The findings show that researchers from less developed countries such as India and China (medium HDI) compared to those in developed countries, such as the USA and UK (very high HDI) are more reliant on external factors and those criteria that are related to authority, brand and reputation, such as authors' names, affiliation, country and journal name. Even when deciding where to publish, the publisher of the journal is more important for developing countries than it is for researchers from the US and UK. Scholars from high HDI countries also differ in these aspects: a) they are less discriminatory than authors from developing countries in their citation practices; b) for them the fact that a source is peer reviewed is the most important factor when deciding where to publish; c) they are more negative towards the use of repositories and social media for publishing and more skeptical about their potential for increasing usage or reaching a wider audience.     

On the citation lifecycle of papers with delayed recognition

Delayed recognition is a concept applied to articles that receive very few to no citations for a certain period of time following publication, before becoming actively cited. To determine whether such a time spent in relative obscurity had an effect on subsequent citation patterns, we selected articles that received no citations before the passage of ten full years since publication, investigated the subsequent yearly citations received over a period of 37 years and compared them with the citations received by a group of papers without such a latency period. Our study finds that papers with delayed recognition do not exhibit the typical early peak, then slow decline in citations, but that the vast majority enter decline immediately after their first – and often only – citation. Middling papers’ citations remain stable over their lifetime, whereas the more highly cited papers, some of which fall into the “sleeping beauty” subtype, show non-stop growth in citations received. Finally, papers published in different disciplines exhibit similar behavior and did not differ significantly.     

利用ESI数据库进行文献计量分析研究——以计算机科学为例

通过对ESI(Essential Scientific Index)数据库收录的近10年来有关计算机领域的文献进行计量分析,得出计算机领域高生产力和高影响力的国家机构、期刊和作者的分布,并对计算机领域高被引文章和热门文章进行期刊和作者分析;最后,对高被引作者利用SPSS统计软件进行共被引研究,并提供近10年来计算机科学领域的主要研究主题和作者的集群分布。     

Google Scholar,Web of Science,and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories

Despite citation counts from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus being widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations, there is no recent or systematic evidence about the differences between them. In response, this paper investigates 2,448,055 citations to 2299 English-language highly-cited documents from 252 GS subject categories published in 2006, comparing GS, the WoS Core Collection, and Scopus. GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%–96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%–77%) and WoS (27%–73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%–65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%–38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS. Despite the many unique GS citing sources, Spearman correlations between citation counts in GS and WoS or Scopus are high (0.78-0.99). They are lower in the Humanities, and lower between GS and WoS than between GS and Scopus. The results suggest that in all areas GS citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.     

科研合作对期刊论文被引频次的影响

以图情类影响力最大的4种期刊在2000-2009年的载文量与被引频次为样本,采用符号检验与相关分析的方法,从合作模式与合作频率两个方面分析科研合作对期刊论文被引频次的影响。研究发现：①合作发表论文的影响力明显高于独立（无合作）发表的论文;②在获得被引频次方面,国际合作并不优于国内合作,高校并不优于研究所;③研究机构的合作次数与被引频次呈正线性相关关系,但机构的合作频率与篇均被引次数没有显著相关。