参考文献引用中的学术不端行为分析

对参考文献引用中存在的学术不端行为进行了分析,总结出诱引、匿引、转引、滥引、崇引和曲引六种行为,并提出了识别和防范建议.     

Recent literature on government information

The purpose of this column is to provide government information scholars and students with a broad overview of recent publications about government information from the literature of librarianship, archives, information technology management, public policy, and law. Given the volume of literature produced in this field, a columnist cannot claim comprehensive coverage. This column seeks to provide a broad, representative survey of literature that illustrates significant trends in the field.Entries were identified through searches of bibliographic databases such as Library Literature, PAIS International, Ebsco Academic Elite, The Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, Science Direct, Westlaw's JLR database, WorldCat, and from manual scans of journals, newsletters, and Internet sites. Citations are to monographs and serials, journal and periodical articles, books, newsletters, and Internet sites. Coverage for this edition of the column includes items from both 2001 and 2002. Each citation is listed once under its primary topic and annotated if its content cannot be adequately determined from the title. Book reviews and Internet site reviews are generally excluded.     

生物医学文献引文在线集成检索整合平台的构建

为解决各引文数据库的检索方法、检索结果展示方式不一、引文著录不规范等问题,解放军医学图书馆采用 NET 框架作为系统的开发平台,采用 C/S 结构模式,在生物医学引文数据库的基础上构建生物医学文献引文集成检索整合平台,实现了统一平台一站式检索、自动去重、自动分组和便捷输出规范的引文报告等个性化功能,提高了生物医学文献查引效率。     

数字人文研究领域的知识图谱构建与分析——基于WoS文献关键词和引文上下文的实证

[目的/意义]引文是施引文献与被引成果的纽带，反映了后继者的借鉴和肯定。本研究在传统题录关键词网络的基础上，创新地将引文上下文关键词作为研究材料，所构建知识图谱不仅能揭示文献主题的深层次信息，也能够反映受众主观筛选和利用文献的知识过程。[方法/过程]选取数字人文为研究领域，获取3个文献集和两个引文文本集，构建两个无向的关键词共现网络和两个有向的基于文献引证的关键词网络。通过共现网络，观察数字人文领域知识的吸收与扩散；通过引证关键词网络，观察数字人文的形成与转化。[结果/结论]研究揭示数字人文的研究重点、核心领域与核心技术，从受众的角度为数字人文领域未来研究提供借鉴和参考。     

Content-based author co-citation analysis

Author co-citation analysis (ACA) has long been used as an effective method for identifying the intellectual structure of a research domain, but it relies on simple co-citation counting, which does not take the citation content into consideration. The present study proposes a new method for measuring the similarity between co-cited authors by considering author's citation content. We collected the full-text journal articles in the information science domain and extracted the citing sentences to calculate their similarity distances. We compared our method with traditional ACA and found out that our approach, while displaying a similar intellectual structure for the information science domain as the other baseline methods, also provides more details about the sub-disciplines in the domain than with traditional ACA.     

Use of Non-Social Work Journals in Social Work Research: Results of a Citation Analysis

Social work research and teaching draw on the literature of other disciplines. While the use of interdisciplinary sources has been discussed at length and citation patterns in social work literature have been studied, no research has identified specific sources from other disciplines that are important for social work scholarship. Based on analysis of citations from core social work journals, several journals from both social work and other disciplines are identified as important to social work. Interdisciplinary citing patterns are discussed, and the coverage of various subjects in PsycINFO, SocINDEX, Social Work Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts is compared.     

Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures

Wide differences in publication and citation practices make impossible the direct comparison of raw citation counts across scientific disciplines. Recent research has studied new and traditional normalization procedures aimed at suppressing as much as possible these disproportions in citation numbers among scientific domains. Using the recently introduced IDCP (Inequality due to Differences in Citation Practices) method, this paper rigorously tests the performance of six cited-side normalization procedures based on the Thomson Reuters classification system consisting of 172 sub-fields. We use six yearly datasets from 1980 to 2004, with widely varying citation windows from the publication year to May 2011. The main findings are the following three. Firstly, as observed in previous research, within each year the shapes of sub-field citation distributions are strikingly similar. This paves the way for several normalization procedures to perform reasonably well in reducing the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices. Secondly, independently of the year of publication and the length of the citation window, the effect of such differences represents about 13% of total citation inequality. Thirdly, a recently introduced two-parameter normalization scheme outperforms the other normalization procedures over the entire period, reducing citation disproportions to a level very close to the minimum achievable given the data and the classification system. However, the traditional procedure of using sub-field mean citations as normalization factors yields also good results.     

基于主题模型的文献引用贡献分析

传统引文分析方法中,文献间的相互关系通常由引用关系决定,也就是说,如果文献A引用文献B,则证明B对A有一定的贡献,然而具体的贡献值与引用原因却很难进行界定。采用主题模型的方法,将原著、引文、被引文献看作是主题模型上的概率分布,通过全文抽取的方法,对引用的原因以及引文贡献值进行分析。首先介绍研究背景与研究意义,并对基本概念进行阐述;然后介绍引文抽取方法、 利用Labeled-LDA模型建立主题模型方法等;最后通过实验部分建立基于不同主题的文献引用网络图,并利用工具使其可视化表示。     

Finding Citations to Social Work Literature: The Relative Benefits of Using Web of Science,Scopus, or Google Scholar

Past studies of citation coverage of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar do not demonstrate a consistent pattern that can be applied to the interdisciplinary mix of resources used in social work research. To determine the utility of these tools to social work researchers, an analysis of citing references to well-known social work journals was conducted. Web of Science had the fewest citing references and almost no variety in source format. Scopus provided higher citation counts, but the pattern of coverage was similar to Web of Science. Google Scholar provided substantially more citing references, but only a relatively small percentage of them were unique scholarly journal articles.The patterns of database coverage were replicated when the citations were broken out for each journal separately. The results of this analysis demonstrate the need to determine what resources constitute scholarly research and reflect the need for future researchers to consider the merits of each database before undertaking their research. This study will be of interest to scholars in library and information science as well as social work, as it facilitates a greater understanding of the strengths and limitations of each database and brings to light important considerations for conducting future research.     

Regularity in the time-dependent distribution of the percentage of never-cited papers: An empirical pilot study based on the six journals

The non-citation rate refers to the proportion of papers that do not attract any citation over a period of time following their publication. After reviewing all the related papers in Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus database, we find the current literature on citation distribution gives more focus on the distribution of the percentages and citations of papers receiving at least one citation, while there are fewer studies on the time-dependent patterns of the percentage of never-cited papers, on what distribution model can fit their time-dependent patterns, as well as on the factors influencing the non-citation rate. Here, we perform an empirical pilot analysis to the time-dependent distribution of the percentages of never-cited papers in a series of different, consecutive citation time windows following their publication in our selected six sample journals, and study the influence of paper length on the chance of papers’ getting cited. Through the above analysis, the following general conclusions are drawn: (1) a three-parameter negative exponential model can well fit time-dependent distribution curve of the percentages of never-cited papers; (2) in the initial citation time window, the percentage of never-cited papers in each journal is very high. However, as the citation time window becomes wider and wider, the percentage of never-cited papers begins to drop rapidly at first, and then drop more slowly, and the total degree of decline for most of journals is very large; (3) when applying the wider citation time windows, the percentage of never-cited papers for each journal begins to approach a stable value, and after that value, there will be very few changes in these stable percentages, unless we meet a large amount of “Sleeping Beauties” type papers; (4) the length of an paper has a great influence on whether it will be cited or not.     

Recent literature on government information

The purpose of this column is to provide government information scholars and students with a broad overview of recent publications about government information from the literature of librarianship, archives, information technology management, public policy and law. Given the volume of literature produced in this field, a columnist cannot claim comprehensive coverage. This column seeks to provide a broad, representative survey of literature that illustrates significant trends in the field.Entries were identified through searches of bibliographic databases such as Library Literature, PAIS International, Ebsco Academic Elite, The Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, Science Direct, Westlaw's JLR database, WorldCat, and from manual scans of journals, newsletters, and Internet sites. Citations are to monographs and serials, journal and periodical articles, books, newsletters, and Internet sites. Coverage for this edition of the column includes items from 2002 and 2003, with a smattering of 2001 items that have come to my attention since the last installment of this column. Each citation is listed once under its primary topic and annotated if its content cannot be adequately determined from the title. Book reviews and Internet site reviews are generally excluded.Contributions and suggestions for the next column may be addressed to the column editor at the address below.Material for this column is grouped into the following categories: Freedom of Information/Secrecy, E-Gov/Technology, Archives/Libraries/History, Government Printing Office, Federal, State/Local, and International.     

The Impact of the Monographs Crisis on the Field of Communication

This study replicates and extends Yates and Chapman's [(2007), Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 26(1), 39–51] study of references from Communication Monographs, Communication Research, and Journal of Communication for the years 2010 and 2015 to draw further conclusions on the use of monographs in journal literature in the field of communication. Results show that the use of monographs in these journals has been outpaced by references to journal articles by a ratio of 5 to 1. The references were further analyzed by date and publisher. The authors then selected a random sample of the monographs cited in the journals to explore the availability of these monographs in electronic format and found that many are available as ebooks, particularly the more recent titles. The authors also examined the references from a collection of scholarly books in communication from 2005, 2010, and 2015 and found that the use of monographs may be declining slightly. The most notable trend in these references was the increase in the number of references to items in other formats such as film, television, comic books, and websites. The authors conclude that the monographs crisis is indeed affecting citation patterns in the field of communication.     

利用引文构建的主题模型研究进展

[目的/意义] 概率主题模型算法在不断得到改进与扩展，本文对国内外已有的利用引文构建的主题模型进行研究，分析和对比不同模型的生成过程与算法，并探讨利用引文构建的主题模型在科技文本分析中的应用与可扩展的研究方向。[方法/过程] 通过Web of Science数据库和CNKI数据库获取国内外利用引文构建主题模型的相关文献，经人工判读后筛选出具有代表性的文献，对这些文献中利用引文构建的主题模型，从建模思想、生成过程、参数估计与推断算法等方面进行对比与分析。[结果/结论] 目前国内外利用引文构建的主题模型主要包括研究主题与引文分布的主题模型、研究被引与施引主题间关系的主题模型，以及基于引用内容的引用主题模型；主题模型中引入引文信息后，能够获得更完整的主题内容和特定主题下的重要文献，并可识别施引文献和被引文献之间主题间的关系及影响；已有的模型多集中在概率潜在语义分析（Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis，PLSA）和潜在狄利克雷分配（Latent Dirichlet Allocation，LDA）主题模型基础上进行扩展。未来可扩展研究引入引用内容的主题模型、模型的性能优化和评价方法、模型的应用研究等。     

The memory of science: Inflation,myopia, and the knowledge network

Scientific production is steadily growing, exhibiting 4% annual growth in publications and 1.8% annual growth in the number of references per publication, together producing a 12-year doubling period in the total supply of references, i.e. links in the science citation network. This growth has far-reaching implications for how academic knowledge is connected, accessed and evaluated. Against this background, we analyzed a citation network comprised of 837 million references produced by 32.6 million publications over the period 1965–2012, allowing for a detailed analysis of the ‘attention economy’ in science. Our results show how growth relates to ‘citation inflation’, increased connectivity in the citation network resulting from decreased levels of uncitedness, and a narrowing range of attention – as both very classic and very recent literature are being cited increasingly less. The decreasing attention to recent literature published within the last 6 years suggests that science has become stifled by a publication deluge destabilizing the balance between production and consumption. To better understand these patterns together, we developed a generative model of the citation network, featuring exponential growth, the redirection of scientific attention via publications’ reference lists, and the crowding out of old literature by the new. We validate our model against several empirical benchmarks, and then use perturbation analysis to measure the impact of shifts in citing behavior on the synthetic system's properties, thereby providing insights into the functionality of the science citation network as an infrastructure supporting the memory of science.     

基于引用关系的知识库建设

提出一种基于引用关系构建知识库的方法,通过提取文献间相互引用的知识内容来建设知识库.把该方法应用于图书情报学科领域行试验,试验结果表明该方法是可行的.最后探讨了该方法需要进一步改进和完善的地方.     

基于期刊引用形象和期刊引用认同的期刊评价

介绍了期刊引用形象和期刊引用认同的概念;修正了Bonnevie-Nebelong选择的期刊评价指标;对现有期刊评价指标从期刊引用形象和期刊引用认同的角度进行划分;提出了新的期刊引用认同评价指标:新学科扩散指标、新学科影响指标、新即年指标、新引用刊数、新他引率;分析新指标的期刊评价意义;最后以图情领域的三种期刊进行实证分析。     

基于文献出版统计分析的藏书质量控制

对“核心出版社”与“核心书目”以及“核心作者”的概念进行界定,对引文分析法及引文分析工具的优势与不足进行分析,提出基于google scholar进行引文分析,并结合布氏定律的测定方法。并以2002-2005年国内经济类图书的出版为例,以实证研究方式阐述测定过程,通过对其学科领域文献出版情况进行统计,从而获得经济类“核心书目”、“核心出版社”以及“核心作者”,在此基础上提出经济类图书的采购及质量评价策略。     

Forward search path count as an alternative indirect citation impact indicator

Main path analysis is a popular method for extracting the backbone of scientific evolution from a (paper) citation network. The first and core step of main path analysis, called search path counting, is to weight citation arcs by the number of scientific influence paths from old to new papers. Search path counting shows high potential in scientific impact evaluation due to its semantic similarity to the meaning of scientific impact indicator, i.e. how many papers are influenced to what extent. In addition, the algorithmic idea of search path counting also resembles many known indirect citation impact indicators. Inspired by the above observations, this paper presents the FSPC (Forward Search Path Count) framework as an alternative scientific impact indicator based on indirect citations. Two critical assumptions are made to ensure the effectiveness of FSPC. First, knowledge decay is introduced to weight scientific influence paths in decreasing order of length. Second, path capping is introduced to mimic human literature search and citing behavior. By experiments on two well-studied datasets against two carefully created gold standard sets of papers, we have demonstrated that FSPC is able to achieve surprisingly good performance in not only recognizing high-impact papers but also identifying undercited papers.     

Impact maturity times and citation time windows: The 2-year maximum journal impact factor

Journal metrics are employed for the assessment of scientific scholar journals from a general bibliometric perspective. In this context, the Thomson Reuters journal impact factors (JIFs) are the citation-based indicators most used. The 2-year journal impact factor (2-JIF) counts citations to one and two year old articles, while the 5-year journal impact factor (5-JIF) counts citations from one to five year old articles. Nevertheless, these indicators are not comparable among fields of science for two reasons: (i) each field has a different impact maturity time, and (ii) because of systematic differences in publication and citation behavior across disciplines. In fact, the 5-JIF firstly appeared in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in 2007 with the purpose of making more comparable impacts in fields in which impact matures slowly. However, there is not an optimal fixed impact maturity time valid for all the fields. In some of them two years provides a good performance whereas in others three or more years are necessary. Therefore, there is a problem when comparing a journal from a field in which impact matures slowly with a journal from a field in which impact matures rapidly. In this work, we propose the 2-year maximum journal impact factor (2M-JIF), a new impact indicator that considers the 2-year rolling citation time window of maximum impact instead of the previous 2-year time window. Finally, an empirical application comparing 2-JIF, 5-JIF, and 2M-JIF shows that the maximum rolling target window reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a random sample of about six hundred journals from eight different fields.     

Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy applied to iMetrics: Scientometrics,Journal of Informetrics,and a relevant subset of JASIST

We have developed a (freeware) routine for “Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy” (RPYS) and apply this method to the historiography of “iMetrics,” that is, the junction of the journals Scientometrics, Informetrics, and the relevant subset of JASIST (approx. 20%) that shapes the intellectual space for the development of information metrics (bibliometrics, scientometrics, informetrics, and webometrics). The application to information metrics (our own field of research) provides us with the opportunity to validate this methodology, and to add a reflection about using citations for the historical reconstruction. The results show that the field is rooted in individual contributions of the 1920s to 1950s (e.g., Alfred J. Lotka), and was then shaped intellectually in the early 1960s by a confluence of the history of science (Derek de Solla Price), documentation (e.g., Michael M. Kessler's “bibliographic coupling”), and “citation indexing” (Eugene Garfield). Institutional development at the interfaces between science studies and information science has been reinforced by the new journal Informetrics since 2007. In a concluding reflection, we return to the question of how the historiography of science using algorithmic means—in terms of citation practices—can be different from an intellectual history of the field based, for example, on reading source materials.