科学评价视角下F1000、Mendeley与传统文献计量指标的比较

为了探讨同行评议、影响计量学以及传统文献计量指标在科学评价中的有效性,本文选取F1000、Mendeley以及Web of Science、Google Scholar数据库,采用SPSS 19.0软件,将心理学与生态学的1,3篇论文的同行评议结果即F1000因子、Mendeley阅读统计、期刊影响因子,以及Web of Science、Google Scholar数据库中被引频次进行相关分析。结果表明:同行评议结果、传统引文分析指标以及以Mendeley为代表的影响计量指标具有低度正相关性,这意味着上述指标在科学评价中审视视角的不同以及数字时代科学评价的多维构成；心理学筛选数据中F1000因子与期刊影响因子相关度几近为0,这一结论进一步证实了期刊影响因子与单篇论文影响力的严重背离；生态学与心理学指标相关分析结果的不同折射出科学评价中自然科学、社会科学的差异。图3。表4。参考文献10。

Observation of F1000, Mendeley and Traditional Bibliometric Indicators from the Perspective of Scientific Assessment

To investigate the usefulness of some measures for post-publication evaluations, the authors choose 1,3ecology and psychology papers in F1000, and compare the F1000quality filtering results and Mendeley usage data with traditional bibliometric indicators. The finding shows that there are lower positive associations among the initial assessment of F1000article factor by expert assessment and the citation counts from WoS and Google Scholar and Mendeley user counts,which suggests that these indicators measure different perspectives of research. It also turns out the small correlations between F1000article factor and journal impact factor in psychology, thus confirms that journal impact factors are not suitable to represent individual article impact. The result also indicates that there are significant differences between natural science and social science in the point of scientific evaluation.3figs.4tabs.10refs.