Empirical study of L-Sequence: The basic h-index sequence for cumulative publications with consideration of the yearly citation performance

Most current h-type indicators use only a single number to measure a scientist's productivity and impact of his/her published works. Although a single number is simple to calculate, it fails to outline his/her academic performance varying with time. We empirically study the basic h-index sequence for cumulative publications with consideration of the yearly citation performance (for convenience, referred as L-Sequence). L-Sequence consists of a series of L factors. Based on the citations received in the corresponding individual year, every factor along a scientist's career span is calculated by using the h index formula. Thus L-Sequence shows the scientist's dynamic research trajectory and provides insight into his/her scientific performance at different periods. Furthermore, L_∝, summing up all factors of L-Sequence, is for the evaluation of the whole research career as alternative to other h-index variants. Importantly, the partial factors of the L-Sequence can be adapted for different evaluation tasks. Moreover, L-Sequence could be used to highlight outstanding scientists in a specific period whose research interests can be used to study the history and trends of a specific discipline.     

我国数字图书馆研究论文（2005-2009）的统计分析

为推动我国数字图书馆的建设和发展,本文统计并深入分析了我国近五年（2005—2009年）数字图书馆领域所发表的学术论文的文献计量学特征,概述了该领域的整体发展状况。主要包括：我国数字图书馆研究的不同阶段及其特点,核心期刊的分布、关注的研究领域及其聚类分析,主要研究机构,高产作者及其论文合著情况等。利用战略坐标图对数字图书馆研究的六个子领域进行了比较研究。     

Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement

The development of scientometric indicators and methods for evaluative purposes, requires a multitude of assumptions, conventions, limitations, and caveats. Given this, we cannot permit ambiguities in the key concepts forming the basis of scientometric science itself, or research assessment exercises would rest on quicksand. This conceptual work attempts to spell out some principles leading to a clear definition of “impact” of research, and above all, of the appropriate scientometric indicator to measure it. The aim is to stimulate a discussion aimed at a definitive convergence on the meaning and measurement of a fundamental concept of the scientometric science.     

Funding,evaluation, and the performance of national research systems

Understanding the quality of science systems requires international comparative studies, which are difficult because of the lack of comparable data especially about inputs in research. In this study, we deploy an approach based on change instead of on levels of inputs and outputs: an approach that to a large extent eliminates the problem of measurement differences between countries. We firstly show that there are large differences in efficiency between national science systems, defined as the increase in output (highly cited papers) per percentage increase in input (funding). We then discuss our findings using popular explanations of performance differences: differences in funding systems (performance related or not), differences in the level of competition, differences in the level of university autonomy, and differences in the level of academic freedom. Interestingly, the available data do not support these common explanations. What the data suggest is that efficient systems are characterized by a well-developed ex post evaluation system combined with considerably high institutional funding and relatively low university autonomy (meaning a high autonomy of professionals). On the other hand, the less efficient systems have a strong ex ante control, either through a high level of so-called competitive project funding, or through strong power of the university management. Another conclusion is that more and better data are needed.     

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.     

基矛科研绩效框架（REF）的三种文献计量模式

科研绩效框架（REF）是英国政府提出的一种评估科研的全新理念。论文概述REF评价的主客体,并从精确性、成本效益、行为动机三方面对三种文献计量模式进行比较分析,然后论述其对未来评估体系的影响,认为REF中的引文分析不仅给年轻科研人员带来不公平的影响,而且不适用于所有学科,对不同学科的评价也有局限性。     

Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones?

Ever more frequently, governments have decided to implement policy measures intended to foster and reward excellence in scientific research. This is in fact the intended purpose of national research assessment exercises. These are typically based on the analysis of the quality of the best research products; however, a different approach to analysis and intervention is based on the measure of productivity of the individual scientists, meaning the overall impact of their entire scientific production over the period under observation. This work analyzes the convergence of the two approaches, asking if and to what measure the most productive scientists achieve highly cited articles; or vice versa, what share of highly cited articles is achieved by scientists that are “non-top” for productivity. To do this we use bibliometric indicators, applied to the 2004–2008 publications authored by academics of Italian universities and indexed in the Web of Science.     

基于海量数据库的文献计量学研究新特点

根据当前海量数据库的发展，探讨了基于网络平台的海量数据库对文献计量学发展的作用、评价指标的扩展、交叉学科分析等，讨论了以引文机制为基础的文献计量综合评价研究趋势和特点，并结合Web环境下文献计量学研究实例，透视目前文献计量学领域的研究现状及其新的进展。     

Research trends and collaborations by applied science researchers in South African universities of technology: 2007–2017

This paper analyses the publication patterns of researchers in the field of applied sciences at Universities of Technology in South Africa. Aspects investigated include publications in SCOPUS-listed journals; number of citations and countries of publication. Collaborative research patterns at national and international levels were also investigated. A bibliometric analysis approach was followed using SCOPUS as the main source of data and analysing the articles published in selected applied science disciplines. Results show that researchers in the field of applied sciences in universities of technology have increased their number of publications over the past 10?years and are also working in conjunction with other researchers both nationally and internationally. The analysis is an important addition to the field in South Africa which helps in measuring how institutions are positively responding to government incentives in research. The results are also important to information professionals who are increasingly playing an important role in research impact assessments.     

我国大陆图书馆史研究进展

检索《中国期刊全文数据库》,对近年我国内地图书馆史研究文献进行归纳分析,认为研究呈现平缓、深入的特点。研究者群体虽人数不多却相对精干,但也存在薄弱环节和＂空白点＂。另外就促进研究,陈述了几点看法。     

基于关键词的大骨节病中文文献研究主题剖析

目的：对大骨节病中文文献的关键词进行分析,揭示我国大骨节病研究的主要方向。方法：检索CNKI、CBM、VIP、万方期刊全文数据库,纳入所有关于大骨节病的中文期刊文献。利用BICOMS抽取和整理关键词,生成共现矩阵,采用gCLUTO进行聚类分析。结果：目前大骨节病研究主要集中镰刀菌代谢的真菌毒素和黄腐酸在大骨节病病理过程中的作用、大骨节病病因、大骨节病患者功能状态的改变、大骨节病与地质环境的关系、大骨节病的病情监测及X线诊断、大骨节病关节炎的手术治疗、大骨节病的防治效果分析。社会网络图显示大骨节病病因、大骨节病与地质环境的关系、大骨节病的病情监测及X线诊断、大骨节病关节炎的手术治疗和大骨节病的防治效果分析是目前研究的热点。结论：通过共词聚类分析确定的研究主题符合我国目前大骨节病的研究方向。     

Predicting publication long-term impact through a combination of early citations and journal impact factor

The ability to predict the long-term impact of a scientific article soon after its publication is of great value towards accurate assessment of research performance. In this work we test the hypothesis that good predictions of long-term citation counts can be obtained through a combination of a publication's early citations and the impact factor of the hosting journal. The test is performed on a corpus of 123,128 WoS publications authored by Italian scientists, using linear regression models. The average accuracy of the prediction is good for citation time windows above two years, decreases for lowly-cited publications, and varies across disciplines. As expected, the role of the impact factor in the combination becomes negligible after only two years from publication.     

近10年我国高校档案教学单位研究论文统计分析

本文通过检索1998～2007年10年间CNKI收录入的档案学13种核心期刊刊载的各高校研究论文,运用文献计量学方法,从年度分布、期刊分布、主题分布、作者分布等方面定量地分析了近十年来各高校档案教学单位的研究情况.     

科学评价体系中同行评议与文献计量的实证分析

通过对比F1000因子与被引频次、F1000因子与期刊评价指标,并对主要指标进行相关性分析,来验证同行评议与引文分析间的相关性。结果表明,F1000因子与被引频次呈正相关性,即专家打分与被引频次变动方向相同;但也存在专家打分高的论文被引频次低,而专家打分低的论文被引频次高的事实。相关性分析的结果表明：在特征因子、SNIP等主要指标中,SJR、IF与专家评议值相关度最大。