Assessing national strengths and weaknesses in research fields

National policies aimed at fostering the effectiveness of scientific systems should be based on reliable strategic analysis identifying strengths and weaknesses at field level. Approaches and indicators thus far proposed in the literature have not been completely satisfactory, since they fail to distinguish the effect of the size of production factors from that of their quality, particularly the quality of labor. The current work proposes an innovative “input-oriented” approach, which permits: (i) estimation of national research performance in a field and comparison to that of other nations, independent of the size of their respective research staffs; and, for fields of comparable intensity of publication, (ii) identification of the strong and weak research fields within a national research system on the basis of international comparison. In reference to the second objective, the proposed approach is applied to the Italian case, through the analysis of the 2006–2010 scientific production of the Italian academic system, in the 200 research fields where bibliometric analysis is meaningful.     

When research assessment exercises leave room for opportunistic behavior by the subjects under evaluation

This study inserts in the stream of research on the perverse effects that PBRF systems can induce in the subjects evaluated. The authors’ opinion is that more often than not, it is the doubtful scientific basis of the evaluation criteria that leave room for opportunistic behaviors. The work examines the 2004–2010 Italian national research assessment (VQR) to test the lack of possible opportunistic behavior by universities in order to limit the penalization of their performance (and funding) due to the presence of scientifically unproductive professors in faculty. In particular, institutions may have favored “gift authorship” practices. The analysis thus focuses on the output of professors who were unproductive in the VQR publication window, but became productive (“new productives”) in the following five years. A number of universities show a higher than average share of publications by new productives that are in co-authorship exclusively with colleagues from the same university. Although this might be thought to reflect opportunistic behavior by universities, the empirical evidence does not support this assumption.     

A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list

This study investigates the convergence of two bibliometric approaches to the measurement of interdisciplinary research: one based on analyzing disciplinary diversity in the reference list of publications, the other based on the disciplinary diversity of authors of publications. In particular we measure the variety, balance, disparity and integrated diversity index of, respectively, single-author, multi-author single-field, and multi-author multi-field publications. We find that, in general, the diversity of the reference list grows with the number of fields reflected in a paper’s authors’ list and, to a lesser extent, with the number of authors being equal the number of fields. Further, we find that when fields belonging to different disciplines are reflected in the authors’ list, the disparity in the reference list is higher than in the case of fields belonging to the same discipline. However, this general tendency varies across disciplines, and noticeable exceptions are found at individual paper level.     

The role of geographical proximity in knowledge diffusion,measured by citations to scientific literature

This paper analyses the influence of geographic distance on knowledge flows, measured through citations to scientific publications. Previous works using the same approach are limited to single disciplines. In this study, we analyse the Italian scientific production in all disciplines matured in the period 2010–2012. To calculate the geographic distances between citing and cited publications, each one is associated with a “prevalent” territory on the basis of the authors’ affiliations. The results of the application of a gravity model, estimated using ordinary least squares regression, show that despite the spread of IT, geographic distance continues to be an influential factor in the process of knowledge flows between territories. In particular, the analysis reveals that the effect of geographic distance on knowledge flows is significant at the national level, not negligible at the continental level, but completely irrelevant at the intercontinental level.     

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.     

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.     

Measuring the scientific publications of double first‐class universities from mainland China

This paper reports a comparative study of the scientific publications of double first‐class universities based on international and domestic Chinese databases from 2006 to 2018. The main results are as follows. Quantitatively, the absolute total number of articles published by Chinese universities has increased. Specifically, the number of international publications in the natural and social sciences from double first‐class universities showed an increasing trend, but the number of domestic journal articles showed the reverse trend. Moreover, based on the number of papers published by each university over the years, we recognized that the ranking changes of universities fall into four categories: rising, declining, stable, and fluctuating. Qualitatively, the international and domestic publications issued by double first‐class universities greatly improved from 2006 to 2018. Moreover, scientific publications, either international or domestic, were unevenly distributed among the double first‐class universities. In general, the double first‐class universities developed rapidly in recent years and play an important role in the development of science and technology in China.     

科研机构的科研状况研究——基于论文特征项共现分析方法

采用论文特征项的共现分析方法,以中科院国家科学图书馆为研究样本,从单个论文特征项、两个特征项的共现到三个特征项的共现进行了分析研究。结果发现,基于论文特征项的共现分析方法可以较好地揭示科研机构的科研状况,如研究的主题领域、研究团体、所发表论文的期刊类型,以及科研人员、研究主题、发文期刊之间的关系等。     

On the relation between the degree of internationalization of cited and citing publications: A field level analysis,including and excluding self-citations

The growing complexity of scientific challenges demands increasingly intense research collaboration, both domestic and international. The resulting trend affects not only the modes of producing new knowledge, but also the way it is disseminated within scientific communities. This paper analyses the relationship between the “degree of internationalization” of a country’s scientific production and that of the relevant citing publications. The empirical analysis is based on 2010-2012 Italian publications. Findings show: i) the probability of being cited increases with the degree of internationalization of the research team; ii) totally domestic research teams tend to cite to a greater extent totally domestic publications; iii) vice versa, publications resulting from international collaborations tend to be more cited by totally foreign publications rather than by publications including domestic authors. These results emerge both at overall and at discipline level. Findings might inform research policies geared towards internationalization.     

如何认识和评价编辑学的科学性

目前,编辑学研究存在不同的观点、见解和学派,因此,如何认识和评价编辑学的科学性,是亟待解决的问题.马克思主义的实践性、历史性和阶级观点为我们认识和评价编辑学的科学性提供了方法论.编辑学的科学性应该是其实践性、历史性和阶级性的统一.     

科技期刊编辑初审评价的度量方法初探

编辑初审在科技论文的评审流程中占有重要的地位.针对编辑初审工作中的混沌管理及多种初审错位现象,讨论初审评价的可度量问题,建立了初审评价体系,并在此基础上提出一种层次化的初审评价度量方法.通过实例说明该度量方法在初审中的应用.     

Complete graphs and bibliographic coupling: A test of the applicability of bibliographic coupling for the identification of cognitive cores on the field level

The method of bibliographic coupling in combination with the complete link cluster method was applied for mapping of the field of organic chemistry with the purpose of testing the applicability of a proposed mapping method on the field level. The method put forward aimed at the generation of cognitive cores of documents, so-called ‘bibliographic cliques’ in the network of bibliographically coupled research articles. The defining feature of these cliques is that they can be considered complete graphs where each bibliographic coupling link ties an unordered pair of documents. In this way, it was presumed that coherent groups of documents in the research front would be found and that these groups would be intellectually coherent as well. Statistical analysis and subject specialist evaluations confirmed these presumptions. The study also elaborates on the choice of observation period and the application of thresholds in relation to the size of document populations.     

国内外数字图书馆评价研究与实践进展比较分析

文章对国内外数字图书馆评价问题的研究历程、评价框架、评价标准及指标体系构建、评价实践等进展进行比较分析,从而辨析我国数字图书馆评价研究未来的发展趋势。     

近十年数字图书馆研究论文分析——基于LISTA的定量分析

论文以1996年到2006年LISTA数据库收录的关于数字图书馆研究的1316篇文献为研究对象，运用文献计量学方法，从文献量增长情况、地区分布、著者分布、期刊分布以及主题分布等方面进行统计分析，揭示了近十年内国内外数字图书馆领域的研究状况，以期为国内的数字图书馆研究提供参考借鉴。     

科技教育研究主题发展趋势的引文分析:1994—2013

为鉴往知来,本研究运用引文分析方法,探讨近20年来(1994—2013年)科技教育研究的主题演进状况。样本取自WoS数据库的SSCI、SCI和A&HCI,共1 196篇,过滤后为1 009篇文献,共30 825条引文。①以五年为一个阶段,分析文献数量持续增加情况,各阶段的成长率分别为第I-II阶段为85.45%,第II-III阶段为62.26%,第III-IV阶段为55.79%;②     

近十年我国乳腺癌文献计量指标及研究热点分析

文章以SCIE为数据源,利用文献计量学方法,对2000-2009年我国乳腺癌研究发表文献被SCI收录情况,分别通过不同层面进行统计分析,并与其他国家相关数据进行比较。结合共词聚类分析法与文献被引频次,运用BICOMS软件统计高频主题词以及高频被引文献,并利用SPSS软件进行聚类分析。以期总结我国乳腺癌的研究热点,为相关专业人员深入开展乳腺癌研究提供参考。     

2001～2011年国内参考咨询服务评估统计分析

以2001～2011年发表的研究参考咨询服务评估的论文为统计对象,分析了我国参考咨询服务评估研究进展、期刊分布、人才聚集状况以及研究重点。同时指出,参考咨询服务作为图书馆信息服务的一种,对其评估指标体系的研究和应用还有很长的路要走。     

JCR五年期影响因子探析

使用期刊引证报告(JCR)6015种期刊数据,以统计学方法探索性地分析5年期影响因子IF5的特点.结果显示,IF5作为具有代表性的平均性期刊评价指标,能更好地反映多数期刊被引高峰,总体符合布拉德福分布.IF5与2年期影响因子IF存在排序相关,也有显著统计学差异,两者测评结果在较好和较差期刊上相对一致,但在多数水平居中的期刊上存在区别.最后,给出Ifa指数测度两种影响因子的差别和Ifb指数综合两种影响因子的评价信息.     

1999—2010年国内图书馆联盟研究论文的计量分析

论文通过对近12年来CNKI中收录的关于图书馆联盟的研究论文进行较为系统和全面的分析,揭示该主题论文的分布规律,并分析该领域的核心作者群和高产作者群,同时通过被引频次的分析,得出该领域的高被引作者和高被引文章。论文同时还总结归纳了我国图书馆联盟研究论文所取得的成就和不足。