共查询到19条相似文献,搜索用时 62 毫秒
1.
h指数合作式注水缺陷与对策 总被引:6,自引:0,他引:6
传统的h指数统计方法存在隐性歧视独著者、误导功利性合作的严重缺陷,作弊者通过大范围、多频次实施互相挂名式"合作"可以大幅提升h指数.这一缺陷的客观存在对h指数的评价功能造成极大损害,建议采用合作者均分被引的改进型h-a指数来弥补这一缺陷. 相似文献
2.
周春果 《中国科技资源导刊 (中国信息导报)》2010,(2):52-56
以CSSCI(1998-2007)为数据源,统计了72 种国内经济类期刊的h 指数,得出经济类期刊h 指数与排名次序的关系符合Powerlaw 的结论。结合其他学科h 指数分布情况,得出期刊h 指数学科差异明显、相当多期刊h 指数偏低、经济类期刊h 指数较高等结论。并将期刊的h 指数排名与基于影响因子等指标的排名进行对比,证明期刊h 指数在无干扰情况下是一种性能良好的期刊学术质量衡量指标,同时指出期刊h 指数存在容易遭受h 指数精确注水等局限性。 相似文献
3.
周春果 《中国科技资源导刊》2010,42(2)
以CSSCI(1998-2007)为数据源,统计了72种国内经济类期刊的h指数,得出经济类期刊h指数与排名次序的关系符合Powerlaw的结论.结合其他学科h指数分布情况,得出期刊h指数学科差异明显、相当多期刊h指数偏低、经济类期刊h指数较高等结论.并将期刊的h指数排名与基于影响因子等指标的排名进行对比,证明期刊h指教在无干扰情况下是一种性能良好的期刊学术质量衡量指标,同时指出期刊h指数存在容易遭受h指数精确注水等局限性. 相似文献
4.
5.
6.
h指数及其扩展指数用于机构评价研究 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
7.
hm指数——对h指数的修正 总被引:5,自引:0,他引:5
为克服h指数评价普通科学工作者学术贡献时存在的局限性,对h指数进行一次修正,设计出一种适用范围更加广泛的hm指数。并且在详细阐述hm指数的定义、原理的基础上,使用hm指数对我国图书馆学、情报学界部分作者学术贡献进行评价,通过分析评价的结果,一方面检验利用hm指数评价科学工作者的学术贡献的可行性;另一方面描述利用hm指数评价科研人员学术贡献所具有的独特优势,最后总结利用hm指数开展学术评价存在的某些局限性。 相似文献
8.
9.
10.
h指数批量统计法及其应用研究 总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2
h指数研究在全世界引起了广泛的兴趣,已成为国际情报学界最为关注的热点领域,但实证研究手段的落后严重阻碍了相关研究的快速发展.为解决以作者为检索单位的传统h指数统计方法不适于领域层次大范围作者h指数研究等缺陷,提出以期刊为检索单位的h指数批量统计法,它一次可自动提取某领域全部作者的h指数,具有适合程序处理、精确、快速等特点.以国内图书情报界为例进行了实证对比研究,证明其可行性和有效性,并用该方法和WOS数据得到国际图书情报界高影响力作者名单及其h指数.最后指出该方法的潜在应用价值和局限性. 相似文献
11.
传统的H指数未从时间维度对学者进行评价,并且无法有效区分拥有相同H指数的学者.本文在H指数的思想基础上,将学术活跃度这一时间因素考虑在内,把高被引论文的距今年数加入到原有H指数中,构建出新的Ht指数用于评价学者学术水平和活跃程度.随后利用Web of Science数据(2000~ 2013年),从Ht指数排名、Ht指数稳定性、Ht指数区分性以及近年活跃度等角度,对分子生物学领域30位学者进行实证研究.研究结果显示Ht指数对具有相同H指数的学者具有很好的区分能力,区分度达到82%.此外Ht指数能够反映学者的近年学术活跃度且稳定性良好.Ht指数能够在兼顾时间因素的同时,区分H指数相同的学者,实现更好的学术评价. 相似文献
12.
以国内引用认同研究者为研究对象,借助CnkiRef、Gephi等工具,从引荐分析视角分析了国内引用认同领域的研究景象,揭示出领域经典文献、权威期刊、经典图书和研究主题分布等信息,为相关学者了解该领域的研究现状提供参考,也为丰富引文分析方法提供借鉴。 相似文献
13.
针对国家自然科学基金中的面上项目建立一套指标,从资助的项目数量、资助金额、项目立项以来的论文产出以及项目均金额、项目均论文产出、论文均金额等几个方面对基金进行分析,并将文献计量学中的H指数和G指数引入到基金的评价体系中。利用该指标体系,建立一个对于基金项目的可视化分析系统,对于各个指标生成一个时间序列图,分析各指标的趋势。对项目立项以来论文产出以及项目均论文产出分别利用K-S检验和正态分布的曲线拟合,认为两者在显著性0.70的水平上符合正态分布,分析得出两者各自达到最大值的年份,发现项目均论文产出比项目立项以来的论文产出提前达到最大值。 相似文献
14.
In citation network analysis, complex behavior is reduced to a simple edge, namely, node A cites node B. The implicit assumption is that A is giving credit to, or acknowledging, B. It is also the case that the contributions of all citations are treated equally, even though some citations appear multiply in a text and others appear only once. In this study, we apply text-mining algorithms to a relatively large dataset (866 information science articles containing 32,496 bibliographic references) to demonstrate the differential contributions made by references. We (1) look at the placement of citations across the different sections of a journal article, and (2) identify highly cited works using two different counting methods (CountOne and CountX). We find that (1) the most highly cited works appear in the Introduction and Literature Review sections of citing papers, and (2) the citation rankings produced by CountOne and CountX differ. That is to say, counting the number of times a bibliographic reference is cited in a paper rather than treating all references the same no matter how many times they are invoked in the citing article reveals the differential contributions made by the cited works to the citing paper. 相似文献
15.
Raj K. Pan Alexander M. Petersen Fabio Pammolli Santo Fortunato 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(3):656-678
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. 相似文献
16.
[目的/意义] 对科学共同体中权威学者的地位与作用开展研究,以合著网络结构分析为视角,将网络分析与高h指数学者的作用研究相结合,从作者节点所处的网络结构与位置中探寻学者的影响力与作用发挥,为科学共同体的实证性研究开辟新的途径。[方法/过程] 以我国图书情报学科为例,选取33位高h指数学者作为研究对象,采集发文数据,提取合著关系,通过构建合著关系网络,采用网络分析技术对节点的中心性、聚集性、结构洞特征等进行分析。[结果/结论] 数据分析表明:绝大部分高h指数学者在网络结构中占据核心位置,学者之间联系紧密,在科学共同体中起到引领学科发展方向、建立和维护学科规范、加强科学交流与知识传播以及培育人才等重要作用。 相似文献
17.
18.
Multidisciplinary cooperation is now common in research since social issues inevitably involve multiple disciplines. In research articles, reference information, especially citation content, is an important representation of communication among different disciplines. Analyzing the distribution characteristics of references from different disciplines in research articles is basic to detecting the sources of referred information and identifying contributions of different disciplines. This work takes articles in PLoS as the data and characterizes the references from different disciplines based on Citation Content Analysis (CCA). First, we download 210,334 full-text articles from PLoS and collect the information of the in-text citations. Then, we identify the discipline of each reference in these academic articles. To characterize the distribution of these references, we analyze three characteristics, namely, the number of citations, the average cited intensity and the average citation length. Finally, we conclude that the distributions of references from different disciplines are significantly different. Although most references come from Natural Science, Humanities and Social Sciences play important roles in the Introduction and Background sections of the articles. Basic disciplines, such as Mathematics, mainly provide research methods in the articles in PLoS. Citations mentioned in the Results and Discussion sections of articles are mainly in-discipline citations, such as citations from Nursing and Medicine in PLoS. 相似文献