Patterns of Iranian co-authorship networks in social sciences: A comparative study

Collaboration in science is a process in which two or more authors share their ideas, resources and data to create a joint work. This research compares coauthorship networks of Iranian articles in library and information science (LIS), psychology (PSY), management (MNG), and economics (ECO) in the ISI Web of Knowledge database during 2000–2009, and uses network analysis for the visualization of coauthorship networks. Data include all articles with at least one Iranian author and indexed in ISI's Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) for the fields of LIS, PSY, MNG, and ECO. Indicators such as the Collaborative Index (CI), Degree of Collaboration (DC) and Collaboration Coefficient (CC) were calculated for each discipline. Results show that two or three authors were the most common number of authors per paper, and authors of PSY tended to have more multi-authored articles, compared to the other disciplines. LIS had the lowest rank regarding CC. MNG had the densest coauthorship network, and PSY had the sparsest. Iranian authors in the field of PSY mostly collaborated with those in the U.S., while LIS and MNG authors tended to collaborate with U.K. authors, and ECO authors tended to collaborate with Canadians.     

Citation bias in measuring knowledge flow: Evidence from the web of science at the discipline level

Knowledge flow between scientific disciplines has commonly been measured based on citation data. Previous studies using citing relationships have mostly considered direct citations but have paid little attention to indirect citations (IDC) to indicate how knowledge diffusion from one discipline to another via one or more intermediaries. In this study, we measured knowledge flow between disciplines from two perspectives: direct citations (DC) and discipline potential energy (DPE), which is proposed to combine both direct and indirect citations. Data were collected from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Findings include: (1) DPE overshadows previous measures by considering not only direct citations but also indirect citations between disciplines which was usually ignored in previous measures, and revealed that the knowledge contribution of some disciplines had been underestimated by previous measures, such as Physics and Engineering. (2) The proportion of IDC contribution is close to that of direct knowledge contribution when the discipline scale is removed, which suggests that it is essential to consider IDC to distinguish the knowledge relationship (net-outflow/inflow) between disciplines. (3) Both measurements show that Biology & Biochemistry has always been the top discipline with the highest net outflow of knowledge, which is inconsistent with the history of science that Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry would be the highest net outflow disciplines. The results show that even considering IDC does not fully reveal the knowledge contribution and academic influence of disciplines. This paper also analyzes the potential reasons for citation bias in revealing the contribution of disciplinary knowledge from a citation perspective. Therefore, caution should be taken in the use of citations as a primary measure of knowledge flow.     

利用SCI进行科研工作者成果评价的新探索

SCI是一个国际化的引文索引系统,收录的期刊有严格的审核标准,发文质量较高。目前国外利用SCI对科研工作者成果评价的最新方法是建立在h指数和g指数的考核基础上。虽然二者在科研工作者成果评价中都有很重要作用,但也存在一些缺陷。论文质量指数(Paper Quality Index)的引入可以解决不同学科之间比较和时效性方面的问题。进行科研成果评价时,应将h指数、g指数和论文质量指数结合使用,将短期评价和长期评价结合使用。     

基于SCI、SSCI和A＆HCI的河南大学论文统计

基础科学研究的发展实力和研究水平是衡量地域和高校科技创新能力的重要指标。文章利用Web of Knowledge检索平台对2001-2010年河南大学发表的SCI、SSCI、A＆HCI论文进行调查,从论文的数量与类型、来源出版物、学科、合作机构和国家、论文作者、被引频次等角度进行全方位统计分析,揭示河南大学学科研究发展的现状,为河南大学的教学研究工作和自然科学、人文社会科学的国际化发展提供参考和建议。     

Information Transfer in Articles About Libraries and Student Success

Connecting academic libraries to the higher education environment is crucial for demonstrating the impact of libraries on student success. The purpose of this study is to examine the information transfer between the disciplines of library and information science (LIS) and higher education in order to evaluate the influence of ideas between the two disciplines. Information transfer was analyzed in 39 articles focused on the library's contributions to student success by examining the cited references, the author and collaborator affiliations, and the forward citations. The findings from the cited reference analysis suggest that LIS is borrowing concepts and methods through citations from the discipline of education. Authorship affiliations showed that some non-LIS authors are publishing in the field of LIS and that LIS authors are collaborating with non-LIS authors. Finally, based on the forward citations, other disciplines are rarely citing LIS research about student success. This article's findings highlight the need to consider research and collaborators outside of the LIS field when researching the library's contribution to student success.     

Self‐archiving practice and the influence of publisher policies in the social sciences

Authors in different disciplines exhibit very different behaviours on the so‐called ‘green’ road to open access, i.e. self‐archiving. This study looks at the self‐archiving behaviour of authors publishing in leading journals in six social science disciplines. It tests the hypothesis that authors are self‐archiving according to the norms of their respective disciplines rather than following self‐archiving policies of publishers, and that, as a result, they are self‐archiving significant numbers of publisher PDF versions. It finds significant levels of self‐archiving, as well as significant self‐archiving of the publisher PDF version, in all the disciplines investigated. Publishers' self‐archiving policies have no influence on author self‐archiving practice.     

Penetration of Nigerian predatory biomedical open access journals 2007–2012: a bibliometric study

This paper presents the bibliometric characteristics of 32 biomedical open access journals published by Academic Journals and International Research Journals – the two Nigerian publishers in Jeffery Beall's list of 23 predatory open access publishers in 2012. Data about the journals and the authors of their articles were collected from the websites of the publishers, Google Scholar and Web of Science. As at December 2012, the journals had together produced a total of 5,601 papers written by 5,599 authors, and received 12,596 citations. Authors from Asia accounted for 56.79% of the publications; those from Africa wrote 28.35% while Europe contributed 7.78%. Authors from Africa accounted for 18.25% of the citations these journals received, and this is about one‐third the number of citations by authors in Asia (54.62%). At country level, India ranks first in the top 10 citer countries, while Nigeria, the host country of the journals, ranked eighth. More in‐depth studies are required to develop further information about the journals such as how much scientific information the journals contain, as well as the science literacy of the authors and the editorial.     

对科技资源管理学科建设的认识与建议

科技资源是当代重要的战略性资源,开展科技资源的有效管理,加强科技资源管理的学科建设具有重要意义。本文阐述了科技资源管理学科建设的必要性,提出了学科建设的内容框架,包括学科定位、资源研究、管理研究、理论方法研究、事业发展研究以及案例研究等6个核心内容板块,还提出了与此相关的科学学、资源科学、管理科学、信息科学、经济学、社会学等6个学科的支撑体系。文章还提出了促进科技资源管理学科建设的5条建议。     

Do Article Influence scores overestimate the citation impact of social science journals in subfields that are related to higher-impact natural science disciplines?

Unlike Impact Factors (IF), Article Influence (AI) scores assign greater weight to citations that appear in highly cited journals. The natural sciences tend to have higher citation rates than the social sciences. We might therefore expect that relative to IF, AI overestimates the citation impact of social science journals in subfields that are related to (and presumably cited in) higher-impact natural science disciplines. This study evaluates that assertion through a set of simple and multiple regressions covering seven social science disciplines: anthropology, communication, economics, education, library and information science, psychology, and sociology. Contrary to expectations, AI underestimates 5IF (five-year Impact Factor) for journals in science-related subfields such as scientific communication, science education, scientometrics, biopsychology, and medical sociology. Journals in these subfields have low AI scores relative to their 5IF values. Moreover, the effect of science-related status is considerable—typically 0.60 5IF units or 0.50 SD. This effect is independent of the more general finding that AI scores underestimate 5IF for higher-impact journals. It is also independent of the very modest curvilinearity in the relationship between AI and 5IF.     

The Use of Web of Knowledge to Study Publishing and Citation Use for Local Researchers at the Campus Level

This paper provides information on a research project undertaken at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville to study publications by the campus researchers with an emphasis on the STEM (agricultural sciences, physical science, biological sciences, engineering and mathematics, etc.) disciplines at the macro level for a 3-year period. The overall objective of the study was to provide evidence-based data of periodical use to assist with collection decisions and to identify collection strengths at the university level. We used the Web of Knowledge database (Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index) to identify the periodical literature in which our researchers published and those that they cite in their publications. We also determined the extent to which our researchers are publishing in and citing periodicals from the Elsevier, Wiley, and IEEE journal packages. A methodology for extracting citations from Web of Knowledge into an Excel spreadsheet is also provided.     

h指数与学术排名评价指标体系的关联性分析

以Web of Science为来源数据库,以上海交通大学的Academic Ranking of World Universities （ARWU）为样本来源,测算世界著名大学及代表性学科的h指数,分析h指数的分布特点,并进行h指数与ARWU评价指标体系之间的关联性分析。结果表明：学科间h指数不同,不具有跨学科可比性;h指数与ARWU评价指标体系之间存在很强的相关关系。     

Publishing activity of Russian scientists according to SCI and SCOPUS databases

This paper cites statistical data describing the tendencies in Russian scientists’ publishing activity in the period from 1993 to 2006 according to the DB Web of Science (WOS). An important result of the research is the fact that about 50% of the papers written by Russian authors were published in foreign scientific journals used to prepare the WOS. This is a demonstration that Russian science is highly integrated into international science. To conduct a comparative analysis of the scientific productivity of the Russian scientists we used statistics obtained from the SCOPUS information system and presented in the SJR portal.     

论文零被引率与期刊影响力关系的研究——以经济学学科为例

现行期刊的评价指标以正向评价指标为主。为探究期刊的反向评价指标,研究与高被引论文相对应的零被引论文的占比情况与期刊影响力的关系,基于Web of Knowledge数据库中的经济学学科发文量位居前10位的期刊所发表的论文在2-6年后的零被引率,并通过相关分析探究其与JCR 2012年期刊评价指标的相关关系,包括影响因子、总被引频次、5年影响因子和h指数等指标,并探究其变化趋势与时间窗口间的关系。研究结果表明：期刊零被引率用于期刊反向评价是合理的,对于经济学这种综合实力较强的学科,时间窗口定为2-3年更为合理,随着年限的变长,论文零被引率与期刊的综合实力的关系越来越弱。     

高h指数学者在科学共同体中的作用研究——以我国图书情报学为例

[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。     

一流科技期刊“刊域共建”现状及策略分析

为了解一流科技期刊的“刊域共建”情况,文章从2019年度和2020年度“中国科技期刊卓越行动计划”入选项目中选取医药卫生类期刊,从期刊基本特征、分布、主办单位、发表内容、出版平台等方面进行分析,探讨入选该项目的期刊对学科领域发展的作用,以及“刊域共建”的内容和效果。结果显示:医药卫生类期刊是重点发展对象,亟需通过国际化、高起点的期刊提升学科竞争力和话语权;期刊的主办单位可以集合资源联动学科领域建设,在刊发内容上通过聚焦交叉学科、填补学科空白、策划前沿选题、应用双语发表等引领学科发展;学科本身的知识更迭也为期刊发展提供了源动力。由此提出,通过“刊域共建”带动一流期刊建设,同时促进学科发展,实现两者的良性联动。     

��ѧ��չ���׵����߼�������

在分析文献著者职业结构与科学研究取向、年龄结构与学科发展潜力、地区结构与科学活动中心、新老结构与学科发展阶段、研究主题结构与当采学科 (主题 )、合著结构与科研复杂程度和学科综合程度的关系的基础上 ,提出了确定和预测科研活动及科学发展状况的文献著者计量指标     

医学图书馆学学科体系构建研究

从医学图书馆学的体系结构、研究内容、研究任务、研究方法、学科属性与特点以及医学图书馆学与其他学科之间的关系等方面探讨了医学图书馆学学科体系的构建,提出了循证医学图书馆学、循证医学图书馆事业、循证医学图书情报工作实践和转化医学图书馆学等新分支学科,希能抛砖引玉,藉此推动医学图书馆学学科建设和医学图书馆学研究与实践.     

Researchers’ Mobility,Productivity and Impact: Case of Top Producing Authors in Seven Disciplines

The purpose of this study was to examine whether scientific mobility, either between countries or between affiliations has an effect on researchers’ productivity and impact. In order to investigate this issue, we examined the relationships between the number of institutional affiliations and countries of the top 100 authors in seven disciplines. The selected authors’ profiles contained the number of affiliations and countries each author is assigned. We studied the number of affiliations and countries and compared them to three bibliometric indicators: the number of publications in international, peer-reviewed journals, h-index and Field Weighted Citations Impact. Our findings show that although there are differences in the relationship between mobility, productivity and impact between disciplines, mobility between at least two affiliations has an overall positive effect on both output and impact while mobility between countries does not. Therefore, in most disciplines positive impact and productivity effects are tracked in affiliation mobility within a single country.