PubMed数据库中有关眼科学的文献计量学分析(1857-2010)

目的:对眼科学文献进行计量分析,以确定其文献增长规律和发展趋势。方法:登录 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed 后用"ophthalmology(眼科学)"检索从"1857/01/01到2010/12/31"的文献量,同时检索数据库中的年文献量(每5年为一时间段)、语言分布、中文收录情况、文献类型分布、期刊分布、相关研究内容情况等。根据文献增长规律的理论,对检索出的数据进行分析。结果:1857-2010年PubMed数据库收录眼科学文献111 993篇,逐年累计文献量均呈递增趋势,其方程近似直线(Y=3318.7X-7312,R²=0.8791)。1857-2010年眼科学文献以英语为主,其次是Japanese,Chinese,German,中文发表的文献排在第三位(2.10%),PubMed数据库收录中文眼科学文献从1971年开始,1991年后明显上升。根据PubMed数据库文献类型,包括Clinical Trial 6 259篇,Editorial 1 279篇,Letter 2 552篇,Meta-Analysis 133篇,Practice Guideline 67篇,Randomized Controlled Trial 3 644篇,Review 8 202篇。根据Journal Groups分为Core Clinical journals 10 912篇,Dental journals 142篇,Nursing journals 572篇。与Humans相关文献84 732篇,Animals相关文献20 449篇。PubMed中23种眼科学核心期刊收录文献54 155篇。结论:眼科学文献均呈上升趋势,表明眼科学的研究仍是一个热点,影响眼科学文献增长的主要因素是学科发展所处的环境条件。     

PubMed数据库中(1979～2008)心理疗法文献计量学分析

目的:对psychotherapy(心理疗法),behavior therapy(行为疗法),psychoanalytic therapy(精神分析疗法),cognitive therapy(认知疗法)和Morita therapy(森田疗法),以及psychology(心理学)文献进行计量分析,以确定其文献增长规律和发展趋势.方法:登录www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Pubmed(PubMed数据库)后用"psychotherapy(心理疗法),behavior therapy(行为疗法),psychoanalytic therapy(精神分析疗法), cognitive therapy(认知疗法)和Morita therapy(森田疗法)"检索"从1979/01/01到 2008/12/31"文献量,同时检索数据库中文献的语言分布,并在此基础上分别检索各时间段,根据科学文献增长规律的理论,对数据进行分析.结果:1979至2008年底,PubMed数据库收录心理学文献689 144篇,心理疗法文献92 086篇,行为疗法78 407篇,精神分析疗法9 777篇,认知疗法33 775篇和森田疗法3547篇.这些心理疗法逐年累积文献量均呈递增趋势,其方程近似直线(Y=a+bX).1947～2008年的心理疗法文献仍以英语为主导(89.50%),其后是German(2.88%),French(2.21%),Russian(0.91%),Japanese(0.89%),Spanish(0.67%),Italian(0.33%),Chinese(0.18%),其他语种(2.42%).PubMed中检索结果,其中与心理学及相关学科568种,而研究心理疗法文献(1979-2008)主要刊载于心理学、神经心理学等相关杂志.用SPSS 15.0对收录心理疗法(1979-2008)逐年累积文献量进行回归分析,心理疗法文献呈缓慢递增.结论:心理疗法研究的文献量均呈上升趋势,表明心理疗法的研究仍是一个热点.影响心理学文献增长的主要因素是学科自身固有的规律和所处的环境条件.     

中美地震学核心期刊文献近期引文特征分析比较

本文使用文献计量学中的引文分析方法,以中国地震学报(ASS),美国地震学会会报(BSSA)为调查样本,在时间域(1988—1990)年3年内ASS12期刊出的138篇地震文献的1362篇引文,BSSA抽取的6期刊出122篇地震文献的3134条引文就引文量,引文类型和语种,引用学科,自引特征,引文年代等项目进行平行统计分析,并由引文数据计算地震学文献的半衰期。在此基础上对中美两国地震学期刊的引文特征,两国地震学者使用文献情报源行为和习惯的异同进行分析比较,并通过互引分析探讨了两国之间的地震学文献交流的趋向和形态,以期认识和掌握地震学文献的特征和规律,有效地利用、流通和管理地震学文献,开展正常的中外地震学文献交流。     

基于Web of Science数据库的第二语言习得文献计量学分析与评价

以国际著名的Web of Science数据库(包括SCI、SSCI和A&HCI)为数据来源,对1967年以来该数据库收录的356篇第二语言习得(SLA)研究论文进行全面的文献计量学分析和评价,内容包括SLA高影响力论文分析、SLA论文的年代分布、来源期刊分布、国家/地区分布和研究主题分布。对国内外SLA研究状况进行了讨论。     

美国《工程索引》光盘(1988-1997)统计分析

从文献收藏量、年份、语种和文献类型四方面,对美国《工程索引》光盘(1988—1997)进行了统计分析,发现了美国《工程索引》光盘文献收录的一些新趋势。     

基于CSSCI的新能源研究的文献计量分析

以2009—2018年CSSCI数据库收录的641篇新能源文献为研究对象,借助CiteSpace V等软件,采用文献计量的方法对新能源研究的文献特征和研究热点与趋势进行分析。结果表明:(1)新能源研究的文献总量呈现指数增长趋势,中国科学技术信息研究所发文数量最多;(2)新能源研究领域的作者虽尚未形成核心作者群,但目前已形成以少数学者为中心的研究团队;(3)新能源文章主要刊发于17种核心杂志,涉及经济学、管理学、环境科学等领域;(4)新能源领域的研究热点与趋势主要包括新能源产业、新能源汽车、低碳经济及技术创新等。研究认为,未来研究应加强与国际科研机构合作,关注新能源汽车产业的发展,以及重视新能源技术创新的研究。     

论数据库检索系统用于文献计量分析

笔者自建了一个CDS/ISIS软件支持的、包括6万多篇文献记录的图书馆学、情报学、文献学、档案学的书目数据库,该库不仅收录期刊论文,而且也收录专著、教材、工具书、会议文献、学位论文以及大型手册、教材中的部分篇章子目,使之形成包含多种类型文献的综合性数据库,并开发利用检索软件中固有的功能,例如建立子库法、编辑倒排文件法、关键词标引与题名中单汉字检索相结合以增强检索语言性能的方法、后控词表(ANY词表)法、对文献发表年代的数值字段函数检索法等等,就80年代以来我国图书情报学科群的文献进行了各种指标的文献计量分析。笔者认为,基于包含多种类型文献、时间跨度较长的数据库检索系统,并应用各种软件功能的文献计量方法,是我国文献计量分析的发展方向。     

国内文献计量研究的特征分析

利用曲线拟合方法,对2001-2010年收录在中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)1 822篇的文献计量研究论文进行了分析,揭示了其文献增长规律、作者分布规律、期刊分布规律和机构分布规律等特征。     

SSCI收录图书情报类期刊“非可被引文献”的引证特征

[目的]探讨SSCI收录图书情报类期刊"非可被引文献"(NCD)的引证特征及其意义。[方法]对SSCI收录所有图书情报类期刊2011-2012年发表的NCD进行统计,并进一步统计各类型NCD在2013年的被引量。[结果]SSCI收录的图书情报类期刊NCD类型中数量最多的是Book review,达9723篇,其次是Proceedings paper和Editorial material,三者都超过了1000篇。从引证效率来说,Book的篇均被引量和文献被引量都非常高,其次为Reprint、Software review、Editorial material、Bibliography、Proceedings paper、Letter,文献被引率都超过了10%。而Biographical item和Meeting abstract引证效率为0。[结论]我国图书情报类期刊应当立足于期刊本身,设置多样化NCD类型,吸收国内外优秀图书情报学稿源,不断提升期刊国际影响力。     

我国SCI收录期刊主要文献计量学指标国际对比

【目的】了解我国SCI收录期刊的主要文献计量学指标整体水平在国际上排名,为正确认识我国SCI收录期刊的情况提供一定参考。【方法】 把我国(不含台湾省SCI收录期刊)与G7国家(美国、英国、法国、德国、意大利、加拿大、日本)和新兴国家(韩国、印度和俄罗斯)2013年SCI收录期刊主要文献计量学指标进行对比。【结果】 2013年我国SCI收录期刊数(162种)位居11个国家中第6位,刊均被引频次位居第8位;我国SCI收录期刊刊均论文数相对较多、自引率相对较高、特征因子和论文影响分值较低;论著篇均引文数位居第7位,而综述篇均引文数位居第4位。【结论】我国SCI收录期刊为进一步提高国际影响力和希望加入SCI期刊可从以下方面努力:期刊出版语言改为英语、减少期刊年均论文数、稿源丰富期刊可缩短出版周期或提高论文录用标准、严格控制期刊自引数量等。     

Do bibliometrics introduce gender,institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?

Systematic evaluations of publicly funded research sometimes use bibliometrics alone or bibliometric-informed peer review, but it is not known whether bibliometrics introduce biases when supporting or replacing peer review. This article assesses this by comparing three alternative mechanisms for scoring 73,612 UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) journal articles from all 34 field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs) 2014–17: REF peer review scores, field normalised citations, and journal average field normalised citation impact. The results suggest that in almost all academic fields, bibliometric scoring can disadvantage departments publishing high quality research, as judged by peer review, with the main exception of article citation rates in chemistry. Thus, introducing journal or article level citation information into peer review exercises may have a regression to the mean effect. Bibliometric scoring slightly advantaged women compared to men, but this varied between UoAs and was most evident in the physical sciences, engineering, and social sciences. In contrast, interdisciplinary research gained from bibliometric scoring in about half of the UoAs, but relatively substantially in two. In conclusion, out of the three potential sources of bibliometric bias examined, the most serious seems to be the tendency for bibliometric scores to work against high quality departments, assuming that the peer review scores are correct. This is almost a paradox: although high quality departments tend to get the highest bibliometric scores, bibliometrics conceal the full extent of departmental quality advantages, as judged by peer review. This should be considered when using bibliometrics or bibliometric informed peer review.     

The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance

In this paper we present the results of a study on the potentialities of “bibliometric” (publication and citation) data as tools for university research policy. In this study bibliometric indicators were calculated for all research groups in the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Leiden. Bibliometric results were discussed with a number of researchers from the two faculties involved.Our main conclusion is that the use of bibliometric data for evaluation purposes carries a number of problems, both with respect to data collection and handling, and with respect to the interpretation of bibliometric results. However, most of these problems can be overcome. When used properly, bibliometric indicators can provide a “monitoring device” for university research-management and science policy. They enable research policy-makers to ask relevant questions of researchers on their scientific performance, in order to find explanations of the bibliometric results in terms of factors relevant to policy.     

JCR中一个新的跨学科评价指标——期刊引证指数(JCI)及其实证研究

【目的】 探讨期刊引证指数(Journal Citation Indicator,JCI)的文献计量学特征及评价应用。【方法】 系统梳理JCI设计理念及相关理论,从InCites-JCR采集相关数据,对JCI进行实证研究。【结果】 与影响因子相比,JCI对引证时间窗口、文献类型、被引频次计数方法等设计更加合理,并且对被引频次按照学科、出版年和文献类型进行了标准化处理,能够更加合理地用于学术期刊影响力评价,尤其是期刊的跨学科评价。【结论】 JCI应用于学术期刊影响力评价具有明显的优越性,其设计体现了跨学科评价理念,能够较为客观地反映我国科技期刊的发展情况。     

Ambiguous author query detection using crowdsourced digital library annotations

The name ambiguity problem is especially challenging in the field of bibliographic digital libraries. The problem is amplified when names are collected from heterogeneous sources. This is the case in the Scholarometer system, which performs bibliometric analysis by cross-correlating author names in user queries with those retrieved from digital libraries. The uncontrolled nature of user-generated annotations is very valuable, but creates the need to detect ambiguous names. Our goal is to detect ambiguous names at query time by mining digital library annotation data, thereby decreasing noise in the bibliometric analysis. We explore three kinds of heuristic features based on citations, metadata, and crowdsourced topics in a supervised learning framework. The proposed approach achieves almost 80% accuracy. Finally, we compare the performance of ambiguous author detection in Scholarometer using Google Scholar against a baseline based on Microsoft Academic Search.     

国际主流体育期刊影响力文献计量分析

采用文献计量学方法,对2010年JCR-SCI收录的体育学期刊主要文献计量指标进行了统计分析,并进一步探讨各个指标的分布特征,旨为我国体育学期刊尽快与国际接轨提供参考.     

计划单列市人文社会科学文献计量的比较分析

以2001-2010年收录在CNKI核心期刊的21 256篇计划单列市人文社会科学的研究论文为研究对象,利用文献计量学方法,对其文献增长规律、作者分布规律和期刊分布规律等进行了比较分析,并阐明了5个计划单列市人文社会科学文献计量参数的差别。     

Research quality and efficiency: An analysis of assessments and management issues in Dutch economics and business research programs

Assessments of quality and productivity of academic research programs become more and more important in gaining financial support, in hiring and promoting research staff, and in building academic reputation. Most assessments are based on peer review or on bibliometric information. In this paper we analyze both bibliometric data and peer review assessments of 169 research groups in economics, econometrics and business administration. The evaluations are achieved in two independent rounds in 1995 and in 2001, permitting replication of our study.The purpose of this study is twofold. In the first part we want to see to what degree bibliometric information relates to peer review judgments. The results convey how evaluators weight different output categories in their final overall judgment of academic quality. The results also have practical meaning, since they indicate what the predictive ability of bibliometric data is for future peer review outcomes. In the second part of this study we aim at explaining differences in research output quality and productivity by organizational factors, like size of the research group, composition of staff, sources of research funding and academic discipline. In this part, a composite indicator is used to represent the review committees’ overall assessment. The bibliometric data most strongly related to the peer reviews’ overall assessment are used to construct data envelopment analyses’ efficiency scores as measure of research productivity.The main conclusions from our study are that the number of publications in international top journals is the best predictor of peer review assessment results. Changes in the classification of bibliometric information, as introduced in the second evaluation round, do not alter this conclusion. Size of the research group appears to be the only permanent characteristic associated with research quality and productivity. Size is positively related to research quality but negatively related to research productivity. Larger groups appear to have the potential to improve quality, but as groups become larger, they also experience problems in maintaining the research productivity of the research team's members. The remaining organizational characteristics appear to be temporarily related to research quality and productivity. In the first evaluation round, research productivity and quality are associated with the discipline variable: research programs in more quantitative areas and characterized by a higher level of paradigm development like econometrics and operations research achieved higher levels of research quality and productivity than programs in more diverse and less quantitative areas like business administration. This relation however is not permanent, since it becomes insignificant in the second evaluation round. Instead, funding relations become more apparent in the second review round. The relative amount of national funding in the research group's funding becomes positively related to academic quality, whereas the portion of income from committed research is negatively related to academic quality of the programs’ research output. This may have been caused by the increased importance of alternative sources of research funding in the period of the second review.     

简论研究前沿及其文献计量识别方法

识别研究前沿对于科学研究的促进作用越来越大。国外对研究前沿这一概念的定义大致分为3类,分别对应着3种不同的文献计量识别方法,包括同被引分析、文献耦合分析、共词分析等。为了克服单一方法在分析效果上的不足,研究者们尝试着结合多种方法来识别研究前沿。Kostoff提出的文献相关的发现方法体系在预测未来研究前沿方面具有很好的应用前景。     

从开放获取到开放科学的变化与挑战 ——基于多指标比较的文献计量分析

通过知识演化的文献计量分析,基于Web of Science核心库中关于开放获取和开放科学的913篇论文引文数据,使用CiteSpace对相关论文发表数量、涉及学科、合作网络以及研究内容聚类等知识演化研究指标展开比较分析,并基于实证研究对转变过程中的相关挑战展开理论探讨。结果表明,开放科学作为开放获取的新发展,在相关研究的内容上面存在着继承和发展,仍需要展开更多具体的实证研究以增强其实践意义。