基于情感分析的altmetrics学术质量评价方法研究

［目的/意义］Altmetrics通过API跟踪和分析学术文献的网络活动,根据影响力分值评价学术成果的影响力。然而,其评价学术影响力不考察读者态度极性,仅提供简单的公众关注度信息,不能直接体现学术成果的质量。为此研究altmetrics评价学术质量的可行性方案。［方法/过程］将情感分析与altmetrics相结合,并以新闻媒体、社交网站、文献数据库、学术论坛的提及、评论、引用、讨论指标为例,探讨altmetrics量化指标与情感分析相结合的理论框架。［结果/结论］构建基于情感分析的altmetrics加权综合运算模型,该模型虽有情感分析技术实现难度较大、计算过程复杂且缺乏实证研究的不足,但作为评价学术质量的一种尝试,值得探讨。     

一种基于研究主题对比的单篇学术论文创新力评价方法

[目的/意义] 创新是学术论文的本质要求,如何有效评价学术论文的创新力一直以来备受国内外专家和学者关注。随着信息技术的发展,利用计算机技术从论文内容角度对单篇学术论文的创新力进行评价逐步成为可能。[方法/过程] 提出一种基于研究主题对比的单篇学术论文创新力评价方法。该方法首先利用Keygraph算法提取代表论文研究主题的关键词,然后,将论文的研究主题与科学研究前沿主题进行相似度计算,最后,结合期刊影响因子和Altmetrics两项外在指标提出一种论文创新力综合评价模型。[结果/结论] 通过对"碳纳米管"材料研究领域的实证研究证明,该方法能够有效、迅速和准确地从论文内容角度对单篇学术论文的创新力进行评价。     

Altmetrics覆盖率影响因素及应用分析

[目的/意义]探讨影响altmetrics覆盖率的因素,为altmetrics在学术评价中的合理使用奠定基础。[方法/过程]基于Web of Science、Altmetric.com以及Mendeley,以5个学科1996-2015年间发表的所有期刊论文为分析对象,探讨学科领域、出版年份、来源期刊、国别、语种5个因素对altmetrics覆盖率的影响。[结果/结论]不同altmetrics指标的覆盖率不同,Mendeley覆盖率最高,Twitter其次,而大多数指标覆盖率很低;在将altmetrics应用于期刊评价时,有必要合理鉴别和排除期刊推广策略导致的高覆盖率现象;以上5个因素均会导致期刊论文的altmetrics覆盖率差异,因此在应用altmetrics时,需要考虑到被评价对象的属性特征,必要时考虑altmetrics在这些影响因素上的标准化。     

Assessing Global Inequality of Bribery for News Coverage: A Cross-National Study

Bribery for news coverage has a negative impact on the credibility of media; it also restricts the free flow of information and violates the public's right to know. Further, research showed that there exists considerable inequality among countries in terms of the extent to which bribery for news coverage exists in media system. This study provides the first quantitative cross-national assessment of a set of predictors of the likelihood that bribery for news coverage exists in a country's media system and tested competing arguments derived from the literature. Data of this study are drawn from 66 nation states. The analysis shows that 5 groups of political, economic, cultural, educational, and technological variables have direct or indirect impacts on a country's media bribery level. The interactions between these variables are also analyzed. The study concludes by discussing how analyses of the nature of the international media bribery problem contribute to finding multiple approaches to solutions to this problem.     

Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)

Altmetrics have been proposed as a way to assess the societal impact of research. Although altmetrics are already in use as impact or attention metrics in different contexts, it is still not clear whether they really capture or reflect societal impact. This study is based on altmetrics, citation counts, research output and case study data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF), and peers’ REF assessments of research output and societal impact. We investigated the convergent validity of altmetrics by using two REF datasets: publications submitted as research output (PRO) to the REF and publications referenced in case studies (PCS). Case studies, which are intended to demonstrate societal impact, should cite the most relevant research papers. We used the MHq’ indicator for assessing impact – an indicator which has been introduced for count data with many zeros. The results of the first part of the analysis show that news media as well as mentions on Facebook, in blogs, in Wikipedia, and in policy-related documents have higher MHq’ values for PCS than for PRO. Thus, the altmetric indicators seem to have convergent validity for these data. In the second part of the analysis, altmetrics have been correlated with REF reviewers’ average scores on PCS. The negative or close to zero correlations question the convergent validity of altmetrics in that context. We suggest that they may capture a different aspect of societal impact (which can be called unknown attention) to that seen by reviewers (who are interested in the causal link between research and action in society).     

Does society show differential attention to researchers based on gender and field?

While not all researchers prioritize social impact, it is undeniably a crucial aspect that adds significance to their work. The objective of this paper is to explore potential gender differences in the social attention paid to researchers and to examine their association with specific fields of study. To achieve this goal, the paper analyzes four dimensions of social influence and examines three measures of social attention to researchers. The dimensions are media influence (mentions in mainstream news), political influence (mentions in public policy reports), social media influence (mentions in Twitter), and educational influence (mentions in Wikipedia). The measures of social attention to researchers are: proportion of publications with social mentions (social attention orientation), mentions per publication (level of social attention), and mentions per mentioned publication (intensity of social attention). By analyzing the rankings of authors -for the four dimensions with the three measures in the 22 research fields of the Web of Science database- and by using Spearman correlation coefficients, we conclude that: 1) significant differences are observed between fields; 2) the dimensions capture different and independent aspects of the social impact. Finally, we use non-parametric means comparison tests to detect gender bias in social attention. We conclude that for most fields and dimensions with enough non-zero altmetrics data, gender differences in social attention are not predominant, but are still present and vary across fields.     

Power Laws in altmetrics: An empirical analysis

Power Laws are a characteristic distribution found in both natural as well as in man-made systems. Previous studies have shown that citations to scientific articles follow a power law, i.e., the number of papers having a certain level of citation x are proportional to x raised to some negative power. However, the distributional character of altmetrics (such as reads, likes, mentions, etc.) has not been studied in much detail, particularly with respect to existence of power law behaviours. This article, therefore, attempts to do an empirical analysis of altmetric mention data of a large set of scholarly articles to see if they exhibit power law. The individual and the composite data series of ‘mentions’ on the various platforms are fit to a power law distribution, and the parameters and goodness of fit are determined, both using least squares regression as well as the Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) approach. We also explore the fit of the mention data to other distribution families like the Log-normal and exponential distributions. Results obtained confirm the existence of power law behaviour in social media mentions to scholarly articles. The Log-normal distribution also looks plausible but is not found to be statistically significant, and the exponential distribution does not show a good fit. Major implications of power law in altmetrics are given and interesting research questions are posed in pursuit of enhancing the reliability of altmetrics for research evaluation purposes.     

CSSCI来源期刊发文机构固化现象的成因与影响——以图情档期刊为例

研究CSSCI来源期刊发文头部机构固化现象,对理解期刊发文规律、优化评价机制和推动学科生态改善都具有重要意义。文章通过统计分析2000-2019年图情档学科19种CSSCI来源期刊中发文的作者单位、地域、学术背景等,发现期刊发文头部机构固化的形成受多重因素影响,包括发文机构的学科优势、期刊创办单位的性质、地缘和学缘等。文章考察这一现象对学科生态带来的主要影响,从理念、实践和制度等方面提出克服发文机构固化建议,为科研评价克服唯论文意识、加强论文质量评价、推动学科发展提供参考。     

基于Altmetrics视角的学术论文被引频次影响因素分析和预测

本文创新性构建学术论文被引影响因素特征空间,以我校SCI&SSCI学术论文为例,验证机器学习模型在预测学术论文被引频次研究中的有效性和准确性,本文的分析结论可以为高校图书馆开展决策支持服务提供参考。本文梳理学术论文被引频次影响因素及预测方法的相关研究,结合传统文献计量和Altmetrics指标构建学术论文影响因素的特征空间,并通过实验比较线性回归、神经网络、支持向量机三种机器学习模型在预测学术论文被引频次研究中的有效性和准确性。本文的分析结论证明基于Altmetrics视角构建的特征空间的预测准确率大幅度提高,并且支持向量机模型在对学术论文影响力预测的实证研究中表现出优异的性能。     

组织院士作者群筑造科技期刊学术高地

为促进医德医风好转,促进医学伦理学学科的发展,《中国医学伦理学杂志》编辑部近年通过编委的桥梁作用、留心新闻媒体、参加学术会议等方法组织了12位院士的16篇论文,形成了院士作者群,有效地筑造了学科的学术高地,为促进医德医风好转和学科发展做出了贡献,也促进了杂志品牌的形成。     

重视科学新闻提升期刊影响

科学新闻源于期刊所发表的优秀论文.西方科学新闻传播有成熟的网络平台及从事科学新闻传播的媒体及记者.我国缺乏科学新闻传播理念,为此,作者建议从重视科学新闻和提升期刊影响的角度,树立科学新闻传播观念,组织发表有新闻价值的论文,培养科学新闻的撰稿人,构筑科学新闻搜集、发布平台,开设期刊(或主编)博客.     

The Impact of Media Use and Cultural Exposure on the Mutual Perception of Koreans and Japanese1 The present research has been conducted by the Research Grant of Kwangwoon University in 2004

This study examines how the use of a foreign country's media and culture influences perceptions of that country. A total of 315 Korean and 290 Japanese college students were surveyed in 2002 to facilitate the author's analysis of the flow of cultural products between Korea and Japan and the impact of their use. Between countries cultural products flow in one direction because of differences in market size and cultural competitiveness. This paper aims to reconfirm the asymmetric flow of cultural products between Korea and Japan. Its results reveal that Korean college students spend 25.40% of their media usage time consuming Japanese media products, whereas only 1.79% of Japanese students devote any time at all to Korean products. Next, studying both domestic and foreign media use, the author examined the effects of asymmetric cultural consumption on how Koreans and the Japanese perceive each other. Perception of a country is described in terms of three variables: cultural affinity, product purchase intention, and preference for the country. Use levels of foreign media, cultural exposure to the foreign country, and social demographics were hypothesized to influence these variables. Traveling experience to the counterpart country and preference for that country's food were measured to represent cultural exposure. Gender was a significant variable influencing cross-cultural perception. For Japanese students, first-hand exposure to Korean culture affected their perception of Korea significantly, whereas Korean students were more strongly affected by media use. Interestingly, Korean students’ domestic media use negatively affected their cultural proximity to Japan, while Japanese students’ domestic media use positively affected their intentions to purchase Korean products.     

基于学术迹的湖南省高校学科学术影响力评价研究--以数学学科为例

[目的/意义]在“破五唯”的评价背景下,客观、合理的学术影响力评价指标对于高校学科建设、科研能力、科研质量的评估具有重要作用与意义。[方法/过程]本文选取学术迹指标,以湖南省10所高校数学学科2010—2019年的学术论文为实证样本,计算学术迹并结合h指数、10年影响因子等传统指标,从宏观角度评价学科学术影响力。接着对这10所高校的学术迹、学术矩阵进行分析,从微观角度探究影响学科学术影响力的具体因素。[结果/结论]结果表明:相较于传统指标而言,本文的学术影响力评价更加客观合理,具备较好的学科评价效果。在学术矩阵分析中,h尾以及e域的论文数量与比例最为关键,这能为高校学科建设及评估提供新的思路。     

altmetrics:从理论假说、术语提出到内涵的重新界定

[目的/意义]引介国外近期关于altmetrics的理论思想和研究共识,以期对我国的altmetrics研究带来启示。[方法/过程]采取多种信息检索方法,如网络检索、博客跟踪、浏览会议网站的方法,查找国内外相关信息,考察altmetrics的早期理论假说、术语提出的方式和过程;引介和分析国外专家的研究共识;研究我国相关的期刊论文和博客文章,总结国内altmetrics的研究现状与问题。[结果/结论]研究发现,国外专家普遍认为altmetrics是对传统引文方法的补充,而不是替代;altmetrics测量的是科学研究的关注度和影响力,而不一定是科学研究的质量;altmetrics应该重新命名为"alternative indicators";传统引文评价方法存在的引文动机、发表时间、学科和地域差异等问题在altmetrics评价中仍然存在。因此,在用altmetrics指标进行评价的过程中,不能仅观察altmetrics应用工具提供的数字,还要考察数据源的类型、具体评价内容,最后通过定量和定性评价方法相结合做出正确的判断。我国altmetrics的相关研究虽然发展迅速,但与国际研究水平仍有较大差距。     

The competitive advantage of nations: An application to academia

Within the field of bibliometrics, there is sustained interest in how nations “compete” in terms of academic disciplines, and what determinants explain why countries may have a specific advantage in one discipline over another. However, this literature has not, to date, presented a comprehensive structured model that could be used in the interpretation of a country's research profile and academic output. In this paper, we use frameworks from international business and economics to present such a model.Our study makes four major contributions. First, we include a very wide range of countries and disciplines, explicitly including the Social Sciences, which unfortunately are excluded in most bibliometrics studies. Second, we apply theories of revealed comparative advantage and the competitive advantage of nations to academic disciplines. Third, we cluster our 34 countries into five different groups that have distinct combinations of revealed comparative advantage in five major disciplines. Finally, based on our empirical work and prior literature, we present an academic diamond that details factors likely to explain a country's research profile and competitiveness in certain disciplines.     

期刊信赖度及其评价思路

本文认为可从宏观层面和微观层面来进行期刊信赖度评价.在宏观层面上,主要是期刊利益相关主体对信赖度的主观感受和评价,这种评价方法是期刊利益相关主体基于某种利益考量和经验判断;而微观层面上,主要通过各种问卷调查法、文献评价法等,运用相关工具对信赖度进行比较细致的评估.不但要推动研究者重点从提高服务态度和服务质量入手而加强对期刊信赖度的研究,拓宽相关理论的广度和深度,还要深入进行期刊信赖度评价指标的探索和创新,以便更好地在编辑学研究、期刊评价和学术评价中发挥重要的作用.     

Altmetrics指标在机构知识库中的应用研究

[目的/意义]鉴于目前机构知识库的相关研究主要集中在理论、技术支持和平台建设等方面,欠缺对机构知识库质量控制与内容评价的有效方式的研究,利用Altmetrics可以弥补传统计量学方法评价和机构知识库质量控制方面的不足。[方法/过程]根据机构知识库的特点,从机构知识库整体、特定资源和发布者角度提出可用于机构知识库评价的Altmetrics指标;依据不同的机构知识库开发平台系统,归纳总结其所具有的Altmetrics功能,并进一步结合实例进行分析。[结果/结论]总结国内机构知识库建设发展的情况及其现有的评价指标,发现传统评价指标可以与Altermetrics指标互相补充,认为Altermetrics在机构知识库的应用具有良好的发展前景。     

期刊信赖度及其评价思路

简要介绍开放获取(0A)的缘起与发展历程,论证OA对增强学术自由、降低出版成本、促进文献传播和提高引用率、推进传统出版模式发展演变方面的积极意义,阐述其发展过程中可能引起的期刊数量泛滥、科研成本提高、质量不稳和不当获利等问题.基于中国期刊业的现状和OA在中国的发展进程,围绕利益辩证关系和平衡机制,提出中国期刊业应采取的国家战略和行业对策.     

TOWARDS A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON LOCATING ONLINE NEWS IN THE NEWS ECOLOGY

As, historically, has been common with newly emergent media, the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s was greeted with a discourse of revolutionary impacts, premised on a technological logic of development. In the case of news, the Web was expected to drive a more democratic, transparent and accountable journalism. This article argues that the application of a strong historical perspective to scholarship on online news is necessary to gauge the depth of any changes from and the strength of continuity with print and broadcast news. It examines the historical development of mass media and of journalism in the context of industrial capitalism to trace the emergence of the ‘news ecology’ that permeates print, broadcast and, now, online media. It examines this through a sample of websites maintained by Irish national and local newspapers, and the country's public service broadcaster, between 1994 and 2010.     

基于SCIE的我国肝胆外科学术影响力分析

基于SCIE来源期刊刊载的我国及国外肝胆外科学者2000—2009年发表的科学论文,使用Excel和RefViz文本分析软件对入选论文的相关指标数据进行计量分析,在世界范围和全国范围内进行横向比较。结果表明,就国际影响力而言,我国肝胆外科科学论文质量及影响力排在美、欧国家和日本、韩国之后。就学科研究重点和热点而言,我国与国外基本同步,但有自己的研究特色。筛选出我国肝胆外科核心机构16个、学科骨干28人。尽管我国肝胆外科2000—2009年科学论文产出绝对量居世界前茅,但其科学论文质量和影响力有待提高。