科研合作中机构间科研主导力及邻近性机理——以中国生物医学领域为例

在学科紧密相关和信息资源相融的当代,探究科研合作的影响因素成了诸多学者关注的话题。然而,现有研究将各种合作关系视同一律,即两人发表一篇合著文章,便形成合作关系;同时,大部分研究没有系统地研究多维邻近性的影响。为此本文提出了"科研主导力"的概念与测度,并从多维邻近性出发系统地分析科研合作的影响因素。本文基于Web of Science (WoS)上2013-2017年的生物医学(Life Sciences&Biomedicine)领域中国境内科研机构发表的论文数据,采用社会网络分析和引力模型,揭示了中国境内生物医学领域的科研主导网络的网络拓扑特征与多维邻近性机制,发现科研主导力两极分化严重,分散程度提高,互惠程度提高;主导机构(通信作者所在机构)和参与机构(非通信作者所在机构)的累积科研主导力显著促进科研主导力的扩散,且主导机构的促进作用大于参与机构;地理距离会阻碍科研主导力的扩散;认知背景相似度越高,社会关系越密切,越能形成科研主导关系;同样的制度环境、文化环境可以促进科研主导关系的形成。本文对全面理解多样化的科研合作模式、演化及其影响因素提供借鉴意义,研究科研主导力的相关方法可以推广到其他领域中。     

科研合作网络弹性研究与实证

阐述科研合作网络弹性的概念、研究意义与应用,并以全球100所高校在图书情报学领域所组成的科研合作网络为例,选取网络最大簇规模和网络效率作为网络弹性测度指标,讨论节点点度失效、介数失效以及随机失效策略下该科研合作网络的弹性。结果显示,科研合作网络对随机节点失效具有较强的鲁棒性,其网络容错能力较强;对选择性节点失效的网络抗攻击能力较弱;网络效率相对于网络最大簇规模更适合作为科研合作网络弹性的测度指标。     

馆员合作研究中馆员多样性的考察与分析——基于南京农业大学图书馆的案例分析

[目的/意义]馆员多样性和团队合作是美国ClimateQUAL^TM组织氛围测评中的两个重要指标,但二者的关系还没有被详尽研究。本文利用近10年南京农业大学图书馆科研合作数据,深度分析馆员合作中所体现的馆员多样性,为进一步了解图书馆组织氛围的相关特征提供依据。[方法/过程]利用馆员及其年龄、职称、学历、学科背景、岗位等馆员属性信息,将这些馆员划分成不同的类别,计算辛普森指数（simpson）和熵值（entropy）,并依此来测度科研合作中的馆员多样性,绘制合作结构图来显示科研合作的状态。[结果/结论]将馆员个体作为多样性计算中的类别,辛普森指数为0.994,熵值为0.6。按馆员年龄、职称、学历、学科背景、岗位等属性划分类别,辛普森指数处于0.82-0.997之间,熵值处于0.59-0.89之间,高辛普森指数和高熵值表明不同层次的馆员都参与了科学合作,但合作不是很集中。对一定合作强度所形成的网络结构的分析也发现,合作还处于相对比较松散的状态,没有形成固定的合作团队。高学历和高职称馆员是图书馆科研产出的重要力量,虽然馆员学科背景广泛,但图情学科背景仍是南京农业大学图书馆科研产出的重要因素。     

在线知识交流回帖动因的个案研究

采用整合社会网络分析、内容分析和访谈等方法的分析框架,从回帖的角度研究一个在线知识交流的个案,探讨影响回帖的因素。研究发现,发帖者之间的“关系”、主帖的质量以及参与者的核心度是回帖的重要动因,通过改进这些因素可以增加回帖数量,促进在线知识交流,提高在线协作的质量。     

Citation analysis for collection development: A study of international relations journal literature

By examining citations in international relations journal articles published between 2000 and 2005, this study reveals that international relations scholars more heavily rely on books rather than on journals. Less than 2% of the citations are from electronic resources. Materials in foreign languages are utilized insignificantly, with English language citations dominating the research literature. The analysis of subject scatter details the main disciplines that are associated with international relations research. Qualitative scholars cite a higher proportion of monographic literature, while quantitative scholars display a higher journal citation rate.     

Assessing the Diffusion and Impact of Grey Literature Published by International Intergovernmental Scientific Groups: The Case of the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment

Although many governmental and intergovernmental organizations publish vast quantities of grey literature, the importance of the diffusion and impact of this literature are rarely studied. Evidence from an investigation of the grey literature output of GESAMP, the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (sponsored by the UN and several of the UN-family of organizations), indicated that the literature reached scientific readers and was cited. To determine whether that evidence was representative of international intergovernmental bodies, another intergovernmental organization devoted to marine environmental issues, namely, the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment (GOMC) was studied. GOMC, an American–Canadian partnership, has been working since 1989 to maintain and enhance environmental quality in the Gulf of Maine. Through its own publications and others resulting from studies conducted under contract or in cooperation with other organizations, GOMC provides a complex publishing history for investigation. Over 300 publications were identified and over 500 citations were located after extensive searching using several citation tools. Citation patterns for GOMC publications mirror the findings of the study of GESAMP; grey literature is cited over lengthy periods, but grey literature tends to be cited primarily by other grey literature. Although digital alerting and access tools are increasing in number and coverage, a reliance on grey literature as the primary means of publication continues to pose hurdles for influencing scientific research, public policy, and public opinion. While grey literature is common to organizations such as GOMC and GESAMP, the impact of this literature can be muted because of the limitations of its dissemination and perceptions of its quality.