国家科学数字图书馆网络联合参考咨询服务质量控制及评价方案研究*

介绍了国内外数字参考咨询服务质量评价体系的研究与应用概况。结合国家科学数字图书馆网络联合数字参考咨询服务的质量控制需要，在项目一期建设基础上选取部分指标建立了实际操作的评价体系，并制定了制度化的系统评价方案。     

档案袋评价在教育中的运用

在我们的生活与工作中，做记录并使之归档不是什么新鲜事，但要把档案记录作为一种教育评价方法却足近十几年的事。     

美、英、加、日、韩、俄等国图书情报教育的特色及其给我们的启示

美、英、加、日、韩、俄等国家的图书情报教育颇有特色,主要表现在:图书情报教育与图书馆职业资格认证制度相辅相成;强调培育自己的专业特色;设计模块化的课程结构;重视儿童与中小学图书馆人才的培养;对研究生的教育方式比较灵活;贯彻“改革、创新”的办学理念。     

专题：科技信息的开发获取（一）[张晓林编委组织]

科技信息的开放获取已成为影响学术信息交流与科学发展的重大问题，深刻地影响到科技政策、科技支撑环境发展战略和科技信息服务模式。一大批科学家、科研机构和许多国家的科学管理与科研资助机构，都积极地推动科技信息的开放获取。他们或者制定开放获取政策、要求或鼓励科研人员提供科研成果的开放获取，或者支持开放出版期刊，或者建立机构开放存储库、支持本机构科研成果开放获取。通过这一系列的措施，科学界希望能够促进科研成果不受限制地广泛传播和自由获取、以及促进科研成果通过公共机制长期可靠保存和利用，以保障科技知识资产的国家保护和科研机构的知识资产管理。     

基于核心素养的高中数学课程目标与学业评价

基于数学核心素养的课程目标制订,应当以"知识作为核心素养的生成本源"为逻辑线索,以"数学核心素养贯穿课程体系的整体支配模式"为框架,用体现目标水平的层次结构方式,兼顾学业评价的可操作性。对于数学核心素养,宜采用知识理解、知识迁移、知识创新三级水平刻画。知识理解指学生掌握基础知识、形成基本技能;知识迁移指学生将知识应用到新的情境中去解决问题的能力;知识创新指学生提出问题、推广问题的能力。这样划分数学核心素养水平,能反映数学课程目标的内核,具备学业质量测评的操作性特征。     

Enhancing Research Impact in Heritage Conservation

This paper examines how research impact is defined, measured, and generated – with a view to understanding how it can be enhanced within heritage conservation. It examines what is meant by ‘impact’ and how it can be promoted within heritage science through effective inter-disciplinary collaboration. Following a general examination of the current discourse concerning research impact, the study examined: (i) active research networks within heritage science; (ii) research planning and evaluation practices within heritage science; and (iii) the experiences of users (i.e. conservators and other heritage professionals) within research collaborations. Terminologies surrounding the notion of impact and the various phases of the research process were reviewed – from the initial identification of a knowledge gap to the eventual application of new findings in practice. Next, the reach and diversity of research collaborations (as identified through publication co-authorship) were studied to characterise the inter-disciplinary nature of heritage science and its connectedness to users. Findings showed substantial growth in international research collaborations over recent years, predominantly involving academic- and research-oriented institutions – although the engagement of heritage institutions has proportionally decreased. In addition, a worldwide survey of institutional planning and evaluation practices revealed a general reliance on processes driven by the interests of researchers – the systematic consideration of stakeholder opinion and evaluation of research outcomes being less common. Finally, a series of semi-structured interviews with senior heritage professionals explored their experience of collaborative research. The results identified key areas where strategic support is needed to promote user participation and enhance impact. These include training for research readiness, engagement, and impact for both researchers and users; better methods for needs and outcome assessment; affordable open access options and greater diversity of knowledge exchange opportunities. Finally, the need for ethical guidelines for responsible research, and greater emphasis on non-academic impact within research rating systems are discussed.     

谢拉的文献工作教育思想与实践

在1952—1970年担任西储大学图书馆学院院长期间,谢拉积极探索文献工作教育:在学科理论方面,进行文献工作学科理论建设;在学术研究方面,设立美国图书馆学院第一个专门的文献工作研究中心“文献工作与交流研究中心”;在教学活动方面,在图书馆学教育项目中引入文献工作相关课程,强化以文献工作为重点的专业图书馆人才培养。谢拉的文献工作教育是对传统图书馆学教育的改造,适应了图书馆学教育专门化的发展趋势,其立足点是以文献工作提升图书馆职业的社会价值,服务于图书馆人才培养,体现出明显的图书馆本位立场。谢拉领导下的西储大学图书馆学院的文献工作教育是一种过渡形态的早期情报学教育,促进了20世纪美国图书馆学教育向图书情报学教育格局的转型。参考文献62。     

我国公共文化场馆免费开放政策检视与反思

以公共图书馆为例,运用文化权利、政策过程理论对我国公共文化场馆免费开放展开政策检视和反思。研究发现,免费开放政策取得重要成效,但亦存在问题:恒定的经费补贴量难以满足免费开放后文化供给量和服务量的增长;经费分担机制未完全落实;按行政层级设计的补贴标准难以关照到不同规模的公共图书馆需要;监督管理和考核评价机制缺失,政策激励约束不足。这主要是因为动态的政策调整和优化未能及时跟进,中央地方事权与支出责任划分不明确、支出责任与财力不匹配以及政策成本高于收益。因此,建议完善分类资助标准,设计多重综合标准;建立完善经费保障的动态调整机制,创新财政保障方式;建立绩效评价体系,形成激励约束机制。表2。参考文献27。     

Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines

Many studies demonstrate differences in the coverage of citing publications in Google Scholar (GS) and Web of Science (WoS). Here, we examine to what extent citation data from the two databases reflect the scholarly impact of women and men differently. Our conjecture is that WoS carries an indirect gender bias in its selection criteria for citation sources that GS avoids due to criteria that are more inclusive. Using a sample of 1250 U.S. researchers in Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Cardiology and Chemistry, we examine gender differences in the average citation coverage of the two databases. We also calculate database-specific h-indices for all authors in the sample. In repeated simulations of hiring scenarios, we use these indices to examine whether women's appointment rates increase if hiring decisions rely on data from GS in lieu of WoS. We find no systematic gender differences in the citation coverage of the two databases. Further, our results indicate marginal to non-existing effects of database selection on women's success-rates in the simulations. In line with the existing literature, we find the citation coverage in WoS to be largest in Cardiology and Chemistry and smallest in Political Science and Sociology. The concordance between author-based h-indices measured by GS and WoS is largest for Chemistry followed by Cardiology, Political Science, Sociology and Economics.     

Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter

This study explores science communication on Twitter by investigating a sample of tweets referring to academic papers in five different scientific fields. The specifications of science communicators on Twitter, the characteristics of those who initiate actions (by tweeting), the extent and quality of reactions (retweeting), individual and group interactions, and the distribution of tweets across types of engagement in the process of science communication (i.e., dissemination, consultation, and evaluation) were explored. A broad array of actors is involved in the communication of science on Twitter, with individual citizens and individual researchers playing an important role. In principle, this is promising for creating direct interaction, which can be difficult through more traditional mass media. The vast majority of communication activities regarding academic papers is undigested dissemination with almost no sign of debate, contestation, or collective reflection. Another general finding of this study is that bot accounts play a major role in the science communication landscape on Twitter.