中国大学网站的网络计量学研究

利用网络计量学方法，分析了国内主要大学网站的链接数、网络影响因子与这些大学在国内比较公认的大学排名中的得分之间的相关关系。同时验证了利用不同的搜索引擎的数据得到的结果的一致性，以及就某一搜索引擎而言，不同时间段收集到的两轮数据得到的结果的一致性。     

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。     

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.     

面向学术图书的Altmetrics指标分析

[目的/意义] 探讨Altmetrics指标对学术图书影响力进行评价的有效性,为学术图书评价工作提出合理建议。[方法/过程] 获取Twitter提及量、Mendeley阅读量、在线书评数量以及馆藏量指标数据,对数据集的覆盖率、分位数等统计量分析后,将被引频数与Altmetrics指标进行了指标间相关系数检验,再对高Altmetrics指标值的学术图书进行年份分布、学科差异及图书主题等实证分析,探究各指标在学术图书影响力评价中的应用。[结果/结论] 传统计量指标被引频数与Altmetrics指标之间的相关性较低,说明Altmetrics可以作为学术图书评价的一个新视角,不同Altmetrics指标反映了学术图书影响力的不同维度。未来的学术图书影响力评价建议结合学术图书的年份、学科等特征,将传统的引文与Altmetrics指标相结合,探索更全面有效的评价机制。     

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。     

Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts?

Altmetrics from Altmetric.com are widely used by publishers and researchers to give earlier evidence of attention than citation counts. This article assesses whether Altmetric.com scores are reliable early indicators of likely future impact and whether they may also reflect non-scholarly impacts. A preliminary factor analysis suggests that the main altmetric indicator of scholarly impact is Mendeley reader counts, with weaker news, informational and social network discussion/promotion dimensions in some fields. Based on a regression analysis of Altmetric.com data from November 2015 and Scopus citation counts from October 2017 for articles in 30 narrow fields, only Mendeley reader counts are consistent predictors of future citation impact. Most other Altmetric.com scores can help predict future impact in some fields. Overall, the results confirm that early Altmetric.com scores can predict later citation counts, although less well than journal impact factors, and the optimal strategy is to consider both Altmetric.com scores and journal impact factors. Altmetric.com scores can also reflect dimensions of non-scholarly impact in some fields.     

Four pitfalls in normalizing citation indicators: An investigation of ESI’s selection of highly cited papers

InCites Essential Science Indicators is becoming increasingly used to identify top-performing research and evaluate the impact of institutes. Unfortunately, our study shows that ESI indicators, as well as other normalized citation indicators, have the following flaws. First, the publication month and the online-to-print delay affect a paper’s probability of becoming a Highly Cited Paper (HCP). Papers published in the earlier months of the year are more likely to accumulate enough citation counts to rank at the top 1% compared with those published in later months of the year. Papers with longer online-to-print delays have an apparent advantage for being selected as HCPs. Research field normalizations lead to the third pitfall. Different research fields have different citation thresholds for HCPs, making research field classification important for a journal. In addition, the uniform thresholds for both articles and reviews in ESI affect the reliability of HCP selection because, on average, reviews tend to have higher citation rates than articles. ESI’s selection of HCPs provides an intuitive feel for the problems of normalized citation impact indicators, such as those provided in InCites and SciVal.     

科学过程技能的性别差异

本研究运用表现性评价方式评价科学过程技能,结果发现男女学生的总体科学过程技能不存在差异,但除找出变量之外,其他各过程技能均存在差异。最后,针对这种性别差异讨论了相应的教学和评价建议。