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.     

Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations?

Dissertations can be the single most important scholarly outputs of junior researchers. Whilst sets of journal articles are often evaluated with the help of citation counts from the Web of Science or Scopus, these do not index dissertations and so their impact is hard to assess. In response, this article introduces a new multistage method to extract Google Scholar citation counts for large collections of dissertations from repositories indexed by Google. The method was used to extract Google Scholar citation counts for 77,884 American doctoral dissertations from 2013 to 2017 via ProQuest, with a precision of over 95%. Some ProQuest dissertations that were dual indexed with other repositories could not be retrieved with ProQuest-specific searches but could be found with Google Scholar searches of the other repositories. The Google Scholar citation counts were then compared with Mendeley reader counts, a known source of scholarly-like impact data. A fifth of the dissertations had at least one citation recorded in Google Scholar and slightly fewer had at least one Mendeley reader. Based on numerical comparisons, the Mendeley reader counts seem to be more useful for impact assessment purposes for dissertations that are less than two years old, whilst Google Scholar citations are more useful for older dissertations, especially in social sciences, arts and humanities. Google Scholar citation counts may reflect a more scholarly type of impact than that of Mendeley reader counts because dissertations attract a substantial minority of their citations from other dissertations. In summary, the new method now makes it possible for research funders, institutions and others to systematically evaluate the impact of dissertations, although additional Google Scholar queries for other online repositories are needed to ensure comprehensive coverage.     

科学评价视角下F1000、Mendeley与传统文献计量指标的比较

为了探讨同行评议、影响计量学以及传统文献计量指标在科学评价中的有效性,本文选取F1000、Mendeley以及Web of Science、Google Scholar数据库,采用SPSS 19.0软件,将心理学与生态学的1,3篇论文的同行评议结果即F1000因子、Mendeley阅读统计、期刊影响因子,以及Web of Science、Google Scholar数据库中被引频次进行相关分析。结果表明:同行评议结果、传统引文分析指标以及以Mendeley为代表的影响计量指标具有低度正相关性,这意味着上述指标在科学评价中审视视角的不同以及数字时代科学评价的多维构成;心理学筛选数据中F1000因子与期刊影响因子相关度几近为0,这一结论进一步证实了期刊影响因子与单篇论文影响力的严重背离;生态学与心理学指标相关分析结果的不同折射出科学评价中自然科学、社会科学的差异。图3。表4。参考文献10。     

从关键词词频看我国读者工作的发展

关键词是表达文献主题概念的自然语言词汇，通过分析关键词的变化可以全面把握该学科发展的动态过程、特点和规律。文章以重庆维普公司的《中文科技期刊数据库》为统计源。对1989～2003年读者工作的关键词进行统计分析，通过词频的变化，指出读者工作的发展动态和当前读者工作研究的热点和发展趋势。     

基于Mendeley与WoS的选择性计量指标与传统科学计量指标相关性研究

[目的/意义] 进一步探讨Web 2.0环境下选择性计量指标的有效性。[方法/过程] 以"data mining"为检索词,获得Mendeley与Web of Science两平台的交叉文献集合,分别对交叉文集的被引频数与阅读数、被引频数与标签数进行相关性检验后,从每组选取指标值差异最大与最小的各100篇文献进行具体分析。[结果/结论] 传统计量指标被引频数与Mendeley中的阅读数和标签数均存在弱相关性,证实了以阅读数和标签数为代表的选择性计量指标可以在一定程度上评估文献的影响力,且文献类型、出版年份和作者h指数会对用户阅读、引用等文献利用行为产生影响。未来文献影响力评价的发展方向应为传统文献计量方法与选择性计量方法的结合。     

赵树理研究的“喧器”与“沉寂”

昔日辉煌的赵树理方向与今日赵树理研究界的相对冷清同样是令人关注的文学现象。本文试图从时代背景、评论介入、创作心理及读者群的转换几个方面去分析赵树理的创作“命运”，并在此基础上体验赵树理创作的本真状态。     

翻译的文体选择初探

这里从语言史、翻译史、体学以及目标读的角度出发，认为既然原作语言适合其当初目标读的字阅读能力和接受水平，而且原作与其原目标读之间没有语言上的时代隔离现象，那么为了使译作的语言再现原作当初语言的时代特征，译作体的选择就应尽可能地服从我数目标读的语言使用偏好，采用现代语言，才能使译作和原作在体上取得尽可能的一致，共同凸显出作品语言的当代特征，只有这样的体选择，才能使名的重译现象得到合理的解释。     

常用文献管理软件功能比较

从用户的使用角度出发,在选择和使用文献管理软件方面对国内外7款常用文献管理软件的一些细节功能进行比较,分析各自的优势和不足,同时探讨文献管理软件的发展趋势。     

Militant Distribution: Votes for Women and the public sphere

The late nineteenth century American mass circulation press developed a style of ‘new journalism’ that gave rise to celebrity journalism. It is widely accepted that this new approach to reporting replaced news values with entertainment as a consequence of the need to cater to the tastes of a mass readership and this is seen to explain the incredible innovations that occurred in the press in the US at the time (Ponce de Leon; Roggenkamp; Tebbel; Turner; Schudson Discovering the News). This article questions this version of American press history by arguing that those papers also had to appeal to the politics of poor immigrants and the working class and that the conventions associated with celebrity overlapped and often coincided with a ‘radical’ populist campaigning style of reporting that was as important (and at times, more important) to building and sustaining mass readerships.