基于百分位数指标的个人科研绩效评价研究被引量：14

Evaluation of personal scientific research performance based on percentile indicators

导出

摘要基于百分位数的文献计量指标是在关于相对引用指标的讨论中提出的,随后逐渐应用于研究绩效评价。本文比较和分析了现有的文献计量评价指标,并进一步探索了以ESI学科分类为基础的百分位数指标的计算方法,最后以中国农业大学为例进行实证研究,以期验证百分位数指标用于个人科研绩效评价的可行性和适用性,为机构或其他各种研究实体的个人科研绩效评价提供参考。 Percentiles indicators have been established in bibliometrics as an important alternative to Relative Citation Rate,and then applied to the evaluation of research performance. This paper compare and analyze the existing bibliometric indicators briefly,and further explore the approximate calculation method of MNCS and percentiles on the basis of the ESI subject classification. Finally,it realizes the empirical study of China Agriculture University,in order to verify the feasibility and applicability of percentiles,to provide the reference for academic influence evaluation of other institute or research entities.

作者郑芳周群陈仕吉左文革

机构地区中国农业大学图书馆

出处《科研管理》 CSSCI 北大核心 2013年第S1期189-194,共6页 Science Research Management

关键词个人科研绩效百分位数 MNCS 文献计量学 personal research performance percentiles MNCS bibliometrics

分类号 G353.12 [文化科学—情报学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献8

1陈仕吉,史丽文,左文革.基于ESI的学术影响力指标测度方法与实证[J].图书情报工作,2013,57(2):97-102. 被引量：45
2陈仕吉,史丽文,李冬梅,左文革.论文被引频次标准化方法述评[J].现代图书情报技术,2012(4):54-60. 被引量：42
3Ludo Waltman,Clara Calero‐Medina,Joost Kosten,Ed C.M. Noyons,Robert J.W. Tijssen,Nees Jan Eck,Thed N. Leeuwen,Anthony F.J. Raan,Martijn S. Visser,Paul Wouters.The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation[J]. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec . 2012 (12)
4Lutz Bornmann.The new Excellence Indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011[J]. Journal of Informetrics . 2011 (2)
5Ludo Waltman,Nees Jan van Eck,Thed N. van Leeuwen,Martijn S. Visser,Anthony F.J. van Raan.Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations[J]. Journal of Informetrics . 2010 (1)
6Lutz Bornmann.Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: The avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization[J]. Journal of Informetrics . 2010 (1)
7Lutz Bornmann.Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) paper[J]. Journal of Informetrics . 2010 (3)
8Anonymous.Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (NSB 10-01)[J]. Research Technology Management . 2010 (3)

二级参考文献59

1HEFCE. HEFCE : Publications Research Funding: Introduction [2012 - 02 - 13 ]. http://www 98_54. htm. : 1998 : Consultation 98/54 - of a Policy Factor [ EB/OL]. hefce, ac. uk/pubs/hefce/1998/.
2Glanzel W, Thijs B, Schubert A, et al. Subfield - specific Nor- malized Relative Indicators and a New Generation of Relational Charts: Methodological Foundations Illustrated on the Assessment of Institutional Research Performance [ J ]. Scientometrics, 2009, 78(1) : 165 -188.
3van Raan A F J. The Use of Bibliometric Analysis in Research Per- formanee Assessment and Monitoring of Interdisciplinary Scientific Developments [ J ]. Assessment Theory and Practice, 2003,1 ( 12 ) : 20 - 29.
4Schubert A, Braun T. Relative Indicators and Relational Charts for Comparative Assessment of Publication Output and Citation Impact [J]. Scientometrics, 1986, 9(5) : 281 -291.
5Schubert A, Braun T. Reference Standards for Citation Based As- sessments [J]. Scientometrics, 1993, 26(1): 21 -35.
6Vinkler P. The Case of Seientometricians with the "Absolute Rela- tive" Impact Indicator [ J ]. Journal of Informetrics, 2012, 6 ( 2 ) : 254 - 264.
7Vinkler P. Model for Quantitative Selection of Relative Scientomet- rie Impact Indicators [ J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36 (2) : 223 - 236.
8Waltman L, van Eck N J, van Leeuwen T N, et al. Towards a New Crown Indicator: Some Theoretical Considerations [ J ]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5 ( 1 ) : 37 -47.
9Leydesdorff L, Opthof T. Remaining Problems with the " New Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS[J]. Journal oflnformet- tics, 2011,5(1): 224-225.
10Gingras Y, Lariviere V. There are Neither "King" nor "Crown" in Scientometrics: Comments on A Supposed "Alternative" Method of Normalization [J]. Journal of lnformetrics, 2011, 5 (1): 226- 227.