学术影响力的测度方法研究——以四川大学为例被引量：1

Study on the Measure Method of Academic Influence——Taking Sichuan University as an example

下载PDF

导出

摘要以四川大学为例,引入标准化的引用指标从多个方面对各学科的学术影响力进行比较、分析和评价,目的是消除不同学科由于引用习惯带来的差异性,使得评价结果能够合理地揭示出各学科学术影响力之间的差距,以期为其它研究实体的学术影响力评价提供参考。 This paper takes Sichuan University as an example, introduces the standard citation indicator to compare, analyze and evaluate in various aspects of the academic impact of various disciplines, the purpose is to eliminate the differences of citation between different disciplines, so that the evaluation results can reveal the difference of impact between disciplines. The evaluation process and method have the same reference value for other research entities ＇ assessment.

作者张黎俐舒予

机构地区四川大学图书馆

出处《四川图书馆学报》 2016年第3期53-56,共4页 Journal of The Library Science Society of Sichuan

关键词学术影响力标准化指标文献计量 academic influence standardization indicator bibliometric

分类号 G35 [文化科学—情报学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献9

1King D A. The scientific impact of nations [ J ]. Nature, 2004, 430(6997) : 311 -316.
2Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation[ C ]. American Association for the Advancement of Sci- ence, 1972.
3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
4Bornmann L, Daniel H D. Functional use of frequently and infrequently cited articles in citing publications. A content analysis of citations to articles with low and high citation counts[J]. European Science Editing, 2008, 34(2) : 35 - 38.
5Van Raan A F J. Measuring science [ M ]//Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Springer Neth- erlands, 2005 : 19 -50.
6Daniel H D. Publications as a measure of scientific ad- vancement and of scientists' productivity [ J ]. Learned pub- lishing, 2005, 18(2) : 143 - 148.
7Schubert A, Braun T. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact [ J ]. Scientometrics, 1986, 9 (5 - 6 ) : 281 - 291.
8Price D. DE. S. (1981), The analysis of scientometric metrics for policy implications [ J ]. Scientometrics, 3 : 47 - 54.
9Opthof T, Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ( "Leiden" ) evaluations of re- search performance [ J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4 ( 3 ) : 423 - 430.

二级参考文献23

1Schubert A, Braun T. Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36(3) : 311 -324.
2Schubert A, Braun T. Reference standards for citation based assessments[J]. Scientometrics, 1993, 26(1) : 21 -35.
3Schubert A, Braun T. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact [J]. Scientometrics, 1986, 9(5) : 281 -291.
4Vinkler P. Model for quantitative selection of relative scientometric impact indicators[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36 (2) : 223 - 236.
5Vinkler P. Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications[ J ]. Scientometrics, 1986, 10 (3) : 157 - 177.
6Glanzel W, Thijs B, Schubert A, et al. Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance [ J ]. Scientometries, 2009, 78 (1): 165-188.
7van Raan A F J. The use of bibliometric analysis in research performance assessment and monitoring of interdisciplinary scientific developments [ J ]. Assessment Theory and Practice, 2003, 1(12) : 20-29.
8Seglen P O. The skewness of science[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1992, 43 (9) : 628 - 638.
9Bornmann L. Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the opthof and leydesdorff (2010) paper [J]. Journal of Informetries, 2010, 4(3): 441 -443.
10Bornmann L, Mutz R, Neuhans C, et al. Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results [ J ].Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2008, 8 : 93 - 102.