基于动态权重的百分位数指标在学术影响力评价中的应用被引量：4

Application of Percentile Indicator Based on Dynamic Weight in the Evaluation of Academic Influence

导出

摘要 [目的 /意义]在对MNCS和百分位数两种指标机制进行阐述、对比和分析的基础上,对百分位数指标的计算框架进行改进,提出一种动态权重的百分位数指标用于学术影响力的评价。[方法 /过程]以ESI学科为评价对象,分别选取同一研究实体下的不同学科和不同研究实体下的同一学科作为两个实例进行实证研究。[结果/结论]实证结果表明这种动态权重的百分位数指标与MNCS和百分位数指标相比更能展现评价对象学术影响力的细节。 [ Purpose/significance ] Based on the elaboration, comparison and analysis of the mechanism of the two indicators between MNCS and percentile rank score, the calculation framework of the percentile rank score is improved, and a dynamic - weight percentile rank score indicators for the evaluation of academic influence is put forward. [ Method/ process]Taking the ESI disciplines as evaluation object,the evaluation of different disciplines of one research entity and same discipline of different research entities are selected as two examples for empirical research. [ Result/conclusion] The empirical result shows that the dynamic weight of the percentile indicator can better show the details of the academic influence of the research entities than the MNCS and percentile rank score indicators.

作者舒予张黎俐

机构地区四川大学图书馆

出处《图书情报工作》 CSSCI 北大核心 2016年第11期93-99,共7页 Library and Information Service

基金四川大学2016年青年教师科研启动基金项目"学科标准化的科研评估指标体系构建及实证研究"(项目编号:2016SCU11059)研究成果之一

关键词文献计量 MNCS 百分位数动态权重学术影响力 bibliometric MNCS percentile rank score dynamic-weight academic influence

分类号 G353.1 [文化科学—情报学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献15

1BORNMANN L,DANIEL H D. Functional use of frequently andinfrequently cited articles in citing publications : a content analysisof citations to articles with low and high citation counts [ J ], Euro-pean science editing, 2008, 34(2) : 35 -38.
2MOED H F. Citation analysis in research evaluation [ M ]. Dor-drecht :Springer, 2006.
3DANIEL H D. Publications as a measure of scientific advancementand of scientists’ pixwJuctivity[ J]. Learned publishing, 2005, 18(2); 143 -148.
4VAN RAAN A. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative coreof peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises[ J]. Scien-tometrics, 1996, 36(3) : 397 -420.
5Moed H F, BURGER WJM, FRANKFORT J G, et al. The use ofbibliometric data for the measurement of university research per-formance [J] .Research policy, 1985, 14(3) : 131 - 149.
6VAN RAAN A. Comparison of the Hirsch - index with standardbibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry re-search groups[J]. Scientometrics, 2006,67(3) : 491 -502.
7OPTHOF T,LEYDESDORFF L. Caveats for the journal and fieldnormalizations in the CWTS (“ Leiden,’) evaluations of researchperformance [ J ]. Journal of informetrics, 2010,4(3): 423-430.
8WALTMAN L, VAN ECK N J,VAN LEEUWEN TN, et al. To-wards a new crown indicator: some theoretical considerations[ J].Journal of informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 37 -47.
9WALTMAN L,VAN ECK N J,VAN LEEUWEN T N,et al. To-wards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis[ J]. Sciento-metrics, 2011, 87(3) : 467 -481.
10BORNMANN L. Towards an ideal method of measuring researchperformance: some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff(2010) paper [ J ]. Journal of informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 441-443.

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.