科学叠加图谱及其应用研究被引量：4

Science Overlay Map and Its Application

导出

摘要文章首先分析了全域科学图谱中各学科之间的关联及其作为科学叠加图谱中基础图谱的可行性,然后以不同机构的科学叠加图谱为例,对机构间的学科成果进行横向对比,对机构内随时间推移而变化的学科成果进行纵向对比。研究表明,科学叠加图谱便于人们从学科视角一目了然地发现机构的优势与特色学科,发现本机构科研活动的演变态势,还可为寻找未来合作伙伴提供事实依据,可作为展示机构学科成果的一种有效可视化工具。 This paper analyzes that it is feasible to take a global map of science as a base map of a science overlay map,illustrating the relationship among disciplines in a global map of science. Several science overlay maps of different universities are made to compare both on the outputs of different organizations transversely and on the outputs within an organization vertically. The result indicates that science overlay maps fit with researchers from the perspective of discipline to easily find the advantage and characteristic disciplines,track temporal changes and explore collaborations. Science overlay map can be an effective tool to illustrate portfolios of organizations.

作者孙茜赵旭王大盈

机构地区陕西师范大学图书馆

出处《情报资料工作》 CSSCI 北大核心 2016年第5期53-60,共8页 Information and Documentation Services

关键词科学叠加图谱全域科学图谱可视化分析 science overlay map, global map of science, visualization analysis

分类号 G353.1 [文化科学—情报学] G301 [文化科学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献23

1Noyons E.Bibliometric mapping of science in a science policy context[J].Scientometries,2001,18(3):83-98.
2Boyack K W.Using detailed maps of science to identify poten-tial collaborations[J].Scientometrics,2009,79( 1):27-44.
3Boyack K W,Klavans R,BOrner K.Mapping the backbone of sci- ence[J].Scientometrics,2005,64(3):351-374.
4Noyons E,Calero-Medina C.Applying bibliometric mapping in a high level science policy context [J].Scientometrics,2009,79(2): 261-275.
5Kla'~ans R,Boyack K W.Toward an objcctive,rehabie and accu- rate method for measuring research leadership[J].Scientomet- ries,2010,82(3):539-553.
6White H D,Mccain K W.Visualizing a diseipline: an author co- eitation analysis of information seienee,1972-1995[J].Journal of the Ameriean Society for Information Science,1998,49 (4):327- 355.
7Besselaar P V D,Leydesdofff L.Mapping ehange in seientific specialties: a scientometric reconstruction of the development of artificial intelligence [J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1996,47(6):415-436.
8Chen C M,Carr L.Trailblazing the literature of hypertext: author co-citation analysis (1989-1998) [C]. Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia : Returning to Our Diverse Roots.New York: ACM,1999:51-60.
9普赖斯.科学的科学[M]//戈德史密斯,A.L.马凯.科学的科学-技术时代的社会.北京:科学出版社.1985:241-242.
10Griffith B,Small H,Stonehill J,et aLStructure of scientific litera- tures II: toward a macro- and microstructure for science[J].Sci- ence Studies ,1974,4 (4): 339-365.

二级参考文献26

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.