Purpose: To give a theoretical framework to measure the relative impact of bibliometric methodology on the subfields of a scientific discipline, and how that impact depends on the method of evaluation used to credit i...Purpose: To give a theoretical framework to measure the relative impact of bibliometric methodology on the subfields of a scientific discipline, and how that impact depends on the method of evaluation used to credit individual scientists with citations and publications. The authors include a study of the discipline of physics to illustrate the method. Indicators are introduced to measure the proportion of a credit space awarded to a subfield or a set of authors.Design/methodology/approach: The theoretical methodology introduces the notion of credit spaces for a discipline. These quantify the total citation or publication credit accumulated by the scientists in the discipline. One can then examine how the credit is divided among the subfields. The design of the physics study uses the American Physical Society print journals to assign subdiscipline classifications to articles and gather citation, publication, and author information. Credit spaces for the collection of Physical Review Journal articles are computed as a proxy for physics.Findings: There is a substantial difference in the value or impact of a specific subfield depending on the credit system employed to credit individual authors.Research limitations: Subfield classification information is difficult to obtain. In the illustrative physics study, subfields are treated in groups designated by the Physical Review journals. While this collection of articles represents a broad part of the physics literature, it is not all the literature nor a random sample.Practical implications: The method of crediting individual scientists has consequences beyond the individual and affects the perceived impact of whole subfields and institutions. Originality/value: The article reveals the consequences of bibliometric methodology on subfields of a disciple by introducing a systematic theoretical framework for measuring the consequences.展开更多
The contributions of scientific researchers include personal influence and talent training achievements. In this paper, using 9964 high-quality coauthor scientific papers in English teaching research from China citati...The contributions of scientific researchers include personal influence and talent training achievements. In this paper, using 9964 high-quality coauthor scientific papers in English teaching research from China citation database from 1997 to 2016, a weighted coauthor network with variety factors is constructed. A model was proposed to calculate the author’s contribution to the research team by combining personal and network characteristics. The results reveal a variety of characteristics of the co-author networks in English teaching research field, including statistical properties, community features, and authors’ contribution to teams in this discipline.展开更多
[目的/意义]通过文献调研梳理合著论文作者贡献度评价方法,总结研究不足及未来发展方向,为后续开展科技人才评价相关研究提供参考。[研究设计/方法]在Web of Science、Springe Link和CNKI等学术平台检索2010-2023年间发表的合著论文作...[目的/意义]通过文献调研梳理合著论文作者贡献度评价方法,总结研究不足及未来发展方向,为后续开展科技人才评价相关研究提供参考。[研究设计/方法]在Web of Science、Springe Link和CNKI等学术平台检索2010-2023年间发表的合著论文作者贡献度评价方法的研究文献,从传统评价方法、基于作者贡献声明的评价方法和基于科研产出的评价方法三个方面对文献进行归纳梳理。[结论/发现]合著论文作者贡献度评价方法已经取得了丰富的研究成果,但仍存在一些不足之处。未来的研究应从多方面出发考虑,进一步探索作者研究领域、作者学术关键词等学术背景因素对合著论文参与程度的影响,深入挖掘引文语义特征关系,以及加强对新模型及机器学习、深度学习算法的应用。[创新/价值]揭示了合著论文作者贡献度评价方法的发展进程与特点,阐述了合著论文作者贡献度评价方法的未来发展方向。展开更多
在全球化趋势下,高校之间的国际合作不断加深,研究生培养和教师科研合作的广度和深度也在不断变化,合著论文是高校研究生培养和科研合作国际化的重要指标之一。文章基于Web of Science数据库平台,以国内8所不同办学层次的高校为研究对象...在全球化趋势下,高校之间的国际合作不断加深,研究生培养和教师科研合作的广度和深度也在不断变化,合著论文是高校研究生培养和科研合作国际化的重要指标之一。文章基于Web of Science数据库平台,以国内8所不同办学层次的高校为研究对象,从科研论文及国际合著论文角度,对高校科研领域研究生培养和科研合作国际化进行评价分析。结果表明:Top、C9高校具有稳定的国际合作交流环境,国际合著论文占比、论文合著增长及变化率基本保持稳定;211院校的国际科研合作交流活跃,合著论文的增长趋势比较明显;地方院校国际合作还处在初期阶段,国际科研合作对研究生培养和论文产出的反哺态势还不明显。展开更多
文摘Purpose: To give a theoretical framework to measure the relative impact of bibliometric methodology on the subfields of a scientific discipline, and how that impact depends on the method of evaluation used to credit individual scientists with citations and publications. The authors include a study of the discipline of physics to illustrate the method. Indicators are introduced to measure the proportion of a credit space awarded to a subfield or a set of authors.Design/methodology/approach: The theoretical methodology introduces the notion of credit spaces for a discipline. These quantify the total citation or publication credit accumulated by the scientists in the discipline. One can then examine how the credit is divided among the subfields. The design of the physics study uses the American Physical Society print journals to assign subdiscipline classifications to articles and gather citation, publication, and author information. Credit spaces for the collection of Physical Review Journal articles are computed as a proxy for physics.Findings: There is a substantial difference in the value or impact of a specific subfield depending on the credit system employed to credit individual authors.Research limitations: Subfield classification information is difficult to obtain. In the illustrative physics study, subfields are treated in groups designated by the Physical Review journals. While this collection of articles represents a broad part of the physics literature, it is not all the literature nor a random sample.Practical implications: The method of crediting individual scientists has consequences beyond the individual and affects the perceived impact of whole subfields and institutions. Originality/value: The article reveals the consequences of bibliometric methodology on subfields of a disciple by introducing a systematic theoretical framework for measuring the consequences.
基金the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61402119).
文摘The contributions of scientific researchers include personal influence and talent training achievements. In this paper, using 9964 high-quality coauthor scientific papers in English teaching research from China citation database from 1997 to 2016, a weighted coauthor network with variety factors is constructed. A model was proposed to calculate the author’s contribution to the research team by combining personal and network characteristics. The results reveal a variety of characteristics of the co-author networks in English teaching research field, including statistical properties, community features, and authors’ contribution to teams in this discipline.
文摘[目的/意义]通过文献调研梳理合著论文作者贡献度评价方法,总结研究不足及未来发展方向,为后续开展科技人才评价相关研究提供参考。[研究设计/方法]在Web of Science、Springe Link和CNKI等学术平台检索2010-2023年间发表的合著论文作者贡献度评价方法的研究文献,从传统评价方法、基于作者贡献声明的评价方法和基于科研产出的评价方法三个方面对文献进行归纳梳理。[结论/发现]合著论文作者贡献度评价方法已经取得了丰富的研究成果,但仍存在一些不足之处。未来的研究应从多方面出发考虑,进一步探索作者研究领域、作者学术关键词等学术背景因素对合著论文参与程度的影响,深入挖掘引文语义特征关系,以及加强对新模型及机器学习、深度学习算法的应用。[创新/价值]揭示了合著论文作者贡献度评价方法的发展进程与特点,阐述了合著论文作者贡献度评价方法的未来发展方向。
文摘在全球化趋势下,高校之间的国际合作不断加深,研究生培养和教师科研合作的广度和深度也在不断变化,合著论文是高校研究生培养和科研合作国际化的重要指标之一。文章基于Web of Science数据库平台,以国内8所不同办学层次的高校为研究对象,从科研论文及国际合著论文角度,对高校科研领域研究生培养和科研合作国际化进行评价分析。结果表明:Top、C9高校具有稳定的国际合作交流环境,国际合著论文占比、论文合著增长及变化率基本保持稳定;211院校的国际科研合作交流活跃,合著论文的增长趋势比较明显;地方院校国际合作还处在初期阶段,国际科研合作对研究生培养和论文产出的反哺态势还不明显。
