A Scholar of Dignity:Remembering Peter Luh

It was a shock and disbelief to learn of Peter's death last December.To me,he was so fit in his figure,so healthy in his lifestyle,so mild and mindful in his social behavior,and so devout in his religious belief,......,I had expected a long and happy life for him,and planned to join his 80th or even 100th birthday celebration.

Ranking academic institutions based on the productivity,impact,and quality of institutional scholars

Purpose:The quantitative rankings of over 55,000 institutions and their institutional programs are based on the individual rankings of approximately 30 million scholars determined by their productivity,impact,and quality.Design/methodology/approach:The institutional ranking process developed here considers all institutions in all countries and regions,thereby including those that are established,as well as those that are emerging in scholarly prowess.Rankings of individual scholars worldwide are first generated using the recently introduced,fully indexed ScholarGPS database.The rankings of individual scholars are extended here to determine the lifetime and last-five-year Top 20 rankings of academic institutions over all Fields of scholarly endeavor,in 14 individual Fields,in 177 Disciplines,and in approximately 350,000 unique Specialties.Rankings associated with five specific Fields(Medicine,Engineering&Computer Science,Life Sciences,Physical Sciences&Mathematics,and Social Sciences),and in two Disciplines(Chemistry,and Electrical&Computer Engineering)are presented as examples,and changes in the rankings over time are discussed.Findings:For the Fields considered here,the Top 20 institutional rankings in Medicine have undergone the least change(lifetime versus last five years),while the rankings in Engineering&Computer Science have exhibited significant change.The evolution of institutional rankings over time is largely attributed to the recent emergence of Chinese academic institutions,although this emergence is shown to be highly Field-and Discipline-dependent.Practical implementations:Existing rankings of academic institutions have:(i)often been restricted to pre-selected institutions,clouding the potential discovery of scholarly activity in emerging institutions and countries;(ii)considered only broad areas of research,limiting the ability of university leadership to act on the assessments in a concrete manner,or in contrast;(iii)have considered only a narrow area of research for comparison,diminishing the broader applicability and impact of the assessment.In general,existing institutional rankings depend on which institutions are included in the ranking process,which areas of research are considered,the breadth(or granularity)of the research areas of interest,and the methodologies used to define and quantify research performance.In contrast,the methods presented here can provide important data over a broad range of granularity to allow responsible individuals to gauge the performance of any institution from the Overall(all Fields)level,to the level of the Specialty.The methods may also assist identification of the root causes of shifts in institution rankings,and how these shifts vary across hundreds of thousands of Fields,Disciplines,and Specialties of scholarly endeavor.Originality/value:This study provides the first ranking of all academic institutions worldwide over Fields,Disciplines,and Specialties based on a unique methodology that quantifies the productivity,impact,and quality of individual scholars.

Talking Justice,the Chinese Way

Western legal scholars learn from China’s approach to justice at a seminar held at Oxford University.Mediation can work better than prosecution and prison.

Peculiarities of gender disambiguation and ordering of non-English authors’names for Economic papers beyond core databases

Purpose:To supplement the quantitative portrait of Ukrainian Economics discipline with the results of gender and author ordering analysis at the level of individual authors,special methods of working with bibliographic data with a predominant share of non-English authors are used.The properties of gender mixing,the likelihood of male and female authors occupying the first position in the authorship list,as well as the arrangements of names are studied.Design/methodology/approach:A data set containing bibliographic records related to Ukrainian journal publications in the field of Economics is constructed using Crossref metadata.Partial semi-automatic disambiguation of authors’names is performed.First names,along with gender-specific ethnic surnames,are used for gender disambiguation required for further comparative gender analysis.Random reshuffling of data is used to determine the impact of gender correlations.To assess the level of alphabetization for our data set,both Latin and Cyrillic versions of names are taken into account.Findings:The lack of well-structured metadata and the poor use of digital identifiers lead to numerous problems with automatization of bibliographic data pre-processing,especially in the case of publications by non-Western authors.The described stages for working with such specific data help to work at the level of authors and analyse,in particular,gender issues.Despite the larger number of female authors,gender equality is more likely to be reported at the individual level for the discipline of Ukrainian Economics.The tendencies towards collaborative or solo-publications and gender mixing patterns are found to be dependent on the journal:the differences for publications indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science databases are found.It has also been found that Ukrainian Economics research is characterized by rather a non-alphabetical order of authors.Research limitations:Only partial authors’name disambiguation is performed in a semi-automatic way.Gender labels can be derived only for authors declared by full First names or gender-specific Last names.Practical implications:The typical features of Ukrainian Economic discipline can be used to perform a comparison with other countries and disciplines,to develop an informed-based assessment procedure at the national level.The proposed way of processing publication data can be borrowed to enrich metadata about other research disciplines,especially for non-English speaking countries.Originality/value:To our knowledge,this is the first large-scale quantitative study of Ukrainian Economic discipline.The results obtained are valuable not only at the national level,but also contribute to general knowledge about Economic research,gender issues,and authors’names ordering.An example of the use of Crossref data is provided,while this data source is still less used due to a number of drawbacks.Here,for the first time,attention is drawn to the explicit use of the features of the Slavic authors’names.

Google Scholar University Ranking Algorithm to Evaluate the Quality of Institutional Research

Education quality has undoubtedly become an important local and international benchmark for education,and an institute’s ranking is assessed based on the quality of education,research projects,theses,and dissertations,which has always been controversial.Hence,this research paper is influenced by the institutes ranking all over the world.The data of institutes are obtained through Google Scholar(GS),as input to investigate the United Kingdom’s Research Excellence Framework(UK-REF)process.For this purpose,the current research used a Bespoke Program to evaluate the institutes’ranking based on their source.The bespoke program requires changes to improve the results by addressing these methodological issues:Firstly,Redundant profiles,which increased their citation and rank to produce false results.Secondly,the exclusion of theses and dissertation documents to retrieve the actual publications to count for citations.Thirdly,the elimination of falsely owned articles from scholars’profiles.To accomplish this task,the experimental design referred to collecting data from 120 UK-REF institutes and GS for the present year to enhance its correlation analysis in this new evaluation.The data extracted from GS is processed into structured data,and afterward,it is utilized to generate statistical computations of citations’analysis that contribute to the ranking based on their citations.The research promoted the predictive approach of correlational research.Furthermore,experimental evaluation reported encouraging results in comparison to the previous modi-fication made by the proposed taxonomy.This paper discussed the limitations of the current evaluation and suggested the potential paths to improve the research impact algorithm.

CIIS Holds the 20th China-US Young Scholars’Dialogue

From November 7 to 10,the China Institute of International Studies(CIIS)held the 20th China-US Yong Scholars’Dialogue,with the theme of“Finding the Right Way for China and the US to Get Along in the New Era:Opportunities and Challenges.”CIIS President Chen Bo delivered the opening remarks,and Vice President Liu Qing delivered the closing speech.

Alternation and Evolution of the Fables of Pre-Qin Scholars Along With the Contextual Changes

The fables of Pre-Qin scholars occupied an important position in the history of the development of Chinese culture,thoughts,and literature,hence had profound and extensive influence on later generations.As a kind of carrier of thoughts,the fables of the Pre-Qin scholars were not immutable and frozen,for they have been influenced by various aspects in the process of transmitting and recognizing.This article attempts to study the evolution of the function,expression,and connotation of the fables of the Pre-Qin scholars.

WORLD CLASS UNIVERSITY RANKING: GLOBAL VIEW OF CHINESE SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION

On the basis of research evaluation of Chinese universities,Golden Apple Ranking(GAR)was initiated by Research Center of Chinese Science Evaluation(RCCSE)at Wuhan University in 2003.The GAR consists of four major rankings:Chinese University Ranking,Chinese Graduate School Ranking,World University Ranking and Scholarly Journal Ranking.The annual reports of all these four rankings are published bythe Science Press,which have been recognized by the academia and China's government.

基于外文学术资源可开放获取的路径研究

当前,为了获取最前沿的专业学术资料,各高校都会购置一些专业的外文学术数据库,如 Springer Link、ScienceDirect数据库等。但是,因为经费的限制,还有许多优秀的西文电子论文无法获取全文,给科研工作造成了一定的阻碍。本文从AMiner科技情报挖掘与服务平台;Google Scholar(GS)谷歌学术镜像;Go OA资源检索平台;Arxiv预印本系统;世界知名高校学位论文库五个方面介绍了免费获取专业外文学术资源的方法,以满足专业人员的需求。

科学评价视角下F1000、Mendeley与传统文献计量指标的比较

为了探讨同行评议、影响计量学以及传统文献计量指标在科学评价中的有效性,本文选取F1000、Mendeley以及Web of Science、Google Scholar数据库,采用SPSS 19.0软件,将心理学与生态学的1,033篇论文的同行评议结果即F1000因子、Mendeley阅读统计、期刊影响因子,以及Web of Science、Google Scholar数据库中被引频次进行相关分析。结果表明:同行评议结果、传统引文分析指标以及以Mendeley为代表的影响计量指标具有低度正相关性,这意味着上述指标在科学评价中审视视角的不同以及数字时代科学评价的多维构成;心理学筛选数据中F1000因子与期刊影响因子相关度几近为0,这一结论进一步证实了期刊影响因子与单篇论文影响力的严重背离;生态学与心理学指标相关分析结果的不同折射出科学评价中自然科学、社会科学的差异。

从引文分析的角度比较Google Scholar与Web of Science的优势与不足

从期刊被引频次的角度出发,采取实证研究的方法,选取国际权威的引文数据库Web of Science和著名的搜索引擎Google Scholar,以《美国信息科学和技术学会杂志》为文献源,对Web of Science和Google Scholar两个引文分析工具进行比较和探讨。

不同类型选择性计量指标评价论文相关性研究——基于Mendeley、F1000和GoogleScholar三种学术社交网络工具

本文探索了一个新的情报学研究理论——选择性计量学，对选择性计量学的内涵、特性和国内外的相关研究进行了详细论述。选取Mendeley、F1000和GoogleSchol三种学术社交网络工具中的不同类型的选择性计量方法评价同一组论文的结果一致性进行了验证。研究结果表明Mendeley的读者人数指标与GoogleSchol的被引次数指标在论文评价结果的相关程度相对较高。

Web of Science和Google Scholar引文检索功能比较

文章从检索范围、检索方法、检索结果以及检索效果等方面对WebofScience和GoogleScholar的引文检索功能进行了比较分析,指出它们各自的优势和不足。

基于深度学习的学术搜索引擎——Semantic Scholar

[目的/意义]Alpha Go战胜李世石后,人工智能的研究与发展备受关注。在此之前不久,基于深度学习的Semantic Scholar免费学术搜索引擎的问世,也为科研工作者们搜索和筛选学术文献资源带来了新的体验。[方法 /过程]在介绍人工智能、机器学习和深度学习之间关系的基础上,介绍了Semantic Scholar的检索功能,重点就该引擎基于系统在理解文献内容基础上的学术影响力评价功能作了分析,并将Semantic Scholar与现行主流学术搜索引擎Google Scholar、Microsoft Academic、必应学术和百度学术进行比较研究。[结果/结论]Semantic Scholar通过机器学习可以使系统理解不同引用之间的影响力差异,提出了基于引用内容分析的学术影响力评价指标,但在信息来源、学科范围、检索功能和个性化服务功能方面还有待进一步完善。最后提出今后学术搜索引擎的发展展望。

Google Scholar、Scirus及PubMed检索功能对比研究

对比权威数据库PubMed及权威学术搜索工具Google Scholar、Scirus的检索功能,主要比较检索方法、检索结果、结果输出格式等方面的功能,利用10个题目的检索试验比较检索效果,并分析3种工具的各自特点。Google Scholar的收录范围最广;PubMed检索功能优于其它两种工具;在输出结果的格式方面,3种检索工具各具特色。

科学搜索引擎与学术搜索工具——Scirus与Google Scholar比较研究

Scirus与Google Scholar是两个专业学术搜索引擎,为用户提供互联网上的专业学术信息。本文对Scirus与GoogleScholar进行了介绍并对二者信息来源、检索功能、检索实例等方面进行了比较分析。

跨学科文献的多类选择性计量指标的定量比较研究

本文针对跨学科科研文献开展多类型选择性计量学的定量分析。选取F1000的Ffa因子作为专家推荐指标、GoogleScholar和WoS的被引用次数作为引用指标、Altmetrics．COB中所列两项参数作为社交网络指标，对1131篇跨学科论文样本集计量结果的覆盖率与相关性进行了验证，研究结果表明，GoogleScholar和WoS覆盖率较高，Twitter和Facebook的覆盖率较低；GoogleScholar和WoS、Twitter和Facebook具有较强的正相关性和线性相关性，WoS与Twitter具有较弱的正相关性。

SciFinder Scholar数据库在药理学文献检索领域的应用

SciFinder Scholar是美国化学文摘社(CAS)为科研人员提供的CA的网络检索系统。本文在简要介绍SciFinder Scholar数据库内容的基础上,通过其在药理学文献检索领域的应用这一具体实例详细介绍了SciFinder Schdar数据库的检索方法及技巧,并初步探讨了SciFinder Scholar在科研方面的强大功能。

Google Scholar与跨库检索系统的比较研究

Google Scholar和跨库检索系统都是对大量的异构学术资源提供一个统一的检索界面,为用户提供"一站式"服务。本文首先对跨库检索系统及Google Scholar的检索方式及检索性能进行了介绍及分析,其次对二者从检索策略、检索界面、检索速度等方面进行了比较,最后对二者在学术资源检索中的使用进行了分析。

SciFinder Scholar数据库检索技巧

目的介绍SciFinder Scholar(SFS)数据库检索技巧,为用户利用SFS数据库获取全面准确信息提供清晰指导,有效利用该资源。方法通过全面概述、对比分析与逐项匹配等方法对如何准确利用SFS进行论述;对SFS数据库的3大检索入口与后处理功能予以介绍;对检索课题选择合适的检索入口进行详细阐述。结果SFS主要包括CA与Medline数据库以及由CA数据库派生的化学反应数据库(CASREACT)、物质数据库(CAS REGISTRY)、商业来源数据库(CHEMCATS)、管制信息数据库(CHENLIST);SFS提供信息检索(Explore)、信息定位检索(Locate)、最新期刊目次浏览(Browse)3大检索入口,具有10余种检索途径与强大的后处理功能。结论SFS是当今权威的化学文献检索工具,深入了解其检索途径与各项功能,可以避免重复性劳动,高效准确地获取信息。