首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
The sleeping beauties in science signify a unique knowledge diffusion trajectory created by citation after the publication of scientific literature. However, in social media, scientific knowledge creates a new diffusion trajectory through social media metrics such as View, Save, Discussed, and Recommendations. This study aims to define social media–based sleeping beauties S-SB in science by using social media metrics which we termed as citation-based Sleeping Beauties in science, C-SB. We constructed a quantitative method to identify S-SB and conducted an empirical study of all types of 4019 articles published in PLOS Biology. Comparison of the S-SB and C-SB results revealed that from the perspective of social media metrics, C-SB has become the literature of S-total elements early gradual awakening type, S-total elements delay gradual awakening type, and S-early sudden awakening type. Moreover, the awakening time of C-SB literature under the action of social media metrics was found to be 4–5 years earlier than that under the action of citation-based indicators. Both C-SB and S-SB included significant “Editorial Material,” establishing that “Editorial Material” type literature is noteworthy while promoting the diffusion of scientific knowledge. Overall, this study extends the perspective of sleeping beauties in science.  相似文献   

2.
《期刊图书馆员》2012,62(1-2):23-37
ABSTRACT

Library and information science as a discipline is undergoing rapid and extensive change, driven particularly by new areas of research. Citation analysis and information literacy are widely researched and have a rich background of growth. Publish or Perish, Buzzsumo.com, altmetrics.com, and textalyser.net have been used to analyze all metrics associated with citation analysis, social networking, and keyword analysis.

The hypothesis of this study is: “There is no significant difference in the citation pattern of the three prominent citation journals: Journal of Information Literacy, Communications in Information Literacy and Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education”.

The hypotheses of the study were tested by assessment of the degree to which each of the journals met set of objective criteria. 697 papers from the three journals were analyzed and the results showed that the citation metrics of the Journal of Information Literacy had the highest correspondence with the criteria. The information linked to the Journals of Information Literacy was moderately posted on social networking sites (SNS) and the highest frequency of the keywords: “Information”; “Information literacy”; and “Information literacy instruction” were found in one, two and three-word searches. Some recommendations have also been offered to improve SNS presence and for further research in this field.  相似文献   

3.
While ISSI was founded in 1993, Scientometrics and Bibliometrics are now at least half a century old. Indeed, the field can be traced to early quantitative studies in the early 20th century. In the 1930s, it evolved to the “science of science.” The publication of J.D. Bernal's Social Function of Science in 1939 was a key transition point but the field lay dormant until after World War II, when D.J.D. Price's books Science Since Babylon and Little Science, Big Science were published in 1961 and 1963. His role as the “Father of Scientometrics” is clearly evident by using the HistCite software to visualize his impact as well as the subsequent impact of the journal Scientometrics on the growth of the field. Scientometrics owes its name to V.V. Nalimov, the author of Naukometriya, and to Tibor Braun who adapted the neologism for the journal. The primordial paper on citation indexing by Garfield which appeared in Science 1955 became a bridge between Bernal and Price. The timeline for the evolution of Scientometrics is demonstrated by a HistCite tabulation of the ranked citation index of the 100,000 references cited in the 3000 papers citing Price.  相似文献   

4.
Questions of definition and measurement continue to constrain a consensus on the measurement of interdisciplinarity. Using Rao-Stirling (RS) Diversity sometimes produces anomalous results. We argue that these unexpected outcomes can be related to the use of “dual-concept diversity” which combines “variety” and “balance” in the definitions (ex ante). We propose to modify RS Diversity into a new indicator (DIV) which operationalizes “variety,” “balance,” and “disparity” independently and then combines them ex post. “Balance” can be measured using the Gini coefficient. We apply DIV to the aggregated citation patterns of 11,487 journals covered by the Journal Citation Reports 2016 of the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index as an empirical domain and, in more detail, to the citation patterns of 85 journals assigned to the Web-of-Science category “information science & library science” in both the cited and citing directions. We compare the results of the indicators and show that DIV provides improved results in terms of distinguishing between interdisciplinary knowledge integration (citing references) versus knowledge diffusion (cited impact). The new diversity indicator and RS diversity measure different features. A routine for the measurement of the various operationalization of diversity (in any data matrix) is made available online.  相似文献   

5.
Dynamic development is an intrinsic characteristic of research topics. To study this, this paper proposes two sets of topic attributes to examine topic dynamic characteristics: topic continuity and topic popularity. Topic continuity comprises six attributes: steady, concentrating, diluting, sporadic, transforming, and emerging topics; topic popularity comprises three attributes: rising, declining, and fluctuating topics. These attributes are applied to a data set on library and information science publications during the past 11 years (2001–2011). Results show that topics on “web information retrieval”, “citation and bibliometrics”, “system and technology”, and “health science” have the highest average popularity; topics on “h-index”, “online communities”, “data preservation”, “social media”, and “web analysis” are increasingly becoming popular in library and information science.  相似文献   

6.
This study uses citation data and survey data for 55 library and information science journals to identify three factors underlying a set of 11 journal ranking metrics (six citation metrics and five stated preference metrics). The three factors—three composite rankings—represent (1) the citation impact of a typical article, (2) subjective reputation, and (3) the citation impact of the journal as a whole (all articles combined). Together, they account for 77% of the common variance within the set of 11 metrics. Older journals (those founded before 1953) and nonprofit journals tend to have high reputation scores relative to their citation impact. Unlike previous research, this investigation shows no clear evidence of a distinction between the journals of greatest importance to scholars and those of greatest importance to practitioners. Neither group's subjective journal rankings are closely related to citation impact.  相似文献   

7.
Questionable publications have been accused of “greedy” practices; however, their influence on academia has not been gauged. Here, we probe the impact of questionable publications through a systematic and comprehensive analysis with various participants from academia and compare the results with those of their unaccused counterparts using billions of citation records, including liaisons, i.e., journals and publishers, and prosumers, i.e., authors. Questionable publications attribute publisher-level self-citations to their journals while limiting journal-level self-citations; yet, conventional journal-level metrics are unable to detect these publisher-level self-citations. We propose a hybrid journal-publisher metric for detecting self-favouring citations among QJs from publishers. Additionally, we demonstrate that the questionable publications were less disruptive and influential than their counterparts. Our findings indicate an inflated citation impact of suspicious academic publishers. The findings provide a basis for actionable policy-making against questionable publications.  相似文献   

8.
This is the Guest Editor's introduction to the Special Issue on “Science of Science: Conceptualizations and Models of Science”, Journal of Informetrics. The introduction discusses challenges towards a theoretically grounded and practically useful science of science. It provides a brief chronological review of relevant work and argues for (1) the development of common frameworks for the comparison and combination of existing approaches, theories, laws, and measurements, (2) the combination of quantitative and qualitative studies of science, and (3) the operationalization of theoretical concepts in terms of measurement and empirical evidence. Next, three visual conceptualizations of science are discussed and compared. Each of them provides a framework for the comparison and combination of existing works, means to combine quantitative and qualitative data, and helps to operationalize and communicate theoretical concepts using empirical data. Last but not least, the contributions of and interlinkages among the papers included in this issue are discussed.  相似文献   

9.
Given the growing use of impact metrics in the evaluation of scholars, journals, academic institutions, and even countries, there is a critical need for means to compare scientific impact across disciplinary boundaries. Unfortunately, citation-based metrics are strongly biased by diverse field sizes and publication and citation practices. As a result, we have witnessed an explosion in the number of newly proposed metrics that claim to be “universal.” However, there is currently no way to objectively assess whether a normalized metric can actually compensate for disciplinary bias. We introduce a new method to assess the universality of any scholarly impact metric, and apply it to evaluate a number of established metrics. We also define a very simple new metric hs, which proves to be universal, thus allowing to compare the impact of scholars across scientific disciplines. These results move us closer to a formal methodology in the measure of scholarly impact.  相似文献   

10.
In this study, we investigate the extent to which patent citations to papers can serve as early signs for predicting delayed recognized knowledge in science using a comparative study with a control group, i.e., instant recognition papers. We identify the two opposite groups of papers by the Bcp measure, a parameter-free index for identifying papers which were recognized with delay. We provide a macro (Science/Nature papers dataset) and micro (a case chosen from the dataset) evidence on paper-patent citation linkages as early signs for predicting delayed recognized knowledge in science. It appears that papers with delayed recognition show a stronger and longer technical impact than instant recognition papers. We provide indication that in the more recent years papers with delayed recognition are awakened more often and earlier by a patent rather than by a scientific paper (also called “prince”). We also found that patent citations seem to play an important role to avoid instant recognition papers to level off or to become a so called “flash in the pan”, i.e., instant recognition. It also appears that the sleeping beauties may firstly encounter negative citations and then patent citations and finally get widely recognized. In contrast to the two focused fields (biology and chemistry) for instant recognition papers, delayed recognition papers are rather evenly distributed in biology, chemistry, psychology, geology, materials science, and physics. We discovered several pairs of “science sleeping”-“technology inducing”, such as “biology-biotechnology/pharmaceuticals”, “chemistry-chemical engineering”, as well as some trans-fields science-technology interactions, such as “psychology - computer technology/control technology/audio-visual technology”, “physics - computer technology”, and “mathematics-computer technology”. We propose in further research to discover the potential ahead of time and transformative research by using citation delay analysis, patent & NPL analysis, and citation context analysis.  相似文献   

11.
Hägglund’s “radical atheism”—innovative thinking within the philosophical current of “speculative materialism”—revitalizes deconstruction and provides an important basis to define parameters for the archivist’s role as activist for social justice. This paper argues postmodern archival theory gets deconstruction wrong by misreading Derrida’s “Archive fever” as a theory of “archontic power”; this misleads archivists on the call for justice. Properly understanding that justice is undecidable, radical atheism explodes the tension between postmodernists’ appreciation of all views and perspectives and their commitment to right unjust relations of power. This paper first advances the negative argument that “Archive fever” is not about power and injustice. It then advances the positive argument that “Archive fever” is Derrida’s effort to look at actual archives to resolve Freud’s problematic theorizing of a “death drive.” In a close and comprehensive reading of “Archive fever,” this paper explores the notion of “archive fever” as a death drive and suggests Derrida’s efforts are inconclusive. Viewed through the lens of radical atheism, the archive’s “traces”—the material of actual archives writ large in the manner of Derrida’s thinking about a universal archive—serve to mark the flow of time. Understanding the structure of the trace reveals the source of internal contradictions, discontinuities, and instabilities in the meaning of all things. It explains why justice is undecidable. In face of the unconditional condition of this undecidability, we as archivists and humans are compelled to make decisions and to act. Deconstruction politicizes our actions and evokes a responsibility that cannot be absolved.  相似文献   

12.
The disruption (D) index is a network-based indicator to quantify the extent to which a focal paper disrupts its predecessors. This study focuses on what disruption means by examining example articles related to “sleeping beauties in science” and frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF). We investigated the structure of the citation network and subsequent papers’ motivations for citing the focal papers. Based on the observation that conceptual work is more likely to disrupt science than technical work, we hypothesize that disruption reflects the mechanism of how paradigms shift in the development of science. We also assume that the disruption identified by the D index indicates more than generating a new direction. Disruptive contributions include revolutionary studies such as Nobel-prize-winning papers, as suggested in previous work. However, disruptive contributions also include scientific dissemination of new terminology created by popular proposals, such as “sleeping beauties in science.” Such contributions redefine and popularize phenomena in science.  相似文献   

13.
In an earlier paper by Glänzel and Schubert [Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1988a). Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact. Journal of Information Science, 14(2), 123–127; Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1988b). Theoretical and empirical studies of the tail of scientometric distributions. In L. Egghe, & R. Rousseau (Eds.), Informetrics: Vols. 87/88, (pp. 75–83). Elsevier Science Publisher B.V.], a method for classifying ranked observations into self-adjusting categories was developed. This parameter-free method, which was called method of characteristic scores and scales, is independent of any particular bibliometric law. The objective of the present study is twofold. In the theoretical part, the analysis of its properties for the general form of the Pareto distribution will be extended and deepened; in the empirical part the citation history of individual scientific disciplines will be studied. The chosen citation window of 21 years makes it possible to analyse dynamic aspects of the method, and proves sufficiently large to also obtain stable patterns for each of the disciplines. The theoretical findings are supplemented by regularities derived from the long-term observations.  相似文献   

14.
ABSTRACT

The article examines the application of innovative approaches in the information literacy training of library and information science students in Bulgaria. The change of the educational paradigm in the field is presented based on recent developments in one of the oldest Bulgarian institutions that prepares librarians and information specialists—the State University of Library Studies and Information Technologies. The active learning strategies suitable for information literacy skills development courses are studied by the use of three methods: “learning by doing,” “interaction in the learning group,” “learning by trial and error” within the practical training of students. The prospects for transforming information literacy instruction through the elaboration of digital educational games and a game-based learning model in the frame of the international project tiLIT are also outlined.  相似文献   

15.
Journal metrics are employed for the assessment of scientific scholar journals from a general bibliometric perspective. In this context, the Thomson Reuters journal impact factors (JIFs) are the citation-based indicators most used. The 2-year journal impact factor (2-JIF) counts citations to one and two year old articles, while the 5-year journal impact factor (5-JIF) counts citations from one to five year old articles. Nevertheless, these indicators are not comparable among fields of science for two reasons: (i) each field has a different impact maturity time, and (ii) because of systematic differences in publication and citation behavior across disciplines. In fact, the 5-JIF firstly appeared in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in 2007 with the purpose of making more comparable impacts in fields in which impact matures slowly. However, there is not an optimal fixed impact maturity time valid for all the fields. In some of them two years provides a good performance whereas in others three or more years are necessary. Therefore, there is a problem when comparing a journal from a field in which impact matures slowly with a journal from a field in which impact matures rapidly. In this work, we propose the 2-year maximum journal impact factor (2M-JIF), a new impact indicator that considers the 2-year rolling citation time window of maximum impact instead of the previous 2-year time window. Finally, an empirical application comparing 2-JIF, 5-JIF, and 2M-JIF shows that the maximum rolling target window reduces the between-group variance with respect to the within-group variance in a random sample of about six hundred journals from eight different fields.  相似文献   

16.
The h index is a widely used indicator to quantify an individual's scientific research output. But it has been criticized for its insufficient accuracy—the ability to discriminate reliably between meaningful amounts of research output. As a single measure it cannot capture the complete information on the citation distribution over a scientist's publication list. An extensive data set with bibliometric data on scientists working in the field of molecular biology is taken as an example to introduce two approaches providing additional information to the h index: (1) h2 lower, h2 center, and h2 upper are proposed, which allow quantification of three areas within a scientist's citation distribution: the low impact area (h2 lower), the area captured by the h index (h2 center), and the area of publications with the highest visibility (h2 upper). (2) Given the existence of different areas in the citation distribution, the segmented regression model (sRM) is proposed as a method to statistically estimate the number of papers in a scientist's publication list with the highest visibility. However, such sRM values should be compared across individuals with great care.  相似文献   

17.
We address issues concerning what one may learn from how citation instances are distributed in scientific articles. We visualize and analyze patterns of citation distributions in the full text of 350 articles published in the Journal of Informetrics. In particular, we visualize and analyze the distributions of citations in articles that are organized in a commonly seen four-section structure, namely, introduction, method, results, and conclusions (IMRC). We examine the locations of citations to the groundbreaking h-index paper by Hirsch in 2005 and how patterns associated with citation locations evolve over time. The results show that citations are highly concentrated in the first section of an article. The density of citations in the first section is about three times higher than that in subsequent sections. The distributions of citations to highly cited papers are even more uneven.  相似文献   

18.
Past studies of citation coverage of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar do not demonstrate a consistent pattern that can be applied to the interdisciplinary mix of resources used in social work research. To determine the utility of these tools to social work researchers, an analysis of citing references to well-known social work journals was conducted. Web of Science had the fewest citing references and almost no variety in source format. Scopus provided higher citation counts, but the pattern of coverage was similar to Web of Science. Google Scholar provided substantially more citing references, but only a relatively small percentage of them were unique scholarly journal articles.The patterns of database coverage were replicated when the citations were broken out for each journal separately. The results of this analysis demonstrate the need to determine what resources constitute scholarly research and reflect the need for future researchers to consider the merits of each database before undertaking their research. This study will be of interest to scholars in library and information science as well as social work, as it facilitates a greater understanding of the strengths and limitations of each database and brings to light important considerations for conducting future research.  相似文献   

19.
Based on the rank-order citation distribution of e.g. a researcher, one can define certain points on this distribution, hereby summarizing the citation performance of this researcher. Previous work of Glänzel and Schubert defined these so-called “characteristic scores and scales” (CSS), based on average citation data of samples of this ranked publication–citation list.In this paper we will define another version of CSS, based on diverse h-type indices such as the h-index, the g-index, the Kosmulski's h(2)-index and the g-variant of it, the g(2)-index.Mathematical properties of these new CSS are proved in a Lotkaian framework. These CSS also provide an improvement of the single h-type indices in the sense that they give h-type index values for different parts of the ranked publication–citation list.  相似文献   

20.
This paper studies the correlations between peer review and citation indicators when evaluating research quality in library and information science (LIS). Forty-two LIS experts provided judgments on a 5-point scale of the quality of research published by 101 scholars; the median rankings resulting from these judgments were then correlated with h-, g- and H-index values computed using three different sources of citation data: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar (GS). The two variants of the basic h-index correlated more strongly with peer judgment than did the h-index itself; citation data from Scopus was more strongly correlated with the expert judgments than was data from GS, which in turn was more strongly correlated than data from WoS; correlations from a carefully cleaned version of GS data were little different from those obtained using swiftly gathered GS data; the indices from the citation databases resulted in broadly similar rankings of the LIS academics; GS disadvantaged researchers in bibliometrics compared to the other two citation database while WoS disadvantaged researchers in the more technical aspects of information retrieval; and experts from the UK and other European countries rated UK academics with higher scores than did experts from the USA.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号