共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
Zeynep Ceren Akyüz Ricardo Aleixo Correia 《International Information and Library Review》2017,49(1):11-18
Increasing political and financial support for scientific research in the Middle East requires academic and research communities in the region to demonstrate the visibility and impact of their scientific output. However, for countries with smaller scientific communities or lack of detailed information on their scientific production, the use of common metrics of scientific impact (e.g., number of papers, impact factor, h-index, etc.) may fail to reveal their true ability to produce high quality research, and thus guarantee the wanted societal support. In such cases, identifying and highlighting outstanding papers produced by national institutions or scientists may be another way to demonstrate scientific capacity and impact. In this context, this work aims to provide an overview of champion works (papers that have received over 1,000 citations) produced by Middle East countries. This analysis focuses on science, medicine, and technology papers featured in the Science Citation Index Expanded of Web of Science. The authors identified 213 champion works authored by Middle East scientists published since the 1970s. Israel is currently the leading nation in the Middle East in terms of published champion works, but at least one such work was identified for the majority of countries in the region. Middle East champion works were published on a diverse range of subject categories and often featured in the top journals worldwide (e.g., Science, Nature, etc.). The top institutions in the Middle East authoring champion works and their leading collaborating countries worldwide are listed, and the role of international scientific collaborations in achieving these highly cited papers is highlighted. 相似文献
2.
Do more distant collaborations have more citation impact? 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Internationally co-authored papers are known to have more citation impact than nationally co-authored paper, on average. However, the question of whether there are systematic differences between pairs of collaborating countries in terms of the citation impact of their joint output, has remained unanswered. On the basis of all scientific papers published in 2000 and co-authored by two or more European countries, we show that citation impact increases with the geographical distance between the collaborating counties. 相似文献
3.
目的：构建2004－2013年糖尿病领域高被引论文主体的合作网络知识图谱,揭示主要作者、机构和国家,分析其合作模式。方法：用可视化软件Citespace绘制2004－2013年糖尿病领域高被引论文的作者、机构、国家合作网络图谱。结果：核心作者是Graham Nichol、SM Grundy和Hertzel C．Gerstein等,团体内部合作密切,团体间合作极少。核心研究机构是Harvard Univ、Brigham＆Womens Hosp、Univ Sydney等,大学成为科研的主要力量。最有影响力的发文国家是美国、英国和加拿大,合作十分密切。结论：2004－2013年糖尿病领域高被引论文主体合作模式有单点型、双核型、发展型和完备型4种。基于地缘和机构属性的合作还处于摸索与探索阶段,应进一步加强地域间,高校、医疗机构、事业单位和科研机构间的合作与交流。 相似文献
4.
李翠霞 《中华医学图书馆杂志》2011,(11):75-77
利用ESI（EssentialScientificIndicators）数据库,通过对10年（2001年1月1日-2010年12月31日）临床医学文献的统计分析,揭示了该领域产文量和影响力较高的国家机构和期刊排名。中国临床医学文献的被引量显示了我国临床医学与国际水平之间的差距。 相似文献
5.
通过中国知网收集国内20所医学院校相关信息,调查分析2006—2010年各院校发表科技论文的情况,各院校主办科技期刊的状况,拥有两院院士、长江学者情况以及国家级重点学科建设情况,比较各院校论文发表比例,分析各院校主办科技期刊及其与拥有两院院士、长江学者数量以及国家级重点学科建设的相关性。结果表明:重点学科论文在校内科技期刊发表的比例平均仅占25.45%,有10所院校重点学科论文80%以上发表在校外期刊,而有8所院校的学报刊发表本校重点学科论文不足10%,仅有3所院校超过30%;各院校拥有两院院士、长江学者数量与重点学科建设具有相关性(rs=0.706, rs=0.679,均P＜0.01),重点学科建设则与科技期刊的创办密切相关(rs=0.614, P＜0.01)。认为高校科技期刊特别是高校学报的功能与定位需要改革,高校科技期刊社与专家学者应共同努力提高高校科技期刊的影响力。 相似文献
6.
以中国医院知识仓库期刊全文数据库（CHKD）为统计源,以河北省24家综合性三甲医院为研究对象,选择2001—2005年作为研究时限,应用文献计量学方法对河北省三甲医院论文发表的时间分布、地域分布、核心作者的机构分布等多项指标进行评价研究,揭示各地区、机构、学科及个人的科研产出情况及发展变化规律,为卫生行政主管部门及医院科研管理部门提供重要参考依据。 相似文献
7.
对《中国核心期刊引证报告》（2012年版）公布的17种口腔医学核心期刊创刊以来刊登的被引次数≥40的论文（共计305篇）的期刊分布、论文合作情况、作者分布、机构分布、基金资助及学科分布等进行了分析,为科技期刊编辑部的选题策划、审稿组稿提供参考。 相似文献
8.
目的：通过对2009年SCI收录浙江省论文情况的统计分析,揭示浙江省的科技研究现状及发展趋势,为规划浙江省科研工作提供依据。方法：以Web of Knowledge为数据来源,统计2009年SCI收录浙江省科研人员发表论文的地区分布、文献类型、机构和单位分布以及主要期刊分布、发文期刊影响因子等及其排序。结果：浙江省科研人员发表论文的期刊影响因子较低,发表在影响因子10以上期刊论文数量少。科研能力最强的是高等院校,其次是依托于各医学院校的附属医院。结论：2009年SCI收录浙江论文数量较往年有所增长,但发表论文期刊的影响因子较低,同时存在各地区、各机构科研水平发展的不平衡。 相似文献
9.
J.M. van Zyl 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(4):907-913
For a number of researchers a number of publications for each author is simulated using the zeta distribution and then for each publication a number of citations per publication simulated. Bootstrap confidence intervals indicate that the difference between the average of ratios and the ratio of averages are not significant. It was found that the log–logistic distribution which is a general form for the ratio of two correlated Pareto random variables, give a good fit to the estimated ratios. 相似文献
10.
This paper compares ‘high‐impact’ papers from China, Japan, India and Korea in 2012, together with papers from these countries in Cell, Nature, and Science (CNS) from 2010 to 2012. China leads on ‘highly cited’ and ‘hot’ papers in 2012, while Japan has the highest number in CNS (653), followed by China (471), Korea (131) and India (83). Although China published more high‐impact papers in 2012, papers published in CNS were at a relatively low level, which appears to show that while some of the research in China is at a relatively high level, this is not entirely reflected in the number of papers in these ‘elite’ journals. 相似文献
11.
以Science Citation Index Expanded数据库作为检索对象,从发文数量、总被引频次、篇均被引次数等方面对军事训练伤研究领域1997—2006年间发表论文居前10位的国家（地区）、机构和作者进行了统计分析,从论文计量的角度反映10年来各国（地区）军事训练伤研究的学术水平和发展动态。 相似文献
12.
对武汉大学于2011年发布的中国学术期刊排行榜65个学科共277种学术期刊中署名方式为"通信作者""通讯作者""责任作者""通讯联系人"等进行调查,结果表明:现阶段我国学术期刊在使用"通讯作者""通信作者"等标注方式上混乱;作者、各期刊编辑部以及相关机构对其认识也存在差异。由此建议学术期刊有必要统一标注方式并制订执行标准。 相似文献
13.
Christos Giatsidis Giannis Nikolentzos Chenhui Zhang Jie Tang Michalis Vazirgiannis 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):757-768
Traditionally, citation count has served as the main evaluation measure for a paper's importance and influence. In turn, many evaluations of authors, institutions and journals are based on aggregations upon papers (e.g. h-index). In this work, we explore measures defined on the citation graph that offer a more intuitive insight into the impact of a paper than the superficial count of citations. Our main argument is focused on the identification of influence as an expression of the citation density in the subgraph of citations built for each paper. We propose two measures that capitalize on the notion of density providing researchers alternative evaluations of their work. While the general idea of impact for a paper can be viewed as how many researchers have shown interest to a piece of work, the proposed measures are based on the hypothesis that a piece of work may have influenced some papers even if they do not contain references to that piece of work. The proposed measures are also extended to researchers and journals. 相似文献
14.
中国高校学报“垃圾论”辨析——基于农业高校与非高校学术期刊影响力的比较 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
通过分析我国农业高校学报与研究院所、学会主办学术期刊之间的差别,论证高校学报并非垃圾产品。将农业类学术期刊分为省属高校类、省级学会类和国家级学会类3种不同类型,综合分析比较3种不同类型农业类期刊在影响因子、基金论文比等5项指标上的差异。统计结果表明:国家级学会学术期刊总被引频次、影响因子、他引影响因子、基金论文比4个指标极显著地高于省级学会学术期刊(P<0.01);省属高校学报的影响因子、他引影响因子、基金论文也极显著地高于省级学会学术期刊(P<0.01),而且基金论文比、他引总引比略高于国家级学会学术期刊,差异不显著(P>0.05)。综合分析表明:国家级学会学术期刊的大部分指标高于省属高校学报,而省属高校学报均高于省级学会学术期刊,部分指标接近国家级学会学术期刊;近3年,农业类学术期刊总体上的各项评价指标正在逐年提高,农业高校学术期刊的综合影响力较高。 相似文献
15.
Farzad Ashrafi Hafez Mohammadhassanzadeh Farhad Shokraneh Ali Valinejadi Karim Johari Nazanin Saemi Alireza Zali Niloofar Mohaghegh Hassan Ashayeri 《Health information and libraries journal》2012,29(4):323-332
Objective: The purpose of this study is to analyse Iranian scientific publications in the neuroscience subfields by librarians and neuroscientists, using Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) via Web of Science data over the period, 2002–2008. Methods: Data were retrieved from the SCIE. Data were collected from the ‘subject area’ of the database and classified by neuroscience experts into 14 subfields. To identify the citation patterns, we applied the ‘impact factor’ and the ‘number of publication’. Data were also analysed using HISTCITE, Excel 2007 and SPSS. Results: Seven hundred and thirty‐four papers have been published by Iranian between 2002 and 2008. Findings showed a growing trend of neuroscience papers in the last 3 years with most papers (264) classified in the neuropharmacology subfield. There were fewer papers in neurohistory, psychopharmacology and artificial intelligence. International contributions of authors were mostly in the neurology subfield, and ‘Collaboration Coefficient’ for the neuroscience subfields in Iran was 0.686 which is acceptable. Most international collaboration between Iranians and developed countries was from USA. Eighty‐seven percent of the published papers were in journals with the impact factor between 0 and 4; 25% of papers were published by the researchers affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Conclusion: Progress of neuroscience in Iran is mostly seen in the neuropharmacology and the neurology subfields. Other subfields should also be considered as a research priority by health policymakers. As this study was carried out by the collaboration of librarians and neuroscientists, it has been proved valuable for both librarians and policymakers. This study may be encouraging for librarians from other developing countries. 相似文献
16.
For comparisons of citation impacts across fields and over time, bibliometricians normalize the observed citation counts with reference to an expected citation value. Percentile-based approaches have been proposed as a non-parametric alternative to parametric central-tendency statistics. Percentiles are based on an ordered set of citation counts in a reference set, whereby the fraction of papers at or below the citation counts of a focal paper is used as an indicator for its relative citation impact in the set. In this study, we pursue two related objectives: (1) although different percentile-based approaches have been developed, an approach is hitherto missing that satisfies a number of criteria such as scaling of the percentile ranks from zero (all other papers perform better) to 100 (all other papers perform worse), and solving the problem with tied citation ranks unambiguously. We introduce a new citation-rank approach having these properties, namely P100; (2) we compare the reliability of P100 empirically with other percentile-based approaches, such as the approaches developed by the SCImago group, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), and Thomson Reuters (InCites), using all papers published in 1980 in Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS). How accurately can the different approaches predict the long-term citation impact in 2010 (in year 31) using citation impact measured in previous time windows (years 1–30)? The comparison of the approaches shows that the method used by InCites overestimates citation impact (because of using the highest percentile rank when papers are assigned to more than a single subject category) whereas the SCImago indicator shows higher power in predicting the long-term citation impact on the basis of citation rates in early years. Since the results show a disadvantage in this predictive ability for P100 against the other approaches, there is still room for further improvements. 相似文献
17.
OBJECTIVE: The authors characterized the output of MEDLINE papers by language and country of publication during a thirty-four-year time period. METHODS: We classified MEDLINE's journal articles by country of publication (Anglos/Non-Anglos) and language (English/Non-English) for the years 1966 and from 1970 to 2000 at five-year intervals. Eight English-speaking countries were considered Anglos. Linear regression analysis of number of papers versus time was performed. RESULTS: The global number of papers increased linearly at a rate of 8,142 papers per year. Anglo and English papers also increased linearly (6,740 and 9,199, respectively). Journals of Non-Anglo countries accounted for 25% of the English language increase (2,438 per year). Only Non-English papers decreased at a rate of 1,056 fewer papers per year. These trends have led to overwhelming shares of English and Anglo papers in MEDLINE. In 2000, 68% of all papers were published in the 8 Anglo countries and 90% were written in English. CONCLUSIONS: The Anglo and English preponderances appear to be a consequence of at least two phenomena: (1) editorial policy changes in MEDLINE and in some journals from Non-Anglo countries and (2) factors affecting Non-Anglo researchers in the third world (publication constraints, migration, and undersupport). These are tentative conclusions that need confirmation. 相似文献
18.
科学计量学的发展与布局：1978-2008 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
陈云伟 《现代图书情报技术》2010,26(1):71-76
采用科学计量学的方法,基于Scientometrics期刊,对其收录的1978－2008年的 2 461篇论文进行科学计量分析,研究世界科学计量学的国家、机构和主题布局。通过时间序列趋势图、列表和矩阵图等手段描述科学计量学的国家布局,分析论文数在20篇以上的机构分布情况,利用关键词分析科学计量学研究的主题分布,主要分析工具包括TDA和 Excel。 相似文献
19.
基于SCIE来源期刊刊载的我国及国外肝胆外科学者2000—2009年发表的科学论文,使用Excel和RefViz文本分析软件对入选论文的相关指标数据进行计量分析,在世界范围和全国范围内进行横向比较。结果表明,就国际影响力而言,我国肝胆外科科学论文质量及影响力排在美、欧国家和日本、韩国之后。就学科研究重点和热点而言,我国与国外基本同步,但有自己的研究特色。筛选出我国肝胆外科核心机构16个、学科骨干28人。尽管我国肝胆外科2000—2009年科学论文产出绝对量居世界前茅,但其科学论文质量和影响力有待提高。 相似文献
20.
Lutz Bornmann Alexander Tekles Helena H. Zhang Fred Y. Ye 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(4):100979
Lee et al. (2015) – based on Uzzi et al. (2013) – and Wang et al. (2017) proposed scores based on cited references (cited journals) data which can be used to measure the novelty of papers (named as novelty scores U and W in this study). Although previous research has used novelty scores in various empirical analyses, no study has been published up to now – to the best of our knowledge – which quantitatively tested the convergent validity of novelty scores: do these scores measure what they propose to measure? Using novelty assessments by faculty members (FMs) at F1000Prime for comparison, we tested the convergent validity of the two novelty scores (U and W). FMs’ assessments do not only refer to the quality of biomedical papers, but also to their characteristics (by assigning certain tags to the papers): for example, are the presented findings or formulated hypotheses novel (tags “new findings” and “hypothesis”)? We used these and other tags to investigate the convergent validity of both novelty scores. Our study reveals different results for the novelty scores: the results for novelty score U are mostly in agreement with previously formulated expectations. We found, for instance, that for a standard deviation (one unit) increase in novelty score U, the expected number of assignments of the “new finding” tag increase by 7.47%. The results for novelty score W, however, do not reflect convergent validity with the FMs’ assessments: only the results for some tags are in agreement with the expectations. Thus, we propose – based on our results – the use of novelty score U for measuring novelty quantitatively, but question the use of novelty score W. 相似文献