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.
Do academic journals favor authors who share their institutional affiliation? To answer this question we examine citation counts, as a proxy for paper quality, for articles published in four leading international relations journals during the years 2000–2015. We compare citation counts for articles written by “in-group members” (authors affiliated with the journal’s publishing institution) versus “out-group members” (authors not affiliated with that institution). Articles written by in-group authors received 18% to 49% fewer Web of Science citations when published in their home journal (International Security or World Politics) vs. an unaffiliated journal, compared to out-group authors. These results are mainly driven by authors who received their PhDs from Harvard or MIT. The findings show evidence of a bias within some journals towards publishing papers by faculty from their home institution, at the expense of paper quality.  相似文献   

2.
Despite citation counts from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus being widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations, there is no recent or systematic evidence about the differences between them. In response, this paper investigates 2,448,055 citations to 2299 English-language highly-cited documents from 252 GS subject categories published in 2006, comparing GS, the WoS Core Collection, and Scopus. GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%–96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%–77%) and WoS (27%–73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%–65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%–38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS. Despite the many unique GS citing sources, Spearman correlations between citation counts in GS and WoS or Scopus are high (0.78-0.99). They are lower in the Humanities, and lower between GS and WoS than between GS and Scopus. The results suggest that in all areas GS citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.  相似文献   

3.
[目的/意义]探索中文学术期刊论文的引文模式及时间窗口的选择对引文模式的影响，建立引文模式的分析框架。[方法/过程]以2006-2008年出版的图书情报领域期刊论文作为研究对象，采用两步聚类法对单篇论文在7年内的绝对被引量与相对被引量进行聚类分析，研究论文主要特征因子与引文模式的相关性。[结果/结论]在绝对被引量视角下，期刊论文均表现为先上升后下降的经典引文模式；在相对下载量视角下，期刊论文共有6种引文模式，其中3种可以归纳为经典引文模式，另外3种分别为"类睡美人型"、正偏型和马拉松型。相对被引量视角下，首年被引量与总被引量呈现了中等甚至较强的相关性，并且平均被引量越高，相关性越强，绝对被引量视角下的结果正好相反。结果表明，期刊论文的初始被引量与总被引量的相关性高低主要取决于引文曲线的峰度而非总被引量的大小。  相似文献   

4.
The findings of Bornmann, Leydesdorff, and Wang (2013b) revealed that the consideration of journal impact improves the prediction of long-term citation impact. This paper further explores the possibility of improving citation impact measurements on the base of a short citation window by the consideration of journal impact and other variables, such as the number of authors, the number of cited references, and the number of pages. The dataset contains 475,391 journal papers published in 1980 and indexed in Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters), and all annual citation counts (from 1980 to 2010) for these papers. As an indicator of citation impact, we used percentiles of citations calculated using the approach of Hazen (1914). Our results show that citation impact measurement can really be improved: If factors generally influencing citation impact are considered in the statistical analysis, the explained variance in the long-term citation impact can be much increased. However, this increase is only visible when using the years shortly after publication but not when using later years.  相似文献   

5.
Bibliometricians have long recurred to citation counts to measure the impact of publications on the advancement of science. However, since the earliest days of the field, some scholars have questioned whether all citations should be worth the same, and have gone on to weight them by a variety of factors. However sophisticated the operationalization of the measures, the methodologies used in weighting citations still present limits in their underlying assumptions. This work takes an alternative approach to resolving the underlying problem: the proposal is to value citations by the impact of the citing articles, regardless of the length of their reference list. As well as conceptualizing a new indicator of impact, the work illustrates its application to the 2004–2012 Italian scientific production indexed in the WoS. The proposed impact indicator is highly correlated to the traditional citation count, however the shifts observed between the two measures are frequent and the number of outliers not negligible. Moreover, the new indicator shows greater “sensitivity” when used to identify the highly-cited papers.  相似文献   

6.
Nations can be distinguished in terms of whether domestic or international research is cited. We analyzed the research output in the natural sciences of three leading European research economies (Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK) and ask where their researchers look for the knowledge that underpins their most highly-cited papers. Is one internationally oriented or is citation limited to national resources? Do the citation patterns reflect a growing differentiation between the domestic and international research enterprise? To evaluate change over time, we include natural-sciences papers published in the countries from three publication years: 2004, 2009, and 2014. The results show that articles co-authored by researchers from Germany or the Netherlands are less likely to be among the globally most highly-cited articles if they also cite “domestic” research (i.e. research authored by authors from the same country). To put this another way, less well-cited research is more likely to stand on domestic shoulders and research that becomes more highly-cited is more likely to stand on international shoulders. A possible reason for the results is that researchers “over-cite” the papers from their own country – lacking the focus on quality in citing. However, these differences between domestic and international shoulders are not visible for the UK.  相似文献   

7.
In this paper we present a first large-scale analysis of the relationship between Mendeley readership and citation counts with particular documents’ bibliographic characteristics. A data set of 1.3 million publications from different fields published in journals covered by the Web of Science (WoS) has been analyzed. This work reveals that document types that are often excluded from citation analysis due to their lower citation values, like editorial materials, letters, news items, or meeting abstracts, are strongly covered and saved in Mendeley, suggesting that Mendeley readership can reliably inform the analysis of these document types. Findings show that collaborative papers are frequently saved in Mendeley, which is similar to what is observed for citations. The relationship between readership and the length of titles and number of pages, however, is weaker than for the same relationship observed for citations. The analysis of different disciplines also points to different patterns in the relationship between several document characteristics, readership, and citation counts. Overall, results highlight that although disciplinary differences exist, readership counts are related to similar bibliographic characteristics as those related to citation counts, reinforcing the idea that Mendeley readership and citations capture a similar concept of impact, although they cannot be considered as equivalent indicators.  相似文献   

8.
The normalized citation indicator may not be sufficiently reliable when a short citation time window is used, because the citation counts for recently published papers are not as reliable as those for papers published many years ago. In a limited time period, recent publications usually have insufficient time to accumulate citations and the citation counts of these publications are not sufficiently reliable to be used in the citation impact indicators. However, normalization methods themselves cannot solve this problem. To solve this problem, we introduce a weighting factor to the commonly used normalization indicator Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) at the paper level. The weighting factor, which is calculated as the correlation coefficient between citation counts of papers in the given short citation window and those in the fixed long citation window, reflects the degree of reliability of the CNCI value of one paper. To verify the effect of the proposed weighted CNCI indicator, we compared the CNCI score and CNCI ranking of 500 universities before and after introducing the weighting factor. The results showed that although there was a strong positive correlation before and after the introduction of the weighting factor, some universities’ performance and rankings changed dramatically.  相似文献   

9.
Predicting the citation counts of academic papers is of considerable significance to scientific evaluation. This study used a four-layer Back Propagation (BP) neural network model to predict the five-year citations of 49,834 papers in the library, information and documentation field indexed by the CSSCI database and published from 2000 to 2013. We extracted six paper features, two journal features, nine author features, eight reference features, and five early citation features to make the prediction. The empirical experiments showed that the performance of the BP neural network is significantly better than those of the six baseline models. In terms of the prediction effect, the accuracy of the model at predicting infrequently cited papers was higher than that for frequently cited ones. We determined that five essential features have significant effects on the prediction performance of the model, i.e., ‘citations in the first two years’, ‘first-cited age’, ‘paper length’, ‘month of publication’, and ‘self-citations of journals’, and the other features contribute only slightly to the prediction.  相似文献   

10.
Researchers have investigated factors thought to affect the total number of citations in various academic disciplines, and some general trends have emerged. However, there are still limited data for many fields, including aquatic sciences. Using papers published in 2003–2005 (n = 785), we investigated marine and freshwater biology articles to identify factors that may contribute to the probability of citation and for cumulative citation counts over 10 years. We found no relationships with probability of citation; however, we found evidence that for those that were cited at least once, cumulative citations were related to several factors. Articles cited by books received more citations than those never cited by books, which we hypothesized to be indicative of the impact an article may have in the field. We also found that articles first cited within 2 years of publication received more cumulative citations than those first cited after 2 years. We found no evidence that self‐citation (as the first citation) had a significant effect on total citations. Our findings were compared with previous studies in other disciplines, and it was found that aquatic science citation patterns are comparable to fields in science and technology but less so to humanities and social sciences.  相似文献   

11.
The number of clinical citations received from clinical guidelines or clinical trials has been considered as one of the most appropriate indicators for quantifying the clinical impact of biomedical papers. Therefore, the early prediction of clinical citation count of biomedical papers is critical to scientific activities in biomedicine, such as research evaluation, resource allocation, and clinical translation. In this study, we designed a four-layer multilayer perceptron neural network (MPNN) model to predict the clinical citation count of biomedical papers in the future by using 9,822,620 biomedical papers published from 1985 to 2005. We extracted ninety-one paper features from three dimensions as the input of the model, including twenty-one features in the paper dimension, thirty-five in the reference dimension, and thirty-five in the citing paper dimension. In each dimension, the features can be classified into three categories, i.e., the citation-related features, the clinical translation-related features, and the topic-related features. Besides, in the paper dimension, we also considered the features that have previously been demonstrated to be related to the citation counts of research papers. The results showed that the proposed MPNN model outperformed the other five baseline models, and the features in the reference dimension were the most important. In all the three dimensions, the citation-related and topic-related features were more important than the clinical translation-related features for the prediction. It also turned out that the features helpful in predicting the citation count of papers are not important for predicting the clinical citation count of biomedical papers. Furthermore, we explored the MPNN model based on different categories of biomedical papers. The results showed that the clinical translation-related features were more important for the prediction of clinical citation count of basic papers rather than those papers closer to clinical science. This study provided a novel dimension (i.e., the reference dimension) for the research community and could be applied to other related research tasks, such as the research assessment for translational programs. In addition, the findings in this study could be useful for biomedical authors (especially for those in basic science) to get more attention from clinical research.  相似文献   

12.
This study examines how the readability of scientific discourses changes over time and to what extent readability can explain scientific impact in terms of citation counts. The basis are representative datasets of 135,502 abstracts from academic research papers pertaining to twelve technologies of different maturity. Using three different measures of readability, it is found that the language of the abstracts has become more complex over time. Across all technologies, less easily readable texts are more likely to receive at least one citation, while the effects are most pronounced for comparatively immature research streams. Among the more mature or larger discourses, the abstracts of the top 10% and 1% of the most often cited articles are significantly less readable. It remains open to what extent readability actually influences future citations and how much of the relationship is causal. If readability indeed drives citations, the results imply that scientists have an incentive to (artificially) reduce the readability of their abstracts in order to signal quality and competence to readers—both to get noticed at all and to attract more citations. This may mean a prisoner dilemma in academic (abstract) writing, where authors intentionally but unnecessarily complicate the way in which they communicate their work.  相似文献   

13.
The way retracted papers have been mentioned in post-retraction citations reflects the perception of the citing authors. The characteristics of post-retraction citations are therefore worth studying to provide insights into the prevention of the citation chain of retracted papers. In this study, full-text analysis is used to compare the distinctions of citation location and citation sentiment—attitudes and dispositions toward the cited work—between the conditions of correctly mentioning the retracted status (called CM) and not mentioning the retracted status (called NM). Statistical test is carried out to explore the effect of CM on post-retraction citations in the field of psychology. It is shown that the citation sentiment of CM is equally distributed as negative, neutral, and positive, while for NM, it is mainly distributed as the latter two. CM papers tend to cite retracted papers in Methodology, whereas NM papers cite more in Theoretical Background and Conclusion. The perception efficiency of retractions in psychology is low, where the average unaware duration (UD, the period between when the retraction note has been published and when the first citation directly pointed out its retracted status) lasts for 2.88 years. Also, UD is negatively correlated with the quantity of CM and the growth rate of NM, the proportionate change of NM before and after the first CM paper appears (P <0.01). After being aware of retractions, the average rate of change (ARC, the total change divided by its taken time) of NM declines significantly (Z=-2.823, P <0.01) whereas CM sees a raise in most disciplines, which contributes to the reduction of possible interdisciplinary impact.  相似文献   

14.
The number of received citations have been used as an indicator of the impact of academic publications. Developing tools to find papers that have the potential to become highly-cited has recently attracted increasing scientific attention. Topics of concern by scholars may change over time in accordance with research trends, resulting in changes in received citations. Author-defined keywords, title and abstract provide valuable information about a research article. This study performs a latent Dirichlet allocation technique to extract topics and keywords from articles; five keyword popularity (KP) features are defined as indicators of emerging trends of articles. Binary classification models are utilized to predict papers that were highly-cited or less highly-cited by a number of supervised learning techniques. We empirically compare KP features of articles with other commonly used journal-related and author-related features proposed in previous studies. The results show that, with KP features, the prediction models are more effective than those with journal and/or author features, especially in the management information system discipline.  相似文献   

15.
基于被引次数的引文分析无法直接揭示论文的研究内容,利用关键词或从标题、摘要和全文中抽取的主题词很难客观反映论文的被引原因。本文以碳纳米管纤维研究领域的高被引论文为研究对象进行引文内容抽取和主题识别,经人工判读验证：基于引文内容分析的高被引论文识别的核心主题能够较好地揭示高被引论文的被引原因（引用动机）,而且与论文的研究内容相符合;与基于全文、基于标题和摘要的主题识别相比,在引文内容分析基础上识别的主题具有更好的主题代表性,能够有效揭示被引文献的研究内容,是对原文相关信息的重要补充。本文的实验表明基于引文内容分析的高被引论文主题识别是可行而且有效的。图4。表4。参考文献31。  相似文献   

16.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):485-499
With the growing number of published scientific papers world-wide, the need to evaluation and quality assessment methods for research papers is increasing. Scientific fields such as scientometrics, informetrics, and bibliometrics establish quantified analysis methods and measurements for evaluating scientific papers. In this area, an important problem is to predict the future influence of a published paper. Particularly, early discrimination between influential papers and insignificant papers may find important applications. In this regard, one of the most important metrics is the number of citations to the paper, since this metric is widely utilized in the evaluation of scientific publications and moreover, it serves as the basis for many other metrics such as h-index. In this paper, we propose a novel method for predicting long-term citations of a paper based on the number of its citations in the first few years after publication. In order to train a citation count prediction model, we employed artificial neural network which is a powerful machine learning tool with recently growing applications in many domains including image and text processing. The empirical experiments show that our proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art methods with respect to the prediction accuracy in both yearly and total prediction of the number of citations.  相似文献   

17.
睡美人与王子文献的识别方法研究   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  
[目的/意义] 研究睡美人与王子文献的识别方法。分析唤醒机制,为未来在学术交流体系中发现"王子"作者,发掘、唤醒低被引和零被引文献的潜在价值提供理论依据。[方法/过程] 采用被引速率指标和睡美人指数两种客观指标识别1970-2005年临床医学四大名刊上发表的睡美人文献;基于以下4个原则寻找唤醒睡美人的王子文献:①发表于被引突增的附近年份;②本身被引次数较高;③与睡美人文献的同被引次数高;④在年度被引次数曲线上,王子文献对睡美人文献的"牵引或拉动"作用非常显著,即至少在睡美人文献引用突增的附近年份,王子文献的年度被引次数应高于睡美人文献。[结果/结论] 由于考虑了全部引文窗的引文曲线,被引速率指标能够识别出那些被引生命周期长、至今仍持续不断高频被引的论文;睡美人指数能够快速识别出睡美人文献,但却无法反映年度被引次数达到峰值之后的引文曲线;将被引速率+发表最初5年年均被引次数两个指标结合起来能够更好地识别睡美人文献。分析发现,综述、指南、著作等"共识型"的文献对于引发那些提出了新思想但尚未被认可的睡美人文献的被引突增起到了关键作用。建议事后识别睡美人文献可采用客观指标与主观界定相结合的方法,事前预测睡美人文献要注意追踪其是否被"共识性"文献推荐和引用,学术评价要特别关注被引速率低的论文。  相似文献   

18.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):515-539
Counting of number of papers, of citations and the h-index are the simplest bibliometric indices of the impact of research. We discuss some improvements. First, we replace citations with individual citations, fractionally shared among co-authors, to take into account that different papers and different fields have largely different average number of co-authors and of references. Next, we improve on citation counting applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among papers. Being time-ordered, this reduces to a weighted counting of citation descendants that we call PaperRank. We compute a related AuthorRank applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among authors. These metrics quantify the impact of an author or paper taking into account the impact of those authors that cite it. Finally, we show how self- and circular-citations can be eliminated by defining a closed market of Citation-coins. We apply these metrics to the InSpire database that covers fundamental physics, presenting results for papers, authors, journals, institutes, towns, countries for all-time and in recent time periods.  相似文献   

19.
Delayed recognition is a concept applied to articles that receive very few to no citations for a certain period of time following publication, before becoming actively cited. To determine whether such a time spent in relative obscurity had an effect on subsequent citation patterns, we selected articles that received no citations before the passage of ten full years since publication, investigated the subsequent yearly citations received over a period of 37 years and compared them with the citations received by a group of papers without such a latency period. Our study finds that papers with delayed recognition do not exhibit the typical early peak, then slow decline in citations, but that the vast majority enter decline immediately after their first – and often only – citation. Middling papers’ citations remain stable over their lifetime, whereas the more highly cited papers, some of which fall into the “sleeping beauty” subtype, show non-stop growth in citations received. Finally, papers published in different disciplines exhibit similar behavior and did not differ significantly.  相似文献   

20.
p 指数运用于人才评价的有效性实证研究   总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2  
h指数用于高发文、高引用的学者评价是有效的,但对低发文、高引用的学者进行评价存在缺陷,且数值易于雷同,不易区分。p指数在学者研究绩效评价方面具有同h指数相一致的维度,它不仅考虑学者的被引次数(C),而且考虑学者的研究质量指标——平均被引率(C/N)。以图书情报与文献学科领域49位专家为例,对比分析专家的发文量(N)、被引次数(C)、平均被引率、专家h指标、g指数、p指数,并进行相关性分析。结论:p指数优于现有的h指数、g指数,更具有评价的合理性,应在更大范围内进一步使用。  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