Empirical study of L-Sequence: The basic h-index sequence for cumulative publications with consideration of the yearly citation performance     

《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(3):478-485

Most current h-type indicators use only a single number to measure a scientist's productivity and impact of his/her published works. Although a single number is simple to calculate, it fails to outline his/her academic performance varying with time. We empirically study the basic h-index sequence for cumulative publications with consideration of the yearly citation performance (for convenience, referred as L-Sequence). L-Sequence consists of a series of L factors. Based on the citations received in the corresponding individual year, every factor along a scientist's career span is calculated by using the h index formula. Thus L-Sequence shows the scientist's dynamic research trajectory and provides insight into his/her scientific performance at different periods. Furthermore, L_∝, summing up all factors of L-Sequence, is for the evaluation of the whole research career as alternative to other h-index variants. Importantly, the partial factors of the L-Sequence can be adapted for different evaluation tasks. Moreover, L-Sequence could be used to highlight outstanding scientists in a specific period whose research interests can be used to study the history and trends of a specific discipline.  相似文献   

Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones?     

《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(1):89-97

Ever more frequently, governments have decided to implement policy measures intended to foster and reward excellence in scientific research. This is in fact the intended purpose of national research assessment exercises. These are typically based on the analysis of the quality of the best research products; however, a different approach to analysis and intervention is based on the measure of productivity of the individual scientists, meaning the overall impact of their entire scientific production over the period under observation. This work analyzes the convergence of the two approaches, asking if and to what measure the most productive scientists achieve highly cited articles; or vice versa, what share of highly cited articles is achieved by scientists that are “non-top” for productivity. To do this we use bibliometric indicators, applied to the 2004–2008 publications authored by academics of Italian universities and indexed in the Web of Science.  相似文献   

葡萄籽原花青素研究现状的文献计量学分析     

卢朝晖  胡琬  王敏  王宁  朱晓蕾 《中华医学图书馆杂志》2013,(10):53-55

以中国生物医学文献数据库（SinoMed）和MEDLINE为数据源,采用文献计量学方法对2000-2011年葡萄籽原花青素（GSP）的研究现状和发展趋势进行了分析,为基础和临床研究提供有益借鉴。  相似文献   

Utilizing Journal Dissertation Listings for Bibliometric Analysis     

《Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian》2013,32(1):123-134

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the use and importance of examining dissertations listed in scholarly journals, while focusing on a critical period of French doctoral education in historical studies. French dissertations in history were bibliometrically examined from Revue historique, a mainstream history journal published in France. Prior to 1984, there existed three separate doctoral degrees in France for the social sciences and the humanities. Data from 1976 to 1990 were profiled reflecting critical changes to the French doctoral process as it underwent a period of doctoral reform. The period 1983–1990 is examined critically for its significance with respect to transformation and changes in degree structure, subdisciplinary evolution and periodization. Journals listing dissertations can be examined for their disciplinary indicators. Understanding these changes in gray literature is critical for researchers using French doctoral dissertations in historical studies.  相似文献   

The integration of open access journals in the scholarly communication system: Three science fields     

Tove Faber Frandsen 《Information processing & management》2009

The greatest number of open access journals (OAJs) is found in the sciences and their influence is growing. However, there are only a few studies on the acceptance and thereby integration of these OAJs in the scholarly communication system. Even fewer studies provide insight into the differences across disciplines. This study is an analysis of the citing behaviour in journals within three science fields: biology, mathematics, and pharmacy and pharmacology. It is a statistical analysis of OAJs as well as non-OAJs including both the citing and cited side of the journal to journal citations. The multivariate linear regression reveals many similarities in citing behaviour across fields and media. But it also points to great differences in the integration of OAJs. The integration of OAJs in the scholarly communication system varies considerably across fields. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed.  相似文献   

SSCI收录的图情学期刊的统计分析与研究   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  

王学勤章蕾  潘继进张丽 《图书情报知识》2005,(5):73-76

本文利用美国科学信息研究所（ISI）2003年版的期刊引文报告（JCR）作为统计源，对ISI收录的图书馆学情报学（以下简称图情学）期刊的数量、被引频次、载文量、影响因子、地域分布等情况进行详细的统计分析，列出了该学科领域的高影响力期刊，并试图在科学的量化指标基础上对图情学期刊进行合理评价，以揭示图情学的发展趋势和研究方向。  相似文献   

不同类型图书馆信息素质教育研究文献的调查与思考     

何卫宁 《高校图书馆工作》2006,26(4):53-55

以图书馆信息素质教育研究文献为基础,从历年发文、图书馆类型和期刊分布等方面探讨国内图书馆信息素质教育研究的现状,并就图书馆开展信息素质教育进行了思考.参考文献3.  相似文献   

1998—2017年《中国图书馆学报》论文的计量研究与品质分析     

张慧  叶鹰 《中国图书馆学报》2018,44(5):34-46

以CNKI数据库的量化数据和《〈中国图书馆学报〉创刊六十周年文选》的质性选编为基础,定义出《中国图书馆学报》(1998—2017)所有论文、《文选》论文和双高论文,采用引用量C、下载量U和引用下载比K三个计量指标,对所有论文和《文选》论文进行计量研究,并对《文选》论文和双高论文进行品质分析。研究发现:C、U和K均服从幂律分布,且论文年均引用下载比逐年递减;分段时间内论文引用和下载之间具有高度正相关关系。由于学术品质不能完全用量化指标代替,建议以提升学术品质作为最终目标,而计量研究的目的则是促进学术品质提升。图5。表4。参考文献21。  相似文献   

Funding,evaluation, and the performance of national research systems     

Ulf Sandström  Peter Van den Besselaar 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(1):365-384

Understanding the quality of science systems requires international comparative studies, which are difficult because of the lack of comparable data especially about inputs in research. In this study, we deploy an approach based on change instead of on levels of inputs and outputs: an approach that to a large extent eliminates the problem of measurement differences between countries. We firstly show that there are large differences in efficiency between national science systems, defined as the increase in output (highly cited papers) per percentage increase in input (funding). We then discuss our findings using popular explanations of performance differences: differences in funding systems (performance related or not), differences in the level of competition, differences in the level of university autonomy, and differences in the level of academic freedom. Interestingly, the available data do not support these common explanations. What the data suggest is that efficient systems are characterized by a well-developed ex post evaluation system combined with considerably high institutional funding and relatively low university autonomy (meaning a high autonomy of professionals). On the other hand, the less efficient systems have a strong ex ante control, either through a high level of so-called competitive project funding, or through strong power of the university management. Another conclusion is that more and better data are needed.  相似文献   

Examining the usage,citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: A comparative study of three tools     

Xuelian Pan  Erjia Yan  Ming Cui  Weina Hua 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(2):481-493

This study investigates the use, citation and diffusion of three bibliometric mapping software tools (CiteSpace, HistCite and VOSviewer) in scientific papers. We first conduct a content analysis of a sample of 481 English core journal papers—i.e., papers from journals deemed central to their respective disciplines—in which at least one of these tools is mentioned. This allows us to understand the predominant mention and citation practices surrounding these tools. We then employ several diffusion indicators to gain insight into the diffusion patterns of the three software tools. Overall, we find that researchers mention and cite the tools in diverse ways, many of which fall short of a traditional formal citation. Our results further indicate a clear upward trend in the use of all three tools, though VOSviewer is more frequently used than CiteSpace or HistCite. We also find that these three software tools have seen the fastest and most widespread adoption in library and information science research, where the tools originated. They have since been gradually adopted in other areas of study, initially at a lower diffusion speed but afterward at a rapidly growing rate.  相似文献