新世纪(2000～2004年)图书馆学专门方法研究述评   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  

杨淑萍 《图书馆学研究》2005,(12):2-5,23

本文对进入新世纪以来的五年我国图书馆学专门方法的以下研究内容作了述评：图书馆学有无专门方法、图书馆学专门方法的内涵以及图书馆学专门方法的具体内容；在此基础上，探讨了我国图书馆学专门方法研究中存在的问题及应采取的对策。  相似文献   

建立什么样的图书馆职业精神   总被引：57，自引：2，他引：57  

李超平 《图书馆杂志》2005,24(5):3-7

主要从四个方面论述了图书馆职业精神的核心内容,即以图书馆职业为从业的价值标准,在理解图书馆职业的社会使命的基础上获得对职业的认同感,以崇尚科学的精神来理解图书馆职业的责任意识,用职业道德规范来实践图书馆职业精神。  相似文献   

国家科学数字图书馆网络联合参考咨询服务质量控制及评价方案研究*   总被引：24，自引：0，他引：24  

张娴  杨志萍  周宁丽  李丹 《现代图书情报技术》2005,21(11):30-33

介绍了国内外数字参考咨询服务质量评价体系的研究与应用概况。结合国家科学数字图书馆网络联合数字参考咨询服务的质量控制需要，在项目一期建设基础上选取部分指标建立了实际操作的评价体系，并制定了制度化的系统评价方案。  相似文献   

美、英、加、日、韩、俄等国图书情报教育的特色及其给我们的启示   总被引：9，自引：0，他引：9  

付立宏 《大学图书馆学报》2005,23(2):47-53,33

美、英、加、日、韩、俄等国家的图书情报教育颇有特色,主要表现在:图书情报教育与图书馆职业资格认证制度相辅相成;强调培育自己的专业特色;设计模块化的课程结构;重视儿童与中小学图书馆人才的培养;对研究生的教育方式比较灵活;贯彻“改革、创新”的办学理念。  相似文献   

专题：科技信息的开发获取（一）[张晓林编委组织]     

张晓林 《图书情报工作》2005,49(12):5-13

科技信息的开放获取已成为影响学术信息交流与科学发展的重大问题，深刻地影响到科技政策、科技支撑环境发展战略和科技信息服务模式。一大批科学家、科研机构和许多国家的科学管理与科研资助机构，都积极地推动科技信息的开放获取。他们或者制定开放获取政策、要求或鼓励科研人员提供科研成果的开放获取，或者支持开放出版期刊，或者建立机构开放存储库、支持本机构科研成果开放获取。通过这一系列的措施，科学界希望能够促进科研成果不受限制地广泛传播和自由获取、以及促进科研成果通过公共机制长期可靠保存和利用，以保障科技知识资产的国家保护和科研机构的知识资产管理。  相似文献   

谢拉的文献工作教育思想与实践     

周亚 《中国图书馆学报》2018,44(3):112-126

在1952—1970年担任西储大学图书馆学院院长期间,谢拉积极探索文献工作教育:在学科理论方面,进行文献工作学科理论建设;在学术研究方面,设立美国图书馆学院第一个专门的文献工作研究中心“文献工作与交流研究中心”;在教学活动方面,在图书馆学教育项目中引入文献工作相关课程,强化以文献工作为重点的专业图书馆人才培养。谢拉的文献工作教育是对传统图书馆学教育的改造,适应了图书馆学教育专门化的发展趋势,其立足点是以文献工作提升图书馆职业的社会价值,服务于图书馆人才培养,体现出明显的图书馆本位立场。谢拉领导下的西储大学图书馆学院的文献工作教育是一种过渡形态的早期情报学教育,促进了20世纪美国图书馆学教育向图书情报学教育格局的转型。参考文献62。  相似文献   

Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines     

Jens Peter Andersen  Mathias Wullum Nielsen 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(3):950-959

Many studies demonstrate differences in the coverage of citing publications in Google Scholar (GS) and Web of Science (WoS). Here, we examine to what extent citation data from the two databases reflect the scholarly impact of women and men differently. Our conjecture is that WoS carries an indirect gender bias in its selection criteria for citation sources that GS avoids due to criteria that are more inclusive. Using a sample of 1250 U.S. researchers in Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Cardiology and Chemistry, we examine gender differences in the average citation coverage of the two databases. We also calculate database-specific h-indices for all authors in the sample. In repeated simulations of hiring scenarios, we use these indices to examine whether women's appointment rates increase if hiring decisions rely on data from GS in lieu of WoS. We find no systematic gender differences in the citation coverage of the two databases. Further, our results indicate marginal to non-existing effects of database selection on women's success-rates in the simulations. In line with the existing literature, we find the citation coverage in WoS to be largest in Cardiology and Chemistry and smallest in Political Science and Sociology. The concordance between author-based h-indices measured by GS and WoS is largest for Chemistry followed by Cardiology, Political Science, Sociology and Economics.  相似文献   

Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter     

Fereshteh Didegah  Niels Mejlgaard  Mads P. Sørensen 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(3):960-971

This study explores science communication on Twitter by investigating a sample of tweets referring to academic papers in five different scientific fields. The specifications of science communicators on Twitter, the characteristics of those who initiate actions (by tweeting), the extent and quality of reactions (retweeting), individual and group interactions, and the distribution of tweets across types of engagement in the process of science communication (i.e., dissemination, consultation, and evaluation) were explored. A broad array of actors is involved in the communication of science on Twitter, with individual citizens and individual researchers playing an important role. In principle, this is promising for creating direct interaction, which can be difficult through more traditional mass media. The vast majority of communication activities regarding academic papers is undigested dissemination with almost no sign of debate, contestation, or collective reflection. Another general finding of this study is that bot accounts play a major role in the science communication landscape on Twitter.  相似文献   

Impact Factors and the Central Limit Theorem: Why citation averages are scale dependent     

Manolis Antonoyiannakis 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(4):1072-1088

Citation averages, and Impact Factors (IFs) in particular, are sensitive to sample size. Here, we apply the Central Limit Theorem to IFs to understand their scale-dependent behavior. For a journal of n randomly selected papers from a population of all papers, we expect from the Theorem that its IF fluctuates around the population average μ, and spans a range of values proportional to $\sigma /\sqrt{n}$, where σ² is the variance of the population's citation distribution. The $1/\sqrt{n}$ dependence has profound implications for IF rankings: The larger a journal, the narrower the range around μ where its IF lies. IF rankings therefore allocate an unfair advantage to smaller journals in the high IF ranks, and to larger journals in the low IF ranks. As a result, we expect a scale-dependent stratification of journals in IF rankings, whereby small journals occupy the top, middle, and bottom ranks; mid-sized journals occupy the middle ranks; and very large journals have IFs that asymptotically approach μ. We obtain qualitative and quantitative confirmation of these predictions by analyzing (i) the complete set of 166,498 IF & journal-size data pairs in the 1997–2016 Journal Citation Reports of Clarivate Analytics, (ii) the top-cited portion of 276,000 physics papers published in 2014–2015, and (iii) the citation distributions of an arbitrarily sampled list of physics journals. We conclude that the Central Limit Theorem is a good predictor of the IF range of actual journals, while sustained deviations from its predictions are a mark of true, non-random, citation impact. IF rankings are thus misleading unless one compares like-sized journals or adjusts for these effects. We propose the Φ index, a rescaled IF that accounts for size effects, and which can be readily generalized to account also for different citation practices across research fields. Our methodology applies to other citation averages that are used to compare research fields, university departments or countries in various types of rankings.  相似文献   

Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?     

Mike Thelwall 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(2):430-435

Dimensions is a partly free scholarly database launched by Digital Science in January 2018. Dimensions includes journal articles and citation counts, making it a potential new source of impact data. This article explores the value of Dimensions from an impact assessment perspective with an examination of Food Science research 2008–2018 and a random sample of 10,000 Scopus articles from 2012. The results include high correlations between citation counts from Scopus and Dimensions (0.96 by narrow field in 2012) as well as similar average counts. Almost all Scopus articles with DOIs were found in Dimensions (97% in 2012). Thus, the scholarly database component of Dimensions seems to be a plausible alternative to Scopus and the Web of Science for general citation analyses and for citation data in support of some types of research evaluations.  相似文献