以整体性环境叙事构建中国绿色国际传播体系——以《中国日报》“北向追象”报道为例     

吴沁宇  韦清琦 《传媒观察》2022,(1)

《中国日报》于2021年夏开始的对云南亚洲象北行的专题英文报道,利用多平台综合信息展示了中国环保实践,在全球广受好评。本次报道与习近平总书记构建中国话语和中国叙事体系的理念十分相符,其中生态理念的本土特质得到凸显,官民一体的形象得到了积极塑造,而中国科技能力的展现也融入了一个好故事的解说之中。中国当代的环境叙事必须反映人与自然的生命共同体与人类命运共同体的完整结合;"北向追象"所构造的具有中国特色的环境叙事之所以取得了很好的外宣效果,跟其紧扣这一完整性的表达密不可分,对于今后的国际传播工作也提供了颇多启示。  相似文献   

论影响因子的衍生意义   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  

唐晴  秦萍玲 《编辑学报》2008,20(5):468-470

以文献引用关系为核心,讨论影响因子的本质意义,分析影响因子的衍生意义.认为学术期刊的影响因子不仅体现期刊的总体性,表征论文的学术水平和期刊的学术质量,而且标示着期刊作者群的信息和期刊内容代表的科学技术水平,具有从总体上定性评价和定量评价期刊论文质量和学术水平的特定功能,用作期刊评价指标的科学性较强.  相似文献   

电子公共服务环境影响因素及影响规律分析     

胡广伟  仲伟俊  梅姝娥 《情报学报》2008,27(1):116-126

随着电子公共服务应用的深入,政府管理者越来越关心哪些因素对电子公共服务水平存在影响、影响规律如何及如何利用这些规律来有效地提高电子公共服务水平等.本文以我国地方政府电子公共服务建设水平为研究对象,首先构建了地方政府电子公共服务建设水平影响因素的分析框架,该框架包括内部环境与外部环境两方面.然后采用问卷调查获取了我国地方政府电子公共服务水平的数据,结合政府行政环境数据,应用因子分析、聚类分析、单因素方差分析等方法对电子公共服务环境影响因素进行了论证与分析.进一步,文章深入讨论了环境影响因素对电子公共服务水平的影响规律.分析结果为政府部门进行电子公共服务建设决策提供了科学依据.  相似文献   

电子政府府际信息共享环境的构成与作用机制研究     

韩刚 《情报学报》2008,27(5)

信息生态理论认为,组织的信息行为可以从其环境特征中找到依据。本文以信息生态范式为方法论指导,首先从层次、内容、稳定性三个维度揭示了电子政府府际信息共享环境的构成以及构成要素之间的相互关系;其次,指出不同类型环境构成要素的作用机制是不同的,提出了锁定机制、权威机制、触发机制、博弈机制和选择机制五种不同环境作用机制,并分别对其作用机理以及相互关系进行了分析。环境构成和作用机制的研究结论初步回答了这样两个重要的问题:什么因素影响着电子政府府际信息共享行为?是如何影响的?本文的结论可以为电子政府府际信息共享管理提供理论支持。  相似文献   

影响因子分数平均值:一个评价学术论文质量的新指标   总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3  

郭红  潘云涛 《编辑学报》2006,18(6):475-477

介绍影响因子分数平均值的概念,并用2004年SCI收录的我国大学、科研机构和医疗机构的科技论文数据进行分析讨论.认为影响因子分数平均值比较适于评价不同学科间的研究工作,是一个新的评价学术论文质量的较好的量化指标.  相似文献   

中国大学网站的网络计量学研究   总被引：9，自引：0，他引：9  

谢奇  张晗 《现代图书情报技术》2005,21(7):74-77

利用网络计量学方法，分析了国内主要大学网站的链接数、网络影响因子与这些大学在国内比较公认的大学排名中的得分之间的相关关系。同时验证了利用不同的搜索引擎的数据得到的结果的一致性，以及就某一搜索引擎而言，不同时间段收集到的两轮数据得到的结果的一致性。  相似文献   

Enhancing Research Impact in Heritage Conservation     

Theocharis Katrakazis  Cath Dillon  Petra Juvan  Stavroula Golfomitsou 《文物保护研究》2018,63(8):450-465

This paper examines how research impact is defined, measured, and generated – with a view to understanding how it can be enhanced within heritage conservation. It examines what is meant by ‘impact’ and how it can be promoted within heritage science through effective inter-disciplinary collaboration. Following a general examination of the current discourse concerning research impact, the study examined: (i) active research networks within heritage science; (ii) research planning and evaluation practices within heritage science; and (iii) the experiences of users (i.e. conservators and other heritage professionals) within research collaborations. Terminologies surrounding the notion of impact and the various phases of the research process were reviewed – from the initial identification of a knowledge gap to the eventual application of new findings in practice. Next, the reach and diversity of research collaborations (as identified through publication co-authorship) were studied to characterise the inter-disciplinary nature of heritage science and its connectedness to users. Findings showed substantial growth in international research collaborations over recent years, predominantly involving academic- and research-oriented institutions – although the engagement of heritage institutions has proportionally decreased. In addition, a worldwide survey of institutional planning and evaluation practices revealed a general reliance on processes driven by the interests of researchers – the systematic consideration of stakeholder opinion and evaluation of research outcomes being less common. Finally, a series of semi-structured interviews with senior heritage professionals explored their experience of collaborative research. The results identified key areas where strategic support is needed to promote user participation and enhance impact. These include training for research readiness, engagement, and impact for both researchers and users; better methods for needs and outcome assessment; affordable open access options and greater diversity of knowledge exchange opportunities. Finally, the need for ethical guidelines for responsible research, and greater emphasis on non-academic impact within research rating systems are discussed.  相似文献   

面向学术图书的Altmetrics指标分析     

韩雨彤  周雨涵  杨伟超  刘晓娟 《图书情报工作》2018,62(14):91-97

[目的/意义] 探讨Altmetrics指标对学术图书影响力进行评价的有效性,为学术图书评价工作提出合理建议。[方法/过程] 获取Twitter提及量、Mendeley阅读量、在线书评数量以及馆藏量指标数据,对数据集的覆盖率、分位数等统计量分析后,将被引频数与Altmetrics指标进行了指标间相关系数检验,再对高Altmetrics指标值的学术图书进行年份分布、学科差异及图书主题等实证分析,探究各指标在学术图书影响力评价中的应用。[结果/结论] 传统计量指标被引频数与Altmetrics指标之间的相关性较低,说明Altmetrics可以作为学术图书评价的一个新视角,不同Altmetrics指标反映了学术图书影响力的不同维度。未来的学术图书影响力评价建议结合学术图书的年份、学科等特征,将传统的引文与Altmetrics指标相结合,探索更全面有效的评价机制。  相似文献   

Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts?     

Mike Thelwall  Tamara Nevill 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(1):237-248

Altmetrics from Altmetric.com are widely used by publishers and researchers to give earlier evidence of attention than citation counts. This article assesses whether Altmetric.com scores are reliable early indicators of likely future impact and whether they may also reflect non-scholarly impacts. A preliminary factor analysis suggests that the main altmetric indicator of scholarly impact is Mendeley reader counts, with weaker news, informational and social network discussion/promotion dimensions in some fields. Based on a regression analysis of Altmetric.com data from November 2015 and Scopus citation counts from October 2017 for articles in 30 narrow fields, only Mendeley reader counts are consistent predictors of future citation impact. Most other Altmetric.com scores can help predict future impact in some fields. Overall, the results confirm that early Altmetric.com scores can predict later citation counts, although less well than journal impact factors, and the optimal strategy is to consider both Altmetric.com scores and journal impact factors. Altmetric.com scores can also reflect dimensions of non-scholarly impact in some fields.  相似文献   

Four pitfalls in normalizing citation indicators: An investigation of ESI’s selection of highly cited papers     

Zhigang Hu  Wencan Tian  Shenmeng Xu  Chunbo Zhang  Xianwen Wang 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(4):1133-1145

InCites Essential Science Indicators is becoming increasingly used to identify top-performing research and evaluate the impact of institutes. Unfortunately, our study shows that ESI indicators, as well as other normalized citation indicators, have the following flaws. First, the publication month and the online-to-print delay affect a paper’s probability of becoming a Highly Cited Paper (HCP). Papers published in the earlier months of the year are more likely to accumulate enough citation counts to rank at the top 1% compared with those published in later months of the year. Papers with longer online-to-print delays have an apparent advantage for being selected as HCPs. Research field normalizations lead to the third pitfall. Different research fields have different citation thresholds for HCPs, making research field classification important for a journal. In addition, the uniform thresholds for both articles and reviews in ESI affect the reliability of HCP selection because, on average, reviews tend to have higher citation rates than articles. ESI’s selection of HCPs provides an intuitive feel for the problems of normalized citation impact indicators, such as those provided in InCites and SciVal.  相似文献