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   

Research trends and collaborations by applied science researchers in South African universities of technology: 2007–2017     

Elisha R.T. Chiware  Deborah A. Becker 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2018,44(4):468-476

This paper analyses the publication patterns of researchers in the field of applied sciences at Universities of Technology in South Africa. Aspects investigated include publications in SCOPUS-listed journals; number of citations and countries of publication. Collaborative research patterns at national and international levels were also investigated. A bibliometric analysis approach was followed using SCOPUS as the main source of data and analysing the articles published in selected applied science disciplines. Results show that researchers in the field of applied sciences in universities of technology have increased their number of publications over the past 10?years and are also working in conjunction with other researchers both nationally and internationally. The analysis is an important addition to the field in South Africa which helps in measuring how institutions are positively responding to government incentives in research. The results are also important to information professionals who are increasingly playing an important role in research impact assessments.  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   

Google Scholar's Coverage of the Engineering Literature 10 years Later     

Carmen Cole  Angela R. Davis  Vanessa Eyer  John J. Meier 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2018,44(3):419-425

In 2008 Meier and Conkling first tested Google Scholar's coverage of the engineering literature against citations gathered from the Compendex database. Since that time, other studies have used the same methodology and found improvement in Google Scholar's coverage. This study uses engineering dissertations from Proquest Dissertations & Theses to create a data set of citations for the comparison of fee-based databases, Compendex and Scopus, against Google Scholar. From 1950 to 2017 Google Scholar outperformed both Compendex and Scopus in discoverability of citations in nine engineering subjects. These results have implications for collection management and information literacy program planning for librarians.  相似文献   

复旦大学图书馆数学类英文图书引进及保障数据集     

郝群  周小康  徐琳  张立彬 《图书馆杂志》2018,(12):83-86

运用引文分析法,选取国内外高校使用的数学类经典教材所引用的参考文献,并对这些参考文献中的英文图书进行引文量统计。继而分别对复旦大学图书馆及CALIS中心数学类英文图书的保障率进行排查检索和测评。共有引文记录10519条,去重后共计8166条英文图书书目信息。本数据集可以对目前我国高等院校图书馆的专业学科类英文图书资源引进和利用提供有效评估和国际参考。  相似文献   

Supreme Court Review (1960–2009): A Bibliometrical Study     

Joel Fishman 《Legal Reference Services Quarterly》2018,37(1):1-10

Supreme Court Review is a faculty-edited legal periodical published by the University of Chicago Law School. This periodical is a highly read and cited law review in law, history, and political science. This article applies bibliometrics to a study of the 438 articles that are published in the periodical over a 50-year period. It is analysis of the number of articles by volume, pages, footnotes, authorship by sex, by individual, by institution, and most-cited articles.  相似文献   

Author ranking evaluation at scale     

Marcel Dunaiski  Jaco Geldenhuys  Willem Visser 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(3):679-702

We evaluate author impact indicators and ranking algorithms on two publication databases using large test data sets of well-established researchers. The test data consists of (1) ACM fellowship and (2) various life-time achievement awards. We also evaluate different approaches of dividing credit of papers among co-authors and analyse the impact of self-citations. Furthermore, we evaluate different graph normalisation approaches for when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs.We find that PageRank outperforms citation counts in identifying well-established researchers. This holds true when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs but also when PageRank is computed on paper graphs and paper scores are divided among co-authors. In general, the best results are obtained when co-authors receive an equal share of a paper's score, independent of which impact indicator is used to compute paper scores. The results also show that removing author self-citations improves the results of most ranking metrics. Lastly, we find that it is more important to personalise the PageRank algorithm appropriately on the paper level than deciding whether to include or exclude self-citations. However, on the author level, we find that author graph normalisation is more important than personalisation.  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   

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