“满鲜历史地理调查部”与白鸟库吉东洋史学研究     

赵薇 《历史教学(高校版)》2011,(3)

白鸟库吉东洋史学研究的学术背景源于西方,研究方法受德国史学家路得维格.里斯影响,注重考据与实证,而纵观其整个学术历程,满鲜历史地理调查部的相关工作构建了其东洋史学研究的最初框架。本文将就满鲜历史地理调查部的设立过程与白鸟库吉东洋史学理念的发端、取得的成果与白鸟库吉东洋史学泰斗地位的确立、运作过程对白鸟库吉东洋史学研究的影响等方面进行探讨,力图廓清满鲜历史地理调查部与白鸟库吉的东洋史学研究之间的联系。  相似文献   

高师小学教育研究方法与教学改革的思考与实践     

秦初生 《桂林师范高等专科学校学报》2011,25(3):117-120

为适应基础教育改革和发展对高师院校提出的研究型教师培养要求,作为初等教育专业主干课程的小学教育研究方法,主要从以下几方面进行课程与教学改革：改革课程内容,增强课程的针对性和适用性;改革教学模式与教学方法,探索＂讲授—体验—反思—评价＂四环节研究性教学模式,采用多种教学方法,突出学生的自主探究和操作体验;改革评价方法,突出评价的发展功能;促进教师专业发展职前职后一体化。  相似文献   

Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)     

Lutz Bornmann  Robin Haunschild  Jonathan Adams 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(1):325-340

Altmetrics have been proposed as a way to assess the societal impact of research. Although altmetrics are already in use as impact or attention metrics in different contexts, it is still not clear whether they really capture or reflect societal impact. This study is based on altmetrics, citation counts, research output and case study data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF), and peers’ REF assessments of research output and societal impact. We investigated the convergent validity of altmetrics by using two REF datasets: publications submitted as research output (PRO) to the REF and publications referenced in case studies (PCS). Case studies, which are intended to demonstrate societal impact, should cite the most relevant research papers. We used the MHq’ indicator for assessing impact – an indicator which has been introduced for count data with many zeros. The results of the first part of the analysis show that news media as well as mentions on Facebook, in blogs, in Wikipedia, and in policy-related documents have higher MHq’ values for PCS than for PRO. Thus, the altmetric indicators seem to have convergent validity for these data. In the second part of the analysis, altmetrics have been correlated with REF reviewers’ average scores on PCS. The negative or close to zero correlations question the convergent validity of altmetrics in that context. We suggest that they may capture a different aspect of societal impact (which can be called unknown attention) to that seen by reviewers (who are interested in the causal link between research and action in society).  相似文献   

Measuring scientific contributions with modified fractional counting     

Gunnar Sivertsen  Ronald Rousseau  Lin Zhang 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):679-694

We develop and propose a new counting method at the aggregate level for contributions to scientific publications called modified fractional counting (MFC). We show that, compared to traditional complete-normalized fractional counting, it eliminates the extreme differences in contributions over time that otherwise occur between scientists that mainly publish alone or in small groups and those that publish with large groups of co-authors. As an extra benefit we find that scientists in different areas of research turn out to have comparable average contributions to scientific articles. We test the method on scientists at Norway’s largest universities and find that, at an aggregate level, it indeed supports comparability across different co-authorship practices as well as between areas of research. MFC is thereby useful whenever the research output from institutions with different research profiles are compared, as e.g., in the Leiden Ranking. Finally, as MFC is actually a family of indicators, depending on a sensitivity parameter, it can be adapted to the circumstances.  相似文献   

On the Shapley value and its application to the Italian VQR research assessment exercise     

Camil Demetrescu  Francesco Lupia  Angelo Mendicelli  Andrea Ribichini  Francesco Scarcello  Marco Schaerf 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(1):87-104

Research assessment exercises have now become common evaluation tools in a number of countries. These exercises have the goal of guiding merit-based public funds allocation, stimulating improvement of research productivity through competition and assessing the impact of adopted research support policies. One case in point is Italy's most recent research assessment effort, VQR 2011–2014 (Research Quality Evaluation), which, in addition to research institutions, also evaluated university departments, and individuals in some cases (i.e., recently hired research staff and members of PhD committees). However, the way an institution's score was divided, according to VQR rules, between its constituent departments or its staff members does not enjoy many desirable properties well known from coalitional game theory (e.g., budget balance, fairness, marginality). We propose, instead, an alternative score division rule that is based on the notion of Shapley value, a well known solution concept in coalitional game theory, which enjoys the desirable properties mentioned above. For a significant test case (namely, Sapienza University of Rome, the largest university in Italy), we present a detailed comparison of the scores obtained, for substructures and individuals, by applying the official VQR rules, with those resulting from Shapley value computations. We show that there are significant differences in the resulting scores, making room for improvements in the allocation rules used in research assessment exercises.  相似文献   

Rooted citation graphs density metrics for research papers influence evaluation     

Christos Giatsidis  Giannis Nikolentzos  Chenhui Zhang  Jie Tang  Michalis Vazirgiannis 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):757-768

Traditionally, citation count has served as the main evaluation measure for a paper's importance and influence. In turn, many evaluations of authors, institutions and journals are based on aggregations upon papers (e.g. h-index). In this work, we explore measures defined on the citation graph that offer a more intuitive insight into the impact of a paper than the superficial count of citations. Our main argument is focused on the identification of influence as an expression of the citation density in the subgraph of citations built for each paper. We propose two measures that capitalize on the notion of density providing researchers alternative evaluations of their work. While the general idea of impact for a paper can be viewed as how many researchers have shown interest to a piece of work, the proposed measures are based on the hypothesis that a piece of work may have influenced some papers even if they do not contain references to that piece of work. The proposed measures are also extended to researchers and journals.  相似文献   

Authorship analysis of specialized vs diversified research output     

Giovanni Abramo  Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo  Flavia Di Costa 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):564-573

The present work investigates the relations between amplitude and type of collaboration (intramural, extramural domestic or international) and output of specialized versus diversified research. By specialized or diversified research, we mean within or beyond the author’s dominant research topic. The field of observation is the scientific production over five years from about 23,500 academics. The analyses are conducted at the aggregate and disciplinary level. The results lead to the conclusion that in general, the output of diversified research is no more frequently the fruit of collaboration than is specialized research. At the level of the particular collaboration types, international collaborations weakly underlie the specialized kind of research output; on the contrary, extramural domestic and intramural collaborations are weakly associated with diversified research. While the weakness of association remains, exceptions are observed at the level of the individual disciplines.  相似文献   

Evaluating research and researchers by the journal impact factor: Is it better than coin flipping?     

Ricardo Brito  Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(1):314-324

The journal impact factor (JIF) is the average of the number of citations of the papers published in a journal, calculated according to a specific formula; it is extensively used for the evaluation of research and researchers. The method assumes that all papers in a journal have the same scientific merit, which is measured by the JIF of the publishing journal. This implies that the number of citations measures scientific merits but the JIF does not evaluate each individual paper by its own number of citations. Therefore, in the comparative evaluation of two papers, the use of the JIF implies a risk of failure, which occurs when a paper in the journal with the lower JIF is compared to another with fewer citations in the journal with the higher JIF. To quantify this risk of failure, this study calculates the failure probabilities, taking advantage of the lognormal distribution of citations. In two journals whose JIFs are ten-fold different, the failure probability is low. However, in most cases when two papers are compared, the JIFs of the journals are not so different. Then, the failure probability can be close to 0.5, which is equivalent to evaluating by coin flipping.  相似文献   

Gender and research publishing in India: Uniformly high inequality?     

Mike Thelwall  Carol Bailey  Meiko Makita  Pardeep Sud  Devika P. Madalli 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(1):118-131

Women’s access to academic careers has been historically limited by discrimination and cultural constraints. Comprehensive information about gender inequality within disciplines is needed to understand the problem and target remedial action. India is the fifth largest research producer but has a low international index of gender inequality and so is an important case. This study assesses gender inequalities in Indian journal article publishing in 2017 for 186 research fields. It also seeks overall gender differences in interests across academia by comparing the terms used in 27,710 articles with an Indian male or female first author. The data show that there are at least 1.5 male first authors per female first author in each of 26 broad fields and 2.8 male first authors per female first author overall. Compared to the USA, India has a much lower share of female first authors but smaller variations in gender differences between broad fields. Dentistry, Economics and Maths are all more female in India, but Veterinary is much less female than in the USA. There is a tendency for males to research thing-oriented topics and for females to research helping people and some life science topics. More initiatives to promote gender equality in science are needed to address the overall imbalance, but care should be taken to avoid creating the larger between-field gender differences found in the USA.  相似文献   

When research assessment exercises leave room for opportunistic behavior by the subjects under evaluation     

《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(3):830-840

This study inserts in the stream of research on the perverse effects that PBRF systems can induce in the subjects evaluated. The authors’ opinion is that more often than not, it is the doubtful scientific basis of the evaluation criteria that leave room for opportunistic behaviors. The work examines the 2004–2010 Italian national research assessment (VQR) to test the lack of possible opportunistic behavior by universities in order to limit the penalization of their performance (and funding) due to the presence of scientifically unproductive professors in faculty. In particular, institutions may have favored “gift authorship” practices. The analysis thus focuses on the output of professors who were unproductive in the VQR publication window, but became productive (“new productives”) in the following five years. A number of universities show a higher than average share of publications by new productives that are in co-authorship exclusively with colleagues from the same university. Although this might be thought to reflect opportunistic behavior by universities, the empirical evidence does not support this assumption.  相似文献