中美知名高校零被引学术论文特征的比较研究——以中国“C9高校”和美国“常青藤高校”为例
|
摘要
[目的/意义]高被引论文被广泛地应用于科研机构的绩效评价和学术排名,但科学界大量存在的低被引、甚至零被引论文在科研评价体系中的评价功能尚未获得足够的重视。从反向评价视角来考察中国高校与世界一流大学之间的差距,对高校的科研管理决策和优势学科建设具有一定启示。[方法/过程]以中国C9高校和美国常青藤高校为比较对象,采用文献计量方法,分析两个高校联盟的零被引论文在时序变化、学科结构、期刊质量和科研合作四个维度上的具体特征及差异。[结果/结论](1)C9高校整体的论文零被引率是常青藤高校的3.36倍,但差距在逐年缩小。(2)C9高校的计算机科学成为高零被引率学科,而常青藤高校的医学相关学科和部分人文社会科学学科出现较高的零被引率。(3)C9高校的零被引率受期刊质量因素的影响相对更大,在相同期刊质量条件下,C9高校的零被引率仍高于常青藤高校,说明C9高校论文零被引率的其他影响因素的作用也较为明显。(4)常青藤高校零被引论文的国内外合作范围略大于C9高校,但其在零被引论文合作研究中多是作为参与机构,而C9高校更多的是作为主导机构。
[Purpose/Significance]The highly cited papers are widely employed in the performance evaluation and academic ranking of scientific institutions,but the function of under-cited or non-cited papers has not been paid enough attention in the research evaluation system.This paper explored the gap between Chinese and American celebrated universities from the perspective of reverse evaluation,which might give some inspiration to the research management and disciplinary development plan in universities.[Method/Process]Based on Chinese C9 universities and American Ivy League universities,this article uses bibliometric methods to analyze the specific features and differences of these two university leagues among four dimensions— time-dependent distribution,disciplinary structure,periodical quality and scientific research cooperation.[Result/Conclusion]This paper draws the following conclusions:(1)overall,the non-cited rate of Chinese C9 universities is 3.36 times that of the American Ivy League universities,but the gap is narrowing yearly;(2)the discipline of high non-cited rates in C9 universities is computer science,while disciplines of medicine and humanities and social sciences in the Ivy League have a high non-cited rate;(3)the non-cited rate of C9 universities is relatively more affected by the journal quality.Under the same quality of journals,the non-cited rate of C9 universities is still higher than that of the Ivy League universities;(4)the non-cited rate of multi-institutional articles from the Ivy League universities is slightly higher than that of C9 universities,but they are mostly as participating institutions in the collaboration studies of non-cited papers while C9 universities usually as leading institutions.
[Purpose/Significance]The highly cited papers are widely employed in the performance evaluation and academic ranking of scientific institutions,but the function of under-cited or non-cited papers has not been paid enough attention in the research evaluation system.This paper explored the gap between Chinese and American celebrated universities from the perspective of reverse evaluation,which might give some inspiration to the research management and disciplinary development plan in universities.[Method/Process]Based on Chinese C9 universities and American Ivy League universities,this article uses bibliometric methods to analyze the specific features and differences of these two university leagues among four dimensions— time-dependent distribution,disciplinary structure,periodical quality and scientific research cooperation.[Result/Conclusion]This paper draws the following conclusions:(1)overall,the non-cited rate of Chinese C9 universities is 3.36 times that of the American Ivy League universities,but the gap is narrowing yearly;(2)the discipline of high non-cited rates in C9 universities is computer science,while disciplines of medicine and humanities and social sciences in the Ivy League have a high non-cited rate;(3)the non-cited rate of C9 universities is relatively more affected by the journal quality.Under the same quality of journals,the non-cited rate of C9 universities is still higher than that of the Ivy League universities;(4)the non-cited rate of multi-institutional articles from the Ivy League universities is slightly higher than that of C9 universities,but they are mostly as participating institutions in the collaboration studies of non-cited papers while C9 universities usually as leading institutions.
引文
[1]Moed H F,Burger W J,Raan A F J.Van.The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance[J].Research Policy,1985,14(3):131-149.
[2]Good A H.Highly cited leaders and the performance of research university[J].Research Policy,2009,38(7):1079-1092.
[3]Agasisti T,Catalano G,Landoni P,et al.Evaluating the performance of academic department:Analysis of research-related output efficiency[J].Research Evaluation,2012,21(1):2-14.
[4]Aksnes D W,Schneider J W,Gunnarsson M.Ranking national research system by citation Indicators:A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods[J].Journal of Informetrics,2012,6(1):36-43.
[5]Lin C S,Huang M H,Chen D Z.The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count[J].Journal of Informetrics,2013,7(3):611-621.
[6]Price D J D.Networks of scientific papers[J].Science,1965(145):510-515.
[7]Schwartz C A.The rise and fall of uncitedness[J].College&Research Libraries,1997,58(1):19-29.
[8]Ghosh J S,Neufeld M L.Uncitedness of articles in the Journal of the American Chemical society[J].Information Storage&Retrieval,1974:365-369.
[9]Ghosh J S.Uncitedness of articles in Nature,a multidisciplinary scientific journal[J].Information Processing&Management,1975,11(5):165-169.
[10]Peritz B C.A note on"scholarliness"and"impact"[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1983,34:360-362.
[11]唐晓莉,武群芳,王继民.论文零被引率与期刊影响力关系的研究——以经济学学科为例[J].图书情报工作,2014,58(19):100-104.
[12]Quentin L.Burrell.The nth-citation distribution and obsolescence[J].Scientometrics,2002,53(3):39323.
[13]Hu Z W,Wu Y S.Regularity time-dependent distribution nevercited papers:An empirical pilot study based on six journals[J].Journal of Informaetrics,2014,8(01):136-146.
[14]Van Leeuwen T N,Moed H F.Characteristics of journal impact factors:The effects of uncitedness and citation distribution on the understanding of journal impact factors[J].Scientometrics,2005,63(2):357-371.
[15]Egghe,L.The mathematical relation between the impact factor and the uncitedness factor[J].Scientometrics,2008,76(1):118-123.
[16]胡泽文.论文零被引率的演变规律及其影响因素研究[D].南京:南京大学,2014.
[17]Yang L Y,Yue T,Ding J L,et al.A comparison of disciplinary structure in science between the G7 and the BRIC countries by bibliometric methods[J].Scientometrics,2012,93(2):497-516.
[18]Leydesdorff L,Carley S,Rafols I.Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories[J].Scientometrics,2013,93(2):497-516.
[19]杨奕虹,杨贺,万小影,等.利用高被引与零被引数据剖析中国博士学位论文学术影响力[J].情报杂志,2015,34(7):22-28.
[20]Ke Q,Ferrara E,Radicchi F,et al.Defining and identifying sleeping beauties in science[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2015,112(24):7426.
[21]Dunleavy P.Poor citation practices are continuing to harm the humanities and social sciences[EB/OL].http://blogs.lse.ac.uk.2014.12.09.
[22]Egghe L.The distribution of the uncitedness factor and its functional relation with the impact factor[J].Scientometrics,2010,83(3):689-695.
[23]Gazni A,Didegah F.Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact:A case study of harvard university's publications[J].Scientometrics,2011,87(2),251-265.
[2]Good A H.Highly cited leaders and the performance of research university[J].Research Policy,2009,38(7):1079-1092.
[3]Agasisti T,Catalano G,Landoni P,et al.Evaluating the performance of academic department:Analysis of research-related output efficiency[J].Research Evaluation,2012,21(1):2-14.
[4]Aksnes D W,Schneider J W,Gunnarsson M.Ranking national research system by citation Indicators:A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods[J].Journal of Informetrics,2012,6(1):36-43.
[5]Lin C S,Huang M H,Chen D Z.The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count[J].Journal of Informetrics,2013,7(3):611-621.
[6]Price D J D.Networks of scientific papers[J].Science,1965(145):510-515.
[7]Schwartz C A.The rise and fall of uncitedness[J].College&Research Libraries,1997,58(1):19-29.
[8]Ghosh J S,Neufeld M L.Uncitedness of articles in the Journal of the American Chemical society[J].Information Storage&Retrieval,1974:365-369.
[9]Ghosh J S.Uncitedness of articles in Nature,a multidisciplinary scientific journal[J].Information Processing&Management,1975,11(5):165-169.
[10]Peritz B C.A note on"scholarliness"and"impact"[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1983,34:360-362.
[11]唐晓莉,武群芳,王继民.论文零被引率与期刊影响力关系的研究——以经济学学科为例[J].图书情报工作,2014,58(19):100-104.
[12]Quentin L.Burrell.The nth-citation distribution and obsolescence[J].Scientometrics,2002,53(3):39323.
[13]Hu Z W,Wu Y S.Regularity time-dependent distribution nevercited papers:An empirical pilot study based on six journals[J].Journal of Informaetrics,2014,8(01):136-146.
[14]Van Leeuwen T N,Moed H F.Characteristics of journal impact factors:The effects of uncitedness and citation distribution on the understanding of journal impact factors[J].Scientometrics,2005,63(2):357-371.
[15]Egghe,L.The mathematical relation between the impact factor and the uncitedness factor[J].Scientometrics,2008,76(1):118-123.
[16]胡泽文.论文零被引率的演变规律及其影响因素研究[D].南京:南京大学,2014.
[17]Yang L Y,Yue T,Ding J L,et al.A comparison of disciplinary structure in science between the G7 and the BRIC countries by bibliometric methods[J].Scientometrics,2012,93(2):497-516.
[18]Leydesdorff L,Carley S,Rafols I.Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories[J].Scientometrics,2013,93(2):497-516.
[19]杨奕虹,杨贺,万小影,等.利用高被引与零被引数据剖析中国博士学位论文学术影响力[J].情报杂志,2015,34(7):22-28.
[20]Ke Q,Ferrara E,Radicchi F,et al.Defining and identifying sleeping beauties in science[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2015,112(24):7426.
[21]Dunleavy P.Poor citation practices are continuing to harm the humanities and social sciences[EB/OL].http://blogs.lse.ac.uk.2014.12.09.
[22]Egghe L.The distribution of the uncitedness factor and its functional relation with the impact factor[J].Scientometrics,2010,83(3):689-695.
[23]Gazni A,Didegah F.Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact:A case study of harvard university's publications[J].Scientometrics,2011,87(2),251-265.