基于科学计量视角的同行评议专家遴选问题研究
|
摘要
科学评价是科技管理工作的重要组成部分,是促进科技资源优化配置,提高科技管理水平的重要手段和保障。同行评议是目前国内外科学评价采用的主要方法,同行评议质量的好坏直接关系到是否能客观、公正地遴选优秀、创新的科研项目,只有高质量的同行评议专家才能准确判断被评价研究的内在质量。因此,同行评议专家的来源和遴选直接关系到同行评议结果的质量与公平性。
同行评议是科学评价的内部执行方式,是科学共同体内部的民主决策,而这种内部执行方式有其固有的不足和弊端,因而笔者从科学评价外部视角,运用科学计量学的方法去选择同行评议专家,通过科学计量的动态分析,可以清晰地掌握同行评议专家的学术动向,并将同行评议自身的不足和弊端尽可能地最小化,由此从科学计量学的视角来研究同行评议专家遴选问题并建立遴选系统的模型。
本文从科学计量学的视角对同行评议专家遴选的五个基本问题做出了解答。第一,针对学术背景和学术范式会影响评审专家评议意见的问题,提出利用可视化著者同被引(ACA)技术选择相同学术范式的同行评议专家,便于科研管理者掌握学科领域的宏观情况,为专家的选择提供了科学合理的凭据。第二,针对“小”同行专家的选择问题,运用共词分析来判断科学语境的差异选择真正的同行专家,将科学语言、主题概念等词汇的使用情况作为判断是否是真正同行的标准和依据。第三,针对交叉领域同行评议专家的选择问题,提出运用科学知识图谱选择评审专家,为科研管理者把握交叉学科发展方向、规律提供可靠的数据支持和交叉学科热点研究的主题信息。第四,针对同行评议结果的权威性的问题,提出运用h指数选择科学贡献程度比较大的同行评议专家,帮助科研管理者准确评价和选择科学共同体中真正具有突出贡献的科学家作为同行评议专家,以突显同行评议的学术权威性。第五,针对同行评议专家遴选系统的设计问题,构建了基于科学计量学视角的同行评议专家自动遴选系统的概念模型,设置了专家系统指标体系和筛选原则,为建立无人为干扰的同行评议专家的自动遴选系统提供了理论模型。
本研究主要创新点有:(1)针对学术背景和学术范式会影响评审专家评议意见的问题,提出运用可视化著者同被引(ACA)技术选择相同学术范式的同行评议专家,为同行评议专家遴选系统智能遴选提供了理论上的可能。(2)针对“小”同行专家的选择问题,运用科学计量学的共词分析方法可以准确判定同行评议专家所擅长的研究领域和主题,同时可以为同行评议专家推荐表的科研信息提供准确的佐证资料,并为同行评议专家遴选系统智能筛选提供了科学合理的凭据。(3)针对交叉领域同行评议专家的选择问题,运用科学计量学的科学知识图谱准确判定交叉学科相近研究领域,及其交叉学科热点研究主题,根据交叉学科相近研究领域和热点研究主题作为线索,寻找合适的交叉学科同行评议专家。
Scientific Evaluation is an important part of scientific management work. It is also an important mean and a guarantee to promote the optimized configuration of scientific resource, and to improve the level of scientific management. The peer review is the leading ways employed in Scientific Evaluation all over the world at present. The quality of the peer review is directly related to selecting excellent and innovative science and research projects impersonally and impartially. Only those peer review experts with high quality can exactly judge the internal quality of science and research projects. Thereby, the source and selection of peer review experts are directly related to the quality and impartiality of the result of peer review.
The peer review is an internal execution method of scientific evaluation, and is a democratic decision-making of scientific community. However, there are some intrinsic disadvantages in this internal execution way. Therefore, we can use the way of scientometrics to select the peer review experts from the external perspective of scientific evaluation. By the dynamic analysis of scientometrics, we can clearly understand the research status of peer review experts, and minimize the intrinsic disadvantages of peer review as soon as possible. Moreover, we can study expert selection problems of peer review from the viewpoint of scientometrics, and design the model of automatic expert selection system of peer review.
There are five fundamental problems that will be answered in this paper from the viewpoint of scientometrics. Firstly, the technology of Visualized Author Co-citation Analysis is used to select the peer review experts with the same scientific paradigm. It has been convenient for science and research administrator to understand the macroscopic status in the subject domain, and to provide the scientific evidence of expert selection with reason. Secondly, the Co-word Analysis is used to judge the difference of scientific lingual environment and to select the true Peer review Expert. We can use scientific language, subject conception and other words as the standard and evidence to judge the true peer review expert. Thirdly, the scientific knowledge mapping can be used to select the peer review expert in cross-discipline domain, and to provide the credible data support and subject information of hotspot research in cross-discipline in order to better understand the development direction and the rule of cross-discipline domain for science and research administrator. Fourthly,“h-index”is used to select those scientists with more scientific contribution as peer review experts. It is a benefit for science and research administrator to evaluate and to select peer review expert. At the same time the“h-index”shows the scientific authority of peer review. Fifthly, the model of automatic Expert Selection System of peer review is designed in the viewpoint of scientometrics. This process need establish the index system and the selection principle of Expert System. Then the Expert Selection System of peer review can be established automatically.
There are three innovative points in this study. Firstly, the technology of Visualized Author Co-citation Analysis of scientometrics is used to better judge scientific paradigm hold by peer review expert exactly, and provide the theoretical feasibility of automatic selection of Expert Selection System of peer review. Secondly, Co-word Analysis of Scientometrics can be used to judge research domain and subject specialized by peer review expert, and to provide the exact proof about the scientific research information in the recommendation table of peer review expert. It also provides the scientific and reasonable evidence for intelligent selection in Expert Selection System of peer review. Thirdly, the scientific knowledge mapping of scientometrics can be used exactly to judge the close research domain and hotspot research subject in the cross-discipline, and to find the appropriate peer review in the cross-discipline.
同行评议是科学评价的内部执行方式,是科学共同体内部的民主决策,而这种内部执行方式有其固有的不足和弊端,因而笔者从科学评价外部视角,运用科学计量学的方法去选择同行评议专家,通过科学计量的动态分析,可以清晰地掌握同行评议专家的学术动向,并将同行评议自身的不足和弊端尽可能地最小化,由此从科学计量学的视角来研究同行评议专家遴选问题并建立遴选系统的模型。
本文从科学计量学的视角对同行评议专家遴选的五个基本问题做出了解答。第一,针对学术背景和学术范式会影响评审专家评议意见的问题,提出利用可视化著者同被引(ACA)技术选择相同学术范式的同行评议专家,便于科研管理者掌握学科领域的宏观情况,为专家的选择提供了科学合理的凭据。第二,针对“小”同行专家的选择问题,运用共词分析来判断科学语境的差异选择真正的同行专家,将科学语言、主题概念等词汇的使用情况作为判断是否是真正同行的标准和依据。第三,针对交叉领域同行评议专家的选择问题,提出运用科学知识图谱选择评审专家,为科研管理者把握交叉学科发展方向、规律提供可靠的数据支持和交叉学科热点研究的主题信息。第四,针对同行评议结果的权威性的问题,提出运用h指数选择科学贡献程度比较大的同行评议专家,帮助科研管理者准确评价和选择科学共同体中真正具有突出贡献的科学家作为同行评议专家,以突显同行评议的学术权威性。第五,针对同行评议专家遴选系统的设计问题,构建了基于科学计量学视角的同行评议专家自动遴选系统的概念模型,设置了专家系统指标体系和筛选原则,为建立无人为干扰的同行评议专家的自动遴选系统提供了理论模型。
本研究主要创新点有:(1)针对学术背景和学术范式会影响评审专家评议意见的问题,提出运用可视化著者同被引(ACA)技术选择相同学术范式的同行评议专家,为同行评议专家遴选系统智能遴选提供了理论上的可能。(2)针对“小”同行专家的选择问题,运用科学计量学的共词分析方法可以准确判定同行评议专家所擅长的研究领域和主题,同时可以为同行评议专家推荐表的科研信息提供准确的佐证资料,并为同行评议专家遴选系统智能筛选提供了科学合理的凭据。(3)针对交叉领域同行评议专家的选择问题,运用科学计量学的科学知识图谱准确判定交叉学科相近研究领域,及其交叉学科热点研究主题,根据交叉学科相近研究领域和热点研究主题作为线索,寻找合适的交叉学科同行评议专家。
Scientific Evaluation is an important part of scientific management work. It is also an important mean and a guarantee to promote the optimized configuration of scientific resource, and to improve the level of scientific management. The peer review is the leading ways employed in Scientific Evaluation all over the world at present. The quality of the peer review is directly related to selecting excellent and innovative science and research projects impersonally and impartially. Only those peer review experts with high quality can exactly judge the internal quality of science and research projects. Thereby, the source and selection of peer review experts are directly related to the quality and impartiality of the result of peer review.
The peer review is an internal execution method of scientific evaluation, and is a democratic decision-making of scientific community. However, there are some intrinsic disadvantages in this internal execution way. Therefore, we can use the way of scientometrics to select the peer review experts from the external perspective of scientific evaluation. By the dynamic analysis of scientometrics, we can clearly understand the research status of peer review experts, and minimize the intrinsic disadvantages of peer review as soon as possible. Moreover, we can study expert selection problems of peer review from the viewpoint of scientometrics, and design the model of automatic expert selection system of peer review.
There are five fundamental problems that will be answered in this paper from the viewpoint of scientometrics. Firstly, the technology of Visualized Author Co-citation Analysis is used to select the peer review experts with the same scientific paradigm. It has been convenient for science and research administrator to understand the macroscopic status in the subject domain, and to provide the scientific evidence of expert selection with reason. Secondly, the Co-word Analysis is used to judge the difference of scientific lingual environment and to select the true Peer review Expert. We can use scientific language, subject conception and other words as the standard and evidence to judge the true peer review expert. Thirdly, the scientific knowledge mapping can be used to select the peer review expert in cross-discipline domain, and to provide the credible data support and subject information of hotspot research in cross-discipline in order to better understand the development direction and the rule of cross-discipline domain for science and research administrator. Fourthly,“h-index”is used to select those scientists with more scientific contribution as peer review experts. It is a benefit for science and research administrator to evaluate and to select peer review expert. At the same time the“h-index”shows the scientific authority of peer review. Fifthly, the model of automatic Expert Selection System of peer review is designed in the viewpoint of scientometrics. This process need establish the index system and the selection principle of Expert System. Then the Expert Selection System of peer review can be established automatically.
There are three innovative points in this study. Firstly, the technology of Visualized Author Co-citation Analysis of scientometrics is used to better judge scientific paradigm hold by peer review expert exactly, and provide the theoretical feasibility of automatic selection of Expert Selection System of peer review. Secondly, Co-word Analysis of Scientometrics can be used to judge research domain and subject specialized by peer review expert, and to provide the exact proof about the scientific research information in the recommendation table of peer review expert. It also provides the scientific and reasonable evidence for intelligent selection in Expert Selection System of peer review. Thirdly, the scientific knowledge mapping of scientometrics can be used exactly to judge the close research domain and hotspot research subject in the cross-discipline, and to find the appropriate peer review in the cross-discipline.
引文
[1]张其瑶,没有科学评价就没有科学管理[J],评价与管理,2004,(12):62-63
[2]田华,基础研究评估中的同行评议和专家评议[J],中国基础科学,2005,(5):47-50
[3]关于改进科学技术评价工作的决定[J],评价与管理,2003(7):39-43
[4]邱均平,《科学引文索引》与科学评价[J],评价与管理,2003(7):1-7
[5] Chubin,Daryle, Peerless review and U.S. science policy, Albany[M],NY:State University of New York Press,1990,20-22
[6]邢以群,论“同行评议”方法的完善和发展[J],科技管理研究,1997(5):22-24
[7]马晓光等,同行评议中专家识别研究[J],研究与发展管理,2003(6):68-72
[8]叶波,同行评议方法的局限性及其弥补措施[J],中国卫生质量管理,1998(5):45-46
[9]古继宝,论同行评议人为问题和监测评估[J],安徽软科学研究,1996(8):14-17
[10]朱志文,对同行评议质量与公正性的探讨[J],地球科学进展,1998,13(1):81-84
[11]时密林,专家数据可系统中知识库与数据库的结合[J],吉林工学院学报,1995,10(1):21-23
[12]王国华,专家判断信息的提取与一致性调整[J],系统工程理论方法应用,2001,10(1):68-71
[13]王志田,科研立项同行专家评议的公正性及其影响因素[J],研究与发展管理,1992(4):46-48
[14]张保生,论程序正义与学术评审制度的建构[J],学术界,2001(6):33-36
[15]郝凤霞,刘静岩,陈忠,技术研发项目中同行专家评议产生非共识的原因分析[J],中国软科学,2004(12):92-96
[16]杨列勋,汪寿阳,席酉民,科学基金遴选中非共识研究项目的评估研究[J],科学学研究,2002,20(2):185—188
[17] Joseph P. Costantino, Mitchell H. Gail,Validation Studies for Models Projecting the Risk of Invasive and Total Breast Cancer Incidence,Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 91, No. 18, 1541-1548, September 15, 1999
[18] R. W. Morrow, A. D. Gooding and C. Clark,Improving physicians' preventive health care behavior through peer review and financial incentives,Archives of Family Medicine, Vol. 4 No. 2, February 1995,pp265-268
[19] Lesley Southgate, The General Medical Council’s Performance Procedures: peer review of performance in the workplace, Medical Education, Volume 35 Issue s1 Page 9-19, December 2001
[20]吴述尧,同行评议方法论[M],北京:科学出版社,1996,100-105
[21] Susan van Rooyen, Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’recommendations: a randomised trial, British Medical Journal, 1999 January 2; 318(7175): 23–27.
[22] Jerome P. Kassirer, MD, Edward W. Campion, MD, Peer Review: Crude and Understudied, but Indispensable, http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3089x.htm
[23] Peters, Douglas P.; Ceci, Stephen J, Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1983-04303-001
[24] ELIZABETH WALSH, Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial, The British Journal of Psychiatry (2000) 176: 47-51
[25] Cole, Jonathan R., Cole, Stephen, Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase II. National Academy Press, 1981, pp95
[26] Arthur T. Evans, The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Volume 8, Number 8, 1993(8): 422-428
[27] BINGHAM C. M., The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study, Lancet , 1998, vol. 352, no.9126, pp. 441-445
[28] Tom Jefferson, MD, Effects of Editorial Peer Review, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/21/2784
[29]同行评议国家自然科学基金委员会政策局译(内部资料),1992年,ppl7,转引自蒋国华等,同行评议之路:科学计量学指标的应用,见《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,39
[30] Brian M. Research grants: Problems and options. Australian Universities’Review, 2000, 43(2):17-22
[31]李延瑾,科技项目立项评审的同行评议方法研究:[硕士学位论文],武汉理工大学,2001
[32]见《国家自然科学基金项目管理规定(试行)第十六条
[33] G.D.L. Travis, New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System, Science, Technology & Human Values, 1991, Vol. 16, No. 3, 322-341
[34] STEVAN HARNAD, The invisible hand of peer review, http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html
[35] S Cole, Cole JR, and GA Simon, Chance and consensus in peer review, Science 20 November 1981:Vol. 214. no. 4523, pp. 881– 886
[36] E. J. Rinia, Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands, Research Policy Volume 27, Issue 1, May 1998, pp 95-107
[37]王志强,关于完善同行评议制度的若干问题和思考——同行评议调研综述[J],中国科学基金,2002,(5):313-317
[38]何杰,王成红,刘克,对同行评议专家评议工作进行评估的一些思考[J],中国科学基金,2004(1):35-40
[39]何香香,王家平,关于完善同行评议体系的一些思考[J],中国科学基金,2005(2):120-128
[40]刘艳骄,论同行评议[J],中国科技论坛,1998(3):56-60
[41]龚旭,同行评议与科学基金政策研究[J],中国科学基金,2007(2):91-94
[42] Patricia A. Thomas, A Pilot Study of Peer Review in Residency Training, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Volume 14 Issue 9 Page 551-554, September 1999
[43]郑称德,同行评议专家工作业绩测评及其指标初探[J],科技管理研究,2002(4):10-13
[44]么大中,张淑芳,罗欢,评价机制:同行评议制与间接指标体系的融合[J],黑龙江社会科学,2004(2):82-96
[45] HERBERT W. MARSH, The Peer Review Process Used to Evaluate Manuscripts Submitted to Academic Journals: Interjudgmental Reliability, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 57, 1989, pp62
[46]赵黎明等,对同行评议专家的反评估分析[J],中国科学基金,1995,9(1):63-73
[47]王成红等,关于同行评议专家定量评估指标研究的几个新结果[J],系统工程理论与实践,2004(2):83-89
[48]朱志文,于晟,对同行评议质量与公正性的探讨[J],地球科学进展,1998(1):14-22
[49]刘克等,国家自然科学基金面上项目通讯评议结果的公平化处理[J],中国科学基金,2003,17(4):243-246
[50]龚旭,同行评议公正性的影响因素分析[J],科学学研究,2006(12):212-217
[51] Keith Pond, Peer Review: a Precursor to Peer Assessment, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Volume 32, Issue 4 November 1995 , pages 314 - 323
[52]朱作言,同行评议与科学自主性[J],中国科学基金,2004,18(15):257-260
[53]周忠祥,刘志国,非共识项目的设立给基础研究源头创新带来新希望[J],中国科学基金,2007(1):57-62
[54]丁厚德,刘求实,王玉堂,同行评议中“非共识”认识的处理[J],中国科学基金,1995(1):45-52
[55]崔克明,对非共识项目的认识和评审建议[J],中国科学基金,2001(3):34-42
[56] Ian I. Mitroff (1979), Peer Review at the NSF: A Dialectical Policy Analysis, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 9, No. 2, 199-232
[57]杨列勋等,科学基金遴选中非共识研究项目的评估研究[J],科学学研究,2002,20(2):185-188
[58] Cotton P. Flaws documented, reforms debated at congress on journal peer review. JAMA. 1993;270:2775-2778.
[59]郑兴东等,基金项目同行评议中项目非共识性的度量研究[J],解放军医院管理杂志,2004,11(1):77-79
[60]刘求实等,同行评议中的“非共识”问题研究[J],科技导报,1995(1):40-42
[61]张守著.建立合理的专家动态管理体系.中国科学基金. 2000(6):364-366
[62] Susan van Rooyen, Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Volume 14 Issue 10 Page 622-624, October 1999
[63]朱作言,同行评议与科学自主性[J],中国科学基金,2004(5):257-260
[64] Rustum Roy, Funding Science: The Real Defects of Peer Review and an Alternative to it, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 10, No. 3, Peer Review and Public Policy (Summer, 1985), pp. 73-81
[65] Alan L. Porter and Frederick A. Rossini, Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research Proposals, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 10, No. 3, Peer Review and Public Policy (Summer, 1985), pp. 33-38
[66]龚旭,美国国家科学基金会的同行评议制度及其启示[J],中国科学基金,2004(6):373-376
[67] National Science Foundation. Comflict-of-Interests and Confidentiality Statement for NSF Panelists, www.eng.nsf.gov/sbir/COI-Form.doc
[68] National Science Foundation. FY 2003 Report on the NSF Merit Review System, NSB-04-43,May 2004, pp 89
[69]续玉红等,SCI检索系统在科研绩效评价中的应用[J],中国科学基金,2003(4):227-230
[70] Garfield E, How ISI selects journals for coverage:quantitative and qualitative considerations. Current Contents, May 28,1990
[71] Harter S P, Nisonger T E,Weng A. Semantic relationships between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals. Journal of American Society of Information Science, 1993,44:543-552
[72] Ingweren P, Larsen B, Roursseau R et al.论文-引文矩阵及其推导的定量评价指标,科学通报,2001,46(8):700-704
[73] Garfield E. The significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. The Scientist, 1996,10(17):1054-1060
[74]中国科学信息技术研究所,2001年度中国科技论文统计与分析(年度研究报告),2002:16
[75]王志强,关于完善同行评议制度的若干问题和思考——同行评议调研综述[J],中国科学基金,2002(5):309-313
[76] Australian Research Council. The Peer Review Process, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra,1997, pp63
[77]蒋国华,科研评价与指标[M],北京:红旗出版社,2000,177-180
[78]冯锋等,关于科学研究醒目同行评议的一些政策性分析,中国科学基金,2007(1):42-46
[79]何杰等,对同行评议专家评议工作进行评估的一些思考,中国科学基金,2004(1):47-50
[80] Rennie D. More peering into peer review. JAMA. 1993;270:2856-2858.
[81] Judson HF. Structural transformation of the sciences and the end of peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:92-94.
[82] Kostoff,R,N,,"PeerReview:TheAppropriateGPRAMetricforResearch",Science,Volume277,August1997b
[83] Rennie D. Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review. JAMA. 1986;256:2391-2392.
[84] Rennie D. Editorial peer review in biomedical publication: the first international congress. JAMA. 1990;263:1317.
[85] NationalScienceandTechnologyCouncil(NSTC),Assessing Fundamental Research,CommitteeonFundamentalScience,SubcommitteeonResearch,1996,Accessedonlineathttp://www.nsfeov/sbe/srs/ostp/assess/star.htm,
[86] Taubes G. Peer review goes under the microscope. Science. 1993;262:25-26.
[87] Ormala,E,"Nordic Experiences of the Evaluation of Technical Research and Development",Policy18,1989,123-145
[88] Vanchieri C. Peer review out to the test: credibility at stake. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1632-1633.
[89] Armstrong,J.S,"Why Conduct Journal Peer Review:Quality Control,Fairness,or Innovation",Science and Engineering Ethics,1997:45-60
[90] Flanagin A, Rennie D, Lundberg G. Attitudes of Peer Review Congress attend-ees. In: Peer Review in Scientific Publishing. Chicago, Ill: Council of Biology Editors; 1991:260-263
[91] Mohammadreza Hojat,Impartial Judgment by the“Gatekeepers”of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process,Advances in Health Sciences Education,Volume 8, Number 1,2003(3),pp75-96
[92] Armstrong, S.J. (October 25, 1996). We need to rethink the editorial role of peer reviewers. The Chronicle of Higher Education 43(9): B3.
[93] Bailar, J.C. & Patterson, K. (1985). Journal peer review: The need for a research agenda. New England Journal of Medicine 312: 654–657
[94]刘作仪,评价政府资助的基础研究:理论基础与方法选择,[博士学位论文],武汉大学,2003
[95] Bartko, J.J. (1966). The intra-class correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological Reports 19: 3–11.
[96] Bloom, F.E. (1999). The importance of reviewers. Science 283: 789.
[97] Callaham, M.L., Baxt, W.G. et al. (1998). Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. Journal of the American medical Association 280: 229–231.
[98] Callaham, M.L., Wears, R.L. et al. (1998). Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 254–257.
[99] Campion, E.W., Curfman, G.D. & Drazen, J.M. (2000). Tracking the peer-review process. The New England Journal of Medicine 343: 1485–1486.
[100] Cho, M.K., Justice, A.C. et al. (1998). Masking author identity in peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 243–245.
[101] Cicchetti, D.V. (1980). Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist: A biostatistical assessment of the data. American Psychologist 35: 300–305.
[102] Fisher, M., Friedman, S.B. & Strauss, B. (1994). The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 143–146.
[103]龚旭,中美同行评议公正性政策比较研究[J],科研管理,2005(5):1-6
[104] Godlee, F., Gale, C. Martyn, C.N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their names. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 280: 237–240
[105] Goldbeck-Wood, S. (1999). Evidence on peer review– Scientific quality control or smoke screen? British Medical Journal 318: 44–45.
[106] Horrobin, D.F. (1982). Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 217–218.
[107] Howard, L. & Wilkinson, G. (1998). Peer review and editorial decision-making. British Journal of Psychiatry 173: 110–113.
[108]徐彩荣等,国外同行评议的不同模式与共同趋势,科学学与科学技术管理,2005(2):28-33
[109] Jefferson, T. & Godlee, F. (eds.) (1999). Peer Review in Health Care. London, UK: British Journal Publishing Group.pp35-38
[110] Justice, A.C., Cho, M.K. et al. (1998). Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trail. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 240–242.
[111]德意志研究联合会的评议过程指南[J],中国基础科学,2005(6):52-53
[112]续玉红等,SCI检索系统在科研绩效评价中的应用[J],中国科学基金,2003(4):227-230
[113] Garfield E, How ISI selects journals for coverage:quantitative and qualitative considerations. Current Contents, May 28,1990
[114] Harter S P, Nisonger T E,Weng A. Semantic relationships between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals. Journal of American Society of Information Science, 1993,44:543-552
[115] Ingweren P, Larsen B, Roursseau R et al.论文-引文矩阵及其推导的定量评价指标,科学通报,2001,46(8):700-704
[116] Garfield E. The significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. The Scientist, 1996,10(17):1054-1060
[117]中国科学信息技术研究所,2001年度中国科技论文统计与分析(年度研究报告),2002:16
[118] Anthony F.J. van Raan,刘俊婉译,h指数与标准文献计量学指标及同行评议之间的关系,科学观察,2006(1):12-14
[119] Laband, D.N. & Piette,M.J. (1994). A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. Journal of the American 272: 147–149.
[120] A. F. J. van Raan, Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises, Scientometrics, Volume 36, Number 3, 397-420
[121] Susan van Rooyen, Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’recommendations: a randomised trial, British Medical Journal, 1999 January 2; 318(7175): 23–27.
[122] Peters, Douglas P.; Ceci, Stephen J, Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1983-04303-001
[123] Fiona Godlee, BSc, MRCP, Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/3/237
[124] Fiona Godlee, BSc, MRCP, Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/3/237
[125] Amy C. Justice, MD, PhD, Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/3/240
[126]邱均平,文献信息引证规律和引文分析法[J],情报理论与实践,2001,4(3):236-240
[127] Garfield, E. Scientography: Mapping the tracks of science. Current Contents: Social & Behavioural Sciences, 7, 45 (1994), 5-10.
[128]候海燕,基于知识图谱的科学计量学进展研究:[博士学位论文],大连理工大学,2006
[129] Small, H. A SCI-MAP case study: Building a map of AIDS research. Scientometrics, 30, 1 (1994), 229-241.
[130] Eugene Garfield,Citation Indexes:New Dimensionin Documentation[R],American Documentation Institute Meeting[C],Philadelphia,1955,1-4
[131] Eugene Garfield,Citation Indexes for Science– A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas[J],Science,1955,122:108-111
[132] Eugene Garfield,Citation Indexes for Science[J],Science,1956,123:61-62
[133] Eugene Garfield,Citation Indexes-New Paths to Scientific Knowledge[J],The Chemical Bulletin,1956,43(4):11-12
[134] Eugene Garfield,Breaking the Subject Index Barrier–a Citation Index for Chemical Patents[J],Journal of the Patent Office Society,1957,39(8):583-595
[135] Eugene Garfield,Citationin Popular and Interpretive ScienceWriting[J],Science,1963,141:392
[136] I.H.Sher,E.Garfield,The Genetics Citation Index Experiment[R],The 26th Annual Meeting of American Documentation Institute[C],Chicago,1963,63-64
[137] Eugene Garfield,Science Citation Index– A New Dimensionin Indexing[J],Science,1964,144:649-654
[138] Eugene Garfield,Evaluating Published Contributions[J],Special Libraries,1965,56(2):134-146
[139] I.H.Sher,Eugene Garfield,New Tools for Improving and Evaluating the Effectiveness of Research[R],Proceedings of the Second Conferenceon Research Program Effectiveness[C],Washington,1966,135-146
[140] Small.H,Griffith B.C.,TheStructure of Scientific Literatures I:Identifying and Graphing Specialties,Science Studies,1974(4):14-40
[141] Dangzhi Zhao, Towards all-author co-citation analysis, Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, v.42 n.6, p.1578-1591, December 2006
[142] Chaomei Chen , Les Carr, Trailblazing the literature of hypertext: author co-citation analysis (1989–1998), Proceedings of the tenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and hypermedia : returning to our diverse roots: returning to our diverse roots, p.51-60, February 21-25, 1999, Darmstadt, Germany
[143] Ding, Y. (1998). Visualization of intellectual structure in information retrieval: author co-citation analysis. International Forum on Information and Documentation, 23(1), 25-36.
[144] Kevin W. Boyack , Brian N. Wylie , George S. Davidson, Domain visualization using VxInsight for science and technology management, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.53 n.9, p.764-774, August 2002
[145] Chen, C., Chennawasin, C., & Yu, Y. (2000). Visualising scientific disciplines on the web. In Proceedings of the 16th IFIP world computer congress. International conference on software: theory and practice, Beijing, China (pp. 720-725).
[146] McCain, K. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: a technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433-443.
[147] Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 153-203.
[148] Johnson, A. G. (1988). Statistics. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
[149] Green, P. E., Carmone, F. J., & Smith, S. M. (1989). Multidimensional scaling: concepts and applications. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
[150]张文彤,SPSS11多元统计分析(高级篇)[M],北京:希望电子出版社,2002,125-130
[151] W.W.Cooley,P.R.Lohnes,Multivarate Data Analysis[M],NewYork,JohnWiley&Sons,Inc,,1971
[152]林海明、张文霖,主成分分析与因子分析的异同和SPSS软件——兼与刘玉玫、卢文岱等同志商榷[J],统计研究,2005(3):87-92
[153] S.Wasserman,K.Faust,Social Network Analysis:Methods and Application[J],Cambridge,NY:Cambridge University Press,1994,44-52
[154] Orgent,An Introduction to Social Network Analysis[EB/OL],http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html,2006-2-20
[155] E.M.Rogers,D.L.Kincaid,Communication Networks:To ward a New Paradigm for Research[M],NewYork:FreePress,1981,87
[156] Elizabeth A.Armstrong,MaryBernstein. (2008) Culture, Power, and Institutions: A Multi-Institutional Politics Approach to Social Movements. Sociological Theory 26:1, 74-99
[157] OtteE,Rousseau R,Social Network Analysis:a Powerful Strategy,also for information sciences,Journal of Information Science,2002,28:443-455
[158] Marc H.Anderson. (2008) Social networks and the cognitive motivation to realize network opportunities: a study of managers' information gathering behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29:1, 51-78
[159] MaqsoodSandhu,PetriHelo. (2006) A network approach to project business analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 13:6, 600-615
[160] New M,The Structure of Scientific Collaboration Networks,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,2001:404-409
[161] Maarten R.Rothengatter. (2005) Social networks and tax (non-)compliance in a multicultural nation: Emerging themes from a focus-group study among ethnic minorities in Australia. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 11:4, 280-314
[162] Michael Polanyi,The Logic of Ligerty[M]:the Reflections and Rejoinders,Routledge and keganPaulLtd,1951,53
[163]刘玲玲,科学社会学[M],上海:上海人民出版社,1986,171
[164] (美)托马斯·库恩著,必要的张力[M],纪树立译,福州:福建人民出版社,1981,292
[165]文学峰,试论科学共同体的非社会性[J],自然辩证法通讯,2003(3):60-64
[166]江天骥,当代西方科学哲学[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社,1984,120
[167] Michael M, Philip M S. The R&D portfolio: a concept for allocating science and technology funds. Science , 1996, 274(5292):1484-1485
[168] Brian M. Research grants: Problems and options. Australian Universities’Review, 2000, 43(2):17-22
[169] John M F, How Does the Government Fund Science? Politics, Lobbying and Academic Earmarks, MIT Sloan Working Paper No.4484-4404, March 16,2004, http://www.ssrn.com
[170]朱东华,吴旺顺,政策分析与基础学科布局[M],北京:机械工业出版社,1994,36
[171] Martin,Ben,‘The Use of Multiple Indicators in the Assessment of Basic Research’,ScientometricsVol,36,No3,1996,pp,343-364
[172] SharonK,Davis,PeggyS,Lowry,Survey on the Status of Evaluation Activities in College and University Pi-e-Award Research Administration Offices:Frequency and Type,ResearchManagement Review,Vol,7,No,2,Spring1995,67-74
[173]国家自然科学基金委员会编译,科学质量的评估,美国国家研究理事会,国家科学基金会,66
[174] National Academy of Sciences(NAS),1999,Evaluating Federal Research Programs:Research on the Government Performance and Results Act,Committee on Science,Engineering,and Public Policy,Washington,DC:National Academy Press,100
[175] National Science and Technology Council(NSTC),Assessing Fundamental Research,Committee on Fundamental Science,Subcommittee on Research,1996,Accessed online a thttp://www.nsfeov/sbe/srs/ostp/assess/star.htm,
[176]见《国家自然科学基金项目管理规定(试行)第十六条
[177]王平等,同行评议制的固有缺点与局限性,科技管理研究,1994(4):22-26,13
[178]马晓光等,同行评议中专家识别研究[J],研究与发展管理,2003(6):68-72
[179]罗式胜,从文献计量学、科学计量学到科学技术计量学[J],图书馆论坛,2003,23:151-153,
[180] SussanE,Cozzens,`Taking the Measure of Science:A Review of Citation Theories',International Society for the Sociology of Knowledge,Newsletter,Vol,7,May1981,pp,22-28
[181] Research Funding as an Investment:Can We measure the Returns?A Technical Memorandum (Washington,DC:U,S,Congress,Office of Technology Assessment,OTA-TM-SET36;April,1986,58
[182] G.N.Gilbert,`Measuring the Growth of Science:A Review of Indicators of Scientific Growth' Scientometrics,vol,l,September1978,pp9-34
[183] Koenig,M,&Westermann-Cicio,M,'Scientometrics,Cybermetrics and Firm Performance,The Second International Symposiumon Quantitative Evaluation of Research Performance,Shanghai,China,Oct,23,2000,56
[184] Garfield,The oretical Medicine’s Special Issue on the Nobel Prizes and their effecton science,Current Comments,1992,37:137-146,
[185] DeBruinRE,KintA,LuwelM,etal,A study of research evaluationand planning:the University of Ghent,Research Evaluation,1993,3:25-41,
[186] [美]理查德,P,萨特米尔著,袁南生等译,科研与革命[M],湖南:国防科技大学出版社,1989,10-11
[187] Martin,B,R,andI,Irvine,Assessing Basic Research:Some Partial Indicators of Scientific Progress in Radio Astronomy,ResearchPolicy,1983,12,pp,61-90;
[188] Narin.F,Evaluative Bibliometrics:The Use of Publicalion and Citation Analysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity,WashingtonD,C,National Science Foundation,1976,56
[189] Braam.R.R,Moed.H.F,andVanRaan,A.F.J,Mapping of science by combining co-citation and word analysis,I:Structural Aspects;--II:Dynamical Aspects,Journal of the American Society for information Science,1991,55
[190] Small.H, Sweeney.E, Greenlee.E,Clustering the Science Citation Index Using Co-Citations,II:Mapping Science,Scientometrics,Vol8,pp,321-340
[191] Callon.M, Law.J,andRip.A,(Eds,) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology,London:Mac Millan Press Ltd,1986,120-122
[192] OEDC,Proposaled standard practice for surveys of research and experimental development (Frascati Manual),Paris,1994,54-56
[193]李伦,试论科学学派的形成机制[J],科学学研究,1997(9):17-23
[194]贺颖,可视化著者同被引(ACA)技术对科学结构研究的应用[R],第二届中国科技政策与管理学术研讨会,347-355
[195]宋丽萍,徐引篪,基于可视化的作者同被引技术的发展[J],情报学报,2005(4):34-42
[196] XiaLin,H,D,White,JanBuzydlowski,Real-time author co-citation mapping for online searching,Information Processing and Management,2003,39(5):689-706
[197]江天骥,库恩谈科学革命和不可通约性[J],自然科学哲学问题丛刊,1984(1):89-96
[198]刘爱玲等,科技奖励评审过程的研究[M],国家创新系统与学术评价,济南:山东教育出版社,济南,2000,147-149
[199]李东,科学语境与科学共同体[J],哈尔滨师专学报,2000(1):60-71
[200] T,S,库恩,必要的张力[M],福建人民出版社,1981,292
[201] B,vanFraassen,The scientific image[M],NewYork:Oxford University Press,1980:154-156
[202]冯广艺,语境适应论[M],武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999:15
[203]李东,语境、意义与实在[J],科学技术与辩证法,1993(4):5-10
[204]陈广仁,科学主义语境下原始创新的困境[J],科学学与科学技术管理,2006(5):65-69
[205] B,van Fraassen,The scientific image[M],NewYork:Oxford University Press,1980:154—156
[206]李侠,邢润川,论作为意识形态的科学主义的危机与局限[J],学术界,2003(2):47-56
[207]华勒斯坦,刘健芝等译,学科·知识·权力[M],北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999,120
[208] CHANDRASEKARANB,DSEPHSONJR,BENJAMINSVR,What are ontologies,and why do we need them?[J],IEEE Intelligent Systems,1999,14(1):20-26,
[209] STUDERR,FENSELD,DECKERS,etal,Knowledgeengineering:surveyandfuturedirections[C]//LectureNotesinArtificialIntelligence(LNAI),[S.l.]:Springer-Verlag,1999,45
[210] UCSHOLDM,GRUNINGERM,Ontologies:principles,methods,and applications[J],Knowledge Engineering Review,1996,11(2):92-136,
[211]张瑾、丁颖,领域本体构建方法研究[J],计算机时代,2007(6):13-15,35
[212] Borstwn W N,Construction of engineering ontologies for knowledge sharing and reuse[D],Phd thesis,UniversityofTwente,Enschede,1997,
[213]宋炜,张铭,语义Web简明教程[M],高等教育出版社,2004,245-246
[214]王英林,王卫东,王宗江等,基于本体的可重构知识管理平台[J],计算机集成制造系统,2003, 9 (12):136-1144.
[215]唐素勤,一种面向领域本体的教学策略研究方敞[J],计算机工程与应用,2004(2):194-196,210
[216]刘群,李素建,基于《知网》的词汇语义相似度计算[J],计算语言学及中文信息处理,2002,(7):59,76,
[217]黄果等,基于领域本体的概念语义相似度计算研究[J],计算机工程与设计,2007(5):2460-2463
[218] LawJ,BauinS,CourtialJP,etal,Policy and the mapping of scientific change:A co-word analysis of researchin to environmental acidification[J],Scientometrics,1988(14):251-264
[219] QinHe,Knowledge discovery through Co-wordanalysis[J],Library Trends,1999(1):133-159
[220]蒋颖,1995—2004年文献计量学研究的共词分析[J],情报学报,2006(8):504-512
[221]马费成等,我国数字信息资源研究的热点领域:共词分析透视[J],情报理论与实践,2007(4):438-443
[222]张荣,新环境下同行评议的机制研究:[硕士学位论文],武汉大学,2005
[223]赵红州,大科学[M],北京:人民出版社,1988,58
[224] E,Shearer,J,Moravcsik,Citation Paterns in Little Science and Big Science[J],Scientometrics,vol,1,No,5-6(1979):461-474,
[225]赵晓春,跨学科研究与科研创新能力建设:[博士学位论文],中国科学技术大学,2007,118-121
[226]克兰D,无形学院——知识在科学共同体的扩散[M],北京:华夏出版社,1988,68-69
[227] D Price,Science Since Babylon[M],Yale University Press,1961,pp120-125
[228] H Kretschmer,Co-authorship networks of invisible colleges and institutionalized communities[J],Scientometircs,1994,30(1):363-369,
[229] H Kretschmer,Types of two dimensional and three dimensional collaboration patterns[A],CA Macias Chapula,Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics[C],MexicoColima,1999,244-257,
[230] Chaomei Chen,Katherine McCain,Howard White,XiaLin,Mapping Scienteomtrics,ASIST,2002,29:25-34
[231]蒋国华,科学计量学和情报计量学:今天和明天[J],科学学和科技管理,1997,18(7):26-2
[232]陈悦,刘则渊,悄然兴起的科学知识图谱[J],科学学研究,2005,23(2):144-154
[233] Spiegel-RosingI,Thestudyofscience,technologyandsociety(SSTS):Recenttrendsandfuturechallenges,In:Spiegel-RosingI,PriceDJD,Science,TechnologyandSociety,Lodon:SagePublications,1977:7-42
[234]邱均平,文献信息引证规律和引文分析法[J],情报理论与实践,2001,4(3):236-240,
[235]金碧辉,科学家为自己设计了一项评价指标:h指数[J],科学观察,2006(1):8-9
[236] WolfgangGlanzel,刘俊婉译,也谈h指数的机会和局限性[J],科学观察,2006(1):10-11
[237] BallP,Index aims for fair ranking of scientists,Nature,2005,436(7053):900
[238] HenkF,Moed,刘俊婉译,h指数构建有创意用于评价要慎重[J],科学观察,2006(1):15
[239] J,E,Hirsch,刘俊婉译,衡量科学家个人成就的一个量化指标[J],科学观察,2006(1):2-7
[240] LaherrereJ,Sornette,D,Eur,Phys,J,B,1998,2:525;RednerS,Eur,Phys,J,B,1998,4:l31
[241] RednerS,PhysicsToday,2005,58(6):49
[242] vanRaanAFJ,Scientometrics,2004,59:467
[243] WolfgangGlanzel,刘俊婉译,也谈h指数的机会和局限性[J],科学观察,2006(1):10-11
[244] Glanzel W,Persson,A Hirsch—type index for Price Medallists,ISI Newsletter,2005,1(4),aceessible via http://www.issi—society.info/newsletter.html
[245]贺颖,陈士俊,TEDA经济发展综合分析与评价[J],科技进步与对策,2007(10):41-46
[246]贺颖,2001—2004年中国管理类期刊学术影响力综合评价[J],中国软科学,2007(1):107-112,133
[247]王晓萍,专家库建设在同行评议中的作用[J],云南科技管理,2004(2):24-25
[2]田华,基础研究评估中的同行评议和专家评议[J],中国基础科学,2005,(5):47-50
[3]关于改进科学技术评价工作的决定[J],评价与管理,2003(7):39-43
[4]邱均平,《科学引文索引》与科学评价[J],评价与管理,2003(7):1-7
[5] Chubin,Daryle, Peerless review and U.S. science policy, Albany[M],NY:State University of New York Press,1990,20-22
[6]邢以群,论“同行评议”方法的完善和发展[J],科技管理研究,1997(5):22-24
[7]马晓光等,同行评议中专家识别研究[J],研究与发展管理,2003(6):68-72
[8]叶波,同行评议方法的局限性及其弥补措施[J],中国卫生质量管理,1998(5):45-46
[9]古继宝,论同行评议人为问题和监测评估[J],安徽软科学研究,1996(8):14-17
[10]朱志文,对同行评议质量与公正性的探讨[J],地球科学进展,1998,13(1):81-84
[11]时密林,专家数据可系统中知识库与数据库的结合[J],吉林工学院学报,1995,10(1):21-23
[12]王国华,专家判断信息的提取与一致性调整[J],系统工程理论方法应用,2001,10(1):68-71
[13]王志田,科研立项同行专家评议的公正性及其影响因素[J],研究与发展管理,1992(4):46-48
[14]张保生,论程序正义与学术评审制度的建构[J],学术界,2001(6):33-36
[15]郝凤霞,刘静岩,陈忠,技术研发项目中同行专家评议产生非共识的原因分析[J],中国软科学,2004(12):92-96
[16]杨列勋,汪寿阳,席酉民,科学基金遴选中非共识研究项目的评估研究[J],科学学研究,2002,20(2):185—188
[17] Joseph P. Costantino, Mitchell H. Gail,Validation Studies for Models Projecting the Risk of Invasive and Total Breast Cancer Incidence,Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 91, No. 18, 1541-1548, September 15, 1999
[18] R. W. Morrow, A. D. Gooding and C. Clark,Improving physicians' preventive health care behavior through peer review and financial incentives,Archives of Family Medicine, Vol. 4 No. 2, February 1995,pp265-268
[19] Lesley Southgate, The General Medical Council’s Performance Procedures: peer review of performance in the workplace, Medical Education, Volume 35 Issue s1 Page 9-19, December 2001
[20]吴述尧,同行评议方法论[M],北京:科学出版社,1996,100-105
[21] Susan van Rooyen, Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’recommendations: a randomised trial, British Medical Journal, 1999 January 2; 318(7175): 23–27.
[22] Jerome P. Kassirer, MD, Edward W. Campion, MD, Peer Review: Crude and Understudied, but Indispensable, http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3089x.htm
[23] Peters, Douglas P.; Ceci, Stephen J, Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1983-04303-001
[24] ELIZABETH WALSH, Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial, The British Journal of Psychiatry (2000) 176: 47-51
[25] Cole, Jonathan R., Cole, Stephen, Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase II. National Academy Press, 1981, pp95
[26] Arthur T. Evans, The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Volume 8, Number 8, 1993(8): 422-428
[27] BINGHAM C. M., The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study, Lancet , 1998, vol. 352, no.9126, pp. 441-445
[28] Tom Jefferson, MD, Effects of Editorial Peer Review, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/21/2784
[29]同行评议国家自然科学基金委员会政策局译(内部资料),1992年,ppl7,转引自蒋国华等,同行评议之路:科学计量学指标的应用,见《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,39
[30] Brian M. Research grants: Problems and options. Australian Universities’Review, 2000, 43(2):17-22
[31]李延瑾,科技项目立项评审的同行评议方法研究:[硕士学位论文],武汉理工大学,2001
[32]见《国家自然科学基金项目管理规定(试行)第十六条
[33] G.D.L. Travis, New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System, Science, Technology & Human Values, 1991, Vol. 16, No. 3, 322-341
[34] STEVAN HARNAD, The invisible hand of peer review, http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html
[35] S Cole, Cole JR, and GA Simon, Chance and consensus in peer review, Science 20 November 1981:Vol. 214. no. 4523, pp. 881– 886
[36] E. J. Rinia, Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands, Research Policy Volume 27, Issue 1, May 1998, pp 95-107
[37]王志强,关于完善同行评议制度的若干问题和思考——同行评议调研综述[J],中国科学基金,2002,(5):313-317
[38]何杰,王成红,刘克,对同行评议专家评议工作进行评估的一些思考[J],中国科学基金,2004(1):35-40
[39]何香香,王家平,关于完善同行评议体系的一些思考[J],中国科学基金,2005(2):120-128
[40]刘艳骄,论同行评议[J],中国科技论坛,1998(3):56-60
[41]龚旭,同行评议与科学基金政策研究[J],中国科学基金,2007(2):91-94
[42] Patricia A. Thomas, A Pilot Study of Peer Review in Residency Training, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Volume 14 Issue 9 Page 551-554, September 1999
[43]郑称德,同行评议专家工作业绩测评及其指标初探[J],科技管理研究,2002(4):10-13
[44]么大中,张淑芳,罗欢,评价机制:同行评议制与间接指标体系的融合[J],黑龙江社会科学,2004(2):82-96
[45] HERBERT W. MARSH, The Peer Review Process Used to Evaluate Manuscripts Submitted to Academic Journals: Interjudgmental Reliability, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 57, 1989, pp62
[46]赵黎明等,对同行评议专家的反评估分析[J],中国科学基金,1995,9(1):63-73
[47]王成红等,关于同行评议专家定量评估指标研究的几个新结果[J],系统工程理论与实践,2004(2):83-89
[48]朱志文,于晟,对同行评议质量与公正性的探讨[J],地球科学进展,1998(1):14-22
[49]刘克等,国家自然科学基金面上项目通讯评议结果的公平化处理[J],中国科学基金,2003,17(4):243-246
[50]龚旭,同行评议公正性的影响因素分析[J],科学学研究,2006(12):212-217
[51] Keith Pond, Peer Review: a Precursor to Peer Assessment, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Volume 32, Issue 4 November 1995 , pages 314 - 323
[52]朱作言,同行评议与科学自主性[J],中国科学基金,2004,18(15):257-260
[53]周忠祥,刘志国,非共识项目的设立给基础研究源头创新带来新希望[J],中国科学基金,2007(1):57-62
[54]丁厚德,刘求实,王玉堂,同行评议中“非共识”认识的处理[J],中国科学基金,1995(1):45-52
[55]崔克明,对非共识项目的认识和评审建议[J],中国科学基金,2001(3):34-42
[56] Ian I. Mitroff (1979), Peer Review at the NSF: A Dialectical Policy Analysis, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 9, No. 2, 199-232
[57]杨列勋等,科学基金遴选中非共识研究项目的评估研究[J],科学学研究,2002,20(2):185-188
[58] Cotton P. Flaws documented, reforms debated at congress on journal peer review. JAMA. 1993;270:2775-2778.
[59]郑兴东等,基金项目同行评议中项目非共识性的度量研究[J],解放军医院管理杂志,2004,11(1):77-79
[60]刘求实等,同行评议中的“非共识”问题研究[J],科技导报,1995(1):40-42
[61]张守著.建立合理的专家动态管理体系.中国科学基金. 2000(6):364-366
[62] Susan van Rooyen, Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Volume 14 Issue 10 Page 622-624, October 1999
[63]朱作言,同行评议与科学自主性[J],中国科学基金,2004(5):257-260
[64] Rustum Roy, Funding Science: The Real Defects of Peer Review and an Alternative to it, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 10, No. 3, Peer Review and Public Policy (Summer, 1985), pp. 73-81
[65] Alan L. Porter and Frederick A. Rossini, Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research Proposals, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 10, No. 3, Peer Review and Public Policy (Summer, 1985), pp. 33-38
[66]龚旭,美国国家科学基金会的同行评议制度及其启示[J],中国科学基金,2004(6):373-376
[67] National Science Foundation. Comflict-of-Interests and Confidentiality Statement for NSF Panelists, www.eng.nsf.gov/sbir/COI-Form.doc
[68] National Science Foundation. FY 2003 Report on the NSF Merit Review System, NSB-04-43,May 2004, pp 89
[69]续玉红等,SCI检索系统在科研绩效评价中的应用[J],中国科学基金,2003(4):227-230
[70] Garfield E, How ISI selects journals for coverage:quantitative and qualitative considerations. Current Contents, May 28,1990
[71] Harter S P, Nisonger T E,Weng A. Semantic relationships between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals. Journal of American Society of Information Science, 1993,44:543-552
[72] Ingweren P, Larsen B, Roursseau R et al.论文-引文矩阵及其推导的定量评价指标,科学通报,2001,46(8):700-704
[73] Garfield E. The significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. The Scientist, 1996,10(17):1054-1060
[74]中国科学信息技术研究所,2001年度中国科技论文统计与分析(年度研究报告),2002:16
[75]王志强,关于完善同行评议制度的若干问题和思考——同行评议调研综述[J],中国科学基金,2002(5):309-313
[76] Australian Research Council. The Peer Review Process, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra,1997, pp63
[77]蒋国华,科研评价与指标[M],北京:红旗出版社,2000,177-180
[78]冯锋等,关于科学研究醒目同行评议的一些政策性分析,中国科学基金,2007(1):42-46
[79]何杰等,对同行评议专家评议工作进行评估的一些思考,中国科学基金,2004(1):47-50
[80] Rennie D. More peering into peer review. JAMA. 1993;270:2856-2858.
[81] Judson HF. Structural transformation of the sciences and the end of peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:92-94.
[82] Kostoff,R,N,,"PeerReview:TheAppropriateGPRAMetricforResearch",Science,Volume277,August1997b
[83] Rennie D. Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review. JAMA. 1986;256:2391-2392.
[84] Rennie D. Editorial peer review in biomedical publication: the first international congress. JAMA. 1990;263:1317.
[85] NationalScienceandTechnologyCouncil(NSTC),Assessing Fundamental Research,CommitteeonFundamentalScience,SubcommitteeonResearch,1996,Accessedonlineathttp://www.nsfeov/sbe/srs/ostp/assess/star.htm,
[86] Taubes G. Peer review goes under the microscope. Science. 1993;262:25-26.
[87] Ormala,E,"Nordic Experiences of the Evaluation of Technical Research and Development",Policy18,1989,123-145
[88] Vanchieri C. Peer review out to the test: credibility at stake. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1632-1633.
[89] Armstrong,J.S,"Why Conduct Journal Peer Review:Quality Control,Fairness,or Innovation",Science and Engineering Ethics,1997:45-60
[90] Flanagin A, Rennie D, Lundberg G. Attitudes of Peer Review Congress attend-ees. In: Peer Review in Scientific Publishing. Chicago, Ill: Council of Biology Editors; 1991:260-263
[91] Mohammadreza Hojat,Impartial Judgment by the“Gatekeepers”of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process,Advances in Health Sciences Education,Volume 8, Number 1,2003(3),pp75-96
[92] Armstrong, S.J. (October 25, 1996). We need to rethink the editorial role of peer reviewers. The Chronicle of Higher Education 43(9): B3.
[93] Bailar, J.C. & Patterson, K. (1985). Journal peer review: The need for a research agenda. New England Journal of Medicine 312: 654–657
[94]刘作仪,评价政府资助的基础研究:理论基础与方法选择,[博士学位论文],武汉大学,2003
[95] Bartko, J.J. (1966). The intra-class correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological Reports 19: 3–11.
[96] Bloom, F.E. (1999). The importance of reviewers. Science 283: 789.
[97] Callaham, M.L., Baxt, W.G. et al. (1998). Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. Journal of the American medical Association 280: 229–231.
[98] Callaham, M.L., Wears, R.L. et al. (1998). Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 254–257.
[99] Campion, E.W., Curfman, G.D. & Drazen, J.M. (2000). Tracking the peer-review process. The New England Journal of Medicine 343: 1485–1486.
[100] Cho, M.K., Justice, A.C. et al. (1998). Masking author identity in peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 243–245.
[101] Cicchetti, D.V. (1980). Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist: A biostatistical assessment of the data. American Psychologist 35: 300–305.
[102] Fisher, M., Friedman, S.B. & Strauss, B. (1994). The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 143–146.
[103]龚旭,中美同行评议公正性政策比较研究[J],科研管理,2005(5):1-6
[104] Godlee, F., Gale, C. Martyn, C.N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their names. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 280: 237–240
[105] Goldbeck-Wood, S. (1999). Evidence on peer review– Scientific quality control or smoke screen? British Medical Journal 318: 44–45.
[106] Horrobin, D.F. (1982). Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 217–218.
[107] Howard, L. & Wilkinson, G. (1998). Peer review and editorial decision-making. British Journal of Psychiatry 173: 110–113.
[108]徐彩荣等,国外同行评议的不同模式与共同趋势,科学学与科学技术管理,2005(2):28-33
[109] Jefferson, T. & Godlee, F. (eds.) (1999). Peer Review in Health Care. London, UK: British Journal Publishing Group.pp35-38
[110] Justice, A.C., Cho, M.K. et al. (1998). Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trail. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 240–242.
[111]德意志研究联合会的评议过程指南[J],中国基础科学,2005(6):52-53
[112]续玉红等,SCI检索系统在科研绩效评价中的应用[J],中国科学基金,2003(4):227-230
[113] Garfield E, How ISI selects journals for coverage:quantitative and qualitative considerations. Current Contents, May 28,1990
[114] Harter S P, Nisonger T E,Weng A. Semantic relationships between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals. Journal of American Society of Information Science, 1993,44:543-552
[115] Ingweren P, Larsen B, Roursseau R et al.论文-引文矩阵及其推导的定量评价指标,科学通报,2001,46(8):700-704
[116] Garfield E. The significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. The Scientist, 1996,10(17):1054-1060
[117]中国科学信息技术研究所,2001年度中国科技论文统计与分析(年度研究报告),2002:16
[118] Anthony F.J. van Raan,刘俊婉译,h指数与标准文献计量学指标及同行评议之间的关系,科学观察,2006(1):12-14
[119] Laband, D.N. & Piette,M.J. (1994). A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. Journal of the American 272: 147–149.
[120] A. F. J. van Raan, Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises, Scientometrics, Volume 36, Number 3, 397-420
[121] Susan van Rooyen, Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’recommendations: a randomised trial, British Medical Journal, 1999 January 2; 318(7175): 23–27.
[122] Peters, Douglas P.; Ceci, Stephen J, Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1983-04303-001
[123] Fiona Godlee, BSc, MRCP, Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/3/237
[124] Fiona Godlee, BSc, MRCP, Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/3/237
[125] Amy C. Justice, MD, PhD, Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/3/240
[126]邱均平,文献信息引证规律和引文分析法[J],情报理论与实践,2001,4(3):236-240
[127] Garfield, E. Scientography: Mapping the tracks of science. Current Contents: Social & Behavioural Sciences, 7, 45 (1994), 5-10.
[128]候海燕,基于知识图谱的科学计量学进展研究:[博士学位论文],大连理工大学,2006
[129] Small, H. A SCI-MAP case study: Building a map of AIDS research. Scientometrics, 30, 1 (1994), 229-241.
[130] Eugene Garfield,Citation Indexes:New Dimensionin Documentation[R],American Documentation Institute Meeting[C],Philadelphia,1955,1-4
[131] Eugene Garfield,Citation Indexes for Science– A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas[J],Science,1955,122:108-111
[132] Eugene Garfield,Citation Indexes for Science[J],Science,1956,123:61-62
[133] Eugene Garfield,Citation Indexes-New Paths to Scientific Knowledge[J],The Chemical Bulletin,1956,43(4):11-12
[134] Eugene Garfield,Breaking the Subject Index Barrier–a Citation Index for Chemical Patents[J],Journal of the Patent Office Society,1957,39(8):583-595
[135] Eugene Garfield,Citationin Popular and Interpretive ScienceWriting[J],Science,1963,141:392
[136] I.H.Sher,E.Garfield,The Genetics Citation Index Experiment[R],The 26th Annual Meeting of American Documentation Institute[C],Chicago,1963,63-64
[137] Eugene Garfield,Science Citation Index– A New Dimensionin Indexing[J],Science,1964,144:649-654
[138] Eugene Garfield,Evaluating Published Contributions[J],Special Libraries,1965,56(2):134-146
[139] I.H.Sher,Eugene Garfield,New Tools for Improving and Evaluating the Effectiveness of Research[R],Proceedings of the Second Conferenceon Research Program Effectiveness[C],Washington,1966,135-146
[140] Small.H,Griffith B.C.,TheStructure of Scientific Literatures I:Identifying and Graphing Specialties,Science Studies,1974(4):14-40
[141] Dangzhi Zhao, Towards all-author co-citation analysis, Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, v.42 n.6, p.1578-1591, December 2006
[142] Chaomei Chen , Les Carr, Trailblazing the literature of hypertext: author co-citation analysis (1989–1998), Proceedings of the tenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and hypermedia : returning to our diverse roots: returning to our diverse roots, p.51-60, February 21-25, 1999, Darmstadt, Germany
[143] Ding, Y. (1998). Visualization of intellectual structure in information retrieval: author co-citation analysis. International Forum on Information and Documentation, 23(1), 25-36.
[144] Kevin W. Boyack , Brian N. Wylie , George S. Davidson, Domain visualization using VxInsight for science and technology management, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.53 n.9, p.764-774, August 2002
[145] Chen, C., Chennawasin, C., & Yu, Y. (2000). Visualising scientific disciplines on the web. In Proceedings of the 16th IFIP world computer congress. International conference on software: theory and practice, Beijing, China (pp. 720-725).
[146] McCain, K. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: a technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433-443.
[147] Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 153-203.
[148] Johnson, A. G. (1988). Statistics. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
[149] Green, P. E., Carmone, F. J., & Smith, S. M. (1989). Multidimensional scaling: concepts and applications. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
[150]张文彤,SPSS11多元统计分析(高级篇)[M],北京:希望电子出版社,2002,125-130
[151] W.W.Cooley,P.R.Lohnes,Multivarate Data Analysis[M],NewYork,JohnWiley&Sons,Inc,,1971
[152]林海明、张文霖,主成分分析与因子分析的异同和SPSS软件——兼与刘玉玫、卢文岱等同志商榷[J],统计研究,2005(3):87-92
[153] S.Wasserman,K.Faust,Social Network Analysis:Methods and Application[J],Cambridge,NY:Cambridge University Press,1994,44-52
[154] Orgent,An Introduction to Social Network Analysis[EB/OL],http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html,2006-2-20
[155] E.M.Rogers,D.L.Kincaid,Communication Networks:To ward a New Paradigm for Research[M],NewYork:FreePress,1981,87
[156] Elizabeth A.Armstrong,MaryBernstein. (2008) Culture, Power, and Institutions: A Multi-Institutional Politics Approach to Social Movements. Sociological Theory 26:1, 74-99
[157] OtteE,Rousseau R,Social Network Analysis:a Powerful Strategy,also for information sciences,Journal of Information Science,2002,28:443-455
[158] Marc H.Anderson. (2008) Social networks and the cognitive motivation to realize network opportunities: a study of managers' information gathering behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29:1, 51-78
[159] MaqsoodSandhu,PetriHelo. (2006) A network approach to project business analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 13:6, 600-615
[160] New M,The Structure of Scientific Collaboration Networks,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,2001:404-409
[161] Maarten R.Rothengatter. (2005) Social networks and tax (non-)compliance in a multicultural nation: Emerging themes from a focus-group study among ethnic minorities in Australia. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 11:4, 280-314
[162] Michael Polanyi,The Logic of Ligerty[M]:the Reflections and Rejoinders,Routledge and keganPaulLtd,1951,53
[163]刘玲玲,科学社会学[M],上海:上海人民出版社,1986,171
[164] (美)托马斯·库恩著,必要的张力[M],纪树立译,福州:福建人民出版社,1981,292
[165]文学峰,试论科学共同体的非社会性[J],自然辩证法通讯,2003(3):60-64
[166]江天骥,当代西方科学哲学[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社,1984,120
[167] Michael M, Philip M S. The R&D portfolio: a concept for allocating science and technology funds. Science , 1996, 274(5292):1484-1485
[168] Brian M. Research grants: Problems and options. Australian Universities’Review, 2000, 43(2):17-22
[169] John M F, How Does the Government Fund Science? Politics, Lobbying and Academic Earmarks, MIT Sloan Working Paper No.4484-4404, March 16,2004, http://www.ssrn.com
[170]朱东华,吴旺顺,政策分析与基础学科布局[M],北京:机械工业出版社,1994,36
[171] Martin,Ben,‘The Use of Multiple Indicators in the Assessment of Basic Research’,ScientometricsVol,36,No3,1996,pp,343-364
[172] SharonK,Davis,PeggyS,Lowry,Survey on the Status of Evaluation Activities in College and University Pi-e-Award Research Administration Offices:Frequency and Type,ResearchManagement Review,Vol,7,No,2,Spring1995,67-74
[173]国家自然科学基金委员会编译,科学质量的评估,美国国家研究理事会,国家科学基金会,66
[174] National Academy of Sciences(NAS),1999,Evaluating Federal Research Programs:Research on the Government Performance and Results Act,Committee on Science,Engineering,and Public Policy,Washington,DC:National Academy Press,100
[175] National Science and Technology Council(NSTC),Assessing Fundamental Research,Committee on Fundamental Science,Subcommittee on Research,1996,Accessed online a thttp://www.nsfeov/sbe/srs/ostp/assess/star.htm,
[176]见《国家自然科学基金项目管理规定(试行)第十六条
[177]王平等,同行评议制的固有缺点与局限性,科技管理研究,1994(4):22-26,13
[178]马晓光等,同行评议中专家识别研究[J],研究与发展管理,2003(6):68-72
[179]罗式胜,从文献计量学、科学计量学到科学技术计量学[J],图书馆论坛,2003,23:151-153,
[180] SussanE,Cozzens,`Taking the Measure of Science:A Review of Citation Theories',International Society for the Sociology of Knowledge,Newsletter,Vol,7,May1981,pp,22-28
[181] Research Funding as an Investment:Can We measure the Returns?A Technical Memorandum (Washington,DC:U,S,Congress,Office of Technology Assessment,OTA-TM-SET36;April,1986,58
[182] G.N.Gilbert,`Measuring the Growth of Science:A Review of Indicators of Scientific Growth' Scientometrics,vol,l,September1978,pp9-34
[183] Koenig,M,&Westermann-Cicio,M,'Scientometrics,Cybermetrics and Firm Performance,The Second International Symposiumon Quantitative Evaluation of Research Performance,Shanghai,China,Oct,23,2000,56
[184] Garfield,The oretical Medicine’s Special Issue on the Nobel Prizes and their effecton science,Current Comments,1992,37:137-146,
[185] DeBruinRE,KintA,LuwelM,etal,A study of research evaluationand planning:the University of Ghent,Research Evaluation,1993,3:25-41,
[186] [美]理查德,P,萨特米尔著,袁南生等译,科研与革命[M],湖南:国防科技大学出版社,1989,10-11
[187] Martin,B,R,andI,Irvine,Assessing Basic Research:Some Partial Indicators of Scientific Progress in Radio Astronomy,ResearchPolicy,1983,12,pp,61-90;
[188] Narin.F,Evaluative Bibliometrics:The Use of Publicalion and Citation Analysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity,WashingtonD,C,National Science Foundation,1976,56
[189] Braam.R.R,Moed.H.F,andVanRaan,A.F.J,Mapping of science by combining co-citation and word analysis,I:Structural Aspects;--II:Dynamical Aspects,Journal of the American Society for information Science,1991,55
[190] Small.H, Sweeney.E, Greenlee.E,Clustering the Science Citation Index Using Co-Citations,II:Mapping Science,Scientometrics,Vol8,pp,321-340
[191] Callon.M, Law.J,andRip.A,(Eds,) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology,London:Mac Millan Press Ltd,1986,120-122
[192] OEDC,Proposaled standard practice for surveys of research and experimental development (Frascati Manual),Paris,1994,54-56
[193]李伦,试论科学学派的形成机制[J],科学学研究,1997(9):17-23
[194]贺颖,可视化著者同被引(ACA)技术对科学结构研究的应用[R],第二届中国科技政策与管理学术研讨会,347-355
[195]宋丽萍,徐引篪,基于可视化的作者同被引技术的发展[J],情报学报,2005(4):34-42
[196] XiaLin,H,D,White,JanBuzydlowski,Real-time author co-citation mapping for online searching,Information Processing and Management,2003,39(5):689-706
[197]江天骥,库恩谈科学革命和不可通约性[J],自然科学哲学问题丛刊,1984(1):89-96
[198]刘爱玲等,科技奖励评审过程的研究[M],国家创新系统与学术评价,济南:山东教育出版社,济南,2000,147-149
[199]李东,科学语境与科学共同体[J],哈尔滨师专学报,2000(1):60-71
[200] T,S,库恩,必要的张力[M],福建人民出版社,1981,292
[201] B,vanFraassen,The scientific image[M],NewYork:Oxford University Press,1980:154-156
[202]冯广艺,语境适应论[M],武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999:15
[203]李东,语境、意义与实在[J],科学技术与辩证法,1993(4):5-10
[204]陈广仁,科学主义语境下原始创新的困境[J],科学学与科学技术管理,2006(5):65-69
[205] B,van Fraassen,The scientific image[M],NewYork:Oxford University Press,1980:154—156
[206]李侠,邢润川,论作为意识形态的科学主义的危机与局限[J],学术界,2003(2):47-56
[207]华勒斯坦,刘健芝等译,学科·知识·权力[M],北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999,120
[208] CHANDRASEKARANB,DSEPHSONJR,BENJAMINSVR,What are ontologies,and why do we need them?[J],IEEE Intelligent Systems,1999,14(1):20-26,
[209] STUDERR,FENSELD,DECKERS,etal,Knowledgeengineering:surveyandfuturedirections[C]//LectureNotesinArtificialIntelligence(LNAI),[S.l.]:Springer-Verlag,1999,45
[210] UCSHOLDM,GRUNINGERM,Ontologies:principles,methods,and applications[J],Knowledge Engineering Review,1996,11(2):92-136,
[211]张瑾、丁颖,领域本体构建方法研究[J],计算机时代,2007(6):13-15,35
[212] Borstwn W N,Construction of engineering ontologies for knowledge sharing and reuse[D],Phd thesis,UniversityofTwente,Enschede,1997,
[213]宋炜,张铭,语义Web简明教程[M],高等教育出版社,2004,245-246
[214]王英林,王卫东,王宗江等,基于本体的可重构知识管理平台[J],计算机集成制造系统,2003, 9 (12):136-1144.
[215]唐素勤,一种面向领域本体的教学策略研究方敞[J],计算机工程与应用,2004(2):194-196,210
[216]刘群,李素建,基于《知网》的词汇语义相似度计算[J],计算语言学及中文信息处理,2002,(7):59,76,
[217]黄果等,基于领域本体的概念语义相似度计算研究[J],计算机工程与设计,2007(5):2460-2463
[218] LawJ,BauinS,CourtialJP,etal,Policy and the mapping of scientific change:A co-word analysis of researchin to environmental acidification[J],Scientometrics,1988(14):251-264
[219] QinHe,Knowledge discovery through Co-wordanalysis[J],Library Trends,1999(1):133-159
[220]蒋颖,1995—2004年文献计量学研究的共词分析[J],情报学报,2006(8):504-512
[221]马费成等,我国数字信息资源研究的热点领域:共词分析透视[J],情报理论与实践,2007(4):438-443
[222]张荣,新环境下同行评议的机制研究:[硕士学位论文],武汉大学,2005
[223]赵红州,大科学[M],北京:人民出版社,1988,58
[224] E,Shearer,J,Moravcsik,Citation Paterns in Little Science and Big Science[J],Scientometrics,vol,1,No,5-6(1979):461-474,
[225]赵晓春,跨学科研究与科研创新能力建设:[博士学位论文],中国科学技术大学,2007,118-121
[226]克兰D,无形学院——知识在科学共同体的扩散[M],北京:华夏出版社,1988,68-69
[227] D Price,Science Since Babylon[M],Yale University Press,1961,pp120-125
[228] H Kretschmer,Co-authorship networks of invisible colleges and institutionalized communities[J],Scientometircs,1994,30(1):363-369,
[229] H Kretschmer,Types of two dimensional and three dimensional collaboration patterns[A],CA Macias Chapula,Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics[C],MexicoColima,1999,244-257,
[230] Chaomei Chen,Katherine McCain,Howard White,XiaLin,Mapping Scienteomtrics,ASIST,2002,29:25-34
[231]蒋国华,科学计量学和情报计量学:今天和明天[J],科学学和科技管理,1997,18(7):26-2
[232]陈悦,刘则渊,悄然兴起的科学知识图谱[J],科学学研究,2005,23(2):144-154
[233] Spiegel-RosingI,Thestudyofscience,technologyandsociety(SSTS):Recenttrendsandfuturechallenges,In:Spiegel-RosingI,PriceDJD,Science,TechnologyandSociety,Lodon:SagePublications,1977:7-42
[234]邱均平,文献信息引证规律和引文分析法[J],情报理论与实践,2001,4(3):236-240,
[235]金碧辉,科学家为自己设计了一项评价指标:h指数[J],科学观察,2006(1):8-9
[236] WolfgangGlanzel,刘俊婉译,也谈h指数的机会和局限性[J],科学观察,2006(1):10-11
[237] BallP,Index aims for fair ranking of scientists,Nature,2005,436(7053):900
[238] HenkF,Moed,刘俊婉译,h指数构建有创意用于评价要慎重[J],科学观察,2006(1):15
[239] J,E,Hirsch,刘俊婉译,衡量科学家个人成就的一个量化指标[J],科学观察,2006(1):2-7
[240] LaherrereJ,Sornette,D,Eur,Phys,J,B,1998,2:525;RednerS,Eur,Phys,J,B,1998,4:l31
[241] RednerS,PhysicsToday,2005,58(6):49
[242] vanRaanAFJ,Scientometrics,2004,59:467
[243] WolfgangGlanzel,刘俊婉译,也谈h指数的机会和局限性[J],科学观察,2006(1):10-11
[244] Glanzel W,Persson,A Hirsch—type index for Price Medallists,ISI Newsletter,2005,1(4),aceessible via http://www.issi—society.info/newsletter.html
[245]贺颖,陈士俊,TEDA经济发展综合分析与评价[J],科技进步与对策,2007(10):41-46
[246]贺颖,2001—2004年中国管理类期刊学术影响力综合评价[J],中国软科学,2007(1):107-112,133
[247]王晓萍,专家库建设在同行评议中的作用[J],云南科技管理,2004(2):24-25