期刊数据库中文献类型的划分与比较
|
摘要
【目的】学术论文作为学术研究的书面描述和文本展现,相继出现了多种不同的类型。研究Web of Science和Scopus数据库与Nature 3种文献分类体系之间的区别与联系,以加深人们对不同文献类型的理解,促进科技评价更加合理。【方法】统计2008—2017年Nature刊载论文在Web of Science、Scopus与Nature中分别对应的文献类型,对3种文献类型进行比较分析,并将结果可视化。【结果】同一数据集在Web of Science、Scopus和Nature中分别对应不同的文献分类,且文献类型种类也不尽相同。Article、Letter、Editorial、Review等类型在3种文献分类体系下均存在,但其含义却不甚相同。【结论】科研评价时,要考虑数据库与期刊的文献类型差异,对单篇论文、期刊、机构等进行更合理的计量与评价。
[Purposes] As the written description and text presentation of academic research,academic papers have appeared in several different document types. We study the relationship of document types in Nature,Web of Science,and Scopus to find the differences and similarities among them,making people better understand the different literature types and improving the rationality of scientific research evaluation. [Methods] The document types of each paper published in Nature from 2008 to 2017 were obtained under three literature classification systems,namely Web of Science,Scopus,and Nature. The three types of documents were compared and analyzed and the results were visualized. [Findings] The same data set can be classified differently in different classification systems,and the number of document types varies greatly. Document types,such as Article,Letter,Editorial,and Review,which exist in Web of Science,Scopus,and Nature simultaneously,have different meanings and vary considerably in some cases. [Conclusions] In scientific research evaluation,the document type differences between journal and databases should be taken into consideration,so that we can make a better metrics and assessment on single paper,journal,organization,etc.
[Purposes] As the written description and text presentation of academic research,academic papers have appeared in several different document types. We study the relationship of document types in Nature,Web of Science,and Scopus to find the differences and similarities among them,making people better understand the different literature types and improving the rationality of scientific research evaluation. [Methods] The document types of each paper published in Nature from 2008 to 2017 were obtained under three literature classification systems,namely Web of Science,Scopus,and Nature. The three types of documents were compared and analyzed and the results were visualized. [Findings] The same data set can be classified differently in different classification systems,and the number of document types varies greatly. Document types,such as Article,Letter,Editorial,and Review,which exist in Web of Science,Scopus,and Nature simultaneously,have different meanings and vary considerably in some cases. [Conclusions] In scientific research evaluation,the document type differences between journal and databases should be taken into consideration,so that we can make a better metrics and assessment on single paper,journal,organization,etc.
引文
[1]胡志刚,侯海燕,林歌歌.从书信沙龙到开放获取——刍议学术论文形态的演化[J].数字图书馆论坛,2016(10):32-37.
[2]Hayashi K,Miyairi N.Comprehensiveness and accuracy of document types:Comparison in Web of Science and Scopus against publisher's definition[M].Leuven:INT SOCScientometrics&Informetrics-ISSI,2013:1905-1907.
[3]Ding J L,Ahlgren P,Yang L Y,et al.Document type profiles in nature,science,and PNAS:journal and country level[J].Journal of Data and Information Science,2016,1(3):27-41.
[4]Donner P.Document type assignment accuracy in the journal citation index data of Web of Science[J].Scientometrics,2017,113(1):219-236.
[5]Braun T,Gl?nzel W,Schubert A.Some data on the distribution of journal publication types in the science citation index database[J].Scientometrics,1989,15(5/6):325-330.
[6]Moed H F,van Leeuwen T N.Improving the accuracy of institute for scientific information's journal impact factors[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1995,46(6)461-467.
[7]Gl?nzel W.Seven myths in bibliometrics about facts and fiction in quantitative science studies[J].Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management,2008,2(1):9-17.
[8]Wang J.Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation[J].Scientometrics,2013,94(3):851-872.
[9]van Leeuwen T N.Modelling of bibliometric approaches and importance of output verification in research performance assessment[J].Research Evaluation,2007,16(2):93-105.
[10]Harzing A W.Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge:Misunderstanding the social sciences?[J].Scientometrics,2013,94(1):23-34.
[11]Sigogneau A.An analysis of document types published in journals related to physics:Proceeding papers recorded in the Science Citation Index database[J].Scientometrics,2000,47(3):589-604.
[12]Lewison G.The percentage of reviews in research output:Asimple measure of research esteem[J].Research Evaluation,2009,18(1):25-37.
[13]Waltman L,van Eck N J,van Leeuwen T N,et al.Towards a new crown indicator:Some theoretical considerations[J].Journal of Informetrics,2011,5(1):37-47.
[14]van Leeuwen T N,Moed H F,Reedijk J.Critical comments on Institute for Scientific Information impact factors:A sample of inorganic molecular chemistry journals[J].Journal of Information Science,1999,25(6):489-498.
[15]Frandsen T F.On the ratio of citable versus non-citable items in economics journals[J].Scientometrics,2008,74(3):439-451.
[16]江晓原,穆蕴秋.Nature杂志:从科普期刊到学术神话[J].浙江学刊,2017(5):199-204.
[17]穆蕴秋,江晓原.从SCI综述文章引用规则看中国期刊与国际接轨现状——Nature杂志实证研究之五[J].上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2017,25(4):78-86.
[18]江晓原,穆蕴秋.Nature与科幻百年[J].读书,2014(12):152-161.
[19]穆蕴秋,江晓原.不公平游戏:“两栖”SCI刊物如何操弄影响因子——Nature实证研究之四[J].上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2016,24(2):59-67.
[20]van Leeuwen T,Costas R,Calero-Medina C,et al.The role of editorial material in bibliometric research performance assessments[J].Scientometrics,2013,95(2):817-828.
[21]李佳悦,邵桂芳.文献类型对学术期刊影响因子的贡献度评价研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(12):1274-1279.
[22]翟万银.Nature非学术栏目研究及对我国科技期刊的启示[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(12):1183-1191.
(1)Web of Science各个文献类型的详细含义见:http://images.webofknowledge.com//WOKRS528R15/help/WOS/hs_document_type.html。
(2)Scopus各个文献类型的详细含义见:https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/0597-Scopus-Content-Coverage-Guide-US-LETTER-v4-HI-singles-no-ticks.pdf。
(3)Nature各个文献类型的详细含义见:http://s3-service-broker-live-19ea8b98-4d41-4cb4-be4c-d68f4963b7dd.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/ckeditor/attachments/7807/2a_Manuscript_formatting.pdf。
[2]Hayashi K,Miyairi N.Comprehensiveness and accuracy of document types:Comparison in Web of Science and Scopus against publisher's definition[M].Leuven:INT SOCScientometrics&Informetrics-ISSI,2013:1905-1907.
[3]Ding J L,Ahlgren P,Yang L Y,et al.Document type profiles in nature,science,and PNAS:journal and country level[J].Journal of Data and Information Science,2016,1(3):27-41.
[4]Donner P.Document type assignment accuracy in the journal citation index data of Web of Science[J].Scientometrics,2017,113(1):219-236.
[5]Braun T,Gl?nzel W,Schubert A.Some data on the distribution of journal publication types in the science citation index database[J].Scientometrics,1989,15(5/6):325-330.
[6]Moed H F,van Leeuwen T N.Improving the accuracy of institute for scientific information's journal impact factors[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1995,46(6)461-467.
[7]Gl?nzel W.Seven myths in bibliometrics about facts and fiction in quantitative science studies[J].Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management,2008,2(1):9-17.
[8]Wang J.Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation[J].Scientometrics,2013,94(3):851-872.
[9]van Leeuwen T N.Modelling of bibliometric approaches and importance of output verification in research performance assessment[J].Research Evaluation,2007,16(2):93-105.
[10]Harzing A W.Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge:Misunderstanding the social sciences?[J].Scientometrics,2013,94(1):23-34.
[11]Sigogneau A.An analysis of document types published in journals related to physics:Proceeding papers recorded in the Science Citation Index database[J].Scientometrics,2000,47(3):589-604.
[12]Lewison G.The percentage of reviews in research output:Asimple measure of research esteem[J].Research Evaluation,2009,18(1):25-37.
[13]Waltman L,van Eck N J,van Leeuwen T N,et al.Towards a new crown indicator:Some theoretical considerations[J].Journal of Informetrics,2011,5(1):37-47.
[14]van Leeuwen T N,Moed H F,Reedijk J.Critical comments on Institute for Scientific Information impact factors:A sample of inorganic molecular chemistry journals[J].Journal of Information Science,1999,25(6):489-498.
[15]Frandsen T F.On the ratio of citable versus non-citable items in economics journals[J].Scientometrics,2008,74(3):439-451.
[16]江晓原,穆蕴秋.Nature杂志:从科普期刊到学术神话[J].浙江学刊,2017(5):199-204.
[17]穆蕴秋,江晓原.从SCI综述文章引用规则看中国期刊与国际接轨现状——Nature杂志实证研究之五[J].上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2017,25(4):78-86.
[18]江晓原,穆蕴秋.Nature与科幻百年[J].读书,2014(12):152-161.
[19]穆蕴秋,江晓原.不公平游戏:“两栖”SCI刊物如何操弄影响因子——Nature实证研究之四[J].上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2016,24(2):59-67.
[20]van Leeuwen T,Costas R,Calero-Medina C,et al.The role of editorial material in bibliometric research performance assessments[J].Scientometrics,2013,95(2):817-828.
[21]李佳悦,邵桂芳.文献类型对学术期刊影响因子的贡献度评价研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(12):1274-1279.
[22]翟万银.Nature非学术栏目研究及对我国科技期刊的启示[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(12):1183-1191.
(1)Web of Science各个文献类型的详细含义见:http://images.webofknowledge.com//WOKRS528R15/help/WOS/hs_document_type.html。
(2)Scopus各个文献类型的详细含义见:https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/0597-Scopus-Content-Coverage-Guide-US-LETTER-v4-HI-singles-no-ticks.pdf。
(3)Nature各个文献类型的详细含义见:http://s3-service-broker-live-19ea8b98-4d41-4cb4-be4c-d68f4963b7dd.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/ckeditor/attachments/7807/2a_Manuscript_formatting.pdf。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |