合著论文计数方法对科研排名的影响研究
|
摘要
[目的/意义]随着科学合作的日益密切,合著论文数量日益增多,如何分配合著论文中不同作者的科研贡献,成为科研评估中的重要问题。不同的合著论文计数方法将对国家、机构、科研人员的排名产生不同程度的影响。[方法/过程]在介绍几种基本计数方法的基础上,讨论不同计数方法对国家、机构、个人科技排名的影响,并分析了计数方法与领域标准化的关系。[结果/结论]在比较国家、机构、作者的科研实力时,分数计数方法比全计数方法更恰当。同样,在比较不同领域的科研产出和影响力时,与全计数方法相比,分数计数方法可以得到更合理的标准化结果。
[Purpose/Significance]With the increasingly close scientific cooperation,the number of co-authored papers is increasing,and howto assign the research contributions to different authors in the co-authored paper is an important issue in the evaluation of scientific research. Different counting methods of co-authors can have a different influence on the ranking of countries,institutions and researchers.[Method/Process]On the basis of introducing several basic counting methods,this paper discusses the influence of different counting methods on national,institution and individual research ranking,and analyzes the relationship between counting method and field normalization.[Result/Conclusion]In comparison with the scientific research strength of the country,institution and author,the fractional counting method is more exact than the full counting method. Similarly,in comparing the output and influence of scientific research in different fields,the fractional counting method can obtain more proper field-normalized results than the full counting method.
[Purpose/Significance]With the increasingly close scientific cooperation,the number of co-authored papers is increasing,and howto assign the research contributions to different authors in the co-authored paper is an important issue in the evaluation of scientific research. Different counting methods of co-authors can have a different influence on the ranking of countries,institutions and researchers.[Method/Process]On the basis of introducing several basic counting methods,this paper discusses the influence of different counting methods on national,institution and individual research ranking,and analyzes the relationship between counting method and field normalization.[Result/Conclusion]In comparison with the scientific research strength of the country,institution and author,the fractional counting method is more exact than the full counting method. Similarly,in comparing the output and influence of scientific research in different fields,the fractional counting method can obtain more proper field-normalized results than the full counting method.
引文
[1]Cronin B.Hyperauthorship:A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2001,52(7):558-569.
[2]Lindsey D.Production and citation measures in the sociology of science:The problem of multiple authorship[J].social studies of science,1980,10(2):145-162.
[3]Cole J R.Social stratification in science[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1973.
[4]Price D D S.Multiple authorship[J].Science,1981,212(4498):986.
[5]Hooydonk G V.Fractional counting of multiauthored publications:Consequences for the impact of authors[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,1997,48(10):944-945.
[6]Egghe L,Rousseau R,Hooydonk G V.Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries:Consequences for evaluation studies[J].Journal of the American society for information science,2000,52(2):145-157.
[7]Hagen N T.Harmonic allocation of authorship credit:Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis[J].PLoS ONE,2008,3(12):e4021.
[8]Kosmulski M.The order in the lists of authors in multi-author papers revisited[J].Journal of Informetrics,2012,6(4):639-644.
[9]Aziz N A,Rozing MP.Profit(p)-index:the degree to which authors profit from co-authors[J].PLoS One,2013,8(4):e59814.
[10]Gauffriau M,Larsen P O,Maye I,et al.Publication,cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research[J].Scientometrics,2007,73(2):175-214.
[11]Waltman L,Van Eck N J.Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method[J].Journal of Informetrics,2015,9(4):872-894.
[12]Rinia E J,Delange C,Moed H F.Measuring national output in physics:Delimitation problems[J].Scientometrics,1993,28(1):89-110.
[13]Gauffriau M.Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies[J].Scientometrics,2005,64(1):85-93.
[14]Gauffriau M,Larsen P O,Maye I,et al.Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods[J].Scientometrics,2008,77(1):147-176.
[15]Aksnes D W,Schneider J W,Gunnarsson M.Ranking national research systems by citation indicators.A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods[J].Journal of Informetrics,2012,6(1):36-43.
[16]Huang M-H,Lin C-S,Chen D-Z.Counting methods,country rank changes,and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2011,62(12):2427-2436.
[17]Waltman L,Van Eck N J,Van Leeuwen T N,et al.Towards a newcrown indicator:Some theoretical considerations[J].Journal of Informetrics,2011,5(1):37-47.
[18]赵蓉英,王嵩.世界大学排名方法及其排行榜比较研究[J].中国地质大学学报,2015,15(3):131-138.
[19]Huang MH.Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings[J].Research Evaluation,2012,21(1):71-78.
[20]施艳萍,袁曦临,宋歌.基于ARWU的世界大学排名体系比较及实证研究[J].图书情报工作,2017,61(15):95-103.
[21]Waltman L,Calero-Medina C,Kosten J,et al.The Leiden ranking2011/2012:Data collection,indicators,and interpretation[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2012,63(12):2419-2432.
[22]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.
[23]李慧,张甫.基于h指数的合著者荣誉分配研究[J].情报理论与实践,2012,35(10):90-94.
[24]Egghe L.Mathematical theory of the h-and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2008,59(10):1608-1616.
[25]孟德泉,颖董,马广芹.h相关指数改进比较与实证分析[J].图书馆,2015(5):35-37.
[26]Waltman L.A reviewof the literature on citation impact indicators[J].Journal of Informetrics,2016,10(2):365-391.
[2]Lindsey D.Production and citation measures in the sociology of science:The problem of multiple authorship[J].social studies of science,1980,10(2):145-162.
[3]Cole J R.Social stratification in science[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1973.
[4]Price D D S.Multiple authorship[J].Science,1981,212(4498):986.
[5]Hooydonk G V.Fractional counting of multiauthored publications:Consequences for the impact of authors[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,1997,48(10):944-945.
[6]Egghe L,Rousseau R,Hooydonk G V.Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries:Consequences for evaluation studies[J].Journal of the American society for information science,2000,52(2):145-157.
[7]Hagen N T.Harmonic allocation of authorship credit:Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis[J].PLoS ONE,2008,3(12):e4021.
[8]Kosmulski M.The order in the lists of authors in multi-author papers revisited[J].Journal of Informetrics,2012,6(4):639-644.
[9]Aziz N A,Rozing MP.Profit(p)-index:the degree to which authors profit from co-authors[J].PLoS One,2013,8(4):e59814.
[10]Gauffriau M,Larsen P O,Maye I,et al.Publication,cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research[J].Scientometrics,2007,73(2):175-214.
[11]Waltman L,Van Eck N J.Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method[J].Journal of Informetrics,2015,9(4):872-894.
[12]Rinia E J,Delange C,Moed H F.Measuring national output in physics:Delimitation problems[J].Scientometrics,1993,28(1):89-110.
[13]Gauffriau M.Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies[J].Scientometrics,2005,64(1):85-93.
[14]Gauffriau M,Larsen P O,Maye I,et al.Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods[J].Scientometrics,2008,77(1):147-176.
[15]Aksnes D W,Schneider J W,Gunnarsson M.Ranking national research systems by citation indicators.A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods[J].Journal of Informetrics,2012,6(1):36-43.
[16]Huang M-H,Lin C-S,Chen D-Z.Counting methods,country rank changes,and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2011,62(12):2427-2436.
[17]Waltman L,Van Eck N J,Van Leeuwen T N,et al.Towards a newcrown indicator:Some theoretical considerations[J].Journal of Informetrics,2011,5(1):37-47.
[18]赵蓉英,王嵩.世界大学排名方法及其排行榜比较研究[J].中国地质大学学报,2015,15(3):131-138.
[19]Huang MH.Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings[J].Research Evaluation,2012,21(1):71-78.
[20]施艳萍,袁曦临,宋歌.基于ARWU的世界大学排名体系比较及实证研究[J].图书情报工作,2017,61(15):95-103.
[21]Waltman L,Calero-Medina C,Kosten J,et al.The Leiden ranking2011/2012:Data collection,indicators,and interpretation[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2012,63(12):2419-2432.
[22]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.
[23]李慧,张甫.基于h指数的合著者荣誉分配研究[J].情报理论与实践,2012,35(10):90-94.
[24]Egghe L.Mathematical theory of the h-and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2008,59(10):1608-1616.
[25]孟德泉,颖董,马广芹.h相关指数改进比较与实证分析[J].图书馆,2015(5):35-37.
[26]Waltman L.A reviewof the literature on citation impact indicators[J].Journal of Informetrics,2016,10(2):365-391.