引文动态如何变化：文献内容特征的作用研究

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2021.10.005

情报学报

2021, Vol. 40

Issue (10): 1065-1078 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2021.10.005

情报分析方法与技术

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

引文动态如何变化：文献内容特征的作用研究

李凌英¹, 闵超¹, 严笑然²

1.南京大学信息管理学院，南京 210023
2.之江实验室人工智能研究院，杭州 311121

How Citation Dynamics Change: The Effect of Literature Content Characteristics

Li Lingying¹, Min Chao¹, Yan Xiaoran²

1.School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023
2.Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, Zhijiang Lab, Hangzhou 311121

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (2)

全文: PDF (1309 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要文献的被引情况受文献内部特征和外部环境的影响，外部环境往往难于把握，本文主要探究了文献内容特征对其被引表现的影响。引文波峰是文献被引过程中极大化的时刻，能够刻画文献动态被引特点，因此，除了传统的总被引次数外，本文还纳入引文波峰来衡量文献的被引表现，探究文献内容特征对引文波峰的影响。研究方法采用了回归分析方法，研究数据集为PubMed的生物医学文献，探究文献质量、创新类型和内容多样性三个新颖的内容特征，对被引表现（总被引次数、波峰数量、波峰到达时间、波峰高度）的贡献。其中文献质量利用同行评议数据库Faculty Opinions（F1000）的得分来衡量，创新类型依赖F1000中专家给予的标签，内容多样性用MeSH主题词的种类数和相似性来表示。研究结果表明，不同的文献特征在被引上具有不同的表现，文献获得的总被引次数受文献质量、文献创新类型和文献内容多样性的影响；波峰数量受文献内容多样性的影响，内容越丰富越可能获取较多的波峰；波峰到达时间与文献质量和内容多样性有关；波峰高度受文献质量的影响，文献质量越高，逐年被引数量变化更为平稳。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	李凌英
	闵超
	严笑然

关键词 ：引文动态, 引文波峰, 研究质量, 研究创新, 研究内容多样性

收稿日期: 2020-10-12

基金资助:国家自然科学基金项目“引文模式视角下的科学突破研究”（71904081），“引文扩散理论及实证研究”（71874077）；教育部人文社会科学基金项目“施引群体视角的科学产出评价方法研究”（19YJC870017）。

作者简介: 李凌英，女，1995年生，硕士研究生，主要研究方向为科学计量；闵超，男，1990年生，助理研究员，主要研究方向为科学计量、创新扩散、网络科学等，E-mail：mc@nju.edu.cn；严笑然，男，1985年生，研究员，主要研究方向为图数据分；

引用本文:

李凌英, 闵超, 严笑然. 引文动态如何变化：文献内容特征的作用研究[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(10): 1065-1078.
Li Lingying, Min Chao, Yan Xiaoran. How Citation Dynamics Change: The Effect of Literature Content Characteristics. 情报学报, 2021, 40(10): 1065-1078.

链接本文:

http://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2021.10.005 或 http://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2021/V40/I10/1065

1 Tahamtan I, Safipour Afshar A, Ahamdzadeh K. Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 107(3): 1195-1225.
2 M?rtensson P, Fors U, Wallin S B, et al. Evaluating research: a multidisciplinary approach to assessing research practice and quality[J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45(3): 593-603.
3 Patterson M S, Harris S. The relationship between reviewers' quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003-2005[J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 80(2): 343-349.
4 Ivarsson M, Gorschek T. A method for evaluating rigor and industrial relevance of technology evaluations[J]. Empirical Software Engineering, 2011, 16(3): 365-395.
5 Faculty of 1000 Prime: FFa, ratings, reviews[EB/OL]. [2020-03-31]. https://www.metrics-toolkit.org/f1000-ffa-ratings-reviews/.
6 Huggett S. F1000 Journal Rankings: an alternative way to evaluate the scientific impact of scholarly communications[J]. Research Trends, 2012, 26: 7-11.
7 Mohammadi E, Thelwall M. Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 97(2): 383-395.
8 Allen L, Jones C, Dolby K, et al. Looking for landmarks: the role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs[J]. PLoS One, 2009, 4(6): e5910.
9 Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. Does quality and content matter for citedness? A comparison with para-textual factors and over time[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2015, 9(3): 419-429.
10 Kuhn T S. The structure of scientific revolutions[M]. 3rd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
11 H?yrynen M. Breakthrough research: funding for high-risk research at the Academy of Finland[R]. Academy of Finland, 2007.
12 van Raan A F J. On growth, ageing, and fractal differentiation of science[J]. Scientometrics, 2000, 47(2): 347-362.
13 Savov P, Jatowt A, Nielek R. Identifying breakthrough scientific papers[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2020, 57(2): 102168.
14 Bornmann L. Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: a study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2014, 8(4): 935-950.
15 Du J, Tang X L, Wu Y S. The effects of research level and article type on the differences between citation metrics and F1000 recommendations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(12): 3008-3021.
16 Enduri M K, Reddy I V, Jolad S. Does diversity of papers affect their citations? Evidence from American Physical Society journals[C]// Proceedings of the 2015 11th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems. IEEE, 2015: 505-511.
17 Rafols I, Meyer M. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 82(2): 263-287.
18 Schmidt M, Gl?ser J, Havemann F, et al. A methodological study for measuring the diversity of science[C]// Proceedings of the International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Seventh COLLNET Meeting. OAI, 2006.
19 Zhou J, Shui Y X, Peng S W, et al. MeSHSim: an R/Bioconductor package for measuring semantic similarity over MeSH headings and MEDLINE documents[J]. Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. 2015 ,13(6): 1542002.
20 Bulskov H, Knappe R, Andreasen T. On measuring similarity for conceptual querying[C]// Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Flexible Query Answering Systems. Heidelberg: Springer, 2002, 2522: 100-111.
21 Buela-Casal G, Zych I. Analysis of the relationship between the number of citations and the quality evaluated by experts in psychology journals[J]. Psicothema, 2010, 22(2): 270-276.
22 Molléri J S, Petersen K, Mendes E. Towards understanding the relation between citations and research quality in software engineering studies[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 117(3): 1453-1478.
23 Garfield E, Welljams-Dorof A. Of Nobel class: a citation perspective on high impact research authors[J]. Theoretical Medicine, 1992, 13(2): 117-135.
24 Wagner C S, Horlings E, Whetsell T A, et al. Do Nobel laureates create prize-winning networks? An analysis of collaborative research in physiology or medicine[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(7): e0134164.
25 Varga A. Novelty and foreseeing research trends: the case of astrophysics and astronomy[J]. The Astrophysical Journal Letters Supplement Series, 2018, 236(1): 21.
26 Bessi A, Zollo F, Del Vicario M, et al. Everyday the same picture: popularity and content diversity[C]// Proceedings of the International Workshop on Complex Networks. Cham: Springer, 2017: 225-236.
27 Chakraborty T, Kumar S, Goyal P, et al. Towards a stratified learning approach to predict future citation counts[C]// Proceedings of the 14th IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. IEEE, 2014: 351-360.
28 Chen C M. Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(3): 431-449.
29 Fox C W, Paine C E T, Sauterey B. Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals[J]. Ecology and Evolution, 2016, 6(21): 7717-7726.
30 Falagas M E, Zarkali A, Karageorgopoulos D E, et al. The impact of article length on the number of future citations: a bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(2): e49476.
31 Vanclay J K. Factors affecting citation rates in environmental science[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7(2): 265-271.
32 Patsopoulos N A, Analatos A A, Ioannidis J P A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences[J]. JAMA, 2005, 293(19): 2362-2366.
33 Hsu J W, Huang D W. Correlation between impact and collaboration[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 86(2): 317-324.
34 Sonnenwald D H. Scientific collaboration[J]. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2007, 41(1): 643-681.
35 Ronda-Pupo G A, Katz J S. The power-law relationship between citation-based performance and collaboration in articles in management journals: a scale-independent approach[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(10): 2565-2572.
36 Bornmann L. Is collaboration among scientists related to the citation impact of papers because their quality increases with collaboration? An analysis based on data from F1000Prime and normalized citation scores[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(4): 1036-1047.
37 Didegah F, Thelwall M. Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(5): 1055-1064.
38 Polanyi M. The republic of science: its political and economic theory[J]. Minerva, 1962, 1: 54-73.
39 Andersen H, Barker P, Chen X. The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
40 Wang D S, Song C M, Barabási A L. Quantifying long-term scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6154): 127-132.
41 Huutoniemi K, Klein J T, Bruun H, et al. Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators[J]. Research Policy, 2010, 39(1): 79-88.
42 闵超, YingDing, 李江, 等. 单篇论著的引文扩散[J]. 情报学报, 2018, 37(4): 341-350.
43 李凌英, 闵超, 孙建军. 引文波峰的量化与分布探究[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(7): 697-708.
44 Waltman L, Costas R. F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: a comparison with citations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(3): 433-445.
45 National Library of Medicine. Publication characteristics (publication types) with scope notes[EB/OL]. [2020-03-31]. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/pubtypes.html.
46 Wang P L, Williams J, Zhang N, et al. F1000Prime recommended articles and their citations: an exploratory study of four journals[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 122(2): 933-955.