科学研究的颠覆性创新测度——相对颠覆性指数

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2023.09.005

情报学报

2023, Vol. 42

Issue (9): 1052-1064 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2023.09.005

情报理论与方法

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

科学研究的颠覆性创新测度——相对颠覆性指数

杨杰^1,2, 邓三鸿^1,2, 王昊^1,2

1.南京大学信息管理学院，南京 210023
2.江苏省数据工程与知识服务重点实验室，南京 210023

Measure of Disruptive Innovation in Science: Relative Disruptive Index (RDI)

Yang Alex J.^1,2, Deng Sanhong^1,2, Wang Hao^1,2

1.School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023
2.Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Service, Nanjing 210023

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (2498 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要在破“五唯”的背景下，科学研究的创新性测度尤为重要，创新性较高的论文往往会对既有研究领域的学科范式产生颠覆性影响，甚至开创新的范式。颠覆性指数是近几年被提出的可以直接测度论文颠覆性创新程度的计量指标，基于网络中论文节点的深层引用关系，在一定程度上破除了单一维度评价的缺点，引起了文献计量学、信息科学和网络科学等多领域学者的广泛关注。本文对颠覆性指数的最新研究进行了总结和拓展，深入剖析了指标局限性及因素，并提出了新的计量指标——相对颠覆性指数（relative disruptive index，RDI），它在颠覆性指数的基础上，涵盖了引文网络的深层引用比例，在一定程度上解决了颠覆性指数分布不均匀、评价不一致的问题，能够对科学研究的颠覆性创新程度进行更为精确和客观的衡量。实证结果表明，颠覆性指数的参数量级不一致，相对颠覆性指数可以更有效地衡量科学研究的创新性，且相比于原始颠覆性指数以及Bornmann等学者提出的修正颠覆性指数（DI₅）具有更佳的评价一致性，巩固性论文的相对颠覆性指数较低，创新性论文的相对颠覆性指数较高。

	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
	杨杰
	邓三鸿
	王昊

关键词 ：科学计量, 引文网络, 创新性, 颠覆性指数

收稿日期: 2022-09-16

基金资助:国家社会科学基金项目“大数据环境下学术成果真实价值与影响的实时预测及长期评价研究”（19BTQ062）。

作者简介: 杨杰，男，2000年生，博士研究生，主要研究领域为科学计量、复杂网络、创新测度；邓三鸿，通信作者，男，1975年生，博士，教授，博士生导师，主要研究领域为领域知识图谱、科学计量、信息分析与科学评价，E-mail：sanhong@nju.edu.cn；王昊，男，1981年生，博士，教授，博士生导师，主要研究领域为文本挖掘、知识图谱；

引用本文:

杨杰, 邓三鸿, 王昊. 科学研究的颠覆性创新测度——相对颠覆性指数[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(9): 1052-1064.
Yang Alex J., Deng Sanhong, Wang Hao. Measure of Disruptive Innovation in Science: Relative Disruptive Index (RDI). 情报学报, 2023, 42(9): 1052-1064.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2023.09.005 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2023/V42/I9/1052

1 Acemoglu D, Akcigit U, Kerr W R. Innovation network[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113(41): 11483-11488.
2 Park M, Leahey E, Funk R J. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time[J]. Nature, 2023, 613(7942): 138-144.
3 Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, et al. The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics[J]. Nature, 2015, 520(7548): 429-431.
4 Cagan R. The San Francisco declaration on research assessment[J]. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 2013, 6(4): 869-870.
5 教育部, 科技部. 教育部科技部印发《关于规范高等学校SCI论文相关指标使用树立正确评价导向的若干意见》的通知[J]. 中华人民共和国教育部公报, 2020(3): 24-26.
6 Fortunato S, Bergstrom C T, B?rner K, et al. Science of science[J]. Science, 2018, 359(6379): eaao0185.
7 Battiston F, Musciotto F, Wang D S, et al. Taking census of physics[J]. Nature Reviews Physics, 2019, 1(1): 89-97.
8 Min C, Bu Y, Sun J J. Predicting scientific breakthroughs based on knowledge structure variations[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2021, 164: 120502.
9 Funk R J, Owen-Smith J. A dynamic network measure of technological change[J]. Management Science, 2017, 63(3): 791-817.
10 Wu L F, Wang D S, Evans J A. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology[J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744): 378-382.
11 Lyu D Q, Gong K L, Ruan X M, et al. Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(1): 287-303.
12 Wang S Y, Ma Y X, Mao J, et al. Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2023, 74(2): 150-167.
13 Yang A J, Deng S H, Wang H, et al. Disruptive coefficient and 2-step disruptive coefficient: novel measures for identifying vital nodes in complex networks[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2023, 17(3): 101411.
14 Ruan X M, Lyu D Q, Gong K L, et al. Rethinking the disruption index as a measure of scientific and technological advances[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2021, 172: 121071.
15 Liang G Q, Lou Y, Hou H Y. Revisiting the disruptive index: evidence from the Nobel Prize-winning articles[J]. Scientometrics, 2022, 127(10): 5721-5730.
16 Leydesdorff L, Bornmann L. Disruption indices and their calculation using web-of-science data: indicators of historical developments or evolutionary dynamics?[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2021, 15(4): 101219.
17 Rodríguez-Navarro A. Research assessment based on infrequent achievements: a comparison of the United States and Europe in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prizes[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(3): 731-740.
18 Koestler A. The act of creation[M]. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964.
19 Fleming L. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search[J]. Management Science, 2001, 47(1): 117-132.
20 Boudreau K J, Guinan E C, Lakhani K R, et al. Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science[J]. Management Science, 2016, 62(10): 2765-2783.
21 Packalen M, Bhattacharya J. Neophilia ranking of scientific journals[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 110(1): 43-64.
22 Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157): 468-472.
23 Boyack K W, Klavans R. Atypical combinations are confounded by disciplinary effects[C]// Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, 2014.
24 Wang J, Veugelers R, Stephan P. Bias against novelty in science: a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators[J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(8): 1416-1436.
25 Uddin S, Khan A. The impact of author-selected keywords on citation counts[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2016, 10(4): 1166-1177.
26 Fontana M, Iori M, Montobbio F, et al. New and atypical combinations: an assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity[J]. Research Policy, 2020, 49(7): 104063.
27 Azoulay P, Zivin J S G, Manso G. Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences[J]. The RAND Journal of Economics, 2011, 42(3): 527-554.
28 罗卓然, 陆伟, 蔡乐, 等. 学术文本词汇功能识别——在论文新颖性度量上的应用[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(7): 720-732.
29 Shi F, Evans J. Surprising combinations of research contents and contexts are related to impact and emerge with scientific outsiders from distant disciplines[J]. Nature Communications, 2023, 14: 1641.
30 Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2016, 10(2): 365-391.
31 Wu L F, Kittur A, Youn H, et al. Metrics and mechanisms: measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2022, 16(2): 101290.
32 Min C, Bu Y, Wu D, et al. Identifying citation patterns of scientific breakthroughs: a perspective of dynamic citation process[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2021, 58(1): 102428.
33 Belter C W. A relevance ranking method for citation-based search results[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 112(2): 731-746.
34 Popper K. The logic of scientific discovery[M]. New York: Routledge, 2002.
35 Kuhn T S. Historical structure of scientific discovery[J]. Science, 1962, 136(3518): 760-764.
36 Zeng A, Shen Z S, Zhou J L, et al. The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems[J]. Physics Reports, 2017, 714/715: 1-73.
37 Lin Y L, Evans J A, Wu L F. New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2022, 16(1): 101234.
38 Azoulay P. Small research teams ‘disrupt’ science more radically than large ones[J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744): 330-332.
39 Bornmann L, Tekles A. Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2021, 15(3): 101159.
40 Zhou Y B, Xu X L, Yang X H, et al. The influence of disruption on evaluating the scientific significance of papers[J]. Scientometrics, 2022, 127(10): 5931-5945.
41 Liu X W, Wang X Z, Lyu L C, et al. Identifying disruptive technologies by integrating multi-source data[J]. Scientometrics, 2022, 127(9): 5325-5351.
42 Davies M, Calma A. Getting cited: a reconsideration of purpose[J]. Australian Universities’ Review, 2017, 59(1): 69-75.
43 Bu Y, Waltman L, Huang Y. A multidimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of scientific publications[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2021, 2(1): 155-183.
44 Bornmann L, Tekles A. Disruptive papers published in Scientometrics[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 120(1): 331-336.
45 Bornmann L, Tekles A. Disruption index depends on length of citation window[J]. El Profesional de la Información, 2019, 28(2): e280207.
46 van Eck N J, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 84(2): 523-538.
47 Larsen P O, von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 84(3): 575-603.
48 Narin F, Stevens K, Whitlow E S. Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers[J]. Scientometrics, 1991, 21(3): 313-323.
49 Moed H F, de Bruin R E, van Leeuwen T N. New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: database description, overview of indicators and first applications[J]. Scientometrics, 1995, 33(3): 381-422.
50 Schubert A, Braun T. International collaboration in the sciences 1981-1985[J]. Scientometrics, 1990, 19(1): 3-10.
51 Weingart P. Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: inadvertent consequences?[J]. Scientometrics, 2005, 62(1): 117-131.
52 Gl?nzel W, Leta J, Thijs B. Science in Brazil. Part 1: a macro-level comparative study[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 67(1): 67-86.
53 Gl?nzel W, Schubert A. A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes[J]. Scientometrics, 2003, 56(3): 357-367.
54 van Raan A F J. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36(3): 397-420.
55 Katz J S, Hicks D. How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model[J]. Scientometrics, 1997, 40(3): 541-554.
56 van Raan A F J. Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods[J]. Scientometrics, 2005, 62(1): 133-143.
57 Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 69(1): 131-152.
58 van Raan A F J. Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 67(3): 491-502.
59 Batista P D, Campiteli M G, Kinouchi O. Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 68(1): 179-189.
60 Gl?nzel W. On the h-index - a mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 67(2): 315-321.
61 Egghe L, Rousseau R. An informetric model for the hirsch-index[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 69(1): 121-129.
62 Iglesias J E, Pecharromán C. Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields[J]. Scientometrics, 2007, 73(3): 303-320.
63 Braun T, Gl?nzel W, Schubert A. A Hirsch-type index for journals[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 69(1): 169-173.
64 Sidiropoulos A, Katsaros D, Manolopoulos Y. Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks[J]. Scientometrics, 2007, 72(2): 253-280.
65 Beaver D D. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future[J]. Scientometrics, 2001, 52(3): 365-377.
66 Katz J S, Martin B R. What is research collaboration?[J]. Research Policy, 1997, 26(1): 1-18.
67 Meyer M, Persson O. Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application[J]. Scientometrics, 1998, 42(2): 195-205.
68 Braun T, Schubert A, Zsindely S. Nanoscience and nanotecnology on the balance[J]. Scientometrics, 1997, 38(2): 321-325.
69 邱均平, 张裕晨, 周子番. 新时代我国科研评价体系重构中必须处理好八大关系[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2021, 47(1): 47-60.
70 van Raan A F J. Sleeping beauties in science[J]. Scientometrics, 2004, 59(3): 467-472.