替代计量学的理论框架研究

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.08.001

情报学报

2022, Vol. 41

Issue (8): 775-785 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.08.001

情报理论与方法

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

替代计量学的理论框架研究

余厚强

中山大学信息管理学院，广州 510006

Theoretical Framework of Altmetrics

Yu Houqiang

School of Information Management, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510006

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (1734 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要替代计量学是科学计量学与大数据相融合形成的典型的数据驱动型研究方向，随着替代计量服务的广泛应用，替代计量数据的深度开发需求不断上升，迫切需要理论上的指导和支持。为此，本文对相关理论进行了梳理、总结和进一步阐释，提出了一个逻辑严密、层次清晰的理论框架，以期促进替代计量学的深化发展。该理论框架由三个层次的理论构成，即宏观层次的科学范式转变理论、中观层次的科研活动计算机化理论和微观层次的交互程度递进理论。在宏观层次，以库恩的科学范式转变理论为核心，论述了科学计量学向替代计量学拓展的基本原理，这构成了替代计量学作为学科研究方向的依据。在中观层次，从科研活动的六大环节出发，分析了各个环节计算机化的特点及其影响，解释了替代计量数据产生的过程和根本原因。在微观层次，解构了多样化替代计量数据所遵循科学交流过程的内在逻辑，以相关社会理论为依据解读了交互程度呈现差异的底层原因，阐释了不同替代计量数据的内在关联。这个有机互补的理论框架将有助于从全局视角理解和把握替代计量学的形成过程、基本思想和应用原理。最后，指出未来理论研究应从深入融合相关学科理论和发展替代计量学自身理论两个方向推进。

	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
	余厚强

关键词 ：替代计量学, 理论框架, 理论, 基本原理, 科学范式

收稿日期: 2021-08-24

基金资助:国家自然科学基金青年科学基金项目“结合情境数据的替代计量指标多元化内涵识别与表征研究”（71804067）；教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“替代计量数据质量评估体系的构建与实证研究”（18YJC870023）。

作者简介: 余厚强，男，1990年生，博士，副教授，主要研究方向为数据科学与替代计量、科学交流与科学评价，E-mail：yuhouq@yeah.ne；

引用本文:

余厚强. 替代计量学的理论框架研究[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(8): 775-785.
Yu Houqiang. Theoretical Framework of Altmetrics. 情报学报, 2022, 41(8): 775-785.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.08.001 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2022/V41/I8/775

1 Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, et al. Altmetrics: a manifesto[EB/OL]. (2010-10-26) [2021-06-28]. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
2 Engineering A, Konkiel S, Priem J, et al. The state of altmetrics: a tenth anniversary celebration[OL]. (2020-10-06) [2020-11-20]. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13010000.v2.
3 余厚强, 任全娥, 张洋, 等. Altmetrics的译名分歧: 困扰、影响及其辨析[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2019, 45(1): 47-59.
4 Cronin B, Snyder H W, Rosenbaum H, et al. Invoked on the web[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1998, 49(14): 1319-1328.
5 NISO. Outputs of the NISO alternative assessment project[OL]. [2016-10-03]. http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/altmetrics_initiative/.
6 Kuhn T S. The structure of scientific revolutions[M]. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
7 Wray K B. Kuhn's evolutionary social epistemology[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
8 Leydesdorff L, Bornmann L, Mutz R, et al. Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: principles for comparing sets of documents[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(7): 1370-1381.
9 Gingras Y, Larivière V. There are neither “king” nor “crown” in scientometrics: comments on a supposed “alternative” method of normalization[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 226-227.
10 Bornmann L, Haunschild R. Does evaluative scientometrics lose its main focus on scientific quality by the new orientation towards societal impact?[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 110(2): 937-943.
11 Bornmann L. Is there currently a scientific revolution in Scientometrics?[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(3): 647-648.
12 Bornmann L. Scientific revolution in scientometrics: the broadening of impact from citation to societal[M]// Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2016: 347-359.
13 Merton R K. The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
14 Singh Chawla D. The unsung heroes of scientific software[J]. Nature, 2016, 529(7584): 115-116.
15 Aljohani N R, Fayoumi A, Hassan S U. Bot prediction on social networks of Twitter in altmetrics using deep graph convolutional networks[J]. Soft Computing, 2020, 24(15): 11109-11120.
16 Bornmann L. Letter to the editor: on the conceptualisation and theorisation of the impact caused by publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 103(3): 1145-1148.
17 Nigel Gilbert G. Referencing as persuasion[J]. Social Studies of Science, 1977, 7(1): 113-122.
18 Shema H, Bar-Ilan J, Thelwall M. How is research blogged? A content analysis approach[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(6): 1136-1149.
19 Tahamtan I, Bornmann L. Altmetrics and societal impact measurements: match or mismatch? A literature review[J]. El Profesional de la Información, 2020, 29(1): e290102.
20 Elliott M S, Kraemer K L. Computerization movements and technology diffusion: from mainframes to ubiquitous computing[M]. Medford: Information Today, 2008: 3-41.
21 Xu S M. Issues in the interpretation of “altmetrics” digital traces: a review[J]. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2018, 3: Article 29.
22 余厚强. 替代计量指标与引文量相关性的大规模跨学科研究——数值类型、指标种类与用户类别的影响[J]. 情报学报, 2017, 36(6): 606-617.
23 王贤文. 科学计量大数据及其应用[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2016.
24 Priem J. Altmetrics[M]// Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2014: 263-287.
25 Wang X W, Fang Z C, Guo X H. Tracking the digital footprints to scholarly articles from social media[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(2): 1365-1376.
26 Priem J. Beyond the paper[J]. Nature, 2013, 495(7442): 437-440.
27 Nielsen M. Reinventing discovery: the new era of networked science[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020.
28 Moed H F. Altmetrics as traces of the computerization of the research process[OL]. (2015-10-17) [2020-12-17]. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.05131.pdf.
29 Wang X W, Xu S M, Peng L, et al. Exploring scientists' working timetable: do scientists often work overtime?[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2012, 6(4): 655-660.
30 Wang X W, Wang Z, Xu S M. Tracing scientist's research trends realtimely[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 95(2): 717-729.
31 Small H G. Cited documents as concept symbols[J]. Social Studies of Science, 1978, 8(3): 327-340.
32 Holmberg K. Classifying altmetrics by level of impact[C]// Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 2015: 101-102.
33 Lin J, Fenner M. Altmetrics in evolution: defining and redefining the ontology of article-level metrics[J]. Information Standards Quarterly, 2013, 25(2): 20.
34 Holmberg K. The meaning of altmetrics[C]// Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences, 2014: paper 1.
35 Holmberg K, Bowman T D, Didegah F. The meaning of impact in altmetrics[C/OL]// Proceedings of the 2015 Altmetrics Workshop, Amsterdam, 2015. http://altmetrics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/altmetrics15_paper_5.pdf.
36 Haustein S, Bowman T D, Costas R. Interpreting ‘altmetrics’: viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories[M]// Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2016: 372-406.
37 邱均平, 余厚强. 基于影响力产生模型的替代计量指标分层研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2015, 34(5): 53-58.
38 Bourdieu P. The forms of capital (1986)[M]// Cultural Theory: an Anthology. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010: 81-93.
39 Davenport T H, Beck J C. The attention economy: understanding the new currency of business[M]. Harvard Business Review Press, 2001.
40 Goffman E. The presentation of self in everyday life[M]. Anchor, 1959.
41 Enkhbayar A, Haustein S, Barata G, et al. How much research shared on Facebook happens outside of public pages and groups? A comparison of public and private online activity around PLOS ONE papers[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2020, 1(2): 749-770.
42 刘晓娟, 王晨琳, 韦娱. Altmetrics分析方法体系构建研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2021, 44(3): 45-52.
43 Bornmann L. What do altmetrics counts Mean? A plea for content analyses[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(4): 1016-1017.
44 Costas R. Towards the social media studies of science: social media metrics, present and future[J]. Bibliotecas. Anales de Investigación, 2017, 13(1): 1-5.