多指标视角下的图书情报类预印本影响力评价

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2019.04.002

情报学报

2019, Vol. 38

Issue (4): 342-353 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2019.04.002

情报理论与应用

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

多指标视角下的图书情报类预印本影响力评价

陈悦, 王智琦, 刘则渊, 宋超

大连理工大学科学学与科技管理研究所暨WISLAB实验室，大连 116023

A “Multiple Indicator” View of Preprint Impact Evaluation in Information and Library Science

Chen Yue, Wang Zhiqi, Liu Zeyuan, Song Cha

Institution of Science of Science and S&T Management & WISE Lab, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116023

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (11)

全文: PDF (1799 KB) HTML (173 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要以图书情报领域的550篇arXiv论文和5782篇non-arXiv论文（2005—2017年）为主要分析对象，运用文献计量学理论与方法，从引用度和关注度两个层面对论文的影响力进行比较分析。研究结果表明，arXiv论文在Web of Science（WoS）、Scopus和Google Scholar数据库中均具有显著的引用优势；关注度优势主要体现在Mendeley读者数上，其在WoS使用量和Twitter转载量上表现并不明显；补充计量指标的发展有利于推动学术资源的开放获取，预印本的Mendeley读者数和WoS使用量均与被引量显著相关，但前者的适用性和可靠性更高。本文的研究结果揭示了图书情报预印本在科学发展和交流中的作用和地位，为构建一个更加完善的、适用于当今不同交流模式和交流载体的“多指标”评价体系提供了启示。

	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
	陈悦
	王智琦
	刘则渊
	宋超

关键词 ：预印本, 引用优势, 社会影响力, 文献计量学, 补充计量学, 科研评价

收稿日期: 2018-10-08

基金资助:国家自然科学基金面上项目“基于证据链的学术影响力定量评价方法研究”（71771205）；大连理工大学研究生精品课程建设项目“科学学原理Ⅰ”（20160916）。

引用本文:

陈悦, 王智琦, 刘则渊, 宋超. 多指标视角下的图书情报类预印本影响力评价[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(4): 342-353.
Chen Yue, Wang Zhiqi, Liu Zeyuan, Song Cha. A “Multiple Indicator” View of Preprint Impact Evaluation in Information and Library Science. 情报学报, 2019, 38(4): 342-353.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2019.04.002 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2019/V38/I4/342

1 英)J.D.贝尔纳. 科学的社会功能[M]. 陈体芳, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1982.
2 PiwowarH, PriemJ, LarivièreV, et al. The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles[J]. PeerJ, 2018, 6: e4375.
3 Gl?nzelW, SchoepflinU. A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences[J]. Information Processing & Management, 1999, 35(1): 31-44.
4 LawrenceS. Online or invisible[J]. Nature, 2001, 411: 521.
5 CraigI D, PlumeA M, McVeighM E, et al. Do open access articles have greater citation impact?: A critical review of the literature[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2007, 1(3): 239-248.
6 DavisP M. Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing[J]. The FASEB Journal, 2011, 25(7): 2129-2134.
7 GargouriY, HajjemC, LarivièreV, et al. Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research[J]. PLoS ONE, 2010, 5(10): e13636.
8 MoedH F. The effect of “open access” on citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv’s condensed matter section[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 58(13): 2047-2054.
9 LarivièreV, SugimotoC R, MacalusoB, et al. arXiv e-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(6): 1157-1169.
10 MetcalfeT S. The citation impact of digital preprint archives for solar physics papers[J]. Solar Physics, 2006, 239(1-2): 549-553.
11 SchwarzG J, R C JrKennicutt. Demographic and citation trends in astrophysical journal papers and preprints[OL]. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411275.
12 DavisP M, FromerthM J. Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles?[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 71(2): 203-215.
13 ChenY, WangZ, TanJ, et al. The position of preprint in scholarly communication: A biliometric and empirical study of arXiv[C]// Proceedings of the 16th Conference on International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2017: 799-809.
14 ThelwallM, KoushaK. ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 112(1): 1-7.
15 ThelwallM. Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2018, 12(2): 430-435.
16 HarzingA W, AlakangasS. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 106(2): 787-804.
17 Martín-MartínA, Orduna-MaleaE, López-CózarE D. Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A multidisciplinary comparison[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 116(3): 2175-2188.
18 Gl?nzelW, ThijsB, DebackereK. Productivity, performance, efficiency, impact—What do we measure anyway?[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2016, 10(2): 658-660.
19 Gl?nzelW, GorraizJ. Usage metrics versus altmetrics: Confusing terminology?[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 102(3): 2161-2164.
20 王贤文, 方志超, 胡志刚. 科学论文的科学计量分析: 数据、方法与用途的整合框架[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(16): 74-82.
21 HausteinS, LarivièreV, ThelwallM, et al. Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ?[J]. Information Technology, 2014, 56(5): 207-215.
22 CostasR, ZahediZ, WoutersP. Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(10): 2003-2019.
23 LiX, ThelwallM, GiustiniD. Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 91(2): 461-471.
24 ThelwallM, WilsonP. Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(8): 1962-1972..
25 MohammadiE, ThelwallM. Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(8): 1627-1638.
26 ThelwallM, KoushaK. ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(2): 468-479.
27 ThelwallM. Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(3): 1721-1731.
28 MaflahiN, ThelwallM. When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(1): 191-199.
29 ThelwallM. Can Microsoft Academic be used for citation analysis of preprint archives? The case of the Social Science Research Network[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 115(2): 913-928.
30 WangX W, LiuC, MaoW L, et al. The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 103(2): 555-564.
31 ShuaiX, PepeA, BollenJ. How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations[J]. PLoS ONE, 2012, 7(11): e47523.
32 BrodyT, HarnadS, CarrL. Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 57(8): 1060-1072.
33 ChiP S, Gl?nzelW. An empirical investigation of the associations among usage, scientific collaboration and citation impact[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 112(1): 403-412.
34 WangX, MaoW, XuS, et al. Usage history of scientific literature: Nature metrics, and metrics of Nature, publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 98(3): 1923-1933.
35 WangX, FangZ, SunX. Usage patterns of scholarly articles on Web of Science: A study on Web of Science usage count[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(2): 917-926.
36 Gl?nzelW, MoedH F. Opinion paper: Thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 96: 381-394.
37 Gl?nzelW, SchoepflinU. A bibliometric study on ageing and reception process of scientific literature[J]. Journal of Information Science, 1995, 21(1): 37-53.
38 Gl?nzelW, ThijsB, ChiP S. The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: The book citation index[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(3): 2165-2179.
39 SudP, ThelwallM. Evaluating altmetrics[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 98(2): 1131-1143.
40 ThelwallM, FaircloughR. The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2015, 9(3): 529-541.