网络计量学和替代计量学的挑战及其社会影响的稳健和非稳健计量评价

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.10.005

情报学报

2022, Vol. 41

Issue (10): 1044-1058 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.10.005

情报理论与方法

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

网络计量学和替代计量学的挑战及其社会影响的稳健和非稳健计量评价

刘廷元, 刘纾曼

西南石油大学图书馆，成都 610500

The Challenges of Webometrics and Altmetrics and the Evaluation of Robustmetric and Non-robustmetric in Societal Impact

Liu Tingyuan, Liu Shuman

Library of Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (5)

全文: PDF (952 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要面对越来越广泛的科学成果的影响证据，网络计量学、替代计量学及其社会影响评价的挑战也在不断增加。作为社会影响的网络-替代计量数据，普遍存在高零值（左侧）、多异常值（右侧）和极端右偏斜分布，使数据集的真实性、合理性及其信息计量方法和结果的抗差性、可靠性和稳定性，面临诸多重大挑战。在本研究中，面对高零值，采用四分位零值缩减法进行检定，提出的精确计算公式具有很好的一致性和抗差性，是异常值合理修正及其稳健计量的重要基础；四分位零值率基于四分位距进行定义和推导，其最大缩减的实际危险率处于较低水平，属于理想的位置参数估计点。对多异常值，采用缩尾求稳方法进行修正，并与非稳健方法对比，修正后的数据集更具耐抗性和可靠性。对极端右偏斜分布，釆用基于缩尾均值的线性比例方法进行无量纲化，使映射和转换的结果更加稳定和一致，并与基于均值的线性比例方法对比；权重系数求解基于主观权重有机融入客观权重方法，将G1法（主观）、客观G1法、半客观G1法的权重集看作一个三角模糊数进行去模糊化处理，使权重值具有主观-客观双实现机制，从而提高综合评价结果的可靠性和稳定性。与非稳健计量评价方法对比，稳健计量评价的稳定性、可靠性和抗差性都大大提高，有利于促进信息计量学和评价学向复杂性精确科学发展。

	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
	刘廷元
	刘纾曼

关键词 ：网络计量学, 替代计量学, 稳健计量方法, 四分位零值率, 缩尾求稳法（缩尾值）

收稿日期: 2021-09-18

基金资助:四川省社会科学重点研究基地-四川学术成果分析与应用研究中心项目“四川省社科研究成果网络影响力评价”（SCAA21-04）。

作者简介: 刘廷元，男，1963年生，研究馆员，主要研究领域为情报学基础、稳健计量学的理论与方法，E-mail：liuty@swpu.edu.cn；刘纾曼，女，1989年生，助理工程师，主要研究领域为数据挖掘与分析；

引用本文:

刘廷元, 刘纾曼. 网络计量学和替代计量学的挑战及其社会影响的稳健和非稳健计量评价[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(10): 1044-1058.
Liu Tingyuan, Liu Shuman. The Challenges of Webometrics and Altmetrics and the Evaluation of Robustmetric and Non-robustmetric in Societal Impact. 情报学报, 2022, 41(10): 1044-1058.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.10.005 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2022/V41/I10/1044

1 Priem J, Costello K L. How and why scholars cite on Twitter[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 47(1): 1-4.
2 Priem J, Groth P, Taraborelli D. The altmetrics collection[J]. PLoS One, 2012, 7(11): e48753.
3 Priem J. Altmetrics[M]// Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2014: 263-287.
4 Penfield T, Baker M J, Scoble R, et al. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: a review[J]. Research Evaluation, 2014, 23(1): 21-32.
5 邱均平, 余厚强. 论推动替代计量学发展的若干基本问题[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2015, 41(1): 4-15.
6 Melero R. Altmetrics - a complement to conventional metrics[J]. Biochemia Medica, 2015, 25(2): 152-160.
7 Erfanmanesh M, Noorhidawati A, Abrizah A. What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 121(1): 521-536.
8 谢娟, 龚凯乐, 成颖, 等. 使用数据与引用数据间的补充或替代关系探讨[J]. 情报学报, 2018, 37(5): 486-494.
9 赵蓉英, 王旭. 引入Altmetrics指标的学术期刊影响力评价研究——以国际图书情报学期刊为例[J]. 图书与情报, 2018(5): 1-10.
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 Adie E, Roe W. Altmetric: enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics[J]. Learned Publishing, 2013, 26(1): 11-17.
12 Ingwersen P. The calculation of web impact factors[J]. Journal of Documentation, 1998, 54(2): 236-243.
13 Bj?rneborn L, Ingwersen P. Toward a basic framework for webometrics[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2004, 55(14): 1216-1227.
14 Thelwall M. The pros and cons of the use of altmetrics in research assessment[J]. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2020, 2(1): Article 2.
15 Thoma B, Sanders J L, Lin M, et al. The social media index: measuring the impact of emergency medicine and critical care websites[J]. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2015, 16(2): 242-249.
16 Zarei A, Khodadadi Z, Maleki M, et al. Robust mixture regression modeling based on two-piece scale mixtures of normal distributions[J/OL]. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, (2022-03-23). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11634-022-00495-6.
17 Bookstein A. Informetric distributions. III. Ambiguity and randomness[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1997, 48(1): 2-10.
18 Nane T, Kooijman K. A bootstrap analysis for finite populations[OL]. (2018-04-14). https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1804/1804.05274.pdf.
19 Haustein S, Costas R, Larivière V. Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(3): e0120495.
20 Thelwall M. Using altmetrics to support research evaluation[C]// Proceedings of the International Workshop on Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurements and Scholarly Information Management. Singapore: Springer, 2018: 11-28.
21 Mas-Bleda A, Thelwall M. Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(3): 2007-2030.
22 Chi P S, Gorraiz J, Gl?nzel W. Comparing capture, usage and citation indicators: an altmetric analysis of journal papers in chemistry disciplines[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 120(3): 1461-1473.
23 Sugimoto C R, Work S, Larivière V, et al. Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: a review of the literature[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(9): 2037-2062.
24 Gl?nzel W, Chi P S. The big challenge of Scientometrics 2.0: exploring the broader impact of scientific research in public health[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 125(2): 1011-1031.
25 Farooqui T, Mustafa I, Christie T. Outliers in educational achievement data: their potential for the improvement of performance[J]. Pakistan Journal of Statistics, 2014, 30(1): 71-82.
26 Templ M, Gussenbauer J, Filzmoser P. Evaluation of robust outlier detection methods for zero-inflated complex data[J]. Journal of Applied Statistics, 2020, 47(7): 1144-1167.
27 Tague-Sutcliffe J. In memoriam: B.C. (Bertie) Brookes, 1910-1991[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1992, 43(4): 273-275.
28 刘春丽. 基于PLOS API的论文影响力选择性计量指标研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2013, 57(7): 89-95.
29 Costas R, Zahedi Z, Wouters P. 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.
30 罗付岩, 赵佳星. 基于零膨胀模型的我国银企关系规模影响因素研究[J]. 数理统计与管理, 2017, 36(2): 351-360.
31 Thelwall M, Maflahi N. Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(4): 960-966.
32 Bornmann L. Scientific revolution in scientometrics: the broadening of impact from citation to societal[M]// Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication. Boston: De Gruyter Saur, 2016: 347-359.
33 许勤, 魏嶷. 稳健高效的切尾均值乘数估值技术[J]. 同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2007, 35(2): 271-275.
34 Huber P J. Robust statistics[M]// International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. Heidelberg: Springer, 2011: 1248-1251.
35 Piwowar H. Introduction altmetrics: what, why and where?[J]. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 39(4): 8-9.
36 肖其师, 吴春莹, 孙志庆. 基于Altmetrics的科技项目立项社会影响力评价框架研究及实证分析[J]. 图书馆杂志, 2019, 38(5): 79-87.
37 李伟伟, 易平涛, 李玲玉. 综合评价中异常值的识别及无量纲化处理方法[J]. 运筹与管理, 2018, 27(4): 173-178.
38 张发明, 刘志平. 组合评价方法研究综述[J]. 系统工程学报, 2017, 32(4): 557-569.
39 郭亚军. 综合评价理论、方法及应用[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2007.
40 李刚, 王斌, 周立斌, 等. 基于标准差修正G1组合赋权的人的全面发展评价模型及实证[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2012, 32(11): 2473-2485.
41 李刚, 李建平, 孙晓蕾, 等. 主客观权重的组合方式及其合理性研究[J]. 管理评论, 2017, 29(12): 17-26, 61.
42 易平涛, 李伟伟, 郭亚军. 基于指标特征分析的区域创新能力评价及实证[J]. 科研管理, 2016, 37(S1): 371-378.
43 Cronin B. Metrics à la mode[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(6): 1091.