融合论文颠覆性与巩固性的学者二元影响力测度

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2023.12.002

情报学报

2023, Vol. 42

Issue (12): 1412-1423 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2023.12.002

情报理论与方法

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

融合论文颠覆性与巩固性的学者二元影响力测度

杨杰^1,2, 孔嘉^1,2, 张艺炜^1,2, 王昊^1,2, 邓三鸿^1,2

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

Dual-Dimension Scientist Evaluation Framework Based on the Disruptive and Consolidating Impact of Their Papers

Yang Alex J.^1,2, Kong Jia^1,2, Zhang Yiwei^1,2, Wang Hao^1,2, Deng Sanhong^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 (3174 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要针对当前学者评价研究与实践中存在的准确性与全面性不足的问题，本文从颠覆性影响力的视角出发，基于引文网络的深层互引信息，将被引文献划分为颠覆性被引文献和巩固性被引文献，构建了学者影响力的二元测度框架，凝练出两种不同类型的学术特征，即“颠覆型学者”和“巩固型学者”，并提出颠覆性被引量和颠覆性h指数等指标用于学者影响力测度。实证研究基于APS（American Physical Society）数据集的463348篇论文、9370286条引证链接、234086位消歧后作者以及诺贝尔奖（Nobel Prize）、沃尔夫奖（Wolf Prize）、狄拉克奖（Dirac Medal）3种重要奖项得主数据，综合肯德尔秩相关性、识别比率、平均排名等方法进行指标一致性和收敛有效性分析。研究结果表明，颠覆性被引量和颠覆性h指数与传统指标高度一致，并且在收敛有效性上全面优于基准测度指标。颠覆性影响力能够反映学者的创新水平和潜力，二元测度框架可以对学者影响力进行准确划分，对未来创新科学家的早期识别、学者绩效与奖励制度的改革、基金项目的评审与评价、科研激励政策的制定等具有重要意义。

	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
	孔嘉
	张艺炜
	王昊
	邓三鸿

关键词 ：科学计量, 引文网络, h指数, 颠覆性指数, 学者影响力

收稿日期: 2023-02-26

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、创新评价、复杂网络分析；孔嘉，男，1996年生，博士研究生，主要研究领域为信息计量分析；张艺炜，女，1994年生，博士，主要研究领域为信息分析和数据挖掘；王昊，男，1981年生，教授，博士生导师，主要研究领域为文本挖掘、知识图谱；邓三鸿，通信作者，男，1975年生，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；

引用本文:

杨杰, 孔嘉, 张艺炜, 王昊, 邓三鸿. 融合论文颠覆性与巩固性的学者二元影响力测度[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(12): 1412-1423.
Yang Alex J., Kong Jia, Zhang Yiwei, Wang Hao, Deng Sanhong. Dual-Dimension Scientist Evaluation Framework Based on the Disruptive and Consolidating Impact of Their Papers. 情报学报, 2023, 42(12): 1412-1423.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2023.12.002 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2023/V42/I12/1412

1 Winnink J J, Tijssen R J W, van Raan A F J. Searching for new breakthroughs in science: how effective are computerised detection algorithms?[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2019, 146: 673-686.
2 Fortunato S, Bergstrom C T, B?rner K, et al. Science of science[J]. Science, 2018, 359(6379): eaao0185.
3 Jo W S, Liu L, Wang D S. See further upon the giants: quantifying intellectual lineage in science[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2022, 3(2): 319-330.
4 Ghosal T, Tiwary P, Patton R, et al. Towards establishing a research lineage via identification of significant citations[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2022, 2(4): 1511-1528.
5 Kuhn T S. Historical structure of scientific discovery[J]. Science, 1962, 136(3518): 760-764.
6 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.
7 Park M, Leahey E, Funk R J. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time[J]. Nature, 2023, 613(7942): 138-144.
8 Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157): 468-472.
9 苏成, 赵志耘, 赵筱媛, 等. 颠覆性技术新阐释: 概念、内涵及特征[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(12): 1253-1262.
10 崔怡雯, 赵筱媛, 苏成, 等. 面向颠覆性创新的技术监测分类体系研究[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(12): 1288-1293.
11 Wang D S, Barabási A L. The science of science[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
12 Funk R J, Owen-Smith J. A dynamic network measure of technological change[J]. Management Science, 2017, 63(3): 791-817.
13 Bornmann L, Devarakonda S, Tekles A, et al. Disruptive papers published in Scientometrics: meaningful results by using an improved variant of the disruption index originally proposed by Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019)[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 123(2): 1149-1155.
14 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.
15 Wei C L, Li J, Shi D B. Quantifying revolutionary discoveries: evidence from Nobel prize-winning papers[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2023, 60(3): 103252.
16 Wang R J, Zhou Y H, Zeng A. Evaluating scientists by citation and disruption of their representative works[J]. Scientometrics, 2023, 128(3): 1689-1710.
17 Yin Y A, Wang Y, Evans J A, et al. Quantifying the dynamics of failure across science, startups and security[J]. Nature, 2019, 575(7781): 190-194.
18 Foster J G, Rzhetsky A, Evans J A. Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies[J]. American Sociological Review, 2015, 80(5): 875-908.
19 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.
20 Bower J L, Christensen C M. Disruptive technologies: catching the wave[M]. Boston: Harvard Business Review, 1995.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 Shibayama S, Wang J. Measuring originality in science[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 122(1): 409-427.
25 Mokyr J. Punctuated equilibria and technological progress[J]. The American Economic Review, 1990, 80(2): 350-354.
26 Arthur W B. The nature of technology: what it is and how it evolves[M]. New York: Free Press, 2009.
27 Arthur W B. The structure of invention[J]. Research Policy, 2007, 36(2): 274-287.
28 Einstein A. The foundation of the general theory of relativity[J]. Annalen Der Physik, 1916, 354(7): 769-822.
29 Watson J D, Crick F H C. Molecular structure of nucleic acids: a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid[J]. Nature, 1953, 171(4356): 737-738.
30 Bak P, Tang C, Wiesenfeld K. Self-organized criticality: an explanation of the 1/f noise[J]. Physical Review Letters, 1987, 59(4): 381-384.
31 Lin Y L, Frey C B, Wu L F. Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas[J]. Nature, 2023, 623(7989): 987-991.
32 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.
33 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: 101411.
34 Yang A J, Hu H T, Zhao Y H, et al. From consolidation to disruption: a novel way to measure the impact of scientists and identify laureates[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2023, 60(5): 103420.
35 Azoulay P. Small research teams ‘disrupt’ science more radically than large ones[J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744): 330-332.
36 Hirsch J E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102(46): 16569-16572.
37 Roldan-Valadez E, Salazar-Ruiz S Y, Ibarra-Contreras R, et al. Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics[J]. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 2019, 188(3): 939-951.
38 Waltman L, van Eck N J. The inconsistency of the h-index[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(2): 406-415.
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 Herrmannova D, Patton R M, Knoth P, et al. Do citations and readership identify seminal publications?[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 115(1): 239-262.
41 Cagan R. The San Francisco Declaration on research assessment[J]. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 2013, 6(4): 869-870.
42 Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, et al. Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics[J]. Nature, 2015, 520(7548): 429-431.
43 Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86(3): 638-641.
44 Jia T, Wang D S, Szymanski B K. Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution[J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2017, 1(4): Article No.0078.
45 Wang D S, Uzzi B. Weak ties, failed tries, and success[J]. Science, 2022, 377(6612): 1256-1258.
46 Rzhetsky A, Foster J G, Foster I T, et al. Choosing experiments to accelerate collective discovery[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015, 112(47): 14569-14574.
47 俞立平, 张矿伟, 蒋长兵. 推进代表作评价存在的问题与对策研究[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(4): 345-353.
48 Li D, Agha L. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?[J]. Science, 2015, 348(6233): 434-438.
49 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.
50 Bornmann L, Devarakonda S, Tekles A, et al. Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2020, 1(3): 1242-1259.
51 Leydesdorff L, Tekles A, Bornmann L. A proposal to revise the disruption index[J]. Profesional de la Información, 2021, 20(1): e300121.
52 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.
53 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.
54 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.
55 Chen J Y, Shao D A, Fan S K. Destabilization and consolidation: conceptualizing, measuring, and validating the dual characteristics of technology[J]. Research Policy, 2021, 50(1): 104115.
56 Popper K. The logic of scientific discovery[M]. New York: Harper and Row, 1934.
57 Liu L, Wang Y, Sinatra R, et al. Hot streaks in artistic, cultural, and scientific careers[J]. Nature, 2018, 559(7714): 396-399.
58 Sinatra R, Wang D S, Deville P, et al. Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact[J]. Science, 2016, 354(6312): aaf5239.
59 Wang J. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 94(3): 851-872.
60 Wang D S, Song C M, Barabási A L. Quantifying long-term scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6154): 127-132.
61 Nacher J C, Hayashida M, Akutsu T. Emergence of scale-free distribution in protein-protein interaction networks based on random selection of interacting domain pairs[J]. Biosystems, 2009, 95(2): 155-159.
62 Wolcott H N, Fouch M J, Hsu E R, et al. Modeling time-dependent and-independent indicators to facilitate identification of breakthrough research papers[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 107(2): 807-817.
63 Lü L Y, Zhou T, Zhang Q M, et al. The h-index of a network node and its relation to degree and coreness[J]. Nature Communications, 2016, 7: Article No.10168.
64 Petersen A M, Fortunato S, Pan R K, et al. Reputation and impact in academic careers[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014, 111(43): 15316-15321.
65 Xu S Q, Mariani M S, Lü L Y, et al. Unbiased evaluation of ranking metrics reveals consistent performance in science and technology citation data[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2020, 14(1): 101005.
66 Mariani M S, Medo M, Zhang Y C. Identification of milestone papers through time-balanced network centrality[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2016, 10(4): 1207-1223.
67 Wang J J, Xu S Q, Mariani M S, et al. The local structure of citation networks uncovers expert-selected milestone papers[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2021, 15(4): 101220.
68 Way S F, Morgan A C, Larremore D B, et al. Productivity, prominence, and the effects of academic environment[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019, 116(22): 10729-10733. 责任编辑魏瑞斌）