科学网

 找回密码
  注册

tag 标签: 引文分析

相关帖子

版块 作者 回复/查看 最后发表

没有相关内容

相关日志

为什么要引用?
zilu85 2010-4-29 16:22
作者出于什么目的引用? 问题的提出,是源于上个世纪70年代,随着引文分析的兴起,越来越多的研究把引文计数(citation count)作为衡量个人、团队、单位甚至国家科学研究成就的指标。一些人对这种流行的方法提出了的不同意见,认为用引文作为指标所描述出来的科学概貌是含混甚至是错误的,但是这些批评又拿不出客观的证据来支持自己的观点。1975年,美国俄勒冈大学的Moravcsik及其学生Murugesan一起探索引文计数的根本性质,他们从1968-1972年间在《Physical Review》上发表的理论高能物理学的论文中,随机抽取了30篇论文作为样本,具体做法就是检查引用情景(citation contexts),所谓的引用情景实际上是指引用发生的具体情形,通过检查来源文献(或称引用文献)在引用某个引文的时候的上下文来实现;他们把引用情景分成4种类型: 1. 是概念性的引用还是操作性的引用( conceptual or operational ) ?换言之,就是这个被引文献是与引用文献中的概念或者理论相关,还是与引用文献中的工具或者物理技术相关?这种区分不是为了评价其价值,也不作为对被引文献重要性评价的同义词。 2. 引用是必须的还是应付差事的( organic or perfunctory )?换言之,引文真正是理解引用文献所必须的(或者是对于超出本论文范围的工作的引用),还是主要为了告知别人在同一个领域里也有其他工作在进行中。 3. 引文是改进的还是并置的( evolutionary or juxtapositional )?换言之,引用文献是基于被引文献所提供的基础之上呢,还是引用文献是被引文献的另一种选择? 4. 引用时肯定性的还是否定性的( confirmative or negational )?就是说,引用文献认为被引文献是正确的,还是对其正确性提出质疑?不需要对被引文献中的错误给出正确的证明来说明其错误,但是也可以通过对实验数据的不敢苟同意见来表达出来。 第一个和第三个问题不影响将引文作为科学测量指标使用,但是让我们了解科学交流的目的和科学发展中关联的类型,而第二和第四个问题,则是与引用质量直接相关的,这两个问题涉及到了搭车文章的问题,即有些论文只不过因为可存取性而不是因为他们对科学发展的贡献才被引用的,或者有的文章只是因为错误或者引起争议才被引用的。 通过列表显示各个类别的引用情景的频数,二人得出结论:大部分的引文都是可有可无的。这个结论引起了轩然大波,到1985年该论文被引用65次,为Social Studies of Science杂志被引次数最高的论文。
个人分类: 休闲|7313 次阅读|3 个评论
研究引文也能惹祸?!
热度 1 周春雷 2010-4-23 15:09
因为研究引文需要大量数据,在没有使用任何特殊工具的情况下,用常规方法从某引文数据库下载了一些数据,结果竟两次搞出动静,被图书馆叫去谈话,说是超量下载。但我询问超量的标准是什么的时候,并没有准确答复。 真不知道什么样的研究才算正常使用!
个人分类: 感想|6639 次阅读|10 个评论
难的是论文被负引100次
zhaoxing 2010-4-2 13:37
一篇文章被引用100次很难。 大部分学科,达到这一被引强度的论文,基本可以算是领域内绕不开的工作。一些不太热门的领域,很多年,也不一定能出现一篇。 但这还不是最难。 更难的是:有一篇文章被负面或批判式引用了100次。 如果犯的是低级错误,同行们很少会反复的指出。想被高负引并不那么简单。 要被高负引,前提是论文中有极具启发的错误。然后很多人以此为基础或受到启发做出了他们认为更正确的发现。 因此,高负引论文,超越了正确与谬误,已是对科学发展的重要贡献。 有生之年,我们或许写得出被引100次的论文,但能做得出被负引100次的工作吗?
个人分类: 计量学|8490 次阅读|14 个评论
Vinkler与Zitt获09年科学计量学Price奖
热度 2 zhaoxing 2009-10-20 19:03
最近一期《 Scientometrics 》公告了两年一次的科学计量学最高奖项 Derek John de Solla Price Medal结果。获奖人为匈牙利的 Peter Vinkler 和法国的 Michel Zitt。 两位早年分别是化学家和管理学者,近年在引文分析和评价方法与指标等热点问题上颇有建树。 笔者对两位的直接印象是:Vinkler也参与了目前h指数研究热潮,而Zitt的逻辑化推理能力很强。 另外, Glanzel 指出,Vinkler是位独狼,为啥呢?刚查了一下,他80年代进入这一领域至今,在LIS学科内发表了30余篇文章,全是独著! 希望早日见到我国科学计量学家获得这一荣誉。 参考文献: Pter Vinkler and Michel Zitt win the 2009 Derek John de Solla Price Medal. Scientometrics,2009, 81:1-5.
个人分类: 计量学|6328 次阅读|5 个评论
SCI引文预测诺贝尔奖,再次正确
热度 3 zhaoxing 2009-10-5 18:32
Thomson公司通过WOS(主要是SCI)的引文预测炸药奖已成年度节目,测准率颇高。 继去年成功预测钱永健后,今年最先公布的生理学或医学奖再次中标。 汤姆森预测的三大热门分别如下表,结果,果然第一热门获奖。 ------------------- 6日补充:不过,物理学奖没对。 Elizabeth H. Blackburn 美国加州大学旧金山分校 生物化学与生物物理学系 在端粒和端粒酶的发现和开创性研究中所做的贡献 Carol W. Greider 美国约翰-霍普金斯医学院 分子生物学和遗传学系 Jack W. Szostak 美国哈佛医学院 遗传学 James E. Rothman 美国耶鲁大学 生物医学系 在细胞膜运转机制领域的研究 Randy Schekman 美国加州大学伯克利分校 细胞和发育生物学 Seiji Ogawa 日本Hamano 生命科学研究基金会 Ogawa 脑功能研究实验室 导致功能性核磁共振成像 (fMRI) 的基本发现,功能性核磁共振成像对脑科学和临床医学诊断领域的基础研究产生了革命性的影响 更多阅读: 1.论坛管理员.科学网. 引文的力量2009年诺贝尔奖预测 . 2.梅进.科学网. 2009年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖揭晓 .
个人分类: 计量学|10126 次阅读|7 个评论
特征因子(Eigenfactor)的背景及部分性质
zhaoxing 2009-9-10 09:38
特征因子( Eigenfactor ,中文名由 任胜利老师 提出)可能是 09 年以来最受关注的期刊评价新指标。一方面因为特征因子创新性的将学界热切期望的引文质量纳入测评范围,颇具理论价值。另一方面,汤姆森公司( SCI 体系的掌控者) 09 年初已经将其作为新版 JCR 的指标,正式开始实际应用。 下面就特征因子的发展背景及部分性质进行一点讨论。 Garfield 提出的期刊影响因子,已对科学发展产生了巨大影响。但随着研究的深入,影响因子也暴露出诸多缺陷:如易被人为操纵、统计错误、不能跨学科比较、选源标准问题 以及对非英文期刊不公平等。另外,期刊影响因子隐含假设:在剔除论文数量因素后,期刊越多的被引用则其影响力越高。显然,此假设成立需要满足所有引文重要性等价的条件。但每条引文的重要性是否等价是值得讨论的,如在总被引频次相等的情况下,被《 nature 》或《 science 》大量引用的论文影响力显然会大于只被一些低水平期刊引用的论文。因此,要更为准确的反映期刊论文影响,还需考虑每条引文本身的价值。影响因子对于期刊的评价远非完美,理论上和实践上都需要更为准确的期刊评价指标。 Pinski 等人提出以引用某论文的论文被引频次作为权,迭代计算引文加权重要性的思想。但限于计算复杂性,此思想鲜见实际运用。 1998 年, Google 公司创始人 Brin 和 Page 提出 PageRank 算法,用类似于 Pinski 等人的方法,计算网页的重要性和进行网页排序,成为 Google 王朝的奠基之石。随着计算机性能的提升和 PageRank 算法的成功,研究者开始注意到将 PageRank 算法用于引文分析的广阔前景。 在这样的背景下, 2007 年,美国华盛顿大学和加州大学的 Bergstrom 等人组成的研究小组发布了一个新的期刊引文评价指标 Eigenfactor 。与影响因子不同, Eigenfactor 的基本假设是:期刊越多的被高影响的期刊所引用则其影响力也越高。 Eigenfactor 使用 Thompson 公司的 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 为数据源,构建剔除自引的期刊 5 年期引文矩阵,以类似于 PageRank 的算法迭代计算出期刊的权重影响值,实现了引文数量与价值的综合评价。这一新指标以期刊影响力为权,以更贴近实际的权重网络形式重构了最早由 Price 提出的引文网络。其计算思想也与社会网络分析中用于描述节点在关系网络里权力和地位的特征向量中心度相似,重要的不同之处是 Eigenfactor 的算法避免了孤立点的影响。 Eigenfactor 的部分特征包括: 1 )同时测量了引文的数量和质量,理念上更为先进,理论假设更为合理,无视自引,并相对难以伪造。 2 )其结果更好的体现了《 NATURE 》和《 SCIENCE 》等顶尖刊物的真实影响力和学术地位。 3 )是一个总量性指标,与影响因子等篇均性指标差别明显,具有一些影响因子难以比拟的优点。当然,其派生出了论文影响分值( Article Influence Score )则是较典型的篇均性指标。 4 )拉大了好期刊和差期刊的差距,但同时存在对于差期刊的区分度较弱的问题。 5 )特征因子也有前述影响因子的一些缺陷,并且,特征因子和论文影响分值是目前 JCR 指标中的数据封闭性最强的指标。 一些后续的推测和讨论: 1 )鉴于算法是带有普遍联系特点的加权,传统科学计量学中的一些规律可能不能在特征因子上很好体现,比如布拉德福分布等。 2 )国外有学者 发现国际医学期刊的特征因子与总被引存在对数变换后的高度 Pearson 相关,因此认为两者并没有太大的排序差异。个人觉得有待讨论, Pearson 相关性强仅代表宏观总体的数值同向变化,并不说明指标在微观上可相互替代或排序差异不大。当样本足够时,某一样本的位序改变会导致整个序列不同程度的联动。精确检验排序是否存在显著差异采用非参数检验的秩和类方法可能更适宜。另一方面,总被引次数和特征因子都是基于引文的期刊的正向评价方法,自然不会有结果上的较大差异,若存在这样的差异,则说明其中一种方法可能有误。 3 )基于社会网络和复杂网络观点的科学计量与评价可能是今后的一个热点方向,特征因子可能成为其中里程碑之一,我们也有一些初步的学习 。 -------------------------------- 附件是 于 08 年完成的相关学习,当时特征因子还未被汤姆森公司所使用,前景不明,时有忐忑。近期已有几位同行来信索要这篇文献,为方便交流,故贴出来,接受批评。 期刊引文评价新指标Eigenfactor的特性研究 参考文献: Davis P M. Eigenfactor: Does the Principle of Repeated Improvement Result in Better Estimates than Raw Citation Counts? . JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. 2008, 59(13): 2186-2188 陶乃航,赵星,彭晓东,翟伟希. 中心度指标在期刊引文网络分析中的运用及改进 .图书情报工作,2009,53(14):143-109 陈亦佳,赵星. 基于期刊引文网络视角研究国际图书馆学情报学知识交流 .现代图书情报技术,2009,25(6):55-60 更多阅读: 任胜利 . 特征因子 (Eigenfactor): 基于引证网络分析期刊和论文的重要性 . 中国科技期刊研究 , 2009, 20(3): 415 - 418
个人分类: 学术期刊|32014 次阅读|7 个评论
NIH引入SCI评价——老美也该哭了吗?
zhaoxing 2009-8-4 10:27
科技大国中,美国可能是传统同行评议最坚定的维护者,在欧亚各国近年普遍引入被人痛恨的量化评价背景下,一直动作很小。 当然估计这只是一个参考。 但这是一个开始吗? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Philadelphia, PA, London, UK, August 3, 2009 – Thomson Reuters with Discovery Logic, Inc. today announced that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has chosen Web of Science data to power the NIH electronic Scientific Portfolio Assistant (eSPA). eSPA is an information technology system designed to assist NIH grants management officials in creating grant portfolios and tracking research outputs and outcomes, including publications and citations."
个人分类: 计量学|3520 次阅读|4 个评论
单位差,论文影响力更大?
zhaoxing 2009-7-24 10:47
最近,《科学学研究》刊出了河南师范大学的梁立明老师和她的学生刘炜合著的论文《物理学报》论文引用中发现了努道普效应,非常有趣。努道普效应是科学学中与波敦克效应相对应的概念。波敦克效应是指在声望较低或处于边远地区的机构中任职的科学家往往得不到应有的承认。而努道普效应则是指在声望较低或边远地区机构中任职的科学家获得了多于他们显然应该得到的承认。感性认识中,波敦克效应是常态,而努道普效应鲜见。 而梁立明老师和刘炜的这一研究表明,2002-2007年刊于《物理学报》上的 3010篇论文中,非211高校作者发表的论文无论是被引篇数百分比还是篇均被引频次均高于211高校作者发表的论文。这是典型的努道普效应。。此结果说明,在此期间的《物理学报》论文中,来自声望较低的单位作者,其学术影响力反而更大。作者还从引文分析角度,探索了《物理学报》产生此效应的原因。 此文娓娓道来,结果出人意料,非常有意思。 博主以为,中文顶尖期刊出现努道普效应的另一个可能成因是:国内顶尖期刊的编辑和审稿人在审阅和录用论文时,会有意无意的关注作者名气、单位、基金项目等外部因素,故实际上非著名单位作者的论文在同行评议时,常受到更为苛刻的评判。来自非著名单位作者的被录用论文,可能在本身水平上超过了期刊平均水平,故被引更多,出现努道普效应。 若这一推测有一定合理性,那么在另一些国内不同学科的顶尖期刊中,努道普效应也可能存在。 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 参考文献: 梁立明 , 刘炜 . 《物理学报》论文引用中发现了努道普效应 . 科学学研究 ,2009,27(5):704-710
个人分类: 计量学|11322 次阅读|21 个评论
2008年SCI影响因子(excel版下载)(6月20日凌晨公布)
热度 1 zhaoxing 2009-6-20 06:00
这是ISI Web of Knowledge 的JCR于北京时间6月20日凌晨新更新的2008年期刊影响因子。刚花数小时下载完毕。 请理性看待这一主要用于期刊引文评价的颇受争议的指标。 若一定要用被引次数去评价,对论文本身,单篇论文被引次数也许相对合适;对学者个人, h指数 可能效果更佳。 ------------------------- 下载请点击: 2008年SCI期刊影响因子
个人分类: 学术期刊|202600 次阅读|44 个评论
过去十年被引最多的十位“科学家”
zhaoxing 2009-6-5 22:10
表中是过去 11 年在 SCI 和 SSCI 中被引次数最多的 10 位科学家。 科学家 论文数量 被引次数 1 WANG, J 10,185 113,077 2 WANG, Y 11,404 97,326 3 ZHANG, Y 11,035 94,444 4 LI, J 9,213 90,654 5 ZHANG, J 9,302 87,310 6 LI, Y 9,244 83,429 7 LIU, Y 9,294 75,849 8 SUZUKI, T 7,826 75,102 9 NAKAMURA, T 5,644 69,756 10 CHEN, J 6,895 69,442 打引号的原因看到表也就立刻明白,显然这 10 位都不可能是同一人。除了日本的铃木和中村,全是华人。 现在一些国人发英文文章前,先给自己取个英文名。不知是否有此原因? 若预期儿女能成名人,最好别取以上名字。 也因为这个原因,现在 ISI 能算出发表论文最多和被引最多的期刊、机构和国家。但就是算不出人。 人的问题特别复杂有时因为人太多,而中国人特别多。 给每个作者一个ID号也许是个办法,但全面实行成本较大。而且之前的数据怎么办? 有什么好办法解决这个问题呢?
个人分类: 计量学|12537 次阅读|18 个评论
综述论文是否纳入常规引文评价值得讨论
zhaoxing 2009-5-8 14:55
综述论文的重要价值毋庸置疑,但其被引特点与研究论文颇有不同,如被引更多,持续力更强等。 目前大部分常规的引文评价方法将综述论文与研究论文同等对待,这可能导致一些问题。期刊评价中,凡采用篇均性指标,可能使得综述性期刊的数值膨胀。如07年的影响因子(IF)和论文影响力(AI)前十的期刊中都有超过6种期刊为综述类期刊,而《Nature》和《Science》这样刊发较多开创性研究论文的重要刊物近年却大多徘徊在第10名左右。另一方面,若采用总量性指标(如总被引次数、特征因子(Eigenfactor)等),部分综述期刊由于文章数量较少,又常常处于不利的境地。 此问题对于学者、机构的引文评价也同样存在。除上述总被引和平均被引,即使现今较流行的h指数,也可能出现h核心(即对h指数有直接贡献的论文集合)内有较多的综述论文的情况。但这未必是学者的原创性学术贡献,且与研究论文的引文也常不具可比性。 这也再次说明当前各种引文分析方法总有局限。 要解决此问题,从指标方法上进行改进似乎很难,因为这本身是数据的结构性差异 .因此,笔者认为一个可能的解决方案是:在引文分析与评价中,区别对待综述和研究论文,具体做法是将两类论文分别评价或只评价研究论文。当然,这样做将使工作复杂化,也会有一些问题。 仅为抛砖。
个人分类: 计量学|8616 次阅读|9 个评论
2009-3-31-科学计量学课件--引文分析2
junpengyuan 2009-4-27 10:55
本节课主要介绍引文分析都可以从哪些角度进行,提醒大家注意的是: Compare like with like 课件可以在这下载: http://www.uushare.com/user/felixyuan/file/1541223
个人分类: 科学计量|3309 次阅读|0 个评论
中文论文h指数百强医院
zhaoxing 2009-4-21 16:09
赵星(Zhao Xing),2009.4.21 http://www.sciencenet.cn/u/zhaoxing/ H指数理论上可用于任一学术论文产出实体。笔者将医院h指数定义为:某一医院的h指数是指该医院所属论文作者发表了h篇被引次数不少于h次的论文。H指数的计算方法可参见博文“ 什么是学者的h指数?如何计算?”。 医院h指数只需将按作者单位检索医院名即可。 当前条件下的h指数计算,其原始数据都只是实际论文集合的一个子集。这里以CNKI收录的论文为基础,从CNKI引文数据库得到中文论文h指数排国内前100的医院。 此处的论文和引文范围包括CNKI收录的全部文献和引文,最新一次更新应是2009年4月20日。 数据结果如表1所示。 表 1 中文论文 h 指数百强医院 序号 医院名 论文数量 被引次数 h 指数 1 中国医学科学院协和医院 18797 76248 76 2 中国人民解放军总医院 37617 110501 71 3 北京大学第一附属医院 15411 62045 66 4 上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院 16573 57720 60 5 中国人民解放军第二军医大学长海医院 20068 63946 58 6 华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院 22569 58421 55 7 复旦大学附属华山医院 12790 47190 54 8 四川大学华西医院 22788 55155 53 9 中山大学附属第一医院 21308 57015 52 10 中国人民解放军南京军区南京总医院 13658 41413 52 11 中国人民解放军第四军医大学附属西京医院 22953 65587 51 12 南方医科大学附属南方医院 18444 53123 51 13 复旦大学附属中山医院 12987 44723 51 14 中国医学科学院阜外心血管病医院 5953 23638 51 15 首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院 8242 23392 49 16 北京大学人民医院 11097 36373 49 17 首都医科大学附属北京红十字朝阳医院 6261 20065 48 18 上海交通大学附属仁济医院 9875 30224 48 19 中国医科大学第二附属医院 10071 24255 46 20 中国人民解放军第三零四医院 3451 16782 46 21 华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院 15694 38549 45 22 中国医科大学第一附属医院 13959 30876 44 23 北京大学第三医院 8773 29089 44 24 南京医科大学第一附属医院 17690 36161 43 25 上海交通大学医学院附属新华医院 8719 25061 43 26 中国人民解放军第三军医大学附属西南医院 13921 36688 42 27 中国疾病预防控制中心 8358 24803 41 28 首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院 8025 20740 41 29 上海市第六人民医院 4783 15513 41 30 北京积水潭医院 3957 13100 41 31 首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院 5807 15929 40 32 首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院 4911 13508 40 33 上海市第一人民医院 8508 21367 40 34 上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院 7711 22455 39 35 北京中日友好医院 3437 11076 39 36 中国医学科学院中国协和医科大学肿瘤医院 2582 13829 38 37 浙江大学医学院附属第一医院 8247 19536 38 38 山东大学齐鲁医院 16127 30360 37 39 首都医科大学附属宣武医院 7264 19402 36 40 广州市第一人民医院 5761 11711 36 41 中国人民解放军北京军区总医院 7974 16907 36 42 中国人民解放军第四军医大学唐都医院 10257 25676 36 43 中国卫生部北京医院 4052 12261 35 44 中国人民解放军广州军区广州总医院 9112 19305 35 45 中国人民解放军海军总医院 7838 17285 35 46 青岛大学医学院附属医院 12695 20375 34 47 武汉大学中南医院 6621 14975 33 48 山东省立医院 14697 22577 33 49 湖北医科大学附属第一医院 11354 25590 33 50 广州中医药大学第一附属医院 4498 12757 33 51 广东省人民医院 8655 15691 33 52 中国人民解放军沈阳军区总医院 9696 15378 33 53 郑州大学第一附属医院 14377 20783 32 54 广东省中医院 6505 14838 32 55 天津医科大学总医院 7101 15815 32 56 中国人民解放军空军总医院 7654 13771 32 57 中国人民解放军济南军区总医院 8923 16854 32 58 中山大学附属孙逸仙纪念医院 9315 19588 32 59 广州医学院第一附属医院 4598 9753 32 60 中南大学湘雅医学院第二附属医院 9514 19345 31 61 首都医科大学附属北京儿童医院 4774 11170 31 62 广西医科大学第一附属医院 9902 14860 31 63 大连医科大学第一附属医院 4579 10426 31 64 东南大学附属中大医院 6573 11200 31 65 重庆医科大学第二附属医院 4832 11667 31 66 南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院 8016 14723 31 67 中国人民解放军第三零二医院 4455 12169 31 68 重庆医科大学附属儿童医院 4042 9727 31 69 河北医科大学第二医院 8629 13934 31 70 广东省深圳市人民医院 6400 13346 31 71 武汉大学人民医院 9777 18818 30 72 中国人民解放军白求恩国际和平医院 7140 10926 30 73 中国人民解放军南京军区福州总医院 8577 14198 30 74 中南大学湘雅医院 9627 21132 30 75 河北省人民医院 6130 9486 29 76 中国人民解放军第三军医大学附属大坪医院 2582 8756 29 77 暨南大学第一附属医院 4070 9521 29 78 河南省人民医院 7934 10982 28 79 吉林大学第一医院 7919 12730 27 80 安徽医科大学第一附属医院 6524 12002 27 81 四川省人民医院 8548 11050 27 82 中国人民解放军广州军区武汉总医院 5310 10414 27 83 河北医科大学第四医院 4623 8351 27 84 中国人民解放军成都军区昆明总医院 5914 10115 27 85 哈尔滨医科大学第一附属医院 4961 9051 27 86 苏州大学第一附属医院 5510 9983 27 87 汕头大学医学院第一附属医院 5296 7895 27 88 中国人民武装警察部队总医院 4903 7182 27 89 西安交通大学第一附属医院 3378 5861 26 90 哈尔滨医科大学第二附属医院 6595 10295 26 91 中国人民解放军成都军区总医院 6309 9143 26 92 浙江省中医院 3676 5910 26 93 山西医科大学第一医院 5148 7899 26 94 中国人民解放军兰州军区总医院 6089 10023 26 95 福建医科大学附属协和医院 5911 9874 25 96 浙江省人民医院 4309 6945 25 97 山东中医药大学附属医院 4320 9497 25 98 广东医学院附属医院 7757 11692 24 99 安徽蚌埠医学院附属医院 5211 7200 24 100 昆明医学院第一附属医院 8152 10332 24 注: h 指数同为 24 的医院还有:河北医科大学第三医院,福建省立医院,中山大学附属第三医院,福建医科大学第一附属医院。 需指出的是,这里仅是CNKI收录的文献及其引用,并未包括全部中文文献,也未包括发表于国外的大量外文论文,一些科研模式非常国际化的医院可能在此数据中不能得到反映。本文仅提供一点信息供参考,h指数高并不一定科研能力就强。笔者反对将这类数据做为任何资源分配问题的主要评价标准。 更多阅读: 周春雷:h指数视角下的世界牛校 万力: 基于h指数的中国大学科研十强
个人分类: h指数|4203 次阅读|12 个评论
科普文:什么是学者的h指数?如何计算?
热度 6 zhaoxing 2009-4-9 15:29
赵星(Zhao Xing),2009.4.9 http://www.sciencenet.cn/u/zhaoxing/ 本博文主要科普两个知识。第一,什么是学者的h指数?第二,如何计算? 1.什么是h指数? h指数是美国物理学家Hirsch于2005年提出用于评价科学家的科研绩效。虽然笔者看来其原始论文的题目及Hirsch对h指数的含义描述值得讨论,但h指数在短短几年时间内就全球风靡,很快被扩展用于期刊、研究团队、大学、科研院所、学科、国家、基金和研究热点等不同领域。下面以科学家个人h指数进行介绍,其它对象的h指数可以此类推。 h指数的物理含义可简单的表述为:有h篇论文被引用了不少于h次。不少学者认为h指数综合衡量了论文的数量和影响力。有趣的是,原本人为规定的h指数居然被一些学者数学推导得出:h指数与原有的评价指标之间存在着微妙的联系。而且数据也一定程度上证实了这些联系。 h指数主要是一个影响力判定参数,其特点是关注科学家发表了多少有影响力的论文。因此,若你的研究没有一定的质量,没有引起学界的关注和交流,无论你发表了多少论文,都无法获得一个较高的h指数。h指数的测度有利于那些出精品的科学家,也可以发现哪些人是灌水者。h指数面前,你可以有一些文章成了睡美人,但要避免一辈子都怀才不遇。 2. 如何计算h指数? 科学家h指数的计算方法可描述为:将科学家某个时段(也可是全部)的论文,按被引次数从高往低排,然后每篇论文得到一个序号,将每篇论文的序号和被引次数进行比较,找到序号h,使得这一篇论文的序号h小于或等于它的被引次数,而下一篇论文(序号为h+1)的序号大于它的被引次数。也许这样的描述还是让你头晕,那么看一个例子,你就明白了。首先将某一学者的论文按被引次数从高往低排,得到表1,然后计算过程如表1所示。 表 1 某学者的 h 指数计算过程 序号 论文 论文被引频次 判定 1 引用次数最多的论文 A 18 118 2 引用次数第 2 的论文 B 8 28 3 引用次数第 3 的论文 C 8 38 4 引用次数第 4 的论文 D 6 46 5 引用次数第 5 的论文 E 5 5=5 , h 指数为 5 6 引用次数第 6 的论文 F 4 64 7 引用次数第 7 的论文 G 4 74 外文论文的被引次数获取现在常采用的数据库有Web of Science,Scopus和Google学术等,中文论文常采用的有CNKI引文数据库, CSCD和人文社科的CSSCI等。需指出的是,CNKI引文数据库的首页数据问题很大,建议进入旧版手工检索。 当然,任一单一参数的评价都有局限性,h指数的问题也很多,以后再详述。 笔者旗帜鲜明的反对任何单位采用任一h指数及其变体进行涉及资源分配问题的任何形式量化考核。
个人分类: h指数|78948 次阅读|16 个评论
h指数研究参考文献
zhaoxing 2009-4-9 13:37
h指数研究外文参考文献 Provided by 赵星(Zhao Xing),2009.4.9 http://www.sciencenet.cn/u/zhaoxing/ h指数是论文影响力的一个测评参数,其简介可参见博文: 什么是学者的h指数?如何计算?(点击进入) 下面是我所能查询到的已刊出的341篇h指数研究外文论文(截止于09年4月8日,以后会再更新)。排序按论文出版年(但并非严格的刊出时间顺序)。其中除了关于h指数本身的研究,还有一些是评述,或研究其它对象时用到了h指数。 若有需要其中某篇论文而暂时无法下载,可与我联系 。除了部分会议论文外,绝大部分期刊论文应都能代为下载全文。 文后附有本文PDF格式供下载。 之前任胜利老师和刘玉仙老师也都曾在科学网讨论过h指数研究的参考文献。链接如下: 任胜利老师博文: 研究h指数(h-Index)应阅读的文献(点击进入) 刘玉仙老师博文: 单篇补充-----H指数应阅读文献(点击进入) h指数研究外文参考文献: Hirsch, J.E., An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005. 102(46): p. 16569-16572. Dahlgren, H., R.L. Jensen, and F. Valentin. Heterogeneity of intellectual assets - a method for identification and measurement with patent data. in 10th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics. 2005. Stockholm, SWEDEN. Frangopol, P.T., The Hirsch index - a new scientometric indicator for the evaluation of the results of a scientific researcher. Revista De Chimie, 2005. 56(12): p. 1279-1281. Frangopol, P.T., Indexul Hirsch - Un nou indicator scientometric pentru evaluarea rezultatelor unui cercetǎtor ?tiin?ific. Revista De Chimie, 2005. 56(12): p. 1279-1281. Glanzel, W. On the h-index - A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact. in 33rd Annual Conference of the Canadian-Association-for-Information-Science. 2005. London, CANADA. Olden, J.D. How do ecological journals stack-up? Ranking of scientific quality according to the h index. in Symposium on Marsupials as Models for Research held at the 9th International Mammalogical Congress. 2005. Sapporo, JAPAN. Index h of Hirsch: contributions to a debate. Profesional De La Informacion, 2006. 15(4): p. 304-306. Banks, M.G., An extension of the Hirsch index: Indexing scientific topics and compounds. Scientometrics, 2006. 69(1): p. 161-168. Batista, P.D., et al., Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 2006. 68(1): p. 179-189. Bollen, J., M.A. Rodriquez, and H. Van De Sompel, Journal status. Scientometrics, 2006. 69(3): p. 669-687. Braun, T., W. Gl?nzel, and A. Schubert, A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 2006. 69(1): p. 169-173. Cardona, M., Topics in Applied Physics: Foreword. Topics in Applied Physics, 2006. 104: p. 1-10. Cardona, M. and W. Marx, Vitaly L. Ginzburg - A bibliometric study. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism, 2006. 19(3-5): p. 459-466. Chapron, G. and A. Hust, Open, fair, and free journal ranking for researchers. Bioscience, 2006. 56(7): p. 558-559. Cortes, H.D., et al. Web Application to Profiling Scientific Institutions through Citation Mining. in Conference of the World-Academy-of-Science-Engineering-and-Technology. 2006. Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC. Egghe, L., Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 2006. 69(1): p. 131-152. Egghe, L. and R. Rousseau, An informetric model for the Hirsch-index. Scientometrics, 2006. 69(1): p. 121-129. Egloff, B., Some remarks on 'Impact Factor'. Psychologische Rundschau, 2006. 57(2): p. 116-118. Egloff, B., Einige anmerkungen zum Impact Factor. Psychologische Rundschau, 2006. 57(2): p. 116-118. Glvez Toro, A. and M. Amezcua, The Hirsch's h-index. An update on the author's evaluation methods and their contributions in scientific publications. El factor h de Hirsch: The h-index. Una actualizacin sobre los mtodos de evaluacin de los autores y sus aportaciones en publicaciones cientficas, 2006. 15(55). Glvez Toro, A., et al., Autor Impact CUIDEN Citation. Relevant scientific trajectories and excellence in the Iberoamerican scientific space to Hirsch's h index. Impacto de Autor CUIDEN Citacin. Trayectorias cientficas relevantes y excelencia a travs del Factor h (h-index) de Hirsch en el espacio cientfico iberoamericano, 2006. 15(55). Grivell, L., Through a glass darkly: The present and the future of editorial peer review. Embo Reports, 2006. 7(6): p. 567-570. Grothkopf, U. and S. Stevens-Rayburn. Introducing the h-index in telescope statistics. in 5th Library and Information Services in Astronomy Conference. 2006. Cambridge, MA. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Concentration of the most-cited papers in the scientific literature: Analysis of journal ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 2006. 1(1). Kelly, C.D. and M.D. Jennions, The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends in Ecology Evolution, 2006. 21(4): p. 167-170. Kim, W.J. and J. Seo. Evaluation of an individual's scientific productivity using author rank. in Conference on Convergence Technology and Information Convergence (CTIC). 2006. Las Vegas, NV. Lehmann, S., A.D. Jackson, and B.E. Lautrup, Measures for measures. Nature, 2006. 444(7122): p. 1003-1004. Liang, L., H-index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 2006. 69(1): p. 153-159. Packer, A.L. and R. Meneghini, Articles with authors affiliated to Brazilian institutions published from 1994 to 2003 with 100 or more citations: I - The weight of international collaboration and the role of the networks. Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciencias, 2006. 78(4): p. 841-853. Pe?a-Rey, I., N. Prez-Farins, and P.M. Campos, Scientific production on tetrachloro-dibenzo-dioxins: A bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 2006. 69(3): p. 639-650. Podlubny, I. and K. Kassayova, Towards a better list of citation superstars: compiling a multidisciplinary list of highly cited researchers. Research Evaluation, 2006. 15(3): p. 154-162. Prathap, G., Hirsch-type indices for ranking institutions' scientific research output. Current Science, 2006. 91(11): p. 1439-1439. Purvis, A., The h index: playing the numbers game. Trends in Ecology Evolution, 2006. 21(8): p. 422-422. Saad, G., Exploring the h-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively. Scientometrics, 2006. 69(1): p. 117-120. Sanz-Guerrero, O., P. Cubero, and M.A. Rodriguez, Impact evolution in the bulletin of the Spanish Ceramic and Glass Society. Boletin De La Sociedad Espanola De Ceramica Y Vidrio, 2006. 45(6): p. 408-412. Shidham, V.B., L. Sandweiss, and B.F. Atkinson, First CytoJournal Peer-Reviewer's Retreat in 2006 - Open access, peer-review, and impact factor. CytoJournal, 2006. 3. Silva, A.J. The science of research: The principles underlying the discovery of cognitive and other biological mechanisms. in Meeting on the Evolution of Human Cognition and Consciousness. 2006. Treilles, FRANCE. Symonds, M.R.E., et al., Gender differences in publication output: Towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS ONE, 2006. 1(1). Turnovec, F. Publication portfolio of the Czech economists and problems of rankings. in 4th Annual Conference of the Czech-Economic-Society. 2006. Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC. Van Raan, A.F.J., Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 2006. 67(3): p. 491-502. Vanclay, J.K., Refining the h-index. Scientist, 2006. 20(7): p. 14-15. Ventura, O.N. and A.W. Mombr, Use of bibliometric information to assist research policy making. A comparison of publication and citation profiles of full and Associate Professors at a School of Chemistry in Uruguay. Scientometrics, 2006. 69(2): p. 287-313. Vu-Quoc, L., Unintended impact of author impact factor - Reply. Physics Today, 2006. 59(4): p. 16-16. Al-Awqati, Q., Impact factors and prestige. Kidney International, 2007. 71(3): p. 183-185. Aleixandre-Benavent, R., J.C. Valderrama-Zurian, and G. Gonzalez-Alcaide, Scientific journals impact factor: limitations and alternative indicators. Profesional De La Informacion, 2007. 16(1): p. 4-11. Ali, M.A.A., et al., The Hirsch index applied to topics of interest to developing countries. First Monday, 2007. 12(2). Ashkanasy, N.M., Playing the citations game. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2007. 28(6): p. 643-645. Ball, P., The crucible - Philip Ball wonders how to give credit where it's due. Chemistry World, 2007. 4(12): p. 34-34. Ball, P., Achievement index climbs the ranks. Nature, 2007. 448(7155): p. 737-737. Barendse, W., The strike rate index: A new index for journal quality based on journal size and the h-index of citations. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 2007. 4. Bar-Ilan, J. The h-index of h-index and of other informetric topics. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Beirlant, J., et al., Scoring research output using statistical quantile plotting. Journal of Informetrics, 2007. 1(3): p. 185-192. Berger, M., The problematic ratings game in modern science. South African Journal of Science, 2007. 103(1-2): p. 2-3. Bornmann, L. and H.D. Daniel, Gatekeepers of science - Effects of external reviewers' attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications. Journal of Informetrics, 2007. 1(1): p. 83-91. Bornmann, L. and H.D. Daniel, Convergent validation of peer review decisions using the h index - Extent of and reasons for type I and type II errors. Journal of Informetrics, 2007. 1(3): p. 204-213. Bornmann, L. and H.D. Daniel, What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007. 58(9): p. 1381-1385. Bornmann, L., R. Mutz, and H.D. Daniel, The b index as a measure of scientific excellence. A promising supplement to the h index. Cybermetrics, 2007. 11(1). Burrell, Q.L. Hirsch's h-index and Egghe's g-index. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Burrell, Q.L., Hirsch's h-index: A stochastic model. Journal of Informetrics, 2007. 1(1): p. 16-25. Burrell, Q.L., On the h-index, the size of the Hirsch core and Jin's A-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2007. 1(2): p. 170-177. Burrell, Q.L., Hirsch index or Hirsch rate? Some thoughts arising from Liang's data. Scientometrics, 2007. 73(1): p. 19-28. Campiteli, M.G., P.D. Batista, and A.S. Martinez. A research productivity index to account for different scientific disciplines. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Cardona, M., 12th International Conference on High Pressure Semiconductor Physics (HPSP-12): Concluding remarks. Physica Status Solidi B-Basic Solid State Physics, 2007. 244(1): p. 481-487. Chen, C., et al. Delineating the citation impact of scientific discoveries. 2007. Costas, R. and M. Bordons, The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 2007. 1(3): p. 193-203. Costas, R. and M. Bordons. A classificatory scheme for the analysis of bibliometric profiles at the micro level. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Csajbok, E., et al., Hirsch-index for countries based on essential science indicators data. Scientometrics, 2007. 73(1): p. 91-117. Dainesi, S.M. and R. Pietrobon, Scientific indicators of productivity - time for action. Revista Brasileira De Psiquiatria, 2007. 29(2): p. 100-101. de la Rosa, J.L. and B.K. Szymanski, Selecting scientific papers for publication via citation auctions. Ieee Intelligent Systems, 2007. 22(6): p. 16-20. Dorta Contreras, A.J. and L. Daz, Cuban scientific production: A perspective of the work of two academic women. Produccin cientfica de Cuba: Una perspectiva desde la obra de dos mujeres acadmicas, 2007. 16(5). Dorta-Contreras, A.J., Cuban neurosciences from a gender perspective. Revista De Neurologia, 2007. 45(7): p. 447-447. Drabold, D.A. and S.K. Estreicher, Theory of defects in semiconductors, in Theory of Defects in Semiconductors. 2007. p. 1-10. Egghe, L. Distributions of the h-index and the g-index. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Egghe, L., Dynamic h-index: The Hirsch index in function of time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007. 58(3): p. 452-454. Egghe, L., Item-time-dependent Lotkaian informetrics and applications to the calculation of the time-dependent h-index and g-index. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 2007. 45(7-8): p. 864-872. Egghe, L., R. Rousseau, and S. Rousseau, TOP-curves. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007. 58(6): p. 777-785. Ferrand, L., Hirsch's h index: A new measure to quantify the research output of individual scientists. Annee Psychologique, 2007. 107(4): p. 531-536. German, R.M., RD in support of powder injection molding: Status and projections. International Journal of Powder Metallurgy (Princeton, New Jersey), 2007. 43(6): p. 47-57. Gracza, T. and I. Somosk?vi, Impact factor and/or Hirsch index? Impakt faktor s/vagy Hirsch-index?, 2007. 148(18): p. 849-852. Grant, J.B., et al., Academic institutions in the United States and Canada ranked according to research productivity in the field of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 2007. 21(5): p. 1139-1144. Harnad, S. Open access scientometrics and the UK research assessment exercise. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Heaney, P.J., What's your h-index? Elements, 2007. 3(4): p. 229-230. Hermes-Lima, M., et al., The relevance and recognition of Latin American science. Introduction to the fourth issue of CBP-Latin America. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C-Toxicology Pharmacology, 2007. 146(1-2): p. 1-9. Hermes-Lima, M., et al., Whither Latin America? Trends and challenges of science in Latin America. Iubmb Life, 2007. 59(4-5): p. 199-210. Hirsch, J.E., Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007. 104(49): p. 19193-19198. Huang, Y.H., The structural equation analysis on the journal citation impact in the field of library and information science. Journal of Educational Media and Library Science, 2007. 44(3): p. 259-273. Iglesias, J.E. and C. Pecharroman. Comparing h-indices for scientists in different ISI fields. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Iglesias, J.E. and C. Pecharromn, Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 2007. 73(3): p. 303-320. Imperial, J. and A. Rodrguez-Navarro, Usefulness of Hirsch's h-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain. Scientometrics, 2007. 71(2): p. 271-282. Jeang, K.T., Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics? Retrovirology, 2007. 4. Jin, B.H., et al., The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2007. 52(6): p. 855-863. Kieling, C. and R.R.F. Gon?alves, Assessing the quality of a scientific journal: The case of Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria. Revista Brasileira De Psiquiatria, 2007. 29(2): p. 177-181. Kinney, A.L., National scientific facilities and their science impact on nonbiomedical research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007. 104(46): p. 17943-17947. Korfiatis, N., M. Poulos, and G. Bokos, Social metadata for the impact factor. Electronic Library, 2007. 25(2): p. 166-175. Kosmulski, M., MAXPROD - A new index for assessment of the scientific output of an individual, and a comparison with the h-index. Cybermetrics, 2007. 11(1). Koutsoyiannis, D. and Z.W. Kundzewicz, Quantifying the impact of hydrological studies. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques, 2007. 52(1): p. 3-17. Koutsoyiannis, D. and Z.W. Kundzewicz, Editorial - Quantifying the impact of hydrological studies. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2007. 52(1): p. 3-17. Lawrence, P.A., The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology, 2007. 17(15): p. R583-R585. Lehmann, S., A.D. Jackson, and B.E. Lautrup, Quality of measures of quality. Kvaliteten af kvalitetsm?l - Sekund?rpublikation, 2007. 169(38): p. 3205-3207. Leslie Jr, D.M., A shifting mosaic of scholarly publishing, scientific delivery, and future impact changing the face of learned societies. Journal of Mammalogy, 2007. 88(2): p. 275-286. Levitt, J. and M. Thelwall. Atypical citation patterns in the twenty most highly cited documents in library and information science. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Levitt, J.M. and M. Thelwall. Two new indicators derived from the h-index for comparing citation impact: Hirsch frequencies and the normalised Hirsch index. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Liu, Y.X. and R. Rousseau. Hirsch-type indices and library management: The case of Tongji University Library. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Lundberg, J., Lifting the crown-citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 2007. 1(2): p. 145-154. Martinez, E.C. and I.F. De Lucio, Institutional and individual initiatives in the creation of scientific structures: The Institute of Chemical Technology. Arbor-Ciencia Pensamiento Y Cultura, 2007. 183(727): p. 803-819. Masuoka, N., B. Grofman, and S.L. Feld, The political science 400: A 20-year update. Ps-Political Science Politics, 2007. 40(1): p. 133-145. Maunder, R.G., Using publication statistics for evaluation in academic psychiatry. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie, 2007. 52(12): p. 790-797. Meho, L. and K. Yang. Fusion approach to citation-based quality assessment. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Meho, L.I., The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World, 2007. 20(1): p. 32-36. Meho, L.I. and K. Yang, Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007. 58(13): p. 2105-2125. Minasny, B., A.E. Hartemink, and A. McBratney, Soil science and the h index. Scientometrics, 2007. 73(3): p. 257-264. Nardone, A. State and perspectives of national and international animal research. in 17th Congress of the Scientific-Association-of-Animal-Production. 2007. Alghero, ITALY. Narukawa, Y. and V. Torra. Multidimensional fuzzy integrals. in 4th International Conference on Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence. 2007. Kitakyushu, JAPAN. Oelrich, B., R. Peters, and K. Jung, A Bibliometric evaluation of publications in Urological journals among European Union countries between 2000-2005. European Urology, 2007. 52(4): p. 1238-1248. Parr, C.S., Open sourcing ecological data. Bioscience, 2007. 57(4): p. 309-310. Pulina, G. and A.H.D. Francesconi, Some bibliometric indexes for members of the Scientific Association of Animal Production (ASPA). Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2007. 6(1): p. 83-103. Pulina, G. and A.H.D. Francesconi, Bibliometric report: Some bibliometric indexes for members of the Scientific Association of Animal Production (ASPA). Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2007. 6(1): p. 83-103. Ramutsindela, M., Geographical knowledge, case studies and the division of labour. South African Geographical Journal, 2007. 89(2): p. 121-127. Rao, I.K.R. Distributions of Hirsch-index and g-index: An empirical study. in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Rau, J.R., h-inex (2000-2004) of the most cited environmental researchers based at Chilean institutions. ?ndice h (2000-2004) de los cientficos ambientales ms citados que residen en Chile, 2007. 80(3): p. 381-383. Rau, J.R., Revista Chilena de Historia Natural h-inex: 2000-2004 quinquennium. ?ndice h de la Revista Chilena de Historia Natural: Quinquenio 2000-2004, 2007. 80(3): p. 385-386. Romero, A.G., et al. Measuring the contribution of clinical trials to Bibliometric indicators: Citations and Journal Impact Factor (R). in 11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics. 2007. Madrid, SPAIN. Rousseau, R., The influence of missing publications on the Hirsch index. Journal of Informetrics, 2007. 1(1): p. 2-7. Ruane, F.P. and R.S.J. Tol, Centres of research excellence in economics in the Republic of Ireland. Economic and Social Review, 2007. 38(3): p. 289-322. Saito, S. and J.N. Towse, Working memory as a construct in cognitive science: an illustrious past and a highly promising future. Psychologia, 2007. 50(2): p. 69-75. Salgado, J.F. and D. Pez, Scientific productivity and Hirsch's h Index of Spanish social psychology: Convergence between productivity indexes and comparison with other areas. La productividad cientfica y el ndice h de Hirchs de la psicologa social espa?ola: Convergencia entre indicadores de productividad y comparacin con otras reas, 2007. 19(2): p. 179-189. Schreiber, M., A case study of the Hirsch index for 26 non-prominent physicists. Annalen Der Physik, 2007. 16(9): p. 640-652. Schreiber, M., Self-citation corrections for the Hirsch index. Epl, 2007. 78(3). Schubert, A., Successive h-indices. Scientometrics, 2007. 70(1): p. 201-205. Schubert, A. and W. Glanzel, A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals. Journal of Informetrics, 2007. 1(3): p. 179-184. Selman, F.J. IOT overview: Wide-field imaging. in 1st ESO Instrument Calibration Workshop. 2007. Garching, GERMANY. Sidiropoulos, A., D. Katsaros, and Y. Manolopoulos, Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 2007. 72(2): p. 253-280. Soler, J.M., A rational indicator of scientific creativity. Journal of Informetrics, 2007. 1(2): p. 123-130. Souto, M.A.M., M. Warpechowski, and J.P.M. De Oliveira, An ontological approach for the quality assessment of computer science conferences. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2007. 4802 LNCS: p. 202-212. Spigler, R., Ricerca scientifica e Internet, oggi. Bollettino della Unione Matematica Italiana A, 2007. 10(1). Suresh, V., et al. Discovering mentorship information from author collaboration networks. in 10th International Conference on Discovery Science. 2007. Sendai, JAPAN. Tol, R.S.J. and J.P. Weyant, Changes at energy economics. Energy Economics, 2007. 29(6): p. 1131-1134. Torro-Alves, N., et al., Hirsch's index: A case study conducted at the Faculdade de Filosofia, Cincias e Letras de Ribeir?o Preto, Universidade de S?o Paulo. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 2007. 40(11): p. 1529-1536. Triggle, C.R. and D.J. Triggle, What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?. Vascular Health and Risk Management, 2007. 3(1): p. 39-53. Ursprung, H.W. and M. Zimmer, Who is the Platz-Hirsch of the German economics profession? A citation analysis. Jahrbucher Fur Nationalokonomie Und Statistik, 2007. 227(2): p. 187-208. Vanclay, J.K., On the robustness of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007. 58(10): p. 1547-1550. Viikari-Juntura, E. and A. Burdorf, Focus and future of occupational health journals. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment Health, 2007. 33(4): p. 241-243. Vinkler, P., Eminence of scientists in the light of the h-index and other scientometric indicators. Journal of Information Science, 2007. 33(4): p. 481-491. Whiteman, D., The modern researcher and the peacock's tail. Lancet, 2007. 369(9560): p. 449-450. Wilson, J.R.U., et al., The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2007. 5(8): p. 409-414. Yan, S. and D. Lee. Toward alternative measures for ranking venues: A case of database research community. 2007. Yang, K. and L. Meho. CiteSearch: Next-generation citation analysis. 2007. Zhou, D., et al. Co-ranking authors and documents in a heterogeneous network. 2007. Zhuang, Z., et al. Measuring conference quality by mining program committee characteristics. 2007. Papers about papers. Nature Nanotechnology, 2008. 3(11): p. 633-633. Aguayo-Albasini, J.L. and S. Campillo, Evaluation of research activity by means of the Hirsch h index. Evaluacin de la actividad investigadora mediante el ndice h de Hirsch, 2008. 131(6): p. 239. Anderson, T.R., R.K.S. Hankin, and P.D. Killworth, Beyond the Durfee square: Enhancing the h-index to score total publication output. Scientometrics, 2008. 76(3): p. 577-588. Antonakis, J. and R. Lalive, Quantifying scholarly impact: IQp versus the Hirsch h. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(6): p. 956-969. Arencibia-Jorge, R., et al., Applying successive H indices in the institutional evaluation: A case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(1): p. 155-157. Baldock, C., The h-index and medical physics. Australasian Physical Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 2008. 31(2): p. XI-XII. Ball, P., A longer paper gathers more citations. Nature, 2008. 455(7211): p. 274-275. Baneyx, A., Publish or Perish as citation metrics used to analyze scientific output in the humanities: International case studies in economics, geography, social sciences, philosophy, and history. Archivum Immunologiae Et Therapiae Experimentalis, 2008. 56(6): p. 363-371. Banks, M.A. and R. Dellavalle, Emerging alternatives to the impact factor. OCLC Systems and Services, 2008. 24(3): p. 167-173. Bar-Ilan, J., Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century - A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(1): p. 1-52. Bar-Ilan, J., Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 2008. 74(2): p. 257-271. Baskerville, R., Changing the challenge: Measure what makes you better and be better at what you measure. European Journal of Information Systems, 2008. 17(1): p. 1-3. Becerro, M.A., Quantitative trends in sponge ecology research. Marine Ecology-an Evolutionary Perspective, 2008. 29(2): p. 167-177. Bornmann, L., R. Mutz, and H.D. Daniel, Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? a comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(5): p. 830-837. Bornmann, L., G. Wallon, and A. Ledin, Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data. Research Evaluation, 2008. 17(2): p. 149-156. Bornmann, L., G. Wallon, and A. Ledin, Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European molecular biology organization programmes. PLoS ONE, 2008. 3(10). Bouajjani, A., et al., SDSIrep: A reputation system based on SDSI. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2008. 4963 LNCS: p. 501-516. Browman, H.I. and K.I. Stergiou, Factors and indices are one thing, deciding who is scholarly, why they are scholarly, and the relative value of their scholarship is something else entirely. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2008. 8(1): p. 1-3. Cans, J.H., et al., A service-oriented infrastructure for early citation management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2008. 5173 LNCS: p. 160-171. Casalonga, S., The impact factor: A tool with perverse effects. Le facteur d'impact: Un outil aux effets pervers, 2008(289): p. 26-27. Chang, P.L. and P.N. Hsieh, Bibliometric overview of Operations Research/Management Science research in Asia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 2008. 25(2): p. 217-241. Coccia, M., New organisational behaviour of public research institutions: Lessons learned from Italian case study. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 2008. 2(4): p. 402-419. Costas, R. and M. Bordons, Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 2008. 77(2): p. 267-288. Coyle, J.T., Science and Psychiatry: Groundbreaking Discoveries in Molecular Neuroscience. American Journal of Psychiatry, 2008. 165(11): p. 1492-1493. Da Luz, M.P., et al., Institutional h-index: The performance of a new metric in the evaluation of Brazilian Psychiatric Post-graduation Programs. Scientometrics, 2008. 77(2): p. 361-368. Dellavalle, R.P. and C. Harrison, Reinterpreting the fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2008. 59(4): p. 723-724. Dodson, M.V., Research paper citation record keeping: It is not for wimps. Journal of Animal Science, 2008. 86(10): p. 2795-2796. Dolfsma, W. and L. Leydesdorff, Journals as constituents of scientific discourse: Economic heterodoxy. On the Horizon, 2008. 16(4): p. 214-225. Dorta Contreras, A.J., et al., Citation-based indicators for the characterization of Cuban Neurosciences. Indicadores basados en anlisis de citas para la caracterizacin de las neurociencias cubanas, 2008. 18(6). Dorta-Contreras, A.J., et al., PRODUCTIVITY AND VISIBILITY OF CUBAN NEUROSCIENTISTS: BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF THE PERIOD 2001-2005. Revista De Neurologia, 2008. 47(7): p. 355-360. Dorta-Contreras, A.J., et al., Productivity and visibility of Cuban neuroscientists: Bibliometric study of the period 2001-2005. Productividad y visibilidad de los neurocientficos cubanos: Estudio bibliomtrico del perodo 2001-2005, 2008. 47(7): p. 355-360. Duffy, R.D., et al., Measuring Individual Research Productivity: A Review and Development of the Integrated Research Productivity Index. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2008. 55(4): p. 518-527. Egghe, L., Modelling successive h-indices. Scientometrics, 2008. 77(3): p. 377-387. Egghe, L., Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(10): p. 1608-1616. Egghe, L., The influence of merging on h-type indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(3): p. 252-262. Egghe, L., The Influence of transformations on the h-index and the g-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(8): p. 1304-1312. Egghe, L., Examples of simple transformations of the h-index: Qualitative and quantitative conclusions and consequences for other indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(2): p. 136-148. Egghe, L. and I.K.R. Rao, The influence of the broadness of a query of a topic on its h-index: Models and examples of the h-index of N-grams. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(10): p. 1688-1693. Egghe, L. and I.K. Ravichandra Rao, Study of different h-indices for groups of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(8): p. 1276-1281. Egghe, L. and R. Rousseau, An h-index weighted by citation impact. Information Processing Management, 2008. 44(2): p. 770-780. Engqvist, L. and J.G. Frommen, The h-index and self-citations. Trends in Ecology Evolution, 2008. 23(5): p. 250-252. Eustache, F., et al., The twenty-first century as a neuropsychology era. Revue Neurologique, 2008. 164: p. S63-S72. Fernandez-Llimos, F. and T.A. Silva, Assessing compliance of guidelines on layout in Acta Medica Portuguesa. Acta Medica Portuguesa, 2008. 21(1): p. 21-30. Ganguli, R., A scientometric analysis of recent aerospace research. Current Science, 2008. 95(12): p. 1670-1672. Gingras, Y., The poor use of false indicators. Revue D Histoire Moderne Et Contemporaine, 2008. 55(4): p. 67-79. Glanzel, W., On some new bibliometric applications of statistics related to the h-index. Scientometrics, 2008. 77(1): p. 187-196. Gmez, V., A. Kaltenbrunner, and V. Lpez. Statistical analysis of the social network and discussion threads in Slashdot. 2008. Gonzlez Alcaide, G., et al., Scientific literature by Spanish authors on the analysis of citations and impact factor in Biomedicine (1981-2005). Literatura cientfica de autores espa?oles sobre anlisis de citas y factor de impacto en Biomedicina (1981-2005), 2008. 31(3): p. 344-365. Gowrishankar, J. and P. Divakar, Scientometrics and modified h-indices. Current Science, 2008. 95(12): p. 1656-1656. Gracza, T., Eigenfactor: A recent opportunity of measuring scientific journals. Az Eigenfaktor: A tudomnyos folyiratok rtkelsnek jabb lehetosge, 2008. 149(35): p. 1669-1671. Gracza, T. and E. Somoskovi, Research papers in the crosshairs: Newer viewpoints on the development of library resources. Library Collections Acquisitions Technical Services, 2008. 32(1): p. 42-45. Guan, J. and X. Gao, Comparison and evaluation of Chinese research performance in the field of bioinformatics. Scientometrics, 2008. 75(2): p. 357-379. Hagen, N.T., Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE, 2008. 3(12). Harnad, S., Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2008. 8(1): p. 103-107. Harzing, A.W.K. and R. van der Wal, Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2008. 8(1): p. 61-73. Hendrix, D., An analysis of bibliometric indicators, National Institutes of Health funding, and faculty size at Association of American Medical Colleges medical schools, 1997-2007. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 2008. 96(4): p. 324-334. Hull, D., S.R. Pettifer, and D.B. Kell, Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for the Next Generation Web. Plos Computational Biology, 2008. 4(10). Hussain, S. and H. Grahn. Ranking journals, conferences and authors in computer graphics: A fuzzy reasoning. 2008. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Measuring co-authorship and networking-adjusted scientific impact. PLoS ONE, 2008. 3(7). J?rgensen, H.L., et al., Research activity in clinical biochemistry. Forskningsaktiviteten for speciall?ger i klinisk biokemi, 2008. 170(36): p. 2798-2802. Jacso, P., Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster. Library Trends, 2008. 56(4): p. 784-815. Jacs, P., The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Web of Science. Online Information Review, 2008. 32(5): p. 673-688. Jacs, P., The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Scopus. Online Information Review, 2008. 32(4): p. 524-535. Jacs, P., The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 2008. 32(3): p. 437-452. Jacs, P., The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference-enhanced databases. Online Information Review, 2008. 32(2): p. 266-283. Jarvelin, K. and O. Persson, The DCI index: Discounted cumulated impact-based research evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(9): p. 1433-1440. Jensen, P., et al., Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 2008. 35(7): p. 527-541. Johnston, R., Do you want to be counted or subject to a light touch? Research assessment in the UK and the social sciences - continued. Environment and Planning A, 2008. 40(3): p. 507-514. Jones, A.W., Hirsch-index for winners of TIAFT's mid-career achievement award. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 2008. 32(4): p. 327-328. Jones, B.F., S. Wuchty, and B. Uzzi, Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science. Science, 2008. 322(5905): p. 1259-1262. Jorge, R.A., Acimed in Scholar Google: A citation analysis of the Cuban Journal of Health Information and Communication Professionals. Acimed en Scholar Google: Un anlisis de citas de la Revista Cubana de los Profesionales de la Informacin y la Comunicacin en la Salud, 2008. 18(1). Jorge, R.A. and R.C. Espino, H, G and R indices: Their use to identify leader authors in the communication area during the period 2001-2006. Los ndices H, G y R: Su uso para identificar autores lderes en el rea de la comunicacin durante el perodo 2001-2006, 2008. 17(4). Kailas, S.V., The lack of quality research in India. Current Science, 2008. 94(8): p. 979-980. Kellner, A.W.A. and L. Ponciano, H-index in the Brazilian Academy of Sciences - comments and concerns. Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciencias, 2008. 80(4): p. 771-781. Kobayashi, N. and T. Toyoda, Statistical search on the semantic web. Bioinformatics, 2008. 24(7): p. 1002-1010. Krauskopf, M. and E. Krauskopf, A scientometric view of Revista Mdica de Chile. Una mirada epistemomtrica de la Revista Mdica de Chile y su aporte al conocimiento en Medicina, 2008. 136(8): p. 1065-1072. Krestin, G.P., Evaluating the Quality of Radiology Research: What Are the Rules of the Game? Radiology, 2008. 249(2): p. 418-424. Lawrence, P.A., Lost in publication: How measurement harms science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2008. 8(1): p. 9-11. Lehmann, S., A.D. Jackson, and B.E. Lautrup, A quantitative analysis of indicators of scientific performance. Scientometrics, 2008. 76(2): p. 369-390. Leimu, R., et al., Does it pay to have a bigwig as a co-author? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2008. 6(8): p. 410-411. Levitt, J.M. and M. Thelwall, Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(12): p. 1973-1984. Leydesdorff, L., Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(2): p. 278-287. Liu, Y. and R. Rousseau, Definitions of time series in citation analysis with special attention to the h-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(3): p. 202-210. Lovegrove, B.G. and S.D. Johnson, Assessment of research performance in biology: How well do peer review and bibliometry correlate? Bioscience, 2008. 58(2): p. 160-164. Mach?ek, M. and E. Kolcunov, Hirsch index and rankings of czech economists. Hirschovo ?slo a ?eb??ky ?esk?ch ekonom?, 2008. 56(2): p. 229-241. Maksi, Z. and R. Vianello, Znanstvena izvrsnost i kompetitivnost. Kemija u industriji/Journal of Chemists and Chemical Engineers, 2008. 57(3): p. 123-126. Maslov, S. and S. Redner, Promise and Pitfalls of Extending Google's PageRank Algorithm to Citation Networks. Journal of Neuroscience, 2008. 28(44): p. 11103-11105. Meho, L.I. and Y. Rogers, Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(11): p. 1711-1726. Meyer, C.A., Reference accuracy: Best practices for making the links. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 2008. 11(2). Molinari, A. and J.F. Molinari, Mathematical aspects of a new criterion for ranking scientific institutions based on the h-index. Scientometrics, 2008. 75(2): p. 339-356. Molinari, J.F. and A. Molinari, A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics, 2008. 75(1): p. 163-174. Morley, J.E. and L. Ferrucci, Publication productivity in geriatrics: 1995-2006. Journals of Gerontology Series a-Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 2008. 63(6): p. 584-585. Morrison, P.J., The Hirsch index and measuring the quality of scientific papers. Ulster Medical Journal, 2008. 77(1): p. 1. Moss, S., My view. Weed Science, 2008. 56(3): p. 337-337. Moss, S.R., Weed research: is it delivering what it should? Weed Research, 2008. 48(5): p. 389-393. Mugnaini, R., A.L. Packer, and R. Meneghini, Comparison of scientists of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences and of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA on the basis of the h-index. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 2008. 41(4): p. 258-262. Narukawa, Y. and V. Torra. Domain extension for multidimensional generalized fuzzy integrals. 2008. Norris, M., C. Oppenheim, and F. Rowland, The citation advantage of open-access articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(12): p. 1963-1972. O'Leary, D.E., The relationship between citations and number of downloads in Decision Support Systems. Decision Support Systems, 2008. 45(4): p. 972-980. Pandit, J.J., Anaesthetic research in the United Kingdom: publishing or perishing? Anaesthesia, 2008. 63(3): p. 225-227. Pauly, D. and K.I. Stergiou, Re-interpretation of 'influence weight' as a citation-based Index of New Knowledge (INK). Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2008. 8(1): p. 75-78. Pereira De Arajo, A.F., Increasing discrepancy between absolute and effective indexes of research output in a Brazilian academic department. Scientometrics, 2008. 74(3): p. 425-437. Pilc, A., The use of citation indicators to identify and support high-quality research in Poland. Archivum Immunologiae Et Therapiae Experimentalis, 2008. 56(6): p. 381-384. Pringle, J., Trends in the use of ISI citation databases for evaluation. Learned Publishing, 2008. 21(2): p. 85-91. Qiu, J.P., R.M. Ma, and N. Cheng, New exploratory work of evaluating a researcher's output. Scientometrics, 2008. 77(2): p. 335-344. Radicchi, F., S. Fortunato, and C. Castellano, Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008. 105(45): p. 17268-17272. Riikonen, P. and M. Vihinen, National research contributions: A case study on Finnish biomedical research. Scientometrics, 2008. 77(2): p. 207-222. Ritzberger, K., A ranking of journals in economics and related fields. German Economic Review, 2008. 9(4): p. 402-430. Rodriguez, V., et al., On material transfer agreements and visibility of researchers in biotechnology. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(1): p. 89-100. Rousseau, R., Woeginger's axiomatisation of the h-index and its relation to the g-index, the h((2))- index and the R-2-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(4): p. 335-340. Rousseau, R., R. Guns, and Y. Liu, The h-index of a conglomerate. Cybermetrics, 2008. 12(1): p. 1-7. Rousseau, R. and B.H. Jin, The Age-Dependent h-Type AR(2)-Index: Basic Properties and a Case Study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(14): p. 2305-2311. Rousseau, R. and N. Rons, Another h-type index for institutional evaluation. Current Science, 2008. 95(9): p. 1103-1103. Rousseau, R. and F.Y. Ye, A proposal for a dynamic h-type index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(11): p. 1853-1855. Ruane, F. and R.S.J. Tol, Rational (successive) h-indices: An application to economics in the Republic of Ireland. Scientometrics, 2008. 75(2): p. 395-405. Sanderson, M., Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(7): p. 1184-1190. Sanderson, M., Brief communication: Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(7): p. 1184-1190. Sangam, S.L. and R.M. Girji, Hirsch Index: A new measure for assessing scientific productivity of an individual researcher. Current Science, 2008. 94(3): p. 291-291. Satyanarayana, K. and A. Sharma, Impact factor: Time to move on. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 2008. 127(1): p. 4-6. Scarano, F.R., Why publish? Revista Brasileira de Botanica, 2008. 31(1): p. 189-194. Schreiber, M., A modification of the h-index: The h(m)-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(3): p. 211-216. Schreiber, M., The influence of self-citation corrections on Egghe's g index. Scientometrics, 2008. 76(1): p. 187-200. Schreiber, M., To share the fame in a fair way, h(m) modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics, 2008. 10. Schreiber, M., An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the 4-index, and the R-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(9): p. 1513-1522. Schuetz, P. and A. Caflisch, Multistep greedy algorithm identifies community structure in real-world and computer-generated networks. Physical Review E, 2008. 78(2). Schuetz, P. and A. Caflisch, Efficient modularity optimization by multistep greedy algorithm and vertex mover refinement. Physical Review E, 2008. 77(4). Schvartzman, J.M. and J.B. Schvartzman, How do we ask for money? A view of funding for basic research. Embo Reports, 2008. 9(3): p. 216-220. Sebire, N.J., H-index and impact factors: assessing the clinical impact of researchers and specialist journals. Ultrasound in Obstetrics Gynecology, 2008. 32(7): p. 843-845. Slafer, G.A., Should crop scientists consider a journal's impact factor in deciding where to publish? European Journal of Agronomy, 2008. 29(4): p. 208-212. Smith, D.R., J.F. Gehanno, and K. Takahashi, Bibliometric Research in Occupational Health. Industrial Health, 2008. 46(6): p. 519-522. Taylor, M., P. Perakakis, and V. Trachana, The siege of science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2008. 8(1): p. 17-40. Thelwall, M., Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science, 2008. 34(4): p. 605-621. Timofieiev, A., V. Sn?el, and J. Dvorsk. Social communities detection in Enron corpus using h-index. 2008. Timofieiev, A., V. Sn?el, and J. Dvorsk. H-index calculation in enron corpus. 2008. Tol, R.S.J., A rational, successive g-index applied to economics departments in Ireland. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(2): p. 149-155. Torra, V. and Y. Narukawa, The h-index and the number of citations: Two fuzzy integrals. Ieee Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2008. 16(3): p. 795-797. Toshev, B.V., Axioms of higher education. Chemistry, 2008. 17(5): p. 331-338. Van Driel, M., et al., How scientific is the assessment of the quality of scientific output using the journal impact factor? Hoe wetenschappelijk is het beoordelen van wetenschappelijk werk aan de hand van impactfactoren van tijdschriften?, 2008. 64(9): p. 471-476. van Driel, M.L., P.J. Magin, and C.B. Del Mar, Journal impact factor and its importance for AFP. Australian Family Physician, 2008. 37(9): p. 770-773. van Eck, N.J. and L. Waltman, Generalizing the h- and g- indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(4): p. 263-271. van Leeuwen, T., Testing the validity of the Hirsch-index for research assessment purposes. Research Evaluation, 2008. 17(2): p. 157-160. Vanclay, J.K., Ranking forestry journals using the h-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(4): p. 326-334. Vanclay, J.K., Gauging the impact of journals. Forest Ecology and Management, 2008. 256(4): p. 507-509. Vasconcelos, S.M.R., et al., Researchers' writing competence: a bottleneck in the publication of Latin-American science? Embo Reports, 2008. 9(8): p. 700-702. Wang, W., M. Mokhtar, and L. Macaulay. C-index: Trust depth, trust breadth, and a collective trust measurement. 2008. Weissmann, G., Science as oath and testimony: Joshua Lederberg (1925-2008). FASEB Journal, 2008. 22(10): p. 3411-3414. Winter, C.E., Quantitative analysis of indexed publications on seventeen model organisms in nine countries, from 1974 to 2006. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008. 59(10): p. 1598-1607. Woeginger, G.J., A symmetry axiom for scientific impact indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(4): p. 298-303. Woeginger, G.J., An axiomatic analysis of Egghe's g-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(4): p. 364-368. Woeginger, G.J., An axiomatic characterization of the Hirsch-index. Mathematical Social Sciences, 2008. 56(2): p. 224-232. Ye, F.Y. and R. Rousseau, The power law model and total career h-index sequences. Journal of Informetrics, 2008. 2(4): p. 288-297. Youtie, J., P. Shapira, and A.L. Porter, Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2008. 10(6): p. 981-986. Zhivotovsky, L.A. and K.V. Krutovsky, Self-citation can inflate h-index. Scientometrics, 2008. 77(2): p. 373-375. Zhuo, M., Z factor: a new index for measuring academic research output. Molecular Pain, 2008. 4. Zitt, M. and E. Bassecoulard, Challenges for scientometric indicators: Data demining, knowledge-flow measurements and diversity issues. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2008. 8(1): p. 49-60. Bedeian, A.G., D.D. Van Fleet, and H.H. Hyman, Scientific Achievement and Editorial Board Membership. Organizational Research Methods, 2009. 12(2): p. 211-238. Bornmann, L. and H.D. Daniel, The state of h index research Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? Embo Reports, 2009. 10(1): p. 2-6. Bornmann, L., et al., Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry-Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts. Journal of Informetrics, 2009. 3(1): p. 27-35. Bouabid, H. and B.R. Martin, Evaluation of Moroccan research using a bibliometric-based approach: investigation of the validity of the h-index. Scientometrics, 2009. 78(2): p. 203-217. Burrell, Q.L., Some Comments on A Proposal for a Dynamic h-Type Index by Rousseau and Ye. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009. 60(2): p. 418-419. Butler, L. and I. McAllister, Metrics or peer review? Evaluating the 2001 UK research assessment exercise in political science. Political Studies Review, 2009. 7(1): p. 3-17. de Andrade, J.B. and F. Galembeck, Qualis: quo vadis? Quimica Nova, 2009. 32(1): p. 5-5. Egghe, L., Mathematical study of h-index sequences. Information Processing Management, 2009. 45(2): p. 288-297. Egghe, L., Time-dependent Lotkaian informetrics incorporating growth of sources and items. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 2009. 49(1-2): p. 31-37. Fuller, C.D., M. Choi, and C.R. Thomas Jr, Bibliometric Analysis of Radiation Oncology Departmental Scholarly Publication Productivity at Domestic Residency Training Institutions. JACR Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2009. 6(2): p. 112-118. Gisbert, J.P. and J. Pans, Scientific publication, bibliometric indicators, and Hirsch's h-index. Publicacin cientfica, indicadores bibliomtricos e ndice h de Hirsch, 2009. 32(3): p. 140-149. Glanzel, W., The multi-dimensionality of journal impact. Scientometrics, 2009. 78(2): p. 355-374. Guan, J.C. and X. Gao, Exploring the h-lndex at patent level. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009. 60(1): p. 35-40. Guns, R. and R. Rousseau, Simulating Growth of the h-Index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009. 60(2): p. 410-417. Guns, R. and R. Rousseau, Real and rational variants of the h-index and the g-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2009. 3(1): p. 64-71. Haberhausen, M. and C. Bachmann, Impact factors and publication time spans of child and adolescent psychiatry journals. Zeitschrift Fur Kinder-Und Jugendpsychiatrie Und Psychotherapie, 2009. 37(1): p. 51-56. Hartemink, A.E., Publications for evaluations: The impact of soil science and soil scientists. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2009. 64(1): p. 18A-19A. Jared DuPree, W., et al., Evaluating Scholarship Productivity in COAMFTE-Accredited PhD Programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 2009. 35(2): p. 204-219. Jasienski, M., Garfield's demon and surprising or unexpected results in science. Scientometrics, 2009. 78(2): p. 347-353. Jensen, P., J.B. Rouquier, and Y. Croissant, Testing bibliometric indicators by their prediction of scientists promotions. Scientometrics, 2009. 78(3): p. 467-479. Johnston, R., The extent of influence: An alternative approach to identifying dominant contributors to a discipline's literature. Scientometrics, 2009. 78(3): p. 409-420. Jokic, M., H-index as a new scientometric indicator. Biochemia Medica, 2009. 19(1): p. 5-9. Levitt, J.M. and M. Thelwall, The most highly cited Library and Information Science articles: Interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patterns. Scientometrics, 2009. 78(1): p. 45-67. Marx, W., The anatomy of the International Journal of Materials Research in the light of bibliometry. International Journal of Materials Research, 2009. 100(1): p. 11-23. Moed, H.F., New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae Et Therapiae Experimentalis, 2009. 57(1): p. 13-18. Narukawa, Y. and V. Torra. Multidimensional generalized fuzzy integral. in 4th International Summer School on Aggregation Operators. 2009. Ghent, BELGIUM. O'Leary, D.E., The most cited IEEE software articles. IEEE Software, 2009. 26(1): p. 12-14. Pendlebury, D.A., The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Archivum Immunologiae Et Therapiae Experimentalis, 2009. 57(1): p. 1-11. Perianes-Rodrguez, A., et al., Synthetic hybrid indicators based on scientific collaboration to quantify and evaluate individual research results. Journal of Informetrics, 2009. 3(2): p. 91-101. Quesada, A., Monotonicity and the Hirsch index. Journal of Informetrics, 2009. 3(2): p. 158-160. Schubert, A., Using the h-index for assessing single publications. Scientometrics, 2009. 78(3): p. 559-565. Schubert, A., A. Korn, and A. Telcs, Hirsch-type indices for characterizing networks. Scientometrics, 2009. 78(2): p. 375-382. Skilton, P.F., Does the human capital of teams of natural science authors predict citation frequency? Scientometrics, 2009. 78(3): p. 525-542. Sorensen, A.A., Alzheimer's Disease Research: Scientific Productivity and Impact of the Top 100 Investigators in the Field. Journal of Alzheimers Disease, 2009. 16(3): p. 451-465. Swaan, P.W., Science Beyond Impact Factors. Pharmaceutical Research, 2009. 26(4): p. 743-745. Thompson, D.F., E.C. Callen, and M.C. Nahata, Publication Metrics and Record of Pharmacy Practice Chairs. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 2009. 43(2): p. 268-275. Uzunboylu, H. and Z. Ozcinar, Research and Trends in Computer-assisted Language Learning during 1990-2008: Results of a Citation Analysis. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 2009. 8(34): p. 133-150. 附件下载: h指数研究外文参考文献(点击下载)
个人分类: h指数|11804 次阅读|0 个评论
Nature和Science哪个影响力更大?一个实证
zhaoxing 2009-4-3 15:01
《 Nature 》和《 Science 》哪个影响力更大? 半个世纪的 h 指数视角浅析 《 Nature 》和《 Science 》可能是现有最具影响力的综合类科技期刊。国人在上面发表论文,很多所在单位也会给予几十万甚至上百万的重奖,可谓名利双收。 但关于《 Nature 》和《 Science 》哪个更好一直存在很大争议。这里以两种期刊在 Web of Science 中 5 年等距抽样 h 指数(含义见注释 1 )数据,粗略探讨过去半个世纪以来,《 Nature 》和《 Science 》的影响力演进实况和相互差别。 统计时段选择 1955 年- 2005 年。未选择更早的数据,是因为 Web of Science 1955 年之前的数据只能按较长时段查询不能按具体年份检索。另外,据笔者所知,此两种期刊在世界范围的权威地位于 20 世纪下半叶才逐渐完全确立。 图 1 是两种期刊的 h 指数演变数据。 图 1 1955 年- 2005 年《 Nature 》和《 Science 》的 h 指数演变及比较 可见, 20 世纪下半叶,《 Nature 》和《 Science 》的 h 指数一直在上升,特别是 1975 年后,两种期刊的影响力扩大很快。两种期刊的 h 指数峰值都在 1995 年,当年两种期刊各有 280 余篇论文至今被引用了不少于 280 余次,论文影响力持续能力较强。新世纪里 h 指数的下降并不能证明两种期刊影响力有所下降,而是 h 指数增长需要时间积累所致。 半个世纪以来,除了 1965 年两种期刊 h 指数相等外,其余统计点上,《 Nature 》的 h 指数都大于《 Science 》,这种差别在 1980 年- 1990 年之间较为明显,但近年来差距似乎有所缩小。 h 指数主要关注产出论文集合的高被引论文及其被引强度 。应指出的是,任一单一指标的测度总有片面性,本博文数据仅供参考。 注释: 1. h 指数由美国物理学家 Hirsch 于 2005 年提出,以简单的计算同时衡量学者个人论文成果的数量和质量(影响力) 。 Braun 将其扩展到对期刊的 影响力测评 。 期刊 h 指数的定义为:某一时段内,期刊发表的总计 N 篇论文中,有 h 篇论文的被引次数至少为 h 次,且其余 N-h 篇论文的被引次数均小于或等于 h 。期刊 h 指数是目前除学者 h 指数之外,研究和应用最多的 h 指数扩展。 参考文献: 赵星 , 高小强 , 何培 . 科学基金 h 指数 : 基金论文成果数量与影响力的综合衡量 . 中国科学基金 ,2009,1: 15-19 Hirsch J E. An index to quantify an individuals scientific research output. PNAS,2005,102(46): 16569 16572 Ball P.Index aims for fair ranking of scientists.Nature,2005,436(7053): 900 Egghe L, Rousseau R.An informetric model for the Hirsch index. Scientometrics,2006,69(1): 121129 Braun T et al.A Hirsch-type index for journals.Scientometrics,2006,69(1),169-173.
个人分类: 学术期刊|32945 次阅读|9 个评论
引用他只因喜欢他?
zhaoxing 2009-4-2 01:43
引用他人论文的动机很多,但你是否想过,你引用他的文章,可能有时仅仅因为是喜欢他而已? 读到最新一期《Research Trends》的Pleased to cite you: the social side of citations一文,其中观点有新有旧。这里仅探讨一点:人们的引用是否有时候只是因为喜欢? 只要理性上还遵从科学原则,理论上引文网络就不会和社会网络完全重叠。但部分交织恐怕是不可避免。 回头去看你的大作,是否引用了很多导师、同门、同事、朋友又或学科大牛、学术偶像的文章呢?是否每篇都必要呢?为什么同为可有可无的引用,你引用了他而不是陌生人呢? 也许你觉得这是各种潜规则所致。其实有时也不然,你引用他,可能只因你喜欢他。你喜欢他,因此信任他,然后引用他,仅此而已。 引用有时只是认同,认同的不是某个观点,而是那个人。 这也解释了,为何很多人爱自引?因为,多数人最爱的,还是自己。
个人分类: 网络科学|6180 次阅读|4 个评论
我国985高校优势学科的国际影响力
zhaoxing 2009-3-28 03:07
赵星 1998年,我国提出要创建若干所具有世界先进水平的一流大学和一批一流学科,即985工程。十年过去,我国985高校,特别是各校的学科,在国际上的影响力如何呢? 为回答这个问题,这里收集和整理了ESI数据库 提供的1998年-2008年十年数据,如表1和表2所示。 注:若您使用了此数据,请给出以下引用信息: 赵星.我国985高校优势学科的国际影响力. . http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=222956 表1 1998年-2008我国985高校国际排名前列的优势学科数 学校名 TOP1 %学科数 学校名 TOP1 %学科数 北京大学 12 兰州大学 3 浙江大学 11 天津大学 3 清华大学 8 同济大学 3 复旦大学 8 华南理工大学 3 南京大学 7 湖南大学 3 上海交通大学 6 厦门大学 2 武汉大学 6 中山大学 2 中国科技大学 5 中南大学 2 山东大学 5 北京理工大学 2 四川大学 5 北京航空航天大学 2 吉林大学 4 西北工业大学 1 南开大学 4 重庆大学 1 华中科技大学 4 东南大学 1 大连理工大学 4 中国海洋大学 1 北京师范大学 4 电子科技大学 数据缺 哈尔滨工业大学 3 东北大学 数据缺 西安交通大学 3 中国人民大学 数据缺 注:( 1 )数据范围为 1998 年 1 月- 2008 年 8 月的 SCI 和 SSCI 收录论文。( 2 ) TOP1 %学科数表示ESI数据库给出的该校有多少个学科在世界所有学术机构中排名前1%。(3)这里的985高校仅包括综合和理工类,未包括几所特色专业高校。 表41998-2008年各985高校入围世界各学科前1%的具体数据汇总 校名 学科领域 论文数量 总量 被引次数 总量 篇均被引 被引 清华大学 CHEMISTRY 4,732 29,467 6.23 PHYSICS 5,172 26,516 5.13 MATERIALS SCIENCE 4,525 20,287 4.48 ENGINEERING 4,496 14,139 3.14 BIOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY 893 5,220 5.85 COMPUTER SCIENCE 1,637 2,721 1.66 MATHEMATICS 754 2,061 2.73 ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGY 366 1,639 4.48 ALL 23,942 109,596 4.58 中国科技大学 PHYSICS 5,281 34,007 6.44 CHEMISTRY 4,664 31,696 6.80 MATERIALS SCIENCE 1,563 11,938 7.64 GEOSCIENCES 501 4,613 9.21 ENGINEERING 1,247 4,598 3.69 ALL 15,751 99,647 6.33 上海交通大学 PHYSICS 2,916 13,123 4.50 CHEMISTRY 1,984 10,187 5.13 MATERIALS SCIENCE 2,858 8,650 3.03 ENGINEERING 3,389 8,123 2.40 CLINICAL MEDICINE 1,016 2,181 2.15 COMPUTER SCIENCE 1,117 1,042 0.93 ALL 15,770 52,391 3.32 西安交通大学 MATERIALS SCIENCE 1,867 5,028 2.69 ENGINEERING 1,849 4,593 2.48 PHYSICS 1,277 4,401 3.45 ALL 7,452 21,098 2.83 哈尔滨工业大学 MATERIALS SCIENCE 3,213 6,979 2.17 ENGINEERING 1,869 4,815 2.58 CHEMISTRY 899 3,108 3.46 ALL 8,380 20,083 2.40 天津大学 CHEMISTRY 3,052 9,407 3.08 MATERIALS SCIENCE 1,185 2,711 2.29 ENGINEERING 942 1,776 1.89 ALL 6,929 19,458 2.81 东南大学 ENGINEERING 607 2,033 3.35 ALL 2,212 8,490 3.84 华中科技大学 PHYSICS 2,316 7,807 3.37 ENGINEERING 1,598 3,680 2.30 CLINICAL MEDICINE 1,172 2,954 2.52 MATERIALS SCIENCE 1,070 2,842 2.66 ALL 9,073 26,067 2.87 湖南大学 CHEMISTRY 1,089 6,118 5.62 ENGINEERING 692 2,442 3.53 MATERIALS SCIENCE 604 1,705 2.82 ALL 3,769 16,376 4.34 中国海洋大学 PLANT ANIMAL SCIENCE 302 1,457 4.82 ALL 1,625 6,058 3.73 中南大学 MATERIALS SCIENCE 1,805 2,469 1.37 ENGINEERING 233 818 3.51 ALL 3,536 6,939 1.96 北京理工大学 CHEMISTRY 1,220 5,039 4.13 ENGINEERING 450 1,060 2.36 ALL 3,216 10,493 3.26 大连理工大学 CHEMISTRY 1,871 8,405 4.49 PHYSICS 1,371 6,653 4.85 MATERIALS SCIENCE 1,282 3,698 2.88 ENGINEERING 1,271 2,777 2.18 ALL 7,140 25,166 3.52 北京航空航天大学 MATERIALS SCIENCE 952 2,523 2.65 ENGINEERING 801 1,525 1.90 ALL 3,013 8,039 2.67 重庆大学 ENGINEERING 505 1,439 2.85 ALL 2,331 5,799 2.49 电子科技大学 数据缺 华南理工大学 CHEMISTRY 1,350 5,389 3.99 MATERIALS SCIENCE 934 2,649 2.84 ENGINEERING 555 1,100 1.98 ALL 4,152 12,706 3.06 东北大学 因与美国东北大学英文同名,查出结果应非国内东北大学数据。 西北工业大学 MATERIALS SCIENCE 1,402 3,386 2.42 ALL 2,895 7,667 2.65 北京大学 CHEMISTRY 5,385 40,633 7.55 PHYSICS 4,832 29,093 6.02 CLINICAL MEDICINE 1,817 9,755 5.37 BIOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY 1,244 9,396 7.55 GEOSCIENCES 1,313 7,724 5.88 MATERIALS SCIENCE 889 7,080 7.96 ENGINEERING 1,457 4,755 3.26 PLANT ANIMAL SCIENCE 515 4,028 7.82 MATHEMATICS 1,078 2,752 2.55 ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGY 501 2,631 5.25 PHARMACOLOGY TOXICOLOGY 441 2,469 5.60 SOCIAL SCIENCES, GENERAL 219 666 3.04 ALL 22,269 135,397 6.08 南京大学 CHEMISTRY 5,176 34,829 6.73 PHYSICS 4,408 20,155 4.57 MATERIALS SCIENCE 1,131 6,906 6.11 GEOSCIENCES 1,024 5,186 5.06 ENGINEERING 800 2,848 3.56 CLINICAL MEDICINE 580 2,289 3.95 ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGY 438 2,212 5.05 ALL 16,256 87,408 5.38 复旦大学 CHEMISTRY 3,862 27,002 6.99 PHYSICS 2,510 12,182 4.85 CLINICAL MEDICINE 1,499 7,695 5.13 MATERIALS SCIENCE 790 5,859 7.42 BIOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY 871 4,764 5.47 ENGINEERING 935 2,853 3.05 PLANT ANIMAL SCIENCE 254 2,478 9.76 MATHEMATICS 765 2,067 2.70 ALL 13,963 76,874 5.51 浙江大学 CHEMISTRY 6,708 27,428 4.09 PHYSICS 3,310 14,841 4.48 MATERIALS SCIENCE 2,285 8,809 3.86 ENGINEERING 2,029 6,382 3.15 CLINICAL MEDICINE 1,482 5,277 3.56 PLANT ANIMAL SCIENCE 1,116 5,276 4.73 BIOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY 915 4,029 4.40 ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGY 731 3,301 4.52 PHARMACOLOGY TOXICOLOGY 483 2,261 4.68 AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES 577 2,010 3.48 COMPUTER SCIENCE 1,014 1,331 1.31 ALL 22,452 88,332 3.93 南开大学 CHEMISTRY 5,103 27,830 5.45 PHYSICS 1,825 7,242 3.97 MATERIALS SCIENCE 317 1,547 4.88 ENGINEERING 342 1,238 3.62 ALL 9,194 42,981 4.67 武汉大学 CHEMISTRY 2,769 16,213 5.86 PHYSICS 1,047 5,297 5.06 ENGINEERING 791 2,881 3.64 CLINICAL MEDICINE 705 2,498 3.54 MATERIALS SCIENCE 554 2,149 3.88 PLANT ANIMAL SCIENCE 356 1,292 3.63 ALL 8,601 38,396 4.46 厦门大学 CHEMISTRY 2,577 15,447 5.99 ENGINEERING 292 1,203 4.12 ALL 4,954 24,857 5.02 山东大学 CHEMISTRY 3,466 14,516 4.19 PHYSICS 2,069 9,879 4.77 MATERIALS SCIENCE 1,764 5,287 3.00 ENGINEERING 615 1,724 2.80 CLINICAL MEDICINE 680 1,684 2.48 ALL 10,454 38,501 3.68 吉林大学 CHEMISTRY 4,645 23,478 5.05 MATERIALS SCIENCE 1,560 8,811 5.65 PHYSICS 1,702 6,721 3.95 ENGINEERING 606 1,787 2.95 ALL 10,090 46,949 4.65 四川大学 CHEMISTRY 2,780 10,319 3.71 PHYSICS 1,534 5,149 3.36 MATERIALS SCIENCE 1,059 3,031 2.86 CLINICAL MEDICINE 927 2,453 2.65 ENGINEERING 546 1,412 2.59 ALL 8,507 27,303 3.21 中山大学 CLINICAL MEDICINE 1,379 7,692 5.58 CHEMISTRY 852 5,844 6.86 ALL 4,106 19,628 4.78 兰州大学 CHEMISTRY 2,855 13,243 4.64 MATERIALS SCIENCE 512 1,814 3.54 ENGINEERING 516 1,562 3.03 ALL 7,048 28,983 4.11 同济大学 CHEMISTRY 688 3,159 4.59 MATERIALS SCIENCE 709 2,475 3.49 ENGINEERING 853 2,143 2.51 ALL 4,252 14,811 3.48 北京师范大学 PHYSICS 1,599 7,219 4.51 CHEMISTRY 1,272 6,150 4.83 MATHEMATICS 679 1,667 2.46 ENGINEERING 307 970 3.16 ALL 5,888 26,082 4.43 中国人民大学 数据缺 References: ESI.http://esi.isiknowledge.com/home.cgi. 附件: 以上资料PDF格式下载请点这里:我国985高校优势学科的国际影响力
个人分类: 计量学|13843 次阅读|5 个评论
"中国的大学离世界水平究竟有多大距离?" 一个实证比较
zhaoxing 2009-3-27 02:25
读到刘振前先生博文《中国的大学离世界水平究竟有多大距离?》 ,颇有感触。仅以一点的数据,就国际学术研究产出能力和影响力视角,粗浅的探讨究竟有多大距离?。 拟用公认的世界一流大学哈佛大学和刘先生文中提到的在美国100所研究型大学中排名中游的亚利桑那大学为参照,基于ESI数据库 ,考察我国主要名校与世界水平差距。结果如图所示。 由图可见:国内一流大学在论文产出规模上已经逼近亚利桑那大学,但与哈佛大学仍有很大差距;在国际学术总体影响力上,全部15所高校的总和只相当于三分之一个哈佛大学,北大加清华仅约为半个亚利桑那;各校论文平均影响力和优势学科数量也远低于亚利桑那,其中我国大学进入Top1%学科的学科也通常排名靠后,鲜见特别突出的学科。 中国的大学离世界水平究竟有多大距离? 量似已触手可及,质还有太平洋的距离。 当然,以上只是就国际学术研究产出能力和影响力的视角,仅包括SCI和SSCI收录论文数据,局限明显,仅供参考。 References: 刘振前. 中国的大学离世界水平究竟有多大距离?. . http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=222519 ESI. .http://esi.isiknowledge.com/home.cgi
个人分类: 计量学|5354 次阅读|4 个评论
2009-3-24科学计量学课件--引文分析
junpengyuan 2009-3-24 00:02
从这节课起,我们进入计量学一个重要的领域--引文分析,这个东西基本构成了计量学的半壁江山。 看看刚直不阿的斗士邹承鲁院士是怎么说引文的: 科学研究贵在创新,一篇在严肃的科学期刊上发表的研究论文,必须在某些方面有所创新,否则就没有发表的价值。但是所有的科学研究又都是建立在前人工作的基础之上,在此基础上有所发展,因此又必需对前人工作给以充分的评价。在论文中必需充分回顾与本人结果直接有关的前人工作,然后再恰如其分地介绍自己工作中的创新之处 - 邹承鲁,我的科学之路,2003年 所以,基本上科学研究论文都会引用参考文献,引文分析的魅力的根源也在于此。 这节课要重点弄清楚的是: 1. 引文、参考文献、施引文献、被引文献、共引、共被引等等一系列术语所指的究竟是谁? 2. 引文分析的假设是什么? 3. Web of science 的使用 4. ESI的使用 本次课件生成PDF后,达到21M,所以只好放在网盘了: http://www.uushare.com/user/felixyuan/file/1417384
个人分类: 科学计量|4382 次阅读|4 个评论

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-5-2 17:56

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部