自从教育部 科技部印发《关于规范高等学校SCI论文相关指标使用 树立正确评价导向的若干意见》的通知以后，对于科研业绩的考评就成了《科学网》的热门话题。 多年来科研管理部分似乎一直没有找到一个被广大科研人员所认可的，有公信力的科研考评和人才评价体系，每次新的政策一出，都会引起热议。今天我也凑一个热闹，谈谈我所经历的一次“国际考评”。 我所在的研究所每年都要进行考评，然后根据考评的结果进行末尾淘汰和绩效工作的发放。 那个时候对于每年一次的考核，科研人员都有较大的压力。我见证过一些研究组由于考核名落孙山而被解散，科研人员的收入也因考核结果，拉开较大的差距。SCI论文和项目就是考核的两项硬指标，每个项目和每篇SCI论文都被量化为一个具体的分数，项目越多，论文发得越多，影响因子越高，考评的结果就越好。那个时候，研究所有40个多课题组，从事不同的专业和学科，有做植化的，有做分子的，有做分类和区系的，但是考评的时候大家都放在一起进行评比。我从事的研究是小众的基础研究，整个学科领域期刊影响因子都不高，我发的论文影响因子也不高。在每年考核中，我的名次也仅比孙山稍高几位，每次考核的时候都是压力山大。那个时候干科研和下乡时挣工分没有多大差别，几乎忘记了科学研究的初心。 为了改进考核方法，上级主管单位对所辖研究所组织了一次国际考评。评委由上级主管单位根据研究所的性质和学科特点在国际上遴选。考评分三个阶段，首先个人提交英文的业绩报告，报告特别注明要写出研究组的主要创新点。当然，发表的论文的清单也是必不可少的，也要求提供5篇代表作。第二个阶段是每个PI用英文向考评组陈述自己的工作，报告时间是20分钟，专家组有10分钟的提问。PI需要陈述自己最亮点的工作和创新之处。这个阶段研究所的PI按照研究学科性质分成两个大组进行的。第三个阶段，专家组根据PI的报告和现场陈述对每个研究组进行打分。打分按照美国NIH的体系进行，1.0-1.5是Outstanding, 1.6-2.0是excellent,2.1-2.5是good, 2.6-3.0是fair。考评的结果只向所领导报告，各研究组只收到自己的评估报告。从我收到的报告看，考评组从Overview, Significance/Impact of Research, Scientific Achievement, Creativity/Innovation and Productivity, Research Potential for the Next Five to Ten Years和Overall Evaluation等六个方面向被考评人反馈考评结果。在这次考评中，考评专家组组特别强调研究组在国际上的地位，注重被考评人与国际小同行的比较；其次，特别注意PI的研究组工作是否围绕科学假说和科学问题展开，研究工作是否有系统性，所提出的科学问题和假说的科学价值如何；其三，即看论文的篇数和所发表的期刊，又不完全依据篇数和所发表的期刊来做出判断。 考核结束，全所有6个组被评为outstanding，3个组评为excellent，6个组得到了2.5分被判定为不合格，其余研究组是合格的级别。在这次考评中，我得到了1.6分进入了excellent的等级，而在之前研究所数工分式的考核中，我都是排名靠后的。有一些论文发得比我多的研究组，得分比我高（得分越高成绩越差），原因是他们的论文之间关联性太差，研究不成体系，研究组的科学问题不明确，不集中。 现在回过头来，这个国际考评的理念与实际操作与科技部最近所发文件的精神还是比较吻合的。首先是对不同的学科进行分类考核，尽管这个分类考核，分得还有些粗糙，但是已经做到没有用一个标准来评判跳高的和跑步了。第二，在看论文产出的同时，更看中论文的创新性，和所以论文的关联性和系统性。除了论文发表的期刊外和引用率以外，更看重论文的国际同行对论文的评价和论文的科学价值。第三这个考核，还评价了研究组的潜力，指出了一些具体的努力方向。我个人认为这是一次成功的考评，让人心悦诚服的考评。我在那个考核之后，按照专家组的建议，努力去做一些 cutting-edge 的工作与发现。 这次国际考核成功的一个关键，我认为首先是有一个高水平的考核专家团队，他们非常严肃认真地对待这次考评工作，没有简单地依靠数据和刊物来判断一个研究组，他们认真地阅读了每个研究团队的报告，听取了 PI 的陈述，依靠自己的专业素养，对各位 PI 进行了客观的评价。教育部和科技部《关于规范高等学校SCI论文相关指标使用 树立正确评价导向的若干意见》应该说是一个非常好的文件，充分考虑之前科研业绩考评中的弊端，针对当前考评中的突出问题，特别是对于SCI过分依赖的问题，提出了一些指导性意见。我看一些网上评价，大家对于对唯SCI都是反对的。但是担心在“废除了SCI、ESI、IF、JCR、H-index、他引次数等可以直观比较的量化指标，基层科研工作者更怕那些掌控了话语权、终裁权、拥有巨大班扎夫权力指数、又带有强烈个人主观色彩的冯闷棍了”（引自王龙的博文， http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-467514-1222254.html ）。就像高考一样，大家都知道，一考定终身的考试方式有诸多的弊端，但是这“一考”，保障了基本的公平与公正。 教育部 科技部的文件指出；“对于基础研究，论文是成果产出的主要表达形式，坚决摒弃“以刊评文”，评价重点是论文的创新水平和科学价值，不把SCI论文相关指标作为直接判断依据”。以刊评文肯定不对，不同的期刊办刊的目的不一样，发表文章的标准和要求有所有一些期刊的重点是最求新奇，而有一些期刊的则是强调工作的系统性。科学研究的常态是能够在本领域最好的期刊持续不断地发表论文，而不是只发表Science和Nature的论文。但是，一般而言越是好的期刊，评审过程越是规范和客观。如果完全摒弃“以刊评文”那么由谁来判断论文的水平和价值呢？这又要回到由人，由评委来判断论文的水平和价值了，这就对科技界自律水平提出了较高的要求。也就是两部委文件一开就是强调的“净化学术风气，优化学术生态” 。 任何一个评价体系（更何况我们还没有自己成熟的评价体系）都不可能是十全十美的。减少科研评价和各种行政命令对科研工作的干扰，将发表论文多少与个人收入脱钩，树立正确价值取向，引导科技工作者为探索未知世界而发表论文，才能树立一种风清气正的科研环境，让学术研究回归初心。
科研评价：原创性和首发权高于影响因子 笔者曾发表文章提出：优先权高于影响因子；以及：代表作评价更应注重成果的原创性。现在，笔者从原创性、优先权（首发权）和影响因子三个维度，提出科研评价三维立方，如图1所示： 图1 科研评价三维立方 科研成果，按三维划分，可划分为8个象限： 1 原创性 高；优先权 有；影响因子 高。薛象限 2 原创性 高；优先权 有；影响因子 低。屠呦呦象限 3 原创性 高；优先权 无；影响因子 高。莱布尼茨微积分象限 4 原创性 高；优先权 无；影响因子 低。华莱士进化论象限 5 原创性 低；优先权 有；影响因子 高。NSC大多数象限 6 原创性 低；优先权 有；影响因子 低。SCI／SSCI大多数象限 7 原创性 低；优先权 无；影响因子 高。CXXX刊象限 8 原创性 低；优先权 无；影响因子 低。水刊象限 科研评价三维立方的主要意思是： 科研成果的原创性（originality, innovativeness），是最高的评价标准；但，某人或某单位必须拥有该成果的优先权（priority）或首发权，即你必须是第一个发现该成果的研究者，主要以科研论文为evidence（证据）；所谓科学研究“只有第一，没有第二”。在科研评价的现实中，国内外均看重（发表论文的期刊）影响因子。 下面举例说明： 案例1 2018年度国家自然科学奖一等奖项目 “量子反常霍尔效应的实验发现”：原创性，高；优先权，有；影响因子，高 据可靠资料说：这是在国际上首次实验发现了量子反常霍尔效应。该成果的关键成果和代表作发表于2013年SCIENCE［1］。 （来源： http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/167/tab-pdf ） 该发现是否具有科研发现的一个最基本要求“可重复性”呢？据可靠资料，该发现已被国际多个实验室重复确认。而这多个国际实验室在 量子反常霍尔效应实验发现这个高度激烈的 科研竞赛中，失去了首发权，输了。 国内外同行评价如何呢？据可靠资料，2016年诺贝尔物理学奖得主霍尔丹认为是拓扑量子物质领域近二十年最重要的实验发现。诺贝尔物理学得主杨先生认为，是诺奖级的科研成果。 外行往往不懂得“量子反常霍尔效应的实验发现”的原创性，喜欢看影响因子和被引用数。据可靠资料，该成果的8篇代表性论文被SCI他引超2200次，高！其实，对于最高水平的科研评价，是不会看影响因子和被引用数这类“科学计量学”或数数指标的，比如诺贝尔科学奖就绝不搞数数。不知道国家科技奖励填写表是否有“数数”的内容，比如是否要求填写影响因子，被引用数？如有，笔者建议，以后废除这些科学计量学数数指标。 案例2 屠呦呦发现青蒿素治疗疟疾。原创性，高；优先权，长期争议后获得；影响因子，低。 该成果具有高度的原创性和IMPACTS（治疗千千万万疟疾病人，拯救了千千万万人的生命），遗憾的是，很多很多年来，吾国科学共同体未能认识到其科学价值和社会医疗价值，比如屠呦呦多次申报院士未能成功；该项目直到2015年屠呦呦获得诺奖后，才获得国家最高科技奖。 关于青蒿素科研成果的优先权：为了获得我国在青蒿素科研发现的优先权，“青蒿素协作组“1977年在国内中文期刊《科学通报》上发表了一页纸的论文，板上钉钉，从而确立了我国在青蒿素上的首发权优先权，全球都认可。但是，关于青蒿素治疗疟疾的优先权，究竟属于哪个科学家和哪个单位？长期以来激烈争论不休。屠呦呦为捍卫自己在青蒿素发现的优先权上作出了很多努力，也引发了一些”矛盾“。最后，诺奖委员会一锤定音，确立屠呦呦作为青蒿素的最关键贡献者。 来自网络 案例3 CAX发现外尔费米子。原创性，高；优先权，争议中；影响因子，低。 CAX课题组 ，与国际上两个课题组，同时独立发现了外尔费米子。在现行科研评价体制下，CAX团队将论文投稿到影响因子很高的SCIENCE期刊。结果是：SCIENCE同期正式（ONLINE）发表了国际上两个课题组的论文，而拒了CAX的论文。CAX与外尔费米子重大科研发现的优先权首发权，失之交臂。CAX课题组后来立马转身从SCIENCE转战到一个影响因子较低的专业期刊上发表了该成果。因而，有若干国际科研机构以及CAX自己均 承认CAX课题组 的外尔费米子的优先权。 结束语 国际学术界流传”Publish or Perish”，其题中应有之义就是：发表为王，首发为大王。如何第一时间获取“首发权”？ 我们曾提出：充分利用国内期刊获取首发权。 现在国家政策提出破“四唯“”五唯“。不破不立。那么，”立“什么？就是要立“原创性”，立“首发权”。 ［1］C. Z. Chang, J. S. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. C. Zhang, M. H. Guo, K. Li, Y. B. Ou, P. Wei, L. L. Wang, Z. Q. Ji, Y. Feng, S. H. Ji, X. Chen, J. F. Jia, X. Dai, Z. Fang, S. C. Zhang, K. He, Y. Y. Wang, L. Lu, X. C. Ma and Q. K. Xue, “Experimental Observation of the Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect in a Magnetic Topological Insulator”, Science 340, 167 (2013). http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/167/tab-pdf
说明：本博客与微信公众号“林墨”同步更新，所有内容均为原创，可授权转载请扫码关注“林墨”公众号 基于短期时间窗口的科学评价指标不但没有鼓励创新、促进科学原创的发展，反而阻碍了科学创新。追求短期效益的评价方式有可能蒙蔽科学政策的双眼，最终削弱科技发展的潜力。 闵超 / 南京大学 注：图片来自参考文献 。 开垦少有人涉足的科学领地，有可能收获重大的科学影响，但是同时也具有更高的风险与不确定性。由于采用了非常规的研究方式，这类研究常被称作“探索性研究”（explorative research），与基于常规方式的“开发性研究”（exploitative research）形成对照。可以预见，前一类研究中涉及更多“新颖性”（novelty），因而也有可能发现更多潜在的科学创新。 然而创新的科学研究是否总是受人待见？科学政策制定者应该如何应对？荷兰莱顿大学Jian Wang等人 的一项研究揭示了科学研究的新颖性与其影响力之间复杂的关系及其对科学政策的启示。 如何判断科学新颖性 科学研究中的新颖性容易感知，却不易衡量。Wang等人采用了一种“组合新颖性”的视角来量化科学研究中的新颖性。新颖性被定义为通过新颖的方式对已有的知识碎片进行重新组合。作者指出，这种定义有其理论渊源 。具体操作上，作者仿照Uzzi等人的做法 ，将一篇研究论文的新颖性量化为它在多大程度上以新颖的方式重新组合先前的知识碎片，而知识碎片则以期刊作为衡量单位。与Uzzi做法不同的是，作者关注的是一篇研究论文的参考文献中出现的某对期刊，先前是否已被其他文献同时引用过。 以2001年Web of Science收录的所有论文为例，计算新颖性的流程如下： 为每一篇论文检索它引用的所有期刊，并将这些期刊配对。 为每一对期刊，检查它们是否同时出现在Web of Science以往收录的论文中。如果没有出现过，则认为它们是一对新期刊。 为每一对新期刊，计算它们前三年中同时被引用的次数，从而得到所有期刊对的共被引矩阵。利用矩阵中的向量，计算一对期刊被“组合”在一起的容易程度。 对每一篇论文，汇总它引用的所有期刊对被“组合”在一起的容易程度，从而得到这篇论文的“组合新颖性”。 由于得到的新颖性数值呈现出高度的偏态分布，作者进一步将新颖性分为三个类别：（1）非新颖，一篇论文没有引用新的期刊对；（2）中度新颖，一篇论文引用了至少一对新期刊，但是新颖值低于同领域论文的前1%；（3）高度新颖，一篇论文的新颖值位于同领域论文的前1%。 当然，作者也指出，“组合新颖性”并非取得科学突破的唯一方式。科学上的突破可能来自一次灵光乍现的新观测，来自全新仪器的建成，来自一个新物种的发现，等等，而新颖性自身也并不等同于科学突破。 新颖的研究具有高风险性 结果显示， 高新颖性的论文其引文数量的分布高度分散 ，离差比非新颖的论文高出18%；而中度新颖的论文与非新颖的论文在引文分布的离差方面没有显著的区别。这种现象的原因在于， 那些高度新颖的论文，有一部分的引文数量非常高，而有一部分的引文数量非常低 ，反映出它们在影响力方面的高度不确定性。与此形成对照的是， 中度新颖的论文中有相当部分的引文数量很高，而只有很少论文的引文数量很低 。 新颖的研究具有高收益 尽管新颖的研究面临着高风险，但是它们同时有更大的可能做出突出的科学贡献——成为“大受欢迎的论文”（big hits）。这里，“大受欢迎的论文”定义为在相同年份、相同学科领域内被引次数居于前1%的论文。结果显示，高度新颖的论文与中度新颖的论文在成为“大受欢迎的论文”方面，分别比非新颖的论文高出57%与13%的几率。同时，研究还发现，高度新颖的论文更可能被其他“大受欢迎的论文”引用。因此，高度新颖的论文不但自身更可能成为“大受欢迎的论文”，而且也更可能激发能够产生重要影响的后续研究。 新颖的研究具有跨学科影响 控制论文被引次数以及其他变量相一致，高度新颖的论文与中度新颖的论文均比非新颖的论文被更多的学科所引用，多出的学科类别比例分别是19%与11%。除此之外，新颖的论文在本领域之外拥有更高比重的引文，而且外领域与本领域之间的距离也更大。这表明新颖的研究比非新颖的研究具有更大的跨学科影响力，其影响范围能够达到更远的科学领域。进一步的分析显示，新颖研究的这种高影响力更多来自外领域的高引用量，而非本领域的引用。 新颖的研究被延迟认可 高度新颖的论文在发表三年以内很少成为高被引的论文 。而从发表之后的第四年开始，高度新颖的论文明显更多地成为高被引论文，它们对非新颖论文的优势随着引文时间窗口的增加而增加。并且，对新颖论文的这种延迟认可不仅存在于发表论文的原领域，还存在于原领域以外的领域中。 短期指标是否阻碍了创新 Wang等人进一步阐释了研究发现的政策启示。他们认为，新颖研究的延迟认可属性对于文献计量指标在科学政策制定中的使用具有直接的启示。由于新颖的研究容易遭遇延迟认可、需要足够长的引文时间窗口来展现其主要影响，那些基于短期引文窗口的文献计量指标事实上将科技政策导向了阻碍科技创新的歧途。这些指标的广泛使用有可能使新颖的科学研究及其从事者埋没于各类排名中，阻碍科学发展的进程。基金资助机构、人员聘用机构、科学评估机构都应采取更丰富、多元的评价方式保证科学创新的长远发展。 Wang, J., Veugelers, R., Stephan, P. (2017). Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46(8), 1416-1436. Arthur, W.B., 2009. The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. Free Press, New York, NY. Burt, R.S., 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. Am. J. Sociol. 110 (2), 349–399. Mednick, S.A., 1962. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychol. Rev. 69 (3), 220–232. Schumpeter, J.A., 1939. Business Cycles; A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, 1 st ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, New York, NY; London, UK. Simonton, D.K., 2004. Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New York, NY Weitzman, M.L., 1998. Recombinant growth. Q. J. Econ. 113 (2), 331–360. Retrieved from. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2586906. Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., Jones, B., 2013. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342 (6157), 468–472.
这个题目太复杂了，以致在这个短文中不可能充分讨论。但是，其成功的科学道理和美国和其它发达国家成功 发达 的道理是相同的。 以下我提供一些规章文件。它们是大学，学院，和系的法律和规章。请注意：没有任何文件指定哪个主义必须要坚持的和哪个政党必须是领导党。 让我只举一个例子。第一个是美国大学教授协会（ AAUP）的向美国各大学推荐的关于学术自由和终身教职的规定。这些规定好像会造成一批不努力工作的教授们。但是，这个政策给了每个终生教授必要的环境，使他敢于尝试高风险的可能使他的大学和学院知名的、有高影响力的研究主题。 中国大学现在时兴一类短视的、不科学的科研评价标准。这类标准用了歧视 性的 期刊和会议的分区表、发表文章的数量、得到的科研经费数目等。这样的环境逼着教授们去搞能快出文章的题目以达到文章数的指标、和联系干活的合同以给大学带来更多的钱。那些想干有高影响力的研究的人会因为需时较长而无法生存。譬如，请读 “ 我在复旦大学的十年遭遇：为推动改革｀钱学森之问’的科研环境 ” http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-395089-834977.html . 总之，在美国和其它发达国家里的大学成功的原因和美国和其它发达国家发达的原因是一样的：对每个国家的政府的权力的有效制约和平衡的大环境加上对每个大学的行政权力的有效制约和平衡的小环境。我并不是说以下的规章制度是完美无缺的 (看我以下的评论)。虽然中国现在有了更多的科研的钱和更多的从事科研的人，中国大陆必须尽快地改进这两个环境。 How American Universities Became Successful? By Juyang Weng This subject is too complex to be fully discussed in this short article. However, the scientific reason of the success is the same as the developmental success of the UnitedStates of America, and other developed countries. I provide in the following some documented real regulations whose full and thorough execution are critical for the success for any university and college. They are bylaws of universities, colleges, and departments. Note that none of the document states which ism is the ism that must be stick to and what party is the leading party. Let me just give an example. The first document on Academic Freedom andtenure of AAUP looks like it will produce a faculty who does not work hard. However, this policy gives each tenured faculty the necessary environment for him to dare to work on a risky research subject that has a potential to make his university and college well known －－ high impact. Chinese universities currently use shortsighted and unscientific research evaluation criteria that are based on table s for journal zones and conference zones of discriminative nature , the number of papers, and the amount of researchmoney. Such an environment forces the faculty to work on quick papers so as to fit the number of papers required, and look for labor-work contracts that pay university more money. Those who work on high impact research will take too long to survive. See, e.g., “My Ten Years of Suffering at Fudan University: Pushing to Reform the Research Environment Questioned by Qian Xuesheng” (in Chinese) http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-395089-834977.html . In summary, the reasons behind the success of university in the United States of American and in other developed countries are the same as the reasons why the U.S. and other developed countries are developed: Effective checks-and-balances of government powers in each country as a global environment plus the checks-and-balances of the administrative powers in each university as a local environment. I do not mean that the regulations that I provided below are perfect (e.g., see my comments below). Although China has more research money and more people working on research, the main land China must improve the both environments as quickly as possible. 1. Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure of AAUP http://www.aaup.org/file/RIR%202014.pdf 2. Bylaws of University of Michigan http://www.regents.umich.edu/bylaws/ 3. Faculty Governance at the University of Michigan http://facultysenate.umich.edu/resources/faculty-governance.pdf 4. Faculty Handbook of University of Michigan http://www.provost.umich.edu/faculty/handbook/handbook.pdf 5. Grievance Procedure of University of Michigan (I do not recommend that of MSU because of a major flaw: How MSU Lacks Due Process: A Bylaw Perspective , http://www.brain-mind-magazine.org/read.php?file=BMM-V2-N2-a5-Masfis-a.pdf ) http://facultysenate.umich.edu/resources/grievance.pdf 6. CSE Graduate Handbook of Michigan State University http://www.cse.msu.edu/Students/Current_Grad/GradHandbook.php 7. Graduate Program of EECS of University of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/eecs/graduate/ee/eeprogram_new.pdf
我之前的博文《 影响因子的终结？ 》中提到：“二十多年以来，主要是 1990 年代初引用数据开始能够电子化以后，影响因子越来越被广泛的使用，并且完成了其角色三级跳：期刊的评价指标——单篇论文的评价指标——研究者的评价指标。其实你可以发现这是多么武断的一种等价替代。”仅用期刊影响因子来评价科学家是不恰当的恐怕在科学群体中已经开始达成共识。其实量化评价和质量评价一直存在很多争论，比如如何量化才能更客观，该不该量化及如何做好质量评价？有个需要了解的问题是：除了影响因子之外，还有哪些可以用于评价科学家？ 首先要提到的是近两年比较热闹的“ Altmetrics ”，这个词应该缩写自 “ alternative metrics ”，我觉得可以理解为“替代指标”或“其他指标”的意思。光 Nature 杂志最近就有好几篇文章讲这个，比如 “ Altmetrics: Value all research products ” 、“ Scholarship: Beyond the paper ”、“ Research impact: Altmetrics make their mark ”等。 Altmetrics 的倡议者们认为现在的科学家更多的依赖于在线文献管理工具和网络交流的环境（下图 ），这些行为提供了新的衡量科学影响的数据，比如某篇文章被 Twitter 和 Facebook 用户提到和分享的次数、被博客文章评论的次数等。 但也有科学家认为 Altmetrics 用于评价科学家还为时尚早。比如 Nature 发表的一篇 Correspondence 文章（ Altmetrics: Too soon for use in assessment ）认为这些指标有很多不可靠性。比如，文章下载次数、被社交媒体提到和分享的次数等指标缺乏权威性和可靠性，有的人甚至可以多注册几个账户来重复推荐和分享。 在 Nature 发表的另一篇有意思的 Correspondence 文章（ Research impact: We need negative metrics too ）中，北德克萨斯大学的 Holbrook 等人认为科学家们应该主动地去收集自己工作的影响数据，而不是被其他人来决定（“ We think that researchers can generate a more complete account of their impact by including seemingly negative indicators — such as confrontations with important people or legal action — as well as those that seem positive. ”）。除去论文数量、发表期刊、引用数、经费额度等常规的量化指标，他们列出了其他的或许可以用于评价工作影响的指标（下图 ）。 大家对于 Altmetrics 有什么看法，欢迎讨论。（最近打算写一个有关的评论，对 Altmetrics 有所思考的同志可以联系我。） --- 相关博文： 《科学》社论和《旧金山宣言》：停止使用影响因子评价科学家 一份期刊影响因子的巨变说明什么？ h 指数评价科研人员的不靠谱性 不要误读 SCI 影响因子
早上到办公室，打开邮箱，看到今天Science杂志的社论“ Impact Factor Distortions ”。主编Bruce在社论中说：包括美国科学促进会（AAAS）在内的75家机构和150多位知名科学家在2012年12月举行的美国细胞生物学学会会议上支持签署了《 关于研究评价的旧金山宣言（San Francisco declaration on research Assessment，DORA） 》，宣言认为科学界应该停止使用影响因子评价科学家个人的工作；影响因子不能作为替代物用于评估科学家的贡献，以及招聘、晋升和项目资助等的评审。 Science社论提到这样做的理由（虽然很多理由大家早就知道）： 1）影响因子是评价期刊的工具，不是评价科学家个人的工具。很多重大突破本来就可能需要长时间的积累。 2）影响因子的不恰当使用非常有破坏性，影响期刊的发表政策（比如选择发表可能高引用的文章），给知名期刊带来沉重的投稿压力（滥投）。 3）最重要的危害可能是妨碍创新。影响因子会鼓励“模仿或跟风”，使得本来就已经很热的领域（刊物影响因子高）更加人满为患。更多人关注的是发高影响因子的文章，而不是科研创新。 Science社论认为，为了客观的评价研究者的科研贡献，需要知名科学家作为评价者，认真的评阅某个研究者的代表作。《旧金山宣言》中给出了一些具体的评价建议： General Recommendation 1. Do not use journal-based metrics, such as journal impact factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion or funding decisions. For funding agencies 2. Be explicit about the criteria used in evaluating the scientific productivity of grant applicants and clearly highlight, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published. 3. For the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures including qualitative indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice. For institutions 4. Be explicit about the criteria used to reach hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, clearly highlighting, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published. 5. For the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures including qualitative indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice. For publishers 6. Greatly reduce emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool, ideally by ceasing to promote the impact factor or by presenting the metric in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics (eg. 5-year impact factor, EigenFactor , SCImago , editorial and publication times, etc) that provide a richer view of journal performance. 7. Make available a range of article-level metrics to encourage a shift toward assessment based on the scientific content of an article rather than publication metrics of the journal in which it was published. 8. Encourage responsible authorship practices and the provision of information about the specific contributions of each author. 9. Whether a journal is open-access or subscription-based, remove all reuse limitations on reference lists in research articles and make them available under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication. (See reference 8.) 10. Remove or reduce the constraints on the number of references in research articles, and, where appropriate, mandate the citation of primary literature in favor of reviews in order to give credit to the group(s) who first reported a finding. For organizations that supply metrics 11. Be open and transparent by providing data and methods used to calculate all metrics. 12. Provide the data under a licence that allows unrestricted reuse, and provide computational access to data. 13. Be clear that inappropriate manipulation of metrics will not be tolerated; be explicit about what constitutes inappropriate manipulation and what measures will be taken to combat this. 14. Account for the variation in article types (e.g., reviews versus research articles), and in different subject areas when metrics are used, aggregated, or compared For researchers 15. When involved in committees making decisions about funding, hiring, tenure, or promotion, make assessments based on scientific content rather than publication metrics. 16. Wherever appropriate, cite primary literature in which observations are first reported rather than reviews in order to give credit where credit is due. 17. Use a range of article metrics and indicators on personal/supporting statements, as evidence of the impact of individual published articles and other research outputs . 18. Challenge research assessment practices that rely inappropriately on Journal Impact Factors and promote best practice that focuses on the value and influence of specific research outputs.
这篇论文已被《自然辩证法研究》录用。希望和做科研评价的同行交流探讨。 科学计量学视角下的石墨烯发现之争 陈悦 1 ，邢黎黎 1 ，滕立 1，2 1. 大连理工大学WISE实验室，辽宁，大连，116024 2. 郑州航空工业管理学院，河南，郑州，450006 摘 要：本文通过科学计量学的方法，考察了石墨烯发现前后文献链条上的关键节点文献，对有关2010年诺贝尔物理学奖的争议进行了回答。研究结果表明，海姆、诺沃肖洛夫2004年发现石墨烯的文献以及发现石墨烯中的电子是具有无质量的狄拉克费米子两个成果既然很高的被引频次，也有很高的网络中介中心度值。他们获得诺贝尔奖是理所应当。另一方面，赫尔只有一篇2006年发表的文献处于链条之上，表明他在石墨烯发现之后对其性质的研究做出了实质性的贡献。凯姆则有两篇文献位于石墨烯发现前后的链条上，尤其是对石墨烯中存在肉眼可见的量子霍尔效应这一独特性质的发现，引发了大量相关研究。因此，海姆认为他也应当共同获奖是有相当理由的。 关键词：科学计量；共被引分析；科学文献；石墨烯； Controversy of Graphene Discovery: A Scientometrics Perspective 1. Chen yue 1 , 2. Xin lili 1 , 3. Teng li 1,2 1. WISE Laboratory of Dalian University of Technology, Liaoning,Dalian, 116024 2. Management Colleges of Aircraft Industry of Zhengzhou, Henan, Zhengzhou 450006 Abstract : The paper tried to deal with the debate on graphene discovery from constructing key literature chain which reflected the process of graphene discovery by scientometrics method. The results have shown that two works made by Geim and Novoselov, one was discovery of graphene and the other was find of Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene, both had high cited frequence and network betweenness centrality. On the other hand, only one paper written by Heer in 2006, which made important work for nature of graphene, was situated on the chain. Two works of Kim, one was about single-walled carbon nanotubes and the other was about quantum Hall effect and Berry's phase in graphene, were lain on the chain indicating Kim played important role before and after discovery graphene, especially after discovery graphene. Based on these results, the paper pointed out that there were enough reasons for Geim and Novoselov to win Nobel Prize and Kim also met the requirement for Nobel Prize. Keywords : Scientometrics; Co-citation analysis; Scientific literature; Graphene 引言 石墨烯（ Graphene ）是一种由碳原子以 sp 2 杂化轨道组成六角型呈蜂巢晶格的平面薄膜，只有一个碳原子厚度的二维材料。石墨烯在被发现前一直被科学家认为是假设性的结构，无法在自然条件下单独稳定存在。 2004 年，英国曼彻斯特大学物理学家安德鲁•海姆（ Andre Geim ）与康斯坦丁•诺沃肖洛夫（ Konstantin Novoselov ），成功地在实验中从石墨中分离出石墨烯，从而证实它可以单独存在，并具有独特的物理化学性质。两人也因“在二维石墨烯材料的开创性实验”为由，共同获得 2010 年诺贝尔物理学奖。获奖后，英国《自然（ Nature ）》杂志网站的一篇文章《 Nobel prize committee under fire 》及新闻《 Nobel document triggers debate 》，披露了美国乔治亚理工学院物理系的赫尔 (Walt de Heer) 关于石墨烯向诺贝尔奖委员会提出的质疑（见 Letter from Walt de Heer ， http://www.gatech.edu/graphene/) 。面对质疑，海姆似少点谦谦君子的风度，进行了嘲讽式的回击，但同时认为另一位学者，哥伦比亚大学的凯姆 (Kim P) ，应该共享今年的诺贝尔物理学奖。 虽然诺贝尔奖委员会经过讨论最终维持了原来的评选结果，但是，赫尔的质疑是否成立？凯姆的学术贡献是否达到获奖水平而没有被授予相应的荣誉？这些问题在学术界仍有相当争议。对此，本文利用科学计量学的方法，通过考察争议人物的学术论文及其在共被引网络中的地位，试图对此问题从文献角度做出回答。 1. 相关理论与概念 对科学家的学术评价，最重要的依据就是科学家做出的科研成果的重要性。这种重要性体现在两个方面： 1. 该科学成果对科学自身发展的影响； 2. 该成果对社会进步的促进作用。就基础性研究而言，对科学发展的影响是评价科学成果的最主要因素。 在科学共同体中，科学家做出的任何发现，都只有正式发表，才有可能获得学术同行的承认与评价。这里面有两层含义： 1. 科学论文是科学研究成果的载体； 2. 对科学家研究成果的评价可以通过考察其发表论文的重要性来进行。这种重要性通常表现为科学家发表论文论文的被引用频次。一篇论文被引用的次数越多，其重要性越大。但是，由于科学家在引证文献时，存在着复杂的动机 ，这导致单单使用文献的被引用频次来评价其地位是不完善的，有时甚至失真度很大。 论文的引用与被引用，构成了普赖斯（ Price JD ） 所说的“科学论文的网络”。科学家在进行文献引证时，往往既引用重要的、经典的文献，也同时会引用其他一些相对普通的文献。这些文献构成了斯莫尔 (Small H) 所称的文献共被引关系与共被引网络。陈超美 (Chen CM) 的研究表明，代表重大科学发现的文献在共被引网络中，除了具有高被引的特征外，还具有另一个重要的特征：这些文献往往处于网络中的结构洞 位置，即具有较高的中介中心度。这些科学计量学上的成就，为我们提供了从网络的视角来评价科学论文重要性的理论与方法。 中介中心度 (betweenness centrality) 为 1979 年弗里曼 (Freeman LC) 在社会网络分析的研究中提出的测量网络节点位置特征的指标。该指标的含义是在一个网络中，任一节点占有网络中最短路径的能力。其计算公式如下： 其中 d(i,j,k) 表示在网络G中任意两点 i 和 j 间的最短路径经过K点点的数量； d(i,j) 表示网络 G 中用意两点 i 和 j 间的最短路径数。网络中高中介中心性的节点常常扮演边界员的角色，它们在相互远离的区块间起到“桥梁”的作用。在文献共被引网络中，网络中的节点也会随着时间而形成不同的“区块”，构成相应的研究领域。高中介中心度的节点则在这些“区块”中起到联通的功能，扮演着沟通各“区块”间知识上的联系的角色。一但去掉这些节点，则各“区块”之间就无法形成联系，整个网络呈现出碎片化的趋势。在一个随时间演化的文献共被引网络中，高中介中心度的节点往往既是以前知识的汇聚点，也是新知识或新研究领域的发动点。结合文献的被引频次，我们可以认为网络中具有高中介中心度的节点文献在科学展的过程中具有重要的地位。 因此，在有关石墨烯的争议中，我们只须考察海姆和诺沃肖洛夫、凯姆、赫尔在石墨烯发现前后的共被引网络中的地位与作用，争议就迎刃而解。 2. 数据检索与处理 本文选择了 Web of Science 数据库中的 SCI （科学引文索引）做为数据来源。该数据库提供 1900 年以来 6000 多期刊的题录、文摘、参考文献信息，涉及自然科学和工程技术的所有领域。 SCI 数据库是世界六大数据库之一，其收录数据的全面性与权威性在学界得到公认。 2.1 数据检索策略 利用科学文献分析一个领域的发展变迁，首要问题是尽可能得到这个领域的完整数据。在本章中，与石墨烯研究相关的文献由三部分构成： 首先，用主题词检索方式检索有关石墨烯研究的相关文献。主题检索方式得到的文献在标题、摘要或关键词位置含有相应的检索词，一定程度上表明了文献内容与检索词所涉领域之间的相关性。在本章检索中使用的主题词为“ graphene ”。 其次，还需要检索与科学家所发表的经典文献相关的文献。这些文献同样反映了石墨烯的相关研究。确定这些相关文献，可以使用文献耦合 的方法。所谓文献耦合，是指文献集合中两篇文献至少拥有一篇相同的参考文献。相同的参考文献越多，文献间的耦合相关度就越大。海姆与诺沃肖洛夫二人有关制备出石墨烯的文献最早发表在《科学》（《 Science 》， 2004 年第 306 期）杂志上，题目为《单原子厚度碳薄膜的电场效应》（《 Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films 》）。这篇文献共有参考文献 16 篇，文献标题见表 1 。在 2004 年以前与其有耦合关系的文献则表征了石墨烯发现前相关的研究。 表 1 《单原子厚度碳薄膜的电场效应》中的参考文献 序号 标 题 1 Organic thin-film transistors: A review of recent advances 2 Carbon nanotubes – the route toward applications 3 Possibility of a metallic field-effect transistor 4 Hall constant in quantum-sized semimetal Bi films: Electric field effect influence 5 Intercalation compounds of graphite 6 Electronic transport-properties of graphite, carbons, and related materials 7 Carbon nanostructures 8 Graphitic cones and the nucleation of curved carbon surfaces 9 Fabrication of mesoscopic devices from graphite microdisks 10 Cleavage of graphite to graphene 11 Experimental evidence of a single nano-graphene 12 Novel electronic wave interference patterns in nanographene sheets 续前表 13 STM investigation of single layer graphite structures produced on pt(111) by hydrocarbon decomposition 14 Nanotube molecular wires as chemical sensors 15 Sensitivity of single multiwalled carbon nanotubes to the environment 16 Molecular electronics: From devices and interconnect to circuits and architecture 第三部分为引用经典文献的文献。文献间的引用关系表明了文献间知识上的相关性。海姆与诺沃肖洛夫二人 2004 年后发表的文献中，有五篇在 SCI 中的被引次数超过 1000 次。这五篇文献的标题见表 2 ： 表 2 海姆与诺沃肖洛夫被引频次最高的五篇文献 序号 文 献 标 题 被引频次 1 Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films 5371 2 The rise of graphene 3781 3 Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene 3548 4 Raman spectrum of graphene and graphene layers 1184 5 Two-dimensional atomic crystals 1107 表 2 中第一篇文献是海姆与诺沃肖洛夫发现石墨烯的经典文献，其余四篇文献在标题中都含有主题词“ graphene ”（石墨烯）。引用这些文献的文献则可以视为与石墨烯有研究相关。以上述三种方式在 web of science 中进行检索，合并去重后得到的数据可以认为基本覆盖了石墨烯的相关研究。 2.2 检索结果与数据处理 按前述检索策略，在 web of science 中检索，结果见下表 3 ，这些文献的年度分布见图 1 。 表 3.3 石墨烯数据检索结果 步骤 检 索 方 式 检索结果 1 主题检索，检索词为 “graphene” ； 检索式为 TS= “graphen*” ； 时间范围： 1945 年至 2011 年 10 月 18 号；文献类型：论文（ article ） 12947 2 文献耦合；时间范围： 2004 年以前（含 2004 年）； 文献类型：论文（ article ） 1083 3 被引参考文献检索 ；文献类型：论文（ article ） 7937 合并去重总计： 14531 图 1 石墨烯研究文献年度分布 图 1 表明文献在年度间的分布极不均衡。为了便于统计分析，本文采用如下原则对文献进行分组： 1 ）由于石墨烯的发现是在 2004 年，故以 2004 年为界， 2004 年（含 2004 年）的文献为一组。 2 ） 2005 年后的文献以组内文献数量差异最小且同一年度内的文献不得分割为原则进行分组。分组结果见表 4 。 表 4 石墨烯研究文献分组结果表 组别 时间段 时间标记 所含文献数量 1 1956 年 —2004 年 2004 年 2023 2 2005 年 —2008 年 2006 年 2753 3 2009 年 2009 年 2163 4 2010 年 2010 年 3609 5 2011 年 2011 年 3985 3. 结果与讨论 利用 CitespaceII 软件对处理后的数据进行共被引分析。时间范围设置为 2004 年至 2011 年；时间间隔为 1 年；三阶段阈值（ c 、 cc 、 ccv ）分别设置为（ 45 、 45 、 0.16 ）、（ 60 、 60 、 0.16 ）、（ 60 、 60 、 0.16 ）。各时间段数据处理结果见下表 5 。 表 5 石墨烯研究文献各阶段处理结果 时间段 时间标记 阈值 参考文献数 节点数 边数 1956 年 —2004 年 2004 年 45 、 45 、 0.16 28587 51 264 2005 年 —2008 年 2006 年 52 、 52 、 0.16 33377 122 845 2009 年 2009 年 60 、 60 、 0.16 27973 82 571 2010 年 2010 年 60 、 60 、 0.16 46893 148 958 2011 年 2011 年 60 、 60 、 0.16 61121 149 817 去重后合计 283 2337 在表 5 中，阈值一栏中的数值表示 CitespaceII 软件根据插值算法分配给各时间段的阈值。如 2009 年时间段的阈值为（ 60 、 60 、 0.16 ），表示在这一时间段只分析出现次数达到 60 次或以上，并与其他参考文献共现值达到 60 次或以上的参考文献。 0.16 表示只统计达到上述阈值的节点间按余弦指数计算的共现强度达到或超过 0.16 的连接边。参考文献数为该时间段文献中所含的全部参考文献。节点数表示达到阈值的参考文献数量。边数为这些节点间达到共现强度阈值的连接边数。最后的合计表示合并重复的参考文献后得到的各时间段节点数与边数的总和。通过 CitespaceII 的可视化功能，生成上述分析结果的共被引知识图谱。见图 2 。 图 2 石墨烯共被引知识图谱 在图 2 中，各个时间段节点间的连线用冷色调至暧色调的变迁加以表示。如左下方的深蓝色连线表示其生成的时间为 1956 年— 2004 年，淡蓝色的部分为 2005 年至 2008 年的数据形成的连线，绿色连线代表 2009 年，黄色代表 2010 年，橙黄色代表 2011 年。连线的粗细取决于两个节点的共现强度。节点的大小与其在达到阈值的数据集中被引频次成正比，点越大表明被引次数越高。外圈为紫红色的节点表示其在共被引网络中具有较高的中介中心度值（≥ 0.1 ），它们在整个共被引网络中起着知识转折和桥梁的作用。图 2 中黑色字体标示出了部分高中介中心度节点的基本信息。表 6 列出了中介中心度值大于等于 0.05 的节点文献信息，包括标题、作者、被引频次和中介中心度值。文献按发表时间升序排列。 表 6 中介中心度值大于等于 0.05 的节点文献指标统计 序号 作 者 时 间 频次 中心性 文 献 标 题 1 Hummers WS 1958 1092 0.1 Preparation of graphite oxide( 石墨烯氧化物制备 ) 2 Iijima S 1991 1119 0.13 Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon ( 石墨碳螺旋微管 ) 3 Nakada K 1996 798 0.57 Edge state in graphene ribbons: Nanometer size effect and edge shape dependence( 石墨烯纳米带 的边缘态：纳米尺度效应与边缘形状依赖 ) 续前表 4 Dresselhaus MS 1996 240 0.28 Science of Fullerenes and Carbon Nanotubes ( 关于富勒烯与碳纳米管的科学 ) 5 Perdew JP 1996 789 0.07 Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple ( 广义梯度近似简化 ) 6 Saito R 1998 463 0.54 Physical properties of Carbon Nanotubes ( 碳纳米管的物理特征 ) 7 Wildoer JWG 1998 189 0.13 Electronic structure of atomically resolved carbon nanotubes( 原子层面下决定碳纳米管 的电子结构 ) 8 Odom TW 1998 202 0.11 Atomic structure and electronic properties of single-walled carbon nanotubes( 单壁碳纳米管的 原子结构与电子特征 ) 9 Kong J 2000 467 0.2 Nanotube Molecular Wires as Chemical Sensors ( 做为化学传感器的纳米管分子线 ) 10 Novoselov KS 2004 4976 0.53 Electric Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films ( 原子级碳薄膜中的电场效应 ) 11 Novoselov KS 2005 3337 0.21 Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene( 石墨烯中无质量狄拉克费米子二维气体 ) 12 Zhang YB 2005 2859 0.14 Experimental observation of the quantum Hall effect and Berry's phase in graphene( 对石墨烯中量子霍 尔效应与贝里相位的实验观察 ) 13 Berger C 2006 1364 0.11 Electronic Confinement and Coherence in Patterned Epitaxial Graphene( 石墨烯磊晶中的电子监禁与相干性 ) 14 Stankovich S 2006 1207 0.06 Graphene-based composite materials. ( 石墨烯复合材料 ) 15 Ferrari AC 2006 1119 0.05 Raman spectroscopy of graphene and graphite: Disorder, electron–phonon coupling, doping and nonadiabatic effects( 石墨与石墨烯的拉曼光谱： 失序、电声子耦合、杂质与非隔热效应 ) 16 Son YW 2006 776 0.05 Energy Gaps in Graphene Nanoribbons ( 石墨烯纳米带的能隙 ) 17 Geim AK 2007 3489 0.24 The rise of graphene( 石墨烯的兴起 ) 18 Stankovich S 2007 837 0.05 Synthesis of graphene-based nanosheets via chemical reduction of exfoliated graphite oxide( 通过对氧化外延型石墨的化学还原合成石墨烯基纳米片 ) 19 Li XL 2008 847 0.07 Chemically Derived, Ultrasmooth Graphene Nanoribbon Semiconductors ( 用化学方法制备超平滑石墨烯纳米带半导体 ) 20 Li D 2008 790 0.06 Graphene-Based Materials( 石墨烯材料 ) 21 Park S 2009 508 0.05 Colloidal suspensions of highly reduced graphene oxide in a wide variety of organic solvents( 在各类有机溶剂中高还原石墨烯氧化物的胶态悬浮 ) 这些文献构成了石墨烯发现前后的知识链条。在这个链条中，凯姆是两篇关键节点文献的通讯作者： 1 ） Atomic structure and electronic properties of single-walled carbon nanotubes( 单壁碳纳米管的原子结构与电子特征 ) ； 2 ） Experimental observation of the quantum Hall effect and Berry's phase in graphene( 对石墨烯中量子霍尔效应与贝里相位的实验观察 ) 。这两篇文献在石墨烯发现前后的链条中都具有较高的中介中心度值，其中后一篇有关石墨烯重要性质的文献（量子霍尔效应与无质量狄拉克费米子）的被引频次达到 2859 次。前一篇发表于 1998 年，后一篇发表于 2005 年，表明凯姆在石墨烯发现前后都起到了重要的作用。尤其是 2005 年的文献，直接引发研究石墨烯的链式效应与热潮，并使人们看到石墨烯在电子工业领域的广泛应用及其前景。另一方面，希尔只有一篇文献在链条中处于关键位置：发表于 2006 年的 Electronic Confinement and Coherence in Patterned Epitaxial Graphene( 石墨烯磊晶中的电子监禁与相干性，希尔是通讯作者 ) 。这表明希尔在石墨烯了现后做出了比较重要的贡献，但在石墨烯发现前所做的研究相对普通，并不象他在质疑信中所言对石墨烯的发现起到关键作用。虽然希尔较早在基底上生长出石墨烯，但是他并没有进一步对石墨烯的各项性质展开相应的研究，说明其并未意识到石墨烯发现所具有的重要意义。石墨烯发现前后的文献链条，既表明海姆等人获奖的合理性，也佐证了海姆关于凯姆应当共享诺贝尔奖的观点。 参考文献 Wenstock M. Citation indexes . Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, 1972. Price D . Networks of scientific papers . Science, 1965, 149(3683): 510-515. Small H . Cocitation in scientific literature: new measure of relationship between 2 documents . Journal of the American Society For Information Science, 1973, 24(4): 265-269. Chen C, Chen Y, Horowitz M, et al . Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery . Journal of Informetrics, 2009, 3(3): 191-209. Burt R S . Structural holes . Boston: Harvard University Press, 1992: 311. Freeman L C . Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification . Social networks, 1979, 1(3): 215-239. Kessler M M . Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers . American documentation, 1963, 14(1): 10-25. Kessler M M . An experiment in playmaking through a creative approach with high school seniors . IEEE Transactions on Information Theory IT-9, 1963: 49-51. Chen C . Citespace ii: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006, 57(3): 359-377. 陈 悦 (1975-) ，女，大连理工大学 WISE 实验室副教授，博士生导师，研究方向为科学计量，科研评价，情报分析。 邢黎黎 () ，女，大连理工大学 WISE 实验室硕士生，研究方向为科学计量，区域经济。 滕 立 (1970-) ，男，大连理工大学 WISE 实验室博士生，现为郑州航空工业管理学院讲师，研究方向为科学计量，科研评价，情报分析。
现在 h 指数有愈加流行的趋势，大家认为相较于影响因子， h 指数能从总体上更客观地评价研究者的水平。影响因子更多地是对期刊的评价，而 h 指数则兼顾了研究者的被引次数和文章数量。文双春老师被推荐至头条的博文用了个刺激人的题目《 h 指数准确预测科学家伙能否成大器 》。但其实，姑且不论预测一个家伙能否成大器是很难的一件事儿，如果从 h 指数计算的本质来看，它仍然有不靠谱性。 一个缺陷是，基于不同的检索数据库如 Web of Science 、 Scopus 、 Google Scholar ，算出来的某个研究者的 h 指数常常不一样，这跟数据库的收录范围有关。这时候，我们选择用哪个？估计很多人愿意用比较高的那个。这三个里头，更多时候或许 Google Scholar 给出的 h 指数最高，我发现它有时会将非论文的材料算作引用（如果这个材料提到了你的文章）。实情是，这些检索数据库并不能体现你文章的所有引用，比如 WoS ，更侧重于 SCI 收录期刊的引用，直到最近才稳定的将一些中文期刊的引用算进去。另外，不同学科领域被这些检索数据库收录的程度不同，比如分类学期刊被收录为 SCI 的比例小，而分子生物学和医学则高很多。因此，不同领域科学家的 h 指数其实并没有太多可比性。 但我觉得一个更加值得关注的缺陷是： h 指数没有区分作者的实际贡献 。 来看一个简单的例子。 A 和 B 是紧密的合作者，两者共同发表论文，共同署名了 20 篇引用次数超过 20 的文章。这时候两者的 h 指数都是 20 ，表面上看好像科研水平相当。但是，在这 20 篇文章中， A 是 15 篇文章的第一作者，而 B 只是 5 篇文章的第一作者。很明显， A 作者应该有更大的贡献。所以， h 指数倾向于对大的研究团队有利，多个合作者会共享比较高的 h 指数（大合作的实验学科就比常单兵或小集团作战的理论学科 h 指数高），这种情况下混淆了不同作者的实际贡献。 要真正衡量研究者的实际贡献，应该对 h 指数做适当的改进。比如， 只统计某位研究者作为第一作者或通讯作者时的 h 指数。 对于上面的例子， A 的 h 指数就应该是 15 ；而 B 是 5 。这个简单的改进也是很粗糙的，因为有时候难以界定研究者在非第一作者文章中的实际贡献。 为了让评价更细致客观，可以考虑在 计算 h 指数时对不同顺序的作者有个权重 。比如，第一作者权重为 1 ，第二作者权重为 0.7 ，第三作者为 0.4 。如果第一作者同时是通讯作者，那么权重为 1 ；如果通讯作者非第一作者，其权重计为 0.8 。还是上面的例子，假定 A 是 15 篇文章的第一作者，是另 5 篇的第二作者； B 是 5 篇文章的第一作者，另 15 篇的第二作者。这时候计算两者的 h 指数： A 为（ 15*1 + 5*0.7 ） =18.5 ； B 为（ 5*1 + 15*0.7 ） =15.5 。我们可以发现，用现有的计算 h 指数的方法， A 和 B 用 h 指数所代表的科研贡献都被高估了，并且现有的方法掩盖了 A 和 B 实际贡献的大小。 不知道科学计量学领域是否已经有人用这个思路修正 h 指数，我在 Scientometrics 期刊用“ author+order ”做关键词进行检索，没有发现相关的论文发表。如果还没有关于作者顺序对 h 指数影响的研究发表，我建议相关领域的同志们考虑下这个问题并且设计一定的算法。当然要考虑到其他一些问题，比如作者排名的权重问题（即如何更客观地衡量在文章中的实际贡献）。同时，也不得不考虑到修正算法的简洁性，太复杂不利于推广使用， h 指数和影响因子之所以能流行，就是因为其简单性。当然，对于发表论文时作者不按实际贡献排名（比如可能按名字字母顺序）的领域，就要想其他能反应实际贡献的修正算法。 注： 本文是想谈h因子可能存在的缺陷，希望大家能提出相应的看法，而非说h指数没有合理性，或者说建议只看第一或通讯作者。留言中有些同志说“你整个标准出来”，我觉得这是非理性的讨论方式，恕不予回复。从大家的留言可以看出，很多人都认为用某个指数评价人不靠谱，所以需要思考的是如何更综合地评价。
激光的发明，与原子能、计算机、半导体等一样，堪称 20 世纪以来最重大的科技进展。早在 1917 年，爱因斯坦就建立了激光原理，但直到 1960 年 5 月 16 日才由美国 物理学家 梅曼（ T. Maiman ， 1927.7-2007.5 ）成功制造出世界上第一台激光器。梅曼迅速将他的工作写成一个简短的报道，投到美国物理学会刊物 Physical Review Letters （ PRL ），有意思的是，这种里程碑式的突破性进展报告竟然被 PRL 拒稿，梅曼急切地想将他的工作公之于众，于是立马将手稿改投比 PRL 更挑剔（more selective, Townes语）的英国 nature 杂志，没想到很快被接收并于 1960 年 8 月 6 日发表。 激光器（ Laser ）的前驱可以说是其长波长版的微波激射器 (Maser) ，两者都是基于爱因斯坦的受激辐射原理。 1950 年代， 相对于光波器件来说，微波器件要成熟得多，其研究队伍也要庞大得多，因此受爱因斯坦辐射原理的激励， 微波激射器受到强烈关注，特别是 1954 年美国物理学家 汤斯（ C. Townes ， 1915.7- ） 与他的学生合作独立地研制出第一台微波激射器之后，关于微波激射器的研究论文潮水般涌向 Physical Review 编辑部，以至编辑随后决定停止接收关于这一主题的任何论文 。这一决定自然也将 32 岁的梅曼第一篇报道激光器研制成功的论文拒之门外了。实际上， PRL 的编辑是一叶障目，并没有看清 梅曼工作的闪光点和价值，据 nature 报道， PRL 的编辑判定 梅曼的工作只不过是由汤斯等人领导的与微波激射器相关的系列研究工作中的又一个小插曲（ just another episode in the stream of research related to masers, led by Charles Townes and others ）。在激光对现代社会产生了如此重要影响的今天，因在 微波激射器和激光器方面的贡献而获得 1964 年诺贝尔物理学奖的 汤斯评论说：“梅曼的论文是如此之短而又产生了如此众多的巨大影响，以至我相信它可以看作是上个世纪 nature 发表的任何精彩论文中单个文字最重要的论文。” 去年 5 月，在激光发明 50 周年之际， nature 杂志将这一段历史翻出来说事：科学家很难判断他们本身的研究工作的价值或影响 （ impact ），爱因斯坦做不到，梅曼也做不到，因此公众不应期待科学家事先知道他们被好奇心驱动的研究会带来什么，政府更不应该专注于支持那些貌似有国际影响力（ international impact ）的研究。 在当今的学术评价特别是在项目评审中，有一种过份强调研究工作的价值或影响的倾向，而正如 nature 所说，“影响”真正意味着什么或如何衡量“影响”，人们其实并不清楚，因此判断一项研究工作的“影响”是一件伤脑筋的事情，而且也与目前的一些规范不相符。激光就是一个鲜明的例子， 与梅曼手稿被 PRL 拒绝同样令人不可思议的是，激 光曾被讥笑为 “ 一个寻找问题的解决方案 ” （ a solution looking for a problem ），说明一项科学发现在它开始之时要认识到它最终的价值是多么艰难。 对研究资助的最好回报并不总是那么显而易见的，特别是，绝大多数研究从来没有在任何地方产生过影响。 延伸阅读：《 最后一博：牛文不在牛刊 》 参考文献 Charles H. Townes, The first laser, from “A Century of Nature: Twenty-One Discoveries that Changed Science and the World”, ed. by Laura Garwin and Tim Lincoln, the University of Chicago Press, 2003 Nature editorial, Laser-guided impact, nature physics, 2010, 6: 317 Stefano Tonzani, All together now, nature material, 2010, 9: S10-S11
China's Quantity-based Evaluation Culture is the Real Root of Misconduct 10 June 2010 Liangjun Hu MOE Key Lab for Vegetation Ecology, Northeast Normal University,Changchun 130021, China , Zongming Wang, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130012, China Respond to this E-Letter: Re: China's Quantity-based Evaluation Culture is the Real Root of Misconduct A part-time professor system was to blame for exposing some fundamental problems of publication of academic research in China (Retractions put spotlight on China's part-time professor system, H. Xin, 6 March 2009, p. 1280), and PhD students' requirement and cash award for publication were then added by Albert W. M. Lee (E-letter, Misconduct and China's Research Environment, 25 June 2009). However, the ongoing quantity-based evaluation culture prevalently running in most of China's universities and research institutions, in comparison with above said points, would be the real root toward all scientific misconducts in China's academic fields. Due to the rich experience of being a world factory since the 1980s, China's society has been deeply shaped by an industrial produce-line impulse deriving from factory culture. One of those changes is, people think, everything, including science, can be easily achieved by money and planning, like manufacturing in plants. Therefore, all the issued research projects, as a form in science production factories, must be timely evaluated by planned criteria. On the other hand, many Chinese officials are only bureaucrats with little or even no technical background. As a result, using a defined quantity-based evaluation system will be much easier and quicker for project officials to examine the projects' outputs, but ignoring the quality. Moreover, Chinese officials much prefer large figures that help for their promotions (1). To meet the unrealistic evaluation criteria, many research teams are forced to publish or apply as many low-quality papers and patents as they could, few with real novels and innovations. Consequently, some of them, particularly the younger, have to conduct misconduct! References and Notes 1. J. Liu, H. Yang, Science 675, 325 (2009). 2. We acknowledge supports from the Northeast Normal University Sci- tech Incubation Project (grant NENU-STC08017) and the key project of Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant KZCX2-YW-341). Science . ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online) 原文链接： http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/323/5919/1280#13299 前一阵在Science Online上发的一点小意见。
科研评价，改为科研优秀。 目的是为了避免让人讨厌的评价，而是要促进自我保障、自我改善。 Research Excellence Framework The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the new system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions (HEIs). In previous years, research quality has been assessed periodically through the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). We are currently consulting on proposals for the new framework. We will issue guidance on the REF in 2010 after completing the consultation. The first REF exercise is due to be completed in 2013. We are working in collaboration with the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Department for Employment and Learning (Northern Ireland), and with a wide range of stakeholders to develop the new framework. Representatives of the four funding councils sit on a steering group which oversees its development. Assessing research quality The REF will focus on three elements, which together reflect the key characteristics of research excellence. These are: Outputs The primary focus of the REF will be to identify excellent research of all kinds. This will be assessed through a process of expert review, informed by citation information in subjects where robust data are available (for example, in medicine and science). Impact Significant additional recognition will be given where researchers build on excellent research to deliver demonstrable benefits to the economy, society, public policy, culture and quality of life. Impacts will be assessed through a case-study approach that will be tested in a pilot exercise. Environment The REF will take account of the quality of the research environment in supporting a continuing flow of excellent research and its effective dissemination and application. Consultation 2009 The consultation will run from 23 September to 16 December 2009. It sets out proposals for all key aspects of the framework. We invite responses from the higher education sector as well as organisations with an interest in the use and impact of research from the private, public and third sectors. Consultation on the REF 2009 Brief guide to the proposals Further information More about the REF Bibliometrics Impact Publications and further information on the REF Contact us
SCI中每种杂志都有一个分数，那么这个分数是如何算出来的呢？ 这方面信息我还不是专业人员，只看了两篇相关科普介绍，提供给大家阅读，专业人士请告知，SCI分数是否真是由下面这两篇文献中的数学算法算出。 马志明： Google 搜索与 Inter 网的数学 Rar1 Rar2 J.B. Keller, Ranking of Teams, Authors and Pages Rar1 Rar2 Rar3 Rar4 实际上，Stanford大学资深数学家，Wolf奖得主 J.B. Keller 于1978年提出了一个Ranking算法，刚开始，是用棒球赛来作为例子的，希望在评价棒球队排名（Rank）时，能够更加客观公平。 当Keller在SIAM任职时（Board of Trustee），开始将这个算法用于期刊评价和作者评价，只需要将棒球队换成期刊，将棒球队A战胜棒球队B一次，换成期刊A被期刊B引用一次，这种换元法对数学家来说当然是小菜一碟。 马志明的文章，未言及著名数学家Keller的贡献，而将其归功于Google的两位创始人， 这一漂亮的想法出自斯坦福大学 1998 年在读的博士研究生 Sergey Brin 与 Larry Page 。 Keller的这篇文章也讲，This same method was subsequently discovered by the founders of Google, who realized its value for ranking web pages。 关于Keller，有一个采访 Interview with Joseph Keller, Notices of AMS，vol. 51, number 7 备份地址 不管怎样，这都说明，排名问题，不仅仅是一个主观性社会问题，更是一个复杂的数学问题，并不简单。 科学网上，最近有些科学家，指摘SCI的不足之处，不过其理论依据，仍未经数学语言而上升到科学的角度，局限于简单的社会问题范畴，因而其立论往往不能服人，或者模糊性太强，或者博贴的预设政治立场太强。 Keller的文章，就有一段讲到这种算法会出现不足之处的原因，仅仅提了一下，未深入。 实际上，SCI分数，需要数学算法才能科学的定义，数学算法本身为适应更加复杂的实际情况（毕竟SCI这个信息量和复杂性比棒球赛要大得多），也需要进行深入的改进。 科学家们在批评SCI之时，或者，不是批评SCI本身，而是在批评对SCI的乱用之时，最好先对其涉及到的Ranking算法，有一个科普级的了解，毕竟Keller的文章只需要大一水平的线性代数就能看懂，马志明的文章，后半段稍微难些，需要概率统计的知识。 不仅SCI分数，实际上科学基金评审，如何在评审人的投票之后进行排名，怎么设计一个好的数学算法，问题想来应该也并不简单。 我们是科学家，不是政治家，必然不应采取政治替代科学的态度。非常可惜的是，在有些科学家的博文上，却出现了这种趋势。还好，后面有些科学家博文跟进，将很多信息明确化，使SCI讨论中的政治态度大为减少。 SCI专题博文收藏-Diigo MathCoffee Group，申请注册后，你也可往里贡献 实际上，即使是政治学方面，关于选举的方法，也有本数学书可以参考看看。 S.J.Brams, Mathematics and Democracy: Designing Better Voting and Fair-Division Procedures, Princeton University Press 2008 附注1. 如果用Page Rank算法，取代较为粗陋的SCI算法，应是一个可以尝试的方向。不过，Page Rank算法本身也不完善，细小的缺陷先不去说，先说一个最大的，即， 如果一篇文章被不同领域的文献引用，则其Impact Factor应该更大才对。这样，就需要考虑如何在算法上，定义不同领域不同文章的区分度。以及如何将这种区分度，加入到Ranking算法中去，这是目前Google也尚未做到的。 附注2. Ranking（评级）本来是社会中非常重要和严肃的内容，往往牵扯到至关重要的人际资源分配。没想到，因为网络的出现，网络内容的Ranking，实际上严肃性就没有那么大，允许出现错误，这个好处就使得各种Ranking算法的实验成为可能。相信这些实验，通过不严肃的网络评级，最后能演化到严肃的应用，从而为人类政治学的深入，开辟蹊径。
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）
赵星 2009－3－28 http://www.sciencenet.cn/u/zhaoxing/ 2005 年， Hirsch 提出作者 h 指数用于测评学者个人的科研绩效，现已成为国际信息计量学最主要的新兴热点 。 h 指数研究到底有多热？这里以两种重要期刊的 Web of Science 的数据，给出另一个证据（如表所示）。 两种相关领域重要刊物 2005 年后刊发文章被引频次 TOP5 （截止到 2009 年 3 月） Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology 序号 论文信息 被引频次 1 Cronin B, Meho L. Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. 2006, 57(9): 1275-1278. 51 2 Bornmann L, Daniel H D. What do we know about the h index?. 2007, 58(9): 1381-1385. 31 3 Leydesdorff L, Vaughan L. Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science: Extending ACA to the Web environment. 2006, 57(12): 1616-1628. 31 4 Jansen B J, Spink A, Pedersen J. A temporal comparison of AltaVista Web searching. 2005, 56(6): 559-570. 31 5 Chen C M. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. 2006, 57(3): 359-377. 28 Scientometrics 序号 论文信息 被引频次 1 Van Raan A. Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. 2006, 67(3): 491-502. 59 2 Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index. 2006, 69(1): 131-152. 55 3 Glanzel W. On the h-index - A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact. 2006, 67(2): 315-321. 48 4 Egghe L, Rousseau R. An informetric model for the Hirsch-index. 2006, 69(1): 121-129. 41 5 Batista P D, Campiteli M G, Kinouchi O, et al. Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?. 2006, 68(1): 179-189. 38 为 h 指数研究文献 《 Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology》（JASIST）也许是情报学最重要刊物，《Scientometrics》也许是科学计量学最重要刊物。由表可见，在h指数出现后，《JASIST》刊发的最有影响力的5篇文章中，有两篇都是h指数研究。而《Scientometrics》被引频次TOP5则全部被h指数研究囊括。实际上，此期间《JASIST》被引频次6－10位中的第6和第7篇论文也与h指数有关，《Scientometrics》被引频次6－10位中还有3篇论文是h指数主题。 参考文献： Hirsch J.An index to quantify an individuals scientific research output. PNAS ,2005,102(46):16569-16572 赵星 , 高小强 , 郭吉安 , 陶乃航 . 基于主题词频和 g 指数的研究热点分析方法 . 图书情报工作 ,2009,53(2): 31-34
澳大利亚研究委员会（Australian Research Council-ARC)有点类似于我国的自然科学基金委，近日为了其The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) 计划发布了对研究人员进行考量的评价指标。 有兴趣的朋友请自行前往（ http://www.arc.gov.au/era/indicators.htm ）观看吧，我这里就不搬砖头了。
SCI: Science Citation Index, but now in China, it stands for Stupid Chinese Idea. Many Universities and colleges rate academic research level according to SCI and Awarding faculty according to it. Much money flows to those subjects which can be easily cited by SCI. Such system surely do harm to the facultys zeal in some fields. SSCI. Social Science Citation Index, if not treat it correctly, will become SCISS (Stupid Chinese Idea in Social Science). CSSCI . Chinese Social Science Citation Index, also means to Correct Sense of Stupid Chinese Idea, and build the rating system of its own. 中国大学论文的指标 SCI ：《科学引文索引》（ Science Citation Index ）是美国科学情报研究所出版的一种综合性科技引文检索刊物。它是目前国际上最具权威性的、基础研究和应用基础研究成果评价的重要工具。 EI ：《工程索引》（ The Engineering Index ），是美国工程信息公司出版的著名工程技术类综合性检索工具。 SSCI: 《社会科学引文索引》（ Social Science Citation Index ）为美国科学情报研究所建立的综合性社科文献数据库。 其他数据 根据中科院的统计， 2004 年中国发表的论文总数是世界第 9 位，但是平均每篇论文被引用的次数仅排在世界第 124 位。 1996 年我国的 SCI 论文数量排名世界第 14 位。 2005 年，按 SCI 所收录的论文数排序，我国排在世界第 5 位 , 仅次于美国、英国、德国和日本。 有数据显示，每年国家统计的数万项科研 成果 中， 90% 以上未产生实际价值。
标签: 科研评价
