Please wait a minute...
Advanced Search
现代图书情报技术  2012, Vol. 28 Issue (4): 54-60    DOI: 10.11925/infotech.1003-3513.2012.04.09
  情报分析与研究 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
论文被引频次标准化方法述评
陈仕吉1, 史丽文1, 李冬梅2, 左文革1
1. 中国农业大学图书馆 北京 100193;
2. 中国农业大学发展规划处 北京 100193
Review on Normalization Methods of Citation Counts
Chen Shiji1, Shi Liwen1, Li Dongmei2, Zuo Wenge1
1. China Agricultural University Library, Beijing 100193, China;
2. Development Planning Department, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
全文: PDF(471 KB)   HTML  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 论文被引频次是引文分析中最具代表性的指标,通常被认为是学术影响力的标志。由于被引频次受学科领域、文献类型、出版时间等因素的影响,因此被引频次需要标准化处理以实现跨学科或跨领域的比较。阐述典型的被引频次标准化方法,并进一步分析和讨论标准化引文指标的实际应用。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
陈仕吉
史丽文
李冬梅
左文革
关键词 引文分析被引频次相对影响指标百分位数指标标准化    
Abstract:Citation counts is the most representative indicator in citation analysis,which is also used in research performance as an indicator of the impact. Since citation counts is sensitive on field, document type and publish year, it needs normalize for the cross-field comparison. In this paper,various methods of citation counts normalization are demonstrated and some problems on citation indicator in practice are also discussed.
Key wordsCitation analysis    Citation counts    Relative impact indicator    Percentiles    Normalization of indicator
收稿日期: 2012-02-29     
: 

G350

 
基金资助:

本文系北京市优秀人才培养资助项目“重点学科国际影响力评价研究-以中国农业大学重点学科为例”(项目编号:2010D009007000001) 和中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目“中国农业大学科技情报与信息化建设研究”(项目编号:2011GJ002)的研究成果之一。

引用本文:   
陈仕吉, 史丽文, 李冬梅, 左文革. 论文被引频次标准化方法述评[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2012, 28(4): 54-60.
Chen Shiji, Shi Liwen, Li Dongmei, Zuo Wenge. Review on Normalization Methods of Citation Counts. New Technology of Library and Information Service, DOI:10.11925/infotech.1003-3513.2012.04.09.
链接本文:  
http://manu44.magtech.com.cn/Jwk_infotech_wk3/CN/10.11925/infotech.1003-3513.2012.04.09
[1] HEFCE. HEFCE : Publications : 1998 : Consultation 98/54 - Research Funding: Introduction of a Policy Factor[EB/OL]. [2012-02-13]. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/1998/98_54.htm.

[2] Glanzel W, Thijs B, Schubert A, et al. Subfield-specific Normalized Relative Indicators and a New Generation of Relational Charts: Methodological Foundations Illustrated on the Assessment of Institutional Research Performance [J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 78(1): 165-188.

[3] van Raan A F J. The Use of Bibliometric Analysis in Research Performance Assessment and Monitoring of Interdisciplinary Scientific Developments [J]. Assessment Theory and Practice, 2003,1(12): 20-29.

[4] Schubert A, Braun T. Relative Indicators and Relational Charts for Comparative Assessment of Publication Output and Citation Impact [J]. Scientometrics, 1986, 9(5): 281-291.

[5] Schubert A, Braun T. Reference Standards for Citation Based Assessments [J]. Scientometrics, 1993, 26(1): 21-35.

[6] Vinkler P. The Case of Scientometricians with the “Absolute Relative” Impact Indicator[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2012, 6(2): 254-264.

[7] Vinkler P. Model for Quantitative Selection of Relative Scientometric Impact Indicators [J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36(2): 223-236.

[8] Waltman L, van Eck N J, van Leeuwen T N, et al. Towards a New Crown Indicator: Some Theoretical Considerations [J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 37-47.

[9] Leydesdorff L, Opthof T. Remaining Problems with the “New Crown Indicator” (MNCS) of the CWTS[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 224-225.

[10] Gingras Y, Larivière V. There are Neither “King” nor “Crown” in Scientometrics: Comments on A Supposed “Alternative” Method of Normalization [J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 226-227.

[11] Bornmann L, Mutz R D. Further Steps Towards an Ideal Method of Measuring Citation Performance: The Avoidance of Citation (Ratio) Averages in Field-normalization [J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 228-230.

[12] Opthof T, Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the Journal and Field Normalizations in the CWTS (“Leiden”) Evaluations of Research Performance [J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 423-430.

[13] van Raan A F J, van Leeuwen T N, Visser M S, et al. Rivals for the Crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 431-435.

[14] Moed H F. CWTS Crown Indicator Measures Citation Impact of a Research Group's Publication Oeuvre[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 436-438.

[15] Spaan J A E. The Danger of Pseudoscience in Informetrics[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 439-440.

[16] Bornmann L. Towards an Ideal Method of Measuring Research Performance: Some Comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) Paper [J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(3): 441-443.

[17] Leydesdorff L, Opthof T. Normalization at the Field Level: Fractional Counting of Citations [J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(4): 644-646.

[18] Lundberg J. Lifting the Crown—Citation Z—Score [J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2007, 1(2): 145-154.

[19] Seglen P O. The Skewness of Science [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1992, 43(9): 628-638.

[20] Bornmann L, Mutz R, Neuhaus C, et al. Citation Counts for Research Evaluation: Standards of Good Practice for Analyzing Bibliometric Data and Presenting and Interpreting Results [J]. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2008(8): 93-102.

[21] Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Castellano C. Universality of Citation Distributions: Toward an Objective Measure of Scientific Impact [J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008, 105 (45): 17268-17272.

[22] Waltman L, van Eck N J, van Raan A F J. Universality of Citation Distributions Revisited[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(1): 72-77.

[23] Bornmann L, Daniel H D. Universality of Citation Distributions-A Validation of Radicchi et al.'s Relative Indicator cf = c/c0 at the Micro Level Using Data from Chemistry[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009, 60(8): 1664-1670.

[24] Zitt M, Ramanana-Rahary S, Bassecoulard E. Relativity of Citation Performance and Excellence Measures: From Cross-field to Cross-scale Effects of Field-normalisation[J]. Scientometrics, 2005, 63(2): 373-401.

[25] Adams J, Gurney K, Jackson L. Calibrating the Zoom-A Test of Zitt's Hypothesis [J]. Scientometrics, 2008, 75(1): 81-95.

[26] Rons N. Partition-based Field Normalization: An Approach to Highly Specialized Publication Records[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2012, 6(1): 1-10.

[27] Cristian C, Per A. The Effects and Their Stability of Field Normalization Baseline on Relative Performance with Respect to Citation Impact: A Case Study of 20 Natural Science Departments [J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 101-113.

[28] National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators:2010[R]. Arlington,VA, USA: National Science Foundation, 2010.

[29] SCImago Research Group. SCIMago Institutions Rankings [EB/OL]. [2012-02-10].http://www.scimagoir.com/pdf/sir_2011_world_report_ni.pdf.

[30] Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University,The Netherlands. Leiden Ranking [EB/OL]. [2012-02-10]. http://www.leidenranking.com/methodology.aspx.

[31] Leydesdorff L, Bornmann L, Mutz R, et al. Turning the Tables on Citation Analysis One More Time:Principles for Comparing Sets of Documents[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(7): 1370-1381.

[32] Small H, Sweeney E. Clustering the Science Citation Index? Using Co-citations I. A Comparison of Methods [J]. Scientometrics, 1985, 7(3-6): 391-409.

[33] Zitt M, Small H. Modifying the Journal Impact Factor by Fractional Citation Weighting: The Audience Factor [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(11): 1856-1860.

[34] Zhou P, Leydesdorff L. Fractional Counting of Citations in Research Evaluation: A Cross- and Interdisciplinary Assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing [J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(3): 360-368.

[35] Leydesdorff L, Shin J C. How to Evaluate Universities in Terms of Their Relative Citation Impacts: Fractional Counting of Citations and the Normalization of Differences Among Disciplines [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(6): 1146-1155.

[36] Rousseau Ronald. 评价科研机构的文献计量学和经济计量学指标[A]. // 蒋国华. 科研评价与指标: 国际会议论文集[M]. 北京: 红旗出版社, 2000:16-37. (Rousseau Ronald. Bibliometrics and Econometric Indicators for the Evaluation of Scientific Institutes[A]. //Jiang Guohua. Scientific Research Evaluation and Indicators: Proceeding of the International Conference[M]. Beijing: Red Flag Press, 2000:16-37.)
[1] 肖学斌,柴艳菊. 论文的相关参数与被引频次的关系研究[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2016, 32(6): 46-53.
[2] 卢超, 章成志. 基于引文内容的单篇学术论文参考文献网络结构研究[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2014, 30(10): 33-41.
[3] 张素芳,宋虎. 论文引文检索与分析自动化系统的构建[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2014, 30(1): 92-96.
[4] 周群, 左文革, 陈仕吉. 基于百分位数的文献计量指标研究综述[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2013, 29(7/8): 82-88.
[5] 范云满, 马建霞. 利用LDA的领域新兴主题探测技术综述[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2012, (12): 58-65.
[6] 胡志刚, 陈超美, 刘则渊, 侯海燕. 基于XML全文数据引文分析系统的设计与实现[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2012, (11): 72-77.
[7] 陈仕吉. 科学研究前沿探测方法综述[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2009, (9): 28-33.
[8] 陈亦佳,赵星. 基于期刊引文网络视角研究国际图书馆学情报学知识交流[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2009, 25(6): 55-60.
[9] 孙涛涛,Steven A.Morris,黄亚明. 基于专利引文分析的时间线技术[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2008, 24(6): 51-55.
[10] 刘佳佳,董茗,方曙 . 国外专利分析工具的比较研究[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2007, 2(2): 67-74.
[11] 陈祖琴,郑宏 . 基于元搜索引擎的中文数据库引文分析系统[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2006, 1(11): 65-68.
[12] 万锦堃,花平寰,孙秀坤. 期刊论文被引用及其Web全文下载的文献计量分析[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2005, 21(4): 58-62.
[13] 王知津,孙美丽. 1998-2000年《现代图书情报技术》引文及影响因子分析[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2003, 19(3): 8-11.
[14] 程刚. 《现代图书情报技术》被引分析[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2001, 17(1): 33-36.
[15] 杨新涯. 《现代图书情报技术》的文献计量分析[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 1996, 12(4): 56-59.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 2015 《数据分析与知识发现》编辑部
地址:北京市海淀区中关村北四环西路33号 邮编:100190
电话/传真:(010)82626611-6626,82624938
E-mail:jishu@mail.las.ac.cn