制定國家科學多樣化戰略的方法
Elmira Janavi
Department of Scientometrics, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran
Mohammad Javad Mansourzadeh
School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Mojgan Samandar Ali Eshtehardi
Faculty of Economics of Science, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran
Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific system is a concern of scientific policymakers in each country. This research aimed to present a methodology to detect the strong and weak points of science in various countries by adopting the method of economic complexity. Subsequently, the formulation mode of scientific diversification strategies of different countries is introduced using the complexity approach. In this method, first the scientific diversity of each country and the ubiquity of scientific domains are calculated, and the fitness of the countries and the scientific complexity of the domains are accordingly estimated. Subsequently, the scientific domains creating the highest level of complexity, the least distance from the country and the most opportunity gain for that country are introduced as scientific productivity and strategy border of the country to diversify the scientific system of the country. Moreover, the strengths and weaknesses as well as diversification strategies of the Iranian scientific system have been presented as a case study. The findings showed that the scientific domains that emerge as the efficiency frontier of scientific capabilities can be used by countries』 policymakers for scientific diversification.
（李龍飛 譯）確定科學體系的優缺點是每個國家的科學政策制定者所關心的問題。本研究旨在通過採用經濟複雜性的方法，提出一種檢測各國科學強弱點的方法。隨後，利用複雜性方法介紹了不同國家科學多元化戰略的制定模式。在該方法中，首先計算出各國的科學多樣性和科學領域的普遍性，並據此估算出各國的適用性和科學領域的複雜性。隨後，將複雜程度最高、與國家距離最小、對國家機會收益最大的科學領域作為國家的科學生產力和戰略邊界引入，以實現國家科學體系的多樣化。此外，伊朗科學體系的優勢和弱點以及多樣化戰略被作為案例研究提出。研究結果表明，作為科學能力效率前沿的科學領域可以被各國決策者用來實現科學多樣化。
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03685-1
Investigating the journal impact along the columns and rows of the publication-citation matrix沿著出版物-引文矩陣的列和行調查期刊的影響
Hui Fang
State Key Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry for Life Science, School of Electronic Science and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China
Journal impact factors and diachronic journal impact factors are currently calculated with the data along the rows and columns of the publication-citation matrix of a journal, respectively. The average publication-citation matrix can be obtained by dividing the elements of the publication-citation matrix by the number of papers published by a journal in a given year. Along the rows and columns of the publication-citation matrix, we found that journals in the same subject category can have quite different citation patterns. In particular, some journals have a prolonged impact. To effectively reflect the impact of individual journals with different citation patterns on the scientific community, we propose an integral synchronic journal impact factor that combines the features of the existing journal impact factors and diachronic journal impact factors. This approach utilizes the data along the rows of the publication-citation matrix and the average citations among the papers published in individual years. The length of the citation window can be flexibly set to balance accuracy and timeliness based on citations. Modifications of the proposed indicator considering normalization, the importance of citation sources and a geometric averaging mechanism are provided.
（李龍飛 譯）目前，期刊影響因子和雙月刊影響因子分別是以期刊的出版引文矩陣的行和列沿數據計算的。將發表引文矩陣的各元素除以某期刊在某年發表的論文數，即可得到平均發表引文矩陣。沿著發表引文矩陣的行和列，我們發現，同一學科類別的期刊可以有完全不同的引文模式。特別是一些期刊的影響時間較長。為了有效地反映個別具有不同引文模式的期刊對科學界的影響，我們結合現有期刊影響因子和雙時期刊影響因子的特點，提出了積分同步期刊影響因子。該方法利用出版物-引文矩陣的沿行數據和各個年份發表論文的平均引文量。引文窗口的長度可以根據引文量靈活設置，以平衡準確性和及時性。考慮到規範化、引文來源的重要性和幾何平均機制，對擬議指標進行了修改。
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03715-y
An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research基於熵的h指數演化的測量方法研究
Deming Lin
WISE Lab, Institute of Science Studies and S&T Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116023, China
Tianhui Gong ，Wenbin Liu
Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7PE, UK
Martin Meyer
Business School, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 5UA,
The h index has been comprehensively developed and diffusely applied following its initial proposal in 2005 by Jorge Hirsch. However, while the numbers of papers and authors measured continue to grow, it is not known whether such increases in quantity mean that the research itself is advancing. Accordingly, the present study sets out to establish an analysis method, based on the concept of entropy, with which to elucidate the evolution of the h index. The results suggest that there are four stages, as follows: the emerging stage, the preliminary growth stage, the real growth stage, and the maturity stage. Meanwhile, the research of the h index is found to be in flux, and it is concluded that further development of the metric will require profound theoretical achievements as well as embedded innovation, or else the evolution of the h index will decline following a shortened maturity stage.
（馬超 譯）h指數在2005年由Jorge Hirsch首次提出後，得到了全面發展和推廣應用。然而，雖然被測算的論文和作者的數量不斷增加，但這種數量的增加是否意味著研究本身的進步尚不得而知。因此，本研究著手建立一種基於熵概念的分析方法，並以此來闡明h指數的演變過程。結果表明，可分為以下四個階段：新興階段、初步成長階段、實際成長階段和成熟階段。同時，發現h指數的研究是在不斷變化的，認為該指標的進一步發展需要深刻的理論成果以及嵌入式創新，否則h指數的演化將在成熟階段縮短後下降。
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03712-1
A bibliometric measure of translational science
轉化科學的文獻計量措施
Yeon Hak Kim
Ministry of Science and ICT, Sejong, Republic of Korea
Aaron D. Levine，Eric J. Nehl ，John P. Walsh
School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
Science funders are increasingly requiring evidence of the broader impacts of even basic research. Initiatives such as NIH’s CTSA program are designed to shift the research focus toward more translational research. However, tracking the effectiveness of such programs depends on developing indicators that can track the degree to which basic research is influencing clinical research. We propose a new bibliometric indicator, the TS score, that is relatively simple to calculate, can be implemented at scale, is easy to replicate, and has good reliability and validity properties. This indicator is broadly applicable in settings where the goal is to estimate the degree to which basic research is used in more applied downstream research, relative to use in basic research. The TS score should be of use for a variety of policy analysis and research evaluation purposes.
（馬超 譯）科學資助者越來越多地要求提供證據，證明即使是基礎研究也會產生更廣泛的影響。NIH 的 CTSA 計劃等舉措旨在將研究重點轉向更多的轉化研究。然而，跟蹤此類計劃的有效性取決於開發能夠跟蹤基礎研究對臨床研究影響程度的指標。我們提出了一個新的文獻計量學指標--TS評分，該指標計算相對簡單，可以大規模實施，易於複製，並且具有良好的可靠性和有效性。該指標廣泛適用於旨在估計基礎研究相對於基礎研究的使用情況，在更多的下遊應用研究中的使用程度的場合。TS得分應可用於各種政策分析和研究評估目的。
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03668-2
Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention基於引用行為和社交媒體關注度評估開放獲取圖書的學術影響與社會影響之間的關係
Mingkun Wei
School of Management, Hebei University, Baoding, 071002, Hebei, People’s Republic of China
Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli
Department of Information Science and Knowledge Studies and Scientometrics, Faculty of Humanities Sciences, Shahed University, Persian Gulf Highway, 3319118651, Tehran, Iran
Open access academic achievements include not only papers and journals, but also books, which have become an important achievement for scholars and can be regarded as scholarly critical products. Until recently, books have had a key role in the distribution of knowledge and the main issue is which category of open or non-open access books is more effective in academic society. Thus, this study compares the difference between open access and non-open access books in terms of knowledge distribution. We collected and analyzed data from Twitter, Mendeley, and Dimensions platform, as well as the dataset of all Springer books. Twitter and Mendeley are considered alternative metric indicators, which reflect impacts with citation indicators. Data were analyzed from static and comparative perspectives. Results showed a relationship between academic impact and social impact based on citation and social media attention for OA books, and indicated that open access books boost knowledge distribution in Twitter and Mendeley for the sample of books drawn from Springer under study. Moreover, the open access books have the added advantage of keeping sustained impact for a long time. It is sensible to assess the impact of OA books through knowledge distribution. However, there is no significant correlation between citation and social media attention regarding OA books and also the social and academic impact of books in some disciplines such as Geography, Medicine, and Public Health, Culture, and Media Studies attract more social media attention. According to the analysis, the correlation with citations for the number of mentions on social media is negligible, which indicates that social media measures bear different impacts from citations. However, social impact is similar to the complementary measures which should be considered within the impact evaluation of OA books. Therefore, only when OA books are accessed through the channels of communication can the knowledge contained in books be absorbed to generate impact, and lowering the access barrier does lead to more attention found for OA research papers. The findings demonstrated that the OA books and OA papers do not have similar impacts on the citation. Also, OA books could not attract more citations than non-OA books in some disciplines, which is why open access books have a significant impact on social media attention.
（石若琪 譯）開放獲取（OA）的學術成果不僅包括論文和期刊，還包括書籍，它們已經成為學者的重要成果，且可以看作是重要學術成果。直到最近，書籍在知識的傳播中仍起著關鍵的作用，但主要的問題是，在學術界中哪一類開放或非開放獲取的書籍更有效。因此，本研究比較了開放存取與非開放存取圖書在知識分布上的差異。我們收集並分析了來自Twitter、Mendeley和Dimensions平臺的數據，以及所有Springer書籍的數據集。Twitter和Mendeley被認為是替代計量指標，反映了引用指標的影響。數據從靜態和比較的角度進行分析。研究結果顯示，OA書籍的學術影響與社會影響之間存在著基於引文和社交媒體關注度的關係，並表明開放獲取書籍促進了Twitter和Mendeley中的知識分布。此外，開放獲取圖書還有一個額外的優勢，就是能夠長期保持持續的影響力。通過知識分布來評估OA書籍的影響是明智的。然而，OA書籍的引用與社交媒體關注度之間沒有顯著相關性，地理、醫學、公共衛生、文化和媒體研究等學科書籍的社會和學術影響也吸引了更多的社交媒體關注。根據分析，社交媒體上的提及次數與引文的相關性可以忽略不計，這表明社交媒體度量與引文具有不同的影響。然而，社會影響類似於OA書籍影響評估中應考慮的補充度量。因此，只有通過交流渠道獲取OA書籍，才能吸收書籍中所包含的知識，產生影響。降低訪問壁壘確實會引起OA研究論文更多的關注。研究結果表明，OA書籍和OA論文對引文沒有類似的影響。此外，在某些學科中，OA書籍不能比非OA書籍吸引更多的引用，這就是為什麼開放獲取書籍對社交媒體的關注有重大影響。
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03678-0
Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country不同領域和國家的最高被引科學家學術表現的性別差異
Ho Fai Chan ，Benno Torgler
School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
In this descriptive study, we aim to show the potential gender differences in academic success, focusing on the top (i.e., most frequently cited) scientists by analyzing the work of more than 94,000 scientists in 21 fields across 43 countries. Our results indicate that female representation in the top tier of scientists strongly varies between countries (11.83%; s.d. = 0.046), with the highest proportion of top women scientists in Finland (20.45%) and the lowest in Saudi Arabia (2.08%). Compared with the total share of females in science, women are underrepresented among the top (i.e., most frequently cited) scholars by 28.52 percentage points. The proportions differ by disciplines, with top women authors best represented in Public Health and Services (36.1%), Communication and Textual Studies (33.7%), Psychology and Cognitive Science (27.5%), and Social Sciences (23%); while the lowest share of women scientists are found in Mathematics and Statistics (6.3%), Engineering (7.2%), and Physics and Astronomy (7.7%). However, despite the low female representation, top women scholars in those three fields conduct (on average) more impactful research than their male colleagues, which is contrary to most other research fields. We also show that female scientific success is positively correlated with a nation’s higher gender equity indicators, lower discriminatory values, and less negative attitudes and preferences towards women. Overall, our findings suggest that scientific fields are still struggling with gender inequality that pervades public life.
（石若琪 譯）在這項描述性研究中，我們旨在通過分析43個國家21個領域94000多名科學家的工作，展示學術成就中潛在的性別差異，重點是頂尖（即最常被引用的）科學家。我們的研究結果表明，女性在頂級科學家中的比例在不同國家之間存在很大差異（11.83%；s.d. = 0.046），其中芬蘭的頂級女性科學家比例最高（20.45%），沙烏地阿拉伯最低（2.08%）。與女性在科學領域的總份額相比，女性在頂尖（即最常被引用的）學者中的代表性不足28.52個百分點。各學科的比例各不相同，頂尖女性作者在公共衛生和服務（36.1%）、傳播和文本研究（33.7%）、心理學和認知科學（27.5%）以及社會科學（23%）中的比例最高；而數學和統計學（6.3%）、工程學（7.2%）中的比例最低，物理學和天文學（7.7%）。然而，儘管女性代表性較低，但這三個領域的頂尖女性學者進行的研究（平均）比她們的男性同事更有影響力，這與大多數其他研究領域相反。我們還發現，女性的科學成就與一個國家較高的性別平等指標、較低的歧視性價值觀以及較少的對女性的負面態度和偏好正相關。總的來說，我們的研究結果表明，科學領域仍在與廣泛存在於公共生活中的性別不平等作鬥爭。
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03733-w
Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE除了提前檢測影響外，其他的衡量標準可以作為撤稿的早期預警信號：對被PLoS ONE撤稿的論文進行研究的初步結果
Sergio Copiello
Department of Architecture, IUAV University of Venice, Dorsoduro 2206, 30123, Venice, Italy
The so-called altmetrics—short for alternative metrics—have gained their place in the scholarly publishing landscape, especially providing article-level complementary measures. But what do they point to? A hypothesis has found its way into the recent literature: they could be an early sign of impact, conveying in advance the information carried later by citations. Here the focus is on another possible relationship, namely, the one that may exist between alternative metrics and retractions. The research question is as follows: in comparison to non-retracted, contemporary publications, are the retracted articles likely to be more (or less) viewed and commented (but also «tweeted» and «blogged») before the retraction takes place? The above relationship is tested on a set of n = 209 papers retracted by PLoS ONE and a control group including 2n = 418 contemporary, non-retracted articles featured in the same journal. Significant and positive differences in means are found concerning the mentions in peer review sites and the number of views and downloads. On the whole, by considering five alternative metrics, about one-fourth of the retractions are predicted correctly.
（李佳桐 譯）所謂的altmetrics--即替代計量指標的簡稱--已經在學術出版領域佔據了一席之地，尤其是提供了文章層面的補充措施。但它們指向的是什麼呢？最近的文獻中發現了一個假說：它們可能是影響的早期標誌，提前傳達了後來由引文攜帶的信息。這裡的重點是另一種可能的關係，即替代計量指標與撤稿之間可能存在的關係。研究問題如下：與未被撤稿的當代出版物相比，被撤稿的文章是否可能在撤稿前被更多（或更少）瀏覽和評論（也包括 "推特 "和 "博客"）？上述關係是在一組n = 209篇被PLoS ONE撤稿的論文和一組包括2n = 418篇在同一期刊上刊登的當代非撤稿文章的對照組上測試的。在同行評議網站的提及率、瀏覽量和下載量方面發現了顯著的正向差異。總的來說，通過考慮五種可供選擇的指標，約有四分之一的撤稿被正確預測。
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03698-w
The relationship between highly-cited papers and the frequency of citations to other papers within-issue among three top information science journals三大信息科學期刊中高被引論文與期刊內其他論文被引頻次的關係
Brady D. Lund
Emporia State University, 1 Kellogg Circle, 66801, Emporia, KS, USA
Sanjay Kumar Maurya
Mizoram University, Aizawl, India
This study investigates a potential relationship between highly-cited scholarly papers and the number of citations received by other papers with which they share a journal issue. Citations received by 3675 articles across 484 issues published in three top information science journals are analyzed based on the condition of whether an article was published in an issue that includes a 「highly-cited」 paper (two standard deviations above mean number by year). The findings indicate a statistically significant effect of highly-cited papers and citations to other papers in the same journal issue. This finding is relevant to authors and publishers when considering the structure of publications with an 「issue」 format.
（李佳桐 譯）本研究調查了高被引學術論文與與其共刊的其他論文所獲引文數量之間的潛在關係。根據文章是否發表在包含 "高被引 "論文的期刊上的條件（按年份劃分，高於平均數兩個標準差），對三家頂級信息科學期刊上發表的484期3675篇文章所收到的引文進行分析。研究結果表明，高被引論文和同一期期刊中其他論文的引用有統計學上的顯著影響。這一發現對作者和出版商在考慮採用 "期刊 "形式的出版物結構時很有意義。
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03720-1
An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences人文和社會科學領域開放存取圖書的計量關注優勢
Michael Taylor
Digital Science, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK
The last decade has seen two significant phenomena emerge in research communication: the rise of open access (OA) publishing, and the easy availability of evidence of online sharing in the form of altmetrics. There has been limited examination of the effect of OA on online sharing for journal articles, and little for books. This paper examines the altmetrics of a set of 32,222 books (of which 5% are OA) and a set of 220,527 chapters (of which 7% are OA) indexed by the scholarly database Dimensions in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Both OA books and chapters have significantly higher use on social networks, higher coverage in the mass media and blogs, and evidence of higher rates of social impact in policy documents. OA chapters have higher rates of coverage on Wikipedia than their non-OA equivalents, and are more likely to be shared on Mendeley. Even within the Humanities and Social Sciences, disciplinary differences in altmetric activity are evident. The effect is confirmed for chapters, although sampling issues prevent the strong conclusion that OA facilitates extra attention at the whole book level, the apparent OA altmetrics advantage suggests that the move towards OA is increasing social sharing and broader impact.
（王玥 譯）過去十年，研究傳播領域出現了兩個重要現象：開放存取(OA)出版的興起，以及以替代計量形式的在線共享證據的容易獲得。關於OA對期刊文章在線分享的影響的研究有限，而對書籍的研究則很少。本文研究了學術資料庫Dimensions 在人文社科索引的一組32222本書（其中5%為OA）和一組220527章（其中7%為OA）的替代計量數據。OA書籍和章節在社交網絡上的使用率明顯較高，在大眾媒體和博客中的覆蓋率較高，政策文件的社會影響率也較高。OA章節在維基百科上的覆蓋率高於非OA章節，並且更容易在Mendeley上被分享。即使在人文社科領域，altmetric活躍度的學科差異也很明顯。這種效應在章節上得到了證實，雖然抽樣問題使得無法得出OA有利於在整本書層面獲得額外關注的有力結論，但明顯的OA替代計量優勢表明，向OA的發展正在增加社會分享和更廣泛的影響。
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03735-8
Evolution of research topics in LIS between 1996 and 2019: an analysis based on latent Dirichlet allocation topic model
1996年至2019年LIS研究主題的演變：基於LDA主題模型的分析
Xiaoyao Han
School of Library and Information Science, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
This study investigated the evolution of library and information science (LIS) by analyzing research topics in LIS journal articles. The analysis is divided into five periods covering the years 1996–2019. Latent Dirichlet allocation modeling was used to identify underlying topics based on 14,035 documents. An improved data-selection method was devised in order to generate a dynamic journal list that included influential journals for each period. Results indicate that (a) library science has become less prevalent over time, as there are no top topic clusters relevant to library issues since the period 2000–2005; (b) bibliometrics, especially citation analysis, is highly stable across periods, as reflected by the stable subclusters and consistent keywords; and (c) information retrieval has consistently been the dominant domain with interests gradually shifting to model-based text processing. Information seeking and behavior is also a stable field that tends to be dispersed among various topics rather than presented as its own subject. Information systems and organizational activities have been continuously discussed and have developed a closer relationship with e-commerce. Topics that occurred only once have undergone a change of technological context from the networks and Internet to social media and mobile applications.
（俞鑫韻 譯）本研究通過分析LIS期刊文章中的研究主題，研究了圖書館和信息科學（LIS）的發展。該分析涵蓋了1996-2019年的五個階段。LDA模型用於識別14,035個文檔的基本主題。本研究設計了一種改進的數據選擇方法以生成一個動態日記帳列表，包括了每個階段有影響力的期刊。結果表明：（a）隨著時間的流逝，圖書館學已不再流行，因為自2000年至2005年以來，沒有與圖書館問題相關的熱門話題；（b）文獻計量學，尤其是引文分析，在各個時期都非常穩定，這反映在穩定的子類和一致的關鍵字上；（c）信息檢索一直是主要領域，其興趣逐漸轉向基於模型的文本處理。信息搜尋和信息行為也是一個穩定的領域，傾向於分散在各個主題之間，而不是作為獨立的主題來呈現。信息系統和組織活動一直被不斷討論，並且已經與電子商務建立了更緊密的關係。僅出現過一次的主題經歷了從網絡和Internet到社交媒體和行動應用程式的技術環境變化。
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03721-0
本文內容來自《SCIENTOMETRICS》。