本文選題：Altmetric + Attention　； 參考：《中國科學(xué)技術(shù)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：學(xué)術(shù)評價(jià)工作對于提高研究水平、促進(jìn)科學(xué)發(fā)展具有重大作用。公平規(guī)范的學(xué)術(shù)評價(jià)不僅有利于學(xué)術(shù)創(chuàng)新,對科研隊(duì)伍的壯大和發(fā)展也有一定的激勵(lì)作用。目前我國常用的學(xué)術(shù)評價(jià)方法是引文分析法,引文分析法已經(jīng)衍生出了其他許多的指標(biāo)來衡量學(xué)術(shù)影響力,如期刊的影響因子,H指數(shù)、W指數(shù)等。但傳統(tǒng)學(xué)術(shù)評價(jià)方法存在著諸多弊端,如時(shí)間滯后和引用動機(jī)不明等。伴隨著Web2.0時(shí)代的到來,一方面是學(xué)術(shù)成果的形式日益豐富;另一方面學(xué)術(shù)影響力的表現(xiàn)形式也不再局限于被引用,還包括被瀏覽、討論、報(bào)道等行為。傳統(tǒng)的評價(jià)指標(biāo)已經(jīng)無法全面衡量學(xué)術(shù)成果的影響力,Altmetrics便應(yīng)運(yùn)而生。Altmetrics 一經(jīng)提出便吸引了眾多學(xué)者的研究,但大多數(shù)研究著重于Altmetrics概念和工具的介紹,實(shí)證研究不夠深入和豐富。本文選取綜合性Altmetrics指標(biāo)Altmetric Attention Score和Mendeley讀者數(shù),研究其與傳統(tǒng)引文指標(biāo)引用量之間的相關(guān)性,并探討這種相關(guān)性在學(xué)科上是否存在著差異。通過對數(shù)據(jù)集的篩選分析,本文還重點(diǎn)研究了較高Altmetric Attention Score和較高被引次數(shù)之間的關(guān)系,試圖探討較高Altmetric Attention Score的論文是否更傾向于獲得更多的被引次數(shù),來分析新型指標(biāo)對學(xué)術(shù)評價(jià)的意義。研究發(fā)現(xiàn)Altmetrics指標(biāo)和被引頻次存在著顯著的相關(guān)性,并且在學(xué)科間存在著顯著的差異。綜合性指標(biāo)Altmetric Attention Score與被引頻次的相關(guān)性較弱。高Altmetric AttentionScore和高被引次數(shù)并不存在著顯著相關(guān)關(guān)系,但在有些學(xué)科較高的Altmetric Attention Score論文更傾向于獲得較高的被引次數(shù)。基于上述研究結(jié)論,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)Altmetric Attention Score衡量的學(xué)術(shù)影響力與傳統(tǒng)指標(biāo)并不相同,未來可以根據(jù)學(xué)科的特點(diǎn),將Altmetric Attention Score與傳統(tǒng)計(jì)量指標(biāo)相結(jié)合來構(gòu)建一個(gè)全面衡量該學(xué)科學(xué)術(shù)成果的指標(biāo)體系,為學(xué)術(shù)研究和機(jī)構(gòu)提供更廣闊更具深度的視野。
[Abstract]:Academic evaluation plays an important role in improving the level of research and promoting the development of science. Fair and standardized academic evaluation is not only conducive to academic innovation, but also to the expansion and development of scientific research team. At present, the commonly used method of academic evaluation in China is citation analysis, which has derived many other indexes to measure academic influence, such as the influence factor of journals, H index and W index, and so on. However, there are many disadvantages in traditional academic evaluation methods, such as time lag and cited motives unknown. With the advent of the Web 2.0 era, on the one hand, the form of academic achievements is increasingly rich; on the other hand, the expression of academic influence is no longer limited to being cited, but also includes browsing, discussion, reporting and other behaviors. The traditional evaluation indicators have been unable to measure the impact of academic achievements. Altmetrics has come into being. Altmetrics has attracted many scholars. But most of the studies focus on the introduction of Altmetrics concepts and tools, and the empirical research is not deep and rich enough. This paper selects the comprehensive Altmetrics index Altmetric Attention score and Mendeley number of readers to study the correlation between Altmetric Attention score and the citation quantity of traditional citation index, and discusses whether there is a difference in this correlation in the subject. Through the screening analysis of data sets, the relationship between higher Altmetric Attention score and higher number of citations is also studied in this paper. The author tries to find out whether the papers with higher Altmetric Attention score are more inclined to get more citations. To analyze the significance of new indicators to academic evaluation. It is found that there is a significant correlation between Altmetrics index and citation frequency, and there are significant differences among disciplines. The correlation between Altmetric Attention score and citation frequency was weak. There is no significant correlation between high Altmetric tension score and high citation number, but in some subjects higher Altmetric Attention score papers tend to obtain higher citation times. Based on the above findings, we find that Altmetric Attention score measures academic influence differently from traditional indicators, and can be based on the characteristics of the subject in the future. Altmetric Attention score is combined with traditional measurement index to construct an index system to measure the academic achievement of this discipline in an all-round way, which provides a broader and deeper perspective for academic research and institutions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國科學(xué)技術(shù)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：G353.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙蓉英;魏明坤;汪少震;;Altmetrics的發(fā)展動態(tài)探析[J];情報(bào)科學(xué);2017年02期

2 施蓓;;論信息計(jì)量研究范式的發(fā)展[J];情報(bào)探索;2016年12期

3 孟偉花;向菲;;基于情感分析的altmetrics學(xué)術(shù)質(zhì)量評價(jià)方法研究[J];圖書情報(bào)工作;2016年11期

4 劉穎;;Altmetrics視角下圖書館的角色定位與服務(wù)策略研究[J];圖書館雜志;2015年10期

5 王賢文;方志超;王虹茵;;連續(xù)、動態(tài)和復(fù)合的單篇論文評價(jià)體系構(gòu)建研究[J];科學(xué)學(xué)與科學(xué)技術(shù)管理;2015年08期

6 楊柳;陳貢;;Altmetrics視角下科研機(jī)構(gòu)影響力評價(jià)指標(biāo)的相關(guān)性研究[J];圖書情報(bào)工作;2015年15期

7 宋麗萍;陳巍;賀穎;;論文層面科學(xué)評價(jià)實(shí)證研究——以PLoS ONE為例[J];圖書館工作與研究;2015年07期

8 劉曉娟;周建華;尤斌;;基于Mendeley與WoS的選擇性計(jì)量指標(biāo)與傳統(tǒng)科學(xué)計(jì)量指標(biāo)相關(guān)性研究[J];圖書情報(bào)工作;2015年03期

9 邱均平;張心源;董克;;Altmetrics指標(biāo)在機(jī)構(gòu)知識庫中的應(yīng)用研究[J];圖書情報(bào)工作;2015年02期

10 衛(wèi)垌圻;譚宗穎;;Altmetrics國內(nèi)外研究中的問題與挑戰(zhàn)[J];圖書情報(bào)工作;2015年02期

，

本文編號：2048933