• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Data and Information Science >Co-author Weighting in Bibliometric Methodology and Subfields of a Scientific Discipline
【24h】

Co-author Weighting in Bibliometric Methodology and Subfields of a Scientific Discipline

机译：教学计量方法的共同作者加权和科学学科的子场

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose To give a theoretical framework to measure the relative impact of bibliometric methodology on the subfields of a scientific discipline, and how that impact depends on the method of evaluation used to credit individual scientists with citations and publications. The authors include a study of the discipline of physics to illustrate the method. Indicators are introduced to measure the proportion of a credit space awarded to a subfield or a set of authors. Design/methodology/approach The theoretical methodology introduces the notion of credit spaces for a discipline. These quantify the total citation or publication credit accumulated by the scientists in the discipline. One can then examine how the credit is divided among the subfields. The design of the physics study uses the American Physical Society print journals to assign subdiscipline classifications to articles and gather citation, publication, and author information. Credit spaces for the collection of Physical Review Journal articles are computed as a proxy for physics. Findings There is a substantial difference in the value or impact of a specific subfield depending on the credit system employed to credit individual authors. Research limitations Subfield classification information is difficult to obtain. In the illustrative physics study, subfields are treated in groups designated by the Physical Review journals. While this collection of articles represents a broad part of the physics literature, it is not all the literature nor a random sample. Practical implications The method of crediting individual scientists has consequences beyond the individual and affects the perceived impact of whole subfields and institutions. Originality/value The article reveals the consequences of bibliometric methodology on subfields of a disciple by introducing a systematic theoretical framework for measuring the consequences.
机译：目的，为了提供理论框架，以衡量教学计量方法对科学学科的子场的相对影响，以及如何影响取决于用于信用具有引用和出版物的个人科学家的评估方法。作者包括对物理学学科的研究来说明方法。介绍指标以衡量授予子场或一组作者的信用空间的比例。设计/方法/方法理论方法介绍了学科信用空间的概念。这些量化科学家在学科中积累的总引文或出版信贷。然后可以检查信用率如何在子场中划分。物理学研究的设计使用美国物理社会打印期刊将分支机序分配给文章并收集引文，出版物和作者信息。用于收集物理审查期刊文章的信用空间被计算为物理学的代理。特定子场的价值或影响的结果取决于为信用个别作者的信用体系而有实质性或影响。研究限制子场分类信息很难获得。在说明性物理学研究中，子字段是由物理审查期刊指定的团体进行处理。虽然该物品的集合代表了物理文献的广泛部分，但它不是所有文献也不是随机样本。实际意义贷记个人科学家的方法已经超越了个人的后果，并影响了整个子场和机构的感知影响。原创性/价值本文通过引入测量后果的系统理论框架来揭示学者计量方法对门户的子场。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号