国际学术评价指标研究现状及发展综述被引量：65

The Research Progress and Developing Perspective of Assessment Indicators

在线阅读下载PDF

导出

摘要基于国际前沿研究进展简要评述以均值测度为标志的第一类指标、以高影响特征测度为标志的第二类指标和以整体综合测度为标志的第三类指标。在讨论三类指标各自优缺点和存在问题的同时，指出没有完美无缺的评价测度。简介了引发距、学术（表现）矩阵和学术迹等原创性指标。倡导同时用三类标志性指标进行全面测评，若所有指标的指示结果一致，则量化评价有效。 Based on international progress of informetric frontiers, it is argued that the first generation indicators focus on mean, that the second generation indicators on high impact and that the third generation indicators on overall integration. While discussing advantages and disadvantages as well as various issues of the indicators, it is pointed out that there is no perfect indicator. The citation-publication distance, performance matrix and academic trace are introduced and strengthened. It is suggested to apply all representative indicators for academic assessment. When all indicators indicate coherence, the quantitative assessment is effective.

作者叶鹰

机构地区南京大学信息管理学院

出处《情报学报》 CSSCI 北大核心 2014年第2期215-224,共10页 Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information

基金国家社会科学基金重大项目“面向学科领域的网络信息资源深度聚合与服务研究”(12&ZD221)资助

关键词学术评价评价指标影响因子 h-指数学术矩阵学术迹 academic assessment indicators impact factor h-index performance matrix academic trace

分类号 G353.1 [文化科学—情报学]

作者简介叶鹰，男，1962年生，博士，教授，南京大学信息管理学院，主要研究方向：定量信息学和图书情报学研究，E—mail：yye@-ju.edu.cn。

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献41

1Alberts B. Impact Factor Distortions[ J ]. Science, 2013, 340(6134) : 787.
2Opthof 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.
3Bornmann L. Towards an ideal method of measuring research performance: Some comments to the Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010) paper [ J ]. Journal of Informetrics,Scientometrics, 2006, 69 ( 1 ) : 131-152.
4Marchant T. Score-based bibliometric rankings of authors [ J ]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009, 60 (6) : 1132-1137.
5Waltman L, van Eck N J. The inconsistency of the h- index [ J ]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63 (2): 406-415.
6Ye F Y. H-inconsistency is not an issue in dynamical systems. ISSI Newsletter, 2012, 8 (2) : 22-24.
7Rousseau R, Ye F Y. A formal relation between the h- index of a set of articles and their I3 score [ J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2012, 6(1 ) : 34-35.
8Ye F Y, Rousseau R. Probing the h-core: An investigation of the tail-core ratio for rank distributions [J]. Scientometrics, 2010,84(2): 431- 439.
9Chen D-Z, Huang M-H, Fred Y, Ye. A probe into dynamic measures for h-core and h-tail [ J]. Journal of lnformetrics, 2013,7( 1 ) : 129-137.
10Ye F Y, Leydesdorff. The "Academic Trace" of the Performance Matrix: A Mathematical Synthesis of the h- Index and the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) [ J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, DOI: 10. lO02/asi. 23075,2013.