اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدThe Effects of Research Level and Article Type on the Differences between Citation Metrics and F1000 Recommendations
132
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
F1000 recommendations have been validated as a potential data source for research evaluation, but reasons for differences between F1000 Article Factor (FFa scores) and citations remain to be explored. By linking 28254 publications in F1000 to citations in Scopus, we investigated the effect of research level and article type on the internal consistency of assessments based on citations and FFa scores. It turns out that research level has little impact, while article type has big effect on the differences. These two measures are significantly different for two groups: non-primary research or evidence-based research publications are more highly cited rather than highly recommended, however, translational research or transformative research publications are more highly recommended by faculty members but gather relatively lower citations. This can be expected because citation activities are usually practiced by academic authors while the potential for scientific revolutions and the suitability for clinical practice of an article should be investigated from the practitioners points of view. We conclude with a policy relevant recommendation that the application of bibliometric approaches in research evaluation procedures should include the proportion of three types of publications: evidence-based research, transformative research, and translational research. The latter two types are more suitable to be assessed through peer review.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Computing such correlation coefficient would be straightforward had we had available the rankings given by the prize committee to all scientists in the pool. In reality we only have citation rankings for all scientists. This means, however, that we h
ave the ordinal rankings of the prize winners with regard to citation metrics. I use maximum likelihood method to infer the most probable correlation coefficient to produce the observed pattern of ordinal ranks of the prize winners. I get the correlation coefficients of 0.47 and 0.59 between the composite citation indicator and getting Abel Prize and Fields Medal, respectively. The correlation coefficient between getting a Nobel Prize and the Q-factor is 0.65. These coefficients are of the same magnitude as the correlation coefficient between Elo ratings of the chess players and their popularity measured as numbers of webpages mentioning the players.
In order to better understand the effect of social media in the dissemination of scholarly articles, employing the daily updated referral data of 110 PeerJ articles collected over a period of 345 days, we analyze the relationship between social media
attention and article visitors directed by social media. Our results show that social media presence of PeerJ articles is high. About 68.18% of the papers receive at least one tweet from Twitter accounts other than @PeerJ, the official account of the journal. Social media attention increases the dissemination of scholarly articles. Altmetrics could not only act as the complement of traditional citation measures but also play an important role in increasing the article downloads and promoting the impacts of scholarly articles. There also exists a significant correlation among the online attention from different social media platforms. Articles with more Facebook shares tend to get more tweets. The temporal trends show that social attention comes immediately following publication but does not last long, so do the social media directed article views.
Accessibility research sits at the junction of several disciplines, drawing influence from HCI, disability studies, psychology, education, and more. To characterize the influences and extensions of accessibility research, we undertake a study of cita
tion trends for accessibility and related HCI communities. We assess the diversity of venues and fields of study represented among the referenced and citing papers of 836 accessibility research papers from ASSETS and CHI, finding that though publications in computer science dominate these citation relationships, the relative proportion of citations from papers on psychology and medicine has grown over time. Though ASSETS is a more niche venue than CHI in terms of citational diversity, both conferences display standard levels of diversity among their incoming and outgoing citations when analyzed in the context of 53K papers from 13 accessibility and HCI conference venues.
In research policy, effective measures that lead to improvements in the generation of knowledge must be based on reliable methods of research assessment, but for many countries and institutions this is not the case. Publication and citation analyses
can be used to estimate the part played by countries and institutions in the global progress of knowledge, but a concrete method of estimation is far from evident. The challenge arises because publications that report real progress of knowledge form an extremely low proportion of all publications; in most countries and institutions such contributions appear less than once per year. One way to overcome this difficulty is to calculate probabilities instead of counting the rare events on which scientific progress is based. This study reviews and summarizes several recent publications, and adds new results that demonstrate that the citation distribution of normal publications allows the probability of the infrequent events that support the progress of knowledge to be calculated.
Researchers affiliated with multiple institutions are increasingly seen in current scientific environment. In this paper we systematically analyze the multi-affiliated authorship and its effect on citation impact, with focus on the scientific output
of research collaboration. By considering the nationality of each institutions, we further differentiate the national multi-affiliated authorship and international multi-affiliated authorship and reveal their different patterns across disciplines and countries. We observe a large share of publications with multi-affiliated authorship (45.6%) in research collaboration, with a larger share of publications containing national multi-affiliated authorship in medicine related and biology related disciplines, and a larger share of publications containing international type in Space Science, Physics and Geosciences. To a country-based view, we distinguish between domestic and foreign multi-affiliated authorship to a specific country. Taking G7 and BRICS countries as samples from different S&T level, we find that the domestic national multi-affiliated authorship relate to more on citation impact for most disciplines of G7 countries, while domestic international multi-affiliated authorships are more positively influential for most BRICS countries.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
