检索结果-南通市图书馆

A Criteria-based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science

在线全文

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

Journal of Data and Information Science 2019年第1期4卷 1-21页

作者： Dag W.Aksnes gunnar sivertsen Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation Research and Education

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the coverage of the scientific literature in Scopus and Web of Science from the perspective of research ***/methodology/approach: The academic communities of Norway have agreed on certain criteria for what should be included as original research publications in research evaluation and funding contexts. These criteria have been applied since 2004 in a comprehensive bibliographic database called the Norwegian Science Index(NSI). The relative coverages of Scopus and Web of Science are compared with regard to publication type, field of research and ***: Our results show that Scopus covers 72 percent of the total Norwegian scientific and scholarly publication output in 2015 and 2016, while the corresponding figure for Web of Science Core Collection is 69 percent. The coverages are most comprehensive in medicine and health(89 and 87 percent) and in the natural sciences and technology(85 and 84 percent). The social sciences(48 percent in Scopus and 40 percent in Web of Science Core Collection) and particularly the humanities(27 and 23 percent) are much less covered in the two international data sources. Research limitation: Comparing with data from only one country is a limitation of the study, but the criteria used to define a country's scientific output as well as the identification of patterns of field-dependent partial representations in Scopus and Web of Science should be recognizable and useful also for other countries. Originality/value: The novelty of this study is the criteria-based approach to studying coverage problems in the two data sources.

关键词： Scopus Web of Science Norwegian Science Index Research evaluation Evaluation criteria Scientific publications

Global trends in international research collaboration, 1980-2021

在线全文

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

Journal of Data and Information Science 2023年第2期8卷 26-42页

作者： Dag W.Aksnes gunnar sivertsen NIFU-Nordic Institute for studies in Innovation Research and EducationØkernveien 90653 OsloNorway

Purpose:The aim of this study is to analyze the evolution of international research collaboration from 1980 to *** study examines the main global patterns as well as those specific to individual countries,country groups,and different areas of ***/methodology/approach:The study is based on the Web of Science Core collection *** than 50 million publications are analyzed using co-authorship *** collaboration is defined as publications having authors affiliated with institutions located in more than one ***:At the global level,the share of publications representing international collaboration has gradually increased from 4.7%in 1980 to 25.7%in *** proportion of such publications within each country is higher and,in 2021,varied from less than 30%to more than 90%.There are notable disparities in the temporal trends,indicating that the process of internationalization has impacted countries in different *** factors such as country size,income level,and geopolitics may explain the *** limitations:Not all international research collaboration results in joint co-authored scientific *** co-authorship is a partial indicator of such *** limitation is that the applied full counting method does not take into account the number of authors representing in each country in the *** implications:The study provides global averages,indicators,and concepts that can provide a useful framework of reference for further comparative studies of international research ***/value:Long-term macro-level studies of international collaboration are rare,and as a novelty,this study includes an analysis by the World Bank’s division of countries into four income groups.

关键词： International collaboration Research collaboration Team science Co-authorship Internationalization Globalization

科学计量与同行评议相结合的科研评价——国际经验与启示

在线全文

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

情报学报 2020年第8期39卷 806-816页

作者：张琳 gunnar sivertsen 武汉大学信息管理学院武汉430072 Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation Research and Education(NIFU)Oslo NO-0880

科学计量和同行评议是科研评价中应用最为广泛的两种方法,无论从评价理论和应用实践而言,两种方法各有优劣,可互为补充,综合应用。本文聚焦于中国科技部和教育部的最新科研评价政策文件共同提及的“鼓励定量与定性相结合的综合评价方法... 详细信息

科学计量和同行评议是科研评价中应用最为广泛的两种方法,无论从评价理论和应用实践而言,两种方法各有优劣,可互为补充,综合应用。本文聚焦于中国科技部和教育部的最新科研评价政策文件共同提及的“鼓励定量与定性相结合的综合评价方法”,对科研评价中的科学计量和同行评议方法的国际研究现状和国际应用实践进行梳理,并结合国际经验与中国场景尝试提出针对性的实施建议。

关键词：科研评价科学计量同行评议定量评价定性评价

在线全文

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

关于开放获取出版模式转型的观察与思考

图书情报知识 2019年第4期36卷 113-121页

作者： gunnar sivertsen 孙异凡(译) 丁念(校) 北欧创新、研究和教育评价中心奥斯陆0653 武汉大学信息管理学院武汉430072

本文从科学计量学、科研政策管理以及商业出版等视角探讨了开放获取转型的发展历程、现状以及影响。研究发现采取开放获取模式的期刊呈逐年增长的趋势,但其总占比仍然较低;在欧洲兴起的'S计划'将成为向开放获取模式转型的重要推动力;AP... 详细信息

本文从科学计量学、科研政策管理以及商业出版等视角探讨了开放获取转型的发展历程、现状以及影响。研究发现采取开放获取模式的期刊呈逐年增长的趋势,但其总占比仍然较低;在欧洲兴起的'S计划'将成为向开放获取模式转型的重要推动力;APC付费模式仍是开放获取模式所面临的一个挑战;期刊的所有权将成为学术界后续关注的问题。

关键词：开放获取出版模式 S计划欧洲挪威

National Lists of Scholarly Publication Channels: An Overview and Recommendations for Their Construction and Maintenance

在线全文

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

Journal of Data and Information Science 2021年第1期6卷 50-86页

作者： Janne Pölönen Raf Guns Emanuel Kulczycki gunnar sivertsen Tim C.E.Engels Federation of Finnish Learned Societies Snellmaninkatu 1300170 HelsinkiFinland University of Antwerp Faculty of Social SciencesCentre for R&D Monitoring(ECOOM)Middelheimlaan 12020 AntwerpBelgium Adam Mickiewicz University Scholarly Communication Research GroupSzamarzewskiego 89c60-568 PoznańPoland Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation Research and Education(NIFU)P.O.Box 28150608 TøyenOsloNorway

Purpose: This paper presents an overview of different kinds of lists of scholarly publication channels and of experiences related to the construction and maintenance of national lists supporting performance-based research funding systems. It also contributes with a set of recommendations for the construction and maintenance of national lists of journals and book ***/methodology/approach: The study is based on analysis of previously published studies, policy papers, and reported experiences related to the construction and use of lists of scholarly publication channels. Findings: Several countries have systems for research funding and/or evaluation, that involve the use of national lists of scholarly publication channels(mainly journals and publishers). Typically, such lists are selective(do not include all scholarly or non-scholarly channels) and differentiated(distinguish between channels of different levels and quality). At the same time, most lists are embedded in a system that encompasses multiple or all disciplines. This raises the question how such lists can be organized and maintained to ensure that all relevant disciplines and all types of research are adequately represented. Research limitation: The conclusions and recommendations of the study are based on the authors' interpretation of a complex and sometimes controversial process with many different stakeholders *** implications: The recommendations and the related background information provided in this paper enable mutual learning that may feed into improvements in the construction and maintenance of national and other lists of scholarly publication channels in any geographical context. This may foster a development of responsible evaluation ***/value: This paper presents the first general overview and typology of different kinds of publication channel lists, provides insights on expert-based versus metrics-based evaluation, and formulates a set of recommend

关键词： Publication channel lists Research funding Scholarly communication Journal ranking

在线全文

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

关于开放获取出版模式转型的观察与思考