论全面实施大学生毕业论文及科技论文标准化

全面实施大学生论文及各种科技论文的标准化,是推行大学生素质教育及进一步提高我国科教工作者科学素质的非常必要的措施之一,具有紧迫性。然而,ＧＢ７７１３ － ８７《科学技术报告、学位论文和学术论文的编写格式》已颁布１４ 年,由于宣贯不力,科教界许多相关人员仍不甚了解或未完全执行。以致国内大学生毕业论文质量普遍堪忧：很不注重前置、附录及结尾部分;用纸规格不规范;封面太随意;无题名页;忽视插图和附表清单及符号等的注释表、文后索引等;文中图表及参考文献标注混乱;摘要及结论部分的撰写几乎都不符合标准规定。期刊论文也有类似问题。呼吁国家主管部门制定细则,统一、强制推行该标准。     

The declining scientific wealth of Hong Kong and Singapore

Scientometrics - At a time when the knowledge race is at its most intense, the scientific wealth of nations is increasingly relevant to ensure the preparedness and competitiveness of societies in a...     

The impact of geographical bias when judging scientific studies

Scientometrics - The beauty of science lies within its core assumption that it seeks to identify the truth, and as such, the truth stands alone and does not depend on the person who proclaims it....     

The impact of electronic theses and dissertations: a study of the institutional repository of a university in South Africa

This paper investigates the academic and societal impacts of the engineering electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) at the North-West University. The citation counts obtained through Google Scholar (GS) and the altmetrics data obtained from Dspace on the North-West University institutional repository are used to determine these impacts. Further, the conversion rates of ETDs from an educational output into an academic research output are determined using data from GS and the North-West University institutional repository. The results show that the 612 theses and dissertations attracted 931 citations which translates to 1.52 citations per thesis on average. A total of 41.2% theses and dissertations received at least one citation and the conversion rate into academic research output was 16.8%. The conversion rates in the last 3 years that are part of this research is 27.3% which suggests an improvement. An average of 323 PDF views were received per thesis. The citation and PDF views data show that the Engineering ETDs have commendable academic and societal impacts. Nonetheless, the academic impacts show scant correlation with the societal impacts although some positive trends are noticeable when looking at the origin of PDF views and citations by country.     

University institutional repositories: competitive environment and their role as communication media of scientific knowledge

Are institutional repositories mere warehouses for digital documents or are they in fact establishing themselves as a rigorous option for the spread of scientific knowledge? This study analyses the competitive environment of the Top100 university repositories, defined as leaders in terms of market participation and penetration. The study also analyses the basic functionalities of preservation and diffusion of academic production through factors related to the prestige of the repositories and of the institutions that operate them. The results show that repositories with a larger digital academic supply are associated with the production of demonstrated scientific rigor.     

The evaluation of scientific production: Towards a neutral impact factor

Measurement of research activity still remains a controversial question. The use of the impact factor from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) is quite widespread nowadays to carry out evaluations of all kinds; however, the calculation formula employed by ISI in order to construct its impact factors biases the results in favour of knowledge fields which are better represented in the sample, cite more in average and whose citations are concentrated in the early years of the articles. In the present work, we put forward a theoretical proposal regarding how aggregated normalization should be carried out with these biases, which allows comparing scientific production between fields, institutions and/or authors in a neutral manner. The technical complexity of such work, together with data limitations, lead us to propose some adjustments on the impact factor proposed by ISI which — although they do not completely solve the problem — reduce it and allow glimpsing the path towards more neutral evaluations. The proposal is empirically applied to three analysis levels: single journals, knowledge fields and the set of journals from the Journal Citation Report.     

A new family of scientific impact measures: The generalized Kosmulski-indices

This article introduces the generalized Kosmulski-indices as a new family of scientific impact measures for ranking the output of scientific researchers. As special cases, this family contains the well-known Hirsch-index h and the Kosmulski-index h ⁽²⁾. The main contribution is an axiomatic characterization that characterizes every generalized Kosmulski-index in terms of three axioms.     

The catalytic nature of science: Implications for scientific problem solving in the 21st century

This paper discusses key elements of scientific problem solving from a cognitive perspective in an effort to help scientists and engineers understand and manage their problem solving efforts more effectively. Toward this end, the Adaption–Innovation (A–I) theory of Kirton is reviewed and placed into the context of science in order to highlight its potential contributions and possible limitations. In particular, A–I theory is used to help explain different preferences for managing scientific structure, the need for a diversity of cognitive styles in scientific work, and the relationship between scientific progress and the paradox of structure. Directions for future research in this area and comments on the special implications of A–I theory for senior scientists and other technical problem solving leaders are also discussed.     

The editorial policies of scientific journals: Testing an impact factor model

There is an evident need for the most scrupulous assessment possibleof the fruits of research (in the context considered here; namely, publications)with a qualitative, hence in-depth analysis of the single products of . Butthis would require time and competences which not all policy makers have attheir disposal. Hopefully, quantitative procedures, apparently objective andeasy to apply, would be able to surmount these difficulties. The diffusionof the quantitative evaluation of research is, that is, the policy makers'adaptive response to the need to increase controls of the efficiency of publicspending in since public investment clearly could not be determined at theoutset on the basis of the market's spontaneous, decentralised balancingmechanisms. An essential step towards the prevention of the distortions mostlikely to result from quantitative evaluation is the adoption of quantitativeprocedures of evaluation of the editorial policies of scientific journals– or, rather, of journals which claim to be scientific. Such proceduresmust be designed to highlight any distortions caused by the non-optimal editorialpolicies of journals. With quantitative evaluation, in fact, journals playa crucial role in the formation of public science policies. They thus haveto be subjected to specific monitoring to make sure that their conduct fitsin with the prerequisites necessary for them to perform their semi-officialactivity as certifiers of the quality of the products of research. The phenomenaof the production, divulgation and fruition of scientific discovery are, ofcourse, so complex that it is necessary to weigh them not with a single indicator,however helpful it may be, but with a constellation of indicators. We receivedconfirmation of the reliability of the impact factor as an instrument to monitorthe quality of research and as a means of evaluating the research itself.This is a reassuring result for the current formulation of public policiesand confirms the substantial honesty of the competition mechanisms of thescientific enterprise. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The comparative impact of scientific publications and journals: Methods of measurement and graphical display

A method is presented to display the comparative impact of scientific publications relative to their environment (e.g., journals). Furthermore, the method gives a new approach to the establishment of a journal's impact as measured by received citations. Moreover, in this impact measurement a differentiation between various types of publications (editorials and letters, normal papers, reviews, etc.) can be made. It is argued that the method presented is more useful for library and research evaluation policies than the ISI impact factor.     

分布式本体库存储模型的设计与优化

针对如何高效地构建用于语义交互的分布式本体库展开了研究。首先,分析了基于本体的语义交互平台的通用体系结构,进而明确分布式本体库在平台中的作用,提出了一种分布式本体库存储模型。围绕该模型,详细讨论了网络本体库与本地本体库的映射方法,语义数据的编码方法,然后详细分析了该模型中指令分发和数据演化组件的工作机制,最后通过实验验证了:在集群存储模式下,对于大数据量查询,网络数据传输对查询时间开销的影响远远小于查询本身,从而为分布式本体库存储效率的优化奠定了基础,即在本体库中采用分布式集群存储可以达到优化检索效率的目的。该存储模型已经在STASIS平台中得到应用。     

Dominance dimension: a common parametric formulation for integer-valued scientific impact indices

We introduce the dominance dimension principle and the parameterized family of criteria for the assessment of publication/citation profiles it generates. We show that by a suitable choice of parameters dominance dimension may specialize to the most widely known and used of those impact scores for the scientific output of authors which disallow endogenous reputation effects, including the Durfee- or h-number, the publication number and the citation number.     

Evaluating scientific impact of publications: combining citation polarity and purpose

Citation counts are commonly used to evaluate the scientific impact of a publication on the general premise that more citations probably mean more endorsements. However, two questionable assumptions underpin this idea: a) that all authors contributed equally to the paper; and b) that the endorsement is positive. Obviously, neither of these assumptions hold true. Hence, with this study, we examine two components of citations—their purpose, i.e., the reason for the citation, and polarity, being the author’s attitude toward the cited work. Our findings provide a new perspective on the scientific impact of highly-cited publications. Our methodology consists of three steps. Firstly, a pre-trained model composed of a Word2Vec—a well-known word embedding approach—and a convolutional neural network (CNN) is used to identify citation polarity and purpose. Secondly, in a set of highly-cited papers, we compare eight categories of purpose from foundational to critical and three categories of polarity: positive, negative, and neutral. We further explore how different types of papers—those discussing discoveries or those discussing utilitarian topics—influence the evaluation of scientific impact of papers. Finally, we mine and discover the knowledge (e.g. method, concept, tool or data) to explain the actual scientific impact of a highly-cited paper. To demonstrate how combining citation polarity with purpose can provide far greater details of a paper’s scientific impact, we undertake a case study with 370 highly-cited journal articles spanning “Biochemistry & Molecular Biology” and “Genetics & Heredity”. The results yield valuable insights into the assumption about citation counts as a metric for evaluating scientific impact.

     

Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies

Several research studies and reports on national and European science and technology indicators have recently presented figures reflecting intensifying scientific collaboration and increasing citation impact in practically all science areas and at all levels of aggregation. The main objective of this paper is twofold, namely first to analyse if the number or weight of actors in scientific communication has increased, if patterns of documented scientific communication and collaboration have changed in the last two decades and if these tendencies have inflationary features. The second question is concerned with the role of scientific collaboration in this context. In particular, the question will be answered to what extent co-authorship and publication activity, on one hand, and co-authorship and citation impact, on the other hand, do interact. The answers found to these questions have strong implication for the application of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation, moreover, the construction of indicators applied to trend analyses and studies based on medium-term or long-term observations have to be reconsidered to guarantee the validity of conclusions drawn from bibliometric results. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Indicators for measuring the impact of scientific citations in patents

Scientific publications cited in patents are fundamental elements to assess the transfer of science to technology. Numerous studies evaluate the impact of references in patents and scientific publications and various measurement methods and indicators are proposed. This article reviewed the existing literature on the indicators used to date to determine their suitability and effectiveness to evaluate the impact of patent citations. For this purpose, we analyzed the characteristics of the studies examined and proposed a qualitative classification of indicators from both a technological (patents) and scientific-academic (scientific articles) perspective. Among the results we find that the use of scientometric indicators is primarily focused on analyzing their relevance for patents through the inclusion of scientific citations. Conversely, the same is not true from the academic point of view where gaps still persist in terms of what the impact is when scientific articles are cited in patents. Among the key conclusions is the diversity of proposals to measure scientific citations in patents, though these are conditioned on bibliographic standardization and metadata management of the patents themselves, making it possible to quantify aspects similar to the immediacy index, impact index, or h-index for authors/inventors, albeit from a technological dimension.     

The link between ethnic diversity and scientific impact: the mediating effect of novelty and audience diversity

Scientometrics - Understanding the nature and value of scientific collaboration is essential for sound management and proactive research policies. One component of collaboration is the composition...     

The self-cited rate of scientific journals and the manipulation of their impact factors

Owing to some discussions about manipulating impact factor by requesting authors to increase their citations to the publication journal, we theoretically establish a mathematical expression of a relation between the journal self-citation rate and its impact factor by the single-factor method in this paper. Based on self-citation data of some journals in JCR and the observed relation between journal impact factor and the self-cited rate, we analyze the possibility that journal editors manipulate impact factors of their journals by raising the self-cited rate. Finally, we make some suggestions for supervising this crude way of active manipulating the impact factor.     

The scientific impact and partner selection in collaborative research at Korean universities

This study seeks to bridge the gap between scientometrics literature on scientific collaboration and science and technology management literature on partner selection by linking scientists’ collaborator preferences to the marginal advantage in citation impact. The 1981–2010 South Korea NCR (National Citation Report), a subset of the Web of Science that includes 297,658 scholarly articles, was used for this research. We found that, during this period, multi-author scientific articles increasingly dominated single-author articles: multi-university collaboration grew significantly; and the numbers of research publications produced by teams working within a single institution or by a single author diminished. This study also demonstrated that multi-university collaboration produces higher-impact articles when it includes “Research Universities,” that is, top-tier university schools. We also found that elite universities experienced impact degradation of their scientific results when they collaborated with lower-tier institutions, whereas their lower-tier partners gained impact benefits from the collaboration. Finally, our research revealed that Korean universities are unlikely to work with other universities in the same tier. This propensity for cross-tier collaboration can be interpreted as strategic partner selection by lower-tier schools seeking marginal advantage in citation impact.     

The effectiveness of impact attenuators: Two case studies in Massachusetts

An investigation of all collisions experienced over a 2-yr period of two crash cushion modules revealed a benefit/cost ratio greater than 2.4.