作者个人影响因子的修正研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-5197(2021)03-0010-08

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 自2014年S.Fortunato根据期刊影响因子的思想提出作者影响因子（AIF）后，AIF指标在国际上引起人们的关注和研究，但国内对该指标研究较少。本文在现有AIF研究的基础上，针对AIF存在的不足对其进行修正得到CPIF（即Corrected Peronal Impact Factor），然后，以图书情报学领域40名同时具有高影响力和高发文量的作者为研究对象，利用CPIF指标评价其学术影响力，并分析其灵敏度、区分度与合理性,提出计算作者学术水平的综合性评价指标。结果表明，CPIF与H指数、AIF具有相关性；与H指数相比，CPIF的灵敏度、区分度更高；与AIF相比，CPIF的波动幅度更小，评价结果更稳定；CPIF能够综合反映5年时间窗口内作者发文和被引论文的数量和质量，评价结果更加全面精细，并在评价青年作者的学术影响力时效果更佳。

关键词: 个人影响因子；个人影响因子修正；学术评价

Abstract: Since S.Ortunato proposed author impact Factor(AIF)based on the idea of journal impact factor in 2014,AIF index has attracted people's attention and research internationally,but there are few researches on this index in China.Based on the existing AIF research,correct the shortcomings of AIF and obtain CPIF(Corrected Personal Impact Factor),take 40 authors with high influence and high publication volume in the field of library and information science as the research objects,evaluate its academic influence with CPIF index,and analyze its sensitivity,distinction and rationality,proposes a comprehensive evaluation index to calculate the author's academic level.The experimental results show that CPIF is correlated with H index and AIF.Compared with H index,CPIF has higher sensitivity and discrimination.Compared with AIF,CPIF has smaller fluctuation range and more stable evaluation results.CPIF can comprehensively reflect the quantity and quality of papers published and cited by authors within the five-year window,and the evaluation results are more comprehensive and detailed,and the effect is better when evaluating the academic influence of young authors.

Key words: personal impact factor；personal impact factor correction；academic evaluation

中图分类号:

G252

李奇，李秀霞. 作者个人影响因子的修正研究[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(3): 10-17.

LI Qi,LI Xiu-xia. Revision of the Author's Personal Impact Factor[J]. Library Research, 2021, 51(3): 10-17.

参考文献

［1］王妍,郭舒,张建勇.学者影响力评价指标的相关性研究［J］.图书情报工作,2015,59(5):106-112,127.［2］Hirsch J..An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output［A］.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2005,102(46):16569-16572.［3］Miguel A.García-Pérez,Vicente Núez-Antón.Correlation between variables subject to an order restrictionwith application to scientometric indices［J］.Journal of Informetrics,2013,7(2)：542-554.［4］Raj Kumar Pan,Santo Fortunato.Author Impact Factor:tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact［J］.Scientific Reports,2014,4(1):4880-4887.［5］高志,张志强.科学家个人学术影响力随时间变化的计算方法研究［J］.现代情报,2017,37(5):66-71.［6］ZHANG F.Evaluating journal impact based on weighted citations［J］.Scientometrics,2017,113(2):1155-1169.［7］STUART A.Audiology Faculty Author Impact Metrics as a Function of Institution［J］.American Journal of Audiology,2018,27(3):354-365.［8］STUART A,FAUCETTE S P,THOMAS W J.Author Impact Metrics in Communication Sciences and Disorder Research［J］.Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research,2017,60(9):2704-2724.［9］DEHDARIRAD T,NASINIS.Research impact in co-authorship networks:a two-mode analysis［J］.Journal of Informetrics,2017,11(2):371-388.［10］GASPARYAN A Y,YESSIRKEPOV M,DUISENOVA A,et al.Researcher and Author Impact Metrics:Variety,Value,and Context［J］.Journal of Korean Medical Science,2018,33(18):139-202.［11］AMJAD T,REHMAT Y,DAUD A,et al.Scientific impact of an author and role of self-citations［J］.Scientometrics,2020,122(2):915-932.［12］WANG M,REN J,LI S,et al.Quantifying a Paper's Academic Impact by Distinguishing the Unequal Intensities and Contributions of Citations［J］.Ieee Access,2019,7(96):198-214.［13］Michael Schreiber.BibliometricEpilogue:Measuring the Works of D.R.T.Zahn［J］.physica status solidi(b),2019,256(2):1800748-1800756.［14］ZHANG J,HU Y,NING Z,et al.AIRank:Author Impact Ranking through Positions in Collaboration Networks［J］.Complexity,2018,6(11):1-16.［15］CHIEN T-W,CHOW J C,CHANG Y,et al.Applying Ginicoefficient to evaluate the author research domains associated with the ordering of author names A bibliometric study［J］.Medicine,2019,98(43):17631-17642.［16］XiangjieKong,Lei Liu,Shuo Yu,Andong Yang,Xiaomei Bai,Bo Xu.Skill ranking of researchers via hypergraph［J］.PeerJ Computer Science,2019,5(4):182-204.［17］KAN W-C,CHOU W,CHIEN T-W,et al.The Most-Cited Authors Who Published Papers in JMIR mHealth and uHealth Using the Authorship-Weighted Scheme:Bibliometric Analysis［J］.Jmir Mhealth and Uhealth,2020,8(5):11567-11578.［18］高志,张志强.个人学术影响力的动态评价方法研究综述［J］.情报杂志,2015,34(11):40-43,78.［19］刘萍,杨宇,邹德安.基于文献引文网络的学者学术影响力测度研究［J］.情报理论与实践,2017,40(3):35-41.［20］陈福佑,杨立英.新科研影响力评价指标分析［J］.情报杂志,2014,33(7):81-85,62.［21］顾欢,盛丽娜.不同引证时间窗口的年度h指数与累积h指数对比分析——以SSCI信息科学与图书馆学期刊为例［J］.情报理论与实践,2018,41(4):145-149.［22］朱梦皎,武夷山.零被引现象:文献综述［J］.情报理论与实践,2013,36(8):111-116.［23］Martin Szomszor,David A.Pendlebury,Jonathan Adams.How much is too much?The difference between research influence and self-citation excesss.［J］.Scientometrics,2020,123(2):1119-1147.［24］俞立平,万晓云,琚春华.学术期刊影响因子过度自引的修正研究——自然影响因子［J］.情报理论与实践,2019,42(11):62-68.［25］俞立平,王作功,张再杰.h指数的综合修正研究:h_(top)指数——以学术期刊为例［J］.情报学报,2018,37(12):1188-1192.

[1]	崔薇，秦晓珠. 图书馆文化精准扶贫成效评估指标体系构建*[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(3): 26-33.
[2]	李晓君. 公共图书馆青少年研学旅行服务探究*——以“赣图悦读研学营”为例[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(3): 62-69.
[3]	谢燕洁. 公共图书馆为农民工服务研究述评[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(3): 70-76.
[4]	蔡晓玲. 中外公共图书馆应急信息服务比较与启示[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(3): 77-84.
[5]	安琪. 高校科技查新服务定价调查及收费标准问题[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(3): 85-93.
[6]	于海洋. 新冠病毒疫情冲击下的公共图书馆视障文化服务——以江西省图书馆为例*[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(3): 101-105.
[7]	向宏华. 我国农村图书馆研究综述与发展趋势分析*[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(1): 9-17.
[8]	李金涛1,2. 我国省级以上公共图书馆新冠肺炎专题资源建设调查研究*[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(1): 39-46.
[9]	王鑫. “双一流”高校图书馆信息素养教育平台建设现状及发展策略研究*[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(1): 86-91.
[10]	刘珊，孙翌，陈幼华. 国内高校图书馆面向本科教育教学的服务模式与案例分析*[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(1): 92-100.
[11]	史艳芬，朱梦皎，杨毅，华之颖，王楠. 核心素养理念下高校图书馆服务育人路径研究与实践[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(1): 101-106.
[12]	张兴. 国内外图书馆文旅融合发展研究述评*[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(2): 27-33.
[13]	刘羿，饶恩惠. 江西公共图书馆与旅游融合发展的思考*[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(2): 41-45.
[14]	冯莉. 少儿阅读激励项目实践研究——以广州图书馆“阅读攀登计划”为实例*[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(2): 88-93.
[15]	孙蕊. 2000-2019年我国早期阅读研究知识图谱分析[J]. 图书馆研究, 2021, 51(2): 94-102.