2000-2020年Web of science中各科学领域论文和作者特征的领域级差异

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Quantitative Science Studies Pub Date : 2023-02-10 DOI:10.1162/qss_a_00246
J. Andersen
{"title":"2000-2020年Web of science中各科学领域论文和作者特征的领域级差异","authors":"J. Andersen","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With increasing availability of near-complete, structured bibliographical data, the past decade has seen a rise in large-scale bibliometric studies attempting to find universal truths about the scientific communication system. However, in the search for universality, fundamental differences in knowledge production modes and the consequences for bibliometric assessment are sometimes overlooked. This article provides an overview of article and author characteristics at the level of the OECD minor and major fields of science classifications. The analysis relies on data from the full Web of Science in the period 2000–2020. The characteristics include document type, median reference age, reference list length, database coverage, article length, coauthorship, author sequence ordering, author gender, seniority, and productivity. The article reports a descriptive overview of these characteristics combined with a principal component analysis of the variance across fields. The results show that some clusters of fields allow inter-field comparisons, and assumptions about the importance of author sequence ordering, while other fields do not. The analysis shows that major OECD groups do not reflect bibliometrically relevant field differences, and that a reclustering offers a better grouping.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"4 1","pages":"394-422"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Field-level differences in paper and author characteristics across all fields of science in Web of Science, 2000–2020\",\"authors\":\"J. Andersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/qss_a_00246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract With increasing availability of near-complete, structured bibliographical data, the past decade has seen a rise in large-scale bibliometric studies attempting to find universal truths about the scientific communication system. However, in the search for universality, fundamental differences in knowledge production modes and the consequences for bibliometric assessment are sometimes overlooked. This article provides an overview of article and author characteristics at the level of the OECD minor and major fields of science classifications. The analysis relies on data from the full Web of Science in the period 2000–2020. The characteristics include document type, median reference age, reference list length, database coverage, article length, coauthorship, author sequence ordering, author gender, seniority, and productivity. The article reports a descriptive overview of these characteristics combined with a principal component analysis of the variance across fields. The results show that some clusters of fields allow inter-field comparisons, and assumptions about the importance of author sequence ordering, while other fields do not. The analysis shows that major OECD groups do not reflect bibliometrically relevant field differences, and that a reclustering offers a better grouping.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"394-422\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00246\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

随着越来越多的近乎完整的、结构化的书目数据的出现,在过去的十年里,大规模的文献计量学研究开始兴起,这些研究试图找到关于科学传播系统的普遍真理。然而,在寻求普遍性的过程中,知识生产方式的根本差异和文献计量评估的后果有时被忽视。这篇文章提供了文章和作者的特点在经合组织的次要和主要领域的科学分类水平的概述。该分析依赖于2000年至2020年期间整个科学网的数据。这些特征包括文档类型、中位数参考年龄、参考列表长度、数据库覆盖范围、文章长度、合著性、作者序列排序、作者性别、资历和生产力。本文报告了这些特征的描述性概述,并结合了跨领域方差的主成分分析。结果表明,一些字段集群允许字段间比较,并假设作者序列排序的重要性,而其他字段不允许。分析表明,经合发组织的主要分组没有反映文献计量学上相关的领域差异,重新分组提供了更好的分组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Field-level differences in paper and author characteristics across all fields of science in Web of Science, 2000–2020
Abstract With increasing availability of near-complete, structured bibliographical data, the past decade has seen a rise in large-scale bibliometric studies attempting to find universal truths about the scientific communication system. However, in the search for universality, fundamental differences in knowledge production modes and the consequences for bibliometric assessment are sometimes overlooked. This article provides an overview of article and author characteristics at the level of the OECD minor and major fields of science classifications. The analysis relies on data from the full Web of Science in the period 2000–2020. The characteristics include document type, median reference age, reference list length, database coverage, article length, coauthorship, author sequence ordering, author gender, seniority, and productivity. The article reports a descriptive overview of these characteristics combined with a principal component analysis of the variance across fields. The results show that some clusters of fields allow inter-field comparisons, and assumptions about the importance of author sequence ordering, while other fields do not. The analysis shows that major OECD groups do not reflect bibliometrically relevant field differences, and that a reclustering offers a better grouping.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Technological Impact of Funded Research: A Case Study of Non-Patent References Socio-cultural factors and academic openness of world countries Scope and limitations of library metrics for the assessment of ebook usage: COUNTER R5 and link resolver The rise of responsible metrics as a professional reform movement: A collective action frames account New methodologies for the digital age? How methods (re-)organize research using social media data
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1