基于F1000与WOS的同行评议与文献计量相关性研究

摘要

To compare expert assessment with bibliometric indicators, this paper selected a sample of about 2000 papers in F1000, and compared the initial assessment of the F1000 Article Factor by expert assessment to other measurements of the papers＇ impact using SPSS16. 0. We found that there is a positive correlation between a paper＇s F1000 rating and its impact measured by number of citations. Despite the overall significantly positive correlations between as- sessments of importance and citations, the analysis shows that there are exceptions at the individual paper level： papers that were highly rated by expert reviewers were not always the most cited, and vice versa. These exceptions suggest that bibliometric measures by themselves may not be sufficient enough to measure research quality and importance, and tools that link expert reviews and more quantitative indicators, such as citation analysis, would be valuable additions to the field of research assessment and evaluation. 4 tabs. 14 refs.%为比较同行评议与文献计量方法在科学评价中的有效性及相关性，选取F1000以及Web of Science数据库，采用SPSS16．0软件，将近2000篇论文的F1000因子与Web of Science数据库中指标进行相关性比较。结果显示，F1000因子与统计区间内的被引频次呈显著正相关，同时一些F1000因子很高的论文并没有高频被引，反之亦然。结论指出：从统计学的视角，文献计量指标与同行评议结果具有正向相关性，但是无论是同行评议还是文献计量，单独作为科学评价标准都会有失偏颇，以引文分析为代表的定量指标与同行评议方法的结合将是未来科学评价的主流。表4。参考文献14。