首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Systematic Biology >A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature
【2h】

A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature

机译:分类文献中的引用障碍的证伪

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Current science evaluation still relies on citation performance, despite criticisms of purely bibliometric research assessments. Biological taxonomy suffers from a drain of knowledge and manpower, with poor citation performance commonly held as one reason for this impediment. But is there really such a citation impediment in taxonomy? We compared the citation numbers of 306 taxonomic and 2291 non-taxonomic research articles (2009–2012) on mosses, orchids, ciliates, ants, and snakes, using Web of Science (WoS) and correcting for journal visibility. For three of the five taxa, significant differences were absent in citation numbers between taxonomic and non-taxonomic papers. This was also true for all taxa combined, although taxonomic papers received more citations than non-taxonomic ones. Our results show that, contrary to common belief, taxonomic contributions do not generally reduce a journal's citation performance and might even increase it. The scope of many journals rarely featuring taxonomy would allow editors to encourage a larger number of taxonomic submissions. Moreover, between 1993 and 2012, taxonomic publications accumulated faster than those from all biological fields. However, less than half of the taxonomic studies were published in journals in WoS. Thus, editors of highly visible journals inviting taxonomic contributions could benefit from taxonomy's strong momentum. The taxonomic output could increase even more than at its current growth rate if: (i) taxonomists currently publishing on other topics returned to taxonomy and (ii) non-taxonomists identifying the need for taxonomic acts started publishing these, possibly in collaboration with taxonomists. Finally, considering the high number of taxonomic papers attracted by the journal Zootaxa, we expect that the taxonomic community would indeed use increased chances of publishing in WoS indexed journals. We conclude that taxonomy's standing in the present citation-focused scientific landscape could easily improve—if the community becomes aware that there is no citation impediment in taxonomy.
机译:尽管对纯粹的文献计量研究评估提出了批评,但当前的科学评估仍依赖引用性能。生物分类学遭受知识和人力的消耗,引文表现不佳通常被认为是造成这种障碍的原因之一。但是分类学中确实存在这样的引用障碍吗?我们使用Web of Science(WoS)并校正了期刊的知名度,比较了306种分类法和2291种非分类法研究文章(2009-2012年)对苔藓,兰花,纤毛虫,蚂蚁和蛇的引用次数。对于五个分类单元中的三个,分类学论文和非分类学论文之间的引用数量均不存在显着差异。尽管分类学论文比非分类学论文获得了更多的引用,但对所有分类单元来说都是如此。我们的结果表明,与通常的看法相反,分类学贡献通常不会降低期刊的引文表现,甚至可能会提高期刊的引文表现。许多期刊很少涉及分类学,其范围允许编辑者鼓励大量的分类学投稿。此外,从1993年到2012年,分类学出版物的积累速度快于所有生物领域的出版物。但是,只有不到一半的分类学研究发表在WoS期刊上。因此,邀请分类学贡献的知名度很高的期刊的编辑可以从分类学的强劲势头中受益。如果满足以下条件,则分类学产出的增长甚至可能超过其当前增长率:(i)当前正在分类的其他分类学家发表有关分类学的信息;(ii)识别出需要分类行为的非分类学家开始与生物分类学家合作发布这些行为。最后,考虑到Zootaxa期刊吸引了大量的分类学论文,我们期望分类学界确实会增加在WoS索引期刊中发表论文的机会。我们得出的结论是,如果社区意识到分类法中没有任何引文障碍,则分类法在当前以引文为重点的科学领域中的地位很容易提高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号