首页> 外文期刊>Aslib Proceedings >Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact
【24h】

Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact

机译:探索性分析Publons指标及其与文献计量和高度计量影响的关系

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the metrics provided by Publons about the scoring of publications and their relationship with impact measurements (bibliometric and altmetric indicators). Design/methodology/approach In January 2018, 45,819 research articles were extracted from Publons, including all their metrics (scores, number of pre and post reviews, reviewers, etc.). Using the DOI identifier, other metrics from altmetric providers were gathered to compare the scores of those publications in Publons with their bibliometric and altmetric impact in PlumX, Altmetric.com and Crossref Event Data. Findings The results show that: there are important biases in the coverage of Publons according to disciplines and publishers; metrics from Publons present several problems as research evaluation indicators; and correlations between bibliometric and altmetric counts and the Publons metrics are very weak (r0.2) and not significant. Originality/value This is the first study about the Publons metrics at article level and their relationship with other quantitative measures such as bibliometric and altmetric indicators.
机译:目的本文的目的是分析Publons提供的有关出版物评分及其与影响度量(书目和高度度量指标)之间关系的度量。设计/方法/方法2018年1月,从Publons中提取了45,819篇研究文章,包括其所有指标(分数,评论前后的数量,审阅者等)。使用DOI标识符,收集了来自高度度量提供者的其他度量,以比较Publons中这些出版物的得分,以及它们在PlumX,Altmetric.com和Crossref事件数据中的度量和高度度量影响。研究结果表明:根据学科和出版商的不同,Publons的报道存在重大偏差; Publons的度量标准作为研究评估指标存在一些问题;文献计量和高度计量计数与Publons度量之间的相关性非常弱(r <0.2)并且不显着。独创性/价值这是关于文章级别上的Publons度量及其与其他定量度量(如文献计量和高度度量指标)之间关系的第一项研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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