Search results

Citations have been used as a common basis to measure the academic accomplishments of scientific books. However, traditional citation analysis ignored content mining and without consideration of citation equivalence, which may lead to the decline of evaluation reliability. Hence, this paper aims to integrate multi-level citation information to conduct multi-dimensional analysis.

In this paper, books’ academic impacts were measured by integrating multi-level citation resources, including books’ citation frequencies and citation-related contents. Specifically, firstly, books’ citation frequencies were counted as the frequency-level metric. Secondly, content-level metrics were detected from multi-dimensional citation contents based on finer-grained mining, including topic extraction on the metadata and citation classification on the citation contexts. Finally, differential metric weighting methods were compared with integrate the multi-level metrics and computing books’ academic impacts.

The experimental results indicate that the integration of multiple citation resources is necessary, as it can significantly improve the comprehensiveness of the evaluation results. Meanwhile, compared with the type differences of books, disciplinary differences need more attention when evaluating the academic impacts of books.

Academic impact assessment of books via integrating multi-level citation information can provide more detailed evaluation information and cover shortcomings of methods based on single citation data. Moreover, the method proposed in this paper is publication independent, which can be used to measure other publications besides books.

Bibliometric analysis of research reports in continuing medical education that were evaluated for their methodological quality is used to assess the relation between methodological rigour and citation frequency. There is a positive, significant but low correlation between rigour and citation, and evidence that rigorous work will be cited independent of where the article is published. There is no strong evidence that study design is correlated with subsequent citation. Of the five methodological standards used in the bibliography, outcome measure is the best predictor of citation frequency. In certain cases citation measures might be used as guides to or indicators of methodologically rigorous research reports.

The purpose of this paper is to identify how intervention research weighed in nonintervention research in the field of human resource development (HRD) by examining the number, citation frequency and use of experimental studies in HRD academic journals.

A total of 2,700 articles published between 1990 and 2014 from Advances in Developing Human Resources (ADHR), European Journal of Training and Development (EJTD), Human Resource Development International (HRDI) and Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ) were reviewed and analyzed to identify 91 experimental studies in the field.

The total citation frequency of the 91 articles was 1,100 (14 from ADHR, 222 from EJTD, 56 from HRDI and 808 from HRDQ). The authors reviewed the 1,100 subsequent studies that cited 91 experimental research studies and coded them to identify the research methods that each article adopted and to determine whether the studies used the citation to make causal statements. As a result, the authors found 459 causal statements from 1,100 citations. In particular, they identified the citation frequency of the causal statements used in nonintervention research to examine how often nonintervention studies used causal statements from intervention studies.

The results of the citation frequency could be different according to the search engines and timeframes. Books, technical reports, non-English studies, non-academic articles and inaccessible articles were not considered in this study. Theoretically, this study aimed to illuminate the magnitude of HRD experimental research conducted over 25 years and to what extent it influenced non-experimental studies. In addition, this study emphasized the importance of using the causal statements from experimental research to improve empirical validation in other studies.

When HRD practitioners need to identify alternative interventions to replace previous ones or to justify the use of specific interventions, they could consider causal statements from empirical studies as valid evidence. Further, HRD practitioners might collaborate with researchers to receive more direct and relevant information from experimental research.

Significantly, this study provides an integrative review of experimental research conducted in the field of HRD in terms of the number, citation frequency and proportion of using experimental research. An additional contribution is that it summarizes the research methods used in HRD studies over 25 years.

The present study aims to investigate how textual features, depth of citation treatment, reasons for citation, and relationships between citers and citees predict author‐rated citation importance.

A total of 49 biology and 50 psychology authors assessed the importance, reason for citation, and relationship to the cited author for each cited reference in his or her own recently published empirical article. Participants performed their evaluations on individualized web‐based surveys.

The paper finds that certain textual features, such as citation frequency, citation length, and citation location, as well as author‐stated reasons for citation predicted ratings of importance, but the strength of the relationship often depended on citation features in the article as a whole. The relationship between objective citation features and author‐rated importance also tended to be weaker for self‐citations.

The study sample included authors of relatively long empirical articles with a minimum of 35 cited references. There were relatively few disciplinary differences, which suggests that citation behavior in psychology may be similar to that in natural science disciplines. Future studies should involve authors from other disciplines employing diverse referencing patterns in articles of varying lengths and types.

Findings of the study have enabled a comprehensive, profound level of understanding of citation behaviors of biology and psychology authors. It uncovered a number of unique characteristics in authors' citation evaluations, such as article‐level context effects and rule‐ versus affective‐based judgments. The paper suggests possible implications for developing retrieval algorithms based on automatically predicted importance of cited references.

This study distinguishes the academic influence of different papers published in journals of the same subject or field based on the modification of the journal impact factor.

Taking SSCI journals in library and information science (LIS) as the research object, the authors first explore the skewness degree of the citation distribution of journal articles. Then, we define the paper citation ratio as the weight of impact factor to modify the journal impact factor for the evaluation of papers, namely the weighted impact factor. The authors further explore the feasibility of the weighted impact factor in evaluating papers.

The research results show that different types of skewness exist in the citation distribution of journal papers. Particularly, 94% of journal paper citations are highly skewed, while the rest are moderately skewed. The weighted impact factor has a closer correlation with the citation frequency of papers than the journal impact factor. It resolves the issue that the journal impact factor tends to exaggerate the influence of low-cited papers in journals with high impact factors or weaken the influence of high-cited papers in journals with low impact factors.

The weighted impact factor is constructed based on the skewness of the citation distribution of journal articles. It provides a new method to distinguish the academic influence of different papers published in journals of the same subject or field, then avoids the situation that papers published in the same journal having the same academic impact.

Citation content in academic papers and academic monographs promotes the knowledge flow among different publications. However, existing citation content analysis (CCA) focuses on academic papers and monographs have not received much research attention. We want to know if monographs are appropriate objects of CCA and whether existing methods of analyzing citation in papers are suitable for citation in monographs. Therefore, this paper aims to learn more about features of cited references and citation content in monographs and compare the characteristic of citation pattern between monographs and papers.

The authors manually annotate the references and syntactic citation content in academic monographs published by Morgan & Claypool and automatically extracted the references and citation content from academic papers published by Public Library of Science. Five features in two types citation pattern, namely, pattern of cited reference (including year, source and mention frequency of reference) and pattern of citation content (including location, length of citation content) are used to examine similarities and differences between monographs and papers.

The results indicate that between monographs and papers, differences are shown in location, length of citation content and year, source of reference, whereas frequency of mention of reference is similar.

Previous studies have explored the patter of citation content in academic papers. However, none of the existing literature, as far as the authors know, has considered the citation content in academic monographs and the similarities or differences among academic documents when studying the citation pattern.

A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J‐shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the research of construction conflict from 1991 to 2020 and propose research directions for future scholarly work. During the recent decades, it is widely accepted that construction conflict is inevitable, and conflict management has become an important component of project management. However, few works were done to map the global study in this field, there is limited review that evaluates the current stage of construction conflict research.

This study adopted a holistic literature review approach that incorporates bibliometric search and scientometric analysis. A total of 698 bibliographic records from the Web of Science core collection database were collected for the scientometric analysis. CiteSpace5.7 was adopted for the science mapping purpose in this study.

Through co-authorship analysis, co-word analysis and co-citation analysis, influential scholars and journals are identified. Several research trends are highlighted according to the scientometric analyses of the construction conflict topics. For example, the application of simulation and algorithms to the study of construction conflict management systems.

Construction is a resource-intensive, multi-participant and multi-targeted industry. Conflicts always exist in the whole life cycle of construction projects, it is important for industry practitioners to be updated of the latest movement and progress of the academic research.

This study contributed to the body of knowledge in construction conflict and bridge the research gap in the thorough review of previous research work.

With the development of Web2.0 and publishing digitalization, traditional libraries and evaluation citation system can no longer indicate academic paper influence validly. Therefore, it is necessary to construct smart library and find the evaluation effect of Internet metrics-Usage.

This study puts forward four indexes of scholars’ evaluation based on Usage (total Usage (U), average Usage rate (U/N), h_u-index and p_u-index), which refer to citation indexes, takes the 35 high-output scholars in the field of library and information science in the WoS database as examples, analyzes performance of different scholars evaluation indexes based on Usage and compares the differences and correlations between “citation indicators” and “usage indicators.”

This study results show that p_u-index is the strongest index to evaluate scholars. Second, there is a high correlation and strong mechanism based on time dependence and interactions between Usage and citation. Third, compared to “citation indicators”, the “usage indicators” has a larger numerical value and wider measurement range, which can break the time limitation of citation, and scientifically evaluate young scholars and newly published paper by scholars.

This paper proposes the p_u-index – a relatively superior mathematical model for Usage and provides reference for the scholars’ evaluation policy of the smart library. This model can not only provide fair evaluation conditions for young scientists but also shorten the evaluation effect of the time lag of cited indicators. In addition, the “usage indicators” in this paper are new scientific evaluation indicators generated in the network environment. Applying it to the academic evaluation system will make the research papers widely accepted by the public and will also encourage scientists to follow the development of the Internet age and pursue research with equal emphasis on quantity and quality.

The purpose of this paper is to further explore the co-citation and bibliographic-coupling relationship among the core authors in the field of Chinese information science (IS), to expose research activity and author impact, and to make induction analyses about Chinese IS research patterns and theme evolution.

The research data include 8,567 papers and 70,947 cited articles in the IS field indexed by Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index from 2000 to 2009. Author co-citation analysis, author bibliographic-coupling analysis, social network analysis, and factor analysis were combined to explore co-citation and bibliographic-coupling relationships and to identify research groups and subjects.

Scholars with greatest impact are different from the most active scholars of Chinese IS; there is no uniform impact pattern forming since authors’ impact subjects are scattered and not steady; while authors’ research activities present higher independence and concentration, there is still no steady research pattern due to no deep research existing. Furthermore, Chinese IS studies can be delineated by: foundation or extension. The research subjects of these two parts, as well as their corresponding/contributing authors, are different under different views. The general research status of core authors is concentrated, while their impact is broad.

The combined use of some related methods could enrich the development and methodology research of the discipline, and the results establish a reference point on the development of IS research.