Diffusion and adoption: an explanatory model of “question mark” and “rising star” articles
Diffusion and adoption: an explanatory model of “question mark” and “rising star” articles
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11192-020-03478-6
复制
发表时间：
2020-04
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Guoqiang Liang;Haiyan Hou;Qiao Chen;Zhigang Hu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Guoqiang Liang;Haiyan Hou;Qiao Chen;Zhigang Hu
创造性的过程基本上是达尔文主义的，只有一小部分创造性的想法被选中进行进一步的发展。本文构建了一个学术论文扩散-采纳模型，重新探讨了“高被引低被引”和“低被引高被引”论文的影响因素。透过罗杰斯的创新扩散理论的透镜，我们可以从一个新的角度来研究引文机制，并进一步理解引文计数的衡量标准。在这里，我们以2013年发表在Web of Scienceas最成功的扩散论文为例，并根据波士顿咨询集团矩阵将这些文章分为四组。然后，我们将这些文章的传播和采用分为三个阶段，即：思想把关，思想传播和行动，并比较问号和后起之秀星星文章的资金，参考文献数量，发表时间，期刊四分位数和作者人数的差异。结果表明，发表时间（β= 1.820）和使用次数（β= 0.899）对新星文章的采用率起着积极的独立作用，参考文献（β=-0.016）对星星文章的采用率起着消极的独立作用（p< 0.05，调整后= 0.67）。期刊四分位数（β= 1.952），资金（β= 1.071），使用次数（β= 0.033）和参考文献（β= 0.005）作为正独立因素，作者人数（β=-0.002）和出版时间（β=-0.717）作为负独立因素，以问号文章的采用率（p< 0.05，调整= 0.119）。
The creative process is essentially Darwinian, and only a small proportion of creative ideas have been selected for further development. This article builds a diffusion–adoption model of academic articles and re-explores the influencing factors of “highly used but rarely cited” and “lowly used but highly cited” papers. Looking through the lens of Rogers’s innovation diffusion theory provides a new perspective on the citation mechanism and advances our understanding of what citation counts measure. Here, we take highly used (top 1%) articles published in the year 2013 inWeb of Scienceas examples of the most successfully diffused papers and classify these articles into four groups, based on the Boston consulting group matrix. We then classify the diffusion and adoption of these articles into three stages, namely: idea gatekeeping, idea spreading, and action, and compare the difference between question mark and rising star articles on funding, number of references, publishing time, journal quartile, and number of authors. Results show that publishing time (β= 1.820) and usage count (β= 0.899) act as positive independents, and references (β= − 0.016) act as a negative independent to the adoption rate of rising star articles (p< 0.05, adjusted= 0.67). Journal quartile (β= 1.952), funding (β= 1.071), usage count (β= 0.033), and references (β= 0.005) act as positive independents, and number of authors (β= − 0.002) and publishing time (β= − 0.717) act as negative independents to the adoption rate of question mark articles (p< 0.05, adjusted= 0.119).