Scholarometer: a social framework for analyzing impact across disciplines.
Scholarometer: a social framework for analyzing impact across disciplines.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0043235
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Menczer F
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kaur J;Hoang DT;Sun X;Possamai L;Jafariasbagh M;Patil S;Menczer F
使用定量度量来衡量学术出版物、作者和学科的影响是以可靠的使用和注释数据的可用性为基础的。引文和下载量在数字图书馆中随处可见。然而，目前的注释系统依赖于专有标签，引用期刊而不是文章或作者，并且是手动管理的。为了解决这些局限性，我们提出了一个基于学者众包注释的社会框架，旨在跟上快速发展的学科和跨学科格局。我们描述了一个名为学者计量器的系统，该系统通过计算基于引文的影响度量为学者提供服务。这会激励用户提供作者的纪律注释，而这些注释又可用于计算纪律指标。我们首先介绍了系统的体系结构和几种处理噪声书目和注释数据的启发式方法。我们报告了由Scholareter实现的数据共享和交互式可视化服务。使用统计数据说明了通过该框架收集和分享的数据，表明拟议的众包办法可以取得成功。其次，我们说明了由学者计量学得出的学科文献计量学指标如何使我们第一次能够实施文献中提出的普遍影响度量。我们的评估表明，这一指标为比较跨学科边界的学术影响提供了一种有效的手段。
The use of quantitative metrics to gauge the impact of scholarly publications, authors, and disciplines is predicated on the availability of reliable usage and annotation data. Citation and download counts are widely available from digital libraries. However, current annotation systems rely on proprietary labels, refer to journals but not articles or authors, and are manually curated. To address these limitations, we propose a social framework based on crowdsourced annotations of scholars, designed to keep up with the rapidly evolving disciplinary and interdisciplinary landscape. We describe a system called Scholarometer, which provides a service to scholars by computing citation-based impact measures. This creates an incentive for users to provide disciplinary annotations of authors, which in turn can be used to compute disciplinary metrics. We first present the system architecture and several heuristics to deal with noisy bibliographic and annotation data. We report on data sharing and interactive visualization services enabled by Scholarometer. Usage statistics, illustrating the data collected and shared through the framework, suggest that the proposed crowdsourcing approach can be successful. Secondly, we illustrate how the disciplinary bibliometric indicators elicited by Scholarometer allow us to implement for the first time a universal impact measure proposed in the literature. Our evaluation suggests that this metric provides an effective means for comparing scholarly impact across disciplinary boundaries.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Schubert, Andras
通讯作者：
Schubert, Andras
DOI：
10.4018/jswis.2009081901
发表时间：
2009-01-01
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Bizer, Christian;Heath, Tom;Berners-Lee, Tim
通讯作者：
Berners-Lee, Tim
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Schreiber, Michael
通讯作者：
Schreiber, Michael
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Mika, Peter
通讯作者：
Mika, Peter
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.0806977105
发表时间：
2008-11-11
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
Radicchi, Filippo;Fortunato, Santo;Castellano, Claudio
通讯作者：
Castellano, Claudio