Online presentations as a source of scientific impact? An analysis of PowerPoint files citing academic journals
Online presentations as a source of scientific impact? An analysis of PowerPoint files citing academic journals
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/asi.20803
复制
发表时间：
2008-03-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kousha, Kayvan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Thelwall, Mike;Kousha, Kayvan
开放获取的在线出版物为科学计量分析提供了越来越广泛的文档类型。在本文中，我们重点关注在线演示中的引用，寻找其作为研究影响力的非传统指标的价值的证据。为此，我们搜索了在线 PowerPoint 文件，其中提到了 10 个科学学科和 10 个社会科学学科的 1,807 种 ISI 索引期刊中的任意一本。我们还对其他 8 个科学和社会科学学科期刊的 1,378 条在线 PowerPoint 引用进行了手动分类。结果显示，很少有期刊在在线 PowerPoint 文件中被引用得足够频繁，因此影响评估值得进行，主要的例外是《科学美国人》和《哈佛商业评论》等流行杂志。然而，令人惊讶的是，PowerPoint 对科学和社会科学的引用数量以及代表传统影响（约 60%）和更广泛影响（约 15%）的比例总体上几乎没有差异。在线演示的主要科学计量价值似乎可能在于跟踪研究的普及，或者比较整个期刊而不是个别文章的影响。
Open-access online publication has made available an increasingly wide range of document types for scientometric analysis. In this article, we focus on citations in online presentations, seeking evidence of their value as nontraditional indicators of research impact. For this purpose, we searched for online PowerPoint files mentioning any one of 1,807 ISI-indexed journals in ten science and ten social science disciplines. We also manually classified 1,378 online PowerPoint citations to journals in eight additional science and social science disciplines. The results showed that very few journals were cited frequently enough in online PowerPoint files to make impact assessment worthwhile, with the main exceptions being popular magazines like Scientific American and Harvard Business Review. Surprisingly, however, there was little difference overall in the number of PowerPoint citations to science and to the social sciences, and also in the proportion representing traditional impact (about 60%) and wider impact (about 15%). It seems that the main scientometric value for online presentations may be in tracking the popularization of research, or for comparing the impact of whole journals rather than individual articles.