Purpose:Scholars face an unprecedented ever increasing demand for acting as reviewers for journals,recruitment and promotion committees,granting agencies,and research assessment agencies.Consequently,journal editors f...Purpose:Scholars face an unprecedented ever increasing demand for acting as reviewers for journals,recruitment and promotion committees,granting agencies,and research assessment agencies.Consequently,journal editors face an ever increasing scarcity of experts willing to act as reviewers.It is not infrequent that reviews diverge,which forces editors to recur to additional reviewers or make a final decision on their own.The purpose of the proposed bibliometric system is to support of editors’accept/reject decisions in such situations.Design/methodology/approach:We analyse nearly two million 2017 publications and their scholarly impact,measured by normalized citations.Based on theory and previous literature,we extrapolated the publication traits of text,byline,and bibliographic references expected to be associated with future citations.We then fitted a regression model with the outcome variable as the scholarly impact of the publication and the independent variables as the above non-scientific traits,controlling for fixed effects at the journal level.Findings:Non-scientific factors explained more than 26%of the paper’s impact,with slight variation across disciplines.On average,OA articles have a 7%greater impact than non-OA articles.A 1%increase in the number of references was associated with an average increase of 0.27%in impact.Higher-impact articles in the reference list,the number of authors and of countries in the byline,the article length,and the average impact of co-authors’past publications all show a positive association with the article’s impact.Female authors,authors from English-speaking countries,and the average age of the article’s references show instead a negative association.Research limitations:The selected non-scientific factors are the only observable and measurable ones to us,but we cannot rule out the presence of significant omitted variables.Using citations as a measure of impact has well-known limitations and overlooks other forms of scholarly influence.Additionally,the large dataset constrained us to one year’s global publications,preventing us from capturing and accounting for time effects.Practical implications:This study provides journal editors with a quantitative model that complements peer reviews,particularly when reviewer evaluations diverge.By incorporating non-scientific factors that significantly predict a paper’s future impact,editors can make more informed decisions,reduce reliance on additional reviewers,and improve the efficiency and fairness of the manuscript selection process.Originality/value:To the best of our knowledge,this study is the first one to specifically address the problem of supporting editors in any field in their decisions on submitted manuscripts with a quantitative model.Previous works have generally investigated the relationship between a few of the above publication traits and their impact or the agreement between peer-review and bibliometric evaluations of publications.展开更多
Since arriving in Singapore in 1993,William Yang,a visiting professor at the National University of Singapore(NUS),has spent over three decades immersed in the city-state’s vibrant landscape.Throughout these 32 years...Since arriving in Singapore in 1993,William Yang,a visiting professor at the National University of Singapore(NUS),has spent over three decades immersed in the city-state’s vibrant landscape.Throughout these 32 years,he has not only witnessed but also actively contributed to the flourishing friendship and dynamic cooperation between China and Singapore.“I was deeply struck when I first arrived in Singapore,”recalled Yang.“This country was ahead of China in terms of material living standards,economic development,and international outlook.”He describes this period as a“journey of learning.”展开更多
Tears of joy strea-med down Taurai Tawanda’s face upon learning that she had been awarded a scholarship under the China-Zimbabwe Friendship Scholarship Programme for academic excellence.
On February 6,2025,Branko Balon,President of the Croatia-China Friendship Association for Cultural,Scientific and Economic Cooperation and Professor at the VSITE College of Information Technology in Zagreb.
Google Scholar的推出吸引了越来越多的学术研究人员。本文详细介绍了图书馆链接计划的运作模式和SFX技术的原理。重点介绍了免费链接解析服务器ScholarSFX的配置方法,以及它在浙江大学图书馆的应用,最后对Google Scholar图书馆链接的...Google Scholar的推出吸引了越来越多的学术研究人员。本文详细介绍了图书馆链接计划的运作模式和SFX技术的原理。重点介绍了免费链接解析服务器ScholarSFX的配置方法,以及它在浙江大学图书馆的应用,最后对Google Scholar图书馆链接的应用情况进行了总结。展开更多
本文以图书情报领域期刊为研究样本,分别从引文数量、引文出版年、引文类型、引文语种和引文重合率几个方面对Web of Science和Google Scholar两个引文分析工具进行比较,并对Google Scholar的引文特征进行深入探讨,对二者分别作为引文...本文以图书情报领域期刊为研究样本,分别从引文数量、引文出版年、引文类型、引文语种和引文重合率几个方面对Web of Science和Google Scholar两个引文分析工具进行比较,并对Google Scholar的引文特征进行深入探讨,对二者分别作为引文分析工具的优劣势进行总结。展开更多
Google Scholar和跨库检索系统都是对大量的异构学术资源提供一个统一的检索界面,为用户提供"一站式"服务。本文首先对跨库检索系统及Google Scholar的检索方式及检索性能进行了介绍及分析,其次对二者从检索策略、检索界面、...Google Scholar和跨库检索系统都是对大量的异构学术资源提供一个统一的检索界面,为用户提供"一站式"服务。本文首先对跨库检索系统及Google Scholar的检索方式及检索性能进行了介绍及分析,其次对二者从检索策略、检索界面、检索速度等方面进行了比较,最后对二者在学术资源检索中的使用进行了分析。展开更多
文摘Purpose:Scholars face an unprecedented ever increasing demand for acting as reviewers for journals,recruitment and promotion committees,granting agencies,and research assessment agencies.Consequently,journal editors face an ever increasing scarcity of experts willing to act as reviewers.It is not infrequent that reviews diverge,which forces editors to recur to additional reviewers or make a final decision on their own.The purpose of the proposed bibliometric system is to support of editors’accept/reject decisions in such situations.Design/methodology/approach:We analyse nearly two million 2017 publications and their scholarly impact,measured by normalized citations.Based on theory and previous literature,we extrapolated the publication traits of text,byline,and bibliographic references expected to be associated with future citations.We then fitted a regression model with the outcome variable as the scholarly impact of the publication and the independent variables as the above non-scientific traits,controlling for fixed effects at the journal level.Findings:Non-scientific factors explained more than 26%of the paper’s impact,with slight variation across disciplines.On average,OA articles have a 7%greater impact than non-OA articles.A 1%increase in the number of references was associated with an average increase of 0.27%in impact.Higher-impact articles in the reference list,the number of authors and of countries in the byline,the article length,and the average impact of co-authors’past publications all show a positive association with the article’s impact.Female authors,authors from English-speaking countries,and the average age of the article’s references show instead a negative association.Research limitations:The selected non-scientific factors are the only observable and measurable ones to us,but we cannot rule out the presence of significant omitted variables.Using citations as a measure of impact has well-known limitations and overlooks other forms of scholarly influence.Additionally,the large dataset constrained us to one year’s global publications,preventing us from capturing and accounting for time effects.Practical implications:This study provides journal editors with a quantitative model that complements peer reviews,particularly when reviewer evaluations diverge.By incorporating non-scientific factors that significantly predict a paper’s future impact,editors can make more informed decisions,reduce reliance on additional reviewers,and improve the efficiency and fairness of the manuscript selection process.Originality/value:To the best of our knowledge,this study is the first one to specifically address the problem of supporting editors in any field in their decisions on submitted manuscripts with a quantitative model.Previous works have generally investigated the relationship between a few of the above publication traits and their impact or the agreement between peer-review and bibliometric evaluations of publications.
文摘Since arriving in Singapore in 1993,William Yang,a visiting professor at the National University of Singapore(NUS),has spent over three decades immersed in the city-state’s vibrant landscape.Throughout these 32 years,he has not only witnessed but also actively contributed to the flourishing friendship and dynamic cooperation between China and Singapore.“I was deeply struck when I first arrived in Singapore,”recalled Yang.“This country was ahead of China in terms of material living standards,economic development,and international outlook.”He describes this period as a“journey of learning.”
文摘Tears of joy strea-med down Taurai Tawanda’s face upon learning that she had been awarded a scholarship under the China-Zimbabwe Friendship Scholarship Programme for academic excellence.
文摘On February 6,2025,Branko Balon,President of the Croatia-China Friendship Association for Cultural,Scientific and Economic Cooperation and Professor at the VSITE College of Information Technology in Zagreb.
