化學與材料科學領域高被引作者之被引來源多樣性分析

Diversity of Forward Citation of Highly Cited Researchers in the Field of Chemistry and Materials Science

蕭慈堃(Tzu-Kun Hsiao)

指導教授 ： 黃慕萱

國立臺灣大學/文學院/圖書資訊學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201703102

摘要

本研究以書目計量法分析化學、材料科學兩領域高被引作者於2006-2016年間著有之高被引文章，以及這些文章的被引來源，以瞭解兩領域高被引作者之基本特性，以及高被引文章的觸及範圍。本研究將被引來源分為個人、機構、國家、學科領域四個分析層級，先就兩領域高被引作者之被引來源數進行分析，以瞭解兩領域高被引作者之高被引文章被多少不同的個人、機構、國家、學科領域引用，剖析高被引作者之高被引文章在學術社群中的實際觸及範圍。其次透過被引來源多樣性之分析，探究這些高被引文章被各相異之被引來源引用的平均程度。最後就被引來源數、被引來源多樣性與被引次數、平均被引次數、h-index進行相關驗證，以瞭解被引來源數、被引來源多樣性與科學影響力之間的關係。
研究結果顯示兩領域高被引作者合著活躍。化學領域有82.79%、材料科學領域有92.76%的高被引作者之合著率為100%。在著作質量方面，兩領域皆有質量兼具之產出，其中化學領域有逾九成、材料領域有逾七成的高被引作者平均一年至少著有一篇高被引文章，且所有作者皆被引用超過1,000次以上。此外，兩領域高被引作者之高被引文章有明顯的期刊集中特性，化學領域有84.41%、材料科學領域有95.87%的文章集中刊登於20本期刊。在地理分布特性方面，發現有集中分布於美國、中國的現象，但機構並無集中的狀況。
在兩領域高被引作者之高被引文章的被引來源方面，發現於個人、機構、國家、學科領域四個層級之被引來源數皆有傑出表現，表示高被引作者確實有廣泛的觸及範圍。然透過被引來源多樣性之分析結果發現，被引來源數越多者，其被引來源多樣性之表現不一定較佳。在機構、國家、學科領域之來源多樣性前20的高被引作者中，依分析層級不同，各有5-15位高被引作者之被引來源數亦能排在前20；個人來源多樣性與個人來源數排名前20的作者則無重複的情況。而兩領域整體高被引作者之被引來源數與被引來源多樣性之相關檢定結果亦皆發現，只在機構、國家、學科領域三個層級上兩者間有達到中度以上正相關。是故被引來源多樣性確實能反映出高被引作者不同的被引特性，被引來源數越多的高被引作者並不一定能平均的被各個來源所引用。
在被引來源數、被引來源多樣性與科學影響力間之關係方面，本研究首先觀察被引次數、平均被引次數前20之作者的表現，發現其被引來源數之表現優於被引來源多樣性，各有近半數或過半數之高被引作者之被引來源數亦排名於前20，然僅有機構來源多樣性表現能大致持平，個人、國家、學科領域之來源多樣性表現皆有明顯率退。在兩領域高被引作者整體表現方面，結果顯示四層級之被引來源數與被引次數、平均被引次數皆為正相關，然被引來源多樣性僅在機構層級與被引次數、平均被引次數、h-index呈現正相關。表示被引來源數可作為被引次數、平均被引次數的輔助指標，用以顯示高被引作者之實際觸及範圍，而被引來源多樣性的確能衡量到與被引、平均被引次數不同面向的科學影響力。

關鍵字

書目計量學 ； 高被引作者 ； 被引來源 ； 被引來源多樣性

並列摘要

The aim of the study is to analyze the diversity of forward citation of highly cited researchers in the field of Chemistry and Material Science, and the relation between the diversity of forward citation and the scienfic impact. The diversity of forward citation can be analyzed form two aspects, which are the number of unique citation sources and the eveness of citation distribution among different soureces.
The list of the highly cited researchers of the two fields are collected from the 2016 Highly Cited Researchers published by Thomson Reuters. The highly cited papers of these researchers published during 2006-2016 are chosen as the subjects of the study. The bibliographic data of the highly cited papers and the citing papers of these highly cited papers are downloaded from Web of Science. The diversity of forward citation of highly cited researchers are discussed in four levels, which are individual, institution, country and subject fields. Through calculating the number of different individuals, institutions, countries and subject fields within the total citation counts, the range of knowledge diffusion of each highly cited researchers can be revealed. In addition, the eveness of citation distribution among each source is measured as well.
The results show that the highly cited researchers do have a broad range of influences reflected by their number of unique citation sources across the four levels of analyses. However, the results also show that the corresponding performances between the number of unique citation sources and the eveness of citation distribution are not guaranteed. The correlations are only found significant in the level of institution, country and subject fields.
As for the relations between the number of unique sources and eveness of citation distribution, and scientific impact, the performance of the top 20 authors with the highest citation counts and average citation counts, and the entire highly cited researchers of the two fields are discussed. We find that among the top 20 authors, they have better performance in number of unique soureces than the eveness of citation distribution. The analyses of the entire highly cited researchers of the two fields show consistent results. The siginificant correlations between the citation counts and average citation counts, and the number of unique soureces are found across the four levels, while considering the eveness of citation distribution, the siginificant correlation is only found in the institutional level.

並列關鍵字

Bibliometrics ； Highly-Cited Researcher ； Diversity of Forward Citation

參考文獻

Ajiferuke, I., & Wolfram, D. (2009). Citer analysis as a measure of research impact: Library and information science as a case study. Scientometrics, 83(3), 623–638.

Amsterdamska, O., & Leydesdorff, L. (1989). Citations: Indicators of significance? Scientometrics, 15(5-6), 449–471.

Appio, F. P., Cesaroni, F., & Di Minin, A. (2014). Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: a document co-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 101(1), 623–661.

Balaban, A. T., & Klein, D. J. (2006). Is chemistry’The Central Science’? How are different sciences related? Co-citations, reductionism, emergence, and posets. Scientometrics, 69(3), 615–637.

Bartneck, C., & Kokkelmans, S. (2011). Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 87(1), 85–98.