| 王丽.中国知网数据库中高被引文献与高下载文献类型分析 ——以医药卫生科技类文献为例.编辑学报,2015,27(5):503-505 |
| 中国知网数据库中高被引文献与高下载文献类型分析 ——以医药卫生科技类文献为例 |
| Analysis of types of highly cited and highly downloaded literatures in CNKI database:taking medicine and health care technology literature for example |
| 投稿时间：2011-01-01 修订日期：2011-01-01 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 下载次数 被引次数 文献类型 医药卫生 |
| 英文关键词: download times citation times document type medicine and health care |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 75338 |
| 全文下载次数: 850 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 在中国知网数据库中检索医药卫生类2011年1月1日至2014年8月31日下载与被引频次排位前100名的文章并对其进行分析,发现下载排名前100篇文章中这2类合计占56.7%,被引排名前100篇文章中述评类和规范类合计占55.2%,两者重叠的23篇中,规范类和述评类合计占69.6%。认为规范类和述评类文献具有较高的权威性、参考价值大,是能够产生较高下载和较高被引的文献类型,应是期刊组稿的重要方向之一。观察下载次数与被引次数发现,两者没有明显的相关性,无规律可循。认为单纯以一两个数据库的下载、被引数据来做定量分析是不科学的,仅可作为定性参考之用。在研究的100篇文献中,有4篇为一稿多发,均属于规范类文章。认为这类文章承担着行业指导性任务,传播理应更广泛,故应与一般意义上的一稿多投、一稿多发的学术不端行为相区别。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| The top 100 medical technology articles in download and citation are searched and analyzed, published from 1 January 2011 to 31 August 2014 in CNKI database. It shows that, in the top downloaded 100 articles, review articles and standard type articles together account for 56.7% of the total articles, while in the top cited 100 articles, these two types of articles account for 55.2%. In the 23 overlapping articles, review articles and standard type articles together amount to 69.6%. The literatures of standard articles and review articles are of high authority and high reference value, which consequently result in high downloads and citations. We think that it would be an important direction for journal soliciting contributions. There is no significant relationship or any rule between the download and citation times. We have to admit that depending merely on one or two databases to analyze the download and citation is not scientific, but can be used as a qualitative reference. Among the 100 articles, there are 4 articles as multiple-publication, all belonging to standard type articles. We think that, this kind of articles play an important role in industry guidance and ought to be widespread to a broader range; therefore, it is different from academic misconduct such as duplicate submission or multiple-publication in general. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
