Skip to main content

A warning for Chinese academic evaluation systems: short-term bibliometric measures misjudge the value of pioneering contributions

对中国学术评价体系的警示——短期文献计量指 标误判科学先驱性工作价值

摘要

虽然用短期文献计量指标评估科学家成就的现行 做法在学术界受到许多争议和质疑,但是这一 “根深蒂固”的观念和评估方法在现实中一直难 以改变,主要原因是长期以来在政策制定者、科 学家和使用者之间存在着很大裂缝。为纠正这种 有明显缺陷的“文献计量”评估方法,我们对一 些诺贝尔奖获得者的主要论文,进行了基于大数 据的引用特征系列研究。通过对观察节点在科学 引文索引数据库(Web of Science)引用网络中百 万篇论文节点间的深度关系分析,我们发现:许 多真正的奠基性工作,并没有像耀眼的火焰在科 学星空中闪烁出灿烂光芒;相反,它们更像是导 火索上的星星火花,点燃大量后续研究火焰继而 引发了科学界的转型。结合资深专家访谈,我们 呼吁科学同盟者们应该意识到,“误用短期文献 计量指标”等同于“道义上犯罪”,评价体系应 该更强调“创新源头”,助推潜在的颠覆性与转 型性研究。

References

  • Danna K, Nathans D, 1971. Specific cleavage of simian virus 40 DNA by restriction endonuclease of Hemophilus influenzae. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 68(12): 2913–2917. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.68.12.2913

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield E, 1985. Uses and misuses of citation frequency. Current Contents, 43: 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu XJ, Rousseau R, 2016. Scientific influence is not always visible: the phenomenon of under-cited influential publications. J Informetr, 10(4): 1079–1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu XJ, Rousseau R, 2017. Nobel Prize Winners 2016: igniting or sparking foundational publications? Scientometrics, 110(1): 1053–1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2205-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kametaka S, Matsuura A, Wada Y, et al., 1996. Structural and functional analyses of APG5 a gene involved in autophagy in yeast. Gene, 178(1–2): 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1119(96)00354-X

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marion JB, Fowler WA, 1957. Nuclear reactions with the neon isotopes in stars. Astrophys J, 125(1): 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1086/146296

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNutt M, 2014. The measure of research merit. Science, 346(6214): 1115. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa3796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau S, Rousseau R, 2015. Metric-wiseness. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol, 66(11): 2389. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23558

    Google Scholar 

  • RSAS (the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences), 2016a. Scientific background discoveries of mechanisms for autophagy. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2016/advanced-medicineprize2016.pdf [accessed on Oct. 5, 2016]

    Google Scholar 

  • RSAS (the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences), 2016b. Scientific background on the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2016—Molecular Machines. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2016/advanced-chemistry prize2016.pdf [accessed on Oct. 5, 2016]

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruska E, 1933. The electron-electron microscopic image of irradiated Surfaces. Zeitschrift für Physik, 83(7–8): 492–497 (in German). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01338960

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selvarajoo K, 2015. Measuring merit: take the risk. Science, 347(6218): 139–140. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.347.6218.139-c

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tu YY, 1999. The development of new antimalarial drugs: qinghaosu and dihydro-qinghaosu. Chin Med J, 112(11): 976–977.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Noorden R, 2010. A profusion of measures. Nature, 465: 864–866. https://doi.org/10.1038/465864a

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yang W, Zheng YH, Dong C, 2017. How to review a potential transformative research? Bull Natl Nat Sci Found China, 31(4): 1–8 (in Chinese).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao-jun Hu.

Additional information

Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71573225)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, Xj., Luo, Jh. & Rousseau, R. A warning for Chinese academic evaluation systems: short-term bibliometric measures misjudge the value of pioneering contributions. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B 19, 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1700569

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1700569

关键词

  • 学术评价
  • 科学先驱性工作
  • 诺贝尔奖
  • 文献计 量指标
  • 短期评估