论文标题
相同的数据可能会带来冲突结果:谨慎使用破坏性指数
Same data may bring conflict results: a caution to use the disruptive index
论文作者
论文摘要
在过去的二十年中,学者们设计了各种各样的书目相关指标,以确定突破性的学术成就。在这项研究中,我们采取了进一步的一步来研究有希望的破坏性指数的特性,从而加深了我们对该指数的理解,并进一步促进了其在书目中的明智使用。我们使用1900年至2016年诺贝尔奖获得者的出版记录,计算每年诺贝尔奖获奖文章及其基准文章的DI,并使用中位数DI表示每年的核心趋势,并比较医学,化学和物理学之间的结果。我们发现基于DI的结论取决于其引文时间窗口的长度,并且不同的引文时间窗口可能会导致不同的,甚至引起争议的结果。此外,当使用DI来衡量科学工作的创新性时,纪律和时间在引文窗口的长度上发挥了作用。最后,并非所有具有DI等于1的文章都是突破性的成就。换句话说,DI从理论上站起来,但是我们不应忽略DI仅由引用文章的数量和参考文献所引用的时间来塑造,这些数据可能因数据库而异。
In the last two decades, scholars have designed various types of bibliographic related indicators to identify breakthrough-class academic achievements. In this study, we take a further step to look at properties of the promising disruptive index, thus deepening our understanding of this index and further facilitating its wise use in bibliometrics. Using publication records for Nobel laureates between 1900 and 2016, we calculate the DI of Nobel Prize-winning articles and its benchmark articles in each year and use the median DI to denote the central tendency in each year, and compare results between Medicine, Chemistry, and Physics. We find that conclusions based on DI depend on the length of their citation time window, and different citation time windows may cause different, even controversial, results. Also, discipline and time play a role on the length of citation window when using DI to measure the innovativeness of a scientific work. Finally, not all articles with DI equals to 1 were the breakthrough-class achievements. In other words, the DI stands up theoretically, but we should not neglect that the DI was only shaped by the number of citing articles and times the references have been cited, these data may vary from database to database.