李洁;孟烨;金佳丽;姚翔宇;黄晨;

• 1:浙江大学图书馆

摘要(Abstract)：

随着网络爬虫、基于人工智能的文本语义分析技术的更新和研究范式的发展,越来越多的新兴科学引文索引数据库问世,不仅为科研工作者搜索和筛选学术文献资源提供了新的体验,也为科研评价提供了更多的选择。本文选取了7个科学引文索引数据库(Microsoft Academic、Dimensions、Semantic Scholar、Lens、Scinapse、Scilit、Scite)进行调研比较和案例分析,以期挖掘各数据库的收录范围、指标、人工智能技术、可视化分析、插件及导出等特色,供图书馆员做科研评价分析时参考和选择。通过调研和案例分析发现,对于机构和学者的评价,综合考虑文献收录范围和查准率,Microsoft Academic和Dimensions是最优的选择。

关键词(KeyWords)： 科学引文索引;引文分析;语义引文;学术影响力评价

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 浙江省教育厅一般科研项目（人文社科类）“新兴科学引文索引数据库调研”（编号：Y202146118）的研究成果之一

作者(Authors): 李洁;孟烨;金佳丽;姚翔宇;黄晨;

DOI: 10.16603/j.issn1002-1027.2021.06.011

参考文献(References)：

• 1 新浪网.加州大学系统停止订阅爱思唯尔：一场特殊的较量[EB/OL].[2021-04-16].https://t.cj.sina.com.cn/articles/view/3949237910/eb64969602000f16i.
• 2 和晋飞，吕锋昌，房俊民.利用Google Scholar自动统计引文年度被引频次的方法[J].图书情报工作，2014,58(7):88-94,118.
• 3 Tay A.The next generation discovery citation indexes—a review of the landscape in 2020 (I) [EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://medium.com/a-academic-librarians-thoughts-on-open-access/the-next-generation-discovery-citation-indexes-a-review-of-the-landscape-a-2020-i-afc7b23ceb32.
• 4 Semantic Scholar[EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://www.semanticscholar.org/.
• 5 Microsoft Academic[EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://academic.microsoft.com/.
• 6 Lens[EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://www.lens.org/.
• 7 Dimensions[EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://www.dimensions.ai/.
• 8 Scite[EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://scite.ai/.
• 9 Scinapse[EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://www.scinapse.io/.
• 10 NAVER academic[EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://academic.naver.com/.
• 11 Scilit[EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://www.scilit.net/.
• 12 findr[EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://1findr.1science.com/.
• 13 赵蓉英，陈烨.学术搜索引擎Google Scholar和Microsoft Academic Search的比较研究[J].情报科学，2014,32(2):3-6,15.
• 14 Hug S E,Br?ndle M P.The coverage of Microsoft Academic:analyzing the publication output of a university[J].Scientometrics,2017,113(3):1551-1571.
• 15 Thelwall M.Microsoft Academic:a multidisciplinary comparison of citation counts with Scopus and Mendeley for 29 journals[J].Journal of Informetrics,2017,11(4):1201-1212.
• 16 Kousha K,Thelwall,Abdoli M.Can Microsoft Academic assess the early citation impact of in-press articles?a multi-discipline exploratory analysis[J].Journal of Informetrics,2018,12(1):287-298.
• 17 Visser M,Van Eck N J,Waltman L.Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources:Scopus,Web of Science,Dimensions,Crossref,and Microsoft Academic[EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10732.
• 18 Orduňa-Malea E,Delgado-López-Cózar E.Dimensions:re-discovering the ecosystem of scientific information[J].El Profesional de la Informacion,2018,27(2):420-431.
• 19 Thelwall M.Dimensions:a competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?[J].Journal of Informetrics,2018,12(2):430-435.
• 20 Harzing A W.Two new kids on the block:how do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar,Microsoft Academic,Scopus and the Web of Science?[J].Scientometrics,2019,120(1):341-349.
• 21 Martín-Martín A,Thelwall M,Orduna-Malea E,et al.Google Scholar,Microsoft Academic,Scopus,Dimensions,Web of Science,and OpenCitations' COCI:a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations[J].Scientometrics,2021,126(1):871-906.
• 22 谢智敏，郭倩玲.基于深度学习的学术搜索引擎——Semantic Scholar[J].情报杂志，2017,36(8):175-182.
• 23 Valenzuela M,Ha V,Etzioni O.Identifying meaningful citations:WS-15-13 [R].AAAI Workshop-Technical Report,2015:21-26.
• 24 Tay A.More cutting edge—Research tools for researchers—Oct 2020 by Aaron Tay [EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://aarontay.medium.com/more-cutting-edge-research-tools-for-researchers-oct-2020-by-aaron-tay-b90b56f3dfbd.
• 25 Tay A.7 reasons why you should try Lens.org (updated to version Release 5.16.0-March 2019)[EB/OL].[2021-02-26].https://aarontay.medium.com/6-reasons-why-you-should-try-lens-org-c40abb09ec6f.
• 26 刘盛博，丁堃，唐德龙.引用内容分析的理论与方法[J].情报理论与实践，2015,38(10):27-32.
• 27 刘盛博，丁堃，张春博.引文分析的新阶段：从引文著录分析到引用内容分析[J].图书情报知识，2015(3):25-34.