ISSN 2304-6600 (Online)
ISSN 1997-0935 (Print)


Видимость академических исследований по градостроительству и будущее вебометрики

  • Санчес Томас Уэйн - Политехнический университет Виргинии и университет штата
DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2015.3.119-137
Страницы: 119-137
Рассмотрены проблемы анализа основных показателей научной продуктивности преподавателей университетов США, специализирующихся на исследованиях и образовательной деятельности в области градостроительства. Подчеркнута возрастающая роль Интернета в передаче учеными-градостроителями своих идей профессионалам и общественности, расширении научных коммуникаций и возможностей оценки качества исследований и вклада. На конкретных примерах исследованы методики применения вебометрики для анализа цитирования материалов, опубликованных в сети Интернет, по основным критериям: продуктивности, видимости, репутации, влиянию. Предложен расширенный подход для оценки общей научной популярности и влиятельности научно-педагогических работников университетов в сети, включающий анализ публикаций в рамках «серой литературы», учебную и воспитательную работу, которые также могут служить важной составляющей научной активности. Сделан вывод о важности оценки академической видимости как для карьерного роста и повышения конкурентоспособности преподавателя-исследователя на рынке труда в сфере образовательных услуг, так и для развития градостроительных школ в целом, повышения их репутации, престижа и влияния, получения возможностей для финансирования исследований, укрепления позиций на глобальном рынке образования и науки.
  • научное цитирование;
  • научные коммуникации;
  • вебометрика;
  • градостроительство;
  • публикационная активность;
  • Интернет;
  • академическая видимость;
  • научная продуктивность;
  • академическая репутация;
  1. Stiftel B., Mogg R. A planner’s guide to the digital bibliographic revolution. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2007, no. 73 (1), pp. 68-85.
  2. Stiftel B., Mukhopadhyay C. Thoughts on Anglo-American hegemony in planning scholarship: Do we read each other’s work? Town Planning Review. 2007, no. 78 (5), pp. 545-572.
  3. Marchionini G. Information Concepts: From Books to Cyberspace Identities. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services. 2010, no. 2 (1), pp. 1-105.
  4. Goldstein, H., and Maier G. The use and valuation of journals in planning scholarship: Peer assessment versus impact factors. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2010, no. 30 (1), 66 p.
  5. Arimoto Akira. Reaction to Academic Ranking: Knowledge Production, Faculty Productivity from an International Perspective. In University Rankings: The Changing Academy - The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective, ed. Jung Cheol Shin, Robert K. Toutkoushian, and Ulrich Teichler. 2011, no. 3, pp. 229-258. Springer Netherlands.
  6. Linton J.D., Tierney R., and Walsh S.T. Publish or Perish: How Are Research and Reputation Related? Serials Review. 2011.
  7. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. In American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1972, no. 50.
  8. Garfield E., and Merton R.K. Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. 1979. Vol. 8. Wiley New York.
  9. MacRoberts M.H., and MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1989, no. 40 (5), pp. 342-349.
  10. MacRoberts M.H., and MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics. 1996, no. 36 (3), pp. 435-444.
  11. Adam D. Citation analysis: The counting house. Nature. 2002, no. 415 (6873), pp. 726-729.
  12. Moed H.F. Citation analysis in research evaluation. Kluwer Academic Pub. 2005, vol. 9.
  13. Brin S., and Page L. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer networks and ISDN systems. 1998, no. 30 (1-7), pp. 107-117.
  14. Almind T.C., and Ingwersen P. Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: methodological approaches to ‘Webometrics’. Journal of documentation. 1997, no. 53 (4), pp. 404-426.
  15. Thelwall M. Introduction to webometrics: Quantitative web research for the social sciences. Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services. 2009, no. 1 (1), pp. 1-116.
  16. Björneborn L., and Ingwersen P. Perspective of webometrics. Scientometrics. 2001, no. 50 (1), pp. 65-82.
  17. Björneborn L., and Ingwersen P. Toward a basic framework for webometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2004, no. 55 (14), pp. 1216-1227.
  18. Jalal S.K, Biswas S.C., and Mukhopadhyay P. Bibliometrics to webometrics. Information Studies. 2009, no. 15 (1), pp. 3-20.
  19. Kousha K., and Thelwall M. Google Book Search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2009, no. 60 (8), pp. 1537-1549.
  20. Kousha K. Webometrics and Scholarly Communication: An Overview. Quarterly Journal of the National Library of Iran [online]. 2005, no. 14 (4).
  21. Bollen J., Rodriguez M.A., Van de Sompel H., Balakireva L.L., and Hagberg A. The largest scholarly semantic network... ever. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web. 2007, pp. 1247-1248. ACM.
  22. Hoang D.T., Kaur J., and Menczer F. Crowdsourcing scholarly data. 2010.
  23. Harzing A.W., and Van der Wal R. A Google Scholar h-index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2009, no. 60 (1), pp. 41-46.
  24. Moed H.F. New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis. 2009, no. 57 (1), pp. 13-18.
  25. Falagas M.E., Pitsouni E.I., Malietzis G.A., and Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal. 2008, no. 22 (2), pp. 338-342.
  26. Neuhaus C., and Daniel H.D. Data sources for performing citation analysis: an overview. Journal of Documentation. 2008, no. 64 (2), pp. 193-210.
  27. MacRoberts M.H., and MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom-cited influences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2010, no. 61 (1), pp. 1-12.
  28. Meho L.I, and Sugimoto C.R. Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases - Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2009, no. 60 (12), pp. 2499-2508.
  29. Harzing A.W. The publish or perish book. Tarma Software Research. 2010.
  30. Mukhopadhyay Parthasarathi. Measuring Web Impact Factors : A Webometric Study based on the Analysis of Hyperlinks. Library and Information Science. 2004, pp. 1-12.
  31. Thelwall M. Link analysis: An information science approach. Academic Press. 2004.
  32. Garfield E. Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science. 1955, no. 122, pp. 108-111.
  33. Thelwall M., Klitkou A., Verbeek A., Stuart D., and Vincent C. Policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2010, no. 61 (7), pp. 1464-1475.
  34. Leahey E. Not by productivity alone: How visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American sociological review. 2007, no. 72 (4), pp. 533-561.
  35. Adkins D., and Budd J. Scholarly productivity of US LIS faculty. Library & Information Science Research. 2006, no. 28 (3), pp. 374-389.
  36. Massy W.F. Creative Paths to Boosting Academic Productivity. 2010.
  37. Youn T.I.K, and Price T.M. Learning from the experience of others: The evolution of faculty tenure and promotion rules in comprehensive institutions. The Journal of Higher Education. 2009, no. 80 (2), pp. 204-237.
  38. Dewett T., and Denisi A.S. Exploring scholarly reputation: It’s more than just productivity. Scientometrics. 2004, no. 60 (2), pp. 249-272.
  39. Davis E.B, and Rose J.T. Converting Faculty Performance Evaluations Into Merit Raises: A Spreadsheet Model. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC). 2011, no. 1 (2).
  40. Mezrich R., and Nagy P.G. The academic RVU: a system for measuring academic productivity. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2007, no. 4 (7), pp. 471-478.
  41. Musick M.A. An Analysis of Faculty Instructional and Grant-based Productivity at The University of Texas at Austin. Austin, TX. 2011.
  42. Townsend B.K, and Rosser V.J. Workload issues and measures of faculty productivity. Thought & Action. 2007, no. 23, pp. 7-19.
  43. Webber K.L. Measuring Faculty Productivity. University Rankings. 2011, pp. 105-121.
  44. O’Donnell R. Higher Education’s Faculty Productivity Gap : The Cost to Students, Parents & Taxpayers. Austin, TX. 2011. file:///C:/Users/Tom/Documents/MendeleyDesktop/Higher_Eds_Faculty_Productivity_Gap.pdf.
  45. Adler N.J., and A.W. Harzing. When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. The Academy of Management Learning and Education ARCHIVE. 2009, no. 8 (1), pp. 72-95.
  46. Beel J., Gipp B., and Wilde E. Academic search engine optimization (ASEO). Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 2010, no. 41 (2), pp. 176-190.
  47. Baird L.L. What characterizes a productive research department? Research in Higher Education. 1986, no. 25 (3), pp. 211-225.
  48. Priem J., and Hemminger B.H. Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday. 2010, no. 15 (7).
  49. Taraborelli D. Soft peer review: Social software and distributed scientific evaluation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems COOP 08. Institut d’Etudes Politiques d’Aix-en-Provence. 2008.
  50. Neylon C., and Wu S. Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS biology. 2009, no. 7 (11). e1000242.
  51. Heck T., and Peters I. Expert recommender systems: Establishing Communities of Practice based on social bookmarking systems. In Proceedings of I-Know. 2010, pp. 458-464.
  52. Adie E. Commenting on scientific articles (PLoS edition). Nascent. 2009.
  53. Priem J., and Costello K.L. How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2010, no. 47 (1), pp. 1-4.
  54. Hsu C.L., and Lin J.C.C. Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management. 2008, no. 45 (1), pp. 65-74.
  55. Roman D. Scholarly publishing model needs an update. Communications of the ACM. 2011, no. 54 (1), 16 p.
  56. Knowlton A. Internet Usage Data. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 2011.
  57. Anderson K. The Impact Factor: A Tool from a Bygone Era? The Scholarly Kitchen. 2009.
  58. Cheverie J.F, Boettcher J., and Buschman J. Digital scholarship in the university tenure and promotion process: a report on the sixth scholarly communication symposium at Georgetown university library. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 2009, no. 40 (3), pp. 219-230.
  59. Kousha K., Thelwall M., and Rezaie S. Using the web for research evaluation: The Integrated Online Impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics. 2010, no. 4 (1), pp. 124-135.
  60. Priem J., Taraborelli D., Groth P., and Neylon C. Alt-metrics: A manifesto. 2010.
  61. Franceschet M. The difference between popularity and prestige in the sciences and in the social sciences: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Informetrics. 2010, no. 4 (1), pp. 55-63.
  62. Kelderman E. Recession Pushed State and Local Higher-Ed Spending to 25-Year Low in 2010. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 8. 2011.