农学学报
農學學報
농학학보
Chinese Countryside Well-off Technology
2015年
5期
102-108
,共7页
访花昆虫%传粉昆虫%文献学特征%研究动态%中国
訪花昆蟲%傳粉昆蟲%文獻學特徵%研究動態%中國
방화곤충%전분곤충%문헌학특정%연구동태%중국
Flower-visiting Insects%Pollinating Insects%Philology Characteristics%Research Dynamics%China
全面了解中国访花传粉昆虫领域的研究现状,客观地进行分析,为访花传粉昆虫科研工作者与决策者提供数据参考。以《中国知网》的《中国期刊全文数据库》为数据源,运用文献计量学的原理和方法,对访花传粉昆虫研究的年代、作者、机构、载文期刊、研究内容及基金资助进行分析。结果表明,检索出1980—2013年国内访花传粉昆虫研究专题256名作者在133种刊物上发表的308篇文献,揭示了30多年间国内该领域研究的动态变化和基本态势。中国访花传粉昆虫研究发文量逐年增加;机构分布广,高产机构较少;研究者众多,高产活跃作者队伍不够强大,核心作者数量及所发论文质量不是很高;研究内容广泛丰富,不同研究方向成果数量不均衡。
全麵瞭解中國訪花傳粉昆蟲領域的研究現狀,客觀地進行分析,為訪花傳粉昆蟲科研工作者與決策者提供數據參攷。以《中國知網》的《中國期刊全文數據庫》為數據源,運用文獻計量學的原理和方法,對訪花傳粉昆蟲研究的年代、作者、機構、載文期刊、研究內容及基金資助進行分析。結果錶明,檢索齣1980—2013年國內訪花傳粉昆蟲研究專題256名作者在133種刊物上髮錶的308篇文獻,揭示瞭30多年間國內該領域研究的動態變化和基本態勢。中國訪花傳粉昆蟲研究髮文量逐年增加;機構分佈廣,高產機構較少;研究者衆多,高產活躍作者隊伍不夠彊大,覈心作者數量及所髮論文質量不是很高;研究內容廣汎豐富,不同研究方嚮成果數量不均衡。
전면료해중국방화전분곤충영역적연구현상,객관지진행분석,위방화전분곤충과연공작자여결책자제공수거삼고。이《중국지망》적《중국기간전문수거고》위수거원,운용문헌계량학적원리화방법,대방화전분곤충연구적년대、작자、궤구、재문기간、연구내용급기금자조진행분석。결과표명,검색출1980—2013년국내방화전분곤충연구전제256명작자재133충간물상발표적308편문헌,게시료30다년간국내해영역연구적동태변화화기본태세。중국방화전분곤충연구발문량축년증가;궤구분포엄,고산궤구교소;연구자음다,고산활약작자대오불구강대,핵심작자수량급소발논문질량불시흔고;연구내용엄범봉부,불동연구방향성과수량불균형。
To understand the status quo of flower-visiting and pollinating insects in China, the current situation was analyzed and data reference for researchers and deciders were provided. By the principles and methods of bibliometrics,‘China periodical full-text database’of CNKI as data source, years, authors, institutions, journals, research content and foundations of published papers were analyzed. The special documents on the researches of flower-visiting insects and pollinating insects in China from 1980 to 2013 were counted and analyzed. 308 papers on 133 journals by 256 authors were searched. The dynamic changes and basic states on the researches of this field during 30 years were revealed. Papers of flower-visiting insects and pollinating insects in China increased year by year. Research institutions were widespread, the institutions which can publish plenty papers were not enough. Research authors were numerous, the team of authors who have published a great number of papers was not strong enough, the number of core authors was small and the quality of papers was low. Research content was plentiful and the number of papers in different research directions was uneven.