中华医学图书情报杂志
中華醫學圖書情報雜誌
중화의학도서정보잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
2015年
8期
11-16
,共6页
金砖四国%论文相对产出%相对引文影响%标准引文影响%学科结构%基本科学指标
金磚四國%論文相對產齣%相對引文影響%標準引文影響%學科結構%基本科學指標
금전사국%논문상대산출%상대인문영향%표준인문영향%학과결구%기본과학지표
BRICs%Relative paper output%Relative citation impact%Standard citation impact%Subject structure%ESI
以ESI数据库为数据来源，采集金砖四国2004-01-01至2014-06-30发表的论文数据，采用科研论文相对产出、相对引文影响指标分析金砖四国科研论文的产出规模及其影响；并采用学科专业化指标和标准引文影响指标，构建“学科专业化-标准引文影响”二维分析框架，分析金砖四国科研产出在全球的相对位置。研究结果表明，金砖四国科研论文绝对产出较多；金砖四国的相对科研产出在学科之间的分布呈现非均衡态势，在很多学科领域相对产出明显低于世界平均水平；金砖四国22个学科的相对引文影响指标均低于世界平均水平；根据专业化指标值，中国、巴西、印度的学科专业化程度低，俄罗斯的学科专业化程度略高；金砖四国的标准引文影响指标值均明显低于世界平均水平，说明科研论文整体质量低于世界平均水平。据此对金砖四国基础研究建设提出建议，以期为有关部门制定科技发展政策、调整学科结构布局提供参考。
以ESI數據庫為數據來源，採集金磚四國2004-01-01至2014-06-30髮錶的論文數據，採用科研論文相對產齣、相對引文影響指標分析金磚四國科研論文的產齣規模及其影響；併採用學科專業化指標和標準引文影響指標，構建“學科專業化-標準引文影響”二維分析框架，分析金磚四國科研產齣在全毬的相對位置。研究結果錶明，金磚四國科研論文絕對產齣較多；金磚四國的相對科研產齣在學科之間的分佈呈現非均衡態勢，在很多學科領域相對產齣明顯低于世界平均水平；金磚四國22箇學科的相對引文影響指標均低于世界平均水平；根據專業化指標值，中國、巴西、印度的學科專業化程度低，俄囉斯的學科專業化程度略高；金磚四國的標準引文影響指標值均明顯低于世界平均水平，說明科研論文整體質量低于世界平均水平。據此對金磚四國基礎研究建設提齣建議，以期為有關部門製定科技髮展政策、調整學科結構佈跼提供參攷。
이ESI수거고위수거래원，채집금전사국2004-01-01지2014-06-30발표적논문수거，채용과연논문상대산출、상대인문영향지표분석금전사국과연논문적산출규모급기영향；병채용학과전업화지표화표준인문영향지표，구건“학과전업화-표준인문영향”이유분석광가，분석금전사국과연산출재전구적상대위치。연구결과표명，금전사국과연논문절대산출교다；금전사국적상대과연산출재학과지간적분포정현비균형태세，재흔다학과영역상대산출명현저우세계평균수평；금전사국22개학과적상대인문영향지표균저우세계평균수평；근거전업화지표치，중국、파서、인도적학과전업화정도저，아라사적학과전업화정도략고；금전사국적표준인문영향지표치균명현저우세계평균수평，설명과연논문정체질량저우세계평균수평。거차대금전사국기출연구건설제출건의，이기위유관부문제정과기발전정책、조정학과결구포국제공삼고。
The output of ESI-covered scientific papers in BRICs from 2014-01-01 to 2014-06-30 and its impact were analyzed according to the relative publication index ( RPI) and relative citation impact ( RCI) , and the world relative position of scientific research output in BRICs was analyzed by constructing a two-dimensional analysis framework according to the subject specialization index and standard citation impact index, which showed that the absolute output of scientific papers in BRICs was rather high, the distribution of relative scientific research output was not proportional between different subjects, the relative scientific research output in many subjects was signifi-cantly lower than that in the world, the RCI index of 22 subjects in BRICs was lower than that in the world. The specialization degree of subjects was lower in China, Brazil and India than in Russia, the standard RCI index in BRICs was significantly lower than that in the world, indicating that the academic level of scientific papers in BRICs was lower than that in the world. Certain suggestions were put forward for working out the scientific develop-ment policies and adjusting the subject structure in China.
