质量与数量：评估个体研究绩效。
Quality versus quantity: assessing individual research performance.
机构信息
INSERM, U968, Paris F-75012, France.
出版信息
Sci Transl Med. 2011 May 25;3(84):84cm13. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002249.
Abstract
Evaluating individual research performance is a complex task that ideally examines productivity, scientific impact, and research quality--a task that metrics alone have been unable to achieve. In January 2011, the French Academy of Sciences published a report on current bibliometric (citation metric) methods for evaluating individual researchers, as well as recommendations for the integration of quality assessment. Here, I draw on key issues raised by this report and comment on the suggestions for improving existing research evaluation practices.
摘要
评估个人研究绩效是一项复杂的任务，理想情况下需要考察生产力、科学影响力和研究质量——而这单凭指标无法实现。2011 年 1 月，法国科学院发布了一份关于当前用于评估个体研究人员的文献计量（引文计量）方法的报告，以及关于纳入质量评估的建议。在此，我借鉴了该报告提出的关键问题，并对改进现有研究评估实践的建议进行了评论。
相似文献
1
Quality versus quantity: assessing individual research performance.质量与数量：评估个体研究绩效。
Sci Transl Med. 2011 May 25;3(84):84cm13. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002249.
2
Measuring researcher independence using bibliometric data: A proposal for a new performance indicator.使用文献计量数据衡量研究人员的独立性：一个新的绩效指标的建议。
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 27;14(3):e0202712. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202712. eCollection 2019.
3
Research assessment: the limits of excellence.研究评估：卓越的局限
Nature. 2014 Jul 24;511(7510):S64-6. doi: 10.1038/511S64a.
4
The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.四项引文计量指标与同行对澳大利亚六位公共卫生领域研究人员的研究影响力排名之间的关联。
PLoS One. 2011 Apr 6;6(4):e18521. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018521.
5
Research impact: Altmetrics make their mark.研究影响力：替代计量指标崭露头角。
Nature. 2013 Aug 22;500(7463):491-3. doi: 10.1038/nj7463-491a.
6
The counting house.会计室。
Nature. 2002 Feb 14;415(6873):726-9. doi: 10.1038/415726a.
7
[Evaluation of scientific quality using citation analysis and other bibliometric methods].[使用引文分析和其他文献计量方法评估科学质量]
Nord Med. 1989;104(12):331-5, 341.
8
Impact: China needs to review its metrics.影响：中国需要审视其衡量标准。
Nature. 2013 Nov 14;503(7475):198. doi: 10.1038/503198c.
9
The maze of impact metrics.影响指标的迷宫。
Nature. 2013 Oct 17;502(7471):271. doi: 10.1038/502271a.
10
[Indicators of research impact: Tools for measuring journals, researchers and published articles in health - Pharmaceutical perspective].[研究影响力指标：从药学角度衡量期刊、研究人员及已发表文章的工具]
Ann Pharm Fr. 2019 Jan;77(1):1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.pharma.2018.09.001. Epub 2018 Oct 26.
引用本文的文献
1
Self-mentions in design area disciplines: A corpus analysis.设计领域学科中的自我提及：一项语料库分析。
Heliyon. 2024 Dec 13;11(1):e41200. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41200. eCollection 2025 Jan 15.
2
Bibliometric evaluation of Forensic Science International as a scholarly journal within the subject category legal medicine.《法医学国际杂志》作为法医学学科领域学术期刊的文献计量学评价
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2023 Sep 16;7:100438. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100438. eCollection 2023.
3
Analyzing author collaborations by developing a follower-leader clustering algorithm and identifying top co-authoring countries: Cluster analysis.通过开发追随者-领导者聚类算法和识别顶级合作国家来分析作者合作：聚类分析。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Jul 21;102(29):e34158. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034158.
4
The 95% control lines on both confirmed cases and days of infection with COVID-19 were applied to compare the impact on public health between 2020 and 2021 using the hT-index.对 2020 年和 2021 年的新冠病毒感染确诊病例和感染天数的 95%置信区间控制线进行了对比，使用 hT 指数来评估对公共卫生的影响。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 May 19;102(20):e33570. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033570.
5
The use of the time-to-event index (Tevent) to compare the negative impact of COVID-19 on public health among continents/regions in 2020 and 2021: An observational study.使用事件时间指数（Tevent）比较 2020 年和 2021 年各大陆/地区 COVID-19 对公共卫生的负面影响：一项观察性研究。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Dec 9;101(49):e30249. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030249.
6
Authors who contributed most to the fields of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis since 2011 using the hT-index: Bibliometric analysis.2011 年以来使用 hT 指数对血液透析和腹膜透析领域做出最大贡献的作者：文献计量学分析。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Sep 23;101(38):e30375. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030375.
7
Merit and placement in the American faculty hierarchy: Cumulative advantage in archaeology.美国学术教职等级中的功绩与地位：考古学中的累积优势。
PLoS One. 2022 Jan 31;17(1):e0259038. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259038. eCollection 2022.
8
A large National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre facilitates impactful cross-disciplinary and collaborative translational research publications and research collaboration networks: a bibliometric evaluation study.一个大型的英国国家健康研究所（NIHR）生物医学研究中心促进了有影响力的跨学科和协作转化研究出版物和研究合作网络：一项文献计量评估研究。
J Transl Med. 2021 Nov 27;19(1):483. doi: 10.1186/s12967-021-03149-x.
9
An overview of the digital solutions for helping people with aphasia through bibliometric analysis.通过文献计量分析助力失语症患者的数字解决方案综述。
eNeurologicalSci. 2021 Jan 5;22:100311. doi: 10.1016/j.ensci.2021.100311. eCollection 2021 Mar.
10
Motivators and barriers to research among doctors in the Indian medical scenario: A cross-sectional study from Karnataka, India.印度医疗环境下医生开展研究的动机与障碍：一项来自印度卡纳塔克邦的横断面研究
J Family Med Prim Care. 2020 Aug 25;9(8):4053-4061. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_369_20. eCollection 2020 Aug.
本文引用的文献
1
Metrics: Do metrics matter?指标：指标重要吗？
Nature. 2010 Jun 17;465(7300):860-2. doi: 10.1038/465860a.
2
Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals.对发表在普通医学期刊上的文章在科学网、Scopus和谷歌学术中被引用情况的比较。
JAMA. 2009 Sep 9;302(10):1092-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1307.
3
The use of bibliometric indicators to help peer-review assessment.使用文献计量指标辅助同行评审评估。
Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2009 Jan-Feb;57(1):33-8. doi: 10.1007/s00005-009-0004-2. Epub 2009 Feb 14.
4
Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses.PubMed、Scopus、科学网和谷歌学术的比较：优势与不足
FASEB J. 2008 Feb;22(2):338-42. doi: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF. Epub 2007 Sep 20.
5
An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output.一个用于量化个人科研产出的指标。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16569-72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102. Epub 2005 Nov 7.
6
Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas.科学引文索引；通过思想关联实现文献记录的新维度。
Science. 1955 Jul 15;122(3159):108-11. doi: 10.1126/science.122.3159.108.
7
Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.为何不应使用期刊影响因子来评估研究。
BMJ. 1997 Feb 15;314(7079):498-502. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497.
Zotero 插件