Seglen P O
Nord Med. 1989;104(12):331-5, 341.
Bibliometric methods for scientific evaluation are examined. The citation frequency for scientific publications, as given in the Science Citation Index, is influenced by various forms of citation bias as well as by the characteristic dynamics and citation practices of the various scientific fields, and therefore cannot be taken as an unequivocal measure of scientific quality. Even for single authors the citation frequency is very variable; therefore this parameter should not be used for graded evaluation of individual scientists or research groups. At higher aggregate levels (large institutes etc) bibliometric indicators may, as part of a more general evaluation, give relevant information about research activity, provided due corrections are made for variable research field effects. The journal impact factor, i e the mean citation frequency of all articles in a journal, has been suggested as a rapid indicator of article quality. However, the distribution of citation frequency values within a journal is extremely broad and skewed; therefore assigning the same value to all articles would not seem to serve the purpose of evaluation particularly well. Furthermore the citation frequencies of articles published by individual authors or research groups are found to correlate extremely poorly with the corresponding journal impact factors. The latter parameter would thus appear to be unsuitable as an indicator of scientific quality.
本文探讨了用于科学评估的文献计量学方法。《科学引文索引》中给出的科学出版物的被引频次，受到各种形式的引用偏差以及各科学领域独特的动态变化和引用习惯的影响，因此不能被视为科学质量的明确衡量标准。即使对于单篇论文的作者来说，被引频次也有很大差异；所以这个参数不应用于对单个科学家或研究小组进行分级评估。在更高的总体层面（大型机构等），文献计量指标作为更全面评估的一部分，在对不同研究领域的影响进行适当校正后，可能会提供有关研究活动的相关信息。期刊影响因子，即某一期刊所有文章的平均被引频次，被提议作为文章质量的快速指标。然而某一期刊内被引频次值的分布极其分散且呈偏态分布；因此给所有文章赋予相同的值似乎并不能很好地实现评估目的。此外，发现个别作者或研究小组发表文章的被引频次与相应的期刊影响因子之间的相关性极差。因此，后一个参数似乎不适宜作为科学质量的指标。
