评估衡量国际研究合作的书目数据来源的质量

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
B. Nguyen, Markus Luczak-Rösch, J. Dinneen, V. Larivière
{"title":"评估衡量国际研究合作的书目数据来源的质量","authors":"B. Nguyen, Markus Luczak-Rösch, J. Dinneen, V. Larivière","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Measuring international research collaboration (IRC) is essential to various research assessment tasks but the effect of various measurement decisions, including which data sources to use, has not been thoroughly studied. To better understand the effect of data source choice on IRC measurement, we design and implement a data quality assessment framework specifically for bibliographic data by reviewing and selecting available dimensions and designing appropriate computable metrics, and then validate the framework by applying it to four popular sources of bibliographic data: Microsoft Academic Graph, Web of Science (WoS), Dimensions, and the ACM Digital Library. Successful validation of the framework suggests it is consistent with the popular conceptual framework of information quality proposed by Wang and Strong (1996) and adequately identifies the differences in quality in the sources examined. Application of the framework reveals that WoS has the highest overall quality among the sets considered; and that the differences in quality can be explained primarily by how the data sources are organized. Our study comprises a methodological contribution that enables researchers to apply this IRC measurement tool in their studies and makes an empirical contribution by further characterizing four popular sources of bibliographic data and their impact on IRC measurement.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"529-559"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the quality of bibliographic data sources for measuring international research collaboration\",\"authors\":\"B. Nguyen, Markus Luczak-Rösch, J. Dinneen, V. Larivière\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/qss_a_00211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Measuring international research collaboration (IRC) is essential to various research assessment tasks but the effect of various measurement decisions, including which data sources to use, has not been thoroughly studied. To better understand the effect of data source choice on IRC measurement, we design and implement a data quality assessment framework specifically for bibliographic data by reviewing and selecting available dimensions and designing appropriate computable metrics, and then validate the framework by applying it to four popular sources of bibliographic data: Microsoft Academic Graph, Web of Science (WoS), Dimensions, and the ACM Digital Library. Successful validation of the framework suggests it is consistent with the popular conceptual framework of information quality proposed by Wang and Strong (1996) and adequately identifies the differences in quality in the sources examined. Application of the framework reveals that WoS has the highest overall quality among the sets considered; and that the differences in quality can be explained primarily by how the data sources are organized. Our study comprises a methodological contribution that enables researchers to apply this IRC measurement tool in their studies and makes an empirical contribution by further characterizing four popular sources of bibliographic data and their impact on IRC measurement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"529-559\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要衡量国际研究合作(IRC)对各种研究评估任务至关重要,但各种衡量决策的影响,包括使用哪些数据源,尚未得到彻底研究。为了更好地理解数据源选择对IRC测量的影响,我们通过审查和选择可用维度以及设计适当的可计算度量,设计并实现了一个专门针对书目数据的数据质量评估框架,然后将其应用于四个流行的书目数据源来验证该框架:Microsoft Academic Graph,网络科学(WoS),维度,和ACM数字图书馆。该框架的成功验证表明,它与王和斯特朗(1996)提出的流行的信息质量概念框架一致,并充分识别了所检查来源的质量差异。该框架的应用表明,在所考虑的集合中,WoS具有最高的整体质量;并且质量上的差异主要可以通过数据源的组织方式来解释。我们的研究包括一项方法学贡献,使研究人员能够在他们的研究中应用这一IRC测量工具,并通过进一步描述四种流行的书目数据来源及其对IRC测量的影响来做出实证贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the quality of bibliographic data sources for measuring international research collaboration
Abstract Measuring international research collaboration (IRC) is essential to various research assessment tasks but the effect of various measurement decisions, including which data sources to use, has not been thoroughly studied. To better understand the effect of data source choice on IRC measurement, we design and implement a data quality assessment framework specifically for bibliographic data by reviewing and selecting available dimensions and designing appropriate computable metrics, and then validate the framework by applying it to four popular sources of bibliographic data: Microsoft Academic Graph, Web of Science (WoS), Dimensions, and the ACM Digital Library. Successful validation of the framework suggests it is consistent with the popular conceptual framework of information quality proposed by Wang and Strong (1996) and adequately identifies the differences in quality in the sources examined. Application of the framework reveals that WoS has the highest overall quality among the sets considered; and that the differences in quality can be explained primarily by how the data sources are organized. Our study comprises a methodological contribution that enables researchers to apply this IRC measurement tool in their studies and makes an empirical contribution by further characterizing four popular sources of bibliographic data and their impact on IRC measurement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信