摘要：

【目的】 探讨被引频次、Altmetrics得分和F1000评分指标对生物医学论文进行综合评价的可行性,为论文及期刊评价提供参考。【方法】 以2014—2017年Altmetrics Top100论文为研究对象,选择论文发表后3年被引频次、论文发表当年Altmetrics得分和F1000评分分别作为学术影响力、社会影响力和同行评议的代表指标对论文进行评价分析。【结果】 是否OA出版对F1000评分、Altmetrics得分和被引频次影响不显著;F1000评分与被引频次弱相关,Altmetrics得分与F1000评分及被引频次均不相关;大多数论文F1000评分、Altmetrics得分和被引频次结果不一致,标准化后各指标数据直观地反映了论文同行评议、社会影响力以及学术影响力情况。【结论】 F1000评分、Altmetrics得分和被引频次相互独立、互为补充、不可替代,结合使用可以更全面地评价论文及期刊的影响力。

关键词: F1000, Altmetrics, 被引频次, 相关性, 生物医学论文, 综合评价

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper intends to comprehensively assess biomedical papers based on F1000 score, cited frequency, and Altmetrics score, which is expected to serve as a reference for the evaluation of papers and journals. [Methods] The cited frequency within three years after publication, Altmetrics score, and F1000 score in the year of publication were chosen as indicators of academic influence, social impact, and peer review results, respectively, for the assessment of Altmetrics Top100 papers during 2014-2017. [Findings] Open access has insignificant influence on these three indicators. F1000 score is in weak correlation with cited frequency, but the Altmetrics score does not correlate with either of the other two indicators. The results of F1000 score, Altmetrics score, and cited frequency are not consistent for most of the Altmetrics Top100 papers. After Z-score normalization, the values of these indicators visually reflect the academic influence, social impact, and peer review results of them. [Conclusions] F1000 score, Altmetrics score, and cited frequency are independent of, complementary to, and irreplaceable for each other and the combination of them can assure a more comprehensive and reliable assessment.

Key words: F1000, Altmertics, Cited frequency, Correlation, Biomedical paper, Comprehensive assessment