【目的】 结合论文社会影响力和学术影响力指标,研究Faculty Opinions中不同学科的同行评议指标、评价星级、评价标签之间的差异性和相关性,发掘其中隐含的关联。【方法】 以Faculty Opinions指标为基础,分别获取社会影响力和学术影响力的代表性指标,分别运用非参数独立样本Kruskal-Wallis秩和检验和斯皮尔曼相关性分析方法进行统计分析。【结果】 Faculty Opinions临床实践类研究评价星级相对较低,而基础理论类研究更容易获得较高评价。不同学科按照评价标签和评价星级分组,社会影响力指标和学术影响力指标的分布均具有差异性。同行评议的推荐得分、推荐次数、评价标签和评价星级与社会影响力和学术影响力各指标之间多数呈现低相关或不相关。【结论】 同行评议、社会影响力、学术影响力各类指标对于科技论文的评价结果不尽相同,有必要采取多元化指标从多维度、多范畴、多角度进行综合分析及评价。
[Purposes] Combining the academic influence and social influence indexes of papers, this paper studies the differences and correlations among peer review indexes, evaluation stars, and evaluation tags of different subjects in Faculty Opinions, and explores the hidden correlations. [Methods] Based on the Faculty Opinions index, the representative indicators for the evaluation of social influence and academic influence were obtained. Non-parametric independent sample Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test and Spearman correlation analysis were used for statistical analysis. [Findings] Clinical practice studies in Faculty Opinions have relatively low evaluation stars, while basic theory studies are more likely to get high evaluation. According to the evaluation tags and stars in different subjects, the distribution of social influence indicators and academic influence indicators are different. The recommendations score, recommendations time, tags, and stars in Faculty Opinions are mostly in low or no correlation with the indicators of social influence and academic influence. [Conclusions] Since peer review, social influence, and academic influence have different evaluation results for scientific papers, it is necessary to adopt multiple indexes to comprehensively analyze and evaluate scientific papers from multiple dimensions, categories, and angles.