基于学术社交网络的文献阅读及学科关注点差异研究

发布时间：2018-08-09 11:57

【摘要】：[目的 /意义]对不同学术社交网络中不同学科用户的文献阅读差异进行分析,以了解在不同学术社交网络中的学科分布情况,掌握在不同学术社交网络中的学科研究热点。[方法 /过程]通过Altmetric.com获取24个学科的4 800篇热点文献,利用爬虫采集这些文献在Mendeley和Research Gate的被阅读次数,再对文献进行内容分析,得到关键词,最后对比分析不同学术社交网络中文献阅读差异以及学科关注热点的一致性。[结果/结论]不同学科的读者身份、读者所属领域具有显著差异,Research Gate中的文献阅读次数普遍高于Mendeley,且社会科学等软学科的文献阅读相对优势更为明显,而物理学等硬学科的文献阅读相对优势较低。Mendeley和Research Gate在地球与地理科学、化学和环境科学等学科中的关注热点具有较高的一致性,而物理学等部分学科中的关注热点表现出较低的一致性。
[Abstract]:Objective / significance: to analyze the literature reading differences of users in different academic social networks in order to understand the distribution of subjects in different academic social networks and to grasp the research hot spots in different academic social networks. [methods / process] 4,800 hot papers of 24 subjects were obtained by Altmetric.com, and the reading times of these papers in Mendeley and Research Gate were collected by using reptiles, and then the contents of the literatures were analyzed and the keywords were obtained. Finally, the differences of literature reading and the consistency of academic hot spots in different academic social networks are compared and analyzed. [results / conclusion] there are significant differences in readers' identity in different disciplines. The reading times of literature in Gate are generally higher than those in Mendeley.And the relative advantages of literature reading in soft subjects such as social sciences are more obvious. However, the relative advantages of literature reading in physics and other hard subjects are relatively low. Mendeley and Research Gate have a high consistency in the hot spots of interest in earth and geography, chemistry and environmental sciences, etc. However, the focus of attention in some disciplines such as physics shows low consistency.
【作者单位】：武汉大学信息资源研究中心;
【基金】：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“我国服务业信息化推进与保障机制研究”(项目编号:15JJD870001) 武汉大学“351人才计划项目”研究成果之一
【分类号】：G252.1

【相似文献】