武夷山分享 http://www.blog.sciencetimes.com.cn/u/Wuyishan 中国科学技术发展战略研究院研究员;南京大学信息管理系博导

博文

英文论文评审意见汇总(7)

已有 1217 次阅读 2021-11-14 07:01 |个人分类:科学计量学研究|系统分类:观点评述

英文论文评审意见汇总(7)

武夷山

 

第一则

2016年3月15日

 

Review of An application of PCA to bibliometric data: new perspectives on citation counts

 

Taken as a whole, this is an interesting analysis by use of PCA. However, there are still a few places that could be improved.

 

1. I hope that the authors could explain in more detail how they have done in data cleansing. Just for example, many authors would attach more than one affiliations upon their names (e.g. a visiting scholar temporarily working in USA might attach both his or her current American affiliation and his or her home country affiliation). If the authors of this manuscript just took any two affiliations appearing in the byline as two organizations involving in the collaboration, a misunderstanding might have occurred. If the authors failed to notice such situation before, I suggest that they make a more thorough data cleansing and analyze the clean data again.

 

2. Reading from the context, I think that the Component 3 should be Times Cited. But the manuscript says, “Moving to the remaining variables which load on component 3 for the articles and for the review papers, we see that the cited reference count is by far the most important, and loads similarly.” Am I wrong or not?

 

3. There seem to be too few references cited. In fact, publications involving PCA are not rare. Just to give an example, “The j-index: a new bibliometric index and multivariate comparisons between other common indices”(Scientometrics,2011,Volume 87, Issue 3 , 10.1007/s11192-011-0346-5); the second example,“Describing national science and technology systems through a multivariate approach: country participation in the 6th Framework Programmes”(Scientometrics ,Volume 84, Issue 2,DOI:10.1007/s11192-009-0109-8). Anyway, I believe that by a more extensive document retrieval, the author could provide a richer reference list.

 

第二则

2002年11月1日

This is a very interesting paper. The authors proved that the exponential form is just a limiting case of the power relation. Therefore, one would get a more profound understanding of many phenomena in both nature and society that are distributed unevenly.


第三则

1.  Why is “software engineering”  chosen as the sample field? Usually in computing science related fields, authors pay greater attention to conference proceedings rather than journals, so some argument seems to be necessary for the choice. If physics or biology is chosen, then no argument is needed, since they are “typical” disciplines.


2.  Why do the authors adopt 100 times as a threshold rather than other thresholds?  The same as above, some argument is needed. If an article gets cited more than 100 times within 5 years of publication, it might be regarded as highly-cited; gets cited more than 100 times within 5 years of publication, it might be regarded as highly-cited; however, if it achieves this after 20 years since publication, it might not be counted as highly cited. A sleeping beauty must be a highly cited paper. Therefore, arbitrary decision on citation thresholds should be avoided.


3.  There must be a lot of duplicated articles from the three sets of retrieval results, so in Table 1, adding the three numbers together seems inappropriate.


4.   “The main purpose of our research was compering sleeping beauties…”

Here, “compering” should be “comparing”.


5.  The reference list is too short, and there are some obvious publications that should be cited by the authors but fail to be cited. For instance, Loet Leydesdorff has a paper on pooling of SCI database and SSCI database in bibliometric study, which is relevant to this research.


6.  The authors should clarify their research target at the very beginning: to prove the importance of suitable database choice in bibliometric study, or to argue for the necessity of using WOS CC when an untypical field such as software engineering is involved?

 

 

 




http://www.blog.sciencetimes.com.cn/blog-1557-1312307.html

上一篇:美国加州一名音响工程师的哲思(34)
下一篇:2013年述职报告

2 杨正瓴 王启云

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (0 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2022-5-29 18:52

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部