数据挖掘在生物信息学中的应用——文献计量学视角

基因组和蛋白质结构与功能方面已积累了海量数据。如何从海量数据中获取有效信息成为生物信息学迫切要解决的问题。本文以相关主题词检索文献,分析了该领域历年文章数量、发文最多的机构和作者、被引用频次居前论文、期刊载文量,并对关键词和被引用频次居前论文的作者进行共现分析。我们发现,生物信息学中运用数据挖掘方法的文献逐年增多,该领域30.1%的文献发表在十个期刊上,分类、聚类、特征选择和支持向量机等数据挖掘方法使用较多。本研究描绘了生物信息学与数据挖掘这一交叉领域的研究概况,为后续数据挖掘方法与生物信息学研究相结合提供帮助。     

论文引用率影响因素——中外生态学期刊比较

本文选择8种有代表性中外生态学期刊,对其一定发表周期内的论文引用率进行分析,探讨生态学论文引用率的影响因素及中外生态学期刊的差异.结果表明：4种英文期刊的年均被引次数均远大于4种中文期刊;英文期刊1位作者的论文数量百分比相对较高;所有期刊的合著论文比例均较高,体现了合作性在现代生态学研究中的重要性;论文作者数量与引用率之间有一定的正相关关系,但不显著;英文期刊论文的长度显著高于中文论文;随着论文长度的增加,年均被引次数增多.对中外期刊论文的引用率变化动态进行分析表明,英文期刊中总被引次数高的论文其增长速率也较快,表明其持续影响力强于中文生态学论文.我们希望这些结果会对生态学者以及相关期刊工作者有所裨益.     

不懈探索, 努力引领中国生物多样性科学发展——《生物多样性》创刊三十周年回顾

为更好地推动我国生物多样性科学的发展, 提升期刊服务能力, 并庆祝创刊30周年, 我们梳理了《生物多样性》2013-2022年的主要进展。(1)近10年中, 期刊的特色进一步凸显。围绕学科前沿、国家重大行动计划、履约等领域共策划出版56个专辑/专题, 新设立编者按、生物编目、数据论文、保护与治理对策、生物文化多样性等特色栏目, 通过发表数据论文、生物编目等文章推动数据共享, 以及通过鼓励学术争鸣、探索中文期刊的国际传播等举措使期刊的特色进一步凸显。(2)期刊载文量快速增加, 报道的内容不断拓展。研究方向由前20年的61个增加为目前的78个, 90%左右的文章聚焦于生物多样性保护、环境科学/生态学等领域; 植物学、动物学、微生物学的稿件分别占41.79%、47.48%和4.61%。基于关键词的文献计量分析表明, 近10年刊登的文章关键词聚类为遗传多样性、群落结构、红外相机、红色名录、生物多样性公约、国家公园、植物多样性、分类学和地理分布等9个子领域。培养了大批生物多样性人才, 10年中共有4,665位作者署名(作者记录数6,295), 发表文章最多的前20位作者主要来自中国科学院相关研究所、中国环境科学研究院、北京大学等机构, 其中60%为编委。(3)刊登的论文被广泛引用和下载。根据中国知网数据(排除了学位论文和会议论文, 2022年10月18日), 近10年刊登的文章有1,211篇累计被引用13,507次, 平均每篇被引11次以上; 网上下载量从2012年的6.64万次增加到2021年的23.85万次。有5篇文章入选中国科协优秀科技论文或中国百篇最具影响国内学术论文; 以国家公园、红外相机、红色名录、多功能性、生物入侵为关键词的文章是受关注的热点。《生物多样性》的影响因子和总被引频次在生物学领域一直排名前列; 是《科技期刊世界影响力指数(WJCI)报告》中全球保护生物学领域唯一的中国期刊, 2019年和2020年分别位列23/48和25/49位。最后我们探讨了今后如何继续引领中国生物多样性研究和保护、建设一流科技期刊面临的挑战和对策以及如何进一步提升科学传播能力。     

Incorrect Citations Give Unfair Credit to Review Authors in Ecology Journals

The number of citations that papers receive has become significant in measuring researchers'' scientific productivity, and such measurements are important when one seeks career opportunities and research funding. Skewed citation practices can thus have profound effects on academic careers. We investigated (i) how frequently authors misinterpret original information and (ii) how frequently authors inappropriately cite reviews instead of the articles upon which the reviews are based. To reach this aim, we carried a survey of ecology journals indexed in the Web of Science and assessed the appropriateness of citations of review papers. Reviews were significantly more often cited than regular articles. In addition, 22% of citations were inaccurate, and another 15% unfairly gave credit to the review authors for other scientists'' ideas. These practices should be stopped, mainly through more open discussion among mentors, researchers and students.     

基于文献计量分析土壤微生物对气候变暖的响应

【背景】面对全球气候变暖,土壤微生物在陆地生态系统对全球变暖反馈中起到了至关重要的作用。【目的】了解土壤微生物对气候变暖响应研究的发展现状、研究热点及前沿动态,厘清当前该研究领域的知识结构关系。【方法】以1999-2021年Web of Science核心数据库中土壤微生物对气候变暖响应研究已发表的3 189篇论文为数据源,利用Vosviewer和CiteSpace软件对年发文量、文献被引频次、作者、机构、国家、学科和关键词等进行可视化分析。【结果】研究总体呈逐步增长趋势,经历缓慢增长、稳步增长和高速增长3个阶段;高被引论文均发表在国际顶级期刊上,研究成果具有较高的学术影响力。在学科融合与合作交流方面,环境科学、生态学和土壤学是该研究领域的主要学科,而多学科交叉学在该领域占有重要地位;作者骆亦其、Schuur和周集中是该领域核心学者,作者之间的合作关系主要以同一研究团队内部合作为主;主要的科研机构有中国科学院、加利福尼亚大学和美国能源部,各科研机构之间合作较为紧密;中国、美国和欧洲是土壤微生物对气候变暖响应研究领域的主要力量,国家之间相互合作程度高。该领域的主要研究热点是气候变暖改变了土壤微生物的群落结构组成、多样性和生理生化功能,进而对地球化学物质循环产生影响;土壤微生物在土壤碳库释放中的作用机理和调控机制是该领域研究前沿。【结论】目前,不同生态系统研究中土壤微生物对增温的响应与适应机制存在着差异,而且对微生物碳功能基因和多环境交互因子的研究较少。因此,建议后期应更加聚焦特定生态系统的细化研究,开展大范围、大尺度、长时期的定位研究,加强对微生物碳降解和碳固定功能基因的研究,多关注环境因子变化的交互作用对土壤微生物生态过程的影响。     

《环境昆虫学报》2001-2010年载文被引统计分析

利用"中国学术期刊文献评价统计分析系统",对《环境昆虫学报》载文在2001～2010年所刊载论文的被引用情况进行统计分析。结果表明,在2001～2010年间《环境昆虫学报》10年共载文504篇,有343篇论文,被引率为68.06%;被引用1904次,篇均被引次数为5.55,单篇被引最高次数为40次;被引用5次以下的论文占63.57%;引证期刊262种,引用3次以下的期刊占74.81%。同时,对被引论文作者进行了系统分析,特别阐述了高被引论文的详细信息,从而提出从统计得出的高被引频次论文作者及研究热点着手,加强组稿,突出栏目特色,提高刊物对高质量论文的吸纳能力。     

Evaluating "payback" on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study

ObjectivesTo develop a methodology for evaluating the impact of research on health care, and to characterise the papers cited on clinical guidelines.DesignThe bibliographic details of the papers cited in 15 clinical guidelines, developed in and for the United Kingdom, were collated and analysed with applied bibliometric techniques.ResultsThe median age of papers cited in clinical guidelines was eight years; most papers were published by authors living in either the United States (36%) or the United Kingdom (25%)—this is two and a half times more than expected as about 10% of all biomedical outputs are published in the United Kingdom; and clinical guidelines do not cite basic research papers.ConclusionAnalysis of the evidence base of clinical guidelines may be one way of tracking the flow of knowledge from the laboratory to the clinic. Moreover, such analysis provides a useful, clinically relevant method for evaluating research outcomes and different strategies in research and development.     

从文献计量角度分析中国生物多样性研究现状

以汤森路透科技集团的WEB OF KNOWLEDGE信息平台提供的Science Citation Index Expanded数据库为数据源,检索到从1997年至2009年期间国际生物多样性研究论文文献219773篇,其中11182篇来自于中国学者。利用NoteExpress软件,对这13a间生物多样性研究论文发表的国家分布、年度分布、研究机构、引用情况、期刊分布和学科分类等做的分析与比较表明:1)全球生物多样性研究的论文数量一直呈增长趋势,中国13年间每年发文量占当年全球生物多样性论文总量的百分率逐年增加;2)从论文总被引频次、篇均引用次数和h-index三项论文影响力特征参数分析,中国与国际其他国家相比有一定差距;3)从学科分类来看,与国际相比,中国在生物多样性保护领域、进化生物学和海洋与淡水生物学领域研究略显不足,昆虫学和真菌学研究领域活跃。     

Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns

A number of new metrics based on social media platforms—grouped under the term “altmetrics”—have recently been introduced as potential indicators of research impact. Despite their current popularity, there is a lack of information regarding the determinants of these metrics. Using publication and citation data from 1.3 million papers published in 2012 and covered in Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science as well as social media counts from Altmetric.com, this paper analyses the main patterns of five social media metrics as a function of document characteristics (i.e., discipline, document type, title length, number of pages and references) and collaborative practices and compares them to patterns known for citations. Results show that the presence of papers on social media is low, with 21.5% of papers receiving at least one tweet, 4.7% being shared on Facebook, 1.9% mentioned on blogs, 0.8% found on Google+ and 0.7% discussed in mainstream media. By contrast, 66.8% of papers have received at least one citation. Our findings show that both citations and social media metrics increase with the extent of collaboration and the length of the references list. On the other hand, while editorials and news items are seldom cited, it is these types of document that are the most popular on Twitter. Similarly, while longer papers typically attract more citations, an opposite trend is seen on social media platforms. Finally, contrary to what is observed for citations, it is papers in the Social Sciences and humanities that are the most often found on social media platforms. On the whole, these findings suggest that factors driving social media and citations are different. Therefore, social media metrics cannot actually be seen as alternatives to citations; at most, they may function as complements to other type of indicators.     

Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines

Many fields face an increasing prevalence of multi-authorship, and this poses challenges in assessing citation metrics. Here, we explore multiple citation indicators that address total impact (number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment (Schreiber Hm index [Hm]), and author order (total citations to papers as single; single or first; or single, first, or last author). We demonstrate the correlation patterns between these indicators across 84,116 scientists (those among the top 30,000 for impact in a single year [2013] in at least one of these indicators) and separately across 12 scientific fields. Correlation patterns vary across these 12 fields. In physics, total citations are highly negatively correlated with indicators of co-authorship adjustment and of author order, while in other sciences the negative correlation is seen only for total citation impact and citations to papers as single author. We propose a composite score that sums standardized values of these six log-transformed indicators. Of the 1,000 top-ranked scientists with the composite score, only 322 are in the top 1,000 based on total citations. Many Nobel laureates and other extremely influential scientists rank among the top-1,000 with the composite indicator, but would rank much lower based on total citations. Conversely, many of the top 1,000 authors on total citations have had no single/first/last-authored cited paper. More Nobel laureates of 2011–2015 are among the top authors when authors are ranked by the composite score than by total citations, H index, or Hm index; 40/47 of these laureates are among the top 30,000 by at least one of the six indicators. We also explore the sensitivity of indicators to self-citation and alphabetic ordering of authors in papers across different scientific fields. Multiple indicators and their composite may give a more comprehensive picture of impact, although no citation indicator, single or composite, can be expected to select all the best scientists.     

Citation Classics in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Who Wrote the Top 100 Most Cited Articles?

Background

Systematic reviews of the literature occupy the highest position in currently proposed hierarchies of evidence. The aims of this study were to assess whether citation classics exist in published systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM), examine the characteristics of the most frequently cited SRM articles, and evaluate the contribution of different world regions.

Methods

The 100 most cited SRM were identified in October 2012 using the Science Citation Index database of the Institute for Scientific Information. Data were extracted by one author. Spearman’s correlation was used to assess the association between years since publication, numbers of authors, article length, journal impact factor, and average citations per year.

Results

Among the 100 citation classics, published between 1977 and 2008, the most cited article received 7308 citations and the least-cited 675 citations. The average citations per year ranged from 27.8 to 401.6. First authors from the USA produced the highest number of citation classics (n=46), followed by the UK (n=28) and Canada (n=15). The 100 articles were published in 42 journals led by the Journal of the American Medical Association (n=18), followed by the British Medical Journal (n=14) and The Lancet (n=13). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between number of authors (Spearman’s rho=0.320, p=0.001), journal impact factor (rho=0.240, p=0.016) and average citations per year. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between average citations per year and year since publication (rho = -0.636, p=0.0001). The most cited papers identified seminal contributions and originators of landmark methodological aspects of SRM and reflect major advances in the management of and predisposing factors for chronic diseases.

Conclusions

Since the late 1970s, the USA, UK, and Canada have taken leadership in the production of citation classic papers. No first author from low or middle-income countries (LMIC) led one of the most cited 100 SRM.     

The Effects of Aging on Researchers' Publication and Citation Patterns

The average age at which U.S. researchers receive their first grant from NIH has increased from 34.3 in 1970, to 41.7 in 2004. These data raise the crucial question of the effects of aging on the scientific productivity and impact of researchers. Drawing on a sizeable sample of 6,388 university professors in Quebec who have published at least one paper between 2000 and 2007, our results identify two turning points in the professors'' careers. A first turning point is visible at age 40 years, where researchers start to rely on older literature and where their productivity increases at a slower pace—after having increased sharply since the beginning of their career. A second turning point can be seen around age 50, when researchers are the most productive whereas their average scientific impact is at its lowest. Our results also show that older professors publish fewer first-authored papers and move closer to the end of the list of co-authors. Although average scientific impact per paper decreases linearly until about age 50, the average number of papers in highly cited journals and among highly cited papers rises continuously until retirement. Our results show clearly that productivity and impact are not a simple and declining function of age and that we must take into account the collaborative aspects of scientific research. Science is a collective endeavor and, as our data shows, researchers of all ages play a significant role in its dynamic.     

Research Development of Food Plant Ethnobotany—Bibliometric and Mapping Knowledge Domains Analysis Based on Web of Science

This study, with the purpose of summarizing the large aggregation of Food Plant Ethnobotany studies to find research history, current status and probable future trend, is based on the following questions: (1) What have been studied on traditional food plants previously? (2) What are studying on traditional food plants at present, and how? (3) What will be studied on traditional food plants in future? To conduct this survey, we searched for papers in Web of Science databases, using combinations of keywords, and the survey was limited to the studies published before June 30th, 2014. CITESPACE software was used to analyze the cited references of these papers. Nine hundreds and fifty four papers published from 1991 to 2014 were found. Analyzing these 954 papers and their cited references, we discovered that documentation of traditional food plants uses is the main study field in past and at present. Quantitative methods, dissemination of traditional knowledge, proper management of local plants resources, and nutritional and pharmaceutical components of food plants will be studied more in future. This paper will help to get a clue of Food Plant Ethnobotany.     

1997—2009年《生命科学研究》载文、作者、基金资助论文和影响因子统计分析

对<生命科学研究)1997-2009年的载文、作者、基金支持论文和影响因子情况进行了统计分析,得出该刊13年来发展的一些规律,为进一步提高该刊的学术水平和影响力提供依据.利用维普(VIP)资讯系统(中文科技期刊数据库),采用文献计量法,分析<生命科学研究>1997-2009年的载文量、作者合作度、合作率、以及地域分布、基金支持、影响因子等指标和内容.13年共检出886篇文献,作者3 544人次,合作度为4,合著率为94.92%.作者分布在全国29个省、自治区和直辖市,高等医药院校作者最多.占作者总数的84.76%.13年<生命科学研究>共发表各类基金资助论文734篇.影响因子和总被引频次逐年提升.该刊因其著者整体学术水平高,在生命科学研究领域有较大的影响.已成为我国生命科学研究领域具有普遍的指导意义、影响深远的重要学术性期刊和中文核心期刊.     

基于近10年红球菌发展的文献计量分析

【背景】近些年,越来越多的研究集中在红球菌上,很少有研究人员对现有文献进行全面回顾。【目的】为了探究国内外红球菌领域的研究热点、前沿和未来发展趋势,以便为后续研究人员提供全面直观的参考。【方法】对近10年发表在Web of Science的红球菌领域论文进行统计分析和文献计量分析。通过VOSviewer文献可视化软件绘制作者标签视图和关键词共现网络图。【结果】全球有关红球菌领域的发文量总体呈逐年上升趋势,发表期刊多为微生物学领域的专科期刊,中国和美国的文章发表数和引用数远超其他国家,红球菌的研究内容也主要集中在生物催化、生物降解和非核糖体肽合成酶等方面。【结论】红球菌在世界范围内越来越受到重视,并逐渐成为研究热点,国家和研究机构应继续加强合作,推动红球菌领域的继续发展。     

Bibliometric Assessment of European and Sub-Saharan African Research Output on Poverty-Related and Neglected Infectious Diseases from 2003 to 2011

Background

The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) is a partnership of European and sub-Saharan African countries that aims to accelerate the development of medical interventions against poverty-related diseases (PRDs). A bibliometric analysis was conducted to 1) measure research output from European and African researchers on PRDs, 2) describe collaboration patterns, and 3) assess the citation impact of clinical research funded by EDCTP.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Disease-specific research publications were identified in Thomson Reuters Web of Science using search terms in titles, abstracts and keywords. Publication data, including citation counts, were extracted for 2003–2011. Analyses including output, share of global papers, normalised citation impact (NCI), and geographical distribution are presented. Data are presented as five-year moving averages. European EDCTP member countries accounted for ~33% of global research output in PRDs and sub-Saharan African countries for ~10% (2007–2011). Both regions contributed more to the global research output in malaria (43.4% and 22.2%, respectively). The overall number of PRD papers from sub-Saharan Africa increased markedly (>47%) since 2003, particularly for HIV/AIDS (102%) and tuberculosis (TB) (81%), and principally involving Southern and East Africa. For 2007–2011, European and sub-Saharan African research collaboration on PRDs was highly cited compared with the world average (NCI in brackets): HIV/AIDS 1.62 (NCI: 1.16), TB 2.11 (NCI: 1.06), malaria 1.81 (NCI: 1.22), and neglected infectious diseases 1.34 (NCI: 0.97). The NCI of EDCTP-funded papers for 2003–2011 was exceptionally high for HIV/AIDS (3.24), TB (4.08) and HIV/TB co-infection (5.10) compared with global research benchmarks (1.14, 1.05 and 1.35, respectively).

Conclusions

The volume and citation impact of papers from sub-Saharan Africa has increased since 2003, as has collaborative research between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. >90% of publications from EDCTP-funded research were published in high-impact journals and are highly cited. These findings corroborate the benefit of collaborative research on PRDs.