| This paper analyzes the three levels of the formation process of the OA (OpenAccess)paper from the micro level,meso level and macro level. Based on the knowledge transfer process of OA papers,the influencing factors of impact formation are investigated:the paper itself,the paper's circulation,the users,the external environment and so on. From the view of the life cycle,this paper discusses impact formation mechanisms of OA papers:cumulative growth,co-evolution,preferential utilization,backtracking aging. We take these Chinese and USA papers in 7 PLoS journals as data sample,use PLoS Article-Level Metrics as the tool. We count the five major categories of indicators (Viewed,Cited,Saved,Discussed,and Recommended)and 24 sub-indexes,and compare these OA papers impact between China and the USA from the index correlation,different years,different types of paper,different indexes; at the same time,their causes are also analyzed.〖JP. We found that:1)The indicators correlation is similar in the OA papers of China and the USA,with a high correlation between cited index and viewed index,and with the weak correlation between cited and discussed index. There are big differences between the saved indexes of Figshare,CiteULike and Mendeley; indicators of F1000Prime and PLoS XML Downloads are special.2)On the whole,the values of the indexes of the USA papers are higher than those of Chinese papers. The gaps of the indexes of Viewed,Discussed,and Recommended are large,but as to the Saved index,it's not large. Measuring papers impact only by citation underestimates the gap between China and the USA. There are big differences in the change of various indicators,and there is a strong accumulation of citation; the earlier the paper is published,the higher the citation is,the change of the discussed index is. The value of the five indicators varies; the viewed index has the highest value,while the recommended index has the lowest value.〖JP. 3)The viewed index of China and the USA has significant differences between the three types of papers; the other 4 indicators of American OA papers are not significant. About Chinese paper,indicators have relatively high value in papers of China as the non-first author; papers of China having sole Chinese authors have the lowest value. About USA papers,papers of USA as the first author have the highest values in most indexes. The impact of papers of multi-country cooperation is the first,and papers of China as the first-author or the sole author need to be improved.4)In terms of specific indicators,the difference between the values of the sub-index is large; the viewed and saved indexes have the high coverage rate,and the recommended index has the lowest coverage rate. The values of PMC Download and Figshare of China are greater than those of the USA. Under the 0.01 and 0.05 significant level,the China and the USA papers do not differ significantly according to values of sub-indexes,including PMC PDF downloads,Figshare,Nature Blogs,Reddit,whether the MW test or KS test.〖JP. This study has some limitations. It does not cover all research areas and some areas may be particularly alien to the PLoS.In addition,relevant metrics are derived only from PLoS ALM,combining with Altmetric.com,Impactstory and X Plum and other platforms of data and indicators may be more comprehensive and more reliable. 6 figs. 6 tabs. 50 refs. |
在讨论OA论文影响的形成过程、影响因素和形成机制的基础上,本研究以中美学者发表在PLoS平台的7种OA期刊上的论文为样本,以PLoS Article-Level Metrics为工具,统计五大类指标(浏览下载量、引用量、保存量、讨论量、推荐量)的24个分指标数据,从指标相关性、不同年份、不同类型论文、不同分指标等方面,系统比较中美OA论文影响的异同。研究发现:①中美OA论文各指标间的相关性类似,被引量与浏览下载量有较高相关性,与讨论量相关性最弱。②总体上美国论文各指标值高于中国论文,讨论量、推荐量和浏览下载量相距较大,保存量则相差不大；只通过被引量衡量,低估了中美OA论文影响存在的差距。③中国论文中,中国作者为辅的论文影响指标值相对较高,中国独著的论文表现最差；美国论文中,美国作者为主的论文在多个指标值中最高。中美论文在不同分指标间也存在差异。图6。表6。参考文献50。
|
