Literature Aging in Open Science: A Case Study in Biomedical Sciences

Abstract

摘要： 开放科学导致学术文献的传播渠道和模式的深刻变革，文献老化规律呈现新的特征。以生物医学领域为实证研究对象，综合文献计量学、Altmetrics计量学、数理统计等科学计量学2.0方法，系统研究了文献在以引文为主的传统学术交流和开放科学环境下新型学术交流模式下的传播特征和老化规律。研究发现，不同类型的开放获取论文被引和社会关注度的老化特征和规律不同，科学家和社会公众对知识的传播和利用行为特征不同，预印本的提前发布和开放获取能够加速科学知识在学术共同体和社会公众中的流动；相比其他社交媒体，新闻媒体会更倾向于报道具有权威性和可靠性的期刊论文。在科研范式变革这一时代背景下，本研究能够为相关部门开展学术文献管理、科学发现、技术预见和科研评价提供决策依据.

王智琦陈悦袁婷婷. 开放科学环境下的学术文献老化规律研究———以生物医学领域为例[J]. 科学学研究, 2025, 43(11): 2336-2349.

References

[ ]陈传夫.开放科学的价值观与制度逻辑[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2023,76(06):173-184. Chen C F. The values and institutional logic of open science[J].Wuhan University Journal (Philosophy & Social Science),2023,76(06):173-184. [2]赵昆华,刘细文,龙艺璇,等.从开放获取到开放科学:科研资助机构的理念与实践[J].中国科学基金,2021,35(05):844-854. Zhao K H, Liu X W, Long Y X, et al. From open access to open science: notion and practices of national science & techonology funding agencies[J].Bulletin of National Natural Science Foundation of China,2021,35(05):844-854. [3]UNESCO. UNESCO recommendation on open science[EB/OL]. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en. 2021-09-08. [4]张智雄.在开放科学和AI时代塑造新型学术交流模式[J].中国科技期刊研究,2024,35(05):561-567. Zhang Z X. Shaping new models of scholarly communication in the era of open science and AI[J]. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals,2024,35(05):561-567. [5]王智琦,陈悦.谁在主导预印本的发展?[J].科学学研究,2021,39(03):393-405. Wang Z Q, Chen Y. Who is leading the development of preprints? [J]. Studies in Science of Science,2021,39(03):393-405. [6]Gross P L K, Gross E M. College libraries and chemical education[J]. Science, 1927,66(1713):385–389. [7]Bernal J D. The transmission of scientific information: a user's analysis[C]// Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information, Washington, DC. 1958, 958: 77-95. [8]Burton R E, Kebler R W. The “half‐life” of some scientific and technical literatures[J]. American documentation, 1960, 11(1): 18-22. [9]Price D J. Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and non-science[J]. Communication among scientists and engineers,1970:3-22. [ 0]Line M B, Sandison A. ‘Obsolescence’ and changes in the use of literature with time[J]. Journal of documentation, 1974,30(3):283-350. [ 1]孟连生.中文科学引文分析[J].情报科学,1983,(01):11-21. Meng L S. chinese scientific citation analysis[J]. Information Science,1983,(1):11-21. [12]Burton R E, Kebler R W. The “half‐life” of some scientific and technical literatures[J]. American documentation, 1960, 11(1): 18-22. [13]Brookes B C. Obsolescence of special library periodicals: sampling errors and utility contours[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1970,21(5), 320-329. [14]Odlyzko A. The Public Library of Science and the ongoing revolution in scholarly communication[J]. Nature, 2001:1-2. [15]Larivière V, Archambault é, Gingras Y. Long‐term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady‐state science (1900–2004)[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology, 2008, 59(2): 288-296. [16]Egghe L. A model showing the increase in time of the average and median reference age and the decrease in time of the Price Index[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 82(2): 243-248. [17]Wang M, Zhang J, Chen G, et al. Examining the influence of open access on journals’ citation obsolescence by modeling the actual citation process[J]. Scientometrics, 2019,119(3):1621-1641. [18]Kaiser J. Breakthrough of the year 2017[EB/OL]. Science. https://vis.sciencemag.org/breakthrough2017/. 2017-12-21. [19]Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G, et al. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape[J]. PLoS biology, 2021,19(4):e3000959. [20]Chi P S, Gl?nzel W. Comparison of citation and usage indicators in research assessment in scientific disciplines and journals[J]. Scientometrics, 2018,116(1):537-554. [21]Holmberg K, Thelwall M. Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1027-1042. [22]Abdill R J, Blekhman R. Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints[J]. eLife, 2019, 8:e45133. [23]Fraser N, Momeni F, Mayr P, et al. The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2020,1(2): 618-638. [24]Heibi I, Peroni S, Shotton D. Software review: COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations[J]. Scientometrics, 2019,121(2):1213-1228. [25]刘小慧,沈哲思,廖宇,等.颠覆性指数的稳定时间窗研究[J].图书情报工作,2021,65(18):49-57. Liu X H, Shen S Z, Liao Y, et al. Research on the stable time window of disruption index[J]. Library and Information Service,2021,65(18):49-57. [26]Gl?nzel W, Schoepflin U. A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature[J]. Journal of Information Science, 1995, 21(1): 37–53. [27]王智琦.预印本的科学交流功能及其多维测评[D].大连:大连理工大学,2020. Wang Z Q. The functions of preprints in scientific communication and multi-dimensional metrics and assessment[D]. Dalian: Dalian University of Technology,2020. [28]Harnad S, Brody T. Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals[J]. D-Lib Magazine, 2004, 10(6): 1–6. [29]Moed H F. The effect of “open access” on citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv’s condensed matter section[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(13): 2047–2054. [30]陈悦,王智琦,刘则渊,等.多指标视角下的图书情报类预印本影响力评价[J].情报学报,2019,38(04):342-353. Chen Y, Wang Z Q, Liu Z Y, et al. A “multiple indicator” view of preprint impact evaluation in information and library science[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information,2019,38(04):342-353. [31]Thelwall M. Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, 11(1): 128–151. [32]陈悦,王智琦,刘则渊,等.预印本的学术影响力研究——以arXiv自存档论文为例[J].情报学报,2019,38(08):815-825. Chen Y, Wang Z Q, Liu Z Y, et al. The Scholarly Impact of Preprints: A Case Study on arXiv Papers[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 2019,38(08):815-825. [33]Fang Z, Dudek J, Costas R. The stability of Twitter metrics: A study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2020,71(12):1455-1469. [34]Ortega J L. Blogs and news sources coverage in altmetrics data providers: A comparative analysis by country, language, and subject[J]. Scientometrics, 2020,122(1):555–572. [35]Fleerackers A, Shores K, Chtena N, et al. Unreviewed science in the news: The evolution of preprint media coverage from 2014–2021[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2024:1-20.