不同的引用分布使研究评估复杂化：无法制定一个能普遍揭示研究效率的单一指标
Distinct citation distributions complicate research evaluations. A single indicator that universally reveals research efficiency cannot be formulated
AI总结：
本研究分析不同主题引用分布多样性，发现与规模无关的顶尖百分位指标仅在本地排名符合幂律时准确，低被引论文偏差普遍，未被引论文比例可预测偏差，指出现有权威机构的相关评估存在误导性，强调需结合引用分布下尾研究完善评估方法。
摘要：
研究目的：分析不同研究主题下出版物引用分布的多样性，以探究与规模无关的、基于排名的指标的准确性。基于顶尖百分位的指标是这类指标中最常见的类型，而对日本的评估是最明显的误判案例。\n设计/方法/途径：本研究采用对数分箱直方图、双秩图以及对数转换后引用次数的正态概率图，分析了多个研究主题下各国出版物、各期刊出版物的引用分布，并与对应的全球出版物分布进行对比。\n研究结果：当本地出版物的全球排名符合幂律分布时，与规模无关的基于顶尖百分位的指标是准确的，但在各国的低被引论文中经常出现偏差，且所有高影响因子期刊都存在这类偏差。在这些情况下，单一指标会产生误导。比较未被引论文的比例是预测这类偏差的最佳方法。\n研究局限性：本研究本质上是分析性的，其结果描述的是不证自明的数学事实。\n实践意义：经济合作与发展组织（OECD）、欧盟委员会、美国国家科学委员会等权威机构使用与规模无关的百分位指标发布国家研究排名和个人评估，这类指标在很多国家都具有误导性。应当停止这些误导性评估，因为它们会造成研究政策制定者的困惑，并导致错误的研究政策出台。\n原创性/价值：此前尚未有研究将引用分布的下尾（包括未被引论文）与百分位研究指标关联起来。本研究结果表明，这类研究对于找到可靠的研究评估程序是必要的。
英文摘要：
Purpose: Analyze the diversity of citation distributions to publications in different research topics to investigate the accuracy of size-independent, rank-based indicators. Top percentile-based indicators are the most common indicators of this type, and the evaluations of Japan are the most evident misjudgments. Design/methodology/approach: The distributions of citations to publications from countries and in journals in several research topics were analyzed along with the corresponding global publications using histograms with logarithmic binning, double rank plots, and normal probability plots of log-transformed numbers of citations. Findings: Size-independent, top percentile-based indicators are accurate when the global ranks of local publications fit a power law, but deviations in the least cited papers are frequent in countries and occur in all journals with high impact factors. In these cases, a single indicator is misleading. Comparisons of proportions of uncited papers are the best way to predict these deviations. Research limitations: The study is fundamentally analytical; its results describe mathematical facts that are self-evident. Practical implications: Respectable institutions, such as the OECD, European Commission, US National Science Board, and others, produce research country rankings and individual evaluations using size-independent percentile indicators that are misleading in many countries. These misleading evaluations should be discontinued because they cause confusion among research policymakers and lead to incorrect research policies. Originality/value: Studies linking the lower tail of citation distribution, including uncited papers, to percentile research indicators have not been performed previously. The present results demonstrate that studies of this type are necessary to find reliable procedures for research assessments.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
