l*a
2 楼
For those who are concerned about differences in citation numbers among
different databases, Nature has published two short correspondence on the
topic. Maybe they will replace laoda's classical explanation that many of us
have copied and used.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7387/full/483036c.ht
Citations: not all measures are equal
Scott L. Hooper
Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
483,
Page:
36
Date published:
(01 March 2012)
DOI:
doi:10.1038/483036c
The scientific community needs to be aware of the limitations of Google
Scholar's personalized citation reports. Clicking on 'My citations' on the
site may offer a nice ego boost, but I would not recommend using the reports
for decisions that could affect careers.
Google Scholar overestimates the number of citable articles (in comparison
with formal citation services such as Scopus and Thomson Reuters) because of
the automated way it collects data, including 'grey' literature such as
theses. For my own publications, for example, Google Scholar yields 38% more
citations and boosts the h-index by 26%.
A citation report for one of my articles revealed that Google Scholar had
counted as independent citations four web pages on which authors had posted
copies of their articles, plus one listing only an article title; and one to
a paper in which my name didn't appear. Personalized searches by my
colleagues exposed comparable errors.
These drawbacks might also allow unscrupulous individuals to use such
tactics to inflate their citation reports, particularly as independent
vetting is blocked by password access.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7387/full/483036d.ht
Citations: results differ by database
Carles Alcaraz & Sofia Morais
Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
483,
Page:
36
Date published:
(01 March 2012)
DOI:
doi:10.1038/483036d
Databases such as Thomson Reuters' ISI Web of Science, Scopus, Google
Scholar and Microsoft's Academic Search allow authors to compute their own
citation statistics, but they yield inconsistent results.
The discrepancies come from differences in information sources and in
temporal citation coverage. Web of Science and Scopus, for example, provide
citation data only for their indexed journals, giving different coverage for
the number of journals, precursor articles and fields of academic research
— often with regional biases (such as European versus US sources). Google
Scholar includes all journals (indexed, free access and popular science),
conference proceedings, books, theses, reports, local press and electronic
sources — all subject to variable degrees of control and scrutiny.
A debate is crucial on how these tracking tools compare and should be used,
given that their indiscriminate usage has potentially negative implications
for academic careers.
different databases, Nature has published two short correspondence on the
topic. Maybe they will replace laoda's classical explanation that many of us
have copied and used.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7387/full/483036c.ht
Citations: not all measures are equal
Scott L. Hooper
Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
483,
Page:
36
Date published:
(01 March 2012)
DOI:
doi:10.1038/483036c
The scientific community needs to be aware of the limitations of Google
Scholar's personalized citation reports. Clicking on 'My citations' on the
site may offer a nice ego boost, but I would not recommend using the reports
for decisions that could affect careers.
Google Scholar overestimates the number of citable articles (in comparison
with formal citation services such as Scopus and Thomson Reuters) because of
the automated way it collects data, including 'grey' literature such as
theses. For my own publications, for example, Google Scholar yields 38% more
citations and boosts the h-index by 26%.
A citation report for one of my articles revealed that Google Scholar had
counted as independent citations four web pages on which authors had posted
copies of their articles, plus one listing only an article title; and one to
a paper in which my name didn't appear. Personalized searches by my
colleagues exposed comparable errors.
These drawbacks might also allow unscrupulous individuals to use such
tactics to inflate their citation reports, particularly as independent
vetting is blocked by password access.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7387/full/483036d.ht
Citations: results differ by database
Carles Alcaraz & Sofia Morais
Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
483,
Page:
36
Date published:
(01 March 2012)
DOI:
doi:10.1038/483036d
Databases such as Thomson Reuters' ISI Web of Science, Scopus, Google
Scholar and Microsoft's Academic Search allow authors to compute their own
citation statistics, but they yield inconsistent results.
The discrepancies come from differences in information sources and in
temporal citation coverage. Web of Science and Scopus, for example, provide
citation data only for their indexed journals, giving different coverage for
the number of journals, precursor articles and fields of academic research
— often with regional biases (such as European versus US sources). Google
Scholar includes all journals (indexed, free access and popular science),
conference proceedings, books, theses, reports, local press and electronic
sources — all subject to variable degrees of control and scrutiny.
A debate is crucial on how these tracking tools compare and should be used,
given that their indiscriminate usage has potentially negative implications
for academic careers.
S*E
3 楼
每次办旅行证，即使你出示上次的旅行证，这次也是新办，而不是renew。
也就是说，每次办旅行证都给了天朝政府一个恩赐/收回国籍的机会。
虽然旅行证上明确说明持有人是中国公民，按理说国籍不能随便撤销，但是在天朝眼里
这句话是个P，随时可以不认账。
每次到大使馆办事，我都在美国闻到祖国的官僚气味
也就是说，每次办旅行证都给了天朝政府一个恩赐/收回国籍的机会。
虽然旅行证上明确说明持有人是中国公民，按理说国籍不能随便撤销，但是在天朝眼里
这句话是个P，随时可以不认账。
每次到大使馆办事，我都在美国闻到祖国的官僚气味
A*1
4 楼
D90，上打50d，中打T2i，下打T1i，横打K7。。。
p*o
5 楼
还有请问 别人的 chase 点转给我的UA账户是安全的么?
i*y
6 楼
太棒了，谢谢分享！
h*e
7 楼
旅行证说明持有人曾经是中国公民，后来可能因为发过类似于终生效力于美利坚之类的
让人鸡皮疙瘩掉一地的誓言，被中国除名了。连这种话都说的出口的人，还是当美国人
吧，少跟我们中国人扯一起，恶心。
让人鸡皮疙瘩掉一地的誓言，被中国除名了。连这种话都说的出口的人，还是当美国人
吧，少跟我们中国人扯一起，恶心。
h*e
8 楼
上打50D是不是惨了点？
神机，最起码也要上打1D Mk II，才行，if not 7D。50D那是中打或者下打了。
神机，最起码也要上打1D Mk II，才行，if not 7D。50D那是中打或者下打了。
p*o
9 楼
还有请问 别人的 chase 点转给我的UA账户是安全的么?
a*n
10 楼
thanks
t*p
11 楼
我很同意楼主说每次办旅行证都闻到办事人员的官僚味。 见面申过的材料还会 有问题
，问个问题永远是爱答不理的。 那面谈审材料的人还在那个岗位干嘛
但是renew 和重办有什么本质区别不知道。
，问个问题永远是爱答不理的。 那面谈审材料的人还在那个岗位干嘛
但是renew 和重办有什么本质区别不知道。
h*s
12 楼
什么叫“好时机”？
别人转给你的话别人不安全，你安全。
别人转给你的话别人不安全，你安全。
w*d
13 楼
美国的官僚你只不过没见到，一个德行，别把美国看得那么好。
【在 S***E 的大作中提到】
: 每次办旅行证，即使你出示上次的旅行证，这次也是新办，而不是renew。
: 也就是说，每次办旅行证都给了天朝政府一个恩赐/收回国籍的机会。
: 虽然旅行证上明确说明持有人是中国公民，按理说国籍不能随便撤销，但是在天朝眼里
: 这句话是个P，随时可以不认账。
: 每次到大使馆办事，我都在美国闻到祖国的官僚气味
b*h
14 楼
美国的官僚是一堆蠢猪，中国的官僚是一群大爷。都很操蛋
【在 w********d 的大作中提到】
:
: 美国的官僚你只不过没见到，一个德行，别把美国看得那么好。
【在 w********d 的大作中提到】
:
: 美国的官僚你只不过没见到，一个德行，别把美国看得那么好。
相关阅读
Otus 85/1.4 DXO 成绩强悍：比Otus 55 更锐居然没人提鞋厂的D750和其它新玩具？Had a Boudoir shooting传疯了：老爸求合影，手中儿子喷屎奸笑naughty 小清新？松下这个Lx100很屌啊有没有仿生晶状体的透镜？6D deal?Marc Newson 加盟苹果need help on picking a D7100 value packageD800就好比是New iPad（iPad 3）ZT 荷兰美女PS东南亚旅行照晒网上 骗倒众亲友(组图)请教大家看得出来德味吗？Otus 85/1.4 配A7R评测昨晚拍月亮时，ISO值不停地闪是啥意思？来自欧洲的帅哥美女的旧金山订婚照Cross特卖这个价钱怎么样？D750的51点对焦范围小……sony a6000有啥可以推荐的镜头【分享】 Fedor Shmidt 性感摄影，办公室不宜, NSFW