قارن الطرق
راجع الطرق التي اخترتها جنبًا إلى جنب؛ الصفوف المختلفة مميَّزة.
| تحليل الاقتباسات المقطعة زمنياً× | تحليل الاستشهادات× | |
|---|---|---|
| المجال≠ | القياسات العلمية | مهارات البحث |
| العائلة | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| سنة النشأة≠ | 1955–1965 (foundational); temporal slicing formalized in scientometrics from the 1980s onward | 1955 (citation indexes); 1975 (Impact Factor); 2005 (H-index) |
| صاحب الطريقة≠ | Eugene Garfield (citation analysis foundation); Derek J. de Solla Price (temporal/longitudinal framing) | Eugene Garfield (Citation Indexes, 1955); Jorge Hirsch (H-index, 2005) |
| النوع≠ | Quantitative scientometric technique | Tool |
| المصدر التأسيسي≠ | Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. DOI ↗ | Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. DOI ↗ |
| الأسماء البديلة≠ | temporal citation analysis, longitudinal citation analysis, time-window citation analysis, diachronic citation analysis | citation metrics, bibliometric analysis, citation tracking |
| ذات صلة≠ | 6 | 4 |
| الملخص≠ | Time-sliced citation analysis partitions a body of literature into sequential temporal windows — for example, five-year intervals — and performs citation analysis within and across each window. This reveals how citation patterns, influential papers, and knowledge flows shift over time, providing a dynamic picture of a field's intellectual evolution rather than a static aggregate snapshot. | Citation analysis is the systematic study of how scholarly works are cited by subsequent research, used as a proxy for research impact and influence. Founded formally by Eugene Garfield in 1955 (introducing citation indexes), the field encompasses metrics ranging from simple citation counts to sophisticated indices like the H-index (Hirsch, 2005) and field-normalized indicators. Citation analysis is used to evaluate researcher productivity, track influence of ideas, assess journal quality, and detect research trends. While citation counts are not perfect measures of quality (high citation does not equal high quality; time lag in citation accumulation), they provide valuable quantitative data for research evaluation alongside peer review and expert assessment. |
| ScholarGateمجموعة البيانات ↗ |
|
|