手法を比較
選択した手法を並べて確認できます。異なる行はハイライト表示されます。
| ORCID研究者識別子× | 引用分析× | |
|---|---|---|
| 分野 | 研究スキル | 研究スキル |
| 系統 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 提唱年≠ | 2010 (founding); 2012 (launch) | 1955 (citation indexes); 1975 (Impact Factor); 2005 (H-index) |
| 提唱者≠ | ORCID Inc., a non-profit founded in 2010 by Liz Haak and others | Eugene Garfield (Citation Indexes, 1955); Jorge Hirsch (H-index, 2005) |
| 種類≠ | Standard | Tool |
| 原典≠ | Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learn. Publ., 25(4), 259–264. 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 ↗ |
| 別名 | ORCID, researcher identifier, ORCID iD | citation metrics, bibliometric analysis, citation tracking |
| 関連 | 4 | 4 |
| 概要≠ | ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) is a free, unique, persistent 16-digit identifier assigned to researchers that distinguishes them from others with the same or similar names. Launched in 2012 by ORCID Inc., a non-profit organization, the ORCID system addresses a critical problem in scholarly communication: name ambiguity. Millions of researchers worldwide share names (e.g., 'Smith, J.'). Without a unique identifier, citations and publications are difficult to attribute correctly, author H-indices are miscalculated, and researchers are credit for work they did not do. An ORCID iD is free, permanent, and owned by the researcher; it persists regardless of affiliation changes or career transitions. | 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. |
| ScholarGateデータセット ↗ |
|
|