方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 灰色文献检索× | 引文分析× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 研究技能 | 研究技能 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 1990s (formalized in systematic review guidelines) | 1955 (citation indexes); 1975 (Impact Factor); 2005 (H-index) |
| 提出者≠ | Information specialists and systematic review methodologists (Cochrane Collaboration, Health Technology Assessment) | Eugene Garfield (Citation Indexes, 1955); Jorge Hirsch (H-index, 2005) |
| 类型 | Tool | Tool |
| 开创性文献≠ | Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Grey literature. In J. P. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.0.2, Chapter 13). The Cochrane Collaboration. link ↗ | 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 ↗ |
| 别名 | grey literature, gray literature, unpublished literature | citation metrics, bibliometric analysis, citation tracking |
| 相关≠ | 3 | 4 |
| 摘要≠ | Grey literature comprises documents and data not published through conventional commercial channels—including theses, government reports, clinical trial registries, conference abstracts, organizational policy documents, and working papers. Unlike journal articles, grey literature is not indexed in MEDLINE or Scopus and often lacks peer review. However, it is crucial for systematic reviews because it may contain null or negative findings that are less likely to be published (publication bias). Systematic grey literature searching is now a standard component of evidence synthesis and is recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, PRISMA, and other methodological guidelines. | 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数据集 ↗ |
|
|