[目的/意義]高校"雙一流"建設要求有一流的科研成果。圖書館參與科學評價頂級學術成果,助力"雙一流"的建設,可為科學決策提供輔助支持。[方法/過程]文章聚焦"Nature"周刊上有關基因編輯技術的論文,計算Altmetrics指標的覆蓋率;引入學科歸一化影響因子,分析FWCI、AAS、被引頻次的關系,探討高網絡參與度論文與高引用論文之間是否有關聯,分析頂級期刊論文的網絡參與度,檢驗Wikipedia指標進行科研成果評價的有效性。[結果/結論]研究發現:Twitter,Mendeley,news story具有較高的指標覆蓋率,高網絡參與度論文非高引用論文,AAS對高引用論文的預測作用并不明確,FWCI和引文表征的是學者間的學術影響。Scopus對"Nature"的論文選擇性收錄,Wikipedia具有科普特性,但Wikipedia指標覆蓋率較低,用于科學評價尚不成熟。

[Purpose/significance]The construction of"Double World-class"in universities requires first-class scientific research.Libraries can participate in the scientific evaluation of the top academic achievements,help to build the "Double Worldclass"construction,and provide ancillary decision-making support.[Method/process]This study focuses on"gene edit technology" papers in"Nature"Weekly,and calculates the coverage rate of different Altmetrics indicators.By introducing the influencing factor of disciplinary normalization,the paper analyzes the relationship between Field Weighted Citation Impact(FWCI),AAS and citation counts,probes into the correlation between high network participation papers and high cited papers,discusses the online-engagement degree of top academic papers,and examines the validity of Wikipedia indicator for the evaluation of research outputs.[Result/conclusion]Twitter,Mendeley,news story have high coverage rate,high online-engaged papers are not highly cited papers,the prediction effect of AAS on highly cited papers is not clear,FWCI and citation represent the academic influence of scholars.Scopus selectively indexes"Nature"papers,and Wikipedia has the characteristic of scientific popularization,but the indicators’ coverage rate of Wikipedia is low,so the usage of Wikipedia for evaluation of scientific research is still immature.