Purpose

This study aims to compare the impacts of proceedings papers in the fields of social science and humanities (SSH) and science.

Design/methodology/approach

This study involved not only citations but also altmetric indexes to compare the impacts of proceedings papers among multiple disciplines with 1,779,166 records from Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI) in the Web of Science (WoS) in the period of 2013–2017. The mean value, concentration ratio, Lorenz curves and correlation analysis are utilized into the comparative analysis.

Findings

(1) Proceedings papers in science fields had higher scholarly impacts than those in SSH fields. (2) As for societal impact, clinical, pre-clinical and health still ranked first, whereas physical science and engineering and technologies were transcended by SSH fields, which is different from the scholarly impact of proceedings papers. (3) As for proceedings papers, citations and altmetric indexes have weak or moderate correlations in all six fields, indicating that altmetrics can be supplemented when assessing proceedings papers.

Originality/value

This study is expected to enhance the understanding of proceedings papers and to promote accuracy of evaluation for them by exhibiting the multidisciplinary differences of their scholarly and societal impacts.

中文翻译：

---

科学领域的论文是否比社会科学和人文科学领域的论文影响更大？

目的

这项研究旨在比较议事论文在社会科学与人文科学（SSH）和科学领域的影响。

设计/方法/方法

这项研究不仅涉及引文，还涉及高度计量指标，以比较多学科之间的议事录论文的影响，并使用2013-2017年间来自Web of Science（WoS）的会议录论文引文索引（CPCI）的1,779,166条记录。将平均值，浓度比，洛伦兹曲线和相关分析用于比较分析。

发现

（1）科学领域的学术论文比SSH领域的学术论文影响更大。（2）就社会影响而言，临床，临床前和健康仍然排名第一，而SSH领域超越了物理科学，工程和技术，这与会议论文的学术影响不同。（3）关于会议论文，引文和海拔高度指数在所有六个领域均具有弱或中度相关性，这表明可以在评估会议论文时补充海拔高度。

创意/价值

期望通过展现学术和社会影响的多学科差异，这项研究可以提高对议事论文的理解，并提高对论文评价的准确性。