From j.hartley at PSY.KEELE.AC.UK Tue Apr 1 02:47:11 2003 From: j.hartley at PSY.KEELE.AC.UK (J. Hartley) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:47:11 +0100 Subject: Structured abstracts Message-ID: Peter Here it is! There may be some confusion because I thought I had already sent it to you with a message asking if you were the Peter Jacso of Tenopir and Jacso - a paper I often cite! (I sent this message to another Peter by mistake!) Have you done any more work on the readability of journals etc? Jim -----Original Message----- From: Peter Jacso To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Date: 31 March 2003 20:27 Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Structured abstracts >thanks Jim, e-mail attachment is fine. >thnaks >peter > >On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, J. Hartley wrote: > >> I can send it snail mail - printed offprint - or via e-mail attachment. Let >> me know which you prefer! >> >> Jim >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Jacso >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Date: 31 March 2003 11:42 >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Structured abstracts >> >> >> >Sir, I am interested in that article. Could you please send it? if snail >> >mail is needed this is my postal address >> >322 Aoloa Street 709 >> >Kailua, HI 96734 >> >thanks >> >peter jacso >> >http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jacso >> > >> >On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, J. Hartley wrote: >> > >> >> Colleagues might like to know that my latest paper on structured >> abstracts >> >> has now been published (Science Communication, 24, 3, 366-379). This one >> >> compares 24 traditional abstracts with 24 structured ones based on >> abstracts >> >> from the Journal of Educational Psychology and shows several benefits for >> >> the latter. Copies of the paper are available from me: >> >> j.hartley at psy.keele.ac.uk >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SciCompap.doc Type: application/msword Size: 93184 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jacso at HAWAII.EDU Tue Apr 1 14:57:00 2003 From: jacso at HAWAII.EDU (Peter Jacso) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:57:00 -1000 Subject: Structured abstracts In-Reply-To: <002001c2f822$e770c8a0$195305a0@J.Hartley.psy.keele.ac.uk> Message-ID: Yes, Jim, I am the one. I have not done much lately, except looking at some software which create abstracts from the text you throw at them - with surprisingly good results and flexibility (creating summaries in proportion to the length of the original text, or set by the user, etc.). I have spent msot of my time lately in developing what I call PolySearch Engines. I just posted today one for Biographies (go to http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jacso/extra/ This may not be of interest to you, but I am using the technology (not publicly though) to find abstracts for the same articles to show to my students the eneormous differnces between say the ususally excellenet Wilson abstracts as opposed to the poor abstracts in the PASCAL database. On second thought, I do discuss the quality of abstract in my book about the evaluation of the quality of textual databases and show a number of examples in that chapter. thanks best peter On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, J. Hartley wrote: > Peter > > Here it is! > > There may be some confusion because I thought I had already sent it to you > with a message asking if you were the Peter Jacso of Tenopir and Jacso - a > paper I often cite! (I sent this message to another Peter by mistake!) > Have you done any more work on the readability of journals etc? > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Jacso > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Date: 31 March 2003 20:27 > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Structured abstracts > > > >thanks Jim, e-mail attachment is fine. > >thnaks > >peter > > > >On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, J. Hartley wrote: > > > >> I can send it snail mail - printed offprint - or via e-mail attachment. > Let > >> me know which you prefer! > >> > >> Jim > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Peter Jacso > >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > >> Date: 31 March 2003 11:42 > >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Structured abstracts > >> > >> > >> >Sir, I am interested in that article. Could you please send it? if snail > >> >mail is needed this is my postal address > >> >322 Aoloa Street 709 > >> >Kailua, HI 96734 > >> >thanks > >> >peter jacso > >> >http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jacso > >> > > >> >On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, J. Hartley wrote: > >> > > >> >> Colleagues might like to know that my latest paper on structured > >> abstracts > >> >> has now been published (Science Communication, 24, 3, 366-379). This > one > >> >> compares 24 traditional abstracts with 24 structured ones based on > >> abstracts > >> >> from the Journal of Educational Psychology and shows several benefits > for > >> >> the latter. Copies of the paper are available from me: > >> >> j.hartley at psy.keele.ac.uk > >> >> > >> > From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 1 16:01:47 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:01:47 -0500 Subject: Burrell QL. "Predicting future citation behavior" JASIST 54(5):372-378 March 2003. Message-ID: Quentin L. Burrell : q.burrell at ibs.ac.im Title Predicting future citation behavior Author Burrell QL Journal JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 54 (5): 372-378 MAR 2003 Document type: Article Language: English Cited References: 24 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: In this article we further develop the theory for a stochastic model for the citation process in the presence of obsolescence to predict the future citation pattern of individual papers in a collection. More precisely, we investigate the conditional distribution -and its mean -of the number of citations to a paper after time t, given the number of citations it has received up to time t. In an important parametric case it is shown that the expected number of future citations is a linear function of the current number, this being interpretable as an example of a success-breeds-success phenomenon. KeyWords Plus: LIBRARY CIRCULATION MODEL, SUCCESS-BREEDS-SUCCESS, STOCHASTIC-MODEL, MARKOV Addresses: Burrell QL, Isle Man Int Business Sch, Nunnery,Old Castletown Rd, Douglas IM2 1QB, Man, England Isle Man Int Business Sch, Douglas IM2 1QB, Man, England Publisher: JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, HOBOKEN IDS Number: 649ZR ISSN: 1532-2882 Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year BEHESHTI J J AM SOC INFORM SCI 35 259 1984 BURRELL QL INFORMETRICS 87 88 S 43 1988 BURRELL QL J AM SOC INFORM SCI 41 164 1990 BURRELL QL J DOC 42 114 1986 BURRELL QL J DOC 41 100 1985 BURRELL QL J ROYAL STAT SOC A 154 439 1982 BURRELL QL LIB SCI 27 237 1990 BURRELL QL SCIENTOMETRICS 53 309 2002 BURRELL QL SCIENTOMETRICS 52 3 2001 CANE VR B I MATH 15 183 1972 CANE VR J APPL PROBAB 14 475 1977 GLANZEL W INFORM PROCESS MANAG 31 69 1995 GLANZEL W INFORMETRICS 89 90 139 1990 GLANZEL W SCIENTOMETRICS 40 481 1997 GLANZEL W SCIENTOMETRICS 30 49 1994 GRIMMETT GR PROBABILITY RANDOM P 1982 HUBER JC J AM SOC INFORM SCI 49 471 1998 MORSE PM LIB EFFECTIVENESS SY 1968 PARZEN E STOCHASTIC PROCESSES 1962 PRICE DD J ASIS 27 293 1976 SICHEL HS J AM SOC INFORM SCI 36 314 1985 TAGUE J J AM SOC INFORM SCI 32 280 1981 TAGUE J J DOC 43 212 1987 TUCKWELL HC ELEMENTARY APPL PROB 1995 From adam.bartkowski at TU-ILMENAU.DE Wed Apr 2 01:48:24 2003 From: adam.bartkowski at TU-ILMENAU.DE (Adam Bartkowski) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:48:24 +0200 Subject: Burrell QL. "Predicting future citation behavior" JASIST 54(5):372-378 March 2003. Message-ID: Dear Dr. Burrell, the title and abstract of your paper are really very interesting. I appreciate very much a copy of the paper, via e- or snail-mail. My snail-address: Adam Bartkowski PATON/TU Ilmenau PF 100565 98694 Ilmenau Germany Thank you in advance, Adam Bartkowski PS. I have tried to send a mail direct to the address of Mr. Burrell given below in the message, however, the mail couldn't reach the address because of "too many hops". Is this address correct? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene Garfield" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:01 PM Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Burrell QL. "Predicting future citation behavior" JASIST 54(5):372-378 March 2003. > Quentin L. Burrell : q.burrell at ibs.ac.im > > > Title Predicting future citation behavior > Author Burrell QL > Journal JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION > SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 54 (5): 372-378 MAR 2003 > > Document type: Article Language: English > Cited References: 24 Times Cited: 0 > > > Abstract: > In this article we further develop the theory for a stochastic model for the > citation process in the presence of obsolescence to predict the future > citation pattern of individual papers in a collection. More precisely, we > investigate the conditional distribution -and its mean -of the number of > citations to a paper after time t, given the number of citations it has > received up to time t. In an important parametric case it is shown that the > expected number of future citations is a linear function of the current > number, this being interpretable as an example of a success-breeds-success > phenomenon. > > KeyWords Plus: > LIBRARY CIRCULATION MODEL, SUCCESS-BREEDS-SUCCESS, STOCHASTIC-MODEL, MARKOV > > Addresses: > Burrell QL, Isle Man Int Business Sch, Nunnery,Old Castletown Rd, Douglas > IM2 1QB, Man, England > Isle Man Int Business Sch, Douglas IM2 1QB, Man, England > > Publisher: > JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, HOBOKEN > > IDS Number: > 649ZR > > ISSN: > 1532-2882 > > > > Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year > > BEHESHTI J J AM SOC INFORM SCI 35 259 1984 > BURRELL QL INFORMETRICS 87 88 S 43 1988 > BURRELL QL J AM SOC INFORM SCI 41 164 1990 > BURRELL QL J DOC 42 114 1986 > BURRELL QL J DOC 41 100 1985 > BURRELL QL J ROYAL STAT SOC A 154 439 1982 > BURRELL QL LIB SCI 27 237 1990 > BURRELL QL SCIENTOMETRICS 53 309 2002 > BURRELL QL SCIENTOMETRICS 52 3 2001 > CANE VR B I MATH 15 183 1972 > CANE VR J APPL PROBAB 14 475 1977 > GLANZEL W INFORM PROCESS MANAG 31 69 1995 > GLANZEL W INFORMETRICS 89 90 139 1990 > GLANZEL W SCIENTOMETRICS 40 481 1997 > GLANZEL W SCIENTOMETRICS 30 49 1994 > GRIMMETT GR PROBABILITY RANDOM P 1982 > HUBER JC J AM SOC INFORM SCI 49 471 1998 > MORSE PM LIB EFFECTIVENESS SY 1968 > PARZEN E STOCHASTIC PROCESSES 1962 > PRICE DD J ASIS 27 293 1976 > SICHEL HS J AM SOC INFORM SCI 36 314 1985 > TAGUE J J AM SOC INFORM SCI 32 280 1981 > TAGUE J J DOC 43 212 1987 > TUCKWELL HC ELEMENTARY APPL PROB 1995 > From quentinburrell at MANX.NET Wed Apr 2 09:30:09 2003 From: quentinburrell at MANX.NET (Quentin L. Burrell) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 15:30:09 +0100 Subject: Burrell QL. "Predicting future citation behavior" JASIST 54(5):372-378 March 2003. In-Reply-To: <009301c2f8e3$dc2608e0$0175188d@patentinf.tuilmenau.de> Message-ID: Adam Thanks for the message. As I don't want to send an attachment to the list, if you (or anyone else!) would like an e-version please contact me directly at q.burrell at ibs.ac.im or quentinburrell at manx.net (Ow a snail version will crawl to you on Friday!) Quentin -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU]On Behalf Of Adam Bartkowski Sent: 02 April 2003 07:48 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Burrell QL. "Predicting future citation behavior" JASIST 54(5):372-378 March 2003. Dear Dr. Burrell, the title and abstract of your paper are really very interesting. I appreciate very much a copy of the paper, via e- or snail-mail. My snail-address: Adam Bartkowski PATON/TU Ilmenau PF 100565 98694 Ilmenau Germany Thank you in advance, Adam Bartkowski PS. I have tried to send a mail direct to the address of Mr. Burrell given below in the message, however, the mail couldn't reach the address because of "too many hops". Is this address correct? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene Garfield" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:01 PM Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Burrell QL. "Predicting future citation behavior" JASIST 54(5):372-378 March 2003. > Quentin L. Burrell : q.burrell at ibs.ac.im > > > Title Predicting future citation behavior > Author Burrell QL > Journal JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION > SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 54 (5): 372-378 MAR 2003 > > Document type: Article Language: English > Cited References: 24 Times Cited: 0 > > > Abstract: > In this article we further develop the theory for a stochastic model for the > citation process in the presence of obsolescence to predict the future > citation pattern of individual papers in a collection. More precisely, we > investigate the conditional distribution -and its mean -of the number of > citations to a paper after time t, given the number of citations it has > received up to time t. In an important parametric case it is shown that the > expected number of future citations is a linear function of the current > number, this being interpretable as an example of a success-breeds-success > phenomenon. > > KeyWords Plus: > LIBRARY CIRCULATION MODEL, SUCCESS-BREEDS-SUCCESS, STOCHASTIC-MODEL, MARKOV > > Addresses: > Burrell QL, Isle Man Int Business Sch, Nunnery,Old Castletown Rd, Douglas > IM2 1QB, Man, England > Isle Man Int Business Sch, Douglas IM2 1QB, Man, England > > Publisher: > JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, HOBOKEN > > IDS Number: > 649ZR > > ISSN: > 1532-2882 > > > > Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year > > BEHESHTI J J AM SOC INFORM SCI 35 259 1984 > BURRELL QL INFORMETRICS 87 88 S 43 1988 > BURRELL QL J AM SOC INFORM SCI 41 164 1990 > BURRELL QL J DOC 42 114 1986 > BURRELL QL J DOC 41 100 1985 > BURRELL QL J ROYAL STAT SOC A 154 439 1982 > BURRELL QL LIB SCI 27 237 1990 > BURRELL QL SCIENTOMETRICS 53 309 2002 > BURRELL QL SCIENTOMETRICS 52 3 2001 > CANE VR B I MATH 15 183 1972 > CANE VR J APPL PROBAB 14 475 1977 > GLANZEL W INFORM PROCESS MANAG 31 69 1995 > GLANZEL W INFORMETRICS 89 90 139 1990 > GLANZEL W SCIENTOMETRICS 40 481 1997 > GLANZEL W SCIENTOMETRICS 30 49 1994 > GRIMMETT GR PROBABILITY RANDOM P 1982 > HUBER JC J AM SOC INFORM SCI 49 471 1998 > MORSE PM LIB EFFECTIVENESS SY 1968 > PARZEN E STOCHASTIC PROCESSES 1962 > PRICE DD J ASIS 27 293 1976 > SICHEL HS J AM SOC INFORM SCI 36 314 1985 > TAGUE J J AM SOC INFORM SCI 32 280 1981 > TAGUE J J DOC 43 212 1987 > TUCKWELL HC ELEMENTARY APPL PROB 1995 > From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Apr 2 14:37:03 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:37:03 -0500 Subject: Szokol JW, Murphy GS, Avram MJ, Nitsun M, Wynnychenko TM, Vender JS "Declining proportion of publications by American authors in major anesthesiology journals" Anesthesia and Analgesia 96(2):513-517, February 2003 Message-ID: J.W. Szokol: szokol at kellogg.northwestern.edu TITLE Declining proportion of publications by American authors in major anesthesiology journals AUTHOR Szokol JW, Murphy GS, Avram MJ, Nitsun M, Wynnychenko TM, Vender JS JOURNAL ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA 96 (2): 513-517 FEB 2003 Document type: Article Language: English Cited References: 7 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: A decline in the proportion of articles published by American authors in medical journals has been reported. We therefore sought to determine whether the contributions of authors from the United States to the three leading anesthesia journals changed between the years 1980 to 2000. The journals Pain, Anesthesiology, and Anesthesia & Analgesia were selected for evaluation on the basis of their respective impact factors. All clinical studies and basic science studies published in the years 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000 were evaluated. The country of origin of the lead author of each article was determined by two of the investigators. chi(2) Tests and least squares linear regression analyses were used to determine associations between the source of publication (United States or abroad) and year of publication. The proportion of American publications in the leading anesthesia specialty journals was found to be decreasing over the period 1980-2000 because of an increase in the rate of publication from abroad that is disproportionate to the increase in the total number of public ations in the journals over that time. The reasons for changes in anesthesia-related publications by American authors were not established by this study. The authors speculate that multiple factors are involved, including an increased emphasis on clinical care over research because of economic constraints, American publication in journals other than the leading specialty journals, and the increased quality of submissions from abroad. Addresses: Szokol JW, Evanston NW Healthcare, Dept Anesthesiol, 2650 Ridge Ave, Evanston, IL 60201 USA Evanston NW Healthcare, Dept Anesthesiol, Evanston, IL 60201 USA Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USA Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, PHILADELPHIA IDS Number: 638YV ISSN: 0003-2999 Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year GROGONO AW AM SOC ANESTHESIOL N 65 19 2001 LUBARSKY DA J CLIN ANESTH 12 238 2000 NAHRWOLD DL ANN SURG 222 263 1995 SCHUBERT A MAYO CLIN PROC 76 995 2001 STOSSEL TP NEW ENGL J MED 322 739 1990 TAYLOR GA PEDIATR RADIOL 31 786 2001 TREMPER KK SURVIVING STORM FINA 2000 When responding, please attach my original message _______________________________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org _______________________________________________________________________ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Apr 2 14:40:50 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:40:50 -0500 Subject: Paucar-Caceres A "Measuring the effect of highly cited papers in OR/systems journals: A survey of articles citing the work of Checkland and Jackson" SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE 20 (1): 65-79 JAN-FEB 2003 Message-ID: TITLE Measuring the effect of highly cited papers in OR/systems journals: A survey of articles citing the work of Checkland and Jackson AUTHOR Paucar-Caceres A JOURNAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE 20 (1): 65-79 JAN-FEB 2003 Document type: Editorial Material Language: English Cited References: 22 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: The UK OR/systems community has been actively promoting the development and the use of management science methodologies (MSM) over the last decades. A number of systems thinkers have been influential in promoting them. To understand this development, this paper proposes a general framework in which four paradigms/stages are identified. To assess the influence of individuals in this development a model that attempts to 'measure' the effects of cited work is advanced. Using the ISI database citation index for the period 1981-2000 a survey on articles citing the work of two authors representative of two stages of MSM development is conducted. The paper reports on the number of articles citing Checkland's and Jackson's most cited papers. The journals surveyed were a sample-of OR, systems and IT refereed journals. The results suggest that, judging from the number of citations to their work, the-two mentioned authors have been influential at different points of the UK OR/systems movement. KeyWords Plus: SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY Addresses: Paucar-Caceres A, Manchester Metropolitan Univ, Sch Business, Aytoun Bldg,Aytoun St, Manchester M1 3GH, Lancs, England Manchester Metropolitan Univ, Sch Business, Manchester M1 3GH, Lancs, England Publisher: JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD, W SUSSEX IDS Number: 642PY ISSN: 1092-7026 Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year *ISI J CIT 2000 *ISI WEB SCI 2001 BROCKLESBY J INT J MANPOWER 16 70 1995 CHECKLAND P RATIONAL ANAL PROBLE 71 1989 CHECKLAND PB NEW DIRECTIONS MANAG 87 1987 CHECKLAND PB SOFT SYSTEMS METHODO 1990 CHECKLAND PB SYSTEMS THINKING SYS 1981 EDEN C MESSING PROBLEMS 1983 FLOOD R CREATIVE PROBLEM SOL 1991 JACKSON M SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY 1992 JACKSON MC J OPER RES SOC 50 12 1999 JACKSON MC MULTIMETHODOLOGY THE 347 1997 LEDINGTON P J OPER RES SOC 48 229 1997 MACADAM R AGR SYST 49 299 1995 MACADAM RD AGR SYST 30 352 1989 MINGERS J J APPL SYS ANAL 7 41 1980 MINGERS J J OPER RES SOC 43 321 1992 MINGERS J MULTIMETHODOLOGY 1997 MINGERS J MULTIMETHODOLOGY THE 1 1997 MINGERS J MULTIMETHODOLOGY THE 407 1997 MINGERS J SYSTEMIST 21 81 1999 PAUCARCACERES A UK SYST SOC 7 INT C 2002 When responding, please attach my original message _______________________________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org _______________________________________________________________________ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Apr 2 15:37:55 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 15:37:55 -0500 Subject: Special Topic Section: Visualizing Scientific Paradigms - Guest Editor: Chaomei Chen Message-ID: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Vol:54 (5) March 2003 includes a Special Topic Section... Special Topic Section: Visualizing Scientific Paradigms Guest Editor: Chaomei Chen Following are the papers listed in this section: Visualizing Scientific Paradigms: An Introduction Chaomei Chen Published online 30th January 2003 page 392 Paradigms, Citations, and Maps of Science: A personal history Henry Small Published online 30th January 2003 page 394 Why do we need algorithmic historiographs? Eugene Garfield, A.I. Pudovkin, and V.S. Istomin Published online 30th January 2003 page 400 Time Line Visualization of Research Fronts Steven A. Morris, G. Yen, Zheng Wu and Benyam Asnake Published online 30th January 2003 page 413 Pathfinder Networks and Author Cocitation Analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists Howard D. White Published online 30th January 2003 page 423 The rising landscape: A visual exploration of superstring revolutions in physics Chaomei Chen and Jasna Kuljis Published online 30th January 2003 page 435 Indicator assisted evaluation and funding of research: Visualizing the influence of grants on the number and citation counts of research papers Kevin W. Boyack and Katy Borner Published online 30th January 2003 page 447 Simultaneous mapping of interactions between scientific and technological knowledge bases: The case of space communications E. Hassan Published online 30th January 2003 page 462 From Postd at EROLS.COM Wed Apr 2 17:02:35 2003 From: Postd at EROLS.COM (David G. Post) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:02:35 -0500 Subject: A question about legal citation mapping and analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To all: There's an enormously rich mine of citation information in various legal databases (Lexis, Westlaw), consisting of the citations from one case to another that form the 'web' (seamless or otherwise) of legal precedent. Surprisingly, perhaps, there has been virtually no analytic work on the structure of that citation data -- notwithstanding the fact that it is, in some respects, the best picture we have of what the "law" actually consists of. I'm planning a fairly substantial attack on some of the questions about what this citation network looks like, how it changes over time, and the like. My question is this: Can anyone on this list recommend a good source of mapping/clustering tools for producing 2-dimensional visualizations of citation data? Assuming that I can get my hands of the relevant primary data (the matrix of legal decisions and all of the citations within those decisions to prior decisions), one of the things that I would like to do is to prepare visual depictions of the cases within various legal subdomains -- the network, say, of all cases dealing with the First Amendment, or copyright law, or bankruptcy law ... I apologize if this query is too simple-minded to answer easily; I know that there is an enormous amount of information out there on information visualization, and I'm just hoping that some of the members of this list might be able to point me in productive directions. Feel free to reply to me off-list, if you'd like. Thanks in advance. David Post * * * David G. Post Professor, Temple Law School David.Post at temple.edu 202-364-5010 <> <> SSRN: <> "There are two possibilities: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying."-Arthur C. Clarke * * * From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Apr 3 01:00:20 2003 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 08:00:20 +0200 Subject: A question about legal citation mapping and analysis In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030402165108.02a155c0@pop.erols.com> Message-ID: Dear David, Perhaps, the program Pajek offers a solution for your visualization problem. It is freely available (for academic usage) from the mathematics department of the University of Ljubljana at http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ . For the statistics it interfaces with Ucinet (a program for social network analysis) that is nowadays commercial, but thirty days on trial. With kind regards, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Science & Technology Dynamics, University of Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David G. Post > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:03 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A question about legal citation mapping > and analysis > > > To all: > There's an enormously rich mine of citation information > in various legal databases (Lexis, Westlaw), consisting of > the citations from one case to another that form the 'web' > (seamless or otherwise) of legal precedent. Surprisingly, > perhaps, there has been virtually no analytic work on the > structure of that citation data -- notwithstanding the fact > that it is, in some respects, the best picture we have of > what the "law" actually consists of. > I'm planning a fairly substantial attack on some of the > questions about what this citation network looks like, how it > changes over time, and the like. My question is this: Can > anyone on this list recommend a good source of > mapping/clustering tools for producing 2-dimensional > visualizations of citation data? Assuming that I can get my > hands of the relevant primary data (the matrix of legal > decisions and all of the citations within those decisions to > prior decisions), one of the things that I would like to do > is to prepare visual depictions of the cases within various > legal subdomains -- the network, say, of all cases dealing > with the First Amendment, or copyright law, or bankruptcy law ... > I apologize if this query is too simple-minded to answer > easily; I know that there is an enormous amount of > information out there on information visualization, and I'm > just hoping that some of the members of this list might be > able to point me in productive directions. Feel free to > reply to me off-list, if you'd like. Thanks in advance. David Post > > * * * > David G. Post Professor, Temple Law School > David.Post at temple.edu 202-364-5010 > <> > <> > SSRN: <> > > "There are two possibilities: Either we are alone in the > universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying."-Arthur C. Clarke > * * * > From nhaque_imf at YAHOO.COM Sat Apr 5 04:35:56 2003 From: nhaque_imf at YAHOO.COM (Nadeem Haque) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 01:35:56 -0800 Subject: Help me get data on citations In-Reply-To: <200303262032.h2QKW1te032141@jaguar.mail.utk.edu> Message-ID: I am engaged in a research project at the IMF to understand the impact of the brain drain on poor countries and to assess the research capacity in these countries. The project is also supported by the World Bank. I would like to make a cross country comparison of papers published in reasonable journals (not necessarily the best) as well as the number of citations. If possible could I find the same data by country of origin of the author to be able to estiamte the issue of brain drain. I intend to use this data in cross coutnry growth regressions. hence I would need a large sample that includes a number of poor countries. My hypothesis is that published papers and citations from a coutnry shows that the profession of that coutnry is participating in the global pool of knowledge. In that sense it should give us a good handle on the coutnry's readiness to beneift from global knowledge spillovers. I have been able to collect a fair amount of citation information on the OECD or industrial countries but cannot find much on the poor countries. It is understandable that they have very limited participation in citation counts. Can any of you help me get data for a project that is likely to be of considerable international policy interest. Thank you Nadeem Ul Haque IMF Res Rep--Egypt C200 International Monetary Fund Washington DC 20431 USA Tel mobile 2 012 211 8146 office 202 392 4257 Home: 202 358 5686 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From krichel at OPENLIB.ORG Sat Apr 5 09:25:29 2003 From: krichel at OPENLIB.ORG (Thomas Krichel) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 08:25:29 -0600 Subject: Help me get data on citations In-Reply-To: <20030405093556.85132.qmail@web40404.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This project is too ambitous, you will have a very hard time to find such data. Have you looked at teh RePEc database? It does have some freely accessible citation data, but not much. Cheers, Thomas Krichel mailto:krichel at openlib.org http://openlib.org/home/krichel RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel From nhaque_imf at YAHOO.COM Mon Apr 7 08:25:36 2003 From: nhaque_imf at YAHOO.COM (Nadeem Haque) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 05:25:36 -0700 Subject: Help me get data on citations In-Reply-To: <20030405142529.GB14175@openlib.org> Message-ID: I think you misunderstand me. I am not asking for much. But first let me explain why this is important. For too long, development policy has advised that poor countries should focus on literacy, school enrollent and so on. It is a stages arguemnt where we have to cross thorugh all the thresholds that Europe went thorugh before inveting in science and technology. As a result, much of the higher learning capability has been denuded in these countries. India is the only country that stuck its neck out against this theology and set up teh IITs and the IIMs. The result is that India has a citation and paper count well beyond its stage of developmet. And to me that sets my hypothesis: a country can only benefit from the global pool of knowledge if it has a well-developed scientific community. Now if I can show that investment in science and research pays in terms of economic growh, this accepted philosophy might change. I intend to use data showing sceintific achievement accross countries to assess its impact on economic growth. Hence I am seeking indicators of scientific achievement. Citations, papers and journals, I think will give me a good indicator of a country's capability. I think you misunderstand. I am not looking for economists only. I want to get Papers written (and citations of) by nationals of countries from within their countries of origin in reputable journals Papers written (and citations of) by nationals of countries in other coutnries Journal distribution accorss countires All I would be interested in is aggregated data say for "science" and "Social science" and "humanities" I have seen that ISI and some papers use data for many different countries. Accept they use 20 or 30 countries. Can we go a little further?. Is it possible to get say about 60 or 70 countries and for one or two of these categories, say get citation counts and citation counts for journals. I hope you agree that it is an important issue and only a list like this can help. All the best. Nadeem Thomas Krichel wrote:This project is too ambitous, you will have a very hard time to find such data. Have you looked at teh RePEc database? It does have some freely accessible citation data, but not much. Cheers, Thomas Krichel mailto:krichel at openlib.org http://openlib.org/home/krichel RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel Nadeem Ul Haque IMF Res Rep--Egypt C200 International Monetary Fund Washington DC 20431 USA Tel mobile 2 012 211 8146 office 202 392 4257 Home: 202 358 5686 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willieezi at YAHOO.COM Wed Apr 9 08:48:07 2003 From: willieezi at YAHOO.COM (Williams Nwagwu) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 05:48:07 -0700 Subject: Pre-1975 JCR data? In-Reply-To: <000001c2f567$7d2860b0$e2058418@loet> Message-ID: Dear Colleaugue, I am currently doing some study on Gender and scientific collaboration in the biomedical literature. I hereby wish to solicit for materials and , or references, on the subject. THank you very much. willie __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com From willieezi at YAHOO.COM Wed Apr 9 08:50:13 2003 From: willieezi at YAHOO.COM (Williams Nwagwu) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 05:50:13 -0700 Subject: Pre-1975 JCR data? In-Reply-To: <000001c2f567$7d2860b0$e2058418@loet> Message-ID: Dear Colleague, I wish to link up with Marcia Chapula, a Mexican Medical doctor who also carries out research in bibliometrics. I just lost his email address and need to link up with him urgently. Williams Nwagwu __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com From jrussell at SERVIDOR.UNAM.MX Wed Apr 9 09:10:51 2003 From: jrussell at SERVIDOR.UNAM.MX (Jane Russell) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 08:10:51 -0500 Subject: Pre-1975 JCR data? In-Reply-To: <20030409125013.86420.qmail@web12807.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Williams, Cesar Macias-Chapula's email is: cesarmch at liceaga.facmed.unam.mx Best wishes Jane Russell At 05:50 AM 4/9/2003 -0700, you wrote: >Dear Colleague, > >I wish to link up with Marcia Chapula, a Mexican >Medical doctor who also carries out research in >bibliometrics. I just lost his email address and need >to link up with him urgently. > >Williams Nwagwu > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more >http://tax.yahoo.com From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu Apr 10 15:20:27 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:20:27 -0400 Subject: English Translations of Papers by Winkmann G, Schlutius S,Schweim HG in DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 127 (4): 131-143 JAN 25 2002 Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: The following two papers were posted to SIG-Metrics in June 2002. This posting is to let you know that the authors and the journal - JOURNAL DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT - have very kindly provided English translations for these two papers which were originally published in German. The English versions are available at : http://www.thieme-connect.de/BASScgi/4?FID=Start&URL=JournalTOC&Level=Journa l&JournalKey=18&IssueKey=1762&FieldKey=0 Be sure to copy the entire url even if it runs over to three lines. When you get to the site, scroll down and under "Original Articles" you will see them listed as "Free Articles" Eugene Garfield ____________________________________________________________________________ _ Harald G. Schweim : schweim at dimdi.de TITLE Publication languages of Impact Factor Journals and of medical bibliographic databanks AUTHOR Winkmann G, Schlutius S, Schweim HG JOURNAL DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 127 (4): 131-137 JAN 25 2002 Document type: Article Language: German Cited References: 24 Times Cited: 1 Abstract: Background and objective: A preference for English-language sources during determination of journal Impact Factors (IF) was discussed, IF being published in the annual journal Citation Reports OCR). The JCR are derived from data in Science Citation Index (SCI). The aim of this study was, therefore, (i) to review publication countries and languages in JCR, (ii) publication languages in SCI in comparison to further recognised medical bibliographic databanks. Methods: Searching (i) countries and languages in JCR Science-Editions 1997 and 1998, (ii) language distributions in publication years 1995-2000 in bibliographic databanks SCI, MEDLINE (ME) and EMBASE (EM). Results: (i) Almost 70% journals in JCR 1997 and 1998 were published in USA, United Kingdom, or The Netherlands. Of two language options present, a number of English-classified journals contained >90% articles in other languages, whereas >90% publications in English could occur in Multi-Language (ML) journals, thereby complicating statistical comparisons. 83,9% JCR-periodicals in 1997 and 85,6% in 1998 were classified English. English/ML ratios increased exponentially with increasing IF. (ii) 95,5% of the articles documented 1995-2000 in whole SCI and in our constructed SCI segment "Medicine and related areas" were written in English, compared to 88,5% in ME and 89,8% in EM. The SCI Medicine segment was 15% more comprehensive than either MEDLINE or EMBASE. Highly significant differences of language distributions in SCI vs. MEDLINE and especially SCI vs. EMBASE were observed. Retrieval rates in SCI of German-, French-, Japanese- and Chinese-language medical papers published in 2000 were impressively augmented by EMBASE and MEDLINE. Conclusions: (i) Anglo-American publishers' countries and English-language journals prevail in JCR with respect to numbers and IF levels. Publication language English favours citation frequency. (ii) Of databanks studied, SCI shows a maximum preference for English-language sources, thereby causing an English Language Bias during IF derivation. KeyWords Plus: GERMAN, CITATION, SCIENCE, FUTURE Addresses: Schweim HG, DIMDI, Postfach 42 05 80, D-50899 Cologne, Germany DIMDI, D-50899 Cologne, Germany Publisher: GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG, STUTTGART IDS Number: 516RC ISSN: 0012-0472 Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year *DIMDI EINST DAT RECH *ISI SCI CIT IND SCI CIT BARILLOT MJ ANN PHARMACOTHER 31 45 1997 BARNABY DP ANN EMERG MED 31 78 1998 BELLER FK DEUT MED WOCHENSCHR 124 A18 1999 BELLER FK GYNAKOL GEBURT RUNDS 40 50 2000 BENITEZBRIBIESCA L ARCH MED RES 30 161 1999 DIETRICH GV ANASTH INTENSIV NOTF 35 543 2000 FINZEN A PSYCHIAT PRAX 23 1 1996 GALLAGHER EJ ANN EMERG MED 31 83 1998 GARFIELD E BRIT MED J 313 411 1996 GARFIELD E IMPACT FACTOR GIESSLER A DEUT MED WOCHENSCHR 125 979 2000 GOLDER W ONKOLOGIE 23 73 2000 GOLDER W ROFO-FORTSCHR RONTG 169 220 1998 HALLER U GYNAKOL GEBURT RUNDS 37 117 1997 KLEIJNEN J PHARM WEEKBLAD 14 316 1994 MEENEN NM UNFALLCHIRURG 23 128 1997 MIDDEKE M DEUT MED WOCHENSCHR 125 1099 2000 SEGLEN PO ALLERGY 52 1050 1997 STEGMANN J J DOC 55 310 1999 STEGMANN J JAHRESTAGUNG 147 1999 WINKMANN G DEUT MED WOCHENSCHR 125 1133 2000 WOODS D BRIT MED J 316 1166 1998 _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Subject: Winkmann G, Schlutius S, Schweim HG "Citation rates of medical German-language journals in English-language papers - do they correlate with the Impact Factor, and who cites?" DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 127 (4): 138-143 JAN 25 2002 Dr. Harald G. Schweim : e-mail : schweim at dimdi.de TITLE Citation rates of medical German-language journals in English-language papers - do they correlate with the Impact Factor, and who cites? AUTHOR Winkmann G, Schlutius S, Schweim HG JOURNAL DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 127 (4): 138-143 JAN 25 2002 Document type: Article Language: German Cited References: 35 Times Cited: 1 Abstract: Background and objective: Several publications are warning that the German language is no longer needed for transmission of scientific data. One of the causes may be the Impact Factor (IF), which appears to be derived predominantly from Anglo-American journals. The aim of this study was to check actual international attention paid to German-language journals, i.e. their citation frequencies in English-language papers. Are these citing rates in English-language articles correlated to the IF, and from where do citing articles originate? Methods: Of 25 arbitrarily selected >85% German-language medical journals, IF as well as language distributions of citing articles were determined by searching publication years 1995-2000 in Science Citation Index (SCI). MEDLINE and EMBASE were used as supplementary retrieval systems. Results: (i) The sample journals displayed an average IF = 0.357. A 99% correlation (Pearson factor r = 0.987; n = 25) was observed between our "constructed" IF 2000 and IF published in journal Citation Report 2000. This proves Stegmann's IF determination method (31) to be valid. On the average, 53% German-language and 45% English-language articles between 1995-2000 cited the 1995-1999' contributions of the studied journals. No correlation was observed between IF vs. rates of citing articles in English (r < 0.1). 64% of citing English-language articles showed corporate sources in many/Austria/Switzerland, and 13.5% authors' institutions in USA. Conclusions: (i) An IF greater than or equal to 1 is, obviously, very hard to attain by German-language journals. ISI's differentiation between Citing vs. Cited-only journals (the latter often serving as MEDLINE/EM BASE sources) during derivation of IF appears unjustified. (ii) English now serves as the predominant communication language in sciences in German-speaking countries, but has not supplanted the German language. Our study reveals remarkable international attention rates remaining. KeyWords Plus: SCIENCE, EVALUATE, QUALITY, BIAS, TOOL Addresses: Schweim HG, DIMDI, Postfach 42 05 80, D-50899 Cologne, Germany DIMDI, D-50899 Cologne, Germany Publisher: GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG, STUTTGART IDS Number: 516RC ISSN: 0012-0472 Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year *DIMDI EINST DAR RECH *NAT LIB MED CREAT MEDLINE AMMON U SPEKTRUM WISSENSCHAF 124 117 1992 AMMON U SPEKTRUM WISSENSCHAF 124 124 1992 BARNABY DP ANN EMERG MED 31 78 1998 BELLER FK GYNAKOL GEBURT RUNDS 40 50 2000 BENITEZBRIBIESCA L ARCH MED RES 30 161 1999 BOETTIGER LE ACTA MED SCAND 214 73 1983 BOOKSTEIN A SCIENTOMETRICS 46 337 1999 DIETRICH GV ANASTH INTENSIV NOTF 35 543 2000 FINZEN A PSYCHIAT PRAX 23 1 1996 FROEMTER E DEUT MED WOCHENSCHR 124 910 1999 GALLAGHER EJ ANN EMERG MED 31 83 1998 GARFIELD E BRIT MED J 313 411 1997 GARFIELD E IMPACT FACTOR GIESSLER A DEUT MED WOCHENSCHR 125 979 2000 HALLER U CHIRURG S 70 39 1999 HALLER U GYNAKOL GEBURT RUNDS 37 117 1997 KEUL AG PSYCHOL RUNDSCH 44 159 1993 LEHRL S STRAHLENTHER ONKOL 175 141 1999 MEENEN NM RONTGENPRAXIS 51 266 1998 NAVARRO FA DEUT MED WOCHENSCHR 121 1561 1996 NAVARRO FA MED CLIN-BARCELONA 107 608 1996 NAVARRO FA NED TIJDSCHR GENEESK 140 1263 1996 NAVARRO FA PRESSE MED 33 1547 1995 NAVARRO FA SCHWEIZ MED WSCHR 127 1565 1997 NAVARRO FA WIEN KLIN WOCHENSCHR 108 363 1996 OJASOO T SCIENTOMETRICS 45 81 1999 SCHOONBAERT D TROP MED INT HEALTH 1 739 1996 SEGLEN PO ALLERGY 52 1050 1997 SEGLEN PO BRIT MED J 314 498 1997 STEGMANN J CONSTR IMP FACT CIF 1999 STEGMANN J J DOC 55 310 1999 STEGMANN J NATURE 390 550 1997 WINKMANN G DEUT MED WOCHENSCHR 38 1133 2000 When responding, please attach my original message _______________________________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org _______________________________________________________________________ From M.Davis at UNSW.EDU.AU Sat Apr 12 00:27:32 2003 From: M.Davis at UNSW.EDU.AU (Mari Davis) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 14:27:32 +1000 Subject: ISSI Election - New Ballot paper & Voting Instructions Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The ISSI Election process has been restarted after a small hiccup. The new Ballot Paper for the elections of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) is officially only through the ISSI Discussion server at . However, if you are eligible to vote in the ISSI elections for President and Board, but are not currently a subscriber of ISSI Listserv, please email the ISSI Election Administrator at and request a copy of the Voting Instructions and ISSI Ballot form. The voting process is being conducted by email. All votes must be received by email NO LATER THAN Monday 12 May 2003. If you wish to subscribe to this discussion group, send a message to: Listserv@ listserv.rediris.es - do not write anything in the subject line, and in the text of the message write: subscribe ISSI. on behalf of 2003 ISSI Election Administration issielection at unsw.edu.au From subbiah_a at YAHOO.COM Sat Apr 12 07:06:27 2003 From: subbiah_a at YAHOO.COM (=?iso-8859-1?q?Subbiah=20Arunachalam?=) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:06:27 +0100 Subject: ISSI Election - New Ballot paper & Voting Instructions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am unable to send mail to . Is there any problem? Please advise. Arun --- Mari Davis wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > The ISSI Election process has been restarted after a > small hiccup. The new > Ballot Paper for the elections of the International > Society for > Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) is officially > only through the ISSI > Discussion server at . > However, if you are > eligible to vote in the ISSI elections for President > and Board, but are not > currently a subscriber of ISSI Listserv, please > email the ISSI Election > Administrator at and > request a copy of the > Voting Instructions and ISSI Ballot form. The voting > process is being > conducted by email. > All votes must be received by email NO LATER THAN > Monday 12 May 2003. > > If you wish to subscribe to this discussion group, > send a message to: > Listserv@ listserv.rediris.es - do not write > anything in the subject line, > and in the text of the message write: subscribe > ISSI. > > on behalf of > 2003 ISSI Election Administration > issielection at unsw.edu.au __________________________________________________ Yahoo! Plus For a better Internet experience http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer From isidro at CINDOC.CSIC.ES Sun Apr 13 07:00:56 2003 From: isidro at CINDOC.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 13:00:56 +0200 Subject: ISSI Election - New Ballot paper & Voting Message-ID: > I am unable to send mail to > . Is there any problem? > > Please advise. > > Arun Dear Arun: There is no blank in the address. Use: listserv at listserv.rediris.es Isidro F. Aguillo CINDOC-CSIC > --- Mari Davis wrote: > Dear > Colleagues, > > The ISSI Election process has been restarted after a > > small hiccup. The new > > Ballot Paper for the elections of the International > > Society for > > Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) is officially > > only through the ISSI > > Discussion server at . > > However, if you are > > eligible to vote in the ISSI elections for President > > and Board, but are not > > currently a subscriber of ISSI Listserv, please > > email the ISSI Election > > Administrator at and > > request a copy of the > > Voting Instructions and ISSI Ballot form. The voting > > process is being > > conducted by email. > > All votes must be received by email NO LATER THAN > > Monday 12 May 2003. > > > > If you wish to subscribe to this discussion group, > > send a message to: > > Listserv@ listserv.rediris.es - do not write > > anything in the subject line, > > and in the text of the message write: subscribe > > ISSI. > > > > on behalf of > > 2003 ISSI Election Administration > > issielection at unsw.edu.au > > __________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Plus > For a better Internet experience > http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer From subbiah_a at YAHOO.COM Sun Apr 13 23:29:17 2003 From: subbiah_a at YAHOO.COM (=?iso-8859-1?q?Subbiah=20Arunachalam?=) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 04:29:17 +0100 Subject: ISSI Election - New Ballot paper & Voting In-Reply-To: <200304131100.h3DB0usR011829@chico.rediris.es> Message-ID: Thanks. Arun --- "Isidro F. Aguillo" wrote: > > I am unable to send mail to > > . Is there any > problem? > > > > Please advise. > > > > Arun > > Dear Arun: > > There is no blank in the address. > > Use: > > listserv at listserv.rediris.es > > Isidro F. Aguillo > CINDOC-CSIC > > > > > > > --- Mari Davis wrote: > > Dear > > Colleagues, > > > The ISSI Election process has been restarted > after a > > > small hiccup. The new > > > Ballot Paper for the elections of the > International > > > Society for > > > Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) is > officially > > > only through the ISSI > > > Discussion server at . > > > However, if you are > > > eligible to vote in the ISSI elections for > President > > > and Board, but are not > > > currently a subscriber of ISSI Listserv, please > > > email the ISSI Election > > > Administrator at and > > > request a copy of the > > > Voting Instructions and ISSI Ballot form. The > voting > > > process is being > > > conducted by email. > > > All votes must be received by email NO LATER > THAN > > > Monday 12 May 2003. > > > > > > If you wish to subscribe to this discussion > group, > > > send a message to: > > > Listserv@ listserv.rediris.es - do not write > > > anything in the subject line, > > > and in the text of the message write: subscribe > > > ISSI. > > > > > > on behalf of > > > 2003 ISSI Election Administration > > > issielection at unsw.edu.au > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Yahoo! Plus > > For a better Internet experience > > http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer __________________________________________________ Yahoo! Plus For a better Internet experience http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer From Wolfgang.Glanzel at ECON.KULEUVEN.AC.BE Mon Apr 14 03:09:03 2003 From: Wolfgang.Glanzel at ECON.KULEUVEN.AC.BE (Glanzel, Wolfgang) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:09:03 +0200 Subject: New members - Election Message-ID: Dear Mari, Please, find enclosed the addresses of those new members who have joint the society recently. Note that Ed Noyons and Thed van Leeuwen have registered but not yet paid. You might send ballots to those new members who have paid. However, Ed promised me to pay these days. Please, acknowledge the receipt. Thanks in advance, Best regards, Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: new members.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 19968 bytes Desc: new members.xls URL: From Wolfgang.Glanzel at ECON.KULEUVEN.AC.BE Mon Apr 14 03:52:37 2003 From: Wolfgang.Glanzel at ECON.KULEUVEN.AC.BE (Glanzel, Wolfgang) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:52:37 +0200 Subject: An error has occurred Message-ID: Dear Collegues, Sorry, my message has been designed for Mari Davis. Unfortunately, I have sent my reply to a wrong address. I apologise for this. Best regards, Wolfgang. From M.Davis at UNSW.EDU.AU Mon Apr 14 11:01:18 2003 From: M.Davis at UNSW.EDU.AU (Mari Davis) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 01:01:18 +1000 Subject: Mari Davis/Commerce/UNSW/AU is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 14/04/2003 and will not return until 28/04/2003. For the next 2 weeks, I will be away from the office. I will respond to your message when I return. From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Apr 14 13:24:12 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 13:24:12 -0400 Subject: Register for "Mapping Knowledge Domains" -- the upcoming Sackler Colloquium Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: On behalf of the National Academy of Sciences I am inviting you to register for the upcoming Sackler colloquium entitled "Mapping Knowledge Domains" to be held in Irvine, CA on May 9-11, 2003. Colloquium speakers will present state-of-the-art research on databases, formats, and access; data analysis algorithms; visualization and interaction methods; and promising applications. Using a database of several years of publications in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, participants will illustrate and compare the use of their techniques, algorithms, and approaches by identifying aggregates of research areas, experts, institutions, grants, publications, and journals, by finding the interconnections among these, by tracking the speed and growth of scientific subfields, and by exploring social networking that underlies scientific progress. The registration fee includes meals, transportation between the Beckman Center and colloquium hotel, sessions and abstracts. Please feel free to share this invitation with your colleagues, graduate students and post-docs. There is some limited financial support available for graduate students. More information, including the preliminary program and registration forms are on the web at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/nas/colloquia or contact: Miriam Glaser Heston Program Officer for the Colloquium Series National Academy of Sciences 500 Fifth Street NW, NAS146 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202.334.2445 Fax: 202.334.1927 E-mail: mheston at nas.edu This promises to be an exciting and stimulating event. We hope you can attend. forwarded by: _______________________________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org _______________________________________________________________________ From GARFIELD at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 15 10:54:40 2003 From: GARFIELD at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:54:40 -0400 Subject: Buela-Casal G "Evaluating quality of articles and scientific journals. Proposal of weighted impact factor and a quality index?" PSICOTHEMA 15 (1): 23-35 FEB 2003 Message-ID: E-MAIL: G. Buela-Casal : gbuela at ugr.es FULL TEXT OF THIS PAPER IN SPANISH IS AVAILABLE AT : http://www.psicothema.com/psicothema.asp?id=400 Title : Evaluating quality of articles and scientific journals. Proposal of weighted impact factor and a quality index? Author : Buela-Casal G Journal : PSICOTHEMA 15 (1): 23-35 FEB 2003 Document type: Article Language: Spanish Cited References: 70 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: The factor of impact and other bibliometric indices are currently used in several countries to evaluate the type and quality of scientific production. However, the impact factor (or prestige) rarely receives an accurate interpretation. Available impact factors display a number of shortcomings: they only refer to citations in the previous two or three years, and they do not take into account the impact or prestige of the periodicals where citations appear, so that every citation is given the same value, regardless of the periodical where it appears. In order to overcome these limitations, two indices are proposed: a mean impact factor of the journals where citations appear (FIMRC) and a weighted impact factor (FIP). Additionally, other useful indices are suggested for the analysis of interaction between periodicals: a percentage of partial interaction of citations (PIPC), and a percentage of mutual interaction among citations (PIMC). This paper explains their details a procedures for their calculation. Several problem areas are discussed, namely, peer review, the policy of publications, qualification of referees, and assessment criteria. It is also argued that quality of studies should not only be primarily evaluated in terms of the periodical where they are published. Finally, an alternative is offered for the assessment of quality of scientific articles and journals on three bases: what is to be evaluated, who is to be an evaluator, and possible criteria for evaluation. These considerations lead to a proposal for a quality index aside of impact or prestige. KeyWords Plus: PSYCHOLOGY, SCIENCE Addresses: Buela-Casal G, Univ Granada, Fac Psicol, E-18071 Granada, Spain Univ Granada, Fac Psicol, E-18071 Granada, Spain Publisher: COLEGIO OFICIAL DE PSICOLOGOS DE ASTURIAS, OVIEDO IDS Number: 640AB ISSN: 0214-9915 Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year *COL OF PSIC COD DEONT 1987 *I SCI INF J CITATION REPORTS P 2001 ALCAIN MD PAPELES PSICOLOGO 78 11 2001 ALEIXANDRE R TRASTORNOS ADICTIVOS 1 264 2000 ALMEIDA L MANUAL EVALUACION PS 239 1997 ALVAREZ MP ANAL MODIFICACION CO 28 405 2002 ALVAREZ MP PSICOTHEMA 13 523 2001 AMIN M PERSPECTIVES PUBLISH 1 1 2000 BADOS A INT J CLIN HLTH PSYC 2 477 2002 BOBENRIETH MA INT J CLIN HLTH PSYC 2 509 2002 BOBENRIETH MA MED CLIN-BARCELONA 114 339 2000 BORDONS M REV ESPANOLA DOCUMEN 25 49 2002 BORDONS M SCIENTOMETRICS 55 196 2002 BORGES A PSICOTHEMA 13 173 2001 BORNAS X INT J CLIN HLTH PSYC 2 9 2002 BUELACASAL G ANAL MODIFICACION CO 28 455 2002 BUELACASAL G INT J CLIN HLTH PSYC 2 525 2002 BUELACASAL G PAPELES PSICOLOGO 79 53 2001 BUELACASAL G PSICOTHEMA 14 837 2002 CARPINTERO H PSICOTHEMA 13 186 2001 CHACON S PSICOTHEMA 13 294 2001 COLOM R PSICOTHEMA 12 1 2000 CRAMMER JL BRIT J PSYCHIAT 173 114 1998 DECARCER AA ABC 0526 32 2001 DEROVIRA JB MUNDO CIENTIFICO 154 124 1995 DIAZ M REV ESPANOLA DOCUMEN 24 306 2001 DITROCCHIO F BUGIE SCI PERCHE COM 1993 ECHEBURUA E ANAL MODIFICACION CO 28 391 2002 ECHEBURUA E INT J CLIN HLTH PSYC 1 181 2001 FERNANDEZHERMID.JR PSICOTHEMA 13 337 2001 GARFIELD E BRIT MED J 313 411 1996 GARFIELD E NATURE 227 669 1970 GARFIELD E SCIENCE 122 108 1955 GILROALES J ANAL MODIFICACION CO 28 431 2002 GOMEZ I POLITICA CIENTIFICA 46 21 1996 GROSS PLK SCIENCE 66 385 1927 HAMILTON KE INT J CLIN HLTH PSYC 1 2001 HOWARD L BRIT J PSYCHIAT 173 110 1998 JIMENEZHEFFERNAN JA DIAGN CYTOPATHOL 24 147 2001 LEON OG DISENO INVESTIGACION 1997 MENDEZ FX MANUAL EVALAUCION TR 21 2001 MONTERO I INT J CLIN HLTH PSYC 2 503 2002 MONTERO I PSICOTHEMA 13 671 2001 MUNIZ J EVALUACION PSICOLOGI 307 1997 MUNIZ J PAPELES PSICOLOGO 76 41 2000 MUNIZ J PAPELES PSICOLOGO 66 63 1996 MUNIZ J PSICOMETRICA 1996 PELECHANO V ANAL MODIFICACION CO 28 311 2002 PELECHANO V ANAL MODIFICACION CO 28 477 2002 PELECHANO V ANAL MODIFICACION CO 28 3232 2002 PELECHANO V PSICOLOGIA SISTEMATI 2000 POLAINO A ANAL MODIFICACION CO 28 363 2002 PRIETO G PAPELES PSICOLOGO 77 65 2000 SANCHEZ M ANAL COMP PRODUCCION 1999 SEGLEN PO BRIT MED J 314 498 1997 SEGLEN PO RES EVALUAT 2 143 1993 SHASHOK K REV NEUROLOGIA 25 1997 SIERRA JC INT J CLIN HLTH PSYC 1 2001 SIGUAN M ANAL MODIFICACION CO 28 317 2002 SOKAL A IMPOSTURAS INTELECTU 1998 SOKAL A SOCIAL TEXT 46 217 1996 SOKAL AD DISSENT 43 93 1996 STERNBERG R PSYCHOL SCI 8 69 1996 STERNBERG RJ IN PRESS INT J CLIN 3 2003 STERNBERG RJ OBSERVER 15 34 2002 STERNBERG RJ OBSERVER 14 3 2001 STERNBERG RJ PSYCHOL GUIDE SCI WR 1988 STERNBERG RJ REV GEN PSYCHOL 3 83 1999 VANLEEUWEN TN SCIENTOMETRICS 51 335 2001 WERNER R INT J CLIN HLTH PSYC 2 2002 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 15 11:01:10 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:01:10 -0400 Subject: Buela-Casal G, Carretero-Dios H,de los Santos-Riog M "Comparative study of the Psychology journals with impact factor written in Spanish" PSICOTHEMA 14 (4): 837-852 NOV 2002 Message-ID: G. Buela-Casal - e.mail - gbuela at ugr.es This paper was posted earlier. The author has informed us that full text of the article is available in Spanish at : http://www.psicothema.com/psicothema.asp?id=300 Gualberto Buela-Casal has pointed out that there has been a special issue of this journal, Psicothema, published on the Assessment and Evaluation of Research in Psychology. This journal has been published for 30 years and is claimed to be the most prodigious in the field of psychology in Spain. Title Comparative study of the Psychology journals with impact factor written in Spanish Author Buela-Casal G, Carretero-Dios H, de los Santos-Riog M Journal PSICOTHEMA 14 (4): 837-852 NOV 2002 Document type: Review Language: Spanish Cited References: 364 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Comparative study of the Psychology journals with impact factor written in Spanish. This study presents a comparative analysis among four psychology journals published in Spanish that have an impact factor (Psicothema, Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologia, Revista Mexicana de Psicologia, and Revista Interamericana de Psicologia). These journals are compared in terms of several bibliometric indices such as impact factor, weighted impact factor, mean impact factor of the periodicals where citations appear, immediate citation factor, and mean duration of citations. Additionally, a content analysis is made of the four periodicals considering the different academic fields of psychology and the methods of the published studies. The analysis shows that Psicothema obtains a better score in most bibliometric indices and that little interaction of citations among the four periodicals takes place. Regarding the comparison of methods, and academic fields, this study offers the number of papers according to the method of application (theoretical, descriptive by surveys, descriptive by observation, case studies, experimental, quasi-experimental, single case studies, instrumental, and others) and field (Personality, Psychological Assesment and Treatment, Social Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Psychobiology, Methodology, Developmental and Education Psychology, and Inter-field Psychology). Finally, some considerations are made on bibliometric indices, and the relationship between methods and academic fields. KeyWords Plus: HYPERACTIVITY-DISORDER SCALE, QUALITY-OF-LIFE, PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES, SELF-CONCEPT, EATING DISORDERS, VIRGIN-ISLANDS, PUERTO-RICO, SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGY, ACADEMIC GOALS, LATIN-AMERICAN Addresses: Buela-Casal G, Univ Granada, Fac Psicol, E-18071 Granada, Spain Univ Granada, Fac Psicol, E-18071 Granada, Spain Publisher: COLEGIO OFICIAL DE PSICOLOGOS DE ASTURIAS, OVIEDO IDS Number: 607FX ISSN: 0214-9915 When responding, please attach my original message _______________________________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org _______________________________________________________________________ From Theresa.Pinnell at MPI.COM Tue Apr 15 11:31:40 2003 From: Theresa.Pinnell at MPI.COM (Pinnell, Theresa) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:31:40 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Unsubscribe This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 15 12:01:42 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:01:42 -0400 Subject: Wight JB "The rise of Adam Smith: Articles and citations, 1970-1997", HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 34 (1): 55-82 SPR 2002 Message-ID: Jonathan B. Wight : jwight at richmond.edu FULL TEXT OF ARTICLE IS AVAILABLE AT : http://www.omnitype.com/hope.pdf Title : The rise of Adam Smith: Articles and citations, 1970-1997 Author: Wight JB Journal: HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 34 (1): 55-82 SPR 2002 Document type: Article Language: English Cited References: 30 Times Cited: 0 KeyWords Plus: ECONOMICS JOURNALS, RELATIVE IMPACTS Addresses: Wight JB, Univ Richmond, Dept Econ, Richmond, VA 23173 USA Univ Richmond, Dept Econ, Richmond, VA 23173 USA Publisher: DUKE UNIV PRESS, DURHAM IDS Number: 656QC ISSN: 0018-2702 Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year ANDERSON GM CANADIAN J EC 22 174 1989 ARCHIBALD RB E ECON J 16 151 1990 BARBER WJ DAEDALUS 126 87 1997 BIDDLE J HIST POLIT ECON 28 137 1996 BLAKC RD EC THEORY POLICY CON 1995 BOULDING KE HIST POLIT ECON 3 225 1971 BROWN V ECON PHILOS 13 281 1997 JOHNSON D AM ECON 41 43 1997 LABAND DN J ECON LIT 32 640 1994 LABAND DN PUBLIC CHOICE 46 317 1985 LETWIN W ORIGINS SCI EC 1964 LIEBOWITZ SJ J ECON LIT 22 77 1984 PACK SJ CAPITALISM MORAL SYS 1991 PEIL J A SMITH EC SCI METHO 1999 QUANDT RE J POLITICAL EC 84 741 1976 RAPHAEL DD INTRO THEORY MORAL S 1976 RASHID S HIST POLIT ECON 24 129 1992 RECKTENWALD HC J ECON LIT 16 56 1978 ROSS IS LIFE A SMITH 1995 SAMUELSON PA A SMITHS LEGACY HIS 1 1992 STIGLER G HIST POLIT ECON 1 217 1969 STIGLER G J POLITICAL EC 84 1199 1976 STIGLER GJ HIST POLIT ECON 11 1 1979 STIGLER GJ J POLIT ECON 103 331 1995 STIGLER GJ J POLITICAL EC 83 477 1975 TODARO MP EC DEV 2000 TRIBE K J ECON LIT 37 609 1999 WERHANE PH A SMITH HIS LEGACY M 1991 WEST EG CLASSICAL POLITICAL 13 1988 WEST EG SO EC J 45 343 1978 When responding, please attach my original message _______________________________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org _______________________________________________________________________ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 15 14:04:35 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:04:35 -0400 Subject: Lewison G, Carding P "Evaluating UK research in speech and language therapy" INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION DISORDERS 38 (1): 65-84 JAN 2003 Message-ID: E-mail: Professor Grant Lewison : g.lewison at soi.city.ac.uk To see full text of article go to : http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/ and register free to access archives. Title : Evaluating UK research in speech and language therapy Author: Lewison G, Carding P Journal: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION DISORDERS 38 (1): 65-84 JAN 2003 Document type: Article Language: English Cited References: 16 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Background : There has been a steady growth in recent years in British higher-degree training in speech and language therapy. But what is the standing of UK research in the subject and its component areas which should underpin and inform such training? How can such research be evaluated? Aims : The intention was to compare UK publications relevant to speech and language therapy with those of other countries, both quantitatively and qualitatively. We sought then to examine the UK papers in more detail to analyse their sources of funding, their geographical distribution and the ways in which they could appropriately be evaluated. Methods & Procedures : Papers were selectively retrieved from the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index for 1991-2000 by means of a filter based on journal names and paper title words. They were subsequently checked to remove many false positives. The papers were classified into one of seven subject areas and by their research level (from clinical to basic). Their importance was estimated through their potential impact on other researchers, as determined by the citation score of their journals, by the numbers of citations they actually received and by the subjective esteem in which the various journals were held by UK speech and language researchers. Outcomes & Results : World output of speech and language therapy papers has averaged 1000 papers per year during the 1990s, and has grown by half over the period. UK output has been about 12% of the total, compared with 10% in biomedicine, and is published in high impact journals relative to the norm for the field, which is quite a low rate compared with biomedicine overall. Almost half the UK papers had no funding acknowledgements, with the private-non-profit and industrial sectors playing less of a role than in other biomedical areas. Papers in seven subject areas showed substantial differences in their performance on the four criteria selected. Conclusions : The state of British speech and language research appears to be satisfactory, with an above average output in both quantity and quality. However, it is not attracting funding from some types of sponsors and is not being published in general medical journals where it might have a wider influence on general clinical practice. It is also not clear how best such research can be evaluated, although conventional citation counts may be relevant for some subject areas. Author Keywords: bibliometrics, citations, evaluation, funding, research KeyWords Plus: BIOMEDICAL-RESEARCH, SUBFIELDS Addresses: Lewison G, City Univ London, Dept Informat Sci, Bibliometr Res Grp, Northampton Sq, London EC1V 0HB, England City Univ London, Dept Informat Sci, Bibliometr Res Grp, London EC1V 0HB, England Univ Newcastle Upon Tyne, Dept Surg Otolaryngol, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, Tyne & Wear, England Freeman Rd Hosp, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE7 7DN, Tyne & Wear, England Publisher: TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, ABINGDON IDS Number: 641ZG ISSN: 1368-2822 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 15 14:30:16 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:30:16 -0400 Subject: Egghe L, Rousseau R "A measure for the cohesion of weighted networks" JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 54 (3): 193-202 FEB 1 2003 Message-ID: Leo Egghe : leo.egghe at luc.ac.be Title : A measure for the cohesion of weighted networks Author : Egghe L, Rousseau R Journal : JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 54 (3): 193-202 FEB 1 2003 Document type: Article Language: English Cited References: 34 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: wA generalization of both the Botafogo-Rivlin-Shneiderman compactness measure and the Wiener index is presented. These new measures for the cohesion of networks can be used in case a dissimilarity value is given between nodes in a network or a graph. It is illustrated how a set of weights between connected nodes can be transformed into a set of dissimilarity measures for all nodes. The new compactness measure for the cohesion of weighted graphs has several desirable properties related to the disjoint union of two networks. Finally, an example is presented of the calculation of the new compactness measures for a co-citation and a bibliographic coupling network. KeyWords Plus: SMALL-WORLD, HYPERTEXT, WEB, CITATION, METRICS Addresses: Egghe L, LUC, Univ Campus, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium LUC, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium IBW, UIA, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium KHBO, Ind Sci & Technol, B-8400 Oostende, Belgium Publisher: JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, HOBOKEN IDS Number: 642YJ ISSN: 1532-2882 Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year BARABASI AL SCIENCE 286 509 1999 BJORNEBORN L P 12 ACM C HYP HYP 133 2001 BOTAFOGO RA ACM T INFORM SYST 10 142 1992 BRIN S P 7 INT WORLD WID WE 107 1998 CHAKRABARTI S SCI AM 280 54 1999 DEBRA P SCIENTOMETRICS 47 227 2000 DEVOCHT J THESIS EINDHOVEN U T 1994 EGGHE L IN PRESS MATH COMPUT 2002 FANG Y SCIENTOMETRICS 50 273 2001 GARNER R COMPUTER ORIENTED GR 1967 GIBBONS A ALGORITHMIC GRAPH TH 1985 HARARY F GRAPH THEORY 1969 HENZIGNER MR IEEE INTERNET COMPUT 5 45 2001 JOHNSON S COMMUN ACM 38 87 1995 KHAN KS J AM SOC INFORM SCI 49 176 1998 KLEINBERG JM J ACM 46 604 1999 KOCHEN M SMALL WORLD 1989 LEAZER GH P 62 ANN M AM SOC IN 345 1999 MENDES E J UNIVERSAL COMPUTER 4 4 1998 MILGRAM S PSYCHOL TODAY 2 60 1967 NEWMAN MEJ J STAT PHYS 101 819 2000 NEWMAN MEJ PHYS REV E B 60 7332 1999 NG AY P 17 INT JOINT C ART 903 2001 PINSKI G INFORMATION PROCESSI 12 297 1976 PRICE DJD SCIENCE 149 510 1965 PRITCHARD A THESIS POLYTECHNIC N 1984 RANDIC M J AM CHEM SOC 97 6609 1975 RIVLIN E COMMUN ACM 37 87 1994 ROUSSEAU R SCIENTOMETRICS 11 217 1987 SMALL H J AM SOC INFORM SCI 24 265 1973 TRINAJSTIC N CHEM GRAPH THEORY 1992 WATTS DJ SMALL WORLDS WIENER H J AM CHEM SOC 69 17 1947 WILSON RJ INTRO GRAPH THEORY 1972 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 15 15:02:51 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:02:51 -0400 Subject: Miller PA, McKibbon KA, Haynes RB "A quantitative analysis of research publications in physical therapy journals" PHYSICAL THERAPY 83 (2): 123-131 FEB 2003 Message-ID: P. A. Miller : pmiller at mcmaster.ca Full text or article is at : http://www.ptjournal.org/PTJournal/Feb2003/v83n2p123.cfm#article%20info TITLE : A quantitative analysis of research publications in physical therapy journals AUTHOR : Miller PA, McKibbon KA, Haynes RB JOURNAL: PHYSICAL THERAPY 83 (2): 123-131 FEB 2003 Document type: Article Language: English Cited References: 26 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Many physical therapists depend on their-quality evidence. The purpose of this professional journals for high study was to evaluate the rigor of research and review articles in 4 national physical therapy journals. Subjects and Methods. All articles in 6 consecutive issues of the Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, Physical Therapy, Physiotherapy, and Physiotherapy Canada, published between January 2000 and June 2001 (N = 179) were reviewed. One trained reviewer identified the type and purpose of each article and assessed the rigor of treatment and review articles according to explicit criteria. Results. The majority of articles reviewed were original studies (56%). The majority of the research articles that dealt with human health care (66%) addressed topics that were not directly applicable to the provision of patient care such as measurement topics and studies on subjects without identified pathologies or impairments. Of the 179 journal articles, 19 met the standards for rigor (11%). The majority of these articles dealt with treatment. The pass rate per journal was as follows: Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 10% (4/42); Physical Therapy, 15% (7/47); Physiotherapy, 12% (4/34); and Physiotherapy Canada, 7% (4/56). Discussion and Conclusion. Because such a small percentage of articles in these professional journals were identified as having direct application to patient care, physical therapists should attempt to access other sources of information to find additional high-quality evidence. A larger sample with a greater number of issues per journal may have yielded different results and indicated different trends, and further research appears to be warranted. Author Keywords: clinical research, evidence-based practice, publications and audiovisual materials KeyWords Plus: EMPIRICAL-EVIDENCE, RELIABILITY, QUALITY, TRIALS, BIAS Addresses: Miller PA, McMaster Univ, Sch Rehabil Sci, Hamilton, ON, Canada McMaster Univ, Sch Rehabil Sci, Hamilton, ON, Canada Hamilton Hlth Sci, Hamilton, ON, Canada Univ Pittsburgh, Ctr Biomed Informat, Pittsburgh, PA USA Publisher: AMER PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOC, ALEXANDRIA IDS Number: 640ZN ISSN: 0031-9023 From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Apr 25 01:54:57 2003 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 07:54:57 +0200 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I made a preprint version of an article entitled "Clusters and Maps of Science Journals Based on Bi-connected Graphs in the Journal Citation Reports" available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr01/art Abstract The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix derived from the Journal Citation Reports 2001 can be decomposed into a unique subject classification by using the graph-analytical algorithm of bi-connected components. The matrix can be assessed in terms of its decomposability using articulation points which indicate overlap between the components. The articulation points of this set did not exhibit a next-order network of 'general science' journals. However, the clusters differ in size and in terms of the internal density of their relations. A full classification of the journals is provided in an Appendix. The clusters can also be extracted and mapped using algorithms within the freeware program Pajek for the visualization. The classification with the visualizations can be found at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr01 . Comments are very welcome in this stage. With kind regards, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ The Challenge of Scientometrics ; The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Apr 28 14:26:20 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:26:20 -0400 Subject: Trayhurn P. "Citations and 'impact factor' - the Holy Grail" BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION 88 (1): 1-2 JUL 2002 Message-ID: Posted below is an interesting paper by Dr. Paul Trayhurn. I also thought the readers of SIG-Metrics would be interested in the exchange of correspondence between Paul Trayhurn and myself on this paper. Eugene Garfield ____________________________________________________ EUGENE GARFIELD WROTE: Dear Dr. Trayhurn: It was most gracious of you to send me your editorial so promptly. I think it is an extremely well reasoned and concise review of the issues involved. However, I cannot resist commenting on your reference to the Lowry technique and methods in general. Since the ISI current impact factors only take into account papers published in the past few years, classic methods do not play a significant role. But even for other evaluative studies the number of super cited classics is relatively very small indeed. A study of method papers would show that they do not on average achieve greater impact than good research or clinical studies. The evidence for that can be found when looking at journals which are devoted to methods. There are thousands of method papers that prove to be of low impact. The same may be said for many review papers but on average they are cited about twice as often as research papers. We tend to forget the mediocre. When seeking weaknesses in citation analysis it is tempting to mention the most cited paper in history, the Lowry method of protein measurement. Your reference to papers that are repeatedly cited is equally anecdotal. In general bad science is mainly ignored. There will always be a few exceptions, but it is difficult to document a pattern. I was perplexed by your comment that the paper by Durnin and Rahaman in 1967 was published before citations started to be collected. The Science Citation Index source coverage begins with the 1945 literature. The SCI was launched in 1964 and in later years we added two earlier decades. For example, your journal, The BJN has been indexed in SCI since its very first issue in 1947. Best wishes, Eugene Garfield _______________________________________________________________________ PAUL TRAYHURN RESPONDED: Dear Dr Garfield Thank you for your thoughtful comments on my Editorial and particularly for clarifying the points where I have inadvertently misrepresented the situation. My reference to the Lowry technique and to methods was intended to reflect the prejudice that exists within the community, as was the comment relating to work subsequently shown to be wrong - but I should certainly have made that clear and cited your work demonstrating that such assumptions have no basis. I am also sorry that I did not appreciate that the the SCI goes back to 1945 and as such my comments relating to the Durnin & Rahaman (1967) paper are wrong. Kind regards Paul Trayhurn _______________________________________________________________ Paul Trayhurn : p.trayhurn at liverpool.ac.uk Full text of "Citations and 'impact factor' - the Holy Grail" available at: http://www.nutritionsociety.org.uk/bjn/088/bjn0880001.htm Title Citations and 'impact factor' - the Holy Grail Author Trayhurn P Journal BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION 88 (1): 1-2 JUL 2002 Document type: Editorial Material Language: English Cited References: 4 Times Cited: 1 Addresses: Trayhurn P, Univ Liverpool, Dept Med, Liverpool L69 3GA, Merseyside, England Univ Liverpool, Dept Med, Liverpool L69 3GA, Merseyside, England Publisher: C A B I PUBLISHING, WALLINGFORD IDS Number: 572EC ISSN: 0007-1145 Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year ADAM D NATURE 415 726 2002 DURNIN JVG BRIT J NUTR 21 681 1967 JACKSON AS BRIT J NUTR 40 497 1978 SEGLEN PO BRIT MED J 314 498 1997 When responding, please attach my original message _______________________________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org _______________________________________________________________________ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Apr 28 14:38:09 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:38:09 -0400 Subject: Hunter P. "The Power of Power Laws" The Scientist, 7(8):p.22, April 21, 2003 Message-ID: Dear colleagues: While the primary content of The Scientist is generally not of specific interest to scientometricians, this particular article will interest many of you. "The Power of Power Laws" ..A multidisciplinary team finds that when it comes to scales, a fourth dimension is applicable to all living things By Philip Hunter. The Scientist, 7(8):p. 22, Apr. 21, 2003 url for the article: http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/apr/feature_030421.html Best wishes. Gene Garfield PS Anyone can sign up free of charge to receive email notifications of the TOC of each biweekly issue as well as a daily news up date. Just go to www.the-scientist.com When responding, please attach my original message __________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com 3535 Market St., Phila. PA 19104-3389 Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com 3501 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3302 Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Apr 28 15:22:00 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:22:00 -0400 Subject: Tobin MJ, "Rigor of Peer Review and the standing of a journal" AM J RESP CRIT CARE 166 (8): 1013-1014 OCT 15 2002 Message-ID: To : Members of SIG-Metrics List Tobin MJ, "Rigor of Peer Review and the standing of a journal" AM J RESP CRIT CARE 166 (8): 1013-1014 OCT 15 2002 The article by M.J. Tobin "Rigor of Peer Review and the standing of a journal" AM J RESP CRIT CARE 166 (8): 1013-1014 OCT 15 2002(reproduced below) introduces the paper by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. "How I Review an Original Scientific Article" BY Hoppin FG AM J RESP CRIT CARE 166 (8): 1019-1023 OCT 15 2002 . Since the paper by FG Hoppin Jr. is too long to send in one message, you will receive it in two parts. The subject column will show: Part #1 - Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. "How I Review an Original Scientific Article" BY Hoppin FG AM J RESP CRIT CARE 166 (8): 1019-1023 OCT 15 2002 Part #2 - Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. "How I Review an Original Scientific Article" BY Hoppin FG AM J RESP CRIT CARE 166 (8): 1019-1023 OCT 15 2002 ____________________________________________________________________ Martin J. Tobin, Editor Am. J. Resp. Critical Care : MTOBIN2 at lumc.edu AM J RESP CRIT CARE 166 (8): 1013-1014 OCT 15 2002 Editorial Title : Rigor of Peer Review and the Standing of a Journal Author : Martin J. Tobin, Editor Shortly after launching The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665, Henry Oldenberg, the first editor, wrote to Robert Boyle that a submitted manuscript needs to be carefully scrutinized "before we give a publick testimony of it to ye world, as is desired of us" (1). Right from the start, peer review was used as an instrument of quality control to distinguish scientific journals from book publishing. Through the emergence of reviewers, journals could insist on the highest standards for excellence before publishing a report of new research findings. This exacting scrutiny by fellow experts is without parallel in any other field, and the reviewer has been described as "the lynchpin about which the whole business of science is pivoted" (2). For a component of pivotal importance to the progress of science, journals provide scant guidance to reviewers. The confidential and anonymous nature of editorial peer review makes it especially difficult for the novice to learn the skill. In this issue of AJRCCM (pp. 1019-1023), Hoppin (3) describes how he reviews a manuscript. He considers the task one of the utmost responsibility, and writes with wisdom garnered from more than 30 years of experience. His essay is unique: I am not aware of another published description of how to review a manuscript and the cognitive processes involved. All reviewers will benefit from reading Hoppin's essay, with resulting enhancement of the quality of their critiques. The publication of an article in a journal represents not only the work of the authors, but it also reflects the standards of that journal. The standing of a journal among other journals is determined by the expectations and demands of the scientists who serve as reviewers. Because the reviewers also submit their own research to the journal, they embody the journal's standards for scientific excellence. When reviewers believe that a journal publishes work of a low standard, they will be less demanding in their critiques, the journal will publish manuscripts of lower quality, and its standing will fall. Authors regard reviewers as hurdles to vault before their work gets published and find it hard to see them as offering help. Readers, however, depend on reviewers to scrutinize a manuscript and guarantee them it will be worth the time invested in reading it. Readers also benefit from the improvements made to articles through the intellectual capital added by reviewers; in turn, the effort made by the reviewers depends on their assessment of the role of that journal in the advancement of science. And rounding this positive feedback loop, journals that employ the toughest reviewing procedures are the most attractive to authors who hold themselves to the highest standards. Editorial peer review has always had its critics. At its dawn, Isaac Newton was complaining that addressing criticisms of his submission to The Philosophical Transactions "had sacrificed my peace (of mind), a matter of real substance" (4). Research into peer review has only gotten underway in the last 10 to 15 years and has been slow to uncover major benefits (5-7). These studies have been interpreted to mean that editorial peer review has no value (8). Absence of proof, however, is not proof of absence. It is not possible to do the definitive outcome study: to randomize two continents to the stricture, or lack thereof, that the results of all experiments be published in peer-reviewed journals and then to follow the progress of science in each continent for 300 years. Moreover, research into peer review has not included rigorous studies of its most critical and ineffable components: the making of subjective value judgments, and the effect on manuscript quality and relevance. Any discussion of the validity of peer review and science must ultimately grapple with ontology, the branch of philosophy that asks what actually exists, and epistemology, the branch of philosophy that asks what, if anything, we can know (9). Most scientists would be satisfied if they could achieve the epistemologic status of empirical truth revealed by objective measurements in an experiment. In this context, the term "objective" refers to information obtained without human intervention. But the design of an instrument and the interpretation of findings always involve a component of human judgment. In scientific epistemology, the most rigorous standard of empirical objectivity we can hope for is "intersubjective agreement" on the findings (10-13). The objectivity of scientific knowledge resides in its being a social construct: its communal institutions, norms, and activities, including the peer-review system, are not just a background for the logic of the scientific method-they are constitutive of science as we know it (13). Peer review, of course, can never guarantee validity, and being a human enterprise, peer review cannot be free of error, any more than can polygraph tracings or digital readouts. Scientific journals are archives of work done, not of revealed truth (14). It is time that decides validity. Hoppin touches on the issue of why scientists donate so much time to the review of manuscripts submitted by the fellows of other scientists. This community of scholars recognizes that they belong to an intricate social system in which one has to contribute if one is to receive (15). Scientists also derive several benefits from reviewing: they learn about cutting-edge research long before it is published; they improve their skills as critical appraisers by comparing their critiques against those of other reviewers and seeing the decision letters of associate editors; and they learn how to write more competitive manuscripts by seeing the faults of others. Each year, AJRCCM publishes a list of individuals who reviewed manuscripts for the Journal. And appointment to the Editorial Board of AJRCCM is based solely on the cogency, rigor, and timeliness of the individual's performance as a reviewer. The greatest reward, however, is the self-awareness that an individual is serving as one small cog in the wheel of medical progress. In any social enterprise, the best individuals volunteer their services without caring about payment. They find sufficient reward in knowing that the work of the moment is connected to a much greater process: in this case, science leading to improved care of patients-work of ever-lasting value. You cannot, however, have a social enterprise of this magnitude without some parasites. Every journal has a handful of authors who phone or write about their every submission, demanding expedited treatment, and in turn are delinquent or provide superficial comments when invited to review the manuscripts of other authors. Online peer review has reduced the time between submission and first decision to 33 days at AJRCCM. More important than speed, the online system has enhanced the rigor of peer review. Formerly, we assigned a manuscript to two reviewers, but now commonly assign four or more reviewers. The descriptor number on a manuscript allows us to instantly identify the reviewers with the greatest expertise in each of the 172 areas covered by AJRCCM. We have more than 5,600 reviewers in our database, and associate editors can assess level of expertise and prior performance by clicking a mouse when assigning manuscripts. New reviewers are constantly added to the database, and we also maintain a list of delinquent and superficial reviewers. The internet is revolutionizing the speed of processing manuscripts and the dissemination of new findings, but the bedrock of science has not changed since the 1660s: experiments are converted into science only after the results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This point is well illustrated by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the finest scientific mind ever. Leonardo's notebooks are records of the most intense scientific efforts by a single individual. But his research efforts came to nothing, because the stricture for disciplined publication was not formulated until more than 150 years after Leonardo's death. REFERENCES 1. Zuckerman H, Merton RK. Patterns of evaluation in science: institutional -ization, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva 1971;9:66-100. 2. Ziman JM. Public knowledge: an essay concerning the social dimension of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1968. p. 111. 3. Hoppin FG. How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:1019-1023.[Free Full Text] 4. Siegelman SS. The genesis of modern science: contribution of scientific societies and scientific journals. Radiology 1998;208:9-16.[Medline] 5. Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. London: British Medical Journal; 1991. 6. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:11-21.[Medline] 7. Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet 1996;348:1480-1483.[CrossRef][Medline] 8. Smith R. The future of peer review. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. London: BMJ Books; 1999. p. 244-253. 9. Magee B. The story of philosophy. London: Dorling Kindersley; 1998. p. 8. 10. Polanyi M. Science, faith and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1946. 11. Polanyi M. Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan; 1958. p. 225-257. 12. Gross AG. The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996. p. 129-143. 13. Ziman J. An introduction to science studies: the philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984. p. 34-57. 14. Relman A. Journals. In: Warren KS, editor. Coping with the medical literature: a primer for the scientist and the clinician. New York: Praeger Publishers. 1981. p. 67-78. 15. Ingelfinger F. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med 1974;56:686-692.[Medline] When responding, please attach my original message _______________________________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org _______________________________________________________________________ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Apr 28 15:23:42 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:23:42 -0400 Subject: part 1 - Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. "How I Review an Original Scientific Article" BY Hoppin FG AM J RESP CRIT CARE 166 (8): 1019-1023 OCT 15 2002 Message-ID: To: Readers of SIG-Metrics List This paper has been broken up into parts 1 and 2 as it was too long to include in a single message to SIG-Metrics List members. Part 1 Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. "How I Review an Original Scientific Article" BY Hoppin FG AM J RESP CRIT CARE 166 (8): 1019-1023 OCT 15 2002 Frederic G. Hoppin Departments of Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island and Brown University, Pawtucket, Rhode Island Correspondence: Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Frederic Hoppin, M.D., Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, 111 Brewster Street, Pawtucket, RI 02860. E-mail: Frederic_Hoppin_Jr at Brown.edu ________________________________________________________________ Occasional Essay How I Review an Original Scientific Article Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. Departments of Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island and Brown University, Pawtucket, Rhode Island Correspondence: Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Frederic Hoppin, M.D., Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, 111 Brewster Street, Pawtucket, RI 02860. E-mail: Frederic_Hoppin_Jr at Brown.edu WHY WRITE THIS? There has been substantial recent interest in the quality of the peer review system in biomedical publication, with several International Congresses (1) and a recent JAMA issue entirely devoted to the topic (2). The quality of reviews of articles submitted for publication varies widely (1, 3-5). Black and colleagues have suggested that their quality might be improved if journals trained their reviewers (6). How do we currently learn the trade? Some of us have learned by doing reviews, by fielding reviews of our own submissions, and by comparing our own reviews with other reviews of the same articles. When editorial consideration of a submission is completed, the editorial offices generally forward all correspondence to the referees. I always look at this correspondence because it often reveals new insights and provides useful feedback on my review. Some, more fortunate, started by drafting reviews for their seniors (with confidentiality strictly protected) and then engaging in an intense tutorial over the science, the presentation, and the review itself. Lock's comprehensive and scholarly review of editorial peer review contains a very useful set of guidelines (4), and there are other relevant publications (3, 5-10). But, to my knowledge, no how-to-review paper has been published. I hope that some of the lessons I have learned over the years as reviewer and onetime Associate Editor and the practices that I follow might be helpful to the novice and might provide affirmation and perhaps a pointer or two for the experienced reviewer. WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO DO A GOOD REVIEW? Motivation Good reviewers, in my experience, have a resolute sense of responsibility to their colleagues and a strong conviction that the archival literature, with high standards set by peer review, is critically important to the progress of science (6, 8). The best reviewers also appreciate the opportunity for teaching and find reviewing a good paper as informative and exhilarating as participating in an inspiring work-in-progress research seminar. The quality of their reviews, furthermore, is importantly contagious. Scientific Expertise The challenge to the reviewer is to see what the authors themselves have not seen. This is a daunting task. It requires scientific expertise of two main sorts, (1) awareness of the literature, i.e., being right up to date, and, more often a problem in my experience, knowing the old stuff and (2) mastery of the relevant science, i.e., being able to apply and relate scientific principles and findings to the new science. Several different areas of expertise may be relevant for a given submission. A paper that is sent to me, for example, may include elements of clinical and applied science, general pulmonary physiology, basic lung and chest wall mechanics, mathematical modeling, or stereology. Although my expertise is uneven among these topics and a submission often requires significant expertise in disciplines that I cannot cover responsibly, the Associate Editor usually turns out to have selected reviewers to cover all main areas. Helpful Attitude Many reviews are not very helpful. Why not? A good review takes substantial intellectual effort and time and is not immediately credited by the reviewer's academic institution or peers (11). Indeed, authors' satisfaction appears to be associated with acceptance for publication, not with the quality of the review, at least for submissions to general medical journals (12). Dissatisfied authors can see reviewers as being picky, hasty, arbitrary, dogmatic, dismissive, superficial, wrong, judgmental, arrogant, unfair, jealous, or self-serving. Such perceptions are quite predictable, given the high stakes for the authors and the status of power and anonymity of the reviewers. Occasionally such accusations are valid at some level. Yet, an insightful and articulate review can substantially improve the science and clarity of a submitted paper (8) and can advance the authors' knowledge and ability to conduct and report science. The reviewer can be fully as helpful as an involved laboratory colleague or a visiting professor. My approach is to be resolutely respectful. This does not mean watering down the review; downplaying a concern; failing to demand justification, explanation, and clarity; or avoiding a clear recommendation. It does mean (even late at night, after a busy day, with a marginal manuscript) reading with patience, objectivity, and openness to new ideas and approaches, and reporting with complete clarity and without summarily closing off debate. It also means being careful not to give rein to my competitive instincts. Time I frequently miss important insights on my first reading and then often have to ruminate before I have a problem in full and articulate perspective. The time required varies widely. Complex or novel techniques, methods, or analyses require much more time than standard ones. Significant deficiencies of presentation cloud and disadvantage a discouraging number of otherwise scientifically meritorious submissions (13), burdening the reviewer with figuring out exactly what has been done, what has been concluded, how the authors reached their conclusions, and what is missing. It has been asserted that the quality of review increases with the time expended up to but not beyond 3 hours (6), but for many of the papers that come to my desk, 3 hours would not suffice for a careful and helpful review. This experience is confirmed by many colleagues and is abundantly clear in the content and care that I see in others' reviews. A complex, potentially important paper can certainly take a full working day (9). Senior reviewers, surprisingly, are reported to do a worse job than their juniors (7). That the seniors also spend less time (7) may be the explanation for the lesser quality! Another possibility is that the seniors are more ready to cut a review short when they determine that a paper has clear, serious, irreparable scientific deficiencies and believe there is no need to detail all deficiencies in a sloppily written paper. Nonetheless, reviewers should be warned that "time is of the essence," in this setting means "spend it, don't hurry it, even if you are senior." How an academician can find the time is a critical issue. Although there are certainly many important intangible benefits to reviewing (e.g., broadening one's scientific knowledge, enjoying the scientific interchange and debate, fulfilling a sense of responsibility), the tangible benefits are limited to the possibility that gaining the respect of the editors might lead to invitations to participate in national societies, an editorial board, or a study section. Furthermore, the job competes with activities that have immediate rewards or accountability, e.g., teaching, preparing grant applications, performing research, seeing patients. It would be very helpful if the academy could be structured to reward this activity more directly (11). HOW DO I PROCEED? Acceptance I accept an invitation to review an article if the topic is of interest to me, if it is within my expertise, and if I can commit the time. I consult with the Associate Editor before accepting if it turns out that I have already seen the article in a presubmission review or in review for another journal. I always obtain a relevant "in press" article or a "companion" paper that is currently under review by others from the editorial office before I start my review. First Reading I spend some time with the abstract to set myself up for the review, i.e., to decide what to look for in the experimental design, methods, results, and bases for conclusions, and particularly to note what the authors think is important in their work. I also take a moment, before being seduced by the paper itself and distracted by its details, to pose a few broad questions, for example, "Essentially a methods paper?" or "What's new here compared with their earlier papers?" I list these preliminary questions on the front page and usually add to, strike out, or revise that list as I work through the text. I then read the article closely, focusing primarily on understanding the science. I stop wherever I do not fully understand the science from what is written, where some aspect of the science is troubling, or where I believe the authors may have failed to put their work into fair and full perspective. I attempt to characterize each such problem in a preliminary fashion. I do not look for specific errors, as from a checklist. The process goes in the other direction, e.g., a question about the science occurs to me, the answer does not, and my task then is to identify the specific error. This last task is not always easy or immediate. I may have to check the literature, consult a colleague, or do some hard thinking. Errors of presentation may be more readily identified than are errors of the science, but it is often unclear whether a problem arises from fuzzy presentation, fuzzy thinking, or both (8). What sorts of problems do I encounter? I will give some categories, descriptions, and a few examples below. My intent, again, is not to provide a checklist but rather to help the reader to characterize the problems he or she encounters. Problems with the science. Many problems require careful analysis but in the end turn out to be violations of logic or of common sense (e.g., contradiction, unwarranted conclusion or attribution of causation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, pursuit of a trivial question) rather than violations of abstruse principles. Two brief examples have to do with applications of statistics. (1) More than once, I have seen a standard error that was impressively and misleadingly narrow only because the authors had used a large "n" of samples instead of the small "n" of animals from which the samples were obtained. (2) More than once, I have seen a claim that Treatment A differed from Treatment B, not because of a direct comparison between the effects of the two treatments but because the effect of Treatment A was statistically significant, whereas the effect of Treatment B was not. Both examples are violations of common sense that became apparent through close reading and not by direct recall of the relevant rules from "Statistics 101." Many problems arise from failure to apply available, specific knowledge. The authors have not applied relevant basic scientific principles, have not considered a likely methodological uncertainty, have failed to recognize a confounding factor, have not considered the appropriate statistical power (14). For example, I have seen more than one study in which the authors reported measurements that depended on chest wall configuration made at total lung capacity, without specifying whether total lung capacity had been maintained actively with an open glottis or passively with relaxation against a closed glottis. I had to presume, until I heard otherwise, that the authors, unaware of the substantial difference of configuration or of its implications, had failed to control a potentially confounding variable. Problems with the ethics. I have not yet identified fraud in a study; inconsistent results have always appeared to have more pedestrian explanations. And I have not uncovered inappropriate treatment of human or animal subjects. Approval by an Institutional Review Board does not absolve the reviewer. For this reason, for example, I have often asked that authors specify their protocol for ensuring that paralysis of an animal does not mask a lightening of the level of anesthesia. Problems with the presentation. Often I can guess but am not sure of the author's exact intent. Helpfulness requires that I identify the problem with the authors' presentation, and this requires that I know how to write. There are very readable, comprehensive texts on this subject (9, 10). A brief survey here of the kinds of problems that I encounter may provide a useful frame of reference for the reviewer. Redundancies, irrelevancies, and unnecessary excursions are relatively minor sins but may impair communication by boring and distracting the reader. Failures to define terms or to use words with precision are more serious because they can mislead. Noncolloquialisms, common when English is not the authors' native tongue, distract and can mislead. Jargon (by which I mean any nonstandard word, idea, or even argument that has become so familiar to the authors that they neglect to explain and delimit it) is a prevalent and insidious problem. At its most benign, jargon annoys and fudges. This is why, for example, nonstandard abbreviations are strictly limited by many journals. Worse, jargon can mislead. For example, the phrase "inflection point" is used in a number of current clinical ventilator studies to designate the distinct upward deflection or "knee" on the inflation limb of a lung pressure-volume curve. However, to the vast majority of scientists and all lexicographers (so far), the term designates a very different point on the curve, namely where it changes from concave to convex or vice versa. Jargon can be as subtle as the use within a given article of two closely related terms or phrases that the authors may or may not intend to be exactly equivalent, for example, "pulmonary function" and "pulmonary function tests." Very common terms can become jargon when they are not carefully defined for the purposes of the paper; for example, functional residual capacity can differ substantially depending on which of several acceptable definitions is applied: (1) a mechanistic definition-the lung volume where the sum of static lung and passive chest wall recoils is zero; (2) a functional definition-the lung volume at the end of a relaxed, prolonged expiration; or (3) another functional definition-the lung volume at the end of a series of ongoing expirations under any one of a variety of specified scenarios. I am often confused by quite pedestrian errors. For example, without commas to set it off, a dependent phrase may run on to the rest of the sentence, and the reader is interrupted while searching for a contextual clue to the syntax. This is particularly problematic in scientific writing, as it tends to contain long series of nouns, e.g., "... hospital outpatient weight control program standards ..." As another example, compare the statements "It was concluded that ..." and "Our data, however, show that ..."-the identity of the authors who reached the conclusion (the distinction may be important) is clear in the active voice but equivocal in the passive voice. Even spelling mistakes may not be benign-a computer spellchecker will never reject an "ever" that should have been a "never," and a technical editor may not follow the science well enough to catch the error. Many articles are poorly focused. The thrust of a paragraph, for example, should be clear at the beginning, e.g., a "topic sentence." Another example, I often see a set of data strung out in the text of the RESULTS section in a serial recitation of means, standard deviations, and "n." If the message to be drawn from the data resides in comparisons within the set, this practice burdens the text, is less accessible than a figure or table where the reader can readily make the requisite comparisons, and commonly displaces an explicit statement of what the authors want the reader to see. How much more focused, concise, and informative it is to say simply, "[Variable A] increases linearly with [Variable B] (see Figure 3, and Table 2)." It is astonishing how often authors fail to develop their ideas systematically, i.e., to lead the reader through their thinking. For example, the reader needs to know the basis for the experimental design at the outset. Yet I often see an idea that is important to the experimental design postponed (perhaps in a misguided effort to avoid redundancy) until the DISCUSSION, where it is fully developed. Both purposes can be readily accomplished by identifying the idea in the INTRODUCTION, together with an appropriate road sign, e.g., "as is developed in more detail in the DISCUSSION ..." Even worse, an astonishing number of submissions fails to be explicit about the logical structure of the study, for example by failing to specify goals, hypotheses, testable predictions of the hypotheses, and conclusions, perhaps under the illusion that the logical structure of the study is so obvious as to "go without saying." I do not keep a checklist of what must appear in a paper. Instead, I keep asking the general question, "What is missing?" Some examples: Have the authors acknowledged other reasonable hypotheses? For a given argument, have they specified, examined, and assessed the impact of all reasonable assumptions? Have they considered methodological limitations? Does the DISCUSSION address all discrepancies or agreements between their results and those of other workers? This is almost an attitude on my part. Gross errors, such as percentages that do not add up to 100, have often slipped by reviewers into the archival literature. I do look quickly at every datum (in a viable paper), but I cannot take the time to check calculations unless something looks way out of line. I regularly find significantly misleading or inaccurate statements about specific citations-sometimes I knew the citations, sometimes I checked out the citation because the attribution seemed odd or was particularly critical to the science being presented. Notations. During this first reading, I make notations on the text, in the margins, or on the backs of the opposite pages. These include broad and narrow, substantive and trivial issues, citations I want to check, and individuals I want to run something by. I pose questions even when I suspect that they may be resolved later in the paper. I have learned to include enough detail in these notations to successfully jog my memory. For example, a recent notation reads, " (4) (control) for ? comparable V/P protocol," meaning that I wanted to check Reference (4), which in effect supplied the control data for the current study, the authors having failed to specify the exact differences, if any, between the two studies, perhaps unaware that differences in the volume-pressure protocol could be a major problem. Finally, I return to the front page to list the main issues. This is an ordered list, informed by the broad questions that I have already listed on the front page, by the more substantive notations throughout the text, and by the abstract, which I take as representing what the authors think is important. I then put the manuscript aside for a day or so because important insights and perspectives often occur to me while I am doing something else and because returning to it enforces an initial "view from 40,000 ft." Second Reading On returning to the article, I review my front-page lists, my notations, and relevant parts of the text. I then proceed to make judgments. Although I am naturally uncomfortable with judgments, I know that they must be made and that I have the requisite scientific background and experience in certain areas. I describe some criteria below, not as a checklist, but as illustrations and a framework for understanding and evaluating the various problems that I encounter. Criteria for judging the science. It may be years before it becomes clear whether or not the conclusions of an article are correct. Forecasting is risky, and if what I now suspect is probably wrong turns out later to be right, it is important that it be published now! Instead, I judge the integrity of the science, particularly the quality of its reasoning and of its application of scientific principles and knowledge. I would also like to know if the article is important. Sometimes an article appears to provide a convincing answer to a question of current interest. The absence of such a connection, however, does not preclude ultimate importance. The main reason is the prevalence of serendipity in scientific progress. This was elegantly demonstrated by Comroe and Dripps (15). They selected the 10 most important clinical advances in cardiovascular-pulmonary medicine and surgery over the preceding 30 years. They identified and then examined 529 articles that had important effects on the direction of subsequent research and development, which in turn proved to be important for 1 of these 10 clinical advances. An astonishing 41% of the articles reported work "that, at the time it was done, had no relation whatever to the disease that it later helped to prevent, diagnose, treat, or alleviate." So I look instead for novelty of idea, conclusion, data, or methodology. These criteria are relatively easy to apply. An article that is both new and has scientific integrity has a shot at turning out to be important. I avoid making a judgment on the basis of a particular study being applied as versus basic. Applied studies may have the appeal of practical relevance, and basic studies the appeal of broad relevance, but landmark studies have been published over the full spectrum from applied to basic. I do not consider politics or the reputation and academic status of the authors. The referees' anonymity, incidentally, can help insulate the Associate Editor in that regard. Hesitation to challenge weakness in articles submitted by well-respected scientists and friends would serve them and the journal poorly. Criteria for judging the presentation. I do not shy from identifying lack of clarity, precision, or completeness. I simply assume that if I have difficulty after careful reading so will many other readers. I avoid, however, judging a presentation on the basis of style per se-although I might have made quite different choices, I am not the author. Recommendations. My recommendation to the Associate Editor reflects (1) what I envision as the ultimate outcome, i.e., acceptance or rejection, and (2) any steps that I believe have to be taken before that decision is made. I have no simple scale for weighing the merits of an article, but I can go through several illustrative examples. What do I recommend when an article formulates a relatively compelling question, or puts forward an intriguing idea, but the science is weak? I convey to the authors what might improve the science, and I describe the pros and cons to the Associate Editor, who then has a difficult decision to make. A somewhat mischievous perspective on this issue is given by Julius Comroe, in one article of his delightful "Retrospectroscope" series in this journal. He pointed out how briefly, informally, and even incidentally a number of the truly great advances in science were first introduced (16). In one example, he quoted the 267 words in which Korotkoff described and explained the basis for the now ubiquitous clinical method of determining blood pressure. Comroe concluded with the following mischievous fantasy: "Dear Dr. Korotkoff: Thank you for permitting us to read your interesting manuscript. We regret that we cannot publish it in its present form. You may wish to resubmit it after you have (1) compared data obtained by your method with that obtained for different arm circumferences, (2) verified the accuracy of your method against direct measurements of systolic and diastolic arterial blood pressure in animals, and by the Riva-Rocci method in a large number of subjects of different ages and (3) done statistical analysis of the data. Sincerely, The Editors" I doubt that I would have had the foresight to recommend publication. What do I recommend when the article offers only a minor advance? Authors seem to be in more of a hurry to publish than in years past, perhaps due to (1) a larger cadre of competing investigators, (2) awareness that promotions committees are better at counting papers than they are at evaluating them, and (3) the felt need to establish a track record for funding. I often find it helpful to look at other papers on the topic from the same laboratory, which may show that the submission contributes to an orderly and productive evolution of ideas or turn up a pattern of repetitive "churning" of data and ideas. If this inquiry does not clarify, I recommend asking the authors to specify and defend exactly what is new in their submission; the burden, really, is on them. How does the adequacy of the presentation bear on my recommendation? Mostly as an absolute threshold, namely that the reader must be able to make an independent judgment about the strengths and weaknesses of the authors' data and conclusions from what is presented (8). How to balance high standards against the purpose of the archival literature, which is to enable scientists to communicate? How to avoid being a curmudgeon on the one hand and a soft touch on the other? The Associate Editor brings his or her own calibration into evaluation of my review. Nonetheless, I keep an eye on the severity and content of the other reviewers' comments on the same articles and keep in mind that more than 70% of submissions to AJRCCM, for example, are not accepted. Often my recommendation reflects suspended judgment, pending a response from the authors. I am particularly careful to give them the opportunity to respond in the case of a potential fatal flaw; sometimes they can readily clear up the issue, sometimes not. Once and only once, after prolonged rumination, I concluded that the central reasoning in an article was circular. This was put to the authors, who responded, "You are right. Thanks. We withdraw the paper." Continued ... Part #2 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Apr 28 15:25:09 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:25:09 -0400 Subject: part 2 - Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. "How I Review an Original Scientific Article" BY Hoppin FG AM J RESP CRIT CARE 166 (8): 1019-1023 OCT 15 2002 Message-ID: ____________________________________________________________ Part #2 - Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr "How I Review an Original Scientific Article " AM J RESP CRIT CARE 166 (8): 1019-1023 OCT 15 2002 Contd. Part 2 Occasional Essay How I Review an Original Scientific Article Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. Departments of Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island and Brown University, Pawtucket, Rhode Island Correspondence: Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Frederic Hoppin, M.D., Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, 111 Brewster Street, Pawtucket, RI 02860. E-mail: Frederic_Hoppin_Jr at Brown.edu ____________________________________________________________________________ Paper continues here.... THE WRITE-UP Comments to the Editors I aim for three concise sections as outlined below, totaling no more than 200 words. My experience as Associate Editor was clear: descriptions were more useful than a bare recommendation or any checklist of numerical responses (8). The summary, in three or four sentences, identifies the topic of the study, indicates the basic approach, selects the main findings, and paraphrases the authors' main conclusions. The summarizing exercise is important to me for distilling my thoughts, and it provides the Associate Editor with the background for the main criticisms/questions that follow. I then list several main criticisms/questions in descending order of importance. These are selected from among the list on the front page. For each, I summarize its basis, postponing a full explanation to the "Comments to the Authors." I also indicate what I see as the importance of each item and what I think the authors may be able to do in response. Finally, I indicate and characterize my recommendations, e.g., "This is a novel idea, worth inviting major revision (see COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS)." I also indicate my degree of confidence in my recommendation, e.g., "I suspect that the authors will have difficulty answering Question 1 satisfactorily." I acknowledge any major help I have received-not to absolve myself of any responsibility for the recommendation but to give credit where it is due and to introduce individuals whom the Associate Editor might find helpful as reviewer in the future. I once informed the Associate Editor of a potential conflict of interest when I reviewed a paper that reported the characteristics of a device in which the author had a personal commercial interest and that might have been considered to be less than fully objective. Comments to the Authors This may be 1,500 words or more in length, although probably the best reviews I have seen have been shorter, comprising a few sentences that posed clear, insightful, targeted questions. Some ground rules: (1) my observations and analysis must be clear to the authors. The recommendations themselves, however, are private, and should not preempt the Associate Editor; (2) I downplay praise. If the article is accepted, the authors will be pleased enough, regardless of any praise. If the article is rejected and I had praised it, the Associate Editor may have an uncomfortable interchange with the authors at the next national meeting; (3) I avoid censure, even of chronic offenders, as it is unnecessary, belittling, and disrespectful. Each submission is on the order of a man-year's work by my fellow scientists, and the stakes are high for them. The first paragraph is a direct copy of my summary at the beginning of "Comments to the Editor." From this, the authors can learn what I took from their presentation (possibly a surprise to them), which may help them to focus and prepare their responses and revision. If there are aspects of the study that I have not evaluated, I say so explicitly, e.g., "I have reviewed the applied math carefully for its assumptions and physiologic implications, but am not equipped to review the math itself." This is followed by "Major Comments," numbered and starting with the main points made in the "Comments to the Editors." Each criticism/question must be explained to the authors and never left as unsupported, qualitative statements, such as "inadequate controls"-there must always be a "because ..." I have occasionally indicated alternative approaches, either to explain a criticism or question or to let the authors pick up a useful suggestion. This practice carries the risk that the alternatives may reflect my own scientific style or arbitrary choices rather than an objective scientific evaluation. With regard to presentation, I have often heard it said that referees have limited time and responsibility, that deficiencies of presentation are the authors' responsibility, that it is presumptuous for authors to submit articles without first obtaining meticulous, critical reviews from in-house or out-house colleagues, that submissions should always be gone over carefully by someone for whom English is the native tongue, and that any negative consequences of weak and hasty presentation are well deserved. I sympathize deeply with each of these arguments, but the overriding consideration is that good science should be published. One can call the authors on sloppiness by giving them a few egregious examples and generalizing the complaint. It is more challenging to help with poor exposition, e.g., it is difficult to explain why I do not understand what I do not understand! The best path through this particular thicket starts with telling the authors what I did understand from what they wrote, e.g., "this appears to say ... ," or with telling them where I got lost, e.g., "at this point I found myself wondering ..." Once, exasperated with a chronic offender, who routinely presented novel science very badly, I pointedly suggested a rigorous, in-house, line-by-line revision by his senior author. Once, having had to work hard to untangle an argument in an otherwise worthwhile paper, I wrote, "Is this what you are saying?" and outlined my version. The authors accepted it fully. And gratefully (or so they said). I have never come close, however, to doing what Jere Mead once did, namely completely rewriting a foreign paper, believing that otherwise some excellent science would have been lost! For many specific problems with the presentation, it may be useful to refer the authors to online sites (17). The final section is "Minor Comments." This is culled from my notations in the text, (i.e., about redundancies, inappropriate symbols, and the like) listed in the order they appear in the text and identified by page, paragraph, and line. The issue of reviewer anonymity is controversial (11). Most journals presume that the referee prefers anonymity and that this will help ensure relative objectivity. Many of us, however, sign some of our reviews if we think the authors might welcome direct dialog later. FINAL COMMENT I asked a colleague recently how his recent submission had fared in review. "One bad review, one good review," he replied. "The 'bad' one liked it but was really superficial-I don't think they understood it. The 'good' one didn't like it much, but the review was just wonderful." By which he meant it was really insightful and helpful to the quality of his science. Acknowledgments Uninhibited in-house reviews of an early draft of this article by Robert Banzett and James Butler were very helpful and warmly appreciated. Received in original form April 15, 2002; accepted in final form July 25, 2002 REFERENCES 1. Rennie D. Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA 2002;287:2759-2760. 2. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;287. Issue 21. 3. Siegelman SS. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review: special report. Radiology 1991;178:637-642.[Medline] 4. Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine, 1st ed. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1985. 5. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994;272:96-97.[Medline] 6. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231-233.[Medline] 7. Evans AT. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:422-428.[Medline] 8. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:11-21.[Medline] 9. Day RA. How to write and publish a scientific paper, 4th ed. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press; 1994. 10. Huth E. How to write and publish papers in the medical sciences, 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co.; 1990. 11. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 2002;287:2762-2765.[Medline] 12. Weber EJ, Katz PP, Waeckerle JF, Callaham ML. Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. JAMA 2002;287:2790-2793.[Medline] 13. Altman DG. Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? JAMA 2002;287:2765-2767.[Medline] 14. Altman DG, Goodman SN, Schroter S. How statistical expertise is used in medical research. JAMA 2002;287:2817-2820.[Medline] 15. Comroe JH Jr, Dripps RD. Scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. Science 1976;192:105-111.[Medline] 16. Comroe JH Jr. The soul of wit. Am Rev Respir Dis 1975;112:861-866.[Medline] 17. On line at www.atsjournals.manuscriptcentral.com. When responding, please attach my original message _______________________________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org _______________________________________________________________________ From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Tue Apr 29 03:02:22 2003 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:02:22 +0200 Subject: Hunter P. "The Power of Power Laws" The Scientist, 7(8):p.22, April 21, 2003 In-Reply-To: <200304281838.h3S4398g008288@panther.mail.utk.edu> Message-ID: Dear Gene and colleagues, Derek de Solla Price (1965) found 2.5 < n < 3 for scientometric distributions like citations. One would expect the dimensionality of textual sedimentation to be one degree of freedom less complex than the communication systems that are carried by the texts. Thus, one might expect 3.5 < n < 4 for social (including scientific) communication. These biologists now claim n = 4, but these systems are "realized". When the system remains pending (like social order), one would expect n to fail to reach the value of four, isn't it? Can we test that? Sylvan: Do your results point in this direction? With kind regards, Loet > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eugene Garfield > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:38 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Hunter P. "The Power of Power Laws" The > Scientist, 7(8):p.22, April 21, 2003 > > > Dear colleagues: > > While the primary content of The Scientist is generally not > of specific interest to scientometricians, this particular > article will interest many of you. > > "The Power of Power Laws" ..A multidisciplinary team finds > that when it comes to scales, a fourth dimension is > applicable to all living things By Philip Hunter. The > Scientist, 7(8):p. 22, Apr. 21, 2003 url for the article: http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/apr/feature_030421.html Best wishes. Gene Garfield PS Anyone can sign up free of charge to receive email notifications of the TOC of each biweekly issue as well as a daily news up date. Just go to www.the-scientist.com When responding, please attach my original message __________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com 3535 Market St., Phila. PA 19104-3389 Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com 3501 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3302 Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 29 12:15:22 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:15:22 -0400 Subject: Steinhauer J. "New York Has a Number to Call: 311" NYT Metro Sec. B, p.1, April 23 2003 Message-ID: In 1970 the theme of the 1970 meeting of ASIS was "The information Conscious Society". The URL contains my report published in JASIS 1971, vol 22, p.71-3. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/V1p236y1962-73.pdf In the New York Times of 23 Apr 2003, Metro Section B, page 1 (URL http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/23/nyregion/23PHON.html ) "New York Has a Number to Call: 311" by Jennifer Steinhauer, there is report about the new city government system promoted by an information conscious Mayor Bloomberg, the founder of the Bloomberg financial information service. I imagine there may be similar services in other cities of the world but I haven't heard about them. Eugene Garfield April 23, 2003 New York Has a Number to Call: 311 By JENNIFER STEINHAUER he telephone operators at the city's 311 center had the alternate-side-of-the-street parking rules down pat. They knew what to do with a complaint about a broken traffic light. Marriage license issue? Loud car alarm? Recycling laws? Check! Check! Check! But then, there was the chicken. A woman in the Bronx had one living in her hallway, and she was none too happy about it. It seems she and her landlord had divergent views on all matters of rent and heat, a dispute that manifested itself in the landlord placing a rather menacing bit of fowl at her front door. The operator typed into the computer: "Chicken on stoop." The results were quickly forthcoming. What the lady had was an agricultural problem, and she was referred to the Department of Health. Of the array of changes undertaken by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg since he took office 15 months ago, few are as ambitious as his insistence on overhauling the way city residents receive information from their government. Appalled to learn during the campaign that there was no central clearing house where residents could call with their questions - there were over 40 call centers and help lines in the city connected to dozens of different agencies - Mr. Bloomberg decided after he was elected that he would set up a single line people could call to get answers to all questions pertaining to government, and to lodge their complaints. Similar systems exist in cities like Chicago, Baltimore and Dallas. Today, as many as 32,023 callers a day find their way to 311, which quietly went live in March. (The average daily volume is 8,385 calls.) New Yorkers get there either by dialing directly or because they have been redirected through another city hot line that will soon be obsolete. "This is a top priority of the mayor," said Vincent A. LaPadula, the mayor's senior advisor, who oversees 311 for City Hall. "This is our massive reinventing-government project. I really believe 10 years from now the mayor will look back and say, `We changed peoples' lives.' " Mr. Bloomberg turned the task of creating 311 to Gino P. Menchini, the city's information technology commissioner, who has put together a complex system of telephone and computer technology aided in huge part by plain human patience, which is tried daily among 201 agents who take calls 24 hours, seven days a week, in 170 languages. (Another 100 agents will be added over the next three months.) The claim is that all calls get answered within five seconds. The call center is not without its controversies. While other city agencies watched their budgets take anywhere from 2 percent to 15 percent hits this year, the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, which operates 311, had $7.7 million added to its budget, and is slated for a fairly gentle cut in the mayor's proposed budget for next year, when cuts are going to be very deep citywide. City Council members have complained frequently and bitterly about the $25 million start-up costs for 311. But Mr. Bloomberg is undaunted. Just yesterday, when confronted with a newspaper article detailing the city's many potholes, Mr. Bloomberg shot back. "If you see a pothole, what do you do? 311. It's very easy. That's the whole idea of it. Call 311. They'll give you a number so that you can call back the next day and see when the pothole is going to get fixed. It works and I'm tired of people complaining about it." Mr. Menchini shares Mr. Bloomberg's passion for technology and service - the cornerstones of Mr. Bloomberg's information company - and can get a bit excited when going over the fine points of the "geo-codes" (a program that takes a caller's address and spits back her community board, precinct and zip code) and good old fashioned phone manners. "Figuring out what the problem is is a skill," Mr. Menchini said. "So if I am understanding that your problem is with a chicken, then I must be respectful of that and help you. We're committed to a lot of stringent training." He is trying to transform the act of answering calls from a mundane day job into a career path. There is room to become a supervisor and more, as an operator picks up intense knowledge about various areas of government. At the 45,000-square-foot center on Maiden Lane in Lower Manhattan, operators buzz quietly over various levels of calls. The first type is simple. Someone wants a phone number of a government agency - they are given it or transferred. Other callers ask for information that is easily available with a quick click of the operator's mouse - zoo hours, for instance - and they are given the answers, or the operator will fill out a complaint about, say, a pothole. Then there are more complex questions, that go either to a specialist who used to work at one of the agency call centers now located in 311, or are transferred to the appropriate agency. Those range from the fairly simple - how to get a birth certificate - to complex tax questions that take 45 minutes to answer. Another common set of calls relate to so-called quality of life issues, which make up a large volume of 311 calls. Noise is the most common, but the hot line also receives plenty of calls from steamed people whose driveways are blocked by churchgoers or bar patrons who never made it home on a Sunday morning. Those and other police matters are sent by computer to the appropriate precinct in a matter of minutes, and callers are given a tracking number to follow through, just as they are on every unresolved call. "The mayor is very involved on the precinct level," Mr. LaPadula said. "He wants the precinct commander to have real time information on quality of life complaints." As a result, the city is able to use 311 as a new management tool. The Police Department is learning a lot more about what types of non-emergency police complaints are cropping up where, and plans to address these issues in a fashion similar to Compstat, which measures crime in various neighborhoods. "We can get a much better understanding of what is going on out there," Mr. Menchini said. "You can see how the precincts are stacking up." Not that it is easy. People can be rude, unspecific, ill informed and often do not have a pen within reach. Operators are often retrained on the fine skills of patience. There is a quiet room in the building, where there are no phones but there are comfy chairs, where operators can regroup. Indeed the rest of the 311 call center can most politely be described as modest. There is new carpeting, bright lighting and new furniture. Operators do not have their own desks; they keep their belongings in a locker and move day to day. There is a small area with vending machines and tables. The desks are smallish. The elevators are perhaps the slowest operating in Lower Manhattan. And the operators have yet to face the increased traffic that will come as word of 311 spreads and replaces the city's myriad other hot lines. The big question then will be how fast the city can take care of all the problems it learns about. But it is here, Mr. Menchini insists, that a revolution in government is really happening. "This is a microcosm of the city's world," he said excitedly, tapping at a computer screen. "Where is it noisy? Where is it cold? Where are there too many cars?" Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top When responding, please attach my original message _______________________________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org _______________________________________________________________________ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 29 14:17:31 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:17:31 -0400 Subject: Inventor of Relational Databases Dies ... Edgar Codd Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/23/obituaries/23CODD.html The New York Times. April 23, 2003 Edgar Codd, Key Theorist of Databases, Dies at 79 By KATIE HAFNER Edgar F. Codd, a mathematician and computer scientist who laid the theoretical foundation for relational databases, the standard method by which information is organized in and retrieved from computers, died on Friday at his home in Williams Island, Fla. He was 79. The cause was heart failure, said his wife, Sharon B. Codd. Computers can store vast amounts of data. But before Dr. Codd's work found its way into commercial products, electronic databases were "completely ad hoc and higgledy-piggledy," said Chris Date, a database expert and former business partner of Dr. Codd's, who was known as Ted. Dr. Codd's idea, based on mathematical set theory, was to store data in cross-referenced tables, allowing the information to be presented in multiple permutations. For instance, a user could ask the computer for a list of all baseball players from both the National League and the American League with batting averages over .300. Relational databases now lie at the heart of systems ranging from hospitals' patient records to airline flights and schedules. While working as a researcher at the I.B.M. San Jose Research Laboratory in the 1960's and 70's, Dr. Codd wrote several papers outlining his ideas. To his frustration, I.B.M. largely ignored his work, as the company was investing heavily at the time in commercializing a different type of database system. "His approach was not, shall we say, welcomed with open arms at I.B.M.," said Harwood Kolsky, a physicist who worked with Dr. Codd at I.B.M. in the 1950's and 60's. "It was a revolutionary approach." It was not until 1978 that Frank T. Cary, then chairman and chief executive of I.B.M., ordered the company to build a product based on Dr. Codd's ideas. But I.B.M. was beaten to the market by Lawrence J. Ellison, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, who used Dr. Codd's papers as the basis of a product around which he built a start-up company that has since become the Oracle Corporation. "The sad thing is that Ted never became rich out of his idea," Mr. Date said. "Other people did, but not Ted." Edgar Frank Codd was born the youngest of seven children in Portland Bill, in Dorset, England, in 1923. His father was a leather manufacturer, his mother a schoolteacher. He attended Oxford University on a full scholarship, studying mathematics and chemistry. During World War II, he was a pilot with the Royal Air Force. In 1948 he moved to New York and, hearing that I.B.M. was hiring mathematicians, obtained a job there as a researcher. A few years later, in 1953, angered by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's pursuit of Americans he said had Communist ties or sympathies, Dr. Codd moved to Ottawa for several years. After returning to the United States, he began graduate studies at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, where he received his doctorate in computer science in 1965. In 1967, he moved to California to work in the I.B.M. San Jose Research Laboratory. He and his first wife, Elizabeth, were divorced in 1978. In 1990, Dr. Codd married Sharon Weinberg, a mathematician and I.B.M. colleague. In 1981, he received the A. M. Turing Award, the highest honor in the computer science field. Dr. Codd is survived by his wife, of Williams Island; a daughter, Katherine Codd Clark of Palo Alto, Calif.; three sons, Ronald, of Alamo, Calif., Frank, of Castro Valley, Calif., and David, of Boca Raton, Fla.; and six grandchildren. When responding, please attach my original message _______________________________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org _______________________________________________________________________ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 29 17:25:55 2003 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:25:55 -0400 Subject: Balaram P. "Measuring and Assessing Science" Current Science 84(3) p.255-256, February 10, 2003 Message-ID: P. Balaram : pb at mbu.iisc.ernet.in Full Text available at : http://tejas.serc.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/feb102003/255.pdf Title Measuring and assessing science Author Balaram P Journal CURRENT SCIENCE 84 (3): 255-256 FEB 10 2003 Document type: Editorial Material Language: English Cited References: 5 Times Cited: 0 KeyWords Plus: WEB Publisher: CURRENT SCIENCE ASSN, BANGALORE IDS Number: 662MJ ISSN: 0011-3891 Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year ARUNACHALAM S CURR SCI INDIA 83 107 2002 BALL P NATURE 420 594 2003 MOJONAZZI SM NATURE 421 209 2003 SCHUBERT A SCIENTOMETRICS 53 3 2002 WHITLEY KM J AM SOC INF SCI TEC 53 1210 2002 From quentinburrell at MANX.NET Tue Apr 29 17:30:15 2003 From: quentinburrell at MANX.NET (Quentin L. Burrell) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:30:15 +0100 Subject: Hunter P. "The Power of Power Laws" The Scientist, 7(8):p.22, April 21, 2003 In-Reply-To: <000001c30e1d$488015a0$0100a8c0@loet> Message-ID: Loet "One would expect the dimensionality of textual sedimentation to be one degree of freedom less complex than the communication systems that are carried by the texts. " Sorry, but you lost me there. Can you provide references and/or definitions so that the lay reader of this list knows what is being talked about? Quentin -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU]On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: 29 April 2003 08:02 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Hunter P. "The Power of Power Laws" The Scientist, 7(8):p.22, April 21, 2003 Dear Gene and colleagues, Derek de Solla Price (1965) found 2.5 < n < 3 for scientometric distributions like citations. One would expect the dimensionality of textual sedimentation to be one degree of freedom less complex than the communication systems that are carried by the texts. Thus, one might expect 3.5 < n < 4 for social (including scientific) communication. These biologists now claim n = 4, but these systems are "realized". When the system remains pending (like social order), one would expect n to fail to reach the value of four, isn't it? Can we test that? Sylvan: Do your results point in this direction? With kind regards, Loet > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eugene Garfield > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:38 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Hunter P. "The Power of Power Laws" The > Scientist, 7(8):p.22, April 21, 2003 > > > Dear colleagues: > > While the primary content of The Scientist is generally not > of specific interest to scientometricians, this particular > article will interest many of you. > > "The Power of Power Laws" ..A multidisciplinary team finds > that when it comes to scales, a fourth dimension is > applicable to all living things By Philip Hunter. The > Scientist, 7(8):p. 22, Apr. 21, 2003 url for the article: http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/apr/feature_030421.html Best wishes. Gene Garfield PS Anyone can sign up free of charge to receive email notifications of the TOC of each biweekly issue as well as a daily news up date. Just go to www.the-scientist.com When responding, please attach my original message __________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com 3535 Market St., Phila. PA 19104-3389 Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com 3501 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3302 Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Wed Apr 30 05:59:45 2003 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:59:45 +0200 Subject: Hunter P. "The Power of Power Laws" The Scientist, 7(8):p.22, April 21, 2003 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Quentin, In scientometrics we study textual units of analysis. We assume that these representations provide us with access to evolving communication systems. Communications can be considered as operations that develop algorithmically (by changing the units of analysis). However, in the discourse we need geometrical metaphors to communicate, but inadvertedly we thus reduce the representation with one degree of freedom. The alternative would be to communicate in terms of movies or perhaps videoclipses. Simulation studies are perhaps helpful from this perspective because one can exhibit the (algorithmic) animations. The fingerprints of the communication as studied in scientometrics (by analyzing texts statistically) can inform us from the perspective of simulation studies about parameter estimations. However, the construction of indicators would then have to be rethought and the relation with existing indicators carefully specified. Hitherto, most longitudinal studies in scientometrics have been based on comparative statics (for example, comparing mappings for different years). In the narrative one can then choose between a focus on the complexity at each moment in time or the trajectory along the time axis. In my opinion, the issue is how to combine the dynamic perspective with the perspective on the complexity at each moment without loosing the operationalization in scientometric terms. In response to your second question, let me assure you that I don't consider you as a lay audience. :-) The issue is difficult, but perhaps this message still communicates. With kind regards, Loet > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Quentin L. Burrell > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 11:30 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Hunter P. "The Power of Power Laws" > The Scientist, 7(8):p.22, April 21, 2003 > > > Loet > > "One would expect the dimensionality of > textual sedimentation to be one degree of freedom less > complex than the communication systems that are carried by > the texts. " > > Sorry, but you lost me there. > > Can you provide references and/or definitions so that the lay > reader of this list knows what is being talked about? > > Quentin > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU]On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff > Sent: 29 April 2003 08:02 > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Hunter P. "The Power of Power Laws" > The Scientist, 7(8):p.22, April 21, 2003 > > > Dear Gene and colleagues, > > Derek de Solla Price (1965) found 2.5 < n < 3 for > scientometric distributions like citations. One would expect > the dimensionality of textual sedimentation to be one degree > of freedom less complex than the communication systems that > are carried by the texts. Thus, one might expect 3.5 < n < 4 > for social (including scientific) communication. > > These biologists now claim n = 4, but these systems are > "realized". When the system remains pending (like social > order), one would expect n to fail to reach the value of > four, isn't it? Can we test that? Sylvan: Do your results > point in this direction? > > With kind regards, > > > Loet > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eugene Garfield > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:38 PM > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Hunter P. "The Power of Power Laws" The > > Scientist, 7(8):p.22, April 21, 2003 > > > > > > Dear colleagues: > > > > While the primary content of The Scientist is generally not of > > specific interest to scientometricians, this particular > article will > > interest many of you. > > > > "The Power of Power Laws" ..A multidisciplinary team finds > that when > > it comes to scales, a fourth dimension is applicable to all living > > things By Philip Hunter. The Scientist, 7(8):p. 22, Apr. > 21, 2003 url > > for the article: > http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/apr/feature_030421.html > > Best wishes. Gene Garfield > > PS Anyone can sign up free of charge to receive email > notifications of the TOC of each biweekly issue as well as a > daily news up date. Just go to www.the-scientist.com > > When responding, please attach my original message > __________________________________________________ > Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu > home page: www.eugenegarfield.org > Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 > President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com > 3535 Market St., Phila. PA 19104-3389 > Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com > 3501 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3302 > Past President, American Society for Information Science and > Technology > (ASIS&T) www.asis.org > From j.hartley at PSY.KEELE.AC.UK Wed Apr 30 07:07:37 2003 From: j.hartley at PSY.KEELE.AC.UK (J. Hartley) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:07:37 +0100 Subject: Abstracts, Introductions and Discussions Message-ID: Colleagues may be interested in a paper which we have just had accepted for publication in Scientometrics. Please e-mail me (not the list) if you would like a printed or electronic preprint. j.hartley at psy.keele.ac.uk The title and abstract follow below. James Hartley Department of Psychology Keele University Staffordshire ST5 5BG UK Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style? James Hartley, James W. Pennebaker and Claire Fox Two computer-based style programs were used to analyse the Abstracts, Introductions and Discussions of 80 educational psychology journal articles. Measures were made of the overall readability of the texts as well as of sentence lengths, difficult and unique words, articles, prepositions and pronouns. The results showed that the Abstracts scored worst on most of these measures of readability, the Introductions came next and the Discussions did best of all. However, although the mean scores between the different sections differed, the authors wrote in stylistically consistent ways across the sections. Thus readability was variable across the sections but consistent within the authors. From ffrosat at YAHOO.ES Wed Apr 30 07:31:42 2003 From: ffrosat at YAHOO.ES (Fco Fernando de la Rosa) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:31:42 +0200 Subject: Technological Information System Message-ID: My name is Fco Fernando de la Rosa Troyano, I am Ph. D. student in Computer Science Departmet in Seville University (Spain). The subject of my investigation is about Technologicla Information System (TIS), I would be very grateful if you could informate me about: Groups, Projects, Reviews, Methodology for Thecnological Vigilance, Internet Resource related to this area. Thank you Fco Fernado del a Rosa Troyano -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: