From scott at SCOTTNICHOLSON.COM Mon Mar 1 10:56:05 2004 From: scott at SCOTTNICHOLSON.COM (Scott Nicholson) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:56:05 -0800 Subject: Special ITAL issue on bibliomining Message-ID: The December 2003 (Volume 22, Number 4) issue of Information Technology and Libraries is a special issue dedicated to the bibliomining process, or the combination of data warehousing, data mining, and bibliometrics in libraries to aid decision-making and understanding of library use. The issue is currently available in print, and can also be viewed through several full-text bibliographic databases such as Wilson Select Plus, and ProQuest - ABI-Inform. Here are the articles in this special issue: Guest Editorial: Introduction to this Special Issue on the Bibliomining Process by Scott Nicholson. The Bibliomining Process: Data Warehousing and Data Mining for Library Decision-Making by Scott Nicholson. Mining User Communities in Digital Libraries by Christos Papatheodorou, Sarantos Kapidakis, Michalis Sfakakis, and Alexandra Vassiliou. Matching Subject Portals with the Research Environment by Irene Wormell. An Architecture for Behavior-Based Library Recommender Systems by Andreas Geyer-Schulz, Andreas Neumann, and Anke Thede. Traces in the Clickstream: Early Work on a Management Information Repository at the University of Pennsylvania by Joe Zucca. Study of the Use of The Carlos III University of Madrid Library's Online Database Service in Scientific Endeavor by Carlos A. Su?rez-Balseiro, Isabel Iribarren-Maestro, and El?as Sanz Casado. Mapping the Output of Topical Searches in The Web of Knowledge and The Case of Watson-Crick by Eugene Garfield, A. I. Pudovkin, And V. S. Istomin. More information about bibliomining can be found at http://www.bibliomining.org. Scott Nicholson, Assistant Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies ===== --------------------------------------------------------- Reply to scott at scottnicholson.com http://www.scottnicholson.com --------------------------------------------------------- From krichel at OPENLIB.ORG Mon Mar 1 23:50:31 2004 From: krichel at OPENLIB.ORG (Thomas Krichel) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:50:31 -0600 Subject: Thomson ISI and NEC Team Up to Index Web-based Scholarship In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sloan, Bernie writes > Philadelphia, PA USA-London UK-Princeton, NJ February 25, 2004 - > Today, Thomson ISI and NEC Laboratories America (NEC) announced > their collaboration to create a comprehensive, multidisciplinary > citation index for Web-based scholarly resources. As far as traditional scholarly research papers are concerned, there are only two organized large aggregates of papers that are outside the journal process. These are arXiv.org (founded by Paul Ginsparg) and RePEc (founded by myself). Both of these systems already have open access autonomous citation indexing systems attached to them, CiteBase and CitEc, respectively. Thomson ISI have approached both of us. I understand that none of us have any immediate plans to set up priviledged access to our collections for them. > The new Web Citation IndexTM will combine a suite of technologies > developed by NEC, including "autonomous citation indexing" tools > from NEC's CiteSeer environment, with the capabilities underlying > ISI Web of KnowledgeSM. Thomson ISI editors will carefully monitor > the quality of this new resource to ensure all indexed material > meets the Thomson ISI high-quality standards. It will be quite difficult for Thomson ISI to implement quality standards once they venture out to the open Web. Other proprietary information providers should have learned that. I remember a couple of years ago gleefully finding some grossly inappropriate material on Nexis. The morale here is that they will have to rely on others to do at least part of the quality filtering for them. Cheers, Thomas Krichel mailto:krichel at openlib.org http://openlib.org/home/krichel RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel From M.Davis at UNSW.EDU.AU Tue Mar 2 13:37:35 2004 From: M.Davis at UNSW.EDU.AU (Mari Davis) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 02:37:35 +0800 Subject: Hey, dude, it's me ^_^ :P Message-ID: Fell free to chat with me I accept all ages. Don''''t worry I don''''t bite........hope to hear from you soon! password for archive: 64738 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Juli.zip Type: application/octet-stream Size: 23241 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lopez_manest at GVA.ES Thu Mar 4 03:44:12 2004 From: lopez_manest at GVA.ES (MANUEL LOPEZ) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:44:12 +0100 Subject: data citacions Message-ID: Dear colleagues: I am preparing a paper on economic growth and technologic and scientific outputs. It would be very useful to dispose of long-term series about total citacions (between 1981 and 2000) obtained by papers published in peer review journals (f.i., those contained in SCI) in the following countries: Spain, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy. Please, may you give me some information about the avalaibility of these figures?. Thanks in advance. Very kind of you. Best regards, Manuel Lopez-Estornell Regional Government of Valencia (Spain) Presidency-High ADvisor Council on S&T Juristas, 9 46001-Valencia lopez_manest at gva.es -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noyons at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Thu Mar 4 03:37:27 2004 From: noyons at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Ed Noyons) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:37:27 +0100 Subject: S&T Indicators conference 2004 Message-ID: 8th Science & Technology Indicators Conference (2004) Dear Colleague, This is the First Announcement and Call for Papers for the International Science & Technology Indicators Conference 2004 to be held 23-25 September in Leiden, the Netherlands. Please visit the conference website at: http://conference.cwts.nl Extented abstracts are due April 30 Kind regards Ed Noyons Conf2004 at cwts.nl --------------------------------------------------------------- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Leiden University PO Box 9555 2300 RB Leiden The Netherlands --------------------------------------------------------------- ************************************************************* Ed Noyons PhD Mapping of Science Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Leiden University PO Box 9555 2300 RB Leiden The Netherlands Phone: +31 71 5273928/3909 (secr) Fax: +31 71 5273911 e-mail: noyons at cwts.leidenuniv.nl url CWTS: http://www.cwts.leidenuniv.nl ************************************************************ From abasulists at YAHOO.CO.IN Tue Mar 9 06:10:45 2004 From: abasulists at YAHOO.CO.IN (=?iso-8859-1?q?aparna=20basu?=) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:10:45 +0000 Subject: data citacions In-Reply-To: <005701c401c4$e0bfcae0$4688a8c0@pre.gva.es> Message-ID: Hello, I believe some figures are available in the Science Indicators report by National Science Foundation which can be found on the NSF website. Aparna abasulists at yahoo.com MANUEL LOPEZ wrote: Dear colleagues: I am preparing a paper on economic growth and technologic and scientific outputs. It would be very useful to dispose of long-term series about total citacions (between 1981 and 2000) obtained by papers published in peer review journals (f.i., those contained in SCI) in the following countries: Spain, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy. Please, may you give me some information about the avalaibility of these figures?. Thanks in advance. Very kind of you. Best regards, Manuel Lopez-Estornell Regional Government of Valencia (Spain) Presidency-High ADvisor Council on S&T Juristas, 9 46001-Valencia lopez_manest at gva.es Yahoo! India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lopez_manest at GVA.ES Tue Mar 9 07:25:26 2004 From: lopez_manest at GVA.ES (MANUEL LOPEZ) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:25:26 +0100 Subject: data citacions Message-ID: Thank you very much indeed. Best regards, Manuel Lopez ----- Original Message ----- From: "aparna basu" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] data citacions > Hello, I believe some figures are available in the Science Indicators report by National Science Foundation which can be found on the NSF website. > > Aparna > abasulists at yahoo.com > > MANUEL LOPEZ wrote: > Dear colleagues: > > I am preparing a paper on economic growth and technologic and scientific outputs. It would be very useful to dispose of long-term series about total citacions (between 1981 and 2000) obtained by papers published in peer review journals (f.i., those contained in SCI) in the following countries: Spain, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy. > > Please, may you give me some information about the avalaibility of these figures?. > > Thanks in advance. Very kind of you. > Best regards, > > Manuel Lopez-Estornell > Regional Government of Valencia (Spain) > Presidency-High ADvisor Council on S&T > Juristas, 9 > 46001-Valencia > lopez_manest at gva.es > > > Yahoo! India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- >
Hello, I believe some figures are available in the Science Indicators report by National Science Foundation which can be found on the NSF website.
>
 
>
Aparna
>
abasulists at yahoo.com

MANUEL LOPEZ <lopez_manest at GVA.ES> wrote:
>
> > > >
Dear colleagues:
>
 
>
I am preparing a paper on economic growth and technologic and scientific outputs. It would be very useful to dispose of long-term series about total citacions (between 1981 and 2000) obtained by papers published in peer  review journals (f.i., those contained in SCI) in the following countries: Spain, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy.
>
 
>
Please, may you give me some information about the avalaibility of these figures?.
>
 
>
Thanks in advance. Very kind of you.
>
Best regards,
>
 
>
Manuel Lopez-Estornell
>
Regional Government of Valencia (Spain)
>
Presidency-High ADvisor Council on S&T
>
Juristas, 9
>
46001-Valencia
> >
 

> Yahoo! India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. > From lopez_manest at GVA.ES Tue Mar 9 09:42:56 2004 From: lopez_manest at GVA.ES (MANUEL LOPEZ) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:42:56 +0100 Subject: data citacions Message-ID: Thank you very much indeed. Best regards, Manuel?Lopez Estornell ----- Original Message ----- From: "aparna basu" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] data citacions > Hello, I believe some figures are available in the Science Indicators report by National Science Foundation which can be found on the NSF website. > > Aparna > abasulists at yahoo.com > > MANUEL LOPEZ wrote: > Dear colleagues: > > I am preparing a paper on economic growth and technologic and scientific outputs. It would be very useful to dispose of long-term series about total citacions (between 1981 and 2000) obtained by papers published in peer review journals (f.i., those contained in SCI) in the following countries: Spain, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy. > > Please, may you give me some information about the avalaibility of these figures?. > > Thanks in advance. Very kind of you. > Best regards, > > Manuel Lopez-Estornell > Regional Government of Valencia (Spain) > Presidency-High ADvisor Council on S&T > Juristas, 9 > 46001-Valencia > lopez_manest at gva.es > > > Yahoo! India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- >

Hello, I believe some figures are available in the Science Indicators report by National Science Foundation which can be found on the NSF website.
>
 
>
Aparna
>
abasulists at yahoo.com

MANUEL LOPEZ <lopez_manest at GVA.ES> wrote:
>
> > > >
Dear colleagues:
>
 
>
I am preparing a paper on economic growth and technologic and scientific outputs. It would be very useful to dispose of long-term series about total citacions (between 1981 and 2000) obtained by papers published in peer  review journals (f.i., those contained in SCI) in the following countries: Spain, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy.
>
 
>
Please, may you give me some information about the avalaibility of these figures?.
>
 
>
Thanks in advance. Very kind of you.
>
Best regards,
>
 
>
Manuel Lopez-Estornell
>
Regional Government of Valencia (Spain)
>
Presidency-High ADvisor Council on S&T
>
Juristas, 9
>
46001-Valencia
> >
 

> Yahoo! India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. > From M.Davis at UNSW.EDU.AU Tue Mar 9 10:01:24 2004 From: M.Davis at UNSW.EDU.AU (Mari Davis) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:01:24 +1000 Subject: Mari Davis/Commerce/UNSW/AU is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 10/03/2004 and will not return until 22/03/2004. I will be away from the office for the next 2 weeks. From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Mar 11 07:23:30 2004 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:23:30 +0000 Subject: Open access and impact factor Message-ID: Rick Anderson asked: > [I]sn't open access simply making the impact-factor data less > meaningful? ...given two articles of equal merit and potential > influence, one of which is freely available to the public and the > other of which is only available to those who pay, wouldn't we expect > that the impact of the former would be higher than that of the latter? > And if so, how is the difference between those two impact factors > meaningful or useful? The reason researchers publish their research ("publish or perish") rather than just putting it into a desk-drawer and moving on to do the next piece of research is so that it will be used, so that it makes a contribution to knowledge, so it makes a difference. This is research impact, of which citation counts are one correlate, hence predictor. Findings that cannot be accessed by all their would-be users are findings that cannot have their full potential research impact. The purpose of open access is to maximise the visibility, usage and hence the impact of research. To maximise the visibility, usage and impact of one's own research by providing open access to it is not to make the impact factor less meaningful or more meaningful. It is to maximize the impact of one's own research, just as publishing it at all was done in order to make it visible and usable, so the work can have its impact rather than remaining still-born, done in vain. Today, most journal articles are toll-access (TA), hence impact-limited, rather open-access (OA). How do we get there (universal OA) from here (restricted access)? By providing OA to one's own articles. Yes, of course, in the unlikely event that two articles are of exactly equal merit, and one is TA and the other OA, the OA article will have more users. That's the point! And the remedy for this momentary imbalance is that the OA should be provided for the other article too, and then access to both will be be maximized, and merit alone will again rule. The race is to the swift. Once all articles are OA, their impacts will all be rescaled upward, because all articles will have maximized impact. Until then, the OA article will have an extra edge over the TA article. Let that serve as another incentive to provide OA as swiftly as possible! A word about "journal impact factors," though: As David Goodman and Jean-Claude Guedon pointed out, these are merely average citation counts for the articles in a journal. That's a blunt instrument. The sharper instrument is the article's own citation count (and the author's, and the download count, which is an early-days measure, and highly correlated with, hence predictive of, later citation counts). http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php OA will not only give us a far richer array of impact indicators, but it will put the focus on the individual article's merit, rather than only on the average merit of the articles in the journal it was published in. (Do not, however, underestimate the predictive value of the journal name itself, for the journal is the peer-review service-provider, and its track record for the average quality of its articles is also an indicator of its acceptance standards. There are 24,000 journals, differing not only in field, but in peer-review standards and selectivity; there is usually a journal hierarchy of merit within each field. This filter is not to be sneezed at either.) Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier. Ariadne 35 (April 2003). http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ Harnad, Stevan (2003) Measuring and Maximising UK Research Impact. Times Higher Education Supplement. Friday, June 6 2003. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/thes.html Harnad, Stevan (2003) Maximising Research Impact Through Self-Archiving. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/che.htm Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004) is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum: To join the Forum: http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html Post discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-forum at amsci.org Hypermail Archive: http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy: BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access journal whenever one exists. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml http://www.eprints.org/signup/ From Garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu Mar 11 17:38:04 2004 From: Garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Garfield, Eugene) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:38:04 -0500 Subject: Open access and impact factor (fwd) Message-ID: Dear Heather Morrison: A colleague sent me your comments since I am subscribed to this listserv. Your questions are interesting and valid, but they have been discussed in the literature of citation analysis for many years. Author, journal and institutional impact is regular discussed in the ASIS&T listserv at SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:24:29 EST From: Heather Morrison Reply-To: liblicense-l at lists.yale.edu To: liblicense-l at lists.yale.edu Subject: Re: Open access and impact factor Interesting questions. Is impact itself, important though it might be, really a good measure of merit? THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS STUDIES WHICH SHOW A HIGH CORRELATION BETWEEN PEER JUDGMENTS AND CITATION FREQUENCY. KNOWLEDGEABLE CITATION ANALYSTS WOULD NOT SUGGEST THAT CITATION IMPACT ALONE BE USED TO MAKE SUCH JUDGMENTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN LOW IMPACT JOURNALS AND AUTHORS ARE INVOLVED. HOWEVER, MY EXTENSIVE STUDIES OF NOBEL LAUREATES DEMONSTRATES THAT THEY ARE ALMOST INVARIABLY SUPER CITATION STARS. THESE CAN BE SEEN AT MY WEB PAGE AT WWW.EUGENEGARFIELD.ORG ESPECIALLY AT http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/prize/prize.html For example: if an area in science is suddenly deemed to have economic significance, and therefore attracts reseach funding, so that articles in that area are suddenly cited much more frequently, does this mean their merit has increased? RENEWED INTEREST IN OLD RESEARCH TOPICS IS NOT UNUSUAL. WITHOUT FUNDING THERE WOULD BE LITTLE RESEARCH SO IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT MORE NEW PAPERS WILL INCREASE CITATIONS TO OLDER ONES. BUT THIS GENERALLY IS VERY SELECTIVE. THIS MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A VARIANT ON THE PHENOMENON OF DELAYED RECOGNITION. THE LATTER SUBJECT HAS RECENTLY BEEN DISCUSSED BY WOLFGANG GLANZEL AND WILL BE THE TOPIC OF A FORTHCOMING COMMENTARY IN "THE SCIENTIST." To put it another way, if an environmental scientist writes a definitive article about a species of mosquito which is about to become extinct, and no one reads it because no one cares, does that prove that the article has no merit? Or, if the importance of the species is suddenly understood 50 years later and citations begin to appear, has merit increased? I THINK THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD AGREE THAT ALMOST ANYTHING PUBLISHED HAS "MERIT" ( ESPECIALLY IN THE AUTHOR'S EYES) BUT IF NO ONE CARES AND NO ONE USES IT WHAT IS ITS RELEVANCE TO THIS DISCUSSION. SCHOLARSHIP IS A MERITOCRACY BUT IT IS THE IMPACT ON OTHER SCHOLARS THAT MAKES PUBLISHED WORK SIGNIFICANT. If an article receives many, many citations as an interesting example of academic fraud, does this mean it has merit? WHILE EXPERIENCE TELLS US THERE ARE VERY FEW EXAMPLES OF SUCH HYPOTHETICAL CASES ALL THAT MANY CITATIONS WOULD MEAN IN SUCH A CASE THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF INTEREST IN THAT TOPIC ON THE PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. SUCH FRAUDS ARE INEVITABLY UNCOVERED AND HAVE LITTLE BEARING ON THE GENERAL DESIRE TO IDENTIFY THAT SMALL PERCENTILE OF WORK WHICH HAS HIGH IMPACT. Do articles that are within-paradigm receive more citations than articles reflecting the view of an emerging paradigm? Does this reflect merit? Could an over-reliance on impact as a measure of merit lead to increasing conservatism within scholarly endeavours? I DOUBT THAT SUCH A STUDY WOULD BE POSSIBLE CONSIDERING THE DIFFICULT OF DEFINING PARADIGMS. HOWEVER YEAR BY YEAR CO-CITATION ANALYSIS HAS PERMITTED THE IDENTIFICATION OF EMERGING PARADIGMS, THAT IS, RESEARCH FRONTS. IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO DEMONSTRATE WHETHER USE OF CITATION IMPACT INCREASES OR DECREASES CONSERVATISM. IN THESE MATTERS "BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER" If scholarly information becomes totally open access, and citations to scientific research are found to be much less than citations to popular music, does this prove that popular music has greater academic merit or importance? ALL IT DEMONSTRATES, IF TRUE, IS THAT POPULAR MUSIC IS OF GREATER UTILITY OR INTEREST THAN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. Do articles that are written in languages which are read by fewer people of instrinsically less value or merit than articles in more common languages? HAS ANYONE EVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM? HOWEVER, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH UNIVERSAL IMPACT. IT MAY WELL TURN OUT THAT SOME CHINESE ARTICLES ARE HEAVILY CITED BY CHINESE SCHOLARS, BUT THAT WILL NOT GET THEM READ BY ENGLISH READERS UNLESS THEY AE TRANSLATED. OF COURSE, THAT SITUATION MAY CHANGE IN SOME DECADES IF CHINESE BECOMES THE LINGUA FRANCA OF SCIENCE. Impact - or usage - are easy means of measuring the value of scholarly information, but not necessarily the best. Wouldn't it be better to rely on more objective means of determining merit? That is the one of purposes of peer review, is it not? CITATION ANALYSIS IS OBJECTIVE. PEER REVIEW IS SUBJECTIVE. IF THERE ARE MORE OBJECTIVE MEANS OF DETERMINING MERIT LET'S HEAR THEM. THE REASON THAT CITATION IMPACT HAS BECOME MORE POPULAR IS PRECISELY BECAUSE ONE KNOWS WHAT THE MEASUREMENT MEANS. IT IS A MATTER OF USING THE DATA IN A KNOWLEDGEABLE WAY AND NOT MINDLESSLY. If work that is important is not being read, do we bury it, cancel our subscriptions - or educate readers? WHO IS TO DETERMINE THAT WORK IS IMPORTANT IS NO ONE IS READING IT? THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF LITERATURE THAT IS NEVER CITED. ARE WE GOING TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO IT OR TO THE WORK THAT IS USED AND CITED. EUGENE GARFIELD Thanks for raising some interesting issues, Rick. cheers, Heather Morrison ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ From Cedric.LIEGE at DANONE.COM Fri Mar 12 11:48:53 2004 From: Cedric.LIEGE at DANONE.COM (Cedric LIEGE) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:48:53 +0100 Subject: Cedric LIEGE/CIRDC/FR/PF/DANONE est absent. Message-ID: Je serai absent(e) du 12/03/2004 au 24/03/2004. ______________________________________________________________________________ Ce message ?lectronique et tous les fichiers attach?s qu'il contient sont confidentiels et destin?s exclusivement ? l'usage de la personne ? laquelle ils sont adress?s. Si vous avez re?u ce message par erreur, merci de le retourner ? son ?metteur. Les id?es et opinions pr?sent?es dans ce message sont celles de son auteur, et ne repr?sentent pas n?cessairement celles du Groupe DANONE ou d'une quelconque de ses filiales. La publication, l'usage, la distribution, l'impression ou la copie non autoris?e de ce message et des attachements qu'il contient sont strictement interdits. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error please send it back to the person that sent it to you. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of its author and do not necessarily represent those of DANONE Group or any of its subsidiary companies. Unauthorized publication, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email and its associated attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________________________________________ From egackerma at RADFORD.EDU Sun Mar 14 11:51:54 2004 From: egackerma at RADFORD.EDU (Eric Ackermann) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:51:54 -0500 Subject: Question about ISI's SCI five year cumulations In-Reply-To: <200403140702.i2E72BdY005034@mail-in.radford.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Apologies for cross-posting. I am putting together a bibliometric study of the Polywater research literature, 1962-1974. I need some benchmark values for various measures, such as citations per paper. My access to WOS only goes back to 1989, so I've been using the SCI's five year cumulations in print. In the first volume of each cumulation is a page (usually around p. 17) called "Comparative Statistical Summary." Herein lies my questions re: "Citations per Authored Items Cited". 1. Are the "authored items cited" the same as the research articles, reviews, and technical notes used by the SCI? If not, what are they? 2. There is an annual cumulation given for each of the five years, and then one for the entire five year block. The average values for "authored items cited" for the five year block are different for the average annual. For example, for 1965-1969, the average for the annual cumulations is 1.65 + 1.65 + 1.66 + 1.67 +1.67 = 8.3/5years = 1.66. The average for the five year block is 2.55. Why the difference? 3. For the annual cumulations, are these just total citation counts for that year, or is there some sort of citation window (fixed or variable) involved? That's all for now! Many thanks for any help or insight you can give. Regards, Eric -- Eric G. Ackermann Reference/Instruction Librarian McConnell Library Radford University PO Box 6881 Radford, VA 24142 Email: egackerma at radford.edu Phone: 540-831-5688 http://lib.radford.edu/ From Garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sun Mar 14 14:06:55 2004 From: Garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Garfield, Eugene) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:06:55 -0500 Subject: Question about ISI's SCI five year cumulations Message-ID: Eugene Garfield, PhD. email garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu tel 215-243-2205 fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist www.the-scientist.com Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org -----Original Message----- From: Eric Ackermann [mailto:egackerma at RADFORD.EDU] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:52 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Question about ISI's SCI five year cumulations Hi, Apologies for cross-posting. I am putting together a bibliometric study of the Polywater research literature, 1962-1974. I need some benchmark values for various measures, such as citations per paper. My access to WOS only goes back to 1989, so I've been using the SCI's five year cumulations in print. In the first volume of each cumulation is a page (usually around p. 17) called "Comparative Statistical Summary." Herein lies my questions re: "Citations per Authored Items Cited". 1. Are the "authored items cited" the same as the research articles, reviews, and technical notes used by the SCI? NO If not, what are they? ANY AUTHORED ITEM CITED, WHETHER COVERED OR NOT IN SCI SOURCE COVERAGE. IT WOULD NOT INCLUDE ANONYMOUS ITEMS OR PATENTS. 2. There is an annual cumulation given for each of the five years, and then one for the entire five year block. The average values for "authored items cited" for the five year block are different for the average annual. For example, for 1965-1969, the average for the annual cumulations is 1.65 + 1.65 + 1.66 + 1.67 +1.67 = 8.3/5years = 1.66. THIS IS SOMETIMES CALLED THE GARFIELD CONSTANT, WHICH IS NOT A CONSTANT SO IT IS MORE PROPERLY THE GARFIELD RATIO. THE VALUE SHOWN IS BASED ON CITATIONS RECEIVED IN ONE YEAR. see my essay http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v2p419y1974-76.pdf Is the ratio between number of citations and publications cited a true constant? The average for the five year block is 2.55. Why the difference? CITATIONS FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD are INCLUDED 3. For the annual cumulations, are these just total citation counts for that year, YES or is there some sort of citation window (fixed or variable) involved? SEE ABOVE That's all for now! Many thanks for any help or insight you can give. Regards, Eric -- Eric G. Ackermann Reference/Instruction Librarian McConnell Library Radford University PO Box 6881 Radford, VA 24142 Email: egackerma at radford.edu Phone: 540-831-5688 http://lib.radford.edu/ ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________