From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Oct 1 10:58:31 2004 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:58:31 -0400 Subject: Skram, U; Larsen, B; Ingwersen, P; Viby-Mogensen, J "Scandinavian research in anaesthesiology 1981-2000: visibility and impact in EU and world context" ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 48 (8): 1006-1013 SEP 2004 Message-ID: E-mail Address: U. Skram : skram at dadlnet.dk Author(s): Skram, U; Larsen, B; Ingwersen, P; Viby-Mogensen, J Title: Scandinavian research in anaesthesiology 1981-2000: visibility and impact in EU and world context Source: ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 48 (8): 1006-1013 SEP 2004 Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: Background: We wished to assess the development in number and impact of publications in anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine from 1981 to 2000 in the four Scandinavian countries: Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark. For comparison, we also analyzed data from the UK and the Netherlands. Methods: Publication and citation data from 1981 to 2000 were gathered from National Science Indicators (2001), covering 33 journals indexed in Current Contents. Data were analyzed in running 5-year periods. The following informetric indicators were used: absolute number of publications; absolute number of citations; absolute citation impact (average number of citations per publication per 5-year period); citation impact relative to the European Union and the world; and the percentage of cited papers from each country. Results: The annual number of publications from Denmark was stable over the 20-year period. Sweden increased its production by 35%, while the remaining four countries showed increases from 100% to 146%. Thus, Sweden and Denmark lost visibility within the European Union (EU) and in world context. The EU and world citation shares of Finland and Norway increased slightly, whereas those of Sweden, Denmark, the UK, and the Netherlands all declined significantly. The absolute citation impact (ACI) increased for all the four Scandinavian countries. The ACI of the Netherlands did not change and was surpassed by all the Scandinavian countries by 1994-98, while the UK finished below the other five countries. Conclusions: (1) The annual number of publications from Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, and the Netherlands increased after the late eighties, whereas the net publication output from Denmark was stagnant over the 20-year period investigated; (2) the international publication and citation visibility of Finland and Norway increased slightly, as opposed to the significant decrease seen by the other four countries; (3) judging from the increase in absolute and relative citation impact and in the percentage of cited papers, the recognition of publications from the four Scandinavian countries increased over the past 20 years. Addresses: Copenhagen Univ Hosp, Rigshosp, Acad Dept Anaesthesia, Copenhagen, Denmark; Copenhagen Univ Hosp, Rigshosp, Dept Anaesthesia & Intens Care, Copenhagen, Denmark; Royal Sch Lib & Informat Sci, Dept Informat Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark Reprint Address: Skram, U, Copenhagen Univ Hosp, Rigshosp, Dept Euroanesthesia 2091, Neuro Sci Ctr, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen 2100 OE, Denmark. E-mail Address: skram at dadlnet.dk Cited References: *DAN MIN INT HLTH, 2002, OECD DAT DAN HEALTHC. *DAN MIN SCI TECHN, 2000, REP WORK GROUP SCI P. ADAM D, 2002, NATURE, V415, P726. BOLDT J, 1999, ANASTH INTENSIV NOTF, V34, P131. BOLDT J, 1999, ANESTH ANALG, V88, P1175. BRAMBRINK AM, 2000, BRIT J ANAESTH, V85, P556. FASSOULAKI A, 2000, BRIT J ANAESTH, V84, P266. FIGUEREDO E, 2003, ACTA ANAESTH SCAND, V47, P378. GALLAGHER EJ, 1998, ANN EMERG MED, V31, P83. GARCIARIO F, 2001, EUR RESPIR J, V17, P1175. GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471. GISVOLD SE, 1999, ACTA ANAESTH SCAND, V43, P971. HANSEN HB, 1996, CLIN PHYSIOL, V16, P507. HECHT F, 1998, CANCER GENET CYTOGEN, V104, P77. INGWERSEN P, 2002, COVERAGE SCI CITATIO. INGWERSEN P, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V54, P131. MAY RM, 1997, SCIENCE, V275, P793. MILLER RD, 2002, BEST PRACT RES CLIN, V16, P353. MOED HF, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P381. NIELSON FE, 1998, UGESKRIFT LAEGER, V160, P4644. NILSSON LB, 2001, UGESKRIFT LAEGER, V163, P6121. OPTHOF T, 1997, CARDIOVASC RES, V33, P1. POMAROLI A, 1994, BRIT J ANAESTH, V72, P723. SEGLEN PO, 1997, BRIT MED J, V314, P498. SORRENTINO D, 2000, DIGESTION, V61, P77. TERAJIMA K, 2003, ACTA ANAESTH SCAND, V47, P655. VANRAAN A, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS, V45, P417. VIBYMOGENSEN J, 2003, UGESKRIFT LAEGER, V165, P332. Cited Reference Count: 28 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD Publisher Address: 35 NORRE SOGADE, PO BOX 2148, DK-1016 COPENHAGEN, DENMARK ISSN: 0001-5172 ISI Document Delivery No.: 847FT From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Oct 1 11:22:11 2004 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:22:11 -0400 Subject: Bence, V; Oppenheim, C "The influence of peer review on the research assessment exercise" JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, 30 (4): 347-368 2004 Message-ID: C. OPPENHEIM : E-MAIL : C.Oppenheim at lboro.ac.uk Author(s): Bence, V; Oppenheim, C Title: The influence of peer review on the research assessment exercise Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, 30 (4): 347-368 2004 Language: English Document Type: Review Abstract: The use of peer review within both the scholarly communication system and the UK's Research Assessment Exercise is reviewed. The common denominator is that of peer-reviewed academic journals, since peer review is used by referees to aid publication decisions and by RAE panel members to evaluate a department's research performance. We propose that since academic research is now subject to peer review at all stages of evaluation, it is becoming an accepted method of rewarding (by funding) research. The growth of electronic publications (both toll-access and open access) provides possibilities for changes to some of the process of peer review and RAE, but the fundamental model of peer review to reduce the number of poor quality publications will remain. The paper concludes that because of the many criticisms of peer review, it is unwise to base funding decisions on second level peer review of articles that have already undergone peer review. Addresses: Univ Loughborough, Dept Informat Sci, Loughborough LE11 3TU, Leics, England Reprint Address: Oppenheim, C, Univ Loughborough, Dept Informat Sci, Loughborough LE11 3TU, Leics, England. E-mail Address: C.Oppenheim at lboro.ac.uk Cited References: 1 MONDAY EJOURNAL. 1998, J AM MED ASS. 2002, J ROYAL COLL PHYS, V32. 2004, J ARTIFICIAL INTELLI. *HIGH ED FUND COUN, 1995, 395 RAE HIGH ED FUND. *HIGH ED FUND COUN, 1999, 599 RAE HIGH ED FUND. *HIGH ED FUND COUN, 2001, 401 RAE HIGH ED FUND. *HIGH ED FUND COUN, 2004, 599 RAE HIGH ED FUND. *I SCI INF, 2001, J CIT REP SOC SCI CI. *JISC SCH COMM GRO, 2002, RSLG, P7. ABEL RE, 2002, SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING. ADAMS J, 1998, BENCHMARKING INT STA, P31. ALI SN, 1996, LIB REV, V45, P42. BACK L, 2000, GUARDIAN 0718, P13. BAIRD LM, 1994, J INFORM SCI, V20, P2. BARNARD JW, 1998, J LEGAL EDUC, V48, P490. BENCE V, 2004, LEARN PUBL, V17, P53. BOADEN RJ, 2001, QUALITY ASSURANCE ED, V9, P5. BOURKE P, 1997, 56 NBEET ARC HEC AGP. BRINN T, 1996, ACCOUNT BUSINESS RES, V26, P265. BROWN J, 1997, BRIT SOC PLANT PATHO, V31. CAMPBELL K, 1999, J LAW SOC, V26, P470. CAMPBELL K, 1999, J LAW SOC, V26, P474. CHUBIN D, 1994, EDITING REFEREED SCI, P7. COOPER C, 1998, BRIT J MANAGMENT, V9, P82. CORNIN B, 1982, SOC SCI INFORM, V2, P71. DANIEL HD, 1993, GUARDIANS SCI FAIRNE. DONOVAN B, 1998, ICSU PRESS WORKSH KE. DOYLE J, 1996, OMEGA-INT J MANAGE S, V24, P21. ELMUNSHID H, 2001, ANN SAUDI MED, V21, P5. EVANS P, 1995, LIT NEWSLINE SPECIAL, P2. GILLETT R, 1989, HIGH EDUC Q, V43, P20. GILLETTE R, 1989, HIGHER ED Q, V43, P22. GILLETTE R, 1989, HIGHER ED Q, V43, P37. GODLEE F, 1999, PEER REV MED. GOODHART C, 1975, MONEY INFORMATION UN. HARNAD S, MANDATED ONLINE RAE. HARNAD S, 1990, PSYCHOL SCI, V1, P342. HARNAD S, 1995, SCHOLARLY J CROSSROA. HARNAD S, 1996, SCHOLARLY PUBL, P103. HARNAD S, 1998, NATURE NOV. HARNAD S, 1999, D LIB MAGAZINE, V5. HARNAD S, 1999, I SKY VISIONS INFORM. HARTER S, 1998, PUBLIC ACCESS COMPUT, V7, P5. HAWKINS DT, 2001, INFORMATION RES, V7. HEMLIN S, 1996, SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY, V10, P209. HENKEL M, 1999, HIGH EDUC, V38, P109. HIRST AS, 1999, THESIS LOUGHBOROUGH, P5. HOLMES A, 2001, INFORMATION RES, V6. JONES LV, 1982, ASSESSMENT RES DOCTO. KLINGEMANN HG, 1995, J HEMATOTHER, V4, P261. KOCHEN M, 1987, J DOC, V3, P54. LAWRENCE S, 2001, NATURE, V411, P521. LEE F, 1998, NEW HE ISSUES DIRECT, P192. LIU MX, 1993, J DOC, V49, P370. LOCK SA, 1986, DIFFICULT BALANCE ED. LONGHURST J, 2002, MEMORANDUM I ENV SCI. MACROBERTS MH, 1989, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V40, P342. MCDONALD S, 1995, J INFORM SCI, V21, P359. MEADOWS AJ, 1998, COMMUNICATING RES, P177. MORRIS J, 2000, UNPUB J EDITORS VIEW. NASH F, 1996, P C PSA POL SCI GROU. ODLYZKO A, 2002, LEARN PUBL, V15, P7. ODONNELL M, 1995, J SCHOLARLY PUBL, V26, P184. OPPENHEIM C, 1996, SERIALS, V9, P161. OPPENHEIM C, 1997, J DOC, V53, P477. PARKER LD, 1997, P 5 INT PERSP ACC C. PHELAN TJ, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS, V45, P117. PIERCE B, 1995, J INT BUS STUD, V26, P69. PIERCY N, 2000, EUR J MARKETING, V34, P31. POPE NN, 1992, RQ, V32, P240. RENNIE D, 1986, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V256, P2391. ROBERTS G, 2003, 22 HEFCE. ROWLAND F, 1997, ARIADNE, V7. ROWLAND F, 2002, LEARN PUBL, V15, P247. SAYERS S, 1997, RADICAL PHILOS MAY, P2. SEGLEN PO, 1997, BRIT MED J, V314, P498. SEGLEN PO, 1997, BRIT MED J, V314, P500. SHUM SB, 2001, 1 MONDAY, V6. SMITH A, 2002, CORRELATION RAE RATI. SMITH J, 1991, SERIALS, V4, P9. SMITH R, 1999, BRIT MED J, V318, P4. STRATHERN M, 1997, EUROPEAN REV, V5, P305. SWEETLAND JH, 1989, LIBR QUART, V59, P291. TALIB AA, 2000, HIGH EDUC REV, V33, P33. TENOPIR C, 1970, SCHOLARLY PUBL, V28, P135. TENOPIR C, 2000, ELECT J REALITIES SC. TENOPIR C, 2000, PSYCOLOQUY, P11. VALAUSKAS EJ, 1997, J ELECT PUBLISHING, V3. WALSH E, 2000, BRIT J PSYCHIAT, V176, P47. WALSH E, 2000, BRIT J PSYCHIAT, V176, P50. WARNER J, 2000, J INFORM SCI, V26, P453. WATTS S, 2002, 1537 THES. WELLER AC, 2000, P 8 INT C MED LIBR L. WELLER AC, 2001, ASIST MONOGRAPH SERI. WELLER AC, 2001, ASIST MONOGRAPH SERI, P307. WELLS A, 1998, THESIS U SHEFFIELD. WILLIS J, 1995, EDUCOM C PORTL OR. WILLMOTT H, 1998, P HIGH ED CLOS C U C. WILLMOTT H, 1998, P HIGH ED CLOS C U C, P21. WOOD D, 1997, LEARN PUBL, V10, P157. WOOD DJ, 1998, J DOC, V54, P173. WOUTERS P, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS, V38, P39. WOUTERS P, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS, V38, P48. ZIMAN J, 1968, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. Cited Reference Count: 105 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD Publisher Address: 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND ISSN: 0165-5515 ISI Document Delivery No.: 849YL From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Fri Oct 1 12:06:11 2004 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 17:06:11 +0100 Subject: Open access questionnaire: Call for respondents (fwd) Message-ID: *Apologies for cross-posting* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:56:10 +0100 From: Alma Swan Reply-To: American Scientist Open Access Forum To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG Subject: Open access questionnaire: Call for respondents Resent-Subject: Open access questionnaire: Call for respondents Dear Colleague, Open access to scholarly journal articles is a topic of growing importance. Open access enables free and immediate electronic access to a scholar's work. Studies show that open access increases the impact of - and number of citations to - work made accessible in this way. We are interested in understanding scholars' views on open access publishing and self-archiving and would very much like to hear your opinions. Please would you help by completing the questionnaire at http://www.keyperspectives.co.uk/OA/sarchiv.htm. It will be used to inform universities, research funders and scholars themselves of the state of play and how open access is progressing. Naturally, all responses will be treated as confidential and you may opt to remain anonymous if you wish. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. We do value your input and advice. Yours sincerely, Alma Swan, PhD Key Perspectives Ltd Truro United Kingdom From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Mon Oct 4 14:42:04 2004 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:42:04 +0200 Subject: Internet time and the reliability of search engines Message-ID: First Monday _____ Internet time and the reliability of search engines by Paul Wouters, Iina Hellsten, and Loet Leydesdorff _____ Abstract Search engines are unreliable tools for data collection for research that aims to reconstruct the historical record. This unreliability is not caused by sudden instabilities of search engines. On the contrary, their operational stability in systematically updating the Internet is the cause. We show how both Google and Altavista systematically relocate the time stamp of Web documents in their databases from the more distant past into the present and the very recent past. They also delete documents. We show how this erodes the quality of information. The search engines continuously reconstruct competing presents that also extend to their perspectives on the past. This has major consequences for the use of search engine results in scholarly research, but gives us a view on the various presents and pasts living side by side in the Internet. _____ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.gif Type: image/gif Size: 2574 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: wouters.gif Type: image/gif Size: 4482 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: a.gif Type: image/gif Size: 488 bytes Desc: not available URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Oct 6 16:56:08 2004 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 16:56:08 -0400 Subject: Dominy, NJ "Publication and citation trends in the International Journal of Primatology: 1980-2003" INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY, 25 (4): 751-754 AUG 2004 Message-ID: N. Dominy : njdominy at uchicago.edu The author has provided a full-text version of the following article. Author(s): Dominy, NJ Title: Publication and citation trends in the International Journal of Primatology: 1980-2003 Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY, 25 (4): 751-754 AUG 2004 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Addresses: Univ Chicago, Dept Ecol & Evolut, Chicago, IL 60637 USA Reprint Address: Dominy, NJ, Univ Chicago, Dept Ecol & Evolut, 1101 E 57th St, Chicago, IL 60637 USA. Cited References: ALTMANN J, 1974, BEHAVIOUR, V49, P227. ANDERSON A, 1991, SCIENCE, V252, P639. DOYLE GA, 1980, INT J PRIMATOL, V1, P1. FRANCK G, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P53. POPPER KR, 1992, LOGIC SCI DISCOVERY, P479. TAUBES G, 1993, SCIENCE, V260, P884. TUTTLE RH, 1989, INT J PRIMATOL, V10, P267. TUTTLE RH, 1998, INT J PRIMATOL, V19, P1. Cited Reference Count: 8 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: KLUWER ACADEMIC/PLENUM PUBL Publisher Address: 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA ISSN: 0164-0291 ISI Document Delivery No.: 824DW FULL TEXT OF EDITORIAL Guest Editorial Publication and Citation Trends in the International Journal of Primatology: 1980-2003 The present volume of the International Journal of Primatology is a milestone; it is the twenty-fifth since the journal?s inauguration. To commemorate the occasion, I comment here on the origin, aims, and publication trends of IJP between 1980 and 2003. A remarkable consistency of vision and diversity is evident in the 934 published articles. Proposals to create the International Journal of Primatology were made in 1976 during the 6th Congress of the International Primatological Society in Cambridge, England. The objectives were: (1) to meet demand for an additional refereed journal devoted to basic primatology; and, (2) to create an official vehicle for the International Primatological Society. A third explicit aim was the promotion of primate conservation (Doyle and Cartmill, 1980). In this spirit, IJP has enjoyed considerable success (Figure 1). Since 1980, the journal has grown steadily; expanding from four issues a year to six in 1984, and increasing page allocations in 1993 and 1995. Volume 24 is the largest to date, exceeding 1,350 pages. In 1989, founding editors Gerald A. Doyle and Matt Cartmill entrusted IJP editorship to Russell H. Tuttle. He reiterated the journal?s commitment to ?sharing knowledge about all aspects of primate biology and the conservation of primates and their habitats? (Tuttle, 1989:267). Tuttle emphasized the importance of studying free-ranging primates and encouraged submissions on diverse aspects of primatology, including systematics, comparative psychology, paleobiology, functional and comparative morphology, molecular biology, neuroscience, endocrinology, growth and development, captive maintenance, and other topics of general interest. Interestingly, the most cited papers from IJP reflect this sustained vision. Top-cited articles examine the morphology, socioecology, and habitats of primates (Table I). Furthermore, it is a fitting testament that an article with conservation implications is among the most cited; IJP has always sought to increase sensitivity to the plight of primates. Since 1989, articles on endangered or threatened species have been flagged with an icon furnished by Elwyn L. Simons and Stephen Nash. Regrettably, the aye-aye proclaiming VIVAMUS (?we will live!?) is a prominent emblem on most IJP articles. To further serve the science of primates and their conservation, IJP is committed to improving its international presence (Tuttle, 1998). Happily, contributions from Latin America have increased significantly over the past decade (Figure 2). Of course, many scientists from habitat countries publish papers from addresses in the Unites States, Canada, or Europe. Accordingly, Figure 2 is certain to underrepresent the diversity of IJP contributors. However, it is equally certain that authorship in IJP is far from optimally international; I am especially hopeful that future volumes will see a greater input from African scientists. Finally, it is notable that the impact factor of IJP has been stable since the metric was calculated in 1998 (Figure 1). Of course, the use of citation trends as a measure of scientific quality is not without flaws (Anderson, 1991). After all, the output of scientific work consists of information, which is semantic in nature and thus defies immediate measurement (Franck, 1999). According to Popper (1992) the only legitimate measure of scientific value are criteria such as consistency, correspondence to facts, range, and productiveness. Nevertheless, an increasing number of departments and tenure committees are emphasizing citations to judge a researcher?s worth, as a way of allocating resources, or awarding tenure (Taubes, 1993). Here I acknowledge the authors of the most cited articles published in IJP (Table I) ? I make no claim regarding the merit of their work versus that of others. It is clear, however, that the subject matter reflects the strength and spirit of the International Journal of Primatology. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank R.H. Tuttle for inviting this editorial and for permitting me access to every one of his IJP issues. I also thank M.F. Dominy for assisting me with the finer points of citation analyses. REFERENCES Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227-267. Anderson, A. (1991). No citation analyses please, we?re British. Science 252: 639. Doyle, G.A., and Cartmill, M. (1980). Introductory statement. Int. J. Primatol. 1: 1-2. Franck, G. (1999). Scientific communication ? A vanity fair? Science 286: 53-55. Popper, K.R. (1992). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Routledge, New York, p. 479. Taubes, G. (1993). Measure for measure in science. Science 260: 884-886. Tuttle, R.H. (1989). Inaugural editorial. Int. J. Primatol. 10: 267-268. Tuttle, R.H. (1998). Global primatology in a new millennium. Int. J. Primatol. 19: 1-12. Nathaniel J. Dominy Department of Ecology and Evolution University of Chicago 1101 East 57th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 Table 1. Most cited publications from the International Journal of Primatology, 1980-2003.? Rank Citations Authors? Title Year Volume:pages 1 97 Sussman, R.W. A new interpretation of the social Guest Editorial Publication and Citation Trends in the International Journal of Primatology: 1980-2003 The present volume of the International Journal of Primatology is a milestone; it is the twenty-fifth since the journal?s inauguration. To commemorate the occasion, I comment here on the origin, aims, and publication trends of IJP between 1980 and 2003. A remarkable consistency of vision and diversity is evident in the 934 published articles. Proposals to create the International Journal of Primatology were made in 1976 during the 6th Congress of the International Primatological Society in Cambridge, England. The objectives were: (1) to meet demand for an additional refereed journal devoted to basic primatology; and, (2) to create an official vehicle for the International Primatological Society. A third explicit aim was the promotion of primate conservation (Doyle and Cartmill, 1980). In this spirit, IJP has enjoyed considerable success (Figure 1). Since 1980, the journal has grown steadily; expanding from four issues a year to six in 1984, and increasing page allocations in 1993 and 1995. Volume 24 is the largest to date, exceeding 1,350 pages. In 1989, founding editors Gerald A. Doyle and Matt Cartmill entrusted IJP editorship to Russell H. Tuttle. He reiterated the journal?s commitment to ?sharing knowledge about all aspects of primate biology and the conservation of primates and their habitats? (Tuttle, 1989:267). Tuttle emphasized the importance of studying free-ranging primates and encouraged submissions on diverse aspects of primatology, including systematics, comparative psychology, paleobiology, functional and comparative morphology, molecular biology, neuroscience, endocrinology, growth and development, captive maintenance, and other topics of general interest. Interestingly, the most cited papers from IJP reflect this sustained vision. Top-cited articles examine the morphology, socioecology, and habitats of primates (Table I). Furthermore, it is a fitting testament that an article with conservation implications is among the most cited; IJP has always sought to increase sensitivity to the plight of primates. Since 1989, articles on endangered or threatened species have been flagged with an icon furnished by Elwyn L. Simons and Stephen Nash. Regrettably, the aye-aye proclaiming VIVAMUS (?we will live!?) is a prominent emblem on most IJP articles. To further serve the science of primates and their conservation, IJP is committed to improving its international presence (Tuttle, 1998). Happily, contributions from Latin America have increased significantly over the past decade (Figure 2). Of course, many scientists from habitat countries publish papers from addresses in the Unites States, Canada, or Europe. Accordingly, Figure 2 is certain to underrepresent the diversity of IJP contributors. However, it is equally certain that authorship in IJP is far from optimally international; I am especially hopeful that future volumes will see a greater input from African scientists. Finally, it is notable that the impact factor of IJP has been stable since the metric was calculated in 1998 (Figure 1). Of course, the use of citation trends as a measure of scientific quality is not without flaws (Anderson, 1991). After all, the output of scientific work consists of information, which is semantic in nature and thus defies immediate measurement (Franck, 1999). According to Popper (1992) the only legitimate measure of scientific value are criteria such as consistency, correspondence to facts, range, and productiveness. Nevertheless, an increasing number of departments and tenure committees are emphasizing citations to judge a researcher?s worth, as a way of allocating resources, or awarding tenure (Taubes, 1993). Here I acknowledge the authors of the most cited articles published in IJP (Table I) ? I make no claim regarding the merit of their work versus that of others. It is clear, however, that the subject matter reflects the strength and spirit of the International Journal of Primatology. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank R.H. Tuttle for inviting this editorial and for permitting me access to every one of his IJP issues. I also thank M.F. Dominy for assisting me with the finer points of citation analyses. REFERENCES Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227-267. Anderson, A. (1991). No citation analyses please, we?re British. Science 252: 639. Doyle, G.A., and Cartmill, M. (1980). Introductory statement. Int. J. Primatol. 1: 1-2. Franck, G. (1999). Scientific communication ? A vanity fair? Science 286: 53-55. Popper, K.R. (1992). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Routledge, New York, p. 479. Taubes, G. (1993). Measure for measure in science. Science 260: 884-886. Tuttle, R.H. (1989). Inaugural editorial. Int. J. Primatol. 10: 267-268. Tuttle, R.H. (1998). Global primatology in a new millennium. Int. J. Primatol. 19: 1-12. Nathaniel J. Dominy Department of Ecology and Evolution University of Chicago 1101 East 57th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 Table 1. Most cited publications from the International Journal of Primatology, 1980-2003.? Rank Citations Authors? Title Year Volume:pages 1 97 Sussman, R.W. A new interpretation 1987 8:73-92 Garber, P.A. of the social organization and mating system of the Callitrichidae. 2 73 Kay, R.F. The ecology of Oligocene Simons, E.L. African Anthropoidea. 1980 1:21-37 3 68 Johns, A.D. Responses of rain-forest Skorupa, J.P. primates to habitat disturbance: A review. 1987 8:157-191 4 67 Moore, J. Female transfer in 1984 5:537-589 primates. 5 66 Conroy, G.C. Problems of body-weight 1987 estimation in fossil primates. 8:115-137 ____________________________________________________________________________ ?Altmann (1974) is the most cited article in the journal (162 citations). ?1,256 authors have published in IJP. T. Furuichi, S.J. Suomi, and G.C. Westergaard have published the most articles (9), while S.P. Henzi, W.D. Hopkins, M.A. Huffman, J.C. Mitani, and D.P. Watts have each contributed eight. Figure Legends Figure 1. Total number research articles published from 1980-2003. Impact factors are shown for available years (1998-2002). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) impact factor is calculated by dividing all current year citations to articles published in IJP during the previous two years. N.B. It will be interesting to see how the surge of articles in 2002 and 2003 will affect this metric. Figure 2. Pie charts showing the proportion of articles produced from various geographic regions. Assignment to a region is based on the address of the corresponding author. organization and mating system of the Callitrichidae. 1987 8:73-92 2 73 Kay, R.F.Simons, E.L. The ecology of Oligocene African Anthropoidea. 1980 1:21-37 3 68 Johns, A.D.Skorupa, J.P. Responses of rain-forest primates to habitat disturbance: A review. 1987 8:157-191 4 67 Moore, J. Female transfer in primates. 1984 5:537-589 5 66 Conroy, G.C. Problems of body-weight estimation in fossil primates. 1987 8:115-137 ?Altmann (1974) is the most cited article in the journal (162 citations). ?1,256 authors have published in IJP. T. Furuichi, S.J. Suomi, and G.C. Westergaard have published the most articles (9), while S.P. Henzi, W.D. Hopkins, M.A. Huffman, J.C. Mitani, and D.P. Watts have each contributed eight. Figure Legends Figure 1. Total number research articles published from 1980-2003. Impact factors are shown for available years (1998-2002). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) impact factor is calculated by dividing all current year citations to articles published in IJP during the previous two years. N.B. It will be interesting to see how the surge of articles in 2002 and 2003 will affect this metric. Figure 2. Pie charts showing the proportion of articles produced from various geographic regions. Assignment to a region is based on the address of the corresponding author. From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu Oct 7 11:48:50 2004 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:48:50 -0400 Subject: Moed, HF; Garfield, E "In basic science the percentage of 'authoritative' references decreases as bibliographies become shorter" SCIENTOMETRICS, 60 (3): 295-303 2004 Message-ID: Henk F. Moed : Moed at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Eugene Garfield: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE AVAILABLE AT : http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/scientomv60i3p295y2004.pdf Author(s): Moed, HF; Garfield, E Title: In basic science the percentage of 'authoritative' references decreases as bibliographies become shorter Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 60 (3): 295-303 2004 Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: The empirical question addressed in this contribution is: How does the relative frequency at which authors in a research field cite 'authoritative' documents in the reference lists in their papers vary with the number of references such papers contain? 'Authoritative' documents are defined as those that are among the ten percent most frequently cited items in a research field. It is assumed that authors who write papers with relatively short reference lists are more selective in what they cite than authors who compile long reference lists. Thus, by comparing in a research field the fraction of references of a particular type in short reference lists to that in longer lists, one can obtain an indication of the importance of that type. Our analysis suggests that in basic science fields such as physics or molecular biology the percentage of 'authoritative' references decreases as bibliographies become shorter. In other words, when basic scientists are selective in referencing behavior, references to 'authoritative' documents are dropped more readily than other types. The implications of this empirical finding for the debate on normative versus constructive citation theories are discussed. Addresses: Leiden Univ, Ctr Sci & Technol Studies, NL-2300 RB Leiden, Netherlands; Inst Sci Informat, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA] Reprint Address: Moed, HF, Leiden Univ, Ctr Sci & Technol Studies, POB 9555, NL-2300 RB Leiden, Netherlands. E-mail Address: moed at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Cited References: ABT HA, 2002, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V53, P1106. GARFIELD E, 1985, ESSAYS INFORMATION S, V8, P403. GILBERT GN, 1977, SOC STUD SCI, V7, P113. MERTON RK, 1988, ISIS, V79, P606. ROUSSEAU R, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS, V43, P63. ZUCKERMAN H, 1987, SCIENTOMETRICS, V12, P329. Cited Reference Count: 6 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL Publisher Address: VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 ISI Document Delivery No.: 835QY From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu Oct 7 12:06:41 2004 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:06:41 -0400 Subject: Lederberg J. "Ricki Lewis' Law" SCIENTIST, 18 (15): 11-11 AUG 2 2004 Message-ID: E-mail Address: jsl at mail.rockefeller.edu Author(s): Lederberg, J Title: "Ricki Lewis' law" Source: SCIENTIST, 18 (15): 11-11 AUG 2 2004 Language: English Document Type: Letter Addresses: Rockefeller Univ, Raymond & Beverly Sackler Fdn, New York, NY 10021 USA Reprint Address: Lederberg, J, Rockefeller Univ, Raymond & Beverly Sackler Fdn, New York, NY 10021 USA. E-mail Address: jsl at mail.rockefeller.edu Cited References: GARFIELD E, WHATS IN NAME EPONYM. LEWIS R, 2004, SCIENTIST, V18, P64. STIGLER SM, 1980, T NEW YORK ACAD SCI, V39, P147. Cited Reference Count: 3 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SCIENTIST INC Publisher Address: 3535 MARKET ST, SUITE 200, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-3385 USA ISSN: 0890-3670 ISI Document Delivery No.: 842QG http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/aug/letters4_040802.html The Scientist Volume 18 | Issue 15 | 10 | Aug. 2, 2004 'Ricki Lewis' Law' The Closing Bell for July 5 was headlined as a lament for the passing of eponyms in science.1 It is unlikely that we will soon dispose of Mendel's Laws or Avogadro's Number. If scientists are jealous about being properly cited in bibliographies, that is a large step towards an eponymic tradition. There may be less of the natural history and surprise observation in science today, but there is no lack of theoretical synthesis that might invite the dignity of being inscribed as a "Law." Self-anointed "Laws" are likely to attach to matters the author is uncertain about, hence need dogmatic assertion. There is no Lederberg's Law in print of which I'm aware; in my correspondence I do find: (October 2001) "An aphorism that is sometimes called (one of) Lederberg's laws: Knowledge-based systems are up against a stonewall until computer programs can read the literature firsthand; and the latter will have to be recrafted to enable that." I suppose that's a hope and prayer. Perhaps The Scientist would consider a contest to collect nominations, and lend currency to a whole new catalog of eponyms, rendering Lewis' Law a self-negating prophecy, by calling attention to the prospects of void. Contestants in such a game should be reminded of two landmark papers. Steve Stigler, the renowned historian of statistics, proposed "Stigler's Law,"2 that eponyms never attach to a true discoverer. It might be said that all grandiose generalizations are false, including this one, and Stigler may admit some exceptions. He does not elaborate who should be designated the true author of Stigler's Law, unless he had in mind the late Bob Merton for his insistence that most discoveries are multiples. Then, 20 years ago, Gene Garfield, in "What's in a name: The eponymic route to immortality,"3 gives an entertaining recapitulation of eponomies, with many examples. Joshua Lederberg Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Scholar Rockefeller University jsl at mail.rockefeller.edu References 1. R. Lewis, "In memory of eponyms," The Scientist, 18[13]:64, July 5, 2004 . 2. S.M. Stigler, "Stigler's law of eponymy," Trans NY Acad Sci, 239:147-57, 1980. 3. E. Garfield, "What's in a name: The eponymic route to immortality," www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p384y1983.pdf From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu Oct 7 15:42:53 2004 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:42:53 -0400 Subject: Katerattanakul, P; Han, B. "Are European IS Journals under-rated? An answer based on citation analysis" EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 12 (1): 60-71 MAR 2003 Message-ID: Pairin Katerattanakul : p.katerattanakul at wmich.edu While the authors have done an interesting bibliometric study it seems that they, as well as the journal in which this article appears, have never heard of the field of Information Science. Otherwise how can one account for the unabashed use of the term "IS" to describe Information Systems? In a ranked list of 60 journals listed in the Appendix, the Journal of Information Science is included. Therefore they seem oblivious to the iterant ambiguity of "IS". This reminds me of President Clinton's remark "it all depends upon what "is" is!" Author(s): Katerattanakul, P; Han, B Title: Are European IS Journals under-rated? An answer based on citation analysis Source: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 12 (1): 60-71 MAR 2003 Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: A concern that the quality of European IS journals has been under-rated by existing studies was recently addressed in the IS community. In this study, an objective method based on a Citation Analysis was employed to re-examine the quality of four established European IS journals as compared to I I other well-recognized IS journals. Extensive citation data were collected to derive eight indices as the measures of journal quality. Our research results indicate that the quality of the four leading European IS journals is quite comparable to that of other well-known IS journals reported in prior studies. Addresses: Western Michigan Univ, Haworth Coll Business, Dept Business Informat Syst, Kalamazoo, MI 49008 USA Reprint Address: Katerattanakul, P, Western Michigan Univ, Haworth Coll Business, Dept Business Informat Syst, Kalamazoo, MI 49008 USA. Cited References: ATHEY S, 2000, COMMUNICATION ASS IN, V3. BROWN LD, 1985, J ACCOUNTING RES, V23, P84. COLLIN SO, 1996, BRIT J MANAGE, V7, P141. COOPER DR, 2000, BUSINESS RES METHODS. COOPER RB, 1993, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V29, P113. COTE JA, 1991, J CONSUM RES, V18, P402. GARFIELD E, 1979, CITATION INDEXING. GILLENSON ML, 1991, MIS QUART, V15, P447. HAIR JF, 1992, MULTIVARIATE DATA AN. HAKSTIAN A, 1979, PSYCHOL BULL, V86, P1255. HAMILTON S, 1982, MIS Q, V6, P61. HARDGRAVE BC, 1997, COMMUN ACM, V40, P119. HARRIS RJ, 1975, PRIMER MULTIVARIATE. HOLLOWAY LN, 1967, J AM STAT ASSOC, V62, P124. HOLSAPPLE CW, 1993, INFORM MANAGE, V25, P231. HOLSAPPLE CW, 1994, J MANAGEMENT INFORMA, V11, P131. JOHNSON JL, 1994, ACAD MANAGE J, V37, P1392. KERIN RA, 1996, J MARKETING, V60, P1. KUHN T, 1996, STRUCTURE SCI REVOLU. MYLONOPOULOS NA, 2001, COMMUN ACM, V44, P29. NORD JH, 1995, INFORM MANAGE, V29, P29. OLSON CL, 1974, J AM STAT ASSOC, V69, P894. SALANCIK GR, 1986, ADMIN SCI QUART, V31, P194. SHARMA S, 1996, APPL MULTIVARIATE TE. STEVENS JP, 1972, MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIO, V7, P499. TAHAI A, 1999, STRATEGIC MANAGE J, V20, P279. WALSTROM KA, 1995, COMMUN ACM, V38, P93. WHITMAN ME, 1999, INFORM SYST RES, V10, P99. ZINKHAN GM, 1992, J CONSUM RES, V19, P282. ZINKHAN GM, 1999, J ADVERTISING, V28, P51. Cited Reference Count: 30 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PALGRAVE PUBLISHERS LTD Publisher Address: BRUNEL RD BLDG, HOUNDMILLS, BASINGSTOKE RG21 6XS, HANTS, ENGLAND ISSN: 0960-085X ISI Document Delivery No.: 663WU From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu Oct 7 16:10:48 2004 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:10:48 -0400 Subject: Nisonger, TE "Citation autobiography: An investigation of ISI database coverage in determining author citedness" COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, 65 (2): 152-163 MAR 2004 Message-ID: We should be grateful to Tom Nisonger for creating the term "Citation Autobiography". I encourage all authors to do this and believe that the HistCite software I have reported on in the following paper will aid that process. Garfield E. Pudovkin AI. Istomin VS. "Why do we need Algorithmic Historiography?" Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) 54(5):400-412, March 2003. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jasist54(5)400y2003.pdf Unfortunately, the author gives the initial impression that the ISI coverage of his work is typical and does not point out that his comments are limited to the field of LIS and even there, it is a sample of one. And there is no evaluative data provided for the numerous journals where he has published occasionally. While Cronin and others have used SSCI to rank LIS people it is essential to note that the WoS files are mainly directed at scientists. If you look at the publication records for the most-cited scientists, the journals in which they publish are indeed covered by ISI. The greater the impact of the scientist in question, the greater the coverage. Further, it is often forgotten how well citations to their books are covered, even though books are not ordinarily sources. With this caveat it is nevertheless worth comtemplating your own personal citation autobiography. ____________________________________________________________________ Thomas E. Nisonger : E-mail Address: nisonge at indiana.edu Author(s): Nisonger, TE Title: Citation autobiography: An investigation of ISI database coverage in determining author citedness Source: COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, 65 (2): 152-163 MAR 2004 Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: This article presents a case study investigating the coverage completeness of the Institute for Scientific Information's citation data for specific authors, based on analysis of this author's lifetime citation record, which was compiled through the ISI database, searching the literature for nearly fifteen years, and through various Web search engines. It was found that (with self-citations disregarded) the ISI captured 28.8 percent of the total citations, 42.2 percent of print citations, 20.3 percent of citations from outside the United States, and 2.3 percent of non-English citations. The definition and classification of Web citations are discussed. It is suggested that librarians and faculty should not rely solely on ISI author citation counts, especially when demonstration of international impact is important. Addresses: Indiana Univ, Sch Lib & Informat Sci, Bloomington, IN 47401 USA Reprint Address: Nisonger, TE, Indiana Univ, Sch Lib & Informat Sci, Bloomington, IN 47401 USA. E-mail Address: nisonge at indiana.edu Cited References: BORGMAN CL, 2002, ANNU REV INFORM SCI, V36, P3. BRADFORD SC, 1985, J INFORM SCI, V10, P178. BRADIGAN PS, 1996, J ACAD LIBR, V22, P360. BUDD JM, 1996, LIBR QUART, V66, P1. BUDD JM, 2000, LIBR QUART, V70, P230. CHU HT, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V51, P481. CRONIN B, 1994, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V45, P61. CRONIN B, 1998, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V49, P1319. CRONIN B, 2001, P 8 INT C SCI INF SY, V1, P136. DURGOM S, 1998, THESIS U N CAROLINA. FUNKHOUSER ET, 1996, HUM COMMUN RES, V22, P563. HAYES RM, 1983, J EDUC LIBR INF SCI, V23, P151. MORAVCSIK MJ, 1975, SOC STUD SCI, V5, P86. MORAVCSIK MJ, 1988, SOC STUD SCI, V18, P515. NISONGER TE, IN PRESS SERIALS LIB. NISONGER TE, 1992, COLLECTION EVALUATIO. NISONGER TE, 2003, EVALUATION LIB COLLE. QUINT B, 2001, INFORM TODAY, V18, P42. REED KL, 1995, B MED LIB ASS, V83, P507. RICE BA, 1983, COLL RES LIBR, V44, P173. ROSENBERG V, 1998, INFORM TODAY, V15, P21. ROYLE P, 1994, AUSTR ACAD RES LIBR, V25, P77. SLOAN B, PERSONAL CITATION IN. TRUESWELL RL, 1969, WILSON LIBRARY B, V43, P458. VANHOOYDONK G, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS, V41, P169. VAUGHAN L, 2003, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V54, P1313. WHITE HD, 2000, WEB KNOWLEDGE FESTSC, P475. WILEY DL, 1998, SEARCHER, V6, P32. Cited Reference Count: 28 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ASSOC COLL RESEARCH LIBRARIES Publisher Address: 50 E HURON ST, CHICAGO, IL 60611 USA ISSN: 0010-0870 ISI Document Delivery No.: 805SX From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu Oct 7 16:37:34 2004 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:37:34 -0400 Subject: Velamoor N. "Proposed federal rule of Appellate procedure 32.1 to require that circuits allow citation to unpublished opinions" HARVARD JOURNAL ON LEGISLATION, 41 (2): 561-577 SUM 2004 Message-ID: Author(s): Velamoor, N Title: Proposed federal rule of Appellate procedure 32.1 to require that circuits allow citation to unpublished opinions Source: HARVARD JOURNAL ON LEGISLATION, 41 (2): 561-577 SUM 2004 Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: Stare decisis is a defining principle of the United States's legal system, widely regarded as crucial to ensuring predictability, fairness, stability and principled decision-making. Nevertheless, only a small fraction of judges' decisions actually carry precedential value for subsequent litigants. Judges at all levels, and in all courts, frequently issue so-called "unpublished" opinions, which are issued primarily for the benefit of the parties to the case and typically cannot be cited by future litigants as binding precedent, regardless of how similar the facts and issues in those decisions may be. Cited References: BARNETT SR, 2002, J APP PRAC PROCESS, V4, P1. BARNETT SR, 2002, J APP PRAC PROCESS, V4, P2. BARNETT SR, 2003, J APP PRAC PROCESS, V5, P473. BARNETT SR, 2003, J APP PRAC PROCESS, V5, P474. HOLMES OW, 1897, HARVARD LAW REV, V10, P460. STRONGMAN JA, 2001, U KAN L REV, V50, P195. STRONGMAN JA, 2001, U KAN L REV, V50, P212. TUSK MB, 2003, COLUMBIA LAW REV, V103, P1202. TUSK MB, 2003, COLUMBIA LAW REV, V103, P1214. Cited Reference Count: 9 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: HARVARD LAW SCHOOL Publisher Address: PUBLICATIONS CTR, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 USA ISSN: 0017-808X ISI Document Delivery No.: 842WN From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Oct 8 11:08:27 2004 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:08:27 -0400 Subject: Cunningham D. "Assessing and selecting journals for your library's core list" Information Outlook, 7(11):41-45, November 2003. Message-ID: Diane Cunningham : bcdcrc at comcast.net TITLE : Assessing and selecting journals for your library's core list AUTHOR: Diane Cunningham SOURCE: Information Outlook, 7(11):41-45, November 2003. EXCERPTS FROM ARTICLE : Introduction: Journal literature is very important to research organizations. The library of such an organization must try to be as comprehensive as possible in selecting relevant, high quality journals. The library must also weigh whether to acquire new journal titles that may have limited lifespans or continue with long-standing titles thata can be counted on to have a lifespan of 50 to 80 years. Given the rising costs of library resources, coupled with necessarily limited budgets, libraries must be selective in the types of materials they purchase and retain. Materials must meet the greatest need across a diverse customer base (Goehner 1984). Developing a core list of journal titles for the major scientific organizational units (OU's) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seemed to be a natural first step in focusing the Research Library's most relevant journal resources on researcher needs. The NIST Research Library decided to develop such a list, with the help of the researchers. Conclusion: Through our customer survey, NIST Research Library users told us what they wanted, and the library responded. Thanks to the Core Journal Project, the Research Library has established closer communication with NIST divisions in the laboratories. Moreover, there is now a list of 650 recommended journal titles that are considered core by NIST researchers. Both NIST researchers and the library will reap benefits in the long run. This process helps the Research Library know its customers better and understand the resources that are important to them. The Research Library now knows which journals are most important when considering any future journal cancellations. Because most technical divisions participated in this project, the core journal list reflects subject areas from across NIST, which would enable the library to have a more complete journal collection if all the recommended titles could be purchased. Thre were 87 titles (14%) on the core list that the library either did not subscribe to currently or had never subscribed to. The next step will be to check interlibrary loan records to determine if these titles have been borrowed heavily from other libraries in the past. If they have, the library should try to obtain these titles in the future if funds permit. The divisions and the librarians will review the core list annualy for possible additions and deletions, checking circulation records to determine how heavily these titles are being used. At a minimum, the Research Library has a more detailed tool to guide future collection development decisions. A core list of protected journals can be used for several successive serial reviews and can be a valuable part of a serials evaluation procedure (Hughes 1995). In the future, the library intends to contact researchers on an ongoing basis through a formal Library Laboratory Liaison Program. Librarians serving as laboratory liaisons will use the core journal list as the first step in developing a thorough knowledge of their customers. From samorri at OKSTATE.EDU Sat Oct 16 19:50:51 2004 From: samorri at OKSTATE.EDU (Steven A. Morris) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:50:51 -0400 Subject: Goldstein, et al. "Problems with fitting to the power-law distribution" Message-ID: Folks on this list may be interested in the paper below that disccusses estimating power-law exponents. The topic is not new to the bibliometrics field, having been discussed by Pao, Nicholls, and Rousseau. However, the paper below contains a new KS table that is specific to evaluating MLE fits on the zeta distribution. Thanks, S. Morris preprint available at: http://samorris.ceat.okstate.edu/web/publications/power-law.pdf PROBLEMS WITH FITTING TO THE POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTION M. L. Goldstein, S. A. Morris and G. G. Yen The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter Issue: Volume 41, Number 2 Date: September 2004 Pages: 255 - 258 Abstract. This short communication uses a simple experiment to show that fitting to a power law distribution by using graphical methods based on linear fit on the log-log scale is biased and inaccurate. It shows that using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) is far more robust. Finally, it presents a new table for performing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness-of-fit tailored to power-law distributions in which the power-law exponent is estimated using MLE. The techniques presented here will advance the application of complex network theory by allowing reliable estimation of power-law models from data and further allowing quantitative assessment of goodness-of-fit of proposed power-law models to empirical data. Received: 18 June 2004, Published online: 12 October 2004 PACS: 02.50.Ng Distribution theory and Monte Carlo studies - 05.10.Ln Monte Carlo methods - 89.75.-k Complex systems From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Wed Oct 20 13:28:55 2004 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:28:55 +0100 Subject: OA advantage = EA + AA + QB + OA + UA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Prior AmSci Topic Thread: "OA advantage = EA + AA + QB + OA + UA" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3978.html A forthcoming article by Michael Kurtz (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and co-workers reports that in astrophysics -- which (with its small, closed circle of journals and with all active astrophysicists worldwide being at institutions that can afford toll-access to all of them) has had de-facto 100% OA for several years now -- the total number of citations (hence the average number per article) has not risen; in fact it may even have diminished a little. There is instead a threefold increase in usage (readership, downloads). Kurtz et al. (2004) "The Effect of Use and Access on Citations" Information Processing and Management (submitted) http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~kurtz/IPM-abstract.html I think the interpretation of this is fairly clear: Once there is 100% OA, research is used far more, and although the overall number of references per article may not increase, their *selectivity* does, because authors can cite what is most important and relevant, rather than just what their institutions happen to be able to afford to access (as is the case before there is 100% OA, which is the prevailing condition in all fields other than astro currently). One certainly cannot take the absence of an overall increase of citations in a field that already has 100% OA, as evidence against the need for 100% OA in other fields, where OA is far less than 100%! Michael's interesting finding is probably unique to astro, which was even 100% OA before the online era (i.e., 100% of astrophysicists were at institutions that could afford 100% of the astro journals in paper), but his pattern of findings has suggested that there are several components contributing to the OA Advantage: (1) What Michael calls the "EA" or "Early Access" advantage: Papers that are self-archived as preprints, even in astro, get more citations than those that are not. If I understand Michael's data correctly, however, the EA is in fact a permanent increment in a paper's total cumulative citation count and not just a phase shift that reaches its peak earlier, without increasing the cumulative total of citations. This is probably because of a paper's autocatalytic usage/citation/usage/citation cycle, which Tim Brody has also detected, and is illustrated in Tim's forthcoming usage/citation correlation paper: Brody, T. and Harnad, S. (2004) Using Web Statistics as a Predictor of Citation Impact . http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/timcorr.doc (2) The "AA" or "Arxiv advantage," which applies to both preprints and postprints: Even though they are all already 100% OA through institutional subscriptions/licenses, papers that are also self-archived in ArXiv get more citations. (In fields with distributed institutional self-archiving, AA would of course not be an ArXiv effect but an OAIster effect.) This advantage would no doubt vanish if toll-access and open-access were fully integrated, but it is interesting that it is present, even in a 100% OA field. http://www.arxiv.org/ http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/ (3) The Quality Bias, "QB," which is the fact that the higher-quality, higher-impact authors tend to self-archive more overall, and that it is particularly their higher-quality (hence higher-impact) papers that authors tend selectively to self-archive more. This self-selection bias is definitely one of the factors underlying the positive correlation between OA and citation counts, but it is certainly not the only factor. It will be interesting to estimate the size of QB, relative to the other 3 factors, especially as OA grows from 0% to 100%. (The QB component obviously has to shrink as the proportion of self-archiving authors grows, since QB is based on self-selective differential self-archiving of only the higher-quality work.) (4) The true OA Advantage, OAA, which is probably by far the strongest in fields that are nearer to 0% OA than to 100% OA because OAA is a *relative* advantage (and a *competitive* one): In a non-OA field (unlike astro, which is 100% OA), *all* factors give the advantage to the self-archived article over the non-self-archived one (e.g., even postprints have the "Early Advantage"). So even if the pure OAA is destined to shrink to zero once 100% OA is reached, it is a *huge* advantage today, when OA is far from 100%. It means that authors have a great deal of competitive incentive to make their own articles OA now, before their competitors do. In other words, it's really a Prisoner's Dilemma, hence a horse race, once the odds and the causality are clearly understood! That is why we are so busily generating the OA advantage data across all disciplines in our collaborative ISI study in Southampton, Quebec and Oldenburg: http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/ http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/sociologie.htm http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/OA_NOA_biologie.gif http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/~stamer/isi_study/ (5) And then, of course, there is also the threefold increase in the Usage Advantage (UA) (downloads) with OA, which is not to be sneezed at either! Usage impact too can be counted, quantified and credited! After all, even when it is citationally silent, an increase in reading surely has *some* impact on what the researcher/user thinks and does, if they are not merely Zombies going through empty motions of automatic-reading! "OA advantage = EA + AA + QB + OA + UA" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3978.html (6) The subtlest factor of all (and the hardest to measure) would be an asymptotic selectivity advantage for higher-quality papers that have been freed from their prior handicap of inaccessibility once 100% OA has prevailed: Even if the total number of citations in a field remains unchanged or even diminishes when it reaches 100% OA (unlike the total amount of reading, which triples), it becomes primarily the relative quality and merit of each article that decides whether or not it will be cited, rather than the arbitrary factors (such as affordability and accessibility) that had influenced it in the non-OA era. (But this will require a very subtle retrospective analysis after 100% OA has prevailed in order to estimate quantitatively!) Stevan Harnad AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM: A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004) is available at: http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address: http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html Post discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-forum at amsci.org UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output, please describe your policy at: http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php 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 From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Wed Oct 20 14:08:51 2004 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:08:51 +0100 Subject: Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact? (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:01:03 +0100 From: Chawki Hajjem To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG Subject: Re: Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact? Below is the latest evidence that the Open Access Impact Advantage is neither unique to the Physical Sciences and Mathematics: http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/ nor to the Biological Sciences: http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/OA_NOA_biologie.gif The Impact advantage is there in the Social Sciences too: http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/sociologie.htm The explanation for http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/sociologie.htm is so far only in French (it will be translated shortly) but the English explanation for http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/ applies to the Social Science data too. Note that one significant difference between the Physical Sciences and the Social Sciences is that the rate of self-archiving is not increasing in the Social Sciences yet (correlation between number of OA articles and Year is positive for Physics/Mathematics, negative for Sociology/Anthropology). The OA impact effect is always positive except in the most recent year (2003), probably because the ISI citation counts are not yet up to date for 2003. Chawki Hajjem Doctoral Candidate Informatique cognitive Centre de neuroscience de la cognition (CNC) Universit? du Qu?bec ? Montr?al Montr?al, Qu?bec, Canada H3C 3P8 tel: 1-514-987-3000 2297# fax: 1-514-987-8952 From Wolfgang.Glanzel at ECON.KULEUVEN.AC.BE Fri Oct 22 05:26:15 2004 From: Wolfgang.Glanzel at ECON.KULEUVEN.AC.BE (Glanzel, Wolfgang) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:26:15 +0200 Subject: Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We have the pleasure to inform you that the "Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies on S&T Systems" edited by Henk F. Moed, Wolfgang Gl?nzel and Ulrich Schmoch has been published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. The handbook comprises altogether 34 chapters on quantitative S&T research written by 56 authors from 15 countries. This book is suitable for: - Practitioners in the field of science and technology studies; - Research students in this field; - Scientists, scholars and technicians who are interested in a systematic, thorough analysis of their activities; - Policy makers, managers, and administrators who wish to become informed about the potentials and limitations of the various approaches and about their results. For further details, please, refer to the attached PDF document. On behalf of the editors, Yours sincerely, Wolfgang Gl?nzel Steunpunt O&O Statistieken Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Faculteit E.T.E.W. Dekenstraat 2 B-3000 LEUVEN Belgium Tel: +32-16-325713 FAX: +32-16-325799 GSM: +32-486-884040 Email: Wolfgang.Glanzel at econ.kuleuven.ac.be Internet: http://www.steunpuntoos.be/wg.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Handbook_S&T_Res.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 25116 bytes Desc: Handbook_S&T_Res.pdf URL: From Wolfgang.Glanzel at ECON.KULEUVEN.AC.BE Fri Oct 22 06:32:02 2004 From: Wolfgang.Glanzel at ECON.KULEUVEN.AC.BE (Glanzel, Wolfgang) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:32:02 +0200 Subject: Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We have the pleasure to inform you that the "Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies on S&T Systems" edited by Henk F. Moed, Wolfgang Gl?nzel and Ulrich Schmoch has been published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. The handbook comprises altogether 34 chapters on quantitative S&T research written by 56 authors from 15 countries. This book is suitable for: - Practitioners in the field of science and technology studies; - Research students in this field; - Scientists, scholars and technicians who are interested in a systematic, thorough analysis of their activities; - Policy makers, managers, and administrators who wish to become informed about the potentials and limitations of the various approaches and about their results. For further details, please, refer to the following URL: http://www.issi-society.info/news.html On behalf of the editors, Yours sincerely, Wolfgang Gl?nzel Steunpunt O&O Statistieken Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Faculteit E.T.E.W. Dekenstraat 2 B-3000 LEUVEN Belgium Tel: +32-16-325713 FAX: +32-16-325799 GSM: +32-486-884040 Email: Wolfgang.Glanzel at econ.kuleuven.ac.be Internet: http://www.steunpuntoos.be/wg.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Sat Oct 23 07:50:55 2004 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:50:55 +0100 Subject: Let's dumb-up (journal citation) impact factors Message-ID: The following is a commentary on an editorial in the British Medical Journal entitled: Let's dump impact factors Kamran Abbasi, acting editor BMJ 2004;329 (16 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7471.0-h http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7471/0-h I've submitted the following commentary. It should appear Monday at: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7471/0-h Prior Amsci Topic Thread: "Citation and Rejection Statistics for Eprints and Ejournals" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0138.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1112.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrich Impact Measures Through Open Access Analysis (Or: "Let's Dumb-Up Impact Factors") Stevan Harnad The "journal impact factor" -- the average number of citations received by the articles in a journal -- is not an *invalid* instrument, but a blunt (and obsolescent) one. It does have some meaning and some predictive value (i.e., it is not merely a circular "definition" of impact), but we can do far better. Research impact evaluation should be thought of in multiple-regression terms: The journal impact factor is just one of many potential predictive factors, each with its own weight, and each adding a certain amount to the accuracy of the prediction/evaluation. The journal impact factor is the first of the regression weights, but not because it is the biggest or strongest, but just because it came first in time: Gene Garfield (1955, 1999) and the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) started to count citations (and citation immediacy, and other data) and produced an index of the average (2-year) citation counts of journals -- as well as the individual citation counts of articles and authors. The fact that unenterprising and unreflecting evaluation committees found it easier to simply weight their researchers' publication counts with the impact factors of the journals in which they appeared was due in equal parts to laziness and to the valid observation that journal impact factors *do* correlate, even if weakly, with journals' rejection rates, hence with the rigour of their peer review, and hence with the quality of their contents: "High citation rates... and low manuscript acceptance rates... appear to be predictive of higher methodological quality scores for journal articles" (Lee et al. 2002) "The majority of the manuscripts that were rejected... were eventually published... in specialty journals with lower impact factor..." (Ray et al. 2000) "perceived quality ratings of the journals are positively correlated with citation impact factors... and negatively correlated with acceptance rate." (Donohue & Fox 2000) "There was a high correlation between the rejection rate and the impact factor" (Yamasaki 1995) But even then, the article and author exact citation counts could have been added to the regression equation -- yet only lately are evaluation committees beginning to do this. Why? Again, laziness and unenterprisingness, but also effort and cost: An institution needs to be subscribed to ISI's citation databases and needs to take the trouble to consult them systematically. But other measures -- richer and more diverse ones -- are developing, and with them the possibility of ever more powerful, accurate and equitable assessment and prediction of research performance and impact (Harnad et al. 2004). These measures (e.g. citebase http://citebase.eprints.org/) include: citation counts for article, author, and journal; download counts for article, author and journal; co-citation counts (who is jointly cited with whom?); eventually co-download counts (what is being downloaded with what?); analogs of google's "page-rank" algorithm (recursively weighting citations by the weight of the citing work); "hub/authority" analysis (much-cited vs. much-citing works); co-text "semantic" analysis (what -- and whose -- text patterns resemble the cited work?); early-days download/citation correlations (http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php) (downloads today predict citations citations in two years (Harnad & Brody 2004); time-series analyses; and much more. So the ISI journal-impact factor is merely a tiny dumbed-down portion of the rich emerging spectrum of objective impact indicators; it now needs to be dumbed-up, not dumped! Two things need to be kept in mind in making pronouncements about the use of such performance indicators: (i) Consider the alternative! The reason we resort to objective measures at all is that reading and evaluating every single work anew each time it needs to be evaluated is not only subjective but labour-intensive, and requires at least the level of expertise and scrutiny that (one hopes!) the journal peer review itself has accorded the work once already, in a world in which qualified refereeing time is an increasingly scarce, freely-given resource, stolen from researchers' own precious research time. Citations (and downloads) indicate that researchers have found the work in question useful in their own research. (ii) The many new forms of impact analysis can now be done automatically, without having to rely on ISI -- if and when researchers make all their journal articles Open Access, by self-archiving them in OAI compliant Eprint Archives on the Web. Remarkable new scientometric engines are just waiting for that open database to be provided in order to add the rich new panoply of impact measures promised above (Harnad et al. 2003). Donohue JM, Fox JB (2000) A multi-method evaluation of journals in the decision and management sciences by US academics. OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 28 (1): 17-36 Garfield, E., (1955) Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas. SCIENCE 122: 108-111 http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/science_v122(3159)p108y1955.htm Garfield E. (1999) Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ 161(8): 979-80. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/8/979 Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004) Prior evidence that downloads predict citations BMJ Rapid Responses, 6 September 2004 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7465/546#73000 Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y, Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E. (2004) The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. SERIALS REVIEW 30. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/impact.html 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/ Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA (2002) Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. AMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 287 (21): 2805-2808 Ray J, Berkwits M, Davidoff, F (2000) The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 109 (2): 131-135. Yamazaki, S (1995) Refereeing System of 29 Life-Science Journals Preferred by Japanese Scientists SCIENTOMETRICS 33 (1): 123-129 From jean.claude.guedon at UMONTREAL.CA Sat Oct 23 10:34:25 2004 From: jean.claude.guedon at UMONTREAL.CA (jcg) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:34:25 -0400 Subject: [OACI Working Group] Let's dumb-up (journal citation) impact factors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is an excellent and informative comment, Stevan. Thank you. Jean-Claude On Sat October 23 2004 07:50 am, Stevan Harnad wrote: > The following is a commentary on an editorial in the British Medical > Journal entitled: > > Let's dump impact factors > Kamran Abbasi, acting editor > BMJ 2004;329 (16 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7471.0-h > http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7471/0-h > > I've submitted the following commentary. It should appear Monday > at: > > http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7471/0-h > > Prior Amsci Topic Thread: > > "Citation and Rejection Statistics for Eprints and Ejournals" > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0138.html > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1112.html > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Enrich Impact Measures Through Open Access Analysis > (Or: "Let's Dumb-Up Impact Factors") > > Stevan Harnad > > The "journal impact factor" -- the average number of citations > received by the articles in a journal -- is not an *invalid* instrument, > but a blunt (and obsolescent) one. It does have some meaning and some > predictive value (i.e., it is not merely a circular "definition" of > impact), but we can do far better. Research impact evaluation should > be thought of in multiple-regression terms: The journal impact factor > is just one of many potential predictive factors, each with its own > weight, and each adding a certain amount to the accuracy of the > prediction/evaluation. > > The journal impact factor is the first of the regression weights, but > not because it is the biggest or strongest, but just because it came > first in time: Gene Garfield (1955, 1999) and the Institute for > Scientific Information (ISI) started to count citations (and citation > immediacy, and other data) and produced an index of the average > (2-year) citation counts of journals -- as well as the individual > citation counts of articles and authors. > > The fact that unenterprising and unreflecting evaluation committees > found it easier to simply weight their researchers' publication counts > with the impact factors of the journals in which they appeared was due > in equal parts to laziness and to the valid observation that journal > impact factors *do* correlate, even if weakly, with journals' rejection > rates, hence with the rigour of their peer review, and hence with the > quality of their contents: > > "High citation rates... and low manuscript acceptance rates... > appear to be predictive of higher methodological quality scores for > journal articles" (Lee et al. 2002) > > "The majority of the manuscripts that were rejected... were eventually > published... in specialty journals with lower impact factor..." (Ray > et al. 2000) > > "perceived quality ratings of the journals are positively correlated > with citation impact factors... and negatively correlated with > acceptance rate." (Donohue & Fox 2000) > > "There was a high correlation between the rejection rate and the > impact factor" (Yamasaki 1995) > > But even then, the article and author exact citation counts could have > been added to the regression equation -- yet only lately are > evaluation committees beginning to do this. Why? Again, laziness and > unenterprisingness, but also effort and cost: An institution needs to > be subscribed to ISI's citation databases and needs to take the > trouble to consult them systematically. > > But other measures -- richer and more diverse ones -- are developing, > and with them the possibility of ever more powerful, accurate and > equitable assessment and prediction of research performance and impact > (Harnad et al. 2004). These measures (e.g. citebase > http://citebase.eprints.org/) include: citation counts for article, > author, and journal; download counts for article, author and journal; > co-citation counts (who is jointly cited with whom?); eventually > co-download counts (what is being downloaded with what?); analogs of > google's "page-rank" algorithm (recursively weighting citations by the > weight of the citing work); "hub/authority" analysis (much-cited vs. > much-citing works); co-text "semantic" analysis (what -- and whose -- > text patterns resemble the cited work?); early-days download/citation > correlations (http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php) > (downloads today predict citations citations in two years (Harnad & > Brody 2004); time-series analyses; and much more. > > So the ISI journal-impact factor is merely a tiny dumbed-down portion > of the rich emerging spectrum of objective impact indicators; it now > needs to be dumbed-up, not dumped! Two things need to be kept in mind > in making pronouncements about the use of such performance indicators: > > (i) Consider the alternative! The reason we resort to objective > measures at all is that reading and evaluating every single work > anew each time it needs to be evaluated is not only subjective > but labour-intensive, and requires at least the level of expertise > and scrutiny that (one hopes!) the journal peer review itself has > accorded the work once already, in a world in which qualified > refereeing time is an increasingly scarce, freely-given resource, > stolen from researchers' own precious research time. Citations (and > downloads) indicate that researchers have found the work in question > useful in their own research. > > (ii) The many new forms of impact analysis can now be done > automatically, without having to rely on ISI -- if and when > researchers make all their journal articles Open Access, by > self-archiving them in OAI compliant Eprint Archives on the > Web. Remarkable new scientometric engines are just waiting for that > open database to be provided in order to add the rich new panoply > of impact measures promised above (Harnad et al. 2003). > > Donohue JM, Fox JB (2000) A multi-method evaluation of journals in the > decision and management sciences by US academics. OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL > JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 28 (1): 17-36 > > Garfield, E., (1955) Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in > Documentation through Association of Ideas. SCIENCE 122: 108-111 > http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/science_v122(3159)p108y1955.ht >m > > Garfield E. (1999) Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ 161(8): > 979-80. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/8/979 > > Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004) Prior evidence that downloads predict > citations BMJ Rapid Responses, 6 September 2004 > http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7465/546#73000 > > Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., > Gingras, Y, Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E. (2004) The > Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. > SERIALS REVIEW 30. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/impact.html > > 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/ > > Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA (2002) Association of > journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical > research articles. AMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 287 > (21): 2805-2808 > > Ray J, Berkwits M, Davidoff, F (2000) The fate of manuscripts rejected > by a general medical journal. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 109 (2): > 131-135. > > Yamazaki, S (1995) Refereeing System of 29 Life-Science Journals > Preferred by Japanese Scientists SCIENTOMETRICS 33 (1): 123-129 > > > Visit the List Archives at: > > http://mailhost.soros.org/pipermail/oaci-working-group/ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Oct 26 16:50:36 2004 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Garfield, Eugene) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:50:36 -0400 Subject: BMJ discussion of impact factors. Message-ID: The following URL will take you to British Med. Journal's free access website http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7471/0-h After reading Abassi's provocative title be sure to look at the series of responses. EG 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 ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Oct 27 11:07:40 2004 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Garfield, Eugene) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:07:40 -0400 Subject: FW:papers by Benoit Godin on S&T indicators. Message-ID: 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 -----Original Message----- From: "Godin, Beno?t" [mailto:Benoit_Godin at INRS-UCS.Uquebec.Ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:17 AM To: Garfield Subject: For SIGMETRICS B. Godin, The obsession for competitiveness and its impact on statistics: the construction of high-technology indicators., Research Policy, 33 (8), October 2004. Abstract High technology is a concept much in vogue in OECD countries, for it is a symbol of an "advanced" economy. This paper looks at why and how the concept and its indicator acquired such fame. It explains that the reason has to do with the fact that the indicator emerged in the context of debates on the competitiveness of countries and their efforts to maintain or improve their positions in world trade. The first part looks at the early statistics behind the indicator (R&D/sales), statistics developed in official analyses of industrial R&D surveys before the 1950s. The second part traces the evolution of the R&D/sales ratio in the 1960s through its use as an indicator of research or technological intensity. The third part discusses the internationalization of the indicator via the OECD. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V77-4DB5BPY-1&_us er=1072239&_handle=B-WA-A-W-AC-MsSAYWW-UUA-AAUABCEDDE-AUEYEVUCDE-DUBEEVBYD-A C-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=10%2F01%2F2004&_rdoc=10&_orig=browse&_srch=%23to c%235835%232004%23999669991%23523927!&_cdi=5835&view=c&_acct=C000051292&_ver sion=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1072239&md5=67416a169826feb905fe689ff43754b3 B. Godin, The New Economy: what the concept owes to the OECD, Research Policy, 33 (5), July 2004. Abstract In the last two decades, concepts have appeared that have influenced and even defined entire science and technology policies in Western countries: high technology, national system of innovation, information economy, knowledge-based economy, and the new economy. In all these policy developments, the OECD, acting as a think tank for its member countries, has been an important promoter of the concepts, turning them into buzzwords. This article looks at the concept of the new economy as the culmination of decades of work on technology and productivity, and explores the crucial role of the OECD in its dissemination and, above all, the role statistics have played in shaping science and innovation policies. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V77-4BX7C5Y-1&_us er=1072239&_handle=B-WA-A-W-AW-MsSAYWW-UUA-AAUAVVEEZC-AUEEUBUDZC-DUZEEWBZC-A W-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc %235835%232004%23999669994%23506842!&_cdi=5835&view=c&_acct=C000051292&_vers ion=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1072239&md5=4aa8e2d64aef02eb3d2f71666d0c21b2 Beno?t Godin Professeur - INRS Canadian Science and Innovation Indicators Consortium (CSIIC)/ Consortium canadien sur les indicateurs de science et d'innovation (CSIIC) www.csiic.ca Project on the History and Sociology of S&T Statistics http://www.csiic.ca/publications.html e-mail: < mailto:benoit.godin at inrs-ucs.uquebec.ca > ________________________________________________________________________ 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 ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Oct 28 03:23:33 2004 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:23:33 +0200 Subject: Amsterdam Colloquia in Science & Technology Studies Message-ID: Questions which have traditionally been raised in the philosophy of science have increasingly become empirical questions about how reflexive and substantive discourses can feedback on each other. Themes for this discussion are, for example: v The difference between scientific knowledge and common-sense knowledge: Can one specify a criterion of ?demarcation? in terms relevant for the social sciences? v Legitimation in the social sciences: Does social-scientific knowledge provide authority? v Is the differentiation among disciplines in the social sciences valid? How does your discipline differ from others? v How are research agendas shaped? Theoretically and/or in terms of social problems (Mode 2)? ?Anything goes?? (Feyerabend)? v Are the structures of the scientific community best considered as ?old boys networks?? v Does anonymous peer review function as a validation mechanism for communication in the social sciences? v Do audiences legitimate research results? v Can contractors influence research results? Colloquia Science & Technology Dynamics University of Amsterdam Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences in collaboration with the Amsterdam School of Communications Research ASCoR the Amsterdam School of Social Science Research ASSR Friday, 11 February 2005, 3-5 pm. Location: Binnengasthuis BG V, room 203, Oudezijds Achterburgwal 237, 1012 DL Amsterdam Political Science and STS Discussants: ? Jos de Beus (political theory) ? Maarten Hajer (public policy) chair: Amade M?charek (science & technology studies; political science) Friday, 18 March 2005, 3-5 pm. Location: Oost-Indisch Huis, Heren XVII Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Anthropology and STS Discussants: ? Birgit Meyer (religion and society) ? Stuart Blume (science & technology dynamics) chair: Anita Hardon ( anthropology) Friday, 22 April 2005, 3-5 pm. Location: Oost-Indisch Huis, Heren XVII Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Communication Studies and STS Discussants: ? Liesbet van Zoonen (media and popular culture) ? Klaus Sch?nbach (mass media and communication) chair: Paul Wouters (science & technology studies; e-science) Friday, 27 May 2005, 3-5 pm. Location: Oost-Indisch Huis, Heren XVII Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Sociology and STS Discussants: ? Abram de Swaan (university professor of social science) ? Cees Schuyt (sociology) chair: Bernhard Kittel (methods of social science research) _____ 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 loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Oct 29 10:54:02 2004 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:54:02 +0200 Subject: Mapping of Korean document sets In-Reply-To: <20041029.AAA1099030860@yumail.ac.kr> Message-ID: Han Woo Park & Loet Leydesdorff. Understanding KrKwic: A computer program for the analysis of Korean text. Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society 6(5), October 2004, pp. 1377-1387 6> _____ 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: