From emg342 at DREXEL.EDU Sat Jan 1 16:38:39 2005 From: emg342 at DREXEL.EDU (Ellen Gelches) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 16:38:39 -0500 Subject: Papers in Scientometrics 61(3):285-299 2004 Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Wed Jan 5 03:12:18 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:12:18 +0100 Subject: Citation impact environments of scientific journals Message-ID: Citation environments for the 5907 journals included in the Science Citation Index 2003 are now available in the cited dimension at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr03/cited for processing using Pajek. The journal names provide links to text-files which can be imported into Pajek for the visualization of their respective citation environments. Pajek can be retrieved at http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ . Its use is free for academic purposes. The files below are also freeware for academic purposes. Users may wish to provide a reference, for example, to my paper " Top-down Decomposition of the Journal Citation Report of the Social Science Citation Index: Graph- and factor-analytical approaches. Scientometrics 60 (2), 2004, 159-180. The citation environment of the journal Nanotechnology in 2003 (cited; cosine ? 0.5). The citation environments are limited to those journals which cite the seed journal more than one percent of its total citation rate or which are being cited by this journal to more than one percent of its citation pattern. (These two criteria operate independently.) These visualizations are based on the cited-patterns of the journals. (See at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr03/citing for the corresponding files in the citing dimension.) The cosine between the citation vectors is used insofar as it is ? 0.2. Within Pajek one can increase this threshold (by using: Transform > Remove). The representation of the citation patterns of Nanotechnology in the figure, for example, is based on using a cosine ? 0.5. The files can be edited as ASCII text files. One can read them into Pajek using the menu File > Network > Read, Choose the file name. By partitioning the file (e.g., in terms of its core using Net > Partition) one can colour the visualizations into different groupings (File > Partition > Edit). Using the Options within the screen with the visualization (Draw > Partition) one can vary the size of lines (e.g., 3), the arrows (e.g., 0), and the fonts (e.g., 12). ** apologies for cross-postings _____ 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: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 22588 bytes Desc: not available URL: From samorri at OKSTATE.EDU Wed Jan 5 09:19:51 2005 From: samorri at OKSTATE.EDU (Steven A. Morris) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:19:51 -0500 Subject: Citation impact environments of scientific journals Message-ID: Loet, This is neat stuff. Are the original citing-cited matrices available anywhere? Thanks, Steve Morris On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:12:18 +0100, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: >Citation environments for the 5907 >journals included in the Science Citation Index 2003 are now available in >the cited dimension at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr03/cited for processing >using Pajek. > >The journal names provide links to text-files which can be imported into >Pajek for the visualization of their respective citation environments. Pajek >can be retrieved at >http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ . Its use is free for >academic purposes. The files below are also freeware for academic purposes. >Users may wish to provide a reference, for example, to my paper " > Top-down Decomposition of the >Journal Citation Report of the Social Science Citation Index: Graph- and >factor-analytical approaches. Scientometrics 60 (2), 2004, 159-180. > > > > > > >The citation environment of the journal Nanotechnology in 2003 (cited; >cosine ? 0.5). > >The citation environments are limited to those journals which cite the seed >journal more than one percent of its total citation rate or which are being >cited by this journal to more than one percent of its citation pattern. >(These two criteria operate independently.) These visualizations are based >on the cited-patterns of the journals. (See at > >http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr03/citing for the corresponding files in the >citing dimension.) > >The cosine between the citation vectors is used insofar as it is ? 0.2. >Within Pajek one can increase this threshold (by using: Transform > Remove). >The representation of the citation patterns of Nanotechnology in the figure, >for example, is based on using a cosine ? 0.5. > >The files can be edited as ASCII text files. One can read them into Pajek >using the menu File > Network > Read, Choose the file name. By partitioning >the file (e.g., in terms of its core using Net > Partition) one can colour >the visualizations into different groupings (File > Partition > Edit). Using >the Options within the screen with the visualization (Draw > Partition) one >can vary the size of lines (e.g., 3), the arrows (e.g., 0), and the fonts >(e.g., 12). > >** apologies for cross-postings > _____ > >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 > > From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Wed Jan 5 09:59:42 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:59:42 +0100 Subject: Citation impact environments of scientific journals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Steve, I am afraid that I would then infringe the copyright restrictions of the ISI because that would be their data. The data cannot be reconstructed from the cosine matrices and I am now convinced that this should be the solution for the visualization. I'll write that with a full argument in a brief communication shortly. Since I had this sorted out, I could put it in a do-while loop and thus generate it for the full set (over night). Hopefully, people can make it useful for their research applications. Of course, one can easily check the original matrix if one has the values from the JCR available (either on-line or as a CD-Rom). With kind regards, Loet > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Steven A. Morris > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 3:20 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Citation impact environments of > scientific journals > > Loet, > > This is neat stuff. > > Are the original citing-cited matrices available anywhere? > > Thanks, > > Steve Morris > > > > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:12:18 +0100, Loet Leydesdorff > > wrote: > > >Citation environments for the 5907 > > > >journals included in the Science Citation Index 2003 are now > available > >in the cited dimension at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr03/cited for > >processing using Pajek. > > > >The journal names provide links to text-files which can be imported > >into Pajek for the visualization of their respective citation > >environments. Pajek can be retrieved at > > > >http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ . Its use is free for > >academic purposes. The files below are also freeware for > academic purposes. > >Users may wish to provide a reference, for example, to my paper " > > Top-down > Decomposition of the > >Journal Citation Report of the Social Science Citation Index: Graph- > >and factor-analytical approaches. Scientometrics 60 (2), > 2004, 159-180. > > > > > > > > /image001. > >jpg> > > > > > >The citation environment of the journal Nanotechnology in > 2003 (cited; > >cosine ? 0.5). > > > >The citation environments are limited to those journals > which cite the > >seed journal more than one percent of its total citation > rate or which > >are being cited by this journal to more than one percent of > its citation pattern. > >(These two criteria operate independently.) These visualizations are > >based on the cited-patterns of the journals. (See at > > > >http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr03/citing for the > corresponding files in > >the citing dimension.) > > > >The cosine between the citation vectors is used insofar as > it is ? 0.2. > >Within Pajek one can increase this threshold (by using: > Transform > Remove). > >The representation of the citation patterns of Nanotechnology in the > >figure, for example, is based on using a cosine ? 0.5. > > > >The files can be edited as ASCII text files. One can read them into > >Pajek using the menu File > Network > Read, Choose the file name. By > >partitioning the file (e.g., in terms of its core using Net > > >Partition) one can colour the visualizations into different > groupings > >(File > Partition > Edit). Using the Options within the > screen with the > >visualization (Draw > Partition) one can vary the size of > lines (e.g., > >3), the arrows (e.g., 0), and the fonts (e.g., 12). > > > >** apologies for cross-postings > > _____ > > > >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 > > > > > From anouruzi at YAHOO.COM Wed Jan 5 10:33:23 2005 From: anouruzi at YAHOO.COM (AliReza Noruzi) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 07:33:23 -0800 Subject: Webology: an OPEN ACCESS journal, New Issue Message-ID: Dear All, [Apologies for cross-postings] We are pleased to inform you that the second issue of Webology, an international OPEN ACCESS journal, is published and is available ONLINE now. It serves as a forum for discussion and experimentation. Webology publishes scholarly articles, essays and reviews, and encourages the participation of academics and practitioners alike. The journal is available at: http://www.webology.ir/ The second issue of Webology contains the following papers: Title: Editorial Note Author: Yazdan Mansourian URL: http://www.webology.ir/2004/v1n2/editorial2.html ---------------------------------------------- Title: A Study of Web Search Trends Author: Dr. Amanda Spink & Dr. Bernard J. Jansen URL: http://www.webology.ir/2004/v1n2/a4.html ---------------------------------------------- Title: Personal Homepages as an Information Resource Author: Shant Narsesian URL: http://www.webology.ir/2004/v1n2/a5.html ---------------------------------------------- Title: Shifts in search engine development: A review of past, present and future trends in research on search engines Author: Saeid Asadi & Hamid R. Jamali M. URL: http://www.webology.ir/2004/v1n2/a6.html ---------------------------------------------- Title: Metadata and the Web Author: Mehdi Safari URL: http://www.webology.ir/2004/v1n2/a7.html ---------------------------------------------- Title: Application of Ranganathan's Laws to the Web Author: AliReza Noruzi URL: http://www.webology.ir/2004/v1n2/a8.html ---------------------------------------------- Title: Book Review of: Web Search: Public Searching of the Web / by Dr. Amanda Spink & Dr. Bernard J. Jansen Author: Yazdan Mansourian URL: http://www.webology.ir/2004/v1n2/bookreview1.html ---------------------------------------------- Subscribe to the journal of Webology: http://www.webology.ir/eTOCs.html ------------------------------------------------ Yours sincerely, A. Noruzi Department of Information Science University of Paul Cezanne, France noruzi @ crrm.u-3mrs.fr --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 5 13:42:57 2005 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Garfield, Eugene) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:42:57 -0500 Subject: Drexel IMLS Fellowships Message-ID: BM_1Page 1 IMLS Fellowships for Doctoral Studies The College of Information Science and Technology at Drexel University (IST) invites applications for IMLS/MDI (Management of Digital Information) fellowships for studies toward the Ph.D. program. The fellowships are funded by the IMLS "Librarians for the 21st Century" program. A total of five fellows will be selected; each will be awarded a full tuition fellowship, plus a research fellowship of $19,500 per year for at least two years. About the Fellowships A main objective of the program is to accelerate the development of new faculty for educating the next generation of library professionals. The library community is in critical need of professionals who have the knowledge and skills to provide digital services in a library environment, from organizing digital collections and providing access to various digital resources, to personalizing services for users of all ranges of skills and ethnic backgrounds. We expect to train the selected IMLS/MDI fellows to become leaders in educating such new library professionals. Applying to the Program We are seeking students who are passionate about Management of Digital Information (MDI), digital libraries, or serving the information needs of users in the digital environment. The successful applicant should meet all the admission requirements of our Ph.D. program (See the Program Web site http://www.cis.drexel.edu/ for details). Applicants are not required to have library work experience or a Master of Library Science degree. Familiarity with information technologies is desirable but not required. We encourage working professionals who have strong technical skills and who are not in the field of library and information science to apply. Applicants from underrepresented ethnic groups are particularly encouraged to apply. The application forms are available here link to http://www.drexel.edu/em/apply/ . The application procedure is the same as applying for our regular Ph.D. program. In your personal statement, however, you must state your interest in this fellowship and discuss how your background and research interest would fit this fellowship program. Early consideration for this fellowship starts December 2004. You are encouraged to submit applications earlier to receive full consideration. All of the fellows will start their studies in September 2005. Why IST? Founded in 1892, IST is an innovative and multidisciplinary college that educates outstanding information science and technology professionals. Drexel's ALA accredited M.S. in Library and Information Science is ranked number one for its specialized programs in information systems and ninth overall nationally by U.S. News & World Report. It's also ranked No.1 nationally. The College's Ph.D. program, founded in 1974, is an interdisciplinary degree built on a long tradition of excellence. Graduates of the _____ BM_2Page 2 program have been placed throughout the country and many become leaders in various areas of library and information science. Current active research areas in the College include Digital Libraries, Knowledge Management, Metadata and Ontology, Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, Information Visualization, Citation Analysis and Bibliometrics, and the Information Seeking Behavior of Urban Young Adults. For inquires or questions, please contact: Dr. Xia Lin, xia.lin at cis.drexel.edu 215-895-2482 Dr. Michael Atwood, mike.atwood at cis.drexel.edu 215-895-6273 Dr. Kate McCain, kate.McCain at cis.drexel.edu 215-895-2486 Dr. Sandra Hughes-Hassell, sandra.hughes at cis.drexel.edu 215-895-6628 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 jacso at HAWAII.EDU Wed Jan 5 15:33:43 2005 From: jacso at HAWAII.EDU (Peter Jacso) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:33:43 -1000 Subject: Drexel IMLS Fellowships Message-ID: Dear Gene, although I have not heard from you for quite a time directly, I have seen you active in alerting us of interesting papers thru SIGMETRICS, so I hope and presume you are well, and have the medical problems behind you, and I wish you Happy New year and good health. Best wishes peter p.s. as you may now our library school was totally destroyed by a flashflood in November, so I am back at square one with some of my research unfortunately, and I have been in emrgency mode ever since along with all the faculty members. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garfield, Eugene" Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2005 8:42 am Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Drexel IMLS Fellowships > > > > > > > > BM_1Page 1 > > IMLS Fellowships for Doctoral Studies > > The College of Information Science and Technology at Drexel > University (IST) > invites > > applications for IMLS/MDI (Management of Digital Information) > fellowshipsfor studies > > toward the Ph.D. program. The fellowships are funded by the IMLS > "Librariansfor the > > 21st Century" program. A total of five fellows will be selected; > each will > be awarded a > > full tuition fellowship, plus a research fellowship of $19,500 per > year for > at least two > > years. > > > > About the Fellowships > > A main objective of the program is to accelerate the development > of new > faculty for > > educating the next generation of library professionals. The library > community is in > > critical need of professionals who have the knowledge and skills > to provide > digital > > services in a library environment, from organizing digital > collections and > providing > > access to various digital resources, to personalizing services for > users of > all ranges of > > skills and ethnic backgrounds. We expect to train the selected > IMLS/MDIfellows to > > become leaders in educating such new library professionals. > > > > Applying to the Program > > We are seeking students who are passionate about Management of Digital > Information > > (MDI), digital libraries, or serving the information needs of > users in the > digital > > environment. The successful applicant should meet all the admission > requirements of our > > Ph.D. program (See the Program Web site http://www.cis.drexel.edu/ for > details). > > Applicants are not required to have library work experience or a > Master of > Library > > Science degree. Familiarity with information technologies is > desirable but > not required. > > We encourage working professionals who have strong technical > skills and who > are not in > > the field of library and information science to apply. Applicants from > underrepresented > > ethnic groups are particularly encouraged to apply. > > > > The application forms are available here link to > http://www.drexel.edu/em/apply/ > . The > > application procedure is the same as applying for our regular > Ph.D. program. > In your > > personal statement, however, you must state your interest in this > fellowshipand discuss > > how your background and research interest would fit this > fellowship program. > > > Early consideration for this fellowship starts December 2004. You are > encouraged to > > submit applications earlier to receive full consideration. All of the > fellows will start their > > studies in September 2005. > > > > Why IST? > > Founded in 1892, IST is an innovative and multidisciplinary > college that > educates > > outstanding information science and technology professionals. > Drexel's ALA > accredited > > M.S. in Library and Information Science is ranked number one for its > specialized > > programs in information systems and ninth overall nationally by > U.S. News & > World > > Report. It's also ranked No.1 nationally. The College's Ph.D. program, > founded in 1974, > > is an interdisciplinary degree built on a long tradition of > excellence.Graduates of the > > _____ > > > BM_2Page 2 > > program have been placed throughout the country and many become > leaders in > various > > areas of library and information science. Current active research > areas in > the College > > include Digital Libraries, Knowledge Management, Metadata and > Ontology,Computer- > > Supported Collaborative Learning, Information Visualization, Citation > Analysis and > > Bibliometrics, and the Information Seeking Behavior of Urban Young > Adults. > > > For inquires or questions, please contact: > > > > Dr. Xia Lin, > > xia.lin at cis.drexel.edu > > 215-895-2482 > > Dr. Michael Atwood, > > mike.atwood at cis.drexel.edu > > 215-895-6273 > > Dr. Kate McCain, > > kate.McCain at cis.drexel.edu > > 215-895-2486 > > Dr. Sandra Hughes-Hassell, > > sandra.hughes at cis.drexel.edu > > 215-895-6628 > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > From alan.pritchard at GMAIL.COM Thu Jan 6 02:03:41 2005 From: alan.pritchard at GMAIL.COM (Alan Pritchard) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 07:03:41 +0000 Subject: Emergence of new disciplines Message-ID: This question was posed in soc.history.science "*From:* DrJohnson1980 at hotmail.com (Johnson) "When can we speak of a new field? When does the era of a specialism (of the mother-science) end? When a new field is born?" Dear readers, I am looking for ideas and theories to describe the emerge of new scientific fields. For instance: biochemistry. When this was considered a new field? It's a cross-over of two sciences. When it has journals of its own? When it has dedicated meetings? When people start calling themselves biochemical scientists? Are there models who describe this process? Are there different 'typical paths' that are followed? Can evolutionary models be used for this purpose? Self-organization? What if only a few people are 'crossing' the boundaries of the different sciences? When do these 'early days' end? Any names of people involved in this research (the research of emerging fields in science)? I am curious! Thanks you for reading my posting. Mr. Johnson" It seems the sort of thing that I vaguely remember from years back using citation clustering or some such technique. It would seem to overlap with bibliometrics, scientometrics, sociology of science. If anyone can help the gentleman concerned, I'm sure he would be grateful. Best wishes Alan Pritchard The GLOBAL GAZETTEER?: the world on file http://www.allm-geodata.com Tel: +44 (0) 1202 417 477 NOTE my new email address: alan.pritchard at gmail.com From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Tue Jan 11 04:40:01 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:40:01 +0100 Subject: online journal maps extended with the Social Science Citation Index 2003 Message-ID: ** apologies for cross-postings ---------------------------------------- Dear colleagues, I extended the possibility to map journals online with the 1710 journals included in the Social Science Citation Index 2003. Social Science Citation Index 2003 citing (1710 journals) Social Science Citation Index 2003 cited Science Citation Index 2003 citing (5907 journals) Science Citation Index 2003 cited The files can also be accessed from http://www.leydesdorff.net/software. One can make maps from these files without further programming by importing the files into Pajek. Pajek is a visualization program (freeware) available at http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ : 1. Click on the journal name of interest; save the file as .txt file 2. Open Pajek; read the file under File > Network > Read; first set the "files of type" to all file-types (*.*) 3. Draw the picture; select, for example, under Layout > Energy > Kamada-Kawai 4. Return to Pajek for changing parameters or use the Options for coloring and resizing the pictures; the pictures can be exported as bmp. All files are so-called cosine matrices (Salton & McGill, 1983) with cosines included insofar as cosine ? 0.2. One can raise this threshold within Pajek by using Net > Transform > Remove, etc. (The threshold value of 0.2 may low for the Science Citation Index.) The input files can also be edited with an ASCII text editor. I intend to write a short manual shortly. Please, feel free to feedback. With kind regards, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ The Challenge of Scientometrics ; The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Wed Jan 12 07:39:20 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:39:20 +0000 Subject: Press Release: Berlin-3 Open Access Conference, Southampton, Feb 28 - Mar 1 2005 Message-ID: ** Apologies for cross-posting ** The 3rd international conference on implementing the Berlin Declaration on Open Acess will take place in Southampton February 28 - March 1 2005. http://www.eprints.org/berlin3/ The full programme will appear very shortly at that site. Contact details for the programme: Dr. Hans F Hoffmann CERN CH 1211 Gen?ve 23 Tel. +41 22 7675458/2849 Fax +41 22 7823011 email: hans.falk.hoffmann at cern.ch Temporary contact for the local host at Southampton: Dr. Steve Hitchcock sh94r at ecs.soton.ac.uk Prior Amsci Threads: "Berlin Declaration on Open Access" (Oct 2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3091.html "Draft letter for institutions to sign to implement Berlin Declaration" (Dec 2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3304.html "May 12 CERN meeting on implementing the Berlin Declaration" (May 2004) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3750.html "Next follow-up Open Access Conference or workshop in Southampton/UK" (Nov 2004) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4149.html 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 garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 12 13:42:37 2005 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Garfield, Eugene) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:42:37 -0500 Subject: FW: Paper no. 28 Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Happy New Year to all of you. Paper No. 28 (Research and Development: How the "D" got into R&D) in the series on the history and sociology of S&T statistics and indicators is now available at: http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_28.pdf . Abstract Research and development (R&D) is a central component of official definitions of science. R&D includes more than just research, however. Over two-thirds of R&D expenditures are actually devoted to development. When, how and by whose decision did development come to be part of our definition of research? What was the purpose of measuring R&D rather than research? This paper traces the history of the concept R&D through seventy years of work on taxonomies and statistics on research. It identifies three stages in the construction of development as a category. First, development was only a series or list of activities without a label, but identified for inclusion in questionnaire responses. Second, development came to be identified as such by way of creating a subcategory of research, alongside basic and applied research. Third, development became a separate category, alongside research. It gave us the acronym we now know and use: R&D. Although development is a category of industrial origins, three factors contributed to the inclusion of development in official definitions of research: organizational, analytical, and political. 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: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.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 harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Sun Jan 16 10:01:57 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:01:57 +0000 Subject: Enriching the Impact Regression Equation Message-ID: In the OACI Leiden statement (if there is to be one) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4082.html the following constructive recommendations could perhaps be made: The 2-year average number of citations to a journal (i.e., the ISI impact factor) is not meaningless and unpredictive, but merely a needlessly crude measure of the impact of either an article, an author or a journal. It can be gretaly refined and improved. Apart from exact citation counts for articles (and authors), and apart from avoiding the comparison of apples with oranges (by making sure these measures are used in comparing like with like), there are obvious ways that even journal impact factors could be made far more accurate and representative of true research impact. Right now, "like tends to cite like" in more ways than one! Not only do articles in phytology tend to cite articles in phytology, but average research tends to cite average research! This means that there is necessarily a quanitative citation bulge toward the middle (mean) of the distribution that masks any far more important qualitative impact from the smaller, higher quality tail-end of the distribution. There are at least five ways that this could be remedied -- and it makes no sense to wait for ISI, with their primary need to pay more attention to market matters, to get around to doing all this for us. A growing Open Access full-text corpus can count on many talented and enterprising doctoral students like Tim Brody doing this and more: (1) RECURSIVE "CiteRank": A recursive measure of citation of citation weight could replace flat citation counting: If article A cites article B, Article A's citation weight is not 1 but a normalized multiple of 1 based on the number of citations the *citing* article has itself received. This would go some way toward replacing the pure weight of numbers by a recursive measure of the weight of the numbers (without ever yet leaving the circle of citation counts themselves). Average work will lose some of its strength-of-numbers unless it manages to draw citations from above-average articles too (still in terms of citation counts). [This recursive technique is analogous to Google's PageRank, hence could perhaps be called CiteRank; it is ironic that Google got the idea of PageRank from citation ranking, but then improved it, yet the improvement has not yet percolated back to citation ranking, because ISI had no particular motive to implement it -- perhaps even a disincentive, as it might reduce the journal impact factor of the large, average journals which are of necessity ISI's numerical mainstay!] (2) USAGE COUNTS: The circularity of citation counting can also be broken in various ways. One is by adding download counts to the impact measure, not as a weight on the citation count, but as a second variable in a multiple regression equation. We know now from Tim Brody's findings that downloads correlate with and hence predict citations. That means citation counts plus download counts are better predictors of impact than just citation counts alone, and are especially good at correcting for early impact, which may not yet be felt in the citation counts. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/timbrody.new.doc (3) RATING SCORES: A more radical way to break out of the circularity of citation counting can be done in two ways: Systematic rating polls can easily be conducted, asking researchers (by field and subfield) to rank the N most important articles in their field in the past year (or two). Even with the inevitable incest this will evoke, a good-sized systematic sample will pick out the recurrent articles (because, by definition, local-average mediocrity effects are merely local) and then the rankings could either be used as (3a) a third independent variable in the impact regression equation or, perhaps more interestingly, as (3b) another constraint on the weighting of the CiteRank score (effectively making that weight the result of a 2nd order regression equation based on the citer's citation count aas well as on the citer's rating score: the download count could also be used instead as a 3rd component in this 2nd order regression). The result will be a still better adjustment of the citation count for an article (and hence an adjustment of the journal's average citation count too). (4) CO-CITATION & HUB-AUTHORITY SCORES: Although I would need to consult with a statistician to sort it out optimally, I am certain that co-citation (what article/author is co-cited with what article/author) can also be used to correct or add to the impact regression equation. So, I expect, could a hub (fan-in) and authority (fan-out) score, as well as a better use of citation latency (ISI's "immediacy factor") in the impact equation. (5) AUTHOR/JOURNAL SELF-CITATIONS: Another clean-up factor for citation counts is of course the elimination of self-citations, which would be interesting not only for author self-citations, but also journal self-citations: This ttoo might be added as another pair of variables in the regression equation (self-citation score and journal self-citation score), with the weight adjusting itself, as the variable's proves its predictivity. The predictivity and validity of the regression equation should of course also be actively tested and calibrated by validating it against (a) later citation impact, (b) subjective impact ratings (2, above), (c) other impact measures such as prizes, funding, and time-line descendents that are further than one citation-step away (A is cited by B, B is cited by C: this could be an uncited credit to A...) And all of this is without even mentioning full-text "semantic" analysis. So the potential world of impact analysis is a rich and diverse one. Let us not be parochial, focussing only on the limits of the ISI 2-year average journal citation-count that has become so mindlessly overused by libraries and assessors. Let us talk instead about the positive horizons OA opens up! Cheers, Stevan From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Mon Jan 17 01:45:17 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:45:17 +0100 Subject: Enriching the Impact Regression Equation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Stevan, An additional consideration which you wish to pay attention to, is the so-called ecological fallacy: "What is true for trees, is not necessarily true for a wood." On the one hand, the aggregation of citations to individual papers (using your methods) does not necessarily lead to a good indicator for journals and, on the other hand, journal self-citations are very different from author self-citations. Journal indicators (e.g., impact factors) are defined at the level of journals. The journals themselves as organizers may play a role in their values. But I agree that one should preferably look at the distributions (the variance) instead of the mean given the skewness of the distributions. With kind regards, Loet > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:02 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Enriching the Impact Regression Equation > > In the OACI Leiden statement (if there is to be one) > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4082.html > the following constructive recommendations could perhaps be made: > > The 2-year average number of citations to a journal (i.e., > the ISI impact > factor) is not meaningless and unpredictive, but merely a > needlessly crude measure of the impact of either an article, > an author or a journal. > It can be gretaly refined and improved. > > Apart from exact citation counts for articles (and authors), > and apart from avoiding the comparison of apples with oranges > (by making sure these measures are used in comparing like > with like), there are obvious ways that even journal impact > factors could be made far more accurate and representative of > true research impact. > > Right now, "like tends to cite like" in more ways than one! > Not only do articles in phytology tend to cite articles in > phytology, but average research tends to cite average > research! This means that there is necessarily a quanitative > citation bulge toward the middle (mean) of the distribution > that masks any far more important qualitative impact from the > smaller, higher quality tail-end of the distribution. > > There are at least five ways that this could be remedied -- > and it makes no sense to wait for ISI, with their primary > need to pay more attention to market matters, to get around > to doing all this for us. A growing Open Access full-text > corpus can count on many talented and enterprising doctoral > students like Tim Brody doing this and more: > > (1) RECURSIVE "CiteRank": A recursive measure of citation of > citation weight could replace flat citation counting: If > article A cites article B, Article A's citation weight is not > 1 but a normalized multiple of > 1 based on the number of citations the *citing* article has > itself received. This would go some way toward replacing the > pure weight of numbers by a recursive measure of the weight > of the numbers (without ever yet leaving the circle of > citation counts themselves). Average work will lose some of > its strength-of-numbers unless it manages to draw citations > from above-average articles too (still in terms of citation counts). > > [This recursive technique is analogous to Google's PageRank, > hence could perhaps be called CiteRank; it is ironic that > Google got the idea of PageRank from citation ranking, but > then improved it, yet the improvement has not yet percolated > back to citation ranking, because ISI had no particular > motive to implement it -- perhaps even a disincentive, as it > might reduce the journal impact factor of the large, average > journals which are of necessity ISI's numerical mainstay!] > > (2) USAGE COUNTS: The circularity of citation counting can > also be broken in various ways. One is by adding download > counts to the impact measure, not as a weight on the citation > count, but as a second variable in a multiple regression > equation. We know now from Tim Brody's findings that > downloads correlate with and hence predict citations. That > means citation counts plus download counts are better > predictors of impact than just citation counts alone, and are > especially good at correcting for early impact, which may not > yet be felt in the citation counts. > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/timbrody.new.doc > > (3) RATING SCORES: A more radical way to break out of the > circularity of citation counting can be done in two ways: > Systematic rating polls can easily be conducted, asking > researchers (by field and subfield) to rank the N most > important articles in their field in the past year (or two). > Even with the inevitable incest this will evoke, a good-sized > systematic sample will pick out the recurrent articles > (because, by definition, local-average mediocrity effects are > merely local) and then the rankings could either be used as > (3a) a third independent variable in the impact regression > equation or, perhaps more interestingly, as (3b) another > constraint on the weighting of the CiteRank score > (effectively making that weight the result of a 2nd order > regression equation based on the citer's citation count aas > well as on the citer's rating score: the download count could > also be used instead as a 3rd component in this 2nd order > regression). The result will be a still better adjustment of > the citation count for an article (and hence an adjustment of > the journal's average citation count too). > > (4) CO-CITATION & HUB-AUTHORITY SCORES: Although I would need > to consult with a statistician to sort it out optimally, I am > certain that co-citation (what article/author is co-cited > with what article/author) can also be used to correct or add > to the impact regression equation. So, I expect, could a hub > (fan-in) and authority (fan-out) score, as well as a better > use of citation latency (ISI's "immediacy factor") in the > impact equation. > > (5) AUTHOR/JOURNAL SELF-CITATIONS: Another clean-up factor > for citation counts is of course the elimination of > self-citations, which would be interesting not only for > author self-citations, but also journal > self-citations: This ttoo might be added as another pair of > variables in the regression equation (self-citation score and > journal self-citation score), with the weight adjusting > itself, as the variable's proves its predictivity. > > The predictivity and validity of the regression equation > should of course also be actively tested and calibrated by > validating it against > (a) later citation impact, (b) subjective impact ratings (2, > above), (c) other impact measures such as prizes, funding, > and time-line descendents that are further than one > citation-step away (A is cited by B, B is cited by C: this > could be an uncited credit to A...) > > And all of this is without even mentioning full-text > "semantic" analysis. > So the potential world of impact analysis is a rich and > diverse one. Let us not be parochial, focussing only on the > limits of the ISI 2-year average journal citation-count that > has become so mindlessly overused by libraries and assessors. > Let us talk instead about the positive horizons OA opens up! > > Cheers, Stevan > From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Mon Jan 17 08:36:59 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:36:59 +0000 Subject: Enriching the Impact Regression Equation In-Reply-To: <200501170645.HAA09967@hebe.uva.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > Dear Stevan, > > An additional consideration which you wish to pay attention to, is the > so-called ecological fallacy: "What is true for trees, is not necessarily > true for a wood." On the one hand, the aggregation of citations to > individual papers (using your methods) does not necessarily lead to a good > indicator for journals and, on the other hand, journal self-citations are > very different from author self-citations. Dear Loet, thanks for your reply. You are right, but the advantage of a multple regression equation is that it can be used for and validated (and regression-weights adjusted) against whatever one likes. So if what one wants the impact equation to predict is article/author research impact, one adjusts the weights accordingly. If it is merely journal usage, one can adjust them otherwise. > Journal indicators (e.g., impact factors) are defined at the level of > journals. The journals themselves as organizers may play a role in their > values. But I agree that one should preferably look at the distributions > (the variance) instead of the mean given the skewness of the distributions. More than the variance! The regression equation would add many other impact indicators; and the specific recursive adjustment I proposed ("CiteRank") would go well beyond mere variance and distribution of the citation counts too. (Btw, is the Bach on http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/list.htm played by man or machine?) Best wishes, Stevan > With kind regards, > > > Loet > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:02 PM > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Enriching the Impact Regression Equation > > > > In the OACI Leiden statement (if there is to be one) > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4082.html > > the following constructive recommendations could perhaps be made: > > > > The 2-year average number of citations to a journal (i.e., > > the ISI impact > > factor) is not meaningless and unpredictive, but merely a > > needlessly crude measure of the impact of either an article, > > an author or a journal. > > It can be gretaly refined and improved. > > > > Apart from exact citation counts for articles (and authors), > > and apart from avoiding the comparison of apples with oranges > > (by making sure these measures are used in comparing like > > with like), there are obvious ways that even journal impact > > factors could be made far more accurate and representative of > > true research impact. > > > > Right now, "like tends to cite like" in more ways than one! > > Not only do articles in phytology tend to cite articles in > > phytology, but average research tends to cite average > > research! This means that there is necessarily a quanitative > > citation bulge toward the middle (mean) of the distribution > > that masks any far more important qualitative impact from the > > smaller, higher quality tail-end of the distribution. > > > > There are at least five ways that this could be remedied -- > > and it makes no sense to wait for ISI, with their primary > > need to pay more attention to market matters, to get around > > to doing all this for us. A growing Open Access full-text > > corpus can count on many talented and enterprising doctoral > > students like Tim Brody doing this and more: > > > > (1) RECURSIVE "CiteRank": A recursive measure of citation of > > citation weight could replace flat citation counting: If > > article A cites article B, Article A's citation weight is not > > 1 but a normalized multiple of > > 1 based on the number of citations the *citing* article has > > itself received. This would go some way toward replacing the > > pure weight of numbers by a recursive measure of the weight > > of the numbers (without ever yet leaving the circle of > > citation counts themselves). Average work will lose some of > > its strength-of-numbers unless it manages to draw citations > > from above-average articles too (still in terms of citation counts). > > > > [This recursive technique is analogous to Google's PageRank, > > hence could perhaps be called CiteRank; it is ironic that > > Google got the idea of PageRank from citation ranking, but > > then improved it, yet the improvement has not yet percolated > > back to citation ranking, because ISI had no particular > > motive to implement it -- perhaps even a disincentive, as it > > might reduce the journal impact factor of the large, average > > journals which are of necessity ISI's numerical mainstay!] > > > > (2) USAGE COUNTS: The circularity of citation counting can > > also be broken in various ways. One is by adding download > > counts to the impact measure, not as a weight on the citation > > count, but as a second variable in a multiple regression > > equation. We know now from Tim Brody's findings that > > downloads correlate with and hence predict citations. That > > means citation counts plus download counts are better > > predictors of impact than just citation counts alone, and are > > especially good at correcting for early impact, which may not > > yet be felt in the citation counts. > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/timbrody.new.doc > > > > (3) RATING SCORES: A more radical way to break out of the > > circularity of citation counting can be done in two ways: > > Systematic rating polls can easily be conducted, asking > > researchers (by field and subfield) to rank the N most > > important articles in their field in the past year (or two). > > Even with the inevitable incest this will evoke, a good-sized > > systematic sample will pick out the recurrent articles > > (because, by definition, local-average mediocrity effects are > > merely local) and then the rankings could either be used as > > (3a) a third independent variable in the impact regression > > equation or, perhaps more interestingly, as (3b) another > > constraint on the weighting of the CiteRank score > > (effectively making that weight the result of a 2nd order > > regression equation based on the citer's citation count aas > > well as on the citer's rating score: the download count could > > also be used instead as a 3rd component in this 2nd order > > regression). The result will be a still better adjustment of > > the citation count for an article (and hence an adjustment of > > the journal's average citation count too). > > > > (4) CO-CITATION & HUB-AUTHORITY SCORES: Although I would need > > to consult with a statistician to sort it out optimally, I am > > certain that co-citation (what article/author is co-cited > > with what article/author) can also be used to correct or add > > to the impact regression equation. So, I expect, could a hub > > (fan-in) and authority (fan-out) score, as well as a better > > use of citation latency (ISI's "immediacy factor") in the > > impact equation. > > > > (5) AUTHOR/JOURNAL SELF-CITATIONS: Another clean-up factor > > for citation counts is of course the elimination of > > self-citations, which would be interesting not only for > > author self-citations, but also journal > > self-citations: This ttoo might be added as another pair of > > variables in the regression equation (self-citation score and > > journal self-citation score), with the weight adjusting > > itself, as the variable's proves its predictivity. > > > > The predictivity and validity of the regression equation > > should of course also be actively tested and calibrated by > > validating it against > > (a) later citation impact, (b) subjective impact ratings (2, > > above), (c) other impact measures such as prizes, funding, > > and time-line descendents that are further than one > > citation-step away (A is cited by B, B is cited by C: this > > could be an uncited credit to A...) > > > > And all of this is without even mentioning full-text > > "semantic" analysis. > > So the potential world of impact analysis is a rich and > > diverse one. Let us not be parochial, focussing only on the > > limits of the ISI 2-year average journal citation-count that > > has become so mindlessly overused by libraries and assessors. > > Let us talk instead about the positive horizons OA opens up! > > > > Cheers, Stevan > > > From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Mon Jan 17 12:55:55 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:55:55 +0100 Subject: Enriching the Impact Regression Equation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, Stevan, I agree that one should go in the direction of multiple regression analysis or structural equation models if one wishes to explain journal impact. See as a nice example: Weiping Yue and Concepcion S. Wilson, "An Integrated Approach for the Analysis of Factors Affecting Journal Citation Impact in Clinical Neurology," Proceedings ASIST 2004, pp. 527 ff. Note that the ecological fallacy may sometimes change not only the size, but also the sign of the regression coefficients. With kind regards, Loet > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 2:37 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Enriching the Impact Regression Equation > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > > > Dear Stevan, > > > > An additional consideration which you wish to pay attention > to, is the > > so-called ecological fallacy: "What is true for trees, is not > > necessarily true for a wood." On the one hand, the aggregation of > > citations to individual papers (using your methods) does not > > necessarily lead to a good indicator for journals and, on the other > > hand, journal self-citations are very different from author > self-citations. > > Dear Loet, thanks for your reply. > > You are right, but the advantage of a multple regression > equation is that it can be used for and validated (and > regression-weights adjusted) against whatever one likes. So > if what one wants the impact equation to predict is > article/author research impact, one adjusts the weights > accordingly. If it is merely journal usage, one can adjust > them otherwise. > > > Journal indicators (e.g., impact factors) are defined at > the level of > > journals. The journals themselves as organizers may play a role in > > their values. But I agree that one should preferably look at the > > distributions (the variance) instead of the mean given the > skewness of the distributions. > > More than the variance! The regression equation would add > many other impact indicators; and the specific recursive > adjustment I proposed ("CiteRank") would go well beyond mere > variance and distribution of the citation counts too. > > (Btw, is the Bach on http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/list.htm > played by man or machine?) > > Best wishes, > > Stevan > > > With kind regards, > > > > > > Loet > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:02 PM > > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Enriching the Impact Regression Equation > > > > > > In the OACI Leiden statement (if there is to be one) > > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4082.html > > > the following constructive recommendations could perhaps be made: > > > > > > The 2-year average number of citations to a journal > (i.e., the ISI > > > impact > > > factor) is not meaningless and unpredictive, but merely a > needlessly > > > crude measure of the impact of either an article, an author or a > > > journal. > > > It can be gretaly refined and improved. > > > > > > Apart from exact citation counts for articles (and authors), and > > > apart from avoiding the comparison of apples with oranges > (by making > > > sure these measures are used in comparing like with > like), there are > > > obvious ways that even journal impact factors could be > made far more > > > accurate and representative of true research impact. > > > > > > Right now, "like tends to cite like" in more ways than one! > > > Not only do articles in phytology tend to cite articles in > > > phytology, but average research tends to cite average > research! This > > > means that there is necessarily a quanitative citation > bulge toward > > > the middle (mean) of the distribution that masks any far more > > > important qualitative impact from the smaller, higher quality > > > tail-end of the distribution. > > > > > > There are at least five ways that this could be remedied > -- and it > > > makes no sense to wait for ISI, with their primary need > to pay more > > > attention to market matters, to get around to doing all > this for us. > > > A growing Open Access full-text corpus can count on many talented > > > and enterprising doctoral students like Tim Brody doing this and > > > more: > > > > > > (1) RECURSIVE "CiteRank": A recursive measure of citation of > > > citation weight could replace flat citation counting: If > article A > > > cites article B, Article A's citation weight is not > > > 1 but a normalized multiple of > > > 1 based on the number of citations the *citing* article > has itself > > > received. This would go some way toward replacing the > pure weight of > > > numbers by a recursive measure of the weight of the > numbers (without > > > ever yet leaving the circle of citation counts > themselves). Average > > > work will lose some of its strength-of-numbers unless it > manages to > > > draw citations from above-average articles too (still in terms of > > > citation counts). > > > > > > [This recursive technique is analogous to Google's > PageRank, hence > > > could perhaps be called CiteRank; it is ironic that > Google got the > > > idea of PageRank from citation ranking, but then improved it, yet > > > the improvement has not yet percolated back to citation ranking, > > > because ISI had no particular motive to implement it -- > perhaps even > > > a disincentive, as it might reduce the journal impact > factor of the > > > large, average journals which are of necessity ISI's numerical > > > mainstay!] > > > > > > (2) USAGE COUNTS: The circularity of citation counting > can also be > > > broken in various ways. One is by adding download counts to the > > > impact measure, not as a weight on the citation count, but as a > > > second variable in a multiple regression equation. We > know now from > > > Tim Brody's findings that downloads correlate with and > hence predict > > > citations. That means citation counts plus download counts are > > > better predictors of impact than just citation counts > alone, and are > > > especially good at correcting for early impact, which may > not yet be > > > felt in the citation counts. > > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/timbrody.new.doc > > > > > > (3) RATING SCORES: A more radical way to break out of the > > > circularity of citation counting can be done in two ways: > > > Systematic rating polls can easily be conducted, asking > researchers > > > (by field and subfield) to rank the N most important articles in > > > their field in the past year (or two). > > > Even with the inevitable incest this will evoke, a good-sized > > > systematic sample will pick out the recurrent articles > (because, by > > > definition, local-average mediocrity effects are merely > local) and > > > then the rankings could either be used as > > > (3a) a third independent variable in the impact > regression equation > > > or, perhaps more interestingly, as (3b) another constraint on the > > > weighting of the CiteRank score (effectively making that > weight the > > > result of a 2nd order regression equation based on the citer's > > > citation count aas well as on the citer's rating score: > the download > > > count could also be used instead as a 3rd component in this 2nd > > > order regression). The result will be a still better > adjustment of > > > the citation count for an article (and hence an adjustment of the > > > journal's average citation count too). > > > > > > (4) CO-CITATION & HUB-AUTHORITY SCORES: Although I would need to > > > consult with a statistician to sort it out optimally, I > am certain > > > that co-citation (what article/author is co-cited with what > > > article/author) can also be used to correct or add to the impact > > > regression equation. So, I expect, could a hub > > > (fan-in) and authority (fan-out) score, as well as a > better use of > > > citation latency (ISI's "immediacy factor") in the impact > equation. > > > > > > (5) AUTHOR/JOURNAL SELF-CITATIONS: Another clean-up factor for > > > citation counts is of course the elimination of self-citations, > > > which would be interesting not only for author > self-citations, but > > > also journal > > > self-citations: This ttoo might be added as another pair of > > > variables in the regression equation (self-citation score and > > > journal self-citation score), with the weight adjusting > itself, as > > > the variable's proves its predictivity. > > > > > > The predictivity and validity of the regression equation > should of > > > course also be actively tested and calibrated by validating it > > > against > > > (a) later citation impact, (b) subjective impact ratings > (2, above), > > > (c) other impact measures such as prizes, funding, and time-line > > > descendents that are further than one citation-step away > (A is cited > > > by B, B is cited by C: this could be an uncited credit to A...) > > > > > > And all of this is without even mentioning full-text "semantic" > > > analysis. > > > So the potential world of impact analysis is a rich and > diverse one. > > > Let us not be parochial, focussing only on the limits of the ISI > > > 2-year average journal citation-count that has become so > mindlessly > > > overused by libraries and assessors. > > > Let us talk instead about the positive horizons OA opens up! > > > > > > Cheers, Stevan > > > > > > From victor_list at YAHOO.COM Mon Jan 17 15:11:28 2005 From: victor_list at YAHOO.COM (Victor Kuperman) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:11:28 -0800 Subject: bi-local science? Message-ID: Hello SIGMETRICS, In a number of relatively small "paramedical" disciplines (medical ethics, medical humanities, medical anthropology, literature-and-medicine etc.), it is often the case that journals with predominantly North American population of authors and editors coexist with the journals of (chiefly) European authorship. These journals usually have a very similar scope of interest, and some even bear almost identical names (e.g. Medical Humanities vs. Journal of Medical Humanities; Medical Anthropology vs. Anthropology and Medicine). I am sure that this "bi-locality" of scientific journals is known to many other fields and is well studied. Can anyone point me to research that quantitatively describes the competitive coexistence of American and European (English-language) journals in disciplines, which are represented by only a few journals and a limited pool of authors? Are there identifiable "camps"? If so, are there measures of what countries lean to what camp? Thank you, Victor Kuperman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From quentinburrell at MANX.NET Mon Jan 17 16:10:25 2005 From: quentinburrell at MANX.NET (Quentin L. Burrell) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:10:25 -0000 Subject: Enriching the Impact Regression Equation Message-ID: I congratulate Stevan and Loet for demonstrating the potential value of SIGMETRICS as a discussion forum - something I have pleaded for in the past. Can I chip in a few brief comments on the current theme. I feel that trying to get people away from impact factors as an adequate measure is similar to getting politicians away from quoting "the average family". Variability and statistical distributions are completely ignored with the result that much information is disposed of/lost/ignored. Loet notes the skewness of the distributions and advocates use of variance, but unfortunately this is based on second moments whereas skewness is based on third moments. Hence at least the first three moments of the distribution are relevant. Indeed, I would argue that the entire distribution is of importance. Stevan seems to say that multiple regression models sort everything out. Multiple regression was not a viable technique before the advent of computers. Now it is all too viable, giving "fits" to models whether or not the models are appropriate. I feel that a certain caution should be exercised in analyses that are purely data analysis based and rather more attention paid to the theoretical assumptions on which the models are based. My own inclination is to a model building rather than a data stripping approach. So far as impact is concerned, there is an important (in my view!) paper by Frandsen and Rousseau (JASIST 56, 58-62) that dissects the various components that go to determine impact. I am currently working on a stochastic formulation of the same sort of issues that I hope will shed some light on the mean/var/skew/"shape"/"concentration" aspects of impact factors. Quentin Dr Quentin L Burrell Isle of Man International Business School The Nunnery Old Castletown Road Douglas Isle of Man IM9 4EX via United Kingdom q.burrell at ibs.ac.im www.ibs.ac.im ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loet Leydesdorff" To: Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Enriching the Impact Regression Equation > Yes, Stevan, I agree that one should go in the direction of multiple > regression analysis or structural equation models if one wishes to explain > journal impact. See as a nice example: > > Weiping Yue and Concepcion S. Wilson, "An Integrated Approach for the > Analysis of Factors Affecting Journal Citation Impact in Clinical > Neurology," Proceedings ASIST 2004, pp. 527 ff. > > Note that the ecological fallacy may sometimes change not only the size, > but > also the sign of the regression coefficients. > > With kind regards, > > > Loet > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >> [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad >> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 2:37 PM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Enriching the Impact Regression Equation >> >> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: >> >> > Dear Stevan, >> > >> > An additional consideration which you wish to pay attention >> to, is the >> > so-called ecological fallacy: "What is true for trees, is not >> > necessarily true for a wood." On the one hand, the aggregation of >> > citations to individual papers (using your methods) does not >> > necessarily lead to a good indicator for journals and, on the other >> > hand, journal self-citations are very different from author >> self-citations. >> >> Dear Loet, thanks for your reply. >> >> You are right, but the advantage of a multple regression >> equation is that it can be used for and validated (and >> regression-weights adjusted) against whatever one likes. So >> if what one wants the impact equation to predict is >> article/author research impact, one adjusts the weights >> accordingly. If it is merely journal usage, one can adjust >> them otherwise. >> >> > Journal indicators (e.g., impact factors) are defined at >> the level of >> > journals. The journals themselves as organizers may play a role in >> > their values. But I agree that one should preferably look at the >> > distributions (the variance) instead of the mean given the >> skewness of the distributions. >> >> More than the variance! The regression equation would add >> many other impact indicators; and the specific recursive >> adjustment I proposed ("CiteRank") would go well beyond mere >> variance and distribution of the citation counts too. >> >> (Btw, is the Bach on http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/list.htm >> played by man or machine?) >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Stevan >> >> > With kind regards, >> > >> > >> > Loet >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >> > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad >> > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:02 PM >> > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Enriching the Impact Regression Equation >> > > >> > > In the OACI Leiden statement (if there is to be one) >> > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4082.html >> > > the following constructive recommendations could perhaps be made: >> > > >> > > The 2-year average number of citations to a journal >> (i.e., the ISI >> > > impact >> > > factor) is not meaningless and unpredictive, but merely a >> needlessly >> > > crude measure of the impact of either an article, an author or a >> > > journal. >> > > It can be gretaly refined and improved. >> > > >> > > Apart from exact citation counts for articles (and authors), and >> > > apart from avoiding the comparison of apples with oranges >> (by making >> > > sure these measures are used in comparing like with >> like), there are >> > > obvious ways that even journal impact factors could be >> made far more >> > > accurate and representative of true research impact. >> > > >> > > Right now, "like tends to cite like" in more ways than one! >> > > Not only do articles in phytology tend to cite articles in >> > > phytology, but average research tends to cite average >> research! This >> > > means that there is necessarily a quanitative citation >> bulge toward >> > > the middle (mean) of the distribution that masks any far more >> > > important qualitative impact from the smaller, higher quality >> > > tail-end of the distribution. >> > > >> > > There are at least five ways that this could be remedied >> -- and it >> > > makes no sense to wait for ISI, with their primary need >> to pay more >> > > attention to market matters, to get around to doing all >> this for us. >> > > A growing Open Access full-text corpus can count on many talented >> > > and enterprising doctoral students like Tim Brody doing this and >> > > more: >> > > >> > > (1) RECURSIVE "CiteRank": A recursive measure of citation of >> > > citation weight could replace flat citation counting: If >> article A >> > > cites article B, Article A's citation weight is not >> > > 1 but a normalized multiple of >> > > 1 based on the number of citations the *citing* article >> has itself >> > > received. This would go some way toward replacing the >> pure weight of >> > > numbers by a recursive measure of the weight of the >> numbers (without >> > > ever yet leaving the circle of citation counts >> themselves). Average >> > > work will lose some of its strength-of-numbers unless it >> manages to >> > > draw citations from above-average articles too (still in terms of >> > > citation counts). >> > > >> > > [This recursive technique is analogous to Google's >> PageRank, hence >> > > could perhaps be called CiteRank; it is ironic that >> Google got the >> > > idea of PageRank from citation ranking, but then improved it, yet >> > > the improvement has not yet percolated back to citation ranking, >> > > because ISI had no particular motive to implement it -- >> perhaps even >> > > a disincentive, as it might reduce the journal impact >> factor of the >> > > large, average journals which are of necessity ISI's numerical >> > > mainstay!] >> > > >> > > (2) USAGE COUNTS: The circularity of citation counting >> can also be >> > > broken in various ways. One is by adding download counts to the >> > > impact measure, not as a weight on the citation count, but as a >> > > second variable in a multiple regression equation. We >> know now from >> > > Tim Brody's findings that downloads correlate with and >> hence predict >> > > citations. That means citation counts plus download counts are >> > > better predictors of impact than just citation counts >> alone, and are >> > > especially good at correcting for early impact, which may >> not yet be >> > > felt in the citation counts. >> > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/timbrody.new.doc >> > > >> > > (3) RATING SCORES: A more radical way to break out of the >> > > circularity of citation counting can be done in two ways: >> > > Systematic rating polls can easily be conducted, asking >> researchers >> > > (by field and subfield) to rank the N most important articles in >> > > their field in the past year (or two). >> > > Even with the inevitable incest this will evoke, a good-sized >> > > systematic sample will pick out the recurrent articles >> (because, by >> > > definition, local-average mediocrity effects are merely >> local) and >> > > then the rankings could either be used as >> > > (3a) a third independent variable in the impact >> regression equation >> > > or, perhaps more interestingly, as (3b) another constraint on the >> > > weighting of the CiteRank score (effectively making that >> weight the >> > > result of a 2nd order regression equation based on the citer's >> > > citation count aas well as on the citer's rating score: >> the download >> > > count could also be used instead as a 3rd component in this 2nd >> > > order regression). The result will be a still better >> adjustment of >> > > the citation count for an article (and hence an adjustment of the >> > > journal's average citation count too). >> > > >> > > (4) CO-CITATION & HUB-AUTHORITY SCORES: Although I would need to >> > > consult with a statistician to sort it out optimally, I >> am certain >> > > that co-citation (what article/author is co-cited with what >> > > article/author) can also be used to correct or add to the impact >> > > regression equation. So, I expect, could a hub >> > > (fan-in) and authority (fan-out) score, as well as a >> better use of >> > > citation latency (ISI's "immediacy factor") in the impact >> equation. >> > > >> > > (5) AUTHOR/JOURNAL SELF-CITATIONS: Another clean-up factor for >> > > citation counts is of course the elimination of self-citations, >> > > which would be interesting not only for author >> self-citations, but >> > > also journal >> > > self-citations: This ttoo might be added as another pair of >> > > variables in the regression equation (self-citation score and >> > > journal self-citation score), with the weight adjusting >> itself, as >> > > the variable's proves its predictivity. >> > > >> > > The predictivity and validity of the regression equation >> should of >> > > course also be actively tested and calibrated by validating it >> > > against >> > > (a) later citation impact, (b) subjective impact ratings >> (2, above), >> > > (c) other impact measures such as prizes, funding, and time-line >> > > descendents that are further than one citation-step away >> (A is cited >> > > by B, B is cited by C: this could be an uncited credit to A...) >> > > >> > > And all of this is without even mentioning full-text "semantic" >> > > analysis. >> > > So the potential world of impact analysis is a rich and >> diverse one. >> > > Let us not be parochial, focussing only on the limits of the ISI >> > > 2-year average journal citation-count that has become so >> mindlessly >> > > overused by libraries and assessors. >> > > Let us talk instead about the positive horizons OA opens up! >> > > >> > > Cheers, Stevan >> > > >> > >> From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Mon Jan 17 16:12:29 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:12:29 +0000 Subject: Please register your OA Archive and your OA Policy Message-ID: ** Apologies for Cross-Posting ** In preparation for the Berlin 3 international meeting on implementing institutional Open Access Provision Policy in February in Southampton http://www.eprints.org/berlin3/program.html it would be a great help if all institutions that already have OA Archives would register them in the Registry of Institutional OA Archives Current listing of OA Archives Registry (250 archives) http://archives.eprints.org/index.php?action=browse To register your own institutional OA archive(s) http://archives.eprints.org/index.php?action=add This Registry will then chart the growth of your archive. (Please make sure your metadata are picked up by http://celestial.eprints.org/) http://archives.eprints.org/index.php?page=all Up-to-date time charts on the growth of OA Archives and their contents worldwide will provide an incentive to further instutions to create their own. If your institution (or department) also has an OA Provision (Self-Archiving) Policy, please register it in the Registry of Institutional OA Policies. Current listing of OA Policy Registry (9 institutions): http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php To register your own institutional OA provision policy: http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php Policies (9 registered so far) are even more important than archives (250 registered so far) in order to ensure that the archives fill rapidly and reliably with their institution's research article output. 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 victor_list at YAHOO.COM Mon Jan 17 17:10:10 2005 From: victor_list at YAHOO.COM (Victor Kuperman) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:10:10 -0800 Subject: bi-local science? Message-ID: Hello SIGMETRICS, In a number of relatively small "paramedical" disciplines (medical ethics, medical humanities, medical anthropology, literature-and-medicine etc.), it is often the case that journals with predominantly North American population of authors and editors coexist with the journals of (chiefly) European authorship. These journals have very similar scopes of study, and some even bear almost identical names (e.g. Medical Humanities vs. Journal of Medical Humanities; Medical Anthropology vs. Anthropology and Medicine). I am sure that this "bi-locality" of scientific journals is known to many other fields and is well studied. Can anyone point me to research that quantitatively describes the coexistence of American and European (English-language) journals in disciplines, which are represented by only a few journals and a limited pool of authors? Are there identifiable "camps"? If so, are there measures of what countries lean to what "camp"? Thank you, Victor Kuperman __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Tue Jan 18 02:20:03 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:20:03 +0100 Subject: Enriching the Impact Regression Equation In-Reply-To: <008701c4fcd8$f6cdbb70$0301a8c0@quentin> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Some of you may have seen the Pajek files that I made available for mapping the journals of the Science Citation Index at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr03/cited and at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr03/citing . I am considering to extend this representation by giving the vertices (nodes) the size of the citations/publications (c/p) ratio as a measure of (average) impact in this local environment. Since the matrix is at most places nearly decomposable, this local impact is probably more meaningful than the global impact over the file. (The threshold for inclusion in the journal environment was set to 1% of total cited/citing.) I first considered using the impact factor, but thinking it over I realized that the impact factor combines two normalizations: (1) the size effect and (2) a kind of normalization over the time axis by using the two previous years. However, it seems to me that the whole archive is always cited and not just the last two years. The citation window and obsolescence of publications can be expected to vary among disciplines. Thus, this normalization over the time axis is not meaningful. Therefore, it seems as clear (or unclear) to use just the c/p ratio. Would you agree? The c/p ratio has an intuitive interpretation. Since I can vary the size independently in the horizontal and the vertical direction, I am considering to use the c/p ratio for the horizontal dimension and perhaps total citing/total cited for the vertical one. Any suggestions among this esteemed audience to do it differently (e.g., total cited/total citing)? Would this be useful also for librarians? Or would it be confusing? I am not sure how clear this will be in the eventual pictures, but I'll let you know in due time when everything is in place. With kind regards, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Jan 18 15:59:56 2005 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Garfield, Eugene) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:59:56 -0500 Subject: bi-local science? Message-ID: You probably find lots of examples by studying the ISI Journal Citation Reports. What is your definition of "limited". This is quite vague, but in any case there are many ways to study such patterns if you specify one or two key journals in whatever field you wish to mention. Co-citation studies may also help reveal what you are seeking. Eugene Garfield __________________________________________________ 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 400 Market Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2501 Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com 3501 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3302 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu]On Behalf Of Victor Kuperman Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:10 PM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] bi-local science? Hello SIGMETRICS, In a number of relatively small "paramedical" disciplines (medical ethics, medical humanities, medical anthropology, literature-and-medicine etc.), it is often the case that journals with predominantly North American population of authors and editors coexist with the journals of (chiefly) European authorship. These journals have very similar scopes of study, and some even bear almost identical names (e.g. Medical Humanities vs. Journal of Medical Humanities; Medical Anthropology vs. Anthropology and Medicine). I am sure that this "bi-locality" of scientific journals is known to many other fields and is well studied. Can anyone point me to research that quantitatively describes the coexistence of American and European (English-language) journals in disciplines, which are represented by only a few journals and a limited pool of authors? Are there identifiable "camps"? If so, are there measures of what countries lean to what "camp"? Thank you, Victor Kuperman __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 jortega at CINDOC.CSIC.ES Fri Jan 21 07:45:34 2005 From: jortega at CINDOC.CSIC.ES (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Luis_Ortega?=) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:45:34 +0100 Subject: about ranges in MDS Message-ID: I have a question for mathematicians: The cosine have a range [0,1] and Pearson's Coefficient [1,-1]. If i build a matrix distance with these measures, can theses different ranges affect in a MDS display of the data? and How? more spreading or less? Thank you Jos? Luis Ortega Priego Internet Lab CINDOC-CSIC Joaqu?n Costa, 22 28002 Madrid(SPAIN) http://internetlab.cindoc.csic.es/miembros.asp?id=11 From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Jan 21 08:30:56 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:30:56 +0100 Subject: about ranges in MDS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Jose Luis, You get more spreading with the Pearson correlation. See: Jones, W. P., & G. W. Furnas. (1987). Pictures of Relevance: A Geometric Analysis of Similarity Measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36(6), 420-442. With kind regards, Loet > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Jos? Luis Ortega > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 1:46 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] about ranges in MDS > > I have a question for mathematicians: > > The cosine have a range [0,1] and Pearson's Coefficient > [1,-1]. If i build a matrix distance with these measures, can > theses different ranges affect in a MDS display of the data? > and How? more spreading or less? > > Thank you > > Jos? Luis Ortega Priego > Internet Lab > CINDOC-CSIC > Joaqu?n Costa, 22 > 28002 Madrid(SPAIN) > http://internetlab.cindoc.csic.es/miembros.asp?id=11 > From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sat Jan 22 14:49:26 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:49:26 +0100 Subject: The Knowledge Base of Regional Innovation Systems in Germany Message-ID: Measuring the Knowledge Base of Regional Innovation Systems in Germany in terms of a Triple Helix dynamics Paper to be presented at the Fifth International Triple Helix Conference, 18-21 May 2005, Turin Loet Leydesdorff [1] & Michael Fritsch [2] Abstract The knowledge base of an economy adds another feedback loop to a political economy. While a market economy seeks equilibrium, a knowledge-based economy upsets this tendency towards stabilization by adding the non-linear feedback of globalization. The interaction among the three subdynamics of economic exchange, technological innovation, and institutional control can be captured with a Triple Helix model of innovation. We propose to use the mutual information among these three subdynamics as an indicator of development at the systems level. On the basis of data at the district level in Germany the conclusions of a previous study about the Netherlands will be tested: medium-tech manufacturing is the main driver of a knowledge-based configuration in a regional economy, while knowledge-intensive services tend to uncouple the economy from the regional configuration. Some regions in the former East Germany have been successful in profiting from the coupling at the high-tech end of the knowledge-intensive services. At the level of regions (NUTS-2) the knowledge-based economy is no longer structured by the previous East-West divide, while this divide has remained the main structure at the level of the states (NUTS-1) which constitute the Federal Republic. The effects of high and medium-tech are not specific for the western or eastern parts of the country. Figure 4: The mutual information in three dimensions at the NUTS-1 and NUTS-2 levels, respectively ** apologies for cross-postings _____ 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: clip_image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3597 bytes Desc: not available URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Wed Jan 26 14:05:26 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:05:26 +0100 Subject: Classification, Powerlaws, and the Logarithmic Transformation Message-ID: Classification, Powerlaws, and the Logarithmic Transformation Loet Leydesdorff & Stephen Bensman Abstract Logarithmic transformation of the data has been recommended by the literature in the case of highly skewed distributions such as those commonly found in information science. The purpose of the transformation is to make the data conform to the lognormal law of error for inferential purposes. How does this transformation affect the initial analysis? We factor analyze and visualize the citation environment of the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) before and after a logarithmic transformation. The transformation strongly reduces the variance necessary for classificatory purposes and therefore is counterproductive to the purposes of the descriptive statistics. We recommend against the logarithmic transformation when sets cannot be defined unambiguously. The intellectual organization of the sciences is reflected in the curvilinear parts of the citation distributions, while negative powerlaws fit excellently to the tails of the distributions. _____ 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: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1101 bytes Desc: not available URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Jan 27 21:05:52 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:05:52 +0000 Subject: Institutional repositories and research assessment in the UK Message-ID: Excerpt from Peter Suber's Open Access News http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_01_23_fosblogarchive.html#a110675531506890278 Michael Day, Institutional repositories and research assessment, http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints-uk/docs/studies/rae/rae-study.pdf a supporting study for the ePrints UK http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints-uk/docs/ project, v. 0.1 (draft), December 2, 2004. Abstract: 'This study concerns the potential role of institutional repositories in supporting research assessment in universities with specific reference to the Research Assessment Exercises in the UK. After a brief look at research evaluation methods, it introduces the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), focusing on its role in determining the distribution of research funding, the assessment process itself, and some concerns that have been raised by participants and observers. The study will then introduce institutional repositories and consider the ways in which they might be used to enhance the research assessment process in the UK. It will first consider the role of repositories in providing institutional support for the submission and review process. Secondly, the paper will consider the ways in which citation linking between papers in repositories might be used as the basis for generating quantitative data on research impact that could be used for assessment. Thirdly, this study will consider other ways in which repositories might be able to provide quantitative data, e.g. usage statistics or Webometric link data, which may be able to be used - together with other indicators - to support the evaluation of research.'