From e.fernandez-polcuch at UIS.UNESCO.ORG Mon Oct 3 09:33:56 2005 From: e.fernandez-polcuch at UIS.UNESCO.ORG (Fernandez Polcuch, Ernesto) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:33:56 -0600 Subject: Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in Research Message-ID: Dear Stevan and Gene, Thanks for this interesting discussion. To the points made by Gene I would like to add that in order to actually manage to cite a paper (and your citation be counted by someone), you need not only "read-only" access to papers/journals, but also "write" access to journals. What I mean is that researchers in less scientific developed countries and institutions do also face other barriers to publishing in 'mainstream' journals, going from language issues to more complicated consequences of institutional Mathew effect in publishing papers in renowned journals. However, I find Stevan's results very encouraging for the open access cause. Cheers Ernesto Ernesto Fern?ndez Polcuch Programme Specialist - Science and Technology UNESCO Institute for Statistics Tel. (1-514) 343-7610 Fax: (1-514) 343-6872 Postal Address: C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville Montr?al (Qu?bec) H3C 3J7 Canada Visitors address: 5255, Decelles, 7th floor, Montr?al (Qu?bec) H3T 2B1 Canada http://www.uis.unesco.org/ -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:22 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in Research On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM wrote: > Dear Stevan: There seems to me to be problem with your estimates > of increased citation due to lack of author self-archiving. Have > you determined what percentage of citations are made by authors at > institutions that cannot afford access to the journals? Dear Gene, good to hear from you! No, our studies did not analyse the location of the citing authors, nor their institutional journal holdings. Such a study would be possible, but rather complicated, and I am not sure it would be necessary. I think the sizeable citation advantage for the self-archived articles speaks for itself, without the need to confirm that the increased usage indeed comes from those who did not have institutional access. > It would seem to me, from previous experience, that the group of > institutions that account for a large percentage of the publications and > subsequent citations, are the ones that can afford and do have access to > the journals which account for the largest percentage of pubs and cites. That was true in the days of Current Contents, when the only way to supplement institutional access was to mail paper reprints to reprint-requesters. But today, when one can provide help-yourself eprints to any would-be user webwide, it is very likely that the proportions have changed. The core journals and institutions are still the core journals and institutions, both for subscriptions and for use, but the size of the potential-user population whose access-denial can now be remedied is far, far larger. Surely you don't think *every* potential user and citer already has institutional access to *every* article they may wish to use and cite? The rest is just about how many, where... > Am I mistaken in making this assumption. Not at all. Perhaps only about the size of a webwide open-access effect. > So how will the citations increase if it is mainly the poorer > institutions that benefit from free access. Just because you provide > access to journals does not mean that you have made it possible to do > more research. I of course support the idea of access but see it as of > great educational value to those in the poorer nations. We must also > promote increased support for research in those countries if we are to > see increased citation. Best wishes. Gene Garfield I will let the researchers from the "poorer institutions" speak for themselves! But I suspect that it's not true that even the richest institutions have everything they need -- either in terms of access as users or impact as authors (the latter being dependent on the access of *others*), nor that it is quite as closed a circle as it may have appeared from the old statistics in paper days. But, when all is said and done, an increased citation rate of 50-250% speaks for itself, regardless of its provenance (rich/poor, core/non-core). The finer-scale analysis of where the enhanced usage is coming from and going will all be done in good time. The urgent priority right now is fast-forwarding the self-archiving rate from its current 15% level to the 100% where it should be, and should long have been. That will ensure that we stop losing the benefits. Then we can, at our leisure, count and classify the ways we've all benefitted. See "Sitting Pretty": http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#29.Sitting Best wishes, Stevan > -----Original Message----- > From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 9:57 PM > To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG > Subject: Re: Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in Research > > Letter to Times Higher Education Supplement for publication concerning: > > Laura Barnett and Hanna Hindstrom, "All research to go online," > Times Higher Education Supplement, September 23, 2004 > http://www.thes.co.uk/search/story.aspx?story_id=2024710 > > The Research Councils UK have proposed to mandate that all RCUK fundees > make their articles openly accessible online by self-archiving them on > the web. In disappointingly inaccurate THES article ('All research to > go online' Sep 23), the authors get most of the important details wrong. > They write: > > THES: '[A] benefit of online *open access publishing* [italics mine] > would be that academics and researchers would no longer have to > rely on their institutions to provide access to articles published > in subscription-only journals.' > > Not only is it not open access publishing but open access self-archiving > (of their articles published in subscription-only journals) that the > RCUK is mandating for their researchers, but this does not mean that > their researchers will no longer rely on their institutions to provide > access to the journals they subscribe to: How could my giving away my own > published articles online provide me with access to the articles in the > journals my institution subscribes to? I give my articles away so other > researchers worldwide whose institutions cannot afford to subscribe to > the journals my articles were published in can nevertheless access and > use them. That is how it (1) maximises my own research impact, and, far > more important, also (2) maximizes the return on the British public's > yearly ?3.5 billion investment in research. > > But the THES article misquotes me on (1): > > THES ("quoting" SH): 'if citations rose by 50 to 250 per cent because > of online *open-access publishing* [sic, again: italics mine, but > not the words] researchers could gain more than ?2.5 million a year > in potential salary increases, grants and funding renewals' > > and simply leaves out completely (2) the far more important loss of ?1.5 > billion in returns (in the form of at least 50% more citations) on the > British public's yearly ?3.5 billion pound investment in research. Nor > is this an if/then pipe-dream: The projections are based on objective, > published measurements of the degree to which self-archiving increases > research impact. > > But by far the worst inaccuracy in the THES article -- and it really does > a disservice to those who pin their hopes on the RCUK policy for > maximising British research impact -- is the gratuitous exaggeration of > what is currently a real but remediable flaw in the wording of the RCUK > proposal. The current draft says > > RCUK: 'Deposit should take place at the earliest opportunity, > wherever possible at or around the time of publication.' > > But the THES article instead says: > > THES: 'Under the proposals from Research Councils UK, published work > would not necessarily go online immediately. Academics and publishers > would be allowed a grace period, which could last anywhere from a > few months up to several years. The publisher would determine the > exclusion period...' > > This is utter nonsense, and it would make a nonsense of the RCUK policy, > if this were indeed the form it took. The RCUK's current language simply > needs to be made more precise: > > SH: 'Deposit must take place immediately upon acceptance for > publication, and access should be made open at the earliest > opportunity.' > > (In the meanwhile, the article is visible, and the authors can email > e-prints of it to all those e-print-requesters whose institutions cannot > access it, thereby still maximising its impact, but with more keystrokes > than would be most efficient.) > > The 8 co-signatories of the open letter in support of the RCUK policy, > including the inventor of the web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, are quoted > correctly on this, but the THES authors don't seem notice that what > they said is contradicted by the letter: > > TB-L et al: 'We believe the RCUK should go ahead and implement its > immediate [italics mine] self-archiving mandate, without delay.' > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/18-guid.html > > (More trivially, the THES authors name 4 universities, corresponding > to one each of 4 of the 8 co-signatories, but omit Southampton, the > university of all 4 of the remaining co-signatories, including Sir Tim!) > > The last piece of nonsense is this: > > THES: 'Universities are not obliged to implement a repository system, > which costs about ?80,000 to set up and about ?40,000 a year in > maintenance.' > > This too is based on a flaw in the current wording of the policy, which > actually says that the articles > > RCUK: 'should be deposited in an appropriate e-print repository > (either institutional or subject-based) wherever such a repository > is available to the award-holder.' > > But the cost of creating and maintaining a repository is in reality less > than 10% of the arbitrary and inflated figures cited by THES. > > Stevan Harnad > From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Mon Oct 3 23:02:17 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 04:02:17 +0100 Subject: How to compare research impact of toll- vs. open-access research In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Prior Amsci Topic Thread: "How to compare research impact of toll- vs. open-access research" (started June 2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2858.html On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Sally Morris (ALPSP) wrote: > The problem is, there is no evidence of correlation between citations and > the return on research expenditure. Citations *are* one measure of return on research expenditure. Research is funded in order to be applied and built-upon, i.e., to be *used*; citations are an index of that usage. Uncited, unused research may as well not have been conducted, and represents *no* return on the research investment. Whatever increases usage and citations, increases the return on the research investment. Any loss of such a potential increase is a loss of potential return on the research investment. Self-archiving increases citations 50%-250%. Hence the failure to self-archive loses 50%-250% of the potential return on the research investment. > I haven't been able to trace many analyses which do look at this (Don > King will know, if anyone does) but those I've read look at output of > articles, registration of patents, and Gross Domestic Product. Article counts are a measure of the return on the research investment, but far too crude a measure, for, as noted, the articles may not be used. Patents are pertinent only to a tiny portion of the research literature, so have insufficient generality to be a useful general measure of research impact. Moreover, they are often based on *unpublished* research, whereas self-archiving and the OA movement are directed specifically at published research. However, patent counts and citation counts are in fact positively correlated: "patent volume is positively correlated with paper citations, suggesting that patent counts may be reasonable measures of research impact" Agarwal, A. & Henderson, R. (2002) Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT. Management Science 48 (1), 44-60 https://dspace.mit.edu/retrieve/3871/IB_Putting%2BPatents.pdf Gross domestic product is again too crude. Most basic research is too far from practical applications to contribute to the GDP. But one thing is certain: If a piece of research is to make a contribution to the GDP, it must be accessible to its potential appliers. Self-archiving substantially increases accessibility, as indicated by the fact that it generates substantially more citations. I too would be interested, however, to know of studied correlating GDP with citation counts. > Clearly, we are a long way off being able to analyse whether or not > self-archiving (or any other form of open access) does or does not > contribute to these objective output measures. I thought the question was about whether citation counts are correlated with these measures. We already know that self-archiving is correlated with increased citation counts. > But to pretend that we 'know' citations are a proxy for any of them is > not, to my mind, an argument that holds any water The claim was not that citations are a proxy for GDP, but that citations are a (face-valid) measure of the return on the investment of public funds in research -- and, more particularly, that the loss of potential citations is the loss of potential returns on the investment of public funds in research (lost "value for money"). > Stevan, I know what you're going to say so please don't bother - frankly, I > am more interested in hearing what other people have to say Sally, I'd be pleased to obey your request not to reply to you, if this were only a private conversation between you and me. But, you see, others are involved too, in particular, researchers and their interests. You appear to be concerned about hypothetical future losses to publishers because of self-archiving -- losses for which there exists no evidence at all to date. I am concerned about actual current losses to researchers for not self-archiving -- losses for which the sizeable positive correlations between self-archiving and citation counts, and between citations counts and researcher revenue (in terms of both salary and research funding) constitute strong positive evidence. See, for example, the many studies showing the correlation between RAE rankings and citation counts, as cited here: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ In particular, Eysenck & Smith (2002) write: "Correlation between RAE ratings and mean departmental citations +0.91 (1996) +0.86 (2001) (Psychology)" "RAE and citation counting measure broadly the same thing" http://cogprints.org/2749/ Stevan Harnad Harnad, S. (2005) Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in Research. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11220/ From mkrao at IITM.AC.IN Tue Oct 4 03:39:11 2005 From: mkrao at IITM.AC.IN (M Koteswara Rao) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:09:11 +0530 Subject: Help Help Message-ID: Hi, I am looking for journal-journal citation data for materials science journals. If anyone has any information and/or data on the above may please reply to this mail. M. Koteswara Rao ------------------------------------- Deputy librarian Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai - 600036, India Tele: 91-044-22574954 From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Oct 6 11:52:42 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:52:42 +0100 Subject: Critique of Research Fortnight article on RCUK policy proposal In-Reply-To: <025a01c5ca57$fa66be10$0200000a@samsung> Message-ID: Prior AmSci Topic Thread (started September 16, 2005): "Critique of research Fortnight article on RCUK policy proposal" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4761.html AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM Stevan Harnad This is a critique of the following unsigned article that has just appeared in Research Fortnight (the second if its kind): http://www.researchresearch.com/getPage.cfm?pagename=RFEdition&ElementID=33310&lang=EN&type=10.03&Issue=10.03 "The Dangers of Open Access, RCUK Style" Unsigned Article, Research Fortnight: > "Research Fortnight does not publish learned journals and has no reason > to defend commercial publishers, but the publishers are right when > they say that self-archiving as proposed by Research Councils UK will > stop new journals being launched and cause existing journals to close." Someone evidently has Research Fortnight's unsigned article's author's ear (and it's certainly not your humble archivangelist): > "Stevan Harnad, professor of cognitive science and one of the most > vocal advocates of open access, believes the UK in not maximising the > benefits of its research spend. In his words: 'the UK is losing ?1.5 > billion annually, in the potential impact of its scientific research spending.' > > "His argument, set out in a recent paper, goes like this: > self-archiving increases citation impact by between 50 and 250 > percent; the UK research councils spend ?3.5 billion annually; so > far only 15 per cent of researchers self-archive, meaning another 85% > could; therefore 50% x ?3.5.bn x 85% = ?1.5.bn. > > "This argument is so ludicrous it would be a waste of space bothering > to knock it down." In place of this risibly unnecessary knock-down counter-argument, we accordingly have this: > "What is interesting, though, is that Harnad's paper has been > self-archived on the University of Southampton's own e-print site and > shows no signs of having been peer-reviewed or published elsewhere." It is interesting that a transparent match-box calculation whose outcome seems to be uncongenial to some ears is discounted by our anonymous author for not having been "peer-reviewed." One wonders if, following the same logic, Research Fortnight would have discounted the following unrefereed observation: "Prior (published) evidence has shown that placing unused batteries (cost, ?1 apiece) in the refrigerator increases their hours of usage by 50%, but only 15% of users refrigerate them. We accordingly point out here the following match-box calculation: The 85% of battery-users who are not refrigerating their batteries are losing 50p's worth of potential usage, hence 50p's worth of value for their money." Ludicrous? In need of peer review? A waste of space to bother refuting? Or dismissed only as a consequence of having listened only to the battery-makers who say that self-refrigerating "will stop new battery-makers being launched and cause existing battery-makers to close"? > "This demonstrates one of the problems of a switch to open access > publishing: the pollution of the corpus of scholarship by papers > that have not been subject to sufficient quality control." Is Research Fortnight having difficulty distinguishing between research content and trivial, transparent arithmetic? And does the ironic call for "peer review" come from Research Fortnight or the disgruntled battery-makers to whom they have lent their ear, monaurally? (Should the statement "the publishers are right when they say that self-archiving as proposed by Research Councils UK will stop new journals being launched and cause existing journals to close" likewise have been subjected to peer review?) > "It also shows that advocates of open access have not thought through > their arguments." I leave it to the Forum to decide who is not thinking arguments through, or even listening to them disinterestedly. (The rest of the unsigned Research Fortnight article is an echolalic transcript -- uncritical and unfiltered -- of the by now very familiar arguments we have kept hearing from certain (non-research) lobbyists against OA and self-archiving, with no sign of having been thought through [let alone peer-reviewed] by Research Fortnight, or anyone else.) My advice to Research Fortnight, if it has any wish to play the role of honest broker in this important issue for research and researchers: Audi Alteram Partem. So far, Research Fortnight has failed deplorably in that role, twice. Stevan Harnad Moderator, American Scientist Open Access Forum http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html Chaire de recherche du Canada Centre de neuroscience de la cognition (CNC) Universit? du Qu?bec ? Montr?al Montr?al, Qu?bec, Canada H3C 3P8 Professor of Cognitive Science Department of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 6 15:47:06 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:47:06 -0400 Subject: Cancho, RFI "The variation of Zipf's law in human language " EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B 44 (2). MAR 2005. p.249-257 Message-ID: RFI CANCHO : ramon at pil.phys.uniroma1.it TITLE: The variation of Zipf's law in human language (Article, English) AUTHOR: Cancho, RFI SOURCE: EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B 44 (2). MAR 2005. p.249-257 SPRINGER, NEW YORK ABSTRACT: Words in humans follow the so-called Zipf's law. More precisely, the word frequency spectrum follows a power function, whose typical exponent is beta approximate to 2, but significant variations are found. We hypothesize that the full range of variation reflects our ability to balance the goal of communication, i.e. maximizing the information transfer and the cost of communication, imposed by the limitations of the human brain. We show that the higher the importance of satisfying the goal of communication, the higher the exponent. Here, assuming that words are used according to their meaning we explain why variation in beta should be limited to a particular domain. From the one hand, we explain a non-trivial lower bound at about beta = 1.6 for communication systems neglecting the goal of the communication. From the other hand, we find a sudden divergence of beta if a certain critical balance is crossed. At the same time a sharp transition to maximum information transfer and unfortunately, maximum communication cost, is found. Consistently with the upper bound of real exponents, the maximum finite value predicted is about beta = 2.4. It is convenient for human language not to cross the transition and remain in a domain where maximum information transfer is high but at a reasonable cost. Therefore, only a particular range of exponents should be found in human speakers. The exponent beta contains information about the balance between cost and communicative efficiency. AUTHOR ADDRESS: RFI Cancho, Univ Roma La Sapienza, INFM Roma 1, Dipartimento Fis, Piazzale A Moro 5, I-00185 Rome, Italy From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 6 16:38:50 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:38:50 -0400 Subject: Loria A, Arroyo P "Language and country preponderance trends in MEDLINE and its causes " JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 93 (3): 381-385 JUL 2005 Message-ID: A. LORIA : aloria at quetzal.innsz.mx, parroyo at funsalud.org.mx Title: Language and country preponderance trends in MEDLINE and its causes Author(s): Loria A, Arroyo P Source: JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 93 (3): 381-385 JUL 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 9 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Objective: The authors characterized the output of MEDLINE papers by language and country of publication during a thirty-four-year time period. Methods: We classified MEDLINE's journal articles by country of publication (Anglos/Non-Anglos) and language (English/Non-English) for the years 1966 and from 1970 to 2000 at five-year intervals. Eight English-speaking countries were considered Anglos. Linear regression analysis of number of papers versus time was performed. Results: The global number of papers increased linearly at a rate of 8, 142 papers per year. Anglo and English papers also increased linearly (6,740 and 9,199, respectively). journals of Non-Anglo countries accounted for 25% of the English language increase (2,438 per year). Only Non-English papers decreased at a rate of 1,056 fewer papers per year. These trends have led to overwhelming shares of English and Anglo papers in MEDLINE. In 2000, 68% of all papers were published in the 8 Anglo countries and 90% were written in English. Conclusions: The Anglo and English preponderances appear to be a consequence of at least two phenomena: (1) editorial policy changes in MEDLINE and in some journals from Non-Anglo countries and (2) factors affecting Non-Anglo researchers in the third world (publication constraints, migration, and undersupport). These are tentative conclusions that need confirmation. Addresses: Loria A (reprint author), Inst Nacl Ciencias Med & Nutr Salvador Zubiran, Vasco Quiroga 15, Mexico City, DF 14000 Mexico Inst Nacl Ciencias Med & Nutr Salvador Zubiran, Mexico City, DF 14000 Mexico Fdn Mexicana Salud, Mexico City, DF 14610 Mexico E-mail Addresses: aloria at quetzal.innsz.mx, parroyo at funsalud.org.mx Publisher: MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOC, 65 EAST WACKER PLACE, STE 1900, CHICAGO, IL 60601-7298 USA Subject Category: INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE IDS Number: 948GU ISSN: 1536-5050 Cited References: 2004, TIME, V163, P32. BUNOUT D, 1998, REV MED CHILE, V126, P677. EGGER M, 1997, LANCET, V350, P326. ESCANDON MAS, 2000, ARCH ESPAN UROL, V53, P93. GARFIELD E, 1998, REV INVEST CLIN, V50, P497. LORIA A, 2000, MATERN CHILD HLTH J, V4, P59. MOHER D, 1996, LANCET, V347, P363. PETITTI DB, 2000, META ANAL DECISION A, P55. SUTTON AJ, 2000, METHODS METANALYSIS. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Fri Oct 7 11:04:52 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:04:52 -0400 Subject: Liu Z, Wang CZ "Mapping interdisciplinarity in demography: a journal network analysis " JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 31 (4): 308-316 2005 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: zliu at tamu.edu Title: Mapping interdisciplinarity in demography: a journal network analysis Author(s): Liu Z, Wang CZ Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 31 (4): 308-316 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 28 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Despite increasing interest in studying the intellectual structures of interdisciplinary fields, mapping interdisciplinarity in demography remains an unexplored topic. This paper visualizes such a demographic intellectual structure through a citation analysis of 65 demography-related journals between 2000 and 2003. The journal citation data were collected from journal Citation Reports. The subject relatedness of the journals was revealed through a cluster analysis, a network diagram, and an analysis of citation percentages between demography journals and all selected journals. Twelve clusters of subject specialties are identified. The network diagram largely matches the result of the cluster analysis. The results reveal closer connections between the demagraphy journals and neighboring social sciences journals than with public health and medical science journals. Correlations between the citation matrices suggest stable demographic citation patterns over time. Addresses: Liu Z (reprint author), Texas A&M Univ, Lib, College Stn, TX 77843 USA Texas A&M Univ, Lib, College Stn, TX 77843 USA Columbia Univ, New York, NY 10027 USA E-mail Addresses: zliu at tamu.edu Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND Subject Category: COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE IDS Number: 957HF ISSN: 0165-5515 Cited References: ALDENDERFER MS, 1984, CLUSTER ANAL. BORGATTI SP, 2002, UCINET WINDOWS SOFTW. CALDWELL JC, 1996, POP STUD-J DEMOG, V50, P305. CALDWELL JC, 2003, ENCY POPULATION, P216. DOREIAN P, 1985, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V36, P28. EAGLY RV, 1975, J ECON LIT, V13, P878. GATRELL AC, 1984, PROF GEOGR, V36, P300. HODGSON D, 2001, INT ENCY SOCIAL BEHA, V5, P3493. KEYFITZ N, 1993, DEMOGRAPHY, V30, P533. KIRK D, 1968, INT ENCYCL SOC SCI, P342. LEYDESDORFF L, 1986, SCIENTOMETRICS, V9, P103. LEYDESDORFF L, 2004, J DOC, V60, P371. LEYDESDORFF L, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P159. MOSTELLER F, 1968, J AM STAT ASSOC, V63, P1. OTTE E, 2002, J INFORM SCI, V28, P441. PASQUARIELLA SK, 1981, LIT POPULATION STUDI. PERITZ BC, 1986, INT J INFORM MANAGE, V6, P145. PERITZ BC, 1988, J INF SCI, V14, P99. PETERSEN W, 1985, DICT DEMOGRAPHY, V1, R13. RICE RE, 1988, HUM COMMUN RES, V15, P256. ROSS JA, 1982, INT ENCY POPULATION, V1, P147. SZRETER S, 2001, INT ENCY SOCIAL BEHA, V5, P3488. TEACHMAN JD, 1993, DEMOGRAPHY, V30, P523. VANDALEN HP, 1999, POPUL DEV REV, V25, P229. VANDALEN HP, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V50, P455. WHITE HD, 1997, ANNU REV INFORM SCI, V32, P99. WHITE HD, 2004, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V55, P111. XHIGNESSE LV, 1967, AM PSYCHOL, V22, P778. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Fri Oct 7 11:13:22 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:13:22 -0400 Subject: Lee DT, Lee GC "Knowledge management for computational problem solving " JOURNAL OF UNIVERSAL COMPUTER SCIENCE 9 (6): 563-570 2003 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: D.T. LEE : dtlee at iis.sinica.edu.tw G.C. LEE : gclee at iis.sinica.edu.tw Title: Knowledge management for computational problem solving Author(s): Lee DT, Lee GC Source: JOURNAL OF UNIVERSAL COMPUTER SCIENCE 9 (6): 563-570 2003 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 21 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Algorithmic research is an established knowledge engineering process that has allowed researchers to identify new or significant problems, to better understand existing approaches and experimental results, and to obtain new, effective and efficient solutions. While algorithmic researchers regularly contribute to this knowledge base by proposing new problems and novel solutions, the processes currently used to share this knowledge are inefficient, resulting in unproductive overhead. Most of these publication- centred processes lack explicit high-level knowledge structures to support efficient knowledge management. The authors describe a problem-centred collaborative knowledge management architecture associated with Computational Problem Solving (CPS). Specifically we articulate the structure and flow of such knowledge by making in-depth analysis of the needs of algorithmic researchers, and then extract the ontology. We also propose a knowledge flow measurement methodology to provide human-centred evaluations of research activities within the knowledge structure. This measurement enables us to highlight active research topics and to identify influential researchers. The collaborative knowledge management architecture was realized by implementing an Open Computational Problem Solving (OpenCPS) Knowledge Portal, which is an open-source project accessible at http://www.opencps.org. Addresses: Lee DT (reprint author), Acad Sinica, Inst Informat Sci, Taipei, 115 Taiwan Natl Taiwan Univ, Dept Comp Sci & Informat Engn, Taipei, 10764 Taiwan E-mail Addresses: dtlee at iis.sinica.edu.tw, gclee at iis.sinica.edu.tw Publisher: SPRINGER, 233 SPRING STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA Subject Category: COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS IDS Number: 958FO ISSN: 0948-695X Cited References: WHITEPAPERS MERANT C. APPLEHANS W, 1998, ADDISON WESLEY INFOR. BENJAMINS VR, 1997, INT J HUMAN COMPUT S, V47. CHIN G, 2002, IUI2002, P39. CRESCENZI P, COMPENDIUM NP OPTIMI. FERNANDAZLOPEZ M, DELIVERABLE 1 4 SURV. GALLOPOULOS E, 1994, IEEE COMPUTATIONAL S, V1, P11. GARFIELD E, 1984, ESSAYS INFORMATION S, V7, P546. GARFIELD E, 2003, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V54, P400. HAI ZG, 2002, EXPERT SYSTEMS APPL, V23, P23. HNEIDERMAN B, 2000, ACM T COMPUTER HUMAN, V7, P114. LAWRENCE S, 1999, IEEE COMPUT, V32, P67. MACK R, 2001, IBM SYST J, V40, P925. MEHTA U, 1986, KNOWL-BASED SYST, P183. MORRIS SA, 2003, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V54, P413. NISSEN ME, 2002, COMMUNICATIONS ASS I, V8, P251. PEREZ AG, 1999, IJCAI 99 WORKSH ONT. SCHUCHARDT K, GRID COMPUTING ENV 2. SMALL H, 2003, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V54, P394. WHITE HD, 2003, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V54, P423. WILLINSKY J, 2000, CURRENT ISSUES ED, V3. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Fri Oct 7 15:58:19 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:58:19 -0400 Subject: Lins RD "Lazy cyclic reference counting" Journal of Universal Computer Science 9 (8): 813-828 2003 Message-ID: E-mail : Lins RD - rdl at ee.ufpe.br Title: Lazy cyclic reference counting Author(s): Lins RD Source: JOURNAL OF UNIVERSAL COMPUTER SCIENCE 9 (8): 813-828 2003 Document Type: Article Language: English Abstract: Reference counting is a widely employed memory management technique, in which garbage collection operations are interleaved with computation. Standard reference counting has the major drawback of being unable to handle cyclic structures. This paper presents an important optimisation to a recently published algorithm for cyclic reference counting. Proofs of the correctness of the original and lazy algorithms are provided, together with performance figures. Author Keywords: garbage collection; reference counting; cycles; memory management Addresses: Lins RD (reprint author), Univ Fed Pernambuco, Recife, PE Brazil Univ Fed Pernambuco, Recife, PE Brazil E-mail Addresses: rdl at ee.ufpe.br Publisher: SPRINGER, 233 SPRING STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA, http://www.springeronline.com Discipline: COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING CC Editions/Collections: Engineering, Computing & Technology (ECT) IDS Number: 958FW ISSN: 0948-695X Cited References: BACON DF, 2001, LNCS, V2072. BACON DF, 2001, P SIGPLAN C PROGR LA. BROWNBRIDGE DR, 1985, LECT NOTES COMPUTER, V201, P273. COLLINS GE, 1960, COMMUN ACM, V3, P655. JONES RE, 1996, GARBAGE COLLECTION A. LINS RD, UNPUB ANAL PERFORMAN. LINS RD, 1992, INFORM PROCESS LETT, V44, P215. LINS RD, 1993, INFORM PROCESS LETT, V46, P19. LINS RD, 2002, INFORM PROCESS LETT, V83, P145. LINS RD, 2002, P 14 S COMP ARCH HIG. LINS RD, 2003, LECT NOTES COMPUT SC, V2565, P650. MARTINEZ AD, 1990, INFORM PROCESS LETT, V34, P31. MCBETH JH, 1963, COMMUN ACM, V6, P575. SALKILD JD, 1987, THESIS U COLL LONDON. SALZANO JA, 2002, P SBLP 2002 JUN, P233. TURNER DA, 1979, SOFTWARE PRACTICE EX, V9, P31. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Fri Oct 7 16:18:06 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:18:06 -0400 Subject: Egghe L. "Expansion of the field of informetrics: origins and consequences" Information Processing & Management 41(6):1311-1316 December 2005. Message-ID: Leo Egghe : leo.egghe at luc.ac.be Title: Expansion of the field of informetrics: Origins and consequences Author(s): Egghe L Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1311-1316 DEC 2005 Document Type: Editorial Material Language: English Cited References: 42 Times Cited: 0 Addresses: Egghe L (reprint author), Univ Antwerp, Campus Drie Eiken Univ Plein 1, Antwerp, B-2610 Belgium Limburgs Univ Ctr, Diepenbeek, B-3590 Belgium E-mail Addresses: leo.egghe at luc.ac.be Publisher: PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND Subject Category: COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE IDS Number: 956XE ISSN: 0306-4573 Cited References: *CLEVER, 1999, SCI AM JUN, P44. ADAMIC L, 2001, PHYS REV E, V64. ALBERT R, 1999, NATURE, V401, P130. ANTELMAN K, 2004, COLL RES LIBR, V65, P372. BARABASI AL, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P509. BARABASI AL, 2002, PHYSICA A, V311, P590. BARILAN J, 2000, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V51, P432. BJORNEBORN L, 2004, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V55, P1216. BLACKERT L, 1979, WISSENSCHAFTLICHE Z, V25, P187. BOSSY MJ, 1995, SOLARIS INFORMATION, V2, P245. BRADFORD SC, 1934, ENGINEERING-LONDON, V137, P85. BRODY T, 2004, EARLIER WEB USAGE ST. BROOKES BC, 1990, INFORMETRICS, V89, P31. CONDON EU, 1928, SCIENCE, V67, P300. EGGHE L, 1988, P 1 INT C BIBL THEOR. EGGHE L, 1990, INTRO INFORMETRICS Q. EGGHE L, 1990, P 2 INT C BIBL SCI I. EGGHE L, 2002, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V38, P823. EGGHE L, 2003, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V39, P771. EGGHE L, 2005, POWER LAWS INFORMATI. ESTOUP JB, 1916, GAMMES STENOGRAPHIQU. GLANZEL W, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V35, P167. HARNAD S, 2004, BRIT MED J RAPID RES. HARNAD S, 2004, D LIB MAGAZINE, V10. HE SY, 2002, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V53, P953. HOOD WW, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V52, P291. HUBERMAN BA, 1998, SCIENCE, V280, P95. IKPAAHINDI L, 1985, LIBRI, V35, P163. LAWANI SM, 1981, LIBRI, V31, P294. LIPETZ BA, 1999, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V50, P994. LOTKA AJ, 1926, J WASHINGTON ACADEMY, V16, P317. NACKE O, 1979, NACHR DOK, V30, P219. NALIMOV VV, 1969, NAUKOMETRIJA. PERNEGER TV, 2004, BRIT MED J, V329, P546. PRITCHARD A, 1969, J DOC, V25, P348. ROUSSEAU R, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V55, P317. SCHUBERT A, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P3. SUMMERS R, 1999, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V50, P1153. TAGUESUTCLIFFE J, 1994, 50 YEARS INFORMATION, P147. WHITE HD, 1989, ANNU REV INFORM SCI, V24, P119. WILSON CS, 1999, ANNU REV INFORM SCI, V34, P107. ZIPF GK, 1949, HUMAN BEHAV PRINCIPL. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Fri Oct 7 16:29:25 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:29:25 -0400 Subject: Butcher J, Jeffrey P "The use of bibliometric indicators to explore industry-academia collaboration trends over time in the field of membrane use for water treatment " TECHNOVATION 25 (11): 1273-1280 NOV 2005 Message-ID: P. Jeffrey - pj.jeffrey at cranfield.ac.uk Title: The use of bibliometric indicators to explore industry-academia collaboration trends over time in the field of membrane use for water treatment Author(s): Butcher J, Jeffrey P Source: TECHNOVATION 25 (11): 1273-1280 NOV 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 23 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Industry-academia collaboration has become a subject of great interest to academics, industry leaders and policymakers, as it is now acknowledged that such relationships are valuable for innovation. The aim of the study reported here is to explore collaboration trends over time in the field of membrane use for water treatment by carrying out bibliometric analysis of scientific publications related to the field. It is part of a broader project looking at factors that influence industry-academia collaborative research in the water sector. Thousand six hundred and seventy eight papers from eight journals from the years 1967 to 2001 were analysed for co-authorship patterns. Thousand three hundred and seventy papers from the last decade were examined for a snapshot view of inter- institutional, cross-disciplinary, industry-academic and international collaboration trends. Results show that the field is highly collaborative with the majority (87%) of papers involving two or more authors. In terms of industry-academic collaboration, there was an increase in the number of papers from 1994 onwards, and a very high proportion (91%) were cross- disciplinary. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Jeffrey P (reprint author), Cranfield Univ, Sch Water Sci, Cranfield, Beds M43 0AL England Cranfield Univ, Sch Water Sci, Cranfield, Beds M43 0AL England E-mail Addresses: pj.jeffrey at cranfield.ac.uk Publisher: ELSEVIER SCI LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND Subject Category: ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL; OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE IDS Number: 957YN ISSN: 0166-4972 Cited References: *AURIL, 1997, RES PARTN IND U GUID. *OECD, 1984, IND U NEW FORMS COOP. BARNES T, 2002, EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT, V20, P272. CALVERT J, 2002, U IND RES COLL UK. FASSBINDER W, 1991, NEPHROL DIAL TRANSPL, V6, P5. HAMERI AP, 1996, TECHNOVATION, V16, P51. HICKS DM, 1996, RES POLICY, V25, P359. KATZ JS, 1997, RES POLICY, V26, P1. KOCH N, 2000, INFORMING SCI, V3, P157. KONECNY E, 1995, U IND RES. MACLEAN A, 2001, NETWORK CONTROL PREV. MARTINSEMPERE MJ, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V55, P377. MEYERKRAHMER F, 1998, RES POLICY, V27, P835. POLT W, 2001, BENCHM IND SCI REL E. QIN J, 1994, SCIENTOMETRICS, V29, P219. QIN J, 1997, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V48, P893. RAHM D, 2000, U IND R D COLL US UK, V1. RAPPERT B, 1999, RES POLICY, V28, P873. SCOTT A, 2001, EC RETURNS BASIC RES. SENKER J, 1998, CAPITALIZING KNOWLED, P111. STEWART G, 1999, PARTNERSHIP SCI IND. TIJSSEN RJW, 1997, RES POLICY, V25, P1277. TIJSSEN RJW, 1998, RES POLICY, V26, P791. From marianazare at UOL.COM.BR Fri Oct 7 19:33:45 2005 From: marianazare at UOL.COM.BR (marianazare) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 20:33:45 -0300 Subject: Butcher J,Jeffrey P "The use of bibliometric indicators to explore industry-academia collaboration trends over time in the field of membrane use for water treatment " TECHNOVATION 25 (11): 1273-1280 NOV 2005 Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Mon Oct 10 14:02:48 2005 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:02:48 -0500 Subject: CHE Impact Factor Article Message-ID: |-----------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------> | (Embedded image | |(Embedded |(Embedded |(Embedded | | moved to file: | |image moved |image moved |image moved | | pic13829.gif) | |to file: |to file: |to file: | | | |pic14924.gif)|pic30188.gif)|pic21763.gif)| | | | | | | | |(Embedded image moved to file: pic05030.gif) | | | | |Search The Site |(Embedded image moved to file: pic20326.gif)The Chronicle of Higher Education | | | | | | | | | | |More options | |(Embedded image moved to file: pic29011.gif) | | | | |Back issues | | | | | |Home |(Embedded image moved to file: pic30771.gif)Research | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |News | | | | | | (Embedde| | | | | | d image | From the issue dated October 14, 2005| | | | | moved to| | | | | | file: |The Number That's Devouring Science | | | | | pic30900| | | | | | .gif) | | | | | | |The impact factor, once a simple way to rank scientific journals, has become an | | | | |Today's news |unyielding yardstick for hiring, tenure, and grants | | | | |Current issue | | | | | |Special issues & | | | | | |data?(Embedded |Related materials | | | | |image moved to | | | | | |file: | | | | | |pic17713.gif) |Text: How the impact factor is calculated | | | | |Admissions & | | | | | |Student Aid | | | | | |Campus |Table: A list of the journals with the highest impact factors reveals one of the| | | | |Architecture |measurement's quirks | | | | |Campus Services | | | | | |Endowments | | | | | |Executive |Article: Impact Factors Run Into Competition | | | | |Compensation | | | | | |Legal Issues | | | | | |Personal Finance |Colloquy: Join a live, online discussion with Anurag A. Agrawal, an assistant | | | | |More ... |professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University, about the | | | | |The Faculty |ranking of scientific journals by their "impact factors" and the effect of that | | | | |Research & Books |practice on research, hiring, and promotion, on Wednesday, October 12, at 1 | | | | |Government & |p.m., U.S. Eastern time. | | | | |Politics Money & | | | | | |Management | | | | | |Information | | | | | |Technology | | | | | |Students |(Embedded image moved to file: pic06411.gif) | | | | |Athletics | Printer | | | | |International | friendly | | | | |Community | (Embedded image moved to file: pic21153.gif) | | | | |Colleges Short | E-mail | | | | |Subjects Gazette | article | | | | |Corrections |(Embedded image moved to file: pic21520.gif) | | | | | | Subscribe | | | | | | (Embedded image moved to file: pic29790.gif) | | | | | | Order | | | | | | reprints | | | | |Opinion & Forums | | | | | | (Embedd| | | | | | ed | | | | | | image |By RICHARD MONASTERSKY | | | | | moved | | | | | | to | | | | | | file: |In the beginning, during the late 1950s, it was just an innocent idea in Eugene | | | | | pic1895|Garfield's head. A Philadelphia researcher who described himself as a | | | | | 8.gif) |"documentation consultant," Mr. Garfield spent his free time thinking about | | | | | |scientific literature and how to mine information from it. | | | | |The Chronicle | | | | | |Review Forums | | | | | |Colloquy |He eventually dreamed up something he called an "impact factor," essentially a | | | | | |grading system for journals, that could help him pick out the most important | | | | | |publications from the ranks of lesser titles. To identify which journals | | | | | |mattered most to scientists, he proposed tallying up the number of citations an | | | | | |average article in each journal received. | | | | |Careers | | | | | | (Embedde| | | | | | d image |This accounting method sounds harmless enough. Outside academe, few people have | | | | | moved to|even heard of it. Mr. Garfield, though, now compares his brainchild to nuclear | | | | | file: |energy: a force that can help society but can unleash mayhem when it is misused.| | | | | pic17578| | | | | | .gif) | | | | | | |Indeed, impact factors have assumed so much power, especially in the past five | | | | |News & Advice My |years, that they are starting to control the scientific enterprise. In Europe, | | | | |Career homepage |Asia, and, increasingly, the United States, Mr. Garfield's tool can play a | | | | |Search jobs by |crucial role in hiring, tenure decisions, and the awarding of grants. | | | | |position type by | | | | | |discipline/field | | | | | |by state/region |"The impact factor may be a pox upon the land because of the abuse of that | | | | |by institution |number," says Robert H. Austin, a professor of physics at Princeton University. | | | | |Tools & Resources| | | | | |Employer Profiles| | | | | | |Impact-factor fever is spreading, threatening to skew the course of scientific | | | | | |research, say critics. Investigators are now more likely to chase after | | | | | |fashionable topics?? the kind that get into high-impact journals?? than to | | | | | |follow important avenues that may not be the flavor of the year, says Yu-Li | | | | | |Wang, a professor of physiology at the University of Massachusetts Medical | | | | |Sponsored |School. "It influences a lot of people's research direction." | | | | |information & | | | | | |solutions | | | | | | |That influence has also led to a creeping sense of cynicism about the business | | | | | |of science publications. Journal editors have learned how to manipulate the | | | | | |system, sometimes through legitimate editorial choices and other times through | | | | | |deceptive practices that artificially inflate their own rankings. Several | | | | | |ecology journals, for example, routinely ask authors to add citations to | | | | |Chronicle/Gartner|previous articles from that same journal, a policy that pushes up its impact | | | | |Leadership Forum |factor. Authors who have received such requests say that the practice veers | | | | | |toward extortion and represents a violation of scientific ethics. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |What's more, investigations into impact factors have revealed problems with the | | | | |Services |basic data used by ISI, the company that tabulates citation statistics and | | | | | (Embedde|journals' impact factors. Started by Mr. Garfield in Philadelphia, ISI was | | | | | d image |bought in 1992 by the Thomson Corporation, which has tried to transform the | | | | | moved to|citation enterprise into a more profitable operation by buying up databases and | | | | | file: |promoting its products. With alarming frequency, editors are finding fault with | | | | | pic08365|the impact factors that Thomson has issued. | | | | | .gif) | | | | | | | | | | | |Help Contact us |"This was a serious concern," says Alan Nevill, a professor of biostatistics at | | | | |Subscribe Manage |the University of Wolverhampton, in England, who took issue with the | | | | |your account |calculations that ISI made regarding the Journal of Sports Science, which he | | | | |Advertise with us|edits. "Academia is being held ransom by these citations." | | | | |Rights & | | | | | |permissions | | | | | | |Far From Its Roots | | | | | | | | | | | (Embedded image | | | | | | moved to file: |It wasn't supposed to be this way. "We never predicted that people would turn | | | | | pic13007.gif) |this into an evaluation tool for giving out grants and funding," says Mr. | | | | | |Garfield. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Although he first mentioned the term "impact factor" in a publication in 1955, | | | | | |it wasn't until the 1960s that Mr. Garfield and a colleague fully developed the | | | | | |concept to help them select the most important journals for a new citation | | | | | |index, which has grown into one of the most widely used citation tools in | | | | | |science and the social sciences. It didn't make sense, they reasoned, to include| | | | | |only the journals that get the most citations, because that would eliminate | | | | | |smaller publications. So they invented a type of measurement that reflects the | | | | | |average number of citations per article for each journal. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |The basic definition has changed little since then, although the process of | | | | | |calculating impact factors has become highly automated through the use of | | | | | |computer algorithms, which trolled through 27 million citations last year. In | | | | | |June, ISI issued its latest set of impact factors, for 5,968 science journals | | | | | |and 1,712 social-science journals. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |To calculate the most recent factor for the journal Nature, for example, the | | | | | |company tallied the number of citations in 2004 to all of the articles that | | | | | |Nature published in 2002 and 2003. Those citations were divided by the number of| | | | | |articles the journal published in those two years, yielding an impact factor of | | | | | |32.182?? the ninth-highest of all journals. It is a number that editors and | | | | | |publishers across the world lust after; more than half of all science journals | | | | | |listed by ISI score below 1. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Impact factors caught on because they are an objective measure that serves many | | | | | |purposes. Librarians can use them to decide which journals to purchase and which| | | | | |to cancel. Editors and publishers can chart their journals' impact factors to | | | | | |gauge their progress relative to competitors. And scientists can examine the | | | | | |numbers to see where their research papers are likely to get the most attention.| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Higher-ranking journals, it turns out, do get a message out better. Matthew B. | | | | | |Stanbrook, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, | | | | | |tracked what happened after 12 medical journals published a joint statement on | | | | | |research authorship and sponsorship in 2001?? an unusual situation that provided| | | | | |direct comparisons. Over the following 26 months, the highest-impact journal | | | | | |received 100 times as many citations to the article as the lowest one of the 12,| | | | | |Dr. Stanbrook reported at a conference on peer review and publishing last month | | | | | |in Chicago. "There's a measurable value associated with a high-impact journal, | | | | | |which indicates why those journals are important," he says. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Over the years, impact factors have proved so attractive to scientists that they| | | | | |started applying them not only to journals but also to researchers. Ideally, | | | | | |evaluators would look at the number of citations an individual paper receives or| | | | | |a scientist accumulates over his or her career?? but that process takes time and| | | | | |money. Impact factors provide a shortcut. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |They also help in the modern world of ultraspecialized science. Members of a | | | | | |tenure committee or a hiring panel find it increasingly difficult to assess the | | | | | |papers of a candidate working outside their own subdiscipline, so they use the | | | | | |impact factor of the journal in which the paper appeared as a measure of the | | | | | |paper's quality. By that logic, evaluators rate a paper more highly if it | | | | | |appears in a high-impact journal, regardless of what the paper actually says. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Europeans cite another reason that impact factors are popular there. In some | | | | | |countries, the community of researchers in a particular field is so small that | | | | | |they all know each other and either collaborate or compete. Using impact factors| | | | | |to assess individual scientists is seen as an improvement over tapping into an | | | | | |old-boy network to make hiring and grant decisions. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fuzzy Math | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |But relying on impact factors to evaluate a person is statistically dimwitted, | | | | | |say critics of its spreading influence. The measurement is just an average of | | | | | |all the papers in a journal over a year; it doesn't apply to any single paper, | | | | | |let alone to any author. For example, a quarter of the articles in Nature last | | | | | |year drew 89 percent of the citations to that journal, so a vast majority of the| | | | | |articles received far fewer than the average of 32 citations reflected in the | | | | | |most recent impact factor. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Mr. Garfield and ISI routinely point out the problems of using impact factors | | | | | |for individual papers or people. "That is something we have wrestled with quite | | | | | |a bit here," says Jim Pringle, vice president for development at Thomson | | | | | |Scientific, the division that oversees ISI. "It is a fallacy to think you can | | | | | |say anything about the citation pattern of an article from the citation pattern | | | | | |of a journal." | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Such warnings have not helped. In several countries in Europe and Asia, | | | | | |administrators openly use impact factors to evaluate researchers or allocate | | | | | |money: | | | | | | In England, hiring panels routinely consider impact factors, says Mr. | | | | | | Nevill. | | | | | | According to Spanish law, researchers are rewarded for publishing in | | | | | | journals defined by ISI as prestigious, which in practice has meant in the| | | | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic05030.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic20326.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1218 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic29011.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic30771.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3746 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic06411.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1391 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic21153.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1261 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic21520.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1342 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic29790.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1609 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic14924.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic30188.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic21763.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic04940.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic20851.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16486 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic18662.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic13829.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1710 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic30900.gif Type: image/gif Size: 572 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic17713.gif Type: image/gif Size: 75 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic18958.gif Type: image/gif Size: 568 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic17578.gif Type: image/gif Size: 568 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic08365.gif Type: image/gif Size: 572 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic13007.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1710 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic11477.gif Type: image/gif Size: 12018 bytes Desc: not available URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Mon Oct 10 14:36:18 2005 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:36:18 -0500 Subject: Chronicle of Higher Education IF Article 2 Message-ID: The last sending was screwed up for some people, so I am trying a different tack. In case it fails there is a Word file containing it at the bottom. -- SB (Embedded image moved to file: pic13186.gif)The Chronicle of Higher Education(Embedded image moved to file: pic08313.gif)Research http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i08/08a01201.htm From the issue dated October 14, 2005 The Number That's Devouring Science The impact factor, once a simple way to rank scientific journals, has become an unyielding yardstick for hiring, tenure, and grants By RICHARD MONASTERSKY In the beginning, during the late 1950s, it was just an innocent idea in Eugene Garfield's head. A Philadelphia researcher who described himself as a "documentation consultant," Mr. Garfield spent his free time thinking about scientific literature and how to mine information from it. He eventually dreamed up something he called an "impact factor," essentially a grading system for journals, that could help him pick out the most important publications from the ranks of lesser titles. To identify which journals mattered most to scientists, he proposed tallying up the number of citations an average article in each journal received. This accounting method sounds harmless enough. Outside academe, few people have even heard of it. Mr. Garfield, though, now compares his brainchild to nuclear energy: a force that can help society but can unleash mayhem when it is misused. Indeed, impact factors have assumed so much power, especially in the past five years, that they are starting to control the scientific enterprise. In Europe, Asia, and, increasingly, the United States, Mr. Garfield's tool can play a crucial role in hiring, tenure decisions, and the awarding of grants. "The impact factor may be a pox upon the land because of the abuse of that number," says Robert H. Austin, a professor of physics at Princeton University. Impact-factor fever is spreading, threatening to skew the course of scientific research, say critics. Investigators are now more likely to chase after fashionable topics?? the kind that get into high-impact journals?? than to follow important avenues that may not be the flavor of the year, says Yu-Li Wang, a professor of physiology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. "It influences a lot of people's research direction." That influence has also led to a creeping sense of cynicism about the business of science publications. Journal editors have learned how to manipulate the system, sometimes through legitimate editorial choices and other times through deceptive practices that artificially inflate their own rankings. Several ecology journals, for example, routinely ask authors to add citations to previous articles from that same journal, a policy that pushes up its impact factor. Authors who have received such requests say that the practice veers toward extortion and represents a violation of scientific ethics. What's more, investigations into impact factors have revealed problems with the basic data used by ISI, the company that tabulates citation statistics and journals' impact factors. Started by Mr. Garfield in Philadelphia, ISI was bought in 1992 by the Thomson Corporation, which has tried to transform the citation enterprise into a more profitable operation by buying up databases and promoting its products. With alarming frequency, editors are finding fault with the impact factors that Thomson has issued. "This was a serious concern," says Alan Nevill, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Wolverhampton, in England, who took issue with the calculations that ISI made regarding the Journal of Sports Science, which he edits. "Academia is being held ransom by these citations." Far From Its Roots It wasn't supposed to be this way. "We never predicted that people would turn this into an evaluation tool for giving out grants and funding," says Mr. Garfield. Although he first mentioned the term "impact factor" in a publication in 1955, it wasn't until the 1960s that Mr. Garfield and a colleague fully developed the concept to help them select the most important journals for a new citation index, which has grown into one of the most widely used citation tools in science and the social sciences. It didn't make sense, they reasoned, to include only the journals that get the most citations, because that would eliminate smaller publications. So they invented a type of measurement that reflects the average number of citations per article for each journal. The basic definition has changed little since then, although the process of calculating impact factors has become highly automated through the use of computer algorithms, which trolled through 27 million citations last year. In June, ISI issued its latest set of impact factors, for 5,968 science journals and 1,712 social-science journals. To calculate the most recent factor for the journal Nature, for example, the company tallied the number of citations in 2004 to all of the articles that Nature published in 2002 and 2003. Those citations were divided by the number of articles the journal published in those two years, yielding an impact factor of 32.182?? the ninth-highest of all journals. It is a number that editors and publishers across the world lust after; more than half of all science journals listed by ISI score below 1. Impact factors caught on because they are an objective measure that serves many purposes. Librarians can use them to decide which journals to purchase and which to cancel. Editors and publishers can chart their journals' impact factors to gauge their progress relative to competitors. And scientists can examine the numbers to see where their research papers are likely to get the most attention. Higher-ranking journals, it turns out, do get a message out better. Matthew B. Stanbrook, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, tracked what happened after 12 medical journals published a joint statement on research authorship and sponsorship in 2001?? an unusual situation that provided direct comparisons. Over the following 26 months, the highest-impact journal received 100 times as many citations to the article as the lowest one of the 12, Dr. Stanbrook reported at a conference on peer review and publishing last month in Chicago. "There's a measurable value associated with a high-impact journal, which indicates why those journals are important," he says. Over the years, impact factors have proved so attractive to scientists that they started applying them not only to journals but also to researahers. Ideally, evaluators would look at the number of citations an individual paper receives or a scientist accumulates over his or her career?? but that process takes time and money. Impact factors provide a shortcut. They also help in the modern world of ultraspecialized science. Members of a tenure committee or a hiring panel find it increasingly difficult to assess the papers of a candidate working outside their own subdiscipline, so they use the impact factor of the journal in which the paper appeared as a measure of the paper's quality. By that logic, evaluators rate a paper more highly if it appears in a high-impact journal, regardless of what the paper actually says. Europeans cite another reason that impact factors are popular there. In some countries, the community of researchers in a particular field is so small that they all know each other and either collaborate or compete. Using impact factors to assess individual scientists is seen as an improvement over tapping into an old-boy network to make hiring and grant decisions. Fuzzy Math But relying on impact factors to evaluate a person is statistically dimwitted, say critics of its spreading influence. The measurement is just an average of all the papers in a journal over a year; it doesn't apply to any single paper, let alone to any author. For example, a quarter of the articles in Nature last year drew 89 percent of the citations to that journal, so a vast majority of the articles received far fewer than the average of 32 citations reflected in the most recent impact factor. Mr. Garfield and ISI routinely point out the problems of using impact factors for individual papers or people. "That is something we have wrestled with quite a bit here," says Jim Pringle, vice president for development at Thomson Scientific, the division that oversees ISI. "It is a fallacy to think you can say anything about the citation pattern of an article from the citation pattern of a journal." Such warnings have not helped. In several countries in Europe and Asia, administrators openly use impact factors to evaluate researchers or allocate money: In England, hiring panels routinely consider impact factors, says Mr. Nevill. According to Spanish law, researchers are rewarded for publishing in journals defined by ISI as prestigious, which in practice has meant in the upper third of the impact-factor listings. In China, scientists get cash bonuses for publishing in high-impact journals, and graduate students in physics at some universities must place at least two articles in journals with a combined impact factor of 4 to get their Ph.D.'s, says Martin Blume, editor in chief of the American Physical Society, who recently met with scientists in China. The obsession with impact factors has also seeped into the United States, although less openly. Martin Frank, executive director of the American Physiological Society, says a young faculty member once told him about a policy articulated by her department chair. She was informed that in order to get tenure, scientists should publish in journals with an impact factor above 5. "We are slaves to the impact factor," says Mr. Frank, whose organization publishes 14 science journals. Impact ranking may now be a tool that controls scientists, rather than the other way around. Pressure to publish in the highest-impact science journals?? Nature, Science, and Cell?? has led researchers to compete more and more for the limited number of slots in those broader journals, thus diminishing the specialty titles that have traditionally served as the main publications of each discipline. Academe used to be a "publish or perish" world, but now the halls of science have turned into a "publish in a high-impact journal or perish" environment, says Massachusetts' Mr. Wang. He observes that impact factors may even be affecting what kind of research is conducted. Top journals require that papers be topical, in addition to presenting important science, so researchers are shifting the kinds of questions they investigate to accommodate those high-impact journals. "The system is going after the short term," says Mr. Wang. "For example, it is easy to catch attention when one describes a previously unknown gene or protein related to a disease, even if the analysis is done only superficially," he says. "Follow-up studies, to uncover the true functions of the molecules or sometimes to challenge the initial analysis, are typically more difficult to publish in journals of top 'impact.'" Catherine D. DeAngelis, editor of the high-impact Journal of the American Medical Association, also criticizes the current culture. The impact factor "has taken on a life of its own," she says, lamenting that many scientists view their work as a failure if they can't get into a top journal. "There are wonderful journals that have impact factors lower than some of the higher-citation journals, and they're perfectly appropriate for good scientists to publish in." The whole system has led to increasing discontent among researchers, says Dr. DeAngelis. "It's bad for science in that you don't make researchers feel good about what they're doing and the fact that their work gets published in a good journal," she says. "That's bad. You're a better scientist if you're a happy scientist." Researchers go to great lengths to place their papers in high-impact journals. They will often flip a manuscript from one publication to the next, dropping reluctantly down the impact ladder until they find one that will accept their work. The system slows the pace of science, say critics, because researchers spend their time trying to publish their work rather than moving on to the next set of experiments. Sometimes authors will put considerable extra work into a paper?? at the request of reviewers at top journals?? only to find it eventually rejected. "I'll get so exhausted `y the whole thing that I won't even publish it or will delay it for a year," says Princeton's Mr. Austin. Think Quick Deluged by so many manuscripts, high-impact journals can send only a fraction out to experts for review. Nature, for example, rejects half of the submissions it gets without forwarding them to referees, says its editor in chief, Philip Campbell. Mr. Austin worries about that process, saying that journal editors are summarily rejecting unfashionable papers. "That can really limit creativity, and really pioneering papers will not necessarily be judged as such by these editors," he says, adding that the editors at top journals are not active researchers. Mr. Campbell responds that editors at Nature all have research experience at good labs and keep on top of their fields by attending conferences and reviewing the literature. "They are better than moqt academics in keeping track of what's going on," he says. "I would put them up against any academic any day in terms of knowing what's going on." He also rejectq a belief widely held among scientists that Nature rejects manuscripts if editors suspect that they won't attract citations and therefore will depress the journal's impact factor. If that were true, he says, the journal would stop publishing papers in geology or paleontology, which rarely receive as many citations as ones in molecular biology. "We're perfectly happy with the fact that we publish papers that are much less cited than others," says Mr. Campbell, who also notes that Nature has regularly voiced skepticism about impact factors in editorials, letters, and news articles. Many other editors contacted by The Chronicle also deny making judgments on the basis of whether a paper will attract citations. But Dr. DeAngelis, of JAMA, says editors at some top journals have told her that they do consider citations when judging some papers. "There are people who won't publish articles," she says, "because it won't help their impact factor." She acknowledges that citations sometimes play a role in her own decisions about a paper. "If I'm on the edge and we're going back and forth," she says, "I might make the decision saying, Will people use this? In that case, one of the criteria is: Will they cite it?" Yet she also publishes papers that she knows will hurt JAMA's impact factor. "We have a special theme issue on medical education, and we continue to do it," she says, even though articles in it are cited relatively infrequently. Fiona Godlee, editor of BMJ (formerly known as the British Medical Journal ), agrees that editors take impact factors into account when deciding on manuscripts, whether they realize it or not. "It would be hard to imagine that editors don't do that," she says. "That's part of the way that impact factors are subverting the scientific process." She says editors may be rejecting not only studies in smaller or less-fashionable fields, but also important papers from certain regions of the world, out of fear that such reports won't attract sufficient citation attention. "It's distorting people's priorities," she says, "and we have to constantly fight against that." Cult of the Factor Although impact factors have been around for decades, it is only within the past 10 years that they have taken on cult status, as the growing use of the Internet has given researchers easy access to ISI data. The company says the ranking is here to stay. "One thing we won't do is change the impact factor as it stands now, just because it's become such a key indicator over time," says Mr. Pringle, the vice president for development. Rather than alter the original, ISI has added additional information and measurement tools to complement the impact factor, he says. But the number continues to be so influential that some who run journals try to manipulate the system. "Publishers have become quite expert in skewing it to their own benefit," says Vitek Tracz, chairman of Current Science Group, which publishes more than 100 open-access journals. One well-known method is to publish more review articles?? those that give overviews of a topic but don't usually present new data. They generally attract more citations than do original research articles. So when the editorial board of the Journal of Environmental Quality met in 2003, it resolved to emphasize review articles in order to shore up the journal's slipping impact factor. Other tactics exploit gaps in the way ISI calculates the impact factor. When journals publish news articles, editorials, book reviews, and abstracts of meetings, ISI does not count those items as "citable articles"; hence they do not go into the denominator of the impact-factor calculation. But if those uncounted items get cited in the literature, ISI still puts those citations into the numerator, thereby increasing the journal's impact factor. Managers at ISI and several journal editors contacted by The Chronicle dismissed the issue, arguing that news articles and editorials do not get cited often. On average that may be true. But some of them gain enough citations to significantly boost the impact factors of certain journals, says Henk F. Moed, a bibliometrician at the Center for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University, in the Netherlands, who wrote about the issue in his new book, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation (Springer, 2005). His analysis of the high-impact journal The Lancet, for example, showed that free citations from news articles and similar material buoyed the British medical journal's impact factor by 16 percent in 2002. Many journals have added a considerable number of uncountable items to their mix in recent years, even as they have decreased the number of original research articles. In fact, Cell, JAMA, The Lancet, Nature, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Science are all now publishing fewer countable research items than they were in 1998, according to ISI data. At the same time, those top journals and others have made a science out of getting publicity for their products. Big journals with well-funded public-relations offices send alerts to hundreds of reporters each week about the articles slated for their next issues. The system generates news items, which have been shown to increaqe citations to the original scientific articles, thus raising impact factors. Smaller, less-visible journals don't benefit from the same media connection. Crooked Citations Editors defend the changes they have made in their journals, arguing that editorials, book reviews, news sections, and similar features are important and popular with readers. But journal watchers point to other, less scrupulous, ways to raise the citation numbers. Sometimes journals will run editorials that cite numerous articles from previous issues. In a new study, Jan Reedijk, of Leiden University, and Mr. Moed found that a significant number of journals get a noticeable jump in their impact factors from such self-citations in editorials. In other cases, research articles in a journal preferentially cite that very journal, with the effect of raising its impact factor. ISI detected a clear example of that practice at the World Journal of Gastroenterology. The company stopped listing that journal this year because 85 percent of the citations to the publication were coming from its own pages. (Despite that censure, the journal's Web site has a moving banner that still trumpets its 2003 impact factor.) The gaming has grown so intense that some journal editors are violating ethical standards to draw more citations to their publications, say scientists. John M. Drake, a postdoctoral researcher at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, at the University of California at Santa Barbara, sent a manuscript to the Journal of Applied Ecology and received this e-mail response from an editor: "I should like you to look at some recent issues of the Journal of Applied Ecology and add citations to any relevant papers you might find. This helps our authors by drawing attention to their work, and also adds internal integrity to the Journal's themes." Because the manuscript had not yet been accepted, the request borders on extortion, Mr. Drake says, even if it weren't meant that way. Authors may feel that they have to comply in order to get their papers published. "That's an abuse of editorial power," he says, "because of the apparent potential for extortion." Robert P. Freckleton, a research fellow at the University of Oxford who is the journal editor who sent the message to Mr. Drake, says he never intended the request to be read as a requirement. "I'd be upset if people read it that way," he says. "That's kind of a generic line we use. We understand most authors don't actually do that." He changed the wording in the form letter last week to clear up misunderstandings, he said. Whatever the intention behind such requests, they are becoming more common. Anurag A. Agrawal, an assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University, has documented similar practices at five other ecology journals. "It's embarrassing, and it's a scar on our discipline," he says. "Authors are being asked to compromise their principles. That chips away at the fabric of the scientific enterprise." Mr. Freckleton defends the practice: "Part of our job as editors is making sure that our work is getting cited and read appropriately." The policy, he says, is not an explicit attempt to raise the journal's impact factor. But the policy has done just that, and quite successfully, according to the The Chronicle's analysis of self-citations to one-year-old articles?? which are important in the impact calculation. In 1997 the Journal of Applied Ecology cited its own one-year-old articles 30 times. By 2004 that number had grown to 91 citations, a 200-percent increase. Similar types of citations of the journal in other publications had increased by only 41 percent. The journal was engaged in other questionable activities at the time. Steve Ormerod, executive editor from 2000 through 2004, wrote several editorials during his tenure that cited his own journal dozens of times. In 2002, for example, two of his commentaries cited 103 papers published in the journal during 2000 and 2001. Those two editorials alone raised his journal's 2002 impact factor by 20 percent. Mr. Ormerod, a professor of ecology at Cardiff University, in Wales, acknowledges that his actions look suspicious, but says "there is a less-sinister explanation." He was attempting, he says, to make the journal more relevant by examining whether past articles on environmental issues had led to policy actions. "As an accident, the impact factor went up at the same time as self-citations went up," he says. He advocates removing self-citations from the impact calculations completely, to avoid any semblance of impropriety. Nonetheless, the self-citations at his publication had a measurable effect. The ecology journal's impact factor jumped from 1.3 in 1997 to 3.3 in 2004, and its ranking within the discipline rose from 29th out of 86 journals to 16th out of 107. Following inquiries by The Chronicle, Mr. Freckleton said last week he was developing a plan to alter the journal's editorials so that self-citations will not raise its impact factor. Complaints From Researchers ISI says it is taking steps to stay ahead of the schemers. "It's not easy, but as we become aware of possible abuse, we try to expose that," says Marie E. McVeigh, product-development manager. For example, citation reports now indicate what percentage of citations to a journal come from that same publication. While it is trying to track abuse from editors, however, ISI may not be doing enough to police itself. Several editors contacted by The Chronicle have raised complaints about errors in the company's data and analyses. The problems appear to be growing worse. Mr. Blume, of the American Physical Society, says researchers have contacted him recently to complain that the ISI database is missing citations to their articles. "Complaints are on the rise," says Mr. Blume, whose organization is looking into the concerns. Mr. Nevill, editor in chief of the Journal of Sports Science, says his journal suffered when ISI incorrectly counted short meeting abstracts as if they were full-fledged original research articles or reviews. That miscoding doubled the number of articles credited to the journal each year, halving its impact factor, he says. Dr. Godlee, of BMJ, says ISI incorrectly counted some items in her journal, such as commentaries, with the effect of depressing its impact factor. James Testa, director of editorial development at Thomson Scientific, takes issue with calling those cases "errors." Questions often arise about how to define certain types of articles, and ISI works closely with publishers to establish a correct coding system for each journal, he says. The company has decided to rerun its impact-factor calculations this year to correct problems with 10 to 15 journals, says Mr. Pringle, of Thomson Scientific. He says the rising importance of impact factors in science has caused editors to pay closer attention to the calculations, which results in them raising more complaints than in the past. Like many other editors and researchers, Dr. Godlee sees an easy solution to the types of problems that have been plaguing the calculations, as well as to deliberate deceptions. She suggests that ISI count citations only to original research articles, eliminating the problem of news stories, editorials, reviews, and other kinds of materials. But ISI has steadfastly resisted altering its original formula. Given the power of ISI and its impact factors, scientists have little choice but to accept the system?? although competitors are emerging that could alter the situation. And the growing use of online journals and open-access journals could eventually topple the traditional system of packaging articles into issues of a journal. Like music lovers who download single songs instead of buying complete albums, some researchers are starting to download only the articles they want, regardless of where they originally appeared. "In terms of where it gets published, it's becoming less and less an issue," says Harold P. Erickson, a professor of cell biology at Duke University. But most scientists still see value in differentiating between the quality of articles in, say, Science and Science of the Total Environment. Even Mr. Erickson has to face a dean who expects his professors to demonstrate their excellence by occasionally publishing in Cell, Nature, Science, and other journals with soaring impact factors. http://chronicle.com Section: Research & Publishing Volume 52, Issue 8, Page A12 Copyright ? 2005 by The Chronicle of Higher Education Subscribe | About The Chronicle | Contact us | Terms of use | Privacy policy | Help (See attached file: CHE IF.doc) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic13186.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1218 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic08313.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3746 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CHE IF.doc Type: application/msword Size: 103424 bytes Desc: not available URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Mon Oct 10 16:07:26 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:07:26 +0100 Subject: Chronicle of Higher Education Impact Factor Article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Comment on: Richard Monastersky, The Number That's Devouring Science, Chronicle of Higher Education, October 1, 2005 http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i08/08a01201.htm [text appended at the end of the comment] Impact Analysis in the PostGutenberg Era Although Richard Monasterky describes a real problem -- the abuse of journal impact factors -- its solution is so obvious one hardly required so many words on the subject: A journal's citation impact factor (CIF) is the average number of citations received by articles in that journal (ISI -- somewhat arbitrarily -- calculates CIFs on the basis of the preceding two years, although other time-windows may also be informative; see http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php ) There is an undeniable relationship between the usefulness of an article and how many other articles use and hence cite it. Hence CIF does measure the average usefulness of the articles in a journal. But there are three problems with the way CIF itself is used, each of them readily correctable: (1) A measure of the average usefulness of the articles in the journal in which a given article appears is no substitute for the actual usefulness of each article itself: In other words, the journal CIF is merely a crude and indirect measure of usefulness; each article's own citation count is the far more direct and accurate measure. (Using the CIF instead of an article's own citation count [or the average citation count for the author] for evaluation and comparison is like using the average marks for the school from which a candidate graduated, rather than the actual marks of the candidate.) (2) Whether comparing CIFs or direct article/author citation counts, one must always compare like with like. There is no point comparing either CIFs between journals in different fields, or citation counts for articles/authors in different fields. (No one has yet bothered to develop a normalised citation count, adjusting for different baseline citation levels and variability in different fields. It could easily be done, but it has not been -- or if it has been done, it was in an obscure scholarly article, but not applied by the actual daily users of CIFs or citation counts today.) (3) Both CIFs and citation counts can be distorted and abused. Authors can self-cite, or cite their friends; some journal editors can and do encourage self-citing their journal. These malpractices are deplorable, but most are also detectable, and then name-and-shame-able and correctable. ISI could do a better job policing them, but soon the playing field will widen, for as authors make their articles open access online, other harvesters -- such as citebase and citeseer and even google scholar -- will be able to harvest and calculate citation counts, and average, compare, expose, enrich and correct them in powerful ways that were in the inconceivable in the Gutenberg era:. http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://scholar.google.com/ So, yes, CIFs are being misused and abused currently, but the cure is already obvious -- and wealth of powerful new resources are on the way for measuring and analyzing research usage and impact online, including (1) download counts, (2) co-citation counts (co-cited with, co-cited by), (3) hub/authority ranks (authorities are highly cited papers cited by many highly cited papers; hubs cite many authorities), (4) download/citation correlations and other time-series analyses, (5) download growth-curve and peak latency scores, (6) citation growth-curve and peak-latency scores, (7) download/citation longevity scores, (8) co-text analysis (comparing similar texts, extrapolating directional trends), and much more. It will no longer be just CIFs and citation counts but a rich multiple regression equation, with many weighted predictor variables based on these new measures. And they will be available both for navigators and evaluators online, and based not just on the current ISI database but on all of the peer-reviewed research literature. Meanwhile, use the direct citation counts, not the CIFs. Some self-citations follow (and then the CHE article's text): Brody, T. (2003) Citebase Search: Autonomous Citation Database for e-print Archives, sinn03 Conference on Worldwide Coherent Workforce, Satisfied Users - New Services For Scientific Information, Oldenburg, Germany, September 2003 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10677/ Brody, T. (2004) Citation Analysis in the Open Access World Interactive Media International http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10000/ Brody, T. , Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2005) Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST, in press). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713/ Hajjem, C., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L. & Harnad, S. (2005) Across Disciplines, Open Access Increases Citation Impact. (manuscript in preparation). http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/chawki1.doc Hajjem, C. (2005) Analyse de la variation de pourcentages d'articles en acc?s libre en fonction de taux de citations http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004a) Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals. D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 6 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10207/ Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004) Prior evidence that downloads predict citations. British Medical Journal online. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10206/ Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2000) Integrating, Navigating and Analyzing Eprint Archives Through Open Citation Linking (the OpCit Project). Current Science 79(5):pp. 629-638. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5940/ Harnad, S. , Brody, T. , Vallieres, F. , Carr, L. , Hitchcock, S. , Gingras, Y. , Oppenheim, C. , Stamerjohanns, H. and Hilf, E. (2004) The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials Review, Vol. 30, No. 4, 310-314 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/ Hitchcock, S. , Brody, T. , Gutteridge, C. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. , Harnad, S. , Bergmark, D. and Lagoze, C. (2002) Open Citation Linking: The Way Forward. D-Lib Magazine 8(10). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7717/ Hitchcock, S. , Carr, L. , Jiao, Z. , Bergmark, D. , Hall, W. , Lagoze, C. and Harnad, S. (2000) Developing services for open eprint archives: globalisation, integration and the impact of links. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, San Antonio, Texas, June 2000. , pages pp. 143-151. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2860/ Hitchcock, S. , Woukeu, A. , Brody, T. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. and Harnad, S. (2003) Evaluating Citebase, an open access Web-based citation-ranked search and impact discovery service. Technical Report ECSTR-IAM03-005, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8204/ Stevan Harnad > The Number That's Devouring Science > > The impact factor, once a simple way to rank scientific journals, has > become an unyielding yardstick for hiring, tenure, and grants > > > By RICHARD MONASTERSKY > > > In the beginning, during the late 1950s, it was just an innocent idea in > Eugene Garfield's head. A Philadelphia researcher who described himself as > a "documentation consultant," Mr. Garfield spent his free time thinking > about scientific literature and how to mine information from it. > > > He eventually dreamed up something he called an "impact factor," > essentially a grading system for journals, that could help him pick out the > most important publications from the ranks of lesser titles. To identify > which journals mattered most to scientists, he proposed tallying up the > number of citations an average article in each journal received. > > > This accounting method sounds harmless enough. Outside academe, few people > have even heard of it. Mr. Garfield, though, now compares his brainchild to > nuclear energy: a force that can help society but can unleash mayhem when > it is misused. > > > Indeed, impact factors have assumed so much power, especially in the past > five years, that they are starting to control the scientific enterprise. In > Europe, Asia, and, increasingly, the United States, Mr. Garfield's tool can > play a crucial role in hiring, tenure decisions, and the awarding of > grants. > > > "The impact factor may be a pox upon the land because of the abuse of that > number," says Robert H. Austin, a professor of physics at Princeton > University. > > > Impact-factor fever is spreading, threatening to skew the course of > scientific research, say critics. Investigators are now more likely to > chase after fashionable topics? ??? the kind that get into high-impact > journals? ??? than to follow important avenues that may not be the flavor of > the year, says Yu-Li Wang, a professor of physiology at the University of > Massachusetts Medical School. "It influences a lot of people's research > direction." > > > That influence has also led to a creeping sense of cynicism about the > business of science publications. Journal editors have learned how to > manipulate the system, sometimes through legitimate editorial choices and > other times through deceptive practices that artificially inflate their own > rankings. Several ecology journals, for example, routinely ask authors to > add citations to previous articles from that same journal, a policy that > pushes up its impact factor. Authors who have received such requests say > that the practice veers toward extortion and represents a violation of > scientific ethics. > > > What's more, investigations into impact factors have revealed problems with > the basic data used by ISI, the company that tabulates citation statistics > and journals' impact factors. Started by Mr. Garfield in Philadelphia, ISI > was bought in 1992 by the Thomson Corporation, which has tried to transform > the citation enterprise into a more profitable operation by buying up > databases and promoting its products. With alarming frequency, editors are > finding fault with the impact factors that Thomson has issued. > > > "This was a serious concern," says Alan Nevill, a professor of > biostatistics at the University of Wolverhampton, in England, who took > issue with the calculations that ISI made regarding the Journal of Sports > Science, which he edits. "Academia is being held ransom by these > citations." > > > Far From Its Roots > > > It wasn't supposed to be this way. "We never predicted that people would > turn this into an evaluation tool for giving out grants and funding," says > Mr. Garfield. > > > Although he first mentioned the term "impact factor" in a publication in > 1955, it wasn't until the 1960s that Mr. Garfield and a colleague fully > developed the concept to help them select the most important journals for a > new citation index, which has grown into one of the most widely used > citation tools in science and the social sciences. It didn't make sense, > they reasoned, to include only the journals that get the most citations, > because that would eliminate smaller publications. So they invented a type > of measurement that reflects the average number of citations per article > for each journal. > > > The basic definition has changed little since then, although the process of > calculating impact factors has become highly automated through the use of > computer algorithms, which trolled through 27 million citations last year. > In June, ISI issued its latest set of impact factors, for 5,968 science > journals and 1,712 social-science journals. > > > To calculate the most recent factor for the journal Nature, for example, > the company tallied the number of citations in 2004 to all of the articles > that Nature published in 2002 and 2003. Those citations were divided by the > number of articles the journal published in those two years, yielding an > impact factor of 32.182? ??? the ninth-highest of all journals. It is a number > that editors and publishers across the world lust after; more than half of > all science journals listed by ISI score below 1. > > > Impact factors caught on because they are an objective measure that serves > many purposes. Librarians can use them to decide which journals to purchase > and which to cancel. Editors and publishers can chart their journals' > impact factors to gauge their progress relative to competitors. And > scientists can examine the numbers to see where their research papers are > likely to get the most attention. > > > Higher-ranking journals, it turns out, do get a message out better. Matthew > B. Stanbrook, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of > Toronto, tracked what happened after 12 medical journals published a joint > statement on research authorship and sponsorship in 2001? ??? an unusual > situation that provided direct comparisons. Over the following 26 months, > the highest-impact journal received 100 times as many citations to the > article as the lowest one of the 12, Dr. Stanbrook reported at a conference > on peer review and publishing last month in Chicago. "There's a measurable > value associated with a high-impact journal, which indicates why those > journals are important," he says. > > > Over the years, impact factors have proved so attractive to scientists that > they started applying them not only to journals but also to researchers. > Ideally, evaluators would look at the number of citations an individual > paper receives or a scientist accumulates over his or her career? ??? but that > process takes time and money. Impact factors provide a shortcut. > > > They also help in the modern world of ultraspecialized science. Members of > a tenure committee or a hiring panel find it increasingly difficult to > assess the papers of a candidate working outside their own subdiscipline, > so they use the impact factor of the journal in which the paper appeared as > a measure of the paper's quality. By that logic, evaluators rate a paper > more highly if it appears in a high-impact journal, regardless of what the > paper actually says. > > > Europeans cite another reason that impact factors are popular there. In > some countries, the community of researchers in a particular field is so > small that they all know each other and either collaborate or compete. > Using impact factors to assess individual scientists is seen as an > improvement over tapping into an old-boy network to make hiring and grant > decisions. > > > Fuzzy Math > > > But relying on impact factors to evaluate a person is statistically > dimwitted, say critics of its spreading influence. The measurement is just > an average of all the papers in a journal over a year; it doesn't apply to > any single paper, let alone to any author. For example, a quarter of the > articles in Nature last year drew 89 percent of the citations to that > journal, so a vast majority of the articles received far fewer than the > average of 32 citations reflected in the most recent impact factor. > > > Mr. Garfield and ISI routinely point out the problems of using impact > factors for individual papers or people. "That is something we have > wrestled with quite a bit here," says Jim Pringle, vice president for > development at Thomson Scientific, the division that oversees ISI. "It is a > fallacy to think you can say anything about the citation pattern of an > article from the citation pattern of a journal." > > > Such warnings have not helped. In several countries in Europe and Asia, > administrators openly use impact factors to evaluate researchers or > allocate money: > In England, hiring panels routinely consider impact factors, says Mr. > Nevill. > According to Spanish law, researchers are rewarded for publishing in > journals defined by ISI as prestigious, which in practice has meant > in the upper third of the impact-factor listings. > In China, scientists get cash bonuses for publishing in high-impact > journals, and graduate students in physics at some universities must > place at least two articles in journals with a combined impact factor > of 4 to get their Ph.D.'s, says Martin Blume, editor in chief of the > American Physical Society, who recently met with scientists in China. > > > The obsession with impact factors has also seeped into the United States, > although less openly. Martin Frank, executive director of the American > Physiological Society, says a young faculty member once told him about a > policy articulated by her department chair. She was informed that in order > to get tenure, scientists should publish in journals with an impact factor > above 5. > > > "We are slaves to the impact factor," says Mr. Frank, whose organization > publishes 14 science journals. > > > Impact ranking may now be a tool that controls scientists, rather than the > other way around. Pressure to publish in the highest-impact science > journals? ??? Nature, Science, and Cell? ??? has led researchers to compete more > and more for the limited number of slots in those broader journals, thus > diminishing the specialty titles that have traditionally served as the main > publications of each discipline. Academe used to be a "publish or perish" > world, but now the halls of science have turned into a "publish in a > high-impact journal or perish" environment, says Massachusetts' Mr. Wang. > > > He observes that impact factors may even be affecting what kind of research > is conducted. Top journals require that papers be topical, in addition to > presenting important science, so researchers are shifting the kinds of > questions they investigate to accommodate those high-impact journals. "The > system is going after the short term," says Mr. Wang. > > > "For example, it is easy to catch attention when one describes a previously > unknown gene or protein related to a disease, even if the analysis is done > only superficially," he says. "Follow-up studies, to uncover the true > functions of the molecules or sometimes to challenge the initial analysis, > are typically more difficult to publish in journals of top 'impact.'" > > > Catherine D. DeAngelis, editor of the high-impact Journal of the American > Medical Association, also criticizes the current culture. The impact factor > "has taken on a life of its own," she says, lamenting that many scientists > view their work as a failure if they can't get into a top journal. "There > are wonderful journals that have impact factors lower than some of the > higher-citation journals, and they're perfectly appropriate for good > scientists to publish in." > > > The whole system has led to increasing discontent among researchers, says > Dr. DeAngelis. "It's bad for science in that you don't make researchers > feel good about what they're doing and the fact that their work gets > published in a good journal," she says. "That's bad. You're a better > scientist if you're a happy scientist." > > > Researchers go to great lengths to place their papers in high-impact > journals. They will often flip a manuscript from one publication to the > next, dropping reluctantly down the impact ladder until they find one that > will accept their work. The system slows the pace of science, say critics, > because researchers spend their time trying to publish their work rather > than moving on to the next set of experiments. > > > Sometimes authors will put considerable extra work into a paper? ??? at the > request of reviewers at top journals? ??? only to find it eventually rejected. > "I'll get so exhausted `y the whole thing that I won't even publish it or > will delay it for a year," says Princeton's Mr. Austin. > > > Think Quick > > > Deluged by so many manuscripts, high-impact journals can send only a > fraction out to experts for review. Nature, for example, rejects half of > the submissions it gets without forwarding them to referees, says its > editor in chief, Philip Campbell. > > > Mr. Austin worries about that process, saying that journal editors are > summarily rejecting unfashionable papers. "That can really limit > creativity, and really pioneering papers will not necessarily be judged as > such by these editors," he says, adding that the editors at top journals > are not active researchers. > > > Mr. Campbell responds that editors at Nature all have research experience > at good labs and keep on top of their fields by attending conferences and > reviewing the literature. "They are better than most academics in keeping > track of what's going on," he says. "I would put them up against any > academic any day in terms of knowing what's going on." > > > He also rejects a belief widely held among scientists that Nature rejects > manuscripts if editors suspect that they won't attract citations and > therefore will depress the journal's impact factor. If that were true, he > says, the journal would stop publishing papers in geology or paleontology, > which rarely receive as many citations as ones in molecular biology. > > > "We're perfectly happy with the fact that we publish papers that are much > less cited than others," says Mr. Campbell, who also notes that Nature has > regularly voiced skepticism about impact factors in editorials, letters, > and news articles. > > > Many other editors contacted by The Chronicle also deny making judgments on > the basis of whether a paper will attract citations. But Dr. DeAngelis, of > JAMA, says editors at some top journals have told her that they do consider > citations when judging some papers. "There are people who won't publish > articles," she says, "because it won't help their impact factor." > > > She acknowledges that citations sometimes play a role in her own decisions > about a paper. "If I'm on the edge and we're going back and forth," she > says, "I might make the decision saying, Will people use this? In that > case, one of the criteria is: Will they cite it?" > > > Yet she also publishes papers that she knows will hurt JAMA's impact > factor. "We have a special theme issue on medical education, and we > continue to do it," she says, even though articles in it are cited > relatively infrequently. > > > Fiona Godlee, editor of BMJ (formerly known as the British Medical Journal > ), agrees that editors take impact factors into account when deciding on > manuscripts, whether they realize it or not. "It would be hard to imagine > that editors don't do that," she says. "That's part of the way that impact > factors are subverting the scientific process." > > > She says editors may be rejecting not only studies in smaller or > less-fashionable fields, but also important papers from certain regions of > the world, out of fear that such reports won't attract sufficient citation > attention. "It's distorting people's priorities," she says, "and we have to > constantly fight against that." > > > Cult of the Factor > > > Although impact factors have been around for decades, it is only within the > past 10 years that they have taken on cult status, as the growing use of > the Internet has given researchers easy access to ISI data. The company > says the ranking is here to stay. > > > "One thing we won't do is change the impact factor as it stands now, just > because it's become such a key indicator over time," says Mr. Pringle, the > vice president for development. Rather than alter the original, ISI has > added additional information and measurement tools to complement the impact > factor, he says. > > > But the number continues to be so influential that some who run journals > try to manipulate the system. "Publishers have become quite expert in > skewing it to their own benefit," says Vitek Tracz, chairman of Current > Science Group, which publishes more than 100 open-access journals. > > > One well-known method is to publish more review articles? ??? those that give > overviews of a topic but don't usually present new data. They generally > attract more citations than do original research articles. So when the > editorial board of the Journal of Environmental Quality met in 2003, it > resolved to emphasize review articles in order to shore up the journal's > slipping impact factor. > > > Other tactics exploit gaps in the way ISI calculates the impact factor. > When journals publish news articles, editorials, book reviews, and > abstracts of meetings, ISI does not count those items as "citable > articles"; hence they do not go into the denominator of the impact-factor > calculation. But if those uncounted items get cited in the literature, ISI > still puts those citations into the numerator, thereby increasing the > journal's impact factor. > > > Managers at ISI and several journal editors contacted by The Chronicle > dismissed the issue, arguing that news articles and editorials do not get > cited often. On average that may be true. But some of them gain enough > citations to significantly boost the impact factors of certain journals, > says Henk F. Moed, a bibliometrician at the Center for Science and > Technology Studies at Leiden University, in the Netherlands, who wrote > about the issue in his new book, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation > (Springer, 2005). His analysis of the high-impact journal The Lancet, for > example, showed that free citations from news articles and similar material > buoyed the British medical journal's impact factor by 16 percent in 2002. > > > Many journals have added a considerable number of uncountable items to > their mix in recent years, even as they have decreased the number of > original research articles. In fact, Cell, JAMA, The Lancet, Nature, The > New England Journal of Medicine, and Science are all now publishing fewer > countable research items than they were in 1998, according to ISI data. > > > At the same time, those top journals and others have made a science out of > getting publicity for their products. Big journals with well-funded > public-relations offices send alerts to hundreds of reporters each week > about the articles slated for their next issues. The system generates news > items, which have been shown to increase citations to the original > scientific articles, thus raising impact factors. Smaller, less-visible > journals don't benefit from the same media connection. > > > Crooked Citations > > > Editors defend the changes they have made in their journals, arguing that > editorials, book reviews, news sections, and similar features are important > and popular with readers. But journal watchers point to other, less > scrupulous, ways to raise the citation numbers. > > > Sometimes journals will run editorials that cite numerous articles from > previous issues. In a new study, Jan Reedijk, of Leiden University, and Mr. > Moed found that a significant number of journals get a noticeable jump in > their impact factors from such self-citations in editorials. > > > In other cases, research articles in a journal preferentially cite that > very journal, with the effect of raising its impact factor. ISI detected a > clear example of that practice at the World Journal of Gastroenterology. > The company stopped listing that journal this year because 85 percent of > the citations to the publication were coming from its own pages. (Despite > that censure, the journal's Web site has a moving banner that still > trumpets its 2003 impact factor.) > > > The gaming has grown so intense that some journal editors are violating > ethical standards to draw more citations to their publications, say > scientists. John M. Drake, a postdoctoral researcher at the National Center > for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, at the University of California at > Santa Barbara, sent a manuscript to the Journal of Applied Ecology and > received this e-mail response from an editor: "I should like you to look at > some recent issues of the Journal of Applied Ecology and add citations to > any relevant papers you might find. This helps our authors by drawing > attention to their work, and also adds internal integrity to the Journal's > themes." > > > Because the manuscript had not yet been accepted, the request borders on > extortion, Mr. Drake says, even if it weren't meant that way. Authors may > feel that they have to comply in order to get their papers published. > "That's an abuse of editorial power," he says, "because of the apparent > potential for extortion." > > > Robert P. Freckleton, a research fellow at the University of Oxford who is > the journal editor who sent the message to Mr. Drake, says he never > intended the request to be read as a requirement. "I'd be upset if people > read it that way," he says. "That's kind of a generic line we use. We > understand most authors don't actually do that." He changed the wording in > the form letter last week to clear up misunderstandings, he said. > > > Whatever the intention behind such requests, they are becoming more common. > Anurag A. Agrawal, an assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary > biology at Cornell University, has documented similar practices at five > other ecology journals. "It's embarrassing, and it's a scar on our > discipline," he says. "Authors are being asked to compromise their > principles. That chips away at the fabric of the scientific enterprise." > > > Mr. Freckleton defends the practice: "Part of our job as editors is making > sure that our work is getting cited and read appropriately." The policy, he > says, is not an explicit attempt to raise the journal's impact factor. > > > But the policy has done just that, and quite successfully, according to the > The Chronicle's analysis of self-citations to one-year-old articles? ??? which > are important in the impact calculation. In 1997 the Journal of Applied > Ecology cited its own one-year-old articles 30 times. By 2004 that number > had grown to 91 citations, a 200-percent increase. Similar types of > citations of the journal in other publications had increased by only 41 > percent. > > > The journal was engaged in other questionable activities at the time. Steve > Ormerod, executive editor from 2000 through 2004, wrote several editorials > during his tenure that cited his own journal dozens of times. In 2002, for > example, two of his commentaries cited 103 papers published in the journal > during 2000 and 2001. Those two editorials alone raised his journal's 2002 > impact factor by 20 percent. > > > Mr. Ormerod, a professor of ecology at Cardiff University, in Wales, > acknowledges that his actions look suspicious, but says "there is a > less-sinister explanation." He was attempting, he says, to make the journal > more relevant by examining whether past articles on environmental issues > had led to policy actions. "As an accident, the impact factor went up at > the same time as self-citations went up," he says. He advocates removing > self-citations from the impact calculations completely, to avoid any > semblance of impropriety. > > > Nonetheless, the self-citations at his publication had a measurable effect. > The ecology journal's impact factor jumped from 1.3 in 1997 to 3.3 in 2004, > and its ranking within the discipline rose from 29th out of 86 journals to > 16th out of 107. > > > Following inquiries by The Chronicle, Mr. Freckleton said last week he was > developing a plan to alter the journal's editorials so that self-citations > will not raise its impact factor. > > > Complaints From Researchers > > > ISI says it is taking steps to stay ahead of the schemers. "It's not easy, > but as we become aware of possible abuse, we try to expose that," says > Marie E. McVeigh, product-development manager. For example, citation > reports now indicate what percentage of citations to a journal come from > that same publication. > > > While it is trying to track abuse from editors, however, ISI may not be > doing enough to police itself. Several editors contacted by The Chronicle > have raised complaints about errors in the company's data and analyses. The > problems appear to be growing worse. > > > Mr. Blume, of the American Physical Society, says researchers have > contacted him recently to complain that the ISI database is missing > citations to their articles. "Complaints are on the rise," says Mr. Blume, > whose organization is looking into the concerns. > > > Mr. Nevill, editor in chief of the Journal of Sports Science, says his > journal suffered when ISI incorrectly counted short meeting abstracts as if > they were full-fledged original research articles or reviews. That > miscoding doubled the number of articles credited to the journal each year, > halving its impact factor, he says. > > > Dr. Godlee, of BMJ, says ISI incorrectly counted some items in her journal, > such as commentaries, with the effect of depressing its impact factor. > > > James Testa, director of editorial development at Thomson Scientific, takes > issue with calling those cases "errors." Questions often arise about how to > define certain types of articles, and ISI works closely with publishers to > establish a correct coding system for each journal, he says. The company > has decided to rerun its impact-factor calculations this year to correct > problems with 10 to 15 journals, says Mr. Pringle, of Thomson Scientific. > He says the rising importance of impact factors in science has caused > editors to pay closer attention to the calculations, which results in them > raising more complaints than in the past. > > > Like many other editors and researchers, Dr. Godlee sees an easy solution > to the types of problems that have been plaguing the calculations, as well > as to deliberate deceptions. She suggests that ISI count citations only to > original research articles, eliminating the problem of news stories, > editorials, reviews, and other kinds of materials. But ISI has steadfastly > resisted altering its original formula. > > > Given the power of ISI and its impact factors, scientists have little > choice but to accept the system? ??? although competitors are emerging that > could alter the situation. And the growing use of online journals and > open-access journals could eventually topple the traditional system of > packaging articles into issues of a journal. > > > Like music lovers who download single songs instead of buying complete > albums, some researchers are starting to download only the articles they > want, regardless of where they originally appeared. "In terms of where it > gets published, it's becoming less and less an issue," says Harold P. > Erickson, a professor of cell biology at Duke University. > > > But most scientists still see value in differentiating between the quality > of articles in, say, Science and Science of the Total Environment. Even Mr. > Erickson has to face a dean who expects his professors to demonstrate their > excellence by occasionally publishing in Cell, Nature, Science, and other > journals with soaring impact factors. > > > http://chronicle.com > Section: Research & Publishing > Volume 52, Issue 8, Page A12 > Copyright ?? 2005 by The Chronicle of Higher Education > > Subscribe | About The Chronicle | Contact us | Terms of use | Privacy > policy | Help > (See attached file: CHE IF.doc) > From notsjb at LSU.EDU Mon Oct 10 17:00:41 2005 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:00:41 -0500 Subject: Chronicle of Higher Education Impact Factor Article Message-ID: Oh, if only it were that simple, but it ain't. You have fuzzy sets causing extraneous citations and difficulties in defining article types. The entire thing is wracked with Abe Bookstein's ambiguity. I think that you should really study very carefully what Gene Garfield has written on the topic. Stevan Harnad @listserv.utk.edu> on 10/10/2005 03:07:26 PM Please respond to ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics Sent by: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu cc: (bcc: Stephen J Bensman/notsjb/LSU) Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Chronicle of Higher Education Impact Factor Article Comment on: Richard Monastersky, The Number That's Devouring Science, Ahronicle of Higher Education, October 1, 2005 http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i08/08a01201.htm [text appended at the end of the comment] Impact Analysis in the PostGutenberg Era Although Richard Monasterky describes a real problem -- the abuse of journal impact factors -- its solution is so obvious one hardly required so many words on the subject: A journal's citation impact factor (CIF) is the average number of citations received by articles in that journal (ISI -- somewhat arbitrarily -- calculates CIFs on the basis of the preceding two years, although other time-windows may also be informative; see http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php ) There is an undeniable relationship between the usefulness of an article and how many other articles use and hence cite it. Hence CIF does measure the average usefulness of the articles in a journal. But there are three problems with the way CIF itself is used, each of them readily correctable: (1) A measure of the average usefulness of the articles in the journal in which a given article appears is no substitute for the actual usefulness of each article itself: In other words, the journal CIF is merely a crude and indirect measure of usefulness; each article's own citation count is the far more direct and accurate measure. (Using the CIF instead of an article's own citation count [or the average citation count for the author] for evaluation and comparison is like using the average marks for the school from which a candidate graduated, rather than the actual marks of the candidate.) (2) Whether comparing CIFs or direct article/author citation counts, one must always compare like with like. There is no point comparing either CIFs between journals in different fields, or citation counts for articles/authors in different fields. (No one has yet bothered to develop a normalised citation count, adjusting for different baseline citation levels and variability in different fields. It could easily be done, but it has not been -- or if it has been done, it was in an obscure scholarly article, but not applied by the actual daily users of CIFs or citation counts today.) (3) Both CIFs and citation counts can be distorted and abused. Authors can self-cite, or cite their friends; some journal editors can and do encourage self-citing their journal. These malpractices are deplorable, but most are also detectable, and then name-and-shame-able and correctable. ISI could do a better job policing them, but soon the playing field will widen, for as authors make their articles open access online, other harvesters -- such as citebase and citeseer and even google scholar -- will be able to harvest and calculate citation counts, and average, compare, expose, enrich and correct them in powerful ways that were in the inconceivable in the Gutenberg era:. http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://scholar.google.com/ So, yes, CIFs are being misused and abused currently, but the cure is already obvious -- and wealth of powerful new resources are on the way for measuring and analyzing research usage and impact online, including (1) download counts, (2) co-citation counts (co-cited with, co-cited by), (3) hub/authority ranks (authorities are highly cited papers cited by many highly cited papers; hubs cite many authorities), (4) download/citation correlations and other time-series analyses, (5) download growth-curve and peak latency scores, (6) citation growth-curve and peak-latency scores, (7) download/citation longevity scores, (8) co-text analysis (comparing similar texts, extrapolating directional trends), and much more. It will no longer be just CIFs and citation counts but a rich multiple regression equation, with many weighted predictor variables based on these new measures. And they will be available both for navigators and evaluators online, and based not just on the current ISI database but on all of the peer-reviewed research literature. Meanwhile, use the direct citation counts, not the CIFs. Some self-citations follow (and then the CHE article's text): Brody, T. (2003) Citebase Search: Autonomous Citation Database for e-print Archives, sinn03 Conference on Worldwide Coherent Workforce, Satisfied Users - New Services For Scientific Information, Oldenburg, Germany, September 2003 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10677/ Brody, T. (2004) Citation Analysis in the Open Access World Interactive Media International http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10000/ Brody, T. , Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2005) Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST, in press). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713/ Hajjem, C., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L. & Harnad, S. (2005) Across Disciplines, Open Access Increases Citation Impact. (manuscript in preparation). http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/chawki1.doc Hajjem, C. (2005) Analyse de la variation de pourcentages d'articles en acc?s libre en fonction de taux de citations http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004a) Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals. D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 6 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10207/ Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004) Prior evidence that downloads predict citations. British Medical Journal online. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10206/ Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2000) Integrating, Navigating and Analyzing Eprint Archives Through Open Citation Linking (the OpCit Project). Current Science 79(5):pp. 629-638. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5940/ Harnad, S. , Brody, T. , Vallieres, F. , Carr, L. , Hitchcock, S. , Gingras, Y. , Oppenheim, C. , Stamerjohanns, H. and Hilf, E. (2004) The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials Review, Vol. 30, No. 4, 310-314 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/ Hitchcock, S. , Brody, T. , Gutteridge, C. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. , Harnad, S. , Bergmark, D. and Lagoze, C. (2002) Open Citation Linking: The Way Forward. D-Lib Magazine 8(10). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7717/ Hitchcock, S. , Carr, L. , Jiao, Z. , Bergmark, D. , Hall, W. , Lagoze, C. and Harnad, S. (2000) Developing services for open eprint archives: globalisation, inteeration and the impact of links. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, San Antonio, Texas, June 2000. , pages pp. 143-151. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2860/ Hitchcock, S. , Woukeu, A. , Brody, T. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. and Harnad, S. (2003) Evaluating Citebase, an open access Web-based citation-ranked search and impact discovery service. Technical Report ECSTR-IAM03-005, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8204/ Stevan Harnad > The Number That's Devouring Science > > The impact factor, once a simple way to rank scientific journals, has > become an unyielding yardstick for hiring, tenure, and grants > > > By RICHARD MONASTERSKY > > > In the beginning, during the late 1950s, it was just an innocent idea in > Eugene Garfield's head. A Philadelphia researcher who described himself as > a "documentation consultant," Mr. Garfield spent his free time thinking > about scientific literature and how to mine information from it. > > > He eventually dreamed up something he called an "impact factor," > essentially a grading system for journals, that could help him pick out the > most important publications from the ranks of lesser titles. To identify > which journals mattered most to scientists, he proposed tallying up the > number of citations an average article in each journal received. > > > This accounting method sounds harmless enough. Outside academe, few people > have even heard of it. Mr. Garfield, though, now compares his brainchild to > nuclear energy: a force that can help society but can unleash mayhem when > it is misused. > > > Indeed, impact factors have assumed so much power, especially in the past > five years, that they are starting to control the scientific enterprise. In > Europe, Asia, and, increasingly, the United States, Mr. Garfield's tool can > play a crucial role in hiring, tenure decisions, and the awarding of > grants. > > > "The impact factor may be a pox upon the land because of the abuse of that > number," says Robert H. Austin, a professor of physics at Princeton > University. > > > Impact-factor fever is spreading, threatening to skew the course of > scientific research, say critics. Investigators are now more likely to > chase after fashionable topics? ??? the kind that get into high-impact > journals? ??? than to follow important avenues that may not be the flavor of > the year, says Yu-Li Wang, a professor of physiology at the University of > Massachusetts Medical School. "It influences a lot of people's research > direction." > > > That influence has also led to a creeping sense of cynicism about the > business of science publications. Journal editors have learned how to > manipulate the system, sometimes through legitimate editorial choices and > other times through deceptive practices that artificially inflate their own > rankings. Several ecology journals, for example, routinely ask authors to > add citations to previous articles from that same journal, a policy that > pushes up its impact factor. Authors who have received such requests say > that the practice veers toward extortion and represents a violation of > scientific ethics. > > > What's more, investigations into impact factors have revealed problems with > the basic data used by ISI, the company that tabulates citation statistics > and journals' impact factors. Started by Mr. Garfield in Philadelphia, ISI > was bought in 1992 by the Thomson Corporation, which has tried to transform > the citation enterprise into a more profitable operation by buying up > databases and promoting its products. With alarming frequency, editors are > finding fault with the impact factors that Thomson has issued. > > > "This was a serious concern," says Alan Nevill, a profesqor of > biostatistics at the University of Wolverhampton, in England, who took > issue with the calculations that ISI made regarding the Journal of Sports > Science, which he edits. "Academia is being held ransom by these > citations." > > > Far From Its Roots > > > It wasn't supposed to be this way. "We never predicted that people would > turn this into an evaluation tool for giving out grants and funding," says > Mr. Garfield. > > > Although he first mentioned the term "impact factor" in a publication in > 1955, it wasn't until the 1960s that Mr. Garfield and a colleague fully > developed the concept to help them select the most important journals for a > new citation index, which has grown into one of the most widely used > citation tools in science and the social sciences. It didn't make sense, > they reasoned, to include only the journals that get the most citations, > because that would eliminate smaller publications. So they invented a type > of measurement that reflects the average number of citations per article > for each journal. > > > The basic definition has changed little since then, although the process of > calculating impact factors has become highly automated through the use of > computer algorithms, which trolled through 27 million citations last year. > In June, ISI issued its latest set of impact factors, for 5,968 science > journals and 1,712 social-science journals. > > > To calculate the most recent factor for the journal Nature, for example, > the company tallied the number of citations in 2004 to all of the articles > that Nature published in 2002 and 2003. Those citations were divided by the > number of articles the journal published in those two years, yielding an > impact factor of 32.182? ??? the ninth-highest of all journals. It is a number > that editors and publishers across the world lust after; more than half of > all science journals listed by ISI score below 1. > > > Impact factors caught on because they are an objective measure that serves > many purposes. Librarians can use them to decide which journals to purchase > and which to cancel. Editors and publishers can chart their journals' > impact factors to gauge their progress relative to competitors. And > scientists can examine the numbers to see where their research papers are > likely to get the most attention. > > > Higher-ranking journals, it turns out, do get a message out better. Matthew > B. Stanbrook, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of > Toronto, tracked what happened after 12 medical journals published a joint > statement on research authorship and sponsorship in 2001? ??? an unusual > situation that provided direct comparisons. Over the following 26 months, > the highest-impact journal received 100 times as many citations to the > article as the lowest one of the 12, Dr. Stanbrook reported at a conference > on peer review and publishing last month in Chicago. "There's a measurable > value associated with a high-impact journal, which indicates why those > journals are important," he says. > > > Over the years, impact factors have proved so attractive to scientists that > they started applying them not only to journals but also to researchers. > Ideally, evaluators would look at the number of citations an individual > paper receives or a scientist accumulates over his or her career? ??? but that > process takes time and money. Impact factors provide a shortcut. > > > They also help in the modern world of ultraspecialized science. Members of > a tenure committee or a hiring panel find it increasingly difficult to > assess the papers of a candidate working outside their own subdiscipline, > so they use the impact factor of the journal in which the paper appeared as > a measure of the paper's quality. By that logic, evaluators rate a paper > more highly if it appears in a high-impact journal, regardless of what the > paper actually says. > > > Europeans cite another reason that impact factors are popular there. In > some countries, the community of researchers in a particular field is so > small that they all know each other and either collaborate or compete. > Using impact factors to assess individual scientists is seen as an > improvement over tapping into an old-boy network to make hiring and grant > decisions. > > > Fuzzy Math > > > But relying on impact factors to evaluate a person is statistically > dimwitted, say critics of its spreading influence. The measurement is just > an average of all the papers in a journal over a year; it doesn't apply to > any single paper, let alone to any author. For example, a quarter of the > articles in Nature last year drew 89 percent of the citations to that > journal, so a vast majority of the articles received far fewer than the > average of 32 citations reflected in the most recent impact factor. > > > Mr. Garfield and ISI routinely point out the problems of using impact > factors for individual papers or people. "That is something we have > wrestled with quite a bit here," says Jim Pringle, vice president for > development at Thomson Scientific, the division that oversees ISI. "It is a > fallacy to think you can say anything about the citation pattern of an > article from the citation pattern of a journal." > > > Such warnings have not helped. In several countries in Europe and Asia, > administrators openly use impact factors to evaluate researchers or > allocate money: > In England, hiring panels routinely consider impact factors, says Mr. > Nevill. > According to Spanish law, researchers are rewarded for publishing in > journals defined by ISI as prestigious, which in practice has meant > in the upper third of the impact-factor listings. > In China, scientists get cash bonuses for publishing in high-impact > journals, and graduate students in physics at some universities must > place at least two articles in journals with a combined impact factor > of 4 to get their Ph.D.'s, says Martin Blume, editor in chief of the > American Physical Society, who recently met with scientists in China. > > > The obsession with impact factors has also seeped into the United States, > although less openly. Martin Frank, executive director of the American > Physiological Society, says a young faculty member once told him about a > policy articulated by her department chair. She was informed that in order > to get tenure, scientists should publish in journals with an impact factor > above 5. > > > "We are slaves to the impact factor," says Mr. Frank, whose organization > publishes 14 science journals. > > > Impact ranking may now be a tool that controls scientists, rather than the > other way around. Pressure to publish in the highest-impact science > journals? ??? Nature, Science, and Cell? ??? has led researchers to compete more > and more for the limited number of slots in those broader journals, thus > diminishing the specialty titles that have traditionally served as the main > publications of each discipline. Academe used to be a "publish or perish" > world, but now the halls of science have turned into a "publish in a > high-impact journal or perish" environment, says Massachusetts' Mr. Wang. > > > He observes that impact factors may even be affecting what kind of research > is conducted. Top journals require that papers be topical, in addition to > presenting important science, so researchers are shifting the kinds of > questions they investigate to accommodate those high-impact journals. "The > system is going after the short term," says Mr. Wang. > > > "For example, it is easy to catch attention when one describes a previously > unknown gene or protein related to a disease, even if the analysis is done > only superficially," he says. "Follow-up studies, to uncover the true > functions of the molecules or sometimes to challenge the initial analysis, > are typically more difficult to publish in journals of top 'impact.'" > > > Catherine D. DeAngelis, editor of the high-impact Journal of the American > Medical Association, also criticizes the current culture. The impact factor > "has taken on a life of its own," she says, lamenting that many scientists > view their work as a failure if they can't get into a top journal. "There > are wonderful journals that have impact factors lower than some of the > higher-citation journals, and they're perfectly appropriate for good > scientists to publish in." > > > The whole system has led to increasing discontent among researchers, says > Dr. DeAngelis. "It's bad for science in that you don't make researchers > feel good about what they're doing and the fact that their work gets > published in a good journal," she says. "That's bad. You're a better > scientist if you're a happy scientist." > > > Researchers go to great lengths to place their papers in high-impact > journals. They will often flip a manuscript from one publication to the > next, dropping reluctantly down the impact ladder until they find one that > will accept their work. The system slows the pace of science, say critics, > because researchers spend their time trying to publish their work rather > than moving on to the next set of experiments. > > > Sometimes authors will put considerable extra work into a paper? ??? at the > request of reviewers at top journals? ??? only to find it eventually rejected. > "I'll get so exhausted `y the whole thing that I won't even publish it or > will delay it for a year," says Princeton's Mr. Austin. > > > Think Quick > > > Deluged by so many manuscripts, high-impact journals can send only a > fraction out to experts for review. Nature, for example, rejects half of > the submissions it gets without forwarding them to referees, says its > editor in chief, Philip Campbell. > > > Mr. Austin worries about that process, saying that journal editors are > summarily rejecting unfashionable papers. "That can really limit > creativity, and really pioneering papers will not necessarily be judged as > such by these editors," he says, adding that the editors at top journals > are not active researchers. > > > Mr. Campbell responds that editors at Nature all have research experience > at good labs and keep on top of their fields by attending conferences and > reviewing the literature. "They are better than most academics in keeping > track of what's going on," he says. "I would put them up against any > academic any day in terms of knowing what's going on." > > > He also rejects a belief widely held among scientists that Nature rejects > manuscripts if editors suspect that they won't attract citations and > therefore will depress the journal's impact factor. If that were true, he > says, the journal would stop publishing papers in geology or paleontology, > which rarely receive as many citations as ones in molecular biology. > > > "We're perfectly happy with the fact that we publish papers that are much > less cited than others," says Mr. Campbell, who also notes that Nature has > regularly voiced skepticism about impact factors in editorials, letters, > and news articles. > > > Many other editors contacted by The Chronicle also deny making judgments on > the basis of whether a paper will attract citations. But Dr. DeAngelis, of > JAMA, says editors at some top journals have told her that they do consider > citations when judging some papers. "There are people who won't publish > articles," she says, "because it won't help their impact factor." > > > She acknowledges that citations sometimes play a role in her own decisions > about a paper. "If I'm on the edge and we're going back and forth," she > says, "I might make the decision saying, Will people use this? In that > case, one of the criteria is: Will they cite it?" > > > Yet she also publishes papers that she knows will hurt JAMA's impact > factor. "We have a special theme issue on medical education, and we > continue to do it," she says, even though articles in it are cited > relatively infrequently. > > > Fiona Godlee, editor of BMJ (formerly known as the British Medical Journal > ), agrees that editors take impact factors into account when deciding on > manuscripts, whether they realize it or not. "It would be hard to imagine > that editors don't do that," she says. "That's part of the way that impact > factors are subverting the scientific process." > > > She says editors may be rejecting not only studies in smaller or > less-fashionable fields, but also important papers from certain regions of > the world, out of fear that such reports won't attract sufficient citation > attention. "It's distorting people's priorities," she says, "and we have to > constantly fight against that." > > > Cult of the Factor > > > Although impact factors have been around for decades, it is only within the > past 10 years that they have taken on cult status, as the growing use of > the Internet has given researchers easy access to ISI data. The company > says the ranking is here to stay. > > > "One thing we won't do is change the impact factor as it stands now, just > because it's become such a key indicator over time," says Mr. Pringle, the > vice president for development. Rather than alter the original, ISI has > added additional information and measurement tools to complement the impact > factor, he says. > > > But the number continues to be so influential that some who run journals > try to manipulate the system. "Publishers have become quite expert in > skewing it to their own benefit," says Vitek Tracz, chairman of Current > Science Group, which publishes more than 100 open-access journals. > > > One well-known method is to publish more review articles? ??? those that give > overviews of a topic but don't usually present new data. They generally > attract more citations than do original research articles. So when the > editorial board of the Journal of Environmental Quality met in 2003, it > resolved to emphasize review articles in order to shore up the journal's > slipping impact factor. > > > Other tactics exploit gaps in the way ISI calculates the impact factor. > When journals publish news articles, editorials, book reviews, and > abstracts of meetings, ISI does not count those items as "citable > articles"; hence they do not go into the denominator of the impact-factor > calculation. But if those uncounted items get cited in the literature, ISI > still puts those citations into the numerator, thereby increasing the > journal's impact factor. > > > Managers at ISI and several journal editors contacted by The Chronicle > dismissed the issue, arguing that news articles and editorials do not get > cited often. On average that may be true. But some of them gain enough > citations to significantly boost the impact factors of certain journals, > says Henk F. Moed, a bibliometrician at the Center for Science and > Technology Studies at Leiden University, in the Netherlands, who wrote > about the issue in his new book, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation > (Springer, 2005). His analysis of the high-impact journal The Lancet, for > example, showed that free citations from news articles and similar material > buoyed the British medical journal's impact factor by 16 percent in 2002. > > > Many journals have added a considerable number of uncountable items to > their mix in recent years, even as they have decreased the number of > original research articles. In fact, Cell, JAMA, The Lancet, Nature, The > New England Journal of Medicine, and Science are all now publishing fewer > countable research items than they were in 1998, according to ISI data. > > > At the same time, those top journals and others have made a science out of > getting publicity for their products. Big journals with well-funded > public-relations offices send alerts to hundreds of reporters each week > about the articles slated for their next issues. The system generates news > items, which have been shown to increase citations to the original > scientific articles, thus raising impact factors. Smaller, less-visible > journals don't benefit from the same media connection. > > > Crooked Citations > > > Editors defend the changes they have made in their journals, arguing that > editorials, book reviews, news sections, and similar features are important > and popular with readers. But journal watchers point to other, less > scrupulous, ways to raise the citation numbers. > > > Sometimes journals will run editorials that cite numerous articles from > previous issues. In a new study, Jan Reedijk, of Leiden University, and Mr. > Moed found that a significant number of journals get a noticeable jump in > their impact factors from such self-citations in editorials. > > > In other cases, research articles in a journal preferentially cite that > very journal, with the effect of raising its impact factor. ISI detected a > clear example of that practice at the World Journal of Gastroenterology. > The company stopped listing that journal this year because 85 percent of > the citations to the publication were coming from its own pages. (Despite > that censure, the journal's Web site has a moving banner that still > trumpets its 2003 impact factor.) > > > The gaming has grown so intense that some journal editors are violating > ethical standards to draw more citations to their publications, say > scientists. John M. Drake, a postdoctoral researcher at the National Center > for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, at the University of California at > Santa Barbara, sent a manuscript to the Journal of Applied Ecology and > received this e-mail response from an editor: "I should like you to look at > some recent issues of the Journal of Applied Ecology and add citations to > any relevant papers you might find. This helps our authors by drawing > attention to their work, and also adds internal integrity to the Journal's > themes." > > > Because the manuscript had not yet been accepted, the request borders on > extortion, Mr. Drake says, even if it weren't meant that way. Authors may > feel that they have to comply in order to get their papers published. > "That's an abuse of editorial power," he says, "because of the apparent > potential for extortion." > > > Robert P. Freckleton, a research fellow at the University of Oxford who is > the journal editor who sent the message to Mr. Drake, says he never > intended the request to be read as a requirement. "I'd be upset if people > read it that way," he says. "That's kind of a generic line we use. We > understand most authors don't actually do that." He changed the wording in > the form letter last week to clear up misunderstandings, he said. > > > Whatever the intention behind such requests, they are becoming more common. > Anurag A. Agrawal, an assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary > biology at Cornell University, has documented similar practices at five > other ecology journals. "It's embarrassing, and it's a scar on our > discipline," he says. "Authors are being asked to compromise their > principles. That chips away at the fabric of the scientific enterprise." > > > Mr. Freckleton defends the practice: "Part of our job as editors is making > sure that our work is getting cited and read appropriately." The policy, he > says, is not an explicit attempt to raise the journal's impact factor. > > > But the policy has done just that, and quite successfully, according to the > The Chronicle's analysis of self-citations to one-year-old articles? ??? which > are important in the impact calculation. In 1997 the Journal of Applied > Ecology cited its own one-year-old articles 30 times. By 2004 that number > had grown to 91 citations, a 200-percent increase. Similar types of > citations of the journal in other publications had increased by only 41 > percent. > > > The journal was engaged in other questionable activities at the time. Steve > Ormerod, executive editor from 2000 through 2004, wrote several editorials > during his tenure that cited his own journal dozens of times. In 2002, for > example, two of his commentaries cited 103 papers published in the journal > during 2000 and 2001. Those two editorials alone raised his journal's 2002 > impact factor by 20 percent. > > > Mr. Ormerod, a professor of ecology at Cardiff University, in Wales, > acknowledges that his actions look suspicious, but says "there is a > less-sinister explanation." He was attempting, he says, to make the journal > more relevant by examining whether past articles on environmental issues > had led to policy actions. "As an accident, the impact factor went up at > the same time as self-citations went up," he says. He advocates removing> self-citations from the impact calculations completely, to avoid any > semblance of impropriety. > > > Nonetheless, the self-citations at his publication had a measurable effect. > The ecology journal's impact factor jumped from 1.3 in 1997 to 3.3 in 2004, > and its ranking within the discipline rose from 29th out of 86 journals to > 16th out of 107. > > > Following inquiries by The Chronicle, Mr. Freckleton said last week he was > developing a plan to alter the journal's editorials so that self-citations > will not raise its impact factor. > > > Complaints From Researchers > > > ISI says it is taking steps to stay ahead of the schemers. "It's not easy, > but as we become aware of possible abuse, we try to expose that," says > Marie E. McVeigh, product-development manager. For example, citation > reports now indicate what percentage of citations to a journal come from > that same publication. > > > While it is trying to track abuse from editors, however, ISI may not be > doing enough to police itself. Several editors contacted by The Chronicle > have raised complaints about errors in the company's data and analyses. The > problems appear to be growing worse. > > > Mr. Blume, of the American Physical Society, says researchers have > contacted him recently to complain that the ISI database is missing > citations to their articles. "Complaints are on the rise," says Mr. Blume, > whose organization is looking into the concerns. > > > Mr. Nevill, editor in chief of the Journal of Sports Science, says his > journal suffered when ISI incorrectly counted short meeting abstracts as if > they were full-fledged original research articles or reviews. That > miscoding doubled the number of articles credited to the journal each year, > halving its impact factor, he says. > > > Dr. Godlee, of BMJ, says ISI incorrectly counted some items in her journal, > such as commentaries, with the effect of depressing its impact factor. > > > James Testa, director of editorial development at Thomson Scientific, takes > issue with calling those cases "errors." Questions often arise about how to > define certain types of articles, and ISI works closely with publishers to > establish a correct coding system for each journal, he says. The company > has decided to rerun its impact-factor calculations this year to correct > problems with 10 to 15 journals, says Mr. Pringle, of Thomson Scientific. > He says the rising importance of impact factors in science has caused > editors to pay closer attention to the calculations, which results in them > raising more complaints than in the past. > > > Like many other editors and researchers, Dr. Godlee sees an easy solution > to the types of problems that have been plaguing the calculations, as well > as to deliberate deceptions. She suggests that ISI count citations only to > original research articles, eliminating the problem of news stories, > editorials, reviews, and other kinds of materials. But ISI has steadfastly > resisted altering its original formula. > > > Given the power of ISI and its impact factors, scientists have little > choice but to accept the system? ??? although competitors are emerging that > could alter the situation. And the growing use of online journals and > open-access journals could eventually topple the traditional system of > packaging articles into issues of a journal. > > > Like music lovers who download single songs instead of buying complete > albums, some researchers are starting to download only the articles they > want, regardless of where they originally appeared. "In terms of where it > gets published, it's becoming less and less an issue," says Harold P. > Erickson, a professor of cell biology at Duke University. > > > But most scientists still see value in differentiating between the quality > of articles in, say, Science and Science of the Total Environment. Even Mr. > Erickson has to face a dean who expects his professors to demonstrate their > excellence by occasionally publishing in Cell, Nature, Science, and other > journals with soaring impact factors. > > > http://chronicle.com > Section: Research & Publishing > Volume 52, Issue 8, Page A12 > Copyright ?? 2005 by The Chronicle of Higher Education > > Subscribe | About The Chronicle | Contact us | Terms of use | Privacy > policy | Help > (See attached file: CHE IF.doc) > From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Oct 10 17:40:55 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:40:55 -0400 Subject: Jain NC "Two Indian journals cross impact factor 1.00 in 2004 " Current Science 89 (3): 429 August 10, 2005. Message-ID: FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT : http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug102005/429.pdf E-mail Addresses: encejain at yahoo.co.in Title: Two Indian journals cross impact factor 1.00 in 2004 Author(s): Jain NC Source: CURRENT SCIENCE 89 (3): 429-429 AUG 10 2005 Document Type: News Item Language: English Cited References: 1 Times Cited: 0 Addresses: Jain NC (reprint author), Indian Council Med Res, Div Publ & Informat, V Ramalingaswami Bhawan, New Delhi, 110029 India Indian Council Med Res, Div Publ & Informat, New Delhi, 110029 India E-mail Addresses: encejain at yahoo.co.in Publisher: CURRENT SCIENCE ASSN, C V RAMAN AVENUE, PO BOX 8005, BANGALORE 560 080, INDIA Subject Category: MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES IDS Number: 957VP ISSN: 0011-3891 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 89, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2005 429 Two Indian journals cross impact factor 1.00 in 2004 Among the 47 Indian journals covered in the Journal Citation Reports 2004, two journals, namely Journal of Biosciences and Journal of Genetics have impact factor (IF)of 1.102 and 1.100 respectively (Table 1)1. Current Science with impact factor 0.688 ranks third among Indian journals, followed by National Medical Journal of India (0.626) and Indian Journal of Medical Research (0.600). This is indeed an encouraging trend, as for the first time two Indian journals have crossed IF of 1.000. One hopes that more Indian journals will cross this magic figure of 1.000 in future. A total of 5968 journals have been covered in the JCR 2004, with Annual Review of Immunology having the highest IF of 52.431. 1. Journal Citation Reports 2004, Science Edition (CD-ROM), Thomson, Philadelphia, 2005. N. C. Jain, Division of Publication and Information, Indian Council of Medical Research, V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110 029, India. e-mail: encejain at yahoo.co.in TO SEE FULL TEXT AND TABLE GO TO : http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug102005/429.pdf From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Mon Oct 10 18:15:26 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:15:26 +0100 Subject: Chronicle of Higher Education Impact Factor Article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >> SH: yes, CIFs are being misused and abused currently, but the cure is >> already obvious -- and a wealth of powerful new resources are on the way >> for measuring and analyzing research usage and impact online, including >> ... [snip] >> Meanwhile, use the direct citation counts, not the CIFs [journal average >> impact factors] > SJB: Oh, if only it were that simple, but it ain't. You have fuzzy sets causing > extraneous citations and difficulties in defining article types. The > entire thing is wracked with Abe Bookstein's ambiguity. I think that you > should really study very carefully what Gene Garfield has written on the > topic. I yield to no one in my admiration for Gene, but he was not writing in the online age. I am speaking of a (not-too-distant) day when the full-texts (including tagged reference lists) of all 2.5 million articles in all of the planet's 24,000 peer-reviewed journals (not just c. 8000 indexed currently by ISI) are all online, Open Access (OA), harvestable, and analysable by anyone and everyone. You name the artifact, and an algorithm will be quickly designed to detect and correct for it, on the entire OA database. If you wish to challenge this, it would be very helpful if you could reply with a specific artifact that could not be detected and corrected on a full-text Open Access database. (The CHE article, after all, was talking -- over and over -- about one simple, obviously soluble problem: using Journal impact factors to evaluate individuals' work. Surely direct citation counts are preferable -- and the far richer and more diverse regression equation I sketched is more preferable still.) Stevan Harnad > Stevan Harnad @listserv.utk.edu> on 10/10/2005 > 03:07:26 PM > > Comment on: > Richard Monastersky, The Number That's Devouring Science, > Ahronicle of Higher Education, October 1, 2005 > http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i08/08a01201.htm > [text appended at the end of the comment] > > Impact Analysis in the PostGutenberg Era > > Although Richard Monasterky describes a real problem -- the abuse of > journal impact factors -- its solution is so obvious one hardly required > so many words on the subject: > > A journal's citation impact factor (CIF) is the average number of > citations received by articles in that journal (ISI -- somewhat > arbitrarily -- calculates CIFs on the basis of the preceding two > years, although other time-windows may also be informative; see > http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php ) > > There is an undeniable relationship between the usefulness of an > article and how many other articles use and hence cite it. Hence CIF > does measure the average usefulness of the articles in a journal. But > there are three problems with the way CIF itself is used, each of them > readily correctable: > > (1) A measure of the average usefulness of the articles in the journal > in which a given article appears is no substitute for the actual > usefulness of each article itself: In other words, the journal CIF is > merely a crude and indirect measure of usefulness; each article's own > citation count is the far more direct and accurate measure. (Using > the CIF instead of an article's own citation count [or the average > citation count for the author] for evaluation and comparison is > like using the average marks for the school from which a candidate > graduated, rather than the actual marks of the candidate.) > > (2) Whether comparing CIFs or direct article/author citation counts, > one must always compare like with like. There is no point comparing > either CIFs between journals in different fields, or citation counts > for articles/authors in different fields. (No one has yet bothered > to develop a normalised citation count, adjusting for different > baseline citation levels and variability in different fields. It > could easily be done, but it has not been -- or if it has been done, > it was in an obscure scholarly article, but not applied by the actual > daily users of CIFs or citation counts today.) > > (3) Both CIFs and citation counts can be distorted and abused. Authors > can self-cite, or cite their friends; some journal editors can and do > encourage self-citing their journal. These malpractices are deplorable, > but most are also detectable, and then name-and-shame-able and > correctable. ISI could do a better job policing them, but soon the > playing field will widen, for as authors make their articles open > access online, other harvesters -- such as citebase and citeseer > and even google scholar -- will be able to harvest and calculate > citation counts, and average, compare, expose, enrich and correct > them in powerful ways that were in the inconceivable in the Gutenberg > era:. > > http://citebase.eprints.org/ > http://citebase.eprints.org/ > http://scholar.google.com/ > > So, yes, CIFs are being misused and abused currently, but the cure is > already obvious -- and wealth of powerful new resources are on the way > for measuring and analyzing > research usage and impact online, including (1) download counts, (2) > co-citation > counts (co-cited with, co-cited by), (3) hub/authority ranks (authorities > are highly cited papers cited by many highly cited papers; hubs cite > many authorities), (4) download/citation correlations and other time-series > analyses, (5) download growth-curve and peak latency scores, (6) citation > growth-curve and peak-latency scores, (7) download/citation longevity > scores, > (8) co-text analysis (comparing similar texts, extrapolating directional > trends), and much more. It will no longer be just CIFs and citation counts > but a rich multiple regression equation, with many weighted predictor > variables based on these new measures. And they will be available both > for navigators and evaluators online, and based not just on the current ISI > database but on all of the peer-reviewed research literature. > > Meanwhile, use the direct citation counts, not the CIFs. > > Some self-citations follow (and then the CHE article's text): > > Brody, T. (2003) Citebase Search: Autonomous Citation Database for e-print > Archives, sinn03 Conference on Worldwide Coherent Workforce, Satisfied > Users - > New Services For Scientific Information, Oldenburg, Germany, September > 2003 > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10677/ > > Brody, T. (2004) Citation Analysis in the Open Access World Interactive > Media > International > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10000/ > > Brody, T. , Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2005) Earlier Web Usage Statistics > as > Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association > for > Information Science and Technology (JASIST, in press). > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713/ > > Hajjem, C., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L. & Harnad, S. (2005) Across > Disciplines, Open Access Increases Citation Impact. (manuscript in > preparation). > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/chawki1.doc > > Hajjem, C. (2005) Analyse de la variation de pourcentages d'articles en > acc??s > libre en fonction de taux de citations > http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm > > Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004a) Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) > vs. > Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals. D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 6 > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10207/ > > Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004) Prior evidence that downloads predict > citations. British Medical Journal online. > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10206/ > > Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2000) Integrating, Navigating and Analyzing > Eprint > Archives Through Open Citation Linking (the OpCit Project). Current Science > 79(5):pp. 629-638. > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5940/ > > Harnad, S. , Brody, T. , Vallieres, F. , Carr, L. , Hitchcock, S. > , > Gingras, Y. , Oppenheim, C. , Stamerjohanns, H. and Hilf, E. (2004) > The > Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials > Review, Vol. 30, No. 4, 310-314 > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/ > > Hitchcock, S. , Brody, T. , Gutteridge, C. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. , > Harnad, S. , Bergmark, D. and Lagoze, C. (2002) Open Citation Linking: > The > Way Forward. D-Lib Magazine 8(10). > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7717/ > > Hitchcock, S. , Carr, L. , Jiao, Z. , Bergmark, D. , Hall, W. , > Lagoze, C. and Harnad, S. (2000) Developing services for open eprint > archives: > globalisation, inteeration and the impact of links. In Proceedings of the > 5th > ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, San Antonio, Texas, June 2000. , > pages > pp. 143-151. > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2860/ > > Hitchcock, S. , Woukeu, A. , Brody, T. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. and > Harnad, S. (2003) Evaluating Citebase, an open access Web-based > citation-ranked search and impact discovery service. Technical Report > ECSTR-IAM03-005, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University > of > Southampton > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8204/ > > Stevan Harnad From notsjb at LSU.EDU Mon Oct 10 19:46:11 2005 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:46:11 -0500 Subject: Chronicle of Higher Education Impact Factor Article Message-ID: You are talking utopia, but I will name two possible artifacts. First, the probabilities governing both use and citations are so low that it is really not possible to use these for comparison purposes for the vast majority of people or articles. The differences are not all that great for the vast majority, as most people and articles are restricted to a very small range. Elites are identifiable but these are small by their very definition. ISI does cover the best, and you will be dragging just more dross. Second, you will have the problem of differing professional ages with a concomitant Matthew Effect causing the misallocation scientific credit, citations, etc. A Nobelist can write a letter to the editor that will draw more citations than most people do in a lifetime. No matter how you boil it, you are going to have to use some type of subjective judgment for the vast majority of people. And these are just possible problems--not the least are your fuzzy definitions of what you are comparing. SB Stevan Harnad @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 10/10/2005 05:15:26 PM Please respond to ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics Sent by: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU cc: (bcc: Stephen J Bensman/notsjb/LSU) Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Chronicle of Higher Education Impact Factor Article On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >> SH: yes, CIFs are being misused and abused currently, but the cure is >> already obvious -- and a wealth of powerful new resources are on the way >> for measuring and analyzing research usage and impact online, including >> ... [snip] >> Meanwhile, use the direct citation counts, not the CIFs [journal average >> impact factors] > SJB: Oh, if only it were that simple, but it ain't. You have fuzzy sets causing > extraneous citations and difficulties in defining article types. The > entire thing is wracked with Abe Bookstein's ambiguity. I think that you > should really study very carefully what Gene Garfield has written on the > topic. I yield to no one in my admiration for Gene, but he was not writing in the online age. I am speaking of a (not-too-distant) day when the full-texts (including tagged reference lists) of all 2.5 million articles in all of the planet's 24,000 peer-reviewed journals (not just c. 8000 indexed currently by ISI) are all online, Open Access (OA), harvestable, and analysable by anyone and everyone. You name the artifact, and an algorithm will be quickly designed to detect and correct for it, on the entire OA database. If you wish to challenge this, it would be very helpful if you could reply with a specific artifact that could not be detected and corrected on a full-text Open Access database. (The CHE article, after all, was talking -- over and over -- about one simple, obviously soluble problem: using Journal impact factors to evaluate individuals' work. Surely direct citation counts are preferable -- and the far richer and more diverse regression equation I sketched is more preferable still.) Stevan Harnad > Stevan Harnad @listserv.utk.edu> on 10/10/2005 > 03:07:26 PM > > Comment on: > Richard Monastersky, The Number That's Devouring Science, > Ahronicle of Higher Education, October 1, 2005 > http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i08/08a01201.htm > [text appended at the end of the comment] > > Impact Analysis in the PostGutenberg Era > > Although Richard Monasterky describes a real problem -- the abuse of > journal impact factors -- its solution is so obvious one hardly required > so many words on the subject: > > A journal's citation impact factor (CIF) is the average number of > citations received by articles in that journal (ISI -- somewhat > arbitrarily -- calculates CIFs on the basis of the preceding two > years, although other time-windows may also be informative; see > http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php ) > > There is an undeniable relationship between the usefulness of an > article and how many other articles use and hence cite it. Hence CIF > does measure the average usefulness of the articles in a journal. But > there are three problems with the way CIF itself is used, each of them > readily correctable: > > (1) A measure of the average usefulness of the articles in the journal > in which a given article appears is no substitute for the actual > usefulness of each article itself: In other words, the journal CIF is > merely a crude and indirect measure of usefulness; each article's own > citation count is the far more direct and accurate measure. (Using > the CIF instead of an article's own citation count [or the average > citation count for the author] for evaluation and comparison is > like using the average marks for the school from which a candidate > graduated, rather than the actual marks of the candidate.) > > (2) Whether comparing CIFs or direct article/author citation counts, > one must always compare like with like. There is no point comparing > either CIFs between journals in different fields, or citation counts > for articles/authors in different fields. (No one has yet bothered > to develop a normalised citation count, adjusting for different > baseline citation levels and variability in different fields. It > could easily be done, but it has not been -- or if it has been done, > it was in an obscure scholarly article, but not applied by the actual > daily users of CIFs or citation counts today.) > > (3) Both CIFs and citation counts can be distorted and abused. Authors > can self-cite, or cite their friends; some journal editors can and do > encourage self-citing their journal. These malpractices are deplorable, > but most are also detectable, and then name-and-shame-able and > correctable. ISI could do a better job policing them, but soon the > playing field will widen, for as authors make their articles open > access online, other harvesters -- such as citebase and citeseer > and even google scholar -- will be able to harvest and calculate > citation counts, and average, compare, expose, enrich and correct > them in powerful ways that were in the inconceivable in the Gutenberg > era:. > > http://citebase.eprints.org/ > http://citebase.eprints.org/ > http://scholar.google.com/ > > So, yes, CIFs are being misused and abused currently, but the cure is > already obvious -- and wealth of powerful new resources are on the way > for measuring and analyzing > research usage and impact online, including (1) download counts, (2) > co-citation > counts (co-cited with, co-cited by), (3) hub/authority ranks (authorities > are highly cited papers cited by many highly cited papers; hubs cite > many authorities), (4) download/citation correlations and other time-series > analyses, (5) download growth-curve and peak latency scores, (6) citation > growth-curve and peak-latency scores, (7) download/citation longevity > scores, > (8) co-text analysis (comparing similar texts, extrapolating directional > trends), and much more. It will no longer be just CIFs and citation counts > but a rich multiple regression equation, with many weighted predictor > variables based on these new measures. And they will be available both > for navigators and evaluators online, and based not just on the current ISI > database but on all of the peer-reviewed research literature. > > Meanwhile, use the direct citation counts, not the CIFs. > > Some self-citations follow (and then the CHE article's text): > > Brody, T. (2003) Citebase Search: Autonomous Citation Database for e-print > Archives, sinn03 Conference on Worldwide Coherent Workforce, Satisfied > Users - > New Services For Scientific Information, Oldenburg, Germany, September > 2003 > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10677/ > > Brody, T. (2004) Citation Analysis in the Open Access World Interactive > Media > International > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10000/ > > Brody, T. , Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2005) Earlier Web Usage Statistics > as > Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association > for > Information Science and Technology (JASIST, in press). > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713/ > > Hajjem, C., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L. & Harnad, S. (2005) Across > Disciplines, Open Access Increases Citation Impact. (manuscript in > preparation). > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/chawki1.doc > > Hajjem, C. (2005) Analyse de la variation de pourcentages d'articles en > acc??s > libre en fonction de taux de citations > http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm > > Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004a) Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) > vs. > Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals. D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 6 > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10207/ > > Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004) Prior evidence that downloads predict > citations. British Medical Journal online. > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10206/ > > Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2000) Integrating, Navigating and Analyzing > Eprint > Archives Through Open Citation Linking (the OpCit Project). Current Science > 79(5):pp. 629-638. > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5940/ > > Harnad, S. , Brody, T. , Vallieres, F. , Carr, L. , Hitchcock, S. > , > Gingras, Y. , Oppenheim, C. , Stamerjohanns, H. and Hilf, E. (2004) > The > Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials > Review, Vol. 30, No. 4, 310-314 > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/ > > Hitchcock, S. , Brody, T. , Gutteridge, C. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. , > Harnad, S. , Bergmark, D. and Lagoze, C. (2002) Open Citation Linking: > The > Way Forward. D-Lib Magazine 8(10). > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7717/ > > Hitchcock, S. , Carr, L. , Jiao, Z. , Bergmark, D. , Hall, W. , > Lagoze, C. and Harnad, S. (2000) Developing services for open eprint > archives: > globalisation, inteeration and the impact of links. In Proceedings of the > 5th > ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, San Antonio, Texas, June 2000. , > pages > pp. 143-151. > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2860/ > > Hitchcock, S. , Woukeu, A. , Brody, T. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. and > Harnad, S. (2003) Evaluating Citebase, an open access Web-based > citation-ranked search and impact discovery service. Technical Report > ECSTR-IAM03-005, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University > of > Southampton > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8204/ > > Stevan Harnad From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Mon Oct 10 21:40:16 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:40:16 +0100 Subject: Chronicle of Higher Education Impact Factor Article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >> SH: If you wish to challenge this, it would be very helpful if you >> could reply with a specific artifact that could not be detected and >> corrected on a full-text Open Access database. (The CHE article, >> after all, was talking -- over and over -- about one simple, >> obviously soluble problem: using Journal impact factors to evaluate >> individuals' work. Surely direct citation counts are preferable -- >> and the far richer and more diverse regression equation I sketched >> is more preferable still.) > > You are talking utopia, but I will name two possible artifacts. First, the > probabilities governing both use and citations are so low that it is really > not possible to use these for comparison purposes for the vast majority of > people or articles. No doubt there will be cases (perhaps many/most cases) where any differences will be too close to call or below the grain of random variation. In such cases neither the journal CIF nor the exact article citation counts will be sensitive enough to do any differential evaluation. But there will also be cases where they will be sensitive enough. And even where neither CIF nor citation counts are enough, an Open Access (OA) corpus makes possible regression equation with a total of at least 15 predictor variables, of which citation counts are just one: [1-4] article/author citation counts, growth rates, peak latencies, longevity; [5-8] download counts, growth rates, peak latencies, longevity; [9] download/citation correlation based predicted citations; [10-11] hub/authority scores; [13-14] co-citation with/by scores; [15] co-text scores (semantic proximity measures). For example, early downloads predict citations 18 months later. Brody, T. , Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2005) Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST, in press). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713/ > The differences are not all that great for the vast majority, > as most people and articles are restricted to a very small range. It's true that many articles have next to no citations, but not only will the richer impact multiple regression have a better chance of detecting significant differential variance in an OA database, but OA itself enhances citations by 25%-250%, in all citation-brackets, putting more meat on the psychometric bones. It also triples downloads: http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/classement_citations.htm And CiteRank (a variant of Authorities and PageRank) could also weight citations differntially, also helping to stretch out the variance. And the variance at the download level is below the sensitivity grain of ISI's citation counts, but not OA's download counts. > Elites are identifiable but these are small by their very definition. ISI > does cover the best, and you will be dragging just more dross. No doubt the full OA corpus will include a lot of dross, and that will be by definition undifferentiable and not worth differentiating. But OA will also level the playing field, and give merit a better chance to be accessed and used. The 25%-250% OA citation-count advantage for OA vs. non-OA articles within the same journal was all based on ISI journals ("the best"), so there seems scope for increasing the available citation variance there too... > Second, you > will have the problem of differing professional ages with a concomitant > Matthew Effect causing the misallocation scientific credit, citations, etc. That's one of the many effects that *can* be detected and taken into account in an OA corpus, by suitably adjusting window-sizes. > A Nobelist can write a letter to the editor that will draw more citations > than most people do in a lifetime. No matter how you boil it, you are > going to have to use some type of subjective judgment for the vast majority > of people. And these are just possible problems--not the least are your > fuzzy definitions of what you are comparing. I am not saying black-box bean-counting, no matter how rich and varied the regression equation, can replace human judgment altogether. But it can become a better and better supplement to it. Stevan Harnad > > Stevan Harnad @listserv.utk.edu> on 10/10/2005 > > 03:07:26 PM > > > > Comment on: > > Richard Monastersky, The Number That's Devouring Science, > > Ahronicle of Higher Education, October 1, 2005 > > http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i08/08a01201.htm > > [text appended at the end of the comment] > > > > Impact Analysis in the PostGutenberg Era > > > > Although Richard Monasterky describes a real problem -- the abuse of > > journal impact factors -- its solution is so obvious one hardly required > > so many words on the subject: > > > > A journal's citation impact factor (CIF) is the average number of > > citations received by articles in that journal (ISI -- somewhat > > arbitrarily -- calculates CIFs on the basis of the preceding two > > years, although other time-windows may also be informative; see > > http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php ) > > > > There is an undeniable relationship between the usefulness of an > > article and how many other articles use and hence cite it. Hence CIF > > does measure the average usefulness of the articles in a journal. But > > there are three problems with the way CIF itself is used, each of them > > readily correctable: > > > > (1) A measure of the average usefulness of the articles in the > journal > > in which a given article appears is no substitute for the actual > > usefulness of each article itself: In other words, the journal CIF is > > merely a crude and indirect measure of usefulness; each article's own > > citation count is the far more direct and accurate measure. (Using > > the CIF instead of an article's own citation count [or the average > > citation count for the author] for evaluation and comparison is > > like using the average marks for the school from which a candidate > > graduated, rather than the actual marks of the candidate.) > > > > (2) Whether comparing CIFs or direct article/author citation counts, > > one must always compare like with like. There is no point comparing > > either CIFs between journals in different fields, or citation counts > > for articles/authors in different fields. (No one has yet bothered > > to develop a normalised citation count, adjusting for different > > baseline citation levels and variability in different fields. It > > could easily be done, but it has not been -- or if it has been done, > > it was in an obscure scholarly article, but not applied by the actual > > daily users of CIFs or citation counts today.) > > > > (3) Both CIFs and citation counts can be distorted and abused. > Authors > > can self-cite, or cite their friends; some journal editors can and do > > encourage self-citing their journal. These malpractices are > deplorable, > > but most are also detectable, and then name-and-shame-able and > > correctable. ISI could do a better job policing them, but soon the > > playing field will widen, for as authors make their articles open > > access online, other harvesters -- such as citebase and citeseer > > and even google scholar -- will be able to harvest and calculate > > citation counts, and average, compare, expose, enrich and correct > > them in powerful ways that were in the inconceivable in the Gutenberg > > era:. > > > > http://citebase.eprints.org/ > > http://citebase.eprints.org/ > > http://scholar.google.com/ > > > > So, yes, CIFs are being misused and abused currently, but the cure is > > already obvious -- and wealth of powerful new resources are on the way > > for measuring and analyzing > > research usage and impact online, including (1) download counts, (2) > > co-citation > > counts (co-cited with, co-cited by), (3) hub/authority ranks (authorities > > are highly cited papers cited by many highly cited papers; hubs cite > > many authorities), (4) download/citation correlations and other > time-series > > analyses, (5) download growth-curve and peak latency scores, (6) citation > > growth-curve and peak-latency scores, (7) download/citation longevity > > scores, > > (8) co-text analysis (comparing similar texts, extrapolating directional > > trends), and much more. It will no longer be just CIFs and citation > counts > > but a rich multiple regression equation, with many weighted predictor > > variables based on these new measures. And they will be available both > > for navigators and evaluators online, and based not just on the current > ISI > > database but on all of the peer-reviewed research literature. > > > > Meanwhile, use the direct citation counts, not the CIFs. > > > > Some self-citations follow (and then the CHE article's text): > > > > Brody, T. (2003) Citebase Search: Autonomous Citation Database for > e-print > > Archives, sinn03 Conference on Worldwide Coherent Workforce, Satisfied > > Users - > > New Services For Scientific Information, Oldenburg, Germany, September > > 2003 > > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10677/ > > > > Brody, T. (2004) Citation Analysis in the Open Access World Interactive > > Media > > International > > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10000/ > > > > Brody, T. , Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2005) Earlier Web Usage > Statistics > > as > > Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association > > for > > Information Science and Technology (JASIST, in press). > > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713/ > > > > Hajjem, C., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L. & Harnad, S. (2005) Across > > Disciplines, Open Access Increases Citation Impact. (manuscript in > > preparation). > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/chawki1.doc > > > > Hajjem, C. (2005) Analyse de la variation de pourcentages d'articles en > > acc??s > > libre en fonction de taux de citations > > http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm > > > > Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004a) Comparing the Impact of Open Access > (OA) > > vs. > > Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals. D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 6 > > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10207/ > > > > Harnad, S. and Brody, T. (2004) Prior evidence that downloads predict > > citations. British Medical Journal online. > > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10206/ > > > > Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2000) Integrating, Navigating and Analyzing > > Eprint > > Archives Through Open Citation Linking (the OpCit Project). Current > Science > > 79(5):pp. 629-638. > > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5940/ > > > > Harnad, S. , Brody, T. , Vallieres, F. , Carr, L. , Hitchcock, > S. > > , > > Gingras, Y. , Oppenheim, C. , Stamerjohanns, H. and Hilf, E. (2004) > > The > > Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. > Serials > > Review, Vol. 30, No. 4, 310-314 > > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/ > > > > Hitchcock, S. , Brody, T. , Gutteridge, C. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. > , > > Harnad, S. , Bergmark, D. and Lagoze, C. (2002) Open Citation > Linking: > > The > > Way Forward. D-Lib Magazine 8(10). > > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7717/ > > > > Hitchcock, S. , Carr, L. , Jiao, Z. , Bergmark, D. , Hall, W. , > > Lagoze, C. and Harnad, S. (2000) Developing services for open eprint > > archives: > > globalisation, inteeration and the impact of links. In Proceedings of > the > > 5th > > ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, San Antonio, Texas, June 2000. , > > pages > > pp. 143-151. > > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2860/ > > > > Hitchcock, S. , Woukeu, A. , Brody, T. , Carr, L. , Hall, W. and > > Harnad, S. (2003) Evaluating Citebase, an open access Web-based > > citation-ranked search and impact discovery service. Technical Report > > ECSTR-IAM03-005, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University > > of > > Southampton > > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8204/ > > > > Stevan Harnad > From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 13 13:46:42 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:46:42 -0400 Subject: Aksnes D. "Citations and their use as indicators in science policy. Studies of validity and applicability issues with a particular focus on highly cited papers" - Ph.D. Dissertation - March 2005 Message-ID: Dag Aksnes : e-mail : dag.w.aksnes at nifustep.no In March 2005 Dag W. Aksnes from Norway obtained his PhD degree at the University of Twente, The Netherlands. His dissertation, Citations and their use as indicators in science policy. Studies of validity and applicability issues with a particular focus on highly cited papers, can now be downloaded from the following web page: http://english.nifustep.no/norsk/publikasjoner/citations_and_their_use_as_in dicators_in_science_policy The dissertation aims at contributing towards the discussion on the use of citations as indicators. Based on different part-projects the thesis explores an intersection between the bibliometric and sociological questions about the phenomenon of citations, and the science policy issues about using such data as indicators in decision-making and evaluation. A particular focus is directed towards highly cited papers. Because citation distributions are extremely skewed in which most publications are poorly cited or not cited at all and a few publications are very highly cited, it is clear that this phenomenon has to be taken into account when constructing and using citation indicators. It is thus of particular interest to analyse patterns of highly cited papers. This then leads on to a number of studies of the methodological basis and validity of citation indicators. Among the issues addressed are field-delineation, self- citations and scientists? perceptions of citations and citation indicators. The dissertation consists of a collection of seven journal articles. The core of articles is preceded by two introductory chapters. The dissertation also contains reprints of several of the author's papers from the journals Scientometrics, Research Evaluation and JASIST References Abt, H. A. (2000). Do important papers produce high citation counts? Scientometrics, 48(1), 65-70. Amsterdamska, O., & Leydesdorff, L. (1989). Citations: Indicators of Significance? Scientometrics, 15(5-6), 449-471. Bonzi, S., & Snyder, H. W. (1990). Patterns of self citation across fields of inquiry. Proceedings of the ASIS annual meeting, 27, 204-207. Bourke, P., & Butler, L. (1996). Publication types, citation rates and evaluation. Scientometrics, 37(3), 437-494. Braun, T., Gl?nzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1989). Assessing assessments of British science - some facts and figures to accept or decline. Scientometrics, 15(3-4), 165-170. Braun, T., Gl?nzel, W., & Grupp, H. (1995). The scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 science areas, 1989-1993. Part 1. All fields combined, mathematics, engineering, chemistry and physics. Scientometrics, 33(3), 263- 293. Butler, L. (2003). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 39-46. Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (Eds.). (1986). Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: Macmillan. Campanario, J. M. (1993). Consolation for the Scientist: Sometimes it is Hard to Publish Papers that are Later Highly-Cited. Social Studies of Science, 23, 342-362. Campanario, J. M. (1996). Using Citation classics to study the incidence of serendipity in scientific discovery. Scientometrics, 37(1), 3-24. Cano, V., & Lind, N. C. (1994). Citation Life Cycles of Ten Citation Classics. Scientometrics, 22(2), 297-312. Case, D. O., & Higgins, G. M. (2000). How Can We Investigate Citation Behavior? A Study of Reasons for Citing Literature in Communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7), 635-645. Chubin, D. E., & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless Science. Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Cole, F. J., & Eales, N. B. (1917). The history of comparative anatomy. Science Progress, XI, 578-596. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1972). The Ortega Hypothesis. Science, 178, 368- 375. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Cole, S. (1970). Professional Standing and the Reception of Scientific Discoveries. American Journal of Sociology, 76, 286-306. Cole, S. (1992). Making Science. Between Nature and Society. London: Harvard University Press. Cole, S. (2000). The Role of Journals in the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The Web of Knowledge. A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford: ASIS. Collins, R. (1975) Conflict Sociology. Toward an Explanatory Science. New York: Academic Press. Cozzens, S. E. (1989). What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model. Scientometrics, 15(5-6), 437-447. Cozzens, S. E. (1997). The Discovery of Growth: Statistical Glimpses of Twentieth-Century Science. In J. Krige & D. Pestre (Eds.), Science in the Twentieth Century (pp. 127-142). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Cronin, B. (1984). The Citation Process. The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication. London: Taylor Graham. Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. (2000). The Citation Network as a Prototype for Representing Trust In Virtual Environments. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The Web of Knowledge. A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford: ASIS. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to Informetrics. Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers. Elkana, Y., Lederberg J., Merton, R. K., Thackray A., Zuckerman, H. (Eds.) (1978). Toward a Metric of Science. The Advent of Science Indicators. New York: John Wiley & Sons. European Commission. (2001). Key Figures 2001. Special edition. Indicators for benchmarking of national research policies. Brussels. Garfield, E. (1977). Can Citation Indexing Be Automated? In Essay of an Information Scientist, vol. 1 (Vol. 1). Philadelphia: ISI Press. Garfield, E. (1979a). Citation Indexing - Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Garfield, E. (1979b). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359-375. Garfield, E. (1980). The Number of Biochemical Articles Is Growing, But Why Also the Number of References per Article. Current Contents(11), 5-9. Garfield, E. (1990). The most-cited papers of all times, SCI 1945-1988. The SCI top 100 - Will the Lowry method ever be obliterated. Current Contents (7), 3-15. Garfield, E. (1997a). Dispelling a Few Common Myths about Journal Citation Impacts. The Scientist, 11(33), 11. Garfield, E. (1997b). Validation of Citation Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 962-963. Garfield, E. (1998a). From Citation Indexes to Informetrics: Is the Tail Now Wagging the Dog? Libri, 48, 67-80. Garfield, E. (1998b). The use of journal impact factors and citation analysis for evaluation of science. URL: http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/eva_of_science_oslo.html Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992). Of nobel class: A citation perspective on high impact research authors. Theoretical Medicine, 13(2), 117-135. Gilbert, N. G. (1977). Referencing as Persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7, 113-122. Gl?nzel, W., & Czerwon, H.-J. (1992). What are highly cited publications? A method applied to German scientific papers, 1980-1989. Research Evaluation, 2(3), 135-141. Gl?nzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171-193. Gl?nzel, W., Rinia, E. J., & Brocken, M. G. M. (1995). A bibliometric study of highly cited European physics papers in the 80s. Research Evaluation, 5 (2), 113-122. Gl?nzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1992). Some Facts and Figures on Highly Cited Papers in the Sciences, 1981-1985. Scientometrics, 25(3), 373-380. Gross, P. L. K., & Gross, E. M. (1927). College libraries and chemical education. Science, LXVI(1713), 385-389. Hamilton, D. P. (1990). Publishing by - and for? - the Numbers. Science, 250(4986), 1331-1332. Hamilton, D. P. (1991). Research Papers: Who's Uncited Now? Science, 251 (4989), 25. Hargens, L. L. (2000). Graphing Micro-Regions in the Web of Knowledge: A Comparative Reference-Network Analysis. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The Web of Knowledge. A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 497- 516). Medford: ASIS. Hargens, L. L., & Schuman, H. (1990). Citation counts and social comparisons: Scientists' use and evaluation of citation index data. Social Science Research, 19(3), 205-221. Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193-215. Irvine, J., Martin, B., Peacock, T., & Turner, R. (1985). Charting the Decline in British Science. Nature, 316(6029), 587-590. Katz, S. J., & Hicks, D. (1998). Indicators for Systems of Innovation (No. IDEA 12-98). Oslo: STEP-group. Kyvik, S. (1991). Productiviy in Academia. Scientific publishing at Norwegian universities. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Law, J. (1986). The Heterogeneity of Texts. In M. Callon, J. Law & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: Macmillan. Lawani, S. M. (1982). On the Heterogeneity and Classification of Author Self-Citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 33, 281-284. Leeuwen van, T. N., Rinia, E. J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Bibliometric Profiles of Academic Physics Research in the Netherlands. Leiden: Centre for Science and Technology Studies. Report CWTS 96-09. lePair, C. (1995). Formal evaluation methods: Their utility and limitations. International Forum on Information and Documentation, 20(4), 16-24. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-323. Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L., & Randal, R. J. (1951). Protein Measurement with the Folin Phenol Reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 193, 265-275. Luukkonen, T. (1990). Citations in the rhetorical, reward, and communication systems of science. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tampere, Tampere. Luukkonen, T. (1991). Citation indicators and peer review: their time- scales, criteria of evaluation, and biases. Research Evaluation, 1(1), 21- 30. Luukkonen, T. (1997a). Quantitative Techniques in Evaluation in Western Europe. In M. S. Fankel & J. Cave (Eds.), Evaluating Science and Scientists. An East-West Dialoge on Research Evaluation in Post-Communist Europe. Budapest: Central European University Press. Luukkonen, T. (1997b). Why has Latour's theory of citations been ignored by the bibliometric community? Discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 38(1), 27-37. MacRoberts, M. (1997). Rejoinder: Validation of Citation Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 963. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1987). Testing the Ortega Hypothesis: Facts and Artifacts. Scientometrics, 12(5-6), 293-296. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of Citation Analysis: A Critical Review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342-349. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435-444. Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343-362. Martin, B. R. (1997). Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Evaluation Results. In M. S. Fankel & J. Cave (Eds.), Evaluating Science and Scientists: An East-West Dialogue on Research Evaluation in Post-Communist Europe. Budapest: Central European University Press. Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12, 61-90. Martin, B. R., & Skea, J. E. F. (1992). Academic Research Performance Indicators: An Assessment of the Possibilities. Brighton: University of Sussex. May, K. O. (1968). Growth and Quality of the Mathematical Literature. ISIS, 59,363-371 May, R. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275(5301), 793- 796. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159, 56-63. Merton, R. K. (1979). Foreword. In E. Garfield (Ed.), Citation Indexing - Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew Effect in Science, II. Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property. ISIS, 79, 606-623. van der Meulen, B. J. R. (1997). The use of S&T indicators in science policy. Dutch experiences and theoretical perspectives from policy analysis. Scientometrics, 38(1), 87-101. Miquel, J. F., Ojasoo, T., Okubo, Y., Paul, A., & Dore, J. C. (1995). World science in 18 disciplinary areas: Comparative evaluation of the publication patterns of 48 countries over the period 1981-1992. Scientometrics, 33(2), 149-167. Moed, H. F. (2002). The impact-factors debate: the ISI's uses and limits. Nature, 415, 731-732. Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1985). The application of bibliometric indicators: Important field- and time-dependent factors to be considered. Scientometrics, 8(3-4), 177-203. Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfurt, J. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy, 14, 131-149. Moed, H. F., & van der Velde, J. G. M. (1993). Bibliometric Profiles of Academic Chemistry Research in the Netherlands. Leiden: Centre for Science and Technology Studies. Report CWTS-93-08. Moed, H. F., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Reedijk, J. (1999). Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact. Scientometrics, 46(3), 575-589. Moed, H. F., & Vriens, M. (1989). Possible inaccuracies occuring in citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, 15, 95-107. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (2000). The Development of Science Indicators in the United States. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The Web of Knowledge. A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. Meford, New Jersey: Information Today, Inc. Nederhof, A. J., Zwaan, R. A., De Bruin, R. E., & Dekker, P. J. (1989). Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and behavioural sciences. A comparative study. Scientometrics, 32 (1), 37-48. Oppenheim, C. (1997). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy and archaeology. Journal of Documentation, 53(5), 477-487. Oppenheim, C., & Renn, S. P. (1978). Highly Cited Old Papers and the Reasons Why They Continue to be Cited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29(4), 225-231. Persson, O. (2000). Decline of Swedish Science? (Bibliometric Notes, No3 2000). URL: http://www.umu.se/inforsk/BibliometricNotes/BN3-2000/BN3- 2000.htm. Phelan, T. J. (1999). A compendium of issues for citation analysis. Scientometrics, 45(1), 117-136. Plomp, R. (1994). The Highly Cited Papers of Professors as an Indicator of a Research Group's Scientific Performance. Scientometrics, 29(3), 377-393. Price, D. J. d. S. (1965). Networks of Scientific Papers. Science, 149, 510- 515. Price, D. J. d. S. (1970). Citation Measures of Hard Science, Soft Science, Technology, and Nonscience. In C. E. Nelson & D. K. Pollock (Eds.), Communication Among Scientists and Engineers (pp. 3-22). Lexington: D. C. Heat & Co. van Raan, A. F. J. (1993). Advanced bibliometric methods to assess reseach performance and scientific development: basic principles and recent practical applications. Research Evaluation, 3(3), 151-166. van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and forsight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420. van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). The Pandora's Box of Citation Analysis: Measuring Scientific Excellence -- The Last Evil? In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The Web of Knowledge. A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 301-319). Medford: ASIS. van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics 62 (1), 133-143. Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria. Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 27, 95-107. Rip, A. (1997). Qualitative conditions of scientometrics: The new challenges. Scientometrics, 38(1), 7-26. Schoepflin, U. (1992). Problems of Representativity in the Social Sciences Citation Index. Paper presented at the Representation of Science and Technology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Bielefeld, Germany, 10-12 June 1990. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5-6), 281-291. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1993). Reference standards for citation based assessments. Scientometrics, 26(1), 21-35. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1996). Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 36(3), 311-324. Schubert, A., Gl?nzel, W., & Braun, T. (1988). Against Absolute Methods: Relative Scientometric Indicators and Relational Charts as Evaluation Tools. In A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Schwartz, C. A. (1997). The Rise and Fall of Uncitedness. College & Research Libraries, 58(1), 19-29. Seglen, P. O. (1989). From bad to worse: Evaluation by Journal Impact. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 14, 326-327. Seglen, P. O. (1992). The Skewness of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628-638. Seglen, P. O. (1994). Causal Relationship between Article Citedness and Journal Impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (1), 1-11. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality. Allergy, 52(11), 1050-1056. Shadish, W. R., Tolliver, D., Gray, M., & Gupta, S. K. S. (1995). Author Judgements about Works They Cite: Three Studies from Psychology Journals. Social Studies of Science, 25, 477-498. Sivertsen, G. (1992). Should a new bibliometric database for international comparisons be more restricted in journal coverage. Paper presented at the Science and technology in a policy context. Leiden Conference on Science & Technology Indicators,, Leiden, The Netherlands, 23- 25 October 1991. Sivertsen, G. (1997). Ethical and Political Aspects of Using and Interpreting Quantitative Indicators. In M. S. Frankel & J. Cave (Eds.), Evaluating Science and Scientists: An East-West Dialogue on Research Evaluation in Post-Communist Europe. Budapest: Central European University Press. Small, H. (1982). Citation Context Analysis. In B. Dervin & M.-. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 287-310). Norwood: Ablex. Small, H. G. (1978). Cited Documents as Concept Symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8, 327-340. Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation Analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83-106. Snyder, H., & Bonzi, S. (1998). Patterns of self-citation across disciplines (1980-1989). Journal of Information Science, 24(6), 432-435. Tagliacozzo, R. (1977). Self-citation in scientific literature. Journal of Documentation, 33(4), 251-265. Taxt, R. E., & Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Vitenskapelig publisering i perioden 1995-2000. En analyse av Det matematisk-naturvitenskapelige fakultetet. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen. Testa, J. (1997). The ISI Database: the journal selection process. The ISI Essays. URL: http://www.isinet.com/isi/hot/essays/199701.html. Tijssen, R. J. W. (2003). Scoreboards of research excellence. Research Evaluation, 12(2), 91-103. Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2002). Benchmarking international scientific excellence: are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics, 54(3), 381-397. Turner, S. P., & Chubin, D. E. (1976). Another appraisal of Ortega, the Coles, and science policy: the Ecclesiastes hypothesis. Social Science Information, 15(4/5), 657-662. Turner, S. P., & Chubin, D. E. (1979). Chance and eminence in science: Ecclesiastes II. Social Science Information, 18(3), 437-449. Vinkler, P. (1986). Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 10(3-4), 157-177. Vinkler, P. (1998). Comparative investigation of frequency and strength of motives toward referencing. The referencing threshold model. Scientometrics, 43(1), 107-127. Voos, H., & Dagaev, K. S. (1976). Are All Citations Equal? Or, Did We Op. Cit. Your Idem? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 1(6), 19-21. VSNU. (1996). Quality Assessment of Research - Chemistry, past performance and future perspectives. Utrecht: VSNU. Warner, J. (2000). A critical review of the application of citation studies to the Research Assessment Exercises. Journal of Information Science, 26 (6), 453-460. From isidro at CINDOC.CSIC.ES Tue Oct 18 09:40:38 2005 From: isidro at CINDOC.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:40:38 +0200 Subject: Interesting paper on search engines In-Reply-To: <4354FAE1.20800@cindoc.csic.es> Message-ID: Expectations versus reality ? Search engine features needed for Web research at mid 2005 Judit Bar-Ilan Cybermetrics, Vol. 9 (2005): ISSUE 1. PAPER 2 http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v9i1p2.html Web research is based on data from or about the Web. Often data is collected using search engines. Here we describe our "wish list" for the ideal search engine, explain the need for the specific features and examine whether the currently existing major search engines can at least partially fulfil the requirements of the ultimate search tool. The major search tools are commercial and are oriented towards the "average" user and not towards the Web researcher, and therefore are unable to meet all the requests. One possible solution is for the research community to recruit the necessary funding, resources and know-how in order to build a research-oriented search tool. -- *************************************** Isidro F. Aguillo isidro at cindoc.csic.es Ph:(+34) 91-5635482 ext. 313 InternetLab. CINDOC-CSIC Joaquin Costa, 22 28002 Madrid. SPAIN http://www.webometrics.info http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics http://internetlab.cindoc.csic.es **************************************** From isidro at CINDOC.CSIC.ES Tue Oct 18 09:38:41 2005 From: isidro at CINDOC.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:38:41 +0200 Subject: New paper in the e-journal Cybermetrics Message-ID: Strategies to assure adequate scientific outputs by developing countries - a scientometric evaluation of Brazilian PADCT as a case study Luiz Antonio Barreto de Castro Cybermetrics, Vol., 9 (2005): ISSUE 1. PAPER 1 http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v9i1p1.html The main purpose of this article is to stimulate scientists and policy makers to ask the question: How reliable are scientific investments made by developing countries on a long term basis ? Strategies to assure adequate, long term, scientific outputs by developing countries must be enforced. Our experience in Brazil and in many other developing countries, particularly in Latin America, that successful scientific initiatives may be discontinued for non scientific reasons. Strategies in Brazil are discussed, as well as the results of a scientometric evaluation of the Brazilian PADCT as a case study. The methodology applied requires the availability of data bases listing all the active scientists, for performance comparisons amongst institution and countries. Financial investments by developing countries for S&T&I are limited when compared to developed countries but must be properly evaluated. Many developing countries have in addition difficulties to maintain consistent data bases on science and technology and as consequence fail to evaluate the outputs resulting from the investments in this area. This context weakens the position of the scientific academies, when the time to present the necessary demands of science to the highest decision making level bodies in the Country is offered. -- *************************************** Isidro F. Aguillo isidro at cindoc.csic.es Ph:(+34) 91-5635482 ext. 313 InternetLab. CINDOC-CSIC Joaquin Costa, 22 28002 Madrid. SPAIN http://www.webometrics.info http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics http://internetlab.cindoc.csic.es **************************************** From leo.egghe at UHASSELT.BE Mon Oct 24 09:18:39 2005 From: leo.egghe at UHASSELT.BE (Leo Egghe) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:18:39 +0200 Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS - SECOND SPECIAL ISSUE IPM ON INFORMETRICS Message-ID: SECOND SPECIAL ISSUE OF INFORMATION PROCESSING AND MANAGEMENT ON INFORMETRICS CALL FOR PAPERS OCTOBER 24, 2005 The journal Information Processing and Management (IPM) will publish, mid 2006, a second special issue on the general topic "informetrics". Issue guest editor is Leo Egghe of the Limburgs Universitair Centrum in Belgium. Note that from June 15, 2005 on the name of LUC is changed into "Universiteit Hasselt" (UHasselt) (see coordinates below). There is no restriction on informetric topics, for reasons explained in the second part of this call but one seeks papers of high quality on either one or both of the following aspects: * professional data gathering * explanation of regularities found in the data (mathematical modelling). As such we expect informetric papers on the following possible topics: * bibliographies (authors, journals) * indexing and information retrieval * libraries and other information centres * citation analysis and performance indicators * growth and aging (obsolescence) of literature * scientific communication (incl. collaboration), social networks among which the Internet, incl. webometrics * links (topical as well as methodological) with other -metrics fields such as sociometrics, econometrics, biometrics, quantitative linguistics and the study of complex, self-organising systems. The deadline for submission is October 31, 2005. The papers should be sent to Prof. Dr. Leo Egghe Issue guest editor IPM Universiteit Hasselt Agoralaan - Gebouw D B-3590 Diepenbeek Belgium tel.: +32 11 26.81.21 fax: +32 11 26.81.26 e-mail: leo.egghe at uhasselt.be Papers should be sent, preferably, by e-mail. If sent by airmail we expect that 3 copies are submitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- It is intended that this should be the second of a growing series of issues on this theme that will become the core collection of work in this field. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Oct 24 12:59:17 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:59:17 -0400 Subject: Burrell QL "Symmetry and other transformation features of Lorenz/Leimkuhler representations of informetric data " Information Processing & Management. 41 (6): 1317-1329 DEC 2005 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: q.burrell at ibs.ac.im Title: Symmetry and other transformation features of Lorenz/Leimkuhler representations of informetric data Author(s): Burrell QL Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1317-1329 DEC 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 41 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: In this paper we develop in particular the use of Lorenz/Leimkuhler concentration curves in an informetric context. Many of the features to be presented are akin to, or are adaptations of, ones that have featured in the econometric literature but not in informetrics. We acknowledge in particular our debt to Lambert [Lambert, P. J. (2001). The distribution and redistribution of income. Manchester: Manchester University Press] and Kleiber and Kotz [Kleiber, C., & Kotz, S. (2003). Statistical size distributions in economics and actuarial sciences. New Jersey: Wiley] for source material in the econometrics literature. Although the development is purely theoretical, the aim is to provide additional and more incisive analytic tools for the practising informetrician. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Burrell QL (reprint author), Isle of Man Int Business Sch, The Nunnery,Old Castletown Rd, Douglas, Man IM2 1QB England Isle of Man Int Business Sch, Douglas, Man IM2 1QB England E-mail Addresses: q.burrell at ibs.ac.im Publisher: PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND IDS Number: 956XE ISSN: 0306-4573 Cited References: ARNOLD BC, 1987, LECT NOTES STAT, V43. ATKINSON AB, 1970, J ECON THEORY, V2, P244. BASU A, 1992, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V43, P494. BASU A, 1995, JISSI INT J SCIENTOM, V1, P39. BRADFORD SC, 1934, ENGINEERING-LONDON, V137, P85. BURR IW, 1942, ANN MATH STAT, V13, P215. BURRELL QL, 1985, J DOC, V41, P24. BURRELL QL, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICS, V21, P181. BURRELL QL, 1992, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V28, P19. BURRELL QL, 1992, INFORMATION PROCESSI, V28, P637. BURRELL QL, 1992, INFORMETRICS 91, P97. BURRELL QL, 1992, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V43, P452. BURRELL QL, 1993, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V29, P515. BURRELL QL, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V55, P273. BURRELL QL, 2003, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V54, P1260. BURRELL QL, 2005, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V56, P704. DAGUM C, 1977, ECON APPL, V30, P413. DAMGAARD C, 2000, ECOLOGY, V81, P1139. EGGHE L, 1990, INTRO INFORMETRICS Q. EGGHE L, 1990, J INFORM SCI, V16, P17. EGGHE L, 1992, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V28, P201. EGGHE L, 1992, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V28, P35. EGGHE L, 2003, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V54, P603. EGGHE L, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P497. FELLMAN J, 1976, ECONOMETRICA, V44, P823. GUPTA BM, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS, V42, P335. JACOBSSON U, 1976, J PUBLIC ECON, V5, P161. KENDALL MG, 1956, J ROYAL STAT SOC A, V119, P184. KLEIBER C, 2003, STAT SIZE DISTRIBUTI. LAMBERT PJ, 2001, DISTRIBUTION REDISTR. LORENZ MO, 1905, J AM STAT ASSOC, V9, P209. RASCHE RH, 1980, ECONOMETRICA, V48, P1061. ROUSSEAU R, 1992, INFORMATION PROCESSI, V28, P45. ROUSSEAU R, 1992, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V43, P391. SARABIA JM, 1999, J ECONOMETRICS, V91, P43. SINGH SK, 1975, ASA P BUS EC STAT SE, P551. SINGH SK, 1976, ECONOMETRICA, V44, P963. THOMPSON WA, 1976, BIOMETRICS, V32, P265. TRUESWELL RL, 1969, WILSON LIBRARY B, V43, P458. TRUESWELL RL, 1976, FAREWELL ALEXANDRIA, P72. TRUESWELL RW, 1966, LIBRI, V16, P49. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Oct 24 13:08:46 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:08:46 -0400 Subject: Egghe L. "Continuous, weighted Lorenz theory and applications to the study of fractional relative impact factors " INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1330-1359 DEC 2005 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: leo.egghe at luc.ac.be Title: Continuous, weighted Lorenz theory and applications to the study of fractional relative impact factors Author(s): Egghe L Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1330-1359 DEC 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 29 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: This paper introduces weighted Lorenz curves of a continuous variable, extending the discrete theory as well as the non-weighted continuous model. Using publication scores (in function of time) as the weights and citation scores (in function of time) as the dependent variables, we can construct an "impact Lorenz curve" in which one can read the value of any fractional impact factor, i.e. an impact factor measured at the time that a certain fraction of the citations is obtained or measured at the time a certain fraction of the publications is obtained. General properties of such Lorenz curves are studied and special results are obtained in case the citation age curve and publication growth curve are exponential functions. If g is the growth rate and c is the aging rate we show that 9 determines the impact Lorenz curve and also we show that any two situations give rise to two non-intersecting (except in (0, 0) and (1, 1)) Lorenz curves. This means that, for two situations, if one fractional impact factor is larger than the other one, the same is true for all the other fractional impact factors. We show, by counterexample that this is not so for "classical" impact factors, where one goes back to fixed time periods. The paper also presents methods to determine the rates c and g from practical data and examples are given. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Egghe L (reprint author), Limburgs Univ Ctr, Univ Campus, Diepenbeek, B-3590 Belgium Limburgs Univ Ctr, Diepenbeek, B-3590 Belgium Univ Antwerp, Antwerp, B-2610 Belgium E-mail Addresses: leo.egghe at luc.ac.be Publisher: PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND IDS Number: 956XE ISSN: 0306-4573 Cited References: BRAUN T, 1985, SCIENTOMETRIC INDICA. BRAUN T, 1989, EVALUATION SCI RES, P32. BROOKES BC, 1970, J DOC, V26, P283. BROOKES BC, 1971, NATURE, V232, P458. DIERICK J, 1988, HET OUDE NIEUWE BOEK, P593. EGGHE L, 1988, INFORMATION PROCESSI, V24, P567. EGGHE L, 1990, INTRO INFORMETRICS Q. EGGHE L, 1996, J INFORM SCI, V22, P165. EGGHE L, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P97. EGGHE L, 2000, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V51, P1004. EGGHE L, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V52, P261. EGGHE L, 2002, MATH COMPUT MODEL, V35, P1149. EGGHE L, 2003, CANADIAN J INFORMATI, V27, P29. EGGHE L, 2004, J AM SOC INFORMATION. EGGHE L, 2005, POWER LAWS INFORMATI. GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471. GARFIELD E, 1979, CITATION INDEXING IT. GARFIELD E, 1979, SCIENTOMETRICS, V1, P359. GARFIELD E, 1983, ESSAYS INFORMATION S, V6, P363. INGWERSEN P, 2001, CHINESE SCI BULL, V46, P524. PUDOVKIN AI, 2004, P ASIST 2004. ROUSSEAU R, 1988, INFORMETRICS 87 88, P249. ROUSSEAU R, 2001, J DOC, V57, P349. ROUSSEAU R, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V63, P431. SCHUBERT A, 1983, P 1 NAT C INT PART S, P80. SCHUBERT A, 1986, CZECH J PHYS, V36, P126. SOMBATSOMPOP N, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P217. STINSON ER, 1981, THESIS U ILLINOIS. STINSON ER, 1987, J INF SCI, V13, P65. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Oct 24 13:14:44 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:14:44 -0400 Subject: Rousseau R. "Conglomerates as a general framework for informetric research" INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1360-1368 DEC 2005 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: ronald.rousseau at khbo.be Title: Conglomerates as a general framework for informetric research Author(s): Rousseau R Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1360-1368 DEC 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 33 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: We introduce conglomerates as a general framework for informetric (and other) research. A conglomerate consists of two collections: a finite source collection and a pool, and two mappings: a source-item map and a magnitude map. The ratio of the sum of all magnitudes of item-sets, and the number of elements in the source collection is called the conglomerate ratio. It is a kind of average, generalizing the notion of an impact factor. The source-item relation of a conglomerate leads to a list of sources ranked according to the magnitude of their corresponding item-sets. This list, called a Zipf list, is the basic ingredient for all considerations related to power laws and Lotkaian or Zipfian informetrics. Examples where this framework applies are: impact factors, including web impact factors, Bradford-Lotka type bibliographies, first-citation studies, word use, diffusion factors, elections and even bestsellers lists. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Rousseau R (reprint author), Assoc KU Leuven, KHBO, Zeedijk 101, Oostende, B-8400 Belgium Assoc KU Leuven, KHBO, Oostende, B-8400 Belgium Univ Antwerp, IBW, Antwerp, B-2610 Belgium E-mail Addresses: ronald.rousseau at khbo.be IDS Number: 956XE ISSN: 0306-4573 Cited References: BRADFORD SC, 1934, ENGINEERING-LONDON, V137, P85. BRAUN T, 1985, SCIENTOMETRIC INDICA. BURRELL QL, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICS, V21, P181. BURRELL QL, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V52, P3. EBBHE L, 2005, MATH COMPUT MODEL, V41, P301. EGGHE L, 1990, INTRO INFORMETRICS. EGGHE L, 1990, J INFORM SCI, V16, P17. EGGHE L, 2000, SCIENTOMETRICS, V48, P345. EGGHE L, 2001, MATH COMPUT MODEL, V34, P81. EGGHE L, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P371. EGGHE L, 2003, CANADIAN J INFORMATI, V27, P29. EGGHE L, 2005, POWER LAWS INFORMATI. FRANDSEN TF, 2004, ASLIB PROC, V56, P5. FRANDSEN TF, 2005, DIFFUSION FACTORS. FRANDSEN TF, 2005, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V56, P58. GABAIX X, 1999, AM ECON REV, V89, P129. GARFIELD E, 1963, AM DOC, V14, P195. INGWERSEN P, 1998, J DOC, V54, P236. INGWERSEN P, 2001, CHINESE SCI BULL, V46, P524. IOANNIDES YM, 2003, REG SCI URBAN ECON, V33, P127. JIN BH, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS, V45, P325. LOTKA AJ, 1926, J WASHINGTON ACADEMY, V16, P317. ROUSSEAU R, 1992, INFORMATION PROCESSI, V28, P45. ROUSSEAU R, 1993, CAN J INFORM LIB SCI, V18, P51. ROUSSEAU R, 1994, SCIENTOMETRICS, V30, P213. ROWLANDS I, 2002, ASLIB PROC, V54, P77. SCHUBERT A, 1983, P 1 NAT C INT PART S, P80. THELWALL M, 2000, J DOC, V56, P185. WASSERMAN S, 1994, SOCIAL NETWORK ANAL. WILSON CS, 1999, ANNU REV INFORM SCI, V34, P107. WU YS, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P385. ZIPF GK, 1941, NATL UNITY DISUNITY. ZIPF GK, 1949, HUMAN BEHAV PRINCIPL. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Oct 24 13:44:20 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:44:20 -0400 Subject: Shan S. "On the generalized Zipf distribution. Part I " INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1369-1386 DEC 2005 Message-ID: TITLE: On the generalized Zipf distribution. Part I (Article, English) AUTHOR: Shan, S SOURCE: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6). DEC 2005. p.1369-1386 PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, OXFORD ABSTRACT: This article is concerned with a class of informetric distribution, a family of skew distributions found to describe a wide range of phenomena both within or outside of information sciences and referred to as being of Zipf-type. A generalization of Zipf distribution (a size- frequency form of the Zipf's law), named the generalized Zipf distribution, is introduced. Two main characterizations of the generalized Zipf distribution are obtained based on the proportionate hazard rate and truncated moments. Finally, some asymptotic properties of the generalized Zipf distribution are investigated. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. AUTHOR ADDRESS: S Shan, Shanghai Univ, Informat Res Ctr, Shanghai, Peoples R China Cited References: BURR IW, 1942, ANN MATH STAT, V13, P215. EGGHE L, 1990, INTRO INFORMETRICS. EGGHE L, 1992, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V28, P35. ETO H, 1983, SCIENTOMETRICS, V5, P219. FELLER W, 1978, INTRO PROBABILITY TH, V2. GLANZEL W, 1984, Z WAHRSCHEINLICHKEIT, V66, P173. HILL M, 1975, J AM STAT ASSOC, V70, P1017. IJIRI Y, 1977, SKEW DISTRIBUTIONS S. IRWIN JO, 1975, J ROYAL STATISTI A 1, V138, P18. KLAMBAUER G, 1975, MATH ANAL. MANDELBROT B, 1960, INT ECON REV, V1, P79. MANDELBROT B, 1961, STRUCTURE LANGUAGE M, P129. PENNOCK DM, 2002, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V99, P5207. PRICE DJD, 1976, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V27, P292. ROUSSEAU R, 1995, INFORMATION PROCESSI, V28, P45. ROUSSEAU R, 1997, CYBERMETRICS, V1, P1. RUDIN W, 1976, PRINCIPLES MATH ANAL. SCHUBERT A, 1984, SCIENTOMETRICS, V6, P149. SIBUYA M, 1979, ANN I STAT MATH, V31, P373. SIMON HA, 1955, BIOMETRIKA, V42, P425. SINGH ABZ, 1974, ECONOMETRICA, V44, P963. TIROLE J, 1988, THEORY IND OR. ZIPF GK, 1949, HUMAN BEHAV PRINCIPL. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Oct 24 13:51:36 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:51:36 -0400 Subject: Kurtz MJ, Eichhorn G, Accomazzi A, Grant C, Demleitner M, Henneken E, Murray SS "The effect of use and access on citations " INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1395-1402 DEC 2005 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: kurtz at cfa.harvard.edu Title: The effect of use and access on citations Author(s): Kurtz MJ, Eichhorn G, Accomazzi A, Grant C, Demleitner M, Henneken E, Murray SS Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1395-1402 DEC 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 22 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: It has been shown (Lawrence, S. (2001). Online or invisible? Nature, 411, 52 1) that journal articles which have been posted without charge on the internet are more heavily cited than those which have not been. Using data from the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ads.harvard.edu) and from the ArXiv e-print archive at Cornell University (arXiv.org) we examine the causes of this effect. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Kurtz MJ (reprint author), Harvard Smithsonian Ctr Astrophys, 60 Garden ST, Cambridge, MA 01238 USA Harvard Smithsonian Ctr Astrophys, Cambridge, MA 01238 USA E-mail Addresses: kurtz at cfa.harvard.edu Publisher: PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND IDS Number: 956XE ISSN: 0306-4573 Cited References: 2004, AM SCI MAGAZINE. 2005, NATURE MAGAZINE. *ARX, 2004, SERV US STAT PAG. ACCOMAZZI A, 1999, ASTR SOC P, V172, P291. BOLLEN J, 2003, D LIB MAGAZINE, V9. BOYCE PB, 1998, ASTR SOC P, V153, P107. BRODY T, 2003, SINN03 C WORLDW COH. BRODY T, 2004, NAT POL OP ACC OA PR. BRUNNER RJ, 2001, ASP C SER, V225. DALTERIO HJ, 1995, VISTAS ASTRON, V39, P7. DEMLEITNER M, 2004, CLASSIFICATION CLUST, P521. GENOVA F, 2000, A AS, V143, P1. GINSPARG P, 2001, P JOINT ICSU PRESSL. KURTZ MJ, 1993, ASTR SOC P, V52, P132. KURTZ MJ, 2000, ASTRON ASTROPHYS SUP, V143, P41. KURTZ MJ, 2004, NAT POL OP ACC OA PR. KURTZ MJ, 2005, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V56, P111. KURTZ MJ, 2005, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V56, P36. LAWRENCE S, 2001, NATURE, V411, P521. OCHSENBEIN F, 1995, VISTAS ASTRON, V39, P227. QUINN PJ, 2004, P ESO ESA NASA NSF C. TRIMBLE V, 2004, PUBL ASTRON SOC PAC, V116, P187. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Oct 24 14:09:19 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:09:19 -0400 Subject: Bollen J, de Sompel HV, Smith JA, Luce R "Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data " Information Processing & Management 41(6): 1419-1440. December 2005 Message-ID: E-mail addresses: jbollen @ vub.ac.be or jbollen at cs.odu.edu Title: Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data Author(s): Bollen J, de Sompel HV, Smith JA, Luce R Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1419-1440 DEC 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 55 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: We generated networks of journal relationships from citation and download data, and determined journal impact rankings from these networks using a set of social network centrality metrics. The resulting journal impact rankings were compared to the ISI IF. Results indicate that, although social network metrics and ISI IF rankings deviate moderately for citation- based journal networks, they differ considerably for journal networks derived from download data. We believe the results represent a unique aspect of general journal impact that is not captured by the ISI IF. These results furthermore raise questions regarding the validity of the ISI IF as the sole assessment of journal impact, and suggest the possibility of devising impact metrics based on usage information in general. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Bollen J (reprint author), Old Dominion Univ, Dept Comp Sci, 4700 Elkhorn Ave, Norfolk, VA 23529 USA Old Dominion Univ, Dept Comp Sci, Norfolk, VA 23529 USA Los Alamos Natl Lab, Res Lib, Los Alamos, NM 87554 USA E-mail Addresses: jbolien at lanl.gov Publisher: PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND IDS Number: 956XE ISSN: 0306-4573 Cited References: BARABASI AL, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P509. BOLLEN J, 2001, THESIS VRIJE U BRUSS. BOLLEN J, 2003, LNCS, V2769. BONACICH P, 1987, AM J SOCIOL, V92, P1170. BORDONS M, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P195. BRESLAU L, 1999, INFOCOM, V1, P126. BRIN S, 1997, P ACM SIGMOD INT C M, P265. BRIN S, 1998, COMPUT NETWORKS ISDN, V30, P107. CESARE RD, 1994, P 18 INT ONL INF M L, P405. CHAKRABARTI S, 1998, COMPUT NETWORKS ISDN, V30, P65. CHI H, 2000, P ACM CHI 2000 C HUM, P161. DARMONI SJ, 2000, TECHNOLOGY HLTH CARE, V8, P174. DARMONI SJ, 2002, J MED LIBR ASSOC, V90, P323. EGGHE L, 1988, INFORMATION PROCESSI, V24, P567. EGGHE L, 2000, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V51, P1004. GARFIELD E, 1979, CITATION INDEXING IT. GROOTE SLD, 2001, B MED LIB ASS, V89. HARNAD S, 2003, ARIADNE, V35. HARTER SP, 1997, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V48, P1146. HITCHCOCK S, 2002, D LIB MAGAZINE, V8. HUANG Z, 2004, ACM T INFORM SYST, V22, P116. JACSO P, 2000, P 21 ANN NAT ONL M N, P169. JONES S, 1998, EUR C DIG LIB, P261. KALTENBORN KF, 2003, MED KLIN, V98, P153. KAPLAN NR, 2000, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V51, P324. KLEINBERG J, 1998, P 9 ANN ACM SIAM S D, P668. KLEINBERG JM, 1999, ACM COMPUT SURV, V31, P5. KOMATSU S, 1996, JOHO KANRI, V39, P199. KURTZ MJ, 2000, ASTRON ASTROPHYS SUP, V143, P41. KURTZ MJ, 2005, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V56, P111. KURTZ MJ, 2005, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V56, P36. LAGOZE C, 2002, OPEN ARCH INITIATIVE. LEVENE M, 2001, KNOWL INF SYST, V3, P120. LEWISON G, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V2, P229. LINE MB, 1977, EURIM 2 EUROPEAN C A, P51. MACROBERTS MH, 1989, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V40, P342. MATHE N, 1996, INT J USER MODELING, V6, P225. MOED HF, 1995, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V46, P461. NEDERHOF AJ, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V51, P241. NEWMAN MEJ, 2000, J STAT PHYS, V101, P819. NEWMAN MEJ, 2004, PHYS REV E, V70. OPTHOF T, 1997, CARDIOVASC RES, V33, P1. PIROLLI P, 1999, WORLD WIDE WEB, V2, P29. REEDIJK J, 1998, NEW J CHEM, V22, P767. REYROCHA J, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V35, P137. ROUSSEAU R, 2002, LIBR TRENDS, V50, P418. SARWAR BM, 2001, P 10 INT WORLD WID W, P285. THELWALL M, 2001, J DOC, V57, P177. VANDESOMPEL HV, 2003, D LIB MAGAZINE, V9. VANDESOMPEL HV, 2004, D LIB MAGAZINE, V10. WASSERMAN S, 1994, SOCIAL NETWORK ANAL. WATTS D, 1999, SMALL WORLDS DYNAMIC. XIAO YQ, 2001, DATA KNOWL ENG, V39, P191. YAN TW, 1996, COMPUT NETWORKS ISDN, V28, P1007. ZHU J, 2001, P 12 ACM C HYP HYP, P131. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Oct 24 14:27:36 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:27:36 -0400 Subject: Liu XM, Bollen J, Nelson ML, Van de Sompel H "Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community " Information Processing & Management 41 (6): 1462-1480 DEC 2005 Message-ID: LIU XM - E-mail Addresses: liu_x at lanl.gov Title: Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community Author(s): Liu XM, Bollen J, Nelson ML, Van de Sompel H Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1462-1480 DEC 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 36 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: The field of digital libraries (DLs) coalesced in 1994: the first digital library conferences were held that year, awareness of the World Wide Web was accelerating, and the National Science Foundation awarded $24 Million (US) for the Digital Library Initiative (DLI). In this paper we examine the state of the DL domain after a decade of activity by applying social network analysis to the co-authorship network of the past ACM, IEEE, and joint ACM/IEEE digital library conferences. We base our analysis on a common binary undirectional network model to represent the co-authorship network, and from it we extract several established network measures. We also introduce a weighted directional network model to represent the co- authorship network, for which we define AuthorRank as an indicator of the impact of an individual author in the network. The results are validated against conference program committee members in the same period. The results show clear advantages of PageRank and AuthorRank over degree, closeness and betweenness centrality metrics. We also investigate the amount and nature of international participation in Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Liu XM (reprint author), Los Alamos Natl Lab, Res Lib, POB 1663, Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Los Alamos Natl Lab, Res Lib, Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Old Dominion Univ, Dept Comp Sci, Norfolk, VA 23529 USA E-mail Addresses: liu_x at lanl.gov Publisher: PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND IDS Number: 956XE ISSN: 0306-4573 Cited References: BAEZAYATES R, 1999, MODERN INFORMATION R. BARABASI AL, 2002, LINKED NEW SCI NETWO. BHARAT K, 1998, P 21 ANN INT ACM SIG, P104. BONACICH P, 1972, J MATH SOCIOL, V2, P113. CASTRO RD, 1999, MATHINT MATH INTELLI, V21, P51. CHAKRABARTI S, 2003, MINING WEB. CHEN C, 1999, P 10 ACM C HYP HYP 9, P51. CUNNINGHAM SJ, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS, V39, P19. CUNNINGHAM SJ, 2001, P 8 INT C SCIENT INF. EGGHE L, 2000, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V51, P145. ESLER SL, 1998, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V49, P82. FARKAS I, 2002, PHYSICA A, V314, P25. GARFIELD E, 1979, CITATION INDEXING IT. HAVELIWALA TH, 2003, IEEE T KNOWL DATA EN, V15, P784. HE SY, 2002, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V53, P953. KAMVAR SD, 2003, P WWW 2003. KLEINBERG JM, 1999, J ACM, V46, P604. LEMPEL R, 2000, COMPUT NETW, V33, P387. LIU X, 2004, P 4 ACM IEEE JOINT C, P404. MUTSCHKE P, 2001, LECT NOTES COMPUTER, V2163, P287. NASCIMENTO MA, 2003, SIGMOD RECORD, V32. NEWMAN MEJ, 2001, PHYS REV E 2, V64. NEWMAN MEJ, 2001, PHYS REV E 2, V64. NEWMAN MEJ, 2003, CONDMAT0309045. NEWMAN MEJ, 2004, PHYS REV E 2, V70. OTTE E, 2002, J INFORM SCI, V28, P441. PAGE L, 1998, P 7 INT WORLD WID WE. PAGE L, 1998, PAGERANK CITATION RA. SANKARALINGAM K, 2003, J GRID COMPUTING, V1, P291. SCOTT J, 2000, SOCIAL NETWORK ANAL. SMEATON AF, 2002, SIGIR FORUM, V36. TJADEN B, 2003, ORACLE BACON. WAGNER CS, 2003, P 9 INT C SCIENT INF. WANG Y, 2004, P 30 INT C VER LARG, P420. WASSERMAN S, 1994, SOCIAL NETWORK ANAL. WATTS D, 2001, SMALL WORLDS DYNAMIC. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Oct 24 14:32:11 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:32:11 -0400 Subject: Payne N, Thelwall M "Mathematical models for academic webs: Linear relationship or non-linear power law?" INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1495-1510 DEC 2005 Message-ID: Payne N - E-mail Addresse : n.c.payne at wlv.ac.uk Thelwall M - E-mail Address:m.thelwall at wlv.ac.uk Title: Mathematical models for academic webs: Linear relationship or non- linear power law? Author(s): Payne N, Thelwall M Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1495-1510 DEC 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 65 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Previous studies of academic web interlinking have tended to hypothesise that the relationship between the research of a university and links to or from its web site should follow a linear trend, yet the typical distribution of web data, in general, seems to be a non-linear power law. This paper assesses whether a linear trend or a power law is the most appropriate method with which to model the relationship between research and web site size or outlinks. Following linear regression, analysis of the confidence intervals for the logarithmic graphs, and analysis of the outliers, the results suggest that a linear trend is more appropriate than a non-linear power law. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Payne N (reprint author), Wolverhampton Univ, Sch Comp & Informat Technol, 35-49 Lichfield St, Wolverhampton, WV1 1EQ England Wolverhampton Univ, Sch Comp & Informat Technol, Wolverhampton, WV1 1EQ England E-mail Addresses: n.c.payne at wlv.ac.uk, m.thelwall at wlv.ac.uk Publisher: PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND Subject Category: COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE IDS Number: 956XE ISSN: 0306-4573 Cited References: *MAYF U CONS, 2001, TIMES HIGHER ED 0518, T2. *NOBL PUBL CO, 1999, NOBL HIGH ED FIN YB. ADAMIC LA, 1999, NATURE, V401, P131. ADAMIC LA, 2002, GLOTTOMETRICS, V3, P143. AGUILLO IF, 1998, ONLINE INFORMATION 9, P239. ALBERT R, 1999, NATURE, V401, P130. ALMIND TC, 1997, J DOC, V53, P404. BARABASI AL, 1999, PHYSICA A, V272, P173. BARILAN J, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V50, P7. BARILAN J, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V59, P29. BJORNEBORN L, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V50, P65. BJORNEBORN L, 2004, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V55, P1216. BJORNEBORN L, 2004, THESIS ROYAL SCH LIB. BRIN S, 1998, COMPUT NETWORKS ISDN, V30, P107. BRODER A, 2000, COMPUT NETW, V33, P309. CHEN CM, 1998, INTERACT COMPUT, V10, P353. CHU H, 2002, J ED LIB INFORMATION, V43, P110. CRONIN B, 2001, J INFORM SCI, V27, P1. EGGHE L, 2000, J INFORM SCI, V26, P329. FALOUTSOS M, 1999, ACM SIGCOMM, V8. GARRIDO M, 2003, CYBERACTIVISM ONLINE, P165. GIBSON D, 1998, HYPERTEXT 98. GOODRUM AA, 2001, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V37, P661. HENZIGNER MR, 2001, IEEE INTERNET COMPUT, V5, P45. INGWERSEN P, 1998, J DOC, V54, P236. JEPSEN ET, 2004, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V55, P1239. KATZ JS, 2000, SCI PUBL POLICY, V27, P23. LARSON RR, 1996, P 59 ANN M AM SOC IN, P71. LEYDESDORFF L, 2005, CLASSIFICATION POWER. LI XM, 2003, ONLINE INFORM REV, V27, P407. LI XM, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V57, P239. PARK HW, 2002, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V53, P592. PAYNE N, 2004, CYBERMETRICS, V8. PENNOCK DM, 2002, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V99, P5207. PRIME C, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V54, P291. ROUSSEAU R, 1997, CYBERMETRICS, V1. ROUSSELET GA, 2004, J VISION, V4, P13. SMITH A, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V54, P363. SMITH AG, 1999, J DOC, V55, P577. TANG R, 2003, LIBR INFORM SCI RES, V25, P437. THELWALL M, 2001, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V52, P1157. THELWALL M, 2001, J DOC, V57, P177. THELWALL M, 2001, J INFORM SCI, V27, P319. THELWALL M, 2002, CYBERMETRICS, V6. THELWALL M, 2002, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V53, P995. THELWALL M, 2002, J DOC, V58, P66. THELWALL M, 2002, J DOC, V58, P683. THELWALL M, 2002, J DOCUMENTATION, V58. THELWALL M, 2002, J INF SCI, V28, P485. THELWALL M, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P95. THELWALL M, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V55, P363. THELWALL M, 2003, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V54, P594. THELWALL M, 2003, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V54, P706. THELWALL M, 2003, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V54, P489. THELWALL M, 2003, J INFORM SCI, V29, P1. THELWALL M, 2003, J INFORM SCI, V29, P453. THELWALL M, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V58, P153. THELWALL M, 2004, ASLIB PROC, V56, P24. THELWALL M, 2004, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V40, P125. THELWALL M, 2004, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V55, P149. THELWALL M, 2004, LINK ANAL INFORMATIO. UBERTI TE, 2004, 0402 DISEIS U CATT S. VANRAAN AFJ, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V50, P59. VAUGHAN L, 2005, INFORM PROCESS MANAG, V41, P347. WILKINSON D, 2003, J INFORM SCI, V29, P49. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Oct 24 14:40:33 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:40:33 -0400 Subject: de Moya-Anegon F, et al. "Domain analysis and information retrieval through the construction of heliocentric maps based on ISI-JCR category cocitation " Information Processing & Management 41 (6): 1520-1533 DEC 2005 Message-ID: de Moya-Anegon F. E-mail Addresses: felix at goliat.ugr.es Title: Domain analysis and information retrieval through the construction of heliocentric maps based on ISI-JCR category cocitation Author(s): de Moya-Anegon F, Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodriguez Z, Corera-Alvarez E, Herrero-Solana V, Munoz-Fernandez FJ Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1520-1533 DEC 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 12 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: We propose the use of ISI-JCR categories as units of cocitation and measurement for the construction of heliocentric maps. The use of a spatial metaphor allows us to illustrate, analyze and compare domains in terms of the categories and their interconnections or links. We can also move around within the structure of these domains for further analysis, and access the documents associated to the categories and to the links that cocite or relate them. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: de Moya-Anegon F (reprint author), Univ Granada, Fac Lib & Informat Sci, SCImago Grp, Granada, 18071 Spain Univ Granada, Fac Lib & Informat Sci, SCImago Grp, Granada, 18071 Spain E-mail Addresses: felix at goliat.ugr.es Publisher: PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND IDS Number: 956XE ISSN: 0306-4573 Cited References: *THOMS CORP, 2004, ISI J CIT REP. *THOMS CORP, 2004, ISI WEB SCI. *W3C, 2004, SCAL VECT GRAPH SVG. ANEGON FD, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V61, P129. HJORLAND B, 1995, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V46, P400. KAMADA T, 1989, INFORM PROCESS LETT, V31, P7. SALTON G, 1979, IEEE T PROF COMMUN, V22, P146. SMALL H, 1985, J INFORM SCI, V11, P147. SMALL H, 2000, WEB KNOWLEDGE FESTSC, P449. TUFTE ER, 1994, ENVISIONING INFORMAT. TUFTE ER, 2001, VISUAL DISPLAY QUANT. WASSERMAN S, 1998, SOCIAL NETWORK ANAL. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Oct 24 14:46:43 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:46:43 -0400 Subject: Marshakova-Shaikevich I "Bibliometric maps of field of science" Information Processing & Management 41(6):1534-1547 December 2005 Message-ID: Marshakova-Shaikevich Irena : E-mail Addresses: ishaikev at mail.ru Title: Bibliometric maps of field of science Author(s): Marshakova-Shaikevich I Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1534-1547 DEC 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 16 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: The present paper is devoted to two directions in algorithmic classificatory procedures: the journal co-citation analysis as an example of citation networks and lexical analysis of keywords in the titles and texts. What is common to those approaches is the general idea of normalization of deviations of the observed data from the mathematical expectation. The application of the same formula leads to discovery of statistically significant links between objects (journals in one case, keywords-in the other). The results of the journal co-citation analysis are reflected in tables and map for field "Women's Studies" and for field "Information Science and Library Science". An experimental attempt at establishing textual links between words was carried out on two samples from SSCI Data base: (1) EDUCATION and (2) ETHICS. The EDUCATION file included 2180 documents (of which 751 had abstracts); the ETHICS file included 807 documents (289 abstracts). Some examples of the results of this pilot study are given in tabular form. The binary links between words discovered in this way may form triplets or other groups with more than two member words. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Marshakova-Shaikevich I (reprint author), RAN, Inst Philosophy, Moscow, 119842 Russia RAN, Inst Philosophy, Moscow, 119842 Russia KW Univ, Bydgoszcz, PL-85090 Poland E-mail Addresses: ishaikev at mail.ru Publisher: PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND IDS Number: 956XE ISSN: 0306-4573 Cited References: AMUDHAVALLI A, 1995, P 5 BIENN C INT SOC. JONES KS, 1971, AUTOMATIC KEYWORD CL. KESSLER MM, 1963, AM DOC, V14, P10. KOPSA A, 1995, 4 INT C SCI TECHN IN. LEYDESDORF L, 1997, P 1 INT C BIBL THEOR. MARSHAKOVA I, 1974, NAUCHNO TEKHNICHESKA, V2, P11. MARSHAKOVA I, 1974, NAUCHNO TEKHNICHESKA, V2, P7. MARSHAKOVA I, 2003, LANGUAGE INFORMATION, P87. MARSHAKOVASHAIK.I, 2004, INT WORKSH WEB INF S, P247. MARSHAKOVASHAIKEVICH I, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V35, P283. MARSHAKOVASHAIKEVICH I, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V52, P323. MARSHALL B, 2001, BMC BIOCH, V2, P5. MARSLAND AM, 2001, SKIN THERAPY LETT, V6, P3. NOYONS E, 1995, 9506 CWTS BMBF. SMALL H, 1973, J AM SOCINFORM SCI, V24, P256. ZITT M, 1994, SCIENTOMETRICS, V30, P333. From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Tue Oct 25 08:39:58 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:39:58 +0200 Subject: =?us-ascii?Q?Modelling_Anticipation=2C_Codification=2C_and_Husserl's_Hori?= =?us-ascii?Q?zon_of_Meanings?= In-Reply-To: <25624.1130237302@www56.gmx.net> Message-ID: Modelling Anticipation, Codification, and Husserl's Horizon of Meanings Extended abstract Social order cannot be expected to exist as a stable phenomenon, but it can be considered as an order of expectations which are continuously reproduced. The traces which the development of the social system leaves behind can historically be observed, e.g., as institutions. Simulations, however, enable us to vary the parameters of the mechanisms which generate the expectations. (Stabilization can then be considered as a special case.) On the basis of Luhmann's (1984) social systems theory-which proposed to consider meaning as the operator of the social system-and Rosen's (1985) theory of anticipatory systems, I submit algorithms for modelling the exchange of meaning in social systems and the non-linear dynamics of expectations. This will be done step-by-step because the reasoning is abstract. First, a system which contains a model of itself can use this model for the anticipation. The model gives a meaning to the events from the perspective of hindsight. The layer of meaning-processing is different from the information processing which develops with the arrow of time. If anticipations can additionally be exchanged, the expectation can be specified, and this triggers a process of codification within the communication system(s). Providing meaning can thus be considered as the specification of an expectation. Discursive systems are able to entertain models at the intersubjective level. The interactions among meaning-processing systems can be expected to generate "situational meaning." Because of the different systems of reference, one can expect situational meaning among the communicating agents to be very different from the meaning provided by each of them. Natural language is a condition for this level of the exchange: language specifically enables us to distinguish between the information conveyed and its meaning. Meaning can further be codified. For example, knowledge can be considered as a meaning that makes a difference. Analogously, discursive knowledge can be developed at the level of the social system by selecting on situational meanings. Different languages can be juxtaposed in their operation (segmentation) or hierarchically organized (stratification). Latin, for example, functioned during many centuries as a language on top of a set of natural languages and dialects. When the codes of communication are no longer hierarchically organized, but functionally differentiated, a second asynchronicity emerges among the subsystems because the various codes of communication can be expected to operate with different frequencies. The codes span a multi-dimensional space of possibilities for symbolically mediated communications. Symbolically generalized media of communication allow for more dimensions of the communication than languages and they can use another range of frequencies for the processing. Market forces, for example, work fast, while political decision-making may be relatively slow. Innovations tend to upset markets and existing institutions by using another pace. In the case of innovations, technological options are selected by the market given current prices in the present, while each technology builds on previous states. Thus, the market entertains a model of the technological options, while the latter develop with reference to their previous states. The model is generated by using a codification of the communication (e.g., prices) other than the code of the modeled subsystem. Thus, the subsystems entertain models of each other's developments using their own specific codes. Anticipation can be expected to operate asymmetrically across interfaces. In summary, two anticipatory mechanisms can be specified: one operating at each moment of time (that is, structurally) under the condition of functional differentiation of the codes of communication, and a more general one operating within all reflexive systems and subsystems over the time axis. When these two mechanisms operate upon each other, the resulting expectations may selectively reinforce each other in a process of "mutual shaping" or coevolution along a historical trajectory. If more than two (functionally differentiated) codes are operating, a complex system of expectations can be expected to emerge. In addition to coevolving along the axis of time, anticipatory routines can operate upon one another in an anticipatory mode, that is, against the axis of time. When two anticipatory (sub)systems thus incur on each other, a hyper-incursive system can be generated. A condition is that the sets of (differently codified) anticipations involved are further codified by scientific discourses and under the pressure of this increasing complexity, a knowledge-based system can be expected to emerge. A knowledge-based system (e.g., a knowledge-based economy) operates globally, that is, at the systems level as a regime of selections on anticipations. A global horizon of meanings remains pending as selection pressure on both the communicators and the provisionally stabilized communication systems. It can be shown that without decisions complexity would explode by the historical development of a hyper-incursive system. Hyper-incursion leads to pressure on agencies and organizations to make decisions. Agency is transformed by the hyper-incursive routine because 'natural' preferences are increasingly replaced with informed and meaningful decisions. Decisions can be codified in terms of decision-rules when hyper-incursion becomes systemic. Decisions organize the relevant environments at each moment of time, decision-rules can stabilize organizations over time. However, the decisions are dependent on their selections from a horizon of meanings which is constructed at the macro-level. The latter can be expected to change as a global regime with the further evolution of the knowledge base because new meanings can be generated and codified. ________________________________ 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 eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Tue Oct 25 15:41:57 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:41:57 -0400 Subject: Tsay MY and Yang YH " Bibliometric analysis of the literature of randomized controlled trials" Journal of the Medical Library Association Vol:93, #4, p.450-458, October 2005. Message-ID: E-mail: Ming-Yueh Tsay : mytsay at nccu.edu.tw Yen-hsu Yang : luga at tmu.edu.tw Title : Bibliometric analysis of the literature of randomized controlled trials Author : Ming-yueh Tsay, PhD,Professor and Yen-hsu Yang, MA, Librarian Source : Journal of the Medical Library Association, Vol:93, Number 4, October 2005, p.450-458 Table 5 in the following paper lists the 42 core journals identified in the study and gives the number of articles with randomized controlled trials and Impact Factor and Subject category. Abstract Objective: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a significant issue and the randomized controlled trial (RCT) literature plays a fundamental role in developing EBM. This study investigates the features of RCT literature based on bibliometric methods. Growth of the literature, publication types, languages, publication countries, and research subjects are addressed. The distribution of journal articles was also examined utilizing Bradford's law and Bradford-Zipf's law. Method: The MEDLINE database was searched for articles indexed under the publication type ?Randomized Control Trial,? and articles retrieved were counted and analyzed using Microsoft Access, Microsoft Excel, and PERL. Results: From 1990 to 2001, a total of 114,850 citations dealing with RCTs were retrieved. The literature growth rate, from 1965 to 2001, is steadily rising and follows an exponential model. Journal articles are the predominant form of publication, and the multicenter study is extensively used. English is the most commonly used language. Conclusions: Generally, RCTs are found in publications concentrating on cardiovascular disease, cancer, asthma, postoperative conditon, health, and anesthetics. Zone analysis and graphical formulation from Bradford's law of scattering shows variations from the standard Bradford model. Forty-two core journals were identified using Bradford's law. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study investigated the growth of RCT literature, based on the MEDLINE database, and explored the various features of the literature using well- established bibliometric methods. The results are summarized as follows: 1. The RCT literature from 1965 to 2001 grew exponentially, indicating that the growth of the literature using RCTs maintains a constant rate for the period of the study. The best fit of data reveals that the yearly growth rate is about 11.2%. 2. The single most common form of publication covered in MEDLINE is the journal article, which contributes about 98% of the total RCT literature 3. Analyzing the publication type demonstrated that, for articles where that level of detail is indicated, the multicenter study is the most widely employed (73.63%), followed by phase II clinical trials (5.38%) and phase III clinical trials (5.34%). 4. The United States of America is the predominant publishing country in the RCT literature (about 39.9% of the journals and 50.6% of the articles). English is the most common language. English articles constitute 92.9% of the total. 5. The subject areas are diverse and widely dispersed. The areas that employed RCT methods the most include drug therapy for hypertension, therapeutic use of combined antineoplastic agents, and drug therapy in asthma. 6. Forty-two core journals containing 25% of the RCT journal literature can be identified from Bradford zone analysis and the Bradford-Zipf plot. However, the total journal literature is widely spread among many different journals. About half of literature is concentrated in 147 journals, while the remaining half is scattered in 2,701 journals. Moreover, 481 of the journals in the study published only 1 paper. 7. The analysis of the core journals indicates that (1) the more frequently a journal is published, the more productive it is likely to be; (2) most of the core journals deal with anesthesia, pharmacology and pharmacy, cardiac and cardiovascular systems, and general and internal medicine; and (3) journals with impact factors greater than ten are related to general and internal medicine. The information on literature growth, key concepts, and journal features provided by the present study should be of significant interest for understanding the development of RCTs and the design of modern information retrieval systems. For example, the study of journal characteristics facilitates establishing a baseline for librarians in making decisions about journal subscriptions and cancellations in the RCT area. The nucleus journals (with a high productivity) identified by Bradford's law usually contain more relevant articles in the area, and, thus, subscriptions to such journals would be worthwhile. Inclusion of these journals in indexing and abstracting services would be justified scientifically. Furthermore, physicians may focus on these core journals as they are usually very busy, and these core journals would cover 25% of the literature on RCTs from 1990 to 2001. Subscribing to journals with low productivity would be unnecessary, and these journals could be discarded. Additionally, core journals can help direct readers to those journals that publish highly relevant articles. From the key concepts and publication types, the intellectual structure and development in the area of RCT research can be examined. From anouruzi at YAHOO.COM Wed Oct 26 16:22:27 2005 From: anouruzi at YAHOO.COM (Alireza Noruzi) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:22:27 -0700 Subject: Webology: Volume 2, Number 3, October, 2005 Message-ID: Dear All, Apologies for cross-posting firstly. We are pleased to inform you that the fifth issue of Webology, an OPEN ACCESS journal, is published and is available ONLINE now. This issue contains: ------------------ Editorial -- Alireza Noruzi -- http://www.webology.ir/2005/v2n3/editorial5.html ----------------------------------------- An Evaluation of the Websites of Charities and Voluntary Organisations Providing Support for Young People: Case Study: Drugscope -- Peter Williams, Karen Dennis & David Nicholas -- http://www.webology.ir/2005/v2n3/a16.html ----------------------------------------- How Do Search Engines Handle Chinese Queries? -- Haidar Moukdad & Hong Cui -- http://www.webology.ir/2005/v2n3/a17.html ----------------------------------------- Contractual Solutions in Electronic Publishing Industry: A Comparative study of License Agreements -- B.M. Meera & K.T. Anuradha -- http://www.webology.ir/2005/v2n3/a18.html ----------------------------------------- ========================================= Call for Papers: http://www.webology.ir/callforpapers.html ========================================= Regards, A. Noruzi Dep. of Information Science University of Paul Cezanne France __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 15:22:25 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:22:25 -0400 Subject: Olson JE "Top-25-business-school professors rate journals in operations management and related fields " INTERFACES 35 (4): 323-338 JUL-AUG 2005 Message-ID: Josephine E. Olson : E-mail Addresses: jolson at katz.pitt.edu Title: Top-25-business-school professors rate journals in operations management and related fields Author(s): Olson JE Source: INTERFACES 35 (4): 323-338 JUL-AUG 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 14 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: I obtained quality ratings and rankings of 39 journals in operations management and related disciplines through surveys of faculty members at top-25 US business schools in 2000 and in 2002. 1 also computed five-year impact factors for 29 of these journals and developed a ranking based on these impact factors. I found evidence of some change in journal quality ratings over the two-year period. Ratings also differed by research area but not by professorial level. In addition, I ranked the journals based on the number of academics who rated their quality, calling this a visibility measure. Finally, I compared my ratings to ratings in earlier survey and citation studies. The quality ratings were more consistent than the citation ratings. Addresses: Olson JE (reprint author), Univ Pittsburgh, Joseph M Katz Grad Sch Business, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA Univ Pittsburgh, Joseph M Katz Grad Sch Business, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA E-mail Addresses: jolson at katz.pitt.edu Publisher: INST OPERATIONS RESEARCH MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, 901 ELKRIDGE LANDING RD, STE 400, LINTHICUM HTS, MD 21090-2909 USA Subject Category: MANAGEMENT; OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE IDS Number: 961CX ISSN: 0092-2102 Cited References: *ISI PHIL PA, 1996, SCI CIT IND. *SCH BUS, 2002, US NEWS WORLD REP. *THOMS ISI WEB KNO, 1940, J CIT REP. *US NEWS WORLD REP, 2000, US NEWS WORLD REP. BARMAN S, 1991, J OPERATIONS MANAGEM, V10, P194. BARMAN S, 2001, J OPER MANAG, V19, P367. BOWKER RR, 2002, ULRICHS PERIODICALS. CABELL DWE, 1997, CABELLS DIRECTORY PU. GOH C, 1997, J OPERATIONS MANAGEM, V15, P123. GOH CH, 1996, OMEGA-INT J MANAGE S, V24, P337. GUPTA UG, 1997, INTERFACES, V27, P85. SALADIN B, 1985, OPERATIONS MANAGEMEN, V3, P3. SOTERIOU AC, 1999, J OPER MANAG, V17, P225. VOKURKA RJ, 1996, J OPERATIONS MANAGEM, V14, P345 From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 15:26:31 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:26:31 -0400 Subject: Ramos JM, Gutierez F, Royo G. "Scientific production in microbiology and affinity areas in Spain during 1990-2002 " ENFERMEDADES INFECCIOSAS Y MICROBIOLOGIA CLINICA 23 (7): 406-414 AUG-SEP 2005 Message-ID: Jose Manuel Ramos : E-mail Addresses: jramosrincon at yahoo.es Title: Scientific production in microbiology and affinity areas in Spain during 1990-2002 Author(s): Ramos JM, Gutierrez F, Royo G Source: ENFERMEDADES INFECCIOSAS Y MICROBIOLOGIA CLINICA 23 (7): 406-414 AUG-SEP 2005 Document Type: Article Language: Spanish Cited References: 31 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: BACKGROUND. To analyze the production and repercussions of the scientific activity of Spanish authors in the fields of microbiology, mycology, parasitology and virology. METHODS. Documents published during the period of 1990 to 2000 compiled on the MEDLINE database >(WEBSPIRS 4.2) were retrieved using the following search terms ("Spain" OR "Espana") AND ("microb*" OR "virol*" OR "parasit*" OR "bacter*" OR " micol*" OR "mycol*" OR "retrovirus*) in the field, author's address. RESULTS. A total of 5259 documents were retrieved. Over the period studied, the number of documents published annually increased two-fold, from 256 documents in 1990 to 512 in 2002 (r = 0.92; p < 0.001), particularly those in foreign journals, from 175 to 447 documents (r = 0.95; p < 0.001). 50.9% of the documents came from universities, 35.8% from hospitals, 5.4% from the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) (5.4%), and 5.3% from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The CSIC centers (r(2) = 0.90), and universities (r(2) = 0.88) showed the highest rate of growth in the number of publications. The University of Barcelona (5.3%) had the largest number of publications among teaching institutions and Hospital Ramon y Cajal (2.9%) was the first among hospitals. The Autonomous Communities of Madrid (29.2%) and Catalonia (17.5%) showed the highest scientific production. The mean expected impact factor for all the published documents was 2.340. The expected impact factor grew from 1.977 in 1990 to 2.507 en 2002 (r(2) = 0.81). CONCLUSION. The published scientific production of Spanish researchers and the repercussion of these studies in the field of microbiology and related areas increased during the period of 1990 to 2002, particularly in the number of articles published in foreign journals. The Universities are the most productive institutions in this field. Addresses: Ramos JM (reprint author), Univ Elche, Gen Hosp, Unidad Enfermedades Infecciosas, Med Interna Serv, Cami Almazara 11, Alicante, 03203 Spain Univ Elche, Gen Hosp, Unidad Enfermedades Infecciosas, Med Interna Serv, Alicante, 03203 Spain Univ Elche, Gen Hosp, Secc Microbiol, Alicante, 03203 Spain E-mail Addresses: jramosrincon at yahoo.es Publisher: EDICIONES DOYMA S/L, TRAV DE GRACIA 17-21, 08021 BARCELONA, SPAIN IDS Number: 961IZ ISSN: 0213-005X Cited References: 1990, J CITATION REPORTS. ALEIXANDRE R, 1995, ENFERM INFEC MICR CL, V13, P338. BELINCHON I, 2003, ACTA DERMOSIFILIOGR, V94, P368. BENAVENT RA, 2004, PIEL, V19, P16. BORDONS M, 1996, MED CLIN-BARCELONA, V106, P51. BORDONS M, 1999, REV ESP CARDIOL, V52, P790. CAMI J, 1993, MED CLIN-BARCELONA, V101, P721. CAMI J, 1997, MED CLIN-BARCELONA, V109, P481. CAMI J, 1997, MED CLIN-BARCELONA, V109, P515. CAMI J, 1999, REV ESP ANESTESIOL R, V46, P378. CARIDAD IG, 2004, REV CLIN ESP, V204, P75. DEARANA JM, 1999, REV ESP CARDIOL, V52, P765. DELOSMONTEROS JE, 1988, INFORME FINAL. GARCIAIBANEZ T, 1991, GAC SANIT, V27, P273. GARFIELD E, 1996, BRIT MED J, V313, P411. LEWISON G, 2001, GUT, V49, P295. LOPEZMUNOZ F, 1996, REV NEUROLOGIA, V24, P417. MELA GS, 1999, EUR J CANCER, V35, P1182. MINANAN JS, 1999, ATEN PRIMARLA, V23, P14. MURRAY JR, 2003, MANUAL CLIN MICROBIO. OSCA J, 1997, ENFERM INFEC MICR CL, V15, P407. PASCUAL A, 2004, ENFERM INFEC MICR CL, V22, P1. PESTANA A, 1997, MED CLIN-BARCELONA, V109, P509. PINERO JML, 1992, MED CLIN-BARCELONA, V98, P64. RAMOSRINCON JM, 2003, ENFERM INFEC MICR CL, V21, P387. RAMOSRINCON JM, 2004, ENFERM INFEC MICR CL, V22, P22. RINCON JMR, 2001, MED CLIN-BARCELONA, P645. RIO FG, 2000, MED CLIN-BARCELONA, V115, P287. TORTRA GJ, 2003, MICROBIOLOGY. TRILLA A, 2004, ENFERM INFEC MICR CL, V22, P3. ZULUETA MA, 1999, REV ESP CARDIOL, V52, P751. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 15:48:49 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:48:49 -0400 Subject: Bui-Mainsfield LT. Whatever happened to the 50 most frequently cited articles published in AJR? American Journal of Roentgenology 185(3): 597-601. September 2005 Message-ID: Liem T. Bui-Mansfield : E-mail Addresses: liem_mansfield at hotmail.com This article demonstrates the creative use of citation analysis by a subject expert. Title: Whatever happened to the 50 most frequently cited articles published in AJR? Author(s): Bui-Mansfield LT Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY 185 (3): 597-601 SEP 2005 Document Type: Editorial Material Language: English Cited References: 12 Times Cited: 0 ABSTRACT: Since 1988, 94% of the 50 most frequently cited articles published in AJR have changed their ranking. The articles that remained frequently cited were about topics that appealed to a broad audience of physicians and were of clinical importance. The clinical problems that were addressed in the most frequently cited articles published in AJR continue to be important disease processes of daily interest to practicing radiologists. Addresses: Bui-Mansfield LT (reprint author), Brooke Army Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, 3851 Roger Brook Dr,FSH, Ft Sam Houston, TX 78234 USA Brooke Army Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Ft Sam Houston, TX 78234 USA Uniformed Serv Univ Hlth Sci, Dept Radiol, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA Wake Forest Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Winston Salem, NC 27157 USA E-mail Addresses: liem_mansfield at hotmail.com Publisher: AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC, 1891 PRESTON WHITE DR, SUBSCRIPTION FULFILLMENT, RESTON, VA 22091 USA IDS Number: 961GU ISSN: 0361-803X Cited References: *AM ROENTG RAY SOC, AJR. BUIMANSFIELD L, 2004, AJR. BYDDER GM, 1982, AJR, V139, P215. CAFFEY J, 1946, AM J ROENTGENOL, V56, P163. CHEW FS, 1988, AJR, V150, P227. COLLINS VP, 1956, AM J ROENTGENOL, V76, P988. FERRUCCI JT, 1980, AJR, V134, P323. GERZOF SG, 1979, AM J ROENTGENOL, V133, P1. GIANTURCO C, 1975, AM J ROENTGENOL RADI, V124, P428. SHEEDY PF, 1976, AJR, V127, P23. VEZINA JL, 1974, AM J ROENTGENOL, V120, P46. WOLFE JN, 1976, AM J ROENTGENOL, V126, P1130. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 15:53:26 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:53:26 -0400 Subject: BBini LM, Diniz JAF, Carvalho P, Pinto MP, Rangel TFLVB, "Lomborg and the litany of biodiversity crisis: What the peer-reviewed literature says " CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 19 (4): 1301-1305 AUG 2005 Message-ID: Luis Mauricio Bini : E-mail Addresses: bini at icb.ufg.br Title: Lomborg and the litany of biodiversity crisis: What the peer- reviewed literature says Author(s): Bini LM, Diniz JAF, Carvalho P, Pinto MP, Rangel TFLVB Source: CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 19 (4): 1301-1305 AUG 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 27 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Lomborg's (2001) book has generated passionate discussion about the state of the global environment. Wee performed a bibliometric evaluation of the peer-reviewed primary scientific. literature to determine whether there is any consistent evidence that "things are getting better." The global literature primarily reported negative impacts on biodiversity caused by human actions, although Europe appeared to be doing better than the rest of the world. These results cannot be explained by publication bias alone because rejection rates of papers indicating improvements in the environment would have to be unrealistically high to change our results. There were nonrandom distributions of papers showing environmental recovery in developed countries and for ecosystems not strongly subjected to conservation-development conflicts. Although the literature did not paint a picture of universal gloom, the empirical evidence clearly showed growing environmental crises. Author Keywords: biodiversity; environmental crisis Addresses: Bini LM (reprint author), Univ Fed Goias, ICB, Dept Biol Geral, Caixa Postal 131, Goiania, Go BR-74001970 Brazil Univ Fed Goias, ICB, Dept Biol Geral, Goiania, Go BR-74001970 Brazil Univ Catolica Goias, MCAS VPG, Dept Biol, Goiania, Go Brazil E-mail Addresses: bini at icb.ufg.br Publisher: BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, 9600 GARSINGTON RD, OXFORD OX4 2DQ, OXON, ENGLAND IDS Number: 953XL ISSN: 0888-8892 Cited References: BROWN K, 2002, SCIENCE, V297, P926. CASSEY P, 2003, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V18, P375. COHEN JE, 1995, SCIENCE, V269, P341. COLQUHOUN D, 2003, NATURE, V423, P479. FRANK L, 2003, SCIENCE, V299, P326. GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471. GARFIELD E, 1992, SCI PUBL POLICY, V19, P321. GILES J, 2003, NATURE, V423, P216. GLANZEL W, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P171. GRUBB M, 2001, SCIENCE, V294, P1285. HEDGES LV, 1985, STAT METHODS METAANA. JONES AW, 2003, FORENSIC SCI INT, V133, P1. KORICHEVA J, 2003, OIKOS, V102, P397. KUHN TS, 1970, STRUCTURE SCI REVOLU. LAWRENCE PA, 2003, NATURE, V422, P259. LOMBORG B, 2001, SKEPTICAL ENV MEASUR. MOLLER AP, 2001, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V16, P580. MOOMAW WR, 2002, CONSERV BIOL, V16, P861. MYERS N, 2000, NATURE, V403, P853. PACALA SW, 2003, SCIENCE, V301, P1187. PETERS RH, 1991, CRITIQUE ECOLOGY. PIMM S, 2001, NATURE, V414, P149. RAVEN PH, 2002, SCIENCE, V297, P954. RENNIE J, 2002, SCI AM, V286, P61. SALA OE, 2000, SCIENCE, V287, P1770. TILMAN D, 1999, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V96, P5995. VOROSMARTY CJ, 2000, SCIENCE, V289, P284. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 15:59:23 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:59:23 -0400 Subject: Gattuso JP, Dawson NA, Duarte CM, Middelburg JJ "Patterns of publication effort in coastal biogeochemistry: a bibliometric survey (1971 to 2003)" MARINE ECOLOGY-PROGRESS SERIES 294: 9-22 2005 Message-ID: Jean-Pierre Gattuso : E-mail Addresses: gattuso at obs-vlfr.fr Title: Patterns of publication effort in coastal biogeochemistry: a bibliometric survey (1971 to 2003) Author(s): Gattuso JP, Dawson NA, Duarte CM, Middelburg JJ Source: MARINE ECOLOGY-PROGRESS SERIES 294: 9-22 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 22 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: A bibliographic database comprising 17 604 references on biogeochemistry and disturbances in coastal ecosystems was compiled for the period 1971 to 2004 from the Aquatic Science and Fisheries Abstracts and the Web of Science databases. The coastal ocean received increased attention starting in the early 1990s, as shown by the increase in the rate of publication, both in absolute number (2-fold increase of the yearly rate) and relative to the publication rate of all disciplines (3-fold increase). The number of publications on each ecosystem type and the geographic location of study sites are not proportional to their respective surface area. By this measure, estuaries and the open continental shelf are, respectively, over- and under-investigated, and the research effort is disproportionately high in some areas (e.g. the North Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, the subjects of 41% of the publications) and low in other areas (e.g. high- latitude coastal zones and the western Pacific). The cycling of inorganic nutrients is the biogeochemical process receiving the highest research effort (46% of the publications). Although controversial, exchanges with the atmosphere, including CO2, have been poorly investigated, with only 1.3% of the publications. The magnitude of scientific community publishing increased 13-fold during the period of investigation, also demonstrating the growing interest in coastal biogeochemistry and disturbances. Moreover, the lists of authors have become longer, perhaps indicating research projects wider in scope. Senior authors from 137 countries contributed papers; the EU25 and the USA contributed about. 1/3 of the publications each, The number of publications per million inhabitants is highly correlated to the gross domestic product per inhabitant, but some countries perform better (the Scandinavian countries, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) or less well (Japan, the USA and Italy) than average. The number of citations of the publications is highly variable and indicates that barriers between disciplines still exist. At least 2 specialized journals (Estuaries and Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science) are among the most relevant journals, but Marine Ecology Progress Series is the single most important source of literature in the fields of coastal biogeochemistry and disturbances. This diagnostic should be useful to the research community and funding agencies to address the present imbalances in research allocation and to steer attention to geographical areas and processes that remain poorly investigated. Only then can the role of the coastal ocean on the global biogeochemical cycles and its response to climatic and anthropogenic disturbances be clarified. Addresses: Gattuso JP (reprint author), Univ Paris 06, CNRS, Oceanog Lab, BP 28, Villefranche Sur Mer, F-06234 France Univ Paris 06, CNRS, Oceanog Lab, Villefranche Sur Mer, F-06234 France UIB, CSIC, IMEDEA, Esporles, Islas Baleares 07190 Spain Netherlands Inst Ecol, NIOO, KNAW, Yerseke, NL-4400 AC Netherlands E-mail Addresses: gattuso at obs-vlfr.fr Publisher: INTER-RESEARCH, NORDBUNTE 23, D-21385 OLDENDORF LUHE, GERMANY IDS Number: 943XA ISSN: 0171-8630 Cited References: *I SCI INF, 1998, J CIT REP. COSTANZA R, 1997, NATURE, V387, P253. DARWIN C, 1842, STRUCTURE DISTRIBUTI. DASTIDAR PG, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V59, P15. DERRY LA, 2004, SCIENCE, V303, P1981. DICKSON JH, 2004, HOLOCENE, V14, P481. DUARTE CM, 2002, ENVIRON CONSERV, V29, P192. GATTUSO JP, 1998, ANNU REV ECOL SYST, V29, P405. GATTUSO JP, 1999, AM ZOOL, V39, P160. GAZEAU F, 2004, ESTUAR COAST SHELF S, V60, P673. KING DA, 2004, NATURE, V340, P311. KLEYPAS JA, 1999, SCIENCE, V284, P118. MACDONALD RW, 2000, SCI TOTAL ENVIRON, V254, P93. MILLIMAN JD, 1996, GEOL RUNDSCH, V85, P496. NIXON SW, 1996, BIOGEOCHEMISTRY, V35, P141. PENDLEBURY DA, 1991, SCIENCE, V251, P1410. RABOUILLE C, 2001, GEOCHIM COSMOCHIM AC, V65, P3615. SMALL C, 2003, J COASTAL RES, V19, P584. SMITH SV, 1993, REV GEOPHYS, V31, P75. VALIELA I, 2001, BIOSCIENCE, V51, P807. VIDAL M, 1999, MAR POLLUT BULL, V38, P851. WOLLAST R, 1998, SEA, V10, P213. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 16:05:36 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:05:36 -0400 Subject: Valiela I, Martinetto P "The relative ineffectiveness of bibliographic search engines" BIOSCIENCE 55 (8): 688-692 AUG 2005 Message-ID: Ivan Valiela : E-mail Addresses: valiela at bu.edu Paulina Martinetto : E-mail Addresses: pmartin at mdp.edu.ar Title: The relative ineffectiveness of bibliographic search engines Author(s): Valiela I, Martinetto P Source: BIOSCIENCE 55 (8): 688-692 AUG 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 7 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: The increasing number of scientific publications has made bibliographic search engines essential tools in all disciplines. These software-based devices, however, are far from perfect. Comparisons of software-based bibliographic search engines with complete lists of three authors' publications showed that reference citations were not generally available before 1970, and that the effectiveness of recovery was improving but was quite variable, yielding on average 36 percent of the publications. There was marked year-to-year inconsistency in the recovery of titles. The inconsistency could not be explained by differences in indexing due to journal reputation: there was no evident relationship between search effectiveness and journal impact factor, but the percentage of recovered citations was higher for indexed journals. Search engines are widely used in bibliographic searches performed for evaluating researchers, awarding promotions, or assessing journal performance. Given the ineffectiveness of search engines, their use in making such important personal and institutional decisions needs careful consideration. Author Keywords: search engines; scientific publications; bibliographic searches Addresses: Valiela I (reprint author), Boston Univ, Marine Program, Marine Biol Lab, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA Boston Univ, Marine Program, Marine Biol Lab, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA Univ Mar del Plata, Fac Ciencias Exactas & Nat, Mar Del Plata, RA-7600 Argentina E-mail Addresses: valiela at bu.edu, pmartin at mdp.edu.ar Publisher: AMER INST BIOLOGICAL SCI, 1444 EYE ST, NW, STE 200, WASHINGTON, DC 20005 USA Subject Category: BIOLOGY IDS Number: 953CO ISSN: 0006-3568 Cited References: *ISI, 2002, SCI J CIT REP THOMS. GOODRUM AA, 2001, COMPUTER SCI LIT WOR. LAWRENCE S, 1998, SCIENCE, V280, P98. LAWRENCE S, 2001, NATURE, V411, P521. POPESCU, 2002, SCI J RANKING AVERAG. VALIELA I, 2001, DOING SCI DESIGN ANA. WEGMAN CE, 1939, GEOL RUNDSCH, V30, P1. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 16:17:01 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:17:01 -0400 Subject: Meadows J "A practical line in bibliometrics" Interlending and Document Supply 33(2): 90-94 2005. Message-ID: Jack Meadows : a.j.meadows at lboro.ac.uk Title: A practical line in bibliometrics Author(s): Meadows J Source: INTERLENDING & DOCUMENT SUPPLY 33 (2): 90-94 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 34 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this article is to describe Maurice Line ' s continuing interest in bibliometrics and in its possible application to library problems since the 1970s. He has especially emphasized two strands. One is the concept of obsolescence and how it applies in practice. The other is citation studies of the social sciences, which tend to have been ignored in comparison with the sciences. He has particularly explored the limitations that need to be taken into account when trying to apply bibliometric ideas in practical contexts. Design/methodology/approach - An analysis of Line ' s publications on bibliometrics led to a selection of major themes in his writings. A subsequent study of the publications of others who wrote on this topic over the same period provided a framework for assessing his work. Findings - Maurice Line played an important role in the development of this area of bibliometrics, though he slightly modified some of his early ideas as time has passed. Originality/value - Provides a background to Maurice Line ' s interest in bibliometrics since the 1970s. Addresses: Meadows J (reprint author), Univ Loughborough, Loughborough, Leics England Univ Loughborough, Loughborough, Leics England Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, 60/62 TOLLER LANE, BRADFORD BD8 9BY, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND IDS Number: 951ZS ISSN: 0264-1615 Cited References: ARCHIBALD G, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICS, V20, P173. BENSMAN SJ, 2001, J AM SOC INF SCI TEC, V52, P714. BROADUS RN, 1967, AM SOCIOL, P19. BRODMAN E, 1944, B MED LIB ASS, V32, P479. BROOKES BC, 1970, J DOC, V26, P283. BROOKES BC, 1976, J DOC, V32, P320. BURTON RE, 1960, AM DOC, V11, P18. EARLE P, 1969, J DOC, V25, P123. FUSSLER HH, 1949, LIBRARY Q, V19, P19. GROSS PLK, 1927, SCIENCE, V66, P385. LINE M, 1976, INT SOC SCI J, V28, P122. LINE MB, 1970, J DOC, V26, P46. LINE MB, 1973, J DOC, P72. LINE MB, 1974, BLL REV, V2, P125. LINE MB, 1974, J DOC, V30, P283. LINE MB, 1975, COLL RES LIBR, V36, P393. LINE MB, 1977, INT LIB REV, P429. LINE MB, 1978, COLLECTION MANAGEMEN, V2, P313. LINE MB, 1979, DISISS RES REPORTS A, V3. LINE MB, 1986, BRIT J ACAD LIB, P160. LINE MB, 1993, LIBR TRENDS, V41, P665. LINE MB, 2001, IFLA J, V27, P247. LOUTTIT CM, 1957, AM PSYCHOL, P14. MOORE TS, 1947, CHEM SOC 1841 1941, P171. PRICE D, 1963, LITTLE SCI BIG SCI. RIDER F, 1944, SCHOLAR FUTURE RES L, P3. SANDISON A, 1974, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V25, P172. SCALES PA, 1976, J DOC, V32, P17. SENGUPTA IN, 1973, J DOC, V29, P192. STINSON ER, 1987, J INF SCI, V13, P65. SULLIVAN MV, 1980, LIBR RES, V2, P29. TAYLOR CR, 1976, COLLECTION MANAGEMEN, V1, P27. WOOD DN, 1969, J DOC, V25, P108. XHIGNESSE LV, 1967, AM PSYCHOL, V22, P778. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 16:21:11 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:21:11 -0400 Subject: Ioannidis JPA, Bernstein J, Boffetta P, Danesh J, et al. "A network of investigator networks in human genome epidemiology " American Journal of Epidemiology 162(4): 302-304. August 15 2005 Message-ID: John P.A. Ioannidis : E-mail Addresses: jioannid at cc.uoi.gr Title: A network of investigator networks in human genome epidemiology Author(s): Ioannidis JPA, Bernstein J, Boffetta P, Danesh J, Dolan S, Hartge P, Hunter D, Inskip P, Jarvelin MR, Little J, Maraganore DM, Bishop JAN, O'Brien TR, Petersen G, Riboli E, Seminara D, Taioli E, Uitterlinden AG, Vineis P, Winn DM, Salanti G, Higgins JPT, Khoury MJ Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 162 (4): 302-304 AUG 15 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 11 Times Cited: 1 Abstract: The task of identifying genetic determinants for complex, multigenetic diseases is hampered by small studies, publication and reporting biases, and lack of common standards worldwide. The authors propose the creation of a network of networks that include groups of investigators collecting data for human genome epidemiology research. Twenty-three networks of investigators addressing specific diseases or research topics and representing several hundreds of teams have already joined this initiative. For each field, the authors are currently creating a core registry of teams already participating in the respective network. A wider international registry will include all other teams also working in the same field. Independent investigators are invited to join the registries and existing networks and to join forces in creating additional ones as needed. The network of networks aims to register these networks, teams, and investigators; be a resource for information about or connections to the many networks; off er methodological support; promote sound design and standardization of analytical practices; generate inclusive overviews of fields at large; facilitate rapid confirmation of findings; and avoid duplication of effort. Addresses: Ioannidis JPA (reprint author), Univ Ioannina, Sch Med, Dept Hyg & Epidemiol, Clin & Mol Epidemiol Unit, Ioannina, GR-45110 Greece Univ Ioannina, Sch Med, Dept Hyg & Epidemiol, Clin & Mol Epidemiol Unit, Ioannina, GR-45110 Greece Tufts Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Boston, MA 02111 USA Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, New York, NY 10021 USA Int Agcy Res Canc, Gene Environm Epidemiol Grp, Lyon, F-69372 France Univ Cambridge, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Cambridge, England March Dimes, White Plains, NY USA NCI, Div Canc Epidemiol & Genet, Rockville, MD USA Harvard Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Boston, MA 02115 USA Univ London Imperial Coll Sci & Technol, Dept Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, London, England Univ Oulu, Dept Publ Hlth Sci & Gen Practice, Oulu, Finland Univ Ottawa, Dept Epidemiol & Community Hlth, Ottawa, ON Canada Mayo Clin, Dept Neurol, Rochester, MN USA CR UK Clin Ctr, Genet Epidemiol Div, Leeds, W Yorkshire England Mayo Clin, Dept Hlth Sci Res, Rochester, MN USA Int Agcy Res Canc, Unit Nutr & Canc, Lyon, F-69372 France NCI, Div Canc Control & Populat Sci, Rockville, MD USA Osped Policlin, IRCCS, Mol & Genet Epidemiol Unit, Milan, Italy Erasmus MC, Dept Internal Med, Rotterdam, Netherlands Erasmus MC, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Rotterdam, Netherlands ISI Fdn, Turin, Italy Univ Cambridge, Biostat Unit, MRC, Cambridge, England Strangeways Res Lab, Publ Hlth Genet Unit, Cambridge, CB1 4RN England Ctr Dis Control & Prevent, Off Genom & Dis Prevent, Atlanta, GA USA E-mail Addresses: jioannid at cc.uoi.gr Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC, JOURNALS DEPT, 2001 EVANS RD, CARY, NC 27513 USA Subject Category: PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH IDS Number: 954JE ISSN: 0002-9262 Cited References: CHAN AW, 2004, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V291, P2457. DEANGELIS C, 2004, NEW ENGL J MED, V351, P1250. EASTERBROOK PJ, 1991, LANCET, V337, P867. IOANNIDIS JPA, 1998, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V279, P281. IOANNIDIS JPA, 2001, NAT GENET, V29, P306. IOANNIDIS JPA, 2002, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V156, P204. IOANNIDIS JPA, 2003, TRENDS MOL MED, V9, P135. KHOURY MJ, 2000, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V151, P2. LANDER ES, 1994, SCIENCE, V265, P2037. LITTLE J, 2003, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V157, P667. LOHMUELLER KE, 2003, NAT GENET, V33, P177. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 16:25:03 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:25:03 -0400 Subject: Moore S, Shiell A, Hawe P, Haines VA "The privileging of communitarian ideas: Citation practices and the translation of social capital into public health research" AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 95 (8): 1330-1337 AUG 2005 Message-ID: Spencer Moore : E-mail Addresses: spencer.moore at umontreal.ca Title: The privileging of communitarian ideas: Citation practices and the translation of social capital into public health research Author(s): Moore S, Shiell A, Hawe P, Haines VA Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 95 (8): 1330-1337 AUG 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 63 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: The growing use of social science constructs in public health invites reflection on how public health researchers translate, that is, appropriate and reshape, constructs from the social sciences. To assess how 1 recently popular construct has been translated into public health research, we conducted a citation network and content analysis of public health articles on the topic of social capital. The analyses document empirically how public health researchers have privileged communitarian definitions of social capital and marginalized network definitions in their citation practices. Such practices limit the way public health researchers measure social capital's effects on health. The application of social science constructs requires that public health scholars be sensitive to how their own citation habits shape research and knowledge. Addresses: Moore S (reprint author), CHUM, Ctr Rech, 3875 St Urbain,3e Etage,Porte 3-30, Montreal, PQ H2W 1V1 Canada Univ Calgary, Ctr Hlth & Policy Studies, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Canada Univ Calgary, Dept Community Hlth Sci, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Canada Univ Calgary, Dept Sociol, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Canada Univ Calgary, Markin Inst Publ Hlth, Ctr Study Social & Phys Environm & Hlth, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Canada La Trobe Univ, Sch Populat Hlth, Melbourne, Vic Australia E-mail Addresses: spencer.moore at umontreal.ca Publisher: AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC, 800 I STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20001-3710 USA Subject Category: PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH IDS Number: 950LE ISSN: 0090-0036 Cited References: ALLEN B, 1997, SOC STUD SCI, V27, P937. ALTSCHULER A, 2004, SOC SCI MED, V59, P1219. BACHRACH CA, 2004, AM J PUBLIC HEALTH, V1, P22. BATAGELJ V, NETWORK ANAL TEXTS. BAUM F, 1999, J EPIDEMIOL COMMUN H, V53, P195. BENDER T, 1978, COMMUNITY SOCIAL CHA. BERKMAN LF, 2000, SOC SCI MED, V51, P843. BOISSEVAIN J, 1979, HALFARRUG VILLAGE MA. BOURDIEU P, 1985, HDB THEORY RES SOCIO, P241. BROWNING CR, 2002, J HEALTH SOC BEHAV, V43, P383. BURT RS, 1984, SOC NETWORKS, V6, P293. CALHOUN C, 1993, BOURDIEU CRITICAL PE, P61. CATTELL V, 2001, SOC SCI MED, V52, P1501. CHUBIN DE, 1975, SOC STUD SCI, V5, P423. COLEMAN J, 1990, FDN SOCIAL THEORY. COLEMAN JS, 1988, AM J SOCIOL, V94, P95. FASSIN D, 2003, REV EPIDEMIOL SANTE, V51, P403. FREEMAN LC, 1979, SOC NETWORKS, V1, P215. GRANNIS R, 1998, AM J SOCIOL, V103, P1530. HARPHAM T, 2002, HEALTH POLICY PLANN, V17, P106. HAWE P, 2000, SOC SCI MED, V51, P871. HAWE P, 2004, J EPIDEMIOL COMMUN H, V58, P971. HIGH P, 1999, PEDIATRICS, V103. HIRDES JP, 1998, SOC NETWORKS, V20, P119. HUMMON NP, 1989, SOC NETWORKS, V11, P39. HUMMON NP, 1990, KNOWLEDGE, V11, P459. HUMMON NP, 1990, SOC NETWORKS, V12, P273. HUMMON NP, 1993, SOC NETWORKS, V15, P71. HYYPPA MT, 2001, HEALTH PROMOT INT, V16, P55. HYYPPA MT, 2001, PREV MED, V32, P148. KAPFERER B, 1972, STRATEGY TRANSACTION. KAWACHI I, 1997, AM J PUBLIC HEALTH, V87, P1491. KAWACHI I, 1997, AM PROSPECT, V35, P56. KAWACHI I, 1999, AM J PUBLIC HEALTH, V89, P1187. KENNEDY BP, 1998, SOC SCI MED, V47, P7. KLINENBERG E, 2001, ETHNOGRAPHY, V2, P501. LATOUR B, 1987, SCI ACTION. LEVY J, 2002, SOCIAL NETWORKS HLTH. LIN N, 2001, SOCIAL CAPITAL THEOR. LOCHNER K, 1999, HEALTH PLACE, V5, P259. LOMAS J, 1998, SOC SCI MED, V47, P1181. LYNCH J, 2000, J EPIDEMIOL COMMUN H, V54, P404. MACINKO J, 2001, MILBANK Q, V79, P387. MOORE S, U CALGARY CTR HLTH P. MOORE S, 2004, FAM COMMUNITY HEALTH, V27, P204. MUNTANER C, 2001, INT J HEALTH SERV, V31, P213. MUNTANER C, 2002, INT J HEALTH SERV, V32, P629. NAVARRO V, 2002, INT J HEALTH SERV, V32, P423. PEARCE N, 2003, AM J PUBLIC HEALTH, V93, P122. PORTES A, 1998, ANNU REV SOCIOL, V24, P1. PUTNAM R, 1993, MAKING DEMOCRACY WOR. RUNYAN DK, 1998, PEDIATRICS, V101, P12. SAMPSON RJ, 2002, ANNU REV SOCIOL, V28, P443. SCHULLER T, 2000, SOCIAL CAPITAL CRITI, P1. SMALL HG, 1978, SOC STUD SCI, V8, P327. TIENDA M, 1991, MACROMICRO LINKAGES. VEENSTRA G, 1999, HEALTH PLACE, V5, P1. VEENSTRA G, 2000, SOC SCI MED, V50, P619. WELLMAN B, 1979, AM J SOCIOL, V84, P1201. WHITTAKER J, 1989, SOC STUD SCI, V19, P473. WHITTEN N, 1970, CAN REV SOC ANTHROP, V7, P269. WILKINSON R, 1996, UNHEALTHY SOC AFFLIC. WILLIAMS HA, 2002, B WORLD HEALTH ORGAN, V80, P251. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 16:28:29 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:28:29 -0400 Subject: Loria A, Arroyo P "Language and country preponderance trends in MEDLINE and its causes " JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 93 (3): 381-385 JUL 2005 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: Alvar Loria : aloria at quetzal.innsz.mx Pedro Arroyo : parroyo at funsalud.org.mx Title: Language and country preponderance trends in MEDLINE and its causes Author(s): Loria A, Arroyo P Source: JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 93 (3): 381-385 JUL 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 9 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Objective: The authors characterized the output of MEDLINE papers by language and country of publication during a thirty-four-year time period. Methods: We classified MEDLINE's journal articles by country of publication (Anglos/Non-Anglos) and language (English/Non-English) for the years 1966 and from 1970 to 2000 at five-year intervals. Eight English-speaking countries were considered Anglos. Linear regression analysis of number of papers versus time was performed. Results: The global number of papers increased linearly at a rate of 8, 142 papers per year. Anglo and English papers also increased linearly (6,740 and 9,199, respectively). journals of Non-Anglo countries accounted for 25% of the English language increase (2,438 per year). Only Non-English papers decreased at a rate of 1,056 fewer papers per year. These trends have led to overwhelming shares of English and Anglo papers in MEDLINE. In 2000, 68% of all papers were published in the 8 Anglo countries and 90% were written in English. Conclusions: The Anglo and English preponderances appear to be a consequence of at least two phenomena: (1) editorial policy changes in MEDLINE and in some journals from Non-Anglo countries and (2) factors affecting Non-Anglo researchers in the third world (publication constraints, migration, and undersupport). These are tentative conclusions that need confirmation. Addresses: Loria A (reprint author), Inst Nacl Ciencias Med & Nutr Salvador Zubiran, Vasco Quiroga 15, Mexico City, DF 14000 Mexico Inst Nacl Ciencias Med & Nutr Salvador Zubiran, Mexico City, DF 14000 Mexico Fdn Mexicana Salud, Mexico City, DF 14610 Mexico E-mail Addresses: aloria at quetzal.innsz.mx, parroyo at funsalud.org.mx Publisher: MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOC, 65 EAST WACKER PLACE, STE 1900, CHICAGO, IL 60601-7298 USA Subject Category: INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE IDS Number: 948GU ISSN: 1536-5050 Cited References: 2004, TIME, V163, P32. BUNOUT D, 1998, REV MED CHILE, V126, P677. EGGER M, 1997, LANCET, V350, P326. ESCANDON MAS, 2000, ARCH ESPAN UROL, V53, P93. GARFIELD E, 1998, REV INVEST CLIN, V50, P497. LORIA A, 2000, MATERN CHILD HLTH J, V4, P59. MOHER D, 1996, LANCET, V347, P363. PETITTI DB, 2000, META ANAL DECISION A, P55. SUTTON AJ, 2000, METHODS METANALYSIS. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 16:33:25 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:33:25 -0400 Subject: Lewison G, Rippon I, de Francisco A, Lipworth S "Outputs and expenditures on health research in eight disease areas using a bibliometric approach, 1996-2001" RESEARCH EVALUATION 13 (3): 181-188 DEC 2004 Message-ID: Grant Lewison : g.lewison at soi.city.ac.uk Title: Outputs and expenditures on health research in eight disease areas using a bibliometric approach, 1996-2001 Author(s): Lewison G, Rippon I, de Francisco A, Lipworth S Source: RESEARCH EVALUATION 13 (3): 181-188 DEC 2004 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 12 Times Cited: 1 Abstract: Research outputs were identified and analysed, then multiplied by the estimated cost per paper. The method, developed originally for malaria research, gave a more realistic estimate of global research expenditures than previous attempts based on summation of the research budgets of individual funders. Overall support for the different disease areas varied greatly; cardiovascular and mental health research attracts far more funding than malaria and dengue. In relation to the estimated disease burden in 2001, the highest ratio was for diabetes and lowest for tuberculosis, lower respiratory infections and malaria. These are much lower than the ratios for many common non-communicable diseases. Overall, the US National Institutes of Health and its individual component institutes were the highest spenders, but in some areas the big pharmaceutical companies spent more. Addresses: Lewison G (reprint author), City Univ London, Dept Informat Sci, London, EC1V 0HB England City Univ London, Dept Informat Sci, London, EC1V 0HB England Global Forum Hlth Res, Geneva, Switzerland SRL Consulting, London, NW8 8UF England Publisher: BEECH TREE PUBLISHING, 10 WATFORD CLOSE,, GUILDFORD GU1 2EP, SURREY, ENGLAND IDS Number: 951OX ISSN: 0958-2029 Cited References: *GLOB FOR HLTH RES, 2004, ANN REP. *WHO, 2002, WORLD HLTH REP, P192. BERMAN D, 2001, FATEL IMBALANCE CRIS. DAWSON G, 1998, MAPPING LANDSCAPE NA. JAMISON DT, 1996, INVESTING HTLH RES D. LEWISON G, 1996, RES EVALUAT, V6, P25. LEWISON G, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS, V46, P529. LEWISON G, 2002, RES EVALUAT, V11, P155. LEWISON G, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P145. LEWISON G, 2005, IN PRESS RES EVALUAT. MURRAY CJL, 1996, GLOBAL BURDEN DIS. RIPPON I, 2005, THORAX, P63. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 16:39:05 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:39:05 -0400 Subject: Yapa G, de Silva MAT, de Silva ED "Trends and shifts in Institutional productivity: natural products chemistry research in Sri Lanka" Research Evaluation 13(3): 167-174 December 2004. Message-ID: Geethika Yapa : E-mail Addresses: geethika at nsf.ac.lk M A T deSilva : matdes at visual.lk E. Dilip deSilva: dilip at chem.cmb.ac.lk Title: Trends and shifts in Institutional productivity: natural products chemistry research in Sri Lanka Author(s): Yapa G, de Silva MAT, de Silva ED Source: RESEARCH EVALUATION 13 (3): 167-174 DEC 2004 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 14 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: A bibliometric analysis of institutional research productivity in nine Sri Lankan research laboratories in the field of natural products chemistry showed a conspicuous rise and fall during 1975 to 1998. One institution was the dominant contributor to this. Scientific impact resulting from intra- departmental collaboration was as strong as that from international collaboration. Changes in the working conditions as well as growing, disparities in research environments resulted in a productivity transposition within a set cultural landscape. Addresses: Yapa G (reprint author), Natl Sci Fdn, 47-5 Maitland Pl, Colombo, 7 Sri Lanka Natl Sci Fdn, Colombo, 7 Sri Lanka Univ Colombo, Colombo, 3 Sri Lanka E-mail Addresses: geethika at nsf.ac.lk, matdes at visual.lk, dilip at chem.cmb.ac.lk Publisher: BEECH TREE PUBLISHING, 10 WATFORD CLOSE,, GUILDFORD GU1 2EP, SURREY, ENGLAND Subject Category: INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE IDS Number: 951OX ISSN: 0958-2029 Cited References: BOURKE P, 1999, BIBLIOMETRIC ANAL BI. DESILVA MAT, 2002, RES EVALUAT, V11, P119. GLANZEL W, 1995, RES EVALUAT, V5, P113. KATZ JS, 1998, RES EVALUAT, V7, P39. KOENIG MED, 1983, RES POLICY, V12, P15. KOSTOFF RN, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V34, P2. LUUKKONEN T, 1991, RES EVALUAT, V1, P21. MOED HF, 1985, RES POLICY, V14, P131. MOED HF, 1993, UNPUB BIBLIOMETRIC P. MOED HF, 1996, RES POLICY, V25, P819. NARIN F, 1985, UNPUB EVALUATING RES. NARIN F, 1988, RES POLICY, V17, P139. VANRAAN AFJ, 1998, RES EVALUAT, V7, P2. VANRAAN AFJ, 2001, SCI STUDIES PROBING, P87. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Thu Oct 27 16:47:49 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:47:49 -0400 Subject: Ohniwa RL, Denawa M, Kudo M, Nakamura K, Takeyasu K "Perspective factor a novel indicator for the assessment of journal quality" Research Evaluation 13(3): 175-180 December 2004. Message-ID: Ryosuke L. Ohniwa : E-mail Addresses: ohniwa at lif.kyoto-u.ac.jp Title: Perspective factor a novel indicator for the assessment of journal quality Author(s): Ohniwa RL, Denawa M, Kudo M, Nakamura K, Takeyasu K Source: RESEARCH EVALUATION 13 (3): 175-180 DEC 2004 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 20 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: 'Impact factor (IF)' has been practically the only indicator to assess journal quality. However, it has various problems associated with citation analysis, such as the effects of 'different sizes of audience' and 'biased citation'. To overcome this, we here propose a new objective index, 'perspective factor (PF)', which estimates the journal quality independently of citation analysis. The relationship between IF and PF of life science journals, published in 1997, for example, gives a positive correlation when we excluded review journals and extremely high-IF journals, which could not gain comparatively high PF values. Addresses: Ohniwa RL (reprint author), Kyoto Univ, Grad Sch Biostudies, Sakyo Ku, Kitashirakawa Oiwake Cho, Kyoto, 6068502 Japan Kyoto Univ, Grad Sch Biostudies, Sakyo Ku, Kyoto, 6068502 Japan Kyoto Univ, Grad Sch Biostudies, Kyoto, Japan JT Biohist Res Hall, Takatsuki, Osaka 5691125 Japan E-mail Addresses: ohniwa at lif.kyoto-u.ac.jp Publisher: BEECH TREE PUBLISHING, 10 WATFORD CLOSE,, GUILDFORD GU1 2EP, SURREY, ENGLAND Subject Category: INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE IDS Number: 951OX ISSN: 0958-2029 Cited References: ADAM D, 2002, NATURE, V415, P726. BORDONS M, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P195. BRODY S, 1995, LANCET, V346, P1300. COLE JR, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P368. GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108. GARFIELD E, 1970, NATURE, V227, P669. GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471. GARFIELD E, 1998, PHYSIOLOGIST, V41, P113. HECHT F, 1998, CANCER GENET CYTOGEN, V104, P77. KOSTOFF RN, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS, V43, P27. MACROBERTS MH, 1989, TRENDS BIOCHEM SCI, V14, P8. MASSIE BM, 2002, J CARD FAIL, V8, P363. REEDIJK J, 1998, NEW J CHEM, V22, P767. SCHULMAN J, 2000, SCI WATCH 1990 2000. SEGLEN PO, 1997, BRIT MED J, V314, P498. STUART JN, RELATIONSHIPS MED SU. TAUBES G, 1993, SCIENCE, V260, P884. VINKLER P, 1986, SCIENTOMETRICS, V10, P157. WADE N, 1975, SCIENCE, V188, P429. WHITFIELD H, 2002, BJU INT, V89, R1. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Fri Oct 28 15:37:34 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:37:34 -0400 Subject: Jones MJ, Roberts R. "International publishing patterns: An investigation of leading UK and US accounting and finance journals " Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 32(5-6): 1107-1140, June-July 2005. Message-ID: M. J. Jones : E-mail Addresses: JonesM12 at Cardiff.ac.uk Title: International publishing patterns: An investigation of leading UK and US accounting and finance journals Author(s): Jones MJ, Roberts R Source: JOURNAL OF BUSINESS FINANCE & ACCOUNTING 32 (5-6): 1107-1140 JUN- JUL 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 44 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Research quality is often measured by the quality of the journals in which articles are published. This article looks at 1,867 articles published in six highly-rated UK and six highly-rated US academic journals from 1996 to 2000. The authors publishing in the UK journals come mainly from UK and US institutions, but just over a third come from other countries. However, almost ninety per cent of authors publishing in top US journals come from US institutions. Contributions from authors from institutions in non- English speaking countries in these top journals are rare. The implications of this research are that although accounting is growing increasingly international, academic research, especially in the top US journals remains stubbornly nationally-orientated. Addresses: Jones MJ (reprint author), Cardiff Business Sch, Aberconway Bldg,Colum Dr, Cardiff, CF10 3EU Wales Cardiff Business Sch, Cardiff, CF10 3EU Wales E-mail Addresses: JonesM12 at Cardiff.ac.uk Publisher: BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, 9600 GARSINGTON RD, OXFORD OX4 2DQ, OXON, ENGLAND IDS Number: 949NN ISSN: 0306-686X Cited References: *BANK INT SETTL, 1999, 69 ANN REP. *OECD, 1999, GLOB IND R D POL ISS. *OECD, 2002, TRENDS REC DEV FOR D. ALEXANDER JC, 1994, J FINANC, V49, P697. ANDREWS WT, 1978, ACCOUNT REV JAN, P135. BAZLEY JD, 1975, ACCOUNT REV JUL, P605. BOROKHOVICH KA, 1994, FINANCIAL PRACTICE E, P110. BOROKHOVICH KA, 1994, J FINANC, V49, P713. BOROKHOVICH KA, 1995, J FINANC, V1, P1692. BRINN T, 1996, ACCOUNT BUSINESS RES, V26, P265. BROWN LD, 1985, ACCOUNT REV, V60, P262. BROWN LD, 1985, J ACCOUNTING RES, V23, P84. BROWN LD, 1994, CONTEMP ACCOUNT RES, V11, P223. BUBLITZ B, 1984, ISSUES ACCOUNTING ED, P39. CARGILE BR, 1986, ACCOUNT REV, V61, P158. CARMONA S, 1999, EUROPEAN ACCOUNTING, V8, P463. CHUNG KH, 1990, J FINANC, V45, P301. CLATWORTHY MA, 2002, THESIS CARDIFF U. DYL EA, 1955, ACCOUNT ORG SOC, V10, P171. FISHE RPH, 1998, J FINANC, V53, P1053. GRAY RH, 1996, BRIT ACCOUNTING REV. HALL T, 1991, ADV ACCOUNTING, V9, P161. HASSELBACK JR, 1992, ISSUES ACCOUNTING ED, V10, P269. HECK JL, 1986, ACCOUNT REV, V61, P735. HECK JL, 1986, J FINANC, V41, P1129. HECK JL, 1990, INT J ACCOUNTING, V25, P202. HECK JL, 1991, INT J ACCOUNTING, V26, P1. HOWARD TP, 1983, ACCOUNT REV, V58, P765. HULL RP, 1990, ACCOUNTING HORIZONS, V4, P77. JACOBS FA, 1986, ACCOUNT REV, V61, P179. KLEMKOSKY RC, 1977, J FINANC, V32, P901. LEE TA, 1999, CRIT PERSPECT, V10, P867. LUKKA K, 1996, ACCOUNT ORG SOC, V21, P755. MARTIN LL, 1996, ADV SOC COG, V9, P1. NIEMI AW, 1987, J FINANC, V42, P1389. PRATHER J, 1996, ACCOUNTING HORIZONS, V10, P1. PRATHERKINSY J, 1999, INT J ACCOUNTING, V34, P261. REEVE RC, 1988, ABACUS, V24, P90. RICHARDSON AJ, 1990, CONTEMP ACCOUNT RES, V7, P278. ROUSE RW, 1984, J ACCOUNTING ED, V2, P43. SCHROEDER NW, 1989, ISSUES ACCOUNTING ED, V4, P252. WINDAL FW, 1981, ACCOUNT REV, V56, P653. ZIVNEY TL, 1992, J FINANC, V47, P295. ZIVNEY TL, 1995, ISSUES ACCOUNTING ED, V10, P1.