From leo.egghe at UHASSELT.BE Mon Sep 5 08:35:50 2005 From: leo.egghe at UHASSELT.BE (Leo Egghe) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:35:50 +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 SEPTEMBER 5, 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 September 30, 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 samorri at OKSTATE.EDU Tue Sep 6 01:29:25 2005 From: samorri at OKSTATE.EDU (Steven Morris) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 00:29:25 -0500 Subject: Morris, S. A., (2005), " Manifestation of emerging specialties in journal literature..." Message-ID: Folks on this list may be interested in the following paper: Morris, S. A. (2005). Manifestation of emerging specialties in journal literature: A growth model of papers, references, exemplars, bibliographic coupling, co-citation, and clustering coefficient distribution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(12), 1250-1273. Abstract: A model is presented of the manifestation of the birth and development of a scientific specialty in a collection of journal papers. The proposed model, "Cumulative Advantage by Paper with Exemplars" (CAPE), is an adaptation of Price's cumulative advantage model. Two modifications are made: 1) references are cited in groups by paper, and 2) the model accounts for the generation of highly cited exemplar references immediately after the birth of the specialty. This simple growth process mimics many characteristic features of real collections of papers, including: the structure of the paper to reference matrix, the reference per paper distribution, the paper per reference distribution, the bibliographic coupling distribution, the co-citation distribution, the bibliographic coupling clustering coefficient distribution, and the temporal distribution of exemplar references. The model yields a great deal of insight into the process that produces the connectedness and clustering of a collection of papers and references. Two examples are presented and successfully modeled: a collection of 131 papers on MEMS RF switches, and a collection of 901 papers on the subject of complex networks. A preprint version can be found at: http://samorris.ceat.okstate.edu/web/publications/2004_draft_cape.pdf Thanks, Steven Morris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Sep 8 08:03:43 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:03:43 +0100 Subject: Abstract for Keynote address, Sydney, Australia, September Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:50:17 +0100 (BST) From: Stevan Harnad To: Tony Cargnelutti Cc: susan.owen at unsw.edu.au Subject: Re: Stevan Harnad & ETD2005 On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Tony Cargnelutti wrote: > Dear Stevan - The Conference Organisers need the > abstract by COB Friday 9 September for printing purposes. > Cheers and many thanks. Tony Dear Tony, Here is the abstract (313 words) for my keynote: http://adt.caul.edu.au/etd2005/etd2005.html Title: Maximising Research Impact By Mandating Institutional Self-Archiving It is a foregone conclusion that the next generation of researchers will self archive their research output in their own Open Access (OA) Insititional Repositories (IRs) for all potential users online, and they are already beginning now, with their theses and dissertations. But what about the present generation of researchers? Only 15% of the annual 2.5 million articles being published in the world's 24,000 journals is being self-archived today. Self-archiving has been shown to increase citation impact 50%-250+% by making the research available to those users whose institutions cannot afford access to the official journal version. The marginal dollar value of a citation was estimated by Diamond in 1986 to be $50-$1300 (US). Updating to 2005, converting to Australian dollars ($65-$1700) and using even the most conservative ends of these esimates (50% x $65) and multiplying by the 85% of Australia's annual journal article output of about 35,000 (according to ISI) that is not yet OA, this translates into an annual loss of $966,875 in revenue to Australian researchers for not having done the few extra keystrokes per article it takes to self-archive it. And that is without even considering the loss in revenue from potential usage and applications of Australian research findings in Australia and worldwide, nor the even more general loss to the progress of human inquiry. The solution is obvious, and Research Councils UK are on the verge of implementing it: a mandate to extend the existing universal requirement to 'publish or perish' to 'publish and also self-archive the final peer-reviewed author's draft in your OA IR'. Over 90% of journals already endorse author self-archiving and an international JISC author study (plus the actual experience of the two institutions that have already adopted such a requirement) show that over 90% of authors will comply. I will present the evidence, across disciplines and countries, for the 50%-250% OA citation impact advantage. Chrs, S 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 harnad at uqam.ca http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/ 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/ > At 01:06 PM 7/09/2005, Tony Cargnelutti wrote: > >Dear Stevan > >The Conference Organisers have reminded me that I needed to ask you for an > >abstract for your keynote - we want to print all abstracts on the program > >booklet. Would you be able to send one as soon as possible please - no > >more than 300 words. Many thanks. Tony From tdb01r at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Sep 8 12:48:23 2005 From: tdb01r at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Tim Brody) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:48:23 +0100 Subject: An individual's research output In-Reply-To: <00c101c5ae56$1efdfef0$0201a8c0@quentin> Message-ID: Quentin L. Burrell wrote: > You might have seen this flagged elsewhere, but I am sure that many > members will have thoughts/responses/outrages at Hirsch's paper "An > index to quantify an individual's scientific research output" > > You can find it at > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508025 I've interpreted this algorithmically as (excuse off-by-one errors): 1) Rank-order an author's papers by total cites to each. 2) Count from the highest-cited paper to the lowest, stopping if your count is greater than the total cites to the next paper. Hence an author's h-index will never be a higher value than their total number of papers. As an exercise I've run this algorithm over Citebase (http://www.citebase.org/) for several thousand *names*: http://www.citebase.org/analysis/h_number.txt (aid is an internal identifier) My 2c is the h-index benefits consistency - 'outlier' authors with few, high impact papers or many, low-impact papers are suppressed. Given it is an index whose range is limited to total number of papers (a few hundred for prolific authors), I imagine this is applicable more to authors at the end rather than beginning of careers. (It would be interesting to apply the h-index to larger bodies - institutions or research groups.) All the best, Tim > Dr Quentin L Burrell > Isle of Man International Business School > The Nunnery > Old Castletown Road > Douglas > Isle of Man IM2 1QB > via United Kingdom > > www.ibs.ac.im From PI at DB.DK Sun Sep 11 05:13:11 2005 From: PI at DB.DK (Ingwersen Peter) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:13:11 +0200 Subject: The Turn: New monograph on IR & seeking integrated research and f rameworks Message-ID: Dear colleagues in the Informetric fields, but also interested in information retrieval and behavior research. I wish to announce that the book: The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context, by Peter Ingwersen & Kalervo Jarvelin, has just been published by Springer and is available at: http://www.springeronline.com/1-4020-3850-X - (at 59.95 Euro (= 73.2 USD))or at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/140203850X/qid=1125825052/ sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1914297-0043351?v=glance&s=books - at 79.95 USD We hope it can be of use for your future research and/or teaching. Many regards - yours Peter Ingwersen & Kalervo Jarvelin From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Wed Sep 14 13:42:53 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:42:53 +0100 Subject: Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in Research Message-ID: ** Apologies for cross-posting ** Press Release: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/news/792 Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in Research Stevan Harnad Moderator, American Scientist Open Access Forum http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html Professor of Cognitive Science Department of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM 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 harnad at uqam.ca http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/ The United Kingdom is not yet maximising the return on its public investment in research. Research Councils UK (RCUK) spend ?3.5 billion pounds annually. The UK produces at least 130,000 research journal articles per year, but it is not the number of articles published that reflects the return on the UK?s investment: A piece of research, if it is worth funding and doing at all, must be not only published, but used, applied and built upon by other researchers. This is called ?research impact? and a measure of it is the number of times an article is cited by other articles (?citation impact?). But in order to be used and built upon, an article must first be accessed. A published article is accessible only to those researchers who happen to be at institutions that can afford to subscribe to the particular journal in which it was published. There are 24,000 journals in all, and most institutions can only afford a small fraction of them. In paper days, authors used to supplement this paid access to their articles by mailing free reprints to any would-be users who wrote to request them. The online age has made it possible to provide free ?eprints? (electronic versions of the author?s draft) to all potential users who cannot afford the journal version by ?self-archiving? them on the author?s own institutional website. The online-age practice of self-archiving has been shown to increase citation impact by a dramatic 50-250%, but so far only 15% of researchers are doing it. A recent UK international survey has found that 95% of authors would self-archive ? but only if their research funders or their institutions required them to do it (just as they already require them to ?publish or perish?). The solution is hence obvious: After lengthy deliberations first initiated in 2003 by the UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology, RCUK have proposed to adopt a policy requiring UK researchers to deposit, on their university's website, the final author's draft of any journal article resulting from RCUK-funded research. The purpose of the proposed policy would be to maximise the usage and impact of UK research findings by making them freely accessible on the web ("open access") for any potential users in the UK and worldwide who cannot afford paid access to the published journal version. How does this maximise the return on the UK public investment in research? It is not possible to calculate all the ways in which research generates revenue. A good deal of it is a question of probability and depends on time: Although everyone thinks of an immediate cure for cancer or a cheap, clean source of energy as the kind of result we hope for, most research progresses gradually and indirectly, and the best estimate of the size and direction of its progress is its citation impact, for that reflects the degree of uptake of research results by other researchers, in their own subsequent research. Citation impact is accordingly rewarded by universities (through salary increases and promotion) and by research-funders like RCUK (through grant funding and renewal); it is also rewarded by libraries (through journal selection and renewal, based on a journal's average citation "impact factor"). Counting citations is a natural extension of the cruder measure of research impact: counting publications themselves ("publish or perish"). If citations are being counted, it is natural to ask how much they are worth. The marginal dollar value of one citation was estimated by Diamond in 1986 to range from $50-$1300 (US), depending on field and number of citations. (An increase from 0 to 1 citation is worth more than an increase from 30 to 31; most articles are in the citation range 0-5.) If we convert from dollars to UK pounds sterling (?27-?710) and update by 170% for inflation from 1986-2005, this yields the range ?46-$1207 as the marginal value of a UK citation today. Self-archiving, as noted, increases citations by 50-250%, but, as also noted, only 15% of the articles being published are being self-archived today. We will now apply only the most conservative ends of these estimates (50% citation increase from self-archiving at ?46 per citation) to the UK's current annual journal article output (and only for the approximately 130,000 UK articles a year indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information, which covers only the top 8000 of the world's 24,000 journals). If we multiply by the 85% of the UK's annual journal article output that is not yet self-archived (110, 500 articles), this translates into an annual loss of ?2, 541, 500 in revenue to UK researchers for not having done (or delegated) the few extra keystrokes per article it would have taken to self-archive their final drafts. But this impact loss translates into a far bigger one for the British public, if we reckon it as the loss of potential returns on its research investment. As a proportion of the RCUK?s yearly ?3.5bn research expenditure, our conservative estimate would be a 50% x 85% x ?3.5.bn = ?1.5bn worth of loss in potential research impact. And that is without even considering the wider loss in revenue from potential usage and applications of UK research findings in the UK and worldwide, nor the still more general loss to the progress of human inquiry. The solution is obvious, and it is the one the RCUK is proposing: to extend the existing universal 'publish or perish' requirement to 'publish and also self-archive your final draft on your institutional website'. Over 90% of journals already endorse author self-archiving and the international author survey -- plus the actual experience of the two institutions that have already adopted such a requirement (CERN and University of Southampton ECS ) -- has shown that over 90% of authors will comply. The time to close this 50%-250% research impact gap is already well overdue. This is the historic moment for the UK to set an example for the world , showing how to maximise the return on the public investment in research in the online era. How self-archiving increases citation impact: http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html How much a citation is worth: http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v11p354y1988.pdf How much time and effort is involved in self-archiving http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/ RCUK self-archiving policy proposal: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/index.asp Directory of publishers' policies on author self-archiving: http://romeo.eprints.org/ JISC user survey on self-archiving: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/ From ir at SOI.CITY.AC.UK Thu Sep 15 11:49:19 2005 From: ir at SOI.CITY.AC.UK (Ian Rowlands) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:49:19 +0100 Subject: Maximising the Return on UK's Public Invetsment in Research In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve The flow of your logic is that open access increases the chances of an article being downloaded and read, and hence a greater probability that it will be cited, all things being equal. That's fine as a point of departure. If I am the first author to publish an open access article in an almost wholly toll access environment, I can see that I would have an enormous comparative advantage over the rest of my colleagues and might well expect to accrue additional citations. Similarly the first research group or even nation to see the light would have a great advantage. If, however, I am the one millionth author (or the 10,000th research group or the 100th nation) to publish open access, that comparative advantage must quickly decline, approaching zero as the last few laggards pile in: there would be a completely level playing field. This is not an argument against open access but it is a logical consequence of the mass migration to that particular form of publishing in terms of citation advantage. Meanwhile, the measurement tools (and I'm thinking here specifically of ISI as an example) remain constant. The only way for us all to get higher citation counts within this frame of reference is EITHER for ISI to expand its coverage to include more sources OR for ISI-indexed journal editors to reject fewer papers or for authors to compile longer reference lists. I can't see the latter happening. If open access became near universal, all that would happen within the current measurement regime is that we'd still all get the same number of citations, they'd just be from open access rather than tolled sources. The logic of your press release is fine, it's just there's an imminent sell by date before the magic works off. Dr Ian Rowlands Department of Information Science City University London > Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:42:53 +0100 > From: Stevan Harnad > Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in > Research > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > ** Apologies for cross-posting ** > > Press Release: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/news/792 > > Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in Research > > Stevan Harnad > Moderator, American Scientist Open Access Forum > > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html > > Professor of Cognitive Science > Department of Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM > > 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 > harnad at uqam.ca > http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/ > > The United Kingdom is not yet maximising the return on its public investment > > in > research. Research Councils UK (RCUK) spend ?3.5 billion pounds annually. > The > UK > produces at least 130,000 research journal articles per year, but it is not > the > number of articles published that reflects the return on the UK?s investment: > > A > piece of research, if it is worth funding and doing at all, must be not only > published, but used, applied and built upon by other researchers. This is > called > ?research impact? and a measure of it is the number of times an article is > cited > by other articles (?citation impact?). > > But in order to be used and built upon, an article must first be accessed. A > published article is accessible only to those researchers who happen to be > at > institutions that can afford to subscribe to the particular journal in > which > it > was published. There are 24,000 journals in all, and most institutions can > only > afford a small fraction of them. In paper days, authors used to supplement > this > paid access to their articles by mailing free reprints to any would-be users > who > wrote to request them. The online age has made it possible to provide free > ?eprints? (electronic versions of the author?s draft) to all potential users > who > cannot afford the journal version by ?self-archiving? them on the author?s > own > institutional website. > > The online-age practice of self-archiving has been shown to increase > citation > impact by a dramatic 50-250%, but so far only 15% of researchers are doing > it. > A > recent UK international survey has found that 95% of authors would > self-archive > ? > but only if their research funders or their institutions required them to do > it > (just as they already require them to ?publish or perish?). The solution is > hence > obvious: > > After lengthy deliberations first initiated in 2003 by the UK Parliamentary > Select > Committee on Science and Technology, RCUK have proposed to adopt a policy > requiring UK researchers to deposit, on their university's website, the > final > author's draft of any journal article resulting from RCUK-funded research. > The > purpose of the proposed policy would be to maximise the usage and impact of > UK > research findings by making them freely accessible on the web ("open > access") > for > any potential users in the UK and worldwide who cannot afford paid access to > the > published journal version. How does this maximise the return on the UK > public > investment in research? > > It is not possible to calculate all the ways in which research generates > revenue. > A good deal of it is a question of probability and depends on time: Although > everyone thinks of an immediate cure for cancer or a cheap, clean source of > energy > as the kind of result we hope for, most research progresses gradually and > indirectly, and the best estimate of the size and direction of its progress > is > its > citation impact, for that reflects the degree of uptake of research results > by > other researchers, in their own subsequent research. Citation impact is > accordingly rewarded by universities (through salary increases and > promotion) > and > by research-funders like RCUK (through grant funding and renewal); it is > also > rewarded by libraries (through journal selection and renewal, based on a > journal's > average citation "impact factor"). Counting citations is a natural extension > of > the cruder measure of research impact: counting publications themselves > ("publish > or perish"). > > If citations are being counted, it is natural to ask how much they are > worth. > > The marginal dollar value of one citation was estimated by Diamond in 1986 > to > range from $50-$1300 (US), depending on field and number of citations. (An > increase from 0 to 1 citation is worth more than an increase from 30 to 31; > most > articles are in the citation range 0-5.) If we convert from dollars to UK > pounds > sterling (?27-?710) and update by 170% for inflation from 1986-2005, this > yields > the range ?46-$1207 as the marginal value of a UK citation today. > Self-archiving, > as noted, increases citations by 50-250%, but, as also noted, only 15% of > the > articles being published are being self-archived today. > > We will now apply only the most conservative ends of these estimates (50% > citation increase from self-archiving at ?46 per citation) to the UK's > current > annual journal article output (and only for the approximately 130,000 UK > articles > a year indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information, which covers > only > the > top 8000 of the world's 24,000 journals). If we multiply by the 85% of the > UK's > annual journal article output that is not yet self-archived (110, 500 > articles), > this translates into an annual loss of ?2, 541, 500 in revenue to UK > researchers > for not having done (or delegated) the few extra keystrokes per article it > would > have taken to self-archive their final drafts. > > But this impact loss translates into a far bigger one for the British > public, > if > we reckon it as the loss of potential returns on its research investment. As > a > proportion of the RCUK?s yearly ?3.5bn research expenditure, our > conservative > estimate would be a 50% x 85% x ?3.5.bn = ?1.5bn worth of loss in potential > research impact. And that is without even considering the wider loss in > revenue > from potential usage and applications of UK research findings in the UK and > worldwide, nor the still more general loss to the progress of human > inquiry. > > The solution is obvious, and it is the one the RCUK is proposing: to extend > the > existing universal 'publish or perish' requirement to 'publish and also > self-archive your final draft on your institutional website'. Over 90% of > journals already endorse author self-archiving and the international author > survey > -- plus the actual experience of the two institutions that have already > adopted > such a requirement (CERN and University of Southampton ECS ) -- has shown > that > over 90% of authors will comply. > > The time to close this 50%-250% research impact gap is already well overdue. > This > is the historic moment for the UK to set an example for the world , showing > how > to > maximise the return on the public investment in research in the online era. > > How self-archiving increases citation impact: > http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html > > How much a citation is worth: > http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v11p354y1988.pdf > > How much time and effort is involved in self-archiving > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/ > > RCUK self-archiving policy proposal: > http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/index.asp > > Directory of publishers' policies on author self-archiving: > http://romeo.eprints.org/ > > JISC user survey on self-archiving: > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/ > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From bernies at UILLINOIS.EDU Thu Sep 15 14:54:58 2005 From: bernies at UILLINOIS.EDU (Sloan, Bernie) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:54:58 -0500 Subject: An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment Message-ID: Bauer, Kathleen, and Nisa Bakkalbasi. An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). September 2005. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html >From the abstract: "This paper presents a case study comparing the citation counts provided by Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles from the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) published in 1985 and in 2000 using a paired t-test to determine statistical significance." Bernie Sloan Senior Information Systems Consultant Consortium of Academic & Research Libraries in Illinois 616 E. Green Street, Suite 213 Champaign, IL 61820-5752 Phone: (217) 333-4895 Fax: (217) 265-0454 E-mail: bernies at uillinois.edu From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Sep 15 18:23:19 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:23:19 +0100 Subject: OA advantage = EA + (AA) + (QB) + QA + (CA) + UA In-Reply-To: <1126799359.432997ff31872@fred.soi.city.ac.uk> Message-ID: Prior AmSci Topic Thread: OA advantage = EA + AA + QB + OA + UA http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3977.html Ian Rowland's observations, below, are spot-on. He is exactly right that the OA impact advantage (currently 50-250%) will shrink as we approach 100% OA. Right now we are at 15% OA, and the advantage is in part -- no one can say how large a part -- a *competitive* advantage of the minority 15% OA -- the head-start vanguard -- over the laggard 85% non-OA majority. That makes it partly a race; and clearly, the race is to the swift and the battle to the strong. The competitive advantage is *more* reason for an individual, institution or nation (like the UK) to self-archive right now (as the RCUK will, we hope, soon be doing). http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/28-guid.html The OA impact advantage consists of at least the following 6 factors, three of them (2,3,5) temporary (), three of them permanent (1,4,6)**: 1. *EA*: EARLY ADVANTAGE, beginning already at the pre-refereeing preprint stage. Research that is reported earlier not only gets its quota of citations sooner, but the quota goes up, permanently. This is probably because earlier uptake has a greater cumulative effect on the research cycle. 2. (AA): (ARXIV ADVANTAGE) the special advantage of self-archiving specifically in Arxiv for physicists, because it is a central point of call: OAI-interoperable Institutional Repositories will supersede this, I am certain, and it will make zero difference which OAI-compliant IR one deposits in. 3. (QB): (QUALITY BIAS) from self-selection; noncausal: The higher-quality articles/authors are somewhat more likely to self-archive in these early (15%) days of self-archiving: this too will disappear self-archiving approaches 100%, of course). 4. *QA*: QUALITY ADVANTAGE, allowing the high-quality articles to compete on a level playing field, not handicapped by access affordability. A permanent effect. 5. (CA): COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, for self-archived papers over non-self-archived ones, in early (15%) days; this will disappear once once self-archiving nears 100%, of course, but it is an optimal extra motivator right now, for the low % self-archiving fields. 6. *UA*: USAGE ADVANTAGE: More downloads for OA articles. This too is a permanent effect. Of these, only EA, QA, and UA are operative in the few fields that are already close to 100% OA, such as astrophysics and High Energy Physics. http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/ But everywhere else we are concerned with getting the 15% fields to climb to 100%, and for them the CA matters a lot too. http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/graphes/EtudeImpact.htm So I basically agree with Ian Rowland's comment, and have only two small replies to add below: On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 ir at soi.city.ac.uk wrote: > The flow of your logic is that open access increases the chances of an article > being downloaded and read, and hence a greater probability that it will be > cited, all things being equal. That's fine as a point of departure. > > If I am the first author to publish an open access article in an almost wholly > toll access environment, I can see that I would have an enormous comparative > advantage over the rest of my colleagues and might well expect to accrue > additional citations. Similarly the first research group or even nation to see > the light would have a great advantage. > > If, however, I am the one millionth author (or the 10,000th research group or > the 100th nation) to publish open access, that comparative advantage must > quickly decline, approaching zero as the last few laggards pile in: there would > be a completely level playing field. This is not an argument against open > access but it is a logical consequence of the mass migration to that particular > form of publishing in terms of citation advantage. Exactly: The race is to the swift and the battle to the strong. And if the RCUK adopts its proposed mandate, this will give the UK a substantial competitive advantage. Once other nations follow suit (as it is to be hoped that they will do), the competitive advantage will shrink, but the the Early Advantage, Quality Advantage and Usage Advantage will remain, and all of research worldwide will be the better off for it. > Meanwhile, the measurement tools (and I'm thinking here specifically of ISI as > an example) remain constant. The only way for us all to get higher citation > counts within this frame of reference is EITHER for ISI to expand its coverage > to include more sources OR for ISI-indexed journal editors to reject fewer > papers or for authors to compile longer reference lists. I can't see the latter > happening. ISI will almost certainly expand. But there are other players on the field now too, including free ones, such as citebase, citeseer and google scholar, and paid ones, such as scopus. So there plenty of new ways to measure and compare the increased citations that come from OA: http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ http://scholar.google.com/ http://www.scopus.com/ > If open access became near universal, all that would happen within the current > measurement regime is that we'd still all get the same number of citations, > they'd just be from open access rather than tolled sources. The logic of your > press release is fine, it's just there's an imminent sell by date before the > magic works off. The Competitive Advantage would be gone, but the Early Advantage, Quality Advantage and Usage Advantage would be going strong. Michael Kurtz has shown that although articles in a 100% OA field (astrophysics) do not have longer reference lists, hence do not cite more articles, they do have three times higher usage rates (UA). http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html And of course the composition of the references can now be determined by the merit and quality of the article (QA), not just the affordability of the journal in which it happened to be published. And whereas the competitive horse-race (for who self-archives to gain the CA first) will be over, the cognitive horse-race (for who finds what earlier: EA) will continue to favour the swift and the strong. It is fair to say, though, that if the annual 1.5 billion pounds-pounds worth of potential impact that the UK is currently losing because it only self-archives 15% of its research output will shrink as other nations' self-archiving policies catch up. How much it shrinks will then depend on the true merit of British research and not just the UK's head-start in self-archiving. Stevan Harnad > > From: Stevan Harnad > > Subject: Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in Research > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > > > Press Release: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/news/792 > > Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in Research > > Full text: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/28-guid.html From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Sep 16 02:23:31 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:23:31 +0200 Subject: Happy birthday! Message-ID: Dear Gene, I understood from some colleagues that we can bring a virtual toast today at the occasion of your 80th birthday! My congratulations and best wishes. With kind regards, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ The Challenge of Scientometrics; The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johannes.stegmann at CHARITE.DE Fri Sep 16 09:34:57 2005 From: johannes.stegmann at CHARITE.DE (Johannes Stegmann) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:34:57 +0200 Subject: An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 13:54 15.09.2005 -0500, you wrote: > >Bauer, Kathleen, and Nisa Bakkalbasi. An Examination of Citation Counts >in a New Scholarly Communication Environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). >September 2005. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html > >>From the abstract: "This paper presents a case study comparing the >citation counts provided by Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar >for articles from the Journal of the American Society for Information >Science and Technology (JASIST) published in 1985 and in 2000 using a >paired t-test to determine statistical significance." > For their future work, the authors of this interesting paper should, perhaps, take into account the ISI Proceedings database because the conference papers indexed therein are included together with their references. For example, I found (today) in this database 17 cites given to JASIS papers of 1985, and 271 cites given to JASIS papers of 2000. This would give a clearer picture of what one gets from free services like Google Scholar and from products which have to be licensed. Best regards Johannes Stegmann ------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Johannes Stegmann Charit? - University Medicine Berlin Joint Facility of Free University and Humboldt-University Campus Benjamin Franklin, Medical Library 12203 Berlin, Germany johannes.stegmann at charite.de Tel.: +49 30 8445 2035 Fax: +49 30 8445 4454 Personal homepage: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~johasteg/ From nisa.bakkalbasi at YALE.EDU Fri Sep 16 13:29:15 2005 From: nisa.bakkalbasi at YALE.EDU (Nisa Bakkalbasi) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:29:15 -0400 Subject: An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20050916153457.00ee6658@pop.ukbf.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Dr. Stegmann correctly points out that there are other databases available, beyond the ones we studied, which provide citation tracking. In addition to the conference proceedings database, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and ADS also provide citing references for articles. We decided to concentrate on three multi-disciplinary databases only, as a way of focusing our work. We wanted to lay the foundation for a study that will compare subject areas: hence our decision to look at databases that cross many subject areas. Regards, Nisa Bakkalbasi At 09:34 AM 9/16/2005, Johannes Stegmann wrote: >At 13:54 15.09.2005 -0500, you wrote: > > > >Bauer, Kathleen, and Nisa Bakkalbasi. An Examination of Citation Counts > >in a New Scholarly Communication Environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). > >September 2005. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html > > > >From the abstract: "This paper presents a case study comparing the > >citation counts provided by Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar > >for articles from the Journal of the American Society for Information > >Science and Technology (JASIST) published in 1985 and in 2000 using a > >paired t-test to determine statistical significance." > > > >For their future work, the authors of this interesting paper should, >perhaps, take into account the ISI Proceedings database because the >conference papers indexed therein are included together with their >references. For example, I found (today) in this database 17 cites given to >JASIS papers of 1985, and 271 cites given to JASIS papers of 2000. >This would give a clearer picture of what one gets from free services like >Google Scholar and from products which have to be licensed. > >Best regards > >Johannes Stegmann > >------------------------------------------------------- >Dr. Johannes Stegmann >Charit? - University Medicine Berlin >Joint Facility of Free University and Humboldt-University >Campus Benjamin Franklin, Medical Library >12203 Berlin, Germany >johannes.stegmann at charite.de >Tel.: +49 30 8445 2035 Fax: +49 30 8445 4454 >Personal homepage: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~johasteg/ --- Nisa Bakkalbasi General Science Librarian Kline Science Library Yale University 219 Prospect Street PO Box 208111 New Haven, CT 06520-8111 Phone: (203)432-9519 Fax: (203)432-3441 nisa.bakkalbasi at yale.edu From egarfield at ROCKETMAIL.COM Sun Sep 18 12:02:35 2005 From: egarfield at ROCKETMAIL.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 09:02:35 -0700 Subject: Happy birthday! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Loet: Greetings from Chicago and the Intl. Cong. on Peer Review where I gave the keynote address. This is a wonderful gathering of mainly biomedical editors. Thank you for thinking of me on my birthday and best wishes to you and your colleagues. Gene Loet Leydesdorff wrote: I understood from some colleagues that we can bring a virtual toast today at the occasion of your 80th birthday! My congratulations and best wishes. With kind regards, Loet --------------------------------- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ The Challenge of Scientometrics; The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society --------------------------------------------------- Eugene Garfield,Past President, American Society for Information Science & Technology www.asis.org Chairman Emeritus, ISI,3501 Market St,Philadelphia, PA 19104 400 Market Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2501 www.the-scientist.com Tel: 215-243-2205 // Fax: 215-387-1266 // E-mail: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu Personal Web site: www.eugenegarfield.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Sep 18 14:30:46 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:30:46 +0200 Subject: Classification and Powerlaws: The logarithmic transformation Message-ID: Classification and Powerlaws: The logarithmic transformation Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (forthcoming) Loet Leydesdorff * & Stephen Bensman ** Abstract Logarithmic transformation of the data has been recommended by the literature in the case of highly skewed distributions such as those commonly found in information science. The purpose of the transformation is to make the data conform to the lognormal law of error for inferential purposes. How does this transformation affect the analysis? We factor analyze and visualize the citation environment of the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) before and after a logarithmic transformation. The transformation strongly reduces the variance necessary for classificatory purposes and therefore is counterproductive to the purposes of the descriptive statistics. We recommend against the logarithmic transformation when sets cannot be defined unambiguously. The intellectual organization of the sciences is reflected in the curvilinear parts of the citation distributions, while negative powerlaws fit excellently to the tails of the distributions. preprint version at http://www.leydesdorff.net/log05; apologies for cross-postings _____ * Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ** Stephen Bensman, LSU Libraries, Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803-3300, USA; notsjb at lsu.edu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pdf.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1101 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Tue Sep 20 14:28:59 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:28:59 -0400 Subject: Toshev B.V. "The Academic Journals and Their Impact Factor" Nauka 14(5): 28-31, 2004 Message-ID: E-mail: toshev at chem.uni-sofia.bg Professor B.V. Toshev has provided an extended abstract in English for the readers of this list. AUTHOR : Toshev B.V. TITLE : The Academic Journals and Their Impact Factor SOURCE : Nauka 14(5): 28-31, 2004 ADDRESS: Professor B.V. Toshev, Department of Physical Chemistry, University of Sofia, 1 James Bourchier Blvd., 1126 Sofia, BULGARIA toshev at chem.uni-sofia.bg ABSTRACT: The new scientific results should be published. The main functions of the academic journals are: i) to produce, disseminate and exchange the scientific knowledge; ii) to rank research in order to assist the distribution of the research funds and iii) to facilitate the employment and promotion of the people involved in science. The system of scientific periodicals has functioned in two levels. The first level includes both the primary research journals (e.g., Langmuir ISSN 0743-7463) and scholarly journals with more expanded audience (e.g., Ambix ISSN 0002-6980). The second level includes the secondary research journals (e.g., Chemical Abstracts, America: History and Life, etc.). It is just the world system of abstracting, indexing and evaluation of the scientific results. The assessment of the academic journals is by their involvement in Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Science Citation Index and Art and Humanities Citation Index. The reasons for such a structure of the system and the ways of its functioning are described and commented. Citation analysis is of an importance mainly because it is heavily used in science policy and research evaluation professionals. The most popular indicators in such considerations are the impact factor IF, the immediacy index II and the response time t1. If in two consecutive years the journal has published C papers and in the next year B their cites have been found, then the journal impact factor should be IF= B/C. The immediacy index II is calculated by dividing the number of citing articles from a given year by the number of articles that the cited journal has published in the same year. II is a measure of how rapidly the average article in a particular journal will be discovered and cited. The response time t1 determines when a given paper is sited for the first time. Obviously t1 marks the change in the paper status ? before that time the paper remains unnoticed and unutilized; at that time and later the paper becomes utilized and evaluated. The first two indicators allow the journals to be ranked, categorized and compared. It is proposed the scholarly journals to be considered as excellent, above average, average, under average and marginal. The articles of the marginal journals are not indexed and abstracted in the secondary research journals. Therefore it seems to be worthless to support of and publish in such kind of journals. In Bulgaria only IF seems to be known but its use in the Bulgarian evaluation practice is incorrect because this feature of the journals is transmitted to the researchers in attempt to indicate their degree of qualification. Two new indicators that would characterize quantitatively the scientific achievements of the researchers are proposed: efficiency e=nk, n and k ? number of the author?s publications and their citations, respectively (n is a measure of author?s productivity and k is a measure of the usefulness of author?s publications), and personal impact factor PIF=q/m where q is the number of citations in a given year of m author?s publications, published in two previous years. The State Higher Commission of Attestation and Promotion in Bulgaria recommends the academic degree ?professor in Chemistry? to be conferred when the candidate presents a list of 40 or more scientific papers, 30 of them being published in journals with IF (three opponents examine the academic achievements of the candidate for a professorship). Additionally the number of cites of those papers should be at least 80. These requirements in terms of the efficiency read as e>2 400. For an Associate Professor in Chemistry the same indicator should be e> 500. Obviously when the number of cites ? is small, then the author should increase his/her productivity in order to compensate the bad influence of the k- factor. Certainly when k=0, e=0 as well and such person cannot be considered as a member of the world scientific community. For historically reasons the last conclusion holds for a part of the Bulgarian academic community, especially in the case of social sciences. REFERENCES: 1. Toshev, B.V. Political Economy of Higher Education. Possoki 5(4), 10 (2003) [In Bulgarian] 2. Weiner, G. The Academic Journal: Has It Future? Educ. Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 9, No. 9, March, 21, 2001. 3. Toshev, B.V. Publish or Perish, Publish Yet Again Perish: Rules for Successful Scientific Publications. Khimiya 13, 163 (2004) [In Bulgarian] 4. Dumleavy, P. Publishing Your Research in Authoring a PhD: How to Plan, Draft, Write, and Finish a Doctoral Thesis or Dissertation. Palgrave McMillan, New York, 2003. 5. Garfield, E. Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation. Science. 178, 471 (1972). 6. Garfield, E. The Impact Factor. Current Content. 25, 3, 20 June 1994. 7. Egghe, L. A Heuristic Study of the First-Citation Distribution. Scientometrics. 48, 345 (2000). 8. Egghe, L., R. Rousseau. Introduction to Informetrics. Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990. 9. Toshev, B.V. The World System of Indexing, Abstracting and Evaluation. Khimiya 7, 259 (1998) [In Bulgarian]. Professor B.V. Toshev, Department of Physical Chemistry, University of Sofia, 1 James Bourchier Blvd., 1126 Sofia, BULGARIA toshev at chem.uni-sofia.bg From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Tue Sep 20 15:14:25 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:14:25 -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 Subject Category: COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE 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 Tue Sep 20 15:18:20 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:18:20 -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 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: 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 Tue Sep 20 15:25:07 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:25:07 -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 deter-mines 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 Subject Category: COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE 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 Tue Sep 20 15:32:19 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:32:19 -0400 Subject: Shan S. "On the generalized Zipf distribution. Part I " INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1369-1386 DEC 2005 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: rita_kaoru_chen at 163.com Title: On the generalized Zipf distribution. Part I Author(s): Shan S Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT 41 (6): 1369-1386 DEC 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 23 Times Cited: 0 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. Addresses: Shan S (reprint author), Shanghai Univ, Informat Res Ctr, Shanghai, Peoples R China Shanghai Univ, Informat Res Ctr, Shanghai, Peoples R China Shanghai Univ, Dept Management & Informat Engn, Shanghai, Peoples R China E-mail Addresses: rita_kaoru_chen at 163.com Publisher: PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND IDS Number: 956XE ISSN: 0306-4573 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 Tue Sep 20 15:39:13 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:39:13 -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 Wed Sep 21 15:46:48 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:46:48 -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: jbolien at lanl.gov 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. Author Keywords: usage analysis; digital libraries; journal impact ranking; impact metrics; social network analysis 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 Wed Sep 21 15:54:02 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:54:02 -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: 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 Wed Sep 21 16:36:14 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:36:14 -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: E-mail Addresses: n.c.payne at wlv.ac.uk, 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. Author Keywords: web links; academic webs; linking models; linear relation; non-linear power law 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 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 Sep 26 16:54:08 2005 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:54:08 -0400 Subject: FW: Georgia Tech School of Public Policy: Faculty Position - Economics or Metrics of Research and Innovation Policy Message-ID: From: Philip Shapira [mailto:ps25 at prism.gatech.edu] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 4:37 PM To: garfield at dsl.cis.upenn.edu Subject: Georgia Tech School of Public Policy: Faculty Position - Economics or Metrics of Research and Innovation Policy Dear Dr. Garfield: I am writing to let you know that the Georgia Tech School of Public Policy is conducting a national and international search for a new faculty member in the Economics or Metrics of Research and Innovation Policy. Full details of the position are provided below. I would be very appreciative if you would forward the announcement to others who should be aware of this search and post it (electronically or in hard copy) so that others may see it. If you have any recommendations as to individuals who might be well-qualified for this position, please let me know (or let them know directly). If you would like to informally discuss the position in terms of your own interests or obtain further information, please contact me by email or telephone. Formal applications for this position should be directed to the search secretary, as noted in the announcement. After reviewing applicants, we plan to interview for this position early in 2006, so as to make an appointment beginning in academic year starting August 2006. With many thanks. Philip Shapira Professor, School of Public Policy Chair, Search Committee (Faculty Search, Economics or Metrics of Research and Innovation Policy) Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0345, USA Tel: +1 404 894 7735; Fax: +1 404 385 0504 Email: ps25 at prism.gatech.edu Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy, Atlanta, GA 30332-0345, USA OPEN FACULTY POSITION IN THE ECONOMICS OR METRICS OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION POLICY START AUGUST 2006 Georgia Tech's School of Public Policy - an internationally recognized center of excellence in science and technology policy - seeks applicants for a faculty position in the economics or metrics of research and innovation policy, including interests in information, biomedical, nanoscience, and other emerging research and technological domains. Competency in the analysis of research and innovation data sets desired. Full-time, tenure track, start August 2006, rank open, Assistant or Associate applicants especially encouraged. The successful candidate will teach science and technology policy (including innovation economics and/or measurement issues in R&D policy) and core public policy courses, and develop an innovative research portfolio. Ph.D. required. Women and minority applicants encouraged. Assistant Professor applicants: include three recommendation letters. Senior applicants: provide names and addresses of at least three references. Send application materials to Carmen Williams, Search Secretary, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0345, USA; or apply by email to cwjobsearch at pubpolicy.gatech.edu, with hard copy following by regular mail. Availability of position contingent on funding. For immediate consideration, apply by December 1, 2005. Search may be extended. PhD discipline is open - we anticipate applicants from economics, public policy, management, science and technology policy, as well as other fields. Applicants who currently hold a PhD or who will complete their PhD before August 2006 will be considered. Georgia Tech is an internationally recognized technological university. Georgia Tech's staff include more than 800 academic faculty, nearly 1,300 full-time researchers, and more than 400 technicians. Georgia Tech conducts externally-sponsored research for public and private organizations valued at more than $425 million annually, making the university one of the leading U.S. research institutions in engineering, science, and technology. The Georgia Tech School of Public Policy offers degree programs at the bachelors, masters, and doctoral levels. The School's research centers and programs include the Georgia Tech Technology Policy and Assessment Center, the Research Value Mapping Program, and a new Science, Technology and Innovation Program. Georgia Tech brings together one of the largest and most prominent clusters of faculty engaged in science, technology, and innovation research, policy, and evaluation in the United States. In addition to the School of Public Policy, there are complementary research groups in science, technology, and innovation policy domains in Management; Economics; History, Technology and Society; Industrial and Systems Engineering; and other units at the Institute. For more information about the Georgia Tech School of Public Policy, see http://www.spp.gatech.edu AN EQUAL EDUCATION/EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.7/112 - Release Date: 9/26/2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Tue Sep 27 03:53:04 2005 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:53:04 +0200 Subject: Visualization of the Citation Impact Environments of Scientific Journals: An online mapping exercise Message-ID: Visualization of the Citation Impact Environments of Scientific Journals: An online mapping exercise Abstract: The aggregated journal-journal citation networks based on the Journal Citation Reports 2004 of the Science Citation Index (5968 journals) and the Social Science Citation Index (1712 journals) are made accessible from the perspective of any of these journals. The vector-space model is used for the normalization and the results are brought online as input-files for the visualization program Pajek. The user thus is able to analyze the citation environment in terms of links and graphs. Furthermore, the local impact of a journal is defined as the share of the total citations in the specific journal?s citation environments; the vertical size of the nodes is varied proportionally to this citation impact. The horizontal size of each node can be used for providing the same information after correction for the within-journal (self?)citations. In the ?citing? environment, the equivalents of this measure can be considered as a citation activity index which maps how the relevant journal environment is perceived by the collective of authors of a journal. As a policy application, the mechanism of interdisciplinary developments among the sciences is elaborated for the case of nanotechnology journals. One can click on any of the journal names below and obtain the Pajek file corresponding to the citation impact environment of the journal ("cited"). See for further explanation at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04/index.htm. 2003 2004 cited journal files from the SCI cited journal files from the SCI citing journal files from the SCI citing journal files from the SCI cited journal files from the SoSCI cited journal files from the SoSCI citing journal files from the SoSCI citing journal files from the SoSCI ** apologies for cross-postings. This is a draft version; comments and suggestions are welcome. _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ The Challenge of Scientometrics; The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo.egghe at UHASSELT.BE Tue Sep 27 05:56:37 2005 From: leo.egghe at UHASSELT.BE (Leo Egghe) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:56:37 +0200 Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS - SECOND SPECIAL ISSUE IPM ON INFORMETRICS Message-ID: EXTENDED DEADLINE !!! SECOND SPECIAL ISSUE OF INFORMATION PROCESSING AND MANAGEMENT ON INFORMETRICS CALL FOR PAPERS SEPTEMBER 27, 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 harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Wed Sep 28 16:21:50 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:21:50 +0100 Subject: Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in Research In-Reply-To: <311174B69873F148881A743FCF1EE537AB184D@TSHUSPAPHIMBX02.ERF.THOMSON.COM> Message-ID: 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 Thu Sep 29 16:50:55 2005 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:50:55 +0100 Subject: Open access to research worth A3 1.5bn a year In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Peter Banks wrote: > omits the Anderson paper, which did not show an effect. Steve Hitchcock will shortly include that paper (many thanks for pointing it out), duly noting that it is based only on one journal, one 3-year sample several years ago, might be comparing articles with different selection criteria, seems to compare online with non-online rather than OA with non-OA, and is refuted by the preponderance of subsequent evidence based on much larger and wider samples (but, as you correctly note, much of it not yet published, hence not yet peer-reviewed). > The claim seems to come mainly from the paper of Brody et > al (Citation Impact of Open Access Articles vs. Articles > available only through subscription ("Toll-Access"), > http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/). I think these authors have > generalized their findings far beyond what the data can support. They > are convincing when they stick to the core Physics/Mathematics papers > in the ArXiv database, but not when they try to apply their method > to other disciplines. It is not Brody et al. that apply the method to other disciplines (in their published work to date) but Hajjem et al., in their not yet published work. Brody et al. published only on the Arxiv-based comparisons. > Their method is to compare citations for papers in ArXiv vs. those > that are not. Outside of the core physicians and mathematics > literature, however, ArXiv contains very few papers from disciplines > like medicine or social sciences. For most fields, Brody finds > that the number of papers that are 0A are less than 1%--sometimes > much less than 1%. (1) I note that Dr. Banks seems to be ready to take unpublished results at face value when they are congenial to his preferences: Brody et al's data from other disciplines is on their unrefereed data site, not in their refereed paper. http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/ (2) The unpublished data on other disciplines from the Brody et al. site are merely pilot data, based on tiny samples. They have since been superseded by far larger systematic sampling at the Hajjem et al data site, and there the proportions of self-archived papers in other disciplines are found to be much higher (though this too is probably an underestimate, as will be discussed in the published version). http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm > For these papers, which are likely to be highly > specialized and relatively obscure, self-archiving probably does > have a large effect. One can not conclude, however, that the same > effect would occur for a widely-read, widely cited journal, like > Pediatrics or Diabetes Care. I suspect--and the Anderson paper may > hint at this--that the more widely read the journal, the less the > citation advantage for OA. We will take this a prediction, and I will ask Chawki Hajjem to check your journals in particular, as special cases, and compare them to other biomedical and non-biomedical journals. But your assumptions about the overall proportions are contradicted by the evidence. I will add, however, that so far the *size* of the average OA/nonOA advantage in biomedicine -- though always present, as in other fields -- is lower than in other fields, hovering at about 20% rather than the 50-250% elsewhere, though it is higher in some biomed subfields. I don't know the reason for this. I don't know whether it will hold up with still larger samples, but it does not appear to be because of a systematically lower self-archiving rate in biomedicine. > What we need to study other disciplines are archives like > ArXiv. Perhaps there are others in certain fields that could be > mined for research. No, we don't need to study centralised archives like Arxiv in other disciplines, because since Arxiv (1991) there has been the OAI-interoperability protocol (1999) which effectively made all distributed archives equivalent and interoperable. What is not clear, howeverm is how much of the 15% self-archiving our robots are picking up in their web-trawls are from arbitrary websites and how much from OAI-compliant Institutional Repositories. This too will be analysed, to test for any differential trends. Stevan Harnad