From zielinskic at WHO.INT Fri Dec 1 02:59:51 2006 From: zielinskic at WHO.INT (Zielinski, Christopher) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 08:59:51 +0100 Subject: FW: [Asis-l] FW: Dr. Eugene Garfield Wins the Online Information Lifetime Achievement Award (fwd) Message-ID: Congratulations from me too, Gene! Chris Chris Zielinski Senior Adviser, Knowledge Management and Sharing KMS/EIP World Health Organization Avenue Appia, CH1211, Geneva Switzerland Telephone: Office: (004122) 7914435 e-mail: zielinskic at who.int -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: 30 November 2006 19:40 To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] FW: [Asis-l] FW: Dr. Eugene Garfield Wins the Online Information Lifetime Achievement Award (fwd) Dear Gene, Congratulations! 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/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:54:36 -0500 From: Richard Hill To: asis-l at asis.org Subject: [Asis-l] FW: Dr. Eugene Garfield Wins the Online Information Lifetime Achievement Award _____ From: rodney.yancey at thomson.com [mailto:rodney.yancey at thomson.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:52 AM To: Richard Hill Subject: Dr. Eugene Garfield Wins the Online Information Lifetime Achievement Award Dr. Eugene Garfield Wins the Online Information Lifetime Achievement Award PHILADELPHIA and LONDON, Nov. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Thomson Scientific, part of The Thomson Corporation (NYSE: TOC; TSX: TOC) and leading provider of information solutions to the worldwide research and business communities, today announced that Dr. Eugene Garfield is the 2006 recipient of the Online Information Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of more than 50 years of dedication, leadership and innovation in the information industry. The 2006 International Information Industry Awards were held at the Royal Lancaster Hotel in London, UK on Wednesday, November 29th. Often dubbed the "Father of Scientometrics and Bibliometrics," Dr. Garfield is founder & chairman emeritus of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI(R)) - now Thomson Scientific. Garfield's career in scientific communication and information science began in 1951 when he joined the Welch Medical Indexing Project at Johns Hopkins University, USA. The project planted the seeds for several major advances in scientific communication and information science that have distinguished Dr. Garfield's career. In 1958, Garfield was contacted by Joshua Lederberg, who was interested in knowing what happened to the citation index Garfield proposed in 1955 in the journal, Science. This, eventually led to a meeting with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to produce and distribute a Genetics Citation Index, including a multi-disciplinary index to the science literature of 1961. Undaunted by the NIH and National Science Foundation's (NSF) disinterest in publishing the latter index, Garfield began regularly publishing the Science Citation Index(R) (SCI(R)) in 1964 through the Institute for Scientific Information. The SCI(R) soon distinguished itself from other literature indexes and was recognized as a basic and fundamental innovation in scientific communication and information science. From 1961 on, Garfield's career is marked by the constant enhancement of existing resources combined with the extraordinary development of new information tools for researchers, including Current Contents(R), plus citation indexes for the social sciences (SSCI(R)) and arts and humanities (A&HCI(R)). During the past decades, as the volume of literature has been growing exponentially, Garfield's innovations have made it possible for researchers to cope with and keep up with articles directly relevant to their interests. Current Contents has become a vital and basic component of clinical research and the research laboratory. The SCI has become an important tool for navigating the scientific literature. With the advent of the Internet the SCI, SSCI, and A&HCI were integrated into the online information solution - Web of Science(R). Web of Science is the leading resource that provides seamless access to current and retrospective multidisciplinary information from the most prestigious, high-impact research journals in the world. Web of Science also provides a unique search method, cited reference searching. With it, users can navigate forward, backward, and through the literature, searching all disciplines and time spans (back to 1900) to uncover all the information relevant to their research. Today, Web of Science is a key component of ISI Web of Knowledge(SM) - the ground-breaking, integrated research platform that facilitates discovery by offering seamless navigation to high-quality, multidisciplinary journal, patent, and web content; evaluation tools; and bibliographic management products. At age 81, Dr. Garfield maintains a heavy schedule of invited speeches and presentations before high-level medical, scientific, and information symposia and conferences. He has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions. He has published over 1,000 weekly essays in Current Contents and has also published and edited commentaries by the authors of over 5,000 Citation Classics. Dr Garfield continues to be active in scientific communication and information science. In 1986, he founded The Scientist, a bi-weekly newspaper for research professionals. It reports on news and developments relevant to the professional and practical interests of scientists, providing a unique forum for the discussion of issues important both to the research community and society. Accepting the award, Dr. Garfield expressed his gratitude to Online Information, colleagues, the research and information communities, employees, and friends around the world who supported him throughout his career and inspired his significant contributions to the information industry. He saved his most important thanks for last to his family. About The Thomson Corporation The Thomson Corporation (http://www.thomson.com) is a global leader in providing essential electronic workflow solutions to business and professional customers. With operational headquarters in Stamford, Conn., Thomson provides value-added information, software tools and applications to more than 20 million users in the fields of law, tax, accounting, financial services, scientific research and healthcare. The Corporation's common shares are listed on the New York and Toronto stock exchanges (NYSE: TOC; TSX: TOC). Thomson Scientific is a business of The Thomson Corporation. Its information solutions assist professionals at every stage of research and development-from discovery to analysis to product development and distribution. Thomson Scientific information solutions can be found at http://www.scientific.thomson.com. Contacts: The Americas Rodney Yancey +1 215-823-5397 rodney.yancey at thomson.com Europe Kim Yeatman +44 207 424 2474 kim.yeatman at thomson.com SOURCE Thomson Scientific -0- 11/30/2006 /Web site: http://www.scientific.thomson.com http://www.thomson.com / You are receiving this transmission from PR Newswire on behalf of the issuer of the information contained in this email. If you would like to stop receiving information of this nature via email for this issuer, click here , for auto-removal. From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Tue Dec 5 13:54:05 2006 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:54:05 +0100 Subject: Centrality Measures for 7,525 Scientific Journals included in the Journal Citation Reports 2005 Message-ID: Centrality Measures of 7525 Journals included in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index 2005 * See for definitions of the centrality measures: R. A. Hanneman & M. Riddle (2005). Introduction to Social Network Methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside; at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/. * The program UCINET is available at http://www.analytictech.com/; Pajek at http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ . * The cited patterns are used as the row variables and the citing patterns as the column variables. See for more information about the data: * Visualization of the Citation Impact Environments of Scientific Journals: An online mapping exercise, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (forthcoming). > * Mapping Interdisciplinarity at the Interfaces between the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index, Scientometrics 71(3), 2007, forthcoming; > * "Betweenness Centrality" as an Indicator of the "Interdisciplinarity" of Scientific Journals, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (forthcoming). > The values are based on using Pajek and the two-mode matrix of 7525 rows and columns. The corresponding data for 2004 can be found here . PS. The file is large ( > 4 MByte) and it may some time for the download. ** 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/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Dec 5 17:20:02 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:02 -0500 Subject: Middeke M. "Significance of the "Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift" (DMW) DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 131 (36): 1927-1928 SEP 8 2006 Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Dec 5 17:38:57 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:38:57 -0500 Subject: Middeke Martin "Significance of the "Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift" (DMW)" Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift Vol:131 (36): 1927-1928 September 8 2006 Message-ID: E-Mail : Martin.Middeke at thieme.de The original article was published in German. The author has kindly provided an English translation - reproduced below - for the readers of SIG- Metrics list. Title: Significance of the "Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift" (DMW) Authors: Middeke, M Source: DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 131 (36): 1927-1928 SEP 8 2006 Language: German Document Type: Editorial Material Reprint Address: Middeke, M, DMW Chefredakt, Rudigerstr 14, D-70469 Stuttgart, Germany ENGLISH TRANSLATION DMW ranking Quantities Among the 100 leading specialist journals worldwide for internal and general medicine there are seven weeklies which actually appear weekly ? apart from some double issues (Tab. 1). Accordingly, these journals are also leading in the number of articles published annually (Tab. 2). Tab. 1. Publication frequency of the 100 leading specialist journals for internal medicine and general medicine (ISI) Publication frequency Journals (numbers) Weekly 2 Monthly 45 Bimonthly 28 Quarterly 18 Annually 2 The DMW is in 6th place in the ISI ranking of the number of articles published, placing the DMW first among non-English speaking journals. There are two more journals in the German-speaking zone which have 24 issues each annually with 120 and 93 articles, respectively: the former Schweizer Medizinische Wochenschrift , since a few years publishing in English as Swiss Med. WKLY, and Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, which has some articles in English. Regarding the citation ranking (1), the DMW, the result of its language, is right in the middle. The other two weeklies not in English - , the Spanish Med Clin Barcelona and the French Presse Medicale are important journals in their language zone, i.e. also outside of Europe. Journal Issues Articles (nos.) Citations (nos.) Per year (nos.) Rank Rank N Engl J Med 52 308/7 167894/1 Lancet 52 423/2 131161/2 BMJ 52 440/1 58516/4 DMW 52 325/6 2050/35 JAMA 48 380/4 95715/3 Med Clin Barcelona40 203/19 2084/28 Presse M?dicale 40 303/10 1720/36 The reasons for the relatively low impact factor (IF) of the journals in internal medicine that are not in English (among German journals the DMW is the leading one) are well known. Eugene Garfield who invented the IF (2) is himself fully aware of its limitations but believes that at the moment there is no better tool for scientific evaluation (3). The IF has long since been used ? or should one say debased - as the most important marketing argument in the English-speaking zone. Garfield himself has remarked that the IF is merely a unit of measure which does not say anything about editorial or authoritative qualities of a journal. Several mechanisms may inflate the IF. A very good example is the Annual Review of Medicine. Although it has only one issue containing 30 (!) reviews in 2005, it had 3517 citations, ranking 5th after the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, JAMA and Ann Intern Med! Even a high?powered German journal, with one issue per year and a few very good reviews, which may well be widely cited, has presumably a good chance chance to advance within the phalanx of the firs 10 journals with the highest IF. The DMW has for many years been primarily a journal for continuing education. Original articles are of course desired, especially when they address specifically German themes, e.g. epidemiology, research into medical care, public health policies and interdisciplinary aspects. Original articles still have the most citations, followed by case reports. reviews and articles for the section on ?Current diagnosis and treatment? coming third. Our authors appreciate the wide distribution of the DMW and its high reputation as a mouthpiece for German medicine, also abroad. Quality The number of annually published articles is by itself no sign of its worth without corresponding quality. Our credo is to have a consistent peer review process, not ?poor review? or even ?no review?, as is overwhelmingly the case in Germany; this applies to all articles, except editorials or commentaries. It is also the case for all focus issues, for some commissioned contributions, as well as for all regular issues. Even our externally financed supplements are reviewed. This is now appreciated even by pharmaceutical companies as a special criterion of quality. Our peer review consists of two external assessments and an internal technical review, as well as an additional biometric report for original articles, if indicated. In case of opposing reviews a third one is obtained. This form of peer review has been accepted by all of our authors. Occasionally, in case of rejection, the authors advance good arguments and/or adequately meet any objections expressed in the peer reviews, so that renewed submission of the manuscript may be undertaken. The average rejection rate for all the different sections was 25% in 2005. About 60% of manuscripts are clearly or even greatly improved. No or only minor changes are necessary or useful in 40%. The latter could have been published without peer review, but as a rule they profit from editorial attention. These figures refer particularly to focus issues. The reaction of renowned authors to a peer review is usually neutral, but in some cases expressly positive, only rarely angry. But even angry authors will still produce a good revised manuscript. Even when an article has been rejected after review the authors are sent detailed reasons and, if indicated, suggestions for improvement. Occasionally articles rejected by us are published in other journals. In this case, our review has contributed to the quality of publication elsewhere. Of course, peer review is only possible if the experts are willing to give an opinion. Even though manuscripts submitted to us are by now passed on to some hundreds of experts, their voluntary and unpaid efforts in the service of science or continuing education are considerable. Even in these lines special thanks must be expressed ro our editors and reviewers. Our readers deserve highest quality and objectivity. Consistent critical assessment, also of further-education articles is essential, especially and obviously for those written for certified medical education (Continuing Medical Education) , which serve for collecting points towards a doctor?s own quality certification, What criteria for quality actually apply to medical journals? This question must be answered by each doctor. How is it possible that every day a pile of ?free? journals is pushed through the letter-box? It would be good to know about the conditions pertaining to medical publishing. We believe that a paid-for menu by a top chef is simply better than a free fast-food meal. The DMW puts its trust, in addition to its reliable and traditional subscribers, in the quality-conscious young generation. Our market research has shown again and again that the DMW continues to be a strong and trusted brand. This is true also for our modern 2006 layout. We are also grateful for suggestions from our readers and our discussions with them. Conclusion: The ranking of the DMW remains very good. But there is no reason to stand still. With the help of its authors, expert reviewers and, of course, its readers the DMW will continue to be one of the most important German-language medical organs. References 1 Journal Citation Reports 2005 2 Garfield E. Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation through the association of ideas. Science 1955; 122: 108?111 3 Garfield E. Use of Journal Citation Reports and Journal Performance Indicators in Measuring Short and Long Term Journal Impact. Council of Scientific Editors Annula Meeting, San Antonio (TX, USA), May 9, 2000 From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Dec 7 07:04:46 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:04:46 +0000 Subject: Future UK RAEs to be Metrics-Based Message-ID: ** Apologies for Cross-Posting ** The UK Research Assessment Exercise's (RAE's) sensible and overdue transition from time-consuming, cost-ineffective panel review to low-cost metrics is moving forward: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2006/rae.htm However, there is still a top-heavy emphasis, in the RAE's provisional metric equation, on the Prior-Funding metric: "How much research funding has the candidate department received in the past?" "The outcome announced today is a new process that uses for all subjects a set of indicators based on research income, postgraduate numbers, and a quality indicator." Although prior funding should be *part* of the equation, it should definitely not be the most heavily weighted component a-priori, in any field. Otherwise, it will merely generate a Matthew-Effect/Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (the rich get richer, etc.) and it will also collapse the UK Dual Funding System ((1) competitive proposal-based funding *plus* (2) RAE performance-based, top-sliced funding) into just a scaled up version of (1) alone. Having made the right decision -- to rely far more on low-cost metrics than on costly panels -- the RAE should now commission rigorous, systematic studies of metrics, testing metric equations discipline by discipline. There are not just three but many potentially powerful and predictive metrics that could be used in these equations (e.g., citations, recursively weighted citations, co-citations, hub/authority indices, latency scores, longevity scores, downloads, download/citation correlations, endogamy/exogamy scores, and many more rich and promising indicators). Unlike panel review, metrics are automatic and cheap to generate, and in the 2008 parallel panel/metric exercise they can be tested and cross-validated against the panel rankings, field by field. In all metric fields -- biometrics, psychometrics, sociometrics -- the choice and weight of metric predictors is based on careful, systematic prior testing and validation, not on the basis of a hasty a-priori choice. Biassed predictors are also avoided: The idea is to maximise the depth, breadth, flexibility and validity of the predictive power by choosing and weighting the right metrics. More metrics is better than fewer, because they serve as cross-checks on one another; this triangulation also highlights anomalies, if any. Let us hope that good sense will not stop with the decision to convert to metrics, but will continue to prevail in making a sensible, informed choice among the rich spectrum of metrics available in the online age. Excerpts from "Response to consultation on successor to research assessment exercise" http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2006/rae.htm "In the Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 (published in 2004), the Government expressed an interest in using metrics collected as part of the 2008 RAE to provide a benchmark on the value of metrics as compared to peer review, with a view to making more use of metrics in assessment and reducing the administrative burden of peer review. The 10-Year Science and Innovation Investment Framework: Next Steps published with the 2006 Budget http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/1E1/5E/bud06_science_332.pdf moved these plans forward by proposing a consultation on moving to a metrics-based research assessment system after the 2008 RAE. A working Group chaired by Sir Alan Wilson (then DfES Director General of Higher Education) and Professor David Eastwood produced proposals which were issued for consultation on 13 June 2006. The Government announcement today is the outcome of that consultation." "The RAE panels already make some use of research metrics in reaching their judgements about research quality. Research metrics are statistics that provide indicators of the success of a researcher or department. Examples of metrics include the amount of income a department attracts from funders for its research, the number of postgraduate students, or the number of times a published piece of research is cited by other researchers. Metrics that relate to publications are usually known as bibliometrics. "The outcome announced today is a new process that uses for all subjects a set of indicators based on research income, postgraduate numbers, and a quality indicator. For subjects in science, engineering, technology and medicine (SET) the quality indicator will be a bibliometric statistic relating to research publications or citations. For other subjects, the quality indicator will continue to involve a lighter touch expert review of research outputs, with a substantial reduction in the administrative burden. Experts will also be involved in advising on the weighting of the indicators for all subjects." ------------ Some Prior References: Harnad, S. (2001) Why I think that research access, impact and assessment are linked. Times Higher Education Supplement 1487: p. 16. http://cogprints.org/1683/ Hitchcock, S., Brody, T., Gutteridge, C., Carr, L., Hall, W., Harnad, S., Bergmark, D. and Lagoze, C. (2002) Open Citation Linking: The Way Forward. D-Lib Magazine 8(10). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7717/ Harnad, S. (2003) Why I believe that all UK research output should be online. Times Higher Education Supplement. Friday, June 6 2003. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7728/ Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier. Ariadne 35. "Metrics" are Plural, Not Singular: Valid Objections From UUK About RAE" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/137-guid.html Pertinent Prior American Scientist Open Access Forum Topic Threads: Pertinent Prior AmSci Topic Threads: UK "RAE" Evaluations (began Nov 2000) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#1018 Digitometrics (May 2001) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1300.html Scientometric OAI Search Engines (began Aug 2002) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2238 UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review (Oct 2002) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2326 Australia stirs on metrics (June 2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5417.html Big Brother and Digitometrics (began May 2001) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#1298 UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review (began Oct 2002) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2326 Need for systematic scientometric analyses of open-access data (began Dec 2002) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2522 Potential Metric Abuses (and their Potential Metric Antidotes) (began Jan 2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2643 Future UK RAEs to be Metrics-Based (began Mar 2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5251 Australia stirs on metrics (Jun 2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5417.html Let 1000 RAE Metric Flowers Bloom: Avoid Matthew Effect as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Jun 2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5418.html Australia's RQF (Nov 2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5806.html From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Fri Dec 8 09:33:22 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 09:33:22 -0500 Subject: Fwd: reply on OA to sigmetrics Message-ID: This is submitted to Sigmetrics at the request of Henk Moed, whose email account is changed so he cannot post to Sigmetrics. (I will reply shortly.) -- Stevan Harnad Begin forwarded message: > Text to be submitted to Sigmetrics > > > Dear Stevan, > > Below follow some replies to your comments on my preprint ?The > effect of 'Open Access' upon citation impact: An analysis of > ArXiv's Condensed Matter Section?, available at http://arxiv.org/ > abs/cs.DL/0611060. > > Henk F. Moed > Centre for Science and Technology Studies > Leiden University, The Netherlands > Moed at cwts.leidenuniv.nl > > 1. Early view effect > > In my case study on 6 journals in the field of condensed matter > physics, I concluded that the observed differences between the > citation age distributions of deposited and non-deposited ArXiv > papers can to a large extent ? though not fully ? be explained by > the publication delay of about six months of non-deposited articles > compared to papers deposited in ArXiv. This outcome provides > evidence for an early view effect upon citation impact rates, and > consequently upon ArXiv citation impact differentials (CID, my > term) or Arxiv Advantage (AA, your term).. > > You wrote: ?The basic question is this: Once the AA has been > adjusted for the "head-start" component of the EA (by comparing > articles of equal age -the age of Arxived articles being based on > the date of deposit of the preprint rather than the date of > publication of the postprint), how big is that adjusted AA, at each > article age? For that is the AA without any head-start. Kurtz never > thought the EA component was merely a head start, however, for the > AA persists and keeps growing, and is present in cumulative > citation counts for articles at every age since Arxiving began?. > > Figure 2 in the interesting paper by Kurtz et al. (IPM, v. 41, p. > 1395-1402, 2005) does indeed show an increase in the very short > term average citation impact (my terminology; citations were > counted during the first 5 months after publication date) of papers > as a function of their publication date as from 1996. My > interpretation of this figure is that it clearly shows that the > principal component of the early view effect is the head-start: it > reveals that the share of astronomy papers deposited in ArXiv (and > other preprint servers) increased over time. More and more papers > became available at the date of their submission to a journal, > rather than on their formal publication date. I therefore conclude > that their findings for astronomy are fully consistent with my > outcomes for journals in the field of condensed matter physics. > > 2. Quality bias > > You wrote: ?The fact that highly-cited articles (Kurtz) and > articles by highly-cited authors (Moed) are more likely to be > Arxived certainly does not settle the question of cause and effect: > It is just as likely that better articles benefit more from > Arxiving (QA) as that better authors/articles tend to Arxive/be- > Arxived more (QB)? > > I am fully aware that in this research context one cannot assess > whether authors publish their better papers in the ArXiv merely on > the basis of comparing citation rates of archived and non-archived > papers, and I mention this in my paper. Citation rates may be > influenced both by the ?quality? of the papers and by the access > modality (deposited versus non-deposited). This is why I estimated > author prominence on the basis of the citation impact of their non- > archived articles only. But even then I found evidence that > prominent, influential authors (in the above sense) are > overrepresented in papers deposited in ArXiv. > > But I did more that that. I calculated Arxiv Citation Impact > Differentials (CID, my term, or ArXiv Advantage, AA, your term) at > the level of individual authors. Next, I calculated the median CID > over authors publishing in a journal. How then do you explain my > empirical finding that for some authors the citation impact > differential (CID) or ArXiv Advantage is positive, for others it is > negative, while the median CID over authors does not significantly > differ from zero (according to a Sign test) for all journals > studied in detail except Physical Review B, for which it is only 5 > per cent? If there is a genuine ?OA advantage? at stake, why then > does it for instance not lead to a significantly positive median > CID over authors? Therefore, my conclusion is that, controlling for > quality bias and early view effect, in the sample of 6 journals > analysed in detail in my study, there is no sign of a general ?open > access advantage? of papers deposited in ArXiv?s Condensed Matter > Section. > > 3. Productive versus less productive authors > > My analysis of differences in Citation Impact differentials between > productive and less productive authors may seem ?a little > complicated?. My point is that if one selects from a set of papers > deposited in ArXiv a paper authored by a junior (or less > productive) scientist, the probability that this paper is co- > authored by a senior (or more productive) author is higher than it > is for a paper authored by a junior scientists but not deposited in > ArXiv. Next, I found that papers co-authored by both productive and > less productive authors tend to have a higher citation impact than > articles authored solely by less productive authors, regardless of > whether these papers were deposited in ArXiv or not. These outcomes > lead me to the conclusion is that the observed higher CID for less > productive authors compared to that of productive authors can be > interpreted as a quality bias. > > 4. General comments > > In the citation analysis by Kurtz et al. (2005), both the > citation and target universe contain a set of 7 core journals in > astronomy. They explain their finding of no apparent OA effect in > his study of these journals by postulating that ?essentially all > astronomers have access to the core journals through existing > channels?. In my study the target set consists of a limited number > of core journals in condensed matter physics, but the citation > universe is as large as the total Web of Science database, > including also a number of more peripherical journals in the field. > Therefore, my result is stronger than that obtained by Kurtz at > al.: even in this much wider citation universe, I do not find > evidence for an OA advantage effect. > > I realize that my study is a case study, examining in detail 6 > journals in one subfield. I fully agree with your warning that one > should be cautious in generalizing conclusions from case studies, > and that results for other fields may be different. But it is > certainly not an unimportant case. It relates to a subfield in > physics, a discipline that your pioneering and stimulating work > (Harnad and Brody, D-Lib Mag., June 2004) has analysed as well at a > more aggregate level. I hope that more case studies will be carried > out in the near future, applying the methodologies I proposed in my > paper. > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Stevan > Harnad > Sent: Mon 11/20/2006 22:49 > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Self-Archiving Impact Advantage: Quality > Advantage or Quality Bias? > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Self-Archiving Impact Advantage: Quality Advantage or Quality > Bias? > > Stevan Harnad > > SUMMARY: In astrophysics, Kurtz found that articles that were > self-archived by their authors in Arxiv were downloaded and cited > twice as much as those that were not. He traced this enhanced > citation > impact to two factors: (1) Early Access (EA): The self-archived > preprint was accessible earlier than the publisher's version > (which > is accessible to all research-active astrophysicists as soon as > it is published, thanks to Kurtz's ADS system). (Hajjem, however, > found that in other fields, which self-archive only published > postprints and do have accessibility/affordability problems with > the publisher's version, self-archived articles still have > enhanced > citation impact.) Kurtz's second factor was: (2) Quality Bias > (QB), > a selective tendency for higher quality articles to be > preferentially > self-archived by their authors, as inferred from the fact that the > proportion of self-archived articles turns out to be higher among > the more highly cited articles. (The very same finding is of > course > equally interpretable as (3) Quality Advantage (QA), a tendency > for > higher quality articles to benefit more than lower quality > articles > from being self-archived.) In condensed-matter physics, Moed has > confirmed that the impact advantage occurs early (within 1-3 > years of > publication). After article-age is adjusted to reflect the date of > deposit rather than the date of publication, the enhanced > impact of > self-archived articles is again interpretable as QB, with > articles by > more highly cited authors (based only on their non-archived > articles) > tending to be self-archived more. (But since the citation counts > for authors and for their articles are correlated, one would > expect > much the same outcome from QA too.) The only way to test QA vs. QB > is to compare the impact of self-selected self-archiving with > mandated self-archiving (and no self-archiving). (The outcome is > likely to be that both QA and QB contribute, along with EA, to the > impact advantage.) > > Michael Kurtz's papers have confirmed that in astronomy/astrophysics > (astro), articles that have been self-archived -- let's call this > "Arxived" to mark it as the special case of depositing in the central > Physics Arxiv -- are cited (and downloaded) twice as much as non- > Arxived > articles. Let's call this the "Arxiv Advantage" (AA). > http://arxiv.org/ > > Henneken, E. A., Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, > C., Thompson, D., and Murray, S. S. (2006) Effect of E-printing > on Citation Rates in Astronomy and Physics. Journal of Electronic > Publishing, Vol. 9, No. 2 > http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0604061 > > Henneken, E. A., Kurtz, M. J., Warner, S., Ginsparg, P., > Eichhorn, G., > Accomazzi, A., Grant, C. S., Thompson, D., Bohlen, E. and > Murray, S. > S. (2006) E-prints and Journal Articles in Astronomy: a Productive > Co-existence (submitted to Learned Publishing) > http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0609126 > > Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C. S., > Demleitner, > M., Murray, S. S. (2005) The Effect of Use and Access on > Citations. > Information Processing and Management, 41 (6): 1395-1402 > http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~kurtz/kurtz-effect.pdf > > Kurtz analyzed AA and found that it consisted of at least 2 > components: > > (1) EARLY ACCESS (EA): There is no detectable AA for old articles in > astro: AA occurs while an article is young (1-3 years). Hence astro > articles that were made accessible as preprints before publication > show > more AA: This is the Early Access effect (EA). But EA alone does not > explain why AA effects (i.e., enhanced citation counts) persist > cumulatively and even keep growing, rather than simply being a > phase-advancing of otherwise un-enhanced citation counts, in which > case > simply re-calculating an article's age so as to begin at preprint > deposit time instead of publication time should eliminate all AA > effects > -- which it does not. > > (2) QUALITY BIAS (QB): (Kurtz called the second component > "Self-Selection Bias" for quality, but I call it self-selection > Quality > Bias, QB): If we compare articles within roughly the same > citation/quality bracket (i.e., articles having the same number of > citations), the proportion of Arxived articles becomes higher in the > higher citation brackets, especially the top 200 papers. Kurtz > interprets this is as resulting from authors preferentially Arxiving > their higher-quality preprints (Quality Bias). > > Of course the very same outcome is just as readily interpretable as > resulting from Quality Advantage (QA) (rather than Quality Bias (QB)): > i.e., that the Arxiving benefits better papers more. (Making a > low-quality paper more accessible by Arxiving it does not guarantee > more > citations, whereas making a high-quality paper more accessible is more > likely to do so, perhaps roughly in proportion to its higher quality, > allowing it to be used and cited more according to its merit, > unconstrained by its accessibility/affordability.) > > There is no way, on the basis of existing data, to decide between > QA and > QB. The only way to measure their relative contributions would be to > control the self-selection factor: randomly imposing Arxiving on > half of > an equivalent sample of articles of the same age (from preprinting age > to 2-3 years postpublication, reckoning age from deposit date, to > control also for age/EA effects), and comparing also with self- > selected > Arxiving. > > We are trying an approximation to this method, using articles > deposited > in Institutional Repositories of institutions that mandate > self-archiving (and comparing their citation counts with those of > articles from the same journal/issue that have not been self- > archived), > but the sample is still small and possibly unrepresentative, with many > gaps and other potential liabilities. So a reliable estimate of the > relative size of QA and QB still awaits future research, when > self-archiving mandates will have become more widely adopted. > > Henk Moed's data on Arxiving in Condensed Matter physics (cond-mat) > replicates Kurtz's findings in astro (and Davis/Fromerth's, in math): > > Moed, H. F. (2006, preprint) The effect of 'Open Access' upon > citation > impact: An analysis of ArXiv's Condensed Matter Section > http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0611060 > > Davis, P. M. and Fromerth, M. J. (2007) Does the arXiv lead to > higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics > articles? Scientometics, accepted for publication. > http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0603056 > See critiques: > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/ > subject.html#5221 > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5440.html > > Moed too has shown that in cond-mat the AA effect (which he calls CID > "Citation Impact Differential") occurs early (1-3 years) rather than > late (4-6 years), and that there is more Arxiving by authors of > higher-quality (based on higher citation counts for their non-Arxived > articles) than by lower-quality authors. But this too is just as > readily > interpretable as the result of QB or QA (or both): We would of course > expect a high correlation between an author's individual articles' > citation counts and the author's average citation count, whether the > author's citation count is based on Arxived or non-Arxived articles. > These are not independent variables. > > (Less easily interpretable -- but compatible with either QA or QB > interpretations -- is Moed's finding of a smaller AA for the "more > productive" authors. Moed's explanations in terms of co-authorships > between more productive and less productive authors, senior and > junior, > seem a little complicated.) > > The basic question is this: Once the AA has been adjusted for the > "head-start" component of the EA (by comparing articles of equal > age -- > the age of Arxived articles being based on the date of deposit of the > preprint rather than the date of publication of the postprint), how > big > is that adjusted AA, at each article age? For that is the AA > without any > head-start. Kurtz never thought the EA component was merely a head > start, however, for the AA persists and keeps growing, and is > present in > cumulative citation counts for articles at every age since Arxiving > began. This non-EA AA is either QB or QA or both. (It also has an > element of Competitive Advantage, CA, which would disappear once > everything was self-archived, but let's ignore that for now.) > > Harnad, S. (2005) OA Impact Advantage = EA + (AA) + (QB) + QA + > (CA) + UA. Preprint. > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12085/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Sat Dec 9 06:37:51 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:37:51 +0000 Subject: Open Research Metrics In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061208162053.073d0208@earlham.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Peter Suber wrote: > If the metrics have a stronger OA connection, can you say something > short (by email or on the blog) that I could quote for readers who > aren't clued in, esp. readers outside the UK? Dear Peter, Sure (and I'll blog this too, hyperlinked): (1) In the UK (Research Assessment Exercise, RAE) and Australia (Research Quality Framework, RQF) all researchers and institutions are evaluated for "top-sliced" funding, over and above competitive research proposals. (2) Everywhere in the world, researchers and research institutions have research performance evaluations, on which careers/salaries, research funding and institutional/departmental ratings depend. (3) There is now a natural synergy growing between OA self-archiving, Institutional Repositories (IRs), OA self-archiving mandates, and the online "metrics" toward which both the RAE/RQF and research evaluation in general are moving. (4) Each institution's IR is the natural place from which to derive and display research performance indicators: publication counts, citation counts, download counts, and many new metrics, rich and diverse ones, that will be mined from the OA corpus, making research evaluation much more open, sensitive to diversity, adapted to each discipline, predictive, and equitable. (5) OA Self-Archiving not only allows performance indicators (metrics) to be collected and displayed, and new metrics to be developed, but OA also enhances metrics (research impact), both competitively (OA vs. NOA) and absolutely (Quality Advantage: OA benefits the best work the most, and Early Advantage), as well as making possible the data-mining of the OA corpus for research purposes. (Research Evaluation, Research Navigation, and Research Data-Mining are also very closely related.) (6) This powerful and promising synergy between Open Research and Open Metrics is hence also a strong incentive for institutional and funder OA mandates, which will in turn hasten 100% OA: Their connection needs to be made clear, and the message needs to be spread to researchers, their institutions, and their funders. Best wishes, Stevan PS Needless to say, closed, internal, non-displayed metrics are also feasible, where appropriate. From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Sat Dec 9 08:05:47 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 13:05:47 +0000 Subject: Scientometric OAI Search Engines In-Reply-To: <07d4bb1f2a8ab17149d43573b6cded4d@dcs.shef.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Yorick Wilks wrote: > Stevan > Now that the future of the RAE is going your way (!)for the sciences, > it would be very helpful--certainly for general fairness and for > disciplines like Computer Science in particular, if you could at the > right moment add your lobbying (probably on HEFCE) to try to stop the > metrics applying in science only through the narrow channel of the ISI > rated journals---but rather in some wider OA way like that below (just > open Google citations would be a lot better for CS than the ISI > constraint). But, Dear Yorick, that's what I (and others) have been preaching all along! The ISI Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is not only an incomplete but a blunt instrument (not covering all journals, and not giving and exact citation count for an article or author, but merely the average citation count for the journals in which the article appeared: rather like not giving a student a mark, but giving him the average mark for his school!). Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. and Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives. Ariadne 35. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7725/ Shadbolt, N., Brody, T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2006) The Open Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable, in Jacobs, N., Eds. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, chapter 20. Chandos. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12453/ The JIF has its place, but only one among a large and rich battery of metrics, to be derived from a 100% Open Access Corpus. At Southampton, we are already building a provisional, approximate para-ISI citation metric, triangulating from the citation counts provided by Google Scholar, Citebase and Citeseer, exactly along the lines you suggest! See the AmSci references at the end of this posting, and stay tuned! > The reason is simply that in CS/AI many of the best > publications are in the high-prestige strongly peer-reviewed > conferences, which are not ISI rated, and that there are probably too > few journals that are rated to carry any shift of publication > consequent upon any very tight citation strategy from HEFCE/Treasury. I agree completely (though ISI does cover some conferences!). So it's Google-Scholar, Citeseer and Citebase for now, and once we approach 100% OA, many more OA scientometric services will be spawned. > This would simply mean that a great chunk of good CS publication would > then be ineligible for the metrics under the sort of ISI-based scheme > that many are expecting. OA metrics-based, not just ISI-based! > This is quite different from many sciences of > course, where conferences are low-rated and journals are everything. But OA metrics covers all forms of online performance indicators (which in turn includes all performance indicators we choose to put online: funding, student counts, awards, exhibits, -- plus those derived from the online corpus itself: downloads, citations, co-citations, growth/decay rates, endogamy/exogamy scores, hub/authority scores, book-citation counts, reviews, comments, "semantic" metrics, etc. etc.) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/bookcite.htm > The UK RAE sub-panel for computing know all this and, in 2008 ,as > previously, are agreed in treating all good forms of publication > equally. I am on that subpanel and hoping they will lobby in the same > way for what comes later. I urge you to encourage the RAE panels (not just in CS but all disciplines) to start testing and validating metrics as of now, in advance of RAE 2008; the parallel panel/metric data in 2008 can then be used to calibrate and customise the beta weights in the metric regression equation discipline by discipline). UK "RAE" Evaluations (began Nov 2000) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#1018 Digitometrics (May 2001) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1300.html Scientometric OAI Search Engines (began Aug 2002) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2238 UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review (Oct 2002) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2326 Australia stirs on metrics (June 2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5417.html Big Brother and Digitometrics (began May 2001) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#1298 UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review (began Oct 2002) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2326 Need for systematic scientometric analyses of open-access data (began Dec 2002) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2522 Potential Metric Abuses (and their Potential Metric Antidotes) (began Jan 2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2643 Future UK RAEs to be Metrics-Based (began Mar 2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5251 Australia stirs on metrics (Jun 2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5417.html Let 1000 RAE Metric Flowers Bloom: Avoid Matthew Effect as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Jun 2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5418.html Australia's RQF (Nov 2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5806.html Stevan Harnad > On 9 Dec 2006, at 11:37, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Peter Suber wrote: > > > >> If the metrics have a stronger OA connection, can you say something > >> short (by email or on the blog) that I could quote for readers who > >> aren't clued in, esp. readers outside the UK? > > > > Dear Peter, > > > > Sure (and I'll blog this too, hyperlinked): > > > > (1) In the UK (Research Assessment Exercise, RAE) and Australia > > (Research > > Quality Framework, RQF) all researchers and institutions are evaluated > > for > > "top-sliced" funding, over and above competitive research proposals. > > > > (2) Everywhere in the world, researchers and research institutions have > > research performance evaluations, on which careers/salaries, research > > funding > > and institutional/departmental ratings depend. > > > > (3) There is now a natural synergy growing between OA self-archiving, > > Institutional Repositories (IRs), OA self-archiving mandates, and the > > online "metrics" toward which both the RAE/RQF and research evaluation > > in > > general are moving. > > > > (4) Each institution's IR is the natural place from which to derive and > > display research performance indicators: publication counts, citation > > counts, download counts, and many new metrics, rich and diverse ones, > > that will be mined from the OA corpus, making research evaluation much > > more open, sensitive to diversity, adapted to each discipline, > > predictive, > > and equitable. > > > > (5) OA Self-Archiving not only allows performance indicators (metrics) > > to be collected and displayed, and new metrics to be developed, but OA > > also enhances metrics (research impact), both competitively (OA vs. > > NOA) > > and absolutely (Quality Advantage: OA benefits the best work the most, > > and Early Advantage), as well as making possible the data-mining of the > > OA corpus for research purposes. (Research Evaluation, Research > > Navigation, and Research Data-Mining are also very closely related.) > > > > (6) This powerful and promising synergy between Open Research and Open > > Metrics is hence also a strong incentive for institutional and funder > > OA mandates, which will in turn hasten 100% OA: Their connection needs > > to be made clear, and the message needs to be spread to researchers, > > their institutions, and their funders. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Stevan > > > > PS Needless to say, closed, internal, non-displayed metrics are also > > feasible, where appropriate. > > From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Sun Dec 10 13:22:33 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:22:33 +0000 Subject: Open Research Metrics (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:30:11 -0500 From: Andrew McCallum To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG Subject: Re: Open Research Metrics Greetings! I've been lurking on this list for a few months, and enjoying the messages. I have a lot to say about these topics, and I think its high time I chime in!... in particular on the topic of Research Metrics. Brief self-introduction: I'm a professor of CS at UMass Amherst, doing research in machine learning, NLP, and digital libraries. In 1998, while at CMU, I built Cora, an early contemporary of CiteSeer, which used a lot of machine learning to do accurate metadata extraction and entity resolution. In 2003 I received significant funding from the NSF to research large-scale information extraction and data mining, and create an enhanced alternative to CiteSeer and Google Scholar. The result is a new system called "Rexa". http://rexa.info/ Rexa is a digital library covering the computer science research literature and the people who create it. Rexa is a sibling to CiteSeer, Google Scholar, Academic.live.com, the ACM Portal. It's chief enhancement is that Rexa knows about more first-class, de- duplicated, cross-referenced object types: not only papers and their citation links, but also people, grants, topics---and in the future universities, conferences, journals, research communities, and more. Many relevant publications are at http://www.cs.umass.edu/~mccallum/publications-by-date.html Rexa currently provides: * Keyword search on over 7 million papers (mostly in computer science) * Cross-linked pages for papers, authors, topics and NSF grants * Browsing by citations, authors, co-authors, cited authors, citing authors; (find who cites you most by clicking "Citing authors" on your home page) * Web-2.0-style "tagging" to bookmark papers * Automatically-gathered contact info and photos of author's faces * Ability to send Rexa invitations to additional people of your choosing Coming soon: * Various bug fixes. (For example, I think that if you select "Remember my ID", login will fail.) * Much improved coverage of recent CS papers (it's fairly weak now) * Ability to make corrections to extracted data * Home pages for institutions and venues (already running in t the lab) * Improved author coreference. Tough problem, on which we do much research. Coming later: * Improved extraction accuracy * Much more data mining, topic analysis, trend analysis, etc. * Broader coverage of more research fields I'll close here and comment on Research Metrics in my next message. Best, Andrew -- Andrew McCallum mccallum at cs.umass.edu Associate Professor www.cs.umass.edu/~mccallum Comp Sci Dept, UMass Amherst 413-545-1323 (w) On Dec 9, 2006, at 6:37 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Peter Suber wrote: > >> If the metrics have a stronger OA connection, can you say something >> short (by email or on the blog) that I could quote for readers who >> aren't clued in, esp. readers outside the UK? > > Dear Peter, > > Sure (and I'll blog this too, hyperlinked): > > (1) In the UK (Research Assessment Exercise, RAE) and Australia > (Research > Quality Framework, RQF) all researchers and institutions are > evaluated for > "top-sliced" funding, over and above competitive research proposals. > > (2) Everywhere in the world, researchers and research institutions > have > research performance evaluations, on which careers/salaries, > research funding > and institutional/departmental ratings depend. > > (3) There is now a natural synergy growing between OA self-archiving, > Institutional Repositories (IRs), OA self-archiving mandates, and the > online "metrics" toward which both the RAE/RQF and research > evaluation in > general are moving. > > (4) Each institution's IR is the natural place from which to derive > and > display research performance indicators: publication counts, citation > counts, download counts, and many new metrics, rich and diverse ones, > that will be mined from the OA corpus, making research evaluation much > more open, sensitive to diversity, adapted to each discipline, > predictive, > and equitable. > > (5) OA Self-Archiving not only allows performance indicators (metrics) > to be collected and displayed, and new metrics to be developed, but OA > also enhances metrics (research impact), both competitively (OA vs. > NOA) > and absolutely (Quality Advantage: OA benefits the best work the most, > and Early Advantage), as well as making possible the data-mining of > the > OA corpus for research purposes. (Research Evaluation, Research > Navigation, and Research Data-Mining are also very closely related.) > > (6) This powerful and promising synergy between Open Research and Open > Metrics is hence also a strong incentive for institutional and funder > OA mandates, which will in turn hasten 100% OA: Their connection needs > to be made clear, and the message needs to be spread to researchers, > their institutions, and their funders. > > Best wishes, > > Stevan > > PS Needless to say, closed, internal, non-displayed metrics are also > feasible, where appropriate. > From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Sun Dec 10 13:24:33 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:24:33 +0000 Subject: Open Research Metrics (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:34:32 -0500 From: Andrew McCallum To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG Subject: Re: Open Research Metrics On Research Metrics: I also believe that current standard impact measures are inadequate, and that Open Access will enable many new kinds of impact measures. In a 2006 JCDL paper, we explored several new types of impact measures that are made possible by access to the full text of the paper, and statistical analysis of "topics". In the paper we use a new topic model that leverages n-grams to discover interpretable, fine-grained topics in over a million research papers. We then use these topic divisions as well as automated citation analysis to extend three existing bibliometric impact measures, and create three new ones: Topical Diversity, Topical Transfer, Topical Precedence. http://www.cs.umass.edu/~mccallum/papers/impact-jcdl06.pdf Feedback welcome! Best, Andrew "Bibliometric Impact Measures Leveraging Topic Analysis." Gideon Mann, David Mimno and Andrew McCallum. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) 2006 Abstract: Measurements of the impact and history of research literature provide a useful complement to scientific digital library collections. Bibliometric indicators have been extensively studied, mostly in the context of journals. However, journal-based metrics poorly capture topical distinctions in fast-moving fields, and are increasingly problematic with the rise of open-access publishing. Recent developments in latent topic models have produced promising results for automatic sub-field discovery. The fine-grained, faceted topics produced by such models provide a clearer view of the topical divisions of a body of research literature and the interactions between those divisions. We demonstrate the usefulness of topic models in measuring impact by applying a new phrase-based topic discovery model to a collection of 300,000 Computer Science publications, collected by the Rexa automatic citation indexing system. On Dec 9, 2006, at 6:37 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Peter Suber wrote: > >> If the metrics have a stronger OA connection, can you say something >> short (by email or on the blog) that I could quote for readers who >> aren't clued in, esp. readers outside the UK? > > Dear Peter, > > Sure (and I'll blog this too, hyperlinked): > > (1) In the UK (Research Assessment Exercise, RAE) and Australia > (Research > Quality Framework, RQF) all researchers and institutions are > evaluated for > "top-sliced" funding, over and above competitive research proposals. > > (2) Everywhere in the world, researchers and research institutions > have > research performance evaluations, on which careers/salaries, > research funding > and institutional/departmental ratings depend. > > (3) There is now a natural synergy growing between OA self-archiving, > Institutional Repositories (IRs), OA self-archiving mandates, and the > online "metrics" toward which both the RAE/RQF and research > evaluation in > general are moving. > > (4) Each institution's IR is the natural place from which to derive > and > display research performance indicators: publication counts, citation > counts, download counts, and many new metrics, rich and diverse ones, > that will be mined from the OA corpus, making research evaluation much > more open, sensitive to diversity, adapted to each discipline, > predictive, > and equitable. > > (5) OA Self-Archiving not only allows performance indicators (metrics) > to be collected and displayed, and new metrics to be developed, but OA > also enhances metrics (research impact), both competitively (OA vs. > NOA) > and absolutely (Quality Advantage: OA benefits the best work the most, > and Early Advantage), as well as making possible the data-mining of > the > OA corpus for research purposes. (Research Evaluation, Research > Navigation, and Research Data-Mining are also very closely related.) > > (6) This powerful and promising synergy between Open Research and Open > Metrics is hence also a strong incentive for institutional and funder > OA mandates, which will in turn hasten 100% OA: Their connection needs > to be made clear, and the message needs to be spread to researchers, > their institutions, and their funders. > > Best wishes, > > Stevan > > PS Needless to say, closed, internal, non-displayed metrics are also > feasible, where appropriate. > From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Wed Dec 13 09:29:20 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:29:20 +0000 Subject: European Commission Conference: Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area - Brussels, 15-16 February 2007 Message-ID: The Amsci posting of this message appeared in unreadable code for some reason, so here is the text version from the JISC-REPOSITORIES list: (Apologies for multi-posting.): ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:22:24 +0100 From: Celina Ramjoue European Commission Conference: Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area - Brussels, 15-16 February 2007 On 15-16 February 2007, the European Commission is hosting a conference in Brussels entitled "Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area - Access, Dissemination, and Preservation in the Digital Age". The conference is a joint initiative of the Research and Information Society Directorate Generals. Commissioner Poto??nik and Commissioner Reding will be speaking at the conference. The goal of this event is to bring together all stakeholders concerned with access, dissemination and preservation issues in connection with scientific publication and data in an effort to provide policy options for scientific publishing under FP7 and in the European Research Area. The conference programme and registration information can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/page_en.cfm?id=3459. Attendance is free of charge, but registration is required and places are limited. We kindly ask you to disseminate information about this conference to your networks and mailing lists as we hope that it will provide the opportunity for all stakeholders to voice their opinions and collaborate to shape the future of European policy in this area. Scientific Publications Team European Commission Research Directorate-General rtd-scientific-publication at ec.europa.eu From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Wed Dec 13 14:05:18 2006 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:05:18 -0500 Subject: FW: Scientists benefit from Purdue's unused computer cycles Message-ID: Of possible interest to bibliometricians,etc. EG From: owner-anhz at purdue.edu [mailto:owner-anhz at purdue.edu] On Behalf Of Purdue News Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:05 AM To: anhz at purdue.edu Subject: Scientists benefit from Purdue's unused computer cycles ________________________________ December 13, 2006 Scientists benefit from Purdue's unused computer cycles WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Computing cycles are the fuel that powers science, and computer experts at Purdue University have found a way to double their mileage. Condor usage Download graphic caption below Even at a buzzing major research university, computers are idle about half the time. There are nights and weekend periods when the machines are available, and there are periods during the day when no jobs are running. At Purdue, computers are in use almost continuously, thanks to an innovative approach to distributed computing that sends work to the computers day and night. "We're harvesting waste cycles and putting them to good use," says Gerry McCartney, Purdue's interim vice president for information technology and chief information officer. Purdue has enough unused cycles that, through a project funded in part by the National Science Foundation, it is powering scientific research at other institutions, as well. The university has more than 4,300 computers of all sizes - from desktop machines used by students to do homework and check e-mail, up to large, powerful research computers - that are linked together in what is known as a pool. If a computer anywhere in the pool stops working, even for a few seconds, jobs are sent to it for processing. To capture available computer cycles, Purdue uses open source software called Condor to direct jobs within the pool. The computers in the Condor pool at Purdue are used roughly 45 percent of the time for their intended purpose and 45 percent for Condor-assisted projects. They are only idle 10 percent of the time. Miron Livny , a professor of computer science at the University of Wisconsin, first developed Condor in the 1980s. He says that Purdue has more machines running Condor than any other university. "Other campuses should follow Purdue's leadership," Livny says. "I believe this is the right way for us to move science forward. We should get organized and get our resources together, and then go out on the national level and share resources with other institutions." The process is similar to the international SETI at home project, which uses personal computers on the Internet to analyze radio signals captured by telescopes to search for extraterrestrial life. In this case, however, Purdue makes its unused computing cycles available to other researchers across the nation via a national research network, the NSF-funded TeraGrid . Michael Deem , Rice University's John W. Cox Professor of Biochemical and Genetic Engineering and a professor of physics and astronomy, has used nearly 1 million hours of computer cycles from Purdue to catalog the chemical structure of compounds called zeolites. These chemical catalysts are used in everything from laundry detergent (25 percent of powdered laundry detergent is made up of zeolites) to refining gasoline. Deem aims to identify and categorize as many of these structures as possible so that chemical engineers can select the exact zeolite they need. This is just the kind of high-throughput job that works well on Purdue's distributed computing system. "The throughput is much higher there than I can get locally because of the large size of the Condor pool at Purdue," Deem says. "Purdue is doing a great service to the scientific community by providing this resource." McCartney says that sharing resources, such as unused computing cycles, boosts scientific discovery. "Our ability to harness waste computing cycles, and then to offer them to other scientists who can make use of them, shows that the Internet is finally working the way it was supposed to." Christoph Hoffmann, director of Purdue's Rosen Center for Advanced Computing, says distributed computing using systems such as Condor are more effective on some types of scientific research than others. Condor is high-throughput computing, millions of a simple jobs can be given over to a large number of machines in a process also known as serial computing. "It is good for bioinformatics, animation rendering, identifying chemical structures, structural biology, high-energy physics - anything where you need to do a similar task over and over," Hoffmann says. Purdue also is using Condor on the TeraGrid to assist with an international experiment in particle physics. CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is building the world's largest scientific instrument, the Large Hadon Collider. Purdue is one of 100 Tier-2 institutions assisting with the data that this instrument will produce. Hoffmann says tools like Condor allow the scientific community to pool and leverage resources. "By using distributed computing, we can put it on the grid and use computers around the world to process the data instead of having a stadium full of computers at CERN." Purdue's Rosen Center for Advanced Computing publishes a daily graph showing the university's Condor usage. Writer: Steve Tally, Information Technology at Purdue, (765) 494-9809, tally at purdue.edu Sources: Gerry McCartney, (765) 496-2270, mccart at purdue.edu Miron Livny, (608) 262-0856, miron at cs.wisc.edu Michael Deem, (713) 348-5852, mwdeem at rice.edu Christoph Hoffmann, (765) 494-6185, cmh at cs.purdue.edu Purdue News Service: (765) 494-2096; purduenews at purdue.edu GRAPHIC CAPTION: Purdue University has been able to double the output of nearly 5,000 of its computers by using a system that captures computer cycles when the computers aren't being used. The Purdue system includes the open source software Condor and, in many weeks, the amount of computing done using the Condor system (shown in blue on the chart) equals or exceeds the work being done on the computers by their regular users. (Purdue University graphic/Ty Filby, Information Technology at Purdue) A publication-quality graphic is available at http://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/+2006/condorgraph.jpg To the News Service home page -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/585 - Release Date: 12/13/2006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: releaselogo.gif Type: image/gif Size: 6148 bytes Desc: releaselogo.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: condorgraphLO.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 54418 bytes Desc: condorgraphLO.jpg URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Wed Dec 13 18:20:07 2006 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:20:07 -0500 Subject: FW: Open Research Metrics Message-ID: __________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 -----Original Message----- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Jose Manuel Barrueco Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:13 AM To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG Subject: Re: Open Research Metrics Following this discussion about metrics I would like to bring to your attention a new service we have started in RePEc to rank working papers series and journals in Economics: http://citec.repec.org/s/ references are automatically extracted from open access documents, mainly series of working papers. They should be completed with data from journals but editors are reluctan to collaborate with us. Only Taylor & Francis has accepted to give us metadata about citations in their articles. At the moment we provide citation data for almost 100k documents. RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) is a collaborative effort of hundreds of volunteers in 57 countries and 34 US states to enhance the dissemination of research in economics. The heart of the project is a decentralized database of working papers, journal articles and software components. Comments are welcome. Regards, --- Jos? Manuel Barrueco http://www.uv.es/=barrueco -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/585 - Release Date: 12/13/2006 From neuhaus at GESS.ETHZ.CH Thu Dec 14 08:04:17 2006 From: neuhaus at GESS.ETHZ.CH (Christoph Neuhaus) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:04:17 +0100 Subject: Data sorces for performing citation analysis: An overview Message-ID: Data sorces for performing citation analysis: An overview PURPOSE: To provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as data source for performing citation analysis. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific?s citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. FINDINGS: Suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Presents a valuable overview of new citation- enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation. Accepted for publication in the "Journal of Documentation". Post- print version available at: http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/show?type=bericht&nr=490&part=text With kind regards, Christoph Neuhaus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- ETH Zurich Christoph Neuhaus Professorship for Social Psychology and Research on Higher Education ZAE H 6 Zaehringerstrasse 24 CH-8092 Zurich neuhaus at gess.ethz.ch http://www.hochschulforschung.ethz.ch/ +41 44 632 44 16 phone +41 44 632 12 83 fax ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- From Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU Thu Dec 14 08:42:40 2006 From: Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU (Pikas, Christina K.) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:42:40 -0500 Subject: Data sorces for performing citation analysis: An overview In-Reply-To: A<5EBFC81B-03D3-41E6-81FF-E71B40C984AB@gess.ethz.ch> Message-ID: I think this article will be very helpful, but the extension that seems necessary right now is to CrossRef data. Many publishers such as the Optical Society of America via Optics Infobase provide forward and backward citations using CrossRef. When trying to *approach* comprehensiveness, I felt I had to look there as well as Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and CA. In fact, I found many citations there that were unique -- but this is not scientific, merely anecdotal. Christina K. Pikas, MLS R.E. Gibson Library & Information Center The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Voice 240.228.4812 (Washington), 443.778.4812 (Baltimore) Fax 443.778.5353 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Christoph Neuhaus Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 8:04 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Data sorces for performing citation analysis: An overview Data sorces for performing citation analysis: An overview PURPOSE: To provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as data source for performing citation analysis. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. FINDINGS: Suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Presents a valuable overview of new citation- enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation. Accepted for publication in the "Journal of Documentation". Post- print version available at: http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/show?type=bericht&nr=490&part=text With kind regards, Christoph Neuhaus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- ETH Zurich Christoph Neuhaus Professorship for Social Psychology and Research on Higher Education ZAE H 6 Zaehringerstrasse 24 CH-8092 Zurich neuhaus at gess.ethz.ch http://www.hochschulforschung.ethz.ch/ +41 44 632 44 16 phone +41 44 632 12 83 fax ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Dec 14 12:31:56 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:31:56 +0000 Subject: The Death of Peer Review? Rumour Premature... In-Reply-To: <4581789B.4000409@yorku.ca> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Christopher D. Green wrote: > Any comment? > http://education.guardian.co.uk/RAE/story/0,,1969758,00.html > > The death of peer review > Research notes > Natasha Gilbert > The Guardian > Tuesday December 12, 2006 > > "The chancellor has decided to do away with the age-old, and trusted, > system of peer review for assessing the quality of science coming > out of the UK's universities - which has been used as the basis for > carving up public funding." (1) Peer review of research publications is conducted by the referees consulted by peer-reviewed journals. (2) Peer review of competitive research grant applications is conducted by the referees consulted by research funding councils. (3) The RAE is neither a research journal nor a competitive research grant funding council. (4) The RAE is part of a *dual* research funding system: (i) competitive research grant applications plus (ii) top-sliced funding based on RAE ranking of each university department's research performance. (5) The RAE panel review is not peer review, and never has been peer review: It is a time-consuming, wasteful re-review of *already* peer-reviewed publications. (6) "Metrics" are statistical indicators of research performance such as publication counts, citations, downloads, links, students, funding, etc. (7) Metrics are already highly correlated with RAE rankings. (8) What has (at long last) been replaced by metrics is the time-consuming, wasteful RAE panel re-review of *already* peer-reviewed publications. We should be celebrating the long overdue death of RAE panel re-review, not prematurely feting the demise of peer review itself, which is alive and well. A more worrisome question concerns *which* metrics will be used: "From 2010-11, science, engineering, technology and medicine (SET) subjects will instead be assessed using statistical indicators, such as the number of postgraduate students in a department and the amount of money a department brings in through its research." The fallacy here is that the RAE is supposed to be part of a *dual* funding system. If competitive funding is used as a heavily weighted metric, it is tantamount to collapsing it all into just one system -- competitive grant applications -- and merely increasing the amount of money given to the winners: A self-fulfilling prophecy and a whopping "Matthew Effect." Yet in the OA world there are a rich variety of potential metrics, which should be tested and validated and customised to each discipline. Let 1000 RAE Metric Flowers Bloom: Avoid Matthew Effect as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5418.html "Metrics" are Plural, Not Singular: Valid Objections From UUK About RAE http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/137-guid.html > "This new system should solve the much-complained-about bureaucracy of > the research assessment exercise (RAE). But some, such as the Royal > Society, the UK's academy of science, are adamant that sounding the > death-knell for peer review in SET subjects is a bad move." Metrics will put an end to wasting UK researchers' time re-reviewing and being re-reviewed, allowing them to devote their time instead to doing research. But a biassed and blinkered choice of metrics will sound the death-knell of the dual funding system (not peer review). Stevan Harnad From lutz.bornmann at GESS.ETHZ.CH Fri Dec 15 07:55:24 2006 From: lutz.bornmann at GESS.ETHZ.CH (Bornmann Lutz) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:55:24 +0100 Subject: New papers Message-ID: Dear colleagues You might be interested in two papers that are accepted for publication: 1) Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.-D. What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2) Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.-D. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation You can download these papers on: www.lutz-bornmann.de/Publications.htm Kind regards Lutz Bornmann ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Lutz Bornmann ETH Zurich, D-GESS Professorship for Social Psychology and Research on Higher Education Zaehringerstr. 24 / ZAE CH-8092 Zurich Phone: 0041 44 632 48 25 Fax: 0041 44 632 12 83 www.psh.ethz.ch bornmann at gess.ethz.ch From pislyakov at HSE.RU Mon Dec 18 08:43:44 2006 From: pislyakov at HSE.RU (=?windows-1252?Q?Vladimir_Pislyakov?=) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:43:44 -0500 Subject: Names' transcription for prominent scientometrists Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Currently I read proofs of my paper on bibliometric indicators which is to appear in Russian journal. The policy of this publication demands writing of the foreign names in Russian, while I have never heard most of them orally, just read their articles. Please, could those of you who have certainly heard the names at conferences, during personal communication etc. let me know how they are pronounced so that I could correctly transcribe them in Russian. The names are: - Glänzel - Moed - Schoepflin Thank you in advance. Vladimir Vladimir Pislyakov Assistant Director for Electronic Resources Management Higher School of Economics Library 20 Myasnitskaya street Moscow, 101000 Russia Tel.: +7 (495) 6213785 Fax: +7 (495) 6287931 E-mail: pislyakov at hse.ru URL: http://library.hse.ru From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Dec 18 12:17:09 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:17:09 -0500 Subject: Fettke P "State of the Art of the State of the Art - A study of the research method "review" in the information systems discipline " WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 48 (4): 257-266 2006 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: peter.fettke at iwi.dfki.de A pdf copy of the paper in German is attached with the permission of the author and publisher. Title: State of the Art of the State of the Art - A study of the research method "review" in the information systems discipline Author(s): Fettke P (Fettke, Peter) Source: WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 48 (4): 257-266 2006 Document Type: Review Language: German Cited References: 41 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: The world-wide increasing amount of literature makes it necessary to describe, to synthesize, to evaluate, to clarify, or to integrate the results of papers in a particular field of research. Today, the process of conducting a literature review is seen as a scientific procedure, which should be guided by appropriate research methods. This paper analyzes the achieved research level in the information Systems discipline from a methodological point of view. As a sample we use all articles from the column ,,State-of-the-Art" of the journal WIRTSCHAFT-SINFORMATIK. The study shows that this research method is common in Information Systems research. However, several important aspects for further development are identified (1) Until now no mathernatical-statistical analysis has been used. (2) Research methods used in the primary papers are not taken into account by reviews. (3) No explicit objectives are discussed by about one third of the articles in the sample. (4) The selection of literature used as a basis for the review is not explicated in any article. (5) About one half of the reviewed articles do not discuss further research questions. Addresses: Fettke P (reprint author), DFKI, IWI, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D- 66123 Saarbrucken, Germany DFKI, IWI, D-66123 Saarbrucken, Germany E-mail Addresses: peter.fettke at iwi.dfki.de Publisher: VIEWEG, ABRAHAM-LINCOLN-STRABE 46, POSTFACH 15 47, D-65005 WIESBADEN, GERMANY ISSN: 0937-6429 CITED REFERENCES: *OHN VERF HINW AUT : 2006 *OHN VERF HMD AUT : 2006 *OHN VERF SELBSTV ZIEL Z WIRTS : 2006 BLESSING D State of the art and further development of the management of documented knowledge at large professional services firms WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 43 : 431 2001 BROCKHAUS BROCKHAUS ENZYKLOPAD : 1996 COOK TD REVIEWING THE LITERATURE - A COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL METHODS WITH META- ANALYSIS JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY 48 : 449 1980 COOPER CM KNOWLEDGE SOC 1 : 104 1988 COOPER H HDB RES SYNTHESIS : 1994 COOPER H HDB RES SYNTHESIS : 3 1994 COOPER HM SYNTHESIZING RES GUI 3 : 1998 FINK A CONDUCTING RES LIT R : 2005 GARFIELD E ESSAYS INFORM SCI 10 : 117 1989 GARFIELD E ESSAYS INFORMATION S 10 : 113 1989 GLASS RL An analysis of research in computing disciplines COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM 47 : 89 2004 HEINRICH LJ NTM INT J HIST ETHIC 13 : 104 2005 HEINRICH LJ STATE-OF-THE-ART AND EDITORIAL ON THE FEATURE THEME - RESULTS OF EMPIRICAL- RESEARCH WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 37 : 3 1995 HEINRICH LJ WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATI : 2004 HEINRICH LJ WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATI : 2001 HEINZL A 72001 U BAYR LEHRST : 2001 HIRSCHAUER S Peer review research - Reviewed - Sociological shortcomings of academic evaluation ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SOZIOLOGIE 33 : 62 2004 JACKSON GB METHODS FOR INTEGRATIVE REVIEWS REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 50 : 438 1980 KIESER A WISSENSCHAFT BERATUN : 2002 LIGHT RJ SUMMING SCI REV RES : 1984 LOWRY PB J ASS INFORMATION SY 5 : 29 2004 MANTEN AA SCHOLARLY PUBL 5 : 75 1973 MERTENS P TAG WI 05 BAMB U ERL : 2005 MERTENS P WIRTSCHAFTSINF : 25 1995 MERTENS P WIRTSCHAFTSINF 34 : 4 1992 MERTENS P A COMPARISON OF CONCEPTS FOR INTEGRATING INFORMATION-SYSTEMS WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 34 : 5 1992 MULROW CD SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS - RATIONALE FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS .1. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 309 : 597 1994 PEFFERS K COMMUNICATIONS AIS 11 : 166 2003 PEFFERS K J INFORMATION TECHNO 5 : 63 2003 POTTHOF I The business value of information technology - an overview of empirical research WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 40 : 54 1998 STRIKE K KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE : 343 1983 TRANFIELD D Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT 14 : 207 2003 VIRGO JA REVIEW ARTICLE - CHARACTERISTICS AND PROBLEMS LIBRARY QUARTERLY 41 : 275 1971 WEBSTER J Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review MIS QUARTERLY 26 : R13 2002 WHITE HD HDB RES SYNTHESIS : 41 1994 WOLF FM METAANALYSIS QUANTIT : 1987 WOODWARD AM REVIEW LITERATURE - CHARACTERISTICS, SOURCES AND OUTPUT IN 1972 ASLIB PROCEEDINGS 26 : 367 1974 WOODWARD AM ROLES OF REVIEWS IN INFORMATION-TRANSFER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 28 : 175 1977 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: D:\MMistry\Desktop\fettke_2006_sota2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 333797 bytes Desc: not available URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Dec 18 12:43:40 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:43:40 -0500 Subject: Huang, Z; Chen, HC; Li, X; Roco, MC "Connecting NSF funding to patent innovation in nanotechnology (2001-2004) " JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH 8 (6): 859-879 DEC 2006 Message-ID: E-mail Address: zanhuang at psu.edu Title: Connecting NSF funding to patent innovation in nanotechnology (2001- 2004) Authors: Huang, Z; Chen, HC; Li, X; Roco, MC Author Full Names: Huang, Zan; Chen, Hsinchun; Li, Xin; Roco, Mihail C. Source: JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH 8 (6): 859-879 DEC 2006 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Abstract: Nanotechnology research has experienced growth rapid in knowledge and innovations; it also attracted significant public funding in recent years. Several countries have recognized nanotechnology as a critical research domain that promises to revolutionize a wide range of fields of applications. In this paper, we present an analysis of the funding for nanoscale science and engineering (NSE) at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and its implications on technological innovation (number of patents) in this field from 2001 to 2004. Using a combination of basic bibliometric analysis and content visualization tools, we identify growth trends, research topic distribution, and the evolution in NSF funding and commercial patenting activities recorded at the United States Patent Office (USPTO). The patent citations are used to compare the impact of the NSF- funded research on nanotechnology development with research supported by other sources in the United States and abroad. The analy! sis shows that the NSF-funded researchers and patents authored by them have significantly higher impact based on patent citation measures in the four-year period than other comparison groups. The NSF-authored patent impact is growing faster with the lifetime of a patent, indicating the long-term importance of fundamental research. Reprint Address: Huang, Z, Penn State Univ, Smeal Coll Business, Dept Supply Chain & Informat Syst, University Pk, PA 16802 USA. Research Institution addresses: Penn State Univ, Smeal Coll Business, Dept Supply Chain & Informat Syst, University Pk, PA 16802 USA; Univ Arizona, Eller Coll Management, Dept Management Informat Syst, Artificial Intelligence Lab, Tucson, AZ 85721 USA; Natl Sci Fdn, Arlington, VA 22230 USA E-mail Address: zanhuang at psu.edu Cited Reference Count: 15 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER; VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS Subject Category: Chemistry, Multidisciplinary; Nanoscience & Nanotechnology; Materials Science, Multidisciplinary ISSN: 1388-0764 IDS Number: 109RS Cited References: ADAMS JD, 1998, ANN INSEE, V49, P127. ARORA A, 1998, IMPACT NSF SUPPORT B. CHEN HC, 1996, J VIS COMMUN IMAGE R, V7, P88. GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108. HUANG Z, 2003, J NANOPART RES, V5, P333. HUANG Z, 2004, J NANOPART RES, V6, P325. HUANG Z, 2005, J NANOPART RES, V7, P343. KARKI MMS, 1997, WORLD PATENT INFORMA, V19, P269. LIN C, 2000, J MANAGEMENT INFORMA, V16, P57. NARIN F, 1998, ASSESSING VALUE RES, P59. ONG TH, 2005, DECIS SUPPORT SYST, V39, P583. OPPENHEIM C, 2000, WEB KNOWLEDGE FESTSC, P405. PAYNE AA, 2003, ADV ECON ANAL POLICY, V3, P1018. ROCO MC, 2000, NANOTECHNOLOGY RES D. ROCO MC, 2005, J NANOPART RES, V7, P707. Cited Reference Count: 15 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER; VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS Subject Category: Chemistry, Multidisciplinary; Nanoscience & Nanotechnology; Materials Science, Multidisciplinary ISSN: 1388-0764 IDS Number: 109RS From eetsang at ECE.UST.HK Mon Dec 18 21:33:22 2006 From: eetsang at ECE.UST.HK (Dr. Danny Tsang) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:33:22 +0800 Subject: CFP: IEEE JSAC - Advances in Peer-to-Peer Streaming Systems Message-ID: We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this CFP. CALL FOR PAPERS IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications Advances in Peer-to-Peer Streaming Systems Peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, emerging with Napster in 1999, has become increasingly popular, accounting for as much as 70% of Internet traffic by some estimates. Along with the widespread adoption of broadband residential access and the increasing demand of multimedia service over the Internet, we are now witnessing the emergence of a new class of popular P2P applications, namely, P2P audio and video streaming. Popular P2P video streaming applications have successfully demonstrated the support of thousands of concurrent peers per channel at bit rates in excess of 400 kbps. While traditional P2P file distribution applications are targeted for elastic data transfers, P2P streaming focuses on the efficient delivery of audio and video content under tight timing requirements. Still in its infancy, both live and on-demand P2P streaming present many research challenges. To date, a number of architectures have been suggested by using either the tree-based push approach (e.g., Narada and SplitStream) or the mesh-based pull approach (e.g., CoolStream) which basically divides the media content into blocks for trading among peers. Further improvements are possible by taking advantage of advanced source and channel coding techniques such as layered coding, multiple description codes, fountain codes, and network coding. Given the initial success of P2P live streaming, questions still remain about how to extend the existing peer-to-peer models for more advanced applications with more stringent requirements such as video-on-demand services and how to support live and on-demand streaming in the same P2P network. Furthermore, with the wide deployment of wireless networks (WLAN, ad hoc, and 3G networks) and various wireless backhaul technologies (wireless mesh networks and WiMax), there are still open research challenges on how to realize a large-scale P2P media streaming over highly dynamic wireless channels and with user mobility. This special issue solicits original state-of-the-art works addressing all aspects related to supporting peer-to-peer multimedia content distribution service from both theoretical and implementation aspects. It aims at putting together a collection of the latest high-quality research results in this area. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: * Novel live or on-demand P2P streaming architectures * Traffic measurement and deployment experience * Topology design and locality aware P2P system * Performance evaluation and analysis * Applications of advanced coding techniques * Security issues * Routing and QoS provisioning * Digital rights management * Content partitioning and block scheduling algorithms * Wireless P2P streaming * Peer-matching algorithms for efficient media distribution * Cross-layer design Prospective authors should follow the IEEE J-SAC manuscript format described in http://www.jsac.ucsd.edu/. All papers should be submitted in PDF format via email to Danny H.K. Tsang, eetsang at ece.ust.hk, according to the following timetable. Along with the paper submission, authors are also requested to submit a cover letter via email to the above email address, which contains the paper title, authors with affiliations, and an abstract. Submission deadline: March 1, 2007 Acceptance notification: July 1, 2007 Final manuscript due: September 1, 2007 Publication of issue: First Quarter 2008 Guest Editors Danny H.K. Tsang Dept. of Electronic & Computer Engineering Hong Kong University of Science & Technology Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong eetsang at ece.ust.hk Keith W. Ross Dept. of Computer & Information Science Polytechnic University Six MetroTech Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA 11201 ross at poly.edu Jin Li Communication & Collaboration Systems Microsoft Research Redmond, WA, USA jinl at microsoft.com Pablo Rodriguez Systems & Networking Research Group Microsoft Research Cambridge, U.K. pablo at microsoft.com Hui Zhang Computer Science Department Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA, USA 15213 hzhang at cs.cmu.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David.Watkins at SOLENT.AC.UK Tue Dec 19 03:58:59 2006 From: David.Watkins at SOLENT.AC.UK (David Watkins) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 08:58:59 +0000 Subject: SIGMETRICS Digest - 13 Dec 2006 to 14 Dec 2006 (#2006-182) Message-ID: Please note some of us using Lotus Notes cannot open #182 because the paragraph field sizes are exceeded. Is there a technical fix for this at your end? This applies to about 1 in 25 postings. David Watkins From quentinburrell at MANX.NET Tue Dec 19 15:20:50 2006 From: quentinburrell at MANX.NET (Quentin L. Burrell) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:20:50 -0000 Subject: Fwd. Request for help Message-ID: Colleagues I recently received the following request for help.If anyone can offer advice, please reply directly to Susana or, if replying to the list, cc her. Many thanks Quentin Burrell If you have two minutes available, I shall greatly appreciate your advice: The "Observatorio de Innovaci?n, Ciencia y Tecnolog?a" Technology, Science and Innovation Observatory, takes part as a department of the Direcci?n de Innovaci?n, Ciencia y Tecnolog?a para el Desarrollo (DICyT) prior CONICYT (National Council for Science and Technology policies) in Uruguay (South America). In the Observatory we are two persons that are in charge of the bibliometrics indicators, that is to say, we work with the National Citation Report (every two years we get the updated data base) of the ISI Thompson products. Since 1997 we are subscribed to the NCR for Uruguay. This product is a portion of the SCI, the SSCI and the HACI focused to those publications of Uruguayan researchers published in international serials indexed by ISI. With this database we prepare each two years the national bibliometric indicators. But I think that we could prepare most sofisticated studies concerning the "results" of national or external debt funds that the uruguayan State involve each year in SCI activities. But we have never received a certain systematic training that let us consider other "results indicators" . So, I am asking you some advice in relation with training courses mainly focused in obtaining indicators of results (indicadores de resultados) that let our authorities to evaluate SCI programmes and future politics decisions. Do you understand my request? I need training for streghten knowledge bases concerning bibliometric studies. But bibliometric activities for library evaluation is not of my interest. I need bibliometric or informetric training for SCI politics decisions, mainly evaluation of research programmes and their corresponding economic support. I am librarian (with a Diplome certificate) specialized in TIC?s delivered by Unesco and the Education and Culture Ministry of Uruguay. Perhaps there are some universities or national science and technology departments that offer this training. Do you know any of them, or could you advice me in getting in touch with any of them? I will greatly appreciate your help because in Uruguay there is no experience with bibliometric studies. Thank you in advance. Cordially yours, Susana Maggioli Chief Librarian DICyT Uruguay maggioli at dinacyt.gub.uy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katy at INDIANA.EDU Tue Dec 19 16:51:23 2006 From: katy at INDIANA.EDU (Katy Borner) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:51:23 -0500 Subject: CFP: 5th International Symposium on Knowledge Domain Visualization (KDViz=?windows-1252?Q?=9207)?= In-Reply-To: <4488F189.7080006@indiana.edu> Message-ID: **************************************************************************** The 5th International Symposium on Knowledge Domain Visualization (KDViz?07) ********** http://www.graphicslink.co.uk/IV07/KDViz.htm ******************** **************************************************************************** 4, 5, 6 July 2007 ETH ZURICH SWITZERLAND -------------------------------------------------------------------- Call for Papers, Videos and Participation Proceeding will be published by IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY The symposium will seek original papers concerning, but not limited to, the following topics: Mapping scientific frontiers Mapping science Citation analysis, domain analysis and modeling Historical, sociological, or philosophical studies of science Knowledge discovery, knowledge representation, and knowledge diffusion Invisible colleges, scientific networks, social networks Qualitative and quantitative methodologies Scientometrics Dynamic models of scientific disciplines Tools and databases in support of KDViz Supported by: The Institute of Media and Communications Management of the university of St.Gallen, Switzerland Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Interaction Design (ACID) The school of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ITEE), The University of Queensland, Australia. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, USA The school of Computing and Engineering, University of Huddersfield Department of Information Systems and Multimedia, University of Greenwich, UK CCGV - Centre for Computer Graphics & Visualisation, University of Bedfordshire The Visualization Lab, University of Plymouth, UK Construction and Property Research Centre, UWE, UK Construction IT Research Centre, University of Salford, UK The Robert Gordon University, UK GraphicsLink? VGRU, BCIM, London South Bank University, UK Institute for Computing Research (ICR)-BCIM, London South Bank University, UK National Centre for Computer Animation, Bournemouth University, UK Department of Visual Art, University of Northern Colorado, USA HCI Graduate Program, Indiana University School of Informatics, IUPUI, USA School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, USA Information and Computer Science Department, KFUPM, SA College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, USA University of Kent at Canterbury, UK Endorsed by: Information Visualisation Society ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Dates: 15 February 2007 ? Submission of papers & Submission of tutorials 20 April 2007 ? Submission of camera-ready & early registration closes ====================================================================== Anita D?Pour GraphicsLink? Conference Co-ordinator P.O. BOX 29, HATFIELD, AL9 7ZL, United Kingdom. Tel: (Int. +44) 1707 - 652 224 Fax: (Int. +44) 1707 - 652 247 Email: IV07 at graphicslink.co.uk URL: http://www.graphicslink.co.uk/IV07/ OR to the symposium chairs: Dr Chaomei Chen College of Information Science and Technology Drexel University Philadelphia, PA 19104-2875, USA Email: Chaomei.Chen at cis.drexel.edu Dr Katy B?rner Information Science & School of Informatics, Indiana University, 10th Street & Jordan Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA E-mail: katy at indiana.edu Dr Jasna Kuljis Department of Information Systems and Computing Brunel University Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH United Kingdom Email: Jasna.Kuljis at brunel.ac.uk -- Katy Borner, Associate Professor Information Science & Cognitive Science Indiana University, SLIS 10th Street & Jordan Avenue Phone: (812) 855-3256 Fax: -6166 Main Library 021 E-mail: katy at indiana.edu Bloomington, IN 47405, USA WWW: ella.slis.indiana.edu/~katy InfoVis Lab/CNS Center Open House is on Oct 30th, 2006 http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~katy/gallery/06-openhouse/ From andrea.scharnhorst at VKS.KNAW.NL Wed Dec 20 05:26:04 2006 From: andrea.scharnhorst at VKS.KNAW.NL (Andrea) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:26:04 +0100 Subject: workshop on critical events in evolving networks, January 17, 2007 Brussels Message-ID: Dear colleagues Critical events in evolving networks The CREEN consortium organizes an international workshop at the Foundation Universitaire in Brussels on January 17, 2007. The workshop aims at an inter- disciplinary audience, interested in the various ways to apprehend social networks; modeling of social group dynamics, gathering and analysis of web-data and visualization of network structures. For more details please consult www.creen.org and see the attached poster. Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst -------------- next part -------------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: poster.pdf Date: 20 Dec 2006, 11:15 Size: 126567 bytes. Type: Unknown -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: poster.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 126567 bytes Desc: not available URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Wed Dec 20 11:40:03 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:40:03 +0000 Subject: Travis Metcalfe says OA advantage not self-selection (fwd) Message-ID: Mike Kurtz has just forwarded the URL for a recent paper by Travis Metcalfe confirming that the OA impact advantage is not merely a self-selection effect in astrophysics: ---- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:35:55 -0500 From: kurtz -- cfa.harvard.edu To: harnad -- ecs.soton.ac.uk You may want to look at: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SoPh..239..549M ---- I too will shortly be posting (in reply to Henk Moed) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5901 a summary of some preliminary evidence across disciplines, just collected and analyzed by my doctoral student, Chawki Hajjem, using our robot-search methodology. Based on comparing the OA advantage for mandated and non-mandated self-archiving, this too confirms that the OA self-archiving advantage is not merely a self-selection effect. For the desperately curious, the data are already visible here http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/moedrep.ppt and they also include the analyses in response to Eysenbach's challenge http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5373 to show, with independent multiple regression analyses, that the OA self-archiving advantage from our multi-disciplinary, robot-based comparisons is not merely an artifact "confounding" article age, journal impact factor or number of authors. (Outcome: There is indeed a statistically significant, independent OA self-archiving advantage over and above the citation advantages conferred by articles age, journal impact factor, and number of authors. Details in another forthcoming posting.) Here, meanwhile, is Metcalfe's abstract: Metcalfe, Travis S. (2006) The Citation Impact of Digital Preprint Archives for Solar Physics Papers. Solar Physics, Volume 239, Issue 1-2, pp. 549-553 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SoPh..239..549M http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11207-006-0262-7 ABSTRACT: Papers that are posted to a digital preprint archive are typically cited twice as often as papers that are not posted. This has been demonstrated for papers published in a wide variety of journals, and in many different subfields of astronomy. Most astronomers now use the arXiv.org server (astro-ph) to distribute preprints, but the solar physics community has an independent archive hosted at Montana State University. For several samples of solar physics papers published in 2003, I quantify the boost in citation rates for preprints posted to each of these servers. I show that papers on the MSU archive typically have citation rates 1.7 times higher than the average of similar papers that are not posted as preprints, while those posted to astro-ph get 2.6 times the average. A comparable boost is found for papers published in conference proceedings, suggesting that the higher citation rates are not the result of self-selection of above-average papers. Stevan Harnad From dgoodman at PRINCETON.EDU Wed Dec 20 18:30:35 2006 From: dgoodman at PRINCETON.EDU (David Goodman) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:30:35 -0500 Subject: Travis Metcalfe says OA advantage not self-selection (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Unfortunately the article is not OA. Perhaps the author can post his manuscript. I cannot tell, for example, if notification advantage was considered for the conference papers. Research articles about OA should not be published in places where some form of OA is not available. We say, and rightly, that there should be almost no instance of not being able to find a suitable journal that permits self-archiving. David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S. previously: Bibliographer and Research Librarian Princeton University Library dgoodman at princeton.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: Stevan Harnad Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:47 am Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Travis Metcalfe says OA advantage not self-selection (fwd) To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Mike Kurtz has just forwarded the URL for a recent paper by Travis > Metcalfeconfirming that the OA impact advantage is not merely a > self-selection > effect in astrophysics: > > ---- > Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:35:55 -0500 > From: kurtz -- cfa.harvard.edu > To: harnad -- ecs.soton.ac.uk > > You may want to look at: > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SoPh..239..549M > ---- > > I too will shortly be posting (in reply to Henk Moed) > > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5901 > a summary of some preliminary evidence across disciplines, just > collectedand analyzed by my doctoral student, Chawki Hajjem, using > our robot-search > methodology. Based on comparing the OA advantage for mandated and > non-mandated self-archiving, this too confirms that the OA self- > archivingadvantage is not merely a self-selection effect. > > For the desperately curious, the data are already visible here > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/moedrep.ppt > > and they also include the analyses in response to Eysenbach's > challenge > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5373 > to show, with independent multiple regression analyses, that the OA > self-archiving advantage from our multi-disciplinary, robot-based > comparisons is not merely an artifact "confounding" article age, > journal impact factor or number of authors. (Outcome: There is > indeed a > statistically significant, independent OA self-archiving advantage > overand above the citation advantages conferred by articles age, > journalimpact factor, and number of authors. Details in another > forthcomingposting.) > > Here, meanwhile, is Metcalfe's abstract: > > Metcalfe, Travis S. (2006) The Citation Impact of Digital Preprint > Archives for Solar Physics Papers. Solar Physics, Volume 239, > Issue 1-2, pp. 549-553 > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SoPh..239..549M > http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11207-006-0262-7 > ABSTRACT: Papers that are posted to a digital preprint archive are > typically cited twice as often as papers that are not posted. > This has > been demonstrated for papers published in a wide variety of > journals, and in many different subfields of astronomy. Most > astronomers now use the arXiv.org server (astro-ph) to > distribute preprints, > but the solar physics community has an independent archive hosted > at Montana State University. For several samples of solar physics > papers published in 2003, I quantify the boost in citation > rates for > preprints posted to each of these servers. I show that papers > on the > MSU archive typically have citation rates 1.7 times higher than > the average of similar papers that are not posted as preprints, > while those posted to astro-ph get 2.6 times the average. A > comparable boost is found for papers published in conference > proceedings, suggesting that the higher citation rates are not > the result of > self-selection of above-average papers. > > Stevan Harnad > From dgoodman at PRINCETON.EDU Wed Dec 20 18:35:56 2006 From: dgoodman at PRINCETON.EDU (David Goodman) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:35:56 -0500 Subject: Apologies and link. Re: [SIGMETRICS] Travis Metcalfe says OA advantage not self-selection (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: My apologies. This particular article is OA, at I commend the author for his choice of publication routes. David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S. previously: Bibliographer and Research Librarian Princeton University Library dgoodman at princeton.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: David Goodman Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 6:30 pm Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Travis Metcalfe says OA advantage not self-selection (fwd) To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics Cc: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Unfortunately the article is not OA. Perhaps the author can post > his > manuscript. I cannot tell, for example, if notification advantage > was considered for the conference papers. > > Research articles about OA should not be published in places > where some form of OA is not available. We say, and rightly, that > there should be almost no instance of not being able to find a > suitable journal that permits self-archiving. > > David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S. > previously: > Bibliographer and Research Librarian > Princeton University Library > > dgoodman at princeton.edu > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stevan Harnad > Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:47 am > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Travis Metcalfe says OA advantage not self- > selection (fwd) > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Mike Kurtz has just forwarded the URL for a recent paper by > Travis > > Metcalfeconfirming that the OA impact advantage is not merely a > > self-selection > > effect in astrophysics: > > > > ---- > > Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:35:55 -0500 > > From: kurtz -- cfa.harvard.edu > > To: harnad -- ecs.soton.ac.uk > > > > You may want to look at: > > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SoPh..239..549M > > ---- > > > > I too will shortly be posting (in reply to Henk Moed) > > > > > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5901 > > a summary of some preliminary evidence across disciplines, just > > collectedand analyzed by my doctoral student, Chawki Hajjem, > using > > our robot-search > > methodology. Based on comparing the OA advantage for mandated and > > non-mandated self-archiving, this too confirms that the OA self- > > archivingadvantage is not merely a self-selection effect. > > > > For the desperately curious, the data are already visible here > > > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/moedrep.ppt > > > > and they also include the analyses in response to Eysenbach's > > challenge > > > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5373 > > to show, with independent multiple regression analyses, that the OA > > self-archiving advantage from our multi-disciplinary, robot-based > > comparisons is not merely an artifact "confounding" article age, > > journal impact factor or number of authors. (Outcome: There is > > indeed a > > statistically significant, independent OA self-archiving > advantage > > overand above the citation advantages conferred by articles age, > > journalimpact factor, and number of authors. Details in another > > forthcomingposting.) > > > > Here, meanwhile, is Metcalfe's abstract: > > > > Metcalfe, Travis S. (2006) The Citation Impact of Digital > Preprint> Archives for Solar Physics Papers. Solar Physics, > Volume 239, > > Issue 1-2, pp. 549-553 > > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SoPh..239..549M > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11207-006-0262-7 > > ABSTRACT: Papers that are posted to a digital preprint archive > are> typically cited twice as often as papers that are not > posted. > > This has > > been demonstrated for papers published in a wide variety of > > journals, and in many different subfields of astronomy. Most > > astronomers now use the arXiv.org server (astro-ph) to > > distribute preprints, > > but the solar physics community has an independent archive hosted > > at Montana State University. For several samples of solar physics > > papers published in 2003, I quantify the boost in citation > > rates for > > preprints posted to each of these servers. I show that papers > > on the > > MSU archive typically have citation rates 1.7 times higher > than > > the average of similar papers that are not posted as > preprints, > > while those posted to astro-ph get 2.6 times the average. A > > comparable boost is found for papers published in conference > > proceedings, suggesting that the higher citation rates are not > > the result of > > self-selection of above-average papers. > > > > Stevan Harnad > > > From jni at DB.DK Thu Dec 21 02:40:53 2006 From: jni at DB.DK (Jeppe Nicolaisen) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:40:53 +0100 Subject: Citation analysis Message-ID: Nicolaisen, J. (2007). Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41: 609-641. PREPRINTS available upon request: jni at db.dk /Jeppe Nicolaisen From krichel at OPENLIB.ORG Thu Dec 21 07:58:02 2006 From: krichel at OPENLIB.ORG (Thomas Krichel) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 06:58:02 -0600 Subject: Registration now open for OAI5 Message-ID: Registration is now open for OAI5 - the 5th Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, which will take place from 18th - 20th April 2007. Please use the conference website to register and, if you wish, to submit a poster abstract: http://cern.ch/oai5 The OAI series of workshops is one of the biggest international meetings of technical repository-developers, library Open Access policy formulators, and the funders and researchers that they serve. The programme contains a mix of practical tutorials given by experts in the field, presentations from cutting-edge projects and research, posters from the community, breakout discussion groups, and an intense social programme which has helped to build a strong network amongst previous participants. The event is almost unique in bringing together these scholarly communication communities and is proud to continue this tradition with the OAI5 workshop in 2007. Note for regular participants: the workshop will now fall Wednesday to Friday and NOT Thursday to Saturday as previously. Also, payment of fees covering participation, social events and meals (optional) is required in advance of the workshop - please contact the organising committee in case of questions or problems. Further programme details will be announced soon. We look forward to seeing many of you at CERN in 2007. Thomas Krichel, on behalf of the OAI5 Committee. From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sat Dec 23 07:03:22 2006 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:03:22 +0100 Subject: mapping the knowledge base of an institutionally defined document set Message-ID: BibJourn.exe for Cocitation Analysis of Journal Names in References This program enables one to generate a representation of the knowledge base of a document set. This can also be used as an indicator of the knowledge base of an institutional set, for example, by downloading the recent papers of the authors involved. (BibJourn.exe is freely available for academic usage.) The program uses a set saved using ISI's Web of Science as input, and generates various forms of output: 1. cosine.dat provides an input file for Pajek as a visual representation of the bibliographic coupling among authors within this set, but unlike BibCoupl.exe, the representation is not in terms of the authors, but in terms of the cited references. The matrix is normalized using the cosine. 2. coocc.dat and matrix.dbf are the files which underly cosine.dat. Coocc.dat is the file before normalization; and matrix.dbf the asymmetrical data matrix. The latter file can be used for statistical analysis in SPSS, the former for graph-analytical analysis using UCINet. 3. Like ISI.EXE, the program BibCoupl.EXE produces four databases containing the information in the original input set in relational format: au.dbf with the authors; cs.dbf with the address ("corporate sources"); core.dbf with information which is unique for each record (e.g., the title); and cr.dbf containing the cited references. The files are linked through the numbers in core.dbf. If one needs only these files, one is advised to use ISI.EXE, since the computation of the cosine is computer intensive, and therefore time-consuming. The routine creating the matrix and the cosine-normalized output uses the journal names in the file cr.dbf as variable names, and the records in core.dbf as the cases (rows). Only journals occurring twice among the cited references are included. The number of journals is limited to 1024, but the number of cited references is unlimited. The program is based on DOS-legacy software. It runs in a MS-Dos Command Box under Windows. The programs and the input files have to be contained in the same folder. The output files are written into this directory. Please, note that existing files from a previous run are overwritten by the program. The user is advised to save output elsewhere if one wishes to continue with these materials. input files The input file has to be saved as a so-called marked list in the tagged format from the Science Citation Index (Social Science Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index) at the Web-of-Science. The default filename "savedrecs.txt" should not be used, but "data.txt" instead. output files The program produces four output files in dBase IV format. These files can be read into Excel and/or SPSS for further processing. They can also be used in MS Access for relational database management. These files can be produced by using the simpler ISI.EXE (which is much less intensive in the computation). Like BibCoupl, BibJourn additionally produces two files with the extension ".dat" (cosine.dat and coocc.dat) are in DL-format (ASCII) which can be read directly into Pajek for the visualization (Pajek is freely available at http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ ). A number of additional databases are coproduced: a. matrix.dbf contains the matrix of the documents as the cases and the journal names in the references in the set as the variables. This file can be imported into SPSS for further analysis. b. coocc.dbf contains a co-occurrence matrix of the journal names from this same data. This matrix is symmetrical and it contains the journal names both as variables and as labels in the first field. The main diagonal is set to zero. The number of co-occurrences is equal to the multiplication of occurrences in each of the texts. (The procedure is similar to using the file matrix.dbf as input to the routine "affiliations" in UCINet, but the main diagonal is here set to zero in this matrix.) The file coocc.dat contains this information in the DL-format. c. cosine.dbf contains a normalized co-occurrence matrix of the journal names from the same data. Normalization is based on the cosine between the variables conceptualized as vectors (Salton & McGill, 1983). (The procedure is similar to using the file matrix.dbf as input to the corresponding routing in SPSS.) The file cosine.dat contains this information in the DL-format. Click here to download BibJourn.EXE Click here to download BibCoupl.EXE Click here to download ISI.EXE Click here for similar programs for Full Text and Co-Word Analysis _____ 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/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t.opthof at MED.UU.NL Sat Dec 23 08:36:29 2006 From: t.opthof at MED.UU.NL (Tobias Opthof) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:36:29 +0100 Subject: mapping the knowledge base of an institutionally defined document set In-Reply-To: <001201c7268a$584dbb20$1302a8c0@loet> Message-ID: > Thank you Loet, > > for sending this. I am involved in a comparison of the output of hospitals > active in cardiology with as one of the aims a comparison of academic and > non-academic hospitals. I have the feeling that this program might be very > useful. > > I will contact you in the New Year. For the moment thank you very much. > > Best wishes, > > Tobias Opthof > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > BibJourn.exe for > Cocitation Analysis of Journal Names in References > > > > This program enables one to generate a representation of the knowledge base of > a document set. This can also be used as an indicator of the knowledge base of > an institutional set, for example, by downloading the recent papers of the > authors involved. (BibJourn.exe is freely available for academic usage.) > > The program uses a set saved using ISI?s Web of Science as input, and > generates various forms of output: > > 1. cosine.dat provides an input file for Pajek as a visual representation of > the bibliographic coupling among authors within this set, but unlike > BibCoupl.exe, the representation is not in terms of the authors, but in terms > of the cited references. The matrix is normalized using the cosine. > 2. coocc.dat and matrix.dbf are the files which underly cosine.dat. Coocc.dat > is the file before normalization; and matrix.dbf the asymmetrical data matrix. > The latter file can be used for statistical analysis in SPSS, the former for > graph-analytical analysis using UCINet. > 3. Like ISI.EXE, the program BibCoupl.EXE produces four databases containing > the information in the original input set in relational format: au.dbf with > the authors; cs.dbf with the address (?corporate sources?); core.dbf with > information which is unique for each record (e.g., the title); and cr.dbf > containing the cited references. The files are linked through the numbers in > core.dbf. If one needs only these files, one is advised to use ISI.EXE, since > the computation of the cosine is computer intensive, and therefore > time-consuming. > > The routine creating the matrix and the cosine-normalized output uses the > journal names in the file cr.dbf as variable names, and the records in > core.dbf as the cases (rows). Only journals occurring twice among the cited > references are included. The number of journals is limited to 1024, but the > number of cited references is unlimited. > > The program is based on DOS-legacy software. It runs in a MS-Dos Command Box > under Windows. The programs and the input files have to be contained in the > same folder. The output files are written into this directory. Please, note > that existing files from a previous run are overwritten by the program. The > user is advised to save output elsewhere if one wishes to continue with these > materials. > > input files > > The input file has to be saved as a so-called marked list in the tagged format > from the Science Citation Index (Social Science Citation Index, Arts & > Humanities Citation Index) at the Web-of-Science. The default filename > ?savedrecs.txt? should not be used, but ?data.txt? instead. > > output files > > The program produces four output files in dBase IV format. These files can be > read into Excel and/or SPSS for further processing. They can also be used in > MS Access for relational database management. These files can be produced by > using the simpler ISI.EXE (which is much less intensive in the computation). > > Like BibCoupl, BibJourn additionally produces two files with the extension > ?.dat? (cosine.dat and coocc.dat) are in DL-format (ASCII) which can be read > directly into Pajek for the visualization (Pajek is freely available at > http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ ). A number of additional > databases are coproduced: > > a. matrix.dbf contains the matrix of the documents as the cases and the > journal names in the references in the set as the variables. This file can be > imported into SPSS for further analysis. > > b. coocc.dbf contains a co-occurrence matrix of the journal names from this > same data. This matrix is symmetrical and it contains the journal names both > as variables and as labels in the first field. The main diagonal is set to > zero. The number of co-occurrences is equal to the multiplication of > occurrences in each of the texts. (The procedure is similar to using the file > matrix.dbf as input to the routine ?affiliations? in UCINet, but the main > diagonal is here set to zero in this matrix.) The file coocc.dat contains this > information in the DL-format. > > c. cosine.dbf contains a normalized co-occurrence matrix of the journal names > from the same data. Normalization is based on the cosine between the variables > conceptualized as vectors (Salton & McGill, 1983). (The procedure is similar > to using the file matrix.dbf as input to the corresponding routing in SPSS.) > The file cosine.dat contains this information in the DL-format. > > Click here to download BibJourn.EXE > > > > Click here to download BibCoupl.EXE > > Click here to download ISI.EXE > > > Click here for similar programs for Full Text and Co-Word Analysis > > > > > 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/ > > Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated > > . 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 > The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society > > ; The Challenge of Scientometrics > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Dec 28 03:18:30 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:18:30 +0000 Subject: The Name Game: Names Get In Our Way Message-ID: For fully linked version of this commentary: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/190-guid.html In "Quantum Game Theory and Open Access Publishing" http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612234 Hanauske et al (2006) try to use game-theoretic modeling -- pitting "author-reputation" (in the form of citations) against "journal-reputation" -- to show that authors will inevitably switch from "traditional publishing" to "open access publishing." This would be a welcome conclusion if Hanauske et al's underlying assumptions and their definition of OA publishing had been valid. But the article defines "Green OA" as self-archiving in an Institutional Repository, "Gold OA" as publishing in an OA journal, and "OA Publishing" as a "third option," with self-archiving in Arxiv (a Central Repository) as its prime example. In reality, of course, self-archiving in Arxiv is not OA publishing at all, but simply another example of OA self-archiving (Green OA). Hence the assumption that "OA Publishing" (in this incorrect sense) pits "author-reputation" (citations) game-theoretically against "journal-reputation" (with citations eventually winning) is invalid too. The correct conclusion, requiring no game-theoretic modeling at all, is that OA will inevitably win over non-OA eventually (especially once accelerated by Green OA self-archiving mandates), because more citations are better than fewer citations. Nothing to do with OA publishing (Gold OA), which also benefits from more citations, nor with traditional publishing, which likewise benefits from more citations. Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H. and Hilf, E. (2004) The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials Review 30(4). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/ Harnad, S. (2005) Fast-Forward on the Green Road to Open Access: The Case Against Mixing Up Green and Gold. Ariadne 43. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue42/harnad/ Stevan Harnad American Scientist Open Access Forum http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Dec 28 05:39:47 2006 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:39:47 +0100 Subject: Season's greetings in anticipation of 2007 Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Click here for season's greetings using the logistic map and here for the same greetings using the incursive formulation of this map and the hyperincursive one! With best wishes for 2007, 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/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katy at INDIANA.EDU Thu Dec 28 12:55:41 2006 From: katy at INDIANA.EDU (Katy Borner) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:55:41 -0500 Subject: Season's greetings in anticipation of 2007 In-Reply-To: <00ae01c72a6c$7f1f22d0$1302a8c0@loet> Message-ID: All of the three links just try to save stuff to my disk ... Happy New Year! k Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear colleagues, > > Click here for season's greetings using the logistic map > > and here for the same greetings using the incursive formulation of > this map > and the hyperincursive one > ! > > With best wishes for 2007, > > > Loet > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Loet Leydesdorff > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) > Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam > Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 > loet at leydesdorff.net ; > http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > > Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, > Simulated > . > 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 > The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society > ; > The Challenge of Scientometrics > > > > -- Katy Borner, Associate Professor Information Science & Cognitive Science Indiana University, SLIS 10th Street & Jordan Avenue Phone: (812) 855-3256 Fax: -6166 Main Library 021 E-mail: katy at indiana.edu Bloomington, IN 47405, USA WWW: ella.slis.indiana.edu/~katy InfoVis Lab/CNS Center Open House is on Oct 30th, 2006 http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~katy/gallery/06-openhouse/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ggraff at ARE.BERKELEY.EDU Thu Dec 28 13:57:43 2006 From: ggraff at ARE.BERKELEY.EDU (Gregory Graff) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:57:43 -0800 Subject: Season's greetings in anticipation of 2007 In-Reply-To: <00ae01c72a6c$7f1f22d0$1302a8c0@loet> Message-ID: mats, Looks like I waited too long. It is 8pm your time and you seem to be off line. If its only for dinner, try skyping me when you get back on, but I may be out convening with a coauthor. Greg At 02:39 AM 12/28/2006, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >Dear colleagues, > >Click here for season's >greetings using the logistic map >and here for the same greetings using the >incursive formulation of >this map >and the hyperincursive >one! > >With best wishes for 2007, > > >Loet > > > >---------- >Loet Leydesdorff >Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) >Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam >Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 >loet at leydesdorff.net ; >http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > >Now available: >The >Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 >The >Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; >The >Challenge of Scientometrics > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Dec 28 14:46:30 2006 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:46:30 +0100 Subject: Season's greetings in anticipation of 2007 In-Reply-To: <4594051D.70507@indiana.edu> Message-ID: Dear Katy, I should have specified that these are compiled files (Visual Basic). One can safely download; I would not put my relations with all my colleagues at risk.:-) Anyhow... it is up to yourself. Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _____ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Katy Borner Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:56 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Season's greetings in anticipation of 2007 to save stuff to my disk ... Happy New Year! k Loet Leydesdorff wrote: Dear colleagues, Click here for season's greetings using the logistic map and here for the same greetings using the incursive formulation of this map and the hyperincursive one! With best wishes for 2007, 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/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -- Katy Borner, Associate Professor Information Science & Cognitive Science Indiana University, SLIS 10th Street & Jordan Avenue Phone: (812) 855-3256 Fax: -6166 Main Library 021 E-mail: katy at indiana.edu Bloomington, IN 47405, USA WWW: ella.slis.indiana.edu/~katy InfoVis Lab/CNS Center Open House is on Oct 30th, 2006 http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~katy/gallery/06-openhouse/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From camille.roth at POLYTECHNIQUE.EDU Fri Dec 29 06:03:37 2006 From: camille.roth at POLYTECHNIQUE.EDU (Camille Roth) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:03:37 +0100 Subject: ICFCA workshop on social network analysis Message-ID: Apologies for cross-posting -------------------- ICFCA 2007 Workshop "Social Network Analysis and Conceptual Structures: Exploring Opportunities" -------------------- http://snafca.free.fr February 16, 2007 in conjunction with The 5th International Conference on Formal Concept Analysis (ICFCA 2007) Clermont-Ferrand, France, February 12-16, 2007 http://www.isima.fr/icfca07/ 2nd CALL FOR PAPERS The recent years have seen a renewed interest in an interdisciplinary effort aiming at analyzing social networks, in which both mathematical sociology and computer science play a notable role, relying altogether extensively on graph theory. This effort has mainly been fueled and supported by significant advances in computing capabilities and electronic data availability for several social systems: scientists, webloggers, online customers, computer-based collaboration-enhancing devices, inter alia. In particular, knowledge networks, i.e. interaction networks where agents produce or exchange knowledge, are the focus of many current studies, both qualitative and quantitative. Among these, community- detection issues such as finding agents sharing sets of identical patterns are a key topic. Social network analysis is proficient in methods aimed at discovering, describing, and plausibly organizing various kinds of social communities. At the same time, conceptual structures can yield a fruitful insight in this regard, be it in relation to epistemic communities (i.e. agents dealing with identical topics, such as scientific communities or weblogs) or to affiliation networks (actors belonging to the same organizations, participating in identical events). And, indeed, some applications of concept lattices in sociology have been proposed since the early 1990s; yet, in that context social aspects of community structures are usually of prime interest: leaders, peripheral members, cooperation within and between different groups. On the other hand, conceptual structures are typically focused around taxonomies -- possibly useful to describe actors in terms of centers of interest, for instance -- rather than focused on interactions. More broadly, notions pertaining to social network analysis seem presently to remain somehow outside the mainstream research of the concept lattice community. The aim of this workshop is to investigate the opportunities for formal concept analysis in social networks by proposing possible bridges between these frameworks and by presenting issues of mathematical sociology which could benefit from conceptual structures, so as to eventually facilitate collaboration between the two fields. Therefore, we particularly welcome submissions of the survey type describing the state of the art in any of the fields listed below along with submissions specifying a concrete problem that still needs an efficient formal solution. Submissions may but do not have to address the possible use of formal concept analysis in these fields. TARGET AUDIENCE Social scientists using or willing to use formal techniques in any of the fields listed below; researchers in discrete structures and formal concept analysis interested in applications in social sciences. TOPICS Knowledge networks / epistemic networks Collective construction of knowledge, social cognition Social epistemology applied to social networks Social network analysis of communities of practice Information diffusion in social networks Affiliation networks Social network-based methods for community detection Web communities, open-source development communities Weblog analysis Social networking websites Collaboration-enhancing tools (in organizations, on the web, inter alia) Knowledge exchange devices Semantic web and social networks Knowledge management using social data Building semantics from collaborative environments Taxonomies and ontologies for scientific domains Network analysis for folksonomies Systems for folksonomy building Evolution of network structures SUBMISSION PROCEDURE Papers no longer than 16 pages should be submitted no later than January 5, 2007 to sna.fca at gmail.com in Adobe PDF or Postscript format. Papers should also be formatted according to the official formatting guidelines of the main conference (LNCS). Short papers are also welcome. IMPORTANT DATES Submission deadline: January 5, 2007 Notification of acceptance: January 22, 2007 Workshop date: February 16, 2007 ORGANIZERS Sergei Obiedkov (Higher School of Economics, Russia) - sergei.obj at gmail.com Camille Roth (University of Modena, Italy & CREA/CNRS, France) - roth at shs.polytechnique.fr PROGRAM COMMITTEE Alain Degenne (CNRS, France) Vincent Duquenne (University of Paris VI/CNRS, France) Peter Eklund (University of Wollongong, Australia) Linton C. Freeman (UC Irvine, USA) Andreas Hotho (University of Kassel, Germany) Jeffrey H. Johnson (Open University, UK) Cliff Joslyn (Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA) Bjoern Koester (University of Dresden, Germany) Sergei Kuznetsov (Higher School of Economics & VINITI, Russia) John Levi Martin (University of Wisconsin at Madison, USA) Michel Morvan (ENS Lyon-EHESS, France) Amedeo Napoli (LORIA/CNRS, France) Jean Sallantin (LIRMM/CNRS, France) Gerd Stumme (University of Kassel, Germany)