From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 4 16:35:33 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 16:35:33 -0500 Subject: Jacso P "As we may search - Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases " Current Science 89(9): 1537-1547, November 10 2005 Message-ID: Peter Jacso :jacso at hawaii.edu FULL TEXT AVAILABALE AT : http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1537.pdf Title: As we may search - Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases Author(s): Jacso P Source: CURRENT SCIENCE 89 (9): 1537-1547 NOV 10 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 37 Times Cited: 0 Addresses: Jacso P (reprint author), Univ Hawaii, Dept Informat & Comp Sci, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Univ Hawaii, Dept Informat & Comp Sci, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA E-mail Addresses: jasco at hawaii.edu Publisher: CURRENT SCIENCE ASSN, C V RAMAN AVENUE, PO BOX 8005, BANGALORE 560 080, INDIA Subject Category: MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES IDS Number: 985BR ISSN: 0011-3891 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu Jan 5 14:00:36 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 14:00:36 -0500 Subject: Jacso P. Extended and illustrated commentary on =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=93The_Future_of_Citation_Analysis=94?= by Jeffrey M. Perkel which appeared in The Scientist 19(20): 24, October 24, 2005. Message-ID: Peter Jacso : jacso at hawaii.edu Jeffrey Perkel : jperkel at the-scientist.com Peter Jacso was one of several people interviewed by Jeffrey Perkel for the article ?The Future of Citation Analysis? by Jeffrey M. Perkel which appeared in The Scientist 19(20): 24, October 24, 2005. Full text is provided below. On publication of the article, Peter Jacso published an additional piece on this subject. Dr. Jacso says ?Considering the limitations of the print edition, it is understandable that only a small part of my argument could be included. I provide here some background illustrations and comments to my correctly quoted remark that Google Scholar (GS) does a really horrible job matching cited and citing references.? This extended and illustrated commentary is available at : http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jacso/extra/gs/ THE FUTURE OF CITATION ANALYSIS Jeffrey M. Perkel (jperkel at the-scientist.com) The Scientist 2005, 19(20):24, October 24, 2005 In the 50 years since Eugene Garfield first proposed it,[1] the Science Citation Index has grown dramatically in size and influence. The database has expanded from 1.4 million citations in 1964 to 550 million today. Its list of source journals has grown from 613 to 15,721. And it has become a key tool for tenure, funding, and award committees. The move to a Web interface that can analyze a century's worth of literature at the click of a mouse has made the Science Citation Index, now part of Thomson Scientific's Web of Science (WOS), more useful than ever. But the same Web that has given the WOS greater and greater power has also spawned publication avenues that leave open the question of how citation analysis will evolve in the near- and long-term. Articles can be posted in multiple forms in multiple places: on the ArXiv.org preprint server, on the author's personal home page, and on the journal Web site, for instance. Those articles can be published almost immediately, giving the larger scientific community time to digest, incorporate, and ultimately cite them. The WOS is more than a literature database; it measures how often journal articles are cited by others. How do you analyze all these new types of citations? "If you're trying to figure out the impact of that article, you've got to figure out how many links go to each source and bring them together," says Michael Koenig of the Palmer School of Library and Information Science at Long Island University, Brookville, NY. Last autumn's launch of Google Scholar (GS) presents one solution. The free service searches and tracks citations to peer-reviewed literature (as the Web of Science does) and also conference proceedings, dissertations, pre- and postprint servers, and other nontraditional media. Last month, Yale University librarians Kathleen Bauer and Nisa Bakkalbasi published an analysis showing that GS yielded 4.5 more citations per paper on average in one journal, the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, for papers published in 2000, than did WOS.[2] "We found that through Google Scholar, you do get a higher average number of citing articles, than you do through the Web of Science and Scopus. We were quantifying what you would have guessed," says Bauer. But the scholarly value of nontraditional sources picked up by GS and not by WOS is yet unproven. And some major publishers, including Elsevier and the American Chemical Society, have declined to open their archives to GS, limiting its completeness. Peter Jacso, a professor of computer and information science at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, estimates GS has about 10 million source records to WOS's 35 million. Jacso recently completed an analysis of GS, WOS, and Scopus, which suggests GS does "a really horrible job" matching cited and citing references, he says. GS "often can't tell apart a page number from a publication year, part of the title of a book from the name of a journal, and dumps at you absurd data." For their part Bauer and Bakkalbasi write in their study that "ad hoc searches" in WOS, GS, and Scopus suggest their findings extend to other journals and other fields. They therefore advise researchers to consult GS in addition to WOS or Scopus, "especially for a relatively recent article, author or subject area." But they, like Jacso, note that until GS reveals precisely what it indexes and how often it updates, "it cannot be considered a true scholarly resource in the sense that Web of Science and Scopus are. An understanding of the material being covered is central to the validity of any search of scholarly material." UNPUBLISHED BUT CRITICAL Scientists can influence their peers beyond the published word, of course. Consider a scientist who develops a useful program, and posts it to a Web site from which it can be downloaded. Such contributions, says Blaise Cronin, the Rudy Professor of Information Science at Indiana University, are "subterranean, subcutaneous," and they are generally ignored in traditional citation analyses. One place where they do sometimes appear, however, is in a paper's acknowledgments. "By analyzing acknowledgements, you can demonstrate just how much people rely on one another, even competitors, and especially in the life sciences, where you are required to share reagents after publication," says Cronin, who has spent 15 years mining acknowledgements in scientific literature for their citation value. His recently completed analysis of acknowledgements in four years of Cell issues found that "over the course of three decades, the intensity of acknowledgment behavior rose for each category, most notably in the cases of materials (from 17.6% to 65.1%) and conceptual contributions (30.1% to 84%)." To date Cronin's analyses have been painstaking, manual processes. But he won't have to work manually for long: This past December Pennsylvania State University researchers C. Lee Giles and Isaac G. Councill reported a systematic effort to extract and parse acknowledgement text from 335,000 computer science papers.[3] "Our work supports prior studies showing that acknowledgment trends for individuals do not correlate well with citation trends, perhaps indicating a need to reward highly acknowledged researchers with the deserved recognition of significant intellectual debt," the authors write. Another metric that citation analysts are currently debating is the value of Web linkages (a link from one person's home page to another). Simply counting links isn't likely to be of much use, says Henry Small, chief scientist at Thomson Scientific and president of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. "Basically anything goes on the Web. You can have crackpots and charlatans linking to your stuff, [and] you can have Nobel Prize winners linking to your stuff." Hypertext links reflect more informal, social contacts, says Small, while citations represent more formal expressions of intellectual debt. Nevertheless, he says ongoing efforts to map the Web, to visualize its connectivity and see who influences whom, are among the most sophisticated areas to evolve from traditional citation analysis. "People are attempting to use all the links to map the system of underlying communications or of ideas," he says. Yale's Bauer suggests that with all the new options available, journals per se may lose their dominance, in favor of the papers within them. The playing field could be leveled: Authors may not choose particular journals based on impact factors, but choose publishing methods based on effectiveness. For now, however, the traditional refereed paper, wherever it happens to be published, remains the coin of the realm. Says Cronin: "As more of scientific literature moves to the Web and becomes available, you're going to have a richer picture of the life and vitality of a scientific paper than you can have today. So citation analysis won't become pass?, it will become one of a battery of indicators with which to measure the impact and influence of a publication." References 1. Garfield E: "Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas,". Science 1955, 122:108-11. 2.Bauer K, Bakkalbasi N: "An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment,". [http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html]D-Lib Magazine 2005., 3.Giles CL, Councill IG: "Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing,". Proc Natl Acad Sci 2004, 101:17599-604. [Publisher Full Text][PubMed Central Full Text] From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Jan 6 15:59:44 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:59:44 -0500 Subject: Moed H. "Citation Analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures" chapter from his book "Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation" Message-ID: Henk Moed : e-mail: moed at cwts.leidenuniv.nl TITLE : Citation analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures AUTHOR : Henk F. Moed SOURCE : CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 89, NO. 12, 25 DECEMBER 2005 This article is a slightly modified version of Chapter 5 in Moed, H. F., Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Springer, 2005, ISBN 1- 4020-3713-9, 346 pp. 91?105. This article is published in honour of Eugene Garfield on the occasion of his 80th birthday and the fiftieth anniversary of his pathbreaking paper on citation analysis in Science, 1955. Henk F. Moed is in the Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. FULL TEXT OF THIS CHAPTER IS AVAILABLE AT : http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/1990.pdf ___________________________________________________________________________ Subbiah Arunachalam : e-mail : arun at mssrf.res.in TITLE : Review of "Citation analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures" by Henk F. Moed AUTHOR : Subbiah Arunachalam SOURCE : CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 89, NO. 12, p. 2171-2172, 25 DECEMBER 2005 Henk Moed's book "Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation" (mentioned above) has been reviewed by Subbiah Arunachalam in Current Science. S. Arunachalam is at : M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai 600 113, India e-mail: arun at mssrf.res.in FULL TEXT OF THIS REVIEW IS AVAILABLE AT : http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2171.pdf From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Jan 6 16:04:34 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:04:34 -0500 Subject: Arunachalam S. "Review of "Citation analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures by Henk F. Moed" Current Science 89(12):2171-2173, December 25, 2005. Message-ID: Subbiah Arunachalam : e-mail : arun at mssrf.res.in TITLE : Review of "Citation analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures" by Henk F. Moed AUTHOR : Subbiah Arunachalam SOURCE : CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 89, NO. 12, p. 2171-2172, 25 DECEMBER 2005 Henk Moed's book "Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation" (mentioned above) has been reviewed by Subbiah Arunachalam in Current Science. S. Arunachalam is at : M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai 600 113, India e-mail: arun at mssrf.res.in FULL TEXT OF S. ARUNACHALAM'S REVIEW IS AVAILABLE AT : http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2171.pdf FULL TEXT OF CHAPTER 5 BY HENK MOED IS AVAILABLE AT : http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/1990.pdf Henk F. Moed is in the Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. Henk Moed : e-mail: moed at cwts.leidenuniv.nl From lopez_manest at GVA.ES Thu Jan 12 07:20:23 2006 From: lopez_manest at GVA.ES (Manuel Lopez Estornell) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:20:23 +0100 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?cambio_direcci=F3n_y_tel=E9fono?= Message-ID: Estimado/a amigo/a: Por el presente le comunico que la Secretar?a T?cnica del Alto Consejo Consultivo en I+D se ha desplazado a la siguiente direcci?n: Presidencia de la Generalitat Valenciana Plaza Manises 1 46001-Valencia ESPA?A El nuevo tel?fono es: (34) 96-38-66-070/ 66914/63474 Provisionalmente, el n?mero de fax es: (34) 96-38-66-153 Atentamente queda a su disposici?n, Manuel L?pez Estornell Secretar?a T?cnica ACC I+D lopez_manest at gva.es -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Jan 12 11:02:51 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:02:51 +0000 Subject: RECENT MANUAL MEASUREMENTS OF OA AND OAA In-Reply-To: <200601112234.k0BMYL4K024296@quickgr.its.yale.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, David Goodman wrote (in liblicense-l): > Within the last few months, Stevan Harnad and his group, and we in our > group, have carried out together several manual measurements of OA (and > sometimes OAA, Open Access Advantage). The intent has been to independently > evaluate the accuracy of Chawki Hajjem's robot program, which has been > widely used by Harnad's group to out similar measurements by computer. > > The results from these measurements were first reported in a joint posting > on Amsci,* referring for specifics to a simultaneously posted detailed > technical report,** in which the results of each of several manual > analyses were separately reported. > > * http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind05&L > =american-scientist-open-access-forum&D=1&O=D&F=l&P=96445) > > ** "Evaluation of Algorithm Performance on Identifying OA" by Kristin > Antelman, Nisa Bakkalbasi, David Goodman, Chawki Hajjem, Stevan Harnad (in > alphabetical order) posted on ECS as http: eprints/ecs.soton.ac.uk/11689, > > From these data, both groups agreed that "In conclusion, the robot is not > yet performing at a desirable level and future work may be needed to > determine the causes, and improve the algorithm." I am happy that David and his co-workers did an independent test of how accurately Chawki's robot detects OA. The robot over-estimates OA (i.e., it miscodes many non-OA articles as OA: false positives, or false OA). Since our primary interest was and is in demonstrating the OA citation impact advantage, we had reasoned that any tendency to mix up OA and non-OA would go against us, because we were comparing the relative number of citations for OA and non-OA articles: the OA/non-OA citation ratio. So mixing up OA and non-OA would simply dilute that ratio, hence the detectability of any underlying OA advantage. (But more on this below.) We were not particularly touting the robot's accuracy in and of itself, nor its absolute estimates of the percentage of OA articles. There are other estimates of %OA, and they all agree that it is roughly between 5% and 25%, depending on field and year. We definitely do not think that pinning down that absolute percentage accurately is the high priority research goal at this time. In contrast, confirming the OA impact advantage (as first reported in 2001 by Lawrence for computer science) across other disciplines *is* a high priority research goal today (because of its importance for motivating OA). And we have already confirmed that OA advantage in a number of areas of physics and mathematics *without the use of a robot.* Brody, T. and Harnad, S. (2004) Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals. D-Lib Magazine 10(6). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10207/ Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Yves, G., Charles, O., 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/ Brody, T., Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2005) Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713/ For the OA advantage too, it is its virtually exception-free positive polarity that is most important today -- less so its absolute value or variation by year and field. The summary of the Goodman et al. independent signal-detection analysis of the robot's accuracy is the following: This is a second signal-detection analysis of the accuracy of a robot in detecting open access (OA) articles (by checking by hand how many of the articles the robot tagged OA were really OA, and vice versa). A first analysis, on a smaller sample (Biology: 100 OA, 100 non-OA), had found a detectability (d') of 2.45 and bias of 0.52 (hits 93%, false positives 16%; Biology %OA: 14%; OA citation advantage: 50%). The present analysis on a larger sample (Biology: 272 OA, 272 non-OA) found a detectability of 0.98 and bias of 0.78 (hits 77%, false positives, 41%; Biology %OA: 16%; OA citation advantage: 64%). An analysis in Sociology (177 OA, 177 non-OA) found near-chance detectability (d' = 0.11) and an OA bias of 0.99 (hits, 9%, false alarms, -2%; prior robot estimate Sociology %OA: 23%; present estimate 15%). It was not possible from these data to estimate the Sociology OA citation advantage. CONCLUSIONS: The robot significantly overcodes for OA. In Biology 2002, 40% of identified OA was in fact OA. In Sociology 2000, only 18% of identified OA was in fact OA. Missed OA was lower: 12% in Biology 2002 and 14% in Sociology 2000. The sources of the error are impossible to determine from the present data, since the algorithm did not capture URLs for documents identified as OA. In conclusion, the robot is not yet performing at a desirable level and future work may be needed to determine the causes, and improve the algorithm. In other words, the second test, based on the better, larger sample, finds a lower accuracy and a higher false-OA bias. In Biology, the robot had estimated 14% OA overall; the estimate based on the Goodman et al sample was instead 16% OA. (So the robot's *over*coding of the OA had actually resulted in a slight *under*estimate of %OA -- largely because the population proportion of OA is so low: somewhere between 5% and 25%.) The robot had found an average OA advantage of 50% in Biology; the Goodman et al sample found an OA advantage of 64%. (Again, there was not much change, because the overall proportion of OA is still so low.) Our robot's accuracy for Sociology (which we had not tested, so Goodman et al's was the first test) turned out to be much worse, and we are investigating this further. It will be important to find out why the robot's accuracy in detecting OA would vary from field to field. > Our group has now prepared an overall meta-analysis of the manual results > from both groups. *** We are able to combine the results, as we all were > careful to examine the same sample base using identical protocols for both > the counting and the analysis. Upon testing, we found a within-group > inter-rater agreement of 93% and a between-groups agreement of 92%. > > *** "Meta-analysis of OA and OAA manual determinations." David Goodman, > Kristen Antelman, and Nisa Bakkalbasi, > I am not sure about the informativeness of a "meta-analysis" based on two samples, from two different fields, whose main feature is that there seems to be a substantial difference in robot accuracy between the two fields! Until we determine why the robot's accuracy would differ by field, combining these two divergent results is like averaging over apples and oranges. It is trying to squeeze too much out of limited data. Our own group is currently focusing on testing the robot's accuracy in Biology and Sociology (see end of this message), using a still larger sample of each, and looking at other correlates, such as the number of search-matches for each item. This is incomparably more important than simply increasing the robot's accuracy for its own sake, ot for trying to get more accurate absolute estimates of the percentage of OA articles, because if the robot's false-OA bias were to be large enough *and* were correlated with the number of search-match items (i.e., if articles that have more non-OA matches on the Web are more likely to be falsely coded as OA) then this would compromise the robot-based OA-advantage estimates. > Between us, we analyzed a combined sample of 1198 articles in biology and > sociology, 559 of which the robot had identified as OA, and 559 of which > the robot had reported as non-OA. > > Of the 559 robot-identified OA articles , only 224 actually were OA (37%). > Of the 559 robot-identified non-OA articles, 533 were truly non-OA (89%). > The discriminability index, a common used figure of merit, was only 0.97. It is not at all clear what these figures imply, if anything. What would be of interest would be to calculate the OA citation advantage for each field (separately, and then, if you wish, combined) based on the citation counts for articles now correctly coded by humans as OA and non-OA in this sample, and to compare that with the robot-based estimate. More calculations on the robot's overall inaccuracy averaging across these two fields is not in and of itself providing any useful information. > (We wish to emphasize that our group's results find true OAA in biology at > a substantial level, and we all consider OAA one of the many reasons that > authors should publish OA.) It would be useful to look at the OAA (OA citation advantage) for the Sociology sample too, but note that the right way to compare OA and non-OA citations is within the same journal/year. Here only one year is involved, and perhaps even the raw OA/non-OA citation ratio will tell us something, but not a lot, given that there can be journal-bias, with the OA articles coming from some journals and the non-OA ones coming from different journals: Journals do not all have the same average citation counts. > In the many separate postings and papers from the SH group, such as **** > and ***** done without our group's involvement, their authors refer only > to the SH part of the small manual inter-rater reliability test. As it was > a small and nonrandom sample, it yields an anomalous discriminability > index of 2.45, unlike the values found for larger individual tests or for > the combined sample. They then use that partial result by itself to prove > the robot's accuracy. > > **** such as "Open Access to Research Increases Citation Impact" by > Chawki Hajjem, Yves Gingras, Tim Brody, Les Carr, and Stevan Harnad > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11687 > > *****: "Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open > Access and How it Increases Research Citation Impact" by 5. C. Hajjem, S. > Harnad, and Y. Gingras in IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 2005, > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11688/ No one is "proving" (or interested in proving) robot accuracy! In our publications to date, we cite our results to date. The Goodman et al. test results came out too late to be mentioned in the ***** published article, but they will be mentioned in the **** updated preprint (along with the further results from our ongoing tests). > None of the SH group's postings or publications refer to the joint report > from the two groups, of which they could not have been ignorant, as the > report was concurrently being evaluated and reviewed by SH. Are Goodman et al. suggesting that there has been some suppression of information here -- information from reports that we have co-signed and co-posted publicly? Or are Goodman et al. concerned that they are not getting sufficient credit for something? > Considering that both the joint ecs technical report ** and the separate > SH group report***** were both posted on Dec .16 2005, we have here > perhaps the first known instance of a author posting findings on the same > subject, on the same day, as adjacent postings on the same list, but with > opposite conclusions. One of the postings being a published postprint and the other an unpublished preprint! Again, what exactly is Goodman et al.'s point? > In view of these joint results, there is good reason to consider all > current and earlier automated results performed using the CH algorithm to > be of doubtful validity. The reader may judge: merely examine the graphs > in the original joint Technical Report; **. They speak for themselves. No, the robot accuracy tests do not speak for themselves. Nor does the conclusion of Goodman et al's preprint (***) (which I am now rather beginning to regret having obligingly "co-signed"!): "In conclusion, the robot is not yet performing at a desirable level and future work may be needed to determine the causes, and improve the algorithm." What *I* meant in agreeing with that conclusion was that we needed to find out why there were the big differences in the robot accuracy estimates (between our two samples and between the two fields). The robot's detection accuracy can and will be tightened, if and when it becomes clear that it needs to be, for our primary purpose (measuring and comparing the OA citation advantage across fields) or even our secondary purpose (estimating the relative percentage of OA by field and year), but not as an end in itself (i.e., just for the sake of increasing or "proving" robot accuracy). The reason we are doing our analyses with a robot rather than by hand is to be able to cover far more fields, years and articles, more quickly, than it is possible to do by hand. The hand-samples are a good check on the accuracy of the robot's estimates, but they are not necessarily a level of accuracy we need to reach or even approach with the robot! On the other hand, potential artifacts -- tending in opposite directions -- do need to be tested, and, if necessary, controlled for (including tightening the robot's accuracy): (1) to what extent is the OA citation "advantage" just a non-causal self-selection quality bias, with authors selectively self-archiving their higher-quality, hence higher citation-probability articles? (2) to what extent is the OA citation "advantage" just an artifact of false positives by the robot? (because there will be more false positives when there are more matches with the reference search from articles *other* than the article itself, hence more false positives with articles that are more cited on the web, which would make the robot-based outcome not an OA effect, and circular) A third question (not about a potential artifact, but about a genuine causal component of the OA advantage) is: (3) to what extent is the OA advantage an Early (preprint) Advantage (EA)? For those who are interested in our ongoing analyses, I append some further information below. Stevan Harnad Chawki: Here are the tests and controls that need to be done to determine both the robot's accuracy in detecting and estimating %OA and the causality of the observed citation advantage: (1) When you re-do the searches in Biology and Sociology (to begin with: other disciplines can come later), make sure to (1a) store the number as well as the URLs of all retrieved sites that match the reference-query and (1b) make the robot check the whole list (up to at least the pre-specified N-item limit you used before) rather than the robot's stopping as soon as it thinks it has found that the item is "OA," as in your prior searches. That way you will have, for each of your Biology and Sociology ISI reference articles, not only their citation counts, but also their query-match counts (from the search-engines) and also the number and ordinal position for every time the robot calls them "OA." (One item might have, say, k query-matches, with the 3rd, 9th and kth one judged "OA" by the robot, and the other k-3 judged non-OA.) Both the number (and URLs) of query-matches and the ordinal position of the first "OA"-call and the total number and proportion of OA-calls will be important test data to make sure that our robot-based OA citation advantage estimate is *not* just a query-match-frequency and/or query-match frequency plus false alarm artifact. (The potential artifact is that the robot-based OA advantage is not an OA advantage at all, but merely a reflection of the fact that more highly cited articles are more likely to have online items that *cite* them, and that these online items are the ones the robot is *mistaking* for OA full-texts of the *cited* article itself.) (2) As a further check on robot accuracy, please use a subset of URLs for articles that we *know* to be OA (e.g., from PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Arxiv, CogPrints) and try both the search-engines (for % query-matches) and the robot (for "%OA") on them. That will give another estimate of the *miss* rate of the search-engines as well as of the robot's algorithm for OA. (3) While you are doing this, in addition to the parameters that are stored with the reference (the citation count, the URLs for every query-match by the search, the number, proportion, and ordinal position of those of the matches that the robot tags as "OA"), please also store the citation impact factor of the *journal* in which the reference article was published. (We will use this to do sub-analyses to see whether the pattern is the same for high and low impact journals, and across disciplines; we will also look at it separately, for %OA among articles at different citation levels (1, 2-3, 4-7, 7-15, 16-31, 32-63, 64+), again within and across years and disciplines.) (4) The sampling for Biology and Sociology should of course be based on *pairs* within the same journal/year/issue-number: Assuming that you will be sampling 500 pairs (i.e., 1000 items) in each discipline (1000 Biology, 1000 Sociology), please first pick a *random* sample of 50 pairs for each year, and then, within each pair, pick, at *random*, one OA and one non-OA article per same issue. Use only the robot's *first* ordinal OA as your criterion for "OA" (so that you are duplicating the methodology the robot had used); the criterion for non-OA is, as before: none found among all of the search matches). If you feel you have the time, it would also be informative to check the 2nd or 3rd "OA" item if the robot found more than one. That too would be a good control datum, for evaluating the robot's accuracy under different conditions (number of matches; number/proportion of them judged "OA"). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11687/ http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11688/ http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11689/ (5) Count also the number of *journals* for which the robot judges that it is at or near 100% OA (for those are almost certainly OA journals and not self-archived articles). Include them in your %OA counts, but of course not in your OA/NOA ratios. (It would be a good idea to check all the ISI journal names against the DOAJ OA journals list -- about 2000 journals -- to make sure you catch all the OA journals.) Keep a count also of how many individual journal *issues* has either 100% OA or 0% OA (and were hence eliminated from the OA/NOA citation ratio). Those numbers will also be useful for later analyses and estimates. With these data we will be in a much better position to estimate the robot's accuracy and some of the factors contributing to the OA citation advantage. From gwhitney at UTK.EDU Thu Jan 12 15:07:09 2006 From: gwhitney at UTK.EDU (Gretchen Whitney) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:07:09 -0500 Subject: RECENT MANUAL MEASUREMENTS OF OA AND OAA Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:59:33 -0500 From: David Goodman We basically agree that Stevan's proposed determinations are a reasonable way to proceed with these investigations. (This is not saying that we agree with some of the specific methods, or will necessarily be likely to agree with the conclusions.) As we ommitted this detail in our posting, we were unable to measure the Sociology 2000 OAA because the data files associated the number of citations with the wrong articles; I have been told that the source of error is now understood andshould not recurr. I am not certain if it is practical to re-analyze that year, but other years in sociology should be measued. At the time, there were too few citations to the 2002 sociology articles to make measuring OAA practical. Dr. David Goodman (& KA & NB) Associate Professor? Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University dgoodman at liu.edu From Benoit_Godin at UCS.INRS.CA Fri Jan 13 14:25:37 2006 From: Benoit_Godin at UCS.INRS.CA (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Godin=2C_Beno=EEt=22?=) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:25:37 -0500 Subject: Centennial 1906-2006 Message-ID: Dear colleagues, 2006 marks a centennial, that of the systematic collection of statistics on science, technology and innovation. By systematic I mean "the regular use, for analytical purpose and over a continuous period of time, of statistics". In 1906 James McKeen Cattell, editor of Science for fifty years (1895-1944), published the first edition of a directory of scientists entitled American Men of Science. Based on the directory, Cattell published regular statistical analyses for thirty years on the demography, geography and what he called the performance of scientists. Psychologists followed, systematically counting scientific papers in psychology at regular intervals from 1903 to the 1950s. In order to celebrate the centennial, a series of events will also be organized in 2006, among then an international conference in Lugano (Switzerland), and a series of papers will be published on what has been accomplished so far in statistics on science, technology and innovation. Detail can be found at: http://www.csiic.ca/centennial.html. Best regards. Beno?t Godin professeur, INRS (514) 499 4074 benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca Canadian Science and Innovation Indicators Consortium www.csiic.ca Project on the history and sociology of S&T Statistics www.csiic.ca/Pubs_histoire.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From p.vandenbesselaar at RATHENAU.NL Sat Jan 14 16:35:23 2006 From: p.vandenbesselaar at RATHENAU.NL (Peter van den Besselaar) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:35:23 +0100 Subject: positions at the Rathanau Instituut, The Netherlands Message-ID: [PDF version of this text is attached] Applications from qualified candidates are invited for the following positions: Postdoctoral researcher quantitative science and science policy studies (full-time) Senior research fellow quantitative science and science policy studies (full-time) Senior research fellow modelling and simulation (full-time) More information about the positions can be found at http://www.rathenau.nl/(VACATURES). More information about the Science System Assessment unit and about the positions can be obtained from the head of department, prof. dr. Peter van den Besselaar, at +31 70 342 15 42 (office) or +31 20 465 00 14 (home), or by email at p.vandenbesselaar at rathenau.nl. If you wish to apply for one of these positions, please send your CV and a cover letter by mail or email to: Head Science System unit, Attn: Personnel Department, P.O. Box 95366, 2509 CJ The Hague, The Netherlands. Email address: sollicitaties at rathenau.nl. Applications must be received before January 27, 2006. The Rathenau Instituut contributes to the public debate and political deliberation about scientific and technological developments. The institute analyzes the consequences of science and technology for society. The agenda of the institute is developed in interaction with the social and political environment. Recently, the institute started to set up a new unit for Science System Assessment. The Rathenau Instituut is an independent organization, established in 1986 by the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Administratively, it is part of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. The mission of the new Science System Assessment unit is to conduct basic, strategic and applied research on the functioning and dynamics of the science system, in relation to internal scientific and technological changes, and in relation to external societal, economic, and political changes. The research program covers a broad range of issues, from the micro level of the research group to the macro level of institutional structures of the science system. An important theme in the research program is the development of existing and emerging scientific and technological fields. Although the focus is on the Netherlands science system, the research will generally take an international comparative perspective. The research program is under development and will be multidisciplinary in terms of its theoretical and methodological approach. Apart from original research, the Science System Assessment unit will offer independent analysis to support science policy in the Netherlands. The research of the unit will result in scholarly publications, but also in publications that inform the relevant stakeholders and public debate. At this time, the unit consists of four researchers. Three additional positions have now become available for which candidates are invited to apply. In 2006, the unit is expected to grow further to a size of at least ten staff members. Head of the unit is prof. dr. Peter van den Besselaar. ______________________________________________________ Prof. dr Peter van den Besselaar Head of department Science System Assessment, Rathenau Institituut P.O. Box 95366, 2509 CJ Den Haag +31(0)70 342 1542 & Amsterdam School of Communications Research ASCoR Dep. of Communication Science Universiteit van Amsterdam http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/p.a.a.vandenbesselaar/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: positions.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 53693 bytes Desc: not available URL: From darush55 at YAHOO.COM Sun Jan 15 08:24:18 2006 From: darush55 at YAHOO.COM (dariush alimohammadi) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:24:18 -0800 Subject: WEBLIOMETRICS Message-ID: Dear members, Hi. I have recently written an article entitled ?Webliometrics: a new horizon in information research?. It has been accepted to be published in LIBRARY REVIEW, Vol 55, No 6. I attach it to this mail. Please read the article and tell me your comments. Best wishes, Dariush Alimohammadi Web Developer Library, Museum & Documentation Center Islamic Consultative Assembly Baharestan Sq. Tehran, Iran P.O.Box: 11365-866 Tel: (0098-21) 33121968, 81952047 - (0098-261) 4302121 Email: Darush55 at yahoo.com or Webliographer at gmail.com Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/darush55/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LRW.doc Type: application/msword Size: 49152 bytes Desc: 2014174209-LRW.doc URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Mon Jan 16 17:33:08 2006 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:33:08 -0600 Subject: Curiouser and Curiouser Message-ID: (E (Embedded image moved to file: pic28617.gif)The Wall (Embedded ( mb Street Journal image moved E ed to file: m de pic21425.gif b d ) e im d ag d e e mo d ve i d m to a fi g le e : m pi o c1 v 05 e 55 d .g t if o ) f i l e : p i c 0 3 4 3 4 . g i f ) January 16, 2006 (Embedded image moved to file: pic16549.gif) REVIEW & OUTLOOK New England Journal of Politics January 16, 2006;?Page?A14 Merck scored a court victory late last month, convincing all but one federal juror that it acted responsibly in developing and marketing its Vioxx painkiller. What makes the outcome more notable is that it came despite the efforts of Merck's latest accuser, the New England Journal of Medicine. Accusations aren't the usual fare of august medical journals, so it's worth trying to understand the publication's self-insertion into the Merck litigation. Its extraordinary decision to publish a critical statement about a Vioxx study it ran years ago is being hailed by trial lawyers as the best evidence yet that Merck played fast and loose with its data. Another way to say this is that the New England Journal is joining the ranks of academic publications risking their reputations as non-partisan arbiters of good science in order to rumble in the political tarpits. The facts and timing of the Merck ambush certainly suggest as much. Late last year the New England Journal published an "Expression of Concern" about a Vioxx study it carried in 2000, baldly accusing researchers of omitting key data to make the painkiller appear more safe. The statement curiously appeared just as jurors began debating the latest Vioxx verdict. In case anyone missed the point, Executive Editor Gregory Curfman followed with his own attack on Merck, telling reporters he was "stunned" that the researchers had "allowed" his journal to publish a "misleading" article. In response to Merck's explanation, Dr. Curfman bluntly noted: "We're not buying into that." Any journal has an obligation to demand honest studies. Yet the facts of this case suggest that is exactly what it got. In November 2000 the journal published a Vioxx study funded by Merck, which was ostensibly looking for gastrointestinal problems. In the course of the study, the researchers also discovered that participants showed a somewhat higher risk of heart attack from taking Vioxx as compared to another widely used painkiller, naxopren -- a fact they included in the published results. What has Dr. Curfman in a dither is the fact that three more participants also suffered heart attacks -- though only after the cutoff date that had been determined by an outside safety panel for the study. The three heart incidents were included in an early draft of the paper, but they had disappeared by the time it went to press. The not-so-subtle accusation is that Merck manipulated the data. * * * In fact, as prominent scientists have since attested, the authors were simply following the rules of science. "If the outcomes truly occurred after the close of the study, then they don't belong in the study," Brian Strom, an epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, told Nature magazine. As to a grand Merck cover-up, the company provided the additional information to the Food and Drug Administration, publicly released it not long after the journal's article, and included information about the additional heart attacks when it sent out marketing materials that included the published study. The New England Journal clearly knew all this, and as an esteemed professional body presumably understood the scientific rationale behind the omission. Yet it nonetheless chose to use the Vioxx trial as an opportunity to join in the latest political and legal tarring of Big Pharma as greedy profiteers. Dr. Curfman declined to discuss the case on the record, save for the following statement: "The editors of the New England Journal of Medicine expect that a manuscript submitted for publication will provide a complete and accurate description of the study that was done, and that certain data will not be withheld." Unfortunately this attack on Merck isn't isolated, but is part of a growing trend among scientific journals that have joined business-bashing and other liberal campaigns. Last year a group of medical-journal editors joined in a partisan battle over "disclosure," refusing to publish studies unless companies had first registered at a federal clinical trial Web site. As FDA Deputy Commissioner Scott Gottlieb noted in a September speech, this is ironic considering that the journals "bottle up" important research in overly long peer-review processes and enforce their own "strict embargoes" on key studies so as to elevate their own publishing franchise. There's also the question of proprietary drug data that no company is eager to share with competitors. "Disclosure," after all, counts for little if no company sees a financial reason to explore a drug in the first place. * * * Some of this behavior may, in fairness, be a response to criticism the journals themselves have received from the political left. Many have come under fire as stooges of Big Pharma because they get advertising revenue from drug companies. But in recent years the leadership of these publications has also taken an ideological turn. Former New England Journal of Medicine Editor Marcia Angell has become a leading advocate of national health care (a la Canada's waiting lines) and drug price controls. Medical journals such as the Lancet bow to environmentalists by running reviews bashing the chemical DDT, despite its proven ability to save lives from malaria. The journal Science has refused to run research from noted academics questioning the theory of manmade global warming. Nature, Science and the Lancet have also declared war on genetically modified food; Nature published one study that was so shoddy it later ran a retraction. The worry here is that the health community and broader public will soon have one less place to find legitimate "science." These publications have viewed themselves as the gold standard in research, using their peer review processes to build reputations for careful and unbiased science on the leading issues of the day. Any suggestion that these publications have an axe to grind -- whether against corporate America, private markets, or specific drugs -- undermines their standing as neutral arbiters. That in turn makes it that much harder to separate good science from the "junk" version. And that truly warrants an "expression of concern." -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic28617.gif Type: image/gif Size: 4923 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic21425.gif Type: image/gif Size: 547 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic10555.gif Type: image/gif Size: 45 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic03434.gif Type: image/gif Size: 45 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic16549.gif Type: image/gif Size: 45 bytes Desc: not available URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Mon Jan 23 11:15:45 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:15:45 +0000 Subject: ERCIM News - special European theme - Open Access In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ** Apologies for Cross Posting ** ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:42:26 +0100 From: peter.kunz at ercim.org To: ercim-news at inria.fr Subject: [ERCIM News] ERCIM News No. 64 published ERCIM News 64 has just been published at http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/ - Special Theme: Emergent Computing - Special European Scene section: Open Access - Joint ERCIM actions: focus on the "Beyond the Horizon" project that invites the research community in Europe to participate in defining research themes on Future and Emerging Information Society Technologies in the Seventh Framework Programme. ERCIM News is published quarterly by ERCIM, the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics. ERCIM News reports on joint actions of the ERCIM partners, and aims to reflect the contribution made by ERCIM to the European Community in Information Technology. This issue will reach over 10,500 readers. About ERCIM (http://www.ercim.org): ERCIM - the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics - aims to foster collaborative work within the European research community and to increase co-operation with European industry. Leading research institutes from seventeen European countries are members of ERCIM. ERCIM is the European host of W3C. From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Jan 24 16:16:08 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:16:08 -0500 Subject: Schreiber, K; Kindler, CH "Bibliometric analysis of anaesthetic molecular biology research in Germany, Austria and Switzerland" ANAESTHESIST, 54 (11): 1094-1099 NOV 2005 Message-ID: E-mail Address: ckindler at uhbs.ch Author(s): Schreiber, K; Kindler, CH Title: Bibliometric analysis of anaesthetic molecular biology research in Germany, Austria and Switzerland Source: ANAESTHESIST, 54 (11): 1094-1099 NOV 2005 Language: German Document Type: Article Abstract: Back ground. In the last 20 years molecular biology has expanded the horizons of medical re search including anaesthesia. Preoperative identification of genetic disorders relevant to anaesthesia or increased perioperative risk will be avail able in the near future using molecular biology techniques. There has been a global in crease of such publications, but the contributions from Germany, Switzerland and Austria are unknown. Material and methods. An internet-based medline search was used to an a lyse specific features such as year of publication, journal and origin of molecular biology articles produced by German, Swiss and Austrian anaesthesia institutions from 1988 to 2002. Results. During the study period 121 articles from German institutions were published, 18 from Switzerland and 5 from Austria, corresponding to 10%, 1.5% and 0.4%, respectively, of global publications. In Germany the number of anaesthesia publications with a molecular biology content has continuously in creased, but in Switzerland and Austria the numbers have remained constant. The majority of articles were published in high-impact non-anaesthesia journals. Discussion and conclusion. The results of this study show the quantitative development of molecular biology re search that has been done in anaesthesia institutions in Germany, Switzerland and Austria from 1988 to 2002. A continuous increase of publications with a molecular biology con tent occurred only in Germany. Addresses: Univ Spital Basel, Dept Anasthesie, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland; St Josef Hosp, Abt Anathesie & Intens Med, Troisdorf, Germany Reprint Address: Kindler, CH, Univ Spital Basel, Dept Anasthesie, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland. Cited Reference Count: 39 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER Publisher Address: 233 SPRING STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA ISSN: 0003-2417 Source Item Page Count: 6 ISI Document Delivery No.: 986KN CITED REFERENCES : *CEST CEST SCI SCOREB JUL : 2004 AUSUBEL FM SHORT PROTOCOLS MOL : 1512 2002 BENZER A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF MEDICAL PUBLICATIONS IN 1990 LANCET 341 : 247 1993 BOLDT J Contribution of German university departments of anaesthesia in the international literature. ANASTHESIOLOGIE INTENSIVMEDIZIN NOTFALLMEDIZIN SCHMERZTHERAPIE 34 : 131 1999 BOLDT J Which countries publish in important anesthesia and critical care journals? ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA 88 : 1175 1999 BOLDT J Publication rate of DFG-supported research projects DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 125 : 1142 2000 CAMPAGNA JA Drug therapy: Mechanisms of actions of inhaled anesthetics NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 348 : 2110 2003 CSEKE LJ HDB MOL CELLULAR CEL : 2002 DARBRE PD BASIC MOL BIOL ESSEN : 1999 DIETRICH GV How well-positioned is a German-worded publication? ANASTHESIOLOGIE INTENSIVMEDIZIN NOTFALLMEDIZIN SCHMERZTHERAPIE 35 : 543 2000 ELDOR J GEOGRAPHY OF ANESTHESIOLOGY PUBLICATION ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA 38 : 409 1994 FAHRNI J KARDIOVASK MED 7 : 238 2004 FLEURY A FNS 1952 2002 50 JAH : 210 2002 GIESSLER A How to evaluate the research of a university clinic DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 125 : 979 2000 GIRARD T CURRENT PHARMACOGENO 2 : 119 2004 GIRARD T HUM MUTAT 18 : 357 2001 HAESELER G The anesthetic propofol modulates gating in paramyotonia congenita mutant muscle sodium channels MUSCLE & NERVE 24 : 736 2001 LEVANO S Genotyping the butyrylcholinesterase in patients with prolonged neuromuscular block after succinylcholine ANESTHESIOLOGY 102 : 531 2005 LUSCHER TF KARDIOVASK MED 7 : 233 2004 MALECK WH Contributions of German university departments of anesthesiology to the German language literature. ANASTHESIOLOGIE INTENSIVMEDIZIN NOTFALLMEDIZIN SCHMERZTHERAPIE 35 : 559 2000 MALECK WH German medical schools: Publications in leading english language general medicine journals DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 126 : 33 2001 MATHEW JP Platelet Pl(A2) polymorphism enhances risk of neurocognitive decline after cardiopulmonary bypass ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY 71 : 663 2001 MAY RM The scientific wealth of nations SCIENCE 275 : 793 1997 MEIERRUST K ZUCHER ZEITUNG 1102 : 77 2003 MENGES T Molecular medicine - Perspectives for anaesthesiology and intensive care. ANASTHESIOLOGIE INTENSIVMEDIZIN NOTFALLMEDIZIN SCHMERZTHERAPIE 35 : 465 2000 MENON DK Integrated approaches to academic anaesthesia - the Cambridge experience ANAESTHESIA 59 : 785 2004 MOED HF The impact-factors debate: The ISI's uses and limits NATURE 415 : 731 2002 PAPON P A challenge for the EU SCIENCE 301 : 565 2003 RAHMAN M Research output in anaesthesia: a quantitative ranking ANAESTHESIA 57 : 1213 2002 READE M Resuscitating academic anaesthesia - or trying to breathe life into a dead corpse? ANAESTHESIA 57 : 1214 2002 RINDER CS Platelet Pl(A2) polymorphism and platelet activation are associated with increased troponin I release after cardiopulmonary bypass ANESTHESIOLOGY 97 : 1118 2002 SAMBROOK J MOL CLONING LAB MANU : 2000 SCHLOEGL C Evaluating two Austrian university departments: Lessons learned SCIENTOMETRICS 56 : 287 2003 SCHREIBER K Bibliometric analysis of original molecular biology research in anaesthesia ANAESTHESIA 59 : 1002 2004 THIEL M Expression of adhesion molecules on circulating polymorphonuclear leukocytes during orthotopic liver transplantation HEPATOLOGY 28 : 1538 1998 VANAKEN H Quality of research in anesthesiology departments of German universities ANASTHESIOLOGIE INTENSIVMEDIZIN NOTFALLMEDIZIN SCHMERZTHERAPIE 34 : 793 1999 WEGNER J FOCUS : 110 2004 ZIEGELER S Gene polymorphisms in the intensive care patients. Is the disease course predetermined? ANAESTHESIST 53 : 213 2004 ZIEGELER S Influence of genotype on perioperative risk and outcome ANESTHESIOLOGY 99 : 212 2003 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Jan 24 17:05:43 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:05:43 -0500 Subject: Nabar-Bhaduri S, Bhaduri S "The science of growth and the growth of science" Current Science 89(7): 1076-1079 October 10 2005 Message-ID: The journal is available online at : http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/ This article is available at : http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct102005/1076.pdf E-mail Address : Sumit Bhaduri : sumit_bhaduri at ril.com Title: The science of growth and the growth of science Author(s): Nabar-Bhaduri S, Bhaduri S Source: CURRENT SCIENCE 89 (7): 1076-1079 OCT 10 2005 Document Type: Editorial Material Language: English Cited References: 18 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Science, technology and economics share complex relationships and attempts to quantify the contribution of science and technology (S&T) to economic growth are fraught with many difficulties. The growth in S&T related activities on the other hand could be quantified in terms of number of publications and patents: Do such numbers for an area of S&T that has had clear and quantified economic impact throw any new light on their relationships? With 'Green Revolution' as the test case and publication and patent data of the last 25-40 years, such an analysis has been carried out. It appears that the practice of S&T in this area has been greatly influenced by the intellectual property rights related aspects of globalization. Addresses: Reliance Ind, Swastik Mills, Bombay, Maharashtra 400071 India E-mail Addresses: sumit_bhaduri at ril.com Publisher: CURRENT SCIENCE ASSN, C V RAMAN AVENUE, PO BOX 8005, BANGALORE 560 080, INDIA Subject Category: MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES IDS Number: 976CX ISSN: 0011-3891 I would like to draw particular attention to the following paragraph: The esteem that a scientist enjoys from fellow scientists and his ability to attract research funds, now increasingly depend on his overall publication records as well as citation analysis. According to Frank George, author of the book Economy of Attention7, ?scientific communication may be a ?chase after attention?, but it happens because scientists ?invest their own attention in order to get attentive returns?.? He goes on to hypothesize that citation analysis is similar to the ?invisible hand? of a market mechanism that guides the efficient use of attention. Whatever may be the complex sociological and/or psychological reasons behind a knowledge worker?s preoccupation with publications and citations, these are the immediate, tangible and quantitative output of academic scientific research. The total number of publications and citations over a given period of time in a given area is a quantitative measure of the interest of the S&T community in that particular area. CITED REFERENCES : title not available US 4237224 US 4407956 NATURE 418 : 5 2002 BALARAM P Patents, laws and science CURRENT SCIENCE 88 : 1527 2005 BHAT SR Transgenic crops: Priorities and strategies for India CURRENT SCIENCE 88 : 886 2005 CHIDAMBARAM R Measures of progress in science and technology CURRENT SCIENCE 88 : 856 2005 DIAMOND J GUNS GERMS STEEL : 239 1997 DIAMOND J Economics - The wealth of nations NATURE 429 : 616 2004 DJERASSI C OXYGEN : 2001 EVENSON RE Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000 SCIENCE 300 : 758 2003 FINLAY KW ANALYSIS OF ADAPTATION IN A PLANT-BREEDING PROGRAMME AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 14 : 742 1963 FLOR HH CURRENT STATUS OF GENE-FOR-GENE CONCEPT ANNUAL REVIEW OF PHYTOPATHOLOGY 9 : 275 1971 FRANCK G Scientific communication - A vanity fair? SCIENCE 286 : 53 1999 GARFIELD E CITATION ANALYSIS AS A TOOL IN JOURNAL EVALUATION - JOURNALS CAN BE RANKED BY FREQUENCY AND IMPACT OF CITATIONS FOR SCIENCE POLICY STUDIES SCIENCE 178 : 471 1972 HELLMAN H GREAT FEUDS SCI : 40 1998 SHUKLA DB Need to inculcate the culture of intellectual property protection in research and development CURRENT SCIENCE 88 : 1553 2005 SOLOW RM A CONTRIBUTION TO THE THEORY OF ECONOMIC-GROWTH QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS 70 : 65 1956 SOLOW RM TECHNICAL CHANGE AND THE AGGREGATE PRODUCTION FUNCTION REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 39 : 312 1957 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Jan 24 17:42:30 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:42:30 -0500 Subject: Hirsch JE "An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output " PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 102 (46): 16569-16572 NOV 15 2005 Message-ID: J.E. Hirsch : E-mail Addresses: jhirsch at ucsd.edu Author(s): Hirsch JE Title: An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 102 (46): 16569-16572 NOV 15 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 6 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: I propose the index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number >= h, as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher. Author Keywords: citations; impact; unbiased Addresses: Hirsch JE (reprint author), Univ Calif San Diego, Dept Phys, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA Univ Calif San Diego, Dept Phys, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA E-mail Addresses: jhirsch at ucsd.edu Publisher: NATL ACAD SCIENCES, 2101 CONSTITUTION AVE NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20418 USA Subject Category: MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES IDS Number: 986PT ISSN: 0027-8424 CITED REFERENCES: HIRSCH JE ARXIV ORG E PRINT AR : 2005 KING C SCI WATCH 14 : 1 2003 LAHERRERE J Stretched exponential distributions in nature and economy: "fat tails" with characteristic scales EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B 2 : 525 1998 REDNER S How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B 4 : 131 1998 REDNER S Citation statistics from 110 years of Physical Review PHYSICS TODAY 58 : 49 2005 VANRAAN AFJ Sleeping Beauties in science SCIENTOMETRICS 59 : 467 2004 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Jan 24 17:53:37 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:53:37 -0500 Subject: Rau JR "Biological research impact factors: 1998-2004 " Biological Research 38(2-3): 147-149 2005. Message-ID: Full text of this article in Spanish is available at : http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716- 97602005000200004&lng=en&nrm=iso E-mail: jrau at ulagos.cl Title: Biological research impact factors: 1998-2004 Author(s): Rau JR Source: BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH 38 (2-3): 147-149 2005 Document Type: Article Language: Spanish Cited References: 8 Times Cited: 0 Addresses: Rau JR (reprint author), Univ de los Lagos, Dept Ciencias Basicas, Ecol Lab, Casilla 933, Osorno, Chile Univ Lagos, Dept Ciencias Basicas, Ecol Lab, Osorno, Chile Univ Lagos, Programa IBAM, Osorno, Chile E-mail Addresses: jrau at ulagos.cl Publisher: SOCIEDAD BIOLGIA CHILE, CASILLA 16164, SANTIAGO 9, CHILE Subject Category: BIOLOGY IDS Number: 974YG ISSN: 0716-9760 CITED REFERENCES : I SCI INF J CIT REP : 1999 AMIN M PERSPECTIVES PUBLISH 1 : 1 2000 JAKSIC FM The first hundred years of the Revista Chilena de Historia Natural REVISTA CHILENA DE HISTORIA NATURAL 70 : 5 1997 KRAUSKOPF M The lack of adequate recognition of existing skills affects scientific development in Chile BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH 36 : 139 2003 KRAUSKOPF M BIOL RES 35 : 331 2002 KRAUSKOPF M THE MAINSTREAM LATIN-AMERICAN JOURNALS - INDICATORS AND STRATEGIES FOR THEIR STRENGTHENING INTERCIENCIA 20 : 144 1995 RAU JR Impact factors of the Revista Chilena de Historia Natural: 1991-1995 REVISTA CHILENA DE HISTORIA NATURAL 70 : 453 1997 SABE BR J CITATION REPORTS 34 : 20 2001 From Vikki.Vowles at UNILEVER.COM Wed Jan 25 03:48:30 2006 From: Vikki.Vowles at UNILEVER.COM (vikki vowles) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:48:30 +0000 Subject: unsubscribe Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/x-cdsi-msrtf Size: 249 bytes Desc: not available URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Wed Jan 25 10:09:37 2006 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:09:37 +0100 Subject: Scientific Communication and Cognitive Codification: Social Systems Theory and SSK (draft version) Message-ID: Scientific Communication and Cognitive Codification: Social Systems Theory and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge Abstract The intellectual organization of the sciences cannot be appreciated sufficiently unless the cognitive dimension is considered as an independent source of variance. Cognitive structures interact and co-construct the organization of scholars and discourses into research programs, specialties, and disciplines. In the sociology of scientific knowledge and the sociology of translation, these heterogeneous sources of variance have been homogenized a priori in the concepts of practices and actor-networks. Practices and actor-networks, however, can be explained in terms of the self-organization of the cognitive code in scientific communication. This code selects knowledge claims by organizing them operationally in the various discourses; the claims can thus be stabilized and potentially globalized. Other symbolically generalized media of communication carry different functions; for example, markets can also be considered as self-organizing in terms of setting prices. The globalization of a knowledge-based economy can be analyzed as a possible consequence of the self-organization of scientific communication and its sustained interaction with the self-organization of economic exchange processes. ** apologies for cross-postings _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, and Simulated The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: clip_image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1101 bytes Desc: not available URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Jan 31 12:18:40 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:18:40 -0500 Subject: Vakil N "The journal impact factor: Judging a book by its cover" AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 100 (11): 2436-2437 NOV 2005 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: nvakil at wisc.edu Title: The journal impact factor: Judging a book by its cover Author(s): Vakil N Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 100 (11): 2436-2437 NOV 2005 Document Type: Editorial Material Language: English Cited References: 6 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Journal impact factors have been used to evaluate the quality of the work of an individual author and as a guide to the quality of a given study. Despite a rough correlation between the quality of an article and the impact factor of the journal it is published in, the reader cannot be sure of the value of an individual article without a careful appraisal of its content. Addresses: Vakil N (reprint author), Aurora Sinai Med Ctr, 945 N 12th St,Room 4040, Milwaukee, WI 53233 USA Univ Wisconsin, Sch Med, Madison, WI USA Marquette Univ, Coll Hlth Sci, Milwaukee, WI 53233 USA Publisher: BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, 9600 GARSINGTON RD, OXFORD OX4 2DQ, OXON, ENGLAND Subject Category: GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY IDS Number: 976ZD Cited References: GARFIELD E, WHICH MEDICAL JOURNALS HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 105 : 313 1986 GARFIELD E, CMAJ 161 : 8 1999 GLUUD L, AM J GASTROENTEROL 16 : 2431 2005 GREENHALGH T, READ PAPER : 94 2001 SEGLEN PO, Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 314 : 498 1997 SHER IH, RES PROGRAM EFFECTIV : 135 1966 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Jan 31 12:30:04 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:30:04 -0500 Subject: Barrett A, "The information-seeking habits of graduate student researchers in the humanities " Journal of Academic Librarianship 31(4):324-331 July 2005 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: andybarre at yahoo.com Title: The information-seeking habits of graduate student researchers in the humanities Author(s): Barrett A Source: JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 31 (4): 324-331 JUL 2005 Document Type: Article Language : English Cited References: 26 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: This paper summarizes an exploratory research study on the information-seeking habits of graduate student researchers in the humanities. In-depth interviews with a small sample of humanities graduate students were used to explore to what extent humanities graduate students might constitute a user group distinct from faculty and undergraduate models. Addresses: Barrett A (reprint author), Univ Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B8 Canada Univ Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B8 Canada E-mail Addresses: andybarre at yahoo.com Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010- 1710 USA Subject Category: INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE IDS Number: 966TA BERNHARD RH - SOCIAL RES METHODS Q : 2000 BODI S - J ACAD LIBR 28 : 103 2002 BOICE R - LIBRARIANS AND FACULTY MEMBERS - COPING WITH PRESSURES TO PUBLISH COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 48 : 494 1987 CASE DO - THE COLLECTION AND USE OF INFORMATION BY SOME AMERICAN HISTORIANS - A STUDY OF MOTIVES AND METHODS LIBRARY QUARTERLY 61 : 61 1991 DILEVKO J - Print sources in an electronic age: A vital part of the research process for undergraduate students JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 28 : 381 2002 FIDZANI - COLL RES LIB 60 : 245 1999 FIDZANI BT - LIB REV 47 : 329 1998 FISTER B - THE RESEARCH PROCESSES OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 18 : 163 1992 GARFIELD E - IS INFORMATION-RETRIEVAL IN THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES INHERENTLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN SCIENCE - EFFECT THAT ISIS-CITATION-INDEX-FOR-THE- ARTS-AND-HUMANITIES IS EXPECTED TO HAVE ON FUTURE SCHOLARSHIP LIBRARY QUARTERLY 50 : 40 1980 JONES WG - COLL RES LIB 61 : 421 2000 JONES WG - COLL RES LIB 50 : 638 1989 KENNEDY L - The false focus in online searching - The particular case of undergraduates seeking information for course assignments in the humanities and social sciences, REFERENCE & USER SERVICES QUARTERLY 38 : 267 1999 KUHLTHAU CC - ADV LIBRARIANSHIP 18 : 57 1994 KUHLTHAU CC - DEVELOPING A MODEL OF THE LIBRARY SEARCH PROCESS - COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE ASPECTS RQ 28 : 232 1988 LECKIE GJ - Desperately seeking citations: Uncovering faculty assumptions about the undergraduate research process JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 22 : 201 1996 MELLON CA - PROCESS NOT PRODUCT IN COURSE-INTEGRATED INSTRUCTION - A GENERIC MODEL OF LIBRARY RESEARCH COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 45 : 471 1984 OSIOBE SA - INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIOR INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY REVIEW 20 : 337 1988 RABINOWITZ C - RES STRATEGIES 17 : 337 2000 SCHWARTZ CA - COLL RES LIB : 414 1991 STONE - LIB Q 70 : 201 2000 STONE S - HUMANITIES SCHOLARS - INFORMATION NEEDS AND USES JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 38 : 292 1982 SWEETLAND JH - HUMANISTS, LIBRARIES, ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, AND THE FUTURE, LIBRARY TRENDS 40 : 781 1992 VALENTINE B - UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH BEHAVIOR - USING FOCUS GROUPS TO GENERATE THEORY JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 19 : 300 1993 WATSONBOONE R - THE INFORMATION NEEDS AND HABITS OF HUMANITIES SCHOLARS RQ 34 : 203 1994 WEINTRAUB KJ - HUMANISTIC SCHOLAR AND THE LIBRARY LIBRARY QUARTERLY 50 : 22 1980 WIBERLEY - COLL RES LIB 52 : 403 1991