From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Tue May 2 02:59:32 2006 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 08:59:32 +0200 Subject: Special TH Issue of Scientometrics Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The special issue of Scientometrics based on the Triple Helix Conference 2005 is now complete. The ToC reads as follows: Loet Leydesdorff and Martin Meyer: The Scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. (Introduction to the topical issue.) Abstract: We distinguish between an internal differentiation of science and technology that focuses on instrumentalities and an external differentiation in terms of the relations of the knowledge production process to other social domains, notably governance and industry. The external contexts bring into play indicators and statistical techniques other than publications, patents, and citations. Using regression analysis, for example, one can examine the importance of knowledge and knowledge spill-over for economic development. The relations can be expected to vary among nations and regions. The field-specificity of changes is emphasized as a major driver of the research agenda. In a knowledge-based economy, institutional arrangements can be considered as support structures for cognitive developments. I. Geographical Units of Analysis Poh-Kam Wong, Yuen-Ping Ho: Knowledge sources of innovation in a small open economy: The case of Singapore Joaqu?n M. Azagra-Caro, Fragiskos Archontakis, Alfredo Yegros-Yegros: In which regions do universities patent and publish more? Wolfgang Gl?nzel, Bal?zs Schlemmer: National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983-2003). An exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the triple helix II. The Entrepreneurial University Sujit Bhattacharya, Praveen Arora: Industrial Linkages in Indian universities: What they reveal and what they imply? Omar Belkhodja, R?jean Landry: The triple-helix collaboration: Why do researchers collaborate with industry and the government? What are the factors that influence the perceived barriers? Nicola Baldini, Rosa Grimaldi, Maurizio Sobrero: To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives and obstacles to university patenting Paula S.F. Moutinho, Margarida Fontes, Manuel M. Godinho: Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists? patenting in Portuguese public research organisations III. Academic Patenting Bruno Cassiman, Patrick Glenisson, Bart Van Looy: Measuring industry-science links through inventor-author relations: A profiling methodology Eric J. Iversen, Magnus Gulbrandsen, Antje Klitkou: A baseline for the impact of academic patenting legislation in Norway. Martin Meyer, Puay Tang: Exploring the ?value? of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for third-stream indicators Bart Van Looy, Tom Magerman, Koenraad Debackere: Developing technology in the vicinity of science: An examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology IV. The Dynamics of S&T Networks R. Ramlogan, A. Mina, G. Tampubolon, J.S. Metcalfe: Networks of knowledge: The distributed nature of medical innovation Antje Klitkou, Stian Nygaard, Martin Meyer: Tracking techno-science networks: A case study of fuel cells and related hydrogen technology R&D in Norway Hildrun Kretschmer, Ute Kretschmer, Theo Kretschmer: Reflection of co-authorship networks in the web: Web hyperlinks versus web visibility rates We expect publication later this year. With kind regards, Martin Meyer & Loet Leydesdorff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Wed May 3 02:33:38 2006 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (eugene.garfield) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 02:33:38 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: warning1.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu May 4 16:09:35 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:09:35 -0400 Subject: Simkin MV, Roychowdhury VP "Theory of aces: Fame by chance or merit?" Journal of Mathematical Sociology 30 (1): 33-42 Jan-March 2006 Message-ID: E-mail: simkin at ee.ucla.edu vwani at ee.ucla.edu Title: Theory of aces: Fame by chance or merit? Author(s): Simkin MV, Roychowdhury VP Source: JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY 30 (1): 33-42 JAN-MAR 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 11 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: We study empirically how fame of WWI fighter-pilot aces, measured in numbers of web pages mentioning them, is related to their achievement or merit, measured in numbers of opponent aircraft destroyed. We find that on average fame grows exponentially with achievement; to be precise, there is a strong correlation (greater than or similar to 0.7) between achievement and the logarithm of fame. At the same time, the number of individuals achieving a particular level of merit decreases exponentially with the magnitude of the level, leading to a power-law distribution of fame. A stochastic model that can explain the exponential growth of fame with merit is also proposed. Author Keywords: fame; merit; meme; stochastic process KeyWords Plus: EVOLUTION; NETWORKS Addresses: Simkin MV (reprint author), Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Elect Engn, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Elect Engn, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA E-mail Addresses: vwani at ee.ucla.edu Publisher: TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXON, ENGLAND Subject Category: MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS; SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS; SOCIOLOGY IDS Number: 988AF ISSN: 0022-250X References: BIANCONI G Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks EUROPHYSICS LETTERS 54 : 436 2001 BRIN S The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS 30 : 107 1998 DAWKINS R SELFISH GENE : 1976 DOROGOVTSEV SN Evolution of networks ADVANCES IN PHYSICS 51 : 1079 2002 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXING : 1976 KRAPIVSKY PL Organization of growing random networks PHYSICAL REVIEW E 63 : Art. No. 066123 2001 PRICE DJD GENERAL THEORY OF BIBLIOMETRIC AND OTHER CUMULATIVE ADVANTAGE PROCESSES JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 27 : 292 1976 REDNER S How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B 4 : 131 1998 SCHULMAN E ANN IMPROBABLE RES 5 : 16 1999 SIMON HA ON A CLASS OF SKEW DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS BIOMETRIKA 42 : 425 1955 YULE GU A mathemahcal theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr J C Willis, F R S PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B- CONTAINING PAPERS OF A BIOLOGICAL CHARACTER 213 : 21 1925 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Thu May 4 16:26:28 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:26:28 -0400 Subject: Knievel JE, Kellsey C. "Citation analysis for collection development: A comparative study of eight humanities fields " Library Quarterly 75(2):142-168, April 2005. Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: jennifer.knievel at colorado.edu charlene.kellsey at colorado.edu FOR FULL TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE GO TO : http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/431331 click on html or pdf version Title: Citation analysis for collection development: A comparative study of eight humanities fields Author(s): Knievel JE, Kellsey C Source: LIBRARY QUARTERLY 75 (2): 142-168 APR 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 40 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: This study analyzes 9,131 citations from the 2002 volumes of journals in eight humanities fields: art, classics, history, linguistics, literature, music, philosophy, and religion. This study found that citation patterns varied widely among humanities disciplines. Due to these differences, it is important for librarians with humanities collection development responsibilities to consider each field separately when making collection development decisions. The authors investigated the language of sources cited in each field. Foreign language citations continue to be dominated by French and German. This study also confirms that, in most humanities disciplines, monographs remain the dominant format of cited sources, although some fields cited monographs less frequently than expected. Addresses: Knievel JE (reprint author), Univ Colorado, Univ Lib, 184 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309 USA Univ Colorado, Univ Lib, Boulder, CO 80309 USA E-mail Addresses: jennifer.knievel at colorado.edu charlene.kellsey at colorado.edu Publisher: UNIV CHICAGO PRESS, 1427 E 60TH ST, CHICAGO, IL 60637-2954 USA Subject Category: INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE IDS Number: 969OX ISSN: 0024-2519 CITED REFERENCES : BARKETT GR LIB EVALUATION CASEB : 155 2001 BOLLAG B CRONICLE HIGHER 0908 : A73 2000 BOWMAN M COLLECT BUILD 11 : 2 1991 BROCKMAN WS REFERENCE SOURCES HU : 1987 BUDD J COLLECTION MANAGEMEN 8 : 49 1986 BYNAGLE HE REFERENCE SOURCES HU : 1997 CULLARS J CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MONOGRAPHIC SCHOLARSHIP OF FOREIGN LITERARY-STUDIES BY NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 49 : 157 1988 CULLARS J CITATION CHARACTERISTICS OF MONOGRAPHS IN THE FINE-ARTS LIBRARY QUARTERLY 62 : 325 1992 CULLARS JM Citation characteristics of English-language monographs in philosophy LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH 20 : 41 1998 CULLARS JM Citation characteristics of French and German fine arts monographs LIBRARY QUARTERLY 66 : 138 1996 CULLARS JM SERIALS LIBR 39 : 39 2000 DAWSEY J ALTA BIBLIO SERIES 23 : 1988 DELUISE A SERIALS LIBR 39 : 79 2001 DEMILLER AL REFERENCE SOURCES HU : 2000 DEVIN RB THE SERIAL MONOGRAPH RATIO IN RESEARCH-LIBRARIES - BUDGETING IN LIGHT OF CITATION STUDIES COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 51 : 46 1990 DOWELL ART DOCUMENTATION 18 : 14 1999 GILTON DL Journals of the century in the American religious experience SERIALS LIBRARIAN 39 : 25 2001 GRISCOM R PERIODICAL USE IN A UNIVERSITY MUSIC-LIBRARY - A CITATION STUDY OF THESES AND DISSERTATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE INDIANA-UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MUSIC FROM 1975-1980 SERIALS LIBRARIAN 7 : 35 1983 HERRING SD Use of electronic resources in scholarly electronic journals: A citation analysis COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 63 : 334 2002 HERUBEL JPV COLLECTION MANAGEMEN 18 : 89 1994 HERUBEL JPV SERIALS REV 19 : 79 1993 HERUBEL JVM COLLECTION MANAGEMEN 12 : 57 1990 HUTCHINS WJ UNPUB LANGUAG BARRIE : 1971 IEG EC ANNOTATED BIBLIOG SE 13 : 1988 JENKINS FW REFERENCE SOURCES HU : 1996 JONES C CHARACTERISTICS OF LITERATURE USED BY HISTORIANS JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP 4 : 137 1972 KARASS A SERIALS LIBR 39 : 103 2001 KELLSEY C Global English in the humanities? A longitudinal citation study of foreign- language use by humanities scholars COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 65 : 194 2004 KUYPERRUSHING L Identifying uniform core journal titles for music libraries: A dissertation citation study COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 60 : 153 1999 LASCAR C An analysis of journal use by structural biologists with applications for journal collection development decisions COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 62 : 422 2001 LINDHOLMROMANTSCHUK Y The role of monographs in scholarly communication: An empirical study of philosophy, sociology and economics JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 52 : 389 1996 LOWE MS COLLECT BUILD 22 : 13 2003 NEDERHOF AJ QUALITY JUDGMENTS OF JOURNALS AS INDICATORS OF RESEARCH PERFORMANCE IN THE HUMANITIES AND THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL-SCIENCES JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 42 : 332 1991 NELSON DM METHODS OF CITATION ANALYSIS IN FINE ARTS SPECIAL LIBRARIES 68 : 390 1977 PATTY GM FOREIGN-LANGUAGE STUDY FOR GRADUATE ENGLISH MAJORS COLLEGE ENGLISH 51 : 688 1989 SIMONTON WC THESIS U ILLINOIS UR : 1960 STERN M CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LITERATURE OF LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 44 : 199 1983 THOMPSON JW The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship LIBRI 52 : 121 2002 TUCKER BR THESIS U N CAROLINA : 1959 WATSONBOONE R RQ 34 : 213 1994 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri May 5 14:30:00 2006 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:30:00 -0400 Subject: Robillard AE "Young scholars affecting composition: A challenge to disciplinary citation practices " College English 68(3):253-270, January 2006. Message-ID: E-mail: aerobil at ilstu.edu Title: Young scholars affecting composition: A challenge to disciplinary citation practices Author(s): Robillard AE Source: COLLEGE ENGLISH 68 (3): 253-270 JAN 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 29 Times Cited: 0 ABSTRACT: The author argues that the new journal Young Scholars in Writing: Undergraduate Research in Writing and Rhetoric offers access to student writing outside of the pedagogical apparatus that has historically accompanied the publication of such writing, and in the process challenges composition?s standard practice of citing students by first name only. Young Scholars in Writing, as representative of the disciplinary shift from a conception of writing as verb to writing as noun, compels composition studies to consider the affective aspect of citation, which often goes unremarked. College English, Volume 68, Number 3, January 2006 Addresses: Robillard AE (reprint author), Illinois State Univ, Normal, IL 61761 USA Illinois State Univ, Normal, IL 61761 USA Publisher: NATL COUNCIL TEACHERS ENGLISH, 1111 KENYON RD, URBANA, IL 61801 USA Subject Category: LITERATURE IDS Number: 000PI ISSN: 0010-0994 CITED REFERENCES : *CCCC AD HOC COMM CCC 52 : 485 2001 BARTHES R IMAGE MUSIC TEXT : 142 1977 BASTIAN H YOUNG SCHOLARS WRITI 1 : 77 2003 BAWARSHI A The genre function (Texts, culture) COLLEGE ENGLISH 62 : 335 2000 BEECH J Redneck and hillbilly discourse in the writing classroom: Classifying critical pedagogies of whiteness COLLEGE ENGLISH 67 : 172 2004 BOWDEN D THE LIMITS OF CONTAINMENT - TEXT-AS-CONTAINER IN COMPOSITION STUDIES COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION 44 : 364 1993 CONNORS RJ RHETORIC REV 17 : 219 1999 CONNORS RJ RHETORIC REV 17 : 6 1998 DEJOY N PROCESS THIS UNDERGR : 2005 DOWNS D RE COMP THEORY FYC O : 2004 EMIG J COLLEGE COMPOSITION 28 : 122 1977 FISANICK C RE COMP THEORY FYC O : 2004 FOUCAULT M LANGUAGE COUNTER MEM : 124 1977 GILFUS J AUTHERSHIP COMPOSITI : 57 2006 GOLEMAN J An "immensely simplified task": Form in modern composition-rhetoric COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION 56 : 51 2004 GOLEMAN J JAC 21 : 654 2001 GREENE S MAKING SENSE OF MY OWN IDEAS - THE PROBLEMS OF AUTHORSHIP IN A BEGINNING WRITING CLASSROOM WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 12 : 186 1995 GROBMAN L YOUNG SCHOLARS WRITI 1 : 1 2003 HARRIS J THE WORK OF OTHERS COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION 45 : 439 1994 HINDMAN JE JAC 22 : 93 2002 HOOD CL WRITING EDGE 13 : 56 2003 HOWARD RM UNPUB CITATION MAMBO : 2002 LINDQUIST J Class affects, classroom affectations: Working through the paradoxes of strategic empathy COLLEGE ENGLISH 67 : 187 2004 ROBBINS S Distributed authorship: A feminist case-study framework for studying intellectual property COLLEGE ENGLISH 66 : 155 2003 ROSE SK PERSPECTIVES PLAGIAR : 241 1999 STEEDMAN CK LANDSCAPE GOOD WOMAN : 1987 STYGALL G RESISTING PRIVILEGE - BASIC WRITING AND FOUCAULT AUTHOR FUNCTION COLLEGE COMPOSITION AND COMMUNICATION 45 : 320 1994 TRIMBUR J COMPOSITION STUDIES 31 : 15 2003 WARDLE E RE COMP THEORY FYC O : 2004 From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Sat May 6 17:07:46 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 22:07:46 +0100 Subject: Comments on BRAIN Project In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi All, Here are a few comments and suggestions on the BRAIN documents I've seen so far at http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/BRAIN/ > About 40% of US universities have or are building institutional > repositories, and another 40% are planning them. For the c. 130 US IRs registered so far, sorted by size, see ROMEO: http://archives.eprints.org/?country=us&version=&type=&order=recordcount&submit=Filter > About 80% of all > journals now permit authors to self-archive (on a personal web site or > in an institutional repository) Of the 9000+ journals registered in Romeo, 93% endorse some form of self-archiving (69% for postprints + 24% for preprints) > About 15% of faculty publishing new scholarly articles actually do this. With a lot of variability by discipline. Here are the data: http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/ http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/graphes/EtudeImpact.htm > BRAIN aims to raise the rate of voluntary participation in institutional > repositories, as follows: > > When a scholar self-archives in an institutional repository that > participates in BRAIN, he or she gets back a list of the papers from any > open-access repository or journal that best match this one, based on > coincidence of citations and full-text clustering, plus best matches > from books and journals, as described below. Scholars would be able to > read full-text of these if they were open access articles, but (see > below, Publishers) might only get an abstract and citations within the > article, if it were not open access. I am not sure what algorithm BRAIN will use to generate these matches, but if citations, co-citations and keyword similarity scores are to be among the metrics, see citebase: http://www.citebase.org/ http://www.citebase.org/help/order.php > a partial example of the kind of results I'd hope we might eventually > offer to participants can be found in the search results here: > > http://vivo.library.cornell.edu/ Perhaps a vivo-like tool will be useful for students and even teachers, but I profoundly doubt it is the way active researchers will either search or keep up with their research literature. There, I would put my money on target alerting algorithms, based on boolean word-profiles plus citation and co-citation profiles and possibly also some latent semantic or other text proximity metrics. > ...except that they're only dealing with one institution's materials, > and not tying the service to submissions. Why would an author especially want a search at submission (rather than, say, when researching and writing the paper and constructing the bibliography)? > Publishers--initially university presses--might be approached to > participate, perhaps by permitting full-text of journals and books to be > searched for corresponding citations using web services, or perhaps > allowing full-text to be aggregated and text-mined, behind a firewall. Good idea (but probably more useful if it is accessible for searching via google-like full-text-inversion and boolean search). > Publishers who participate would get back information about hot topics > in areas of interest, based on submissions to the institutional > repository. Probably it's journal editorial offices, searching for referees -- and referees themselves -- who will need and want a service like this, rather than the publishers themselves. > Somehow, it would be nice to make this feedback proportional > to the contribution, so that publishers who contributed only > bibliographic information got back only bibliographic information, and > publishers who contributed full text got back full text. It would be sweet revenge, but maybe there are better ways to encourage publishers (or, better, journals and their editors) to provide the requisite information -- e.g., its effects on their impact factors. > On the other hand, this matchmaking service should be open from the very > beginning to whoever wants to participate, either by aggregating their > instutitional repository materials with ours, or by contributing > bibliographic information or full-text, even when that information > cannot be freely distributed, but only mined. If the IRs are set up properly, all of this information should be OAI-harvestable *including the references*. Text-inversion can be via google, or google-like harvesters of full-text for OA content only (in the same way citeseer harvests only its own target content -- but does not invert it). > Very likely, we would need to aggregate the content of participating > repositories here at UIUC--unless participating institutional > repositories share a very low-level common infrastructure, their > materials will have to be aggregated in one place for data-mining, for > the forseeable future. On the other hand, we could probably automate > this aggregation using OAI harvesting to get URLs for repository > contents, then spidering those URLs and downloading the full content of > the articles, perhaps using tools developed by OCLC in the NDIIPP > project (see http://www.ndiipp.uiuc.edu/pdfs/IST2005paper_final.pdf for > more information). For material (like university press books and > journals) that's not freely available, we'd need some cooperation from > content providers, but I am reasonably confident I can recruit > participation from at least a few large presses and > journal-repositories, for starters. Good luck on this: important, but complicated. > We'll be aggregating data from at least two sources--OAI > repositories, and Google Scholar. Why not also from all the IRs in ROAR? And all the OAJs in DOAJ? > Identifying citations and matching them, in unstructured text I suggest you collaborate with Les Carr, Mike Jewell, Tim Brody (OpCit, Paracite Citebase) as well as Chawki Hajjem (UQaM) on this, as they have been doing both for some time: harvesting texts, parsing references, linking references. > Matching one document with others, based on its content. See: 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 21. Chandos. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12453/ Best wishes, Stevan Harnad American Scientist Open Access Forum http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html Chaire de recherche du Canada Professor of Cognitive Science Ctr. de neuroscience de la cognition Dpt. Electronics & Computer Science Universit? du Qu?bec ? Montr?al University of Southampton Montr?al, Qu?bec Highfield, Southampton Canada H3C 3P8 SO17 1BJ United Kingdom http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/ http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ From sally.morris at ALPSP.ORG Mon May 8 11:28:23 2006 From: sally.morris at ALPSP.ORG (Sally Morris (ALPSP)) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 16:28:23 +0100 Subject: Commission study addresses Europe's scientific publication system Message-ID: Please note that the recommendations are not at this stage those of the Commission, as Stevan suggests, but simply those of the report's authors; there is now a period of consultation before the Commission draws its conclusions Sally Sally Morris, Chief Executive Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44 (0)1903 871 686 Fax: +44 (0)1903 871 457 Email: sally.morris at alpsp.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Stevan Harnad To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Commission study addresses Europe's scientific publication system Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On 18-Apr-06, at 1:53 PM, Eugene Garfield wrote: Subject: Commission study addresses Europe's scientific publication system The European Commission has published a study The study... makes a number of recommendations for future action, including: * Guaranteed public access to publicly-funded research, at the time of publication and also long-term... http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf Given that Gene has posted the above to Sigmetrics, here is some pertinent follow-up: Suggestion for Optimising the European Commission's Recommendation to Mandate Open Access Archiving of Publicly-Funded Research The European Commission "Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets in Europe" has made the following policy recommendation: RECOMMENDATION A1. GUARANTEE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY-FUNDED RESEARCH RESULTS SHORTLY AFTER PUBLICATION. "Research funding agencies have a central role in determining researchers' publishing practices. Following the lead of the NIH and other institutions, they should promote and support the archiving of publications in open repositories, after a (possibly domain-specific) time period to be discussed with publishers. This archiving could become a condition for funding. The following actions could be taken at the European level: (i) Establish a European policy mandating published articles arising from EC-funded research to be available after a given time period in open access archives [emphasis added], and (ii) Explore with Member States and with European research and academic associations whether and how such policies and open repositories could be implemented." The European Commission?s Recommendation A1 is very welcome and potentially very important, but it can be made incomparably more effective with just one very simple but critical revision concerning what needs to be deposited, when (hence what can and cannot be delayed): For the purposes of Open Access, a research paper has two elements ? (i) the whole document itself (called the ?full-text) and (ii) its bibliographic metadata (its title, date, details of the authors, their institutions, the abstract and so forth). This bibliographic information can exist as an independent entity in its own right and serves to alert would-be users to the existence of the full-text article itself. EC Recommendation A1 should distinguish between first (a) depositing the full text of a journal article in the author?s Institutional Repository (preferably, or otherwise any other OAI-compliant Open Access Repository ? henceforth referred to collectively as OARs; see Swan et al. 2005) and then deciding whether to (b1) allow Open Access to that full-text deposit, or to (b2) allow Open Access only to its bibliographic metadata and not the full-text. EC Recommendation A1 should accordingly specify the following: 1.. Depositing the full-text of all journal articles in the author's OAR is mandatory immediately upon acceptance for publication for all EC-funded research findings, without exception. 2.. In addition, allowing Open Access to the article?s bibliographic metadata at the time of deposit (i.e., immediately upon acceptance for publication) is always mandatory. 3.. However, allowing Open Access to the full-text of the article itself immediately upon deposit is merely encouraged wherever possible, but not mandatory; full-text access can be made Open Access at a later time if necessary: The OAR software enables the author to allow Open Access to either the whole article or to its bibliographic metadata only. This separate treatment of the rules for (a) depositing and for (b) access-setting provides authors with the means of abiding by the copyright regulations for the articles published in the 7% of journals that have not yet explicitly given their official green light to authors to provide immediate Open Access through self-archiving (as 93% of journals have already done). Authors can make their full-text Open Access at the time agreed with the publisher simply by changing the access-setting for the deposit at the chosen time. Meanwhile, however, the bibliographic metadata for all articles are and remain openly accessible to everyone from the moment of acceptance for publication, informing users of the existence and whereabouts of the article. During any publisher-imposed embargo period, would-be users who access the metadata and find that they cannot access the full-text can email the author individually to request an eprint -- and the author can then choose to email the eprint to the requester, or not, as he wishes, exactly as authors did in paper reprint days. The European Commission is urged to make this small but extremely important change in its policy recommendation. It means the difference between immediate 100% Open Access and delayed, embargoed access for years to come. Pertinent Prior American Scientist Open Access Forum Topic Threads: 2002: "Evolving Publisher Copyright Policies On Self-Archiving" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2351 2003: ?Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output? http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2550 "What Provosts Need to Mandate" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3241 "Recommendations for UK Open-Access Provision Policy" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3292 2004: "University policy mandating self-archiving of research output" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3292 "Mandating OA around the corner?" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3830 "Implementing the US/UK recommendation to mandate OA Self-Archiving" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3892 "A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4092 2005: "Comparing the Wellcome OA Policy and the RCUK (draft) Policy" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4549 "New international study demonstrates worldwide readiness for Open Access mandate" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4605 "DASER 2 IR Meeting and NIH Public Access Policy" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4963 "Mandated OA for publicly-funded medical research in the US" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4982 2006: "Mandatory policy report" (2) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4979 "The U.S. CURES Act would mandate OA" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5046 "Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access Mandate"" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5216 "U. California: Publishing Reform, University Self-Publishing and Open Access" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/57-guid.html "A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/64-guid.html "Optimizing Open Access Guidelines of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/70-guid.html "Optimizing MIT's Open Access Policy" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/74-guid.html Future UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) to be Metrics-Based http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/75-guid.html Optimizing the European Commission's Recommendation for Open Access Archiving of Publicly-Funded Research http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/78-guid.html APPENDIX Why it is so important that research should be deposited immediately, rather than delayed/embargoed The reasons are six: (1) Science is done (and funded) in order to be used, not in order to be embargoed. (2) For fast-moving areas of science especially, the first few months from publication are the most important time for usage and progress through immediate uptake and application to further ongoing research worldwide. Studies show that early usage has a large, permanent effect on research impact (Kurtz et al. 2004; Brody & Harnad 2006). Limiting the possibility of early usage therefore means a large and permanent loss of potential research impact. (3) If the metadata of all Restricted Access articles are visible worldwide immediately alongside all Open Access articles, individual researchers emailing the author for an eprint of the full text will maximise early uptake and usage almost as rapidly and effectively as setting access privileges to Open Access immediately. The OAR software is designed to simplify and accelerate this to just a few keystrokes. (4) For this, it is critical that the deposit of both the full-text and bibliographic metadata should be immediate (upon acceptance for publication) and not delayed. (5) If the EC policy were instead to allow the deposit to be delayed for 6-12 months or more, the result would be to entrench instead of to eliminate usage-denial for research findings that were made and published in order to be used, immediately. (6) Publisher copyright agreements concern making the full text publicly accessible, whereas authors depositing their full-texts in their own OAR without public access -- and emailing individual eprints on request from fellow-researchers -- constitutes Fair Use. (a) Self-archiving increases research usage and impact by 25-250% http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html (b) But only 15% of researchers as yet self-archive spontaneously http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/ (d) 95% of researchers report they will comply if self-archiving is mandated by their institution and/or research funder http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/ (d) 93% of journals already officially endorse author self-archiving http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php (e) For the remaining 7% of articles, immediate deposit can still be mandated, and for the time being access can be provided by emailing the eprinthttp://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0604&L=jisc-repositories&T=0&O=D&P=1908 Open Access maximises research access, usage, impact and progress, maximising benefits to research itself, to researchers, their institutions, their funders, and those who fund the funders, i.e., the tax-paying public for whose ultimate benefit the research is done. Access to the research corpus also provides secondary benefits to students, teachers, the developing world, industry, and the general public. ROAR (Registry of Open Access Repositories) tracks the Institutional and Central Open Access Repositories (OARs) worldwide as well the individual growth of each http://archives.eprints.org/ (see also OpenDOAR (Directory of Open Access Repositories) http://www.opendoar.org/ , which provides a human-confirmed subset of ROAR plus classification details coverage in alliance with DOAJ, the Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/ ). ROARMAP (Registry of Open Access Repository Material Access Policies) tracks the adoption of Open Access Self-Archiving Policies in institutions worldwide http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php ROMEO (Directory or Journal Open Access Self-Archiving Policies): tracks the growth in the number of journals giving their ?green light? to author self-archiving: 93% of the over 9000 journals so far endorse some form of immediate author self-archiving: http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php REFERENCES Brody, T. and Harnad, S. (2006) Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713 Harnad, S. (2006) Publish or Perish ? Self-Archive to Flourish: The Green Route to Open Access. ERCIM News 6 http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw64/harnad.html Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C. S., Demleitner, M., Murray, S. S. (2004) The Effect of Use and Access on Citations Information Processing and Management 41 (6): 1395-1402 http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~kurtz/IPM-abstract.html Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., Oppenheim, C., O?Brien, A., Hardy, R., Rowland, F. and Brown, S. (2005) Developing a model for e-prints and open access journal content in UK further and higher education. Learned Publishing 18(1) pp. 25-40. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11000 ABSTRACT: A study carried out for the UK Joint Information Systems Committee examined models for the provision of access to material institutional and subject- based archives and in open access journals. Their relative merits were considered, addressing not only technical concerns but also how e-print provision (by authors) can be achieved -- an essential factor for an effective e-print delivery service (for users). A "harvesting" model is recommended, where the metadata of articles deposited in distributed archives are harvested, stored and enhanced by a national service. This model has major advantages over the alternatives of a national centralized service or a completely decentralized one. Options for the implementation of a service based on the harvesting model are presented. "Central vs. Distributed Archives" (1999-2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#294 "Central versus institutional self-archiving" (2003-2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3207 ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sally.morris at ALPSP.ORG Mon May 8 12:35:50 2006 From: sally.morris at ALPSP.ORG (Sally Morris (ALPSP)) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 17:35:50 +0100 Subject: Commission study addresses Europe's scientific publication system Message-ID: Please note that the recommendations are not at this stage those of the Commission, as Stevan suggests, but simply those of the report's authors; there is now a period of consultation before the Commission draws its conclusions Sally Sally Morris, Chief Executive Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44 (0)1903 871 686 Fax: +44 (0)1903 871 457 Email: sally.morris at alpsp.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Stevan Harnad To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Commission study addresses Europe's scientific publication system Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On 18-Apr-06, at 1:53 PM, Eugene Garfield wrote: Subject: Commission study addresses Europe's scientific publication system The European Commission has published a study The study... makes a number of recommendations for future action, including: * Guaranteed public access to publicly-funded research, at the time of publication and also long-term... http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf Given that Gene has posted the above to Sigmetrics, here is some pertinent follow-up: Suggestion for Optimising the European Commission's Recommendation to Mandate Open Access Archiving of Publicly-Funded Research The European Commission "Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets in Europe" has made the following policy recommendation: RECOMMENDATION A1. GUARANTEE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY-FUNDED RESEARCH RESULTS SHORTLY AFTER PUBLICATION. "Research funding agencies have a central role in determining researchers' publishing practices. Following the lead of the NIH and other institutions, they should promote and support the archiving of publications in open repositories, after a (possibly domain-specific) time period to be discussed with publishers. This archiving could become a condition for funding. The following actions could be taken at the European level: (i) Establish a European policy mandating published articles arising from EC-funded research to be available after a given time period in open access archives [emphasis added], and (ii) Explore with Member States and with European research and academic associations whether and how such policies and open repositories could be implemented." The European Commission?s Recommendation A1 is very welcome and potentially very important, but it can be made incomparably more effective with just one very simple but critical revision concerning what needs to be deposited, when (hence what can and cannot be delayed): For the purposes of Open Access, a research paper has two elements ? (i) the whole document itself (called the ?full-text) and (ii) its bibliographic metadata (its title, date, details of the authors, their institutions, the abstract and so forth). This bibliographic information can exist as an independent entity in its own right and serves to alert would-be users to the existence of the full-text article itself. EC Recommendation A1 should distinguish between first (a) depositing the full text of a journal article in the author?s Institutional Repository (preferably, or otherwise any other OAI-compliant Open Access Repository ? henceforth referred to collectively as OARs; see Swan et al. 2005) and then deciding whether to (b1) allow Open Access to that full-text deposit, or to (b2) allow Open Access only to its bibliographic metadata and not the full-text. EC Recommendation A1 should accordingly specify the following: 1.. Depositing the full-text of all journal articles in the author's OAR is mandatory immediately upon acceptance for publication for all EC-funded research findings, without exception. 2.. In addition, allowing Open Access to the article?s bibliographic metadata at the time of deposit (i.e., immediately upon acceptance for publication) is always mandatory. 3.. However, allowing Open Access to the full-text of the article itself immediately upon deposit is merely encouraged wherever possible, but not mandatory; full-text access can be made Open Access at a later time if necessary: The OAR software enables the author to allow Open Access to either the whole article or to its bibliographic metadata only. This separate treatment of the rules for (a) depositing and for (b) access-setting provides authors with the means of abiding by the copyright regulations for the articles published in the 7% of journals that have not yet explicitly given their official green light to authors to provide immediate Open Access through self-archiving (as 93% of journals have already done). Authors can make their full-text Open Access at the time agreed with the publisher simply by changing the access-setting for the deposit at the chosen time. Meanwhile, however, the bibliographic metadata for all articles are and remain openly accessible to everyone from the moment of acceptance for publication, informing users of the existence and whereabouts of the article. During any publisher-imposed embargo period, would-be users who access the metadata and find that they cannot access the full-text can email the author individually to request an eprint -- and the author can then choose to email the eprint to the requester, or not, as he wishes, exactly as authors did in paper reprint days. The European Commission is urged to make this small but extremely important change in its policy recommendation. It means the difference between immediate 100% Open Access and delayed, embargoed access for years to come. Pertinent Prior American Scientist Open Access Forum Topic Threads: 2002: "Evolving Publisher Copyright Policies On Self-Archiving" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2351 2003: ?Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output? http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2550 "What Provosts Need to Mandate" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3241 "Recommendations for UK Open-Access Provision Policy" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3292 2004: "University policy mandating self-archiving of research output" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3292 "Mandating OA around the corner?" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3830 "Implementing the US/UK recommendation to mandate OA Self-Archiving" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3892 "A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4092 2005: "Comparing the Wellcome OA Policy and the RCUK (draft) Policy" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4549 "New international study demonstrates worldwide readiness for Open Access mandate" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4605 "DASER 2 IR Meeting and NIH Public Access Policy" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4963 "Mandated OA for publicly-funded medical research in the US" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4982 2006: "Mandatory policy report" (2) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4979 "The U.S. CURES Act would mandate OA" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5046 "Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access Mandate"" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5216 "U. California: Publishing Reform, University Self-Publishing and Open Access" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/57-guid.html "A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/64-guid.html "Optimizing Open Access Guidelines of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/70-guid.html "Optimizing MIT's Open Access Policy" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/74-guid.html Future UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) to be Metrics-Based http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/75-guid.html Optimizing the European Commission's Recommendation for Open Access Archiving of Publicly-Funded Research http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/78-guid.html APPENDIX Why it is so important that research should be deposited immediately, rather than delayed/embargoed The reasons are six: (1) Science is done (and funded) in order to be used, not in order to be embargoed. (2) For fast-moving areas of science especially, the first few months from publication are the most important time for usage and progress through immediate uptake and application to further ongoing research worldwide. Studies show that early usage has a large, permanent effect on research impact (Kurtz et al. 2004; Brody & Harnad 2006). Limiting the possibility of early usage therefore means a large and permanent loss of potential research impact. (3) If the metadata of all Restricted Access articles are visible worldwide immediately alongside all Open Access articles, individual researchers emailing the author for an eprint of the full text will maximise early uptake and usage almost as rapidly and effectively as setting access privileges to Open Access immediately. The OAR software is designed to simplify and accelerate this to just a few keystrokes. (4) For this, it is critical that the deposit of both the full-text and bibliographic metadata should be immediate (upon acceptance for publication) and not delayed. (5) If the EC policy were instead to allow the deposit to be delayed for 6-12 months or more, the result would be to entrench instead of to eliminate usage-denial for research findings that were made and published in order to be used, immediately. (6) Publisher copyright agreements concern making the full text publicly accessible, whereas authors depositing their full-texts in their own OAR without public access -- and emailing individual eprints on request from fellow-researchers -- constitutes Fair Use. (a) Self-archiving increases research usage and impact by 25-250% http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html (b) But only 15% of researchers as yet self-archive spontaneously http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/ (d) 95% of researchers report they will comply if self-archiving is mandated by their institution and/or research funder http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/ (d) 93% of journals already officially endorse author self-archiving http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php (e) For the remaining 7% of articles, immediate deposit can still be mandated, and for the time being access can be provided by emailing the eprinthttp://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0604&L=jisc-repositories&T=0&O=D&P=1908 Open Access maximises research access, usage, impact and progress, maximising benefits to research itself, to researchers, their institutions, their funders, and those who fund the funders, i.e., the tax-paying public for whose ultimate benefit the research is done. Access to the research corpus also provides secondary benefits to students, teachers, the developing world, industry, and the general public. ROAR (Registry of Open Access Repositories) tracks the Institutional and Central Open Access Repositories (OARs) worldwide as well the individual growth of each http://archives.eprints.org/ (see also OpenDOAR (Directory of Open Access Repositories) http://www.opendoar.org/ , which provides a human-confirmed subset of ROAR plus classification details coverage in alliance with DOAJ, the Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/ ). ROARMAP (Registry of Open Access Repository Material Access Policies) tracks the adoption of Open Access Self-Archiving Policies in institutions worldwide http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php ROMEO (Directory or Journal Open Access Self-Archiving Policies): tracks the growth in the number of journals giving their ?green light? to author self-archiving: 93% of the over 9000 journals so far endorse some form of immediate author self-archiving: http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php REFERENCES Brody, T. and Harnad, S. (2006) Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713 Harnad, S. (2006) Publish or Perish ? Self-Archive to Flourish: The Green Route to Open Access. ERCIM News 6 http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw64/harnad.html Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C. S., Demleitner, M., Murray, S. S. (2004) The Effect of Use and Access on Citations Information Processing and Management 41 (6): 1395-1402 http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~kurtz/IPM-abstract.html Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., Oppenheim, C., O?Brien, A., Hardy, R., Rowland, F. and Brown, S. (2005) Developing a model for e-prints and open access journal content in UK further and higher education. Learned Publishing 18(1) pp. 25-40. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11000 ABSTRACT: A study carried out for the UK Joint Information Systems Committee examined models for the provision of access to material institutional and subject- based archives and in open access journals. Their relative merits were considered, addressing not only technical concerns but also how e-print provision (by authors) can be achieved -- an essential factor for an effective e-print delivery service (for users). A "harvesting" model is recommended, where the metadata of articles deposited in distributed archives are harvested, stored and enhanced by a national service. This model has major advantages over the alternatives of a national centralized service or a completely decentralized one. Options for the implementation of a service based on the harvesting model are presented. "Central vs. Distributed Archives" (1999-2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#294 "Central versus institutional self-archiving" (2003-2006) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#3207 ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Tue May 9 15:44:41 2006 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:44:41 +0200 Subject: bibliographic coupling Message-ID: Dear colleagues, In some versions of the Web-of-Science the end-of-lines are different from the version at the University of Amsterdam and this has led to error messages when using my programs for organizing files (ISI.exe) or for generating maps of bibliographic coupling (BibCoupl.EXE). I apologize for these inconveniences. In the current versions (available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/isi/index.htm ) these bugs are fixed. The current versions first control for the type of end-of-line characters, and correct this if necessary. I hope that the programs work further smoothly. My students are able to work with them; thus, it should not be too difficult although they remain pragmatically unsophisticated. Please, feel free to suggest further improvements. With best wishes, Loet ** apologies for cross-postings _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: 20- 525 6598; fax: 20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 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 Sat May 13 03:53:17 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 08:53:17 +0100 Subject: Statistics Package for EPrints (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 17:31:13 +1000 From: Arthur Sale To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG Subject: Statistics Package for EPrints Apologies for cross-posting Following Eloy Rodrigues' posting of an excellent statistics package for DSpace (I strongly recommend it to DSpace users), it might be opportune to remind users of GNU EPrints that a similar package has been available for EPrints for about 18 months. It is downloadable from http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/archive/00000262/. The Statistics Add-on to the EPrints platform is responsible for the gathering, processing and presentation of access, content and administrative statistics generated by EPrints usage. It was developed at UTas = University of Tasmania (Australia) based on principles established by The University of Melbourne (Australia) and the package was subsequently enhanced by feedback from the University of Otago (New Zealand). Authors/depositors respond very favorably to access to statistics about their papers, especially if they are required to deposit (a "mandate"). They then see a reason for depositing! The system was designed to be adjustable to any environment, because the components can easily be configured, changed or extended, to respond to different information needs. The modules are written in php and work off the archive logs with a few (minimal) hooks into the Eprints mySQL database, mainly to retrieve document titles. The insertion of new links on the entry pages and the metadata display pages are usual. All the code is open-source. Important features of the UTas statistics system: * Almost real time processing of event logs (adjustable from once a day - most of us - to more frequently) * Database based stored data (in a separate MySQL database) * Detection and processing of the country of origin of accesses, with the local campus separated out from the local country due to its different characteristics * Monthly download stats - allows detection of citation or presentation events * List of documents by access frequency in 4 weeks, monthly, yearly or total (customizable) * User-friendly graphics and tabular data, pretty realistic flags For examples, see in alphabetical order Arizona http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/, Otago http://eprints.otago.ac.nz/, Rhodes http:// eprints.ru.ac.za, or UTas http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/. In all cases look for the Detailed Statistics link on the entry page for which I give the URL, or browse for any document and you should find a link on the metadata page. Hope you like what you see and install it too. Let me know if you do. Arthur Sale Professor of Computing (Research) University of Tasmania Australia From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Sun May 14 00:14:52 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 06:14:52 +0200 Subject: Constructing experimental indicators for Open Access documents Message-ID: Another item for http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html Philipp Mayr (2006) Constructing experimental indicators for Open Access documents. Research Evaluation 14 (special issue on 'Web indicators for Innovation Systems'). http://www.ib.hu-berlin.de/~mayr/arbeiten/mayr_RE06.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bjorn.Tell at LUB.LU.SE Sun May 14 06:31:25 2006 From: Bjorn.Tell at LUB.LU.SE (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Tell?=) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 12:31:25 +0200 Subject: SV: [SIGMETRICS] Simkin MV, Roychowdhury VP "Theory of aces: Fame by chance or merit?" Journal of Mathematical Sociology 30 (1): 33-42 Jan-March 2006 Message-ID: To Gene Garfield, Dear Gene, I just had Irene Wormell in for coffee, and she told me that you and your son had been in Lund and that you had tried to contact me. Unfortunately I was up in Stockholm with my friend Birgitta Levin and I had been sick for a period, but now I am back in Lund and try to say how sorry I am for not having the opportunity to meet you. ________________________________ Fr?n: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics genom Eugene Garfield Skickat: to 2006-05-04 22:09 Till: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu ?mne: [SIGMETRICS] Simkin MV, Roychowdhury VP "Theory of aces: Fame by chance or merit?" Journal of Mathematical Sociology 30 (1): 33-42 Jan-March 2006 E-mail: simkin at ee.ucla.edu vwani at ee.ucla.edu Title: Theory of aces: Fame by chance or merit? Author(s): Simkin MV, Roychowdhury VP Source: JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY 30 (1): 33-42 JAN-MAR 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 11 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: We study empirically how fame of WWI fighter-pilot aces, measured in numbers of web pages mentioning them, is related to their achievement or merit, measured in numbers of opponent aircraft destroyed. We find that on average fame grows exponentially with achievement; to be precise, there is a strong correlation (greater than or similar to 0.7) between achievement and the logarithm of fame. At the same time, the number of individuals achieving a particular level of merit decreases exponentially with the magnitude of the level, leading to a power-law distribution of fame. A stochastic model that can explain the exponential growth of fame with merit is also proposed. Author Keywords: fame; merit; meme; stochastic process KeyWords Plus: EVOLUTION; NETWORKS Addresses: Simkin MV (reprint author), Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Elect Engn, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Elect Engn, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA E-mail Addresses: vwani at ee.ucla.edu Publisher: TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXON, ENGLAND Subject Category: MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS; SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS; SOCIOLOGY IDS Number: 988AF ISSN: 0022-250X References: BIANCONI G Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks EUROPHYSICS LETTERS 54 : 436 2001 BRIN S The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS 30 : 107 1998 DAWKINS R SELFISH GENE : 1976 DOROGOVTSEV SN Evolution of networks ADVANCES IN PHYSICS 51 : 1079 2002 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXING : 1976 KRAPIVSKY PL Organization of growing random networks PHYSICAL REVIEW E 63 : Art. No. 066123 2001 PRICE DJD GENERAL THEORY OF BIBLIOMETRIC AND OTHER CUMULATIVE ADVANTAGE PROCESSES JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 27 : 292 1976 REDNER S How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B 4 : 131 1998 SCHULMAN E ANN IMPROBABLE RES 5 : 16 1999 SIMON HA ON A CLASS OF SKEW DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS BIOMETRIKA 42 : 425 1955 YULE GU A mathemahcal theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr J C Willis, F R S PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B- CONTAINING PAPERS OF A BIOLOGICAL CHARACTER 213 : 21 1925 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Tue May 16 10:14:58 2006 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:14:58 +0100 Subject: Open Access Speeds Use by Others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 May 2006, Chuck Hamacker wrote: > Chronicle of Higher Education=20 > http://chronicle.com/news/article/438/open-access-speeds-use-by-others-of-scientific-papers-study-finds > > http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=3Dget-document&doi=3D10=.1371/journal.pbio.0040157 I've sent the following to CHE: The Eysenbach study is certainly not "the first to compare open-access and non-open-access papers from the same journal." See the growing bibliography of studies on the open-access citation advantage: http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html Other studies listed there will also give CHE readers a better idea of whether it is indeed "[n]ot yet clear? whether the open-access advantage increases citation in the long run or whether the trend is similar for other journals." and the following to PLoS: PLOS, PIPE-DREAMS AND PECCADILLOS Stevan Harnad I applaud and welcome the results of the Eysenbach (2006) http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157 study on 1492 articles published during one 6-month period in one journal (PNAS), showing that the Open Access (OA) articles were more cited than the non-OA ones. I also agree fully that the findings are unlikely to have been an artifact of PLoS's "strong and vested interest in publishing results that so obviously endorse our existence," nor of the fact that "the author of the article is also an editor of an open-access journal" (all quotes are from the PloS editorial by MacCallum & Parthasarthy, 2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040176 However, I am less sure that PloS's and the author's vested interests are not behind statements (in both the accompanying editorial and the article itself) along the lines that: "solid evidence to support or refute" that papers freely available in a journal will be more often read and cited than those behind a subscription barrier... has been surprisingly hard to find." The online bibliography 'The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact' http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html records a growing number of studies reporting precisely such evidence as of 2001, including studies based on data from much larger samples of journals, disciplines and years than the PloS study on PNAS, and they all find exactly the same effect: freely available articles are read and cited more. There can be disagreement about what evidence one counts as "solid," but there can be little dispute that prior evidence derived from substantially larger and broader-based samples showing substantially the same outcome can hardly be described as "surprisingly hard to find." In fact, the only new knowledge from this small, journal-specific sample was (1) the welcome finding of how early the OA advantage can manifest itself, plus (2) some less clear findings about differences between first- and last-author OA practices, plus (3) a controversial finding that will most definitely need to be replicated on far larger samples in order to be credible: "The analysis revealed that self-archived articles are also cited less often than OA articles from the same journal." The latter (3) is a within-journal (one journal, PNAS) finding; the overwhelming majority of self-archived articles today (on which the prior large-sample OA citation advantage findings are based) do not appear in journals with a paid-OA option. Hence on the present evidence I have great difficulty in seeing this secondary advantage as any more than a paid-OA publisher's pipe-dream at this point. The following, however, is not a pipe-dream, but a peccadillo: "no other study has compared OA and non-OA articles from the same journal." To be fair, this observation is hedged with "[a]s far as we are aware" (but the OA-advantage bibliography is surely public knowledge -- or should be among advocates of public access to science) and the observation is further qualified with: "and [also] controlled for so many potentially confounding factors." But it has to be stated that of these "potentially confounding" variables -- "number of days since publication, number of authors, article type, country of the corresponding author, funding type, subject area, submission track (PNAS has three different ways that authors can submit a paper)... previous citation record of the first and last authors... [and] whether authors choosing the OA option in PNAS chose to do so for only their most important research (they didn't)" -- many are peculiar to this particular short-interval, 3-option, single-journal PloS study. And several of them (country, subject, year) had already been analyzed in papers that had been published before this 2006 article and were not taken into account despite the fact that both their preprints and their postprints had been freely accessible since well before publication, and that at least one of them (Brody et al. 2005) had been explicitly drawn to the author's attention based on a preprint draft well before the article was submitted to PloS. Brody et al. (2005) had found that, alongside the OA citation advantage, more downloads in the first six months after publication are correlated with more citations 18 months later in physics; and Hajjem et al. (2005) had found higher citations for OA articles within the same journal/year for 1,307,038 articles published across 12 years (1992-2003) in 10 disciplines (Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Health, Political Science, Economics, Education, Law, Business, Management). REFERENCES 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) 56. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10713 Eysenbach, G, (2006) Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles. PLoS Biology 4(5) http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157 Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Gingras, Y. (2005) Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How it Increases Research Citation Impact. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 28(4) pp. 39-47. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11688/ MacCallum, C.J., and Parthasarathy, H. (2006) Open Access Increases Citation Rate. PLoS Biology 4(5) http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040176 From leo.egghe at UHASSELT.BE Wed May 17 04:54:34 2006 From: leo.egghe at UHASSELT.BE (Leo Egghe) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:54:34 +0200 Subject: Call for papers Journal of Informetrics Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS FOR THE NEW JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS Leo Egghe May 17, 2006 On April 5, 2006, Elsevier (Oxford, UK) accepted my proposal for the foundation of a new journal in the field of informetrics. The evident name Journal of Informetrics (JOI) is the first internationally published journal that bears "informetrics" in its name. JOI is a journal with a broad spectrum of informetric topics: all quantitative aspects of information are included within the journal's scope. Of course, as for any peer-reviewed journal, there are the limitations to high-quality papers. Such papers can be described as articles containing mathematical-probabilistic-statistical models and/or containing a good description of universally interesting data-sets. The scope can be illustrated by the papers published in the journal Information Processing and Management in two special issues on informetrics in 2005 (V41/No6 ) and 2006 (currently in press), for which I was the guest-editor. JOI will be a quarterly journal, each issue comprising about 100 pages. The first volume will be published in 2007. However it is the intention to have the printed and electronic version of the first issue ready by December 2006. This means that the editorial office should have the first issue ready by end of September. Your are hereby invited to submit a paper for JOI. If you want your paper to belong to the first issue you are advised to submit your paper before end of June. Submissions must be done using Elsevier's ees (electronic editorial system). Author guidelines will be available shortly. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding submissing, please contact me directly (e-mail: leo.egghe at uhasselt.be or tel. +32 11 26.81.21). Leo Egghe Editor-in-Chief Journal of Informetrics From nouruzi at GMAIL.COM Thu May 18 07:47:05 2006 From: nouruzi at GMAIL.COM (Alireza Noruzi) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:47:05 +0100 Subject: Webology: Call for Paper, Vol. 3, No. 2 Message-ID: Dear All, Webology, an international Open Access journal, is a scholarly journal in English devoted to the various fields of Library and Information Science and the World Wide Web. It serves as a forum for discussion and experimentation. *Webology *publishes scholarly articles, essays and reviews, and encourages the participation of academics and practitioners alike. Volume *3*, Number *2* will publish papers that focus on the following topics, but not limited to: The World Wide Web Web information retrieval; Web crawling and indexing; Web cataloging; Web searching; Search engines and directories; Search behavior; Metadata; Link analysis; Semantic Web; Web ontology; Folksonomy; Web Thesaurus; Webometrics; Cybermetrics; Invisible Web; Web Intelligence (WI), Web Competitive Intelligence (WCI), Web mining; New technologies of Web services; Web impacts; Web search trends; Web users behavior; Web users and usage studies; International issues of the Web; Social studies of the Web; Censorship; Intellectual freedom on the Web; Web site filtering; Web and civil society; Web and globalization; Web war; Web and socio-political issues; Open Access; Evaluating Web resources; Web visibility, popularity and diversity; Web accessibility; Internet, Validity of information; Information mining; Information extraction; Information management and organization; Information or resource discovery; Knowledge management; Knowledge organization; The role of the Web and ICT in research, education, economy, development, customer services, marketing, productivity improvement, and etc. We welcome and encourage all contributions on these or other aspects of the World Wide Web. For further information, please read the Author Guidelines, or contact one of our Editors. Best Regards, A. Noruzi Webology www.webology.ir/callforpapers.html E-mail: nouruzi @ gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Michel.Menou at WANADOO.FR Thu May 18 13:17:14 2006 From: Michel.Menou at WANADOO.FR (Michel J. Menou) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 19:17:14 +0200 Subject: Benoit Godin's paper "On the origin of bibliometrics" Message-ID: > > > B. Godin (2006), On the Origins of Bibliometrics > , Project on the History and > Sociology of S&T Statistics, Working Paper no. 33, 32 pages. > http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_33.pdf > > *Abstract:* > > Among the many statistics on science, counting scientific papers, or > bibliometrics, holds a privileged place. Bibliometrics is one of the > few subfields concerned with measuring the output side of science. > According to most ?histories?, bibliometrics owes its systematic > development mainly to works from the 1950s (V.V. Nalimov, D.J.D. Price > and Eugene Garfield), as founders. The few works conducted earlier are > usually relegated to prehistory. > > This paper documents how the systematic counting of publications > originated with psychologists. In the early 1900s, psychologists began > collecting statistics on their discipline. Publications came to be > counted in addresses, reviews and histories of psychology for several > decades. The aim was to contribute to the advancement of psychology. > Far from being a negligible output of a prehistoric type, both the > volume and the systematicness of these efforts are witnesses to what > should be considered as pioneering work, and their authors considered > as forerunners to bibliometrics. > -- ================================================================= Dr. Michel J. Menou Consultant in ICT policies and Knowledge & Information Management Adviser of Somos at Telecentros board http://www.tele-centros.org Member of the founding steering committee of Telecenters of the Americas Partnership http://www.tele-centers.net/ B.P. 15 49350 Les Rosiers sur Loire, France Email: Michel.Menou at wanadoo.fr Phone: +33 (0)2 41511043 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/peoplemenou.php ================================================================== -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/342 - Release Date: 17/05/2006 From notsjb at LSU.EDU Thu May 18 15:20:26 2006 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:20:26 -0500 Subject: Benoit Godin's paper "On the origin of bibliometrics" Message-ID: Thanks. I just love Godin's stuff--particularly what he writes on James McKeen Cattell. He shows that all this scientometrics stuff originates in eugenics. Due to this, I always thought that perhaps a policy should be instituted of sterilizing all scientists and scholars, who consistently publish bad papers. That may cut down the numbers of such scientists and scholars in future generations and solve a many problems presently plaguing the scientific journal system--like too many papers, the high cost of journals, etc. etc. The statistics--another product of eugenics--seem to bear this out. The trouble is that my dean may come down and sterilize me. She is fully capable of this and can do it with a look. SB "Michel J. Menou" @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 05/18/2006 12:17:14 PM Please respond to ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics Sent by: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU cc: (bcc: Stephen J Bensman/notsjb/LSU) Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Benoit Godin's paper "On the origin of bibliometrics" > > > B. Godin (2006), On the Origins of Bibliometrics > , Project on the History and > Sociology of S&T Statistics, Working Paper no. 33, 32 pages. > http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_33.pdf > > *Abstract:* > > Among the many statistics on science, counting scientific papers, or > bibliometrics, holds a privileged place. Bibliometrics is one of the > few subfields concerned with measuring the output side of science. > According to most ?histories?, bibliometrics owes its systematic > development mainly to works from the 1950s (V.V. Nalimov, D.J.D. Price > and Eugene Garfield), as founders. The few works conducted earlier are > usually relegated to prehistory. > > This paper documents how the systematic counting of publications > originated with psychologists. In the early 1900s, psychologists began > collecting statistics on their discipline. Publications came to be > counted in addresses, reviews and histories of psychology for several > decades. The aim was to contribute to the advancement of psychology. > Far from being a negligible output of a prehistoric type, both the > volume and the systematicness of these efforts are witnesses to what > should be considered as pioneering work, and their authors considered > as forerunners to bibliometrics. > -- ================================================================= Dr. Michel J. Menou Consultant in ICT policies and Knowledge & Information Management Adviser of Somos at Telecentros board http://www.tele-centros.org Member of the founding steering committee of Telecenters of the Americas Partnership http://www.tele-centers.net/ B.P. 15 49350 Les Rosiers sur Loire, France Email: Michel.Menou at wanadoo.fr Phone: +33 (0)2 41511043 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/peoplemenou.php ================================================================== -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/342 - Release Date: 17/05/2006 From quentinburrell at MANX.NET Thu May 18 16:02:22 2006 From: quentinburrell at MANX.NET (Quentin L. Burrell) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 21:02:22 +0100 Subject: Benoit Godin's paper "On the origin of bibliometrics" Message-ID: That second comma is crucial - and deliberate? Quentin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen J Bensman" To: Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Benoit Godin's paper "On the origin of bibliometrics" "Due to this, I always thought that perhaps a policy should be instituted of sterilizing all scientists and scholars, who consistently publish bad papers. " From notsjb at LSU.EDU Thu May 18 19:46:32 2006 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 18:46:32 -0500 Subject: Benoit Godin's paper "On the origin of bibliometrics" Message-ID: Probably is a grammatical error. At first I left it out, but then I thought I'd better put it in, or otherwise it might just refer to scholars, when I really think that the policy should affect both scientists and scholars. Scientists are the real problem, because their bad papers cost much more to produce and publish. Any real cost savings would have to come at the expense of scientists. SB "Quentin L. Burrell" @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 05/18/2006 03:02:22 PM Please respond to ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics Sent by: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU cc: (bcc: Stephen J Bensman/notsjb/LSU) Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Benoit Godin's paper "On the origin of bibliometrics" That second comma is crucial - and deliberate? Quentin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen J Bensman" To: Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Benoit Godin's paper "On the origin of bibliometrics" "Due to this, I always thought that perhaps a policy should be instituted of sterilizing all scientists and scholars, who consistently publish bad papers. " From j.hartley at PSY.KEELE.AC.UK Thu May 25 08:17:01 2006 From: j.hartley at PSY.KEELE.AC.UK (James Hartley) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:17:01 +0100 Subject: The perceptions of abstracts Message-ID: Dear Colleagues I am curently carrying out some research on the perceptions of abstracts. A short (less than 10 min) task can be found at: www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ps/jimh/abstracts.htm I would be most grateful if you could find the time to do this for me (and to pass on the address to any other interested parties). Many thanks James Hartley School of Psychology Keele University Staffordshire ST5 5BG UK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leo Egghe" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Call for papers Journal of Informetrics > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > CALL FOR PAPERS FOR THE NEW > JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS > > Leo Egghe > > May 17, 2006 > > > > On April 5, 2006, Elsevier (Oxford, UK) accepted my proposal for the > foundation of a new journal in the field of informetrics. The evident name > Journal of Informetrics (JOI) is the first internationally published journal > that bears "informetrics" in its name. > > JOI is a journal with a broad spectrum of informetric topics: all > quantitative aspects of information are included within the journal's scope. > Of course, as for any peer-reviewed journal, there are the limitations to > high-quality papers. Such papers can be described as articles containing > mathematical-probabilistic-statistical models and/or containing a good > description of universally interesting data-sets. The scope can be > illustrated by the papers published in the journal Information Processing > and Management in two special issues on informetrics in 2005 (V41/No6 > ) and 2006 (currently > in press), for which I was the guest-editor. > > JOI will be a quarterly journal, each issue comprising about 100 pages. The > first volume will be published in 2007. However it is the intention to have > the printed and electronic version of the first issue ready by December > 2006. This means that the editorial office should have the first issue ready > by end of September. > > Your are hereby invited to submit a paper for JOI. If you want your paper to > belong to the first issue you are advised to submit your paper before end of > June. Submissions must be done using Elsevier's ees (electronic editorial > system). Author guidelines will be available shortly. In the meantime, if > you have any questions regarding submissing, please contact me directly > (e-mail: leo.egghe at uhasselt.be or tel. +32 11 26.81.21). > > Leo Egghe > Editor-in-Chief > Journal of Informetrics