Accuracy of Thomson data - decentralising data collection and enhancing the scope of scientometrics?

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Chris and colleagues, 

In my opinion, we have made a lot of progress in terms of data analysis. The
quality of the data that one inputs into the analysis is a different issue.
There are pros and cons using different data (SCI, Scopus, Google Scholar,
etc.) as there are pros and cons using different techniques for the analysis
(e.g., different clustering algorithms, similarity criteria, etc.). 

Nevertheless, I think that we have a state of the art in terms of
techniques. I make some of them available as computer programs and lessons
for my students at http://www.leydesdorff.net/indicators . If you have
suggestions for improvements, please, let me know.

With best wishes, 


Loet

________________________________

Loet Leydesdorff 
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 
loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics 
> [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of Armbruster, Chris
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:45 AM
> To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Accuracy of Thomson data - 
> decentralising data collection and enhancing the scope of 
> scientometrics?
> 
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> 
> To the list:
> 
> Would you trust the situation to improve if digital 
> repositories (institutional, disciplinary and/or national) 
> were to provide data in future? 
> One would possibly expect that a decentralised solution would 
> provide more comprehensive (types of publication, languages 
> etc.) and more accurate coverage, but one might also worry 
> that the corpus will be less well defined.... Hence, what 
> would you think if repositories developed a system of author 
> registration (unique identifier, institutional affiliation) 
> and provided data?
> 
> What is the scope for delivering scientometrics to the 
> digital workbench of scientists?
> I have anecdotal evidence that review panels (for major 
> grants, tenure etc. - often very senior scientists) routinely 
> use software and search engines to look up the citation data 
> and indices of applicants and candidates. If we were not to 
> dismiss this simply as evaluation mania, but to say that all 
> scientists (senior and junior) now need tools for metric 
> research evaluation to reduce complexity on an everyday basis 
> (and develop strategies for research, teaching, publishing 
> and networking) - is scientometrics developed enough to be a 
> reliable tool?
> 
> Context: for the Max Planck Digital Library I am looking into 
> the potential of digital libraries and repositories for the 
> generation, collection and evaluation of scientometric data.
> 
> Chris Armbruster
> http://ssrn.com/author=434782 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of 
> Loet Leydesdorff
> Sent: Tue 18/12/2007 20:50
> To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] FW: GENERAL: accuracy of Thomson data
>  
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> 
> Dear Christina and colleagues:
> 
> Incorrect journal abbreviations and non-ISI sources
> 
> Citations 
> 
> http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/list.htm 
> 
> Table 4: Non-ISI sources and incorrect journal abbreviations 
> with more than
> 10,000 citations in the JCR 2005.
> 
> "With its 54,139 citations, the J Phys Chem-US would belong 
> to the top-50
> journals of the database if it were included. However, this journal is
> included in the ISI-database under the abbreviations J Phys 
> Chem A and J
> Phys Chem B with 32,086 and 59,826 citations, respectively. For some
> journals, however, the different spellings in the references 
> may have large
> implications. Bornman et al. (2007, at p. 105) found 21.5% 
> overestimation of
> the impact factor of Angewandte Chemie in 2005 because of 
> authors providing
> references to both the German and international editions of 
> this journal
> (Marx, 2001)." 
>  
> Source: " 
> <blocked::http://www.leydesdorff.net/cit_indicators/index.htm>
> Caveats for the Use of Citation Indicators in Research and Journal
> Evaluations," Journal of the American Society for Information 
> Science and
> Technology, February 2008 (forthcoming; available as Early View). 
>  
> With best wishes, 
> 
> Loet Leydesdorff 
> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
> http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/list.htm
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
> > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Pikas, 
> Christina K.
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:37 PM
> > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
> > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] FW: GENERAL: accuracy of Thomson data
> >
> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >
> > 
> > Interesting article -- this came across another listserv I'm on. 
> > - Calls for an audit of WoS data. 
> > - Suggests median measure
> > - Points to errors caused by article type designations.
> >
> >
> > Christina K. Pikas, MLS
> > R.E. Gibson Library & Information Center
> > The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
> > Voice  240.228.4812 (Washington), 443.778.4812 (Baltimore)
> > Fax 443.778.5353
> >
> >
>