From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Feb 1 04:53:37 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:53:37 +0100 Subject: A global perspective on the world science system (updated for 2006) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070130071414.02154e48@hughes.net> Message-ID: Yes, David, I agree. That is why we put the quotation mark; and our answer is "no". Despite Congressional thinking. :-) Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _____ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David E. Wojick Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A global perspective on the world science system (updated for 2006) "losing ground" here. China has transitioned from being a poor country to being a mid-level one in terms of wealth. It is a global manufacturing center. This is wonderful news. In the process it now has, as I understand, about 800,000 research workers. This is second only to the US with 1.2 million. Suppose the publication rates are proportional to the research populations, and China's is growing rapidly along with its economy. How then is the US losing ground? China's gain is not my loss. This is important because this fallacy, if it is one, pervades Congressional thinking today. David At 03:32 PM 1/28/2007, you wrote: Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system (updated for 2006) Based on the Science Citation Index-Expanded web-version, the USA is still by far the strongest nation in terms of scientific performance. Its relative decline in percentage share of publications is largely due to the emergence of China and other Asian nations. In 2006, China has become the second largest nation in terms of the number of publications within this database. In terms of citations, the competitive advantage of the American "domestic market" is diminished, while the European Union (EU) is profiting more from the enlargement of the database over time than the US. However, the USA is still outperforming all other countries in terms of highly cited papers and citation/publication ratios, and it is more successful than the EU in coordinating its research efforts in strategic priority areas like nanotechnology. In this field, China has become second largest in both numbers of papers published and citations behind the USA. [] _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated . 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1dbea9.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1101 bytes Desc: not available URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Thu Feb 1 09:36:25 2007 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:36:25 -0600 Subject: question Message-ID: Beautiful, but I was not "pleading" for examination for an exogenous subject variable but "suggesting" it. I myself never do a correlation or regression analysis without first scatter plotting the data and then examining the outliers. It is in the outliers and residuals that the essence of the data is to be found. I think that Ali adopted the right approach with the chi-squared test of independence, given the highly skewed data within a restricted range. It is now just a matter of classifying the articles into subject subsets and examining the composition of his cells in these terms to see whether there is in fact a subject variable in action. A dollar to your donut that he will find that there is one, given the strength of the relationship that he found. The relationship of number of references to number of citations is too strong to be an random event, and there either has to be a functional explanation like review vs. research articles or some subject variable in operation. I can see no logical reason for number of references generating number of citations. If the latter is the case, then we can all become famous by gang-footnoting. Soon editors would not only be resticting the number of pages but also the number of references. SB "Quentin L. Burrell" @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 01/31/2007 02:40:02 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] question I apologise for the fact that my last response to Steven Morris (SM) was sent out before proper completion - my intention was to include endorsement also of the points raised by Stephen Bensman (SJB). (I also apologise to any list members who find the following somewhat patronising, but over the (many) years of teaching and reading regression analyses I have found that a major problem is that of performing the appropriate analysis without looking at the data!) To illustrate at a very simple (and artificial) level, consider a set of 6 papers in e.g. scientometrics for which the (references, citations) counts are (0,2), (1,1), (2,0), (18,20), (19,19) and (20,18) respectively. A staightforward regression analysis yields : citations = 0.16 + 0.98references with Rsquared = 0.97 (correlation coefficient = 0.984). Impressive, but following SM if we plot the scatter diagram we see two "clusters" made up of the first 3 points and the last 3 which reflect very different "patterns". If we now find from the context of the data that the first set correspond (say) to mathematical presentations and the latter to non mathematical ones, then maybe we should be analysing them separately. If we do, then we find the correllation coefficient for each category is -1, perfect negative correlation in each case! This simplistic presentation is also hinting at SJBs plea for a more subtle analysis including an "exogenous subject variable". Thanks to SM and SJB for highlighting some of the possible pitfalls in regression analysis, but thanks also to Ali for his interesting analysis. I think that my main point is that when performing any sort of mathematical/statistical analysis one has to take full account of the data context, not just the data. Best wishes Quentin ***************************************** Dr Quentin L Burrell Isle of Man International Business School The Nunnery Old Castletown Road Douglas Isle of Man IM2 1QB via United Kingdom q.burrell at ibs.ac.im www.ibs.ac.im ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen J Bensman" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > > > OK, Ali, I have read your paper, and a nice piece of work it is. However, > I want to make one criticism. You failed to classify your 467 > scientometric papers into subject subsets. It may well be that certain > scientometric topics may both have more references per paper and be more > prone to be cited. Therefore, your finding of the high postive > relationship between the number of reference and the number of citations > may be an artifact of an exogenous subject variable. I hope that you do > not take this as a criticism but as an opportunity to squeeze another > paper > out of the same set of data. > > SB > > > > > ali uzun @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 01/30/2007 01:37:26 AM > > 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] question > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > -----Dear Stephen, > I am sending an electronic version of the paper. The statistical > ralationship between the two categories (citations received and > referances listed) is of predictive type. There is no cause and effect > relation. > > Prof. Dr. Ali Uzun > Depr. Stat. Middle East Technical Univ. Ankara-Turkey. > ------------- >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Ali, >> That is very interesting. Something I would not expect. It does > support >> Narin. Can you send me an electronic version of your article to >> notsjb at lsu.edu? Do you have any idea why there is such a > relationship? >> >> SB >> >> >> >> >> ali uzun @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 01/29/2007 01:44:05 > AM >> >> 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] question >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> ------Dear Ronald, >> A sample of 467 artiles (not including reviews) published from 1999 > to >> 2003 in the journal Scientometrics has shown that there is a linear >> correlation (correlation coefficient of 0.799) between the number of >> times an article is cited and the number of references it contains. >> This was supported by a Chi-Square test of independence between the >> two indicators at 0.01 level of significance (Uzun, A. (2006). >> Proceedings of the International Workshop on Webometrics, > Informetrics >> and Scientometrics, 87-91,10-12 May 2006, Nancy-France). >> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> > >> > Dear colleagues, >> > >> > Is there a positive correlation between the length of a reference >> list of a >> > publication and the number of citations received? Is this true (or >> not) in >> > general, i.e. considering all types of publication? And what if > one >> only >> > considers 'normal articles', this is when reviews and letters (and >> other short >> > communications) are not taken into account? >> > >> > Can someone point me to a reference? >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > Ronald >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Ronald Rousseau >> > KHBO (Association K.U.Leuven)- Industrial Sciences and Technology >> > Zeedijk 101 B-8400 Oostende Belgium >> > Guest Professor at the Antwerp University School for Library and >> Information >> > Science (UA - IBW) >> > E-mail: ronald.rousseau at khbo.be >> > web page: http://users.telenet.be/ronald.rousseau >> > >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > This message was sent using IMP 3.2.8, the Internet Messaging >> Program. >> > >> (See attached file: France1.pdf) > From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Feb 2 14:16:56 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:16:56 -0500 Subject: Eller GA "Improving the quality of published chemical names with nomenclature software" Molecules 11(11): November 2006 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: gernot.eller at univie.ac.at ________________________________________________________________________ FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT : http://www.mdpi.org/molecules/papers/11110915.pdf ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Title: Improving the quality of published chemical names with nomenclature software Author(s): Eller GA (Eller, Gernot A.) Source: MOLECULES 11 (11): NOV 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 46 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: This work deals with the use of organic systematic nomenclature in scientific literature, its quality, and computerized methods for its improvement. Criteria for classification of systematic names in terms of quality/correctness are discussed and applied to a sample set of several hundred names extracted from the literature. The same structures are named with three popular state-of-the-art nomenclature programs - AutoNom 2000, ChemDraw 10.0, and ACD/Name 9.0. When comparing the results, all nomenclature tools show a significantly better performance than 'average chemists'. One program allows the generation not only of IUPAC names but also of CAS-like index names that are compared with the officially registered names. The scope and limitations of nomenclature software are discussed and a comparison of the programs' actual capabilities is given. Addresses: Eller GA (reprint author), Univ Vienna, Fac Life Sci, Dept Drug Synth, Althanstr 14, A-1090 Vienna, Austria Univ Vienna, Fac Life Sci, Dept Drug Synth, A-1090 Vienna, Austria E-mail Addresses: gernot.eller at univie.ac.at Publisher: MOLECULAR DIVERSITY PRESERVATION INTERNATIONAL, MATTHAEUSSTRASSE 11, CH-4057 BASEL, SWITZERLAND Subject Category: Chemistry, Organic IDS Number: 118VN ISSN: 1420-3049 CITED REFERENCES: J ORG CHEM 71 : A1 2006 J ORGANIC CHEM GUIDE : 2006 *ADV CHEM DEV INC ACD NAM VERS 9 08 : 2006 *CAMBR SOFT CORP CHEMDRAW ULTRA 10 0 : 2005 *CHEM INN SOFTW IN NOM : 2006 *INT UN PUR APPL C NOM ORG CHEM A : 1979 *INT UN PUR APPL C NOM ORG CHEM B : 1979 *INT UN PUR APPL C NOM ORG CHEM C : 1979 *INT UN PUR APPL C NOM ORG CHEM D : 1979 *INT UN PUR APPL C NOM ORG CHEM E : 1979 *INT UN PUR APPL C NOM ORG CHEM F : 1979 *INT UN PUR APPL C NOM ORG CHEM H : 1979 *ISIS ISIS DRAW 2 5 AUTONO : 2002 *IUPAC GUID IUPAC NOM ORG C : 1993 *IUPAC NAM BIO RAD LAB *OPEN EYE SCI SOFT LEX VERS 1 5 : 2006 *SCI SERV GMBH SCI SERV IS LOC ACD BRECHER J Name=Struct: A practical approach to the sorry state of real-life chemical nomenclature JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES 39 : 943 1999 CAHN RS SPECIFICATION OF MOLECULAR CHIRALITY ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE-INTERNATIONAL EDITION 5 : 385 1966 COZZI F Numbering of fullerenes - (IUPAC Recommendations 2005) PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY 77 : 843 2005 ENGEL T Valences, bonds and orbitls - Structural editors NACHRICHTEN AUS DER CHEMIE 51 : 450 2003 FAVRE HA NOMENCLATURE ORGANIC FAVRE HA Phane nomenclature. Part II. Modification of the degree of hydrogenation and substitution derivatives of phane parent hydrides - (IUPAC Recommendations 2002) PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY 74 : 809 2002 FAVRE HA PURE APPL CHEM 71 : 1327 1999 FENNELL RW HIST IUPAC 1919 1987 : 1994 GARFIELD E CHEMICO-LINGUISTICS - COMPUTER TRANSLATION OF CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE NATURE 192 : 192 1961 GOEBELS L AUTONOM - SYSTEM FOR COMPUTER TRANSLATION OF STRUCTURAL DIAGRAMS INTO IUPAC- COMPATIBLE NAMES .2. NOMENCLATURE OF CHAINS AND RINGS JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES 31 : 216 1991 HELLWICH KH CHEM NOMENKLATUR : 2002 HELLWINKEL D SYSTEMATIC NOMENCLAT : 2001 IRWIN JJ J CHEM INF MODEL 45 : 1469 2005 KIRBY GH SYSTEMATIC CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURES IN THE COMPUTER-AGE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES 33 : 560 1993 KOCH R Nomenclature in chemistry: The next generation NACHRICHTEN AUS DER CHEMIE 48 : 642 2000 LI ZJ Personal experience with four kinds of chemical structure drawing software: Review on ChemDraw, ChemWindow, ISIS/Draw, and ChemSketch JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES 44 : 1886 2004 MALDONADO AG Molecular similarity and diversity in chemoinformatics: From theory to applications MOLECULAR DIVERSITY 10 : 39 2006 MENDELSOHN LD ChemDraw 8 Ultra, Windows and Macintosh versions JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES 44 : 2225 2004 MOSS GP PURE APPL CHEM 70 : 43 1998 PANICO R CHEM ABSTR 297652 120 : 1993 SELLIAH RD IUPAC Name Pro 4.5 with name to structure module. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 123 : 6463 2001 VOGT J NACHR CHEM 53 : 428 2005 WAGNER BA J CHEM INF MODEL 46 : 767 2006 WILLETT P Chemical similarity searching JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES 38 : 983 1998 WILLIAMS A The need for systematic naming software tools for exchange of chemical information MOLECULES 4 : 255 1999 WISNIEWSKI JL HYPERNEWS 2 : 22 1997 WISNIEWSKI JL AUTONOM - SYSTEM FOR COMPUTER TRANSLATION OF STRUCTURAL DIAGRAMS INTO IUPAC- COMPATIBLE NAMES .1. GENERAL DESIGN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES 30 : 324 1990 YERIN A UNPUB PURE APPL CHEM ZIELESNY A Chemistry software package ChemOffice Ultra 2005 JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING 45 : 1474 2005 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Feb 2 14:20:56 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:20:56 -0500 Subject: Courtney M. Jones J. "Impact Fever: What is it all about?" Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 23(4):6-7 June-August 2006 Message-ID: Title: Impact fever: What is it all about? Author(s): Courtney M (Courtney, Mary), Jones J (Jones, Jackie) Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING 23 (4): 6-7 JUN-AUG 2006 Document Type: Editorial Material Language: English Cited References: 8 Times Cited: 0 Addresses: Courtney M (reprint author), Queensland Univ Technol, Sch Nursing, Brisbane, Qld Australia Queensland Univ Technol, Sch Nursing, Brisbane, Qld Australia Publisher: AUSTRALIAN NURSING FEDERATION, LEVEL 2, 21 VICTORIA ST, MELBOURNE, VICTORIA 3000, AUSTRALIA IDS Number: 118TK ISSN: 0813-0531 CITED REFERENCES: ABBASI K BMJ 329 : 2004 AMIN M IMPACT FACTORS USE A : 1 2000 FREDA MC Don Quixote, David and me NURSING OUTLOOK 54 : 58 2006 GARFIELD E KEY-WORDS-PLUS TAKES YOU BEYOND TITLE WORDS .2. EXPANDED JOURNAL COVERAGE FOR CURRENT-CONTENTS-ON-DISKETTE INCLUDES SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL-SCIENCES CURRENT CONTENTS 33 : 5 1990 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXES FOR SCIENCE - NEW DIMENSION IN DOCUMENTATION THROUGH ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS SCIENCE 122 : 108 1955 GOTTLIEB LN CANADIAN J NURSING R 37 : 2 2005 MEADOWS J A practical line in bibliometrics INTERLENDING & DOCUMENT SUPPLY 33 : 90 2005 MELBY CS NURSING HLTH SCI 7 : 219 2005 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Feb 2 16:23:11 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:23:11 -0500 Subject: Tight M. " Bridging the Divide: A comparative analysis of articles in higher education journals published inside and outside North America " HIGHER EDUCATION 53 (2): 235-253 FEB 2007 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: m.tight at lancaster.ac.uk Title: Bridging the Divide: A comparative analysis of articles in higher education journals published inside and outside North America Author(s): Tight M (Tight, Malcolm) Source: HIGHER EDUCATION 53 (2): 235-253 FEB 2007 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 21 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Articles published in three leading North American higher education journals during the year 2000 are compared with those published in three leading, English language, non-North American higher education journals (and with a larger sample of fourteen such journals). The comparison focuses on the location of their authors, the themes researched, the levels at which the analyses are pitched, the methods and methodologies employed, and the explicitness of both methodological and theoretical engagement. Compared to the non-North American sample, the North American articles evidence a dominance of North American-based authors, a greater focus on the student experience, and on institutional and national level studies, and a much stronger emphasis on multivariate analysis as a method. Articles in the North American sample were also more likely to be both methodologically and theoretically explicit. Possible reasons for the divergent patterns observed are identified and discussed. Addresses: Tight M (reprint author), Univ Lancaster, Dept Educ Res, Lancaster LA1 4YL, England Univ Lancaster, Dept Educ Res, Lancaster LA1 4YL, England E-mail Addresses: m.tight at lancaster.ac.uk Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS Subject Category: Education & Educational Research IDS Number: 123DY ISSN: 0018-1560 CITED REFERENCES: ALTBACH P HIGHER ED WORLDWIDE : 2001 BLAXTER L HOW RES : 2001 COHEN L RES METHODS ED : 2000 FRACKMANN E HIGHER ED RES TURN N : 1997 HAYDEN M HIGHER ED RES TURN N : 1997 HULME R POLICY TRANSFER BRIT : 77 2000 HUTCHINSON SR A review of methodological characteristics of research published in key journals in higher education: Implications for graduate research training RESEARCH IN HIGHER EDUCATION 45 : 383 2004 KEZAR A Higher education research at the millennium: Still trees without fruit? REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION 23 : 443 2000 MARTON F INT ENCY ED : 1994 MILAM JH THE PRESENCE OF PARADIGMS IN THE CORE HIGHER-EDUCATION JOURNAL LITERATURE RESEARCH IN HIGHER EDUCATION 32 : 651 1991 PUNCH K INTRO SOCIAL RES QUA : 1998 ROSS A 2 DECADES OF HIGHER-EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION 23 : 99 1992 SADLAK J HIGHER ED RES TURN C : 1997 SCOTT P GLOBALIZATION HIGHER : 1998 SILVERMAN RJ REV HIGH EDUC 11 : 39 1987 TEICHLER U Comparative higher education: Potentials and limits HIGHER EDUCATION 32 : 431 1996 TIGHT M HIGH EDUC REV 31 : 3 1999 TIGHT M HIGHER ED RES DEV 23 : 395 2004 TIGHT M RES HIGHER ED : 2003 TIGHT M ROUTLEDGEFALMER READ : 2004 VOLKWEIN JF RESEARCH IN HIGHER-EDUCATION - 15 YEARS OF SCHOLARSHIP RESEARCH IN HIGHER EDUCATION 28 : 271 1988 From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Feb 4 11:35:11 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:35:11 +0100 Subject: Mapping the Knowledge Structures in Patents using Co-classifications Message-ID: Mapping the Knowledge Structures in Patents using Co-classifications Paper to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S), Montreal, October 2007. In this study, I explore the options to use co-classifications as an alternative means to map the technological content of the patent system. The USA, the EU, Japan, and other countries use different rules for the application and different classification regimes. However, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has developed an international classification which is not biased regionally and maintains a database of patents with international designations (insofar as these are filed under the regime of the Patent Cooperation Treaty which is currently undersigned by 135 nations). Using the 138,751 patents published by the WIPO in 2006, national profiles are constructed in terms of co-classification maps. The files for the visualizations are brought online in the Pajek format so that users can choose their specific visualization techniques. (The size of the nodes is made proportionate to the logarithm of the number of patents in the corresponding category; the co-classification matrix is normalized using the cosine as the similarity criterion.) Andorra (47 patents) United Arab Emirates (61 patents) Afghanistan (5 patents) Antigua and Barbuda (168 patents) Anguilla (124 patents) Albania (7 patents) Armenia (465 patents) Netherlands Antilles (382 patents) Angola (11 patents) African Regional Intellectual Property (4 patents) Argentina (158 patents) Austria (1220 patents) Australia (1093 patents) Aruba (168 patents) Azerbaijan (4 patents) Bosnia and Herzegovina (20 patents) Belgium (914 patents) Bulgaria (21 patents) Bah rain (3 patents) Burundi (6 patents) Brazil (190 patents) Belarus (15 patents) Canada (2051 patents) Congo (4 patents) Switzerland (1728 patents) Chile (24 patents) Cameroon (3 patents) China (1677 patents) Colombia (8 patents) Costa Rica (5 patents) Cuba (14 patents) Cyprus (5 patents) Czech Republic (82 patents) Germany (3) (11861 patents) Denmark (685 patents) Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO)(1) (4 patents) Ecuador (2 patents) Estonia (9 patents) Egypt (32 patents) Western Sahara(5) (3 patents) Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (17 patents) Eritrea (41 patents) Spain (718 patents) Ethiopia (24 patents) Finland (1046 patents) France (4642 patents) Gabon (82 patents) United Kingdom (3991 patents) Georgia (9 patents) Gibraltar (11 patents) Greece (50 patents) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (20 patents) Honduras (14 patents) Croatia (28 patents) Haiti (31 patents) Hungary (157 patents) International Bureau of the World Intellectual (9 patents) Indonesia (38 patents) Ireland (240 patents) Israel (1183 patents) Isle of Man (84 patents) India (915 patents) Iran (Islamic Republic of) (118 patents) Iceland (222 patents) Italy (1677 patents) Jordan (6 patents) Japan (15093 patents) Kenya (57 patents) Kiribati (24 patents) Democratic People's Republic of Korea (4 patents) Republic of Korea (2962 patents) Cayman Islands (3 patents) Kazakhstan (7 patents) Lao People's Democratic Republic (9 patents) Lebanon (2 patents) Liechtenstein (10 patents) Lesotho (5 patents) Lithuania (11 patents) Luxembourg (40 patents) Latvia (16 patents) Morocco (75 patents) Monaco (5 patents) Republic of Moldova (9 patents) Montenegro (52 patents) Macao (10 patents) Mauritius (4 patents) Mexico (92 patents) Malaysia (57 patents) Namibia (27 patents) Nigeria (4 patents) Nicaragua (10 patents) Netherlands (2261 patents) Norway (492 patents) New Zealand (224 patents) Oman (112 patents) Peru (4 patents) Philippines (18 patents) Pakistan (2 patents) Poland (91 patents) Portugal (33 patents) Romania (38 patents) Russian Federation (501 patents) Saudi Arabia (84 patents) Sweden (1482 patents) Singapore (387 patents) Saint Helena (125 patents) Slovenia (63 patents) Slovakia (25 patents) Somalia (14 patents) Thailand (33 patents) Tunisia (5 patents) Tonga (98 patents) Turkey (129 patents) Taiwan, Province of China (101 patents) Ukraine (65 patents) Uganda (63 patents) United States of America (33791 patents) Uruguay (9 patents) Uzbekistan (80 patents) Venezuela (2 patents) Viet Nam (3 patents) South Africa (167 patents) Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From einat at IL.IBM.COM Sun Feb 4 17:19:47 2007 From: einat at IL.IBM.COM (Einat Amitay) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 00:19:47 +0200 Subject: CFP: Query Log Analysis: Social and Technological Challenges - a WWW2007 Workshop Message-ID: Call for Papers - WWW2007 Workshop Query Log Analysis: Social and Technological Challenges May 8, 2007, Banff, Alberta, Canada http://querylogs2007.webir.org/ The past few years have seen a surge in research that uses personal search histories and search systems' query logs. Such research is enabling users to find more of what they are looking for, quickly and easily. However, it comes at a social cost. Query logs capture explicit descriptions of users? information needs. Logs of interactions that follow a user?s query (e.g., click-though and navigation patterns) capture derivative traces that further characterize the user and their interests. The data is rich with personal detail, creating opportunities and risk. The social and technological challenges of working with such data have important implications for query log analysis research. This workshop will provide an interdisciplinary venue for collective thinking about query log analysis from all its angles. By bringing together stakeholders from various disciplines we hope to expand the understanding of the problems and concerns raised by all parties. This workshop will open a dialogue within the research community on collecting query log data, sharing information without compromising user privacy, and tapping into the collaborative knowledge that can be found in query logs. Topics of interest include (but are not limited to): Technology Ranking with query logs (QLs) Query refinement using QLs Collaborative filtering based on QLs Targeted advertising using QLs Use of sessions and cookies in QLs Social Ethics of QL collection and use Legal issues in QL collection and use Policies and practices of query logging Implications of QL data Raising public awareness about query logs Security Anonymization of QL data User-driven masking of QL recording Blocking QL recording Standards Developing standards for producing and sharing logs Producing QL practices similar to the Robots Exclusion Standard We invite submissions of papers describing original work in these areas or in related areas. Papers may describe empirical research, work in progress, or theoretical explorations. Important dates: Paper Submission - 12 February, 2007 Acceptance Notification - 21 March, 2007 Revisions due - 30 March, 2007 Registration is limited. Interested participants are asked to submit a statement of interest describing their research or area of expertise and their reason for wanting to participate. How to submit papers/position papers/attendance requests: Regular papers (up to 8 pages long) and position papers (up to 4 pages) should be submitted in PDF format to: http://www.easychair.org/WWW2007Workshops/ Authors should follow the guidelines for conference submissions found at http://www2007.org/submission-workshops.php. Please indicate if the work described is also published elsewhere. Attendance requests ? please email a short bio and a short position statement to einat at il.ibm.com or to any of the other organizers (up to 500 words, PDF preferred). Papers accepted to the workshop will be included in the WWW2007 Workshop proceedings and distributed to participants on a CD-ROM. Attendees are invited to submit a full paper to a special issue of the ACM Transactions on the Web with an expected publication date is early 2008. Organizers --------------- Einat Amitay, IBM Research, Haifa Lab einat at il.ibm.com G. Craig Murray, University of Maryland gcraigm at umd.edu Jaime Teevan, Microsoft Research teevan at csail.mit.edu Program Committee: -------------------------- Eytan Adar, U of Washington Eugene Agichtein, Emory University Steve Beitzel, Telcordia Technologies Mark J Boyd, eBay Susan Dumais, Microsoft Research Jim Jansen, Penn State Thorsten Joachims, Cornell Diane Kelly, UNC Tie-Yan Liu, Microsoft Research Asia Llew Mason, Amazon.com Jian-Yun Nie, U of Montreal, Canada Filip Radlinski, Cornell Daniel Russell, Google Amanda Spink, Queensland University of Technology Falk Scholer, RMIT, Australia Ramakrishnan Srikant, Google Tao Yang, Ask.com For additional details and a list of confirmed speakers and panelists please visit the workshop website at http://querylogs2007.webir.org/ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Feb 5 15:01:00 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:01:00 -0500 Subject: Murray C. Ke W. Borner K. "Mapping scientific disciplines and author expertise based on personal bibliography files" Information Visualization: 258-263, 2006 Message-ID: =========================================================== E-mail: katy at indiana.edu Full text available at : http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~katy/gallery/papers/06_iv_biblio.pdf AUTHORS : Murray, Colin, Ke, Weimao & B?rner, Katy (2006). TITLE : Mapping scientific disciplines and author expertise based on personal bibliography files SOURCE :Information Visualization: 258-263, 2006 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Feb 5 16:14:13 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:14:13 -0500 Subject: Fava GA, Guidi J. "Information overload, the patient and the clinician" Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 76(1): 1-3 2007 Message-ID: ======================================================================= ATTACHED PDF FILE PROVIDED BY AUTHOR E-mail Addresses: giovanniandrea.fava at unibo.it Title: Information overload, the patient and the clinician Author(s): Fava GA (Fava, Giovanni A.), Guidi J (Guidi, Jenny) Source: PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS 76 (1): 1-3 2007 Document Type: Editorial Material Language: English Cited References: 27 Times Cited: 0 Addresses: Fava GA (reprint author), Univ Bologna, Dept Psychol, Viale Berti Pichat 5, IT-40127 Bologna, Italy Univ Bologna, Dept Psychol, IT-40127 Bologna, Italy SUNY Buffalo, Dept Psychiat, Buffalo, NY 14260 USA E-mail Addresses: giovanniandrea.fava at unibo.it Publisher: KARGER, ALLSCHWILERSTRASSE 10, CH-4009 BASEL, SWITZERLAND Subject Category: Psychiatry; Psychology; Psychology, Psychoanalysis IDS Number: 116JK ISSN: 0033-3190 CITED REFERENCES : ACHIKE FI Information overload in the teaching of pharmacology JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY 40 : 177 2000 BAUM A INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES IN COPING WITH CROWDING - STIMULUS SCREENING AND SOCIAL OVERLOAD JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 43 : 821 1982 BIOCCA F J ADOLESCENT HEALTH 275 : 22 2000 BOISSEL JP Bridging the gap between therapeutic research results and physician prescribing decisions: knowledge transfer, a prerequisite to knowledge translation EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY 60 : 609 2004 DERIJK AE What is behind "I'm so tired"? Fatigue experiences and their relations to the quality and quantity of external stimulation JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH 47 : 509 1999 EPPLER MJ The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines INFORMATION SOCIETY 20 : 325 2004 FAVA GA Prevention of recurrent depression with cognitive behavioral therapy - Preliminary findings ARCHIVES OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY 55 : 816 1998 FAVA GA The clinical domains of psychosomatic medicine JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY 66 : 849 2005 FAVA GA The intellectual crisis of psychiatric research PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS 75 : 202 2006 FAVA GA Long-term treatment with antidepressant drugs: The spectacular achievements of propaganda PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS 71 : 127 2002 FAVA GA Conflict of interest and special interest groups - The making of a counter culture PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS 70 : 1 2001 FEINSTEIN AR METAANALYSIS - STATISTICAL ALCHEMY FOR THE 21ST-CENTURY JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY 48 : 71 1995 FRANK M NEW ENGL J MED 354 : 1152 2006 GRAIG E HDB STRESS THEORETIC : 316 1993 JUDD LL SENSORY GATING DEFICITS IN SCHIZOPHRENIA - NEW RESULTS AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY 149 : 488 1992 KARGER T Some thoughts from your publisher PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS 71 : 63 2002 KAY A COMPUTER SOFTWARE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 251 : 52 1984 LIPOWSKI ZJ SENSORY AND INFORMATION INPUTS OVERLOAD - BEHAVIORAL-EFFECTS COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHIATRY 16 : 199 1975 LIPOWSKI ZJ PSYCHOTHER PSYCHOSOM 23 : 264 1974 MCEWEN BS STRESS AND THE INDIVIDUAL - MECHANISMS LEADING TO DISEASE ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 153 : 2093 1993 MELANDER H Evidence b(i)ased medicine-selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 326 : 1171 2003 MINO Y Can stress management at the workplace prevent depression? A randomized controlled trial PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS 75 : 177 2006 SENSKY T The utility of systematic reviews: The case of psychological debriefing after trauma PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS 72 : 171 2003 SIEVERT M Beyond relevance - Characteristics of key papers for clinicians: An exploratory study in an academic setting BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 84 : 351 1996 SMITH R Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies PLOS MEDICINE 2 : Art. No. E138 2005 STREINER DL I have the answer, now what's the question?: Why metaanalyses do not provide definitive solutions CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE PSYCHIATRIE 50 : 829 2005 WILLINSKY J ACCESS PRINCIPLE CAS : 2006 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: D:\MMistry\Desktop\information overload.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 83266 bytes Desc: not available URL: From katy at INDIANA.EDU Tue Feb 6 20:05:04 2007 From: katy at INDIANA.EDU (Katy Borner) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:05:04 -0500 Subject: Reminder: CFP: 5th International Sy mposium on Knowledge Domain Visualization ( KDViz=?windows-1252?Q?=9207)?= In-Reply-To: <45885EDB.4040903@indiana.edu> Message-ID: Please note that the deadline for the submission of papers to the 5th International Symposium on Knowledge Domain Visualization (KDViz?07) is February 15th, 2007. Best regards, k Katy Borner wrote: > **************************************************************************** > > The 5th International Symposium on Knowledge Domain Visualization > (KDViz?07) ********** http://www.graphicslink.co.uk/IV07/KDViz.htm > ******************** > **************************************************************************** > > 4, 5, 6 July 2007 > ETH ZURICH SWITZERLAND > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Call for Papers, Videos and Participation > Proceeding will be published by IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY > The symposium will seek original papers concerning, but not limited > to, the following topics: > > Mapping scientific frontiers Mapping science Citation analysis, domain > analysis and modeling Historical, sociological, or philosophical > studies of science Knowledge discovery, knowledge representation, and > knowledge diffusion Invisible colleges, scientific networks, social > networks Qualitative and quantitative methodologies Scientometrics > Dynamic models of scientific disciplines Tools and databases in > support of KDViz > Supported by: > The Institute of Media and Communications Management of the university > of St.Gallen, Switzerland Australian Cooperative Research Centre for > Interaction Design (ACID) The school of Information Technology and > Electrical Engineering (ITEE), The University of Queensland, Australia. > > Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, USA The school of Computing and > Engineering, University of Huddersfield Department of Information > Systems and Multimedia, University of Greenwich, UK CCGV - Centre for > Computer Graphics & Visualisation, University of Bedfordshire The > Visualization Lab, University of Plymouth, UK Construction and > Property Research Centre, UWE, UK Construction IT Research Centre, > University of Salford, UK The Robert Gordon University, UK > GraphicsLink? VGRU, BCIM, London South Bank University, UK Institute > for Computing Research (ICR)-BCIM, London South Bank University, UK > National Centre for Computer Animation, Bournemouth University, UK > Department of Visual Art, University of Northern Colorado, USA HCI > Graduate Program, Indiana University School of Informatics, IUPUI, USA > School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, USA > Information and Computer Science Department, KFUPM, SA College of > Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, USA University > of Kent at Canterbury, UK > Endorsed by: > Information Visualisation Society > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Dates: > 15 February 2007 ? Submission of papers & Submission of tutorials > 20 April 2007 ? Submission of camera-ready & early registration closes > ====================================================================== > Anita D?Pour > GraphicsLink? > Conference Co-ordinator > P.O. BOX 29, HATFIELD, AL9 7ZL, United Kingdom. > Tel: (Int. +44) 1707 - 652 224 > Fax: (Int. +44) 1707 - 652 247 > Email: IV07 at graphicslink.co.uk > URL: http://www.graphicslink.co.uk/IV07/ > > OR to the symposium chairs: > > Dr Chaomei Chen > College of Information Science and Technology > Drexel University > Philadelphia, PA 19104-2875, USA > Email: Chaomei.Chen at cis.drexel.edu > > Dr Katy B?rner > Information Science & School of Informatics, Indiana University, 10th > Street & Jordan Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA > E-mail: katy at indiana.edu > > Dr Jasna Kuljis Department of Information Systems and Computing Brunel > University Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH United Kingdom Email: > Jasna.Kuljis at brunel.ac.uk > > -- Katy Borner, Associate Professor Information Science & Cognitive Science Indiana University, SLIS 10th Street & Jordan Avenue Phone: (812) 855-3256 Fax: -6166 Wells Library 021 E-mail: katy at indiana.edu Bloomington, IN 47405, USA WWW: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~katy Mapping Science exhibit is currently on display at the New York Hall of Science, Dec. 9, 2006 - Feb. 25, 2007. http://scimaps.org/ From friederikekramer at WEB.DE Wed Feb 7 10:20:59 2007 From: friederikekramer at WEB.DE (Friederike Kramer) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:20:59 +0100 Subject: scientometric / webometric Norway Message-ID: Hello, I'm a German student of scandinavian studies and informationscience. I'll start to write my final work in a few weeks and at the moment I' researching for some sources. Maybe you can give me a hint for a study about webometric or scientometric research at Norwegian universities. My theme will be something with information competence of Norwegian students and their usage of the libraries. Thanks for some helpfull ideas! Friederike Kramer _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066 From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Feb 8 20:50:51 2007 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 01:50:51 +0000 Subject: How often do economists self-archive? (fwd) Message-ID: An important paper from Ted Bergstrom. -- SH ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:10:14 EST From: Ted Bergstrom To: liblicense-l at lists.yale.edu Subject: How often do economists self-archive? I have just self-archived a new paper called "How often do economists self-archive?" by Rosemary Lavaty and me. The paper can be found at http://repositories.cdlib.org/ucsbecon/bergstrom/2007a/ We sampled two recent issues of each of 33 economics journals, a total of about 700 articles. We used google to search for a freely available paper on the web that has the same title and same author(s). About 90 percent of the papers in the 15 most frequently cited journals are available. About 50 percent of the remaining papers are available. A similar study finds about 30 percent of the papers in political science. We ran a linear regression in an attempt to identify the effects of author and journal characteristics on the propensity to post. We comment on some related work and discuss the likely implications of widespread self-archiving for the pricing and profitability of subscription-based journals. I promise that this is not the beginning of a series: "How often do economists xxxx", though I would not be averse to a series "How often do xxxx's self-archive. Ted Bergstrom From notsjb at LSU.EDU Fri Feb 9 14:44:50 2007 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:44:50 -0600 Subject: Suggested Reading Message-ID: I meant to post this before but then rejected doing so. However, I have just received another inquiry about academic evaluations using citations and other measures. The US National Research Council (NRC) is again evaluating of the quality of US research-doctorate programs. It is in the process of doing opinion surveys and collecting data. The last such NRC evaluation was in 1993. Those of you doing this sort of thing should go to the following Web site and carefully read what is on it. It has the NRC survey documents and assessments of the mistakes made during previous evaluations. Of particular interest is the discussions of the taxonomy of such evaluations. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/index.html One of the main mistakes made during the last evaluation was failure to allow the program faculty to verify and correct the citation counts to their work. There were a lot of mistakes in this during the last assessment. Therefore, instructions are being issued to the faculty on how to do this. One such set of instructions is posted at the Web site. http://www.library.miami.edu/search/eresources/nrc_citations.html I am sending this out, because I would like it to be understood that "metric" evaluations are not so simple and accurate as certain people seem to think. Before you do one of these things, you should know the difficulties involved in these things. The NRC is probably the most experienced body in the world in making such evaluations, and these web sites give you a good idea of all the possible screw ups. The possibilities of such screw ups are endless. SB From steven.morris at BAKERHUGHES.COM Fri Feb 9 16:35:43 2007 From: steven.morris at BAKERHUGHES.COM (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Steven_A._Morris?=) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:35:43 -0500 Subject: Looking for source of quote Message-ID: I am looking for the source to the quote: "Scientific literature is indistinguishable from the activity it serves" Anybody know? Thanks, Steve Morris From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Sat Feb 17 22:51:49 2007 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:51:49 -0500 Subject: FW: Suzanne Briet "What is Documentation" web site Message-ID: HYPERLINK "http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/briet.htm"http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/briet.htm Suzanne Briet, What is Documentation? (Qu'est-ce que la documentation?) This site now links to the entire translation of Briet's book (translated by Ronald E. Day (Indiana University) and Laurent Martinet (Paris), with Hermina Anghelescu (Wayne State University)) and to the preface and commentary on that text, as well as to Michael Buckland's biography of Briet and his selected bibliography of her works, as printed in What is Documentation?: English Translation of the Classic French Text (Scarecrow Press, 2006). We are grateful to the heirs of Suzanne Briet, Monsieur Jean-Paul Etienne and Monsieur Pascal Etienne, who very generously gave us permission to publish the translation, and we are grateful to Scarecrow Press for publishing the translation and accompanying materials and for giving us copyright on the translation so that we could make it available on the Internet. Thanks to Laurent Martinet and by permission of Briet's heirs, a link to a pdf file of the original French text is now also given, below. English translation, commentary, biography, and bibliography: Preface: HYPERLINK "http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/Briet_preface.pdf"http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/Briet_preface.pdf Brief biography of Suzanne Briet: HYPERLINK "http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~buckland/Brietaut2.pdf"http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~buckland/Brietaut2.pdf Suzanne Briet, What is Documentation? HYPERLINK "http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/what%20is%20documentation.pdf"http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/what is documentation.pdf Commentary: HYPERLINK "http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/Briet_commentary.pdf"http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/Briet_commentary.pdf Selected bibliography of the works of Suzanne Briet (continually updated): HYPERLINK "http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~buckland/Brietwebbib.pdf"http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~buckland/Brietwebbib.pdf _______________________ The original French text of Qu'est-ce que la documentation?: HYPERLINK "http://martinetl.free.fr/briet.pdf"http://martinetl.free.fr/briet.pdf _______________________ Preface to the online translation Suzanne Briet ("Madame Documentation") was an important French Documentalist just before and following the Second World War. Though other documentalists preceded her, Briet was unique in so strongly attributing to documentation and to documentary signs a cultural origin and a social function. Her work differed from that of the founder of European Documentation, Paul Otlet's, in that Briet understood documentation in terms of networks of production and in terms of cultures of production and expression. In Briet's book we find a description of the end of the "culture of the book," and with this we see the transformation of libraries into documentation centers. Today, her book suggests a foreshadowing and a reinterpretation of what we call "digital libraries." In the very first page of What is Documentation?, Briet performs the radical gesture of characterizing documents in terms of being indexical signs. In this, she was adopting an argument that was present in the cultural air, as she states, through "linguists and philosophers," surely in the form of semiotics, and she foreshadows what would appear fifty years later as Actor Network Theory. Throughout What is Documentation?, Briet argues for a socially informed and culturally mediated understanding of documents and documentation institutions. She proposes that documentalists must be proactive agents in document creation and that they must be adaptive to new "rhythms" produced by new technologies. In these manners, she challenges traditional notions of librarianship and libraries, information professionals, and positivist concepts of information. It is our hope that this translation will bring to the English speaking world some of the richness of Briet's work and of other similar works of this period. Beginning with her opening salvo, Briet's work mixes pedantic "practical" arguments with stunning "theoretical" claims about the relationship of documentation and culture. This rhetorical form makes her work all the more interesting in that it shows the deep intermeshing of documentation and culture in modern societies. Her work is of interest to not only specialists in documentation and information science, but to cultural historians and cultural theorists. Further articles and books discussing Briet's work can be found at: HYPERLINK "http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~buckland/briet.html"http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~buckland/briet.html (Michael Buckland's Suzanne Briet page) HYPERLINK "http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~buckland/whatdoc.html"http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~buckland/whatdoc.html HYPERLINK "http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~buckland/thing.html"http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~buckland/thing.html HYPERLINK "http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/maack/BrietPrePress.htm"http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/maack/BrietPrePress.htm (with photos of Briet). HYPERLINK "http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/beyond.htm"http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/beyond.htm HYPERLINK "http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/intd.htm"http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/intd.htm --Fayet-Scribe, S. Histoire de la documentation en France: culture, science et technologie de l'information: 1895-1937 (Paris: CNRS ?ditions, 2000). HYPERLINK "http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~roday/kmasis.htm"HYPERLINK "http://www.lisp.wayne.edu/~ai2398/kmasis.htm"HYPERLINK "http://www.lisp.wayne.edu/~ai2398/intd.htm"--Day, R. The modern invention of information: discourse, history, and power (Southern Illinois University Press, 2001). Comments or suggestions can be sent to: HYPERLINK "mailto:roday at indiana.edu"roday at indiana.edu or HYPERLINK "mailto:martinetl at free.fr"martinetl at free.fr When responding, please attach my original message __________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: HYPERLINK "mailto:garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu"garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: HYPERLINK "http://www.eugenegarfield.org/"www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 Chairman Emeritus, ISI HYPERLINK "http://www.isinet.com/"www.isinet.com 3501 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3302 President, The Scientist LLC. HYPERLINK "http://www.the-scientist.com/"www.the-scientist.com 400 Market Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2501 Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) HYPERLINK "http://www.asist.org"www.asist.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/597 - Release Date: 12/21/2006 6:45 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.1/690 - Release Date: 2/16/2007 2:25 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1765 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Feb 18 04:16:39 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:16:39 +0100 Subject: non-ISI journals: The Wall Street Journal Message-ID: Figure 1: Citation pattern of the Wall Street Journal. During 2005, the Wall Street Journal is cited 1,608 times by 240 journals included in the Social Science Citation Index. These 19 journals cited more than 1% of its total being cited, i.e. > 16 times. I took this journal as an example in honor of Stephen Bensman who seems to read it and keeps us uptodate when peer review is under discussion ! :-) See for technical details: Visualization of the Citation Impact Environments of Scientific Journals: An online mapping exercise, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(1), 25-38, 2007 . This is an extension with non-scientific (or non-ISI-listed) journals. The size of the node should be compared with the horizontal axis of the other nodes because self-citations are excluded in the case of non-listed journals. 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/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: att31983.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 51260 bytes Desc: not available URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Sun Feb 18 14:33:54 2007 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:33:54 -0600 Subject: non-ISI journals: The Wall Street Journal Message-ID: Thank you, Loet, for the honor. I do notice that The Wall Street Journal is cited most by law reviews, and this is probably not out of love. There has always been what may be described as frosty relations between businessmen and lawyers, the former considering--probably correctly--the latter as crooks--particularly those engaged in class action tort cases. Some of the WSJ editorials on asbestos lawyers have been particularly juicy--high comedy, as a matter of fact, since there is a thieves' alliance between lawyers and doctors. As a matter of fact, an ALA study once validated this view of doctors and lawyers that dates back at least to Rabelais and Shakespeare. It found that the biggest thieves of library materials are--in descending rank order--doctors, lawyers, and clergy (denomination not specified). One example of the hostility is that State Farm Insurance and Casualty Company, the biggest US property insurer, has stopped writing policies in Mississippi, a notorious tort heaven, as a result of actions by its Attorney General that put the company up for ransom. The love is not increased by the WSJ being Republican and the trial lawyers being the financial support of the Democratic Party, which understandbly blocks all efforts at tort reform for reasons needilg no explanation. SB. Loet Leydesdorff @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 02/18/2007 03:16:39 AM 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] non-ISI journals: The Wall Street Journal (Embedded image moved to file: pic25667.jpg) Figure 1: Citation pattern of the Wall Street Journal. During 2005, the Wall Street Journal is cited 1,608 times by 240 journals included in the Social Science Citation Index. These 19 journals cited more than 1% of its total being cited, i.e. > 16 times. I took this journal as an example in honor of Stephen Bensman who seems to read it and keeps us uptodate when peer review is under discussion ! :-) See for technical details: Visualization of the Citation Impact Environments of Scientific Journals: An online mapping exercise, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(1), 25-38, 2007 . This is an extension with non-scientific (or non-ISI-listed) journals. The size of the node should be compared with the horizontal axis of the other nodes because self-citations are excluded in the case of non-listed journals. 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/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic25667.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 51260 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Michel.Menou at WANADOO.FR Tue Feb 20 10:16:47 2007 From: Michel.Menou at WANADOO.FR (Michel J. Menou) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:16:47 +0100 Subject: Outcomes of EU conference on scientific publishing Message-ID: Found in Air-l thanks to Jeremy Hunsinger this piece which desserves broad circulation. Apologies if you receive it several times Michel > Message: 2 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:30:53 -0500 From: Jeremy > Hunsinger Subject: [Air-l] Fwd: Communications from the > EU Scientific Publishing conference To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org > Message-ID: <8A83816E-EFFA-4380-91E7-C4AB5AC40BF6 at vt.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed >> > >> > apologies for any cross-posting >> > >> > dear all >> > >> > the recent conference on scientific publishing in Europe will be of >> > considerable interest to the lists given several comments devoted >> > to digital preservation. Further information on the conference >> > below. In addition you may be interested in 2 documents mentioned >> > during the conference: >> > >> > The BRUSSELS DECLARATION ON STM PUBLISHING by the international >> > scientific, technical and medical (STM) publishing community is of >> > significant interest given its references to data archiving and >> > digital preservation - see >> > http://www.stm-assoc.org/documents-statements-public-co/2007% >> > 20BRUSSELS%20DECLARATION%20130207.pdf >> > >> > The COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, >> > THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL >> > COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE: ACCESS, >> > DISSEMINATION AND PRESERVATION issued at the conference is also of >> > considerable interest given its coverage of digital preservation see >> > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/ >> > digital_libraries/doc/scientific_information/communication_en.pdf >> > >> > Janez Potocnik, the European Commissioner for Science and Research >> > announced at the beginning of a two-day conference in Brussels >> > focusing on scientific publishing in Europe that the European >> > Commission has set aside ?50m this year to support the >> > establishment of digital repositories for storing scientific data. >> > In addition a further ?25m is being made available for digital >> > preservation in 2007, while ?10m is to be given by the commission's >> > "eContentplus" programme to improve interoperability of and >> > multilingual access to collections of scientific material. >> > >> > The commission formally launched a new policy communication (see >> > above) aimed at examining how digital technologies can be used to >> > increase access to research publications and data.The commission >> > believes that easier access to scientific data has a significant >> > role to play in driving innovation and maintaining the quality of >> > research across Europe."The digital revolution has dramatically >> > improved the way in which scientific information is spread," said >> > Viviane Reding, European Commissioner for Information Society and >> > Media. "But it also raises new questions about how to preserve >> > scientific information for the future. Today's strategy outlines >> > how Europe can best capitalise on the excellent work of its >> > researchers." It warns that online access does not guarantee its >> > future availability because digital information has a limited >> > lifetime and needs to be maintained over time.Therefore, the >> > commission says better tools are needed to ensure digital >> > preservation to prevent the loss of important scientific >> > information."New ideas are usually built on the results of previous >> > research," added Potocnik. "We must make sure that the flow of >> > scientific information contributes to innovation and research >> > excellence in the European Research Area." >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ********************************************************************** >> > *************** >> > Neil Beagrie FRSA publications: >> > www.beagrie.com >> > BL/JISC Partnership Manager email: >> > neil.beagrie at bl.uk >> > The British Library, urls: >> > www.bl.uk >> > 96 Euston Road, >> > www.jisc.ac.uk >> > London NW1 2DB Tel/Fax/Voicemail :+44 (0)709 2048179 >> > ********************************************************************** >> > *************** From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Tue Feb 20 12:43:15 2007 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:43:15 +0000 Subject: Quality Bias vs Quality Advantage In-Reply-To: <20070220124053.D6FBF7E66@mailhost.lkb.ens.fr> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Franck Laloe wrote: > The Open Access Citation Advantage: Quality Advantage Or Quality Bias? > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/191-guid.html > > I have now read this text. Interesting! > A few comments: > > 1) First, a detail. The text seems to imply that > what is called "Quality advantage" takes place > because each author selects his/her best articles > and posts only these on an open archive. Dear Franck: Just the opposite! That is the Quality Bias (QB), not the Quality Advantage (QA). (The Quality Advantage is the tendency for the better articles to benefit more from OA: A bad article will not be cited even if one thrusts it in every user's face! (And the majority of articles are not cited.) > My perception is different; I would say that, > statistically, among my colleagues the more > dynamic, productive, etc.. are more inclined to > use open archives, and that they are also the > more cited authors. The Quality Bias (QB) applies at both levels: A selective tendency for the better authors to self-archive, which translates into a tendency for the better articles to be self-archived, as well as a selective tendency to self-archive one's better articles. My colleague Michael Kurtz has even suggested that the best rationale for OA self-archiving might be that the better researchers do it! ("Follow the Leader!") But if it were true that their doing it has no causal benefits, and is merely a superstitious bias, then there is no point in the lesser researchers (or any researchers, for that matter) doing it -- any more than there is any point in lesser researchers smoking the same brand of cigarettes as the better ones! > A person selection in > disciplines and institutions, rather than a > selection article by article if you like. I quite agree that Quality Bias is more likely to be a between-author bias than a within-author bias. Henk Moed has found that authors don't self-archive *all* their papers, but that there is an impact advantage even for the non-self-archived papers of self-archiving authors. > 2) The yellow/blue table with the equation AOO = > EA+QA+... is a little bit confusing when it uses > the notion of 100%OA. One should distinguish > between 100% in the discipline, or 100% in the > institution of the author, or even 100% for an > isolated author who is a fan of the open > archives. For instance, CA disappears only in > 100%OA exists in the discipline, but has nothing > to do with 100% in the intuition of the author, etc.. You are quite right: 100% OA is used in two senses: (i) 100% of an individual institution's output and (ii) 100% of the entire discipline's output. The competitive Advantage (CA) will only vanish when 100% of a discipline's output is OA. An individual institution continues to enjoy a CA even after it has reached 100% OA for its own output, as long as other institutions have not yet done so! I suspect that the Competitive Advantage will be the biggest start-up incentive toward accelerating and mandating OA self-archiving. But even after an entire discipline (or all disciplines) have reached 100% OA, there will still be (1) the Quality Advantage (QA: the better articles will have more usage and impact than they would have had without OA), (2) the Usage Advantage (UA: more downloading and reading, even without citations, than there would have been before OA) and (3) the Early Advantage (EA, the earlier the postprint, or even the preprint, is made OA, the more impact). CA, however, will be gone at 100% (discipline-level) OA, and so will QB. > In passing, I note that EA also disappears in > this case, while it is not mentioned. I am afraid you are mistaken about that: Not only QA and UA but also EA remain at 100% OA; it is only CA and QB that vanish: Even when there is 100% (discipline-wide) OA self-archiving of the peer-reviewed postprint from the moment of acceptance for publication, there is still the pre-refereeing preprint, and in principle that (less reliable, but sometimes valuable) route of posting early drafts can stretch back quite a bit before publication, giving some researchers an extra advantage (and risk!) if they post earlier... > I note in passing that all the advantages studied > in this text would disappear in case of high > percentage of OAP (OA publishing, what Stevan > calls gold); fortunately, other advantages would subsist. Gold OA publishing -- which basically amounts to the publisher archiving the paper instead of the author himself -- can confer all the advantages of Green OA self-archiving (provided the accepted, peer-reviewed draft is made OA immediately upon acceptance). In that regard there is absolutely no difference between Green and Gold OA with regard to QA, QB, CA or UA. But EA (the Early Advantage) pertains only to author self-archiving: Journals are not in a position to "publish" drafts of papers they have not yet accepted to publish! Only authors can do (or authorise) that. > 3) Now the interpretation of the data. This is > the most difficult part; it is very delicate to > prove something from the effect of mandate. > > (i) For instance, one could argue that the author > selection effect described in my 1) takes place > at the level of the institutions: the best ones > with the best researches are more inclined to > push their scientist (or force them) to deposit > their production. If this is true (I am not > arguing it is in reality, I do not know), all > the calculation is biassed. You are quite right that *if* the Universities of Southampton, Minho, Tasmania, and QUT, plus CERN, are already among the best in the world, then that explains why their articles have higher citation counts than articles published in the same journal and year from all other institutions. But if the reason why Southampton, Minho, Tasmania, etc. and not other institutions, already have self-archiving mandates is instead that OA activists like Tom Cochrane and Paula Callan (pro-VC and librarian of QUT), Eloy Rodriques (library director of Minho), Arthur Sale (Tasmania), and Jens Vigen and Joanne Yeomans (CERN) have managed to persuade their institutions to mandate OA self-archiving, and to help ensure that the mandates are complied with, then their OA advantage is rather unlikely to be just corollary to a tautological Quality Bias (QB)... (I invite you to ponder, in a relaxed moment, the question of why the University of Southampton's web-impact "G-Factor" is the UK's 3rd highest, and 25th in the world, ahead of (for example) Columbia University and Yale: Proud as I am of Southampton's excellent research, I cannot help thinking that this high impact has a good deal to do with Southampton ECS's self-archiving mandate, the first in the world. And if you consult the ECS download logs, you will find that the lion's share of the hits are indeed ECS's mandated EPrints Archive.) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/unirank1.gif (By the way, those who are absolutely bent on invoking the epicycles of the Quality Bias interpretation have another obvious means of saving their increasingly far-fetched theory: Since none of the mandated institutions have as yet quite reached 100% OA (though CERN is close), one could argue that their "OA Advantage" is really just a result of a self-selective non-compliance bias: Their worst authors are the ones not yet complying with the mandate!) > (ii) More serious is the fact that, even in the > presence of mandate/strong encouragement, such as > in the case of Wellcome Trust and NIH, the collection > proportion is around 10%, not more. So, at least > for the moment, there is still room for an > enormous bias of the conclusion by "quality advantage". Again, I think you mean QB not QA here, and it sounds as if you're indeed invoking the Ptolemeic interpretation I mentioned above. So let me point out that our analyses are *not* based on the Wellcome Mandate, for which there are as yet no data, nor, a fortiori, on the NIH "public access policy," which is not even a mandate, has a compliance rate of 4% and is now universally acknowledged to be a failure because it did not mandate self-archiving. Our data are based on the 5 first institutional mandates: The Southampton ECS and CERN Institutional Repositories' percentage OA is much closer to 100% than 10%; in the other other three (Minho, QUT, Tasmania) the figures for the past two years are a good deal higher than 10% too! 10% is more like the %OA for unmandated Institutional Repositories. 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 harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Tue Feb 20 21:55:38 2007 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:55:38 +0000 Subject: DC Principles Coalition Issues Press Release In-Reply-To: <200702202257.l1KMvgQB006862@quickgr.its.yale.edu> Message-ID: ** Cross-Posted ** On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Martin Frank wrote: > The following press release was posted to the DC Principles website at > http://www.dcprinciples.org/press/2.htm. > > Nonprofit Publishers Oppose Government Mandates for Scientific > Publishing > > Washington, DC (February 20, 2007) A coalition of 75 nonprofit > publishers opposes any legislation that would abruptly end a > publishing system that has nurtured independent scientific > inquiry for generations. And the *evidence* that mandating self-archiving -- as 5 of 8 British research councils, the Wellcome Trust, Australian Research Council, ANHMRC, CERN and a growing number of universities worldwide have already done, and EC, ERC, EURAB, CIHR and FRPAA are proposing to do -- "would abruptly end the publishing system"? Or is this just the same doomsday prophecy we have heard (and heard refuted) over and over, simply being repeated louder and louder? Berners-Lee, T., De Roure, D., Harnad, S. and Shadbolt, N. (2005) Journal publishing and author self-archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence and Fruitful Collaboration. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11160/ > One such measure, the Federal Research > Public Access Act introduced in the 109th Congress would have > required all federally funded research to be deposited in an > accessible database within six months of acceptance in a > scientific journal. Some open access advocates are pressing for > the introduction of a similar measure in the 110th Congress. A measure that, as noted above, is already being adopted worldwide, because of its vast benefits to research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, the vast research and development industry, and the tax-paying public that funds the research. http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php Are evidence-free doomsday prophecies from one service industry supposed to be grounds for denying these benefits to research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, the vast research and development industry, and the tax-paying public that funds the research? http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/key-perspectives.pdf Or is this just the flea on the tail of the dog, endeavouring to wag the dog? > In essence, such legislation would impose government-mandated > access policies and government-controlled repositories for > federally funded research published in scientific journals, > according to members of the Washington DC Principles for Free > Access to Science Coalition. The self-archiving mandates require publicly funded research to be made publicly accessible to all users. The rhetoric of "government control" is shrill nonsense, in line with the data-free doomsday prophecies. Is this the program of disinformation that the "DC Principles" Coalition have been counselled to disseminate by the esteemed public relations consultants of their STM confreres? http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070122/full/445347a.html > "We as independent publishers must determine when it is appropriate > to make content freely available, and we believe strongly it should not > be determined by government mandate" [said Martin Frank of the American > Physiological Society and coordinator of the coalition] The public funds it, researchers and their institutions conduct, write and peer-review it, all for free, but "publishers must determine when it is appropriate to make it freely available"? In exchange for having been given it free to sell, for having peer-reviewed it for free, and for having paid dearly for subscriptions in order to access it? That's an awfully big price the public and the research community and research progress, and research applications are all expected to pay in exchange for the 3rd-party management of their free peer review service. How much longer does the DC Principles Coalition imagine that the research community, the tax-paying public, and the vast research applications industry will keep giving this hollow assertion of right-of-determination, amplified by empty prophecies of doom, the undue credence it has enjoyed to date? > The Coalition also reaffirmed its ongoing practice of making > millions of scientific journal articles available free of charge, > without an additional financial burden on the scientific > community or on funding agencies. More than 1.6 million free > articles are already available to the public free of charge on > HighWire Press. Commendable. Now what about all the rest of the articles that their authors, funders and institutions likewise want to make freely available, as per the proposed and adopted self-archiving mandates? > "The scholarly publishing system is a delicate balance between > the need to sustain journals financially and the goal of > disseminating scientific knowledge as widely as possible. > Publishers have voluntarily made more journal articles available > free worldwide than at any time in history -- without government > intervention," noted Kathleen Case of the American Association > for Cancer Research. Commendable. Now what about all the rest of the articles that their authors, funders and institutions likewise want to make freely available, as per the proposed and adopted self-archiving mandates? > The Coalition expressed concern that a mandate timetable for free > access to all federally funded research would harm journals, > scientists, and ultimately the public. The doomsday prophecy again, repeated ever more shrilly to compensate for the complete absence of evidence in its support. > Subscriptions to journals with a high percentage of federally funded > research would decline rapidly. If and when the demand for a product declines, it is time to cut costs. If and when publishing downsizes to just the management of the peer review service, the institutional savings from the (hypothesized) subscription-declines will be more than enough to pay for peer review, per article published, on the open-access publishing model. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm > Subscription revenues support the quality control system > known as peer review and also support the educational work of > scientific societies that publish journals. Subscriptions revenues will continue to flow as long as there is enough demand for the product. Once the only product needed is the peer review management service, the institutional savings will be enough to pay for its costs several times over. At no time has the research community, its institutions or its funders, or the tax-paying public that funds its funders, been asked, nor has it ever agreed, to subsidise "the educational work of scientific societies" with its own lost research access and impact. > Undermining subscriptions would shift the cost of publication > from the publisher who receives subscription revenue to the > researcher who receives grants. Such a shift will: > > * Divert scarce dollars from research. Publishers now pay the > cost of publication out of subscription revenue; if the authors > have to pay, the funds will come from their research grants. No. Publication costs are currently being paid out of subscription revenues. On the hypothesis that institutions cancel those subscriptions, it is those same subscription revenue savings that can continue to pay for (what is left of) publication costs, per paper published. Not a penny of research grants need ever be redirected. The subscription savings will be redirected. > Nonprofit journals without subscription revenue have to rely on > grants, which further diverts funding from research. Journals that are subsidised today can continue to be subsidised tomorrow. Journals that are subscription-based today, if/when their subscriptions are cancelled, can be paid for (what is left of) their costs, per article, from the author's institutional subscription savings. More than enough money is in the system. No doomsday scenario. Just downsizing and redirection of windfall savings. > * Result in only well-funded scientists being able to publish > their work. Utter nonsense. See arithmetic above. > * Reduce the ability of journals to fund peer review. Most > journals spend 40% or more of their revenue on quality control > through the peer review system; without subscription income and > with limitations on author fees, peer review would suffer. When there is no more demand for anything but peer review, institutions will have saved 100%, of which they need merely redirect 40% to pay for the peer review of their own publications. (Please do the arithmetic.) > * Harm those scientific societies that rely on income from > journals to fund the professional development of scientists. > Revenues from scholarly publications fund research, fellowships > to junior scientists, continuing education, and mentoring > programs to increase the number of women and under-represented > groups in science, among many other activities. At no time has the research community, its institutions or its funders, or the tax-paying public that funds its funders, been asked, nor has it ever agreed, to subsidise "the professional development of scientists, research, fellowships to junior scientists, continuing education, and mentoring programs" with its own lost research access and impact. > Members of the DC Principles Coalition have long supported > responsible free access to science and have made: > > * selected important studies immediately available online, in > their entirety and at no charge > > * studies available at no cost to patients who request them > > * all abstracts immediately available online at no charge > > * full text of the journal available at no charge to everyone > worldwide within months of publication, depending on each > publisher's business and publishing requirements > > * all journal content available free to scientists working in > many low-income nations > > * articles available free of charge online through reference > linking between journals > > * content available for indexing by major search engines so that > readers worldwide can easily locate information Commendable. Now what about all the rest of the articles that their authors, funders and institutions likewise want to make freely available, as per the proposed and adopted self-archiving mandates? > "By establishing government repositories for federally funded > research, taxpayers would be paying for systems that duplicate > the online archives already maintained by independent > publishers," Case noted. With the slight difference that the contents of the OA archives will be freely accessible to all, as per the proposed and adopted self-archiving mandates. > "The implications of the U.S. government > becoming the world's largest publisher of scientific articles > have not been addressed," she added. Self-archiving mandates are for providing access to published articles, not for publishing them. In an online world, publishing means certifying papers as having met a journal's peer-review quality standards. That means the peer review service. That's all. The implied "government monopoly" subtext is again just empty rhetoric, designed to inflame, not to inform honestly. > According to Frank, "As not-for-profit publishers, we believe > that a free society allows for the co-existence of many > publishing models, and we will continue to work closely with our > publishing colleagues to set high standards for the scholarly > publishing enterprise." Amen. Berners-Lee, T., De Roure, D., Harnad, S. and Shadbolt, N. (2005) Journal publishing and author self-archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence and Fruitful Collaboration. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11160/ 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 harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Wed Feb 21 16:28:50 2007 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:28:50 +0000 Subject: Quality Bias vs Quality Advantage In-Reply-To: <20070221163244.C45D17E62@mailhost.lkb.ens.fr> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Franck Laloe wrote: > (note in passing that you and me know that CERN > does not have a mandate (to their CDS); authors > put their work on ArXiv, the librarians then > import the files by copying and paste thme into > CDS. CERN should therefore not be counted among > the mandating institutions. In different words, > the high percentage of CERN has nothing to do > with their mandate, which is merely ignored by the researchers. "Mandate" has two senses, and as it happens, *both* senses are sufficient to generate 100% institutional OA. The first sense is the usual one: a requirement that researchers (employees, or fundees) deposit, personally or by proxy (student, secretary, documentalist). The second sense of mandate is when the institution itself takes it as its own mandate to ensure that all of its researcherch output is deposited. This is the situation at CERN: CERN takes it to be its mandate or prerogative to deposit all of its research, so it does so. Often this does require the cooperation of the author, which is provided, as per the mandate. But it has always been a completely trivial matter who does the actual keystrokes: If it is the author himself, or his assigns (students, secretaries, documentalists). that's fine. If it is the institution (with its documentalists and secrataries), that's fine too. Just as long as it is mandated (in either sense) and the mandate is met. > > > FL: > > > (ii) More serious is the fact that, even in the > > > presence of mandate/strong encouragement, such as > > > in the case of Wellcome Trust and NIH, the collection > > > proportion is around 10%, not more. So, at least > > > for the moment, there is still room for an > > > enormous bias of the conclusion by "quality advantage". > > > < SH: > >Again, I think you mean QB not QA here, and it sounds as if you're indeed > >invoking the Ptolemeic interpretation I mentioned above. > > FL: > No, this is not what I meant. My point is that QB > can in these cases bias your measurement of QA > exactly as much as in non spontaneous archives. No, I do not see that at all. QB means self-selection bias (a greater tendency for better authors to self-archive, better papers). QA means quality advantage (a tendency for higher-quality papers to benefit more from being self-archived than lower quality papers). With nonmandated self-archiving, there can be a QB. But with mandated self-archiving, especially once the %OA is high, if there is still just as high and OA citation advantage, then not just QB is behind the OA advantage. And if the OA advantage is even significantly higher for mandated self-archiving than for unmandated self-archiving, then the most obvious inference is that QA > QB. The Ptolemeic hypothesis (resisting the obvious one) is that the OA avantage is still just a QB, because the few remaining authors who are not yet complying with the mandate are the cause of the OA Advantage. (This is especially far-fetched, because we compared compared mandated and unmandated self-archiving with other matched articles in the same journal year, not with other, non-OA articles in the same institution and year.) A+ E. From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Feb 22 07:04:40 2007 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:04:40 +0000 Subject: Quality Bias vs Quality Advantage In-Reply-To: <45DD4E87.5090304@lkb.ens.fr> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Franck Laloe wrote: > >SH: > >With nonmandated self-archiving, there can be a QB. But with mandated > >self-archiving, especially once the %OA is high... > > FL: > Aha! This sentence shows that you have actually > understood what I meant. If this percentage is low (and it is), > your signal is totally buried in > a parasicic signal, and your measurement is not > valid. Just simple scientific logics, nothing deep ... Dear Franck, I understood perfectly. And for the institutions on which we based the calculations, the percentage is high, not low. You mistakenly thought we were basing our analyses on the c. 10%-level funder mandates, but we were not. We were basing them on the >50%-level institutional mandates. As I said, anywhere less than 100% there is the logical possibility of the QB epicycles (low %OA, unmandated: "the better authors self-archive spontaneously"; high %OA, mandated: "the worse authors don't comply with the mandate"), but, as I said, I think it is obvious that this is Ptolemeic theory-saving rather than inference to the most likely explanation. (And even with lower %OA, as long as the mandated self-archiving came from a significantly higher percentage OA than the unmandated self-archiving, a significant statistical tendency could be estimated.) > > SH: > > "Mandate" has two senses, and as it happens, *both* senses are sufficient to > > generate 100% institutional OA. The first sense is the usual one: a requirement > > that researchers (employees, or fundees) deposit, personally or by proxy (student, > > secretary, documentalist). The second sense of mandate is when the institution > > itself takes it as its own mandate to ensure that all of its researcherch output > > is deposited. > > FL: > Yes. My point was that CERN falls in neither of these cases: there is no > requirement or mandate at all, just a tradition which pushes physicists > in this field to spontaneously deposit in ArXiv (exactly as in my own of > research). Yes, you may call it "mandate", or "self-mandate", or > "spontaneous mandate", etc.. In physics, we have "spontaneous > processes", and "stimulated processes", they are different categories > and correspond to different diagrams. Of course we could speak of > "stimulated spontaneity" and "spontaneous stimulation", it would be kind > of nice, but would it be the simplest vocabulary to use? > > Well, English is not my mother tongue, maybe I will make a fool of > myself if I launch is a discussion about semantics? You are a thousand > times betten than me at this game Stevan! This is not a matter of the semantics of "mandate". There is a substantive point here, and I believe you are mistaken about it: (1) It is simply not true that the reason CERN now has virtually 100% of its current annual output self-archived is that its researchers all spontaneously self-archive in Arxiv, and the CERN archivists simply harvest if back from there. (2) It is not even correct that CERN now has virtually 100% of its output self-archived because *most* CERN research is spontaneously self-archived in Arxiv. (3) The reason CERN now has virtually 100% of its current annual output self-archived is twofold: (3b) CERN has mandated that its institutional repository should contain all of its research output and (3a) CERN documentalists are mandated to self-archive it there for all CERN researchersresearchers andD (4) This state of affairs is in complete contrast with all other research institutions in the world except the half-dozen others that likewise have such mandates, as listed in ROARMAP. (If all universities and institutions worldwide had CERN's policy -- call it what you like! -- OA would be home free by now!) (5) Yes, CERN's task of ensuring that 100% of its current annual research output is self-archived is made easier by the fact that many (not all, not most, but many) CERN researchers self-archive spontaneously in Arxiv, so those papers can be harvested back, instead of having to be requested by the CERN staff from their authors directly. (6) But that is still a self-archiving mandate: In an institution with no such mandate, the staff would be wasting their time begging the authors for a copy to deposit, as the authors would not provide it (for the 34+ reasons that they do not self-archive spontaneously, but only if mandated: they are too lazy, they don't think it's necessary, they are worried about copyright, etc. etc.). (7) Queensland University of Technology, in contrast to the other institutions that currently have a mandate, does it exactly the same way CERN does: The Vice Chancellor mandated it, and the library staff chased the authors to get the papers and do the keystrokes for them. (8) Without a mandate, whether at CERN or anywhere else, it does not happen. Amities, Etienne From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Feb 25 03:00:17 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:00:17 +0100 Subject: The new NSF program Message-ID: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07547/nsf07547.htm: The Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) at the National Science Foundation (NSF) aims to foster the development of the knowledge, theories, data, tools, and human capital needed to cultivate a new Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP). SciSIP will underwrite fundamental research that creates new explanatory models and analytic tools designed to inform the nation's public and private sectors about the processes through which investments in science and engineering (S&E) research are transformed into social and economic outcomes. Parallel research and data development will help answer pressing questions, such as: What are the critical elements of creativity and innovation? What are the likely futures of the technical workforce and what is its response to different forces of change? What is the impact of globalization on creativity and productivity in the science and engineering fields? Are there significantly different outcomes from federal and private investments in R&D and innovative activities? How does state support for public universities influence the national innovation system? SciSIP's goals are to understand the contexts, structures and processes of S&E research, to evaluate reliably the tangible and intangible returns from investments in research and development (R&D), and to predict the likely returns from future R&D investments within tolerable margins of error and with attention to the full spectrum of potential consequences. Specifically, the research and community development components of SciSIP's activities will: (1) develop usable knowledge and theories of creative processes and their transformation into social and economic outcomes; (2) develop, improve and expand models and analytical tools that can be applied in the science policy decision making process; and (3) develop a community of experts at academic institutions focused on SciSIP. Characterizing the dynamics of discovery and innovation is important for developing valid metrics, for predicting future returns on investments, for constructing fruitful policies, and for developing new forms of workforce education and training. Accomplishing these goals requires disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to understanding knowledge generation and innovation processes. Collaborative projects are encouraged, including those that build linkages across disciplinary and national borders. Research teams may also focus on specific scientific domains or synthesize elements from disparate disciplines to develop new models or tools. For example, engineers and behavioral scientists could collaborate on projects furthering the understanding of cognitive pathways and interaction strategies that lead to new discoveries, or on optimizing team strategies in the innovative process. Chemists working with social and behavioral scientists might develop theoretical frameworks that explain how chemists achieve new discoveries. Mathematical biologists, behavioral scientists and economists might develop computational models on how social agents might make strategic investments in incremental or large-leap innovations. In a different vein, a multidisciplinary research team might be instrumental in investigating first hand the productivity benefits and costs of interdisciplinary team collaborations. The FY 2007 competition includes two emphasis areas: Analytical Tools and Model Building. The emergent body of research will develop and utilize techniques for retrospective and prospective analyses. In addition, research will provide insight into factors that propagate new ideas at levels from the molecular functioning of the human brain to the organizational, and at the state, national and international levels. Future solicitations will also target research that would improve and expand science metrics and datasets. The research objectives go beyond the traditional input-output linkages, to broader outcomes, such as implications for national health, security, education, and well-being. New statistical and econometric tools for estimating social and economic returns to science and engineering investments are encouraged, including comparisons of public and private R&D expenditures and returns within a given scientific discipline or field. The research is not limited to quantitative assessments. Qualitative tools, such as case studies, ethnographic studies, historical analyses and cross-national comparisons are welcomed and interdisciplinary collaborations are encouraged. International collaboration among scholars is also encouraged, since much can be learned about country-based methods of scientific exploration and science policies, particularly as the scientific community globalizes. Collaborators from institutions outside the U.S. should seek funding from their respective funding organizations or they could be supported through a subcontract to a U.S. institution. ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated . 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Feb 25 06:21:24 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:21:24 +0100 Subject: Abstracts of ISI-files organized into relational database management Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I extended the freeware program ISI.EXE so that abstracts downloaded from the Web-of-Science are also read into the system and if available automatically exported into an additional file "abstract.txt." This file is both delimited and in tabular format. The number field corresponds with the number fields in the other files (au.dbf, cr.dbf, cs.dbf, and core.dbf). In MS Access or other programs for relational database management these files can be imported directly. 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/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isidro at CINDOC.CSIC.ES Mon Feb 26 05:21:16 2007 From: isidro at CINDOC.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:21:16 +0100 Subject: Cybermetrics special issue Message-ID: Cybermetrics, the electronic journal devoted to the quantitative analysis of the scientific and scholarly communication in the Internet has published a special issue titled devoted to: ?What does the Web represent? From virtual ethnography to web indicators? edited by Andrea Scharnhorst, Peter van den Besselaar and Paul Wouters: Vol. 10 (2006): Issue 1 http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/vol10iss1.html What does the Web represent? From virtual ethnography to web indicators Andrea Scharnhorst, Peter van den Besselaar, Paul Wouters http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1p0.html Analyzing hyperlinks networks: The meaning of hyperlink based indicators of knowledge production Gaston Heimeriks & Peter Van den Besselaar http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1p1.html Studying the Scholarly web: How disciplinary culture shapes online representations Jenny Fry http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1p2.html Operationalising ?Websites?: lexically, semantically or topologically? Viv Cothey, Isidro Aguillo, Natalia Arroyo http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1p3.html Linking shallow, linking deep. How scientific intermediaries use the Web for their network of collaborators Eleftheria Vasileiadou, Peter van den Besselaar http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1p4.html Textured Connectivity: an ethnographic approach to understanding the timescape of hyperlinks Anne Beaulieu, Elena Simakova http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1p5.html Web indicators - a new generation of S&T indicators? Andrea Scharnhorst, Paul Wouters http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1p6.html What do hyperlinks mean: the value of hyperlink-networks as indicators of knowledge production Viv Cothey http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1c1.html Discussion to the article by Jenny Fry Eleftheria Vasileiadou http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1c2.html Discussion of ?Operationalising ?Websites?: lexically, semantically or topologically?? Gaston Heimeriks http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1c3.html Discussion to the article by Eleftheria Vasileiadou & Peter van den Besselaar Anne Beaulieu http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1c4.html Discussion to the article by Anne Beaulieu & Elena Simakova Jenny Fry http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1c5.html Hybrid spaces - some comments on the article by Andrea Scharnhorst and Paul Wouters Peter van den Besselaar http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1c6.html -- *************************************** Isidro F. Aguillo isidro at cindoc.csic.es Ph:(+34) 91-5635482 ext. 313 Cybermetrics Lab CINDOC-CSIC Joaquin Costa, 22 28002 Madrid. SPAIN http://www.webometrics.info http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics http://internetlab.cindoc.csic.es **************************************** From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Tue Feb 27 04:11:08 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:11:08 +0100 Subject: preprint version "Globalisation in science in 2005" Message-ID: Globalisation in the network of science in 2005: The diffusion of international collaboration and the formation of a core group Caroline S. Wagner SRI International, Arlington, Virginia, 22209, USA Caroline.wagner at sri.com; http://www.cswagner.net Loet Leydesdorff University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwel 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands International collaboration as measured by co-authorships on refereed papers grew significantly from 1990 to 2005. International communications in science can best be studied as a network, since there is no political institution mediating relationships at that level: links self-organize largely through contacts made by scientists. As such, science at the international level shares features with other complex adaptive systems whose order arises from the interactions of hundreds of agents pursuing self-interested strategies. Communications at the international level appears to have grown significantly in the 1990s, with the addresses of many more countries evident in collaborative articles. By 2005, global communications appear to have reinforced the formation of a core group of highly cooperative countries. This core group can be expected to use knowledge from the global network with great efficiency, since these countries have strong national systems. Countries at the periphery may be disadvantaged by the strength of the core. _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: attbea21.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1101 bytes Desc: not available URL: