From fpehar at UNIZD.HR Thu Jan 4 10:26:31 2007 From: fpehar at UNIZD.HR (Franjo Pehar | unizd.hr) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 16:26:31 +0100 Subject: bibliog. + cit. database [help request] Message-ID: Hello, I would be grateful if somebody could provide me with links/information on free/share/trial-ware software or simple but functional homemade databases suitable for manually collecting bibliographic data and cited references from several journals not covered by ISI, suitable for later bibliometric analysis (standard fields should be supported, like: author/s, journal/article title, page, issue, vol. number . and all necessary relations to cited ref., authors institutional affiliation ...). Lately I've found a lot of tools primarily built to carry out bibliometric analysis on ISI standardized input data (ISI export format). I've started by storing data from a two journals into my own MS Access database, but the problem is that in this case I won't be able to use available tools that require standard ISI data format, like Sitkis, Bibexcel, Citespace, number of tools developed by Loet Leydesdorff etc.. Maybe a bibliographic conversion tool could solve my problem? Are you aware of a tool that converts Access supported export formats to ISI fields tagged format? Thank you for all suggestions and help in advance, Franjo Pehar (PhD student) P.S. it seems to me that a blank version of ISI's citation index or Scopus would be an ideal solution for my problem :)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- Franjo Pehar University of Zadar, Department of Library and Information Science Ul. dr. F. Tudjmana 24i 23 000 Zadar | Croatia Tel. +385 (0)23 300-925 or 300-945 Fax. +385 (0)23 311-540 GSM: +385 (0)98 893-311 Email: fpehar at unizd.hr URL: http://personal.unizd.hr/~fpehar ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sat Jan 6 05:50:19 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:50:19 +0100 Subject: bibliog. + cit. database [help request] In-Reply-To: <001801c73014$b8e20d90$5e1c35a1@nbharpe> Message-ID: Dear Franjo, I don't fully understand your PS, but it would be nice if you wrote the little program to do this, and I can offer to host it on my website. At least, I'll send a link. It is often easiest to export the data first as CSV and then to read and rewrite it with a program. 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 _____ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Franjo Pehar | unizd.hr Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] bibliog. + cit. database [help request] Hello, I would be grateful if somebody could provide me with links/information on free/share/trial-ware software or simple but functional homemade databases suitable for manually collecting bibliographic data and cited references from several journals not covered by ISI, suitable for later bibliometric analysis (standard fields should be supported, like: author/s, journal/article title, page, issue, vol. number . and all necessary relations to cited ref., authors institutional affiliation ...). Lately I've found a lot of tools primarily built to carry out bibliometric analysis on ISI standardized input data (ISI export format). I've started by storing data from a two journals into my own MS Access database, but the problem is that in this case I won't be able to use available tools that require standard ISI data format, like Sitkis, Bibexcel, Citespace, number of tools developed by Loet Leydesdorff etc.. Maybe a bibliographic conversion tool could solve my problem? Are you aware of a tool that converts Access supported export formats to ISI fields tagged format? Thank you for all suggestions and help in advance, Franjo Pehar (PhD student) P.S. it seems to me that a blank version of ISI's citation index or Scopus would be an ideal solution for my problem :)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- Franjo Pehar University of Zadar, Department of Library and Information Science Ul. dr. F. Tudjmana 24i 23 000 Zadar | Croatia Tel. +385 (0)23 300-925 or 300-945 Fax. +385 (0)23 311-540 GSM: +385 (0)98 893-311 Email: fpehar at unizd.hr URL: http://personal.unizd.hr/~fpehar ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at HUGHES.NET Sat Jan 6 11:13:17 2007 From: dwojick at HUGHES.NET (David E. Wojick) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:13:17 -0500 Subject: Contagion modeling of new ideas by OSTI In-Reply-To: <002501c73180$8221b310$7201a8c0@laptop> Message-ID: Colleagues, OSTI has begun a new research program that includes contagion modeling of new ideas, based on literature analysis. Our initial results are here: http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/#casestudies The biggest result is that doubling the contact rate dramatically speeds up the speed of knowledge diffusion. This is of interest to us, because OSTI is in the business of putting scientists in contact with one another. The main report is here: "Population Modeling of the Emergence and Development of Scientific Fields" http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/epicasediscussion_lb2.pdf Note that Eugene Garfield is cited, as he called for this kind of research 27 years ago! There are several other discussion papers on the site, which we expect to expand as time goes on. http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/ OSTI is the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of Science of the Department of Energy. The Office of Science funds basic research in the physical sciences, at about $4 billion a year. OSTI started out as a repository for research reports but has become a leader in web-based, research collection and dissemination for the US government. http://www.osti.gov See also http://www.science.gov which federates 35 databases across the US government. We hope to launch Science.world in the near future, working with other governments. Comments or questions are most welcome. David dwojick at hughes.net -- "David E. Wojick, Ph.D." Senior Consultant -- The DOE Science Accelerator http://www.osti.gov/innovation/scienceaccelerator.pdf http://www.osti.gov/innovation/ A strategic initiative of the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, US Department of Energy (540) 858-3136 391 Flickertail Lane, Star Tannery, VA 22654 USA http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/resume.html provides my bio and client list. http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/Mathematics_Philosophy_Science/ presents some of my own research on information structure and dynamics. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU Mon Jan 8 09:34:42 2007 From: Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU (Pikas, Christina K.) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:34:42 -0500 Subject: bibliog. + cit. database [help request] In-Reply-To: A<001801c73014$b8e20d90$5e1c35a1@nbharpe> Message-ID: I've been debating this exact thing. I was considering developing an export style for a bibliographic manager (either ProCite or RefWorks) that would basically create an ISI tagged file. This is mostly fairly straightforward, with the exception of the cited/citing references. Scopus doesn't want to export citing references and WoS dumps them in the note field. Of course, the citations are probably the exact point of your research! I did a co-author matrix by exporting all of my "recent articles by APL authors" listing from RefWorks to Excel. I had it convert the ; to columns, then did a find and replace with a node number for each author (I could have left the authors but I judged that more error prone). Yes, this was pretty arduous, but it gave me what I needed. The input file is then of the form: *vertices # 1 "Pikas, C.K." ... 1 26 78 93 25 32 79 Etc. Christina K. Pikas, MLS {PhD Student @ University of Maryland} R.E. Gibson Library & Information Center The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Voice 240.228.4812 (Washington), 443.778.4812 (Baltimore) Fax 443.778.5353 ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Franjo Pehar | unizd.hr Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:27 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] bibliog. + cit. database [help request] Hello, I would be grateful if somebody could provide me with links/information on free/share/trial-ware software or simple but functional homemade databases suitable for manually collecting bibliographic data and cited references from several journals not covered by ISI, suitable for later bibliometric analysis (standard fields should be supported, like: author/s, journal/article title, page, issue, vol. number ... and all necessary relations to cited ref., authors institutional affiliation ...). Lately I've found a lot of tools primarily built to carry out bibliometric analysis on ISI standardized input data (ISI export format). I've started by storing data from a two journals into my own MS Access database, but the problem is that in this case I won't be able to use available tools that require standard ISI data format, like Sitkis, Bibexcel, Citespace, number of tools developed by Loet Leydesdorff etc.. Maybe a bibliographic conversion tool could solve my problem? Are you aware of a tool that converts Access supported export formats to ISI fields tagged format? Thank you for all suggestions and help in advance, Franjo Pehar (PhD student) P.S. it seems to me that a blank version of ISI's citation index or Scopus would be an ideal solution for my problem :)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- Franjo Pehar University of Zadar, Department of Library and Information Science Ul. dr. F. Tudjmana 24i 23 000 Zadar | Croatia Tel. +385 (0)23 300-925 or 300-945 Fax. +385 (0)23 311-540 GSM: +385 (0)98 893-311 Email: fpehar at unizd.hr URL: http://personal.unizd.hr/~fpehar ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- From isidro at CINDOC.CSIC.ES Mon Jan 8 09:55:14 2007 From: isidro at CINDOC.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 15:55:14 +0100 Subject: ISSI 2007 Call for sponsors Message-ID: The* 11^th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics*, that will be held on June 25-27, 2007 in Madrid, Spain (http://issi2007.cindoc.csic.es/) is offering sponsorships opportunities. Companies and Institutions related to these disciplines have a great promotion opportunity in this excellent forum. Its presence is necessary to transmit the knowledge and the enthusiasm of professional environments to the new up-and-coming talents as well as to reinforce their position of technological leadership to already known customers and users. Sponsorship benefits are reflected, not only in the product and brand identification during the celebration of the conference, but also in the contact and direct communication with the international scientific community that will be present. This conference will involve a remarkable event to the national and international media, this will offer an excellent exhibition opportunity to sponsors' services and products. ISSI 2007 offers diverse sponsorship opportunities, including inserts in the documentation set, brand placement in the hand program, in the book of abstracts and/or in the proceedings book. -- *************************************** Isidro F. Aguillo isidro at cindoc.csic.es Ph:(+34) 91-5635482 ext. 313 Cybermetrics Research Group CINDOC-CSIC Joaquin Costa, 22 28002 Madrid. SPAIN http://www.webometrics.info http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics http://internetlab.cindoc.csic.es **************************************** From fpehar at UNIZD.HR Mon Jan 8 11:14:48 2007 From: fpehar at UNIZD.HR (Franjo Pehar | unizd.hr) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:14:48 +0100 Subject: bibliog. + cit. database [help request] In-Reply-To: <934BB0B6D8A02C42BC6099FDE8149CCDB2FDE9@aplesjustice.dom1.jhuapl.edu> Message-ID: Dear Christina, Thank you for your answer. I've received a very good suggestion from Loet Leydersdorff and your problem approach is also very interesting! RefWorks and EndNote are only citation managers that allow you to import cited/citing references to some extent. The only problem is that in case of EndNote you have to import references into the Notes field or you have to create a new field labeled as "cited and/or cited references". After creating a new field or using the existing Notes field the imported data is included in wrapped format. It would be laudably if the vendor would offer integrated record fields for cited/citing references that use a standard filter for import of non-wrapped and itemized data. Of course, one would expect ISI to include the ISI export format into EndNote! I appreciate your replay. Best wishes, Franjo -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of Pikas, Christina K. Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 3:35 To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] bibliog. + cit. database [help request] I've been debating this exact thing. I was considering developing an export style for a bibliographic manager (either ProCite or RefWorks) that would basically create an ISI tagged file. This is mostly fairly straightforward, with the exception of the cited/citing references. Scopus doesn't want to export citing references and WoS dumps them in the note field. Of course, the citations are probably the exact point of your research! I did a co-author matrix by exporting all of my "recent articles by APL authors" listing from RefWorks to Excel. I had it convert the ; to columns, then did a find and replace with a node number for each author (I could have left the authors but I judged that more error prone). Yes, this was pretty arduous, but it gave me what I needed. The input file is then of the form: *vertices # 1 "Pikas, C.K." ... 1 26 78 93 25 32 79 Etc. Christina K. Pikas, MLS {PhD Student @ University of Maryland} R.E. Gibson Library & Information Center The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Voice 240.228.4812 (Washington), 443.778.4812 (Baltimore) Fax 443.778.5353 ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Franjo Pehar | unizd.hr Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:27 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] bibliog. + cit. database [help request] Hello, I would be grateful if somebody could provide me with links/information on free/share/trial-ware software or simple but functional homemade databases suitable for manually collecting bibliographic data and cited references from several journals not covered by ISI, suitable for later bibliometric analysis (standard fields should be supported, like: author/s, journal/article title, page, issue, vol. number ... and all necessary relations to cited ref., authors institutional affiliation ...). Lately I've found a lot of tools primarily built to carry out bibliometric analysis on ISI standardized input data (ISI export format). I've started by storing data from a two journals into my own MS Access database, but the problem is that in this case I won't be able to use available tools that require standard ISI data format, like Sitkis, Bibexcel, Citespace, number of tools developed by Loet Leydesdorff etc.. Maybe a bibliographic conversion tool could solve my problem? Are you aware of a tool that converts Access supported export formats to ISI fields tagged format? Thank you for all suggestions and help in advance, Franjo Pehar (PhD student) P.S. it seems to me that a blank version of ISI's citation index or Scopus would be an ideal solution for my problem :)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- Franjo Pehar University of Zadar, Department of Library and Information Science Ul. dr. F. Tudjmana 24i 23 000 Zadar | Croatia Tel. +385 (0)23 300-925 or 300-945 Fax. +385 (0)23 311-540 GSM: +385 (0)98 893-311 Email: fpehar at unizd.hr URL: http://personal.unizd.hr/~fpehar ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- __________ NOD32 1960 (20070106) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 10 16:28:38 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:28:38 -0500 Subject: Anderson MH "How can we know what we think until we see what we said?: A citation and citation context analysis of Karl Weick's the social psychology of organizing " Organization Studies 27 (11): 1675-1692 Nov 2006 Message-ID: e-MAIL : M.H. Anderson : mha at waikato.ac.nz Title: How can we know what we think until we see what we said?: A citation and citation context analysis of Karl Weick's the social psychology of organizing Author(s): Anderson MH (Anderson, Marc H.) Source: ORGANIZATION STUDIES 27 (11): 1675-1692 NOV 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 95 Times Cited: 1 Abstract: A substantial portion of Karl Weick's influence on organization studies is based upon his classic book The Social Psychology of Organizing (abbreviated as Organizing). A citation analysis shows the magnitude of this influence compared to five other organization studies classics, and reveals that Organizing continues to be highly cited. A citation context analysis (i.e. content analysis) of all citations to Weick (1979) in three top organization studies journals (Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, and Organization Studies) shows that 12 concepts account for 67.6% of citations to Organizing, but that the book is cited for a remarkable diversity of additional content as well. Furthermore, a consideration of differences between the concepts cited in the US journals versus Organization Studies reveals several regional differences. Finally, very few citations are critical of Organizing or involve empirical tests. These results hold a variety of implications for future research. Addresses: Anderson MH (reprint author), Univ Waikato, Dept Strategy & Human Resource Management, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand Univ Waikato, Dept Strategy & Human Resource Management, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand E-mail Addresses: mha at waikato.ac.nz Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND Subject Category: MANAGEMENT IDS Number: 112OC ISSN: 0170-8406 CITED REFERENCE: ABOLAFIA MY ENACTING MARKET CRISIS - THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF A SPECULATIVE BUBBLE ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 33 : 177 1988 ABRAHAMSON E Attentional homogeneity in industries: The effect of discretion JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 18 : 513 1997 ALDRICH H PARADIGM WARRIORS - DONALDSON VERSUS THE CRITICS OF ORGANIZATION THEORY ORGANIZATION STUDIES 9 : 19 1988 ALLEN B Referring to schools of thought: An example of symbolic citations SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 27 : 937 1997 ANDERSON PA DECISION-MAKING BY OBJECTION AND THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 28 : 201 1983 ASTLEY WG ADM SCI Q 30 : 497 1985 BAKER T Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 50 : 329 2005 BANTZ CR CRITIQUE AND EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF WEICKS MODEL OF ORGANIZING COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS 44 : 171 1977 BANTZ CR COMMUNICATION STUDIE 40 : 231 1989 BERGER PL SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION : 1967 BOWMAN EH STRATEGY THROUGH THE OPTION LENS - AN INTEGRATED VIEW OF RESOURCE INVESTMENTS AND THE INCREMENTAL-CHOICE PROCESS ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 18 : 760 1993 BURRELL G SOCIOLOGICAL PARADIG : 1979 CASE DO How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 51 : 635 2000 CHIA R Essai: Thirty years on: From organizational structures to the organization of thought ORGANIZATION STUDIES 18 : 685 1997 COLE S IDEA SOCIAL STRUCTUR : 175 1975 CROVITZ HF GALTONS WALK : 1970 DAFT RL TOWARD A MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONS AS INTERPRETATION SYSTEMS ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 9 : 284 1984 DAFT RL A TENTATIVE EXPLORATION INTO THE AMOUNT AND EQUIVOCALITY OF INFORMATION- PROCESSING IN ORGANIZATIONAL WORK UNITS ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 26 : 207 1981 DETERT JR A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 25 : 850 2000 DIMAGGIO PJ THE IRON CAGE REVISITED - INSTITUTIONAL ISOMORPHISM AND COLLECTIVE RATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL FIELDS AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 48 : 147 1983 DONNELLON A COMMUNICATION, MEANING, AND ORGANIZED ACTION ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 31 : 43 1986 ENGWALL L Research note: Asterix in Disneyland. Management scholars from France on the world stage ORGANIZATION STUDIES 19 : 863 1998 ENGWALL M Peripety in an R&D drama: Capturing a turnaround in project dynamics ORGANIZATION STUDIES 25 : 1557 2004 GAERTNER GH ORGANIZATIONAL-EFFECTIVENESS - AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 8 : 97 1983 GARFIELD E T NY ACAD SCI 2 39 : 61 1980 GILBERT GN TRANSFORMATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS INTO SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 6 : 281 1976 GIOIA DA SENSEMAKING AND SENSEGIVING IN STRATEGIC CHANGE INITIATION STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 12 : 433 1991 HARZING AW Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 23 : 127 2002 HOFSTEDE G An American in Paris: The influence of nationality on organization theories ORGANIZATION STUDIES 17 : 525 1996 HOLMQVIST M A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning ORGANIZATION STUDIES 24 : 95 2003 KATZ D SOCIAL PSYCHOL ORG : 1966 KMETZ JL AN INFORMATION-PROCESSING STUDY OF A COMPLEX WORKFLOW IN AIRCRAFT ELECTRONICS REPAIR ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 29 : 255 1984 KOZA MP ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AT THE CROSSROADS - SOME REFLECTIONS ON EUROPEAN AND UNITED-STATES APPROACHES TO ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION SCIENCE 6 : 1 1995 LAWRENCE PR ORG ENV MANAGING DIF : 1967 LEE JD Can scientific impact be judged prospectively? A bibliometric test of Simonton's model of creative productivity SCIENTOMETRICS 56 : 223 2003 LINDSLEY DH EFFICACY-PERFORMANCE SPIRALS - A MULTILEVEL PERSPECTIVE ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 20 : 645 1995 LIU MX PROGRESS IN DOCUMENTATION - THE COMPLEXITIES OF CITATION PRACTICE - A REVIEW OF CITATION STUDIES JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 49 : 370 1993 LOCKE K Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and ''problematizing'' in organizational studies ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 40 : 1023 1997 LOUNSBURY M >From King to Court Jester? Weber's fall from grace in organizational theory ORGANIZATION STUDIES 26 : 501 2005 MACROBERTS MH Problems of citation analysis SCIENTOMETRICS 36 : 435 1996 MACROBERTS MH THE NEGATIONAL REFERENCE - OR THE ART OF DISSEMBLING SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 14 : 91 1984 MARCH JG ORGANIZATIONS : 1958 MASUCH M VICIOUS CIRCLES IN ORGANIZATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 30 : 14 1985 MCCLINTOCK CC APPLYING THE LOGIC OF SAMPLE-SURVEYS TO QUALITATIVE CASE STUDIES - CASE CLUSTER METHOD ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 24 : 612 1979 MERTON RK SOCIOLOGY SCI THEORE : 1973 MILLER VD INFORMATION SEEKING DURING ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY - INFLUENCES, TACTICS, AND A MODEL OF THE PROCESS ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 16 : 92 1991 MINER JB ACAD MANAGEMENT LEAR 2 : 250 2003 MIZRUCHI MS The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 44 : 653 1999 MORAVCSIK MJ CITATION CONTEXT CLASSIFICATION OF A CITATION CLASSIC CONCERNING CITATION CONTEXT CLASSIFICATION SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 18 : 515 1988 MORAVCSIK MJ SOME RESULTS ON FUNCTION AND QUALITY OF CITATIONS SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 5 : 86 1975 MORGAN G ACCOUNTING AS REALITY CONSTRUCTION - TOWARDS A NEW EPISTEMOLOGY FOR ACCOUNTING PRACTICE ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY 13 : 477 1988 MORGAN G PARADIGMS, METAPHORS, AND PUZZLE SOLVING IN ORGANIZATION THEORY ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 25 : 605 1980 MORGAN G MORE ON METAPHOR - WHY WE CANNOT CONTROL TROPES IN ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 28 : 601 1983 MORGAN G CREATIVE ORG THEORY : 1989 MORGAN G IMAGES ORG : 1986 MORGAN G RIDING WAVES CHANGE : 1988 NAYYAR PR ORGANIZING TO ATTAIN POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM INFORMATION ASYMMETRIES AND ECONOMIES OF SCOPE IN RELATED DIVERSIFIED FIRMS ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 18 : 735 1993 OLIVER C STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 16 : 145 1991 OPPENHEIM C HIGHLY CITED OLD PAPERS AND REASONS WHY THEY CONTINUE TO BE CITED JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 29 : 225 1978 ORTON JD LOOSELY COUPLED SYSTEMS - A RECONCEPTUALIZATION ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 15 : 203 1990 OSIGWEH CAB CONCEPT FALLIBILITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 14 : 579 1989 PERITZ BC ON THE OBJECTIVES OF CITATION ANALYSIS - PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND METHOD JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 43 : 448 1992 PERLOW LA The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 44 : 57 1999 PFEFFER J EXTERNAL CONTROL ORG : 1978 PINDER C CONTROLLING TROPES IN ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 27 : 641 1982 PODSAKOFF PM The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 26 : 473 2005 RAMOSRODRIGUEZ AR Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980-2000 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 25 : 981 2004 ROBICHAUD D The metaconversation: The recursive property of language as a key to organizing ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 29 : 617 2004 SCHATZKI TR The sites of organizations ORGANIZATION STUDIES 26 : 465 2005 SILVERMAN D THEORY ORG : 1970 SIMONTON DK Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW 104 : 66 1997 SMALL H PROGR COMMUNICATION 3 : 287 1982 SMALL H On the shoulders of Robert Merton: Towards a normative theory of citation SCIENTOMETRICS 60 : 71 2004 SMALL HG CITED DOCUMENTS AS CONCEPT SYMBOLS SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 8 : 327 1978 TAHAI A A revealed preference study of management journals' direct influences STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 20 : 279 1999 THOMPSON JD ORG ACTION : 1967 THORNGATE W IN GENERAL VS IT DEPENDS - SOME COMMENTS OF GERGEN-SCHLENKER DEBATE PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN 2 : 404 1976 TSOUKAS H THE MISSING LINK - A TRANSFORMATIONAL VIEW OF METAPHORS IN ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 16 : 566 1991 USDIKEN B ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS IN NORTH-AMERICA AND EUROPE - A COMPARISON OF COCITATION NETWORKS ORGANIZATION STUDIES 16 : 503 1995 WATSON KM ACAD MANAGE REV 7 : 392 1982 WEICK KE Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 90s ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 24 : 797 1999 WEICK KE THEORY CONSTRUCTION AS DISCIPLINED IMAGINATION ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 14 : 516 1989 WEICK KE EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AS LOOSELY COUPLED SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 21 : 1 1976 WEICK KE COLLECTIVE MIND IN ORGANIZATIONS - HEEDFUL INTERRELATING ON FLIGHT DECKS ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY 38 : 357 1993 WEICK KE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AS A SOURCE OF HIGH-RELIABILITY CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 29 : 112 1987 WEICK KE COMMUNICATION STUDIE 40 : 241 1989 WEICK KE J MANAGE STUD 25 : 307 1988 WEICK KE MAKING SENSE ORG : 2001 WEICK KE NEW DIRECTIONS ORG B : 267 1977 WEICK KE ORGAN DYN 14 : 61 1985 WEICK KE Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis ORGANIZATION SCIENCE 9 : 543 1998 WEICK KE Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL. 21, 1999 21 : 81 1999 WEICK KE SENSEMAKING ORG : 1995 WEICK KE SOCIAL PSYCHOL ORG : 1979 WEICK KE SOCIAL PSYCHOL ORG : 1969 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 10 16:45:50 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:45:50 -0500 Subject: Lameire N, Floege J, Wheeler DC "Report from the editorial office" NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION 21 (1): 1-1 JAN 2006 Message-ID: Article in pdf format attached. Url: http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/1/1 E-mail Addresses: norbert.lameire at ugent.be Title: Report from the editorial office Author(s): Lameire N, Floege J, Wheeler DC Source: NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION 21 (1): 1-1 JAN 2006 Document Type: Editorial Material Language: English Cited References: 0 Times Cited: 1 Addresses: Lameire N (reprint author), State Univ Ghent Hosp, Div Renal, Pintelaan 185, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium State Univ Ghent Hosp, Div Renal, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium E-mail Addresses: norbert.lameire at ugent.be Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS, GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND Subject Category: TRANSPLANTATION; UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY IDS Number: 000BO ISSN: 0931-0509 From leo.egghe at UHASSELT.BE Fri Jan 12 08:32:03 2007 From: leo.egghe at UHASSELT.BE (Leo Egghe) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:32:03 +0100 Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS FOR THE NEW JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS FOR THE NEW JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS Leo Egghe January 12, 2007 In 2006, Elsevier (Oxford, UK) accepted my proposal for the foundation of a new journal in the field of informetrics. The Journal of Informetrics (JOI) is the first internationally published journal that bears "informetrics" in its name. The first issue of volume 1 is already electronically available and can be consulted via Science Direct. The printed first issue will be ready this month. There will be 4 issues per year. Subscription details can be found at: JOI covers a broad spectrum of informetric topics: all quantitative aspects of information are included within the journal's scope. Authors are encouraged to submit articles containing mathematical-probabilistic-statistical models and/or containing a good description of universally interesting data-sets. The journal is now available via ScienceDirect at: Scope and author guidelines can also be found at . Your are hereby invited to submit a paper for JOI. Submissions can be made via the dedicated online submission tool: . The system guides you trough the submission process and which gives you also information on the follow-up of your paper. For further questions, please contact me directly via e-mail: leo.egghe at uhasselt.be or call me on +32 11 26.81.21). Leo Egghe Editor-in-Chief Journal of Informetrics From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Jan 12 14:15:05 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:15:05 -0500 Subject: Balaban AT (Balaban, Alexandru T.), Klein DJ (Klein, Douglas J.) "Is chemistry 'The Central Science'? How are different sciences related? Co-citations, reductionism, emergence, and posets " SCIENTOMETRICS 69 (3): 615-637 DEC 2006 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: balabana at tamug.edu Title: Is chemistry 'The Central Science'? How are different sciences related? Co-citations, reductionism, emergence, and posets Author(s): Balaban AT (Balaban, Alexandru T.), Klein DJ (Klein, Douglas J.) Source: SCIENTOMETRICS 69 (3): 615-637 DEC 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 55 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: According to a widely used introductory chemistry text by T. E. Brown et al.,(1) chemistry is 'The Central Science'. But scientometric co-citation analyses indicate that biochemistry seems presently to be more interconnected to other sciences. On the other hand, mathematics is considered by many to permeate all sciences and hence might compete as the choice for centrality. A critical commentary and argument leads to a proposal for an alternative partially ordered hierarchical *'framework" map of sciences. This argument is supplemented by a scientometric approach based on university Course requirements for different curricula, so as to support our partially ordered map. This alternative "framework" mapping then is seen to indicate a special position for chemistry, as where significant branching begins. Addresses: Balaban AT (reprint author), Texas A&M Univ, 5007 Ave U, Galveston, TX 77551 USA Texas A&M Univ, Galveston, TX 77551 USA E-mail Addresses: balabana at tamug.edu Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS IDS Number: 114NF ISSN: 0138-9130 CITED REFERENCES : *I SCI INF ISI ATL SCI BIOCH MO : 1984 AARONSON S MOSAIC 6 : 22 1975 AHRDY Y CLASSICAL QUANTUM CO : 2001 BIRKHOFF G LATTICE THEORY : 1948 BOYACK KW Mapping the backbone of science SCIENTOMETRICS 64 : 351 2005 BROWN TE CHEM CENTRAL SCI : 2006 COMTE A COURS PHILOS POSITIV : 1830 COULSON CA PRESENT STATE OF MOLECULAR STRUCTURE CALCULATIONS REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS 32 : 170 1960 DELBRUCK M MIND MATTER : 1985 DIRAC PAM Quantum mechanics of many-electron systems PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES A-CONTAINING PAPERS OF A MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTER 123 : 714 1929 DIRAC PAM EVOLUTION OF PHYSICISTS PICTURE OF NATURE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 208 : 45 1963 ECCLES JC SELF ITS BRAIN : 1977 ELLIS GFR PHYS TODAY 59 : 49 2005 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXING IT : 98 GRAY JJ J BOLYATI NONEUCLIDE : 2004 GRIFFITH BC STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURES .2. TOWARD A MACROSTRUCTURE AND MICROSTRUCTURE FOR SCIENCE SCIENCE STUDIES 4 : 339 1974 HAMMETT LP PHYSICAL ORGANIC CHE : 1940 HILBERT D NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN : 959 1930 HOLLAND J EMERGENCE CHAOS ORDE : 1998 JOHNSON G SHORTCUT THROUGH TIM : 2003 JOHNSSON S EMERGENCE CONNECTED : 2002 KLAVANS R Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 57 : 251 2006 KLEIN DJ UNPUB FDN CHEM : 2006 KNUTH D SCIENCE 194 : 1234 1976 KORNBERG A THE 2 CULTURES - CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY 26 : 6888 1987 KORNBERG A Chemistry - The lingua franca of the medical and biological sciences CHEMISTRY & BIOLOGY 3 : 3 1996 KORNBERG A UNDERSTANDING LIFE AS CHEMISTRY CLINICAL CHEMISTRY 37 : 1895 1991 KORNBERG A UNDERSTANDING LIFE AS CHEMISTRY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUANTUM CHEMISTRY 53 : 125 1995 KORNBERG A MED SCI SOC : 1 1982 LAUGHLIN RB DIFFERENT UNIVERSE : 2005 LUZIN N Function: Part I AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL MONTHLY 105 : 59 1998 MARSHAKOVA IV NAUCHNO TEKHNICHES 2 6 : 3 1973 MINKOWSKI H Lectures from the 80. Nature Researchers meeting in Cologne. PHYSIKALISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT 10 : 104 1909 MONASTYRSKY M Some remarks on "Mathematics at the Turn of the Millennium" AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL MONTHLY 112 : 832 2005 MOORE JW CHEM MOL SCI : 2002 MORGAN CL EMERGENT EVOLUTION : 1923 MOYAANEGON F A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories SCIENTOMETRICS 61 : 129 2004 NAGEL E STRUCTURE SIC : 1961 NEGGERS J BASIC POSETS NYE MJ CHEM PHILOS THEORETI : 1993 PENROSE R ROAD REALITY : 2005 RIEMANN B CONCEPTS SPACE : 1993 SCERRI ER ERKENNTNIS 47 : 229 1997 SCERRI ER How good is the quantum mechanical explanation of the periodic system? JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION 75 : 1384 1998 SERVOS JW PHYS CHEM OSTWALD PA : 1990 SIMON H SCI ARTIFICIAL : 1981 SMALL H Visualizing science by citation mapping JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 50 : 799 1999 SMALL H COCITATION IN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE - NEW MEASURE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 2 DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 24 : 265 1973 SMALL H STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURES .1. IDENTIFYING AND GRAPHING SPECIALTIES SCIENCE STUDIES 4 : 17 1974 TROTTER WT COMBINATORICS PARTIA : 1992 VANBRAKEL J SYNTHESE 111 : 273 1997 VANREGENMORTEL MHV Reductionism and complexity in molecular biology EMBO REPORTS 5 : 1016 2004 VIZGIN VP AM MATH MON 108 : 264 2003 WEYL H RAUM Z MATERIE : 1923 WILSON EO CONSILIENCE UNITY KN : 1998 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Jan 12 14:22:18 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:22:18 -0500 Subject: Maier G (Maier, Gunther) "Impact factors and peer judgment: The case of regional science journals " SCIENTOMETRICS 69 (3): 651-667 DEC 2006 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: gunther.maier at wu-wien.ac.at Title: Impact factors and peer judgment: The case of regional science journals Author(s): Maier G (Maier, Gunther) Source: SCIENTOMETRICS 69 (3): 651-667 DEC 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 32 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: this paper discusses the relationship between Journal Impact Factors and the scientific community's judgment of the quality of journals in regional science, a discipline closely related to economics and geography. The paper compares the results of a survey inquiring the quality of journals in the discipline with the impact factors of these journals for a total of five years. The comparison shows that no significant positive correlation between the impact factors and the peer judgments can be found. In many cases the correlation turns out to be negative - in some cases even significantly. Addresses: Maier G (reprint author), Vienna Univ Econ & Business Adm, Augasse 2-6, Vienna, Austria Vienna Univ Econ & Business Adm, Vienna, Austria E-mail Addresses: gunther.maier at wu-wien.ac.at Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS IDS Number: 114NF ISSN: 0138-9130 CITED REFERENCES : AKSNES DW Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university RESEARCH EVALUATION 13 : 33 2004 ALTMANN KG The usefulness of impact factor in serial selection: A rank and mean analysis using ecology journals LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS-PRACTICE AND THEORY 22 : 147 1998 ANDERSON RC PUBLICATION RATINGS VERSUS PEER RATINGS OF UNIVERSITIES JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 29 : 91 1978 AZEVEDO CD Combining revealed and stated preferences: Consistency tests and their interpretations AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 85 : 525 2003 BAYLIS M Sprucing up one's impact factor NATURE 401 : 322 1999 BENSMAN SJ Scientific and technical serials holdings optimization in an inefficient market: A LSU serials redesign project exercise LIBRARY RESOURCES & TECHNICAL SERVICES 42 : 147 1998 BENSMAN SJ The structure of the library market for scientific journals: The case of chemistry LIBRARY RESOURCES & TECHNICAL SERVICES 40 : 145 1996 BRADFORD SC DOCUMENTATION : 1948 BRADFORD SC ENGINEERING-LONDON 137 : 85 1934 BRINN T Measuring research quality: peer review 1, citation indices 0 OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 28 : 237 2000 CAMERON BD Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY 5 : 105 2005 DILLMAN DA RESPONSE RATE MEASUR : 2001 FLORAX RJGM Introducing the brightest of dawns: Regional science in "Papers" PAPERS IN REGIONAL SCIENCE 83 : 5 2004 GARFIELD E Journal impact factor: a brief review CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL 161 : 979 1999 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXING IT : 1979 HECHT F The journal "impact factor": A misnamed, misleading, misused measure CANCER GENETICS AND CYTOGENETICS 104 : 77 1998 HOEFFEL C Journal impact factors ALLERGY 53 : 1225 1998 ISSERMAN AM Intellectual leaders of regional science: A half-century citation study PAPERS IN REGIONAL SCIENCE 83 : 91 2004 LAWANI SM VALIDITY OF CITATION CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE INFLUENCE OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS - NEW EVIDENCE WITH PEER ASSESSMENT JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 34 : 59 1983 LEYDESDORFF L VISUALIZATION CITATI : 2005 MACROBERTS MH PROBLEMS OF CITATION ANALYSIS - A CRITICAL-REVIEW JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 40 : 342 1989 MAIER G 20053 SRE I REG UNW : 2005 MAIER G J QUESTIONNAIRE : 2005 MEHO LI Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance: A case study of Kurdish scholarship JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 51 : 123 2000 MONASTERSKY R CHRONICLE HIGHER OCT 14 : A12 2005 RINIA EJ Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria - Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands RESEARCH POLICY 27 : 95 1998 SEGLEN PO BRIT MED J 314 : 497 1997 SEGLEN PO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTICLE CITEDNESS AND JOURNAL IMPACT JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 45 : 1 1994 VANDIJK J UNPUB KNOWLEDGE CREA : 2005 VANRAAN AFJ Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods SCIENTOMETRICS 62 : 133 2005 VICKERY BC BRADFORD LAW OF SCATTERING JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 4 : 198 1948 WEST R What do citation counts count for in the field of addiction? An empirical evaluation of citation counts and their link with peer ratings of quality ADDICTION 97 : 501 2002 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Jan 12 14:30:02 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:30:02 -0500 Subject: Contreras C, Edwards G, Mizala A , "The Current Impact Factor and the long-term impact of scientific journals by discipline: A logistic diffusion model estimation " SCIENTOMETRICS 69 (3): 689-695 DEC 2006 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: gedwards at faceapus.cl Title: The Current Impact Factor and the long-term impact of scientific journals by discipline: A logistic diffusion model estimation Author(s): Contreras C (Contreras, Claudia), Edwards G (Edwards, Gonzalo), Mizala A (Mizala, Alejandra) Source: SCIENTOMETRICS 69 (3): 689-695 DEC 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 7 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: This paper estimates the long-term impact of journals aggregated in 24 different fields, using a simple logistic diffusion model, and relates the results to the current impact factor. Results show that while the current and the long-term impact factors have a high cot-relation coefficient, some fields are systematically slower-moving than others, as they often differ in the proportion of the overall impact through time that occurs in the short term. Addresses: Edwards G (reprint author), Catholic Univ Chile, Inst Econ, Santiago, Chile Catholic Univ Chile, Inst Econ, Santiago, Chile Natl Commiss Sci & Technol Res, Bicentennial Program Sci & Technol, Chilean Observ Sci Technol & Innovat, Santiago, Chile Univ Chile, Dept Ind Engn, Ctr Appl Econ, Santiago, Chile E-mail Addresses: gedwards at faceapus.cl Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS IDS Number: 114NF ISSN: 0138-9130 CITED REFERENCES : GARFIELD E SCIENTIST 12 : 1998 GOLDER W Who controls the controllers? Ten statements on the so-called impact factor ONKOLOGIE 23 : 73 2000 KUMAR V INNOVATION DIFFUSION - SOME NEW TECHNOLOGICAL SUBSTITUTION MODELS JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY 17 : 175 1992 SEGLEN PO BRIT MED J : 314 1997 STEGMANN J Citation rates, knowledge export and international visibility of dermatology journals listed and not listed in the Journal Citation Reports SCIENTOMETRICS 50 : 483 2001 TABAH AN Literature dynamics: Studies on growth, diffusion, and epidemics ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 34 : 249 1999 VINKLER P Ratio of short term and long term impact factors and similarities of chemistry journals represented by references SCIENTOMETRICS 46 : 621 1999 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Fri Jan 12 14:35:48 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:35:48 -0500 Subject: Walters GD " Predicting subsequent citations to articles published in twelve crime-psychology journals: Author impact versus journal impact " SCIENTOMETRICS 69 (3): 499-510 DEC 2006 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: gwalters at bop.gov Title: Predicting subsequent citations to articles published in twelve crime-psychology journals: Author impact versus journal impact Author(s): Walters GD (Walters, Glenn D.) Source: SCIENTOMETRICS 69 (3): 499-510 DEC 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 29 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Four hundred and twenty-eight articles published in 12 crime-psychology journals during the 2003 calendar year were reviewed for subsequent citations in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). Fifteen potential predictors were reduced to nine after subjecting the 15 variables to a principal components analysis with varimax rotation. The nine predictors included author characteristics - gender, occupational affiliation (acadeinic-nonacademic), national affiliation (U.S.-other), citations per 2001-2002 first author publications - article characteristics collaboration (single author-multiple author), article length, reviews, subject matter (coffectioiis/criminology-legal/foreiisic) - and journal characteristics - journal impact. Negative binomial regression of the citations earned by these 428 journal articles in a 23 to 34 month follow-up (M = 28 months) revealed significant effects for citations per 2001-2002 first author publications, national affiliation, and review articles. These results suggest that author impact may be a more powerful predictor of citations received by a journal article than the periodical in which the article appears. Addresses: Walters GD (reprint author), Fed Correct Inst, Minersville, PA 17954 USA Fed Correct Inst, Minersville, PA 17954 USA E-mail Addresses: gwalters at bop.gov Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS IDS Number: 114NF ISSN: 0138-9130 Cited references : I SCI INF J CIT REP 2003 : 2004 AMEN M PESPECTIVES PUBLISHI 1 : 1 2000 CALLAHAM M Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 287 : 2847 2002 COLE S SCIENTIFIC OUTPUT AND RECOGNITION - STUDY IN OPERATION OF REWARD SYSTEM IN SCIENCE AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 32 : 377 1967 FAVA GA How citation analysis can monitor the progress of research in clinical medicine PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS 73 : 331 2004 FRANSES PH STAT NEERL 56 : 496 2002 GARFIELD E Journal impact factor: a brief review CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL 161 : 979 1999 GLANZEL W Journal impact measures in bibliometric research SCIENTOMETRICS 53 : 171 2002 GREENE WH ECONOMETRIC ANAL : 2003 GREESON LE CULTURAL ETHNOCENTRISM AND IMPERIALISM IN CITATIONS OF AMERICAN AND SCANDINAVIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL-RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 26 : 262 1991 HARTLEY J Style and substance in psychology: Are influential articles more readable than less influential ones? SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 32 : 321 2002 KERR S MANUSCRIPT CHARACTERISTICS WHICH INFLUENCE ACCEPTANCE FOR MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL-SCIENCE JOURNALS ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 20 : 132 1977 LEE S The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 35 : 673 2005 LOGAN J AM SOCIOL 19 : 167 1988 LONG JS MEASURES OF SEX-DIFFERENCES IN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTIVITY SOCIAL FORCES 71 : 159 1992 MOED HF IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC INFORMATIONS JOURNAL IMPACT FACTORS JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 46 : 461 1995 MYERS CR JOURNAL CITATIONS AND SCIENTIFIC EMINENCE IN CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOLOGY AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST 25 : 1041 1970 NEMETH CJ Creative collaborations from afar: The benefits of independent authors CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL 17 : 1 2005 OVER R CITATION STATISTICS FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS IN NEW-ZEALAND UNIVERSITIES - 1975- 1977 NEW ZEALAND PSYCHOLOGIST 9 : 73 1980 PATSOPOULOS NA JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 293 : 23632 2005 RODGERS RC CAUSAL-MODELS OF PUBLISHING PRODUCTIVITY IN PSYCHOLOGY JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 74 : 636 1989 ROTHMAN AI RES HIGH EDUC 3 : 29 1975 ROUSSEAU R Journal evaluation: Technical and practical issues LIBRARY TRENDS 50 : 418 2002 RUSHTON P EVALUATING RESEARCH EMINENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY - THE CONSTRUCT-VALIDITY OF CITATION COUNTS BULLETIN OF THE BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY 37 : 33 1984 SCHWAB DP PUBLISHING ORG SCI : 171 1985 SEGLEN PO Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 314 : 498 1997 STACK S Gender and scholarly productivity: The case of criminal justice JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 30 : 175 2002 VUONG QH LIKELIHOOD RATIO TESTS FOR MODEL SELECTION AND NON-NESTED HYPOTHESES ECONOMETRICA 57 : 307 1989 WALTERS GD IN PRESS J AM SOC IN From notsjb at LSU.EDU Sat Jan 13 08:17:50 2007 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 07:17:50 -0600 Subject: Maier G (Maier, Gunther) "Impact factors and peer judgment: The case of regional science journals " SCIENTOMETRICS 69 (3): 651-667 DEC 2006 Message-ID: For whatever they are worth, below are comments I wrote Gunther in a letter I sent him after reading his article: Gunther, I read your ariticle. In general, I was not surprised by your finding of no relationship of the impact factor to the importance of journals as rated by European regional scientists, but I was very surprised by the extreme lowness and insignificance of the correlations. That said, I have some quibbles with your paper and its findings. First, I think that you have overstated Garfield's view of the impact factor as a measure of journal significance. In general, he considered total citations a better holistic measure of journal significance, and he used the impact factor to identify to certain facets of journal significance not identified by total citations due to size. Gafield never considered the impact factor a precise measure but thought it one riddled by error and accurate to only one decimal place instead of the three published by ISI to avoid too many ties in ranks. In using impact factor as a holistic measure of significance, he did not use anything precise as the Pearson correletation but merely bifurcated his journal sample between the few journals very high in the impact factor and the rest. At this crude level of measurement the impact factor does identify signicant journals. Seaond, I am somewhat suspicious of your use of the Pearson r, which requires a bivarate normal distribution. Your impact factor data and perhaps your rating data may have required the logarithmic transformatimn, and I did not read that you tested your data for the underlying probability distributions. Third, since Garfield regarded total citations as the better holistic measure of journal value, I think that you should have tested this measure against your regional scientist ratings. I think that you would have found higher correlations. You are making the common mistake of treating the impact factor as a holistic measure, when in theory and fact it is not. Having stated this, I would interpret your low correlations as due to the following reasons. First, human ratings of importance are positively influenced by size, and the impact factor is specifically designed to control for size. You should have tested your regional scientist ratings against the total citations in the JCR. Second, your regional scientist ratings are European, and ISI citation data are heavily dominated by the US scientific social stratification system. Your sets need to be better defined from this perspective, and you should have used outlier analysis for this purpose. And, third, regional science--like most social sciences--is a very fuzzy discipline, and your data are probably plagued by exogenous citations, requiring more precise subject set definition. You should have also used outlier analysis for this purpose. You did discuss the latter two reasons, but you require more analysis, including total citations analysis to capture the size in your regional scientists ratings. etc. etc. SB Eugene Garfield @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 01/12/2007 01:22:18 PM Please respond to ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics Sent by: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU cc: (bcc: Stephen J Bensman/notsjb/LSU) Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Maier G (Maier, Gunther) "Impact factors and peer judgment: The case of regional science journals " SCIENTOMETRICS 69 (3): 651-667 DEC 2006 E-mail Addresses: gunther.maier at wu-wien.ac.at Title: Impact factors and peer judgment: The case of regional science journals Author(s): Maier G (Maier, Gunther) Source: SCIENTOMETRICS 69 (3): 651-667 DEC 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 32 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: this paper discusses the relationship between Journal Impact Factors and the scientific community's judgment of the quality of journals in regional science, a discipline closely related to economics and geography. The paper compares the results of a survey inquiring the quality of journals in the discipline with the impact factors of these journals for a total of five years. The comparison shows that no significant positive correlation between the impact factors and the peer judgments can be found. In many cases the correlation turns out to be negative - in some cases even significantly. Addresses: Maier G (reprint author), Vienna Univ Econ & Business Adm, Augasse 2-6, Vienna, Austria Vienna Univ Econ & Business Adm, Vienna, Austria E-mail Addresses: gunther.maier at wu-wien.ac.at Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS IDS Number: 114NF ISSN: 0138-9130 CITED REFERENCES : AKSNES DW Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university RESEARCH EVALUATION 13 : 33 2004 ALTMANN KG The usefulness of impact factor in serial selection: A rank and mean analysis using ecology journals LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS-PRACTICE AND THEORY 22 : 147 1998 ANDERSON RC PUBLICATION RATINGS VERSUS PEER RATINGS OF UNIVERSITIES JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 29 : 91 1978 AZEVEDO CD Combining revealed and qtated preferences: Consistency tests and their interpretations AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 85 : 525 2003 BAYLIS M Sprucing up one's impact factor NATURE 401 : 322 1999 BENSMAN SJ Scientific and technical serials holdings optimization in an inefficient market: A LSU serials redesign project exercise LIBRARY RESOURCES & TECHNICAL SERVICES 42 : 147 1998 BENSMAN SJ The structure of the library market for scientific journals: The case of chemistry LIBRARY RESOURCES & TECHNICAL SERVICES 40 : 145 1996 BRADFORD SC DOCUMENTATION : 1948 BRADFORD SC ENGINEERING-LONDON 137 : 85 1934 BRINN T Measuring research quality: peer review 1, citation indices 0 OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 28 : 237 2000 CAMERON BD Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY 5 : 105 2005 DILLMAN DA RESPONSE RATE MEASUR : 2001 FLORAX RJGM Introducing the brightest of dawns: Regional science in "Papers" PAPERS IN REGIONAL SCIENCE 83 : 5 2004 GARFIELD E Journal impact factor: a brief review CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL 161 : 979 1999 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXING IT : 1979 HECHT F The journal "impact factor": A misnamed, misleading, misused measure CANCER GENETICS AND CYTOGENETICS 104 : 77 1998 HOEFFEL C Journal impact factors ALLERGY 53 : 1225 1998 ISSERMAN AM Intellectual leaders of regional science: A half-century citation study PAPERS IN REGIONAL SCIENCE 83 : 91 2004 LAWANI SM VALIDITY OF CITATION CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE INFLUENCE OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS - NEW EVIDENCE WITH PEER ASSESSMENT JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 34 : 59 1983 LEYDESDORFF L VISUALIZATION CITATI : 2005 MACROBERTS MH PROBLEMS OF CITATION ANALYSIS - A CRITICAL-REVIEW JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 40 : 342 1989 MAIER G 20053 SRE I REG UNW : 2005 MAIER G J QUESTIONNAIRE : 2005 MEHO LI Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance: A case study of Kurdish scholarship JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 51 : 123 2000 MONASTERSKY R CHRONICLE HIGHER OCT 14 : A12 2005 RINIA EJ Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria - Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands RESEARCH POLICY 27 : 95 1998 SEGLEN PO BRIT MED J 314 : 497 1997 SEGLEN PO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTICLE CITEDNESS AND JOURNAL IMPACT JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 45 : 1 1994 VANDIJK J UNPUB KNOWLEDGE CREA : 2005 VANRAAN AFJ Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods SCIENTOMETRICS 62 : 133 2005 VICKERY BC BRADFORD LAW OF SCATTERING JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 4 : 198 1948 WEST R What do citation counts count for in the field of addiction? An empirical evaluation of citation counts and their link with peer ratings of quality ADDICTION 97 : 501 2002 From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Mon Jan 15 07:09:10 2007 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:09:10 +0000 Subject: EC Conference in Brussels on scientific publication issues (15-16 February 2007) Message-ID: [Apologies for Cross-Posting: The conference below is far too top-heavy on (Gold) OA publishing rather than focussing on OA itself (Green and Gold) but it is nevertheless an important event, given the growing momentum of OA worldwide and attendance is accordingly highly recommended. -- SH/] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:28:02 +0100 (MET) From: EC / Sinapse Administration Subject: Conference in Brussels on scientific publication issues (15-16 February 2007) Dear Prof. Stevan Harnad, On 15-16 February 2007 the European Commission is hosting a conference in Brussels entitled "Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area -- Access, Dissemination, and Preservation in the Digital Age." The conference is a joint initiative between the Research and Information Society Directorate Generals and both Commissioner Poto??nik and Commissioner Reding will speak at the conference. Its goal is to bring together all stakeholders concerned with access, dissemination and preservation issues in connection with scientific publication and data in an effort to provide policy options for scientific publishing under FP7 and in the European Research Area. All details including registration can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/page_en.cfm?id=3459 Attendance at this conference is free of charge but places are limited and registration will close January 31st 2007. We kindly ask you to disseminate information about this conference to your networks and mailing lists as we hope that it will provide the opportunity for all stakeholders to voice their opinions and collaborate to shape future European policy in this area. Kind regards, RTD Scientifc Publications ---------------------------------------- SINAPSE HOMEPAGE: http://europa.eu/sinapse/ From Wolfgang.Glanzel at ECON.KULEUVEN.AC.BE Tue Jan 16 10:02:12 2007 From: Wolfgang.Glanzel at ECON.KULEUVEN.AC.BE (Glanzel, Wolfgang) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:02:12 +0100 Subject: JOB ANNOUNCEMENT: Senior or junior position in bibliometrics In-Reply-To: A Message-ID: NEW SENIOR OR JUNIOR POSITION IN THE AREA OF SCIENTOMETRICS/BIBLIOMETRICS A senior or junior position at the Steunpunt O&O Indicatoren is open for applications. Steunpunt O&O Indicatoren, constructed as an interuniversity consortium, is housed within the Faculty of Economics and Applied Economics at the Catholic University of Leuven. Steunpunt O&O Indicatoren (SOOI) develops a consistent system of R&D and Innovation (RD&I) indicators for the Flemish government. This indicator system is designed to assist the Flemish government in mapping and monitoring the RD&I efforts in the Flemish region. Within this context, Steunpunt O&O is the pre-eminent Flemish site for the study and application of advanced bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of research, and has become a prominent research centre of international visibility. To support the project, we are currently recruiting 1 Senior Fellow or Junior Research Fellow. Applicants for a post of junior researcher hold a university diploma and have the skills necessary to work with the bibliographic databases and bibliometric indicators based on journal publications, and should have an interest in bibliometric methods, quantitative science studies and quantitative aspects of communication in science and research policy. The research fellow assists in the processing, development, statistical analysis and interpretation of data, intended to initiate, structure, process and report research results. He or she collaborates in the modelling of complex research problems and applies corresponding analyses. In particular, the research fellow will process and analyse publication and citation data. Junior fellows are expected to obtain a PhD during their appointment. Applicants as candidates for senior research fellow should be willing and able to contribute to all bibliometrics related work necessary to accomplish the mission of SOOI, should have a completed PhD in an area of relevance to the work of the Steunpunt as well as a strong publication record and should have considerable research experience and major original contributions to the study of bibliometrics and research evaluation. Applications are sought from researchers with following background. Knowledge of quantitative data processing, bibliometric methods and data engineering as well as information retrieval skills are expected. Knowledge of statistical methods and data mining techniques is of advantage. Fluency in written and spoken English is essential. We offer a fulltime position in the internationally oriented research environment of the Catholic University of Leuven. Appointment will be a fixed-term for four years for the juniors and till End 2011 for the senior position, respectively. The salary will be assessed in accordance to the legal salary grade systems existing at the Catholic University of Leuven. Women are encouraged to apply. Severely disabled people who are equally qualified will be given preference. Deadline for applications: 28 February, 2007. Applications must be sent to: Dani Vandepoel Administrative coordinator Steunpunt O&O Indicatoren K.U. Leuven Dekenstraat 2, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium Tel: (+32 16) 32 57 44 Fax: (+32 16) 32 57 99 E-mail: Dani.vandepoel at econ.kuleuven.be Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Jan 16 13:58:37 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:58:37 -0500 Subject: Holden G. "Detecting plagiarism - Meaning of citations is important " British Medical Journal 333(7570): 706, September 30 2006 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: gary.holden at nyu.edu ______________________________________________________ FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE IS AVAILABLE AT : http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7570/706-a _______________________________________________________ Title: Detecting plagiarism - Meaning of citations is important Author(s): Holden G (Holden, Gary) Source: BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 333 (7570): 706-706 SEP 30 2006 Document Type: Letter Language: English Cited References: 3 Times Cited: 0 Addresses: Holden G (reprint author), NYU, Sch Social Work, 1 WSN, New York, NY 10003 USA NYU, Sch Social Work, New York, NY 10003 USA E-mail Addresses: gary.holden at nyu.edu Publisher: B M J PUBLISHING GROUP, BRITISH MED ASSOC HOUSE, TAVISTOCK SQUARE, LONDON WC1H 9JR, ENGLAND Subject Category: MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL IDS Number: 092AA ISSN: 0959-8146 CITED REFERENCES : GODLEE F BRIT MED J : 333 2006 HOLDEN G Tracing thought through time and space: A selective review of bibliometrics in social work SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE 41 : 1 2005 HOLDEN G Shallow science or meta-cognitive insights: A few thoughts on reflection via bibliometrics SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE 41 : 129 2005 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Jan 16 15:31:05 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:31:05 -0500 Subject: Ebrahim S "Entelechy, citation indexes, and the association of ideas " International Journal of Epidemiology 35 (5): 1117-1118 OCT 2006 Message-ID: E-Mail : Shah.Ebrahim at bristol.ac.uk _________________________________________________________ FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT : http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/5/1117 ------------------------------------------------------------ Title: Entelechy, citation indexes, and the association of ideas Author(s): Ebrahim S (Ebrahim, Shah) Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 (5): 1117-1118 OCT 2006 Document Type: Editorial Material Language: English Cited References: 12 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS, GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND Subject Category: PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH IDS Number: 097EI ISSN: 0300-5771 CITED REFERENCES : BREIVIK J Commentary: Cancer-evolution within INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1161 2006 CATALANO R Child mortality and cohort lifespan: a test of diminished entelechy INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1264 2006 CRIMMINS EM Commentary: Do older men and women gain equally from improving childhood conditions? INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1270 2006 ELDRIDGE SM Sample size for cluster randomized trials: effect of coefficient of variation of cluster size and analysis method INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1292 2006 FISHER D Are infant size and growth related to burden of disease in adulthood? A systematic review of literature INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1196 2006 GARFIELD E Commentary: Fifty years of citation indexing INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1127 2006 HAYES RJ Simple sample size calculation for cluster-randomized trials INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 28 : 319 1999 LYNCH J It's not easy being interdisciplinary INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1119 2006 PORTA M Commentary: The 'bibliographic impact factor' and the still uncharted sociology of epidemiology INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1130 2006 SMITH R Commentary: The power of the unrelenting impact factor - Is it a force for good or harm? INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1129 2006 VINEIS P The population dynamics of cancer: a Darwinian perspective INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1151 2006 WEISS KM Commentary: Evolution of action in cells and organisms INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1159 2006 From gwhitney at UTK.EDU Tue Jan 16 19:50:36 2007 From: gwhitney at UTK.EDU (Gretchen Whitney) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:50:36 -0500 Subject: Schneiderman and Aris, Network Visualization... Message-ID: technical glitch. --gw Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:50:17 -0500 From: meher.mistry at contractor.thomson.com FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT : http://cgis.cs.umd.edu/localphp/hcil/tech-reports-search.php?number=2006 -19 ________________________________ E-mail Addresses: ben at cs.umd.edu, aris at cs.umd.edu Title: Network visualization by semantic substrates Author(s): Shneiderman B (Shneiderman, Ben), Aris A (Aris, Aleks) Source: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS 12 (5): 733-740 SEP-OCT 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 38 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Networks have remained a challenge for information visualization designers because of the complex issues of node and link layout coupled with the rich set of tasks that users present. This paper offers a strategy based on two principles: (1) layouts are based on user-defined semantic substrates, which are non-overlapping regions in which node placement is based on node attributes, (2) users interactively adjust sliders to control link visibility to limit clutter and thus ensure comprehensibility of source and destination. Scalability is further facilitated by user control of which nodes are visible. We illustrate our semantic substrates approach as implemented in NVSS 1.0 with legal precedent data for up to 1122 court cases in three regions with 7645 legal citations. Addresses: Shneiderman B (reprint author), Univ Maryland, Dept Comp Sci, College Pk, MD 20742 USA Univ Maryland, Dept Comp Sci, College Pk, MD 20742 USA Univ Maryland, Human Comp Interact Lab, College Pk, MD 20742 USA E-mail Addresses: ben at cs.umd.edu, aris at cs.umd.edu Publisher: IEEE COMPUTER SOC, 10662 LOS VAQUEROS CIRCLE, PO BOX 3014, LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720-1314 USA Subject Category: COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING IDS Number: 096NE ISSN: 1077-2626 CITED REFERENCES : BECKER RA VISUALIZING NETWORK DATA IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS 1 : 16 1995 BEDERSON BB Toolkit design for interactive structured graphics IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 30 : 535 2004 BEST C Visualizing and identifying conformational ensembles in molecular dynamics trajectories COMPUTING IN SCIENCE & ENGINEERING 4 : 68 2002 BILGIC M IEEE S VIS AN SCI TE : 2006 BORNER K ANN REV INFO SCI TEC 37 : 2003 CHENG PCH A study of statistical process control: Practice, problems and training needs TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT 9 : 3 1998 DAVIS MB Multilevel solution of augmented drift-diffusion equations COMPEL-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR COMPUTATION AND MATHEMATICS IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 15 : 4 1996 DENOOY W EXPLORATORY SOCIAL N : 2005 DIBATTISTA G GRAPH DRAWING ALGORI : 1999 EADES P C NUMERANTIUM 42 : 149 1984 EADES P LNCS 1190 : 101 1997 FRUCHTERMAN TMJ GRAPH DRAWING BY FORCE-DIRECTED PLACEMENT SOFTWARE-PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE 21 : 1129 1991 GANSNER ER Improved force-directed layouts GRAPH DRAWING 1547 : 364 1998 GARFIELD E Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains literature JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 30 : 119 2004 GHONIEM M P 10 IEEE INFOVIS 04 : 17 2004 HADANY R A multi-scale algorithm for drawing graphs nicely DISCRETE APPLIED MATHEMATICS 113 : 3 2001 HAREL D LNCS 1984 : 183 2001 HAREL D P WORK C ADV VIS INT : 157 2002 HEER J P INF VIS C : 33 2005 HUFFAKER B OTTER GEN PURPOSE NE : 1999 KAMADA T AN ALGORITHM FOR DRAWING GENERAL UNDIRECTED GRAPHS INFORMATION PROCESSING LETTERS 31 : 7 1989 KAMPS T LNCS 1027 : 349 1995 KANDOGAN E SOFTWARE PRACTICE EX 328 : 225 1998 KANG H Exploring personal media: A spatial interface supporting user-defined semantic regions JOURNAL OF VISUAL LANGUAGES AND COMPUTING 17 : 254 2006 KOSAK C AUTOMATING THE LAYOUT OF NETWORK DIAGRAMS WITH SPECIFIED VISUAL ORGANIZATION IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS 24 : 440 1994 LEE B CHI 2005 : 1969 2005 MCGUFFIN MJ P INF VIS C : 17 2005 MISUE K LAYOUT ADJUSTMENT AND THE MENTAL MAP JOURNAL OF VISUAL LANGUAGES AND COMPUTING 6 : 183 1995 MUNZNER T THESIS STANFORD U : 2000 NARDI BA Integrating communication and information through contact map COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM 45 : 89 2002 PRETORIUS AJ P 9 INT C INF VIS : 323 2005 RANDES U SPRINGER SERIES MATH : 321 2003 REITKREUTZ BJ GENOME BIOL 4 : R22 2003 SCHAFFER D ACM T COMPUTER HUMAN 3 : 162 1996 STOREY MA WORKSH INT TOOLS KNO : 2001 SUGIYAMA K METHODS FOR VISUAL UNDERSTANDING OF HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM STRUCTURES IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS 11 : 109 1981 WATTENBERG M P SIGCHI C HUM FACT : 811 2006 WILLS GJ NicheWorks - Interactive visualization of very large graphs JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND GRAPHICAL STATISTICS 8 : 190 1999 From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Tue Jan 16 23:55:43 2007 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 04:55:43 +0000 Subject: Researcher Support for Open Access to Research Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The European Commission, the European Research Advisory Board and the European Research Councils have recently each recommended adopting the policy of providing Open Access to research results: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/research/eurab/pdf/eurab_scipub_report_recomm_dec06_en.pdf http://erc.europa.eu/pdf/open-access.pdf (Very similar recommendations are also being made by governmental research organisations in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Asia.) There are non-research interests strongly lobbying against these recommendations, so a display of support by the research community is critically important. A consortium of European organisations working in the scholarly communication arena is now sponsoring a petition to the European Commission to demonstrate support for these recommendations on the part of the European and worldwide research community. Signatures may be added by individual researchers or universities and research institutions. I would strongly urge you to register your support. To sign the petition, please go to: http://www.ec-petition.eu/ The sponsoring organisations are JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee, UK), SURF (Netherlands), SPARC Europe, DFG (Deutsches Forschungsgemeinschaft, Germany), DEFF (Danmarks Elektroniske Fag- og Forskningsbibliotek, Denmark). Many thanks and best wishes, Stevan Harnad 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 Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU Wed Jan 17 09:04:48 2007 From: Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU (Pikas, Christina K.) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:04:48 -0500 Subject: Schneiderman and Aris, Network Visualization... In-Reply-To: A Message-ID: That's interesting because I really knew of the work by Shneiderman and Perer (http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/socialaction/) to build a new SNA analysis and visualization tool. Adam demonstrated it for us but I guess it hasn't been released yet. You all may have seen it demonstrated at SUNBELT or maybe INFOVIS 2006? Christina K. Pikas, MLS R.E. Gibson Library & Information Center The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Voice 240.228.4812 (Washington), 443.778.4812 (Baltimore) Fax 443.778.5353 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of Gretchen Whitney Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:51 PM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Schneiderman and Aris, Network Visualization... technical glitch. --gw Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:50:17 -0500 From: meher.mistry at contractor.thomson.com FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT : http://cgis.cs.umd.edu/localphp/hcil/tech-reports-search.php?number=2006 -19 ________________________________ E-mail Addresses: ben at cs.umd.edu, aris at cs.umd.edu Title: Network visualization by semantic substrates Author(s): Shneiderman B (Shneiderman, Ben), Aris A (Aris, Aleks) Source: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS 12 (5): 733-740 SEP-OCT 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 38 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: Networks have remained a challenge for information visualization designers because of the complex issues of node and link layout coupled with the rich set of tasks that users present. This paper offers a strategy based on two principles: (1) layouts are based on user-defined semantic substrates, which are non-overlapping regions in which node placement is based on node attributes, (2) users interactively adjust sliders to control link visibility to limit clutter and thus ensure comprehensibility of source and destination. Scalability is further facilitated by user control of which nodes are visible. We illustrate our semantic substrates approach as implemented in NVSS 1.0 with legal precedent data for up to 1122 court cases in three regions with 7645 legal citations. Addresses: Shneiderman B (reprint author), Univ Maryland, Dept Comp Sci, College Pk, MD 20742 USA Univ Maryland, Dept Comp Sci, College Pk, MD 20742 USA Univ Maryland, Human Comp Interact Lab, College Pk, MD 20742 USA E-mail Addresses: ben at cs.umd.edu, aris at cs.umd.edu Publisher: IEEE COMPUTER SOC, 10662 LOS VAQUEROS CIRCLE, PO BOX 3014, LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720-1314 USA Subject Category: COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING IDS Number: 096NE ISSN: 1077-2626 CITED REFERENCES : BECKER RA VISUALIZING NETWORK DATA IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS 1 : 16 1995 BEDERSON BB Toolkit design for interactive structured graphics IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 30 : 535 2004 BEST C Visualizing and identifying conformational ensembles in molecular dynamics trajectories COMPUTING IN SCIENCE & ENGINEERING 4 : 68 2002 BILGIC M IEEE S VIS AN SCI TE : 2006 BORNER K ANN REV INFO SCI TEC 37 : 2003 CHENG PCH A study of statistical process control: Practice, problems and training needs TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT 9 : 3 1998 DAVIS MB Multilevel solution of augmented drift-diffusion equations COMPEL-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR COMPUTATION AND MATHEMATICS IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 15 : 4 1996 DENOOY W EXPLORATORY SOCIAL N : 2005 DIBATTISTA G GRAPH DRAWING ALGORI : 1999 EADES P C NUMERANTIUM 42 : 149 1984 EADES P LNCS 1190 : 101 1997 FRUCHTERMAN TMJ GRAPH DRAWING BY FORCE-DIRECTED PLACEMENT SOFTWARE-PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE 21 : 1129 1991 GANSNER ER Improved force-directed layouts GRAPH DRAWING 1547 : 364 1998 GARFIELD E Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains literature JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 30 : 119 2004 GHONIEM M P 10 IEEE INFOVIS 04 : 17 2004 HADANY R A multi-scale algorithm for drawing graphs nicely DISCRETE APPLIED MATHEMATICS 113 : 3 2001 HAREL D LNCS 1984 : 183 2001 HAREL D P WORK C ADV VIS INT : 157 2002 HEER J P INF VIS C : 33 2005 HUFFAKER B OTTER GEN PURPOSE NE : 1999 KAMADA T AN ALGORITHM FOR DRAWING GENERAL UNDIRECTED GRAPHS INFORMATION PROCESSING LETTERS 31 : 7 1989 KAMPS T LNCS 1027 : 349 1995 KANDOGAN E SOFTWARE PRACTICE EX 328 : 225 1998 KANG H Exploring personal media: A spatial interface supporting user-defined semantic regions JOURNAL OF VISUAL LANGUAGES AND COMPUTING 17 : 254 2006 KOSAK C AUTOMATING THE LAYOUT OF NETWORK DIAGRAMS WITH SPECIFIED VISUAL ORGANIZATION IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS 24 : 440 1994 LEE B CHI 2005 : 1969 2005 MCGUFFIN MJ P INF VIS C : 17 2005 MISUE K LAYOUT ADJUSTMENT AND THE MENTAL MAP JOURNAL OF VISUAL LANGUAGES AND COMPUTING 6 : 183 1995 MUNZNER T THESIS STANFORD U : 2000 NARDI BA Integrating communication and information through contact map COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM 45 : 89 2002 PRETORIUS AJ P 9 INT C INF VIS : 323 2005 RANDES U SPRINGER SERIES MATH : 321 2003 REITKREUTZ BJ GENOME BIOL 4 : R22 2003 SCHAFFER D ACM T COMPUTER HUMAN 3 : 162 1996 STOREY MA WORKSH INT TOOLS KNO : 2001 SUGIYAMA K METHODS FOR VISUAL UNDERSTANDING OF HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM STRUCTURES IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS 11 : 109 1981 WATTENBERG M P SIGCHI C HUM FACT : 811 2006 WILLS GJ NicheWorks - Interactive visualization of very large graphs JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND GRAPHICAL STATISTICS 8 : 190 1999 From danielle.lejeune at UNIV-RENNES1.FR Wed Jan 17 10:05:33 2007 From: danielle.lejeune at UNIV-RENNES1.FR (dlejeune) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:05:33 +0100 Subject: Citation analysis In-Reply-To: <73573C2DCB0154408D790B1E7EDB0C5244BFD9@ka-exch01.db.dk> Message-ID: Thanks to send me your preprint Danielle lejeune CNRS UMR 6026 Universit? de Rennes 1 Rennes 35000 Nicolaisen a ?crit : > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Nicolaisen, J. (2007). Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41: 609-641. > > PREPRINTS available upon request: jni at db.dk > > /Jeppe Nicolaisen > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: danielle.lejeune.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 366 bytes Desc: not available URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Wed Jan 17 14:24:19 2007 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:24:19 +0000 Subject: Citation Advantage For OA Self-Archiving Is Independent of Journal Impact Factor, Article Age, and Number of Co-Authors Message-ID: Full text, with figure and hyperlinks, is at: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/192-guid.html SUMMARY: Eysenbach has suggested that the OA (Green) self-archiving advantage might just be an artifact of potential uncontrolled confounding factors such as article age (older articles may be both more cited and more likely to be self-archived), number of authors (articles with more authors might be more cited and more self-archived), subject matter (the subjects that are cited more, self-archive more), country (same thing), number of authors, citation counts of authors, etc. Chawki Hajjem (doctoral candidate, UQaM) had already shown that the OA advantage was present in all cases when articles were analysed separately by age, subject matter or country. He has now done a multiple regression analysis jointly testing (1) article age, (2) journal impact factor, (3) number of authors, and (4) OA self-archiving as separate factors for 442,750 articles in 576 (biomedical) journals across 11 years, and has shown that each of the four factors contributes an independent, statistically significant increment to the citation counts. The OA-self-archiving advantage remains a robust, independent factor. Having successfully responded to his challenge, we now challenge Eysenbach to demonstrate -- by testing a sufficiently broad and representative sample of journals at all levels of the journal quality, visibility and prestige hierarchy -- that his finding of a citation advantage for Gold OA (articles published OA on the high-profile website of the only journal he tested (PNAS) over Green OA articles in the same journal (self-archived on the author's website) was not just an artifact of having tested only one very high-profile journal. In May 2006, Eysenbach published "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles" in PLoS Biology, confirming -- by comparing OA vs. non-OA articles within one hybrid OA/non-OA journal -- the "OA Advantage" (higher citations for OA articles than for non-OA articles) that had previously been demonstrated by comparing OA (self-archived) vs. non-OA articles within non-OA journals. This new PLoS study was based on a sample of 1492 articles (212 OA, 1280 non-OA) published June-December 2004 in one very high-impact (i.e., high average citation rate) journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The findings were useful because not only did they confirm the OA citation advantage, already demonstrated across millions of articles, thousands of journals, and over a dozen subject areas, but they showed that that advantage is already detectable as early as 4 months after publication. The PLoS study also controlled for a large number of variables that could have contributed to a false OA advantage (for example, if more of the authors that chose to provide OA had happened to be in subject areas that happened to have higher citation counts). Eysenbach's logistic and multiple regression analyses confirmed that this was not the case for any of the potentially confounding variables tested, including the (i) country, (ii) publication count and (iii) citation count of the author and the (iv) subject area and (v) number of co-authors of the article. However, both the Eysenbach article and the accompanying PLoS editorial, considerably overstated the significance of all the controls that were done, suggesting that (1) the pre-existing evidence, based mainly on OA self-archiving ("green OA") rather than OA publishing ("gold OA"), had not been "solid" but "limited" because it had not controlled for these potential "confounding effects." They also suggested that (2) the PLoS study's finding that gold OA generated more citations than green OA in PNAS pertained to OA in general rather than just to high-profile journals like PNAS (and that perhaps green OA is not even OA!): Eysenbach (2006): "[T[he [prior] evidence on the ?OA advantage? is controversial. Previous research has based claims of an OA citation advantage mainly on studies looking at the impact of self-archived articles... (which some have argued to be different from open access in the narrower sense)... All these previous studies are cross-sectional and are subject to numerous limitations... Limited or no evidence is available on the citation impact of articles originally published as OA that are not confounded by the various biases and additional advantages [?] of self-archiving or ?being online? that contribute to the previously observed OA effects." PLoS Editorial (MacCallum & Parthasarathy 2006): "We have long argued that papers freely available in a journal will be more often read and cited than those behind a subscription barrier. However, solid evidence to support or refute such a claim has been surprisingly hard to find. Since most open-access journals are new, comparisons of the effects of open access with established subscription-based journals are easily confounded by age and reputation... As far as we are aware, no other study has compared OA and non-OA articles from the same journal and controlled for so many potentially confounding factors... The results... are clear: in the 4 to 16 months following publication, OA articles gained a significant citation advantage over non-OA articles during the same period... [Eysenbach's] analysis [also] revealed that self-archived articles are... cited less often than OA [sic] articles from the same journal." When I pointed out in a reply that subject areas, countries and years had all been analyzed separately in prior within-journal comparisons based on far larger samples, always with the same outcome -- the OA citation advantage -- making it highly unlikely that any of the other potentially confounding factors singled out in the PLoS/PNAS study would change that consistent pattern, Eysenbach responded: Eysenbach: "[T]o answer Harnad's question 'What confounding effects does Eysenbach expect from controlling for number of authors in a sample of over a million articles across a dozen disciplines and a dozen years all showing the very same, sizeable OA advantage? Does he seriously think that partialling out the variance in the number of authors would make a dent in that huge, consistent effect?' ? the answer is ?absolutely?. My doctoral student, Chawki Hajjem, has accordingly accepted Eysenbach's challenge, and done the requisite multiple regression analyses, testing not only (3) number of authors, but (1) number of years since publication, and (2) journal impact factor. The outcome is that (4) the OA self-archiving advantage (green OA) continues to be present as a robust, independent, statistically significant factor, alongside factors (1)-(3): Tested: (1) number of years since publication (BLUE) (2) journal impact factor (additional variable not tested by Eysenbach) (PURPLE) (3) number of authors (RED) (4) OA self-archiving (GREEN) Already tested separately and confirmed: (5) country (previously tested: OAA separately confirmed for all countries tested -- 1st author affiliation) (6) subject area (previously tested: OAA separately confirmed in all subject areas tested) Not tested: (7) publication and citation counts for first and last authors (not tested, but see Moed 2006) Irrelevant: (8) article type (only relevant to PNAS sample) (9) submission track (only relevant to PNAS sample) (10) funding type (irrelevant) Independent effects of (1) Year of Publication (purple), (2) Journal Impact Factor (blue), (3) Number of Authors (red) and (4) OA Self-Archiving (green) on citation counts: Beta weights derived from multiple regression analyses of (column 1) raw distribution, (column 2) log normalized distribution, (columns 3-6) separate Journal Impact Factor Quartiles, and (columns 7-10) separate Year of Publication Quartiles. In every case, OA Self-Archiving makes an independent, statistically significant contribution (highest for the most highly cited articles, column 6 "Groupe Dri": i.e., the QA/QB effect). (Biology, 1992-2003; 576 journals; 442,750 articles). For more details see Chawki Hajjem's website. In order of size of contribution: Article age (1) is of course the biggest factor: Articles' total citation counts grow as time goes by. Journal impact factor (2) is next: Articles in high-citation journals have higher citation counts: This is not just a circular effect of the fact that journal citation counts are just average journal-article citation counts: It is a true QB selection effect (nothing to do with OA!), namely, the higher quality articles tend to be submitted to and selected by the higher quality journals!. The next contributor to citation counts is the number of authors (3): This could be because there are more self-citations when there are more authors; or it could indicate that multi-authored articles tend to be of higher quality. But last, we have the contribution of OA self-archiving (4). It is the smallest of the four factors, but that is unsurprising, as surely article age and quality are the two biggest determinants of citations, whether the articles are OA or non-OA. (Perhaps self-citations are the third biggest contributor). But the OA citing advantage is present for those self-archived articles, refuting Eysenbach's claim that the green OA advantage is merely the result of "potential confounds" and that only the gold OA advantage is real. I might add that the PLoS Editorial is quite right to say: "Since most open-access journals are new, comparisons of the effects of open access with established subscription-based journals are easily confounded by age and reputation": Comparability and confounding are indeed major problems for between-journal comparisons, comparing OA and non-OA journals (gold OA). Until Eysenbach's within-journal PNAS study, "solid evidence" (for gold OA) was indeed hard to find. But comparability and confounding are far less of a problem for the within-journal analyses of self-archiving (green OA), and with them, solid evidence abounds. I might further add that the solid pre-existing evidence for the green OA advantage -- free of the limitations of between-journal comparisons -- is and always has been, by the same token, evidence for the gold OA advantage too, for it would be rather foolish and arbitrary to argue that free accessibility is only advantageous to self-archived articles, and not to articles published in OA journals! Yet that is precisely the kind of generalization Eysenbach seems to want to make (in the opposite direction) in the special case of PNAS -- a very selective, high-profile, high-impact journal. PNAS articles that are freely accessible on the PNAS website were found to have a greater OA advantage than PNAS articles freely accessible only on the author's website. With just a little reflection, however, it is obvious that the most likely reason for this effect is the high profile of PNAS and its website: That effect is hence highly unlikely to scale to all, most, or even many journals; nor is it likely to scale in time, for as green OA grows, the green OA harvesters like OAIster (or even just Google Scholar) will become the natural way and place to search, not the journal's website. Having taken up Eysenbach's challenge to test the independence of the OA self-archiving advantage from "potential confounds," we now challenge Eysenbach to test the generality of the PNAS gold/green advantage across the full quality hierarchy of journals, to show it is not merely a high-end effect. Let me close by mentioning one variable that Eysenbach did not (and could not) control for, namely, author self-selection bias (Quality Bias, QB): His 212 OA authors were asked to rate the relative urgency, importance, and quality of their articles and there was no difference between their OA and non-OA articles in these self-ratings. But (although I myself am quite ready to agree that there was little or no Quality Bias involved in determining which PNAS authors chose which PNAS articles to make OA gold), unfortunately these self-ratings are not likely to be enough to convince the sceptics who interpret the OA advantage as a Quality Bias (a self-selective tendency to provide OA to higher quality articles) rather than a Quality Advantage (QA) that increases the citations of higher quality articles. Not even the prior evidence of a correlation between earlier downloads and later citations is enough. The positive result of a more objective test of Quality Bias (QB) vs. Quality Advantage (QA) (comparing self-selected vs. mandated self-archiving, and likewise conducted by Chawki Hajjem) will be reported shortly. REFERENCES Brody, T., Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2005) Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) 57(8) pp. 1060-1072. Eysenbach G (2006) Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles. PLoS Biology 4(5) e157 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157 Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. & Gingras, Y. (2005) Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How it Increases Research Citation Impact. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 28(4) pp. 39-47. Harnad, S. (2006) PLoS, Pipe-Dreams and Peccadillos. PLoS Biology Responses. Harnad, S. (2007) The Open Access Citation Advantage: Quality Advantage Or Quality Bias? [coming, stay tuned) MacCallum CJ & Parthasarathy H (2006) Open Access Increases Citation Rate. PLoS Biol 4(5): e176 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040176 Moed, H. F. (2006) The effect of 'Open Access' upon citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv's Condensed Matter Section Stevan Harnad American Scientist Open Access Forum From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 17 16:17:15 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:17:15 -0500 Subject: Bensman SJ "Garfield and the impact factor" ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 41: 93-155 2007 Message-ID: Stephen J Bensman : notsjb at lsu.edu Title: Garfield and the impact factor Author Full Names: Bensman, Stephen J. Source: ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 41: 93-155 2007 Reprint Address: Bensman, SJ, Louisiana State Univ, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA. Cited Reference Count: 94 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: INFORMATION TODAY INC; 143 OLD MARLTON PIKE, MEDFORD, NJ 08055- 8750 USA ISSN: 0066-4200 Cited References: 1948, ROYAL SOC SCI INF C, P195. 1948, ROYAL SOC SCI INF C, P516. ADAIR WC, 1955, AM DOC, V6, P31. BAKER JR, 1939, NEW STATESMAN NATION, V18, P174. BERNAL JD, 1931, SPECTATOR, V147, P43. BERNAL JD, 1940, SOCIAL FUNCTION SCI. BERNAL JD, 1948, ROY SOC SCI INF C, P589. BERNAL JD, 1948, ROYAL SOC EMP SCI C. BERNAL JD, 1948, ROYAL SOC SCI INF C, P253. BERNAL JD, 1965, SCI PROGR, V53, P455. BRADFORD SC, 1934, ENGINEERING-LONDON, V137, P85. BRADFORD SC, 1948, DOCUMENTATION. BRADFORD SC, 1948, ROYAL SOC EMP SCI C, V1, P729. BUKHARIN NI, 1931, SCI CROSS ROADS. COLE JR, 2000, WEB KNOWLEDGE FESTSC, P281. COLE S, 2000, WEB KNOWLEDGE FESTSC, P109. DAVIS W, 1940, SOCIAL FUNCTION SCI, P449. EAST H, 1998, J DOC, V54, P293. GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108. GARFIELD E, 1956, CHEM B, V43, P11. GARFIELD E, 1959, P INT C SCI INF WASH, V1, P461. GARFIELD E, 1963, AM DOC, V14, P195. GARFIELD E, 1963, AM DOC, V14, P289. GARFIELD E, 1970, CURRENT CONTENT 0422, P5. GARFIELD E, 1970, CURRENT CONTENT 0422, P5. GARFIELD E, 1971, CURRENT CONTENT 0804, P5. GARFIELD E, 1972, CURRENT CONTENT 1101, P5. GARFIELD E, 1972, CURRENT CONTENT 1101, P5. GARFIELD E, 1972, CURRENT CONTENT 1101, P5. GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471. GARFIELD E, 1973, CURR CONTENTS, P5. GARFIELD E, 1973, CURR CONTENTS, P5. GARFIELD E, 1973, CURR CONTENTS, P5. GARFIELD E, 1974, CURR CONTENTS, P5. GARFIELD E, 1974, CURR CONTENTS, P5. GARFIELD E, 1975, CURR CONTENTS, P5. GARFIELD E, 1976, CURRENT CONTENT 0209, P5. GARFIELD E, 1976, NATURE, V264, P609. GARFIELD E, 1976, RECHERCHE, V7, P757. GARFIELD E, 1976, SCI CITATION INDEX 1, V5. GARFIELD E, 1977, CURR CONTENTS, P5. GARFIELD E, 1977, CURR CONTENTS, P5. GARFIELD E, 1977, CURR CONTENTS, P5. GARFIELD E, 1977, CURR CONTENTS, P5. GARFIELD E, 1978, CURRENT CONTENT 0710, P5. GARFIELD E, 1979, CITATION INDEXING IT. GARFIELD E, 1979, CURRENT CONTENT 1105, P5. GARFIELD E, 1979, SCI CITATION INDEX 1, V13. GARFIELD E, 1980, SCI CITATION INDEX 1, V14. GARFIELD E, 1980, T NY ACAD SCI 2, V39, P61. GARFIELD E, 1982, CURRENT CONTENT 0927, P5. GARFIELD E, 1982, CURRENT CONTENT 0927, P5. GARFIELD E, 1983, SCI PUBL POL, V10, P112. GARFIELD E, 1985, CURRENT CONTENT 0318, P3. GARFIELD E, 1985, CURRENT CONTENT 0318, P3. GARFIELD E, 1987, COMMUNICATION 1116. GARFIELD E, 1987, CURRENT CONTENT 0504, P5. GARFIELD E, 1987, CURRENT CONTENT 0504, P5. GARFIELD E, 1988, CURRENT CONTENT 0606, P3. GARFIELD E, 1990, CURRENT CONTENT 0528, P5. GARFIELD E, 1991, SCIENTIST, V5, P11. GARFIELD E, 1995, B PAN AM HLTH ORG, V29, P87. GARFIELD E, 1996, SCIENTIST, V10, P14. GARFIELD E, 1997, COMMUNICATION 0729. GARFIELD E, 1997, CURR SCI INDIA, V73, P639. GARFIELD E, 1998, LIBRI, V48, P67. GARFIELD E, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS, V43, P69. GARFIELD E, 1999, CHEM INTELLIGENCER, V5, P26. GARFIELD E, 1999, P 1998 C HIST HER SC, P237. GARFIELD E, 1999, SERIALS REV, V25, P67. GARFIELD E, 2000, MED WRITING, V8. GARFIELD E, 2002, PASSWORD, P22. GARFIELD E, 2003, CLIN SALUD, V3, P363. GARFIELD E, 2005, INT C PEER REV BIOM. GOLDSMITH M, 1964, SCI SCI SOC TECHNOLO, P9. HODGKIN DMC, 1980, BIOGRAPHICAL MEMOIRS, V26, P17. LEDERBERG J, 2000, WEB KNOWLEDGE FESTSC, P25. MARTYN J, 1968, ASLIB OCCASIONAL PUB, V1. MERTON RK, 1941, AM J SOCIOL, V46, P622. MERTON RK, 1968, SCIENCE, V159, P56. MERTON RK, 1983, ESSAYS INFORM SCI, V5, R15. MERTON RK, 1988, ISIS, V79, P606. MUDDIMAN D, 2003, J DOC, V59, P387. MUDDIMAN D, 2004, HIST HERITAGE SCI TE, P258. PRICE DD, 1978, J ASIS, V29, P204. PRICE DJD, 1963, LITTLE SCI BIG SCI. PRICE DJD, 1964, SCI SCI, P195. PRICE DJD, 1976, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V27, P292. PRICE DJD, 1980, ESSAYS INFORM SCI, R5. PRICE DJD, 1983, CURR CONTENTS, V29, P18. ROBINSON R, 1948, ROY SOC SCI INF C 21, P15. SANDISON A, 1971, NATURE, V234, P368. SHER IH, 1966, RES PROGRAM EFFECTIV, P135. TESTA J, 2004, ISI DATABASE J SELEC. From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 17 16:23:59 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:23:59 -0500 Subject: Porta M. Fernandez E. Bolumar F. "Commentary: The 'bibliographic impact factor' and the still uncharted sociology of epidemiology " Intnl. J. Epidemiology 35(5): 1130-1135 Oct. 2006 Message-ID: ========================================================= Full text available at : http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/5/1130 ========================================================= E-mail Addresses: mporta at imim.es Title: Commentary: The 'bibliographic impact factor' and the still uncharted sociology of epidemiology Author(s): Porta M (Porta, Miquel), Fernandez E (Fernandez, Esteve), Bolumar F (Bolumar, Francisco) Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 (5): 1130-1135 OCT 2006 Cited References: 33 Times Cited: 1 Addresses: Porta M (reprint author), Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Sch Med, Carrer Dr Aiguader 80, E-08003 Barcelona, Spain Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Sch Med, E-08003 Barcelona, Spain Inst Municipal Invest Med, E-08003 Barcelona, Spain Univ N Carolina, Sch Publ Hlth, Chapel Hill, NC USA Hosp Llobregat, Inst Catala Oncol, Barcelona, Spain Univ Pompeu Fabra, Catalonia, Spain Univ Alcala de Henares, Sch Med, Madrid, Spain E-mail Addresses: mporta at imim.es CITED REFERENCES : PLOS MED 3 : E291 2006 AMSTERDAMSKA O Demarcating epidemiology SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 30 : 17 2005 BOLUMAR F Epidemiologic methods: Beyond clinical medicine, beyond epidemiology EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 19 : 733 2004 DEALMEIDA N ENSAYOS DECONSTRUCCI : 2000 FERNANDEZ E GAC SANIT 17 : 179 2003 GARFIELD E CC/LIFE SCI 38 : 3 1987 GARFIELD E LAUNCHING THE ISI ATLAS OF SCIENCE - FOR THE NEW-YEAR, A NEW GENERATION OF REVIEWS CURRENT CONTENTS 7 : 3 1987 GARFIELD E CURR CONTENTS 45 : 5 1983 GARFIELD E CURR CONTENTS 44 : 5 1983 GARFIELD E NEW YEAR, NEW BUILDING CURRENT CONTENTS 35 : 5 1980 GARFIELD E IS SHORTHAND THE ROUTE TO SUCCESS IN SCIENCE OR ANYTHING ELSE .1. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF STENOGRAPHIC LANGUAGES CURRENT CONTENTS : 3 1985 GARFIELD E CHRONOBIOLOGY - AN INTERNAL CLOCK FOR ALL SEASONS .1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCIENCE OF BIOLOGICAL RHYTHMS CURRENT CONTENTS : 3 1988 GARFIELD E ESSAYS INFORMATION S GARFIELD E INT J EPIDEMIOL 35 : 2006 GARFIELD E The history and meaning of the journal impact factor JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 295 : 90 2006 GARFIELD E SIGNIFICANT JOURNALS OF SCIENCE NATURE 264 : 609 1976 GARFIELD E CITATION ANALYSIS AS A TOOL IN JOURNAL EVALUATION - JOURNALS CAN BE RANKED BY FREQUENCY AND IMPACT OF CITATIONS FOR SCIENCE POLICY STUDIES SCIENCE 178 : 471 1972 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXES FOR SCIENCE - NEW DIMENSION IN DOCUMENTATION THROUGH ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS SCIENCE 122 : 108 1955 GARFIELD E IS CITATION ANALYSIS A LEGITIMATE EVALUATION TOOL SCIENTOMETRICS 1 : 359 1979 GARFIELD E TRENDS BIOCHEM SCI 2 : 84 1977 JOSEPH KS Quality of impact factors of general medical journals BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 326 : 283 2003 MORABIA A HIST EPIDEMIOLOGIC M : 2004 PORTA M Quality of impact factors of general medical journals - Quality matters - and the choice of indicator matters too BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 326 : 931 2003 PORTA M CAD SAUDE PUBLICA 19 : 1847 2003 PORTA M Things that kept coming to mind while thinking through Susser's South African memoir JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH 60 : 559 2006 PORTA M Epidemiology: bridges over (and across) roaring levels JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH 52 : 605 1998 PORTA M The bibliographic ''impact factor'' of the Institute for Scientific Information: How relevant is it really for public health journals? Comments JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH 50 : 606 1996 PORTA M Book citations: influence of epidemiologic thought in the academic community REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA 40 : 50 2006 PORTA M REVISIONES SALUD PUB 3 : 313 1993 PORTA M Commentary I - The bibliographic "impact factor", the total number of citations and related bibliometric indicators: the need to focus on journals of public health and preventive medicine SOZIAL-UND PRAVENTIVMEDIZIN 49 : 15 2004 SARACCI R TEACHING EPIDEMIOLOG : 1 2001 SEGLEN PO CITATION FREQUENCY AND JOURNAL IMPACT - VALID INDICATORS OF SCIENTIFIC QUALITY? JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 229 : 109 1991 SEGLEN PO RES EVALUAT 2 : 143 1992 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 17 16:26:54 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:26:54 -0500 Subject: Garfield E. "Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas (Reprinted from Science, vol 122, pg 108-11, 1955) " Internl. J. Epidemiology 35 (5): 1123-1127 OCT 2006 Message-ID: ========================================================= Full text available at : http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/35/5/1123 ========================================================= E-Mail: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu Title: Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas (Reprinted from Science, vol 122, pg 108-11, 1955) Author(s): Garfield E (Garfield, Eugene) Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 (5): 1123-1127 OCT 2006 Document Type: Reprint Cited References: 17 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS, GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND IDS Number: 097EI ISSN: 0300-5771 CITED REFERENCES : ADAIR WC AM DOC 6 : 31 1955 ANDREW AM ELECTRON ENG 25 : 471 1953 BITNER H COMMUNICATION : 1954 BRODMAN E MED LIB ASS B 32 : 479 1944 BUSA R NACHR DOK 3 : 14 1952 DENNIS W SCI MONTHLY 79 : 180 1954 FUSSLER HH LIBRARY Q 19 : 19 1949 GARFIELD E INT J EPIDEMIOL 122 : 108 1955 GARFIELD E REV LITERATURE SOURC : 1952 GARFIELD E SCIENCE 120 : 1059 1954 GROSS PLK SCIENCE 66 : 385 1927 LEHMAN HC SCI MONTHLY 78 : 321 1954 SCHUKE JA SCIENCE 120 : 1055 1954 SELYE H THE GENERAL ADAPTATION SYNDROME AND THE DISEASES OF ADAPTATION JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY AND METABOLISM 6 : 117 1946 SHAW RR MACHINES BIBLIOGRAPH : 19 1951 THOMASSON P UNCRITICAL CITATION OF CRITICIZED DATA SCIENCE 121 : 610 1955 ZWORYKIN VK P AM PHILOS SOC 91 : 139 1947 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 17 16:30:34 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:30:34 -0500 Subject: Garfield E. "Commentary : Fifty years of citation indexing" Intnl. J. Epidemiology 35(5):1127-1128 October 2006. Message-ID: FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT : http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/5/1127 E-Mail: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu Title: Commentary: Fifty years of citation indexing Author(s): Garfield E (Garfield, Eugene) Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 (5): 1127-1128 OCT 2006 Cited References: 17 Times Cited: 1 Addresses: Garfield E (reprint author), Thomson ISI, 3501 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA E-mail Addresses: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS, GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND IDS Number: 097EI ISSN: 0300-5771 CITED REFERENCES : BUSH V ATLANTIC MONTHLY 176 : 101 1945 DESOLLA PDJ SCIENCE 149 : 510 1965 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXING IT : 79 1977 GARFIELD E ESSAYS INFORMATION 1 : 132 1970 GARFIELD E ESSAYS INFORMATION S 6 : 533 1984 GARFIELD E ESSAYS INFORMATION S 1 : 528 1977 GARFIELD E >From citation indexes to informetrics: Is the tail now wagging the dog? LIBRI 48 : 67 1998 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXING FOR STUDYING SCIENCE NATURE 227 : 669 1970 GARFIELD E CITATION ANALYSIS AS A TOOL IN JOURNAL EVALUATION - JOURNALS CAN BE RANKED BY FREQUENCY AND IMPACT OF CITATIONS FOR SCIENCE POLICY STUDIES SCIENCE 178 : 471 1972 GARFIELD E SCIENCE CITATION INDEX-NEW DIMENSION IN INDEXING - UNIQUE APPROACH UNDERLIES VERSATILE BIBLIOGRAPHIC SYSTEMS FOR COMMUNICATING + EVALUATING INFORMATION SCIENCE 144 : 649 1964 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXES FOR SCIENCE - NEW DIMENSION IN DOCUMENTATION THROUGH ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS SCIENCE 122 : 108 1955 GARFIELD E USE CITATION DATA WR : 75 1964 GARIFIELD E J CHEM DOCUMENT 7 : 147 1967 GARNER R COMPUTER ORIENTED GR : 1967 KOCHEN M WISE - WORLD INFORMATION SYNTHESIS AND ENCYCLOPEDIA JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 28 : 322 1972 MARGOLIS J CITATION INDEXING AND EVALUATION OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS SCIENCE 155 : 1213 1967 SMALL HG CITED DOCUMENTS AS CONCEPT SYMBOLS SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 8 : 327 1978 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 17 16:34:43 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:34:43 -0500 Subject: Smith R. "Commentary: The power of the unrelenting impact factor - Is it a force for good or harm? " Intl. J. Epidemiology 35(5):1129-1130 Oct. 2006 Message-ID: ============================================= Full Text Available at : http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/5/1129 ============================================= E-mail Addresses: Richardswsmity at yahoo.co.uk Title: Commentary: The power of the unrelenting impact factor - Is it a force for good or harm? Author(s): Smith R (Smith, Richard) Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 (5): 1129-1130 OCT 2006 Cited References: 9 Times Cited: 1 E-mail Addresses: Richardswsmity at yahoo.co.uk Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS, GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND IDS Number: 097EI ISSN: 0300-5771 CITED REFERENCES : FRANCK G Scientific communication - A vanity fair? SCIENCE 286 : 53 1999 GABEHART ME ANAL CITATIONS RETRA GARFIELD E Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas (Reprinted from Science, vol 122, pg 108-11, 1955) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 35 : 1123 2006 GARFIELD E The history and meaning of the journal impact factor JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 295 : 90 2006 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXES FOR SCIENCE - NEW DIMENSION IN DOCUMENTATION THROUGH ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS SCIENCE 122 : 108 1955 PFEIFER MP THE CONTINUED USE OF RETRACTED, INVALID SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 263 : 1420 1990 SEGLEN PO BRIT MED J 314 : 497 1997 SMITH R BRIT MED J 314 : 461 1997 SOUZIN J SCIENCE 312 : 38 2006 From bernies at UILLINOIS.EDU Thu Jan 18 11:00:17 2007 From: bernies at UILLINOIS.EDU (Sloan, Bernie) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:00:17 -0600 Subject: Scopus reviewed and compared (with Web of Science and Google Scholar) Message-ID: Might be of interest to some of you... Bosman, Jeroen, et al. Scopus reviewed and compared: The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht, 63pp. June 2006. http://tinyurl.com/3a4m63 Bernie Sloan Senior Information Systems Consultant Consortium of Academic & Research Libraries in Illinois 616 E. Green Street, Suite 213 Champaign, IL 61820-5752 Phone: (217) 333-4895 Fax: (217) 265-0454 E-mail: bernies at uillinois.edu From Chaomei.Chen at CIS.DREXEL.EDU Thu Jan 18 19:00:53 2007 From: Chaomei.Chen at CIS.DREXEL.EDU (Chaomei Chen) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:00:53 -0500 Subject: Information Visualization - Free Access until Feb 14, 2007 Message-ID: The peer-reviewed international Information Visualization, published quarterly by Palgrave-Macmillan, is currently offering free access to the entire journal until Feb 14, 2007. I would like to invite you to take this opportunity to explore the journal. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ivs/index.html Best wishes, Chaomei Chen Editor-in-Chief Information Visualization (IVS) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Sun Jan 21 05:53:54 2007 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:53:54 +0000 Subject: The Open Access Citation Advantage: Quality Advantage Or Quality Bias? Message-ID: Full version with figures and hyperlinks: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/191-guid.html The Open Access Citation Advantage: Quality Advantage Or Quality Bias? SUMMARY: Many studies have now reported the positive correlation between Open Access (OA) self-archiving and citation counts ("OA Advantage," OAA). But does this OAA occur because (QB) authors are more likely to self-selectively self-archive articles that are more likely to be cited (self-selection "Quality Bias": QB)? or because (QA) articles that are self-archived are more likely to be cited ("Quality Advantage": QA)? The probable answer is both. Three studies [by (i) Kurtz and co-workers in astrophysics, (ii) Moed in condensed matter physics, and (iii) Davis & Fromerth in mathematics] had reported the OAA to be due to QB [plus Early Advantage, EA, from self-archiving the preprint before publication, in (i) and (ii)] rather than QA. These three fields, however, (1) have less of a postprint access problem than most other fields and (i) and (ii) also happen to be among the minority of fields that (2) make heavy use of prepublication preprints. Chawki Hajjem has now analyzed preliminary evidence based on over 100,000 articles from multiple fields, comparing self-selected self-archiving with mandated self-archiving to estimate the contributions of QB and QA to the OAA. Both factors contribute, and the contribution of QA is greater. This is a preview of some preliminary data (not yet refereed), collected by my doctoral student at UQaM, Chawki Hajjem. This study was done in part by way of response to Henk Moed's replies to my comments on Moed's (self-archived) preprint: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5901.html http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/168-guid.html Moed, H. F. (2006) The effect of 'Open Access' upon citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv's Condensed Matter Section http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0611060 Moed's study is about the "Open Access Advantage" (OAA) -- the higher citation counts of self-archived articles -- observable across disciplines as well as across years (red bars are the OAA): FIGURE 1. Open Access Citation Advantage By Discipline and By Year. Green bars are percentage of articles self-archived (%OA); red bars, percentage citation advantage (%OAA) for self-archived articles for 10 disciplines (upper chart) across 12 years (lower chart, 1992-2003). Gray curve indicates total articles by discipline and year. Source: Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Gingras, Y. (2005) Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How it Increases Research Citation Impact. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 28(4) pp. 39-47. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/191-guid.html The focus of the present discussion is the factors underlying the OAA. There are at least five potential contributing factors, but only three of them are under consideration here: (1) Early Advantage (EA), (2) Quality Advantage (QA) and (3) Quality Bias (QB -- also called "Self-Selection Bias"). Preprints that are self-archived before publication have an Early Advantage (EA): they get read, used and cited earlier. This is uncontested. Kurtz, Michael and Brody, Tim (2006) The impact loss to authors and research. In, Jacobs, Neil (ed.) Open Access: Key strategic, technical and economic aspects. Oxford, UK, Chandos Publishing. In addition, the proportion of articles self-archived at or after publication is higher in the higher "citation brackets": the more highly cited articles are also more likely to be the self-archived articles. FIGURE 2. Correlation between Citedness and Ratio of Open Access (OA) to Non-Open Access (NOA) Ratios. The (OAc/TotalOAc)/(NOAc/TotalNOAc) ratio (across all disciplines and years) increases as citation count (c) increases (r = .98, N=6, p<.005). The more cited an article, the more likely that it is OA. (Hajjem et al. 2005) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/191-guid.html The question, then, is about causality: Are self-archived articles more likely to be cited because they are self-archived (QA)? Or are articles more likely to be self-archived because they are more likely to be cited (QB)? The most likely answer is that both factors, QA and QB, contribute to the OAA: the higher quality papers gain more from being made more accessible (QA: indeed the top 10% of articles tend to get 90% of the citations). But the higher quality papers are also more likely to be self-archived (QB). As we will see, however, the evidence to date, because it has been based exclusively on self-selected (voluntary) self-archiving, is equally compatible with (i) an exclusive QA interpretation, (ii) an exclusive QB interpretation or (iii) the joint explanation that is probably the correct one. The only way to estimate the independent contributions of QA and QB is to compare the OAA for self-selected (voluntary) self-archiving with the OAA for imposed (obligatory) self-archiving. We report some preliminary results for this comparison here, based on the (still small sample of) Institutional Repositories that already have self-archiving mandates (chiefly CERN, U. Southampton, QUT, U. Minho, and U. Tasmania). FIGURE 3. Self-Selected Self-Archiving vs. Mandated Self-Archiving: Within-Journal Citation Ratios (for 2004, all fields). S = citation counts for articles self-archived at institutions with (Sm) and without (Sn) a self-archiving mandate. N = citation counts for non-archived articles at institutions with (Nm) and without (Nn) mandate (i.e., Nm = articles not yet compliant with mandate). Grand average of (log) S/N ratios (106,203 articles; 279 journals) is the OA advantage (18%); this is about the same as for Sn/Nn (27972 articles, 48 journals, 18%) and Sn/N (17%); ratio is higher for Sm/N (34%), higher still for Sm/Nm (57%, 541 articles, 20 journals); and Sm/Sn = 27%, so self-selected self-archiving does not yield more citations than mandated; rather the reverse. (All six within-pair differences are significant: correlated sample t-tests.) (NB: preliminary, unrefereed results.) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/191-guid.html Summary: These preliminary results suggest that both QA and QB contribute to OAA, and that the contribution of QA is greater than that of QB. Discussion: On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Henk Moed [HM] wrote: >>> HM: "Below follow some replies to your comments on my preprint 'The >>> effect of 'Open Access' upon citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv's >>> Condensed Matter Section'... >>> >>> "1. Early view effect. [EA] In my case study on 6 journals in the field >>> of condensed matter physics, I concluded that the observed differences >>> between the citation age distributions of deposited and non-deposited >>> ArXiv papers can to a large extent - though not fully - be explained by >>> the publication delay of about six months of non-deposited articles >>> compared to papers deposited in ArXiv. This outcome provides evidence >>> for an early view [EA] effect upon citation impact rates, and >>> consequently upon ArXiv citation impact differentials (CID, my term) or >>> Arxiv Advantage (AA, your term)." >> >> SH: "The basic question is this: Once the AA (Arxiv Advantage) has been >> adjusted for the "head-start" component of the EA (by comparing articles >> of equal age -- the age of Arxived articles being based on the date of >> deposit of the preprint rather than the date of publication of the >> postprint), how big is that adjusted AA, at each article age? For that >> is the AA without any head-start. Kurtz never thought the EA component >> was merely a head start, however, for the AA persists and keeps growing, >> and is present in cumulative citation counts for articles at every age >> since Arxiving began". > > HM: "Figure 2 in the interesting paper by Kurtz et al. (IPM, v. 41, p. > 1395-1402, 2005) does indeed show an increase in the very short term > average citation impact (my terminology; citations were counted during > the first 5 months after publication date) of papers as a function of > their publication date as from 1996. My interpretation of this figure is > that it clearly shows that the principal component of the early view > effect is the head-start: it reveals that the share of astronomy papers > deposited in ArXiv (and other preprint servers) increased over time. > More and more papers became available at the date of their submission to > a journal, rather than on their formal publication date. I therefore > conclude that their findings for astronomy are fully consistent with my > outcomes for journals in the field of condensed matter physics." The findings are definitely consistent for Astronomy and for Condensed Matter Physics. In both cases, most of the observed OAA came from the self-archiving of preprints before publication (EA). Moreover, in Astronomy there is already 100% "OA" to all articles after publication, and this has been the case for years now (for the reasons Michael Kurtz and Peter Boyce have pointed out: all research-active astronomers have licensed access as well as free ADS access to all of the closed circle of core Astronomy journals: otherwise they simply cannot be research-active). This means that there is only room for EA in Astronomy's OAA. And that means that in Astronomy all the questions about QA vs QB (self-selection bias) apply only to the self-archiving of prepublication preprints, not to postpublication postprints, which are all effectively "OA." To a lesser extent, something similar is true in Condensed-Matter Physics (CondMP): In general, research-active physicists have better access to their required journals via online licensing than other fields do (though one does wonder about the "non-research-active" physicists, and what they could/would do if they too had OA!). And CondMP too is a preprint self-archiving field, with most of the OAA differential again concentrated on the prepublication preprints (EA). Moreover, Moed's test for whether or not a paper was self-archived was based entirely on its presence/absence in ArXiv (as opposed to elsewhere on the Web, e.g., on the author's website or in the author's Institutional Repository). Hence Astronomy and CondMP are fields that are "biassed" toward EA effects. It is not surprising, therefore, that the lion's share of the OAA turns out to be EA in these fields. It also means that the remaining variance available for testing QA vs. QB in these fields is much narrower than in fields that do not self-archive preprints only, or mostly. Hence there is no disagreement (or surprise) about the fact that most of the OAA in Astronomy and CondMP is due to EA. (Less so in the slower-moving field of maths; see: "Early Citation Advantage?.") >> SH: "The fact that highly-cited articles (Kurtz) and articles by >> highly-cited authors (Moed) are more likely to be Arxived certainly does >> not settle the question of cause and effect: It is just as likely that >> better articles benefit more from Arxiving (QA) as that better >> authors/articles tend to Arxive/be-Arxived more (QB)." > > HM: "2. Quality bias. I am fully aware that in this research context one > cannot assess whether authors publish [sic] their better papers in the > ArXiv merely on the basis of comparing citation rates of archived and > non-archived papers, and I mention this in my paper. Citation rates may > be influenced both by the 'quality' of the papers and by the access > modality (deposited versus non-deposited). This is why I estimated > author prominence on the basis of the citation impact of their > non-archived articles only. But even then I found evidence that > prominent, influential authors (in the above sense) are overrepresented > in papers deposited in ArXiv." I agree with all this: The probable quality of the article was estimated from the probable quality of the author, based on citations for non-OA articles. Now, although this correlation, too, goes both ways (are authors' non-OA articles more cited because their authors self-archive more or do they self-archive more because they are more cited?), I do agree that the correlation between self-archiving-counts and citation-counts for non-self-archived articles by the same author is more likely to be a QB effect. The question then, of course, is: What proportion of the OAA does this component account for? > HM: "But I did more that that. I calculated Arxiv Citation Impact > Differentials (CID, my term, or ArXiv Advantage, AA, your term) at the > level of individual authors. Next, I calculated the median CID over > authors publishing in a journal. How then do you explain my empirical > finding that for some authors the citation impact differential (CID) or > ArXiv Advantage is positive, for others it is negative, while the median > CID over authors does not significantly differ from zero (according to a > Sign test) for all journals studied in detail except Physical Review B, > for which it is only 5 per cent? If there is a genuine 'OA advantage' at > stake, why then does it for instance not lead to a significantly > positive median CID over authors? Therefore, my conclusion is that, > controlling for quality bias and early view effect, in the sample of 6 > journals analysed in detail in my study, there is no sign of a general > 'open access advantage' of papers deposited in ArXiv's Condensed Matter > Section." My interpretation is that EA is the largest contributor to the OAA in this preprint-intensive field (i.e., most of the OAA comes from the prepublication component) and that there is considerable variability in the size of the (small) residual (non-EA) OAA. For a small sample, at the individual journal level, there is not enough variance left for a significant OAA, once one removes the QB component too. Perhaps this is all that Henk Moed wished to imply. But the bigger question for OA concerns all fields, not just those few that are preprint-intensive and that are relatively well-heeled for access to the published version. Indeed, the fundamental OA and OAA questions concern the postprint (not the preprint) and the many disciplines that do have access problems, not the happy few that do not! The way to test the presence and size of both QB and QA in these non-EA fields is to impose the OA, preferably randomly, on half the sample, and then compare the size of the OAA for imposed ("mandated") self-archiving (Sm) with the size of the OAA for self-selected ("nonmandated") self-archiving (Sn), in particular by comparing their respective ratios to non-self-archived articles in the same journal and year: Sm/N vs. Sn/N). If Sn/N > Sm/N then QB > QA, and vice versa. If Sn/N = 1, then QB is 0. And if Sm/N = 1 then QA is 0. It is a first approximation to this comparison that has just been done (FIGURE 3) by my doctoral student, Chawki Hajjem, across fields, for self-archived articles in five Institutional Repositories (IRs) that have OA self-archiving mandates, for 106,203 articles published in 276 biomedical journal 2004, above. The mandates are still very young and few, hence the sample is still small; and there are many potential artifacts, including selective noncompliance with the mandate as well as disciplinary bias. But the preliminary results so far suggest that (1) QA is indeed > 0, and (2) QA > QB. [I am sure that we will now have a second round from die-hards who will want to argue for a selective-compliance effect, as a 2nd-order last gasp for the QB-only hypothesis, but of course that loses all credibility as IRs approach 100% compliance: We are analyzing our mandated IRs separately now, to see whether we can detect any trends correlated with an IR's %OA. But (except for the die-hards, who will never die), I think even this early sample already shows that the OA advantage is unlikely to be only or mostly a QB effect.] > HM: "3. Productive versus less productive authors. My analysis of > differences in Citation Impact differentials between productive and less > productive authors may seem "a little complicated". My point is that if > one selects from a set of papers deposited in ArXiv a paper authored by > a junior (or less productive) scientist, the probability that this paper > is co-authored by a senior (or more productive) author is higher than it > is for a paper authored by a junior scientist but not deposited in > ArXiv. Next, I found that papers co-authored by both productive and less > productive authors tend to have a higher citation impact than articles > authored solely by less productive authors, regardless of whether these > papers were deposited in ArXiv or not. These outcomes lead me to the > conclusion that the observed higher CID for less productive authors > compared to that of productive authors can be interpreted as a quality > bias." It still sounds a bit complicated, but I think what you mean is that (1) mixed multi-author papers (ML, with M = More productive authors, L = less productive authors) are more likely to be cited than unmixed multi-author (LL) papers with the same number of authors, and that (2) such ML papers are also more likely to be self-archived. (Presumably MM papers are the most cited and most self-archived of multi-author papers.) That still sounds to me like a variant on the citation/self-archiving correlation, and hence intepretable as either QA or QB or both. (Chawki Hajjem has also found that citation counts are positively correlated with the number of authors an article has: this could either be a self-citation bias or evidence that multi-authored paper tend to be better ones.) > HM: "4. General comments. In the citation analysis by Kurtz et al. > (2005), both the citation and target universe contain a set of 7 core > journals in astronomy. They explain their finding of no apparent OA > effect in his study of these journals by postulating that "essentially > all astronomers have access to the core journals through existing > channels". In my study the target set consists of a limited number of > core journals in condensed matter physics, but the citation universe is > as large as the total Web of Science database, including also a number > of more peripherical journals in the field. Therefore, my result is > stronger than that obtained by Kurtz at al.: even in this much wider > citation universe, I do not find evidence for an OA advantage effect." I agree that CondMP is less preprint-intensive, less accessible and less endogamous than Astrophysics, but it is still a good deal more preprint-intensive and accessible than most fields (and I don't yet know what role the exogamy/enodgamy factor plays in either citations or the OAA: it will be interesting to study, among many other candidate metrics, once the entire literature is OA). > HM: "I realize that my study is a case study, examining in detail 6 > journals in one subfield. I fully agree with your warning that one > should be cautious in generalizing conclusions from case studies, and > that results for other fields may be different. But it is certainly not > an unimportant case. It relates to a subfield in physics, a discipline > that your pioneering and stimulating work (Harnad and Brody, D-Lib Mag., > June 2004) has analysed as well at a more aggregate level. I hope that > more case studies will be carried out in the near future, applying the > methodologies I proposed in my paper." Your case study is very timely and useful. However, robot-based studies based on much larger samples of journals and articles have now confirmed the OAA in many more fields, most of them not preprint-based at all, and with access problems more severe than those of physics. CONCLUSIONS I would like to conclude with a summary of the "QB vs. QA" evidence to date, as I understand it: (1) Many studies have reported the OA Advantage, across many fields. (2) Three studies have reported QB in preprint-intensive fields that have either no postprint access problem or markedly less than other fields (astrophysics, condensed matter, mathematics). (3) The author of one of these three studies is pro-OA (Kurtz, who is also the one who drew my attention to the QA counterevidence); the author of the second is neutral (Moed); and the author of the third might (I think -- I'm not sure) be mildly anti-OA (Davis -- now collaborating with a publisher to do a 4-year [sic!] long-term study on QA vs QB). Henneken, E. A., Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C., Thompson, D., and Murray, S. S. (2006) Effect of E-printing on Citation Rates in Astronomy and Physics. Journal of Electronic Publishing, Vol. 9, No. 2, Summer 2006 Moed, H. F. (2006, preprint) The effect of 'Open Access' upon citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv's Condensed Matter Section Davis, P. M. and Fromerth, M. J. (2007) Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles? Scientometics, accepted for publication. See critiques: 1, 2 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/191-guid.html (4) So the overall research motivation for testing QB is not an anti-OA motivation. (5) On the other hand, the motivation on the part of some publishers to put a strong self-serving spin on these three QB findings is of course very anti-OA and especially, now, anti-OA-self-archiving-mandate. (That's quite understandable, and no problem at all.) (6) In contrast to the three studies that have reported what they interpret as evidence of QB (Kurtz in astro, Moed in cond-mat and Davis in maths), there are the many other studies that report large OA citation (and download) advantages, across a large number of fields. Those who have interests that conflict with OA and OA self-archiving mandates are ignoring or discounting this large body of studies, and instead just spinning the three QB reports as their justification for ignoring the larger body of findings. This will all be resolved soon, and the outcome of our QA vs. QB comparison for mandated vs. self-selected self-archiving already heralds this resolution. I am pretty confident that the empirical facts will turn out to have been the following: Yes, there is a QB component in the OA advantage (especially in the preprinting fields, such as astro, cond-mat and maths). But that QB component is neither the sole factor nor the largest factor in the OA advantage, particularly in the non-preprint fields with access problems -- and those fields constitute the vast majority. That will be the outcome that is demonstrated, and eventually not only the friends of OA but the foes of OA will have no choice but to acknowledge the new reality of OA, its benefits to research and researchers, and its immediate reachability through the prompt universal adoption of OA self-archiving mandates. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/191-guid.html Stevan Harnad From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Jan 21 10:47:36 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:47:36 +0100 Subject: Amsterdam colloquia STS, January-March Message-ID: Colloquia Science & Technology Dynamics in collaboration with the Amsterdam School of Communications Research ASCoR Amsterdam School of Social Science Research ASSR Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Academy January 26, 2007 Oost-Indisch Huis room OIH B017, 3-5 pm Willem Halffman (Amsterdam School of Social Science Research) Accounting the Commons: science advises conservation policy Eleftheria Vasileiadou (Amsterdam School of Communications Research) Practicing e-science: using different media for collaborative working practices February 23, 2007 Binnengasthuis-5 Room BG-5, 229, 3-5 pm Peter van den Besselaar The New Science of Science Policy Peter Groenewegen Reconstrucing and Constructing Communities through Social Networks March 30, 2007 Oost-Indisch Huis room OIH At-03, 3-5 pm Alesia Zuccala, The Thesis Paradox: An Empirical Study of the Impact of Doctoral Research Olga Amsterdamska, The Public Face of Research on Autism ** apologies for crosspostings _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Jan 21 13:46:13 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:46:13 +0100 Subject: On the Normalization and Visualization of Co-citation Data Message-ID: On the Normalization and Visualization of Author Co-Citation Data Click here for PDF The debate about which similarity measure one should use for the normalization in the case of Author Co-citation Analysis (ACA) is further complicated when one distinguishes between the symmetrical co-citation-or, more generally, co-occurrence-matrix and the underlying asymmetrical citation-occurrence-matrix. In the Web environment, the approach of retrieving original citation data and then using Salton's cosine or the Pearson correlation to construct a similarity matrix is often not feasible. In that case, one should use the Jaccard index, but preferentially after adding the number of total citations (occurrences) on the main diagonal. Unlike Salton's cosine and the Pearson correlation, the Jaccard index abstracts from the distribution and focuses only on the intersection and the sum of the two sets. Since the distributions in the co-occurrence matrix may partially be based on spurious correlations, this property of the Jaccard index can be considered as an advantage in this case. The argument is illustrated with empirical data. _____ 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 sucheta at DRTC.ISIBANG.AC.IN Sun Jan 21 14:34:44 2007 From: sucheta at DRTC.ISIBANG.AC.IN (Sucheta Lahiri) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:04:44 +0530 Subject: bibliog. + cit. database [help request] In-Reply-To: <001801c73014$b8e20d90$5e1c35a1@nbharpe> Message-ID: Dear Sir I am working on a project in part-fulfillment of the requirements for the ADIS programme of DRTC, Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore, India. I propose to use co-word analysis and some related techniques to map the structure and dynamics of the discipline 'Information Retrieval' over the last 50 years 1950's to present. I am using bibexcel and I also had to face the same difficulty of data transformation. For that I had to make a perl file which could make the raw data compatible for bibexcel. Regards Sucheta Lahiri Documentation Research and Training Centre Indian Statistical Institute 8th Mile, Mysore road Bangalore, India Pin-560059 From sucheta at DRTC.ISIBANG.AC.IN Sun Jan 21 15:29:55 2007 From: sucheta at DRTC.ISIBANG.AC.IN (Sucheta Lahiri) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:59:55 +0530 Subject: help please! Message-ID: I am working on a project in part-fulfillment of the requirements for the ADIS programme of DRTC, Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore, India. I wish to calculate Salton's index by using bibexcel. I am using LISA and WOS data for this. -- Sucheta Lahiri 8th mile, Mysore Road Indian Statistical Institute DRTC, Bangalore-560059 From JWS at DB.DK Mon Jan 22 03:35:35 2007 From: JWS at DB.DK (Jesper Wiborg Schneider) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:35:35 +0100 Subject: SV: [SIGMETRICS] On the Normalization and Visualization of Co-citation Data Message-ID: Dear Loet and colleagues; In connection with the ongoing debate on proximity measures in co-citation studies, you may find the following forthcoming two-part article of interest: * Schneider, J. & Borlund, P. [PDF] Matrix comparison, Part 1: Motivation and important issues for measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results. Accepted for publication in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. * Abstract: The present two-part article introduces matrix comparison as a formal means for evaluation purposes in informetric studies such as co-citation analysis. In this, the first part, the motivation behind introducing matrix comparison to informetric studies, as well as two important issues influencing such comparisons, are introduced and discussed. The motivation is spurred by the recent debate on choice of proximity measures and their potential influence upon clustering and ordination results. The two important issues discussed in the present first part are matrix generation and the composition of proximity measures. The present part of the article demonstrates that the approach to matrix generation for the same data set, that is how data is represented and transformed in a matrix, evidently determines the 'behaviour' of proximity measures. Two different matrix generation approaches, will therefore in all probability, lead to different proximity rankings of objects, which further lead to different ordination and clustering results for the same set of objects. Further, this part of the article also demonstrates that a resemblance in the composition of formulas indicates whether two proximity measures may produce similar ordination and clustering results. However, as shown in the case of the angular correlation and cosine measures, a small deviation in otherwise similar formulas, can lead to different rankings depending on the contour of the data matrix transformed. Eventually, the 'behaviour' of proximity measures, that is whether they produce similar rankings of objects, is more or less data-specific. Consequently, we recommend the use of empirical matrix comparison techniques for individual studies in order to investigate the degree of resemblance between proximity measures or their ordination results. Part two of the article introduces and demonstrates two related statistical matrix comparison techniques the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis, respectively. These techniques can compare and evaluate the degree of monotonicity between different proximity measures or their ordination results. As such, the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis can be used as statistical validation tools in informetric studies and thus help choosing suitable proximity measures. * Schneider, J. & Borlund, P. [PDF ] Matrix comparison, Part 2: Measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results by use of the Mantel and Procrustes statistics. Accepted for publication in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. * Abstract: The present two-part article introduces matrix comparison as a formal means for evaluation purposes in informetric studies such as co-citation analysis. In the first part, the motivation behind introducing matrix comparison to informetric studies, as well as two important issues influencing such comparisons, matrix generation and the composition of proximity measures, are introduced and discussed. .In this second part of the article, we introduce and thoroughly demonstrate two related matrix comparison techniques the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis, respectively. These techniques can compare and evaluate the degree of monotonicity between different proximity measures or their ordination results. In common to these techniques is the application of permutation procedures in order to test hypotheses about matrix resemblances. The choice of technique is related to the validation at hand. In the case of the Mantel test, the degree of resemblance between two measures forecast their potentially different affect upon ordination and clustering results. In principle, two proximity measures with a very strong resemblance most likely produce identical results, thus, choice of measure between the two becomes less important. Alternatively, or as a supplement, Procrustes analysis compares the actual ordination results without investigating the underlying proximity measures, by matching two configurations of the same objects in a multidimensional space. An advantage of the Procrustes analysis though, is the graphical solution provided by the superimposition plot and the resulting decomposition of variance components. Accordingly, the Procrustes analysis provides, not only a measure of general fit between configurations, but also values for individual objects enabling more elaborate validations. As such, the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis can be used as statistical validation tools in informetric studies and thus help choosing suitable proximity measures. Kind regards - Jesper ********************************************** Jesper Wiborg Schneider, PhD, Assistant Professor Department of Information Studies Royal School of Library & Information Science Sohng?rdsholmsvej 2, DK-9000 Aalborg, DENMARK Tel. +45 98773041, Fax. +45 98151042 E-mail: jws at db.dk Homepage:http://www.db.dk/jws ********************************************** ________________________________ Fra: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] P? vegne af Loet Leydesdorff Sendt: 21. januar 2007 19:46 Til: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Emne: [SIGMETRICS] On the Normalization and Visualization of Co-citation Data On the Normalization and Visualization of Author Co-Citation Data Click here for PDF The debate about which similarity measure one should use for the normalization in the case of Author Co-citation Analysis (ACA) is further complicated when one distinguishes between the symmetrical co-citation-or, more generally, co-occurrence-matrix and the underlying asymmetrical citation-occurrence-matrix. In the Web environment, the approach of retrieving original citation data and then using Salton's cosine or the Pearson correlation to construct a similarity matrix is often not feasible. In that case, one should use the Jaccard index, but preferentially after adding the number of total citations (occurrences) on the main diagonal. Unlike Salton's cosine and the Pearson correlation, the Jaccard index abstracts from the distribution and focuses only on the intersection and the sum of the two sets. Since the distributions in the co-occurrence matrix may partially be based on spurious correlations, this property of the Jaccard index can be considered as an advantage in this case. The argument is illustrated with empirical data. ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated . 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Mon Jan 22 04:25:46 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:25:46 +0100 Subject: SV: [SIGMETRICS] On the Normalization and Visualization of Co-citation Data In-Reply-To: <73573C2DCB0154408D790B1E7EDB0C5254C428@ka-exch01.db.dk> Message-ID: Dear Jesper, That is a pleasant surprise! Thank you so much. With best wishes, Loet _____ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Jesper Wiborg Schneider Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:36 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] SV: [SIGMETRICS] On the Normalization and Visualization of Co-citation Data Dear Loet and colleagues; In connection with the ongoing debate on proximity measures in co-citation studies, you may find the following forthcoming two-part article of interest: * Schneider, J. & Borlund, P. [ PDF] Matrix comparison, Part 1: Motivation and important issues for measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results. Accepted for publication in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. * Abstract: The present two-part article introduces matrix comparison as a formal means for evaluation purposes in informetric studies such as co-citation analysis. In this, the first part, the motivation behind introducing matrix comparison to informetric studies, as well as two important issues influencing such comparisons, are introduced and discussed. The motivation is spurred by the recent debate on choice of proximity measures and their potential influence upon clustering and ordination results. The two important issues discussed in the present first part are matrix generation and the composition of proximity measures. The present part of the article demonstrates that the approach to matrix generation for the same data set, that is how data is represented and transformed in a matrix, evidently determines the ?behaviour? of proximity measures. Two different matrix generation approaches, will therefore in all probability, lead to different proximity rankings of objects, which further lead to different ordination and clustering results for the same set of objects. Further, this part of the article also demonstrates that a resemblance in the composition of formulas indicates whether two proximity measures may produce similar ordination and clustering results. However, as shown in the case of the angular correlation and cosine measures, a small deviation in otherwise similar formulas, can lead to different rankings depending on the contour of the data matrix transformed. Eventually, the ?behaviour? of proximity measures, that is whether they produce similar rankings of objects, is more or less data-specific. Consequently, we recommend the use of empirical matrix comparison techniques for individual studies in order to investigate the degree of resemblance between proximity measures or their ordination results. Part two of the article introduces and demonstrates two related statistical matrix comparison techniques the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis, respectively. These techniques can compare and evaluate the degree of monotonicity between different proximity measures or their ordination results. As such, the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis can be used as statistical validation tools in informetric studies and thus help choosing suitable proximity measures. * Schneider, J. & Borlund, P. [ PDF] Matrix comparison, Part 2: Measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results by use of the Mantel and Procrustes statistics. Accepted for publication in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. * Abstract: The present two-part article introduces matrix comparison as a formal means for evaluation purposes in informetric studies such as co-citation analysis. In the first part, the motivation behind introducing matrix comparison to informetric studies, as well as two important issues influencing such comparisons, matrix generation and the composition of proximity measures, are introduced and discussed. .In this second part of the article, we introduce and thoroughly demonstrate two related matrix comparison techniques the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis, respectively. These techniques can compare and evaluate the degree of monotonicity between different proximity measures or their ordination results. In common to these techniques is the application of permutation procedures in order to test hypotheses about matrix resemblances. The choice of technique is related to the validation at hand. In the case of the Mantel test, the degree of resemblance between two measures forecast their potentially different affect upon ordination and clustering results. In principle, two proximity measures with a very strong resemblance most likely produce identical results, thus, choice of measure between the two becomes less important. Alternatively, or as a supplement, Procrustes analysis compares the actual ordination results without investigating the underlying proximity measures, by matching two configurations of the same objects in a multidimensional space. An advantage of the Procrustes analysis though, is the graphical solution provided by the superimposition plot and the resulting decomposition of variance components. Accordingly, the Procrustes analysis provides, not only a measure of general fit between configurations, but also values for individual objects enabling more elaborate validations. As such, the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis can be used as statistical validation tools in informetric studies and thus help choosing suitable proximity measures. Kind regards - Jesper ********************************************** Jesper Wiborg Schneider, PhD, Assistant Professor Department of Information Studies Royal School of Library & Information Science Sohng?rdsholmsvej 2, DK-9000 Aalborg, DENMARK Tel. +45 98773041, Fax. +45 98151042 E-mail: jws at db.dk Homepage:http://www.db.dk/jws ********************************************** _____ Fra: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] P? vegne af Loet Leydesdorff Sendt: 21. januar 2007 19:46 Til: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Emne: [SIGMETRICS] On the Normalization and Visualization of Co-citation Data On the Normalization and Visualization of Author Co-Citation Data Click here for PDF The debate about which similarity measure one should use for the normalization in the case of Author Co-citation Analysis (ACA) is further complicated when one distinguishes between the symmetrical co-citation?or, more generally, co-occurrence?matrix and the underlying asymmetrical citation?occurrence?matrix. In the Web environment, the approach of retrieving original citation data and then using Salton?s cosine or the Pearson correlation to construct a similarity matrix is often not feasible. In that case, one should use the Jaccard index, but preferentially after adding the number of total citations (occurrences) on the main diagonal. Unlike Salton?s cosine and the Pearson correlation, the Jaccard index abstracts from the distribution and focuses only on the intersection and the sum of the two sets. Since the distributions in the co-occurrence matrix may partially be based on spurious correlations, this property of the Jaccard index can be considered as an advantage in this case. The argument is illustrated with empirical data. _____ 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 j.hartley at PSY.KEELE.AC.UK Mon Jan 22 09:00:27 2007 From: j.hartley at PSY.KEELE.AC.UK (James Hartley) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:00:27 -0000 Subject: Research on abstracts Message-ID: I am running another e-mail experiment on abstracts for research articles. If you would like to take part, please go to: http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ps/jimh/abstracts2007.htm It should take about 10 mins, I imagine. If you would like more details, please e-mail me at j.hartley at psy.keele.ac.uk Many thanks. James Hartley School of Psychology Keele University Staffordshire ST5 5BG UK j.hartley at psy.keele.ac.uk From Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU Mon Jan 22 09:16:03 2007 From: Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU (Pikas, Christina K.) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:16:03 -0500 Subject: Amsterdam colloquia STS, January-March In-Reply-To: A<000201c73d73$79f792f0$1302a8c0@loet> Message-ID: Are these presentations available online as videos or podcasts? Thanks, Christina K. Pikas, MLS R.E. Gibson Library & Information Center The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Voice 240.228.4812 (Washington), 443.778.4812 (Baltimore) Fax 443.778.5353 ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:48 AM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Amsterdam colloquia STS, January-March Colloquia Science & Technology Dynamics in collaboration with the Amsterdam School of Communications Research ASCoR Amsterdam School of Social Science Research ASSR Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Academy January 26, 2007 Oost-Indisch Huis room OIH B017, 3-5 pm Willem Halffman (Amsterdam School of Social Science Research) Accounting the Commons: science advises conservation policy Eleftheria Vasileiadou (Amsterdam School of Communications Research) Practicing e-science: using different media for collaborative working practices February 23, 2007 Binnengasthuis-5 Room BG-5, 229, 3-5 pm Peter van den Besselaar The New Science of Science Policy Peter Groenewegen Reconstrucing and Constructing Communities through Social Networks March 30, 2007 Oost-Indisch Huis room OIH At-03, 3-5 pm Alesia Zuccala, The Thesis Paradox: An Empirical Study of the Impact of Doctoral Research Olga Amsterdamska, The Public Face of Research on Autism ** apologies for crosspostings ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated . 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ; The Challenge of Scientometrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon Jan 22 13:55:26 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:55:26 -0500 Subject: Full text now availabel - Bensman SJ "Garfield and the impact factor" Annual Review of Information Science & Technology 41: 93-155 2007 Message-ID: These two publications by Stephen J. Bensman are now available in full text at : Bensman S.J. "Garfield and the Impact Factor" Annual Review of Information Science and Technology" Vol: 41, p.93-155, 2007. Editor B. Cronin. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/bensman/bensman.html Bensman SJ. "Garfield and the Impact Factor: The creation, utilization, and validation of a citation measure" Part 2, The Probabilistic, Statistical, and Sociological Bases of the Measure - (Unpublished as of January 2007). http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/bensman/bensmanegif22007.pdf Stephen J Bensman : notsjb at lsu.edu Title: Garfield and the impact factor Author Full Names: Bensman, Stephen J. Source: ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 41: 93-155 2007 Reprint Address: Bensman, SJ, Louisiana State Univ, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA. Cited Reference Count: 94 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: INFORMATION TODAY INC; 143 OLD MARLTON PIKE, MEDFORD, NJ 08055- 8750 USA ISSN: 0066-4200 From dwojick at HUGHES.NET Wed Jan 24 12:10:52 2007 From: dwojick at HUGHES.NET (David E. Wojick) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:10:52 -0500 Subject: Science.world launched Message-ID: This is my project. Global Science Gateway Agreement Signed in London DOE Partners With British Library on "Science.world" Initiative http://www.doe.gov/news/4619.htm The goal is speeding up science and technology. We are not making this up. Open access plays a major role. David -- "The empires of the future are the empires of the mind." --Winston Churchill From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 24 15:12:48 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:12:48 -0500 Subject: Daim TU, Rueda G, Martin H, Gerdsri P. "Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis " Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73(8):981-1012 October 2006. Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: tugrul at etm.pdx.edu Title: Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis Author(s): Daim TU (Daim, Tugrul U.), Rueda G (Rueda, Guillenno), Martin H (Martin, Hilary), Gerdsri P (Gerdsri, Pisek) Source: TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE 73 (8): 981-1012 OCT 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 57 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: It is rather difficult to forecast emerging technologies as there is no historical data available. In such cases, the use of bibliometrics and patent analysis have provided useful data. This paper presents the forecasts for three emerging technology areas by integrating the use of bibliometrics and patent analysis into well-known technology forecasting tools such as scenario planning, growth curves and analogies. System dynamics is also used to be able to model the dynamic ecosystem of the technologies and their diffusion. Technologies being forecasted are fuel cell, food safety and optical storage technologies. Results from these three applications help us to validate the proposed methods as appropriate tools to forecast emerging technologies. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Addresses: Daim TU (reprint author), Portland State Univ, Maseeh Coll Engn & Comp Sci, Dept Engn & Technol Management, POB 751, Portland, OR 97207 USA Portland State Univ, Maseeh Coll Engn & Comp Sci, Dept Engn & Technol Management, Portland, OR 97207 USA E-mail Addresses: tugrul at etm.pdx.edu Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010- 1710 USA Subject Category: BUSINESS; PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT IDS Number: 089ES ISSN: 0040-1625 CITED REFERENCES: *CEC PROJ AUT FUEL CELL U : 2001 *EIA ANN EN REV : 2004 *EIA ANN EN REV : 2003 *FDA HLTH PEOPL 2000 STAT : 2000 ABRAHAM BP Innovation assessment through patent analysis TECHNOVATION 21 : 245 2001 ALAN SWC EXAMPLE PROCESS TECH : 321 2004 ASHTON WB RES TECHNOL MANAGE 32 : 36 1988 ASSICIATION CE FACTORY SALES DVD PL : 2005 BASBERG BL PATENTS AND THE MEASUREMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL-CHANGE - A SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE RESEARCH POLICY 16 : 131 1987 BENGISU M IN PRESS TECHNOL FOR BRINN M P 2003 SYST INF ENG : 2003 CARRILLO M TECHNOL FORECAST SOC : 69 2002 DEMOS T 60-second briefing - DVD tug of war FORTUNE 152 : 32 2005 EISENMANN T FUEL CELLS HYDROGEN : 18 FORRESTER JW IND DYNAMICS : 1961 GILLEN MA BILLBOARD 107 : 107 1995 KAPLAN J PC MAGAZINE 23 : 109 2004 KAPSTEIN J BUS WEEK : 44 1990 KOSTOFF RN Text mining using database tomography and bibliometrics: A review TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE 68 : 223 2001 LABRIOLA D PC MAGAZINE 23 : 30 2004 LASHINSKY A Ebay's first hire goes to the movies FORTUNE 151 : 36 2005 LEVIN C PC MAGAZINE 17 : 10 1998 LINSTONE HA DECISION MAKING TECH : 1999 LINSTONE HA MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVE : 1984 LIU SJ Strategic planning for technology development with patent analysis INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT 13 : 661 1997 MARTINO J TECHNOL FORECAST SOC : 719 2003 MARTINO JP TECHNOLOGICAL FORECA : 1993 MARTINO JP TECHNOLOGICAL FORECA : 1983 MEAD P FOOD RELATED ILLNESS : 2002 MEADE N Technological forecasting - Model selection, model stability, and combining models MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 44 : 1115 1998 MILLETT SM MANAGERS GUIDE TECHN : 1991 MISHRA S Matching of technological forecasting technique to a technology TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE 69 : 1 2002 MODIS T TECHNOL FORECAST SOC : 173 1999 MORRIS S DIVA: a visualization system for exploring document databases for technology forecasting COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING 43 : 841 2002 NORTON MJ INTRO CONCEPTS INFOR : 2001 PILKINGTON A PICMET 03 PORTLNS : 2003 PILKINGTON A PICMET 05 PORTL OR : 2000 PORTER A PORTL INT C MAN ENG : 2005 PORTER A TI MIN C P CORP TECH : 2003 PORTER AL FORECASTING MANAGEME : 1991 PORTER AL INNOVATION FORECAST : 1998 PORTER AL MINING PICMET 1997 2 : 2003 RICHARDSON GP INTRO SYSTEM DYNAMIC : 1981 RUEDA G PORTL INT C MAN ENG : 2003 SAGER B TECHNOL FORECAST SOC : 109 2003 SCHAEFFER G FUEL CELLS FUTURE CO : 1996 SHARPLEY AM COLLECTED ORIGINAL R 5 : 7 1981 SILBERGLITT R Analysis of US energy scenarios: Meta-scenarios, pathways, and policy implications TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE 70 : 297 2003 STERMAN J BUSINESS DYNAMICS SY : 2000 VEZIROGLU N PICMET 05 HYDR CIV P WAKELAND W WEBCT SYSTEM DYNAMIC : 2006 WANG YX A new tris-diimine ruthenium(II) derivative: nucleophilic ring opening of coordinated diazafluorenone INORGANIC CHEMISTRY COMMUNICATIONS 1 : 27 1998 WANTANABE C TECHNOVATION 21 : 783 2001 WARR B IN PRESS REXS FORECA WATTS RJ Innovation forecasting TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE 56 : 25 1997 WINEBRAKE JJ TECHNOL FORECAST SOC : 359 2003 YOUNG P TECHNOLOGICAL GROWTH-CURVES - A COMPETITION OF FORECASTING MODELS TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE 44 : 375 1993 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 24 15:18:32 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:18:32 -0500 Subject: Zhang MJ, Gao XY, Cao MD, Ma YJ "Modelling citation networks for improving scientific paper classification performance " PRICAI 2006: Trends in Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings Lecutre Notes in Artificial Intelligence 4099: 413-422 2006 Message-ID: E-mail Addresses: mengjie at mcs.vuw.ac.nz, xgao at mcs.vuw.ac.nz, minducao at mcs.vuw.ac.nz, myj at hebau.edu.cn Title: Modelling citation networks for improving scientific paper classification performance Author(s): Zhang MJ (Zhang, Mengjie), Gao XY (Gao, Xiaoying), Cao MD (Cao, Minh Due), Ma YJ (Ma, Yuejin) Source: PRICAI 2006: TRENDS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, PROCEEDINGS LECTURE NOTES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 4099: 413-422 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 25 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: This paper describes an approach to the use of citation links to improve the scientific paper classification performance. In this approach, we develop two refinement functions, a linear label refinement (LLR) and a probabilistic label refinement (PLR), to model the citation link structures of the scientific papers for refining the class labels of the documents obtained by the content-based Naive Bayes classification method. The approach with the two new refinement models is examined and compared with the content-based Naive Bayes method on a standard paper classification data set with increasing training set sizes. The results suggest that both refinement models can significantly improve the system performance over the content-based method for all the training set sizes and that PLR is better than LLR when the training examples are sufficient. Addresses: Zhang MJ (reprint author), Victoria Univ Wellington, Sch Math Stat & Comp Sci, POB 600, Wellington, New Zealand Victoria Univ Wellington, Sch Math Stat & Comp Sci, Wellington, New Zealand Agr Univ Hebei, Coll Mech & Elect Engn, Artificial Intelligence Res Ctr, Baoding, Peoples R China E-mail Addresses: mengjie at mcs.vuw.ac.nz, xgao at mcs.vuw.ac.nz, minducao at mcs.vuw.ac.nz, myj at hebau.edu.cn Publisher: SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, HEIDELBERGER PLATZ 3, D-14197 BERLIN, GERMANY IDS Number: BEY22 ISSN: 0302-9743 CITED REFERENCES : CAO MD P 18 AUSTR JOINT C A : 143 2005 CHAKRABARTI S P ACM SIGMOD INT C M : 307 1998 COWELL R INTRO INFERENCE BAYE : 9 1999 CRAVEN M Relational learning with statistical predicate invention: Better models for hypertext MACHINE LEARNING 43 : 97 2001 GETOOR L IJCAI WORKSH TEST LE : 2001 GHAHRAMANI Z HDB BRAIN THEORY NEU : 486 2003 JOACHIMS T P 10 EUR C MACH LEAR : 137 1998 JORDAN MI HDB BRAIN THEORY NEU : 490 2003 LEWIS DD P 3 ANN S DOC AN INF : 81 1994 LEWIS DD P ECML 98 10 EUR C M : 4 1998 LU Q ICML WORKSH CONT LAB : 2003 LU Q IJCAI WORKSH TEXT MI : 2003 LU Q INT C MACH LEARN : 2003 MACKAY DJC LEARNING GRAPHICAL M : 175 1999 MCCALLUM AK Automating the construction of internet portals with machine learning INFORMATION RETRIEVAL 3 : 127 2000 NIGAM K IJCAI 99 WORKSH MACH : 61 1999 OH HJ P 23 ANN INT ACM SIG : 264 2000 PAGE RN Moral aspects of curriculum: 'making kids care' about school knowledge JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 30 : 1 1998 PEARL J PROBABILISTIC REASON : 1988 QUINLAN JR LEARNING LOGICAL DEFINITIONS FROM RELATIONS MACHINE LEARNING 5 : 239 1990 RUIZ ME P SIGIR 99 22 ACM IN : 281 1999 RUSSELL S ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGE : 2005 TASKAR B P 17 INT JOINT C ART : 870 2001 YANG Y P 17 ANN INT ACM SIG : 13 1994 YEDIDIA JS TR200122 MIT EL RES : 2002 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 24 15:53:29 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:53:29 -0500 Subject: Ichise R. Takeda H. Ueyama K. "Exploration of researchers' social network for discovering communities " New Frontiers in AI Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 4012: 458-469 2006 Message-ID: E-MAIL ADDRESSES: Ryutaro Ichise : ichise at nii.ac.jp Hideaki Takeda : takeda at nii.ac.jp Kosuke Ueyama : ko at triax.jp -------------------------------------------------------------! FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT : http://www- kasm.nii.ac.jp/papers/takeda/06/ichise05posjsai06.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------- Title: Exploration of researchers' social network for discovering communities Author(s): Ichise R (Ichise, Ryutaro), Takeda H (Takeda, Hideaki), Ueyama K (Ueyama, Kosuke) Source: NEW FRONTIERS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LECTURE NOTES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 4012: 458-469 2006 Document Type: Article Language: English Cited References: 8 Times Cited: 0 Abstract: The research community plays a very important role in helping researchers undertake new research topics. The authors propose a community mining system that helps to find communities of researchers by using bibliography data. The basic concept of this system is to provide interactive visualization of communities both local and global communities. We implemented this concept using actual bibliography data and present a case study using the proposed system. Addresses: Ichise R (reprint author), Natl Inst Informat, Chiyoda Ku, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Tokyo 1018430, Japan Natl Inst Informat, Chiyoda Ku, Tokyo 1018430, Japan TRIAX Inc, Shinjyuku Ku, Tokyo 1690075, Japan E-mail Addresses: ichise at nii.ac.jp, takeda at nii.ac.jp, ko at triax.jp Publisher: SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, HEIDELBERGER PLATZ 3, D-14197 BERLIN, GERMANY Subject Category: COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IDS Number: BEV23 ISSN: 0302-9743 CITED REFERENCES: *W3C SVG WORK GROU SCAL VECT GRAPH 1 1 : 2003 BARABASI AL LINKED NEW SCI NETW : 2002 FREEMAN LC CENTRALITY IN SOCIAL NETWORKS CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION SOCIAL NETWORKS 1 : 215 1979 GARFIELD E CITATION INDEXES FOR SCIENCE - NEW DIMENSION IN DOCUMENTATION THROUGH ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS SCIENCE 122 : 108 1955 ICHISE R COMMUNITY MINING SY : 2005 MOTODA H ACTIVE MINING : 2002 NEWMAN MEJ Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 101 : 5200 2004 SMALL H COCITATION IN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE - NEW MEASURE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 2 DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 24 : 265 1973 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Wed Jan 24 16:10:06 2007 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (=?windows-1252?Q?Eugene_Garfield?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:10:06 -0500 Subject: McDonald JD "Understanding Online Journal Usage: A Statistical Analysis of Citation and Use " Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 58(1): 39-50, January 1, 2007 Message-ID: Email: jmcdonald at library.caltech.edu -------------------------------------------------------- FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT : http://caltechlib.library.caltech.edu/92/01/Preprint_Version.pdf --------------------------------------------------------- Email: jmcdonald at library.caltech.edu AUTHOR : JD McDonald TITLE : Understanding Online Journal Usage: A Statistical Analysis of Citation and Use SOURCE : Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 58(1): 39-50, January 1, 2007 Address : California Institute of Technology, Millikan Library 1-3, Pasadena, CA 91125 Email: jmcdonald at library.caltech.edu ABSTRACT: This study examined the relationship betweenprint journal use, online journal use, and online journal discovery tools with local journal citations. Local use measures were collected from 1997 to 2004 and negative binomial regression models were designed to test the effect that local use, online availability, and access enhancements have on citation behaviors of academic research authors. Models are proposed and tested to determine whether multiple locally recorded usage measures can predict citations and if locally controlled access enhancements influence citation. The regression results indicated that print journal use was a significant predictor of local journal citations prior to the adoption of online journals. Publisher-provided and locally recorded online journal use measures were also significant predictors of local citations. Online availability of a journal was found to significantly increase local citations and for some disciplines, a new access tool like an Open URL resolver significantly impacts citations and publisher provided journal usage measures. From krichel at OPENLIB.ORG Thu Jan 25 09:09:19 2007 From: krichel at OPENLIB.ORG (Thomas Krichel) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:09:19 -0600 Subject: OAI5 - 2nd call for posters Message-ID: The OAI5 Organising Committee is welcoming poster submissions for the 5th Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, which will take place from Wednesday 18th - Friday 20th April 2007. The deadline for submissions is 31st January 2007. Please consult the conference website for more information: http://cern.ch/oai5 Posters are invited on projects directly related to the themes of the workshop and decisions on acceptance will be communicated during February. Further information is found under the call for abstracts link on the webpage: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceCFA.py?confId=5710 The agenda for the workshop is also now available: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceOtherViews.py?view=standard&confId=5710 The OAI series of workshops is one of the biggest international meetings of technical repository-developers, library Open Access policy formulators, and the funders and researchers that they serve. The programme contains a mix of practical tutorials given by experts in the field, presentations from cutting-edge projects and research, posters from the community, breakout discussion groups, and an intense social programme which has helped to build a strong network amongst previous participants. The event is almost unique in bringing together these scholarly communication communities and is proud to continue this tradition with the OAI5 workshop in 2007. ******************************************** Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel On behalf of the OAI5 Organising Committee http://cern.ch/oai5 From ronald.rousseau at KHBO.BE Sat Jan 27 08:33:34 2007 From: ronald.rousseau at KHBO.BE (Ronald Rousseau) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:33:34 +0100 Subject: question Message-ID: 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. From notsjb at LSU.EDU Sat Jan 27 09:30:29 2007 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 08:30:29 -0600 Subject: question Message-ID: It is well known that review articles summarizing research receive on the average more citations than other types of articles. Your question is considered in the book below: Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons, Inc. Here Nariin write: CHI (Narin, 1976, pp. 183-219) developed its ?influence? method in a report prepared for the National Science Foundation. In this report it criticized Garfield?s impact factor as suffering from three basic faults (p. 184). First, although the impact factor corrects for journal size, it does not correct for average length of articles, and this caused journals, which published longer articles such as review journals, to have higher impact factors. My guess is that you would find no or low correlation between length of references and number of citations, but, if you used a chi-squared test of independence, you a strong positive association with review articles dominant in the high reference/high citation cell. As usual,It would be best to do this test with well-defined subject sets than globally to avoid the influence of exogenous subject variables. However, Narin seems to have been of a different opinion in respect to correlation, so you might look at what he did. SB Ronald Rousseau @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/27/2007 07:33:34 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] question 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. From Steven.Morris at BAKERHUGHES.COM Sat Jan 27 11:55:27 2007 From: Steven.Morris at BAKERHUGHES.COM (Morris, Steven (BA)) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:55:27 -0600 Subject: question Message-ID: Ronald, I agree that you'd probably only find a weak correlation between number of references cited and citations received if you don't distinguish between the type of paper (review or not) and the way it is used as a reference (well-cited exemplar reference or not). In my mind the relation is very much tied to the dynamics of specialty growth. In a recent paper [1] I asserted that after a discovery that prompts the birth of a specialty, there is a period of rapid growth in the specialty where scientists extend the discovery, and present evidence to support those extensions. The discovery paper and other early important papers become heavily cited 'exemplar references' during this growth period. At the end of the growth period, 'consolidation' review papers appear that codify and summarize the newly generated base knowledge in the new specialty. These consolidation papers can become highly cited exemplar references in the sense that they are cited as summaries of collected base knowledge. Some of these reviews become highly cited, some don't, I suspect it has to do both with timing (written at a point when the newly generated knowledge was ready to be codified), quality and comprehensiveness, and perceived authority of the review author. Given the growth and exemplar process described above, you'd expect the following: 1) Discovery papers, written before all the base knowledge in the specialty is generated, wouldn't cite many references, but would be cited heavily. I think there is evidence out there that discovery papers tend to have few references. I heard Kate McCain mention this once at a conference ;-), but I don't have a reference to support that. 2) Consolidation papers, written to summarize base knowledge immediately after initial growth, would cite many references and be cited heavily. Here, the problem is that only some of the consolidation papers become exceptionally heavily cited exemplar references (the winning reviews that provide the first good consolidation of the new knowledge), while others may just be cited at a 'normal' rate for reviews, which is probably a greater rate than non-review papers. Some notes: 1) There is certainly evidence that the mean number of references per paper increases over time. I've read this in the literature (though I can't recall where) and I've seen this in all specialty specific data sets where I've bothered to check it. I think this is function of specialty growth: The network of base knowledge in the specialty gets more intricate as the specialty grows and 'fills in the blanks', so authors of later papers have to cite more 'marker references' (Hargens' term [3]) to describe the position of the contribution of their papers in the network of base knowledge in the specialty... 2) There is a correlation between the mean number of references per paper and the length of the papers. Evidence for this is given by Abt[2]. So any correlations you find between number of references in the paper and the number of citations it receives may be related to length of papers. 3) In my experience, I find that the distribution of the number of references per paper is log normally distributed and that the mode of that distribution varies from one specialty to another. Now, this fact totally baffles me. What social or cognitive process would cause this distribution to appear? Is it tied to the same process that governs the distribution of length of papers? Some sort of proportional growth process? It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma! If you figure out what generates that log-normal distribution, I'll send you a one pound bottle of Tupelo honey as a prize.... Some other notes: If you want to study the correlation of references per paper to citations received, I suggest the following: 1) Gather specialty-specific collections of papers for your studies. The heterogeneity in a large multiple-specialty study will totally screw up the statistics... You should get about 1000 papers citing about 20,000 references for each specialty study... 2) Separate your references in the collection into 'exemplar' and 'non-exemplar', you can do this by applying a citation threshold, see [1]. 3) Arrange the exemplar references serially by the order of their appearance in the specialty. I have some SQL queries I can send you for doing this. 4) Look for 'discovery' references at the beginning of this sequence, and 'consolidation' references at the end of the sequence. 5) Study the correlation for 6 classes of reference: 1- general references, 2- general references less exemplar references, 3- discovery exemplar references, 4- consolidation exemplar references, 5- general review references, 6- general review references less exemplar references. Thanks, Steve [1] Morris, S. A., 2005, "Manifestation of emerging specialties in journal literature: a growth model of papers, references, exemplars, bibliographic coupling, cocitation, and clustering coefficient distribution" , JASIST, 56(2) 1250-1273 [2] Abt, H. A., 2000, "The reference-frequency relation in the physical sciences", Scientometrics, 49(3), 443-451. [3] Hargens, L. L., 2000, "Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship" American Sociological Review, 65(6), 846-865 ================================================= Steven A. Morris, Ph.D Electrical Engineer V, Technology Development Group Baker-Atlas/INTEQ Houston Technology Center 2001 Rankin Road, Houston, Texas 77073 Office: 713-625-5055, Cell: 405-269-6576 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 8:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question It is well known that review articles summarizing research receive on the average more citations than other types of articles. Your question is considered in the book below: Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons, Inc. Here Nariin write: CHI (Narin, 1976, pp. 183-219) developed its "influence" method in a report prepared for the National Science Foundation. In this report it criticized Garfield's impact factor as suffering from three basic faults (p. 184). First, although the impact factor corrects for journal size, it does not correct for average length of articles, and this caused journals, which published longer articles such as review journals, to have higher impact factors. My guess is that you would find no or low correlation between length of references and number of citations, but, if you used a chi-squared test of independence, you a strong positive association with review articles dominant in the high reference/high citation cell. As usual,It would be best to do this test with well-defined subject sets than globally to avoid the influence of exogenous subject variables. However, Narin seems to have been of a different opinion in respect to correlation, so you might look at what he did. SB Ronald Rousseau @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/27/2007 07:33:34 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] question 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. From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Sat Jan 27 17:59:50 2007 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:59:50 -0500 Subject: exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews Message-ID: If you export the results of a search in WebofKnowledge into the HistCite software (e.g. your 1000 hits, then the default result after you request an historiograph will be the "exemplar references". I would be cautious in describing the significance of review articles in such simplistic terms. I don't recall any studies in which there is an analysis of why people cite reviews. Really good scholarly reviews are a lot more than mere bibliographic surrogates, though they may be useful in that respect as well. Interpretative reviews often play a key role in the historical development of topics. Gene Garfield -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Morris, Steven (BA) Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:55 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question Ronald, I agree that you'd probably only find a weak correlation between number of references cited and citations received if you don't distinguish between the type of paper (review or not) and the way it is used as a reference (well-cited exemplar reference or not). In my mind the relation is very much tied to the dynamics of specialty growth. In a recent paper [1] I asserted that after a discovery that prompts the birth of a specialty, there is a period of rapid growth in the specialty where scientists extend the discovery, and present evidence to support those extensions. The discovery paper and other early important papers become heavily cited 'exemplar references' during this growth period. At the end of the growth period, 'consolidation' review papers appear that codify and summarize the newly generated base knowledge in the new specialty. These consolidation papers can become highly cited exemplar references in the sense that they are cited as summaries of collected base knowledge. Some of these reviews become highly cited, some don't, I suspect it has to do both with timing (written at a point when the newly generated knowledge was ready to be codified), quality and comprehensiveness, and perceived authority of the review author. Given the growth and exemplar process described above, you'd expect the following: 1) Discovery papers, written before all the base knowledge in the specialty is generated, wouldn't cite many references, but would be cited heavily. I think there is evidence out there that discovery papers tend to have few references. I heard Kate McCain mention this once at a conference ;-), but I don't have a reference to support that. 2) Consolidation papers, written to summarize base knowledge immediately after initial growth, would cite many references and be cited heavily. Here, the problem is that only some of the consolidation papers become exceptionally heavily cited exemplar references (the winning reviews that provide the first good consolidation of the new knowledge), while others may just be cited at a 'normal' rate for reviews, which is probably a greater rate than non-review papers. Some notes: 1) There is certainly evidence that the mean number of references per paper increases over time. I've read this in the literature (though I can't recall where) and I've seen this in all specialty specific data sets where I've bothered to check it. I think this is function of specialty growth: The network of base knowledge in the specialty gets more intricate as the specialty grows and 'fills in the blanks', so authors of later papers have to cite more 'marker references' (Hargens' term [3]) to describe the position of the contribution of their papers in the network of base knowledge in the specialty... 2) There is a correlation between the mean number of references per paper and the length of the papers. Evidence for this is given by Abt[2]. So any correlations you find between number of references in the paper and the number of citations it receives may be related to length of papers. 3) In my experience, I find that the distribution of the number of references per paper is log normally distributed and that the mode of that distribution varies from one specialty to another. Now, this fact totally baffles me. What social or cognitive process would cause this distribution to appear? Is it tied to the same process that governs the distribution of length of papers? Some sort of proportional growth process? It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma! If you figure out what generates that log-normal distribution, I'll send you a one pound bottle of Tupelo honey as a prize.... Some other notes: If you want to study the correlation of references per paper to citations received, I suggest the following: 1) Gather specialty-specific collections of papers for your studies. The heterogeneity in a large multiple-specialty study will totally screw up the statistics... You should get about 1000 papers citing about 20,000 references for each specialty study... 2) Separate your references in the collection into 'exemplar' and 'non-exemplar', you can do this by applying a citation threshold, see [1]. 3) Arrange the exemplar references serially by the order of their appearance in the specialty. I have some SQL queries I can send you for doing this. 4) Look for 'discovery' references at the beginning of this sequence, and 'consolidation' references at the end of the sequence. 5) Study the correlation for 6 classes of reference: 1- general references, 2- general references less exemplar references, 3- discovery exemplar references, 4- consolidation exemplar references, 5- general review references, 6- general review references less exemplar references. Thanks, Steve [1] Morris, S. A., 2005, "Manifestation of emerging specialties in journal literature: a growth model of papers, references, exemplars, bibliographic coupling, cocitation, and clustering coefficient distribution" , JASIST, 56(2) 1250-1273 [2] Abt, H. A., 2000, "The reference-frequency relation in the physical sciences", Scientometrics, 49(3), 443-451. [3] Hargens, L. L., 2000, "Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship" American Sociological Review, 65(6), 846-865 ================================================= Steven A. Morris, Ph.D Electrical Engineer V, Technology Development Group Baker-Atlas/INTEQ Houston Technology Center 2001 Rankin Road, Houston, Texas 77073 Office: 713-625-5055, Cell: 405-269-6576 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 8:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question It is well known that review articles summarizing research receive on the average more citations than other types of articles. Your question is considered in the book below: Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons, Inc. Here Nariin write: CHI (Narin, 1976, pp. 183-219) developed its "influence" method in a report prepared for the National Science Foundation. In this report it criticized Garfield's impact factor as suffering from three basic faults (p. 184). First, although the impact factor corrects for journal size, it does not correct for average length of articles, and this caused journals, which published longer articles such as review journals, to have higher impact factors. My guess is that you would find no or low correlation between length of references and number of citations, but, if you used a chi-squared test of independence, you a strong positive association with review articles dominant in the high reference/high citation cell. As usual,It would be best to do this test with well-defined subject sets than globally to avoid the influence of exogenous subject variables. However, Narin seems to have been of a different opinion in respect to correlation, so you might look at what he did. SB Ronald Rousseau @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/27/2007 07:33:34 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] question 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Jan 28 15:32:52 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:32:52 +0100 Subject: A global perspective on the world science system (updated for 2006) Message-ID: 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: att52b0.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1101 bytes Desc: not available URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Sun Jan 28 21:01:27 2007 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:01:27 -0600 Subject: exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews Message-ID: >From my readings I have been able to distill three basic reasons that are advanced for why review articles are cited more than other articles. First, there is the theory that review articles are longer, than other articles, and long articles with many citations are more likely to be cited than short articles with few citations. I find this doubtful. Second, there is the view that scientists are lazy, and it easier and quicker to read a review article than to plow through the literature yourself. Some persons of the this opinion dismiss review articles as mindless compendiums of abstracts and feel that citations to review articles are less worthy than citations to research articles. And, third, review articles are authoritative summaries of research that distinguish between the good and the bad, providing guidance for further research. The last two are functional explanations, and I would tend to believe that it is the functional role of review articles that causes them to be more highly cited than others. However, there certainly needs to be a lot more research on this question. SB Eugene Garfield @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 01/27/2007 04:59:50 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] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews If you export the results of a search in WebofKnowledge into the HistCite software (e.g. your 1000 hits, then the default result after you request an historiograph will be the "exemplar references". I would be cautious in describing the siglificance of review articles in quch simplistic terms. I don't recall any studies in which there is an analysis of why people cite reviews. Really good scholarly reviews are a lot more than mere bibliographic surrogates, though they may be useful in that respect as well. Interpretative reviews often play a key role in the historical development of topics. Gene Garfield -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Morris, Steven (BA) Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:55 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question Ronald, I agree that you'd probably only find a weak correlation between number of references cited and citations received if you don't distinguish between the type of paper (review or not) and the way it is used as a reference (well-cited exemplar reference or not). In my mind the relation is very much tied to the dynamics of specialty growth. In a recent paper [1] I asserted that after a discovery that prompts the birth of a specialty, there is a period of rapid growth in the specialty where scientists extend the discovery, and present evidence to support those extensions. The discovery paper and other early important papers become heavily cited 'exemplar references' during this growth period. At the end of the growth period, 'consolidation' review papers appear that codify and summarize the newly generated base knowledge in the new specialty. These consolidation papers can become highly cited exemplar references in the sense that they are cited as summaries of collected base knowledge. Some of these reviews become highly cited, some don't, I suspect it has to do both with timing (written at a point when the newly generated knowledge was ready to be codified), quality and comprehensiveness, and perceived authority of the review autho! r. Given the growth and exemplar process described above, you'd expect the following: 1) Discovery papers, written before all the base knowledge in the specialty is generated, wouldn't cite many references, but would be cited heavily. I think there is evidence out there that discovery papers tend to have few references. I heard Kate McCain mention this once at a conference ;-), but I don't have a reference to support that. 2) Consolidation papers, written to summarize base knowledge immediately after initial growth, would cite many references and be cited heavily. Here, the problem is that only some of the consolidation papers become exceptionally heavily cited exemplar references (the winning reviews that provide the first good consolidation of the new knowledge), while others may just be cited at a 'normal' rate for reviews, which is probably a greater rate than non-review papers. Some notes: 1) There is certainly evidence that the mean number of references per paper increases over time. I've read this in the literature (though I can't recall where) and I've seen this in all specialty specific data sets where I've bothered to check it. I think this is function of specialty growth: The network of base knowledge in the specialty gets more intricate as the specialty grows and 'fills in the blanks', so authors of later papers have to cite more 'marker references' (Hargens' term [3]) to describe the position of the contribution of their papers in the network of base knowledge in the specialty... 2) There is a correlation between the mean number of references per paper and the length of the papers. Evidence for this is given by Abt[2]. So any correlations you find between number of references in the paper and the number of citations it receives may be related to length of papers. 3) In my experience, I find that the distribution of the number of references per paper is log normally distributed and that the mode of that distribution varies from one specialty to another. Now, this fact totally baffles me. What social or cognitive process would cause this distribution to appear? Is it tied to the same process that governs the distribution of length of papers? Some sort of proportional growth process? It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma! If you figure out what generates that log-normal distribution, I'll send you a one pound bottle of Tupelo honey as a prize.... Some other notes: If you want to study the correlation of references per paper to citations received, I suggest the following: 1) Gather specialty-specific collections of papers for your studies. The heterogeneity in a large multiple-specialty study will totally screw up the statistics... You should get about 1000 papers citing about 20,000 references for each specialty study... 2) Separate your references in the collection into 'exemplar' and 'non-exemplar', you can do this by applying a citation threshold, see [1]. 3) Arrange the exemplar references serially by the order of their appearance in the specialty. I have some SQL queries I can send you for doing this. 4) Look for 'discovery' references at the beginning of this sequence, and 'consolidation' references at the end of the sequence. 5) Study the correlation for 6 classes of reference: 1- general references, 2- general references less exemplar references, 3- discovery exemplar references, 4- consolidation exemplar references, 5- general review references, 6- general review references less exemplar references. Thanks, Steve [1] Morris, S. A., 2005, "Manifestation of emerging specialties in journal literature: a growth model of papers, references, exemplars, bibliographic coupling, cocitation, and clustering coefficient distribution" , JASIST, 56(2) 1250-1273 [2] Abt, H. A., 2000, "The reference-frequency relation in the physical sciences", Scientometrics, 49(3), 443-451. [3] Hargens, L. L., 2000, "Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship" American Sociological Review, 65(6), 846-865 ================================================= Steven A. Morris, Ph.D Electrical Engineer V, Technology Development Group Baker-Atlas/INTEQ Houston Technology Center 2001 Rankin Road, Houston, Texas 77073 Office: 713-625-5055, Cell: 405-269-6576 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 8:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question It is well known that review articles summarizing research receive on the average more citations than other types of articles. Your question is considered in the book below: Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons, Inc. Here Nariin write: CHI (Narin, 1976, pp. 183-219) developed its "influence" method in a report prepared for the National Science Foundation. In this report it criticized Garfield's impact factor as suffering from three basic faults (p. 184). First, although the impact factor corrects for journal size, it does not correct for average length of articles, and this caused journals, which published longer articles such as review journals, to have higher impact factors. My guess is that you would find no or low correlation between length of references and number of citations, but, if you used a chi-squared test of independence, you a strong positive association with review articles dominant in the high reference/high citation cell. As usual,It would be best to do this test with well-defined subject sets than globally to avoid the influence of exogenous subject variables. However, Narin seems to have been of a different opinion in respect to correlation, so you might look at what he did. SB Ronald Rousseau @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/27/2007 07:33:34 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] question 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM From azun at METU.EDU.TR Mon Jan 29 02:26:38 2007 From: azun at METU.EDU.TR (ali uzun) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:26:38 +0200 Subject: question In-Reply-To: <5684403FA3D2F3428B36D8FE68E0293E50D6FC@MSGHOUMBX5.ent.bhicorp.com> Message-ID: -----Dear Morris, The question of relationship between the number of times a paper is cited (citations received) and the number of references it contains was firs posed in the 1960s (Derek J. De Solla Price, Science 149, 510-515, 1965). I have studied a sample of 467 papers published in Scientometrics from 1999 to 2003 and counted thecitations they received until 2005. A Chi-Squre test of independence showed that the two indicators are dependent (at 0.01 level of significance). The linear correlation coefficient between them turned out to be 0.799). Please see the details of the paper from the Proocedings of International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Seventh Collnet Meeting, 10-12 May 2006 Inist-Loria, Nancy-France. -------------- > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Ronald, > > I agree that you'd probably only find a weak correlation between number > of references cited and citations received if you don't distinguish > between the type of paper (review or not) and the way it is used as a > reference (well-cited exemplar reference or not). > > In my mind the relation is very much tied to the dynamics of specialty > growth. In a recent paper [1] I asserted that after a discovery that > prompts the birth of a specialty, there is a period of rapid growth in > the specialty where scientists extend the discovery, and present > evidence to support those extensions. The discovery paper and other > early important papers become heavily cited 'exemplar references' during > this growth period. At the end of the growth period, 'consolidation' > review papers appear that codify and summarize the newly generated base > knowledge in the new specialty. These consolidation papers can become > highly cited exemplar references in the sense that they are cited as > summaries of collected base knowledge. Some of these reviews become > highly cited, some don't, I suspect it has to do both with timing > (written at a point when the newly generated knowledge was ready to be > codified), quality and comprehensiveness, and perceived authority of the > review author. > > Given the growth and exemplar process described above, you'd expect the > following: > > 1) Discovery papers, written before all the base knowledge in the > specialty is generated, wouldn't cite many references, but would be > cited heavily. I think there is evidence out there that discovery papers > tend to have few references. I heard Kate McCain mention this once at a > conference ;-), but I don't have a reference to support that. > > 2) Consolidation papers, written to summarize base knowledge immediately > after initial growth, would cite many references and be cited heavily. > Here, the problem is that only some of the consolidation papers become > exceptionally heavily cited exemplar references (the winning reviews > that provide the first good consolidation of the new knowledge), while > others may just be cited at a 'normal' rate for reviews, which is > probably a greater rate than non-review papers. > > Some notes: > > 1) There is certainly evidence that the mean number of references per > paper increases over time. I've read this in the literature (though I > can't recall where) and I've seen this in all specialty specific data > sets where I've bothered to check it. I think this is function of > specialty growth: The network of base knowledge in the specialty gets > more intricate as the specialty grows and 'fills in the blanks', so > authors of later papers have to cite more 'marker references' (Hargens' > term [3]) to describe the position of the contribution of their papers > in the network of base knowledge in the specialty... > > 2) There is a correlation between the mean number of references per > paper and the length of the papers. Evidence for this is given by > Abt[2]. So any correlations you find between number of references in the > paper and the number of citations it receives may be related to length > of papers. > > 3) In my experience, I find that the distribution of the number of > references per paper is log normally distributed and that the mode of > that distribution varies from one specialty to another. Now, this fact > totally baffles me. What social or cognitive process would cause this > distribution to appear? Is it tied to the same process that governs > the distribution of length of papers? Some sort of proportional growth > process? It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma! If you figure out what > generates that log-normal distribution, I'll send you a one pound bottle > of Tupelo honey as a prize.... > > Some other notes: > > If you want to study the correlation of references per paper to > citations received, I suggest the following: > > 1) Gather specialty-specific collections of papers for your studies. The > heterogeneity in a large multiple-specialty study will totally screw up > the statistics... You should get about 1000 papers citing about > 20,000 references for each specialty study... > 2) Separate your references in the collection into 'exemplar' and > 'non-exemplar', you can do this by applying a citation threshold, see > [1]. > 3) Arrange the exemplar references serially by the order of their > appearance in the specialty. I have some SQL queries I can send you for > doing this. > 4) Look for 'discovery' references at the beginning of this sequence, > and 'consolidation' references at the end of the sequence. > 5) Study the correlation for 6 classes of reference: 1- general > references, 2- general references less exemplar references, 3- discovery > exemplar references, 4- consolidation exemplar references, 5- general > review references, 6- general review references less exemplar > references. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > [1] Morris, S. A., 2005, "Manifestation of emerging specialties in > journal literature: a growth model of papers, references, exemplars, > bibliographic coupling, cocitation, and clustering coefficient > distribution" , JASIST, 56(2) 1250-1273 > [2] Abt, H. A., 2000, "The reference-frequency relation in the physical > sciences", Scientometrics, 49(3), 443-451. > [3] Hargens, L. L., 2000, "Using the literature: Reference networks, > reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship" American > Sociological Review, 65(6), 846-865 > > > > ================================================= > Steven A. Morris, Ph.D > Electrical Engineer V, Technology Development Group > Baker-Atlas/INTEQ > Houston Technology Center > 2001 Rankin Road, Houston, Texas 77073 > Office: 713-625-5055, Cell: 405-269-6576 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 8:30 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > It is well known that review articles summarizing research receive on > the > average more citations than other types of articles. Your question is > considered in the book below: > > Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and > citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry > Hill, > NJ: Computer Horizons, Inc. > > Here Nariin write: > > CHI (Narin, 1976, pp. 183-219) developed its "influence" method in a > report > prepared for the National Science Foundation. In this report it > criticized > Garfield's impact factor as suffering from three basic faults (p. 184). > First, although the impact factor corrects for journal size, it does not > correct for average length of articles, and this caused journals, which > published longer articles such as review journals, to have higher impact > factors. > > > > My guess is that you would find no or low correlation between length of > references and number of citations, but, if you used a chi-squared test > of > independence, you a strong positive association with review articles > dominant in the high reference/high citation cell. As usual,It would be > best to do this test with well-defined subject sets than globally to > avoid > the influence of exogenous subject variables. However, Narin seems to > have > been of a different opinion in respect to correlation, so you might look > at > what he did. > > SB > > > > > Ronald Rousseau @listserv.utk.edu> on > 01/27/2007 > 07:33:34 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] question > > 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. > From azun at METU.EDU.TR Mon Jan 29 02:44:05 2007 From: azun at METU.EDU.TR (ali uzun) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:44:05 +0200 Subject: question In-Reply-To: <1169904814.45bb54ae60d01@webmail.khbo.be> Message-ID: ------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. > From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Mon Jan 29 03:01:50 2007 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:01:50 +0100 Subject: question In-Reply-To: <200701290744.l0T7iBM8013452@tenedos.general.services.metu.edu.tr> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, One would expect a within-field effect and a between-field effect. If fields have a practice of having longer reference lists (e.g., biochemistry vs. mathematics) than one might expect an average higher citation rate. Ali Uzun's study obviously focuses on the within-field effect (scientometrics). It would be interesting if this were tested for a number of fields. With best wishes, Loet ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of ali uzun > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:44 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > 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. > > > From krichel at OPENLIB.ORG Mon Jan 29 08:02:43 2007 From: krichel at OPENLIB.ORG (Thomas Krichel) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:02:43 -0600 Subject: question In-Reply-To: <200701290744.l0T7iBM8013452@tenedos.general.services.metu.edu.tr> Message-ID: ali uzun writes > Uzun, A. (2006). Proceedings of the International Workshop on > Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics, 87-91,10-12 May 2006, > Nancy-France Available here: http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00006043/ Cheers, Thomas Krichel mailto:krichel at openlib.org http://openlib.org/home/krichel RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel skype id: thomaskrichel From Hakan.Carlsson at LUB.LU.SE Mon Jan 29 08:37:33 2007 From: Hakan.Carlsson at LUB.LU.SE (=?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E5kan_Carlsson?=) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:37:33 +0100 Subject: Postdoc Position in Bibliometrics at Lund University, Sweden Message-ID: Apologies for cross-posting NEW POSTDOC POSITION IN THE AREA OF BIBLIOMETRICS A postdoc position for a newly graduated Ph.D. holder in the area of bibliometrics is open for applications. The work will be carried out at the Head Office of the Lund University Libraries in Lund, Sweden. The Lund University Library system is continuously involved in studies and policy issues within the area of scientific communication and has been an important player in the developments through e.g. a national resource centre (Sciecom.org) and the conference series NCSC - Nordic Conferences on Scholarly Communication. The office is currently involved in a major expansion of its bibliometric services. The position has a generous setup through Riksbankens Jubileumsfond and the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities and allows for five years of funding and mentoring in a trainee model. The program also includes 25% of local activities to connect the position to the Head Office. For more information on the position and application instructions, please see http://www.lub.lu.se/trainee_en.shtml . Last day for applications is February 10, 2007 Best regards, H?kan Carlsson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katy at INDIANA.EDU Mon Jan 29 09:07:06 2007 From: katy at INDIANA.EDU (Katy Borner) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:07:06 -0500 Subject: A global perspective on the world science system (updated for 2006) In-Reply-To: <005e01c7431b$7c6f85d0$1302a8c0@loet> Message-ID: Loet, Did you play with http://tools.google.com/gapminder and listen to http://tedblog.typepad.com/tedblog/2006/06/hans_rosling_on.html ? It is relevant to the point below - even if other data was used. There are also some true comments regarding 'preconceptualizations'. Enjoy, k Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Is the United States losing ground in science? > A global perspective on the world science system (updated for 2006) > > > > > Based on the Science Citation Index-Expanded web-version, the USA is > still by far the strongest nation in terms of scientific performance. > Its relative decline in percentage share of publications is largely > due to the emergence of China and other Asian nations. In 2006, China > has become the second largest nation in terms of the number of > publications within this database. In terms of citations, the > competitive advantage of the American "domestic market" is diminished, > while the European Union (EU) is profiting more from the enlargement > of the database over time than the US. However, the USA is still > outperforming all other countries in terms of highly cited papers and > citation/publication ratios, and it is more successful than the EU in > coordinating its research efforts in strategic priority areas like > nanotechnology. In this field, > China has become second largest in both numbers of papers published > and citations behind the USA. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Loet Leydesdorff > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) > Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam > Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 > loet at leydesdorff.net ; > http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > > Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, > Simulated > . > 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 > The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society > ; > The Challenge of Scientometrics > > > > -- 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1101 bytes Desc: not available URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Mon Jan 29 09:33:39 2007 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:33:39 -0600 Subject: question Message-ID: 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 ------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. > From eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Mon Jan 29 19:04:13 2007 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:04:13 -0500 Subject: exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews Message-ID: Stephen: I fully agree with your last statement. And upon reflection I am surprised that those of us who have been involved in publishing review articles have not stimulated a better understanding of why the review literature is so important. Since I have served on the Board of Annual Reviews for over 20 years I will take up this question perhaps at our next annual meeting in May. In the meantime I am forwarding these comments to my colleague there and hope they will have some input. A major problem with the scientometrics literature is the heavy focus on the literature of information and library science rather than the kind of reviewing that goes on in the natural and physical sciences. Readers of this listserv interested in this topic would do well to look at the characteristics of the several dozen winners of the National Academy of Sciences annual award for excellence in scientific reviewing. They should keep in mind that several hundred leading scientists and scholars devote an enormous amount of time and energy to writing reviews. They are not universally applauded for this effort, but in my personal experience most of them consider it an activity that is crucial to their success as creative scientists and teachers. Gene Garfield -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:01 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews >From my readings I have been able to distill three basic reasons that are advanced for why review articles are cited more than other articles. First, there is the theory that review articles are longer, than other articles, and long articles with many citations are more likely to be cited than short articles with few citations. I find this doubtful. Second, there is the view that scientists are lazy, and it easier and quicker to read a review article than to plow through the literature yourself. Some persons of the this opinion dismiss review articles as mindless compendiums of abstracts and feel that citations to review articles are less worthy than citations to research articles. And, third, review articles are authoritative summaries of research that distinguish between the good and the bad, providing guidance for further research. The last two are functional explanations, and I would tend to believe that it is the functional role of review articles that causes them to be more highly cited than others. However, there certainly needs to be a lot more research on this question. SB Eugene Garfield @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 01/27/2007 04:59:50 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] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews If you export the results of a search in WebofKnowledge into the HistCite software (e.g. your 1000 hits, then the default result after you request an historiograph will be the "exemplar references". I would be cautious in describing the siglificance of review articles in quch simplistic terms. I don't recall any studies in which there is an analysis of why people cite reviews. Really good scholarly reviews are a lot more than mere bibliographic surrogates, though they may be useful in that respect as well. Interpretative reviews often play a key role in the historical development of topics. Gene Garfield -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Morris, Steven (BA) Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:55 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question Ronald, I agree that you'd probably only find a weak correlation between number of references cited and citations received if you don't distinguish between the type of paper (review or not) and the way it is used as a reference (well-cited exemplar reference or not). In my mind the relation is very much tied to the dynamics of specialty growth. In a recent paper [1] I asserted that after a discovery that prompts the birth of a specialty, there is a period of rapid growth in the specialty where scientists extend the discovery, and present evidence to support those extensions. The discovery paper and other early important papers become heavily cited 'exemplar references' during this growth period. At the end of the growth period, 'consolidation' review papers appear that codify and summarize the newly generated base knowledge in the new specialty. These consolidation papers can become highly cited exemplar references in the sense that they are cited as summaries of collected base knowledge. Some of these reviews become highly cited, some don't, I suspect it has to do both with timing (written at a point when the newly generated knowledge was ready to be codified), quality and comprehensiveness, and perceived authority of the review autho! r. Given the growth and exemplar process described above, you'd expect the following: 1) Discovery papers, written before all the base knowledge in the specialty is generated, wouldn't cite many references, but would be cited heavily. I think there is evidence out there that discovery papers tend to have few references. I heard Kate McCain mention this once at a conference ;-), but I don't have a reference to support that. 2) Consolidation papers, written to summarize base knowledge immediately after initial growth, would cite many references and be cited heavily. Here, the problem is that only some of the consolidation papers become exceptionally heavily cited exemplar references (the winning reviews that provide the first good consolidation of the new knowledge), while others may just be cited at a 'normal' rate for reviews, which is probably a greater rate than non-review papers. Some notes: 1) There is certainly evidence that the mean number of references per paper increases over time. I've read this in the literature (though I can't recall where) and I've seen this in all specialty specific data sets where I've bothered to check it. I think this is function of specialty growth: The network of base knowledge in the specialty gets more intricate as the specialty grows and 'fills in the blanks', so authors of later papers have to cite more 'marker references' (Hargens' term [3]) to describe the position of the contribution of their papers in the network of base knowledge in the specialty... 2) There is a correlation between the mean number of references per paper and the length of the papers. Evidence for this is given by Abt[2]. So any correlations you find between number of references in the paper and the number of citations it receives may be related to length of papers. 3) In my experience, I find that the distribution of the number of references per paper is log normally distributed and that the mode of that distribution varies from one specialty to another. Now, this fact totally baffles me. What social or cognitive process would cause this distribution to appear? Is it tied to the same process that governs the distribution of length of papers? Some sort of proportional growth process? It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma! If you figure out what generates that log-normal distribution, I'll send you a one pound bottle of Tupelo honey as a prize.... Some other notes: If you want to study the correlation of references per paper to citations received, I suggest the following: 1) Gather specialty-specific collections of papers for your studies. The heterogeneity in a large multiple-specialty study will totally screw up the statistics... You should get about 1000 papers citing about 20,000 references for each specialty study... 2) Separate your references in the collection into 'exemplar' and 'non-exemplar', you can do this by applying a citation threshold, see [1]. 3) Arrange the exemplar references serially by the order of their appearance in the specialty. I have some SQL queries I can send you for doing this. 4) Look for 'discovery' references at the beginning of this sequence, and 'consolidation' references at the end of the sequence. 5) Study the correlation for 6 classes of reference: 1- general references, 2- general references less exemplar references, 3- discovery exemplar references, 4- consolidation exemplar references, 5- general review references, 6- general review references less exemplar references. Thanks, Steve [1] Morris, S. A., 2005, "Manifestation of emerging specialties in journal literature: a growth model of papers, references, exemplars, bibliographic coupling, cocitation, and clustering coefficient distribution" , JASIST, 56(2) 1250-1273 [2] Abt, H. A., 2000, "The reference-frequency relation in the physical sciences", Scientometrics, 49(3), 443-451. [3] Hargens, L. L., 2000, "Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship" American Sociological Review, 65(6), 846-865 ================================================= Steven A. Morris, Ph.D Electrical Engineer V, Technology Development Group Baker-Atlas/INTEQ Houston Technology Center 2001 Rankin Road, Houston, Texas 77073 Office: 713-625-5055, Cell: 405-269-6576 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 8:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question It is well known that review articles summarizing research receive on the average more citations than other types of articles. Your question is considered in the book below: Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons, Inc. Here Nariin write: CHI (Narin, 1976, pp. 183-219) developed its "influence" method in a report prepared for the National Science Foundation. In this report it criticized Garfield's impact factor as suffering from three basic faults (p. 184). First, although the impact factor corrects for journal size, it does not correct for average length of articles, and this caused journals, which published longer articles such as review journals, to have higher impact factors. My guess is that you would find no or low correlation between length of references and number of citations, but, if you used a chi-squared test of independence, you a strong positive association with review articles dominant in the high reference/high citation cell. As usual,It would be best to do this test with well-defined subject sets than globally to avoid the influence of exogenous subject variables. However, Narin seems to have been of a different opinion in respect to correlation, so you might look at what he did. SB Ronald Rousseau @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/27/2007 07:33:34 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] question 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/654 - Release Date: 1/27/2007 5:02 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/657 - Release Date: 1/29/2007 9:04 AM From notsjb at LSU.EDU Mon Jan 29 20:47:49 2007 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:47:49 -0600 Subject: exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews Message-ID: Sir, The recent posting of the finding of a high correlation of references in articles to citations received by articles has caused me to rethink my position somewhat. Up to now, I considered the higher citation rate of review articles to be purely due to the important function review articles play in scientific literature. However, the person stated that he had excluded review articles. If this finding is true, there may be another factor at work. This is subject comprehensiveness. It is well known that general journals like the multidisciplinary Science and Nature as well as such general field journals like the Journal of the American Chemical Society tend to be much larger and attract citations at a higher rate. In faculty surveys I have noted that these general journals have higher ratings, because their subject comprehensiveness makes them pertinent to more faculty than narrowly specialized journals. The same factors may be at play with larger articles with more references. These articles may be more subject comprehensive and, due to this fact, may attract a larger readership and more citations. The same may hold true for review articles, which may be more subject comprehensive. Therefore, the higher citation rate of review articles may not only be due to their function but also due to their subject scope. In any case, it does seem to be an aspect that somebody should investigate. SB Eugene Garfield @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/29/2007 06:04:13 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] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews Stephen: I fully agree with your last statement. And upon reflection I am surprised that those of us who have been involved in publishing review articles have not stimulated a better understanding of why the review literature is so important. Since I have served on the Board of Annual Reviews for over 20 years I will take up this question perhaps at our next annual meeting in May. In the meantime I am forwarding these comments to my colleague there and hope they will have some input. A major problem with the scientometrics literature is the heavy focus on the literature of information and library science rather than the kind of reviewing that goes on in the natural and physical sciences. Readers of this listserv interested in this topic would do well to look at the characteristics of the several dozen winners of the National Academy of Sciences annual award for excellence in scientific reviewing. They should keep in mind that several hundred leading scientists and scholars devote an enormous amount of time and energy to writing reviews. They are not universally applauded for this effort, but in my personal experience most of them consider it an activity that is crucial to their success as creative scientists and teachers. Gene Garfield -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:01 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews >From my readings I have been able to distill three basic reasons that are advanced for why review articles are cited more than other articles. First, there is the theory that review articles are longer, than other articles, and long articles with many citations are more likely to be cited than short articles with few citations. I find this doubtful. Second, there is the view that scientists are lazy, and it easier and quicker to read a review article than to plow through the literature yourself. Some persons of the this opinion dismiss review articles as mindless compendiums of abstracts and feel that citations to review articles are less worthy than citations to research articles. And, third, review articles are authoritative summaries of research that distinguish between the good and the bad, providing guidance for further research. The last two are functional explanations, and I would tend to believe that it is the functional role of review articles that causes them ! to be more highly cited than others. However, there certainly needs to be a lot more research on this question. SB Eugene Garfield @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 01/27/2007 04:59:50 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] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews If you export the results of a search in WebofKnowledge into the HistCite software (e.g. your 1000 hits, then the default result after you request an historiograph will be the "exemplar references". I would be cautious in describing the siglificance of review articles in quch simplistic terms. I don't recall any studies in which there is an analysis of why people cite reviews. Really good scholarly reviews are a lot more than mere bibliographic surrogates, though they may be useful in that respect as well. Interpretative reviews often play a key role in the historical development of topics. Gene Garfield -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Morris, Steven (BA) Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:55 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question Ronald, I agree that you'd probably only find a weak correlation between number of references cited and citations received if you don't distinguish between the type of paper (review or not) and the way it is used as a reference (well-cited exemplar reference or not). In my mind the relation is very much tied to the dynamics of specialty growth. In a recent paper [1] I asserted that after a discovery that prompts the birth of a specialty, there is a period of rapid growth in the specialty where scientists extend the discovery, and present evidence to support those extensions. The discovery paper and other early important papers become heavily cited 'exemplar references' during this growth period. At the end of the growth period, 'consolidation' review papers appear that codify and summarize the newly generated base knowledge in the new specialty. These consolidation papers can become highly cited exemplar references in the sense that they are cited as summaries of collected base knowledge. Some of these reviews become highly cited, some don't, I suspect it has to do both with timing (written at a point when the newly generated knowledge was ready to be codified), quality and comprehensiveness, and perceived authority of the review autho! ! r. Given the growth and exemplar process described above, you'd expect the following: 1) Discovery papers, written before all the base knowledge in the specialty is generated, wouldn't cite many references, but would be cited heavily. I think there is evidence out there that discovery papers tend to have few references. I heard Kate McCain mention this once at a conference ;-), but I don't have a reference to support that. 2) Consolidation papers, written to summarize base knowledge immediately after initial growth, would cite many references and be cited heavily. Here, the problem is that only some of the consolidation papers become exceptionally heavily cited exemplar references (the winning reviews that provide the first good consolidation of the new knowledge), while others may just be cited at a 'normal' rate for reviews, which is probably a greater rate than non-review papers. Some notes: 1) There is certainly evidence that the mean number of references per paper increases over time. I've read this in the literature (though I can't recall where) and I've seen this in all specialty specific data sets where I've bothered to check it. I think this is function of specialty growth: The network of base knowledge in the specialty gets more intricate as the specialty grows and 'fills in the blanks', so authors of later papers have to cite more 'marker references' (Hargens' term [3]) to describe the position of the contribution of their papers in the network of base knowledge in the specialty... 2) There is a correlation between the mean number of references per paper and the length of the papers. Evidence for this is given by Abt[2]. So any correlations you find between number of references in the paper and the number of citations it receives may be related to length of papers. 3) In my experience, I find that the distribution of the number of references per paper is log normally distributed and that the mode of that distribution varies from one specialty to another. Now, this fact totally baffles me. What social or cognitive process would cause this distribution to appear? Is it tied to the same process that governs the distribution of length of papers? Some sort of proportional growth process? It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma! If you figure out what generates that log-normal distribution, I'll send you a one pound bottle of Tupelo honey as a prize.... Some other notes: If you want to study the correlation of references per paper to citations received, I suggest the following: 1) Gather specialty-specific collections of papers for your studies. The heterogeneity in a large multiple-specialty study will totally screw up the statistics... You should get about 1000 papers citing about 20,000 references for each specialty study... 2) Separate your references in the collection into 'exemplar' and 'non-exemplar', you can do this by applying a citation threshold, see [1]. 3) Arrange the exemplar references serially by the order of their appearance in the specialty. I have some SQL queries I can send you for doing this. 4) Look for 'discovery' references at the beginning of this sequence, and 'consolidation' references at the end of the sequence. 5) Study the correlation for 6 classes of reference: 1- general references, 2- general references less exemplar references, 3- discovery exemplar references, 4- consolidation exemplar references, 5- general review references, 6- general review references less exemplar references. Thanks, Steve [1] Morris, S. A., 2005, "Manifestation of emerging specialties in journal literature: a growth model of papers, references, exemplars, bibliographic coupling, cocitation, and clustering coefficient distribution" , JASIST, 56(2) 1250-1273 [2] Abt, H. A., 2000, "The reference-frequency relation in the physical sciences", Scientometrics, 49(3), 443-451. [3] Hargens, L. L., 2000, "Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship" American Sociological Review, 65(6), 846-865 ================================================= Steven A. Morris, Ph.D Electrical Engineer V, Technology Development Group Baker-Atlas/INTEQ Houston Technology Center 2001 Rankin Road, Houston, Texas 77073 Office: 713-625-5055, Cell: 405-269-6576 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 8:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question It is well known that review articles summarizing research receive on the average more citations than other types of articles. Your question is considered in the book below: Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons, Inc. Here Nariin write: CHI (Narin, 1976, pp. 183-219) developed its "influence" method in a report prepared for the National Science Foundation. In this report it criticized Garfield's impact factor as suffering from three basic faults (p. 184). First, although the impact factor corrects for journal size, it does not correct for average length of articles, and this caused journals, which published longer articles such as review journals, to have higher impact factors. My guess is that you would find no or low correlation between length of references and number of citations, but, if you used a chi-squared test of independence, you a strong positive association with review articles dominant in the high reference/high citation cell. As usual,It would be best to do this test with well-defined subject sets than globally to avoid the influence of exogenous subject variables. However, Narin seems to have been of a different opinion in respect to correlation, so you might look at what he did. SB Ronald Rousseau @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/27/2007 07:33:34 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] question 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/654 - Release Date: 1/27/2007 5:02 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/657 - Release Date: 1/29/2007 9:04 AM From azun at METU.EDU.TR Tue Jan 30 02:37:26 2007 From: azun at METU.EDU.TR (ali uzun) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:37:26 +0200 Subject: question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----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. > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: France1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 205367 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dwojick at HUGHES.NET Tue Jan 30 07:23:18 2007 From: dwojick at HUGHES.NET (David E. Wojick) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:23:18 -0500 Subject: A global perspective on the world science system (updated for 2006) In-Reply-To: <005e01c7431b$7c6f85d0$1302a8c0@loet> Message-ID: I am bothered by the concept of "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: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >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 eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM Tue Jan 30 10:31:54 2007 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSON.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:31:54 -0500 Subject: exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews Message-ID: This is a topic suitable for a series of doctoral dissertations. Teasing out all the relevant factors will not be easy. And it will probably be different in each field. It would be quite a challenge just to define what is meant by "subject comprehensiveness". One might argue that the number of cited references in the review is one such measure. EG -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:48 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews Sir, The recent posting of the finding of a high correlation of references in articles to citations received by articles has caused me to rethink my position somewhat. Up to now, I considered the higher citation rate of review articles to be purely due to the important function review articles play in scientific literature. However, the person stated that he had excluded review articles. If this finding is true, there may be another factor at work. This is subject comprehensiveness. It is well known that general journals like the multidisciplinary Science and Nature as well as such general field journals like the Journal of the American Chemical Society tend to be much larger and attract citations at a higher rate. In faculty surveys I have noted that these general journals have higher ratings, because their subject comprehensiveness makes them pertinent to more faculty than narrowly specialized journals. The same factors may be at play with larger articles with more references. These articles may be more subject comprehensive and, due to this fact, may attract a larger readership and more citations. The same may hold true for review articles, which may be more subject comprehensive. Therefore, the higher citation rate of review articles may not only be due to their function but also due to their subject scope. In any case, it does seem to be an aspect that somebody should investigate. SB Eugene Garfield @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/29/2007 06:04:13 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] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews Stephen: I fully agree with your last statement. And upon reflection I am surprised that those of us who have been involved in publishing review articles have not stimulated a better understanding of why the review literature is so important. Since I have served on the Board of Annual Reviews for over 20 years I will take up this question perhaps at our next annual meeting in May. In the meantime I am forwarding these comments to my colleague there and hope they will have some input. A major problem with the scientometrics literature is the heavy focus on the literature of information and library science rather than the kind of reviewing that goes on in the natural and physical sciences. Readers of this listserv interested in this topic would do well to look at the characteristics of the several dozen winners of the National Academy of Sciences annual award for excellence in scientific reviewing. They should keep in mind that several hundred leading scientists and scholars devote an enormous amount of time and energy to writing reviews. They are not universally applauded for this effort, but in my personal experience most of them consider it an activity that is crucial to their success as creative scientists and teachers. Gene Garfield -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:01 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews >From my readings I have been able to distill three basic reasons that are advanced for why review articles are cited more than other articles. First, there is the theory that review articles are longer, than other articles, and long articles with many citations are more likely to be cited than short articles with few citations. I find this doubtful. Second, there is the view that scientists are lazy, and it easier and quicker to read a review article than to plow through the literature yourself. Some persons of the this opinion dismiss review articles as mindless compendiums of abstracts and feel that citations to review articles are less worthy than citations to research articles. And, third, review articles are authoritative summaries of research that distinguish between the good and the bad, providing guidance for further research. The last two are functional explanations, and I would tend to believe that it is the functional role of review articles that causes them ! to be more highly cited than others. However, there certainly needs to be a lot more research on this question. SB Eugene Garfield @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 01/27/2007 04:59:50 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] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews If you export the results of a search in WebofKnowledge into the HistCite software (e.g. your 1000 hits, then the default result after you request an historiograph will be the "exemplar references". I would be cautious in describing the siglificance of review articles in quch simplistic terms. I don't recall any studies in which there is an analysis of why people cite reviews. Really good scholarly reviews are a lot more than mere bibliographic surrogates, though they may be useful in that respect as well. Interpretative reviews often play a key role in the historical development of topics. Gene Garfield -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Morris, Steven (BA) Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:55 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question Ronald, I agree that you'd probably only find a weak correlation between number of references cited and citations received if you don't distinguish between the type of paper (review or not) and the way it is used as a reference (well-cited exemplar reference or not). In my mind the relation is very much tied to the dynamics of specialty growth. In a recent paper [1] I asserted that after a discovery that prompts the birth of a specialty, there is a period of rapid growth in the specialty where scientists extend the discovery, and present evidence to support those extensions. The discovery paper and other early important papers become heavily cited 'exemplar references' during this growth period. At the end of the growth period, 'consolidation' review papers appear that codify and summarize the newly generated base knowledge in the new specialty. These consolidation papers can become highly cited exemplar references in the sense that they are cited as summaries of collected base knowledge. Some of these reviews become highly cited, some don't, I suspect it has to do both with timing (written at a point when the newly generated knowledge was ready to be codified), quality and comprehensiveness, and perceived authority of the review autho! ! r. Given the growth and exemplar process described above, you'd expect the following: 1) Discovery papers, written before all the base knowledge in the specialty is generated, wouldn't cite many references, but would be cited heavily. I think there is evidence out there that discovery papers tend to have few references. I heard Kate McCain mention this once at a conference ;-), but I don't have a reference to support that. 2) Consolidation papers, written to summarize base knowledge immediately after initial growth, would cite many references and be cited heavily. Here, the problem is that only some of the consolidation papers become exceptionally heavily cited exemplar references (the winning reviews that provide the first good consolidation of the new knowledge), while others may just be cited at a 'normal' rate for reviews, which is probably a greater rate than non-review papers. Some notes: 1) There is certainly evidence that the mean number of references per paper increases over time. I've read this in the literature (though I can't recall where) and I've seen this in all specialty specific data sets where I've bothered to check it. I think this is function of specialty growth: The network of base knowledge in the specialty gets more intricate as the specialty grows and 'fills in the blanks', so authors of later papers have to cite more 'marker references' (Hargens' term [3]) to describe the position of the contribution of their papers in the network of base knowledge in the specialty... 2) There is a correlation between the mean number of references per paper and the length of the papers. Evidence for this is given by Abt[2]. So any correlations you find between number of references in the paper and the number of citations it receives may be related to length of papers. 3) In my experience, I find that the distribution of the number of references per paper is log normally distributed and that the mode of that distribution varies from one specialty to another. Now, this fact totally baffles me. What social or cognitive process would cause this distribution to appear? Is it tied to the same process that governs the distribution of length of papers? Some sort of proportional growth process? It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma! If you figure out what generates that log-normal distribution, I'll send you a one pound bottle of Tupelo honey as a prize.... Some other notes: If you want to study the correlation of references per paper to citations received, I suggest the following: 1) Gather specialty-specific collections of papers for your studies. The heterogeneity in a large multiple-specialty study will totally screw up the statistics... You should get about 1000 papers citing about 20,000 references for each specialty study... 2) Separate your references in the collection into 'exemplar' and 'non-exemplar', you can do this by applying a citation threshold, see [1]. 3) Arrange the exemplar references serially by the order of their appearance in the specialty. I have some SQL queries I can send you for doing this. 4) Look for 'discovery' references at the beginning of this sequence, and 'consolidation' references at the end of the sequence. 5) Study the correlation for 6 classes of reference: 1- general references, 2- general references less exemplar references, 3- discovery exemplar references, 4- consolidation exemplar references, 5- general review references, 6- general review references less exemplar references. Thanks, Steve [1] Morris, S. A., 2005, "Manifestation of emerging specialties in journal literature: a growth model of papers, references, exemplars, bibliographic coupling, cocitation, and clustering coefficient distribution" , JASIST, 56(2) 1250-1273 [2] Abt, H. A., 2000, "The reference-frequency relation in the physical sciences", Scientometrics, 49(3), 443-451. [3] Hargens, L. L., 2000, "Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship" American Sociological Review, 65(6), 846-865 ================================================= Steven A. Morris, Ph.D Electrical Engineer V, Technology Development Group Baker-Atlas/INTEQ Houston Technology Center 2001 Rankin Road, Houston, Texas 77073 Office: 713-625-5055, Cell: 405-269-6576 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 8:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question It is well known that review articles summarizing research receive on the average more citations than other types of articles. Your question is considered in the book below: Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons, Inc. Here Nariin write: CHI (Narin, 1976, pp. 183-219) developed its "influence" method in a report prepared for the National Science Foundation. In this report it criticized Garfield's impact factor as suffering from three basic faults (p. 184). First, although the impact factor corrects for journal size, it does not correct for average length of articles, and this caused journals, which published longer articles such as review journals, to have higher impact factors. My guess is that you would find no or low correlation between length of references and number of citations, but, if you used a chi-squared test of independence, you a strong positive association with review articles dominant in the high reference/high citation cell. As usual,It would be best to do this test with well-defined subject sets than globally to avoid the influence of exogenous subject variables. However, Narin seems to have been of a different opinion in respect to correlation, so you might look at what he did. SB Ronald Rousseau @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/27/2007 07:33:34 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] question 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/654 - Release Date: 1/27/2007 5:02 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/657 - Release Date: 1/29/2007 9:04 AM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/657 - Release Date: 1/29/2007 9:04 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.15/659 - Release Date: 1/30/2007 9:31 AM From notsjb at LSU.EDU Tue Jan 30 11:48:21 2007 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:48:21 -0600 Subject: exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews Message-ID: Sir, For the hell of it, I am posting below a screed I wrote during a debate over the nature of the scientific journal market in the SERIALS PRICING NEWSLETTER. As is usual with my stuff, it is highly ideological and sarcastic, but I do lay out a lot of the issues involved in journal evaluation and pricing. In this screed, I take up the issue of a journal's subject scope to its position in the scientific social stratification system. You will note that the screed opens with a denial that I wrote in the name of LSU Libraries. I still have the mark on my knuckles, from where my dean rapped them. SB 225.2 BENSMAN'S RIPOSTE TO CAMERON Stephen Bensman, Louisiana State University, notjsb at lsu.edu In his response to the screeds by Johnson and me (220), Cameron has made several points which themselves call for responses. In making these responses I want to emphasize that I am only expressing my personal opinions, and these opinions in no way reflect official policy at LSU Libraries, particularly in respect to SPARC. First among the points made by Cameron is his statement, "I don't believe there are any generalisations that can usefully be made about journal titles and quality of content -- even if one can agree on an objective definition of quality." One of the main themes in the writings of Robert K. Merton, a founder of the sociology of science, is that science operates on universalistic principles. Thus, he wrote (On Social Structure and Science, 1996, p. 269), "The imperative of universalism is rooted deep in the impersonal character of science." If Merton were correct, then there should be measures of scientific quality which will manifest high degrees of consensus and consistency. And, indeed, this proved to be the case in the research done here at Louisiana State University (Library Resources & Technical Services 40, 1996: 145-183; Library Resources & Technical Services 42, 1998: 147-242). For example, high intercorrelations ranging from 0.72 to 0.86 were found in the field of chemistry between LSU faculty ratings, total Institute of Scientific Information citations, and library use at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, revealing these to be virtually equivalent measures of universal scientific value. As a further indication of the universalism -- and stability -- of the scientific information system, the journals supplying the most documents from the British Library Lending Division in 1975 were also among the ones most highly rated by the LSU faculty in 1995. The fact that the dominance of US association journals over commercial ones manifested itself in LSU faculty ratings in every one of 33 subject areas is surely proof that there is something fundamental taking place. I should also like to comment on Cameron's statement, "There are many examples of new journals ... in niche areas ... which have rapidly become highly respected and contain extremely high value material." In my approach to scientific value I based myself on philosophic idealism, particularly Bishop Berkeley's dictum that the essence of an object is in its perception. Therefore, LSU faculty ratings became my main criterion, and other measures had to correlate with them. In general, I found LSU faculty ratings of quality to be a confounding of the following factors: 1) something subjective the raters perceived to be "quality" or "utility"; 2) personal advantage or whether the raters could publish in the journal; 3) the social status of the scientists publishing in the journal; 4) the size of the journal in both its physical and time aspects; and 5) the subject comprehensiveness of the journal. It is the last point I want to focus on, because it is this point which Noll and Steinmueller (Serials Review 18, No. 2, 1992: 32-37) emphasize in their monopoly competition model. In general, I found that the broader the subject scope of the journal, the more highly the LSU faculty rated it, because the broader subject scope made it pertinent to a wider spectrum of raters. Therefore, the two most highly rated journals were Science and Nature. Because LSU faculty ratings were so highly correlated with total citations and library use, it can be deduced that the same processes are also operative in these measures. This brings us to the problem of niche journals. An inspection of the articles in Science and Nature should reveal that although the subject scope of these journals is broad, the subject scope of the articles is not, giving credence to the Noll and Steinmueller contention that the constant narrowing of the subject scope of new journals is a device for creating smaller social hierarchies to open publication space for research of lesser quality. In their opinion -- and my research appears to bear them out -- these smaller journals are leading to the dysfunctions of monopoly competition. The smaller journals may have played an important role when the scientific information system was based upon a seventeenth-century paper technology. For example, the noted historian of science, Derek J. de Solla Price (Science since Babylon, 1961, p. 70; Little Science, Big Science, 1963, p. 73) regarded the founding of a new journal as one of the traditional ways his "invisible colleges" of scientists communicated with each other and the rise of specialized journals as marking the attainment of near autonomy by each of the separate disciplines. However, the niche journals have clearly become dysfunctional, and in the era of the Internet it seems that their purposes could be fulfilled in more cost-effective ways. The last point made by Cameron with which I want to deal pertains to his critique of Johnson's defense of SPARC. Here Cameron makes the astute observation, "On the whole journals are not competitive with one another and it is not my understanding that the SPARC journals set out in head to head competition with other journals but maybe I am wrong here." With this statement Cameron puts his finger on the entire basis of monopoly competition and one of the major fallacies underlying the thinking behind SPARC. Scientific articles are not fungible, and therefore one journal cannot be substituted for another. Each journal comprises a little monopoly, including those that will be promoted by SPARC. The 1999 US Periodical Price Index just published in American Libraries (30, May 1999: 84-92) shows that the inflationary spiral of serials prices is continuing, and the only way many libraries will be able to subscribe to the new SPARC titles with the given level of funding will be to cancel other titles. Since the careers of many faculty members are dependent on these other titles, librarians will find themselves in the midst of a class war among scientists. A look at the line-up of the social forces involved in the infamous Heinz Barschall affair should tell them that. From this perspective the SPARC project appears to be an act of mass political suicide on the part of the ARL directors. The only way to break up these little monopolies from a politically neutral position is the adoption of a free market through document delivery. It strikes me as highly ironical that scientists -- supposedly the most intelligent and rational creatures on earth -- have spawned an information system that is economically inefficient by every definition of this term. Until now there has been precious little science applied in the analysis of the scientific information system. However, we are now entering the age of computer information, and the one thing computers do best is count. Therefore, the first step in applying science to the scientific information system is to understand the operation and effect of the counting distributions that underlie this system. Once you attempt to do this, you are staring down the barrel of Karl Pearson and the other British biometricians who launched a revolution in probability theory in the late nineteenth century. As has been the case so often in the advance of human knowledge, it is back to the future. Eugene Garfield @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/30/2007 09:31:54 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] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews This is a topic suitable for a series of doctoral dissertations. Teasing out all the relevant factors will not be easy. And it will probably be different in each field. It would be quite a challenge just to define what is meant by "subject comprehensiveness". One might argue that the number of cited references in the review is one such measure. EG -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:48 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews Sir, The recent posting of the finding of a high correlation of references in articles to citations received by articles has caused me to rethink my position somewhat. Up to now, I considered the higher citation rate of review articles to be purely due to the important function review articles play in scientific literature. However, the person stated that he had excluded review articles. If this finding is true, there may be another factor at work. This is subject comprehensiveness. It is well known that general journals like the multidisciplinary Science and Nature as well as such general field journals like the Journal of the American Chemical Society tend to be much larger and attract citations at a higher rate. In faculty surveys I have noted that these general journals have higher ratings, because their subject comprehensiveness makes them pertinent to more faculty than narrowly specialized journals. The same factors may be at play with larger articles with more refer! ences. These articles may be more subject comprehensive and, due to this fact, may attract a larger readership and more citations. The same may hold true for review articles, which may be more subject comprehensive. Therefore, the higher citation rate of review articles may not only be due to their function but also due to their subject scope. In any case, it does seem to be an aspect that somebody should investigate. SB Eugene Garfield @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/29/2007 06:04:13 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] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews Stephen: I fully agree with your last statement. And upon reflection I am surprised that those of us who have been involved in publishing review articles have not stimulated a better understanding of why the review literature is so important. Since I have served on the Board of Annual Reviews for over 20 years I will take up this question perhaps at our next annual meeting in May. In the meantime I am forwarding these comments to my colleague there and hope they will have some input. A major problem with the scientometrics literature is the heavy focus on the literature of information and library science rather than the kind of reviewing that goes on in the natural and physical sciences. Readers of this listserv interested in this topic would do well to look at the characteristics of the several dozen winners of the National Academy of Sciences annual award for excellence in scientific reviewing. They should keep in mind that several hundred leading scientists and scholars devote an enormous amount of time and energy to writing reviews. They are not universally applauded for this effort, but in my personal experience most of them consider it an activity that is crucial to their success as creative scientists and teachers. Gene Garfield -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:01 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews >From my readings I have been able to distill three basic reasons that are advanced for why review articles are cited more than other articles. First, there is the theory that review articles are longer, than other articles, and long articles with many citations are more likely to be cited than short articles with few citations. I find this doubtful. Second, there is the view that scientists are lazy, and it easier and quicker to read a review article than to plow through the literature yourself. Some persons of the this opinion dismiss review articles as mindless compendiums of abstracts and feel that citations to review articles are less worthy than citations to research articles. And, third, review articles are authoritative summaries of research that distinguish between the good and the bad, providing guidance for further research. The last two are functional explanations, and I would tend to believe that it is the functional role of review articles that causes them ! ! to be more highly cited than others. However, there certainly needs to be a lot more research on this question. SB Eugene Garfield @LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 01/27/2007 04:59:50 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] exaemplar references and significance of scholarly reviews If you export the results of a search in WebofKnowledge into the HistCite software (e.g. your 1000 hits, then the default result after you request an historiograph will be the "exemplar references". I would be cautious in describing the siglificance of review articles in quch simplistic terms. I don't recall any studies in which there is an analysis of why people cite reviews. Really good scholarly reviews are a lot more than mere bibliographic surrogates, though they may be useful in that respect as well. Interpretative reviews often play a key role in the historical development of topics. Gene Garfield -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Morris, Steven (BA) Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:55 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question Ronald, I agree that you'd probably only find a weak correlation between number of references cited and citations received if you don't distinguish between the type of paper (review or not) and the way it is used as a reference (well-cited exemplar reference or not). In my mind the relation is very much tied to the dynamics of specialty growth. In a recent paper [1] I asserted that after a discovery that prompts the birth of a specialty, there is a period of rapid growth in the specialty where scientists extend the discovery, and present evidence to support those extensions. The discovery paper and other early important papers become heavily cited 'exemplar references' during this growth period. At the end of the growth period, 'consolidation' review papers appear that codify and summarize the newly generated base knowledge in the new specialty. These consolidation papers can become highly cited exemplar references in the sense that they are cited as summaries of collected base knowledge. Some of these reviews become highly cited, some don't, I suspect it has to do both with timing (written at a point when the newly generated knowledge was ready to be codified), quality and comprehensiveness, and perceived authority of the review autho! ! ! r. Given the growth and exemplar process described above, you'd expect the following: 1) Discovery papers, written before all the base knowledge in the specialty is generated, wouldn't cite many references, but would be cited heavily. I think there is evidence out there that discovery papers tend to have few references. I heard Kate McCain mention this once at a conference ;-), but I don't have a reference to support that. 2) Consolidation papers, written to summarize base knowledge immediately after initial growth, would cite many references and be cited heavily. Here, the problem is that only some of the consolidation papers become exceptionally heavily cited exemplar references (the winning reviews that provide the first good consolidation of the new knowledge), while others may just be cited at a 'normal' rate for reviews, which is probably a greater rate than non-review papers. Some notes: 1) There is certainly evidence that the mean number of references per paper increases over time. I've read this in the literature (though I can't recall where) and I've seen this in all specialty specific data sets where I've bothered to check it. I think this is function of specialty growth: The network of base knowledge in the specialty gets more intricate as the specialty grows and 'fills in the blanks', so authors of later papers have to cite more 'marker references' (Hargens' term [3]) to describe the position of the contribution of their papers in the network of base knowledge in the specialty... 2) There is a correlation between the mean number of references per paper and the length of the papers. Evidence for this is given by Abt[2]. So any correlations you find between number of references in the paper and the number of citations it receives may be related to length of papers. 3) In my experience, I find that the distribution of the number of references per paper is log normally distributed and that the mode of that distribution varies from one specialty to another. Now, this fact totally baffles me. What social or cognitive process would cause this distribution to appear? Is it tied to the same process that governs the distribution of length of papers? Some sort of proportional growth process? It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma! If you figure out what generates that log-normal distribution, I'll send you a one pound bottle of Tupelo honey as a prize.... Some other notes: If you want to study the correlation of references per paper to citations received, I suggest the following: 1) Gather specialty-specific collections of papers for your studies. The heterogeneity in a large multiple-specialty study will totally screw up the statistics... You should get about 1000 papers citing about 20,000 references for each specialty study... 2) Separate your references in the collection into 'exemplar' and 'non-exemplar', you can do this by applying a citation threshold, see [1]. 3) Arrange the exemplar references serially by the order of their appearance in the specialty. I have some SQL queries I can send you for doing this. 4) Look for 'discovery' references at the beginning of this sequence, and 'consolidation' references at the end of the sequence. 5) Study the correlation for 6 classes of reference: 1- general references, 2- general references less exemplar references, 3- discovery exemplar references, 4- consolidation exemplar references, 5- general review references, 6- general review references less exemplar references. Thanks, Steve [1] Morris, S. A., 2005, "Manifestation of emerging specialties in journal literature: a growth model of papers, references, exemplars, bibliographic coupling, cocitation, and clustering coefficient distribution" , JASIST, 56(2) 1250-1273 [2] Abt, H. A., 2000, "The reference-frequency relation in the physical sciences", Scientometrics, 49(3), 443-451. [3] Hargens, L. L., 2000, "Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship" American Sociological Review, 65(6), 846-865 ================================================= Steven A. Morris, Ph.D Electrical Engineer V, Technology Development Group Baker-Atlas/INTEQ Houston Technology Center 2001 Rankin Road, Houston, Texas 77073 Office: 713-625-5055, Cell: 405-269-6576 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 8:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question It is well known that review articles summarizing research receive on the average more citations than other types of articles. Your question is considered in the book below: Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Cherry Hill, NJ: Computer Horizons, Inc. Here Nariin write: CHI (Narin, 1976, pp. 183-219) developed its "influence" method in a report prepared for the National Science Foundation. In this report it criticized Garfield's impact factor as suffering from three basic faults (p. 184). First, although the impact factor corrects for journal size, it does not correct for average length of articles, and this caused journals, which published longer articles such as review journals, to have higher impact factors. My guess is that you would find no or low correlation between length of references and number of citations, but, if you used a chi-squared test of independence, you a strong positive association with review articles dominant in the high reference/high citation cell. As usual,It would be best to do this test with well-defined subject sets than globally to avoid the influence of exogenous subject variables. However, Narin seems to have been of a different opinion in respect to correlation, so you might look at what he did. SB Ronald Rousseau @listserv.utk.edu> on 01/27/2007 07:33:34 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] question 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/654 - Release Date: 1/27/2007 5:02 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/657 - Release Date: 1/29/2007 9:04 AM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/657 - Release Date: 1/29/2007 9:04 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.15/659 - Release Date: 1/30/2007 9:31 AM From notsjb at LSU.EDU Tue Jan 30 12:17:04 2007 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:17:04 -0600 Subject: question Message-ID: 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 -----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) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: France1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 205368 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Steven.Morris at BAKERHUGHES.COM Tue Jan 30 13:44:39 2007 From: Steven.Morris at BAKERHUGHES.COM (Morris, Steven (BA)) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:44:39 -0600 Subject: question Message-ID: Ali's paper is nicely done, and study should be easy to duplicate and extend in a couple of different ways. Particularly, it would be interesting to see how the number of references correlates to citations received in other fields. Much of scientometrics borders on slow-moving social science concepts where the knowledge doesn't cumulate quickly. How do things correlate in fast moving specialties undergoing rapid knowledge cumulation and specialization, e.g., biomedicine or certain areas in physics. The thing I find curious about the study is that there is a large number of papers, 30%, that have fewer than 10 references. One would think that these would be maybe short communications or letters, rather than full papers. I think it would be interesting to examine a few of those low reference count papers and summarize their characteristics. Also, the process by which the papers are classed as letters, articles, and reviews may have some flaws. Who decides? It's probably the editor's decision, and it may not be so easy to do. After all, a paper can include a fairly substantial literature review, as well as original information -- is it a review? .. or an article? Another thing that would be interesting to see would be a scatter plot of the 467 articles with number of references on the x axis, and number of citations received on the y axis along with the line of fit. Such a visual presentation really helps to assess the 'goodness' of the correlation that is being established, and usually shows if outliers are adversely affecting the analysis. Below shows a histogram of papers binned according to the number of references that they cite, taken from a collection of 'all papers from the journal Scientometrics plus all papers that cite a paper from Scientometrics." The data was gathered from WOS in 2005. I think that about half the papers in the collection are from Scientometrics, while the rest are from other journals. Without a cumulative plot, it's hard to tell, but it could be that the 30% percentile occurs at about 10 papers. I've fitted a lognormal distribution to the data, which has a mode of about 19 papers, which, for this distribution, probably works out to a mean 25 references per paper. Is it possible that the quartiles of this distribution could be used to discriminate short communications from articles from reviews? ================================================= Steven A. Morris, Ph.D Electrical Engineer V, Technology Development Group Baker-Atlas/INTEQ Houston Technology Center 2001 Rankin Road, Houston, Texas 77073 Office: 713-625-5055, Cell: 405-269-6576 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:34 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question 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 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14197 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From Steven.Morris at BAKERHUGHES.COM Tue Jan 30 13:46:35 2007 From: Steven.Morris at BAKERHUGHES.COM (Morris, Steven (BA)) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:46:35 -0600 Subject: question Message-ID: Ali's paper is nicely done, and study should be easy to duplicate and extend in a couple of different ways. Particularly, it would be interesting to see how the number of references correlates to citations received in other fields. Much of scientometrics borders on slow-moving social science concepts where the knowledge doesn't cumulate quickly. How do things correlate in fast moving specialties undergoing rapid knowledge cumulation and specialization, e.g., biomedicine or certain areas in physics. The thing I find curious about the study is that there is a large number of papers, 30%, that have fewer than 10 references. One would think that these would be maybe short communications or letters, rather than full papers. I think it would be interesting to examine a few of those low reference count papers and summarize their characteristics. Also, the process by which the papers are classed as letters, articles, and reviews may have some flaws. Who decides? It's probably the editor's decision, and it may not be so easy to do. After all, a paper can include a fairly substantial literature review, as well as original information -- is it a review? .. or an article? Another thing that would be interesting to see would be a scatter plot of the 467 articles with number of references on the x axis, and number of citations received on the y axis along with the line of fit. Such a visual presentation really helps to assess the 'goodness' of the correlation that is being established, and usually shows if outliers are adversely affecting the analysis. Below shows a histogram of papers binned according to the number of references that they cite, taken from a collection of 'all papers from the journal Scientometrics plus all papers that cite a paper from Scientometrics." The data was gathered from WOS in 2005. I think that about half the papers in the collection are from Scientometrics, while the rest are from other journals. Without a cumulative plot, it's hard to tell, but it could be that the 30% percentile occurs at about 10 papers. I've fitted a lognormal distribution to the data, which has a mode of about 19 papers, which, for this distribution, probably works out to a mean 25 references per paper. Is it possible that the quartiles of this distribution could be used to discriminate short communications from articles from reviews? ================================================= Steven A. Morris, Ph.D Electrical Engineer V, Technology Development Group Baker-Atlas/INTEQ Houston Technology Center 2001 Rankin Road, Houston, Texas 77073 Office: 713-625-5055, Cell: 405-269-6576 -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:34 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question 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 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14197 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From quentinburrell at MANX.NET Tue Jan 30 15:47:26 2007 From: quentinburrell at MANX.NET (Quentin L. Burrell) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:47:26 -0000 Subject: question Message-ID: Steven Morris raises an important point regarding any regression/correlation study - look at the data first! Another thing that would be interesting to see would be a scatter plot of the 467 articles with number of references on the x axis, and number of citations received on the y axis along with the line of fit. Such a visual presentation really helps to assess the 'goodness' of the correlation that is being established, and usually shows if outliers are adversely affecting the analysis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From azun at METU.EDU.TR Wed Jan 31 04:25:13 2007 From: azun at METU.EDU.TR (ali uzun) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:25:13 +0200 Subject: question In-Reply-To: <5684403FA3D2F3428B36D8FE68E0293E50D70C@MSGHOUMBX5.ent.bhicorp.com> Message-ID: -------Thanks Morris for your enlighting message. Ali------------ > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Ali's paper is nicely done, and study should be easy to duplicate and > extend in a couple of different ways. Particularly, it would be > interesting to see how the number of references correlates to citations > received in other fields. Much of scientometrics borders on slow-moving > social science concepts where the knowledge doesn't cumulate quickly. > How do things correlate in fast moving specialties undergoing rapid > knowledge cumulation and specialization, e.g., biomedicine or certain > areas in physics. > > > > The thing I find curious about the study is that there is a large number > of papers, 30%, that have fewer than 10 references. One would think that > these would be maybe short communications or letters, rather than full > papers. I think it would be interesting to examine a few of those low > reference count papers and summarize their characteristics. Also, the > process by which the papers are classed as letters, articles, and > reviews may have some flaws. Who decides? It's probably the editor's > decision, and it may not be so easy to do. After all, a paper can > include a fairly substantial literature review, as well as original > information -- is it a review? .. or an article? > > > > Another thing that would be interesting to see would be a scatter plot > of the 467 articles with number of references on the x axis, and number > of citations received on the y axis along with the line of fit. Such a > visual presentation really helps to assess the 'goodness' of the > correlation that is being established, and usually shows if outliers are > adversely affecting the analysis. > > > > Below shows a histogram of papers binned according to the number of > references that they cite, taken from a collection of 'all papers from > the journal Scientometrics plus all papers that cite a paper from > Scientometrics." The data was gathered from WOS in 2005. I think that > about half the papers in the collection are from Scientometrics, while > the rest are from other journals. Without a cumulative plot, it's hard > to tell, but it could be that the 30% percentile occurs at about 10 > papers. I've fitted a lognormal distribution to the data, which has a > mode of about 19 papers, which, for this distribution, probably works > out to a mean 25 references per paper. Is it possible that the > quartiles of this distribution could be used to discriminate short > communications from articles from reviews? > > > > > > > > > > > > ================================================= > > Steven A. Morris, Ph.D > > Electrical Engineer V, Technology Development Group > > Baker-Atlas/INTEQ > > Houston Technology Center > > 2001 Rankin Road, Houston, Texas 77073 > > Office: 713-625-5055, Cell: 405-269-6576 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:34 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] question > > > > 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. > > > > > From j.hartley at PSY.KEELE.AC.UK Wed Jan 31 09:58:27 2007 From: j.hartley at PSY.KEELE.AC.UK (James Hartley) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:58:27 -0000 Subject: Thanks for help Message-ID: Many thanks to members of the Sigmetrics list who responded to my request for help in my electronic study of people's perceptions of abstracts. If anyone would still like to take part, the study can be found at http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ps/jimh/abstracts2007.htm Thanks Jim Hartley -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chaomei.Chen at CIS.DREXEL.EDU Wed Jan 31 10:01:50 2007 From: Chaomei.Chen at CIS.DREXEL.EDU (Chaomei Chen) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:01:50 -0500 Subject: Chaomei Chen/Drexel_IST is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting Wed 01/31/2007 and will not return until Wed 02/07/2007. I will be out of the office starting Wed 01/31/2007 till Wed 02/07/2007. I will respond to your message as soon as I can. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quentinburrell at MANX.NET Wed Jan 31 15:40:02 2007 From: quentinburrell at MANX.NET (Quentin L. Burrell) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:40:02 -0000 Subject: question Message-ID: 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) >