From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Mon Apr 5 09:03:29 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 15:03:29 +0200 Subject: journal structures in the Arts & Humanities Message-ID: Dear colleagues, At http://vks2.virtualknowledgestudio.nl/ahci/browse.html, one can browse the cited and citing environments for all journals included in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. The journal maps are based on the normalized citation patterns, without thresholds, and using the algorithm of Kamada & Kawai (1989) in Pajek for the visualization. Under the tab "Methods", the procedure is further explained. Note that this is not performance measurement of these journals, but we position them into relevant environments. With best wishes also on behalf of my coauthors, Loet Leydesdorff ________________________________ Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ** apologies for cross-postings From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 6 11:58:31 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:58:31 -0400 Subject: Haslam, N; Laham, SM. 2010. Quality, quantity, and impact in academic publication. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 40 (2): 216-22 Message-ID: Haslam, N; Laham, SM. 2010. Quality, quantity, and impact in academic publication. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 40 (2): 216-220. Author Full Name(s): Haslam, Nick; Laham, Simon M. Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: INDEX Abstract: Publication records of 85 social-personality psychologists were tracked from the time of their doctoral studies wail 10 years post-PhD. Associations between publication quantity (number of articles), quality (mean journal impact factor and article influence score), and impact (citations, h- index, g-index, webpage visits) were examined. Publication quantity and quality were only modestly related, and there was evidence of a quality-quantity; trade-off. Impact was more strongly associated with quantity than quality. Authors whose records weighed quality over quantity tended to be associated with more prestigious institutions, but hod lesser impact. Quantity- and quality- favoring publication strategies may have important implications for the shape and success of scientific careers. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Addresses: [Haslam, Nick] Univ Melbourne, Dept Psychol, Parkville, Vic 3010, Australia Reprint Address: Haslam, N, Univ Melbourne, Dept Psychol, Parkville, Vic 3010, Australia. E-mail Address: nhaslam at unimelb.edu.au ISSN: 0046-2772 DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.727 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123206135/abstract From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 6 12:05:38 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 12:05:38 -0400 Subject: Burley JB, et al. 2009. Citation Analysis of Transportation Research Literature: A Multi-Dimensional Map of the Roadside Universe. LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 34 (4): 481-495. Message-ID: Burley, JB; Singhal, VBP; Burley, CJ; Fasser, D; Churchward, C; Hellekson, D; Raharizafy, I. 2009. Citation Analysis of Transportation Research Literature: A Multi-Dimensional Map of the Roadside Universe. LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 34 (4): 481-495. Author Full Name(s): Burley, Jon Bryan; Singhal, Vinay Baldev Prasad; Burley, Cheryl J.; Fasser, Dave; Churchward, Craig; Hellekson, Diane; Raharizafy, Ianja Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis; cluster analysis; subject classification KeyWords Plus: DOMAIN-ANALYSIS; DISCIPLINE; SCIENCE; CLASSIFICATION; RETRIEVAL; IMPACT; TOOL Abstract: Landscape scholars and information scientists are often interested in the structure of knowledge and the relationships of subject areas to each other. This study examines the latent structure of the transportation citation universe as evidence concerning how connected or disjointed areas of knowledge are to each other. Multivariate statistical analysis techniques were performed on citation data from 16 years of transportation articles in Landscape Journal, Landscape Research, Landscape and Urban Planning. The study produced 101 source articles and 1351 citation articles, arranged in 31 Library of Congress subject areas. Principal component analysis revealed thirteen significant dimensions. The results suggest that the universe is complex, yet disjointed and reinforce the notion that investigations in transportation related to landscape are fragmented and disconnected. Addresses: [Burley, Jon Bryan] Michigan State Univ, Coll Social Sci, Coll Agr & Nat Resources, Sch Planning Design & Construct, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA; [Burley, Cheryl J.] Michigan Lib Consortium, MILS, Detroit, MI USA; [Raharizafy, Ianja] INH Paysage, Angers, France Reprint Address: Burley, JB, Michigan State Univ, Coll Social Sci, Coll Agr & Nat Resources, Sch Planning Design & Construct, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. E-mail Address: burleyj at msu.edu ISSN: 0142-6397 DOI: 10.1080/01426390903009297 http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a913181617~db=all From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Tue Apr 6 15:27:26 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:27:26 -0400 Subject: LD Fu et al., A Comparison of Impact Factor, Clinical Query Filters, and Pattern Recognition Query Filters in Terms of Sensitivity to Topic. MEDINFO 2007 Message-ID: Fu, LD; Wang, L; Aphinyanagphongs, Y; Aliferis, CF. 2007. A Comparison of Impact Factor, Clinical Query Filters, and Pattern Recognition Query Filters in Terms of Sensitivity to Topic. MEDINFO 2007: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 12TH WORLD CONGRESS ON HEALTH (MEDICAL) INFORMATICS, PTS 1 AND 2 - BUILDING SUSTAINABLE HEALTH SYSTEMS 129: 716-720. edited by Kuhn, KA; Warren, JR; Leong, TY. AMSTERDAM, I O S PRESS presented at 12th World Congress on Health (Medical) Informatics in Brisbane, AUSTRALIA, AUG 20-24, 2007. Author Full Name(s): Fu, Lawrence D.; Wang, Lily; Aphinyanagphongs, Yindalon; Aliferis, Constantin F. Book series title: Studies in Health Technology and Informatics Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper KeyWords Plus: MEDLINE Abstract: Evaluating journal quality and finding high-quality articles in the biomedical literature are challenging information retrieval tasks. The most widely used method for journal evaluation is impact factor, while novel approaches for finding articles are PubMed's clinical query filters and machine learning-based filter models. The related literature has focused on the average behavior of these methods over all topics. The present study evaluates the variability of these approaches for different topics. We find that impact factor and clinical query filters are unstable for different topics while a topic-specific impact factor and machine learning-based filter models appear more robust. Thus when using the less stable methods for a specific topic, researchers should realize that their performance may diverge from expected average performance. Better yet, the more stable methods should be preferred whenever applicable. Addresses: [Fu, Lawrence D.; Aphinyanagphongs, Yindalon; Aliferis, Constantin F.] Vanderbilt Univ, Dept Biomed Informat, Nashville, TN 37235 USA Reprint Address: Fu, LD, Vanderbilt Univ, Dept Biomed Informat, Nashville, TN 37235 USA. ISSN: 0926-9630 ISBN: 978-1-58603-774-1 From andrea.scharnhorst at VKS.KNAW.NL Wed Apr 7 11:20:00 2010 From: andrea.scharnhorst at VKS.KNAW.NL (Andrea Scharnhorst) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:20:00 +0200 Subject: Visualizing the Arts and Humanities Citation Index Message-ID: Dear colleagues, We would like to invite you to have a look at a new way of browsing journals in the Arts and Humanities. At the website: http://vks2.virtualknowledgestudio.nl/ahci/ you can browse through more than 1000 journal titles. We invite researchers and journal editors to use this website as an information tool for a first and quick glance onto the knowledge environment of their journals. The analysis is based on data from the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (a product of ISI Thompson Reuters). For each journal two pictures are available. These pictures show how the journal is linked to other journals. One picture displays a network of journals with similar reference lists of its articles (the knowledge base environment of a certain journal). The second picture shows a network of journals which are cited similarly (the citation impact environment of the same journal). Comments and remarks are welcome! Please send them to alelma at gmail.com. Almila Akdag Salah, Loet Leydesdorff, Cheng Gao, Krzysztof Suchecki, Andrea Scharnhorst, Paul Wouters Knowledge Space Lab team at the Virtual Knowledge Studio for the Humanities and Social Sciences at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, Amsterdam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ksc at LIBRARY.IISC.ERNET.IN Thu Apr 8 03:56:00 2010 From: ksc at LIBRARY.IISC.ERNET.IN (K S Chudamani) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 13:26:00 +0530 Subject: Visualizing the Arts and Humanities Citation Index In-Reply-To: Message-ID: dear sirs, I have done some what similar analysis for ecology and submitted it to 2008 international conference on webometriccs, scientometrics, etc Chudamani On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Andrea Scharnhorst wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear colleagues, > > > > We would like to invite you to have a look at a new way of browsing journals in the Arts and Humanities. At the website: http://vks2.virtualknowledgestudio.nl/ahci/ you can browse through more than 1000 journal titles. > > We invite researchers and journal editors to use this website as an information tool for a first and quick glance onto the knowledge environment of their journals. > > The analysis is based on data from the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (a product of ISI Thompson Reuters). > > For each journal two pictures are available. These pictures show how the journal is linked to other journals. One picture displays a network of journals with similar reference lists of its articles (the knowledge base environment of a certain journal). The second picture shows a network of journals which are cited similarly (the citation impact environment of the same journal). > > Comments and remarks are welcome! Please send them to alelma at gmail.com. > > Almila Akdag Salah, Loet Leydesdorff, Cheng Gao, Krzysztof Suchecki, Andrea Scharnhorst, Paul Wouters > > Knowledge Space Lab team at the Virtual Knowledge Studio for the Humanities and Social Sciences at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, Amsterdam > > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From usandstrom at TELE2.SE Fri Apr 9 03:13:06 2010 From: usandstrom at TELE2.SE (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ulf_Sandstr=F6m?=) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:13:06 +0200 Subject: SV: Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance Message-ID: To the discussion about field normalization I would like to draw attention to the article by Mcallister, Narin and Corrigan published in 1983 (avaible here: http://www.forskningspolitik.se/DataFileD.asp?FileID=13. in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol EM-40, NO 4, November. It was published just before the groups in Leiden and Leuven came with their first articles on normalized citation analysis, but had quite a different, and methodologically sound approach. In 2006, I visited Barry Bozeman in the US and gave a presentation on field normalized citation analysis. Immediately, he responded in a way that pointed to z-score as the best alternative for handling these types of problems. Could it be the case that in the 1980s there was a gap between the US and Europe, maybe there still is, regarding statistical methods and methdological competence? Since 2005, my group have performed citation analysis with normalization at article level, and in 2007 we included the Standard Citation Score using the method proposed by Mcallister et al. Most or our work is in Swedish, but to give a couple of examples (in English) of this type of work: see the report on the Research Assessement in 2008 for Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, avaiable here: http://www.forskningspolitik.se/DataFile.asp?FileID=165 or via www.se/rae. Another evaluation using the same methods was performed last year for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency "Bibliometric evaluation of research programs": http://www.forskningspolitik.se/DataFile.asp?FileID=182. Especially, have a look at the Technical Appendices to these reports. Best, Ulf Sandstrom Ulf Sandstr?m, docent Link?pings universitet ISAK 581 83 Link?ping ( +46 708 137376 * ulf.sandstrom at liu.se "**** www.forskningspolitik.se _____ Fr?n: Loet Leydesdorff [mailto:loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Skickat: den 23 mars 2010 07:41 ?mne: Re: Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Tobias Opthof (Submitted on 21 Mar 2010) Abstract: Van Raan et al. (2010; arXiv:1003.2113 ) have proposed a new indicator (MNCS) for field normalization. Since field normalization is also used in the Leiden Rankings of universities, we elaborate our critique of journal normalization in Opthof & Leydesdorff (2010; arXiv:1002.2769 ) in this rejoinder concerning field normalization. Fractional citation counting thoroughly solves the issue of normalization for differences in citation behavior among fields. This indicator can also be used to obtain a normalized impact factor. Subjects: Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1003.3977v1 [physics.soc-ph] _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Per.Ahlgren at SUB.SU.SE Fri Apr 9 08:02:04 2010 From: Per.Ahlgren at SUB.SU.SE (Per Ahlgren) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:02:04 +0200 Subject: The DCI Download Site - Software for Discounted Cumulated Impact Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index was proposed in 2008 as a research evaluation tool (J?rvelin, K., & Persson, O., 2008. The DCI index: Discounted cumulated impact-based research evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1433-1440). It is based on the idea of devaluing old citations in a smooth and parameterizable way. Traditional citation-based research performance evaluation methods allow "a researcher to rest on his/her laurels" by taking long-ago earned citations as important than the current citation impact. In contrast, DCI is allows one to evaluate a researcher's current vs. long-term impact in a research field. Software for DCI can be downloaded from a recently established web site: http://www.uta.fi/~likaja/DCI/DCI_Download_Site.html Best regards, Per Ahlgren and Kalervo J?rvelin -- Per Ahlgren Bibliometrician, Associate Professor (docent) Department of e-Resources, Stockholm University Library Universitetsv?gen 14 D, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden Phone: +46 (0)8 674 75 18 Mobile +46 (0)733 12 87 55 Fax: +46 (0)8 15 77 76 E-mail: per.ahlgren at sub.su.se From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Apr 9 15:03:29 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:03:29 +0200 Subject: Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance In-Reply-To: <33B7A13AD1D5424A8B8C6E6A9FFCC2AE@ulsanxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: It was published just before the groups in Leiden and Leuven came with their first articles on normalized citation analysis, but had quite a different, and methodologically sound approach. In 2006, I visited Barry Bozeman in the US and gave a presentation on field normalized citation analysis. Immediately, he responded in a way that pointed to z-score as the best alternative for handling these types of problems. Could it be the case that in the 1980s there was a gap between the US and Europe, maybe there still is, regarding statistical methods and methdological competence? Dear Ulf, Thank you for briging this paper to our attention. In the early 1980s there was a lifely relation between the US and European scholars in bibliometrics. We met, for example, at the meetings of the 4S (The Society for the Social Studies of Science). I remember, for example, a car ride from a meeting in Troy (NY) with Fran Narin as the driver and Henk Moed and me in the car. Fran was going to show us his company in Philadelphia, but I felt not well and stepped out of the car in Newark. Thus, we knew one another quite well. And certainly, we all read the same journals. (I must confess that I had never read this excellent piece). Best wishes, Loet Since 2005, my group have performed citation analysis with normalization at article level, and in 2007 we included the Standard Citation Score using the method proposed by Mcallister et al. Most or our work is in Swedish, but to give a couple of examples (in English) of this type of work: see the report on the Research Assessement in 2008 for Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, avaiable here: http://www.forskningspolitik.se/DataFile.asp?FileID=165 or via www.se/rae. Another evaluation using the same methods was performed last year for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency "Bibliometric evaluation of research programs": http://www.forskningspolitik.se/DataFile.asp?FileID=182. Especially, have a look at the Technical Appendices to these reports. Best, Ulf Sandstrom Ulf Sandstr?m, docent Link?pings universitet ISAK 581 83 Link?ping ( +46 708 137376 * ulf.sandstrom at liu.se "**** www.forskningspolitik.se _____ Fr?n: Loet Leydesdorff [mailto:loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Skickat: den 23 mars 2010 07:41 ?mne: Re: Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Tobias Opthof (Submitted on 21 Mar 2010) Abstract: Van Raan et al. (2010; arXiv:1003.2113 ) have proposed a new indicator (MNCS) for field normalization. Since field normalization is also used in the Leiden Rankings of universities, we elaborate our critique of journal normalization in Opthof & Leydesdorff (2010; arXiv:1002.2769 ) in this rejoinder concerning field normalization. Fractional citation counting thoroughly solves the issue of normalization for differences in citation behavior among fields. This indicator can also be used to obtain a normalized impact factor. Subjects: Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1003.3977v1 [physics.soc-ph] _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rigic at EXCITE.COM Fri Apr 9 16:08:55 2010 From: rigic at EXCITE.COM (Rajko) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:08:55 -0400 Subject: Question Message-ID: Dear Scientometric Scientists, I have noticed that the research articles and books of Milutin Milankovich (or Milankovic) are more and more cited. Generally, citation shows an opposite trend. Do you know how often it happens? Sincerely, Rajko Igic, MD, Ph.D. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management Stroger Hospital of Cook County Chicago, IL 60612 USA PS. I present here an excerpt of our MS to be published in the "Scrtipta Medica" (Banja Luka), May issue. "According to the Science Citation Index and Web of Knowledge Milankovic?s publications were quoted 780 times in the period from 1945 to 2005 [6]. His major work concerns the origin of Ice Age, Kanon der Erdbestrahlung und seine Anwendung auf das Eiszeitenproblem [Canon of insulation of the Earth and its application to the problem of the Ice Age]. Figure 1 shows the title page of his book, published in 1941 [5]. This work was the most often cited during this period. As a rule, the number of citations for most scientific publications decreases over time, but the citation distribution of Milankovic?s works shows the opposite pattern. In the period from 1945 to 1960, citations of his papers were few (2.6 per year on average), but later citations increased steadily [7]. For about 50 years, Milankovic?s theory remained largely unconfirmed until a study by Hayes et al [8] on deep-sea sediment showed that Milankovic?s theory fit with known periods of climate change. Since then, earth scientists have embraced the Milankovitch Cycle model, and contemporary scientists are now familiar with his earlier publications (1920 to 1941)." From narinf at COX.NET Fri Apr 9 16:23:40 2010 From: narinf at COX.NET (Francis Narin) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:23:40 -0700 Subject: Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance Message-ID: Dear Ulf, Loet's recollection is correct. I remember the car ride quite clearly. In addition I did interact a lot with Van Raan and others in the group at Leiden in the 1980's and 1990's , and also with the groups at SPRU, and in London, Paris, Bielefeld and elsewhere in Europe. Francis Narin ----- Original Message ----- From: Loet Leydesdorff To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html It was published just before the groups in Leiden and Leuven came with their first articles on normalized citation analysis, but had quite a different, and methodologically sound approach. In 2006, I visited Barry Bozeman in the US and gave a presentation on field normalized citation analysis. Immediately, he responded in a way that pointed to z-score as the best alternative for handling these types of problems. Could it be the case that in the 1980s there was a gap between the US and Europe, maybe there still is, regarding statistical methods and methdological competence? Dear Ulf, Thank you for briging this paper to our attention. In the early 1980s there was a lifely relation between the US and European scholars in bibliometrics. We met, for example, at the meetings of the 4S (The Society for the Social Studies of Science). I remember, for example, a car ride from a meeting in Troy (NY) with Fran Narin as the driver and Henk Moed and me in the car. Fran was going to show us his company in Philadelphia, but I felt not well and stepped out of the car in Newark. Thus, we knew one another quite well. And certainly, we all read the same journals. (I must confess that I had never read this excellent piece). Best wishes, Loet Since 2005, my group have performed citation analysis with normalization at article level, and in 2007 we included the Standard Citation Score using the method proposed by Mcallister et al. Most or our work is in Swedish, but to give a couple of examples (in English) of this type of work: see the report on the Research Assessement in 2008 for Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, avaiable here: http://www.forskningspolitik.se/DataFile.asp?FileID=165 or via www.se/rae. Another evaluation using the same methods was performed last year for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency "Bibliometric evaluation of research programs": http://www.forskningspolitik.se/DataFile.asp?FileID=182. Especially, have a look at the Technical Appendices to these reports. Best, Ulf Sandstrom Ulf Sandstr?m, docent Link?pings universitet ISAK 581 83 Link?ping ( +46 708 137376 * ulf.sandstrom at liu.se " www.forskningspolitik.se ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fr?n: Loet Leydesdorff [mailto:loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Skickat: den 23 mars 2010 07:41 ?mne: Re: Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Tobias Opthof (Submitted on 21 Mar 2010) Abstract: Van Raan et al. (2010; arXiv:1003.2113) have proposed a new indicator (MNCS) for field normalization. Since field normalization is also used in the Leiden Rankings of universities, we elaborate our critique of journal normalization in Opthof & Leydesdorff (2010; arXiv:1002.2769) in this rejoinder concerning field normalization. Fractional citation counting thoroughly solves the issue of normalization for differences in citation behavior among fields. This indicator can also be used to obtain a normalized impact factor. Subjects: Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1003.3977v1 [physics.soc-ph] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2800 - Release Date: 04/08/10 23:32:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kboyack at MAPOFSCIENCE.COM Fri Apr 9 16:51:19 2010 From: kboyack at MAPOFSCIENCE.COM (Kevin Boyack) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:51:19 -0600 Subject: Question In-Reply-To: <20100409160855.8051@web009.roc2.bluetie.com> Message-ID: Sounds like a "sleeping beauty" to me. See Van Raan, A.F.J. (2004). Sleeping Beauties in science. Scientometrics 59(3), 467-472. Cheers! Kevin -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Rajko Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 2:09 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Question Dear Scientometric Scientists, I have noticed that the research articles and books of Milutin Milankovich (or Milankovic) are more and more cited. Generally, citation shows an opposite trend. Do you know how often it happens? Sincerely, Rajko Igic, MD, Ph.D. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management Stroger Hospital of Cook County Chicago, IL 60612 USA PS. I present here an excerpt of our MS to be published in the "Scrtipta Medica" (Banja Luka), May issue. "According to the Science Citation Index and Web of Knowledge Milankovics publications were quoted 780 times in the period from 1945 to 2005 [6]. His major work concerns the origin of Ice Age, Kanon der Erdbestrahlung und seine Anwendung auf das Eiszeitenproblem [Canon of insulation of the Earth and its application to the problem of the Ice Age]. Figure 1 shows the title page of his book, published in 1941 [5]. This work was the most often cited during this period. As a rule, the number of citations for most scientific publications decreases over time, but the citation distribution of Milankovics works shows the opposite pattern. In the period from 1945 to 1960, citations of his papers were few (2.6 per year on average), but later citations increased steadily [7]. For about 50 years, Milankovics theory remained largely unconfirmed until a study by Hayes et al [8] on deep-sea sediment showed that Milankovics theory fit with known periods of climate change. Since then, earth scientists have embraced the Milankovitch Cycle model, and contemporary scientists are now familiar with his earlier publications (1920 to 1941)." From dwojick at HUGHES.NET Fri Apr 9 21:22:12 2010 From: dwojick at HUGHES.NET (David Wojick) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:22:12 +0000 Subject: Question Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sat Apr 10 02:21:08 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:21:08 +0200 Subject: Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance In-Reply-To: <31D3A3074A1A4DE9B1EA91BD2E91005F@fransdesktop> Message-ID: Dear Fran and colleagues, Perhaps, this historical positioning in the 1980s is incorrect. The Leiden ("crown") indicators were published only in 1995 (Moed et al., 1995, Scientometrics). Before that time, the Leiden colleagues only used (unnormalized) descriptive statistics. The normalization problems should have been noted by the referees at the time. However, the Budapest group had developed during the 1980s -- in relative isolation -- the practice of dividing the Mean Observed Citation Rate (MOCR) by the Mean Expected Citation Rate (MECR) instead of taking the mean of the observed versus the expected citation rates. This measure -- now called "normalized mean citation rate" -- is still used by ECOOM in Leuven (Glaenzel et al., 2009, Scientometrics). In summary, the difference will in the future be between the "mean normalized citation score" (MNCS) to be used by Leiden as the new crown indicator and the "normalized mean citation rate" (NMCR) used by Leuven. It seems to me that this mixing of terminologies may easily confuse end users and therefore not contribute to the transparency of using scientometric indicators. The two indicators are conceptually rather different. Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam 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 Francis Narin Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 10:24 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance Dear Ulf, Loet's recollection is correct. I remember the car ride quite clearly. In addition I did interact a lot with Van Raan and others in the group at Leiden in the 1980's and 1990's , and also with the groups at SPRU, and in London, Paris, Bielefeld and elsewhere in Europe. Francis Narin ----- Original Message ----- From: Loet Leydesdorff To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance It was published just before the groups in Leiden and Leuven came with their first articles on normalized citation analysis, but had quite a different, and methodologically sound approach. In 2006, I visited Barry Bozeman in the US and gave a presentation on field normalized citation analysis. Immediately, he responded in a way that pointed to z-score as the best alternative for handling these types of problems. Could it be the case that in the 1980s there was a gap between the US and Europe, maybe there still is, regarding statistical methods and methdological competence? Dear Ulf, Thank you for briging this paper to our attention. In the early 1980s there was a lifely relation between the US and European scholars in bibliometrics. We met, for example, at the meetings of the 4S (The Society for the Social Studies of Science). I remember, for example, a car ride from a meeting in Troy (NY) with Fran Narin as the driver and Henk Moed and me in the car. Fran was going to show us his company in Philadelphia, but I felt not well and stepped out of the car in Newark. Thus, we knew one another quite well. And certainly, we all read the same journals. (I must confess that I had never read this excellent piece). Best wishes, Loet Since 2005, my group have performed citation analysis with normalization at article level, and in 2007 we included the Standard Citation Score using the method proposed by Mcallister et al. Most or our work is in Swedish, but to give a couple of examples (in English) of this type of work: see the report on the Research Assessement in 2008 for Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, avaiable here: http://www.forskningspolitik.se/DataFile.asp?FileID=165 or via www.se/rae. Another evaluation using the same methods was performed last year for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency "Bibliometric evaluation of research programs": http://www.forskningspolitik.se/DataFile.asp?FileID=182. Especially, have a look at the Technical Appendices to these reports. Best, Ulf Sandstrom Ulf Sandstr?m, docent Link?pings universitet ISAK 581 83 Link?ping ( +46 708 137376 * ulf.sandstrom at liu.se "**** www.forskningspolitik.se _____ Fr?n: Loet Leydesdorff [mailto:loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Skickat: den 23 mars 2010 07:41 ?mne: Re: Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Tobias Opthof (Submitted on 21 Mar 2010) Abstract: Van Raan et al. (2010; arXiv:1003.2113 ) have proposed a new indicator (MNCS) for field normalization. Since field normalization is also used in the Leiden Rankings of universities, we elaborate our critique of journal normalization in Opthof & Leydesdorff (2010; arXiv:1002.2769 ) in this rejoinder concerning field normalization. Fractional citation counting thoroughly solves the issue of normalization for differences in citation behavior among fields. This indicator can also be used to obtain a normalized impact factor. Subjects: Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1003.3977v1 [physics.soc-ph] _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _____ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2800 - Release Date: 04/08/10 23:32:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sat Apr 10 14:15:01 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:15:01 -0500 Subject: Question In-Reply-To: <208268209.79417.1270862532594.JavaMail.mail@webmail03> Message-ID: Glanzel W. and Garfield E. "The Myth of Delayed Recognition -Citation analysis demonstrates that premature discovery, while rare, does occur: Nearly all significant research is normally cited soon after publication" The Scientist 18(11): 8-8 June 7 2004. These are the references cited in that short paper. References 1 . E. Garfield, "Premature discovery or delayed recognition--Why?" Curr Contents, 21:5-10, 1980; available online at garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v4p488y1979-80.pdf 2 . E. Garfield, "Would Mendel's work have been ignored if the Science Citation Index was available 100 years ago?" Curr Contents, 47:5-6, 1970; available online at www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/V1p069y1962-73.pdf 3 . W. Gl?nzel et al., "Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon," Scientometrics, 58:571-86, 2003. Other examples of delayed recognition, including Inhibin, Scanning Electron Microscopy, and the Genetics of Color Blindness, which were identified by citation analysis, can be found at www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/delayedrecognition.html See also Delayed Recognition in Scientific Discovery: Citation Frequency Analysis Aids the Search for Case Histories http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v12p154y1989.pdf And http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p363y1983.pdf for discussion of Higgs Boson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 610-525-8729 Fax: 610-560-4749 Chairman Emeritus, ThomsonReuters Scientific (formerly ISI) 1500 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia, PA 19130-4067 Editor Emeritus, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com 400 Market St. Suite 330 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2535 Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asist.org ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 9:22 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Question on ice age cycles is well known so if there is an up-tick in citations it is most likely an increased interest in the topic, rather than a discovery of the author's work. David On Apr 9, 2010, Kevin Boyack wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Sounds like a "sleeping beauty" to me. See Van Raan, A.F.J. (2004). Sleeping Beauties in science. Scientometrics 59(3), 467-472. Cheers! Kevin -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Rajko Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 2:09 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Question Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Scientometric Scientists, I have noticed that the research articles and books of Milutin Milankovich (or Milankovic) are more and more cited. Generally, citation shows an opposite trend. Do you know how often it happens? Sincerely, Rajko Igic, MD, Ph.D. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management Stroger Hospital of Cook County Chicago, IL 60612 USA PS. I present here an excerpt of our MS to be published in the "Scrtipta Medica" (Banja Luka), May issue. "According to the Science Citation Index and Web of Knowledge Milankovics publications were quoted 780 times in the period from 1945 to 2005 [6]. His major work concerns the origin of Ice Age, Kanon der Erdbestrahlung und seine Anwendung auf das Eiszeitenproblem [Canon of insulation of the Earth and its application to the problem of the Ice Age]. Figure 1 shows the title page of his book, published in 1941 [5]. This work was the most often cited during this period. As a rule, the number of citations for most scientific publications decreases over time, but the citation distribution of Milankovics works shows the opposite pattern. In the period from 1945 to 1960, citations of his papers were few (2.6 per year on average), but later citations increased steadily [7]. For about 50 years, Milankovics theory remained largely unconfirmed until a study by Hayes et al [8] on deep-sea sediment showed that Milankovics theory fit with known periods of climate change. Since then, earth scientists have embraced the Milankovitch Cycle model, and contemporary scientists are now familiar with his earlier publications (1920 to 1941)." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christian.gumpenberger at UNIVIE.AC.AT Mon Apr 12 07:40:21 2010 From: christian.gumpenberger at UNIVIE.AC.AT (Christian Gumpenberger) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:40:21 +0200 Subject: Announcement esss European Summer School for Scientometrics Message-ID: Dear colleagues, we are pleased to invite you to participate in the first and inaugurational esss European Summer School for Scientometrics. It will take place 16 to 18 June 2010 at the Humboldt Universit?t zu Berlin, Germany. esss is jointly organized by the University of Vienna, iFQ, Humboldt Universit?t zu Berlin and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. For more details and the esss programme please check out: http://www.scientometrics-school.eu The esss steering committee members are looking forward to seeing you in Berlin. Wolfgang Gl?nzel (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) Koenraad Debackere (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) Stefan Hornbostel (iFQ, Humboldt Universit?t zu Berlin) Sybille Hinze (iFQ) Juan Gorraiz (University of Vienna) Christian Gumpenberger (University of Vienna) ********************************************** Dr. Christian Gumpenberger, MSc University of Vienna Library and archive services Bibliometrics Department esss European Summer School for Scientometrics office Boltzmanngasse 5 A-1090 Wien Tel.: +43-1-4277-27609 Fax: +43-1-4277-27650 mailto: christian.gumpenberger at univie.ac.at mailto: office at scientometrics-school.eu ********************************************** From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Tue Apr 13 02:37:14 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:37:14 +0200 Subject: Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance In-Reply-To: <31D3A3074A1A4DE9B1EA91BD2E91005F@fransdesktop> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The following contribution to our discussion by one of the evaluees was now made available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1701: Jos A. E. Spaan, "The danger of pseudo science in Informetrics," Journal of Informetrics (forthcoming). Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noyons at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Tue Apr 13 15:14:22 2010 From: noyons at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Noijons, E.) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:14:22 +0200 Subject: Reminder 11th Int. Conference on Science and Technology Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder for the 11th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators Creating Value for Users (STI 2010) which will take place from 8-11 September 2010 in Leiden. Check our website www.sticonference2010.nl for full programme and registration. Deadline for extended abstract submission April 16, 2010. Deadline early bird registration fee July 11, 2010. Kind regards, Prof. Ton van Raan Conference Chair ________________________________ Dr ECM Noyons (Ed) Leiden University, NL Centre for Science & Technology Studies (CWTS) Willem Einthoven-gebouw, Wassenaarseweg 62A Postbus 905, 2300 AX Leiden tel +31 71 5273909/6650 noyons at cwts.nl http://www.cwts.leidenuniv.nl ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ********************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vanraan at XS4ALL.NL Wed Apr 14 08:29:05 2010 From: vanraan at XS4ALL.NL (Anthony F.J. van Raan) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:29:05 +0200 Subject: Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, we have the following contribution to the discussion on new bibliometric performance indicators: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1632v1 . Best wishes, Ton van Raan From vmarkusova at YAHOO.COM Wed Apr 14 09:47:12 2010 From: vmarkusova at YAHOO.COM (Valentina Markusova) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:47:12 -0700 Subject: =?koi8-r?Q?=EF=D4=D7=C5=D4=3A_?= [SIGMETRICS] Reminder 11th Int. Conference on Science and Technology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Ed, ? I filled a form for the registration. However, the fee is very high. In case if the paper will be accepted will be?the fee be waved? Best wishes, Valentina --- ??, 13.4.10, Noijons, E. ?????: ??: Noijons, E. ????: [SIGMETRICS] Reminder 11th Int. Conference on Science and Technology ????: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ????: ???????, 13 ?????? 2010, 23:14 Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder for the 11th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators Creating Value for Users (STI 2010) which will take place from 8-11 September 2010 in Leiden. Check our website www.sticonference2010.nl for full programme and registration. Deadline for extended abstract submission April 16, 2010. Deadline early bird registration fee July 11, 2010. Kind regards, Prof. Ton van Raan Conference Chair ? Dr ?ECM Noyons (Ed) ? Leiden University, NL ? Centre for Science & Technology Studies (CWTS) ? Willem Einthoven-gebouw, Wassenaarseweg 62A ? Postbus 905, 2300 AX Leiden ? tel +31 71 5273909/6650 ?noyons at cwts.nl http://www.cwts.leidenuniv.nl ? ? ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ********************************************************************** ? Вы уже с Yahoo!? Испытайте обновленную и улучшенную Yahoo! Почту! http://ru.mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GESS.ETHZ.CH Wed Apr 14 14:03:12 2010 From: lutz.bornmann at GESS.ETHZ.CH (Bornmann Lutz) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:03:12 +0200 Subject: single publication h index Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: The single publication h index has been introduced by Andras Schubert (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2208-3) as the h index calculated for the list of citing publications of one single publication. Andreas Thor and myself developed a Web application to calculate the single publication h index and some further metrics (e.g., the m index) by using Google Scholar data. You can find the application here: http://labs.dbs.uni-leipzig.de/gsh/ We would be grateful for any comments, recommendations for improvements etc. Best regards, Lutz and Andreas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Lutz Bornmann ETH Zurich, D-GESS Professorship for Social Psychology and Research on Higher Education Z?hringerstr. 24 / ZAE CH-8092 Zurich Phone: +41 44 632 48 25 Fax: +41 44 632 12 83 Skype: lutz.bornmann http://www.psh.ethz.ch bornmann at gess.ethz.ch ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 Download of publications: www.lutz-bornmann.de From vanraan at XS4ALL.NL Fri Apr 16 03:35:16 2010 From: vanraan at XS4ALL.NL (T. van Raan) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:35:16 +0200 Subject: ECSP 3 Leiden Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder for the Third European Conference on Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine and Medicine (ECSP3) which will take place from 27-29 May 2010 at the Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands. This conference will focus on the rapid changes in the scientific communication and publishing environment and its direct impact on the research community. Main topics are the most recent developments in Open Access, 'wikification' of science communication, dealing with information overload, 'translation' of scientific knowledge from laboratory bench to hospital bed and other aspects of the impact of science on society at large, are all of major interest to STM (Scientific, Technical & Medical) Publishing worldwide and the research community itself. Check website http://www.lumc.nl/con/2009/ for full programme and registration. Kind regards, Ton van Raan CWTS Leiden University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Apr 16 06:39:52 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:39:52 +0200 Subject: Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Ton, I read the paper with interest. It seems to me that the value of n in the numerator and denominator of Equation 1 are different, aren't they? Would it then not be better to use different symbols, (fore example, m and n)? Perhaps, I misunderstand. In that case, please, clarify. Best wishes, Loet On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Anthony F.J. van Raan wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Colleagues, we have the following contribution to the discussion on > new bibliometric performance indicators: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1632v1 > . > > Best wishes, > Ton van Raan > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --------------------------------------- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; From vanraan at XS4ALL.NL Fri Apr 16 12:54:45 2010 From: vanraan at XS4ALL.NL (T. van Raan) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:54:45 +0200 Subject: Fw: [SIGMETRICS] Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, To remove any misunderstanding concerning the point raised by Loet (see below), the following short comment. In Eq. 1 of our paper the elements (i) in the summation in the numerator obviously concern the same elements as in the denomitator, by definition. The elements are the publications of any kind of entity (e.g., group, institute, university, country). In the numerator the number of citations received by each of the elements i are totalled, and in the nominator we have the sum of the expected values of the same elements i. So both summations concern exactly the same set, and thus the total size of the summation is the same for the denominator and the nominator, which is n. Best regards, Ton van Raan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loet Leydesdorff" To: Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Ton, > > I read the paper with interest. > > It seems to me that the value of n in the numerator and denominator of > Equation 1 are different, aren't they? Would it then not be better to > use different symbols, (fore example, m and n)? > > Perhaps, I misunderstand. In that case, please, clarify. > > Best wishes, > > Loet > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Anthony F.J. van Raan > wrote: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Dear Colleagues, we have the following contribution to the discussion on >> new bibliometric performance indicators: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1632v1 >> . >> >> Best wishes, >> Ton van Raan >> > > > > -- > Loet Leydesdorff > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) > Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam > Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > --------------------------------------- > Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, > Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; From franz.barjak at FHNW.CH Fri Apr 16 13:12:14 2010 From: franz.barjak at FHNW.CH (Barjak Franz) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:12:14 +0200 Subject: WG: [scisip] Invitation to contribute to Nature discussion on science metrics Message-ID: The article and discussion mentioned below are certainly interesting to scientometricians. Maybe some of you want to add their opinions. ********************************************* Franz Barjak School of Business University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland Riggenbachstrasse 16 CH-4600 Olten Switzerland E-mail: franz.barjak at fhnw.ch p. +41 62 287 7825, fax: +41 62 287 7845 ********************************************* ________________________________________ Von: Nicola Jones [mailto:nkjones at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. M?rz 2010 20:36 An: Science of Science & Innovation Policy Betreff: [scisip] Invitation to contribute to Nature discussion on science metrics SciSIP: Dear all, You may be interested in reading an opinion piece published in Nature today: Let's make science metrics more scientific, by Julia Lane (). The piece is freely available for a limited time. Perhaps you might like to contribute to the discussion at the bottom of this page, where we hope to have a thriving and informative debate and set of comments about metrics. Do you, as a scientist, feel your achievements are being properly accounted for and used towards funding and hiring decisions? Would you, as a metrics researcher, like to point to useful projects, examples of best practice, or areas that need urgent attention? ? Authors of insightful comments published on this page may be invited to contribute to more content on this subject in the print edition of Nature. Many thanks for your time and attention, Best wishes, Nicola Jones. -- Ms. Nicola Jones Commissioning Editor, Opinion section, Nature Science Journalist in Residence, UBC School of Journalism Freelance Reporter, Vancouver home office +1 (604) 894 5590 cell +1 (604) 345 9894 Available 8am-5pm Pacific time, M-F --- You are currently subscribed to scisip as: franz.barjak at fhnw.ch To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-scisip-119590D at lists.nsf.gov To send emails to the listserv, email scisip at lists.nsf.gov To subscribe to the listserv, send a blank email to SUBSCRIBE-SCISIP at LISTS.NSF.GOV From ronald.rousseau at KHBO.BE Fri Apr 16 20:32:52 2010 From: ronald.rousseau at KHBO.BE (Ronald Rousseau) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:32:52 +0200 Subject: discussion on science metrics In-Reply-To: <61D782572FA1864A95B7DD1DE0F7D7B3680B442A55@MXAMU11.adm.ds.fhnw.ch> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, In 2002 Jane M. Russell and I wrote (in: Bibliometrics and institutional evaluation): It should be kept in mind that research evaluation is not an end in itself. It is only an aid to the real goal that is providing those people and institutions with the talent and motivations to carry out scientific research, with the best conditions possible under which to do so. Budgetary and other kinds of constraints make evaluations necessary for the equitable distribution of resources. The evaluation of short-term strategic research as well as the long-term curiosity-driven search for new knowledge demands the same accountability and rigorous standards as scientific research requires of itself. For this reason the challenge is not only for the application of bibliometric and scientometric techniques in research evaluation to keep up with the rapid changes occurring in scientific communications patterns and practices but also to constantly improve the theoretical foundation for the construction of output and impact indicators as an adjunct for peer review. Surely, we were neither the first nor the last to express the need for (and commitment to) theoretical foundations of research evaluation and the basic necessity of peer review. I cannot express this better now. Best regards, Ronald > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > The article and discussion mentioned below are certainly interesting > to scientometricians. Maybe some of you want to add their opinions. > > ********************************************* > Franz Barjak > School of Business > University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland > Riggenbachstrasse 16 > CH-4600 Olten > Switzerland > E-mail: franz.barjak at fhnw.ch > p. +41 62 287 7825, fax: +41 62 287 7845 > ********************************************* > ________________________________________ -- Ronald Rousseau President of the ISSI KHBO - Association K.U.Leuven Industrial Sciences and Technology Zeedijk 101 - 8400 Oostende, Belgium Professor associated to K.U.Leuven Honorary Professor Henan Normal University (Xinxiang, China) Adjunct professor of Shanghai University Guest Professor at the National Library of Sciences CAS (Beijing) Guest Professor at Dalian University of Technology Honorary researcher at Zhejiang University, Information Resources Management Institute E-mail: ronald.rousseau at khbo.be web page: http://users.telenet.be/ronald.rousseau "Improving the quality of writing improves the quality of thought" George Gopen and Judith Swan (1990) ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Apr 16 20:32:36 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:32:36 +0200 Subject: Fw: [SIGMETRICS] Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you so much for the clarification. Best, Loet On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:54 PM, T. van Raan wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Colleagues, > > To remove any misunderstanding concerning the point raised by Loet (see > below), the following short comment. In Eq. 1 of our paper the elements (i) > in the summation in the numerator obviously concern the same elements as in > the denomitator, by definition. The elements are the publications of any > kind of entity (e.g., group, institute, university, country). In the > numerator the number of citations received by each of the elements i are > totalled, and in the nominator we have the sum of the expected values of the > same elements i. So both summations concern exactly the same set, and thus > the total size of the summation is the same for the denominator and the > nominator, which is n. > > Best regards, > Ton van Raan > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loet Leydesdorff" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:39 PM > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical > analysis > > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Dear Ton, >> >> I read the paper with interest. >> >> It seems to me that the value of n in the numerator and denominator of >> Equation 1 are different, aren't they? Would it then not be better to >> use different symbols, (fore example, m and n)? >> >> Perhaps, I misunderstand. In that case, please, clarify. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Loet >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Anthony F.J. van Raan >> wrote: >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, we have the following contribution to the discussion on >>> new bibliometric performance indicators: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1632v1 >>> . >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Ton van Raan >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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; > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --------------------------------------- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Apr 18 04:31:28 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:31:28 +0200 Subject: Fw: [SIGMETRICS] Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Ton and colleagues, Let's assume now that we agree about the normalizations in the old and new crown indicators, and move this discussion further. What continues to puzzle me in both normalizations is that the expected values are themselves statistics. Usually (for example, in the case of chi-square) one uses the statistics of observed over expected. But in this case, this observed over expected is the statistics of a statistics. It works a bit differently for the two normalizations. First, there is the question whether one should use the means. In the denominator of equation 1 (the old crown indicator) one took the means over these means and that can probably be justified because the means of the sets are more normally distributed than the underlying sets. Because of the distributions in the underlying sets, however, one could make an argument for taking the medians. This argument holds equally for the normalization in the new crown indicator. (You may wish to add a reflection about this issue to the preprint to which I react.) An interesting aspect of the old crown indicator was that one had two dimensions when taking the means over the means, namely the distributions over the fields (or journals) and the distributions within each case. This might allow for developing an expected value on the basis of the uncertainty contained in these two dimensions which is more sophisticated than taking the means over the means. The size of the set is in this case not n, but n x m. I am not suggesting that one should take the mean over (n x m) -- that would be silly -- but someone may be able to suggest another statistics which could be used as an expected value (in the denominator) at the level of the group in the numerator. Best wishes, Loet On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:54 PM, T. van Raan wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Colleagues, > > To remove any misunderstanding concerning the point raised by Loet (see > below), the following short comment. In Eq. 1 of our paper the elements (i) > in the summation in the numerator obviously concern the same elements as in > the denomitator, by definition. The elements are the publications of any > kind of entity (e.g., group, institute, university, country). In the > numerator the number of citations received by each of the elements i are > totalled, and in the nominator we have the sum of the expected values of the > same elements i. So both summations concern exactly the same set, and thus > the total size of the summation is the same for the denominator and the > nominator, which is n. > > Best regards, > Ton van Raan > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loet Leydesdorff" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:39 PM > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical > analysis > > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Dear Ton, >> >> I read the paper with interest. >> >> It seems to me that the value of n in the numerator and denominator of >> Equation 1 are different, aren't they? Would it then not be better to >> use different symbols, (fore example, m and n)? >> >> Perhaps, I misunderstand. In that case, please, clarify. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Loet >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Anthony F.J. van Raan >> wrote: >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, we have the following contribution to the discussion on >>> new bibliometric performance indicators: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1632v1 >>> . >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Ton van Raan >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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; > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --------------------------------------- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Apr 18 08:01:35 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:01:35 +0200 Subject: Fw: [SIGMETRICS] Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: PS. I am sorry: the size of the set remains n, but the number of categories is n x m (in the denominator, while n in the numerator). L. On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > Dear Ton and colleagues, > > Let's assume now that we agree about the normalizations in the old and > new crown indicators, and move this discussion further. What continues > to puzzle me in both normalizations is that the expected values are > themselves statistics. Usually (for example, in the case of > chi-square) one uses the statistics of observed over expected. But in > this case, this observed over expected is the statistics of a > statistics. > > It works a bit differently for the two normalizations. > > First, there is the question whether one should use the means. In the > denominator of equation 1 (the old crown indicator) one took the means > over these means and that can probably be justified because the means > of the sets are more normally distributed than the underlying sets. > Because of the distributions in the underlying sets, however, one > could make an argument for taking the medians. This argument holds > equally for the normalization in the new crown indicator. (You may > wish to add a reflection about this issue to the preprint to which I > react.) > > An interesting aspect of the old crown indicator was that one had two > dimensions when taking the means over the means, namely the > distributions over the fields (or journals) and the distributions > within each case. This might allow for developing an expected value on > the basis of the uncertainty contained in these two dimensions which > is more sophisticated than taking the means over the means. The size > of the set is in this case not n, but n x m. I am not suggesting that > one should take the mean over (n x m) -- that would be silly -- but > someone may be able to suggest another statistics which could be used > as an expected value (in the denominator) at the level of the group in > the numerator. > > Best wishes, > > Loet > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:54 PM, T. van Raan wrote: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> To remove any misunderstanding concerning the point raised by Loet (see >> below), the following short comment. In Eq. 1 of our paper the elements (i) >> in the summation in the numerator obviously concern the same elements as in >> the denomitator, by definition. The elements are the publications of any >> kind of entity (e.g., group, institute, university, country). In the >> numerator the number of citations received by each of the elements i are >> totalled, and in the nominator we have the sum of the expected values of the >> same elements i. So both summations concern exactly the same set, and thus >> the total size of the summation is the same for the denominator and the >> nominator, which is n. >> >> Best regards, >> Ton van Raan >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loet Leydesdorff" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:39 PM >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical >> analysis >> >> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>> Dear Ton, >>> >>> I read the paper with interest. >>> >>> It seems to me that the value of n in the numerator and denominator of >>> Equation 1 are different, aren't they? Would it then not be better to >>> use different symbols, (fore example, m and n)? >>> >>> Perhaps, I misunderstand. In that case, please, clarify. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Loet >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Anthony F.J. van Raan >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues, we have the following contribution to the discussion on >>>> new bibliometric performance indicators: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1632v1 >>>> . >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Ton van Raan >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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; >> > > > > -- > 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; > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --------------------------------------- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Apr 22 08:45:18 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:45:18 +0200 Subject: Scopus's Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) versus a Journal Impact Factor based on Fractional Counting of Citations Message-ID: Scopus's Source Normalized Impact per Paper (*SNIP*) versus a Journal Impact Factor based on Fractional Counting of Citations *JASIST* (forthcoming); preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3580 Abstract: Impact factors (and similar measures such as the Scimago Journal Rankings) suffer from two problems: (i) citation behavior varies among fields of science and therefore leads to systematic differences, and (ii) there are no statistics to inform us whether differences are significant. The recently introduced SNIP indicator of Scopus tries to remedy the first of these two problems, but a number of normalization decisions are involved which makes it impossible to test for significance. Using fractional counting of citations-based on the assumption that impact is proportionate to the number of references in the citing documents-citations can be contextualized at the paper level and aggregated impacts of sets can be tested for their significance. It can be shown that the weighted impact of *Annals of Mathematics* (0.247) is not so much lower than that of *Molecular Cell *(0.386) despite a five-fold difference between their impact factors (2.793 and 13.156, respectively). Loet Leydesdorff & Tobias Opthof 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mw at UNI-BIELEFELD.DE Fri Apr 30 07:25:00 2010 From: mw at UNI-BIELEFELD.DE (Matthias Winterhager) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:25:00 +0200 Subject: Job Announcement (Germany) Message-ID: Details see attachment. Good knowledge of German is essential for the position. -- Matthias Winterhager Bielefeld University P.O.Box 10 01 31 33501 Bielefeld Germany -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: iFQ_Ausschreibung_Koordinator_KB.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 93429 bytes Desc: not available URL: