From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Sat Jul 3 11:39:56 2010 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:39:56 -0400 Subject: Google Scholar Can Now Focus Boolean Search on the Articles Citing a Given Article Message-ID: In the world of journal articles, each article is both a "citing" item and a "cited" item. The list of references a given article cites provides that article's outgoing citations. And all the other articles in whose reference lists that article is cited provide that article's incoming citations. Formerly, with Google Scholar (1) you could do a google-like boolean (and, or, not, etc.) word search, which ranked the articles that it retrieved by how highly cited they were. Then, for any individual citing article in that ranked list of citing articles, (2) you could go on to retrieve all the articles citing that individual cited article, again ranked by how highly cited they were. But you could not go on to do a boolean word search within just that set of citing articles; as of July 1 you can: http://j.mp/c74RQs (Thanks to Joseph Esposito for pointing this out on liblicense.) Of course Google Scholar is a potential scientometric killer-app that is just waiting to design and display powers far, far greater and richer than even these. Only two things are holding it back: (a) the sparse Open Access content of the web to date (only about 20% of articles published annually) and (b) the sleepiness of google, in not realizing what a potentially rich a scientometric resource and tool they have in their hands. Citebase http://www.citebase.org/search gives a foretaste of some more of the latent power of an Open Access impact and influence engine (so does citeseerx http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ ), but even that is pale by comparison with what is still to come -- if only Green OA self-archiving mandates by the world's universities, the providers of all the missing content, hurry up and get adopted so they can be implemented and hence *all* the target content for these impending marvels (not just 20% of it) can begin being reliably provided at long last. (SCOPUS and Thomson-Reuters Web of Science are of course likewise standing by, ready to upgrade their services so as to point also to the OA versions of the content they index -- if only we hurry up and make it OA!) Harnad, S. (2001) Research access, impact and assessment. Times Higher Education Supplement 1487: p. 16. http://cogprints.org/1683/ Brody, T., Kampa, S., Harnad, S., Carr, L. and Hitchcock, S. (2003) Digitometric Services for Open Archives Environments. In Proceedings of European Conference on Digital Libraries 2003, pp. 207-220, Trondheim, Norway. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7503/ Hitchcock, Steve; Woukeu, Arouna; Brody, Tim; Carr, Les; Hall, Wendy & Harnad, Stevan. (2003) Evaluating Citebase, an open access Web-based citation-ranked search and impact discovery service http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8204/ Harnad, Stevan (2003) Maximizing Research Impact by Maximizing Online Access. In: Law, Derek & Judith Andrews, Eds. Digital Libraries: Policy Planning and Practice. Ashgate Publishing 2003. http://cogprints.org/1639/ Harnad, S. (2006) Online, Continuous, Metrics-Based Research Assessment. Technical Report, ECS, University of Southampton. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12130/ Brody, T., Carr, L., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Time to Convert to Metrics. Research Fortnight pp. 17-18. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14329/ Brody, T., Carr, L., Gingras, Y., Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web: Publication-Archiving, Data-Archiving and Scientometrics. CTWatch Quarterly 3(3). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14418/ Harnad, S. (2008) Validating Research Performance Metrics Against Peer Rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (11) doi:10.3354/esep00088 The Use And Misuse Of Bibliometric Indices In Evaluating Scholarly Performance http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15619/ Harnad, S., Carr, L. and Gingras, Y. (2008) Maximizing Research Progress Through Open Access Mandates and Metrics. Liinc em Revista 4(2). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/16617/ Harnad, S. (2009) The PostGutenberg Open Access Journal. In: Cope, B. & Phillips, A (Eds.) The Future of the Academic Journal. Chandos. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15617/ Harnad, S. (2009) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. Scientometrics 79 (1) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joseph Esposito espositoj -- gmail.com Date: Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:14 PM Subject: New feature in Google Scholar To: Google Scholar now lets you see how an article was cited: http://j.mp/c74RQs Joe Esposito From Fredrik.Astrom at LUB.LU.SE Mon Jul 5 04:34:57 2010 From: Fredrik.Astrom at LUB.LU.SE (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fredrik_=C5str=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 10:34:57 +0200 Subject: European Educational Research Quality: new sets of indicators, new framework, new methodologies: Geneva 17-18 September 2010 Message-ID: Dear All, please excuse cross-postings! /Fredrik 2nd EERQI Workshop - Geneva 17-18 September 2010 // European Educational Research Quality: new sets of indicators, new framework, new methodologies - discussion of EERQI intermediate results within the scientific community Since April 2008, the European Educational Research Quality Indicators (EERQI) project has been working, aiming at the reinforcement and enhancement of the worldwide visibility and competitiveness of European research by developing new indicators and methodologies to determine the quality of educational science research publications. As part of the project, the second EERQI workshop will be held in Geneva 17-18 September, 2010. During this workshop, the intermediate results of the project will be discussed with the scientific community, including both those interested in educational research; and those with an interest in research evaluation, science and technology indicators and scientometrics, not the least those with an interest in research evaluation issues related to the humanities and the social sciences. We are convinced that your participation in this workshop will be a significant contribution to the development of valid instruments for the assessment of research quality. Please do not hesitate to inform other colleagues who might be interested in this. You will find more information about the workshop on the website: http://www.irdp.ch/eerqi_2010/index_english.html _______________________________________________________ Fredrik ?str?m, PhD Lund University Libraries Head Office P.O. Box 134 SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden Phone: +46 (0)46-221 7325 (Office), +46 (0)70-494 3346 (Mobile) E-mail: fredrik.astrom at lub.lu.se Fax: +46 (0)46-221 3682 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GESS.ETHZ.CH Mon Jul 5 14:46:11 2010 From: lutz.bornmann at GESS.ETHZ.CH (Bornmann Lutz) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 20:46:11 +0200 Subject: Co-citation maps Message-ID: Dear colleague, I am looking for co-citation data or graphs. These data/ graphs should show the increasing exchange (or collaboration) between different science disciplines within the last years. I would be very grateful for references to papers, reports, data bases etc. Many thanks in advance, Lutz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. 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 eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Mon Jul 5 22:54:23 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 21:54:23 -0500 Subject: Bibliometry.....Rev. Biol. Trop. 58(2) June 2010 p.531-545 Message-ID: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: Bibliometry of biological systematics in Latin America during the twentieth century in three global databases (Article, Spanish) AUTHOR: Michan, L; Llorente-Bousquets, J SOURCE: REVISTA DE BIOLOGIA TROPICAL 58 (2). JUN 2010. p.531-545 REVISTA DE BIOLOGIA TROPICAL, SAN JOSE SEARCH TERM(S): BIBLIOMETR* item_title KEYWORDS: taxonomy; bibliometry; Biosis; CAB; Science Citation Index; Latin America KEYWORDS+: SCIENCE; CONSERVATION; ISSUE ABSTRACT: Bibliometry of biological systematics in Latin America during the twentieth century in three global databases. We present a review of the biological systematic research in Latin America during the twentieth century, applying a bibliometric analysis to the information contained in international databases with the largest number of biological records: Biosis (since 1969), CAB (since 1910) and Science Citation Index (since 1900), to recognize certain patterns and trends regarding the document production. We obtained 19 079 documents and 1 387 journals for Biosis, 14326 and 2537 for CAB, 3257 and 1636 for SCI. Of the documents, 54.6% related to new species, 15.3% dealt with morphology, 14.9% keys, 12.5% descriptions, 10.6% cases of synonymies, 6% new genera, 4.9% new geographical. records, 23.6% geographical distribution, 4.2% redescriptions, and 3.6% with new nomenclatural combinations. The regions mentioned were South America with 11.9%, Central America with 4% and America (all) with 2.56%. Nineteen Latin American countries appear, whereas outside this region we found the United States of America with 12.6% of representation and Canada with 3%. Animals (65.6%) were the most studied taxa, which was 1.7 times higher than what was published for plants (37%), 11 times higher than fungi (6%) and nearly 30 times higher than microorganisms (2.3%). Out of the 155 journals that produced 66% of the papers, 76.5% were better represented in Biosis, 21.4% in CAB and 2% in SCI. Twenty-nine journals published 33% of the articles, the maximum number of records obtained was 69% for Biosis, CAB 24% and 6.9% for SCI, three (10.3%) are in biology, 11(37.9%) in botany, 13 (44.8%) zoology, and two (6.9%) paleontology; eight of these journals (27.5%) were published in Latin America and twenty were indexed in the Science Citation Index. In the last two years more journals of the region that publish on taxonomy have been indexed, but their impact factor is still low. However, the impact factor of a number of Latin American journals that published biodiversity increased with time. Countries that are more interested in studying the Latin American biota from the taxonomic point of view are Brazil, the United States, Argentina and Mexico. The most active institutions in this discipline were the Universidade de Sao Paulo, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, and the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; together they produced 24% of the documents. Rev. Biol. Trop. 58(2): 531-545. Epub 2010 June 02. AUTHOR ADDRESS: J Llorente-Bousquets, Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Dept Evolut Biol, Museo Zool, Fac Ciencias, Av Univ 3000 Circuito Exterior S-N,Ciudad Univ,DF, Mexico City 04510, DF, Mexico [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 611QT 00001) ISSN: 0034-7744 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ========================== End of Data =========================== You can purchase the full text of any document by simply entering an X in the box to the left of the reference. Then, specify the following information, and return this message as a reply to sender: Your Name: Document Delivery Account Number (if available): Address: Telephone Number: If your e-mail system does not permit you to edit text in the original message or does not have a reply function, prepare a new e-mail message and address it to articles at radirect.isinet.com. Then, specify the following information in your message: Your Name; Document Delivery Account Number; Address; Telephone Number; Journal Title; Beginning Page; Author; Volume; Issue; Year. Alternatively, you can request document delivery by mail or fax to: ISI Document Solution, P.O. Box 7649, Phila, PA 19104. Fax numbers are: 215-222-0840 and 215-386-4343. If you are sending the request using a printed copy of this profile, include the first page of the printout, which contains the profile number and account number. Your document delivery request will be processed within 24 hours of receipt. Copyright (C) 2003 by ISI Thomson Scientific All rights reserved. No portion of this data may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the publisher. From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Mon Jul 5 22:59:25 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 21:59:25 -0500 Subject: FW: Personal Alert: 4 items found [Profile:003172] Message-ID: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: Scientometric Analysis and Combined Density-Equalizing Mapping of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Research (Article, English) AUTHOR: Vitzthum, K; Scutaru, C; Musial-Bright, L; Quarcoo, D; Welte, T; Spallek, M; Groneberg-Kloft, B SOURCE: PLOS ONE 5 (6). JUN 22 2010. p.NIL_56-NIL_65 PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, SAN FRANCISCO SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; SCIENTOMETRIC* item_title; GARFIELD E OCCUP MED-OXFORD 49:571 1999 KEYWORDS+: OCCUPATIONAL-HEALTH; CIGARETTE-SMOKING; SECONDHAND SMOKE; RESEARCH OUTPUT; IMPACT FACTORS; EXPOSURE; SCIENCE; DISEASE; ASTHMA; INDEX ABSTRACT: Background: Passive exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is estimated to exert a major burden of disease. Currently, numerous countries have taken legal actions to protect the population against ETS. Numerous studies have been conducted in this field. Therefore, scientometric methods should be used to analyze the accumulated data since there is no such approach available so far. Methods and Results: A combination of scientometric methods and novel visualizing procedures were used, including density-equalizing mapping and radar charting techniques. 6,580 ETS-related studies published between 1900 and 2008 were identified in the ISI database. Using different scientometric approaches, a continuous increase of both quantitative and qualitative parameters was found. The combination with density-equalizing calculations demonstrated a leading position of the United States (2,959 items published) in terms of quantitative research activities. Charting techniques demonstrated that there are numerous bi- and multilateral networks between different countries and institutions in this field. Again, a leading position of American institutions was found. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive scientometric analysis of data on global scientific activities in the field of environmental tobacco smoke research. The present findings can be used as a benchmark for funding allocation processes. AUTHOR ADDRESS: K Vitzthum, Free Univ Berlin, Charite Univ Med, Inst Occupat Med, Dept Informat Sci, D-1000 Berlin, Germany [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 614KX 00006) ISSN: 1932-6203 From ksc at LIBRARY.IISC.ERNET.IN Tue Jul 6 00:17:16 2010 From: ksc at LIBRARY.IISC.ERNET.IN (K S Chudamani) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:47:16 +0530 Subject: Co-citation maps In-Reply-To: <8094F4C4F44F9C409195016EB1CD8D24164BD2@EX7.d.ethz.ch> Message-ID: Dear Lutz, I have a paper published by Bombay science Librarians associaion conference in 2008 on subject cooccurence. If you are interested I can send a scanned copy of the same Chudamani On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Bornmann Lutz wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear colleague, > > I am looking for co-citation data or graphs. These data/ graphs should show the increasing exchange (or collaboration) between different science disciplines within the last years. > > I would be very grateful for references to papers, reports, data bases etc. > > Many thanks in advance, > > Lutz > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Dr. habil. 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 > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Tue Jul 6 11:13:58 2010 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 17:13:58 +0200 Subject: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition Message-ID: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition The second edition of 2010 Ranking Web of Repositories has been published the same day OR2010 started here in Madrid. The ranking is available from the following URL: http://repositories.webometrics.info/ The main novelty is the substantial increase in the number of repositories analyzed (close to 1000). The Top 800 are ranked according to their web presence and visibility. As usual thematic repositories (CiteSeer, RePEc, Arxiv) leads the Ranking, but the French research institutes (CNRS, INRIA, SHS) using HAL are very close. Two issues have changed from previous editions from a methodologicall point of view:, the use of Bing's engine data has been discarded due to irregularities in the figures obtained and MS Excel files has been excluded again. At the end of July the new edition of the Rankings of universities, research centers and hospitals will be published. Comments, suggestions and additional information are greatly appreciated. -- =========================== Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1) IPP-CCHS-CSIC Albasanz, 26-28 28037 Madrid. Spain Editor of the Rankings Web =========================== From lutz.bornmann at GESS.ETHZ.CH Tue Jul 6 14:42:03 2010 From: lutz.bornmann at GESS.ETHZ.CH (Bornmann Lutz) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:42:03 +0200 Subject: AW: [SIGMETRICS] Co-citation maps Message-ID: Dear Chudamani, Interesting! Thank you for this. Lutz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. 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 ________________________________ Von: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics im Auftrag von K S Chudamani Gesendet: Di 06.07.2010 06:17 An: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Betreff: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Co-citation maps Dear Lutz, I have a paper published by Bombay science Librarians associaion conference in 2008 on subject cooccurence. If you are interested I can send a scanned copy of the same Chudamani On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Bornmann Lutz wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear colleague, > > I am looking for co-citation data or graphs. These data/ graphs should show the increasing exchange (or collaboration) between different science disciplines within the last years. > > I would be very grateful for references to papers, reports, data bases etc. > > Many thanks in advance, > > Lutz > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Dr. habil. 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 > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From kmedina at ILLINOIS.EDU Tue Jul 6 18:28:36 2010 From: kmedina at ILLINOIS.EDU (Karen Medina) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 17:28:36 -0500 Subject: Co-citation maps Message-ID: Hi Bornmann Lutz, > increasing exchange (or collaboration) between different science disciplines within the last years. The following citation analysis of Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) might interest you: Jacovi, Michal et al. 2006. The chasms of CSCW: a citation graph analysis of the CSCW conference. In CSCW '06: Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work. pp. 289--298. Available on-line: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1180875.1180920 CSCW is a multi-disciplinary field, made up of social scientists and computer scientists. One of the things this paper looked at was their second hypothesis "Social science and computer science papers will reside in different clusters." They compared collaboration (citing between the groups) from the beginning of the field to the collaboration 20 years later. Full bibtex entry: @inproceedings{ author = {Jacovi, Michal and Soroka, Vladimir and Gilboa-Freedman, Gail and Ur, Sigalit and Shahar, Elad and Marmasse, Natalia}, title = {The chasms of CSCW: a citation graph analysis of the CSCW conference}, booktitle = {CSCW '06: Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work}, year = {2006}, isbn = {1-59593-249-6}, pages = {289--298}, location = {Banff, Alberta, Canada}, doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1180875.1180920}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, } Good luck, -karen medina From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Wed Jul 7 22:48:37 2010 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 22:48:37 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: H?l?ne.Bosc Date: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at listserver.sigmaxi.org Isidro, Thank you for your Ranking Web of World Repositories and for informing us about the best quality repositories! Being French, I am delighted to see HAL so well ranked and I take this opportunity to congratulate Franck Laloe for having set up such a good national repository as well as the CCSD team for continuing to maintain and improve it. Nevertheless, there is a problem in your ranking that I have already had occasion to point out to you in private messages. May I remind you that: Correction for the top 800 ranking: The ranking should either index HyperHAL alone, or index both HAL/INRIA and HAL/SHS, but not all three repositories at the same time: HyperHAL includes both HAL/INRIA and HAL/SHS . Correction for the ranking of institutional repositories: Not only does HyperHAL (#1) include both HAL/INRIA (#3) and HAL/SHS (#5), as noted above, but HyperHAL is a multidisciplinary repository, intended to collect all French research output, across all institutions. Hence it should not be classified and ranked against individual institutional repositories but as a national, central repository. Indeed, even HAL/SHS is multi-institutional in the usual sense of the word: single universities or research institutions. The classification is perhaps being misled by the polysemous use of the word "institution." Not to seem to be biassed against my homeland, I would also point out that, among the top 10 of the top 800 "institutional repositories," CERN (#2) is to a certain extent hosting multi-institutional output too, and is hence not strictly comparable to true single-institution repositories. In addition, "California Institute of Technology Online Archive of California" (#9) is misnamed -- it is the Online Archive of California http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ (CDLIB, not CalTech) and as such it too is multi-institutional. And Digital Library and Archives Virginia Tech University (#4) may also be anomalous, as it includes the archives of electronic journals with multi-institutional content. Most of the multi-institutional anomalies in the "Top 800 Institutional" seem to be among the top 10 -- as one would expect if multiple institutional content is inflating the apparent size of a repository. Beyond the top 10 or so, the repositories look to be mostly true institutional ones. I hope that this will help in improving the next release of your increasingly useful ranking! Best wishes H?l?ne Bosc To: Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:07 PM Subject: Fwd: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition Begin forwarded message: From: "Isidro F. Aguillo" Date: July 6, 2010 11:13:58 AM EDT To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition The second edition of 2010 Ranking Web of Repositories has been published the same day OR2010 started here in Madrid. The ranking is available from the following URL: http://repositories.webometrics.info/ The main novelty is the substantial increase in the number of repositories analyzed (close to 1000). The Top 800 are ranked according to their web presence and visibility. As usual thematic repositories (CiteSeer, RePEc, Arxiv) leads the Ranking, but the French research institutes (CNRS, INRIA, SHS) using HAL are very close. ?Two issues have changed from previous editions from a methodologicall point of view:, the use of Bing's engine data has been discarded due to irregularities in the figures obtained and MS Excel files has been excluded again. At the end of July the new edition of the Rankings of universities, research centers and hospitals will be published. Comments, suggestions and additional information are greatly appreciated. =========================== Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1) IPP-CCHS-CSIC Albasanz, 26-28 28037 Madrid. Spain Editor of the Rankings Web =========================== From Chris.Armbruster at EUI.EU Thu Jul 8 05:44:54 2010 From: Chris.Armbruster at EUI.EU (Armbruster, Chris) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:44:54 +0200 Subject: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition Message-ID: H?l?ne, "Institution" is indeed not a very precise concept, but the repository ranking will not be improved if one were to spend much time trying to decide which repository is institutional and which is not (e.g. how about also deleting No 10 because it is only a departmental repository?). Also, it is a bad idea to define repositories as institutional only if they restrict themselves to the output of a single institution. We already have too many repository managers who succumb to this kind of institutionalist logic - and reject OA content only because it is not from their own institution. The CSIC has a sound methodology for ranking repositories, and it not their job to define exclusively what is an IR and what not. And in cyberspace it is much more interesting to compare repositories according to domains and services they offer... Moreover, it would help if we could move beyond the often narrow understanding of what an institutional repository is and what not & acknowledge more clearly that a strategy of privileging institutional repositories as such has not helped. The value & sustainability of IRs (individually, as isolated instances, & if not embedeed in a national system) is rather limited for both scholarship and open access. Hence, it is very welcome that more determined efforts are underway at building viable networks of research repositories and integrate IRs in national systems (e.g. Ireland as latest instance). For a sustained argument, please see: Armbruster/Romary (2010) Comparing Repository Types: Challenges and Barriers for Subject-Based Repositories, Research Repositories, National Repository Systems and Institutional Repositories in Serving Scholarly Communication." (accepted for publication in IJDLS) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1506905 Romary/Armbruster (2010) Beyond Institutional Repositories. IJDLS 1(1)44-61 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1425692 Regards, Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: H?l?ne.Bosc Date: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at listserver.sigmaxi.org Isidro, Thank you for your Ranking Web of World Repositories and for informing us about the best quality repositories! Being French, I am delighted to see HAL so well ranked and I take this opportunity to congratulate Franck Laloe for having set up such a good national repository as well as the CCSD team for continuing to maintain and improve it. Nevertheless, there is a problem in your ranking that I have already had occasion to point out to you in private messages. May I remind you that: Correction for the top 800 ranking: The ranking should either index HyperHAL alone, or index both HAL/INRIA and HAL/SHS, but not all three repositories at the same time: HyperHAL includes both HAL/INRIA and HAL/SHS . Correction for the ranking of institutional repositories: Not only does HyperHAL (#1) include both HAL/INRIA (#3) and HAL/SHS (#5), as noted above, but HyperHAL is a multidisciplinary repository, intended to collect all French research output, across all institutions. Hence it should not be classified and ranked against individual institutional repositories but as a national, central repository. Indeed, even HAL/SHS is multi-institutional in the usual sense of the word: single universities or research institutions. The classification is perhaps being misled by the polysemous use of the word "institution." Not to seem to be biassed against my homeland, I would also point out that, among the top 10 of the top 800 "institutional repositories," CERN (#2) is to a certain extent hosting multi-institutional output too, and is hence not strictly comparable to true single-institution repositories. In addition, "California Institute of Technology Online Archive of California" (#9) is misnamed -- it is the Online Archive of California http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ (CDLIB, not CalTech) and as such it too is multi-institutional. And Digital Library and Archives Virginia Tech University (#4) may also be anomalous, as it includes the archives of electronic journals with multi-institutional content. Most of the multi-institutional anomalies in the "Top 800 Institutional" seem to be among the top 10 -- as one would expect if multiple institutional content is inflating the apparent size of a repository. Beyond the top 10 or so, the repositories look to be mostly true institutional ones. I hope that this will help in improving the next release of your increasingly useful ranking! Best wishes H?l?ne Bosc To: Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:07 PM Subject: Fwd: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition Begin forwarded message: From: "Isidro F. Aguillo" Date: July 6, 2010 11:13:58 AM EDT To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition The second edition of 2010 Ranking Web of Repositories has been published the same day OR2010 started here in Madrid. The ranking is available from the following URL: http://repositories.webometrics.info/ The main novelty is the substantial increase in the number of repositories analyzed (close to 1000). The Top 800 are ranked according to their web presence and visibility. As usual thematic repositories (CiteSeer, RePEc, Arxiv) leads the Ranking, but the French research institutes (CNRS, INRIA, SHS) using HAL are very close. ?Two issues have changed from previous editions from a methodologicall point of view:, the use of Bing's engine data has been discarded due to irregularities in the figures obtained and MS Excel files has been excluded again. At the end of July the new edition of the Rankings of universities, research centers and hospitals will be published. Comments, suggestions and additional information are greatly appreciated. =========================== Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1) IPP-CCHS-CSIC Albasanz, 26-28 28037 Madrid. Spain Editor of the Rankings Web =========================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Thu Jul 8 10:38:19 2010 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:38:19 -0400 Subject: On Comparing Institutional Apples With Multi-Institutional Fruit: The Denominator Fallacy Again Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris wrote: > "Institution" is indeed not a very precise concept, but the repository > ranking will not be improved if one were to spend much time trying to decide > which repository is institutional and which is not If there is any rationale for separately ranking and comparing -- as http://repositories.webometrics.info/ the Ranking Web of World Repositories RWWR does -- both the top 800 repositories and the top 800 *institutional* repositories (and there is indeed an important rationale for doing so), then that rationale is that the institutions are indeed *institutional* and not multi-institutional. The purpose is to rank their relative size (and hence their success in capturing their target content), and there is no point in comparing the size of the category "apple" with the size of the category "fruit." This is the "denominator fallacy": http://bit.ly/denominator-fallacy The pro's and con's of Chris Armbruster's advocacy of central (multi-institutional) repositories over institutional repositories have already been multiply discussed over the years in this Forum and elsewhere: http://bit.ly/Armbruster-central The argument for institutional repositories is that (1) institutions are the providers of all of OA's target content, (2) they have a stake in managing their own output, and (most important of all) (3) they are in a position to mandate the deposit of their own output. The argument for multi-institutional (central) repositories is that they look (superficially) as if they were bigger, hence more "successful" in attracting OA's target content. (Hence Chris's preference for keeping the two kinds of repositories and their sizes conflated in the RWWR rankings.) They also look (superficially) more manageable and sustainable. The argument against multi-institutional (central) repositories is (a) that multi-institutional entities (notably, funders) cannot mandate the deposit of all institutional research output (because not all research is funded), (b) that central deposit mandates compete with instead of reinforcing institutional mandates (eliciting resistance from authors facing the prospect of having to do double-deposits), and (most relevantly here) (c) that the size and success of a repository can only be evaluated and compared in relation to the size of that repository's total target output: And although there are differences among institutions in the size of their own total output (which can and should be weighted to normalize it and make it comparable), the differences in size between institutions and multi-institutions is the difference in size between the number of apples and the number of fruit. (The denominator fallacy.) Multi-institutional (central) repositories' content would have to be weighted by the output of all their actual and potential target institutions and the total target content of each, in order to make multi-institutional rankings comparable to those of individual institutions. RWWR is not doing that kind of weighting -- nor would it be easy to determine those weightings for each kind of multi-institutional repository, though it may eventually be possible to estimate in principle. If it were done, however, there would hardly be any need for two rankings (for repositories vs. institutional repositories). What would be clear from a proper denominator-weighted ranking of institutional and multi-institutional repositories is that, contrary to what Chris has argued, it is not at all true that the multi-institutional repositories are bigger or more successful in collecting their respective total target contents. Rather, it makes much more sense for both institutions and funders to mandate that researchers deposit in their own institutional repository -- from which multi-institutional collections could then be automatically harvested. (It would then be redundant to try to compare their relative success, as one would clearly derivative from the other.) For management and sustainability, local institutional deposit and central harvesting is the complementary -- and optimal -- solution. But first the primary content-provision problem has to be solved, otherwise there is next to nothing to manage and sustain! > how about also deleting No 10 because it is only a departmental repository? A departmental repository, in contrast, is *sub-institutional* rather than multi-institutional. Hence, unless there is to be a separate RWWR ranking of the top 800 *departmental* mandates, there is no harm in listing the departmental repositories among the institutional repositories -- *except* if the university has both an institutional and a departmental repository, *and* the contents of the departmental repository are also a proper subset of the contents of the institutional repository, hence double-counted. This is not the case in the instance of ["institutional"] repository #10, University of Southampton School of Electronics and Computer Science, whose contents are *not* part of institutional repository #27, University of Southampton. Rather than resulting in an inflated ranking for Southampton, this actually results in a *lower* ranking. The joint RWWR ranking of the integrated institutional repository would be higher for Southampton. (That said, with a properly weighted denominator, separately tagged departmental repositories would be useful at this time, to compare the relative success of institution-wide mandates vs. departmental/school/faculty mandates -- i.e., Arthur's Sale's "patchwork mandate" strategy: http://bit.ly/Patchwork-Mandate .) > Also, it is a > bad idea to define repositories as institutional only if they restrict > themselves to the output of a single institution. We already have too many > repository managers who succumb to this kind of institutionalist logic - and > reject OA content only because it is not from their own institution. If only the problem were that of an overflowing cup, with so much OA target content that it needs to be rejected! Chris has the OA content problem completely upside-down! The problem is that not enough of each institution's own OA target content is being deposited, anywhere -- not that institutions are declining to host the output of other institutions. (It is only Chris's central-repository preoccupation that makes him imagine that the latter is the problem.) What's missing is not repositories to deposit in, but *mandates to deposit*. The solution is for institutions and funders to mandate institutional deposit of all content, funded and unfunded, across all disciplines -- and then, if desired, to harvest that content into various central collections, by discipline, funder, language or nation, as desired. Institutions are the universal providers of all that content; they are also the natural locus for deposit mandates. > The CSIC has a sound methodology for ranking repositories, and it not their > job to define exclusively what is an IR and what not. And in cyberspace it > is much more interesting to compare repositories according to domains and > services they offer... I take it that by the CSIC Chris means the RWWR: http://repositories.webometrics.info/about.html And as far as I can tell, the only reason Chris finds the methodology sound is that it conflates institutional and multi-institutional repositories, which favors Chris's preference for multi-institutional repositories. What is much more interesting and important in cyberspace than the locus of the distributed content is the *presence* of the content. Most (80%) of OA's target content is still missing from anywhere on the (free) web, and long overdue. Locus matters strategically for the concrete, practical goal of capturing that target content (and making it OA). Chris keeps systematically missing this point. If the content were all there already, none of this would matter in the slightest. (And a good intuition pump to bear in mind is that the key to the success of Google and the like was not to try to get everyone to deposit their content directly in Google: What happened, and worked, was distributed, local deposit and hosting, followed by central harvesting. Not a bad principle to generalize to OA...) > Moreover, it would help if we could move beyond the often narrow > understanding of what an institutional repository is and what not & > acknowledge more clearly that a strategy of privileging institutional > repositories as such has not helped. Chris does not seem to have noticed the growing institutional/departmental repository mandate movement (initiated in 2002 by Southampton ECS, but greatly accelerated since the 16th mandate in 2008 by Harvard FAS, and now running well over 100 institutional/departmental mandates, including UCL, MIT and Stanford, as well as over 40 funder mandates). http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=144&Itemid=338 It is not (and never has been) a matter of merely "privileging" institutional deposit, but *mandating* it. > The value & sustainability of IRs > (individually, as isolated instances, & if not embedeed in a national > system) is rather limited for both scholarship and open access. (1) Repository value is nil without content. (2) With content, locus is irrelevant, as search is not local but global, via central harvesters. (3) Sustainability is a red herring (especially with today's sparse OA content); institutional deposit loci and central harvesters are complementary, insofar as preservation is concerned. (4) Nations can and should mandate OA deposit. Nations can and should harvest OA deposits centrally. But there is no earthly need (or prospect) of nations directly hosting all their institutional OA output centrally, any more than there is any earthly need for nations to host all their institutions centrally. (5) If Chris is worried about limitations on OA scholarship, he should set his mind to thinking of how to induce the OA target content providers (institutional researchers) to deposit their content, to make it OA. (6) IRs will take care of themselves. > Hence, it is > very welcome that more determined efforts are underway at building viable > networks of research repositories and integrate IRs in national systems > (e.g. Ireland as latest instance). All true, but a non sequitur, insofar was the fundamental problem of filling those repositories with their target contents is concerned. > For a sustained argument, please see: > > Armbruster/Romary (2010) Comparing Repository Types: Challenges and Barriers > for Subject-Based Repositories, Research Repositories, National Repository > Systems and Institutional Repositories in Serving Scholarly Communication." > (accepted for publication in IJDLS) > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1506905 > > Romary/Armbruster (2010) Beyond Institutional Repositories. IJDLS 1(1)44-61 > http://ssrn.com/abstract=1425692 For a sustained critique and response, see: Conflating OA Repository-Content, Deposit-Locus, and Central-Service Issues http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/665-guid.html Institutional vs. Central Repositories: 2 (of 2) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/659-guid.html Institutional vs. Central Repositories: 1 (of 2) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/658-guid.html Beyond Romary & Armbruster On Institutional Repositories http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/606-guid.html When Will the Research Community Take OA Matters Into Its Own Hands? http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/244-guid.html First Things First: OA Self-Archiving, Then Maybe OA Publishing http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/155-guid.html Well-Meaning Supporters of "OA + X" Inadvertently Opposing OA http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/182-guid.html Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., Oppenheim, C., O?Brien, A., Hardy, R., Rowland, F. and Brown, S. (2005) Developing a model for e-prints and open access journal content in UK further and higher education. Learned Publishing, 18 (1). pp. 25-40. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11000/ Stevan Harnad From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Jul 9 07:09:53 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:09:53 +0200 Subject: The creative tension between Habermas' critical theory and Luhmann's social systems theory: Communicative Competencies and the Structuration of Expectations Message-ID: Communicative Competencies and the Structuration of Expectations: The creative tension between Habermas' critical theory and Luhmann's social systems theory Complicity 7(2) (2002) in press; p df-version I elaborate on the tension between Luhmann's social systems theory and Habermas' theory of communicative action, and argue that this tension can be resolved by focusing on language as the interhuman medium of the communication which enables us to develop symbolically generalized media of communication such as truth, love, power, etc. Following Luhmann, the layers of self-organization among the differently codified subsystems of communication versus organization of meaning at contingent interfaces can analytically be distinguished as compatible, yet empirically researchable alternatives to Habermas' distinction between "system" and "lifeworld." Mediation by a facilitator can then be considered as a special case of organizing historically contingent translations among the evolutionarily developing fluxes of intentions and expectations. Accordingly, I suggest modifying Giddens' terminology into "a theory of the structuration of expectations." ** apologies for cross-postings _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Visiting Professor 2007-2010, ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary Fellow 2007-2010, SPRU, University of Sussex 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 amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Fri Jul 9 14:22:07 2010 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 14:22:07 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Leslie Carr Date: Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:04 PM Subject: Re: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at listserver.sigmaxi.org On 9 Jul 2010, at 08:12, Isidro F. Aguillo wrote: > However perhaps you will like this page we prepared for the University rankings related to UK universities commitment to OA: > http://www.webometrics.info/openac.html Thanks for preparing the page - it is very informative and helpful in answering questions about the interpretation of the IR ranking relating to the discrepancy between the relative ordering of institutions in the IR list and other (independent) research rankings. As you point out, much of the difference is explained by the relative "openness" of each institution's literature. Since 50% of the score is devoted to in-links, and there is little motivation to link to an empty bibliographic record, a high proportion of OA papers will tend to attract more links, more traffic and hence a more "impactful" repository. Some institutions have therefore benefited from their efforts to deposit OA papers, becoming more visible and hence more highly rated. Others are seeing the opposite effect - ?institutions that would normally be at the top of any research list are much lower down than expected. Some of these institutions don't have very effective repositories and some do but hide them behind firewalls. Either way the net effect is the same - not much visible public literature to attract links or traffic. I hope that the effect of this "league table" will be to encourage institutions to redouble their efforts in regard to Open Access. I also hope that it will be possible to have further public dialogue so that the process can be increasingly open and the community can better understand, verify and trust your metrics. Thanks again for your contribution! -- Les Carr On 9 Jul 2010, at 08:12, Isidro F. Aguillo wrote: > Dear Stevan: > > A lot of interesting stuff to think about. We are already working on some of those proposals but it is not easy. However perhaps you will like this page we prepared for the University rankings related to UK universities commitment to OA: > > http://www.webometrics.info/openac.html > > Thanks for your useful comments, > > > > El 08/07/2010 18:34, Stevan Harnad escribi?: >> On 2010-07-08, at 4:43 AM, Isidro F. Aguillo wrote: >> >>> Dear H?l?ne: >>> >>> Thank you for your message, but I disagree with your proposal. We are not measuring only contents but contents AND visibility in the web. >> Dear Isidro, >> >> If I may intervene with some comments too, as this discussion has some wider implications: >> >> Yes, you are measuring both contents and visibility, but presumably you want the difference between (1) the ranking of the top 800 repositories and (2) the ranking of the top 800 *institutional* repositories to be based on the fact that the latter are institutional repositories whereas the former are all repositories (central, i.e., multi-institutional, as well as institutional). >> >> Moreover, if you list redundant repositories (some being the proper subsets of others) in the very same ranking, it seems to me the meaning of the ranking becomes rather vague. >> >>> Certainly HyperHAL covers the contents of all its participants, but the impact of these contents depends of other factors. Probably researchers prefer to link to the paper in INRIA because of the prestige of this institution, the affiliation of the author or the marketing of their institutional repository. >> All true, but perhaps the significance and usefulness of the rankings would be greater if you either changed the weight of the factors (volume of full-text content, number of links) or, alternatively, you designed the rankings so the user could select and weight the criteria on which the rankings are displayed. >> >> Otherwise your weightings become like the "h-index" -- an a-priori combination of untested, unvalidated weights that many users may not be satisfied with, or fully informed by... >> >>> But here is a more important aspect. If I were the president of INRIA I will prefer people using my institutional repository instead CCSD. No problem with the last one, they are makinng a great job and increasing the reach of INRIA, but the papers deposited are a very important (the most important?) asset of INRIA. >> But how much INRIA papers are linked, downloaded and cited is not necessarily (or even probably) a function of their direct locus! >> >> What is important for INRIA (and all institutions) is that as much as possible of their paper output should be OA, simpliciter, so that it can be linked, downloaded, read, applied, used and cited. It is entirely secondary, for INRIA (and all institutions), *where* their papers are OA, compared to the necessary condition *that* they are OA (and hence freely accessible, usaeble, harvestable). >> >> Hence (in my view) by far the most important ranking factor for institutional repositories is how much of their full-text institutional paper output is indeed deposited and OA. INRIA would have no reason to be disappointed if the locus from which its content is searched, retrieved and linked is some other, multi-institutional harvester. INRIA still gets the credit and benefits from all the links, downloads and citations of INRIA content! >> >> (Having said that, locus of deposit *does* matter, very much, for deposit mandates, Deposit mandates are necessary in order to generate OA content. And, for strategic reasons that are elaborated in my reply to Chris Armbruster, it makes a big practical difference for success in agreeing on the adoption of a mandate that both institutional and funder mandates should require convergent *institutional* deposit, rather than divergent and competing institutional vs. institution-extermal deposit. Here too, your repository rankings would be much more helpful and informative if they gave a greater weight to the relative size of each institutional repository's content and eliminated multi-institutional repositories from the institutional repository rankings -- or at least allowed institutional repositories to be ranked independently on content vs links. >> >> I think you are perhaps being misled here by the analogy with your sister rankings http://www.webometrics.info/ RWWU of universities rather than their repositories In university rankings, the links to the university site itself matter a lot. But in repository rankings links matter much less than *how much institutional content is accessible*. For the degree of usage of that content, harvester sites may be more relevant measures, and, after all, downloads and citations, unlike links, carry their credits (to the authors and institutions) with them no matter where the transaction happens to occur... >> >>> Regarding the other comments we are going to correct those with mistakes but it is very difficult for us to realize that Virginia Tech University is "faking" its institutional repository with contents authored by external scholars. >> I have called Gail McMillan at Virginia Tech about this, and she has explained it to me. The question was never whether Virginia Tech was "faking"! They simply host content over and above Virginia Tech content -- for example, OA journals whose content originates from other institutions. >> >> As such, the Virginia Tech repository, besides providing access to Virgina Tech content, ?is also conduit or portal for accessing the content of those other institutions. The "credit" for providing the conduit, goes to Virginia Tech, of course. But the credit for the links, usage and citations goes to those other institutions! (When an institutional repository is also used as a portal for other institutions, its function becomes a hybrid one -- both an aggregator and a provider. I think it's far more useful and important to try to keep those functions separate, in both the rankings and the weightings. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Stevan >> >>> El 07/07/2010 23:03, H?l?ne.Bosc escribi?: >>>> Isidro, >>>> Thank you for your Ranking Web of World Repositories and for informing us about the best quality repositories! >>>> >>>> >>>> Being French, I am delighted to see HAL so well ranked and I take this opportunity to congratulate Franck Laloe for having set up such a good national repository as well as the CCSD team for continuing to maintain and improve it. >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, there is a problem in your ranking that I have already had occasion to point out to you in private messages. >>>> May I remind you that: >>>> >>>> Correction for the top 800 ranking: >>>> >>>> >>>> The ranking should either index HyperHAL alone, or index both HAL/INRIA and HAL/SHS, but not all three repositories at the same time: HyperHAL includes both HAL/INRIA and HAL/SHS . >>>> >>>> Correction for the ranking of institutional repositories: >>>> >>>> >>>> Not only does HyperHAL (#1) include both HAL/INRIA (#3) and HAL/SHS (#5), as noted above, but HyperHAL is a multidisciplinary repository, intended to collect all French research output, across all institutions. Hence it should not be classified and ranked against individual institutional repositories but as a national, central repository. Indeed, even HAL/SHS is multi-institutional in the usual sense of the word: single universities or research institutions. The classification is perhaps being misled by the polysemous use of the word "institution." >>>> >>>> >>>> Not to seem to be biassed against my homeland, I would also point out that, among the top 10 of the top 800 "institutional repositories," CERN (#2) is to a certain extent hosting multi-institutional output too, and is hence not strictly comparable to true single-institution repositories. In addition, "California Institute of Technology Online Archive of California" (#9) is misnamed -- it is the Online Archive of California http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ (CDLIB, not CalTech) and as such it too is multi-institutional. And Digital Library and Archives Virginia Tech University (#4) may also be anomalous, as it includes the archives of electronic journals with multi-institutional content. Most of the multi-institutional anomalies in the "Top 800 Institutional" seem to be among the top 10 -- as one would expect if multiple institutional content is inflating the apparent size of a repository. Beyond the top 10 or so, the repositories look to be mostly true institutional ones. >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope that this will help in improving the next release of your increasingly useful ranking! >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> H?l?ne Bosc >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stevan Harnad" >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:07 PM >>>> Subject: Fwd: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: "Isidro F. Aguillo" >>>> Date: July 6, 2010 11:13:58 AM EDT >>>> To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu >>>> Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition >>>> >>>> Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition >>>> >>>> The second edition of 2010 Ranking Web of Repositories has been published the same day OR2010 started here in Madrid. The ranking is available from the following URL: >>>> >>>> http://repositories.webometrics.info/ >>>> >>>> The main novelty is the substantial increase in the number of repositories analyzed (close to 1000). The Top 800 are ranked according to their web presence and visibility. As usual thematic repositories (CiteSeer, RePEc, Arxiv) leads the Ranking, but the French research institutes (CNRS, INRIA, SHS) using HAL are very close. ?Two issues have changed from previous editions from a methodologicall point of view:, the use of Bing's engine data has been discarded due to irregularities in the figures obtained and MS Excel files has been excluded again. >>>> >>>> At the end of July the new edition of the Rankings of universities, research centers and hospitals will be published. >>>> >>>> Comments, suggestions and additional information are greatly appreciated. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> =========================== >>> >>> Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD >>> Cybermetrics Lab (3C1) >>> IPP-CCHS-CSIC >>> Albasanz, 26-28 >>> 28037 Madrid. Spain >>> >>> >>> Editor of the Rankings Web >>> =========================== > > > -- > =========================== > > Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD > Cybermetrics Lab (3C1) > IPP-CCHS-CSIC > Albasanz, 26-28 > 28037 Madrid. Spain > > > Editor of the Rankings Web > =========================== From judit at CC.HUJI.AC.IL Sun Jul 11 05:08:19 2010 From: judit at CC.HUJI.AC.IL (Judit Bar-Ilan) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:08:19 +0300 Subject: 13th ISSI 2011 Conference Announcement, Durban, South Africa, July 4-8. Message-ID: [Apologies for cross posting] 13th ISSI 2011 Conference Announcement, Durban, South Africa, July 4-8. The Conference Organizing Committee would like to invite participants to attend the 13th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference 2011 in Durban, South Africa (http://www.issi2011.uzulu.ac.za/). Scope Although the generic term informetrics has become increasingly popular, scientometrics, bibliometrics and webometrics are all closely related or interlinked sub-disciplines. They belong to the general field of Information Science and are all employed for the quantitative analysis or measurement of all forms of recorded information by studying their distribution, circulation and use pattern largely within or among individuals, disciplines, organisations or countries. The informetric disciplines thus contribute to evidence-based and informed knowledge about scientific research and provide input to research and innovation policy making worldwide. Evidently, a conference of this magnitude always encourages the growth of research and increased national and international collaboration. We are convinced that by organising the conference on African soil, we will be able to popularise research in the areas of informetrics, scientometrics and webometrics within the country and on the continent. The ISSI 2011 Conference will provide an international open forum for scientists, research managers and authorities, information and communication related professionals to debate the current status and advancements of informetric and scientometric theory and applications, with emphasis on the progress of scientometrics and science in developing countries. The conference is organized under the auspices of ISSI ? the International Society for Informetrics and Scientometrics (http://www.issi-society.info/). The conference language is English. Location The choice of Durban to be the conference city is significant. Durban (http://www.world66.com/africa/southafrica/durban/lib/gallery) is considered to be Africa's leading conference destination; is a vibrant city with a harmonious blend of African, Asian and European culture, and is located in the historical Kingdom of the Zulu nation in the KwaZulu-Natal province that is a gateway to African culture in South Africa. Durban is also South Africa's only destination of tropical summers, with 320 sunny days a year. Durban University of Technology, the conference venue that is located close to the city Central Business District (CBD), is one of the 23 public universities in South Africa that focuses on technology oriented vocational and professional higher education with 23,000 students enrolment. The University has allocated its conference facility for the ISSI conference. Invitation to submit contributions to ISSI 2011 We invite researchers worldwide to submit original full research papers, research-in-progress papers or posters within the broad area of informetrics. Major conference themes are listed below. For the different forms of submissions, see information on the conference website: http://www.issi2011.uzulu.ac.za/. A Doctoral Forum and dedicated tutorials will be held the day prior to the start of the main conference. Topics of interest include, but not limited to: * Theory * Methods and techniques * Citation and co-citation analysis * Indicators * Webometrics * Mapping & visualization * Research policy * Productivity & publications * Journals, databases and electronic publications * Collaboration * Country level studies * Patent analysis Important Dates: Full Papers, Research-in-Progress and Workshop/Tutorial paper submission deadline 15-01-2011 Paper/Workshop/Tutorial notification of acceptance/rejection 15-02-2011 Poster submission deadline 18-02-2011 Doctoral Forum submission deadline 01-03-2011 Poster notification of acceptance/rejection 14-03-2011 Paper in camera ready form sent to system (at least one author must register) 17-03-2011 Doctoral Forum result announcement 01-04-2011 Early Bird registration 15-04-2011 Organizing Committee The I3th ISSI conference in South Africa is organised by the ISSI 2011 Conference Local Organising Committee with the participation of six Universities and Research Centres: Durban University of Technology (the conference venue -http://www.dut.ac.za/site/default.asp), University of Cape Town (http://www.uct.ac.za), University of KwaZulu Natal (http://www.ukzn.ac.za), National Research Foundation (http://www.nrf.ac.za), University of South Africa (http://www.unisa.ac.za), University of Pretoria (http://www.up.ac.za) and University of Zululand (http://www.uz.ac.za). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 13th ISSI 2011 announcement1.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 102991 bytes Desc: 13th ISSI 2011 announcement1.pdf URL: From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Thu Jul 15 06:45:56 2010 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:45:56 +0200 Subject: New paper published in Cybermetrics Message-ID: The Importance of Technology and R&D Expenditures in the Visibility of the Firms on the Web: An Exploratory Study Alba Martinez-Ruiz & Michael Thelwall Cybermetrics, Vol. 14 (2010): Issue 1. Paper 2 http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v14i1p2.html http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v14i1p2.pdf This article investigates the relationship between the web visibility of firms, and the firms' technologies and the R&D expenditures. Link data are used as a proxy for the web visibility of a firm, and patent indicators are used as a proxy of importance of technologies. Data used derives from a set of firms in the renewable energy field. The findings suggest that firms investing more in R&D and/or developing more high-impact technology are more visible on the web, but these relationships are mainly due to larger firms having higher values for all three indicators. -- =========================== Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1) IPP-CCHS-CSIC Albasanz, 26-28 28037 Madrid. Spain Editor of the Rankings Web =========================== From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Jul 15 08:40:21 2010 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:40:21 -0400 Subject: Fwd: OA policies and their "weight" Message-ID: ** Cross-Posted ** Forwarding new OA policy evaluator from CSIS For raw data on OA mandates, see also ROARMAP http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/ Begin forwarded message: > From: Remedios Melero > Date: July 15, 2010 3:14:19 AM EDT > To: boai-forum at ecs.soton.ac.uk, SPARC-OAForum at arl.org > > Good mornig! > In the last Open Repositories Conference which was held last week in Madrid (http://or2010.fecyt.es/publico/Home/index.aspx ) was presented in the poster session the project called MELIBEA. > MELIBEA (http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/) is a directory and a validator of institutional open-access (OA) policies regarding scientific and academic work. As a directory, it describes the existing policies. As a validator, it subjects them to qualitative and quantitative analysis based on fulfilment of a set of indicators ( http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/politicas_estructura.php) that reflect the bases of an institutional policy. > > Based on the values assigned to a set of indicators, weighted according to their importance, the validator indicates a score and a percentage of fulfilment for each policy analyzed. The sum of weighted values of each indicator is converted to a percentage scale to give what we have called the ?validated open-access percentage? (see how i t is calculated: http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/default.php?contenido=acerca ). > > The types of institution analyzed include universities, research centres, funding agencies and governmental organizations. > > MELIBEA has three main objectives: > > ? 1. To establish indicators that reveal the strong and weak points of institutional OA polices. > ? 2. To propose a methodology to guide institutions when they are drawing up an institutional OA policy. > ? 3. To offer a tool for comparing the contents of policies between institutions. > The aim is not to be a ranking, but to offer a tool where to aanlyse and visualize the weaknesses or strenghts of an institutional OA policy based on its wording. It seems something trivial but accomplishment of a policy is based on its terms. > Please if you detect any mistake or you would like to make a comment, contact me. I will be pleased if you could check your policy, if any, to analyse our approach. > Best wishes > Reme > > > R. Melero > IATA, CSIC > Avda Agust?n Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna (Valencia), Spain > TEl +34 96 390 00 22. Fax 96 363 63 01 > E-mail rmelero at iata.csic.es > http://www.accesoabierto.net From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Thu Jul 15 08:44:42 2010 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:44:42 -0400 Subject: OA policies and their "weight" (critique) Message-ID: ** Cross-Posted ** Some prima facie critiques from Steve Hitchcock, concerning the MELIBEA OA Policy Evaluator: Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Hitchcock > Date: July 15, 2010 5:22:30 AM EDT > To: boai-forum at ecs.soton.ac.uk > Cc: SPARC-OAForum at arl.org > > Reme, Thank you for bringing this new service to our attention. OA policies are vitally important to the development of institutional repositories, and services that can highlight and bring attention to this development can be valuable. > > There are a few aspects of the validation aspects of the new MELIBEA service that confuse, and possibly trouble, me. The first is the main indicator, %OAval, which is the most visible result for a policy. What do you expect this will tell people about a given policy? I randomly selected a couple of policies, one of which was for my own school, to find they each scored about 50%. I would expect these to be among the leaders in terms of OA policies, so this seems a surprisingly unhelpful score. > > So what's the explanation? Note that the objects being evaluated are institutional OA policies; they are effectively being presented in relation to institutional repositories when the policy specifies where to archive is an IR with a URL. It seems that the scores include ratings for OA publication policy, libre vs gratis OA, publisher pdf, sanctions (score if Yes), incentives (score if Yes), etc., some of which an institution might specify but which might not apply to an IR http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/politicas_estructura.php. However you weight these factors they are still contributors to the overall score, so a policy that is specific to an IR is immediately handicapped, or appears to be unless there is more context to understand the scores. > > Which leads me to another question on the visualisation of the validator, and its use of green, gold (and red) in the meter. Do the green and gold refer the the classic OA colours? This would be quite convenient, since it would appear that the green repository policies I mentioned above are achieving almost full scores in the green zone of the meter. However, I suspect this cannot be the case, because it would assume that institutions must have a green AND gold policy, but not simply gold (whatever argument could be put for that). > > It is important that new services should help reveal and promote OA policies, as you seek to do, but at the same time not to prejudice the development of such policies by mixing and not fairly separating the contributing factors, especially where these relate to different types of OA. > > Steve Hitchcock > IAM Group, Building 32 > School of Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK > Email: sh94r -- ecs.soton.ac.uk > Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit > Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit > Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 7698 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865 > > On 15 Jul 2010, at 08:14, Remedios Melero wrote: > >> Good mornig! >> In the last Open Repositories Conference which was held last week in Madrid (http://or2010.fecyt.es/publico/Home/index.aspx ) was presented in the poster session the project called MELIBEA. >> MELIBEA (http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/) is a directory and a validator of institutional open-access (OA) policies regarding scientific and academic work. As a directory, it describes the existing policies. As a validator, it subjects them to qualitative and quantitative analysis based on fulfilment of a set of indicators ( http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/politicas_estructura.php) that reflect the bases of an institutional policy. >> >> Based on the values assigned to a set of indicators, weighted according to their importance, the validator indicates a score and a percentage of fulfilment for each policy analyzed. The sum of weighted values of each indicator is converted to a percentage scale to give what we have called the ?validated open-access percentage? (see how i t is calculated: http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/default.php?contenido=acerca ). >> >> The types of institution analyzed include universities, research centres, funding agencies and governmental organizations. >> >> MELIBEA has three main objectives: >> >> ? 1. To establish indicators that reveal the strong and weak points of institutional OA polices. >> ? 2. To propose a methodology to guide institutions when they are drawing up an institutional OA policy. >> ? 3. To offer a tool for comparing the contents of policies between institutions. >> The aim is not to be a ranking, but to offer a tool where to aanlyse and visualize the weaknesses or strenghts of an institutional OA policy based on its wording. It seems something trivial but accomplishment of a policy is based on its terms. >> Please if you detect any mistake or you would like to make a comment, contact me. I will be pleased if you could check your policy, if any, to analyse our approach. >> Best wishes >> Reme >> >> >> R. Melero >> IATA, CSIC >> Avda Agust?n Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna (Valencia), Spain >> TEl +34 96 390 00 22. Fax 96 363 63 01 >> E-mail rmelero -- iata.csic.es >> http://www.accesoabierto.net From zchinchi at UGR.ES Thu Jul 15 10:47:52 2010 From: zchinchi at UGR.ES (=?utf-8?Q?Zaida_Chinchilla_Rodr=3Fguez?=) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:47:52 +0200 Subject: [Fwd: [SIGMETRICS] Fwd: OA policies and their "weight"] Message-ID: a prop?sito del oa... ---------------------------- Mensaje original ---------------------------- Asunto: [SIGMETRICS] Fwd: OA policies and their "weight" Desde: "Stevan Harnad" Fecha: 2010.07.15 2:40 pm A: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cross-Posted ** Forwarding new OA policy evaluator from CSIS For raw data on OA mandates, see also ROARMAP http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/ Begin forwarded message: > From: Remedios Melero > Date: July 15, 2010 3:14:19 AM EDT > To: boai-forum at ecs.soton.ac.uk, SPARC-OAForum at arl.org > > Good mornig! > In the last Open Repositories Conference which was held last week in Madrid (http://or2010.fecyt.es/publico/Home/index.aspx ) was presented in the poster session the project called MELIBEA. > MELIBEA (http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/) is a directory and a validator of institutional open-access (OA) policies regarding scientific and academic work. As a directory, it describes the existing policies. As a validator, it subjects them to qualitative and quantitative analysis based on fulfilment of a set of indicators ( http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/politicas_estructura.php) that reflect the bases of an institutional policy. > > Based on the values assigned to a set of indicators, weighted according to their importance, the validator indicates a score and a percentage of fulfilment for each policy analyzed. The sum of weighted values of each indicator is converted to a percentage scale to give what we have called the ?validated open-access percentage? (see how i t is calculated: http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/default.php?contenido=acerca ). > > The types of institution analyzed include universities, research centres, funding agencies and governmental organizations. > > MELIBEA has three main objectives: > > ? 1. To establish indicators that reveal the strong and weak points of institutional OA polices. > ? 2. To propose a methodology to guide institutions when they are drawing up an institutional OA policy. > ? 3. To offer a tool for comparing the contents of policies between institutions. > The aim is not to be a ranking, but to offer a tool where to aanlyse and visualize the weaknesses or strenghts of an institutional OA policy based on its wording. It seems something trivial but accomplishment of a policy is based on its terms. > Please if you detect any mistake or you would like to make a comment, contact me. I will be pleased if you could check your policy, if any, to analyse our approach. > Best wishes > Reme > > > R. Melero > IATA, CSIC > Avda Agust?n Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna (Valencia), Spain > TEl +34 96 390 00 22. Fax 96 363 63 01 > E-mail rmelero at iata.csic.es > http://www.accesoabierto.net -- Zaida Chinchilla Rodr?guez http://www.scimago.es/zaida/ CSIC, Instituto de Pol?ticas y Bienes P?blicos http://www.iesam.csic.es/ Grupo SCImago http://www.scimago.es http://www.scimagojr.com http://www.scimagoir.com http://www.atlasofscience.net From zahedi_zz at YAHOO.COM Sat Jul 17 03:03:43 2010 From: zahedi_zz at YAHOO.COM (zohreh zahedi) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:03:43 -0700 Subject: a question Message-ID: Dear Colleagues ? I want to know whether the H-Index of a country and also an author can be calculated?in ESI? if yes please guide me. ? Regards, Z.Zahedi ? ? Zohreh Zahedi, M.A.? LIS Faculty Member, Department of Library & Information Sciences, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran. Phone:0771-4222131 zahedi at pgu.ac.ir zahedi_zz at yahoo.com zohrehzahedi at gmail.com http://zahedizz.blogfa.com ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sat Jul 17 09:28:55 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:28:55 -0500 Subject: Of possible interest to Sig Metrics readers Message-ID: TITLE: Has the Time Come for Bibliometrics and the H-Index in Academic Radiology? (Editorial Material, English) AUTHOR: Mullins, ME SOURCE: ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY 17 (7). JUL 2010. p.815-816 ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, NEW YORK SEARCH TERM(S): BIBLIOMETR* item_title; HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; EDITORIAL doctype KEYWORDS+: QUALITY AUTHOR ADDRESS: ME Mullins, Emory Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, 1364 Clifton Rd NE,Room D125A, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: The H-Index in Academic Radiology (Article, English) AUTHOR: Rad, AE; Brinjikji, W; Cloft, HJ; Kallmes, DF SOURCE: ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY 17 (7). JUL 2010. p.817-821 ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, NEW YORK SEARCH TERM(S): HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005 KEYWORDS: H-index; radiology; impact factor ABSTRACT: Rationale and Objectives: The h index is a recently developed tool to assess the impact of an author's publications. The purpose of this study was to apply and evaluate the h indexes of US academic radiologists. Materials and Methods: Radiology programs that participated in the residency match in 2009 were identified through the National Resident Matching Program's Web site. One third of programs were randomly selected. The academic ranks (instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, or chairperson) of faculty members were determined on the basis of information from the programs Web sites during October and November 2009. One third of radiologists at each randomly selected institution were randomly selected for detailed analysis. For each radiologist, an automatically computed h index was obtained through the Scopus database. The h index was compared across ranks using analysis of variance. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was also performed to determine the best predictors (number of publications, number of citations, h index, and number of citations per publication) of academic rank. Results: Sixty hundred eighty-three radiologists from 47 programs were included in this study. The mean h indexes were 1.1 +/- 2.7 for instructors, 2.3 +/- 4.1 for assistant professors, 6.2 +/- 7.2 for associate professors, 12.5 +/- 10.8 for full professors, and 12.0 +/- 9.5 for chairpersons. There was a significant relationship between h index and academic rank (P<.0001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that h index (P<.0001) and number of publications (P<.0001) were the best predictors of academic rank. Conclusion: There exists a significant relationship between h index and academic rank, with h index increasing with academic rank. These results offer a benchmark for comparing a given academic radiologist to national averages. AUTHOR ADDRESS: W Brinjikji, Mayo Clin, Mayo Med Sch, 200 SW 1st St,OL 1-115, Rochester, MN 55905 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: Enhanced display of scientific articles using extended metadata (Article, English) AUTHOR: Page, RDM SOURCE: JOURNAL OF WEB SEMANTICS 8 (2-3 SP ISS). JUL 2010. p.190-195 ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, AMSTERDAM SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; KESSLER MM AM DOC 14:10 1963; GARFIELD E NATURE 413:107 2001 KEYWORDS: Data citation; Geotagging; Identifiers; Scientific publication; Biodiversity informatics; Elsevier Grand Challenge KEYWORDS+: MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY; EVOLUTION; INFORMATION; FRAMEWORK; TAXONOMY; LINEAGE; IMPACT; GENUS ABSTRACT: Although the Web has transformed science publishing, scientific papers themselves are still essentially "black boxes", with much of their content intended for human readers only. Typically, computer-readable metadata associated with an article is limited to bibliographic details. By expanding article metadata to include taxonomic names, identifiers for cited material (e. g., publications, sequences, specimens, and other data), and geographical coordinates, publishers could greatly increase the scientific value of their digital content. At the same time this will provide novel ways for users to discover and navigate through this content, beyond the relatively limited linkage provided by bibliographic citation. As a proof of concept, my entry in the Elsevier Grand Challenge extracted extended metadata from a set of articles from the journal Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution and used it to populate an entity-attribute-value database. A simple web interface to this database enables an enhanced display of the content of an article, including a map of localities mentioned either explicitly or implicitly (through links to geotagged data), taxonomic coverage, and both data and citation links. Metadata extraction was limited to information listed in tables in the articles, such as GenBank sequences and specimen codes. The body of the article was not used, a restriction that was deliberate to demonstrate that making extended metadata available does not require a journal's publisher to make the full-text freely available (although this is desirable for other reasons). (C) 2010 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved. AUTHOR ADDRESS: RDM Page, Univ Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Lanark, Scotland From kboyack at MAPOFSCIENCE.COM Mon Jul 19 10:16:21 2010 From: kboyack at MAPOFSCIENCE.COM (Kevin Boyack) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:16:21 -0600 Subject: Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear colleagues - we have a new article available: Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? JASIST (forthcoming); preprint self-archived at http://www.mapofscience.com/images/pdf/SBIR_cite_preprint.pdf In the past several years studies have started to appear comparing the accuracies of various science mapping approaches. These studies primarily compare the cluster solutions resulting from different similarity approaches, and give varying results. In this study, we compare the accuracies of cluster solutions of a large corpus of 2,153,769 recent articles from the biomedical literature (2004-2008) using four similarity approaches: co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, direct citation, and a bibliographic coupling-based citation-text hybrid approach. Each of the four approaches can be considered as a way to represent the research front in biomedicine, and each is able to successfully cluster over 92% of the corpus. Accuracies are compared using two metrics - within-cluster textual coherence as defined by the Jensen-Shannon divergence, and a new concentration factor based on the grant-to-article linkages indexed in MEDLINE. Of the three pure citation-based approaches, bibliographic coupling slightly outperforms co-citation analysis using both accuracy measures; direct citation is the least accurate mapping approach by far. The hybrid approach improves upon the bibliographic coupling results in all respects. We consider the results of this study to be robust given the very large size of the corpus, and the specificity of the accuracy measures used. Kevin Boyack and Dick Klavans SciTech Strategies, Inc. http://www.mapofscience.com/publication.html PS - our apologies to Dr. Loet Leydesdorff for so blatantly copying his method and format for announcing new articles, but we feel it wise to model best practices J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR Mon Jul 19 14:54:03 2010 From: clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR (Clement Levallois) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:54:03 +0200 Subject: Books or articles? Message-ID: Dear list members, A colleague of mine asked me a question on citation practices: are books cited more often than articles? She would be most interested in any general work on the topic, and also on specific studies on the field of economics. Thanks! Clement. _________________ Clement Levallois, PhD Rotterdam School of Management | Erasmus Studio KNAW Erasmus University Room T10-16 Burg. Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA Rotterdam The Netherlands tel +31-10-4082578 | fax +31-10-4089011 email clevallois at rsm.nl | www.clementlevallois.net RSM_and_Erasmus_studio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4985 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Tue Jul 20 07:56:20 2010 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:56:20 +0100 Subject: OA policies and their "weight" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Reme, if I may also make an intervention in your exchange with Steve Hitchcock about the MELIBEA OA policy evaluator: http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/ The MELIBEA service is extremely timely and promising, and could be potentially useful and even influential in shaping OA mandates -- but that makes it all the more important to get it right, rather than releasing MELIBEA prematurely, when it still risks increasing confusion rather than providing clarity and direction. You are right to point out that -- unlike the CSIC's University Ranking and the Repository Ranking -- the policy evaluator is not really a ranking. But you have set up the composite algorithm and the graphics to make it a ranking just the same. You are also point out, correctly, that the policy criteria for institutions and funders are not (and should not be) the same. Yet, with the MELIBEA coding as well as the algorithm, they are treated the same way. You also point out, rightly, that gold OA publishing policy is not central to institutional OA policy making, yet there it is, as part of the MELIBEA algorithm. You also point out that the color code has nothing to do with the "green" OA coding -- yet there it is, competing with the widespread use of green to designate self-archiving, and thereby causing confusion, both overt and covert. I would be more than happy to give you feedback on every aspect of MELIBEA -- it could be a useful and natural complement to the ROARMAP registry of OA policies. But as it is designed now, I can only agree with Steve Hitchcock's points and conclude that consulting MELIBEA today would be likely to induce confusion and would not help in bringing the all-important focus and direction to OA policy-making that I am sure CSIC, too, seeks, and seeks to help bring about. Here are just a few prima facie points: (1) Since MELIBEA is not, and should not be construed as a ranking of OA policies -- especially because it includes both institutional and funder policies -- it is important NOT to plug it into an algorithm until and unless the algorithm has first been carefully tested, with consultation, to make sure it weights policy criteria in a way that optimizes OA progress and guides policy-makers in the right direction. (2) For this reason, it is more important to allow users to generate separate flat lists of institutions or funders on the various policy criteria, considered and compared independently, rather than on the basis of a prematurely and arbitrarily weighted joint algorithm. (3) This is all the more important since the data are based on less then 200 institutions, whereas the CSIC University Rankings are based on thousands. Since the population is still so small, MELIBEA risks having a disproportionate effect on initial conditions and hence direction-setting; all the more reason NOT to amplify noise and indirection by assigning untested initial weights without carefully thinking through and weighing the consequences. (4) A potential internal cross-validator of some of the criteria would be a reliable measure of outcome -- but that requires much more attention to estimating the annual size and growth-rate of each repository (in terms of OA's target contents, which are full-text articles), normalized for institution size and annual total target output. Policy criteria (such as request/require or immediate/delayed) should be cross-validated against these outcome measures (such as percentage and growth rate of annual target output). (5) The MELIBEA color coding needs to be revised, and revised quickly, if there is to be an algorithm at all. All those arbitrary colors in the display of single repositories as ranked by the algorithm are both unnecessary and confusing. The objective should be to order and focus clearly and intuitively. Whatever is correlated with more green OA output (such as a higher level or faster growth rate in OA's target content) should be coded as darker or bigger shades of green. The same should be true for the policy criteria, separately and jointly: in each case, request/require, delayed/immediate, etc., the greenward polarity is obvious and intuitive. This should be reflected in the graphics as well as in any comparative rankings. (6) If you include repositories with no OA policy at all (i.e., just a repository and an open invitation to deposit) then all you are doing is duplicating ROAR and ROARMAP, whereas the purpose, presumably, of MELIBEA, is to highlight, weigh and compare specific policy differences among (the very few) repositories that DO have policies. (7) The sign-up data -- http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/nueva.php?directorio=politicas -- are also rather confusing; the criteria are not always consistent, relevant or applicable. The sign-up seems to be designed to make a funder mandate the generic option, whereas this is quite the opposite of reality. There are far more institutions and institutional repositories and policies than funders. There should be separate criterial lists for institutional policies and for funder policies; they are not the same. There is also far too much focus on gold OA policy and payment. If included at all, this should only be at the end, as an addendum, not the focus at the beginning, and on a par with green OA policy. (8) There is also potential confusion on the matter of "waivers": There are two aspects of a mandate. One concerns whether or not deposit is required (and if so, whether that requirement can be waived) and the other concerns whether or not rights-reservation is required (and if so, whether that requirement can be waived). These two distinct and independent requirements/waivers are completely conflated in the current version of MELIBEA. I hope there will be substantive consultation and conscientious redesign of these and other aspects of MELIBEA before it is can recommended for serious consideration and use. Stevan Harnad On 2010-07-19, at 5:18 AM, Remedios Melero wrote: > Dear Steve, > > I apologize for the delay in my response, but I will try to give some explanations to make clear some issues you raised in your message (my comments are in capital letters, to distinguish them from yours) > > > > El 15/07/2010 11:22, Steve Hitchcock escribi?: >> Reme, ? ?Thank you for bringing this new service to our attention. OA policies are vitally important to the development of institutional repositories, and services that can highlight and bring attention to this development can be valuable. >> >> There are a few aspects of the validation aspects of the new MELIBEA service that confuse, and possibly trouble, me. The first is the main indicator, %OAval, which is the most visible result for a policy. What do you expect this will tell people about a given policy? I randomly selected a couple of policies, one of which was for my own school, to find they each scored about 50%. I would expect these to be among the leaders in terms of OA policies, so this seems a surprisingly unhelpful score. >> >> So what's the explanation? Note that the objects being evaluated are institutional OA policies; they are effectively being presented in relation to institutional repositories when the policy specifies where to archive is an IR with a URL. It seems that the scores include ratings for OA publication policy, libre vs gratis OA, publisher pdf, sanctions (score if Yes), incentives (score if Yes), etc., some of which an institution might specify but which might not apply to an IR >> http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/politicas_estructura.php >> . However you weight these factors they are still contributors to the overall score, so a policy that is specific to an IR is immediately handicapped, or appears to be unless there is more context to understand the scores. >> >> >> > AS I WROTE BEFORE THIS IS NOT A RANKING, IT IS NOT THE AIM OF MELIBEA ?BUT TO HAVE A KIND OF REFERENCE ON WHAT TOPICS, ISSUES OR MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED IN AN OA POLICY. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES OF DIFFERENTE NATURE, NOT ABOUT REPOSITORIES POLICIES. IF THE POLICY ONLY TALKS ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT TO DEPOSIT IN A REPOSITORY, IT SHOULD ?SPECIFY WHAT, WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS, IF ANY. IT IS NOT THE SAME TO SAY WHAT DOCUMENTS ?AND WHAT VERSIONS AND WHEN THAN SIMPLY SAY " ANY" OR "AS SOON AS POSSIBLE" (this could be a month after publication or years after publication, depending on one's criteria). GOLD ROUTE, NEVER IS REQUIRED ACCORDING OUR APPROACH ("Gold ?(Recommended in OA journals") AND NOT ALL OA JOURNALS ARE SUPPORTED BY ?SAME ECONOMIC MODEL. > > >> Which leads me to another question on the visualisation of the validator, and its use of green, gold (and red) in the meter. Do the green and gold refer the the classic OA colours? This would be quite convenient, since it would appear that the green repository policies I mentioned above are achieving almost full scores in the green zone of the meter. However, I suspect this cannot be the case, because it would assume that institutions must have a green AND gold policy, but not simply gold (whatever argument could be put for that). >> >> > COLORS DO NOT MEAN THAT, WE WANTED JUST TO DISTINGUISH ZONES LIKE IT WERE A SPECTRA. > >> It is important that new services should help reveal and promote OA policies, as you seek to do, but at the same time not to prejudice the development of such policies by mixing and not fairly separating the contributing factors, especially where these relate to different types of OA. >> >> > I DO NOT THINK WE ARE MIXING, IN FACT THERE TWO MODELS, ONE FOR UNIV. AND RESEARCH CNETRES AND ANOTHER FOR FUNDERS AND GOV. INSTITUTIONS AND THE QUESTIONS FOR THEM ARE DIFFERENT, for instance, FOR A FUNDER THE QUESTION ABOUT DEPOSIT O THESIS IS NOT APPLICABLE. > IN SUMMARY, OUR MODEL COULD NOT BE "PERFECT" BUT I IS ONE, WHICH COULD DETECT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REQUEST AND REQUIRE, WHO, WHAT , WHEN IF THERE ARE ANY INCENTIVES OR SANCTIONS ( ?this has not to be a negative point but to remember we should ?assume ?reponsible attitudes). > > However we will revise the model to see if we can make any improvement to make it clear, we are working also in a graph interface to show some data in graphical form. > Best wishes > Reme > >> >>> R. Melero >>> IATA, CSIC >>> Avda Agust?n Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna (Valencia), Spain >>> TEl +34 96 390 00 22. Fax 96 363 63 01 >>> E-mail >>> rmelero at iata.csic.es >>> >>> >>> http://www.accesoabierto.net >>> From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Tue Jul 20 12:28:42 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:28:42 -0500 Subject: of possible interest Message-ID: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: Scientific Collaboration between Russia and the EU Countries: A Bibliometric Analysis (Article, English) AUTHOR: Shaikevich, IVM Email: ishaikev at mail.ru SOURCE: HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 80 (1). FEB 2010. p.57-62 MAIK NAUKA/INTERPERIODICA/SPRINGER, NEW YORK By the co-inventor of co-citation analysis aka Irina Marshakova ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: Mapping the Evolution of Scientific Fields (Article, English) AUTHOR: Herrera, M; Roberts, DC; Gulbahce, N SOURCE: PLOS ONE 5 (5). MAY 4 2010. p.NIL_16-NIL_21 PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, SAN FRANCISCO Open Access SEARCH TERM(S): PRICE DJD rauth KEYWORDS+: COMPLEX NETWORKS; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; PREDICTION; SCIENCE; MAPS ABSTRACT: Despite the apparent cross-disciplinary interactions among scientific fields, a formal description of their evolution is lacking. Here we describe a novel approach to study the dynamics and evolution of scientific fields using a network-based analysis. We build an idea network consisting of American Physical Society Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) numbers as nodes representing scientific concepts. Two PACS numbers are linked if there exist publications that reference them simultaneously. We locate scientific fields using a community finding algorithm, and describe the time evolution of these fields over the course of 1985-2006. The communities we identify map to known scientific fields, and their age depends on their size and activity. We expect our approach to quantifying the evolution of ideas to be relevant for making predictions about the future of science and thus help to guide its development. AUTHOR ADDRESS: M Herrera, Univ Maryland, Dept Phys, College Pk, MD 20742 USA [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 591MQ 00002) ISSN: 1932-6203 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- From rbrod at CINDOC.CSIC.ES Tue Jul 20 13:03:35 2010 From: rbrod at CINDOC.CSIC.ES (Ramon B. Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:03:35 -0400 Subject: OA policies and their "weight" Message-ID: Good afternoon everybody, Following the ongoing discussion in which the CSIC (Spanish National Research Council) and its open access efforts have been mentioned, we would like to clarify the following: The CSIC Presidency signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access in January 2006, and as a result of it the Spanish National Research Council is driving and implementing open access principles through 2 institutional initiatives: -Digital.CSIC (https://digital.csic.es/) is the institutional repository that provides open access to, organises and preserves the scientific output resulting from the research activities by CSIC 147 institutes and centers. The repository is a project by CSIC Libraries Coordination Unit. -Revistas-CSIC (http://revistas.csic.es/) provides open access to the 35 scientific Journals published by the institution, covering a wide variety of scientific disciplines. To date, 14 Journals provide immediate open access, while 22 apply an embargo period of six months. Before the end of this year, at least 4 more Journals are planned to move to full OA. Revistas-CSIC is a project run by the CSIC Publication Department, and is a member of OASPA under the category of OA Professional Publishing Organization. These 2 initiatives fall within the CSIC Vice-presidency of Organization and Institutional Relations. To date, CSIC does not have an open access institutional mandate. In the absence of a nation-wide open access related law yet, there are regional laws in favour of open access that have a direct effect on CSIC, such as that of the Government of the Community of Madrid. Thus, MELIBEA should not be considered a CSIC institutional project. Best wishes, Agn??s Ponsati, Director of CSIC Libraries Coordination Unit Ram??n B. Rodr??guez, Coordinator of Revistas-CSIC From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Tue Jul 20 16:04:57 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:04:57 -0500 Subject: 100 years of Epilepsia: Landmark papers and their influence in neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry (Review, English Message-ID: TITLE: 100 years of Epilepsia: Landmark papers and their influence in neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry (Review, English) AUTHOR: Hermann, B Email: hermann at neurology.wisc.edu SOURCE: EPILEPSIA 51 (7). JUL 2010. p.1107-1119 WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC, MALDEN SEARCH TERM(S): PENDLEBURY DA rauth; EPILEPSIA source_abbrev_20 ABSTRACT: P>As part of the 2009 International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Centenary Celebration, a special symposium was dedicated to Epilepsia (100 Years of Epilepsia: Landmark Papers and Their Influence). The Associate Editors were asked to identify a particularly salient and meaningful paper in their areas of expertise. From the content areas of neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry two very interesting papers were identified using quite different ascertainment techniques. One paper addressed the problem of psychosis in temporal lobe epilepsy, whereas the other represents the first paper to appear in Epilepsia presenting quantitative assessment of cognitive status in epilepsy. These two papers are reviewed in detail and placed in historical context. AUTHOR ADDRESS: B Hermann, Univ Wisconsin, Sch Med & Publ Hlth, Dept Neurol, Matthews Neuropsychol Lab, 600 N Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792 USA From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Tue Jul 20 16:09:21 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:09:21 -0500 Subject: Impact factor skewed by a single paper and don't dismiss journals with a low impact factor Message-ID: TITLE: Metrics: journal's impact factor skewed by a single paper (Letter, English) AUTHOR: Dimitrov, JD; Kaveri, SV; Bayry, J SOURCE: NATURE 466 (7303). JUL 8 2010. p.179 NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP, LONDON SEARCH TERM(S): JOURNALS item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; LETTER* doctype AUTHOR ADDRESS: JD Dimitrov, Univ Paris 06, Ctr Rech Cordeliers, INSERM, UMR S872, F-75006 Paris, France ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: Metrics: don't dismiss journals with a low impact factor (Letter, English) AUTHOR: Fitzsimmons, JM; Skevington, JH SOURCE: NATURE 466 (7303). JUL 8 2010. p.179 NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP, LONDON SEARCH TERM(S): JOURNALS item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; LETTER* doctype AUTHOR ADDRESS: JM Fitzsimmons, Ottawa Field Naturalists Club, Box 35069 Westgate PO, Ottawa, ON K1Z 1A2, Canada -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Tue Jul 20 16:48:44 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:48:44 -0500 Subject: metrics papers from the July issue of JASIST Message-ID: TITLE: Statistical Validation of a Global Model for the Distribution of the Ultimate Number of Citations Accrued by Papers Published in a Scientific Journal (Article, English) AUTHOR: Stringer, MJ; Sales-Pardo, M; Amaral, LAN SOURCE: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61 (7). JUL 2010. p.1377-1385 JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, HOBOKEN SEARCH TERM(S): PRICE DJD rauth; CITATION* item_title; JOURNAL item_title; GLANZEL W SCIENTIST 18:8 2004 KEYWORDS+: IMPACT; BEHAVIOR; SCIENCE; POWER ABSTRACT: A central issue in evaluative bibliometrics is the characterization of the citation distribution of papers in the scientific literature. Here, we perform a large-scale empirical analysis of journals from every field in Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database. We find that only 30 of the 2,184 journals have citation distributions that are inconsistent with a discrete lognormal distribution at the rejection threshold that controls the false discovery rate at 0.05. We find that large, multidisciplinary journals are over-represented in this set of 30 journals, leading us to conclude that, within a discipline, citation distributions are lognormal. Our results strongly suggest that the discrete lognormal distribution is a globally accurate model for the distribution of "eventual impact" of scientific papers published in single-discipline journal in a single year that is removed sufficiently from the present date. AUTHOR ADDRESS: MJ Stringer, Northwestern Univ, Dept Phys & Astron, Evanston, IL 60208 USA [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 615QV 00006) ISSN: 1532-2882 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: The Structure and Dynamics of Cocitation Clusters: A Multiple-Perspective Cocitation Analysis (Article, English) AUTHOR: Chen, CM; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F; Hou, JH SOURCE: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61 (7). JUL 2010. p.1386-1409 JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, HOBOKEN SEARCH TERM(S): CRONIN B rauth; GARFIELD E rauth; SMALL H J DOC 36:183 1980; SMALL H J AM SOC INFORM SCI 24:265 1973; SMALL H SCIENTOMETRICS 8:321 1985; SMALL HG SOC STUD SCI 8:327 1978; SMALL H SCIENTOMETRICS 7:391 1985; COCITATION* item_title; GARFIELD E J INFORM SCI 30:119 2004 KEYWORDS+: INFORMATION-SCIENCE; RESEARCH FRONTS; COMBINING BIBLIOMETRICS; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; RELEVANCE THEORY; CONCEPT SYMBOLS; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; KNOWLEDGE; NETWORKS; WEB ABSTRACT: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis method is introduced for characterizing and interpreting the structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters. The method facilitates analytic and sense making tasks by integrating network visualization, spectral clustering, automatic cluster labeling, and text summarization. Cocitation networks are decomposed into cocitation clusters. The interpretation of these clusters is augmented by automatic cluster labeling and summarization. The method focuses on the interrelations between a cocitation cluster's members and their citers. The generic method is applied to a three-part analysis of the field of information science as defined by 12 journals published between 1996 and 2008: (a) a comparative author cocitation analysis (ACA), (b) a progressive ACA of a time series of cocitation networks, and (c) a progressive document cocitation analysis (DCA). Results show that the multiple-perspective method increases the interpretability and accountability of both ACA and DCA networks. AUTHOR ADDRESS: CM Chen, Drexel Univ, Coll Informat Sci & Technol, 3141 Chestnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 615QV 00007) ISSN: 1532-2882 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: Modes of Collaboration in Modern Science: Beyond Power Laws and Preferential Attachment (Article, English) AUTHOR: Milojevic, S SOURCE: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61 (7). JUL 2010. p.1410-1423 JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, HOBOKEN SEARCH TERM(S): CRONIN B rauth; PRICE DJD rauth; ZUCKERMAN H rauth; MERTON RK SCIENCE 159:56 1968 KEYWORDS+: SCIENTIFIC CO-AUTHORSHIP; CUMULATIVE ADVANTAGE; NETWORKS; PATTERNS; PRODUCTIVITY; EVOLUTION; BEHAVIOR; IMPACT ABSTRACT: The goal of the study was to determine the underlying processes leading to the observed collaborator distribution in modern scientific fields, with special attention to nonpower-law behavior. Nanoscience is used as a case study of a modern interdisciplinary field and its coauthorship network for 2000-2004 period is constructed from the Nano Bank database. We find three collaboration modes that correspond to three distinct ranges in the distribution of collaborators: (1) for authors with fewer than 20 collaborators (the majority) preferential attachment does not hold and they form a log-normal "hook" instead of a power law; (2) authors with more than 20 collaborators benefit from preferential attachment and form a power law tail; and (3) authors with between 250 and 800 collaborators are more frequent than expected because of the hyperauthorship practices in certain subfields. AUTHOR ADDRESS: S Milojevic, Indiana Univ, Sch Lib & Informat Sci, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 615QV 00008) ISSN: 1532-2882 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: Measuring Impact of Twelve Information Scientists Using the DCI Index (Article, English) AUTHOR: Ahlgren, P; Jarvelin, K SOURCE: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61 (7). JUL 2010. p.1424-1439 JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, HOBOKEN SEARCH TERM(S): CRONIN B rauth; SWANSON DR rauth; HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; WENNERAS C NATURE 387:341 1997 KEYWORDS+: H-INDEX; HIRSCH-INDEX; SCIENCE; RESEARCHERS; RETRIEVAL; THOUGHTS; NEPOTISM; SEEKING ABSTRACT: The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index has recently been proposed for research evaluation. In the present work an earlier dataset by Cronin and Meho (2007) is reanalyzed, with the aim of exemplifying the salient features of the DCI index. We apply the index on, and compare our results to, the outcomes of the Cronin-Meho (2007) study. Both authors and their top publications are used as units of analysis, which suggests that, by adjusting the parameters of evaluation according to the needs of research evaluation, the DCI index delivers data on an author's (or publication's) "lifetime" impact or current impact at the time of evaluation on an author's (or publication's) capability of inviting citations from highly cited later publications as an indication of impact, and on the relative impact across a set of authors (or publications) over their "lifetime" or currently. AUTHOR ADDRESS: P Ahlgren, Stockholm Univ, Univ Lib, Dept E Resources, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 615QV 00009) ISSN: 1532-2882 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: Policy-Relevant Webometrics for Individual Scientific Fields (Article, English) AUTHOR: Thelwall, M; Klitkou, A; Verbeek, A; Stuart, D; Vincent, C SOURCE: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61 (7). JUL 2010. p.1464-1475 JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, HOBOKEN SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; SMALL H J AM SOC INFORM SCI 50:799 1999; WHITE HD J AM SOC INFORM SCI 32:163 1981; GARFIELD E CAN MED ASSOC J 161:979 1999 KEYWORDS+: WEB-SITE INTERLINKING; INFORMATION-SCIENCE; IMPACT FACTORS; ACADEMIC WEB; AUTHOR COCITATION; SEARCH ENGINES; COMMUNICATION; CITATIONS; LINKS; COLLABORATION ABSTRACT: Despite over 10 years of research there is no agreement on the most suitable roles for Webometric indicators in support of research policy and almost no field-based Webometrics. This article partly fills these gaps by analyzing the potential of policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields with the help of 4 case studies. Although Webometrics cannot provide robust indicators of knowledge flows or research impact, it can provide some evidence of networking and mutual awareness. The scope of Webometrics is also relatively wide, including not only research organizations and firms but also intermediary groups like professional associations, Web portals, and government agencies. Webometrics can, therefore, provide evidence about the research process to compliment peer review, bibliometric, and patent indicators: tracking the early, mainly prepublication development of new fields and research funding initiatives, assessing the role and impact of intermediary organizations and the need for new ones, and monitoring the extent of mutual awareness in particular research areas. AUTHOR ADDRESS: M Thelwall, Wolverhampton Univ, Stat Cybermetr Res Grp, Sch Comp & Informat Technol, Wulfruna St, Wolverhampton WV1 1SB, England [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 615QV 00011) ISSN: 1532-2882 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: The Relation Between Eigenfactor, Audience Factor, and Influence Weight (Article, English) AUTHOR: Waltman, L; van Eck, NJ SOURCE: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61 (7). JUL 2010. p.1476-1486 JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, HOBOKEN SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 178:471 1972 KEYWORDS+: JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; ECONOMICS JOURNALS; CITATION INFLUENCE; SCIENCE; PAGERANK ABSTRACT: We present a theoretical and empirical analysis of a number of bibliometric indicators of journal performance. We focus on three indicators in particular: the Eigenfactor indicator, the audience factor, and the influence weight indicator. Our main finding is that the last two indicators can be regarded as a kind of special case of the first indicator. We also find that the three indicators can be nicely characterized in terms of two properties. We refer to these properties as the property of insensitivity to field differences and the property of insensitivity to insignificant journals. The empirical results that we present illustrate our theoretical findings. We also show empirically that the differences between various indicators of journal performance are quite substantial. AUTHOR ADDRESS: L Waltman, Leiden Univ, Ctr Sci & Technol Studies, NL-2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 615QV 00012) ISSN: 1532-2882 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: New Insights Into the Relationship Between the h-Index and Self-Citations? (Letter, English) AUTHOR: Engqvist, L; Frommen, JG SOURCE: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 61 (7). JUL 2010. p.1514-1515 JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, HOBOKEN SEARCH TERM(S): CITATION* item_title; HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; LETTER* doctype AUTHOR ADDRESS: L Engqvist, Univ Groningen, Theoret Biol Grp, Ctr Ecol & Evolutionary Studies, Groningen, Netherlands [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 615QV 00021) ISSN: 1532-2882 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Tue Jul 20 16:53:45 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:53:45 -0500 Subject: : How Much Does Journal Reputation Tell Us About the Academic Interest and Relevance of Economic Research GAIA- Message-ID: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: How Much Does Journal Reputation Tell Us About the Academic Interest and Relevance of Economic Research? Empirical Analysis and Implications for Environmental Economic Research (Article, English) AUTHOR: Schlapfer, F SOURCE: GAIA-ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 19 (2). 2010. p.140-145 OEKOM VERLAG, MUNICH SEARCH TERM(S): JOURNAL item_title KEYWORDS: citation index; incentives; interdisciplinarity; publication; research evaluation; scientometrics KEYWORDS+: CITATION INDEXES ABSTRACT: Unlike in other disciplines, research output in economics is commonly measured based on the disciplinary reputation of the journals in which an author has published. Here, I examine how much output measures based on journal reputation tell us about the academic interest and relevance of economic papers as measured by frequency of citation. Using data from the 2008 Hondelsblatt ranking of economists in German speaking countries and interdisciplinary citation data from the Web of Science, I find that researcher scores based on journal reputation explain only about 30 percent of the variation (variance) in article citations. When the top 10 (20) percent of the researchers according to journal reputation scores are excluded, the percentage of explained variation in citation frequency drops to 8 (3) percent. Furthermore, using environmental economics journals as an example, I show that the traditional output measures strongly discourage applied and interdisciplinary economic research. The findings confirm that the traditional output measures provide incentives for narrow economic work even if that work is of interest to only few other researchers. Responsible hiring committees and funding institutions should take these problems seriously and re-consider existing standards in the evaluation of economic research. AUTHOR ADDRESS: F Schlapfer, Univ Zurich, Socioecon Inst, Hottingerstr 10, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 615QW 00012) ISSN: 0940-5550 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Tue Jul 20 16:58:16 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:58:16 -0500 Subject: International business publications in the elite journals as a measure of institutional productivity and Enterprise University as a Digital Ecosystem Message-ID: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: A perspective on the state of the field: International business publications in the elite journals as a measure of institutional and faculty productivity (Article, English) AUTHOR: Trevino, LJ; Mixon, FG Jr; Funk, CA; Inkpen, AC SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW 19 (4). AUG 2010. p.378-387 ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, AMSTERDAM SEARCH TERM(S): JOURNALS item_title KEYWORDS: International business; Ranking of institutions and scholars; State of the Field KEYWORDS+: TOP MANAGEMENT JOURNALS; ECONOMICS DEPARTMENTS; EDUCATION- PROGRAMS; AMERICAN-SCHOOLS; RANKING; ACADEMY; FINANCE; TRENDS; IMPACT ABSTRACT: This study ranks academic institutions and scholars in international business based on publications in International Business Review, International Marketing Review, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of International Management, Journal of International Marketing, Management International Review, Journal of World Business, and 22 elite mainstream academic journals between 1996 and 2008. In contrast to earlier rankings that did not include international business scholarship from a wide range of elite mainstream publications across business disciplines, our analysis of international business research uses a comprehensive scoring procedure which demonstrates that IB research consistently emanates from many of the traditionally highest ranking universities throughout the world. Of the top 10 ranked universities, six are from North America, two are from Europe, and two are from Asia. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. AUTHOR ADDRESS: LJ Trevino, Loyola Univ, Joseph A Butt SJ Coll Business, 6363 St Charles Ave,Campus Box 15, New Orleans, LA 70118 USA [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: 616JY 00005) ISSN: 0969-5931 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- TITLE: Enterprise University as a Digital Ecosystem: Visual Analysis of Academic Collaboration (Article, English) AUTHOR: Nankani, E; Simoff, S; Denize, S; Young, L SOURCE: 2009 3RD IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DIGITAL ECOSYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES. 2009. p.645-650 IEEE, NEW YORK SEARCH TERM(S): SMALL H J AM SOC INFORM SCI 24:265 1973 KEYWORDS: digital ecosystems; visual analytics; network analysis; academic networks KEYWORDS+: SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION; KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY; PATTERNS; INTERESTINGNESS ABSTRACT: The concept f "enterprise university" [1] emerged to denote the new kind of higher education institution that resembles many elements of corporate governance. It has a tighter interaction and integration in the environment, as has to take in account market factors, such as student fee incomes, soft budget allocations for special initiatives, including research funding, risk factors and others. Hence an enterprise university can be viewed as a digital ecosystem. An essential part for the survival of such system is collaboration between academics. This paper presents a visual analytics methodology for analysis of academic collaboration that is geared towards real-time performance. We introduce a simple collaboration index in order to depict slices of prominent collaborators and investigate the networked clusters them. We demonstrate the work on an integrated data set from real-world University. The technology is a key component in the extended business intelligence support for the senior executive teams in these new type of digital ecosystems. AUTHOR ADDRESS: E Nankani, Univ Western Sydney, Sch Comp & Math, Penrith, NSW 1797, Australia [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: BPK74 00113) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Wed Jul 21 03:42:42 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:42:42 +0200 Subject: Program Combine.EXE for Mapping Heterogeneous Network Analysis (Co-word, Co-authorship, and Journal Analysis combined) Message-ID: Program Combine.EXE for Mapping Heterogeneous Network Analysis (Co-word, Co-authorship, and Journal Analysis combined) This program enables the user to generate a representation of the co-words, coauthorship relations, and journals in a document set. Input is a set saved using ISI?s Web of Science, and output is, among others, a file cosine.dat in Pajek format. The input file has to be saved in the tagged format from the Science Citation Index (Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index) at the Web-of-Science. The default filename ?savedrecs.txt? should not be used, but ?data.txt? instead. The program is based on DOS-legacy software. It runs in a MS-Dos Command Box under Windows. The programs and the input files have to be contained in the same folder. The output files are written into this directory. Please, note that existing files from a previous run are overwritten by the program. (The user is advised to save output elsewhere if one wishes to continue with these materials.) The routine creates the asymmetrical occurrence matrix (matrix.dbf which can be read in excel or spss), the symmetrical affiliations (co-occurrence) matrix (coocc.dbf, coocc.dat) and the cosine-normalized output (cosine.dbf, cosine.dat) based on the asymmetrical occurrence matrix. Words which occur only once in the input file are not included. If stopword.txt is made available in the same directory, these words are also excluded. A possible stopword list of 429 words in English is available here. (Originally from http://www.lextek.com/manuals/onix/stopwords1.html. This file has to be renamed ?stopword.txt?.) The variable labels are also available in words.dbf; the order is; (1) title words; (2) author names; (3) journal names. The labels in the output files (cosine.dat and coocc.dat) can be edited (using an ASCII editor such as NotePad or WordPad) before feeding the files into Pajek. A series of these matrices can be used for animations (in the dynamic version of Visone, SVG2Pajek or SoNIA) after saving these in Pajek. The necessary steps in between are further explained in this manual. See for examples: * "What Can Heterogeneity Add to the Scientometric Map? Steps towards algorithmic historiography" in: Festschrift for Michel Callon?s 65th birthday, Madeleine Akrich, Yannick Barthe, Fabian Muniesa, and Philip Mustar (Eds.). Paris: ?cole Nationale Sup?rieure des Mines (forthcoming); > * Eugene Garfield and Algorithmic Historiography: Co-Words, Co-Authors, and Journal Names, Annals of Library and Informaiton Studies (forthcoming); > Available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/animation _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Visiting Professor 2007-2010, ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary Fellow 2007-2010, SPRU, University of Sussex 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 Thu Jul 22 04:58:50 2010 From: j.hartley at PSY.KEELE.AC.UK (James Hartley) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:58:50 +0100 Subject: Structured abstracts for PhD theses Message-ID: Colleagues might be interested in the short article attached that recommends that postgraduates use structured abstracts in their theses... Cheers James Hartley School of Psychology Keele University Staffordshire ST5 5BG UK j.hartley at psy.keele.ac.uk http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ps/people/JHartley/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: thesis abstracts.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34304 bytes Desc: thesis abstracts.doc URL: From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Thu Jul 22 07:28:55 2010 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:28:55 +0200 Subject: Ranking Web of Universities: 2010 July edition In-Reply-To: <4B85555D.10107@cchs.csic.es> Message-ID: The Cybermetrics Lab from CSIC has just published the new July 2010 edition of their Ranking Web of World Universities (http://www.webometrics.info). In this new edition, the coverage of the Asian region has been greatly expanded and the number of higher education institutions analyzed is over 20,000 being offered the ranking of the Top 12,000. North American universities still lead the tables (Harvard, MIT, Stanford and Berkeley are the first four), together with the Canadian institutions behaving very well surpassing the privilege positions of the British ones. In Europe, apart from the mentioned British (Cambridge and Oxford and Edinburgh in Scotland), it is also worth mentioning the rankings of the Swiss (ETH Zurich) and the Nordic ones (Helsinki, Oslo).In more delayed positions appear the universities from Germany, France, Italy or Spain, mostly due to the fact that research in this countries is developed by independent institutions (Max Planck, CNRS, CNR, CSIC). In Latin America the UNAM from Mexico reaches the 70th of the world, being specially remarkable the large number of Brazilian universities, leaded by Sao Paulo, found between the best of the region. Universities of Chile and Buenos Aires are positioned just behind. Universities of Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore lead the Asian ranking, and behind them are the Taiwanese and Korean ones. Chinese universities are still lagging behind their neighbors and the institutions from the Indian subcontinent have delayed ranks. The Ranking Web of World research Centers (http://research.webometrics.info) complements the previous one, with a directory of more than 7,000 entries from which the classification of the Top 4000 is offered. The National Institutes of Health of USA and NASA lead the Ranking, being followed very closely by the French CNRS. The Cybermetrics Lab develops its activities at the Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales of the CSIC in Madrid. Their rankings are being published twice a year (January and July) since 2004 and they pretend to motivate and reinforce the role of the university as a source and distributor of web contents of high quality and open access. -- =========================== Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1) IPP-CCHS-CSIC Albasanz, 26-28 28037 Madrid. Spain Editor of the Rankings Web =========================== From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Thu Jul 22 11:07:07 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:07:07 -0500 Subject: FW: FW: [SIGMETRICS] Books or articles? in economics Message-ID: THE ECONOMIC RECORD, VOL. 79, NO. 245, JUNE, 2003, 229?244 229 KENNETH W. CLEMENTS? and PATRICIA WANG Economic Research Centre, Department of Economics, The University of Western Australia, Western Australia, Australia J027BETOu09lChrxan01iefOcg23eo kE -iRr2?n0wcd?02ao?,e04l n?U l29Alo KPmrtuiicbcl leRisehcionrgd Ltd. EWCHOON COIMTEICS RWEHCAOTR?D Who Cites What?* The present paper analyses citations in the work of a large number of PhD students. We show that the pattern of citations of journal articles, books and other reference material differs substantially across areas within economics. An investigation of reciprocal citations reveals a surprisingly low degree of communication among the Group of Eight universities and a high propensity to cite authors from the same institution, especially supervisors. We also analyse the Australian share of cited works, and identify journals, articles and authors that PhD students value highly. I Introduction As the Table 3 classifies the references into type and area. The last row of Panel A of the table shows that on average for all areas, journal articles account for 57 per cent, books 27 per cent and other items 16 per cent. Quandt (1976; p. 750) has provided comparable figures on book citations in eight major economics journals in 1970 and, interestingly, the average of his figures, approximately 30 per cent, is not too different from ours. In Panel C of Table 3 we use departures from independence as a measure of the intensity of the three types of references And there may be other relevant articles if you continue the search. EG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org From: Art Diamond [mailto:adiamond at mail.unomaha.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:15 PM To: Garfield, Eugene Subject: Re: FW: [SIGMETRICS] Books or articles? I did, just now, dig out my copy of George Stigler's The Economist as Preacher book, and perused his chapter/article (co-authored with Claire Friedland) on "The Pattern of Citation Practices in Economics." He notes the general trend over the history of economics toward greater attention to articles, and less to books. He also has a table on p. 178 in which he documents that in his 1925-1969 data base, there is considerable variation by economics subfield in the number of citations to journal articles versus the number of citations to books. For example, on the high end, 50.9% of the citations in Economic Theory were to journal articles, while, on the low end, 26.6% of the citations in History of Economic Thought were to journal articles. ____________________________________________________ Arthur M. Diamond, Jr. adiamond at unomaha.edu http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/adiamond/web/diahompg.htm Dept. of Economics Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha 6001 Dodge St. Omaha, NE 68182-0048 ____________________________________________________ Dear Art: It has been a while since we corresponded. It occurred to me that you might be able to answer this person?s question. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfield at codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu ] On Behalf Of Clement Levallois Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:54 PM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Books or articles? Dear list members, A colleague of mine asked me a question on citation practices: are books cited more often than articles? She would be most interested in any general work on the topic, and also on specific studies on the field of economics. Thanks! Clement. _________________ Clement Levallois, PhD Rotterdam School of Management | Erasmus Studio KNAW Erasmus University Room T10-16 Burg. Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA Rotterdam The Netherlands tel +31-10-4082578 | fax +31-10-4089011 email clevallois at rsm.nl | www.clementlevallois.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Mon Jul 26 03:22:20 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:22:20 +0200 Subject: How fractional counting affects the Impact Factor? Message-ID: How fractional counting affects the Impact Factor: Steps towards field-independent classifications of scholarly journals and literature Abstract The ISI-Impact Factors suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by counting citation weights fractionally instead of using integers? (i) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing papers and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (ii) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (iii) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. In addition to the Impact Factor, the Total Cites of the journals listed in the Science Citation Index (CD-Rom version) 2008 are analyzed in these terms. The between-group variances (among fields) are tested using a Poisson regression model. A list of fractionally counted Impact Factors and Total Cites for 2008 is available online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls. Loet Leydesdorff University of Amsterdam Lutz Bornmann ETH Zurich ** apologies for cross-postings -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Wed Jul 28 02:51:28 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:51:28 +0200 Subject: The Triple Helix Perspective of Innovation Systems Message-ID: The Triple Helix Perspective of Innovation Systems Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 22(7), in press; preprint version at http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4756 Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Girma Zawdie (Submitted on 27 Jul 2010) Abstract: Alongside the neo-institutional model of networked relations among universities, industries, and governments, the Triple Helix can be provided with a neo-evolutionary interpretation as three selection environments operating upon one another: markets, organizations, and technological opportunities. How are technological innovation systems different from national ones? The three selection environments fulfill social functions: wealth creation, organization control, and organized knowledge production. The main carriers of this system--industry, government, and academia--provide the variation both recursively and by interacting among them under the pressure of competition. Empirical case studies enable us to understand how these evolutionary mechanisms can be expected to operate in the historical instance. The model is needed for distinguishing, for example, between trajectories and regimes. ** apologies for cross postings _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Jul 31 15:38:44 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:38:44 -0400 Subject: Malmgren, RD; Ottino, JM; Amaral, LAN. 2010. The role of mentorship in protege performance. NATURE 465 (7298): 622-U117 Message-ID: Malmgren, RD; Ottino, JM; Amaral, LAN. 2010. The role of mentorship in protege performance. NATURE 465 (7298): 622-U117. Author Full Name(s): Malmgren, R. Dean; Ottino, Julio M.; Amaral, Luis A. Nunes Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: The role of mentorship in protege performance is a matter of importance to academic, business and governmental organizations. Although the benefits of mentorship for proteges, mentors and their organizations are apparent(1-9), the extent to which proteges mimic their mentors' career choices and acquire their mentorship skills is unclear(10-16). The importance of a science, technology, engineering and mathematics workforce to economic growth and the role of effective mentorship in maintaining a 'healthy' such workforce demand the study of the role of mentorship in academia. Here we investigate one aspect of mentor emulation by studying mentorship fecundity- the number of proteges a mentor trains-using data from the Mathematics Genealogy Project(17), which tracks the mentorship record of thousands of mathematicians over several centuries. We demonstrate that fecundity among academic mathematicians is correlated with other measures of academic success. We also find that the average fecundity of mentors remains stable over 60 years of recorded mentorship. We further discover three significant correlations in mentorship fecundity. First, mentors with low mentorship fecundities train proteges that go on to have mentorship fecundities 37% higher than expected. Second, in the first third of their careers, mentors with high fecundities train proteges that go on to have fecundities 29% higher than expected. Finally, in the last third of their careers, mentors with high fecundities train proteges that go on to have fecundities 31% lower than expected. Addresses: [Malmgren, R. Dean; Ottino, Julio M.; Amaral, Luis A. Nunes] Northwestern Univ, Dept Biol & Chem Engn, Evanston, IL 60208 USA; [Malmgren, R. Dean] Datascope Analyt, Evanston, IL 60201 USA; [Ottino, Julio M.; Amaral, Luis A. Nunes] Northwestern Univ, NW Inst Complex Syst, Evanston, IL 60208 USA; [Amaral, Luis A. Nunes] Northwestern Univ, Howard Hughes Med Inst, Evanston, IL 60208 USA Reprint Address: Ottino, JM, Northwestern Univ, Dept Biol & Chem Engn, Evanston, IL 60208 USA. E-mail Address: jm-ottino at northwestern.edu; amaral at northwestern.edu ISSN: 0028-0836 DOI: 10.1038/nature09040 URL: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7298/full/nature09040.html From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Jul 31 15:42:12 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:42:12 -0400 Subject: Ding, Y. 2010. Semantic Web: Who is who in the field - a bibliometric analysis. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 36 (3): 335-356 Message-ID: Ding, Y. 2010. Semantic Web: Who is who in the field - a bibliometric analysis. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 36 (3): 335-356. Author Full Name(s): Ding, Ying Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: The Semantic Web (SW) is one of the main efforts aiming to enhance human and machine interaction by representing data in an understandable way for machines to mediate data and services. It is a fast-moving and multidisciplinary field. This study conducts a thorough bibliometric analysis of the field by collecting data from Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus for the period of 1960-2009. It utilizes a total of 44,157 papers with 651,673 citations from Scopus, and 22,951 papers with 571,911 citations from WOS. Based on these papers and citations, it evaluates the research performance of the SW by identifying the most productive players, major scholarly communication media, highly cited authors, influential papers and emerging stars. Addresses: Indiana Univ, Sch Lib & Informat Sci, Herman B Wells Lib, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA Reprint Address: Ding, Y, Indiana Univ, Sch Lib & Informat Sci, Herman B Wells Lib, 1320 E 10th St,LI025, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. E-mail Address: dingying at indiana.edu ISSN: 0165-5515 DOI: 10.1177/0165551510365295 URL: http://jis.sagepub.com/content/36/3/335.abstract From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Jul 31 15:44:18 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:44:18 -0400 Subject: Mutalikdesai, MR; Srinivasa, S. 2010. Co-citations as citation endorsements and co-links as link endorsements. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 36 (3): 383-400. Message-ID: Mutalikdesai, MR; Srinivasa, S. 2010. Co-citations as citation endorsements and co-links as link endorsements. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 36 (3): 383-400. Author Full Name(s): Mutalikdesai, Mandar R.; Srinivasa, Srinath Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: Co-citations and co-links have long been used as measures of topical relatedness between documents in various datasets. However, there are some characteristic differences between co-citations in scientific literature and co- links in hypertext due to the underlying difference in the motivations for creating citations and links. While citations are created for formal scholarly communication, links are created for a variety of formal as well as informal purposes. We elaborate on these differences, and propose interpretations of a co-citation as an endorsement of a citation, and a co-link as an endorsement of a link. Such an interpretation is useful for focused or topical surfers to follow citations and links that are pertinent to a topic of interest in scientific literature and the web respectively. Addresses: [Mutalikdesai, Mandar R.; Srinivasa, Srinath] Int Inst Informat Technol, Bangalore, Karnataka, India Reprint Address: Mutalikdesai, MR, Int Inst Informat Technol, 26-C, Elect City 560100, Bangalore, India. E-mail Address: mandar at iiitb.ac.in ISSN: 0165-5515 DOI: 10.1177/0165551510366078 URL: http://jis.sagepub.com/content/36/3/383.abstract From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Jul 31 15:48:23 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:48:23 -0400 Subject: Dymond, S; May, RJ; Munnelly, A; Hoon, AE. 2010. Evaluating the Evidence Base for Relational Frame Theory: A Citation Analysis. BEHAVIOR ANALYST 33 (1): 97-117. Message-ID: Dymond, S; May, RJ; Munnelly, A; Hoon, AE. 2010. Evaluating the Evidence Base for Relational Frame Theory: A Citation Analysis. BEHAVIOR ANALYST 33 (1): 97-117. Author Full Name(s): Dymond, Simon; May, Richard J.; Munnelly, Anita; Hoon, Alice E. Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: Relational frame theory (RFT) is a contemporary behavior-analytic account of language and cognition. Since it was first outlined in 1985, RFT has generated considerable controversy and debate, and several claims have been made concerning its evidence base. The present study sought to evaluate the evidence base for RFT by undertaking a citation analysis and by categorizing all articles that cited RFT-related search terms. A total of 174 articles were identified between 1991 and 2008, 62 (36%) of which were empirical and 112 (64%) were nonempirical articles. Further analyses revealed that 42 (68%) of the empirical articles were classified as empirical RFT and 20 (32%) as empirical other, whereas 27 (24%) of the nonempirical articles were assigned to the nonempirical reviews category and 85 (76%) to the nonempirical conceptual category. In addition, the present findings show that the majority of empirical research on RFT has been conducted with typically developing adult populations, on the relational frame of sameness, and has tended to be published in either The Psychological Record or the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Overall, RFT has made a substantial contribution to the literature in a relatively short period of time. Addresses: [Dymond, Simon] Swansea Univ, Dept Psychol, Swansea SA2 8PP, W Glam, Wales Reprint Address: Dymond, S, Swansea Univ, Dept Psychol, Singleton Pk, Swansea SA2 8PP, W Glam, Wales. E-mail Address: s.o.dymond at swansea.ac.uk ISSN: 0738-6729 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Jul 31 15:52:07 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:52:07 -0400 Subject: Tellez, H; Vadillo, JM. 2010. Bibliometric study of journal publications on analytical chemistry 2000-2007: publication productivity and journal preferences by country. ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 397 (4): 1477-1484. Message-ID: Tellez, H; Vadillo, JM. 2010. Bibliometric study of journal publications on analytical chemistry 2000-2007: publication productivity and journal preferences by country. ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 397 (4): 1477-1484. Author Full Name(s): Tellez, Helena; Vadillo, Jose M. Language: English Document Type: Article Addresses: [Tellez, Helena; Vadillo, Jose M.] Univ Malaga, Dept Analyt Chem, E- 29071 Malaga, Spain Reprint Address: Vadillo, JM, Univ Malaga, Dept Analyt Chem, E-29071 Malaga, Spain. E-mail Address: jmvadillo at uma.es ISSN: 1618-2642 DOI: 10.1007/s00216-010-3732-6 URL: http://www.springerlink.com/content/6r7q8880682225n8/ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Jul 31 16:01:58 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:01:58 -0400 Subject: Lancho-Barrantes, BS; Guerrero-Bote, VP; Moya-Anegon, F. 2010. What lies behind the averages and significance of citation indicators in different disciplines?. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 36 (3): 371-3 Message-ID: Lancho-Barrantes, BS; Guerrero-Bote, VP; Moya-Anegon, F. 2010. What lies behind the averages and significance of citation indicators in different disciplines?. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 36 (3): 371-382. Author Full Name(s): Lancho-Barrantes, Barbara S.; Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P.; Moya-Anegon, Felix Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: The limitations of citation-based indicators include a lack of coverage, no normalization with respect to the length of reference lists (with a potential bias in favour of reviews), and different citation habits. As a consequence, the distributions of the indicators are not comparable across different disciplines. Here we show that the most popular journal citation indicators used in quality assessment - the journal impact factors of Thomson Scientific and the scientific journal rankings of Scopus - are strongly correlated with the proportion of within-database references, and even more so with the number of within-database recent references per paper. No significant correlations were found with other bibliometric magnitudes. We anticipate that these results will be a starting point for more sophisticated indicator models that take this dependence into account, and for the design of strategies aimed at extending such bibliometric databases as Thomson Scientific's Science Citation Index or Elsevier's Scopus to improve their capacity to evaluate all sciences. Addresses: [Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P.] Univ Extremadura, Dept Informac & Comunicac, Grp Scimago, E-06071 Badajoz, Spain; [Moya-Anegon, Felix] CSIC, CCHS, IPP, Grp Scimago, Madrid, Spain Reprint Address: Guerrero-Bote, VP, Univ Extremadura, Dept Informac & Comunicac, Grp Scimago, E-06071 Badajoz, Spain. E-mail Address: guerrero at unex.es ISSN: 0165-5515 DOI: 10.1177/0165551510366077 URL: http://jis.sagepub.com/content/36/3/371.abstract From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Jul 31 16:04:42 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:04:42 -0400 Subject: Robert, C; Wilson, CS; Donnadieu, S; Gaudy, JF; Arreto, CD. 2010. Evolution of the Scientific Literature on Pain from 1976 to 2007. PAIN MEDICINE 11 (5): 670-684 Message-ID: Robert, C; Wilson, CS; Donnadieu, S; Gaudy, JF; Arreto, CD. 2010. Evolution of the Scientific Literature on Pain from 1976 to 2007. PAIN MEDICINE 11 (5): 670-684. Author Full Name(s): Robert, Claude; Wilson, Concepcion S.; Donnadieu, Stephane; Gaudy, Jean-Francois; Arreto, Charles-Daniel Language: English Document Type: Review Abstract: Objective. This study traces the evolution of the scientific literature on pain published during the last 30+ years (1976-2007). Methods. Using the Web of Science (R), pain-focused journal articles from the Science Citation Index Expanded (TM) published in 1977, 1987, 1997, and 2007 were retrieved and analyzed. Results. The number of pain-related publications rose from 1,562 articles for 1976-77 to 9,159 PubMed for 2006-2007, with slow growth for the period 1976-1995, and rapid increases from 1995-2007. The analysis of contributing countries showed two major players, the United States and the UK; the doubling of the number of countries involved in pain research from 40 in 1977 to 82 in 2007; and the appearance in 2007 of The Netherlands, Turkey, China, and Brazil among the top-15 most prolific contributors. During the 30-year period, the number of journals publishing pain-related research increased nearly 2.5-fold (363 journals in 1977 vs 972 in 2007), including 14 new, international pain-focused journals since 2000. Additionally, while there were only two pain journals (Pain and Headache) in 1977, 15 pain-focused journals were indexed in 2007 with the result that 17 of the top-20 pain-focused journals in 2007 did not exist in 1977. Conclusion. The rapid evolution and explosion of pain research in the last 30+ years was reflected in substantial changes in the landscape of the contributing countries and in the scientific journals targeted by pain researchers. Addresses: [Robert, Claude; Gaudy, Jean-Francois; Arreto, Charles-Daniel] Univ Paris 05, Fac Chirurg Dent, Lab Anat Fonct, F-92120 Montrouge, France; [Wilson, Concepcion S.] Univ New S Wales, Sch Informat Syst Technol & Management, Sydney, NSW, Australia; [Donnadieu, Stephane] Hop Europeen Georges Pompidou, Unite Traitement Douleur, Paris, France Reprint Address: Robert, C, Univ Paris 05, Fac Chirurg Dent, Lab Anat Fonct, 1 Rue Maurice Arnoux, F-92120 Montrouge, France. E-mail Address: claude.robert at parisdescartes.fr ISSN: 1526-2375 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat Jul 31 16:07:24 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:07:24 -0400 Subject: Redner, S. 2010. On the meaning of the h-index. JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL MECHANICS-THEORY AND EXPERIMENT: art. no.-L03005. Message-ID: Redner, S. 2010. On the meaning of the h-index. JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL MECHANICS-THEORY AND EXPERIMENT: art. no.-L03005. Author Full Name(s): Redner, S. Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: The h-index-defined as the value such that an individual has published at least h papers with at least h citations-has become a popular metric for assessing the citation impact of scientists. As already noted in the original work of Hirsch and as evidenced from data for a representative sample of 255 physicists, root c scales as h, where c is the total number of citations for an individual. Thus root c appears to be equivalent to the h-index. As a further check of this equivalence, the distribution of the ratio s equivalent to root c/2h for this sample is sharply peaked about 1. The outliers in this distribution reveal fundamentally different kinds of individual publication records. Addresses: [Redner, S.] Boston Univ, Ctr Polymer Studies, Boston, MA 02215 USA; [Redner, S.] Boston Univ, Dept Phys, Boston, MA 02215 USA Reprint Address: Redner, S, Boston Univ, Ctr Polymer Studies, Boston, MA 02215 USA. E-mail Address: redner at buphy.bu.edu ISSN: 1742-5468 DOI: 10.1088/1742-5468/2010/03/L03005 URL: http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-5468/2010/03/L03005 Fulltext: http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-5468/2010/03/L03005/pdf/1742- 5468_2010_03_L03005.pdf