From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sun May 2 20:55:29 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 20:55:29 -0400 Subject: Wray, KB. 2010. Philosophy of Science: What are the Key Journals in the Field?. ERKENNTNIS 72 (3): 423-430 Message-ID: Wray, KB. 2010. Philosophy of Science: What are the Key Journals in the Field?. ERKENNTNIS 72 (3): 423-430. Author Full Name(s): Wray, K. Brad Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: HISTORY Abstract: By means of a citation analysis I aim to determine which scholarly journals are most important in the sub-field of philosophy of science. My analysis shows that the six most important journals in the sub-field are Philosophy of Science, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Journal of Philosophy, Synthese, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, and Erkenntnis. Given the data presented in this study, there is little evidence that there is such a field as the history and philosophy of science (HPS). Rather, philosophy of science is most properly conceived of as a sub-field of philosophy. Addresses: SUNY Coll Oswego, Dept Philosophy, Oswego, NY 13126 USA Reprint Address: Wray, KB, SUNY Coll Oswego, Dept Philosophy, 211 Campus Ctr, Oswego, NY 13126 USA. E-mail Address: kwray at oswego.edu ISSN: 0165-0106 DOI: 10.1007/s10670-010-9214-6 Fulltext: http://www.springerlink.com/content/331082203250l438/ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sun May 2 20:57:51 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 20:57:51 -0400 Subject: Citrome, L. 2010. Citability of Original Research and Reviews in Journals and Their Sponsored Supplements. PLOS ONE 5 (3): art. no.-e9876. Message-ID: Citrome, L. 2010. Citability of Original Research and Reviews in Journals and Their Sponsored Supplements. PLOS ONE 5 (3): art. no.-e9876. Author Full Name(s): Citrome, Leslie Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: MEDICAL JOURNALS; ADDING KNOWLEDGE; IMPACT FACTOR; PUBLIC TRUST; ARTICLES; CITATIONS; QUALITY; POLICY; DRUG Abstract: Background: The contents of pharmaceutical industry sponsored supplements to medical journals are perceived to be less credible than the contents of their parent journals. It is unknown if their contents are cited as often. The objective of this study was to quantify the citability of original research and reviews contained in supplements and compare it with that for the parent journal. Methodology/Principal Findings: This was a cohort study of 446 articles published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (JCP) and its supplements for calendar years 2000 and 2005. The total citation counts for each article up to October 5, 2009 were retrieved from the ISI Web of Science database. The main outcome measure was the number of citations received by an article since publication. Regular journal articles included 114 from calendar year 2000 and 190 from 2005. Articles from supplements included 90 from 2000 and 52 from 2005. The median citation counts for the 3 years post-publication were 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 4-20), 14 (IQR, 8-20), 13.5 (IQR, 8-23), and 13.5 (IQR, 8-20), for the 2000 parent journal, 2000 supplements, 2005 parent journal, and 2005 supplements, respectively. Citation counts were higher for the articles in the supplements than the parent journal for the cohorts from 2000 (p=.02), and no different for the year 2005 cohorts (p=.88). The 2005 parent journal cohort had higher citation counts than the 2000 cohort (p=.007), in contrast to the supplements where citation counts remained the same (p=.94). Conclusions/Significance: Articles published in JCP supplements are robustly cited and thus can be influential in guiding clinical and research practice, as well as shaping critical thinking. Because they are printed under the sponsorship of commercial interests, they may be perceived as less than objective. A reasonable step to help improve this perception would be to ensure that supplements are peer-reviewed in the same way as regular articles in the parent journal. Addresses: [Citrome, Leslie] NYU, Sch Med, Dept Psychiat, New York, NY 10003 USA; [Citrome, Leslie] Nathan S Kline Inst Psychiat Res, Orangeburg, NY 10962 USA Reprint Address: Citrome, L, NYU, Sch Med, Dept Psychiat, New York, NY 10003 USA. E-mail Address: citrome at nki.rfmh.org ISSN: 1932-6203 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009876 Fulltext: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009876 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sun May 2 20:59:19 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 20:59:19 -0400 Subject: Nwagwu, WE. 2010. Cybernating the academe: Centralized scholarly ranking and visibility of scholars in the developing world. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 36 (2): 228-241. Message-ID: Nwagwu, WE. 2010. Cybernating the academe: Centralized scholarly ranking and visibility of scholars in the developing world. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 36 (2): 228-241. Author Full Name(s): Nwagwu, Williams E. Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: citation analysis; citation indexes; cybernetics; scholarly publications; scholarly ranking KeyWords Plus: CITATION ANALYSIS; SCIENCE; PRODUCTIVITY; TOOL; PSYCHOLOGY; JOURNALS; IMPACT Abstract: This article uses a metaphor of social cybernetics to explain the neoliberal science politics manifest in the deployment of information technology to homogenize, centralize and globalize scholarly performance criteria, a development that benefits the developed regions of the world that already have a competitive advantage in the use of the technologies. The international citation indexes collect, organize and analyse skewed proportions of the world's scholarly publications mainly from the North and make generalizations about the state and structure of global scientific knowledge, thus exerting undue control and discipline on global intellectual discourse. The databases do not accord any deference to the global diversity and complexity in human and other resources. However, autonomous databases that have regional, national and organizational focuses are beginning to emerge, but such an infrastructure is not yet available in Africa and many other developing regions. It is envisaged, however, that the current African Citation Index Project of the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa will contribute in bridging this gap. Addresses: Univ Ibadan, Africa Reg Ctr Informat Sci, Ibadan, Nigeria Reprint Address: Nwagwu, WE, Univ Ibadan, Africa Reg Ctr Informat Sci, 6 Benue Rd,Box 22133, Ibadan, Nigeria. E-mail Address: willieezi at yahoo.com ISSN: 0165-5515 DOI: 10.1177/0165551509358482 URL: http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/2/228 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sun May 2 21:02:14 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 21:02:14 -0400 Subject: Serenko et al. 2010. A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994-2008). JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 14 (1): 3-23. Message-ID: Serenko, A; Bontis, N; Booker, L; Sadeddin, K; Hardie, T. 2010. A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994-2008). JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 14 (1): 3-23. Author Full Name(s): Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick; Booker, Lorne; Sadeddin, Khaled; Hardie, Timothy Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Knowledge management; Intellectual capital; Productivity rate KeyWords Plus: INFORMATION-SYSTEMS RESEARCH; LOTKAS LAW; BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY; IMPACT; AUTHORSHIP; JOURNALS; SCIENCE; PUBLICATION; DISCIPLINE Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this study is to conduct a scientometric analysis of the body of literature contained in 11 major knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC) peer-reviewed journals. Design/methodology/approach - A total of 2,175 articles published in 11 major KM/IC peer-reviewed journals were carefully reviewed and subjected to scientometric data analysis techniques. Findings - A number of research questions pertaining to country institutional and individual productivity co-operation patterns, publication frequency, and favourite inquiry methods were proposed and answered. Based on the findings, many implications emerged that improve one's understanding of the identity of KM/IC as a distinct scientific field. Research limitations/implications - The pool of KM/IC journals examined did not represent all available publication outlets, given that at least 20 peer-reviewed journals exist in the KM/IC field. There are also KM/IC papers published in other non-KM/IC specific journals. However, the 11 journals that were selected for the study have been evaluated by Bontis and Serenko as the top publications in the KM/IC area. Practical implications - Practitioners have played a significant role in developing the KM/IC field. However, their contributions have been decreasing. There is still very much a need for qualitative descriptions and case studies. It is critically important that practitioners consider collaborating with academics for richer research projects. Originality/value - This is the most comprehensive scientometric analysis of the KM/IC field ever conducted Addresses: [Serenko, Alexander; Hardie, Timothy] Lakehead Univ, Fac Business Adm, Thunder Bay, ON P7B 5E1, Canada; [Bontis, Nick; Booker, Lorne; Sadeddin, Khaled] McMaster Univ, DeGroote Sch Business, Hamilton, ON, Canada Reprint Address: Bontis, N, McMaster Univ, DeGroote Sch Business, Hamilton, ON, Canada. E-mail Address: nbontis at mcmaster.ca ISSN: 1367-3270 DOI: 10.1108/13673271011015534 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sun May 2 21:03:13 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:13 -0400 Subject: Yue, HJLuo, Q; Zhu, M. 2009. Grey Absolute Degree of Incidence Analysis of Citation Indicators of Management Academic Journals Message-ID: Yue, HJLuo, Q; Zhu, M. 2009. Grey Absolute Degree of Incidence Analysis of Citation Indicators of Management Academic Journals. 2009 THIRD INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLIGENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION, VOL 2, PROCEEDINGS 19-22 Conference Title 3rd International Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology Application Conference Date NOV 21-22, 2009 Conference Location Nanchang, PEOPLES R CHINA Abstract Based on the principle and method of grey absolute degree of incidence, the relationships between citation indicators of management academic journals are analyzed. The results show that The average number of authors per paper and The ratio of financial assistance papers are the most important two factors which can effect the Impact factor and the Immediacy index of the management science journal, and the factors of Annual published articles and The age of journal take the weakest effect to the Impact factors. Reasons of key factors which effect the quality of management science are further discussed. DOI 10.1109/IITA.2009.258 From dwojick at HUGHES.NET Mon May 3 09:53:48 2010 From: dwojick at HUGHES.NET (David Wojick) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 09:53:48 -0400 Subject: Wray, KB. 2010. Philosophy of Science: What are the Key Journals in the Field?. ERKENNTNIS 72 (3): 423-430 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I agree with Wray's conclusion about historical study not being an important part of HPS. In the HPS subfield relatively shallow historical examples are there to support the philosophical theory being invoked or argued for, not to be studied. (My Ph.D is in HPS.) Nor is the "history of science in the making" or what is happening today in science an object of much study. This is unfortunate, as Philosophy of Science has a lot to offer the Science of Science. David Wojick At 08:55 PM 5/2/2010, Eugene Garfield wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Wray, KB. 2010. Philosophy of Science: What are the Key Journals in the >Field?. >ERKENNTNIS 72 (3): 423-430. > >Author Full Name(s): Wray, K. Brad > >Language: English >Document Type: Article >KeyWords Plus: HISTORY > >Abstract: By means of a citation analysis I aim to determine which scholarly >journals are most important in the sub-field of philosophy of science. My >analysis shows that the six most important journals in the sub-field are >Philosophy of Science, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, >Journal of >Philosophy, Synthese, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, and >Erkenntnis. Given the data presented in this study, there is little >evidence that >there is such a field as the history and philosophy of science (HPS). Rather, >philosophy of science is most properly conceived of as a sub-field of >philosophy. > >Addresses: SUNY Coll Oswego, Dept Philosophy, Oswego, NY 13126 USA >Reprint Address: Wray, KB, SUNY Coll Oswego, Dept Philosophy, 211 Campus >Ctr, Oswego, NY 13126 USA. >E-mail Address: kwray at oswego.edu > >ISSN: 0165-0106 >DOI: 10.1007/s10670-010-9214-6 >Fulltext: http://www.springerlink.com/content/331082203250l438/ From james.testa at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Mon May 3 11:29:47 2010 From: james.testa at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (James Testa) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 10:29:47 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: This is in response to The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index by Peder Olsesen Larsen and Markus von Inus1. While I strongly agree that citation indexes should reflect the current trends in the scholarly publishing community, I must disagree with their findings because they are not based on accurate data. The Authors have derived their figures and conclusions from the SCI (Science Citation Index), a subset of the SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded). The SCI is intentionally cultivated to be a relatively small collection of high impact journals and excellent regional journals. The SCIE, on the other hand, is a comprehensive citation index covering all science journals selected by Thomson Reuters through its Journal Selection Process. Additionally, the authors did not take into account that conference proceedings are indexed primarily in the CPCI (Conference Proceedings Citation Index), at a rate of nearly 400,000 records from approximately 12,000 conferences each year. I have provided a brief commentary that describes and quantifies the content of the major indexes in the Web of Science. I would invite the authors and any others who are interested to view it here . I welcome any feedback or further discussion on the subject. 1. Larsen, P.O. and vo Ins, M. "The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline of coverage provided by Science Citation Index." Scientometrics. Online First, published 10 March 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James Testa VP Editorial Development & Publisher Relations Thomson Reuters O +1 215 823 1701 F +1 215 387 4214 james.testa at thomsonreuters.com thomsonreuters.com scientific.thomsonreuters.com This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this email and any attachments. Please note: Effective August 28, 2009, the Philadelphia office of Thomson Reuters will be relocating. Please update your records to the following address: Thomson Reuters 1500 Spring Garden Street Fourth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone numbers and other contact info will not change. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU Mon May 3 12:31:42 2010 From: Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU (Pikas, Christina K.) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 12:31:42 -0400 Subject: [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ok. This indicates that I'm not the only one who is confused. I only have access to the online version, not having licensed a CD-ROM for my analysis work. - Apparently it's not correct to say that SCIE is the online version of SCI. Is there an offline batch download or mail-a-hard-drive version of the SCIE? - Do the national labs and others that have locally loaded versions get the SCI or SCIE? - You all seriously still PRINT the SCI? Really? Wow. (not a serious question) - Presumably which version you're using makes a huge difference to your analysis and conclusions - do all authors indicate which they're using (I know some do)? - Are the National Science Indicators really using SCI or really using SCIE? I know some European countries use Thomson Reuters data - are they all using the same data? All SCI, all SCIE, some of each, no one knows? Christina Pikas ---- Christina K Pikas Librarian The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Christina.Pikas at jhuapl.edu (240) 228 4812 (DC area) (443) 778 4812 (Baltimore area) From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of James Testa Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] This is in response to The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index by Peder Olsesen Larsen and Markus von Inus1. While I strongly agree that citation indexes should reflect the current trends in the scholarly publishing community, I must disagree with their findings because they are not based on accurate data. The Authors have derived their figures and conclusions from the SCI (Science Citation Index), a subset of the SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded). The SCI is intentionally cultivated to be a relatively small collection of high impact journals and excellent regional journals. The SCIE, on the other hand, is a comprehensive citation index covering all science journals selected by Thomson Reuters through its Journal Selection Process. Additionally, the authors did not take into account that conference proceedings are indexed primarily in the CPCI (Conference Proceedings Citation Index), at a rate of nearly 400,000 records from approximately 12,000 conferences each year. I have provided a brief commentary that describes and quantifies the content of the major indexes in the Web of Science. I would invite the authors and any others who are interested to view it here. I welcome any feedback or further discussion on the subject. 1. Larsen, P.O. and vo Ins, M. "The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline of coverage provided by Science Citation Index." Scientometrics. Online First, published 10 March 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James Testa VP Editorial Development & Publisher Relations Thomson Reuters O +1 215 823 1701 F +1 215 387 4214 james.testa at thomsonreuters.com thomsonreuters.com scientific.thomsonreuters.com This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this email and any attachments. Please note: Effective August 28, 2009, the Philadelphia office of Thomson Reuters will be relocating. Please update your records to the following address: Thomson Reuters 1500 Spring Garden Street Fourth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone numbers and other contact info will not change. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon May 3 13:37:41 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:37:41 -0400 Subject: Rizkallah, J; Sin, DD. 2010. Integrative Approach to Quality Assessment of Medical Journals Using Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Scores. PLOS ONE 5 (4): art. no.-e10204 Message-ID: Rizkallah, J; Sin, DD. 2010. Integrative Approach to Quality Assessment of Medical Journals Using Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, and Article Influence Scores. PLOS ONE 5 (4): art. no.-e10204. Author Full Name(s): Rizkallah, Jacques; Sin, Don D. Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: CITATION; PAGERANK; COUNTS Abstract: Background: Impact factor ( IF) is a commonly used surrogate for assessing the scientific quality of journals and articles. There is growing discontent in the medical community with the use of this quality assessment tool because of its many inherent limitations. To help address such concerns, Eigenfactor (ES) and Article Influence scores (AIS) have been devised to assess scientific impact of journals. The principal aim was to compare the temporal trends in IF, ES, and AIS on the rank order of leading medical journals over time. Methods: The 2001 to 2008 IF, ES, AIS, and number of citable items (CI) of 35 leading medical journals were collected from the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) and the http://www.eigenfactor.orgdatabases. The journals were ranked based on the published 2008 ES, AIS, and IF scores. Temporal score trends and variations were analyzed. Results: In general, the AIS and IF values provided similar rank orders. Using ES values resulted in large changes in the rank orders with higher ranking being assigned to journals that publish a large volume of articles. Since 2001, the IF and AIS of most journals increased significantly; however the ES increased in only 51% of the journals in the analysis. Conversely, 26% of journals experienced a downward trend in their ES, while the rest experienced no significant changes (23%). This discordance between temporal trends in IF and ES was largely driven by temporal changes in the number of CI published by the journals. Conclusion: The rank order of medical journals changes depending on whether IF, AIS or ES is used. All of these metrics are sensitive to the number of citable items published by journals. Consumers should thus consider all of these metrics rather than just IF alone in assessing the influence and importance of medical journals in their respective disciplines. Addresses: [Rizkallah, Jacques] St Pauls Hosp, Dept Med, Div Resp, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada; St Pauls Hosp, Providence Heart & Lung Inst, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada Reprint Address: Rizkallah, J, St Pauls Hosp, Dept Med, Div Resp, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada. E-mail Address: don.sin at hli.ubc.ca ISSN: 1932-6203 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010204 Fulltext: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010204 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon May 3 13:40:29 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:40:29 -0400 Subject: Sagar et al. 2010. Scientometric mapping of Tsunami publications: a citation based study. MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE 15 (1): 23-40 Message-ID: Sagar, A; Kademani, BS; Garg, RG; Kumar, V. 2010. Scientometric mapping of Tsunami publications: a citation based study. MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE 15 (1): 23-40. Author Full Name(s): Sagar, Anil; Kademani, B. S.; Garg, R. G.; Kumar, Vijai Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Tsunami; Citation analysis; Highly Cited Authors; Bibliometrics; Scientometrics; Publication Productivity; Author Productivity; Institutional Productivity KeyWords Plus: BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; INDICATORS; SCIENCE; TECHNOLOGY; ARTICLES; GROWTH; IMPACT; INDIA Abstract: The objective of the study was to perform a scientometric analysis of all Tsunami related publications as per the Scopus (TM) database during 1997-2008. A total of 4338 publications and 21107 citations to these papers were received. The parameters studied include growth of publication, country- wise distribution of publications, activity index of countries, most-frequently cited publications, authorship pattern, co-authorship index, and distribution of keywords. United States of America, Japan, United Kingdom, India and Australia produced 54.20% of the total output. A spurt in number of publications was observed after the Indonesia's tsunami occurred on 26 December 2004. Addresses: [Sagar, Anil; Kademani, B. S.; Kumar, Vijai] Bhabha Atom Res Ctr, Knowledge Management Grp, Sci Informat Resource Div, Bombay 400085, Maharashtra, India; [Garg, R. G.] Jiwaji Univ, Sch Studies Lib & Informat Sci, Gwalior, MP, India Reprint Address: Sagar, A, Bhabha Atom Res Ctr, Knowledge Management Grp, Sci Informat Resource Div, Bombay 400085, Maharashtra, India. E-mail Address: anilsagarbarc at yahoo.com ISSN: 1394-6234 Fulltext: http://majlis.fsktm.um.edu.my/detail.asp?AID=843 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon May 3 13:42:26 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:42:26 -0400 Subject: Mishra et al., Citation analysis and research impact of National Metallurgical Laboratory, India during 1972-2007: a case study. MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE 15 (1): 91- 113. Message-ID: Mishra, PN; Panda, KC; Goswami, NG. 2010. Citation analysis and research impact of National Metallurgical Laboratory, India during 1972-2007: a case study. MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE 15 (1): 91- 113. Author Full Name(s): Mishra, Paras N.; Panda, Krushna C.; Goswami, Nani G. Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis; Bibliometric analysis; Institutional citation analysis; Productometric analysis; Bradford's Law; Lotka's Law KeyWords Plus: UNCITEDNESS; ARTICLES Abstract: This paper provides an insight into the citation analysis of research publications of the National Metallurgical Laboratory (NML) during the period 1972-2007. It analysed 2830 most valuable citations spread over 561 publications made by the NML scientists and researchers indexed in Science Citation Index (SCI) retrieved through the Web of Science. It determines the research and citation impact using parameters such as extent of citation received in terms of number of citation per paper, year wise break up of citation, domain wise citation, self citations and citation by others, diachronous self citation rate, citing authors, citing institutions, highly cited papers and categories of citing documents, citing journals and impact factor. A Bradford plot constructed to determine the core-citing journals shows that the curve is a typical S shape which indicates subject maturity. Addresses: [Mishra, Paras N.; Goswami, Nani G.] Natl Met Lab, Informat Management & Disseminat Ctr, Jamshedpur 830007, Bihar, India; [Panda, Krushna C.] Sambalpur Univ, UGC SAP DRS, Dept Lib & Informat Sci, Sambalpur, Orissa, India Reprint Address: Mishra, PN, Natl Met Lab, Informat Management & Disseminat Ctr, Jamshedpur 830007, Bihar, India. E-mail Address: paras at rediffmail.com ISSN: 1394-6234 Fulltext: http://majlis.fsktm.um.edu.my/detail.asp?AID=847 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon May 3 13:46:04 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:46:04 -0400 Subject: Grajewski et al., 2010. A Scientometric Analysis of Leukoplakia and Erythroplakia. LARYNGO-RHINO-OTOLOGIE 89 (4): 210-215. Message-ID: Grajewski, S; Quarcoo, D; Uibel, S; Scutaru, C; Groneberg, D; Spallek, M. 2010. A Scientometric Analysis of Leukoplakia and Erythroplakia. LARYNGO-RHINO- OTOLOGIE 89 (4): 210-215. Author Full Name(s): Grajewski, S.; Quarcoo, D.; Uibel, S.; Scutaru, C.; Groneberg, D.; Spallek, M. Language: German Document Type: Article Author Keywords: leukoplakia; erythroplakia; erythroplasia; scientometry; density equalizing mapping KeyWords Plus: OCCUPATIONAL-HEALTH; RESEARCH OUTPUT; IMPACT FACTORS Abstract: Background: The oral leukoplakia and erythroplakia is one of the most common epithelial precursor lesions of the oral squamous cell carcinoma. Transformation rates are approximately 0.9-17% in 10 years for leukoplakia and in 14-50% for the erythroplakia. Despite the clinical relevance of these lesions, currently exists no detailed bibliometric analysis. Methods: The present study combines classical bibliometric tools with novel scientometric and visualizing techniques in order to analyse and categorize research in the field of leukoplakia and erythroplakia. Results: All studies related to leukoplakia and erythroplakia and listed in the ISI database since 1900 were identified by the use of defined search terms. The bibliometric analysis of the collected data shows a continuous increase in quantitative marker such as the number of publications and cooperation and qualitative markers, such as citations and H-index. The combination with density equalizing mapping revealed a distinct global structure of research and citing activity. Radar chart techniques were used to illustrate bi- and multilateral cooperations and institution research collaborations. Discussion: The present study demonstrates the first scientometric approach that visualizes research activities in the area of leukoplakia and erythroplakia. It provides data that can be used for geografical context and research networks. Addresses: [Grajewski, S.; Quarcoo, D.; Uibel, S.; Scutaru, C.; Groneberg, D.; Spallek, M.] Charite, Inst Arbeitsmed, D-14159 Berlin, Germany Reprint Address: Grajewski, S, Charite, Inst Arbeitsmed, Thielallee 69-73, D- 14159 Berlin, Germany. E-mail Address: sonja.grajewski at charite.de ISSN: 0935-8943 DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1243624 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon May 3 13:56:20 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:56:20 -0400 Subject: Smith, DR. 2010. Citation Analysis and Bibliometric Research in the Field of Ergonomics. HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS IN MANUFACTURING & SERVICE INDUSTRIES 20 (3): 202-210 Message-ID: Smith, DR. 2010. Citation Analysis and Bibliometric Research in the Field of Ergonomics. HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS IN MANUFACTURING & SERVICE INDUSTRIES 20 (3): 202-210. Author Full Name(s): Smith, Derek R. Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis; Bibliometrics; Human factors; Ergonomics; Impact factor; Publishing KeyWords Plus: JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL JOURNALS; OCCUPATIONAL-MEDICINE; SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS; FACTOR TRENDS; SCIENCE; SOCIETY; HISTORY; HEALTH; REFLECTIONS Abstract: Given that journal impact factors now represent such a "hot" topic in the modern scientific world, it is essential that ergonomists remain fully cognizant of the citation-based research that has been conducted in our field. This article reviews and examines bibliometric research in the ergonomics profession, ranging from seminal work on content analysis and citation indexing, to some of the latest research describing ergonomics journal lists and longitudinal impact factor trends. Overall, history has shown how citation- based studies have become increasingly common in the ergonomics field during the past few decades, and, as we move through the 21st century, ergonomics journals continue to mature as a result. (C) 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Addresses: Univ Newcastle, Fac Hlth, Sch Hlth Sci, WorkCover New S Wales Res Ctr Excellence, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia Reprint Address: Smith, DR, Univ Newcastle, Fac Hlth, Sch Hlth Sci, WorkCover New S Wales Res Ctr Excellence, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia. E-mail Address: derek.smith at newcastle.edu.au ISSN: 1090-8471 DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20175 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon May 3 13:59:17 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:59:17 -0400 Subject: Gall et al. 2010. Citations of ETR&D and related journals, 1990-2004. ETR&D-EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 58 (3): 343-351 Message-ID: Gall, JE; Ku, HY; Gurney, K; Tseng, HW; Yeh, HT; Chen, Q. 2010. Citations of ETR&D and related journals, 1990-2004. ETR&D-EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 58 (3): 343-351. Author Full Name(s): Gall, James E.; Ku, Heng-Yu; Gurney, Keyleigh; Tseng, Hung-Wei; Yeh, Hsin-Te; Chen, Qin Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation research; Bibliometrics; Scholarship; Scientific communication Abstract: Scientific communication in the field of educational technology was examined by analyzing references from and citations to articles published in Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D) for the period 1990-2004 with particular emphasis on other journals found in the citation record. Data were collected on the 369 core articles found in the 60 issues published during that time period, their reference lists (containing over 14,805 individual items), and citations of those articles in other journals (1,896 entries). The top cited and citing journals during that time period are listed. Nine symbiotic journals (i.e. those that are most cited by ETR&D and frequently cite it) were identified: Contemporary Educational Psychology, Educational Psychologist, Instructional Science, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction (no longer published), Journal of Educational Computing Research, Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Educational Research, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, and the Review of Educational Research. The results provide an in-depth, quantitative view of informal connections within the field via the citation record. Implications for further research and the potential influence of new technologies on scientific communication are also discussed. Addresses: [Gall, James E.; Ku, Heng-Yu; Gurney, Keyleigh; Tseng, Hung-Wei; Yeh, Hsin-Te; Chen, Qin] Univ No Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639 USA Reprint Address: Gall, JE, Univ No Colorado, 504 McKee Hall, Greeley, CO 80639 USA. E-mail Address: james.gall at unco.edu ISSN: 1042-1629 DOI: 10.1007/s11423-008-9102-9 Fulltext: http://www.springerlink.com/content/yt30712114r22533/ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon May 3 14:02:25 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 14:02:25 -0400 Subject: Allen, MA. 2010. On the current obsession with publication statistics. SCIENCEASIA 36 (1): 1-5. Message-ID: Allen, MA. 2010. On the current obsession with publication statistics. SCIENCEASIA 36 (1): 1-5. Author Full Name(s): Allen, Michael A. Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: citations; impact factor; h-index; bibliometrics; research assessment KeyWords Plus: INDEX; IMPACT Abstract: Crude publication statistics such as publication counts and impact factors are routinely being employed to assess individuals and institutions. Although they can play a role in an approximate preliminary assessment, using them for anything more is inappropriate due to their over-simplicity and ease of manipulation. Furthermore, it is argued that rewarding scientists for achieving high scores in such number-based evaluations ultimately leads to a slowing of scientific progress. Suggestions are given on how reliance on statistics can be reduced and their manipulation discouraged. Addresses: Mahidol Univ, Fac Sci, Dept Phys, Bangkok 10400, Thailand Reprint Address: Allen, MA, Mahidol Univ, Fac Sci, Dept Phys, Rama 6 Rd, Bangkok 10400, Thailand. E-mail Address: frmaa at mahidol.ac.th ISSN: 1513-1874 DOI: 10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2010.36.001 Fulltext: http://www.scienceasia.org/content/viewabstract.php? v=36&i=1&m=3&y=2010&aa=0 From chessnic at COMPUSERVE.COM Mon May 3 14:05:34 2010 From: chessnic at COMPUSERVE.COM (chessnic at COMPUSERVE.COM) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 14:05:34 -0400 Subject: [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press) In-Reply-To: 86203 Message-ID: In the 1990s, as editor of PUBLISHING RESEARCH JOURNAL, I invited a number of articles on scholarly databases that demonstrated the growth of science publication (28 were collected and reissued under the title ELECTRONIC DATABASES AND PUBLISHING (1998)). SCI was not a candidate because it had limited its coverage -- perhaps to contain production costs but with the stated rationale that only the most cited publications were of interest. Best wishes, Albert Henderson -----Original Message----- From: Pikas, Christina K. To: SIGMETRICS Sent: Mon, May 3, 2010 12:37 pm Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] Ok. This indicates that I?mnot the only one who is confused. I only have access to the online version, nothaving licensed a CD-ROM for my analysis work. - Apparently it?snot correct to say that SCIE is the online version of SCI. Is there anoffline batch download or mail-a-hard-drive version of the SCIE? - Do the national labs and othersthat have locally loaded versions get the SCI or SCIE? - You all seriously still PRINTthe SCI? Really? Wow. (not a serious question) - Presumably which version you?reusing makes a huge difference to your analysis and conclusions ? do allauthors indicate which they?re using (I know some do)? - Are the National ScienceIndicators really using SCI or really using SCIE? I know some Europeancountries use Thomson Reuters data ? are they all using the same data?All SCI, all SCIE, some of each, no one knows? Christina Pikas ---- Christina K Pikas Librarian The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Christina.Pikas at jhuapl.edu (240) 228 4812 (DC area) (443) 778 4812 (Baltimore area) From: ASIS&T SpecialInterest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of JamesTesta Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Adminstrativeinfo for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html This is in response to Therate of growth in scientific publications and the decline in coverage providedby Science Citation Index by Peder Olsesen Larsen and Markus von Inus1. WhileI strongly agree that citation indexes should reflect the current trends in thescholarly publishing community, I must disagree with their findings becausethey are not based on accurate data. The Authors have derived theirfigures and conclusions from the SCI (Science Citation Index), a subset of theSCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded). The SCI is intentionallycultivated to be a relatively small collection of high impact journals andexcellent regional journals. The SCIE, on the other hand, is acomprehensive citation index covering all science journals selected by ThomsonReuters through its Journal Selection Process. Additionally, the authorsdid not take into account that conference proceedings are indexed primarily inthe CPCI (Conference Proceedings Citation Index), at a rate of nearly 400,000records from approximately 12,000 conferences each year. I have provided a brief commentarythat describes and quantifies the content of the major indexes in the Web ofScience. I would invite the authors and any others who are interested to viewit here.I welcome any feedback or further discussion on the subject. 1. Larsen,P.O. and vo Ins, M. "The rate of growth in scientific publications and thedecline of coverage provided by Science Citation Index." Scientometrics.Online First, published 10 March 2010. DOI:10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? JamesTesta VP Editorial Development & Publisher Relations Thomson Reuters O+1 215 823 1701 F+1 215 387 4214 james.testa at thomsonreuters.com thomsonreuters.com scientific.thomsonreuters.com This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient andcontains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If youare not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email anddelete this email and any attachments. Please note: Effective August 28, 2009, the Philadelphia office ofThomson Reuters will be relocating. Please update your records to the followingaddress: Thomson Reuters 1500 Spring Garden Street Fourth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone numbers and other contact info will not change. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Mon May 3 14:06:02 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 14:06:02 -0400 Subject: Sherriff, G. 2010. Information Use in History Research: A Citation Analysis of Master's Level Theses. PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY Message-ID: Sherriff, G. 2010. Information Use in History Research: A Citation Analysis of Master's Level Theses. PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY 10 (2):165-183. Abstract This article addresses the need for quantitative investigation into students' use of information resources in historical research. It reports the results of a citation analysis of more than 3,000 citations from master's level history theses submitted between 1998 and 2008 at a mid-sized public university. The study's results support the hypotheses that the predominant format in history research is the monograph and that history research entails use of older resources, and in greater proportions, than other disciplines. Results also support the conclusions that journal usage is comparatively low and that there is a high degree of citation dispersal across journal titles. ISSN 1531-2542 restricted access URL: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/summary/v010/10 .2.sherriff.html From kboyack at MAPOFSCIENCE.COM Mon May 3 14:25:37 2010 From: kboyack at MAPOFSCIENCE.COM (Kevin Boyack) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 12:25:37 -0600 Subject: [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] In-Reply-To: <0BBD8C9342CBA343AE2C91D32990988C3BD79B6AA8@aplesstripe.dom1.jhuapl.edu> Message-ID: Christina, Regarding your questions below: - Up until 2007, when I was at Sandia, the AISTI group (a group of national labs and some universities) licensed SCIE (and SSCI .) and hosted it at LANL. I would presume that they have not since downgraded to SCI. - Yes, versioning makes a huge difference, and most authors in info science/bibliometrics seem to know the difference, although some seem not to. - And, the National Science Indicators uses NEITHER the SCI or SCIE. It uses a hand-picked set of about 5000 journals from the ISI indexes (curated historically by CHI - Fran Narin's shop - and now by iPiQ) that was probably very similar to SCI back in the 1970s, and which is now probably akin to an SCI++, but certainly containing far less than SCIE. So, the NSI numbers are not easily compared to anything else out there. If anyone is interested in the exact list of journals used by NSI, they can contact Lawrence Burton at NSF. Best regards, Kevin From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Pikas, Christina K. Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:32 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] Ok. This indicates that I'm not the only one who is confused. I only have access to the online version, not having licensed a CD-ROM for my analysis work. - Apparently it's not correct to say that SCIE is the online version of SCI. Is there an offline batch download or mail-a-hard-drive version of the SCIE? - Do the national labs and others that have locally loaded versions get the SCI or SCIE? - You all seriously still PRINT the SCI? Really? Wow. (not a serious question) - Presumably which version you're using makes a huge difference to your analysis and conclusions - do all authors indicate which they're using (I know some do)? - Are the National Science Indicators really using SCI or really using SCIE? I know some European countries use Thomson Reuters data - are they all using the same data? All SCI, all SCIE, some of each, no one knows? Christina Pikas ---- Christina K Pikas Librarian The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Christina.Pikas at jhuapl.edu (240) 228 4812 (DC area) (443) 778 4812 (Baltimore area) From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of James Testa Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] This is in response to The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index by Peder Olsesen Larsen and Markus von Inus1. While I strongly agree that citation indexes should reflect the current trends in the scholarly publishing community, I must disagree with their findings because they are not based on accurate data. The Authors have derived their figures and conclusions from the SCI (Science Citation Index), a subset of the SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded). The SCI is intentionally cultivated to be a relatively small collection of high impact journals and excellent regional journals. The SCIE, on the other hand, is a comprehensive citation index covering all science journals selected by Thomson Reuters through its Journal Selection Process. Additionally, the authors did not take into account that conference proceedings are indexed primarily in the CPCI (Conference Proceedings Citation Index), at a rate of nearly 400,000 records from approximately 12,000 conferences each year. I have provided a brief commentary that describes and quantifies the content of the major indexes in the Web of Science. I would invite the authors and any others who are interested to view it here . I welcome any feedback or further discussion on the subject. 1. Larsen, P.O. and vo Ins, M. "The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline of coverage provided by Science Citation Index." Scientometrics. Online First, published 10 March 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James Testa VP Editorial Development & Publisher Relations Thomson Reuters O +1 215 823 1701 F +1 215 387 4214 james.testa at thomsonreuters.com thomsonreuters.com scientific.thomsonreuters.com This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this email and any attachments. Please note: Effective August 28, 2009, the Philadelphia office of Thomson Reuters will be relocating. Please update your records to the following address: Thomson Reuters 1500 Spring Garden Street Fourth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone numbers and other contact info will not change. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.testa at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Mon May 3 14:32:41 2010 From: james.testa at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (James Testa) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] In-Reply-To: <0BBD8C9342CBA343AE2C91D32990988C3BD79B6AA8@aplesstripe.dom1.jhuapl.edu> Message-ID: Christina, Correct, the SCIE is not the online version of SCI. SCI is available in CDOM format as well as print. The National Science Indicators file is based on SCIE data. Jim Testa VP Editorial Development & Publisher Relations Thomson Reuters From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Pikas, Christina K. Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:32 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] Ok. This indicates that I'm not the only one who is confused. I only have access to the online version, not having licensed a CD-ROM for my analysis work. - Apparently it's not correct to say that SCIE is the online version of SCI. Is there an offline batch download or mail-a-hard-drive version of the SCIE? - Do the national labs and others that have locally loaded versions get the SCI or SCIE? - You all seriously still PRINT the SCI? Really? Wow. (not a serious question) - Presumably which version you're using makes a huge difference to your analysis and conclusions - do all authors indicate which they're using (I know some do)? - Are the National Science Indicators really using SCI or really using SCIE? I know some European countries use Thomson Reuters data - are they all using the same data? All SCI, all SCIE, some of each, no one knows? Christina Pikas ---- Christina K Pikas Librarian The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Christina.Pikas at jhuapl.edu (240) 228 4812 (DC area) (443) 778 4812 (Baltimore area) From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of James Testa Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] This is in response to The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index by Peder Olsesen Larsen and Markus von Inus1. While I strongly agree that citation indexes should reflect the current trends in the scholarly publishing community, I must disagree with their findings because they are not based on accurate data. The Authors have derived their figures and conclusions from the SCI (Science Citation Index), a subset of the SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded). The SCI is intentionally cultivated to be a relatively small collection of high impact journals and excellent regional journals. The SCIE, on the other hand, is a comprehensive citation index covering all science journals selected by Thomson Reuters through its Journal Selection Process. Additionally, the authors did not take into account that conference proceedings are indexed primarily in the CPCI (Conference Proceedings Citation Index), at a rate of nearly 400,000 records from approximately 12,000 conferences each year. I have provided a brief commentary that describes and quantifies the content of the major indexes in the Web of Science. I would invite the authors and any others who are interested to view it here . I welcome any feedback or further discussion on the subject. 1. Larsen, P.O. and vo Ins, M. "The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline of coverage provided by Science Citation Index." Scientometrics. Online First, published 10 March 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James Testa VP Editorial Development & Publisher Relations Thomson Reuters O +1 215 823 1701 F +1 215 387 4214 james.testa at thomsonreuters.com thomsonreuters.com scientific.thomsonreuters.com This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this email and any attachments. Please note: Effective August 28, 2009, the Philadelphia office of Thomson Reuters will be relocating. Please update your records to the following address: Thomson Reuters 1500 Spring Garden Street Fourth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone numbers and other contact info will not change. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KHamilton at PATENTBOARD.COM Mon May 3 15:00:24 2010 From: KHamilton at PATENTBOARD.COM (Kim Hamilton) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:00:24 -0400 Subject: [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] In-Reply-To: <039e01caeaee$079dab50$16d901f0$@com> Message-ID: I have to correct Kevin in his comments about the National Science Indicators (NSI). Upon first reading the Larsen, et al paper, I too thought NSI referred to what is reported in the NSF's biennial Science & Engineering Indicators (SEI), but in fact I believe it is a Thomson product. The database on which SEI is built is in fact the SCI, and always has been, although starting in 1988 fully covered journals in the SSCI were added (caveat: journals in what we categorize as Professional Fields (Mgmt & Bus, Educ, Law, etc) have not been included as NSF does not track those subfields). And, to correct Larsen, et al, only Articles, Notes, and Reviews are counted, not Letters. NSF fully documents what is included and how counts are made in their SEI reports. Kevin is correct that the list of journals included in SEI can be obtained through Lawrence Burton. Kim Hamilton SEI principal investigator ipIQ (dba The Patent Board and formerly CHI Research) khamilton at patentboard.com From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Kevin Boyack Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:26 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] Regarding your questions below: - Up until 2007, when I was at Sandia, the AISTI group (a group of national labs and some universities) licensed SCIE (and SSCI ...) and hosted it at LANL. I would presume that they have not since downgraded to SCI. - Yes, versioning makes a huge difference, and most authors in info science/bibliometrics seem to know the difference, although some seem not to. - And, the National Science Indicators uses NEITHER the SCI or SCIE. It uses a hand-picked set of about 5000 journals from the ISI indexes (curated historically by CHI - Fran Narin's shop - and now by iPiQ) that was probably very similar to SCI back in the 1970s, and which is now probably akin to an SCI++, but certainly containing far less than SCIE. So, the NSI numbers are not easily compared to anything else out there. If anyone is interested in the exact list of journals used by NSI, they can contact Lawrence Burton at NSF. Best regards, Kevin From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Pikas, Christina K. Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:32 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] - Apparently it's not correct to say that SCIE is the online version of SCI. Is there an offline batch download or mail-a-hard-drive version of the SCIE? - Do the national labs and others that have locally loaded versions get the SCI or SCIE? - You all seriously still PRINT the SCI? Really? Wow. (not a serious question) - Presumably which version you're using makes a huge difference to your analysis and conclusions - do all authors indicate which they're using (I know some do)? - Are the National Science Indicators really using SCI or really using SCIE? I know some European countries use Thomson Reuters data - are they all using the same data? All SCI, all SCIE, some of each, no one knows? Christina Pikas ---- Christina K Pikas Librarian The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Christina.Pikas at jhuapl.edu (240) 228 4812 (DC area) (443) 778 4812 (Baltimore area) From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of James Testa Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] The Authors have derived their figures and conclusions from the SCI (Science Citation Index), a subset of the SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded). The SCI is intentionally cultivated to be a relatively small collection of high impact journals and excellent regional journals. The SCIE, on the other hand, is a comprehensive citation index covering all science journals selected by Thomson Reuters through its Journal Selection Process. Additionally, the authors did not take into account that conference proceedings are indexed primarily in the CPCI (Conference Proceedings Citation Index), at a rate of nearly 400,000 records from approximately 12,000 conferences each year. I have provided a brief commentary that describes and quantifies the content of the major indexes in the Web of Science. I would invite the authors and any others who are interested to view it here. I welcome any feedback or further discussion on the subject. 1. Larsen, P.O. and vo Ins, M. "The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline of coverage provided by Science Citation Index." Scientometrics. Online First, published 10 March 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James Testa VP Editorial Development & Publisher Relations Thomson Reuters O +1 215 823 1701 F +1 215 387 4214 james.testa at thomsonreuters.com thomsonreuters.com scientific.thomsonreuters.com This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this email and any attachments. Please note: Effective August 28, 2009, the Philadelphia office of Thomson Reuters will be relocating. Please update your records to the following address: Thomson Reuters 1500 Spring Garden Street Fourth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone numbers and other contact info will not change. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ann.kushmerick at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Tue May 4 09:05:59 2010 From: ann.kushmerick at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (ann.kushmerick at THOMSONREUTERS.COM) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 08:05:59 -0500 Subject: [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] In-Reply-To: A Message-ID: Please allow me to confirm and expand on Kim's comments. There are two different datasets being discussed here. The Science and Engineering Indicators report produced by the US NSF http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/ , uses journals from Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index data, treated by ipIQ as Kim explained. This is not to be confused with the National Science Indicators product, produced by Thomson Reuters, which is indeed based on the journal set found in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), as well as Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Ann Kushmerick Manager, Research Evaluation and Bibliometric Data Thomson Reuters From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Kim Hamilton Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:00 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] I have to correct Kevin in his comments about the National Science Indicators (NSI). Upon first reading the Larsen, et al paper, I too thought NSI referred to what is reported in the NSF's biennial Science & Engineering Indicators (SEI), but in fact I believe it is a Thomson product. The database on which SEI is built is in fact the SCI, and always has been, although starting in 1988 fully covered journals in the SSCI were added (caveat: journals in what we categorize as Professional Fields (Mgmt & Bus, Educ, Law, etc) have not been included as NSF does not track those subfields). And, to correct Larsen, et al, only Articles, Notes, and Reviews are counted, not Letters. NSF fully documents what is included and how counts are made in their SEI reports. Kevin is correct that the list of journals included in SEI can be obtained through Lawrence Burton. Kim Hamilton SEI principal investigator ipIQ (dba The Patent Board and formerly CHI Research) khamilton at patentboard.com From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Kevin Boyack Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:26 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] Christina, Regarding your questions below: - Up until 2007, when I was at Sandia, the AISTI group (a group of national labs and some universities) licensed SCIE (and SSCI ...) and hosted it at LANL. I would presume that they have not since downgraded to SCI. - Yes, versioning makes a huge difference, and most authors in info science/bibliometrics seem to know the difference, although some seem not to. - And, the National Science Indicators uses NEITHER the SCI or SCIE. It uses a hand-picked set of about 5000 journals from the ISI indexes (curated historically by CHI - Fran Narin's shop - and now by iPiQ) that was probably very similar to SCI back in the 1970s, and which is now probably akin to an SCI++, but certainly containing far less than SCIE. So, the NSI numbers are not easily compared to anything else out there. If anyone is interested in the exact list of journals used by NSI, they can contact Lawrence Burton at NSF. Best regards, Kevin From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Pikas, Christina K. Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:32 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] Ok. This indicates that I'm not the only one who is confused. I only have access to the online version, not having licensed a CD-ROM for my analysis work. - Apparently it's not correct to say that SCIE is the online version of SCI. Is there an offline batch download or mail-a-hard-drive version of the SCIE? - Do the national labs and others that have locally loaded versions get the SCI or SCIE? - You all seriously still PRINT the SCI? Really? Wow. (not a serious question) - Presumably which version you're using makes a huge difference to your analysis and conclusions - do all authors indicate which they're using (I know some do)? - Are the National Science Indicators really using SCI or really using SCIE? I know some European countries use Thomson Reuters data - are they all using the same data? All SCI, all SCIE, some of each, no one knows? Christina Pikas ---- Christina K Pikas Librarian The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Christina.Pikas at jhuapl.edu (240) 228 4812 (DC area) (443) 778 4812 (Baltimore area) From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of James Testa Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] This is in response to The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index by Peder Olsesen Larsen and Markus von Inus1. While I strongly agree that citation indexes should reflect the current trends in the scholarly publishing community, I must disagree with their findings because they are not based on accurate data. The Authors have derived their figures and conclusions from the SCI (Science Citation Index), a subset of the SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded). The SCI is intentionally cultivated to be a relatively small collection of high impact journals and excellent regional journals. The SCIE, on the other hand, is a comprehensive citation index covering all science journals selected by Thomson Reuters through its Journal Selection Process. Additionally, the authors did not take into account that conference proceedings are indexed primarily in the CPCI (Conference Proceedings Citation Index), at a rate of nearly 400,000 records from approximately 12,000 conferences each year. I have provided a brief commentary that describes and quantifies the content of the major indexes in the Web of Science. I would invite the authors and any others who are interested to view it here . I welcome any feedback or further discussion on the subject. 1. Larsen, P.O. and vo Ins, M. "The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline of coverage provided by Science Citation Index." Scientometrics. Online First, published 10 March 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James Testa VP Editorial Development & Publisher Relations Thomson Reuters O +1 215 823 1701 F +1 215 387 4214 james.testa at thomsonreuters.com thomsonreuters.com scientific.thomsonreuters.com This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this email and any attachments. Please note: Effective August 28, 2009, the Philadelphia office of Thomson Reuters will be relocating. Please update your records to the following address: Thomson Reuters 1500 Spring Garden Street Fourth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone numbers and other contact info will not change. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Wed May 5 02:12:19 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 08:12:19 +0200 Subject: [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] In-Reply-To: <31A61ABD8CB94C40941E2B8141F6270D022B731E@TSHUSMNNADMBX03.ERF.THOMSON.COM> Message-ID: Dear Kevin, Previously, it was the case that the list used for the SEI was held constant for analytical reasons during long periods of time (1973-1988). Is this still the case? (In the 1980s we had a fierce debate about "The decline of British science" related to this issue because the UK declined in a fixed list, but was stable in the dynamic one of the SCI -- without expansion.) Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _____ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of ann.kushmerick at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 3:06 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] Please allow me to confirm and expand on Kim's comments. There are two different datasets being discussed here. The Science and Engineering Indicators report produced by the US NSF http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/ , uses journals from Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index data, treated by ipIQ as Kim explained. This is not to be confused with the National Science Indicators product, produced by Thomson Reuters, which is indeed based on the journal set found in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), as well as Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Ann Kushmerick Manager, Research Evaluation and Bibliometric Data Thomson Reuters From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Kim Hamilton Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:00 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] I have to correct Kevin in his comments about the National Science Indicators (NSI). Upon first reading the Larsen, et al paper, I too thought NSI referred to what is reported in the NSF's biennial Science & Engineering Indicators (SEI), but in fact I believe it is a Thomson product. The database on which SEI is built is in fact the SCI, and always has been, although starting in 1988 fully covered journals in the SSCI were added (caveat: journals in what we categorize as Professional Fields (Mgmt & Bus, Educ, Law, etc) have not been included as NSF does not track those subfields). And, to correct Larsen, et al, only Articles, Notes, and Reviews are counted, not Letters. NSF fully documents what is included and how counts are made in their SEI reports. Kevin is correct that the list of journals included in SEI can be obtained through Lawrence Burton. Kim Hamilton SEI principal investigator ipIQ (dba The Patent Board and formerly CHI Research) khamilton at patentboard.com From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Kevin Boyack Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:26 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] Christina, Regarding your questions below: - Up until 2007, when I was at Sandia, the AISTI group (a group of national labs and some universities) licensed SCIE (and SSCI .) and hosted it at LANL. I would presume that they have not since downgraded to SCI. - Yes, versioning makes a huge difference, and most authors in info science/bibliometrics seem to know the difference, although some seem not to. - And, the National Science Indicators uses NEITHER the SCI or SCIE. It uses a hand-picked set of about 5000 journals from the ISI indexes (curated historically by CHI - Fran Narin's shop - and now by iPiQ) that was probably very similar to SCI back in the 1970s, and which is now probably akin to an SCI++, but certainly containing far less than SCIE. So, the NSI numbers are not easily compared to anything else out there. If anyone is interested in the exact list of journals used by NSI, they can contact Lawrence Burton at NSF. Best regards, Kevin From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Pikas, Christina K. Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:32 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [Thomson Reuters response to Larsen & von Ins (in press)] Ok. This indicates that I'm not the only one who is confused. I only have access to the online version, not having licensed a CD-ROM for my analysis work. - Apparently it's not correct to say that SCIE is the online version of SCI. Is there an offline batch download or mail-a-hard-drive version of the SCIE? - Do the national labs and others that have locally loaded versions get the SCI or SCIE? - You all seriously still PRINT the SCI? Really? Wow. (not a serious question) - Presumably which version you're using makes a huge difference to your analysis and conclusions - do all authors indicate which they're using (I know some do)? - Are the National Science Indicators really using SCI or really using SCIE? I know some European countries use Thomson Reuters data - are they all using the same data? All SCI, all SCIE, some of each, no one knows? Christina Pikas ---- Christina K Pikas Librarian The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Christina.Pikas at jhuapl.edu (240) 228 4812 (DC area) (443) 778 4812 (Baltimore area) From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of James Testa Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:30 AM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] This is in response to The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index by Peder Olsesen Larsen and Markus von Inus1. While I strongly agree that citation indexes should reflect the current trends in the scholarly publishing community, I must disagree with their findings because they are not based on accurate data. The Authors have derived their figures and conclusions from the SCI (Science Citation Index), a subset of the SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded). The SCI is intentionally cultivated to be a relatively small collection of high impact journals and excellent regional journals. The SCIE, on the other hand, is a comprehensive citation index covering all science journals selected by Thomson Reuters through its Journal Selection Process. Additionally, the authors did not take into account that conference proceedings are indexed primarily in the CPCI (Conference Proceedings Citation Index), at a rate of nearly 400,000 records from approximately 12,000 conferences each year. I have provided a brief commentary that describes and quantifies the content of the major indexes in the Web of Science. I would invite the authors and any others who are interested to view it here . I welcome any feedback or further discussion on the subject. 1. Larsen, P.O. and vo Ins, M. "The rate of growth in scientific publications and the decline of coverage provided by Science Citation Index." Scientometrics. Online First, published 10 March 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James Testa VP Editorial Development & Publisher Relations Thomson Reuters O +1 215 823 1701 F +1 215 387 4214 james.testa at thomsonreuters.com thomsonreuters.com scientific.thomsonreuters.com This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this email and any attachments. Please note: Effective August 28, 2009, the Philadelphia office of Thomson Reuters will be relocating. Please update your records to the following address: Thomson Reuters 1500 Spring Garden Street Fourth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone numbers and other contact info will not change. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From linda.butler at ANU.EDU.AU Fri May 7 02:08:36 2010 From: linda.butler at ANU.EDU.AU (Linda Butler) Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 16:08:36 +1000 Subject: identification of review articles Message-ID: I'm hoping someone on the list may be able to help with this query ... Until now, I have often used separate field-normalised benchmarks for articles and reviews. However some recent work I have undertaken has made me question the wisdom of this. My understanding is that Scopus and WoS both classify a publication as a 'review' if it contains more than 100 references. I hadn't thought too closely about this methodology until I recently came across some articles that both Scopus and WoS have classified as reviews, but which appear to be standard research articles (though with lots of references). I'm now beginning to wonder whether I should continue to used separate benchmarks for articles and reviews. If it is only one or two papers that crop up in a macro level analysis, then I won't be too concerned. But if there is a question mark over the accuracy of this method for identifying reviews, and the problem is more common than, then I will need to rethink my methodology. Does anyone know of any empirical studies that have examined the accuracy of this method for classifying a publication as a review? Or even if you don't know of any studies, have you come across similar concerns in any analyses you have undertaken? with thanks Linda Butler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ludo at LUDOWALTMAN.NL Fri May 7 04:36:58 2010 From: ludo at LUDOWALTMAN.NL (Ludo Waltman) Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 10:36:58 +0200 Subject: identification of review articles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Linda, Some time ago I performed an (unpublished) analysis of the accuracy of the identification of reviews in Web of Science. At least in some fields (subject categories) the distinction between ordinary articles and reviews is inaccurate. Consider the field of management. The attached Figure 1 shows the distribution of publications in the field of management based on their number of references. Ordinary articles are indicated in blue and reviews in red. As can be seen, in the field of management almost all publications with more than 100 references are classified as reviews, while almost no publications with less than 100 references are classified as reviews. It is of course extremely unlikely that this is a correct classification. One would expect the proportion of reviews to be a gradually increasing function of the number of references. Instead, the figure shows a sudden increase at 100 references. Similar observations can be made for other fields, although management seems to be a quite extreme case. Pharmacology & pharmacy is an example of a field with a much more gradually increasing proportion of reviews (see the attached Figure 2). So in this field the distinction between ordinary articles and reviews may be more accurate. Best regards, Ludo Waltman ======================================================== Ludo Waltman MSc Researcher Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 5806 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: waltmanlr at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.ludowaltman.nl ======================================================== Quoting Linda Butler : > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > I'm hoping someone on the list may be able to help with this query ... > > Until now, I have often used separate field-normalised benchmarks > for articles and reviews. However some recent work I have > undertaken has made me question the wisdom of this. My > understanding is that Scopus and WoS both classify a publication as > a 'review' if it contains more than 100 references. I hadn't thought > too closely about this methodology until I recently came across > some articles that both Scopus and WoS have classified as reviews, > but which appear to be standard research articles (though with lots > of references). I'm now beginning to wonder whether I should > continue to used separate benchmarks for articles and reviews. If > it is only one or two papers that crop up in a macro level > analysis, then I won't be too concerned. But if there is a > question mark over the accuracy of this method for identifying > reviews, and the problem is more common than, then I will need to > rethink my methodology. > > Does anyone know of any empirical studies that have examined the > accuracy of this method for classifying a publication as a review? > > Or even if you don't know of any studies, have you come across > similar concerns in any analyses you have undertaken? > > with thanks > Linda Butler -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Figure1.png Type: image/x-png Size: 23576 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Figure2.png Type: image/x-png Size: 24081 bytes Desc: not available URL: From olle.persson at SOC.UMU.SE Fri May 7 05:36:18 2010 From: olle.persson at SOC.UMU.SE (Olle Persson) Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 11:36:18 +0200 Subject: SV: [SIGMETRICS] identification of review articles In-Reply-To: <20100507103658.foznva3tw4sg40ss@webmail.ludowaltman.nl> Message-ID: ...and if you look at ARIST which is supposed to contain reviews it is full of articles, and there is no correlation with the n of references and the doc type... Olle -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fr?n: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] F?r Ludo Waltman Skickat: den 7 maj 2010 10:37 Till: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ?mne: Re: [SIGMETRICS] identification of review articles Dear Linda, Some time ago I performed an (unpublished) analysis of the accuracy of the identification of reviews in Web of Science. At least in some fields (subject categories) the distinction between ordinary articles and reviews is inaccurate. Consider the field of management. The attached Figure 1 shows the distribution of publications in the field of management based on their number of references. Ordinary articles are indicated in blue and reviews in red. As can be seen, in the field of management almost all publications with more than 100 references are classified as reviews, while almost no publications with less than 100 references are classified as reviews. It is of course extremely unlikely that this is a correct classification. One would expect the proportion of reviews to be a gradually increasing function of the number of references. Instead, the figure shows a sudden increase at 100 references. Similar observations can be made for other fields, although management seems to be a quite extreme case. Pharmacology & pharmacy is an example of a field with a much more gradually increasing proportion of reviews (see the attached Figure 2). So in this field the distinction between ordinary articles and reviews may be more accurate. Best regards, Ludo Waltman ======================================================== Ludo Waltman MSc Researcher Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 5806 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: waltmanlr at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.ludowaltman.nl ======================================================== Quoting Linda Butler : > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > I'm hoping someone on the list may be able to help with this query ... > > Until now, I have often used separate field-normalised benchmarks > for articles and reviews. However some recent work I have > undertaken has made me question the wisdom of this. My > understanding is that Scopus and WoS both classify a publication as > a 'review' if it contains more than 100 references. I hadn't thought > too closely about this methodology until I recently came across > some articles that both Scopus and WoS have classified as reviews, > but which appear to be standard research articles (though with lots > of references). I'm now beginning to wonder whether I should > continue to used separate benchmarks for articles and reviews. If > it is only one or two papers that crop up in a macro level > analysis, then I won't be too concerned. But if there is a > question mark over the accuracy of this method for identifying > reviews, and the problem is more common than, then I will need to > rethink my methodology. > > Does anyone know of any empirical studies that have examined the > accuracy of this method for classifying a publication as a review? > > Or even if you don't know of any studies, have you come across > similar concerns in any analyses you have undertaken? > > with thanks > Linda Butler From dgoodman at PRINCETON.EDU Fri May 7 21:10:35 2010 From: dgoodman at PRINCETON.EDU (David Goodman) Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 21:10:35 -0400 Subject: identification of review articles In-Reply-To: <20100507103658.foznva3tw4sg40ss@webmail.ludowaltman.nl> Message-ID: The current Web of Science policy is at http://kbportal.thomson.com/display/2/searchDirect/index.aspx?searchstring=document+type&searchtype=2&searchby=keywords&Catid=&SubCatid=&att=&remotesite=&search= from which I quote "Criteria for designating a record as Review in Web of Science Articles and reviews are considered to be different document types . A review is a "special" type of article. A record is designated as a review in WOS if it has over 100 cited references and the word "review" is indicated at least twice in the original article (or, there is something in the original article that designates it a "review"). Two of the review criteria should be met for classification as a review. It cites more than 100 references, it appears in a review publication or a review section of a journal, the word review or overview appears in its title, the abstract states that it is a review or survey." David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S. previously: Bibliographer and Research Librarian Princeton University Library dgoodman at princeton.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: Ludo Waltman Date: Friday, May 7, 2010 4:55 am Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] identification of review articles To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Linda, > > Some time ago I performed an (unpublished) analysis of the accuracy > of > the identification of reviews in Web of Science. At least in some > fields (subject categories) the distinction between ordinary > articles > and reviews is inaccurate. Consider the field of management. The > attached Figure 1 shows the distribution of publications in the > field > of management based on their number of references. Ordinary > articles > are indicated in blue and reviews in red. As can be seen, in the > field > of management almost all publications with more than 100 references > > are classified as reviews, while almost no publications with less > than > 100 references are classified as reviews. It is of course extremely > > unlikely that this is a correct classification. One would expect > the > proportion of reviews to be a gradually increasing function of the > number of references. Instead, the figure shows a sudden increase > at > 100 references. Similar observations can be made for other fields, > although management seems to be a quite extreme case. Pharmacology > & > pharmacy is an example of a field with a much more gradually > increasing proportion of reviews (see the attached Figure 2). So in > > this field the distinction between ordinary articles and reviews > may > be more accurate. > > Best regards, > > Ludo Waltman > > > ======================================================== > Ludo Waltman MSc > Researcher > > Centre for Science and Technology Studies > Leiden University > P.O. Box 905 > 2300 AX Leiden > The Netherlands > > Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 > Tel: +31 (0)71 527 5806 > Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 > E-mail: waltmanlr at cwts.leidenuniv.nl > Homepage: www.ludowaltman.nl > ======================================================== > > > Quoting Linda Butler : > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > I'm hoping someone on the list may be able to help with this > query ... > > > > Until now, I have often used separate field-normalised benchmarks > > > for articles and reviews. However some recent work I have > > undertaken has made me question the wisdom of this. My > > understanding is that Scopus and WoS both classify a publication > as > > a 'review' if it contains more than 100 references. I hadn't > thought > > too closely about this methodology until I recently came across > > some articles that both Scopus and WoS have classified as > reviews, > > but which appear to be standard research articles (though with > lots > > of references). I'm now beginning to wonder whether I should > > continue to used separate benchmarks for articles and reviews. > If > > it is only one or two papers that crop up in a macro level > > analysis, then I won't be too concerned. But if there is a > > question mark over the accuracy of this method for identifying > > reviews, and the problem is more common than, then I will need > to > > rethink my methodology. > > > > Does anyone know of any empirical studies that have examined the > > > accuracy of this method for classifying a publication as a review? > > > > Or even if you don't know of any studies, have you come across > > similar concerns in any analyses you have undertaken? > > > > with thanks > > Linda Butler > From umutal at HACETTEPE.EDU.TR Thu May 6 05:49:06 2010 From: umutal at HACETTEPE.EDU.TR (Umut AL) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 12:49:06 +0300 Subject: Announcement: "2nd International Symposium on Information Management in a Changing World" Message-ID: Dear List Members: The "2nd International Symposium on Information Management in a Changing World" organized by the Department of Information Management of Hacettepe University, will take place in Ankara, Turkey, from 22-24 September 2010. The symposium aims to bring together both researchers and practitioners to discuss the current information management issues, and present ideas, theories, approaches and methods to tackle them. The list of accepted papers and draft programme of the Symposium will be announced soon via Symposium web site (http://by2010.bilgiyonetimi.net/english.html) The online registration is now open http://by2010.bilgiyonetimi.net/online_registration.html) Looking forward to meeting you in Ankara in September. Regards and best wishes. Ya?ar Tonta Chair of the Organizing Committee Hacettepe University Department of Information Management 06800 Beytepe, Ankara Tel: +90 (312) 297 82 04 Fax: +90 (312) 299 20 14 E-mail: tonta at hacettepe.edu.tr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sun May 9 16:41:34 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 15:41:34 -0500 Subject: FW: Scientific Journal Impact Indexes and Indicators for Measuring Researchers]]] Message-ID: Subject: Scientific Journal Impact Indexes and Indicators for Measuring Researchers]]] Scientific Journal Impact Indexes and Indicators for Measuring Researchers' Performance, Revista de Psicodid?ctica, 2010, 15(1), 3-19 http://www.ehu.es/ojs/index.php/psicodidactica/article/view/731/606 Gualberto Buela-Casal Facultad de Psicologia Universidad de Granada 18011 Granada, Espa?a Telf: 34-958161708 movil: 600470046 e-mail: gbuela at ugr.es From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sun May 9 16:47:45 2010 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 15:47:45 -0500 Subject: FW: Global Psychology: A bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science Publications]]] Message-ID: e-mail: gbuela at ugr.es Global Psychology: A bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science Publications* La psicolog?a internacional: un an?lisis bibliom?trico de las publicaciones en la Web of Science Recibido: agosto 20 de 2009 Revisado: octubre 14 de 2009 Aceptado: noviembre 1 de 2009 Jos? Navarrete-Cortes ** Universidad de Ja?n, Espa?a Juan Antonio Fern?ndez-L?pez *** Sistema de Informaci?n Cient?fica de Andaluc?a, Sevilla, Espa?a Alfonso L?pez-Baena **** Agencia Andaluza de Evaluaci?n, C?rdoba, Espa?a Ra?l Quevedo-Blasco ***** Gualberto Buela-Casal Universidad de Granada, Espa?a A b s t r a c t In this study, we carried a classification by country based on the analysis of the scientific production of psychology journals. We analyzed a total of 108,741 documents, published in the Web of Science. The indicators used were the Weighted Impact Factor, the Relative Impact Factor, the Citation Rate per article and the articles published in the top five journals of the Journal Citation Report (JCR). The results indicate that Spain has the highest percentage of articles in the top five journals in the JCR and Colombia is the second Latin American, Spanish-speaking country that has more citations per article. Countries like Hungary, Italy and USA, had a higher Impact Factor and Citation Rate. Key words authors Descriptive study through document analysis. Scientific productivity. Bibliometric indicators. Country ranking. Global Psychology: A bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science Publications Gualberto Buela-Casal Facultad de Psicologia Universidad de Granada 18011 Granada, Espa?a Telf: 34-958161708 movil: 600470046 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 21UP9-2_JNavarrete.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 345050 bytes Desc: 21UP9-2_JNavarrete.pdf URL: From kretschmer.h at T-ONLINE.DE Mon May 10 06:15:38 2010 From: kretschmer.h at T-ONLINE.DE (kretschmer.h@t-online.de) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 12:15:38 +0200 Subject: CfP Poster Presentation 6th Int WIS and 11th COLLNET Meet Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.thelwall at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK Thu May 13 13:15:32 2010 From: m.thelwall at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK (thelwall mike) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 18:15:32 +0100 Subject: PhD Studentship in Information Science Message-ID: A fees-only bursary is available for an information science PhD study at the Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group at the University of Wolverhampton. http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk/phd.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Fri May 14 06:40:41 2010 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 06:40:41 -0400 Subject: Fwd: The access problem -- small, medium, or large? Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Jim Stemper > Date: May 14, 2010 > To: "liblicense-l -- lists.yale.edu" > Subject: The access problem -- small, medium, or large? > >> On Mon, 10 May 2010 19:42:28 EDT, Joseph Esposito >> wrote: >> "Harnad is hoping to replace the small problem of access with the >> large problem of fiscal recklessness." > > The Research Information Network's 2009 study > "Overcoming Barriers: Access to Research Information Content" > http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/overcoming-barriers-access-research-information > goes to some lengths to show that the access problem is not "small." > Some excerpts: > Of the 800 respondents, over 40% said that they were > unable readily to access licensed content at least weekly; and > two-thirds at least monthly. The key reasons for failing to > secure access were perceived to be [...] that the library had not > purchased a licence for the content, because of budgetary > constraints (56%). Around 59 per cent of respondents thought > that non-availability of content does have some impact on their > research, while 18 per cent say the impact is 'significant' > either in terms of timing and/or comprehensiveness and/or other > quality impact. And let's not forget the Open Access Impact Advantage: If journal affordability constraints are a *direct* indicator of the fact that the access problem is not small but large, the fact that in every field OA enhances both citation and download impact are *indirect* indicators of that same fact (apart from being a benefit in its own right): Hitchcock, S. "The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies" http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.htm From katy at INDIANA.EDU Tue May 18 19:30:49 2010 From: katy at INDIANA.EDU (Katy Borner) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 19:30:49 -0400 Subject: CfP: National VIVO Conference: Enabling National Networking of Scientists Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Fri May 21 07:56:39 2010 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 13:56:39 +0200 Subject: New paper in Cybermetrics e-journal Message-ID: Academic Spectra: A Visualization Method for Research Assessment Fred Y. Y. Cybermetrics, 14 (2010): Issue 1. Paper 1 http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v14i1p1.html A new visualization method for research assessment, called the academic spectrum, is introduced. Two types of academic spectra are distinguished: field spectra and time spectra. Using appropriate scaling factors these spectra facilitate comparisons between scientometric indicators such as the h-index, the total number of citations received and the impact. Academic spectra can be calculated for journals, countries, research institutes, whole universities and single researchers alike. They are meant to help the scientometric practitioner to get a first impression of the data. -- ************************************* Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab IPP - CCHS - CSIC Albasanz, 26-28, 3C1. 28037 Madrid. Spain Ph. 91-602 2890. Fax: 91-602 2971 isidro.aguillo @ cchs.csic.es Ranking www.webometrics.info ************************************* From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat May 22 11:41:57 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 11:41:57 -0400 Subject: Soreide, K; Winter, DC. 2010. Global survey of factors influencing choice of surgical journal for manuscript submission. SURGERY 147 (4): 475-480 Message-ID: Soreide, K; Winter, DC. 2010. Global survey of factors influencing choice of surgical journal for manuscript submission. SURGERY 147 (4): 475-480. Author Full Name(s): Soreide, Kjetil; Winter, Desmond C. Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: IMPACT FACTOR; SURGEONS; PUBLISH Abstract: Background. An increasing number of general and affiliated specialty society journals make finding the right place for manuscript submission of an article challenging. Little is known about what factors surgeons hold important when choosing a journal for article submission. Materials. A global e-mail survey of authors publishing in 5 general surgery journals (Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, World Journal of Surgery, Archives of Surgery, and Surgery) from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2008. Demographic data were collected. 15 arbitrarily chosen factors associated with submission strategy were rated for importance on a 5-point modified Likert scale (ranging from 1 representing "unimportant" and 5 representing "very important"). Results. Of 1,855 authors 250 (14%) responded. Representing 41 countries, 23 (10%) of the respondents were female and 250 (90%) were male. About two thirds of the authors had less than 10 years of clinical practice, with general surgery or gastrointestinal surgery, as the major fields of interest represented. Of the 15 factors, the journal "reputation" was rated "very important" (5 points) by 62% of the respondents, followed by the journal "impact factor "which was rated "very important" by 61%, although some geographic differences were noted in this rating. Grouping several factors together in categories, the journal "prestige" and "turn-around time" category was held to be most important based on the average scores received. Age correlated with valued importance of the journal reputation (Spearman rho = 0.141; P = .033). The factors considered the least important included the journal's acceptance/rejection rate, the option to suggest peer reviewers, and open access. Conclusion. The majority of seasoned surgeons held the overall reputation of the journal as the most important factor followed by the impact factor when choosing a journal fur 'manuscript submission. (Surgery 2010;147:475-80.) Addresses: [Soreide, Kjetil] Stavanger Univ Hosp, Dept Surg, N-4068 Stavanger, Norway; [Soreide, Kjetil] Univ Bergen, Dept Surg Sci, Bergen, Norway; [Winter, Desmond C.] Univ Coll Dublin, Inst Clin Outcomes Res & Educ, Dublin 2, Ireland; [Winter, Desmond C.] Univ Coll Dublin, St Vincents Univ Hosp, Dept Surg, Dublin 2, Ireland Reprint Address: Soreide, K, Stavanger Univ Hosp, Dept Surg, POB 8100, N- 4068 Stavanger, Norway. E-mail Address: ksoreide at mac.com ISSN: 0039-6060 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.042 URL: http://www.surgjournal.com/article/S0039-6060(09)00667-9/abstract From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat May 22 11:48:42 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 11:48:42 -0400 Subject: Hewitt DA, et al. 2009. Maintaining the Competitiveness of the American Fisheries Society Journals: An Assessment Based on Influence and Cost-Effectiveness. FISHERIES 34 (12): 598-606 Message-ID: Hewitt, DA; Link, JS; Wahl, DH; Cooke, SJ; Mather, ME. 2009. Maintaining the Competitiveness of the American Fisheries Society Journals: An Assessment Based on Influence and Cost-Effectiveness. FISHERIES 34 (12): 598-606. Author Full Name(s): Hewitt, David A.; Link, Jason S.; Wahl, David H.; Cooke, Steven J.; Mather, Martha E. Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: OPEN-ACCESS; SCIENCE; MARINE Abstract: Recent changes in the landscape of scientific publishing prompted the Publications Overview Committee of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) to review the Society's portfolio of scientific journals. We evaluated journals based on metrics in two categories: (1) citation-based measures of the influence of a journal on the scientific literature, and (2) measures of the cost- effectiveness of a journal (citation rate adjusted for subscription cost). Over the long-term, we found that ecology journals had far stronger citation-based influence than fisheries and aquatic sciences journals, and that journals publishing primarily basic research had stronger influence than journals publishing applied research (including four AFS journals and Fisheries magazine). In evaluating the current status of fisheries and aquatic sciences journals, we found that metrics of influence and cost-effectiveness provided considerably different portrayals of journals relative to their peers. In terms of citation- based influence, we found that the AFS journal Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (TAFS) and Fisheries magazine were competitive with highly regarded peer fisheries journals, but that North American Journal of Aquaculture (NAJA) and Journal of Aquatic Animal Health (JAAH) were less influential than their peers. The citation-based influence of North American Journal of Fisheries Management (NAJFM) was intermediate between TAFS/Fisheries and NAJA/JAAH. For journals like NAJFM and NAJA, we expect that much of the scientific influence on policy and management is not captured by citations in the primary literature, and alternative methods of evaluation may be needed. All of the AFS journals ranked highly with regard to cost-effectiveness because their subscription costs are low, and these rankings are in accordance with membership needs and the strategic mission of AFS to provide broad and timely dissemination of scientific information. We conclude by suggesting ways to increase the influence of AFS journals without compromising their accessibility and affordability, and offer advice about methods and frequency for future journal evaluations. Addresses: [Hewitt, David A.] US Geol Survey, Western Fisheries Res Ctr, Klamath Falls Field Stn, Klamath Falls, OR USA; [Link, Jason S.] Natl Marine Fisheries Serv, NE Fisheries Sci Ctr, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA; [Wahl, David H.] Univ Illinois, Sam Parr Biol Stat Illinois Nat Hist Survey, Sullivan, IL USA; [Cooke, Steven J.] Carleton Univ, Inst Environm Sci, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada; [Cooke, Steven J.] Carleton Univ, Dept Biol, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada; [Mather, Martha E.] Univ Massachusetts, US Geol Survey, Massachusetts Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, Dept Nat Resources Conservat, Amherst, MA 01003 USA Reprint Address: Hewitt, DA, US Geol Survey, Western Fisheries Res Ctr, Klamath Falls Field Stn, Klamath Falls, OR USA. E-mail Address: dhewitt at usgs.gov ISSN: 0363-2415 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat May 22 11:54:02 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 11:54:02 -0400 Subject: Sarafoglou, N; Paelinck, JHP. 2008. On diffusion of ideas in the academic world: the case of spatial econometrics. ANNALS OF REGIONAL SCIENCE 42 (2): 487-500 Message-ID: Sarafoglou, N; Paelinck, JHP. 2008. On diffusion of ideas in the academic world: the case of spatial econometrics. ANNALS OF REGIONAL SCIENCE 42 (2): 487- 500. Author Full Name(s): Sarafoglou, Nikias; Paelinck, Jean H. P. Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: PARTIAL-DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; MODELS; SWEDEN Abstract: Spatial econometrics is a fast-growing field in the series of quantitative disciplines, auxiliaries of economics and related social sciences. Space, friction, interdependence, spatio-temporal components, externalities and many other aspects interact and should be treated adequately in this field. The publication of the Paelinck and Klaassen book in the late 1970s generated virtually the field spatial econometrics. This article studies the diffusion of spatial econometrics, through experienced history on the one hand, on the other through bibliometric methods. Although this field was an "Invisible College" up to 2006 (absence of any organization in form of association, conference, journal, etc.), the databases depict a fast diffusion in the past and strong prospects for the future. Addresses: [Sarafoglou, Nikias; Paelinck, Jean H. P.] George Mason Univ, Sch Publ Policy, Fairfax, VA 22030 USA Reprint Address: Sarafoglou, N, George Mason Univ, Sch Publ Policy, Fairfax, VA 22030 USA. E-mail Address: nsarafog at gmu.edu ISSN: 0570-1864 DOI: 10.1007/s00168-007-0162-2 URL Full Text: http://www.springerlink.com/content/qqx22r25387v3711/ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat May 22 11:57:47 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 11:57:47 -0400 Subject: Persson, O. 2010. Are highly cited papers more international?. SCIENTOMETRICS 83 (2): 397-401 Message-ID: Persson, O. 2010. Are highly cited papers more international?. SCIENTOMETRICS 83 (2): 397-401. Author Full Name(s): Persson, Olle Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Highly cited papers; International co-authorships; Citation impact KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION; CO-AUTHORSHIP; IMPACT Abstract: Several bibliometric studies have shown that international or multicountry papers are generally more cited than domestic or single country papers. Does this also hold for the most cited papers? In this study, the citation impact of domestic versus international papers is analyzed by comparing the share of international papers among the hundred most cited papers in four research specialities, from three universities, four cities and two countries. It is concluded that international papers are not well represented among high impact papers in research specialities, but dominate highly cited papers from small countries, and from cities and institutions within them. The share of international papers among highly cited papers is considerably higher during 2001-2008 compared to earlier years for institutions, cities and countries, but somewhat less for two of the research fields and slightly higher for the other two. Above all, domestic papers from the USA comprise about half of the highly cited papers in the research specialities. Addresses: Umea Univ, Dept Sociol, SE-90187 Umea, Sweden Reprint Address: Persson, O, Umea Univ, Dept Sociol, SE-90187 Umea, Sweden. E-mail Address: olle.persson at soc.umu.se ISSN: 0138-9130 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0007-0 URL Full Text: http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8727181n82337x3/ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat May 22 12:01:18 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 12:01:18 -0400 Subject: Upham, SP; Rosenkopf, L; Ungar, LH. 2010. Innovating knowledge communities An analysis of group collaboration and competition in science and technology. SCIENTOMETRICS 83 (2): 525-554 Message-ID: Upham, SP; Rosenkopf, L; Ungar, LH. 2010. Innovating knowledge communities An analysis of group collaboration and competition in science and technology. SCIENTOMETRICS 83 (2): 525-554. Author Full Name(s): Upham, S. Phineas; Rosenkopf, Lori; Ungar, Lyle H. Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Knowledge communities; Innovation; Dynamic clustering KeyWords Plus: RESOURCE-BASED VIEW; COMBINED COCITATION; MARKET ORIENTATION; CITATION PATTERNS; WORD ANALYSIS; SEARCH; NETWORKS; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CONSTRUCTION; ISOMORPHISM Abstract: A useful level of analysis for the study of innovation may be what we call "knowledge communities''-intellectually cohesive, organic inter- organizational forms. Formal organizations like firms are excellent at promoting cooperation, but knowledge communities are superior at fostering collaboration- the most important process in innovation. Rather than focusing on what encourages performance in formal organizations, we study what characteristics encourage aggregate superior performance in informal knowledge communities in computer science. Specifically, we explore the way knowledge communities both draw on past knowledge, as seen in citations, and use rhetoric, as found in writing, to seek a basis for differential success. We find that when using knowledge successful knowledge communities draw from a broad range of sources and are extremely flexible in changing and adapting. In marked contrast, when using rhetoric successful knowledge communities tend to use very similar vocabularies and language that does not move or adapt over time and is not unique or esoteric compared to the vocabulary of other communities. A better understanding of how inter-organizational collaborative network structures encourage innovation is important to understanding what drives innovation and how to promote it. Addresses: [Upham, S. Phineas; Rosenkopf, Lori] Univ Penn, Wharton Sch, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA; [Ungar, Lyle H.] Univ Penn, CIS Dept, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA Reprint Address: Upham, SP, Univ Penn, Wharton Sch, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. E-mail Address: uphams at wharton.upenn.edu; rosenkopf at wharton.upenn.edu; ungar at cis.upenn.edu ISSN: 0138-9130 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0102-2 URL Full Text: http://www.springerlink.com/content/67qm5238xv387658/ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat May 22 12:07:56 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 12:07:56 -0400 Subject: Upham, SP; Rosenkopf, L; Ungar, LH. 2010. Positioning knowledge: schools of thought and new knowledge creation. SCIENTOMETRICS 83 (2): 555-581. Message-ID: Upham, SP; Rosenkopf, L; Ungar, LH. 2010. Positioning knowledge: schools of thought and new knowledge creation. SCIENTOMETRICS 83 (2): 555-581. Author Full Name(s): Upham, S. Phineas; Rosenkopf, Lori; Ungar, Lyle H. Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Innovation; Management; Schools of thought; Clustering KeyWords Plus: COCITATION ANALYSIS; INTELLECTUAL STRUCTURE; MANAGEMENT JOURNALS; CITATION PATTERNS; SCIENCE; HISTORY; SEARCH; OLD; SPECIALTIES; EXPLORATION Abstract: Cohesive intellectual communities called "schools of thought'' can provide powerful benefits to those developing new knowledge, but can also constrain them. We examine how developers of new knowledge position themselves within and between schools of thought, and how this affects their impact. Looking at the micro and macro fields of management publications from 1956 to 2002 with an extensive dataset of 113,000+ articles from 41 top journals, we explore the dynamics of knowledge positioning for management scholars. We find that it is significantly beneficial for new knowledge to be a part of a school of thought, and that within a school of thought new knowledge has more impact if it is in the intellectual semi-periphery of the school. Addresses: [Upham, S. Phineas; Rosenkopf, Lori] Univ Penn, Wharton Sch, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA; [Ungar, Lyle H.] Univ Penn, CIS Dept, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA Reprint Address: Upham, SP, Univ Penn, Wharton Sch, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. E-mail Address: uphams at wharton.upenn.edu; rosenkopf at wharton.upenn.edu; ungar at cis.upenn.edu ISSN: 0138-9130 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0097-8 URL Full Text: http://www.springerlink.com/content/e051568275708313/ From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat May 22 12:13:59 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 12:13:59 -0400 Subject: Papavlasopoulos, S; Poulos, M; Korfiatis, N; Bokos, G. 2010. A non-linear index to evaluate a journal's scientific impact. INFORMATION SCIENCES 180 (11): 2156-2175 Message-ID: Papavlasopoulos, S; Poulos, M; Korfiatis, N; Bokos, G. 2010. A non-linear index to evaluate a journal's scientific impact. INFORMATION SCIENCES 180 (11): 2156-2175. Author Full Name(s): Papavlasopoulos, Sozon; Poulos, Marios; Korfiatis, Nikolaos; Bokos, George Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometrics; Semantic classification; Elman neural network; Impact factor KeyWords Plus: NEURAL-NETWORKS; SYSTEM; CITATIONS; UNITS Abstract: The purpose of this study is to define a bibliometric indicator of the scientific impact of a journal, which combines objectivity with the ability to bridge many different bibliometric factors and in particular the side factors presented along with celebrated ISI impact factor. The particular goal is to determine a standard threshold value in which an independent self-organizing system will decide the correlation between this value and the impact factor of a journal. We name this factor "Cited Distance Factor (CDF)" and it is extracted via a well-fitted, recurrent Elman neural network. For a case study of this implementation we used a dataset of all journals of cell biology, ranking them according to the impact factor from the Web of Science Database and then comparing the rank according to the cited distance. For clarity reasons we also compare the cited distance factor with already known measures and especially with the recently introduced eigenfactor of the institute of scientific information (ISI). (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Papavlasopoulos, Sozon; Poulos, Marios; Bokos, George] Ionian Univ, Informat Technol Lab, Dept Arch & Lib Sci, GR-49100 Corfu, Greece; [Korfiatis, Nikolaos] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Econ, Copenhagen, Denmark Reprint Address: Poulos, M, Ionian Univ, Informat Technol Lab, Dept Arch & Lib Sci, Ioannou Theotoki 9, GR-49100 Corfu, Greece. E-mail Address: sozon at ionio.gr; mpoulos at ionio.gr; nikolaos.korfiatis at econ.ku.dk; gbokos at ionio.gr ISSN: 0020-0255 DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2010.01.018 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat May 22 12:18:08 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 12:18:08 -0400 Subject: Leonard, L. 2010. Negotiating Authorship for Doctoral Dissertation Publications: A Reply. QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH 20 (5): 723-726 Message-ID: Leonard, L. 2010. Negotiating Authorship for Doctoral Dissertation Publications: A Reply. QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH 20 (5): 723-726. Author Full Name(s): Leonard, Lori Language: English Document Type: Letter KeyWords Plus: MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP; MEDICAL JOURNALS; TRENDS; CITATION; TIME Addresses: Johns Hopkins Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Behav & Soc, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA Reprint Address: Leonard, L, Johns Hopkins Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Behav & Soc, 624 N Broadway,Room 257, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA. E-mail Address: lleonard at jhsph.edu ISSN: 1049-7323 DOI: 10.1177/1049732310367642 URL Full Text: http://qhr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/5/723 From garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU Sat May 22 12:20:49 2010 From: garfield at CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 12:20:49 -0400 Subject: Durieux, V; Gevenois, PA. 2010. Bibliometric Indicators: Quality Measurements of Scientific Publication. RADIOLOGY 255 (2): 342-351 Message-ID: Durieux, V; Gevenois, PA. 2010. Bibliometric Indicators: Quality Measurements of Scientific Publication. RADIOLOGY 255 (2): 342-351. Author Full Name(s): Durieux, Valerie; Gevenois, Pierre Alain Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: IMPACT FACTOR; EIGENFACTOR(TM) METRICS; RADIOLOGY RESEARCH; RESEARCH ARTICLES; HIRSCH-INDEX; H-INDEX; JOURNALS; PRODUCTIVITY; CITATIONS; SCIENCE Abstract: Bibliometrics is a set of mathematical and statistical methods used to analyze and measure the quantity and quality of books, articles, and other forms of publications. There are three types of bibliometric indicators: quantity indicators, which measure the productivity of a particular researcher; quality indicators, which measure the quality (or "performance") of a researcher's output; and structural indicators, which measure connections between publications, authors, and areas of research. Bibliometric indicators are especially important for researchers and organizations, as these measurements are often used in funding decisions, appointments, and promotions of researchers. As more and more scientific discoveries occur and published research results are read and then quoted by other researchers, bibliometric indicators are becoming increasingly important. This article provides an overview of the currently used bibliometric indicators and summarizes the critical elements and characteristics one should be aware of when evaluating the quantity and quality of scientific output. (C) RSNA, 2010 Addresses: [Gevenois, Pierre Alain] Univ Libre Bruxelles, Hop Erasme, Dept Radiol, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium; [Gevenois, Pierre Alain] Univ Libre Bruxelles, Hop Erasme, Board Med Directors, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium; [Durieux, Valerie] Univ Libre Bruxelles, Res Unit Informat & Commun, Dept Informat & Commun Sci, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium Reprint Address: Gevenois, PA, Univ Libre Bruxelles, Hop Erasme, Dept Radiol, Route Lennik 808, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium. E-mail Address: pierre.alain.gevenois at ulb.ac.be ISSN: 0033-8419 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090626 URL: http://radiology.rsna.org/content/255/2/342.abstract From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sat May 29 05:16:20 2010 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 12:16:20 +0300 Subject: Eugene Garfield and Algorithmic Historiography: Co-Words, Co-Authors, and Journal Names Message-ID: Eugene Garfield and Algorithmic Historiography: Co-Words, Co-Authors, and Journal Names Annals of Library and Information Studies (forthcoming) Algorithmic historiography was proposed by Eugene Garfield in collaboration with Irving Sher in the 1960s, but further developed only recently into HistCiteT with Alexander Pudovkin. As in history writing, HistCiteT reconstructs by drawing intellectual lineages. In addition to cited references, however, documents can be attributed a multitude of other variables such as title words, keywords, journal names, author names, and even full texts. New developments in multidimensional scaling (MDS) enable us not only to visualize these patterns at each moment of time, but also to animate them over time. Using title words, co-authors, and journal names in Garfield's oeuvre, the method is demonstrated and further developed in this paper (and in the animation at http://www.leydesdorff.net/garfield/animation). The variety and substantive content of the animation enables us to write, visualize, and animate the author's intellectual history. _____ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: clip_image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1101 bytes Desc: not available URL: