Mics papers of interest to Sig Metrics

Mon Oct 3 18:11:57 EDT 2011

*View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000294951000001

Title:
Retracted Science and the Retraction Index

Authors:
Fang, FC; Casadevall, A

Author Full Names:
Fang, Ferric C.; Casadevall, Arturo

Source:
INFECTION AND IMMUNITY 79 (10): 3855-3859 10.1128/IAI.05661-11 OCT 2011 

Language:
English

Document Type:
Editorial Material

KeyWords Plus:
SEE VOL. 79; NF-KAPPA-B; ARTICLE. SEE; PG 961; HELICOBACTER-PYLORI; IMPACT-FACTOR; ESCHERICHIA-COLI; PSEUDOMONAS-AERUGINOSA; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; EPITHELIAL-CELLS

Abstract:
Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they plagiarize previously published work, or they are found to violate ethical guidelines. Using a novel measure that we call the "retraction index," we found that the frequency of retraction varies among journals and shows a strong correlation with the journal impact factor. Although retractions are relatively rare, the retraction process is essential for correcting the literature and maintaining trust in the scientific process.

Reprint Address:
Fang, FC (reprint author), Univ Washington, Sch Med, Dept Lab Med, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
Univ Washington, Sch Med, Dept Lab Med, Seattle, WA 98195 USAUniv Washington, Sch Med, Dept Microbiol, Seattle, WA 98195 USAAlbert Einstein Coll Med, Dept Microbiol & Immunol, Bronx, NY 10467 USAAlbert Einstein Coll Med, Dept Med, Bronx, NY 10467 USA
Cited Reference Count:
101 
Publisher:AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY, 1752 N ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2904 USA

 DOI:
10.1128/IAI.05661-11

 Cited References
ORANSKY I, 2010, 
Zhang YH, 2010, V467, P153
Kalia A, 2001, V69, P4858
JACOBSON H, 1955, V43, P125
Rossner M, 2004, V166, P11
Tomimori K, 2007, V75, P5223
Levin LI, 2005, V293, P2496
*ISI, 2011, 
Jackson AC, 2010, V104, P173
Schon JH, 2000, V290, P963
Arst HN, 2000, V403, P478
WHITELY WP, 1994, V272, P170
FUNK CL, 2007, V14, P269
Peterson GM, 2010, V98, P135
1920, 
Fontanarosa PB, 2005, V293, P2536
Szklo M, 2008, V19, P369
Tatsioni A, 2007, V298, P2517
Redman BK, 2008, V34, P807
INTERLANDI J, 2006, 
Fanelli D, 2009, V4, 
ORME IM, 1993, V61, P338
Trikalinos NA, 2008, V61, P464
Shin JJ, 2004, V72, P2280
Khatua B, 2010, V584, P555
Bird SJ, 2002, V8, P543
Atlas MC, 2004, V92, P242
Mori N, 2000, V68, P1806
LEVIN LI, 2003, V289, P1533
Bloch S, 2001, V35, P563
ORANSKY I, 2011, 
DEAN C, 2007, 
Errami M, 2008, V451, P397
Mori N, 1999, V67, P3872
Parrish DM, 1999, V74, P221
WICKER P, 2007, V17, P377
Mori N, 2001, V69, P1280
Potti A, 2006, V355, P570
Fersht A, 2009, V106, P6883
McNally A, 2001, V69, P5107
Marcus E, 2005, V123, P173
Steen RG, 2011, V37, P249
Brenttinger PE, 2009, V103, P855
Hwang WS, 2004, V303, P1669
Schon JH, 2001, V294, P2138
Drury NE, 2009, V87, P670
Nath SB, 2006, V185, P152
DeCoursey TE, 2006, V439, P784
HANSSON S, 1995, V346, P906
STEEN RG, 2011, 
Fang FC, 2010, V78, P563
Sox HC, 2006, V144, P609
Smith R, 2005, V331, P288
BROOKS D, 2010, 
Fang FC, 2011, V79, P1401
Mori N, 2003, V71, P3748
Poulton A, 2007, V186, P323
SCHON JH, 2002, V298, P961
Long TC, 2009, V323, P1293
KHATUA B, 2008, 
Korpela KM, 2010, V26, P843
AVERY S, 2011, 
Casadevall A, 2008, V76, P3835
Budd JM, 1998, V280, P296
Ahluwalia J, 2004, V427, P853
Schon JH, 2001, V292, P252
Giles J, 2005, V435, P258
Smith R, 2008, V90B, P125
ZIMMER C, 2011, 
Iyengar R, 2009, V84, P1610
Ding KJ, 2009, V389, P684
REYNAUD A, 1991, V59, P1888
Yilmaz I, 2007, V449, P658
Wakefield AJ, 1998, V351, P637
Takeshima E, 2009, V77, P1337
Vessal K, 2007, V369, P641
Schon JH, 2000, V288, P656
Marcato P, 2002, V70, P1279
Wager E, 2011, V37, P567
Vihinen M, 2009, V457, P26
Cue DR, 1997, V65, P2759
BURANEN L, 1999, 
Casadevall A, 2009, V77, P3517
Casadevall A, 2009, V77, P4177
Derby B, 2008, V452, P29
ISMAIL SO, 1994, V62, P657
WICKER P, 2007, V17, P372
*AM SOC MICR, 2010, 
Schon JH, 2000, V287, P1022
Abbott A, 2002, V418, P113
STEEN RG, 2011, 
Souder L, 2010, V16, P175
Cittadini E, 2005, V76, P1037
Seglen PO, 1997, V314, P498
Couzin J, 2006, V312, P38
Schon JH, 2000, V289, P599
Schon JH, 2001, V293, P2432
Wager E, 2010, V11, P64
1969, 
Casadevall A, 2010, V78, P4972
Hwang WS, 2005, V308, P1777

 =========================================================================

*View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000294802500039

Title:
Public Availability of Published Research Data in High-Impact Journals

Authors:
Alsheikh-Ali, AA; Qureshi, W; Al-Mallah, MH; Ioannidis, JPA

Author Full Names:
Alsheikh-Ali, Alawi A.; Qureshi, Waqas; Al-Mallah, Mouaz H.; Ioannidis, John P. A.

Source:
PLOS ONE 6 (9):  10.1371/journal.pone.0024357 SEP 7 2011 
 open access journal

KeyWords Plus:
RAW DATA; NATIONAL-SURVEY; GENETICS; AUTHORS; TRIALS

Abstract:
Background: There is increasing interest to make primary data from published research publicly available. We aimed to assess the current status of making research data available in highly-cited journals across the scientific literature.
Methods and Results: We reviewed the first 10 original research papers of 2009 published in the 50 original research journals with the highest impact factor. For each journal we documented the policies related to public availability and sharing of data. Of the 50 journals, 44 (88%) had a statement in their instructions to authors related to public availability and sharing of data. However, there was wide variation in journal requirements, ranging from requiring the sharing of all primary data related to the research to just including a statement in the published manuscript that data can be available on request. Of the 500 assessed papers, 149 (30%) were not subject to any data availability policy. Of the remaining 351 papers that were covered by some data availability policy, 208 papers (59%) did not fully adhere to the data availability instructions of the journals they were published in, most commonly (73%) by not publicly depositing microarray data. The other 143 papers t!
 hat adhered to the data availability instructions did so by publicly depositing only the specific data type as required, making a statement of willingness to share, or actually sharing all the primary data. Overall, only 47 papers (9%) deposited full primary raw data online. None of the 149 papers not subject to data availability policies made their full primary data publicly available.
Conclusion: A substantial proportion of original research papers published in high-impact journals are either not subject to any data availability policies, or do not adhere to the data availability instructions in their respective journals. This empiric evaluation highlights opportunities for improvement.

Reprint Address:
Alsheikh-Ali, AA (reprint author), Sheikh Khalifa Med City, Inst Cardiac Sci, Abu Dhabi, U Arab Emirates
Sheikh Khalifa Med City, Inst Cardiac Sci, Abu Dhabi, U Arab EmiratesTufts Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Tufts Clin & Translat Sci Inst, Boston, MA 02111 USAHenry Ford Hosp, Dept Med, Detroit, MI 48202 USANatl Guard Hlth Affairs, King Abdul Aziz Cardiac Ctr, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaWayne State Univ, Detroit, MI USAStanford Univ, Sch Med, Stanford Prevent Res Ctr, Stanford, CA 94305 USAUniv Ioannina, Sch Med, Dept Hyg & Epidemiol, GR-45110 Ioannina, GreeceFdn Res & Technol Hellas, Biomed Res Inst, Ioannina, GreeceHarvard Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
E-mail Address:
jioannid at hsph.harvard.edu

Cited Reference Count:
26
 =======================================================================

*View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000294877200009
*Order Full Text [ ]

Title:
Bibliometry and nanotechnology: A meta-analysis

Authors:
Motoyama, Y; Eisler, MN

Author Full Names:
Motoyama, Yasuyuki; Eisler, Matthew N.

Source:
TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE 78 (7): 1174-1182 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.013 SEP 2011 

Author Keywords:
Bibliometry; Citation; Country comparison; Impact factor; Metric; Nanotechnology

KeyWords Plus:
SCIENCE-AND-TECHNOLOGY; IMPACT FACTORS; CITATION; NANOSCIENCE; INDICATORS; PATENTS; JOURNALS; HISTORY; METRICS; AUTHORS

Abstract:
As in other fields of science, bibliometry has become the primary method of gaging progress in nanotechnology. In the United States in the late 1990s. a period when policy makers were preparing the groundwork for what would become the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), bibliometry largely replaced expert interviews, then the standard method of assessing nanotechnology. However, such analyses of this sector have tended not to account for productivity. We hope to correct this oversight by integrating economic input and output measurements calculating academic publications divided by the number of researchers, and accounting for government investment in nanotechnology. When nanotechnology journal publication is measured in these ways, the U.S. is not the leader, as has been widely assumed. Rather, it lags behind Germany. the United Kingdom, and France. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Reprint Address:
Motoyama, Y (reprint author), Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Ctr Nanotechnol Soc, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA
Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Ctr Nanotechnol Soc, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA
E-mail Address:
ymotoy at cns.ucsb.edu, meisler at isber.ucsb.edu

Cited Reference Count: 77
DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.01==============================================================================================================

*Record 13 of 14. 
*View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000294789900008
*Order Full Text [ ]

Title:
Some Economic Aspects of the Scholarly Journal System

Authors:
King, DW; Tenopir, C

Author Full Names:
King, Donald W.; Tenopir, Carol

Source:
ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 45 295-366 2011 

KeyWords Plus:
OPEN-ACCESS ARTICLES; DEEP LOG ANALYSIS; ELECTRONIC JOURNALS; CITATION ANALYSIS; READING PATTERNS; PHYSICS JOURNALS; IMPACT FACTOR; BIG DEALS; H-INDEX; INFORMATION

Reprint Address:
King, DW (reprint author), Univ Tennessee, Sch Informat Sci, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
Univ Tennessee, Sch Informat Sci, Knoxville, TN 37996 USAUniv Tennessee, Coll Commun & Informat, Knoxville, TN USAUniv Tennessee, Ctr Informat & Commun Studies, Knoxville, TN USA
E-mail Address:
donaldwking at gmail.com, ctenopir at utk.edu

Funding Text:
The authors wish to thank Regina Mays, University of Tennessee, and Etondi Tchwenko, University of North Carolina, for their extensive time and effort in preparing this chapter. We also wish to acknowledge Sally Morris, who, while Chief Executive of ALPSP, funded the effort to pull together an initial bibliography on the economics of scholarly journal publishing at the Sara Fine Institute, University of Pittsburgh, and Frances Alvarado-Albertorio, for gathering about 1,500 references.

Cited Reference Count:
272 
 =======================================================================

*Record 14 of 14. 
*View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000294831600002
*Order Full Text [ ]

Title:
Measuring research excellence Number of Nobel Prize achievements versus conventional bibliometric indicators

Authors:
Rodriguez-Navarro, A

Author Full Names:
Rodriguez-Navarro, Alonso

Source:
JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 67 (4): 582-600 10.1108/00220411111145007 2011 
Author Keywords:
Bibliometric indicators; Research performance; Nobel prizes; Research results; Research

KeyWords Plus:
HIGHLY CITED PAPERS; IMPACT FACTOR; CITATION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH QUALITY; SCIENCE; INSTITUTIONS; PUBLICATION; NATIONS; COUNTS; AUTHORS

Abstract:
Purpose - Several bibliometric indicators that are extensively used to estimate research performance have not been validated against an external criterion of excellence. This paper aims to investigate whether this validation is possible using the number of Nobel Prize awards.
Design/methodology/approach - This study uses several analytical treatments of the data to investigate: whether Nobel Prize awards are sporadic events or they depend on the scientific activity of countries or institutions and can be used in research evaluation; and the association between the number of Nobel Prize achievements and conventional bibliometric indicators across countries and institutions.
Findings - This study finds that conventional bibliometric indicators, numbers of publications, citations, and top 1 per cent most cited publications, correlate with the number of Nobel Prize achievements in several advanced countries with similar research abilities. Contrarily, in countries and institutions with more variable research characteristics, there is no association between conventional bibliometric indicators and the number of Nobel Prize achievements, and their use as indicators of research excellence is not valid. In contrast, the number of national articles in Nature and Science correlates with the number of Nobel Prize achievements across countries and institutions.
Practical implications - Science administrators implementing research evaluations and research incentives based on conventional bibliometric indicators should consider that increasing the scores of these indicators does not imply an improvement in research excellence.
Originality/value - The study demonstrates that Nobel Prize achievements are not singular events that occur by chance. Therefore, the number of Nobel Prize achievements can be used to validate bibliometric indicators.

Reprint Address:
Rodriguez-Navarro, A (reprint author), Univ Politecn Madrid, Ctr Biotecnol & Genom Plantas, Campus Montegancedo, E-28040 Madrid, Spain
Univ Politecn Madrid, Ctr Biotecnol & Genom Plantas, E-28040 Madrid, Spain
E-mail Address:
alonso.rodriguez at upm.es

Cited Reference Count:48
DOI:
10.1108/00220411111145007