Open access?

[Stephen J Bensman]

Loet, 
I think that I may have answered some of your questions in my response to Filippo.  With Anne-Wil's data I am doing an article with two mathematicians, where I describe the probability structure of the Web and locate the positions of chemistry and mathematics in this structure.  When you see what this structure is, you will have a better idea on how to handle WWW data.  For now I can only give you one piece of advice--it only works at the upper levels of the asymptote.  Below that the sets rapidly descend into nonsense and should be truncated.  It really is that simple.

Yours, 

Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D.
LSU Libraries
Lousiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
USA

 


-----Original Message-----
From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:34 PM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Open access?


Dear Stephen, 

Important limitations for bibliometric research are the limits for the
download: 
1. Google Scholar: 1000
2. Scopus: 2000
3. WoS 100,000

In version 5 of WoS one can see retrievals larger than 100,000, but not download them.
PoP gives an error message when the retrieval is larger than 1,000.

WoS does qualifies as the best system for evaluations which in addition to a publication also normalize against a reference set. Otherwise, the other databases are more recent in their organization. (For example, cited references in Scopus are identified and one can move to the institutional
addresses.)

Best,
Loet

-----Original Message-----
From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J. Bensman
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:00 PM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Open access?


Quentin,
Thank you for the Guardian articles on Elsevier.  I would like to add some observations of my own on this matter.  Elsevier runs a good operation and publishes important materials.  I work with their support people and find them informative and helpful.  But Elsevier has always been non-cooperative, tries to force people to operate within its system, and monopolizes its materials to maximize its profit.  This is the nature of the beast.

This tendency has recently had extremely negative consequences.  
Since November, 2004, the field of scientometric evaluative data has been been in a state of revolution.  In that month Elsevier launched Scopus, and Google launched Google Scholar, breaking the monopolistic hold Thompson Reuters ISI had on evaluative scientometric data.  Since then there has been a Hobbesian battle among these three titans, because--if I am correct--production and control of such data is very profitable.  Such data is particularly needed in Europe and other places, where science and universities are funded by the central governments, which need such data for allocation decisions.  Thompson Reuters ISI (The Empire) has struck back by abandoning its long-standing policy of relying on mainly journals and launching its Book Citation Index.

Google Scholar was really too difficult to use for evaluative purposes, but this has changed with the launching of the Publish or Perish program by Anne-Wil Harzing.  This program can be retrieved for free from her Web site at http://www.harzing.com/.  It is revolutionary in that it establishes effective statistical and bibliographic control over Google Scholar, making it feasible to use it for evaluative purposes.  I am doing research with others to test the vaiidity of using Google Scholar for evaluative purposes, using data which Anne-Wil has graciously given me with her program.  It is the most stupendous and interesting data set I have ever worked with.
However, in doing this research, I came across this statement on Elsevier's SciVerse Web site at the following URL:

http://www.info.sciverse.com/sciencedirect/buying/policies/crawling

If one knows anything how Web seach engines operate, it is quite obvious that this is a knife aimed by Elsevier at Google's jugular, blocking it from indexing the publications of one of the leading publishers of scientific materials.  Since I working with chemistry, I am going to have to check what effect this has on Google Scholar.  
Fortunately Anne-Wil's data allows me to determine from where Google Scholar is retrieving its data.  The only question I have is whether this is an advantageous or self-destructive move on the part of Elsevier, whose publications and authors will be rated lower by Google Scholar, which can be utilized without cost by cash-strapped institutions.

Respectfully,
Stephen J. Bensman, Ph.D.
LSU Libraries
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
USA 


   

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:29:03 +0100, Quentin Burrell <quentinburrell at MANX.NET> wrote:

>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
>Members might be interested in these two related articles in today's
Guardian newspaper.
>
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/09/wellcome-trust-
academic-spring
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/09/frustrated-blogpost-
boycott-scientific-journals
>
>
>Quentin Burrell