Open access?

Wed Apr 11 15:00:37 EDT 2012

Loet,
I am working with Nobelists in chemistry, and I have not found such problems.  However, I have not finished the section of my research on how Google forms and ranks sets through the word spacing, the PageIndex, etc.   My experience with the Nobelists is that the document sets become fairly random and incoherent below the h-index where the asymptotes begins.  Personally I would not use Google Scholar without validation by WoS because of the randomness of the sets.  And there is no authority control whatsoever on journals.  However, Google Scholar does give some interesting insights due to the way it retrieves data.  For example, Negishi totally dominates his field in terms of review articles, where the paradigms of science are set.  His highest rank by GS was not anything he wrote but a two-volume collection of review articles he EDITED.  Nobody can do anything in his field unless they consult those volumes, which he put together probably from  his students.  That book had 797 reverse links but only 7 WoS cites.   WoS totally missed the importance of that work.  Google found the importance of that book by scanning down the authorship structure to where the editors are and giving the snippet.  I would not make any judgments on anything until I determined where the asymptote begins and the crap ends.

Yours,
SB 

-----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 1:20 PM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Open access?

Dear Stephen, 

Try "E Garfield" in PoP and you will see what I mean. If you would run "H Simon" the 1000th record would still receive 27 citations. 

It depends on your research question whether you wish to truncate this.
In Scopus, one can run institutional searches (e.g., top-10% of Chinese
papers) and then 2,000 may be an unpleasant limit.

For my purposes, WoS is often optimal because we don't have these limits set by the system.

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 8:07 PM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Open access?

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