papers of possible interest to Sig Metrics

[Eugene Garfield]

TITLE:          Getting funded. Multi-level network of physicists in
                Italy (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Bellotti, E
SOURCE:         SOCIAL NETWORKS 34 (2). MAY 2012. p.215-229 ELSEVIER
                SCIENCE BV, AMSTERDAM

SEARCH TERM(S):  MERTON RK  rauth; PRICE DJD  rauth

KEYWORDS:       Sociology of science; Multi-level networks; Bipartite
                networks; Meso-sociology; Fish/pond; Research funding

ABSTRACT:       Much of the work in the sociology of science observes
scientific communities from a micro perspective, focusing on interactions in laboratories in order to uncover the impact of social and cultural norms in the everyday production of scientific results. Other studies approach the topic from a macro perspective, analysing scientific organizations and the reciprocal influence they have with wider society, or uncovering the invisible colleges that become apparent through the analysis of co-authorship and citations' patterns. Less attention has been paid to the meso level of interaction within and between scientists and the institutions they work in. This paper extends the structural approach of Lazega et al. (2008. Catching up with big fish in the big pond? Multi-level network analysis through linked design. Social Networks 30, 157-176) and analyses the local system of public funding to physics in Italy using bipartite networks. Data cover 10 years of funding of Projects of National Interest (Prin) from the Italian Ministry of University and Research. The micro level (collaborations between scientists), macro level (collaborations between institutions) and meso level (the combination of network measures at a micro and macro level) of interactions are independently analysed, and results are used to model the total amount of money physicists have received over the 10 years against the variables that meaningfully describe the network structure of collaborations. Results show that in order to be successfully funded what counts more than being a big fish (a scientist with a lot of connections) working in a big pond (a large University), is being in a brokerage position interacting over the years with different research groups. (C)
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

AUTHOR ADDRESS: E Bellotti, Arthur Lewis Bldg,Bridgeford St, Manchester M13
                9PL, Lancs, England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE:          Quantifying the influence of scientists and their
                publications: distinguishing between prestige and popularity (Article,
                English)
AUTHOR:         Zhou, YB; Lu, LY; Li, MH
SOURCE:         NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS 14. MAR 20 2012. p.NIL_32-NIL_48
                IOP PUBLISHING LTD, BRISTOL

SEARCH TERM(S): 
                 HIRSCH JE          P NATL ACAD SCI USA   102:16569 2005;
                 GARFIELD E         SCIENCE               122:108   1955;
                 

KEYWORDS+:       PAGERANK ALGORITHM; IMPACT FACTOR; NETWORKS; RANKING;
                CITATIONS; JOURNALS; QUALITY; INDEX

ABSTRACT:       The number of citations is a widely used metric for
evaluating the scientific credit of papers, scientists and journals.
However, it so happens that papers with fewer citations from prestigious scientists have a higher influence than papers with more citations. In this paper, we argue that by whom the paper is being cited is of greater significance than merely the number of citations. Accordingly, we propose an interactive model of author-paper bipartite networks as well as an iterative algorithm to obtain better rankings for scientists and their publications. The main advantage of this method is twofold: (i) it is a parameter-free algorithm; (ii) it considers the relationship between the prestige of scientists and the quality of their publications. We conducted real experiments on publications in econophysics, and used this method to evaluate the influence of related scientific journals. The comparison between the rankings by our method and simple citation counts suggests that our method is effective in distinguishing prestige from popularity. S Online supplementary data available from stacks.iop.org/NJP/14/033033/mmedia

AUTHOR ADDRESS: LY Lu, Hangzhou Normal Univ, Inst Informat Econ, Hangzhou
                310036, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE:          ARE EDITORS COERCING CITATIONS? (Letter, English)
AUTHOR:         Wilhite, A; Fong, EA
SOURCE:         CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS 90 (14). APR 2 2012. p.4
                AMER CHEMICAL SOC, WASHINGTON

SEARCH TERM(S):  CITATION*  item_title; LETTER*  doctype


AUTHOR ADDRESS: A Wilhite, Univ Alabama, Dept Econ, Huntsville, AL 35899 USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE:          Culture, Citation, and Categorisation Regionality in Late
                Neolithic Britain and Ireland (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Jones, A
SOURCE:         MEMORY AND MATERIAL CULTURE. 2007. p.122-140 CAMBRIDGE
                UNIV PRESS, CAMBRIDGE

 


AUTHOR ADDRESS: A Jones, Univ Southampton, Southampton SO9 5NH, Hants,
                England