From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Fri Aug 3 10:27:18 2012 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:27:18 -0400 Subject: Keynote, Digital Research 2012, Oxford: How and Why the RCUK Open Access Policy Needs to Be Revised Message-ID: ** Cross-Posted ** *Digital Research: * *How and Why the RCUK Open Access Policy Needs to Be Revised* ** *Stevan Harnad* UQaM & U Southampton Keynote Address: Digital Research 2012 St, Catherine's College, Oxford, 11 September 2012: 9 am - 10:30 am (*Video will be online shortly afterward*) *Abstract:* The Web is destined to become humankind's Cognitive Commons, where digital knowledge is jointly created and freely shared. The UK has been a leader in the global movement toward Open Access (OA) to research but very recently its leadership has been derailed by the joint influence of the publishing industry lobbyfrom without and well-intentioned but premature and counterproductive over-reachingfrom within the OA movement itself. The result has been the extremely counter-productive Finch Committee Report followed by a new draft of the RCUK OA policy, downgrading the role of cost-free OA self-archiving of research publications ("Green OA") in favour of paying subscription publishers extra money, over and above subscriptions, out of scarce research funds, in exchange for making single articles OA ("hybrid Gold OA"). The motivation is to reform publication and to gain certain re-use rights, but the likely effect will be researcher resistance, very little OA, a waste of scarce research funds and the loss of the UK's global leadership in the OA movement. There is still time to fix the RCUK policy. I will try to describe how and why. Berners-Lee, T., De Roure, D., Harnad, S. and Shadbolt, N. (2005) Journal publishing and author self-archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence and Fruitful Collaboration . Technical Report, ECS, University of Southampton Carr, L., Swan, A., and Harnad, S (2011) Creating and Curating the Cognitive Commons: Southampton?s Contribution. In: Simons, Maarten, Decuypere, Mathias, Vlieghe, Joris & Masschelein, Jan (eds.) *Curating the European University* Universitaire Pers Leuven, 193-199. Shadbolt, N., Brody, T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2006) The Open Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable, in Jacobs, N., Ed. *Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects* Chandos. Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again. Technical Report, ECS, University of Southampton Poynder, R. (2012) OA advocate Stevan Harnad withdraws support for RCUK policy . Open and ShutJuly 26 2012 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Sun Aug 5 10:20:57 2012 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:20:57 -0400 Subject: Corrected Ulrichs estimate of total number of active peer-reviewed journals: 28,094 in August 2012 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2012-08-05, at 5:39 AM, Kornbrot, Diana wrote: > Could this list be made available? > ISI-INDEXED GOLD OA: 741 (8%) of the 9,268 > Thomson-Reuters-ISI-indexed journals > are Gold OA journals It's in Ulrichs: Just do the search. ISI also indicates which of its indexed journals are Gold OA. > So 1/3rd of all peer reviewed are ISI-indexed > 1/6th of goldOA reviewed are ISI-indexed > Does this say something about [Q] quality of goldOA? > Or about [B] indexers resistance [bias] to[ward] new ideas ? As you note, the reason could be either Q or B. However, the following five further factors tend to favour the hypothesis that the reason is Q. Quality (Q): Q1. Many Gold OA journals are new, and hence have not yet created and demonstrated their quality standards Q2. ISI has objective criteria for inclusion, and have no reason at all to raise or lower them for Gold OA journals. Q3. Unlike years ago, when part of ISI's motivation for selective coverage was that it was expensive to index a journal, in the online era that expense has gone way down. Q4. On the contrary, including more journals enriches the usefulness (hence market value) of the ISI database. Q5. Lowering quality standards, however, has the opposite effect. And the following two factors favours the hypothesis that the reason is B: Bias (B): B1. It is a long-standing complaint about ISI that it is English language-biased. Many non-covered journals may be non-covered because they are in other languages rather than just because they do not meet ISI's criteria for coverage. B2. ISI coverage is not even across all disciplines, being more complete in science than in other scholarly disciplines. Let me add a further general observation. There is a very unfortunate, widespread and counterproductive tendency to equate OA with Gold OA and to imagine that the reason OA is not growing faster is because of a bias against OA journals. Hence the fancied "solution" to the OA problem would be for tenure/promotion committees to put an end to their bias against OA journals, and give them equal "weight" with non-OA journals (or, as some have suggested, even a higher weight!). This "bias" view is as incorrect in the case of tenure committees as it is in the case of ISI. It is justified, indeed necessary, to expect all journals -- OA and non-OA -- to establish a track-record for quality, rather than to exempt or favour them on the basis of their cost-recovery model. And, yes, journal age is definitely a factor, as it necessarily takes time for a new journal to establish a sustainable track-record for quality standards. (And quality standards basically add up to the rigour and selectivity of a journal's peer review standards.) In contrast to this special pleading on behalf of Gold OA journals, there is no such problem with Green OA, as all articles can be deposited in repositories regardless of whether they are published in (Gold) OA journals or non-OA journals, new or old journals, ISI-indexed or non-indexed journals. Hence the relevant potential OA percentage for Green OA is neither ISI's 33% nor Gold OA's 13% (or 8%) but the 60% that journals endorse and that Green OA mandates guarantee. (Mandates also provide "Almost OA" for the remaining 40%, with the help of the repositories' automated email-eprints-request Button.) The rest is just about whether and when funders and institutions get around to mandating Green OA, and which journals authors choose to publish in. (RCUK has just taken a huge gratuitous step backward on Green, in an attempt to bias authors' choice of journals toward Gold [in the hope of forcing journals to convert to Gold] by re-directing scarce research funds (as recommended by the Finch Report and adopted by the UK Government) toward paying for Gold, and requiring payment for Gold even when a journal is hybrid Gold (subscriptions + optional fees for authors wishing to pay for Gold OA). > Query: Do ALL peer reviewed require author payments? > Or are some ?pro bono? Most peer-reviewed journals do not require author payments. But they are certainly not "pro bono": they require subscription payments by subscribing institutions. Some, but not all Gold OA journals require payment of an author publication fee. The majority do not. (They are able to cover their costs through subscriptions and/or subsidies.) However, there is reason to believe that the no-fee Gold OA journals may be largely national and/or non-English-language journals (hence the ones less covered by ISI). And, like it or not, the Pareto 80/20 principle needs to be kept in mind too: 80% of the usage and citations of journals is of the top 20% of journals (and articles). (Although the high-impact factor journals have the highest average citation counts, individual articles in other journals may sometimes have very citation counts too. Hence authors' and articles' individual citation counts should be taken into account by tenure/promotion committees too, not just the average citation count of the journal in which they were published.) And, ceterum censeo, OA articles are both downloaded and cited more than articles in the same journal and year that are not made OA. Stevan Harnad > TOTAL PEER-REVIEWED: > 28,135 > > ISI-INDEXED: > 9,268 (33%) of the 28,135 are indexed in Thomson-Reuters-ISI's > Journal Citation reports > > GOLD OA: > 4,365 (13%) of the 28,135 are open access journals (freely > available online) (Gold OA, presumably not including Hybrid Gold) > (DOAJ lists 8005 journals, but many may be either peer reviewed > or "exercise editorial quality control") > > ISI-INDEXED GOLD OA: > 741 (8%) of the 9,268 Thomson-Reuters-ISI-indexed journals > are Gold OA journals > > ENDORSE GREEN OA: > By way of comparison, according to the last estimate of journals > indexed by SHERPA/ROMEO (which does not include all the journals > indexed by Ulrichs, but does include most of the top journals indexed > by Thomson-Reuters-ISI): > > 60% of journals recognize the author's right to provide immediate, > un-embargoed open access upon self-archiving their final drafts > in their institutional repositories. > > That means 60% of all journal articles can be made Green OA > immediately (no embargo) if all institutions mandate it. > > I did come up with one anomaly, however. De-duping along the lines > recommended by Serials Solutions, the result was: > > AVAILABLE ONLINE: > only 3,659 (14%) of the 28,135 are available online > (that strikes me as suspiciously low) > > > Stevan Harnad > > > > On 2012-08-04, at 2:45 PM, Sally Morris wrote: > > Here's a response from Serials Solutions which should clarify the matter once and for all > > Sally > > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > > > From: Diven, Yvette [mailto:Yvette.Diven at serialssolutions.com] > Sent: 03 August 2012 22:01 > To: Sally Morris > Subject: RE: [GOAL] Update on Ulrichs estimate of total number of active peer-reviewed journals: 55, 311 > > From Serials Solutions? > > Dear Colleagues, > > As of 3 August 2012, the number of active peer-reviewed journals listed in Ulrichsweb is 28,094 titles. This figure represents a count of all Primary editions (most of which are print editions, but some are also electronic) of those titles. > > The figure of 55,311 active peer-reviewed journals reflects the count of the number of all related format editions of the 28,094 active peer-reviewed journals. (For example, one of the 28,094 active peer-reviewed journals may have a primary print edition, an online edition, and also a CD-ROM edition for a total of 3 format editions.) > > Dr. Harnad?s search results reflect the current count across all journal format editions. It is possible to isolate (remove) the related editions from those search results by applying the Edition Type filter from the Search Results screen and selecting that filter?s ?Primary? option. > > We hope that this information is helpful. > > Emeritus Professor Diana Kornbrot > email: d.e.kornbrot at herts.ac.uk > web: http://dianakornbrot.wordpress.com/ > Work > School of Psychology > University of Hertfordshire > College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, UK > voice: +44 (0) 170 728 4626 > fax: +44 (0) 170 728 5073 > Home > 19 Elmhurst Avenue > London N2 0LT, UK > voice: +44 (0) 208 444 2081 > mobile: +44 (0) 740 318 1612 > fax: +44 (0) 870 706 1445 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sun Aug 5 18:04:37 2012 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 22:04:37 +0000 Subject: Papers of interest to SIG-Metrics readers Message-ID: TITLE: Scientific production in cancer rehabilitation grows higher: a bibliometric analysis (Article, English) AUTHOR: Ugolini, D; Neri, M; Cesario, A; Bonassi, S; Milazzo, D; Bennati, L; Lapenna, LM; Pasqualetti, P SOURCE: SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER 20 (8). AUG 2012. p.1629-1638 SPRINGER, NEW YORK SEARCH TERM(S): BIBLIOMETR* item_title KEYWORDS: Rehabilitation; Neoplasms; Publications; Bibliometrics KEYWORDS+: EUROPEAN-UNION ABSTRACT: The aim of the study was to evaluate scientific production in the field of cancer rehabilitation comparing publication trends and impact factor (IF) among countries. The PubMed database was searched. Publications numbers and IF were evaluated both as absolute values and after standardization by population and gross domestic product (GDP). A dedicated software was developed to create a relational database containing all information about considered publications (Research Management System). Some 1,743 publications were retrieved from 1967 to 2008. Cancer rehabilitation publications have grown 11.6 times, while the whole field of disease rehabilitation has grown 7.8 times. Breast neoplasms, squamous cell carcinoma, treatment outcome, endosseous dental implantation, follow- up studies, and surgical flaps were the most commonly used keywords. From 1994 to 2008, 946 citations were retrieved: 36.8% came from the European Union (EU) (Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands ranking at the top) and 36.9% from the USA. The highest mean IF was reported for the USA (3.384) followed by Canada (3.265) and Australia (2.643). The EU has a mean IF of 0.839 with the Netherlands ranking first. Canada, Australia, and the USA had the best ratio between IF (sum) and resident population or GDP. Cancer rehabilitation is an expanding area with a growing scientific production. The rapidly ageing population, the higher number of cancer survivors, and the increasing need of resources for the after treatment of cancer patients contribute to explain the interest for this field. AUTHOR ADDRESS: D Ugolini, Ist Nazl Ric Canc, Dipartimento Oncol Biol & Genet, Largo R Benzi 10, I-16132 Genoa, Italy ---------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: How is occupational medicine represented in the major journals in general medicine? (Article, English) AUTHOR: Gehanno, JF; Rollin, L; Ladner, J; Darmoni, SJ SOURCE: OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE 69 (8). AUG 2012. p.603-605 B M J PUBLISHING GROUP, LONDON KEYWORDS+: IMPACT FACTOR; HEALTH; MEDLINE; UK ABSTRACT: Objectives Most physicians have received only limited training in occupational medicine (OM) during their studies. Since they rely mainly on one 'general medical' journal to keep their medical knowledge up to date, it is worthwhile questioning the importance of OM in these journals. The aim of this study was to measure the relative weight of OM in the major journals of general medicine and to compare the journals. Methods The 14 091 articles published in the Lancet, the NEJM, the JAMA and the BMJ in 1997, 2002 and 2007 were analysed. The relative weight of OM and the other medical specialties was determined by categorisation of all the articles, using a categorisation algorithm, which inferred the medical specialties relevant to each MEDLINE article file from the major medical subject headings (MeSH) terms used by the indexers of the US National Library of Medicine to describe each article. Results The 14 091 articles included in this study were indexed by 22 155 major MeSH terms, which were categorised into 73 different medical specialties. Only 0.48% of the articles had OM as a main topic. OM ranked 44th among the 73 specialties, with limited differences between the four journals studied. There was no clear trend over the 10-year period. Conclusions The importance of OM is very low in the four major journals of general and internal medicine, and we can consider that physicians get a very limited view of the evolution of knowledge in OM. AUTHOR ADDRESS: JF Gehanno, Rouen Univ Hosp, Inst Occupat Hlth, 1 Rue Germont, F-76000 Rouen, France ------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Transitions in Fertility for Brazilian Women: An Analysis of Impact Factors (Article, English) AUTHOR: Madalozzo, R SOURCE: PLOS ONE 7 (7). JUL 13 2012. p.NIL_525-NIL_532 PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, SAN FRANCISCO SEARCH TERM(S): IMPACT FACTOR* KEYWORDS+: EDUCATION ABSTRACT: The labor participation of Brazilian women has increased during the last few decades. According to the World Bank, the percentage of Brazilian women participating in the labor market rose from 20% in the early 1970s to 65% (for women between 16 and 64 years of age) in 2009. The fertility profile has also changed, the fertility rate has decreased from 6.2 in 1960 to 1.9 in 2009, below the replacement rate, according to the World Bank. This paper will present Brazilian fertility trends during the previous (20th) and present (21st) centuries and, emphasize the importance of individual profiles for fertility decisions. This work uses Brazilian data from PNAD (Pesquisa Nacional de Amostra por Domicilios) to understand the cause of this relationship and to predict the consequences of these choices on women's economic development. AUTHOR ADDRESS: R Madalozzo, Insper Inst Educ & Res, Dept Econ, Sao Paulo, Brazil -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Promotion of research articles to the lay press: a summary of a three-year project (Article, English) AUTHOR: Mathelus, S; Pittman, G; Yablonski-Crepeau, J SOURCE: LEARNED PUBLISHING 25 (3). JUL 2012. p.207-212 ASSOC LEARNED PROFESSIONAL SOC PUBL, W SUSSEX SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006 KEYWORDS+: IMPACT ABSTRACT: The promotion of scholarly journal articles to journalists and bloggers via the dissemination of press releases generates a positive impact on the number of citations that publicized journal articles receive. Research by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. shows that article-level publicity efforts and media coverage boosts downloads by an average of 1.8 times and were found to increase citations by as much as 2.0-2.2 times in the articles analyzed in this study. We evaluated scholarly journal articles published in nearly 100 Wiley journals, which were also covered in 296 press releases. The results in this case study suggest a need for greater investment in media support for scholarly journals publishing research that sparks interest to a broad news audience, as it could increase citations. (C) Sharon Mathelus, Ginny Pittman and Jill Yablonski-Crepeau 2012 AUTHOR ADDRESS: S Mathelus, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TITLE: The Skewed Few: Does "Skew" Signal Quality Among Journals, Articles, and Academics? (Article, English) AUTHOR: Baum, JAC SOURCE: JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY 21 (3). JUL 2012. p.349-354 SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC, THOUSAND OAKS SEARCH TERM(S): JOURNALS item_title KEYWORDS: research quality; journal quality; skewness ABSTRACT: We tend to reify a few high-impact journals as top-tier, articles that appear in them as high quality (often without regard to their individual impact), and the small number of authors (and their institutions) who publish in them frequently as distinguished (and elite). Although such praise is warranted at times, the author hopes to encourage some skepticism in its granting and direct greater attention to "the many" authors, articles, and journals not found among "the few.". AUTHOR ADDRESS: JAC Baum, Univ Toronto, Rotman Sch Management, 105 St George St, Toronto, ON M5S 3E6, Canada -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: A framework for automatic TRIZ level of invention estimation of patents using natural language processing, knowledge- transfer and patent citation metrics (Article, English) AUTHOR: Li, Z; Tate, D; Lane, C; Adams, C SOURCE: COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN 44 (10 SP ISS). OCT 2012. p.987-1010 ELSEVIER SCI LTD, OXFORD SEARCH TERM(S): CITATION item_title; CITATION* item_title KEYWORDS: Computer-aided Design (CAD); Level of invention (LOI); Data mining; Machine learning; Theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ); Natural language processing (NLP) KEYWORDS+: CROSS-VALIDATION ANALYSIS; OF-THE-ART; CONCEPTUAL DESIGN; ENGINEERING DESIGN; NEURAL-NETWORKS; FUTURE-TRENDS; INFORMATION; PRINCIPLES; PREDICTION; ALGORITHM ABSTRACT: Patents provide a wealth of information about design concepts, their physical realization, and their relationship to prior designs in the form of citations. Patents can provide useful input for several goals of next-generation computer-aided design (CAD) systems, yet more efficient tools are needed to facilitate patent search and ranking. In this paper, a novel framework is presented and implemented for classifying patents according to level of invention (LOI) as defined in the theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ). Level of invention characterizes the creativity of a design concept based on the resolution of a design conflict and the disciplines used in resolving the conflict. The assessment of LOI for a series of patents provides a useful input for screening and ranking patents in databases to identify high-impact patents. However, the manual effort required for assigning LOI to each patent is laborious and time-consuming. In this paper, a novel method that combines text mining, natural language processing, creation of knowledge-transfer metrics, and application of machine learning approaches is presented and implemented for classifying patents according to LOI. Two case studies are presented in which LOI data is compiled for patents: dynamic magnetic information storage or retrieval using Giant Magnetoresistive (GMR) or Colossal Magnetoresistive (CMR) sensors formed of multiple thin films (USPC 360/324) and arbitration for access to a channel (USPC 370/462). The peak performance in 5-fold stratified cross- validation was found to be 73.38% in the first case study and 77.12% for the second. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. AUTHOR ADDRESS: D Tate, Texas Tech Univ, Dept Mech Engn, Box 41021,7th & Boston, Lubbock, TX 79409 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Creative Thinking (Article, English) AUTHOR: Chen, CM SOURCE: TURNING POINTS: THE NATURE OF CREATIVITY. 2011. p.21-41 SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, BERLIN SEARCH TERM(S): PRICE DJD rauth KEYWORDS+: THOUGHT; BLIND AUTHOR ADDRESS: CM Chen, Drexel Univ, Coll Informat Sci & Technol, 3141 Chestnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA E-mail: chaomei.chen at cis.drexel.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Knowledge Domain Analysis (Article, English) AUTHOR: Chen, CM SOURCE: TURNING POINTS: THE NATURE OF CREATIVITY. 2011. p.139-175 SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, BERLIN SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; SMALL HG SOC STUD SCI 7:139 1977; SMALL H J AM SOC INFORM SCI 24:265 1973; GARFIELD E J INFORM SCI 30:119 2004 KEYWORDS+: COMBINING BIBLIOMETRICS; INFORMATION-RETRIEVAL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; RELEVANCE THEORY; RESEARCH FRONTS; CENTRALITY; ALGORITHM; NETWORKS; VISUALIZATION; BETWEENNESS AUTHOR ADDRESS: CM Chen, Drexel Univ, Coll Informat Sci & Technol, 3141 Chestnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA E-mail: chaomei.chen at cis.drexel.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Transformative Potential (Article, English) AUTHOR: Chen, CM SOURCE: TURNING POINTS: THE NATURE OF CREATIVITY. 2011. p.219-252 SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, BERLIN SEARCH TERM(S): PRICE DJD rauth; MEADOWS AJ SCI STUD 1:95 1971 AUTHOR ADDRESS: CM Chen, Drexel Univ, Coll Informat Sci & Technol, 3141 Chestnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA E-mail: chaomei.chen at cis.drexel.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Models of Science Dynamics Encounters Between Complexity Theory and Information Sciences Foreword (Editorial Material, English) AUTHOR: Scharnhorst, A; Borner, K; van den Besselaar, P SOURCE: MODELS OF SCIENCE DYNAMICS: ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN COMPLEXITY THEORY AND INFORMATION SCIENCES. 2012. p.VII-X SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, BERLIN SEARCH TERM(S): NALIMOV VV rauth; PRICE DJD rauth; EDITORIAL doctype KEYWORDS+: SCIENTOMETRICS; EVOLUTION; NETWORKS AUTHOR ADDRESS: A Scharnhorst, Royal Netherlands Acad Arts & Sci, Data Archiving Serv, Anna van Saksenlaan 10, NL-2593 HT The Hague, Netherlands E-mail : andrea.scharnhorst at dans.knaw.nl -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Mathematical Approaches to Modeling Science from an Algorithmic-Historiography Perspective (Article, English) AUTHOR: Lucio-Arias, D; Scharnhorst, A SOURCE: MODELS OF SCIENCE DYNAMICS: ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN COMPLEXITY THEORY AND INFORMATION SCIENCES. 2012. p.23-66 SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, BERLIN SEARCH TERM(S): MACROBERTS MH rauth; PRICE DJD rauth; GARFIELD E P ASIST ANNU 39:14 2002; GARFIELD E INFORM TECHNOL LIBR 22:183 2003; GARFIELD E J AM SOC INF SCI TEC 54:400 2003; PUDOVKIN AI J AM SOC INF SCI TEC 53:1113 2002 KEYWORDS+: CITATION; NETWORKS; SYSTEM; GOFFMAN,WILLIAM; KNOWLEDGE; DYNAMICS; IMPACT; GROWTH; IDEAS; FIELD AUTHOR ADDRESS: D Lucio-Arias, Colombian Observ Sci & Technol, Carrera 15 37-59, Bogota, DC, Colombia -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Knowledge Epidemics and Population Dynamics Models for Describing Idea Diffusion (Article, English) AUTHOR: Vitanov, NK; Ausloos, MR SOURCE: MODELS OF SCIENCE DYNAMICS: ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN COMPLEXITY THEORY AND INFORMATION SCIENCES. 2012. p.69-125 SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, BERLIN SEARCH TERM(S): PRICE DJD rauth; HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; SMALL H SCIENTOMETRICS 38:275 1997 KEYWORDS+: 3 COMPETING POPULATIONS; STOCHASTIC-MODEL; SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES; INNOVATION DIFFUSION; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; LOGISTIC GROWTH; POWER LAWS; SCIENCE; SYSTEM; NETWORKS AUTHOR ADDRESS: NK Vitanov, Bulgarian Acad Sci, Inst Mech, Akad G Bonchev Str,Bl 4, BU-1113 Sofia, Bulgaria -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Citation Networks (Article, English) AUTHOR: Radicchi, F; Fortunato, S; Vespignani, A SOURCE: MODELS OF SCIENCE DYNAMICS: ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN COMPLEXITY THEORY AND INFORMATION SCIENCES. 2012. p.233-257 SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, BERLIN SEARCH TERM(S): PRICE DJD rauth; HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; SEGLEN PO J AM SOC INFORM SCI 43:628 1992; CITATION item_title; CITATION* item_title; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 122:108 1955 KEYWORDS+: COMPLEX NETWORKS; SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION; PREFERENTIAL ATTACHMENT; DISTRIBUTIONS; STATISTICS; EVOLUTION; COMPETITION; ADVANTAGE; PAGERANK; SCIENCE AUTHOR ADDRESS: F Radicchi, Northwestern Univ, Howard Hughes Med Inst, Evanston, IL 60208 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jakob.Voss at GBV.DE Mon Aug 6 03:48:34 2012 From: Jakob.Voss at GBV.DE (Jakob Voss) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:48:34 +0200 Subject: Growth of digital publications compared to printed publications Message-ID: Hi, I am looking for studies that quantify the growth of digital publications compared to printed publications. All I know is that both grow exponentially and I assume that elektronic publications grow faster. Are there more specific numbers based on definitions of publications? I asked the full question at http://libraries.stackexchange.com, a great Question & Answers site[1] for libraries and information science - maybe someone in this list can add a helpful answer and questions there: http://libraries.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/how-does-the-number-of-digital-publications-grow-compared-to-printed-publication Thanks! Jakob Vo? [1] It's part of the successfull StackExchange network: http://stackexchange.com/ -- Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) Digitale Bibliothek - Jakob Vo? Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1 37073 Goettingen - Germany +49 (0)551 39-10242 http://www.gbv.de jakob.voss at gbv.de From juan.gorraiz at UNIVIE.AC.AT Mon Aug 6 04:50:25 2012 From: juan.gorraiz at UNIVIE.AC.AT (Juan Gorraiz) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:50:25 +0200 Subject: Corrected Ulrichs estimate of total number of active peer-reviewed journals: 28,094 in August 2012 In-Reply-To: <55D35EC8-2839-4F0B-A2A6-6C142E617A3A@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: Dear Stevan, FYI - the Bibliometrics Department of the Vienna University Library / Austria has been jointly working with the Carlos III University of Madrid / Spain on a bibliometric study analysing the impact evolution of Gold OA journals for the last months. Our results will be presented at Scientometrics 2012 in Regensburg (20 September) and the Open Access Days in Vienna (27 September 2012). http://www.uni-regensburg.de/library/scientometrics/program/index.html http://open-access.net/at_de/aktivitaeten/open_access_tage/programm_ausf/sessions/#c3970 Like you, we have also used Ulrichs since it provides relevant information on Open Access as well as on JCR status. However, deduplication in Ulrichs is time-consuming and cumbersome due to the many format editions Sally Morris mentioned. Unfortunately sometimes Open Access journals are listed only as print journals, even though they are either as well or exclusively published as online journals. PloS is the best example as one of the most successful Open Access titles. Except for PloS One all other PloS titles are only (incorrectly) listed as print journals (and ceased!) in Ulrichsweb. Thus filtering only for online format editions in Ulrichs would therefore unintentionally exclude the most successful OA journals. One needs to be aware of these limitations and should cross-check the results retrieved with DOAJ. Stevan, you further wrote "ISI also indicates which of its indexed journals are Gold OA". This would indeed be desirable, however, we could neither find any hint on OA in WoS nor in JCR (not to mention this information is not at all searchable). Best regards, Juan and Christian Stevan Harnad schrieb: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > On 2012-08-05, at 5:39 AM, Kornbrot, Diana wrote: > >> Could this list be made available? >> *ISI-INDEXED GOLD OA:* *741* (/ 8% /) of the *9,268* >> Thomson-Reuters-ISI-indexed journals >> are *Gold OA* journals > > It's in Ulrichs: Just do the search. ISI also indicates which of its > indexed journals are Gold OA. > >> So* 1/3rd of all peer reviewed are ISI-indexed >> 1/6th of goldOA reviewed are ISI-indexed >> *Does this say something about [Q] quality of goldOA? >> Or about [B] indexers resistance [bias] to[ward] new ideas ? > > As you note, the reason could be either Q or B. > > However, the following five further factors tend to favour > the hypothesis that the reason is *Q*. > > *Quality (Q):* > > *Q1*. Many Gold OA journals are new, and hence have not yet > created and demonstrated their quality standards > > *Q2*. ISI has objective criteria for inclusion, and have no > reason at all to raise or lower them for Gold OA journals. > > *Q3*. Unlike years ago, when part of ISI's motivation for selective > coverage was that it was expensive to index a journal, in > the online era that expense has gone way down. > > *Q4*. On the contrary, including more journals enriches the > usefulness (hence market value) of the ISI database. > > *Q5*. Lowering quality standards, however, has the opposite > effect. > > > And the following two factors favours the hypothesis that the > reason is *B*: > > *Bias (B):* > > *B1*. It is a long-standing complaint about ISI that it is English > language-biased. Many non-covered journals may be > non-covered because they are in other languages rather than > > just because they do not meet ISI's criteria for coverage. > > *B2. *ISI coverage is not even across all disciplines, being more > complete in science than in other scholarly disciplines. > > > Let me add a further general observation. There is a very > unfortunate, widespread and counterproductive tendency > to equate OA with Gold OA and to imagine that the reason > OA is not growing faster is because of a bias against OA > journals. Hence the fancied "solution" to the OA problem > would be for tenure/promotion committees to put an end > to their bias against OA journals, and give them equal > "weight" with non-OA journals (or, as some have suggested, > even a higher weight!). > > This "bias" view is as incorrect in the case of tenure committees > as it is in the case of ISI. It is justified, indeed necessary, to > expect all journals -- OA and non-OA -- to establish a > track-record for quality, rather than to exempt or favour them > on the basis of their cost-recovery model. > > And, yes, journal age is definitely a factor, as it necessarily takes > time for a new journal to establish a sustainable track-record for > quality standards. (And quality standards basically add up to the > rigour and selectivity of a journal's peer review standards.) > > In contrast to this special pleading on behalf of Gold OA > journals, there is no such problem with Green OA, as all articles > can be deposited in repositories regardless of whether they > are published in (Gold) OA journals or non-OA journals, new > or old journals, ISI-indexed or non-indexed journals. > > Hence the relevant potential OA percentage for Green OA is > neither ISI's 33% nor Gold OA's 13% (or 8%) but the 60% > that journals endorse and that Green OA mandates guarantee. > (Mandates also provide "Almost OA" for the remaining 40%, > with the help of the repositories' automated email-eprints-request > Button.) > > The rest is just about whether and when funders and institutions > get around to mandating Green OA, and which journals authors > choose to publish in. > > (RCUK has just taken a huge gratuitous step backward on Green, > in an attempt to bias authors' choice of journals toward Gold [in the > hope of forcing journals to convert to Gold] by re-directing scarce > research funds (as recommended by the Finch Report and adopted > by the UK Government) toward paying for Gold, and requiring payment > for Gold even when a journal is hybrid Gold (subscriptions + optional > fees for authors wishing to pay for Gold OA). > >> *Query: *Do ALL peer reviewed require author payments? >> Or are some ?pro bono? > > Most peer-reviewed journals do not require author payments. But > they are certainly not "pro bono": they require subscription payments > by subscribing institutions. > > Some, but not all Gold OA journals require payment of an author > publication fee. The majority do not. (They are able to cover > their costs through subscriptions and/or subsidies.) > > However, there is reason to believe that the no-fee Gold OA > journals may be largely national and/or non-English-language > journals (hence the ones less covered by ISI). > > And, like it or not, the Pareto 80/20 principle needs to be kept in mind > too: 80% of the usage and citations of journals is of the top 20% of > journals (and articles). > > (Although the high-impact factor journals have the highest average > citation counts, individual articles in other journals may sometimes > have very citation counts too. Hence authors' and articles' individual > citation counts should be taken into account by tenure/promotion > committees too, not just the average citation count of the journal in > which they were published.) > > And, ceterum censeo, OA articles are both downloaded and cited > more than articles in the same journal and year that are not made > OA. > > Stevan Harnad > >> *TOTAL PEER-REVIEWED: >> 28,135 >> * >> *ISI-INDEXED: >> 9,268* (/ 33% /) of the *28,135 *are indexed in >> Thomson-Reuters-ISI's >> Journal Citation reports >> >> *GOLD OA: >> 4,365* (/ 13% /) of the *28,135 *are open access journals >> (freely >> available online) (*Gold OA*, presumably not including >> Hybrid Gold) >> (DOAJ lists 8005 journals, but many may be either peer >> reviewed >> or "exercise editorial quality control") >> >> *ISI-INDEXED GOLD OA: >> 741* (/ 8% /) of the *9,268* Thomson-Reuters-ISI-indexed >> journals >> are *Gold OA* journals >> >> *ENDORSE GREEN OA: >> *By way of comparison, according to the last estimate of >> journals >> indexed by SHERPA/ROMEO (which does not include all the >> journals >> indexed by Ulrichs, but does include most of the top >> journals indexed >> by Thomson-Reuters-ISI): >> >> / 60% / of journals recognize the author's right to >> provide immediate, >> un-embargoed open access upon self-archiving their final >> drafts >> in their institutional repositories. >> >> That means / 60% / of all journal articles can be made >> *Green OA >> *immediately (no embargo) if all institutions mandate it. >> >> I did come up with one anomaly, however. De-duping along >> the lines >> recommended by Serials Solutions, the result was: >> >> *AVAILABLE ONLINE: >> *only *3,659* (/ 14% /) of the *28,135 *are available online >> (that strikes me as suspiciously low) >> >> >> Stevan Harnad >> >> >> >> On 2012-08-04, at 2:45 PM, Sally Morris wrote: >> >> Here's a response from Serials Solutions which should >> clarify the matter once and for all >> >> Sally >> >> >> Sally Morris >> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West >> Sussex, UK BN13 3UU >> Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 >> Email: sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Diven, Yvette >> [mailto:Yvette.Diven at serialssolutions.com] >> *Sent:* 03 August 2012 22:01 >> *To:* Sally Morris >> *Subject:* RE: [GOAL] Update on Ulrichs estimate of >> total number of active peer-reviewed journals: 55, 311 >> >> From Serials Solutions? >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> As of 3 August 2012, the number of active >> peer-reviewed journals listed in Ulrichsweb is 28,094 >> titles. This figure represents a count of all Primary >> editions (most of which are print editions, but some >> are also electronic) of those titles. >> >> The figure of 55,311 active peer-reviewed journals >> reflects the count of the number of all related format >> editions of the 28,094 active peer-reviewed journals. >> (For example, one of the 28,094 active peer-reviewed >> journals may have a primary print edition, an online >> edition, and also a CD-ROM edition for a total of 3 >> format editions.) >> >> Dr. Harnad?s search results reflect the current count >> across all journal format editions. It is possible to >> isolate (remove) the related editions from those >> search results by applying the Edition Type filter >> from the Search Results screen and selecting that >> filter?s ?Primary? option. >> >> We hope that this information is helpful. >> >> * >> * * Emeritus Professor Diana Kornbrot >> * email: d.e.kornbrot at herts.ac.uk >> >> web: http://dianakornbrot.wordpress.com/ >> *Work >> *School of Psychology >> University of Hertfordshire >> College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, UK >> voice: +44 (0) 170 728 4626 >> fax: +44 (0) 170 728 5073 >> *Home >> *19 Elmhurst Avenue >> London N2 0LT, UK >> voice: +44 (0) 208 444 2081 >> mobile: +44 (0) 740 318 1612 >> fax: +44 (0) 870 706 1445 >> >> >> >> > -- ********************************************** Dr. Juan Gorraiz University of Vienna Library and archive services Bibliometrics Department Boltzmanngasse 5 A-1090 Wien Tel.: +43-1-4277-27609 +43-66460277-27609 Fax: +43-1-4277-27650 mailto: juan.gorraiz at univie.ac.at ********************************************** From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Mon Aug 6 08:23:28 2012 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:23:28 -0400 Subject: Corrected Ulrichs estimate of total number of active peer-reviewed journals: 28,094 in August 2012 In-Reply-To: <501F8551.4030705@univie.ac.at> Message-ID: On 2012-08-06, at 4:50 AM, Juan Gorraiz wrote: > Dear Stevan, > > FYI - the Bibliometrics Department of the Vienna University Library / Austria has been jointly working with the Carlos III University of Madrid / Spain on a bibliometric study analysing the impact evolution of Gold OA journals for the last months. > > Our results will be presented at Scientometrics 2012 in Regensburg (20 September) and the Open Access Days in Vienna (27 September 2012). > > http://www.uni-regensburg.de/library/scientometrics/program/index.html > http://open-access.net/at_de/aktivitaeten/open_access_tage/programm_ausf/sessions/#c3970 Dear Juan, I will be interested to see your results. If I have understood correctly, you are not just looking at the rate of growth of the number of Gold OA journals, but also at their citation impact. I am sure that for journals with the same subject matter and the same peer-review quality and selectivity standards, the Gold OA journals would have higher citation impact than the non-OA journals. The reason I am sure is because the within-journals OA/non-OA comparisons for articles that were and not made Green OA have consistently shown the OA citation advantage. However, there still seems to be the logical and methodological problem -- in trying to show this effect at the between-journal level, OA vs non-OA, rather the within-journal, between-article level -- that there is no way to determine whether two journals, even if they have the same subject matter, have the same peer-review quality and selectivity standards. Hence it is not clear whether one is comparing like with like. > Like you, we have also used Ulrichs since it provides relevant information on Open Access as well as on JCR status. > However, deduplication in Ulrichs is time-consuming and cumbersome due to the many format editions Sally Morris mentioned. Unfortunately sometimes Open Access journals are listed only as print journals, even though they are either as well or exclusively published as online journals. PloS is the best example as one of the most successful Open Access titles. Except for PloS One all other PloS titles are only (incorrectly) listed as print journals (and ceased!) in Ulrichsweb. It is a pity that as large and widely used (and unique) a database, with no competitors, cannot promptly and fully remedy each of these problems. Perhaps it is indeed because Ulrichs has no competitors. This is, then, yet another problem that universal OA itself will correct (at least for peer-reviewed research), once it is universally mandated by institutions and funders. > Thus filtering only for online format editions in Ulrichs would therefore unintentionally exclude the most successful OA journals. > One needs to be aware of these limitations and should cross-check the results retrieved with DOAJ. I agree completely, and our own studies always cross-check with DOAJ. (This is a cross-check that Ulrichs itself could easily implement!) > Stevan, you further wrote "ISI also indicates which of its indexed journals are Gold OA". > This would indeed be desirable, however, we could neither find any hint on OA in WoS nor in JCR (not to mention this information is not at all searchable). If I was mistaken about that, I must apologize. I do know that ISI keeps a tally of the number of OA journals it indexes. If it does not tag those journals explicitly, then that is an example of another lapse by a large and widely used database. Ditto for any classification errors. Universally mandated OA will fix all of that too. (It's just that right now, still on the road to universally mandated OA, it would have been a big help if these two large databases were more rigorous and responsive to the user community's needs. I hope the user community will try to put some pressure on Ulrichs to shape up and keep up with evolving user needs in the online era. For ISI, maybe a nudge from its founder might help... (Gene?) Best wishes, Stevan > > > Best regards, > Juan and Christian > > > Stevan Harnad schrieb: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> On 2012-08-05, at 5:39 AM, Kornbrot, Diana wrote: >>> Could this list be made available? >>> *ISI-INDEXED GOLD OA:* *741* (/ 8% /) of the *9,268* Thomson-Reuters-ISI-indexed journals >>> are *Gold OA* journals >> It's in Ulrichs: Just do the search. ISI also indicates which of its >> indexed journals are Gold OA. >>> So* 1/3rd of all peer reviewed are ISI-indexed >>> 1/6th of goldOA reviewed are ISI-indexed >>> *Does this say something about [Q] quality of goldOA? Or about [B] indexers resistance [bias] to[ward] new ideas ? >> As you note, the reason could be either Q or B. >> However, the following five further factors tend to favour >> the hypothesis that the reason is *Q*. >> *Quality (Q):* >> *Q1*. Many Gold OA journals are new, and hence have not yet >> created and demonstrated their quality standards >> *Q2*. ISI has objective criteria for inclusion, and have no >> reason at all to raise or lower them for Gold OA journals. >> *Q3*. Unlike years ago, when part of ISI's motivation for selective >> coverage was that it was expensive to index a journal, in >> the online era that expense has gone way down. >> *Q4*. On the contrary, including more journals enriches the >> usefulness (hence market value) of the ISI database. >> *Q5*. Lowering quality standards, however, has the opposite >> effect. >> And the following two factors favours the hypothesis that the >> reason is *B*: >> *Bias (B):* >> *B1*. It is a long-standing complaint about ISI that it is English >> language-biased. Many non-covered journals may be non-covered because they are in other languages rather than just because they do not meet ISI's criteria for coverage. >> *B2. *ISI coverage is not even across all disciplines, being more >> complete in science than in other scholarly disciplines. >> Let me add a further general observation. There is a very >> unfortunate, widespread and counterproductive tendency >> to equate OA with Gold OA and to imagine that the reason >> OA is not growing faster is because of a bias against OA >> journals. Hence the fancied "solution" to the OA problem >> would be for tenure/promotion committees to put an end >> to their bias against OA journals, and give them equal >> "weight" with non-OA journals (or, as some have suggested, >> even a higher weight!). >> This "bias" view is as incorrect in the case of tenure committees >> as it is in the case of ISI. It is justified, indeed necessary, to >> expect all journals -- OA and non-OA -- to establish a >> track-record for quality, rather than to exempt or favour them on the basis of their cost-recovery model. And, yes, journal age is definitely a factor, as it necessarily takes time for a new journal to establish a sustainable track-record for quality standards. (And quality standards basically add up to the >> rigour and selectivity of a journal's peer review standards.) >> In contrast to this special pleading on behalf of Gold OA >> journals, there is no such problem with Green OA, as all articles >> can be deposited in repositories regardless of whether they >> are published in (Gold) OA journals or non-OA journals, new >> or old journals, ISI-indexed or non-indexed journals. >> Hence the relevant potential OA percentage for Green OA is >> neither ISI's 33% nor Gold OA's 13% (or 8%) but the 60% >> that journals endorse and that Green OA mandates guarantee. >> (Mandates also provide "Almost OA" for the remaining 40%, >> with the help of the repositories' automated email-eprints-request >> Button.) >> The rest is just about whether and when funders and institutions >> get around to mandating Green OA, and which journals authors >> choose to publish in. (RCUK has just taken a huge gratuitous step backward on Green, >> in an attempt to bias authors' choice of journals toward Gold [in the hope of forcing journals to convert to Gold] by re-directing scarce research funds (as recommended by the Finch Report and adopted by the UK Government) toward paying for Gold, and requiring payment for Gold even when a journal is hybrid Gold (subscriptions + optional fees for authors wishing to pay for Gold OA). >>> *Query: *Do ALL peer reviewed require author payments? Or are some ?pro bono? >> Most peer-reviewed journals do not require author payments. But >> they are certainly not "pro bono": they require subscription payments by subscribing institutions. >> Some, but not all Gold OA journals require payment of an author >> publication fee. The majority do not. (They are able to cover >> their costs through subscriptions and/or subsidies.) >> However, there is reason to believe that the no-fee Gold OA >> journals may be largely national and/or non-English-language >> journals (hence the ones less covered by ISI). >> And, like it or not, the Pareto 80/20 principle needs to be kept in mind >> too: 80% of the usage and citations of journals is of the top 20% of >> journals (and articles). (Although the high-impact factor journals have the highest average citation counts, individual articles in other journals may sometimes have very citation counts too. Hence authors' and articles' individual >> citation counts should be taken into account by tenure/promotion >> committees too, not just the average citation count of the journal in >> which they were published.) >> And, ceterum censeo, OA articles are both downloaded and cited >> more than articles in the same journal and year that are not made >> OA. >> Stevan Harnad >>> *TOTAL PEER-REVIEWED: >>> 28,135 >>> * >>> *ISI-INDEXED: >>> 9,268* (/ 33% /) of the *28,135 *are indexed in >>> Thomson-Reuters-ISI's >>> Journal Citation reports >>> >>> *GOLD OA: >>> 4,365* (/ 13% /) of the *28,135 *are open access journals >>> (freely >>> available online) (*Gold OA*, presumably not including >>> Hybrid Gold) >>> (DOAJ lists 8005 journals, but many may be either peer >>> reviewed >>> or "exercise editorial quality control") >>> >>> *ISI-INDEXED GOLD OA: >>> 741* (/ 8% /) of the *9,268* Thomson-Reuters-ISI-indexed >>> journals >>> are *Gold OA* journals >>> >>> *ENDORSE GREEN OA: >>> *By way of comparison, according to the last estimate of >>> journals >>> indexed by SHERPA/ROMEO (which does not include all the >>> journals >>> indexed by Ulrichs, but does include most of the top >>> journals indexed >>> by Thomson-Reuters-ISI): >>> >>> / 60% / of journals recognize the author's right to >>> provide immediate, >>> un-embargoed open access upon self-archiving their final >>> drafts >>> in their institutional repositories. >>> >>> That means / 60% / of all journal articles can be made >>> *Green OA >>> *immediately (no embargo) if all institutions mandate it. >>> >>> I did come up with one anomaly, however. De-duping along >>> the lines >>> recommended by Serials Solutions, the result was: >>> >>> *AVAILABLE ONLINE: >>> *only *3,659* (/ 14% /) of the *28,135 *are available online >>> (that strikes me as suspiciously low) >>> >>> >>> Stevan Harnad >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2012-08-04, at 2:45 PM, Sally Morris wrote: >>> >>> Here's a response from Serials Solutions which should >>> clarify the matter once and for all >>> >>> Sally >>> >>> Sally Morris >>> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West >>> Sussex, UK BN13 3UU >>> Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 >>> Email: sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Diven, Yvette >>> [mailto:Yvette.Diven at serialssolutions.com] >>> *Sent:* 03 August 2012 22:01 >>> *To:* Sally Morris >>> *Subject:* RE: [GOAL] Update on Ulrichs estimate of >>> total number of active peer-reviewed journals: 55, 311 >>> >>> From Serials Solutions? >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> As of 3 August 2012, the number of active >>> peer-reviewed journals listed in Ulrichsweb is 28,094 >>> titles. This figure represents a count of all Primary >>> editions (most of which are print editions, but some >>> are also electronic) of those titles. >>> The figure of 55,311 active peer-reviewed journals >>> reflects the count of the number of all related format >>> editions of the 28,094 active peer-reviewed journals. >>> (For example, one of the 28,094 active peer-reviewed >>> journals may have a primary print edition, an online >>> edition, and also a CD-ROM edition for a total of 3 >>> format editions.) >>> Dr. Harnad?s search results reflect the current count >>> across all journal format editions. It is possible to >>> isolate (remove) the related editions from those >>> search results by applying the Edition Type filter >>> from the Search Results screen and selecting that >>> filter?s ?Primary? option. >>> We hope that this information is helpful. >>> >>> * >>> * * Emeritus Professor Diana Kornbrot >>> * email: d.e.kornbrot at herts.ac.uk web: http://dianakornbrot.wordpress.com/ >>> *Work >>> *School of Psychology >>> University of Hertfordshire >>> College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, UK >>> voice: +44 (0) 170 728 4626 >>> fax: +44 (0) 170 728 5073 >>> *Home >>> *19 Elmhurst Avenue >>> London N2 0LT, UK >>> voice: +44 (0) 208 444 2081 >>> mobile: +44 (0) 740 318 1612 >>> fax: +44 (0) 870 706 1445 >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > -- > ********************************************** > Dr. Juan Gorraiz > > University of Vienna > Library and archive services > Bibliometrics Department > > Boltzmanngasse 5 > A-1090 Wien > > Tel.: > +43-1-4277-27609 > +43-66460277-27609 > Fax: > +43-1-4277-27650 > mailto: > juan.gorraiz at univie.ac.at > ********************************************** > From Silvia.Steinbrunner at AIT.AC.AT Tue Aug 7 06:09:21 2012 From: Silvia.Steinbrunner at AIT.AC.AT (Steinbrunner Silvia) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:09:21 +0200 Subject: 1st Call - ISSI 2013 - 14th Int. Conf. on Scientometrics and Informetrics Message-ID: (Apologies for cross postings) 1st CALL FOR PAPERS, POSTERS, TUTORIALS & DOCTORAL FORUM APPLICATIONS ISSI 2013 - 14th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics July 15-19, 2013, Vienna, Austria http://www.issi2013.org Most important dates: *** Deadline for papers and workshops/tutorials: 21 January 2013*** *** Deadline for Doctoral Forum applications: 4 February 2013*** *** Deadline for posters: 18 March 2013 *** The Conference Organizing Committee cordially invites you to attend the 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference 2013 in Vienna, Austria, hosted by the University of Vienna and the AIT Austrian Institute of Technology. All the relevant information is available at the conference website: http://www.issi2013.org We are looking forward to seeing you in Vienna. Best regards, Edgar Schiebel & Juan Gorraiz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smilojev at INDIANA.EDU Tue Aug 7 15:33:00 2012 From: smilojev at INDIANA.EDU (Stasa Milojevic) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:33:00 -0400 Subject: CFP>METRICS 2012 Deadline extended to August 14 Message-ID: [Apologies for cross-posting] *METRICS 2012 -- WORKSHOP ON INFORMETRIC AND SCIENTOMETRIC RESEARCH* *CALL FOR ABSTRACTS* The ASIS&T Special Interest Group for Metrics (SIG/MET) will host a workshop on Friday, October 26, 2012 preceding the ASIS&T Annual Meeting in Baltimore. This workshop will provide an opportunity for presentations and in-depth conversations on metric-related issues, including the latest theories, approaches, applications, innovations, and tools. Submissions in any area of metrics research will be accepted for review. The workshop is envisioned as a combination of short presentations and open discussion. SIG/MET is the Special Interest Group for the measurement of information production and use. It encourages the development and networking of all those interested in the measurement of information. It encompasses not only bibliometrics, scientometrics, informetrics and webometrics , but also measurement of the Web and the Internet, applications running on these platforms, and metrics related to network analysis, visualization, and scholarly communication. The workshop is endorsed by the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) and sponsored by Elsevier. /Submissions / Submissions should be in the form of two-page extended abstracts or position papers (up to 1000 words excluding references, tables, and figures). A structured abstract is preferred, but not required. Two types of submissions will be accepted: posters and presentations. Please indicate the type of submission in bold at the beginning of your submission. The requirements for both formats are the same. Submit in .pdf or .doc to http://www.softconf.com/asis/Metrics2012/ /Peer-Review process / Each submission will be reviewed and brief feedback given in narrative format. /Important Dates/ Submissions due:* August 14, 2012* Notifications: August 28, 201 Workshop: October 26, 2012 /Registration fees/ ASIST/ISSI members $105 - early registration ($130 after Sept. 7) Non-members $130 - early registration ($150 after Sept. 7) Through the Elsevier sponsorship students registering for the workshop will receive financial support to attend. /With questions, please contact / Stas(a Milojevic' Chair, SIG/MET smilojev at indiana.edu -- Stasa Milojevic, Ph.D. Assistant Professor School of Library and Information Science Indiana University Email: smilojev at indiana.edu Phone: (812) 856-4182 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anoruzi at GMAIL.COM Wed Aug 8 07:56:38 2012 From: anoruzi at GMAIL.COM (Alireza Noruzi) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:56:38 +0200 Subject: Webology: Volume 9, Number 1, 2012 Message-ID: Dear All, apologies for cross-posting. We are pleased to inform you that Vol. 9, No. 2 of Webology is published and available online now. ------------------ Webology: Volume 9, Number 1, 2012 TOC: http://www.webology.org/2012/v9n1/toc.html This issue contains: ----------------------------------------- Articles - Application of social media in marketing of library and information services: A case study from Pakistan -- Shakeel Ahmad Khan, & Rubina Bhatti -- Keywords: Social media; Library marketing; Online marketing; World Wide Web; Web 2.0 -- http://www.webology.org/2012/v9n1/a93.html - Impact of the Internet surfing on reading practices and choices -- Fayaz Ahmad Loan -- Keywords: Reading; Online reading; Reading practices; Reading choices; Internet surfing; College students -- http://www.webology.org/2012/v9n1/a94.html - Webometric analysis of Nigerian university web sites -- Andrey A. Pechnikov, & Anthony M. Nwohiri -- Keywords: University web site; Nigeria; Hyperlinks; Webgraph; Webometrics; World Wide Web -- http://www.webology.org/2012/v9n1/a95.html - Bibliometric analysis of output and visibility of science and technology in Singapore during 2000-2009 -- Shushan Rana -- Keywords: Science; Technology; Bibliometric analysis; Scientific publication; Collaboration; Citation analysis; Authorship; Singapore -- http://www.webology.org/2012/v9n1/a96.html ----------------------------------------- Book Review - Digital preservation of cultural heritage collection: Among libraries of India and Iran: A comparative study / Leili Seifi, & C.P. Ramasesh -- Mohamed Taher -- Keywords: Cultural heritage; Digitization; Digital preservation; Iran; India -- http://www.webology.org/2012/v9n1/bookreview21.html ----------------------------------------- Call for Papers -- http://www.webology.org/callforpapers.html ========================================= Best regards, Alireza Noruzi, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief of Webology Website: http://www.webology.org ~ The great aim of Open Access journals is knowledge sharing. ~ ~ Scientific knowledge is the result of the knowledge sharing and exchange of experiences. ~ From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Thu Aug 9 15:08:26 2012 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:08:26 +0000 Subject: Papers of potential interest to Sig Metrics readers Message-ID: TITLE: Top-cited Articles in Chemical Engineering in Science Citation Index Expanded: A Bibliometric Analysis (Article, English) AUTHOR: Ho, YS SOURCE: CHINESE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 20 (3). JUN 2012. p.478-488 CHEMICAL INDUSTRY PRESS, BEIJING SEARCH TERM(S): ZUCKERMAN HA rauth; SCIENCE CITATION INDEX BIBLIOMETR* CITATION* KEYWORDS: bibliometric; Web of Science; highly cited; Y-index; publication character KEYWORDS+: LOW-TEMPERATURE OXIDATION; POROUS SOLIDS DIFFUSION; LIQUID-MIXTURES; JOURNALS; COEFFICIENTS; AUTHORSHIP; ORDER; GOLD; PUBLICATIONS; PERFORMANCE ABSTRACT: This study aimed to identify and to analyze characteristics of top-cited articles published in the Web of Science chemical engineering subject category from 1899 to 2011. Articles that have been cited more than 100 times were assessed regarding publication outputs, and distribution of outputs in journals. Five bibliometric indicators were used to evaluate source countries, institution and authors. A new indicator, Y-index, was created to assess quantity and quality of contribution to articles. Results showed that 3828 articles, published between 1931 and 2010, had been cited at least 100 times. Among them 54% published before 1991, and 49% top-cited articles originated from US. The top eight productive institutions were all located in US. The top journals were Journal of Catalysis, AIChE Journal, Chemical Engineering Science and Journal of Membrane Science. Y-index was successfully applied to evaluate publication character of authors, institutions, and countries/regions. AUTHOR ADDRESS: YS Ho, Asia Univ, Trend Res Ctr, 500 Lioufeng Rd, Wufeng 41354, Taichung County, Taiwan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH AT THE INSTITUTO CLODOMIRO PICADO: A BIBLIOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE OF FOUR DECADES (1970-2010) (Article, Spanish) AUTHOR: Lomonte, B SOURCE: INTERCIENCIA 37 (6). JUN 2012. p.424-430 INTERCIENCIA, CARACAS SEARCH TERM(S): BIBLIOMETR* item_title KEYWORDS+: PUBLICATIONS ABSTRACT: This article presents an overview of the evolution of research activities at the Instituto Clodomiro Picado (ICP; University of Costa Rica), as reflected by its scientific publications during 40 years (1970-2010) since its foundation. The total production of publications in journals (442 articles) was compiled and an analysis was carried out of their characteristics such as subject areas, citation figures in the Web of Science, proportion of collaboration with foreign authors, countries involved in the collaborations, and utilization of local or international journals. The data indicate that research activities at ICP, from the perspective of the production of papers in journals, present a considerable development, consolidation and visibility. These analyses support the conclusion that it is feasible to produce science in a socioeconomic context such as that of Costa Rica, where resources to foster research are scarce and inconstant. Some of the factors that may have favored such quantitative and qualitative growth are discussed. The study of ICP as a particular case could provide information of a more general interest to formulate strategies for development in other groups or countries with similar characteristics. AUTHOR ADDRESS: B Lomonte, Inst Clodomiro Picado UCR, San Jose 11501, Costa Rica -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Impact Factor, Citation Index, H-Index: are researchers still free to choose where and how to publish their results? (Article, English) AUTHOR: Solarino, S SOURCE: ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS 55 (3 SP ISS). 2012. p.473-477 IST NAZIONALE DI GEOFISICA E VULCANOLOGIA, ROME SEARCH TERM(S): HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; CITATION item_title; CITATION* item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title ABSTRACT: Over the last decade, the demand to evaluate the impact of any given research study, the credentials of a researcher, and the influence that any single research unit or agency has on the world of research has constantly grown. Many tools have been developed and applied to evaluate the level of innovation, originality and continuity of a single researcher in an objective way. As a consequence, there are comparisons of the performances of different research agencies. Some of these tools, which often provide the result as an 'index', are briefly described in this study. However, it is clearly evident that the evaluations provided by these instruments do not always correspond to the real impact of the research, nor are they unique. Indeed, the same index computed using similar criteria on different databases gives different scores, which can lead to confusion and contradictions. In this contribution, the principal anomalies, problems and failures of these evaluation schemes are described. The most evident of these arise from the nature of the evaluation, which being automated, cannot establish the role of any single researcher in papers of 'pooled' research, and cannot recognize similar or duplicated papers by the same researcher(s) in more than one journal. The 'selecting' effects that these evaluation indices can have on the research are then discussed. Indeed, in an attempt to obtain the highest possible scores in terms of citations, there is a tendency of the single scholar to avoid studies that deal with small areas, or with scientific problems that do not have a broad interest or provide applicative results. In all of these cases, an article describing such studies will in all likelihood appear in a 'minor journal' (one with a low impact factor). As a consequence, this will provide a low citation index, will not significantly contribute to the authors' H-index, and/or will only be published as a report. Moreover, a discussion on the role that these evaluation indices can have in the world of research is presented. Particular attention is paid to the consequences in the field of the geoethics, where scientific, technological, methodological and socio-cultural aspects need to be considered in a different order to that expected in a pure meritocracy. AUTHOR ADDRESS: S Solarino, Ctr Nazl Terremoti, Ist Nazl Geofis & Vulcanol, Sede Di Genova, Italy ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: GOOGLE SCHOLAR METRICS: AN UNRELIABLE TOOL FOR ASSESSING SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS (Article, English) AUTHOR: Delgado-Lopez-Cozer, E; Cabezas-Clavijo, A SOURCE: PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION 21 (4). JUL-AUG 2012. p.419-427 EPI, BARCELONA SEARCH TERM(S): JOURNALS item_title KEYWORDS: Google; Google Scholar; Google Scholar Metrics; Scientific Journals; Repositories; H-Index; Bibliometric Indicators; Scientific Assessment KEYWORDS+: INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR; H-INDEX; SCIENCE; INDICATORS; CONS; PROS ABSTRACT: We introduce Google Scholar Metrics (GSM), a new bibliometric product of Google that aims at providing the H-index for scientific journals and other information sources. We conduct a critical review of GSM showing its main characteristics and possibilities as a tool for scientific evaluation. We discuss its coverage along with the inclusion of repositories, bibliographic control, and its options for browsing and searching. We conclude that, despite Google Scholar's value as a source for scientific assessment, GSM is an immature product with many shortcomings, and therefore we advise against its use for evaluation purposes. However, the improvement of these shortcomings would place GSM as a serious competitor to the other existing products for evaluating scientific journals. AUTHOR ADDRESS: E Delgado-Lopez-Cozer, Univ Granada, EC3, Dept Bibliotecon & Documentac, Colegio Maximo Cartuja, Campus Cartuja S-N, E-18071 Granada, Spain ------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Journal evaluation based on bibliometric indicators and the CERIF data model (Article, English) AUTHOR: Ivanovic, D; Surla, D; Rackovic, M SOURCE: COMPUTER SCIENCE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS 9 (2). JUN 2012. p.791-811 COMSIS CONSORTIUM, NOVI SAD SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006; GARFIELD E CROAT MED J 41:368 2000 KEYWORDS: CERIF; evaluation of scientific-research results; impact factor; CRIS UNS KEYWORDS+: RESEARCH MANAGEMENT-SYSTEM; MARC 21 FORMAT; IMPACT FACTOR; CITATION-REPORTS; PERFORMANCE; UNIMARC; ARTICLE; SCIENCE; INDEX ABSTRACT: In this paper we propose an application of extended CERIF data model for storing journal impact factors and journal scientific fields and also propose a journal evaluation approach based on these data. The approach includes an algorithm for journal evaluation based on one metric for journals ranking that is also stored using the CERIF data model and that is in accordance with the rule book for evaluation of scientific-research results which is prescribed by the Republic of Serbia. The algorithm does not unambiguously evaluate journal, i.e. the algorithm suggests possibly journal categories according to the values of the metric, but final decision is made by commission. The proposed evaluation approach is implemented within CRIS UNS and verified on scientific-research results of researchers employed at Department of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Novi Sad. The complete evaluation approach proposed in this paper is based on the CERIF standard that allows an easy application of this evaluation approach in any CERIF- compatible CRIS system. AUTHOR ADDRESS: D Ivanovic, Univ Novi Sad, Fac Tech Sci, Trg D Obradovica 6, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Title: Scientific production in cancer rehabilitation grows higher: a bibliometric analysis Authors: Ugolini, D; Neri, M; Cesario, A; Bonassi, S; Milazzo, D; Bennati, L; Lapenna, LM; Pasqualetti, P Author Full Names: Ugolini, Donatella; Neri, Monica; Cesario, Alfredo; Bonassi, Stefano; Milazzo, Daniele; Bennati, Luca; Lapenna, Luisa Maria; Pasqualetti, Patrizio Source: SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER, 20 (8):1629-1638; 10.1007/s00520-011-1253-2 AUG 2012 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Rehabilitation, Neoplasms, Publications, Bibliometrics KeyWords Plus: EUROPEAN-UNION Abstract: The aim of the study was to evaluate scientific production in the field of cancer rehabilitation comparing publication trends and *impact factor* (IF) among countries. The PubMed database was searched. Publications numbers and IF were evaluated both as absolute values and after standardization by population and gross domestic product (GDP). A dedicated software was developed to create a relational database containing all information about considered publications (Research Management System). Some 1,743 publications were retrieved from 1967 to 2008. Cancer rehabilitation publications have grown 11.6 times, while the whole field of disease rehabilitation has grown 7.8 times. Breast neoplasms, squamous cell carcinoma, treatment outcome, endosseous dental implantation, follow-up studies, and surgical flaps were the most commonly used keywords. From 1994 to 2008, 946 citations were retrieved: 36.8% came from the European Union (EU) (Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands ranking at the top) and 36.9% from the USA. The highest mean IF was reported for the USA (3.384) followed by Canada (3.265) and Australia (2.643). The EU has a mean IF of 0.839 with the Netherlands ranking first. Canada, Australia, and the USA had the best ratio between IF (sum) and resident population or GDP. Cancer rehabilitation is an expanding area with a growing scientific production. The rapidly ageing population, the higher number of cancer survivors, and the increasing need of resources for the after treatment of cancer patients contribute to explain the interest for this field. Reprint Address: Ist Nazl Ric Canc, Dipartimento Oncol Biol & Genet, Largo R Benzi 10, I-16132 Genoa, Italy. Addresses: [Ugolini, Donatella] Ist Nazl Ric Canc, Dipartimento Oncol Biol & Genet, I-16132 Genoa, Italy [Ugolini, Donatella; Bennati, Luca] Univ Genoa, Dipartimento Oncol Biol & Genet, Genoa, Italy [Ugolini, Donatella] Natl Inst Canc Res, Unit Epidemiol & Biostat & Clin Trials, Genoa, Italy [Neri, Monica; Bonassi, Stefano] San Raffaele Pisana, Unit Clin & Mol Epidemiol, Rome, Italy [Cesario, Alfredo] Catholic Univ, Div Thorac Surg, Dept Gen Surg, Rome, Italy [Cesario, Alfredo] IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana, Rome, Italy [Milazzo, Daniele; Pasqualetti, Patrizio] San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hosp, Fatebenefratelli Assoc Biomed Res AFaR, SeSMIT, Rome, Italy [Lapenna, Luisa Maria] CDC San Raffaele Velletri, Rome, Italy [Pasqualetti, Patrizio] San Raffaele Cassino, Unit Epidemiol & Biostat, Cassino, FR, Italy E-mail Address: donatella.ugolini at istge.it Funding Acknowledgement: Fondazione Buzzi-Unicem per la Ricerca sul Mesotelioma; University of Genoa Funding Text: This study was supported by grants funded by Fondazione Buzzi-Unicem per la Ricerca sul Mesotelioma and University of Genoa. Cited Reference Count:19 Times Cited:0 Publisher: SPRINGER, 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA Cited References: Akai M, 2004, JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, V36, P145 Falagas ME, 2005, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY, V76, P229 Ugolini Donatella, 2010, LUNG CANCER, V70, P129 2006, Journal Citation Reports, Michalopoulos A, 2005, CHEST, V128, P3993 Ugolini D, 2003, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V39, P1888 Mela GS, 1998, ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, V57, P643 Bohannon R W, 1989, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists, V68, P257 Grossi F, 2003, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V39, P106 2001, Ugolini Donatella, 2007, CARCINOGENESIS, V28, P1774 2005, PubMed manual, 2010, Cancer, Bohannon R W, 1991, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation, V14, P333 Ugolini D, 2002, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V38, P1121 Cimmino MA, 2005, OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, V132, P295 Rahman M, 2005, ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, V12, P825 Shadgan B, 2010, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, V9, P806 Ugolini D, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V52, P45 ======================================================================= Title: Too much impact for the *Impact Factor*: are a new generation of scientists in peril? Authors: Pierce, GN Author Full Names:Pierce, Grant N. Source: CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 90 (4):III-IV; 10.1139/y2012-021 APR 2012 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited:0 Publisher: CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS, 1200 MONTREAL ROAD, BUILDING M-55, OTTAWA, ON K1A 0R6, CANADA From fyi.jmla at GMAIL.COM Fri Aug 10 16:45:47 2012 From: fyi.jmla at GMAIL.COM (Lauren Young) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:45:47 -0500 Subject: JMLA article of interest Message-ID: The Journal of the Medical Library Association is pleased to announce the publication of v.100(3), July 2012. The issue contains the following article that we believe might be relevant and of interest to members of the SIGMETRICS listserv: *The persistence of error: a study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries* Philip M. Davis "The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent of publicly accessible copies of retracted articles on the public Internet and in the personal libraries of scholars. The study does not include copies located on publishers' websites as this has been reported recently by Steen [13]. By understanding where these articles reside, and in what form, we can be in a better position to understand how errors continue to be promulgated through the scientific literature, predict the efficacy of new interventions such as CrossMark, and propose new services that enable publishers to more efficiently contact readers when an article has been updated or is no longer valid." We invite you to visit us online to read this and other quality, peer-reviewed articles. JMLA preprints are available to MLA members at www.mlanet.org, and current and archived issues are freely available to all interested readers on PubMed Central: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/93/. Thank you, Lauren Lauren M. Young, MLIS, MA Associate Editor for Social Media Dissemination Journal of the Medical Library Association fyi.jmla at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From priem at EMAIL.UNC.EDU Thu Aug 16 02:56:59 2012 From: priem at EMAIL.UNC.EDU (Jason Priem) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:56:59 -0700 Subject: unsubscribe sigmetrics Message-ID: -- Jason Priem UNC Royster Scholar School of Information and Library Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Fri Aug 17 06:06:08 2012 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:06:08 +0200 Subject: Scimago Institutions Ranking: World Reports 2012 Message-ID: The fourth edition of the Scimago Institutions Ranking has been published. SIR World Reports 2012 is the most comprehensive ranking of Worldwide Research Institutions. Following the goal of embracing every institution around the world with meaningful scientific output, the ranking now includes 3,290 institutions that together are responsible for more than 80% of worldwide scientific output during the term 2006-10 as indexed in Elsevier's Scopus database. Access to the web portal: http://www.scimagoir.com/ Downloading the Report: http://www.scimagoir.com/pdf/sir_2012_world_report.pdf The report shows raw values for six relevant and useful indicators that will help users to evaluate the scientific impact, thematic specialization, output size and international collaboration networks of the institutions. New indicators are the Specialization Index, which indicates the specialization profile of institutions, the Excellence Rate or the ability of institutions to produce best-quality papers among their output and the Leadership to represent the institution?s ratio of corresponding authors in scientific papers. Additionally for each indicator there is information about variation (percentage) from the previous edition. The report encompasses Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as well as other research-focused organizations from different sizes, with different missions and from countries in the five continents. Institutions are grouped into five Institutional Sectors: Higher Education, Health System, Government Agencies, Corporations and Others. SIR World Report 2012 IS NOT A LEAGUE TABLE. The ranking parameter ? the scientific output of institutions-- should be understood as a default rank, not as a final ranking proposal. But users are free to organize the high quality data provided for building, under their own responsibility and citing the source of data, customized rankings or reports as they wish. -- Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1). CCHS - CSIC Albasanz, 26-28. 28037 Madrid. Spain isidro.aguillo @ cchs.csic.es www. webometrics.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vincent.lariviere at UMONTREAL.CA Fri Aug 17 15:52:38 2012 From: vincent.lariviere at UMONTREAL.CA (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Larivi=E8re_Vincent?=) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:52:38 -0400 Subject: STI 2012 - Final programme now available Message-ID: *********** Apologies for cross-posting *********** International Science and Technology Indicators (STI) - Montreal, Canada, September 5-8, 2012. The International Science and Technology Indicators (STI) Conference, held under the aegis of the European Network of Indicators Designers (ENID) since 2011 (when the two merged), provides a unique chance to leading researchers in the field to share their ideas on how to improve the precision of S&T indicators and on how to clearly present results-an area where advanced visualisation techniques play a growing role. This is the first time that the STI Conference is held outside Europe, and the Montreal indicators community is rightly proud to hold the honour of being the first North American organiser. The 2012 STI Conference is jointly organised by Science-Metrix and the Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) and will be held at the Universit? du Qu?bec ? Montr?al (UQAM) on September 5-8, 2012. We received 146 propositions of contributions for the conference, both papers and posters. Some 70 papers were accepted for oral presentation, in addition to half as many posters. The main themes of the 2012 conference are: 1) theoretical, historical, practical and social aspects of S&T indicator development and use; 2) methodological aspects in the use of S&T indicators and the production of statistics and 3) use of S&T indicators in R&D management and S&T strategy development and evaluation. We are pleased to announce that the program of 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI), to be held 5-8 September, 2012 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, is now available at: http://2012.sticonference.org/index.php?page=prog Registration information can be found at http://2012.sticonference.org/index.php?page=reg Accommodation information is available at http://sticonference.org/index.php?page=acc For more information: info at 2012.sticonference.org Hurry up, September is at our door! We look forward to see you soon in Montreal. Eric Archambault Yves Gingras Vincent Larivi?re Conference Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sat Aug 18 12:59:19 2012 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:59:19 +0000 Subject: papers of poential interest to Sig Merics readers Message-ID: TITLE: Extended dynamic subgraph statistics using h-index parameterized data structures (Article, English) AUTHOR: Eppstein, D; Goodrich, MT; Strash, D; Trott, L SOURCE: THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE 447. AUG 17 2012. p.44-52 ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, AMSTERDAM SEARCH TERM(S): PRICE DJD rauth; HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005 KEYWORDS: Parameterized algorithm; Subgraph; h-index; Dynamic graph algorithm KEYWORDS+: MARKOV GRAPHS; NETWORKS; ALGORITHMS; DIAMETER; MODELS ABSTRACT: We present techniques for maintaining subgraph frequencies in a dynamic graph, using data structures that are parameterized in terms of h, the h-index of the graph. Our methods extend previous results of Eppstein and Spiro for maintaining statistics for undirected subgraphs of size three to directed subgraphs and to subgraphs of size four. For the directed case, we provide a data structure to maintain counts for all 3-vertex induced subgraphs in O(h) amortized time per update. For the undirected case, we maintain the counts of size-four subgraphs in O(h(2)) amortized time per update. These extensions enable a number of new applications in Bioinformatics and Social Networking research. (c) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. AUTHOR ADDRESS: L Trott, Univ Calif Irvine, Dept Comp Sci, Irvine, CA 92717 USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Title: The persistence of error: a study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries Authors: Davis, PM Author Full Names: Davis, Philip M. Source: JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 100 (3):184-189; 10.3163/1536-5050.100.3.008 JUL 2012 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; JOURNALS; IMPACT; CITATIONS; SCIENCE Abstract: Objective: To determine the accessibility of retracted articles residing on non-publisher websites and in personal libraries. Methods: Searches were performed to locate Internet copies of 1,779 retracted articles identified in MEDLINE, published between 1973 and 2010, excluding the publishers' website. Found copies were classified by article version and location. Mendeley (a bibliographic software) was searched for copies residing in personal libraries. Results: Non-publisher websites provided 321 publicly accessible copies for 289 retracted articles: 304 (95%) copies were the publisher' versions, and 13 (4%) were final manuscripts. PubMed Central had 138 (43%) copies; educational websites 94 (29%); commercial websites 24 (7%); advocacy websites 16 (5%); and institutional repositories 10 (3%). Just 15 (5%) hill-article views included a retraction statement. Personal Mendeley libraries contained records for 1,340 (75%) retracted articles, shared by 3.4 users, on average. Conclusions: The benefits of decentralized access to scientific articles may come with the cost of promoting incorrect, invalid, or untrustworthy science. Automated methods to deliver status updates to readers may reduce the persistence of error in the scientific literature. Reprint Address: 432 Mitchell St, Ithaca, NY 14850 USA. Addresses: E-mail Address: pmd8 at cornell.edu Cited Reference Count: 32 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOC, 65 EAST WACKER PLACE, STE 1900, CHICAGO, IL 60601-7298 USA ISSN: 1536-5050 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 975HJ Unique ID: WOS:000306501000008 Cited References: 1000, The Library, 2009, The Committee, Gaule Patrick, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P2548 BROADUS RN, 1983, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V34, P132 Budd JM, 2011, P390 Wright Kath, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V99, P164 Molckovsky A., 2011, CURRENT ONCOLOGY, V18, P26 Morris S, 2009, Summary paper 5, Redman B. K., 2008, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, V34, P807 Furman Jeffrey L., 2012, RESEARCH POLICY, V41, P276 Niu Xi, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P869 Jamali Hamid R., 2010, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V34, P282 Davis Philip M., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V99, P208 Wren JD, 2005, BMJ, V330, Garfield E, 1987, Scientist, V1, P255 MORAVCSIK MJ, 1975, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V5, P86 Wager Elizabeth, 2011, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, V37, P567 Simkin MV, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V62, P367 Hull Duncan, 2008, PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY, V4, GARFIELD E, 1990, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V263, P1424 BROAD WJ, 1981, SCIENCE, V212, P137 Peterson Gabriel M., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V98, P135 CHUBIN DE, 1975, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V5, P423 Merton RK, 1973, The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations, P267 Sox HC, 2006, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V144, P609 Davis PM, 2007, D-Lib Mag, V13, Steen R. Grant, 2011, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, V37, P249 Haines Laura L., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V98, P73 Meyer Carol Anne, 2011, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V24, P87 Budd JM, 1998, JAMA, V280, P296 2009, The Committee, PFEIFER MP, 1990, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V263, P1420 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Title: Journal evaluation based on bibliometric indicators and the CERIF data model Authors: Ivanovic, D; Surla, D; Rackovic, M Author Full Names: Ivanovic, Dragan; Surla, Dusan; Rackovic, Milos Source: COMPUTER SCIENCE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 9 (2):791-811; 10.2298/CSIS110801009I JUN 2012 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: CERIF, evaluation of scientific-research results, impact factor, CRIS UNS KeyWords Plus: RESEARCH MANAGEMENT-SYSTEM; MARC 21 FORMAT; IMPACT FACTOR; CITATION-REPORTS; PERFORMANCE; UNIMARC; ARTICLE; SCIENCE; INDEX Abstract: In this paper we propose an application of extended CERIF data model for storing journal impact factors and journal scientific fields and also propose a journal evaluation approach based on these data. The approach includes an algorithm for journal evaluation based on one metric for journals ranking that is also stored using the CERIF data model and that is in accordance with the rule book for evaluation of scientific-research results which is prescribed by the Republic of Serbia. The algorithm does not unambiguously evaluate journal, i.e. the algorithm suggests possibly journal categories according to the values of the metric, but final decision is made by commission. The proposed evaluation approach is implemented within CRIS UNS and verified on scientific-research results of researchers employed at Department of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Novi Sad. The complete evaluation approach proposed in this paper is based on the CERIF standard that allows an easy ap! plication of this evaluation approach in any CERIF-compatible CRIS system. Reprint Address: Univ Novi Sad, Fac Tech Sci, Trg D Obradovica 6, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia. Addresses: [Ivanovic, Dragan] Univ Novi Sad, Fac Tech Sci, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia [Surla, Dusan] Univ Novi Sad, Fac Sci, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia E-mail Address: chenejac at uns.ac.rs; surla at uns.ac.rs; rackovic at dmi.uns.ac.rs Funding Acknowledgement: Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia[47003] Funding Text: This paper is part of the research project "Infrastructure for Technology Enhanced Learning in Serbia" supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia [Project No. 47003]. Cited Reference Count: 32 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: COMSIS CONSORTIUM, UNIV NOVI SAD, FAC TECH SCI, TRG DOSITEJA OBRADOVICA 6, NOVI SAD, 21000, SERBIA Cited References: Van Leeuwen TN, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P249 Gonzalez-Pereira Borja, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P379 Sombatsompop N., 2004, Scientometrics, V60, P235 Ferlez J., 2005, Public IST World Deliverable 1.3 - Data Model for Representation of Expertise, Kovacevic Aleksandar, 2011, PROGRAM-ELECTRONIC LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, V45, P376 Kiryakov A., 2005, Public IST World Deliverable 1.1 - Definition of the Central Data Structure, Jeffery K., 2002, P77 Chinchilla-Rodriguez Zaida, 2010, INFORMATION VISUALIZATION, V9, P277 Jeffery K., 2000, The International Journal on Grey Literature, V1, P64 Buela-Casal G, 2003, PSICOTHEMA, V15, P23 Seljak T., 2006, Information Services and Use, V26, P303 Bollen Johan, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P669 Ivanovic Dragan, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P155 Yi CG, 2000, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V9, P158 Frandsen TF, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P58 Ivanovic Dragan, 2010, PROGRAM-ELECTRONIC LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, V44, P229 Jorg B., 2005, Public IST World Deliverable 1.2 - Data Model for Knowledge Organisation, Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Glanzel W, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P171 Ivanovic Dragan, 2011, ELECTRONIC LIBRARY, V29, P52 Bensman Stephen J., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1366 Garfield E, 2000, CROATIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, V41, P368 Asserson A., 2002, P33 Dimic Bojana, 2009, ELECTRONIC LIBRARY, V27, P509 Bensman Stephen J., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1440 Bergstrom C., 2007, College & Research Libraries News, V68, P314 van Leeuwen TN, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V63, P357 Bordons M, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P195 Jorg B., 2006, Egghe Leo, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P2142 Milosavljevic Gordana, 2011, ELECTRONIC LIBRARY, V29, P565 Dimic Bojana, 2010, ELECTRONIC LIBRARY, V28, P245 ======================================================================= Title: *Impact Factor*, Citation *Index*, H-*Index*: are researchers still free *to* choose where and how *to* publish their results? Authors: Solarino, S Author Full Names: Solarino, Stefano Source: ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 55 (3):473-477; SI 10.4401/ag-5518 2012 Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: Over the last decade, the demand to evaluate the impact of any given research study, the credentials of a researcher, and the influence that any single research unit or agency has on the world of research has constantly grown. Many tools have been developed and applied to evaluate the level of innovation, originality and continuity of a single researcher in an objective way. As a consequence, there are comparisons of the performances of different research agencies. Some of these tools, which often provide the result as an 'index', are briefly described in this study. However, it is clearly evident that the evaluations provided by these instruments do not always correspond to the real impact of the research, nor are they unique. Indeed, the same index computed using similar criteria on different databases gives different scores, which can lead to confusion and contradictions. In this contribution, the principal anomalies, problems and failures of these evaluation schemes are ! described. The most evident of these arise from the nature of the evaluation, which being automated, cannot establish the role of any single researcher in papers of 'pooled' research, and cannot recognize similar or duplicated papers by the same researcher(s) in more than one journal. The 'selecting' effects that these evaluation indices can have on the research are then discussed. Indeed, in an attempt to obtain the highest possible scores in terms of citations, there is a tendency of the single scholar to avoid studies that deal with small areas, or with scientific problems that do not have a broad interest or provide applicative results. In all of these cases, an article describing such studies will in all likelihood appear in a 'minor journal' (one with a low *impact factor*). As a consequence, this will provide a low citation index, will not significantly contribute to the authors' H-index, and/or will only be published as a report. Moreover, a discussion on the role t! hat these evaluation indices can have in the world of research! is presented. Particular attention is paid to the consequences in the field of the geoethics, where scientific, technological, methodological and socio-cultural aspects need to be considered in a different order to that expected in a pure meritocracy. Reprint Address: Ctr Nazl Terremoti, Ist Nazl Geofis & Vulcanol, Sede Di Genova, Italy. Addresses: Ctr Nazl Terremoti, Ist Nazl Geofis & Vulcanol, Sede Di Genova, Italy E-mail Address: stefano.solarino at ingv.it Cited Reference Count: 5 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IST NAZIONALE DI GEOFISICA E VULCANOLOGIA, VIA VIGNA MURATA 605, ROME, 00143, ITALY From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sat Aug 18 14:12:43 2012 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:12:43 +0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: * J Med Ethics. 2012 Aug 3. [Epub ahead of print] Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article? Kovacs J. Abstract The current use of citation-based metrics to evaluate the research output of individual researchers is highly discriminatory because they are uniformly applied to authors of single-author articles as well as contributors of multi-author papers. In the latter case, these quantitative measures are counted, as if each contributor were the single author of the full article. In this way, each and every contributor is assigned the full impact-factor score and all the citations that the article has received. This has a multiplication effect on each contributor's citation-based evaluative metrics of multi-author articles, because the more contributors an article has, the more undeserved credit is assigned to each of them. In this paper, I argue that this unfair system could be made fairer by requesting the contributors of multi-author articles to describe the nature of their contribution, and to assign a numerical value to their degree of relative contribution. In this way, we could create a contribution-specific index of each contributor for each citation metric. This would be a strong disincentive against honorary authorship and publication cartels, because it would transform the current win-win strategy of accepting honorary authors in the byline into a zero-sum game for each contributor. PMID: 22865926 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] * Related citations in PubMed * Coauthors' contributions to major papers published in the AJR: frequency of undeserved coauthorship. [AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996] Coauthors' contributions to major papers published in the AJR: frequency of undeserved coauthorship. Slone RM. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996 Sep; 167(3):571-9. * Author self-citation in the general medicine literature. [PLoS One. 2011] Author self-citation in the general medicine literature. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. PLoS One. 2011; 6(6):e20885. Epub 2011 Jun 16. * Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. [J Med Internet Res. 2011] Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Eysenbach G. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 19; 13(4):e123. Epub 2011 Dec 19. * Review [Breast pathology: evaluation of the Portuguese scientific activity based on bibliometric indicators]. [Acta Med Port. 2006] Review [Breast pathology: evaluation of the Portuguese scientific activity based on bibliometric indicators]. Donato HM, De Oliveira CF. Acta Med Port. 2006 May-Jun; 19(3):225-34. Epub 2006 Sep 7. * Review [Scientific publishing in the journal Nuclear Medicine]. [Nuklearmedizin. 2002] Review [Scientific publishing in the journal Nuclear Medicine]. Lerch H, Jigalin A. Nuklearmedizin. 2002; 41(4):171-7. Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of c... Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article? * J Med Ethics. 2012 Aug 3. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Mon Aug 20 16:55:32 2012 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:55:32 +0000 Subject: Papers of possible interest to Sig Metrics readers Message-ID: ========================== Start of Data ========================= TITLE: Special Discussion Issue on Journal Impact Factors (Editorial Material, English) AUTHOR: Braun, T SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.207-208 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 178:471 1972; EDITORIAL doctype AUTHOR ADDRESS: T Braun, Eotvos Lorand Univ, Inst Chem, Budapest, Hungary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Positive and negative aspects of citation indices and journal impact factors (Article, English) AUTHOR: Balaban, AT SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.241-247 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; CITATION item_title; CITATION* item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; JOURNAL item_title; GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 178:471 1972; GARFIELD E CAN MED ASSOC J 161:979 1999 KEYWORDS: Citation indices; Hirsch index h for individual scientists; Analogous journal-h index; Journal impact factor (IF); Uses and misuses of IF; Weight factor of citing author(s) KEYWORDS+: HIRSCH-INDEX; SCIENCE ABSTRACT: The Hirsch citation index h is nowadays the most frequently used numerical indicator for the performance of scientists as reflected in their output and in the reaction of the scientific community reflected in citations of individual contributions. A few of the possible improvements of h are briefly reviewed. Garfield's journal impact factor (IF) characterizes the reaction of the scientific community to publications in journals, reflected in citations of all papers published in any given journal during the preceding 2 years, and normalized against all citable articles during the same period. Again, a few of the possible improvements or supplements of IF are briefly reviewed, including the journal-h index proposed by Braun, Glanzel, and Schubert. Ascribing higher weighting factors to citations of individual papers proportionally to IF is considered to be a misuse of useful numerical indices based on citations. At most, one could turn this argument on its head and one can find reasons to ascribe an inverse proportionality relative to IF for individual citations: if a paper is considered worthy to be cited even if it was published in a low-IF journal, that citation ought to be worth more than if the citation would have been from a higher-impact journal. A weight factor reflecting the prestige of the citing author(s) may also be considered. AUTHOR ADDRESS: AT Balaban, Texas A&M Univ, 200 Seawolf Pkwy, Galveston, TX 77553 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Journal report card (Article, English) AUTHOR: Bar-Ilan, J SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.249-260 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): JOURNAL item_title KEYWORDS: Journal report card; Median; 90% percentile; Synchronous h-index for journals KEYWORDS+: IMPACT FACTORS; INDEX ABSTRACT: The impact factor is one of the most used scientometric indicators. Its proper and improper uses have been discussed extensively before. It has been criticized extensively, yet it is still here. In this paper I propose the journal report card, which is a set of measures, each with an easily comprehensible meaning that provides a fuller picture of the journals' standing. The set of measures in the report card include the impact factor, the h-index, number of citations at different points on the ranked list of citations, extent of uncitedness and coverage of the h-core. The report card is computed for two sets of journals, the top- 20 journals in JCR 2010 and the top-20 journals in JCR 2010 for the category Information and Library Science. AUTHOR ADDRESS: J Bar-Ilan, Bar Ilan Univ, Dept Informat Sci, IL-52900 Ramat Gan, Israel -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: The impact factor: its place in Garfield's thought, in science evaluation, and in library collection management (Article, English) AUTHOR: Bensman, SJ SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.263-275 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E CURR CONTENTS :5 1973; GARFIELD E CURRENT CONTENT 0710 :5 1978; GARFIELD E SCIENTIST 5:11 1991; GARFIELD E AM DOC 14:195 1963; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 178:471 1972; GARFIELD E NATURE 264:609 1976 KEYWORDS: Impact factor; Citation analysis; Science evaluation; Journal evaluation; Library collection management KEYWORDS+: SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS; MARKET ABSTRACT: This paper is a response to that of Vanclay, who proposes, that since the impact factor (IF) is so seriously flawed, Thomson Reuters should either correct the measure or-preferably-no longer publish it and restrict itself to journal certification. It is argued here that Vanclay's analysis is itself seriously flawed, because he appears totally ignorant of the thought structure of Eugene Garfield, IF's creator. As a result, Vanclay appears unaware of the importance of total cites and the close connection of IF with review journals, where the paradigms of science are defined. This paper's author agrees that IF is a defective measure, analyzing its defects from the perspective of the frequency theory of probability, on which modern inferential statistics is based. However, he asserts that abandoning it would be counterproductive because of its demonstrated ability-even with its defects-to identify small important journals like review journals, giving it an important role in science evaluation and library collection management. AUTHOR ADDRESS: SJ Bensman, Louisiana State Univ, LSU Lib, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: What do the scientists think about the impact factor? (Article, English) AUTHOR: Buela-Casal, G; Zych, I SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.281-292 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; GARFIELD E INT MICROBIOL 10:65 2007; GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 122:108 1955; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 178:471 1972; GARFIELD E CAN MED ASSOC J 161:979 1999 KEYWORDS: Impact factor; Web of Science; Journal Citation Reports; Quality KEYWORDS+: SPANISH PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES; CITATION-INDEX; INTERNATIONALITY INDEX; PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSORS; JOURNAL ARTICLES; SCIENCE; WEB; PRODUCTIVITY; QUALITY; ASSOCIATION ABSTRACT: The impact factor is a highly polemic metric. It was designed to help scientists in searching for bibliographic references for their own works, enabling communication among researchers and helping librarians in deciding which journal they should purchase. Nevertheless, it has soon become the most important measure of scientific performance applied to journals, articles, scientists, universities, etc. Since then, some researchers argue that it is a useless and flawed measure, while others defend its utility. The current study is the first survey on the opinion on the topic of a broad sample of scientists from all over the world. The questionnaire was answered by 1,704 researchers from 86 different countries, all the continents and all the UNESCO major fields of knowledge. The results show that the opinion is slightly above the median which could be understood as "neither positive nor negative". Surprisingly, there is a negative correlation between the number of articles published by the respondents and their opinion on the impact factor. AUTHOR ADDRESS: I Zych, Univ Cordoba, Dept Psicol, Fac Ciencias Educ, Avda San Alberto Magno S-N, E-14071 Cordoba, Spain -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Some research ideas on Journal Impact Factors as a crucial topic in science dynamics (Article, English) AUTHOR: Campanario, J SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.293-295 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; JOURNAL item_title KEYWORDS: Impact factor; Research program; Science dynamics ABSTRACT: In the interesting and provocative paper on Journal Impact Factors by Vanclay (in press) there are some interesting points worth further reflection. In this short commentary I will focus in those that I consider most relevant because they suggest some ideas that could be addressed by researchers interested in this topic. AUTHOR ADDRESS: J Campanario, Univ Alcala De Henares, Dept Fis, Madrid 28871, Spain -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: The Impact Factor in non-English-speaking countries (Article, English) AUTHOR: Gonzalez-Alcaide, G; Valderrama-Zurian, JC; Aleixandre-Benavent, R SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.297-311 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT KEYWORDS: Journal Impact Factor; Language; Scientific literature; Publishing KEYWORDS+: GERMAN-LANGUAGE; SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION; JOURNALS; SCIENCE; AUTHORS; INTERNATIONALIZATION; PUBLICATION; CITATIONS; ARTICLES; MEDICINE ABSTRACT: The representativeness of the ISI-Thomson Impact Factor rankings and the existing relationship between countries' national languages and the diffusion of scientific publications is analyzed. We discuss literature on the Impact Factor related to language use, publication strategies for authors and editors from non-English-speaking countries, the effects of the inclusion of a new journal in the ISI- Thomson databases and the scientific policies articulated in some non- English-speaking countries. The adoption of the Impact Factor as the valuation criterion for scientific activities has favoured the consolidation of English language journals in the diffusion of scientific knowledge. The vernacular languages only conserve part of their importance in certain disciplines, such as Clinical Medicine or Social Sciences and Humanities. The Impact Factor, invented over 50 years ago now, could be a limitation for non-English authors and scientific journals, and does not consider some widely used practices among the scientific community concerning the development of Internet as a means for the diffusion of knowledge. AUTHOR ADDRESS: G Gonzalez-Alcaide, Univ Valencia, Dept Hist Ciencia & Documentac, Valencia, Spain -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: To cite or not to cite: author self-citations and the impact factor (Article, English) AUTHOR: Hartley, J SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.313-317 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): CITATION* item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title KEYWORDS: Co-authors; Impact factors; Reference lists; Author self- citation; Journal self-citation KEYWORDS+: ARTICLES; MACRO ABSTRACT: Author self-citations are another factor that affects the impact factor of a journal. Typically these self-citations are just counted as such. But to be more meaningful I suggest that when examining the contribution of authors' self-citations to impact factors one should first count the number of citations in the text rather than in the reference list, and then discriminate between different kinds of author self-citations-from those that are informative to those that are self- enhancing-if these data are to be more credible. AUTHOR ADDRESS: J Hartley, Keele Univ, Sch Psychol, Keele, Staffs, England -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: The pragmatics of a diachronic journal impact factor (Article, English) AUTHOR: Ingwersen, P SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.319-324 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; JOURNAL item_title KEYWORDS: Journal impact factor; Diachronic impact factor; Synchronous JIF ABSTRACT: With reference to Vanclay (Scientometrics in press, 2012) the paper argues for a pragmatic approach to the Thomson-Reuter's journal impact factor. The paper proposes and discusses to replace the current synchronous Thomson-Reuter journal impact factor by an up-to-date diachronic version (DJIF), consisting of a three-year citation window over a one year publication window. The DJIF online data collection and calculation is exemplified and compared to the present synchronous journal impact factor. The paper discusses briefly the dimensions of currency, robustness, understandability and comparability to other impact factors used in research evaluation. AUTHOR ADDRESS: P Ingwersen, Univ Carlos III Madrid, Dept Lib Sci & Documentat, Calle Madrid 126, Madrid 28903, Spain -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Grim tales about the impact factor and the h-index in the Web of Science and the Journal Citation Reports databases: reflections on Vanclay's criticism (Article, English) AUTHOR: Jacso, P SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.325-354 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; PENDLEBURY DA rauth; HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; CITATION item_title; CITATION* item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; JOURNAL item_title; GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006; GARFIELD E BRIT MED J 313:411 1996; GARFIELD E CAN MED ASSOC J 161:979 1999; PUDOVKIN AI P ASIST ANNU 41:507 2004 KEYWORDS: Journal impact factors; Journal Citation Reports; h-index; Web of Science; Google Scholar; Research assessment KEYWORDS+: GOOGLE SCHOLAR; SCIENTOMETRIC INDICATORS; SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS; CITED REFERENCES; SCOPUS; RANKINGS; CONS; PROS; PRODUCTIVITY; MANIPULATION ABSTRACT: This paper reflects on the most current and some of the recent contributions of JK Vanclay, focusing on his methods, findings, and criticism about the journal citations reports and the web of science databases, the journal impact factor and the h-index. It is argued and demonstrated that some of the recent papers of the author about scientometric issues, measures and sources show so much demagoguery, ignorance and arrogance, have so much prejudice and bias, so profound errors in using the databases, calculating metrics, and interpreting search results that the papers are very unlikely to be meant as a genuine contribution from an academic who is a graduate of-among others-Oxford University, professor and dean in a respected university, a well- published and well-cited author and a recipient of the Queen's Award (all the above in forest science). The papers are much more likely to serve as props for a staged, mock-up scenario based on slipshod research in an experiment, to illustrate the deficiencies in the processes and in the assessment of scholarly publishing productivity and impact in order to present the idealized solution of Vanclay: using the h-index, portrayed as the Prince, mounted on the shoulder of the White Horse, Google Scholar. AUTHOR ADDRESS: P Jacso, Univ Hawaii, Dept Informat & Comp Sci, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top- 10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers (Article, English) AUTHOR: Leydesdorff, L SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.355-365 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): PRICE DJD rauth; SEGLEN PO J AM SOC INFORM SCI 43:628 1992; CITED item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; JOURNAL item_title; GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006; GARFIELD E SCIENTOMETRICS 1:359 1979; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 178:471 1972 KEYWORDS: Nonparametric; Source normalization; Citation; Journal; Impact KEYWORDS+: CITATION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS; RELATIVE INDICATORS; SCIENCE; FIELDS; CHARTS; TERMS; MAPS; TIME ABSTRACT: Journal impact factors (IFs) can be considered historically as the first attempt to normalize citation distributions by using averages over 2 years. However, it has been recognized that citation distributions vary among fields of science and that one needs to normalize for this. Furthermore, the mean-or any central-tendency statistics-is not a good representation of the citation distribution because these distributions are skewed. Important steps have been taken to solve these two problems during the last few years. First, one can normalize at the article level using the citing audience as the reference set. Second, one can use non-parametric statistics for testing the significance of differences among ratings. A proportion of most-highly cited papers (the top-10% or top-quartile) on the basis of fractional counting of the citations may provide an alternative to the current IF. This indicator is intuitively simple, allows for statistical testing, and accords with the state of the art. AUTHOR ADDRESS: L Leydesdorff, Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Sch Commun Res ASCoR, Kloveniersbugwal 48, NL-1012 CX Amsterdam, Netherlands -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Citation-based metrics are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate and used in an informed way (Article, English) AUTHOR: Moed, HF; Colledge, L; Reedijk, J; Moya-Anegon, F; Guerrero-Bote, V; Plume, A; Amin, M SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.367-376 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; CITATION item_title; CITATION* item_title; JOURNAL item_title; GARFIELD E BRIT MED J 313:411 1996; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 178:471 1972; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 144:649 1964 KEYWORDS: Journal metrics; Journal performance; Journal impact factor; SNIP; SJR; Citation analysis; Citation linking; Peer review; Crosscheck; Journal editors; Journal publishers KEYWORDS+: IMPACT FACTORS; INFORMATION; OUTPUT; INDEX ABSTRACT: In a reply to Jerome K. Vanclay's manuscript "Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?" we discuss the value of journal metrics for the assessment of scientific- scholarly journals from a general bibliometric perspective, and from the point of view of creators of new journal metrics, journal editors and publishers. We conclude that citation-based indicators of journal performance are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate, and used with care and competence. AUTHOR ADDRESS: HF Moed, SciVal, Elsevier, Radarweg 29, NL-1043 NX Amsterdam, Netherlands -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: The generalized propensity score methodology for estimating unbiased journal impact factors (Article, English) AUTHOR: Mutz, R; Daniel, HD SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.377-390 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; JOURNAL item_title; GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 122:108 1955; GARFIELD E CAN MED ASSOC J 161:979 1999 KEYWORDS: Journal impact factor; Causal inference; Generalized propensity score; Rubin Causal Model KEYWORDS+: CAUSAL INFERENCE; SUBCLASSIFICATION; SCIENCE; BIAS; PUBLICATION; DESIGN ABSTRACT: The journal impact factor (JIF) proposed by Garfield in the year 1955 is one of the most commonly used and prominent citation- based indicators of the performance and significance of a scientific journal. The JIF is simple, reasonable, clearly defined, and comparable over time and, what is more, can be easily calculated from data provided by Thomson Reuters, but at the expense of serious technical and methodological flaws. The paper discusses one of the core problems: The JIF is affected by bias factors (e.g., document type) that have nothing to do with the prestige or quality of a journal. For solving this problem, we suggest using the generalized propensity score methodology based on the Rubin Causal Model. Citation data for papers of all journals in the ISI subject category "Microscopy" (Journal Citation Report) are used to illustrate the proposal. AUTHOR ADDRESS: R Mutz, Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Muehlegasse 21, CH-8001 Zurich, Switzerland -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Decades of progress, or the progress of decades? (Article, English) AUTHOR: Narin, F SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.391-393 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; KEYWORDS: Journal impact factor; Science policy; Validation ABSTRACT: In the almost 40 years since we wrote Evaluative bibliometrics enormous advances have been made in data availability and analytic technique. The journal impact factor of the 1960s has clearly not kept up with the state of the art. However, for both old and new indicators, basic validity and relevance issues remain, such as by what standard can we validate our results, and what external use can appropriately be made of them? As funding support becomes more difficult, we should not lose sight of the necessity to again demonstrate the importance of our research, and must keep in mind that it is the relevance of our results that count, not the elegance of our mathematics. AUTHOR ADDRESS: F Narin, 2075 Mt City St, Henderson, NV 89052 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor (Article, English) AUTHOR: Pendlebury, DA; Adams, J SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.395-401 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): PENDLEBURY DA rauth; HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; JOURNAL item_title; GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 122:108 1955; GARFIELD E AM DOC 14:195 1963; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 178:471 1972; GARFIELD E NATURE 264:609 1976 KEYWORDS: 'Journal impact factor; Impact factor; Journal citation reports; Citation analysis; Scientific journals; Citation indicators; Bibliometrics; Influence measures; Criticism; Research evaluation KEYWORDS+: CITATION; SCIENCE; INDICATORS; UK ABSTRACT: We discuss research evaluation, the nature of impact, and the use of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor and other indicators in scientometrics in the light of recent commentary. AUTHOR ADDRESS: J Adams, Thomson Reuters, 103 Clarendon Rd, Leeds LS2 9DF, W Yorkshire, England -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Evaluating journal performance metrics (Article, English) AUTHOR: Prathap, G SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.403-408 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): PENDLEBURY DA rauth; HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; JOURNAL item_title; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 122:108 1955; GARFIELD E CAN MED ASSOC J 161:979 1999 KEYWORDS: Bibliometrics; Journal evaluation; Journal impact factor; h-Index; g-Index; p-Index; Performance; Indicators; Quality; Quantity; Citation; Exergy KEYWORDS+: INDEX ABSTRACT: Journals have been ranked on the basis of impact factors for a long time. This is a quality indicator, and often favours review journals with few articles. Integrated impact indicators try to factor in size (quantity) as well, and are correlated with total number of citations. The total number of papers in a portfolio can be considered a zeroth order performance indicator and the total number of citations a first order performance indicator. Indicators like the h-Index and the g- Index are actually performance indicators in that they integrate both quality and quantity assessment into a single number. The p-Index is another variant of this class of performance indicators and is based on the cubic root of a second order performance indicator called the exergy indicator. The Eigenfactor score and article influence are respectively first order quantity and quality indicators. In this paper, we confirm the above relationships. AUTHOR ADDRESS: G Prathap, CSIR Natl Inst Sci Commun & Informat Resources, New Delhi 110012, India -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Rank normalization of impact factors will resolve Vanclay's dilemma with TRIF Comments on the paper by Jerome Vanclay (Article, English) AUTHOR: Pudovkin, AI; Garfield, E SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.409-412 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; PUDOVKIN AI P ASIST ANNU 41:507 2004; GARFIELD E primaryauthor,author KEYWORDS: Impact factor; JCR; Rank-normalized impact factor ABSTRACT: The ThomsonReuters impact factor is a viable, widely used and informative measure of journal visibility and frequency of use. It is accurate, transparent and easy to use. It is a live and evolving system, that can broaden its scope and implement new features and methods. Some of Vanclay's suggestions, like wider use of order statistics, or our suggestion of rank normalization might be implemented by JCR in the future. AUTHOR ADDRESS: E Garfield, ThomsonReuters Profess, 1500 Spring Garden St, Philadelphia, PA 19130 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Updating the journal impact factor or total overhaul? (Article, English) AUTHOR: Rousseau, R SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.413-417 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): PENDLEBURY DA rauth; SEGLEN PO J AM SOC INFORM SCI 45:1 1994; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; JOURNAL item_title; GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006; GARFIELD E UNFALLCHIRURG 101:413 1998 KEYWORDS: Journal impact factor; Instrument ABSTRACT: Vanclay's proposal (Vanclay (2012). Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0) is discussed. We agree that a major overhaul is necessary: journal evaluation must be performed using instruments and not artefacts. AUTHOR ADDRESS: R Rousseau, KHBO Assoc KU Leuven, Fac Engn Technol, Zeedijk 101, B-8400 Oostende, Belgium -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Impact factors, scientometrics and the history of citation-based research (Article, English) AUTHOR: Smith, DR SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.419-427 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): CAWKELL A* rauth; PRICE DJD rauth; ADAIR WC AM DOC 6:31 1955; GROSS PLK SCIENCE 66:385 1927; HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; SCIENTOMETRIC* item_title; CITATION item_title; CITATION* item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; GARFIELD E INT MICROBIOL 10:65 2007; GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 122:108 1955; GARFIELD E ANN INTERN MED 105:313 1986; GARFIELD E NATURE 227:669 1970; GARFIELD E CAN MED ASSOC J 161:979 1999 KEYWORDS: Impact factor; History; Bibliometrics; Scientometrics; Citation indexing KEYWORDS+: JOURNAL IMPACT; OCCUPATIONAL-HEALTH; SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS; CORE JOURNALS; FACTOR TRENDS; NURSING SCHOLARSHIP; SCIENCE; BIBLIOMETRICS; ERGONOMICS; INDEXES ABSTRACT: Few contemporary inventions have influenced academic publishing as much as journal impact factors. On the other hand, debates and discussion on the potential limitations of, and appropriate uses for, journal performance indicators are almost as long as the history of the measures themselves. Given that scientometrics is often undertaken using bibliometric techniques, the history of the former is inextricably linked to the latter. As with any controversy it is difficult to separate an invention from its history, and for these reasons, the current article provides an overview of some key historical events of relevance to the impact factor. When he first proposed the concept over half a century ago, Garfield did not realise that impact factors would one day become the subject of such widespread controversy. As the current Special Issue of Scientometrics suggests, this debate continues today. AUTHOR ADDRESS: DR Smith, Univ Newcastle, Sch Hlth Sci, Fac Hlth, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Journal impact evaluation: a webometric perspective (Article, English) AUTHOR: Thelwall, M SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.429-441 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): MERTON RK rauth; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 178:471 1972 KEYWORDS+: GOOGLE SCHOLAR; WEB SITES; SCIENTIFIC IMPACT; CITATION ANALYSIS; SCIENCE; LINKS; COUNTS; INFORMATION; PATTERNS; METRICS ABSTRACT: In theory, the web has the potential to provide information about the wider impact of academic research, beyond traditional scholarly impact. This is because the web can reflect non- scholarly uses of research, such as in online government documents, press coverage or public discussions. Nevertheless, there are practical problems with creating metrics for journals based on web data: principally that most such metrics should be easy for journal editors or publishers to manipulate. Nevertheless, two alternatives seem to have both promise and value: citations derived from digitised books and download counts for journals within specific delivery platforms. AUTHOR ADDRESS: M Thelwall, Wolverhampton Univ, Stat Cybermetr Res Grp, Sch Technol, Wulfruna St, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, W Midlands, England -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Discussing some basic critique on Journal Impact Factors: revision of earlier comments (Article, English) AUTHOR: van Leeuwen, T SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.443-455 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; KEYWORDS: Journal Impact Factor; Length of citation windows; Document types; Journal Subject Categories KEYWORDS+: INFORMATION IMPACT; RESEARCH-INSTITUTE; SYSTEM ABSTRACT: In this study the issue of the validity of the argument against the applied length of citation windows in Journal Impact Factors calculations is critically re-analyzed. While previous studies argued against the relatively short citation window of 1-2 years, this study shows that the relative short term citation impact measured in the window underlying the Journal Impact Factor is a good predictor of the citation impact of the journals in the next years to come. Possible exceptions to this observation relate to journals with relatively low numbers of publications, and the citation impact related to publications in the year of publication. The study focuses on five Journal Subject Categories from the science and social sciences, on normal articles published in these journals, in the 2 years 2000 and 2004. AUTHOR ADDRESS: T van Leeuwen, Leiden Univ, CWTS, Wassenaarseweg 62A,POB 905, NL-2300 AX Leiden, Netherlands -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Properties of journal impact in relation to bibliometric research group performance indicators (Article, English) AUTHOR: van Raan, AFJ SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.457-469 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): SEGLEN PO J AM SOC INFORM SCI 45:1 1994; SEGLEN PO J AM SOC INFORM SCI 43:628 1992; BIBLIOMETR* KEYWORDS: Impact factor; Journal impact; Bibliometric analysis; Research group performance KEYWORDS+: AUTHOR SELF-CITATIONS; SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION; STATISTICAL PROPERTIES; SCIENCE SYSTEM; DISTRIBUTIONS; COMPETITION; MACRO ABSTRACT: In this paper we present a compilation of journal impact properties in relation to other bibliometric indicators as found in our earlier studies together with new results. We argue that journal impact, even calculated in a sufficiently advanced way, becomes important in evaluation practices based on bibliometric analysis only at an aggregate level. In the relation between average journal impact and actual citation impact of groups, the influence of research performance is substantial. Top-performance as well as lower performance groups publish in more or less the same range of journal impact values, but top-performance groups are, on average, more successful in the entire range of journal impact. We find that for the high field citation-density groups a larger size implies a lower average journal impact. For groups in the low field citation-density regions however a larger size implies a considerably higher average journal impact. Finally, we found that top-performance groups have relatively less self-citations than the lower performance groups and this fraction is decreasing with journal impact. AUTHOR ADDRESS: AFJ van Raan, Leiden Univ, Ctr Sci & Technol Studies, Wassenaarseweg 52,POB 9555, NL-2300 RB Leiden, Netherlands -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: The Garfield impact factor, one of the fundamental indicators in scientometrics (Article, English) AUTHOR: Vinkler, P SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.471-483 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005; SEGLEN PO J AM SOC INFORM SCI 43:628 1992; GARFIELD E AM DOC 14:195 1963 KEYWORDS: Garfield impact factor; h-core; pi(v)-core; pi(v)-rate; A- index; CDS-index KEYWORDS+: HIGHLY CITED PAPERS; H-INDEX; PUBLICATIONS; JOURNALS ABSTRACT: The paper summarizes some basic features of the Garfield impact factor (GF). Accordingly, GF should be regarded as a scientometric indicator representing the relative contribution of journals to the total impact of information in a field. For calculating GF, both from theoretical and practical reasons the "ratio of the sums" method is recommended over the "mean of the ratios" method. Scientific advances are made by the most influential, presumably most frequently cited articles. The distribution of citations among the publications is skewed in journals. Consequently, the GF index will be influenced primarily by the highly cited papers. It follows, GF represents the most valuable part of the information in journals quantitatively, and even therefore it may be regarded as a reliable impact indicator. AUTHOR ADDRESS: P Vinkler, Hungarian Acad Sci, Res Ctr Nat Sci, POB 17, H-1525 Budapest, Hungary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: The journal impact factor: angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on J.K. Vanclay's article 2011 (Article, English) AUTHOR: Zitt, M SOURCE: SCIENTOMETRICS 92 (2 SP ISS). AUG 2012. p.485-503 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): MERTON RK rauth; PRICE DJD rauth; SEGLEN PO J AM SOC INFORM SCI 43:628 1992; SMALL H SCIENTOMETRICS 7:391 1985; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; JOURNAL item_title; GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 122:108 1955; GARFIELD E AM DOC 14:195 1963; GARFIELD E SCIENCE 178:471 1972 KEYWORDS: Bibliometric measures; Impact factor; Impact factor limitations; Field-normalized impact-factor; Citation behavior; Citation normalization; Citing-side normalization; Source-level normalization KEYWORDS+: H-INDEX; CITATION ANALYSIS; NORMALIZED IMPACT; RELATIVE IMPACT; SCIENCE; INDICATORS; PUBLICATION; DOCUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; PERFORMANCE ABSTRACT: J.K. Vanclay's article is a bold attempt to review recent works on the journal impact factor (JIF) and to call for alternative certifications of journals. The too broad scope did not allow the author to fulfill all his purposes. Attempting after many others to organize the various forms of criticism, with targets often broader than the JIF, we shall try to comment on a few points. This will hopefully enable us to infer in which cases the JIF is an angel, a devil, or a scapegoat. We shall also expand on a crucial question that Vanclay could not really develop in the reduced article format: the field-normalization. After a short recall on classical cited-side or ex post normalization and of the powerful influence measures, we will devote some attention to the novel way of citing-side or ex ante normalization, not only for its own interest, but because it directly proceeds from the disassembling of the JIF clockwork. AUTHOR ADDRESS: M Zitt, INRA Lereco SAE2 U1134, Rue Geraudiere,BP 71627, F-44316 Nantes 03, France -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: (INTER)NATIONAL ORIENTATION OF CROATIAN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND ARTS AND HUMANITIES JOURNALS INDEXED IN THE WEB OF SCIENCE DATABASE (Article, English) AUTHOR: Macan, B; Pikic, A; Mayer, M SOURCE: DRUSTVENA ISTRAZIVANJA 21 (2). APR-JUN 2012. p.505-521 INST OF SOCIAL SCIENCES IVO PILAR, ZAGREB KEYWORDS: bibliometrics; journals; Croatia; social sciences; arts & humanities KEYWORDS+: CITATION; LANGUAGE ABSTRACT: After the beginning of the year 2007, the number of Croatian scientific journals indexed in the WoS database has rapidly increased, and among them the number of Croatian social sciences (SS) and arts and humanities (A&H) journals as well. In this paper, the (inter)national orientation of Croatian SS and A&H journals indexed in the period 2008-2010 in WoS was analyzed. The analysis was conducted via language of the journal title and published papers, national distribution of authors and co-authorship structure, as well as via the INO indicator. SS journals were divided into those related to medicine and health (SSM) and other SS journals (SSO), while A&H journals were observed as one group (AH). Croatian SSM journals are the most internationally oriented according to all indicators, while the SSO journals have the strongest national orientation. Howevper, all three analyzed groups of journals are still the most attractive first for Croatian authors, and then to authors from the region (SSO, SSM) and top 20 countries in the world's science (AH). AUTHOR ADDRESS: B Macan, Rudjer Boskovic Inst, Bijenicka Cesta 54, Zagreb 10000, Croatia -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: COMPARATIVE STUDY ON FIVE SPORT SCIENCE JOURNALS INDEXED IN WoS (Article, Spanish) AUTHOR: Villamon, M; Job, I; Valcarcel, JV; Devis-Devis, J SOURCE: REVISTA DE PSICOLOGIA DEL DEPORTE 21 (2). 2012. p.281-287 UNIV ILLES BALEARS, PALMA KEYWORDS: Scientific journals; Sport sciences; Web of science; Quality; Evaluation KEYWORDS+: SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS; IMPACT FACTOR ABSTRACT: The inclusion of journals in the Web of Science is an important recognition for their scientific communities, but editors have to continue to improve their quality, this is the reason why this study evaluates five Brazilian and Spanish journals of Sport Sciences through a comparison of 15 indicators of transparency, editorial management, visibility and internationalization. The results show the need to broaden their information, the agility of their editorial processes to reduce the time between submission and publication of articles, and improve their impact factor. Among the editorial strategies to increase their excellence, we propose the following: emphasize the internationalization of authorship, moderating the amount of self-citations, increase circulation via social networks and incorporate other value added services. AUTHOR ADDRESS: M Villamon, Univ Valencia, Dpto Educ Fis & Deport, C Gasco Oliag 3, Valencia 46010, Spain -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Aug 23 02:05:37 2012 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:05:37 +0200 Subject: Scientometrics (contribution to Encyclopedia) Message-ID: Scientometrics The paper provides an overview of the field of scientometrics, that is: the study of science, technology, and innovation from a quantitative perspective. We cover major historical milestones in the development of this specialism from the 1960s to today and discuss its relationship with the sociology of scientific knowledge, the library and information sciences, and science policy issues such as indicator development. The disciplinary organization of scientometrics is analyzed both conceptually and empirically, using a map of journals cited in the core journal of the field, entitled Scientometrics. A state-of-the-art review of five major research threads is provided: (1) the measurement of impact; (2) the delineation of reference sets; (3) theories of citation; (4) mapping science; and (5) the policy and management contexts of indicator developments. Loet Leydesdorff and Sta?a Milojevi? ** apologies for cross-postings _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam 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, ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Aug 23 05:39:16 2012 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:39:16 +0200 Subject: Triple Helix Proceedings, Bandung 2012 Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The Proceedings volume of the Triple Helix conference in Bandung 2012 (August 8-10) is now available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/th10/proceedings.th10.2012.pdf . I took the opportunity to upload the files for 2008 (Madrid) which can be accessed at http://www.leydesdorff.net/th8/index.htm or from http://www.leydesdorff.net/th . Best wishes, Loet ** apologies for cross-postings _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam 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, ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From guledaduzyol at GMAIL.COM Thu Aug 23 09:50:01 2012 From: guledaduzyol at GMAIL.COM (=?ISO-8859-9?B?R/xsZWRhIERv8GFu?=) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:50:01 +0300 Subject: 3rd International Symposium on Information Management in a Changing World Message-ID: *3rd International Symposium on Information Management in a Changing World,* September 19-21, 2012, Ankara, Turkey Symposium web site: by2012.bilgiyonetimi.net/en/ *E-Science and Information Management* * * The Third International Symposium on Information Management in a Changing World (IMCW2012) organized by the Department of Information Management of Hacettepe University will take place in Ankara during September 19-21, 2012 (See the Google map for venue and the hotels in the vicinity: http:// bit.ly/OYGBwi). The main theme of the Symposium this year is *"E-Science and Information Management"*. IMCW2012 aims to bring together both researchers and information professionals to discuss the implications of e-science for information management. The full program is available at: http://by2012.bilgiyonetimi.net/en/programme/. The first day of the Symposium (September 19, 2012 Wednesday) is set aside for eight workshops on various subjects (e.g., e-science, open access, image processing and artifical intelligence, mapping science, crisis information management, among others). An opening reception will follow the workshops. The results of the international ex libris competition on "information management" that was organized to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the foundation of the Department of Information Management will be announced during the reception and the exhibition of the works of prize-winning ex libris artists will be opened. Professor *A. Murat Tuncer*, Rector of Hacettepe University will open the Symposium officially on Thursday, September 20, 2012. Dr. *Tony Hey*, Vice President of Microsoft Inc., will highlight in his keynote speech the major issues that e-science scholars and researchers are faced with when working with large and distributed data sets, processing and visualizing them using advanced technologies and software packages. He will share his views on some of the challenges that both scholars and information professionals have to tackle (e.g., gathering, curating, organizing, storing, and managing large amount of data, and providing perpetual access to them over the Internet). Mr. *Serkan Or?an*, Deputy Director of TUBITAK's National Academic Network and Information Center (ULAKBIM) will review in his keynote speech the state of the art of e-science and e-infrastructures in Turkey and evaluate them from technical and administrative viewpoints. Keynote speeches will be followed by a panel on "*Big Data and E-Science*" in which the challenges of using big data in various scientific disciplines such as medicine, climatology, geology, and information science will be discussed. On Friday, September 21, 2012, Dr. *Bu?ra Karabey*, National Technology Officer of Microsoft Turkey, will address in his keynote speech the issues of privacy and big data. Proceedings of the Symposium was published by Springer under its CCIS (Communications in Computer and Information Science) series (*E-Science and Information Management, *ISBN 978-3-642-33298-2). *Symposium Facebook page*: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=304487562911300&context=create *Twitter hash tag*: #by2012 Looking forward to seeing you in the Symposium. Ya?ar Tonta, Chair of the Organizing Committee Serap Kurbano?lu, Chair of the Programme Committee Department of Information Management Hacettepe University 6800 Beytepe, Ankara Tel: 0312 297 82 00 Fax: 0312 299 20 14 E-mail: tonta at hacettepe.edu.tr , serap at hacettepe.edu.tr -- G?leda Do?an Hacettepe ?niversitesi Bilgi ve Belge Y?netimi B?l?m? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From subbiah_a at YAHOO.COM Thu Aug 23 21:31:56 2012 From: subbiah_a at YAHOO.COM (Subbiah Arunachalam) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:31:56 -0700 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Friends: Please see the Economist debate on academic journals [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments. It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear indication that the general public (at least the segment that reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are the keys to the success of the OA movement. Regards. Arun ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Thu Aug 23 22:49:42 2012 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:49:42 -0400 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: <1345771916.58720.YahooMailNeo@web43143.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Subbiah Arunachalam wrote: Please see the Economist debate on academic journals [ > http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments > . > It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear indication that > the general public (at least the segment that reads high quality news > channels like The Economist) is least interested in, if not indifferent to, > what we consider is of paramount importance. All our advocacy has not > reached them. I think, instead of spending our time talking about refining > and redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open > access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of rancour) we > should devote our attention now to take the message to the citizenry at > large. We should promote Students for OA, Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and > similar initiatives in a large scale. In the end, public awareness and > taxpayer acceptance are the keys to the success of the OA movement. > CONFLATING SUBSCRIPTION FEES AND (GOLD) OPEN ACCESS PUBLICATION FEES - AND MISSING THE POINT The Economist is mixing up two kinds of fees: subscription fees, charged by journals to users' institutions in exchange for access and publication fees, charged by (some) journal to authors' institutions in exchange for providing free online access ("open access") to all users. Yes, subscriptions overcharge enormously; so do open-access journals ("gold open access"). But there is another way for authors to provide free online access to their journal articles for all users whose institutions cannot afford subscription access: authors can self-archive the final, peer-reviewed draft in their open-access institutional repositories as soon as they are accepted for publication ("green open access"). Researchers' funders and institutions have begun mandating (requiring) green open access self-archiving, but publishers have been lobbying vehemently that they should instead be paid even more for "hybrid gold open access," which is when a journal continues to collect subscriptions but, in addition, sells gold open access to individual authors who agree to pay a publication fee (which can be from $1500 to $3000 or more per paper published). But now the UK research funder (RCUK), which used to be the worldwide leader in open access policy has been persuaded by the publisher lobby (as well as gold open access advocates) to mandate Gold OA payment, paid for out of scarce research funds, in place of RCUK's historic green cost-free Green OA self-archiving. The UK and global research community must now send RCUK a very powerful and concerted signal that this needless and wasteful new policy must be revised. See: Urgent Need to Revise the New RCUK Open Access Policy http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/927-.html How and Why the RCUK Open Access Policy Needs to Be Revised (Digital Research 2012 Keynote, Oxford, September 11) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/926-.html How to Repair the New RCUK OA Policy http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/923-.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Aug 24 01:42:51 2012 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:42:51 +0200 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: <1345771916.58720.YahooMailNeo@web43143.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Subbiah, Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently two things happened which made me aware that there are disadvantages which tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met an editor of an established journal in the social sciences who had discussed this at length with the publishing house and they had decided not to move in this direction because young scholars in his country would not always have the funding to pay the author fees or they would have to sacrifice other research expenses (such as conferences). He (and I agreed) found it more important that there would be no financial thresholds to contributing to scholarly discourse. (I know that it is never for free, but this adds easily a thousand dollar to the expenses). Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and other) country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA shifts power balance into their direction. A lab group in the medical sciences, for example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and this would add appr. 25k to their budget. In the social sciences smaller amounts of money are already substantial (and thus issues of policy making and research management). Those without an institutional affiliation (such as some PhD students and retired scholars) may be excluded from access to publishing. When there is much demand the agencies (and universities) may under pressure to develop policies on who can be granted publication and who not. Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it seems better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can publish for intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for (potentially) policy reasons. #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very different issue. Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam 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/ ; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ &hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Subbiah Arunachalam Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement Friends: Please see the Economist debate on academic journals [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-o ffer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments. It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear indication that the general public (at least the segment that reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are the keys to the success of the OA movement. Regards. Arun -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jean.claude.guedon at UMONTREAL.CA Fri Aug 24 10:30:00 2012 From: jean.claude.guedon at UMONTREAL.CA (Jean-Claude =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gu=E9don?=) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:30:00 -0400 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: <002301cd81bb$4f10a210$ed31e630$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: The "OA idea" is much broader than the "author-pay" approach. Confusing OA or even "Gold OA" with the author-pay financial scheme is one of the most common mistakes people make about open access. See Peter Suber's recent book, Open Access, on this topic. Not only does the "OA idea" include the "Green road", as Loet Leydesdorff acknowledges at the end of his message, but it also includes many journals that are sufficiently subsidized to provide gratis access to author submissions, and "libre" (or at least gratis) access to readers. As for the power shift, it is a possibility, but, generally, speaking, open access tends to nudge publishing instruments into the service of scientific communication, rather than the reverse. Finally, the selection of papers in the present journal system is not limited to quality; it also includes considerations for various degrees of relevance to various criteria such as "hotness" of a topic, prestige of the originating lab or institution, etc. For example, the existence of "orphan diseases" can be explained in part because of latent selection criteria that do not relate to quality, but rather to visibility and prestige. PLoS One, by contrast, offers a good example of a publishing platform where the only criteria used are respect of the scientific method in all of its dimensions. The conclusion is that the present system is far from being purely guided by quality. And designing a selection process guided by quality within the OA context does not appear particularly difficult to achieve. It already exists. Jean-Claude Gu?don Le vendredi 24 ao?t 2012 ? 07:42 +0200, Loet Leydesdorff a ?crit : > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Subbiah, > > > > Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently two > things happened which made me aware that there are disadvantages which > tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met an editor of an > established journal in the social sciences who had discussed this at > length with the publishing house and they had decided not to move in > this direction because young scholars in his country would not always > have the funding to pay the author fees or they would have to > sacrifice other research expenses (such as conferences). He (and I > agreed) found it more important that there would be no financial > thresholds to contributing to scholarly discourse. (I know that it is > never for free, but this adds easily a thousand dollar to the > expenses). > > > > Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and other) > country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA shifts power > balance into their direction. A lab group in the medical sciences, for > example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and this would add appr. 25k > to their budget. In the social sciences smaller amounts of money are > already substantial (and thus issues of policy making and research > management). Those without an institutional affiliation (such as some > PhD students and retired scholars) may be excluded from access to > publishing. When there is much demand the agencies (and universities) > may under pressure to develop policies on who can be granted > publication and who not. > > > > Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous > contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in > non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it seems > better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can publish for > intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for (potentially) > policy reasons. > > > > #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very different > issue. > > > > Best wishes, > > Loet > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Loet Leydesdorff > > Professor, University of Amsterdam > 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/ ; > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Subbiah Arunachalam > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Friends: > > > > > > Please see the Economist debate on academic journals > [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments. > > > It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear indication > that the general public (at least the segment that reads high quality > news channels like The Economist) is least interested in, if not > indifferent to, what we consider is of paramount importance. All our > advocacy has not reached them. I think, instead of spending our time > talking about refining and redefining the most appropriate way to > bring about universal open access amongst ourselves (and that too with > some amount of rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the > message to the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, > Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large scale. > In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are the keys to > the success of the OA movement. > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > Arun > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Aug 24 11:35:36 2012 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:35:36 +0200 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: <1345818600.2291.31.camel@maison> Message-ID: And designing a selection process guided by quality within the OA context does not appear particularly difficult to achieve. It already exists. Jean-Claude Gu?don I did not wish to doubt this. The problem is not the editorial control, but the additional threshold for groups or individuals who do not have the means to pay their way into the system. For example, PhD students without an institutional base. I would like to know, for example, what a journal like PlosONE does if a paper is accepted, but the payment is not made. (Or is the procedure so organized that this is prevented from occurring? One has to pay upfront?) Perhaps, I trust the academic library more than the funding agencies in making informed choices of journals than of applicants. Someone will have to make choices. Best, Loet Le vendredi 24 ao?t 2012 ? 07:42 +0200, Loet Leydesdorff a ?crit : Dear Subbiah, Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently two things happened which made me aware that there are disadvantages which tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met an editor of an established journal in the social sciences who had discussed this at length with the publishing house and they had decided not to move in this direction because young scholars in his country would not always have the funding to pay the author fees or they would have to sacrifice other research expenses (such as conferences). He (and I agreed) found it more important that there would be no financial thresholds to contributing to scholarly discourse. (I know that it is never for free, but this adds easily a thousand dollar to the expenses). Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and other) country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA shifts power balance into their direction. A lab group in the medical sciences, for example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and this would add appr. 25k to their budget. In the social sciences smaller amounts of money are already substantial (and thus issues of policy making and research management). Those without an institutional affiliation (such as some PhD students and retired scholars) may be excluded from access to publishing. When there is much demand the agencies (and universities) may under pressure to develop policies on who can be granted publication and who not. Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it seems better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can publish for intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for (potentially) policy reasons. #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very different issue. Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam 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/ ; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ &hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Subbiah Arunachalam Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement Friends: Please see the Economist debate on academic journals [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments. It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear indication that the general public (at least the segment that reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are the keys to the success of the OA movement. Regards. Arun -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Fri Aug 24 11:48:18 2012 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:48:18 -0400 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: <1345818600.2291.31.camel@maison> Message-ID: I am not sure this is a sigmetrics issue. A good publisher discussion is at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/ where I have several posts, among many others. I regard mandatory green OA as theft. David sent from my iPhone On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Jean-Claude Gu?don wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html The "OA idea" is much broader than the "author-pay" approach. Confusing OA or even "Gold OA" with the author-pay financial scheme is one of the most common mistakes people make about open access. See Peter Suber's recent book, Open Access, on this topic. > > Not only does the "OA idea" include the "Green road", as Loet Leydesdorff acknowledges at the end of his message, but it also includes many journals that are sufficiently subsidized to provide gratis access to author submissions, and "libre" (or at least gratis) access to readers. > > As for the power shift, it is a possibility, but, generally, speaking, open access tends to nudge publishing instruments into the service of scientific communication, rather than the reverse. > > Finally, the selection of papers in the present journal system is not limited to quality; it also includes considerations for various degrees of relevance to various criteria such as "hotness" of a topic, prestige of the originating lab or institution, etc. For example, the existence of "orphan diseases" can be explained in part because of latent selection criteria that do not relate to quality, but rather to visibility and prestige. PLoS One, by contrast, offers a good example of a publishing platform where the only criteria used are respect of the scientific method in all of its dimensions. The conclusion is that the present system is far from being purely guided by quality. And designing a selection process guided by quality within the OA context does not appear particularly difficult to achieve. It already exists. > > Jean-Claude Gu?don > > Le vendredi 24 ao?t 2012 ? 07:42 +0200, Loet Leydesdorff a ?crit : >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >> Dear Subbiah, >> >> >> >> Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently two things happened which made me aware that there are disadvantages which tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met an editor of an established journal in the social sciences who had discussed this at length with the publishing house and they had decided not to move in this direction because young scholars in his country would not always have the funding to pay the author fees or they would have to sacrifice other research expenses (such as conferences). He (and I agreed) found it more important that there would be no financial thresholds to contributing to scholarly discourse. (I know that it is never for free, but this adds easily a thousand dollar to the expenses). >> >> >> >> Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and other) country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA shifts power balance into their direction. A lab group in the medical sciences, for example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and this would add appr. 25k to their budget. In the social sciences smaller amounts of money are already substantial (and thus issues of policy making and research management). Those without an institutional affiliation (such as some PhD students and retired scholars) may be excluded from access to publishing. When there is much demand the agencies (and universities) may under pressure to develop policies on who can be granted publication and who not. >> >> >> >> Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it seems better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can publish for intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for (potentially) policy reasons. >> >> >> >> #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very different issue. >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Loet >> >> >> > >> > >> Loet Leydesdorff >> >> Professor, University of Amsterdam >> 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/ ; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en >> >> >> >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Subbiah Arunachalam >> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement >> >> >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Friends: >> > >> >> >> > >> Please see the Economist debate on academic journals [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments. >> >> > >> It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear indication that the general public (at least the segment that reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are the keys to the success of the OA movement. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Regards. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Arun >> >> > >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Fri Aug 24 13:16:07 2012 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:16:07 -0400 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2012-08-24, at 11:48 AM, David Wojick wrote: > I am not sure this is a sigmetrics issue. David is right. Publisher prices are not a sigmetrics issue -- but OA, and OA metrics, certainly are. > I regard mandatory green OA as theft. And a lot of authors and librarians consider journal subscription prices to be extortion. But that's not a sigmetrics issue either. It is a fact, however, that subscription publishing is paid for in full, and fulsomely, by institutional subscriptions. So when an author supplements subscription access by self-archiving a Green OA copy of the final draft for those would-be users whose institutions cannot afford subscription access, the publication costs are already fully covered by subscriptions. Perhaps it is for this reason that over 60% of journals already recognize their authors' right to provide immediate Green OA, and most of the remaining recognize it after an embargo. I don't think they are recognizing "theft"; rather, they are endorsing necessity, not that the online medium has made OA possible. Stevan > On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Jean-Claude Gu?don wrote: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html The "OA idea" is much broader than the "author-pay" approach. Confusing OA or even "Gold OA" with the author-pay financial scheme is one of the most common mistakes people make about open access. See Peter Suber's recent book, Open Access, on this topic. >> >> Not only does the "OA idea" include the "Green road", as Loet Leydesdorff acknowledges at the end of his message, but it also includes many journals that are sufficiently subsidized to provide gratis access to author submissions, and "libre" (or at least gratis) access to readers. >> >> As for the power shift, it is a possibility, but, generally, speaking, open access tends to nudge publishing instruments into the service of scientific communication, rather than the reverse. >> >> Finally, the selection of papers in the present journal system is not limited to quality; it also includes considerations for various degrees of relevance to various criteria such as "hotness" of a topic, prestige of the originating lab or institution, etc. For example, the existence of "orphan diseases" can be explained in part because of latent selection criteria that do not relate to quality, but rather to visibility and prestige. PLoS One, by contrast, offers a good example of a publishing platform where the only criteria used are respect of the scientific method in all of its dimensions. The conclusion is that the present system is far from being purely guided by quality. And designing a selection process guided by quality within the OA context does not appear particularly difficult to achieve. It already exists. >> >> Jean-Claude Gu?don >> >> Le vendredi 24 ao?t 2012 ? 07:42 +0200, Loet Leydesdorff a ?crit : >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Dear Subbiah, >>> >>> >>> >>> Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently two things happened which made me aware that there are disadvantages which tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met an editor of an established journal in the social sciences who had discussed this at length with the publishing house and they had decided not to move in this direction because young scholars in his country would not always have the funding to pay the author fees or they would have to sacrifice other research expenses (such as conferences). He (and I agreed) found it more important that there would be no financial thresholds to contributing to scholarly discourse. (I know that it is never for free, but this adds easily a thousand dollar to the expenses). >>> >>> >>> >>> Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and other) country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA shifts power balance into their direction. A lab group in the medical sciences, for example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and this would add appr. 25k to their budget. In the social sciences smaller amounts of money are already substantial (and thus issues of policy making and research management). Those without an institutional affiliation (such as some PhD students and retired scholars) may be excluded from access to publishing. When there is much demand the agencies (and universities) may under pressure to develop policies on who can be granted publication and who not. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it seems better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can publish for intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for (potentially) policy reasons. >>> >>> >>> >>> #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very different issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Loet >>> >>> >>> >>> Loet Leydesdorff >>> >>> Professor, University of Amsterdam >>> 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/ ; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en >>> >>> >>> >>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Subbiah Arunachalam >>> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM >>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>> Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement >>> >>> >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>> Friends: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Please see the Economist debate on academic journals [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments. >>> >>> >>> It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear indication that the general public (at least the segment that reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are the keys to the success of the OA movement. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Arun >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Fri Aug 24 17:14:09 2012 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:14:09 +0000 Subject: Papers of interest to readers of SIG-Metrics Message-ID: Title:Pediatric trauma *research* in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries Authors: Hefny, AF; Grivna, M; Abbas, AK; Branicki, FJ; Abu-Zidan, FM Author Full Names: Hefny, Ashraf F.; Grivna, Michal; Abbas, Alaa K.; Branicki, Frank J.; Abu-Zidan, Fikri M. Source: ASIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 35 (2):74-80; 10.1016/j.asjsur.2012.04.021 APR 2012 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: children, research, strategic planning, trauma KeyWords Plus: TIBIAL SHAFT FRACTURES; TAYLOR SPATIAL FRAME; SAUDI-ARABIA; HAND INJURIES; EYE INJURIES; CHILDREN; KUWAIT; MANAGEMENT; CHILDHOOD; MORTALITY Abstract: Background/Objective: To review published pediatric trauma research from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries so as to identify research fields that need to be enhanced. Methods: A MEDLINE search for articles on pediatric trauma from GCC countries during the period 1960 to 2010 was performed. The content of articles was analyzed, classified and summarized. Results: Fifty-three articles were found and retrieved of which 18 (34%) were published in the last 5 years, 42 (79.2%) were original articles. The first author was affiliated to a university in 29 reports (54.7%), to a community hospital in 13 (24.5%) and to a military hospital in 10 (18.9%). All articles were observational studies that included 18 (34%) case-control studies, 18 (34%) case reports/case series studies, 8 (15.1%) prospective studies, and 7 (13.2%) cross sectional studies. The median (range) *impact factor* of the journals was 1.3 (0.5-3.72). No meta-analysis studies were found. Conclusion: A strategic plan is required to support pediatric trauma research in GCC countries so as to address unmet needs. Areas of deficiency include pre-hospital care, post-traumatic psychological effects and post-traumatic rehabilitation, interventional studies focused on a safe child environment and attitude changes, and the socioeconomic impact of pediatric trauma. Copyright (C) 2012, Asian Surgical Association. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved. Reprint Address: Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Dept Surg, Trauma Grp, POB 17666, Al Ain, U Arab Emirates. Addresses: [Hefny, Ashraf F.; Grivna, Michal; Abbas, Alaa K.; Branicki, Frank J.; Abu-Zidan, Fikri M.] UAE Univ, Fac Med, Trauma Grp, Al Ain, U Arab Emirates E-mail Address: fabuzidan at uaeu.ac.ae Cited Reference Count: 80 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SINGAPORE PTE LTD, 3 KILLINEY ROAD 08-01, WINSLAND HOUSE 1, SINGAPORE, 239519, SINGAPORE ======================================================================= Title: COMPARATIVE STUDY ON FIVE SPORT SCIENCE JOURNALS INDEXED IN WoS Authors: Villamon, M; Job, I; Valcarcel, JV; Devis-Devis, J Author Full Names: Villamon, Miguel; Job, Ivone; Valenciano Valcarcel, Javier; Devis-Devis, Jose Source: REVISTA DE PSICOLOGIA DEL DEPORTE, 21 (2):281-287; 2012 Language: Spanish Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Scientific journals, Sport sciences, Web of science, Quality, Evaluation KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS; IMPACT FACTOR Abstract: The inclusion of journals in the Web of Science is an important recognition for their scientific communities, but editors have to continue to improve their quality, this is the reason why this study evaluates five Brazilian and Spanish journals of Sport Sciences through a comparison of 15 indicators of transparency, editorial management, visibility and internationalization. The results show the need to broaden their information, the agility of their editorial processes to reduce the time between submission and publication of articles, and improve their *impact factor*. Among the editorial strategies to increase their excellence, we propose the following: emphasize the internationalization of authorship, moderating the amount of self-citations, increase circulation via social networks and incorporate other value added services. Reprint Address: Univ Valencia, Dpto Educ Fis & Deport, C Gasco Oliag 3, Valencia 46010, Spain. Addresses: [Villamon, Miguel] Univ Valencia, Dpto Educ Fis & Deport, Valencia 46010, Spain [Job, Ivone] Univ Fed Rio Grande do Sul, BR-90046900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil [Valenciano Valcarcel, Javier] Univ Castilla La Mancha, E-13071 Ciudad Real, Spain E-mail Address: miguel.villamon at uv.es Cited Reference Count: 22 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: UNIV ILLES BALEARS, SERVEI PUBLICACIONS INTERCANVI CIENTIFIC CAS JAI, CAMPUS UNIV, CARRETERA VALLDEMOSSA, K M 7 5, PALMA, ILLES BALEARS 07122, SPAIN From jean.claude.guedon at UMONTREAL.CA Fri Aug 24 18:31:35 2012 From: jean.claude.guedon at UMONTREAL.CA (Jean-Claude =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gu=E9don?=) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:31:35 -0400 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You may be right with regard to the appropriateness of my remarks to Sigmetrics, but I was reacting to our colleague Leydesdorff's remarks. Maybe were all out of bounds. As for mandatory green OA to be theft, this is the kind of inflammatory vocabulary best avoided in civilized discussions. Jean-Claude Gu?don Le vendredi 24 ao?t 2012 ? 11:48 -0400, David Wojick a ?crit : > I am not sure this is a sigmetrics issue. A good publisher discussion > is at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/ where I have several posts, > among many others. > > > I regard mandatory green OA as theft. > > > David > > > sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Jean-Claude Gu?don > wrote: > > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html The "OA idea" is much > > broader than the "author-pay" approach. Confusing OA or even "Gold > > OA" with the author-pay financial scheme is one of the most common > > mistakes people make about open access. See Peter Suber's recent > > book, Open Access, on this topic. > > > > Not only does the "OA idea" include the "Green road", as Loet > > Leydesdorff acknowledges at the end of his message, but it also > > includes many journals that are sufficiently subsidized to provide > > gratis access to author submissions, and "libre" (or at least > > gratis) access to readers. > > > > As for the power shift, it is a possibility, but, generally, > > speaking, open access tends to nudge publishing instruments into the > > service of scientific communication, rather than the reverse. > > > > Finally, the selection of papers in the present journal system is > > not limited to quality; it also includes considerations for various > > degrees of relevance to various criteria such as "hotness" of a > > topic, prestige of the originating lab or institution, etc. For > > example, the existence of "orphan diseases" can be explained in part > > because of latent selection criteria that do not relate to quality, > > but rather to visibility and prestige. PLoS One, by contrast, > > offers a good example of a publishing platform where the only > > criteria used are respect of the scientific method in all of its > > dimensions. The conclusion is that the present system is far from > > being purely guided by quality. And designing a selection process > > guided by quality within the OA context does not appear particularly > > difficult to achieve. It already exists. > > > > Jean-Claude Gu?don > > > > Le vendredi 24 ao?t 2012 ? 07:42 +0200, Loet Leydesdorff a ?crit : > > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > Dear Subbiah, > > > > > > > > > > > > Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently > > > two things happened which made me aware that there are > > > disadvantages which tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met > > > an editor of an established journal in the social sciences who had > > > discussed this at length with the publishing house and they had > > > decided not to move in this direction because young scholars in > > > his country would not always have the funding to pay the author > > > fees or they would have to sacrifice other research expenses (such > > > as conferences). He (and I agreed) found it more important that > > > there would be no financial thresholds to contributing to > > > scholarly discourse. (I know that it is never for free, but this > > > adds easily a thousand dollar to the expenses). > > > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and > > > other) country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA > > > shifts power balance into their direction. A lab group in the > > > medical sciences, for example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and > > > this would add appr. 25k to their budget. In the social sciences > > > smaller amounts of money are already substantial (and thus issues > > > of policy making and research management). Those without an > > > institutional affiliation (such as some PhD students and retired > > > scholars) may be excluded from access to publishing. When there is > > > much demand the agencies (and universities) may under pressure to > > > develop policies on who can be granted publication and who not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous > > > contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in > > > non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it > > > seems better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can > > > publish for intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for > > > (potentially) policy reasons. > > > > > > > > > > > > #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very > > > different issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Loet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > Loet Leydesdorff > > > > > > Professor, University of Amsterdam > > > 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/ ; > > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > > > > > > > > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Subbiah > > > Arunachalam > > > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM > > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement > > > > > > > > > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > > > Friends: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see the Economist debate on academic journals > > > [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments. > > > > > > > > > It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear > > > indication that the general public (at least the segment that > > > reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least > > > interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of > > > paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I > > > think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and > > > redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open > > > access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of > > > rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to > > > the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, > > > Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large > > > scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are > > > the keys to the success of the OA movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Fri Aug 24 21:30:30 2012 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:30:30 -0400 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: <8B14DFDD-D8BD-4FD9-A2AC-C0BA5B9E34A6@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: Stevan, you seem to have missed the word mandatory in my 7 word sentence. David Sent from my IPad On Aug 24, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > On 2012-08-24, at 11:48 AM, David Wojick wrote: > >> I am not sure this is a sigmetrics issue. > > David is right. Publisher prices are not a sigmetrics issue -- but OA, and OA metrics, certainly are. > >> I regard mandatory green OA as theft. > > And a lot of authors and librarians consider journal subscription prices to be extortion. > > But that's not a sigmetrics issue either. > > It is a fact, however, that subscription publishing is paid for in full, and fulsomely, by institutional subscriptions. So when an author supplements subscription access by self-archiving a Green OA copy of the final draft for those would-be users whose institutions cannot afford subscription access, the publication costs are already fully covered by subscriptions. Perhaps it is for this reason that over 60% of journals already recognize their authors' right to provide immediate Green OA, and most of the remaining recognize it after an embargo. I don't think they are recognizing "theft"; rather, they are endorsing necessity, not that the online medium has made OA possible. > > Stevan > >> On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Jean-Claude Gu?don wrote: >> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html The "OA idea" is much broader than the "author-pay" approach. Confusing OA or even "Gold OA" with the author-pay financial scheme is one of the most common mistakes people make about open access. See Peter Suber's recent book, Open Access, on this topic. >>> >>> Not only does the "OA idea" include the "Green road", as Loet Leydesdorff acknowledges at the end of his message, but it also includes many journals that are sufficiently subsidized to provide gratis access to author submissions, and "libre" (or at least gratis) access to readers. >>> >>> As for the power shift, it is a possibility, but, generally, speaking, open access tends to nudge publishing instruments into the service of scientific communication, rather than the reverse. >>> >>> Finally, the selection of papers in the present journal system is not limited to quality; it also includes considerations for various degrees of relevance to various criteria such as "hotness" of a topic, prestige of the originating lab or institution, etc. For example, the existence of "orphan diseases" can be explained in part because of latent selection criteria that do not relate to quality, but rather to visibility and prestige. PLoS One, by contrast, offers a good example of a publishing platform where the only criteria used are respect of the scientific method in all of its dimensions. The conclusion is that the present system is far from being purely guided by quality. And designing a selection process guided by quality within the OA context does not appear particularly difficult to achieve. It already exists. >>> >>> Jean-Claude Gu?don >>> >>> Le vendredi 24 ao?t 2012 ? 07:42 +0200, Loet Leydesdorff a ?crit : >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>>> Dear Subbiah, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently two things happened which made me aware that there are disadvantages which tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met an editor of an established journal in the social sciences who had discussed this at length with the publishing house and they had decided not to move in this direction because young scholars in his country would not always have the funding to pay the author fees or they would have to sacrifice other research expenses (such as conferences). He (and I agreed) found it more important that there would be no financial thresholds to contributing to scholarly discourse. (I know that it is never for free, but this adds easily a thousand dollar to the expenses). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and other) country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA shifts power balance into their direction. A lab group in the medical sciences, for example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and this would add appr. 25k to their budget. In the social sciences smaller amounts of money are already substantial (and thus issues of policy making and research management). Those without an institutional affiliation (such as some PhD students and retired scholars) may be excluded from access to publishing. When there is much demand the agencies (and universities) may under pressure to develop policies on who can be granted publication and who not. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it seems better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can publish for intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for (potentially) policy reasons. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very different issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Loet >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Loet Leydesdorff >>>> >>>> Professor, University of Amsterdam >>>> 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/ ; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Subbiah Arunachalam >>>> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM >>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>> Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>> Friends: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> Please see the Economist debate on academic journals [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear indication that the general public (at least the segment that reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are the keys to the success of the OA movement. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> Regards. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> Arun >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Mon Aug 27 03:28:38 2012 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:28:38 +0200 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: <898C31B9-726F-45D0-AF46-55DB1536C6AE@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Dear all, In my humble opinion this is a true Sigmetrics issue as bibliometrics (publishing in journals with a high impact factor) is one of the main reasons (perhaps the only reason) why the authors are signing contracts transferring their rights to the publishers, as usually the perceived that OA alternative journals have not the same value for evaluation purposes (my personal experience with authors from different countries). In my personal view OA status should be considered as an important indicator when building journal rankings. Best regards, El 25/08/2012 3:30, David Wojick escribi?: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Stevan, you seem to have missed the word mandatory in my 7 word sentence. > > David > > Sent from my IPad > > On Aug 24, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Stevan Harnad > wrote: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> On 2012-08-24, at 11:48 AM, David Wojick wrote: >> >>> I am not sure this is a sigmetrics issue. >> >> David is right. Publisher prices are not a sigmetrics issue -- but >> OA, and OA metrics, certainly are. >> >>> I regard mandatory green OA as theft. >> >> And a lot of authors and librarians consider journal subscription >> prices to be extortion. >> >> But that's not a sigmetrics issue either. >> >> It is a fact, however, that subscription publishing is paid for in >> full, and fulsomely, by institutional subscriptions. So when an >> author supplements subscription access by self-archiving a Green OA >> copy of the final draft for those would-be users whose institutions >> cannot afford subscription access, the publication costs are already >> fully covered by subscriptions. Perhaps it is for this reason that >> over 60% of journals already recognize their authors' right to >> provide immediate Green OA, and most of the remaining recognize it >> after an embargo. I don't think they are recognizing "theft"; rather, >> they are endorsing necessity, not that the online medium has made OA >> possible. >> >> Stevan >> >>> On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Jean-Claude Gu?don >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> The "OA idea" is >>>> much broader than the "author-pay" approach. Confusing OA or even >>>> "Gold OA" with the author-pay financial scheme is one of the most >>>> common mistakes people make about open access. See Peter Suber's >>>> recent book, Open Access, on this topic. >>>> >>>> Not only does the "OA idea" include the "Green road", as Loet >>>> Leydesdorff acknowledges at the end of his message, but it also >>>> includes many journals that are sufficiently subsidized to provide >>>> gratis access to author submissions, and "libre" (or at least >>>> gratis) access to readers. >>>> >>>> As for the power shift, it is a possibility, but, generally, >>>> speaking, open access tends to nudge publishing instruments into >>>> the service of scientific communication, rather than the reverse. >>>> >>>> Finally, the selection of papers in the present journal system is >>>> not limited to quality; it also includes considerations for various >>>> degrees of relevance to various criteria such as "hotness" of a >>>> topic, prestige of the originating lab or institution, etc. For >>>> example, the existence of "orphan diseases" can be explained in >>>> part because of latent selection criteria that do not relate to >>>> quality, but rather to visibility and prestige. PLoS One, by >>>> contrast, offers a good example of a publishing platform where the >>>> only criteria used are respect of the scientific method in all of >>>> its dimensions. The conclusion is that the present system is far >>>> from being purely guided by quality. And designing a selection >>>> process guided by quality within the OA context does not appear >>>> particularly difficult to achieve. It already exists. >>>> >>>> Jean-Claude Gu?don >>>> >>>> Le vendredi 24 ao?t 2012 ? 07:42 +0200, Loet Leydesdorff a ?crit : >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> >>>>> Dear Subbiah, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently >>>>> two things happened which made me aware that there are >>>>> disadvantages which tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met >>>>> an editor of an established journal in the social sciences who had >>>>> discussed this at length with the publishing house and they had >>>>> decided not to move in this direction because young scholars in >>>>> his country would not always have the funding to pay the author >>>>> fees or they would have to sacrifice other research expenses (such >>>>> as conferences). He (and I agreed) found it more important that >>>>> there would be no financial thresholds to contributing to >>>>> scholarly discourse. (I know that it is never for free, but this >>>>> adds easily a thousand dollar to the expenses). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and >>>>> other) country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA >>>>> shifts power balance into their direction. A lab group in the >>>>> medical sciences, for example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and >>>>> this would add appr. 25k to their budget. In the social sciences >>>>> smaller amounts of money are already substantial (and thus issues >>>>> of policy making and research management). Those without an >>>>> institutional affiliation (such as some PhD students and retired >>>>> scholars) may be excluded from access to publishing. When there is >>>>> much demand the agencies (and universities) may under pressure to >>>>> develop policies on who can be granted publication and who not. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous >>>>> contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in >>>>> non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it >>>>> seems better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can >>>>> publish for intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for >>>>> (potentially) policy reasons. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very >>>>> different issue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Loet >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Loet Leydesdorff >>>>> >>>>> Professor, University of Amsterdam >>>>> 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/ ; >>>>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>>> [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Subbiah >>>>> Arunachalam >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM >>>>> *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>> *Subject:* [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Friends: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please see the Economist debate on academic journals >>>>> [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear >>>>> indication that the general public (at least the segment that >>>>> reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least >>>>> interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of >>>>> paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I >>>>> think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and >>>>> redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open >>>>> access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of >>>>> rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to >>>>> the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, >>>>> Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large >>>>> scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are >>>>> the keys to the success of the OA movement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Arun >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> -- **************************** Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, CSIC Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es **************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clare.urlich at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Mon Aug 27 03:22:47 2012 From: clare.urlich at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Clare Urlich) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:22:47 +1000 Subject: Thomson Reuters InCites Forum - Gold Coast 19th of September 2012 Message-ID: Thomson Reuters will be hosting the first InCites User Forum in Australia just prior to the 2012 ARMS conference on the 19th of September 2012 at the Palazzo Versace on the Gold Coast. About the InCites User Forum This interactive day will combine customer case studies, discussion of regional research evaluation trends, as well as a presentation of future InCites development plans. The forum will bring together InCites customers with product and training experts from Thomson Reuters. The event is the first of its kind in Australia and has been introduced following a successful UK InCites Customer Forum. Visit the event website to view the agenda and to find out more about the forum: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com.au/2012_InCites_User_Forum/ About InCites InCites is a web-based research evaluation tool from Thomson Reuters which allows users to evaluate research performance through the measurement of scholarly publications and citations. With InCites you can: * Monitor institutional research output and impact * Compare research performance against other institutions and world and field benchmarks * Monitor collaboration activity and track new collaboration opportunities * Support funding proposals * Plan a research strategy with metrics that can be tracked over time Who Should Attend? In Australia and New Zealand over 25 universities and government agencies subscribe to InCites. All current and prospective users of InCites are recommended to attend. Go to http://interest.science.thomsonreuters.com/forms/InCitesForum2012 to register for this complimentary event today. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Clare Urlich Account Manager IP & Science Thomson Reuters Phone: +61 2 8587 7704 Fax: +61 2 8587 7828 Mobile: +61 404 072 173 clare.urlich at thomsonreuters.com ip-science.thomsonreuters.com.au Web of Knowledge ? Web of Knowledge -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1129 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1144 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: From ksc at LIBRARY.IISC.ERNET.IN Mon Aug 27 04:19:38 2012 From: ksc at LIBRARY.IISC.ERNET.IN (K S Chudamani) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:49:38 +0530 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: <503B21A6.9010206@cchs.csic.es> Message-ID: pricing of journals is an important issue, as for as libraries are concerned. It is an issue for sigmetrics as we evaluate productivity, effectiveness, etc based on number of articles, number of uses(citations). Why can't we look at these from the point of view of cost of an article, cost of citations, etc. Chudamani On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Isidro F. Aguillo wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear all, > > In my humble opinion this is a true Sigmetrics issue as bibliometrics > (publishing in journals with a high impact factor) is one of the main reasons > (perhaps the only reason) why the authors are signing contracts transferring > their rights to the publishers, as usually the perceived that OA alternative > journals have not the same value for evaluation purposes (my personal > experience with authors from different countries). In my personal view OA > status should be considered as an important indicator when building journal > rankings. > > Best regards, > > > El 25/08/2012 3:30, David Wojick escribi?: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Stevan, you seem to have missed the word mandatory in my 7 word sentence. >> >> David >> >> Sent from my IPad >> >> On Aug 24, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Stevan Harnad > > wrote: >> >> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> > >> > On 2012-08-24, at 11:48 AM, David Wojick wrote: >> > >> > > I am not sure this is a sigmetrics issue. >> > >> > David is right. Publisher prices are not a sigmetrics issue -- but OA, >> > and OA metrics, certainly are. >> > >> > > I regard mandatory green OA as theft. >> > >> > And a lot of authors and librarians consider journal subscription prices >> > to be extortion. >> > >> > But that's not a sigmetrics issue either. >> > >> > It is a fact, however, that subscription publishing is paid for in full, >> > and fulsomely, by institutional subscriptions. So when an author >> > supplements subscription access by self-archiving a Green OA copy of the >> > final draft for those would-be users whose institutions cannot afford >> > subscription access, the publication costs are already fully covered by >> > subscriptions. Perhaps it is for this reason that over 60% of journals >> > already recognize their authors' right to provide immediate Green OA, >> > and most of the remaining recognize it after an embargo. I don't think >> > they are recognizing "theft"; rather, they are endorsing necessity, not >> > that the online medium has made OA possible. >> > >> > Stevan >> > >> > > On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Jean-Claude Gu?don >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> > > > The "OA idea" is >> > > > much broader than the "author-pay" approach. Confusing OA or even >> > > > "Gold OA" with the author-pay financial scheme is one of the most >> > > > common mistakes people make about open access. See Peter Suber's >> > > > recent book, Open Access, on this topic. >> > > > >> > > > Not only does the "OA idea" include the "Green road", as Loet >> > > > Leydesdorff acknowledges at the end of his message, but it also >> > > > includes many journals that are sufficiently subsidized to provide >> > > > gratis access to author submissions, and "libre" (or at least >> > > > gratis) access to readers. >> > > > >> > > > As for the power shift, it is a possibility, but, generally, >> > > > speaking, open access tends to nudge publishing instruments into the >> > > > service of scientific communication, rather than the reverse. >> > > > >> > > > Finally, the selection of papers in the present journal system is >> > > > not limited to quality; it also includes considerations for various >> > > > degrees of relevance to various criteria such as "hotness" of a >> > > > topic, prestige of the originating lab or institution, etc. For >> > > > example, the existence of "orphan diseases" can be explained in part >> > > > because of latent selection criteria that do not relate to quality, >> > > > but rather to visibility and prestige. PLoS One, by contrast, >> > > > offers a good example of a publishing platform where the only >> > > > criteria used are respect of the scientific method in all of its >> > > > dimensions. The conclusion is that the present system is far from >> > > > being purely guided by quality. And designing a selection process >> > > > guided by quality within the OA context does not appear particularly >> > > > difficult to achieve. It already exists. >> > > > >> > > > Jean-Claude Gu?don >> > > > >> > > > Le vendredi 24 ao?t 2012 ? 07:42 +0200, Loet Leydesdorff a ?crit : >> > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> > > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> > > > > Dear Subbiah, >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently >> > > > > two things happened which made me aware that there are >> > > > > disadvantages which tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met >> > > > > an editor of an established journal in the social sciences who had >> > > > > discussed this at length with the publishing house and they had >> > > > > decided not to move in this direction because young scholars in >> > > > > his country would not always have the funding to pay the author >> > > > > fees or they would have to sacrifice other research expenses (such >> > > > > as conferences). He (and I agreed) found it more important that >> > > > > there would be no financial thresholds to contributing to >> > > > > scholarly discourse. (I know that it is never for free, but this >> > > > > adds easily a thousand dollar to the expenses). >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and >> > > > > other) country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA >> > > > > shifts power balance into their direction. A lab group in the >> > > > > medical sciences, for example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and >> > > > > this would add appr. 25k to their budget. In the social sciences >> > > > > smaller amounts of money are already substantial (and thus issues >> > > > > of policy making and research management). Those without an >> > > > > institutional affiliation (such as some PhD students and retired >> > > > > scholars) may be excluded from access to publishing. When there is >> > > > > much demand the agencies (and universities) may under pressure to >> > > > > develop policies on who can be granted publication and who not. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous >> > > > > contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in >> > > > > non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it >> > > > > seems better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can >> > > > > publish for intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for >> > > > > (potentially) policy reasons. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very >> > > > > different issue. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Best wishes, >> > > > > >> > > > > Loet >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > > > Loet Leydesdorff >> > > > > >> > > > > Professor, University of Amsterdam >> > > > > 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/ ; >> > > > > http: //scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >> > > > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Subbiah >> > > > > Arunachalam >> > > > > *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM >> > > > > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> > > > > >> > > > > *Subject:* [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> > > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Friends: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Please see the Economist debate on academic journals >> > > > > [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear >> > > > > indication that the general public (at least the segment that >> > > > > reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least >> > > > > interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of >> > > > > paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I >> > > > > think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and >> > > > > redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open >> > > > > access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of >> > > > > rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to >> > > > > the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, >> > > > > Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large >> > > > > scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are >> > > > > the keys to the success of the OA movement. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Regards. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Arun >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Mon Aug 27 07:07:19 2012 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:07:19 -0400 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I quite agree that there are important metric issues with OA, begnning with how many articles are being published, or archieved, and where? Is this simple information available anywhere? I cannot find it. My original objection was to Arun's advocacy of OA, which I do not share in the case of mandatory OA. Do we want to debate policy here, as opposed to metrics? David Sent from my IPad On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:19 AM, K S Chudamani wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > pricing of journals is an important issue, as for as libraries are concerned. It is an issue for sigmetrics as we evaluate productivity, effectiveness, etc based on number of articles, number of uses(citations). Why can't we look at these from the point of view of cost of an article, cost of citations, etc. > > Chudamani > > > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Isidro F. Aguillo wrote: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Dear all, >> >> In my humble opinion this is a true Sigmetrics issue as bibliometrics (publishing in journals with a high impact factor) is one of the main reasons (perhaps the only reason) why the authors are signing contracts transferring their rights to the publishers, as usually the perceived that OA alternative journals have not the same value for evaluation purposes (my personal experience with authors from different countries). In my personal view OA status should be considered as an important indicator when building journal rankings. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> El 25/08/2012 3:30, David Wojick escribi?: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Stevan, you seem to have missed the word mandatory in my 7 word sentence. >>> >>> David >>> >>> Sent from my IPad >>> >>> On Aug 24, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Stevan Harnad >> > wrote: >>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >>> > On 2012-08-24, at 11:48 AM, David Wojick wrote: >>> > > > I am not sure this is a sigmetrics issue. >>> > > David is right. Publisher prices are not a sigmetrics issue -- but OA, > and OA metrics, certainly are. >>> > > > I regard mandatory green OA as theft. >>> > > And a lot of authors and librarians consider journal subscription prices > to be extortion. >>> > > But that's not a sigmetrics issue either. >>> > > It is a fact, however, that subscription publishing is paid for in full, > and fulsomely, by institutional subscriptions. So when an author > supplements subscription access by self-archiving a Green OA copy of the > final draft for those would-be users whose institutions cannot afford > subscription access, the publication costs are already fully covered by > subscriptions. Perhaps it is for this reason that over 60% of journals > already recognize their authors' right to provide immediate Green OA, > and most of the remaining recognize it after an embargo. I don't think > they are recognizing "theft"; rather, they are endorsing necessity, not > that the online medium has made OA possible. >>> > > Stevan >>> > > > On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Jean-Claude Gu?don > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > The "OA idea" is > > > much broader than the "author-pay" approach. Confusing OA or even > > > "Gold OA" with the author-pay financial scheme is one of the most > > > common mistakes people make about open access. See Peter Suber's > > > recent book, Open Access, on this topic. >>> > > > > > > Not only does the "OA idea" include the "Green road", as Loet > > > Leydesdorff acknowledges at the end of his message, but it also > > > includes many journals that are sufficiently subsidized to provide > > > gratis access to author submissions, and "libre" (or at least > > > gratis) access to readers. >>> > > > > > > As for the power shift, it is a possibility, but, generally, > > > speaking, open access tends to nudge publishing instruments into the > > > service of scientific communication, rather than the reverse. >>> > > > > > > Finally, the selection of papers in the present journal system is > > > not limited to quality; it also includes considerations for various > > > degrees of relevance to various criteria such as "hotness" of a > > > topic, prestige of the originating lab or institution, etc. For > > > example, the existence of "orphan diseases" can be explained in part > > > because of latent selection criteria that do not relate to quality, > > > but rather to visibility and prestige. PLoS One, by contrast, > > > offers a good example of a publishing platform where the only > > > criteria used are respect of the scientific method in all of its > > > dimensions. The conclusion is that the present system is far from > > > being purely guided by quality. And designing a selection process > > > guided by quality within the OA context does not appear particularly > > > difficult to achieve. It already exists. >>> > > > > > > Jean-Claude Gu?don >>> > > > > > > Le vendredi 24 ao?t 2012 ? 07:42 +0200, Loet Leydesdorff a ?crit : >>> > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Dear Subbiah, >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently > > > > two things happened which made me aware that there are > > > > disadvantages which tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met > > > > an editor of an established journal in the social sciences who had > > > > discussed this at length with the publishing house and they had > > > > decided not to move in this direction because young scholars in > > > > his country would not always have the funding to pay the author > > > > fees or they would have to sacrifice other research expenses (such > > > > as conferences). He (and I agreed) found it more important that > > > > there would be no financial thresholds to contributing to > > > > scholarly discourse. (I know that it is never for free, but this > > > > adds easily a thousand dollar to the expenses). >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and > > > > other) country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA > > > > shifts power balance into their direction. A lab group in the > > > > medical sciences, for example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and > > > > this would add appr. 25k to their budget. In the social sciences > > > > smaller amounts of money are already substantial (and thus issues > > > > of policy making and research management). Those without an > > > > institutional affiliation (such as some PhD students and retired > > > > scholars) may be excluded from access to publishing. When there is > > > > much demand the agencies (and universities) may under pressure to > > > > develop policies on who can be granted publication and who not. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous > > > > contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in > > > > non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it > > > > seems better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can > > > > publish for intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for > > > > (potentially) policy reasons. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very > > > > different issue. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, >>> > > > > > > > > Loet >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > > > > Loet Leydesdorff >>> > > > > > > > > Professor, University of Amsterdam >>> > > > > 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/ ; > > > > http: //scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Subbiah > > > > Arunachalam >>> > > > > *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM >>> > > > > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > > > >>> > > > > *Subject:* [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Friends: >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see the Economist debate on academic journals > > > > [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear > > > > indication that the general public (at least the segment that > > > > reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least > > > > interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of > > > > paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I > > > > think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and > > > > redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open > > > > access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of > > > > rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to > > > > the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, > > > > Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large > > > > scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are > > > > the keys to the success of the OA movement. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arun >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > From harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK Mon Aug 27 08:04:15 2012 From: harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:04:15 -0400 Subject: The bibliometrics of OA In-Reply-To: <8664E460-59D6-4D37-9699-504542AD6A65@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: On 2012-08-27, David Wojick wrote on Sigmetrics: > I quite agree that there are important metric issues > with OA, beginning with how many articles are being > published, or archieved, and where? Is this simple > information available anywhere? I cannot find it. > > My original objection was to Arun's advocacy of OA, > which I do not share in the case of mandatory OA. > Do we want to debate policy here, as opposed to metrics? Why do we have to keep hearing David Wojick's opinions if he does not believe they should be debated on the sigmetrics list? (I am accordingly branching it to GOAL, where they certainly can be debated.) Now some clarifications: Isidro F. Aguillo wrote: > In my humble opinion this is a true Sigmetrics issue > as bibliometrics (publishing in journals with a high > impact factor) is one of the main reasons (perhaps > the only reason) why the authors are signing contracts > transferring their rights to the publishers, as usually > they perceive that OA alternative journals have not > the same value for evaluation purposes (my personal > experience with authors from different countries). In > my personal view OA status should be considered > as an important indicator when building journal rankings. This is a little scrambled. Isidoro. OA means free online access. There are two ways to provide OA: Publish in an OA journal (Gold OA) or publish in any journal and self-archive your final draft (Green OA). Green OA obviously has the same value for evaluation purposes as non-OA, since it is the same articles. Inasmuch as journal rankings are based on quality or citation counts: quality is unaffected by Green OA; and citation (and download) counts are increased by Green OA (just as they are decreased by high journal prices). As to Gold OA: Surely, Isidoro, you do not mean (as I'm sure you don't) that in ranking journals (or research or researchers) for either quality or citation counts, the journal's business-model should be given some weight, rather than just its quality or citation count? Now as to David Wojick, who wrote: >> Stevan, you seem to have missed the word mandatory >> in my 7 word sentence. David's 7 word sentence was: >> I regard mandatory green OA as theft. to which my reply had been: "And a lot of authors and librarians consider journal subscription prices to be extortion." Regarding mandates, I suppose David has in mind something along the lines of the following mind-numbing distinction from Elsevier's latest policy revision (I paraphrase to keep the double-talk to a minimum): "Authors retain the right to provide Green OA if they may, but they not if they must." In other words, it's not theft for authors to exercise their right because they feel like it, but it's "theft" if they exercise their right if their employers and/or funders require them to exercise it. It would be an awkward day indeed, for publishers, if, in ascertaining that the text that authors submit for publication is indeed their own to submit, and not stolen, the publisher's policy were: "We will publish your work if you submitted it because you felt like it, but it's theft if you submit it because your employers and/or funders require it." In other words, the "publisher or perish" mandate is the publisher's best friend. Best not to bite the hand that feeds you, when the mandate is extended to "self-archive to flourish." As to David's query about how many articles are being published, or archived, and where: There has been a good deal posted and published about this. Start with this figure about the UK data from a recent Nature editorial: http://www.nature.com/news/uk-jpg-7.4973?article=1.10846 And then read some of the references cited here: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/905-Finch-Fiasco-in-Figures.html Stevan Harnad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From enrique.wulff at ICMAN.CSIC.ES Mon Aug 27 10:01:52 2012 From: enrique.wulff at ICMAN.CSIC.ES (Enrique Wulff Barreiro) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:01:52 +0200 Subject: Public awareness of the OA movement Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Mon Aug 27 12:52:21 2012 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:52:21 +0000 Subject: Impact Factor Shenanigans Message-ID: Once again our informetric shenanigans have made headline news. I do not consider this a particularly good treatment of the topic, and I am rather miffed that, although the reporter mentions the special issue of Scientometrics on the topic, he does not cite my article in it?just the article I trashed there. Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA [Description: The Wall Street Journal] U.S. NEWS August 24, 2012, 6:52 p.m. ET Journals' Ranking System Roils Research By GAUTAM NAIK Growing pressure on scientific journals to increase their influence in the research world is pushing them to ever further lengths to play the system that ranks scholarly publications. In July, a publication called Scientific World Journal retracted two papers about regenerative medicine, saying they had excessively cited another journal, Cell Transplantation. [Description: image] At issue was the "impact-factor ranking," one of the most influential numbers in scholarship. The impact factor was invented more than 50 years ago as a simple way to grade journals, on the basis of how frequently their articles got cited in the literature. But concerns have arisen that some journals' impact factor is artificially inflated by excessive citations?which appears to be why the editors of The Scientific World Journal retracted previously published work. "These articles have both been retracted on the basis that they violate The Scientific World Journal's policy against citation manipulation," the Scientific World Journal said in a statement on its web site. In response, Thomson Reuters, which publishes the impact-factor numbers, suspended the rankings for both the Scientific World Journal and Cell Transplantation for two years, a blow to the researchers who publish in those journals. The broader worry is that the once-obscure yardstick is now a ubiquitous tool for assessing scientific merit?a job it wasn't designed to do, and whose use is open to manipulation. "These concerns are becoming a crescendo, as the number of papers has increased exponentially" in the last two decades, writes Jerome Vanclay, an ecologist at Southern Cross University in Australia, in a recent article in the journal Scientometrics. The impact factor, or IF, is routinely used by researchers in deciding where to publish and what to read. It guides promotions, tenure decisions and funding committees around the world, who assume someone publishing in a high-impact journal must be doing superior work. Thomson Reuters calculates the IF by dividing the number of citations of research papers in a journal in one year by the total number of papers published in the same journal in the two previous years. So while the IF captures the citation rate of a journal as a whole, it says nothing about the quality or veracity of any individual paper. Nonetheless, more and more countries today use the IF system to grade scientists. A few years ago, Qatar University began offering cash bonuses to its academics linked to the IF of the journal in which they publish. Critics say that pushes academics to seek trendy fields of research and to try to publish in journals with the highest IF, instead of those that offer the best audience for their work. "It distorts the entire scientific enterprise," says Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal. The IF is easily gamed, too. One in five academics in economics, sociology, psychology and business said they had been asked by editors to pad their papers with unnecessary citations to articles in the same journal, according to a study published in Science in February. A year ago, Alberto Vincentelli, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, submitted a paper to a respected journal called IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems-I. The response surprised him. In an email, the then editor of TCAS-I, Wouter Serdijn, said: "I don't think it is my duty to provide you with the exact references, but yours...If you feel that making such an effort is not necessary, then my recommendation is to withdraw the current manuscript from the TCAS-I review process." The editor essentially "said I needed to cite more papers that had previously appeared in the same journal without indicating any such paper that would be relevant for the study," says Dr. Vincentelli. In other words, according to Dr. Vincentelli, the editor was trying to artificially boost the journal's impact factor. Prof. Serdijn, a professor at Delft University of Technology, denies the claim. He says his suggestion was aimed at making the paper more relevant to the journal's readership. Dr. Vincentelli eventually agreed to cite the papers and his study appeared in January 2012. Such occurrences have spurred a backlash. In 2010, for example, the Australian government said it would no longer use IFs in judging grant applications. "The disapproval isn't about the metric itself but about its misuse," says Jim Testa, a vice president of editorial development and publisher relations at Thomson Reuters. In April, Phil Davis, a publishing consultant who writes for a blog called The Scholarly Kitchen, noticed unusual citation patterns at Cell Transplantation. In the blog, Mr. Davis noted that a review article published in another journal, Medical Science Monitor, had cited a total of 490 articles in the field, of which 445 were articles that had appeared in Cell Transplantation alone, in 2008 and 2009. Both those years were used to compute the 2010 impact factor for Cell Transplantation, and those citations apparently had an effect: the journal's IF rose from 5.126 in 2009 to 6.204 in 2010, a jump of 21%. Mr. Davis notes three of the four editors of the Medical Science Monitor review article were also on Cell Transplantation's editorial board. Also, two MSM editors wrote a review in another journal, The Scientific World Journal, citing 124 papers. Of those, 96 were from Cell Transplantation in 2008 and 2009. "Those two review articles alone were responsible for a more-than-50% increase in Cell Transplantation's impact factor for 2010," says Mr. Davis. Mark Graczynski, executive publisher of Medical Science Monitor, says there was no effort between the journals to manipulate the IF. "It might just be coincidence that there's an overlap of some editors," he says. Write to Gautam Naik at gautam.naik at wsj.com A version of this article appeared August 25, 2012, on page A2 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Grade Inflation Creeps Into Science Journals. Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 2151 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 60390 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Mon Aug 27 14:28:44 2012 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:28:44 -0400 Subject: The bibliometrics of OA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On the policy side my concern is government control of scientific publishing. If a publisher allows archiving that is their business, but if a government requires it that is a big step toward government control. On the data side my interest is discovery, or findability as I call it. On the green data side my basic question is how many full text journal articles are in a given repository? I do not find this data anywhere. ROAR tells me how many records a repository has but these are not articles. For example, ROAR says Cambridge D-space has over 200,000 records but in fact it has almost no articles at all, just a huge directory of molecular names or something. Other repositories have only metadata, including many links to subscription pay per article pages. On the gold data side I simply want to know how many articles a given publisher has published. For example, which is bigger, PLoS with PLoS One or Hindawi with over 400 gold journals? Then too there are departmental repositories, subject matter repositories, departmental publication Web sites, group Websites and individual author Websites. There seems to be no way to tell where these articles are, so it is impossible to tell what is really going on. But of course this is characteristic of revolutions. Perhaps some of this data is in WoS, but ironically WoS is behind a big pay wall. David At 08:04 AM 8/27/2012, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >On 2012-08-27, David Wojick wrote on Sigmetrics: > >>I quite agree that there are important metric issues >>with OA, beginning with how many articles are being >>published, or archieved, and where? Is this simple >>information available anywhere? I cannot find it. >> >>My original objection was to Arun's advocacy of OA, >>which I do not share in the case of mandatory OA. >>Do we want to debate policy here, as opposed to metrics? > >Why do we have to keep hearing David Wojick's opinions >if he does not believe they should be debated on the >sigmetrics list? (I am accordingly branching it to GOAL, >where they certainly can be debated.) > >Now some clarifications: > >Isidro F. Aguillo wrote: > >>In my humble opinion this is a true Sigmetrics issue >>as bibliometrics (publishing in journals with a high >>impact factor) is one of the main reasons (perhaps >>the only reason) why the authors are signing contracts >>transferring their rights to the publishers, as usually >>they perceive that OA alternative journals have not >>the same value for evaluation purposes (my personal >>experience with authors from different countries). In >>my personal view OA status should be considered >>as an important indicator when building journal rankings. > >This is a little scrambled. Isidoro. > >OA means free online access. > >There are two ways to provide OA: Publish in an OA >journal (Gold OA) or publish in any journal and >self-archive your final draft (Green OA). > >Green OA obviously has the same value for evaluation >purposes as non-OA, since it is the same articles. > >Inasmuch as journal rankings are based on quality or >citation counts: quality is unaffected by Green OA; and >citation (and download) counts are increased by Green >OA (just as they are decreased by high journal prices). > >As to Gold OA: Surely, Isidoro, you do not mean (as I'm >sure you don't) that in ranking journals (or research or >researchers) for either quality or citation counts, the >journal's business-model should be given some weight, >rather than just its quality or citation count? > >Now as to David Wojick, who wrote: > >>>Stevan, you seem to have missed the word mandatory >>>in my 7 word sentence. > >David's 7 word sentence was: > >>>I regard mandatory green OA as theft. > >to which my reply had been: > >"And a lot of authors and librarians consider journal >subscription prices to be extortion." > >Regarding mandates, I suppose David has in mind >something along the lines of the following mind-numbing >distinction from Elsevier's latest policy revision (I paraphrase >to keep the double-talk to a minimum): > >"Authors retain the right to provide Green OA if they may, >but they not if they must." > >In other words, it's not theft for authors to exercise their >right because they feel like it, but it's "theft" if they exercise >their right if their employers and/or funders require them >to exercise it. > >It would be an awkward day indeed, for publishers, if, in >ascertaining that the text that authors submit for publication >is indeed their own to submit, and not stolen, the publisher's >policy were: > > "We will publish your work if you submitted it because >you felt like it, but it's theft if you submit it because your >employers and/or funders require it." > >In other words, the "publisher or perish" mandate is the >publisher's best friend. Best not to bite the hand that feeds > you, when the mandate is extended to "self-archive to flourish." > >As to David's query about how many articles are being >published, or archived, and where: There has been a good >deal posted and published about this. Start with this figure >about the UK data from a recent Nature editorial: >http://www.nature.com/news/uk-jpg-7.4973?article=1.10846 > >And then read some of the references cited here: >http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/905-Finch-Fiasco-in-Figures.html > >Stevan Harnad > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Tue Aug 28 12:12:32 2012 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:12:32 +0000 Subject: Papers of potential interest to Sig Metrics readers Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: A 54 year analysis of articles from Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe-168 articles cited 999 times. (Article, English) AUTHOR: Masukume, G SOURCE: MALAWI MEDICAL JOURNAL 24 (2). JUN 2012. p.36-38 MED COLL MALAWI, CHICHIRI SEARCH TERM(S): CITED item_title ABSTRACT: PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to obtain articles originating from Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe - 1958 to August 2011 (54 years). 168 articles cited 999 times were retrieved giving about 6 citations per article. Analysis of publication trends over time as well as publication avenues is made. The full research dataset for this study is shared. This study adds to the body of knowledge on teaching hospital research performance assessment particularly in low-income settings, a topic with few studies. Africa needs data on research. AUTHOR ADDRESS: G Masukume, Mpilo Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: SCIENTIFIC AUTHORSHIPS AND COLLABORATION NETWORK ANALYSIS ON CHAGAS DISEASE: PAPERS INDEXED IN PUBMED (1940-2009) (Article, English) AUTHOR: Gonzalez-Alcaide, G; Park, J; Huamani, C; Gascon, J; Ramos, JM SOURCE: REVISTA DO INSTITUTO DE MEDICINA TROPICAL DE SAO PAULO 54 (4). JUL-AUG 2012. p.219-228 INST MEDICINA TROPICAL SAO PAULO, SAO PAULO SEARCH TERM(S): PRICE DJD rauth KEYWORDS: Chagas disease; Bibliometrics; Cooperative behavior; Network analysis; Research areas; Research groups KEYWORDS+: TRYPANOSOMA-CRUZI INFECTION; BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; COAUTHORSHIP NETWORKS; TROPICAL-MEDICINE; INVISIBLE COLLEGE; HEALTH; PUBLICATIONS; TRANSMISSION; PRODUCTIVITY; BENZNIDAZOLE ABSTRACT: Chagas disease is a chronic, tropical, parasitic disease, endemic throughout Latin America. The large-scale migration of populations has increased the geographic distribution of the disease and cases have been observed in many other countries around the world. To strengthen the critical mass of knowledge generated in different countries, it is essential to promote cooperative and translational research initiatives. We analyzed authorship of scientific documents on Chagas disease indexed in the Medline database from 1940 to 2009. Bibliometrics was used to analyze the evolution of collaboration patterns. A Social Network Analysis was carried out to identify the main research groups in the area by applying clustering methods. We then analyzed 13,989 papers produced by 21,350 authors. Collaboration among authors dramatically increased over the study period, reaching an average of 6.2 authors per paper in the last five-year period. Applying a threshold of collaboration of five or more papers signed in co- authorship, we identified 148 consolidated research groups made up of 1,750 authors. The Chagas disease network identified constitutes a "small world," characterized by a high degree of clustering and a notably high number of Brazilian researchers. AUTHOR ADDRESS: G Gonzalez-Alcaide, Univ Valencia, Fac Med & Odontol, Dept Hist Sci, 15 Blasco Ibanez Ave, Valencia 46020, Spain -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Biodiversity, syntaxonomy, and management - Editorial to the 7th Dry Grassland Special Feature (with a bibliometrical evaluation of the series) (Article, English) AUTHOR: Galvanek, D; Becker, T; Dengler, J SOURCE: TUEXENIA (32). 2012. p.233-243 FLORISTISCH-SOZIOLOGISCHEN ARBEITSGEMEINSCHAFT E V, GOETTINGEN SEARCH TERM(S): BIBLIOMETR* item_title KEYWORDS: citation metric; conference report; conservation; European Dry Grassland Group (EDGG); Festuco-Brometea; High Nature Value grassland; Koelerio-Corynephoretea; research expedition; vegetation classification; Web of Science KEYWORDS+: VEGETATION; SUCCESSION; SLOVAKIA ABSTRACT: We report on the activities of the European Dry Grassland Group (EDGG) during the last year, namely the 8th European Dry Grassland Meeting in Uman', Ukraine in June 2011, the 3rd EDGG Research Expedition in Bulgaria in August 2011, the 4th EDGG Research Expedition in Sicily in April 2012, as well as the completed and forthcoming EDGG-coordinated special features in international journals. Then we provide a brief bibliometrical analysis of the Dry Grassland Special Features in Tuexenia since 2005. The 32 contributions of the years 2005-2011 constituted approx. 17% of the overall content of Tuexenia in this period. Including this 7th Dry Grassland Special Feature, sixty-one authors from 12 countries have contributed to these Special Features, guest-edited by yearly changing teams from a total of 16 guest editors. In the years with statistically reliable data, contributions in the Dry Grassland Special Features have been cited approximately four times as much as regular Tuexenia contributions. It is likely that this fact together with the internationality of the Special Features has contributed to the final inclusion of the journal in the Web of Science in 2011. Finally, we introduce the four research articles of this 7th Dry Grassland Special Feature. Two of them are focusing on vegetation change and restoration issues of cryptogam-rich sand dunes in the Netherlands and calcareous grasslands in Bavaria (Germany), respectively. The others, dealing with siliceous grasslands in Hesse (central Germany) and the results of EDGG Research Expedition 2009 to Transylvania (Romania), focus on syntaxonomy. AUTHOR ADDRESS: J Dengler, Univ Hamburg, Bioctr Klein Flottbek, Ohnhorststr 18, D-22609 Hamburg, Germany -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: The Statistics of Urban Scaling and Their Connection to Zipf's Law (Article, English) AUTHOR: Gomez-Lievano, A; Youn, H; Bettencourt, LMA SOURCE: PLOS ONE 7 (7). JUL 18 2012. p.NIL_240-NIL_250 PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, SAN FRANCISCO SEARCH TERM(S): ZIPF* item_title KEYWORDS+: DISTRIBUTIONS; CITIES ABSTRACT: Urban scaling relations characterizing how diverse properties of cities vary on average with their population size have recently been shown to be a general quantitative property of many urban systems around the world. However, in previous studies the statistics of urban indicators were not analyzed in detail, raising important questions about the full characterization of urban properties and how scaling relations may emerge in these larger contexts. Here, we build a self- consistent statistical framework that characterizes the joint probability distributions of urban indicators and city population sizes across an urban system. To develop this framework empirically we use one of the most granular and stochastic urban indicators available, specifically measuring homicides in cities of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, three nations with high and fast changing rates of violent crime. We use these data to derive the conditional probability of the number of homicides per year given the population size of a city. To do this we use Bayes' rule together with the estimated conditional probability of city size given their number of homicides and the distribution of total homicides. We then show that scaling laws emerge as expectation values of these conditional statistics. Knowledge of these distributions implies, in turn, a relationship between scaling and population size distribution exponents that can be used to predict Zipf's exponent from urban indicator statistics. Our results also suggest how a general statistical theory of urban indicators may be constructed from the stochastic dynamics of social interaction processes in cities. AUTHOR ADDRESS: A Gomez-Lievano, Arizona State Univ, Sch Human Evolut & Social Change, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Cost management under the agribusiness production chain focus: analysis of publications in scientific journals and congres (Article, Portuguese) AUTHOR: Rasia, KA; Diehl, CA; Macagnan, CB; de Souza, MA SOURCE: CUSTOS E AGRONEGOCIO 7 (3). SEP-DEC 2011. p.21-39 UNIV FED RURAL PERNAMBUCO, DEPT LETRAS CIENCIAS HUMANAS, BAIRRO DE DOIS IRMAOS SEARCH TERM(S): JOURNALS item_title KEYWORDS: Cost Management; Agribusiness Production Chains; Scientific Publications ABSTRACT: The market globalization and the resulting competition affect the growth and survival of companies through obtaining competitive advantages, primarily based on quality and products prices. The agribusiness, with its commodities, is particularly subject to this environment. The management of production chains is an alternative to reduce costs and runs with joint efforts of companies in the same sector. This paper aims to identify the aspects that characterize the publications about management costs of agribusiness production chains. The study presents qualitative and quantitative evidence. It was developed a literature search, content analysis and use of descriptive statistics. The study, developed during the second half of 2010, was based on a review of 69 articles published between 1999 to 2009 by editions of the Brazilian Congress of costs, the journal Costs at Agribusiness On line; Brazilian Business Review and Rural Organizations & agribusiness. The study found little on the exploration of the theme in the period analyzed, indicating that there is still ample room for research in agribusiness. AUTHOR ADDRESS: KA Rasia, Univ Vale Rio Sinos UNISINOS, Rua Tiradentes 100, BR-96211080 Rio Grande, RS, Brazil - From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Fri Aug 31 04:06:41 2012 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:06:41 +0200 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities Message-ID: It just have been published the fourteenth edition of Web Ranking Universities. The July 2012 edition includes nearly 21,000 higher education institutions worldwide, classified according to their academic and research performance, prestige and international visibility and their commitment to open access policies. Access to the Rankings portal: http://www.webometrics.info/ In this edition, some indicators have been modified to increase the Ranking utility and reflect more accurately the recent, especially the pursuit of excellence. The Ranking, published by a nonprofit research group belonging to a public academic institution, can be distinguished from other similar classifications because it is not based on prestige obtained from decades old prizes, nor it is mission or discipline biased (biomedical research at the expenses of other activities) or succumb to commercial or political interests as shown by suspicious over-representation of certain countries. The report provides the results for four indicators: Presence, which measures the volume of information published on the web; Impact, built from the links received from third parties; Openness, counting the number of documents that are freely available from scientific repositories and Excellence, which only includes the quality papers that are among the 10% most cited of each discipline. As in previous editions Harvard, MIT, Stanford and Berkeley lead the world ranking. The first non-US University is Sao Paulo (15), which thanks to its commitment to the open publication overcame Cambridge (20) that should improve its current repository. Asia is performing well, with Tokyo, National of Taiwan, Kyoto, National of Singapore and Tsinghua among the Top 100, followed closely by Shanghai Jiao Tong and Hong Kong. Besides of Cambridge, the European universities are represented in the top 50 by Oxford (25), ETH Zurich (29) and the University College of London (43). The Imperial College is still out due to its confusing web naming practices. Charles University is the only Central & Eastern European University with a rank among the top 100. The performance of Canadian (22 in the Top 500) and Australian (15 in the top 500) universities is outstanding. Only two African universities (Cape Town and Stellenbosch) appears in the top 500 Besides the Ranking of Universities the portal provides access to rankings of Research centers (8000), Hospitals (16000) Business Schools (1500) and Repositories (1600). Among the research centers, the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) and the NASA in that top the list Ranking of Research Centers: http://research.webometrics.info/ -- **************************** Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, CSIC Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es **************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR Fri Aug 31 04:31:26 2012 From: clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR (Clement Levallois) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:31:26 +0100 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities Message-ID: Interesting! In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the 100 first? Wow. (see here:?http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_Europe/European_Union) Best, Clement --------------------------------------------Clement Levallois, PhD Erasmus University Rotterdam The Netherlands pro website?/?personal website twitter and skype: @seinecle Discover the NESSHI project:?http://www.nesshi.eu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Fri Aug 31 05:02:09 2012 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:02:09 +0200 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: <1346401886.60091.YahooMailNeo@web171501.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Interesting! > > In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the 100 > first? Wow. > > (see here: > http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_Europe/European_Union > ) > > Best, > > Clement > > -------------------------------------------- > Clement Levallois, PhD > Erasmus University Rotterdam > The Netherlands > > pro website > / > personal website > > twitter and skype: @seinecle > Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu Dear all: You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top cited) that Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons for the delayed ranks are related to the web presence. Language is an important issue as English-speaking countries are clearly over-represented but it is not the only reason. Perhaps interesting to this list is that the commitment to open access is limited. You can check the performance of the French university repositories here: http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered their own web domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few examples: ?cole Polytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the Ranking. Best, -- **************************** Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, CSIC Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es **************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gingras.yves at UQAM.CA Fri Aug 31 09:55:31 2012 From: gingras.yves at UQAM.CA (Yves Gingras) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:55:31 -0400 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: <50407D91.2000606@cchs.csic.es> Message-ID: These results show that the ?indicator? is dubious and does not really indicate anything specific... Instead of writing that the use of web domains is ?penalizing their position in the Ranking?, one should instead conclude that using web domains to ?rank? institutions is dubious since it misrepresent the reality: should institutions adapt to indicators OR should indicators be adapted to the reality of institutions???... Before multiplying ?indicators? maybe one should first ask the basic question: ?what on earth does this thing really MEASURE?? Yves Gingras Le 31/08/12 05:02, ??Isidro F. Aguillo?? a ?crit?: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: > > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Interesting! >> >> >> >> In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the 100 first? >> Wow. >> >> >> >> >> (see here: http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_Europe/European_Union) >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> >> Clement >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> Clement Levallois, PhD >> Erasmus University Rotterdam >> The Netherlands >> >> pro website >> / personal >> website >> >> >> twitter and skype: @seinecle >> >> Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Dear all: > > You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top cited) that > Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons for the delayed ranks are > related to the web presence. Language is an important issue as > English-speaking countries are clearly over-represented but it is not the only > reason. Perhaps interesting to this list is that the commitment to open access > is limited. You can check the performance of the French university > repositories here: > > http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France > > It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered their own web > domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few examples: > > ?cole Polytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne > http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > > Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the Ranking. > > Best, > > Yves Gingras Professeur D?partement d'histoire Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire et sociologie des sciences Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) UQAM C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville Montr?al, Qu?bec Canada, H3C 3P8 Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 Fax: (514)-987-7726 http://www.chss.uqam.ca http://www.cirst.uqam.ca http://www.ost.uqam.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Fri Aug 31 10:29:20 2012 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:29:20 +0200 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Yves: There is no a single answer, but many possible candidate answers: - Scientific discoveries should be communicated, preferably not only to the scientists working at rich western organizations. Today Web is the most universal and cheaper scholarly communication tool. Ranking MEASURES the amount of new knowledge generated and how much is published in an open format. - Most of the scientists are not only producing papers in formal international journals, but their activities are richer and diverse. Ranking MEASURES all the outputs, formal and informal, if they publish them on the Web. - Universities (specially public ones) are investing a lot, not only in research, but in other different missions. For example promoting distance learning (through web platforms), supplying information about their governance (transparency), attracting talented students and prestigious professors through internationalization of their web contents, supplying information of their technological developments in their specialized web portals and so on. Ranking MEASURES all these different activities if they are making public in the Web. These are only a few examples. El 31/08/2012 15:55, Yves Gingras escribi?: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Re: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking > Web (Webometrics) of Universities These results show that the > "indicator" is dubious and does not really _indicate _anything > _specific_... Instead of writing that the use of web domains is > "penalizing their position in the Ranking", one should instead > conclude that using web domains to "rank" institutions is dubious > since it misrepresent the reality: should institutions _adapt _to > indicators OR should indicators be adapted to the reality of > institutions???... Before multiplying "indicators" maybe one should > first ask the basic question: "what on earth does this thing really > MEASURE?" > > > Yves Gingras > > > > Le 31/08/12 05:02, ? Isidro F. Aguillo ? > a ?crit : > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > Interesting! > > > > In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in > the 100 first? Wow. > > > > > (see here: > http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_Europe/European_Union) > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Clement > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > Clement Levallois, PhD > Erasmus University Rotterdam > The Netherlands > > pro website > > > / personal website > > > > twitter and skype: @seinecle > > Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu > > > > > > > > > > Dear all: > > You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top > cited) that Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons > for the delayed ranks are related to the web presence. Language is > an important issue as English-speaking countries are clearly > over-represented but it is not the only reason. Perhaps > interesting to this list is that the commitment to open access is > limited. You can check the performance of the French university > repositories here: > > http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France > > It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered > their own web domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few > examples: > > ?cole Polytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne > http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis > http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > > Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the Ranking. > > Best, > > > > > Yves Gingras > > Professeur > D?partement d'histoire > Centre interuniversitaire de recherche > sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) > Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire > et sociologie des sciences > Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) > UQAM > C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville > Montr?al, Qu?bec > Canada, H3C 3P8 > > Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 > Fax: (514)-987-7726 > > http://www.chss.uqam.ca > http://www.cirst.uqam.ca > http://www.ost.uqam.ca -- **************************** Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, CSIC Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es **************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Aug 31 10:32:44 2012 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:32:44 +0200 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: <5040CA40.7050505@cchs.csic.es> Message-ID: Dear Isidro, Yet, the web-ranks may (partially) correlate with the budgets of the webmasters. J Could you test this? Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:29 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities Dear Yves: There is no a single answer, but many possible candidate answers: - Scientific discoveries should be communicated, preferably not only to the scientists working at rich western organizations. Today Web is the most universal and cheaper scholarly communication tool. Ranking MEASURES the amount of new knowledge generated and how much is published in an open format. - Most of the scientists are not only producing papers in formal international journals, but their activities are richer and diverse. Ranking MEASURES all the outputs, formal and informal, if they publish them on the Web. - Universities (specially public ones) are investing a lot, not only in research, but in other different missions. For example promoting distance learning (through web platforms), supplying information about their governance (transparency), attracting talented students and prestigious professors through internationalization of their web contents, supplying information of their technological developments in their specialized web portals and so on. Ranking MEASURES all these different activities if they are making public in the Web. These are only a few examples. El 31/08/2012 15:55, Yves Gingras escribi?: ?indicator? is dubious and does not really indicate anything specific... Instead of writing that the use of web domains is ?penalizing their position in the Ranking?, one should instead conclude that using web domains to ?rank? institutions is dubious since it misrepresent the reality: should institutions adapt to indicators OR should indicators be adapted to the reality of institutions???... Before multiplying ?indicators? maybe one should first ask the basic question: ?what on earth does this thing really MEASURE?? Yves Gingras Le 31/08/12 05:02, ? Isidro F. Aguillo ? a ?crit : El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: Interesting! In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the 100 first? Wow. (see here: http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_Europe/European_Union) Best, Clement -------------------------------------------- Clement Levallois, PhD Erasmus University Rotterdam The Netherlands pro website / personal website twitter and skype: @seinecle Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu Dear all: You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top cited) that Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons for the delayed ranks are related to the web presence. Language is an important issue as English-speaking countries are clearly over-represented but it is not the only reason. Perhaps interesting to this list is that the commitment to open access is limited. You can check the performance of the French university repositories here: http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered their own web domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few examples: ?cole Polytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the Ranking. Best, Yves Gingras Professeur D?partement d'histoire Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire et sociologie des sciences Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) UQAM C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville Montr?al, Qu?bec Canada, H3C 3P8 Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 Fax: (514)-987-7726 http://www.chss.uqam.ca http://www.cirst.uqam.ca http://www.ost.uqam.ca -- **************************** Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, CSIC Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es **************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Fri Aug 31 11:39:47 2012 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:39:47 +0200 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: <003901cd8785$7da99bc0$78fcd340$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Dear Loet: Not sure. My first candidate is the number of webeditors and the university policies about contributors. 1000s scholars building rich personal pages are far more effective than a well paid webmaster. Also, do not forget that web publications is only 50% of the total. The other 50% is impact or link visibility, ie the number of inlinks you received that in the case of top universities means thousands of people linking ("citing" a webpage) to the university webdomain. Best, El 31/08/2012 16:32, Loet Leydesdorff escribi?: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Re: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking > Web (Webometrics) of Universities > > Dear Isidro, > > Yet, the web-ranks may (partially) correlate with the budgets of the > webmasters. J > > Could you test this? > > Best, > > Loet > > *From:*ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Isidro F. Aguillo > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 4:29 PM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > Dear Yves: > > There is no a single answer, but many possible candidate answers: > > - Scientific discoveries should be communicated, preferably not only > to the scientists working at rich western organizations. Today Web is > the most universal and cheaper scholarly communication tool. Ranking > MEASURES the amount of new knowledge generated and how much is > published in an open format. > > - Most of the scientists are not only producing papers in formal > international journals, but their activities are richer and diverse. > Ranking MEASURES all the outputs, formal and informal, if they publish > them on the Web. > > - Universities (specially public ones) are investing a lot, not only > in research, but in other different missions. For example promoting > distance learning (through web platforms), supplying information about > their governance (transparency), attracting talented students and > prestigious professors through internationalization of their web > contents, supplying information of their technological developments in > their specialized web portals and so on. Ranking MEASURES all these > different activities if they are making public in the Web. > > These are only a few examples. > > El 31/08/2012 15:55, Yves Gingras escribi?: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > These results > show that the "indicator" is dubious and does not really _indicate > _anything _specific_... Instead of writing that the use of web > domains is "penalizing their position in the Ranking", one should > instead conclude that using web domains to "rank" institutions is > dubious since it misrepresent the reality: should institutions > _adapt _to indicators OR should indicators be adapted to the > reality of institutions???... Before multiplying "indicators" > maybe one should first ask the basic question: "what on earth does > this thing really MEASURE?" > > > Yves Gingras > > > > Le 31/08/12 05:02, ? Isidro F. Aguillo ? > > a ?crit : > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > Interesting! > > > > In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the > 100 first? Wow. > > > > > (see here: > http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_Europe/European_Union) > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Clement > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > Clement Levallois, PhD > Erasmus University Rotterdam > The Netherlands > > pro website > > > / personal website > > > > twitter and skype: @seinecle > > Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu > > > > > > > > > Dear all: > > You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top > cited) that Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons > for the delayed ranks are related to the web presence. Language is > an important issue as English-speaking countries are clearly > over-represented but it is not the only reason. Perhaps > interesting to this list is that the commitment to open access is > limited. You can check the performance of the French university > repositories here: > > http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France > > It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered > their own web domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few > examples: > > ?cole Polytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne > http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis > http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > > Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the Ranking. > > Best, > > > > Yves Gingras > > Professeur > D?partement d'histoire > Centre interuniversitaire de recherche > sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) > Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire > et sociologie des sciences > Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) > UQAM > C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville > Montr?al, Qu?bec > Canada, H3C 3P8 > > Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 > Fax: (514)-987-7726 > > http://www.chss.uqam.ca > http://www.cirst.uqam.ca > http://www.ost.uqam.ca > > > > > -- > **************************** > > Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. > The Cybermetrics Lab, CSIC > Madrid. SPAIN > > isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es > > **************************** -- **************************** Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, CSIC Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es **************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gingras.yves at UQAM.CA Fri Aug 31 12:22:19 2012 From: gingras.yves at UQAM.CA (Yves Gingras) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:22:19 -0400 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: <5040DAC3.6010809@cchs.csic.es> Message-ID: The vagueness of the indicator is here componded by the arbitrary ponderation: why 50%? Why not 10% for links and 80% for citations? This just confirms that a composite indicator of heterogeneous measures has no definite meaning. Also: is being ?linked to? or being ?visited by? many people really measuring something definite? It seems here that numbers are used because they are available even though nobody knows what they mean exactly. We should strive to build indicators the meaning of which we control to make sure we can then understand they variation over time: we know a thermometer measures temperature and not humidity (for which we need a hygrometer) but if we we add (or multiply) one with the other we any precise informatino on temperature... Best regards Yves Gingras Le 31/08/12 11:39, ??Isidro F. Aguillo?? a ?crit?: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Loet: > > Not sure. My first candidate is the number of webeditors and the university > policies about contributors. 1000s scholars building rich personal pages are > far more effective than a well paid webmaster. > > Also, do not forget that web publications is only 50% of the total. The other > 50% is impact or link visibility, ie the number of inlinks you received that > in the case of top universities means thousands of people linking ("citing" a > webpage) to the university webdomain. > > Best, > > > El 31/08/2012 16:32, Loet Leydesdorff escribi?: > > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Re: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web >> (Webometrics) of Universities >> >> >> Dear Isidro, >> >> >> >> Yet, the web-ranks may (partially) correlate with the budgets of the >> webmasters. J >> >> Could you test this? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Loet >> >> >> >> >> >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >> [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:29 PM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities >> >> >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> >> Dear Yves: >> >> There is no a single answer, but many possible candidate answers: >> >> - Scientific discoveries should be communicated, preferably not only to the >> scientists working at rich western organizations. Today Web is the most >> universal and cheaper scholarly communication tool. Ranking MEASURES the >> amount of new knowledge generated and how much is published in an open >> format. >> >> - Most of the scientists are not only producing papers in formal >> international journals, but their activities are richer and diverse. Ranking >> MEASURES all the outputs, formal and informal, if they publish them on the >> Web. >> >> - Universities (specially public ones) are investing a lot, not only in >> research, but in other different missions. For example promoting distance >> learning (through web platforms), supplying information about their >> governance (transparency), attracting talented students and prestigious >> professors through internationalization of their web contents, supplying >> information of their technological developments in their specialized web >> portals and so on. Ranking MEASURES all these different activities if they >> are making public in the Web. >> >> These are only a few examples. >> >> El 31/08/2012 15:55, Yves Gingras escribi?: >> >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> These results show that >>> the ?indicator? is dubious and does not really indicate anything specific... >>> Instead of writing that the use of web domains is ?penalizing their >>> position in the Ranking?, one should instead conclude that using web domains >>> to ?rank? institutions is dubious since it misrepresent the reality: should >>> institutions adapt to indicators OR should indicators be adapted to the >>> reality of institutions???... Before multiplying ?indicators? maybe one >>> should first ask the basic question: ?what on earth does this thing really >>> MEASURE?? >>> >>> >>> Yves Gingras >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 31/08/12 05:02, ? Isidro F. Aguillo ? >>> a ?crit : >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>> El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: >>> >>> >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>> >>> Interesting! >>> >>> >>> >>> In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the 100 first? >>> Wow. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> (see here: http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_Europe/European_Union) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Clement >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Clement Levallois, PhD >>> Erasmus University Rotterdam >>> The Netherlands >>> >>> pro website >>> / >>> personal website >>> >>> >>> twitter and skype: @seinecle >>> >>> Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all: >>> >>> You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top cited) that >>> Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons for the delayed ranks >>> are related to the web presence. Language is an important issue as >>> English-speaking countries are clearly over-represented but it is not the >>> only reason. Perhaps interesting to this list is that the commitment to open >>> access is limited. You can check the performance of the French university >>> repositories here: >>> >>> http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France >>> >>> It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered their own >>> web domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few examples: >>> >>> ?cole Polytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>> Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne >>> http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>> ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>> Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis >>> http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>> >>> Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the Ranking. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yves Gingras >>> >>> Professeur >>> D?partement d'histoire >>> Centre interuniversitaire de recherche >>> sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) >>> Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire >>> et sociologie des sciences >>> Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) >>> UQAM >>> C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville >>> Montr?al, Qu?bec >>> Canada, H3C 3P8 >>> >>> Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 >>> Fax: (514)-987-7726 >>> >>> http://www.chss.uqam.ca >>> http://www.cirst.uqam.ca >>> http://www.ost.uqam.ca >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yves Gingras Professeur D?partement d'histoire Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire et sociologie des sciences Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) UQAM C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville Montr?al, Qu?bec Canada, H3C 3P8 Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 Fax: (514)-987-7726 http://www.chss.uqam.ca http://www.cirst.uqam.ca http://www.ost.uqam.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Fri Aug 31 13:18:39 2012 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:18:39 +0200 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Yves Gingras: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > The vagueness of the indicator is here componded by the arbitrary > ponderation: why 50%? Why not 10% for links and 80% for citations? The ponderation is based in a model following a ratio 1:1 between activity and impact, so 50% for each. Basically it is he same ratio that everybody uses in bibliometrics between papers and citations. This just > confirms that a composite indicator of heterogeneous measures has no > definite meaning. Also: is being ?linked to? or being ?visited by? many > people really measuring something definite? Never, in no place we have defended the use of visits for the same reasons most of the people does not use journal circulation for scientific evaluation. Linking is an intellectual action and if you are linking academic contents is because they are interesting or useful according to your criteria, If you are a scientist the motivations for linking are not far different that the ones for citing. It seems here that numbers are > used because they are available even though nobody knows what they mean > exactly. We should strive to build indicators the meaning of which we > control to make sure we can then understand they variation over time: we > know a thermometer measures temperature and not humidity (for which we need > a hygrometer) but if we we add (or multiply) one with the other we any > precise informatino on temperature... My hypothesis is that our "thermometer" is able to measure overall university performance. The empirical results correlate highly with other rankings including bibliometric ones; Harvard, MIT, Standford in top, Cambridge, Oxford, ETH Zurich heading Europe, Tokyo first in Asia or Sao Paulo first for Latinamerica. Even more interesting we are able to identify reasons (web bad practices) for major discrepancies. And we can offer advice and our results are useful for many universities. Best regards, > Best regards > > > Yves Gingras > > > > Le 31/08/12 11:39, ? Isidro F. Aguillo ? a > ?crit : > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Dear Loet: >> >> Not sure. My first candidate is the number of webeditors and the university >> policies about contributors. 1000s scholars building rich personal pages are >> far more effective than a well paid webmaster. >> >> Also, do not forget that web publications is only 50% of the total. >> The other >> 50% is impact or link visibility, ie the number of inlinks you received that >> in the case of top universities means thousands of people linking >> ("citing" a >> webpage) to the university webdomain. >> >> Best, >> >> >> El 31/08/2012 16:32, Loet Leydesdorff escribi?: >> >> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Re: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web >>> (Webometrics) of Universities >>> >>> >>> Dear Isidro, >>> >>> >>> >>> Yet, the web-ranks may (partially) correlate with the budgets of the >>> webmasters. J >>> >>> Could you test this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Loet >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>> [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:29 PM >>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities >>> >>> >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>> >>> Dear Yves: >>> >>> There is no a single answer, but many possible candidate answers: >>> >>> - Scientific discoveries should be communicated, preferably not >>> only to the >>> scientists working at rich western organizations. Today Web is the most >>> universal and cheaper scholarly communication tool. Ranking MEASURES the >>> amount of new knowledge generated and how much is published in an open >>> format. >>> >>> - Most of the scientists are not only producing papers in formal >>> international journals, but their activities are richer and >>> diverse. Ranking >>> MEASURES all the outputs, formal and informal, if they publish them on the >>> Web. >>> >>> - Universities (specially public ones) are investing a lot, not only in >>> research, but in other different missions. For example promoting distance >>> learning (through web platforms), supplying information about their >>> governance (transparency), attracting talented students and prestigious >>> professors through internationalization of their web contents, supplying >>> information of their technological developments in their specialized web >>> portals and so on. Ranking MEASURES all these different activities if they >>> are making public in the Web. >>> >>> These are only a few examples. >>> >>> El 31/08/2012 15:55, Yves Gingras escribi?: >>> >>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> These results show that >>>> the ?indicator? is dubious and does not really indicate anything >>>> specific... >>>> Instead of writing that the use of web domains is ?penalizing their >>>> position in the Ranking?, one should instead conclude that using >>>> web domains >>>> to ?rank? institutions is dubious since it misrepresent the >>>> reality: should >>>> institutions adapt to indicators OR should indicators be adapted to the >>>> reality of institutions???... Before multiplying ?indicators? maybe one >>>> should first ask the basic question: ?what on earth does this thing really >>>> MEASURE?? >>>> >>>> >>>> Yves Gingras >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 31/08/12 05:02, ? Isidro F. Aguillo ? >>>> a ?crit : >>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>> El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>> >>>> Interesting! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the >>>> 100 first? >>>> Wow. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (see here: http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_Europe/European_Union) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Clement >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Clement Levallois, PhD >>>> Erasmus University Rotterdam >>>> The Netherlands >>>> >>>> pro website >>>> / >>>> personal website >>>> >>>> >>>> twitter and skype: @seinecle >>>> >>>> Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all: >>>> >>>> You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top >>>> cited) that >>>> Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons for the delayed ranks >>>> are related to the web presence. Language is an important issue as >>>> English-speaking countries are clearly over-represented but it is not the >>>> only reason. Perhaps interesting to this list is that the >>>> commitment to open >>>> access is limited. You can check the performance of the French university >>>> repositories here: >>>> >>>> http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France >>>> >>>> It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered their own >>>> web domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few examples: >>>> >>>> ?cole Polytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>> Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne >>>> http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>> ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>> Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis >>>> http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>> >>>> Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the Ranking. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yves Gingras >>>> >>>> Professeur >>>> D?partement d'histoire >>>> Centre interuniversitaire de recherche >>>> sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) >>>> Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire >>>> et sociologie des sciences >>>> Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) >>>> UQAM >>>> C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville >>>> Montr?al, Qu?bec >>>> Canada, H3C 3P8 >>>> >>>> Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 >>>> Fax: (514)-987-7726 >>>> >>>> http://www.chss.uqam.ca >>>> http://www.cirst.uqam.ca >>>> http://www.ost.uqam.ca >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > Yves Gingras > > Professeur > D?partement d'histoire > Centre interuniversitaire de recherche > sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) > Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire > et sociologie des sciences > Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) > UQAM > C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville > Montr?al, Qu?bec > Canada, H3C 3P8 > > Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 > Fax: (514)-987-7726 > > http://www.chss.uqam.ca > http://www.cirst.uqam.ca > http://www.ost.uqam.ca > > -- Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1). CCHS - CSIC Albasanz, 26-28. 28037 Madrid. Spain isidro.aguillo @ cchs.csic.es www. webometrics.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fgouveia at FIOCRUZ.BR Fri Aug 31 13:30:11 2012 From: fgouveia at FIOCRUZ.BR (Fabio Gouveia) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:30:11 -0300 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: <50407D91.2000606@cchs.csic.es> Message-ID: Dear Isidro Aguillo, >From what you said about the domains from open access in France I would suggest that in future editions these pages are included in the total amount of webpages and if possible in backlink counts. In Brazil we have a website of open access content (dom?nio p?blico) where one can find thesis from several Brazilian universities, but they are not segmented. This means that it is not feasible to add this content in the Brazilian case but, although cumbersome, this is possible for the French case and would reflect better what this ranking intent to do. All the best F?bio Gouveia Funda??o Oswaldo Cruz - Brazil. 2012/8/31 Isidro F. Aguillo > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Interesting! > > In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the 100 > first? Wow. > > (see here: http://www.webometrics.**info/en/Ranking_Europe/** > European_Union > ) > > Best, > > Clement > > ------------------------------**-------------- > Clement Levallois, PhD > Erasmus University Rotterdam > The Netherlands > > pro website > / personal website > > twitter and skype: @seinecle > Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu > > Dear all: > > You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top cited) that > Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons for the delayed ranks > are related to the web presence. Language is an important issue as > English-speaking countries are clearly over-represented but it is not the > only reason. Perhaps interesting to this list is that the commitment to > open access is limited. You can check the performance of the French > university repositories here: > > http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France > > It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered their own > web domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few examples: > > ?cole Polytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne > http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis > http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > > Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the Ranking. > > Best, > > -- > **************************** > > Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. > The Cybermetrics Lab, CSIC > Madrid. SPAIN > isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es > > **************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gingras.yves at UQAM.CA Fri Aug 31 13:51:40 2012 From: gingras.yves at UQAM.CA (Yves Gingras) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:51:40 -0400 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: <20120831191839.140243ck79dveqr3@webmail.csic.es> Message-ID: You write: ?Even more interesting we are able to identify reasons (web bad practices) for major discrepancies. And we can offer advice and our results are useful for many universities?. But this is obviously a tautology based oin the performative aspect of the indicator! You are in fact saying: ?1) I define performance with the presence on the web; 2) your institution is not there or badly ranked, then 3) get a better web and you will be defined as having a better ?performance?... It is exactly liked rankings based on books in college libraries: we do not know if that means the college is really better than any other but DO buy books if your college is badly ranked! I fail to see how this is a real discovery or contribution. It is exactly like a marketing company saying what color of a tie you should wear to pass on TV. We are far from measuring specific, as opposed to ?overall? (whatever that means) performance of an institution. Using a mix of heterogeneous indicators will always permit one to say that the mix bag represent the ?overall? activity of an institution. It is like saying that the sum of temperature and humidity gives the ?overall weather? as opposed to temperature. Best regards Yves Le 31/08/12 13:18, ??Isidro F. Aguillo?? a ?crit?: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Quoting Yves Gingras: > >> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> > >> > The vagueness of the indicator is here componded by the arbitrary >> > ponderation: why 50%? Why not 10% for links and 80% for citations? > > The ponderation is based in a model following a ratio 1:1 between activity and > impact, so 50% for each. Basically it is he same ratio that everybody uses in > bibliometrics between papers and citations. > > > This just >> > confirms that a composite indicator of heterogeneous measures has no >> > definite meaning. Also: is being ?linked to? or being ?visited by? many >> > people really measuring something definite? > > Never, in no place we have defended the use of visits for the same reasons > most of the people does not use journal circulation for scientific evaluation. > > Linking is an intellectual action and if you are linking academic contents is > because they are interesting or useful according to your criteria, If you are > a scientist the motivations for linking are not far different that the ones > for citing. > > > It seems here that numbers are >> > used because they are available even though nobody knows what they mean >> > exactly. We should strive to build indicators the meaning of which we >> > control to make sure we can then understand they variation over time: we >> > know a thermometer measures temperature and not humidity (for which we need >> > a hygrometer) but if we we add (or multiply) one with the other we any >> > precise informatino on temperature... > > My hypothesis is that our "thermometer" is able to measure overall university > performance. The empirical results correlate highly with other rankings > including bibliometric ones; Harvard, MIT, Standford in top, Cambridge, > Oxford, ETH Zurich heading Europe, Tokyo first in Asia or Sao Paulo first for > Latinamerica. > > Even more interesting we are able to identify reasons (web bad practices) for > major discrepancies. And we can offer advice and our results are useful for > many universities. > > Best regards, > > >> > Best regards >> > >> > >> > Yves Gingras >> > >> > >> > >> > Le 31/08/12 11:39, ? Isidro F. Aguillo ? a >> > ?crit : >> > >>> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >> Dear Loet: >>> >> >>> >> Not sure. My first candidate is the number of webeditors and the >>> university >>> >> policies about contributors. 1000s scholars building rich personal pages >>> are >>> >> far more effective than a well paid webmaster. >>> >> >>> >> Also, do not forget that web publications is only 50% of the total. >>> >> The other >>> >> 50% is impact or link visibility, ie the number of inlinks you received >>> that >>> >> in the case of top universities means thousands of people linking >>> >> ("citing" a >>> >> webpage) to the university webdomain. >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> El 31/08/2012 16:32, Loet Leydesdorff escribi?: >>> >> >>> >> >>>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>> >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Re: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web >>>> >>> (Webometrics) of Universities >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Dear Isidro, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Yet, the web-ranks may (partially) correlate with the budgets of the >>>> >>> webmasters. J >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Could you test this? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Best, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Loet >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>> >>> [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >>>> >>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:29 PM >>>> >>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>> >>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>> >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Dear Yves: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> There is no a single answer, but many possible candidate answers: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> - Scientific discoveries should be communicated, preferably not >>>> >>> only to the >>>> >>> scientists working at rich western organizations. Today Web is the most >>>> >>> universal and cheaper scholarly communication tool. Ranking MEASURES the >>>> >>> amount of new knowledge generated and how much is published in an open >>>> >>> format. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> - Most of the scientists are not only producing papers in formal >>>> >>> international journals, but their activities are richer and >>>> >>> diverse. Ranking >>>> >>> MEASURES all the outputs, formal and informal, if they publish them on the >>>> >>> Web. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> - Universities (specially public ones) are investing a lot, not only in >>>> >>> research, but in other different missions. For example promoting >>>> distance >>>> >>> learning (through web platforms), supplying information about their >>>> >>> governance (transparency), attracting talented students and prestigious >>>> >>> professors through internationalization of their web contents, >>>> supplying >>>> >>> information of their technological developments in their specialized web >>>> >>> portals and so on. Ranking MEASURES all these different activities if >>>> they >>>> >>> are making public in the Web. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> These are only a few examples. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> El 31/08/2012 15:55, Yves Gingras escribi?: >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> >>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> >>>> These results show that >>>>> >>>> the ?indicator? is dubious and does not really indicate anything >>>>> >>>> specific... >>>>> >>>> Instead of writing that the use of web domains is ?penalizing their >>>>> >>>> position in the Ranking?, one should instead conclude that using >>>>> >>>> web domains >>>>> >>>> to ?rank? institutions is dubious since it misrepresent the >>>>> >>>> reality: should >>>>> >>>> institutions adapt to indicators OR should indicators be adapted to the >>>>> >>>> reality of institutions???... Before multiplying ?indicators? maybe one >>>>> >>>> should first ask the basic question: ?what on earth does this thing >>>>> really >>>>> >>>> MEASURE?? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Yves Gingras >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Le 31/08/12 05:02, ? Isidro F. Aguillo ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> a ?crit : >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> >>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> >>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Interesting! >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the >>>>> >>>> 100 first? >>>>> >>>> Wow. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> (see here: >>>>> http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_Europe/European_Union) >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Best, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Clement >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Clement Levallois, PhD >>>>> >>>> Erasmus University Rotterdam >>>>> >>>> The Netherlands >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> pro website >>>>> >>>> / >>>>> >>>> personal website >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> twitter and skype: @seinecle >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Dear all: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top >>>>> >>>> cited) that >>>>> >>>> Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons for the delayed >>>>> ranks >>>>> >>>> are related to the web presence. Language is an important issue as >>>>> >>>> English-speaking countries are clearly over-represented but it is not the >>>>> >>>> only reason. Perhaps interesting to this list is that the >>>>> >>>> commitment to open >>>>> >>>> access is limited. You can check the performance of the French >>>>> university >>>>> >>>> repositories here: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered >>>>> their own >>>>> >>>> web domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few examples: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> ?cole Polytechnique >>>>> http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>>> >>>> Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne >>>>> >>>> http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>>> >>>> ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>>> >>>> Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis >>>>> >>>> http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the >>>>> Ranking. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Best, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Yves Gingras >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Professeur >>>>> >>>> D?partement d'histoire >>>>> >>>> Centre interuniversitaire de recherche >>>>> >>>> sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) >>>>> >>>> Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire >>>>> >>>> et sociologie des sciences >>>>> >>>> Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) >>>>> >>>> UQAM >>>>> >>>> C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville >>>>> >>>> Montr?al, Qu?bec >>>>> >>>> Canada, H3C 3P8 >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 >>>>> >>>> Fax: (514)-987-7726 >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> http://www.chss.uqam.ca >>>>> >>>> http://www.cirst.uqam.ca >>>>> >>>> http://www.ost.uqam.ca >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >> > >> > >> > Yves Gingras >> > >> > Professeur >> > D?partement d'histoire >> > Centre interuniversitaire de recherche >> > sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) >> > Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire >> > et sociologie des sciences >> > Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) >> > UQAM >> > C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville >> > Montr?al, Qu?bec >> > Canada, H3C 3P8 >> > >> > Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 >> > Fax: (514)-987-7726 >> > >> > http://www.chss.uqam.ca >> > http://www.cirst.uqam.ca >> > http://www.ost.uqam.ca >> > >> > > > > > Yves Gingras Professeur D?partement d'histoire Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire et sociologie des sciences Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) UQAM C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville Montr?al, Qu?bec Canada, H3C 3P8 Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 Fax: (514)-987-7726 http://www.chss.uqam.ca http://www.cirst.uqam.ca http://www.ost.uqam.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Fri Aug 31 14:26:16 2012 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:26:16 +0000 Subject: papers of interest to Sig Metrics readers Message-ID: TITLE: Measuring the Research Performance of Postsecondary Institutions (Article, English) AUTHOR: Toutkoushian, RK; Webber, K SOURCE: UNIVERSITY RANKINGS: THEORETICAL BASIS, METHODOLOGY AND IMPACTS ON GLOBAL HIGHER EDUCATION 3. 2011. p.123-144 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth KEYWORDS+: RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY; ECONOMICS DEPARTMENTS; CITATION COUNTS; SOCIAL-SCIENCES; QUALITY; PUBLICATIONS; HUMANITIES; UNIVERSITIES; OUTPUT; AGE AUTHOR ADDRESS: RK Toutkoushian, Univ Georgia, Inst Higher Educ, Athens, GA 30602 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Ten Years of Search Based Software Engineering: A Bibliometric Analysis (Article, English) AUTHOR: de Freitas, FG; de Souza, JT SOURCE: SEARCH BASED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 6956. 2011. p.18-32 SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN, BERLIN SEARCH TERM(S): BIBLIOMETR* item_title KEYWORDS: sbse research analysis; bibliometric; authorship pattern KEYWORDS+: EVOLUTIONARY ABSTRACT: Despite preceding related publications, works dealing with the resolution of software engineering problems by search techniques has especially risen since 2001. By its first decade, the Search Based Software Engineering (SBSE) approach has been successfully employed in several software engineering contexts, using various optimization techniques. Aside the relevance of such applications, knowledge regarding the publication patterns on the field plays an important role to its understanding and identity. Such information may also shed light into SBSE trends and future. This paper presents the first bibliometric analysis to SBSE publications. The study covered 740 publications of the SBSE community from 2001 through 2010. The performed bibliometric analysis concerned mainly in four categories: Publication, Sources, Authorship, and Collaboration. Additionally, estimates for the next years of several publication metrics are given. The study also analyzed the applicability of bibliometric laws in SBSE, such as Bradfords and Lotka. AUTHOR ADDRESS: FG de Freitas, Univ Estadual Ceara, Optimizat Software Engn Grp GOES UECE, Ave Paranjana 1700, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil -------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Regarding a case report: Rare diseases and bibliometric impact factor (Letter, English) AUTHOR: Ruano-Ravina, A; Perez-Rios, M SOURCE: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY 65 (8). AUG 2012. p.916-917 ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, NEW YORK SEARCH TERM(S): BIBLIOMETR* item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; LETTER* doctype ? AUTHOR ADDRESS: A Ruano-Ravina, Univ Santiago de Compostela, Sch Med, Dept Prevent Med & Publ Hlth, C San Francisco S-N, Santiago De Compostela 15782, Spain -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE: Measuring Faculty Productivity (Article, English) AUTHOR: Webber, KL SOURCE: UNIVERSITY RANKINGS: THEORETICAL BASIS, METHODOLOGY AND IMPACTS ON GLOBAL HIGHER EDUCATION 3. 2011. p.105-121 SPRINGER, DORDRECHT SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; GARFIELD E JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC 295:90 2006 KEYWORDS+: UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS; INSTITUTIONAL POLICY; HIGHER- EDUCATION; IMPACT FACTOR; H-INDEX; SCIENTISTS; GENDER; STATE; WORK; RACE ABSTRACT: As with other aspects of higher education, we now have rankings of faculty productivity. A better understanding of the breadth of measures used for faculty productivity is discussed in this chapter. AUTHOR ADDRESS: KL Webber, Univ Georgia, Inst Higher Educ, Athens, GA 30602 USA [ ]<-- Enter an X to order article (IDS: BYS74 00006) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Fri Aug 31 15:48:38 2012 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:48:38 +0200 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Fabio Gouveia: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Isidro Aguillo, > > From what you said about the domains from open access in France I would > suggest that in future editions these pages are included in the total > amount of webpages and if possible in backlink counts. Dear Fabio, I am very glad to meet (virtually) you after our previous interesting meeting in Rio. There is a serious misunderstanding here as this is not a problem of the ranking (that of course it is not important at all) but of the university policies. Think about what are the most important tangibles resources of a university and perhaps in the top of the list should be the (formal) scientific output: papers, thesis or reports. Then consider to transfer this university "treasure" to a third party that even is not using your webdomain. For example, the repository of your organization has these addresses: powerpoint.microsoft.com/fiocruz pdf.adobe.com/fiocruz If you were the rector, do you accept that? >In Brazil we have a > website of open access content (dom?nio p?blico) where one can find thesis > from several Brazilian universities, but they are not segmented. I can understand this because of technical or funding reasons, but why universities will give up their "rights" if they are able to exploit this resource. This means > that it is not feasible to add this content in the Brazilian case but, > although cumbersome, this is possible for the French case and would reflect > better what this ranking intent to do. I am very proud of my "alma mater", not because of its rank, but due to its policies, specially regarding open access initiatives and a huge repository. Best regards, > All the best > > F?bio Gouveia > Funda??o Oswaldo Cruz - Brazil. > > 2012/8/31 Isidro F. Aguillo > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Interesting! >> >> In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the 100 >> first? Wow. >> >> (see here: http://www.webometrics.**info/en/Ranking_Europe/** >> European_Union >> ) >> >> Best, >> >> Clement >> >> ------------------------------**-------------- >> Clement Levallois, PhD >> Erasmus University Rotterdam >> The Netherlands >> >> pro website >> / personal website >> >> twitter and skype: @seinecle >> Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu >> >> Dear all: >> >> You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top cited) that >> Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons for the delayed ranks >> are related to the web presence. Language is an important issue as >> English-speaking countries are clearly over-represented but it is not the >> only reason. Perhaps interesting to this list is that the commitment to >> open access is limited. You can check the performance of the French >> university repositories here: >> >> http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France >> >> It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered their own >> web domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few examples: >> >> ?cole Polytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >> Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne >> http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >> ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >> Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis >> http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >> >> Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the Ranking. >> >> Best, >> >> -- >> **************************** >> >> Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. >> The Cybermetrics Lab, CSIC >> Madrid. SPAIN >> isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es >> >> **************************** >> >> > -- Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1). CCHS - CSIC Albasanz, 26-28. 28037 Madrid. Spain isidro.aguillo @ cchs.csic.es www. webometrics.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Fri Aug 31 16:08:30 2012 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:08:30 +0200 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Yves Gingras: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > You write: > > ?Even more interesting we are able to identify reasons (web bad practices) > for major discrepancies. And we can offer advice and our results are useful > for many universities?. > > But this is obviously a tautology based oin the performative aspect of the > indicator! Thanks. This is easy: Then, what is the difference with "publish or perish"? > You are in fact saying: ?1) I define performance with the presence on the > web; 2) your institution is not there or badly ranked, then 3) get a better > web and you will be defined as having a better ?performance?... It is > exactly liked rankings based on books in college libraries: we do not know > if that means the college is really better than any other but DO buy books > if your college is badly ranked! This is a misunderstanding. We are NOT measuring web design nor usability. We are measuring academic contents produced by faculty members, researchers or technicians and their impact in a truly global huge audience. It is not enough to publish on the web, in order to receive links these contents should be good, useful or interesting independently of their appearance. > I fail to see how this is a real discovery or contribution. It is exactly > like a marketing company saying what color of a tie you should wear to pass > on TV. Sorry? So, if we analyze your list of papers we are making science but if we consider your academic webpages, are we making "marketing"? > We are far from measuring specific, as opposed to ?overall? (whatever that > means) performance of an institution. Using a mix of heterogeneous > indicators will always permit one to say that the mix bag represent the > ?overall? activity of an institution. It is like saying that the sum of > temperature and humidity gives the ?overall weather? as opposed to > temperature. Temperature: So, do you prefer measuring "specific" movement of millions of molecules in a glass of water than applying an "overall" thermometer. This a good example of what an INDICATOR is. And, please do not forget the empirical results. Best, > > Best regards > > > Yves > > > > Le 31/08/12 13:18, ? Isidro F. Aguillo ? a > ?crit : > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Quoting Yves Gingras: >> >>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> > >>> > The vagueness of the indicator is here componded by the arbitrary >>> > ponderation: why 50%? Why not 10% for links and 80% for citations? >> >> The ponderation is based in a model following a ratio 1:1 between >> activity and >> impact, so 50% for each. Basically it is he same ratio that >> everybody uses in >> bibliometrics between papers and citations. >> >> >> This just >>> > confirms that a composite indicator of heterogeneous measures has no >>> > definite meaning. Also: is being ?linked to? or being ?visited by? many >>> > people really measuring something definite? >> >> Never, in no place we have defended the use of visits for the same reasons >> most of the people does not use journal circulation for scientific >> evaluation. >> >> Linking is an intellectual action and if you are linking academic >> contents is >> because they are interesting or useful according to your criteria, >> If you are >> a scientist the motivations for linking are not far different that the ones >> for citing. >> >> >> It seems here that numbers are >>> > used because they are available even though nobody knows what they mean >>> > exactly. We should strive to build indicators the meaning of which we >>> > control to make sure we can then understand they variation over time: we >>> > know a thermometer measures temperature and not humidity (for >>> which we need >>> > a hygrometer) but if we we add (or multiply) one with the other we any >>> > precise informatino on temperature... >> >> My hypothesis is that our "thermometer" is able to measure overall >> university >> performance. The empirical results correlate highly with other rankings >> including bibliometric ones; Harvard, MIT, Standford in top, Cambridge, >> Oxford, ETH Zurich heading Europe, Tokyo first in Asia or Sao Paulo >> first for >> Latinamerica. >> >> Even more interesting we are able to identify reasons (web bad >> practices) for >> major discrepancies. And we can offer advice and our results are useful for >> many universities. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >>> > Best regards >>> > >>> > >>> > Yves Gingras >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Le 31/08/12 11:39, ? Isidro F. Aguillo ? a >>> > ?crit : >>> > >>>> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>> >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >> Dear Loet: >>>> >> >>>> >> Not sure. My first candidate is the number of webeditors and the >>>> university >>>> >> policies about contributors. 1000s scholars building rich >>>> personal pages >>>> are >>>> >> far more effective than a well paid webmaster. >>>> >> >>>> >> Also, do not forget that web publications is only 50% of the total. >>>> >> The other >>>> >> 50% is impact or link visibility, ie the number of inlinks you received >>>> that >>>> >> in the case of top universities means thousands of people linking >>>> >> ("citing" a >>>> >> webpage) to the university webdomain. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best, >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> El 31/08/2012 16:32, Loet Leydesdorff escribi?: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Re: >>>>> [SIGMETRICS] Ranking > Web >>>>> >>> (Webometrics) of Universities >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Dear Isidro, >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Yet, the web-ranks may (partially) correlate with the budgets of the >>>>> >>> webmasters. J >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Could you test this? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Best, >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Loet >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>>> >>> [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >>>>> >>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:29 PM >>>>> >>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Dear Yves: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> There is no a single answer, but many possible candidate answers: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> - Scientific discoveries should be communicated, preferably not >>>>> >>> only to the >>>>> >>> scientists working at rich western organizations. Today Web >>>>> is the most >>>>> >>> universal and cheaper scholarly communication tool. Ranking MEASURES > the >>>>> >>> amount of new knowledge generated and how much is published >>>>> in an open >>>>> >>> format. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> - Most of the scientists are not only producing papers in formal >>>>> >>> international journals, but their activities are richer and >>>>> >>> diverse. Ranking >>>>> >>> MEASURES all the outputs, formal and informal, if they >>>>> publish them on > the >>>>> >>> Web. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> - Universities (specially public ones) are investing a lot, not only > in >>>>> >>> research, but in other different missions. For example promoting >>>>> distance >>>>> >>> learning (through web platforms), supplying information about their >>>>> >>> governance (transparency), attracting talented students and >>>>> prestigious >>>>> >>> professors through internationalization of their web contents, >>>>> supplying >>>>> >>> information of their technological developments in their specialized > web >>>>> >>> portals and so on. Ranking MEASURES all these different activities if >>>>> they >>>>> >>> are making public in the Web. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> These are only a few examples. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> El 31/08/2012 15:55, Yves Gingras escribi?: >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>>> >>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> >>>> These >>>>>> results show > that >>>>>> >>>> the ?indicator? is dubious and does not really indicate anything >>>>>> >>>> specific... >>>>>> >>>> Instead of writing that the use of web domains is >>>>>> ?penalizing their >>>>>> >>>> position in the Ranking?, one should instead conclude that using >>>>>> >>>> web domains >>>>>> >>>> to ?rank? institutions is dubious since it misrepresent the >>>>>> >>>> reality: should >>>>>> >>>> institutions adapt to indicators OR should indicators be adapted to > the >>>>>> >>>> reality of institutions???... Before multiplying ?indicators? maybe > one >>>>>> >>>> should first ask the basic question: ?what on earth does this thing >>>>>> really >>>>>> >>>> MEASURE?? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Yves Gingras >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Le 31/08/12 05:02, ? Isidro F. Aguillo ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>>> >>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>>> >>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Interesting! >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the >>>>>> >>>> 100 first? >>>>>> >>>> Wow. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> (see here: >>>>>> http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_Europe/European_Union) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Clement >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Clement Levallois, PhD >>>>>> >>>> Erasmus University Rotterdam >>>>>> >>>> The Netherlands >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> pro website >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> / >>>>>> >>>> personal website >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> twitter and skype: @seinecle >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Dear all: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top >>>>>> >>>> cited) that >>>>>> >>>> Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons for the delayed >>>>>> ranks >>>>>> >>>> are related to the web presence. Language is an important issue as >>>>>> >>>> English-speaking countries are clearly over-represented but >>>>>> it is not > the >>>>>> >>>> only reason. Perhaps interesting to this list is that the >>>>>> >>>> commitment to open >>>>>> >>>> access is limited. You can check the performance of the French >>>>>> university >>>>>> >>>> repositories here: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered >>>>>> their own >>>>>> >>>> web domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few examples: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> ?cole Polytechnique >>>>>> http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>>>> >>>> Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne >>>>>> >>>> http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>>>> >>>> ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>>>> >>>> Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis >>>>>> >>>> http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the >>>>>> Ranking. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Yves Gingras >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Professeur >>>>>> >>>> D?partement d'histoire >>>>>> >>>> Centre interuniversitaire de recherche >>>>>> >>>> sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) >>>>>> >>>> Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire >>>>>> >>>> et sociologie des sciences >>>>>> >>>> Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) >>>>>> >>>> UQAM >>>>>> >>>> C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville >>>>>> >>>> Montr?al, Qu?bec >>>>>> >>>> Canada, H3C 3P8 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 >>>>>> >>>> Fax: (514)-987-7726 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://www.chss.uqam.ca >>>>>> >>>> http://www.cirst.uqam.ca >>>>>> >>>> http://www.ost.uqam.ca >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Yves Gingras >>> > >>> > Professeur >>> > D?partement d'histoire >>> > Centre interuniversitaire de recherche >>> > sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) >>> > Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire >>> > et sociologie des sciences >>> > Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) >>> > UQAM >>> > C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville >>> > Montr?al, Qu?bec >>> > Canada, H3C 3P8 >>> > >>> > Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 >>> > Fax: (514)-987-7726 >>> > >>> > http://www.chss.uqam.ca >>> > http://www.cirst.uqam.ca >>> > http://www.ost.uqam.ca >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> > > > Yves Gingras > > Professeur > D?partement d'histoire > Centre interuniversitaire de recherche > sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) > Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire > et sociologie des sciences > Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) > UQAM > C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville > Montr?al, Qu?bec > Canada, H3C 3P8 > > Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 > Fax: (514)-987-7726 > > http://www.chss.uqam.ca > http://www.cirst.uqam.ca > http://www.ost.uqam.ca > > -- Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1). CCHS - CSIC Albasanz, 26-28. 28037 Madrid. Spain isidro.aguillo @ cchs.csic.es www. webometrics.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jean.claude.guedon at UMONTREAL.CA Fri Aug 31 18:21:21 2012 From: jean.claude.guedon at UMONTREAL.CA (Jean-Claude =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gu=E9don?=) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:21:21 -0400 Subject: Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities In-Reply-To: <50407D91.2000606@cchs.csic.es> Message-ID: But the French choice was to create a central repository for the whole country. This is what HAL is all about. A ranking system should be able to correct for the effects of such a policy. There was no "surrendering in this case", just a choice to create a one-stop entry into French OA literature. Jean-Claude Gu?don Le vendredi 31 ao?t 2012 ? 11:02 +0200, Isidro F. Aguillo a ?crit : > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > El 31/08/2012 10:31, Clement Levallois escribi?: > > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Interesting! > > > > > > > > In the ranking for Europe, not a single French university in the 100 > > first? Wow. > > > > > > (see > > here: http://www.webometrics.info/en/Ranking_Europe/European_Union) > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Clement > > > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > Clement Levallois, PhD > > Erasmus University Rotterdam > > The Netherlands > > > > pro website / personal website > > > > > > twitter and skype: @seinecle > > Discover the NESSHI project: http://www.nesshi.eu > > > > Dear all: > > You can check the Excellence indicator (papers in the 10% top cited) > that Paris 6 is 28th and Paris XI is 98th so the reasons for the > delayed ranks are related to the web presence. Language is an > important issue as English-speaking countries are clearly > over-represented but it is not the only reason. Perhaps interesting to > this list is that the commitment to open access is limited. You can > check the performance of the French university repositories here: > > http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/Europe/France > > It is very surprising that in some cases they have surrendered their > own web domains in their "institutional" repositories. A few examples: > > ?cole Polytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > Universit? Paris 1 Panth?on Sorbonne > http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > ?cole Mines ParisTech http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > Universit? de Nice Sophia Antipolis > http://hal-unice.archives-ouvertes.fr/ > > Of course this practice is penalizing their position in the Ranking. > > Best, > > > -- > **************************** > > Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. > The Cybermetrics Lab, CSIC > Madrid. SPAIN > > isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es > > **************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: