papers of interest to SIG metrics
Eugene Garfield
eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM
Wed Jan 11 09:18:21 EST 2012
e
TITLE: Scientific journals and impact factors (Editorial
Material, English)
AUTHOR: Hendee, W; Bernstein, MA; Levine, D
SOURCE: MEDICAL PHYSICS 38 (12). DEC 2011. p.I-II AMER ASSOC
PHYSICISTS MEDICINE AMER INST PHYSICS, MELVILLE
SEARCH TERM(S): JOURNALS item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title;
HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005;
EDITORIAL doctyp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE: Efficient Methodologies to Handle Hanging Pages Using
Virtual Node (Article, English)
AUTHOR: Singh, AK; Kumar, PR; Leng, AGK
SOURCE: CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS 42 (8). 2011. p.621-635 TAYLOR &
FRANCIS INC, PHILADELPHIA
SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth;
GARFIELD E SCIENCE 178:471 1972
KEYWORDS: hanging nodes; information retrieval; knowledge
extraction; link-based ranking algorithms; Markov
analysis; PageRank; TrustRank
ABSTRACT: In this article we first explain the knowledge extraction
(KE) process from the World Wide Web (WWW) using search engines. Then we explore the PageRank algorithm of Google search engine (a well-known link- based search engine) with its hidden Markov analysis. We also explore one of the problems of link-based ranking algorithms called hanging pages or dangling pages (pages without any forward links). The presence of these pages affects the ranking of Web pages. Some of the hanging pages may contain important information that cannot be neglected by the search engine during ranking. We propose methodologies to handle the hanging pages and compare the methodologies. We also introduce the TrustRank algorithm (an algorithm to handle the spamming problems in link-based search engines) and include it in our proposed methods so that our methods can combat Web spam. We implemented the PageRank algorithm and TrustRank algorithm and modified those algorithms to implement our proposed methodologies.
AUTHOR ADDRESS: AK Singh, Curtin Univ, Dept Elect & Comp Engn, Sarawak
Campus, Miri, Malaysia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE: "Publish or perish"-Who publishes and who perishes?
(Editorial Material, English)
AUTHOR: Greco, PM
SOURCE: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL
ORTHOPEDICS 141 (1). JAN 2012. p.4 MOSBY-ELSEVIER, NEW
YORK
SEARCH TERM(S): PUBLISH OR PERISH item_title; EDITORIAL doctype
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE: Analytic model for academic research productivity having
factors, interactions and implications (Review, English)
AUTHOR: Kern, S
SOURCE: CANCER BIOLOGY & THERAPY 12 (11). DEC 1 2011. p.949-956
LANDES BIOSCIENCE, AUSTIN
SEARCH TERM(S): HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005
KEYWORDS: public policy; research efficiency; productivity; funding
KEYWORDS+: OUTPUT; RECOGNITION; SCIENCE; INDEX
ABSTRACT: Financial support is dear in academia and will tighten
further. How can the research mission be accomplished within new restraints? A model is presented for evaluating source components of academic research productivity. It comprises six factors: funding; investigator quality; efficiency of the research institution; the research mix of novelty, incremental advancement, and confirmatory studies; analytic accuracy; and passion. Their interactions produce output and patterned influences between factors. Strategies for optimizing output are enabled.
AUTHOR ADDRESS: S Kern, Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Oncol, Baltimore, MD 21218
USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE: Scientific Journals and Impact Factors (News Item,
English)
SOURCE: JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE 52 (12). DEC 1 2011. p.17N
SOC NUCLEAR MEDICINE INC, RESTON
SEARCH TERM(S): JOURNALS item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE: On the relevance of the Impact Factor and other factors
(Editorial Material, English)
AUTHOR: Sundaram, M; Hodler, J; Rosenthal, DI
SOURCE: SKELETAL RADIOLOGY 41 (2). FEB 2012. p.125-126 SPRINGER,
NEW YORK
SEARCH TERM(S): IMPACT FACTOR* item_title; EDITORIAL doctype
AUTHOR ADDRESS: M Sundaram, Cleveland Clin Fdn, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland,
OH 44195 USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE: Scientific journals and impact factors (Editorial
Material, English)
AUTHOR: Hendee, W; Bernstein, MA; Levine, D
SOURCE: SKELETAL RADIOLOGY 41 (2). FEB 2012. p.127-128 SPRINGER,
NEW YORK
SEARCH TERM(S): JOURNALS item_title; IMPACT FACTOR* item_title;
HIRSCH JE P NATL ACAD SCI USA 102:16569 2005;
EDITORIAL doctype
AUTHOR ADDRESS: W Hendee, Med Coll Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE: Continuously Variable Rating: a new, simple and logical
procedure to evaluate original scientific publications (Article, English)
AUTHOR: Silva, MRE
SOURCE: CLINICS 66 (12). 2011. p.2099-2104 HOSPITAL CLINICAS,
UNIV SAO PAULO, SAO PAULO
SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth
KEYWORDS: Scientometrics; scientific article evaluation; Impact
Factors; citations
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Impact Factors (IF) are widely used surrogates
to evaluate single articles, in spite of known shortcomings imposed by cite distribution skewness. We quantify this asymmetry and propose a simple computer-based procedure for evaluating individual articles.
METHOD: (a) Analysis of symmetry. Journals clustered around nine Impact Factor points were selected from the medical "Subject Categories" in Journal Citation Reports 2010. Citable items published in 2008 were retrieved and ranked by granted citations over the Jan/2008 - Jun/2011 period. Frequency distribution of cites, normalized cumulative cites and absolute cites/decile were determined for each journal cluster. (b) Positive Predictive Value. Three arbitrarily established evaluation classes were generated: LOW (1.3 <= IF<2.6); MID: (2.6 <= IF<3.9); HIGH:
(IF >= 3.9). Positive Predictive Value for journal clusters within each class range was estimated. (c) Continuously Variable Rating. An alternative evaluation procedure is proposed to allow the rating of individually published articles in comparison to all articles published in the same journal within the same year of publication. The general guiding lines for the construction of a totally dedicated software program are delineated.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Skewness followed the Pareto Distribution for (1<K<2). Observed Positive Predictive Values ranged from 24 - 43% for over 98% of the selected journals in the ISI database. Continuously Variable Rating is shown to be a simple computer based procedure capable of accurately providing a valid rating for each article within the journal and time frame in which it was published.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE: Scientific literature addressing brain glioma in the Web
of Science A 10-year bibliometric analysis (Article, English)
AUTHOR: Xu, ZH; Tang, T; Pan, DS; Fan, D; Song, ZQ; Xue, HL
SOURCE: NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH 6 (32). NOV 15 2011.
p.2537-2544 SHENYANG EDITORIAL DEPT NEURAL REGENERATION
RES, SHENYANG
SEARCH TERM(S): GARFIELD E rauth; BIBLIOMETR* item_title;
NEURAL REGEN RES source_abbrev_20;
GARFIELD E FEMS MICROBIOL LETT 100:33 1992
KEYWORDS: brain glioma; bibliometrics; SCI; analysis; scientific
literature
KEYWORDS+: ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH-FACTOR; MEDICAL-RESEARCH-COUNCIL;
MESENCHYMAL STEM-CELLS; HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA; BIBLIOMETRIC
ANALYSIS; MALIGNANT GLIOMA; IN-VIVO; GLIOBLASTOMA-
MULTIFORME; RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY; PROGNOSTIC-FACTORS
ABSTRACT: Brain glioma is a hot topic in recent years; however,
brain glioma remains poorly understood. A bibliometric analysis based on the Science Citation Index (SCI) published by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) was performed to identify the global research and to improve the understanding of research trends in the brain glioma field from 2001 to 2010. During 2001 to 2010, there were 8 413 papers addressing brain glioma added to the SCI, and this trend is increasing annually. Of these reports, 6 945 papers are written in English. Journals published in the United States had the most papers, including ten core source titles. The Journal of Neuro-Oncology published the most articles followed by Cancer Research. Furthermore, the University of California, San Francisco, is the most productive institution for publishing articles in the brain glioma field. Finally, this study highlights the topics in brain glioma research that are being published around the world.
AUTHOR ADDRESS: T Tang, Shenyang Mil Command Chinese PLA, Gen Hosp, Dept
Neurosurg, Shenyang 110016, Liaoning Provin, Peoples R China
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE: Impact factor and insertion of the ABO in the world
scientific literature (Editorial Material, English)
AUTHOR: Chamon, W; Melo, LAS Jr
SOURCE: ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE OFTALMOLOGIA 74 (4). JUL-AUG
2011. p.243-244 CONSEL BRASIL OFTALMOLOGIA, SAO PAULO
AUTHOR ADDRESS: W Chamon, Fed Univ Sao Paulo UNIFESP, Dept Ophthalmol, Sao
Paulo, Brazil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE: Reviewing, Reviewers and the Scientific Enterprise
(Review, English)
AUTHOR: Amanor-Boadu, V
SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL FOOD AND AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT REVIEW 13
(3). 2010. p.75-86 INT FOOD & AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT
REVIEW, COLLEGE STATION
SEARCH TERM(S): MERTON RK rauth; ZUCKERMAN H rauth;
ZUCKERMA.H MINERVA 9:66 1971
KEYWORDS: reviewers; reviewing; scientific enterprise; scholarship;
co-creation
KEYWORDS+: JOURNALS; SCIENCE; MANUSCRIPT
ABSTRACT: Despite their critical importance to the scientific
enterprise, reviewers receive no formal training and reviewing has become a skill that they pick up through trial and error. Additionally, because most reviewers do not receive any feedback on their performance, any bad reviewing habits become entrenched over time. This has contributed to significant and unnecessary anxiety about reviewing and to antagonistic encounters between reviewers and authors. This paper seeks to correct this situation by defining reviewers as co-creators of scholarship and the reviewing as a quality control process in the production of scientific scholarship. The paper provides three groups of activities aimed at creating the right mindset among reviewers to facilitate this co- creation and quality control perspective: relationships, commitment and honest decisions and recommendations.
AUTHOR ADDRESS: V Amanor-Boadu, Kansas State Univ, Dept Agr Econ, 306
Waters Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506 USA
-
More information about the SIGMETRICS
mailing list