Papers of interest to readers of SIG-Metrics

Eugene Garfield eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM
Wed Jan 30 13:48:27 EST 2013

 Dear SIG-Metrics readers:
Sorry for any duplicates that we may have sent earlier.
Best wishes,

TITLE:          The 1990s: the formative years of digital libraries
                (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Arms, WY
SOURCE:         LIBRARY HI TECH 30 (4). 2012. p.579-591 EMERALD GROUP


KEYWORDS:       Digital libraries; Architecture; Technological change;
                History; Collection development; Collections management

ABSTRACT:       Purpose - This article aims to discuss some of the
principal digital libraries projects during the 1990s and the impact that
they had on modern libraries.

Design/methodology/approach - The paper combines information from
contemporary papers about the projects with recollections by the author
who was personally associated with many of the projects.

Findings - The paper reveals that, about 1990, computing reached a point
where it became economically possible to mount large collections online
and to access them over networks. The result was a flurry of experiments
and prototypes. Many are almost forgotten, yet the libraries of today
were formed by the energy and creativity of these efforts. The paper
places some of the most influential projects in context and discusses why
some prototypes and experiments succeeded while others fell by the

Research limitations/implications - Several of the projects were never
described formally in the academic literature, and there are no
contemporary records to check some of the author's recollections.

Originality/value - The value of this paper is that many of the projects
that formed the libraries of today were poorly documented and it is
already difficult to find good information about some of them.

AUTHOR ADDRESS: WY Arms, Cornell Univ, Fac Comp & Informat Sci, Ithaca, NY
                14850 USA

TITLE:          A personal history of digital libraries (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Lesk, M
SOURCE:         LIBRARY HI TECH 30 (4). 2012. p.592-603 EMERALD GROUP

                 LUHN HP            AM DOC                 11:288   1960

KEYWORDS:       Digital libraries; History; Information retrieval

ABSTRACT:       Purpose - This paper aims to present a personal view of
the development of digital libraries, starting with the original vision
of 1945 and describing how it came to the dominance of online searching
and reading that it has today.

Design/methodology/approach - Progress in digital libraries is described
in four areas: technical, economic, legal and social issues. Originally
technological obstacles were dominant, but they have generally been
overcome by progress in computers, networks, and algorithms. Economic
issues have also faded, although "open access" questions still bedevil
us. Surprisingly, libraries are now faced with more serious legal
obstacles than first expected; no one today can start a digital library
effort without thinking about copyright. Social issues are likely to be
the next set of challenges.

Findings - The transformation of searching and reading has been almost
complete. Scholars in scientific disciplines, in particular, often
function quite well with only rare visits to a library to read physical
books. Even in the area of entertainment reading, it can be seen that the
e-reader devices now dominating. These results have been a combination of
new research results and new commercial activities, with perhaps less
progress by publishers and libraries than one might have hoped.

Originality/value - The development of digital libraries has been a
complex mixture of change: there are ideas which were invented long
before users or companies were ready for them, and other ideas (such as
search engines) which appeared suddenly when opportunities arose. The
complexities of technology, economics, law and society are still in the
process of being understood as they either enable or block new services.
However, looking back, it can be seen that essentially the entire vision
of 1945 is in sight and other large improvements in complex systems and
how they are helped or impeded in their progress may be learned from this

AUTHOR ADDRESS: M Lesk, Rutgers State Univ, Dept Lib & Informat Sci, New
                Brunswick, NJ 08903 USA

TITLE:          The Use of the h-index in Academic Otolaryngology
                (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Svider, PF; Choudhry, ZA; Choudhry, OJ; Baredes, S; Liu,
                JK; Eloy, JA
SOURCE:         LARYNGOSCOPE 123 (1). JAN 2013. p.103-106

SEARCH TERM(S):  HIRSCH JE          P NATL ACAD SCI USA   102:16569 2005

KEYWORDS:       h-index; academic promotion; academic productivity; h-
                index in otolaryngology; faculty promotion; faculty
                productivity; otolaryngology faculty productivity;
                academic physician scientific productivity; academic rank
                determination; academic rank in otolaryngology

ABSTRACT:       Objective/Hypothesis: The h-index is an objective and
easily calculable measure that can be used to evaluate both the relevance
and amount of scientific contributions of an individual author. Our
objective was to examine how the h-index of academic otolaryngologists
relates with academic rank. Study Design: A descriptive and correlational
design was used for analysis of academic otolaryngologists' h-indices
using the Scopus database. Methods: H-indices of faculty members from 50
otolaryngology residency programs were calculated using the Scopus
database, and data was organized by academic rank. Additionally, an
analysis of the h-indices of departmental chairpersons among different
specialties was performed. Results: H-index values of academic
otolaryngologists were higher with increased academic rank among the
levels of assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. There
was no significant difference between the h-indices of professors and
department chairpersons within otolaryngology. H-indices of chairpersons
in different academic specialties were compared and were significantly
different, suggesting that the use of this metric may not be appropriate
for comparing different fields. Conclusions: The h-index is a reliable
tool for quantifying academic productivity within otolaryngology. This
measure is easily calculable and may be useful when evaluating decisions
regarding advancement within academic otolaryngology departments.
Comparison of this metric among faculty members from different fields,
however, may not be reliable. Laryngoscope, 2013

AUTHOR ADDRESS: JA Eloy, Univ Med & Dent New Jersey, New Jersey Med Sch,
                Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, 90 Bergen St,Suite 8100,
                Newark, NJ 07103 USA

TITLE:          Is NIH Funding Predictive of Greater Research
                Productivity and Impact Among Academic Otolaryngologists? (Article,
AUTHOR:         Svider, PF; Mauro, KM; Sanghvi, S; Setzen, M; Baredes, S;
                Eloy, JA
SOURCE:         LARYNGOSCOPE 123 (1). JAN 2013. p.118-122

SEARCH TERM(S):  HIRSCH JE          P NATL ACAD SCI USA   102:16569 2005

KEYWORDS:       NIH funding; h-index; academic promotion; academic
                productivity; faculty productivity; surgical faculty
                productivity; academic physician scientific productivity;
                academic rank determination; NIH funding and h-index;
                academic otolaryngologist research productivity

ABSTRACT:       Objectives/Hypothesis: The h-index is an accurate and
reliable indicator of scholarly productivity that takes into account
relevance, significance, and influence of research contributions. As
such, it is an effective, objective bibliometric that can be used to
evaluate academic otolaryngologists for decisions regarding appointment
and advancement. In this study, we evaluate the impact of NIH funding on
scholarly productivity in otolaryngology. Study Design: Analysis of
bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists. Methods: Funding data
for the 20 otolaryngology departments with the largest aggregate total of
NIH grants for the fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2012 was obtained using the
National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools
Expenditures and Reports (RePORTER) Database. H-indices were calculated
using the Scopus online database, and then compared to funding data at
both the departmental and individual level. Results: Faculty members in
otolaryngology departments who received NIH funding had significantly
greater research productivity and impact, as measured by the h-index,
than their nonfunded peers. H-indices increased with greater NIH funding
levels, and investigators with MD degrees tended to have higher mean NIH
funding levels than those with PhDs. While there was no correlation
between average h-index and NIH funding totals at the level of
departments, there was greater correlation upon examination of NIH
funding levels of individual investigators. Conclusions: The h-index has
a strong relationship with, and may be predictive of, grant awards of NIH-
funded faculty members in otolaryngology departments. This bibliometric
may be useful in decisions regarding appointment and advancement of
faculty members within academic otolaryngology departments. Laryngoscope,

AUTHOR ADDRESS: JA Eloy, Univ Med & Dent New Jersey, New Jersey Med Sch,
                Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, 90 Bergen St,Suite 8100,
                Newark, NJ 07103 USA

TITLE:          Assessing the Effect of Highly Cited Papers on the Impact
                Factor of Journals in the Field of Public Health (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Rezaei, E; Navidi, I; Rokni, MB; Pourmand, MR

SEARCH TERM(S):  MACROBERTS MH  rauth; CITED  item_title;
                 JOURNALS  item_title; IMPACT FACTOR*  item_title

KEYWORDS:       Impact factor; Public health; Journal

ABSTRACT:       Background: The aim of this study was to appraisal the
effect of highly cited papers in the field of public health and find out
whether the unusual citations affect the ranking order of the journals in
this field or not. A total number of 142 journals titles were listed in
Journal Citation Report (ISI Thomson) in the field of "Public,
Environmental & Occupational Health". All but one of them had published
papers at least for a year from 2009 to 2010. Journal title, number of
citations and publication year of 45685 papers were collected from ISI
web of knowledge database at December 25, 2011. About half of the papers
(23226) had no citations and 89.4% (40835) had less than 6 citations. We
concluded that the ranking of journals in the field of public health is
not affected by the individual papers with unusual number of citations.

AUTHOR ADDRESS: MR Pourmand, Univ Tehran Med Sci, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept
                Pathobiol, Tehran, Iran

TITLE:          A Measure of Total Research Impact Independent of Time
                and Discipline (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Pepe, A; Kurtz, MJ
SOURCE:         PLOS ONE 7 (11). NOV 7 2012. p.NIL_60-NIL_66 PUBLIC

                 HIRSCH JE          P NATL ACAD SCI USA   102:16569 2005;
                 MERTON RK          SCIENCE               159:56    1968;
                 GARFIELD E         SCIENCE               122:108   1955;
                 GARFIELD E         SCIENCE               178:471   1972


ABSTRACT:       Authorship and citation practices evolve with time and
differ by academic discipline. As such, indicators of research
productivity based on citation records are naturally subject to
historical and disciplinary effects. We observe these effects on a corpus
of astronomer career data constructed from a database of refereed
publications. We employ a simple mechanism to measure research output
using author and reference counts available in bibliographic databases to
develop a citation-based indicator of research productivity. The total
research impact (tori) quantifies, for an individual, the total amount of
scholarly work that others have devoted to his/her work, measured in the
volume of research papers. A derived measure, the research impact
quotient (riq), is an age-independent measure of an individual's research
ability. We demonstrate that these measures are substantially less
vulnerable to temporal debasement and cross-disciplinary bias than the
most popular current measures. The proposed measures of research impact,
tori and riq, have been implemented in the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics
Data System.

AUTHOR ADDRESS: A Pepe, Harvard Univ, Ctr Astrophys, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

TITLE:          How Are Academic Age, Productivity and Collaboration
                Related to Citing Behavior of Researchers? (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Milojevic, S
SOURCE:         PLOS ONE 7 (11). NOV 7 2012. p.NIL_2319-NIL_2331 PUBLIC

SEARCH TERM(S):  GARFIELD E         CURR CONTENTS            :5     1982;
                 LINE MB  rauth; MORAVCSIK MJ  rauth;
                 PRICE DJD  rauth; ZUCKERMAN H  rauth;
                 SMALL HG           SOC STUD SCI            8:327   1978


ABSTRACT:       References are an essential component of research
articles and therefore of scientific communication. In this study we
investigate referencing (citing) behavior in five diverse fields
(astronomy, mathematics, robotics, ecology and economics) based on
213,756 core journal articles. At the macro level we find: (a) a steady
increase in the number of references per article over the period studied
(50 years), which in some fields is due to a higher rate of usage, while
in others reflects longer articles and (b) an increase in all fields in
the fraction of older, foundational references since the 1980s, with no
obvious change in citing patterns associated with the introduction of the
Internet. At the meso level we explore current (2006-2010) referencing
behavior of different categories of authors (21,562 total) within each
field, based on their academic age, productivity and collaborative
practices. Contrary to some previous findings and expectations we find
that senior researchers use references at the same rate as their junior
colleagues, with similar rates of re-citation (use of same references in
multiple papers). High Modified Price Index (MPI, which measures the
speed of the research front more accurately than the traditional Price
Index) of senior authors indicates that their research has the similar
cutting-edge aspect as that of their younger colleagues. In all fields
both the productive researchers and especially those who collaborate more
use a significantly lower fraction of foundational references and have
much higher MPI and lower re-citation rates, i.e., they are the ones
pushing the research front regardless of researcher age. This paper
introduces improved bibliometric methods to measure the speed of the
research front, disambiguate lead authors in co-authored papers and
decouple measures of productivity and collaboration.

AUTHOR ADDRESS: S Milojevic, Indiana Univ, Sch Lib & Informat Sci,
                Bloomington, IN 47401 USA

TITLE:          Misconduct Policies in High-Impact Biomedical Journals
                (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Bosch, X; Hernandez, C; Pericas, JM; Doti, P; Marusic, A
SOURCE:         PLOS ONE 7 (12). DEC 19 2012. p.NIL_584-NIL_592 PUBLIC


                RETRACTIONS; SCIENCE

ABSTRACT:       Background: It is not clear which research misconduct
policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the
prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical
journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to
allegations of misconduct.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of
399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the
Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed
for information relevant to misconduct policies.

Results: Of 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of
misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%)
journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%),
duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%).
Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%)
websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern
(16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals.
The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in
journals that endorsed any policy from editors' associations, Office of
Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did
not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-
Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively),
with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition
and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and
Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services.

Conclusions: Only a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had
publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half
described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As
endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was
positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures,
journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally
in order to increase public trust in the integrity of the published
record in biomedicine.

AUTHOR ADDRESS: X Bosch, Univ Barcelona, Dept Internal Med, Inst Invest
                Biomed, Hosp Clin, Barcelona, Spain

TITLE:          Publication of Original Research in Urologic Journals - A
                Neglected Orphan? (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Mani, J; Makarevic, J; Juengel, E; Ackermann, H; Nelson,
                K; Haferkamp, A; Blaheta, RA
SOURCE:         PLOS ONE 7 (12). DEC 19 2012. p.NIL_872-NIL_875 PUBLIC



ABSTRACT:       The pathophysiologic mechanisms behind urologic disease
are increasingly being elucidated. The object of this investigation was
to evaluate the publication policies of urologic journals during a period
of progressively better understanding and management of urologic disease.
Based on the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports and the PubMed
database, the number and percentage of original experimental, original
clinical, review or commentarial articles published between 2002-2010 in
six leading urologic journals were analyzed. "British Journal of Urology
International", "European Urology", "Urologic Oncology-Seminars and
Original Investigations" ("Urologic Oncology"), "Urology", "The Journal
of Urology", and "World Journal of Urology" were chosen, because these
journals publish articles in all four categories. The publication
policies of the six journals were very heterogeneous during the time
period from 2002 to 2010. The percentage of original experimental and
original clinical articles, related to all categories, remained the same
in "British Journal of Urology International", "Urologic Oncology",
"Urology" and "The Journal of Urology". The percentage of experimental
reports in "World Journal of Urology" between 2002-2010 significantly
increased from 10 to 20%. A distinct elevation in the percentage of
commentarial articles accompanied by a reduction of clinical articles
became evident in "European Urology" which significantly correlated with
a large increase in the journal's impact factor. No clearly superior
policy could be identified with regard to a general increase in the
impact factors from all the journals. The publication policy of urologic
journals does not expressly reflect the increase in scientific knowledge,
which has occurred over the period 2002-2010. One way of increasing the
exposure of urologists to research and expand the interface between
experimental and clinical research, would be to enlarge the percentage of
experimental articles published. There is no indication that such policy
would be detrimental to a journal's impact factor.

AUTHOR ADDRESS: RA Blaheta, Goethe Univ Frankfurt, Dept Urol, Frankfurt,

TITLE:          Rich Media and Rich Science; Web Squared Cumulativity
                Conceptualization (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Westlund, O
SOURCE:         EUROPEAN REVIEW 20 (2). MAY 2012. p.182-194 CAMBRIDGE
                UNIV PRESS, CAMBRIDGE

                 MERTON RK          SCIENCE               159:56    1968

ABSTRACT:       Scientists work by collecting observable evidence of
different phenomena, from which they analyse and construct theoretical
explanations. Consequently, science involves systematic efforts to
increase human knowledge, a phenomenon that is usually described as
'cumulativity'. Most scientists would probably agree that (excellent)
research should be cumulative, and by this they usually mean that
scientists should accommodate and refer to the publications of other
scholars. This article suggests that our perception of science would
benefit from a broader and more nuanced approach to cumulativity. The
article therefore provides a discussion on how contemporary scholars can
approach cumulativity by adopting the fundamental ideology of the web 2.0
and web squared concepts. A proposition for an altered approach is
posited through web squared cumulativity conceptualization, involving a
more open and collaborative approach. The discussion provides a foretaste
of contemporary initiatives that suggest the spread of this emerging

AUTHOR ADDRESS: O Westlund, Univ Gothenburg, Dept Journalism Media &
                Commun, Box 710, S-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden

TITLE:          Comparing Paper Ranking Algorithms (Article, English)
AUTHOR:         Dunaiski, M; Visser, W
                2012. p.21-30 ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY, NEW YORK

                 HIRSCH JE          P NATL ACAD SCI USA   102:16569 2005;
                 KESSLER MM         AM DOC                 14:10    1963;
                 SMALL H            J AM SOC INFORM SCI    24:265   1973;
                 GARFIELD E         SCIENTOMETRICS          1:359   1979

KEYWORDS:       Citation analysis; Paper ranking; PageRank; CiteRank

ABSTRACT:       The research presented in this paper focuses on comparing
and evaluating various ranking algorithms that can be used on citation
graphs in order to rank individual papers according to their importance
and relevance. The graph analysis algorithms investigated in this paper
are PageRank, CiteRank and an algorithm proposed by Hwang et al. [9] and
compared to the method of simply counting the number of citations of a
publication. In addition, a new algorithm, NewRank, is proposed which is
a combination of the PageRank and CiteRank algorithms with the focus on
identifying influential papers that were published recently. A
customizable crawler framework was developed to collect publication
datasets from various sources. The development of this framework is
discussed in detail. Finally, the ranking algorithms are evaluated
against the list of the most influential papers compiled by the ICSE
selection committee(1).

AUTHOR ADDRESS: M Dunaiski, Univ Stellenbosch, MIH Media Lab, ZA-7602
                Matieland, South Africa


More information about the SIGMETRICS mailing list