From ishaikev at MAIL.RU Mon Jul 1 03:05:49 2013 From: ishaikev at MAIL.RU (=?UTF-8?B?SXJpbmEgU2hhaWtldmljaA==?=) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:05:49 +0400 Subject: Webology: Volume 10, Number 1, 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ???????. ???????? ? ???, ??????? ???????. ?? ????? ??????? ???????, ??? ??????? ? ?????????? ????? - "?????? ????????", ?? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ? ????? 3.07 ????? ???????, ?? ?????????. ???? ? ?-? ???????????, 23 ???? 2013, 11:09 +02:00 ?? Alireza Noruzi : >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear All, apologies for cross-posting. >We are pleased to inform you that Vol. 10, No. 1 of Webology, an OPEN >ACCESS bi-annual journal, is published and available ONLINE now. > >------------------ >Webology: Volume 10, Number 1, 2013 >TOC: http://www.webology.org/2013/v10n1/toc.html >This issue contains: > >------------------------- Articles ------------------------- >- Adult Friendships in the Facebook Era >-- Kirsty Young >-- Keywords: Online social networking; Facebook; Friendship; >Online/offline relationships >-- http://www.webology.org/2013/v10n1/a103.html > > >- Freedom of information and abuse of media in the process of globalization >-- Milan Palevic, and Srdjan Djordjevic > >-- Keywords: Freedom of expression; Freedom of speech; Media; Globalization >-- http://www.webology.org/2013/v10n1/a104.html > > >- Linked-OWL: A new approach for dynamic linked data service workflow >composition >-- Hussien Ahmad, and Salah Dowaji >-- Keywords: Linked data; Linked Data Services; Dynamic Workflow; >OWL-S; RDF; SPARQL >-- http://www.webology.org/2013/v10n1/a105.html > > >- Citation relations of theories of human information behaviour >-- Hamid R. Jamali >-- Keywords: Information behaviour; Information seeking behaviour; >Theories; Citation analysis; Bibliographic coupling >-- http://www.webology.org/2013/v10n1/a106.html > > >- University networks in the context of their academic excellence and >openness: A comparative study of leading Czech and German universities >--Vladimir M. Moskovkin, Jason K. Fraser, and Maria V. Moskovkina >-- Keywords: Multi-dimensional vector analysis; University networks; >Czech universities; German universities; University ranking; Open >access; Institutional repository >-- http://www.webology.org/2013/v10n1/a107.html > > >- Application of social network analysis in interlibrary loan services >-- Ammar Jalalimanesh, and Seyyed Majid Yaghoubi >-- Keywords: Interlibrary loan; Information services; Document >delivery; Document supply; Interlending; Social network analysis; Iran >-- http://www.webology.org/2013/v10n1/a108.html > > >------------------------- Book Review ------------------------- > >- Virtual Communities, Social Networks and Collaboration / Edited by >Athina A. Lazakidou >-- Elaheh Hosseini, & Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh >-- Keywords: Virtual communities; Social media; Social networking; >Social collaboration; Social awareness; Online communities; Knowledge >sharing >-- http://www.webology.org/2013/v10n1/bookreview23.html > > >------------------------- Call for Papers ------------------------- >-- http://www.webology.org/callforpapers.html > >================================== > >Best regards, >Alireza >-------------------- >Editor-in-Chief of Webology: Alireza Noruzi, Ph.D. >Publisher of Webology: Regional Information Center for Science and >Technology (RICeST): http://www.srlst.com >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. ~ > -- Irina Shaikevich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From albertomartin at UGR.ES Tue Jul 2 04:36:54 2013 From: albertomartin at UGR.ES (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alberto_Mart=EDn_Mart=EDn?=) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:36:54 +0200 Subject: An introduction to the coverage of the Data Citation Index (Thomson Reuters): disciplines, document types and repositories Message-ID: /In the past years, the movement of data sharing has been enjoying great popularity. Within this context, Thomson Reuters launched at the end of 2012 a new product inside the Web of Knowledge family: the Data Citation Index. The aim of this tool is to enable discovery and access, from a single place, to data from a variety of data repositories from different subject areas and from around the world. At the same time, records in the DCI are linked to the publications they inform, thus providing citation information for the data sets, and opening the way to data citation analysis. The EC3 Research Group (University of Granada) is launching a new line of research to study the DCI. In this Working Paper we will present some preliminary results where we address the following issues//: discipline coverage, data types present in the database, and repositories that were included at the time of the study/. *Torres-Salinas, D.; Mart?n-Mart?n, A.; Fuente-Gutierrez, E. (2013). */An introduction to the coverage of the Data Citation Index (Thomson Reuters): disciplines, document types and repositories/ . EC3 Working Papers, N 11, June 2013. http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6584 -- Alberto Mart?n Mart?n EC3 Research Group. University of Granada, SPAIN. http://ec3.ugr.es http://www.ugr.es/~albertomartin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editor at JSCIRES.ORG Mon Jul 8 04:49:51 2013 From: editor at JSCIRES.ORG (Editor/ J Scientometric Res.) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:19:51 +0530 Subject: Journal of Scientometric Research - Table of Contents - 1(1), for your valuable feedback and suggestions Message-ID: Journal of Scientometric Research Published by Wolters Kluwer Health - Medknow * Online manuscript submission*: http://www.journalonweb.com/jscires/ *Table of Contents* 2012| September-December | Volume 1 | Issue 1 http://www.jscires.org/currentissue.asp?sabs=n INSIGHT *Introduction to editorial board members* Sujit Bhattacharya 1(1):3-6 REVIEW ARTICLE *Text mining for science and technology - a review part I - characterization/scientometrics* Ronald N Kostoff 1(1):11-21 RESEARCH ARTICLES *Basic independence axioms for the publication-citation system* Ronald Rousseau, Fred Y Ye 1(1):22-27 *Edited volumes, monographs and book chapters in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI)* Loet Leydesdorff, Ulrike Felt 1(1):28-34 *Reality-check: Cost-related journal assessment from a practical point of view1,2* Christian Gumpenberger, Ambros Wernisch, Juan Gorraiz 1(1):35-43 *Brazilian growth in the mainstream science: The role of human resources and national journals* Jacqueline Leta 1(1):44-52 *The world of science according to performance indicators based on percentile ranking normalization* Gangan Prathap, Loet Leydesdorff 1(1):53-59 *Measles: A quantitative analysis of world publications during 2001-2010* Adarsh Bala, BM Gupta 1(1):60-70 *Biomedical research coverage in English-language Indian newspapers* Bharvi Dutt, KC Garg 1(1):71-78 RESEARCH NOTE *Indicators for websites: Particular reference to geriatric sites* Divya Srivastava, Renu Bahadur 1(1):71-78 WEBLIOGRAPHY *Webliography of STI indicator databases and related publications* Anup Kumar Das, Parveen Arora, Sujit Bhattacharya 1(1):86-93 http://www.jscires.org/currentissue.asp?sabs=n Please consult papers published in this issue and give your valuable feedback and suggestions for improving our quality in forthcoming issues. We also look forward for your paper submission, paper proposal and special issue proposal. -- *Dr. Sujit Bhattacharya*, Ph.D *Editor-in-Chief*, *Journal of Scientometric Research* [An Official Publication of SciBiolMed.Org] Senior Principal Scientist (NISTADS) & Guest Faculty (JNU) Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012, INDIA Landline: +91-11-25843024 Mobile: +91-9999020157 *Email*: editor at jscires.org *Website*: www.jscires.org *Facebook*: http://www.fb.com/groups/www.jscires.org * Online manuscript submission*: http://www.journalonweb.com/jscires/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Thu Jul 11 12:03:18 2013 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:03:18 +0000 Subject: FW: Publish or Perish Message-ID: Dear colleagues: I am sending you a copy of a recent email I received from Ron LaPorte of the University of Pittsburg. Please contact him directly with any questions. I cannot verify or dispute any of the statements he has made. Best wishes. Eugene Garfield -----Original Message----- From: Ronald E. LaPorte, PhD [mailto:super1 at pitt.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 9:45 PM To: super1 at pitt.edu Subject: Publish or Perish Supercourse newsletter July 10, 2013 Mentoring and the Central Asian Journal of Global Health cajgh.pitt.edu We, in the Supercourse decided that it is time to improve opportunities for publishing for scientists in both developed and developing countries. We established the first "mentored" research journal, where we help authors to improve the quality of their publication while the authors submit their work for publishing. With this journal we help authors to make their articles of publishable quality. Our new journal is called the Central Asian Journal of Global Health (CAJGH) and can be accessed at cajgh.pitt.edu It is an open access journal, but authors are not charged for publishing. This journal is a joint undertaking between scientists from Nazarbayev University and the University of Pittsburgh. It has been originally supported by USAID and currently supported by Nazarbayev University with the University of Pittsburgh (under the direction of Rush Miller, Director of Library System) providing open access publishing platform. It does not cost authors to publishing in the CAJGH. Our goal is develop a leading peer reviewed journal in Central Asian region, Eurasian region, and around the world. "Publish or perish" is a phrase coined to describe the pressure in academia to rapidly and continuously publish academic work to sustain or further one's career. The number, quality, and impact factor of your publications are common criteria used for academic promotions, raises, awards, etc. We need to publish to communicate our research findings and raise awareness about our work, but some of us are having difficulty publishing. Publishing is a great source of academic inequities. In the year 2011, USA scientists published over 127000 articles in the area of medicine, while scientists in Tonga published only 3. Scientists in many developing countries are doing high quality research but experience problems with publishing due to many barriers, including English language skills, not knowing where to submit their research work, research methods barriers, no statistical support, etc. How can we cost effectively improve access to journal publishing for scientists around the world? We have built a journal with a new approach to publishing where we help authors to make sure that their articles reaches publishable quality. The Central Asian Journal of Global Health (www.cajgh.org) is a biannual journal aimed at those in the fields of public health and medicine. Specifically, it focuses on the geographic region where publication is limited, and not much scientific attention is paid, Central Asian countries. This region has wonderful opportunities for publishing, as it has many knowledgeable scientists, scientific resources, a new attitude towards expanding scientific capacity, but overall few publications. In addition to research in Central Asia, there is a global health arm which encourages submissions from other countries. Central Asian Journal of Global Health is a fully peer-reviewed online open access journal, English language journal edited by the key developers of the Global Health Network Supercourse project (www.pitt.edu/~super1). This is the first journal of its kind in Central Asia. (To read more about Central Asia, please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia). It provides forum for discussion for all aspects of public health, medicine, and global health in Central Asia and around the world. Central Asian Journal of Global Health is dedicated to publishing material of the highest scholarly interest, and to this end we have assembled a distinguished Editorial Advisory board. We welcome contributions from established researchers, especially those working on cutting edge questions, but we are also keen to act as a supportive environment for new investigators and with those who never published in English language journals. While this journal is open access, authors do not have to pay to publish. The journal was originally supported by USAID and currently supported by Nazarbayev University and the University of Pittsburgh (for open access publishing platform). Ancient Silk Road, or trade road connecting Europe and Asia, went through most of today's Central Asian countries. Trade on the Silk Road was a significant factor in the development of the civilizations of China, the Indian subcontinent, Persia, Europe and Arabia. We believe that Central Asian science will be developed as a key contributor to expanding biomedical knowledge around the world. By contributing to CAJGH, scientists from around the world can help us reach that goal. It will take about a year for our journal to obtain traditional impact factor. However we can use another metric called Google Page ranks (http://www.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec26131/001.htm) which is a ranking of the impact of web pages in the space of the Internet. We were very surprised and pleased that when we searched on central Asian Journals there were 30 million sites found and CAJGH was number 1. Even more impressive is that when on searches on global health journals, there are 300,000,000 sites found, and CAJGH was number 8. We thus are having a large impact in the area of global health and we are exceeding expectation. Over the past two years, we developed a network of over 1300 individuals interested in journal development. If you are interested in CAJGH development and publication opportunities, please let us know. We plan to become one of the leading and most cited health journals in 5 years. We are currently collecting articles for Issue #3 of CAJGH. We are looking forward to your contributions!!! We are accepting traditional research papers, review papers, viewpoints, editorials, etc. Please visit us at cajgh.pitt.edu Please read one of our inaugural editorials at http://cajgh.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/cajgh/article/view/5/7 We would like to thank our Kazakhstan collaborators, including Drs. Shigeo Katsu, Zhaksybai Zhumadilov, Sholpan Askarova, and Shalkar Adambekov. There are three difficulties in authorship: to write anything worth publishing, to find honest men to publish it, and to find sensible men to read it. Charles Caleb Colton "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" (WHO) Best Regards, Faina, Ron, Zhaksybai, Shalkar, Sholpan, Aiym, Kyle, Sean, Rob, Eugene, Francois, Nicholas, Ohanyido, Gil, Mita, Ismail, Eric, Kawkab, Vint, Ali, Olga You have received this newsletter in the genuine belief that its contents would be of interest to you. If you would like to unsubscribe from future mailing of the Supercourse Newsletter, please click "reply all" and resend the newsletter to us with the word "Unsubscribe" in the subject line. Thanks. From dwolfram at UWM.EDU Thu Jul 11 21:26:23 2013 From: dwolfram at UWM.EDU (Dietmar Wolfram) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:26:23 -0500 Subject: CfP - iConference 2014, Berlin - Now Accepting Submissions In-Reply-To: <1566079699.64548.1373592252855.JavaMail.root@mail06.pantherlink.uwm.edu> Message-ID: [Please excuse any duplicate postings] iConference 2014: Breaking Down Walls: Culture-Context-Computing. Berlin, Germany, 4-7 March, 2014 Conference Site: http://ischools.org/the-iconference/ Conference Submission System: https://www.conftool.com/iConference2014/ Greetings to everyone! We are now accepting submissions for iConference 2014, our ninth annual gathering of scholars, researchers and professionals who share an interest in the critical information issues of contemporary information society. iConference will take place 4-7 March, 2014, in Berlin, Germany. The four days will include peer-reviewed Papers, Notes, Posters, Workshops and Sessions for Interaction and Engagement. Also offered are a Doctoral Student Colloquium and an Early Career Colloquium. Authors and organizers can now submit materials using our secure submissions website: https://www.conftool.com/iConference2014/. The official proceedings will be published in the open access Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (IDEALS). iConference 2014 is presented by the iSchools organization (www.ischools.org) and hosted by The Berlin School of Library and Information Science at Humboldt-Universit?t zu Berlin; its program is administered by the Royal School of Library and Information Science, University of Copenhagen. The presenting sponsor is Microsoft Research. All information scholars, researchers and practitioners are invited to the iConference?affiliation with an iSchools is not required. We look forward to seeing you in Berlin! IMPORTANT LINKS * Conference Home: http://ischools.org/the-iconference/ * Call for Participation: http://ischools.org/the-iconference/call-for-participation/ * Submissions: https://www.conftool.com/iConference2014/ * Facebook: IConference * Twitter: @iConf | #iconf14 SUBMISSION INFORMATION The following is a brief overview; please visit our website for complete submissions guidelines. All submissions should be in English. Authors are discouraged from submitting the same research to different conference submission categories. For example, authors should not submit the same research as a Note and a Poster. All submitting authors must provide basic information and agree to the IDEALS Deposit Agreement: Non-Exclusive Distribution and Preservation License. Make your submission at https://www.conftool.com/iConference2014/. * PAPERS: Papers reporting results of completed original research, including papers proposing new theories, not published elsewhere, are invited for submission. Submitted papers should be between 5,000 and 6,000 words (not counting references), and should not have been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Each will be refereed in a double-blind process. More at http://ischools.org/the-iconference/program/papers/ Submission deadline: 15 August 2013, 23:00 GMT Papers Chairs: Diane H. Sonnenwald, Professor, Chair in Information and Library Studies, UCD School of Information & Library Studies, Dublin; Dietmar Wolfram, Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. * NOTES: Reports of early and partial results from original research are invited for submission as a Note. Submitted notes should be between 2,000 and 2,500 words (not counting references). Submissions will be refereed in a double-blind process. http://ischools.org/the-iconference/program/notes/ Submission deadline: 18 September 2013, 23:00 GMT Notes Chairs: Diane H. Sonnenwald, Professor, Chair in Information and Library Studies, UCD School of Information & Library Studies, Dublin; Dietmar Wolfram, Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. * POSTERS We welcome submission of Posters presenting new work, preliminary results and designs, or educational projects. Submitted posters should be around 1,500 words (not including references). These posters will undergo a double-blind review. Posters will be published in the proceedings. More at http://ischools.org/the-iconference/program/posters/ Abstract submission deadline: 18 September 2013, 23:00 GMT Posters Chairs: Toine Bogers, Assistant Professor, Royal School of Library and Information Science, University of Copenhagen; Paul D. Clough, Senior Lecturer, Information School of Social Science, University of Sheffield. * WORKSHOPS Workshops can be half- or full day and can focus on any area related to the conference theme (Breaking Down Walls: Culture, Context, Computing) or more broadly to the purview of the iSchools, namely, the relationships among information, people and technology. Please note that workshops should be free of charge to conference participants. More at http://ischools.org/the-iconference/program/workshops/ Submission deadline: 4 September 2013, 23:00 GMT Workshops Chairs: Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Senior Research Scientist, OCLC Research; Soo Young Rieh, Associate Professor, School of Information, University of Michigan. * SESSIONS FOR INTERACTION AND ENGAGEMENT Formerly called Alternative Events, these sessions can include panels, fishbowls, performances, storytelling, roundtable discussions, wildcard sessions, demos/exhibitions, and more. All should be highly participatory, informal, engaging, and pluralistic. More at http://ischools.org/the-iconference/program/sessions-for-interaction-and-engagement/ Submission deadline: 4 September 2013, 23:00 GMT Sessions for Interaction and Engagement Chairs: Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Senior Research Scientist, OCLC Research; Soo Young Rieh, Associate Professor, School of Information, University of Michigan. OTHER EVENTS SCHEDULED * DOCTORAL COLLOQUIUM The Doctoral Colloquium provides doctoral students the opportunity to present their work to senior faculty and engage with one another in a setting that is relatively informal but that allows for the fullest of intellectual exchanges. Students receive feedback on their dissertation, career paths, and other areas from participating faculty and student peers. Participation in the Doctoral Colloquium is restricted to students who have applied for and been accepted into the Colloquium. More at http://ischools.org/the-iconference/program/doctoral-colloquium/ Application deadline: 26 August 2013, 23:00 GMT Doctoral Colloquium Co-Chairs: Karen E. Fisher, Professor, University of Washington; Jens-Erik Mai, Professor, Royal School of Library and Information Science, University of Copenhagen; Gloria Mack, Professor, University of California, Irvine * EARLY CAREER COLLOQUIUM This half-day event is intended for assistant professors, post-docs, or others in pre-tenure positions and builds on the tradition of highly successful events at past iConferences. More at http://ischools.org/the-iconference/program/early-career-colloquium/ Early Career Colloquium Chairs: Jeffrey Pomerantz, Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Vivien Petras, Professor, Berlin School of Library and Information Science. ADDITIONAL ORGANIZERS Conference Chairs: Michael Seadle, Director of the School and Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Berlin School of Library and Information Science, Berlin; Per Hasle, Director, Royal School of Library and Information Science, University of Copenhagen. Program Chairs: Jack Andersen, Vice-Director and Head of Department, Elke Greifeneder, Assistant Professor, and Beth Juncker, Professor, Royal School of Library and Information Science, University of Copenhagen. Proceedings Chair: Maxi Kindling, Lecturer, Berlin School of Library and Information Science Program Committee: Alessandro Acquisti, Carnegie Mellon University Paavo Arvola, University of Tampere Fernando Ba??o, Instituto Superior de Estat?stica e Gest?o de Informa??o PT Nicholas Belkin, Rutgers University John Bertot, University of Maryland College Park Wade Bishop, University of Tennessee Catherine Blake, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Pia Borlund, Copenhagen University Geoffrey C. Bowker, University of California, Irvine Nadia Caidi, University of Toronto Donald Case, University of Kentucky Miguel de Castro Neto, ISEGI-NOVA PT Chuanfu Chen, Wuhan University Andrew Clement, University of Toronto Sheila Corrall, University of Pittsburgh Kevin Crowston, Syracuse University / National Science Foundation Mats Dahlstr?m, University of Bor?s William De Luca Ernesto, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam Kristin Eschenfelder, University of Wisconsin-Madison Qing Fang, Wuhan University Melanie Feinberg, The University of Texas at Austin Robert Glushko, University of California, Berkeley Jette Seiden Hyldegaard, University of Copenhagen Hideo Joho, University of Tsukuba Anita Komlodi, University of Maryland, Baltimore County Christopher Lee, University of North Carolina Ulf Leser, Humboldt-Universit?t zu Berlin Dirk Lewandowksi, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Bonnie Mak, University of Illinois Julie McLeod, Northumbria University Eric Meyers, University of British Columbia William E. Moen, University of North Texas Atsuyuki Morishima, University of Tsukuba Karine Nahon, University of Washington Bonnie Nardi, University of California, Irvine Harri Oinas-Kukkonen, University of Oulu Gary M. Olson, University of California, Irvine Nils Pharo, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences Andreas Rauber, Vienna University of Technology Howard Rosenbaum, Indiana University Steve Sawyer, Syracuse University Linda Schamber, University of North Texas Kalpana Shankar, University College Dublin Jaime Snyder, Syracuse University Juliane Stiller, Humboldt-Universit?t zu Berlin Joseph T. Tennis, University of Washington Michael Twidale, University of Illinois Robert Villa, University of Sheffield More at http://ischools.org/the-iconference/ ******************************************************************************** Dietmar Wolfram, Professor School of Information Studies, U. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A Phone: 414 229-6836 Fax: 414 229-6699 Web: http://people.uwm.edu/dwolfram From editor.jscires at GMAIL.COM Tue Jul 16 01:15:18 2013 From: editor.jscires at GMAIL.COM (Journal of Scientometric Research) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:45:18 +0530 Subject: Call for Papers Journal of Scientometric Research Message-ID: Dear All, Greetings! You will be glad to know that a new journal Journal of Scientometric Research (www.jscires.org) has been launched. This journal comes from SciBiolMed.Org , which has around 20 journals with 16 journals in Scopus and 1 in SCI. From this issue onwards, it is published by Medknow Publications a brand of Wolters Kluwer Health. The objective of this journal is to provide a platform for scholarship in Scientometrics and also act as an exchange between Scientometrics and other closely connected research domains i.e. Science Technology Studies, Innovation studies etc. Besides addressing the core researchers in this field; to attract scholars from interdisciplinary research traditions and also keeping in view those scholars within Scientometrics are themselves from heterogeneous disciplinary traditions, we have created different categories for contributions. Thus along with Research and Review Paper, the journal has Perspective, Commentary and Research Notes sections. Webliography is a special feature that would help the research community to be benefitted by your insightful information on a specific theme/topic of research. For work which is in development stage we have created the Research-in-Progress section. This category would allow scholars to showcase their ongoing work or for young promising researchers announce their work in progress. Please note that the journal publishes three issues in a year January-April, May-August, and September-December. I am writing this letter to you for inviting you to publish your work in the forthcoming issue of our journal.Please refer to http://www.jscires.org/ for Instruction to Authors, digital copy of the first issue. Soon the digital version of the second issue will be available in the site followed by the print version. I look forward to your contribution in any of the sections for the forthcoming issue. We will make sure that work accepted after peer review gets a broad audience by announcing the issue through many different channels like newsgroups, mail lists, flyers at conferences. I look forward to your submission in this journal. Thanks for your support. Warm Regards -- *Dr. Sujit Bhattacharya*, Ph.D *Editor-in-Chief*, *Journal of Scientometric Research* [An Official Publication of Wolters Kluwer Health - Medknow, and SciBiolMed.Org] Senior Principal Scientist (NISTADS) & Guest Faculty (JNU) Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012, INDIA Landline: +91-11-25843024 Mobile: +91-9999020157 *Email*: editor at jscires.org *Website*: www.jscires.org *Facebook*: http://www.fb.com/groups/www.jscires.org *Online manuscript submission*: http://www.journalonweb.com/jscires/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Tue Jul 16 17:44:53 2013 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 21:44:53 +0000 Subject: Web of Knowledge Research Fronts 2013: 100 top ranked specialties in the sciences and social sciences by David Pendlebury and Christopher King Message-ID: The Research Fronts 2013 report by David Pendlebury and Christopher King is now available for download at the Science Watch website: http://sciencewatch.com/articles/research-fronts-2013-100-top-ranked-specialities-sciences-and-social-sciences The addendum by David Pendlebury is a must read recapitulation of the history of the field. There is also a version in Japanese that was translated by Satoko Ando in Tokyo: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.jp/media/Press/releases/Research_Fronts_2013.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Jul 19 02:55:05 2013 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:55:05 +0200 Subject: The "Academic Trace" of the Performance Matrix: A Mathematical Synthesis of the h-Index and the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) Message-ID: The "Academic Trace" of the Performance Matrix: A Mathematical Synthesis of the h-Index and the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) The h-index provides us with nine natural classes which can be written as a matrix of three vectors. The three vectors are: X=(X1, X2, X3) indicate publication distribution in the h-core, the h-tail, and the uncited ones, respectively; Y=(Y1, Y2, Y3) denote the citation distribution of the h-core, the h-tail and the so-called "excess" citations (above the h-threshold), respectively; and Z=(Z1, Z2, Z3)= (Y1-X1, Y2-X2, Y3-X3). The matrix V=(X,Y,Z)T constructs a measure of academic performance, in which the nine numbers can all be provided with meanings in different dimensions. The "academic trace" tr(V) of this matrix follows naturally, and contributes a unique indicator for total academic achievements by summarizing and weighting the accumulation of publications and citations. This measure can also be used to combine the advantages of the h-index and the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) into a single number with a meaningful interpretation of the values. We illustrate the use of tr(V) for the cases of two journal sets, two universities, and ourselves as two individual authors. . Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3616 . Fred Y. Ye * School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, CHINA yye at nju.edu.cn Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) University of Amsterdam, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands loet at leydesdorff.net ** apologies for cross-postings -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Fri Jul 19 12:26:13 2013 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:26:13 +0000 Subject: Papers from JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2) 2013 Message-ID: ? Title: Collective dynamics in knowledge networks: Emerging trends analysis Authors: Liu, X; Jiang, TT; Ma, FC Author Full Names: Liu, Xiang; Jiang, Tingting; Ma, Feicheng Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):425-438; 10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.003 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Knowledge networks, Dynamical network, Collective dynamics, Emerging trends, Research front KeyWords Plus: RESEARCH FRONTS; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURES; COCITATION ANALYSIS; COMPLEX NETWORKS; SCIENCE; CITATION; SYNCHRONIZATION; SPECIALTIES; CENTRALITY; ARTICLES Abstract: This paper addresses emerging trends in the collective dynamics found in knowledge networks, those networks composed of the relationships among knowledge sources, such as citation networks and keyword networks. In studying the formation and detection of new trends in the process of knowledge evolution, we use the collective dynamics approach to construct a network of knowledge clusters based on citation clustering. This approach explores the processes and rules of new trends emerging in knowledge clusters by examining the continuous changes in keyword vectors found in the interaction and coordination between evolving knowledge clusters. In direct citation networks, the collective dynamics approach is found to be superior to the baseline method, especially in predicting small knowledge fields with less data and more uncertainties. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Liu, Xiang; Jiang, Tingting; Ma, Feicheng] Wuhan Univ, Ctr Studies Informat Resources, Wuhan 430072, Peoples R China. [Liu, Xiang] Huazhong Normal Univ, Sch Informat Management, Wuhan 430079, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: xiangliu at whu.edu.cn; tij at whu.edu.cn; fchma at whu.edu.cn Cited Reference Count: 45 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100020 Cited References: White HD, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V49, P327 Swan R, 1999, PROCEEDINGS OF THE EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, CIKM'998th International Conference on Information Knowledge Management (CIKM 99), NOV 02-06, 1999, KANSAS CITY, MO, P38 Kuramoto Y., 1984, Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence, Rousseau Ronald, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P575 La Rocca C. E., 2011, PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, V390, P2840 Kontostathis A, 2006, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT4th ACM SIGIR Workshop on Mathematical/Formal Methods in IR, 2003, Toronto, CANADA, V42, P56 Astrom Fredrik, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P947 Perez Toni, 2011, CHAOS, V21, Li X, 2003, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS I-FUNDAMENTAL THEORY AND APPLICATIONS, V50, P1381 GRIFFITH BC, 1974, SCIENCE STUDIES, V4, P339 WINFREE AT, 1967, JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY, V16, P15 BELYKH I, 2005, PHYS REV LETT, V94, Allan J., 1998, Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information RetrievalProceedings of 21st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 24-28 Aug. 1998, Melbourne, Vic., Australia, Boccaletti S., 2006, PHYSICS REPORTS-REVIEW SECTION OF PHYSICS LETTERS, V424, P175 Newman MEJ, 2003, SIAM REVIEW, V45, P167 Stout John, 2011, CHAOS, V21, Jarneving Bo, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P287 Small H, 1999, LIBRARY TRENDS, V48, P72 Ravoori Bhargava, 2011, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, V107, Chua L O, 1992, CNN: A paradigm for complexity, Kontostathis A., 2004, Technical Report, Kontostathis A., 2003, A comprehensive survey of text mining, P185 Morris SA, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P413 Boyack Kevin W., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2389 Kleinberg J., 2002, Proc. of the 8th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Minin, P91 FREEMAN LC, 1979, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V1, P215 Fabian M., 2008, Proceedings of American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium, P485 Small Henry, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P595 Chen CM, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P359 van Eck Nees Jan, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 17-20, 2008, Vienna, AUSTRIA, V82, P581 VICSEK T, 1995, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, V75, P1226 Clauset A., 2004, Phys. Rev. E, V70, P66111 SMALL H, 1974, SCIENCE STUDIES, V4, P17 Kaneko K., 1992, Coupled map lattices, PRICE DJD, 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 PERSSON O, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V45, P31 Gomez-Gardenes Jesus, 2007, Physical review letters, V98, P034101 Aris Aleks, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P2219 BRAAM RR, 1991, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V42, P252 Upham S. Phineas, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P15 Pottenger W. M., 2001, Detecting emerging concepts in textual data mining, P89 Shibata Naoki, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P872 Wallace Matthew L., 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P240 Reynolds C. W., 1987, Computer GraphicsSIGGRAPH '87 Conference Proceedings, V21, P25 Shibata Naoki, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P571 ======================================================================== Title: Energetics of the h-bubble Authors: Prathap, G Author Full Names: Prathap, Gangan Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):439-441; 10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.006 2013 Language: English Document Type: Letter Addresses: CSIR Natl Inst Sci Commun & Informat Resources, New Delhi 110012, India. E-mail Addresses: gp at niscair.res.in Cited Reference Count: 3 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100021 Cited References: Prathap Gangan, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P269 Rousseau Ronald, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P294 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 ======================================================================== Title: Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator Authors: Waltman, L; van Eck, NJ; van Leeuwen, TN; Visser, MS Author Full Names: Waltman, Ludo; van Eck, Nees Jan; van Leeuwen, Thed N.; Visser, Martijn S. Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):272-285; 10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.011 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Journal impact, Journal indicator, Scopus, Source normalization, SNIP KeyWords Plus: SOURCE NORMALIZED IMPACT; BIBLIOMETRIC RANKINGS; AUDIENCE FACTOR; CITATIONS; SCIENCE; PAPER Abstract: The SNIP (source normalized impact per paper) indicator is an indicator of the citation impact of scientific journals. The indicator, introduced by Henk Moed in 2010, is included in Elsevier's Scopus database. The SNIP indicator uses a source normalized approach to correct for differences in citation practices between scientific fields. The strength of this approach is that it does not require a field classification system in which the boundaries of fields are explicitly defined. In this paper, a number of modifications that were recently made to the SNIP indicator are explained, and the advantages of the resulting revised SNIP indicator are pointed out. It is argued that the original SNIP indicator has some counterintuitive properties, and it is shown mathematically that the revised SNIP indicator does not have these properties. Empirically, the differences between the original SNIP indicator and the revised one turn out to be relatively small, although some systematic differences can be observed. Relations with other source normalized indicators proposed in the literature are discussed as well. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Waltman, Ludo; van Eck, Nees Jan; van Leeuwen, Thed N.; Visser, Martijn S.] Leiden Univ, Ctr Sci & Technol Studies, NL-2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands. E-mail Addresses: waltmanlr at cwts.leidenuniv.nl; ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl; leeuwen at cwts.leidenuniv.nl; visser at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Cited Reference Count: 23 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100003 Cited References: Waltman Ludo, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1476 Guerrero-Bote Vicente P., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P674 Radicchi Filippo, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P121 Leydesdorff L., Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P214 Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2365 Gonzalez-Pereira Borja, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P379 Marchant Thierry, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1132 Waltman Ludo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P37 Zitt Michel, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1856 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P406 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P217 Garfield E., 1979, Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities, Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P415 Bouyssou Denis, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P75 Zitt M., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P329 Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Zitt Michel, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P392 Glanzel W., 2012, Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators, P305 Moed Henk F., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P211 SMALL H, 1985, SCIENTOMETRICS, V7, P391 Waltman L., Scientometrics, Marchant T., 2009, Scientometrics, V80, P327 ======================================================================== Title: A mathematical characterization of the Hirsch-index by means of minimal increments Authors: Egghe, L Author Full Names: Egghe, L. Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):388-393; 10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.005 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Hirsch-index, h-Index, Characterization, Increment Abstract: The minimum configuration to have a h-index equal to h is h papers each having h citations, hence h(2) citations in total. To increase the h-index to h + 1 we minimally need (h + 1)(2) citations, an increment of I-1(h) = 2h + 1. The latter number increases with 2 per unit increase of h. This increment of the second order is denoted I-2(h) =2. If we define I-1 and I-2 for a general Hirsch configuration (say n papers each having f(n) citations) we calculate I-1(f) and I-2(f) similarly as for the h-index. We characterize all functions f for which I-2(f) = 2 and show that this can be obtained for functions f(n) different from the h-index. We show that f(n) = n (i.e. the h-index) if and only if I-2(f) = 2, f(1) = 1 and f(2) = 2. We give a similar characterization for the threshold index (where n papers have a constant number C of citations). Here we deal with second order increments I-2(f) = 0. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Egghe, L.] Univ Hasselt, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium. [Egghe, L.] Univ Antwerp, IBW, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium. E-mail Addresses: leo.egghe at uhasselt.be Cited Reference Count: 5 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100016 Cited References: Wu Qiang, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P609 Kosmulski M., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P4 Egghe L., 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P439 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P406 ======================================================================== Title: Correlation between variables subject to an order restriction, with application to scientometric indices Authors: Garcia-Perez, MA; Nunez-Anton, V Author Full Names: Garcia-Perez, Miguel A.; Nunez-Anton, Vicente Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):542-554; 10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.010 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Correlation, Order restrictions, Sampling distribution, Significance testing, Simulation KeyWords Plus: CORRELATION-COEFFICIENT; T-TEST; ROBUSTNESS; NORMALITY; CANCER Abstract: Variables subject to an order restriction, for instance Y <= X, have a bivariate distribution over a non-rectangular joint domain that entails a non-null and potentially large structural relation even if the variables show no association (in the sense that particular ranges of values of X do not co-occur with particular ranges of values of Y). Order restrictions affect a number of scientometric indices (including the h index and its variants) that are routinely subjected to correlational analyses to assess whether they provide redundant information, but these correlations are contaminated by the structural relation. This paper proposes an alternative definition of association between variables subject to an order restriction that eliminates their structural relation and reverts to the conventional definition when applied to variables that are not subject to order restrictions. This alternative definition is illustrated in a number of theoretical cases and it is also applied ! to empirical data involving scientometric indices subject to an order restriction. A test statistic is also derived which allows testing for the significance of an association between variables subject to an order restriction. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Garcia-Perez, Miguel A.] Univ Complutense, Fac Psicol, Dept Metodol, Madrid 28223, Spain. [Nunez-Anton, Vicente] Univ Pais Vasco UPV EHU, Fac Ciencias Econ & Empresariales, Dept Econometria & Estadist EA 3, Bilbao 48015, Spain. E-mail Addresses: miguel at psi.ucm.es; vicente.nunezanton at ehu.es ResearcherID Numbers: Garcia-Perez, Miguel Angel/F-7043-2011 ORCID Numbers: Garcia-Perez, Miguel Angel/0000-0003-2669-4429 Cited Reference Count: 23 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100031 Cited References: EDGELL SE, 1984, PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, V95, P576 Kowalski C.J., 1972, Applied Statistics, V21, P1 Rosenberg M. S., 2011, A biologist's guide to impact factors., Ruane Frances, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P395 Storaunet K, 2002, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH-REVUE CANADIENNE DE RECHERCHE FORESTIERE, V32, P1801 Schreiber M., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P347 Kellen David, 2011, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, V55, P251 Zimmerman D. W., 2003, Psicologica, V24, P133 VANDENBRINK WP, 1988, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL & STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, V41, P251 GARCIAPEREZ MA, 1990, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL & STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, V43, P73 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P346 Zebrack BJ, 2001, HEALTH & SOCIAL WORK, V26, P245 Parks Colleen M., 2009, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V106, P11515 Rossouw Jacques E., 2007, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V297, P1465 Numerical Algorithms Group, 1999, NAG Fortran Library Manual, Mark 19, Garcia-Perez Miguel A., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P689 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 SUBRAHMANIAM K, 1980, JOURNAL OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, V10, P60 van Dorp J. R., 2002, The Statistician, V51, P63 Hayes AF, 1996, PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, V1, P184 Garcia-Perez Miguel A., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P779 Kraemer H. C., 1980, Journal of Educational Statistics, V5, P115 Bain C, 2004, JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, V96, P826 ======================================================================== Title: Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index Authors: Torres-Salinas, D; Rodriguez-Sanchez, R; Robinson-Garcia, N; Fdez-Valdivia, J; Garcia, JA Author Full Names: Torres-Salinas, Daniel; Rodriguez-Sanchez, Rosa; Robinson-Garcia, Nicolas; Fdez-Valdivia, J.; Garcia, J. A. Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):412-424; 10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.004 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Information gain, Book Citation Index, Databases, Academic publishers, Citation analysis, Book chapters, Lotkaian distribution KeyWords Plus: GOOGLE SCHOLAR; SOCIAL-SCIENCES; HUMANITIES; SCOPUS; MONOGRAPHS; PUBLISHERS; RANKINGS; IMPACT; WEB Abstract: In this paper we provide the reader with a visual representation of relationships among the impact of book chapters indexed in the Book Citation Index using information gain values and published by different academic publishers in specific disciplines. The impact of book chapters can be characterized statistically by citations histograms. For instance, we can compute the probability of occurrence of book chapters with a number of citations in different intervals for each academic publisher. We predict the similarity between two citation histograms based on the amount of relative information between such characterizations. We observe that the citation patterns of book chapters follow a Lotkaian distribution. This paper describes the structure of the Book Citation Index using 'heliocentric clockwise maps' which allow the reader not only to determine the grade of similarity of a given academic publisher indexed in the Book Citation Index with a specific discipline according to ! their citation distribution, but also to easily observe the general structure of a discipline, identifying the publishers with higher impact and output. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Torres-Salinas, Daniel] Univ Navarra, Evaluac Ciencia & Comunicac Cient EC3, Ctr Invest, Navarra 31008, Spain. [Rodriguez-Sanchez, Rosa; Fdez-Valdivia, J.; Garcia, J. A.] Univ Granada, Dept Ciencias Comp & IA, CITIC UGR, E-18071 Granada, Spain. [Robinson-Garcia, Nicolas] Univ Granada, Evaluac Ciencia & Comunicac Cient EC3, E-18071 Granada, Spain. E-mail Addresses: torressalinas at gmail.com; rosa at decsai.ugr.es; elrobin at ugr.es; jfv at decsai.ugr.es; jags at decsai.ugr.es Cited Reference Count: 32 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100019 Cited References: Kousha Kayvan, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2147 Gimenez-Toledo Elea, 2009, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V18, P201 Linmans A. J. M., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P337 Archambault Eric, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P329 Torres-Salinas Daniel, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P9 Moya-Anegon F., 2007, Scientometrics, V73, P53 JEFFREYS H, 1946, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES A-MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES, V186, P453 Lewison G, 2001, RESEARCH EVALUATION6th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, MAY 24-27, 2000, LEIDEN, NETHERLANDS, V10, P89 Torres-Salinas Daniel, 2012, REVISTA ESPANOLA DE DOCUMENTACION CIENTIFICA, V35, P615 HAMILTON DP, 1991, SCIENCE, V251, P25 Tang Rong, 2008, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V69, P356 Garcia J. A., 2012, Scientometrics, Garfield E., 1996, Consensus Conference on the Theory and Practice of Research Assessment, 7 October, Capri, Italy, Leydesdorff Loet, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P2239 Cronin B, 1997, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V53, P263 Zuccala Alesia, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1979 White Howard D., 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1083 Hicks D, 2004, HANDBOOK OF QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH: THE USE OF PUBLICATION AND PATENT STATISTICS IN STUDIES OF S&T SYSTEMS, P473 Leydesdorff L, 2012, Journal of Scientometric Research, V1, P28 KULLBACK S, 1951, ANNALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, V22, P79 Renyi A., 1961, Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematics, Statistics, and Probability, V1, P547 Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P348 Egghe L, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P669 Moed H. F., 2005, Citation analysis in research evaluation, Kullback S., 1978, Information theory and statistics, Bar-Ilan Judit, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P257 Meho Lokman I., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P2105 Kulkarni Abhaya V., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P1092 SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Kousha Kayvan, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1537 LINE MB, 1979, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V35, P265 Garcia JA, 2001, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE, V23, P362 ======================================================================== Title: Factors affecting citation rates in environmental science Authors: Vanclay, JK Author Full Names: Vanclay, Jerome K. Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):265-271; 10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.009 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citedness, Journal impact factor, Research impact KeyWords Plus: OPEN-ACCESS ARTICLES; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTORS; COLLABORATION; PUBLICATIONS; FREQUENCY; QUALITY; SUCCESS Abstract: Analysis of 131 publications during 2006-2007 by staff of the School of Environmental Science and Management at Southern Cross University reveals that the journal impact factor, article length and type (i.e., article or review), and journal self-citations affect the citations accrued to 2012. Authors seeking to be well cited should aim to write comprehensive and substantial review articles, and submit them to journals with a high impact factor which has previously carried articles on the topic. Nonetheless, strategic placement of articles is complementary to, and no substitute for careful crafting of good quality research. Evidence remains equivocal regarding the contribution of an author's prior publication success (h-index) and of open-access journals. Crown Copyright (c) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: So Cross Univ, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. E-mail Addresses: jvanclay at scu.edu.au Cited Reference Count: 44 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100002 Cited References: Rossner Mike, 2007, JOURNAL OF CELL BIOLOGY, V179, P1091 Craig Iain D., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P239 Leimu R, 2005, BIOSCIENCE, V55, P438 Vanclay Jerome K., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P3 Figg WD, 2006, PHARMACOTHERAPY, V26, P759 Peng Tai-Quan, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1789 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Knight L. V., 2008, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, V3, P59 Vieira E. S., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P1 DERKSEN S, 1992, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL & STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, V45, P265 Falagas M. E., 2008, Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, V56, P223 Albuquerque Ulysses P., 2011, BIOSCIENCE, V61, P706 SMART JC, 1986, SCIENTOMETRICS, V10, P297 Rowlands I, 2004, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V17, P261 Kulkarni Abhaya V., 2007, PLOS ONE, V2, Mingers J., 2010, V205, P422 Lariviere Vincent, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P424 Antelman K, 2004, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V65, P372 Judge T.A., 2007, Academy of Management Journal, V50, P491 Eysenbach Gunther, 2006, PLOS BIOLOGY, V4, P692 Vanclay Jerome K., 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P265 SEGLEN PO, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V45, P1 Aarssen L. W., 2008, Open Ecology Journal, V1, P14 Lloyd D., 2011, INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY REVIEW, V13, P500 Montori VM, 2003, CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, P43 Seglen PO, 1998, ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA, V69, P224 MacCallum Catriona J., 2006, PLOS BIOLOGY, V4, P661 Seglen PO, 1997, ALLERGY, V52, P1050 Hsu Jiann-wien, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P317 Leimu R, 2005, TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, V20, P28 van Praag C. Mirjam, 2008, ECONOMICA, V75, P782 Di Vaio Gianfranco, 2012, EXPLORATIONS IN ECONOMIC HISTORY, V49, P92 Katz JS, 1997, RESEARCH POLICY, V26, P1 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P11 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Vanclay Jerome K., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P211 Seglen P.O., 1992, Research Evaluation, V2, P143 Gaule Patrick, 2011, RESEARCH POLICY, V40, P1332 Ketcham Catherine M., 2007, LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, V87, P1174 van Teijlingen E, 2002, JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, V37, P506 Vanclay Jerome K., 2008, FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, V256, P507 Derish Pamela A., 2011, CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, V57, P388 Kim C, 1996, COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS-SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION, V25, P691 Einav L, 2006, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, V20, P175 ======================================================================== ? Title: Does "birds of a feather flock together" matter-Evidence from a longitudinal study on US-China scientific collaboration Authors: Tang, L Author Full Names: Tang, Li Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):330-344; 10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.010 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Research evaluation, International collaboration, Panel regression KeyWords Plus: SCIENCE-AND-TECHNOLOGY; CO-AUTHORSHIP; NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH; CITATION ANALYSIS; IMPACT FACTORS; PRODUCTIVITY; POLICY; PUBLICATIONS; NANOSCIENCE; COOPERATION Abstract: China's status as a scientific power, particularly in the emerging area of nanotechnology, has become widely accepted in the global scientific community. The role of knowledge spillover in China's nanotechnology development is generally assumed, albeit without much convincing evidence. Very little has been investigated on the different mechanisms of knowledge spillover. Utilizing both cross-sectional data and longitudinal data of 77 Chinese nanoscientists' publications, this study aims to differentiate individual effects from the effect of international collaboration on the research performance of Chinese researchers. The study finds evidence in support of the "birds of a feather flock together" argument - that China's best scientists collaborate at international level. It also finds that collaboration across national boundaries has a consistently positive effect on China's nano research quality with a time-decaying pattern. Language turns out to be the most influential fact! or impacting the quality or visibility of Chinese nano research. Policy implications on research evaluation, human capital management, and public research and development allocation are also discussed in the end. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Shanghai Univ Finance & Econ, Sch Publ Econ & Management, Shanghai 200433, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: tang.li at shufe.edu.cn Cited Reference Count: 74 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100011 Cited References: Goldfinch S, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V57, P321 GLANZEL W, 1995, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V21, P37 NARIN F, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICSINTERNATIONAL CONF ON OUTPUT INDICATORS FOR EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY RESEARCH PROGRAM, JUN 14-15, 1990, PARIS, FRANCE, V21, P313 Leimu R, 2005, BIOSCIENCE, V55, P438 Moed Henk F., 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P13 Jin Bihui, 2007, Proceedings of ISSI 2007: 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Vols I and II11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 25-27, 2007, Madrid, SPAIN, P427 Rinia EJ, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS6th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, MAY 24-27, 2000, LEIDEN, NETHERLANDS, V51, P293 Kostoff Ronald N., 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P354 Lever-Tracy C., 1996, The Chinese Diaspora and Mainland China: An Emerging Economic Synergy, McKeown A, 1999, JOURNAL OF ASIAN STUDIES, V58, P306 MOED HF, 1995, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V46, P461 Liang Liming, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P333 ARUNACHALAM S, 1994, SCIENTOMETRICS4th International Conference on Bibliometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics, in Memory of Derek John de Solla Price (1922-1983), SEP 11-15, 1993, BERLIN, GERMANY, V30, P7 Sonnenwald Diane H., 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P643 Zhou P, 2006, RESEARCH POLICY, V35, P83 Baldi S, 1998, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V63, P829 Reynolds T. J., 2006, Researchers go East, to China, Abbasi Alireza, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P594 Robinson S., 2007, Social Geography Discussions, V3, P121 Wallin J. A., 2005, Pharmacology and Toxicology, V97, P261 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 LAWANI SM, 1986, SCIENTOMETRICS, V9, P13 van Raan AFJ, 2004, HANDBOOK OF QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH: THE USE OF PUBLICATION AND PATENT STATISTICS IN STUDIES OF S&T SYSTEMS, P19 Lee Yong-Gil, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P27 Glanzel W, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V50, P199 Glanzel W, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V61, P395 Moed H. F., 2005, Citation analysis in research evaluation, Tang L., 2012, Journal of Technology Management in China, V7, P94 Wooldridge J. M., 2006, Econometrics: A modern approach, PIETTE MJ, 1992, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION, V23, P277 Tang Li, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P763 Shapira Philip, 2010, NATURE, V468, P627 Zucker L. G., 2007, Star scientists, innovation and regional and national immigration, Hu Guangyuan, 2012, JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, V37, P550 Kostoff Ronald N., 2012, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V79, P986 Wooldridge J., 2002, Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Fleming Lee, 2007, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V52, P443 Beirlant Jan, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P185 Frietsch R., 2007, Bibliometrics China, Tang Li, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P1 Wilsdon J., 2006, The new geography of science: UK research and international collaboration, Duque RB, 2005, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V35, P755 Egghe L., 1990, Introduction to informetrics quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science, Laband DN, 2000, JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, V108, P632 Barjak Franz, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P343 Shapira P., 2009, Asian Business & Management, V8, P461 Persson O, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P421 Katz JS, 1997, RESEARCH POLICY, V26, P1 Appelbaum R. P., 2008, Science and Public Policy, V35, P319 Hara N, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P952 He Zi-Lin, 2009, RESEARCH POLICY, V38, P306 Roco MC, 2005, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V7, P1 Carayol N, 2004, TECHNOVATION, V24, P455 van Leeuwen TN, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS7th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicatiors, SEP 25-28, 2002, KARLSRUHE, GERMANY, V57, P257 Chinchilla-Rodriguez Z., 2012, Journal of Information Professionals in Health, V23, P219 Suttmeier Richard P., 2008, ASIAN PERSPECTIVE, V32, P5 Adams JD, 2005, RESEARCH POLICY, V34, P259 Abramo Giovanni, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P629 Youtie Jan, 2008, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V10, P981 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, V8, P93 Greene W. H., 2002, Econometric Analysis, Wang Xianwen, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P737 Sin S. J., 2011, Journal of Library and Information Studies, V9, P27 Lundberg Jonas, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P575 Ma L. J. C., 2003, The Chinese Diaspora: Space, Place, Mobility and Identity, LaFraniere S., 2010, New York Times, Seglen PO, 2000, SCIENTOMETRICS, V49, P125 Moed HF, 1996, NATURE, V381, P186 Appelbaum Richard P., 2011, GLOBAL NETWORKS-A JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL AFFAIRS, V11, P298 ALLISON PD, 1974, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V39, P596 Ventura Oscar N., 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P287 Roco MC, 2005, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V7, P707 Lin Min-Wei, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P555 Youtie Jan, 2011, JOURNAL OF NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY, V11, P158 ======================================================================== Title: Individual research performance: A proposal for comparing apples to oranges Authors: Abramo, G; Cicero, T; D'Angelo, CA Author Full Names: Abramo, Giovanni; Cicero, Tindaro; D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):528-539; 10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.013 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Research evaluation, Bibliometrics, Citations, Productivity, Standardization KeyWords Plus: CITATION CHARACTERISTICS; SCIENCE SYSTEM; SCALING RULES; FIELD; IMPACT Abstract: The evaluation of performance at the individual level is of fundamental importance in informing management decisions. The literature provides various indicators and types of measures, however a problem that is still unresolved and little addressed is how to compare the performance of researchers working in different fields (apples to oranges). In this work we propose a solution, testing various scaling factors for the distributions of research productivity in 174 scientific fields. The analysis is based on the observation of scientific production by all Italian university researchers active in the hard sciences over the period 2004-2008, as indexed by the Web of Science. The most effective scaling factor is the average of the productivity distribution of researchers with productivity above zero. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Abramo, Giovanni] Univ Roma Tor Vergata, Natl Res Council Italy IASI CNR, Rome, Italy. [Cicero, Tindaro; D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea] Univ Roma Tor Vergata, Lab Studies Res & Technol Transfer, Rome, Italy. E-mail Addresses: giovanni.abramo at uniroma2.it; tindaro.cicero at uniroma2.it; dangelo at dii.uniroma2.it Cited Reference Count: 13 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100029 Cited References: Smeeton N. C., 2001, Applied Non-parametric Statistical Methods, Sandstrom E., 2009, 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, July 14-17, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Costas Rodrigo, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P740 Thompson B., 1993, Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, November 12, New Orleans, LA, Abramo Giovanni, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P347 Zitt M, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V63, P373 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 van Raan Anthony F. J., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P565 Abramo Giovanni, 2007, CURRENT SCIENCE, V93, P762 Radicchi Filippo, 2011, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V83, Abramo Giovanni, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P470 Glanzel W., 2008, Proceedings of WIS Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Ninth COLLNET Meeting, Berlin, Germany, D'Angelo Ciriaco Andrea, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P257 ======================================================================== ? Title: A case study of the arbitrariness of the h-index and the highly-cited-publications indicator Authors: Schreiber, M Author Full Names: Schreiber, Michael Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):379-387; 10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.006 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis, Hirsch index, Highly-cited-publications KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC IMPACT; CITATIONS Abstract: The arbitrariness of the h-index becomes evident, when one requires q x h instead of h citations as the threshold for the definition of the index, thus changing the size of the core of the most influential publications of a dataset. I analyze the citation records of 26 physicists in order to determine how much the prefactor q influences the ranking. Likewise, the arbitrariness of the highly-cited-publications indicator is due to the threshold value, given either as an absolute number of citations or as a percentage of highly cited papers. The analysis of the 26 citation records shows that the changes in the rankings in dependence on these thresholds are rather large and comparable with the respective changes for the h-index. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Tech Univ Chemnitz, Inst Phys, D-09107 Chemnitz, Germany. E-mail Addresses: schreiber at physik.tu-chemnitz.de Cited Reference Count: 19 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100015 Cited References: Vinkler Peter, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V35, P602 Schreiber Michael, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1513 Schreiber Michael, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1274 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P406 Wu Qiang, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P609 Tijssen RJW, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V54, P381 Lehmann Sune, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V76, P369 Ellison G., 2010, CESifo Working Paper 3188, Aksnes DW, 2003, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V12, P159 Schreiber M., Scientometrics, Radicchi Filippo, 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V105, P17268 Ravallion Martin, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P321 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Albarran Pedro, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P122 Schreiber M., 2010, Annalen der Physik, V552, P536 Vinkler Peter, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1963 Lehmann Sune, 2006, NATURE, V444, P1003 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1370 van Eck Nees Jan, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P263 ======================================================================== Title: Does the specification of uncertainty hurt the progress of scientometrics? Authors: Leydesdorff, L Author Full Names: Leydesdorff, Loet Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):292-293; 10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.007 2013 Language: English Document Type: Letter KeyWords Plus: SIGNIFICANCE TESTS; CITATION ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; PAPER Addresses: Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Sch Commun Res ASCoR, NL-1012 CX Amsterdam, Netherlands. E-mail Addresses: loet at leydesdorff.net Cited Reference Count: 25 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100005 Cited References: LEYDESDORFF L, 1990, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, V15, P305 Bornmann Lutz, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P211 CWTS, 2008, AMC-specifieke CWTS-analyse 1997-2006, Bornmann Lutz, 2008, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, V8, P93 Opthof Tobias, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P1011 SCHUBERT A, 1983, SCIENTOMETRICS, V5, P59 Bornmann L., 2012, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, COHEN J, 1994, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGISTSaul B Sells Memorial Lifetime Achievement Award, Society-of-Multivariate-Experimental-Psychology, OCT 29, 1993, SAN PEDRO, CA, V49, P997 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1370 Spaan Jos A. E., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P439 Schneider Jesper W., 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P50 National Science Board, 2010, Science and engineering indicators, CWTS, 2010, AMC-specifieke CWTS-analyse 1997-2008, SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P228 Glanzel W., 1992, Representations of Science and TechnologyProceedings of the International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, 10-12 June, 1990, Bielefeld, P209 Glanzel Wolfgang, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P313 Gingras Yves, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P226 Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, MCCLOSKEY DN, 1985, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V75, P201 van Raan Anthony F. J, 2005, Measurement, V3, P1 Opthof Tobias, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P423 Lundberg Jonas, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P145 Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P644 Schneider J, 2012, The 17th international conference on science and technology indicators , P719 ======================================================================== Title: Efficiency analysis of forestry journals: Suggestions for improving journals' quality Authors: Petridis, K; Malesios, C; Arabatzis, G; Thanassoulis, E Author Full Names: Petridis, Konstantinos; Malesios, Chrisovalantis; Arabatzis, Garyfallos; Thanassoulis, Emmanuel Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):505-521; 10.1016/j.joi.2013.02.002 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Journal h-index, Journal impact factor (IF), DEA, Forestry journals KeyWords Plus: DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; NONPARAMETRIC FRONTIER MODELS; H-INDEX; GOOGLE-SCHOLAR; IMPACT FACTORS; CITATION ANALYSIS; HIRSCH-INDEX; SCIENCE; RANKING; INDICATORS Abstract: In this paper we attempt to assess the impact of journals in the field of forestry, in terms of bibliometric data, by providing an evaluation of forestry journals based on data envelopment analysis (DEA). In addition, based on the results of the conducted analysis, we provide suggestions for improving the impact of the journals in terms of widely accepted measures of journal citation impact, such as the journal impact factor (IF) and the journal h-index. More specifically, by modifying certain inputs associated with the productivity of forestry journals, we have illustrated how this method could be utilized to raise their efficiency, which in terms of research impact can then be translated into an increase of their bibliometric indices, such as the h-index, IF or eigenfactor score. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Petridis, Konstantinos; Arabatzis, Garyfallos] Democritus Univ Thrace, Dept Forestry & Management Environm & Nat Resourc, Orestiada 68200, Greece. [Malesios, Chrisovalantis] Democritus Univ Thrace, Dept Agr Dev, Orestiada 68200, Greece. [Thanassoulis, Emmanuel] Aston Univ, Aston Business Sch, Birmingham B4 7ET, W Midlands, England. E-mail Addresses: kpetridi at fmenr.duth.gr; malesios at agro.duth.gr; garamp at fmenr.duth.gr; e.thanassoulis at aston.ac.uk Cited Reference Count: 65 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100027 Cited References: Vanclay JK, 2006, SCIENTIST, V20, P14 Saad Gad, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P117 Braun T, 2005, SCIENTIST, V19, P8 Miller C. W., 2006, Arxiv Preprint Physics, Kelsey P, 2003, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V64, P357 Debreu G., 1951, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, P273 Egghe L, 2005, POWER LAWS IN THE INFORMATION PRODUCTION PROCESS: LOTKAIAN INFORMETRICS, P1 Simar L, 1998, MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, V44, P49 Simar L, 2002, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V139, P115 EFRON B, 1979, ANNALS OF STATISTICS, V7, P1 Chapron Guillaume, 2006, BIOSCIENCE, V56, P558 Ray S., 2004, A bootstrap-regression procedure to capture unit specific effects in data envelopment analysis, V200415, Halkos George Emm, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P979 Rousseau R., 2007, Science Focus, V1, P16 Whitehouse GH, 2002, EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, V12, P715 Franceschet Massimo, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P243 Koopmans T. C., 1951, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, P455 Cook Wade D., 2009, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V192, P1 MACROBERTS MH, 1989, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V40, P342 THANASSOULIS E, 1992, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V56, P80 CHARNES A, 1978, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V2, P429 Wilson P. W., 2008, Socio-economic Planning Sciences, V42, P247 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Banker RD, 2004, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V154, P345 Panaretos John, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P635 Bloch S, 2001, AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, V35, P563 Pratelli L., 2011, ar*X*iv:1102.2701v1, BANKER RD, 1984, MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, V30, P1078 Sidiropoulos Antonis, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V72, P253 Molinari Jean-Francois, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P163 Barendse William, 2007, Biomedical digital libraries, V4, P3 Vanclay Jerome K., 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P326 BOUSSOFIANE A, 1991, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V52, P1 Moussa Salim, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P107 Seglen P. O., 1997, British Medical Journal, V314, P497 Efron B., 1986, Stat. Sci., V1, P54 Schreiber Michael, 2010, ANNALEN DER PHYSIK, V522, P536 Metze Konradin, 2010, CLINICS, V65, P937 Malesios C., 2012, ANNALS OF FOREST RESEARCH, V55, P147 Vanclay Jerome K., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P19 Meho Lokman I., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P2105 Adler R., 2008, Citation statistics, Simar L, 2000, JOURNAL OF APPLIED STATISTICS, V27, P779 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Allen R, 1997, ANNALS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH, V73, P13 Vinkler Peter, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V33, P481 Vanclay Jerome K., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1547 Bergstrom C., 2007, College & Research Libraries News, V68, P314 Schubert Andras, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P179 Braun Tibor, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P169 Vinkler P, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS7th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUL 05-08, 1999, COLIMA, MEXICO, V46, P621 Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P121 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P338 Garfield E, 1998, SCIENTIST, V12, P12 Forsund FR, 2002, JOURNAL OF PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS, V17, P23 Glanzel W, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS33rd Annual Conference of the Canadian-Association-for-Information-Science, JUN 02-04, 2005, London, CANADA, V67, P315 GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 West Jevin, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1800 Moed HF, 1996, NATURE, V381, P186 Bogetoft P., 2010, Benchmarking with DEA, SFA, and R, Leydesdorff Loet, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P355 Cooper William W., 2011, HANDBOOK ON DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, SECOND EDITION, V164, P1 Vanclay Jerome K., 2008, FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, V256, P507 Garfield Eugene, 2006, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V35, P1123 Jacso Peter, 2008, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V32, P266 ======================================================================== Title: How relevant is the predictive power of the h-index? A case study of the time-dependent Hirsch index Authors: Schreiber, M Author Full Names: Schreiber, Michael Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):325-329; 10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.001 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: h index, Hirsch index, Evaluation, Citation analysis Abstract: The h-index has been shown to have predictive power. Here I report results of an empirical study showing that the increase of the h-index with time often depends for a long time on citations to rather old publications. This inert behavior of the h-index means that it is difficult to use it as a measure for predicting future scientific output. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Tech Univ Chemnitz, Inst Phys, D-09107 Chemnitz, Germany. E-mail Addresses: schreiber at physik.tu-chemnitz.de Cited Reference Count: 8 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100010 Cited References: Hu X., 2012, ISSI Newsletter, V8, P53 Hirsch J. E., 2007, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V104, P19193 Bornmann L., 2012, Measurement, V10, P149 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Lehmann Sune, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V76, P369 Leeuwen T., 2008, Research Evaluation, V17, P157 Dyson F, 2004, NATURE, V427, P297 Acuna Daniel E., 2012, NATURE, V489, P201 ======================================================================== ? ? Title: A bibliometric analysis of academic publication and NIH funding Authors: Yang, JS; Vannier, MW; Wang, F; Deng, Y; Ou, FR; Bennett, J; Liu, Y; Wang, G Author Full Names: Yang, Jiansheng; Vannier, Michael W.; Wang, Fang; Deng, Yan; Ou, Fengrong; Bennett, James; Liu, Yang; Wang, Ge Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):318-324; 10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.006 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometric analysis, Citation analysis, h-Index, a-Index, Research funding, Race/ethnicity KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; CITATION ANALYSIS; RACE DISPARITY; IMPACT; AUTHOR; PERFORMANCE; SCIENTISTS; SCIENCE; CREDIT; AWARDS Abstract: Academic productivity and research funding have been hot topics in biomedical research. While publications and their citations are popular indicators of academic productivity, there has been no rigorous way to quantify co-authors' relative contributions. This has seriously compromised quantitative studies on the relationship between academic productivity and research funding. Here we apply an axiomatic approach and associated bibliometric measures to revisit a recent study by Ginther et al. (Ginther et al., 2011a,b) in which the probability of receiving a U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 award was analyzed with respect to the applicant's race/ethnicity. Our results provide new insight and suggest that there is no significant racial bias in the NIH review process, in contrast to the conclusion from the study by D. K. Ginther et al. Our axiomatic approach has a potential to be widely used for scientific assessment and management. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights r! eserved. Addresses: [Yang, Jiansheng; Bennett, James; Wang, Ge] Virginia Tech, VT WFU Sch Biomed Engn & Sci, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA. [Yang, Jiansheng] Peking Univ, Sch Math Sci, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China. [Vannier, Michael W.] Univ Chicago, Dept Radiol, Chicago, IL 60637 USA. [Wang, Fang; Deng, Yan; Ou, Fengrong; Liu, Yang] China Med Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Shenyang, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: jsyang.rena at gmail.com; mwvannier at gmail.com; wangfang-libo at 163.com; dengyan6028 at 163.com; ofrcmu at 163.com; jrbennet at vt.edu; cmuliuyang at yahoo.com; ge-wang at ieee.org Cited Reference Count: 42 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100009 Cited References: Kinney A. L., 2007, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V104, P17943 Zhang Chun-Ting, 2009, EMBO REPORTS, V10, P416 Ball P, 2005, NATURE, V436, P900 Campbell P, 1999, Nature, V399, P393 Sebire N. J., 2008, ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, V32, P843 Vinkler P, 2010, EVALUATION OF RESEARCH BY SCIENTOMETRIC INDICATORS, P1 Abbasi Alireza, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P594 Hirsch J. E., 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, V104, P19193 Lehmann Sune, 2006, NATURE, V444, P1003 Williamson James R., 2009, ACS CHEMICAL BIOLOGY, V4, P311 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V45, P199 Kelly Clint D., 2007, NATURE, V449, P403 Ginther D. K., 2011, Science, V334, PU154 Hagen Nils T., 2008, PLOS ONE, V3, Ginther Donna K., 2011, SCIENCE, V333, P1015 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, EMBO REPORTS, V10, P2 Foulkes W, 1996, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V312, P1423 Dodson M. V., 2009, BIOCHEMICAL AND BIOPHYSICAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, V387, P625 Collins F. S., 2011, Science, V334, Kaiser Jocelyn, 2011, SCIENCE, V333, P925 Greene Mott, 2007, NATURE, V450, P1165 [Anonymous], 2007, Nature, V450, P1 Engqvist Leif, 2008, TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, V23, P250 Ball Philip, 2007, NATURE, V448, P737 Rehn Catharina, 2007, Bibliometric Indicators - Definitions and Usage at Karolinska Institutet, Mishra D. C., 2008, NATURE, V451, P244 Tabak Lawrence A., 2011, SCIENCE, V333, P940 Baldock Clive, 2009, MEDICAL PHYSICS, V36, P1043 Jeang Kuan-Teh, 2007, RETROVIROLOGY, V4, Wendl Michael C., 2007, NATURE, V449, P403 Voss Joel L., 2011, SCIENCE, V334, P899 Radicchi Filippo, 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V105, P17268 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Sherley J. L., 2011, Science, V334, Todd Peter A., 2008, NATURE, V451, P244 Liu Xuan Zhen, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P557 Bellis N. D, 2009, Bibliometrics and citation analysis - from the science citation index to cybermetrics, Egghe L., 2012, Scientometrics, Erickson Harold P., 2011, SCIENCE, V334, P899 Wang G., 2010, arXiv:1003.3362v1001 [stat.AP], Pilc Andrzej, 2008, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V56, P381 Ball Philip, 2008, NATURE, V455, P274 ======================================================================== ? ? Title: The h-bubble Authors: Rousseau, R; Garcia-Zorita, C; Sanz-Casado, E Author Full Names: Rousseau, Ronald; Garcia-Zorita, Carlos; Sanz-Casado, Elias Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):294-300; 10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.012 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: h-Index, Over-citation, Hypes, Information science journals and researchers KeyWords Plus: HIRSCH-TYPE INDEXES; SCIENTIFIC-RESEARCH OUTPUT; RANKING; JOURNALS Abstract: Hypes occur in every domain of human behavior, including scientific research. We show in this contribution that journals and authors who studied the h-index benefited in terms of short-term citations. As, moreover, the introduction of the h-index is more a 'clever find' than a first rate intellectual achievement, its rise can be compared to a stock market bubble. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Rousseau, Ronald] KHBO Assoc KU Leuven, Fac Engn Technol, B-8400 Oostende, Belgium. [Rousseau, Ronald] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Math, B-3000 Heverlee, Belgium. [Rousseau, Ronald] Univ Antwerp, IBW, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium. [Garcia-Zorita, Carlos; Sanz-Casado, Elias] Univ Carlos III Madrid, LEMI, Associated Unit IEDCYT LEMI, Madrid 28903, Spain. E-mail Addresses: ronald.rousseau at khbo.be; elias at bib.uc3m.es Cited Reference Count: 36 Times Cited: 2 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100006 Cited References: Siegel J. J, 2003, European Financial Management, V9, P11 Van Raan AFJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V67, P491 Fang Zhide, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Nachar N., 2008, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, V4, P13 Bellera C. A., 2010, Journal of Statistics Education, V18, Kosmulski M., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P4 Scientometrics, 2012, Scientometrics, V92, Jin B., 2007, ISSI Newsletter, V3, P6 Ye F. Y., 2012, ISSI Newsletter, V8, P22 MANN HB, 1947, ANNALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, V18, P50 Jeffers D., 2005, Physics World, Ye F. Y., 2012, Journal of Scientometric Research, V1, P22 Zhang Lin, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P583 Kindleberger C., 1978, Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises, Rousseau R., 2006, Science Focus, V1, P23 Marchant Thierry, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P325 Liu Yuxian, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V79, P235 Egghe L., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P8 Rousseau R., 2008, COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, V2, P1 WILCOXON F, 1945, BIOMETRICS BULLETIN, V1, P80 Rousseau R., 2006, Simple models and the corresponding h- and g-index, Jin BiHui, 2007, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V52, P855 Huber JC, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P798 Schreiber Michael, 2007, ANNALEN DER PHYSIK, V16, P640 Prathap Gangan, 2006, CURRENT SCIENCE, V91, P1439 Bouyssou Denis, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P75 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Glanzel W., 2006, Science Focus, V1, P10 Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 Bouyssou D., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P365 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P406 Egghe Leo, 2010, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V44, P65 Schubert Andras, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P179 Jin B. H., 2006, Science Focus, V1, P8 Bouyssou Denis, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1761 Ball P, 2005, NATURE, V436, P900 ======================================================================== ? ? Title: Correlation between Journal Impact Factor and Citation Performance: An experimental study Authors: Finardi, U Author Full Names: Finardi, Ugo Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):357-370; 10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.004 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Garfield, Journal Impact Factor, Article citations, Correlation coefficients, Time evolution, Impact factor misuses KeyWords Plus: RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS; INDICATORS; SCIENCE; TESTS; DISTRIBUTIONS; CRITIQUE; HISTORY; METRICS; INDEXES; IDEAS Abstract: Since its introduction, the Journal Impact Factor has probably been the most extensively adopted bibliometric indicator. Notwithstanding its well-known strengths and limits, it is still widely misused as a tool for evaluation, well beyond the purposes it was intended for. In order to shed further light on its nature, the present work studies how the correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and the (time-weighed) article Mean Received Citations (intended as a measure of journal performance) has evolved through time. It focuses on a sample of hard sciences and social sciences journals from the 1999 to 2010 time period. Correlation coefficients (Pearson's Coefficients as well as Spearman's Coefficients and Kendall's tau(alpha)) are calculated and then tested against several null hypotheses. The results show that in most cases Journal Impact Factors and their yearly variations do not display a strong correlation with citedness. Differences also exist among scientific areas.! (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Finardi, Ugo] CNR CERIS, Natl Res Council Italy, Inst Econ Res Firms & Growth, I-10024 Moncalieri, TO, Italy. [Finardi, Ugo] Univ Turin, Dept Chem, I-10125 Turin, Italy. [Finardi, Ugo] Univ Turin, NIS Ctr Excellence, I-10125 Turin, Italy. E-mail Addresses: u.finardi at ceris.cnr.it Cited Reference Count: 50 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100013 Cited References: Moed Henk F., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P367 Fisher R. A., 1915, Biometrika, V10, P507 van Leeuwen Thed, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P443 Bensman S.J., 2007, Garfield and the Impact Factor: The creation, utilization, and validation of a citation measure: Part 2, The probabilistic, statistical, and sociological bases of the measure, FIELLER EC, 1957, BIOMETRIKA, V44, P470 Vanclay Jerome K., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P211 Howell D. C., 2010, Statistical methods for psychology, Vinkler Peter, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P471 Amez Lucy, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1459 Vanclay Jerome K., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P3 Sher I. H., 1966, Research program effectiveness, Proceedings of the conference sponsored by the office of naval research, July 27-29, 1965, Washington, DC, P135 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Vieira E. S., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P1 PEARSON ES, 1962, BIOMETRIKA, V49, P185 Pott B., 2012, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, V64, P433 Ingwersen Peter, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P319 Balaban Alexandru T., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P241 Vinkler Peter, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P254 Bensman Stephen J., 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P93 Leydesdorff Loet, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P278 Miguel Campanario Juan, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P293 Pendlebury David A., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P395 Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Franceschet Massimo, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P239 Pendlebury David A., 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P1 Vinkler Peter, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V79, P409 Archambault Eric, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V79, P635 Wu Jiang, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P63 Albarran Pedro, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P329 GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Bensman Stephen J., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P263 Wessa P., 2012, Free statistics software, Liang L., 2012, Scientometrics, Mutz Ruediger, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P169 The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2006, PLoS Medicine, V3, Pe291 Albarran Pedro, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P40 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Vinkler P, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V58, P687 Fisher R. A., 1921, Metron, V1, P3 FIELLER EC, 1961, BIOMETRIKA, V48, P29 Leydesdorff L, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P601 GARFIELD E, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P195 Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P165 Garfield E., 1997, Der Unfallchirurg, V48, P413 SEGLEN PO, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V45, P1 Herranz Neus, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P543 Rousseau Ronald, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P413 Wilhite Allen W., 2012, SCIENCE, V335, P542 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Garfield E., 2005, Eugene Garfield at international congress on peer review and biomedical publication, September 16, Chicago, ======================================================================== ? Title: Cross-field evaluation of publications of research institutes using their contributions to the fields' MVPs determined by h-index Authors: Kuan, CH; Huang, MH; Chen, DZ Author Full Names: Kuan, Chung-Huei; Huang, Mu-Hsuan; Chen, Dar-Zen Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 7 (2):455-468; 10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.008 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Contribution, Cross-field evaluation, h-Index, Most visible publications, Research institutes KeyWords Plus: RANKING SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS; HIGHLY CITED PAPERS; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; RESEARCH OUTPUT; HIRSCH-INDEX; IMPACT; INDICATORS; VISIBILITY; CITATIONS; SCIENCE Abstract: We propose a cross-field evaluation method for the publications of research institutes. With this approach, we first determine a set of the most visible publications (MVPs) for each field from the publications of all assessed institutes according to the field's h-index. Then, we measure an institute's production in each field by its percentage share (i.e., contribution) to the field's MVPs. Finally, we obtain an institute's cross-field production measure as the average of its contributions to all fields. The proposed approach is proven empirically to be reasonable, intuitive to understand, and uniformly applicable to various sets of institutes and fields of different publication and citation patterns. The field and cross-field production measures obtained by the proposed approach not only allow linear ranking of institutes, but also reveal the degree of their production difference. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Kuan, Chung-Huei] Natl Taiwan Univ Sci & Technol, Grad Inst Patent, Taipei, Taiwan. [Huang, Mu-Hsuan] Natl Taiwan Univ, Dept Lib & Informat Sci, Taipei 10617, Taiwan. [Chen, Dar-Zen] Natl Taiwan Univ, Dept Mech Engn, Taipei 10617, Taiwan. [Chen, Dar-Zen] Natl Taiwan Univ, Inst Ind Engn, Taipei 10617, Taiwan. E-mail Addresses: maxkuan at mail.ntust.edu.tw; mhhuang at ntu.edu.tw; dzchen at ntu.edu.tw Cited Reference Count: 51 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 136PY Unique ID: WOS:000318377100023 Cited References: Egghe L., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P8 Waltman L., 2010, arX*iv:1004.1632v1, Rousseau R., 2006, Science Focus, V1, P23 Ravallion Martin, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P321 Vinkler P, 2010, EVALUATION OF RESEARCH BY SCIENTOMETRIC INDICATORS, P1 Bartneck Christoph, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P85 Radicchi Filippo, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P121 Egghe Leo, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1688 Lazaridis Themis, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V82, P211 Bar-Ilan Judrr, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P591 Jin BiHui, 2007, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V52, P855 Vinkler Peter, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1963 Jin B., 2007, ISSI Newsletter, V3, P6 Waltman L., 2009, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, P1002 Radicchi Filippo, 2011, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V83, Rousseau Ronald, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS1st Joint ASIS&T/ISS Conference Seminar 2009, NOV07, 2009, Vancouver, CANADA, V4, P175 Molinari Jean-Francois, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P163 PLOMP R, 1990, SCIENTOMETRICS, V19, P185 Stevens-Rayburn S., 2007, Proceedings of the 5th Library and Information Services in Astronomy Conference, P86 Waltman L., 2011, arX*iv:1108.3901, Vinkler Peter, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 17-20, 2008, Vienna, AUSTRIA, V82, P461 Radicchi Filippo, 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V105, P17268 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Aksnes DW, 2003, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V12, P159 Waltman Ludo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P37 Batista Pablo D., 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V68, P179 Vinkler Peter, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1430 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2133 Arencibia-Jorge Ricardo, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V79, P507 Molinari Alain, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P339 MOED HF, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P381 COLE S, 1968, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V33, P397 Prathap Gangan, 2006, CURRENT SCIENCE, V91, P1439 Valentinuzzi M.E., 2007, Journal of Physics: Conference Series16th Argentine Bioengineering Congress (SABI 2007) and The 5th Conference of Clinical Engineering, 26-28 Sept. 2007, San Juan, Argentina, V90, Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 Lundberg Jonas, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P145 Egghe Leo, 2010, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V44, P65 Zhou Ping, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P360 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, EMBO REPORTS, V10, P2 da Luz Mariana Pires, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V77, P361 Schubert Andras, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P201 Sypsa Vana, 2009, BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, V9, Kinney A. L., 2007, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V104, P17943 Minasny Budiman, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P257 Arencibia-Jorge Ricardo, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P155 Lovegrove Barry G., 2008, BIOSCIENCE, V58, P160 Van Raan AFJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V67, P491 Vinkler Peter, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V35, P602 Burrell Quentin L., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P170 Iglesias Juan E., 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P303 Mugnaini R., 2008, Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, V4, P258 ======================================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Fri Jul 19 12:26:36 2013 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:26:36 +0000 Subject: Papers from the June 2013 issue of SCIENTOMETRICS Message-ID: ? Title: A scientometric analysis of the effectiveness of Taiwan's educational research projects Authors: Tseng, YH; Chang, CY; Tutwiler, MS; Lin, MC; Barufaldi, JP Author Full Names: Tseng, Yuen-Hsien; Chang, Chun-Yen; Tutwiler, M. Shane; Lin, Ming-Chao; Barufaldi, James P. Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 95 (3):1141-1166; 10.1007/s11192-013-0966-z JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Journal clustering, Subfield identification, Research evaluation, Performance ranking, Educational research KeyWords Plus: RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; SOCIAL-SCIENCES; UNIVERSITIES; HUMANITIES; INDEX; INTERNATIONALIZATION; OUTPUT Abstract: The seeking of evidence for revealing the research performance of Education in Taiwan, in response to the stimulus by the national research projects, is presented and interpreted. More than 70,000 publication records over the years 1990-2011 from Web of Science were downloaded and analyzed. The overview analysis by data aggregation and country ranking shows that Taiwan has significantly improved its publication productivity and citation impact over the last decade. The drill-down analysis based on journal bibliographic coupling, information visualization, and diversity and trend indexes, reveals that e-Learning and Science Education are two fast growing subfields that attract global interests and that Taiwan is among the top-ranked countries in these two fields in terms of research productivity. Implications of the analysis are discussed with an emphasis on the subfield characteristics from which more insightful interpretations can be obtained, such as the regional or cultur! al characteristics that may affect the performance ranking. Addresses: [Tseng, Yuen-Hsien] Natl Taiwan Normal Univ, Ctr Informat Technol, Taipei 106, Taiwan. [Chang, Chun-Yen] Natl Taiwan Normal Univ, Dept Earth Sci, Taipei 116, Taiwan. [Chang, Chun-Yen] Natl Taiwan Normal Univ, Grad Inst Sci Educ, Taipei 116, Taiwan. [Chang, Chun-Yen; Tutwiler, M. Shane; Lin, Ming-Chao] Natl Taiwan Normal Univ, Sci Educ Ctr, Taipei 106, Taiwan. [Tutwiler, M. Shane] Harvard Univ, Grad Sch Educ, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA. [Barufaldi, James P.] Univ Texas Austin, Ctr STEM Educ, Austin, TX 78712 USA. E-mail Addresses: samtseng at ntnu.edu.tw; changcy at ntnu.edu.tw; mst216 at mail.harvard.edu; mingchaolin at ntnu.edu.tw; jamesb at austin.utexas.edu Funding Acknowledgement: "Aim for the Top University Project" of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU); Ministry of Education, Taiwan, ROC; National Science Council (NSC) of Taiwan [NSC 100-2511-S-003-053-MY2] Funding Text: The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions. This work is supported in part by the "Aim for the Top University Project" of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, ROC. This work is also supported in part by the National Science Council (NSC) of Taiwan under the grant NSC 100-2511-S-003-053-MY2. Cited Reference Count: 45 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 142OO Unique ID: WOS:000318807000019 Cited References: KESSLER MM, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P10 SIMPSON EH, 1949, NATURE, V163, P688 van Leeuwen TN, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS6th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, MAY 24-27, 2000, LEIDEN, NETHERLANDS, V51, P335 Song Mei-Mei, 2007, ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, V27, P323 Edgar Fiona, 2013, STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION, V38, P774 Tseng Y.-H., 2010, Evaluation Bimonthly, V28, P42 Ministry of Education, 2005, Normal University Transformation Project, Tseng Y.-H., 2011, Journal of Research in Education Sciences, V56, P129 Tseng Yuen-Hsien, 2007, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V43, P1216 Huang MH, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V67, P419 Ministry of Education, 2006, Plan to Develop First-class Universities and Top-level Research Centers, COLMAN AM, 1992, STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION, V17, P97 Franceschet Massimo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P275 Liston-Heyes C., 2004, Science and Public Policy, V31, P15 Chang Dian-fu, 2009, ASIA PACIFIC EDUCATION REVIEW, V10, P47 SMALL HG, 1977, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V13, P277 Tseng Yuen-Hsien, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P73 ROUSSEEUW PJ, 1987, JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS, V20, P53 Zitt M, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS6th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 16-19, 1997, JERUSALEM, ISRAEL, V41, P255 OCLC, 2012, Dewey Decimal Classification summaries, HIRSCHMAN AO, 1964, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V54, P761 Kruskal J. B., 1997, Statistical methods for digital computers, P296 CALKINS S, 1983, CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW, V71, P402 Archambault Eric, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P329 Linmans A. J. M., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P337 Van Eck N. J., 2009, 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Geuna A, 2003, MINERVA, V41, P277 MOED HF, 1985, RESEARCH POLICY, V14, P131 ERIC, 2012, Search & Browse the Thesaurus, van Eck Nees Jan, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P523 TELDAP, 2008, Preface, Taiwan e-Learning and Digital Archives Program (TELDAP), van Leeuwen TN, 2001, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V10, P195 National Taiwan Normal University, 2005, Database of Research in Science Education, Tseng Yuen-Hsien, 2010, EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, V37, P2247 Salton G., 1989, Automatic text processing: The transformation, analysis, and retrieval of information by computer, Moed H. F., 2005, Citation analysis in research evaluation, Huang Mu-hsuan, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1819 Tseng Y.-H., Scientometrics, Vanecek Jiri, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P103 Ni C., 2011, Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, New Orleans, LA, USA, Hou Angela Yung-Chi, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P23 Shin Jung Cheol, 2009, HIGHER EDUCATION, V58, P669 Kleiweg P., 2008, Software for Dialectometrics and Cartography, Ahlgren Per, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V76, P273 Spencer R. W., 2012, Representing Trees with Dendrograms, ======================================================================== Title: The effect of database dirty data on h-index calculation Authors: Fiorenzo, F; Domenico, M; Luca, M Author Full Names: Fiorenzo, Franceschini; Domenico, Maisano; Luca, Mastrogiacomo Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 95 (3):1179-1188; 10.1007/s11192-012-0871-x JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citations, h-index, h-index robustness, Uncertain data, Dirty database KeyWords Plus: HIRSCH-INDEX Abstract: As all databases, the bibliometric ones (e.g. Scopus, Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar) are not exempt from errors, such as missing or wrong records, which may obviously affect publication/citation statistics and-more in general-the resulting bibliometric indicators. This paper tries to answer to the question "What is the effect of database uncertainty on the evaluation of the h-index?", breaking the paradigm of deterministic database analysis and treating responses to database queries as random variables. Precisely an informetric model of the h-index is used to quantify the variability of this indicator with respect to the variability stemming from errors in database records. Some preliminary results are presented and discussed. Addresses: [Fiorenzo, Franceschini; Domenico, Maisano; Luca, Mastrogiacomo] Politecn Torino, DIGEP, I-10129 Turin, Italy. E-mail Addresses: fiorenzo.franceschini at polito.it Cited Reference Count: 34 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 142OO Unique ID: WOS:000318807000021 Cited References: Scopus-Elsevier, 2012, Scopus Content Coverage, EGGHE L, 1990, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V16, P17 Egghe L, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P664 Van Raan AFJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V67, P491 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2010, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V203, P494 Egghe L, 2005, POWER LAWS IN THE INFORMATION PRODUCTION PROCESS: LOTKAIAN INFORMETRICS, P1 Courtault J. M., 2008, Economics Bulletin, V3, P1 Bornmann L, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V65, P391 Jacso Peter, 2006, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V30, P297 Jacso Peter, 2008, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V32, P673 Glanzel W, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS33rd Annual Conference of the Canadian-Association-for-Information-Science, JUN 02-04, 2005, London, CANADA, V67, P315 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P621 Lotka AJ, 1926, J Wash Acad Sci, V16, P317 Casella G., 2001, Statistical inference, P240 Thomson-Reuters, 2012, 2011 Journal Citation Reports® Science Edition, Henzinger Monika, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P465 Egghe L., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P8 [Anonymous], 2008, JCGM100:2008, Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P121 Braun Tibor, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P169 Montgomery D. C., 2009, Statistical quality control: A modern introduction, Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P64 Franceschini F. M., 2012, Journal of Informetrics, Egghe Leo, 2009, BULLETIN OF THE BELGIAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY-SIMON STEVIN, V16, P689 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Times Higher Education, 2012, The World University Rankings, Bar-Ilan Judit, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P26 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Jacso Peter, 2011, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V35, P492 Hernandez MA, 1998, DATA MINING AND KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY, V2, P9 Glanzel W., 2006, Science Focus, V1, P10 Kim W, 2003, DATA MINING AND KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY, V7, P81 Vanclay Jerome K., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1547 Jacso Peter, 2011, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V35, P154 ======================================================================== ? Title: Quality of research: which underlying values? Authors: Czellar, J; Lanares, J Author Full Names: Czellar, Judith; Lanares, Jacques Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 95 (3):1003-1021; 10.1007/s11192-012-0928-x JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Research quality, Quality values, University profile, Researcher's typology, Swiss university, University of Lausanne, MCA, Vocabulary use KeyWords Plus: SOCIAL-SCIENCES; INDEX; SCIENTOMETRICS; INDICATORS; IMPACT; PERFORMANCE; AUTHORSHIP Abstract: Traditional bibliometric indicators are considered too limited for some research areas such as humanities and social sciences because they mostly reveal a specific aspect of academic performance (quantity of publications) and tend to ignore a significant part of research production. The frequent misuses (e.g. improper generalizations) of bibliometric measures results in a substantial part of the research community failing to consider the exact nature of bibliometric measures. This study investigates the links between practices for assessing academic performance, bibliometric methods' use and underlying values of research quality within the scientific community of University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Findings reveal four researcher profiles depending on research orientations and goals, ranging from those using "pure" quantitative tools to those using more subjective and personal techniques. Each profile is characterized according to disciplinary affiliation, tenure, academic ! function as well as commitment to quality values. Addresses: [Czellar, Judith; Lanares, Jacques] Univ Lausanne, Unictr, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail Addresses: juditheva.czellar at unil.ch Cited Reference Count: 43 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 142OO Unique ID: WOS:000318807000012 Cited References: Hood WW, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V52, P291 Horne R., 2009, British Medical Journal, V339, P1447 Vinkler P., 2008, Magyar Tudomany, V11, P1372 Franceschet Massimo, 2010, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V46, P555 Harvey L., 1993, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, V18, P9 Garfield E., 1979, Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities, Kroeber A. L., 1952, Culture: a critical review of concepts and definitions, VXLVII, Luis Ortega Jose, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P323 Hemlin S., 1990, Science Studies, V1, P73 Smith Derek R., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P419 de Solla Price DJ, 1963, Little science big science, Cole F. J., 1917, Science Progress, V11, P578 Harzing A. W., 2007, Publish or Perish, Vinkler P, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS6th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 16-19, 1997, JERUSALEM, ISRAEL, V41, P185 Esterle L., 2007, La competition entre institutions de recherche et la mesure de l'excellence, P307 Van Raan A. F. J., 1997, Scientometrics: state-of-the-art, Lamont M., 2009, How Professors think, Staropoli A., 1991, Dimesions of evaluation in higher education, P86 Vinkler Peter, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V35, P602 HEMLIN S, 1993, SCIENTOMETRICS, V27, P3 Mallard Gregoire, 2009, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES97th Annual Meeting of the American-Sociological-Association, AUG 15-19, 2002, CHICAGO, IL, V34, P573 Lebart L., 1982, SPAD: systeme portable pour l'analyse des donnees, Endersby JW, 1996, SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V77, P375 Harman K., 2010, International encyclopedia of education, V4, P433 Stensaker B., 2011, Accountability in higher education. Global perspectives on trust and power, Hayati Z., 2009, Scientometrics, V80, P627 Katharaki M., 2010, International Journal of Educational Research, V49, P115 BARNETT AH, 1988, REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, V70, P539 Rostaing H., 1996, La bibliometrie et ses techniques, REEVES CA, 1994, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V19, P419 Harland T, 2011, VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION TEACHING, P1 Vinkler P., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P861 Filliatreau Ghislaine, 2008, REVUE D HISTOIRE MODERNE ET CONTEMPORAINE, V55, P61 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 GLANZEL W, 1994, SCIENTOMETRICS4th International Conference on Bibliometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics, in Memory of Derek John de Solla Price (1922-1983), SEP 11-15, 1993, BERLIN, GERMANY, V30, P375 Vinkler P., 2004, Magyar tudomany, V49, P789 Coutrot L., 2008, Bulletin de methodologie sociologique, V100, Vieira E. S., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P581 Hofstede G., 2001, Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, Gingras Yves, 2008, REVUE D HISTOIRE MODERNE ET CONTEMPORAINE, V55, P67 MOED HF, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P381 Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 Vinkler P, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS, V40, P163 ======================================================================== ? ? Title: Evolution of the publications in clinical neurology: scientific impact of different countries during the 2000-2009 period Authors: Inigo, J; Palma, JA; Iriarte, J; Urrestarazu, E Author Full Names: Inigo, Jesus; Palma, Jose-Alberto; Iriarte, Jorge; Urrestarazu, Elena Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 95 (3):941-952; 10.1007/s11192-012-0880-9 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometric analysis, Research, Scientific production, Scientific impact, Europe, Biomedical journals KeyWords Plus: SCIENCE; INDEX; PRODUCTIVITY; INDICATORS; CITATIONS; JOURNALS; WEB Abstract: We analyzed the productivity and visibility of publications on the subject category of Clinical Neurology by countries in the period 2000-2009. We used the Science Citation Index Expanded database of the ISI Web of Knowledge. The analysis was restricted to the citable documents. Bibliometric indicators included the number of publications, the number of citations, the median and interquartile range of the citations, and the h-index. We identified 170,483 publications (84.9 % original articles) with a relative increase of 28.5 % throughout the decade. Fourteen countries published over 2,000 documents in the decade and received more than 50,000 citations. The average of citations received per publication was 8 (interquartile range: 3-20) and the h-index was 261. USA was the country with the highest number of publications, followed by Germany, Japan, the UK and Italy. Moreover, USA publications had the largest number of citations received (44.5 % of total), followed by the UK, G! ermany, Canada, and Italy. On the other hand, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK had the highest median citations for their total publications. During the period 2000-2009 there was a significant increase in Clinical Neurology publications. Most of the publications and citations comprised 14 countries, with the USA in the first position. Interestingly, most of the publications and citations originated from only 14 countries, with European countries with relatively low population, such as Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands, in this top group. Addresses: [Inigo, Jesus] Res Eth Comm, Madrid, Spain. [Palma, Jose-Alberto; Iriarte, Jorge; Urrestarazu, Elena] Univ Navarra, Sch Med, Clin Neurophysiol Sect, CUN, Pamplona 31008, Spain. E-mail Addresses: jiriarte at unav.es Cited Reference Count: 23 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 142OO Unique ID: WOS:000318807000008 Cited References: Spiroski M., 2010, Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, V3, P99 Csajbok Edit, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P91 Chow Daniel S, 2012, Surgical neurology international, V3, P27 Ponce Francisco A., 2010, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V113, P447 McVeigh Marie E., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P1107 Rodriguez-Navarro Alonso, 2011, PLOS ONE, V6, Roth DL, 2005, CURRENT SCIENCE, V89, P1531 Marshall Eliot, 2011, SCIENCE, V334, P443 STOSSEL TP, 1990, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V322, P739 Sypsa Vana, 2009, BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, V9, Falagas Matthew E., 2006, CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, V175, P1389 Kulkarni Abhaya V., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P1092 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Leydesdorff Loet, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P278 King DA, 2004, NATURE, V430, P311 The Royal Society, 2010, Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, EMBO REPORTS, V10, P2 Mendez-Vasquez Raul Isaac, 2008, MEDICINA CLINICA, V130, P246 Schubert Andras, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P201 Dorta-Contreras A. J., 2008, REVISTA DE NEUROLOGIA, V47, P355 [Anonymous], 2011, International comparative performance of the UK research base, Hauptman Jason S., 2011, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V115, P1262 ======================================================================== Title: A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core Authors: Ausloos, M Author Full Names: Ausloos, M. Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 95 (3):895-909; 10.1007/s11192-012-0936-x JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION; HIRSCH INDEX; H-INDEX; COAUTHORSHIP NETWORKS; BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS; COOPERATION STRUCTURE; INVISIBLE-COLLEGES; SELF-CITATIONS; PRODUCTIVITY; IMPACT Abstract: Rather than "measuring" a scientist impact through the number of citations which his/her published work can have generated, isn't it more appropriate to consider his/her value through his/her scientific network performance illustrated by his/her co-author role, thus focussing on his/her joint publications, and their impact through citations? Whence, on one hand, this paper very briefly examines bibliometric laws, like the h-index and subsequent debate about co-authorship effects, but on the other hand, proposes a measure of collaborative work through a new index. Based on data about the publication output of a specific research group, a new bibliometric law is found. Let a co-author C have written J (joint) publications with one or several colleagues. Rank all the co-authors of that individual according to their number of joint publications, giving a rank r to each co-author, starting with r = 1 for the most prolific. It is empirically found that a very simple relationship h! olds between the number of joint publications J by coauthors and their rank of importance, i.e., J ae 1/r. Thereafter, in the same spirit as for the Hirsch core, one can define a "co-author core", and introduce indices operating on an author. It is emphasized that the new index has a quite different (philosophical) perspective that the h-index. In the present case, one focusses on "relevant" persons rather than on "relevant" publications. Although the numerical discussion is based on one "main author" case, and two "control" cases, there is little doubt that the law can be verified in many other situations. Therefore, variants and generalizations could be later produced in order to quantify co-author roles, in a temporary or long lasting stable team(s), and lead to criteria about funding, career measurements or even induce career strategies. Addresses: [Ausloos, M.] Beauvallon, B-4031 Liege, Belgium. [Ausloos, M.] ULG, GRAPES SUPRATECS, B-4000 Liege, Belgium. E-mail Addresses: marcel.ausloos at ulg.ac.be Cited Reference Count: 83 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 142OO Unique ID: WOS:000318807000005 Cited References: Schreiber M., 2008, New Journal of Physics, V10, P1 Hellsten I., 2007, Proceedings of the ISSI 2007, 11th International Conf. of the Intern. Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, CSIC, June 25-27, 2007, Madrid, Spain, V1, P361 Ausloos M., 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODERN PHYSICS C23rd Max Born Symposium, SEP 02-06, 2007, Polanica Zdroj, POLAND, V19, P371 KRETSCHMER H, 1994, SCIENTOMETRICS, V30, P363 KRETSCHMER H, 1987, SCIENTOMETRICS, V12, P355 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P830 Egghe Leo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1048 Kretschmer H, 2001, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V52, P610 Chinchilla-Rodriguez Zaida, 2010, INFORMATION VISUALIZATION, V9, P277 Galam Serge, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P365 Glanzel W., 2003, Course Handouts, Liao Chien Hsiang, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P27 de Solla Price DJ, 1963, Little science big science, Nascimento MA, 2003, SIGMOD RECORD, V32, P8 Schreiber M., 2007, Europhysics Letters, V78, P30002 Egghe L., 2005, Lotkaian Informetrics, Li W., 2002, Glottometrics, V5, P15 Laudel G., 2001, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Sydney, P369 Slone RM, 1996, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, V167, P571 Kretschmer H., 1999, International Library Movement, V21, P113 Buchanan Robert A., 2006, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V67, P292 Zhang R., 2009, arxiv.org/pdf/0912.3573, Laherrere J, 1998, EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B, V2, P525 Schreiber Michael, 2010, ANNALEN DER PHYSIK, V522, P536 Kenna R., 2010, arxiv.org/pdf/1006.0928, Vanclay Jerome K., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1547 Durieux Valerie, 2010, RADIOLOGY, V255, P342 Abbasi Alireza, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P594 Zhang Chun-Ting, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, BRUCKNER E, 1990, SCIENTOMETRICS, V18, P21 McDonald K. A., 1995, Chronicle of Higher Education, V41, P35 Glanzel W, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V61, P395 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Borner K, 2005, COMPLEXITY, V10, P57 Beaver DD, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS2nd Berlin Workshop on Scientometrics and Informatics/Collaboration in Science and in Technology, SEP 01-04, 2000, BERLIN, GERMANY, V52, P365 Lee S, 2005, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V35, P673 Schreiber Michael, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P42 SAUER RD, 1988, JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, V96, P855 Hirsch J. E., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P741 Egghe Leo, 2010, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V44, P65 Zipf G. K., 1949, Human behaviour and the principle of least effort, Sonnenwald Diane H., 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P643 Hellsten I., 2006, Irreversible Prozesse und Selbstorganisation, P375 Kwok LS, 2005, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, V31, P554 Beck I. M., 1984, Science of Science, V4, P183 Pond Roderik, 2007, PAPERS IN REGIONAL SCIENCE7th World Congress of the Regional-Science-Association-International, APR 13-17, 2004, Port Elizabeth, SOUTH AFRICA, V86, P423 Hollis A., 2001, Labour Economics, V8, P505 Zuccala A, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P152 Vitanov K., 2012, Models of science dynamics: Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences, P69 Waltman Ludo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P574 YABLONSKY AI, 1980, SCIENTOMETRICS, V2, P3 CHUNG KH, 1990, JOURNAL OF FINANCE, V45, P301 Schreiber Michael, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P211 Persson O, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P421 Lotka AJ, 1926, J Wash Acad Sci, V16, P317 Kealey T, 2000, NATURE, V405, P279 Hellsten Iina, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V72, P469 KRETSCHMER H, 1985, SCIENTOMETRICS, V7, P39 Vuckovic-Dekic L., 2003, Archive of Oncology, V11, P211 Newman MEJ, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Mapping Knowledge Domains, MAY 09-11, 2003, Irvine, CA, V101, P5200 vanRaan AFJ, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P397 Jin B. H., 2006, Science Focus, V1, P8 Hagen Nils T., 2009, SCIENCE, V323, P583 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Kretschmer Hildrun, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P519 PAO ML, 1986, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V37, P26 Zhang Chun-Ting, 2009, EMBO REPORTS, V10, P416 Sekercioglu C. H., 2009, Science, V30, P583 Egghe L., 1990, Introduction to informetrics quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science, Sekercioglu Cagan H., 2008, SCIENCE, V322, P371 Egghe Leo, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1608 Potter W. G., 1988, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, V14, P238a Carbone V., 2012, arxiv:1106.0114v1, Kretschmer H, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS6th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 16-19, 1997, JERUSALEM, ISRAEL, V40, P579 Ioannidis J. P. A., 2008, PLoS One, V3, Pe2778 Kretschmer H, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P409 GILBERT GN, 1978, SCIENTOMETRICS, V1, P9 Melin G, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P363 Schreiber M., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P347 LONG JS, 1992, SOCIAL FORCES, V71, P159 Mali Franc, 2012, MODELS OF SCIENCE DYNAMICS: ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN COMPLEXITY THEORY AND INFORMATION SCIENCES, P195 de Solla Price D. J., 1975, Who is Publishing in Science, 1975 Annual, de Solla Price D.J., 1978, Science since Babylon, ======================================================================== Title: The changing dynamics in citation index publication position China in a race with the USA for global leadership Authors: Moiwo, JP; Tao, FL Author Full Names: Moiwo, Juana Paul; Tao, Fulu Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 95 (3):1031-1050; 10.1007/s11192-012-0846-y JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometric analysis, Web of Knowledge, Web of Science, Citation index publication, Normalized publication KeyWords Plus: LANGUAGE ACADEMIC JOURNALS; RESEARCH-AND-DEVELOPMENT; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; SCIENCE; IMPACT; ARTICLES; TRENDS; WORLD Abstract: Along with China's economic emergence is a controversy over the quality and international visibility of citation index publications. This study uses bibliometric statistics to shed further light on the global landscape of citation index publications with special focus on China and the USA. The analysis explores 31 years of the TRS (Thomson Reuters Scientific) database, spanning the 1980-2010 period. Based on this study, the USA maintains global dominance for both WOK (Web of Knowledge) and WOS (Web of Science) TRS publications. Although China ranks a distant second for WOK, it lags behind five other nations for WOS publications. China's scientific base needs further restructuring for greater global visibility. Emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa are fast rising in the global ranks for WOK/WOS publications. China may already be leading the world in some publication attributes, although it could take several more decades to catch up with the USA in! others. Normalizations of the publications with population, PTE (population with tertiary education) and GDP (gross domestic product) put small/low-population countries in the global lead. However, countries such as Canada, Greenland, Iceland and Sweden still rank high for most of these publication attributes. Furthermore, WOS per WOK analysis shows that small and/or economically weak countries place greater emphasis on WOS publications. This is particularly visible for countries in Africa and South America. Despite the addition of a large number of indigenous Chinese journals to the TRS database, prediction analysis suggests that China's desire to surpass the USA could be delayed for several decades. In the race for the next-generation scientific superpower, however, China not only needs to sustain substantial investments in research and development, but also requires restructuring of its research industry. This is especially critical for data readiness, availability and ! accessibility to the scientific community, and radical impleme! ntations of research recommendations. Addresses: [Moiwo, Juana Paul; Tao, Fulu] Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Geog Sci & Nat Resources Res, Beijing 100101, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: jupamo2001 at yahoo.com Funding Acknowledgement: China-Africa Science and Technology Partnership Program (CASTEP) Funding Text: This study is supported by the China-Africa Science and Technology Partnership Program (CASTEP). We are thankful for the incredible inputs of the anonymous reviewers and editors by way of insightful comments and suggestions. Cited Reference Count: 34 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 142OO Unique ID: WOS:000318807000014 Cited References: Lariviere V., 2011, Research Evaluation, V19, P45 Leydesdorff Loet, 2012, PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION, V21, P43 Gorraiz J., 2011, Scientometrics, De Bellis N., 2009, Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the Science citation index to cybermetrics, P417 Guan Jiancheng, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P357 Zelnio Ryan, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS13th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 04-07, 2011, Durban, SOUTH AFRICA, V91, P601 Li JT, 2005, TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, V17, P317 Leimu R, 2005, BIOSCIENCE, V55, P438 TRAR, 2010, Thomson Reuters 2010 Annual Report, Cole S, 1999, MINERVA, V37, P1 Li L, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V57, P119 Galvez A, 2000, AMERICAN SCIENTIST, V88, P526 Lin Min-Wei, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P555 GR&DFF, 2011, 2011 Global R&D Funding Forecast; Globalization Narrows R&D Gap Between Countries, Suttmeier RP, 2006, SCIENCE, V312, P58 Kuemmerle W, 1999, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, V30, P1 Lariviere Vincent, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P126 van Leeuwen Thed N., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 25-27, 2007, Madrid, SPAIN, V79, P389 Moed HF, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P281 Zhou P, 2006, RESEARCH POLICY, V35, P83 RSR, 2011, The Royal Society Report 2011: Knowledge, networks and nations Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century, Lariviere Vincent, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P858 He Tianwei, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P583 Aksnes DW, 2003, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V12, P159 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Jiang J., 2011, Nature, Fung Isaac C H, 2008, Emerging themes in epidemiology, V5, P12 Zhou Ping, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V72, P185 Hao X., 2006, Science, V311, P1548 Persson Olle, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P397 Wormell I, 1998, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V54, P584 McVeigh M. E., 2005, Journal self-citation in the Journal Citation Reports®-Science Edition (2002): A Citation Study from The Thomson Corporation, Conway S. G., 2010, Science and Innovation for Development, Wang Shuhua, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P331 ======================================================================== ? Title: A citation-analysis of economic research institutes Authors: Ketzler, R; Zimmermann, KF Author Full Names: Ketzler, Rolf; Zimmermann, Klaus F. Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 95 (3):1095-1112; 10.1007/s11192-012-0850-2 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis, Rankings, Scientometrics, Publication analysis, Economic research institutes KeyWords Plus: COLLABORATION; PROFESSION; FACULTIES; QUALITY; OUTPUT Abstract: The citation analysis of the research output of the German economic research institutes presented here is based on publications in peer-reviewed journals listed in the Social Science Citation Index for the 2000-2009 period. The novel feature of the paper is that a count data model quantifies the determinants of citation success and simulates their citation potential. Among the determinants of the number of cites the quality of the publication outlet exhibits a strong positive effect. The same effect has the number of the published pages, but journals with size limits also yield more cites. Field journals get less citations in comparison to general journals. Controlling for journal quality, the number of co-authors of a paper has no effect, but it is positive when co-authors are located outside the own institution. We find that the potential citations predicted by our best model lead to different rankings across the institutes than current citations indicating structural chan! ge. Addresses: [Ketzler, Rolf; Zimmermann, Klaus F.] IZA, D-53072 Bonn, Germany. [Zimmermann, Klaus F.] Univ Bonn, Bonn, Germany. E-mail Addresses: zimmermann at iza.org Cited Reference Count: 21 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 142OO Unique ID: WOS:000318807000017 Cited References: Medoff MH, 2003, LABOUR ECONOMICS, V10, P597 Laband DN, 2000, JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, V108, P632 Sinn HW, 2000, INTERNATIONAL TAX AND PUBLIC FINANCE55th Congress of the International-Institute-of-Public-Finance, AUG, 1999, MOSCOW, RUSSIA, V7, P389 Wissenschaftsrat, 1998, Stellungnahme zu den Wirtschaftsforschungsinstituten der Blauen Liste in den alten Landern - Allgemeine Gesichtspunkte, P3320 Schlapfer F., 2010, Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, V11, P325 Gang IN, 2000, JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES, V35, P550 Grohmann G, 2005, RESEARCH EVALUATION8th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 23-25, 2004, Leiden, NETHERLANDS, V14, P157 Schneider Friedrich, 2008, GERMAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V9, P532 Graber Michael, 2008, GERMAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V9, P457 Winkelmann R., 1995, Journal of Economic Surveys, V9, P1 Rute Cardoso Ana, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P621 Cameron A. C., 1998, Regression analysis of count data, Hudson John, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V71, P231 Puhani PA, 2000, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC SURVEYS, V14, P53 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Coupe T., 2003, Journal of the European Economic Association, V1, P1309 Ursprung Heinrich W., 2007, JAHRBUCHER FUR NATIONALOKONOMIE UND STATISTIK, V227, P187 Oswald Andrew J., 2007, ECONOMICA, V74, P21 Ketzler R., 2009, Scientometrics, V80, P233 Sternberg R, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V65, P29 Combes P. P., 2003, Journal of the European Economic Association, V1, P1250 ======================================================================== Title: An empirical investigation of the influence of collaboration in Finance on article impact Authors: Avkiran, NK Author Full Names: Avkiran, Necmi K. Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 95 (3):911-925; 10.1007/s11192-012-0892-5 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Collaboration, Citation analysis, Article impact, Author impact, Finance KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION; CITATION; MANAGEMENT; QUALITY; TEAMS; MODEL Abstract: We investigate the impact of collaborative research in academic Finance literature to find out whether and to what extent collaboration leads to higher impact articles (6,667 articles across 2001-2007 extracted from the Web of Science). Using the top 5 % as ranked by the 4-year citation counts following publication, we also follow related secondary research questions such as the relationships between article impact and author impact; collaboration and average author impact of an article; and, the nature of geographic collaboration. Key findings indicate: collaboration does lead to articles of higher impact but there is no significant marginal value for collaboration beyond three authors; high impact articles are not monopolized by high impact authors; collaboration and the average author impact of high-impact articles are positively associated, where collaborative articles have a higher mean author impact in comparison to single-author articles; and collaboration among the a! uthors of high impact articles is mostly cross-institutional. Addresses: Univ Queensland, UQ Business Sch, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia. E-mail Addresses: n.avkiran at business.uq.edu.au Cited Reference Count: 27 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 142OO Unique ID: WOS:000318807000006 Cited References: Furnham A. F., 1990, Journal of Further and Higher Education, V14, P105 LAWANI SM, 1977, BIOSCIENCE, V27, P26 Cole J. R., 1973, Social stratification in science, Falagas M. E., 2010, INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, V40, P587 Glanzel W, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS6th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, MAY 24-27, 2000, LEIDEN, NETHERLANDS, V51, P69 Katz JS, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS6th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 16-19, 1997, JERUSALEM, ISRAEL, V40, P541 Currie Russell R., 2011, JOURNAL OF BANKING & FINANCE, V35, P7 BEAVER DD, 1986, CZECHOSLOVAK JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, V36, P14 Avkiran NK, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS, V39, P173 Harzing A. W., 2007, Publish or Perish, Giuliani Francesco, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P13 Sonnenwald Diane H., 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P643 LAWANI SM, 1983, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V34, P59 Vieira Pedro Cosme, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P627 Wilhite Allen W., 2012, SCIENCE, V335, P542 Borokhovich KA, 2000, JOURNAL OF FINANCE, V55, P1457 ABT HA, 1984, PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE PACIFIC, V96, P746 GITLIN LN, 1994, EDUCATIONAL GERONTOLOGY18TH Annual Meeting of the Association-for-Gerontology-Higher-Education, FEB, 1992, BALTIMORE, MD, V20, P15 Levitt Jonathan M., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P171 Wuchty Stefan, 2007, SCIENCE, V316, P1036 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 The Royal Society, 2012, The Royal Society Science Policy Centre Report 02/12, Bordons M, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS4th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, OCT 05-07, 1995, ANTWERP, BELGIUM, V37, P279 FOX MF, 1984, JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION, V55, P347 Leek J. T., 2011, PLoS One, V6, P1 CHEN H, 1992, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MAN-MACHINE STUDIES, V36, P419 Beaver DD, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS2nd Berlin Workshop on Scientometrics and Informatics/Collaboration in Science and in Technology, SEP 01-04, 2000, BERLIN, GERMANY, V52, P365 ======================================================================== Title: Evolutionary paths of change of emerging nanotechnological innovation systems: the case of ZnO nanostructures Authors: Avila-Robinson, A; Miyazaki, K Author Full Names: Avila-Robinson, Alfonso; Miyazaki, Kumiko Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 95 (3):829-849; 10.1007/s11192-012-0939-7 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Emerging technologies, Knowledge bases, Evolutionary change, Nanotechnology, Nanomaterials, Co-citation networks KeyWords Plus: TECHNOLOGICAL-CHANGE; PROBLEM SEQUENCES; KNOW-HOW; SCIENCE; KNOWLEDGE; TRAJECTORIES; DIRECTIONS; ISSUES Abstract: This paper puts forward a quantitative approach aimed at the understanding of the evolutionary paths of change of emerging nanotechnological innovation systems. The empirical case of the newly emerging zinc oxide one-dimensional nanostructures is used. In line with other authors, 'problems' are visualized as those aspects guiding the dynamics of innovation systems. It is argued that the types of problems confronted by an innovation system, and in turn its dynamics of change, are imprinted on the nature of the underlying knowledge bases. The latter is operationalized through the construction of co-citation networks from scientific publications. We endow these co-citation networks with directionality through the allocation of a particular problem, drawn from a 'problem space' for nanomaterials, to each network node. By analyzing the longitudinal, structural and cognitive changes undergone by these problem-attached networks, we attempt to infer the nature of the paths of change! of emerging nanotechnological innovation systems. Overall, our results stress the evolutionary mechanisms underlying change in a specific N&N subfield. It is observed that the latter may exert significant influence on the innovative potentials of nanomaterials. Addresses: [Avila-Robinson, Alfonso; Miyazaki, Kumiko] Tokyo Inst Technol, Grad Sch Innovat Management, Meguro Ku, Tokyo 1528550, Japan. E-mail Addresses: alfonso.avila at gmx.net; miyazaki at mot.titech.ac.jp Funding Acknowledgement: MEXT scholarship (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan) Funding Text: The first author wishes to acknowledge financial support from the MEXT scholarship (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan) for carrying out this research. The authors are grateful to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. We would also like to thank Prof. Dmitri Golberg (International Center for Materials Nanoarchitectonics MANA at the National Institute for Materials Science NIMS, Tsukuba, Japan) for his invaluable insights into the field of nanomaterials. Cited Reference Count: 56 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 142OO Unique ID: WOS:000318807000001 Cited References: Asheim BT, 2005, RESEARCH POLICYDRUID Summer Conference, JUN 14-16, 2004, Helsingor, DENMARK, V34, P1173 Mina A., 2007, RESEARCH POLICY, V36, P789 Jacobsson S, 2000, ENERGY POLICY, V28, P625 Porter A.L., 2002, Science and Public Policy, V29, P189 Verbeek A, 2002, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, V4, P179 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Meyer Martin, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS4th GLOBELICS 2006 Conference, OCT 04-06, 2006, Trivandrum, INDIA, V70, P779 Metcalfe S., 1995, Cambridge Journal of Economics, V19, P25 Porter A.L., 2005, Tech mining: Exploiting new technologies for competitive advantage, Wonglimpiyarat J, 2005, TECHNOVATION, V25, P1349 Andersen M. M., 2007, DRUID Summer conference 2007 on appropriability, proximity, routines and innovation, Copenhagen, Huang Can, 2011, JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, V36, P145 Pitkethly MJ, 2004, Materials Today, V7, P20 Hekkert MP, 2005, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, V30, P1045 Cozzens Susan, 2010, TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, V22, P361 SMALL H, 1986, SCIENTOMETRICS, V10, P95 Mina A., 2009, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, V18, P447 Linton Jonathan D., 2008, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V75, P583 ROSENBERG N, 1969, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURAL CHANGE, V18, P1 DOSI G, 1988, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, V26, P1120 GRUPP H, 1990, SCIENTOMETRICS, V18, P219 PERSSON O, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V45, P31 Moed H. F., 2005, Citation analysis in research evaluation, Rafols Ismael, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V82, P263 Miyazaki K., 1994, Industrial and Corporate Change, V3, P631 Marshakova I., 1973, Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya Seriya, V2, P3 SAHAL D, 1985, RESEARCH POLICY, V14, P61 Smith K. H., 2002, Carlsson B, 2002, RESEARCH POLICYDRUID Conference on National Systems of Innovations, JUN, 1999, REBID NAKKER, DENMARK, V31, P233 Metcalfe JS, 2005, RESEARCH POLICY, V34, P1283 Gee Sally, 2011, INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION, V18, P301 Hughes T. P., 1987, The Social Construction of Technological Systems, P51 Nelson R.R., 1982, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Borgatti S, 2002, Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis, Cobo M. J., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1382 Kuhn T.S., 1996, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, DOSI G, 1982, RESEARCH POLICY, V11, P147 PARAYIL G, 1991, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V40, P235 Nightingale P., 2008, Report for the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Bonaccorsi Andrea, 2007, RESEARCH POLICY, V36, P813 Breschi S., 1997, Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions and organizations, P130 Miyazaki Kumiko, 2007, TECHNOVATION3rd ASIALICS International Conference, 2006, Shanghai, PEOPLES R CHINA, V27, P661 Shapira Philip, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P595 BSI, 2007, British Standards (BSI), Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 136, Terminology for nanomaterials PAS, Shea CM, 2005, JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, V22, P185 Schmidt Jan C., 2007, INNOVATION-THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCHConference on Converging Science and Technologies - Research Trajectories and Institutional Settings, MAY 14-15, 2007, Vienna, AUSTRIA, V20, P313 Darby M. R., 2003, NBER Working Paper 9825, Larsen Katarina, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P123 Breschi S, 2000, ECONOMIC JOURNAL, V110, P388 Noyons E, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V50, P83 Consoli Davide, 2008, JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY ECONOMICSConference of the Danish-Research-Unit-for-Industrial-Dynamics, JUN 27-29, 2005, Copenhagen, DENMARK, V18, P31 Nelson RR, 2003, RESEARCH POLICY, V32, P909 Wasserman S., 2009, Social network analysis: methods and applications, Lieber Charles M., 2007, MRS BULLETIN, V32, P99 Zuccala A, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P152 Roco MC, 2011, NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH DIRECTIONS FOR SOCIETAL NEEDS IN 2020: RETROSPECTIVE AND OUTLOOK, P1 ======================================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Fri Jul 19 12:27:32 2013 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:27:32 +0000 Subject: Papers of interest to readers of the SIG-Metrics List (1) Message-ID: *Record 1 of 13. Title: Impact fact-or fiction? Authors: Pulverer, B Author Full Names: Pulverer, Bernd Source: EMBO JOURNAL, 32 (12):1651-1652; 10.1038/emboj.2013.126 JUN 12 2013 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Abstract: The Journal *Impact Factor* dominates research assessment in many disciplines and in many countries. While research assessment will always have to rely to some extent on quantitative, standardized metrics, the focus on this single measure has gone so far as to hamper and distort scientific research. The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), signed by influential journals, funders, academic institutions and individuals across the natural sciences, aims to raise awareness and to redress the use of non-objective research assessment practices. Addresses: EMBO, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany. E-mail Addresses: bernd.pulverer at embo.org Cited Reference Count: 1 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP, 75 VARICK ST, 9TH FLR, NEW YORK, NY 10013-1917 USA ISSN: 0261-4189 Web of Science Categories: Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Cell Biology Research Areas: Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Cell Biology IDS Number: 161YO Unique ID: WOS:000320230600001 Cited References: Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *Record 3 of 13. Title: The challenges of evaluating scientists by H-*index* and citations in different biomedical *research* platforms Authors: Lippi, G; Mattiuzzi, C Author Full Names: Lippi, Giuseppe; Mattiuzzi, Camilla Source: CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA, 421 57-58; 10.1016/j.cca.2013.02.024 JUN 5 2013 Language: English Document Type: Letter Author Keywords: Biomedical research, Impact factor, H-index, Publications, Evaluation Addresses: [Lippi, Giuseppe] Azienda Osped Univ Parma, Dipartimento Patol & Med Lab, Unita Operat Diagnost Ematochim, I-43126 Parma, Italy. [Mattiuzzi, Camilla] Osped Trento, Serv Governance Clin, Trento, Italy. E-mail Addresses: glippi at ao.pr.it Cited Reference Count: 4 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0009-8981 Web of Science Categories: Medical Laboratory Technology Research Areas: Medical Laboratory Technology IDS Number: 161VH Unique ID: WOS:000320220900010 Cited References: Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Lippi Giuseppe, 2009, CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE, V47, P1585 GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Lippi Giuseppe, 2012, BIOCHEMIA MEDICA, V22, P7 ======================================================================= *Record 5 of 13. Title: Google Scholar and the h-*index* in biomedicine: The popularization of bibliometric assessment Authors: Cabezas-Clavijo, A; Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E Author Full Names: Cabezas-Clavijo, A.; Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E. Source: MEDICINA INTENSIVA, 37 (5):343-354; 10.1016/j.medin.2013.01.008 JUN-JUL 2013 Language: Spanish Document Type: Review Author Keywords: Research evaluation, Bibliometrics, h-index, Citation analysis, Periodicals, Databases, Bibliographic, Google Scholar, Google Scholar Metrics, Google Scholar Citations, Biomedicine, Health sciences KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC-RESEARCH OUTPUT; IMPACT FACTOR; LITERATURE SEARCHES; JOURNALS; SCIENCE; SCOPUS; WEB; LIMITATIONS; INDICATORS; ADVANTAGES Abstract: The aim of this study is to review the features, benefits and limitations of the new scientific evaluation products derived from Google Scholar, such as Google Scholar Metrics and Google Scholar Citations, as well as the h-index, which is the standard bibliometric indicator adopted by these services. The study also outlines the potential of this new database as a source for studies in Biomedicine, and compares the h-index obtained by the most relevant journals and researchers in the field of intensive care medicine, based on data extracted from the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Results show that although the average h-index values in Google Scholar are almost 30% higher than those obtained in Web of Science, and about 15% higher than those collected by Scopus, there are no substantial changes in the rankings generated from one data source or the other. Despite some technical problems, it is concluded that Google Scholar is a valid tool for researchers in Health ! Sciences, both for purposes of information retrieval and for the computation of bibliometric indicators. (C) 2012 Elsevier Espana, S.L. and SEMICYUC. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Cabezas-Clavijo, A.; Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E.] Univ Granada, Fac Comunicac & Documentac, Dept Informac & Comunicac, Granada, Spain. E-mail Addresses: edelgado at ugr.es Cited Reference Count: 40 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER DOYMA SL, TRAVESERA DE GARCIA, 17-21, BARCELONA, 08021, SPAIN ISSN: 0210-5691 Web of Science Categories: Critical Care Medicine Research Areas: General & Internal Medicine IDS Number: 163NB Unique ID: WOS:000320343100008 Cited References: Harzing A-W, 2008, Ethics Sci Environ Polit, V8, P61 Shultz Mary, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V95, P442 Anders Michael E., 2010, RESPIRATORY CARE, V55, P578 Delgado-Lopez-Cozar E, 2012, Google Scholar Metrics revisado: Ahora empieza a ir en serio, P8 Torres-Salinas Daniel, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P761 Nicholas David, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V36, P494 Braun Tibor, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P169 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Labbe C., 2010, ISSI Newsletter, V6, P48 Torres-Salinas Daniel, 2009, PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION, V18, P501 Delgado-Lopez-Cozer Emilio, 2012, PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION, V21, P419 Hightower C, 2010, Issues Sci Tech Librarian, V63, Garfield E, 1998, UNFALLCHIRURG, V101, P413 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P338 Cabezas-Clavijo A, 2012, An ThinkEPI, V6, P147 Vanclay Jerome K., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P211 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Riera M., 2013, MEDICINA INTENSIVA, V37, P232 Costas Rodrigo, 2007, PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION, V16, P427 Meho Lokman I., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P2105 Prathap Gangan, 2006, CURRENT SCIENCE, V91, P1439 Fernandez-Mondejar E., 2010, MEDICINA INTENSIVA, V34, P493 Csajbok Edit, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P91 Jacso Peter, 2008, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V32, P102 Costas Rodrigo, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P193 Kulkarni Abhaya V., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P1092 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Jimenez-Contreras Evaristo, 2010, MEDICINA CLINICA, V134, P76 Bar-Ilan Judit, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V82, P495 Delgado Lopez-Cozar E, 2012, EC3 Working Papers, V5, P1 Delgado Lopez-Cozar E, 2010, Procedimientos y herramientas en la traslacion de la investigacion biomedica en cooperacion, Giustini D, 2005, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V331, P1487 Nourbakhsh Eva, 2012, HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL, V29, P214 Rossner Mike, 2007, JOURNAL OF CELL BIOLOGY, V179, P1091 Gonzalez de Dios Javier, 2011, ATENCION PRIMARIA, V43, P629 Herther NK, 2011, Scholar citations-Google moves into the domain of Web of Science and Scopus, Fernandez Mondejar E., 2012, MEDICINA INTENSIVA, V36, P1 Delgado-Lopez-Cozar E, 2012, Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting, P6 Simons Kai, 2008, SCIENCE, V322, P165 Bordons M, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 17, 2001, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, V53, P195 ======================================================================= *Record 7 Title: Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications Authors: de Gloucester, PC Author Full Names: de Gloucester, Paul Colin Source: ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, 20 (3):143-166; 10.1080/08989621.2013.788379 MAY 4 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: citations, computer science, electronic engineering, Impact Factor, misconduct, refereeing shortcomings KeyWords Plus: MISCONDUCT; JOURNALS; SCIENCE Abstract: Misconduct is extensive and damaging. So-called science is prevalent. Articles resulting from so-called science are often cited in other publications. This can have damaging consequences for society and for science. The present work includes a scientometric study of 350 articles (published by the Association for Computing Machinery; Elsevier; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.; John Wiley; Springer; Taylor & Francis; and World Scientific Publishing Co.). A lower bound of 85.4% articles are found to be incongruous. Authors cite inherently self-contradictory articles more than valid articles. Incorrect informational cascades ruin the literature's signal-to-noise ratio even for uncomplicated cases. Addresses: [de Gloucester, Paul Colin] Univ Pisa, Dept Informat Engn, Pisa, Italy. E-mail Addresses: Colin_Paul_Gloster at ACM.org Cited Reference Count: 52 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXON, ENGLAND ISSN: 0898-9621 Web of Science Categories: Medical Ethics Research Areas: Medical Ethics IDS Number: 159WD Unique ID: WOS:000320077100001 Cited References: Fang Hui, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P293 Agostinelli S, 2003, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, V506, P250 Coppola M, 2004, JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE, V50, P129 Irving Dianne Nutwell, 1993, Accountability in research, V2, P243 Ackermann E, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V66, P451 Ferson S., 2001, Accountability in Research, V8, P261 Mosimann J., 2002, Accountability in Research, V9, P75 Rodriguez-Navarro Alonso, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Alexander N.S., 1930, Proceedings of the Physical Society, V42, Kwan I, 1999, INFORMATION SCIENCES, V117, P201 Kay A.C., 1997, The 12th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, Yates R., 2004, RELMAN AS, 1983, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V308, P1415 Seidl C., 2005, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, V23, P505 Collingbourne H., 1999, PC Plus (UK), V1, Resnik David B., 2010, ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, V17, P79 Foo Jong Yong Abdiel, 2009, ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, V16, P127 Koppelman-White Elysa, 2006, Accountability in research, V13, P225 Kale L, 1999, JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS, V151, P283 Brummel Bradley J., 2010, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, V16, P573 Frader Joel E, 2002, Accountability in research, V9, P193 Tittel E., 1996, HTML for Dummies, Bacci B, 1999, PARALLEL COMPUTING, V25, P1827 Zhang CS, 2006, BIOTECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, V24, P243 Swa-Lu, 2012, Pal Schmitt scientific misconduct controversy, Marshall E, 1996, SCIENCE, V274, P908 Broad W., 1985, Betrayers of the Truth, STEWART WW, 1987, NATURE, V325, P207 Steneck NH, 1999, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICSAnnual Meeting of the American-Association-for-the-Advancement-of-Science, Celebrating its 150th Anniversary, FEB 12-17, 1998, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, V5, P161 Armaroli A., 2003, Proceedings 3rd IEEE International Workshop on System-on-Chip for Real-Time ApplicationsProceedings the 3rd IEEE International Workshop on System-on-Chip for Real-Time Applications, 30 June-2 July 2003, Calgary, Alta., Canada, Newton Douglas P., 2010, ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, V17, P130 Gloster C. P., 2010, International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, V11, P387 Coppola M., 2003, Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE) Conference and Exhibition, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, V2, P20106 Degener TF, 1999, COMPUTER PHYSICS COMMUNICATIONS, V118, P34 Haridi S, 1999, ACM TRANSACTIONS ON PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND SYSTEMS, V21, P569 Drexler HG, 2003, LEUKEMIA, V17, P416 Fried EW, 2001, COMMENTARY, V112, P8 Coppola M, 2004, DESIGNERS' FORUM: DESIGN, AUTOMATION AND TEST IN EUROPE CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITIONDesign, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition (DATE 04), FEB 16-20, 2004, Paris, FRANCE, P174 JHHW, 2012, The European Journal of International Law, V23, P607 Pate J. R., 2012, Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, V25, P261 Boursin J.-L., 1997, Accountability in Research, V5, P65 David Edward E, 1997, Accountability in research, V5, P255 Paxson V, 1999, COMPUTER NETWORKS-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKING, V31, P2435 Labbe Cyril, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P379 Some1, 2012, Further developments in the Schmitt case, Demartini C, 1999, SOFTWARE-PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE, V29, P577 Smith R. V., 1984, Graduate Research: A Guide for Students in the Sciences, BIKHCHANDANI S, 1992, JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, V100, P992 Wang WQ, 1999, ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING SOFTWARE, V30, P127 Miguel Campanario Juan, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P549 Ziman J. M., 1978, Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science, Price A. R., 2006, Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, V1, P46 ======================================================================= *Record 9 Title: Scientometric analysis and mapping of *scientific* articles on Behcet'*s* disease Authors: Shahram, F; Jamshidi, AR; Hirbod-Mobarakeh, A; Habibi, G; Mardani, A; Ghaemi, M Author Full Names: Shahram, Farhad; Jamshidi, Ahmad-Reza; Hirbod-Mobarakeh, Armin; Habibi, Gholamreza; Mardani, Amir; Ghaemi, Marjan Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 16 (2):185-192; 10.1111/1756-185X.12087 APR 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Behcet's disease, citation, scientometric analysis, web of science KeyWords Plus: BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; CRITERIA; TURKEY; IRAN Abstract: Background Behcet's disease (BD) is a systemic vasculitis disease with oral and genital aphthous ulceration, uveitis, skin manifestations, arthritis and neurological involvement. Many investigators have published articles on BD in the last two decades since introduction of diagnosis criteria by the International Study Group for Behcet's Disease in 1990. However, there is no scientometric analysis available for this increasing amount of literature. Methods A scientometric analysis method was used to achieve a view of scientific articles about BD which were published between 1990 and 2010, by data retrieving from ISI Web of Science. The specific features such as publication year, language of article, geographical distribution, main journal in this field, institutional affiliation and citation characteristics were retrieved and analyzed. International collaboration was analyzed using Intcoll and Pajek softwares. Results There was a growing trend in the number of BD articles fro! m 1990 to 2010. The number of citations to BD literature also increased around 5.5-fold in this period. The countries found to have the highest output were Turkey, Japan, the USA and England; the first two universities were from Turkey. Most of the top 10 journals publishing BD articles were in the field of rheumatology, consistent with the subject areas of the articles. There was a correlation between the citations per paper and the *impact factor* of the publishing journal. Conclusion This is the first scientometric analysis of BD, showing the scientometric characteristics of ISI publications on BD. Addresses: [Shahram, Farhad; Jamshidi, Ahmad-Reza] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Rheumatol Res Ctr, Behcets Dis Unit, Tehran, Iran. [Hirbod-Mobarakeh, Armin] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Mol Immunol Res Ctr, Sch Med, Tehran, Iran. [Hirbod-Mobarakeh, Armin] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Dept Immunol, Sch Med, Tehran, Iran. [Hirbod-Mobarakeh, Armin] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Students Sci Res Ctr, Tehran, Iran. [Habibi, Gholamreza; Mardani, Amir; Ghaemi, Marjan] Farzan Clin Res Inst, Farzan Scientometr Grp, Tehran, Iran. E-mail Addresses: swt_f at yahoo.com Cited Reference Count: 22 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 1756-1841 Web of Science Categories: Rheumatology Research Areas: Rheumatology IDS Number: 166JC Unique ID: WOS:000320549700014 Cited References: Hirohata S, 2003, ARTHRITIS RESEARCH & THERAPY, V5, P139 Shahram F, 2003, ADAMANTIADES-BEHCET'S DISEASE10th International Conference on Behcets Disease, JUN 27-29, 2002, BERLIN, GERMANY, V528, P229 FEIGENBAUM A, 1956, The British journal of ophthalmology, V40, P355 1998, Behcet's Syndrome, Sevinc A, 2004, JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V96, P980 Groneberg-Kloft B., 2009, JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIONAL ALLERGOLOGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, V19, P266 Sakane T, 1999, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V341, P1284 Davatchi Fereydoun, 2010, CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY, V29, P823 Davatchi Fereydoun, 2008, JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, V35, P1384 Ideguchi Haruko, 2011, MEDICINE, V90, P125 Eshraghi M., 2011, THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGEON, V59, P108 Disease ITftRoICfBs, 2008, Clin Exp Rheumatol, V26, PS Zamani Farhad, 2009, DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, V54, P1736 Estabrooks CA, 2004, NURSING RESEARCH, V53, P293 Behcet H, 1937, Clin Exp Rheumatol, V28, PS2 ONEILL TW, 1994, BRITISH JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, V33, P115 Atalay Ayfer, 2008, MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS, V35, P345 SILMAN AJ, 1990, LANCET, V335, P1078 Tuzun Y, 1996, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, V35, P618 Zouboulis CC, 1999, ANNALES DE MEDECINE INTERNE, V150, P488 Dilsen N, 1996, REVUE DU RHUMATISME, V63, P512 Kaklamani VG, 1998, SEMINARS IN ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM, V27, P197 ======================================================================= *Record 10 Title: Profile and analysis of *scientific* production of Brazilian researchers in Clinical Neurosciences Authors: Romano-Silva, MA; Correa, H; Oliveira, MCL; Quirino, IG; Colosimo, EA; Martelli, DR; Duarte, MG; Lima, LS; Silva, ACSE; Martelli, H; Oliveira, EA Author Full Names: Romano-Silva, Marco Aurelio; Correa, Humberto; Lopes Oliveira, Maria Christina; Quirino, Isabel Gomes; Colosimo, Enrico Antonio; Martelli, Daniella Reis; Duarte, Mariana Guerra; Lima, Leonardo Santos; Simoes e Silva, Ana Cristina; Martelli-Junior, Hercilio; Oliveira, Eduardo Araujo Source: REVISTA DE PSIQUIATRIA CLINICA, 40 (2):53-58; 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Researcher performance evaluation systems, neurosciences, impact factor KeyWords Plus: INTERNATIONAL VISIBILITY; PSYCHIATRIC JOURNALS; HEALTH RESEARCH; LATIN-AMERICA; H-INDEX; PUBLICATIONS; PSIQUIATRIA; SCIENCES; GAP Abstract: Background: Several studies have examined the scientific production of National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) researchers in various areas of knowledge. However, specific data about the main Brazilian researchers in Neurosciences are scarce. Objective: Evaluate the scientific production of researchers in the field of Neurosciences who receives productivity grant from the CNPq. Methods: The Lattes Curriculum of 58 researchers with active grants in the years from 2006 to 2008 were included in the analysis. The variables of interest were: gender, affiliation, human resources training, and scientific production. Grants categories/levels were classified according to CNPq database. Results: There was predominance of grants level 1 (55.2%). Researchers published 6,526 articles (median of 90). Of these, 61% were indexed in the ISI database. There was no significant difference between the categories regarding the number of articles (P = 0.12). The median ! h-index was 10.5 and the median m-index was 0.77. There was no significant difference in m-index between the categories (P = 0.28). Discussion: Strategies to qualitatively improve the scientific output possibly can be enhanced by the knowledge of the profile of researchers in the field of Neurosciences. Addresses: [Romano-Silva, Marco Aurelio; Correa, Humberto] Univ Fed Minas Gerais, Dept Mental Hlth, BR-30130100 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. [Lopes Oliveira, Maria Christina; Quirino, Isabel Gomes; Duarte, Mariana Guerra; Simoes e Silva, Ana Cristina; Oliveira, Eduardo Araujo] Univ Fed Minas Gerais, Dept Pediat, BR-30130100 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. [Colosimo, Enrico Antonio] Univ Fed Minas Gerais, Dept Stat, BR-30130100 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. [Martelli, Daniella Reis; Lima, Leonardo Santos; Martelli-Junior, Hercilio] Univ Estadual Montes Claros Unimontes, Programa Posgrad Ciencias Saude, Montes Claros, MG, Brazil. E-mail Addresses: romanosilva at gmail.com Funding Acknowledgement: CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development); Fapemig (Research Support Foundation of Minas Gerais) Funding Text: This study was partially supported by CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) and Fapemig (Research Support Foundation of Minas Gerais). Marco Aurelio Romano-Silva and Humberto Correa are researchers of CNPq levels 1A and 1C in the field of Medicine, respectively. Eduardo A. Oliveira and Ana Cristina Simoes e Silva are CNPq researchers level 2 in the field of Medicine. Hercilio Martelli-Junior and Enrico A. Colosimo are researchers of CNPq level 2 in the areas of Dentistry and Statistics, respectively. Marco Aurelio Romano-Silva, Humberto Correa, Ana Cristina Simoes e Silva, and Eduardo Araujo Oliveira are researchers members of the National Institute of Science and Technology (INCT) for Molecular Medicine (Fapemig: APQ-CBB-00075-09 / CNPq 573646/2008- 2). Cited Reference Count: 32 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: UNIV SAO PAULO, INST PSIQUIATRIA, RUA OVIDIO PIRES CAMPOS, 785, 1 ANDAR, SAO PAULO, 05403-010, BRAZIL ISSN: 0101-6083 Web of Science Categories: Psychiatry Research Areas: Psychiatry IDS Number: 158WP Unique ID: WOS:000320005000001 Cited References: Hermes-Lima Marcelo, 2007, COMPARATIVE BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY C-TOXICOLOGY & PHARMACOLOGY, V146, P1 Bressan RA, 2005, BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, V38, P649 Machado Luis dos Ramos, 2012, ARQUIVOS DE NEURO-PSIQUIATRIA, V70, P1 Goncalves Renata R., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P529 Ferreira Santos Natacha Carvalho, 2010, QUIMICA NOVA, V33, P489 Lane Julia, 2010, NATURE, V464, P488 Mari J. J., 2010, ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA, V121, P152 Mendes PHC, 2010, Rev Bras Educ Med, V34, P535 Figueira I, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P317 Barata Rita Barradas, 2003, Cadernos de saude publica, V19, P1863 Mugnaini R., 2008, BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, V41, P258 Santos SMC, 2009, Physis, V19, P761 Leite Paula, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P311 Mendlowicz Mauro Vitor, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P27 Abt HA, 2011, Scientometrics, Fiestas Fabian, 2009, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V9, Lehmann Sune, 2006, NATURE, V444, P1003 Nitrini Ricardo, 2006, ARQUIVOS DE NEURO-PSIQUIATRIA, V64, P538 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V17, P149 Panaretos John, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P635 Moed Henk F., 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P13 Martelli-Junior Hercilio, 2010, REVISTA DA ASSOCIACAO MEDICA BRASILEIRA, V56, P478 Luz MP, 2008, Scientometrics, V77, P361 Gattaz WF, 2008, Rev Psiq Clin, V35, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Haeffner-Cavaillon Nicole, 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P33 Spina-Franca A, 1997, Neuro-Press, V1, P3 Gomes Marleide da Mota, 2011, ARQUIVOS DE NEURO-PSIQUIATRIA, V69, P838 Leta J, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V50, P241 Moreira-Almeida Alexander, 2010, REVISTA DE PSIQUIATRIA CLINICA, V37, P41 Rocha Felipe Filardi da, 2007, Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), V53, P543 Oliveira Eduardo A., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V90, P429 ======================================================================= *Record 11 Title: Examination of the impact of animal and dairy science journals based on traditional and newly developed bibliometric indices Authors: Malesios, C; Abas, Z Author Full Names: Malesios, C.; Abas, Z. Source: JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 90 (13):5170-5181; 10.2527/jas2012-5278 DEC 2012 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: animal and dairy science journals, journal evaluation journal h-index, journal impact factor KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; CITATION COUNTS; GOOGLE-SCHOLAR; RANKING; SCOPUS; OUTPUT; WEB Abstract: Using traditional bibliometric indices such as the well-known journal *impact factor* (IFAC), as well as other more recently developed measures like the (journal) h-index and modifications, we assessed the impact of most prolific scientific journals in the field of animal and dairy science. To achieve this end, we performed a detailed investigation on the evaluation of journals quality, using a total of 50 journals selected from the category of "Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science" included in the Thomson Reuters' (formerly Institute of Scientific Information, ISI) Web of Science. Our analysis showed that among the top journals in the field are the Journal of Dairy Research, the Journal of Dairy Science, and the Journal of Animal Science. In particular, the Journal of Animal Science, the most productive and frequently cited journal, has shown rapid development, especially in recent years. The majority of the top-tier, highly cited articles are those associated with the descr! iption of statistical methodology and the standard chemical analytical methodologies. Addresses: [Malesios, C.; Abas, Z.] Democritus Univ Thrace, Dept Agr Dev, Orestiada, Greece. E-mail Addresses: malesios at agro.duth.gr Cited Reference Count: 34 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AMER SOC ANIMAL SCIENCE, PO BOX 7410, CHAMPAIGN, IL 61826-7410 USA ISSN: 0021-8812 Web of Science Categories: Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science Research Areas: Agriculture IDS Number: 154IM Unique ID: WOS:000319668000054 Cited References: Jokic Maja, 2009, BIOCHEMIA MEDICA, V19, P5 Panaretos J., 2009, Tech. Rep. 244, Olden Julian D., 2007, ECOSCIENCESymposium on Marsupials as Models for Research held at the 9th International Mammalogical Congress, AUG, 2005, Sapporo, JAPAN, V14, P370 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Meho Lokman I., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P2105 Barendse William, 2007, Biomedical digital libraries, V4, P3 Jacso Peter, 2008, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V32, P266 Sidiropoulos A., 2006, Tech. Rep., VANSOEST PJ, 1991, JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, V74, P3583 Rousseau R., 2007, Sci. Foc., V1, P16 Molinari Jean-Francois, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P163 Vanclay JK, 2006, SCIENTIST, V20, P14 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Symonds Matthew R. E., 2006, PLOS ONE, V1, Vinkler P, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS7th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUL 05-08, 1999, COLIMA, MEXICO, V46, P621 SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Adler R., 2008, Citation statistics, Malesios C., 2012, ANNALS OF FOREST RESEARCH, V55, P147 GILL JL, 1971, JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, V33, P331 Norusis M., 2006, SPSS 14.0. Guide to data analysis, West Jevin, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1800 Garfield E., 1979, Citation indexing: Its theory and applications in science, technology and humanities, Braun Tibor, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P169 Littell RC, 1998, JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE88th Annual Meeting of the American-Society-of-Animal-Science, JUL 24-26, 1996, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA, V76, P1216 Ogden Trevor L., 2008, ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE, V52, P73 Dodson M. V., 2008, JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, V86, P2795 Podlubny I, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P95 Garfield E, 1998, SCIENTIST, V12, P11 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY, P1471 Braun T, 2005, SCIENTIST, V19, P8 Bergstrom C. T., 2007, C&RL News, V68, P314 ZINN RA, 1986, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, V66, P157 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P338 Davis Philip M., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P2186 ======================================================================= *Record 12 Title: Globalization and the Issue of Academic Publishing (the SSCI and the SCI) Book Author(s): Chou, CP (Chou, CP); Ching, G (Ching, G) Book Author Full Names: Chou, CP; Ching, G Source: TAIWAN EDUCATION AT THE CROSSROAD: WHEN GLOBALIZATION MEETS LOCALIZATION, 221-241; 2012 Book Series: International and Development Education Language: English Document Type: Article; Book Chapter KeyWords Plus: RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; TELL US; IMPACT; CITATIONS; SCIENCES; JOURNALS Cited Reference Count: 39 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PALGRAVE, HOUNDMILLS, BASINGSTOKE RG21 6XS, ENGLAND ISBN: 978-0-230-12014-3 Book DOI: 10.1057/9780230120143 Web of Science Categories: Education & Educational Research; Planning & Development Research Areas: Education & Educational Research; Public Administration IDS Number: BFH51 Unique ID: WOS:000319886000015 Cited References: Yu Chi-Lik, 2010, Bauer Kathleen, 2005, D-Lib Magazine, Asia Week, 2000, Asia Week, Eaton Jonathan, 2007, Fine Tuning English Writing Workshop, September 14-15, 2007, Taipei, Snow Charles Percy, 1959, The Rede Lecture, Lai Ding Ming, 2004, Reflecting on Taiwan's Higher Education Academic Evaluation Conference, September 25-26, Taipei, Taiwan, Palmquist Ruth A., 2001, Bibliometrics, LAWANI SM, 1983, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V34, P59 Florida State University, 2007, Library Terms, Paasi A, 2005, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A, V37, P769 GARFIELD E, 1993, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION AND LIBRARY SCIENCE-REVUE CANADIENNE DES SCIENCES DE L INFORMATION ET DE BIBLIOTHECONOMIE4th Ian P Sharp Lecture on Information Science, APR 08, 1993, TORONTO, CANADA, V18, P14 Garfield Eugene, 1994, Linking Literatures: An Intriguing Use of the Citation Index, Nederhof Anton J., 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P163 Decker O, 2004, SOZIAL-UND PRAVENTIVMEDIZIN, V49, P10 Archambault Eric, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P329 Davis John B., 1998, American Economist, V42, P59 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Moed Henk F., 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P153 Williams R., 2004, The International Standing of Australian Universities, Ministry of Education (MOE), 2007, University's Research Achievement, Thomson Reuters, 2010, ISI Web of Knowledge, Dutta Soumitra, 2010, Global Information Technology Report 2009-2010, Hwang Guang-Guo, 2009, The Counseling Psychologist, V37, P930 Garfield Eugene, 1994, The Concept of Citation Indexing: A Unique and Innovative Tool for Navigating the Research Literature, SCImago, 2007, SJR-SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Ackermann Eric George, 2001, Developing Comparative Bibliometric Indicators for Evaluating the Research Performance of Four Academic Nutrition Departments, 1992-1996: An Exploratory Study, Lincoln Yvonna S., 1998, Studies in Cultures, Organizations, and Societies, V4, P263 Bernick Ethan, 2010, International Journal of Public Administration, V33, P98 Central News Agency, 2010, Thomson, 2008, Web of Science, MOED HF, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P381 Zitt M, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE4th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, OCT 05-07, 1995, ANTWERP, BELGIUM, V49, P30 FORRESTER JP, 1994, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, V54, P474 Huang Hou Ming, 2004, Reflecting on Taiwan's Higher Education Academic Evaluation Conference, September 25-26, Taipei, Taiwan, Chen Kuang-Shing, 2004, Reflecting on Taiwan's Higher Education Academic Evaluation Conference, September 25-26, Taipei, Taiwan, Cruz Isagani, 2007, Challenging ISI Thomson Scientifics' Journal Citation Reports: Deconstructing Objective, Impact, and Global., Lu Mu-Lin, 2003, The Making of World-class Research Universities in an Age of Globalization-Components & Challenges, Kokko H, 1999, TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, V14, P382 Ye Qi Zheng, 2004, Reflecting on Taiwan's Higher Education Academic Evaluation Conference, September 25-26, Taipei, Taiwan, ======================================================================= ======================================================================= From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Fri Jul 19 12:42:12 2013 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:42:12 +0000 Subject: Papers of interest to SIG-Metrics List Readers (2) Message-ID: *Record 2 Title: Financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest in high-impact biomedical *journals* Authors: Bosch, X; Pericas, JM; Hernandez, C; Doti, P Author Full Names: Bosch, Xavier; Pericas, Juan M.; Hernandez, Cristina; Doti, Pamela Source: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION, 43 (7):660-667; 10.1111/eci.12090 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Authors, competing interests, conflicts of interest, editors, financial, nonfinancial KeyWords Plus: INTEREST POLICIES; MEDICAL JOURNALS; INDUSTRY SPONSORSHIP; DISCLOSURE POLICIES; CLINICAL-TRIALS; OPEN ACCESS; SUPPLEMENTS; QUALITY; UPDATE Abstract: Purpose To assess financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies among the most influential biomedical journals publishing original research. Materials and methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in December 2011. Information relevant to COI and requirements for disclosures that was publicly available on journal websites was collected. Results While financial COI disclosures were required by 358 (89 center dot 7%) and nonfinancial by 280 (70 center dot 2%) journals, 155 (38 center dot 8%) required editors' disclosures. Journals in the first decile of the JCR classification scored significantly higher than those in the second decile for all disclosure policies. Ninety (22 center dot 6%) journals were published by Elsevier and 59 (14 center dot 8%) by Wiley-Blackwell, with Elsevier scoring significantly better in financial disclosu! re policies (P=0 center dot 022). Clinical journals scored significantly higher than basic journals for all disclosure policies. No differences were observed between open-access (n=25) and nonopen-access (n=374) journals for any type of disclosure. Somewhat incoherently, authors' disclosure statements were included in some published manuscript in 57 center dot 1% of journals without any COI disclosure policies. Conclusions Authors' financial COI disclosures were required by about 90% of high-impact clinical and basic journals publishing original research. Unlike recent studies showing a significantly lower prevalence of nonfinancial compared with financial disclosures, the former were required by about 70% of journals, suggesting that editors are increasingly concerned about nonfinancial competing interests. Only 40% of journals required disclosure of editors' COI, in conflict with the recommendations of the most influential editors' associations. Addresses: [Bosch, Xavier; Pericas, Juan M.; Hernandez, Cristina; Doti, Pamela] Univ Barcelona, Dept Internal Med, IDIBAPS, Hosp Clin, E-08036 Barcelona, Spain. E-mail Addresses: xavbosch at clinic.ub.es Cited Reference Count: 36 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 0014-2972 Web of Science Categories: Medicine, General & Internal; Medicine, Research & Experimental Research Areas: General & Internal Medicine; Research & Experimental Medicine IDS Number: 160NW Unique ID: WOS:000320127400002 Cited References: [Anonymous], 2004, CMAJ, V171, P1313 ROCHON PA, 1994, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION2nd International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, SEP 09-11, 1993, CHICAGO, IL, V272, P108 Flanagin A, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V296, P220 Bosch Xavier, 2008, EMBO REPORTS, V9, P404 World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Conflict of interest in peer-reviewed medical journals, Smith Elise, 2012, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, V38, P679 Reuters Thomson, Journal citation reports, Bier Dennis M., 2007, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, V86, P3 PLoS Medicine Editors, 2008, PLoS Med, V5, Pe199 International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), 2013, Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2013, Haivas I, 2004, CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, V171, P475 Karageorgopoulos DE, 2011, PLoS ONE, V6, Davidoff F, 2001, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V286, P1232 Bauchner Howard, 2012, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V308, P186 Drazen JM, 2002, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V346, P1901 World Association of Medical, 2013, The Relationship Between Journal Editors-in-Chief and Owners (formerly titled Editorial Independence), Kesselheim Aaron S., 2012, CANCER, V118, P188 Cooper Richelle J., 2006, JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE5th International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, SEP 16-18, 2005, Chicago, IL, V21, P1248 Drazen Jeffrey M., 2010, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V363, P188 Institute of Medicine Board on Health Sciences Policy, 2009, Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, Krimsky S, 2001, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICSAnnual Meeting of the American-Association-for-the-Advancement-of-Science, JAN 21-26, 1999, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, V7, P205 WILKES MS, 1995, JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, V10, P443 Bekelman JE, 2003, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V289, P454 Lesser Lenard I., 2007, PLOS MEDICINE, V4, P41 Ancker Jessica S., 2007, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, V13, P147 Ridker PM, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P2270 Citrome Leslie, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, Meerpohl Joerg J., 2011, BMC PEDIATRICS, V11, The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2005, PLoS Med, V2, Pe88 Blum Jared A., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P2230 Horton R, 2004, LANCET, V363, P820 Desai SS, 2011, J Vasc Surg, V54, P59 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Current Version), Lexchin J, 2003, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V326, P1167 Perlis RH, 2005, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, V162, P1957 ======================================================================= *Record 4 Title: Semantic description of scholar-oriented social network cloud Authors: Li, JG; Zhao, GS; Rong, CM; Tang, Y Author Full Names: Li, Jianguo; Zhao, Gansen; Rong, Chunming; Tang, Yong Source: JOURNAL OF SUPERCOMPUTING, 65 (1):410-425; 10.1007/s11227-010-0550-8 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Academic relations, Academic search cloud, Semantic description, SOSN ontology KeyWords Plus: EXTRACTION; WEB Abstract: Social networks have experienced exponential growth in membership and have become a hotspot for research in recent years. It helps users manage relations by establishing new relations and maintaining existing relations. On the basis of social networks' research, to encourage communication between scholars and facilitate management of academic information and academic relations, we built the Scholar-Oriented Social Network Cloud (SOSN) that is an academic information-centric social network. SOSN extracts academic information from various web sources on the Internet, and provides an application model for the social interaction and the semantic description of all related information. SOSN works as follows. Firstly, an academic search cloud is created that can provides academic search services according to users' web context. Then SOSN extracts public academic information from various literature databases and search engines on the web using the academic extracting services; seco! ndly, SOSN devises an application model in the domain of scholar social network, which is used to represent the complex relations of entities in the Scholar-Oriented Social Network Cloud; thirdly, based on FOAF (Friend of a Friend), MarcOnt ontology, FRBR (Functional Requirements for *Bibliographic* Records) and SWAP (Scholarly Works Application Profile) academic semantic project, SOSN defines Scholar, AcademicWork, AcademicTeam ontology, etc. using RDF language according to semantic web technology and implements the semantic description of Scholar-Oriented Social Network Cloud. Addresses: [Li, Jianguo; Zhao, Gansen; Tang, Yong] S China Normal Univ, Sch Comp Sci, Guangzhou 510631, Guangdong, Peoples R China. [Rong, Chunming] Univ Stavanger, Fac Sci & Technol, N-4036 Stavanger, Norway. E-mail Addresses: jli at scnu.edu.cn; gzhao at scnu.edu.cn; chunming.rong at uis.no; ytang at scnu.edu.cn Funding Acknowledgement: China State Key Lab of Software Engineering [SKLSE2010-08-22]; China Canton-HK research project [TC10-BH07-1]; National Natural Science Foundation of China [60970044, 60940033]; National Key Technology RD Program [2008BAH24B03]; China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20080440121] Funding Text: This work has been supported by China State Key Lab of Software Engineering through Grant No. SKLSE2010-08-22, by China Canton-HK research project TC10-BH07-1, National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 60970044, Grant No. 60940033), the National Key Technology R&D Program (Grant No. 2008BAH24B03), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 20080440121) Cited Reference Count: 13 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0920-8542 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Hardware & Architecture; Computer Science, Theory & Methods; Engineering, Electrical & Electronic Research Areas: Computer Science; Engineering IDS Number: 158AX Unique ID: WOS:000319942000025 Cited References: Miki T, 2005, 2005 SYMPOSIUM ON APPLICATIONS AND THE INTERNET, PROCEEDINGSInternational Symposium on Applications and the Internet (SAINT 2005), JAN 31-FEB 04, 2005, Trento, ITALY, P38 Ciccarese Paolo, 2008, JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS, V41, P739 Dabrowski M, 2008, Semantic digital libraries, P103 Keahey K, 2008, Proceedings of cloud computing and applications., Newman MEJ, 2001, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V98, P404 Mika P, 2005, JOURNAL OF WEB SEMANTICS, V3, P211 Celma Oscar, 2008, JOURNAL OF WEB SEMANTICS, V6, P250 Ellison Nicole B., 2008, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, V13, P210 Allinson J, 2007, Ariadne Electron Mag, V50, Buyya Rajkumar, 2008, HPCC 2008: 10TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATIONS, PROCEEDINGS10th IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications, SEP 25-27, 2008, Dalian, PEOPLES R CHINA, P5 Vouk M.A., 2008, Journal of Computing and Information Technology - CIT, V16, Matsuo Yutaka, 2007, JOURNAL OF WEB SEMANTICS15th International World Wide Web Conference, MAY 23-26, 2006, Edinburgh, SCOTLAND, V5, P262 Delic K, 2008, ACM Ubiquity, V9, P12 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *Record 11 Title: A citation analysis of nurse education *journals* using various bibliometric indicators Authors: Hunt, GE; Jackson, D; Watson, R; Cleary, M Author Full Names: Hunt, Glenn E.; Jackson, Debra; Watson, Roger; Cleary, Michelle Source: JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 69 (7):1441-1445; 10.1111/jan.12069 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material KeyWords Plus: IMPACT FACTORS; H-INDEX; QUALITY; PUBLICATIONS; PSYCHIATRY; SCIENCE; SCOPUS Addresses: [Hunt, Glenn E.] Univ Sydney, Discipline Psychiat, Sydney Med Sch, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. [Hunt, Glenn E.] Concord Ctr Mental Hlth, Res Unit, Sydney, NSW, Australia. [Jackson, Debra] Univ Technol Sydney, Fac Hlth, Broadway, NSW, Australia. [Watson, Roger] Univ Hull, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England. [Watson, Roger] Univ Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW 1797, Australia. [Cleary, Michelle] Natl Univ Singapore, Yong Loo Lin Sch Med, Alice Lee Ctr Nursing Studies, Singapore 117595, Singapore. E-mail Addresses: glenn.hunt at sydney.edu.au Cited Reference Count: 31 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 0309-2402 Web of Science Categories: Nursing Research Areas: Nursing IDS Number: 156NM Unique ID: WOS:000319829000001 Cited References: Polit Denise F., 2011, NURSING OUTLOOK, V59, P18 Pudovkin AI, 2002, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V53, P1113 Jeffries Pamela R, 2005, Nursing education perspectives, V26, P96 Burnard P, 1991, Nurse education today, V11, P461 Walter G, 2003, MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, V178, P280 Siebelt Michiel, 2010, BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, V11, Graneheim UH, 2004, NURSE EDUCATION TODAY, V24, P105 Pislyakov Vladimir, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V79, P541 Cronenwett Linda, 2007, NURSING OUTLOOK, V55, P122 Hunt Glenn E., 2011, AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, V45, P444 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Hunt Glenn E., 2012, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MENTAL HEALTH NURSING, V21, P576 Tanner C A, 1993, Image--the journal of nursing scholarship, V25, P273 Johnstone M. -J., 2007, INTERNATIONAL NURSING REVIEW, V54, P35 Broome Marion E., 2007, NURSING OUTLOOK, V55, P163 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY, P1471 Mishel M H, 1988, Image--the journal of nursing scholarship, V20, P225 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Crookes Patrick A., 2010, NURSE EDUCATION TODAY, V30, P420 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Hunt Glenn E., 2010, HARVARD REVIEW OF PSYCHIATRY, V18, P207 Jackson Debra, 2009, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, V18, P2537 Schumacher K L, 1994, Image--the journal of nursing scholarship, V26, P119 De Groote Sandra L., 2012, NURSING OUTLOOK, V60, P391 Oermann Marilyn H., 2012, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, V21, P299 Ironside Pamela M., 2007, JOURNAL OF NURSING EDUCATION, V46, P99 Mishel M H, 1990, Image--the journal of nursing scholarship, V22, P256 Kovner C, 1998, Image--the journal of nursing scholarship, V30, P315 Sandelowski M, 1991, Image--the journal of nursing scholarship, V23, P161 Hunt Glenn E., 2011, AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, V45, P614 Hunt Glenn E., 2011, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, V20, P70 ======================================================================= *Record 18 Title: NETWORK SCIENCE AND LITERARY HISTORY Authors: Long, H; So, R Author Full Names: Long, Hoyt; So, Richard Source: LEONARDO, 46 (3):274-274; 10.1162/LEON_a_00570 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: This paper introduces a method for applying network analysis to the sociological study of literary history. Focusing on "little magazines" and poetry journals in the U.S., Japan, and China, the authors utilize *bibliographic* records to construct weighted, bipartite graphs of poets and journals linked by publication. Through visual and quantitative analysis of the resulting networks, the authors aim to augment traditional hermeneutics with empirical measures that isolate aspects of the social structures from which literary modernism emerged. Addresses: [Long, Hoyt; So, Richard] Univ Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 USA. E-mail Addresses: hoytlong at uchicago.edu; richardjeanso at uchicago.edu Cited Reference Count: 9 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: MIT PRESS, 55 HAYWARD STREET, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142 USA ISSN: 0024-094X Web of Science Categories: Art Research Areas: Art IDS Number: 148QC Unique ID: WOS:000319259800014 Cited References: Newman M. E. J., 2001, Physical Review, V64, Latapy Matthieu, 2008, Social Networks, V30, 2006, Gendai-shj 1920-1944, Granger Book Co., 1981, Index to Poetry in Periodicals, de Nooy Wouter, 2002, Poetics, V30, English James F., 2010, New Literary History, V41, Pxii Uzzi Brian, 2005, American journal of Sociology, V111, Anheier Helmut K., 1991, Social Forces, V69, DiMaggio Paul, 2011, ======================================================================= *Record 22 Title: Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services Authors: Thelwall, M; Haustein, S; Lariviere, V; Sugimoto, CR Author Full Names: Thelwall, Mike; Haustein, Stefanie; Lariviere, Vincent; Sugimoto, Cassidy R. Source: PLOS ONE, 8 (5):10.1371/journal.pone.0064841 MAY 28 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: GOOGLE-SCHOLAR; SCIENTIFIC IMPACT; CITATION ANALYSIS; METRICS; JOURNALS; SCIENCE; DOWNLOADS; LEVEL Abstract: Altmetric measurements derived from the social web are increasingly advocated and used as early indicators of article impact and usefulness. Nevertheless, there is a lack of systematic scientific evidence that altmetrics are valid proxies of either impact or utility although a few case studies have reported medium correlations between specific altmetrics and citation rates for individual journals or fields. To fill this gap, this study compares 11 altmetrics with Web of Science citations for 76 to 208,739 PubMed articles with at least one altmetric mention in each case and up to 1,891 journals per metric. It also introduces a simple sign test to overcome biases caused by different citation and usage windows. Statistically significant associations were found between higher metric scores and higher citations for articles with positive altmetric scores in all cases with sufficient evidence (Twitter, Facebook wall posts, research highlights, blogs, mainstream media and forums) e! xcept perhaps for Google+ posts. Evidence was insufficient for LinkedIn, Pinterest, question and answer sites, and Reddit, and no conclusions should be drawn about articles with zero altmetric scores or the strength of any correlation between altmetrics and citations. Nevertheless, comparisons between citations and metric values for articles published at different times, even within the same year, can remove or reverse this association and so publishers and *scientometricians* should consider the effect of time when using altmetrics to rank articles. Finally, the coverage of all the altmetrics except for Twitter seems to be low and so it is not clear if they are prevalent enough to be useful in practice. Addresses: [Thelwall, Mike] Wolverhampton Univ, Sch Technol, Wolverhampton WV1 1DJ, W Midlands, England. [Haustein, Stefanie; Lariviere, Vincent] Univ Montreal, Ecole Bibliotheecon & Sci Informat, Montreal, PQ, Canada. [Haustein, Stefanie] Sci Metrix Inc, Montreal, PQ, Canada. [Lariviere, Vincent] Univ Quebec, Observ Sci & Technol, Ctr Interuniv Rech Sci & Technol, Montreal, PQ H3C 3P8, Canada. [Sugimoto, Cassidy R.] Indiana Univ, Sch Informat & Lib Sci, Bloomington, IN USA. E-mail Addresses: m.thelwall at wlv.ac.uk Funding Acknowledgement: Arts and Humanities Research Council/Economic; Arts and Humanities Research Council/Economic and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada); National Science Foundation (United States) [1208804] Funding Text: This research was part of the international Digging into Data program (funded by Arts and Humanities Research Council/Economic and Social Research Council/Joint Information Systems Committee (United Kingdom), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada), and the National Science Foundation (United States; grant #1208804). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Cited Reference Count: 43 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 1160 BATTERY STREET, STE 100, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 USA ISSN: 1932-6203 Article Number: e64841 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: 155FM Unique ID: WOS:000319733000101 Cited References: Priem J, 2010, First Monday, V15, Pinkowitz L, 2002, JOURNAL OF FINANCE, V57, P485 Thelwall Mike, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P805 Kousha Kayvan, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1055 Neylon Cameron, 2009, PLOS BIOLOGY, V7, SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Eysenbach Gunther, 2011, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, V13, Brody Tim, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P1060 Delgado-Lopez-Cozer Emilio, 2012, PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION, V21, P419 Priem J, 2012, Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact, Bar-Ilan J, 2012, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Montreal, Canada, P98 Taraborelli D, 2008, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, P99 Moed HF, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P1088 Priem Jason, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Waltman L, 2013, F1000 recommendations as a new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations, Haustein Stefanie, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P446 Lozano George A., 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P2140 PRICE D, 1976, INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION, V1, P17 Li Xue Feng, 2011, SPINE, V36, PE1245 Yan Koon-Kiu, 2011, PLOS ONE, V6, Kousha Kayvan, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1537 Adie Euan, 2013, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V26, P11 Cohen J., 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Groth P, 2010, Proceedings of the WebSci10, Raleigh, NC, US, NLM, 2013, MEDLINE Fact sheet, Bornmann L, 2013, J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol, V64, P217 Schloegl C, 2004, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V55, P1155 Meho Lokman I., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P2105 Tenopir C, 2000, Towards electronic journals: Realities for scientists, librarians, and publishers, Nielsen F, 2007, First Monday, V12, Shuai Xin, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Rowlands Ian, 2007, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V59, P222 Haustein S, 2012, Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multi-dimensional Indicators of Performance, Shema Hadas, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Priem J, 2013, Bibliometrics and Beyond: Metrics-Based Evaluation of Scholarly Research, Bar-Ilan J., 2012, Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V38, Li X, 2012, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Montreal, Canada, P451 Bar-Ilan J, 2012, the ACM Web Science Conference Workshop on Altmetrics Evanston, IL, Kurtz M, 2010, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, V44, P1 Bar-Ilan J, 2013, Bibliometrics and Beyond: Metrics-Based Evaluation of Scholarly Research, Wan Jin-kun, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 17-20, 2008, Vienna, AUSTRIA, V82, P555 Kousha Kayvan, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P2060 Desai Tejas, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, ======================================================================= *Record 23 Title: Ghostwriting Policies in High-Impact Biomedical *Journals*: A Cross-Sectional Study Authors: Bosch, X; Hernandez, C; Pericas, JM; Doti, P Author Full Names: Bosch, Xavier; Hernandez, Cristina; Pericas, Juan M.; Doti, Pamela Source: JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 173 (10):920-921; 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.339 MAY 27 2013 Language: English Document Type: Letter Addresses: [Bosch, Xavier; Hernandez, Cristina; Pericas, Juan M.; Doti, Pamela] Univ Barcelona, Hosp Clin, Dept Internal Med, Inst Invest Biomed August Pi & Sunyer IDIBAPS, E-08036 Barcelona, Spain. E-mail Addresses: xavbosch at clinic.ub.es Cited Reference Count: 8 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AMER MEDICAL ASSOC, 515 N STATE ST, CHICAGO, IL 60654-0946 USA ISSN: 2168-6106 Web of Science Categories: Medicine, General & Internal Research Areas: General & Internal Medicine IDS Number: 159KR Unique ID: WOS:000320044800020 Cited References: World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), 2005, Ghostwriting initiated by commercial companies, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2008, What to do if you suspect ghost, guest or gift authorship, Stern S, 2010, PLoS Med, V8, Bosch Xavier, 2012, PLOS MEDICINE, V9, Gotzsche Peter C., 2009, PLOS MEDICINE, V6, P122 Bosch Xavier, 2012, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V125, P324 PLoS Medicine Editors, 2009, PLoS Med, V6, Graf Chris, 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, V61, P1 ======================================================================= *Record 26 Title: Trends in Citations to Books on Epidemiological and Statistical Methods in the Biomedical Literature Authors: Porta, M; Vandenbroucke, JP; Ioannidis, JPA; Sanz, S; Fernandez, E; Bhopal, R; Morabia, A; Victora, C; Lopez, T Author Full Names: Porta, Miquel; Vandenbroucke, Jan P.; Ioannidis, John P. A.; Sanz, Sergio; Fernandez, Esteve; Bhopal, Raj; Morabia, Alfredo; Victora, Cesar; Lopez, Tomas Source: PLOS ONE, 8 (5):10.1371/journal.pone.0061837 MAY 7 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: BIBLIOGRAPHIC IMPACT FACTOR; SCIENCE; TEXTBOOKS; JOURNALS; 20TH-CENTURY; ASSOCIATION; CAUSATION; MORTALITY; SOCIOLOGY; FREQUENCY Abstract: Background: There are no analyses of citations to books on epidemiological and statistical methods in the biomedical literature. Such analyses may shed light on how concepts and methods changed while biomedical research evolved. Our aim was to analyze the number and time trends of citations received from biomedical articles by books on epidemiological and statistical methods, and related disciplines. Methods and Findings: The data source was the Web of Science. The study books were published between 1957 and 2010. The first year of publication of the citing articles was 1945. We identified 125 books that received at least 25 citations. Books first published in 1980-1989 had the highest total and median number of citations per year. Nine of the 10 most cited texts focused on statistical methods. Hosmer & Lemeshow's Applied logistic regression received the highest number of citations and highest average annual rate. It was followed by books by Fleiss, Armitage, et al., Rothman, et al., and Kalbfleisch and Prentice. Fifth in citations per year was Sackett, et al., Evidence-based medicine. The rise of multivariate methods, clinical epidemiology, or nutritional epidemiology was reflected in the citation trends. Educational textbooks, practice-oriented books, books on epidemiological substantive knowledge, and on theory and health policies were much less cited. None of the 25 ! top-cited books had the theoretical or sociopolitical scope of works by Cochrane, McKeown, Rose, or Morris. Conclusions: Books were mainly cited to reference methods. Books first published in the 1980s continue to be most influential. Older books on theory and policies were rooted in societal and general medical concerns, while the most modern books are almost purely on methods. Addresses: [Porta, Miquel; Sanz, Sergio; Lopez, Tomas] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Hosp del Mar, Inst Med Res IMIM, CIBER Epidemiol & Salud Publ CIBERESP, Catalonia, Spain. [Porta, Miquel; Sanz, Sergio; Lopez, Tomas] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Sch Med, Catalonia, Spain. [Porta, Miquel] Univ N Carolina, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Chapel Hill, NC USA. [Vandenbroucke, Jan P.] Leiden Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol, Leiden, Netherlands. [Ioannidis, John P. A.] Univ Ioannina, Sch Med, Dept Hyg & Epidemiol, GR-45110 Ioannina, Greece. [Ioannidis, John P. A.] Stanford Univ, Dept Med, Stanford Prevent Res Ctr, Sch Med, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. [Ioannidis, John P. A.] Stanford Univ, Sch Med, Dept Hlth Res & Policy, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. [Ioannidis, John P. A.] Stanford Univ, Dept Stat, Sch Humanities & Sci, Stanford, CA 94305 USA. [Fernandez, Esteve] Univ Barcelona, Inst Catala Oncol ICO IDIBELL, Canc Prevent & Control Programme, Barcelona, Spain. [Fernandez, Esteve] Univ Barcelona, Sch Med, Barcelona, Spain. [Bhopal, Raj] Univ Edinburgh, Ctr Populat Hlth Sci, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland. [Morabia, Alfredo] Columbia Univ, Mailman Sch Publ Hlth, New York, NY USA. [Morabia, Alfredo] CUNY Queens Coll, Sch Earth & Environm Sci, Flushing, NY 11367 USA. [Morabia, Alfredo] CUNY Queens Coll, Ctr Biol Nat Syst, Flushing, NY 11367 USA. [Victora, Cesar] Univ Fed Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil. E-mail Addresses: mporta at imim.es Funding Acknowledgement: Government of Catalonia [2009 SGR 1350, 2009 SGR 192]; CIBER de Epidemiologia y Salud Publica (CIBERESP); RTIC Cancer, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Government of Spain [RD06/0020/0089] Funding Text: This work was supported in part by research grants from the Government of Catalonia (2009 SGR 1350 and 2009 SGR 192); CIBER de Epidemiologia y Salud Publica (CIBERESP); and RTIC Cancer (RD06/0020/0089), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Government of Spain. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Cited Reference Count: 342 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 1160 BATTERY STREET, STE 100, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 USA ISSN: 1932-6203 Article Number: e61837 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: 154EP Unique ID: WOS:000319654700016 Cited References: Timmreck TC, 2002, An introduction to epidemiology, Bolumar F, 2004, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V19, P733 Robertson L, 1992, Injury epidemiology, Breslow NE, 1980, The Analysis of Case-Control Studies, V1, Friedman G, 1994, Primer of epidemiology, Robertson L, 2007, Injury epidemiology. Research and control strategies, Holford TR, 2002, Multivariate methods in epidemiology, Berkman LF, 2000, Social epidemiology, Luepker RV, 2004, Cardiovascular survey methods, Klein M, 2002, Logistic regression-a self-learning text, Lariviere Vincent, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P858 Bradburn N, 2004, Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design, Greenwood M, 1935, Epidemics and crowd diseases, Fletcher RH, 1988, Clinical epidemiology. The essentials, McDowell I., 1996, Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires, Weiss N, 1996, Clinical epidemiology: The study of the outcome of illness, 2002, Field epidemiology, Kleinbaum D, 1998, Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods, Porta M, 2006, JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, V60, P559 1988, Pharmacoepidemiology. An introduction, Kousha Kayvan, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2147 Rothman KJ, 1986, Modern epidemiology, Hill AB, 1937, Principles of medical statistics, Morton RF, 1979, A study guide to epidemiology and biostatistics, 1973, Maxcy-Rosenau Preventive medicine and public health, Timmreck TC, 1998, An introduction to epidemiology, Bland M, 1995, An introduction to medical statistics, Harkness GA, 1995, Epidemiology in nursing practice, GARFIELD E, 1987, CURRENT CONTENTS, P3 Rosen G, 1993, A history of public health, VANDENBROUCKE JP, 1988, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V17, P708 Gordis L, 2004, Epidemiology, Adams J, 2011, Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), July 4-7, 2011, Durban, South Africa, V1, P13 Streiner D, 2008, Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, Page RM, 1995, Basic epidemiological methods and biostatistics, Fleiss J. L, 1981, Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, Armitage P, 1971, Kelsey JL, 1986, Greenberg RS, 1993, Medical epidemiology, Sackett DL, 1985, Clinical epidemiology. A basic science for clinical medicine, 2008, Maxcy-Rosenau-Last Public health and preventive medicine, Hill AB, 1991, Bradford Hill's Principles of medical statistics, Marmot M, 2006, Social determinants of health, 1987, Annotated readings on concepts and methods, Bhopal RS, 2008, Concepts of Epidemiology. Integrating the ideas, theories, principles and methods of epidemiology, Rothman KJ, 2008, Modern Epidemiology, Hill AB, 1977, A short textbook of medical statistics, Elliott P, 1992, Geographical and environmental epidemiology: Methods for small-area studies, Abramson JH, 2001, Making sense of data. A self-instruction manual of the interpretation of epidemiological data, Gore SM, 1982, Statistics in practice, Black Nick, 2006, Journal of health services research & policy, V11, P180 Susser M, 1973, Causal thinking in the health sciences, ELWOOD PC, 1974, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V1, P436 Holland WW, 1990, Screening in health care: benefit or bane?, GARFIELD E, 1985, CURRENT CONTENTS, P3 Reuters Thomson, Book Citation Index, 2002, Textbook of cancer epidemiology, Silman AJ, 1995, Epidemiological studies: a practical guide, Armenian HK, 1998, Epidemiology and health services, 1992, Teaching epidemiology, Rosner B, 1990, Fundamentals of biostatistics, Bhopal R, 1997, JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, V51, P612 Fletcher R, 2005, Clinical epidemiology: the essentials, Bland M, 2000, An introduction to medical statistics, Kupper L. L., 1988, Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods, 1988, Clinical preventive medicine: health promotion and disease prevention, Tatsioni Athina, 2007, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V298, P2517 Doll R, 1981, The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today, 1991, Oxford textbook of public health, 2008, Textbook of cancer epidemiology, Hosmer DW, 2000, Applied logistic regression, McKeown T, 1976, The role of medicine: dream, mirage or nemesis?, 1976, Epidemiology as a fundamental science: its uses in health services planning, administration and evaluation, Jensen O, 1991, IARC Scientific publications, Peter J, 2008, Library Trends, V56, P784 Rosner B, 1995, Fundamentals of biostatistics, Aschengrau A, 2003, Essentials of epidemiology in public health, 1997, V142, Lilienfeld AM, 1980, Foundations of epidemiology, Armitage P, 2002, 1991, Pharmacoepidemiology. An introduction, Morton RF, 1984, A study guide to epidemiology and biostatistics, STLEGER AS, 1979, LANCET, V1, P1017 Fuchs VR, 1998, Who shall live? Health, economics, and social choice, Murphy EA, 1976, The logic of medicine, Morabia A, 2004, A history of epidemiologic methods and concepts, Bland M, 1987, An introduction to medical statistics, Friedman G, 1987, Primer of epidemiology, Hosmer Jr DW, 1989, Applied Logistic Regression, 1998, Pharmacoepidemiology. An introduction, Bhopal R, 2002, Concepts of epidemiology. An integrated introduction to the ideas, theories, principles and methods of epidemiology, Friedmen LM, 2010, FUNDAMENTALS OF CLINICAL TRIALS, FOURTH EDITION, P1 1995, A dictionary of epidemiology, Szklo M, 2000, Epidemiology. Beyond the basics, Kleinman A., 1988, The illness narratives: Suffering, healing, and the human condition, 1994, The epidemiological imagination: A reader, 1993, Case studies in occupational epidemiology, Mausner JS, 1985, Epidemiology: an Introductory text, Porta M., 2008, Kleinbaum DG, 2005, Survival analysis: a self learning Text, Kalbfleisch J, 2002, The statistical analysis of failure time data, Jekel JF, 2007, Epidemiology, biostatistics and preventive medicine, 1994, Principles and practice of public health surveillance, Kahn HA, 1983, An introduction to epidemiologic methods, Ahlbom A, 1990, Introduction to modern epidemiology, Breslow NE, 1987, Sackett DL, 2000, Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM, Kleinbaum DG, 1996, Survival analysis: A self-learning text, Rose G, 1992, The strategy of preventive medicine, Elwood M, 2007, Critical appraisal of epidemiological studies and clinical trials, Coggon D, 1993, Epidemiology for the uninitiated, Astrom F, 2011, Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), July 4-7, 2011, Durban, South Africa, V2, P89 2000, Pharmacoepidemiology, Streiner D-L, 1995, Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use, GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 1988, Epidemiology in general practice, Glaser J, 2004, JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V40, P261 Doll R, 2008, The prevention of cancer: pointers from epidemology, Detels R., 2009, Oxford textbook of public health, 1996, Field epidemiology, 2008, Molecular epidemiology of chronic diseases, Farmer R, 1991, Lecture notes on epidemiology and public health medicine, 1992, Medical uses of statistics, Carrington M, 2001, Molecular epidemiology, Kahn HA, 1989, Statistical methods in epidemiology, Hill AB, 1962, Statistical methods in clinical and preventive medicine, Rosen G, 1958, A history of public health, Morris JN, 1957, Uses of epidemiology, 2003, Practical psychiatric epidemiology, Astrom F, 2011, Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), July 4-7, 2011, Durban, South Africa, V1, P89 HILL AB, 1965, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE-LONDON, V58, P295 1991, Design concepts in nutritional epidemiology, Schottenfeld D, 1975, Cancer epidemiology and prevention, Monson R R, 1990, Occupational Epidemiology, 1994, Pharmacoepidemiology, Abramson JH, 1988, Making sense of data. A self-instruction manual of the interpretation of epidemiological data, Streiner DL, 2003, Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use, 2000, Control of communicable diseases manual. An official report of the American Public Health Association, 1999, Social Determinants of Health, Kleinbaum DG, 1982, Epidemiologic research. Principles and quantitative methods, Checkoway H, 2004, 1980, Epidemiology as a fundamental science: its uses in health services planning, administration and evaluation, Schuman SH, 1986, Practice-based epidemiology, 1980, Maxcy-Rosenau Public health and preventive medicine, Morris JN, 1964, Uses of epidemiology, 1971, Causal models in the social sciences, WILLETT WC, 1985, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V122, P51 Zhang FF, 2004, SOZIAL-UND PRAVENTIVMEDIZIN, V49, P97 Friedman G, 2004, Primer of epidemiology, Schlesselman JJ, 1982, Case control studies. Design, conduct, analysis, Abramson JH, 1979, Survey methods in community medicine, 1996, Cancer epidemiology and prevention, Rose GA, 1982, Cardiovascular survey methods, 1999, IARC Scientific publications, V148, Kleinbaum DG, 2007, Applied regression analysis and multivariable methods, Rosner B, 1982, Fundamentals of biostatistics, 1986, Medical uses of statistics, 1951, Rosenau Preventive medicine and hygiene, Friis RH, 2009, Epidemiology for public health practice, Fleiss JL, 2003, Statistical methods for rates and proportions, Petitti D, 2000, Meta-analysis, decision-analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis, Rothman KJ, 2002, Epidemiology: an introduction, Ahlbom A, 1984, Introduction to modern epidemiology, Willett W, 1998, Nutritional Epidemiology, 1997, Oxford textbook of public health, Sydenstricker E, 1933, Health and environment, Blalock HM, 1964, Causal inference in non-experimental research, Abramson JH, 1990, MANTEL N, 1959, JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, V22, P719 LEYDESDORFF L, 1990, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, V15, P305 Pearl J., 2000, Causality, models, reasoning and inference, Friedman LM, 1996, Fundamentals of clinical trials, Morton RF, 2005, A study guide to epidemiology and biostatistics, 1985, Sociology in medicine, Stolley PD, 1995, Investigating disease patterns: The science of epidemiology, 1992, Maxcy-Rosenau-Last Public health and preventive medicine, Norell SE, 1995, Workbook of epidemiology, Pocock SJ, 1983, Clinical Trials. A practical approach, Elwood M, 1988, Causal relationships in medicine: a practical system for critical appraisal, Cochrane AL, 1999, Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services, Abramson JH, 1994, Making sense of data. A self-instruction manual of the interpretation of epidemiological data, McDowell I., 2006, Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires, Marmot M, 1992, Coronary heart disease epidemiology. From aetiology to public health, Lilienfeld DE, 1994, Foundations of epidemiology, Marmot M, 2005, Coronary heart disease epidemiology. From aetiology to public health, Robertson L, 1998, Injury epidemiology. Research and Control Strategies, Fleiss JL, 1973, Statistical methods for rates and proportions, Vandenbroucke JP, 1998, LANCET, V352, P2001 Jekel JF, 2001, Epidemiology, biostatistics and preventive medicine, 1988, Causal inference, 1970, Basic readings in epidemiology, Vandenbroucke JP, 1998, LANCET, V352, P12 Cochrane AL, 1999, London: British Medical Journal, MacMahon B, 1996, Epidemiology. Principles and methods, CLAYTON D., 1993, Statistical Models in Epidemiology, Jenicek M, 1995, Epidemiology: The logic of modern medicine, Pocock SJ, 2002, Clinical Trials. A practical approach, McDowell I., 1987, Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires, Timmreck TC, 1994, An introduction to epidemiology, Patrick DL, 1993, Health status and health policy. Allocating resources to health care, Elwood M, 1998, Critical appraisal of epidemiological studies and clinical trials, Butler L, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V66, P327 ALVAREZDARDET C, 1993, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V306, P1252 Fletcher RH, 1996, Clinical epidemiology. The essentials, Porta Miquel, 2006, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V35, P1130 Haynes RB, 2005, Clinical epidemiology. How to do clinical practice research, Adams J, 2011, Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), July 4-7, 2011, Durban, South Africa, V2, P13 Bhopal R, 1999, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, V89, P1162 Fox JP, 1970, Epidemiology: Man and disease, Barker DJP, 1990, Epidemiology in medical practice, Barker DJP, 1976, Epidemiology in medical practice, Starfield B, 1985, The effectiveness of medical care: validating clinical wisdom, Abramson JH, 1984, Survey methods in community medicine, Porta M, 1998, JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, V52, P605 Straus S, 2005, Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, MIETTINEN O, 1976, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V103, P226 Meinert C, 1986, Clinical trials. Design, conduct, analysis, Friis RH, 2004, Epidemiology for public health practice, Weiss N, 1986, Clinical epidemiology: The study of the outcome of illness, Friedman LM, 1985, Fundamentals of clinical trials, Abramson JH, 2008, Susser M, 1987, Epidemiology, health and society. Selected papers by Mervyn Susser, Amsterdamska O, 2005, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, V30, P17 1988, A dictionary of epidemiology, Rosner B, 1986, Fundamentals of biostatistics, GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Elston RC, 1994, Essentials of biostatistics, 1985, Causal models in the social sciences, Porta M, 1996, JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, V50, P606 Morton RF, 1996, A study guide to epidemiology and biostatistics, Abramson JH, 1999, Willett W, 1990, Nutritional Epidemiology, 1982, Cancer epidemiology and prevention, Sackett D., 1997, Gray JAM, 1984, Essentials of preventive medicine, 2010, Teaching epidemiology, Polgar S, 1988, Introduction to research in the health sciences, Lilienfeld AM, 1976, Foundations of epidemiology, Khoury MJ, 2000, Genetics and public health in the 21st century. Using genetic information to improve health and prevent disease, Friis RH, 1999, Epidemiology for public health practice, Hosmer DW, 2008, Applied survival analysis: regression modeling of time-to-event data, Porta Miquel, 2006, REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA, V40, P50 Farmer R, 1983, Lecture notes on epidemiology and community medicine, 1993, Molecular epidemiology. Principles and practice, Nelson KE, 2007, Infectious diseases epidemiology. Theory and practice, Khoury MJ, 2003, Human genome epidemiology: a scientific foundation for using genetic information to improve health and prevent disease, Streiner DL, 1989, Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use, Greenberg RS, 2005, Sudman S, 1982, Asking questions. A practical guide to questionnaire design, Kalbfleisch J. D., 1980, The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data, 2008, Molecular epidemiology: applications in cancer and other human diseases, Morrison AS, 1985, Screening in chronic disease, Farmer R, 1977, Lecture notes on community medicine, Armitage P, 1994, Rosenau MJ, Preventive medicine and hygiene, Kaufman JS, 2000, ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH, V21, P101 2006, Cancer epidemiology and prevention, Greenberg RS, 2001, Medical epidemiology, Greenberg RS, 1996, Medical epidemiology, MacMahon B, 1960, Epidemiology. Principles and methods, 2001, Teaching epidemiology, Hennekens CH, 1987, Epidemiology in medicine, Barker DJP, 1984, Epidemiology in medical practice, 2008, Field epidemiology, Feinstein AR, 1985, Clinical epidemiology. The architecture of clinical research, Feinstein AR, 1987, Clinimetrics, Aschengrau A, 2008, Essentials of epidemiology in public health, DOLL R, 1981, JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, V66, P1191 Morton RF, 1990, A study guide to epidemiology and biostatistics, Armitage P, 1987, Sydenstricker E, 1972, Health and environment, 2000, Principles and practice of public health surveillance, ROSE G, 1985, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V14, P32 Rothman KJ, 1998, Modern Epidemiology, Ioannidis John P. A., 2006, PLOS ONE, V1, Krieger Nancy, 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V36, P1173 2009, Medical uses of statistics, 1988, Designing clinical research: an epidemiologic approach, 1989, Pharmacoepidemiology, Abramson JH, 1974, Survey methods in community medicine, Silman AJ, 2002, Epidemiological studies: a practical guide, Petitti D, 1994, Meta-analysis, decision-analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis, Murphy EA, 1997, The logic of medicine, Friis RH, 1996, Epidemiology for public health practice, Seglen PO, 1992, Research Evaluation, V2, P143 Waning B, 2000, Pharmacoepidemiology: Principles and practice, Knowles JH, 1977, Doing better and feeling worse. Health in the United States, Unwin N, 1997, An introductory study guide to public health and epidemiology, Evans James A., 2008, SCIENCE, V321, P395 Barker DJP, 1998, Epidemiology in medical practice, Khoury MJ, 1993, Fundamentals of genetic epidemiology, 2008, Control of communicable diseases manual. An official report of the American Public Health Association, Hosmer DW, 1999, Applied survival analysis. Regression modelling of time to event data, Morton RF, 2001, A study guide to epidemiology and biostatistics, KRIEGER N, 1994, SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, V39, P887 Jekel JF, 1996, Epidemiology, biostatistics and preventive medicine, 1983, A dictionary of epidemiology, 2007, Designing clinical research, Susser M, 2009, Eras in epidemiology: the evolution of ideas, Nelson KE, 2001, Infectious diseases epidemiology. Theory and practice, ======================================================================= *Record 29 Title: The top *cited articles* on glioma stem cells in Web of Science Authors: Yi, FX; Ma, J; Ni, WM; Chang, R; Liu, WD; Han, XB; Pan, DX; Liu, XB; Qiu, JW Author Full Names: Yi, Fuxin; Ma, Jun; Ni, Weimin; Chang, Rui; Liu, Wenda; Han, Xiubin; Pan, Dongxiao; Liu, Xingbo; Qiu, Jianwu Source: NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH, 8 (15):1431-1438; 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5374.2013.15.011 MAY 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Neural regeneration, reviews, brain glioma, stem cells, glioma stem cells, cancer stem cells, literature analysis, Web of Science, bibliometrics, citation, neuroregeneration KeyWords Plus: GROWTH-FACTOR RECEPTOR; HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA; SELF-RENEWAL; HUMAN GLIOBLASTOMA; MALIGNANT GLIOMA; BRAIN-TUMORS; INITIATING CELLS; SIDE POPULATION; CANCER-CELLS; IN-VITRO Abstract: BACKGROUND: Glioma is the most common intracranial tumor and has a poor patient prognosis. The presence of brain tumor stem cells was gradually being understood and recognized, which might be beneficial for the treatment of glioma. OBJECTIVE: To use bibliometric indexes to track study focuses on glioma stem cell, and to investigate the relationships among geographic origin, impact factors, and highly *cited articles* indexed in Web of Science. METHODS: A list of citation classics for glioma stem cells was generated by searching the database of Web of Science-Expanded using the terms "glioma stem cell" or "glioma, stem cell'" or "brain tumor stem cell". The top 63 cited research articles which were cited more than 100 times were retrieved by reading the abstract or full text if needed. Each eligible article was reviewed for basic information on subject categories, country of origin, journals, authors, and source of journals. Inclusive criteria: (1) articles in the field of glioma stem cells which was cited more than 100 times; (2) fundamental research on humans or animals, clinical trials and case reports; (3) research article; (4) year of publication: 1899-2012; and (5) citation database: Science Citation Index-Expanded. Exclusive criteria: (1) articles needing to be manually searched or accessed only by telephone; (2) unpublished articles; and (3) reviews, conference proceedings, as well as corrected papers. RESULTS: Of 2 040 articles published, the 63 top-*cited articles* were published between 1992 and 2010. The number of citations ranged from 100 to 1 754, with a mean of 280 citations per article. These citation classics came from nineteen countries, of which 46 articles came from the United States. Duke University and University of California, San Francisco led the list of classics with seven papers each. The 63 top-*cited articles* were published in 28 journals, predominantly Cancer Research and Cancer Cell, followed by Cell Stem Cell and Nature. CONCLUSION: Our bibliometric analysis provides a historical perspective on the progress of glioma stem cell research. Articles originating from outstanding institutions of the United States and published in high-impact journals are most likely to be cited. Addresses: [Yi, Fuxin; Ma, Jun; Ni, Weimin; Chang, Rui; Liu, Wenda; Han, Xiubin; Pan, Dongxiao; Liu, Xingbo; Qiu, Jianwu] Liaoning Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Neurosurg, Jinzhou 121000, Liaoning Prov, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: Yifuxin2007 at sina.com Cited Reference Count: 78 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SHENYANG EDITORIAL DEPT NEURAL REGENERATION RES, PO BOX 1234, SHENYANG, LIAONING 110004, PEOPLES R CHINA ISSN: 1673-5374 Web of Science Categories: Cell Biology; Neurosciences Research Areas: Cell Biology; Neurosciences & Neurology IDS Number: 156VY Unique ID: WOS:000319853200011 Cited References: Penuelas Silvia, 2009, CANCER CELL, V15, P315 Recht L, 2003, JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY, V88, P11 Elias Laura A. B., 2007, NATURE, V448, P901 Sun LX, 2006, CANCER CELL, V9, P287 Galli R, 2004, CANCER RESEARCH, V64, P7011 Bleau Anne-Marie, 2009, CELL STEM CELL, V4, P226 Zeppernick Felix, 2008, CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, V14, P123 Nakamura K, 2004, GENE THERAPY, V11, P1155 Lefaivre Kelly A., 2011, CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, V469, P1487 Ligon Keith L., 2007, NEURON, V53, P503 Bao Shideng, 2008, CANCER RESEARCH, V68, P6043 Ligon KL, 2004, JOURNAL OF NEUROPATHOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY, V63, P499 Soeda A., 2009, ONCOGENE, V28, P3949 Calabrese Christopher, 2007, CANCER CELL, V11, P69 Assanah M, 2006, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V26, P6781 Fan Xing, 2010, STEM CELLS, V28, P5 Wen Patrick Y., 2008, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V359, P492 LAPIDOT T, 1994, NATURE, V367, P645 Huse Jason T., 2009, GENES & DEVELOPMENT, V23, P1327 Rosenberg Andrew L., 2010, JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, V25, P157 Bachoo RM, 2002, CANCER CELL, V1, P269 Link AM, 1998, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION3rd International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, SEP, 1997, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC, V280, P246 Zheng Xuesheng, 2007, CANCER RESEARCH, V67, P3691 Folkins Chris, 2007, CANCER RESEARCH, V67, P3560 Moed Henk F., 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P13 Heddleston John M., 2009, CELL CYCLE, V8, P3274 Jiang Tao, 2011, CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, V124, P2578 Marshall CAG, 2003, GLIA, V43, P52 De Palma M, 2005, CANCER CELL, V8, P211 Patrawala L, 2005, CANCER RESEARCH, V65, P6207 Yuan XP, 2004, ONCOGENE, V23, P9392 Hennessey Kiara, 2009, CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, V3, P293 Li Zhizhong, 2009, CANCER CELL, V15, P501 Rola R, 2004, EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY, V188, P316 Bruna Alejandra, 2007, CANCER CELL, V11, P147 Brown AB, 2003, HUMAN GENE THERAPY, V14, P1777 Ikushima Hiroaki, 2009, CELL STEM CELL, V5, P504 Clement Virginie, 2007, CURRENT BIOLOGY, V17, P165 Godlewski Jakub, 2008, CANCER RESEARCH, V68, P9125 Murat Anastasia, 2008, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, V26, P3015 Pollard Steven M., 2009, CELL STEM CELL, V4, P568 GODWIN JT, 1959, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V16, P385 Nakamizo A, 2005, CANCER RESEARCH, V65, P3307 Deng WW, 2001, BIOCHEMICAL AND BIOPHYSICAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, V282, P148 Sriber J, 2008, BMC Med., V6, P14 Zheng Hongwu, 2008, NATURE, V455, P1129 Guenther H. S., 2008, ONCOGENE, V27, P2897 Jackson Erica L., 2006, NEURON, V51, P187 Ignatova TN, 2002, GLIA, V39, P193 DAHLSTRAND J, 1992, CANCER RESEARCH, V52, P5334 Visvader Jane E., 2008, NATURE REVIEWS CANCER, V8, P755 Carro Maria Stella, 2010, NATURE, V463, P318 Quinn JA, 2002, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, V20, P2277 Son Myung Jin, 2009, CELL STEM CELL, V4, P440 Blazek Ed R., 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, V67, P1 Bruggeman Sophia W. M., 2007, CANCER CELL, V12, P328 Adam D, 2002, NATURE, V415, P726 Ehtesham M, 2002, CANCER RESEARCH, V62, P7170 Wang Jian, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, V122, P761 Gilbertson Richard J., 2007, NATURE REVIEWS CANCER, V7, P733 Li Yunqing, 2009, CANCER RESEARCH, V69, P7569 CAMPBELL FM, 1990, BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V78, P376 Singh SK, 2003, CANCER RESEARCH, V63, P5821 Salmaggi Andrea, 2006, GLIA, V54, P850 Bao Shideng, 2006, CANCER RESEARCH, V66, P7843 Glinsky GV, 2005, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION, V115, P1503 Al-Hajj M, 2003, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V100, P3983 Ehtesham M, 2002, CANCER RESEARCH, V62, P5657 Lee J, 2006, CANCER CELL, V9, P391 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 TOHYAMA T, 1992, LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, V66, P303 Ogden Alfred T., 2008, NEUROSURGERY, V62, P505 Bao Shideng, 2006, NATURE, V444, P756 Verhaak Roel G. W., 2010, CANCER CELL, V17, P98 Silbergeld DL, 1997, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V86, P525 Beier D, 2008, Cancer Res., V68, Phillips HS, 2006, CANCER CELL, V9, P157 Glass R, 2005, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V25, P2637 ======================================================================= *Record 30 Title: Almanac 2012: congenital heart disease. The *journals* present selected research that has driven recent 295 advances in clinical cardiology Authors: Burch, M; Dedieu, N Author Full Names: Burch, Michael; Dedieu, Nathalie Source: ANADOLU KARDIYOLOJI DERGISI-THE ANATOLIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 13 (3):295-303; 10.5152/akd.2013.064 MAY 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: PULMONARY ARTERIAL-HYPERTENSION; RIGHT-VENTRICULAR FUNCTION; SEPTAL-DEFECT CLOSURE; BICUSPID AORTIC-VALVE; EISENMENGER SYNDROME; GREAT-ARTERIES; ADULT PATIENTS; CARDIAC TRANSPLANTATION; ATRIOVENTRICULAR-BLOCK; DILATED CARDIOMYOPATHY Abstract: This Almanac highlights recent papers on congenital heart disease in the major cardiac journals. Over 100 articles are cited. Subheadings are used to group relevant papers and allow readers to focus on their areas of interest, but are not meant to be comprehensive for all aspects of congenital cardiac disease. Addresses: [Burch, Michael] Great Ormond St Hosp Sick Children, London WC1N 3JH, England. [Dedieu, Nathalie] Royal Brompton Hosp, Dept Paediat Cardiol, London SW3 6LY, England. E-mail Addresses: burchm at gosh.nhs.uk Cited Reference Count: 107 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AVES YAYINCILIK, IBRAHIM KARA, KIZILELMA CAD 5-3, FINDIKZADE, ISTANBUL 34096, TURKEY ISSN: 1302-8723 Web of Science Categories: Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems Research Areas: Cardiovascular System & Cardiology IDS Number: 156FB Unique ID: WOS:000319806100038 Cited References: Mullens W, 2005, Heart (British Cardiac Society), V91, P1329 Lauten Alexander, 2012, HEART, V98, P623 van Geldorp Irene E., 2011, HEART, V97, P2051 Defaye Pascal, 2010, HEART, V96, P1951 Narasimhan C, 2011, Heart, V97, P12 Jaeggi Edgar T., 2011, CIRCULATION, V124, P1747 Beghetti Maurice, 2010, HEART, V96, P911 Stiller Brigitte, 2011, HEART, V97, P596 Nagashima M, 2010, Heart, V96, P12 Apitz Christian, 2010, HEART, V96, P1837 Zabal Carlos, 2010, HEART, V96, P625 De Vlieger G., 2010, HEART, V96, P714 Kutty Shelby, 2010, HEART, V96, P1756 Forbes Thomas J., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, V58, P2664 Moledina S., 2010, HEART, V96, P1401 Cheng Shih-Tsung, 2011, HEART, V97, P1456 Marek Jan, 2011, HEART, V97, P124 Irving C., 2010, HEART, V96, P1217 Inuzuka Ryo, 2012, CIRCULATION, V125, P250 Plymen Carla M., 2010, HEART, V96, P1569 Mitchell G., 2010, HEART, V96, P1222 McLeod Karen A., 2010, HEART, V96, P1502 Peng Lynn F., 2010, CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, V75, P1084 Grotenhuis Heynric B., 2011, HEART, V97, P66 van Engelen Klaartje, 2010, HEART, V96, P621 Moledina Shahin, 2011, HEART, V97, P1245 Trucco Sara M., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, V57, P715 Ait-Ali Lamia, 2010, HEART, V96, P269 Caleshu Colleen, 2010, HEART, V96, P1669 Baruteau Alban-Elouen, 2012, EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, V33, P622 Rand E, 2012, Pediatr Cardiol., Keavney Bernard, 2010, HEART, V96, P653 Diller Gerhard-Paul, 2012, HEART, V98, P736 Rosenthal Eric, 2010, HEART, V96, P1169 Roberts Philip A., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, V58, P117 Opotowsky Alexander R., 2012, HEART, V98, P145 Zhang Zhen-Ning, 2011, HEART, V97, P1876 MacDonald Simon T., 2011, HEART, V97, P438 Giardini Alessandro, 2011, CIRCULATION, V124, P1713 Griffin Helen R., 2010, HEART, V96, P1651 Radojevic Jelena, 2011, HEART, V97, P1813 Mohr FW, 2010, Heart, V96, P14 Ramakrishnan Sivasubramanian, 2011, HEART, V97, P1920 Almond Christopher S., 2011, CIRCULATION, V123, P2975 van der Linde Denise, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, V58, P2241 Liodakis E, 2012, Circulation, V125, P24440 Izmirly Peter M., 2011, CIRCULATION, V124, P1927 Hoffmann A., 2010, HEART, V96, P1223 Zhao Jian-Yuan, 2012, CIRCULATION, V125, P482 Tzifa Aphrodite, 2011, HEART, V97, P89 Stressig Ruediger, 2010, HEART, V96, P1564 Gulati Ankur, 2011, CIRCULATION, V123, P2289 Benedetto Umberto, 2011, HEART, V97, P955 Marek J, 2010, Heart, V96, P15 Monagle Paul, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, V58, P645 D'Alto Michele, 2012, HEART, V98, P681 Puranik Rajesh, 2010, HEART, V96, P304 Fukui Daisuke, 2011, CIRCULATION, V124, P2155 Nordmeyer Johannes, 2011, HEART, V97, P118 Deo Salil V., 2011, CIRCULATION, V123, P2431 Barst Robyn J., 2010, HEART, V96, P1337 Lee Kyong-Jin, 2011, HEART, V97, P1343 Rutz Tobias, 2010, HEART, V96, P1056 Chakrabarti Santabhanu, 2010, HEART, V96, P1212 Tararbit Karim, 2011, EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, V32, P500 Verheugt Carianne L., 2010, HEART, V96, P872 Danzi Gian Battista, 2011, HEART, V97, P950 Burch Michael, 2010, HEART, V96, P1172 Mokhles M. Mostafa, 2011, CIRCULATION, V123, P31 Kenny Damien, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, V58, P2248 De Luca Alessandro, 2010, HEART, V96, P673 Sarkola Taisto, 2011, HEART, V97, P1788 Greutmann Matthias, 2011, HEART, V97, P1164 Migliore Federico, 2012, CIRCULATION, V125, P529 Lee Ming-Sum, 2011, CIRCULATION, V124, P2362 D'Alto Michele, 2010, HEART, V96, P1475 Jang Sung-Won, 2010, HEART, V96, P244 Hoffmann Andreas, 2010, HEART, V96, P251 Atz Andrew M., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, V57, P2437 Alvarez Jorge A., 2011, CIRCULATION, V124, P814 Vettukattil Joseph John, 2012, HEART, V98, P79 Mital Seema, 2011, CIRCULATION, V123, P2353 d'Udekem Yves, 2011, HEART, V97, P1182 Eliasson Hakan, 2011, CIRCULATION, V124, P1919 Vis Jeroen C., 2010, HEART, V96, P1480 Singh Daljit, 2011, HEART, V97, P1897 Zomer A. C., 2011, CIRCULATION, V124, P2195 van der Hulst Annelies E., 2011, HEART, V97, P231 Salahuddin Salman, 2010, HEART, V96, P1808 Bartel Thomas, 2010, HEART, V96, P1603 Roche S. Lucy, 2010, HEART, V96, P2010 Braverman Alan C., 2011, HEART, V97, P506 Giardini Alessandro, 2011, HEART, V97, P1115 Bellinger David C., 2011, CIRCULATION, V124, P1361 Farahmand Patrick, 2011, CIRCULATION, V123, P2164 Padalino Massimo A., 2011, CIRCULATION, V124, P2275 Williams Richard V., 2011, JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, V159, P1017 Chaowu Yan, 2011, Circulation, V124, Pe538 Dolk Helen, 2011, CIRCULATION, V123, P841 Vecht Joshua A., 2010, HEART, V96, P1789 Lui George K., 2011, CIRCULATION, V123, P242 Jaeggi Edgar T., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, V57, P1487 Balint Olga H., 2010, HEART, V96, P1656 Chen Chun-An, 2011, HEART, V97, P38 Kaleschke Gerrit, 2011, HEART, V97, P1803 Baek Jae Suk, 2010, HEART, V96, P1750 Porras Diego, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, V58, P868 ======================================================================= *Record 31 Title: Assessing Nanocellulose Developments Using Science and Technology Indicators Authors: Milanez, DH; do Amaral, RM; de Faria, LIL; Gregolin, JAR Author Full Names: Milanez, Douglas Henrique; do Amaral, Roniberto Morato; Lopes de Faria, Leandro Innocentini; Rodrigues Gregolin, Jose Angelo Source: MATERIALS RESEARCH-IBERO-AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MATERIALS, 16 (3):635-641; 10.1590/S1516-14392013005000033 MAY-JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: nanomaterials, bibliometry, scientific publication, patent document KeyWords Plus: NANOTECHNOLOGY Abstract: This research aims to examine scientific and technological trends of developments in nanocellulose based on *scientometric* and patent indicators obtained from the Science Citation Index and Derwent Innovations Index in 2001-2010. The overall nanocellulose activity indicators were compared to nanotechnology and other selected nanomaterials. Scientific and technological future developments in nanocellulose were forecasted using extrapolation growth curves and the main countries were also mapped. The results showed that nanocellulose publications and patent documents have increased rapidly over the last five years with an average growth rate higher than that of nanotechnology and fullerene. The USA, Japan, France, Sweden and Finland all played a significant role in nanocellulose development and the extrapolation growth curves suggested that nanocellulose scientific and technological activities are still emerging. Finally, the evidence from this study recommends monitoring nano! cellulose S&T advances in the coming years. Addresses: [Milanez, Douglas Henrique; do Amaral, Roniberto Morato; Lopes de Faria, Leandro Innocentini; Rodrigues Gregolin, Jose Angelo] Fed Univ Sao Carlos UFSCar, Informat Ctr Mat Technol, Dept Mat Engn, BR-13565905 Sao Carlos, SP, Brazil. E-mail Addresses: douglasmilanez at yahoo.com.br Funding Acknowledgement: Brazilian National Council for Technological and Scientific Development [160087/2011-2] Funding Text: The authors are grateful to the Brazilian National Council for Technological and Scientific Development (process number 160087/2011-2), to the Graduate Program in Materials Science and Engineering and to the Graduate Program in Science, Technology and Society, both at the Federal University of Sao Carlos, for supporting this work. Cited Reference Count: 28 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: UNIV FED SAO CARLOS, DEPT ENGENHARIA MATERIALS, LABORATORIA DE MATERIAIS VITREOS, CAIXA POSTAL 676, SAO CARLOS, 13565-905SP, BRAZIL ISSN: 1516-1439 Web of Science Categories: Materials Science, Multidisciplinary Research Areas: Materials Science IDS Number: 158WX Unique ID: WOS:000320005800014 Cited References: European Commission, 2003, Third European report on science & technology indicators, Moon Robert J., 2011, CHEMICAL SOCIETY REVIEWS, V40, P3941 European Commission. CORDIS, Seventh Framework Programme, Braun T, 2000, CHEMICAL REVIEWS, V100, P23 Youtie Jan, 2008, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V10, P981 Siqueira Gilberto, 2010, POLYMERS, V2, P728 DuPont, Kevlar® Brand, Roco MC, 2005, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V7, P707 United States, USDA under secretary Sherman unveils nanocellulose production facility, Beecher James F., 2007, NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY, V2, P466 Associacao Brasileira de Celulose e Papel, Dados do setor, Okubo Y., 1997, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, Kostoff Ronald N., 2007, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V74, P1733 Salemo Mario, 2008, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V75, P1202 Brasil. Secretaria de Assuntos Estrategicos, 2006, Estudos estrategicos: nanotecnologia, Igami M, 2007, Capturing nanotechnology's current state of development via analysis of patents, Dang Yan, 2010, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V12, P687 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - OECD, 2009, OECD Patent Statistics Manual, Klemm Dieter, 2011, ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE-INTERNATIONAL EDITION, V50, P5438 Innventia, Plant pilot for nanocellulose, United States. National Science Board, 2008, Science and engineering indicators 2004, Gilad B., 2003, Early warning: using competitive intelligence to anticipate market shifts, control risk, and create powerful strategies, European Commission, Observatorynano. Public funding of nanotechnology, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - OECD, 1994, The measurement of scientific and technological activities using patent data as science and technology indicators, Cheng An-Chin, 2008, ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC FORECASTING, V9, P88 Porter Alan L., 2008, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V10, P715 Mogee ME, 1997, Keeping abreast of science and technology: technical intelligence for business, P295 Martino JP, 1993, Technological forecasting for decision making, ======================================================================= *Record 34 Title: Mapping the literature of addictions treatment Authors: Blobaum, PM Author Full Names: Blobaum, Paul M. Source: JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 101 (2):101-109; 10.3163/1536-5050.101.2.005 APR 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: ARTICLES; JOURNALS Abstract: Objectives: This study analyzes and describes the literature of addictions treatment and indexing coverage for core journals in the field. Methods: Citations from three source journals for the years 2008 through 2010 were analyzed using the 2010 Mapping the Literature of Nursing and Allied Health Professions Project Protocol. The distribution of cited journals was analyzed by applying Bradford's Law of Scattering. Results: More than 40,000 citations were analyzed. Journals (2,655 unique titles) were the most frequently cited form of literature, with 10 journals providing one-third of the cited journal references. Drug and Alcohol Dependence was the most frequently cited journal. The frequency of cited addictions journals, formats cited, age of citations, and indexing coverage is identified. Conclusions: Addictions treatment literature is widely dispersed among multidisciplinary publications with relatively few publications providing most of the citations. Results of this study will help researchers, students, clinicians, and librarians identify the most important journals and *bibliographic* indexes in this field, as well as publishing opportunities. Addresses: Governors State Univ, Univ Lib, University Pk, IL 60484 USA. E-mail Addresses: pblobaum at govst.edu Cited Reference Count: 42 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: 156XX Unique ID: WOS:000319858300005 Cited References: West R, 2002, ADDICTION, V97, P501 *US NAT LIB MED, 2011, NLM CAT J REF NCBI D, *CTR SUBST AB TREA, 2006, DHSS PUBL, *AM BOARD ADD MED, 2012, AB ABAM, *SUBST AB MENT HLT, 2006, REP C ADD WORKF DEV, *AM SOC ADD MED, 2011, DEF ADD, *INT CERT REC CONS, CERT CRIM JUST ADD P, HORVATICH PK, 2006, TAP 21 ADDICTION COU, *AM SOC ADD MED, 2007, ASAM PAT PLAC CRIT T, *AM PSYCH ASS, AB APA, *CINAHL, 2011, CINAHL PLUS DAT COV, Taylor Mary K, 2007, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, V95, Pe58 MILLER WR, 2010, RETHINKING SUBSTANCE, *AM PSYCH ASS, 2011, PSYCINFO J COV LIST, ZURIAN JCV, 2001, ADDICTION, V99, P387 *NAT ASS SOC WORK, CERT CLIN ALC TOB OT, MCLELLAN AT, 2008, AM PSYCHIAT PUBLISHI, *AM SOC ADD MED, 2010, PUBL POL STAT TREATM, *AM COUNS ASS, JOURN, *AM PSYCHOL ASS, CAR PSYCH, HOWARD MO, 1992, JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL, V53, P427 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011, National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services: 2011 N-SSATS Questionnaire, *R R BOWK CO, 2011, ULR PER DIR, *THOMS REUT, 2011, T REUT MAST J LIST, *SALIS, 2011, ALC TOB OTH DRUGS SE, Midanik LT, 2004, ADDICTION, V99, P145 BLAGEN M, 2012, GOV STAT U FAC RAP F, Schloman BF, 1997, BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V85, P271 Corby K, 2003, PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY, V3, P207 *SUBST AB MENT HLT, 2011, MOD SCOP PRACT CAR L, Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Department of Labor, Welding, soldering, and Brazing Workers, CHARKOW WB, 2001, J ADDICTIONS OFFENDE, V22, P12 Bradford S. C., 1953, Documentation, White W., 1998, Slaying the dragon: The history of addiction treatment and recovery in America, *INT NURS SOC ADD, ADD NURS CERT BOARD, JUHNKE GA, 2005, J ADDICTIONS OFFENDE, V26, P52 *NAT BOARD CERT CO, MAST ADD COUNS MAC, *AM BOARD PSYCHIAT, ADD PSYCH, *IL ALC OTH DRUG A, CRED, Carbonell Xavier, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V97, P102 WEINER B, 2001, CONTEMP DRUG PROBL, V28, P531 DELWICHE FA, 2010, MAPPING LIT NURSING, ======================================================================= *Record 35 Title: Mapping the literature of radiation therapy Authors: Delwiche, FA Author Full Names: Delwiche, Frances A. Source: JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 101 (2):120-127; 10.3163/1536-5050.101.2.007 APR 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: RADIOTHERAPY; RADIUM Abstract: Objective: This study characterizes the literature of the radiation therapy profession, identifies the journals most frequently cited by authors writing in this discipline, and determines the level of coverage of these journals by major *bibliographic* indexes. Method: Cited references from three disciplinespecific source journals were analyzed according to the Mapping the Literature of Allied Health Project Protocol of the Nursing and Allied Health Resources Section of the Medical Library Association. Bradford's Law of Scattering was applied to all journal references to identify the most frequently cited journal titles. Results: Journal references constituted 77.8% of the total, with books, government documents, Internet sites, and miscellaneous sources making up the remainder. Although a total of 908 journal titles were cited overall, approximately one-third of the journal citations came from just 11 journals. MEDLINE and Scopus provided the most comprehensive indexing of the journal titles in Zones 1 and 2. The source journals were indexed only by CINAHL and Scopus. Conclusion: The knowledgebase of radiation therapy draws heavily from the fields of oncology, radiology, medical physics, and nursing. Discipline-specific publications are not currently well covered by major indexing services, and those wishing to conduct comprehensive literature searches should search multiple resources. Addresses: Univ Vermont, Dana Med Lib, Burlington, VT 05405 USA. E-mail Addresses: Frances.delwiche at uvm.edu Cited Reference Count: 27 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: 156XX Unique ID: WOS:000319858300007 Cited References: DeVita VT, 2011, DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg's cancer: principles & practice of oncology, Bureau of Labor Statistics US Department of Labor, 2012, Schloman BF, 1997, BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V85, P271 National Cancer Institute, 2010, National Cancer Institute fact sheet: radiation therapy for cancer, American Society for Radiation Oncology, 2012, The radiation oncology team: your partners in cancer treatment, Harnett N, 2008, J Radiother Pract., V7, P99 American Registry of Radiologic Technologists, ARRT-recognized educational programs, Connell Philip P., 2009, CANCER RESEARCH, V69, P383 Bradford SC, 1950, Documentation, Leaver DT, 2010, Principles and practice of radiation therapy, KAPLAN HS, 1979, SEMINARS IN ONCOLOGY, V6, P479 American Registry of Radiologic Technologists, AART certification, French JG, 2007, Can J Med Radiat Technol., V38, P23 Ekmekci O, 2011, Radiat Therapist., V20, P9 Hodges PC, 1964, The life and times of Emil H. Grubbe, American Registry of Radiologic Technologists, State licensing, Rontgen WC, 1896, Nature, V53, P274 DELWICHE FA, 2010, MAPPING LIT NURSING, Olmstead D, 2010, ASRT Scanner, V42, P24 American Medical Association, 2010, Health care careers directory, 2010-2011, MOULD RF, 1995, BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, V68, P567 Duxbury A., 2012, Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice, Mazeron JJ, 1998, RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, V49, P205 Grubbe EH, 1933, Radiology, V21, P156 Martino S, 2007, Radiat Therapist., V16, P155 American Society of Radiologic Technologists, Who ASRT represents, Leszczynski K, 1997, RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, V42, P213 ======================================================================= *Record 45 Title: The interconnection of DSS and online social networking Authors: Antunes, F; Costa, JP Author Full Names: Antunes, Francisco; Costa, Joao Paulo Editor(s): Rocha A; CalvoManzano JA; Reis LP; Cota MP Source: INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES, 2012 Book Series: Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: 7th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) Conference Date: JUN 20-23, 2012 Conference Location: Madrid, SPAIN Conference Sponsors: Univ Politecnica Madrid (UPM), Asociacion Iberica Sistemas & Tecnologias Informacion (AISTI) Author Keywords: Decision support systems, online social networking, Web 2.0, literature review Abstract: In this paper we present the outcomes of a literature review on the interconnection of Decision Support Systems (DSS) and online social networking. Although a large number of research papers postulate, in one way or another, that Decision Support Systems and online social networking are interconnected, only a small amount of them actually elaborates on such connection. Therefore, we underwent a large *bibliographic* review, based on four major *bibliographic* indexing resources to reveal the actual interconnection of DSS and online social networking. Addresses: [Antunes, Francisco] Beira Interior Univ, Management & Econ Dept, INESC Coimbra, Covilha, Portugal. E-mail Addresses: francisco.antunes at ubi.pt; jpaulo at fe.uc.pt Cited Reference Count: 8 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE, 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISSN: 2166-0727 ISBN: 978-1-4673-2843-2 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Engineering, Electrical & Electronic Research Areas: Computer Science; Engineering IDS Number: BFD75 Unique ID: WOS:000319285900006 Cited References: Richter Daniel, 2011, BUSINESS & INFORMATION SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, V3, P89 Arnott D., 2008, Decision Support Systems, V44, Lager M., 2009, CRM Magazine, V13, P29 Simon H. A., 1977, The new science of management decision (Revised Version), Arnott D, 2005, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYConference on Decision Support Systems, JUL, 2004, Prato, ITALY, V20, P67 McAfee A.P., 2006, MIT Sloan Management Review, V47, P20 O'Reilly T., 2005, What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software, Boyd DM, 2007, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, V13, P210 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= Title: Predominant sources and contributors of influential business ethics *research*: evidence and implications from a threshold citation analysis Authors: Chan, KC; Fung, HG; Yau, J Author Full Names: Chan, Kam C.; Fung, Hung-Gay; Yau, Jot Source: BUSINESS ETHICS-A EUROPEAN REVIEW, 22 (3):263-276; 10.1111/beer.12024 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: JOURNALS; STRATEGY; IMPACT Abstract: Influential or frequently cited business ethics research does not appear in a vacuum; our study reveals its predominant sources and contributors by discipline. By examining citations from articles published in three top business ethics journals (Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly and Business Ethics: A European Review) over the period 2004-2008, we document that the preponderance of influential business ethics research comes primarily from the management faculty. In addition, management journals and management books are the predominant sources for influential business ethics research. Further, among the management fields, organizational behavior and organizational structure predominate leadership and strategy as the major subject areas for influential business ethics research, suggesting that this influential body of research is focused on a micro rather than on a macro context. These empirical results lend credence to the perception that there is a silo e! ffect in influential business ethics research and suggest that business ethics research in a micro context might have permeated to the teaching of business ethics. Addresses: [Chan, Kam C.] Western Kentucky Univ, Dept Finance, Gordon Ford Coll Business, Bowling Green, KY 42101 USA. [Fung, Hung-Gay] Univ Missouri, Coll Business Adm, St Louis, MO 63121 USA. [Yau, Jot] Seattle Univ, Albers Sch Business & Econ, Seattle, WA 98122 USA. Cited Reference Count: 24 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 0962-8770 Web of Science Categories: Business; Ethics Research Areas: Business & Economics; Social Sciences - Other Topics IDS Number: 156MO Unique ID: WOS:000319826500003 Cited References: Knight R., 2010, Financial Times, P13 Senge P., 1990, The Fifth Dimension, Chan Kam C., 2009, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE, V49, P59 [Anonymous], 2010, Financial Times, P10 MORGAN MJ, 1993, LONG RANGE PLANNINGFRENCH-SPEAKING SEMINAR ON EUROPEAN STRATEGIC ANALYSIS, MAY 27, 1991, PARIS, FRANCE, V26, P110 Galan Jose I., 2009, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V30, P1234 Chan K.C., 2009, Financial Review, V44, P87 Canales R., 2010, Wall Street Journal, Tseng Hsing-Chau, 2010, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V91, P587 Bender Y., 2010, Financial Times, P11 HALL DJ, 1980, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V1, P149 AACSB International, 2004, Ethics Education in Business Schools: Report of the Ethics Education Task Force to AACSB International's Board of Directors, Painter-Morland Mollie, 2010, BUSINESS ETHICS-A EUROPEAN REVIEWConference on Derrida, Business and Ethics, MAY 14-16, 2008, Liecester, ENGLAND, V19, P265 Fung HG, 2010, SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT IN A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT, P1 Fiorina C., 2011, Bloomberg Businessweek, P68 [Anonymous], 2009, Financial Times, P10 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Glovin D., 2010, Bloomberg News, Minkes AL, 1999, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V20, P327 Skapinker M., 2010, Financial Times, P13 Nohria N., 2011, Bloomberg Businessweek, P68 Chan K. C., 2009, Multinational Business Review, V17, P23 KAPLAN DA, 2009, FORTUNE, V160, P27 Paul K, 2004, JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING, V35, P103 ======================================================================= Title: *Research* Assessment: Declaring War on the *Impact Factor* Authors: Balaram, P Author Full Names: Balaram, P. Source: CURRENT SCIENCE, 104 (10):1267-1268; MAY 25 2013 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Cited Reference Count: 2 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: INDIAN ACAD SCIENCES, C V RAMAN AVENUE, SADASHIVANAGAR, P B #8005, BANGALORE 560 080, INDIA ISSN: 0011-3891 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: 158FT Unique ID: WOS:000319955600001 Cited References: Alberts Bruce, 2013, SCIENCE, V340, P787 Gross P L, 1927, Science (New York, N.Y.), V66, P385 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= Title: *Bibliometrics* and Research Data Management Services: Emerging Trends in Library Support for Research Authors: Corrall, S; Kennan, MA; Afzal, W Author Full Names: Corrall, Sheila; Kennan, Mary Anne; Afzal, Waseem Source: LIBRARY TRENDS, 61 (3):636-674; WIN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES; TEACHING BIBLIOMETRICS; COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT; ACADEMIC-LIBRARY; DATA CURATION; UNIVERSITY; IMPACT Abstract: Developments in network technologies, scholarly communication, and national policy are challenging academic libraries to find new ways to engage with research communities in the economic downturn. Librarians are responding with service innovations in areas such as bibliometrics and research data management. Previous surveys have investigated research data support within North America and other research services globally with small samples. An online multiple-choice questionnaire was used to survey bibliometric and data support activities of 140 libraries in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, including current and planned services, target audiences, service constraints, and staff training needs. A majority of respondents offered or planned bibliometrics training, citation reports, and impact calculations but with significant differences between countries. Current levels of engagement in data management were lower than for bibliometrics, but a majority an! ticipated future involvement, especially in technology assistance, data deposit, and policy development. Initiatives were aimed at multiple constituencies, with university administrators being important clients and partners for bibliometric services. Gaps in knowledge, skills, and confidence were significant constraints, with near-universal support for including bibliometrics and particularly data management in professional education and continuing development programs. The study also found that librarians need a multilayered understanding of the research environment. Addresses: [Corrall, Sheila] Univ Pittsburgh, Lib & Informat Sci Program, Sch Informat Sci, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA. [Corrall, Sheila] Univ Sheffield, Informat Sch, Sheffield S10 2TN, S Yorkshire, England. [Corrall, Sheila] British Lib, London W1V 4BH, England. [Kennan, Mary Anne; Afzal, Waseem] Charles Sturt Univ, Sch Informat Studies, Bathurst, NSW 2795, Australia. [Kennan, Mary Anne] Australian Grad Sch Management, Frank Lowy Lib, Sydney, NSW, Australia. [Kennan, Mary Anne] Univ New S Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. [Kennan, Mary Anne] Univ Technol Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia. Cited Reference Count: 115 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV PRESS, JOURNALS PUBLISHING DIVISION, 2715 NORTH CHARLES ST, BALTIMORE, MD 21218-4363 USA ISSN: 0024-2594 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 153ZC Unique ID: WOS:000319640300008 Cited References: Soehner C., 2010, e-Science and data support services: A study of ARL member institutions, Lyon L., 2012, International Journal of Digital Curation, V7, P126 Carlson J., 2011, College & Research Libraries News, V72, P167 Yakel E., 2011, Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, V52, De Bellis N., 2009, Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From theScience Citation Index to cybermetrics, Wood E. J., 2007, Beyond survival: Managing academic libraries in transition, Witt Michael, 2008, LIBRARY TRENDS, V57, P191 Walters T. O., 2009, International Journal of Digital Curation, V3, P83 BAUGHMAN JC, 1977, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V38, P241 Hswe P., 2011, Research Library Issues, V274, P11 2012, Managing research data, Rambo N., 2010, The data deluge: Can libraries cope with e-science?, P43 Wrublewski D., 2012, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, V68, Hendrix Dean, 2010, Medical Reference Services Quarterly, V29, P183 Henty M., 2008, Ariadne, V55, Brown S., 2008, The skills, role and career structure of data scientists and curators: An assessment of current practice and future needs, Lewis M., 2010, Envisioning future academic library services: Initiatives, ideas and challenges, P145 Drummond Robyn, 2009, AUSTRALIAN ACADEMIC & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V40, P76 Gumpenberger C., 2012, Library Management, V33, Lyon L., 2007, Dealing with data: Roles, rights, responsibilities and relationships, Pryor G., 2009, International Journal of Digital Curation, V4, P158 Burke Liz, 2008, JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, V40, P269 Davis M., 2005, Australian Academic & Research Libraries, V36, Barrett J., 2012, UCD data management checklist, Keralis S. D. C., 2012, The problem of data, P32 HEFCE, 2009, Report on the pilot exercise to develop bibliometric indicators for the Research Excellence Framework, NSF, 2007, Cyberinfrastructure vision for 21st century discovery, Herther Nancy K., 2009, ELECTRONIC LIBRARY, V27, P361 Nicholas David, 2010, JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, V36, P376 Auckland M., 2012, Re-skilling for research: An investigation into the roles and skills of subject and liaison librarians required to effectively support the evolving information needs of researchers, Choudhury G. Sayeed, 2008, LIBRARY TRENDS, V57, P211 Tenopir C., 2010, Research Library Issues, V271, P36 Harvey R., 2010, Digital curation: A how-to-do-It manual, Thomas J., 2011, Library Management, V32, Adams J., 2007, Serials, V20, P188 Jones-Evans A, 2005, JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, V37, P115 Duranceau Ellen Finnie, 2008, LIBRARY TRENDS, V57, P244 Fulton B., 2011, Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, V52, Schottlaender B. E. C., 2010, The data deluge: Can libraries cope with e-science?, P43 Manuel K., 2008, Practical research methods for librarians and information professionals, Gold A., 2007, D-Lib Magazine, V13, Delasalle J., 2012, SCONULFocus, V53, P15 Line M. B., 1978, Collection Management, V2, P313 Palmer C. L., 2012, iconference 2012:proceedings of the 2012 iconference, P527 Heath F., 2011, Library Quarterly, V81, P7 Erway R., 2009, Support for the research process: An academic library manifesto, McNeill P., 2005, Research methods, Treloar A., 2009, International Journal of Digital Curation, V4, P125 Pendlebury D., 2008, White Paper, Amos K., 2012, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, V7, P32 Macquarie University, 2012, Research metrics: Research metrics allows you to measure the impact of your research and publications, Gabridge T., 2009, Research Library Issues, V265, P15 Cotta-Schonberg M., 2007, Liber Quarterly, V17, Carlson J. R., 2010, Staffing, sustaining, and advancing the academic library in the 21st century, P234 Warr R. B., 1983, Collection Building, V5, P29 von Ungern-Sternberg S, 1998, JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, V39, P76 HEFCE, 2011, Analysis of data from the pilot exercise to develop bibliometric indicators for the REF: The effect of using normalised citation scores for particular staff characteristics, Pickard A. J., 2007, Research methods in information, University of North Texas, 2011, UNT receives more than $800,000 to investigate needs in archiving research data, MacColl J., 2011, Supporting research: Environments, administration and libraries, Dryden A. R., 2011, Sci. Technol. Libr., V30, P387 Freiburger Gary, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V97, P139 Adler P., 2006, To stand the test of time: Long-term stewardship of digital data sets in science and engineering; a report to the National Science Foundation from the ARL Workshop on New Collaborative Relationships: The Role of Academic Libraries in the Digital Data Universe, Oakleaf M., 2010, The value of academic libraries: A comprehensive research review and report, Ray J., 2009, Museum Management and Curatorship, V24, P357 Webb J., 2007, Providing effective library services for research, Martinez L., 2005, Ariadne, V44, Kear R., 2011, College & Research Libraries News, V72, P470 Carlson J. R., 2009, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, V57, Florance Patrick, 2006, LIBRARY TRENDS, V55, P222 Powell R. R., 2010, Basic research methods for librarians, Stanton J.M., 2011, Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, V52, RIN, 2007, Researchers' use of academic libraries and their services: A report commissioned by the Research Information Network and the Consortium of Research Libraries, Ball R, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V66, P561 Maness J., 2012, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, V11, P915 Bentley L., 2007, Systems analysis and design methods, DROTT MC, 1979, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V31, P296 Viator V. P., 2009, Collaborative Librarianship, V1, P81 Case D., 2012, Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs and behaviour, Sergeant K., 2009, Information Online 2009: ALIA 14th Exhibition and Conference, Sydney, Roemer R. C., 2012, College & Research Libraries News, V73, P596 Steinhart Gail, 2006, LIBRARY TRENDS, V55, P264 Broadus R. N., 1977, Advances in Librarianship, V7, P299 Corrall S., 2012, Managing research data, P105 Joint N., 2008, Library Review, V57, Hey Tony, 2006, LIBRARY HI TECH8th International Bielefeld Conference, FEB 07-09, 2006, Bielefeld, GERMANY, V24, P515 MacDonald Stuart, 2008, ONLINE, V32, P36 Holland M., 2006, Subject librarians: Engaging with the learning and teaching environment, P131 Housewright R, 2010, Faculty survey 2009: Key strategic insights for libraries, publishers, and societies, 2010, The data deluge: Can libraries cope with e-science?, RIN., 2011, The value of libraries for research and researchers: A RIN and RLUK report, SCHRADER AM, 1981, LIBRARY TRENDS, V30, P151 Bent M., 2007, New Review of Information Networking, V13, Swan A., 2011, University libraries and digital learning environments, P119 MacColl J., 2010, Liber Quarterly, V20, P152 University of Pittsburgh, 2012, Journal Citation Reports, and other tools, Zhao D., 2011, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology: ASIST, V48, P1 Delserone Leslie M., 2008, LIBRARY TRENDS, V57, P202 Aldrich A. W., 2007, Sailing into the Future: Charting Our Destiny, ACRL 13th National Conference, P304 HLG, 2010, Riding the wave: How Europe can gain from the rising tide of scientific data, Wong Gabrielle K. W., 2009, SERIALS REVIEW, V35, P125 Shumaker D, 2012, The embedded librarian: Innovative strategies for taking knowledge where it's needed, Westra B., 2010, Ariadne, P64 Brownlee R., 2009, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, V47, Trainor K., 2010, iConference 2010, Champaign, IL, D'Ignaziod J., 2010, Participation and Practice: Growing the Curation Community through the Data Decade, 6th International Digital Curation Conference, Poster presented at, Chicago, IL, Town J. Stephen, 2011, LIBRARY QUARTERLY, V81, P111 Van Fleet C., 2012, Knowledge in action: Research and evaluation in library and information science, Pan R., 2011, LILAC 2011: Librarians' Information Literacy Annual Conference, London, Rice R., 2011, International Journal of Digital Curation, V6, P232 Houser Rhonda, 2006, LIBRARY TRENDS, V55, P315 Wildemuth B. M., 2009, Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science, Young H., 2008, SCONUL Focus, V43, P51 Harris-Pierce R.L., 2012, New Library World, V113, Arizona State University, 2012, Citation research: How to find citation counts for your publications and how to find journal rankings such as impact factors, ======================================================================= Title: Database *Citation* in Full Text Biomedical Articles Authors: Kafkas, S; Kim, JH; McEntyre, JR Author Full Names: Kafkas, Senay; Kim, Jee-Hyub; McEntyre, Johanna R. Source: PLOS ONE, 8 (5):10.1371/journal.pone.0063184 MAY 29 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Abstract: Molecular biology and literature databases represent essential infrastructure for life science research. Effective integration of these data resources requires that there are structured cross-references at the level of individual articles and biological records. Here, we describe the current patterns of how database entries are cited in research articles, based on analysis of the full text Open Access articles available from Europe PMC. Focusing on citation of entries in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), UniProt and Protein Data Bank, Europe (PDBe), we demonstrate that text mining doubles the number of structured annotations of database record citations supplied in journal articles by publishers. Many thousands of new literature-database relationships are found by text mining, since these relationships are also not present in the set of articles cited by database records. We recommend that structured annotation of database records in articles is extended to other databa! ses, such as ArrayExpress and Pfam, entries from which are also cited widely in the literature. The very high precision and high-throughput of this text-mining pipeline makes this activity possible both accurately and at low cost, which will allow the development of new integrated data services. Addresses: [Kafkas, Senay; Kim, Jee-Hyub; McEntyre, Johanna R.] European Bioinformat Inst, European Mol Biol Lab, Cambridge, England. E-mail Addresses: kafkas at ebi.ac.uk Funding Acknowledgement: Wellcome Trust [098231] Funding Text: Europe PMC is funded by 19 funders of life sciences across Europe (http://europepmc.org/Funders/), in part via a grant from the Wellcome Trust (Grant No. 098231). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Cited Reference Count: 11 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 1160 BATTERY STREET, STE 100, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 USA ISSN: 1932-6203 Article Number: e63184 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: 155DJ Unique ID: WOS:000319725500092 Cited References: Neveol Aurelie, 2011, BIOINFORMATICS, V27, P3306 Haeussler Maximilian, 2011, BIOINFORMATICS, V27, P980 Rebholz-Schuhmann Dietrich, 2008, BIOINFORMATICS, V24, P296 Mulder Nicola J, 2002, Briefings in bioinformatics, V3, P225 McEntyre Johanna R., 2011, NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, V39, PD58 FINN RD, 2010, NUCLEIC ACIDS RES S1, V38, PD211 [Anonymous], 2012, Science as an Open Enterprise, KAHN P, 1988, Nucleic Acids Research, V16, PI Parkinson H, 2005, NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, V33, PD553 Fink J. Lynn, 2008, NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, V36, PW385 Neveol A, 2012, Database (Oxford), ======================================================================= Title: High-throughput screen of essential gene modules in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a *bibliometric* approach Authors: Xu, GY; Liu, B; Wang, F; Wei, CG; Zhang, Y; Sheng, JY; Wang, GQ; Li, F Author Full Names: Xu, Guangyu; Liu, Bin; Wang, Fang; Wei, Chengguo; Zhang, Ying; Sheng, Jiyao; Wang, Guoqing; Li, Fan Source: BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 13 10.1186/1471-2334-13-227 MAY 20 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Essential gene modules, Operon, Pathway KeyWords Plus: DRUG-RESISTANT TUBERCULOSIS; BIOSYNTHESIS; SURVIVAL; SEQUENCE; OPERONS; GENOME Abstract: Background: Tuberculosis (TB) is an infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tuberculosis). The annotation of functional genome and signaling network in M. tuberculosis are still not systematic. Essential gene modules are a collection of functionally related essential genes in the same signaling or metabolic pathway. The determination of essential genes and essential gene modules at genomic level may be important for better understanding of the physiology and pathology of M. tuberculosis, and also helpful for the development of drugs against this pathogen. The establishment of genomic operon database (DOOR) and the annotation of gene pathways have felicitated the genomic analysis of the essential gene modules of M. tuberculosis. Method: Bibliometric approach has been used to perform a High-throughput screen for essential genes of M. tuberculosis strain H37Rv. Ant colony algorithm were used to identify the essential genes in other M. tuberculosis reference strains. Essential gene modules were analyzed by operon database DOOR. The pathways of essential genes were assessed by Biocarta, KEGG, NCI-PID, HumanCyc and Reactome. The function prediction of essential genes was analyzed by Pfam. Results: A total approximately 700 essential genes were identified in M. tuberculosis genome. 40% of operons are consisted of two or more essential genes. The essential genes were distributed in 92 pathways in M. tuberculosis. In function prediction, 61.79% of essential genes were categorized into virulence, intermediary metabolism/ respiration, cell wall related and lipid metabolism, which are fundamental functions that exist in most bacteria species. Conclusion: We have identified the essential genes of M. tuberculosis using bibliometric approach at genomic level. The essential gene modules were further identified and analyzed. Addresses: [Xu, Guangyu; Wang, Fang; Wei, Chengguo; Zhang, Ying; Sheng, Jiyao; Wang, Guoqing; Li, Fan] Jilin Univ, Norman Bethune Coll Med, Key Lab Zoonosis, Minist Educ, Changchun, Kagawa, Peoples R China. [Liu, Bin] Jilin Univ, First Bethune Hosp, Changchun, Kagawa, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: qing at jlu.edu.cn; lifan at jlu.edu.cn Funding Acknowledgement: National Natural Science Foundation of China [81271897, 81071424]; National Basic Research Program of China (973 program) [2011CB512003]; Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20110061120093]; China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20110491311, 2012 T50285]; Foundation of Xinjiang Provincial Science & Technology Department [201091148]; Foundation of Jilin Provincial Health Department [2010Z034, 2011Z049]; Norman Bethune Program of Jilin University [2012219]; Fundamental of Jilin University Basic Research Program [2012ZKF06] Funding Text: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81271897 and 81071424), National Basic Research Program of China (973 program, 2011CB512003), Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (20110061120093), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (20110491311 and 2012 T50285), Foundation of Xinjiang Provincial Science & Technology Department (201091148), Foundation of Jilin Provincial Health Department (2010Z034 and 2011Z049), Norman Bethune Program of Jilin University (2012219), Fundamental of Jilin University Basic Research Program (2012ZKF06). Cited Reference Count: 27 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 236 GRAYS INN RD, FLOOR 6, LONDON WC1X 8HL, ENGLAND ISSN: 1471-2334 Article Number: 227 Web of Science Categories: Infectious Diseases Research Areas: Infectious Diseases IDS Number: 161IR Unique ID: WOS:000320186800001 Cited References: Bannantine John P., 2010, PROTEIN EXPRESSION AND PURIFICATION, V72, P223 Awasthy D, 2011, Microbiology, V158, P319 Spangler M. L., 2009, ANIMAL GENETICS, V40, P308 Due Anne V., 2011, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V108, P3554 Zhang Han, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Hong-Geller Elizabeth, 2010, Current drug discovery technologies, V7, P86 Gerdes Svetlana, 2006, CURRENT OPINION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY, V17, P448 van Helden PD, 2006, BMC Evol Biol, V6, P95 Alonso Henar, 2011, TUBERCULOSIS, V91, P117 Cavusoglu C, 2004, ANNALS OF SAUDI MEDICINE, V24, P102 Chen Weiyang, 2009, JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY, V30, P2031 Yin Yanbin, 2010, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V107, P6310 Zhang XC, 2012, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, V12, P2055 Rahman M. Sayeedur, 2007, JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY, V189, P336 Meena Laxman S., 2010, FEBS JOURNAL, V277, P2416 Wallengren Kristina, 2011, EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES, V17, P1913 Cohn DL, 1997, CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASESWHO Symposium on Monitoring and Management of Bacterial Resistance to Antimicrobial Agents, NOV 29-DEC 02, 1995, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, V24, PS121 Mao Fenglou, 2009, NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, V37, PD459 Carrey EA, 2002, REPRODUCTION, V123, P757 Sassetti CM, 2003, MOLECULAR MICROBIOLOGY, V48, P77 Ta Philong, 2011, JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY, V193, P1981 Salaemae Wanisa, 2011, PROTEIN & CELL, V2, P691 Warnecke Tobias, 2011, NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS, V12, P875 Dutta Noton K., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, V201, P1743 Koonin EV, 2003, NATURE REVIEWS MICROBIOLOGY, V1, P127 Cole ST, 1998, NATURE, V393, P537 Hotter Grant S., 2011, VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY5th International Conference on Mycobacterium Bovis, AUG 25-28, 2009, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND, V151, P91 ======================================================================= Title: Research progress in rehabilitation treatment of stroke patients A *bibliometric* analysis Authors: Feng, XD; Liu, CM; Guo, QC; Bai, YJ; Ren, YF; Ren, BB; Bai, JM; Chen, LD Author Full Names: Feng, Xiaodong; Liu, Chengmei; Guo, Qingchuan; Bai, Yanjie; Ren, Yafeng; Ren, Binbin; Bai, Junmin; Chen, Lidian Source: NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH, 8 (15):1423-1430; 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5374.2013.15.010 MAY 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: neural regeneration, reviews, stroke, rehabilitation, treatment, Web of Science, National Institutes of Health, Clinical Trials registry database, bibliometric analysis, neuroregeneration KeyWords Plus: BRAIN-STIMULATION; CELL-SURVIVAL; THERAPY; MANAGEMENT; RECOVERY; DISEASE; CORTEX; TRANSPLANTATION; ACUPUNCTURE; PREVENTION Abstract: BACKGROUND: Stroke presents as a transient or chronic brain dysfunction and is associated with high morbidity and high mortality. The doctors and scientists would like to argue how to enhance the validity of the rehabilitation treatment and how to further improve the level of treatment on stroke. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantitatively analyze the current worldwide progress in research on stroke rehabilitation treatment based on Web of Science database and ClinicalTrial.gov in the past 10 years. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative analysis of clinical trial articles regarding stroke rehabilitation published in English from 2003 to 2013 and indexed in the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials registry and Web of Science databases. Data were downloaded on March 15, 2013. RESULTS: (1) From 2003 to 2013, 2 654 clinical trials investigating stroke were indexed in ClinicalTrials.gov. There were only 58 clinical trials registered in 2003, and there was a marked increase from 2005. A total of 605 clinical trials on the rehabilitation of stroke were conducted in the past 10 years. (2) The analysis showed that most of the trials in the field were registered by North American institutions. With respect to the Asian countries, China and Taiwan area of China also published a reasonable proportion of the trials, but comparatively speaking, the number of. trials is really rare. Most of the interventions were drugs, followed by the devices, and behavioral interventions were ranked third. (3) In the past 10 years, there were 4 052 studies on stroke indexed by Web of Science database. CONCLUSION: From perspective of research progress, we found that the number of clinical trials and papers on stroke rehabilitation has increased significantly in the past 10 years, between them a remarkable positive correlation exists. Addresses: [Feng, Xiaodong; Liu, Chengmei; Guo, Qingchuan; Bai, Yanjie; Ren, Yafeng; Ren, Binbin; Bai, Junmin] Henan Univ Tradit Chinese Med, Affiliated Hosp 1, Rehabil Ctr, Zhengzhou 450004, Henan Province, Peoples R China. [Chen, Lidian] Fujian Univ Tradit Chinese Med, Fuzhou 350122, Fujian Province, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: Guoqingchuan-19 at 163.com Cited Reference Count: 35 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SHENYANG EDITORIAL DEPT NEURAL REGENERATION RES, PO BOX 1234, SHENYANG, LIAONING 110004, PEOPLES R CHINA ISSN: 1673-5374 Web of Science Categories: Cell Biology; Neurosciences Research Areas: Cell Biology; Neurosciences & Neurology IDS Number: 156VY Unique ID: WOS:000319853200010 Cited References: Pavlichenko N, Brain Res., V1233, P203 Wu H. M., 2006, COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, Hummel F, 2005, BRAIN, V128, P490 Kang Hyun Sook, 2009, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, V18, P2145 Van den Berghe G, 2005, NEUROLOGYAnnual Meeting of the Endocrine-Society, JUN, 2004, New Orleans, LA, V64, P1348 Bliss TM, 2006, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH, V83, P1004 Naeser MA, 2005, BRAIN AND LANGUAGE, V93, P95 Takeuchi N, 2005, STROKE, V36, P2681 Bath Philip M. W., 2007, STROKE, V38, P1911 Teri L, 2003, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V290, P2015 Hicks Anna U., 2009, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V29, P562 Robinson JG, 2005, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, V95, P373 Pagni C. A., 2008, RECONSTRUCTIVE NEUROSURGERY5th Scientific Meeting of the Neurorehabilitation and Reconstructive Neurosurgery Committee of the World-Federation-of-Neurosurgical-Societies held in conjunction with the 2nd Congress of the International-Society-of-Reconstructive-Neurosurgery, SEP 13-16, 2007, Taipei, TAIWAN, V101, P13 Wang L, Neurol Res, Zhang SH, 2005, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, V18, Morgenstern Lewis B., 2010, STROKE, V41, P2108 Conforto Adriana B., 2008, CLINICS, V63, P735 Zhu H. W., 2008, ORAL DISEASES, V14, P60 Wayne PM, 2005, ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATIONAnnual Meeting of the American-Physical-Therapy-Association, JUN 10, 2005, Boston, MA, V86, P2248 Fasoli SE, 2003, ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, V84, P477 Steinberg GK, 2011, Oral presentation-11Fourteenth International Symposium on Neural Regeneration, Dobkin B, 2006, NEUROLOGY, V66, P484 Glasser Stephen P., 2013, JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES, V22, P500 Williams Julie A., 2009, JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, V41, P305 Andre C., 2007, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, V14, P21 Pereira Erlick A. C., 2007, EXPERT REVIEW OF MEDICAL DEVICES, V4, P591 Martin Paula I., 2009, BRAIN AND LANGUAGE, V111, P20 Lindvall O, 2004, STROKE24th Princeton Conference on Cerebrovascular Disease, APR 02-04, 2004, Baltimore, MD, V35, P2691 Di Carlo A, 2003, STROKE, V34, P1114 Gardner Andrew W., 2008, JOURNAL OF CARDIOPULMONARY REHABILITATION AND PREVENTION, V28, P349 Sanelli PC, 2013, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, Ferreira Arthur Sa, 2011, CHINESE JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE, V17, P818 Wolf Steven L., 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V296, P2095 Duque J, 2005, NEUROIMAGE, V28, P940 Wechsler Lawrence, 2009, STROKE, V40, P510 ======================================================================= Title: Olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation for spinal cord injury An 18-year *bibliometric* analysis based on the Web of Science Authors: Leng, ZK; He, XJ; Li, HP; Wang, D; Cao, K Author Full Names: Leng, Zikuan; He, Xijing; Li, Haopeng; Wang, Dong; Cao, Kai Source: NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH, 8 (14):1286-1296; 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5374.2013.14.005 MAY 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: neural regeneration, spinal cord injury, olfactory ensheathing cells, cell transplantation, spinal cord transection, seed cells, Web of Science, bibliometrics, grants-supported paper, neuroregeneration KeyWords Plus: SCHWANN-CELLS; FUNCTIONAL RECOVERY; DELAYED TRANSPLANTATION; PROMOTE REGENERATION; AXONAL REGENERATION; LOCOMOTOR RECOVERY; GLIA TRANSPLANTS; LAMINA-PROPRIA; GENE-TRANSFER; REPAIR Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Olfactory ensheathing cell (OEC) transplantation is a promising new approach for the treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI), and an increasing number of scientific publications are devoted to this treatment strategy. This bibliometric analysis was conducted to assess global research trends in OEC transplantation for SCI. DATA SOURCE: All of the data in this study originate from the Web of Science maintained by the Institute for Scientific Information, USA, and includes SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, OCR-EXPANDED and IC. The Institute for Scientific Information's Web of Science was searched using the keywords "olfactory ensheathing cells" or "OECs" or "olfactory ensheathing glia" or "OEG" or "olfactory ensheathing glial cells" or "OEGs" and "spinal cord injury" or "SCI" or "spinal injury" or "spinal transection" for literature published from January 1898 to May 2012. DATA SELECTION: Original articles, reviews, proceedings papers and meeting abstracts, book chapters and editorial materials on OEC transplantation for SCI were included. Simultaneously, unpublished literature and literature for which manual information retrieval was required were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All selected literatures addressing OEC transplantation for SCI were evaluated in the following aspects: publication year, document type, language, author, institution, times cited, Web of Science category, core source title, countries/territories and funding agency. RESULTS: In the Web of Science published by the Institute for Scientific Information, the earliest literature record was in April, 1995. Four hundred and fourteen publications addressing OEC transplantation for SCI were added to the data library in the past 18 years, with an annually increasing trend. Of 415 records, 405 publications were in English. Two hundred and fifty-nine articles ranked first in the distribution of document type, followed by 141 reviews. Thirty articles and 20 reviews, cited more than 55 times by the date the publication data were downloaded by us, can be regarded as the most classical references. The journal Experimental Neurology published the most literature (32 records), followed by Glia. The United States had the most literature, followed by China. In addition, Yale University was the most productive institution in the world, while The Second Military Medical University contributed the most in China. The journal Experimental Neurology published th! e most OEC transplantation literature in the United States, while Neural Regeneration Research published the most in China. CONCLUSION: This analysis provides insight into the current state and trends in OEC transplantation for SCI research. Furthermore, we anticipate that this analysis will help encourage international cooperation and teamwork on OEC transplantation for SCI to facilitate the development of more effective treatments for SCI. Addresses: [Leng, Zikuan; He, Xijing; Li, Haopeng; Wang, Dong; Cao, Kai] Xi An Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Med, Affiliated Hosp 2, Dept Orthoped, Xian 710004, Shaanxi Provinc, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: xijing_h at vip.tom.com Funding Acknowledgement: National Natural Science Foundation of China [30973023] Funding Text: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 30973023. Cited Reference Count: 61 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SHENYANG EDITORIAL DEPT NEURAL REGENERATION RES, PO BOX 1234, SHENYANG, LIAONING 110004, PEOPLES R CHINA ISSN: 1673-5374 Web of Science Categories: Cell Biology; Neurosciences Research Areas: Cell Biology; Neurosciences & Neurology IDS Number: 156VW Unique ID: WOS:000319853000005 Cited References: Ruitenberg MJ, 2002, GENE THERAPY, V9, P135 Plant GW, 2003, JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA, V20, P1 Barakat DJ, 2005, CELL TRANSPLANTATION11th Annual Conference of the American-Society-for-Neural-Transplantation-and-Repair, MAY 06-09, 2004, Clearwater, FL, V14, P225 Rowland James W., 2008, NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, V25, Nomura H, 2006, JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA, V23, P496 Bunge MB, 2001, NEUROSCIENTIST, V7, P325 Tator Charles H., 2006, NEUROSURGERY, V59, P957 Bradbury Elizabeth J., 2006, NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE, V7, P644 Sasaki M, 2006, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V26, P1803 Lu J, 2002, BRAIN, V125, P14 Cao Li, 2006, GLIA, V54, P536 Ramer LM, 2004, JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY, V473, P1 Boruch AV, 2001, Glia, V33, P225 Zhang N, 2005, BRAIN RESEARCH REVIEWS, V49, P48 Thuret Sandrine, 2006, NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE, V7, P628 Akiyama Y, 2002, GLIA, V39, P229 Lu J, 1999, SPINE, V24, P926 Harel Noam Y., 2006, NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE, V7, P603 Esper Raymond M., 2006, BRAIN RESEARCH REVIEWS, V51, P161 Houle JD, 2003, EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY, V182, P247 Chen L, 2007, Zhongguo Zuzhi Gongcheng Yanjiu yu Linchuang Kangfu, V11, P5636 Fehlings Michael G., 2011, NEUROTHERAPEUTICS, V8, P704 Chiu Wen-Ta, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P3 Richter MW, 2005, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V25, P10700 DOUCETTE R, 1995, HISTOLOGY AND HISTOPATHOLOGY, V10, P503 Schwab JM, 2006, PROGRESS IN NEUROBIOLOGY, V78, P91 Hendriks WTJ, 2004, NGF AND RELATED MOLECULES IN HEALTH AND DISEASE7th International Conference on NGF and Related Molecules, MAY 15-19, 2002, Modena, ITALY, V146, P451 Bartolomei JC, 2000, NEUROSURGERY, V47, P1057 Raisman Geoffrey, 2007, NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE, V8, P312 Schmidt CE, 2003, ANNUAL REVIEW OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, V5, P293 Schnell Eva, 2007, BIOMATERIALS, V28, P3012 Ramon-Cueto A, 1998, BRAIN RESEARCH BULLETIN, V46, P175 Takami T, 2002, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V22, P6670 Franssen Elske H. P., 2007, BRAIN RESEARCH REVIEWS, V56, P236 Fawcett JW, 1998, SPINAL CORD, V36, P811 Pearse DD, 2004, JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA, V21, P1223 Xu Zaihua, 2011, NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH, V6, P2537 Baptiste Darryl C., 2007, NEUROTRAUMA: NEW INSIGHTS INTO PATHOLOGY AND TREATMENT8th International Neurotrauma Symposium, MAY 21-25, 2006, Rotterdam, NETHERLANDS, V161, P217 Lipson AC, 2003, EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY, V180, P167 Boyd JG, 2005, FASEB JOURNAL, V19, P694 Huang HY, 2003, CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, V116, P1488 Boyd JG, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V101, P2162 Cui Q, 2006, MOLECULAR NEUROBIOLOGY, V33, P155 Cao L, 2004, BRAIN, V127, P535 Lu J, 2001, BRAIN RESEARCH, V889, P344 Pearse Damien D., 2007, GLIA, V55, P976 Lima Carlos, 2006, JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE, V29, P191 Ramer LM, 2005, SPINAL CORD, V43, P134 Raisman G., 2007, C R Biol., V330, Imaizumi T, 2000, BRAIN RESEARCH, V854, P70 Lu Paul, 2006, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V26, P11120 GARFIELD E, 1992, FEMS MICROBIOLOGY LETTERS, V100, P33 Richter Miranda W., 2008, EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY, V209, P353 Lakatos A, 2003, EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY, V184, P237 Ruitenberg MJ, 2003, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V23, P7045 Dobkin BH, 2006, NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR, V20, P5 Feron F, 2005, BRAIN, V128, P2951 Cochrane J, 2008, Brain, V131, Au E, 2003, GLIA, V41, P224 Fouad K, 2005, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V25, P1169 Ramon-Cueto A, 1998, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V18, P3803 ======================================================================= *Record 41 of 80. Search terms matched: CITATION(1); JOURNAL(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000319858300006 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Measures of health sciences *journal* use: a comparison of vendor, link-resolver, and local *citation* statistics Authors: De Groote, SL; Blecic, DD; Martin, KE Author Full Names: De Groote, Sandra L.; Blecic, Deborah D.; Martin, Kristin E. Source: JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 101 (2):110-119; 10.3163/1536-5050.101.2.006 APR 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: USAGE Abstract: Objective: Libraries require efficient and reliable methods to assess journal use. Vendors provide complete counts of articles retrieved from their platforms. However, if a journal is available on multiple platforms, several sets of statistics must be merged. Link-resolver reports merge data from all platforms into one report but only record partial use because users can access library subscriptions from other paths. Citation data are limited to publication use. Vendor, link-resolver, and local citation data were examined to determine correlation. Because link-resolver statistics are easy to obtain, the study library especially wanted to know if they correlate highly with the other measures. Methods: Vendor, link-resolver, and local citation statistics for the study institution were gathered for health sciences journals. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients were calculated. Results: There was a high positive correlation between all three data sets, with vendor data commonly showing the highest use. However, a small percentage of titles showed anomalous results. Discussion and Conclusions: Link-resolver data correlate well with vendor and citation data, but due to anomalies, low link-resolver data would best be used to suggest titles for further evaluation using vendor data. Citation data may not be needed as it correlates highly with other measures. Addresses: [De Groote, Sandra L.; Blecic, Deborah D.; Martin, Kristin E.] Univ Illinois, Univ Lib, Chicago, IL 60607 USA. E-mail Addresses: sgroote at uic.edu; dblecic at uic.edu; martkr2002 at yahoo.com Cited Reference Count: 12 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: 156XX Unique ID: WOS:000319858300006 Cited References: Blecic DD, 1999, BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V87, P20 Stowers Eva, 2009, SERIALS REVIEW, V35, P28 Rice BA, 1983, Sci Tech Lib., V4, P43 Stemper JA, 2003, Coll Manag, V28, P3 Gallagher J, 2005, LIBRARY COLLECTIONS ACQUISITIONS & TECHNICAL SERVICES, V29, P169 Duy Joanna, 2006, JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, V32, P512 Imler Bonnie, 2011, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V72, P454 Pesch O, 2011, Serials Lib., V61, P353 National International Standards Organization, 2012, Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI), COUNTER, 2012, Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources, Blecic DD, 2011, Unpublished survey results of journal and database use of health sciences faculty, National Information Standards Organization (US), 2005, The OpenURL framework for context-sensitive services, ======================================================================= Title: A *Bibliometric* Study of John Dunning's Contribution to International Business Research Authors: Ferreira, MASPV; Pinto, CSF; Serra, FAR; Santos, JC Author Full Names: Portugal Vasconcelos Ferreira, Manuel Anibal Silva; Frias Pinto, Claudia Sofia; Ribeiro Serra, Fernando Antonio; Santos, Joao Carvalho Source: RBGN-REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE GESTAO DE NEGOCIOS, 15 (46):56-75; 10.7819/rbgn.v15i46.1163 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: John Dunning, OLI, Eclectic paradigm, Bibliometric study, International business KeyWords Plus: FOREIGN DIRECT-INVESTMENT; TOP MANAGEMENT JOURNALS; RESOURCE-BASED VIEW; MULTINATIONAL-ENTERPRISE; ECLECTIC PARADIGM; INTELLECTUAL STRUCTURE; COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE; AUTHOR COCITATION; MARKET FAILURE; FIRM Abstract: This article offers a review of John Dunning's contribution to international business (IB) research, so as to assess the impact of Dunning and of the Eclectic paradigm on this discipline. The contribution of Dunning and of the Eclectic paradigm - usually referred to as OLI - are a core reference to current international business research, namely for studying location decisions, foreign investment, entry modes and internationalization, and for the multinational enterprise theory. First, we review the conceptual foundations of Dunning's academic contribution. Second, methodologically, we carry out a bibliometric study of articles published in 14 respected academic business magazines over a period of 31 years, between 1980 and 2010. A sample of 697 published articles that refer to Dunning's work supports the analysis of citations and co-citations matrixes and of relevant themes, allowing us to verify the influence of Dunning's work on the international business and Management d! isciplines. This study allowed us to identify the network of connections between Dunning's Eclectic paradigm and a variety of international business theories, concepts and authors, as well as with the main subjects studied in the discipline. We observed the connections to the transaction costs theory, resource-based view, industrial organization and evolutionary theory. This study also contributes to scholars' better understanding of the development of the discipline and of the structure of knowledge within connections between theories and authors. Through their contributions, scholars such as John Dunning leave their imprint on the way in which disciplines and knowledge evolve. Dunning's work, in the Eclectic paradigm, systematized three conditions that guide the internationalization of companies - and is now a reference for entrepreneurial activities, scholars and research. Addresses: [Portugal Vasconcelos Ferreira, Manuel Anibal Silva] Univ Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA. [Portugal Vasconcelos Ferreira, Manuel Anibal Silva; Santos, Joao Carvalho] Inst Politecn Leiria, Leiria, Portugal. [Ribeiro Serra, Fernando Antonio] Pontificia Univ Catolica Rio de Janeiro PUC RJ, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. [Santos, Joao Carvalho] Univ Porto, Fac Econ, Oporto, Portugal. E-mail Addresses: manuel.portugal at uninove.br; claudia.frias.pinto at gmail.com; fernandoars at uninove.br; joao.santos at ipleiria.pt Cited Reference Count: 73 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: FUND ESCOLA COMERCIO ALVARES PENTEADO-FECAP, AV DA LIBERDADE 532, SAO PAULO SP, CEP01502-001, BRAZIL ISSN: 1806-4892 Web of Science Categories: Business; Management Research Areas: Business & Economics IDS Number: 143QW Unique ID: WOS:000318883300004 Cited References: FERREIRA MD, 2011, J STRATEGIC MANAGEME, V31, P7 VERNON R, 1966, QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, V80, P190 Lahiri Somnath, 2012, MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, V52, P317 DUNNING JH, 1995, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, V26, P461 Dunning JH, 1998, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, V29, P45 Penrose E. T., 1959, Theory of the Growth of the Firm, LU J. W, 2003, Journal of International Management, V9, P193 DUNNING JH, 1985, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V75, P228 LI D, 2009, Revista de Administracao e Inovacao, V6, P139 KOGUT B, 1992, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V3, P383 White HD, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V49, P327 HEDLUND G, 1986, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, V25, P9 2004, Managing multinationals in a knowledge economy: economics, culture, and human resources, V15, P3 TEECE DJ, 1986, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, V7, P21 Barney J.B., 1986, Management Science, V32, Nelson R. R., 1982, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, HARZING A-W, 2011, Journal quality list, Dunning JH, 2008, MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, 2ND EDITION, P1 PETERAF MA, 1993, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V14, P179 KOGUT B, 1988, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, V19, P411 Werner S, 2002, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, V28, P277 DUNNING J. H, 1997, Hennart J.-F., 1982, A Theory of Multinational Enterprise, DUNNING J. H, 1999, TEECE DJ, 1981, SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V22, P3 Dunning J. H., 1993, Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, Ramos-Rodriguez AR, 2004, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V25, P981 Williamson O. E., 1975, Markets and hierarchies, JOHANSON J, 1977, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, V8, P23 KOGUT B, 1991, REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, V73, P401 Stoian Carmen, 2008, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW, V17, P349 DUNNING J. H, 1973, Oxford Economic Papers, V25, P289 DUNNING JH, 1979, OXFORD BULLETIN OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, V41, P269 Huggins R., 2007, International Review of Applied Economics, V21, FERREIRA M. P, 2011, Multinational Business Review, St. Louis, V19, P357 NORTH D. C, 1984, Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft (JITE), Tuebingen, V140, P7 RUGMAN A. M, 1981, DUNNING J. H, 1958, DUNNING J. H, 1993, Bartlett C.A., 1989, Managing Across Borders. The Transnational Solution, DUNNING J. H, 1999, The globalization of multinational enterprise activity, V2, P1 Dunning JH, 1981, International production and the multinational enterprise, Tahai A, 1999, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V20, P279 CAVES R. E, 1982, Pisani Niccolo, 2009, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, V35, P199 BARNEY J, 1991, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, V17, P99 KOGUT B, 1993, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, V24, P625 DUNNING J. H, 2000, International Business Review, V9, P163 SPENCE A, 1976, Quarterly Journal of Economics, V90, P591 HYMER S. H, MCCAIN KW, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P433 GUISINGER S, 2001, International Journal of the Economics of Business, V8, P257 DUNNING JH, 1981, WELTWIRTSCHAFTLICHES ARCHIV-REVIEW OF WORLD ECONOMICS, V117, P30 TALLMAN SB, 1991, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V12, P69 WHITE HD, 1981, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V32, P163 WILLIAMSON O.E, 1985, Porter Michael E., 1990, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Hofstede G., 1980, Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, DUNNING J. H, 1972, Dunning J. H., 1977, The International Allocation of Economic Activity, P395 DUNNING JH, 1980, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, V11, P9 Buckley P.J., 1976, The Future of the Multinational Enterprise, Ferreira Manuel Portugal, 2009, RAE-REVISTA DE ADMINISTRACAO DE EMPRESAS, V49, P282 WILLIAMS.OE, 1971, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V61, P112 DUNNING J, 2001, International Journal of the Economics of Business, London, V8, P273 AKERLOF GA, 1970, QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, V84, P488 ALCHIAN AA, 1972, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V62, P777 LEONTIEF W, 1953, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Sep, Philadelphia, V97, P332 PENG Dec, 2006, Journal of International Management, V12, P490 WERNERFELT B, 1984, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V5, P171 DUNNING JH, 1988, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, V19, P1 Posner M. V., 1961, Oxf Econ Pap, V13, P323 Trevino Len J., 2010, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW, V19, P378 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= Title: Growth dynamics of citations of cumulative papers of individual authors according to progressive nucleation mechanism: Concept of citation acceleration Authors: Sangwal, K Author Full Names: Sangwal, Keshra Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, 49 (4):757-772; 10.1016/j.ipm.2013.01.003 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis, Citation acceleration a, h Index, Progressive nucleation mechanism KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; HIRSCH-INDEX; PUBLICATION INDEX; ARTICLES; AGE; SCIENCE; OUTPUT; MODEL; OBSOLESCENCE; INDICATORS Abstract: Using data generated by progressive nucleation mechanism on the cumulative fraction of citations of individual papers published successively by a hypothetical author, an expression for the time dependence of the cumulative number L-sum(t) of citations of progressively published papers is proposed. It was found that, for all nonzero values of constant publication rate Delta N, the cumulative citations L-sum(t) of the cumulative N papers published by an author in his/her entire publication career spanning over T years may be represented in distinct regions: (1) in the region 0 < t < Theta(0) (where Theta(0) approximate to T/3), L-sum(t) slowly increases proportionally to the square of the citation time t, and (2) in the region t > Theta(0), L-sum(t) approaches a constant L-sum(max) at T. In the former region, the time dependence of L-sum(t) of an author is associated with three parameters, viz, the citability parameter), the publication rate Delta N and his/her publication car! eer t. Based on the predicted dependence of L-sum(t) on t, a useful *scientometric* age-independent measure, defined as citation acceleration a = L-sum(t)/t(2), is suggested to analyze and compare the scientific activities of different authors. Confrontation of the time dependence of cumulative number L-sum(t) of citations of papers with the theoretical equation reveals one or more citation periods during the publication careers of different authors. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Lublin Univ Technol, Dept Appl Phys, PL-20618 Lublin, Poland. E-mail Addresses: k.sangwal at pollub.pl Cited Reference Count: 51 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCI LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND ISSN: 0306-4573 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 152PO Unique ID: WOS:000319543800002 Cited References: Csajbok Edit, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P91 Egghe L., 2009, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V45, P288 Wu Qiang, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P245 Gupta BM, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P161 GUPTA BM, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P187 Egghe L., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P14 Burrell Quentin L., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P170 Prathap G., 2006, Current Science, V91, P10 EGGHE L, 1992, SCIENTOMETRICS, V25, P5 Egghe L., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P320 Schubert Andras, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P201 Glanzel Wolfgang, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P118 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Egghe Leo, 2010, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V44, P65 NARANAN S, 1970, NATURE, V227, P631 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P64 Glanzel W, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS6th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 16-19, 1997, JERUSALEM, ISRAEL, V40, P481 Glanzel W, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P511 Sangwal Keshra, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P1053 Nair Gopalan M., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P80 Van Raan AFJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V67, P491 Jin BiHui, 2007, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V52, P855 Sangwal Keshra, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V93, P987 Sangwal Keshra, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P575 Anderson Thomas R., 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V76, P577 Burrell Quentin L., 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P19 Kleinberg J., 2002, KDD '02: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, P91 Sangwal Keshra, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P643 GUPTA U, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P282 Liang Liming, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P153 Sangwal Keshra, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P529 Egghe Leo, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P452 Ye Fred Y., 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P288 Sangwal K., 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P554 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P503 Burrell Quentin L., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 25-27, 2007, Madrid, SPAIN, V79, P79 Burrell Quentin L., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P1059 Rao I. K. Ravichandra, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P249 Egghe L., 2008, Scientometrics, V67, P491 EGGHE L, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V34, P285 Burrell Quentin L., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P16 Wong Chan-Yuan, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P460 Vieira E. S., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P1 Kosmulski Marek, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P341 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Albarran Pedro, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P40 Kosmulski M., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P4 Abt Helmut A., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P863 Navon D., 2009, Cybermetrics, P13 Price D. D. S., 1963, Little science, big science, Glanzel Wolfgang, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V77, P187 ======================================================================= Title: Does open access publishing increase the impact of scientific articles? An empirical study in the field of intensive care medicine Authors: Riera, M; Aibar, E Author Full Names: Riera, M.; Aibar, E. Source: MEDICINA INTENSIVA, 37 (4):232-240; 10.1016/j.medin.2012.04.002 MAY 2013 Language: Spanish Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Open access, Citation analysis, Intensive car, Medicine, Hirsch index KeyWords Plus: CITATIONS; BIOLOGY; SCIENCE Abstract: Objective: Some studies suggest that open access articles are more often cited than non-open access articles. However, the relationship between open access and citations count in a discipline such as intensive care medicine has not been studied to date. The present article analyzes the effect of open access publishing of scientific articles in intensive care medicine journals in terms of citations count. Methods: We evaluated a total of 161 articles (76% being non-open access articles) published in Intensive Care Medicine in the year 2008. Citation data were compared between the two groups up until April 30, 2011. Potentially confounding variables for citatiorj,counts were adjusted for in a linear multiple regression model. Results: The median number (interquartile range) of citations of non-open access articles was 8 (4-12) versus 9 (6-18) in the case of open access articles (p = 0.084). In the highest citation range (>8), the citation count was beta (10-16) and 18 (eta-21) (p = 0.008), respectively. The mean follow-up was 37.5 3 months in both groups. In the 30-35 months after publication, the average number (mean standard deviation) of citations per article per month of non-open access articles was 0.28 0.6 versus 0.38 0.7 in the case of open access articles (p = 0.043). Independent factors for citation advantage were the Hirsch index of the first signing author (beta=0.207; p = 0.015) and open access status (beta=3.618; p = 0.006). Conclusions: Open access publishing and the Hirsch index of the first signing author increase the impact of scientific articles. The open access advantage is greater for the more highly *cited articles*, and appears in the 30-35 months after publication. (C) 2012 Elsevier Espana, S.L. and SEMICYUC. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Riera, M.] Hosp Univ Son Espases, Serv Med Intens, Palma De Mallorca, Spain. [Aibar, E.] Univ Oberta Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. E-mail Addresses: rierasagrera at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 29 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER DOYMA SL, TRAVESERA DE GARCIA, 17-21, BARCELONA, 08021, SPAIN ISSN: 0210-5691 Web of Science Categories: Critical Care Medicine Research Areas: General & Internal Medicine IDS Number: 152KD Unique ID: WOS:000319529700004 Cited References: Citations Castillo M, 2009, AJNR Am J. Neuroradiol, V30, P215 Evans James A., 2009, SCIENCE, V323, P1025 Frandsen Tove Faber, 2009, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V65, P58 Bosch Xavier, 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P91 Antelman K, 2004, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V65, P372 Mertens Stephan, 2009, DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL, V106, P710 Gargouri Y, 2010, PLoS One, V5, P1 Gross National Income, 2011, Davis Philip M., 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P3 Adhikari NK, 2010, Lancet, V375, P1339 SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Lawrence S, 2001, NATURE, V411, P521 Smith R, 2001, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V323, P1437 National Institutes of Health Public Access, Swan A., 2010, Technical Report, Matsubayashi Mamiko, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION69th Annual Meeting of the American-Society-for-Information-Science-and-Technology, NOV 03-08, 2006, Austin, TX, V97, P4 David P, 2007, Paper No. 06-38, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Harnad S, 2004, D-Lib Magazine, P10 Epstein Barbara A., 2008, JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY NURSING, V34, P561 Norris Michael, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1963 Davis Philip M., 2008, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V337, Eysenbach Gunther, 2006, PLOS BIOLOGY, V4, P692 Craig Iain D., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P239 Calver Michael C., 2010, CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, V24, P872 Lansingh Van C., 2009, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V116, P1425 Hajjem C, 2005, IEEE Data Eng Bull, V28, Willinsky J, 2006, The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship, Rosenberg Andrew L., 2010, JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, V25, P157 ======================================================================= Title: Journal Impact Factors: Their relevance and their influence on society-published scientific *journals* Authors: Putirka, K; Kunz, M; Swainson, I; Thomson, J Author Full Names: Putirka, Keith; Kunz, Martin; Swainson, Ian; Thomson, Jennifer Source: AMERICAN MINERALOGIST, 98 (5-6):1055-1065; 10.2138/am.2013.4357 MAY-JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Impact factor, bibliometrics, mineralogy, petrology, geochemistry KeyWords Plus: HISTORY Abstract: We examine the nature and temporal trends of science journal publishing, and seek to explain why some journals have higher Journal Impact Factors (JIF) than others. The investigation has implications for how we assess the importance of scientific contributions. National Laboratories run by the U.S. Department of Energy, for example, compare JIF across disciplines, while some academic institutions look at JIF when evaluating publication records. Problematic to these policies are several results, which have long been known in the medical and biological sciences, and are shown here to apply to the Earth sciences as well. In particular, citations are distributed almost logarithmically in any given issue of a journal, and so JIFs say nothing about the actual number of citations acquired by any given paper. In the area of mineralogy and petrology, for example, 25% of articles in a typical issue will capture >50% of all citations that accrue to that issue. For some issues the asymm! etry is greater; we use such citation asymmetry to develop a classification for journals as "super elite," "elite," "influential," and "minor." We also find that JIFs are inherently larger for large disciplines, in part because as the size of a discipline increases (as measured by total papers published), the top journals benefit to a greater extent than other journals. For this and other reasons, JIF cannot be compared across disciplines. A heretofore unknown and disconcerting result is the incredible growth in JIFs for commercially published journals compared to their society-published counterparts a growth that coincides with the advent of electronic distribution models (e.g., bundling) that were instituted by commercial publishers at the beginning of the 21st century. Journals, which only a decade ago had similar JIFs, and were viewed as being scientifically equivalent, now have very different JIFs. These contrasts may nucleate feedback loops (as authors look to higher ! JIF journals in which to publish) that threaten the health of ! society- published journals. Our analysis however, shows that in spite of growing contrasts in JIF, many society-published journals still provide a greater value (JIF/cost) compared to their commercially published counterparts. While we acknowledge that citations and citation rates can be useful tools to compare scientific influence and importance, the results of this and other bibliometric studies cause us to conclude that in the evaluation of science and scientists, it is a grave error to substitute numerical values for human judgment. And if professional societies are to continue to play a significant role in science publication, it is incumbent upon scientists-now more than ever-to send their best works to society-published journals. Keywords: Impact factor, bibliometrics, mineralogy, petrology, geochemistry Addresses: [Putirka, Keith] Calif State Univ Fresno, Dept Earth & Environm Sci, Fresno, CA 93740 USA. [Kunz, Martin] Univ Calif Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab, ALS, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA. [Swainson, Ian] Natl Res Council Canada, Canadian Neutron Beam Ctr, Chalk River Labs, Chalk River, ON K8A 6W6, Canada. [Thomson, Jennifer] Eastern Washington Univ, Dept Geol, Cheney, WA 99004 USA. E-mail Addresses: keith_putirka at csufresno.edu; mkunz at lbl.gov; Ian.Swainson at usask.ca; jthomson at ewu.edu Funding Acknowledgement: Mineralogical Society of America Funding Text: We thank the Past-President of the Mineralogical Society of America, Mike Hochella, for his support and for highly thoughtful comments on this paper; the senior author is especially appreciative of many stimulating discussions with M. Hochella regarding journal impact factors and related topics that inspired a large fraction of this work. We also thank Alex Speer, who first clearly identified electronic distribution methods as a concern for society-based publications, especially with regard to JIF. We thank Editor Simon Redfern for handling our manuscript, and Mark Welch and an anonymous reviewer for their very thoughtful comments and suggestions. Cited Reference Count: 13 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: MINERALOGICAL SOC AMER, 3635 CONCORDE PKWY STE 500, CHANTILLY, VA 20151-1125 USA ISSN: 0003-004X Web of Science Categories: Geochemistry & Geophysics; Mineralogy Research Areas: Geochemistry & Geophysics; Mineralogy IDS Number: 149GL Unique ID: WOS:000319306900025 Cited References: Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Archambault Eric, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V79, P635 SCImago, 2007, SJR-SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Habibzadeh Farrokh, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P164 Seglen PO, 1997, ALLERGY, V52, P1050 Mutz Ruediger, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P169 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Nature Publishing Group, 2005, Nature, V435, P1003 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V56, P223 RIBBE PH, 1988, AMERICAN MINERALOGIST, V73, P449 Hecht F, 1998, CANCER GENETICS AND CYTOGENETICS, V104, P77 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Frazier K., 2001, D-Lib Magazine, V7, ======================================================================= Title: Improving Harmony Search by *Zipf* distribution Authors: Tseng, SP; Lin, WW Author Full Names: Tseng, Shih-Pang; Lin, Wuu-Wen Editor(s): Shieh CS; Watada J; Pan TS Source: 2012 SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTING (ICGEC), 115-118; 10.1109/ICGEC.2012.106 2012 Book Series: International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: 6th International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing (ICGEC) Conference Date: AUG 25-28, 2012 Conference Location: Kitakyushu, JAPAN Conference Sponsors: Kaohsiung Univ Appl Sci (KUAS), Waseda Univ, IEEE Comp Soc, IEEE, IEEE Tainan Sect, IEEE Signal Processing Soc, Tainan Chapter, IEEE Computat Intelligence Soc Tainan Chapter, Taiwan Assoc Web Intelligence Consortium, Japan Soc Evolutionary Computat, Int Soc Management Engineers KeyWords Plus: OPTIMIZATION; ALGORITHM Abstract: Harmony search (HS) is a promising metaheuristic algorithm inspired by music improvisation process for various hard optimization problems. HS has attracted attention of researchers from different areas because it is easy to implement and can be applied to different optimization problems. In this paper, we present a novel method to improve the result of HS called *Zipf* harmony search (ZHS)-by using the *Zipf* distribution to reference the harmonies within the harmony memory. We want to balance the intensification and diversification. Experimental results show that ZHS can provide better results than simple HS in the higher number of dimensions in numerical function optimization problem. Addresses: [Tseng, Shih-Pang; Lin, Wuu-Wen] Tajen Univ, Dept Comp Sci & Informat Engn, Pingtung, Taiwan. E-mail Addresses: tsp at mail.tajen.edu.tw; wuuwen at mail.tajen.edu.tw Cited Reference Count: 13 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE, 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISSN: 1949-4653 ISBN: 978-0-7695-4763-3 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Theory & Methods; Mathematical & Computational Biology Research Areas: Computer Science; Mathematical & Computational Biology IDS Number: BFD74 Unique ID: WOS:000319285800029 Cited References: Geem ZW, 2001, SIMULATION, V76, P60 Geem Zong Woo, 2009, MUSIC-INSPIRED HARMONY SEARCH ALGORITHM: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS, V191, P113 Zipf G. K., 1932, Selected Studies of the Principle of Relative Frequency in Language, Zhang Rong, 2009, IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, V16, P917 Zipf G. K., 1949, Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort, Mahdavi M., 2008, APPLIED MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTATION, V201, P441 Dorigo M, 1996, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS PART B-CYBERNETICS, V26, P29 Ayvaz M. Tamer, 2007, ADVANCES IN WATER RESOURCES, V30, P2326 GEEM ZW, 2007, KNOWL BAS INT INF EN, V4692, P371 Blum C, 2003, ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS, V35, P268 Geem ZW, 2005, ADVANCES IN NATURAL COMPUTATION, PT 3, PROCEEDINGS1st International Conference on Natural Computation (ICNC 2005), AUG 27-29, 2005, Changsha, PEOPLES R CHINA, V3612, P741 Goldberg D. E., 1989, Genetic Algorithms in Search: Optimization and Machine Learning, Adamic L. A., 2002, Glottometrics, V3, P143 ======================================================================= Title: SPANISH AMERICAN WRITERS, LITERARY PRIZES, AND BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS Authors: Ferrer, C Author Full Names: Ferrer, Carolina Editor(s): Chova LG; Martinez AL; Torres IC Source: 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND INNOVATION (ICERI 2012), 3457-3466; 2012 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: 5th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI) Conference Date: NOV 19-21, 2012 Conference Location: Madrid, SPAIN Author Keywords: e-Humanities, digital libraries, electronic databases, bibliometrics, scientometrics, quantitative methods, Spanish American literature, Latin American literature, literary studies, literary awards, Nobel Prize KeyWords Plus: ARTS-AND-HUMANITIES; NOBEL-PRIZE; SOCIAL-SCIENCES; SCHOLARSHIP Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to study the Spanish American literary field in order to compare the awards system to the critical reception of literary work. Thus, I identify the Spanish American writers that have won main literary prizes and I analyze the bibliometric indicators associated to their work. Firstly, I consider the 26 most prestigious literary awards received by Spanish American writers: Alfaguara, Alfonso Reyes, Anagrama, Biblioteca breve, Cafe Gijon, Cervantes, Golden Wreath, De la critica, Friedenspreis des Deutschen Buchhandels, Felipe Trigo, Formentor, Grinzane Cavour, Herralde, Jerusalem, Juan Rulfo, Loewe, Medicis, Menendez Pelayo, Neustadt, Nobel, Planeta, Principe de Asturias, Primavera, Reina Sofia de poesia, Romulo Gallegos, Salambo. Secondly, I identify all the Spanish American authors that have received these awards and I obtain the number of publications associated to each writer, according to the Modern Language Association International Bibliograp! hy. Finally, I compare the volume of the critical bibliography to the number of literary awards. At a higher level of analysis, this article illustrates the importance and the potentiality that digital resources and bibliometrics represent for studying the development of the literary field. Addresses: [Ferrer, Carolina] Univ Quebec Montreal, Montreal, PQ, Canada. E-mail Addresses: ferrer.carolina at uqam.ca Cited Reference Count: 23 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IATED-INT ASSOC TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION A& DEVELOPMENT, LAURI VOLPI 6, VALENICA, BURJASSOT 46100, SPAIN ISBN: 978-84-616-0763-1 Web of Science Categories: Education & Educational Research Research Areas: Education & Educational Research IDS Number: BEW64 Unique ID: WOS:000318422203083 Cited References: Garfield E., 1979, Essays of an Information Scientist, V4, P363 Gauthier E., 1998, L'analyse bibliometrique de la recherche scientifique ettechnologique guide methodologique d'utilisation et d'interpretation, Hammarfelt Bjorn, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P705 Callon M., 1993, La Scientometrie. Que Sais-Je?, P2727 Al Umut, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P1011 COLE S, 1983, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V89, P111 GARFIELD E, 1980, LIBRARY QUARTERLY, V50, P40 Gingras Yves, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V82, P401 GARFIELD E, 1991, CURRENT CONTENTS, V11, P3 Ardanuy Jordi, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P347 Charlton Bruce G., 2007, MEDICAL HYPOTHESES, V68, P1191 Rodriguez Monegal E., 1972, El boom de la novela latinoamericana, Lariviere Vincent, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P997 Karazija R, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V61, P191 COZZENS SE, 1985, SCIENTOMETRICS, V7, P431 Bjork R, 2001, MINERVA, V39, P393 NEDERHOF AJ, 1989, SCIENTOMETRICS, V15, P423 Rodriguez-Navarro Alonso, 2011, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V67, P582 Archambault Eric, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P329 Price D. D. S., 1963, Little science, big science, Benjamin LT, 2003, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, V58, P731 LINDAHL BIB, 1992, THEORETICAL MEDICINE, V13, P97 Thompson JW, 2002, LIBRI, V52, P121 ======================================================================= Title: THE USE OF *BIBLIOGRAPHIC* DOCUMENTATION FOR THE TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESS IN APPLIED SOCIAL RESEARCH Authors: de Pablos, JC; Palomares, I; Susino, J Author Full Names: de Pablos, J. C.; Palomares, I.; Susino, J. Editor(s): Chova LG; Martinez AL; Torres IC Source: 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND INNOVATION (ICERI 2012), 3387-3394; 2012 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: 5th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI) Conference Date: NOV 19-21, 2012 Conference Location: Madrid, SPAIN Author Keywords: transversal competences, bibliography, basic intellectual skills, learning of investigation, sociology Abstract: This paper presents the results of a teaching experience developed during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 courses, designed to work on a basic skill for the teaching-learning process in social sciences: the use of *bibliographic* documentation. This project starts from two acknowledged needs in this field. First, the coordination between teachers of the different courses in the degree in a controversial subject, which includes different traditions and rules. Second, the incorporation to the curriculum of those skills students are supposed to have but are never explicitly included in the syllabus. The project included three lines of work. One focused on the citation and referencing of texts in the students' dissertations. Another about searching data on *bibliographic* catalogues and databases. And a third on the use of those data in research projects, especially concerning the basic skills such as summarize or extract the main ideas from a text. Step by step during the development of the project, the application of measurement and collective reflection instruments has revealed the actual situation in its complexity. We have detected some deficiencies and some pending issues to reach an adequate academic and intellectual formation of our students. The elaboration and application of a questionnaire has allowed us to check the starting point and the improvements of the students as a result of the formative workshops and the activities included in the project. So it is both a diagnosis tool and a evaluation device. This paper contents the main results of the project, taking as the baseline the results from the questionnaire prior and after the formative workshops. Our analysis of the results shows some initial weaknesses and a partial success of the activities. Only through a constant, continuous, sequenced and systematic formation will we accomplish our goals in this issue. Addresses: [de Pablos, J. C.; Palomares, I.; Susino, J.] Univ Granada, Dpto Sociol, E-18071 Granada, Spain. E-mail Addresses: depablos at ugr.es; isa_palomares at hotmail.com; jsusino at ugr.es Cited Reference Count: 10 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IATED-INT ASSOC TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION A& DEVELOPMENT, LAURI VOLPI 6, VALENICA, BURJASSOT 46100, SPAIN ISBN: 978-84-616-0763-1 Web of Science Categories: Education & Educational Research Research Areas: Education & Educational Research IDS Number: BEW64 Unique ID: WOS:000318422203068 Cited References: Aguilera Pupo E., 2009, Las investigaciones sobre los estilos de aprendizaje y sus modelos explicativos Revista de Estilos de Aprendizaje, V4, Brunner J.S., 1988, Desarrollo cognitivo y educacion, Rey B., 2000, Educar, V26, P9 Declaracion de Bolonia, 1999, Comunicado de la Conferencia de Ministros Europeos responsables de la Educacion Superior, Le Boterf, G., 2000, Ingenieria de las competencias, American Psychological Association, 2009, Publication Manual of the American Psychological AssociationComunicado de la Conferencia de Ministros Europeos responsables de la Educacion, Superior, Eco U, 2010, Como se hace una tesis: tecnicas y procedimientos de estudio, investigacion y escritura, Vigotsky L.S., 1996, El desarrollo de los procesos psicologicos superiores, Bain K., 2006, Lo que hacen los mejores profesores universitarios, Morin E., 2001, Los siete saberes necesarios para la educacion del futuro, ======================================================================= ======================================================================= Title: Citation Analysis May Severely Underestimate the Impact of Clinical Research as Compared to Basic Research Authors: van Eck, NJ; Waltman, L; van Raan, AFJ; Klautz, RJM; Peul, WC Author Full Names: van Eck, Nees Jan; Waltman, Ludo; van Raan, Anthony F. J.; Klautz, Robert J. M.; Peul, Wilco C. Source: PLOS ONE, 8 (4):10.1371/journal.pone.0062395 APR 24 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; JOURNALS; EDITORIALS; MAPS Abstract: Background: Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research. Methodology: A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact. Results: Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields: Cardiac & cardiovascular systems, Clinical neurology, and Surgery. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research. Conclusions: Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research. Addresses: [van Eck, Nees Jan; Waltman, Ludo; van Raan, Anthony F. J.] Leiden Univ, Ctr Sci & Technol Studies, Leiden, Netherlands. [Klautz, Robert J. M.] Leiden Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Cardiothorac Surg, Leiden, Netherlands. [Peul, Wilco C.] Leiden Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Neurosurg, Leiden, Netherlands. E-mail Addresses: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Cited Reference Count: 41 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 1160 BATTERY STREET, STE 100, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 USA ISSN: 1932-6203 Article Number: e62395 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: 136DE Unique ID: WOS:000318340400104 Cited References: Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P165 TIJSSEN RJW, 1989, SCIENTOMETRICS, V15, P283 Waltman Ludo, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P467 Waltman Ludo, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P272 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P2378 Waltman L, 2012, Scientometrics, Smolinsky Lawrence, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P911 Garfield E, 1996, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V313, P411 Klavans Richard, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 17-20, 2008, Vienna, AUSTRIA, V82, P539 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Borner K, 2010, Atlas of science: Visualizing what we know, RIP A, 1984, SCIENTOMETRICS, V6, P381 Waaijer Cathelijn J. F., 2010, NATURE, V463, P157 van Leeuwen Thed N., 2012, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V21, P61 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P406 Waaijer Cathelijn J. F., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P99 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Neuhaus Christoph, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P219 Borg I., 2005, Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Application, Lewison G, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P145 Patel Vanash M., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, V104, P251 Waltman Ludo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P37 PETERS HPF, 1993, RESEARCH POLICY, V22, P23 Zitt Michel, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1856 van Eck Nees Jan, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P523 Lewison G, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS6th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 16-19, 1997, JERUSALEM, ISRAEL, V41, P17 Patsopoulos NA, 2005, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V293, P2362 Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Radicchi Filippo, 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V105, P17268 Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P415 Moed H. F., 2005, Citation analysis in research evaluation, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Chew Mabel, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, V100, P142 Van Eck NJ, 2011, ISSI Newsletter, V7, P50 Lewison G, 1999, RHEUMATOLOGY, V38, P13 Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2365 Opthof Tobias, 2011, MEDICAL & BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING & COMPUTING, V49, P613 Falagas Matthew E., 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, van Eck Nees Jan, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2405 Mavros Michael N., 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P203 Rafols Ismael, 2012, RESEARCH POLICY, V41, P1262 ======================================================================= Title: Profit (p)-Index: The Degree to Which Authors Profit from Co-Authors Authors: Aziz, NA; Rozing, MP Author Full Names: Aziz, Nasir Ahmad; Rozing, Maarten Pieter Source: PLOS ONE, 8 (4):10.1371/journal.pone.0059814 APR 3 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; SCIENTIFIC-RESEARCH; PUBLICATION; CITATIONS; CREDIT Abstract: Current metrics for estimating a scientist's academic performance treat the author's publications as if these were solely attributable to the author. However, this approach ignores the substantive contributions of co-authors, leading to misjudgments about the individual's own scientific merits and consequently to misallocation of funding resources and academic positions. This problem is becoming the more urgent in the biomedical field where the number of collaborations is growing rapidly, making it increasingly harder to support the best scientists. Therefore, here we introduce a simple harmonic weighing algorithm for correcting citations and citation-based metrics such as the h-index for co-authorships. This weighing algorithm can account for both the nvumber of co-authors and the sequence of authors on a paper. We then derive a measure called the 'profit (p)-index', which estimates the contribution of co-authors to the work of a given author. By using samples of researcher! s from a renowned Dutch University hospital, Spinoza Prize laureates (the most prestigious Dutch science award), and Nobel Prize laureates in Physiology or Medicine, we show that the contribution of co-authors to the work of a particular author is generally substantial (i.e., about 80%) and that researchers' relative rankings change materially when adjusted for the contributions of co-authors. Interestingly, although the top University hospital researchers had the highest h-indices, this appeared to be due to their significantly higher p-indices. Importantly, the ranking completely reversed when using the profit adjusted h-indices, with the Nobel laureates having the highest, the Spinoza Prize laureates having an intermediate, and the top University hospital researchers having the lowest profit adjusted h-indices, respectively, suggesting that exceptional researchers are characterized by a relatively high degree of scientific independency/ originality. The concepts and meth! ods introduced here may thus provide a more fair impression of! a scien tist's autonomous academic performance. Addresses: [Aziz, Nasir Ahmad] Leiden Univ Med Ctr, Dept Neurol, Leiden, Netherlands. [Rozing, Maarten Pieter] GGZinGeest Geestgronden, Inst Mental Hlth Care, Amstelveen, Netherlands. E-mail Addresses: N.A.Aziz at lumc.nl Cited Reference Count: 19 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 1160 BATTERY STREET, STE 100, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 USA ISSN: 1932-6203 Article Number: e59814 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: 143BA Unique ID: WOS:000318840100028 Cited References: Tol Richard S. J., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P291 Wallace Matthew L., 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Sekercioglu Cagan H., 2008, SCIENCE, V322, P371 Zhang Chun-Ting, 2009, EMBO REPORTS, V10, P416 Hagen Nils T., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P785 Schreiber Michael, 2008, NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, V10, Greene Mott, 2007, NATURE, V450, P1165 Abbott Alison, 2010, NATURE, V465, P860 Bras-Amoros Maria, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P248 Hagen Nils T., 2008, PLOS ONE, V3, Batista Pablo D., 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V68, P179 Baerlocher Mark Otto, 2007, JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE MEDICINE, V55, P174 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P830 Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 Zhang Chun-Ting, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, Acuna Daniel E., 2012, NATURE, V489, P201 Imperial Juan, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V71, P271 Abbas Ash Mohammad, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P107 ======================================================================= Title: Proposals of Standards for the Application of Scientometrics in the Evaluation of Individual Researchers Working in the Natural Sciences Authors: Bornmann, L; Marx, W Author Full Names: Bornmann, Lutz; Marx, Werner Source: ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVALUATION, 12 (1):103-127; APR 2013 Language: German Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Scientometrics, Publications, Citations, Percentiles KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; INFORMATION-SCIENCE; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; CITATION ANALYSIS; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; IMPACT FACTOR; INDICATORS; PUBLICATION; QUALITY; PRODUCTIVITY Abstract: Although scientometrics has been a separate research field for many years, there is still no uniformity in the way scientometric analyses are applied to individual researchers. Therefore, this study aims to propose standards for the use of scientometrics in the evaluation of individual researchers working in the natural sciences. This study includes recommendations for a set of indicators to be used for evaluating researchers. The standards relate to the selection of data on which an evaluation is based, the analysis of the data and the presentation of the results. To present our standards, we use here the anonymised data for three selected researchers who work in similar areas of research but are of different ages and enjoy different levels of academic success. Addresses: [Bornmann, Lutz] Max Planck Gesell, Generalverwaltung, Stabsreferat Wissensch & Innovat Forsch, D-80539 Munich, Germany. [Marx, Werner] Max Planck Inst Festkorperforsch, Informationsvermittlungsstelle IVS CPT, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany. E-mail Addresses: bornmann at gv.mpg.de; w.marx at fkf.mpg.de Cited Reference Count: 93 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WAXMANN VERLAG GMBH, POSTFACH 8603, D-48046 MUNSTER, GERMANY ISSN: 1619-5515 Web of Science Categories: Psychology, Applied; Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary Research Areas: Psychology; Social Sciences - Other Topics IDS Number: 142YD Unique ID: WOS:000318832600006 Cited References: Costas Rodrigo, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1564 PINSKI G, 1976, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V12, P297 Boyack KW, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Mapping Knowledge Domains, MAY 09-11, 2003, Irvine, CA, V101, P5192 Vinkler Peter, 2010, The Evaluation of Research by Scientometric Indicators, MARTIN BR, 1983, RESEARCH POLICY, V12, P61 Danell Rickard, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P50 Research Evaluation and Policy Project, 2005, REPP discussion paper 05/1, Nosek Brian A., 2010, PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, V36, P1283 Panaretos John, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P635 Froghi Saied, 2012, BJU INTERNATIONAL, V109, P321 Sahel Jose-Alain, 2011, SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, V3, StataCorp, 2011, Stata Statistical Software: Release 12, Jacso Peter, 2009, LIBRARY JOURNAL, V134, P26 Duffy Ryan D., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P207 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P406 Guerrero-Bote Vicente P., The Main Contributors of Scientific Papers and the Output Counting: A Promising New Approach., Abramo Giovanni, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P499 Nahata Milap C, 2009, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, V73, Marx Werner, 2012, Beitrage zur Hochschulforschung, V34, P50 Kosmulski Marek, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P481 Smith Andy T., 2002, The Correlation Between RAE Ratings and Citation Counts in Psychology, Ruiz-Castillo Javier, 2012, SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, V3, P291 Azoulay Pierre, 2009, NBER Working Paper No. 15466, D'Angelo Ciriaco Andrea, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P257 van Raan Anthony F. J., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P461 Aksnes DW, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P235 Bornmann Lutz, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1381 Marx Werner, 2011, Forschung & Lehre, V11, P858 Egghe Leo, 2010, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V44, P65 Albarran Pedro, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P40 Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P830 van Raan Anthony F. J, 2005, Measurement, V3, P1 SCHUBERT A, 1993, SCIENTOMETRICSEUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON SCIENTOMETRIC METHODS OF RESEARCH EVALUATION IN THE SCIENCES, SOCIAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, APR 13-17, 1991, POTSDAM, GERMANY, V26, P21 Kreiman Gabriel, 2011, Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, V5, P1 Andres Ana, 2011, Measuring Academic Research: How to Undertake a Bibliometric Study, Moed H. F., 2005, Citation analysis in research evaluation, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Council of Canadian Academies, 2012, Informing Research Choices: Indicators and Judgment: The Expert Panel on Science Performance and Research Funding, Abramo Giovanni, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P659 Jacso Peter, 2010, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V34, P175 Lewison Grant, 2007, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, V190, P314 Strotmann Andreas, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1820 Taylor Jim, 2011, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, V22, P202 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVALUATION, V11, P233 Cronin Blaise, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1948 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P27 Kosmulski Marek, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P368 Garfield E., 1979, Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities, Bornmann Lutz, 2012, RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, V32, P1861 Tijssen RJW, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V54, P381 Schubert A, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P311 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P505 Hemlin Sven, 1996, Social Epistemology, V10, P209 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P333 Pendlebury David A., 2008, Using Bibliometrics in Evaluating Research, Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1370 Haslam Nick, 2010, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, V40, P216 Zhang Lin, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS13th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 04-07, 2011, Durban, SOUTH AFRICA, V91, P617 Bornmann Lutz, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, Garcia-Perez Miguel A., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2070 Tijssen Robert, 2006, Ninth International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, P146 Retzer Vroni, 2009, BASIC AND APPLIED ECOLOGY, V10, P393 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Mogee Mary Ellen, 2004, The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T-Systems, P75 Meho LI, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P1314 Bornmann Luti, 2008, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V64, P45 American Psychological Association, 2009, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Bornmann Lutz, 2009, EMBO REPORTS, V10, P2 Coleman B. Jay, 2012, TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL, V51, P164 Lehmann Sune, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V76, P369 De Bellis Nicola, 2009, Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics, Opthof T., 2011, NETHERLANDS HEART JOURNAL, V19, P246 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P346 Moed HF, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V37, P105 Doane DP, 2000, AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, V54, P289 MERTON RK, 1957, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V22, P635 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P621 Cole Stephen, 1992, Making Science: Between Nature and Society, Yin Chun-Yang, 2011, CURRENT SCIENCE, V100, P648 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P2419 Abramo Giovanni, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P132 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, V174, P857 Garfield E, 2002, SCIENTIST, V16, P10 Chang Chia-Lin, 2011, JOURNAL OF APPLIED STATISTICS, V38, P2563 vanRaan AFJ, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P397 Pendlebury David A., 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P1 Glanzel W, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS33rd Annual Conference of the Canadian-Association-for-Information-Science, JUN 02-04, 2005, London, CANADA, V67, P263 Sugimoto Cassidy R., 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P450 Norris Michael, 2010, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V66, P681 Bornmann Lutz, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Bornmann Lutz, 2011, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, V45, P199 Merton Robert K, 1980, Auf den Schultern von Riesen - Ein Leitfaden durch das Labyrinth der Gelehrsamkeit, ======================================================================= Title: The intellectual influence of economic journals: quality versus quantity Authors: Koczy, LA; Nichifor, A Author Full Names: Koczy, Laszlo A.; Nichifor, Alexandru Source: ECONOMIC THEORY, 52 (3):863-884; 10.1007/s00199-012-0708-0 APR 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Modified invariant method, Invariance to article-splitting, Influence of economic journals, Impact factor, LP method, Invariant method KeyWords Plus: RELATIVE IMPACTS; OUTPUT; INDEX Abstract: The evaluation of scientific output has a key role in the allocation of research funds and academic positions. Decisions are often based on quality indicators for academic journals, and over the years, a handful of scoring methods have been proposed for this purpose. Discussing the most prominent methods (de facto standards) we show that they do not distinguish quality from quantity at article level. The systematic bias we find is analytically tractable and implies that the methods are manipulable. We introduce modified methods that correct for this bias, and use them to provide rankings of economic journals. Our methodology is transparent; our results are replicable. Addresses: [Koczy, Laszlo A.] Obuda Univ, Hungarian Acad Sci, Ctr Econ & Reg Sci, H-1112 Budapest, Hungary. [Nichifor, Alexandru] Univ St Andrews, Sch Econ & Finance, Castlecliffe The Scores KY16 9AL, Fife, Scotland. E-mail Addresses: koczy at iehas.hu; alexandru.nichifor at st-andrews.ac.uk Cited Reference Count: 31 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA ISSN: 0938-2259 Web of Science Categories: Economics Research Areas: Business & Economics IDS Number: 131CY Unique ID: WOS:000317971000002 Cited References: GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Smith R, 1997, BMJ, V314, P461 Palacios-Huerta I, 2004, ECONOMETRICA, V72, P963 LIEBOWITZ SJ, 1984, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, V22, P77 MARCUS M, 1975, PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS, V60, P149 Sobel J, 2000, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC THEORY, V94, P241 Jemec GBE, 2001, LANCET, V358, P1373 Zimmermann C., 2007, Brin S, 1998, COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS7th International World Wide Web Conference, APR 14-18, 1998, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, V30, P107 Mirrlees J.A., 2003, J. Eur. Econ. Assoc, V1, P1239 Cambell D.E., 2009, Econ. Theory, V40, P349 Koczy L.A., 2010, Iehas Discussion Papers, Gonzalez-Pereira B., 2009, Techical Report, V4141, Altman A., 2005, Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC-05), New York, P1 Braun Tibor, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P169 Kalaitzidakis P., 2003, Journal of the European Economic Association, V1, P1346 PINSKI G, 1976, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V12, P297 LABAND DN, 1994, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, V32, P640 Shoham Y, 2009, MULTIAGENT SYSTEMS: ALGORITHMIC, GAME-THEORETIC, AND LOGICAL FOUNDATIONS, P1 Campbell Donald E., 2010, ECONOMIC THEORY, V45, P453 Roy Sandip, 2008, 2008 AMERICAN CONTROL CONFERENCE, VOLS 1-12American Control Conference 2008, JUN 11-13, 2008, Seattle, WA, P1965 Opatrny Tomas, 2008, NATURE, V455, P167 Golub Benjamin, 2010, AMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL-MICROECONOMICS, V2, P112 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Koczy L.A., 2008, Scientometrics, V81, P291 DEGROOT MH, 1974, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, V69, P118 Coupe T., 2003, Journal of the European Economic Association, V1, P1309 Langville A. N., 2006, Google's PageRank and Beyond: The Science of Search Engine Rankings, Bergstrom C., 2007, College & Research Libraries News, V68, P314 Bergstrom Carl T., 2008, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V28, P11433 Combes P. P., 2003, Journal of the European Economic Association, V1, P1250 ======================================================================= Title: Uncovering the intellectual development of the Journal of Organizational Change Management A knowledge-stock and bibliometric study, 1995-2011 Authors: Giraud, L; Autissier, D Author Full Names: Giraud, Laurent; Autissier, David Source: JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT, 26 (2):229-264; 10.1108/09534811311328335 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Journal of Organizational Change Management, Knowledge-stock analysis, Citation analysis, Co-citation analysis, Intellectual development, Journals, Knowledge management, Serials KeyWords Plus: AUTHOR COCITATION ANALYSIS; STRATEGIC-MANAGEMENT; CITATION ANALYSIS; STORYTELLING ORGANIZATION; DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES; MARKETING JOURNALS; DISCIPLINE; LITERATURES; NETWORKS; SCIENCE Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this study is to identify the documents which have had the greatest impact on the Journal of Organizational Change Management (JOCM) articles and to analyze the evolution of the intellectual structure of the journal. Design/methodology/approach - A knowledge-stock analysis is performed to assess major trends of the JOCM. A bibliometric study is then conducted thanks to citation and co-citation analysis about the documents which are the most cited by the articles published in the JOCM (between 1995 and 2011). Findings - Through the results of their analysis, the authors: describe the growing stock of knowledge of the JOCM over time; identify the documents having the strongest influence on the JOCM articles; and pinpoint the evolution of the intellectual structure of the journal. Research limitations/implications - Although the sample of retained articles seems representative of the JOCM publication efforts, the data set presents some limitations. There are also some limits inherent to the research design and to the bibliometric methods. The intention of the present research is to give a quantitative overview of the intellectual evolution of the journal. Practical implications - Grasping the intellectual development of the JOCM enables researchers and practitioners to better understand how issues are being approached by authors who publish in this journal. It also stimulates the scholarly debate. Originality/value - This knowledge-stock and bibliometric study is the first to be concerned with the JOCM. Addresses: [Giraud, Laurent] ESSEC Business Sch, Chair Change Management, Cergy Pontoise, France. [Autissier, David] Univ Paris Est Creteil, IRG IAE Eiffel, Paris Creteil, France. E-mail Addresses: giraud at essec.edu Cited Reference Count: 124 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, HOWARD HOUSE, WAGON LANE, BINGLEY BD16 1WA, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 0953-4814 Web of Science Categories: Management Research Areas: Business & Economics IDS Number: 136UU Unique ID: WOS:000318389700002 Cited References: KOTTER JP, 1995, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, V73, P59 Lewin K., 1951, Field theory in social science, Teece DJ, 1997, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V18, P509 CULNAN MJ, 1987, MIS QUARTERLY, V11, P341 FORD JD, 1995, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V20, P541 Lindquist T.M., 2009, Journal of Management Accounting Research, V21, P249 USDIKEN B, 1995, ORGANIZATION STUDIES11th EGOS Colloquium, JUL 06-08, 1993, PARIS, FRANCE, V16, P503 WILLMOTT H, 1993, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, V30, P515 Nag Rajiv, 2007, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V28, P935 Tahai A, 1999, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V20, P279 Hall C. Michael, 2011, TOURISM MANAGEMENT, V32, P16 Ma Z., 2010, Journal of Business Ethics, V95, P255 Berger P., 1966, The social construction of reality, DOTY DH, 1994, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V19, P230 Gmur M, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V57, P27 Czarniawska B., 1998, A Narrative Approach in Organisation Studies, Peters T.J., 1982, In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best Run Companies, Georgi Christoph, 2010, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, V31, P63 Weick K.E., 1995, Sensemaking in Organizations, V3, Pilkington A, 1999, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, V19, P7 NEELEY JD, 1981, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V32, P217 Ford Jeffrey D., 2008, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V33, P362 Groleau Carole, 2012, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V23, P651 Fernandez-Alles Mariluz, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P161 Barley SR, 2001, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V12, P76 Pettigrew A.M., 1993, Managing Change for Competitive Success, Geertz C., 1973, The interpretation of cultures, Bartunek J.M., 2008, Organization Management Journal, V5, P6 Yanow D., 2009, Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life, By R.T., 2005, Journal of Change Management, V5, P369 SMALL H, 1974, SCIENCE STUDIES, V4, P17 Clark Timothy, 2007, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, V44, P612 DAFT RL, 1984, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V9, P284 BOJE DM, 1995, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V38, P997 Magala S., 2012, Journal of Organizational Change Management, V25, Armenakis A.A., 2009, Journal of Change Management, V9, P127 Tsoukas H, 2002, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V13, P567 Backhaus Klaus, 2011, INDUSTRIAL MARKETING MANAGEMENTIMP Group Conference on Business Networks - Global, Regional and Local, 2010, Budapest, HUNGARY, V40, P940 Schein E. H., 1985, Organizational Culture and Leadership-A Dynamic View, Ramos-Rodriguez AR, 2004, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V25, P981 Kotter John P., 2008, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, V86, P130 Porter M. E., 1980, Competitive strategy, Gregoire DA, 2006, ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE21st Babson-College-Jauffman-Foundation-Entreprenurship-Research Conference, JUN, 2001, JONKOPING, SWEDEN, V30, P333 Regner Patrick, 2008, HUMAN RELATIONS, V61, P565 March JG, 1958, Organizations, Thelwall Mike, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V34, P605 Senge P.M., 1994, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, Mitroff I.I., 1999, Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A Hard Look at Spirituality, Religion, and Values in the Workplace, BURT RS, 1977, SOCIAL FORCES, V56, P106 VANDEVEN AH, 1995, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V20, P510 Weick K. E., 1979, The social psychology of organizing, BOJE DM, 1991, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V36, P106 Armenakis AA, 1999, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, V25, P293 Pettigrew AM, 2001, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V44, P697 Persson O., 2009, Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies: A Festschnft for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday, V5, P9 Glaser B., 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Kunda G., 1992, Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation, March James G., 1991, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V2, P71 Bouckenooghe Dave, 2010, JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, V46, P500 Morgan G., 1986, Images of Organization, HOFFMAN DL, 1993, JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, V19, P505 LEVITT B, 1988, ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, V14, P319 BAIRD LM, 1994, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE7th Annual ISI Lecture, 1993, LONDON, ENGLAND, V20, P2 SMIRCICH L, 1983, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V28, P339 Oreg Shaul, 2011, JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, V47, P461 COOPER R, 1988, ORGANIZATION STUDIES, V9, P91 Artto Karlos, 2009, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT, V27, P1 Durisin Boris, 2010, JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, V27, P437 BARNEY J, 1991, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, V17, P99 Pettigrew A.M., 1985, The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in Imperial Chemical Industries, Calabretta Giulia, 2011, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V104, P499 Doyle M, 2000, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENTConference of the British-Academy-of-Management (BAM), SEP, 1999, MANCHESTER, ENGLAND, V11, PS59 Boje D.M., 2001, Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research, Giannakis M., 2012, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, V25, Bass B.M., 2009, Leadership Performance beyond Expectations, P524 Pasadeos Y, 1998, JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, V27, P53 Choi Myungweon, 2011, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, V50, P479 Shilbury David, 2011, JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT, V25, P423 Ponzi LJ, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V55, P259 CULNAN MJ, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P453 Buchanan D, 2005, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, V7, P189 Hammer M., 1993, Reengineering the Corporation, DIMAGGIO PJ, 1983, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V48, P147 Senge PM, 1990, The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization, Ford JD, 1999, JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT, V12, P480 Miles M.B., 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis, Czarniawska B., 2004, Narratives in Social Science Research. Introducing Qualitative Methods, Prahalad C. K., 1994, Competing for the future, Boyack Kevin W., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2389 Walker H. Jack, 2007, JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT, V20, P761 Weick KE, 1999, ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, V50, P361 Macdonald Stuart, 2007, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, V44, P640 Young Mike, 2009, JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT, V22, P524 Crane D., 1972, Invisible Colleges. Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, Callon M., 1993, La scientometrie, Barry D, 1997, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V22, P429 Yin R. K., 1994, Case study research design and methods, Herscovitch L, 2002, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY16th Annual Meeting for the Society-of-Industrial-and-Organizational-Psychology, APR, 2001, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, V87, P474 Czarniawska B., 1997, Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity, Moed Henk F., 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P13 Groleau Carole, 2011, JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT, V24, P330 Huber George P., 1991, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V2, P88 Moed HK, 2005, CITATION ANALYSIS IN RESEARCH EVALUATION, V9, P1 Luscher Lotte S., 2008, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V51, P221 MCCAIN KW, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P433 Van de Ven Andrew H., 2011, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES, V25, P58 Baumgartner Hans, 2010, JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, V20, P233 Nerur Sridhar P., 2008, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V29, P319 Burrell G., 1979, Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Bedeian Arthur G., 2004, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, V3, P198 Bartunek JM, 2006, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V49, P9 Nonaka I., 1995, The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, White HD, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V49, P327 Starbuck WH, 2005, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V16, P180 Greenwood R, 1996, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V21, P1022 Baumgartner H, 2003, JOURNAL OF MARKETING, V67, P123 White HD, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P423 Cobo M. J., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1382 Charvet Francois F., 2008, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, V29, P47 FRUCHTERMAN TMJ, 1991, SOFTWARE-PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE, V21, P1129 Diodato V.P., 1994, Dictionary of Bibliometrics, de Solla Price DJ, 1963, Little science big science, Schon D, 1978, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, EISENHARDT KM, 1989, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V14, P532 ======================================================================= Title: Standards for Applying Bibliometrics to the Evaluation of Research Institutes in the Natural Sciences Authors: Bornmann, L; Bowman, BF; Bauer, J; Marx, W; Schier, H; Palzenberger, M Author Full Names: Bornmann, Lutz; Bowman, Benjamin F.; Bauer, Johann; Marx, Werner; Schier, Hermann; Palzenberger, Margit Source: ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVALUATION, 11 (2):233-260; OCT 2012 Language: German Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometrics, Standards, Publication Output, Citations KeyWords Plus: CITATION DISTRIBUTIONS; RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY; INFORMATION-SCIENCE; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; SELF-CITATION; IMPACT FACTOR; QUALITY; INDICATORS; POLICY; UNIVERSALITY Abstract: Even though bibliometrics has been a well-defined research area within scientometrics for many years, uniformity in the conduct of bibliometric analyses has not yet been achieved. The numerous dos and don'ts that exist in the field represent the implicit knowledge of experienced users, rather than a clearly defined set of rules and operating procedures. Our chapter seeks to establish standards for applying bibliometrics to the evaluation of research institutes in a number of areas in the natural sciences. These standards refer to the selection of the underlying data from the reference databases, the statistical analysis of the data and the presentation of results. We draw upon anonymized data from six research institutes active in similar research areas to illustrate the applicability of our proposed standards. Addresses: [Bornmann, Lutz] Forsch Anal, Max Planck Gesell Gen Verwaltung Stabsreferat Wis, D-80539 Munich, Germany. [Bowman, Benjamin F.; Bauer, Johann] Max Planck Inst Biochem Informat Vermittlungsstel, Martinsried, Germany. [Marx, Werner; Schier, Hermann] Max Planck Inst Festkorperforsch Informat Vermitt, Stuttgart, Germany. [Palzenberger, Margit] Max Planck Digital Lib, Munich, Germany. E-mail Addresses: bornmann at gv.mpg.de; bowman at biochem.mpg.de; jbauer at biochem.mpg.de; w.marx at fkf.mpg.de; H.Schier at fkf.mpg.de; palzenberger at mpdl.mpg.de Cited Reference Count: 74 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: WAXMANN VERLAG GMBH, POSTFACH 8603, D-48046 MUNSTER, GERMANY ISSN: 1619-5515 Web of Science Categories: Psychology, Applied; Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary Research Areas: Psychology; Social Sciences - Other Topics IDS Number: 142YE Unique ID: WOS:000318832700005 Cited References: Jacso Peter, 2009, LIBRARY JOURNAL, V134, P26 Abbott Alison, 2010, NATURE, V465, P860 MARTIN BR, 1983, RESEARCH POLICY, V12, P61 Daniel Hans-Dieter, 2001, Wissenschaftsevaluation. Neuere Entwicklungen und heutiger Stand der Forschungs- und Hochschulevaluation in ausgewahlten Landern (CEST 2001/2), Abramo Giovanni, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P132 StataCorp, 2011, Stata Statistical Software: Release 12, Snyder H, 1998, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P431 SMITH R, 1988, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V296, P774 Glanzel W, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS33rd Annual Conference of the Canadian-Association-for-Information-Science, JUN 02-04, 2005, London, CANADA, V67, P263 Huang Mu-Hsuan, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2427 Rehn Catharina, 2007, Bibliometric Indicators - Definitions and Usage at Karolinska Institutet, Bornmann Lutz, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P173 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, Forschung & Lehre, V12, P650 Merton Robert K., 1985, Entwicklung and Wandel von Forschungsinteressen. Aufsatze zur Wissenschaftssoziologie, Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Marx Werner, 2006, Using Time-Dependent Citation Rates (Sales Curves) for Comparing Scientific Impacts, GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 van Raan AFJ, 2004, HANDBOOK OF QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH: THE USE OF PUBLICATION AND PATENT STATISTICS IN STUDIES OF S&T SYSTEMS, P19 Hornbostel Stefan, 1997, Wissenschaftsindikatoren. Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft, Abramo Giovanni, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P659 Sheskin David J., 2007, Danell Rickard, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P50 Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P165 Bornmann Lutz, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P407 Radicchi Filippo, 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V105, P17268 Moed H. F., 2005, Citation analysis in research evaluation, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Berghmans T, 2003, ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, V14, P715 Daniel Hans-Dieter, 2007, Quality Assessment for Higher Education in EuropeSymposium on Quality Assessmentfor Higher Education in Europe, 2006, Pavia, ITALY, P71 Bortz Jurgen, 2008, Kurzgefasste Statistik fur die klinische Forschung. Leitfaden fur die verteilungsfreie Analyse kleiner Stichproben, Jann B, 2005, STATA JOURNAL, V5, P92 Radicchi Filippo, 2011, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V83, Andres Ana, 2011, Measuring Academic Research: How to Undertake a Bibliometric Study, Research Evaluation and Policy Project, 2005, REPP discussion paper 05/1, Gagolewski Marek, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P678 SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Ruegg Rosalie, 2003, A Toolkit for Evaluating Public R&D Investment: Models, Methods, and Findings from ATP's First Decade, Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, V174, P857 McClellan Jason E., 2003, Specialist Control: the Publications Committee of the Academie Royal des Sciences (Paris) 1700-1793, V93, Albarran Pedro, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P385 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P27 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, V8, P93 Mulligan Adrian, 2006, UK Serials Group (UKSG) Annual Conference, UK, Aksnes DW, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P235 Shadbolt Nigel, 2006, OPEN ACCESS: KEY STRATEGIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS, P195 Marx Werner, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P433 Garcia-Perez Miguel A., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2070 Tijssen Robert, 2006, Ninth International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, P146 American Psychological Association, 2009, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Meho LI, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P1314 Jacso Peter, 2010, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V34, P175 Wright Malcom, 2007, Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge?, Strotmann Andreas, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P194 Calver Michael C., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P611 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V45, P199 Lariviere Vincent, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P392 Boyack KW, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Mapping Knowledge Domains, MAY 09-11, 2003, Irvine, CA, V101, P5192 Randic Milan, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P809 Tijssen RJW, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V54, P381 Hemlin Sven, 1996, Social Epistemology, V10, P209 Garfield E., 1979, Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities, Feist G. J., 2006, The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind, Moed HF, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V37, P105 Pendlebury David A., 2008, Using Bibliometrics in Evaluating Research, Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1370 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1664 Barbui C, 2006, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY, V67, P37 Ziman John, 2000, Real Science: What it is, and What it Means, Bortz Jurgen, 2010, Statistik fur Human- und Sozialwissenschaftlers, NORIA-net, 2011, Comparing Research at Nordic Universities Using Bibliometric Indicators: A Publication From the NORIA-net 'Bibliometric Indicators for the Nordic Universities', Lehmann Sune, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V76, P369 De Bellis Nicola, 2009, Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics, Vinkler P, 2010, EVALUATION OF RESEARCH BY SCIENTOMETRIC INDICATORS, P1 Kenna Ralph, 2011, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V20, P107 ======================================================================= Title: Research on the comparability of multi-attribute evaluation methods for academic journals Authors: Yu, LP Author Full Names: Yu Liping Editor(s): Yang D Source: 2012 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MEDICAL PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING (ICMPBE2012), 33 244-251; 10.1016/j.phpro.2012.05.058 2012 Book Series: Physics Procedia Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: International Conference on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering (ICMPBE) Conference Date: 2012 Conference Location: Qingdao, PEOPLES R CHINA Author Keywords: academic journals, evaluation methods, comparability KeyWords Plus: DATABASE; IMPACT Abstract: This paper first constructs a classification framework for multi-attribute evaluation methods oriented to academic journals, and then discusses the comparability of the vast majority of non-linear evaluation methods and the majority of linear evaluation methods theoretically, taking the TOPSIS method as an example and the evaluation data on agricultural journals as an exercise of validation. The analysis result shows that we should attach enough importance to the comparability of evaluation methods for academic journals; the evaluation objectives are closely related to the choice of evaluation methods, and also relevant to the comparability of evaluation methods; the specialized organizations for journal evaluation had better release the evaluation data, evaluation methods and evaluation results to the best of their abilities; only purely subjective evaluation method is of broad comparability. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer review under responsibil! ity of ICMPBE International Committee. Addresses: Ningbo Univ, Sch Business, Ningbo 315211, Zhejiang, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: chinayangzhou at yahoo.com.cn Cited Reference Count: 15 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, SARA BURGERHARTSTRAAT 25, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1875-3892 Web of Science Categories: Biophysics; Engineering, Biomedical; Physics, Applied Research Areas: Biophysics; Engineering; Physics IDS Number: BDQ64 Unique ID: WOS:000314472700037 Cited References: Markpin T., 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P251 Lin Chunyan, 2004, Mathematics in Practics and Theory, P1 Wang Jiu, 2003, Journal of Mathematical Medicine, P266 Chen Hanzhong, 2004, Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, P658 GARFIELD E, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P289 Li Zifeng, 2003, Journal of Information, P38 MOED HF, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P381 Yue WP, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P317 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Li Xiujie, 2006, The Journal of the Library Science in Jiangxi, P48 Li Kaiyang, 2005, Information Science, P1688 Qiu Junping, 2004, New Technology of Library and Information Service, P23 Su Xinlin, 2008, Dongyue Tribune, P35 Wang Xiaowei, 2003, Acta Editologica, P231 Pang Jingan, 2000, Chinese journal of scientific and technical periodicals, P217 ======================================================================= Title: Finding Linkage between Sustainability Science and Technologies based on Citation Network Analysis Authors: Fujita, K Author Full Names: Fujita, Katsuhide Book Group Author(s): IEEE Source: 2012 FIFTH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SERVICE-ORIENTED COMPUTING AND APPLICATIONS (SOCA), 2012 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: 5th IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA) Conference Date: DEC 17-19, 2012 Conference Location: Taipei, TAIWAN Conference Sponsors: IEEE, IEEE Comp Soc Conference Host: Natl Taiwan Univ Author Keywords: Citation Network Analysis, Academic Landscape, Clustering, Science Mapping KeyWords Plus: EMERGENCE Abstract: Sustainability Science has been widely accepted as an important research field all over the world. However, Sustainability Science is widespread to many research field such as Environment Science and Engineering, Architecture, Material Sciences, Civil Engineering, etc., therefore, it is important to discover hidden connections between sustainability science and other technologies. At the same time, with increasingly strong determination towards sustainable society, the tools for supporting discovering the linkage between technologies are necessary. This paper investigates the relationships between Sustainability Science and Complex Networks based on the citation network analysis. First, citation networks are generated based on academic paper datasets, and conducted the clustering for understanding the research fields to the Sustainability Science and other technologies. Next, we measure the textual similarities between clusters in Sustainability Science and Complex Networks.! After that, we find the middle layer research area for connecting Complex Networks and Sustainability Science using analysis of the shared terms. These results could offer overviews of how Complex Networks contributes to the sustainability science, and assist in forming policies to promote key technologies towards the future of sustainable society. Addresses: Univ Tokyo, Sch Engn, Tokyo, Japan. E-mail Addresses: fujita at ipr-ctr.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp Cited Reference Count: 24 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE, 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISBN: 978-1-4673-4775-4 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Hardware & Architecture; Computer Science, Information Systems Research Areas: Computer Science IDS Number: BEN36 Unique ID: WOS:000317464000001 Cited References: LELE SM, 1991, WORLD DEVELOPMENT, V19, P607 Christensen NL, 1996, ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, V6, P665 Kates RW, 2001, SCIENCE, V292, P641 Boyack KW, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P351 DOVERS SR, 1993, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, V20, P217 Kajikawa Yuya, 2008, SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE, V3, P215 Mihelcic JR, 2003, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V37, P5314 Kajikawa Yuya, 2007, SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE, V2, P221 Klavans R, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P251 Kuinkel P., 2011, Proceedings of 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI2011), V2, P996 GOODLAND R, 1995, ANNUAL REVIEW OF ECOLOGY AND SYSTEMATICS, V26, P1 Ittipanuvat V., 2012, Proceedings of 2012 Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET2012), Kostoff RN, 1997, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V23, P301 Watts DJ, 1998, NATURE, V393, P440 Newman M E J, 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics, V69, P026113 Clark WC, 2003, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V100, P8059 Milgram S., 1967, Psychology Today, V1, P60 SMALL H, 1974, SCIENCE STUDIES, V4, P17 Erdos P, 1959, Publ Math, V6, P290 Frantzi K., 2000, International Journal on Digital Libraries, V3, Shibata N., 2009, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V60, P571 Ittipanuvat V., 2012, Proceedings of The XXIII ISPIM Conference, Klavans Richard, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P455 Barabasi AL, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P509 ======================================================================= Title: Characterizing Emergence Using a Detailed Micro-model of Science: Investigating Two Hot Topics in Nanotechnology Authors: Boyack, KW; Klavans, R; Small, H; Ungar, L Author Full Names: Boyack, Kevin W.; Klavans, Richard; Small, Henry; Ungar, Lyle Editor(s): Kocaoglu DF; Anderson TR; Daim TU Source: PICMET '12: PROCEEDINGS - TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 2605-2611; 2012 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: Conference of PICMET - Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (PICMET) Conference Date: JUL 29-AUG 02, 2012 Conference Location: Vancouver, CANADA Conference Sponsors: Portland State Univ, Maseeh Coll Engn & Comp Sci, Dept Engn & Technol Management, Portland State Univ, Tourism Vancouver, Portland Int Ctr Management Engn & Technol (PICMET) KeyWords Plus: FIELDS Abstract: The structure and evolution of science and technology can be studied at multiple levels. Most such studies explore the developments of fields, disciplines, or specialties. Given the large numbers of articles underlying these analyses, developments appear to be continuous and smooth in most cases. By contrast, analysis of structure and evolution at the level of research problems results in a combination of stable and instable features. We characterize the development of two emerging topics within nanotechnology - graphene and dye-sensitized solar cells (DSSC) - at the research problem level. The analysis shows two different types of emergence, one in which the topic is spread throughout a large number of research problems prior to emergence and does not become a research problem of its own for many years, and one in which the topic quickly dominates a few research problems. Addresses: [Boyack, Kevin W.; Klavans, Richard; Small, Henry] SciTech Strategies Inc, Berwyn, PA USA. Cited Reference Count: 14 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE, 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISBN: 978-1-890843-26-7 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Industrial; Management Research Areas: Engineering; Business & Economics IDS Number: BEL24 Unique ID: WOS:000317186402036 Cited References: Boyack KW, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P351 Mane KK, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Mapping Knowledge Domains, MAY 09-11, 2003, Irvine, CA, V101, P5287 Small H, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS, V38, P275 PRICE D, 1976, INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION, V1, P17 SMALL H, 1974, SCIENCE STUDIES, V4, P17 Bettencourt Luis M. A., 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P495 Klavans Richard, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1 SMALL HG, 1976, INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION, V3, P67 Chen Chaomei, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P191 SMALL H, 1985, SCIENTOMETRICS, V8, P321 Klavans R., 2012, the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Sept. 5-8, 2012, Montreal, Canada, Hullmann A, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V58, P507 Bettencourt Luis M. A., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P210 National Science Board, 2008, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, V1, ======================================================================= Title: Construction of the International S&T Resources Monitoring System Authors: Liu, Y; Wang, XL; Wang, WP; Ye, XT; Fan, W Author Full Names: Liu, Yun; Wang, Xiao-Li; Wang, Wen-Ping; Ye, Xuan-Ting; Fan, Wei Editor(s): Kocaoglu DF; Anderson TR; Daim TU Source: PICMET '12: PROCEEDINGS - TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 1677-1683; 2012 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: Conference of PICMET - Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (PICMET) Conference Date: JUL 29-AUG 02, 2012 Conference Location: Vancouver, CANADA Conference Sponsors: Portland State Univ, Maseeh Coll Engn & Comp Sci, Dept Engn & Technol Management, Portland State Univ, Tourism Vancouver, Portland Int Ctr Management Engn & Technol (PICMET) KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE Abstract: Based on the systematic research in contents, methods and technology of the international S&T resources, the article established the visual monitoring & service system of international S&T resources, proposed the "three first-classes" concept of international S&T resources. For different types of international science and technology information databases, by use of scientometrics, data mining, visual technology and other methods, we have designed and built a set of effective resource monitoring framework for international S&T resources, which provided the information support for the grasp of international distribution of technology resources, searching for a high level of international cooperative partners and more effective use of international S&T resources. Addresses: [Liu, Yun; Wang, Wen-Ping; Ye, Xuan-Ting; Fan, Wei] Beijing Inst Technol, Sch Management & Econ, Beijing 100081, Peoples R China. Cited Reference Count: 12 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE, 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISBN: 978-1-890843-26-7 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Industrial; Management Research Areas: Engineering; Business & Economics IDS Number: BEL24 Unique ID: WOS:000317186401053 Cited References: Meng Xiangping, 2004, P3 Coates V, 2001, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V67, P1 Moody J, 2005, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V110, P1206 Kostoff Ronald N., 2008, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V75, P186 Navarro Juan Gabriel Cegarra, 2011, Management Research Review, V34, P1 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Sun taotao, 2010, Sun taotao, 2010, 2010 Third International Symposium on Intelligent Uniquitous Computing and Education Proceedings, September 18-19, Beijing, China, P428 Kontostathis April, 2003, A Comprehensive Survey of Text Mining, Sun taotao, 2010, 2010 International Colloquim on Computing, Communication, Control and Management Proceedings, Aug, Yangzhou, China, P102 Chen CM, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P359 Franco M., 2011, Business Process Management, V17, P1 ======================================================================= Title: Finding Linkage between Technology and Social Issues: A Literature Based Discovery Approach Authors: Ittipanuvat, V; Fujita, K; Kajikawa, Y; Mori, J; Sakata, I Author Full Names: Ittipanuvat, Vitavin; Fujita, Katsuhide; Kajikawa, Yuya; Mori, Junichiro; Sakata, Ichiro Editor(s): Kocaoglu DF; Anderson TR; Daim TU Source: PICMET '12: PROCEEDINGS - TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 2310-2321; 2012 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: Conference of PICMET - Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (PICMET) Conference Date: JUL 29-AUG 02, 2012 Conference Location: Vancouver, CANADA Conference Sponsors: Portland State Univ, Maseeh Coll Engn & Comp Sci, Dept Engn & Technol Management, Portland State Univ, Tourism Vancouver, Portland Int Ctr Management Engn & Technol (PICMET) KeyWords Plus: LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; FISH-OIL; MEDICAL LITERATURES; PATENT ANALYSIS; ROBOT; SCIENCE; KNOWLEDGE; CITATION; CONNECTIONS; HEARING Abstract: With social issues such as aging society and sustainability becoming more concerned than ever as we are heading towards future society, decision makers in both government and private sector need to identify and focus their efforts on promoting key technologies which have significant contribution to these increasingly complex social problems. However, such connections are not easy to trace, thus makes this subject very difficult to be completely understood. Meanwhile, Literature Based Discovery (LBD) has been widely accepted as an effective approach to discover hidden connections from information within bibliographical databases but is still used mainly in medical database. This paper investigates the possibility of broader application of LBD to reveal the linkage between technology and social issue from science and social science citation databases. Robotics and gerontology were selected as an example dataset, and some lexical statistics were used to suggest important connec! ting terms. The result shows various contributions of robotics to healthcare and well-being of elderly people such as surgery, hearing implant, and rehabilitation. This methodology could offer an alternative approach in creating overview picture of how one technology contributes to a particular social issue and assist in forming policies to promote key technologies towards the future society. Addresses: [Ittipanuvat, Vitavin] Univ Tokyo, Grad Sch Engn, Dept Technol Management Innovat, Tokyo, Japan. Cited Reference Count: 52 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE, 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISBN: 978-1-890843-26-7 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Industrial; Management Research Areas: Engineering; Business & Economics IDS Number: BEL24 Unique ID: WOS:000317186402008 Cited References: Weeber M, 2001, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V52, P548 Schaffernicht E, 2005, KI2005: ADVANCES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, PROCEEDINGS28th Annual German Conference on Artificial Intelligence, SEP 11-14, 2005, Koblenz, GERMANY, V3698, P320 Johnson Kurt L., 2010, PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, V21, P267 Shibata Naoki, 2010, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V77, P1147 Lo Szu-Chia, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P183 Weeber M, 2005, BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS, V6, P277 Aoyagi Daisuke, 2007, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL SYSTEMS AND REHABILITATION ENGINEERING10th IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, JUN 13-15, 2007, Noordwijk, NETHERLANDS, V15, P387 Banks Marian R., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION, V9, P173 VALDESPEREZ RE, 1994, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, V65, P247 Gordon M.D., 2002, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, V2, P261 SWANSON DR, 1990, PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, V33, P157 Joseph JV, 2005, BJU INTERNATIONAL, V96, P39 Robinson L., 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY, V22, P9 Estey Eric P., 2009, CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, V3, P488 Klavans R, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P251 Shibata Naoki, 2008, TECHNOVATION, V28, P758 Small Henry, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P595 Kirkim Gunay, 2007, MEDITERRANEAN JOURNAL OF OTOLOGY28th National Meeting of the Turkish-Otolaryngology-and-Head-and-Neck-Surgery-Society, SEP 22-26, 2005, Antalya, TURKEY, V3, P126 Shoval Noam, 2010, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY, V18, P603 Jorm AF, 1997, MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, V166, P376 SWANSON DR, 1987, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V38, P228 Harwin William S., 2006, PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, V94, P1717 Melson Gail F., 2009, JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES, V65, P545 Gordon MD, 1996, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V47, P116 SWANSON DR, 1989, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V40, P432 Newman M E J, 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics, V69, P026113 Almeida P, 1996, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V17, P155 Cory KA, 1997, COMPUTERS AND THE HUMANITIES, V31, P1 Sausville J., 2010, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, V64, P1740 Mitchell JM, 2006, REHABILITATION COUNSELING BULLETIN, V49, P157 Shibata Naoki, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P571 Truesdale Matthew D., 2010, JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY27th World Congress of Endourology, OCT 06-10, 2009, Munich, GERMANY, V24, P1055 Francois Dorothee, 2009, INTERACTION STUDIES, V10, P324 NARIN F, 1994, SCIENTOMETRICS4th International Conference on Bibliometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics, in Memory of Derek John de Solla Price (1922-1983), SEP 11-15, 1993, BERLIN, GERMANY, V30, P147 Smalheiser NR, 1996, NEUROLOGY, V47, P809 Chen CM, 2002, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V53, P678 Charlifue S, 2004, NEUROREHABILITATION, V19, P91 SWANSON DR, 1986, PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, V30, P7 SWANSON DR, 1988, PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, V31, P526 Small H, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P799 Daim Tugrul U., 2006, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V73, P981 Porter Alan L., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P719 Lee Yong Scong, 2007, YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, V48, P341 Boyack KW, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P351 Frantzi K., 2002, Digital Libraries, V3, P115 Borner K, 2003, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V37, P179 Bellotto Nicola, 2010, AUTONOMOUS ROBOTS, V28, P425 Adai AT, 2004, JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, V340, P179 Plinkert PK, 2001, HNO, V49, P514 Federspil PA, 2004, BIOMEDIZINISCHE TECHNIK54th Annual Meeting of the German-Society-of-Neurosurgery, APR, 2003, Saarbrucken, GERMANY, V49, P78 Alcacer Juan, 2006, REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, V88, P774 Lupsakko T, 2002, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY, V17, P808 ======================================================================= Title: Detecting Research Fronts Using Different Types of Weighted Citation Networks Authors: Fujita, K; Kajikawa, Y; Mori, J; Sakata, I Author Full Names: Fujita, Katsuhide; Kajikawa, Yuya; Mori, Junichiro; Sakata, Ichiro Editor(s): Kocaoglu DF; Anderson TR; Daim TU Source: PICMET '12: PROCEEDINGS - TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 267-275; 2012 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: Conference of PICMET - Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (PICMET) Conference Date: JUL 29-AUG 02, 2012 Conference Location: Vancouver, CANADA Conference Sponsors: Portland State Univ, Maseeh Coll Engn & Comp Sci, Dept Engn & Technol Management, Portland State Univ, Tourism Vancouver, Portland Int Ctr Management Engn & Technol (PICMET) KeyWords Plus: SCIENCE; COCITATION; MAP Abstract: In this paper, we investigate the performance of types of weighted citation network for detecting emerging research fronts by a comparative study. Some types of citation network, such as direct citation, co-citation and bibliographic citation were tested in some research domains like complex networks. In this paper, some types of citation networks were constructed for each research domain, and the papers in those domains were divided into clusters to detect the research front. Additionally, we employ some measures for evaluating the research fronts to weighted citation networks. For instance, average publication years and similarities of keywords are effective measures to detect research fronts. By introducing these measures as weights of citation networks to the citation network, we can detect research fronts and promising fields compared with the non-weighted citation networks. We perform a comparative study to investigate the performance of type of weighted citation netwo! rks for detecting emerging research field. Especially, we evaluate the performance of each type of weighted citation networks in detecting a research front by using the following measures of papers in the cluster: visibility, measured by normalized cluster size, speed, topological relevance, and density. Addresses: [Fujita, Katsuhide; Kajikawa, Yuya; Mori, Junichiro; Sakata, Ichiro] Univ Tokyo, Sch Engn, Tokyo, Japan. Cited Reference Count: 26 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE, 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISBN: 978-1-890843-26-7 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Industrial; Management Research Areas: Engineering; Business & Economics IDS Number: BEL24 Unique ID: WOS:000317186400031 Cited References: Small Henry, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P595 Klavans R, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P251 Shibata Naoki, 2008, TECHNOVATION, V28, P758 NAKAMURA S, 1992, JAPANESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS PART 1-REGULAR PAPERS SHORT NOTES & REVIEW PAPERS, V31, P2883 NAKAMURA S, 1994, APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS, V64, P1687 KESSLER MM, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P10 Klavans Richard, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P455 Barabasi AL, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P509 Chen C., 2003, V53, P678 NAKAMURA S, 1991, JAPANESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS PART 2-LETTERS, V30, PL1705 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Watts DJ, 1998, NATURE, V393, P440 Chen CM, 1999, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V35, P401 Jaccard P., 1912, New Phytol., V11, P37 50 Boyack KW, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P351 Newman M E J, 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics, V69, P026113 Leydesdorff L, 2004, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V60, P371 IIJIMA S, 1991, NATURE, V354, P56 BRAAM RR, 1991, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V42, P233 SMALL H, 1974, SCIENCE STUDIES, V4, P17 DE SOLLA PRICE DEREK J., 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 Davidson GS, 1998, JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, V11, P259 Shibata Naoki, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P571 Kostoff RN, 1997, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V23, P301 Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P348 Small H, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P799 ======================================================================= Title: Promoting Effect between Subjects by Citation Analysis: A Case Study of MATHEMATICS Authors: Yu, T; Yu, G; Wang, MY Author Full Names: Yu, Tian; Yu, Guang; Wang, Ming-Yang Editor(s): Hu J Source: EDUCATION AND EDUCATION MANAGEMENT, 3 625-631; 2012 Book Series: Advances in Education Research Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: 2nd International Conference on Education and Education Management (EEM 2012) Conference Date: SEP 04-05, 2012 Conference Location: Hong Kong, PEOPLES R CHINA Author Keywords: Driving force, Subjects development, Citation matrix, MATHEMATICS Abstract: Several scientometric studies have shown that the driving force promoting development of a subject generally comes from inside and outside. Subject-subject citation networks resulting from the mutual citation relations between scientific articles represent knowledge flow between subjects. In this study, a quantitative methodology using citation matrix among subjects is presented to investigate driving force promoting the development of subjects, and for instance, MATHEMATICS is selected as the research object. It is concluded that the development of MATH is mainly driven by itself, and the other math-related subjects only play supporting role. The mode of promoting the development of a subject may be related to the category and developmental state of the subject. Addresses: [Yu, Tian; Yu, Guang; Wang, Ming-Yang] Harbin Inst Technol, Sch Management, Harbin 150006, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: fish03031515 at 163.com Cited Reference Count: 9 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: INFORMATION ENGINEERING RESEARCH INST, USA, 100 CONTINENTAL DR, NEWARK, DE 19713 USA ISSN: 2160-1070 ISBN: 978-1-61275-025-5 Web of Science Categories: Education & Educational Research Research Areas: Education & Educational Research IDS Number: BET99 Unique ID: WOS:000318125000112 Cited References: Small Henry, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P835 Gao Xia, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V90, P749 Yu Guang, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P81 Hargens LL, 2000, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V65, P846 Kiss Istvan Z., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P74 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Yu G, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P235 Boyack K. W., 2009, Scientometrics, V79, P51 Samoylenko I., 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P1461 ======================================================================= Title: Growth dynamics of *citations* of cumulative papers of individual authors according to progressive nucleation mechanism: Concept of *citation* acceleration Authors: Sangwal, K Author Full Names: Sangwal, Keshra Source: INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, 49 (4):757-772; 10.1016/j.ipm.2013.01.003 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis, Citation acceleration a, h Index, Progressive nucleation mechanism KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; HIRSCH-INDEX; PUBLICATION INDEX; ARTICLES; AGE; SCIENCE; OUTPUT; MODEL; OBSOLESCENCE; INDICATORS Abstract: Using data generated by progressive nucleation mechanism on the cumulative fraction of citations of individual papers published successively by a hypothetical author, an expression for the time dependence of the cumulative number L-sum(t) of citations of progressively published papers is proposed. It was found that, for all nonzero values of constant publication rate Delta N, the cumulative citations L-sum(t) of the cumulative N papers published by an author in his/her entire publication career spanning over T years may be represented in distinct regions: (1) in the region 0 < t < Theta(0) (where Theta(0) approximate to T/3), L-sum(t) slowly increases proportionally to the square of the citation time t, and (2) in the region t > Theta(0), L-sum(t) approaches a constant L-sum(max) at T. In the former region, the time dependence of L-sum(t) of an author is associated with three parameters, viz, the citability parameter), the publication rate Delta N and his/her publication car! eer t. Based on the predicted dependence of L-sum(t) on t, a useful scientometric age-independent measure, defined as citation acceleration a = L-sum(t)/t(2), is suggested to analyze and compare the scientific activities of different authors. Confrontation of the time dependence of cumulative number L-sum(t) of citations of papers with the theoretical equation reveals one or more citation periods during the publication careers of different authors. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Lublin Univ Technol, Dept Appl Phys, PL-20618 Lublin, Poland. E-mail Addresses: k.sangwal at pollub.pl Cited Reference Count: 51 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCI LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND ISSN: 0306-4573 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 152PO Unique ID: WOS:000319543800002 Cited References: Csajbok Edit, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P91 Egghe L., 2009, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V45, P288 Wu Qiang, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P245 Gupta BM, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P161 GUPTA BM, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P187 Egghe L., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P14 Burrell Quentin L., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P170 Prathap G., 2006, Current Science, V91, P10 EGGHE L, 1992, SCIENTOMETRICS, V25, P5 Egghe L., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P320 Schubert Andras, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P201 Glanzel Wolfgang, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P118 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Egghe Leo, 2010, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V44, P65 NARANAN S, 1970, NATURE, V227, P631 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P64 Glanzel W, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS6th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 16-19, 1997, JERUSALEM, ISRAEL, V40, P481 Glanzel W, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P511 Sangwal Keshra, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P1053 Nair Gopalan M., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P80 Van Raan AFJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V67, P491 Jin BiHui, 2007, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V52, P855 Sangwal Keshra, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V93, P987 Sangwal Keshra, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P575 Anderson Thomas R., 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V76, P577 Burrell Quentin L., 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P19 Kleinberg J., 2002, KDD '02: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, P91 Sangwal Keshra, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P643 GUPTA U, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P282 Liang Liming, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P153 Sangwal Keshra, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P529 Egghe Leo, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P452 Ye Fred Y., 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P288 Sangwal K., 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P554 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P503 Burrell Quentin L., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 25-27, 2007, Madrid, SPAIN, V79, P79 Burrell Quentin L., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P1059 Rao I. K. Ravichandra, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P249 Egghe L., 2008, Scientometrics, V67, P491 EGGHE L, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V34, P285 Burrell Quentin L., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P16 Wong Chan-Yuan, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P460 Vieira E. S., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P1 Kosmulski Marek, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P341 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Albarran Pedro, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P40 Kosmulski M., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P4 Abt Helmut A., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P863 Navon D., 2009, Cybermetrics, P13 Price D. D. S., 1963, Little science, big science, Glanzel Wolfgang, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V77, P187 ======================================================================= Title: Mendeley: An Easy Way to Manage, Share, and Synchronize Papers and *Citations* Authors: Lo Russo, G; Spolveri, F; Ciancio, F; Mori, A Author Full Names: Lo Russo, Giulia; Spolveri, Federico; Ciancio, Francesco; Mori, Andrea Source: PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 131 (6):946E-947E; 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31828bd400 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Letter Addresses: [Lo Russo, Giulia; Spolveri, Federico; Ciancio, Francesco; Mori, Andrea] Univ Florence, Dept Plast & Reconstruct Surg, I-50100 Florence, Italy. E-mail Addresses: chiccociancio at live.it Cited Reference Count: 4 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 530 WALNUT ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3621 USA ISSN: 0032-1052 Web of Science Categories: Surgery Research Areas: Surgery IDS Number: 152YG Unique ID: WOS:000319567500034 Cited References: Hull Duncan, 2008, PLoS computational biology, V4, Pe1000204 The Mendeley Support Team, 2011, Mendeley Desktop, P1 Mendeley, Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Singh Jatinder, 2010, Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics, V1, P62 ======================================================================= Title: Continuous Sedation (CS) Until Death: Mapping the Literature by *Bibliometric* Analysis Authors: Papavasiliou, E; Payne, S; Brearley, S; Brown, J; Seymour, J Author Full Names: Papavasiliou, Evangelia; Payne, Sheila; Brearley, Sarah; Brown, Jayne; Seymour, Jane Source: JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 45 (6):1073-+; 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.05.012 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Review Author Keywords: Continuous sedation, end of life, bibliometric analysis KeyWords Plus: PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE; CONTINUOUS DEEP SEDATION; TERMINAL CANCER-PATIENTS; PALLIATIVE CARE-UNITS; UNCONTROLLED SYMPTOMS; REFRACTORY SYMPTOMS; ETHICAL VALIDITY; DECISION-MAKING; DYING PATIENTS; SUPPORT TEAM Abstract: Context. Sedation at the end of life, regardless of the nomenclature, is an increasingly debated practice at both clinical and bioethical levels. However, little is known about the characteristics and trends in scientific publications in this field of study. Objectives. This article presents a bibliometric analysis of the scientific publications on continuous sedation until death. Methods. Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO (R)) were searched for the indexed material published between 1945 and 2011. This search resulted in bibliographic data of 273 published outputs that were analyzed using bibliometric techniques. Results. Data revealed a trend of increased scientific publication from the early 1990s. Published outputs, diverse in type (comments/letters, articles, reviews, case reports, editorials), were widely distributed across 94 journals of varying scientific disciplines (medicine, nursing, palliative care, law, ethics). Most journals (72.3%) were classified under Medical and Health Sciences, with the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management identified as the major journal in the field covering 12.1% of the total publications. Empirical research articles, mostly of a quantitative design, originated from 17 countries. Although Japan and The Netherlands were found to be the leaders in research article productivity, it was the U.K. and the U.S. that ranked top in terms of the quantity of published outputs. Conclusion. This is the first bibliometric analysis on continuous sedation until death that can be used to inform future studies. Further research is needed to refine controversies on terminology and ethical acceptability of the practice, as well as conditions and modalities of its use. (C) 2013 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Papavasiliou, Evangelia; Payne, Sheila; Brearley, Sarah] Univ Lancaster, Int Observ End Of Life Care, Lancaster LA1 4YZ, England. [Brown, Jayne] De Montfort Univ, Ctr Promot Excellence Palliat Care, Leicester LE1 9BH, Leics, England. [Seymour, Jane] Univ Nottingham, Sue Ryder Ctr Study Support Palliat & End Of Life, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England. E-mail Addresses: e.papavasiliou at lancaster.ac.uk Funding Acknowledgement: European Union [264697]; Economic and Social Research Council (U.K.) [RES-062-23-2078] Funding Text: This article is part of the European Intersectorial and Multidisciplinary Palliative Care Research Training project funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013, under grant agreement no. 264697). European Intersectorial and Multidisciplinary Palliative Care Research Training aims to develop a multidisciplinary, multiprofessional, and intersectorial educational and research training framework for palliative care research in Europe. The project is coordinated by Prof. Luc Deliens and Prof. Lieve Van den Block of the End-of-Life Care Research Group, Ghent University & Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. Other partners are VU University Medical Center, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; King's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, U.K.; Cicely Saunders International, London, U.K.; the International Observatory on End-of-Life Care, Lancaster University, Lancaster, U.K.; Norwegian University ! of Science and Technology and EAPC Research Network, Trondheim, Norway; Regional Palliative Care Network, National Cancer Research Institute, Genoa, and Cancer Research and Prevention Institute, Florence, Italy; European Union Geriatric Medicine Society, Geneva, Switzerland; and Springer Science and Business Media, Houten, The Netherlands.The authors acknowledge the funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (U.K.) (grant no. RES-062-23-2078) with gratitude for a study that inspired this article. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors also thank Dr. Jenny Brine (subject librarian at Lancaster University) for her contribution in developing the list of key words to be used for database searching. Cited Reference Count: 60 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010-1710 USA ISSN: 0885-3924 Web of Science Categories: Health Care Sciences & Services; Medicine, General & Internal; Clinical Neurology Research Areas: Health Care Sciences & Services; General & Internal Medicine; Neurosciences & Neurology IDS Number: 152UG Unique ID: WOS:000319556200009 Cited References: Raus Kasper, 2011, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, V11, P32 Cameron D, 2004, SAMJ SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, V94, P445 Hasselaar Jeroen G. J., 2008, ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V168, P537 Eisenchlas Jorge H, 2007, Current opinion in supportive and palliative care, V1, P207 De Graeff Alexander, 2007, JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, V10, P67 Muller-Busch HC, 2003, BMC Palliat Care, V2, P1 Chiu TY, 2001, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V21, P467 Cherny N I, 1994, Journal of palliative care, V10, P31 Morita T, 2003, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V25, P103 Lo B, 2005, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V294, P1810 Goncalves JA, 2006, J Clin Oncol, V24, P44 Morita T, 1999, JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE CARE, V15, P20 Morita T, 1996, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V12, P32 Enck R E, 1991, The American journal of hospice & palliative care, V8, P3 World Health Organization., 2008, World cancer report 2008, Morita T, 2002, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V24, P447 Shaiova L, 1998, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V16, P403 Fainsinger RL, 2000, PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, V14, P257 Blondeau D, 2005, JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE CARE, V21, P238 Rousseau P, 2001, The American journal of hospice & palliative care, V18, P151 Rietjens Judith A. C., 2008, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V36, P228 Hauser Katherine, 2009, PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, V23, P577 Beel Alexandra, 2002, International journal of palliative nursing, V8, P190 Quill TE, 1997, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V278, P2099 Cherny Nathan I., 2009, PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, V23, P581 Fainsinger RL, 1998, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V16, P145 Morita Tatsuya, 2005, Journal of palliative medicine, V8, P716 Douglas Charles D., 2013, BIOETHICS, V27, P1 Simon Alfred, 2007, BMC palliative care, V6, P4 Blondeau Danielle, 2009, Palliative & supportive care, V7, P331 Seymour J, 2011, BMC Palliat Care, V10, P1 Fainsinger R, 1991, Journal of palliative care, V7, P5 Chater S, 1998, PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, V12, P255 Kohara Hiroyuki, 2005, Journal of palliative medicine, V8, P20 NEDER GA, 1963, DISEASES OF THE CHEST, V44, P263 Rietjens JAC, 2004, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V141, P178 Alonso-Babarro Alberto, 2010, PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, V24, P486 Morita T, 2000, The American journal of hospice & palliative care, V17, P189 van der Heide Agnes, 2007, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V356, P1957 Claessens Patricia, 2008, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V36, P310 Miccinesi G, 2006, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V31, P122 Alpers A, 1999, ARCHIVES OF FAMILY MEDICINE, V8, P200 Morita T, 2005, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V30, P308 Cowan John D, 2002, Current oncology reports, V4, P242 Krakauer E L, 2000, The oncologist, V5, P53 Morita T, 2004, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V28, P445 Stone P, 1997, PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, V11, P140 Mercadante Sebastiano, 2009, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V37, P771 Peruselli C, 1999, PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, V13, P233 Quill TE, 2000, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V132, P488 Hasselaar Jeroen G. J., 2007, ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V167, P1166 Morita T, 2005, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V30, P320 Hardy J, 2000, LANCET, V356, P1866 Inghelbrecht Els, 2011, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V41, P870 Kaldjian LC, 2004, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, V30, P499 Olsen Molly L., 2010, MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS, V85, P949 Sykes N, 2003, ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V163, P341 Ventafridda V, 1990, Journal of palliative care, V6, P7 Fainsinger RL, 1998, JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE CARE, V14, P51 Verkerk Marian, 2007, JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, V34, P666 ======================================================================= Title: Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive *citation* in an age of research assessment Authors: Martin, BR Author Full Names: Martin, Ben R. Source: RESEARCH POLICY, 42 (5):1005-1014; 10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Author Keywords: Research misconduct, Plagiarism, Redundant publication, Self-plagiarism, Coercive citation, Performance indicators KeyWords Plus: RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICIES; DUPLICATE PUBLICATION; IMPACT FACTOR; SCIENCE; METAANALYSIS; SCIENTISTS; MANAGEMENT; JOURNALS; AUTHOR Abstract: This extended editorial asks whether peer-review is continuing to operate effectively in policing research misconduct in the academic world. It explores the mounting problems encountered by editors of journals such as Research Policy (RP) in dealing with research misconduct. Misconduct can take a variety of forms. Among the most serious are plagiarism and data fabrication or falsification, although fortunately these still seem to be relatively rare. More common are problems involving redundant publication and self-plagiarism, where the boundary between acceptable behaviour (attempting to exploit the results of one's research as fully and widely as possible) and unacceptable behaviour (in particular, misleading the reader as to the originality of one's publications) is rather indistinct and open to interpretation. With the aid of a number of case-studies, this editorial tries to set out clearly where RP Editors regard that boundary as lying. It also notes with concern a new f! orm of misconduct among certain journal editors, who attempt to engineer an increase in their journal's 'impact factor' through a practice of 'coercive citation'. Such problems with research integrity would appear to be unintended, and certainly undesirable, consequences of the growing trend to quantify research performance through various indicators. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Addresses: Univ Sussex, SPRU Sci & Technol Policy Res, Freeman Ctr, Brighton BN1 9SL, E Sussex, England. E-mail Addresses: B.Martin at sussex.ac.uk Cited Reference Count: 63 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0048-7333 Web of Science Categories: Management; Planning & Development Research Areas: Business & Economics; Public Administration IDS Number: 149GI Unique ID: WOS:000319306600001 Cited References: Tavare Aniket, 2012, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V344, Roig Miguel, 2010, BIOCHEMIA MEDICA, V20, P295 Martin Ben R., 2010, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V77, P1438 Shore C, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE5th EASA Conference, SEP 04-07, 1998, FRANKFURT, GERMANY, V5, P557 Jacob B.A., 2010, NBER Working Paper 15672, Baum Joel A. C., 2011, ORGANIZATION, V18, P449 Honig Benson, 2012, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, V11, P101 Roberts J., 2009, Headache, V49, P579 Schminke Marshall, 2009, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V34, P586 Hall S., 2006, The Sport Journal, V9, P1 Scanlon P. M., 2007, Plagiary, V2, P57 Martin Ben R., 2009, RESEARCH POLICY, V38, P695 Wilhite Allen W., 2012, SCIENCE, V335, P542 Couzin J, 2006, SCIENCE, V312, P38 Weingart Peter, 2009, MINERVA, V47, P237 POLANYI M, 1962, MINERVA, V1, P54 American Psychological Association (APA), 2010, The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Bird SJ, 2002, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, V8, P543 Resnik David B., 2010, ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, V17, P79 Ursprung H.W., 2008, Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, V9, P254 Abbott Alison, 2008, NATURE, V452, P672 Abbott Alison, 2007, NATURE, V448, P632 Smith Eldon R., 2007, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, V23, P146 Davis P., 2012, The emergence of a citation cartel, [Anonymous], 2009, The Lancet, V374, P664 Dellavalle Robert P., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY, V57, P527 Bretag T., 2009, Journal of Academic Ethics, V7, P193 Tramer MR, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V315, P635 Wilhite A. W., 2012, Supporting online material for 'Coercive citation in academic publishing', Fang Ferric C., 2011, INFECTION AND IMMUNITY, V79, P3855 Roig M., 2009, Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism, and Other Questionable Writing Practices: A Guide to Ethical Writing, Autor David H., 2011, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, V25, P239 Stephan Paula, 2012, NATURE, V484, P29 Fanelli Daniele, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, Casadevall Arturo, 2012, INFECTION AND IMMUNITY, V80, P891 COPE, 2011, Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, Royal College of Physicians, 1991, Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research: Causes, Investigation and Prevention, Bedeian Arthur G., 2010, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, V9, P715 Fang Ferric C., 2012, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V109, P17028 Bretag T., 2007, Plagiary, V2, P92 BROAD WJ, 1981, SCIENCE, V211, P1137 Van Noorden Richard, 2011, NATURE, V478, P26 Foo A., 2011, Science and Engineering Ethics, V17, P65 Feld L.P., 2012, Scientific misbehaviour in economics-evidence from Europe, Bonnell Dawn A., 2012, ACS NANO, V6, P1 Wager E., 2011, Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, P317 Baggs Judith Gedney, 2008, RESEARCH IN NURSING & HEALTH, V31, P295 Roig M, 2005, PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS2nd Research Conference on Research Integrity, NOV, 2002, Bethesda, MD, V97, P43 Nentjes A., 2012, Homo Oeconomicus, V29, P413 Gullo Matthew J., 2012, PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, V7, P689 SUSSER M, 1993, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, V83, P792 Robinson S. R., 2012, Studies in Higher Education, iThenticate, 2012, 2012 iThenticate Report, SAMUELSON P, 1994, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, V37, P21 Steen R. Grant, 2011, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, V37, P249 Academy of Management (AOM), 2006, Code of Ethics, Brice J, 2005, MEDICAL EDUCATION, V39, P83 Karabag S.F., 2012, Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, V2, P172 Resnik David B., 2009, ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, V16, P254 Zimmer C., 2012, New York Times, Martin B.R., 2012, Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, P97 Prosser J.B., 2010, Tales from the editor's crypt: dealing with true, uncertain and false accusations of plagiarism, Martin Ben R., 2007, RESEARCH POLICY, V36, P905 ======================================================================= Title: the contribution of ISI indexing to a paper's *citations*: results of a natural experiment Authors: Varela, D Author Full Names: Varela, Diego Source: EUROPEAN POLITICAL SCIENCE, 12 (2):245-253; 10.1057/eps.2012.29 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: bibliometrics, indexing, impact factor, Political Science KeyWords Plus: IMPACT FACTOR; OPEN-ACCESS; ARTICLES Abstract: In this article, I investigate the extent to which ISI Web of Science indexing contributes to the impact of an academic paper. I do this by analysing the results of a natural experiment consisting in the accidental exclusion from the index of an entire issue of a Political Science journal. The statistical tests indicate a significant effect of ISI indexing on the number of citations received by individual papers. The conclusion is that ISI indexing does not simply provide an objective measure of academic impact, but it also affects academic impact itself. This fact provides evidence that, in spite of the increasing competition from other providers such as Scopus or Google Scholar, ISI indexing still has a considerable amount of market power. Addresses: Univ A Coruna, La Coruna 15071, Spain. E-mail Addresses: dvarela at udc.es Cited Reference Count: 9 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD, BRUNEL RD BLDG, HOUNDMILLS, BASINGSTOKE RG21 6XS, HANTS, ENGLAND ISSN: 1680-4333 Web of Science Categories: Political Science Research Areas: Government & Law IDS Number: 149GH Unique ID: WOS:000319306500009 Cited References: Vanclay Jerome K., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P3 Davis Philip M., 2011, FASEB JOURNAL, V25, P2129 Varela Diego, 2009, EUROPEAN UNION POLITICS, V10, P7 Althouse Benjamin M., 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P27 Angrist JD, 2009, MOSTLY HARMLESS ECONOMETRICS: AN EMPIRICISTS COMPANION, P1 Conlon Donald E., 2006, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V49, P857 Antelman K, 2004, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V65, P372 Cantor R., 1996, FRBNY Economic Policy Review, V2, P37 Cameron BD, 2005, PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY, V5, P105 ======================================================================= Title: Eliminating the impact of the *Impact Factor* Authors: Misteli, T Author Full Names: Misteli, Tom Source: JOURNAL OF CELL BIOLOGY, 201 (5):651-652; 10.1083/jcb.201304162 MAY 27 2013 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material E-mail Addresses: mistelit at mail.nih.gov Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS, 1114 FIRST AVE, 4TH FL, NEW YORK, NY 10021 USA ISSN: 0021-9525 Web of Science Categories: Cell Biology Research Areas: Cell Biology IDS Number: 152BL Unique ID: WOS:000319504500003 ======================================================================= Title: Prospective Head and Neck Cancer Research: A Four-Decade *Bibliometric* Perspective Authors: Sun, GH; Houlton, J; Moloci, NM; MacEachern, MP; Bradford, CR; Prince, ME; Jagsi, R Author Full Names: Sun, Gordon H.; Houlton, Jeffrey; Moloci, Nicholas M.; MacEachern, Mark P.; Bradford, Carol R.; Prince, Mark E.; Jagsi, Reshma Source: ONCOLOGIST, 18 (5):584-591; 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0415 MAY 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Otolaryngology, Funding, Bibliometrics, Chemotherapy, Radiotherapy, Surgery KeyWords Plus: CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST; SURGICAL RESEARCH; CHANGING EPIDEMIOLOGY; BIOMEDICAL-RESEARCH; CLINICAL-TRIALS; UNITED-STATES; ONCOLOGY; CARE; AUTHORSHIP; DISCLOSURE Abstract: Background. It is unknown whether changes in study sponsorship have affected the proportion of prospective research on surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) being published overtime. Patients and Methods. We examined prospective studies from PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. Chi-squared tests were used to identify significant associations between sponsorship and authorship, treatments within study protocols, and presentation of results, whereas time-based trends were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test. Results. Among 309 articles, industry (70, 22.7%) and the U.S. government (65, 21%) were the most common sponsors. There was a significant increase in the proportion of industry-sponsored research (p for trend = .013) and a decline in U.S. government-sponsored research (p for trend = .001) over time. The inclusion of surgery in treatment protocols declined over the past four decades (p for trend = .003). Protocols incorporating pharmacotherapy were more likely to have industry support than those without pharmacotherapy (p = .001), whereas protocols with radiotherapy (p = .003) or surgery (p = .002) were less likely to have industry support. Conclusion. Industry is the predominant sponsor of prospective HNSCC research, with an emphasis on pharmacotherapy. Addresses: [Sun, Gordon H.; Moloci, Nicholas M.; Jagsi, Reshma] Univ Michigan, Robert Wood Johnson Fdn Clin Scholars, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA. [Sun, Gordon H.] VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Syst, VA Ctr Clin Management Res, Ann Arbor, MI USA. [Sun, Gordon H.; Bradford, Carol R.; Prince, Mark E.] Univ Michigan, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA. [Houlton, Jeffrey] Univ Cincinnati, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Cincinnati, OH USA. [MacEachern, Mark P.] Univ Michigan, A Alfred Taubman Hlth Sci Lib, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA. [Jagsi, Reshma] Univ Michigan, Dept Radiat Oncol, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA. E-mail Addresses: gordonsu at med.umich.edu Cited Reference Count: 35 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ALPHAMED PRESS, 318 BLACKWELL ST, STE 260, DURHAM, NC 27701-2884 USA ISSN: 1083-7159 Web of Science Categories: Oncology Research Areas: Oncology IDS Number: 152UA Unique ID: WOS:000319555600015 Cited References: Shah JP, 1997, ARCHIVES OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY, V123, P475 FERLAY J, 2010, INT J CANCER, V127, P2893 Krimsky S, 2001, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICSAnnual Meeting of the American-Association-for-the-Advancement-of-Science, JAN 21-26, 1999, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, V7, P205 Rangel SJ, 2002, Ann Surg, V236, P286 Moses H, 2005, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V294, P1333 Jagsi Reshma, 2009, CANCER, V115, P2783 Mann Michael, 2008, ANNALS OF SURGERY, V247, P217 Cambrosio Alberto, 2006, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V42, P3140 Marshall John L., 2011, CLINICAL COLORECTAL CANCER, V10, P290 Booth Christopher M., 2008, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY43rd Annual Meeting of the American-Society-of-Clinical-Oncology, JUN 01-05, 2007, Chicago, IL, V26, P5458 Committee on the Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process Institute of Medicine, 2011, Medical Devices and the Public's Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years, Rangel SJ, 2002, ANNALS OF SURGERY122nd Annual Meeting of the American-Surgical-Association, APR 24-27, 2002, HOT SPRINGS, VIRGINIA, V236, P277 Horton R, 1996, LANCET, V347, P984 Tuech JJ, 2005, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V41, P2237 Rose Susannah L., 2010, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, V28, P1316 Sun GH, 2012, Head Neck, Marur Shanthi, 2008, MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS, V83, P489 Slim K, 2005, WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, V29, P606 Purushotham Arnie D., 2012, ANNALS OF SURGERY, V255, P427 Collins TR, ENT Today, Kim Leslie, 2010, ONCOLOGY-NEW YORK, V24, P915 Lewison Grant, 2010, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V46, P912 Dorsey E. Ray, 2010, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V303, P137 Bland Kirby I., 2007, JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, V95, P161 Jagsi Reshma, 2006, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V355, P281 Bodenheimer T, 2000, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V342, P1539 Sullivan R, 2008, Monitoring Financial Flows for Health Research 2007, P67 Angell M, 2000, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V342, P586 Moyer Jeffrey S, 2004, Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery, V12, P82 Higgins Kevin M., 2008, HEAD AND NECK-JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES AND SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, V30, P1636 Meropol Neal J., 2007, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY41st Annual Meeting of the American-Society-of-Clinical-Oncology, MAY 13-17, 2005, Orlando, FL, V25, P180 Hoffman Henry T., 2006, LARYNGOSCOPE, V116, P1 Peppercorn Jeffrey, 2007, CANCER41st Annual Meeting of the American-Society-of-Clinical-Oncology, MAY 13-17, 2005, Orlando, FL, V109, P1239 Kim L, 2010, Oncology(Williston Park), V24, P924 [Anonymous], 2009, GAO-09-190, ======================================================================= Title: A *Bibliometric* Evaluation of the Research Outputs of Italian Economists Authors: Abatemarco, A; Dell'Anno, R Author Full Names: Abatemarco, Antonio; Dell'Anno, Roberto Source: ECONOMIA POLITICA, 30 (1):97-125; APR 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; SCIENCE; IMPACT Abstract: Citation indexes have attracted substantial interest from both scholars and policy-makers in recent years. This paper illustrates the potential and limitations of the use of bibliometric indicators to assess the scientific productivity of research units (e.g., a single researcher or department). The main citation indexes are computed for a representative sample of 1327 Italian academic economists (secs p/01, p/02, p/03). Our analysis highlights the limited sensitivity of bibliometric rankings with respect to the citation indexes (h, g, g*, f, t, F-max) and, vice versa, a greater sensitivity with respect to the database (Scopus, WoS, EconLit, Google Scholar). Finally, our estimates reveal that faculty position, Scientific Disciplinary Sector (SSD), geographic location, and, in some regressions, the size of the university, explain approximately 20% of the valiance in scholars' bibliometric performance. Addresses: [Abatemarco, Antonio; Dell'Anno, Roberto] Univ Salerno, Dipartimento Econ & Stat, I-84084 Fisciano, SA, Italy. E-mail Addresses: aabatemarco at unisa.it; rdellanno at unisa.it Cited Reference Count: 56 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SOC ED IL MULINO, STRADA MAGGIORE 37, 40125 BOLOGNA, ITALY ISSN: 1120-2890 Web of Science Categories: Economics Research Areas: Business & Economics IDS Number: 152OF Unique ID: WOS:000319540300006 Cited References: Dosi G., 2007, Rivista, Italiana degli Economisti, V12, P259 Pistotti V., 2005, Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, VXXII, P317 Harzing A.W., 2011, Publish or Perish 3.1, Tosi P., 1999, Working Paper Unit, no. 10, Dolado J. J., 2003, Spanish Economic Review, V5, P85 Anvur, 2011, Criteri e parametri di valutazione dei candidati e dei commissari nazionale scientifica, Adler R., 2008, Citation Statistic, Jin B. H., 2006, Science Focus, V1, P8 Ashton T. S., 1971, The Study of Economic History, P161 Batista Pablo D., 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V68, P179 De Bellis N, 2005, La citazione bibliografica nell'epoca della sua riproducibilita tecnica: bibliometria e analisi delle citazioni dallo Science Citation Index alla Cybermetrica, Figa Talamanca A, 2000, L'Impact Factor nella valutazione della ricerca e nello sviluppo dell'editoria scientifica, SINM 2000: un modello di sistema informativo nazionale per aree disciplinari, Egghe L., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P8 Wu Qiang, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P609 Evans J.T., 1990, Jamam, V263, P1353 Pasinetti L., 2006, Rivista Italiana degli Economisti, V11, P463 Meho Lokman I., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P2105 Katsaros C., 2006, Scientometrics, V72, P253 Schulmeister L., 1998, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, V30, P143 Jin BiHui, 2007, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V52, P855 Marcuzzo M. C., 2010, Politica Economica, V26, P409 Breno E., 2002, Scientific Research in Italian Universities: An Initial Analysis of the Citations in the ISI Data Bank, Harzing A. W., 2008, Google Scholar-A New Data Source for Citation Analysis, Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 ROUSSEAU R, 1992, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V48, P79 Tol Richard S. J., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P317 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P830 Baccini A., 2010, Valutare la ricerth scientifica. Uso e abuso degli indicatori bibliometrici, Rousseau R., 2001, Proceedings of the Second Berlin Workshop on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Berlin, van Dalen HP, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P209 Moxharn H., 1992, Science and Technology Policy, V5, P7 Corsi Marcella, 2011, ECONOMIA POLITICA, V28, P369 Labbe C., 2010, 22th newsletter of the international society for scientometrics and informatrics, V6, P48 Harzing A.W., 2010, The Impact of Different Data Sources and Citation Metrics, Woeginger Gerhard J., 2008, MATHEMATICAL SOCIAL SCIENCES, V56, P224 Marcuzzo M. C., 2007, Rivista Italiana degli Economisti, V12, P277 Tarantino E., 2006, Bollettino AIB, V46, P23 Schreiber M., 2008, New Journal of Physics, V10, P1 CIVR, 2006, Linee guida per la valutazione della ricerca, Burgos A., 2010, Working Paper Series, V2, Mahlck P, 2000, SCIENTOMETRICS, V49, P81 Abatemarco A., 2012, Rivista Italiana degli Economisti, V17, P441 Atnin M., 2000, Perspectives in Publishing, V1, P1 MOED HF, 1985, RESEARCH POLICY, V14, P131 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Abatemarco Antonio, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P263 Geraci Marco, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P667 Kosmulski M., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P4 Bruno B., 2010, MPRA no. 27730, Cainelli G., 2006, Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, VXXIII, P385 Beaver DD, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P399 Anvur, 2011, Sul documento Anvur relativo ai criteri di dbilitazione scientifica nazionale, commenti, osservazioni critiche e proposte di soluzione, Bata W. G., 1998, Annals of Emergency Medicine, V32, P310 CANO V, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICS, V22, P297 van Raan AFJ, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V59, P467 Zhang C.-T., 2009, Public Library of Science (PLoS ONE), V4, P1 ======================================================================= Title: Author recognition, *impact factor*, relevance, and the meaning of publishing Authors: Rocha, MOD Author Full Names: da Costa Rocha, Manoel Otavio Source: REVISTA DA SOCIEDADE BRASILEIRA DE MEDICINA TROPICAL, 46 (2):125-127; 10.1590/0037-8682-0070-2013 MAR-APR 2013 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material KeyWords Plus: MEDICAL JOURNALS; SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION; LATIN-AMERICA; DISEASES; QUALITY Addresses: Univ Fed Minas Gerais, Ctr Posgrad, FM, BR-30130150 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. E-mail Addresses: rochamoc at terra.com.br Cited Reference Count: 18 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SOC BRASILEIRA MEDICINA TROPICAL, UNIV BRASILIA, NUCLEO MEDICINA TROPICAL E NUTRICAO, CAIXA POSTAL 4356, BRASILIA, DF 70919-970, BRAZIL ISSN: 0037-8682 Web of Science Categories: Tropical Medicine Research Areas: Tropical Medicine IDS Number: 153TM Unique ID: WOS:000319625400001 Cited References: King DA, 2004, NATURE, V430, P311 Yousefi-Nooraie Reza, 2006, BMC medical research methodology, V6, P37 CHAMBERS I, 2009, LANCET, V374, P86 Hunter Paul R., 2009, LANCET, V373, P630 Gonzalez-Alcaide Gregorio, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P297 de Meis L, 2003, BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, V36, P1135 Horton R, 2003, LANCET, V361, P712 Helene A. F., 2006, BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, V39, P839 Coura JR, 2003, MEMORIAS DO INSTITUTO OSWALDO CRUZ, V98, P293 Meneghini Rogerio, 2008, PLOS ONE, V3, 2005, PLOS MED, V2, PE272 Zorzetto R., 2006, BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, V39, P1513 Perel Pablo, 2008, PLOS ONE, V3, WAGNER CS, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V9, P101 Saad Everardo D., 2008, CLINICS, V63, P293 VESSURI H, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V34, P139 2006, CLINICS, V65, Pinto AC, 1999, QUIMICA NOVA, V22, P448 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= Title: Journal Impact Factors: Their relevance and their influence on society-published scientific journals Authors: Putirka, K; Kunz, M; Swainson, I; Thomson, J Author Full Names: Putirka, Keith; Kunz, Martin; Swainson, Ian; Thomson, Jennifer Source: AMERICAN MINERALOGIST, 98 (5-6):1055-1065; 10.2138/am.2013.4357 MAY-JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Impact factor, bibliometrics, mineralogy, petrology, geochemistry KeyWords Plus: HISTORY Abstract: We examine the nature and temporal trends of science journal publishing, and seek to explain why some journals have higher Journal Impact Factors (JIF) than others. The investigation has implications for how we assess the importance of scientific contributions. National Laboratories run by the U.S. Department of Energy, for example, compare JIF across disciplines, while some academic institutions look at JIF when evaluating publication records. Problematic to these policies are several results, which have long been known in the medical and biological sciences, and are shown here to apply to the Earth sciences as well. In particular, citations are distributed almost logarithmically in any given issue of a journal, and so JIFs say nothing about the actual number of citations acquired by any given paper. In the area of mineralogy and petrology, for example, 25% of articles in a typical issue will capture >50% of all citations that accrue to that issue. For some issues the asymm! etry is greater; we use such citation asymmetry to develop a classification for journals as "super elite," "elite," "influential," and "minor." We also find that JIFs are inherently larger for large disciplines, in part because as the size of a discipline increases (as measured by total papers published), the top journals benefit to a greater extent than other journals. For this and other reasons, JIF cannot be compared across disciplines. A heretofore unknown and disconcerting result is the incredible growth in JIFs for commercially published journals compared to their society-published counterparts a growth that coincides with the advent of electronic distribution models (e.g., bundling) that were instituted by commercial publishers at the beginning of the 21st century. Journals, which only a decade ago had similar JIFs, and were viewed as being scientifically equivalent, now have very different JIFs. These contrasts may nucleate feedback loops (as authors look to higher ! JIF journals in which to publish) that threaten the health of ! society- published journals. Our analysis however, shows that in spite of growing contrasts in JIF, many society-published journals still provide a greater value (JIF/cost) compared to their commercially published counterparts. While we acknowledge that citations and citation rates can be useful tools to compare scientific influence and importance, the results of this and other bibliometric studies cause us to conclude that in the evaluation of science and scientists, it is a grave error to substitute numerical values for human judgment. And if professional societies are to continue to play a significant role in science publication, it is incumbent upon scientists-now more than ever-to send their best works to society-published journals. Keywords: Impact factor, bibliometrics, mineralogy, petrology, geochemistry Addresses: [Putirka, Keith] Calif State Univ Fresno, Dept Earth & Environm Sci, Fresno, CA 93740 USA. [Kunz, Martin] Univ Calif Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab, ALS, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA. [Swainson, Ian] Natl Res Council Canada, Canadian Neutron Beam Ctr, Chalk River Labs, Chalk River, ON K8A 6W6, Canada. [Thomson, Jennifer] Eastern Washington Univ, Dept Geol, Cheney, WA 99004 USA. E-mail Addresses: keith_putirka at csufresno.edu; mkunz at lbl.gov; Ian.Swainson at usask.ca; jthomson at ewu.edu Funding Acknowledgement: Mineralogical Society of America Funding Text: We thank the Past-President of the Mineralogical Society of America, Mike Hochella, for his support and for highly thoughtful comments on this paper; the senior author is especially appreciative of many stimulating discussions with M. Hochella regarding journal impact factors and related topics that inspired a large fraction of this work. We also thank Alex Speer, who first clearly identified electronic distribution methods as a concern for society-based publications, especially with regard to JIF. We thank Editor Simon Redfern for handling our manuscript, and Mark Welch and an anonymous reviewer for their very thoughtful comments and suggestions. Cited Reference Count: 13 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: MINERALOGICAL SOC AMER, 3635 CONCORDE PKWY STE 500, CHANTILLY, VA 20151-1125 USA ISSN: 0003-004X Web of Science Categories: Geochemistry & Geophysics; Mineralogy Research Areas: Geochemistry & Geophysics; Mineralogy IDS Number: 149GL Unique ID: WOS:000319306900025 Cited References: Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Archambault Eric, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V79, P635 SCImago, 2007, SJR-SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Habibzadeh Farrokh, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P164 Seglen PO, 1997, ALLERGY, V52, P1050 Mutz Ruediger, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P169 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Nature Publishing Group, 2005, Nature, V435, P1003 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V56, P223 RIBBE PH, 1988, AMERICAN MINERALOGIST, V73, P449 Hecht F, 1998, CANCER GENETICS AND CYTOGENETICS, V104, P77 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Frazier K., 2001, D-Lib Magazine, V7, ======================================================================= Title: QUALITY OF RESEARCH OUTPUT INDICATORS AND THEIR IMPACT ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF PAKISTAN Authors: Tufail, S; Ehsan, N Author Full Names: Tufail, S.; Ehsan, N. Editor(s): Chova LG; Martinez AL; Torres IC Source: 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND INNOVATION (ICERI 2012), 4250-4263; 2012 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: 5th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI) Conference Date: NOV 19-21, 2012 Conference Location: Madrid, SPAIN Author Keywords: Research, Socioeconomic, research outcomes KeyWords Plus: COUNTRIES Abstract: This research study explores the significant predictors and dimensions of quality of research outcomes with respect to its impact on socio economic development of Pakistan. The paper argues about certain research quality indicators, their limitations, ideology to choose them and consequently the impact of each indicator with few socioeconomic measures. The paper also discusses the special symmetry exists between research outcomes and socio economic development. The primary goal of this research study is to produce a system of Quality indicators for research outcomes produced in Higher Education institutes of Pakistan. Secondly the areas of research are also be analysed which are to be focused in future. Questionnaire survey of almost 200 respondents is performed including PhD Scholars (discipline-wise) as well as PhD supervisors. The study correlates the quality parameters i.e. Article Citation, Journal Impact factor and Ranking, Journal publication acceptance rate (Rejectio! n Rate) with socio economic indicators i.e. Return on Investment, Patents issued, Bibliometrics, Peer Reviews etc. for undertaking Research at PhD and MS level. The scope of research study only focused the academic sector i.e. PhD Scholars (7150) and Graduates having one or two research publications etc. from various disciplines of Pakistan. Addresses: [Tufail, S.] Higher Educ Commiss, Islamabad, Pakistan. E-mail Addresses: stufail at hec.gov.pk Cited Reference Count: 35 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IATED-INT ASSOC TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION A& DEVELOPMENT, LAURI VOLPI 6, VALENICA, BURJASSOT 46100, SPAIN ISBN: 978-84-616-0763-1 Web of Science Categories: Education & Educational Research Research Areas: Education & Educational Research IDS Number: BEW64 Unique ID: WOS:000318422204040 Cited References: De Moya-Anegon F, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS, V46, P299 Boaz A., 2003, Working Paper 11, Organization of the Islamic Conference-OIC, 2011, King DA, 2004, NATURE, V430, P311 Adams J., 2010, Thomas Reuters-Global Research Report, [Anonymous], 2009, United Nations ESCAP-Statistical Yearbook for Asia and The Pacific, Litman T., 2011, Evaluating Research Quality; Guidelines for Scholarship, Vinkler Peter, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P237 Falk Martin, 2009, APPLIED ECONOMICS LETTERS, V16, P1025 Sumanth David J., 1994, Productivity Engineering and Management, Dijkgraaf R., 2011, Interim report by Committee on Quality Indicators in The Humanities, Kealey T., 1996, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, Adams Jonathan, 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P19 OECD, 1982, DSTI/SPR/82, V74, P21 vanRaan AFJ, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P397 Loschky A, 2008, JCR Technical Report, Office of Science and Technology, 2003, PSA Target Base Metrics for UK Research Base, Katz J. S., 2005, Indicators for Complex Innovation Systems, United States General Accounting Office (GAO), 1997, GAO/RCED-97-91, P20548 Price De Solla, 1969, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, V4, P98 UNESCO, 2011, Human Resource Development, UIS Fact Sheet, Ahmad M. A., 1999, Annalen der Physik, V49, P769 Godin B., 2002, Output: When Economics Drives Science and Technology Measurements, Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P353 [Anonymous], 1993, Human resources for science & technology: the Asian region By Jean M. Johnson, Office of Technology Assessment OTA-TMSET, 1986, Archibugi D., 2001, The direct measurement of the technological innovation in Business, P6 Godin B., Measuring the Impacts of Science, Price De Solla, 1978, Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators, P69 GOKCE S. G., 2010, The Impact Of R& D Intensity On High-Tech Exports: Case Of Turkey And Eu-27 Countries, Kirankabes M. C., 2010, Euro Journals, Van Raan A. F. J., 2000, Research Evaluation, V8, P81 FRED Y.YE, 2007, Scientometrics, V71, P407 Wooding S., 2003, Assessing Research: The Researchers' View, Selcuk R. S., 2005, Review of Educational Research, V75, P417 ======================================================================= From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Fri Jul 19 12:54:41 2013 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:54:41 +0000 Subject: Papers from SCIENTOMETRICS - JULY 2013 Message-ID: *Record 1 Title: Patterns of authors' information scattering: towards a causal explanation of information scattering from a scholarly information-seeking behavior perspective Authors: Bigdeli, Z; Kokabi, M; Rajabi, GR; Gazni, A Author Full Names: Bigdeli, Zahed; Kokabi, Morteza; Rajabi, Gholam Reza; Gazni, Ali Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):103-131; 10.1007/s11192-012-0885-4 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bradford's law, Information scattering, Scholarly information-seeking behavior, Scholarly journal usage, Information scattering explanation, Authors' patterns of information scattering KeyWords Plus: ELECTRONIC JOURNAL USE; BRADFORD LAW; CITATION ANALYSIS; INFORMETRIC DISTRIBUTIONS; SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION; DIGITAL LIBRARIES; SOCIAL-SCIENCES; ONLINE JOURNALS; PRINT JOURNALS; IMPACT FACTOR Abstract: This study primarily aims to reveal the worldwide patterns of authors' information scattering through illustrating the possible differences among authors based on subject, country, geographic region, institution, economic and scientific level factors. Second, changes in patterns of information scattering during the past 21 years are checked. Finally, a hypothesis aimed at demonstrating a probable relationship among the three research domains including information scattering, scholarly information-seeking behavior and scholarly journal usage is presented. 176,943 authors, who have more than ten papers in WoS from 1990 to 2010 were examined. The findings revealed that patterns of information scattering have changed during the past 21 years, and the number of journals in the core and middle zones has almost doubled. It was also found that authors tend to use a small number of journals to retrieve the majority of their required information, while a small amount of their informat! ion needs come from a wide variety of journals. However, with regard to patterns of information scattering, some differences exist among authors based on factors including institutions, countries and subject fields. In addition, this study shows that information-scattering patterns might be affected by scholars' information-seeking behaviors. A causal explanation of information scattering through scholarly information-seeking behavior has, without a doubt, the potential to provide practical solutions to better meet scholars' information needs and requirements. Addresses: [Bigdeli, Zahed; Kokabi, Morteza; Rajabi, Gholam Reza; Gazni, Ali] Shahid Chamran Univ, Dept Lib & Informat Sci, Ahwaz, Iran. [Gazni, Ali] Islamic World Sci Citat Ctr ISC, Shiraz, Iran. E-mail Addresses: ali.gazni at isc.gov.ir Cited Reference Count: 137 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500007 Cited References: Lotka A., 1926, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, V16, P317 Herbertz H, 1995, RESEARCH POLICY, V24, P959 Bensman Stephen J., 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1097 Case D. O., 2002, Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking needs and behavior, Didegah Fereshteh, 2011, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V24, P303 Hood WW, 2001, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V52, P1242 Rowlands Ian, 2007, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V59, P222 Carnap R., 1938, International encyclopedia of unified science, Galison P., 1998, Image and logic, CULNAN MJ, 1984, ACM TRANSACTIONS ON OFFICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, V2, P141 Bates M. J., 2002, Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on conceptions of library and information science (CoLIS4), P137 Wenger E, 2000, ORGANIZATION, V7, P225 BRODY S, 1995, LANCET, V346, P1300 David S., 1996, The disunity of science: boundaries, contexts, and power, Sandstrom P. E., 1998, Information foraging among anthropologists in the invisible college of human behavioral ecology: An author co-citation analysis, CULNAN MJ, 1985, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V36, P302 Nicholas David, 2006, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V42, P1345 Ziman J., 1968, Public knowledge: an essay concerning the social dimension of science, Anderson J. C., 1979, 24th International Meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences, Honolulu, Yoda T, 2001, Science and technology collaboration: building capacities in developing countries?, De Groote Sandra L., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V96, P362 Wilson CS, 1999, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V34, P107 Bradford S. C., 1953, Documentation, White HD, 2001, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V52, P87 Chattopadhyay A., 2009, Indian Journal of Dental Research, V20, P123 Bigdeli Zahed, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P505 Kuruppu Pali U., 2008, PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY, V8, P387 Sonnenwald D. H., 2005, Maglaughlin, K. L. , & Sonnenwald, D. H. ( 2005). Factors that impact interdisciplinary natural science research collaboration in academia. In P. Ingwersen & B. Larsen ( Eds. ), Proceedings of the ISSI 2005- the 10th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and infor- metrics, SProceedings of the ISSI 2005- the 10th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and infor- metrics, July 24-28th, Stockholm, Sweden, P1 Bhavnani SK, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P989 Zipf G. K., 1936, The psycho-biology of language. An introduction to dynamic philology, Blau P. M., 1964, Exchange and Power in Social Life, Dilek-Kayaoglu Hulya, 2008, JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, V34, P239 Bornmann Luti, 2008, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V64, P45 Ohniwa RL, 2004, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V13, P175 Nicholas D, 2006, JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, V32, P119 Garfield E., 1980, Essays of an Information Scientist, V4, P476 Wilson T. D., 1994, Fifty years of information progress: A Journal of Documentation review, P15 Zipf G. K., 1949, Human behavior and the principle of least effort, Dillon IF, 2002, PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY, V2, P375 RICE RE, 1988, ACM TRANSACTIONS ON OFFICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, V6, P255 SCALES PA, 1976, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V32, P17 Fidel Raya, 2008, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V30, P265 ELLIS D, 1989, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V45, P171 Pirmann C. M., 2009, Report Commissioned by OCLC Research, Rowlands Ian, 2007, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V29, P369 Belefant-Miller H, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P179 URQUHART DJ, 1977, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V33, P149 Kurmis AP, 2006, ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, V13, P77 Olle Candela, 2010, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V32, P221 OPPENHEIM P, 1958, MINNESOTA STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, V2, P3 Potter W. G., 1988, Journal of Academic Librarianship, V14, P238 Nicholas David, 2007, JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, V33, P629 ELLIS D, 1993, LIBRARY QUARTERLY, V63, P469 Bradford S. C., 1934, Engineering, V137, P85 Bookstein A, 1997, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V48, P2 Hurd JM, 1997, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIES, V16, P147 Frandsen Tove Faber, 2009, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V65, P58 Didegah F., 2011, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V63, P323 Whitworth James A. G., 2008, LANCET, V372, P1590 Duy Joanna, 2006, JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, V32, P512 McKibbon Kathleen Ann, 2004, BMC MEDICINE, V2, De Groote SL, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V93, P223 Bates M.J., 2002, New Review of Information Behaviour Research, V3, Kling R, 2000, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V51, P1306 Voorbij H, 2006, JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, V32, P223 Sandstrom P. E., 1999, Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, V25, P17 Gorraiz J., 2010, LIBER Quarterly, V20, Vickery B. C., 1959, Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information, V2, P855 MOTE LJB, 1962, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V18, P169 Cartwright N., 1999, The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science, Vakkari P., 2006, Proceedings of 69th annual meeting of the American society for information science and technology, P43 Jaccard J., 2009, Theory construction and model building skills: A practical guide for social scientists, Didegah Fereshteh, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P516 Darmoni SJ, 2002, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V90, P323 Nchinda TC, 2002, SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, V54, P1699 Poole H., 1985, Theories of the middle range, Trueswell R. L., 1969, Wilson Library Bulletin, V43, P458 BOOKSTEIN A, 1994, SCIENTOMETRICS, V30, P353 Siatri R, 1999, LIBRI, V49, P132 Siegelman SS, 1998, RADIOLOGY, V208, P9 Schloegl C, 2004, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V55, P1155 SCANLAN BD, 1987, SERIALS LIBRARIAN, V13, P57 Bhavnani SK, 2005, AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTIONGenerative CAD Systems Symposium 2004, JUL 12-15, 2004, Pittsburgh, PA, V14, P724 OREILLY CA, 1982, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V25, P756 Brennan MJ, 2002, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V63, P515 Sathe NA, 2002, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION50th Annual Meeting of the Southern-Chapter-of-the-Medical-Library-Association, OCT, 2000, MOBILE, ALABAMA, V90, P235 Rousseau R., 1990, Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science, Tenopir C., 2003, Use and users of electronic library resources: An overview and analysis of recent research studies, SANDSTROM PE, 1994, LIBRARY QUARTERLY, V64, P414 Bhavnani S. K., 2010, Information scattering. Encyclopedia of library and information sciences , Schloegl Christian, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P161 Wilson TD, 1999, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V55, P249 Nicholas D, 2005, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V61, P248 BONITZ M, 1980, SCIENTOMETRICS, V2, P203 Cole S, 2000, WEB OF KNOWLEDGE - A FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF EUGENE GARFIELD, P109 URQUHART DJ, 1948, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V3, P222 YABLONSKY AI, 1980, SCIENTOMETRICS, V2, P3 BROOKES BC, 1979, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V30, P233 Tsay MY, 1998, BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V86, P31 BASU A, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE3RD INTERNATIONAL CONF ON INFORMETRICS : ON THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF BRADFORDS LAW, AUG, 1991, BANGALORE, INDIA, V43, P494 Garfield E., 1971, Current Contents, V17, P5 TENOPIR C, 1982, ONLINE REVIEW, V6, P423 Jin Bihui, 2007, Proceedings of ISSI 2007: 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Vols I and II11th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientrometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 25-27, 2007, Madrid, SPAIN, P427 WagnerDobler R, 1996, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V22, P125 BOOKSTEIN A, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P376 HUBERT JJ, 1978, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V29, P159 LANCASTER FW, 1985, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V36, P389 Connell TH, 2005, PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY, V5, P371 STOKES TD, 1989, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V19, P101 MORSE PM, 1981, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V32, P43 TAGUESUTCLIFFE J, 1992, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V28, P1 Kelly D., 2009, Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, V3, P1 Gazni Ali, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V37, P273 Fuchs Beth E., 2006, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V67, P304 Bensman J. S., 2001, International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) Journal, V27, P238 Bradford S. C., 1948, The Royal Society Empire Scientific Conference, June-July, 1946, V1, P729 Tonta YA, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P84 Vaughan KTL, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY7th Quadrennial Tri-Society Symposium, JUN 09, 2002, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, V54, P1149 Vickery B. C., 1959, Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information, V2, P1275 De Groote SL, 2001, BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V89, P372 CHEN YS, 1986, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V37, P307 Bollen J, 2005, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V41, P1419 FEDOROWICZ J, 1982, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V33, P285 WANNER RA, 1981, SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION, V54, P238 Ware M., 2009, The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journals publishing, BOOKSTEIN A, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P368 Smith L., 1981, Library Trends, V30, P85 SHAW WM, 1981, SCIENTOMETRICS, V3, P235 Chrzastowski TE, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P1141 Nicholas David, 2010, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V66, P409 Papin-Ramcharan J, 2006, LIBRI, V56, P16 Davis PM, 2004, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V55, P326 Meho LI, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P570 GRIFFITH BC, 1972, SCIENCE, V177, P959 Brady Eileen E., 2006, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V67, P354 Nicolaisen Jeppe, 2007, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V63, P359 Burright MA, 2005, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V66, P198 ======================================================================== *Record 3 Title: Comparison of independent research of China's top universities using bibliometric indicators Authors: Fu, HZ; Ho, YS Author Full Names: Fu, Hui-Zhen; Ho, Yuh-Shan Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):259-276; 10.1007/s11192-012-0912-5 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Scientometrics, Peak-year citations per publication, h-Index, Science indicators, Web of science KeyWords Plus: PEKING-UNIVERSITY; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; TSINGHUA-UNIVERSITY; CITATION ANALYSIS; MATERIALS SCIENCE; RESEARCH OUTPUT; INDEX; PUBLICATIONS Abstract: The institutionally independent publications of Tsinghua University and Peking University were compared by two main indicators namely peak-year citations per publication and h-index, based on the data extracted from the Science Citation Index Expanded, Web of Science from 1974 to 2011. Analyzed aspects covered total publication outputs, annual production, impact, authorships, Web of Science categories, journals, and most *cited articles*. Results shows that the two universities were in the same scale based on the peak-year citations per publication, the h-index, and top *cited articles* with no less than 100 citations. Publication of the top three most productive Web of Science categories differed between these two universities. Tsinghua University published more articles in applied science and engineering fields, while Peking University had more basic science articles. In addition, article life was applied to compare the impact of the most *cited articles* and single author! articles of the two universities. Addresses: [Fu, Hui-Zhen; Ho, Yuh-Shan] Asia Univ, Trend Res Ctr, Taichung 41354, Taiwan. [Fu, Hui-Zhen; Ho, Yuh-Shan] Peking Univ, Dept Environm Sci, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: ysho at asia.edu.tw Cited Reference Count: 72 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500016 Cited References: Luan Chunjuan, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P53 Aksnes DW, 2004, RESEARCH EVALUATION9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V13, P33 Huang R. M., 2006, Chinese Journal of Medical Library and Information Science, V15, P74 Picknett T, 1999, JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, V293, P173 Lou Jianling, 2009, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, V606, P645 Zhu X, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P237 Liu BD, 2001, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, V9, P713 Aksnes DW, 2003, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V12, P159 Ho Y. S., 2004, Scientometrics, V60, P205 Mokhnacheva Yu. V., 2011, HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, V81, P569 Usang B., 2007, Educational Research and Review, V2, P103 Annibaldi Anna, 2010, ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, V398, P17 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 NAGPAUL PS, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V32, P11 Hou TJ, 2001, JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR GRAPHICS & MODELLING, V19, P455 Chiu WT, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V63, P3 Farber M, 2005, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V31, P62 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Schloegl C, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P287 Kang K. J., 1978, Nuclear Physics A, V834, P736C Liu Kexin, 2007, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION B-BEAM INTERACTIONS WITH MATERIALS AND ATOMS10th International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, SEP 05-10, 2005, Berkeley, CA, V259, P23 Ho Yuh-Shan, 2012, CHINESE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, V20, P478 Pouris Anastassios, 2007, HIGHER EDUCATION, V54, P501 Van Raan AFJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V67, P491 Chuang Kun-Yang, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P551 Zorzetto R., 2006, BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, V39, P1513 DANIEL HD, 1990, SCIENTOMETRICS, V19, P349 Zhang M. W., 2000, Information Science, V18, P177 MOED HF, 1985, RESEARCH POLICY, V14, P131 AVRAMESCU A, 1979, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V30, P296 He Tianwei, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P571 Li Zhi, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P97 Kostoff Ronald N., 2008, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V53, P1272 KING J, 1988, SCIENTOMETRICS, V14, P295 Liu R., 2008, LASER AND PARTICLE BEAMS, V26, P33 Wang Ming-Huang, 2011, DESALINATION AND WATER TREATMENT, V28, P353 Wang Ming-Huang, 2011, MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE, V16, P1 Makino J, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS, V43, P87 Costas Rodrigo, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P193 Van den Berghe H, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE4th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, OCT 05-07, 1995, ANTWERP, BELGIUM, V49, P59 He J. X., 2007, Journal of Library and Information Sciences in Agriculture, V19, P181 Han WQ, 1997, SCIENCE, V277, P1287 ANDERSON RC, 1978, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V29, P91 Fu Hui-Zhen, 2012, JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE, V379, P148 Wang Y. B., 2007, Journal of Library and Information Sciences in Agriculture, V18, P181 Chuang Kun-Yang, 2012, POLISH JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, V21, P1175 Zhang Weiwei, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P305 Leonardelli S., 2008, JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING, V12, P285 Pan S. Y., 2004, How higher education institutions cope with social change: the case of Tsinghua University? China, Chuang Kun-Yang, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V72, P201 Mervis Jeffrey, 2010, SCIENCE, V327, P407 Fakhree Mohammad A. Abolghassemi, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P205 WANG B, 1992, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE, V30, P781 TU CY, 1988, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, V93, P7 Davis G, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V35, P45 Gao Song, 2010, ADVANCED MATERIALS, V22, P1428 Kostoff Ronald N., 2012, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V79, P986 Kong YC, 2001, APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS, V78, P407 Sullivan R., 2011, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V47, P536 Van Raan A, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICSInternational Expert Meeting on Evaluation, JUL 03-05, 1998, VIENNA, AUSTRIA, V45, P417 Martin BR, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P343 FRAME JD, 1987, SCIENTOMETRICS, V12, P135 PIEL G, 1986, SCIENCE, V231, P201 Zhu SL, 2003, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, V91, Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P23 Xu Yuxi, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, V130, P5856 Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 Zachos G., 1992, Scientometrics, V21, P195 Treiman D. J., 2002, The growth and determinants of literacy in China, Hayhoe R, 2005, COMPARATIVE EDUCATION REVIEW, V49, P575 Zhang Xi, 2011, ADVANCED MATERIALS, V23, P1042 Ho YS, 2006, WATER RESEARCH, V40, P119 ======================================================================== *Record 5 Title: Experimenting with the partnership ability phi-index on a million computer scientists Authors: Cabanac, G Author Full Names: Cabanac, Guillaume Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):1-9; 10.1007/s11192-012-0862-y JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Partnership ability index, Co-authorship, Empirical validation, Symbolic regression KeyWords Plus: JOURNALS Abstract: Schubert introduced the partnership ability phi-index relying on a researcher's number of co-authors and collaboration rate. As a Hirsch-type index, phi was expected to be consistent with Schubert-Glanzel's model of h-index. Schubert demonstrated this relationship with the 34 awardees of the Hevesy medal in the field of nuclear and radiochemistry (r (2) = 0.8484). In this paper, we upscale this study by testing the phi-index on a million researchers in computer science. We found that the Schubert-Glanzel's model correlates with the million empirical phi values (r (2) = 0.8695). In addition, machine learning through symbolic regression produces models whose accuracy does not exceed a 6.1 % gain (r (2) = 0.9227). These results suggest that the Schubert-Glanzel's model of phi-index is accurate and robust on the domain-wide *bibliographic* dataset of computer science. Addresses: Univ Toulouse, Dept Comp Sci, IRIT, UMR 5505,CNRS, F-31062 Toulouse 9, France. E-mail Addresses: guillaume.cabanac at univ-tlse3.fr Cited Reference Count: 21 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500001 Cited References: Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Freyne J., 2010, Communications of the ACM, V53, P124 Schubert Andras, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P303 Schubert Andras, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P179 Cabanac Guillaume, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P597 Bar-Ilan Judit, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P1 Koza J. R., 1992, Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection, Cabanac Guillaume, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P977 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Chen Jilin, 2010, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, V53, P79 Glanzel W, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V67, P67 Ley M., 2002, SPIRE'02 : Proceedings of the 9th international conference on string processing and information retrieval, V2476, P1 Zhao Star X., 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P668 Elmacioglu E, 2005, SIGMOD RECORD, V34, P33 Schubert Andras, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P480 Rousseau Ronald, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P309 Lotka A., 1926, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, V16, P317 Schreiber M., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P347 Wolfram D, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS33rd Annual Conference of the Canadian-Association-for-Information-Science, JUN 02-04, 2005, London, CANADA, V67, P301 Mallig Nicolai, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P564 Schmidt Michael, 2009, SCIENCE, V324, P81 ======================================================================== *Record 6 Title: The role of statistics in establishing the similarity of citation distributions in a static and a dynamic context Authors: Ruiz-Castillo, J Author Full Names: Ruiz-Castillo, Javier Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):173-181; 10.1007/s11192-013-0954-3 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation distributions, Characteristic scores and scales, Power law distribution, Lognormal distribution, Log-location-scale family of distributions, Panel models, Multivariate models KeyWords Plus: RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; SCIENTOMETRIC INDICATORS; CHARACTERISTIC SCORES; SCIENCE; SCALES; UNIVERSALITY; IMPACT Abstract: Certain key questions in *Scientometrics* can only be answered by following a statistical approach. This paper illustrates this point for the following question: how similar are citation distributions with a fixed, common citation window for every science in a static context, and how similar are they when the citation process of a given cohort of papers is modeled in a dynamic context?. Addresses: Univ Carlos III, Dept Econ, Madrid, Spain. E-mail Addresses: jrc at eco.uc3m.es Funding Acknowledgement: Spanish MEC [SEJ2007-67436] Funding Text: Financial support from the Spanish MEC, through Grant No. SEJ2007-67436, as well as conversations with Pedro Albarran are gratefully acknowledged. A referee report helped to improve the original version of the paper. All shortcomings are the author's sole responsibility. Cited Reference Count: 34 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500010 Cited References: Glanzel W., 1985, Scientometrics indicators. A 32 country comparison of publication productivity and citation impact, Diggle P. J., 2002, Analysis of longitudinal data, Schubert A, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P311 Clauset Aaron, 2009, SIAM REVIEW, V51, P661 Herranz N., 2012, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P92 Radicchi F., 2012, PLoS One, V7, P1 MOED HF, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P381 Molenberghs G., 2005, Models for discrete longitudinal data, PRICE DJD, 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 Katz J. S., 2000, Science and Public Policy, V27, P23 Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V37, P40 Vinkler P, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V58, P687 SCHUBERT A, 1987, SCIENTOMETRICS, V12, P267 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P72 Zuckerman H., 1984, Advances in Motivation and Achievement, V2, P217 Arellano M., 2001, V5, SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 van Raan A. F. J., 1988, P177 Albarran Pedro, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P40 Braun T., 1983, Proceedings of the First National Conference with International Participation in Scientometrics and Linguistics of Scientific Text, P80 Radicchi Filippo, 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V105, P17268 MOED HF, 1985, RESEARCH POLICY, V14, P131 Crespo J. A., 2012, Working paper 12-06, Albarran Pedro, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P385 Radicchi Filippo, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P121 Schubert A., 1988, P137 Wang Y., 2012, NBER Working Paper No. 18625, SCHUBERT A, 1986, SCIENTOMETRICS, V9, P281 MERTON RK, 1988, ISIS, V79, P606 Arellano Manuel, 2011, ANNUAL REVIEW OF ECONOMICS, VOL 3, V3, P395 Kelchtermans S., 2012, The Review of Economics & Statistics, MERTON RK, 1968, SCIENCE, V159, P56 VINKLER P, 1986, SCIENTOMETRICS, V10, P157 ======================================================================== *Record 7 Title: Can a personal website be useful as an information source to assess individual scientists? The case of European highly *cited* researchers Authors: Mas-Bleda, A; Aguillo, IF Author Full Names: Mas-Bleda, Amalia; Aguillo, Isidro F. Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):51-67; 10.1007/s11192-013-0952-5 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Highly cited researchers, Personal website, Europe, Indicators, Assessment KeyWords Plus: WEB SITES; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; SCIENCE RESEARCH; SOCIAL-SCIENCES; HOME PAGES; IMPACT; GENDER; ONLINE; CITATION; SELF Abstract: The web is not only the main scholarly communication tool but also an important source of additional information about the individual researchers, their scientific and academic activities and their formally and informally published results. The aim of this study is to investigate whether successful scientists use their personal websites to disseminate their work and career details and to know which specific contents are provided on those sites, in order to check if they could be used in research evaluation. The presence of the highly cited researchers working at European institutions were analysed, a group clearly biased towards senior male researchers working in large countries (United Kingdom and Germany). Results show that about two thirds of them have a personal website, specially the scientists from Denmark, Israel and the United Kingdom. The most frequent disciplines in those websites are economics, mathematics, computer sciences and space sciences, which probably refl! ect the success of open access subject repositories like RepEc, Arxiv or CiteSeerX. Other pieces of information analysed from the websites include personal and contact data, past experience and description of expertise, current activities and lists of the author's scientific papers. Indicators derived from most of these items can be used for developing a portfolio with evaluation purposes, but the overall availability of them in the population analysed is not representative enough by now for achieving that objective. Reasons for that insufficient coverage and suggestions for improvement are discussed. Addresses: [Mas-Bleda, Amalia; Aguillo, Isidro F.] CSIC, Cybermetr Lab, Inst Publ Goods & Policies IPP, Madrid 28037, Spain. E-mail Addresses: amalia.mas at cchs.csic.es; isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es Funding Acknowledgement: ACUMEN (Academic careers understood through Measurement and Norms) project under the Seventh Framework Program of the European Union [266632] Funding Text: This paper is supported by ACUMEN (Academic careers understood through Measurement and Norms) project, grant agreement number 266632, under the Seventh Framework Program of the European Union. Thanks are extended to Statistical Analysis Unit of the CCHS-CSIC (Spain) for its assistance and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. Cited Reference Count: 57 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500004 Cited References: Kretschmer H., 2012, Scientometrics, Hyland Ken, 2011, ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, V30, P286 Barjak Franz, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P1350 Chen Chuanfu, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P459 Thelwall M, 2004, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V55, P149 Frandsen Tove Faber, 2009, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V45, P131 Basu Aparna, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P361 Torres-Salinas Daniel, 2011, REVISTA ESPANOLA DE DOCUMENTACION CIENTIFICA, V34, P11 Batty L. M., 2009, Self-archiving of articles published in high-impact journals in the social sciences, Antelman K, 2004, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V65, P372 Pitzek S., 2002, Impact of online-availability of science literature, Ortega J. L., 2008, Higher Education in Europe, V33, P233 Chen Chuanfu, 2009, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V70, P386 Bordons M, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS7th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicatiors, SEP 25-28, 2002, KARLSRUHE, GERMANY, V57, P159 Penas Celia Sanchez, 2006, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V32, P480 Kousha Kayvan, 2007, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V29, P495 Zinkhan GM, 1999, ADVANCES IN CONSUMER RESEARCH, VOL 2626th Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, OCT 01-04, 1998, MONTREAL, CANADA, V26, P69 Bailey C. W., 2010, Transforming scholarly publishing through open access: A bibliography, Marcus B, 2006, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, V90, P1014 Parks M., 2003, annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA, Aksnes Dag W., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P628 Kousha Kayvan, 2009, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V61, P394 Pudovkin A., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICSJoint Meeting of the 7th International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics / 12th COLLNET Meeting, SEP 20-23, 2011, Istanbul, TURKEY, V93, P3 Dumont K, 2005, COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, V21, P73 ALLEA-ALL European Academies, 2012, Open Science for the 21st century. A declaration of ALL European Academies, Papacharissi Z, 2002, JOURNAL OF BROADCASTING & ELECTRONIC MEDIA, V46, P346 Kousha Kayvan, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P124 Hess M., 2002, Computer and Composition, V19, Herring SD, 2002, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V63, P334 Aksnes Dag W., 2011, PROCEEDINGS OF ISSI 2011: THE 13TH CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMETRICS, VOLS 1 AND 213th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics (ISSI), JUL 04-07, 2011, Durban, SOUTH AFRICA, P34 Thelwall M., 2005, First Monday, V10, Swan A., 2007, American Scientist, V95, P198 Barjak Franz, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P200 Prpic K, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V55, P27 Doring N., 2002, Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, V7, Antelman K, 2006, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V19, P85 Thelwall Mike, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P805 Shin EJ, 2003, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V29, P527 Batty M, 2003, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A, V35, P761 Frandsen Tove Faber, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P124 Batty M., 2003, The Scientist, V17, Groner R, 2010, Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, V4, Kousha Kayvan, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P2060 Kurtz M. J., 2004, Restrictive access policies cut readership of electronic research journal articles by factor of two, Flanagin AJ, 2003, COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, V19, P683 Swan A., 2010, Technical Report, School of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton, Mauleon E, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 23-25, 2004, Leiden, NETHERLANDS, V66, P199 Lawrence S, 2001, NATURE, V411, P521 Petric Gregor, 2006, INFORMATION SOCIETY, V22, P291 Schmitt Kelly L., 2008, DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY112th Annual Convention of the American-Psychological-Association, JUL 28-AUG 01, 2004, Honolulu, HI, V44, P496 Kousha Kayvan, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUL 24-28, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P501 Davis M. P., 2008, British Medical Journal, V337, Vaughan L, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P29 Vazire S, 2004, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, V87, P123 Fernandez Mario, 2009, REVISTA ESPANOLA DE DOCUMENTACION CIENTIFICA, V32, P51 Papacharissi Z, 2002, JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY, V79, P643 Lavaty R., 2007, How often do economists self-archive?, ======================================================================== *Record 8 Title: Global trends of solid waste research from 1997 to 2011 by using bibliometric analysis Authors: Yang, L; Chen, ZL; Liu, T; Gong, Z; Yu, YJ; Wang, J Author Full Names: Yang, Lie; Chen, Zhulei; Liu, Ting; Gong, Zhe; Yu, Yingjian; Wang, Jia Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):133-146; 10.1007/s11192-012-0911-6 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Solid waste, Bibliometric, SCI, Engineering, MSW KeyWords Plus: FOOD WASTE; SLUDGE; CHALLENGES; MANAGEMENT; PYROLYSIS; PRODUCTS; LEACHATE; SCIENCE; METALS; ENERGY Abstract: This study explores a bibliometric approach to quantitatively assessing current research trends on solid waste, by using the related literature published between 1997 and 2011 in journals of all the subject categories of the Science Citation Index. The articles acquired from such literature were concentrated on the general analysis by publication type and language, characteristics of articles outputs, country, subject categories and journals, and the frequency of title-words and keywords used. Over the past 15 years, there had been a notable growth trend in publication outputs, along with more participation of countries/territories. The seven major industrialized countries (G7) published the majority of the world articles, while their article share was being replacing by other countries represented by BRIC countries. An analysis of the title-words, author keywords and keywords plus showed that municipal solid waste and sludge were the major research types of solid wastes and! "anaerobic digestion", "wastewater" and "heavy metals" were recent major topics of solid waste research. Meanwhile, the analysis indicated the analysis technologies, represented by solid-phase extraction and tandem mass-spectrometry, were more and more widely used for solid waste research. Besides, life cycle assessment and health risk assessment were the most two frequently environmental assessment tools used for solid waste research in the 15-year research period. Addresses: [Yang, Lie; Chen, Zhulei; Gong, Zhe; Yu, Yingjian; Wang, Jia] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, Sch Environm Sci & Engn, Wuhan 430074, Peoples R China. [Liu, Ting] Huangshi Inst Technol, Huangshi 435000, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: czlgroup at sina.com Funding Acknowledgement: Natural Science Foundation of China [51278212]; Eleventh Five-year National Technology Supporting Plan Program of China [2006BAC06B04] Funding Text: The research reported here was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51278212) and the Eleventh Five-year National Technology Supporting Plan Program of China (No. 2006BAC06B04). Cited Reference Count: 28 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500008 Cited References: Cleary Julian, 2009, ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, V35, P1256 Huang Yi, 2008, Scientometrics, V75, Cheng Hefa, 2007, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V41, P7509 Zhang Lei, 2012, WASTE MANAGEMENT, V32, P1509 Caresana F., 2011, BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, V35, P4331 Braun T, 2000, CHEMICAL REVIEWS, V100, P23 Halim Azhar Abdul, 2010, DESALINATION, V262, P31 Arena Umberto, 2012, WASTE MANAGEMENT, V32, P625 Gaur Ankur, 2010, FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY, V91, P635 Chan J. K. Y., 2012, Science of The Total Environment, Velghe I., 2011, JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL AND APPLIED PYROLYSIS, V92, P366 Kim Jae Hyung, 2011, WASTE MANAGEMENT, V31, P2121 Buah W. K., 2007, PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, V85, P450 Wen Hang, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P51 Cui Jirang, 2008, JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, V158, P228 Yang Li Ying, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V93, P497 Pathak Ashish, 2009, JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, V90, P2343 Long Yu-Yang, 2011, JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, V186, P1082 Suk Fat-Moon, 2011, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, V23, P295 GARFIELD E, 1990, CURRENT CONTENTS, V32, P5 Saha Mithun, 2011, BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, V102, P7815 Mahmood Talat, 2006, WATER RESEARCH, V40, P2093 Zhang Weiwei, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P305 Chuang Kun-Yang, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V72, P201 Hazra Tumpa, 2009, WASTE MANAGEMENT, V29, P470 Yuan Hui, 2006, WASTE MANAGEMENT, V26, P1052 Ortega Lina M., 2007, SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY, V54, P306 Renou S., 2008, JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, V150, P468 ======================================================================== *Record 9 Title: Measuring the similarity between the reference and citation distributions of *journals* Authors: Schubert, A Author Full Names: Schubert, Andras Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):305-313; 10.1007/s11192-012-0889-0 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Journal, Citation, Reference, Similarity measure KeyWords Plus: COMMUNITY Abstract: The "Jaccardized Czekanowski index", JCz, an indicator measuring the similarity between the cited and citing journal list of a given journal is proposed in the paper. It is shown that the indicator characterizes the network properties of individual journals and, in aggregated form, also that of subject categories or countries. For subject categories, JCz appears to be related to the multidisciplinarity of the category. For countries, the multinational or local character of the publishers seems to have determining role. Addresses: Lib Hungarian Acad Sci, Dept Sci Policy & Scientometr, Budapest, Hungary. E-mail Addresses: schuba at iif.hu Funding Acknowledgement: European Commission under the FP7 Science in Society [266588] Funding Text: This work was supported by the European Commission under the FP7 Science in Society Grant No. 266588 (SISOB project). Cited Reference Count: 13 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500019 Cited References: BLOOM SA, 1981, MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES, V5, P125 SIMPSON EH, 1949, NATURE, V163, P688 FAITH DP, 1987, VEGETATIO, V69, P57 Schubert Andras, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P589 Urban D. L., 2002, Distance measures, MINCHIN PR, 1987, VEGETATIO, V69, P89 Gini C., 1912, Herfindahl O. C., 1950, Concentration in the US Steel Industry, Hirschman A. O., 1945, National power and the structure of foreign trade, Czekanowski J., 1909, Korrespondenzblatt der deutschen Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, V40, P44 Small H., 2005, ISSI Newsletter, V1, P8 Schubert Andras, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P133 MINCHIN PR, 1987, VEGETATIO, V71, P145 ======================================================================== *Record 12 Title: On the impact of Gold Open Access *journals* Authors: Gumpenberger, C; Ovalle-Perandones, MA; Gorraiz, J Author Full Names: Gumpenberger, Christian; Ovalle-Perandones, Maria-Antonia; Gorraiz, Juan Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):221-238; 10.1007/s11192-012-0902-7 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Gold Open Access, Open Access publishing, Journal impact factor, SNIP, SJR, Impact analysis, Impact evolution, Ulrichsweb, Directory of Open Access journals (DOAJ), Journal citation reports (JCR) KeyWords Plus: ARTICLES; ROADS; GREEN Abstract: Gold Open Access (=Open Access publishing) is for many the preferred route to achieve unrestricted and immediate access to research output. However, true Gold Open Access journals are still outnumbered by traditional journals. Moreover availability of Gold OA journals differs from discipline to discipline and often leaves scientists concerned about the impact of these existent titles. This study identified the current set of Gold Open Access journals featuring a Journal Impact Factor (JIF) by means of Ulrichsweb, Directory of Open Access Journals and Journal Citation Reports (JCR). The results were analyzed regarding disciplines, countries, quartiles of the JIF distribution in JCR and publishers. Furthermore the temporal impact evolution was studied for a Top 50 titles list (according to JIF) by means of Journal Impact Factor, SJR and SNIP in the time interval 2000-2010. The identified top Gold Open Access journals proved to be well-established and their impact is generally ! increasing for all the analyzed indicators. The majority of JCR-indexed OA journals can be assigned to Life Sciences and Medicine. The success-rate for JCR inclusion differs from country to country and is often inversely proportional to the number of national OA journal titles. Compiling a list of JCR-indexed OA journals is a cumbersome task that can only be achieved with non-Thomson Reuters data sources. A corresponding automated feature to produce current lists "on the fly" would be desirable in JCR in order to conveniently track the impact evolution of Gold OA journals. Addresses: [Gumpenberger, Christian; Gorraiz, Juan] Univ Vienna, Vienna, Austria. [Ovalle-Perandones, Maria-Antonia] Univ Carlos III Madrid, Madrid, Spain. E-mail Addresses: christian.gumpenberger at univie.ac.at Cited Reference Count: 20 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500013 Cited References: McVeigh M. E., 2004, A citation study from Thomson Scientific, Wagner A. B., 2010, Issues in science and technology librarianship, Garfield E., 1971, Essays of an Information ScientistCurrent Contents, V17, P1962 Zitt Michel, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1856 Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 McVeigh M. E., 2004, The impact of open access journals. A citation study from Thomson ISI, Oppenheim Charles, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V34, P577 Harnad Stevan, 2008, SERIALS REVIEW, V34, P36 Schmidt Birgit, 2007, ZEITSCHRIFT FUR BIBLIOTHEKSWESEN UND BIBLIOGRAPHIE, V54, P177 Suber P., 2004, Open access overview: focusing on open access to peer-reviewed research articles and their preprints, Giglia E., 2010, 14th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, 16-18 June, 2010, Helsinki, P17 Solomon D., 2012, BMC Medicine, V10, P73 Swan A., 2010, The open access citation advantage: studies and results to date, Moed H. F., 2010, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V62, P211 SCImago, 2007, SJR-SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Craig Iain D., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P239 Guedon Jean-Claude, 2008, SERIALS REVIEW, V34, P41 Gonzalez-Pereira Borja, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P379 Jubb Michael, 2011, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V24, P247 Sotudeh Hajar, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1578 ======================================================================== Title: *Impact factor*: Imperfect but not yet replaceable Authors: Brody, S Author Full Names: Brody, Stuart Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):255-257; 10.1007/s11192-012-0863-x JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis, Impact factor, Peer review KeyWords Plus: JOURNALS; INDEX Abstract: A recent critique of the use of journal impact factors (IF) by Vanclay noted imprecision and misuses of IF. However, the substantial alternatives he suggested offer no clear improvement over IF as a single measure of scholarly impact of a journal, leaving IF as not yet replaceable. Addresses: Univ West Scotland, Sch Social Sci, Paisley PA1 2BE, Renfrew, Scotland. E-mail Addresses: stuartbrody at hotmail.com Cited Reference Count: 10 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500015 Cited References: Vanclay Jerome K., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P211 Jacso Peter, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P325 Pudovkin A. I., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P409 BRODY S, 1995, LANCET, V346, P1300 Mahoney M. J., 1977, Cognitive Therapy and Research, V1, P161 Rizkallah Jacques, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, Braun Tibor, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P169 Pendlebury David A., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P395 Moed Henk F., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P367 2012, Scientometrics, V92, ======================================================================== ? Title: Global remote sensing *research* trends during 1991-2010: a bibliometric analysis Authors: Zhuang, YH; Liu, XJ; Nguyen, T; He, QQ; Hong, S Author Full Names: Zhuang, Yanhua; Liu, Xingjian; Thuminh Nguyen; He, Qingqing; Hong, Song Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):203-219; 10.1007/s11192-012-0918-z JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Remote Sensing (RS), Bibliometric analysis, Geographical impact factor (GIF), Geographic information system (GIS), Satellite KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC-RESEARCH; INFORMATION; INDEX; CLASSIFICATION; PUBLICATIONS; PERFORMANCE; DATABASE; FUTURE; CLOUD; MODIS Abstract: According to the articles related to remote sensing of SCI and SSCI databases during 1991-2010, this study evaluated the geographical influence of authors by the new index (geographical *impact factor*), and revealed the auctorial, institutional, national, and spatiotemporal patterns in remote sensing research. Remote sensing research went up significantly in the past two decades. Imaging science & photographic technology was the important subject category. International Journal of Remote Sensing was the top active journal. All authors were mainly concentrated in North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Jackson TJ from USDA ARS was the most productive author, Coops NC from University of British Columbia had more high-quality articles, and Running SW from University of Montana carried the greatest geographical influence. The USA was the largest contributor in global remote sensing research with the most single-country and internationally collaborative articles, and the N! ASA was the most powerful research institute. The international cooperation of remote sensing research increased distinctly. Co-word analysis found the common remote sensing platform and sensors, revealed the widespread adoption of major technologies, and demonstrated keen interest in land cover/land use, vegetation, and climate change. Moreover, the remote sensing research was closely correlated with the satellite development. Addresses: [Zhuang, Yanhua; Thuminh Nguyen; He, Qingqing; Hong, Song] Wuhan Univ, Sch Resource & Environm Sci, Wuhan 430079, Peoples R China. [Liu, Xingjian] Univ Cambridge, Dept Geog, Cambridge CB2 3EN, England. E-mail Addresses: songhongpku at 126.com Funding Acknowledgement: National Sciences Foundation of China [40701184]; National High-tech R&D Program of China [2011AA120304] Funding Text: The authors are thankful to Mr. Nan Feng (University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA) for his assistance and discussions. This study is funded by National Sciences Foundation of China (No. 40701184) and National High-tech R&D Program of China (2011AA120304). Cited Reference Count: 48 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500012 Cited References: Lai KK, 2005, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V41, P313 Grossi F, 2003, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V39, P106 Sinha Bikramjit, 2012, INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, V82, P95 Song C, 2001, REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT, V75, P230 He Yuhong, 2012, PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING AND REMOTE SENSING, V78, P161 Wang Haijun, 2012, LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, V104, P299 Hijmans RJ, 2005, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, V25, P1965 King MD, 2003, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, V41, P442 Egghe L., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P8 Benz UC, 2004, ISPRS JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND REMOTE SENSING, V58, P239 Zhang Liang, 2010, ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, V36, P973 Loveland TR, 2000, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING, V21, P1303 Nederhof AJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 23-25, 2004, Leiden, NETHERLANDS, V66, P81 Christy John R., 2007, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, V112, Yang Ying, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V90, P659 Sletten Mark A., 2011, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, V49, P5140 Zhao Limei, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P51 Skram U, 2004, ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, V48, P1006 Liu Xingjian, 2011, BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, V20, P807 Almeida-Filho N, 2003, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, V93, P2037 Liu Xingjian, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P747 Rulinda C. M., 2012, JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS, V78, P169 He YL, 2002, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V38, P491 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Seglen PO, 2000, SCIENTOMETRICS, V49, P125 Wang Ming-Huang, 2011, DESALINATION AND WATER TREATMENT, V28, P353 Glanzel W, 2000, SCIENTOMETRICS4th Nordic Workshop in Bibliometrics, AUG 27-28, 1999, COPENHAGEN, DENMARK, V48, P121 Tralli DM, 2005, ISPRS JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND REMOTE SENSING30th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, NOV, 2003, Honolulu, HI, V59, P185 Jia Kun, 2011, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING, V32, P9307 Robock A, 2000, BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, V81, P1281 Petropoulos George P., 2012, EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, V39, P3800 Lu D, 2004, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING, V25, P2365 Schmoch Ulrich, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P361 Lefsky MA, 1999, REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT, V70, P339 FAUST NL, 1991, PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING AND REMOTE SENSING, V57, P655 Van Raan AFJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V67, P491 Platnick S, 2003, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, V41, P459 Chiu Wen-Ta, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P3 Jin BiHui, 2007, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V52, P855 Tebaldini Stefano, 2012, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, V50, P232 Schreiber Michael, 2008, NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, V10, PRITCHAR.A, 1969, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V25, P348 Jackson TJ, 1999, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSINGInternational Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS 98), 1998, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, V37, P2136 Prathap Gangan, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P167 Fu Jun-Ying, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V90, P945 Ding Y, 2001, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V37, P817 Chen CM, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Mapping Knowledge Domains, MAY 09-11, 2003, Irvine, CA, V101, P5303 King MD, 1999, BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, V80, P2229 ======================================================================== Title: Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators Authors: Glanzel, W; Moed, HF Author Full Names: Glanzel, Wolfgang; Moed, Henk F. Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):381-394; 10.1007/s11192-012-0898-z JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Indicators, Mathematical statistics, Normalization KeyWords Plus: JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; SOURCE NORMALIZED IMPACT; SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS; CITATION INFLUENCE; RESEARCH OUTPUT; INDEX; MODEL Abstract: This paper aims at contributing to the on-going discussion about building and applying bibliometric indicators. It sheds light on their properties and requirements concerning six different aspects: deterministic versus probabilistic approach, application-related properties, the time dependence, normalization issues, size dependence and network indicators. Addresses: [Glanzel, Wolfgang] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Ctr R&D Monitoring ECOOM, Louvain, Belgium. [Glanzel, Wolfgang] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept MSI, Louvain, Belgium. [Glanzel, Wolfgang] LHAS, Dept Sci Policy & Scientometr, Budapest, Hungary. [Moed, Henk F.] Elsevier, SciVal Dept, Amsterdam, Netherlands. E-mail Addresses: Wolfgang.Glanzel at econ.kuleuven.be; h.moed at elsevier.com Cited Reference Count: 40 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500024 Cited References: Schubert A., 1988, Informetrics, V87, P75 Glanzel W., 2006, Science Focus, V1, P10 Moed Henk F., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P211 Glanzel Wolfgang, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P355 PINSKI G, 1976, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V12, P297 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Moed HK, 2005, CITATION ANALYSIS IN RESEARCH EVALUATION, V9, P1 Bergstrom Carl T., 2008, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V28, P11433 Leydesdorff L., 2011, ISSI Newsletter, V7, P10 DIEKS D, 1976, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V6, P247 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2133 Ingwersen P, 2001, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V46, P524 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1370 Glanzel W, 1990, Statistics, V21, P613 Beirlant Jan, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P185 Barcza Krisztina, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P513 Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P415 Burrell QL, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P247 GARFIELD E, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P195 Vincze I., 1974, Mathematical Statistics, GELLER NL, 1978, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V14, P93 Peng L, 1998, STATISTICS & PROBABILITY LETTERS, V38, P107 Glanzel W, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P511 Zitt Michel, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P392 Brin S, 1998, COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS7th International World Wide Web Conference, APR 14-18, 1998, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, V30, P107 Zitt Michel, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1856 Zitt M., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P329 Glanzel W, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 17, 2001, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, V53, P171 Zhou Ping, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P360 Frandsen TF, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P58 PRICE DD, 1981, SCIENTOMETRICS, V3, P55 Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2365 Einmahl J. H. J., 2007, CentER Discussion Paper # 2007-86, Glanzel Wolfgang, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P313 Waltman L., 2011, Personal communication, Alvarez P, 1996, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY, V12, P57 Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Lem S., 1978, The chain of chance, Gonzalez-Pereira Borja, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P379 Waltman Ludo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P37 ======================================================================== ? Title: Evaluating *research* institutions: the potential of the success-*index* Authors: Franceschini, F; Maisano, D; Mastrogiacomo, L Author Full Names: Franceschini, Fiorenzo; Maisano, Domenico; Mastrogiacomo, Luca Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):85-101; 10.1007/s11192-012-0887-2 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Success-index, Hirsch index, Field normalization, Citation propensity, Groups of researchers, Research institutions KeyWords Plus: IMPACT FACTOR; INDICATORS; CITATIONS; OUTPUT Abstract: Similarly to the h-index and other indicators, the success-index is a recent indicator that makes it possible to identify, among a general group of papers, those of greater citation impact. This indicator implements a field-normalization at the level of single paper and can therefore be applied to multidisciplinary groups of articles. Also, it is very practical for normalizations aimed at achieving the so-called size-independency. Thanks to these (and other) properties, this indicator is particularly versatile when evaluating the publication output of entire research institutions. This paper exemplifies the potential of the success-index by means of several practical applications, respectively: (i) comparison of groups of researchers within the same scientific field, but affiliated with different universities, (ii) comparison of different departments of the same university, and (iii) comparison of entire research institutions. A sensitivity analysis will highlight the succes! s-index's robustness. Empirical results suggest that the success-index may be conveniently extended to large-scale assessments, i.e., involving a large number of researchers and research institutions. Addresses: [Franceschini, Fiorenzo; Maisano, Domenico; Mastrogiacomo, Luca] Politecn Torino, DIGEP Dept Management & Prod Engn, I-10129 Turin, Italy. E-mail Addresses: fiorenzo.franceschini at polito.it; domenico.maisano at polito.it Cited Reference Count: 28 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500006 Cited References: Abramo Giovanni, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P929 Zitt Michel, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P392 Vinkler P, 2004, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V55, P431 Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V37, P40 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P669 Waltman Ludo, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P301 Franceschini F., 2012, Proceeding of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (STI 2012), 6-8 September, 2012, Montreal, Canada, Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P415 Scopus-Elsevier, 2012, Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P436 Zitt Michel, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1856 Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Burrell Quentin L., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P170 Albarran Pedro, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P40 Courtault J. M., 2008, Economics Bulletin, V3, P1 Radicchi Filippo, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P121 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Wang Xianwen, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS13th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 04-07, 2011, Durban, SOUTH AFRICA, V91, P591 Garfield E., 1979, Citation indexing. Its theory and application in science, technology and humanities, Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P64 Maisano D., 2007, Management by measurement: designing key indicators and performance measurements, ISI Web of Knowledge, 2012, Essential science indicators, Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P621 Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P644 Vinkler Peter, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1963 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2010, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V203, P494 MERTON RK, 1968, SCIENCE, V159, P56 Franceschini F., 2012, Journal of Informetrics, ======================================================================== Title: Methodological quality in clinical trials and bibliometric indicators: no evidence of correlations Authors: Akcan, D; Axelsson, S; Bergh, C; Davidson, T; Rosen, M Author Full Names: Akcan, Derya; Axelsson, Susanna; Bergh, Christina; Davidson, Thomas; Rosen, Mans Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):297-303; 10.1007/s11192-013-0949-0 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometric analysis, Citations, Impact factor, Study quality, HTA KeyWords Plus: JOURNAL-IMPACT-FACTOR; MEDICAL LITERATURE; CITATION RATES; USERS GUIDES; PUBLICATION; PREVENTION; ARTICLES; VALIDITY; THERAPY; HISTORY Abstract: Citation frequencies and journal impact factors (JIFs) are being used more and more to assess the quality of research and allocate research resources. If these bibliometric indicators are not an adequate predictor of research quality, there could be severe negative consequences for research. To analyse to which extent citation frequencies and journal impact factors correlate with the methodological quality of clinical research articles included in an SBU systematic review of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. All 212 eligible original articles were extracted from the SBU systematic review "Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Surgery" and categorized according to their methodological rigourness as high, moderate or low quality articles. Median of citation frequencies and JIFs were compared between the methodological quality groups using Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test. An in-depth study of low-quality studies with higher citation frequencies/JIFs was also conducted. No significant d! ifferences were found in median citation frequencies (p = 0.453) or JIFs (p = 0.185) between the three quality groups. Studies that had high citation frequencies/JIFs but were assessed as low-quality lacked control groups, had high dropout rates or low internal validity. This study of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery does not support the hypothesis that bibliometric indicators are a valid instrument for assessing methodological quality in clinical trials. This is a worrying observation, since bibliometric indicators have a major influence on research funding. However, further studies in other areas are needed. Addresses: [Akcan, Derya; Axelsson, Susanna; Davidson, Thomas; Rosen, Mans] Swedish Council Hlth Technol Assessment SBU, SE-10359 Stockholm, Sweden. [Bergh, Christina] Gothenburg Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Inst Clin Sci, Sahlgrenska Acad, Gothenburg, Sweden. [Bergh, Christina] Sahlgrens Univ Hosp, Gothenburg, Sweden. [Davidson, Thomas] Linkoping Univ, Ctr Med Technol Assessment CMT, Linkoping, Sweden. [Rosen, Mans] Karolinska Inst, Dept Learning Informat Management & Eth LIME, SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail Addresses: akcan at sbu.se; Axelsson at sbu.se; christina.bergh at vgregion.se; Davidson at sbu.se; rosen at sbu.se Cited Reference Count: 18 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500018 Cited References: Akre Olof, 2011, JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, V65, P119 Barbui C, 2006, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY, V67, P37 SBU, 2010, SBU-rapport nr 200, Bhandari Mohit, 2007, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, V50, P119 GUYATT GH, 1993, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V270, P2598 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 GUYATT GH, 1994, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V271, P59 Grange RI, 1999, BJU INTERNATIONAL, V84, P601 Lundberg Jonas, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, V24, P70 Callaham M, 2002, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION4th International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, SEP 14-16, 2001, BARCELONA, SPAIN, V287, P2847 du Prel J., 2009, DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL, V106, P100 Nieminen Pentti, 2006, BMC medical research methodology, V6, P42 Andersen Julia, 2006, Journal of Microbiology Immunology and Infection, V39, P436 Kuroki Lindsay M., 2009, OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, V114, P877 West R, 2002, ADDICTION, V97, P501 Lee KP, 2002, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION4th International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, SEP 14-16, 2001, BARCELONA, SPAIN, V287, P2805 Cho Julie E., 1998, Journal of Microbiology Immunology and Infection, V31, P1 Banta David, 2009, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, V25, P1 ======================================================================== Title: Comparison of independent *research* of China'*s* top universities using bibliometric indicators Authors: Fu, HZ; Ho, YS Author Full Names: Fu, Hui-Zhen; Ho, Yuh-Shan Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):259-276; 10.1007/s11192-012-0912-5 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Scientometrics, Peak-year citations per publication, h-Index, Science indicators, Web of science KeyWords Plus: PEKING-UNIVERSITY; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; TSINGHUA-UNIVERSITY; CITATION ANALYSIS; MATERIALS SCIENCE; RESEARCH OUTPUT; INDEX; PUBLICATIONS Abstract: The institutionally independent publications of Tsinghua University and Peking University were compared by two main indicators namely peak-year citations per publication and h-index, based on the data extracted from the Science Citation Index Expanded, Web of Science from 1974 to 2011. Analyzed aspects covered total publication outputs, annual production, impact, authorships, Web of Science categories, journals, and most cited articles. Results shows that the two universities were in the same scale based on the peak-year citations per publication, the h-index, and top cited articles with no less than 100 citations. Publication of the top three most productive Web of Science categories differed between these two universities. Tsinghua University published more articles in applied science and engineering fields, while Peking University had more basic science articles. In addition, article life was applied to compare the impact of the most cited articles and single author artic! les of the two universities. Addresses: [Fu, Hui-Zhen; Ho, Yuh-Shan] Asia Univ, Trend Res Ctr, Taichung 41354, Taiwan. [Fu, Hui-Zhen; Ho, Yuh-Shan] Peking Univ, Dept Environm Sci, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: ysho at asia.edu.tw Cited Reference Count: 72 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500016 Cited References: Luan Chunjuan, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P53 Aksnes DW, 2004, RESEARCH EVALUATION9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V13, P33 Huang R. M., 2006, Chinese Journal of Medical Library and Information Science, V15, P74 Picknett T, 1999, JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, V293, P173 Lou Jianling, 2009, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, V606, P645 Zhu X, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P237 Liu BD, 2001, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, V9, P713 Aksnes DW, 2003, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V12, P159 Ho Y. S., 2004, Scientometrics, V60, P205 Mokhnacheva Yu. V., 2011, HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, V81, P569 Usang B., 2007, Educational Research and Review, V2, P103 Annibaldi Anna, 2010, ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, V398, P17 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 NAGPAUL PS, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V32, P11 Hou TJ, 2001, JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR GRAPHICS & MODELLING, V19, P455 Chiu WT, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V63, P3 Farber M, 2005, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V31, P62 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Schloegl C, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P287 Kang K. J., 1978, Nuclear Physics A, V834, P736C Liu Kexin, 2007, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION B-BEAM INTERACTIONS WITH MATERIALS AND ATOMS10th International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, SEP 05-10, 2005, Berkeley, CA, V259, P23 Ho Yuh-Shan, 2012, CHINESE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, V20, P478 Pouris Anastassios, 2007, HIGHER EDUCATION, V54, P501 Van Raan AFJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V67, P491 Chuang Kun-Yang, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P551 Zorzetto R., 2006, BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, V39, P1513 DANIEL HD, 1990, SCIENTOMETRICS, V19, P349 Zhang M. W., 2000, Information Science, V18, P177 MOED HF, 1985, RESEARCH POLICY, V14, P131 AVRAMESCU A, 1979, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V30, P296 He Tianwei, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P571 Li Zhi, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P97 Kostoff Ronald N., 2008, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V53, P1272 KING J, 1988, SCIENTOMETRICS, V14, P295 Liu R., 2008, LASER AND PARTICLE BEAMS, V26, P33 Wang Ming-Huang, 2011, DESALINATION AND WATER TREATMENT, V28, P353 Wang Ming-Huang, 2011, MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE, V16, P1 Makino J, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS, V43, P87 Costas Rodrigo, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P193 Van den Berghe H, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE4th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, OCT 05-07, 1995, ANTWERP, BELGIUM, V49, P59 He J. X., 2007, Journal of Library and Information Sciences in Agriculture, V19, P181 Han WQ, 1997, SCIENCE, V277, P1287 ANDERSON RC, 1978, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V29, P91 Fu Hui-Zhen, 2012, JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE, V379, P148 Wang Y. B., 2007, Journal of Library and Information Sciences in Agriculture, V18, P181 Chuang Kun-Yang, 2012, POLISH JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, V21, P1175 Zhang Weiwei, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P305 Leonardelli S., 2008, JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING, V12, P285 Pan S. Y., 2004, How higher education institutions cope with social change: the case of Tsinghua University? China, Chuang Kun-Yang, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V72, P201 Mervis Jeffrey, 2010, SCIENCE, V327, P407 Fakhree Mohammad A. Abolghassemi, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P205 WANG B, 1992, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE, V30, P781 TU CY, 1988, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, V93, P7 Davis G, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V35, P45 Gao Song, 2010, ADVANCED MATERIALS, V22, P1428 Kostoff Ronald N., 2012, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V79, P986 Kong YC, 2001, APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS, V78, P407 Sullivan R., 2011, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V47, P536 Van Raan A, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICSInternational Expert Meeting on Evaluation, JUL 03-05, 1998, VIENNA, AUSTRIA, V45, P417 Martin BR, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P343 FRAME JD, 1987, SCIENTOMETRICS, V12, P135 PIEL G, 1986, SCIENCE, V231, P201 Zhu SL, 2003, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, V91, Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P23 Xu Yuxi, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, V130, P5856 Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 Zachos G., 1992, Scientometrics, V21, P195 Treiman D. J., 2002, The growth and determinants of literacy in China, Hayhoe R, 2005, COMPARATIVE EDUCATION REVIEW, V49, P575 Zhang Xi, 2011, ADVANCED MATERIALS, V23, P1042 Ho YS, 2006, WATER RESEARCH, V40, P119 ======================================================================== Title: Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on *bibliometric* indicators Authors: Glanzel, W; Moed, HF Author Full Names: Glanzel, Wolfgang; Moed, Henk F. Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):381-394; 10.1007/s11192-012-0898-z JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Indicators, Mathematical statistics, Normalization KeyWords Plus: JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; SOURCE NORMALIZED IMPACT; SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS; CITATION INFLUENCE; RESEARCH OUTPUT; INDEX; MODEL Abstract: This paper aims at contributing to the on-going discussion about building and applying bibliometric indicators. It sheds light on their properties and requirements concerning six different aspects: deterministic versus probabilistic approach, application-related properties, the time dependence, normalization issues, size dependence and network indicators. Addresses: [Glanzel, Wolfgang] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Ctr R&D Monitoring ECOOM, Louvain, Belgium. [Glanzel, Wolfgang] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept MSI, Louvain, Belgium. [Glanzel, Wolfgang] LHAS, Dept Sci Policy & Scientometr, Budapest, Hungary. [Moed, Henk F.] Elsevier, SciVal Dept, Amsterdam, Netherlands. E-mail Addresses: Wolfgang.Glanzel at econ.kuleuven.be; h.moed at elsevier.com Cited Reference Count: 40 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500024 Cited References: Schubert A., 1988, Informetrics, V87, P75 Glanzel W., 2006, Science Focus, V1, P10 Moed Henk F., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P211 Glanzel Wolfgang, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P355 PINSKI G, 1976, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V12, P297 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Moed HK, 2005, CITATION ANALYSIS IN RESEARCH EVALUATION, V9, P1 Bergstrom Carl T., 2008, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V28, P11433 Leydesdorff L., 2011, ISSI Newsletter, V7, P10 DIEKS D, 1976, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V6, P247 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2133 Ingwersen P, 2001, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V46, P524 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1370 Glanzel W, 1990, Statistics, V21, P613 Beirlant Jan, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P185 Barcza Krisztina, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P513 Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P415 Burrell QL, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P247 GARFIELD E, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P195 Vincze I., 1974, Mathematical Statistics, GELLER NL, 1978, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V14, P93 Peng L, 1998, STATISTICS & PROBABILITY LETTERS, V38, P107 Glanzel W, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P511 Zitt Michel, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P392 Brin S, 1998, COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS7th International World Wide Web Conference, APR 14-18, 1998, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, V30, P107 Zitt Michel, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1856 Zitt M., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P329 Glanzel W, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 17, 2001, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, V53, P171 Zhou Ping, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P360 Frandsen TF, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P58 PRICE DD, 1981, SCIENTOMETRICS, V3, P55 Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2365 Einmahl J. H. J., 2007, CentER Discussion Paper # 2007-86, Glanzel Wolfgang, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P313 Waltman L., 2011, Personal communication, Alvarez P, 1996, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY, V12, P57 Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Lem S., 1978, The chain of chance, Gonzalez-Pereira Borja, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P379 Waltman Ludo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P37 ======================================================================== Title: Multiple regression analysis of a patent's *citation* frequency and quantitative characteristics: the case of Japanese patents Authors: Yoshikane, F Author Full Names: Yoshikane, Fuyuki Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):365-379; 10.1007/s11192-013-0953-4 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Patent citation, Citation frequency, Regression analysis, Japan KeyWords Plus: COUNTS; INDICATORS; ARTICLES Abstract: Although many studies have been conducted to clarify the factors that affect the citation frequency of "academic papers," there are few studies where the citation frequency of "patents" has been predicted on the basis of statistical analysis, such as regression analysis. Assuming that a patent based on a variety of technological bases tends to be an important patent that is cited more often, this study examines the influence of the number of cited patents' classifications and compares it with other factors, such as the numbers of inventors, classifications, pages, and claims. Multiple linear, logistic, and zero-inflated negative binomial regression analyses using these factors are performed. Significant positive correlations between the number of classifications of cited patents and the citation frequency are observed for all the models. Moreover, the multiple regression analyses demonstrate that the number of classifications of cited patents contributes more to the regressi! on than do other factors. This implies that, if confounding between factors is taken into account, it is the diversity of classifications assigned to backward citations that more largely influences the number of forward citations. Addresses: Univ Tsukuba, Grad Sch Lib Informat & Media Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058550, Japan. E-mail Addresses: fuyuki at slis.tsukuba.ac.jp Funding Acknowledgement: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [23500294 (2012)] Funding Text: This work was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 23500294 (2012) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, and I would like to express my gratitude to the support. I also acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Cited Reference Count: 18 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500023 Cited References: SNIZEK WE, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICS, V20, P25 Glanzel W, 2002, LIBRARY TRENDS, V50, P461 Inuzuka A., 2011, Okayama Economic Review, V43, P15 Kostoff Ronald N., 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V72, P513 Odagiri H., 2002, R&D boundaries of the firm and the intellectual property system, V24, PETERS HPF, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V45, P39 Sato Y., 2006, Information Processing Society of Japan SIG Technical Report, 2006, P9 Bornmann Luti, 2008, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V64, P45 Yoshikane Fuyuki, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P721 Bornmann Lutz, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1100 Foltz J., 2000, Agribusiness (New York), V16, P82 Hashimoto T., 2008, Proceedings of NTCIR-7 workshop meeting, P325 Shimohata S, 2010, Proceedings of NTCIR-8 workshop meeting, P371 Harhoff D, 1999, REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, V81, P511 WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), 2010, International Patent Classification (IPC), Shapira P., 2012, Journal of Technology Management in China, V7, P94 Lee Yong-Gil, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P27 Narin F, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS1st International Conference on the Evaluation of Research Technology and Development, APR 26-28, 1995, THESSALONIKI, GREECE, V34, P489 ======================================================================== ? Title: The interdisciplinary structure of research on intercultural relations: a *co-citation* network analysis study Authors: Chi, RB; Young, J Author Full Names: Chi, Ruobing; Young, Jonathan Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):147-171; 10.1007/s11192-012-0894-3 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Network analysis, Co-citation network, Bibliometric analysis, Intercultural relations, Intercultural communication Abstract: This study aims to map the content and structure of the knowledge base of research on intercultural relations as revealed in co-citation networks of 30 years of scholarly publications. Source records for extracting co-citation information are retrieved from Web of Science (1980-2010) through comprehensive keyword search and filtered by manual semantic coding. Exploratory network and content analysis is conducted (1) to discover the development of major research themes and the relations between them over time; (2) to locate representative core publications (the stars) that are highly co-cited with others and those (the bridges) connecting more between rather than within subfields or disciplines. Structural analysis of the co-citation networks identifies a core cluster that contains foundational knowledge of this domain. It is well connected to almost all the other clusters and covers a wide range of subject categories. The evolutionary path of research themes shows trends mov! ing towards (e.g. psychology and business and economics) and away from (e.g. language education and communication) the core cluster over time. Based on the results, a structural framework of the knowledge domain of intercultural relations research is proposed to represent thematic relatedness between topical groups and their relations. Addresses: [Chi, Ruobing; Young, Jonathan] Univ Hawaii Manoa, Interdisciplinary PhD Program Commun & Informat S, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA. [Chi, Ruobing] Shanghai Int Studies Univ, Intercultural Inst, Shanghai, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: ruobing at hawaii.edu; jsyoung at hawaii.edu Cited Reference Count: 13 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500009 Cited References: Kim Y. Y, 2000, V24, P139 Asuncion-Lande N., 1990, Communication Yearbook, V12, P278 Jacomy M. G., 2009, International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Kulich S. J., 2003, Foreign Language and Culture Studies, V3, P848 HARMAN RC, 1991, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL RELATIONS, V15, P19 Ward C., 2001, The psychology of culture shock, Hart WB, 1999, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL RELATIONSConference on Interdisciplinary Theory and Research on Intercultural Relations, MAR 19-21, 1998, FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA, V23, P575 Leeds-Hurwitz W. L., 1990, The Quarterly Journal of Speech, V76, P280 Waltman Ludo, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P629 Miike Y., 2002, Keio Communication Review, V24, P3 Blondel V. D., 2008, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, Leydesdorff Loet, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P1616 Moya-Anegon F, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V61, P129 ======================================================================== ? Title: Methodological quality in clinical trials and *bibliometric* indicators: no evidence of correlations Authors: Akcan, D; Axelsson, S; Bergh, C; Davidson, T; Rosen, M Author Full Names: Akcan, Derya; Axelsson, Susanna; Bergh, Christina; Davidson, Thomas; Rosen, Mans Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 96 (1):297-303; 10.1007/s11192-013-0949-0 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometric analysis, Citations, Impact factor, Study quality, HTA KeyWords Plus: JOURNAL-IMPACT-FACTOR; MEDICAL LITERATURE; CITATION RATES; USERS GUIDES; PUBLICATION; PREVENTION; ARTICLES; VALIDITY; THERAPY; HISTORY Abstract: Citation frequencies and journal impact factors (JIFs) are being used more and more to assess the quality of research and allocate research resources. If these bibliometric indicators are not an adequate predictor of research quality, there could be severe negative consequences for research. To analyse to which extent citation frequencies and journal impact factors correlate with the methodological quality of clinical research articles included in an SBU systematic review of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. All 212 eligible original articles were extracted from the SBU systematic review "Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Surgery" and categorized according to their methodological rigourness as high, moderate or low quality articles. Median of citation frequencies and JIFs were compared between the methodological quality groups using Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test. An in-depth study of low-quality studies with higher citation frequencies/JIFs was also conducted. No significant d! ifferences were found in median citation frequencies (p = 0.453) or JIFs (p = 0.185) between the three quality groups. Studies that had high citation frequencies/JIFs but were assessed as low-quality lacked control groups, had high dropout rates or low internal validity. This study of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery does not support the hypothesis that bibliometric indicators are a valid instrument for assessing methodological quality in clinical trials. This is a worrying observation, since bibliometric indicators have a major influence on research funding. However, further studies in other areas are needed. Addresses: [Akcan, Derya; Axelsson, Susanna; Davidson, Thomas; Rosen, Mans] Swedish Council Hlth Technol Assessment SBU, SE-10359 Stockholm, Sweden. [Bergh, Christina] Gothenburg Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Inst Clin Sci, Sahlgrenska Acad, Gothenburg, Sweden. [Bergh, Christina] Sahlgrens Univ Hosp, Gothenburg, Sweden. [Davidson, Thomas] Linkoping Univ, Ctr Med Technol Assessment CMT, Linkoping, Sweden. [Rosen, Mans] Karolinska Inst, Dept Learning Informat Management & Eth LIME, SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail Addresses: akcan at sbu.se; Axelsson at sbu.se; christina.bergh at vgregion.se; Davidson at sbu.se; rosen at sbu.se Cited Reference Count: 18 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 164IB Unique ID: WOS:000320401500018 Cited References: Akre Olof, 2011, JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, V65, P119 Barbui C, 2006, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY, V67, P37 SBU, 2010, SBU-rapport nr 200, Bhandari Mohit, 2007, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, V50, P119 GUYATT GH, 1993, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V270, P2598 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 GUYATT GH, 1994, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V271, P59 Grange RI, 1999, BJU INTERNATIONAL, V84, P601 Lundberg Jonas, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, V24, P70 Callaham M, 2002, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION4th International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, SEP 14-16, 2001, BARCELONA, SPAIN, V287, P2847 du Prel J., 2009, DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL, V106, P100 Nieminen Pentti, 2006, BMC medical research methodology, V6, P42 Andersen Julia, 2006, Journal of Microbiology Immunology and Infection, V39, P436 Kuroki Lindsay M., 2009, OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, V114, P877 West R, 2002, ADDICTION, V97, P501 Lee KP, 2002, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION4th International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, SEP 14-16, 2001, BARCELONA, SPAIN, V287, P2805 Cho Julie E., 1998, Journal of Microbiology Immunology and Infection, V31, P1 Banta David, 2009, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, V25, P1 ======================================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Sat Jul 20 13:39:01 2013 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 13:39:01 -0400 Subject: OA 2013: Tilting at the Tipping Point Message-ID: * * *OA 2013: Tilting at the Tipping Point* *Summary:* The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ?The Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, *when in that 5-year interval the articles were made OA*. Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sat Jul 20 14:56:59 2013 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 18:56:59 +0000 Subject: Papers of possible interest to Sigmetrics readers Message-ID: Search terms matched: SCIENTOMETRIC(2) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320333600001 Title: Traffic medicine-related research: a *scientometric* analysis Authors: Groneberg-Kloft, B; Klingelhoefer, D; Zitnik, SE; Scutaru, C Author Full Names: Groneberg-Kloft, Beatrix; Klingelhoefer, Doris; Zitnik, Simona E.; Scutaru, Cristian Source: BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 13 10.1186/1471-2458-13-541 JUN 5 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL-HEALTH; OCCUPATIONAL-HEALTH; PUBLIC-HEALTH; QUALITY; VISUALIZATION; BENCHMARKING; QUANTITY; INJURIES; TRENDS Abstract: Objective: Traffic crashes and related injuries are important causes of morbidity and mortality and impose insofar an important burden on public health. However, research in this area is often under-funded. The aim of this study was to analyse quantity, evolution and geographic distribution of traffic medicine-related research. This multi-sectorial field covers both transport and health care sectors. Design: A *scientometric* approach in combination with visualizing density equalizing mapping was used to analyse published data related to the field of traffic medicine between 1900 and 2008 within the "Web of Science" (WoS) database. Results: In total, 5,193 traffic medicine-associated items were produced between 1900 and 2008. The United States was found to have the highest research activity with a production of n = 2,330 published items, followed by Germany (n = 298) and Canada (n = 219). Cooperation analyses resulted in a peak of published multilateral cooperations in the year of 2003. The country with the highest multilateral activity was the USA. The average number of cited references per publication varied heavily over the last 20 years with a maximum of 27.67 in 1995 and a minimum of 15.08 in 1998. Also, a further in-depth analysis was performed with a focus solely on public health aspects which revealed similar trends. Conclusions: Summarizing the present data it can be stated traffic medicine-related research productivity grows annually. Also, an active networking between countries is present. The data of the present study may be used by scientific organisations in order to gain detailed information about research activities in this field which is extremely important for public health. Addresses: [Groneberg-Kloft, Beatrix] Free Univ Berlin, Charite Univ Med Berlin, Otto Heubner Ctr, Berlin, Germany. [Groneberg-Kloft, Beatrix; Scutaru, Cristian] Humboldt Univ, D-10099 Berlin, Germany. [Klingelhoefer, Doris; Zitnik, Simona E.] Goethe Univ Frankfurt, Inst Occupat Med Social Med & Environm Med, D-60054 Frankfurt, Germany. [Scutaru, Cristian] Free Univ Berlin, Charite Univ Med Berlin, Inst Occupat Med, Berlin, Germany. E-mail Addresses: klingelhoefer at med.uni.frankfurt.de Cited Reference Count: 24 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 236 GRAYS INN RD, FLOOR 6, LONDON WC1X 8HL, ENGLAND ISSN: 1471-2458 Article Number: 541 Web of Science Categories: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Research Areas: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health IDS Number: 163KA Unique ID: WOS:000320333600001 Cited References: Eddleston Michael, 2007, PLOS ONE, V2, Sangowawa AO, Inj Prev, V16, P85 Soteriades Elpidoforos S., 2006, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V6, Donroe Joseph, 2008, PLOS ONE, V3, Michon Frederic, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, Smith Derek R., 2008, INDUSTRIAL HEALTH, V46, P519 Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, 2009, JOURNAL OF ASTHMA, V46, P147 Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, 2009, Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), V4, P16 Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH GEOGRAPHICS, V7, Smith Derek R., 2009, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V64, P43 Scutaru Cristian, 2010, INDUSTRIAL HEALTH, V48, P197 Mohan D, 2002, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V31, P527 Tarkowski S. M., 2007, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH14th European Public Health Research Conference, NOV, 2006, Montreux, SWITZERLAND, V17, P14 Smith Derek R., 2009, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V64, P32 Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, 2009, EMBO REPORTS, V10, Mathers C, 2005, Updated projections of global mortality and burden of disease, 2002-2030: data sources, methods and results, Ir Por, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, Vitzthum Karin, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, Hannaford Philip, 2009, ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, V7, P277 Milat Andrew J., 2011, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V11, Gastner MT, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V101, P7499 Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, 2008, Health research policy and systems / BioMed Central, V6, P6 Sanz-Casado Elias, 2006, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V6, Nantulya VM, 2002, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V324, P1139 ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: SCIENCE CITATION INDEX(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320152100014 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Bibliometric analysis of research on secondary organic aerosols: A *Science Citation Index* Expanded-based analysis (IUPAC Technical Report) Authors: Li, JF; Zhang, YH; Veber, M; Wine, PH; Klasinc, L Author Full Names: Li, Jinfeng; Zhang, Yuanhang; Veber, Marjan; Wine, Paul H.; Klasinc, Leo Source: PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY, 85 (6):1241-1255; 10.1351/PAC-REP-12-08-09 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: bibliometrics, carbon compounds, IUPAC Chemistry and the Environment Division, photodegradation, oxidation, research trends, secondary organic aerosols, word cluster analysis KeyWords Plus: POSITIVE MATRIX FACTORIZATION; CHEMICAL-TRANSPORT MODEL; PARTICULATE MATTER; ISOPRENE; IDENTIFICATION; ATMOSPHERE; EVOLUTION; PRODUCTS; METEOROLOGY; POLLUTANTS Abstract: This study was conceived to evaluate the global scientific output of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) research over the past 20 years and to assess the characteristics of the research patterns, tendencies, and methods in the papers. Data were based on the online version of Science Citation Index Expanded from 1992 to 2011. Publications referring to SOAs were assessed by distribution of the number of publications and times cited, source categories, source journals, author keywords, Key Words Plus, and the most cited publications in these years. By synthetic analysis of author keywords, Key Words Plus, titles, and abstracts, it was concluded that modeling is currently and will at least over the next decade continue to be the predominant research method to validate state-of-the-art knowledge of SOAs, and that the foci of SOA research will be the key precursors terpenes and isoprene, the mechanisms of oxidation and gas-phase reactions, and emission inventories. Addresses: [Li, Jinfeng; Zhang, Yuanhang] Peking Univ, Coll Environm Sci & Engn, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China. [Veber, Marjan] Univ Ljubljana, Fac Chem & Chem Technol, Ljubljana, Slovenia. [Wine, Paul H.] Georgia Inst Technol, Sch Chem & Biochem, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA. [Wine, Paul H.] Georgia Inst Technol, Sch Earth & Atmospher Sci, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA. [Klasinc, Leo] Rudjer Boskovic Inst, Zagreb, Croatia. Cited Reference Count: 55 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: INT UNION PURE APPLIED CHEMISTRY, 104 TW ALEXANDER DR, PO BOX 13757, RES TRIANGLE PK, NC 27709-3757 USA ISSN: 0033-4545 Web of Science Categories: Chemistry, Multidisciplinary Research Areas: Chemistry IDS Number: 160WV Unique ID: WOS:000320152100014 Cited References: Hallquist M., 2009, ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, V9, P5155 Boylan JW, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, V56, P12 Zhang Jing, 2012, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT AND POLLUTION, V49, P16 Docherty KS, 2005, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V39, P4049 Atkinson R, 2000, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V34, P2063 Schwartz FW, 2005, HYDROGEOLOGY JOURNAL, V13, P25 Gaydos Timothy M., 2007, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V41, P2594 Zhang Gangfeng, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P477 Schauer JJ, 1996, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V30, P3837 Lim YB, 2005, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V39, P9229 Takegawa N., 2006, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., V111, [Anonymous], 2002, Nature, V415, P101 Li Jinfeng, 2011, GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE, V77, P13 Kalberer M, 2004, SCIENCE, V303, P1659 Li Zhi, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P97 Kroll Jesse H., 2008, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V42, P3593 Donahue Neil M., 2009, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V43, P94 HERTEL O, 1994, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V28, P2431 GARFIELD E, 1990, CURRENT CONTENTS, V32, P5 Strader R, 1999, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V33, P4849 Kleindienst Tadeusz E., 2006, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V40, P3807 Chiu Wen-Ta, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P3 Lim HJ, 2002, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V36, P4489 Cape J. N., 2008, ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION22nd Biannual Meeting of the IUFRO Research Group 7 01 Impacts of Air Pollution and Climat Change on Forest Ecosystems, SEP 10-16, 2006, Riverside, CA, V155, P391 Donahue NM, 2006, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V40, P2635 Adam D, 2002, NATURE, V415, P726 TURPIN BJ, 1995, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V29, P3527 PANDIS SN, 1992, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT PART A-GENERAL TOPICS, V26, P2269 Goto Daisuke, 2008, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, V113, Jimenez J. L., 2009, SCIENCE, V326, P1525 Lim HJ, 2005, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V39, P4441 Claeys M, 2004, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V38, P4093 Zhang YH, 2004, PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY, V76, P1227 Ho Y. S., 2007, Int. J. Environ. Pollut, V1, P1 Kleindienst TE, 1999, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V33, P3669 Jang MS, 2002, SCIENCE, V298, P814 PAATERO P, 1994, ENVIRONMETRICS, V5, P111 Robinson Allen L., 2007, SCIENCE, V315, P1259 ROGGE WF, 1993, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT PART A-GENERAL TOPICS4TH INTERNATIONAL CONF ON CARBONACEOUS PARTICLES IN THE ATMOSPHERE, APR 03-05, 1991, VIENNA, AUSTRIA, V27, P1309 Ulbrich I. M., 2009, ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, V9, P2891 Mao Ning, 2010, HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, V16, P801 Xie Shaodong, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V77, P113 Jiang Fei, 2012, JOURNAL OF AEROSOL SCIENCE, V43, P57 Claeys M, 2004, SCIENCE, V303, P1173 Odum JR, 1996, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V30, P2580 Baltensperger Urs, 2008, JOURNAL OF AEROSOL MEDICINE AND PULMONARY DRUG DELIVERY, V21, P145 Binkowski F. S., 2003, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., V108, PANKOW JF, 1994, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V28, P185 Li Jinfeng, 2009, CROATICA CHEMICA ACTA, V82, P695 Lane Timothy E., 2008, ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, V42, P7439 Robinson N. H., 2011, ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, V11, P1039 Schell B, 2001, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, V106, P28275 Kanakidou M, 2005, ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, V5, P1053 Odum JR, 1997, SCIENCE, V276, P96 Canagaratna M. R., 2007, MASS SPECTROMETRY REVIEWS, V26, P185 ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: SCIENCE CITATION INDEX(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320049000001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Editorial: Operations Management Research in *Science Citation Index* Expanded (ISI) in the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge Authors: Olhager, J; Shafer, S Author Full Names: Olhager, Jan; Shafer, Scott Source: OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT RESEARCH, 6 (1-2):1-1; 10.1007/s12063-013-0080-7 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Addresses: [Olhager, Jan] Lund Univ, Dept Ind Management & Logist, S-22100 Lund, Sweden. [Shafer, Scott] Wake Forest Univ, Worrell Profess Ctr, Sch Business, Winston Salem, NC 27109 USA. E-mail Addresses: Jan.Olhager at tlog.lth.se; shafersm at wfu.edu Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA ISSN: 1936-9735 Web of Science Categories: Management Research Areas: Business & Economics IDS Number: 159MH Unique ID: WOS:000320049000001 ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: BIBLIOGRAPHIC(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320343100008 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Google Scholar and the h-index in biomedicine: The popularization of bibliometric assessment Authors: Cabezas-Clavijo, A; Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E Author Full Names: Cabezas-Clavijo, A.; Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E. Source: MEDICINA INTENSIVA, 37 (5):343-354; 10.1016/j.medin.2013.01.008 JUN-JUL 2013 Language: Spanish Document Type: Review Author Keywords: Research evaluation, Bibliometrics, h-index, Citation analysis, Periodicals, Databases, Bibliographic, Google Scholar, Google Scholar Metrics, Google Scholar Citations, Biomedicine, Health sciences KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC-RESEARCH OUTPUT; IMPACT FACTOR; LITERATURE SEARCHES; JOURNALS; SCIENCE; SCOPUS; WEB; LIMITATIONS; INDICATORS; ADVANTAGES Abstract: The aim of this study is to review the features, benefits and limitations of the new scientific evaluation products derived from Google Scholar, such as Google Scholar Metrics and Google Scholar Citations, as well as the h-index, which is the standard bibliometric indicator adopted by these services. The study also outlines the potential of this new database as a source for studies in Biomedicine, and compares the h-index obtained by the most relevant journals and researchers in the field of intensive care medicine, based on data extracted from the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Results show that although the average h-index values in Google Scholar are almost 30% higher than those obtained in Web of Science, and about 15% higher than those collected by Scopus, there are no substantial changes in the rankings generated from one data source or the other. Despite some technical problems, it is concluded that Google Scholar is a valid tool for researchers in Health ! Sciences, both for purposes of information retrieval and for the computation of bibliometric indicators. (C) 2012 Elsevier Espana, S.L. and SEMICYUC. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Cabezas-Clavijo, A.; Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E.] Univ Granada, Fac Comunicac & Documentac, Dept Informac & Comunicac, Granada, Spain. E-mail Addresses: edelgado at ugr.es Cited Reference Count: 40 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER DOYMA SL, TRAVESERA DE GARCIA, 17-21, BARCELONA, 08021, SPAIN ISSN: 0210-5691 Web of Science Categories: Critical Care Medicine Research Areas: General & Internal Medicine IDS Number: 163NB Unique ID: WOS:000320343100008 Cited References: Harzing A-W, 2008, Ethics Sci Environ Polit, V8, P61 Shultz Mary, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V95, P442 Anders Michael E., 2010, RESPIRATORY CARE, V55, P578 Delgado-Lopez-Cozar E, 2012, Google Scholar Metrics revisado: Ahora empieza a ir en serio, P8 Torres-Salinas Daniel, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P761 Nicholas David, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V36, P494 Braun Tibor, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P169 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Labbe C., 2010, ISSI Newsletter, V6, P48 Torres-Salinas Daniel, 2009, PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION, V18, P501 Delgado-Lopez-Cozer Emilio, 2012, PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION, V21, P419 Hightower C, 2010, Issues Sci Tech Librarian, V63, Garfield E, 1998, UNFALLCHIRURG, V101, P413 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P338 Cabezas-Clavijo A, 2012, An ThinkEPI, V6, P147 Vanclay Jerome K., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P211 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Riera M., 2013, MEDICINA INTENSIVA, V37, P232 Costas Rodrigo, 2007, PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION, V16, P427 Meho Lokman I., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P2105 Prathap Gangan, 2006, CURRENT SCIENCE, V91, P1439 Fernandez-Mondejar E., 2010, MEDICINA INTENSIVA, V34, P493 Csajbok Edit, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P91 Jacso Peter, 2008, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V32, P102 Costas Rodrigo, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P193 Kulkarni Abhaya V., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P1092 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Jimenez-Contreras Evaristo, 2010, MEDICINA CLINICA, V134, P76 Bar-Ilan Judit, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V82, P495 Delgado Lopez-Cozar E, 2012, EC3 Working Papers, V5, P1 Delgado Lopez-Cozar E, 2010, Procedimientos y herramientas en la traslacion de la investigacion biomedica en cooperacion, Giustini D, 2005, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V331, P1487 Nourbakhsh Eva, 2012, HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL, V29, P214 Rossner Mike, 2007, JOURNAL OF CELL BIOLOGY, V179, P1091 Gonzalez de Dios Javier, 2011, ATENCION PRIMARIA, V43, P629 Herther NK, 2011, Scholar citations-Google moves into the domain of Web of Science and Scopus, Fernandez Mondejar E., 2012, MEDICINA INTENSIVA, V36, P1 Delgado-Lopez-Cozar E, 2012, Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting, P6 Simons Kai, 2008, SCIENCE, V322, P165 Bordons M, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 17, 2001, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, V53, P195 ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: SCIENTOMETRIC(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320077100001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications Authors: de Gloucester, PC Author Full Names: de Gloucester, Paul Colin Source: ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, 20 (3):143-166; 10.1080/08989621.2013.788379 MAY 4 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: citations, computer science, electronic engineering, Impact Factor, misconduct, refereeing shortcomings KeyWords Plus: MISCONDUCT; JOURNALS; SCIENCE Abstract: Misconduct is extensive and damaging. So-called science is prevalent. Articles resulting from so-called science are often cited in other publications. This can have damaging consequences for society and for science. The present work includes a *scientometric* study of 350 articles (published by the Association for Computing Machinery; Elsevier; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.; John Wiley; Springer; Taylor & Francis; and World Scientific Publishing Co.). A lower bound of 85.4% articles are found to be incongruous. Authors cite inherently self-contradictory articles more than valid articles. Incorrect informational cascades ruin the literature's signal-to-noise ratio even for uncomplicated cases. Addresses: [de Gloucester, Paul Colin] Univ Pisa, Dept Informat Engn, Pisa, Italy. E-mail Addresses: Colin_Paul_Gloster at ACM.org Cited Reference Count: 52 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXON, ENGLAND ISSN: 0898-9621 Web of Science Categories: Medical Ethics Research Areas: Medical Ethics IDS Number: 159WD Unique ID: WOS:000320077100001 Cited References: Fang Hui, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P293 Agostinelli S, 2003, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, V506, P250 Coppola M, 2004, JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE, V50, P129 Irving Dianne Nutwell, 1993, Accountability in research, V2, P243 Ackermann E, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V66, P451 Ferson S., 2001, Accountability in Research, V8, P261 Mosimann J., 2002, Accountability in Research, V9, P75 Rodriguez-Navarro Alonso, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Alexander N.S., 1930, Proceedings of the Physical Society, V42, Kwan I, 1999, INFORMATION SCIENCES, V117, P201 Kay A.C., 1997, The 12th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, Yates R., 2004, RELMAN AS, 1983, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V308, P1415 Seidl C., 2005, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, V23, P505 Collingbourne H., 1999, PC Plus (UK), V1, Resnik David B., 2010, ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, V17, P79 Foo Jong Yong Abdiel, 2009, ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, V16, P127 Koppelman-White Elysa, 2006, Accountability in research, V13, P225 Kale L, 1999, JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS, V151, P283 Brummel Bradley J., 2010, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, V16, P573 Frader Joel E, 2002, Accountability in research, V9, P193 Tittel E., 1996, HTML for Dummies, Bacci B, 1999, PARALLEL COMPUTING, V25, P1827 Zhang CS, 2006, BIOTECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, V24, P243 Swa-Lu, 2012, Pal Schmitt scientific misconduct controversy, Marshall E, 1996, SCIENCE, V274, P908 Broad W., 1985, Betrayers of the Truth, STEWART WW, 1987, NATURE, V325, P207 Steneck NH, 1999, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICSAnnual Meeting of the American-Association-for-the-Advancement-of-Science, Celebrating its 150th Anniversary, FEB 12-17, 1998, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, V5, P161 Armaroli A., 2003, Proceedings 3rd IEEE International Workshop on System-on-Chip for Real-Time ApplicationsProceedings the 3rd IEEE International Workshop on System-on-Chip for Real-Time Applications, 30 June-2 July 2003, Calgary, Alta., Canada, Newton Douglas P., 2010, ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, V17, P130 Gloster C. P., 2010, International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, V11, P387 Coppola M., 2003, Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE) Conference and Exhibition, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, V2, P20106 Degener TF, 1999, COMPUTER PHYSICS COMMUNICATIONS, V118, P34 Haridi S, 1999, ACM TRANSACTIONS ON PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND SYSTEMS, V21, P569 Drexler HG, 2003, LEUKEMIA, V17, P416 Fried EW, 2001, COMMENTARY, V112, P8 Coppola M, 2004, DESIGNERS' FORUM: DESIGN, AUTOMATION AND TEST IN EUROPE CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITIONDesign, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition (DATE 04), FEB 16-20, 2004, Paris, FRANCE, P174 JHHW, 2012, The European Journal of International Law, V23, P607 Pate J. R., 2012, Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, V25, P261 Boursin J.-L., 1997, Accountability in Research, V5, P65 David Edward E, 1997, Accountability in research, V5, P255 Paxson V, 1999, COMPUTER NETWORKS-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKING, V31, P2435 Labbe Cyril, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P379 Some1, 2012, Further developments in the Schmitt case, Demartini C, 1999, SOFTWARE-PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE, V29, P577 Smith R. V., 1984, Graduate Research: A Guide for Students in the Sciences, BIKHCHANDANI S, 1992, JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, V100, P992 Wang WQ, 1999, ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING SOFTWARE, V30, P127 Miguel Campanario Juan, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P549 Ziman J. M., 1978, Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science, Price A. R., 2006, Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, V1, P46 ======================================================================= Search terms matched: SCIENTOMETRIC(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320345100016 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Emergence of synthetic biology: characterization by a *scientometric* approach Authors: Raimbault, B; Cointet, JP; Joly, PB Author Full Names: Raimbault, Benjamin; Cointet, Jean-Philippe; Joly, Pierre-Benoit Source: M S-MEDECINE SCIENCES, 29 47-53; 2 10.1051/medsci/201329s213 MAY 2013 Language: French Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: GENOME Addresses: [Raimbault, Benjamin] IFRIS, INRA, SenS, Unite Rech Sci Soc SenS 1326, F-77454 Champs Sur Marne, Marne La Vallee, France. [Raimbault, Benjamin; Cointet, Jean-Philippe; Joly, Pierre-Benoit] IFRIS, F-77454 Champs Sur Marne, Marne La Vallee, France. E-mail Addresses: raimbault.benjamin6 at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 16 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EDP SCIENCES S A, 17, AVE DU HOGGAR, PA COURTABOEUF, BP 112, F-91944 LES ULIS CEDEX A, FRANCE ISSN: 0767-0974 Web of Science Categories: Medicine, Research & Experimental Research Areas: Research & Experimental Medicine IDS Number: 163NV Unique ID: WOS:000320345100016 Cited References: Szostak JW, 2001, NATURE, V409, P387 Gibson DG, 2000, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, V105, P20404 Frickel S, 2005, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V70, P204 Gardner TS, 2000, NATURE, V403, P339 Gibson Daniel G., 2010, SCIENCE, V329, P52 Glass JI, 2006, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V103, P425 Malaterre Vincent, 2009, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS AND BIOPHARMACEUTICS, V73, P311 Lartigue Carole, 2007, SCIENCE, V317, P632 FRASER CM, 1995, SCIENCE, V270, P397 GIERYN TF, 1983, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V48, P781 Heams Thomas, 2011, BMC proceedings, V5 Suppl 4, PS26 Endy D, 2005, NATURE, V438, P449 O'Malley Anna, 2008, Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, V25, P767 Elowitz MB, 2000, NATURE, V403, P335 Luisi PL, 2006, EMERGENCE OF LIFE: FROM CHEMICAL ORIGINS TO SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY, P1 Latour B., 1986, Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts, ======================================================================= Search terms matched: SCIENTOMETRIC(6) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320549700014 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Scientometric* analysis and mapping of scientific articles on Behcet's disease Authors: Shahram, F; Jamshidi, AR; Hirbod-Mobarakeh, A; Habibi, G; Mardani, A; Ghaemi, M Author Full Names: Shahram, Farhad; Jamshidi, Ahmad-Reza; Hirbod-Mobarakeh, Armin; Habibi, Gholamreza; Mardani, Amir; Ghaemi, Marjan Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 16 (2):185-192; 10.1111/1756-185X.12087 APR 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Behcet's disease, citation, scientometric analysis, web of science KeyWords Plus: BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; CRITERIA; TURKEY; IRAN Abstract: Background Behcet's disease (BD) is a systemic vasculitis disease with oral and genital aphthous ulceration, uveitis, skin manifestations, arthritis and neurological involvement. Many investigators have published articles on BD in the last two decades since introduction of diagnosis criteria by the International Study Group for Behcet's Disease in 1990. However, there is no *scientometric* analysis available for this increasing amount of literature. Methods A *scientometric* analysis method was used to achieve a view of scientific articles about BD which were published between 1990 and 2010, by data retrieving from ISI Web of Science. The specific features such as publication year, language of article, geographical distribution, main journal in this field, institutional affiliation and citation characteristics were retrieved and analyzed. International collaboration was analyzed using Intcoll and Pajek softwares. Results There was a growing trend in the number of BD articles! from 1990 to 2010. The number of citations to BD literature also increased around 5.5-fold in this period. The countries found to have the highest output were Turkey, Japan, the USA and England; the first two universities were from Turkey. Most of the top 10 journals publishing BD articles were in the field of rheumatology, consistent with the subject areas of the articles. There was a correlation between the citations per paper and the impact factor of the publishing journal. Conclusion This is the first *scientometric* analysis of BD, showing the *scientometric* characteristics of ISI publications on BD. Addresses: [Shahram, Farhad; Jamshidi, Ahmad-Reza] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Rheumatol Res Ctr, Behcets Dis Unit, Tehran, Iran. [Hirbod-Mobarakeh, Armin] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Mol Immunol Res Ctr, Sch Med, Tehran, Iran. [Hirbod-Mobarakeh, Armin] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Dept Immunol, Sch Med, Tehran, Iran. [Hirbod-Mobarakeh, Armin] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Students Sci Res Ctr, Tehran, Iran. [Habibi, Gholamreza; Mardani, Amir; Ghaemi, Marjan] Farzan Clin Res Inst, Farzan Scientometr Grp, Tehran, Iran. E-mail Addresses: swt_f at yahoo.com Cited Reference Count: 22 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 1756-1841 Web of Science Categories: Rheumatology Research Areas: Rheumatology IDS Number: 166JC Unique ID: WOS:000320549700014 Cited References: Hirohata S, 2003, ARTHRITIS RESEARCH & THERAPY, V5, P139 Shahram F, 2003, ADAMANTIADES-BEHCET'S DISEASE10th International Conference on Behcets Disease, JUN 27-29, 2002, BERLIN, GERMANY, V528, P229 FEIGENBAUM A, 1956, The British journal of ophthalmology, V40, P355 1998, Behcet's Syndrome, Sevinc A, 2004, JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V96, P980 Groneberg-Kloft B., 2009, JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIONAL ALLERGOLOGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, V19, P266 Sakane T, 1999, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V341, P1284 Davatchi Fereydoun, 2010, CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY, V29, P823 Davatchi Fereydoun, 2008, JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, V35, P1384 Ideguchi Haruko, 2011, MEDICINE, V90, P125 Eshraghi M., 2011, THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGEON, V59, P108 Disease ITftRoICfBs, 2008, Clin Exp Rheumatol, V26, PS Zamani Farhad, 2009, DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, V54, P1736 Estabrooks CA, 2004, NURSING RESEARCH, V53, P293 Behcet H, 1937, Clin Exp Rheumatol, V28, PS2 ONEILL TW, 1994, BRITISH JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, V33, P115 Atalay Ayfer, 2008, MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS, V35, P345 SILMAN AJ, 1990, LANCET, V335, P1078 Tuzun Y, 1996, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, V35, P618 Zouboulis CC, 1999, ANNALES DE MEDECINE INTERNE, V150, P488 Dilsen N, 1996, REVUE DU RHUMATISME, V63, P512 Kaklamani VG, 1998, SEMINARS IN ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM, V27, P197 ======================================================================= Search terms matched: SCIENTOMETRICS(2) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320009700026 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Scientometrics* Analysis on the Intellectual Structure of the Research Field of Bioenergy Authors: Qian, G Author Full Names: Qian, Ge Source: JOURNAL OF BIOBASED MATERIALS AND BIOENERGY, 7 (2):305-308; SI 10.1166/jbmb.2013.1320 APR 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article; Proceedings Paper Conference Title: International Conference on Agricultural, Food and Biological Engineering (ICAFBE) Conference Date: 2012 Conference Location: Guangzhou, PEOPLES R CHINA Author Keywords: Bioenergy, Co-Citation Analysis, Information Visualization, Mapping, CiteSpace II KeyWords Plus: COCITATION; SCIENCE Abstract: Bioenergy has been one of the hottest topics in energy science and engineering. This paper aims to assess the evolution of bioenergy as a research field by using *scientometrics* and scientific visualization techniques. CiteSpacell was used to map the intellectual structure of bioenergy field based on 2237 articles in ISI Web of Science database on this topic between 1973 and 2012, and the co-citation maps analyzed and visualized here show the major areas of research, prominent articles, major knowledge producers and journals in the bioenergy field. The article written by Searchinger et al. ("Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change," 2008) appears to be the most influential source as it was cited the most, the article by Fargione et al. ("Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt," 2008) and the article by Farrell et al. ("Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals," 2006) are respectively the second an! d third most highly cited document. Biomass and Bioenergy (BIOMASS BIOENERG.) is the most frequently cited journal by the authors writing on the research field of bioenergy. IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is most frequently co-cited author, followed by FAO-Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Lewandowski. The hottest keywords in this field appear to be bioenergy, biomass, energy, biofuels, ethanol, switchgrass and management. Addresses: Shanghai Univ Finance & Econ, Humanities Coll, Theoret Teaching & Res Dept, Shanghai 200433, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: qiange at mail.shufe.edu.cn Cited Reference Count: 9 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AMER SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHERS, 26650 THE OLD RD, STE 208, VALENCIA, CA 91381-0751 USA ISSN: 1556-6560 Web of Science Categories: Chemistry, Applied; Energy & Fuels; Materials Science, Biomaterials Research Areas: Chemistry; Energy & Fuels; Materials Science IDS Number: 158XY Unique ID: WOS:000320009700026 Cited References: Chen CM, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Mapping Knowledge Domains, MAY 09-11, 2003, Irvine, CA, V101, P5303 SMALL H, 1980, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V36, P183 SMALL H, 1985, SCIENTOMETRICS, V8, P321 Duzyol G., 2010, 76th IFLA Pre-Conference Satellite Meeting, August, 2010, Chania Crete, Greece, Urban F., 2011, Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper 8, WHITE HD, 1982, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V38, P255 CALLON M, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICS, V22, P155 [Anonymous], 2006, People's Daily, P12 MCCAIN KW, 1991, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V42, P290 ======================================================================= Search terms matched: BIBLIOGRAPHIC(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320154600030 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Project Evidencia [evidence] - research and education about accessing scientific databases in Azores Authors: Soares, H; Pereira, SM; Neves, A; Gomes, A; Teixeira, B; Oliveira, C; Sousa, F; Tavares, M; Tavares, P; Dutra, R; Pereira, HR Author Full Names: Soares, Helia; Pereira, Sandra M.; Neves, Ajuda; Gomes, Amy; Teixeira, Bruno; Oliveira, Carolina; Sousa, Fabio; Tavares, Marcio; Tavares, Patricia; Dutra, Raquel; Pereira, Helder Rocha Source: REVISTA DA ESCOLA DE ENFERMAGEM DA USP, 47 (2):477-483; APR 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Evidence-based nursing, Databases, bibliographic, Nursing research, Education, nursing, continuing KeyWords Plus: KNOWLEDGE; BARRIERS; NURSES Abstract: Project Evidencia [Evidence] intends to promote the use of scientific databases among nurses. This study aims to design educational interventions that facilitate nurses' access to these databases, to determine nurses' habits regarding the use of scientific databases, and to determine the impact that educational interventions on scientific databases have on Azorean nurses who volunteered for this project. An intervention project was conducted, and a quantitative descriptive survey was designed to evaluate the impact two and five months after the educational intervention. This impact was investigated considering certain aspects, namely, the nurses' knowledge, habits and reasons for using scientific databases. A total of 192 nurses participated in this study, and the primary results indicate that the educational intervention had a positive impact based not only on the increased frequency of using platforms or databases of scientific information (DSIs) s but also on the competen! ce and self-awareness regarding its use and consideration of the reasons for accessing this information. Addresses: [Soares, Helia; Pereira, Sandra M.] Univ Azores, Super Sch Nursing Angra Heroism, Azores, Portugal. [Teixeira, Bruno; Oliveira, Carolina; Tavares, Marcio; Tavares, Patricia] Azores Univ, Super Sch Nursing Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal. [Pereira, Helder Rocha] Azores Univ, Project Evidence, Super Sch Nursing Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal. E-mail Addresses: hmsoares at uac.pt; smpereira at uac.pt; ajudaneves at gmail.com; amy_faial at yahoo.com; bmteixeira at uac.pt; carolinafpoliveira at gmail.com; fabioalexandre.sousa at gmail.com; mftavares at uac.pt; patavares30 at gmail.com; raquel_dutra31 at hotmail.com; hpereira at uac.pt Cited Reference Count: 13 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: UNIV SAO PAOLO, AV DR ENEAS DE CARVALHO AGUIAR, 419, CERQUERA CESAR, SP 05403-000, BRAZIL ISSN: 0080-6234 Web of Science Categories: Nursing Research Areas: Nursing IDS Number: 160XU Unique ID: WOS:000320154600030 Cited References: Ferrito CRAC, 2007, Percursos, P36 Wallen Gwenyth R., 2010, JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, V66, P2761 Burns N, 2005, The practice of nursing research: conduct, critique, and utilization, Tagney Jenny, 2009, British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing), V18, P484 Rycroft-Malone J, 2004, JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, V47, P81 Nunes L, 2005, Codigo deontologico do enfermeiro: dos comentarios a analise de casos, Pravikoff DS, 2005, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NURSING, V105, P40 Prior Patsy, 2010, Nursing praxis in New Zealand inc, V26, P14 Polit DF, 2004, Fundamentos de pesquisa em enfermagem: metodos, avaliacao e utilizacao, Brown Caroline E., 2009, JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, V65, P371 Majid Shaheen, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V99, P229 Cubas Marcia Regina, 2008, REVISTA DA ESCOLA DE ENFERMAGEM DA USP, V42, P181 Oh Eui Geum, 2010, JOURNAL OF NURSING EDUCATION, V49, P387 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000319668000054 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Examination of the impact of animal and dairy science *journals* based on traditional and newly developed bibliometric indices Authors: Malesios, C; Abas, Z Author Full Names: Malesios, C.; Abas, Z. Source: JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 90 (13):5170-5181; 10.2527/jas2012-5278 DEC 2012 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: animal and dairy science journals, journal evaluation journal h-index, journal impact factor KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; CITATION COUNTS; GOOGLE-SCHOLAR; RANKING; SCOPUS; OUTPUT; WEB Abstract: Using traditional bibliometric indices such as the well-known journal impact factor (IFAC), as well as other more recently developed measures like the (journal) h-index and modifications, we assessed the impact of most prolific scientific journals in the field of animal and dairy science. To achieve this end, we performed a detailed investigation on the evaluation of journals quality, using a total of 50 journals selected from the category of "Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science" included in the Thomson Reuters' (formerly Institute of Scientific Information, ISI) Web of Science. Our analysis showed that among the top journals in the field are the Journal of Dairy Research, the Journal of Dairy Science, and the Journal of Animal Science. In particular, the Journal of Animal Science, the most productive and frequently cited journal, has shown rapid development, especially in recent years. The majority of the top-tier, highly *cited articles* are those associated with the descr! iption of statistical methodology and the standard chemical analytical methodologies. Addresses: [Malesios, C.; Abas, Z.] Democritus Univ Thrace, Dept Agr Dev, Orestiada, Greece. E-mail Addresses: malesios at agro.duth.gr Cited Reference Count: 34 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AMER SOC ANIMAL SCIENCE, PO BOX 7410, CHAMPAIGN, IL 61826-7410 USA ISSN: 0021-8812 Web of Science Categories: Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science Research Areas: Agriculture IDS Number: 154IM Unique ID: WOS:000319668000054 Cited References: Jokic Maja, 2009, BIOCHEMIA MEDICA, V19, P5 Panaretos J., 2009, Tech. Rep. 244, Olden Julian D., 2007, ECOSCIENCESymposium on Marsupials as Models for Research held at the 9th International Mammalogical Congress, AUG, 2005, Sapporo, JAPAN, V14, P370 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Meho Lokman I., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P2105 Barendse William, 2007, Biomedical digital libraries, V4, P3 Jacso Peter, 2008, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V32, P266 Sidiropoulos A., 2006, Tech. Rep., VANSOEST PJ, 1991, JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, V74, P3583 Rousseau R., 2007, Sci. Foc., V1, P16 Molinari Jean-Francois, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P163 Vanclay JK, 2006, SCIENTIST, V20, P14 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Symonds Matthew R. E., 2006, PLOS ONE, V1, Vinkler P, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS7th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUL 05-08, 1999, COLIMA, MEXICO, V46, P621 SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Adler R., 2008, Citation statistics, Malesios C., 2012, ANNALS OF FOREST RESEARCH, V55, P147 GILL JL, 1971, JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, V33, P331 Norusis M., 2006, SPSS 14.0. Guide to data analysis, West Jevin, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1800 Garfield E., 1979, Citation indexing: Its theory and applications in science, technology and humanities, Braun Tibor, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P169 Littell RC, 1998, JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE88th Annual Meeting of the American-Society-of-Animal-Science, JUL 24-26, 1996, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA, V76, P1216 Ogden Trevor L., 2008, ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE, V52, P73 Dodson M. V., 2008, JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, V86, P2795 Podlubny I, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P95 Garfield E, 1998, SCIENTIST, V12, P11 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY, P1471 Braun T, 2005, SCIENTIST, V19, P8 Bergstrom C. T., 2007, C&RL News, V68, P314 ZINN RA, 1986, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, V66, P157 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P338 Davis Philip M., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V5 ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: BIBLIOMETRIC(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320666600004 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Progress on entomopathogenic nematology research: A *bibliometric* study of the last three decades: 1980-2010 Authors: San-Blas, E Author Full Names: San-Blas, Ernesto Source: BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, 66 (2):102-124; 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2013.04.002 AUG 2013 Language: English Document Type: Review Author Keywords: Steinernema, Heterorhabditis, Publication, Scientiometrics, Coauthorship networking, Database KeyWords Plus: INSECT-PARASITIC NEMATODES; BLACK VINE WEEVIL; DIAPREPES-ABBREVIATUS COLEOPTERA; STEINERNEMA-CARPOCAPSAE RHABDITIDA; HETERORHABDITIS-HELIOTHIDIS NEMATODA; OTIORHYNCHUS-SULCATUS COLEOPTERA; WHITE GRUBS COLEOPTERA; BACTERIOPHORA INFECTIVE JUVENILES; THRIPS FRANKLINIELLA-OCCIDENTALIS; METARHIZIUM-ANISOPLIAE CLO-53 Abstract: Entomopathogenic nematodes have achieved a place in biological control programmes because of their effectiveness, speed of action, innocuousness to non-insect targets and simplicity of mass production. However many challenges derived to the lack of knowledge in some critical steps from laboratories to their use in the fields, have to be resolved in order to improve their performance and to reduce the mass production costs. For those reasons, studies on entomopathogenic nematology have increased considerably in the last few decades. Also, there have been important changes in the ways that results are published; many of them relate to major transformations in scientific trends. Using bibliometric tools we characterize variations in number, types of journal, countries of origin, research topics and the number of participating countries, of 1923 papers (from 1980 to 2010) reported in several on-line editorial databases. (c) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Addresses: Inst Venezolano Invest Cient, Lab Protecc Vegetal, Ctr Estudios Bot & Agroforestales, Maracaibo 4001, Venezuela. E-mail Addresses: esanblas at yahoo.com Cited Reference Count: 364 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE, 525 B ST, STE 1900, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4495 USA ISSN: 1049-9644 Web of Science Categories: Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology; Entomology Research Areas: Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology; Entomology IDS Number: 167WR Unique ID: WOS:000320666600004 Cited References: Baur ME, 1998, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V91, P1089 BYERS JA, 1982, BEHAVIOUR, V79, P1 Lopez-Robles J., 2003, Tests Agrochem. Cultiv, V24, P24 Perez EE, 2002, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V34, P171 Koppenhofer AM, 1996, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V68, P246 Polavarapu Sridhar, 2007, CROP PROTECTION, V26, P1266 MATHA V, 1984, NEMATOLOGICA, V30, P86 McCoy CW, 2002, FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST, V85, P537 Jess S, 2004, BULLETIN OF ENTOMOLOGICAL RESEARCH, V94, P159 Kunkel BA, 2003, ENTOMOLOGIA EXPERIMENTALIS ET APPLICATA, V107, P95 GEORGIS R, 1991, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V84, P713 Jagdale GB, 2003, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V33, P145 Selvan S, 1996, EXPERIENTIA, V52, P727 Armer CA, 2004, ENTOMOLOGIA EXPERIMENTALIS ET APPLICATA, V111, P47 POINAR GO, 1990, AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, V30, P195 Jaworska M, 1997, WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION, V93, P213 Cohen NE, 2002, NEMATOLOGY, V4, P81 HAN RC, 1993, NEMATOLOGICA, V39, P366 POINAR GO, 1968, JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY, V54, P340 Chojnacki J., 2010, Proc. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol, V65, P471 Zoltowska K, 2003, BEE WORLD, V84, P125 Vanninen I, 1997, ENTOMOPHAGA, V42, P377 MOYLE PL, 1981, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V13, P295 KAYA HK, 1995, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V5, P432 LEWIS EE, 1994, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V64, P238 Barbara KA, 2005, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V98, P689 Finnegan MM, 1999, NEMATOLOGY, V1, P69 Fowler H.G., 1988, International Rice Research Newsletter, V13, P34 Jagdale Ganpati B., 2008, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V44, P13 CHOO HY, 1989, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, V18, P1136 Balasubramanian Natesan, 2009, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V39, P975 Abu Hatab M.A., 1997, Journal of Thermal Biology, V22, P237 Nielsen O, 2004, BIOCONTROL, V49, P285 Susurluk A, 2001, NEMATOLOGY, V3, P833 GRIFFIN CT, 1990, ANTARCTIC SCIENCE, V2, P221 Bai Xiaodong, 2007, MOLECULAR AND BIOCHEMICAL PARASITOLOGY, V156, P162 JANSSON RK, 1994, FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST, V77, P281 GEORGIS R, 1983, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V15, P652 DUNPHY GB, 1985, PARASITOLOGY, V91, P369 Liu N. X., 1982, Natural Enemies of Insects, V4, P50 DUNPHY G B, 1989, Revue de Nematologie, V12, P113 Alsaiyah Mohamed A. M., 2009, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V39, P725 Grewal PS, 2000, PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, V56, P401 Fujimoto Aki, 2007, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V39, P333 BURMAN M, 1980, EXPERIMENTAL PARASITOLOGY, V49, P258 THURSTON GS, 1994, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V26, P345 STRAUCH O, 1994, FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED NEMATOLOGY, V17, P575 Richmond DS, 2004, ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOGY, V29, P353 HARA AH, 1982, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V14, P486 Alekseev Eugene, 2006, BIOCONTROL, V51, P507 Bohan DA, 1997, JOURNAL OF HELMINTHOLOGY, V71, P197 Chavarria-Hernandez Norberto, 2010, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOPROCESS ENGINEERING, V15, P580 Stuart RJ, 1998, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V72, P288 MAMIYA Y, 1988, APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY AND ZOOLOGY, V23, P313 KAYA HK, 1989, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V21, P434 STOLL NR, 1953, JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY, V39, P422 Ellsbury MM, 1996, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V89, P74 Patel MN, 1997, COMPARATIVE BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY B-BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, V118, P649 ROVESTI L, 1990, NEMATOLOGICA, V36, P237 Koppenhofer AM, 2003, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, V32, P392 Loya LJ, 2002, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, V31, P1240 Yang HW, 1997, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V10, P193 Stack CM, 2000, NEMATOLOGY, V2, P477 Molina Acevedo Juan Pablo, 2007, Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, V96, P187 JANSSON RK, 1993, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V86, P1055 Cabanillas HE, 1996, FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED NEMATOLOGY, V19, P273 Islas-Lopez MA, 2005, APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, V68, P91 ROVESTI L, 1988, NEMATOLOGICA, V34, P462 Shapiro DI, 2000, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V32, P281 Sher RB, 2000, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V17, P155 Stark JD, 1996, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V89, P68 Gaugler R, 2000, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V17, P100 Puza Vladimir, 2007, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V96, P89 BEDDING RA, 1982, NEMATOLOGICA, V28, P354 Glaser R.W., 1941, J. Parasitol, V27, P123 IRESON JE, 1983, ENTOMOLOGIA EXPERIMENTALIS ET APPLICATA, V34, P342 Stuart R. J., 2008, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY46th Annual Meeting of the Society-for-Nematologists, JUL 28-AUG 01, 2007, San Diego, CA, V40, P73 Ansari M. A., 2010, BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V20, P99 Fife J. P., 2007, APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE, V23, P405 Stanuszek S., 1970, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium of the European Society of Nematology, August, 1967, Warsaw, P355 Everard A., 2009, BULLETIN OF ENTOMOLOGICAL RESEARCH, V99, P151 WOUTS WM, 1979, NEMATOLOGICA, V25, P191 JAWORSKA M, 1994, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V64, P96 Leppla N. C., 2007, FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST, V90, P229 Converse V, 1999, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V74, P143 Samish M., 2004, Parasitology, V129, P389 Somasekhar N, 2002, JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, V39, P735 BUECHER EJ, 1989, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V21, P500 Jagdale GB, 2005, JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY, V91, P988 Emelianoff Vanya, 2007, PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH, V100, P657 Ram Karthik, 2008, ECOLOGY, V89, P3290 Alumai A, 2004, BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V14, P725 Conner JM, 1998, NEMATROPICA, V28, P95 Somasekhar N, 2002, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V23, P303 Fallon DJ, 2002, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V34, P239 Lara Juan Carlos, 2008, SCIENTIA AGRICOLA, V65, P433 Jagdale G. B., 2009, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V51, P102 Henry Mickael, 2012, SCIENCE, V336, P348 POINAR G O JR, 1971, Entomologica Scandinavica, V2, P301 Rasmann S, 2005, NATURE, V434, P732 Koppenhofer AM, 1997, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V8, P131 GRIFFIN CT, 1991, NEMATOLOGICA, V37, P83 Samish M, 2000, JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY, V86, P679 Glanzel W, 2004, HANDBOOK OF QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH: THE USE OF PUBLICATION AND PATENT STATISTICS IN STUDIES OF S&T SYSTEMS, P257 BATTISTI A, 1994, BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V4, P95 BLACKSHAW RP, 1988, ANNALS OF APPLIED BIOLOGY, V113, P561 Hao You-Jin, 2010, MOLECULAR AND BIOCHEMICAL PARASITOLOGY, V169, P79 Jaworska M, 1996, WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION, V88, P331 ALATORREROSAS R, 1990, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V55, P179 Shapiro DI, 1996, APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY, V3, P27 Koppenhofer AM, 1997, APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY, V6, P231 KAYA HK, 1984, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V16, P9 GEORGIS R, 1982, IRCS MEDICAL SCIENCE-BIOCHEMISTRY, V10, P617 Tyson Trevor, 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V37, P763 Glaser R.W., 1940, J. Parasitol, V27, P123 POINAR GO, 1992, FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED NEMATOLOGY, V15, P467 MAULEON H, 1993, EXPERIMENTAL & APPLIED ACAROLOGY, V17, P831 Head J, 2000, BIOCONTROL, V45, P345 OGURA N, 1994, NEMATOLOGICA, V40, P613 GAUGLER R, 1983, ENTOMOPHAGA, V28, P309 Gaugler R., 2002, Entomopathogenic Nematology, PIX FISCHER P, 1990, BIOLOGY AND FERTILITY OF SOILS, V9, P174 Hiltpold Ivan, 2008, JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY, V34, P628 Gordon R, 1996, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V28, P310 KakouliDuarte T, 1997, ANNALS OF APPLIED BIOLOGY, V131, P11 Laczynski Artur, 2007, BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V17, P841 POINAR GO, 1985, IRCS MEDICAL SCIENCE-BIOCHEMISTRY, V13, P754 Samish M, 2001, TRENDS IN PARASITOLOGY, V17, P368 Grewal PS, 2001, PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, V57, P852 Koppenhofer AM, 1998, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V91, P618 Surrey MR, 1996, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V67, P92 European Commission, 1988, Commission Document COM 88, P338 Duncan LW, 1996, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V28, P56 WHARTON DA, 1994, CRYO-LETTERS, V15, P353 Tran Erin E. Herbert, 2009, APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, V75, P4007 Shapiro DI, 1996, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, V25, P1455 Preisser EL, 2005, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, V34, P1501 GREWAL SK, 1995, ENTOMOLOGIA EXPERIMENTALIS ET APPLICATA, V74, P219 MOUREAUX N, 1995, APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, V61, P2707 Timper P., 1991, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V1, P42 SCHROEDER WJ, 1990, FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST, V73, P129 Blackshaw R.P., 1989, Nematologica, V33, P180 Sicard Mathieu, 2005, Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France, V130, P193 POPIEL I, 1989, PARASITOLOGY, V99, P77 GAUGLER R, 1980, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, V9, P649 GREWAL PS, 1993, JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY, V79, P495 Glazer I, 2001, JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY, V87, P808 Jin Y.-L., 2004, Insect Sci, V11, P99 CAPINERA JL, 1982, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V39, P419 Newman MEJ, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Mapping Knowledge Domains, MAY 09-11, 2003, Irvine, CA, V101, P5200 Danilov L.G., 2008, Parazitologiya (St. Petersburg), V42, P129 Abdel-Razek A. S., 2002, Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection, V35, P181 Schroer S, 2005, JOURNAL OF APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY, V129, P198 Poinar Jr G.O., 1986, Rev. Nematol, V9, P241 MRACEK Z, 1977, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V30, P87 Navon A, 1998, BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V8, P429 Lola-Luz Theodora, 2007, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V40, P314 Kanagy JMN, 1996, NEMATOLOGICA, V42, P220 Jaworska M, 1999, WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION, V110, P181 Herbert Erin E., 2007, APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, V73, P7826 GEORGIS R, 1984, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, V13, P1138 SUNDERABABU R, 1985, Indian Journal of Nematology, V15, P109 Wennemann L, 2003, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V96, P287 SHAPIRO DI, 1993, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V25, P189 FIGUEROA W, 1990, JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, V74, P197 Gal TZ, 2001, JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY, V87, P725 SAMISH M, 1992, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY, V29, P614 MRACEK Z, 1983, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V42, P397 POINAR G O JR, 1989, Revue de Nematologie, V12, P423 Mahmoud Mahmoud Farag, 2007, Plant Protection Science, V43, P19 AKHURST RJ, 1986, JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY, V25, P241 Koppenhofer AM, 2000, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V19, P245 Hayes AE, 1999, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V92, P539 Cuthbertson Andrew G. S., 2008, INSECT SCIENCE, V15, P447 Nishimatsu T, 1998, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V91, P410 Leger Catalina, 2009, JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, V33, P128 Kain DP, 1999, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V92, P193 Shapiro DI, 2000, FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST, V83, P1 Grewal PS, 2000, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V30, P995 GEORGIS R, 1983, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V15, P329 LEWIS EE, 1993, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE ZOOLOGIE, V71, P765 Patel MN, 1997, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V27, P61 BEDDING RA, 1984, ANNALS OF APPLIED BIOLOGY, V104, P117 Shapiro DI, 2000, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V93, P1090 GLAZER I, 1992, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V85, P1636 LUNAU S, 1993, NEMATOLOGICA, V39, P385 Strauch O, 2000, BIOCONTROL, V45, P483 HOMINICK WM, 1990, PARASITOLOGY, V100, P289 Schroer S, 2005, NEMATOLOGY, V7, P37 Han RC, 1996, NEMATOLOGICA, V42, P546 ROVESTI L, 1989, NEMATOLOGICA, V35, P493 Kaya Harry K., 2006, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL3rd International Symposium on Entomopathogenic Nematodes and Symbiotic Bacteria, 2003, Wooster, OH, V38, P134 AKHURST RJ, 1984, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V44, P140 Shapiro DI, 1999, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, V28, P907 Ansari MA, 2004, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V31, P172 Ellis S.A., 1993, Tests Agrochem. Cultiv, V14, P188 SAMISH M, 1991, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V58, P281 GRIFFIN CT, 1994, FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED NEMATOLOGY, V17, P415 HOMINICK WM, 1990, PARASITOLOGY, V100, P295 KAYA HK, 1987, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V19, P287 Balasubramanian N., 2010, PARASITE IMMUNOLOGY, V32, P165 POINAR GO, 1986, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V18, P225 Oestergaard Jesko, 2006, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V39, P525 POINAR GO, 1985, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V45, P24 Whitehorn Penelope R., 2012, SCIENCE, V336, P351 DOWNING AS, 1994, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V87, P643 Lacey LA, 2003, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V83, P230 Henderson Donna R., 2009, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V48, P316 Perry RN, 1998, BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V8, P175 Samish M, 1999, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY, V36, P733 Eng MS, 2005, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V88, P173 WELCH H. E., 1960, Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario, V91, P197 Artyukhovsky A.K., 1967, Trudy Voroneszhskogo Gosudarstvennego Zapovednika, V15, P94 Salame L., 2010, PHYTOPARASITICA, V38, P39 Toubarro Duarte, 2010, JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY, V285, P30666 Kocan KM, 1998, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY, V35, P514 Wang Y, 2001, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, V30, P196 MRACEK Z, 1984, NEMATOLOGICA, V30, P112 CURRAN J, 1988, AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AGRICULTURE, V28, P639 Somvanshi Vishal S., 2008, MOLECULAR AND BIOCHEMICAL PARASITOLOGY, V158, P65 BARBERCHECK ME, 1990, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V55, P225 VANSLOUN P, 1990, JOURNAL OF PHYTOPATHOLOGY-PHYTOPATHOLOGISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT, V129, P217 CHOO HY, 1991, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V58, P279 Ehlers RU, 2000, BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V10, P607 Shapiro-Ilan D. I., 2002, Entomopathogenic nematology, P333 Ebssa Lemma, 2006, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V39, P66 Bednarek A., 1997, J. Nematol, V84, P713 THOMAS GM, 1979, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY, V29, P352 Georgis R., 2006, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL3rd International Symposium on Entomopathogenic Nematodes and Symbiotic Bacteria, 2003, Wooster, OH, V38, P103 National Research Council, 1993, P408 Chen SB, 2005, BIOLOGICAL CONTROLAntoni Van Leeuwenhoek Symposium, OCT, 2000, NETHERLANDS, V32, P104 Gaugler R, 2002, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V24, P199 Wang Y, 1999, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V14, P45 FODOR A, 1994, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V26, P278 Grewal PS, 1997, BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V7, P393 Duncan LW, 2001, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V33, P142 KLINGLER J, 1988, ENTOMOPHAGA, V33, P325 Agra-Gothama A.A., 1995, J. Invertebr. Pathol, V66, P270 BEDDING RA, 1981, NEMATOLOGICA, V27, P109 Pereault R. J., 2009, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, V38, P1126 GLAZER I, 1993, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V61, P220 KAYA HK, 1993, ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENTOMOLOGY, V38, P181 ROMAN J, 1983, JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, V67, P311 GEORGIS R, 1995, BIORATIONAL PEST CONTROL AGENTSSymposium on Biorational Pest Control Agents - Formulation and Delivery, at the 207th National Meeting of the American-Chemical-Society, MAR 13-17, 1994, SAN DIEGO, CA, V595, P197 WANG J X, 1987, Revue de Nematologie, V10, P483 POINAR G O JR, 1985, Revue de Nematologie, V8, P357 Shapiro DI, 1999, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V31, P690 Perez EE, 2004, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V30, P336 NGUYEN KB, 1990, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V22, P574 Brusselman Eva, 2010, NEMATOLOGY, V12, P105 Patel MN, 1997, COMPARATIVE BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY B-BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, V118, P341 Weiser J., 1955, Westnik Ceskoslovenske Zoologicke Spolecnosti, V19, P44 San-Blas Ernesto, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V38, P85 Chavarria-Hernandez Norberto, 2006, JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, V125, P75 KAKOULI T, 1993, ANNALS OF APPLIED BIOLOGY, V122, P190 Molina J. P., 2007, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V39, P338 Steiner G., 1923, Zentralblatt fur bakteriologie Zweite Abteilung, V59, P14 KUSHIDA T, 1987, JAPANESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY AND ZOOLOGY, V31, P144 Brivio MF, 2006, DEVELOPMENTAL AND COMPARATIVE IMMUNOLOGY, V30, P627 KERMARREC A, 1985, Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Universiteit Gent37TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CROP PROTECTION, PART 3, GHENT, BELGIUM. MEDED FAC LANDBOUWWET RIJKSUNIV GENT., V50, P831 Toubarro Duarte, 2009, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V39, P1319 MADIKHANOV M, 1982, ZOOLOGICHESKY ZHURNAL, V61, P500 Koppenhofer AM, 2000, NEMATOLOGY, V2, P407 LEWIS EE, 1992, PARASITOLOGY, V105, P309 REED DK, 1986, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY, V79, P1330 SURREY MR, 1995, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V25, P749 Koppenhoefer Albrecht M., 2008, PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, V64, P725 GRAY PA, 1983, JOURNAL OF THE GEORGIA ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY, V18, P454 Fujiie A, 1998, APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY AND ZOOLOGY, V33, P263 Shapiro-Ilan DI, 2002, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V34, P343 Zaki FN, 1997, JOURNAL OF APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGEWANDTE ENTOMOLOGIE, V121, P151 Grewal PS, 2002, BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V12, P533 GULLINO ML, 1994, ANNUAL REVIEW OF PHYTOPATHOLOGY, V32, P559 Jaffee BA, 2005, SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY, V37, P1011 Pizano M.A., 1985, Entomol. Newsletter, V17, P9 POINAR G O JR, 1988, Revue de Nematologie, V11, P447 Mason JM, 1998, CROP PROTECTION, V17, P453 FILIPJEV I. N., 1934, Parazitologicheski Sbornik, V4, P229 Koppenhofer AM, 2000, ENTOMOLOGIA EXPERIMENTALIS ET APPLICATA, V94, P283 SCHROEDER WJ, 1990, FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST, V73, P680 STEINER G., 1929, JOUR WASHINGTON ACAD SCI, V19, P436 Patel MN, 1997, PARASITOLOGY, V114, P489 Vanninen I, 2003, BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V13, P47 LaMondia JA, 2002, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V34, P351 De Nardo Elizabeth A. B., 2006, APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY, V34, P250 SPAULL VW, 1992, FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED NEMATOLOGY, V15, P457 GAUGLER R, 1992, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V59, P155 BOEMARE NE, 1993, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY, V43, P249 Ramirez Ricardo A., II, 2009, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V48, P147 FORSCHLER BT, 1990, JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY, V55, P375 El-Wakeil N. E., 2009, Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection, V42, P228 World Wide Fund for Nature, 1993, P48 Grewal PS, 2002, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V32, P717 BUECHER EJ, 1971, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V3, P199 Bird A.F., 1986, J. Parasitol, V16, P511 WOUTS WM, 1981, JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY, V13, P467 Mbata George N., 2010, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, V54, P75 Young JM, 2002, BIOTECHNOLOGY PROGRESS, V18, P29 van Tol RWHM, 2001, ECOLOGY LETTERS, V4, P292 Ali Jared G., 2010, JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY, V36, P361 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: CITATIONS(1); JOURNAL(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320175800003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: IS COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY "TOO INSULAR"? A NETWORK ANALYSIS OF *JOURNAL* *CITATIONS* Authors: Neal, JW; Janulis, P; Collins, C Author Full Names: Neal, Jennifer Watling; Janulis, Patrick; Collins, Charles Source: JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, 41 (5):549-564; 10.1002/jcop.21556 JUL 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: MAPPING KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS; INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH; SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS; SCIENCE; TRANSDISCIPLINARY; COLLABORATION; INDEX Abstract: The current study uses social network analysis to explore one aspect of cross-disciplinary connections in community psychology-citations from articles published in community psychology's main journals (i.e., American Journal of Community Psychology and Journal of Community Psychology) to allied disciplines in 2009. Results indicate that although community psychology journals cited a wide range of disciplines, their levels of citation to any individual journal in another discipline never exceeded 10% of their total network citations. Additionally, journals in other disciplines did not exhibit many citations to community psychology journals. Observed homophily measures indicate that community psychology journals have more cross-disciplinary citations than articles published in the flagship journals of clinical psychology, sociology, and public health. However, relative homophily measures suggest that community psychology journals are also far more likely to cite within discipl! ine than expected by chance. Implications and future directions for cross-disciplinary endeavors in community psychology are suggested. Addresses: [Neal, Jennifer Watling; Janulis, Patrick; Collins, Charles] Michigan State Univ, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. E-mail Addresses: jneal at msu.edu Cited Reference Count: 35 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 0090-4392 Web of Science Categories: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Psychology, Multidisciplinary; Social Work Research Areas: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Psychology; Social Work IDS Number: 161EU Unique ID: WOS:000320175800003 Cited References: Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P787 Haines Valerie A., 2011, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, V47, P1 Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P348 Toro PA, 2005, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY112th Annual Convention of the American-Psychological-Association, JUL 28-AUG 01, 2004, Honolulu, HI, V35, P9 Maton Kenneth I., 2006, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, V38, P9 Smith Janet L., 2006, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, V38, P23 Boyack KW, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Mapping Knowledge Domains, MAY 09-11, 2003, Irvine, CA, V101, P5192 PRICE DJD, 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 McPherson M, 2001, ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, V27, P415 LOUNSBURY JW, 1980, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, V8, P415 Stokols Daniel, 2006, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, V38, P63 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Leydesdorff L, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P601 Shiffrin RM, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V101, P5183 Martin PP, 2004, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, V34, P163 Maton KI, 2000, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGYAnnual Meeting of the American-Psychological-Association, AUG 18-24, 1999, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, V28, P25 Merritt D. M., 1998, Unification through division: Histories of the divisions of the American Psychological Association, V3, P73 Moody J, 2004, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V69, P213 Christens Brian, 2008, JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, V36, P214 Maton Kenneth I., 2006, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, V38, P1 Scott John, 2000, Newman MEJ, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Mapping Knowledge Domains, MAY 09-11, 2003, Irvine, CA, V101, P5200 NARIN F, 1972, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V23, P323 LEYDESDORFF L, 1986, SCIENTOMETRICS, V9, P103 Kloos B, 2005, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, V35, P259 Leydesdorff L, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P159 Garfield E., 1964, The use of citation data in writing the history of science, Stokols Daniel, 2003, Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, V5 Suppl 1, PS21 Thomson Reuters, 2009, ISI Web of Knowledge: Journal citation reports (Social Sciences edition), Wellman B., 1988, Social structures a network approach, P19 Light R., 2006, The American Sociologist, V37, P67 Espino Susan L. Ryerson, 2008, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, V42, P60 ROSENFIELD PL, 1992, SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE1989 ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOC, JAN 15, 1989, WASHINGTON, DC, V35, P1343 Lazarsfeld P. F., 1964, Freedom and control in modern society, P18 Bennett C. C., 1966, Community psychology: A report of the Boston Conference on the education of psychologists for Community Mental Health, P1 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= ======================================================================= , ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: SCIENTOMETRIC(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320333600001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Traffic medicine-related research: a *scientometric* analysis Authors: Groneberg-Kloft, B; Klingelhoefer, D; Zitnik, SE; Scutaru, C Author Full Names: Groneberg-Kloft, Beatrix; Klingelhoefer, Doris; Zitnik, Simona E.; Scutaru, Cristian Source: BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 13 10.1186/1471-2458-13-541 JUN 5 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL-HEALTH; OCCUPATIONAL-HEALTH; PUBLIC-HEALTH; QUALITY; VISUALIZATION; BENCHMARKING; QUANTITY; INJURIES; TRENDS Abstract: Objective: Traffic crashes and related injuries are important causes of morbidity and mortality and impose insofar an important burden on public health. However, research in this area is often under-funded. The aim of this study was to analyse quantity, evolution and geographic distribution of traffic medicine-related research. This multi-sectorial field covers both transport and health care sectors. Design: A scientometric approach in combination with visualizing density equalizing mapping was used to analyse published data related to the field of traffic medicine between 1900 and 2008 within the "Web of Science" (WoS) database. Results: In total, 5,193 traffic medicine-associated items were produced between 1900 and 2008. The United States was found to have the highest research activity with a production of n = 2,330 published items, followed by Germany (n = 298) and Canada (n = 219). Cooperation analyses resulted in a peak of published multilateral cooperations in the year of 2003. The country with the highest multilateral activity was the USA. The average number of cited references per publication varied heavily over the last 20 years with a maximum of 27.67 in 1995 and a minimum of 15.08 in 1998. Also, a further in-depth analysis was performed with a focus solely on public health aspects which revealed similar trends. Conclusions: Summarizing the present data it can be stated traffic medicine-related research productivity grows annually. Also, an active networking between countries is present. The data of the present study may be used by scientific organisations in order to gain detailed information about research activities in this field which is extremely important for public health. Addresses: [Groneberg-Kloft, Beatrix] Free Univ Berlin, Charite Univ Med Berlin, Otto Heubner Ctr, Berlin, Germany. [Groneberg-Kloft, Beatrix; Scutaru, Cristian] Humboldt Univ, D-10099 Berlin, Germany. [Klingelhoefer, Doris; Zitnik, Simona E.] Goethe Univ Frankfurt, Inst Occupat Med Social Med & Environm Med, D-60054 Frankfurt, Germany. [Scutaru, Cristian] Free Univ Berlin, Charite Univ Med Berlin, Inst Occupat Med, Berlin, Germany. E-mail Addresses: klingelhoefer at med.uni.frankfurt.de Cited Reference Count: 24 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 236 GRAYS INN RD, FLOOR 6, LONDON WC1X 8HL, ENGLAND ISSN: 1471-2458 Article Number: 541 Web of Science Categories: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Research Areas: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health IDS Number: 163KA Unique ID: WOS:000320333600001 Cited References: Eddleston Michael, 2007, PLOS ONE, V2, Sangowawa AO, Inj Prev, V16, P85 Soteriades Elpidoforos S., 2006, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V6, Donroe Joseph, 2008, PLOS ONE, V3, Michon Frederic, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, Smith Derek R., 2008, INDUSTRIAL HEALTH, V46, P519 Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, 2009, JOURNAL OF ASTHMA, V46, P147 Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, 2009, Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), V4, P16 Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH GEOGRAPHICS, V7, Smith Derek R., 2009, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V64, P43 Scutaru Cristian, 2010, INDUSTRIAL HEALTH, V48, P197 Mohan D, 2002, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V31, P527 Tarkowski S. M., 2007, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH14th European Public Health Research Conference, NOV, 2006, Montreux, SWITZERLAND, V17, P14 Smith Derek R., 2009, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V64, P32 Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, 2009, EMBO REPORTS, V10, Mathers C, 2005, Updated projections of global mortality and burden of disease, 2002-2030: data sources, methods and results, Ir Por, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, Vitzthum Karin, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, Hannaford Philip, 2009, ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, V7, P277 Milat Andrew J., 2011, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V11, Gastner MT, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V101, P7499 Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, 2008, Health research policy and systems / BioMed Central, V6, P6 Sanz-Casado Elias, 2006, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V6, Nantulya VM, 2002, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V324, P1139 ======================================================================= * . Search terms matched: CITATIONS(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320220900010 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The challenges of evaluating scientists by H-index and *citations* in different biomedical research platforms Authors: Lippi, G; Mattiuzzi, C Author Full Names: Lippi, Giuseppe; Mattiuzzi, Camilla Source: CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA, 421 57-58; 10.1016/j.cca.2013.02.024 JUN 5 2013 Language: English Document Type: Letter Author Keywords: Biomedical research, Impact factor, H-index, Publications, Evaluation Addresses: [Lippi, Giuseppe] Azienda Osped Univ Parma, Dipartimento Patol & Med Lab, Unita Operat Diagnost Ematochim, I-43126 Parma, Italy. [Mattiuzzi, Camilla] Osped Trento, Serv Governance Clin, Trento, Italy. E-mail Addresses: glippi at ao.pr.it Cited Reference Count: 4 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0009-8981 Web of Science Categories: Medical Laboratory Technology Research Areas: Medical Laboratory Technology IDS Number: 161VH Unique ID: WOS:000320220900010 Cited References: Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Lippi Giuseppe, 2009, CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE, V47, P1585 GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Lippi Giuseppe, 2012, BIOCHEMIA MEDICA, V22, P7 ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: CITATION(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320688600003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The Perception of Brazilian Researchers concerning the Factors that Influence the *Citation* of their Articles: A Study in the Field of Sustainability Authors: Jabbour, CJC; Jabbour, ABLD; de Oliveira, JHC Author Full Names: Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz; Caldeira de Oliveira, Jorge Henrique Source: SERIALS REVIEW, 39 (2):93-96; 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.03.001 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Area of sustainability, Bibliometrics, Brazil, Citation analysis, Impact of research, South America KeyWords Plus: JOURNALS; AUTHORS Abstract: With growing institutional pressure from the Brazilian government to increase the impact of research that it funds, Brazilian researchers are increasingly interested in discovering factors that affect the citation of their articles. The aim of the present article was to assess the perceptions of Brazilian sustainability researchers to identify factors that influence the impacts of their research. A survey was conducted with researchers in the field of sustainability and 89 questionnaires were completed. All of those researchers have articles or research projects in the field of sustainability (mixing environmental, social and/or economical) recorded in the Scielo or Lattes Curriculum Brazilian databases. Results suggest four factors that may explain the impact of article citations: (1) "prestige.of the author and the research network:" (2) "prestige of the means of publication and indexing:" (3) "accessibility and quality characteristics of the article:" and (4) "internation! al nature of communication and scope of the study". Surprisingly, such factors were not statistically significant in explaining the citations of the participating researchers. These results show the need to consider other factors that can explain the impact of research, discovering the missing links. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz] Sao Paulo State Univ, Univ Estadual Paulista, UNESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil. [Caldeira de Oliveira, Jorge Henrique] Univ Sao Paulo, BR-14049 Ribeirao Preto, Brazil. E-mail Addresses: prof.charbel at gmail.com; ablsjabbour at gmail.com; jorgecaldeira at usp.br Cited Reference Count: 12 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER INC, 525 B STREET, STE 1900, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4495 USA ISSN: 0098-7913 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 168EN Unique ID: WOS:000320688600003 Cited References: Falagas M. E., 2010, INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, V40, P587 Bielinska-Kwapisz A., 2012, Applied Financial Economics, V22, Scherlen Allan, 2009, SERIALS REVIEW, V35, P75 Kirsop B, 2005, SERIALS REVIEW, V31, P246 Xue-li L., 2011, Serials Review, V37, P157 Hart SL, 2003, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE, V17, P56 Hoepner Andreas G. F., 2012, ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, V77, P193 Jamali Hamid R., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P653 Nightingale J. M., 2012, Radiography, V18, P60 Winker Kevin, 2011, BIOESSAYS, V33, P400 Barata G., 2010, Ciencia e Culture, V62, P14 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P11 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: CITATION(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320049000001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Editorial: Operations Management Research in Science *Citation* Index Expanded (ISI) in the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge Authors: Olhager, J; Shafer, S Author Full Names: Olhager, Jan; Shafer, Scott Source: OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT RESEARCH, 6 (1-2):1-1; 10.1007/s12063-013-0080-7 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Addresses: [Olhager, Jan] Lund Univ, Dept Ind Management & Logist, S-22100 Lund, Sweden. [Shafer, Scott] Wake Forest Univ, Worrell Profess Ctr, Sch Business, Winston Salem, NC 27109 USA. E-mail Addresses: Jan.Olhager at tlog.lth.se; shafersm at wfu.edu Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA ISSN: 1936-9735 Web of Science Categories: Management Research Areas: Business & Economics IDS Number: 159MH Unique ID: WOS:000320049000001 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: CITATION ANALYSIS(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320688600006 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Theses Submitted by Doctoral Students of Physical Research Laboratory, India: A *Citation Analysis* Authors: Anilkumar, N; Rajaram, S Author Full Names: Anilkumar, Nishtha; Rajaram, Shyama Source: SERIALS REVIEW, 39 (2):114-120; 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.04.002 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis, Bibliometrics, Information usage KeyWords Plus: SCIENCE Abstract: The most reliable way to know the contribution of research to the world knowledgebase is through publication and citation data. The research papers and doctoral theses are the instruments through which results of the research are communicated to the outside world. Both these scholarly publications conclude with the list of references. The study of these references (citations) gives an idea about the development of any research topic or a researcher and also indicates the kind of literature referred by the researchers. In today's world of ever escalating cost of serials, citation analysis is also being used to determine which titles to purchase and which ones to discontinue. The present study aims to better understand and manage the library resources by examining the resources used (cited) by the doctoral students of the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) during 1997-2006. It was found that electronic format was preferred to the printed format from 2001 through 2006. journal articles are used (cited) the most, followed by books and other documents like proceedings and reports. With more and more availability of online resources, use of non-subscribed content was also on the rise from 1997 through 2006. This study also confirms the Bradford's law that a set of core journals in a subject field satisfy more than 50% of the total number of journal citations. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Anilkumar, Nishtha] Phys Res Lab, Ahmadabad 380009, Gujarat, India. [Rajaram, Shyama] Maharaja Sayajirao Univ Baroda, Dept Lib & Informat Sci, Vadodara, India. E-mail Addresses: nishtha at prl.res.in; shyama.rajaram at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 14 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER INC, 525 B STREET, STE 1900, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4495 USA ISSN: 0098-7913 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 168EN Unique ID: WOS:000320688600006 Cited References: Larviere V., 2008, Scientometrics, V74, P109 Boyer C. J., 1973, The doctoral dissertation as information source: A study of science information flow, Buttlar L, 1999, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V21, P227 Madhan Muthu, 2010, CURRENT SCIENCE, V99, P738 Barry CA, 1997, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V23, P225 GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Gooden A. M., 2001, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (ISTL), PRITCHAR.A, 1969, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V25, P348 Gross P L, 1927, Science (New York, N.Y.), V66, P385 PRICE DJD, 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 Edwards S., 1999, Serials Review, V25, P11 Dhawan S.M., 2007, DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, V27, Bhattacharya S, 2000, SCIENTOMETRICS, V47, P131 LaBonte K. B., 2005, Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, V43, ====================================================================== . Search terms matched: SCIENTOMETRIC(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000320345100016 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Emergence of synthetic biology: characterization by a *scientometric* approach Authors: Raimbault, B; Cointet, JP; Joly, PB Author Full Names: Raimbault, Benjamin; Cointet, Jean-Philippe; Joly, Pierre-Benoit Source: M S-MEDECINE SCIENCES, 29 47-53; 2 10.1051/medsci/201329s213 MAY 2013 Language: French Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: GENOME Addresses: [Raimbault, Benjamin] IFRIS, INRA, SenS, Unite Rech Sci Soc SenS 1326, F-77454 Champs Sur Marne, Marne La Vallee, France. [Raimbault, Benjamin; Cointet, Jean-Philippe; Joly, Pierre-Benoit] IFRIS, F-77454 Champs Sur Marne, Marne La Vallee, France. E-mail Addresses: raimbault.benjamin6 at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 16 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EDP SCIENCES S A, 17, AVE DU HOGGAR, PA COURTABOEUF, BP 112, F-91944 LES ULIS CEDEX A, FRANCE ISSN: 0767-0974 Web of Science Categories: Medicine, Research & Experimental Research Areas: Research & Experimental Medicine IDS Number: 163NV Unique ID: WOS:000320345100016 Cited References: Szostak JW, 2001, NATURE, V409, P387 Gibson DG, 2000, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, V105, P20404 Frickel S, 2005, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V70, P204 Gardner TS, 2000, NATURE, V403, P339 Gibson Daniel G., 2010, SCIENCE, V329, P52 Glass JI, 2006, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V103, P425 Malaterre Vincent, 2009, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS AND BIOPHARMACEUTICS, V73, P311 Lartigue Carole, 2007, SCIENCE, V317, P632 FRASER CM, 1995, SCIENCE, V270, P397 GIERYN TF, 1983, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V48, P781 Heams Thomas, 2011, BMC proceedings, V5 Suppl 4, PS26 Endy D, 2005, NATURE, V438, P449 O'Malley Anna, 2008, Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, V25, P767 Elowitz MB, 2000, NATURE, V403, P335 Luisi PL, 2006, EMERGENCE OF LIFE: FROM CHEMICAL ORIGINS TO SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY, P1 Latour B., 1986, Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts, ======================================================================= = From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sat Jul 20 15:56:15 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 15:56:15 -0400 Subject: OA 2013: Tilting at the Tipping Point In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implemented over the next few years. See for example some of my articles on this project: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/18/meet-pages-does-prototype-public-access-system/ http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/06/17/chorus-confusions/ http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/25/confusions-in-the-ostp-oa-policy-memo-three-monsters-and-a-gorilla/ The US action is probably a tipping point. David At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >OA >2013: Tilting at the Tipping Point > >Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault's (2013) pilot study >"The >Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age" on the percentage of OA that is >currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The study >finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA in >2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in that 5-year >interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study cannot indicate what >percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. >Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles published before 2013 is >OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is through a separate analysis >of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed >Green OA, by discipline. > >See: >http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Sat Jul 20 16:30:39 2013 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:30:39 -0400 Subject: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick wrote: > The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based > even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 > months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that > meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many of > the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will > significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implemented > over the next few years. > > *[David Wojick * works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation > at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office > of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and > philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil > engineering.] Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will *not* be taken in by this publisher Trojan Horse called "CHORUS ." It is tripping point, not a tipping point. If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year embargo. CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM coalition" and the "Research Works Act ." 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that funds the research. 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has opened up for research,* not vice versa*! 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP . 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to research progress by imposing embargoes of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be immediate in the online era. 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting to do this under the pretext of *saving "precious research funds" for research*! 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing industry?] Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their ?solution? to public access Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007. Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again . *Open Access Archivangelism* 287 January 7. 2012 At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > *Summary:* The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ? The > Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? > on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, > welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles > published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not > estimate, however, *when in that 5-year interval the articles were made OA > *. Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being > published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what > percentage of articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to > find that out is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed > Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. > > See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sat Jul 20 21:46:01 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:46:01 -0400 Subject: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA. Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your own language. David Wojick On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick wrote: > > The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implemented over the next few years. > > [David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil engineering.] > > Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in by this publisher Trojan Horse called "CHORUS." It is tripping point, not a tipping point. > > If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year embargo. > > CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM coalition" and the "Research Works Act." > 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that funds the research. > > 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has opened up for research, not vice versa! > > 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP. > > 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to research progress by imposing embargoes of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be immediate in the online era. > > 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. > > 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research funds" for research! > > 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. > > 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. > > 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. > > 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. > Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. > > [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing industry?] > > Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their ?solution? to public access > > Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007. > > Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again. Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 > > At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ? The Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. >> >> See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Sat Jul 20 23:56:25 2013 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 23:56:25 -0400 Subject: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David Wojick wrote: > NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies > are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period for > certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or CHORUS. > The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use the > publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository like > NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, > while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just > common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. > The OA community should be happy to get green OA. > 1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, not the one I was discussing. (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.) 2. The Trojan Horsewould be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" invitation *to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with the funder mandate -- to publishers*, instead of having fundees do it themselves, in their own institutional repositories. 3. To repeat: *Delayed Access* is not *Open Acces*s -- any more than Paid Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, toll-free, for all. 4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions. 5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But OA means *immediate access*, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA mandates.) Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did you > post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to 5 > years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of open > access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your own > language. > Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly) *criticizing* the study in question for failing to distinguish Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.] But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes for the time being -- as long as deposit is mandated to be done immediatelyupon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated Eprint Request Button . The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate > On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick < > dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: > > >> The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based >> even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 >> months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that >> meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many of >> the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will >> significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implemented >> over the next few years. >> > >> *[David Wojick * works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation >> at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office >> of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and >> philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil >> engineering.] > > > Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will *not* be taken in > by this publisher Trojan Horse called "CHORUS > ." It is tripping point, not a tipping point. > > If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free > online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year > embargo. > > CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open > Access (OA) lobbying by > the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM > coalition" > and the "Research Works Act > ." > > 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is > optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D > industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that > funds the research. > > 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their > institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and > applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue > streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and > must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has > opened up for research,* not vice versa*! > > 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions > (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are > increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP > . > > 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to > research progress by imposing embargoes of > 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be immediate in > the online era. > > 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of > the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the > timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. > > 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already > consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting > to do this under the pretext of *saving "precious research funds" for > research*! > > 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and > institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in > their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple > purposes. > > 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for > research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. > > 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the > insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the > research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. > > 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research > Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the > publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. > > Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. > > [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the > interests of the research community rather than those of the > publishing industry?] > > Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their ?solution? to > public access > > Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. > Nature 5 January 2007. > > Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing > Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again > . *Open Access Archivangelism* 287 January 7. 2012 > > At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> >> *Summary:* The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ? The >> Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? >> on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, >> welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles >> published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not >> estimate, however, *when in that 5-year interval the articles were made >> OA*. Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being >> published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what >> percentage of articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to >> find that out is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed >> Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. >> >> See: >> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sun Jul 21 07:57:17 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 07:57:17 -0400 Subject: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important as an OA tipping point. As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with CHORUS. The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. David Wojick On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David Wojick wrote: > > NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA. > > 1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, not the one I was discussing. (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.) > > 2. The Trojan Horse would be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do it themselves, in their own institutional repositories. > > 3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, toll-free, for all. > > 4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions. > > 5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA mandates.) > > Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your own language. > > Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly) criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.] > > But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes for the time being -- as long as deposit is mandated to be done immediately upon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated Eprint Request Button. > > The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model > > Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) > > Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate > > On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick wrote: >> >> The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implemented over the next few years. >> >> [David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil engineering.] >> >> Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in by this publisher Trojan Horse called "CHORUS." It is tripping point, not a tipping point. >> >> If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year embargo. >> >> CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM coalition" and the "Research Works Act." >> 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that funds the research. >> >> 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has opened up for research, not vice versa! >> >> 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP. >> >> 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to research progress by imposing embargoes of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be immediate in the online era. >> >> 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. >> >> 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research funds" for research! >> >> 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. >> >> 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. >> >> 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. >> >> 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. >> Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. >> >> [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing industry?] >> >> Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their ?solution? to public access >> >> Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007. >> >> Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again. Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 >> >> At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>> Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ? The Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. >>> >>> See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Sun Jul 21 09:50:24 2013 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 09:50:24 -0400 Subject: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse In-Reply-To: <0C1A93CF-D90C-4939-A0B1-0264A2C7A72D@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, David Wojick wrote: I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important as > an OA tipping point. We are clearly not understanding one another: Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still need a tweak (as noted). Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.) But no, *Delayed Access is not OA*, let alone *Green OA*, although that is how publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA. As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with > CHORUS. Yes, that's the point: *CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in the hands and on the site of publishers*. That is abundantly clear. And my point was about how *bad* that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the research community and the future of OA. But the verb should be CHORUS "*would be*," not CHORUS "*is*" -- because, thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has been allowed in at all. (The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the "Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research community are working hard to keep it out!) The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal > submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no burden > on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly available > from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. This is > extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the future of OA. Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a *fait accompli*, and the hope (of OA advocates and the concerned research community) is that it never will be. The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs is an upgrade to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or any other institution-external subject based harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the time being). David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting has since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct it. Stevan Harnad On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 > PM, David Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us>wrote: > > >> NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies >> are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period for >> certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or CHORUS. >> The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use the >> publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository like >> NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, >> while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just >> common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. >> The OA community should be happy to get green OA. >> > > 1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, > not the one I was discussing. > (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers, > not from the funding agencies.) > > 2. The Trojan Horsewould be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" > invitation *to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance > with the funder mandate -- to publishers*, instead of having fundees do > it themselves, in their own institutional repositories. > > 3. To repeat: *Delayed Access* is not *Open Acces*s -- any more than Paid > Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, > toll-free, for all. > > 4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research > access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with > obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. > All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer > review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for > themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction > of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions. > > 5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But > OA means *immediate access*, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor > Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a > publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on > their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at > all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all > funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are > not immediate-OA mandates.) > > Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did you >> post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to 5 >> years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of open >> access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your own >> language. >> > > Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, > paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly) > *criticizing* the study in question for failing to distinguish Open > Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached > the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of > publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I > don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.] > > But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes for > the time being -- as long as > deposit is mandated to be done immediatelyupon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's > institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the > publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA > during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide > Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated Eprint Request Button > . > > The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model > > Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) > > Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate > > > >> On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad < >> amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick < >> dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >> >> >>> The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles >>> based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 >>> months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that >>> meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many of >>> the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will >>> significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implemented >>> over the next few years. >>> >> >>> *[David Wojick * works part time as the Senior Consultant for >>> Innovation at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in >>> the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic >>> and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil >>> engineering.] >> >> >> Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will *not* be taken in >> by this publisher Trojan Horse called "CHORUS >> ." It is tripping point, not a tipping point. >> >> If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means >> free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a >> one-year embargo. >> >> CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open >> Access (OA) lobbying by >> the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM >> coalition" >> and the "Research Works Act >> ." >> >> 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is >> optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D >> industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that >> funds the research. >> >> 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and >> their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and >> applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue >> streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and >> must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has >> opened up for research,* not vice versa*! >> >> 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions >> (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are >> increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP >> . >> >> 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to >> research progress by imposing embargoes of >> 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be immediate in >> the online era. >> >> 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out >> of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the >> timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. >> >> 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which >> already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is >> attempting to do this under the pretext of *saving "precious research >> funds" for research*! >> >> 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and >> institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in >> their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple >> purposes. >> >> 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for >> research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. >> >> 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the >> insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the >> research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. >> >> 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research >> Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the >> publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. >> >> Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. >> >> [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the >> interests of the research community rather than those of the >> publishing industry?] >> >> Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their ?solution? to >> public access >> >> Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. >> Nature 5 January 2007. >> >> Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing >> Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again >> . *Open Access Archivangelism* 287 January 7. 2012 >> >> At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>> >>> *Summary:* The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ? The >>> Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? >>> on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, >>> welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles >>> published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not >>> estimate, however, *when in that 5-year interval the articles were made >>> OA*. Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being >>> published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what >>> percentage of articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to >>> find that out is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed >>> Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. >>> >>> See: >>> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sun Jul 21 12:13:14 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 12:13:14 -0400 Subject: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Stevan, This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I see no Trojan horse. It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason for redundant Federal archiving . There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design that precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a separate activity. The journals are part of the research community and they have always been the principal archive. With CHORUS they will be again. After all the entire process is based on the article being published in the journal. It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program, but the design principles are here and now. I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP guidance is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevant to the present situation. David Wojick At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 >AM, David Wojick ><dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: > >I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important as >an OA tipping point. > > >We are clearly not understanding one another: > >Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still >need a tweak (as noted). > >Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.) > >But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that is how >publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA. > >As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with CHORUS. > > >Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out >of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in >the hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly clear. > >And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the >research community and the future of OA. > >But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS "is" -- because, >thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has >been allowed in at all. > >(The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the >"Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch >Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the >research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher >Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research >community are working hard to keep it out!) > >The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal >submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no >burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly >available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. >This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. > > >Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the >future of OA. > >Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the hope (of >OA advocates and the concerned research community) is that it never will be. > >The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs >is an upgrade to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic >harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or >any other institution-external subject based >harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the >time being). > >David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting has >since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take >any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers >will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct it. > >Stevan Harnad > >On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad ><amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote: > >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David Wojick >><dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >> >>NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies >>are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period >>for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or >>CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use >>the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository >>like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments >>requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan >>horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this >>Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA. >> >> >>1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, >>not >>the >>one I was discussing. (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes >>from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.) >> >>2. The >>Trojan >>Horse would be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" >>invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance >>with the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do it >>themselves, in their own institutional repositories. >> >>3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid >>Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, >>toll-free, for all. >> >>4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research >>access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with >>obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. >>All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer >>review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for >>themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a >>fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions. >> >>5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But >>OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold >>OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a >>publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on >>their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at >>all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade >>all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they >>are not immediate-OA mandates.) >> >>Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did >>you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up >>to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm >>of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making >>your own language. >> >> >>Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, >>paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually >>(mildly) criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish >>Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had >>reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically >>because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still >>attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I >>said and meant.] >> >>But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes >>for the time being -- as long as >>deposit is mandated to be done >>immediately upon >>acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's institutional >>repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher's >>own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA during the >>allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA via >>their repository's facilitated >>Eprint Request Button. >> >>The >>Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model >> >>Public >>Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) >> >>Comments on >>Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate >> >> >>On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad >><amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David >>>Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >>> >>>The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based >>>even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 >>>months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that >>>meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many >>>of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will >>>significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is >>>implemented over the next few years. >>> >>> >>>[David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation >>>at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the >>>Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic >>>and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in >>>civil engineering.] >>> >>> >>>Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in >>>by this publisher Trojan Horse called >>>"CHORUS." >>>It is tripping point, not a tipping point. >>> >>>If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means >>>free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a >>>one-year embargo. >>> >>>CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving >>>anti-Open >>>Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations >>>have been the >>>"PRISM >>>coalition" and the >>>"Research >>>Works Act." >>>1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is >>>optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D >>>industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that >>>funds the research. >>> >>>2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and >>>their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and >>>applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue >>>streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry >>>and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era >>>has opened up for research, not vice versa! >>> >>>3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research >>>institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the >>>world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See >>>ROARMAP. >>> >>>4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA >>>to research progress by imposing >>>embargoes >>>of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be >>>immediate >>>in the online era. >>> >>>5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out >>>of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both >>>the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. >>> >>>6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which >>>already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is >>>attempting to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research >>>funds" for research! >>> >>>7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and >>>institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in >>>their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. >>> >>>8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for >>>research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. >>> >>>9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and >>>the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of >>>the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. >>> >>>10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research >>>Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the >>>publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. >>> >>>Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. >>> >>>[And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the >>>interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing >>>industry?] >>> >>>Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of >>>boos: publishers offer their "solution" to public access >>> >>>Giles, J. (2007) >>>PR's >>>'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007. >>> >>>Harnad, S. (2012) >>>Research >>>Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public >>>Research Dog, Yet Again. Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 >>> >>>At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>>>Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault's (2013) pilot study >>>>" The >>>>Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age" on the percentage of OA that >>>>is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The >>>>study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are >>>>OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in >>>>that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study cannot >>>>indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being >>>>made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles >>>>published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is >>>>through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, >>>>immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. >>>> >>>>See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Sun Jul 21 14:09:26 2013 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:09:26 -0400 Subject: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20130721115616.04435898@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM, David Wojick wrote: This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I > see no Trojan horse. > 1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply with the conditions of the funder mandate. 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. > It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason for > redundant Federal archiving. > The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document may be stored and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and reliability and preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it costs next to nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers wish to save federal research money, let them charge less for journal subscriptions; don't fret about "redundant archiving.") PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as "redundant." It provides access where publishers do not. Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the full-texts of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search capacity that makes PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each full-text to which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own institutional repository, and PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed, it would increase PMC's coverage and make it even more economical; many of us are hoping PMC and other central repositories like Arxiv will evolve in that direction.) > There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design that > precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a separate > activity. > 1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate. 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web. *If authors self-archived of their own accord, "as a separate activity," there would have been no need for federal Open Access mandates.* 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access* within a year at the latest*. Publishers have every incentive to make (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving out of authors' hands and doing it instead of them, as late as possible. Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research. This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives), in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central repositories can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research needs during OA embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button. And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts of interest, on how institutions can save money on their "redundant archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button). > The journals are part of the research community and they have always been > the principal archive. > Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers are not part of the research community (not even university or learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it. Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the university library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's sector of the web is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's sector is Open Access. And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse. > With CHORUS they will be again. > What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers' proprietary sector will be opened up after a year? That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be opened up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them open up any earlier. > After all the entire process is based on the article being published in > the journal. > Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but *access*: when, where and how? > It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program, > but the design principles are here and now. > And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that it should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let us do the self-archiving for you." I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP guidance > is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevant to the > present situation. > The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access* within a year at the latest*. Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design alternative. But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS. Stevan Harnad At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 > AM, David Wojick wrote: > > I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important > as an OA tipping point. > > > We are clearly not understanding one another: > > Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still > need a tweak (as noted). > > Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.) > > But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that is how > publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA. > > As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with > CHORUS. > > > Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out > of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in the > hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly clear. > > And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the > research community and the future of OA. > > But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS "is" -- because, > thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has > been allowed in at all. > > (The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the > "Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch > Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the > research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher Trojan > Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research community are > working hard to keep it out!) > > The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal > submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no burden > on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly available > from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. This is > extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. > > > Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the > future of OA. > > Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the hope (of > OA advocates and the concerned research community) is that it never will > be. > > The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs > is an upgrade to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic > harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or > any other institution-external subject based > harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the > time being). > > David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting has > since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take > any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers > will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct it. > > Stevan Harnad > > On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 > PM, David Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> > wrote: > > NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies > are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period for > certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or CHORUS. > The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use the > publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository like > NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, > while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just > common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. > The OA community should be happy to get green OA. > > > 1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, > not the one I was discussing. > (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers, > not from the funding agencies.) > > 2. The Trojan Horsewould be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" > invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with > the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do it > themselves, in their own institutional repositories. > > 3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid > Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, > toll-free, for all. > > 4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research > access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with > obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. > All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer > review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for > themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction > of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions. > > 5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But > OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold > OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a publisher > embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on their website > after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at all if it's not > immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all funder mandates > to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA > mandates.) > > Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did > you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to > 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of > open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your > own language. > > > Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, > paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly) > criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish Open Access > from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached the > "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of > publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I > don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.] > > But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes for > the time being -- as long as > deposit is mandated to be done immediatelyupon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's > institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the > publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA > during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide > Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated Eprint Request Button > . > > The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and > Model > > Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) > > Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate > > > On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad < > amsciforum at GMAIL.COM > wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us> > wrote: > > The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based > even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 > months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that > meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many of > the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will > significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implemented > over the next few years. > > > [David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at > OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of > Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and > philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil > engineering.] > > > Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in by > this publisher Trojan Horse called " CHORUS." > It is tripping point, not a tipping point. > > If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free > online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year > embargo. > > CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open > Access (OA) lobbyingby the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM coalition" > and the " Research Works Act > ." > 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is > optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D > industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that > funds the research. > > 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their > institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and > applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue > streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and > must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has > opened up for research, not vice versa! > > 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions > (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are > increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP > . > > 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to > research progress by imposing embargoesof 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be > immediatein the online era. > > 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of > the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the > timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. > > 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already > consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting > to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research funds" for > research! > > 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and > institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in > their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple > purposes. > > 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for > research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. > > 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the > insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the > research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. > > 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research > Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the > publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. > > Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. > > [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the > interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing > industry?] > > Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their ?solution? to > public access > > Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. > Nature 5 January 2007. > > Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing > Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again. > Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 > > At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ? The > Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? > on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, > welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles > published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not > estimate, however, when in that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. > Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being published > in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of > articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out > is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, > immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. > > See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sun Jul 21 15:01:49 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 15:01:49 -0400 Subject: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There is no funder mandate on authors at this point, so you are assuming a burdensome model that need not be implemented. The only mandate is on the Federal funding agencies to provide public access to funder-related articles 12 months after publication. CHORUS does this in a highly efficient manner, rendering an author mandate unnecessary. Search is no problem as there are already many ways to search the journals. DOE PAGES, described in the first article I listed in my original post, is a model of an agency portal that is being designed to use CHORUS. It will provide agency-based search as well. CHORUS as well will provide bibliographic search capability. We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories like PMC. I am also beginning to wonder about your Trojan horse metaphor. The Trojan horse is a form of deception, but there is no deception here, just a logical response to a Federal requirement, one that keeps a journal's users using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make CHORUS work. David Wojick At 02:09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:13 >PM, David Wojick ><dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: > >This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I >see no Trojan horse. > > >1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. > >2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound >to comply with the conditions of the funder mandate. > >3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all >all on the Web > >4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the >hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands of the >publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has >a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. > >5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be >outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the >mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. > >It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason for >redundant Federal archiving. > > >The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document may be stored >and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and reliability and >preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it costs next to >nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers wish to save >federal research money, let them charge less for journal subscriptions; >don't fret about "redundant archiving.") > >PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search >tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to >mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for >publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as >"redundant." It provides access where publishers do not. > >Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the full-texts >of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search capacity that makes >PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each full-text to >which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own institutional repository, and >PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed, it would increase >PMC's coverage and make it even more economical; many of us are hoping PMC >and other central repositories like Arxiv will evolve in that direction.) > >There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design that >precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a >separate activity. > > >1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. > >2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound >to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate. > >3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all >all on the Web. If authors self-archived of their own accord, "as a >separate activity," there would have been no need for federal Open Access >mandates. > >4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the >hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand of the >publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has >a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. > >5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be >outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the >mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. > >The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access >only after a year after publication: They require them to provide >toll-free access within a year at the latest. Publishers have every >incentive to make (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving out >of authors' hands and doing it instead of them, as late as possible. > >Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by >institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research. >This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives), >in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central >repositories can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research needs >during OA embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories' >immediate Almost-OA Button. > >And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts >of interest, on how institutions can save money on their "redundant >archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their >researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories' >immediate Almost-OA Button). > >The journals are part of the research community and they have always been >the principal archive. > > >Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers >are not part of the research community (not even university or >learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it. > >Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the university >library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's sector of the web >is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's sector is Open Access. > >And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse. > >With CHORUS they will be again. > > >What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers' proprietary >sector will be opened up after a year? > >That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be opened >up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them open up >any earlier. > >After all the entire process is based on the article being published in >the journal. > > >Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but access: when, where >and how? > >It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program, >but the design principles are here and now. > > >And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that it >should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let us do the >self-archiving for you." > >I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP guidance >is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevant to the >present situation. > > >The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access >only after a year after publication: They require them to provide >toll-free access within a year at the latest. > >Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via >the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design alternative. > >But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS. > >Stevan Harnad > >At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote: >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, David Wojick >><dwojick at craigellachie.us > wrote: >> >>I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important as >>an OA tipping point. >> >> >>We are clearly not understanding one another: >> >>Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still >>need a tweak (as noted). >> >>Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.) >> >>But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that is >>how publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA. >> >>As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with >>CHORUS. >> >> >> >>Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out >>of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in >>the hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly clear. >> >>And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the >>research community and the future of OA. >> >>But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS "is" -- because, >>thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has >>been allowed in at all. >> >>(The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the >>"Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch >>Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the >>research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher >>Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research >>community are working hard to keep it out!) >> >>The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal >>submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no >>burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly >>available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo >>period. This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. >> >> >> >>Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the >>future of OA. >> >>Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the hope >>(of OA advocates and the concerned research community) is that it never >>will be. >> >>The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs >>is an upgrade to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic >>harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or >>any other institution-external subject based >>harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the >>time being). >> >>David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting >>has since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to >>take any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS >>readers will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to >>correct it. >> >>Stevan Harnad >>On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad >><amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote: >> >>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David >>>Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >>> >>>NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies >>>are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period >>>for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or >>>CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use >>>the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository >>>like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments >>>requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan >>>horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this >>>Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA. >>> >>> >>>1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, >>>not >>>the >>>one I was discussing. (But of course the pressure for the embargoes >>>comes from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.) >>>2. The >>>Trojan >>>Horse would be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" >>>invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance >>>with the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do >>>it themselves, in their own institutional repositories. >>>3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid >>>Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online >>>access, toll-free, for all. >>>4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research >>>access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled >>>with obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as >>>possible. All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era >>>is peer review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and >>>archiving for themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone >>>costs only a fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for >>>subscriptions. >>>5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But >>>OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor >>>Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a >>>publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on >>>their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at >>>all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade >>>all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if >>>they are not immediate-OA mandates.) >>> >>>Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did >>>you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up >>>to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm >>>of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making >>>your own language. >>> >>> >>>Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, >>>paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually >>>(mildly) criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish >>>Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had >>>reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically >>>because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still >>>attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I >>>said and meant.] >>> >>>But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes >>>for the time being -- as long as >>>deposit is mandated to be done >>>immediately upon >>>acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's institutional >>>repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher's >>>own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA during the >>>allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA >>>via their repository's facilitated >>>Eprint Request Button. >>> >>>The >>>Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model >>> >>>Public >>>Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) >>> >>>Comments on >>>Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate >> >>On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad >><amsciforum at GMAIL.COM > wrote: >> >>>On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David >>>Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >>> >>>The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based >>>even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 >>>months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that >>>meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many >>>of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will >>>significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is >>>implemented over the next few years. >>> >>>[David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at >>>OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office >>>of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and >>>philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil >>>engineering.] > >Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in by >this publisher Trojan Horse called >" >CHORUS." It is tripping point, not a tipping point. > >If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free >online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year >embargo. > >CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving >anti-Open >Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations >have been the >" >PRISM coalition" and the >" >Research Works Act." >1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is >optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D >industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that >funds the research. >2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their >institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and >applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue >streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and >must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has >opened up for research, not vice versa! >3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions >(like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are >increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See >ROARMAP. >4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to >research progress by imposing >embargoes >of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be >immediate >in the online era. >5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of >the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the >timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. >6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already >consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting >to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research funds" for research! >7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and >institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in >their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. >8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for >research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. >9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the >insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the >research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. >10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research >Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the >publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. > >Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. > >[And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the >interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing >industry?] > >Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of >boos: publishers offer their "solution" to public access > >Giles, J. (2007) >PR's >'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007. > >Harnad, S. (2012) >Research >Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public >Research Dog, Yet Again. Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 >At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: > >>Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault's (2013) pilot study >>" The >>Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age" on the percentage of OA that is >>currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The study >>finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA in >>2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in that >>5-year interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study cannot >>indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being >>made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles >>published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is >>through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, >>immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. >> >>See: >>http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.bosman at UU.NL Sun Jul 21 18:49:05 2013 From: j.bosman at UU.NL (Bosman, J.M.) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:49:05 +0000 Subject: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20130721144529.04432f98@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Dear David, To me the Trojan Horse metaphor does apply to the situation. If CHORUS is accepted and implemented it will take away the incentive for many researchers to self archive papers in their institutional repository. The objective of the publishers is of course, understandably, to retain their stream of revenue, no matter what. They are thus trying to get full control of (delayed) open access. They are protecting their revenue by a) offering 'gold' OA with very high APCs and b) making sure embargoes have a minimum length so no one will cancel subscriptions. In the last two months we have already seen publishers tightening restrictions on self archiving, e.g. at Springer and Emerald. CHORUS is deceptive because it is sold as being easy and effici?nt and taking the burden off the research community while it actually makes it harder for that community to work towards a radically more open and less expensive model for scholarly communication. Institutional repositories are not and will not be redundant because they contain so much more than just papers from these publishers and because their objective is to get research out in the open for everyone to read immediately instead of after 12 months or more. And they are certainly not expensive. I hope you can agree that it is primarily the journal subscriptions that are expensive. Best, Jeroen ----------- Jeroen Bosman Geoscience subject librarian Utrecht University Op 21 jul. 2013 om 21:02 heeft "David Wojick" > het volgende geschreven: s point, so you are assuming a burdensome model that need not be implemented. The only mandate is on the Federal funding agencies to provide public access to funder-related articles 12 months after publication. CHORUS does this in a highly efficient manner, rendering an author mandate unnecessary. Search is no problem as there are already many ways to search the journals. DOE PAGES, described in the first article I listed in my original post, is a model of an agency portal that is being designed to use CHORUS. It will provide agency-based search as well. CHORUS as well will provide bibliographic search capability. We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories like PMC. I am also beginning to wonder about your Trojan horse metaphor. The Trojan horse is a form of deception, but there is no deception here, just a logical response to a Federal requirement, one that keeps a journal's users using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make CHORUS work. David Wojick At 02:09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote: ck > wrote: This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I see no Trojan horse. 1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply with the conditions of the funder mandate. 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason for redundant Federal archiving. The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document may be stored and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and reliability and preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it costs next to nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers wish to save federal research money, let them charge less for journal subscriptions; don't fret about "redundant archiving.") PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as "redundant." It provides access where publishers do not. Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the full-texts of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search capacity that makes PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each full-text to which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own institutional repository, and PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed, it would increase PMC's coverage and make it even more economical; many of us are hoping PMC and other central repositories like Arxiv will evolve in that direction.) There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design that precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a separate activity. 1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate. 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web. If authors self-archived of their own accord, "as a separate activity," there would have been no need for federal Open Access mandates. 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access within a year at the latest. Publishers have every incentive to make (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving out of authors' hands and doing it instead of them, as late as possible. Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research. This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives), in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central repositories can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research needs during OA embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button. And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts of interest, on how institutions can save money on their "redundant archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button). The journals are part of the research community and they have always been the principal archive. Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers are not part of the research community (not even university or learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it. Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the university library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's sector of the web is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's sector is Open Access. And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse. With CHORUS they will be again. What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers' proprietary sector will be opened up after a year? That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be opened up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them open up any earlier. After all the entire process is based on the article being published in the journal. Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but access: when, where and how? It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program, but the design principles are here and now. And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that it should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let us do the self-archiving for you." I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP guidance is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevant to the present situation. The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access within a year at the latest. Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design alternative. But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS. Stevan Harnad At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote: k > wrote: I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important as an OA tipping point. We are clearly not understanding one another: Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still need a tweak (as noted). Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.) But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that is how publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA. As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with CHORUS. Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in the hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly clear. And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the research community and the future of OA. But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS "is" -- because, thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has been allowed in at all. (The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the "Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research community are working hard to keep it out!) The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the future of OA. Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the hope (of OA advocates and the concerned research community) is that it never will be. The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs is an upgrade to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or any other institution-external subject based harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the time being). David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting has since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct it. Stevan Harnad On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad > wrote: k < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA. 1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, not the one I was discussing. (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.) 2. The Trojan Horse would be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do it themselves, in their own institutional repositories. 3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, toll-free, for all. 4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions. 5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA mandates.) Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your own language. Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly) criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.] But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes for the time being -- as long as deposit is mandated to be done immediately upon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated Eprint Request Button. The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at GMAIL.COM > wrote: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implemented over the next few years. [David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil engineering.] Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in by this publisher Trojan Horse called " CHORUS." It is tripping point, not a tipping point. If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year embargo. CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the " PRISM coalition" and the " Research Works Act." 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that funds the research. 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has opened up for research, not vice versa! 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP. 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to research progress by imposing embargoes of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be immediate in the online era. 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research funds" for research! 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing industry?] Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their "solution" to public access Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007. Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again. Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault's (2013) pilot study " The Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age" on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sun Jul 21 22:27:44 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:27:44 -0400 Subject: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse In-Reply-To: <128F4D44-1CBC-4F94-A3A2-120938381082@uu.nl> Message-ID: Dear Jeroen, There is nothing in the Federal guidance directing the funding agencies "to work towards a radically more open and less expensive model for scholarly communication." We are simply looking for the most cost effective way to meet the mandate and CHORUS is probably part of that. Clearly the US effort does not meet your lofty goals, but that is another issue. The publishers are responding to the Federal requirements as they are, not as you might wish them to be. David Wojick On Jul 21, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "Bosman, J.M." wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear David, > > To me the Trojan Horse metaphor does apply to the situation. If CHORUS is accepted and implemented it will take away the incentive for many researchers to self archive papers in their institutional repository. The objective of the publishers is of course, understandably, to retain their stream of revenue, no matter what. They are thus trying to get full control of (delayed) open access. They are protecting their revenue by a) offering 'gold' OA with very high APCs and b) making sure embargoes have a minimum length so no one will cancel subscriptions. > In the last two months we have already seen publishers tightening restrictions on self archiving, e.g. at Springer and Emerald. CHORUS is deceptive because it is sold as being easy and effici?nt and taking the burden off the research community while it actually makes it harder for that community to work towards a radically more open and less expensive model for scholarly communication. > > Institutional repositories are not and will not be redundant because they contain so much more than just papers from these publishers and because their objective is to get research out in the open for everyone to read immediately instead of after 12 months or more. And they are certainly not expensive. I hope you can agree that it is primarily the journal subscriptions that are expensive. > > Best, > Jeroen > ----------- > Jeroen Bosman > Geoscience subject librarian > Utrecht University > > > > > > Op 21 jul. 2013 om 21:02 heeft "David Wojick" het volgende geschreven: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html There is no funder mandate on authors at this point, so you are assuming a burdensome model that need not be implemented. The only mandate is on the Federal funding agencies to provide public access to funder-related articles 12 months after publication. CHORUS does this in a highly efficient manner, rendering an author mandate unnecessary. >> >> Search is no problem as there are already many ways to search the journals. DOE PAGES, described in the first article I listed in my original post, is a model of an agency portal that is being designed to use CHORUS. It will provide agency-based search as well. CHORUS as well will provide bibliographic search capability. We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories like PMC. >> >> I am also beginning to wonder about your Trojan horse metaphor. The Trojan horse is a form of deception, but there is no deception here, just a logical response to a Federal requirement, one that keeps a journal's users using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make CHORUS work. >> >> David Wojick >> >> At 02:09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM, David Wojick wrote: >>> >>> This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I see no Trojan horse. >>> >>> >>> 1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. >>> >>> 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply with the conditions of the funder mandate. >>> >>> 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web >>> >>> 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. >>> >>> 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. >>> >>> It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason for redundant Federal archiving. >>> >>> >>> The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document may be stored and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and reliability and preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it costs next to nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers wish to save federal research money, let them charge less for journal subscriptions; don't fret about "redundant archiving.") >>> >>> PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as "redundant." It provides access where publishers do not. >>> >>> Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the full-texts of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search capacity that makes PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each full-text to which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own institutional repository, and PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed, it would increase PMC's coverage and make it even more economical; many of us are hoping PMC and other central repositories like Arxiv will evolve in that direction.) >>> >>> There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design that precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a separate activity. >>> >>> >>> 1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. >>> >>> 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate. >>> >>> 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web. If authors self-archived of their own accord, "as a separate activity," there would have been no need for federal Open Access mandates. >>> >>> 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. >>> >>> 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. >>> >>> The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access within a year at the latest. Publishers have every incentive to make (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving out of authors' hands and doing it instead of them, as late as possible. >>> >>> Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research. This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives), in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central repositories can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research needs during OA embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button. >>> >>> And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts of interest, on how institutions can save money on their "redundant archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button). >>> >>> The journals are part of the research community and they have always been the principal archive. >>> >>> >>> Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers are not part of the research community (not even university or learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it. >>> >>> Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the university library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's sector of the web is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's sector is Open Access. >>> >>> And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse. >>> >>> With CHORUS they will be again. >>> >>> >>> What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers' proprietary sector will be opened up after a year? >>> >>> That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be opened up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them open up any earlier. >>> >>> After all the entire process is based on the article being published in the journal. >>> >>> >>> Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but access: when, where and how? >>> >>> It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program, but the design principles are here and now. >>> >>> >>> And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that it should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let us do the self-archiving for you." >>> >>> I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP guidance is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevant to the present situation. >>> >>> >>> The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access within a year at the latest. >>> >>> Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design alternative. >>> >>> But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS. >>> >>> Stevan Harnad >>> >>> At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote: >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, David Wojick wrote: >>>> >>>> I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important as an OA tipping point. >>>> >>>> >>>> We are clearly not understanding one another: >>>> >>>> Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still need a tweak (as noted). >>>> >>>> Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.) >>>> >>>> But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that is how publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA. >>>> >>>> As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with CHORUS. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in the hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly clear. >>>> >>>> And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the research community and the future of OA. >>>> >>>> But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS "is" -- because, thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has been allowed in at all. >>>> >>>> (The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the "Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research community are working hard to keep it out!) >>>> >>>> The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the future of OA. >>>> >>>> Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the hope (of OA advocates and the concerned research community) is that it never will be. >>>> >>>> The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs is an upgrade to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or any other institution-external subject based >>>> harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the time being). >>>> >>>> David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting has since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct it. >>>> >>>> Stevan Harnad >>>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>>> >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, not the one I was discussing. (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.) >>>>> 2. The Trojan Horse would be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do it themselves, in their own institutional repositories. >>>>> 3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, toll-free, for all. >>>>> 4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions. >>>>> 5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA mandates.) >>>>> >>>>> Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your own language. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly) criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.] >>>>> >>>>> But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes for the time being -- as long as deposit is mandated to be done immediately upon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated Eprint Request Button. >>>>> >>>>> The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model >>>>> >>>>> Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) >>>>> >>>>> Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate >>> >>> >>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implemented over the next few years. >>>> >>>> [David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil engineering.] >> >> Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in by this publisher Trojan Horse called " CHORUS." It is tripping point, not a tipping point. >> >> If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year embargo. >> >> CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the " PRISM coalition" and the " Research Works Act." >> 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that funds the research. >> 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has opened up for research, not vice versa! >> 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP. >> 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to research progress by imposing embargoes of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should beimmediate in the online era. >> 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. >> 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research funds" for research! >> 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. >> 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. >> 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. >> 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. >> >> Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. >> >> [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing industry?] >> >> Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their ?solution? to public access >> >> Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007. >> >> Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again. Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 >> At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> >>> Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ? The Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. >>> >>> See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html >> Sent from my IPad On Jul 21, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "Bosman, J.M." wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear David, > > To me the Trojan Horse metaphor does apply to the situation. If CHORUS is accepted and implemented it will take away the incentive for many researchers to self archive papers in their institutional repository. The objective of the publishers is of course, understandably, to retain their stream of revenue, no matter what. They are thus trying to get full control of (delayed) open access. They are protecting their revenue by a) offering 'gold' OA with very high APCs and b) making sure embargoes have a minimum length so no one will cancel subscriptions. > In the last two months we have already seen publishers tightening restrictions on self archiving, e.g. at Springer and Emerald. CHORUS is deceptive because it is sold as being easy and effici?nt and taking the burden off the research community while it actually makes it harder for that community to work towards a radically more open and less expensive model for scholarly communication. > > Institutional repositories are not and will not be redundant because they contain so much more than just papers from these publishers and because their objective is to get research out in the open for everyone to read immediately instead of after 12 months or more. And they are certainly not expensive. I hope you can agree that it is primarily the journal subscriptions that are expensive. > > Best, > Jeroen > ----------- > Jeroen Bosman > Geoscience subject librarian > Utrecht University > > > > > > Op 21 jul. 2013 om 21:02 heeft "David Wojick" het volgende geschreven: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html There is no funder mandate on authors at this point, so you are assuming a burdensome model that need not be implemented. The only mandate is on the Federal funding agencies to provide public access to funder-related articles 12 months after publication. CHORUS does this in a highly efficient manner, rendering an author mandate unnecessary. >> >> Search is no problem as there are already many ways to search the journals. DOE PAGES, described in the first article I listed in my original post, is a model of an agency portal that is being designed to use CHORUS. It will provide agency-based search as well. CHORUS as well will provide bibliographic search capability. We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories like PMC. >> >> I am also beginning to wonder about your Trojan horse metaphor. The Trojan horse is a form of deception, but there is no deception here, just a logical response to a Federal requirement, one that keeps a journal's users using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make CHORUS work. >> >> David Wojick >> >> At 02:09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM, David Wojick wrote: >>> >>> This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I see no Trojan horse. >>> >>> >>> 1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. >>> >>> 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply with the conditions of the funder mandate. >>> >>> 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web >>> >>> 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. >>> >>> 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. >>> >>> It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason for redundant Federal archiving. >>> >>> >>> The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document may be stored and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and reliability and preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it costs next to nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers wish to save federal research money, let them charge less for journal subscriptions; don't fret about "redundant archiving.") >>> >>> PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as "redundant." It provides access where publishers do not. >>> >>> Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the full-texts of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search capacity that makes PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each full-text to which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own institutional repository, and PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed, it would increase PMC's coverage and make it even more economical; many of us are hoping PMC and other central repositories like Arxiv will evolve in that direction.) >>> >>> There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design that precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a separate activity. >>> >>> >>> 1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. >>> >>> 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate. >>> >>> 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web. If authors self-archived of their own accord, "as a separate activity," there would have been no need for federal Open Access mandates. >>> >>> 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. >>> >>> 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. >>> >>> The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access within a year at the latest. Publishers have every incentive to make (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving out of authors' hands and doing it instead of them, as late as possible. >>> >>> Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research. This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives), in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central repositories can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research needs during OA embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button. >>> >>> And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts of interest, on how institutions can save money on their "redundant archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button). >>> >>> The journals are part of the research community and they have always been the principal archive. >>> >>> >>> Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers are not part of the research community (not even university or learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it. >>> >>> Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the university library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's sector of the web is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's sector is Open Access. >>> >>> And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse. >>> >>> With CHORUS they will be again. >>> >>> >>> What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers' proprietary sector will be opened up after a year? >>> >>> That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be opened up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them open up any earlier. >>> >>> After all the entire process is based on the article being published in the journal. >>> >>> >>> Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but access: when, where and how? >>> >>> It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program, but the design principles are here and now. >>> >>> >>> And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that it should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let us do the self-archiving for you." >>> >>> I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP guidance is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevant to the present situation. >>> >>> >>> The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access within a year at the latest. >>> >>> Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design alternative. >>> >>> But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS. >>> >>> Stevan Harnad >>> >>> At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote: >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, David Wojick wrote: >>>> >>>> I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important as an OA tipping point. >>>> >>>> >>>> We are clearly not understanding one another: >>>> >>>> Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still need a tweak (as noted). >>>> >>>> Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.) >>>> >>>> But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that is how publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA. >>>> >>>> As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with CHORUS. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in the hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly clear. >>>> >>>> And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the research community and the future of OA. >>>> >>>> But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS "is" -- because, thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has been allowed in at all. >>>> >>>> (The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the "Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research community are working hard to keep it out!) >>>> >>>> The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the future of OA. >>>> >>>> Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the hope (of OA advocates and the concerned research community) is that it never will be. >>>> >>>> The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs is an upgrade to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or any other institution-external subject based >>>> harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the time being). >>>> >>>> David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting has since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct it. >>>> >>>> Stevan Harnad >>>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>>> >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, not the one I was discussing. (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.) >>>>> 2. The Trojan Horse would be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do it themselves, in their own institutional repositories. >>>>> 3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, toll-free, for all. >>>>> 4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions. >>>>> 5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA mandates.) >>>>> >>>>> Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your own language. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly) criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.] >>>>> >>>>> But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes for the time being -- as long as deposit is mandated to be done immediately upon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated Eprint Request Button. >>>>> >>>>> The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model >>>>> >>>>> Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) >>>>> >>>>> Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate >>>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implemented over the next few years. >>>> >>>> [David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil engineering.] >>> >> >> Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in by this publisher Trojan Horse called " CHORUS." It is tripping point, not a tipping point. >> >> If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year embargo. >> >> CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the " PRISM coalition" and the " Research Works Act." >> 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that funds the research. >> 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has opened up for research, not vice versa! >> 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP. >> 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to research progress by imposing embargoes of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be immediate in the online era. >> 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. >> 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research funds" for research! >> 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. >> 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. >> 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. >> 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. >> >> Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. >> >> [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing industry?] >> >> Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their ?solution? to public access >> >> Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007. >> >> Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again. Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 >> At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> >>> Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ? The Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. >>> >>> See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Mon Jul 22 12:25:41 2013 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:25:41 -0400 Subject: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20130721144529.04432f98@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Wojick wrote: There is no funder mandate on authors at this point, so you are assuming a > burdensome model that need not be implemented. > Right now, there is a presidential (OSTP) directive to US federal funding agencies to mandate (Green) OA. It is each funding agency that will accordingly design and implement its own Green OA mandate, as the NIH did several years ago. The mandate (requirement) will, as always, be on the *fundees*: the authors of the articles that are to be made OA, as a condition of funding. > The only mandate is on the Federal funding agencies to provide public > access to funder-related articles 12 months after publication. > The presidential (OSTP) directive is to the US federal funding agencies to mandate (Green) OA, meaning that all published articles resulting from the research funded by each agency must be made OA -- within 12 months of publication *at the latest.* * * The articles are by fundees. The ones bound by the mandates are the fundees. Fundees are the ones who must make their research OA, as a condition of funding. > CHORUS does this in a highly efficient manner, rendering an author mandate > unnecessary. > CHORUS does nothing. It is simply a proposal by publishers to funding agencies. And to suggest that the the reason funding agencies should welcome the CHORUS proposal is *efficiency* is patent nonsense. To comply with their funder's requirements, fundees must specify which articles result from the funding. *The few fundee keystrokes for specifying that are exactly the same few fundee keystrokes for self-archiving the article in the OA repository.* No gain in efficiency for funders or fundees in allowing publishers to host and time the OA: *just a ruse to allow publishers to retain control over the time and place of providing OA.* Because of the monumental conflict of interest -- between publishers trying to protect their current revenue streams and the research community trying to make its findings as soon as widely as possible -- control over the time and place of providing OA should on no account be surrendered by funders and fundees to publishers. Search is no problem as there are already many ways to search the journals. > And there are also already many ways to search OA articles on the web or in repositories. So, correct: Search is no problem, and not an issue. In fact, it's a red herring. What is really at issue is: in whose hands should control over the time and place of providing OA be? Answer: Funders and their fundees, *not publishers*. DOE PAGES, described in the first article I listed in my original post, is > a model of an agency portal that is being designed to use CHORUS. It will > provide agency-based search as well. CHORUS as well will provide > bibliographic search capability. > To repeat: The same functionality (and potentially much more and better functionality) is available outside the control of publishers too, via the web, institutional repositories, harvesters, indexers and search engines. The only thing still missing is the OA content. And that's what publishers are trying to hold back as long as possible, and to keep in their own hands. > We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories like > PMC. > And the research community simply does not need to cede control over the locus and timetable of providing OA to publishers. I am also beginning to wonder about your Trojan horse metaphor. The Trojan > horse is a form of deception, but there is no deception here, just a > logical response to a Federal requirement, one that keeps a journal's users > using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make CHORUS work. > CHORUS is all deception (and perhaps self-deception too, if publishers actually believe the nonsense about "efficiency" and "expense"), and the "logic" is that of serving publishers' interests, not the interests of research and researchers. The simple truth is that the research community (researchers and their institutions) are perfectly capable of providing Green OA for themselves, cheaply and efficiently, in their own institutional OA repositories and central harvesters -- and that this is the best way for them to retain control over the time and place of providing OA, thereby ensuring that 100% immediate OA is reached as soon as possible. Letting in the publishers' latest Trojan Horse, CHORUS, under the guise of increasing efficiency and reducing expense, would in reality be letting publishers maximize Delayed Access and fend off universal Green OA in favor of over-priced, double-paid (and, if hybrid, double-dipped) Fools Gold OA, thereby locking in publishers' current inflated revenue streams and inefficient modus operandi for a long time to come, and embargoing OA itself, instead of making publishing -- a service industry -- evolve and adapt naturally to what is optimal for research in the online era. *Stevan Harnad* At 02:09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at > 12:13 PM, David Wojick wrote: > > This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I > see no Trojan horse. > > > 1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. > > 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound > to comply with the conditions of the funder mandate. > > 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all > all on the Web > > 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the > hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands of the > publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has > a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. > > 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be > outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the > mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. > > It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason for > redundant Federal archiving. > > > The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document may be stored > and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and reliability and > preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it costs next to > nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers wish to save > federal research money, let them charge less for journal subscriptions; > don't fret about "redundant archiving.") > > PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search > tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to > mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for > publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as > "redundant." It provides access where publishers do not. > > Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the full-texts > of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search capacity that makes > PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each full-text to > which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own institutional repository, and > PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed, it would increase > PMC's coverage and make it even more economical; many of us are hoping PMC > and other central repositories like Arxiv will evolve in that direction.) > > There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design > that precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a > separate activity. > > > 1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. > > 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound > to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate. > > 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all > all on the Web. If authors self-archived of their own accord, "as a > separate activity," there would have been no need for federal Open Access > mandates. > > 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the > hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand of the > publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has > a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. > > 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be > outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the > mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. > > The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access > only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free > access within a year at the latest. Publishers have every incentive to make > (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving out of authors' hands > and doing it instead of them, as late as possible. > > Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by > institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research. > This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives), > in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central repositories > can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research needs during OA > embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA > Button. > > And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts > of interest, on how institutions can save money on their "redundant > archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their > researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories' > immediate Almost-OA Button). > > The journals are part of the research community and they have always > been the principal archive. > > > Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers > are not part of the research community (not even university or > learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it. > > Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the university > library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's sector of the web > is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's sector is Open > Access. > > And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse. > > With CHORUS they will be again. > > > What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers' proprietary > sector will be opened up after a year? > > That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be opened > up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them open up > any earlier. > > After all the entire process is based on the article being published in > the journal. > > > Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but access: when, where > and how? > > It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program, > but the design principles are here and now. > > > And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that it > should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let us do the > self-archiving for you." > > I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP > guidance is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevant > to the present situation. > > > The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access > only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free > access within a year at the latest. > > Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via > the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design alternative. > > But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS. > > Stevan Harnad > > At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 > AM, David Wojick wrote: > > I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important > as an OA tipping point. > > > We are clearly not understanding one another: > > Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still > need a tweak (as noted). > > Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.) > > But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that is how > publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA. > > As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with > CHORUS. > > > > > Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out > of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in the > hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly clear. > > And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the > research community and the future of OA. > > But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS "is" -- because, > thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has > been allowed in at all. > > (The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the > "Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch > Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the > research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher Trojan > Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research community are > working hard to keep it out!) > > The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal > submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no burden > on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly available > from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. This is > extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. > > > Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the > future of OA. > > Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the hope (of > OA advocates and the concerned research community) is that it never will > be. > > The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs > is an upgrade to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic > harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or > any other institution-external subject based > harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the > time being). > > David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting has > since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take > any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers > will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct it. > > Stevan Harnad > On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 > PM, David Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> > wrote: NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal > agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter > period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers > or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use > the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository > like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, > while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just > common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. > The OA community should be happy to get green OA. > > > 1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, > not the one I was discussing. > (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers, > not from the funding agencies.) > 2. The Trojan Horsewould be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" > invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with > the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do it > themselves, in their own institutional repositories. > 3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid > Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, > toll-free, for all. > 4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research > access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with > obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. > All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer > review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for > themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction > of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions. > 5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But > OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold > OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a publisher > embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on their website > after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at all if it's not > immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all funder mandates > to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA > mandates.) > > Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did > you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to > 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of > open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your > own language. > > > Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, > paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly) > criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish Open Access > from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached the > "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of > publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I > don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.] > > But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes for > the time being -- as long as > deposit is mandated to be done immediatelyupon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's > institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the > publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA > during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide > Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated Eprint Request Button > . > > The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and > Model > > Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) > Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate > > On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad < > amsciforum at GMAIL.COM > wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us> > wrote: The US Government is developing a green OA system for all > articles based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo > period of 12 months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called > CHORUS that meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's > website. Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this > will significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is > implemented over the next few years. > > [David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at > OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of > Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and > philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil > engineering.] > > Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in by > this publisher Trojan Horse called " CHORUS." > It is tripping point, not a tipping point. > > If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free > online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year > embargo. > > CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open > Access (OA) lobbyingby the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM coalition" > and the " Research Works Act." > 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is > optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D > industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that > funds the research. > 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their > institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and > applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue > streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and > must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has > opened up for research, not vice versa! > 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions > (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are > increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP > . > 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to > research progress by imposing embargoesof 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be > immediatein the online era. 5. > The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the > hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the > timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. > 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already > consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting > to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research funds" for > research! > 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and > institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in > their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple > purposes. > 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for > research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. > 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the > insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the > research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. > 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research > Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the > publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. > Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. > > [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the > interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing > industry?] > > Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their ?solution? to > public access > > Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. > Nature 5 January 2007. > > Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing > Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again. > Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 > At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ? The > Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? > on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, > welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles > published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not > estimate, however, when in that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. > Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being published > in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of > articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out > is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, > immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. > > See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Mon Jul 22 14:49:48 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:49:48 -0400 Subject: Tipping OA versus tripping, the Federal OA program is a Federal program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Steven, The Federal OA program is controlled by the Federal Government, so all your talk of ceding control is just a rhetorical device. Neither the fundees, the institutions nor the journals control it, except to the extent that the journals make the publication decisions. So no one is ceding control to anyone. And I repeat that the journals are part of the community, a central part. (You are doing your private language thing again. You do it a lot.) Under CHORUS the lead author merely has to check a box indicating the funder. The institutions have to do nothing more, nor does the fundee. The journal then gives the article link to the agency and makes the article publicly available at the agency controlled time. This is enormously simpler than creating repositories that fundees have to populate and funders have to work with (and someone has to build and maintain). In essence the article is published and the agency links to it. That is all and it cannot be any simpler than this. Creating a parallel universe of redundant repositories must be more complex, costly and burdensome. Anyone seriously interested in this issue might want to read one or more of my articles on it: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/ David Wojick At 12:25 PM 7/22/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:01 >PM, David Wojick ><dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: > >There is no funder mandate on authors at this point, so you are assuming a >burdensome model that need not be implemented. > > >Right now, there is a presidential (OSTP) directive to US federal funding >agencies to mandate (Green) OA. > >It is each funding agency that will accordingly design and implement its >own Green OA mandate, as the NIH did several years ago. > >The mandate (requirement) will, as always, be on the fundees: the authors >of the articles that are to be made OA, as a condition of funding. > >The only mandate is on the Federal funding agencies to provide public >access to funder-related articles 12 months after publication. > > >The presidential (OSTP) directive is to the US federal funding agencies to >mandate (Green) OA, meaning that all published articles resulting from the >research funded by each agency must be made OA -- within 12 months of >publication at the latest. > >The articles are by fundees. The ones bound by the mandates are the >fundees. Fundees are the ones who must make their research OA, as a >condition of funding. > >CHORUS does this in a highly efficient manner, rendering an author mandate >unnecessary. > > >CHORUS does nothing. It is simply a proposal by publishers to funding >agencies. > >And to suggest that the the reason funding agencies should welcome the >CHORUS proposal is efficiency is patent nonsense. > >To comply with their funder's requirements, fundees must specify which >articles result from the funding. The few fundee keystrokes for specifying >that are exactly the same few fundee keystrokes for self-archiving the >article in the OA repository. > >No gain in efficiency for funders or fundees in allowing publishers to >host and time the OA: just a ruse to allow publishers to retain control >over the time and place of providing OA. > >Because of the monumental conflict of interest -- between publishers >trying to protect their current revenue streams and the research community >trying to make its findings as soon as widely as possible -- control over >the time and place of providing OA should on no account be surrendered by >funders and fundees to publishers. > >Search is no problem as there are already many ways to search the journals. > > >And there are also already many ways to search OA articles on the web or >in repositories. > >So, correct: Search is no problem, and not an issue. In fact, it's a red >herring. > >What is really at issue is: in whose hands should control over the time >and place of providing OA be? > >Answer: Funders and their fundees, not publishers. > >DOE PAGES, described in the first article I listed in my original post, is >a model of an agency portal that is being designed to use CHORUS. It will >provide agency-based search as well. CHORUS as well will provide >bibliographic search capability. > > >To repeat: The same functionality (and potentially much more and better >functionality) is available outside the control of publishers too, via the >web, institutional repositories, harvesters, indexers and search engines. > >The only thing still missing is the OA content. And that's what publishers >are trying to hold back as long as possible, and to keep in their own hands. > >We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories like >PMC. > > >And the research community simply does not need to cede control over the >locus and timetable of providing OA to publishers. > >I am also beginning to wonder about your Trojan horse metaphor. The Trojan >horse is a form of deception, but there is no deception here, just a >logical response to a Federal requirement, one that keeps a journal's >users using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make >CHORUS work. > > >CHORUS is all deception (and perhaps self-deception too, if publishers >actually believe the nonsense about "efficiency" and "expense"), and the >"logic" is that of serving publishers' interests, not the interests of >research and researchers. > >The simple truth is that the research community (researchers and their >institutions) are perfectly capable of providing Green OA for themselves, >cheaply and efficiently, in their own institutional OA repositories and >central harvesters -- and that this is the best way for them to retain >control over the time and place of providing OA, thereby ensuring that >100% immediate OA is reached as soon as possible. > >Letting in the publishers' latest Trojan Horse, CHORUS, under the guise of >increasing efficiency and reducing expense, would in reality be letting >publishers maximize Delayed Access and fend off universal Green OA in >favor of over-priced, double-paid (and, if hybrid, double-dipped) Fools >Gold OA, thereby locking in publishers' current inflated revenue streams >and inefficient modus operandi for a long time to come, and embargoing OA >itself, instead of making publishing -- a service industry -- evolve >and adapt naturally to what is optimal for research in the online era. > >Stevan Harnad > > At 02:09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote: >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM, David Wojick >><dwojick at craigellachie.us > wrote: >> >>This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I >>see no Trojan horse. >> >> >>1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. >> >>2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound >>to comply with the conditions of the funder mandate. >> >>3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all >>all on the Web >> >>4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of >>the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands of the >>publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed >>has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. >> >>5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be >>outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the >>mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. >> >>It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason for >>redundant Federal archiving. >> >> >>The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document may be stored >>and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and reliability and >>preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it costs next to >>nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers wish to save >>federal research money, let them charge less for journal subscriptions; >>don't fret about "redundant archiving.") >> >>PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search >>tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to >>mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for >>publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as >>"redundant." It provides access where publishers do not. >> >>Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the full-texts >>of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search capacity that >>makes PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each >>full-text to which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own institutional >>repository, and PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed, >>it would increase PMC's coverage and make it even more economical; many >>of us are hoping PMC and other central repositories like Arxiv will >>evolve in that direction.) >> >>There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design >>that precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a >>separate activity. >> >> >>1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. >> >>2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound >>to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate. >> >>3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all >>all on the Web. If authors self-archived of their own accord, "as a >>separate activity," there would have been no need for federal Open Access >>mandates. >> >>4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of >>the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand of the >>publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed >>has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. >> >>5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be >>outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the >>mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. >> >>The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access >>only after a year after publication: They require them to provide >>toll-free access within a year at the latest. Publishers have every >>incentive to make (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving >>out of authors' hands and doing it instead of them, as late as possible. >> >>Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by >>institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research. >>This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives), >>in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central >>repositories can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research >>needs during OA embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories' >>immediate Almost-OA Button. >> >>And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts >>of interest, on how institutions can save money on their "redundant >>archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their >>researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories' >>immediate Almost-OA Button). >> >>The journals are part of the research community and they have always been >>the principal archive. >> >> >>Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers >>are not part of the research community (not even university or >>learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it. >> >>Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the university >>library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's sector of the >>web is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's sector is >>Open Access. >> >>And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse. >> >>With CHORUS they will be again. >> >> >>What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers' >>proprietary sector will be opened up after a year? >> >>That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be >>opened up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them >>open up any earlier. >> >>After all the entire process is based on the article being published in >>the journal. >> >> >>Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but access: when, where >>and how? >> >>It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program, >>but the design principles are here and now. >> >> >>And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that >>it should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let us do the >>self-archiving for you." >> >>I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP guidance >>is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevant to the >>present situation. >> >> >>The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access >>only after a year after publication: They require them to provide >>toll-free access within a year at the latest. >> >>Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via >>the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design alternative. >> >>But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS. >> >>Stevan Harnad >> >>At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote: >>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, David Wojick >>><dwojick at craigellachie.us > wrote: >>> >>>I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important >>>as an OA tipping point. >>> >>>We are clearly not understanding one another: >>>Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still >>>need a tweak (as noted). >>>Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.) >>>But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that is >>>how publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA. >>> >>>As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with >>>CHORUS. > > > >Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out >of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in >the hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly clear. > >And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the >research community and the future of OA. > >But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS "is" -- because, >thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has >been allowed in at all. > >(The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the >"Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch >Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the >research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher >Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research >community are working hard to keep it out!) > >The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal >submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no >burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly >available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. >This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. > > > >Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the >future of OA. > >Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the hope (of >OA advocates and the concerned research community) is that it never will be. > >The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs >is an upgrade to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic >harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or >any other institution-external subject based >harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the >time being). > >David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting has >since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take >any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers >will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct it. > >Stevan Harnad >On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad ><amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote: > >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David >>Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >> >>NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies >>are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period >>for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or >>CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use >>the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository >>like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments >>requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan >>horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this >>Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA. >> >> >>1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, >>not >>the >>one I was discussing. (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes >>from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.) >>2. The >>Trojan >>Horse would be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" >>invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance >>with the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do it >>themselves, in their own institutional repositories. >>3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid >>Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, >>toll-free, for all. >>4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research >>access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with >>obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. >>All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer >>review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for >>themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a >>fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions. >>5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But >>OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold >>OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a >>publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on >>their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at >>all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade >>all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they >>are not immediate-OA mandates.) >> >>Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did >>you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up >>to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm >>of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making >>your own language. >> >> >>Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, >>paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually >>(mildly) criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish >>Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had >>reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically >>because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still >>attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I >>said and meant.] >>But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes >>for the time being -- as long as >>deposit is mandated to be done >>immediately upon >>acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's institutional >>repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher's >>own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA during the >>allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA via >>their repository's facilitated >>Eprint Request Button. >> >>The >>Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model >> >>Public >>Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) >> >>Comments on >>Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate > >On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad ><amsciforum at GMAIL.COM > wrote: > >>On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David >>Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >> >>The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based >>even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 >>months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that >>meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many >>of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will >>significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is >>implemented over the next few years. >[David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at >OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of >Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and >philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil >engineering.] > >Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in by >this publisher Trojan Horse called >" >CHORUS." It is tripping point, not a tipping point. > >If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free >online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year >embargo. > >CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving >anti-Open >Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations >have been the >" >PRISM coalition" and the >" >Research Works Act." >1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is >optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D >industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that >funds the research. >2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their >institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and >applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue >streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and >must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has >opened up for research, not vice versa! >3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions >(like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are >increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See >ROARMAP. >4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to >research progress by imposing >embargoes >of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be >immediate >in the online era. >5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of >the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the >timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. >6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already >consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting >to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research funds" for research! >7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and >institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in >their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple >purposes. >8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for >research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. >9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the >insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the >research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. >10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research >Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the >publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. > >Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. > >[And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the >interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing >industry?] > >Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of >boos: publishers offer their "solution" to public access > >Giles, J. (2007) >PR's >'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007. > >Harnad, S. (2012) >Research >Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public >Research Dog, Yet Again. Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 >At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: > >>Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault's (2013) pilot study >>" The >>Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age" on the percentage of OA that is >>currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The study >>finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA in >>2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in that >>5-year interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study cannot >>indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being >>made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles >>published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is >>through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, >>immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. >> >>See: >>http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Mon Jul 22 18:38:54 2013 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:38:54 +0000 Subject: Papers of possible interest to Sigmetrics readers Message-ID: Title: Detecting Research Fronts Using Different Types of Weighted Citation Networks Authors: Fujita, K; Kajikawa, Y; Mori, J; Sakata, I Author Full Names: Fujita, Katsuhide; Kajikawa, Yuya; Mori, Junichiro; Sakata, Ichiro Editor(s): Kocaoglu DF; Anderson TR; Daim TU Source: PICMET '12: PROCEEDINGS - TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 267-275; 2012 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: Conference of PICMET - Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (PICMET) Conference Date: JUL 29-AUG 02, 2012 Conference Location: Vancouver, CANADA Conference Sponsors: Portland State Univ, Maseeh Coll Engn & Comp Sci, Dept Engn & Technol Management, Portland State Univ, Tourism Vancouver, Portland Int Ctr Management Engn & Technol (PICMET) KeyWords Plus: SCIENCE; COCITATION; MAP Abstract: In this paper, we investigate the performance of types of weighted citation network for detecting emerging research fronts by a comparative study. Some types of citation network, such as direct citation, co-citation and bibliographic citation were tested in some research domains like complex networks. In this paper, some types of citation networks were constructed for each research domain, and the papers in those domains were divided into clusters to detect the research front. Additionally, we employ some measures for evaluating the research fronts to weighted citation networks. For instance, average publication years and similarities of keywords are effective measures to detect research fronts. By introducing these measures as weights of citation networks to the citation network, we can detect research fronts and promising fields compared with the non-weighted citation networks. We perform a comparative study to investigate the performance of type of weighted citation netwo! rks for detecting emerging research field. Especially, we evaluate the performance of each type of weighted citation networks in detecting a research front by using the following measures of papers in the cluster: visibility, measured by normalized cluster size, speed, topological relevance, and density. Addresses: [Fujita, Katsuhide; Kajikawa, Yuya; Mori, Junichiro; Sakata, Ichiro] Univ Tokyo, Sch Engn, Tokyo, Japan. Cited Reference Count: 26 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE, 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISBN: 978-1-890843-26-7 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Industrial; Management Research Areas: Engineering; Business & Economics IDS Number: BEL24 Unique ID: WOS:000317186400031 Cited References: Small Henry, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P595 Klavans R, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P251 Shibata Naoki, 2008, TECHNOVATION, V28, P758 NAKAMURA S, 1992, JAPANESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS PART 1-REGULAR PAPERS SHORT NOTES & REVIEW PAPERS, V31, P2883 NAKAMURA S, 1994, APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS, V64, P1687 KESSLER MM, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P10 Klavans Richard, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P455 Barabasi AL, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P509 Chen C., 2003, V53, P678 NAKAMURA S, 1991, JAPANESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS PART 2-LETTERS, V30, PL1705 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Watts DJ, 1998, NATURE, V393, P440 Chen CM, 1999, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V35, P401 Jaccard P., 1912, New Phytol., V11, P37 50 Boyack KW, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P351 Newman M E J, 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics, V69, P026113 Leydesdorff L, 2004, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V60, P371 IIJIMA S, 1991, NATURE, V354, P56 BRAAM RR, 1991, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V42, P233 SMALL H, 1974, SCIENCE STUDIES, V4, P17 DE SOLLA PRICE DEREK J., 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 Davidson GS, 1998, JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, V11, P259 Shibata Naoki, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P571 Kostoff RN, 1997, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V23, P301 Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P348 Small H, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P799 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= Title: Effects of Print Publication Lag in Dual Format Journals on Scientometric Indicators Authors: Heneberg, P Author Full Names: Heneberg, Petr Source: PLOS ONE, 8 (4):10.1371/journal.pone.0059877 APR 3 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: CITATION IMPACT; OPEN ACCESS; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; ONLINE; AVAILABILITY; ASTRONOMERS; PHYSICISTS; USAGE; DELAY Abstract: Background: Publication lag between manuscript submission and its final publication is considered as an important factor affecting the decision to submit, the timeliness of presented data, and the scientometric measures of the particular journal. Dual-format peer-reviewed journals (publishing both print and online editions of their content) adopted a broadly accepted strategy to shorten the publication lag: to publish the accepted manuscripts online ahead of their print editions, which may follow days, but also years later. Effects of this widespread habit on the immediacy index (average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published) calculation were never analyzed. Methodology/Principal Findings: Scopus database (which contains nearly up-to-date documents in press, but does not reveal citations by these documents until they are finalized) was searched for the journals with the highest total counts of articles in press, or highest counts of articles in press appearing online in 2010-2011. Number of citations received by the articles in press available online was found to be nearly equal to citations received within the year when the document was assigned to a journal issue. Thus, online publication of in press articles affects severely the calculation of immediacy index of their source titles, and disadvantages online-only and print-only journals when evaluating them according to the immediacy index and probably also according to the *impact factor* and similar measures. Conclusions/Significance: Caution should be taken when evaluating dual-format journals supporting long publication lag. Further research should answer the question, on whether the immediacy index should be replaced by an indicator based on the date of first publication (online or in print, whichever comes first) to eliminate the problems analyzed in this report. Information value of immediacy index is further questioned by very high ratio of authors' self-citations among the citation window used for its calculation. Addresses: Charles Univ Prague, Fac Med 3, Prague, Czech Republic. E-mail Addresses: petr.heneberg at lf3.cuni.cz Cited Reference Count: 33 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 1160 BATTERY STREET, STE 100, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 USA ISSN: 1932-6203 Article Number: e59877 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: 143BA Unique ID: WOS:000318840100031 Cited References: Das Atin, 2006, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V28, P453 Rogers SA, 2001, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V62, P25 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Schloegl Christian, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 17-20, 2008, Vienna, AUSTRIA, V82, P567 Muthu Kumar M, 2008, Int J Adv Manuf Technol, Jacso Peter, 2009, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V33, P376 Tort Adriano B. L., 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Rousseau Sandra, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1213 Morse DH, 2000, Issues Sci Tech Librarian, V28, Conley John P., 2013, ECONOMIC INQUIRY, V51, P1251 Brown C, 2001, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYAnnual Meeting of the American-Library-Association, JUL 09, 2000, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, V52, P187 Lawrence S, 2001, NATURE, V411, P521 Aksnes DW, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P235 Craig Iain D., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P239 Fassoulaki A, 2002, ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, V46, P902 Huang G-L, 2006, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, HAMMER O., 2001, Palaeontologia Electronica, V4, P1 Peng Dong, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P271 Glanzel W, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V59, P63 Bar-Ilan Judit, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P1 McDonald John D., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P39 Bar-Ilan J, 2009, Cybermetrics, V13, P4 Taubes G, 1996, SCIENCE, V273, P304 Natarajan E, 2008, Int J Adv Manuf Technol, Amat Carlos B., 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P379 Xia Jingfeng, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V37, P19 Patil P, 2008, Int J Adv Manuf Technol, Moed Henk F., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYOpen Scholarship Conference 2006, OCT 18-20, 2006, Glasgow, SCOTLAND, V58, P2047 Bouton E.N., 1995, Vistas in AstronomyLibrary and Information Services in Astronomy II (LISA-II), 10-12 May 1995, Garching, Germany, V39, Brown CM, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P929 Metcalfe Travis S., 2006, SOLAR PHYSICS, V239, P549 Shuai Xin, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Borgman CL, 2002, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V36, P3 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= Title: On toxic effects of scientific journals Authors: Molinie, A; Bodenhausen, G Author Full Names: Molinie, Antoinette; Bodenhausen, Geoffrey Source: JOURNAL OF BIOSCIENCES, 38 (2):189-199; 10.1007/s12038-013-9328-5 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Author Keywords: Editorial policy, impact factors, publishing companies, science journals, science policy KeyWords Plus: NMR Abstract: The advent of online publishing greatly facilitates the dissemination of scientific results. This revolution might have led to the untimely death of many traditional publishing companies, since today's scientists are perfectly capable of writing, formatting and uploading files to appropriate websites that can be consulted by colleagues and the general public alike. They also have the intellectual resources to criticize each other and organize an anonymous peer review system. The Open Access approach appears promising in this respect, but we cannot ignore that it is fraught with editorial and economic problems. A few powerful publishing companies not only managed to survive, but also rake up considerable profits. Moreover, they succeeded in becoming influential 'trendsetters' since they decide which papers deserve to be published. To make money, one must set novel trends, like Christian Dior or Levi's in fashion, and open new markets, for example in Asia. In doing so, the pub! lishers tend to supplant both national and transnational funding agencies in defining science policy. In many cases, these agencies tend simply to adopt the commercial criteria defined by the journals, forever eager to improve their impact factors. It is not obvious that the publishers of scientific journals, the editorial boards that they appoint, or the people who sift through the vast numbers of papers submitted to a handful of 'top' journals are endowed with sufficient insight to set the trends of future science. It seems even less obvious that funding agencies should blindly follow the fashion trends set by the publishers. The perverse relationships between private publishers and public funding agencies may have a toxic effect on science policy. Addresses: [Bodenhausen, Geoffrey] Univ Paris Ouest Nanterre La Def, F-92023 Nanterre, France. Ecole Normale Super, Dept Chim, F-75231 Paris 05, France. Ecole Polytech Fed Lausanne, Inst Sci & Ingn Chim, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail Addresses: geoffrey.bodenhausen at ens.fr Cited Reference Count: 7 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: INDIAN ACAD SCIENCES, C V RAMAN AVENUE, SADASHIVANAGAR, P B #8005, BANGALORE 560 080, INDIA ISSN: 0250-5991 Web of Science Categories: Biology Research Areas: Life Sciences & Biomedicine - Other Topics IDS Number: 147GG Unique ID: WOS:000319153600002 Cited References: Molinie A, 2010, Bunsen-Magazin, V5, P188 Pelupessy Philippe, 2009, SCIENCE, V324, P1693 Rousseau JJ, 1972, Annex to Reveries du promeneur solitaire, P246 Golitz P, 2009, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., V51, P9704 Ernst RR, 2010, Bunsen-Magazin, V5, P199 Chinthalapalli Srinivas, 2012, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, V109, Salvi Nicola, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, V134, P11076 ======================================================================= * Title: Stochastic Model for the Vocabulary Growth in Natural Languages Authors: Gerlach, M; Altmann, EG Author Full Names: Gerlach, Martin; Altmann, Eduardo G. Source: PHYSICAL REVIEW X, 3 (2):10.1103/PhysRevX.3.021006 MAY 14 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: POWER-LAWS; HEAPS LAW; ZIPFS LAW; WORD-USE; DYNAMICS; EVOLUTION; TEXT Abstract: We propose a stochastic model for the number of different words in a given database which incorporates the dependence on the database size and historical changes. The main feature of our model is the existence of two different classes of words: (i) a finite number of core words, which have higher frequency and do not affect the probability of a new word to be used, and (ii) the remaining virtually infinite number of noncore words, which have lower frequency and, once used, reduce the probability of a new word to be used in the future. Our model relies on a careful analysis of the Google Ngram database of books published in the last centuries, and its main consequence is the generalization of *Zipf*'s and Heaps' law to two-scaling regimes. We confirm that these generalizations yield the best simple description of the data among generic descriptive models and that the two free parameters depend only on the language but not on the database. From the point of view of our model, ! the main change on historical time scales is the composition of the specific words included in the finite list of core words, which we observe to decay exponentially in time with a rate of approximately 30 words per year for English. Addresses: [Gerlach, Martin; Altmann, Eduardo G.] Max Planck Inst Phys Komplexer Syst, D-01187 Dresden, Germany. Cited Reference Count: 53 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AMER PHYSICAL SOC, ONE PHYSICS ELLIPSE, COLLEGE PK, MD 20740-3844 USA ISSN: 2160-3308 Article Number: 021006 Web of Science Categories: Physics, Multidisciplinary Research Areas: Physics IDS Number: 147ZQ Unique ID: WOS:000319211600001 Cited References: Petersen Alexander M., 2012, SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, V2, Taylor J. R., 1997, An Introduction to Error Analysis, Angeles Serrano M., 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, Benz Ryan W., 2008, JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, V48, P1138 Pagel Mark, 2007, NATURE, V449, P717 BaezaYates R, 2000, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V51, P69 Montemurro MA, 2001, PHYSICA A, V300, P567 Cohen A, 1997, FRACTALS-COMPLEX GEOMETRY PATTERNS AND SCALING IN NATURE AND SOCIETY, V5, P95 Baek Seung Ki, 2011, NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, V13, Mandelbrot B., 1953, An Informational Theory of the Statistical Structure of Language, Communication Theory, P486 Gao Jianbo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE, V9, P1956 Heaps H. S., 1978, Information Retrieval: Computational and Theoretical Aspects, Levary David, 2012, PHYSICAL REVIEW X, V2, Jones E., 2001, SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python, Croft B., 2009, Search Engines: Information Retrieval in Practice, Baayen R. H., 2001, Word frequency distributions, Wimmer G., 1999, J. Quant. Linguist., V6, P1 Ferrer i Cancho R., 2001, J. Quant. Linguist., V8, P165 Williams H. E., 2005, Int. J. Digit. Libr., V5, P99 Michel Jean-Baptiste, 2011, SCIENCE, V331, P176 Anderson D. R., 2002, Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: a Practical Information-theoretic Approach, Li Wentian, 2010, ENTROPY, V12, P1743 Feller W., 1968, An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, VI, Cancho RFI, 2005, EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B, V44, P249 Bernhardsson Sebastian, 2009, NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, V11, Newman MEJ, 2005, CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS, V46, P323 Zanette D. H., 2005, J. Quant. Linguist., V12, P29 Tuldava J., 1996, J. Quant. Linguist., V3, P38 Johansson F., 2010, mpmath: A Python Library for Arbitrary-Precision Floating-Point Arithmetic (Version 0.14), Corominas-Murtra Bernat, 2011, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V83, Zipf G. K., 1936, The Psycho-Biology of Language, Lieberman Erez, 2007, NATURE, V449, P713 SIMON HA, 1955, BIOMETRIKA, V42, P425 Mitzenmacher M., 2004, Internet Math., V1, P226 Mandelbrot B., 1961, On the Theory of Word Frequencies and on Related Markovian Models of Discourse, VXII, Stumpf Michael P. H., 2012, SCIENCE, V335, P665 Blumm Nicholas, 2012, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, V109, D'Agostino RB, 1986, Goodness of Fit Techniques, Paolo Masucci Adolfo, 2011, PLOS ONE, V6, Press W., 2007, Numerical Recipes, Petersen Alexander M., 2012, SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, V2, Simkin M. V., 2011, PHYSICS REPORTS-REVIEW SECTION OF PHYSICS LETTERS, V502, P1 Baronchelli Andrea, 2012, ADVANCES IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS, V15, Sano Yukie, 2012, PROGRESS OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS SUPPLEMENT5th Yukawa-Institute-for-Theoretical-Physics Workshop on Econophysics (YITP), JUL 15-16, 2011, Kyoto, JAPAN, P202 Jaeger Gerhard, 2012, ADVANCES IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS, V15, Eliazar Iddo, 2011, PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, V390, P3189 van Leijenhorst DC, 2005, INFORMATION SCIENCES, V170, P263 Yule GU, 1925, PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B-CONTAINING PAPERS OF A BIOLOGICAL CHARACTER, V213, P21 AKAIKE H, 1974, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VAC19, P716 Naranan S., 1998, J. Quant. Linguist., V5, P35 Cattuto Ciro, 2009, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V106, P10511 Dorogovtsev SN, 2001, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, V268, P2603 Castellano Claudio, 2009, REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS, V81, P591 ======================================================================= Title: Detecting Research Fronts Using Different Types of Weighted Citation Networks Authors: Fujita, K; Kajikawa, Y; Mori, J; Sakata, I Author Full Names: Fujita, Katsuhide; Kajikawa, Yuya; Mori, Junichiro; Sakata, Ichiro Editor(s): Kocaoglu DF; Anderson TR; Daim TU Source: PICMET '12: PROCEEDINGS - TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 267-275; 2012 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: Conference of PICMET - Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (PICMET) Conference Date: JUL 29-AUG 02, 2012 Conference Location: Vancouver, CANADA Conference Sponsors: Portland State Univ, Maseeh Coll Engn & Comp Sci, Dept Engn & Technol Management, Portland State Univ, Tourism Vancouver, Portland Int Ctr Management Engn & Technol (PICMET) KeyWords Plus: SCIENCE; COCITATION; MAP Abstract: In this paper, we investigate the performance of types of weighted citation network for detecting emerging research fronts by a comparative study. Some types of citation network, such as direct citation, co-citation and *bibliographic* citation were tested in some research domains like complex networks. In this paper, some types of citation networks were constructed for each research domain, and the papers in those domains were divided into clusters to detect the research front. Additionally, we employ some measures for evaluating the research fronts to weighted citation networks. For instance, average publication years and similarities of keywords are effective measures to detect research fronts. By introducing these measures as weights of citation networks to the citation network, we can detect research fronts and promising fields compared with the non-weighted citation networks. We perform a comparative study to investigate the performance of type of weighted citation net! works for detecting emerging research field. Especially, we evaluate the performance of each type of weighted citation networks in detecting a research front by using the following measures of papers in the cluster: visibility, measured by normalized cluster size, speed, topological relevance, and density. Addresses: [Fujita, Katsuhide; Kajikawa, Yuya; Mori, Junichiro; Sakata, Ichiro] Univ Tokyo, Sch Engn, Tokyo, Japan. Cited Reference Count: 26 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE, 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISBN: 978-1-890843-26-7 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Industrial; Management Research Areas: Engineering; Business & Economics IDS Number: BEL24 Unique ID: WOS:000317186400031 Cited References: Small Henry, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P595 Klavans R, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P251 Shibata Naoki, 2008, TECHNOVATION, V28, P758 NAKAMURA S, 1992, JAPANESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS PART 1-REGULAR PAPERS SHORT NOTES & REVIEW PAPERS, V31, P2883 NAKAMURA S, 1994, APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS, V64, P1687 KESSLER MM, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P10 Klavans Richard, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P455 Barabasi AL, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P509 Chen C., 2003, V53, P678 NAKAMURA S, 1991, JAPANESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS PART 2-LETTERS, V30, PL1705 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Watts DJ, 1998, NATURE, V393, P440 Chen CM, 1999, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V35, P401 Jaccard P., 1912, New Phytol., V11, P37 50 Boyack KW, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P351 Newman M E J, 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics, V69, P026113 Leydesdorff L, 2004, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V60, P371 IIJIMA S, 1991, NATURE, V354, P56 BRAAM RR, 1991, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V42, P233 SMALL H, 1974, SCIENCE STUDIES, V4, P17 DE SOLLA PRICE DEREK J., 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 Davidson GS, 1998, JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, V11, P259 Shibata Naoki, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P571 Kostoff RN, 1997, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V23, P301 Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P348 Small H, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P799 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= ======================================================================= Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTORS(1); JOURNAL(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000319230000001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Misuse of *Journal* *Impact Factors* in Scientific Assessment Authors: Marks, MS; Marsh, M; Schroer, TA; Stevens, TH Author Full Names: Marks, Michael S.; Marsh, Mark; Schroer, Trina A.; Stevens, Tom H. Source: TRAFFIC, 14 (6):611-612; 10.1111/tra.12075 JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material KeyWords Plus: SCIENCE Cited Reference Count: 15 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 1398-9219 Web of Science Categories: Cell Biology Research Areas: Cell Biology IDS Number: 148FX Unique ID: WOS:000319230000001 Cited References: [Anonymous], 2005, Nature, V435, P1003 Scully C, 2005, BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL, V198, P391 VINKLER P, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICS, V20, P145 Vanclay Jerome K., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P3 [Anonymous], 2013, GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Wu Xiu-fang, 2008, JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY-SCIENCE B, V9, P582 Vanclay Jerome K., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P211 Pendlebury David A., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P395 Rossner Mike, 2007, JOURNAL OF CELL BIOLOGY, V179, P1091 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 van Raan Anthony F. J., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P457 Zitt Michel, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P485 The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2006, PLoS Med, V3, Pe291 McVeigh Marie E., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P1107 ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: BIBLIOMETRIC(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000318807000010 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Progress in global parallel computing research: a *bibliometric* approach Authors: Liu, ZQ; Liu, YL; Guo, YJ; Wang, H Author Full Names: Liu, Zhongqiu; Liu, Yaolin; Guo, Yangjie; Wang, Hua Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 95 (3):967-983; 10.1007/s11192-012-0927-y JUN 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Parallel computing, Bibliometric analysis, Citing-cited matrix, Research trends KeyWords Plus: DOMAIN DECOMPOSITION METHOD; FINITE-ELEMENT-ANALYSIS; PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE; COCITATION ANALYSIS; CELLULAR-AUTOMATA; NEURAL-NETWORKS; RESEARCH TRENDS; PERFORMANCE; COMMUNICATION; ARCHITECTURES Abstract: This study adopts a bibliometric approach to analyze the progress in global parallel computing research from the related literature in the Science Citation Index Expanded database from 1958 to 2011. By investigating the characteristics of annual publication outputs, we find that parallel computing has recently experienced increasing attention again after its first rapid development in the 1990s, and the research in this field is entering into a new phase. The distribution of publications indicates that the seven major industrial countries (G7), with USA ranking top, are identified as the most productive and influential countries in this domain. Author keywords were analyzed by comparison, and we conclude that the study focus of parallel computing has shifted from hardware to software, with parallel application and programming based on MPI, GPUs and multicores being the research tendencies; grid computing and cloud computing dominate the distributed computing area due to thei! r heterogeneous and scalable structures; and, furthermore, the processors of parallel machines are heading for a diverse development. The citing-cited matrix brings into light the intense interactions among the disciplines of computer science, engineering, mathematics and physics. The mutual interactions between the four disciplines have increased gradually and reflect the subject characteristics in influence content. Addresses: [Liu, Zhongqiu; Liu, Yaolin; Guo, Yangjie; Wang, Hua] Wuhan Univ, Sch Resource & Environm Sci, Wuhan 430072, Hubei, Peoples R China. [Liu, Zhongqiu; Liu, Yaolin; Wang, Hua] Wuhan Univ, Minist Educ, Key Lab Geog Informat Syst, Wuhan 430072, Hubei, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: yaolin610 at 163.com Funding Acknowledgement: Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2011AA120304] Funding Text: This paper is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under the Grant No. 2011AA120304. The authors thank Liu Xingjian for technical discussions. Thanks also to Su Shiliang for helpful advices on the methodology. Cited Reference Count: 64 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: 142OO Unique ID: WOS:000318807000010 Cited References: Morris Julian, 2009, COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUES FOR BIOPROCESS MODELLING, SUPERVISION AND CONTROL, V218, P281 Larus James, 2009, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, V52, P62 Noor A.K., 1975, Computers and Structures, V5, Thomaszewski Bernhard, 2008, COMPUTERS & GRAPHICS-UK7th Eurographics Symposium on Parallel Graphics and Visualization, MAY, 2007, Lugano, SWITZERLAND, V32, P25 Sur S., 2006, Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing, November 11-17, 2006, Tampa, Florida, Chamberlain BL, 2000, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, V26, P197 Kiselyov O, 1997, DR DOBBS JOURNAL, V22, P107 Dehne Tim, 2008, R&D MAGAZINE, V50, P22 SCHUBERT A, 1989, SCIENTOMETRICS, V16, P3 Zuo H. R., 2009, Application Research of Computers, V11, P4115 Lewis T. G., 1992, Introduction to parallel computing, Almind TC, 1997, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V53, P404 Chao Chia-Chen, 2007, TECHNOVATION, V27, P268 Karki R, 1996, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V22, P323 PEASE MC, 1977, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, V26, P458 ZITT M, 1994, SCIENTOMETRICS4th International Conference on Bibliometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics, in Memory of Derek John de Solla Price (1922-1983), SEP 11-15, 1993, BERLIN, GERMANY, V30, P333 Wolf F, 2003, JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE11th Euromicro Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing, FEB 05-07, 2003, GENOA, ITALY, V49, P421 DUMAS T, 1993, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASIS ANNUAL MEETING, V30, P135 Lu T., 1992, Domain decomposition methods, CAREY GF, 1986, COMMUNICATIONS IN APPLIED NUMERICAL METHODS, V2, P281 MUHLENBEIN H, 1991, PARALLEL COMPUTING, V17, P619 YAGAWA G, 1991, COMPUTERS & STRUCTURES, V38, P615 Bandini S, 2001, PARALLEL COMPUTING, V27, P539 ULLMAN JD, 1975, JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND SYSTEM SCIENCES, V10, P384 Heath M. T., 1987, Hypercube multiprocessors, V29, Bova SW, 2000, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING APPLICATIONS, V14, P49 Sutter H, 2005, DR DOBBS JOURNAL, V30, P16 KRUSKAL CP, 1986, THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE, V48, P75 Duato J., 2003, Interconnection networks, Holland J. H., 1975, Adaptation in natural and artificial systems, GILL S, 1958, COMPUTER JOURNAL, V1, P2 Sato H., 1992, Scalable High Performance Computing Conference, April 26-29, Williamsburg, VA, P113 Dally W.J., 1999, Proceedings 20th Anniversary Conference on Advanced Research in VLSIProceedings 20th Anniversary Conference on Advanced Research in VLSI, 21-24 March 1999, Atlanta, GA, USA, Mela GS, 1999, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V35, P1182 Sun X.-H., 1990, Proceedings of Supercomputing '90 (Cat. No.90CH2916-5)Proceedings of Supercomputing '90 (Cat. No.90CH2916-5), 12-16 Nov. 1990, New York, NY, USA, Seiffert U, 2004, NEUROCOMPUTING10th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, 2002, Bruges, BELGIUM, V57, P135 Bradford S. C., 1985, Journal of Information Science, V10, P173 MOLINA AH, 1990, RESEARCH POLICY, V19, P309 Zyserman FI, 2000, JOURNAL OF APPLIED GEOPHYSICS, V44, P337 Spezzano G, 1999, FUTURE GENERATION COMPUTER SYSTEMS, V16, P203 Yuen CK, 1997, PARALLEL COMPUTING, V23, P369 Ho Yuh-Shan, 2010, INTERNAL MEDICINE, V49, P2219 Conway M. E., 1963, AFIPS fall joint computer conference, V24, P139 Smith IM, 2000, ENGINEERING COMPUTATIONS, V17, P75 Nguyen TA, 2003, COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE - ICCS 2003, PT I, PROCEEDINGSInternational Conference on Computational Science (ICCS 2003), JUN 02-04, 2003, MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA, V2657, P165 NOOR AK, 1987, AIAA JOURNAL, V25, P97 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: BIBLIOMETRIC(1); *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000318666500058 Title: *BIBLIOMETRIC* ANALYSIS OF THE SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION ON NUTRITION *JOURNALS* INDEXED IN SCIELO NETWORK Authors: Tomas-Castera, V; Sanz-Valero, J; Juan-Quilis, V Author Full Names: Tomas-Castera, Vicente; Sanz-Valero, Javier; Juan-Quilis, Veronica Source: NUTRICION HOSPITALARIA, 28 (3):969-970; 10.3305/nh.2013.28.3.6463 MAY-JUN 2013 Language: Spanish Document Type: Letter Addresses: [Tomas-Castera, Vicente; Sanz-Valero, Javier] Univ Alicante, Dept Enfermeria Comunitaria Med Prevent & Salud P, E-03080 Alicante, Spain. [Sanz-Valero, Javier] Univ Miguel Hernandez, Dept Salud Publ Hist Ciencia & Ginecol, Elche, Spain. [Juan-Quilis, Veronica] BV SSPA, Seville, Spain. E-mail Addresses: javier.sanz at ua.es Cited Reference Count: 6 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AULA MEDICA EDICIONES, C/ISABEL COLBRAND, 10-12 NAVE 78 S PLANTA CIUDAD INDUSTRIAL VENECIA-EDIFICIO ALFA, MADRID, 28050, SPAIN ISSN: 0212-1611 Web of Science Categories: Nutrition & Dietetics Research Areas: Nutrition & Dietetics IDS Number: 140PD Unique ID: WOS:000318666500058 Cited References: Tomas-Castera Vicente, 2010, REVISTA DE NUTRICAO-BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF NUTRITION, V23, P791 Tomas-Castera V, 2008, Nutr Hosp, V23, P469 Tomas Castera VT, 2013, Estudio bibliometrico de la produccion cientifica y de consumo de las revistas sobre nutricion indizadas en la Red SciELO, Tomas-Castera V, 2010, An Venez Nutr, V23, P80 Tomas-Castera V, 2010, Rev Chil Nutr, V37, P330 Tomas-Castera V, 2008, Nutr Hosp, V23, P541 ======================================================================= *Record 32 of 53. Search terms matched: JOURNAL(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000319104900010 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: AIChE *JOURNAL* Highlight Accelerated Evolution for Process and Product Development Authors: [Anonymous] Author Full Names: [Anonymous] Source: CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRESS, 109 (5):12-12; MAY 2013 Language: English Document Type: News Item Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AMER INST CHEMICAL ENGINEERS, 3 PARK AVE, NEW YORK, NY 10016-5901 USA ISSN: 0360-7275 Web of Science Categories: ======================================================================= ) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000318438900015 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Publication tendencies of pharmacy and medical *journals* over the past three decades Authors: Potter, J; Do, D; Zlicha, A; Ramsaroop, M; Benavides, S Author Full Names: Potter, Jonathan; Do, Dan; Zlicha, Ariel; Ramsaroop, Marisa; Benavides, Sandra Source: PHARMACOTHERAPY, 33 (5):E53-E54; MAY 2013 Language: English Document Type: Meeting Abstract Conference Title: Symposium of the American-College-of-Clinical-Pharmacy Conference Date: MAY 21-22, 2013 Conference Location: ELECTR NETWORK Conference Sponsors: Amer Coll Clin Pharm Addresses: [Potter, Jonathan; Do, Dan; Zlicha, Ariel; Ramsaroop, Marisa; Benavides, Sandra] Nova SE Univ, Coll Pharm, Davie, FL USA. Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 0277-0008 Web of Science Categories: Pharmacology & Pharmacy Research Areas: Pharmacology & Pharmacy IDS Number: 137MB Unique ID: WOS:000318438900015 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000318832600006 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Proposals of Standards for the Application of *Scientometrics* in the Evaluation of Individual Researchers Working in the Natural Sciences Authors: Bornmann, L; Marx, W Author Full Names: Bornmann, Lutz; Marx, Werner Source: ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVALUATION, 12 (1):103-127; APR 2013 Language: German Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Scientometrics, Publications, Citations, Percentiles KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; INFORMATION-SCIENCE; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; CITATION ANALYSIS; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; IMPACT FACTOR; INDICATORS; PUBLICATION; QUALITY; PRODUCTIVITY Abstract: Although scientometrics has been a separate research field for many years, there is still no uniformity in the way scientometric analyses are applied to individual researchers. Therefore, this study aims to propose standards for the use of scientometrics in the evaluation of individual researchers working in the natural sciences. This study includes recommendations for a set of indicators to be used for evaluating researchers. The standards relate to the selection of data on which an evaluation is based, the analysis of the data and the presentation of the results. To present our standards, we use here the anonymised data for three selected researchers who work in similar areas of research but are of different ages and enjoy different levels of academic success. Addresses: [Bornmann, Lutz] Max Planck Gesell, Generalverwaltung, Stabsreferat Wissensch & Innovat Forsch, D-80539 Munich, Germany. [Marx, Werner] Max Planck Inst Festkorperforsch, Informationsvermittlungsstelle IVS CPT, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany. E-mail Addresses: bornmann at gv.mpg.de; w.marx at fkf.mpg.de Cited Reference Count: 93 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WAXMANN VERLAG GMBH, POSTFACH 8603, D-48046 MUNSTER, GERMANY ISSN: 1619-5515 Web of Science Categories: Psychology, Applied; Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary Research Areas: Psychology; Social Sciences - Other Topics IDS Number: 142YD Unique ID: WOS:000318832600006 Cited References: Costas Rodrigo, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1564 PINSKI G, 1976, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V12, P297 Boyack KW, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Mapping Knowledge Domains, MAY 09-11, 2003, Irvine, CA, V101, P5192 Vinkler Peter, 2010, The Evaluation of Research by Scientometric Indicators, MARTIN BR, 1983, RESEARCH POLICY, V12, P61 Danell Rickard, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P50 Research Evaluation and Policy Project, 2005, REPP discussion paper 05/1, Nosek Brian A., 2010, PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, V36, P1283 Panaretos John, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P635 Froghi Saied, 2012, BJU INTERNATIONAL, V109, P321 StataCorp, 2011, Stata Statistical Software: Release 12, Sahel Jose-Alain, 2011, SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, V3, Jacso Peter, 2009, LIBRARY JOURNAL, V134, P26 Duffy Ryan D., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P207 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P406 Guerrero-Bote Vicente P., The Main Contributors of Scientific Papers and the Output Counting: A Promising New Approach., Nahata Milap C, 2009, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, V73, Abramo Giovanni, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P499 Kosmulski Marek, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P481 Smith Andy T., 2002, The Correlation Between RAE Ratings and Citation Counts in Psychology, Ruiz-Castillo Javier, 2012, SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, V3, P291 Marx Werner, 2012, Beitrage zur Hochschulforschung, V34, P50 De Bellis Nicola, 2009, Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics, Azoulay Pierre, 2009, NBER Working Paper No. 15466, Cronin Blaise, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1948 van Raan Anthony F. J., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P461 Marx Werner, 2011, Forschung & Lehre, V11, P858 Bornmann Lutz, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1381 Egghe Leo, 2010, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V44, P65 Albarran Pedro, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P40 van Raan Anthony F. J, 2005, Measurement, V3, P1 Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 SCHUBERT A, 1993, SCIENTOMETRICSEUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON SCIENTOMETRIC METHODS OF RESEARCH EVALUATION IN THE SCIENCES, SOCIAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, APR 13-17, 1991, POTSDAM, GERMANY, V26, P21 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P830 Kreiman Gabriel, 2011, Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, V5, P1 Moed Henk F, 2005, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Andres Ana, 2011, Measuring Academic Research: How to Undertake a Bibliometric Study, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Council of Canadian Academies, 2012, Informing Research Choices: Indicators and Judgment: The Expert Panel on Science Performance and Research Funding, Abramo Giovanni, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P659 Jacso Peter, 2010, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V34, P175 Lewison Grant, 2007, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, V190, P314 Strotmann Andreas, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1820 Taylor Jim, 2011, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, V22, P202 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVALUATION, V11, P233 Aksnes DW, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P235 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P27 Kosmulski Marek, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P368 Schubert A, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P311 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, V32, P1861 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P505 Tijssen RJW, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V54, P381 Hemlin Sven, 1996, Social Epistemology, V10, P209 Garfield Eugene, 1979, Citation Indexing - Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities, Bornmann Lutz, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P333 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1370 Pendlebury David A., 2008, Using Bibliometrics in Evaluating Research, Haslam Nick, 2010, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, V40, P216 Zhang Lin, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS13th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 04-07, 2011, Durban, SOUTH AFRICA, V91, P617 Bornmann Lutz, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, Garcia-Perez Miguel A., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2070 Tijssen Robert, 2006, Ninth International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, P146 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 American Psychological Association, 2009, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Meho LI, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P1314 Retzer Vroni, 2009, BASIC AND APPLIED ECOLOGY, V10, P393 Bornmann Luti, 2008, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V64, P45 Mogee Mary Ellen, 2004, The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T-Systems, P75 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, EMBO REPORTS, V10, P2 Coleman B. Jay, 2012, TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL, V51, P164 Lehmann Sune, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V76, P369 D'Angelo Ciriaco Andrea, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P257 Opthof T., 2011, NETHERLANDS HEART JOURNAL, V19, P246 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P346 Moed HF, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V37, P105 Doane DP, 2000, AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, V54, P289 Merton Robert K, 1980, Auf den Schultern von Riesen - Ein Leitfaden durch das Labyrinth der Gelehrsamkeit, Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P621 Cole Stephen, 1992, Making Science: Between Nature and Society, Garfield E, 2002, SCIENTIST, V16, P10 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P2419 Abramo Giovanni, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P132 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, V174, P857 Yin Chun-Yang, 2011, CURRENT SCIENCE, V100, P648 Chang Chia-Lin, 2011, JOURNAL OF APPLIED STATISTICS, V38, P2563 vanRaan AFJ, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P397 Pendlebury David A., 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P1 Glanzel W, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS33rd Annual Conference of the Canadian-Association-for-Information-Science, JUN 02-04, 2005, London, CANADA, V67, P263 Sugimoto Cassidy R., 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P450 Norris Michael, 2010, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V66, P681 Bornmann Lutz, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Bornmann Lutz, 2011, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, V45, P199 MERTON RK, 1957, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V22, P635 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= ======================================================================= ============================================================== ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000318791400028 ] Title: TRENDS AND TOPICS IN SPORTS RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE *CITATION* INDEX FROM 1993 TO 2008 Authors: Gau, LS Author Full Names: Gau, Li-Shiue Source: PERCEPTUAL AND MOTOR SKILLS, 116 (1):305-314; 10.2466/30.03.PMS.116.1.305-314 FEB 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; JOURNALS Abstract: This descriptive study evaluated behavioral and social science research on sport for 1993 through 2008, examined the characteristics of sport research, and identified mainstream issues appearing during these 16 years. Based on the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) database from 1993 to 2008, 7,655 articles referring to sport or sports were available. The publication analyses showed that 13 core journals published the most articles in the behavioral sciences of sport. By analyzing all titles, author keywords, and KeyWords Plus, the results showed that physical education, athlete performance, and sports participation were the mainstream issues of sport research in the 16-year study period. The words adolescent, youth, and children frequently appeared, indicating that the emphasis of sport research focused on these participant groups. This bibliometric study reviewed global sports research in SSCI, and described certain patterns or trends in prior research on sport. Addresses: [Gau, Li-Shiue] Asia Univ, Taichung 41354, Taiwan. E-mail Addresses: lishiuegau at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 17 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AMMONS SCIENTIFIC, LTD, PO BOX 9229, MISSOULA, MT 59807-9229 USA ISSN: 0031-5125 Web of Science Categories: Psychology, Experimental Research Areas: Psychology IDS Number: 142IS Unique ID: WOS:000318791400028 Cited References: Li Ling-li, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P39 Xie Shaodong, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V77, P113 Shilbury D., 2011, Sport Management Review, V14, P434 NOBLE CE, 1965, PERCEPTUAL AND MOTOR SKILLS, V20, P959 GARFIELD E, 1990, CURRENT COMMENTS, P3 Bradford S. C., 1934, Engineering, V137, P85 Sanchez Santos Jose Manuel, 2011, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT FINANCE, V6, P222 Ho Y. S., 2007, Journal of Environmental Protection Science, V1, P1 COLMAN AM, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V32, P49 Knudson Duane V., 2011, PERCEPTUAL AND MOTOR SKILLS, V112, P838 Tsigilis Nikolaos, 2010, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE, V10, P81 Chuang Kun-Yang, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V72, P201 Qin J, 2000, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V51, P166 ZITT M, 1994, SCIENTOMETRICS4th International Conference on Bibliometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics, in Memory of Derek John de Solla Price (1922-1983), SEP 11-15, 1993, BERLIN, GERMANY, V30, P333 Rodriguez K, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V35, P59 Chiu Wen-Ta, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P3 Li Jinfeng, 2009, CROATICA CHEMICA ACTA, V82, P695 ======================================================================= *Record 46 of 53. Search terms matched: SCIENTOMETRICS(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000318886300044 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The Evolution of Research Frontier and Hot Topic in International Faculty Evaluation: A *Scientometrics* Study Authors: Ying, B; Chen, SC; Lv, CF; Xu, Q; Zhang, Y Author Full Names: Ying, Biao; Chen, Sichao; Lv, Chunfeng; Xu, Qing; Zhang, Yi Editor(s): Lee G Source: PSYCHOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, 17 240-246; 2013 Book Series: Advances in Education Research Language: Chinese Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: International Conference on Psychology, Management and Social Science (PMSS 2013) Conference Date: JAN 23-24, 2013 Conference Location: Shenzhen, PEOPLES R CHINA Conference Sponsors: Informat Engn Res Inst, Trans Tech Publicat Inc, Int Mat Sci Soc Author Keywords: faculty evaluation, cluster analysis, co-citation network, CiteSpace Abstract: Form the perspective of scientometrics, we analyzed the citings and citations of publication on faculty evaluation in ISI Web of Science with the tool of Cite Space II. Based on content analysis, five clusters were identified as problem-based education, education evaluation and faculty development, education reform, student evaluation, as well as caree evaluation during the time period from 1990 to 2012. In the period of 1990-1994, most works focused on the problem-based learning. The discussion on student-center curriculum design was further developed from problem-based theory in 1995-1999. In the following period of 2000-2004, teaching and faculty development gained more academic attention. At the same time, student evaluation became an important method in evaluating teaching, and got a further development in 2005-2009. Another important topic was curriculum reform related with teaching evaluation and professionalism measurement in 2000-2004. In the nearest period, the dis! cussion on professionalism became hot topic. Addresses: [Ying, Biao; Chen, Sichao; Lv, Chunfeng; Xu, Qing; Zhang, Yi] Zhejiang Univ, Hangzhou 310003, Zhejiang, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: yingbiao at zju.edu.cn; chensichao at zju.edu.cn; lvchunfeng at zju.edu.cn; xuqing at zju.edu.cn; applezy at hotmail.com Cited Reference Count: 5 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: INFORMATION ENGINEERING RESEARCH INST, USA, 100 CONTINENTAL DR, NEWARK, DE 19713 USA ISSN: 2160-1070 ISBN: 978-1-61275-053-8 Web of Science Categories: Education & Educational Research; Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary Research Areas: Education & Educational Research; Social Sciences - Other Topics IDS Number: BEZ42 Unique ID: WOS:000318886300044 Cited References: Kenneth D. P., 2000, Teacher evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices, Chen CM, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P359 Korenman S. G., 1991, Academic Medicine, V66, P513 Xiao Ming, 2011, Library and Information Service, V55, P91 Liu Zeyuan, 2008, Science knowledge map methodology and application, ======================================================================= ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *Record 52 of 53. Search terms matched: BIBLIOMETRICS(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000318832700005 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Standards for Applying *Bibliometrics* to the Evaluation of Research Institutes in the Natural Sciences Authors: Bornmann, L; Bowman, BF; Bauer, J; Marx, W; Schier, H; Palzenberger, M Author Full Names: Bornmann, Lutz; Bowman, Benjamin F.; Bauer, Johann; Marx, Werner; Schier, Hermann; Palzenberger, Margit Source: ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVALUATION, 11 (2):233-260; OCT 2012 Language: German Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometrics, Standards, Publication Output, Citations KeyWords Plus: CITATION DISTRIBUTIONS; RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY; INFORMATION-SCIENCE; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; SELF-CITATION; IMPACT FACTOR; QUALITY; INDICATORS; POLICY; UNIVERSALITY Abstract: Even though bibliometrics has been a well-defined research area within scientometrics for many years, uniformity in the conduct of bibliometric analyses has not yet been achieved. The numerous dos and don'ts that exist in the field represent the implicit knowledge of experienced users, rather than a clearly defined set of rules and operating procedures. Our chapter seeks to establish standards for applying bibliometrics to the evaluation of research institutes in a number of areas in the natural sciences. These standards refer to the selection of the underlying data from the reference databases, the statistical analysis of the data and the presentation of results. We draw upon anonymized data from six research institutes active in similar research areas to illustrate the applicability of our proposed standards. Addresses: [Bornmann, Lutz] Forsch Anal, Max Planck Gesell Gen Verwaltung Stabsreferat Wis, D-80539 Munich, Germany. [Bowman, Benjamin F.; Bauer, Johann] Max Planck Inst Biochem Informat Vermittlungsstel, Martinsried, Germany. [Marx, Werner; Schier, Hermann] Max Planck Inst Festkorperforsch Informat Vermitt, Stuttgart, Germany. [Palzenberger, Margit] Max Planck Digital Lib, Munich, Germany. E-mail Addresses: bornmann at gv.mpg.de; bowman at biochem.mpg.de; jbauer at biochem.mpg.de; w.marx at fkf.mpg.de; H.Schier at fkf.mpg.de; palzenberger at mpdl.mpg.de Cited Reference Count: 74 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: WAXMANN VERLAG GMBH, POSTFACH 8603, D-48046 MUNSTER, GERMANY ISSN: 1619-5515 Web of Science Categories: Psychology, Applied; Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary Research Areas: Psychology; Social Sciences - Other Topics IDS Number: 142YE Unique ID: WOS:000318832700005 Cited References: Jacso Peter, 2009, LIBRARY JOURNAL, V134, P26 Abbott Alison, 2010, NATURE, V465, P860 MARTIN BR, 1983, RESEARCH POLICY, V12, P61 Daniel Hans-Dieter, 2001, Wissenschaftsevaluation. Neuere Entwicklungen und heutiger Stand der Forschungs- und Hochschulevaluation in ausgewahlten Landern (CEST 2001/2), Abramo Giovanni, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P132 StataCorp, 2011, Stata Statistical Software: Release 12, Snyder H, 1998, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P431 SMITH R, 1988, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V296, P774 Glanzel W, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS33rd Annual Conference of the Canadian-Association-for-Information-Science, JUN 02-04, 2005, London, CANADA, V67, P263 Huang Mu-Hsuan, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2427 Rehn Catharina, 2007, Bibliometric Indicators - Definitions and Usage at Karolinska Institutet, Bornmann Lutz, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P173 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, Forschung & Lehre, V12, P650 Merton Robert K., 1985, Entwicklung and Wandel von Forschungsinteressen. Aufsatze zur Wissenschaftssoziologie, Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Marx Werner, 2006, Using Time-Dependent Citation Rates (Sales Curves) for Comparing Scientific Impacts, GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 van Raan AFJ, 2004, HANDBOOK OF QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH: THE USE OF PUBLICATION AND PATENT STATISTICS IN STUDIES OF S&T SYSTEMS, P19 Hornbostel Stefan, 1997, Wissenschaftsindikatoren. Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft, Abramo Giovanni, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P659 Sheskin David J., 2007, Danell Rickard, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P50 Daniel Hans-Dieter, 2007, Quality Assessment for Higher Education in EuropeSymposium on Quality Assessmentfor Higher Education in Europe, 2006, Pavia, ITALY, P71 Andres Ana, 2011, Measuring Academic Research: How to Undertake a Bibliometric Study, Bornmann Lutz, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P407 Radicchi Filippo, 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V105, P17268 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Berghmans T, 2003, ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, V14, P715 Research Evaluation and Policy Project, 2005, REPP discussion paper 05/1, Bortz Jurgen, 2008, Kurzgefasste Statistik fur die klinische Forschung. Leitfaden fur die verteilungsfreie Analyse kleiner Stichproben, Jann B, 2005, STATA JOURNAL, V5, P92 Radicchi Filippo, 2011, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V83, Moed Henk F, 2005, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P165 Gagolewski Marek, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P678 SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Ruegg Rosalie, 2003, A Toolkit for Evaluating Public R&D Investment: Models, Methods, and Findings from ATP's First Decade, Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, V174, P857 McClellan Jason E., 2003, Specialist Control: the Publications Committee of the Academie Royal des Sciences (Paris) 1700-1793, V93, Albarran Pedro, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P385 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P27 Aksnes DW, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P235 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, V8, P93 Mulligan Adrian, 2006, UK Serials Group (UKSG) Annual Conference, UK, Shadbolt Nigel, 2006, OPEN ACCESS: KEY STRATEGIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS, P195 De Bellis Nicola, 2009, Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics, Garcia-Perez Miguel A., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2070 Tijssen Robert, 2006, Ninth International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, P146 Meho LI, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P1314 American Psychological Association, 2009, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Jacso Peter, 2010, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V34, P175 Wright Malcom, 2007, Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge?, Strotmann Andreas, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P194 Calver Michael C., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P611 Lariviere Vincent, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P392 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V45, P199 Randic Milan, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P809 Feist Gregory J., 2006, The Psychology of Science and the Origins of the Scientific Mind, Garfield Eugene, 1979, Citation Indexing - Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities, Boyack KW, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Mapping Knowledge Domains, MAY 09-11, 2003, Irvine, CA, V101, P5192 Tijssen RJW, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V54, P381 Hemlin Sven, 1996, Social Epistemology, V10, P209 Moed HF, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V37, P105 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1370 Barbui C, 2006, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY, V67, P37 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1664 Pendlebury David A., 2008, Using Bibliometrics in Evaluating Research, Ziman John, 2000, Real Science: What it is, and What it Means, Bortz Jurgen, 2010, Statistik fur Human- und Sozialwissenschaftlers, NORIA-net, 2011, Comparing Research at Nordic Universities Using Bibliometric Indicators: A Publication From the NORIA-net 'Bibliometric Indicators for the Nordic Universities', Lehmann Sune, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V76, P369 Vinkler P, 2010, EVALUATION OF RESEARCH BY SCIENTOMETRIC INDICATORS, P1 Marx Werner, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P433 Kenna Ralph, 2011, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V20, P107 ======================================================================= *Record 53 of 53. Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTORS(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000318819700028 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Impact Factors* of Intra-Industry Trade between China and US: An Analysis Based on Manufacturing Industry Authors: Liu, WG; Liu, YL Author Full Names: Liu Wenge; Liu Yanli Editor(s): Li BQ; Thomas L Source: PROCEEDINGS OF CHINA PRIVATE ECONOMY INNOVATION INTERNATIONAL FORUM 2012, 194-201; 2012 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: China Private Economy Innovation International Forum Conference Date: 2012 Conference Location: Taizhou, PEOPLES R CHINA Conference Sponsors: Yangtze River Delta Private Econ Res Assoc, Taizhou Branch, Journal Econ & Social Syst Comparison, Taizhou Merchant Assoc, Taizhou Univ, Ningbo Univ, Sch Business Author Keywords: intra-industry trade, manufacturing industry, G-L index Abstract: Through applying abundant data of trade between China and US, this paper gives detailed and overall analysis on development of Sino-US trade within the manufacturing industry. This article has applied data from United Nations trade database, "China Statistical Yearbook" over the years, "China Industrial Economy Statistical Yearbook", "China Science and Technology Statistical Yearbook" and "Statistical Yearbook of International Economics", and so on. Moreover, the G-L index is used too. In terms of manufacturing, an empirical analysis of factors affecting Sino-US intra-industry trade is made. In the empirical analysis section, this paper attempts for the first time to introduce technology innovation of China's manufacturing industry as a model to explore how the level of science and technology would affect Sino-US intra-industry trade within the manufacturing industry. In addition, other relevant key factors are also analyzed for the integrity. Based on the analysis results, ! some relevant policy proposals are given from the perspective of industry structure, economies of scale, foreign investment attraction, domestic demand expansion and the shorten of Sino-US per-capita income gap and so on. Addresses: [Liu Wenge; Liu Yanli] Zhejiang Gongshang Univ, Sch Econ, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: liuwenge1966 at yahoo.com.cn Cited Reference Count: 4 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AMER SCHOLARS PRESS, 3238 HARVEST WAY, MARIETTA, GA 30062 USA ISBN: 978-0-9845209-9-2 Web of Science Categories: Economics; Planning & Development Research Areas: Business & Economics; Public Administration IDS Number: BEZ14 Unique ID: WOS:000318819700028 Cited References: Huang S., 2007, Empirical research on Sino-Japan intra-industry trade within the manufacturing industry and its impact factors, Zhang S., 2003, Theory of foreign trade structure in China, P67 Grubel H., 1975, Intra-industry trade: The theory and measurement of international trade in differentiated products, Ma J., 2002, World Economy, P17 ======================================================================= From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Tue Jul 23 00:27:06 2013 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:27:06 -0400 Subject: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, David Wojick wrote: > The Federal OA program is controlled by the Federal Government, so all > your talk of ceding control is just a rhetorical device. Neither the > fundees, the institutions nor the journals control it, except to the extent > that the journals make the publication decisions. So no one is ceding > control to anyone. And I repeat that the journals are part of the > community, a central part. (You are doing your private language thing > again. You do it a lot.) > > Under CHORUS the lead author merely has to check a box indicating the > funder. The institutions have to do nothing more, nor does the fundee. The > journal then gives the article link to the agency and makes the article > publicly available at the agency controlled time. This is enormously > simpler than creating repositories that fundees have to populate and > funders have to work with (and someone has to build and maintain). In > essence the article is published and the agency links to it. That is all > and it cannot be any simpler than this. Creating a parallel universe of > redundant repositories must be more complex, costly and burdensome. > As far as I know, the publishers' CHORUS deal that you describe (and that I have referred to in my not-so-private language argument as a Trojan Horse) has not yet been accepted by the Federal Government, nor by its funding agencies. Maybe they will accept it, maybe they won't. I and many others have been describing the many reasons they should *not* accept it. You are repeating arguments about the redundancy and complexity and costliness of repositories to which I and many others have already replied. But I am not trying to persuade you that researchers using their keystrokes to deposit in OA repositories is better for research and for OA than letting publishers do it for them: The ones I and many others are trying to persuade of that are the same ones that you and the rest of the publisher lobby are trying to persuade of the opposite: the Federal government and its research funding agencies. May the best outcome (for the research community) win. I want to close by reminding inquiring readers of just one of the many points that David Wojick and the other CHORUS lobbyists keep passing over in silence: The Government directive is not to make funded research freely accessible 12 months after publication but *within 12 months of publication*. The publishers' Trojan Horse would not only take mandate compliance out of the hands of fundees, making compliance depend on publishers rather than fundees, but *it would also ensure that the research would not be made freely accessible one minute before the full 12 months had elapsed*. If I were a publisher, interested only in protecting my current income streams, come what may, I'd certainly lobby for that, just as I would lobby for the untrammelled cigarette ads and zones, if I were a tobacco company, interested only in protecting my current income streams, come what may; or for the untrammelled manufacture and use of plastic bags, if I were a plastic bag company with similar "community" interests. CHORUS is a terrific way of locking in publisher embargoes and Delayed Access for years and years to come, thereby leaving payment for Fools Gold as the sole option for providing immediate OA. Stevan Harnad (Shades of Finch -- and RWA, and PRISM... The publishing lobby is a "part" of the research "community" indeed, heroically defending "our" joint interests! I'm ready for the usual next piece of rhetoric, about how un-embargoed Green OA would destroy journal publishing, and with it peer review and research quality and reliability... We've heard it all, many times over, for close to 25 years now...) > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Wojick > wrote: > > There is no funder mandate on authors at this point, so you are assuming > a burdensome model that need not be implemented. > > > Right now, there is a presidential (OSTP) directive to US federal funding > agencies to mandate (Green) OA. > > It is each funding agency that will accordingly design and implement its > own Green OA mandate, as the NIH did several years ago. > > The mandate (requirement) will, as always, be on the fundees: the authors > of the articles that are to be made OA, as a condition of funding. > > The only mandate is on the Federal funding agencies to provide public > access to funder-related articles 12 months after publication. > > > The presidential (OSTP) directive is to the US federal funding agencies to > mandate (Green) OA, meaning that all published articles resulting from the > research funded by each agency must be made OA -- within 12 months of > publication at the latest. > > The articles are by fundees. The ones bound by the mandates are the > fundees. Fundees are the ones who must make their research OA, as a > condition of funding. > > CHORUS does this in a highly efficient manner, rendering an author > mandate unnecessary. > > > CHORUS does nothing. It is simply a proposal by publishers to funding > agencies. > > And to suggest that the the reason funding agencies should welcome the > CHORUS proposal is efficiency is patent nonsense. > > To comply with their funder's requirements, fundees must specify which > articles result from the funding. The few fundee keystrokes for specifying > that are exactly the same few fundee keystrokes for self-archiving the > article in the OA repository. > > No gain in efficiency for funders or fundees in allowing publishers to > host and time the OA: just a ruse to allow publishers to retain control > over the time and place of providing OA. > > Because of the monumental conflict of interest -- between publishers > trying to protect their current revenue streams and the research community > trying to make its findings as soon as widely as possible -- control over > the time and place of providing OA should on no account be surrendered by > funders and fundees to publishers. > > Search is no problem as there are already many ways to search the > journals. > > > And there are also already many ways to search OA articles on the web or > in repositories. > > So, correct: Search is no problem, and not an issue. In fact, it's a red > herring. > > What is really at issue is: in whose hands should control over the time > and place of providing OA be? > > Answer: Funders and their fundees, not publishers. > > DOE PAGES, described in the first article I listed in my original post, > is a model of an agency portal that is being designed to use CHORUS. It > will provide agency-based search as well. CHORUS as well will provide > bibliographic search capability. > > > To repeat: The same functionality (and potentially much more and better > functionality) is available outside the control of publishers too, via the > web, institutional repositories, harvesters, indexers and search engines. > > The only thing still missing is the OA content. And that's what publishers > are trying to hold back as long as possible, and to keep in their own hands. > > We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories > like PMC. > > > And the research community simply does not need to cede control over the > locus and timetable of providing OA to publishers. > > I am also beginning to wonder about your Trojan horse metaphor. The > Trojan horse is a form of deception, but there is no deception here, just a > logical response to a Federal requirement, one that keeps a journal's users > using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make CHORUS work. > > > CHORUS is all deception (and perhaps self-deception too, if publishers > actually believe the nonsense about "efficiency" and "expense"), and the > "logic" is that of serving publishers' interests, not the interests of > research and researchers. > > The simple truth is that the research community (researchers and their > institutions) are perfectly capable of providing Green OA for themselves, > cheaply and efficiently, in their own institutional OA repositories and > central harvesters -- and that this is the best way for them to retain > control over the time and place of providing OA, thereby ensuring that 100% > immediate OA is reached as soon as possible. > > Letting in the publishers' latest Trojan Horse, CHORUS, under the guise of > increasing efficiency and reducing expense, would in reality be letting > publishers maximize Delayed Access and fend off universal Green OA in favor > of over-priced, double-paid (and, if hybrid, double-dipped) Fools Gold OA, > thereby locking in publishers' current inflated revenue streams and > inefficient modus operandi for a long time to come, and embargoing OA > itself, instead of making publishing -- a service industry -- evolve and > adapt naturally to what is optimal for research in the online era. > > Stevan Harnad > > At 02:09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at > 12:13 PM, David Wojick wrote: > > This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I > see no Trojan horse. > > > 1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. > > 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound > to comply with the conditions of the funder mandate. > > 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all > all on the Web > > 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the > hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands of the > publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has > a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. > > 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be > outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the > mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. > It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason > for redundant Federal archiving. > > > The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document may be stored > and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and reliability and > preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it costs next to > nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers wish to save > federal research money, let them charge less for journal subscriptions; > don't fret about "redundant archiving.") > > PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search > tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to > mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for > publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as > "redundant." It provides access where publishers do not. > > Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the full-texts > of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search capacity that makes > PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each full-text to > which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own institutional repository, and > PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed, it would increase > PMC's coverage and make it even more economical; many of us are hoping PMC > and other central repositories like Arxiv will evolve in that direction.) > There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design > that precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a > separate activity. > > > 1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. > > 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound > to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate. > > 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all > all on the Web. If authors self-archived of their own accord, "as a > separate activity," there would have been no need for federal Open Access > mandates. > > 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the > hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand of the > publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has > a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. > > 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be > outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the > mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. > > The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access > only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free > access within a year at the latest. Publishers have every incentive to make > (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving out of authors' hands > and doing it instead of them, as late as possible. > > Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by > institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research. > This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives), > in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central repositories > can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research needs during OA > embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA > Button. > > And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts > of interest, on how institutions can save money on their "redundant > archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their > researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories' > immediate Almost-OA Button). > The journals are part of the research community and they have always > been the principal archive. > > > Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers > are not part of the research community (not even university or > learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it. > > Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the university > library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's sector of the web > is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's sector is Open > Access. > > And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse. > With CHORUS they will be again. > > > What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers' proprietary > sector will be opened up after a year? > > That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be opened > up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them open up > any earlier. > After all the entire process is based on the article being published in > the journal. > > > Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but access: when, where > and how? > It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program, > but the design principles are here and now. > > > And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that it > should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let us do the > self-archiving for you." > > I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP > guidance is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevant > to the present situation. > > > The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access > only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free > access within a year at the latest. > > Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via > the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design alternative. > > But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS. > > Stevan Harnad > > At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 > AM, David Wojick wrote: > > I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important > as an OA tipping point. > > We are clearly not understanding one another: > Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still > need a tweak (as noted). > Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.) > But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that is how > publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA. > > As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with > CHORUS. > > > > > Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out > of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in the > hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly clear. > > And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the > research community and the future of OA. > > But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS "is" -- because, > thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has > been allowed in at all. > > (The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the > "Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch > Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the > research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher Trojan > Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research community are > working hard to keep it out!) > > The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal > submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no burden > on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly available > from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. This is > extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. > > > Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the > future of OA. > > Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the hope (of > OA advocates and the concerned research community) is that it never will > be. > > The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs > is an upgrade to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic > harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or > any other institution-external subject based > harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the > time being). > > David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting has > since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take > any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers > will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct it. > > Stevan Harnad On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad < > amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 > PM, David Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> > wrote: NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal > agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter > period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers > or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use > the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository > like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, > while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just > common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. > The OA community should be happy to get green OA. > > > 1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, > not the one I was discussing. > (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers, > not from the funding agencies.) 2. The Trojan Horsewould be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" > invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with > the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do it > themselves, in their own institutional repositories. 3. To repeat: > Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid Access is Open > Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, toll-free, for > all. 4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold > research access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly > co-bundled with obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as > long as possible. All the research community needs from publishers in the > OA era is peer review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and > archiving for themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs > only a fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for > subscriptions. 5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is > publisher-provided OA. But OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is > neither Green OA nor Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call > author-self-archiving after a publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and > publisher provided free access on their website after an embargo "Delayed > Gold," but it's not really OA at all if it's not immediate. And that's why > it's so important to upgrade all funder mandates to make them > immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA mandates.) > > Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did > you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to > 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of > open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your > own language. > > > Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, > paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly) > criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish Open Access > from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached the > "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of > publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I > don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.] > But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes for > the time being -- as long as > deposit is mandated to be done immediatelyupon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's > institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the > publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA > during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide > Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated Eprint Request Button > . > > The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and > Model > > Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) > Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate > > On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad < > amsciforum at GMAIL.COM > wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us> > wrote: The US Government is developing a green OA system for all > articles based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo > period of 12 months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called > CHORUS that meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's > website. Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this > will significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is > implemented over the next few years. > > [David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at > OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of > Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and > philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil > engineering.] > > Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in by > this publisher Trojan Horse called " CHORUS." > It is tripping point, not a tipping point. > > If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free > online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year > embargo. > > CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open > Access (OA) lobbyingby the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM coalition" > and the " Research Works Act." > 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is > optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D > industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that > funds the research. 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by > researchers and their institutions for the sake of research progress, > productivity and applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' > current revenue streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a > service industry and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the > online era has opened up for research, not vice versa! 3. That is why > both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions (like Harvard) > -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are increasingly > mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP . 4. > Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to > research progress by imposing embargoesof 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be > immediatein the online era. 5. > The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the > hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the > timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. 6. And, without any > sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already consumes so much of > the scarce funds available for research) is attempting to do this under the > pretext of saving "precious research funds" for research! 7. It is for > researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and institutions to > mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their > institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. 8. > Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for research, > just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. 9. Institutional and > subject repositories keep both the timetable and the insfrastructure for > providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the research community, in > whose interests it is to provide OA. 10. The publishing industry's > previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research Works Act -- were obviously > self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the publishing industry's interests > disguised as the interests of research. > Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. > > [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the > interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing > industry?] > > Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their ?solution? to > public access > > Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. > Nature 5 January 2007. > > Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing > Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again. > Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, > Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ? The > Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? > on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, > welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles > published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not > estimate, however, when in that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. > Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being published > in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of > articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out > is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, > immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. > > See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Tue Jul 23 07:05:42 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:05:42 -0400 Subject: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Apparently you have not read my articles. DOE is planning to use CHORUS and they are the largest funder of the physical sciences in the Federal government. See http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/18/meet-pages-does-prototype-public-access-system/. Your personal dislike of publishers is not a system design argument, nor is it Federal policy. There is no Trojan horse, just a revolutionary and elegant solution to a Federal need. David Wojick On Jul 23, 2013, at 12:27 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, David Wojick wrote: > > The Federal OA program is controlled by the Federal Government, so all your talk of ceding control is just a rhetorical device. Neither the fundees, the institutions nor the journals control it, except to the extent that the journals make the publication decisions. So no one is ceding control to anyone. And I repeat that the journals are part of the community, a central part. (You are doing your private language thing again. You do it a lot.) > > Under CHORUS the lead author merely has to check a box indicating the funder. The institutions have to do nothing more, nor does the fundee. The journal then gives the article link to the agency and makes the article publicly available at the agency controlled time. This is enormously simpler than creating repositories that fundees have to populate and funders have to work with (and someone has to build and maintain). In essence the article is published and the agency links to it. That is all and it cannot be any simpler than this. Creating a parallel universe of redundant repositories must be more complex, costly and burdensome. > > As far as I know, the publishers' CHORUS deal that you describe (and that I have referred to in my not-so-private language argument as a Trojan Horse) has not yet been accepted by the Federal Government, nor by its funding agencies. > > Maybe they will accept it, maybe they won't. I and many others have been describing the many reasons they should not accept it. > > You are repeating arguments about the redundancy and complexity and costliness of repositories to which I and many others have already replied. > > But I am not trying to persuade you that researchers using their keystrokes to deposit in OA repositories is better for research and for OA than letting publishers do it for them: The ones I and many others are trying to persuade of that are the same ones that you and the rest of the publisher lobby are trying to persuade of the opposite: the Federal government and its research funding agencies. > > May the best outcome (for the research community) win. > > I want to close by reminding inquiring readers of just one of the many points that David Wojick and the other CHORUS lobbyists keep passing over in silence: > > The Government directive is not to make funded research freely accessible 12 months after publication but within 12 months of publication. > > The publishers' Trojan Horse would not only take mandate compliance out of the hands of fundees, making compliance depend on publishers rather than fundees, but it would also ensure that the research would not be made freely accessible one minute before the full 12 months had elapsed. > > If I were a publisher, interested only in protecting my current income streams, come what may, I'd certainly lobby for that, just as I would lobby for the untrammelled cigarette ads and zones, if I were a tobacco company, interested only in protecting my current income streams, come what may; or for the untrammelled manufacture and use of plastic bags, if I were a plastic bag company with similar "community" interests. > > CHORUS is a terrific way of locking in publisher embargoes and Delayed Access for years and years to come, thereby leaving payment for Fools Gold as the sole option for providing immediate OA. > > Stevan Harnad > > (Shades of Finch -- and RWA, and PRISM... The publishing lobby is a "part" of the research "community" indeed, heroically defending "our" joint interests! I'm ready for the usual next piece of rhetoric, about how un-embargoed Green OA would destroy journal publishing, and with it peer review and research quality and reliability... We've heard it all, many times over, for close to 25 years now...) >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Wojick wrote: >> >> There is no funder mandate on authors at this point, so you are assuming a burdensome model that need not be implemented. >> >> >> Right now, there is a presidential (OSTP) directive to US federal funding agencies to mandate (Green) OA. >> >> It is each funding agency that will accordingly design and implement its own Green OA mandate, as the NIH did several years ago. >> >> The mandate (requirement) will, as always, be on the fundees: the authors of the articles that are to be made OA, as a condition of funding. >> >> The only mandate is on the Federal funding agencies to provide public access to funder-related articles 12 months after publication. >> >> >> The presidential (OSTP) directive is to the US federal funding agencies to mandate (Green) OA, meaning that all published articles resulting from the research funded by each agency must be made OA -- within 12 months of publication at the latest. >> >> The articles are by fundees. The ones bound by the mandates are the fundees. Fundees are the ones who must make their research OA, as a condition of funding. >> >> CHORUS does this in a highly efficient manner, rendering an author mandate unnecessary. >> >> >> CHORUS does nothing. It is simply a proposal by publishers to funding agencies. >> >> And to suggest that the the reason funding agencies should welcome the CHORUS proposal is efficiency is patent nonsense. >> >> To comply with their funder's requirements, fundees must specify which articles result from the funding. The few fundee keystrokes for specifying that are exactly the same few fundee keystrokes for self-archiving the article in the OA repository. >> >> No gain in efficiency for funders or fundees in allowing publishers to host and time the OA: just a ruse to allow publishers to retain control over the time and place of providing OA. >> >> Because of the monumental conflict of interest -- between publishers trying to protect their current revenue streams and the research community trying to make its findings as soon as widely as possible -- control over the time and place of providing OA should on no account be surrendered by funders and fundees to publishers. >> >> Search is no problem as there are already many ways to search the journals. >> >> >> And there are also already many ways to search OA articles on the web or in repositories. >> >> So, correct: Search is no problem, and not an issue. In fact, it's a red herring. >> >> What is really at issue is: in whose hands should control over the time and place of providing OA be? >> >> Answer: Funders and their fundees, not publishers. >> >> DOE PAGES, described in the first article I listed in my original post, is a model of an agency portal that is being designed to use CHORUS. It will provide agency-based search as well. CHORUS as well will provide bibliographic search capability. >> >> >> To repeat: The same functionality (and potentially much more and better functionality) is available outside the control of publishers too, via the web, institutional repositories, harvesters, indexers and search engines. >> >> The only thing still missing is the OA content. And that's what publishers are trying to hold back as long as possible, and to keep in their own hands. >> >> We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories like PMC. >> >> >> And the research community simply does not need to cede control over the locus and timetable of providing OA to publishers. >> >> I am also beginning to wonder about your Trojan horse metaphor. The Trojan horse is a form of deception, but there is no deception here, just a logical response to a Federal requirement, one that keeps a journal's users using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make CHORUS work. >> >> >> CHORUS is all deception (and perhaps self-deception too, if publishers actually believe the nonsense about "efficiency" and "expense"), and the "logic" is that of serving publishers' interests, not the interests of research and researchers. >> >> The simple truth is that the research community (researchers and their institutions) are perfectly capable of providing Green OA for themselves, cheaply and efficiently, in their own institutional OA repositories and central harvesters -- and that this is the best way for them to retain control over the time and place of providing OA, thereby ensuring that 100% immediate OA is reached as soon as possible. >> >> Letting in the publishers' latest Trojan Horse, CHORUS, under the guise of increasing efficiency and reducing expense, would in reality be letting publishers maximize Delayed Access and fend off universal Green OA in favor of over-priced, double-paid (and, if hybrid, double-dipped) Fools Gold OA, thereby locking in publishers' current inflated revenue streams and inefficient modus operandi for a long time to come, and embargoing OA itself, instead of making publishing -- a service industry -- evolve and adapt naturally to what is optimal for research in the online era. >> >> Stevan Harnad >> >> At 02:09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM, David Wojick wrote: >>> >>> This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I see no Trojan horse. >>> >>> >>> 1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. >>> >>> 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply with the conditions of the funder mandate. >>> >>> 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web >>> >>> 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. >>> >>> 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. >>> >>> It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason for redundant Federal archiving. >>> >>> >>> The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document may be stored and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and reliability and preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it costs next to nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers wish to save federal research money, let them charge less for journal subscriptions; don't fret about "redundant archiving.") >>> >>> PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as "redundant." It provides access where publishers do not. >>> >>> Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the full-texts of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search capacity that makes PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each full-text to which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own institutional repository, and PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed, it would increase PMC's coverage and make it even more economical; many of us are hoping PMC and other central repositories like Arxiv will evolve in that direction.) >>> >>> There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design that precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a separate activity. >>> >>> >>> 1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access mandates. >>> >>> 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate. >>> >>> 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web. If authors self-archived of their own accord, "as a separate activity," there would have been no need for federal Open Access mandates. >>> >>> 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web. >>> >>> 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. >>> >>> The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access within a year at the latest. Publishers have every incentive to make (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving out of authors' hands and doing it instead of them, as late as possible. >>> >>> Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research. This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives), in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central repositories can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research needs during OA embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button. >>> >>> And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts of interest, on how institutions can save money on their "redundant archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button). >>> >>> The journals are part of the research community and they have always been the principal archive. >>> >>> >>> Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers are not part of the research community (not even university or learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it. >>> >>> Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the university library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's sector of the web is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's sector is Open Access. >>> >>> And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse. >>> >>> With CHORUS they will be again. >>> >>> >>> What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers' proprietary sector will be opened up after a year? >>> >>> That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be opened up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them open up any earlier. >>> >>> After all the entire process is based on the article being published in the journal. >>> >>> >>> Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but access: when, where and how? >>> >>> It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program, but the design principles are here and now. >>> >>> >>> And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that it should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let us do the self-archiving for you." >>> >>> I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP guidance is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevant to the present situation. >>> >>> >>> The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access within a year at the latest. >>> >>> Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design alternative. >>> >>> But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS. >>> >>> Stevan Harnad >>> >>> At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote: >>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, David Wojick wrote: >>>> >>>> I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important as an OA tipping point. >>>> >>>> We are clearly not understanding one another: >>>> Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still need a tweak (as noted). >>>> Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.) >>>> But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that is how publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA. >>>> >>>> As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with CHORUS. > > > > Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in the hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly clear. > > And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the research community and the future of OA. > > But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS "is" -- because, thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has been allowed in at all. > > (The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the "Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research community are working hard to keep it out!) > > The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model. > > > > Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the future of OA. > > Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the hope (of OA advocates > and the concerned research community) is that it never will be. > > The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs is an upgrade > to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or any other institution-external subject based > harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the time being). > > David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting has since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct it. > > Stevan Harnad > On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >> >> NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA. >> >> >> 1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, not the one I was discussing. (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.) >> 2. The Trojan Horse would be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do it themselves, in their own institutional repositories. >> 3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, toll-free, for all. >> 4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions. >> 5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA mandates.) >> >> Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your own language. >> >> >> Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly) criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.] >> But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes for the time being -- as long as deposit is mandated to be done immediately upon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated Eprint Request Button. >> >> The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model >> >> Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI) >> >> Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate > > > On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick < dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >> >> The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12 months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implemented over the next few years. > > [David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil engineering.] > > Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in by this publisher Trojan Horse called " CHORUS." It is tripping point, not a tipping point. > > If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year embargo. > > CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the " PRISM coalition" and the " Research Works Act." > 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that funds the research. > 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has opened up for research, not vice versa! > 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP. > 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to research progress by imposing embargoes of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be immediate in the online era. > 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. > 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research funds" for research! > 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. > 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. > 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. > 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. > > Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either. > > [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing industry?] > > Eisen, M. (2013) > A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their ?solution? to public access > > Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007. > > Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again. Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012 > At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote: > >> Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault?s (2013) pilot study ? The Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age? on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline. >> >> See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cmp at CMPALMER.ORG Tue Jul 23 07:33:48 2013 From: cmp at CMPALMER.ORG (=?utf-8?Q?Crist=C3=B3bal_Palmer?=) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:33:48 -0400 Subject: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) In-Reply-To: <9A620018-4EE0-4585-8438-7239CEA77AE3@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 7:05 AM, David Wojick wrote: > > Your personal dislike of publishers is not a system design argument, nor is it Federal policy. Your personal inability to stay focused on the arguments presented and reliance instead on ad hominem plus repetition isn't a system design argument either. Thanks, -- Crist?bal Palmer cmpalmer.org From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Tue Jul 23 08:06:49 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:06:49 -0400 Subject: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What Federal system design arguments have I not responded to? It is not an ad hominem to point out that the Federal policy is not anti-publisher, as many OA advocates are. It is an important fact about the policy. I have to be repetitive because Harnad is presenting the same non-design arguments over and over. Arguments such as that publishers cannot be trusted, access should be immediate via institutional repositories, delayed access is not open access, etc. My response does not vary. David Wojick On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Crist?bal Palmer wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 7:05 AM, David Wojick wrote: >> >> Your personal dislike of publishers is not a system design argument, nor is it Federal policy. > > Your personal inability to stay focused on the arguments presented and reliance instead on ad hominem plus repetition isn't a system design argument either. > > Thanks, > -- > Crist?bal Palmer > > cmpalmer.org > From Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU Tue Jul 23 08:50:43 2013 From: Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU (Pikas, Christina K.) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:50:43 -0400 Subject: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) In-Reply-To: <348FB5FF-D754-4556-B743-5F7C4585DDAD@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: The vast majority of OA advocates are not anti-publisher exactly but are justifiably skeptical of publishers' motivations, activities, and proposals. This proposal is not a healthy one for scholarly communication, in my opinion. The mandate is between the funders and the fundees and the publishers are third party contractors. The US federal government often likes to push off work to contractors that is inherently governmental and that should be done by (less biased) government employees. The publishers' proposal may be an easier route to go and might be attractive with the lobbying and the advocates like you pushing it, but in the long run the publishers serve their own bottom lines (as they should in a market economy) and not necessarily the best interests of scholarly communication. The products of federally funded research are too important to let sit and should be in repositories run by the funders and/or fundees. This is all in my opinion and is not the position of my employer (or anyone else, for that matter). Christina Pikas -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) What Federal system design arguments have I not responded to? It is not an ad hominem to point out that the Federal policy is not anti-publisher, as many OA advocates are. It is an important fact about the policy. I have to be repetitive because Harnad is presenting the same non-design arguments over and over. Arguments such as that publishers cannot be trusted, access should be immediate via institutional repositories, delayed access is not open access, etc. My response does not vary. David Wojick On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Crist?bal Palmer wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 7:05 AM, David Wojick wrote: >> >> Your personal dislike of publishers is not a system design argument, nor is it Federal policy. > > Your personal inability to stay focused on the arguments presented and reliance instead on ad hominem plus repetition isn't a system design argument either. > > Thanks, > -- > Crist?bal Palmer > > cmpalmer.org > From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Tue Jul 23 09:47:19 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:47:19 -0400 Subject: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) In-Reply-To: <0BBD8C9342CBA343AE2C91D32990988C466F5849ED@aplesstripe.dom1.jhuapl.edu> Message-ID: I have already responded to these points. The publisher's self interested motivation is to keep the web traffic to its journals. Studies suggest they are losing 20% to PMC. The publishers believe this, whether it is true or not, thus their motivation. The mandate is that the articles be made publicly accessible and the articles are the publisher's so they are not third party contractors, whatever that might mean. The fundees need play no role. The publishers are making a ground breaking concession by agreeing to the Federal embargo deadlines. This is great news for OA. I have no idea what you mean by letting them sit. They will be on view in their on-line journals, which is arguably where they belong. The repository approach made sense when the publishers refused to provide access. That day has passed. David Wojick On Jul 23, 2013, at 8:50 AM, "Pikas, Christina K." wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > The vast majority of OA advocates are not anti-publisher exactly but are justifiably skeptical of publishers' motivations, activities, and proposals. > > This proposal is not a healthy one for scholarly communication, in my opinion. The mandate is between the funders and the fundees and the publishers are third party contractors. The US federal government often likes to push off work to contractors that is inherently governmental and that should be done by (less biased) government employees. > > The publishers' proposal may be an easier route to go and might be attractive with the lobbying and the advocates like you pushing it, but in the long run the publishers serve their own bottom lines (as they should in a market economy) and not necessarily the best interests of scholarly communication. The products of federally funded research are too important to let sit and should be in repositories run by the funders and/or fundees. > > This is all in my opinion and is not the position of my employer (or anyone else, for that matter). > > Christina Pikas > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:07 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > What Federal system design arguments have I not responded to? It is not an ad hominem to point out that the Federal policy is not anti-publisher, as many OA advocates are. It is an important fact about the policy. I have to be repetitive because Harnad is presenting the same non-design arguments over and over. Arguments such as that publishers cannot be trusted, access should be immediate via institutional repositories, delayed access is not open access, etc. My response does not vary. > > David Wojick > > On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Crist?bal Palmer wrote: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 7:05 AM, David Wojick wrote: >>> >>> Your personal dislike of publishers is not a system design argument, nor is it Federal policy. >> >> Your personal inability to stay focused on the arguments presented and reliance instead on ad hominem plus repetition isn't a system design argument either. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Crist?bal Palmer >> >> cmpalmer.org >> > From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Tue Jul 23 11:58:25 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:58:25 -0400 Subject: A role for metrics in the US Federal OA system design In-Reply-To: <0BBD8C9342CBA343AE2C91D32990988C466F5849ED@aplesstripe.dom 1.jhuapl.edu> Message-ID: While we are on this topic I want to point out the potential major role for metrics in the US Federal OA system design. The design guidance says the agencies may provide different embargo periods for different disciplines, other than the 12 month default period. In documents submitted at the one hearing held so far some publishers and OA advocates have already suggested other embargo periods, ranging from 6 to 24 months. But deciding these issues will require some sort of analytical framework and this is where metrics may play a big role. Here is how I put it in my first article on the Federal guidance, calling it a monster challenge (emphasis added): "The third monster is the multiplicity of disciplines. The OSTP memorandum explicitly provides for having different embargo periods for different disciplines. This is because there is evidence that the journals in these disciplines are financially sensitive to the embargo period in different ways. Having discipline-specific embargo periods is an intriguing prospect, but it will not be easy to develop. To begin with, there is again the challenge of multiple agencies. Because the government is organized by mission, not by scientific discipline, most disciplines are funded by a number of different agencies. Almost everyone does some economics, computer science, biology, chemistry, and physics, for example. This raises the prospect that different agencies might have different embargo periods for the same discipline. Then there is the challenge of formally identifying the discipline of every journal article. The British do it based on the sponsor because their sponsoring organizations are discipline-specific. US federal sponsors are not discipline-specific except perhaps at the program level. Going to that level would be a very complex process indeed. Then, too, there are various discipline categorization schemes available in the bibliographic and science studies world that might be useful, but one would have to be selected, made official, and properly applied. And, of course, different agencies might choose different schemes. But the real challenge will be deciding on the proper embargo periods for each discipline once these are defined. There are presently no analytical or administrative procedures for doing this that I know of. There is a joke that every government official has three boxes on their desk ? In, Out, and Too Hard. Deciding on discipline-specific embargo periods may be too hard. If not, then the agencies and the discipline-specific societies need to really jump on this challenge because there is a lot of work to do." http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/25/confusions-in-the-ostp-oa-policy-memo-three-monsters-and-a-gorilla/ I am very interested to hear any idea on how to meet this challenge. David Wojick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Tue Jul 23 16:44:34 2013 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:44:34 -0400 Subject: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) In-Reply-To: <348FB5FF-D754-4556-B743-5F7C4585DDAD@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:06 AM, David Wojick wrote: > What Federal system design arguments have I not responded to? Here are the first few arguments you have not responded to. (I have no idea what you are attempting to sector off under the guise of responding only to "Federal system design" arguments): 1. that mandates are for public access within up to a year whereas CHORUS would provide it only at the very end 2. that OA mandates are intended to require authors to provide OA whereas CHORUS would take it out of authors' hands entirely (thereby mooting mandate compliance altogether, let alone earlier or wider compliance). 3. that repository deposit facilitates providing eprints during any OA embargo with the repository's eprint-request Button whereas CHORUS prevents it 4. that CHORUS locks in 1-year embargoes and puts and leaves publishers in control of both the hosting and the timetable for public access 5. that repository costs are small and mostly already invested, and for multiple uses, hence CHORUS would not save money but rather waste repositories I have more, but that should be fine for a start... It is not an ad hominem to point out that the Federal policy is not > anti-publisher, as many OA advocates are. I for one am not anti-publisher. But I'm very definitely against publisher anti-OA-mandate lobbying and I'm also against publisher embargoes on Green OA. Apart from that, I have a long history of defending publishers against overzealous OA advocates or overpricing plainants -- *as long as they were on the "side of the angels*," by endorsing immediate, unembargoed Green, as Springer and Elsevier did for many years. The gloves came off when publishers started trying to renege on their prior endorsements of immediate Green. > It is an important fact about the policy. I have to be repetitive because > Harnad is presenting the same non-design arguments over and over. I have no idea what you mean by "non-design" arguments. The points above are against CHORUS as a means of implementing the funding agencies' Green OA mandate, that's all. > Arguments such as that publishers cannot be trusted I have not said that. I said that compliance with funders' mandates on fundees to provide OA to their funded research should on no account be entrusted to publishers because of the obvious conflict of interest: The interest of research and researchers is that research should be OA immediately; the interest of publishers is that access should be access should be delayed for as long as possible (one year, within the "design" of the OSTP directive). I fully trust that publishers would faithfully make articles publicly accessible -- on the very last day of the maximal allowable OA embargo. access should be immediate via institutional repositories, I don't just repeat that over and over: I give the reasons why: Because Open Access means Open Access, and the reasons that make Open Access important at all make it important immediately upon publication,* not one year later.* And it's institutional repositories because institutions are the providers of all research, funded and unfunded, in every discipline. Institutions have already created OA repositories. They have many reasons for wanting to archive, manage and publicly showcase their own research output in their own repositories -- over and above the reasons for OA itself (maximizing research uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress). And institutions themselves are also beginning to mandate Green OA. Hence funder and institutional mandates should be convergent and mutually reinforcing. All research should be deposited in the institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication. (Their metadata and URLs can then be harvested by whatever central access points, databases, indices and search engines disciplines wish to create.) And if the author wishes to comply with a publisher embargo, access to the deposit can be set as Closed Access instead of Open Access during the embargo, in which case the repository's eprint-request Button can provide Almost-OA during the embargo (while embargoes last -- which will not be long, one hopes, once mandatory Green OA has become universal). All of these benefits are lost if publishers are in control of providing public access on their sites, a year after publication. > delayed access is not open access, etc. My response does not vary. Delayed access means losing a year of Open Access. Your response does not vary because the publisher lobby is interested in minimizing, not maximizing Open Access. If the maximal allowable delay is 12 months, publishers will happily make sure it is no less than 12 months, and on their site, with no Almost-OA Button to tide over the embargo, no integration with institutional mandates, and authors entirely out of the compliance loop for mandates that are intended to generate as much OA as possible, as soon as possible. My own response varies as much as possible, in an effort -- each time - to present from every angle the case for implementing OA mandates in such a way as to provide the maximum benefit to research and researchers, rather than just to protect the proprietary interests of publishers at the expense of research. researchers, and the public that funds them. Stevan Harnad > On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Crist?bal Palmer wrote: > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 7:05 AM, David Wojick wrote: > >> > >> Your personal dislike of publishers is not a system design argument, > nor is it Federal policy. > > > > Your personal inability to stay focused on the arguments presented and > reliance instead on ad hominem plus repetition isn't a system design > argument either. > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Crist?bal Palmer > > > > cmpalmer.org > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Tue Jul 23 17:29:48 2013 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:29:48 -0400 Subject: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) In-Reply-To: <5692FE35-5C88-46A9-BB40-FD524E6B9F5B@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM, David Wojick wrote: I have already responded to these points. The publisher's self interested > motivation is to keep the web traffic to its journals. At the expense (to research and researchers) of impeding the growth of OA and OA mandates and ensuring that the allowable embargo length is always the maximum 12 months. ("For immediate-OA, please pay the Fools-Gold OA fee!|) Studies suggest they are losing 20% to PMC. And while publishers' download sites have lost the traffic, research has gained a great deal of functionality, as well as OA. > The publishers believe this, whether it is true or not, thus their > motivation. > Their motivation is in no doubt. But the issue is not what is best for publishers but what is best for research, researchers and the public that funds them. > The mandate is that the articles be made publicly accessible and the > articles are the publisher's so they are not third party contractors, > whatever that might mean. My articles are my publisher's, not mine? I think you might mean that the publishers are the holders of the copyright, or exclusive vending rights. Well we're talking about a mandate here -- by the party of the second part, the author's funder, requiring the party of the first part, the author, to make the research they've funded publicly accessible within a year of publication at the very latest. That's a condition of a contract the author must sign before ever doing the research, let alone signing any subsequent contract with any party of the third part regarding vending rights. The fundees need play no role. The fundees play no role? No role in what? The funder mandates bind the fundees, not some other party. > The publishers are making a ground breaking concession by agreeing to the > Federal embargo deadlines. Agreeing? It seems to me they don't have much choice! Who are publishers conceding to? And conceding what? If this is publisher largesse rather than federal government duress I would really like to know to what we owe their newfound magnanimity... > This is great news for OA. I have no idea what you mean by letting them > sit. They will be on view in their on-line journals, which is arguably > where they belong. > I think Christina's "let[ting] them sit" may have been an ill-chosen descriptor, but I can still make sense of it: Ceding the provision of public access to the publisher's site and the publisher's timetable means that research must sit for 12 months, accessible only to subscribers, even though the mandate states that they must be made publicly accessible within 12 months *at the latest*. Fundees could have deposited them in repositories immediately, and made them publicly accessible earlier, or, if they wished to comply with a publishers embargo, made them immediately Almast-OA, via the repository's Button, instead of sitting inaccessibly for 12 months. And before you reply "fundees can still do that if they want to," let me remind you of the fundamental purpose of Green OA mandates: *It's to get authors to provide OA*. Without them, they don't. Not because they don't want to. But because without a mandate from their funders or institutions, they dare not: because of fear of their publishers." The mandate releases authors from that fear. And the CHORUS variant -- in which "the fundee has no role" -- would leave authors stuck in that fear, contractually unprotected by a funder mandate, and would render the funder policy empty and ineffectual beyond its absolutely minimum requirement, which is public access after 12 months (but not a moment before). And that would of course suit publishers just fine. In fact, maybe that's the reason for their newfound magnanimity: "Concede" on public access after a 12-month embargo, take control of hosting and providing it, and maybe that pesky global clamor for immediate OA will go away -- or, better, redirect authors toward the Fools Gold counter where they pay hybrid publishers for immediate OA. > The repository approach made sense when the publishers refused to provide > access. That day has passed. > Don't bank on it. The clamor for access is growing and growing. And that's * immediate* Open Access, not publisher-Delayed Access after 12 months. Stevan Harnad On Jul 23, 2013, at 8:50 AM, "Pikas, Christina K." < Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU> wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > The vast majority of OA advocates are not anti-publisher exactly but are justifiably skeptical of publishers' motivations, activities, and proposals. > > This proposal is not a healthy one for scholarly communication, in my opinion. The mandate is between the funders and the fundees and the publishers are third party contractors. The US federal government often likes to push off work to contractors that is inherently governmental and that should be done by (less biased) government employees. > > The publishers' proposal may be an easier route to go and might be attractive with the lobbying and the advocates like you pushing it, but in the long run the publishers serve their own bottom lines (as they should in a market economy) and not necessarily the best interests of scholarly communication. The products of federally funded research are too important to let sit and should be in repositories run by the funders and/or fundees. > > This is all in my opinion and is not the position of my employer (or anyone else, for that matter). > > Christina Pikas > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:07 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > What Federal system design arguments have I not responded to? It is not an ad hominem to point out that the Federal policy is not anti-publisher, as many OA advocates are. It is an important fact about the policy. I have to be repetitive because Harnad is presenting the same non-design arguments over and over. Arguments such as that publishers cannot be trusted, access should be immediate via institutional repositories, delayed access is not open access, etc. My response does not vary. > > David Wojick > > On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Crist?bal Palmer wrote: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 7:05 AM, David Wojick wrote: >>> >>> Your personal dislike of publishers is not a system design argument, nor is it Federal policy. >> >> Your personal inability to stay focused on the arguments presented and reliance instead on ad hominem plus repetition isn't a system design argument either. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Crist?bal Palmer >> >> cmpalmer.org >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pmd8 at CORNELL.EDU Wed Jul 24 10:39:05 2013 From: pmd8 at CORNELL.EDU (Philip Davis) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:39:05 -0400 Subject: Dynamic Visualization of Biomedical Journals 2003-2012 Message-ID: Dynamic Visualization of Biomedical Journals 2003-2012 An animated bubble plot of nearly four-thousand biomedical journals over ten years reveals success, decline and the shifting nature of science publishing. see: http://wp.me/pcvbl-8Fm From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Thu Jul 25 08:19:10 2013 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:19:10 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics Message-ID: Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 --------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8 80539 Munich Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 Mobil: +49 170 9183667 Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Jul 25 11:26:35 2013 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:26:35 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <26D4503C9B0C8B43A20B92EF238B98AE165457B1@UM-EXCDAG-A04.um.gwdg.de> Message-ID: Dear Lutz: Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 --------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8 80539 Munich Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 Mobil: +49 170 9183667 Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Thu Jul 25 14:13:05 2013 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:13:05 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for your emails! Dear Loet, As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). Benoit, Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. Best, Lutz Gesendet von Windows-Mail Von: Godin, Beno?t Gesendet: ?Donnerstag?, ?25?. ?Juli? ?2013 ?17?:?42 An: Bornmann, Lutz Lutz, Thanks for sharing this piece with us. However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. beno?t Beno?t Godin Professeur INRS (Montreal, Canada) tel.: 1 438 396 3242 courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca site web: www.csiic.ca ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Dear Lutz: Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 --------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8 80539 Munich Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 Mobil: +49 170 9183667 Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu Jul 25 14:31:54 2013 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:31:54 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <26D4503C9B0C8B43A20B92EF238B98AE16545EDD@UM-EXCDAG-A04.um.gwdg.de> Message-ID: Dear Lutz, Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of study. ?Altmetrics? could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. Sta?a Milojevi? & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics 95(1) (2013) 141-157; http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. Best, Loet PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? J _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; 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 Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Thanks for your emails! Dear Loet, As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). Benoit, Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. Best, Lutz Gesendet von Windows-Mail Von: Godin, Beno?t Gesendet: ?Donnerstag?, ?25?. ?Juli? ?2013 ?17?:?42 An: Bornmann, Lutz Lutz, Thanks for sharing this piece with us. However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. beno?t Beno?t Godin Professeur INRS (Montreal, Canada) tel.: 1 438 396 3242 courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca site web: www.csiic.ca _____ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz: Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 --------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8 80539 Munich Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 Mobil: +49 170 9183667 Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Fri Jul 26 01:18:27 2013 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 05:18:27 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <00ef01ce8965$3dfa0220$b9ee0660$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Dear Loet, Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different exemplars, theories, methods etc. I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred then to similar other situations. Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is typical that we react on forces from outside. Best, Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" >: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz, Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of study. ?Altmetrics? could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. Sta?a Milojevi? & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics 95(1) (2013) 141-157; http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. Best, Loet PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? ? ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; 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 Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Thanks for your emails! Dear Loet, As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). Benoit, Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. Best, Lutz Gesendet von Windows-Mail Von: Godin, Beno?t Gesendet: ?Donnerstag?, ?25?. ?Juli? ?2013 ?17?:?42 An: Bornmann, Lutz Lutz, Thanks for sharing this piece with us. However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. beno?t Beno?t Godin Professeur INRS (Montreal, Canada) tel.: 1 438 396 3242 courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca site web: www.csiic.ca ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz: Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 --------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8 80539 Munich Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 Mobil: +49 170 9183667 Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Jul 26 01:45:39 2013 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:45:39 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <0D05E979-F788-4293-B99E-39E34DC8DCD2@gv.mpg.de> Message-ID: Dear Lutz: Thanks; it seems that we largely agree. Where did you find this emphasis on ?taxonomies? in Kuhn?s work? Can you provide a reference? (I ask because a taxonomy is hierarchical, whereas a paradigm/paradigm-change is non-linear and evolutionary.) Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 7:18 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Dear Loet, Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different exemplars, theories, methods etc. I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred then to similar other situations. Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is typical that we react on forces from outside. Best, Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" : Dear Lutz, Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of study. ?Altmetrics? could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. Sta?a Milojevi? & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics 95(1) (2013) 141-157; http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. Best, Loet PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? J _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; 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 Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Thanks for your emails! Dear Loet, As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). Benoit, Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. Best, Lutz Gesendet von Windows-Mail Von: Godin, Beno?t Gesendet: ?Donnerstag?, ?25?. ?Juli? ?2013 ?17?:?42 An: Bornmann, Lutz Lutz, Thanks for sharing this piece with us. However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. beno?t Beno?t Godin Professeur INRS (Montreal, Canada) tel.: 1 438 396 3242 courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca site web: www.csiic.ca _____ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz: Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 --------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8 80539 Munich Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 Mobil: +49 170 9183667 Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Fri Jul 26 02:48:13 2013 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:48:13 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <002d01ce89c3$5ccc1630$16644290$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Dear Loet, Yes, we largely agree (as it is mostly the case) ? I recommend to read the publications of Brad (http://kbwray.wray.ca/Home.html), especially his book ?Kuhn?s Evolutionary Social Epistemology.? Best, Lutz From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 7:46 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz: Thanks; it seems that we largely agree. Where did you find this emphasis on ?taxonomies? in Kuhn?s work? Can you provide a reference? (I ask because a taxonomy is hierarchical, whereas a paradigm/paradigm-change is non-linear and evolutionary.) Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 7:18 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Dear Loet, Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different exemplars, theories, methods etc. I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred then to similar other situations. Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is typical that we react on forces from outside. Best, Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" >: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz, Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of study. ?Altmetrics? could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. Sta?a Milojevi? & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics 95(1) (2013) 141-157; http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. Best, Loet PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? ? ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; 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 Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Thanks for your emails! Dear Loet, As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). Benoit, Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. Best, Lutz Gesendet von Windows-Mail Von: Godin, Beno?t Gesendet: ?Donnerstag?, ?25?. ?Juli? ?2013 ?17?:?42 An: Bornmann, Lutz Lutz, Thanks for sharing this piece with us. However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. beno?t Beno?t Godin Professeur INRS (Montreal, Canada) tel.: 1 438 396 3242 courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca site web: www.csiic.ca ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz: Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 --------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8 80539 Munich Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 Mobil: +49 170 9183667 Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri Jul 26 03:13:16 2013 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:13:16 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <26D4503C9B0C8B43A20B92EF238B98AE1654678F@UM-EXCDAG-A04.um.gwdg.de> Message-ID: Dear Lutz: Most relevant to scientometrics is, in my opinion: Kuhn, T. S. (1984). Scientific Development and Lexical Change. The Thalheimer Lectures (Johns Hopkins University). It relates to the co-word programming of Michel Callon, Mary Hesse, and John Law. Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; 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 Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:48 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Dear Loet, Yes, we largely agree (as it is mostly the case) ? I recommend to read the publications of Brad (http://kbwray.wray.ca/Home.html), especially his book ?Kuhn?s Evolutionary Social Epistemology.? Best, Lutz From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 7:46 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Dear Lutz: Thanks; it seems that we largely agree. Where did you find this emphasis on ?taxonomies? in Kuhn?s work? Can you provide a reference? (I ask because a taxonomy is hierarchical, whereas a paradigm/paradigm-change is non-linear and evolutionary.) Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 7:18 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Dear Loet, Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different exemplars, theories, methods etc. I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred then to similar other situations. Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is typical that we react on forces from outside. Best, Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" : Dear Lutz, Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of study. ?Altmetrics? could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. Sta?a Milojevi? & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics 95(1) (2013) 141-157; http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. Best, Loet PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? J _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; 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 Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Thanks for your emails! Dear Loet, As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). Benoit, Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. Best, Lutz Gesendet von Windows-Mail Von: Godin, Beno?t Gesendet: ?Donnerstag?, ?25?. ?Juli? ?2013 ?17?:?42 An: Bornmann, Lutz Lutz, Thanks for sharing this piece with us. However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. beno?t Beno?t Godin Professeur INRS (Montreal, Canada) tel.: 1 438 396 3242 courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca site web: www.csiic.ca _____ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz: Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 --------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8 80539 Munich Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 Mobil: +49 170 9183667 Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Fri Jul 26 09:43:16 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:43:16 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <0D05E979-F788-4293-B99E-39E34DC8DCD2@gv.mpg.de> Message-ID: As a Kuhnian I tend to agree with Lutz. However I think taxonomy change is a poor metaphor for the concept confusions that characterize scientific revolutions. New paradigms do not come fully formed so the early stages are signaled by the high degree of confusion, which we certainly see with altmetrics. Moreover new technologies frequently create scientific revolutions and social media provide a new observational technology. It is not that there is a new taxonomy but rather that the taxonomy of science metrics has gone fuzzy, thus creating the so-called incommensurability. This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the literature because one does not publish confusions and there is as yet no new normal science here, to say what is publishable. It is everywhere apparent however in the meta-level discourse, where we talk and argue about the new metrics and what they mean. David Wojick On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:18 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" wrote: > Dear Loet, > > Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different exemplars, theories, methods etc. > > I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred then to similar other situations. > > Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is typical that we react on forces from outside. > > Best, > > Lutz > > Von meinem iPad gesendet > > Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" : > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Dear Lutz, >> >> Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of study. >> >> ?Altmetrics? could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. >> >> Sta?a Milojevi? & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics 95(1) (2013) 141-157; http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . >> >> The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. >> >> Best, >> Loet >> >> PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? J >> >> Loet Leydesdorff >> Professor, University of Amsterdam >> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) >> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam >> loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >> Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; >> 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 Bornmann, Lutz >> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Thanks for your emails! >> >> Dear Loet, >> >> As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). >> >> Benoit, >> Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. >> >> Best, >> >> Lutz >> >> Gesendet von Windows-Mail >> >> Von: Godin, Beno?t >> Gesendet: ?Donnerstag?, ?25?. ?Juli? ?2013 ?17?:?42 >> An: Bornmann, Lutz >> >> >> Lutz, >> >> Thanks for sharing this piece with us. >> >> However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. >> >> beno?t >> >> Beno?t Godin >> Professeur >> INRS (Montreal, Canada) >> tel.: 1 438 396 3242 >> courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca >> site web: www.csiic.ca >> >> >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] >> Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >> >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Dear Lutz: >> >> Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). >> >> Best, >> Loet >> >> >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz >> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >> >> Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? >> >> The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. >> >> Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 >> >> --------------------------------------- >> >> Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann >> Division for Science and Innovation Studies >> Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society >> Hofgartenstr. 8 >> 80539 Munich >> Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 >> Mobil: +49 170 9183667 >> Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de >> WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de >> ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Colin_Paul_Gloster at ACM.ORG Fri Jul 26 09:55:06 2013 From: Colin_Paul_Gloster at ACM.ORG (Paul Colin de Gloucester) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:55:06 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On July 26th, 2013, David Wojick emailed: |----------------------------------------------------------| |"[. . .] | | | |[. . .] | |[. . .] This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the | |literature because one does not publish confusions [. . .]| |[. . .] | | | |David Wojick" | |----------------------------------------------------------| Confusion does get into the literature. I documented examples in Paul Colin de Gloucester (2013): "Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications", "Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance", 20:3, 143-166, WWW.TandFonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2013.788379 With kind regards, Paul Colin de Gloucester From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Fri Jul 26 10:12:47 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:12:47 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Good point, Paul, but are the confusions you report due to the complex fog of revolution or something simpler? David On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Paul Colin de Gloucester wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > On July 26th, 2013, David Wojick emailed: > |----------------------------------------------------------| > |"[. . .] | > | | > |[. . .] | > |[. . .] This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the | > |literature because one does not publish confusions [. . .]| > |[. . .] | > | | > |David Wojick" | > |----------------------------------------------------------| > > Confusion does get into the literature. I documented examples in > Paul Colin de Gloucester (2013): "Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors > in Computer and Electronic Publications", "Accountability in Research: > Policies and Quality Assurance", 20:3, 143-166, > WWW.TandFonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2013.788379 > > With kind regards, > Paul Colin de Gloucester > From cc345 at DREXEL.EDU Fri Jul 26 10:06:51 2013 From: cc345 at DREXEL.EDU (Chen,Chaomei) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:06:51 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A hallmark of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's framework is a gestalt switch of the mindset. I am curious whether anyone can point to tangible research findings that fundamentally contradict to the existing body of knowledge in scientometrics. Chaomei Chen ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html As a Kuhnian I tend to agree with Lutz. However I think taxonomy change is a poor metaphor for the concept confusions that characterize scientific revolutions. New paradigms do not come fully formed so the early stages are signaled by the high degree of confusion, which we certainly see with altmetrics. Moreover new technologies frequently create scientific revolutions and social media provide a new observational technology. It is not that there is a new taxonomy but rather that the taxonomy of science metrics has gone fuzzy, thus creating the so-called incommensurability. This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the literature because one does not publish confusions and there is as yet no new normal science here, to say what is publishable. It is everywhere apparent however in the meta-level discourse, where we talk and argue about the new metrics and what they mean. David Wojick On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:18 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" > wrote: Dear Loet, Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different exemplars, theories, methods etc. I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred then to similar other situations. Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is typical that we react on forces from outside. Best, Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET>: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz, Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of study. ?Altmetrics? could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. Sta?a Milojevi? & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics 95(1) (2013) 141-157; http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. Best, Loet PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? ? ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; 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 Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Thanks for your emails! Dear Loet, As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). Benoit, Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. Best, Lutz Gesendet von Windows-Mail Von: Godin, Beno?t Gesendet: ?Donnerstag?, ?25?. ?Juli? ?2013 ?17?:?42 An: Bornmann, Lutz Lutz, Thanks for sharing this piece with us. However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. beno?t Beno?t Godin Professeur INRS (Montreal, Canada) tel.: 1 438 396 3242 courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca site web: www.csiic.ca ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz: Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 --------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8 80539 Munich Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 Mobil: +49 170 9183667 Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From antonio.banfi at UNIBG.IT Fri Jul 26 10:11:06 2013 From: antonio.banfi at UNIBG.IT (Antonio Banfi) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:11:06 +0200 Subject: RT starting its publications Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I wish to inform you that RT- A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation, has started the publications for its first issue with the following contributions: A. Baccini, Editorial J.B. Holbrook ? S. Hrotic, Blue skies, impacts, and peer review M.C. Pievatolo, Metajournals. A federalist proposal for scholarly communication and data aggregation RT is an open access peer reviewed academic journal published by the University of Milan. Here you can find the journal description, the call for papers and our first published articles: http://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/roars With warm regards, Prof. Antonio Banfi Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza Universit? degli Studi di Bergamo Via G.B. Moroni 255 24127 Bergamo ----------------------------------- mobile: +39 347 6871430 fax: + 39 02 99986478 ORCiD 0000-0002-1683-4048 www.roars.it http://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/roars http://scholar.google.it/citations?user=qjx-DAUAAAAJ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Banfi2/ http://unibg.academia.edu/AntonioBanfi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Colin_Paul_Gloster at ACM.ORG Fri Jul 26 10:19:07 2013 From: Colin_Paul_Gloster at ACM.ORG (Paul Colin de Gloucester) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:19:07 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <85C158E495977A41AD1D0D57E29B040B07D6AE@MB2.drexel.edu> Message-ID: On July 26th, 2013, Chaomei Chen emailed: |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"[. . .] | |I am curious whether anyone can point to tangible research findings that| |fundamentally contradict to the existing body of knowledge in | |scientometrics. | |Chaomei Chen" | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| Citations are often assumed to be positive, but there is research showing that negative citations do exist. From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Fri Jul 26 10:31:43 2013 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:31:43 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <85C158E495977A41AD1D0D57E29B040B07D6AE@MB2.drexel.edu> Message-ID: It is not a necessary condition for a revolution that there are tangible research findings (big shots against the existing paradigm). The forces to change the paradigm can be located outside of the field and can lead to small stepwise changes until the revolution (the final and generally accepted change of the taxonomy) occurs. Lutz From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Chen,Chaomei Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:07 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics A hallmark of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's framework is a gestalt switch of the mindset. I am curious whether anyone can point to tangible research findings that fundamentally contradict to the existing body of knowledge in scientometrics. Chaomei Chen ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html As a Kuhnian I tend to agree with Lutz. However I think taxonomy change is a poor metaphor for the concept confusions that characterize scientific revolutions. New paradigms do not come fully formed so the early stages are signaled by the high degree of confusion, which we certainly see with altmetrics. Moreover new technologies frequently create scientific revolutions and social media provide a new observational technology. It is not that there is a new taxonomy but rather that the taxonomy of science metrics has gone fuzzy, thus creating the so-called incommensurability. This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the literature because one does not publish confusions and there is as yet no new normal science here, to say what is publishable. It is everywhere apparent however in the meta-level discourse, where we talk and argue about the new metrics and what they mean. David Wojick On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:18 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" > wrote: Dear Loet, Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different exemplars, theories, methods etc. I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred then to similar other situations. Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is typical that we react on forces from outside. Best, Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" >: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz, Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of study. ?Altmetrics? could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. Sta?a Milojevi? & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics 95(1) (2013) 141-157; http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. Best, Loet PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? ? ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; 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 Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Thanks for your emails! Dear Loet, As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). Benoit, Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. Best, Lutz Gesendet von Windows-Mail Von: Godin, Beno?t Gesendet: ?Donnerstag?, ?25?. ?Juli? ?2013 ?17?:?42 An: Bornmann, Lutz Lutz, Thanks for sharing this piece with us. However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. beno?t Beno?t Godin Professeur INRS (Montreal, Canada) tel.: 1 438 396 3242 courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca site web: www.csiic.ca ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz: Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 --------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8 80539 Munich Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 Mobil: +49 170 9183667 Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU Fri Jul 26 10:48:14 2013 From: Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU (Pikas, Christina K.) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:48:14 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <26D4503C9B0C8B43A20B92EF238B98AE16547711@UM-EXCDAG-A04.um.gwdg.de> Message-ID: But revolution implies discontinuities - big ones ? not, I think, small stepwise progression. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 10:32 AM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics It is not a necessary condition for a revolution that there are tangible research findings (big shots against the existing paradigm). The forces to change the paradigm can be located outside of the field and can lead to small stepwise changes until the revolution (the final and generally accepted change of the taxonomy) occurs. Lutz From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Chen,Chaomei Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:07 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics A hallmark of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's framework is a gestalt switch of the mindset. I am curious whether anyone can point to tangible research findings that fundamentally contradict to the existing body of knowledge in scientometrics. Chaomei Chen ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html As a Kuhnian I tend to agree with Lutz. However I think taxonomy change is a poor metaphor for the concept confusions that characterize scientific revolutions. New paradigms do not come fully formed so the early stages are signaled by the high degree of confusion, which we certainly see with altmetrics. Moreover new technologies frequently create scientific revolutions and social media provide a new observational technology. It is not that there is a new taxonomy but rather that the taxonomy of science metrics has gone fuzzy, thus creating the so-called incommensurability. This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the literature because one does not publish confusions and there is as yet no new normal science here, to say what is publishable. It is everywhere apparent however in the meta-level discourse, where we talk and argue about the new metrics and what they mean. David Wojick On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:18 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" > wrote: Dear Loet, Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different exemplars, theories, methods etc. I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred then to similar other situations. Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is typical that we react on forces from outside. Best, Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" >: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz, Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of study. ?Altmetrics? could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. Sta?a Milojevi? & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics 95(1) (2013) 141-157; http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. Best, Loet PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? ? ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; 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 Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Thanks for your emails! Dear Loet, As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). Benoit, Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. Best, Lutz Gesendet von Windows-Mail Von: Godin, Beno?t Gesendet: ?Donnerstag?, ?25?. ?Juli? ?2013 ?17?:?42 An: Bornmann, Lutz Lutz, Thanks for sharing this piece with us. However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. beno?t Beno?t Godin Professeur INRS (Montreal, Canada) tel.: 1 438 396 3242 courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca site web: www.csiic.ca ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz: Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 --------------------------------------- Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8 80539 Munich Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 Mobil: +49 170 9183667 Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Colin_Paul_Gloster at ACM.ORG Fri Jul 26 10:51:46 2013 From: Colin_Paul_Gloster at ACM.ORG (Paul Colin de Gloucester) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:51:46 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <1ACD1261-7569-4190-90C0-EAD18223D609@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: On July 26th, 2013, David Wojick emailed: |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"Good point, Paul, but are the confusions you report due to the complex fog| |of revolution or something simpler? | | | |David" | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| I think it is fair to say that confusion can easily happen by people not doing sufficient reading instead of being caused by revolution. I think this can also happen during revolution. One of the most important items which I cited in "Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications" is: Kay, A. C. (1997). The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet. In "The 12th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications". A. C. Kay is a visionary and despite his choice of the title "The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet", many experts consider work by him from the 1970's (much of this 1997 keynote speech was about that work) to be revolutionary. It certainly had a profound influence from the 1990's to the present, whether or not it fulfills the criteria for a revolution. An excerpt from "Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications" follows. Most of this excerpt is unrelated to A. C. Kay but might be related to revolutions: "[. . .] Many authors consider it to be safer to follow a trend (Fang, 2011). However, Fang (2011) suggested that the chosen trend would be of hypotheses which are likely to be confirmed, in contrast to the current paper's findings that the untrue bases of trends can continue to be chosen by authors years after they had been disproved. Fang (2011) underestimated its own contribution to science: the present article shows that mainstream monopolies ruin the literature's signal-to-noise ratio even for uncomplicated cases. Procedures become popular despite evidence that they are not beneficial (Frader, 2002). [. . .] Relman (1983) proposed that refereeing is likely to uncover "inherently contradictory" typescripts. I disprove this by pointing out that SystemC(R) articles and other articles claiming object orientation in static languages are hundreds and thousands (respectively) of "inherently contradictory" articles which exceed "N" rays (David, 1997); the J-phenomenon (Alexander, 1930); and anomalous water (Ziman, 1978) in terms of articles and longevity. Others argued that popularity and a large quantity of citations are indicative of merit, but as the hundreds of citations to self-contradictory articles exposed in the present work show: truth is not a popularity contest, not even among people employed to be scientists (Campanario, 2009). Type-I errors which a competent referee could have trivially detected are not restricted to a short range of years. Type-I errors are correlated with citations." Most of "Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications" consists of documenting distortion by many people of work by A. C. Kay. From clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR Fri Jul 26 10:41:46 2013 From: clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR (Clement Levallois) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics Message-ID: Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. - open access - open data (Figshare, etc.) - semantic web / linked data - science communication / science making on social media - digital scholarship (see http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) - networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) - the altac movement - and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz word) today in scientometrics? Best regards, 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 check my new app: http://www.umigon.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cc345 at DREXEL.EDU Fri Jul 26 11:00:22 2013 From: cc345 at DREXEL.EDU (Chen,Chaomei) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:00:22 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The example you gave is a change that moves one step away from the ignorance. ________________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of Paul Colin de Gloucester [Colin_Paul_Gloster at ACM.ORG] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 10:19 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics On July 26th, 2013, Chaomei Chen emailed: |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"[. . .] | |I am curious whether anyone can point to tangible research findings that| |fundamentally contradict to the existing body of knowledge in | |scientometrics. | |Chaomei Chen" | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| Citations are often assumed to be positive, but there is research showing that negative citations do exist. From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Fri Jul 26 11:25:42 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:25:42 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <85C158E495977A41AD1D0D57E29B040B07D6AE@MB2.drexel.edu> Message-ID: There are many sorts of scientific revolutions and those driven by new observational technologies are a specific case. Altmetrics are perhaps analogous to the revolution of microscopy. The fundamental gestalt change to biology was recognizing that the observed world of life forms was extremely limited. Similarly, we can now see scientific activity in a lot of new ways. The fundamental question that now arises is what are we seeing? More precisely, what aspect of scientific activity does each metric measure, including the IF? The fundamental concept that has gone out of focus is impact. I expect we will find lots of different kinds of impact, with a new deep understanding of science. That is the revolution in progress. How far it gets no one knows. Many revolutions fail. David Wojick At 10:06 AM 7/26/2013, you wrote: >A hallmark of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's framework is a gestalt >switch of the mindset. >I am curious whether anyone can point to tangible research findings that >fundamentally contradict to the existing body of knowledge in scientometrics. >Chaomei Chen > > >---------- >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick >[dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US] >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >As a Kuhnian I tend to agree with Lutz. However I think taxonomy change is >a poor metaphor for the concept confusions that characterize scientific >revolutions. New paradigms do not come fully formed so the early stages >are signaled by the high degree of confusion, which we certainly see with >altmetrics. Moreover new technologies frequently create scientific >revolutions and social media provide a new observational technology. > >It is not that there is a new taxonomy but rather that the taxonomy of >science metrics has gone fuzzy, thus creating the so-called >incommensurability. This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the >literature because one does not publish confusions and there is as yet no >new normal science here, to say what is publishable. It is everywhere >apparent however in the meta-level discourse, where we talk and argue >about the new metrics and what they mean. > >David Wojick > >On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:18 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" ><lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE> wrote: > >>Dear Loet, >> >>Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different >>taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different >>exemplars, theories, methods etc. >> >>I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my >>opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully >>demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a >>specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred >>then to similar other situations. >> >>Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins >>outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation >>are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is >>frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is >>typical that we react on forces from outside. >> >>Best, >> >>Lutz >> >>Von meinem iPad gesendet >> >>Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet >>Leydesdorff" <loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET>: >> >>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>Dear Lutz, >>> >>>Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of >>>exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the >>>Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic >>>changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in >>>methods or subjects of study. >>> >>>???Altmetrics??? could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead >>>example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have >>>functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has >>>been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years >>>(Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a >>>paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. >>> >>>Sta?a Milojevi?? & Loet Leydesdorff, >>>Information Metrics >>>(iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a >>>Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics >>>95(1) (2013) 141-157; >>>http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . >>> >>>The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the >>>discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) >>>and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated >>>by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. >>>A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. >>> >>>Best, >>>Loet >>> >>>PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? J >>> >>> >>>Loet Leydesdorff >>>Professor, University of Amsterdam >>>Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) >>>Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam >>>loet at leydesdorff.net ; >>>http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >>>Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of >>>Sussex; Visiting Professor, >>>ISTIC, Beijing; >>>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 Bornmann, Lutz >>>Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM >>>To: >>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>> >>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>>Thanks for your emails! >>> >>>Dear Loet, >>> >>>As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a >>>revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based >>>indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of >>>normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his >>>later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between >>>scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact >>>is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a >>>scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and how >>>it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in >>>scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to >>>measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal >>>impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). >>> >>>Benoit, >>>Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that >>>the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the >>>ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session >>>on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I >>>believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring >>>societal impact. >>> >>>Best, >>> >>>Lutz >>> >>>Gesendet von Windows-Mail >>> >>>Von: Godin, Beno??t >>>Gesendet: ???Donnerstag???, ???25???. ???Juli??? ???2013 ???17???:???42 >>>An: Bornmann, Lutz >>> >>> >>>Lutz, >>> >>>Thanks for sharing this piece with us. >>> >>>However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary >>>phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a >>>wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and >>>supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public >>>and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to >>>governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed >>>little, not yet. >>> >>>beno??t >>> >>>Beno??t Godin >>>Professeur >>>INRS (Montreal, Canada) >>>tel.: 1 438 396 3242 >>>courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca >>>site web: www.csiic.ca >>> >>> >>> >>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group >>>on Metrics >>>[SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >>>On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff >>>[loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] >>>Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM >>>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>> >>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>>Dear Lutz: >>> >>>Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, >>>it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its >>>methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are >>>much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). >>> >>>Best, >>>Loet >>> >>> >>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >>>On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz >>>Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM >>>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>> >>> >>> >>>Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? >>> >>> >>> >>>The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the >>>argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a >>>taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the >>>key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is >>>understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on >>>every area of society. >>> >>>Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 >>> >>>--------------------------------------- >>> >>>Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann >>>Division for Science and Innovation Studies >>>Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society >>>Hofgartenstr. 8 >>>80539 Munich >>>Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 >>>Mobil: +49 170 9183667 >>>Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de >>>WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de >>>ResearcherID: >>>http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From krpowel at EMORY.EDU Fri Jul 26 17:16:32 2013 From: krpowel at EMORY.EDU (Powell, Kimberly Robin) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 21:16:32 +0000 Subject: Last Call for Paper Submissions Message-ID: Hello. Please find attached and below a last call for paper submissions to the 2013 ASIS&T SIG/MET Student Paper Contest- Deadline has been extended to Monday August 12, 2013. Please excuse any cross postings and feel free to distribute widely. Please direct any questions regarding the contest or submission guidelines to Kim Powell at krpowel at emory.edu 2013 ASIS&T SIG/MET Student Paper Contest Are you tired of preparing papers which immediately migrate into your professors' files and have not been seen ever since? Recover your papers and give them a life and a great opportunity for yourself. Send your most promising papers to the 2013 ASIST SIG/MET Student paper contest where you have the chance to present your work in front of an interested audience, discuss it with established researchers, and win the ASIS&T SIG/MET Best Student Paper Award. This is the third annual student paper contests for SIG/MET, the Special Interest Group for the measurement of information production and use (http://www.asis.org/SIG/met.html)of the Association for Information Science & Technology (ASIS&T). The contest is designed to recognize promising student research relating to the measurement of information, publication, and research and gives students a forum to meet the leaders of the field. Purpose SIG/MET seeks to encourage the development and networking opportunities of all those interested in the measurement of information. It is holding this contest to foster student growth and promote the generation of new ideas and research in metric-related topics, including bibliometrics, scientometrics, informetrics, webometrics and other related domains. Eligibility The first author of the paper entered into this contest must be a full-time student at the time of submission, irrespective of ASIS&T or SIG/MET membership. Only solo or first authored student manuscripts will be accepted, in order to ensure that the student made significant contributions to the work. SIG/MET reserves the right to request proof of enrollment as part of the submission and evaluation process. Submissions should not have been published work, although they may be submitted to a journal at the time of submission to the contest. Theme Papers should discuss theories, methods, policies, case studies, etc. on aspects of the measurement of information production and use. Topics could include, but are not limited to, the following core areas: * Metric-Related Theory * Methods and new techniques * Citation and co-citation analysis * Indicators * Webometrics * Information visualization * Research policy * Productivity * Journals, databases and electronic publications * Collaboration/Co-authorship * Patent analysis * Knowledge and topic diffusion * Altmetrics Selection Papers will be reviewed by SIG/MET officers and advisors to the SIG/MET workshop. At least one winner will be chosen. In the past, we have also given commendation to other particularly outstanding papers. Selection criteria include those that would be considered in traditional peer review: that is, the quality of the research, the presentation of the results, and the originality of the research question. Prizes The winner will be awarded a one-year individual membership to ASIS&T and a cash prize, sponsored by Elsevier. If of sufficient merit, two winners may be announced: one for the best first-authored paper and one for the best sole-authored paper. Monetary prizes and membership may be available for more than one paper, depending on merit. Authors of highly rated papers will be invited to submit a short biographical piece to be featured on the SIG/MET website. In addition, these authors may be invited to present their research under their own expense at the SIG/MET pre-conference workshop at the 2013 Annual ASIS&T Meeting. Format Submissions can be of any length and format, but should ideally reflect typical standards of a journal article (i.e., approximately 6,000 words and in an appropriate citation style for the social sciences). Submission & Deadline Authors are invited to submit manuscripts by midnight EST on Monday, August 12, 2013 to the following website:https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sigmetspc2013 The students will be notified about the results by Sept 1, 2013. For inquiries and further information please contact Kim Powell (krpowel at emory.edu). ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CFP_StudentContest2013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 187441 bytes Desc: CFP_StudentContest2013.pdf URL: From andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL Sat Jul 27 08:54:12 2013 From: andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL (Andrea Scharnhorst) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:54:12 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient information retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences themselves, and here I echo contributions of others. Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. Virtual Knowledge, MIT 2013) What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in theoretical threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological one; sometimes this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; sometimes in one specialty only ? sometimes affecting a whole field. So, instead of looking at a singular event, one better can talk of an accumulation of different changes. Galison uses often geological, geomorphological metaphors to describe this. (see his book: Image and Logic). I think one cannot talk about a revolution with defining the boundaries of the system of reference first. As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI just a week ago. (http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw ) My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to watch/read (see http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences ). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a evaluation and benchmarking tool". But, it seems that it is still the scientometrics community which discusses and defines indicators used broadly. What concerns the digital revolution, and in particular the web, indeed scientometrics has incorporated altmetrics, taken up the challenge and made own original contributions (thanks to pioneers as Judit BarIlan, Mike Thelwall, Isidro Aguillo and many others). But, if I may say so, here scientometrics acted rather as a client, using the new data sources. Its behavior towards web-based information was and is very similar to the behavior towards the commercial bibliographic databases: namely to build indicators based on data export from them. What I think is a challenge to be mastered in the upcoming years, is the semantic web and Linked Open Data. Here, I would like to back-up Clement's contribution, and actually reading his list and the thread as a whole triggered this now growing more lengthy comment ;-) If the attempts of the semantic web community mature further, and if research information as a standard becomes available semantic referencable on the web, we talk about a profound change in the data source landscape for scientometrics. There is a possibility to eventually link between the 'old' input/expenditure statistics, human capital information and other institutional information and the traditional output ? the scholarly communication ? which for so many decades has dominated scientometrics, also just because of its availability in a standardized form. One example for this movement is VIVO, vivoweb.org. But, working in a research data archive I witness the raise of standards, API's, LOD in this area and it is obvious that the web of scholarly information is just before (in not in the middle) of another big change. Semantic reasoning over research information in Linked Open Data (LOD) formats will enable services (including indicators) different from what we have now. It does not concern 'just another data base' or another social media one can harvest data from; it concerns a whole set of other techniques. Either scientometrics embraces this too, and learns to play on the "Klaviatur" (keyboard) of the semantic web, or the knowledge of the community might become obsolete. Personally, I think the LOD and semantic web technologies are the future methodological innovation in scientometics, and I'm curious to hear comments on this. According to Lutz, this than would not count as a revolution, being 'just' another method. But, if it means that other communities could become the carrier for scientometric analysis, it might be a revolution ? at least for the field of scientometics as we know it now. Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst Head of e-research at Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) Scientific Coordinator of the Computational Humanities Programme, e-Humanities group Chair of the COST Action KnowEscape Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences From: Clement Levallois > Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 To: "SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. - open access - open data (Figshare, etc.) - semantic web / linked data - science communication / science making on social media - digital scholarship (see http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) - networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) - the altac movement - and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz word) today in scientometrics? Best regards, 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 check my new app: http://www.umigon.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fil at INDIANA.EDU Sat Jul 27 14:01:18 2013 From: fil at INDIANA.EDU (Fil Menczer) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:01:18 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20130726111451.043e6960@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: I have been reading with great interest the discussion on what constitutes a revolution in science. If I am allowed a shameless plug, I suspect that list members may find relevant to the discussion a recent paper in which we attempted a quantitative exploration of the question of how new disciplines emerge, and in particular if this process can be explained in terms of the social interactions among scholars rather than by "revolutions," such as new discoveries. Feedback welcome. Cheers, Social Dynamics of Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069 Article toolsDownload PDF Citation Reprints & permissionsArticle metrics The birth and decline of disciplines are critical to science and society. How do scientific disciplines emerge? No quantitative model to date allows us to validate competing theories on the different roles of endogenous processes, such as social collaborations, and exogenous events, such as scientific discoveries. Here we propose an agent-based model in which the evolution of disciplines is guided mainly by social interactions among agents representing scientists. Disciplines emerge from splitting and merging of social communities in a collaboration network. We find that this social model can account for a number of stylized facts about the relationships between disciplines, scholars, and publications. These results provide strong quantitative support for the key role of social interactions in shaping the dynamics of science. While several ?science of science? theories exist, this is the first account for the emergence of disciplines that is validated on the basis of empirical data. The birth and decline of disciplines are critical to science and society. How do scientific disciplines emerge? No quantitative model to date allows us to validate competing theories on the different roles of endogenous processes, such as social collaborations, and exogenous events, such as scientific discoveries. Here we propose an agent-based model in which the evolution of disciplines is guided mainly by social interactions among agents representing scientists. Disciplines emerge from splitting and merging of social communities in a collaboration network. We find that this social model can account for a number of stylized facts about the relationships between disciplines, scholars, and publications. These results provide strong quantitative support for the key role of social interactions in shaping the dynamics of science. While several ?science of science? theories exist, this is the first account for the emergence of disciplines that is validated on the basis of empirical data. On Friday, July 26, 2013, David Wojick wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > There are many sorts of scientific revolutions and those driven by new > observational technologies are a specific case. Altmetrics are perhaps > analogous to the revolution of microscopy. The fundamental gestalt change > to biology was recognizing that the observed world of life forms was > extremely limited. Similarly, we can now see scientific activity in a lot > of new ways. The fundamental question that now arises is what are we > seeing? > > More precisely, what aspect of scientific activity does each metric > measure, including the IF? The fundamental concept that has gone out of > focus is impact. I expect we will find lots of different kinds of impact, > with a new deep understanding of science. That is the revolution in > progress. How far it gets no one knows. Many revolutions fail. > > David Wojick > > At 10:06 AM 7/26/2013, you wrote: > > A hallmark of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's framework is a gestalt > switch of the mindset. > I am curious whether anyone can point to tangible research findings that > fundamentally contradict to the existing body of knowledge in > scientometrics. > Chaomei Chen > > ------------------------------ > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');>] on behalf of David Wojick [ > dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US 'dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US');>] > *Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');> > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > As a Kuhnian I tend to agree with Lutz. However I think taxonomy change is > a poor metaphor for the concept confusions that characterize scientific > revolutions. New paradigms do not come fully formed so the early stages are > signaled by the high degree of confusion, which we certainly see with > altmetrics. Moreover new technologies frequently create scientific > revolutions and social media provide a new observational technology. > > It is not that there is a new taxonomy but rather that the taxonomy of > science metrics has gone fuzzy, thus creating the so-called > incommensurability. This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the > literature because one does not publish confusions and there is as yet no > new normal science here, to say what is publishable. It is everywhere > apparent however in the meta-level discourse, where we talk and argue about > the new metrics and what they mean. > > David Wojick > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:18 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" > wrote: > > Dear Loet, > > Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different > taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different > exemplars, theories, methods etc. > > I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my > opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully > demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a > specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred > then to similar other situations. > > Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins > outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation > are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is > frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is > typical that we react on forces from outside. > > Best, > > Lutz > > Von meinem iPad gesendet > > Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" < 'cvml', 'loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET');>loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET 'cvml', 'loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET');> >: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Lutz, > > Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars > and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer > lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the > semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of > study. > > ???Altmetrics?? could perhaps serve as an exemplar if it was a lead > example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned > more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more > stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & > Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). > On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. > > Sta?a Milojevi?? & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics ( > *iMetrics*): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? > *Scientometrics* *95*(1) (2013) 141-157; > http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . > > The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the > discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and > in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T > policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian > crisis, however, would be endogenous. > > Best, > Loet > > PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? J > > > Loet Leydesdorff > Professor, University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) > Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam > loet at leydesdorff.net ; > http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of > Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > Beijing; > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ 'cvml', 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');>mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] > *On Behalf Of *Bornmann, Lutz > *Sent:* Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Thanks for your emails! > > Dear Loet, > > As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a > revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators > for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. > Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. > This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of > scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as > analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain > which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will > see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and > valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal > impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as > it is mostly done today). > > Benoit, > Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that > the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI > 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on > societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that > altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. > > Best, > > Lutz > > Gesendet von Windows-Mail > > *Von:* Godin, Beno??t > *Gesendet:* ???Donnerstag???, ???25???. ???Juli??? ???2013 ???17???:???42 > *An:* Bornmann, Lutz > > > Lutz, > > Thanks for sharing this piece with us. > > However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary > phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish > (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by > governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international > agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the > scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. > > beno??t > > Beno??t Godin > Professeur > INRS (Montreal, Canada) > tel.: 1 438 396 3242 > courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca 'benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca');> > site web: www.csiic.ca > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ 'cvml', 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');> SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] > On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [ 'loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET');>loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET 'loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET');>] > *Sent:* July 25, 2013 11:26 AM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');> > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Lutz: > > Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, > it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its > methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much > more gradual (that is, as in normal science). > > Best, > Loet > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] > *On Behalf Of *Bornmann, Lutz > *Sent:* Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');> > *Subject:* [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > > > *Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics?* > > The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the > argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic > change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in > scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean > not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. > > Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 > > --------------------------------------- > > Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann > Division for Science and Innovation Studies > Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society > Hofgartenstr. 8 > 80539 Munich > Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 > Mobil: +49 170 9183667 > Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de 'bornmann at gv.mpg.de');> > WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de > ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 > > > -- -Fil: bit.ly/filmenczer w/apologies for mobile-induced brevity and typos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sat Jul 27 14:27:13 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:27:13 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Being equally shameless I will point to two studies done by my team when I was with DOE OSTI. They identify a topological transition in author network structure which seems to characterize the transition to a new paradigm. The transition pattern appears to be universal. 1. General Critical Properties of the Dynamics of Scientific Discovery (994-KB PDF) by Lu?s M.A. Bettencourt and David I. Kaiser, 2008, http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/OSTIBettencourtKaiser.pdf and 2. The dynamics of scientific discovery: the spread of ideas and structural transitions in collaboration networks (759-KB PDF) by Lu?s M. A. Bettencourt, et al., 2011, http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/BettencourtKaiser_TopologicalTransition_OSTI.pdf David Wojick At 02:01 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > >I have been reading with great interest the discussion on what constitutes >a revolution in science. If I am allowed a shameless plug, I suspect that? >list members may find relevant to the discussion? a? recent paper in which >we attempted a quantitative? exploration of? the question of how new >disciplines emerge, and in particular if this process can be explained in >terms of the social interactions among scholars rather than by >"revolutions," such as? new discoveries. Feedback welcome.? > >Cheers, > >Social Dynamics of Science >http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069 > > >Article >toolsDownload >PDFCitationReprints? >& >permissionsArticle >metricsThe birth and decline of disciplines are critical to science and >society. How do scientific disciplines emerge? No quantitative model to >date allows us to validate competing theories on the different roles of >endogenous processes, such as social collaborations, and exogenous events, >such as scientific discoveries. Here we propose an agent-based model in >which the evolution of disciplines is guided mainly by social interactions >among agents representing scientists. Disciplines emerge from splitting >and merging of social communities in a collaboration network. We find that >this social model can account for a number of stylized facts about the >relationships between disciplines, scholars, and publications. These >results provide strong quantitative support for the key role of social >interactions in shaping the dynamics of science. While several ???science >of science??? theories exist, this is the first account for the emergence >of disciplines that is validated on the basis of empirical data. > > > >The birth and decline of disciplines are critical to science and society. >How do scientific disciplines emerge? No quantitative model to date allows >us to validate competing theories on the different roles of endogenous >processes, such as social collaborations, and exogenous events, such as >scientific discoveries. Here we propose an agent-based model in which the >evolution of disciplines is guided mainly by social interactions among >agents representing scientists. Disciplines emerge from splitting and >merging of social communities in a collaboration network. We find that >this social model can account for a number of stylized facts about the >relationships between disciplines, scholars, and publications. These >results provide strong quantitative support for the key role of social >interactions in shaping the dynamics of science. While several ???science >of science??? theories exist, this is the first account for the emergence >of disciplines that is validated on the basis of empirical data. > >On Friday, July 26, 2013, David Wojick wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >There are many sorts of scientific revolutions and those driven by new >observational technologies are a specific case. Altmetrics are perhaps >analogous to the revolution of microscopy. The fundamental gestalt change >to biology was recognizing that the observed world of life forms was >extremely limited. Similarly, we can now see scientific activity in a lot >of new ways. The fundamental question that now arises is what are we seeing? > >More precisely, what aspect of scientific activity does each metric >measure, including the IF? The fundamental concept that has gone out of >focus is impact. I expect we will find lots of different kinds of impact, >with a new deep understanding of science. That is the revolution in >progress. How far it gets no one knows. Many revolutions fail. > >David Wojick > >At 10:06 AM 7/26/2013, you wrote: >>A hallmark of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's framework is a gestalt >>switch of the mindset.? >>I am curious whether anyone can point to tangible research findings that >>fundamentally contradict to the existing body of knowledge in scientometrics. >>Chaomei Chen >> >> >>---------- >>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>[SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick >>[dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US] >>Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM >>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >> >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >>As a Kuhnian I tend to agree with Lutz. However I think taxonomy change >>is a poor metaphor for the concept confusions that characterize >>scientific revolutions. New paradigms do not come fully formed so the >>early stages are signaled by the high degree of confusion, which we >>certainly see with altmetrics. Moreover new technologies frequently >>create scientific revolutions and social media provide a new >>observational technology. >> >>It is not that there is a new taxonomy but rather that the taxonomy of >>science metrics has gone fuzzy, thus creating the so-called >>incommensurability. This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the >>literature because one does not publish confusions and there is as yet no >>new normal science here, to say what is publishable. It is everywhere >>apparent however in the meta-level discourse, where we talk and argue >>about the new metrics and what they mean. >> >>David Wojick >> >>On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:18 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" >>wrote: >> >>>Dear Loet, >>> >>>Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different >>>taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different >>>exemplars, theories, methods etc. >>> >>>I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my >>>opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully >>>demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure >>>a specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be >>>transferred then to similar other situations. >>> >>>Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins >>>outside the discipline. However, because questions of research >>>evaluation are at the core of scientometricians' work and research >>>evaluation is frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our >>>discipline. It is typical that we react on forces from outside. >>> >>>Best, >>> >>>Lutz >>> >>>Von meinem iPad gesendet >>> >>>Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" : >>> >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>Dear Lutz, >>>>? >>>>Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of >>>>exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the >>>>Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic >>>>changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in >>>>methods or subjects of study. >>>>? >>>>????Altmetrics??? could perhaps serve as an ean exemplar if it was a >>>>lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have >>>>functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has >>>>been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years >>>>(Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a >>>>paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. >>>>? >>>>Sta?a Milojevi??? & Loet Leydesdorff, >>>>Information Metrics >>>>(iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a >>>>Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics >>>>95(1) (2013) 141-157; >>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . >>>>? >>>>The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the >>>>discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) >>>>and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are >>>>translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation >>>>of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. >>>>? >>>>Best, >>>>Loet >>>>? >>>>PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? J >>>>? >>>> >>>>Loet Leydesdorff >>>>Professor, University of Amsterdam >>>>Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) >>>>Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam >>>>loet at leydesdorff.net ; >>>>http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >>>>Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of >>>>Sussex; Visiting Professor, >>>>ISTIC, Beijing; >>>>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 Bornmann, Lutz >>>>Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM >>>>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>>>? >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>>Thanks for your emails! >>>>? >>>>Dear Loet, >>>>? >>>>As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as >>>>a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based >>>>indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of >>>>normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his >>>>later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between >>>>scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact >>>>is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a >>>>scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and >>>>how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in >>>>scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to >>>>measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal >>>>impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). >>>>? >>>>Benoit, >>>>Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary >>>>that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of >>>>the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one >>>>session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. >>>>I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring >>>>societal impact. >>>>? >>>>Best, >>>>? >>>>Lutz >>>>? >>>>Gesendet von Windows-Mail >>>>? >>>>Von: Godin, Beno????t >>>>Gesendet: ????Donnerstag????, ???, ????25????. ????Juli????Juli???? >>>>????2013 013 ????17????:????42 >>>>42 >>>>An: Bornmann, Lutz >>>>? >>>>? >>>>Lutz, >>>>? >>>>Thanks for sharing this piece with us. >>>>? >>>>However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary >>>>phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a >>>>wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and >>>>supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public >>>>and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to >>>>governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed >>>>little, not yet. >>>>? >>>>beno????t >>>>? >>>>Beno????t Godin >>>>Professeur >>>>INRS (Montreal, Canada) >>>>tel.: 1 438 396 3242 >>>>courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca >>>>site web: www.csiic.ca >>>>? >>>>? >>>> >>>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ >>>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff >>>>[loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] >>>>Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM >>>>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>>>? >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>>Dear Lutz: >>>>? >>>>Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of >>>>scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed >>>>fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. >>>>Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). >>>>? >>>>Best, >>>>Loet >>>>? >>>>? >>>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ >>>>mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz >>>>Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM >>>>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>>>? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the >>>>argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a >>>>taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the >>>>key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is >>>>understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on >>>>every area of society. >>>>? >>>>Available at: >>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 >>>>? >>>>--------------------------------------- >>>>? >>>>Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann >>>>Division for Science and Innovation Studies >>>>Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society >>>>Hofgartenstr. 8 >>>>80539 Munich >>>>Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 >>>>Mobil: +49 170 9183667 >>>>Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de >>>>WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de >>>>ResearcherID: >>>>http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 >>>>? > > > >-- >-Fil: bit.ly/filmenczer >w/apologies for mobile-induced brevity and typos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fil at INDIANA.EDU Sat Jul 27 14:38:54 2013 From: fil at INDIANA.EDU (Fil Menczer) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:38:54 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20130727142015.04322610@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Thank you David, I was aware of your work with Bettencourt. In fact our model is quite consistent with your description of transition in author network structure. In both cases events correspond to changes in local density/communities. On Saturday, July 27, 2013, David Wojick wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Being equally shameless I will point to two studies done by my team when I > was with DOE OSTI. They identify a topological transition in author network > structure which seems to characterize the transition to a new paradigm. The > transition pattern appears to be universal. > > 1. General Critical Properties of the Dynamics of Scientific Discovery(994-KB PDF) by Lu?s M.A. Bettencourt and David I. Kaiser, 2008, > http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/OSTIBettencourtKaiser.pdfand > > 2. The dynamics of scientific discovery: the spread of ideas and > structural transitions in collaboration networks(759-KB PDF) by Lu?s M. A. Bettencourt, et al., 2011, > http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/BettencourtKaiser_TopologicalTransition_OSTI.pdf > > David Wojick > > At 02:01 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > I have been reading with great interest the discussion on what constitutes > a revolution in science. If I am allowed a shameless plug, I suspect that? > list members may find relevant to the discussion? a? recent paper in which > we attempted a quantitative? exploration of? the question of how new > disciplines emerge, and in particular if this process can be explained in > terms of the social interactions among scholars rather than by > "revolutions," such as? new discoveries. Feedback welcome.? > > Cheers, > > Social Dynamics of Science > http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069 > > > The birth and decline of disciplines are critical to science and society. > How do scientific disciplines emerge? No quantitative model to date allows > us to validate competing theories on the different roles of endogenous > processes, such as social collaborations, and exogenous events, such as > scientific discoveries. Here we propose an agent-based model in which the > evolution of disciplines is guided mainly by social interactions among > agents representing scientists. Disciplines emerge from splitting and > merging of social communities in a collaboration network. We find that this > social model can account for a number of stylized facts about the > relationships between disciplines, scholars, and publications. These > results provide strong quantitative support for the key role of social > interactions in shaping the dynamics of science. While several ???science > of science?? theories exist, this is the first account for the emergence of > disciplines that is validated on the basis of empirical data. > > On Friday, July 26, 2013, David Wojick wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > There are many sorts of scientific revolutions and those driven by new > observational technologies are a specific case. Altmetrics are perhaps > analogous to the revolution of microscopy. The fundamental gestalt change > to biology was recognizing that the observed world of life forms was > extremely limited. Similarly, we can now see scientific activity in a lot > of new ways. The fundamental question that now arises is what are we > seeing? > > More precisely, what aspect of scientific activity does each metric > measure, including the IF? The fundamental concept that has gone out of > focus is impact. I expect we will find lots of different kinds of impact, > with a new deep understanding of science. That is the revolution in > progress. How far it gets no one knows. Many revolutions fail. > > David Wojick > > At 10:06 AM 7/26/2013, you wrote: > > A hallmark of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's framework is a gestalt > switch of the mindset.? > I am curious whether anyone can point to tangible research findings that > fundamentally contradict to the existing body of knowledge in > scientometrics. > Chaomei Chen > > ------------------------------ > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');>] on behalf of David Wojick [ > dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US 'dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US');>] > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');> > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > As a Kuhnian I tend to agree with Lutz. However I think taxonomy change is > a poor metaphor for the concept confusions that characterize scientific > revolutions. New paradigms do not come fully formed so the early stages are > signaled by the high degree of confusion, which we certainly see with > altmetrics. Moreover new technologies frequently create scientific > revolutions and social media provide a new observational technology. > > It is not that there is a new taxonomy but rather that the taxonomy of > science metrics has gone fuzzy, thus creating the so-called > incommensurability. This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the > literature because one does not publish confusions and there is as yet no > new normal science here, to say what is publishable. It is everywhere > apparent however in the meta-level discourse, where we talk and argue about > the new metrics and what they mean. > > David Wojick > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:18 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" > wrote: > > Dear Loet, > > Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different > taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different > exemplars, theories, methods etc. > > I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my > opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully > demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure a > specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be transferred > then to similar other situations. > > Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins > outside the discipline. However, because questions of research evaluation > are at the core of scientometricians' work and research evaluation is > frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our discipline. It is > typical that we react on forces from outside. > > Best, > > Lutz > > Von meinem iPad gesendet > > Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" >: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Lutz, > ? > Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of exemplars > and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the Thalheimer > lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic changes in the > semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in methods or subjects of > study. > ? > ????Altmetrics??? could perhaps serve as an ean exemplar if it was a lead > example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF have functioned > more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my opinion, has been more > stabilizing than destabilizing during the last ten years (Milojevic & > Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis (preceding a paradigm change). > On the contrary, the specialty structure became more robust. > ? > Sta?a Milojevi??? & Loet Leydesdorff, Information Metrics ( > iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity? > Scientometrics 95(1) (2013) 141-157; > http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . > ? > The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the > discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) and > in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are translated by S&T > policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation of science. A Kuhnian > crisis, however, would be endogenous. > ? > Best, > Loet > ? > PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? J > ? > > Loet Leydesdorff > Professor, University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) > Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam > loet at leydesdorff.net ; > http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of > Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > Beijing; > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en ? > > ? > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');>] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');> > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > ? > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Thanks for your emails! > ? > Dear Loet, > ? > As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as a > revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based indicators > for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of normal science. > Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his later publications. > This leads to incommensurabilities between scientists. In the field of > scientometrics, measuring scientific impact is no longer solely defined as > analysing citations in papers. Today, a scientometrician has to explain > which kind of impact is measured and how it is measured. I believe we will > see a phase of normal science in scientometrics, where the reliable and > valid methods are developed to measure the different kinds of societal > impact. Measuring societal impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as > it is mostly done today). > ? > Benoit, > Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary that > the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of the ISSI > 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one session on > societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. I believe that > altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring societal impact. > ? > Best, > ? > Lutz > ? > Gesendet von Windows-Mail > ? > Von: Godin, Beno????t > Gesendet: ????Donnerstag????, ???, ????25????. ????Juli????Juli???? > ????2013 013 ????17????:????42 > 42 > An: Bornmann, Lutz > ? > ? > Lutz, > ? > Thanks for sharing this piece with us. > ? > However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary > phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a wish > (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and supported by > governments, and more often than not conducted in public and international > agencies or by researchers as consultants to governments. On impacts, the > scientometric literature has changed little, not yet. > ? > beno????t > ? > Beno????t Godin > Professeur > INRS (Montreal, Canada) > tel.: 1 438 396 3242 > courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca 'benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca');> > site web: www.csiic.ca > ? > ? > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');>] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff [ > loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET ] > Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');> > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > ? > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Lutz: > ? > Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of scientometrics, > it does not follow that scientometrics has changed fundamentally in its > methods. That needs to be proven empirically. Perhaps, the changes are much > more gradual (that is, as in normal science). > ? > Best, > Loet > ? > ? > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');>] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU 'SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU');> > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > ? > > > *Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics?* > > > > The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the > argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a taxonomic > change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the key terms in > scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is understood to mean > not only the impact on science but the impact on every area of society. > ? > Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 > ? > --------------------------------------- > ? > Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann > Division for Science and Innovation Studies > Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society > Hofgartenstr. 8 > 80539 Munich > Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 > Mobil: +49 170 9183667 > Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de 'bornmann at gv.mpg.de');> > WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de > ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 > ? > > -- -Fil: bit.ly/filmenczer w/apologies for mobile-induced brevity and t -- -Fil: bit.ly/filmenczer w/apologies for mobile-induced brevity and typos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sat Jul 27 15:05:09 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:05:09 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Our work and that of several other groups was terminated when DOE made the high level decision that understanding scientific communication was not a worthwhile research topic, even though they claim that they want to speed up the transitioning of the many billions of dollars in research that they fund annually. So I hope your work continues as these are important metrics. David At 02:38 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Thank you David, I was aware of your work with Bettencourt. In fact our >model is quite consistent with your description of transition in author >network structure. In both cases events correspond to changes in local >density/communities.? > >On Saturday, July 27, 2013, David Wojick wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Being equally shameless I will point to two studies done by my team when I >was with DOE OSTI. They identify a topological transition in author >network structure which seems to characterize the transition to a new >paradigm. The transition pattern appears to be universal. > >1. >General >Critical Properties of the Dynamics of Scientific Discovery (994-KB PDF) >by Lu??s M.A. Bettencourt and David I. Kaiser, 2008, >http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/OSTIBettencourtKaiser.pdf >and > >2. >The >dynamics of scientific discovery: the spread of ideas and structural >transitions in collaboration networks (759-KB PDF) by Lu??s M. A. >Bettencourt, et al., 2011, >http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/BettencourtKaiser_TopologicalTransition_OSTI.pdf > > >David Wojick > >At 02:01 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> >> >>I have been reading with great interest the discussion on what >>constitutes a revolution in science. If I am allowed a shameless plug, I >>suspect that?? list members may find relevant to the discussion?? a?? >>recent paper in which we attempted a quantitative?? exploration of?? the >>question of how new disciplines emerge, and in particular if this process >>can be explained in terms of the social interactions among scholars >>rather than by "revolutions," such as?? new discoveries. Feedback welcome.?? >> >>Cheers, >> >>Social Dynamics of Science >>http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069 >> >> >>The birth and decline of disciplines are critical to science and society. >>How do scientific disciplines emerge? No quantitative model to date >>allows us to validate competing theories on the different roles of >>endogenous processes, such as social collaborations, and exogenous >>events, such as scientific discoveries. Here we propose an agent-based >>model in which the evolution of disciplines is guided mainly by social >>interactions among agents representing scientists. Disciplines emerge >>from splitting and merging of social communities in a collaboration >>network. We find that this social model can account for a number of >>stylized facts about the relationships between disciplines, scholars, and >>publications. These results provide strong quantitative support for the >>key role of social interactions in shaping the dynamics of science. While >>several ????science of science??? theories exs exist, this is the first >>account for the emergence of disciplines that is validated on the basis >>of empirical data. >> >>On Friday, July 26, 2013, David Wojick wrote: >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >>There are many sorts of scientific revolutions and those driven by new >>observational technologies are a specific case. Altmetrics are perhaps >>analogous to the revolution of microscopy. The fundamental gestalt change >>to biology was recognizing that the observed world of life forms was >>extremely limited. Similarly, we can now see scientific activity in a lot >>of new ways. The fundamental question that now arises is what are we seeing? >>More precisely, what aspect of scientific activity does each metric >>measure, including the IF? The fundamental concept that has gone out of >>focus is impact. I expect we will find lots of different kinds of impact, >>with a new deep understanding of science. That is the revolution in >>progress. How far it gets no one knows. Many revolutions fail. >>David Wojick >>At 10:06 AM 7/26/2013, you wrote: >>>A hallmark of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's framework is a gestalt >>>switch of the mindset.??? >>>I am curious whether anyone can point to tangible research findings that >>>fundamentally contradict to the existing body of knowledge in scientometrics. >>>Chaomei Chen >>> >>> >>>---------- >>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>[SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick >>>[dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US] >>>Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM >>>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >>As a Kuhnian I tend to agree with Lutz. However I think taxonomy change >>is a poor metaphor for the concept confusions that characterize >>scientific revolutions. New paradigms do not come fully formed so the >>early stages are signaled by the high degree of confusion, which we >>certainly see with altmetrics. Moreover new technologies frequently >>create scientific revolutions and social media provide a new >>observational technology. >>It is not that there is a new taxonomy but rather that the taxonomy of >>science metrics has gone fuzzy, thus creating the so-called >>incommensurability. This conceptual confusion is not reflected in the >>literature because one does not publish confusions and there is as yet no >>new normal science here, to say what is publishable. It is everywhere >>apparent however in the meta-level discourse, where we talk and argue >>about the new metrics and what they mean. >>David Wojick >>On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:18 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" >>wrote: >> >>>Dear Loet, >>>Incommensurabilities between scientists emerge if they use different >>>taxonomies. Different taxonomies are as a rule combined with different >>>exemplars, theories, methods etc. >>>I am not sure whether altmetrics can directly serve as exemplars. In my >>>opinion, an exemplar for the new paradigm would be the very successfully >>>demonstrated and by the community accepted use of altmetrics to measure >>>a specific kind of societal impact. This proposed use could be >>>transferred then to similar other situations. >>>Yes, I agree that the new taxonomy in scientometrics has its origins >>>outside the discipline. However, because questions of research >>>evaluation are at the core of scientometricians' work and research >>>evaluation is frequently driven from outside, this is typical for our >>>discipline. It is typical that we react on forces from outside. >>> >>>Best, >>>Lutz >>>Von meinem iPad gesendet >>>Am 25.07.2013 um 20:42 schrieb "Loet Leydesdorff" : >>> >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>Dear Lutz, >>>>?? >>>>Kuhn (1962, 1969) defined revolutions and paradigms in terms of >>>>exemplars and changes in the cultural matrix. In later work (e.g., the >>>>Thalheimer lectures), indeed, this is further elaborated into taxonomic >>>>changes in the semantics. I agree that it is not just a change in >>>>methods or subjects of study. >>>>?? >>>>??????Altmetrics????? could pld perhaps serve as an ean exemplar if it >>>>was a lead example for a class of studies. Perhaps, the h-index or JIF >>>>have functioned more like exemplars. The cultural matrix, in my >>>>opinion, has been more stabilizing than destabilizing during the last >>>>ten years (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013). We did not find a crisis >>>>(preceding a paradigm change). On the contrary, the specialty structure >>>>became more robust. >>>>?? >>>>Sta?a Milojevi???? & Loet Leydesdorfforff, >>>>Information Metrics >>>>(iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a >>>>Socio-Cognitive Identity? Scientometrics >>>>95(1) (2013) 141-157; >>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3406 . >>>>?? >>>>The new questions, in my opinion, find their origins outside the >>>>discipline, namely, in new technological possibilities (social media) >>>>and in acute budget pressures (because of austerity) that are >>>>translated by S&T policy-makers into new searches for the legitimation >>>>of science. A Kuhnian crisis, however, would be endogenous. >>>>?? >>>>Best, >>>>Loet >>>>?? >>>>PS. Perhaps, we live in incommensurable realities? J >>>>?? >>>>Loet Leydesdorff >>>>Professor, University of Amsterdam >>>>Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) >>>>Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam >>>>loet at leydesdorff.net ; >>>>http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >>>>Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of >>>>Sussex; Visiting Professor, >>>>ISTIC, Beijing; >>>>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 Bornmann, Lutz >>>>Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:13 PM >>>>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>>>?? >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>>Thanks for your emails! >>>>?? >>>>Dear Loet, >>>>?? >>>>As I explain in the Letter, a method change should not be described as >>>>a revolution (e.g., the use of percentiles instead of mean-based >>>>indicators for normalization of impact). Method changes are part of >>>>normal science. Kuhn defines revolutions as taxonomic changes in his >>>>later publications. This leads to incommensurabilities between >>>>scientists. In the field of scientometrics, measuring scientific impact >>>>is no longer solely defined as analysing citations in papers. Today, a >>>>scientometrician has to explain which kind of impact is measured and >>>>how it is measured. I believe we will see a phase of normal science in >>>>scientometrics, where the reliable and valid methods are developed to >>>>measure the different kinds of societal impact. Measuring societal >>>>impact by using case studies is unsatisfying (as it is mostly done today). >>>>?? >>>>Benoit, >>>>Revolutions do not depend on a specific origin. It is not necessary >>>>that the revolution is rooted in science itself. For me, the program of >>>>the ISSI 2013 conference was a validation of my claim. There was one >>>>session on societal impact measurements and two sessions on altmetrics. >>>>I believe that altmetrics will play a significant role in measuring >>>>societal impact. >>>>?? >>>>Best, >>>>?? >>>>Lutz >>>>?? >>>>Gesendet von Windows-Mail >>>>?? >>>>Von: Godin, Beno????????t >>>>Gesendet: ??????Donnerstag??????????, ??? ??, ??????25???????????. >>>>??????Juli????? ??Juli?????????? ??????2013 013 ????????????17??????:??????42 >>>>br> >>>>42 >>>>An: Bornmann, Lutz >>>>?? >>>>?? >>>>Lutz, >>>>?? >>>>Thanks for sharing this piece with us. >>>>?? >>>>However, I am wondering if scientometrics is really in a revolutionary >>>>phase. I see very, very few changes. The revolution you points to is a >>>>wish (not necessarily for the worse, by the way), encouraged and >>>>supported by governments, and more often than not conducted in public >>>>and international agencies or by researchers as consultants to >>>>governments. On impacts, the scientometric literature has changed >>>>little, not yet. >>>>?? >>>>beno????????t >>>>?? >>>>Beno????????t Godin >>>>Professeur >>>>INRS (Montreal, Canada) >>>>tel.: 1 438 396 3242 >>>>courriel: benoit.godin at ucs.inrs.ca >>>>site web: www.csiic.ca >>>>?? >>>>?? >>>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ >>>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff >>>>[loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET] >>>>Sent: July 25, 2013 11:26 AM >>>>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>>>?? >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>>Dear Lutz: >>>>?? >>>>Whereas you may be right that new questions are asked of >>>>scientometrics, it does not follow that scientometrics has changed >>>>fundamentally in its methods. That needs to be proven empirically. >>>>Perhaps, the changes are much more gradual (that is, as in normal science). >>>>?? >>>>Best, >>>>Loet >>>>?? >>>>?? >>>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ >>>>mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz >>>>Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:19 PM >>>>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>>>?? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>The author of this letter to the editor would like to set forth the >>>>argument that scientometrics is currently in a phase in which a >>>>taxonomic change, and hence a revolution, is taking place. One of the >>>>key terms in scientometrics is scientific impact which nowadays is >>>>understood to mean not only the impact on science but the impact on >>>>every area of society. >>>>?? >>>>Available at: >>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6307 >>>>?? >>>>--------------------------------------- >>>>?? >>>>Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann >>>>Division for Science and Innovation Studies >>>>Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society >>>>Hofgartenstr. 8 >>>>80539 Munich >>>>Tel.: +49 89 2108 1265 >>>>Mobil: +49 170 9183667 >>>>Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de >>>>WWW: www.lutz-bornmann.de >>>>ResearcherID: >>>>http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 >>>> >>>>?? > > > > >-- >-Fil: bit.ly/filmenczer >w/apologies for mobile-induced brevity and t > >-- >-Fil: bit.ly/filmenczer >w/apologies for mobile-induced brevity and typos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Sat Jul 27 15:41:31 2013 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:41:31 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have been more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their correlations with citations. Because the correlation is far from perfect, it is not clear which aspects are really measured. I believe that "advanced" altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to measure some kind of societal impact. The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization by the creation of subfields. Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which examined the development of the subfield structure in disciplines? Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" >: Dear all, The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient information retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences themselves, and here I echo contributions of others. Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. Virtual Knowledge, MIT 2013) What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in theoretical threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological one; sometimes this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; sometimes in one specialty only ? sometimes affecting a whole field. So, instead of looking at a singular event, one better can talk of an accumulation of different changes. Galison uses often geological, geomorphological metaphors to describe this. (see his book: Image and Logic). I think one cannot talk about a revolution with defining the boundaries of the system of reference first. As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI just a week ago. (http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw ) My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to watch/read (see http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences ). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a evaluation and benchmarking tool". But, it seems that it is still the scientometrics community which discusses and defines indicators used broadly. What concerns the digital revolution, and in particular the web, indeed scientometrics has incorporated altmetrics, taken up the challenge and made own original contributions (thanks to pioneers as Judit BarIlan, Mike Thelwall, Isidro Aguillo and many others). But, if I may say so, here scientometrics acted rather as a client, using the new data sources. Its behavior towards web-based information was and is very similar to the behavior towards the commercial bibliographic databases: namely to build indicators based on data export from them. What I think is a challenge to be mastered in the upcoming years, is the semantic web and Linked Open Data. Here, I would like to back-up Clement's contribution, and actually reading his list and the thread as a whole triggered this now growing more lengthy comment ;-) If the attempts of the semantic web community mature further, and if research information as a standard becomes available semantic referencable on the web, we talk about a profound change in the data source landscape for scientometrics. There is a possibility to eventually link between the 'old' input/expenditure statistics, human capital information and other institutional information and the traditional output ? the scholarly communication ? which for so many decades has dominated scientometrics, also just because of its availability in a standardized form. One example for this movement is VIVO, vivoweb.org. But, working in a research data archive I witness the raise of standards, API's, LOD in this area and it is obvious that the web of scholarly information is just before (in not in the middle) of another big change. Semantic reasoning over research information in Linked Open Data (LOD) formats will enable services (including indicators) different from what we have now. It does not concern 'just another data base' or another social media one can harvest data from; it concerns a whole set of other techniques. Either scientometrics embraces this too, and learns to play on the "Klaviatur" (keyboard) of the semantic web, or the knowledge of the community might become obsolete. Personally, I think the LOD and semantic web technologies are the future methodological innovation in scientometics, and I'm curious to hear comments on this. According to Lutz, this than would not count as a revolution, being 'just' another method. But, if it means that other communities could become the carrier for scientometric analysis, it might be a revolution ? at least for the field of scientometics as we know it now. Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst Head of e-research at Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) Scientific Coordinator of the Computational Humanities Programme, e-Humanities group Chair of the COST Action KnowEscape Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences From: Clement Levallois > Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 To: "SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. - open access - open data (Figshare, etc.) - semantic web / linked data - science communication / science making on social media - digital scholarship (see http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) - networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) - the altac movement - and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz word) today in scientometrics? Best regards, 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 check my new app: http://www.umigon.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sat Jul 27 16:23:34 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:23:34 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On the theoretical side my issue tree model of scientific progress helps explain the growth of subfields. See http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/17/how-does-science-progress-by-branching-and-leaping-perhaps/ and http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/. But I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Most progress occurs during normal science for that is when many specific things get explained. Revolutions are not productive when they are occurring. The productivity comes during the subsequent normal science period. David At 03:41 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have been >more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their correlations >with citations. Because the correlation is far from perfect, it is not >clear which aspects are really measured. I believe that "advanced" >altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to measure some kind of >societal impact. > >The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a >field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization by >the creation of subfields. > >Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which examined >the development of the subfield structure in disciplines? > >Lutz > >Von meinem iPad gesendet > >Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" ><andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL>: > >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >>Dear all, >> >>The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for >>monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence >>of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient information >>retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences >>themselves, and here I echo contributions of others. >> >>Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with >>changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of >>scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital >>scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. >>Virtual Knowledge, MIT 2013) >> >>What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on >>the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific >>revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in >>theoretical threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological >>one; sometimes this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; >>sometimes in one specialty only ? sometimes affecting a whole field. So, >>instead of looking at a singular event, one better can talk of an >>accumulation of different changes. Galison uses often geological, >>geomorphological metaphors to describe this. (see his book: Image and >>Logic). I think one cannot talk about a revolution with defining the >>boundaries of the system of reference first. >> >>As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an >>occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics >>community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the >>turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI >>just a week ago. >>(http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw >>) >> >>My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in >>the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang >>Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to >>watch/read (see >>http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences >>). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven >>years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a >>evaluation and benchmarking tool". But, it seems that it is still the >>scientometrics community which discusses and defines indicators used broadly. >> >>What concerns the digital revolution, and in particular the web, indeed >>scientometrics has incorporated altmetrics, taken up the challenge and >>made own original contributions (thanks to pioneers as Judit BarIlan, >>Mike Thelwall, Isidro Aguillo and many others). But, if I may say so, >>here scientometrics acted rather as a client, using the new data sources. >>Its behavior towards web-based information was and is very similar to the >>behavior towards the commercial bibliographic databases: namely to build >>indicators based on data export from them. >> >>What I think is a challenge to be mastered in the upcoming years, is the >>semantic web and Linked Open Data. Here, I would like to back-up >>Clement's contribution, and actually reading his list and the thread as a >>whole triggered this now growing more lengthy comment ;-) >> >>If the attempts of the semantic web community mature further, and if >>research information as a standard becomes available semantic >>referencable on the web, we talk about a profound change in the data >>source landscape for scientometrics. There is a possibility to eventually >>link between the 'old' input/expenditure statistics, human capital >>information and other institutional information and the traditional >>output ? the scholarly communication ? which for so many decades has >>dominated scientometrics, also just because of its availability in a >>standardized form. One example for this movement is VIVO, >>vivoweb.org. But, working in a research data archive >>I witness the raise of standards, API's, LOD in this area and it is >>obvious that the web of scholarly information is just before (in not in >>the middle) of another big change. >> >>Semantic reasoning over research information in Linked Open Data (LOD) >>formats will enable services (including indicators) different from what >>we have now. It does not concern 'just another data base' or another >>social media one can harvest data from; it concerns a whole set of other >>techniques. Either scientometrics embraces this too, and learns to play >>on the "Klaviatur" (keyboard) of the semantic web, or the knowledge of >>the community might become obsolete. >> >>Personally, I think the LOD and semantic web technologies are the future >>methodological innovation in scientometics, and I'm curious to hear >>comments on this. According to Lutz, this than would not count as a >>revolution, being 'just' another method. But, if it means that other >>communities could become the carrier for scientometric analysis, it might >>be a revolution ? at least for the field of scientometics as we know it now. >> >> >>Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst >>Head of e-research at Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) >>Scientific Coordinator of the Computational Humanities Programme, >>e-Humanities group >>Chair of the COST Action KnowEscape >>Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences >> >> >> >>From: Clement Levallois >><clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR> >>Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >><SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >>Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 >>To: "SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" >><SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >> >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> >>Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of >>practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. >> >>- open access >> >>- open data (Figshare, etc.) >> >>- semantic web / linked data >> >>- science communication / science making on social media >> >>- digital scholarship (see http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) >> >>- networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) >> >>- the altac movement >> >>- and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) >> >>I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz >>word) today in scientometrics? >> >>Best regards, >> >>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 >>check my new app: http://www.umigon.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Sun Jul 28 01:04:40 2013 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 05:04:40 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20130727161934.043c26b0@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Thanks for the link to the tree model. Interesting! But I am searching for large-scale empirical studies. This is an interesting question: in which time period is the productivity (in terms of publication numbers) higher: in normal science or during revolutions? If one looks back on the scientific progress in a discipline, the progress is normally described alongside big discoveries (revolutions). Periods of normal science are not so interesting here, although most of the papers in the discipline might have been published in these periods. Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 27.07.2013 um 22:23 schrieb "David Wojick" >: of scientific progress helps explain the growth of subfields. See http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/17/how-does-science-progress-by-branching-and-leaping-perhaps/ and http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ . But I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Most progress occurs during normal science for that is when many specific things get explained. Revolutions are not productive when they are occurring. The productivity comes during the subsequent normal science period. David At 03:41 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have been more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their correlations with citations. Because the correlation is far from perfect, it is not clear which aspects are really measured. I believe that "advanced" altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to measure some kind of societal impact. The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization by the creation of subfields. Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which examined the development of the subfield structure in disciplines? Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" < andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL>: Dear all, The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient information retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences themselves, and here I echo contributions of others. Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. Virtual Knowledge, MIT 2013) What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in theoretical threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological one; sometimes this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; sometimes in one specialty only ? sometimes affecting a whole field. So, instead of looking at a singular event, one better can talk of an accumulation of different changes. Galison uses often geological, geomorphological metaphors to describe this. (see his book: Image and Logic). I think one cannot talk about a revolution with defining the boundaries of the system of reference first. As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI just a week ago. ( http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw ) My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to watch/read (see http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences ). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a evaluation and benchmarking tool". But, it seems that it is still the scientometrics community which discusses and defines indicators used broadly. What concerns the digital revolution, and in particular the web, indeed scientometrics has incorporated altmetrics, taken up the challenge and made own original contributions (thanks to pioneers as Judit BarIlan, Mike Thelwall, Isidro Aguillo and many others). But, if I may say so, here scientometrics acted rather as a client, using the new data sources. Its behavior towards web-based information was and is very similar to the behavior towards the commercial bibliographic databases: namely to build indicators based on data export from them. What I think is a challenge to be mastered in the upcoming years, is the semantic web and Linked Open Data. Here, I would like to back-up Clement's contribution, and actually reading his list and the thread as a whole triggered this now growing more lengthy comment ;-) If the attempts of the semantic web community mature further, and if research information as a standard becomes available semantic referencable on the web, we talk about a profound change in the data source landscape for scientometrics. There is a possibility to eventually link between the 'old' input/expenditure statistics, human capital information and other institutional information and the traditional output ? the scholarly communication ? which for so many decades has dominated scientometrics, also just because of its availability in a standardized form. One example for this movement is VIVO, vivoweb.org. But, working in a research data archive I witness the raise of standards, API's, LOD in this area and it is obvious that the web of scholarly information is just before (in not in the middle) of another big change. Semantic reasoning over research information in Linked Open Data (LOD) formats will enable services (including indicators) different from what we have now. It does not concern 'just another data base' or another social media one can harvest data from; it concerns a whole set of other techniques. Either scientometrics embraces this too, and learns to play on the "Klaviatur" (keyboard) of the semantic web, or the knowledge of the community might become obsolete. Personally, I think the LOD and semantic web technologies are the future methodological innovation in scientometics, and I'm curious to hear comments on this. According to Lutz, this than would not count as a revolution, being 'just' another method. But, if it means that other communities could become the carrier for scientometric analysis, it might be a revolution ? at least for the field of scientometics as we know it now. Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst Head of e-research at Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) Scientific Coordinator of the Computational Humanities Programme, e-Humanities group Chair of the COST Action KnowEscape Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences From: Clement Levallois < clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR> Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 To: " SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. - open access - open data (Figshare, etc.) - semantic web / linked data - science communication / science making on social media - digital scholarship (see http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) - networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) - the altac movement - and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz word) today in scientometrics? Best regards, 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 check my new app: http://www.umigon.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fil at INDIANA.EDU Sun Jul 28 01:35:49 2013 From: fil at INDIANA.EDU (Fil Menczer) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:35:49 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <9B51AD5C-7214-4908-BC25-64E040C7A945@gv.mpg.de> Message-ID: Dear Lutz, In the paper I mentioned earlier, "normal science" vs "revolutions" are not defined. But events are defined corresponding to birth and death of disciplines, the model predictions are compared against large scale empirical data sets, in terms of relationships between disciplines, authors, and papers. Hope this helps, On Sunday, July 28, 2013, Bornmann, Lutz wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Thanks for the link to the tree model. Interesting! But I am searching for > large-scale empirical studies. > > This is an interesting question: in which time period is the > productivity (in terms of publication numbers) higher: in normal science or > during revolutions? If one looks back on the scientific progress in a > discipline, the progress is normally described alongside big discoveries > (revolutions). Periods of normal science are not so interesting here, > although most of the papers in the discipline might have been published in > these periods. > > Lutz > > Von meinem iPad gesendet > > Am 27.07.2013 um 22:23 schrieb "David Wojick" > >: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On the theoretical side my > issue tree model of scientific progress helps explain the growth of > subfields. See > http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/17/how-does-science-progress-by-branching-and-leaping-perhaps/ > and > > http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/. > > But I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Most progress occurs during > normal science for that is when many specific things get explained. > Revolutions are not productive when they are occurring. The productivity > comes during the subsequent normal science period. > > David > > At 03:41 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have been > more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their correlations > with citations. Because the correlation is far from perfect, it is not > clear which aspects are really measured. I believe that "advanced" > altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to measure some kind of > societal impact. > > The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a > field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization by > the creation of subfields. > > Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which examined > the development of the subfield structure in disciplines? > > Lutz > > Von meinem iPad gesendet > > Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" >: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear all, > > The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for > monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence > of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient information > retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences themselves, > and here I echo contributions of others. > > Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with > changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of > scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital > scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. Virtual > Knowledge, MIT 2013) > > What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on > the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific > revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in theoretical > threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological one; sometimes > this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; sometimes in one > specialty only ? sometimes affecting a whole field. So, instead of looking > at a singular event, one better can talk of an accumulation of different > changes. Galison uses often geological, geomorphological metaphors to > describe this. (see his book: Image and Logic). I think one cannot talk > about a revolution with defining the boundaries of the system of reference > first. > > As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an > occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics > community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the > turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI just > a week ago. ( http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw ) > > My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in > the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang > Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to > watch/read (see > http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven > years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a > evalua > > -- -Fil: bit.ly/filmenczer w/apologies for mobile-induced brevity and typos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Jul 28 02:36:51 2013 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:36:51 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fil, It seems to me that in your paper scientific developments are exogenous: "and exogenous events, such as scientific discoveries." You assume that collaborations in social networks (e.g., coauthorships) are the drivers of new developments. One could argue that this is the case in normal science more than in periods of radical change. I would prefer to consider communications and their codification as the drivers of change. Kuhn (1972, at p. 151) refers to Max Planck's autobiography, where he states that the agents can be expected to be conservative. From this perspective, the social network could be considered as the retention mechanism of the nonlinear dynamics of communications and codes. Best, Loet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sun Jul 28 07:19:38 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:19:38 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <9B51AD5C-7214-4908-BC25-64E040C7A945@gv.mpg.de> Message-ID: Dear Lutz, Regarding your question I would argue that the takeoff transition in the publication S curve marks the transition from revolution to normal science. Normal science begins when the community adopts the new explanatory approach or idea. Thus the vast majority of papers come during normal science. This I think was Kuhn's basic point, that most scientists most of the time are doing normal science. In fact I am disturbed by all the policy rhetoric about funding more breakthroughs, especially in the field of energy. That is not how science works. Revolutions are rare events because it takes a long time to work through a paradigm. There are normally no short cuts to revolution. David On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Thanks for the link to the tree model. Interesting! But I am searching for large-scale empirical studies. > > This is an interesting question: in which time period is the productivity (in terms of publication numbers) higher: in normal science or during revolutions? If one looks back on the scientific progress in a discipline, the progress is normally described alongside big discoveries (revolutions). Periods of normal science are not so interesting here, although most of the papers in the discipline might have been published in these periods. > > Lutz > > Von meinem iPad gesendet > > Am 27.07.2013 um 22:23 schrieb "David Wojick" : > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On the theoretical side my issue tree model of scientific progress helps explain the growth of subfields. See http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/17/how-does-science-progress-by-branching-and-leaping-perhaps/ >> and >> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ . >> >> But I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Most progress occurs during normal science for that is when many specific things get explained. Revolutions are not productive when they are occurring. The productivity comes during the subsequent normal science period. >> >> David >> >> At 03:41 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have been more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their correlations with citations. Because the correlation is far from perfect, it is not clear which aspects are really measured. I believe that "advanced" altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to measure some kind of societal impact. >>> >>> The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization by the creation of subfields. >>> >>> Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which examined the development of the subfield structure in disciplines? >>> >>> Lutz >>> >>> Von meinem iPad gesendet >>> >>> Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" < andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL>: >>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient information retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences themselves, and here I echo contributions of others. >>>> >>>> Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. Virtual Knowledge, MIT 2013) >>>> >>>> What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in theoretical threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological one; sometimes this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; sometimes in one specialty only ? sometimes affecting a whole field. So, instead of looking at a singular event, one better can talk of an accumulation of different changes. Galison uses often geological, geomorphological metaphors to describe this. (see his book: Image and Logic). I think one cannot talk about a revolution with defining the boundaries of the system of reference first. >>>> >>>> As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI just a week ago. ( http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw ) >>>> >>>> My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to watch/read (see http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences ). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a evaluation and benchmarking tool". But, it seems that it is still the scientometrics community which discusses and defines indicators used broadly. >>>> >>>> What concerns the digital revolution, and in particular the web, indeed scientometrics has incorporated altmetrics, taken up the challenge and made own original contributions (thanks to pioneers as Judit BarIlan, Mike Thelwall, Isidro Aguillo and many others). But, if I may say so, here scientometrics acted rather as a client, using the new data sources. Its behavior towards web-based information was and is very similar to the behavior towards the commercial bibliographic databases: namely to build indicators based on data export from them. >>>> >>>> What I think is a challenge to be mastered in the upcoming years, is the semantic web and Linked Open Data. Here, I would like to back-up Clement's contribution, and actually reading his list and the thread as a whole triggered this now growing more lengthy comment ;-) >>>> >>>> If the attempts of the semantic web community mature further, and if research information as a standard becomes available semantic referencable on the web, we talk about a profound change in the data source landscape for scientometrics. There is a possibility to eventually link between the 'old' input/expenditure statistics, human capital information and other institutional information and the traditional output ? the scholarly communication ? which for so many decades has dominated scientometrics, also just because of its availability in a standardized form. One example for this movement is VIVO, vivoweb.org. But, working in a research data archive I witness the raise of standards, API's, LOD in this area and it is obvious that the web of scholarly information is just before (in not in the middle) of another big change. >>>> >>>> Semantic reasoning over research information in Linked Open Data (LOD) formats will enable services (including indicators) different from what we have now. It does not concern 'just another data base' or another social media one can harvest data from; it concerns a whole set of other techniques. Either scientometrics embraces this too, and learns to play on the "Klaviatur" (keyboard) of the semantic web, or the knowledge of the community might become obsolete. >>>> >>>> Personally, I think the LOD and semantic web technologies are the future methodological innovation in scientometics, and I'm curious to hear comments on this. According to Lutz, this than would not count as a revolution, being 'just' another method. But, if it means that other communities could become the carrier for scientometric analysis, it might be a revolution ? at least for the field of scientometics as we know it now. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst >>>> Head of e-research at Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) >>>> Scientific Coordinator of the Computational Humanities Programme, e-Humanities group >>>> Chair of the COST Action KnowEscape >>>> Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Clement Levallois < clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR> >>>> Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >>>> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 >>>> To: " SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>> Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. >>>> >>>> - open access >>>> >>>> - open data (Figshare, etc.) >>>> >>>> - semantic web / linked data >>>> >>>> - science communication / science making on social media >>>> >>>> - digital scholarship (see http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) >>>> >>>> - networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) >>>> >>>> - the altac movement >>>> >>>> - and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) >>>> >>>> I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz word) today in scientometrics? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> check my new app: http://www.umigon.com >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sun Jul 28 08:02:57 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:02:57 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <9B51AD5C-7214-4908-BC25-64E040C7A945@gv.mpg.de> Message-ID: Dear Lutz, Note the exponential growth potential of the issue tree. If the rate of branching is just three nodes per node then the tenth level already has about 60,000 nodes. This is how new ideas can take off so rapidly, when community attention turns to them. That is the normal science phase, when the new idea is being actively investigated. The revolution is just the top of the tree. There is a lot of confusion about this. The period of rapid growth is not the revolution, rather it is the normal product of the revolution. In many ways it is more interesting than the revolution. It is like the difference between a gold strike and a gold mine. Mining is interesting, and labor intensive. Your search for empirical studies may be premature. One first needs a theoretical framework (says the theoretician). David On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Thanks for the link to the tree model. Interesting! But I am searching for large-scale empirical studies. > > This is an interesting question: in which time period is the productivity (in terms of publication numbers) higher: in normal science or during revolutions? If one looks back on the scientific progress in a discipline, the progress is normally described alongside big discoveries (revolutions). Periods of normal science are not so interesting here, although most of the papers in the discipline might have been published in these periods. > > Lutz > > Von meinem iPad gesendet > > Am 27.07.2013 um 22:23 schrieb "David Wojick" : > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On the theoretical side my issue tree model of scientific progress helps explain the growth of subfields. See http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/17/how-does-science-progress-by-branching-and-leaping-perhaps/ >> and >> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ . >> >> But I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Most progress occurs during normal science for that is when many specific things get explained. Revolutions are not productive when they are occurring. The productivity comes during the subsequent normal science period. >> >> David >> >> At 03:41 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have been more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their correlations with citations. Because the correlation is far from perfect, it is not clear which aspects are really measured. I believe that "advanced" altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to measure some kind of societal impact. >>> >>> The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization by the creation of subfields. >>> >>> Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which examined the development of the subfield structure in disciplines? >>> >>> Lutz >>> >>> Von meinem iPad gesendet >>> >>> Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" < andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL>: >>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient information retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences themselves, and here I echo contributions of others. >>>> >>>> Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. Virtual Knowledge, MIT 2013) >>>> >>>> What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in theoretical threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological one; sometimes this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; sometimes in one specialty only ? sometimes affecting a whole field. So, instead of looking at a singular event, one better can talk of an accumulation of different changes. Galison uses often geological, geomorphological metaphors to describe this. (see his book: Image and Logic). I think one cannot talk about a revolution with defining the boundaries of the system of reference first. >>>> >>>> As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI just a week ago. ( http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw ) >>>> >>>> My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to watch/read (see http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences ). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a evaluation and benchmarking tool". But, it seems that it is still the scientometrics community which discusses and defines indicators used broadly. >>>> >>>> What concerns the digital revolution, and in particular the web, indeed scientometrics has incorporated altmetrics, taken up the challenge and made own original contributions (thanks to pioneers as Judit BarIlan, Mike Thelwall, Isidro Aguillo and many others). But, if I may say so, here scientometrics acted rather as a client, using the new data sources. Its behavior towards web-based information was and is very similar to the behavior towards the commercial bibliographic databases: namely to build indicators based on data export from them. >>>> >>>> What I think is a challenge to be mastered in the upcoming years, is the semantic web and Linked Open Data. Here, I would like to back-up Clement's contribution, and actually reading his list and the thread as a whole triggered this now growing more lengthy comment ;-) >>>> >>>> If the attempts of the semantic web community mature further, and if research information as a standard becomes available semantic referencable on the web, we talk about a profound change in the data source landscape for scientometrics. There is a possibility to eventually link between the 'old' input/expenditure statistics, human capital information and other institutional information and the traditional output ? the scholarly communication ? which for so many decades has dominated scientometrics, also just because of its availability in a standardized form. One example for this movement is VIVO, vivoweb.org. But, working in a research data archive I witness the raise of standards, API's, LOD in this area and it is obvious that the web of scholarly information is just before (in not in the middle) of another big change. >>>> >>>> Semantic reasoning over research information in Linked Open Data (LOD) formats will enable services (including indicators) different from what we have now. It does not concern 'just another data base' or another social media one can harvest data from; it concerns a whole set of other techniques. Either scientometrics embraces this too, and learns to play on the "Klaviatur" (keyboard) of the semantic web, or the knowledge of the community might become obsolete. >>>> >>>> Personally, I think the LOD and semantic web technologies are the future methodological innovation in scientometics, and I'm curious to hear comments on this. According to Lutz, this than would not count as a revolution, being 'just' another method. But, if it means that other communities could become the carrier for scientometric analysis, it might be a revolution ? at least for the field of scientometics as we know it now. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst >>>> Head of e-research at Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) >>>> Scientific Coordinator of the Computational Humanities Programme, e-Humanities group >>>> Chair of the COST Action KnowEscape >>>> Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Clement Levallois < clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR> >>>> Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >>>> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 >>>> To: " SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>> Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. >>>> >>>> - open access >>>> >>>> - open data (Figshare, etc.) >>>> >>>> - semantic web / linked data >>>> >>>> - science communication / science making on social media >>>> >>>> - digital scholarship (see http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) >>>> >>>> - networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) >>>> >>>> - the altac movement >>>> >>>> - and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) >>>> >>>> I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz word) today in scientometrics? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> check my new app: http://www.umigon.com >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Jul 28 09:03:38 2013 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:03:38 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <878E1CAA-A690-4127-8F21-210D6F20235F@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: In fact I am disturbed by all the policy rhetoric about funding more breakthroughs, especially in the field of energy. That is not how science works. Revolutions are rare events because it takes a long time to work through a paradigm. There are normally no short cuts to revolution. Dear David, I agree: Kuhnian revolutions involve incommensurabilities and are thus by definition unexpected. Perhaps, one can find indicators of the crises that precede the revolutions, but these crises will not be a good bet for funding because they can last for long periods of time. I assume that policy makers mean to fund the upscaling of revolutionary developments. Best, Loet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cc345 at DREXEL.EDU Sun Jul 28 09:16:56 2013 From: cc345 at DREXEL.EDU (Chen,Chaomei) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:16:56 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <2BD1A322-96E9-4D59-8869-17AE898081A6@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: To address what may serve as an early sign for a conceptual revolution, a few lines of research are particularly relevant and share something in common: it seems to be worthwhile watching the currently void but potentially somewhere that could be filled up very rapidly (e.g. Don Swanson on disjoint publically available knowledge, Lee Fleming on patents, Loet+Ismael+Porter on interdisciplinarity, Klavans et al. on conformity, and our own work on structural variation). Of course, this may be just one of many potentially ways that may lead to a revolution. An intuitive metaphor is that one way to empirically detect such signals is to look at new 'conceptual' bridges emerging and connecting previously isolated islands of thinking. If a revolutionary idea eventually takes off, then we'd expect to see a rapid increase of traffic on at least some of these bridges so much so that at the system-level the global landscape transforms its previous structure to something noticeably different. I don't know how to post a picture to this list, but here is a link to a visualization that shows, retrospectively, after the Watts 1998 paper, which has since attracted so much attention to the study of complex networks such as small-world, scale-free networks, how previously separated islands are stitched together by subsequent publications that reinforce the structural change. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=301571379871927&set=a.301557189873346.87930.276625072366558&type=1&theater For details, see: Chen, C. (2012) Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 431-449. Chaomei Chen ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US] Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:02 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Dear Lutz, Note the exponential growth potential of the issue tree. If the rate of branching is just three nodes per node then the tenth level already has about 60,000 nodes. This is how new ideas can take off so rapidly, when community attention turns to them. That is the normal science phase, when the new idea is being actively investigated. The revolution is just the top of the tree. There is a lot of confusion about this. The period of rapid growth is not the revolution, rather it is the normal product of the revolution. In many ways it is more interesting than the revolution. It is like the difference between a gold strike and a gold mine. Mining is interesting, and labor intensive. Your search for empirical studies may be premature. One first needs a theoretical framework (says the theoretician). David On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" > wrote: Thanks for the link to the tree model. Interesting! But I am searching for large-scale empirical studies. This is an interesting question: in which time period is the productivity (in terms of publication numbers) higher: in normal science or during revolutions? If one looks back on the scientific progress in a discipline, the progress is normally described alongside big discoveries (revolutions). Periods of normal science are not so interesting here, although most of the papers in the discipline might have been published in these periods. Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 27.07.2013 um 22:23 schrieb "David Wojick" <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US>: ml On the theoretical side my issue tree model of scientific progress helps explain the growth of subfields. See http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/17/how-does-science-progress-by-branching-and-leaping-perhaps/ and http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ . But I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Most progress occurs during normal science for that is when many specific things get explained. Revolutions are not productive when they are occurring. The productivity comes during the subsequent normal science period. David At 03:41 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: ml Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have been more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their correlations with citations. Because the correlation is far from perfect, it is not clear which aspects are really measured. I believe that "advanced" altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to measure some kind of societal impact. The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization by the creation of subfields. Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which examined the development of the subfield structure in disciplines? Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" < andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL>: ml Dear all, The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient information retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences themselves, and here I echo contributions of others. Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. Virtual Knowledge, MIT 2013) What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in theoretical threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological one; sometimes this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; sometimes in one specialty only ? sometimes affecting a whole field. So, instead of looking at a singular event, one better can talk of an accumulation of different changes. Galison uses often geological, geomorphological metaphors to describe this. (see his book: Image and Logic). I think one cannot talk about a revolution with defining the boundaries of the system of reference first. As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI just a week ago. ( http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw ) My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to watch/read (see http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences ). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a evaluation and benchmarking tool". But, it seems that it is still the scientometrics community which discusses and defines indicators used broadly. What concerns the digital revolution, and in particular the web, indeed scientometrics has incorporated altmetrics, taken up the challenge and made own original contributions (thanks to pioneers as Judit BarIlan, Mike Thelwall, Isidro Aguillo and many others). But, if I may say so, here scientometrics acted rather as a client, using the new data sources. Its behavior towards web-based information was and is very similar to the behavior towards the commercial bibliographic databases: namely to build indicators based on data export from them. What I think is a challenge to be mastered in the upcoming years, is the semantic web and Linked Open Data. Here, I would like to back-up Clement's contribution, and actually reading his list and the thread as a whole triggered this now growing more lengthy comment ;-) If the attempts of the semantic web community mature further, and if research information as a standard becomes available semantic referencable on the web, we talk about a profound change in the data source landscape for scientometrics. There is a possibility to eventually link between the 'old' input/expenditure statistics, human capital information and other institutional information and the traditional output ? the scholarly communication ? which for so many decades has dominated scientometrics, also just because of its availability in a standardized form. One example for this movement is VIVO, vivoweb.org. But, working in a research data archive I witness the raise of standards, API's, LOD in this area and it is obvious that the web of scholarly information is just before (in not in the middle) of another big change. Semantic reasoning over research information in Linked Open Data (LOD) formats will enable services (including indicators) different from what we have now. It does not concern 'just another data base' or another social media one can harvest data from; it concerns a whole set of other techniques. Either scientometrics embraces this too, and learns to play on the "Klaviatur" (keyboard) of the semantic web, or the knowledge of the community might become obsolete. Personally, I think the LOD and semantic web technologies are the future methodological innovation in scientometics, and I'm curious to hear comments on this. According to Lutz, this than would not count as a revolution, being 'just' another method. But, if it means that other communities could become the carrier for scientometric analysis, it might be a revolution ? at least for the field of scientometics as we know it now. Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst Head of e-research at Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) Scientific Coordinator of the Computational Humanities Programme, e-Humanities group Chair of the COST Action KnowEscape Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences From: Clement Levallois < clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR> Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 To: " SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics ml Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. - open access - open data (Figshare, etc.) - semantic web / linked data - science communication / science making on social media - digital scholarship (see http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) - networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) - the altac movement - and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz word) today in scientometrics? Best regards, 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 check my new app: http://www.umigon.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sun Jul 28 09:49:57 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 09:49:57 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <85C158E495977A41AD1D0D57E29B040B07F5E4@MB2.drexel.edu> Message-ID: I tend to agree. The topological transition pattern that my team found looks roughly like this. Initially there are a number of independent (or isolated) clusters of co-authors, presumeably pursuing competing approaches. Then the transition occurs and one of the clusters quickly grows to occupy the entire community, thus becoming the new paradigm. So the pre-revolutionary situation is one of active exploration of multiple approaches, none of which is known to be the important one. We certainly see this in scientometrics. It is a general pattern that ought to be identifiable. (We were going to do a video but got stopped.) David On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:16 AM, "Chen,Chaomei" wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > To address what may serve as an early sign for a conceptual revolution, a few lines of research are particularly relevant and share something in common: it seems to be worthwhile watching the currently void but potentially somewhere that could be filled up very rapidly (e.g. Don Swanson on disjoint publically available knowledge, Lee Fleming on patents, Loet+Ismael+Porter on interdisciplinarity, Klavans et al. on conformity, and our own work on structural variation). Of course, this may be just one of many potentially ways that may lead to a revolution. > > An intuitive metaphor is that one way to empirically detect such signals is to look at new 'conceptual' bridges emerging and connecting previously isolated islands of thinking. If a revolutionary idea eventually takes off, then we'd expect to see a rapid increase of traffic on at least some of these bridges so much so that at the system-level the global landscape transforms its previous structure to something noticeably different. > > I don't know how to post a picture to this list, but here is a link to a visualization that shows, retrospectively, after the Watts 1998 paper, which has since attracted so much attention to the study of complex networks such as small-world, scale-free networks, how previously separated islands are stitched together by subsequent publications that reinforce the structural change. > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=301571379871927&set=a.301557189873346.87930.276625072366558&type=1&theater > > For details, see: > Chen, C. (2012) Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 431-449. > > Chaomei Chen > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US] > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:02 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Lutz, > > Note the exponential growth potential of the issue tree. If the rate of branching is just three nodes per node then the tenth level already has about 60,000 nodes. This is how new ideas can take off so rapidly, when community attention turns to them. That is the normal science phase, when the new idea is being actively investigated. The revolution is just the top of the tree. There is a lot of confusion about this. The period of rapid growth is not the revolution, rather it is the normal product of the revolution. In many ways it is more interesting than the revolution. It is like the difference between a gold strike and a gold mine. Mining is interesting, and labor intensive. > > Your search for empirical studies may be premature. One first needs a theoretical framework (says the theoretician). > > David > > On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" wrote: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Thanks for the link to the tree model. Interesting! But I am searching for large-scale empirical studies. >> >> This is an interesting question: in which time period is the productivity (in terms of publication numbers) higher: in normal science or during revolutions? If one looks back on the scientific progress in a discipline, the progress is normally described alongside big discoveries (revolutions). Periods of normal science are not so interesting here, although most of the papers in the discipline might have been published in these periods. >> >> Lutz >> >> Von meinem iPad gesendet >> >> Am 27.07.2013 um 22:23 schrieb "David Wojick" : >> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On the theoretical side my issue tree model of scientific progress helps explain the growth of subfields. See http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/17/how-does-science-progress-by-branching-and-leaping-perhaps/ >>> and >>> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ . >>> >>> But I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Most progress occurs during normal science for that is when many specific things get explained. Revolutions are not productive when they are occurring. The productivity comes during the subsequent normal science period. >>> >>> David >>> >>> At 03:41 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have been more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their correlations with citations. Because the correlation is far from perfect, it is not clear which aspects are really measured. I believe that "advanced" altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to measure some kind of societal impact. >>>> >>>> The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization by the creation of subfields. >>>> >>>> Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which examined the development of the subfield structure in disciplines? >>>> >>>> Lutz >>>> >>>> Von meinem iPad gesendet >>>> >>>> Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" < andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL>: >>>> >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient information retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences themselves, and here I echo contributions of others. >>>>> >>>>> Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. Virtual Knowledge, MIT 2013) >>>>> >>>>> What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in theoretical threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological one; sometimes this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; sometimes in one specialty only ? sometimes affecting a whole field. So, instead of looking at a singular event, one better can talk of an accumulation of different changes. Galison uses often geological, geomorphological metaphors to describe this. (see his book: Image and Logic). I think one cannot talk about a revolution with defining the boundaries of the system of reference first. >>>>> >>>>> As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI just a week ago. ( http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw ) >>>>> >>>>> My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to watch/read (see http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences ). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a evaluation and benchmarking tool". But, it seems that it is still the scientometrics community which discusses and defines indicators used broadly. >>>>> >>>>> What concerns the digital revolution, and in particular the web, indeed scientometrics has incorporated altmetrics, taken up the challenge and made own original contributions (thanks to pioneers as Judit BarIlan, Mike Thelwall, Isidro Aguillo and many others). But, if I may say so, here scientometrics acted rather as a client, using the new data sources. Its behavior towards web-based information was and is very similar to the behavior towards the commercial bibliographic databases: namely to build indicators based on data export from them. >>>>> >>>>> What I think is a challenge to be mastered in the upcoming years, is the semantic web and Linked Open Data. Here, I would like to back-up Clement's contribution, and actually reading his list and the thread as a whole triggered this now growing more lengthy comment ;-) >>>>> >>>>> If the attempts of the semantic web community mature further, and if research information as a standard becomes available semantic referencable on the web, we talk about a profound change in the data source landscape for scientometrics. There is a possibility to eventually link between the 'old' input/expenditure statistics, human capital information and other institutional information and the traditional output ? the scholarly communication ? which for so many decades has dominated scientometrics, also just because of its availability in a standardized form. One example for this movement is VIVO, vivoweb.org. But, working in a research data archive I witness the raise of standards, API's, LOD in this area and it is obvious that the web of scholarly information is just before (in not in the middle) of another big change. >>>>> >>>>> Semantic reasoning over research information in Linked Open Data (LOD) formats will enable services (including indicators) different from what we have now. It does not concern 'just another data base' or another social media one can harvest data from; it concerns a whole set of other techniques. Either scientometrics embraces this too, and learns to play on the "Klaviatur" (keyboard) of the semantic web, or the knowledge of the community might become obsolete. >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I think the LOD and semantic web technologies are the future methodological innovation in scientometics, and I'm curious to hear comments on this. According to Lutz, this than would not count as a revolution, being 'just' another method. But, if it means that other communities could become the carrier for scientometric analysis, it might be a revolution ? at least for the field of scientometics as we know it now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst >>>>> Head of e-research at Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) >>>>> Scientific Coordinator of the Computational Humanities Programme, e-Humanities group >>>>> Chair of the COST Action KnowEscape >>>>> Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Clement Levallois < clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR> >>>>> Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >>>>> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 >>>>> To: " SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>>>> >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> >>>>> Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. >>>>> >>>>> - open access >>>>> >>>>> - open data (Figshare, etc.) >>>>> >>>>> - semantic web / linked data >>>>> >>>>> - science communication / science making on social media >>>>> >>>>> - digital scholarship (see http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) >>>>> >>>>> - networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) >>>>> >>>>> - the altac movement >>>>> >>>>> - and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) >>>>> >>>>> I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz word) today in scientometrics? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> check my new app: http://www.umigon.com >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sun Jul 28 09:53:44 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 09:53:44 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <000c01ce8b92$e1534560$a3f9d020$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Dear Loet, My impression is that the policy people think that they can buy revolutions without regard to the state of the science, or the ripeness of the science as it were. This is a fallacy. David On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > In fact I am disturbed by all the policy rhetoric about funding more breakthroughs, especially in the field of energy. That is not how science works. Revolutions are rare events because it takes a long time to work through a paradigm. There are normally no short cuts to revolution. > > > Dear David, > > > > I agree: Kuhnian revolutions involve incommensurabilities and are thus by definition unexpected. Perhaps, one can find indicators of the crises that precede the revolutions, but these crises will not be a good bet for funding because they can last for long periods of time. > > > > I assume that policy makers mean to fund the upscaling of revolutionary developments. > > > > Best, > > Loet > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.pendlebury at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sun Jul 28 09:50:09 2013 From: david.pendlebury at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (David A. Pendlebury) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:50:09 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <85C158E495977A41AD1D0D57E29B040B07F5E4@MB2.drexel.edu> Message-ID: Henry Small had some valuable practical remarks on this theme in: Title: Paradigms, citations, and maps of science: A personal history Author(s): Small, H (Small, H) Source: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Volume: 54 Issue: 5 Pages: 394-399 DOI: 10.1002/asi.10225 Published: MAR 2003 Times Cited in Web of Science: 45 Total Times Cited: 50 Abstract: Can maps of science tell us anything about paradigms? The author reviews his earlier work on this question, including Kuhn's reaction to it. Kuhn's view of the role of bibliometrics differs substantially from the kinds of reinterpretations of paradigms that information scientists are currently advocating. But these reinterpretations are necessary if his theory will ever be empirically tested, and further progress is to be made in understanding the growth of scientific knowledge. A new Web tool is discussed that highlights rapidly changing specialties that may lead to new ways of monitoring revolutionary change in real time. It is suggested that revolutionary and normal science be seen as extremes on a continuum of rates of change rather than, as Kuhn originally asserted, as an all or none proposition. He notes that what may seem evolutionary, at the specialty level, over a short period may later be interpreted as revolutionary in the longer run (micro-revolutions, or more). "Eventually, the extremes of normal and revolutionary science that Kuhn describes may survive only as idealized polar opposites; what remains is a continuum of rates of change from slow to rapid, as a function of the time window." See page 399 in the paper above. Dr. Bornmann (and Dr. Marx) cited this paper in the recent article: Title: The emergence of plate tectonics and the Kuhnian model of paradigm shift: a bibliometric case study based on the Anna Karenina principle Author(s): Marx, W (Marx, Werner); Bornmann, L (Bornmann, Lutz) Source: SCIENTOMETRICS Volume: 94 Issue: 2 Pages: 595-614 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0741-6 Published: FEB 2013 But others interested in this discussion may not know about Henry's 2003 paper and his observations. Regards, David Pendlebury ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Chen,Chaomei Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:17 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics To address what may serve as an early sign for a conceptual revolution, a few lines of research are particularly relevant and share something in common: it seems to be worthwhile watching the currently void but potentially somewhere that could be filled up very rapidly (e.g. Don Swanson on disjoint publically available knowledge, Lee Fleming on patents, Loet+Ismael+Porter on interdisciplinarity, Klavans et al. on conformity, and our own work on structural variation). Of course, this may be just one of many potentially ways that may lead to a revolution. An intuitive metaphor is that one way to empirically detect such signals is to look at new 'conceptual' bridges emerging and connecting previously isolated islands of thinking. If a revolutionary idea eventually takes off, then we'd expect to see a rapid increase of traffic on at least some of these bridges so much so that at the system-level the global landscape transforms its previous structure to something noticeably different. I don't know how to post a picture to this list, but here is a link to a visualization that shows, retrospectively, after the Watts 1998 paper, which has since attracted so much attention to the study of complex networks such as small-world, scale-free networks, how previously separated islands are stitched together by subsequent publications that reinforce the structural change. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=301571379871927&set=a.301557189873346.87930.276625072366558&type=1&theater For details, see: Chen, C. (2012) Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 431-449. Chaomei Chen ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US] Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:02 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Dear Lutz, Note the exponential growth potential of the issue tree. If the rate of branching is just three nodes per node then the tenth level already has about 60,000 nodes. This is how new ideas can take off so rapidly, when community attention turns to them. That is the normal science phase, when the new idea is being actively investigated. The revolution is just the top of the tree. There is a lot of confusion about this. The period of rapid growth is not the revolution, rather it is the normal product of the revolution. In many ways it is more interesting than the revolution. It is like the difference between a gold strike and a gold mine. Mining is interesting, and labor intensive. Your search for empirical studies may be premature. One first needs a theoretical framework (says the theoretician). David On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" > wrote: Thanks for the link to the tree model. Interesting! But I am searching for large-scale empirical studies. This is an interesting question: in which time period is the productivity (in terms of publication numbers) higher: in normal science or during revolutions? If one looks back on the scientific progress in a discipline, the progress is normally described alongside big discoveries (revolutions). Periods of normal science are not so interesting here, although most of the papers in the discipline might have been published in these periods. Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 27.07.2013 um 22:23 schrieb "David Wojick" <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US>: ml On the theoretical side my issue tree model of scientific progress helps explain the growth of subfields. See http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/17/how-does-science-progress-by-branching-and-leaping-perhaps/ and http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ . But I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Most progress occurs during normal science for that is when many specific things get explained. Revolutions are not productive when they are occurring. The productivity comes during the subsequent normal science period. David At 03:41 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: ml Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have been more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their correlations with citations. Because the correlation is far from perfect, it is not clear which aspects are really measured. I believe that "advanced" altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to measure some kind of societal impact. The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization by the creation of subfields. Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which examined the development of the subfield structure in disciplines? Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" < andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL>: ml Dear all, The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient information retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences themselves, and here I echo contributions of others. Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. Virtual Knowledge, MIT 2013) What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in theoretical threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological one; sometimes this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; sometimes in one specialty only - sometimes affecting a whole field. So, instead of looking at a singular event, one better can talk of an accumulation of different changes. Galison uses often geological, geomorphological metaphors to describe this. (see his book: Image and Logic). I think one cannot talk about a revolution with defining the boundaries of the system of reference first. As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI just a week ago. ( http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw ) My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to watch/read (see http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences ). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a evaluation and benchmarking tool". But, it seems that it is still the scientometrics community which discusses and defines indicators used broadly. What concerns the digital revolution, and in particular the web, indeed scientometrics has incorporated altmetrics, taken up the challenge and made own original contributions (thanks to pioneers as Judit BarIlan, Mike Thelwall, Isidro Aguillo and many others). But, if I may say so, here scientometrics acted rather as a client, using the new data sources. Its behavior towards web-based information was and is very similar to the behavior towards the commercial bibliographic databases: namely to build indicators based on data export from them. What I think is a challenge to be mastered in the upcoming years, is the semantic web and Linked Open Data. Here, I would like to back-up Clement's contribution, and actually reading his list and the thread as a whole triggered this now growing more lengthy comment ;-) If the attempts of the semantic web community mature further, and if research information as a standard becomes available semantic referencable on the web, we talk about a profound change in the data source landscape for scientometrics. There is a possibility to eventually link between the 'old' input/expenditure statistics, human capital information and other institutional information and the traditional output - the scholarly communication - which for so many decades has dominated scientometrics, also just because of its availability in a standardized form. One example for this movement is VIVO, vivoweb.org. But, working in a research data archive I witness the raise of standards, API's, LOD in this area and it is obvious that the web of scholarly information is just before (in not in the middle) of another big change. Semantic reasoning over research information in Linked Open Data (LOD) formats will enable services (including indicators) different from what we have now. It does not concern 'just another data base' or another social media one can harvest data from; it concerns a whole set of other techniques. Either scientometrics embraces this too, and learns to play on the "Klaviatur" (keyboard) of the semantic web, or the knowledge of the community might become obsolete. Personally, I think the LOD and semantic web technologies are the future methodological innovation in scientometics, and I'm curious to hear comments on this. According to Lutz, this than would not count as a revolution, being 'just' another method. But, if it means that other communities could become the carrier for scientometric analysis, it might be a revolution - at least for the field of scientometics as we know it now. Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst Head of e-research at Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) Scientific Coordinator of the Computational Humanities Programme, e-Humanities group Chair of the COST Action KnowEscape Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences From: Clement Levallois < clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR> Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 To: " SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics ml Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. - open access - open data (Figshare, etc.) - semantic web / linked data - science communication / science making on social media - digital scholarship (see http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) - networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) - the altac movement - and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz word) today in scientometrics? Best regards, 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 check my new app: http://www.umigon.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cc345 at DREXEL.EDU Sun Jul 28 10:41:03 2013 From: cc345 at DREXEL.EDU (Chen,Chaomei) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:41:03 +0000 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for the addition. "He notes that what may seem evolutionary, at the specialty level, over a short period may later be interpreted as revolutionary in the longer run (micro-revolutions, or more)." My take of Henry's insightful observation is that, as an alternative interpretation, the judgement on evolutionary or revolutionary can be profoundly influenced by the particular perspective, the mindset, the viewpoint, the paradigm (and etc.) that one (collectively and/or individually) is taking. A step could be seen as incremental to one perspective, but radical to another perspective. Along with the change of time, the change of viewpoint along the way may also provide an explanation of the change of judgement over time. Chaomei Chen ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David A. Pendlebury [david.pendlebury at THOMSONREUTERS.COM] Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:50 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Henry Small had some valuable practical remarks on this theme in: Title: Paradigms, citations, and maps of science: A personal history Author(s): Small, H (Small, H) Source: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Volume: 54 Issue: 5 Pages: 394-399 DOI: 10.1002/asi.10225 Published: MAR 2003 Times Cited in Web of Science: 45 Total Times Cited: 50 Abstract: Can maps of science tell us anything about paradigms? The author reviews his earlier work on this question, including Kuhn's reaction to it. Kuhn's view of the role of bibliometrics differs substantially from the kinds of reinterpretations of paradigms that information scientists are currently advocating. But these reinterpretations are necessary if his theory will ever be empirically tested, and further progress is to be made in understanding the growth of scientific knowledge. A new Web tool is discussed that highlights rapidly changing specialties that may lead to new ways of monitoring revolutionary change in real time. It is suggested that revolutionary and normal science be seen as extremes on a continuum of rates of change rather than, as Kuhn originally asserted, as an all or none proposition. He notes that what may seem evolutionary, at the specialty level, over a short period may later be interpreted as revolutionary in the longer run (micro-revolutions, or more). ?Eventually, the extremes of normal and revolutionary science that Kuhn describes may survive only as idealized polar opposites; what remains is a continuum of rates of change from slow to rapid, as a function of the time window.? See page 399 in the paper above. Dr. Bornmann (and Dr. Marx) cited this paper in the recent article: Title: The emergence of plate tectonics and the Kuhnian model of paradigm shift: a bibliometric case study based on the Anna Karenina principle Author(s): Marx, W (Marx, Werner); Bornmann, L (Bornmann, Lutz) Source: SCIENTOMETRICS Volume: 94 Issue: 2 Pages: 595-614 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0741-6 Published: FEB 2013 But others interested in this discussion may not know about Henry?s 2003 paper and his observations. Regards, David Pendlebury ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Chen,Chaomei Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:17 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics To address what may serve as an early sign for a conceptual revolution, a few lines of research are particularly relevant and share something in common: it seems to be worthwhile watching the currently void but potentially somewhere that could be filled up very rapidly (e.g. Don Swanson on disjoint publically available knowledge, Lee Fleming on patents, Loet+Ismael+Porter on interdisciplinarity, Klavans et al. on conformity, and our own work on structural variation). Of course, this may be just one of many potentially ways that may lead to a revolution. An intuitive metaphor is that one way to empirically detect such signals is to look at new 'conceptual' bridges emerging and connecting previously isolated islands of thinking. If a revolutionary idea eventually takes off, then we'd expect to see a rapid increase of traffic on at least some of these bridges so much so that at the system-level the global landscape transforms its previous structure to something noticeably different. I don't know how to post a picture to this list, but here is a link to a visualization that shows, retrospectively, after the Watts 1998 paper, which has since attracted so much attention to the study of complex networks such as small-world, scale-free networks, how previously separated islands are stitched together by subsequent publications that reinforce the structural change. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=301571379871927&set=a.301557189873346.87930.276625072366558&type=1&theater For details, see: Chen, C. (2012) Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 431-449. Chaomei Chen ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US] Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:02 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Dear Lutz, Note the exponential growth potential of the issue tree. If the rate of branching is just three nodes per node then the tenth level already has about 60,000 nodes. This is how new ideas can take off so rapidly, when community attention turns to them. That is the normal science phase, when the new idea is being actively investigated. The revolution is just the top of the tree. There is a lot of confusion about this. The period of rapid growth is not the revolution, rather it is the normal product of the revolution. In many ways it is more interesting than the revolution. It is like the difference between a gold strike and a gold mine. Mining is interesting, and labor intensive. Your search for empirical studies may be premature. One first needs a theoretical framework (says the theoretician). David On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" > wrote: Thanks for the link to the tree model. Interesting! But I am searching for large-scale empirical studies. This is an interesting question: in which time period is the productivity (in terms of publication numbers) higher: in normal science or during revolutions? If one looks back on the scientific progress in a discipline, the progress is normally described alongside big discoveries (revolutions). Periods of normal science are not so interesting here, although most of the papers in the discipline might have been published in these periods. Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 27.07.2013 um 22:23 schrieb "David Wojick" <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US>: ml On the theoretical side my issue tree model of scientific progress helps explain the growth of subfields. See http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/17/how-does-science-progress-by-branching-and-leaping-perhaps/ and http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ . But I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Most progress occurs during normal science for that is when many specific things get explained. Revolutions are not productive when they are occurring. The productivity comes during the subsequent normal science period. David At 03:41 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: ml Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have been more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their correlations with citations. Because the correlation is far from perfect, it is not clear which aspects are really measured. I believe that "advanced" altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to measure some kind of societal impact. The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization by the creation of subfields. Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which examined the development of the subfield structure in disciplines? Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" < andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL>: ml Dear all, The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the emergence of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient information retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the sciences themselves, and here I echo contributions of others. Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. Virtual Knowledge, MIT 2013) What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in theoretical threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological one; sometimes this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; sometimes in one specialty only ? sometimes affecting a whole field. So, instead of looking at a singular event, one better can talk of an accumulation of different changes. Galison uses often geological, geomorphological metaphors to describe this. (see his book: Image and Logic). I think one cannot talk about a revolution with defining the boundaries of the system of reference first. As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the scientometrics community embraced and integrated the visual turn (science maps) and the turn towards the authors. The latter was very visible at the last ISSI just a week ago. ( http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw ) My impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in the turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting to watch/read (see http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences ). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a evaluation and benchmarking tool". But, it seems that it is still the scientometrics community which discusses and defines indicators used broadly. What concerns the digital revolution, and in particular the web, indeed scientometrics has incorporated altmetrics, taken up the challenge and made own original contributions (thanks to pioneers as Judit BarIlan, Mike Thelwall, Isidro Aguillo and many others). But, if I may say so, here scientometrics acted rather as a client, using the new data sources. Its behavior towards web-based information was and is very similar to the behavior towards the commercial bibliographic databases: namely to build indicators based on data export from them. What I think is a challenge to be mastered in the upcoming years, is the semantic web and Linked Open Data. Here, I would like to back-up Clement's contribution, and actually reading his list and the thread as a whole triggered this now growing more lengthy comment ;-) If the attempts of the semantic web community mature further, and if research information as a standard becomes available semantic referencable on the web, we talk about a profound change in the data source landscape for scientometrics. There is a possibility to eventually link between the 'old' input/expenditure statistics, human capital information and other institutional information and the traditional output ? the scholarly communication ? which for so many decades has dominated scientometrics, also just because of its availability in a standardized form. One example for this movement is VIVO, vivoweb.org. But, working in a research data archive I witness the raise of standards, API's, LOD in this area and it is obvious that the web of scholarly information is just before (in not in the middle) of another big change. Semantic reasoning over research information in Linked Open Data (LOD) formats will enable services (including indicators) different from what we have now. It does not concern 'just another data base' or another social media one can harvest data from; it concerns a whole set of other techniques. Either scientometrics embraces this too, and learns to play on the "Klaviatur" (keyboard) of the semantic web, or the knowledge of the community might become obsolete. Personally, I think the LOD and semantic web technologies are the future methodological innovation in scientometics, and I'm curious to hear comments on this. According to Lutz, this than would not count as a revolution, being 'just' another method. But, if it means that other communities could become the carrier for scientometric analysis, it might be a revolution ? at least for the field of scientometics as we know it now. Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst Head of e-research at Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) Scientific Coordinator of the Computational Humanities Programme, e-Humanities group Chair of the COST Action KnowEscape Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences From: Clement Levallois < clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR> Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 To: " SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics ml Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. - open access - open data (Figshare, etc.) - semantic web / linked data - science communication / science making on social media - digital scholarship (see http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) - networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) - the altac movement - and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz word) today in scientometrics? Best regards, 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 check my new app: http://www.umigon.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sun Jul 28 12:17:37 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 12:17:37 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <85C158E495977A41AD1D0D57E29B040B07F624@MB2.drexel.edu> Message-ID: On the other hand there is a sense in which the Kuhnian model applies at many different scales, down to the individual scientist, so the concept of micro- and macro-revolutions makes empirical sense. Kuhn was focused on the biggest revolutions because that is what philosophy of science did 50 years ago. The subsequent emergence of things like network analysis and scaling theory opens the door to a more comprehensive and detailed analysis of scientific activity. I am less comfortable with viewing normal and revolutionary science as dispensable polar opposites, because there is an epistemic factor involved, namely that the propositions in question must be judged to be either true or false. The sun goes around the earth or it does not. Knowledge tends to be an either-or matter and revolutions usually involve important new knowledge. One basic problem is that we do not have an agreed upon operational definition of revolution. So if we are measuring different things under the same name we may get differing results that do not actually disagree. David At 10:41 AM 7/28/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >Thanks for the addition. > >"He notes that what may seem evolutionary, at the specialty level, over a >short period may later be interpreted as revolutionary in the longer run >(micro-revolutions, or more)." > >My take of Henry's insightful observation is that, as an alternative >interpretation, the judgement on evolutionary or revolutionary can be >profoundly influenced by >the particular perspective, the mindset, the viewpoint, the paradigm (and >etc.) that one (collectively and/or individually) is taking. A step could >be seen as incremental to one perspective, but radical to another >perspective. Along with the change of time, the change of viewpoint along >the way may also provide an explanation of the change of judgement over time. > >Chaomei Chen > >---------- >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David A. Pendlebury >[david.pendlebury at THOMSONREUTERS.COM] >Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:50 AM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >Henry Small had some valuable practical remarks on this theme in: > >Title: Paradigms, citations, and maps of science: A personal history >Author(s): Small, H (Small, H) >Source: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND >TECHNOLOGY Volume: 54 Issue: 5 Pages: 394-399 DOI: >10.1002/asi.10225 Published: MAR 2003 >Times Cited in Web of Science: 45 >Total Times Cited: 50 >Abstract: Can maps of science tell us anything about paradigms? The author >reviews his earlier work on this question, including Kuhn's reaction to >it. Kuhn's view of the role of bibliometrics differs substantially from >the kinds of reinterpretations of paradigms that information scientists >are currently advocating. But these reinterpretations are necessary if his >theory will ever be empirically tested, and further progress is to be made >in understanding the growth of scientific knowledge. A new Web tool is >discussed that highlights rapidly changing specialties that may lead to >new ways of monitoring revolutionary change in real time. It is suggested >that revolutionary and normal science be seen as extremes on a continuum >of rates of change rather than, as Kuhn originally asserted, as an all or >none proposition. > >He notes that what may seem evolutionary, at the specialty level, over a >short period may later be interpreted as revolutionary in the longer run >(micro-revolutions, or more). > >?Eventually, the extremes of normal and revolutionary science that Kuhn >describes may survive only as idealized polar opposites; what remains is a >continuum of rates of change from slow to rapid, as a function of the time >window.? See page 399 in the paper above. > >Dr. Bornmann (and Dr. Marx) cited this paper in the recent article: > >Title: The emergence of plate tectonics and the Kuhnian model of paradigm >shift: a bibliometric case study based on the Anna Karenina principle >Author(s): Marx, W (Marx, Werner); Bornmann, L (Bornmann, Lutz) >Source: SCIENTOMETRICS Volume: 94 Issue: 2 Pages: 595-614 DOI: >10.1007/s11192-012-0741-6 Published: FEB 2013 > >But others interested in this discussion may not know about Henry?s 2003 >paper and his observations. > >Regards, David Pendlebury > > >---------- >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Chen,Chaomei >Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:17 AM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > >To address what may serve as an early sign for a conceptual revolution, a >few lines of research are particularly relevant and share something in >common: it seems to be worthwhile watching the currently void but >potentially somewhere that could be filled up very rapidly (e.g. Don >Swanson on disjoint publically available knowledge, Lee Fleming on >patents, Loet+Ismael+Porter on interdisciplinarity, Klavans et al. on >conformity, and our own work on structural variation). Of course, this may >be just one of many potentially ways that may lead to a revolution. > >An intuitive metaphor is that one way to empirically detect such signals >is to look at new 'conceptual' bridges emerging and connecting previously >isolated islands of thinking. If a revolutionary idea eventually takes >off, then we'd expect to see a rapid increase of traffic on at least some >of these bridges so much so that at the system-level the global landscape >transforms its previous structure to something noticeably different. > >I don't know how to post a picture to this list, but here is a link to a >visualization that shows, retrospectively, after the Watts 1998 paper, >which has since attracted so much attention to the study of complex >networks such as small-world, scale-free networks, how previously >separated islands are stitched together by subsequent publications that >reinforce the structural change. > >https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=301571379871927&set=a.301557189873346.87930.276625072366558&type=1&theater > >For details, see: >Chen, C. (2012) Predictive effects of structural variation on citation >counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and >Technology, 63(3), 431-449. > >Chaomei Chen > >---------- >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] on behalf of David Wojick >[dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US] >Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:02 AM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >Dear Lutz, > >Note the exponential growth potential of the issue tree. If the rate of >branching is just three nodes per node then the tenth level already has >about 60,000 nodes. This is how new ideas can take off so rapidly, when >community attention turns to them. That is the normal science phase, when >the new idea is being actively investigated. The revolution is just the >top of the tree. There is a lot of confusion about this. The period of >rapid growth is not the revolution, rather it is the normal product of the >revolution. In many ways it is more interesting than the revolution. It is >like the difference between a gold strike and a gold mine. Mining is >interesting, and labor intensive. > >Your search for empirical studies may be premature. One first needs a >theoretical framework (says the theoretician). > >David > >On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "Bornmann, Lutz" ><lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE> wrote: >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >>Thanks for the link to the tree model. Interesting! But I am searching >>for large-scale empirical studies. >> >>This is an interesting question: in which time period is the productivity >>(in terms of publication numbers) higher: in normal science or during >>revolutions? If one looks back on the scientific progress in a >>discipline, the progress is normally described alongside big discoveries >>(revolutions). Periods of normal science are not so interesting here, >>although most of the papers in the discipline might have been published >>in these periods. >> >>Lutz >> >>Von meinem iPad gesendet >> >>Am 27.07.2013 um 22:23 schrieb "David >>Wojick" <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US>: >>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On the theoretical side my >>>issue tree model of scientific progress helps explain the growth of >>>subfields. See >>>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/17/how-does-science-progress-by-branching-and-leaping-perhaps/ >>> >>>and >>>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/10/the-issue-tree-structure-of-expressed-thought/ >>>. >>> >>>But I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Most progress occurs during >>>normal science for that is when many specific things get explained. >>>Revolutions are not productive when they are occurring. The productivity >>>comes during the subsequent normal science period. >>> >>>David >>> >>>At 03:41 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote: >>> >>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>Great comment, Andrea! Concerning altmetrics, these new metrics have >>>been more and more examined. Most of the studies analyzed their >>>correlations with citations. Because the correlation is far from >>>perfect, it is not clear which aspects are really measured. I believe >>>that "advanced" altmetrics (which will be developed) will be able to >>>measure some kind of societal impact. >>> >>>The later Kuhn described two possible ways of scientific progress in a >>>field: the first way is a revolution; the second way is specialization >>>by the creation of subfields. >>> >>>Colleagues, are you aware of large-scale empirical studies which >>>examined the development of the subfield structure in disciplines? >>> >>>Lutz >>> >>>Von meinem iPad gesendet >>> >>>Am 27.07.2013 um 14:54 schrieb "Andrea Scharnhorst" >>>< >>>andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL>: >>> >>> >>>Adminstrative info for >>>SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>>Dear all, >>> >>>The raise of scientometrics has different roots: the societal need for >>>monitoring expenses in time of a growing science system and the >>>emergence of knowledge-based societies; and the need for efficient >>>information retrieval and knowledge discovery as a service for the >>>sciences themselves, and here I echo contributions of others. >>> >>>Having as object of study scholarship, it is only naturally that with >>>changes in this very scholarship also the topics and methods of >>>scientometrics change. There has been a longer debate if digital >>>scholarship presents a revolution or not. (see also Wouters et al. >>>Virtual Knowledge, MIT 2013) >>> >>>What of these changes should be called a revolution, for sure depends on >>>the point of reference. I always find Galison's approach to scientific >>>revolution helpful. He argues that breaks and changes occur in >>>theoretical threads as well as in empirical one and in methodological >>>one; sometimes this occurs in parallel, sometimes with a time delay; >>>sometimes in one specialty only ? sometimes affecting a whole field. So, >>>instead of looking at a singular event, one better can talk of an >>>accumulation of different changes. Galison uses often geological, >>>geomorphological metaphors to describe this. (see his book: Image and >>>Logic). I think one cannot talk about a revolution with defining the >>>boundaries of the system of reference first. >>> >>>As an observer of scientometrics from the periphery or better as an >>>occasional visitor, I found remarkable how in the past the >>>scientometrics community embraced and integrated the visual turn >>>(science maps) and the turn towards the authors. The latter was very >>>visible at the last ISSI just a week ago. >>>( >>>http://www.slideshare.net/paulwouters1/issi2013-wg-pw >>>) >>> >>>My >>>impression is also that scientometrics managed to claim authority in the >>>turn from "little bibliometrics" to "big bibliometrics" as Wolfgang >>>Glaenzel called it in 2006, in a presentation I still find interesting >>>to watch/read (see >>>http://www.slideshare.net/inscit2006/the-perspective-shift-in-bibliometrics-and-its-consequences >>>). I'm not sure if Wolfgang would still support his statement from seven >>>years ago that "bibliometrics evolved from a sub discipline of LIS to a >>>evaluation and benchmarking tool". But, it seems that it is still the >>>scientometrics community which discusses and defines indicators used broadly. >>> >>>What concerns the digital revolution, and in particular the web, indeed >>>scientometrics has incorporated altmetrics, taken up the challenge and >>>made own original contributions (thanks to pioneers as Judit BarIlan, >>>Mike Thelwall, Isidro Aguillo and many others). But, if I may say so, >>>here scientometrics acted rather as a client, using the new data >>>sources. Its behavior towards web-based information was and is very >>>similar to the behavior towards the commercial bibliographic databases: >>>namely to build indicators based on data export from them. >>> >>>What I think is a challenge to be mastered in the upcoming years, is the >>>semantic web and Linked Open Data. Here, I would like to back-up >>>Clement's contribution, and actually reading his list and the thread as >>>a whole triggered this now growing more lengthy comment ;-) >>> >>>If the attempts of the semantic web community mature >>>further, and if research information as a standard becomes available >>>semantic referencable on the web, we talk about a profound change in the >>>data source landscape for scientometrics. There is a possibility to >>>eventually link between the 'old' input/expenditure statistics, human >>>capital information and other institutional information and the >>>traditional output ? the scholarly communication ? which for so many >>>decades has dominated scientometrics, also just because of its >>>availability in a standardized form. One example for this movement is >>>VIVO, vivoweb.org. But, working in a research data >>>archive I witness the raise of standards, API's, LOD in this area and it >>>is obvious that the web of scholarly information is just before (in not >>>in the middle) of another big change. >>> >>>Semantic reasoning over research information in Linked Open Data (LOD) >>>formats will enable services (including indicators) different from what >>>we have now. It does not concern 'just another data base' or another >>>social media one can harvest data from; it concerns a whole set of other >>>techniques. Either scientometrics embraces this too, and learns to play >>>on the "Klaviatur" (keyboard) of the semantic web, or the knowledge of >>>the community might become obsolete. >>> >>>Personally, I think the LOD and semantic web technologies are the future >>>methodological innovation in scientometics, and I'm curious to hear >>>comments on this. According to Lutz, this than would not count as a >>>revolution, being 'just' another method. But, if it means that other >>>communities could become the carrier for scientometric analysis, it >>>might be a revolution ? at least for the field of scientometics as we >>>know it now. >>> >>> >>>Dr. Andrea Scharnhorst >>>Head of e-research at Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) >>>Scientific Coordinator of the Computational Humanities Programme, >>>e-Humanities group >>>Chair of the COST Action KnowEscape >>>Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences >>> >>> >>> >>>From: Clement Levallois < >>>clement_levallois at YAHOO.FR> >>>Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>< >>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >>>Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:41:46 +0200 >>>To: " >>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" >>>< >>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> >>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics >>> >>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>>Difficult to say where we are going, but there is an expanding list of >>>practices that are pushing for an evolution of scientometrics. >>> >>>- open access >>> >>>- open data (Figshare, etc.) >>> >>>- semantic web / linked data >>> >>>- science communication / science making on social media >>> >>>- digital scholarship (see >>>http://t.co/DCO7aPYxZM) >>> >>>- networks (can we neglect relations between the units under measurement?) >>> >>>- the altac movement >>> >>>- and altmetrics (drawing on all the previous) >>> >>>I'd be curious, what else do you see as "disruptive" (sorry for the buzz >>>word) today in scientometrics? >>> >>>Best regards, >>> >>>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 >>>check my new app: http://www.umigon.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sun Jul 28 13:15:38 2013 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:15:38 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20130728120058.043b0490@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Dear David and colleagues, One basic problem is that we do not have an agreed upon operational definition of revolution. So if we are measuring different things under the same name we may get differing results that do not actually disagree. Although we don't have such a definition, it is not so difficult to point ex post to instances that have provided breakthroughs and led to the development of new specialties. For example, "oncogene" in 1988, "interference RNA" in 1998; super-conductivity in 1987(?) at higher temperatures, etc. It seems to me that there are two main questions that should not be confused: 1. is it possible to predict such breakthroughs in terms of a specific set of conditions? The notion of a void (as Chaomei named it) seems relevant here: structural holes; synergies among redundant research programs, etc. 2. ex post: early warning indicators, upscaling conditions, etc. For example, in the case of RNA-interference we hypothesized that first preferential attachment is with the initial inventors, but then the system globalizes and on preferentially attaches with world centers of excellence (in Boston, London or Seoul). (Leydesdorff & Rafols, 2011). In my opinion, the problem is that one can study these cases, derive hypotheses, but then during the upscaling one fails to develop predictors from them. For example, we found an entropy measure for new developments in (Leydesdorff et al., 1994), but it did not work for the prediction at the level of the file of aggregated journal-journal citations. Ron Kostoff's tomography was another idea that eventually did not lead us to the prediction of emerging fields (Leydesdorff, 2002). I mean to say that if one finds for example, that an important new development leads to a new citation structure, is it then also possible to scan the database for such structures and in order to find new developments? Best, Loet References: . Loet Leydesdorff, Susan E. Cozzens, and Peter Van den Besselaar, Tracking Areas of Strategic Importance using Scientometric Journal Mappings, Research Policy 23 (1994) 217-229. . Loet Leydesdorff, Indicators of Structural Change in the Dynamics of Science: Entropy Statistics of the SCI Journal Citation Reports, Scientometrics 53(1) (2002) 131-159. . Loet Leydesdorff & Ismael Rafols, How do emerging technologies conquer the world? An exploration of patterns of diffusion and network formation , Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62(5) (2011) 846-860. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sun Jul 28 14:29:00 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:29:00 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <003d01ce8bb6$156ae9c0$4040bd40$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Dear Loet, Yes we often know a revolution when we see one, but that is not the same as having an operational definition that lets us individuate them. We cannot say for example how many revolutions occurred in discipline d during period t. It is very hard to do meaningful empirical analyses of things we cannot even count. Thus I think talk of prediction assumes a level of understanding that we do not have. Understand is the goal in my view. David At 01:15 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >Dear David and colleagues, > >One basic problem is that we do not have an agreed upon operational >definition of revolution. So if we are measuring different things under >the same name we may get differing results that do not actually disagree. > >Although we don?t have such a definition, it is not so difficult to point >ex post to instances that have provided breakthroughs and led to the >development of new specialties. For example, ?oncogene? in 1988, >?interference RNA? in 1998; super-conductivity in 1987(?) at higher >temperatures, etc. > >It seems to me that there are two main questions that should not be confused: > >1. is it possible to predict such breakthroughs in terms of a specific set >of conditions? The notion of a void (as Chaomei named it) seems relevant >here: structural holes; synergies among redundant research programs, etc. > >2. ex post: early warning indicators, upscaling conditions, etc. For >example, in the case of RNA-interference we hypothesized that first >preferential attachment is with the initial inventors, but then the system >globalizes and on preferentially attaches with world centers of excellence >(in Boston, London or Seoul). (Leydesdorff & Rafols, 2011). > >In my opinion, the problem is that one can study these cases, derive >hypotheses, but then during the upscaling one fails to develop predictors >from them. For example, we found an entropy measure for new developments >in (Leydesdorff et al., 1994), but it did not work for the prediction at >the level of the file of aggregated journal-journal citations. Ron >Kostoff?s tomography was another idea that eventually did not lead us to >the prediction of emerging fields (Leydesdorff, 2002). > >I mean to say that if one finds for example, that an important new >development leads to a new citation structure, is it then also possible to >scan the database for such structures and in order to find new developments? > >Best, >Loet > >References: >? Loet Leydesdorff, Susan E. Cozzens, and Peter Van den Besselaar, >Tracking Areas of Strategic Importance using Scientometric Journal >Mappings, Research Policy 23 (1994) 217-229. >? Loet Leydesdorff, >Indicators of Structural Change >in the Dynamics of Science: Entropy Statistics of the >SCI Journal Citation Reports, >Scientometrics 53(1) (2002) 131-159. >? Loet Leydesdorff & Ismael Rafols, >How do emerging technologies >conquer the world? An exploration of patterns of diffusion and network >formation, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and >Technology 62(5) (2011) 846-860. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Mon Jul 29 01:13:21 2013 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:13:21 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20130728142244.043b3020@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Dear David, "Understanding," indeed, is always a first goal. When studying complex systems, however, one risks to focus on the specificities in each case and thus to specify variation. In a next step, the understanding can be used to specify selection mechanisms that can be tested on other case materials or against the whole database after upscaling. For example, is concurrency of competing research programs a necessary condition? Does a paradigm change lead to auto-catalytic growth that overshadows other research programs - let's say after ten years? Or does it more often lead to differentiation within specialties? Perhaps, I should not have used the word "prediction" in this more technical sense of statistical testing. Let's say: specification of an expectation. It seems to me that lots of contributions to this discussion went in this direction. Selection is deterministic (unlike variation) and can therefore be tested. Preferential attachment, for example, can be considered as a possible selection mechanism. Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; 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 David Wojick Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:29 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics Dear Loet, Yes we often know a revolution when we see one, but that is not the same as having an operational definition that lets us individuate them. We cannot say for example how many revolutions occurred in discipline d during period t. It is very hard to do meaningful empirical analyses of things we cannot even count. Thus I think talk of prediction assumes a level of understanding that we do not have. Understand is the goal in my view. David At 01:15 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote: Dear David and colleagues, One basic problem is that we do not have an agreed upon operational definition of revolution. So if we are measuring different things under the same name we may get differing results that do not actually disagree. Although we don't have such a definition, it is not so difficult to point ex post to instances that have provided breakthroughs and led to the development of new specialties. For example, "oncogene" in 1988, "interference RNA" in 1998; super-conductivity in 1987(?) at higher temperatures, etc. It seems to me that there are two main questions that should not be confused: 1. is it possible to predict such breakthroughs in terms of a specific set of conditions? The notion of a void (as Chaomei named it) seems relevant here: structural holes; synergies among redundant research programs, etc. 2. ex post: early warning indicators, upscaling conditions, etc. For example, in the case of RNA-interference we hypothesized that first preferential attachment is with the initial inventors, but then the system globalizes and on preferentially attaches with world centers of excellence (in Boston, London or Seoul). (Leydesdorff & Rafols, 2011). In my opinion, the problem is that one can study these cases, derive hypotheses, but then during the upscaling one fails to develop predictors from them. For example, we found an entropy measure for new developments in (Leydesdorff et al., 1994), but it did not work for the prediction at the level of the file of aggregated journal-journal citations. Ron Kostoff's tomography was another idea that eventually did not lead us to the prediction of emerging fields (Leydesdorff, 2002). I mean to say that if one finds for example, that an important new development leads to a new citation structure, is it then also possible to scan the database for such structures and in order to find new developments? Best, Loet References: . Loet Leydesdorff, Susan E. Cozzens, and Peter Van den Besselaar, Tracking Areas of Strategic Importance using Scientometric Journal Mappings, Research Policy 23 (1994) 217-229. . Loet Leydesdorff, Indicators of Structural Change in the Dynamics of Science: Entropy Statistics of the SCI Journal Citation Reports, Scientometrics 53(1) (2002) 131-159. . Loet Leydesdorff & Ismael Rafols, How do emerging technologies conquer the world? An exploration of patterns of diffusion and network formation , Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62(5) (2011) 846-860. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ismaelrafols at GMAIL.COM Mon Jul 29 09:44:12 2013 From: ismaelrafols at GMAIL.COM (Ismael Rafols) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:44:12 +0200 Subject: the debate on bibliometrics of individual researchers Message-ID: Dear all, Paul Wouters, director of CWTS at Leiden University, reflects on *special plenary session on the evaluative use of individual bibliometrics* at the 14 th ISSI Conference two weeks ago in Vienna. The plenary session aimed to give a new stimulus to the debate how to apply, and how not to apply, performance indicators of individual scientists and scholars. http://citationculture.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/bibliometrics-of-individual-researchers/ A second thematic session on individual level bibliometrics will take at the next conference on science & tecnnology indicators, the STI Conference?Translational twists and turns: science as a socio-economic endeavour?, in Berlin, 4-6 September 2013. There, we will take the next step in specifying guidelines. In parallel, this conference will also host a plenary session on the topic of bibliometric standards in general, organized by iFQ , CWTS and Science-Metrix. We look forward to further debate on these issues. Best regards, Ismael Rafols *Ingenio* (CSIC-UPV) & *SPRU*, Univ. Sussex (Visiting Fellow) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fil at INDIANA.EDU Mon Jul 29 12:55:12 2013 From: fil at INDIANA.EDU (Fil Menczer) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:55:12 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: <000001ce8c1a$592fdb70$0b8f9250$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Dear Loet et al., On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > > It seems to me that in your paper scientific developments are exogenous: > ?and exogenous events, such as scientific discoveries.? You assume that > collaborations in social networks (e.g., coauthorships) are the drivers of > new developments. One could argue that this is the case in normal science > more than in periods of radical change. You are right that our contribution (in the paper I mentioned earlier: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069) was more along the distinction between endogenous and exogenous change, than between normal and radical change --- the latter is an output rather than an input of our model. For example we observe some disciplines emerging and "exploding" in popularity, just as we find in the empirical data. Our point was to see how much one could predict or explain (in a quantitative sense) the empirical data about the evolution of disciplines (and their relationship to authors and papers) under the assumption that endogenous (social) interactions are the main (in our model, the only) drivers in the dynamics of science. The key contribution is the empirical validation of the model against data (in our case, three large-scale data sets), suggesting the model is quite successful and therefore the assumption is valid --- to the extent of the accuracy of our predictions. So, yes, one could definitely argue that exogenous changes exist (I believe it). But if one wants to argue that such changes are *necessary* to explain the evolution of science, one has to test such assumptions against empirical data, and show that they generate better quantitative predictions/explanations of the data, compared to a simpler model without exogenous events. Cheers, -Fil P.S. As a footnote, I find it exciting that we have people with diverse backgrounds contributing to this debate. I am a newcomer in this area; our group's background is a mix of physical, computing, and information sciences. We are particularly interested in quantitative models to be empirically validated against large scale data across disciplines, rather than against particular case studies or examples. But we're learning a lot from all the different contributions in this list. Thanks for the feedback! Filippo Menczer Professor of Informatics and Computer Science Director, Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research Indiana University, Bloomington http://cnets.indiana.edu/people/filippo-menczer On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear David, > > > > ?Understanding,? indeed, is always a first goal. When studying complex > systems, however, one risks to focus on the specificities in each case and > thus to specify variation. In a next step, the understanding can be used to > specify selection mechanisms that can be tested on other case materials or > against the whole database after upscaling. > > > > For example, is concurrency of competing research programs a necessary > condition? Does a paradigm change lead to auto-catalytic growth that > overshadows other research programs ? let?s say after ten years? Or does it > more often lead to differentiation within specialties? > > > > Perhaps, I should not have used the word ?prediction? in this more technical > sense of statistical testing. Let?s say: specification of an expectation. It > seems to me that lots of contributions to this discussion went in this > direction. > > > > Selection is deterministic (unlike variation) and can therefore be tested. > Preferential attachment, for example, can be considered as a possible > selection mechanism. > > > > Best, > > Loet > > > > ________________________________ > > Loet Leydesdorff > > Professor, University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) > > Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > Beijing; > 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 David Wojick > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:29 PM > > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Loet, > > Yes we often know a revolution when we see one, but that is not the same as > having an operational definition that lets us individuate them. We cannot > say for example how many revolutions occurred in discipline d during period > t. It is very hard to do meaningful empirical analyses of things we cannot > even count. Thus I think talk of prediction assumes a level of understanding > that we do not have. Understand is the goal in my view. > > David > > At 01:15 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear David and colleagues, > > One basic problem is that we do not have an agreed upon operational > definition of revolution. So if we are measuring different things under the > same name we may get differing results that do not actually disagree. > > Although we don?t have such a definition, it is not so difficult to point ex > post to instances that have provided breakthroughs and led to the > development of new specialties. For example, ?oncogene? in 1988, > ?interference RNA? in 1998; super-conductivity in 1987(?) at higher > temperatures, etc. > > It seems to me that there are two main questions that should not be > confused: > > 1. is it possible to predict such breakthroughs in terms of a specific set > of conditions? The notion of a void (as Chaomei named it) seems relevant > here: structural holes; synergies among redundant research programs, etc. > > 2. ex post: early warning indicators, upscaling conditions, etc. For > example, in the case of RNA-interference we hypothesized that first > preferential attachment is with the initial inventors, but then the system > globalizes and on preferentially attaches with world centers of excellence > (in Boston, London or Seoul). (Leydesdorff & Rafols, 2011). > > In my opinion, the problem is that one can study these cases, derive > hypotheses, but then during the upscaling one fails to develop predictors > from them. For example, we found an entropy measure for new developments in > (Leydesdorff et al., 1994), but it did not work for the prediction at the > level of the file of aggregated journal-journal citations. Ron Kostoff?s > tomography was another idea that eventually did not lead us to the > prediction of emerging fields (Leydesdorff, 2002). > > I mean to say that if one finds for example, that an important new > development leads to a new citation structure, is it then also possible to > scan the database for such structures and in order to find new developments? > > Best, > Loet > > References: > ? Loet Leydesdorff, Susan E. Cozzens, and Peter Van den Besselaar, > Tracking Areas of Strategic Importance using Scientometric Journal Mappings, > Research Policy 23 (1994) 217-229. > ? Loet Leydesdorff, Indicators of Structural Change in the Dynamics > of Science: Entropy Statistics of the SCI Journal Citation Reports, > Scientometrics 53(1) (2002) 131-159. > ? Loet Leydesdorff & Ismael Rafols, How do emerging technologies > conquer the world? An exploration of patterns of diffusion and network > formation, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and > Technology 62(5) (2011) 846-860. > From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Tue Jul 30 02:38:09 2013 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:38:09 +0200 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fil, I agree. It is empirically difficult to distinguish because the exogenous developments can reflexively be endogenized. Furthermore, the sources of change may vary along the time axis; and from the perspective of hindsight (Henry Small's remark). Best, Loet On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Fil Menczer wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Loet et al., > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Loet Leydesdorff > wrote: > > > > It seems to me that in your paper scientific developments are exogenous: > > ?and exogenous events, such as scientific discoveries.? You assume that > > collaborations in social networks (e.g., coauthorships) are the drivers > of > > new developments. One could argue that this is the case in normal science > > more than in periods of radical change. > > You are right that our contribution (in the paper I mentioned earlier: > http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069) was more along the distinction > between endogenous and exogenous change, than between normal and > radical change --- the latter is an output rather than an input of our > model. For example we observe some disciplines emerging and > "exploding" in popularity, just as we find in the empirical data. > > Our point was to see how much one could predict or explain (in a > quantitative sense) the empirical data about the evolution of > disciplines (and their relationship to authors and papers) under the > assumption that endogenous (social) interactions are the main (in our > model, the only) drivers in the dynamics of science. The key > contribution is the empirical validation of the model against data (in > our case, three large-scale data sets), suggesting the model is quite > successful and therefore the assumption is valid --- to the extent of > the accuracy of our predictions. > > So, yes, one could definitely argue that exogenous changes exist (I > believe it). But if one wants to argue that such changes are > *necessary* to explain the evolution of science, one has to test such > assumptions against empirical data, and show that they generate better > quantitative predictions/explanations of the data, compared to a > simpler model without exogenous events. > > Cheers, > -Fil > > P.S. As a footnote, I find it exciting that we have people with > diverse backgrounds contributing to this debate. I am a newcomer in > this area; our group's background is a mix of physical, computing, and > information sciences. We are particularly interested in quantitative > models to be empirically validated against large scale data across > disciplines, rather than against particular case studies or examples. > But we're learning a lot from all the different contributions in this > list. Thanks for the feedback! > > Filippo Menczer > Professor of Informatics and Computer Science > Director, Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research > Indiana University, Bloomington > http://cnets.indiana.edu/people/filippo-menczer > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Loet Leydesdorff > wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Dear David, > > > > > > > > ?Understanding,? indeed, is always a first goal. When studying complex > > systems, however, one risks to focus on the specificities in each case > and > > thus to specify variation. In a next step, the understanding can be used > to > > specify selection mechanisms that can be tested on other case materials > or > > against the whole database after upscaling. > > > > > > > > For example, is concurrency of competing research programs a necessary > > condition? Does a paradigm change lead to auto-catalytic growth that > > overshadows other research programs ? let?s say after ten years? Or does > it > > more often lead to differentiation within specialties? > > > > > > > > Perhaps, I should not have used the word ?prediction? in this more > technical > > sense of statistical testing. Let?s say: specification of an > expectation. It > > seems to me that lots of contributions to this discussion went in this > > direction. > > > > > > > > Selection is deterministic (unlike variation) and can therefore be > tested. > > Preferential attachment, for example, can be considered as a possible > > selection mechanism. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Loet > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Loet Leydesdorff > > > > Professor, University of Amsterdam > > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) > > > > Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam > > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, > ISTIC, > > Beijing; > > 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 David Wojick > > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:29 PM > > > > > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > > > > > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Dear Loet, > > > > Yes we often know a revolution when we see one, but that is not the same > as > > having an operational definition that lets us individuate them. We cannot > > say for example how many revolutions occurred in discipline d during > period > > t. It is very hard to do meaningful empirical analyses of things we > cannot > > even count. Thus I think talk of prediction assumes a level of > understanding > > that we do not have. Understand is the goal in my view. > > > > David > > > > At 01:15 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote: > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear David and colleagues, > > > > One basic problem is that we do not have an agreed upon operational > > definition of revolution. So if we are measuring different things under > the > > same name we may get differing results that do not actually disagree. > > > > Although we don?t have such a definition, it is not so difficult to > point ex > > post to instances that have provided breakthroughs and led to the > > development of new specialties. For example, ?oncogene? in 1988, > > ?interference RNA? in 1998; super-conductivity in 1987(?) at higher > > temperatures, etc. > > > > It seems to me that there are two main questions that should not be > > confused: > > > > 1. is it possible to predict such breakthroughs in terms of a specific > set > > of conditions? The notion of a void (as Chaomei named it) seems relevant > > here: structural holes; synergies among redundant research programs, etc. > > > > 2. ex post: early warning indicators, upscaling conditions, etc. For > > example, in the case of RNA-interference we hypothesized that first > > preferential attachment is with the initial inventors, but then the > system > > globalizes and on preferentially attaches with world centers of > excellence > > (in Boston, London or Seoul). (Leydesdorff & Rafols, 2011). > > > > In my opinion, the problem is that one can study these cases, derive > > hypotheses, but then during the upscaling one fails to develop predictors > > from them. For example, we found an entropy measure for new developments > in > > (Leydesdorff et al., 1994), but it did not work for the prediction at the > > level of the file of aggregated journal-journal citations. Ron Kostoff?s > > tomography was another idea that eventually did not lead us to the > > prediction of emerging fields (Leydesdorff, 2002). > > > > I mean to say that if one finds for example, that an important new > > development leads to a new citation structure, is it then also possible > to > > scan the database for such structures and in order to find new > developments? > > > > Best, > > Loet > > > > References: > > ? Loet Leydesdorff, Susan E. Cozzens, and Peter Van den Besselaar, > > Tracking Areas of Strategic Importance using Scientometric Journal > Mappings, > > Research Policy 23 (1994) 217-229. > > ? Loet Leydesdorff, Indicators of Structural Change in the > Dynamics > > of Science: Entropy Statistics of the SCI Journal Citation Reports, > > Scientometrics 53(1) (2002) 131-159. > > ? Loet Leydesdorff & Ismael Rafols, How do emerging technologies > > conquer the world? An exploration of patterns of diffusion and network > > formation, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and > > Technology 62(5) (2011) 846-860. > > > > -- Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Tue Jul 30 11:01:58 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:01:58 -0400 Subject: Paper on scientometrics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fil, Presumably the social interactions are driven by what the people are thinking, talking and writing about, which in the case of science is how the natural world works (including the human world). Social interactions are thus a dependent variable to thought and understanding. These interactions are issue driven so issues and their attention are the independent variables. David Wojick At 12:55 PM 7/29/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear Loet et al., > >On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Loet Leydesdorff >wrote: > > > > It seems to me that in your paper scientific developments are exogenous: > > ?and exogenous events, such as scientific discoveries.? You assume that > > collaborations in social networks (e.g., coauthorships) are the drivers of > > new developments. One could argue that this is the case in normal science > > more than in periods of radical change. > >You are right that our contribution (in the paper I mentioned earlier: >http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069) was more along the distinction >between endogenous and exogenous change, than between normal and >radical change --- the latter is an output rather than an input of our >model. For example we observe some disciplines emerging and >"exploding" in popularity, just as we find in the empirical data. > >Our point was to see how much one could predict or explain (in a >quantitative sense) the empirical data about the evolution of >disciplines (and their relationship to authors and papers) under the >assumption that endogenous (social) interactions are the main (in our >model, the only) drivers in the dynamics of science. The key >contribution is the empirical validation of the model against data (in >our case, three large-scale data sets), suggesting the model is quite >successful and therefore the assumption is valid --- to the extent of >the accuracy of our predictions. > >So, yes, one could definitely argue that exogenous changes exist (I >believe it). But if one wants to argue that such changes are >*necessary* to explain the evolution of science, one has to test such >assumptions against empirical data, and show that they generate better >quantitative predictions/explanations of the data, compared to a >simpler model without exogenous events. > >Cheers, >-Fil > >P.S. As a footnote, I find it exciting that we have people with >diverse backgrounds contributing to this debate. I am a newcomer in >this area; our group's background is a mix of physical, computing, and >information sciences. We are particularly interested in quantitative >models to be empirically validated against large scale data across >disciplines, rather than against particular case studies or examples. >But we're learning a lot from all the different contributions in this >list. Thanks for the feedback! > >Filippo Menczer >Professor of Informatics and Computer Science >Director, Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research >Indiana University, Bloomington >http://cnets.indiana.edu/people/filippo-menczer > > >On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Loet Leydesdorff >wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Dear David, > > > > > > > > ?Understanding,? indeed, is always a first goal. When studying complex > > systems, however, one risks to focus on the specificities in each case and > > thus to specify variation. In a next step, the understanding can be used to > > specify selection mechanisms that can be tested on other case materials or > > against the whole database after upscaling. > > > > > > > > For example, is concurrency of competing research programs a necessary > > condition? Does a paradigm change lead to auto-catalytic growth that > > overshadows other research programs ? let?s say after ten years? Or does it > > more often lead to differentiation within specialties? > > > > > > > > Perhaps, I should not have used the word ?prediction? in this more > technical > > sense of statistical testing. Let?s say: specification of an > expectation. It > > seems to me that lots of contributions to this discussion went in this > > direction. > > > > > > > > Selection is deterministic (unlike variation) and can therefore be tested. > > Preferential attachment, for example, can be considered as a possible > > selection mechanism. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Loet > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Loet Leydesdorff > > > > Professor, University of Amsterdam > > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) > > > > Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam > > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > > Beijing; > > 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 David Wojick > > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:29 PM > > > > > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Paper on scientometrics > > > > > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Dear Loet, > > > > Yes we often know a revolution when we see one, but that is not the same as > > having an operational definition that lets us individuate them. We cannot > > say for example how many revolutions occurred in discipline d during period > > t. It is very hard to do meaningful empirical analyses of things we cannot > > even count. Thus I think talk of prediction assumes a level of > understanding > > that we do not have. Understand is the goal in my view. > > > > David > > > > At 01:15 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote: > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear David and colleagues, > > > > One basic problem is that we do not have an agreed upon operational > > definition of revolution. So if we are measuring different things under the > > same name we may get differing results that do not actually disagree. > > > > Although we don?t have such a definition, it is not so difficult to > point ex > > post to instances that have provided breakthroughs and led to the > > development of new specialties. For example, ?oncogene? in 1988, > > ?interference RNA? in 1998; super-conductivity in 1987(?) at higher > > temperatures, etc. > > > > It seems to me that there are two main questions that should not be > > confused: > > > > 1. is it possible to predict such breakthroughs in terms of a specific set > > of conditions? The notion of a void (as Chaomei named it) seems relevant > > here: structural holes; synergies among redundant research programs, etc. > > > > 2. ex post: early warning indicators, upscaling conditions, etc. For > > example, in the case of RNA-interference we hypothesized that first > > preferential attachment is with the initial inventors, but then the system > > globalizes and on preferentially attaches with world centers of excellence > > (in Boston, London or Seoul). (Leydesdorff & Rafols, 2011). > > > > In my opinion, the problem is that one can study these cases, derive > > hypotheses, but then during the upscaling one fails to develop predictors > > from them. For example, we found an entropy measure for new developments in > > (Leydesdorff et al., 1994), but it did not work for the prediction at the > > level of the file of aggregated journal-journal citations. Ron Kostoff?s > > tomography was another idea that eventually did not lead us to the > > prediction of emerging fields (Leydesdorff, 2002). > > > > I mean to say that if one finds for example, that an important new > > development leads to a new citation structure, is it then also possible to > > scan the database for such structures and in order to find new > developments? > > > > Best, > > Loet > > > > References: > > ? Loet Leydesdorff, Susan E. Cozzens, and Peter Van den Besselaar, > > Tracking Areas of Strategic Importance using Scientometric Journal > Mappings, > > Research Policy 23 (1994) 217-229. > > ? Loet Leydesdorff, Indicators of Structural Change in the Dynamics > > of Science: Entropy Statistics of the SCI Journal Citation Reports, > > Scientometrics 53(1) (2002) 131-159. > > ? Loet Leydesdorff & Ismael Rafols, How do emerging technologies > > conquer the world? An exploration of patterns of diffusion and network > > formation, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and > > Technology 62(5) (2011) 846-860. > > From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Wed Jul 31 15:18:36 2013 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:18:36 -0400 Subject: the debate on the Impact Factor continues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Interesting analysis by David Crotty, managing editor of the Scholarly Kitchen blog. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/30/the-persistent-lure-of-the-impact-factor-even-for-plos-one/ David Wojick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: