PLOS ONE Output Falls Following Impact Factor Decline

[Andreas Strotmann]

> How can there be a tiny but broad research institution?

Well -- we  scientometricians all need access to huge numbers of papers for
decent analyses. And I can immediately list a couple of really tiny
research institutions (tiny compared to universities) in our field:
ScienceMetrix; SciTech Strategies; iFQ...,  not to mention freelance
researchers like myself.

Perhaps the Institute for Advanced Studies (of Einstein and Gödel fame)
might serve as another example. Germany has tons of research institutes of
this sort (I worked at one, and we collaborated with a bunch of them).

-- Andreas

PS:   Your statement reminds me of the apocryphal linguist who claimed that
there existed no human language in which a double affirmative serves as
negation - when someone from the audience snickered:  yeah, right.



On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us>
wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> How can there be a "tiny but broad" research institution? Each
> researcher's field is very narrow. If there are a tiny number of
> researchers then their journal needs are equally tiny, not all journals.
> Even Harvard does not need access to all journals.
>
> Note too that a researcher can always get a copy of any article they are
> interested in simply by asking the author for it. That is why the author's
> email address is always provided.
>
> There is nothing unsustainable about the subscription model.
>
> David Wojick
>  http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20140704/ffd092bf/attachment.html>