From tim.engels at UANTWERPEN.BE Wed Oct 1 03:49:32 2014 From: tim.engels at UANTWERPEN.BE (Engels Tim) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 07:49:32 +0000 Subject: Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance Message-ID: Readers of this list might be interested in the book Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance Editors Wim Blockmans, Lars Engwall & Denis Weaire Wenner-Gren International Series, volume 87, Portland Press, 2014, ISBN 9781855781955. All contributions are available online http://www.portlandpress.com/pp/books/online/wg87/default.htm TOC: Part 1: Basic Considerations 1 Bibliometrics: issues and context Lars Engwall, Wim Blockmans and Denis Weaire 1-7 2 Science, problem-solving and bibliometrics Giuseppe Longo 9-15 Part II: Instruments of Measurement 3 Advances in bibliometric analysis: research performance assessment and science mapping Anthony F.J. van Raan 17-28 4 Measuring research impact: not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted Jane Grimson 29-41 Part III: Indicators for Rankings 5 Scientific performance indicators: a critical appraisal and a country-by-country analysis Michel Gevers 43-53 6 Research evaluation: improvisation or science? Giovanni Abramo and Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo 55-63 7 How global comparisons matter: the 'truths' of international rankings Linda Wedlin 65-75 Part IV: Journals, Editors and Publishers 8 Metrics and evaluation in publishing Nicola Gulley 77-83 9 The value and accuracy of key figures in scientific evaluations Jan Reedijk 85-93 10 On the quality of quality assessments Lars Engwall 95-106 Part V: Bibliometrics in the Humanities and Social Sciences 11 Bibliometrics: use and abuse in the humanities Milena ?ic Fuchs 107-116 12 The objectives, design and selection process of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW) Frederik Verleysen, Pol Ghesqui?re and Tim Engels 117-127 13 The use of indicators in French universities St?phanie Chatelain-Ponroy, St?phanie Mignot-G?rard, Christine Musselin and Samuel Sponem 129-141 Part VI: Conclusions 14 Science as big business Wim Blockmans, Lars Engwall and Denis Weaire 143-150 Best regards, Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From haustein.stefanie at GMAIL.COM Thu Oct 2 12:06:34 2014 From: haustein.stefanie at GMAIL.COM (Stefanie Haustein) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:06:34 -0400 Subject: CfP Special Issue "Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication" Message-ID: Dear colleagues, we are inviting you to submit to the special issue "Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics" to appear in *Aslib Journal of Information Management*. The Call for Papers can be found below and online . Submission deadline is 15 November 2014. Kind regards, Stefanie Haustein, Vincent Larivi?re & Cassidy R. Sugimoto ------------------------------ Dr. Stefanie Haustein Postdoctoral Researcher Canada Research Chair on the Transformations of Scholarly Communication ?cole de biblioth?conomie et des sciences de l?information (EBSI) Universit? de Montr?al e-mail: stefanie.haustein at umontreal.ca web: http://crc.ebsi.umontreal.ca Twitter: @stefhaustein ------------------------------ *What is the focus of this special issue?* Social media metrics?commonly coined as ?altmetrics??have been heralded as great democratizers of science, providing broader and timelier indicators of impact than citations. These metrics come from a range of sources, including Twitter, blogs, social reference managers, post-publication peer review, and other social media platforms. Social media metrics have begun to be used as indicators of scientific impact, yet the theoretical foundation, empirical validity, and extent of use of platforms underlying these metrics lack thorough treatment in the literature. For this special issue, we invite research papers focusing on social media in scholarly communication, which assess opportunities made available by and challenges of the use of various metrics from quantitative, qualitative, and theoretical points of view. Potential topics include but are not limited to: - Novel methods of analyzing social media in scholarly communication - Evaluation of various new sources of metrics (e.g., tweets, social bookmarking and readership counts, post publication peer review rankings, blog posts, mass media coverage, views and downloads of presentations, datasets, code) - Meaning of and differentiation between various social media metrics - Challenging or validating the concept of alternative metrics - Theoretical and qualitative approaches to classifying and defining social media metrics - Best practices and limitations in data collection and cleaning - Data accuracy and reproducibility - User behavior - Gaming or abuse of social media metrics - Social media metrics in research evaluation and researchers? careers - Ethics of social media metrics - Altmetrics as tools for libraries and publishers - Social network analyses and visualizations of social media environments. *Submissions* Papers should focus on social-media based tools and metrics in the context of scholarly communication. All methodological approaches are welcome. Case studies and proof-of-concept studies should present new and unique findings and highlight future research possibilities and developments. Opinion pieces and review articles will not be considered for the special issue. Papers should be 4,000 to 9,000 words in length (including references) and in accordance with the journal?s author guidelines . For all additional information prior to submission, please contact the guest editors Stefanie Haustein , Vincent Larivi?re , or Cassidy R. Sugimoto . Please submit to Aslib Journal of Information Management using ScholarOne Manuscripts , our online submission and peer review system and indicate that you are submitting to the special issue. *About the Journal* Aslib Journal of Information Management (AJIM; previously: Aslib Proceedings, ISSN: 2050-3806) is a peer-reviewed international journal providing key insights into the latest international developments in the research and practice of information management and information science. The journal is the major publication for ASLIB ? the Association for Information Management in the United Kingdom - a membership association for people who manage information and knowledge in organisations and the information industry. Information about the journal can be found at http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=AJIM *Schedule dates and submission deadlines* Paper submission: *15 November 2014* Notice of review results: *31 January 2015* Revisions due: *28 February 2015* Publication: Aslib Journal of Information Management, volume 67, issue 4, 2015 (August 2015) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sun Oct 5 16:29:44 2014 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 20:29:44 +0000 Subject: Papers of possible interest to readers of the SIG-Metrics List Message-ID: *Click Here to View Full Record *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A regression analysis of researchers' social network metrics on their citation performance in a college of engineering Authors: Cimenler, O; Reeves, KA; Skvoretz, J Author Full Names: Cimenler, Oguz; Reeves, Kingsley A.; Skvoretz, John Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):667-682; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.06.004 JUL 2014 Language: EnglishDocument Type: ArticleAuthor Keywords: Collaborative networks, Social network analysis, Poisson regression, Self reported data, Citation-based research performanceKeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION NETWORKS; CO-AUTHORSHIP NETWORKS; H-INDEX; PRODUCTIVITY; COAUTHORSHIP; INDIVIDUALS; EXPLORATION; STRATEGIES; CENTRALITY; KNOWLEDGE Abstract: Previous research shows that researchers' social network metrics obtained from a collaborative output network (e.g., joint publications or co-authorship network) impact their performance determined by g-index. We use a richer dataset to show that a scholar's performance should be considered with respect to position in multiple networks. Previous research using only the network of researchers' joint publications shows that a researcher's distinct connections to other researchers, a researcher's number of repeated collaborative outputs, and a researchers' redundant connections to a group of researchers who are themselves well-connected has a positive impact on the researchers' performance, while a researcher's tendency to connect with other researchers who are themselves well-connected (i.e., eigenvector centrality) had a negative impact on the researchers' performance. Our findings are similar except that we find that eigenvector centrality has a positive impact on the performance of scholars. Moreover, our results demonstrate that a researcher's tendency toward dense local neighborhoods and the researchers' demographic attributes such as gender should also be considered when investigating the impact of the social network metrics on the performance of researchers. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Addresses: [Cimenler, Oguz; Reeves, Kingsley A.; Skvoretz, John] Univ S Florida, Tampa, FL 33620 USA. E-mail Addresses: oguzcimenler at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 81 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library ScienceResearch Areas: Information Science & Library ScienceIDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700020Cited References: Laudel G, 2002, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V11, P3McCarty Christopher, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V96, P467Baccini A., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P721Baldwin TT, 1997, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V40, P1369Mehra A, 2006, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V17, P64Katz JS, 1997, RESEARCH POLICY, V26, P1Sooryamoorthy R., 2007, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, V12, P733Girvan M, 2002, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V99, P7821LaFollette M. C., 1992, Stealing into print: Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing, Ynalvez Marcus Antonius, 2011, RESEARCH POLICY, V40, P204Tijssen R. J. W., 2004, Measuring and evaluating science-technology connections and interactions: Towards international statistics, P695Borgatti SP, 1997, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V19, P243Balconi M, 2004, RESEARCH POLICYWorkshop on Innovation in Europe, Empirical Studies on Innovation Surveys and Economic Performance, JAN 28, 2003, ROME, ITALY, V33, P127Beaver DD, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS2nd Berlin Workshop on Scientometrics and Informatics/Collaboration in Science and in Technology, SEP 01-04, 2000, BERLIN, GERMANY, V52, P365BONACICH P, 1972, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY, V2, P113Tabachnick B.G., 2007, Using Multivariate Statistics, Pepe Alberto, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2121Newman MEJ, 2001, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V64, PRICE DJD, 1966, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, V21, P1011National Science Board, 2012, Technical No. NSB-12-03, Hilbe J. M., 2011, Negative binominal regression, Hanneman R.A., 2005, Introduction to Social Network Methods, Barabasi AL, 2002, PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, V311, P590Melin G, 2000, RESEARCH POLICY, V29, P31Defazio Daniela, 2009, RESEARCH POLICY, V38, P293Dillman D. A., 2007, Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, Lee S, 2005, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V35, P673Bukvova H., 2010, Working Papers on Information Systems, V10, P1Bornmann Lutz, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P830Sonnenwald Diane H., 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P643Freeman Christopher, 2009, RESEARCH POLICY, V38, P583Cummings JN, 2005, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V35, P703Aksnes DW, 2003, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V12, P159Jiang Y., 2008, Scientometrics, V74, P471Kretschmer H, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P409Olson GM, 2000, HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTIONWorkshop on Human-Computer Interaction in the 21st Century: Prospects and Visions, FEB, 1999, CO, V15, P139STOKES TD, 1989, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V19, P101Hara N, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P952Duque RB, 2005, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V35, P755Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569Moed H. F., 2004, Glanzel W, 2002, LIBRARY TRENDS, V50, P461Abbasi Alireza, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P594MARSDEN PV, 1984, SOCIAL FORCES, V63, P482Vasileiadou Eleftheria, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P36Breschi Stefano, 2009, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY, V9, P439Watts DJ, 1998, NATURE, V393, P440Costas Rodrigo, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P193Edge D, 1979, History of science; an annual review of literature, research and teaching, V17, P102van Rijnsoever Frank J., 2008, RESEARCH POLICYSeminar on University-Industry Linkages, SEP 26-27, 2005, Cambridge, ENGLAND, V37, P1255Schleyer T., 2008, Journal of Medical Internet Search, V10, P46FOX MF, 1983, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V13, P285Borgatti S. P., 1997, Connections, V20, P35[Anonymous], 2007, UCLA. Statistical consulting group, Hagstrom W. O., 1975, The scientific community, Meyer M, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V61, P443Wuchty Stefan, 2007, SCIENCE, V316, P1036Sparrowe RT, 2001, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V44, P316Rigby John, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P145Borgman CL, 2002, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V36, P3Hansen DL, 2011, ANALYZING SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKS WITH NODEXL: INSIGHTS FROM A CONNECTED WORLD, P1Cameron A.C., 1998, Regression Analysis of Count Data, Cronin Blaise, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P1275Melin G, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P363Newman MEJ, 2001, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V98, P404Hale K., 2012, NSF, P12Mehra A, 2001, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V46, P121Rodriguez G., 2007, Bozeman B, 2004, RESEARCH POLICY, V33, P599Kraut R., 1988, Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work, P1Bornmann Lutz, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1381Wasserman S., 1994, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Burt R. S., 1992, Structural holes: The social structure of competition, Borgatti S. P., 2002, Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis, Hirsch J. E., 2007, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V104, P19193Hou Haiyan, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P189Glanzel W., 2004, Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship, P257SABIDUSS.G, 1966, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V31, P581FRIEDKIN NE, 1978, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V83, P1444GRANOVET.MS, 1973, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V78, P1360Borgatti SP, 2005, SOCIAL NETWORKS21nd Sunbelt International Social Networks Conference, 2002, New Orleans, LA, V27, P55________________________________________ ___________________________ *Click Here to View Full Record *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Empirical study of L-Sequence: The basic h-index sequence for cumulative publications with consideration of the yearly citation performance Authors: Liu, Y; Yang, YL Author Full Names: Liu, Yu; Yang, Yongliang Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):478-485; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.03.002 JUL 2014 Language: EnglishDocument Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometrics, Citations, Research evaluation, H-index sequence Abstract: Most current h-type indicators use only a single number to measure a scientist's productivity and impact of his/her published works. Although a single number is simple to calculate, it fails to outline his/her academic performance varying with time. We empirically study the basic h-index sequence for cumulative publications with consideration of the yearly citation performance (for convenience, referred as L-Sequence). L-Sequence consists of a series of L factors. Based on the citations received in the corresponding individual year, every factor along a scientist's career span is calculated by using the h index formula. Thus L-Sequence shows the scientist's dynamic research trajectory and provides insight into his/her scientific performance at different periods. Furthermore, L proportional to, summing up all factors of L-Sequence, is for the evaluation of the whole research career as alternative to other h-index variants. Importantly, the partial factors of the L-Sequence can be adapted for different evaluation tasks. Moreover, L-Sequence could be used to highlight outstanding scientists in a specific period whose research interests can be used to study the history and trends of a specific discipline. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Addresses: [Liu, Yu] Dalian Univ Technol, Sch Software, Dalian 116024, Peoples R China. [Yang, Yongliang] Dalian Univ Technol, Sch Life Sci & Biotechnol, Ctr Mol Med, Dalian 116024, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: yuliu at dlut.edu.cn Cited Reference Count: 16 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library ScienceResearch Areas: Information Science & Library ScienceIDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700002 Cited References: Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569Liang Liming, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P153Egghe Leo, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P311Wu Jiang, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P489Abramo Giovanni, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P499Ball P, 2005, NATURE, V436, P900Egghe L., 2009, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V45, P288Ye Fred Y., 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P288Zhang Lin, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P583Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273Liu Yuxian, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P202KING J, 1987, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V13, P261Egghe Leo, 2010, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V44, P65Zhang Lin, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS13th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 04-07, 2011, Durban, SOUTH AFRICA, V91, P617Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131Egghe L., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P8________________________________________ *Record 11 of 17. Search terms matched: SCIENTOMETRICS(1) *Click Here to View Full Record *Order Full Text [ ] Title: h-Index research in scientometrics: A summary Authors: Bornmann, L Author Full Names: Bornmann, Lutz Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):749-750; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.07.004 JUL 2014 Language: EnglishDocument Type: LetterAddresses: Max Planck Gesell, Div Sci & Innovat Studies, Adm Headquarters, D-80539 Munich, Germany. E-mail Addresses: bornmann at gv.mpg.de Cited Reference Count: 5 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library ScienceResearch Areas: Information Science & Library ScienceIDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700026Cited References: Bornmann Lutz, 2014, SCIENTOMETRICS, V98, P487Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P406Bornmann Lutz, 2012, RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, V32, P1861Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P346Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569============================================================================= *Click Here to View Full Record *Order Full Text [ ] Title: PageRank variants in the evaluation of citation networks Authors: Nykl, M; Jezek, K; Fiala, D; Dostal, MAuthor Full Names: Nykl, Michal; Jezek, Karel; Fiala, Dalibor; Dostal, MartinSource: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):683-692; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.06.005 JUL 2014 Language: EnglishDocument Type: ArticleAuthor Keywords: PageRank, Citation analysis, Research evaluation, Author ranking, ISI Web of ScienceAbstract: This paper explores a possible approach to a research evaluation, by calculating the renown of authors of scientific papers. The evaluation is based on the citation analysis and its results should be close to a human viewpoint. The PageRank algorithm and its modifications were used for the evaluation of various types of citation networks. Our main research question was whether better evaluation results were based directly on an author network or on a publication network. Other issues concerned, for example, the determination of weights in the author network and the distribution of publication scores among their authors. The citation networks were extracted from the computer science domain in the ISI Web of Science database. The influence of self-citations was also explored. To find the best network for a research evaluation, the outputs of PageRank were compared with lists of prestigious awards in computer science such as the Turing and Codd award, ISI Highly Cited and ACM Fellows. Our experiments proved that the best ranking of authors was obtained by using a publication citation network from which self-citations were eliminated, and by distributing the same proportional parts of the publications' values to their authors. The ranking can be used as a criterion for the financial support of research teams, for identifying leaders of such teams, etc. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Addresses: [Nykl, Michal; Jezek, Karel; Fiala, Dalibor; Dostal, Martin] Univ W Bohemia, Dept Comp Sci & Engn, Plzen 30614, Czech Republic. E-mail Addresses: nyklm at kiv.zcu.cz; jezek_ka at kiv.zcu.cz; dalfia at kiv.zcu.cz; madostal at kiv.zcu.czCited Reference Count: 16 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library ScienceResearch Areas: Information Science & Library ScienceIDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700021Cited References: Fiala D., 2011, Scientometrics, V86, P1Fiala Dalibor, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P370Assimakis N., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P415Sidiropoulos Antonis, 2006, JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE, V79, P1679Kleinberg JM, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE ACM, V46, P604Lin Lili, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V97, P797Zhao D., 2005, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V42, GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471Langville A. N., 2006, The Mathematics of Google's PageRank and beyond the science of search engine rankings, Brin S, 1998, COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS7th International World Wide Web Conference, APR 14-18, 1998, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, V30, P107Yu K., 2012, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, V44, P308Bollen Johan, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P669Glanzel W, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS6th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, MAY 24-27, 2000, LEIDEN, NETHERLANDS, V51, P69Yan E., 2010, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V62, P467Yan Erjia, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1313Ding Ying, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P236________________________________________ * *Click Here to View Full Record *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Examples for counterintuitive behavior of the new citation-rank indicator P100 for bibliometric evaluations Authors: Schreiber, MAuthor Full Names: Schreiber, MichaelSource: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):738-748; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.06.007 JUL 2014 Language: EnglishDocument Type: ArticleAuthor Keywords: Evaluation, Citation analysis, Highly cited publications, Bibliometric rankings, PercentilesKeyWords Plus: PERCENTILESAbstract: A new percentile-based rating scale P100 has recently been proposed to describe the citation impact in terms of the distribution of the unique citation values. Here I investigate P100 for 5 example datasets, two simple fictitious models and three larger empirical samples. Counterintuitive behavior is demonstrated in the model datasets, pointing to difficulties when the evolution with time of the indicator is analyzed or when different fields or publication years are compared. It is shown that similar problems can occur for the three larger datasets of empirical citation values. Further, it is observed that the performance evaluation result in terms of percentiles can be influenced by selecting different journals for publication of a manuscript. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Addresses: Tech Univ Chemnitz, Inst Phys, D-09107 Chemnitz, Germany. E-mail Addresses: schreiber at physik.tu-chemnitz.deCited Reference Count: 7 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library ScienceResearch Areas: Information Science & Library ScienceIDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700025Cited References: Schreiber Michael, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V97, P821Schreiber Michael, 2013, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V64, P640Hazen A., 1914, Transactions of American Society of Civil Engineers, V77, P1539Bornmann L., 2014, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Bornmann Lutz, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P933Bornmann Lutz, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P158Schreiber Michael, 2013, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V64, P861________________________________________ ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341437500003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development Authors: Vessuri, H; Guedon, JC; Cetto, AM Author Full Names: Vessuri, Hebe; Guedon, Jean-Claude; Maria Cetto, Ana Source: CURRENT SOCIOLOGY, 62 (5):647-665; SI 10.1177/0011392113512839 SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Excellence, Latin America, open access journals, quality and research evaluation, research policy, scientific competition, scientific recognition Abstract: The current competition regime that characterizes international science is often presented as a quest for excellence. It diversely affects research in Latin America and research in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. This article asks how this competition regime may orient the direction of research in Latin America, and to whose advantage. It is argued that, by relating excellence to quality differently, a research policy that seeks to improve the level of science in Latin America while preserving the possibility of solving problems relevant to the region can be designed. Competition, it is also argued, certainly has its place in science, but not as a general management tool, especially if the goal is to improve overall quality of science in Latin America. Scientific competition is largely managed through journals and their reputation. Therefore, designing a science policy for Latin America (and for any 'peripheral' region of the world) requires paying special attention to the mechanisms underpinning the production, circulation and consumption of scientific journals. So-called 'international' or 'core' journals are of particular interest as local, national, or even regional journals must struggle to find their place in this peculiar publishing eco-system. Addresses: [Vessuri, Hebe] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Ctr Invest Geog Ambiental, Directors Off, Mexico City 04510, DF, Mexico. [Guedon, Jean-Claude] Univ Montreal, Comparat Literature Dept, Montreal, PQ H3C 3J7, Canada. [Maria Cetto, Ana] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Inst Fis, Mexico City 04510, DF, Mexico. [Maria Cetto, Ana] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Fac Ciencias, Mexico City 04510, DF, Mexico. E-mail Addresses: hvessuri at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 23 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND ISSN: 0011-3921 eISSN: 1461-7064 Web of Science Categories: Sociology Research Areas: Sociology IDS Number: AO6CX Unique ID: WOS:000341437500003 Cited References: RICyt, 2002, El Estado de la Ciencia. Principales Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnologia Iberoamericanos/Interamericanos 2001, Mabe M, 2003, Serials, V16, Alperin JP, 2011, Educacion Superior y Sociedad, V16, Brembs B, 2013, Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank, Packer Abel L., 2007, INTERCIENCIA, V32, P643 Horton R, 2009, The Times Higher Education, Guedon J-C, 2001, In Oldenburg's Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing, Aguado-Lopez E, 2011, Calidad e Impacto de la Revista Iberoamericana, Fang Ferric C., 2012, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V109, P17028 Wagner CS, 2008, NEW INVISIBLE COLLEGE: SCIENCE FOR DEVELOPMENT, P1 Readings B, 1996, The University in Ruins, Plaz Power I, 2009, Historia de la Informatica en America Latina y el Caribe: Investigaciones y Testimonies, Guedon J-C, 2011, Calidad e Impacto de la Revista Iberoamericana, DE SN, 1959, NATURE, V183, P1533 Brage S, 2011, Calidad e Impacto de la Revista Iberoamericana, Vessuri H, 1997, El Universo de la Medicion: La Perspectiva de la Ciencia y la Tecnologia, Vessuri H, 2004, The Science-Industry Nexus: History, Policy, Implications, V123, RUSSELL JM, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V34, P45 GARFIELD E, 1986, CURRENT CONTENTS, P3 Russell JM, 2008, WIS 2008, Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics and Ninth COLLNBET Meeting, 28 July-1 August, Berlin, Macpherson CB, 1962, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke, Ortiz R, 2009, La supremacia del ingles en las ciencias sociales, Falagas Matthew E., 2008, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V56, P223 ======================================================================== ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341379900002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Highly *cited articles* in Physics in Medicine and Biology Authors: Eaton, DJ Author Full Names: Eaton, David J. Source: PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 59 (16):4461-4463; 10.1088/0031-9155/59/16/4461 AUG 21 2014 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material KeyWords Plus: DIELECTRIC-PROPERTIES; TISSUES; TOMOGRAPHY; MODELS; GATE Addresses: Mt Vernon Hosp, NCRI Radiotherapy Trials QA Grp, Northwood HA6 2RN, Middx, England. E-mail Addresses: davideaton at nhs.net Cited Reference Count: 21 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IOP PUBLISHING LTD, TEMPLE CIRCUS, TEMPLE WAY, BRISTOL BS1 6BE, ENGLAND ISSN: 0031-9155 eISSN: 1361-6560 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Biomedical; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging Research Areas: Engineering; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging IDS Number: AO5JH Unique ID: WOS:000341379900002 Cited References: Gibson AP, 2005, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V50, PR1 DELPY DT, 1988, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V33, P1433 Cherry S, 2013, Phys. Med. Biol., V58, P1 Schlomka J. P., 2008, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V53, P4031 Christ Andreas, 2010, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V55, PN23 Patterson MS, 2004, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V49, PL1 Gabriel S, 1996, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V41, P2251 Gabriel C, 1996, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V41, P2231 Cherry Simon, 2014, Physics in medicine and biology, V59, P2861 Chapman D, 1997, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V42, P2015 Harris S, 2006, Phys. Med. Biol., V51, PE1 Jan S, 2004, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V49, P4543 EDELSTEIN WA, 1980, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V25, P751 Hill DLG, 2001, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V46, PR1 MATTHEWS CME, 1957, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V2, P36 Jan S., 2011, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V56, P881 Patterson Michael S., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P343 ALVAREZ RE, 1976, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V21, P733 SARVAS J, 1987, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V32, P11 Webb S, 2009, Phys. Med. Biol., V54, PE1 Gabriel S, 1996, PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, V41, P2271 ======================================================================== ======================================================================== ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700010 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: How far does scientific community look back? Authors: Wang, XW; Wang, Z; Mao, WL; Liu, C Author Full Names: Wang, Xianwen; Wang, Zhi; Mao, Wenli; Liu, Chen Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):562-568; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.009 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Article usage, Alt mertics, Download, Static usage data, Dynamic usage data, Lifetime of scientific literature KeyWords Plus: INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR; SCIENCE; GROWTH Abstract: How does the published scientific literature used by scientific community? Many previous studies make analysis on the static usage data. In this research, we propose the concept of dynamic usage data. Based on the platform of realtime.springer.com, we have been monitoring and recording the dynamic usage data of *Scientometrics* articles round the clock. Our analysis find that papers published in recent four years have many more downloads than papers published four years ago. According to our quantitative calculation, papers downloaded on one day have an average lifetime of 4.1 years approximately. Classic papers are still being downloaded frequently even long after their publication. Additionally, we find that social media may reboot the attention of old scientific literature in a short time. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Wang, Xianwen; Wang, Zhi; Mao, Wenli; Liu, Chen] Dalian Univ Technol, Fac Humanities & Social Sci, WISE Lab, Dalian 116085, Peoples R China. [Wang, Xianwen; Wang, Zhi; Mao, Wenli; Liu, Chen] Dalian Univ Technol, Sch Publ Adm & Law, Dalian 116085, Peoples R China. [Wang, Xianwen] Dalian Univ Technol, DUT Drexel Joint Inst Study Knowledge Visualizat, Dalian 116085, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: xianwenwang at dlut.edu.cn Cited Reference Count: 23 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700010 Cited References: Priem J., 2010, Altmetrics: A manifesto, Egghe L, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P371 Glanzel W., 1995, International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. International conference, P177 Lariviere Vincent, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P288 Bar-Ilan J., 2012, arXiv:1205.5611, BROADUS RN, 1987, SCIENTOMETRICS, V12, P373 Wang Xianwen, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P665 Holmes MM, 1996, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY58th Annual Meeting of the South-Atlantic-Association-of-Obstetricians-and-Gynecologists, JAN 27-30, 1996, LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL, V175, P320 Price D. J., 1970, Communication among scientists and engineers, Liu J., 2012, Interactions: The year in conversations, Wang Xianwen, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P717 Harnad S., 2004, Montreal Gazette, Brody Tim, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P1060 Hemminger Bradley M., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P2205 Schloegl Christian, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 17-20, 2008, Vienna, AUSTRIA, V82, P567 Egghe L., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V82, P243 van Raan AFJ, 2000, SCIENTOMETRICS, V47, P347 Kurtz M. J., 2010, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, V44, P1 HURD JM, 1992, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASIS ANNUAL MEETING55TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOC FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, OCT 26-29, 1992, PITTSBURGH, PA, V29, P136 Wang Xianwen, 2014, SCIENTOMETRICS, V98, P1923 Garfield E., 1983, Journal citation studies. 36. Pure and applied mathematics journals: What they cite and vice versa. Essays of an information scientist, V5, Wang Xianwen, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P655 Perneger TV, 2004, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V329, P546 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700011 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Including *cited* non-source items in a large-scale map of science: What difference does it make? Authors: Boyack, KW; Klavans, R Author Full Names: Boyack, Kevin W.; Klavans, Richard Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):569-580; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.001 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Science mapping, Direct citation, Non-source documents, Books KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SOCIAL-SCIENCES; COCITATION; EXPLORATION; PERSPECTIVE; INDICATORS; HUMANITIES; OUTPUT Abstract: Cited non-source documents such as articles from regional journals, conference papers, books and book chapters, working papers and reports have begun to attract more attention in the literature. Most of this attention has been directed at understanding the effects of including non-source items in research evaluation. In contrast, little work has been done to examine the effects of including non-source items on science maps and on the structure of science as reflected by those maps. In this study we compare two direct citation maps of a 16-year set of Scopus documents - one that includes only source documents, and one that includes non-source documents along with the source documents. In addition to more than doubling the contents of the map, from 19 M to 43 M documents, the inclusion of non-source items strongly augments the social sciences relative to the natural sciences and medicine and makes their position in the map more central. Books are also found to play a significant role in the map, and are much more highly cited on average than articles. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Boyack, Kevin W.] SciTech Strategies Inc, Albuquerque, NM 87122 USA. [Klavans, Richard] SciTech Strategies Inc, Berwyn, PA 19312 USA. E-mail Addresses: kboyack at mapofscience.com; rklavans at mapofscience.com Cited Reference Count: 27 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700011 Cited References: Boyack Kevin W., 2014, JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V65, P670 Garfield E., 1973, Toward a theory of librarianship: Papers in honor of Jesse Hauk Shera, P380 Nederhof AJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 23-25, 2004, Leiden, NETHERLANDS, V66, P81 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 van Leeuwen T, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 23-25, 2004, Leiden, NETHERLANDS, V66, P133 Chen CM, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P435 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P64 Hicks D, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS, V44, P193 Boerner Katy, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Moed H., 2005, Citation analysis in research evaluation, Leydesdorff Loet, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P278 Chen CM, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P359 Nederhof Anton J., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P363 van Eck Nees Jan, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P523 TIJSSEN RJW, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P93 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P2378 Bollen Johan, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, Kousha Kayvan, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2147 Huang Mu-hsuan, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1819 WHITE HD, 1981, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V32, P163 Noyons Ed C. M., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V79, P261 Butler L, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V66, P327 Guns R., 2013, 14th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Vienna, Austria, P353 Chen Chaomei, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1386 Chi P.-S., 2013, 14th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Vienna, Austria, P612 Martin Shawn, 2011, VISUALIZATION AND DATA ANALYSIS 2011Conference on Visualization and Data Analysis 2011, JAN 24-25, 2011, San Francisco, CA, V7868, Hicks D, 2004, HANDBOOK OF QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH: THE USE OF PUBLICATION AND PATENT STATISTICS IN STUDIES OF S&T SYSTEMS, P473 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700005 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A study of the "heartbeat spectra" for "sleeping beauties" Authors: Li, J; Shi, DB; Zhao, SX; Ye, FY Author Full Names: Li, Jiang; Shi, Dongbo; Zhao, Star X.; Ye, Fred Y. Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):493-502; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.002 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Sleeping beauty, Heartbeat spectrum, Citation pattern, G(s) index, Gini coefficient KeyWords Plus: DELAYED RECOGNITION; SOCIAL-SCIENCES; SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY; CITATION PATTERNS; CITED PAPERS; TIME; OBSOLESCENCE; UNCITEDNESS; HUMANITIES; NETWORKS Abstract: We first introduced interesting definitions of "heartbeat" and "heartbeat spectrum" for "sleeping beauties", based on van Raan's variables. Then, we investigated 58,963 papers of Nobel laureates during 1900-2000 and found 758 sleeping beauties. By proposing and using G(s) index, an adjustment of Gini coefficient, to measure the inequality of "heartbeat spectrum", we observed that publications which possess "late heartbeats" (most citations were received in the second half of sleeping period) have higher awakening probability than those have "early heartbeats" (most citations were received in the first half of sleeping period). The awakening probability appears the highest if an article's G(s) index exists in the interval [0.2, 0.6). (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Li, Jiang; Zhao, Star X.] Zhejiang Univ, Dept Informat Resource Management, Hangzhou 310027, Peoples R China. [Shi, Dongbo] Tsinghua Univ, Sch Publ Policy & Management, Beijing 100084, Peoples R China. [Ye, Fred Y.] Nanjing Univ, Sch Informat Management, Nanjing 210093, Jiangsu, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: yye at nju.edu.cn Cited Reference Count: 52 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700005 Cited References: LINE MB, 1974, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V30, P283 Glanzel W, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P511 MCCAIN KW, 1989, SCIENTOMETRICS, V17, P127 AVERSA ES, 1985, SCIENTOMETRICS, V7, P383 Leydesdorff L, 2003, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V59, P84 Burrell Quentin L., 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1466 Van Calster Ben, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P2341 Egghe Leo, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1637 Costas Rodrigo, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P329 Wien W, 1900, PHYSIKALISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT, V2, P148 BARBER B, 1961, SCIENCE, V134, P596 Peirce C S, 1884, Science (New York, N.Y.), V4, P453 GARFIELD E, 1990, CURRENT CONTENTS, V9, P3 Huang Mu-hsuan, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1819 Hicks D, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS, V44, P193 PRICE DJD, 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 Nakamoto H., 1988, Informetrics 87/88, P157 Lange Lydia L, 2005, History of psychology, V8, P194 van Raan AFJ, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V59, P467 PRICE DJD, 1976, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V27, P292 GARFIELD E, 1989, CURRENT CONTENTS, V38, P3 Glanzel W., 2008, Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, V2, P9 Glanzel W, 2004, SCIENTIST, V18, P8 Ohba Norio, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V93, P253 Cunningham S. J., 1995, Library and Information Science Research, Hook E. B., 2002, Prematurity in scientific discovery: On resistance and neglect, Egghe L., 1990, Informetrics 89/90, P97 CARPENTER MP, 1979, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V30, P108 Burrell QL, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V65, P381 Li Jiang, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P795 Lariviere Vincent, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P997 REICHSTEIN T, 1949, DISCUSSIONS OF THE FARADAY SOCIETY, P305 COLE S, 1970, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V76, P286 Wyatt H. V., 1961, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, V18, P149 Garfield E., 1980, Current Contents, V4, P488 STENT GS, 1972, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, V227, P84 EGGHE L, 1992, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V28, P201 Garfield E, 1970, Current Contents, V2, P5 Mingers J., 2007, EURO XXII, 8-11 July, Prague, Hu Zewen, 2014, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V8, P136 Lippmann G, 1908, COMPTES RENDUS HEBDOMADAIRES DES SEANCES DE L ACADEMIE DES SCIENCES, V146, P446 Sabatier Paul, 1902, COMPTES RENDUS HEBDOMADAIRES DES SEANCES DE L ACADEMIE DES SCIENCES, V134, P514 Braun Tibor, 2010, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V19, P195 ZIRKLE C, 1964, JOURNAL OF HEREDITY, V55, P65 Li J., 2014, Scientometrics, Glanzel W, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V58, P571 van Dalen HP, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P209 PRATT AD, 1977, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V28, P285 Siegel S, 1988, Non Parametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, P213 Levitt Jonathan M., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P45 Gini C, 1912, Variabilita e mutabilitavariability and mutability, Aksnes D. W., 2003, Research Evaluation, V12, P159 ======================================================================== ) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700022 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The role of handbooks in knowledge creation and diffusion: A case of science and technology studies Authors: Milojevic, S; Sugimoto, CR; Lariviere, V; Thelwall, M; Dinga, Y Author Full Names: Milojevic, Stasa; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Lariviere, Vincent; Thelwall, Mike; Dinga, Ying Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):693-709; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.064.003 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Genres, STS, Handbooks KeyWords Plus: SOCIAL-SCIENCES; HUMANITIES; BASE; COMMUNICATION; INFORMATION; COCITATION; INDEX Abstract: Genre is considered to be an important element in scholarly communication and in the practice of scientific disciplines. However, *scientometric* studies have typically focused on a single genre, the journal article. The goal of this study is to understand the role that handbooks play in knowledge creation and diffusion and their relationship with the genre of journal articles, particularly in highly interdisciplinary and emergent social science and humanities disciplines. To shed light on these questions we focused on handbooks and journal articles published over the last four decades belonging to the research area of science and technology studies (STS), broadly defined. To get a detailed picture we used the full-text of five handbooks (500,000 words) and a well-defined set of 11,700 STS articles. We confirmed the methodological split of STS into qualitative and quantitative (*scientometric*) approaches. Even when the two traditions explore similar topics (e.g., science and gender) they approach them from different starting points. The change in cognitive foci in both handbooks and articles partially reflects the changing trends in STS research, often driven by technology. Using text similarity measures we found that, in the case of STS, handbooks play no special role in either focusing the research efforts or marking their decline. In general, they do not represent the summaries of research directions that have emerged since the previous edition of the handbook. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Milojevic, Stasa; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Dinga, Ying] Indiana Univ, Sch Informat & Comp, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA. [Lariviere, Vincent] Univ Montreal, Ecole Bibliothecon & Sci Informat, Montreal, PQ H3C 3J7, Canada. [Thelwall, Mike] Wolverhampton Univ, Sch Technol, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, W Midlands, England. E-mail Addresses: smilojev at indiana.edu; sugimoto at indiana.edu; vincent.lariviere at umontreal.ca; m.thelwall at wlv.ac.uk; dingying at indiana.edu Cited Reference Count: 49 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700022 Cited References: Leydesdorff L., 2015, The international encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences, Section 8.5: Science and Technology Studies, Subsection 85030, Nederhof AJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 23-25, 2004, Leiden, NETHERLANDS, V66, P81 Spiegel-Rosing I., 1977, Science, technology, and society: A cross-disciplinary perspective, Ahlgren P, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P550 Sismondo S., 2008, P13 Milojevic Stasa, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1933 Lenoir T., 1997, Instituting science: The cultural production of scientific disciplines, Latour B., 1986, Laboratory life The construction of scientific facts, Landstrom Hans, 2012, RESEARCH POLICY, V41, P1154 Gibbons M., 1994, The new production of knowledge, 1988, Van House NA, 2004, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V38, P3 Martin Ben R., 2012, RESEARCH POLICY, V41, P1182 Hargens L. L., 1991, The American Sociologist, V22, P147 Kousha K., 2014, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, van den Besselaar P, 2000, SCIENTOMETRICS, V47, P169 1995, Handbook of science and technology studies, Van Den Besselaar Peter, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P377 Engels Tim C. E., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V93, P373 1978, Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators, Lattuca LR, 2002, JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION, V73, P711 Fagerberg Jan, 2012, RESEARCH POLICY, V41, P1132 WHITE HD, 1982, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V38, P255 Randes Clint, 2010, BULLETIN OF THE COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN MUSIC EDUCATION, P65 Astrom F., 2002, Emerging frameworks and methods: CoLIS4: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, July 21-25, Seattle, WA, P185 Nalimov V. V., 1971, Measurement of science: Study of the development of science as an information process, Jasanoff S., 2010, P191 Leydesdorff L., 1997, Universities and the global knowledge economy: A Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations, P155 Knorr-Cetina K., 1999, Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge, Milojevic Stasa, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P141 Lariviere Vincent, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P997 Gorraiz Juan, 2013, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V64, P1388 STAR SL, 1989, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V19, P387 Hess D. J., 1997, Science studies: An advanced introduction, 1997, Universities and the global knowledge economy: A Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations, Gross P L, 1927, Science (New York, N.Y.), V66, P385 Kratus J., 1993, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, V118, P21 LEMING JS, 1995, THEORY AND RESEARCH IN SOCIAL EDUCATION, V23, P169 Leydesdorff L, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICSProceedings of the Erasmus Workshop on Quantitative Approaches to Science and Technology Studies, MAY 21-24, 1996, AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS, V38, P155 Van den Besselaar P, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V51, P441 Bazerman C., 1988, Shaping written knowledge, Vickery B. C., 2000, Scientific communication in history, 2005, 1992, Science as practice and culture, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Rousseau Ronald, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P294 Hackett E. J., 2008, P429 Bucchi M., 2008, P449 Swales J. M., 2004, Research genres: Explorations and applications, ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700024 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Influence of co-authorship networks in the research impact: Ego network analyses from Microsoft Academic Search Authors: Ortega, JL Author Full Names: Luis Ortega, Jose Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):728-737; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.07.001 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometrics, Academic search engines, Ego networks, Research impact, Co-authorship KeyWords Plus: GOOGLE SCHOLAR CITATIONS; SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION; INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION; SOCIAL-SCIENCES; CENTRALITY; PERFORMANCE Abstract: The main objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between research impact and the structural properties of co-author networks. A new *bibliographic* source, Microsoft Academic Search, is introduced to test its suitability for bibliometric analyses. Citation counts and 500 one-step ego networks were extracted from this engine. Results show that tiny and sparse networks - characterized by a high Betweenness centrality and a high Average path length - achieved more citations per document than dense and compact networks described by a high Clustering coefficient and a high Average degree. According to disciplinary differences, Mathematics, Social Sciences and Economics & Business are the disciplines with more sparse and tiny networks; while Physics, Engineering and Geosciences are characterized by dense and crowded networks. This suggests that in sparse ego networks, the central author have more control on their collaborators being more selective in their recruitment and concluding that this behaviour has positive implications in the research impact. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: CCHS CSIC, Cybermetr Lab, Madrid 28037, Spain. E-mail Addresses: jortega at orgc.csic.es Cited Reference Count: 40 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700024 Cited References: Lee S, 2005, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V35, P673 Newman MEJ, 2001, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V98, P404 Vaughan L, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P1075 Moody J, 2004, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V69, P213 Jacso P., 2011, Online Information Review, V35, P983 Katz JS, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS6th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 16-19, 1997, JERUSALEM, ISRAEL, V40, P541 Melin G, 2000, RESEARCH POLICY, V29, P31 Basu A, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS2nd Berlin Workshop on Scientometrics and Informatics/Collaboration in Science and in Technology, SEP 01-04, 2000, BERLIN, GERMANY, V52, P379 Borner K, 2005, COMPLEXITY, V10, P57 HERBERTZ H, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P117 Barabasi AL, 2002, PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, V311, P590 Whitlow E. S., 1990, EC-Report EUR 12900, Latour B., 1986, Laboratory life The construction of scientific facts, FREEMAN LC, 1979, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V1, P215 Yan Erjia, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P2107 Stefaniak B, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V52, P193 FREEMAN LC, 1980, QUALITY & QUANTITY, V14, P585 GARFIELD E, 1990, ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, V511, P10 Luis Ortega Jose, 2014, JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V65, P1149 Bavelas A., 1950, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, V22, Kousha Kayvan, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1055 Katz JS, 1997, RESEARCH POLICY, V26, P1 Microsoft, 2014, Microsoft Academic Window Azure Marketplace, GRANOVET.MS, 1973, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V78, P1360 Hu Xiaojun, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS13th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 04-07, 2011, Durban, SOUTH AFRICA, V91, P451 Abbasi Alireza, 2012, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V48, P671 Hand A., 2012, Technical Services Quarterly, V29, P251 Abbasi A., 2014, Library and Information Science Research, Hotelling H, 1933, JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, V24, P417 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 Ortega J. L., 2014, Academic search engines: A quantitative outlook, Eaton J. P., 2002, Journal of Consumer Research, V11, P199 Leydesdorff Loet, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P317 Leimu R, 2005, BIOSCIENCE, V55, P438 GOODMAN LA, 1961, ANNALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, V32, P148 Glanzel W., 1996, Scientometrics, V36, P147 McCarty C., 2013, Scientometrics, V96, P1 Microsoft, 2011, Academic categories in Microsoft Academic Search, Lariviere Vincent, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P519 Vieira E. S., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P1 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341411000003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The state of the discipline: authorship, research designs, and citation patterns in studies of EU interest groups and lobbying Authors: Bunea, A; Baumgartner, FR Author Full Names: Bunea, Adriana; Baumgartner, Frank R. Source: JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, 21 (10):1412-1434; 10.1080/13501763.2014.936483 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Analytical review, European Union lobbying, scholarship KeyWords Plus: INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS; EUROPEAN-UNION; POLICY Abstract: Which European universities and research centres are most prominent in research on European Union (EU) interest groups? What are the theoretical perspectives employed currently in this scholarship? What research designs do scholars employ to study and investigate EU interest groups? And finally, what are the academic works that constitute the core building blocks on which researchers of EU lobbying build their theoretical arguments and empirical research? We answer these questions by analysing an original, built-for-purpose dataset providing information on the theoretical approaches, research designs and *bibliographic* references employed in 196 academic articles published on the topic of EU lobbying and interest groups in 22 European and American journals of political science and public policy. The dataset also contains information about authors' academic affiliation and Ph.D.-awarding institutions. We combine two approaches employed in the literature on systematic analyses of a discipline: the research synthesis and meta-analysis approach, and the bibliometric approach. Addresses: [Bunea, Adriana] European Univ Inst, I-50014 Florence, Italy. [Baumgartner, Frank R.] Univ N Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA. E-mail Addresses: Adriana.Bunea at eui.eu; fbaum at email.unc.edu Cited Reference Count: 32 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 1350-1763 eISSN: 1466-4429 Web of Science Categories: Public Administration Research Areas: Public Administration IDS Number: AO5UO Unique ID: WOS:000341411000003 Cited References: Eising R., 2008, Living Reviews in European Governance, V3, Newman MEJ, 2010, Networks: an introduction, Bunea Adriana, 2013, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, V20, P552 Beyers Jan, 2008, WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS, V31, P1103 Coen David, 2013, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, V20, P1104 Leydesdorff L, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P769 Bouwen P, 2002, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, V9, P365 Hojnacki M., 2012, Annual Review of Political Science, V15, P1 Berkhout Joost, 2008, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICYAnnual Meeting of the Southern-Political-Science-Association, 2007, New Orleans, LA, V15, P489 Greenwood J., 1998, Collective Action in the European Union: Interests and the New Politics of Associability, 1993, Lobbying in the European Community, Coen David, 2007, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICYWorkshop on European Lobbying, JAN, 2006, London, ENGLAND, V14, P333 2009, Kristensen Peter M., 2012, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES REVIEW, V14, P32 Maliniak Daniel, 2013, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, V67, P889 2009, Lobbying the European Union, Kluver H., 2013, Lobbying in the European Union. Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions and Policy Change, Kluver H., 2009, European Union Politics, V10, P535 Mahoney C., 2008, Brussels versus the Beltway. Advocacy in the United States and the European Union, Keeler JTS, 2005, JCMS-JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES9th Biennial International Conference of the Euruopean-Union-Studies-Association, APR02, 2005, Austin, TX, V43, P551 Scott J.P., 2000, Beyers Jan, 2008, WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS, V31, P1292 Mahoney Christine, 2008, WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS, V31, P1253 Lowery D., 2004, Organized Interests and American Government, Greenwood J., 2007, Interest Representation in the European Union, Baumgartner F. R., 1998, Basic Interests. The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science, Hix S., 2004, Political Studies Review, V2, P293 Jensen Mads Dagnis, 2013, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, V20, P1 2006, EUROPEAN UNION DECIDES, P1 Tinkler J., 2014, The Impact of Social Science. How Academics and Their Research Make a Difference, Baumgartner Frank R., 2007, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, V14, P482 Duer Andreas, 2008, EUROPEAN UNION POLITICS, V9, P559 ======================================================================== ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000327645700021 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: New Science of Cities Authors: Batty, M Author Full Names: Batty, M Source: NEW SCIENCE OF CITIES, 1-496; 2013 Language: English Document Type: Book KeyWords Plus: COMMITTEE DECISION PROBLEM; LAND-USE; NETWORK ANALYSIS; POWER LAWS; MATHEMATICAL-THEORY; SYMMETRY APPROACH; SOCIAL NETWORKS; URBAN STREETS; PLAN DESIGN; ZIPFS LAW Cited Reference Count: 352 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: MIT PRESS, FIVE CAMBRIDGE CENTER, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142 USA ISBN: 978-0-262-01952-1; 978-0-262-31822-8 Web of Science Categories: Geography; Urban Studies Research Areas: Geography; Urban Studies IDS Number: BID26 Unique ID: WOS:000327645700021 Cited References: Steadman J. P., 1983, Architectural Morphology: An Introduction to the Geometry of Building Plans, Tobler W, 1995, URBAN GEOGRAPHY90th Annual Meeting of the Association-of-American-Geographers, MAR 27-APR 02, 1994, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, V16, P327 PEUCKER TK, 1968, PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHER, V20, P247 Friedmann John, 1973, Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning, LEE DB, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS, V39, P163 Wilson A. G., 1970, Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling, HARRIS B, 1989, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, V55, P85 Olson M., 1965, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, VICSEK T, 1995, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, V75, P1226 Alonso W., 1978, Human Settlement Systems: International Perspectives on Structure, Change and Public Policy, P197 BATTY M, 2006, HIERARCHY NATURAL SO, V3, P143 Fischer E., 2012, Paths Through Cities: London, Batty M., 1974, Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, V15, P347 Doig A., 1963, Journal of the Operational Research Society, V14, P387 Batty M., 2007, CASA Working Paper 112, MICHENER HA, 1977, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V42, P522 DORIGO G, 1983, ANNALS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS, V73, P1 Ravenstein EG, 1889, Journal of the Statistical Society of London, V52, P241 Lipp M., 2011, COMPUTER GRAPHICS FORUM, V30, P345 Iacono I., 2008, Journal of Planning Literature, V22, P323 Saaty T. L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, Frankhauser P., 1994, La Fractalite des Structures Urbaines, Alexander C., 2012, Harmony-Seeking Computations: A Science of Non-Classical Dynamics Based on the Progressive Evolution of the Larger Whole, Harris B., 1970, Highway Research Record No 309, P24 Batty M., 2012, Agent-Based Models of Geographical Systems, P19 Haggett P., 1969, Network Analysis in Geography, Hillier Bill, 1976, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, V3, P147 BATTY M, 1983, PAPERS OF THE REGIONAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, V53, P5 Gibrat R., 1931, Les Inegalites Economiques, Librarie du Recueil, Popper K. R., 1992, The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism, Hamdi N, 2004, Small Change: About the Art of Practice and the Limits of Planning in Cities, Pareto V., 1967, Oevres Completes de Vilfredo Pareto, West GB, 1997, SCIENCE, V276, P122 Watts D., 2002, Six Degrees: the Science of a Connected age, PRICE DJD, 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 Borgatti SP, 1997, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V19, P243 BATTY M, 1992, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V19, P663 Dorogovtsev S N, 2003, Evolution of Networks: From Biological Networks to the Internet and WWW, Clauset Aaron, 2009, SIAM REVIEW, V51, P661 BELLMAN R, 1957, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS AND MECHANICS, V6, P679 Baudrillard J., 1983, Simulations, Sornette D, 1997, JOURNAL DE PHYSIQUE I, V7, P431 CARVALHO R, 2004, COMP SCI ICCS 2004 3, V3038, P1109 Buldyrev Sergey V., 2010, NATURE, V464, P1025 FRENCH JRP, 1956, PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, V63, P181 Cerda I, 1999, The Five Bases of the General Theory of Urbanization, RAPOPORT ANATOL, 1949, BULL MATH BIOPHYS, V11, P273 Bosker M., 2007, CESifo Working Paper No. 1893, Turner A, 2001, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V28, P103 Boulding K. E., 1975, Strategy and Leadership, V3, P11 Milgram S., 1967, Psychol. Today, V2, P60 BATTY M, 1985, NEW SCIENTIST, V105, P31 BATTY M, 1971, NATURE, V231, P425 Benguigui Lucien, 2009, COMPLEXITY AND SPATIAL NETWORKS; IN SEARCH OF SIMPLICITY, P33 BATTY M, 1974, TOWN PLANNING REVIEW, V45, P291 DeMarzo PM, 2003, QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, V118, P909 Jacobs J., 1969, The Economy of Cities, Dearlove J., 1973, The politics of policy in local government: the making and maintenance of public policy in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, SIMON HA, 1956, PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, V63, P129 Coleman J. S., 1977, Problems of Formalization in the Social Sciences, P11 Boaden N., 1971, Urban Policy Making, Batty Michael, 2008, SCIENCE, V319, P769 Liu Y., 2008, Modelling Urban Development with Geographical Information Systems and Cellular Automata, Churchman C. W., 1957, Introduction to Operations Research, Stewart JQ, 1941, SCIENCE, V93, P89 RITTEL HWJ, 1973, POLICY SCIENCES, V4, P155 DEGROOT MH, 1974, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, V69, P118 BATTY M, 1976, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A, V8, P189 Ben Akiva M., 1985, Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Losch A., 1954, The Economics of Location, Barthelemy M., 2010, Phys. Rep., V499, P1 Figueiredo L., 2005, 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, Mumford L., 1928, Whither Mankind: a Panorama of Modern Civilization, P287 Batty M., 2011, CASA Working Paper 163, Morphet R., 2010, CASA Working Paper 156. Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Portugali J., 2000, Self-Organization and the City, GOLDSTEIN HA, 1984, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V11, P297 BANKES S, 1993, OPERATIONS RESEARCH, V41, P435 McMeekin G. C., 1974, Coleman J. S., 1964, Mathematical Sociology, Batty M., 1976, Urban Modeling: Algorithms, Calibrations, Predictions, Peponis J, 1997, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V24, P761 TOBLER W, 1983, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A, V15, P693 Beckmann M., 1968, Location Theory, Carr M. H., 2007, Smart Land Use Analysis: The LUCIS Model, TEKLENBURG JAF, 1993, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V20, P347 Dawkins R., 1986, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, TOBLER WR, 1970, ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY, V46, P234 Healey P., 2006, Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Bazjanac V., 1974, Basic Questions of Design Theory, P3 CHATTERJEE S, 1977, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PROBABILITY, V14, P89 HILLIER B, 1993, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V20, P29 COLEMAN JS, 1966, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V71, P615 PUMAIN D, 2006, HIERARCHY NATURAL SO, V3, P169 Coleman J. S., 1976, Approaches to the Study of Social Structure, P76 Simon Herbert, 1962, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, V106, P467 Kansky K. J., 1963, Research Paper 84, Grant D. P., 1971, Proceedings of the 6th Urban Symposium, Harel D., 2002, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Graph Drawing, V2265, P207 CHOUKROUN JM, 1984, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V11, P263 Batty M., 2003, Advanced Spatial Analysis, P327 Alonso W., 1964, Location and Land Use ., Bailey N T J, 1964, The Elements of Stochastic Processes with Applications to the Natural Sciences, Morris I., 2010, Why the West Rules - For Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal about the Future, Jiang B., 2002, Transactions in GIS, V6, P295 Rozenfeld Hernan D., 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V105, P18702 Reades J. E., 2012, Pulse of the City, Castells M., 1989, The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring and the Urban-Regional Process, Emporis, 2009, Emporis Building Information Global Database, Glaeser E.L., 2008, Cities, Agglomeration and Spatial Equilibrium, Cruz P. M., 2012, Lisbon's Blood Vessels, Hansell S., 2008, New York Times, Alexander C., 2003, New Concepts in Complexity Theory: Arising from Studies in the Field of Architecture, Keeble L., 1952, Principles and Practice of Town and Country Planning, Churchman C.W., 1971, The Design of Inquiring Systems, Bussiere R., 1970, The Spatial Distribution of Urban Populations, Coleman J., 1998, Foundations of social theory, BERGER J, 1957, BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, V2, P111 Theil H., 1967, Economics and Information Theory, Bera R., 2002, Journal of Geographical Systems, V6, P1 Salingaros NA, 2005, Principles of urban structure, Bellman R.E., 1957, Dynamic Programming, Weber Adna Ferrin, 1899, The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century: A Study in Statistics, Newman MEJ, 2005, CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS, V46, P323 Theil H., 1972, Statistical Decomposition Analysis, Healey P, 2006, URBAN COMPLEXITY AND SPATIAL STRATEGIES: TOWARDS A RELATIONAL PLANNING FOR OUR TIMES, P1 HANSEN WG, 1959, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS, V25, P73 Kemeny J.G., 1962, Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences, Meier R. L., 1962, A Communications Theory of Urban Growth, Dennett Daniel C., 1995, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, TOBLER WR, 1981, GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS, V13, P1 Harris B., 1978, A Paradigm for Planning, Feles D., 2012, SubMap: Visualizing Locative and Time Based Data on Distorted Maps, Smith TE, 1997, JOURNAL OF REGIONAL SCIENCE, V37, P653 Hillier B., 1984, The Social Logic of Space, Batty M., 1994, Fractal Cities: A Geometry of Form and Function, Steadman P, 2008, The Evolution of Designs-Biological Analogy in Architecture and Applied Arts, Batty M., 2005, GIS, Spatial Analysis and Modelling, P151 STEWART JQ, 1947, SCIENCE, V106, P179 Kruskal J.B., 1956, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, V7, P48 Coleman J., 1972, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, V2, P145 Marshall A., 1890, Principles of Economics, De Vries J. J., 2000, Discussion Paper TI 2000-062/3, Wilson Alan, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE, V5, P865 SCHELLING TC, 1969, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V59, P488 Howard RA, 1960, Dynamic programming and Markov processes, Ispolatov S, 1998, EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B, V2, P267 Jacobs J., 1961, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Auerbach Felix, 1913, PETERMANNS MITTEILUNGEN, V59, P74 Van den Bogaard P. J. M., 1962, Statistica Neerlandica, V16, P271 Hegselmann R., 2002, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, CIS, 1973, Anti-Report on the Property Developers, Salat S., 2011, Cities and Forms, DUNBAR RIM, 1992, JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION, V22, P469 ANDERSSEN RS, 1982, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V9, P331 Wood Jo, 2010, CARTOGRAPHIC JOURNAL, V47, P117 BATTY M, 1984, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V11, P279 Dorling D., 2012, The Visualization of Spatial Social Structure, Roskamp K. W., 1970, Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, V126, P75 Dragulescu A, 2000, EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B, V17, P723 Wood J., 2011, Cartographica, V46, P239 Jackson M. O., 2010, Social and economic networks, Christaller W., 1966, Central Places in Southern Germany, Wolfram S., 2002, A New Kind of Science, HARARY F, 1962, OPERATIONS RESEARCH, V10, P19 Watts DJ., 1999, Small worldsthe dynamics of networks between order and randomness, Lowry I S, 1964, RM-4035-RC, Batty M, 2004, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V31, P615 Los M., 1981, Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society, P63 Lambiotte R., 2011, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V84, WATES N, 1975, NEW SOCIETY, V33, P364 Zipf GK, 1949, Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort, Gurney K., 1997, An introduction to neural network, Hall J.W., 2009, Engineering Cities: How Can Cities Grow Whilst Reducing Emissions And Vulnerability?, Kullback S., 1959, Information Theory and Statistics, Ashby WR, 1956, An Introduction to Cybernetics, Glaeser E, 2011, Triumph of the city: How our greatest invention makes us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier, Barabasi AL, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P509 CLARK C, 1951, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, V114, P490 Adamic L. A., 2002, Zipf, Power-laws, and Pareto-A Ranking Tutorial. Information Dynamics Lab, Cairncross F., 1997, The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Is Changing Our Lives, Howard R.A., 1971, Dynamic Probabilistic Systems, VI, Mitchell R.B., 1954, Urban Traffic: A Function of Land Use, 1985, On Growth and Form: Fractal and Non-Fractal Patterns in Physics, Krugman P, 1996, JOURNAL OF THE JAPANESE AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIES, V10, P399 Stiny G, 2006, Shape: talking about seeing and doing, Theil H., 1964, Optimal Decision Rules for Government and Industry, BATTY M, 1974, GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS, V6, P1 Kruger M., 1989, On Node and Axial Maps: Distance Measures and Related TopicsEuropean Conference on the Representation and Management of Urban Change, CNN, 2009, CNN Money, Mandelbrot B. B., 1982, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, Pumain D., 2000, Geografiska Annaler, V82B, P73 2006, HIERARCHY IN NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, V3, P1 Wilson A. G., 1981, Optimization in Land Use and Transport, Batty M., 1993, Journal of Planning Education and Research, V12, P184 Acevedo W., 1997, Origins and Philosophy of Building a Temporal Database to Examine Human Transformation Processes, Fujita M., 1999, The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade, Alexander C., 1962, Research Report RR-R62-3, Wates N., 1973, Community Action, V11, P7 Alexander C, 1965, Architectural Forum, V122, P58 Lynch K., 1960, The Image of the City, Berry Brian J. L., 2012, CITIES, V29, PS17 Bavaud F, 2002, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A, V34, P61 BECKMANN MJ, 1958, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURAL CHANGE, V6, P243 Forester J., 1989, Planning in the Face of Power, HOPKINS LD, 1977, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS, V43, P386 Barabasi AL, 2005, NATURE, V435, P207 Negroponte N, 1995, Being Digital, Jackson M. O., 2011, V1, P511 1971, Coventry-Solihull-Warwickshire Subregional Planning Study: Supplementary Report 3: Alternatives, Steinitz C, 1976, Landscape Architect, V66, P444 Wegener M., 1986, P175 Saaty T. L., 2005, Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks, Berry Brian, 1967, Geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution, Batty Michael, 2010, GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS, V42, P395 Miller JH, 2007, COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS: AN INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF SOCIAL LIFE: AN INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF SOCIAL LIFE, P1 Voogd H., 1983, Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning, Kreweras G., 1968, Readings in Mathematical Social Science, P174 Abelson R. P., 1979, Perspectives on Social Network Research, P239 Wilson A G, 1981, Catastrophe Theory and Bifurcation, Applications to Urban and Regional Systems, Wegener M., 2008, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Gruen Victor, 1964, The Heart of Our Cities: The Urban Crisis: Diagnosis and Cure, Goethe J. W., 2009, The Metamorphosis of Plants, Hall P., 1975, New Society, V32, P653 Hillier B., 1996, Space Is The Machine: A Configurational Theory Of Architecture., Samaniego H, 2008, J Trans Land Use, V1, P21 Chung F, 2002, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V99, P15879 Austwick M. Z., 2013, Spatial Networks and Clusters in Bicycle Sharing Systems, Roth Camille, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE, V9, P2540 Porta Sergio, 2006, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V33, P705 Dacey M. F., 1961, Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, V7, P29 FREEMAN LC, 1979, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V1, P215 Batty M., 2009, Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, V1, P1041 Bonner J. T., 2006, Why Size Matters: From Bacteria to Blue Whales, Sornette D., 2004, Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences, Kelly F. P., 1979, Reversibility and Stochastic Networks, Atkin R. H., 1981, Multidimensional Man, Feller W., 1957, An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, V1, Epstein Joshua M., 2008, JASSS-THE JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL SOCIETIES AND SOCIAL SIMULATION, V11, Kohl J. G., 1841, Der Verkehr und die Ansiedelung der Menschen in ihrer Abhangigkeit uon der Gestaltung der Eudoberflache, Gabaix X, 1999, QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, V114, P739 Anderson C., 2006, The Long Tail: How Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited Demand, Simon Herbert, 1960, The New Science of Management Decision, Robinson A. H., 1955, Geographical Journal, V121, P440 Saichev A, 2010, V632, Alonso W., 1976, Working Paper No. 266, Golub Benjamin, 2010, AMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL-MICROECONOMICS, V2, P112 Batty Michael, 2005, Cities and Complexity: Understanding Cities with Cellular Automata, Agent-Based Models, and Fractals, Zollman Kevin J. S., 2012, POLITICS PHILOSOPHY & ECONOMICS, V11, P26 Batty Michael, 2006, NATURE, V444, P592 WARD JH, 1963, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, V58, P236 Alexander Christopher, 1964, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Newman MEJ, 2010, Networks: an introduction, Wates N., 1976, The Battle for Tolmers Square, TOBLER WR, 1987, AMERICAN CARTOGRAPHER, V14, P155 Kemeny J., 1959, Finite Mathematical Structures, Dawson R, 2009, Green Citynomics: The Urban War Against Climate Change, P32 Flament C, 1963, Applications of graph theory to group structure, Chandler T., 1987, Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth: An Historical Census, Holroyd E. M., 1966, RRL Report LR43, Thurstain-Goodwin M., 2002, Planning for a Sustainable Future, P253 Coleman J. S., 1973, The mathematics of collective action, Hua C.-I., 2002, International Regional Science Review, V24, P360 Newman MEJ, 2003, SIAM REVIEW, V45, P167 Harary F, 1965, Structural Models: An Introduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs, Bettencourt Luis M. A., 2007, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V104, P7301 Gibson C., 1998, Population Division Working Paper 27, Timmermans H., 2006, Moving Through Nets: The Physical and Social Dimensions of Travel, P219 THEIL H, 1976, MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, V23, P109 Simon H. A., 1977, Models of discovery and other topics in the methods of science, Ortuzar JD, 2011, MODELLING TRANSPORT, 4TH EDITION, P1 WOLFE P, 1962, OPERATIONS RESEARCH, V10, P702 Smeed R. J., 1961, The Traffic Problem in Towns, Malanima P, 1998, Rivista di Storia Economica, V14, P91 Prell C, 2012, Social network analysis, SUGIYAMA K, 1981, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS, V11, P109 Harris B., 1983, Systems Analysis in Urban Policy-making and Planning, P475 GUERINPACE F, 1995, URBAN STUDIES, V32, P551 Forester J, 2009, Dealing with Differences: Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes, Anderson T. W., 1954, Mathematical Thinking in the Social Sciences, P17 Geddes P., 2010, Civics: as Applied Sociology, Wilson Alan, 2009, COMPLEXITY AND SPATIAL NETWORKS; IN SEARCH OF SIMPLICITY, P11 Homans G. C., 1974, Social behaviour: Its elementary forms, CREIGHTON RL, 1959, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS, V25, P96 Shannon C. E., 1949, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, Barabasi A-L, 2002, Linked: the new science of networks, Simon H. A., 1969, The Science of the Artificial, Alexander C., 1962, HIDECS 2: A Computer Program for the Hierarchical Decomposition of a Set with an Associated Graph, V160, Yule GU, 1925, PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B-CONTAINING PAPERS OF A BIOLOGICAL CHARACTER, V213, P21 BATTY M, 1979, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, V6, P3 O'Brien O., 2012, Rank Clock Visualiser, Tufte Edward R., 1983, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Kemeny J. G., 1960, Finite Markov chains, Harsanyi J.C., 1976, Essays in Ethics, Social Behaviour, and Scientific Explanation, March L., 1971, The Geometry of Environment, Heppenstall A., 2012, Agent-Based Models of Geographical Systems, Piaget J., 1971, Structuralism, Manrubia SC, 1998, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V58, P295 O'Sullivan A., 2011, Urban Economics, Rae Alasdair, 2009, COMPUTERS ENVIRONMENT AND URBAN SYSTEMS, V33, P161 ======================================================================== ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341350600032 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Citation* Fixation Authors: Stephens, M Author Full Names: Stephens, Michael Source: LIBRARY JOURNAL, 139 (15):32-32; SEP 15 2014 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Addresses: San Jose State Univ, Sch Lib & Informat Sci, San Jose, CA 95192 USA. E-mail Addresses: mstephehs7 at mac.com Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: REED BUSINESS INFORMATION, 360 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010 USA ISSN: 0363-0277 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO4ZT Unique ID: WOS:000341350600032 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341635700001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: WHAT DOES THE *IMPACT FACTOR* TELL US? Authors: [Anonymous] Author Full Names: [Anonymous] Source: BIOTECHNIQUES, 57 (3):103-103; 10.2144/000114201 SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: BIOTECHNIQUES OFFICE, 52 VANDERBILT AVE, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISSN: 0736-6205 eISSN: 1940-9818 Web of Science Categories: Biochemical Research Methods; Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Research Areas: Biochemistry & Molecular Biology IDS Number: AO8WJ Unique ID: WOS:000341635700001 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341437500002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and *citations* in the social sciences (1980-2009) Authors: Mosbah-Natanson, S; Gingras, Y Author Full Names: Mosbah-Natanson, Sebastien; Gingras, Yves Source: CURRENT SOCIOLOGY, 62 (5):626-646; SI 10.1177/0011392113498866 SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometrics, globalization, periphery, quantitative studies, social sciences KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC OUTPUT; SOCIOLOGY; DATABASES; AMERICAN; PATTERNS; COVERAGE; EUROPE; WORLD Abstract: This article addresses the issue of internationalization of social sciences by studying the evolution of production (of academic articles), collaboration and citations patterns among main world regions over the period 1980-2009 using the SSCI. The results confirm the centre-periphery model and indicate that the centrality of the two major regions that are North America and Europe is largely unchallenged, Europe having become more important and despite the growing development of Asian social sciences. The authors' quantitative approach shows that the growing production in the social sciences but also the rise of international collaborations between regions have not led to a more homogeneous circulation of the knowledge produced by different regions, or to a substantial increase in the visibility of the contributions produced by peripheral regions. Social scientists from peripheral regions, while producing more papers in the core journals compiled by the SSCI, have a stronger tendency to cite journals from the two central regions, thus losing at least partially their more locally embedded references, and to collaborate more with western social scientists. In other words, the dynamic of internationalization of social science research may also lead to a phagocytosis of the periphery into the two major centers, which brings with it the danger of losing interest in the local objects specific to those peripheral regions. Addresses: [Mosbah-Natanson, Sebastien] Paris Sorbonne Univ Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, U Arab Emirates. [Mosbah-Natanson, Sebastien; Gingras, Yves] Univ Quebec Montreal, CIRST, Montreal, PQ H3C 3P8, Canada. E-mail Addresses: gingras.yves at uqam.ca Cited Reference Count: 41 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND ISSN: 0011-3921 eISSN: 1461-7064 Web of Science Categories: Sociology Research Areas: Sociology IDS Number: AO6CX Unique ID: WOS:000341437500002 Cited References: Archambault Eric, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1320 Ammon U, 2010, World Social Science Report 2010, P154 Hicks D, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS, V44, P193 Kozlowski J, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS, V45, P137 Alatas S. F, 2003, Current Sociology, V51, P599 Keim W, 2010, Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances, V4, P570 Leahey E., 2008, American Sociologist, V39, P290 Garreton M, 2005, SOCIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION SUR LES SCIENCES SOCIALES, V44, P557 Berthelot JM, 1998, Sociologie et societes, V30, P23 Ping Z, 2009, Scientometrics, V79, P593 Losego P, 2008, Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances, V2, P334 Heilbron J, 2009, L'Espace intellectuel en Europe, XIXe-XXe siecles, P347 Gingras Y, 2009, L'Espace intellectuel en Europe, XIXe-XXe siecles, P359 Van Langenhove L, 2010, UNESCO World Social Science Report 2010, P82 Schmoch Ulrich, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P361 Calhoun C, 2010, World Social Science Report 2010, P55 Frenken K, 2010, World Social Sciences Report, P144 Ben-David J, 1971, The Scientist's Role in the Society: A Comparative Study, Heilbron J, 2001, Regards sociologiques, V22, P141 Tijssen Robert J. W., 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V71, P303 Keim Wiebke, 2011, INTERNATIONAL SOCIOLOGY, V26, P123 Katz JS, 1997, RESEARCH POLICY, V26, P1 Gingras Yves, 2006, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY-CAHIERS CANADIENS DE SOCIOLOGIE, V31, P509 Wilson CS, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V59, P345 Gomez I, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS7th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUL 05-08, 1999, COLIMA, MEXICO, V46, P443 Gingras Yves, 2002, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, V141-142, P31 Hicks DM, 2004, P476 Leahey Erin, 2008, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V38, P425 Schott T, 1998, Journal of World-Systems Research, V4, P112 Frenken Koen, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P222 Must U, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V66, P241 Glanzel W, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V65, P323 Leydesdorff L, 2007, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, V1, P499 Connell Raewyn, 2006, THEORY AND SOCIETY, V35, P237 ARUNACHALAM S, 1989, SCIENTOMETRICS, V15, P393 Garneau F, 1985, Current Sociology, V33, P1 Glanzel Wolfgang, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P71 Kishida K, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS, V40, P277 Archambault Eric, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P329 ARCHER MS, 1991, INTERNATIONAL SOCIOLOGY, V6, P131 Gingras Y, 2010, World Social Science Report 2010, P149 ============================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341448800004 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Citation* counts and indices: Beware of bad data Authors: Will, C Author Full Names: Will, Clifford Source: PHYSICS TODAY, 67 (8):10-+; AUG 2014 Language: English Document Type: Letter Addresses: Univ Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. E-mail Addresses: cmw at physics.ufl.edu Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AMER INST PHYSICS, CIRCULATION & FULFILLMENT DIV, 2 HUNTINGTON QUADRANGLE, STE 1 N O 1, MELVILLE, NY 11747-4501 USA ISSN: 0031-9228 eISSN: 1945-0699 Web of Science Categories: Physics, Multidisciplinary Research Areas: Physics IDS Number: AO6GQ Unique ID: WOS:000341448800004 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: An axiomatic approach to *bibliometric* rankings and indices Authors: Bouyssou, D; Marchant, T Author Full Names: Bouyssou, Denis; Marchant, Thierry Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):449-477; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.03.001 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometric ranking, Bibliometric index, h-Index, g-Index, Axiomatization KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC IMPACT INDEXES; EGGHES G-INDEX; H-INDEX; HIRSCH-INDEX; SCHOLARLY INFLUENCE; INDICATOR; VARIANTS; VALIDATION; FAMILY; OUTPUT Abstract: This paper analyzes several well-known bibliometric indices using an axiomatic approach. We concentrate on indices aiming at capturing the global impact of a scientific output and do not investigate indices aiming at capturing an average impact. Hence, the indices that we study are designed to evaluate authors or groups of authors but not journals. The bibliometric indices that are studied include classic ones such as the number of highly cited papers as well as more recent ones such as the h-index and the g-index. We give conditions that characterize these indices, up to the multiplication by a positive constant. We also study the bibliometric rankings that are induced by these indices. Hence, we provide a general framework for the comparison of bibliometric rankings and indices. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Bouyssou, Denis] CNRS, UMR 7243, LAMSADE, F-75775 Paris 16, France. [Bouyssou, Denis] Univ Paris 09, F-75775 Paris 16, France. [Marchant, Thierry] Univ Ghent, Dept Data Anal, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. E-mail Addresses: bouyssou at lamsade.dauphine.fr; thierry.marchant at UGent.be Cited Reference Count: 55 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700001 Cited References: Kosmulski Marek, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P313 Deineko Vladimir G., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P819 Quesada Antonio, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V82, P413 Liu Yu, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V96, P605 Schreiber M., 2013, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V84, P12982 Waltman Ludo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P37 Gagolewski Marek, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P617 Stremlo E., 2012, Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, V10, P123 Quesada Antonio, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P158 Quesada Antonio, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P107 Bouyssou D., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P365 Chambers Christopher P., 2014, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC THEORY, V151, P571 Bornmann Lutz, 2009, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V18, P185 Eto H, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V58, P5 Marchant Thierry, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1132 Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 Ravallion Martin, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P321 Schreiber Michael, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P379 Egghe L., 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P388 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P830 Marchant T., 2009, Scientometrics, V80, P327 Ye F. Y., 2013, ISSI Newsletter, V8, P22 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Bouyssou Denis, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1761 Marshall Albert W., 2011, INEQUALITIES: THEORY OF MAJORIZATION AND ITS APPLICATIONS, SECOND EDITION, P3 Hwang Yan-An, 2013, APPLIED MATHEMATICS & INFORMATION SCIENCES, V7, P1317 van Eck Nees Jan, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P263 Chapron Guillaume, 2006, BIOSCIENCE, V56, P558 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2010, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V203, P494 Waltman L., 2012, Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, V10, P173 Quesada Antonio, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P476 Norris Michael, 2010, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V66, P681 Egghe L., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P320 SHORROCKS AF, 1983, ECONOMICA, V50, P3 Albarran Pedro, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P122 Miroiu Adrian, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P10 Bornmann Lutz, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P286 Egghe L, 2012, Information Processing and Management, V45, P484 van A. F. J., 2006, Scientometrics, V67, P491 Waltman L., 2009, 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Rio de Janeiro, Woeginger Gerhard J., 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P364 Egghe Leo, 2010, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V44, P65 Bornmann L., 2011, Journal of Informetrics, V5, P348 Rousseau Ronald, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P294 + 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700027 Cited References: Thomson Reuters, 2014, Master journal list, Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2013, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V64, P2149 Montgomery D.C., 2005, Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, Schenker N, 2001, AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, V55, P182 Van Noorden R., 2013, Nature News Blog, Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P64 Li J., 2010, Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, V7, P196 Jacso Peter, 2006, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V30, P297 Maisano D., 2011, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, V27, P969 Labbe C., 2010, ISSI Newsletter, V6, P48 Scopus Elsevier, 2014, Scopus content coverage, Olensky M., 2013, Proceedings of the 13th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (ISSI), Vienna, Austria, V2, P1850 [Anonymous], 1997, ISO 4:1997, Thomson Reuters, 2014, ISI journal title abbreviations index, Buchanan Robert A., 2006, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V67, P292 Franceschini F., 2014, International Journal of Production Economics, Jacso Peter, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P325 Adam D, 2002, NATURE, V415, P726 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700020 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A regression analysis of researchers' social network metrics on their *citation* performance in a college of engineering Authors: Cimenler, O; Reeves, KA; Skvoretz, J Author Full Names: Cimenler, Oguz; Reeves, Kingsley A.; Skvoretz, John Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):667-682; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.06.004 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Collaborative networks, Social network analysis, Poisson regression, Self reported data, Citation-based research performance KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION NETWORKS; CO-AUTHORSHIP NETWORKS; H-INDEX; PRODUCTIVITY; COAUTHORSHIP; INDIVIDUALS; EXPLORATION; STRATEGIES; CENTRALITY; KNOWLEDGE Abstract: Previous research shows that researchers' social network metrics obtained from a collaborative output network (e.g., joint publications or co-authorship network) impact their performance determined by g-index. We use a richer dataset to show that a scholar's performance should be considered with respect to position in multiple networks. Previous research using only the network of researchers' joint publications shows that a researcher's distinct connections to other researchers, a researcher's number of repeated collaborative outputs, and a researchers' redundant connections to a group of researchers who are themselves well-connected has a positive impact on the researchers' performance, while a researcher's tendency to connect with other researchers who are themselves well-connected (i.e., eigenvector centrality) had a negative impact on the researchers' performance. Our findings are similar except that we find that eigenvector centrality has a positive impact on the performance of scholars. Moreover, our results demonstrate that a researcher's tendency toward dense local neighborhoods and the researchers' demographic attributes such as gender should also be considered when investigating the impact of the social network metrics on the performance of researchers. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Cimenler, Oguz; Reeves, Kingsley A.; Skvoretz, John] Univ S Florida, Tampa, FL 33620 USA. E-mail Addresses: oguzcimenler at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 81 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700020 Cited References: Laudel G, 2002, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V11, P3 McCarty Christopher, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V96, P467 Baccini A., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P721 Baldwin TT, 1997, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V40, P1369 Mehra A, 2006, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V17, P64 Katz JS, 1997, RESEARCH POLICY, V26, P1 Sooryamoorthy R., 2007, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, V12, P733 Girvan M, 2002, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V99, P7821 LaFollette M. C., 1992, Stealing into print: Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing, Ynalvez Marcus Antonius, 2011, RESEARCH POLICY, V40, P204 Tijssen R. J. W., 2004, Measuring and evaluating science-technology connections and interactions: Towards international statistics, P695 Borgatti SP, 1997, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V19, P243 Balconi M, 2004, RESEARCH POLICYWorkshop on Innovation in Europe, Empirical Studies on Innovation Surveys and Economic Performance, JAN 28, 2003, ROME, ITALY, V33, P127 Beaver DD, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS2nd Berlin Workshop on Scientometrics and Informatics/Collaboration in Science and in Technology, SEP 01-04, 2000, BERLIN, GERMANY, V52, P365 BONACICH P, 1972, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY, V2, P113 Tabachnick B.G., 2007, Using Multivariate Statistics, Pepe Alberto, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2121 Newman MEJ, 2001, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V64, PRICE DJD, 1966, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, V21, P1011 National Science Board, 2012, Technical No. NSB-12-03, Hilbe J. M., 2011, Negative binominal regression, Hanneman R.A., 2005, Introduction to Social Network Methods, Barabasi AL, 2002, PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, V311, P590 Melin G, 2000, RESEARCH POLICY, V29, P31 Defazio Daniela, 2009, RESEARCH POLICY, V38, P293 Dillman D. A., 2007, Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, Lee S, 2005, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V35, P673 Bukvova H., 2010, Working Papers on Information Systems, V10, P1 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P830 Sonnenwald Diane H., 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P643 Freeman Christopher, 2009, RESEARCH POLICY, V38, P583 Cummings JN, 2005, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V35, P703 Aksnes DW, 2003, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V12, P159 Jiang Y., 2008, Scientometrics, V74, P471 Kretschmer H, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P409 Olson GM, 2000, HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTIONWorkshop on Human-Computer Interaction in the 21st Century: Prospects and Visions, FEB, 1999, CO, V15, P139 STOKES TD, 1989, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V19, P101 Hara N, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P952 Duque RB, 2005, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V35, P755 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Moed H. F., 2004, Glanzel W, 2002, LIBRARY TRENDS, V50, P461 Abbasi Alireza, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P594 MARSDEN PV, 1984, SOCIAL FORCES, V63, P482 Vasileiadou Eleftheria, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P36 Breschi Stefano, 2009, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY, V9, P439 Watts DJ, 1998, NATURE, V393, P440 Costas Rodrigo, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P193 Edge D, 1979, History of science; an annual review of literature, research and teaching, V17, P102 van Rijnsoever Frank J., 2008, RESEARCH POLICYSeminar on University-Industry Linkages, SEP 26-27, 2005, Cambridge, ENGLAND, V37, P1255 Schleyer T., 2008, Journal of Medical Internet Search, V10, P46 FOX MF, 1983, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V13, P285 Borgatti S. P., 1997, Connections, V20, P35 [Anonymous], 2007, UCLA. Statistical consulting group, Hagstrom W. O., 1975, The scientific community, Meyer M, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V61, P443 Wuchty Stefan, 2007, SCIENCE, V316, P1036 Sparrowe RT, 2001, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V44, P316 Rigby John, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P145 Borgman CL, 2002, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V36, P3 Hansen DL, 2011, ANALYZING SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKS WITH NODEXL: INSIGHTS FROM A CONNECTED WORLD, P1 Cameron A.C., 1998, Regression Analysis of Count Data, Cronin Blaise, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P1275 Melin G, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P363 Newman MEJ, 2001, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V98, P404 Hale K., 2012, NSF, P12 Mehra A, 2001, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V46, P121 Rodriguez G., 2007, Bozeman B, 2004, RESEARCH POLICY, V33, P599 Kraut R., 1988, Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work, P1 Bornmann Lutz, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1381 Wasserman S., 1994, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Burt R. S., 1992, Structural holes: The social structure of competition, Borgatti S. P., 2002, Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis, Hirsch J. E., 2007, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V104, P19193 Hou Haiyan, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P189 Glanzel W., 2004, Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship, P257 SABIDUSS.G, 1966, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V31, P581 FRIEDKIN NE, 1978, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V83, P1444 GRANOVET.MS, 1973, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V78, P1360 Borgatti SP, 2005, SOCIAL NETWORKS21nd Sunbelt International Social Networks Conference, 2002, New Orleans, LA, V27, P55 *Record 39 of 63. Search terms matched: CITATION(1); JOURNAL(2); JOURNALS(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700008 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Analysis of the distribution of cited *journals* according to their positions in the h-core of citing *journal* listed in *Journal* *Citation* Reports Authors: Campanario, JM Author Full Names: Miguel Campanario, Juan Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):534-545; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.007 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Journal citations, Journal distribution, Journal ranking KeyWords Plus: IMPACT FACTOR; SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS; INDICATORS; RANKING; SCIENCE; PERFORMANCE; LIBRARY; MARKET; ISI Abstract: The aim of this study is to analyze some properties of the distribution of journals that are cited in the h-core of citing journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports. Data were obtained from the 2011 edition of JCR available for universities in Spain. The citing journal matrix available in JCR was used to identify the cited journals that appear most frequently in the h-core. The results show that about 70% of citing journals occupy positions other than the first one in the set of journals cited by them. Some properties of the distribution of cited journals that appear in the h-core are also studied, such as the cost, in terms of citations, of occupying a given position, and the spectrum of positions (distribution of frequencies with which a given cited journal appears in different positions). The measures calculated here could be used to define new scientometric indicators. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Univ Alcala de Henares, Dept Fis & Matemat, Madrid 28871, Spain. E-mail Addresses: juan.campanario at uah.es Cited Reference Count: 38 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700008 Cited References: Didegah Fereshteh, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P516 NAGY K, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, V86, P89 Fernando Delini M., 2011, JOURNAL OF COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT, V89, P423 Halkos George Emm, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P979 Bensman S. J., 2007, Garfield and the Impact Factor: The creation, utilization, and validation of a citation measure: The probabilistic, statistical, andsociological bases of the measure, Bensman Stephen J., 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1097 Bensman Stephen J., 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P93 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P463 Bensman Stephen J., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1904 GARFIELD E, 1990, CURRENT CONTENTS, V36, P5 Dorta-Gonzalez P., 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P593 Durieux Valerie, 2010, RADIOLOGY, V255, P342 Malesios C., 2012, ANNALS OF FOREST RESEARCH, V55, P147 SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Miguel Campanario Juan, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P419 Beckmann M, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS, V42, P267 Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P352 DuBois FL, 2000, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, V31, P689 Schubert Andras, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V96, P305 Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1327 GARFIELD E, 1984, CURRENT CONTENTS, P3 Vaio G., 2010, Cliometrica, V4, P1 Rethlefsen M. L., 2013, Journal of the Medical Library Association, V101, P47 Bensman SJ, 1998, LIBRARY RESOURCES & TECHNICAL SERVICES, V42, P147 KIM MT, 1991, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V52, P24 Linton JD, 2004, JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, V21, P123 Pendlebury David A., 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P1 Franceschet Massimo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P837 Brembs Bjoern, 2013, FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, V7, Sangwal Keshra, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P487 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Bensman SJ, 1996, LIBRARY RESOURCES & TECHNICAL SERVICES, V40, P145 Finardi Ugo, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P357 GARFIELD E, 1983, CURRENT CONTENTS, P5 Leydesdorff Loet, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P278 Glanzel Wolfgang, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V97, P13 TIJSSEN RJW, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P298 Rousseau R., 2008, COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, V2, P1 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700007 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Sub-field normalization of the IEEE scientific *journals* based on their connection with Technical Societies Authors: Franceschini, F; Maisano, D Author Full Names: Franceschini, Fiorenzo; Maisano, Domenico Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):508-533; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.005 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Journal ranking, IEEE journal, Propensity to cite, Sub-field normalization, IEEE Society KeyWords Plus: RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; IMPACT FACTOR; CITATIONS; INDICATORS Abstract: A recent paper (Canavero et al., 2014. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, doi:10.1109/TPC.2013.2255935) performed a bibliometric analysis of an extensive set of scientific journals within the Engineering field, published by IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). The analysis was based on (i) the citation impact of journal articles and (ii) the reputation of journal authors in terms of total scientific production and relevant citation impact. The goal of this paper is to complement the prior analysis, investigating on the different citation cultures of these journals, depending on the sub-field/specialty of interest. To perform this evaluation, it is suggested a novel technique, which takes into account the connections between journals and some highly specialized communities of scientists, known as IEEE Technical Societies and Councils. After showing significant differences in terms of propensity to cite, probably attributable to the large variety of sub-fields and specialties covered by IEEE journals, it is presented a simplified technique for the sub-field normalization of the results of the prior study. The main contribution of this work is (1) providing an empirical confirmation of the complexity of the problem of normalization, even for journals within the same field but different sub-fields/specialties, and (2) showing how the use of highly specialized information on a journal reference sub-field(s) may be helpful for improving the estimation of the journal propensity to cite. Description is supported by a large amount of empirical data. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Franceschini, Fiorenzo; Maisano, Domenico] Politecn Torino, DIGEP Dept Management & Prod Syst, I-10129 Turin, Italy. E-mail Addresses: fiorenzo.franceschini at polito.it; domenico.maisano at polito.it Cited Reference Count: 39 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700007 Cited References: Waltman Ludo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P37 Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P165 Rons Nadine, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P1 Alimohammadi D., 2009, Webology, V6, Franceschini F., 2014, Scientometrics, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Lundberg Jonas, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P145 Nicolaisen Jeppe, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P128 Glanzel W, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P357 Braun T., 1990, Scientometrics, V19, P13 Cointet J. P., 2013, arXiv:1302.4384, PINSKI G, 1976, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V12, P297 Moed Henk F., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P211 Franceschini F., 2012, Proceeding of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (STI 2012), 6-8 September, 2012, Montreal, Canada, Waltman Ludo, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P301 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P621 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1146 SCHUBERT A, 1987, SCIENTOMETRICS, V12, P267 Zitt M., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P329 Canavero F., 2014, IEEE Transaction on Professional Communication, Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P644 Box G.E.P., 1978, Statistics for experiments, Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2133 Garfield E., 1979, Citation indexing. Its theory and application in science, technology and humanities, Corbyn Z., 2010, Nature, Zitt Michel, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1856 Rousseau R., 1990, Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science, Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P415 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Walters Glenn D., 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P499 Ruiz-Castillo J., 2012, Sub-field normalization in the multiplicative case: Average-based citation indicators, Ravichandra Rao I.K., 2012, COLLNET Journal of Scientoemtrics and Information Management, V6, P17 GLANZEL W, 1993, SCIENTOMETRICSEUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON SCIENTOMETRIC METHODS OF RESEARCH EVALUATION IN THE SCIENCES, SOCIAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, APR 13-17, 1991, POTSDAM, GERMANY, V26, P81 Zitt Michel, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P392 Zitt M, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V63, P373 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P463 Nardo M., 2005, Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Webster G. D., 2009, Evolution Psychology, V7, P348 ===================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Empirical study of L-Sequence: The basic h-index sequence for cumulative publications with consideration of the yearly *citation* performance Authors: Liu, Y; Yang, YL Author Full Names: Liu, Yu; Yang, Yongliang Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):478-485; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.03.002 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometrics, Citations, Research evaluation, H-index sequence Abstract: Most current h-type indicators use only a single number to measure a scientist's productivity and impact of his/her published works. Although a single number is simple to calculate, it fails to outline his/her academic performance varying with time. We empirically study the basic h-index sequence for cumulative publications with consideration of the yearly citation performance (for convenience, referred as L-Sequence). L-Sequence consists of a series of L factors. Based on the citations received in the corresponding individual year, every factor along a scientist's career span is calculated by using the h index formula. Thus L-Sequence shows the scientist's dynamic research trajectory and provides insight into his/her scientific performance at different periods. Furthermore, L proportional to, summing up all factors of L-Sequence, is for the evaluation of the whole research career as alternative to other h-index variants. Importantly, the partial factors of the L-Sequence can be adapted for different evaluation tasks. Moreover, L-Sequence could be used to highlight outstanding scientists in a specific period whose research interests can be used to study the history and trends of a specific discipline. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Liu, Yu] Dalian Univ Technol, Sch Software, Dalian 116024, Peoples R China. [Yang, Yongliang] Dalian Univ Technol, Sch Life Sci & Biotechnol, Ctr Mol Med, Dalian 116024, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: yuliu at dlut.edu.cn Cited Reference Count: 16 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700002 Cited References: Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Liang Liming, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P153 Egghe Leo, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P311 Wu Jiang, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P489 Abramo Giovanni, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P499 Ball P, 2005, NATURE, V436, P900 Egghe L., 2009, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V45, P288 Ye Fred Y., 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P288 Zhang Lin, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P583 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Liu Yuxian, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P202 KING J, 1987, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V13, P261 Egghe Leo, 2010, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V44, P65 Zhang Lin, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS13th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 04-07, 2011, Durban, SOUTH AFRICA, V91, P617 Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 Egghe L., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P8 ======================================================================== *Record 42 of 63. 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:000341376700026 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: h-Index research in *scientometrics*: A summary Authors: Bornmann, L Author Full Names: Bornmann, Lutz Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):749-750; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.07.004 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Letter Addresses: Max Planck Gesell, Div Sci & Innovat Studies, Adm Headquarters, D-80539 Munich, Germany. E-mail Addresses: bornmann at gv.mpg.de Cited Reference Count: 5 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700026 Cited References: Bornmann Lutz, 2014, SCIENTOMETRICS, V98, P487 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P406 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, V32, P1861 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P346 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 ======================================================================== *Record 43 of 63. 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:000341376700021 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: PageRank variants in the evaluation of *citation* networks Authors: Nykl, M; Jezek, K; Fiala, D; Dostal, M Author Full Names: Nykl, Michal; Jezek, Karel; Fiala, Dalibor; Dostal, Martin Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):683-692; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.06.005 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: PageRank, Citation analysis, Research evaluation, Author ranking, ISI Web of Science Abstract: This paper explores a possible approach to a research evaluation, by calculating the renown of authors of scientific papers. The evaluation is based on the citation analysis and its results should be close to a human viewpoint. The PageRank algorithm and its modifications were used for the evaluation of various types of citation networks. Our main research question was whether better evaluation results were based directly on an author network or on a publication network. Other issues concerned, for example, the determination of weights in the author network and the distribution of publication scores among their authors. The citation networks were extracted from the computer science domain in the ISI Web of Science database. The influence of self-citations was also explored. To find the best network for a research evaluation, the outputs of PageRank were compared with lists of prestigious awards in computer science such as the Turing and Codd award, ISI Highly Cited and ACM Fellows. Our experiments proved that the best ranking of authors was obtained by using a publication citation network from which self-citations were eliminated, and by distributing the same proportional parts of the publications' values to their authors. The ranking can be used as a criterion for the financial support of research teams, for identifying leaders of such teams, etc. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Nykl, Michal; Jezek, Karel; Fiala, Dalibor; Dostal, Martin] Univ W Bohemia, Dept Comp Sci & Engn, Plzen 30614, Czech Republic. E-mail Addresses: nyklm at kiv.zcu.cz; jezek_ka at kiv.zcu.cz; dalfia at kiv.zcu.cz; madostal at kiv.zcu.cz Cited Reference Count: 16 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700021 Cited References: Fiala D., 2011, Scientometrics, V86, P1 Fiala Dalibor, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P370 Assimakis N., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P415 Sidiropoulos Antonis, 2006, JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE, V79, P1679 Kleinberg JM, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE ACM, V46, P604 Lin Lili, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V97, P797 Zhao D., 2005, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V42, GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Langville A. N., 2006, The Mathematics of Google's PageRank and beyond the science of search engine rankings, Brin S, 1998, COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS7th International World Wide Web Conference, APR 14-18, 1998, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, V30, P107 Yu K., 2012, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, V44, P308 Bollen Johan, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P669 Glanzel W, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS6th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, MAY 24-27, 2000, LEIDEN, NETHERLANDS, V51, P69 Yan E., 2010, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V62, P467 Yan Erjia, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1313 Ding Ying, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P236 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700025 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Examples for counterintuitive behavior of the new *citation-rank* indicator P100 for *bibliometric* evaluations Authors: Schreiber, M Author Full Names: Schreiber, Michael Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):738-748; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.06.007 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Evaluation, Citation analysis, Highly cited publications, Bibliometric rankings, Percentiles KeyWords Plus: PERCENTILES Abstract: A new percentile-based rating scale P100 has recently been proposed to describe the citation impact in terms of the distribution of the unique citation values. Here I investigate P100 for 5 example datasets, two simple fictitious models and three larger empirical samples. Counterintuitive behavior is demonstrated in the model datasets, pointing to difficulties when the evolution with time of the indicator is analyzed or when different fields or publication years are compared. It is shown that similar problems can occur for the three larger datasets of empirical citation values. Further, it is observed that the performance evaluation result in terms of percentiles can be influenced by selecting different journals for publication of a manuscript. (C) 2014 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: 7 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700025 Cited References: Schreiber Michael, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V97, P821 Schreiber Michael, 2013, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V64, P640 Hazen A., 1914, Transactions of American Society of Civil Engineers, V77, P1539 Bornmann L., 2014, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Bornmann Lutz, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P933 Bornmann Lutz, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P158 Schreiber Michael, 2013, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V64, P861 ======================================================================== ======================================================================== ======================================================================== *Record 48 of 63. *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341411000003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The state of the discipline: authorship, research designs, and *citation* patterns in studies of EU interest groups and lobbying Authors: Bunea, A; Baumgartner, FR Author Full Names: Bunea, Adriana; Baumgartner, Frank R. Source: JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, 21 (10):1412-1434; 10.1080/13501763.2014.936483 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Analytical review, European Union lobbying, scholarship KeyWords Plus: INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS; EUROPEAN-UNION; POLICY Abstract: Which European universities and research centres are most prominent in research on European Union (EU) interest groups? What are the theoretical perspectives employed currently in this scholarship? What research designs do scholars employ to study and investigate EU interest groups? And finally, what are the academic works that constitute the core building blocks on which researchers of EU lobbying build their theoretical arguments and empirical research? We answer these questions by analysing an original, built-for-purpose dataset providing information on the theoretical approaches, research designs and bibliographic references employed in 196 academic articles published on the topic of EU lobbying and interest groups in 22 European and American journals of political science and public policy. The dataset also contains information about authors' academic affiliation and Ph.D.-awarding institutions. We combine two approaches employed in the literature on systematic analyses of a discipline: the research synthesis and meta-analysis approach, and the bibliometric approach. Addresses: [Bunea, Adriana] European Univ Inst, I-50014 Florence, Italy. [Baumgartner, Frank R.] Univ N Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA. E-mail Addresses: Adriana.Bunea at eui.eu; fbaum at email.unc.edu Cited Reference Count: 32 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 1350-1763 eISSN: 1466-4429 Web of Science Categories: Public Administration Research Areas: Public Administration IDS Number: AO5UO Unique ID: WOS:000341411000003 Cited References: Eising R., 2008, Living Reviews in European Governance, V3, Newman MEJ, 2010, Networks: an introduction, Bunea Adriana, 2013, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, V20, P552 Beyers Jan, 2008, WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS, V31, P1103 Coen David, 2013, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, V20, P1104 Leydesdorff L, 2005, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V56, P769 Bouwen P, 2002, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, V9, P365 Hojnacki M., 2012, Annual Review of Political Science, V15, P1 Berkhout Joost, 2008, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICYAnnual Meeting of the Southern-Political-Science-Association, 2007, New Orleans, LA, V15, P489 Greenwood J., 1998, Collective Action in the European Union: Interests and the New Politics of Associability, 1993, Lobbying in the European Community, Coen David, 2007, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICYWorkshop on European Lobbying, JAN, 2006, London, ENGLAND, V14, P333 2009, Kristensen Peter M., 2012, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES REVIEW, V14, P32 Maliniak Daniel, 2013, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, V67, P889 2009, Lobbying the European Union, Kluver H., 2013, Lobbying in the European Union. Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions and Policy Change, Kluver H., 2009, European Union Politics, V10, P535 Mahoney C., 2008, Brussels versus the Beltway. Advocacy in the United States and the European Union, Keeler JTS, 2005, JCMS-JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES9th Biennial International Conference of the Euruopean-Union-Studies-Association, APR02, 2005, Austin, TX, V43, P551 Scott J.P., 2000, Beyers Jan, 2008, WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS, V31, P1292 Mahoney Christine, 2008, WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS, V31, P1253 Lowery D., 2004, Organized Interests and American Government, Greenwood J., 2007, Interest Representation in the European Union, Baumgartner F. R., 1998, Basic Interests. The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science, Hix S., 2004, Political Studies Review, V2, P293 Jensen Mads Dagnis, 2013, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, V20, P1 2006, EUROPEAN UNION DECIDES, P1 Tinkler J., 2014, The Impact of Social Science. How Academics and Their Research Make a Difference, Baumgartner Frank R., 2007, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, V14, P482 Duer Andreas, 2008, EUROPEAN UNION POLITICS, V9, P559 ======================================================================== ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341305600027 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Bibliometric* Mapping to analyze the evolution of research on Ergonomics using the SciMAT tool Authors: Martinez-Aires, MD; Martinez-Rojas, M; Lopez-Alonso, M; Gago, EJ Author Full Names: Martinez-Aires, M. D.; Martinez-Rojas, M.; Lopez-Alonso, M.; Gago, E. J. Edited by: Arezes PM; Baptista JS; Barroso MP; Carneiro P; Cordeiro P; Costa N; Melo RB; Miguel AS; Perestrelo G Source: OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HYGIENE II, 147-151; 2014 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: 10th Annual Congress of the Portuguese-Society-of-Occupational-Safety-and-Hygiene on Occupational Safety and Hygiene (SPOSHO) Conference Date: FEB 13-14, 2014 Conference Location: Guimaraes, PORTUGAL Conference Sponsors: Portuguese Soc Occupat Safety & Hygiene Conference Host: Univ Minho, Sch Engn KeyWords Plus: VISUALIZATION; SURFACTANTS; NETWORKS; FIELD Abstract: This study presents an analysis of the evolution of ergonomics research as a technological discipline over the last thirty years. For this analyze has been used a software tool called SciMAT (Science Mapping Analysis software Tool). The results show that research has been on the rise, both in the number of publications and in the emergence of topics closely related to ergonomics. Addresses: [Martinez-Aires, M. D.; Martinez-Rojas, M.; Lopez-Alonso, M.; Gago, E. J.] Univ Granada, E-18071 Granada, Spain. Cited Reference Count: 17 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: CRC PRESS-TAYLOR & FRANCIS GROUP, 6000 BROKEN SOUND PARKWAY NW, STE 300, BOCA RATON, FL 33487-2742 USA ISBN: 978-1-315-77352-0; 978-1-138-00144-2 Web of Science Categories: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Research Areas: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health IDS Number: BB1RH Unique ID: WOS:000341305600027 Cited References: Boerner Katy, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P863 NIOSH, 2001, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2001-117, Cobo M. J., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1382 Rinder Maria Magdalena, 2008, HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS IN MANUFACTURING, V18, P212 CALLON M, 1983, SOCIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION SUR LES SCIENCES SOCIALES, V22, P191 Herr B., 2007, P161 Sci2Team, 2009, Science of Science (Sci2) Tool, Cobo M. J., 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1609 Persson O., 2009, Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for OllePersson at his 60th birthday, P9 Village Judy, 2013, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ERGONOMICS, V43, P304 Cobo M. J., 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P146 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 Bailon-Moreno R, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P949 Wise JA, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P1224 Porter A.L., 2004, Tech mining: Exploiting new technologies for competitive advantage, Cobo M.J., 2012, SciMAT: Herramienta software para el analisis de la evolucion del conocimiento cientifico, Bailon-Moreno R, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V63, P259 ======================================================================== ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341175600001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The Evolution and Future of Scientific Communication American Surgical Association Presidential Address Authors: Rikkers, LF Author Full Names: Rikkers, Layton F. Source: ANNALS OF SURGERY, 260 (3):409-415; 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000777 SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material KeyWords Plus: SCIENCE; JOURNALS; IMPACT Addresses: Univ Wisconsin, Dept Surg, Madison, WI 53705 USA. E-mail Addresses: rikkers at surgery.wisc.edu Cited Reference Count: 27 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 530 WALNUT ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3621 USA ISSN: 0003-4932 eISSN: 1528-1140 Web of Science Categories: Surgery Research Areas: Surgery IDS Number: AO2SJ Unique ID: WOS:000341175600001 Cited References: Senn N, 1885, Annals of surgery, V1, P517 PILCHER LS, 1985, ANNALS OF SURGERY, V201, P5 Van Noorden Richard, 2013, NATURE, V495, P426 Pilcher LS, 1925, A Surgical Pilgrim's Progress: Reminiscences of Lewis Stephen Pilcher, P304 Hartung Daniel M., 2014, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V160, P477 Priem Jason, 2013, NATURE, V495, P437 Bjork Bo-Christer, 2012, BMC MEDICINE, V10, Butler Declan, 2013, NATURE, V495, P433 Sample I, The Guardian, Cronin B, 2001, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCEConference on Freedom of Information: The Impact of Open Access on Biomedical Science, JUL 06-07, 2000, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, V27, P1 Beard M, 2009, New York Times, Smith R, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, V99, P178 Greineisen ML, 2012, PloS One, V7, GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Ware M, 2012, The STM Report 2012, P22 HORROBIN DF, 1990, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION1ST INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON PEER REVIEW IN BIOMEDICAL PUBLICATION, MAY 10-12, 1989, CHICAGO, IL, V263, P1438 Bornmann Lutz, 2012, RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, V32, P1861 Spier Ray, 2002, Trends in biotechnology, V20, P357 Ioannidis JPA, 2005, PLOS MEDICINE, V2, P696 Corbyn Zoe, 2012, NATURE, V490, P21 Hemminger BM, 2012, Front Comp Neurosci., V6, P19 Lo Russo Giulia, 2013, PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, V131, P946E Whitfield J, 2012, Nature., Avrin L, 1991, Scribes, Script, and Books: The Book Arts From Antiquity to the Renaissance, Vesalius A, De Humani Corporis Fabrica Basel, P1543 Fanelli Daniele, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, Ware M, 2012, The STM Report 2012, P25 ======================================================================== ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341635700001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: WHAT DOES THE IMPACT FACTOR TELL US? Authors: [Anonymous] Author Full Names: [Anonymous] Source: BIOTECHNIQUES, 57 (3):103-103; 10.2144/000114201 SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: BIOTECHNIQUES OFFICE, 52 VANDERBILT AVE, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISSN: 0736-6205 eISSN: 1940-9818 Web of Science Categories: Biochemical Research Methods; Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Research Areas: Biochemistry & Molecular Biology IDS Number: AO8WJ Unique ID: WOS:000341635700001 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341430000040 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Errata in Medical Publications Authors: Hauptman, PJ; Armbrecht, ES; Chibnall, JT; Guild, C; Timm, JP; Rich, MW Author Full Names: Hauptman, Paul J.; Armbrecht, Eric S.; Chibnall, John T.; Guild, Camelia; Timm, Jeremy P.; Rich, Michael W. Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 127 (8):779-+; 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.03.012 AUG 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Authorship, Errata, Publication KeyWords Plus: AUTHORSHIP; JOURNALS Abstract: BACKGROUND: Information is limited about the communication of corrections or errors in the medical literature; therefore, we sought to determine the frequency and significance of published errata in high impact factor journals. METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of errata reports for articles published in 20 English-language general medicine and cardiovascular journals (mean impact factor, 12.23; median, 5.52) over 18 months. Each independently adjudicated erratum was categorized by location in the article and qualitative categories of severity. Descriptive statistics and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were computed to describe the association between author and errata number. Source of error, association between impact factor and errata occurrence, and errata rate by journal were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 557 articles were associated with errata reports (overall errata report occurrence 4.2 per 100 published original and review articles; mean of 2.4 errors per errata report). At least 1 major error that materially altered data interpretation was present in 24.2% of articles with errata. There was a strong association between impact factor and errata occurrence rate (rho = 0.869, P < .001). Across all errata, 51.0% were not corrected or the report did not specify whether a correction was made. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of errata across journals lacks uniformity. Despite published criteria for authorship that mandate final approval of the manuscript by all authors, errors are frequent, including those that may materially change the interpretation of data. Increased vigilance by authors to prevent errata and consensus by journal editors on the format of reporting are warranted. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Hauptman, Paul J.; Timm, Jeremy P.] St Louis Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, St Louis, MO 63104 USA. [Chibnall, John T.] St Louis Univ, Sch Med, Dept Neurol & Psychiat, St Louis, MO USA. [Hauptman, Paul J.; Armbrecht, Eric S.; Guild, Camelia] St Louis Univ, Sch Med, Ctr Outcomes Res, St Louis, MO USA. [Timm, Jeremy P.] Univ Utah, Sch Med, Dept Med, Salt Lake City, UT USA. [Rich, Michael W.] Washington Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Div Cardiol, St Louis, MO 63110 USA. E-mail Addresses: hauptmpj at slu.edu Cited Reference Count: 16 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010-1710 USA ISSN: 0002-9343 eISSN: 1555-7162 Web of Science Categories: Medicine, General & Internal Research Areas: General & Internal Medicine IDS Number: AO6AO Unique ID: WOS:000341430000040 Cited References: Royle Pamela, 2004, Health information and libraries journal, V21, P14 Lok Anna S., 2011, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V141, P786 Yank V, 1999, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V130, P661 SHAPIRO DW, 1994, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V271, P438 Savitz DA, 1999, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V149, P401 Wislar Joseph S., 2011, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V343, Whellan David J., 2009, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V151, P414 da Silva Jaime A. Teixeira, 2011, EMBO REPORTS, V12, P889 Zeyfert M, 2009, Impact Factor: A Guide for Editors and Editorial Boards, Eggert LD, 2011, Front Psychol., V2, P1 Beller Elaine M., 2011, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V306, P1981 Molckovsky A., 2011, CURRENT ONCOLOGY, V18, P26 Ahmed S M, 1997, Family medicine, V29, P42 Wilson John R., 2011, ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V171, P1500 Akhabue Ehimare, 2010, ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, V20, P868 Trikalin. os Thomas A., 2009, FASEB JOURNAL, V23, P2345 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Contents and time sensitive document ranking of scientific literature Authors: Xu, H; Martin, E; Mahidadia, A Author Full Names: Xu, Han; Martin, Eric; Mahidadia, Ashesh Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):546-561; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.006 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Scientific document ranking, PageRank, Latent Dirichlet Allocation, Topical longevity, Information freshness, Local damping factor KeyWords Plus: PAGERANK ALGORITHM; CITATION ANALYSIS; IMPACT Abstract: A new link-based document ranking framework is devised with at its heart, a contents and time sensitive random literature explorer designed to more accurately model the behaviour of readers of scientific documents. In particular, our ranking framework dynamically adjusts its random walk parameters according to both contents and age of encountered documents, thus incorporating the diversity of topics and how they evolve over time into the score of a scientific publication. Our random walk framework results in a ranking of scientific documents which is shown to be more effective in facilitating literature exploration than PageRank measured against a proxy gold standard based on papers' potential usefulness in facilitating later research. One of its many strengths lies in its practical value in reliably retrieving and placing promisingly useful papers at the top of its ranking. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Xu, Han; Martin, Eric; Mahidadia, Ashesh] Univ New S Wales, Sch Comp Sci & Engn, Sydney, NSW, Australia. E-mail Addresses: hanx at cse.unsw.edu.au; emartin at cse.unsw.edu.au; ashesh at cse.unsw.edu.au Cited Reference Count: 30 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700009 Cited References: Garfield E., 1979, Diodato V. P., 1994, Dictionary of bibliometrics, Mann G.S., 2006, Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries, P65 LI X, 2008, 2008 8 IEEE INT C DA, P893 Griffiths TL, 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, P5228 Blei DM, 2003, JOURNAL OF MACHINE LEARNING RESEARCH18th International Conference on Machine Learning, JUN 28-JUL 01, 2001, WILLIAMSTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS, V3, P993 Boldi P., 2005, Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide WebACM, P557 Vassilvitskii S., 2010, Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Web, P571 Yu P.S., 2005, Proceedings. The 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web IntelligenceProceedings. The 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, 19-22 Sept. 2005, Compiegne, France, Egghe L., 1990, Documentation and information science, Weingart P, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICSConference on Bibliometric Analysis in Science and Research, NOV 05-07, 2003, Julich, GERMANY, V62, P117 King B., 2013, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Hall D., 2008, Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, P363 Maslov Sergei, 2008, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V28, P11103 Zhou Ding, 2007, ICDM 2007: PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DATA MINING7th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, OCT 28-31, 2007, Omaha, NE, P739 Wissner-Gross A., 2006, Sixth international conference on advanced learning technologies, P825 Chen P., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P8 MORAVCSIK MJ, 1975, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V5, P86 Xu H., 2013, Proceedings of the 13th conference of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics, GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Brin S, 1998, COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS7th International World Wide Web Conference, APR 14-18, 1998, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, V30, P107 BONZI S, 1982, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V33, P208 Gleich D. F., 2010, Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Wed, P381 Radev D. R., 2009, Proceedings of the 2009 workshop on text and citation analysis for scholarly digital libraries, P54 Walker Dylan, 2007, JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL MECHANICS-THEORY AND EXPERIMENT, Page L, 1999, Technical Report 1999-66, Ma Nan, 2008, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V44, P800 Bressan M., 2010, Journal of Discrete Algorithms, V8, Sayyadi H., 2009, Proceedings of the 9th SIAM international conference on data mining, P533 BROOKES BC, 1971, NATURE, V232, P458 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700008 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Analysis of the distribution of cited journals according to their positions in the h-core of citing journal listed in Journal Citation Reports Authors: Campanario, JM Author Full Names: Miguel Campanario, Juan Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):534-545; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.007 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Journal citations, Journal distribution, Journal ranking KeyWords Plus: IMPACT FACTOR; SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS; INDICATORS; RANKING; SCIENCE; PERFORMANCE; LIBRARY; MARKET; ISI Abstract: The aim of this study is to analyze some properties of the distribution of journals that are cited in the h-core of citing journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports. Data were obtained from the 2011 edition of JCR available for universities in Spain. The citing journal matrix available in JCR was used to identify the cited journals that appear most frequently in the h-core. The results show that about 70% of citing journals occupy positions other than the first one in the set of journals cited by them. Some properties of the distribution of cited journals that appear in the h-core are also studied, such as the cost, in terms of citations, of occupying a given position, and the spectrum of positions (distribution of frequencies with which a given cited journal appears in different positions). The measures calculated here could be used to define new scientometric indicators. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: Univ Alcala de Henares, Dept Fis & Matemat, Madrid 28871, Spain. E-mail Addresses: juan.campanario at uah.es Cited Reference Count: 38 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700008 Cited References: Didegah Fereshteh, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P516 NAGY K, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, V86, P89 Fernando Delini M., 2011, JOURNAL OF COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT, V89, P423 Halkos George Emm, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P979 Bensman S. J., 2007, Garfield and the Impact Factor: The creation, utilization, and validation of a citation measure: The probabilistic, statistical, andsociological bases of the measure, Bensman Stephen J., 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1097 Bensman Stephen J., 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P93 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P463 Bensman Stephen J., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1904 GARFIELD E, 1990, CURRENT CONTENTS, V36, P5 Dorta-Gonzalez P., 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P593 Durieux Valerie, 2010, RADIOLOGY, V255, P342 Malesios C., 2012, ANNALS OF FOREST RESEARCH, V55, P147 SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Miguel Campanario Juan, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P419 Beckmann M, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS, V42, P267 Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P352 DuBois FL, 2000, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, V31, P689 Schubert Andras, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V96, P305 Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1327 GARFIELD E, 1984, CURRENT CONTENTS, P3 Vaio G., 2010, Cliometrica, V4, P1 Rethlefsen M. L., 2013, Journal of the Medical Library Association, V101, P47 Bensman SJ, 1998, LIBRARY RESOURCES & TECHNICAL SERVICES, V42, P147 KIM MT, 1991, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V52, P24 Linton JD, 2004, JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, V21, P123 Pendlebury David A., 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P1 Franceschet Massimo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P837 Brembs Bjoern, 2013, FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, V7, Sangwal Keshra, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P487 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Bensman SJ, 1996, LIBRARY RESOURCES & TECHNICAL SERVICES, V40, P145 Finardi Ugo, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P357 GARFIELD E, 1983, CURRENT CONTENTS, P5 Leydesdorff Loet, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P278 Glanzel Wolfgang, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V97, P13 TIJSSEN RJW, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P298 Rousseau R., 2008, COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, V2, P1 ======================================================================== *Record 9 of 16. *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700007 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Sub-field normalization of the IEEE scientific journals based on their connection with Technical Societies Authors: Franceschini, F; Maisano, D Author Full Names: Franceschini, Fiorenzo; Maisano, Domenico Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):508-533; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.005 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Journal ranking, IEEE journal, Propensity to cite, Sub-field normalization, IEEE Society KeyWords Plus: RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; IMPACT FACTOR; CITATIONS; INDICATORS Abstract: A recent paper (Canavero et al., 2014. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, doi:10.1109/TPC.2013.2255935) performed a bibliometric analysis of an extensive set of scientific journals within the Engineering field, published by IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). The analysis was based on (i) the citation impact of journal articles and (ii) the reputation of journal authors in terms of total scientific production and relevant citation impact. The goal of this paper is to complement the prior analysis, investigating on the different citation cultures of these journals, depending on the sub-field/specialty of interest. To perform this evaluation, it is suggested a novel technique, which takes into account the connections between journals and some highly specialized communities of scientists, known as IEEE Technical Societies and Councils. After showing significant differences in terms of propensity to cite, probably attributable to the large variety of sub-fields and specialties covered by IEEE journals, it is presented a simplified technique for the sub-field normalization of the results of the prior study. The main contribution of this work is (1) providing an empirical confirmation of the complexity of the problem of normalization, even for journals within the same field but different sub-fields/specialties, and (2) showing how the use of highly specialized information on a journal reference sub-field(s) may be helpful for improving the estimation of the journal propensity to cite. Description is supported by a large amount of empirical data. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Franceschini, Fiorenzo; Maisano, Domenico] Politecn Torino, DIGEP Dept Management & Prod Syst, I-10129 Turin, Italy. E-mail Addresses: fiorenzo.franceschini at polito.it; domenico.maisano at polito.it Cited Reference Count: 39 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700007 Cited References: Waltman Ludo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P37 Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P165 Rons Nadine, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P1 Alimohammadi D., 2009, Webology, V6, Franceschini F., 2014, Scientometrics, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Lundberg Jonas, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P145 Nicolaisen Jeppe, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P128 Glanzel W, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P357 Braun T., 1990, Scientometrics, V19, P13 Cointet J. P., 2013, arXiv:1302.4384, PINSKI G, 1976, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V12, P297 Moed Henk F., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P211 Franceschini F., 2012, Proceeding of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (STI 2012), 6-8 September, 2012, Montreal, Canada, Waltman Ludo, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P301 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P621 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1146 SCHUBERT A, 1987, SCIENTOMETRICS, V12, P267 Zitt M., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P329 Canavero F., 2014, IEEE Transaction on Professional Communication, Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P644 Box G.E.P., 1978, Statistics for experiments, Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2133 Garfield E., 1979, Citation indexing. Its theory and application in science, technology and humanities, Corbyn Z., 2010, Nature, Zitt Michel, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1856 Rousseau R., 1990, Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science, Glaenzel Wolfgang, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P415 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Walters Glenn D., 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P499 Ruiz-Castillo J., 2012, Sub-field normalization in the multiplicative case: Average-based citation indicators, Ravichandra Rao I.K., 2012, COLLNET Journal of Scientoemtrics and Information Management, V6, P17 GLANZEL W, 1993, SCIENTOMETRICSEUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON SCIENTOMETRIC METHODS OF RESEARCH EVALUATION IN THE SCIENCES, SOCIAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, APR 13-17, 1991, POTSDAM, GERMANY, V26, P81 Zitt Michel, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P392 Zitt M, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V63, P373 Franceschini Fiorenzo, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P463 Nardo M., 2005, Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Webster G. D., 2009, Evolution Psychology, V7, P348 ======================================================================== *Record 10 of 16. *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700012 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: What is the effect of country-specific characteristics on the research performance of scientific institutions? Using multi-level statistical models to rank and map universities and research-focused institutions worldwide Authors: Bornmann, L; Stefaner, M; Anegon, FD; Mutz, R Author Full Names: Bornmann, Lutz; Stefaner, Moritz; de Moya Anegon, Felix; Mutz, Ruediger Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):581-593; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.04.008 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Scientific excellence, Highly cited papers, Geography of science, Spatial scientometrics, Google maps, University ranking KeyWords Plus: BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS; SCIENCE; PUBLICATION; PERCENTILES; CORRUPTION; EXCELLENCE; DECISIONS; GEOGRAPHY Abstract: Bornmann, Stefaner, de Moya Anegon, and Mutz (2014) have introduced a web application (www,excellencemappingmet) which is linked to both academic ranking lists published hitherto (e.g. the Academic Ranking of World Universities) as well as spatial visualization approaches. The web application visualizes institutional performance within specific subject areas as ranking lists and on custom tile-based maps. The new, substantially enhanced version of the web application and the generalized linear mixed model for binomial data on which it is based are described in this paper. Scopus data are used which have been collected for the SCImago Institutions Ranking. Only those universities and research-focused institutions are considered that have published at least 500 articles, reviews and conference papers in the period 2006-2010 in a certain Scopus subject area. In the enhanced version, the effect of single covariates (such as the per capita GDP of a country in which an institution is located) on two performance metrics (best paper rate and best journal rate) is examined and visualized. A covariate-adjusted ranking and mapping of the institutions is produced in which the single covariates are held constant. The results on the performance of institutions can then be interpreted as if the institutions all had the same value (reference point) for the covariate in question. For example, those institutions can be identified worldwide showing a very good performance despite a bad financial situation in the corresponding country. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Bornmann, Lutz] Adm Headquarters Max Planck Soc, Div Sci & Innovat Studies, Munich, Germany. [de Moya Anegon, Felix] CSIC, Inst Publ Goods & Policies IPP, Madrid, Spain. [Mutz, Ruediger] ETH, Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail Addresses: bornmann at gv.mpg.de Cited Reference Count: 45 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700012 Cited References: Bauer Daniel J., 2009, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V74, P97 Ariu Andrea, 2013, EMBO REPORTS, V14, P502 Lancho-Barrantes Barbara S., 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P817 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V45, P199 Schabenberger O., 2005, Proceedings of the thirtieth annual SAS® users group international conference, P130 Perra N., 2013, P3 Abramo Giovanni, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P311 Meo Sultan Ayoub, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, Hazelkorn E., 2013, Beitrage zur Hochschulforschung, V35, P8 GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Bornmann Lutz, 2014, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V8, P175 Adams Jonathan, 2013, NATURE, V497, P557 Guerrero-Bote Vicente P., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P674 Pan R. K., 2012, Scientific Report, P2 Eckert D., 2013, Urban Studies, Frenken Koen, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P222 Bornmann Lutz, 2014, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V38, P43 Mutz Ruediger, 2007, DIAGNOSTICA, V53, P3 Harzing Anne-Wil, 2014, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V8, P29 Mazloumian A., 2013, Scientific Reports, V3, Bornmann Lutz, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P333 Rauhvargers A., 2011, Global university rankings and their impact, Bornmann Lutz, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P933 Hox J., 2010, Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications, SAS Institute Inc., 2008, SAS/STAT 9.2 user's guide, Gonzalez-Pereira Borja, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P379 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1954 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, V174, P857 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P547 Rodriguez-Navarro Alonso, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, 2012, Multidimensional ranking: The design and development of U-Multirank, CHE Centre for Higher Education, U-Multirank - key questions and answers, Waltman Ludo, 2013, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V64, P372 GOLDSTEIN H, 1995, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, V158, P175 Allik Jueri, 2013, TRAMES-JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, V17, P199 Van Noorden Richard, 2010, Nature, V467, P906 Bornmann Lutz, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P158 Wilhelm PG, 2002, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V35, P177 Bornmann L., 2013, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V64, P1649 Vinkler P, 2010, EVALUATION OF RESEARCH BY SCIENTOMETRIC INDICATORS, P1 RAUDENBUSH SW, 1993, JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL STATISTICS, V18, P321 Miranda L.C.M., 2010, International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, V6, Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P537 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P2419 Ketzler Rolf, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P1095 ======================================================================== *Record 11 of 16. *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700029 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Time gap analysis by the topic model-based temporal technique Authors: Jeong, DH; Song, M Author Full Names: Jeong, Do-Heon; Song, Min Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):776-790; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.07.005 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Text mining, Topic modeling, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), Content analysis, Temporal analysis, Multiple resources KeyWords Plus: LATENT DIRICHLET ALLOCATION; BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; SCIENCE; INNOVATION; FIELD Abstract: This study proposes a temporal analysis method to utilize heterogeneous resources such as papers, patents, and web news articles in an integrated manner. We analyzed the time gap phenomena between three resources and two academic areas by conducting text mining-based content analysis. To this end, a topic modeling technique, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) was used to estimate the optimal time gaps among three resources (papers, patents, and web news articles) in two research domains. The contributions of this study are summarized as follows: firstly, we propose a new temporal analysis method to understand the content characteristics and trends of heterogeneous multiple resources in an integrated manner. We applied it to measure the exact time intervals between academic areas by understanding the time gap phenomena. The results of temporal analysis showed that the resources of the medical field had more up-to-date property than those of the computer field, and thus prompter disclosure to the public. Secondly, we adopted a power-law exponent measurement and content analysis to evaluate the proposed method. With the proposed method, we demonstrate how to analyze heterogeneous resources more precisely and comprehensively. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Jeong, Do-Heon] KISTI, Taejon 305806, South Korea. [Song, Min] Yonsei Univ, Seoul 120749, South Korea. E-mail Addresses: heon at kisti.re.kr; min.song at yonsei.ac.kr Cited Reference Count: 35 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700029 Cited References: Blei DM, 2003, JOURNAL OF MACHINE LEARNING RESEARCH18th International Conference on Machine Learning, JUN 28-JUL 01, 2001, WILLIAMSTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS, V3, P993 Xu S., 2012, Proceedings on advanced computer science and technology (AST), P176 Lu Y., 2013, Proceedings of the recent trends in applied artificial intelligence: 26th international conference on industrial, engineering and other applications of applied intelligent systems, P351 Vretos Nicholas, 2012, PATTERN RECOGNITION, V45, P2489 LANCASTER FW, 1985, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V36, P389 Vulic Ivan, 2013, INFORMATION RETRIEVAL, V16, P331 Blei D. M., 2006, Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on machine learning (ICML), P113 He Q., 2009, Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM'09), P957 Wang J., 2013, Neurocomputing, V103, P99 Narin F, 1997, RESEARCH POLICY, V26, P317 Ralf K., 2012, Information Retrieval, V15, P458 Wang X., 2006, Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, P424 Zhai C. X., 2005, Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, P198 Levitt Jonathan M., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1973 Guan Jiancheng, 2013, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V80, P1271 Griffiths TL, 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, P5228 Song Min, 2014, JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V65, P352 Bjorneborn L, 2004, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V55, P1216 Kim Dongwoo, 2011, COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS AND INTELLIGENT TEXT PROCESSING, PT II12th Annual Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, FEB 20-26, 2011, Tokyo, JAPAN, V6609, P163 Daim Tugrul U., 2006, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V73, P981 Lee Kyungpyo, 2013, ENERGY POLICY, V59, P415 Sajjad M., 2013, Proceedings of the 12th international conference on business innovation and technology management, P1 Chua Alton Y. K., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P2156 Lee J. Y., 2008, Proceedings of the 15th conference of korean society for information management, P21 Vaughan Liwen, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V77, P433 AMITAY E, 2004, AM SOC INFORM SCI TE, V55, P1270 Schoepflin U, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V50, P301 Finardi Ugo, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P37 Chang J., 2009, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, P1 GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Kim J., 2012, Expert Systems with Applications, V39, P618 Shibata N., 2010, Proceedings of the 5th IEE international conference on management of innovation and technology (ICMIT2010), Egghe L, 2005, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V41, P1311 Ball R, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V66, P561 Newman David, 2009, JOURNAL OF MACHINE LEARNING RESEARCH, V10, P1801 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341376700021 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: PageRank variants in the evaluation of citation networks Authors: Nykl, M; Jezek, K; Fiala, D; Dostal, M Author Full Names: Nykl, Michal; Jezek, Karel; Fiala, Dalibor; Dostal, Martin Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 8 (3):683-692; 10.1016/j.joi.2014.06.005 JUL 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: PageRank, Citation analysis, Research evaluation, Author ranking, ISI Web of Science Abstract: This paper explores a possible approach to a research evaluation, by calculating the renown of authors of scientific papers. The evaluation is based on the citation analysis and its results should be close to a human viewpoint. The PageRank algorithm and its modifications were used for the evaluation of various types of citation networks. Our main research question was whether better evaluation results were based directly on an author network or on a publication network. Other issues concerned, for example, the determination of weights in the author network and the distribution of publication scores among their authors. The citation networks were extracted from the computer science domain in the ISI Web of Science database. The influence of self-citations was also explored. To find the best network for a research evaluation, the outputs of PageRank were compared with lists of prestigious awards in computer science such as the Turing and Codd award, ISI Highly Cited and ACM Fellows. Our experiments proved that the best ranking of authors was obtained by using a publication citation network from which self-citations were eliminated, and by distributing the same proportional parts of the publications' values to their authors. The ranking can be used as a criterion for the financial support of research teams, for identifying leaders of such teams, etc. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Nykl, Michal; Jezek, Karel; Fiala, Dalibor; Dostal, Martin] Univ W Bohemia, Dept Comp Sci & Engn, Plzen 30614, Czech Republic. E-mail Addresses: nyklm at kiv.zcu.cz; jezek_ka at kiv.zcu.cz; dalfia at kiv.zcu.cz; madostal at kiv.zcu.cz Cited Reference Count: 16 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1751-1577 eISSN: 1875-5879 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO5IE Unique ID: WOS:000341376700021 Cited References: Fiala D., 2011, Scientometrics, V86, P1 Fiala Dalibor, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P370 Assimakis N., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P415 Sidiropoulos Antonis, 2006, JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE, V79, P1679 Kleinberg JM, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE ACM, V46, P604 Lin Lili, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V97, P797 Zhao D., 2005, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V42, GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Langville A. N., 2006, The Mathematics of Google's PageRank and beyond the science of search engine rankings, Brin S, 1998, COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS7th International World Wide Web Conference, APR 14-18, 1998, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, V30, P107 Yu K., 2012, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, V44, P308 Bollen Johan, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P669 Glanzel W, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS6th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, MAY 24-27, 2000, LEIDEN, NETHERLANDS, V51, P69 Yan E., 2010, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V62, P467 Yan Erjia, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1313 Ding Ying, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P236 ======================================================================== ======================================================================== *Record 16 of 16. *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000317659200006 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Spam: A Shadow History of the Internet Authors: Brunton, F Author Full Names: Brunton, F Source: SPAM: A SHADOW HISTORY OF THE INTERNET, 1-270; 2013 Book Series: Infrastructures Series Language: English Document Type: Book KeyWords Plus: ROUGH MUSIC; WEB Cited Reference Count: 334 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: MIT PRESS, FIVE CAMBRIDGE CENTER, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142 USA ISBN: 978-0-262-01887-6 Web of Science Categories: History & Philosophy Of Science; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: History & Philosophy of Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: BEP88 Unique ID: WOS:000317659200006 Cited References: Rheingold Howard, 2012, The Atlantic, Tung Liam, 2007, Storm Worm: More Powerful than Blue Gene?, Waldrop M. Mitchell, 2001, The Dream Machine: J. C. R. Licklider and the Revolution That Made Computing Personal, [Anonymous], 2002, EC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-10843, Genova Judith, 1994, Social Epistemology, VVIII, P313 Fitzgerald Dan, 2007, Boston Herald, Department of Defense, 1988, PDP-10 Software Archive, V712, Atwood Jeff, 2009, Coding Horror (blog), Anderson C. W., 2011, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION, V5, P529 TIM WU, 2010, THE MASTER SWITCH : THE RISE AND FALL OF INFORMATION EMPIRES, Wall D, 2007, Cybercrime: The Transformation of Crime in the Information Age, Joselit David, 2007, Feedback: Television Against Democracy, Templeton Brad, 1978, Singel Ryan, 2004, Wired News, Smith DJ, 2008, CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: EVERYDAY DECEPTION AND POPULAR DISCONTENT IN NIGERIA, P1 Agar J, 2003, GOVERNMENT MACHINE: A REVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF THE COMPUTER, P1 Reid Brian, 1977, MSGGROUP# 614 Fake Robot: A Call for Help, Abbate Janet, 1999, Inventing the Internet, Wiener N., 1948, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Nazario Jose, 2007, Arbor Networks, Kumar R, 1999, COMPUTER NETWORKS-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKING, V31, P1481 Nelson Theodor, 1974, Dream Machines: New Freedoms Through Computer Screens-A Minority Report, Littman Jonathan, 1996, The Fugitive Game: Online with Kevin Mitnick, Ackerman Brad, 1994, In alt.internet.services, alt.tasteless, alt.cyberpunk, alt.culture.internet, news.admin.policy, Noha Rob JJ, 1988, comp.cog-eng, Jones Matt, 2011, BERG London (blog), Kostakis Vasilis, 2010, First Monday, V15, Scurr Erica, 1994, rec.aviation.ifr, trumpet.announce, Stephenson Neal, Coleman Gabriella, 2009, lecture, March 31, 2009, Customer Service at Portal Communications, 1988, In news.admin, misc.misc, Cormack Gordon, 2005, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Email and Anti-Spam (CEAS), Prasad Sumeet, 2009, Cantillo Brandon A., 1994, In alt.internet.services, alt.tasteless, alt.cyberpunk, alt.culture.internet, news.admin.policy, Szpakowski Mark, 2006, Skirvin Tim, FAQ, Glenny M., 2008, McMafia: A Journey Through the Global Criminal Underworld, Taylor Robert, 1989, Oral history interview by William Aspray, Smith David, 2010, Guardian, Lane Frederick S., 2000, Obscene Profits: the Entrepreneurs of Pornography in the Cyber Age, Brand S., 1988, The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT, Van Vleck Tom, 2010, multicians.org, Brin S, 1998, COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS7th International World Wide Web Conference, APR 14-18, 1998, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, V30, P107 Anderson C. W., 2012, The Social Media Reader, P77 Crocker Stephen D., 1969, RFC 3: Documentation Conventions., Jones Matt, 2011, BERG London (blog), Dibbell J., 1993, Village Voice, Johnson David R., 2001, Crypto-Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias, Chansler Bob, 1977, Lovink Geert, 2005, lecture, Hogeschool van Amsterdam, Lessig L., 2006, Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, CAVANAGH A., 2007, Sociology in the Age of the Internet, Leyden John, 2008, The Register, Postel Jon, 1975, RFC 706, Metsis Vangelis, 2006, Proceedings of Third Conference on E-mail and Anti-Spam (CEAS), Lindqvist Sven, 2003, A History of Bombing, Alder Ken, 2007, ISIS, V98, P124 Furr Joel, 1993, In alt.fan.dick-depew, news.admin.policy, alt.folklore.computers, Stross Charles, 2010, Charlie 's Diary (blog), Hartcup Guy, 2008, Camouflage: A History of Concealment and Deception in War, Paasonen Susanna, 2008, The Spam Book: On Viruses, Porn, and Other Anomalies from the Dark Side of Digital Culture, P165 Johnston J, 2009, TECHNOLOGICAL TURF WARS: A CASE STUDY OF THE COMPUTER ANTIVIRUS INDUSTRY, P1 Crocker Dave, 1975, Angwin Julia, 2009, Stealing MySpace: The Battle to Control the Most Popular Website in America, Boyle Alan, 1999, ZDNet, Ryan J., 2010, A History of the Internet and the Digital Future, White H. C., 1992, Identity and control: A structural theory of social action, Chesterton G. K., 1986, The Man Who Was Thursday - A Nightmare, Gibson W, 2010, Zero History, Krebs Brian, 2008, Washington Post, Joy Bill, 1999, Linux Magazine, Galloway Alexander R., 2007, The Exploit: A Theory of Networks, Rennie Jason D. M., 1996, Molloy Judy, 1999, Art and Innovation: The Xerox PARC Artist-in-Residence Program, P102 Schwartz John, 2007, New York Times, Werry Chris, 1999, First Monday, V4, Claburn Thomas, 2011, InformationWeek Government (blog), Turner Fred, 2006, From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism, Hayles N. Katherine, 2007, Profession, P187 Sophos Ltd, 2008, Newman Barry, 2011, Wall Street Journal, RITCHIE DM, 1984, AT&T BELL LABORATORIES TECHNICAL JOURNAL, V63, P1577 Templeton Brad, 1997, Rheingold H., 1994, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Akera Atsushi, 2007, Calculating a Natural World: Scientists, Engineers and Computers during the Rise of U.S. Cold War Research, Turing A., 1950, Mind, VLIX, P433 Feenberg Andrew, 1995, Alternative modernity: The technical turn in philosophy and social theory, Dewey J, 1954, The Public and its Problems, Maltz Tamir, 1996, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, V2, Perez Sarah, 2008, Read-WriteWeb, Palmer Bryan, 1978, Labour/le travailleur, V3, P5 Galloway Alexander R., 2010, Exploring New Configurations of Network Politics, Martin Will, 1977, MSGGROUP# 546 ABSENTEE ADDRESSEES, Kremen Rachel, 2010, Technology Review, P6 King D., 1997, The Commissar vanishes: The falsification of photographs and art in Stalin's Russia, Levy Steven, 2010, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution- 25th Anniversary Edition, McNeil Joanne, 2012, Joannemcneil.com, Lloyd Don, 1994, alt.cyberpunk, Symantec.cloud, 2011, March 2011 Intelligence Report, Morris Errol, 2011, New York Times, Scott James C., 1998, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, Stallman Richard, 1978, MSGGROUP# 698 DEC Message [VERY TASTY!], Gibson William, 2000, Neuromancer, Van Vleck Tom, 1997, multicians.org, Carter Rick, 2002, AI: Artificial Intelligence DVD Disc 2, McColo Hosting Solutions, 2008, About Company, Webber Bob, 1988, news.admin, news.sysadmin, Edwards P N, 1996, The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America, Wiener Matthew P., 1988, news.misc, Dibbell Julian, 1998, My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World, Brunner John, 1976, The Shockwave Rider, Research Optify, 2011, report, Edwards PN, 2010, VAST MACHINE: COMPUTER MODELS, CLIMATE DATA, AND THE POLITICS OF GLOBAL WARMING, P1 Kelty C., 2008, Two bits: The cultural significance of free software, Kanaley Reid, 1998, Philadelphia Inquirer, 1976, Vigilante Politics, Gansing Kristoffer, Ceruzzi PE, 2003, HISTORY OF MODERN COMPUTING, 2ND EDITION, P1 Kafka Franz, 2000, Metamorphosis and Other Stories, Wohl Robert, 2007, The Spectacle of Flight: Aviation and the Western Imagination 1920-1950, Fuller Matthew, 2008, The Spam Book: On Viruses, Porn, and Other Anomalies from the Dark Side of Digital Culture, P141 Cardwell Mike, 2010, Grepular (blog), Hess Elizabeth, 2003, Yib's Guide to MOOing: Getting the Most from Virtual Communities on the Internet, Rheingold Howard, 1994, Tomorrow, Whoriskey Peter, 2008, Washington Post, Corbusier Le, 1988, Aircraft, Parikka J., 2007, Digital contagions: A media archaeology of computer viruses, McCarthy John, 1978, MSGGROUP# 692 Reaction, Klimt Bryan, 2004, Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, Gillett Walter, 1994, In comp.lang.c++, comp.client-server, alt.sys.pc-clone. gateway2000, Lanham R.A., 2006, The Economics of Attention. Style and Substance in the Age of Information, Wolcott Jennifer, 2004, Christian Science Monitor, Yardi Sarita, 2010, First Monday, V15, Neuwirth Robert, 2011, The Stealth of Nations: The Global Rise of the Informal Economy, Williams Alex, 2010, ReadWriteWeb (blog), Preston Richard, 2007, The Wild Trees: A Story of Passion and Daring, SecureList, 2004, DataPresser, 2010, Lewis Peter H., 1998, Seattle Times, Webb Jason, 1994, COMMUN-THE FEMINIZATION OF CYBERSPACE, Peters Tim, 2002, Stiegler Bernard, 2010, Taking Care of Youth and the Generations, Pappalardo Denise, 2005, Network World, Benkler Y., 2006, The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom, Edwards Brent Eric, 1996, In news.admin.net-abuse.email, news.admin.net-abuse.misc, [Anonymous], 1997, CompuServe v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., Moore Sally Falk, 1975, Symbol and Politics in Communal Ideology, P234 Anderson D. S., 2007, Proceedings of 16th USENIX Security Symposium, Hauben Ronda, 1993, lecture, March 12, 1993, Hayes Dave, 1996, PFAFFENBERGER B, 1992, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, V17, P282 Leonard Andrew, 1997, Bots: The Origin of a New Species, Leader Jeffery J., 1998, news.admin.net-abuse.email, Thatcher Margaret, 1987, Interview for Woman's Own, Train Arthur, 1910, Cosmopolitan, Vixie Paul, 2000, Internet Archive, Kelly Kevin, 2011, lecture, Books in Browsers, The Internet Archive, October 27, 2011, San Francisco, Holt Thomas J., 2010, lecture, Hackers on Planet Earth Conference, July 16, 2010, New York City, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2003, Kendall Lori, 2010, P309 Greenberg Andy, 2008, Forbes.com, Google Inc., 2009, Securities Exchange Commission Form 10-Q, Larson William L., 1994, news.admin.policy, Fraser Matthew, 2011, Stallman Richard, 1978, MSGGROUP# 697 Some Thoughts about Advertising, Rowe Brent, 2010, TRUST AND TRUSTWORTHY COMPUTING, PROCEEDINGS3rd International Conference on Trust and Trustworthy Computing, JUN 21-23, 2010, Berlin, GERMANY, V6101, P337 The Virtual Magistrate, 2001, Crypto-Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias, P343 Price M. E., 2005, Self-regulation and the internet, Liu Dongxiao, 2008, 3rd Communication Policy Research, South Conference, Beijing, Terranova Tiziana, 2010, lecture, September 7, 2010, Scandic Linkoping Vast, Linkoping, Sweden, Carr J. Frank, 2007, OpTempo, Zipf GK, 1949, Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort, von Uexkull Jakob, 2010, A Foray Into the Worlds of Animals and Humans, with A Theory of Meaning, Licklider J. C. R., 1968, Science and Technology, V76, Benkler Y, 2004, YALE LAW JOURNAL, V114, P273 Pfaffenberger B., 1996, Information Society, V12, Bridle James, 2011, RIG London (blog), Graham Paul, 2002, paulgraham.com, Rennie J.D.M., 2001, Improving Multi-Class Text Classification with Naive Bayes, GILMAN N, 2011, DEVIANT GLOBALIZATIO, Hafner Katie, 2001, The Well: A Story of Love, Death and Real Life in the Seminal Online Community, Holt T. J., 2010, Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, V23, P33 Grossman Wendy, 1997, Net.Wars, Sibona Christopher, 2011, 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Internet and the Digital Economy Track: Social Networking and Communities, P1 Hofstadter Douglas, 1981, The Mind's I, P69 Postel Jon, 1977, Levchenko Kirill, 2011, 2011 IEEE SYMPOSIUM ON SECURITY AND PRIVACY (SP 2011)32nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP 2011), MAY 22-25, 2011, Berkeley, CA, P431 Dyson F., 2011, The New York Review of Books, V58, North Jeanne B., 1973, ARPANET News, V1, Zellich Rich, 1978, MSGGROUP# 693 INOVATIONS IN ENGINEERING PUBLICATION, Parry James, 2003, rec.arts. comics. strips, alt.religion.kibology, Stallman Richard, 2012, GNU Project, Den Beste Steve, 1982, In net.misc, Canter Laurence, 1994, How to Make a Fortune on the Information Superhighway: Everyone's Guerrilla Guide to Marketing on the Internet and Other On-Line Services, Walker Steve, 1975, MSGGROUP# 002 Message Group Status, Zhang Harry, 2004, Proceedings of the Seventeenth Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, Kaplan David E., 2001, U.S. News & World Report, P29 THOMPSON EP, 1992, FOLKLORE, V103, P3 Pfanner Eric, 2006, New York Times, Phifer Lisa, 2006, SHOCH JF, 1982, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, V25, P172 Rennie Jason D.M., 2000, Proceedings of the KDD-2000 Text Mining Workshop, Latour B., 2005, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Davis Natalie Zemon, 1983, The Return of Martin Guerre, Finjan Software, 2008, Stephenson Neal, 2008, Anathem, Williams Raymond, 1985, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Armstrong Alice, 2011, UCL working paper no. 8/2011, Canter Laurence, 2002, CNET News, Enright Brandon, 2008, USENIX; login, V33, Coate John, 1998, Elmer Greg, 2008, The Spam Book: On Viruses, Porn, and Other Anomalies from the Dark Side of Digital Culture, P217 Evans Brynn, 2008, Flickr, Burk Dan L., 2000, SMALL & EMERGING BUS. L.J., V4, P27 Dagon D., 2006, Proceedings of the 13th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS '06), Galloway Alexander R., 2008, The Spam Book: On Viruses, Porn, and Other Anomalies from the Dark Side of Digital Culture, P251 Litman J., 2004, Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, V27, P1 Nelson Bruce, 1977, MSGGROUP# 569 Does It Know about Mail, Too?, Parikka Jussi, 2009, The Spam Book: On Viruses, Porn, and Other Anomalies from the Dark Side of Digital Culture, P101 Kwinter Sanford, 1995, Assemblage, P80 Moran John M., 2002, Hartford Courant, Naughton John J., 2000, A Brief History of the Future: From Radio Days to Internet Years in a Lifetime, Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group, 2011, Email Metrics Program: The Network Operators' Perspective. Report #15-First, Second and Third Quarter 2011, Graham Paul, 2003, paulgraham.com, Anderson Nate, 2007, Ars Technica, Krebs Brian, 2012, Krebs on Security, Fetterly Dennis, 2004, Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on the Web and Databases, V67, P1 Mueller Milton, 2002, Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace, Hansen S, 2004, NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW, P20 Bowker G. C., 1999, Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences, Customer Service at Portal Communications, 1988, In news.admin, news.sysadmin, Reuters, 2007, Pringle G, 1998, COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS7th International World Wide Web Conference, APR 14-18, 1998, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, V30, P369 Battelle John, 2005, The Search: How Google and its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture, Parker Graham, 2009, Fair Use (Notes from Spam), Kharif Olga, 2012, Bloomberg Businessweek, Henderson Austin, 1977, Moser Bob, 2003, Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report, V111, Hilderbrand Lucas, 2009, Inherent Vice: Bootleg Histories of Videotape and Copyright, Hardy Thomas, 1887, The Mayor of Casterbridge, Williamson III Charles W., 2008, Armed Forces Journal, Latour Bruno, 1996, Aramis, or the Love of Technology, French P. A., 2001, The virtues of vengeance, [Anonymous], 1998, BBC NEWS, Jerz D. G., 2007, Digital Humanities Quarterly, V1, Hollis Ken, 2005, Latour Bruno, 2007, ISIS, V98, P138 Kropotkin Peter, 2002, Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings, Forbes Amy Wiese, 2010, The Satiric Decade. Satire and the Rise of Republicanism in France, 1830-1840, Franklin Jason, 2007, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), Spatt Hartley S., 2002, The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives, Vol. 5: Notable Americans Who Died between 1997 and 1999, V5, Turkle S., 1997, Life on the Screen: Identity in the age of the internet, Cohen Norm, 2008, New York Times, Anthony Kilna, 1994, alt.internet.services, alt.tasteless, alt.cyberpunk, alt.culture.internet, news.admin.policy, Call Kathleen Thiede, 2011, MEDICAL CARE, V49, P355 Da Chronic, Hawkesworth James, 1775, An Account of the Voyages Undertaken by the Order of His Present Majesty, for Making Discoveries in the Southern Hemisphere, and Successively Performed by Commodore Byron, Captain Wallis, Captain Carteret, and Captain Cook, In the Dolphin, the Swallow, and the Endeavour: Drawn up from the Journals which were kept by the several Commanders, and from the Papers of Joseph Banks, Esq., V1, Graham Paul, 2002, paulgraham.com, Pickering Andrew, 2010, The cybernetic brain: Sketches of another future, Markoff John, 2005, What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry, Kelly Kevin, 2008, The Technium (blog), KINSMAN G, 1995, LABOUR-LE TRAVAIL, P133 SHUBIK M, 1971, JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION, V15, P109 Stivale Charles J., 1997, Internet Culture, P133 Lions John, 1977, Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition, with Source Code, Friedman Richard, 1994, In alt.internet.services, alt.tasteless, alt.cyberpunk, alt.culture.internet, news.admin.policy, Harris Oliver, 2003, William Burroughs and the Secret of Fascination, Shaviro Steven, 1997, Doom Patrols: A Theoretical Fiction about Postmodernism, Flynn Laurie, 1994, New York Times, Borges Jorge Luis, 1962, Ficciones, Carlson Nicholas, 2011, Business Insider, Hofstadter D. R., 1999, Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid, Graham Paul, 2003, paulgraham.com, Crocker Stephen D., 2009, New York Times, Hayes Dave, 1997, Hansen Robert, 2010, ha.ckers.org (blog), McDermott J., 1998, Wall Street Journal, Kleinrock Leonard, Computing Now, Nicholson Robert, 1994, bit.listserv.vse-l, demon.local, news.admin.policy, Lialina Olia, 2009, Digital Folklore Reader, P58 2009, Internet governance: Infrastructure and institutions, Wohl Robert, 1996, A Passion for Wings: Aviation and the Western Imagination 1908-1918, Zipf G.K., 1965, The Psycho-Biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology Houghton Mifflin Company, Cormack Gordon, 2005, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), Stefferud Einar, 1978, MSGGROUP# 675 The Quasar Discussion, Simon Herbert, 1971, Computers, Communications and the Public Interest, P37 Alder Ken, 2009, The Lie Detectors: The History of an American Obsession, Motoyama M., 2010, Proc. USENIX Security, P435 Hauben Michael, 1998, First Monday, V3, Dixon Robyn, 2005, Los Angeles Times, Kleinpaste Karl, 1994, news.admin.misc, news.admin.policy, Nissenbaum H, 2004, WASHINGTON LAW REVIEWSymposium on Technology, Values, and the Justice System, JAN 16-17, 2004, Seattle, WA, V79, P119 Scoblionkov Deborah, 1998, Wired News, Gitelman Lisa, 2006, Always Already New: Media, history and the data of culture, Marwick Alice, 2010, Sullivan Danny, 2002, Search Engine Watch, Fishkin Rand, 2005, Search Engine Journal, Chapman George, 1875, The Works of George Chapman: Poems and Minor Translations, Greene Tim, 2007, Network World, Graham Paul, paulgraham.com, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Mon Oct 6 04:36:15 2014 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:36:15 +0200 Subject: Is bibliometrics at danger? In-Reply-To: <1654640A36FE964C936514B2FD0B2CB406A78D16@EAGE-ERFPMBX45.ERF.thomson.com> Message-ID: During our last conferences (Vienna, Berlin, Leiden) we discussed the problems related to the uncontrolled usage of bibliometric techniques by people without enough knowledge of the quality standards needed for research assessment. In fact with the spread usage of ?bad? bibliometrics the discipline is starting to be viewed as irrelevant or seriously flawed and biased. It is important to read carefully the now famous DORA declaration that not only discourages the usage of the impact factor but it is also attacking the whole citation analysis as the recommended evaluation tool. I already mentioned during the Vienna session that from a practical point of view the success of certain rankings of Universities that use flawed citation data is also a source of potential danger for the prestige of the discipline. A few days ago the British magazine Times Higher Education (THE) published the last edition of its very popular ranking of Universities. Besides a reputation survey-based indicator they also collect citation data (30% of the overall score) that during the last years have produced very striking results. Among others, you can check in the current edition that Federico Santa Maria Technical University, Chile has a larger score than Harvard or Princeton, Tokyo Metropolitan University larger than Caltech or Stanford, or Bogazici University, Turkey is performing better than Oxford or Cambridge. My point here is that data does not come from a THE journalist but, surprise, directly from Thomson Reuters, as stated in their methodology webpage: ?this year, our data supplier Thomson Reuters examined more than 50 million citations to 6 million journal articles, published over five years. The data are drawn from the 12,000 academic journals indexed by Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database and include all indexed journals published between 2008 and 2012. Citations to these papers made in the six years from 2008 to 2013 are also collected?. You can find a very good analysis with tables in the blog of Richard Holmes: http://rankingwatch.blogspot.com/ I know that Thomson Reuters is an independent private company, but I wonder if our community as represented in this forum could ask for a strong action regarding this unfortunate situation. -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com From s.de.rijcke at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Tue Oct 7 08:27:46 2014 From: s.de.rijcke at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Rijcke, S. de) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:27:46 +0000 Subject: lessons learned on developing guiding principles and standards Message-ID: Dear all, Below you'll find a link to a guest blogpost by professor Peter Dahler-Larsen. The reflections are a follow-up of his keynote at the recent STI conference in Leiden, and particularly the special session on the development of quality standards for science & technology indicators (co-organised with Ismael Rafols and Paul Wouters). Dahler-Larsen holds a chair at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. He is former president of the European Evaluation Society and author of The Evaluation Society (Stanford University Press, 2012): http://citationculture.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/developing-guiding-principles-and-standards-in-the-field-of-evaluation-lessons-learned/ -- Dr. Sarah de Rijcke Working group leader Evaluation Practices in Context (EPIC) Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Leiden University PO Box 905 2300 AX Leiden, The Netherlands +31 71 527 6853 www.cwts.nl/Evaluation-Practices-in-Context www.sarahderijcke.nl https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/SdeRijcke Visiting Address Willem Einthoven Building Wassenaarseweg 62A 2333 AL Leiden The Netherlands -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wouter.gerritsma at WUR.NL Mon Oct 6 17:24:55 2014 From: wouter.gerritsma at WUR.NL (Gerritsma, Wouter) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 21:24:55 +0000 Subject: Is bibliometrics at danger? In-Reply-To: <5432547F.6050706@cchs.csic.es> Message-ID: Isidoro Years ago a similar issue played around the Leiden ranking as well, with a German university coming out in the first place, based on a single, young, well cited paper. This might be one of the reasons CWTS put more emphasis on the %top10% most cited papers in the new versions of the Leiden Ranking Wouter -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: maandag 6 oktober 2014 10:36 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Is bibliometrics at danger? During our last conferences (Vienna, Berlin, Leiden) we discussed the problems related to the uncontrolled usage of bibliometric techniques by people without enough knowledge of the quality standards needed for research assessment. In fact with the spread usage of "bad" bibliometrics the discipline is starting to be viewed as irrelevant or seriously flawed and biased. It is important to read carefully the now famous DORA declaration that not only discourages the usage of the impact factor but it is also attacking the whole citation analysis as the recommended evaluation tool. I already mentioned during the Vienna session that from a practical point of view the success of certain rankings of Universities that use flawed citation data is also a source of potential danger for the prestige of the discipline. A few days ago the British magazine Times Higher Education (THE) published the last edition of its very popular ranking of Universities. Besides a reputation survey-based indicator they also collect citation data (30% of the overall score) that during the last years have produced very striking results. Among others, you can check in the current edition that Federico Santa Maria Technical University, Chile has a larger score than Harvard or Princeton, Tokyo Metropolitan University larger than Caltech or Stanford, or Bogazici University, Turkey is performing better than Oxford or Cambridge. My point here is that data does not come from a THE journalist but, surprise, directly from Thomson Reuters, as stated in their methodology webpage: "this year, our data supplier Thomson Reuters examined more than 50 million citations to 6 million journal articles, published over five years. The data are drawn from the 12,000 academic journals indexed by Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database and include all indexed journals published between 2008 and 2012. Citations to these papers made in the six years from 2008 to 2013 are also collected". You can find a very good analysis with tables in the blog of Richard Holmes: http://rankingwatch.blogspot.com/ I know that Thomson Reuters is an independent private company, but I wonder if our community as represented in this forum could ask for a strong action regarding this unfortunate situation. -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Tue Oct 7 10:16:40 2014 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 16:16:40 +0200 Subject: Is bibliometrics at danger? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Wouter, You are right, I remember the problem. But it was solved in the next edition as you can expect once the issue has been identified. But the situation I described has been already reported for several years. However my main point is proliferation of comments like: "The perils of ranking things based on citations" as appeared today in Twitter. Bad bibliometrics by main citation database developer is affecting very negatively to our discipline. Best, On 06/10/2014 23:24, Gerritsma, Wouter wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidoro > > Years ago a similar issue played around the Leiden ranking as well, with a German university coming out in the first place, based on a single, young, well cited paper. > This might be one of the reasons CWTS put more emphasis on the %top10% most cited papers in the new versions of the Leiden Ranking > > Wouter > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: maandag 6 oktober 2014 10:36 > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Is bibliometrics at danger? > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > During our last conferences (Vienna, Berlin, Leiden) we discussed the problems related to the uncontrolled usage of bibliometric techniques by people without enough knowledge of the quality standards needed for research assessment. In fact with the spread usage of "bad" > bibliometrics the discipline is starting to be viewed as irrelevant or seriously flawed and biased. It is important to read carefully the now famous DORA declaration that not only discourages the usage of the impact factor but it is also attacking the whole citation analysis as the recommended evaluation tool. > > I already mentioned during the Vienna session that from a practical point of view the success of certain rankings of Universities that use flawed citation data is also a source of potential danger for the prestige of the discipline. > > A few days ago the British magazine Times Higher Education (THE) published the last edition of its very popular ranking of Universities. > Besides a reputation survey-based indicator they also collect citation data (30% of the overall score) that during the last years have produced very striking results. Among others, you can check in the current edition that Federico Santa Maria Technical University, Chile has a larger score than Harvard or Princeton, Tokyo Metropolitan University larger than Caltech or Stanford, or Bogazici University, Turkey is performing better than Oxford or Cambridge. > > My point here is that data does not come from a THE journalist but, surprise, directly from Thomson Reuters, as stated in their methodology > webpage: "this year, our data supplier Thomson Reuters examined more than 50 million citations to 6 million journal articles, published over five years. The data are drawn from the 12,000 academic journals indexed by Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database and include all indexed journals published between 2008 and 2012. Citations to these papers made in the six years from 2008 to 2013 are also collected". > > You can find a very good analysis with tables in the blog of Richard > Holmes: http://rankingwatch.blogspot.com/ > > I know that Thomson Reuters is an independent private company, but I wonder if our community as represented in this forum could ask for a strong action regarding this unfortunate situation. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com From gingras.yves at UQAM.CA Tue Oct 7 11:19:08 2014 From: gingras.yves at UQAM.CA (Yves Gingras) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:19:08 -0400 Subject: Is bibliometrics at danger? In-Reply-To: <5433F5C8.2060307@cchs.csic.es> Message-ID: Hello It is true that the flawed indicators used in many rankings generate criticisms of the use of citations in evaluation but one should also note that the promotion of so-called "altmetrics" is often understood as being an 'alternative' to citations as if the latter were not an adequate measure of impact. This term should be replaced by a better one like webindicators or netindicators or anything saying clearly that those are not 'alternative' but different measures adapted to a different mode of diffusion. Best reagrds Yves Gingras Le 07/10/14 10:16, ??Isidro F. Aguillo?? a ?crit?: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Wouter, > > You are right, I remember the problem. But it was solved in the next > edition as you can expect once the issue has been identified. But the > situation I described has been already reported for several years. > However my main point is proliferation of comments like: > > "The perils of ranking things based on citations" > > as appeared today in Twitter. Bad bibliometrics by main citation > database developer is affecting very negatively to our discipline. > > Best, > > > On 06/10/2014 23:24, Gerritsma, Wouter wrote: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Isidoro >> >> Years ago a similar issue played around the Leiden ranking as well, with a >> German university coming out in the first place, based on a single, young, >> well cited paper. >> This might be one of the reasons CWTS put more emphasis on the %top10% most >> cited papers in the new versions of the Leiden Ranking >> >> Wouter >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >> [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >> Sent: maandag 6 oktober 2014 10:36 >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Is bibliometrics at danger? >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> During our last conferences (Vienna, Berlin, Leiden) we discussed the >> problems related to the uncontrolled usage of bibliometric techniques by >> people without enough knowledge of the quality standards needed for research >> assessment. In fact with the spread usage of "bad" >> bibliometrics the discipline is starting to be viewed as irrelevant or >> seriously flawed and biased. It is important to read carefully the now famous >> DORA declaration that not only discourages the usage of the impact factor but >> it is also attacking the whole citation analysis as the recommended >> evaluation tool. >> >> I already mentioned during the Vienna session that from a practical point of >> view the success of certain rankings of Universities that use flawed citation >> data is also a source of potential danger for the prestige of the discipline. >> >> A few days ago the British magazine Times Higher Education (THE) published >> the last edition of its very popular ranking of Universities. >> Besides a reputation survey-based indicator they also collect citation data >> (30% of the overall score) that during the last years have produced very >> striking results. Among others, you can check in the current edition that >> Federico Santa Maria Technical University, Chile has a larger score than >> Harvard or Princeton, Tokyo Metropolitan University larger than Caltech or >> Stanford, or Bogazici University, Turkey is performing better than Oxford or >> Cambridge. >> >> My point here is that data does not come from a THE journalist but, surprise, >> directly from Thomson Reuters, as stated in their methodology >> webpage: "this year, our data supplier Thomson Reuters examined more than 50 >> million citations to 6 million journal articles, published over five years. >> The data are drawn from the 12,000 academic journals indexed by Thomson >> Reuters' Web of Science database and include all indexed journals published >> between 2008 and 2012. Citations to these papers made in the six years from >> 2008 to 2013 are also collected". >> >> You can find a very good analysis with tables in the blog of Richard >> Holmes: http://rankingwatch.blogspot.com/ >> >> I know that Thomson Reuters is an independent private company, but I wonder >> if our community as represented in this forum could ask for a strong action >> regarding this unfortunate situation. >> > Yves Gingras Professeur D?partement d'histoire Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire et sociologie des sciences Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) UQAM C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville Montr?al, Qu?bec Canada, H3C 3P8 Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053 Fax: (514)-987-7726 http://www.chss.uqam.ca http://www.cirst.uqam.ca http://www.ost.uqam.ca From jochen.schirrwagen at UNI-BIELEFELD.DE Tue Oct 7 11:10:51 2014 From: jochen.schirrwagen at UNI-BIELEFELD.DE (Jochen Schirrwagen) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:10:51 +0200 Subject: survey on current and future evaluation of research data impact (RDA/WDS Bibliometrics WG) Message-ID: ***apologies for crossposting, this is the 2nd call*** Dear All, The Research Data Alliance/ World Data Service (RDA/WDS) Publishing Data Bibliometrics Working Group is conducting a survey to investigate the viability of bibliometrics for data. We would like to invite all data producers, users, managers and publishers to complete the survey to tell us how you currently evaluate the impact of data, and how you would wish to do so in the future. The survey is one page long and should take no more than five minutes to complete. The survey link is https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RDA_bibliometrics_data The results will be disseminated via the Bibliometrics Working Group web page towards the end of 2014. If you would like to know more about the survey or the Bibliometrics working group, or if you would like to join the working group, then please email [log in to unmask] or visit the working group web page at https://rd-alliance.org/group/rdawds-publishing-data-bibliometrics-wg.html Please do pass on this invitation to anyone else who you think might be interested. Your feedback in the survey is very much appreciated! Kind regards, -- Jochen Schirrwagen Department of Library Technology and Knowledge Management Bielefeld University - University Library Universit?tsstr. 25 - 33615 Bielefeld, Germany Tel: +49 (0) 521/106-4047 Fax: +49 (0) 521/106-4052 From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Wed Oct 8 07:27:26 2014 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:27:26 +0200 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN 1780634722, 9781780634722 http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isbn-9781843347910/ Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. Key Features: ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003?8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com From noyons at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Wed Oct 8 11:00:57 2014 From: noyons at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Noijons, E.) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:00:57 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden University launches Advanced Citation Analysis Course Message-ID: Dear all, In our ambition to extend the CWTS course program, we will launch an exciting new course on Advanced Citation Analysis in 2015. The course will be held in Leiden from January 28-29, 2015. For your perusal, please find further information and the preliminary program attached and on the CWTS website (www.cwts.nl). If you feel that the course might be valuable for someone else, would you please be so kind as to forward the information to people in your network? Please send an e-mail to m.neijssel at cwts.leidenuniv.nl to receive the booking form for this novel CWTS course. Sincerely, Ed Noyons -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CWTS Advanced citation analysis course.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 125680 bytes Desc: CWTS Advanced citation analysis course.pdf URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Thu Oct 9 09:36:21 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 13:36:21 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <54351F9E.3070305@cchs.csic.es> Message-ID: Isidro, Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN 1780634722, 9781780634722 http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isbn-9781843347910/ Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. Key Features: ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com From isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES Thu Oct 9 10:07:17 2014 From: isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES (Isidro F. Aguillo) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:07:17 +0200 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isbn-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com From notsjb at LSU.EDU Thu Oct 9 10:32:35 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 14:32:35 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <54369695.3020009@cchs.csic.es> Message-ID: Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com From riorma at GMAIL.COM Thu Oct 9 10:46:40 2014 From: riorma at GMAIL.COM (=?UTF-8?Q?Enrique_Ordu=C3=B1a?=) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:46:40 +0200 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <80e8f02a180a48b9845053d8248fe121@CO1PR06MB174.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. > He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want > you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed > up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my > stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not > know what I was doing. > > You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research > engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. > It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, > irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation > indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by > also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered > clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at > semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book > presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, > as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have > come back into vogue. > > I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto: > SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Stephen, > > Ooops! > > Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator > and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an > answer from him soon. > > But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the > technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way > Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. > Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play > a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also > possible links are also taken into account. > > Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a > traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they > are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To > my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the > contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. > > Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels > of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of > your university > > site:lsu.edu > > This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. > > Best regards, > > > > On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Isidro, > > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative > Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at > least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the > Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank > operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that > you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems > to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with > Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run > comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better > results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At > least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her > program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the > quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic > classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, > working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or > Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure > whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something > like megabytes of data or something like that. > > > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you > to vet it when we have it ready. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > > LSU Libraries > > Lousiana State University > > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > > USA > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > > search engines > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > > n-9781843347910/ > > > > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of > the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses > the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to > describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their > advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new > products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the > research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines > presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the > scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching > services available on the Web. > > > > Key Features: > > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively > addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of > these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding > characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent > investigations. > > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative > analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and > harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National > Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab > of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he > was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands > Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as > information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with > the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage > mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social > networks for scientists. > > > > > -- > > ************************************ > Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. > The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC > Grupo Scimago > Madrid. SPAIN > > isidro.aguillo at csic.es > ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 > ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 > Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ > Twitter @isidroaguillo > Rankings Web webometrics.info > ************************************ > > > --- > Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! > Antivirus est? activa. > http://www.avast.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Thu Oct 9 12:23:16 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:23:16 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Thu Oct 9 14:13:10 2014 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 14:13:10 -0400 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: However, Google and Google Scholar are really very different so they should not be conflated. This is because websites and scholarly publications have very different properties for the respective algorithms to operate on, among other things. There are certain analogs to be sure, but they are just that, analogs. David David Wojick, Ph.D. http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 12:23 PM 10/9/2014, you wrote: >Enrique, >Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no >longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google >Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is >revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to >have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex >enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better >and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer >ratings were the only standard > >SB. > > > >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu??a >Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >search engines > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear friends, > >Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy >of Ortega's book :) > >As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into >account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega >in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a >working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, >which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop >of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. > >Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, >the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count >estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes >unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft >copyright. > >Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results >will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. > >As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both >in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are >changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" >stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes >get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. > >Best, > >Enrique > >On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman ><notsjb at lsu.edu> wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Isidro, >Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from >Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I >definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready >soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to >correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because >I did not know what I was doing. > >You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research >engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by >words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering >incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory >of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He >strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing >this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple >linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token >words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft >Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political >system that now seems to have come back into vogue. > >I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. > >Respectfully, > >Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >LSU Libraries >Lousiana State University >Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >USA > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >search engines > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear Stephen, > >Ooops! > >Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator >and friend Jos?? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an >answer from him soon. > >But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the >technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the >way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. >Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play >a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also >possible links are also taken into account. > >Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a >traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although >they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they >publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent >products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. > >Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels >of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of >your university > >site:lsu.edu > >This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. > >Best regards, > > > >On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Isidro, > > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative > Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at > least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how > the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how > PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know > is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, > which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with > Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run > comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better > results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At > least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her > program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the > quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic > classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, > working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or > Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure > whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something > like megabytes of data or something like that. > > > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you > to vet it when we have it ready. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > > LSU Libraries > > Lousiana State University > > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > > USA > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > > search engines > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Jos?? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > > > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > > n-9781843347910/ > > > > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of > the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses > the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to > describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their > advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new > products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on > the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search > Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to > the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching > services available on the Web. > > > > Key Features: > > ?? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively > addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > > ?? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of > these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding > characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with > recent investigations. > > ?? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative > analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and > harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > > > Jos?? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish > National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the > Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies > (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the > Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a > position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his > collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as > webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic > search engines and social networks for scientists. > > > > >-- > >************************************ >Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. >The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC >Grupo Scimago >Madrid. SPAIN > >isidro.aguillo at csic.es >ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 >ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 >Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ >Twitter @isidroaguillo >Rankings Web webometrics.info >************************************ > > >--- >Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci??n de avast! >Antivirus est?? activa. >http://www.avast.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.bosman at UU.NL Thu Oct 9 15:40:13 2014 From: j.bosman at UU.NL (Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 19:40:13 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Thu Oct 9 16:27:06 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 20:27:06 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <0DFC10B4-53C6-4942-ADC9-05690A63557F@uu.nl> Message-ID: Jeroen, Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: "Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web." Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system-number of word tokens in given document-that was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.bosman at UU.NL Thu Oct 9 17:40:31 2014 From: j.bosman at UU.NL (Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 21:40:31 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Stephen, Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. Best, Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Jeroen Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: ?Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.? Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_ortega at GMX.NET Fri Oct 10 04:26:09 2014 From: jose_ortega at GMX.NET (Jose Luis Ortega) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:26:09 +0200 Subject: Aw: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <08DDE409-C387-4CCE-A5D5-AB117468703F@uu.nl> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_ortega at GMX.NET Fri Oct 10 04:32:46 2014 From: jose_ortega at GMX.NET (Jose Luis Ortega) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:32:46 +0200 Subject: Fw: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From riorma at GMAIL.COM Fri Oct 10 04:42:33 2014 From: riorma at GMAIL.COM (=?UTF-8?Q?Enrique_Ordu=C3=B1a?=) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:42:33 +0200 Subject: Aw: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Stephen, I do not believe that having a single standard with Google Scholar is good, I would prefer some market competition. The models provided by Google and Microsoft were completely different. Google has won. But MAS provided better functionalities, robustness, etc. The model followed by two companies in the creation of researcher profiles maybe was the key in the downgrade of MAS. In Google, people control their profiles directly and everyday are reducing errors by correcting information themselves. Otherwise I agree with the comments of David about the differences between Google and Google Scholar. Perhaps some journal editors should understand that academic journals are websites as well. The relevance of documents set for a especific query is essential for an academic search engine succesful. Mixing information retrieval systems and science metrics gives this interesting scene, in which the contribution of Jose Luis is of much interest. enrique On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jose Luis Ortega wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Jeroen, > > Thank you for starting the book reading. I am completly agree with your > according to the retrieval problems of GS, concretly the ranking algorithm. > This is proper for general web pages but not entirely for research > documents. It gives excesive weight to citations and less to word matching, > this causes that the first documents are alway old papers with a lot of > citations but irrelevant to the query. This is a interesting point because > we talk too much on research evaluation, citations, h-index, etc. in search > engines but we forget the main utility of these services: retrievering > information. And this facet, I think, shows several and important gaps in > every academic search engine. > > On MAS updating, I consider that MAS is in a standstill because its last > updating was in 2012. This is a serious problem because their data are so > old that make impossible to be informed on the new scientific results. > > Regards > > Jos? Luis Ortega > Cybermetrics Lab > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 09. Oktober 2014 um 23:40 Uhr > *Von:* "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" > *An:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Betreff:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on > academic search engines > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Stephen, > > Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 > (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early > sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and > Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt > that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some > decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted > to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing > press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be > complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and > paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for > instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the > system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv > (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have > revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a > much more restricted field of physics and information science. > > On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and > Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my > students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear > filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but > outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised > this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this > respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. > > Best, > Jeroen Bosman > @jeroenbosman > > Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het > volgende geschreven: > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jeroen > > Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic > search engines: > > > > ?Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now > engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of > the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the > 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we > will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution > is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically > defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined > with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of > nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the > World Wide Web.? > > > > Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, > so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on > what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number > of word tokens in given document?that was proven wrong and ineffective in > semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to > grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and > suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something > else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living > in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Stephen J Bensman > > LSU Libraries > > Lousiana State University > > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > > USA > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto: > SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) > *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on > academic search engines > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, > > > > Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do > not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers > some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation > contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single > standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the > scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think > that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines > of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to > the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. > > > > Best, > > Jeroen > > > > > > > > Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het > volgende geschreven: > > Enrique, > > Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no > longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. > If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the > scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, > and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to > compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was > the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard > > > > SB. > > > > > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] *On > Behalf Of *Enrique Ordu?a > *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on > academic search engines > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear friends, > > > > Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy > of Ortega's book :) > > > > As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into > account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega > in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a > working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, > which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop > of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. > > > > Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, > the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count > estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes > unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft > copyright. > > > > Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results > will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. > > > > As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both > in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are > changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" > stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get > us unexpected results in terms of coverage. > > > > Best, > > > > Enrique > > > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. > He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want > you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed > up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my > stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not > know what I was doing. > > You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research > engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. > It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, > irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation > indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by > also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered > clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at > semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book > presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, > as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have > come back into vogue. > > I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto: > SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Stephen, > > Ooops! > > Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator > and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an > answer from him soon. > > But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the > technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way > Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. > Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play > a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also > possible links are also taken into account. > > Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a > traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they > are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To > my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the > contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. > > Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels > of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of > your university > > site:lsu.edu > > This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. > > Best regards, > > > > On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Isidro, > > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative > Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at > least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the > Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank > operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that > you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems > to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with > Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run > comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better > results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At > least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her > program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the > quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic > classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, > working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or > Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure > whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something > like megabytes of data or something like that. > > > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you > to vet it when we have it ready. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > > LSU Libraries > > Lousiana State University > > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > > USA > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > > search engines > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > > n-9781843347910/ > > > > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of > the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses > the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to > describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their > advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new > products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the > research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines > presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the > scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching > services available on the Web. > > > > Key Features: > > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively > addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of > these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding > characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent > investigations. > > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative > analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and > harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National > Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab > of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he > was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands > Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as > information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with > the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage > mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social > networks for scientists. > > > > > -- > > ************************************ > Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. > The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC > Grupo Scimago > Madrid. SPAIN > > isidro.aguillo at csic.es > ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 > ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 > Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ > Twitter @isidroaguillo > Rankings Web webometrics.info > ************************************ > > > --- > Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! > Antivirus est? activa. > http://www.avast.com > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andreas.strotmann at GMAIL.COM Fri Oct 10 04:46:26 2014 From: andreas.strotmann at GMAIL.COM (Andreas Strotmann) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:46:26 +0200 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20141009140851.06dfbe48@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Again you are talking to the very people who know by profession just how wrong you are, David. The only thing those two (Google and Google Scholar) really differ on is how to extract links from digital documents, but that is a trivial distinction. In fact, Google's search engine is famous for showing that citation analysis (applied to web links as citations) is an extremely effective IR (and, as Stephen Bensman points out, knowledge representation) paradigm. Calling those two homologous would be a severe understatement of their closeness; claiming them to be mere analogs is a sign of - with all due respect - severe ignorance of the underlying science and technology. Regards, -- Andreas Strotmann On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:13 PM, David Wojick wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > However, Google and Google Scholar are really very different so they > should not be conflated. This is because websites and scholarly > publications have very different properties for the respective algorithms > to operate on, among other things. There are certain analogs to be sure, > but they are just that, analogs. > > David > > David Wojick, Ph.D. > http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > > At 12:23 PM 10/9/2014, you wrote: > > Enrique, > Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no > longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. > If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the > scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, > and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to > compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was > the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard > > SB. > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] *On > Behalf Of *Enrique Ordu??a > *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on > academic search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear friends, > > Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy > of Ortega's book :) > > As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into > account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega > in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a > working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, > which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop > of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. > > Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, > the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count > estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes > unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft > copyright. > > Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results > will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. > > As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both > in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are > changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" > stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get > us unexpected results in terms of coverage. > > Best, > > Enrique > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. > He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want > you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed > up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my > stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not > know what I was doing. > > You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research > engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. > It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, > irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation > indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by > also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered > clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at > semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book > presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, > as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have > come back into vogue. > > I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] On > Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Stephen, > > Ooops! > > Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator > and friend Jos?? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an > answer from him soon. > > But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the > technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way > Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. > Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play > a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also > possible links are also taken into account. > > Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a > traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they > are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To > my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the > contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. > > Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels > of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of > your university > > site:lsu.edu > > This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. > > Best regards, > > > > On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Isidro, > > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative > Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at > least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the > Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank > operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that > you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems > to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with > Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run > comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better > results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At > least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her > program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the > quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic > classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, > working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or > Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure > whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something > like megabytes of data or something like that. > > > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you > to vet it when we have it ready. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > > LSU Libraries > > Lousiana State University > > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > > USA > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] On > Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > > search engines > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Jos?? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > > n-9781843347910/ > > > > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of > the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses > the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to > describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their > advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new > products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the > research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines > presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the > scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching > services available on the Web. > > > > Key Features: > > ?? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively > addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > > ?? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of > these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding > characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent > investigations. > > ?? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative > analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and > harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > > > Jos?? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish > National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the > Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies > (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the > Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a > position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his > collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as > webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic > search engines and social networks for scientists. > > > > > -- > > ************************************ > Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. > The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC > Grupo Scimago > Madrid. SPAIN > > isidro.aguillo at csic.es > ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 > ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 > Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ > Twitter @isidroaguillo > Rankings Web webometrics.info > ************************************ > > > --- > Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci??n de avast! > Antivirus est?? activa. > http://www.avast.com > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tim.engels at UANTWERPEN.BE Fri Oct 10 04:59:42 2014 From: tim.engels at UANTWERPEN.BE (Engels Tim) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:59:42 +0000 Subject: CFP Research evaluation in the SSH conference, June 4-6 2015, Rennes, France Message-ID: Call for papers: Research evaluation in the SSH: qualitative and quantitative indicators for performance and social impact under scrutiny The EvalHum Initiative is pleased to open the call for papers for its first international conference on Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (RESSH), to be held in Rennes, France, from the 4th to 6th June 2015. The aim of this event is to bring together a wide range of researchers and stakeholders interested in questions of research evaluation and the societal impact of the Social Sciences and the Humanities (SSH). The deadline for proposals is the 5th of January 2015. Acceptance of proposals will be notified to authors by the 1st March 2015. For further information, please consult the attached CFP or the website www.ressh.eu. On behalf of the scientific committee Tim ENGELS, U. of Antwerpen (Belgium) Ioana GALLERON, U. Bretagne Sud (France) Elea GIMENEZ TOLEDO, CSIC (Spain) J?chen GL?SER, Bielefeld University (Germany) S?verine LOUVEL, Sciences Po (France) St?phanie MIGNOT-GERARD, UPEC (France) Michael OCHSNER, ETH Z?rich (Switzerland) Thed VAN LEEUWEN, Leiden University (Netherlands) Gunnar SIVERTSEN, NIFU (Norway) Jack SPAAPEN, KNAW (Netherlands) Geoffrey WILLIAMS, U. Bretagne Sud (France) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CFP RESSH June 2015.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 35027 bytes Desc: CFP RESSH June 2015.pdf URL: From Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU Fri Oct 10 07:17:59 2014 From: Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU (Pikas, Christina K.) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:17:59 +0000 Subject: FW: Growing Impact of Non-Elite Journals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thought this would be of interest. Christina ------ Christina K. Pikas Librarian The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Baltimore: 443.778.4812 D.C.: 240.228.4812 Christina.Pikas at jhuapl.edu -----Original Message----- From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [mailto:LIBLICENSE-L at listserv.crl.edu] On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:13 PM To: LIBLICENSE-L at listserv.crl.edu Subject: Growing Impact of Non-Elite Journals From: Ann Shumelda Okerson Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 20:27:07 -0400 Via InfoDocket: http://www.infodocket.com/2014/10/08/new-research-from-google-rise-of-the-rest-the-growing-impact-of-non-elite-journals/ In this paper, we examine the evolution of the impact of non-elite journals. We attempt to answer two questions. First, what fraction of the top-cited articles are published in non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. Second, what fraction of the total citations are to non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. We studied citations to articles published in 1995-2013. We computed the 10 most-cited journals and the 1000 most-cited articles each year for all 261 subject categories in Scholar Metrics. We marked the 10 most-cited journals in a category as the elite journals for the category and the rest as non-elite. There are two conclusions from our study. First, the fraction of top-cited articles published in non-elite journals increased steadily over 1995-2013. While the elite journals still publish a substantial fraction of high-impact articles, many more authors of well-regarded papers in diverse research fields are choosing other venues. The number of top-1000 papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category went from 149 in 1995 to 245 in 2013, a growth of 64%. Looking at broad research areas, 4 out of 9 areas saw at least one-third of the top-cited articles published in non-elite journals in 2013. For 6 out of 9 areas, the fraction of top-cited papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category grew by 45% or more. Second, now that finding and reading relevant articles in non-elite journals is about as easy as finding and reading articles in elite journals, researchers are increasingly building on and citing work published everywhere. Considering citations to all articles, the percentage of citations to articles in non-elite journals went from 27% in 1995 to 47% in 2013. Six out of nine broad areas had at least 50% of citations going to articles published in non-elite journals in 2013. From saravanan.g at IFPINDIA.ORG Fri Oct 10 07:30:13 2014 From: saravanan.g at IFPINDIA.ORG (saravanan) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 17:00:13 +0530 Subject: NACLIN 2014 at Pondicherry from December 9-11, 2014 In-Reply-To: <687119710.140628.1412416652234.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10904.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear all, * NACLIN 2014* */*17th National Convention on Knowledge, Libraryand Information Networking Jointly Organised by DELNET, New Delhi and French Institute of Pondicherry, Pondicherry December 9 - 11, 2014 */* Venue : Hotel Anandha Inn Convention Centrehttp://www.anandhainn.com ** */*Theme :*/* *From Building Collections to Making Connections : Transforming Libraries in the Knowledge Era* *Inauguration by * *Hon'ble Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, Former President of India NACLIN 2014 brochure can be downloaded from www.naclin.org* ** * * *17th National Convention on Knowledge, Library and Information Networking* The National Convention on Knowledge, Library and InformationNetworking (NACLIN 2014) will be devoted to discussing how the paradigm change can take place in libraries and information centres and how the focus can shift from collection building to establishing connections and collaborations in the knowledge domain. The national convention is scheduled for three days. The first day is entirely devoted to conducting tutorials on the following topic : *Managing Libraries through Open Source Software packages : Collections to Connections * * * The next two days will focus on the theme of the National Convention i.e. **From Building Collections to Making Connections : Transforming Libraries in the Knowledge Era. ** The themes is divided into several sub-themes (For more details visit www.naclin.org) *IDigital Technologies* *IIManaging of E-Resources* *IIINetworking, Social Media and the Libraries* *IVInnovative LibraryServices * *VReading Habits and Library Users * *VICopyright and IPR* *VIILIS - From Teaching to Technology * *VIIITransform Libraries : Be the Change * *Submission of Papers* Original papers on the above themes or related themes are invited from professionals. The papers should be based on research surveys, case studies or action plans. Surveys on Internet use/E-Journals Usage in libraries will not be accepted. Papers should not normally exceed 5,000 words or 16 double-spaced pages, besides tables, diagrams, etc. Also, each paper should contain an abstract, upto tenkeywords, body of the paper, conclusion and references. The abstract should state in about 150 words the sum and substance of the paper. The conclusion should include therecommendations made in the paper. The key wordswhich describe the main issues discussed should be given in alphabetical order. The paper should also contain the author's name, designation, organisation, address, telephone, fax, and E-mail address. All referencesshould be presented according to the Chicago Manual of Style (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html). Every paper has to be accompanied by copyright declaration form according to the format available at conference website www.naclin.org At least one of the authors listed in the paper must register for NACLIN 2014 within one week after the paper has been accepted for presentation in NACLIN 2014. The completed paper may be sent electronically to hkkaul at gmail.com Also a hard copy of the same along with the copyright declaration be sent to Dr. H. K. Kaul, Director, DELNET, JNU Campus, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070. E-mail: hkkaul at gmail.com Last date for submission of papers: November 1, 2014. *Who Should Attend?* Librarians, Professional Library Staff and other Library and Information Science Professionals, Knowledge Seekers, Leaders in Knowledge Industry, Government Officials, Content Management Experts, Information Management Experts, Professional Staff of IT Companies, Industrialists, Technology Managers, Knowledge Officers, Media Experts, Knowledge Centre Managers and Knowledge Managers. * * *How to ReachPondicherry* * * By Air : The nearest airport is Chennai. By Rail : Pondicherry can be reached by rail up to Chennai and then by a drive of about 160 Km. Many trains also pass through Villupuram junction, which is about 35 km by road from Pondicherry. By Road: Pondicherry is well-connected by road with all major cities in South India. From Chennai buses depart from Koyanbedu bus Terminus and it takes 3-4 hours to reach Pondicherry. *Accommodation* The accommodation can be arranged in the guest houses/budget hotelsby the Organising Secretariat. The charges are Rs750 per dayper person (on double occupancy basis) provided that the payment from the delegate is received by November 15, 2014. Hotels: Many hotels are available in Pondicherry.Hotels List is available at www.naclin.org *Participation Fee* DELNET MembersRs 2,500 Professionals from Pondicherry including membersRs 2,000 LIS StudentsRs 2,500 Non-Members from outside Pondicherry including SAARC CountriesRs 3,500 NON-SAARC Countries MembersUS$ 150 Non-MembersUS$ 250 Accompanying Person (non-LIS professional, family member):Rs 1000 per person per day for attending the Convention. Accommodation charges will be extra. *Addresses for Communication* For Local Organisational Support/accommodation, bookings for exhibitions, etc., please contact: *Ms. Anurupa Naik* Chief Librarian, FIP, Pondicherry & Organising Secretary,NACLIN 2014 French Institute of Pondicherry 11, Saint Louis Street, P. B. No. 33 Pondicherry - 605001, India Tel.:91-413-2231660 Mobile: 07598169564 E-mail:anurupa.n at ifpindia.prg *Payments for Registration / Accommodation : * All payments for Registration and Accommodation should be sent by demand draft/multi-city cheque to the following DELNET address. Demand Draft/Multi-City Cheque should be made in favour of DELNET and payable at New Delhi.Kindly write to us for electronic bank transfer details. * * *Dr. Sangeeta Kaul* Network Manager,DELNET & Co-Organising Secretary,NACLIN 2014 JNU Campus,Nelson Mandela Road Vasant Kunj,New Delhi-110070, India Tel.:91-11-26742222, 26741266 Mobile:91-9810329992 Fax: 91-11-26741122 E-mail:sangskaul2003 at yahoo.co.in, sangs at delnet.ren.nic.in * * *Submission of Papers* *Dr. H K. Kaul* Director DELNET-Developing Library Network JNU Campus, Nelson Mandela Road Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070, India Tel.: 91-11-26741111 Mobile: 91-9891016667 E-mail:hkkaul at gmail.com, director at delnet.ren.nic.in Web:www.delnet.nic.in *Dates to Remember* Last Date for Registration: December 9, 2014 (On-the-spot registration is also available) Last Date for Submission of Papers: November 1, 2014. Visit www.naclin.org for NACLIN 2014 more updates With regards, G. Saravanan Librarian French Institute of Pondicherry __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Fri Oct 10 09:04:19 2014 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:04:19 -0400 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Andreuas, Last I knew, a decade ago, the G search algorithm had about 160 component algorithms and that number is likely much larger now. Do we know what fraction of these components have been analogized in GS? Conversely does GS do anything that G does not? For example articles have dates but web pages perhaps do not. The central G algorithm weights a link based on the authority of the site doing the linking. Does GS do this with citations? Does being cited by a paper which itself has more citations make a difference? Also, GS has a powerful more-like-this capability but I do not know if it uses it in search. David On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:46 AM, Andreas Strotmann wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Again you are talking to the very people who know by profession just how wrong you are, David. > > The only thing those two (Google and Google Scholar) really differ on is how to extract links from digital documents, but that is a trivial distinction. In fact, Google's search engine is famous for showing that citation analysis (applied to web links as citations) is an extremely effective IR (and, as Stephen Bensman points out, knowledge representation) paradigm. Calling those two homologous would be a severe understatement of their closeness; claiming them to be mere analogs is a sign of - with all due respect - severe ignorance of the underlying science and technology. > > Regards, > > -- Andreas Strotmann > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:13 PM, David Wojick wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > However, Google and Google Scholar are really very different so they should not be conflated. This is because websites and scholarly publications have very different properties for the respective algorithms to operate on, among other things. There are certain analogs to be sure, but they are just that, analogs. > > David > > David Wojick, Ph.D. > http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > > At 12:23 PM 10/9/2014, you wrote: >> Enrique, >> Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard >> >> SB. >> >> >> >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu??a >> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Dear friends, >> >> Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) >> >> As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. >> >> Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. >> >> Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. >> >> As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. >> >> Best, >> >> Enrique >> >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Isidro, >> Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. >> >> You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. >> >> I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >> LSU Libraries >> Lousiana State University >> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >> USA >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Dear Stephen, >> >> Ooops! >> >> Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos?? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. >> >> But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. >> Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. >> >> Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. >> >> Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university >> >> site:lsu.edu >> >> This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> > >> > Isidro, >> > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. >> > >> > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. >> > >> > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. >> > >> > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. >> > >> > Respectfully, >> > >> > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. >> > LSU Libraries >> > Lousiana State University >> > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >> > USA >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >> > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM >> > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >> > search engines >> > >> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> > >> > Jos?? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. >> > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN >> > 1780634722, 9781780634722 >> > >> > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb >> > n-9781843347910/ >> > >> > >> > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. >> > >> > Key Features: >> > ?? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. >> > ?? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. >> > ?? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. >> > >> > Jos?? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> ************************************ >> Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. >> The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC >> Grupo Scimago >> Madrid. SPAIN >> >> isidro.aguillo at csic.es >> ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 >> ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 >> Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ >> Twitter @isidroaguillo >> Rankings Web webometrics.info >> ************************************ >> >> >> --- >> Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci??n de avast! Antivirus est?? activa. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anupdas2072 at GMAIL.COM Fri Oct 10 09:36:25 2014 From: anupdas2072 at GMAIL.COM (anup kumar das) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 19:06:25 +0530 Subject: DBT-DST Open Access Policy - Now 2nd Draft available for public comments Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Now DBT-DST open access policy redrafted based on your inputs. They are open to more inputs till Nov 17. Also compare which clauses are dropped from the first draft. Here is the revised draft available online: http://www.dbtindia.nic.in/policy/DBT-DST_Open_Access_Policy_2nd_Draft.pdf Comments/ Responses already available for the first draft of DBT-DST Open Access Policy 1. Comments on the Proposed Open Access Policy of the DBT-DST by the Centre for Internet and Society, India http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/cis-comments-to-the-department-of-biotechnology-and-department-of-science-open-access-policy 2. India?s DBT and DST Call for Comments on Draft Open Access Policy with Respect to Public Funded Research by SpicyIP Tidbit http://spicyip.com/2014/07/spi cyip-tidbit-indias-dbt-and-dst-call-for-comments-on-draft-open-access-policy-with-respect-to-public-funded-research.html 3. Bravo to India?s DBT / DST on their proposed open access policy! by Dr. Heather Morrison http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2014/07/05/bravo-to-indias-dbt-dst-on-their-proposed-open-access-policy/ 4. Elsevier Response on DBT-DST Open Access Policy http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/213476/Elsevier_Response-on-DBT-DST-OPEN-ACCESS-POLICY.PDF 5. Why not all research data be on Open Access? http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/07/1093.pdf With Best Regards Anup On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 7:31 PM, wrote: Re: Open Access Policy on Website for Comments-Revised (4.7.2014) (Stevan Harnad) From: Stevan Harnad The DBT/DST OA Mandate is excellent. It includes all six critical conditions for a natural, effective, verifiable and successful policy: 1. Author freedom of choice of journal is preserved. 2. Author may choose Green OA self-archiving or Gold OA publishing 3. Final refereed draft must be deposited in institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication 4. Funding is contingent on immediate deposit 5. Publisher embargo on making the immediate-deposit OA not to exceed 12 months 6. Repository should have the copy-request Button so author can provide individual access during embargo The critical conditions are excerpted below: DBT/DST Open Access Policy Grantees can make their papers open-access by publishing in an open-access journal or, if they choose to publish in a subscription journal, by posting the final accepted manuscript to an online repository. What should be deposited? The final accepted manuscript (after refereeing, revision, etc.) Where to deposit? The manuscript should be deposited in the grantee?s own institution?s interoperable institutional repository (IR). If the institution does not yet have an IR of its own, then the paper should be deposited in the central repository, which will be created by *DBT/DST.* When to deposit? Deposits should be made within one week of acceptance by the journal. However, if the journal insists on an embargo, the material should still be deposited, but the repository will keep the deposited papers non-OA and only make it fully OA at the end of the embargo period. Suggest that the period of embargo not be greater than one year. Articles under an embargo can still be made available to individuals by use of the Request Button available with the IR software. By use of the Request Button, a reader may automatically send a request for a copy to the author, as is commonly done by other communication means. Who should deposit? The principal investigator (PI) or someone authorized by the PI, or anyone authorized by the head of the institution where the work is carried out (such as the librarian), can deposit the papers. Both the PI and the head of the institution will be responsible for timely deposit of the paper. Depositing in a repository is mandatory Unless the deposit ID is quoted in the project report as well as in future proposals for funding, the proposals will not be considered. The DBT/DST recommend/s that all authors receiving funds from DBT/DST should, at the time of returning the copyright transfer form, inform the publisher that they would retain the right to place the full-text of the final author version in the institution?s IR and DBT/DST Central. This can be achieved by attaching to the copyright transfer agreement the DBT/DST author addendum. Stevan Harnad On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Subbiah Arunachalam < subbiah.arunachalam at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > Here is the proposed OA policy for DBT and DST, Government of India. > http://dbtindia.nic.in/docs/DBT-DST_Open_Access_Policy.pdf > Your comments and suggestions are welcome. > With best regards, > Arun -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Dr. Anup Kumar Das* Centre for Studies in Science Policy School of Social Sciences Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi - 110067, India Web: www.anupkumardas.blogspot.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Fri Oct 10 10:37:23 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:37:23 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <08DDE409-C387-4CCE-A5D5-AB117468703F@uu.nl> Message-ID: Jeoren, This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Stephen, Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. Best, Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Jeroen Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: "Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web." Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system-number of word tokens in given document-that was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Fri Oct 10 10:41:22 2014 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:41:22 -0400 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <425bdcec25364790abfe1db345470948@CO1PR06MB174.namprd06.pro d.outlook.com> Message-ID: Dear Stephen, In what sense are links semantic? I do not understand the concept. I think of semantics as the science of the meaning of words. David At 10:37 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >Jeoren, >This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise >of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 >on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is >reaching warp speed. > >The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that >it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take >advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the >most important and relevant documents. > >I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we >prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. > >Respectfully, > >Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >LSU Libraries >Lousiana State University >Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > >PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for >me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be >looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. > >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >search engines > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Stephen, > >Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 >(Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the >early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) >and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I >doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some >decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted >to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing >press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be >complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and >paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for >instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for >the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. >ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they >have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit >in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. > >On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and >Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my >students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear >filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but >outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never >realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in >this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. > >Best, >Jeroen Bosman >@jeroenbosman > >Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" ><notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Jeroen >Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic >search engines: > >?Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now >engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of >the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the >17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we >will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information >revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now >semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information >revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law >distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a >result of the development of the World Wide Web.? > >Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, >so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on >what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number >of word tokens in given document?that was proven wrong and ineffective in >semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to >grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and >suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something >else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about >living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. > >Respectfully, > >Stephen J Bensman >LSU Libraries >Lousiana State University >Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >USA > > > > >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >search engines > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, > >Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do >not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers >some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation >contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single >standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the >scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you >think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various >parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already >need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. > >Best, >Jeroen > > > > > >Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" ><notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: >Enrique, >Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no >longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google >Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is >revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to >have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex >enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better >and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer >ratings were the only standard > >SB. > > > >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a >Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >search engines > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear friends, > >Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy >of Ortega's book :) > >As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into >account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega >in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a >working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, >which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop >of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. > >Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, >the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count >estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes >unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft >copyright. > >Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results >will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. > >As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both >in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are >changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" >stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes >get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. > >Best, > >Enrique > >On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman ><notsjb at lsu.edu> wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Isidro, >Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from >Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I >definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready >soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to >correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because >I did not know what I was doing. > >You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research >engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by >words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering >incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory >of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He >strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing >this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple >linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token >words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft >Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political >system that now seems to have come back into vogue. > >I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. > >Respectfully, > >Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >LSU Libraries >Lousiana State University >Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >USA > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >search engines > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear Stephen, > >Ooops! > >Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator >and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an >answer from him soon. > >But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the >technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the >way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. >Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play >a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also >possible links are also taken into account. > >Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a >traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although >they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they >publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent >products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. > >Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels >of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of >your university > >site:lsu.edu > >This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. > >Best regards, > > > >On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Isidro, > > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative > Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at > least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how > the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how > PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know > is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, > which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with > Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run > comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better > results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At > least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her > program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the > quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic > classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, > working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or > Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure > whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something > like megabytes of data or something like that. > > > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you > to vet it when we have it ready. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > > LSU Libraries > > Lousiana State University > > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > > USA > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > > search engines > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > > > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > > n-9781843347910/ > > > > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of > the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses > the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to > describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their > advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new > products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on > the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search > Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to > the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching > services available on the Web. > > > > Key Features: > > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively > addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of > these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding > characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with > recent investigations. > > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative > analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and > harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish > National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the > Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies > (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the > Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a > position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his > collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as > webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic > search engines and social networks for scientists. > > > > >-- > >************************************ >Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. >The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC >Grupo Scimago >Madrid. SPAIN > >isidro.aguillo at csic.es >ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 >ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 >Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ >Twitter @isidroaguillo >Rankings Web webometrics.info >************************************ > > >--- >Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! >Antivirus est? activa. >http://www.avast.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Fri Oct 10 10:47:48 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:47:48 +0000 Subject: Fw: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jose, Thanks for the lesson. It seems that I have a lot to learn from your book. I am going to have to study it before I can proceed further. Right now I am interested in power-law structures and r^2 tests that enable one to estimate to what extent new ideas are or can be incorporated into the knowledge corpus of different disciplines. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Jose Luis Ortega Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 3:33 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Fw: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Stephen, Thank for your attention in the book and I hope that you enjoy with it. On the relationship between MAS and Bing, I can say that MAS is a completly different develeopment. MAS was born in Microsoft Asia from a before beta engine, Libra. The ranking algorithm of this engine is PopRank (Nie et al, 2005), an adaptation of PageRank. The difference is that PopRank takes into acount not only the incoming links or citations to a document but also the authors, keywords, journals and organizations that are connected to that document. Thus, a paper written by a highly cited author, from a impacted journal and from a prestigious organization is better ranked. This reference explains in detail the algorithm. Nie, Z., Zhang, Y., Wen, J. R., & Ma, W. Y. (2005). Object-level ranking: bringing order to web objects. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 567-574). ACM. http://research.microsoft.com/users/znie/f611-nie.pdf Regards Jos? Luis Ortega Cybermetrics Lab -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Fri Oct 10 10:54:58 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:54:58 +0000 Subject: Aw: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Enrique, There has to be an accepted model, or otherwise things get so complex and controversial, there is no way make judgments. Right now?for example?there are so many different proposed ways to measure quality that they have all become meaningless and provoke a large yawn, I just punted and stated that a measure of quality can only judged by its correlation with peer judgment. I have retreated to the stone age. Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 3:43 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Aw: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear colleagues, Stephen, I do not believe that having a single standard with Google Scholar is good, I would prefer some market competition. The models provided by Google and Microsoft were completely different. Google has won. But MAS provided better functionalities, robustness, etc. The model followed by two companies in the creation of researcher profiles maybe was the key in the downgrade of MAS. In Google, people control their profiles directly and everyday are reducing errors by correcting information themselves. Otherwise I agree with the comments of David about the differences between Google and Google Scholar. Perhaps some journal editors should understand that academic journals are websites as well. The relevance of documents set for a especific query is essential for an academic search engine succesful. Mixing information retrieval systems and science metrics gives this interesting scene, in which the contribution of Jose Luis is of much interest. enrique On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jose Luis Ortega > wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Jeroen, Thank you for starting the book reading. I am completly agree with your according to the retrieval problems of GS, concretly the ranking algorithm. This is proper for general web pages but not entirely for research documents. It gives excesive weight to citations and less to word matching, this causes that the first documents are alway old papers with a lot of citations but irrelevant to the query. This is a interesting point because we talk too much on research evaluation, citations, h-index, etc. in search engines but we forget the main utility of these services: retrievering information. And this facet, I think, shows several and important gaps in every academic search engine. On MAS updating, I consider that MAS is in a standstill because its last updating was in 2012. This is a serious problem because their data are so old that make impossible to be informed on the new scientific results. Regards Jos? Luis Ortega Cybermetrics Lab Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. Oktober 2014 um 23:40 Uhr Von: "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" > An: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Betreff: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Stephen, Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. Best, Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Jeroen Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: ?Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.? Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.bosman at UU.NL Fri Oct 10 10:57:07 2014 From: j.bosman at UU.NL (Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:57:07 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <425bdcec25364790abfe1db345470948@CO1PR06MB174.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Stephen, Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. Best regards, Jeroen Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Jeoren, This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Stephen, Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. Best, Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Jeroen Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: ?Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.? Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Fri Oct 10 11:26:45 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 15:26:45 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David and Jeroen, I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my following arXiv posting: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine Authors: Stephen J. Bensman (Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other. Subjects: Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] (or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this version) You will see that Garfield?s theory of citation indexing is based upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. Our new paper is entitled ?POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,? and here is its abstract: ?This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates? works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ?tail? to the right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the laureates? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a signature feature of the economists? distributions?are not random events but related by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.? This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites were on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Stephen, Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. Best regards, Jeroen Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Jeoren, This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Stephen, Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. Best, Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Jeroen Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: ?Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.? Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From de_Ghloucester at NINTHFLOOR.ORG Fri Oct 10 14:12:12 2014 From: de_Ghloucester at NINTHFLOOR.ORG (=?UTF-8?Q?Paul_Colin_de_Glouce=C5=BFter?=) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:12:12 +0000 Subject: Peer Review Scandals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On July 21st, 2014, Dowman P Varn submitted: |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"Davis & Stephen, | |I come from a physics background, and much what you discuss bears little | |resemblance to the facts on the ground. No one given a manuscript would ever| |try to replicate the results." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Dear Dowman: Many articles which the putative physicist Jan Hendrik Schoen contributed to were subjected to retractions because physicists who were attempting to do impossible things which Schoen fraudulently boasted he performed have been unable to replicate what Jan Hendrik Schoen has dishonestly claimed to have accomplished. Note that when replication is performed, it might not be performed for its own sake, but instead merely as steps towards another advance progressing past what is being replicated. More than one physical principle is used for various types of for example altimeter, and measuring altitude by a ruler or by trigonometry or by air pressure. Measurements of a single property by different techniques can be considered to be a form of replication. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |" It could take months of full time work, and is | |simply an unreasonable burden on the reviewer." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| It could take less time or more time depending on what is being replicated. It would not be an unreasonable burden if the refereeing was being paid for with an amount of money comparable to the original research. Publishers charge a lot of money without earning it. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |" Science would just stop." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| I disagree. Would you like to take a drug which happens to be lethal instead of the mistaken claim that it is a medicine because no laboratory was paid to confirm or refute the original article? |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"The purpose of peer-review (and yes, I use that term in the sense of an | |expert reading and evaluating a manuscript for publication, as this is the | |common vernacular in my field) is not to ensure that the results are | |correct." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Even today publishers refer to refereeing as quality control. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"[. . .] | | | |[. . .] | |[. . .] I don't read a journal article as gospel, but | |rather as a document where I cast the onus on the authors to convince me of | |something. Often I'm not convinced. There are entire little subfields that, | |in my opinion, are founded on flawed assumptions, and therefore the | |conclusions reached are dubious. I recognise that that is just my opinion, | |and I don't begrudge them (too much) for the work they do, because I realise| |that I may be wrong." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Perhaps you are not mistaken. Perhaps you should type papers about these possibly flawed assumptions and possibly dubious conclusions. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"As for the issue of fraud, peer review is not the place to catch it, unless| |it is rather inartfully done. How can say that an observation wasn't made?" | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Measurements should be made available antecedently before typescripts utilizing them are submitted. Physicists are lagging behind inventors of medicines from this point of view. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"How can I say that the result of a detailed calculation is wrong?" | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| By checking it! (Too many papers skip steps of derivations.) |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |" I'm not | |going to do it myself." | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| That is your choice, but you might be more inclined to check it if you ran software such as an automated theorem prover or a computer algebra system. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |" As a reviewer, I can point out the objections and | |concerns of a expert, perhaps many that the authors had yet to consider, but| |at the end of the day, it is their contribution to the conversation. If they| |have something interesting to say, can explain it in a reasonable way, and | |are sufficiently familiar with the state of field to discuss it | |intelligently, who am I to say they are wrong?" | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| You are a fellow scientist. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |" That is for the community to | |decide. And, in my opinion, that is how science should work. | | | |Best regards, | | | |Dowman" | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| We suffer from incorrect informational cascades that way. With best regards, Paul Colin de Glouce?ter From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Fri Oct 10 16:19:20 2014 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:19:20 -0400 Subject: DBT-DST Open Access Policy - Now 2nd Draft available for public comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Anup, Nothing could be more predictable than Elsevier's proposal for ruining your excellent OA mandate proposal: *Elsevier-1: "Pay Gold rather than providing Green. It's better."* *Recommended Response*: *No, thanks... ;>)* *Elsevier-2: "Allow OA embargoes of longer than 12 months after publication."* *Recommended Response*: *No, thanks... ;>)*. *Elsevier-3: "Don't require deposit immediately upon acceptance: make it immediate upon publication."* *Recommended Response*: *No, thanks... ;>)* *Elsevier-4: "Don't require deposit of the author's final draft; in fact don't recommend deposit at all: Let us do the deposit for you, at the appointed time..."* *Recommended Response*: *No, thanks... ;>)*. Best wishes, Stevan On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:36 AM, anup kumar das wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Colleagues, > > Now DBT-DST open access policy redrafted based on your inputs. They are > open to more inputs till Nov 17. Also compare which clauses are dropped > from the first draft. Here is the revised draft available online: > http://www.dbtindia.nic.in/policy/DBT-DST_Open_Access_Policy_2nd_Draft.pdf > > Comments/ Responses already available for the first draft of DBT-DST Open > Access Policy > 1. Comments on the Proposed Open Access Policy of the DBT-DST by the > Centre for Internet and Society, India > http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/cis-comments-to-the-department-of-biotechnology-and-department-of-science-open-access-policy > 2. India?s DBT and DST Call for Comments on Draft Open Access Policy with > Respect to Public Funded Research by SpicyIP Tidbit > http://spicyip.com/2014/07/spi > cyip-tidbit-indias-dbt-and-dst-call-for-comments-on-draft-open-access-policy-with-respect-to-public-funded-research.html > 3. Bravo to India?s DBT / DST on their proposed open access policy! by Dr. > Heather Morrison > http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2014/07/05/bravo-to-indias-dbt-dst-on-their-proposed-open-access-policy/ > 4. Elsevier Response on DBT-DST Open Access Policy > http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/213476/Elsevier_Response-on-DBT-DST-OPEN-ACCESS-POLICY.PDF > 5. Why not all research data be on Open Access? > http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/07/1093.pdf > > > With Best Regards > > Anup > > > On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 7:31 PM, wrote: > Re: Open Access Policy on Website for Comments-Revised (4.7.2014) (Stevan > Harnad) > From: Stevan Harnad > > The DBT/DST OA Mandate is excellent. It includes all six critical > conditions for a natural, effective, verifiable and successful policy: > > 1. Author freedom of choice of journal is preserved. > 2. Author may choose Green OA self-archiving or Gold OA publishing > 3. Final refereed draft must be deposited in institutional repository > immediately upon acceptance for publication > 4. Funding is contingent on immediate deposit > 5. Publisher embargo on making the immediate-deposit OA not to exceed 12 > months > 6. Repository should have the copy-request Button so author can provide > individual access during embargo > > The critical conditions are excerpted below: > > DBT/DST Open Access Policy > > Grantees can make their papers open-access by publishing in an open-access > journal or, if they choose to publish in a subscription journal, by posting > the final accepted manuscript to an online repository. What should be > deposited? The final accepted manuscript (after refereeing, revision, etc.) > Where to deposit? The manuscript should be deposited in the grantee?s own > institution?s interoperable institutional repository (IR). If the > institution does not yet have an IR of its own, then the paper should be > deposited in the central repository, which will be created by *DBT/DST.* > When to deposit? Deposits should be made within one week of acceptance by > the journal. However, if the journal insists on an embargo, the material > should still be deposited, but the repository will keep the deposited > papers non-OA and only make it fully OA at the end of the embargo period. > Suggest that the period of embargo not be greater than one year. > Articles under an embargo can still be made available to individuals by > use of the Request Button available with the IR software. By use of the > Request Button, a reader may automatically send a request for a copy to the > author, as is commonly done by other communication means. > Who should deposit? The principal investigator (PI) or someone authorized > by the PI, or anyone authorized by the head of the institution where the > work is carried out (such as the librarian), can deposit the papers. Both > the PI and the head of the institution will be responsible for timely > deposit of the paper. > Depositing in a repository is mandatory Unless the deposit ID is quoted in > the project report as well as in future proposals for funding, the > proposals will not be considered. > The DBT/DST recommend/s that all authors receiving funds from DBT/DST > should, at the time of returning the copyright transfer form, inform the > publisher that they would retain the right to place the full-text of the > final author version in the institution?s IR and DBT/DST Central. This can > be achieved by attaching to the copyright transfer agreement the DBT/DST > author addendum. > > Stevan Harnad > > On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Subbiah Arunachalam < > subbiah.arunachalam at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > Here is the proposed OA policy for DBT and DST, Government of India. > > http://dbtindia.nic.in/docs/DBT-DST_Open_Access_Policy.pdf > > Your comments and suggestions are welcome. > > With best regards, > > Arun > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > *Dr. Anup Kumar Das* > Centre for Studies in Science Policy > School of Social Sciences > Jawaharlal Nehru University > New Delhi - 110067, India > Web: www.anupkumardas.blogspot.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Fri Oct 10 17:38:54 2014 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 17:38:54 -0400 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <11c336320a524597a12ce3be412d96fd@CO1PR06MB174.namprd06.pro d.outlook.com> Message-ID: Dear Stephen, Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know neither relation is semantic. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >David and Jeroen, >I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my >following arXiv posting: > >Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the >Google Search Engine >Authors: Stephen >J. Bensman >(Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) >Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google >Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the >premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of >Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are >identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing >validate each other. >Subjects: >Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and >Society (physics.soc-ph) >Cite as: >arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] > >(or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this >version) > >You will see that Garfield?s theory of citation indexing is based upon the >premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This >is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. > >Our new paper is entitled ?POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND >GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS >NOBELISTS,? and here is its abstract: >?This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can >construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of >researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in >economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, >2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, >2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is >distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates? >works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law >domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ?tail? to the >right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the >laureates? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is >proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the >validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method >shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a signature >feature of the economists? distributions?are not random events but related >by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were >awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role >played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.? >This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites were >on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the >prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted >on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to >a journal with dictatorial referees. >Respectfully, > >Stephen J Bensman >LSU Libraries >Lousiana State University >Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > > > > > > > >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >search engines > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Stephen, > >Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean >by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into >account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as >well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the >web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. > >One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago >stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as >far as I can tell. > >Best regards, >Jeroen > > >Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" ><notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Jeoren, >This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise >of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 >on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is >reaching warp speed. > >The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that >it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take >advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the >most important and relevant documents. > >I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we >prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. > >Respectfully, > >Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >LSU Libraries >Lousiana State University >Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > >PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for >me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be >looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. > >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >search engines > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Stephen, > >Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 >(Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the >early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) >and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I >doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some >decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted >to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing >press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be >complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and >paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for >instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for >the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. >ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they >have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit >in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. > >On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and >Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my >students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear >filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but >outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never >realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in >this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. > >Best, >Jeroen Bosman >@jeroenbosman > >Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" ><notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Jeroen >Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic >search engines: > >?Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now >engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of >the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the >17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we >will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information >revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now >semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information >revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law >distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a >result of the development of the World Wide Web.? > >Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, >so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on >what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number >of word tokens in given document?that was proven wrong and ineffective in >semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to >grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and >suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something >else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about >living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. > >Respectfully, > >Stephen J Bensman >LSU Libraries >Lousiana State University >Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >USA > > > > >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >search engines > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, > >Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do >not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers >some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation >contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single >standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the >scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you >think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various >parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already >need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. > >Best, >Jeroen > > > > > > >Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" ><notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: >Enrique, >Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no >longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google >Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is >revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to >have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex >enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better >and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer >ratings were the only standard > >SB. > > > >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a >Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >search engines > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear friends, > >Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy >of Ortega's book :) > >As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into >account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega >in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a >working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, >which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop >of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. > >Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, >the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count >estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes >unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft >copyright. > >Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results >will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. > >As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both >in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are >changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" >stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes >get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. > >Best, > >Enrique > >On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman ><notsjb at lsu.edu> wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Isidro, >Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from >Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I >definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready >soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to >correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because >I did not know what I was doing. > >You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research >engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by >words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering >incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory >of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He >strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing >this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple >linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token >words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft >Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political >system that now seems to have come back into vogue. > >I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. > >Respectfully, > >Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >LSU Libraries >Lousiana State University >Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >USA > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >search engines > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear Stephen, > >Ooops! > >Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator >and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an >answer from him soon. > >But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the >technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the >way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. >Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play >a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also >possible links are also taken into account. > >Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a >traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although >they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they >publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent >products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. > >Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels >of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of >your university > >site:lsu.edu > >This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. > >Best regards, > > > >On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Isidro, > > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative > Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at > least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how > the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how > PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know > is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, > which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with > Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run > comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better > results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At > least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her > program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the > quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic > classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, > working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or > Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure > whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something > like megabytes of data or something like that. > > > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you > to vet it when we have it ready. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > > LSU Libraries > > Lousiana State University > > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > > USA > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > > search engines > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > > > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > > n-9781843347910/ > > > > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of > the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses > the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to > describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their > advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new > products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on > the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search > Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to > the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching > services available on the Web. > > > > Key Features: > > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively > addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of > these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding > characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with > recent investigations. > > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative > analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and > harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish > National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the > Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies > (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the > Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a > position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his > collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as > webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic > search engines and social networks for scientists. > > > > >-- > >************************************ >Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. >The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC >Grupo Scimago >Madrid. SPAIN > >isidro.aguillo at csic.es >ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 >ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 >Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ >Twitter @isidroaguillo >Rankings Web webometrics.info >************************************ > > >--- >Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! >Antivirus est? activa. >http://www.avast.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mc.wilson at AUCKLAND.AC.NZ Fri Oct 10 22:16:14 2014 From: mc.wilson at AUCKLAND.AC.NZ (Mark C Wilson) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:16:14 +1300 Subject: Peer Review Scandals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: S Sent from my iPod - please excuse typos Mark C Wilson > On 11/10/2014, at 07:12, Paul Colin de Glouce?ter wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > On July 21st, 2014, Dowman P Varn submitted: > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |"Davis & Stephen, | > |I come from a physics background, and much what you discuss bears little | > |resemblance to the facts on the ground. No one given a manuscript would ever| > |try to replicate the results." | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > Dear Dowman: > > Many articles which the putative physicist Jan Hendrik Schoen > contributed to were subjected to retractions because physicists who > were attempting to do impossible things which Schoen fraudulently > boasted he performed have been unable to replicate what Jan Hendrik > Schoen has dishonestly claimed to have accomplished. > > Note that when replication is performed, it might not be performed for > its own sake, but instead merely as steps towards another advance > progressing past what is being replicated. > > More than one physical principle is used for various types of for > example altimeter, and measuring altitude by a ruler or by > trigonometry or by air pressure. Measurements of a single property by > different techniques can be considered to be a form of replication. > > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |" It could take months of full time work, and is | > |simply an unreasonable burden on the reviewer." | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > It could take less time or more time depending on what is being > replicated. It would not be an unreasonable burden if the refereeing > was being paid for with an amount of money comparable to the original > research. Publishers charge a lot of money without earning it. > > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |" Science would just stop." | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > I disagree. Would you like to take a drug which happens to be lethal > instead of the mistaken claim that it is a medicine because no > laboratory was paid to confirm or refute the original article? > > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |"The purpose of peer-review (and yes, I use that term in the sense of an | > |expert reading and evaluating a manuscript for publication, as this is the | > |common vernacular in my field) is not to ensure that the results are | > |correct." | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > Even today publishers refer to refereeing as quality control. > > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |"[. . .] | > | | > |[. . .] | > |[. . .] I don't read a journal article as gospel, but | > |rather as a document where I cast the onus on the authors to convince me of | > |something. Often I'm not convinced. There are entire little subfields that, | > |in my opinion, are founded on flawed assumptions, and therefore the | > |conclusions reached are dubious. I recognise that that is just my opinion, | > |and I don't begrudge them (too much) for the work they do, because I realise| > |that I may be wrong." | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > Perhaps you are not mistaken. Perhaps you should type papers about > these possibly flawed assumptions and possibly dubious conclusions. > > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |"As for the issue of fraud, peer review is not the place to catch it, unless| > |it is rather inartfully done. How can say that an observation wasn't made?" | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > Measurements should be made available antecedently before typescripts > utilizing them are submitted. Physicists are lagging behind > inventors of medicines from this point of view. > > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |"How can I say that the result of a detailed calculation is wrong?" | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > By checking it! (Too many papers skip steps of derivations.) > > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |" I'm not | > |going to do it myself." | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > That is your choice, but you might be more inclined to check it if you > ran software such as an automated theorem prover or a computer algebra > system. > > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |" As a reviewer, I can point out the objections and | > |concerns of a expert, perhaps many that the authors had yet to consider, but| > |at the end of the day, it is their contribution to the conversation. If they| > |have something interesting to say, can explain it in a reasonable way, and | > |are sufficiently familiar with the state of field to discuss it | > |intelligently, who am I to say they are wrong?" | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > You are a fellow scientist. > > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |" That is for the community to | > |decide. And, in my opinion, that is how science should work. | > | | > |Best regards, | > | | > |Dowman" | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > We suffer from incorrect informational cascades that way. > > With best regards, > Paul Colin de Glouce?ter From notsjb at LSU.EDU Sat Oct 11 06:38:37 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 10:38:37 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20141010173527.05ba6308@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: David, It is in the first paragraph, where I discuss Garfield's concept of citation indexing. I quote: "Eugene Garfield is the creator of citation indexing. In his landmark book on the subject Garfield (1983) gave the following conceptual definition of citation indexing: The concept of citation indexing is simple?. Citations are the formal, explicit linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A citation index is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been cited and identifies the sources of the citations. Anyone conducting a literature search can find from one to dozens of additional papers on a subject just by knowing one that has been cited. And every paper that is found provides a list of new citations with which to continue the search. (p. 1) In an article entitled "Citation Indexes for Science" published in the journal Science Garfield (1955) set forth the basic reasons for developing a citation index. Later in life Garfield (1987a) deemed this article "my most important paper" (p. 16). In his Science article Garfield (1955) stated that a primary advantage of a citation index over conventional alphabetical and subject indexes was that its different construction allowed it to bring together material that would never be collated by the usual subject indexing. Garfield here described a citation index as "an association-of-ideas index" (p. 108) that allowed the reader as much leeway as he needed. In his opinion, conventional indexes were inadequate, because scientists were often concerned with a particular idea rather than a complete concept, and the basic problem was to build subject indexes that can anticipate the infinite number of possible approaches that scientists may require in order to bridge the gap between the subject approach of those who create the documents and the subject approach of those who seek the information. Garfield stated that the utility of a citation index had to be considered from the viewpoint of the transmission of ideas. Thus, Garfield justified citation indexing as better able to deliver a set of relevant documents in response to a scientist?s search query." Thus, citations and hyperlinks connect ideas to form relevant document sets. Semantics is the science of meaning, and, if this is not semantics, then what is. We found that the economists' papers highest in GS cites were precisely the ones for which they were awarded the prize. In other words, GS had defined the economists perfectly by subject. Respectfully, SB PS arXiv still has our article on hold. Ironically they think that it should possibly have a different classification. Hoisted on own petard. What a joke. ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:38 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know neither relation is semantic. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: David and Jeroen, I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my following arXiv posting: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine Authors: Stephen J. Bensman (Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other. Subjects: Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] (or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this version) You will see that Garfield?s theory of citation indexing is based upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. Our new paper is entitled ?POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,? and here is its abstract: ?This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates? works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ?tail? to the right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the laureates? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a signature feature of the economists? distributions?are not random events but related by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.? This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites were on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Stephen, Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. Best regards, Jeroen Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Jeoren, This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Stephen, Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. Best, Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Jeroen Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: ?Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.? Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" > het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sat Oct 11 07:33:29 2014 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:33:29 -0400 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <1413023916822.88220@lsu.edu> Message-ID: Stephen, Ideas are expressed as propositions, not individual words. The science of the relations between propositions is logic, not semantics. For example, many years ago I discovered a basic way in which the sentences in a document, or a group of documents on a given topic, are related. I called it the issue tree. This structure is a logical form, not semantic. For example, one sentence may offer evidence for a claim made by another sentence. Or it may provide an example (as this sentence does) or an explanation, etc. These are not semantic relations. The same is true for citations and other referential links. The meaning of the relation is not like the meaning of a word, rather it is a relation between whole thoughts. In fact a lot of what is called the semantic web is not semantic, rather it is propositional, hence a matter of logic. There is much confusion about this. David On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > David, > > It is in the first paragraph, where I discuss Garfield's concept of citation indexing. I quote: > > "Eugene Garfield is the creator of citation indexing. In his landmark book on the subject Garfield (1983) gave the following conceptual definition of citation indexing: > > The concept of citation indexing is simple?. Citations are the formal, explicit > > linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A citation index > > is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been cited and identifies > > the sources of the citations. Anyone conducting a literature search can find from > > one to dozens of additional papers on a subject just by knowing one that has been cited. > > And every paper that is found provides a list of new citations with which to continue > > the search. (p. 1) > > In an article entitled "Citation Indexes for Science" published in the journal Science Garfield (1955) set forth the basic reasons for developing a citation index. Later in life Garfield (1987a) deemed this article "my most important paper" (p. 16). In his Science article Garfield (1955) stated that a primary advantage of a citation index over conventional alphabetical and subject indexes was that its different construction allowed it to bring together material that would never be collated by the usual subject indexing. Garfield here described a citation index as "an association-of-ideas index" (p. 108) that allowed the reader as much leeway as he needed. In his opinion, conventional indexes were inadequate, because scientists were often concerned with a particular idea rather than a complete concept, and the basic problem was to build subject indexes that can anticipate the infinite number of possible approaches that scientists may require in order to bridge the gap between the subject approach of those who create the documents and the subject approach of those who seek the information. Garfield stated that the utility of a citation index had to be considered from the viewpoint of the transmission of ideas. Thus, Garfield justified citation indexing as better able to deliver a set of relevant documents in response to a scientist?s search query." > > > > Thus, citations and hyperlinks connect ideas to form relevant document sets. Semantics is the science of meaning, and, if this is not semantics, then what is. We found that the economists' papers highest in GS cites were precisely the ones for which they were awarded the prize. In other words, GS had defined the economists perfectly by subject. > > > > Respectfully, > > SB > > PS arXiv still has our article on hold. Ironically they think that it should possibly have a different classification. Hoisted on own petard. What a joke. > > > > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:38 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Stephen, > > Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know neither relation is semantic. > > David > > David Wojick > http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > > At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> David and Jeroen, >> I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my following arXiv posting: >> >> Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine >> Authors: Stephen J. Bensman >> (Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) >> Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other. >> Subjects: >> Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) >> Cite as: >> arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] >> >> (or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this version) >> >> You will see that Garfield?s theory of citation indexing is based upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. >> >> Our new paper is entitled ?POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,? and here is its abstract: >> ?This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates? works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ?tail? to the right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the laureates? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a signature feature of the economists? distributions?are not random events but related by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.? >> This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites were on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. >> Respectfully, >> >> Stephen J Bensman >> LSU Libraries >> Lousiana State University >> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Stephen, >> >> Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. >> >> One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. >> >> Best regards, >> Jeroen >> >> >> Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Jeoren, >> This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. >> >> The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. >> >> I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >> LSU Libraries >> Lousiana State University >> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >> >> PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. >> >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Stephen, >> >> Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. >> >> On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. >> >> Best, >> Jeroen Bosman >> @jeroenbosman >> >> Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Jeroen >> Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: >> >> ?Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.? >> >> Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Stephen J Bensman >> LSU Libraries >> Lousiana State University >> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >> USA >> >> >> >> >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, >> >> Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. >> >> Best, >> Jeroen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >> Enrique, >> Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard >> >> SB. >> >> >> >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a >> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Dear friends, >> >> Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) >> >> As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. >> >> Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. >> >> Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. >> >> As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. >> >> Best, >> >> Enrique >> >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Isidro, >> Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. >> >> You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. >> >> I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >> LSU Libraries >> Lousiana State University >> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >> USA >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> Dear Stephen, >> >> Ooops! >> >> Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. >> >> But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. >> Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. >> >> Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. >> >> Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university >> >> site:lsu.edu >> >> This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> > >> > Isidro, >> > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. >> > >> > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. >> > >> > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. >> > >> > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. >> > >> > Respectfully, >> > >> > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. >> > LSU Libraries >> > Lousiana State University >> > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >> > USA >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >> > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM >> > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >> > search engines >> > >> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> > >> > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. >> > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN >> > 1780634722, 9781780634722 >> > >> > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb >> > n-9781843347910/ >> > >> > >> > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. >> > >> > Key Features: >> > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. >> > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. >> > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. >> > >> > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> ************************************ >> Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. >> The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC >> Grupo Scimago >> Madrid. SPAIN >> >> isidro.aguillo at csic.es >> ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 >> ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 >> Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ >> Twitter @isidroaguillo >> Rankings Web webometrics.info >> ************************************ >> >> >> --- >> Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Sat Oct 11 09:24:19 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:24:19 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <7BEB666F-5F08-47D0-A509-8F7325E94B6F@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: David, You are probably right in your analysis below, but the term I keep running across particularly in respect to Google is "semantic." I am posting the URL for an example below: http://davidamerland.com/google-semantic-search.html Google is trying to make its program more "semantically" capable. The basic premise is that citations/hyperlinks link similar ideas and therefore construct relevant subject sets. The contribution of Francis Narin is discussed on pp. 16-18 of that article. Here it is shown the cites from documents with many inlinks themselves create sets that more accord with human judgment. Page built this concept into Google. Garfield solved it by restricting coverage only to the most highly cited journals. All these people are helped by the fact that citations/hyperlinks follow power-law distributions, and Google consciously takes this into account, whereas others do not. Kleinberg points this out. Google does a good job in creating order out of the chaos of the WWW, where there is no authority structure to guide you. It is really a wonder. What am I particularly interested to learn from Jose is how does Microsoft operate. It is a failure. If I can better understand its operation, I can better understand why Google works so well. Respectfully, Steve B. Google Semantic Search Google Semantic Search book page resource, summary plus where to buy paper book or eBook. Read more... ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:33 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Stephen, Ideas are expressed as propositions, not individual words. The science of the relations between propositions is logic, not semantics. For example, many years ago I discovered a basic way in which the sentences in a document, or a group of documents on a given topic, are related. I called it the issue tree. This structure is a logical form, not semantic. For example, one sentence may offer evidence for a claim made by another sentence. Or it may provide an example (as this sentence does) or an explanation, etc. These are not semantic relations. The same is true for citations and other referential links. The meaning of the relation is not like the meaning of a word, rather it is a relation between whole thoughts. In fact a lot of what is called the semantic web is not semantic, rather it is propositional, hence a matter of logic. There is much confusion about this. David On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: David, It is in the first paragraph, where I discuss Garfield's concept of citation indexing. I quote: "Eugene Garfield is the creator of citation indexing. In his landmark book on the subject Garfield (1983) gave the following conceptual definition of citation indexing: The concept of citation indexing is simple?. Citations are the formal, explicit linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A citation index is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been cited and identifies the sources of the citations. Anyone conducting a literature search can find from one to dozens of additional papers on a subject just by knowing one that has been cited. And every paper that is found provides a list of new citations with which to continue the search. (p. 1) In an article entitled "Citation Indexes for Science" published in the journal Science Garfield (1955) set forth the basic reasons for developing a citation index. Later in life Garfield (1987a) deemed this article "my most important paper" (p. 16). In his Science article Garfield (1955) stated that a primary advantage of a citation index over conventional alphabetical and subject indexes was that its different construction allowed it to bring together material that would never be collated by the usual subject indexing. Garfield here described a citation index as "an association-of-ideas index" (p. 108) that allowed the reader as much leeway as he needed. In his opinion, conventional indexes were inadequate, because scientists were often concerned with a particular idea rather than a complete concept, and the basic problem was to build subject indexes that can anticipate the infinite number of possible approaches that scientists may require in order to bridge the gap between the subject approach of those who create the documents and the subject approach of those who seek the information. Garfield stated that the utility of a citation index had to be considered from the viewpoint of the transmission of ideas. Thus, Garfield justified citation indexing as better able to deliver a set of relevant documents in response to a scientist?s search query." Thus, citations and hyperlinks connect ideas to form relevant document sets. Semantics is the science of meaning, and, if this is not semantics, then what is. We found that the economists' papers highest in GS cites were precisely the ones for which they were awarded the prize. In other words, GS had defined the economists perfectly by subject. Respectfully, SB PS arXiv still has our article on hold. Ironically they think that it should possibly have a different classification. Hoisted on own petard. What a joke. ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > on behalf of David Wojick > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:38 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know neither relation is semantic. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: ml David and Jeroen, I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my following arXiv posting: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine Authors: Stephen J. Bensman (Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other. Subjects: Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] (or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this version) You will see that Garfield?s theory of citation indexing is based upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. Our new paper is entitled ?POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,? and here is its abstract: ?This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates? works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ?tail? to the right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the laureates? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a signature feature of the economists? distributions?are not random events but related by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.? This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites were on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Stephen, Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. Best regards, Jeroen Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: ml Jeoren, This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Stephen, Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. Best, Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: ml Jeroen Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: ?Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.? Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman <notsjb at lsu.edu> wrote: sigmetrics.html Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines sigmetrics.html Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sat Oct 11 09:50:27 2014 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:50:27 -0400 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <1413033858313.47800@lsu.edu> Message-ID: Stephen, It looks like there is some of the usual confusion here but they do say this: "In semantic search the idea is to search for what you really mean by that phrase and find words and concepts that are associated with your phrase. For instance, when you search for a phrase containing "java," are you talking about coffee, an island, or a programming language?" http://google.about.com/od/s/g/semantic_search.htm Finding other words or phrases is indeed a semantic effort. A thesaurus is good here. So is term vector similarity, for that matter, because it looks at all the words in the document. There is a lot of semantics in search technology. But the nature of the relations presented in links and citations is logical, not semantic. David On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > David, > > You are probably right in your analysis below, but the term I keep running across particularly in respect to Google is "semantic." I am posting the URL for an example below: > > > > http://davidamerland.com/google-semantic-search.html > > > > Google is trying to make its program more "semantically" capable. The basic premise is that citations/hyperlinks link similar ideas and therefore construct relevant subject sets. > > > > The contribution of Francis Narin is discussed on pp. 16-18 of that article. Here it is shown the cites from documents with many inlinks themselves create sets that more accord with human judgment. Page built this concept into Google. Garfield solved it by restricting coverage only to the most highly cited journals. All these people are helped by the fact that citations/hyperlinks follow power-law distributions, and Google consciously takes this into account, whereas others do not. Kleinberg points this out. Google does a good job in creating order out of the chaos of the WWW, where there is no authority structure to guide you. It is really a wonder. > > > > What am I particularly interested to learn from Jose is how does Microsoft operate. It is a failure. If I can better understand its operation, I can better understand why Google works so well. > > > > Respectfully, > > Steve B. > > Google Semantic Search > Google Semantic Search book page resource, summary plus where to buy paper book or eBook. > Read more... > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:33 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Stephen, > > Ideas are expressed as propositions, not individual words. The science of the relations between propositions is logic, not semantics. For example, many years ago I discovered a basic way in which the sentences in a document, or a group of documents on a given topic, are related. I called it the issue tree. This structure is a logical form, not semantic. > > For example, one sentence may offer evidence for a claim made by another sentence. Or it may provide an example (as this sentence does) or an explanation, etc. These are not semantic relations. The same is true for citations and other referential links. The meaning of the relation is not like the meaning of a word, rather it is a relation between whole thoughts. > > In fact a lot of what is called the semantic web is not semantic, rather it is propositional, hence a matter of logic. There is much confusion about this. > > David > > On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> David, >> >> It is in the first paragraph, where I discuss Garfield's concept of citation indexing. I quote: >> >> "Eugene Garfield is the creator of citation indexing. In his landmark book on the subject Garfield (1983) gave the following conceptual definition of citation indexing: >> >> The concept of citation indexing is simple?. Citations are the formal, explicit >> >> linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A citation index >> >> is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been cited and identifies >> >> the sources of the citations. Anyone conducting a literature search can find from >> >> one to dozens of additional papers on a subject just by knowing one that has been cited. >> >> And every paper that is found provides a list of new citations with which to continue >> >> the search. (p. 1) >> >> In an article entitled "Citation Indexes for Science" published in the journal Science Garfield (1955) set forth the basic reasons for developing a citation index. Later in life Garfield (1987a) deemed this article "my most important paper" (p. 16). In his Science article Garfield (1955) stated that a primary advantage of a citation index over conventional alphabetical and subject indexes was that its different construction allowed it to bring together material that would never be collated by the usual subject indexing. Garfield here described a citation index as "an association-of-ideas index" (p. 108) that allowed the reader as much leeway as he needed. In his opinion, conventional indexes were inadequate, because scientists were often concerned with a particular idea rather than a complete concept, and the basic problem was to build subject indexes that can anticipate the infinite number of possible approaches that scientists may require in order to bridge the gap between the subject approach of those who create the documents and the subject approach of those who seek the information. Garfield stated that the utility of a citation index had to be considered from the viewpoint of the transmission of ideas. Thus, Garfield justified citation indexing as better able to deliver a set of relevant documents in response to a scientist?s search query." >> >> >> >> Thus, citations and hyperlinks connect ideas to form relevant document sets. Semantics is the science of meaning, and, if this is not semantics, then what is. We found that the economists' papers highest in GS cites were precisely the ones for which they were awarded the prize. In other words, GS had defined the economists perfectly by subject. >> >> >> >> Respectfully, >> >> SB >> >> PS arXiv still has our article on hold. Ironically they think that it should possibly have a different classification. Hoisted on own petard. What a joke. >> >> >> >> >> >> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick >> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:38 PM >> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >> >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Stephen, >> >> Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know neither relation is semantic. >> >> David >> >> David Wojick >> http://insidepublicaccess.com/ >> >> >> At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> David and Jeroen, >>> I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my following arXiv posting: >>> >>> Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine >>> Authors: Stephen J. Bensman >>> (Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) >>> Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other. >>> Subjects: >>> Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) >>> Cite as: >>> arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] >>> >>> (or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this version) >>> >>> You will see that Garfield?s theory of citation indexing is based upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. >>> >>> Our new paper is entitled ?POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,? and here is its abstract: >>> ?This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates? works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ?tail? to the right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the laureates? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a signature feature of the economists? distributions?are not random events but related by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.? >>> This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites were on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> Stephen J Bensman >>> LSU Libraries >>> Lousiana State University >>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM >>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Stephen, >>> >>> Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. >>> >>> One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Jeroen >>> >>> >>> Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Jeoren, >>> This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. >>> >>> The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. >>> >>> I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >>> LSU Libraries >>> Lousiana State University >>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>> >>> PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. >>> >>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM >>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Stephen, >>> >>> Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. >>> >>> On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. >>> >>> Best, >>> Jeroen Bosman >>> @jeroenbosman >>> >>> Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Jeroen >>> Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: >>> >>> ?Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.? >>> >>> Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> Stephen J Bensman >>> LSU Libraries >>> Lousiana State University >>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>> USA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM >>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, >>> >>> Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. >>> >>> Best, >>> Jeroen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >>> Enrique, >>> Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard >>> >>> SB. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu?a >>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM >>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Dear friends, >>> >>> Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) >>> >>> As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. >>> >>> Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. >>> >>> Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. >>> >>> As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Enrique >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>> Isidro, >>> Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. >>> >>> You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. >>> >>> I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >>> LSU Libraries >>> Lousiana State University >>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>> USA >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM >>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>> Dear Stephen, >>> >>> Ooops! >>> >>> Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. >>> >>> But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. >>> Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. >>> >>> Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. >>> >>> Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university >>> >>> site:lsu.edu >>> >>> This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> > >>> > Isidro, >>> > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. >>> > >>> > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. >>> > >>> > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. >>> > >>> > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. >>> > >>> > Respectfully, >>> > >>> > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. >>> > LSU Libraries >>> > Lousiana State University >>> > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>> > USA >>> > >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>> > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM >>> > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>> > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >>> > search engines >>> > >>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> > >>> > Jos? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. >>> > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN >>> > 1780634722, 9781780634722 >>> > >>> > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb >>> > n-9781843347910/ >>> > >>> > >>> > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. >>> > >>> > Key Features: >>> > ? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. >>> > ? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. >>> > ? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. >>> > >>> > Jos? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ************************************ >>> Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. >>> The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC >>> Grupo Scimago >>> Madrid. SPAIN >>> >>> isidro.aguillo at csic.es >>> ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 >>> ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 >>> Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ >>> Twitter @isidroaguillo >>> Rankings Web webometrics.info >>> ************************************ >>> >>> >>> --- >>> Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci?n de avast! Antivirus est? activa. >>> http://www.avast.com >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sat Oct 11 14:22:34 2014 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 14:22:34 -0400 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <80303036-A98E-43B5-8FD3-D82B14C5A998@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Just to elaborate (because I have done a lot of work on the logic of citation) consider the simple case where a paper uses a single number and cites another paper as the source of that number. The logic of the citation is "I got this number here" or perhaps "I got this number here and I accept their results" or some such. One of the deep problems with citation is that the logic of the citation is often quite vague. That is, just what a citation is saying is not always clear. But in no case is this citation relation semantic in nature. It is part of the reasoning presented in the citing paper, which makes it subject to logical analysis, not just semantic analysis. I hope this helps. The logic of citation is an interesting field. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 09:50 AM 10/11/2014, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >Stephen, > >It looks like there is some of the usual confusion here but they do say this: > "In semantic search the idea is to search for what you really mean by > that phrase and find words and concepts that are associated with your > phrase. For instance, when you search for a phrase containing "java," are > you talking about coffee, an island, or a programming language?" >http://google.about.com/od/s/g/semantic_search.htm > >Finding other words or phrases is indeed a semantic effort. A thesaurus is >good here. So is term vector similarity, for that matter, because it looks >at all the words in the document. There is a lot of semantics in search >technology. But the nature of the relations presented in links and >citations is logical, not semantic. > >David > >On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Stephen J Bensman ><notsjb at LSU.EDU> wrote: > >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >> >>David, >> >>You are probably right in your analysis below, but the term I keep >>running across particularly in respect to Google is "semantic." I am >>posting the URL for an example below: >> >> >> >>http://davidamerland.com/google-semantic-search.html >> >> >> >>Google is trying to make its program more "semantically" capable. The >>basic premise is that citations/hyperlinks link similar ideas and >>therefore construct relevant subject sets. >> >> >> >>The contribution of Francis Narin is discussed on pp. 16-18 of that >>article. Here it is shown the cites from documents with many inlinks >>themselves create sets that more accord with human judgment. Page built >>this concept into Google. Garfield solved it by restricting coverage >>only to the most highly cited journals. All these people are helped by >>the fact that citations/hyperlinks follow power-law distributions, and >>Google consciously takes this into account, whereas others do >>not. Kleinberg points this out. Google does a good job in creating >>order out of the chaos of the WWW, where there is no authority structure >>to guide you. It is really a wonder. >> >> >> >>What am I particularly interested to learn from Jose is how does >>Microsoft operate. It is a failure. If I can better understand its >>operation, I can better understand why Google works so well. >> >> >> >>Respectfully, >> >>Steve B. >> >>Google Semantic Search >>Google Semantic Search book page resource, summary plus where to buy >>paper book or eBook. >>Read more... >> >> >>---------- >>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >><SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on >>behalf of David Wojick >><dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US> >>Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:33 AM >>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >>search engines >> >>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> >>Stephen, >> >>Ideas are expressed as propositions, not individual words. The science of >>the relations between propositions is logic, not semantics. For example, >>many years ago I discovered a basic way in which the sentences in a >>document, or a group of documents on a given topic, are related. I called >>it the issue tree. This structure is a logical form, not semantic. >> >>For example, one sentence may offer evidence for a claim made by another >>sentence. Or it may provide an example (as this sentence does) or an >>explanation, etc. These are not semantic relations. The same is true for >>citations and other referential links. The meaning of the relation is not >>like the meaning of a word, rather it is a relation between whole thoughts. >> >>In fact a lot of what is called the semantic web is not semantic, rather >>it is propositional, hence a matter of logic. There is much confusion >>about this. >> >>David >> >>On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Stephen J Bensman >><notsjb at LSU.EDU> wrote: >> >>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>> >>>David, >>> >>>It is in the first paragraph, where I discuss Garfield's concept of >>>citation indexing. I quote: >>> >>>"Eugene Garfield is the creator of citation indexing. In his landmark >>>book on the subject Garfield (1983) gave the following conceptual >>>definition of citation indexing: >>> >>>The concept of citation indexing is simple . Citations are the foormal, >>>explicit >>> >>>linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A >>>citation index >>> >>>is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been >>>cited and identifies >>> >>>the sources of the citations. Anyone conducting a literature search can >>>find from >>> >>>one to dozens of additional papers on a subject just by knowing one that >>>has been cited. >>> >>>And every paper that is found provides a list of new citations with >>>which to continue >>> >>>the search. (p. 1) >>> >>>In an article entitled "Citation Indexes for Science" published in the >>>journal Science Garfield (1955) set forth the basic reasons for >>>developing a citation index. Later in life Garfield (1987a) deemed this >>>article "my most important paper" (p. 16). In his Science article >>>Garfield (1955) stated that a primary advantage of a citation index over >>>conventional alphabetical and subject indexes was that its different >>>construction allowed it to bring together material that would never be >>>collated by the usual subject indexing. Garfield here described a >>>citation index as "an association-of-ideas index" (p. 108) that allowed >>>the reader as much leeway as he needed. In his opinion, conventional >>>indexes were inadequate, because scientists were often concerned with a >>>particular idea rather than a complete concept, and the basic problem >>>was to build subject indexes that can anticipate the infinite number of >>>possible approaches that scientists may require in order to bridge the >>>gap between the subject approach of those who create the documents and >>>the subject approach of those who seek the information. Garfield stated >>>that the utility of a citation index had to be considered from the >>>viewpoint of the transmission of ideas. Thus, Garfield justified >>>citation indexing as better able to deliver a set of relevant documents >>>in response to a scientist???s search query." >>> >>> >>> >>>Thus, citations and hyperlinks connect ideas to form relevant document >>>sets. Semantics is the science of meaning, and, if this is not >>>semantics, then what is. We found that the economists' papers highest >>>in GS cites were precisely the ones for which they were awarded the >>>prize. In other words, GS had defined the economists perfectly by subject. >>> >>> >>> >>>Respectfully, >>> >>>SB >>> >>>PS arXiv still has our article on hold. Ironically they think that it >>>should possibly have a different classification. Hoisted on own >>>petard. What a joke. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>---------- >>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>><SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on >>>behalf of David Wojick >>><dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US> >>>Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:38 PM >>>To: >>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >>>search engines >>> >>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>Dear Stephen, >>> >>>Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you >>>explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know >>>neither relation is semantic. >>> >>>David >>> >>>David Wojick >>>http://insidepublicaccess.com/ >>> >>> >>>At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>David and Jeroen, >>>>I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my >>>>following arXiv posting: >>>> >>>>Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of >>>>the Google Search Engine >>>>Authors: >>>>Stephen J. Bensman >>>>(Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) >>>>Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google >>>>Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the >>>>premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of >>>>Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are >>>>identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing >>>>validate each other. >>>>Subjects: >>>>Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and >>>>Society (physics.soc-ph) >>>>Cite as: >>>>arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] >>>> >>>>(or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for >>>>this version) >>>> >>>>You will see that Garfield???s theory of citation indexing is based >>>>upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by >>>>words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. >>>> >>>>Our new paper is entitled ???POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND >>>>GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH >>>>ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,??? and here is its abstract: >>>>???This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can >>>>construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of >>>>researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in >>>>economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in >>>>September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in >>>>October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this >>>>analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the >>>>distributions of the laureates??? works by total GS citations belong >>>>within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is >>>>asymptote or ???tail??? to the right. It also proves that this >>>>asymptote is conterminous with the laureates??? h-indexes, which >>>>demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability >>>>of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the >>>>h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the >>>>extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a siignature feature of >>>>the economists??? distributions?are not random events but related by >>>>subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were >>>>awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role >>>>played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.??? >>>>This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites >>>>wwere on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded >>>>the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally >>>>posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we >>>>submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. >>>>Respectfully, >>>> >>>>Stephen J Bensman >>>>LSU Libraries >>>>Lousiana State University >>>>Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>>[ >>>>mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >>>>On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>>>Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM >>>>To: >>>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on >>>>academic search engines >>>> >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>Stephen, >>>> >>>>Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you >>>>mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations >>>>into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS >>>>does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links >>>>pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. >>>> >>>>One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago >>>>stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as >>>>far as I can tell. >>>> >>>>Best regards, >>>>Jeroen >>>> >>>> >>>>Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J >>>>Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>Jeoren, >>>>This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main >>>>premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in >>>>Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution >>>>that now is reaching warp speed. >>>> >>>>The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is >>>>that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to >>>>take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in >>>>on the most important and relevant documents. >>>> >>>>I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where >>>>we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. >>>> >>>>Respectfully, >>>> >>>>Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >>>>LSU Libraries >>>>Lousiana State University >>>>Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>> >>>>PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated >>>>for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we >>>>may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. >>>> >>>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>>[ >>>>mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >>>>On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>>>Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM >>>>To: >>>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on >>>>academic search engines >>>> >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>Stephen, >>>> >>>>Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 >>>>(Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the >>>>early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 >>>>(Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a >>>>hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It >>>>already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the >>>>change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as >>>>well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So >>>>probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in >>>>the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant >>>>production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart >>>>nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to >>>>collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) >>>>and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have >>>>revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in >>>>a much more restricted field of physics and information science. >>>> >>>>On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and >>>>Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my >>>>students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS >>>>pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly >>>>cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had >>>>never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better >>>>job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. >>>> >>>>Best, >>>>Jeroen Bosman >>>>@jeroenbosman >>>> >>>>Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J >>>>Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>Jeroen >>>>Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic >>>>search engines: >>>> >>>>???Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are >>>>now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the >>>>invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific >>>>journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took >>>>centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of >>>>this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined >>>>by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this >>>>information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the >>>>power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was >>>>launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.??? >>>> >>>>Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of >>>>standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some >>>>sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be >>>>based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that t was >>>>proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document >>>>sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of >>>>a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to >>>>collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 >>>>years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and >>>>our times are sure interesting in this sense. >>>> >>>>Respectfully, >>>> >>>>Stephen J Bensman >>>>LSU Libraries >>>>Lousiana State University >>>>Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>USA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>>[ >>>>mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >>>>On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>>>Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM >>>>To: >>>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on >>>>academic search engines >>>> >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, >>>> >>>>Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I >>>>do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it >>>>offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as >>>>the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to >>>>have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW >>>>revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you >>>>elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not >>>>include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And >>>>perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of >>>>the launch of Paperity. >>>> >>>>Best, >>>>Jeroen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J >>>>Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: >>>>Enrique, >>>>Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS >>>>no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google >>>>Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is >>>>revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to >>>>have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex >>>>enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was >>>>better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was >>>>when peer ratings were the only standard >>>> >>>>SB. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>>[ >>>>mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >>>>On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu??a >>>>Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM >>>>To: >>>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on >>>>academic search engines >>>> >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>Dear friends, >>>> >>>>Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a >>>>copy of Ortega's book :) >>>> >>>>As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take >>>>into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by >>>>Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by >>>>means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has >>>>been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where >>>>we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities >>>>and journals. >>>> >>>>Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. >>>>Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that >>>>return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add >>>>finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing >>>>results due to Microsoft copyright. >>>> >>>>Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results >>>>will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. >>>> >>>>As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used >>>>both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search >>>>commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" >>>>and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and >>>>Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. >>>> >>>>Best, >>>> >>>>Enrique >>>> >>>>On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J >>>>Bensman <notsjb at lsu.edu> wrote: >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>Isidro, >>>>Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from >>>>Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I >>>>definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be >>>>ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a >>>>while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple >>>>times, because I did not know what I was doing. >>>>You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo >>>>research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets >>>>by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as >>>>delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated >>>>Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by >>>>linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's >>>>influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets >>>>than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining >>>>sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, >>>>then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once >>>>said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. >>>> >>>>I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. >>>>Respectfully, >>>>Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >>>>LSU Libraries >>>>Lousiana State University >>>>Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>USA >>>> >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>>[ >>>>mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >>>>On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >>>>Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM >>>>To: >>>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on >>>>academic search engines >>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>Dear Stephen, >>>>Ooops! >>>>Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my >>>>collaborator and friend Jos?? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you >>>>can expect an answer from him soon. >>>>But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using >>>>the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly >>>>the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. >>>>Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits >>>>play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is >>>>also possible links are also taken into account. >>>>Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it >>>>is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that >>>>although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings >>>>they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent >>>>products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. >>>>Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different >>>>levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the >>>>webservers of your university >>>> >>>>site:lsu.edu >>>>This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. >>>>Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>>On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >>>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Isidro, >>>> > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A >>>> Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so >>>> you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the >>>> differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines >>>> operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand >>>> how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results >>>> with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have >>>> tested them both. >>>> > >>>> > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program >>>> with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really >>>> run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get >>>> better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site >>>> itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite >>>> obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. >>>> > >>>> > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the >>>> quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic >>>> classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, >>>> working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google >>>> or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure >>>> whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be >>>> something like megabytes of data or something like that. >>>> > >>>> > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like >>>> you to vet it when we have it ready. >>>> > >>>> > Respectfully, >>>> > >>>> > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. >>>> > LSU Libraries >>>> > Lousiana State University >>>> > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>> > USA >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>> > [ >>>> mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >>>> On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >>>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM >>>>> To: >>>>SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>> > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >>>> > search engines >>>> > >>>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> >>>>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Jos?? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. >>>> > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN >>>> > 1780634722, 9781780634722 >>>> > >>>>> >>>>http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb >>>> >>>> > n-9781843347910/ >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama >>>> of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that >>>> analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The >>>> objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to >>>> highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the >>>> implications of these new products in the future of scientific >>>> communication and their impact on the research measurement and >>>> evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view >>>> of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity >>>> through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. >>>> > >>>> > Key Features: >>>> > ?? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively >>>> addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. >>>> > ?? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities >>>> of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding >>>> characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with >>>> recent investigations. >>>> > ?? This book introduces an original methodology based on a >>>> quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of >>>> crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these >>>> engines are working. >>>> > >>>> > Jos?? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish >>>> National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the >>>> Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies >>>> (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of >>>> the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he >>>> took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now >>>> continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research >>>> areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of >>>> information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. >>>> > >>>> >>>>-- >>>>************************************ >>>>Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. >>>>The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC >>>>Grupo Scimago >>>>Madrid. SPAIN >>>> >>>>isidro.aguillo at csic.es >>>>ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 >>>>ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 >>>>Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ >>>>Twitter @isidroaguillo >>>>Rankings Web webometrics.info >>>>************************************ >>>> >>>>--- >>>>Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci??n de >>>>avast! Antivirus est?? activa. >>>>http://www.avast.com >>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Sat Oct 11 15:38:27 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 19:38:27 +0000 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20141011141529.043b50b0@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: David, There is a whole school of behavioral theory that rejects the validity of citations due to lack of knowledge of the motivation. This is nonsense. We should stick with Garfield--a citation or hyperlink indicates an association of ideas. The rest is statistics and probability. You can call it logic or semantics whatever you want--but the links define sets relevant to the query. That is what we are after. I do not know why it works but it does. Page justified it by stating that the higher number of citations or links, the more it indicates consensus of human judgment. Therefore, it is a measure of what is in the human mind. We found that a large number of GS cites was consistent with the judgment of the Nobel committees that selected these guys. Page was right. It works. Case closed. What was surprising was Krugman. He is best known as a New York Times op-ed writer, but his high cited items were academic works and one working paper on his work on economic geography. That a fine distinction because the conservatives hate him and are always lambasting him in the press. There was a theory that the Europeans gave him the prize because he hated George Bush. No, GS indicates that his prize was for his academic work and not his political fulminations. I wish that arXiv would just classify the damn thing any way it wants. I classified it as "Computer Science--Information Retrieval" but there is more to it than just that. A lot of probability analysis. SB ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 1:22 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines of work on the logic of citation) consider the simple case where a paper uses a single number and cites another paper as the source of that number. The logic of the citation is "I got this number here" or perhaps "I got this number here and I accept their results" or some such. One of the deep problems with citation is that the logic of the citation is often quite vague. That is, just what a citation is saying is not always clear. But in no case is this citation relation semantic in nature. It is part of the reasoning presented in the citing paper, which makes it subject to logical analysis, not just semantic analysis. I hope this helps. The logic of citation is an interesting field. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 09:50 AM 10/11/2014, you wrote: Stephen, It looks like there is some of the usual confusion here but they do say this: "In semantic search the idea is to search for what you really mean by that phrase and find words and concepts that are associated with your phrase. For instance, when you search for a phrase containing "java," are you talking about coffee, an island, or a programming language?" http://google.about.com/od/s/g/semantic_search.htm Finding other words or phrases is indeed a semantic effort. A thesaurus is good here. So is term vector similarity, for that matter, because it looks at all the words in the document. There is a lot of semantics in search technology. But the nature of the relations presented in links and citations is logical, not semantic. David On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: David, You are probably right in your analysis below, but the term I keep running across particularly in respect to Google is "semantic." I am posting the URL for an example below: http://davidamerland.com/google-semantic-search.html Google is trying to make its program more "semantically" capable. The basic premise is that citations/hyperlinks link similar ideas and therefore construct relevant subject sets. The contribution of Francis Narin is discussed on pp. 16-18 of that article. Here it is shown the cites from documents with many inlinks themselves create sets that more accord with human judgment. Page built this concept into Google. Garfield solved it by restricting coverage only to the most highly cited journals. All these people are helped by the fact that citations/hyperlinks follow power-law distributions, and Google consciously takes this into account, whereas others do not. Kleinberg points this out. Google does a good job in creating order out of the chaos of the WWW, where there is no authority structure to guide you. It is really a wonder. What am I particularly interested to learn from Jose is how does Microsoft operate. It is a failure. If I can better understand its operation, I can better understand why Google works so well. Respectfully, Steve B. Google Semantic Search Google Semantic Search book page resource, summary plus where to buy paper book or eBook. Read more... ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:33 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Stephen, Ideas are expressed as propositions, not individual words. The science of the relations between propositions is logic, not semantics. For example, many years ago I discovered a basic way in which the sentences in a document, or a group of documents on a given topic, are related. I called it the issue tree. This structure is a logical form, not semantic. For example, one sentence may offer evidence for a claim made by another sentence. Or it may provide an example (as this sentence does) or an explanation, etc. These are not semantic relations. The same is true for citations and other referential links. The meaning of the relation is not like the meaning of a word, rather it is a relation between whole thoughts. In fact a lot of what is called the semantic web is not semantic, rather it is propositional, hence a matter of logic. There is much confusion about this. David On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: David, It is in the first paragraph, where I discuss Garfield's concept of citation indexing. I quote: "Eugene Garfield is the creator of citation indexing. In his landmark book on the subject Garfield (1983) gave the following conceptual definition of citation indexing: The concept of citation indexing is simple?. Citations are the foormal, explicit linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A citation index is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been cited and identifies the sources of the citations. Anyone conducting a literature search can find from one to dozens of additional papers on a subject just by knowing one that has been cited. And every paper that is found provides a list of new citations with which to continue the search. (p. 1) In an article entitled "Citation Indexes for Science" published in the journal Science Garfield (1955) set forth the basic reasons for developing a citation index. Later in life Garfield (1987a) deemed this article "my most important paper" (p. 16). In his Science article Garfield (1955) stated that a primary advantage of a citation index over conventional alphabetical and subject indexes was that its different construction allowed it to bring together material that would never be collated by the usual subject indexing. Garfield here described a citation index as "an association-of-ideas index" (p. 108) that allowed the reader as much leeway as he needed. In his opinion, conventional indexes were inadequate, because scientists were often concerned with a particular idea rather than a complete concept, and the basic problem was to build subject indexes that can anticipate the infinite number of possible approaches that scientists may require in order to bridge the gap between the subject approach of those who create the documents and the subject approach of those who seek the information. Garfield stated that the utility of a citation index had to be considered from the viewpoint of the transmission of ideas. Thus, Garfield justified citation indexing as better able to deliver a set of relevant documents in response to a scientist???s search query." Thus, citations and hyperlinks connect ideas to form relevant document sets. Semantics is the science of meaning, and, if this is not semantics, then what is. We found that the economists' papers highest in GS cites were precisely the ones for which they were awarded the prize. In other words, GS had defined the economists perfectly by subject. Respectfully, SB PS arXiv still has our article on hold. Ironically they think that it should possibly have a different classification. Hoisted on own petard. What a joke. ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:38 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know neither relation is semantic. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: ml David and Jeroen, I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my following arXiv posting: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine Authors: Stephen J. Bensman (Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other. Subjects: Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] (or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this version) You will see that Garfield???s theory of citation indexing is based upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. Our new paper is entitled ???POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,??? and here is its abstract: ???This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates??? works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ???tail??? to the right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the laureates??? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a siignature feature of the economists??? distributions?are not random events but related by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.??? This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites wwere on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Stephen, Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. Best regards, Jeroen Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: ml Jeoren, This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Stephen, Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. Best, Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: ml Jeroen Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: ???Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.??? Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that t was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu??a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman <notsjb at lsu.edu> wrote: Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos?? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos?? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ?? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ?? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ?? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos?? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci??n de avast! Antivirus est?? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sat Oct 11 16:44:12 2014 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 16:44:12 -0400 Subject: A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <1413056306370.84375@lsu.edu> Message-ID: Stephen, You can count citations per se and I have no objection to that metric. However, each citation has logical meaning and that too is an interesting field, my field. David Sent from my IPad On Oct 11, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > David, > > There is a whole school of behavioral theory that rejects the validity of citations due to lack of knowledge of the motivation. This is nonsense. We should stick with Garfield--a citation or hyperlink indicates an association of ideas. The rest is statistics and probability. You can call it logic or semantics whatever you want--but the links define sets relevant to the query. That is what we are after. I do not know why it works but it does. Page justified it by stating that the higher number of citations or links, the more it indicates consensus of human judgment. Therefore, it is a measure of what is in the human mind. We found that a large number of GS cites was consistent with the judgment of the Nobel committees that selected these guys. Page was right. It works. Case closed. What was surprising was Krugman. He is best known as a New York Times op-ed writer, but his high cited items were academic works and one working paper on his work on economic geography. That a fine distinction because the conservatives hate him and are always lambasting him in the press. There was a theory that the Europeans gave him the prize because he hated George Bush. No, GS indicates that his prize was for his academic work and not his political fulminations. > > > > I wish that arXiv would just classify the damn thing any way it wants. I classified it as "Computer Science--Information Retrieval" but there is more to it than just that. A lot of probability analysis. > > > > SB > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 1:22 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Just to elaborate (because I have done a lot of work on the logic of citation) consider the simple case where a paper uses a single number and cites another paper as the source of that number. The logic of the citation is "I got this number here" or perhaps "I got this number here and I accept their results" or some such. One of the deep problems with citation is that the logic of the citation is often quite vague. That is, just what a citation is saying is not always clear. But in no case is this citation relation semantic in nature. It is part of the reasoning presented in the citing paper, which makes it subject to logical analysis, not just semantic analysis. > > I hope this helps. The logic of citation is an interesting field. > > David > > David Wojick > http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > At 09:50 AM 10/11/2014, you wrote: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Stephen, >> >> It looks like there is some of the usual confusion here but they do say this: >> "In semantic search the idea is to search for what you really mean by that phrase and find words and concepts that are associated with your phrase. For instance, when you search for a phrase containing "java," are you talking about coffee, an island, or a programming language?" >> http://google.about.com/od/s/g/semantic_search.htm >> >> Finding other words or phrases is indeed a semantic effort. A thesaurus is good here. So is term vector similarity, for that matter, because it looks at all the words in the document. There is a lot of semantics in search technology. But the nature of the relations presented in links and citations is logical, not semantic. >> >> David >> >> On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> >>> David, >>> >>> You are probably right in your analysis below, but the term I keep running across particularly in respect to Google is "semantic." I am posting the URL for an example below: >>> >>> >>> >>> http://davidamerland.com/google-semantic-search.html >>> >>> >>> >>> Google is trying to make its program more "semantically" capable. The basic premise is that citations/hyperlinks link similar ideas and therefore construct relevant subject sets. >>> >>> >>> >>> The contribution of Francis Narin is discussed on pp. 16-18 of that article. Here it is shown the cites from documents with many inlinks themselves create sets that more accord with human judgment. Page built this concept into Google. Garfield solved it by restricting coverage only to the most highly cited journals. All these people are helped by the fact that citations/hyperlinks follow power-law distributions, and Google consciously takes this into account, whereas others do not. Kleinberg points this out. Google does a good job in creating order out of the chaos of the WWW, where there is no authority structure to guide you. It is really a wonder. >>> >>> >>> >>> What am I particularly interested to learn from Jose is how does Microsoft operate. It is a failure. If I can better understand its operation, I can better understand why Google works so well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> Steve B. >>> >>> Google Semantic Search >>> Google Semantic Search book page resource, summary plus where to buy paper book or eBook. >>> Read more... >>> >>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick >>> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:33 AM >>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Stephen, >>> >>> Ideas are expressed as propositions, not individual words. The science of the relations between propositions is logic, not semantics. For example, many years ago I discovered a basic way in which the sentences in a document, or a group of documents on a given topic, are related. I called it the issue tree. This structure is a logical form, not semantic. >>> >>> For example, one sentence may offer evidence for a claim made by another sentence. Or it may provide an example (as this sentence does) or an explanation, etc. These are not semantic relations. The same is true for citations and other referential links. The meaning of the relation is not like the meaning of a word, rather it is a relation between whole thoughts. >>> >>> In fact a lot of what is called the semantic web is not semantic, rather it is propositional, hence a matter of logic. There is much confusion about this. >>> >>> David >>> >>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>> David, >>>> >>>> It is in the first paragraph, where I discuss Garfield's concept of citation indexing. I quote: >>>> >>>> "Eugene Garfield is the creator of citation indexing. In his landmark book on the subject Garfield (1983) gave the following conceptual definition of citation indexing: >>>> >>>> The concept of citation indexing is simple?. Citations are the foormal, explicit >>>> >>>> linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A citation index >>>> >>>> is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been cited and identifies >>>> >>>> the sources of the citations. Anyone conducting a literature search can find from >>>> >>>> one to dozens of additional papers on a subject just by knowing one that has been cited. >>>> >>>> And every paper that is found provides a list of new citations with which to continue >>>> >>>> the search. (p. 1) >>>> >>>> In an article entitled "Citation Indexes for Science" published in the journal Science Garfield (1955) set forth the basic reasons for developing a citation index. Later in life Garfield (1987a) deemed this article "my most important paper" (p. 16). In his Science article Garfield (1955) stated that a primary advantage of a citation index over conventional alphabetical and subject indexes was that its different construction allowed it to bring together material that would never be collated by the usual subject indexing. Garfield here described a citation index as "an association-of-ideas index" (p. 108) that allowed the reader as much leeway as he needed. In his opinion, conventional indexes were inadequate, because scientists were often concerned with a particular idea rather than a complete concept, and the basic problem was to build subject indexes that can anticipate the infinite number of possible approaches that scientists may require in order to bridge the gap between the subject approach of those who create the documents and the subject approach of those who seek the information. Garfield stated that the utility of a citation index had to be considered from the viewpoint of the transmission of ideas. Thus, Garfield justified citation indexing as better able to deliver a set of relevant documents in response to a scientist???s search query." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thus, citations and hyperlinks connect ideas to form relevant document sets. Semantics is the science of meaning, and, if this is not semantics, then what is. We found that the economists' papers highest in GS cites were precisely the ones for which they were awarded the prize. In other words, GS had defined the economists perfectly by subject. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Respectfully, >>>> >>>> SB >>>> >>>> PS arXiv still has our article on hold. Ironically they think that it should possibly have a different classification. Hoisted on own petard. What a joke. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick >>>> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:38 PM >>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Stephen, >>>> >>>> Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know neither relation is semantic. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> David Wojick >>>> http://insidepublicaccess.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> David and Jeroen, >>>>> I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my following arXiv posting: >>>>> >>>>> Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine >>>>> Authors: Stephen J. Bensman >>>>> (Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) >>>>> Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other. >>>>> Subjects: >>>>> Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) >>>>> Cite as: >>>>> arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] >>>>> >>>>> (or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this version) >>>>> >>>>> You will see that Garfield???s theory of citation indexing is based upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. >>>>> >>>>> Our new paper is entitled ???POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,??? and here is its abstract: >>>>> ???This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates??? works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ???tail??? to the right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the laureates??? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a siignature feature of the economists??? distributions?are not random events but related by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.??? >>>>> This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites wwere on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. >>>>> Respectfully, >>>>> >>>>> Stephen J Bensman >>>>> LSU Libraries >>>>> Lousiana State University >>>>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>>>> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM >>>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>>> >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> Stephen, >>>>> >>>>> Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. >>>>> >>>>> One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Jeroen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> Jeoren, >>>>> This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. >>>>> >>>>> The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. >>>>> >>>>> I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. >>>>> >>>>> Respectfully, >>>>> >>>>> Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >>>>> LSU Libraries >>>>> Lousiana State University >>>>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>> >>>>> PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. >>>>> >>>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM >>>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>>> >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> Stephen, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. >>>>> >>>>> On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Jeroen Bosman >>>>> @jeroenbosman >>>>> >>>>> Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> Jeroen >>>>> Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: >>>>> >>>>> ???Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.??? >>>>> >>>>> Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that t was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. >>>>> >>>>> Respectfully, >>>>> >>>>> Stephen J Bensman >>>>> LSU Libraries >>>>> Lousiana State University >>>>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>> USA >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM >>>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>>> >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Jeroen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >>>>> Enrique, >>>>> Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard >>>>> >>>>> SB. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu??a >>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM >>>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>>> >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> Dear friends, >>>>> >>>>> Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) >>>>> >>>>> As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. >>>>> >>>>> Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. >>>>> >>>>> As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Enrique >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> Isidro, >>>>> Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. >>>>> You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. >>>>> >>>>> I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. >>>>> Respectfully, >>>>> Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >>>>> LSU Libraries >>>>> Lousiana State University >>>>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>> USA >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM >>>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> Dear Stephen, >>>>> Ooops! >>>>> Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos?? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. >>>>> But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. >>>>> Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. >>>>> Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. >>>>> Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university >>>>> >>>>> site:lsu.edu >>>>> This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >>>>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> > >>>>> > Isidro, >>>>> > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. >>>>> > >>>>> > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. >>>>> > >>>>> > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. >>>>> > >>>>> > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. >>>>> > >>>>> > Respectfully, >>>>> > >>>>> > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. >>>>> > LSU Libraries >>>>> > Lousiana State University >>>>> > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>> > USA >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>> > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>>> > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM >>>>> > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>> > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >>>>> > search engines >>>>> > >>>>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> > >>>>> > Jos?? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. >>>>> > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN >>>>> > 1780634722, 9781780634722 >>>>> > >>>>> > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb >>>>> > n-9781843347910/ >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. >>>>> > >>>>> > Key Features: >>>>> > ?? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. >>>>> > ?? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. >>>>> > ?? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. >>>>> > >>>>> > Jos?? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ************************************ >>>>> Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. >>>>> The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC >>>>> Grupo Scimago >>>>> Madrid. SPAIN >>>>> >>>>> isidro.aguillo at csic.es >>>>> ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 >>>>> ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 >>>>> Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ >>>>> Twitter @isidroaguillo >>>>> Rankings Web webometrics.info >>>>> ************************************ >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci??n de avast! Antivirus est?? activa. >>>>> http://www.avast.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.bosman at UU.NL Sat Oct 11 17:36:02 2014 From: j.bosman at UU.NL (Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 21:36:02 +0000 Subject: [***SPAM***] Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20141011141529.043b50b0@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: I agree with Davids position and elaboration. They clear things up for me. It is interesting to note here that the scholarly search engine that provides better guidance in understanding the nature/logic of the citation is MAS, by at least providing some citation context. The chance of a paper to receive a citation is determined by dozens of factors. These factors may be grouped into those having to do with awareness of the existence of papers and those having to do with evaluation of the value of a papers. Though I have not researched this, from experience I think that at least in social science papers related to a paper because they are similar (in terms of word occurance) are at least as interesting as papers that are related because they are linked to it by citations. Now Googe Scholar does a good job in determining papers that show similarity to your query in terms of word occurence, and does that in a smart way. But actually I wish they would diminish the effect of citations in their ranking of the results. As it currently is I get overwhelmed with books and classics. It also strengthens the Matthew effect too much in my opinion. But first I will have to read your paper now! Jeroen @jeroenbosman Op 11 okt. 2014 om 20:22 heeft "David Wojick" > het volgende geschreven: of work on the logic of citation) consider the simple case where a paper uses a single number and cites another paper as the source of that number. The logic of the citation is "I got this number here" or perhaps "I got this number here and I accept their results" or some such. One of the deep problems with citation is that the logic of the citation is often quite vague. That is, just what a citation is saying is not always clear. But in no case is this citation relation semantic in nature. It is part of the reasoning presented in the citing paper, which makes it subject to logical analysis, not just semantic analysis. I hope this helps. The logic of citation is an interesting field. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 09:50 AM 10/11/2014, you wrote: Stephen, It looks like there is some of the usual confusion here but they do say this: "In semantic search the idea is to search for what you really mean by that phrase and find words and concepts that are associated with your phrase. For instance, when you search for a phrase containing "java," are you talking about coffee, an island, or a programming language?" http://google.about.com/od/s/g/semantic_search.htm Finding other words or phrases is indeed a semantic effort. A thesaurus is good here. So is term vector similarity, for that matter, because it looks at all the words in the document. There is a lot of semantics in search technology. But the nature of the relations presented in links and citations is logical, not semantic. David On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: David, You are probably right in your analysis below, but the term I keep running across particularly in respect to Google is "semantic." I am posting the URL for an example below: http://davidamerland.com/google-semantic-search.html Google is trying to make its program more "semantically" capable. The basic premise is that citations/hyperlinks link similar ideas and therefore construct relevant subject sets. The contribution of Francis Narin is discussed on pp. 16-18 of that article. Here it is shown the cites from documents with many inlinks themselves create sets that more accord with human judgment. Page built this concept into Google. Garfield solved it by restricting coverage only to the most highly cited journals. All these people are helped by the fact that citations/hyperlinks follow power-law distributions, and Google consciously takes this into account, whereas others do not. Kleinberg points this out. Google does a good job in creating order out of the chaos of the WWW, where there is no authority structure to guide you. It is really a wonder. What am I particularly interested to learn from Jose is how does Microsoft operate. It is a failure. If I can better understand its operation, I can better understand why Google works so well. Respectfully, Steve B. Google Semantic Search Google Semantic Search book page resource, summary plus where to buy paper book or eBook. Read more... ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:33 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Stephen, Ideas are expressed as propositions, not individual words. The science of the relations between propositions is logic, not semantics. For example, many years ago I discovered a basic way in which the sentences in a document, or a group of documents on a given topic, are related. I called it the issue tree. This structure is a logical form, not semantic. For example, one sentence may offer evidence for a claim made by another sentence. Or it may provide an example (as this sentence does) or an explanation, etc. These are not semantic relations. The same is true for citations and other referential links. The meaning of the relation is not like the meaning of a word, rather it is a relation between whole thoughts. In fact a lot of what is called the semantic web is not semantic, rather it is propositional, hence a matter of logic. There is much confusion about this. David On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: David, It is in the first paragraph, where I discuss Garfield's concept of citation indexing. I quote: "Eugene Garfield is the creator of citation indexing. In his landmark book on the subject Garfield (1983) gave the following conceptual definition of citation indexing: The concept of citation indexing is simple?. Citations are the foormal, explicit linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A citation index is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been cited and identifies the sources of the citations. Anyone conducting a literature search can find from one to dozens of additional papers on a subject just by knowing one that has been cited. And every paper that is found provides a list of new citations with which to continue the search. (p. 1) In an article entitled "Citation Indexes for Science" published in the journal Science Garfield (1955) set forth the basic reasons for developing a citation index. Later in life Garfield (1987a) deemed this article "my most important paper" (p. 16). In his Science article Garfield (1955) stated that a primary advantage of a citation index over conventional alphabetical and subject indexes was that its different construction allowed it to bring together material that would never be collated by the usual subject indexing. Garfield here described a citation index as "an association-of-ideas index" (p. 108) that allowed the reader as much leeway as he needed. In his opinion, conventional indexes were inadequate, because scientists were often concerned with a particular idea rather than a complete concept, and the basic problem was to build subject indexes that can anticipate the infinite number of possible approaches that scientists may require in order to bridge the gap between the subject approach of those who create the documents and the subject approach of those who seek the information. Garfield stated that the utility of a citation index had to be considered from the viewpoint of the transmission of ideas. Thus, Garfield justified citation indexing as better able to deliver a set of relevant documents in response to a scientist???s search query." Thus, citations and hyperlinks connect ideas to form relevant document sets. Semantics is the science of meaning, and, if this is not semantics, then what is. We found that the economists' papers highest in GS cites were precisely the ones for which they were awarded the prize. In other words, GS had defined the economists perfectly by subject. Respectfully, SB PS arXiv still has our article on hold. Ironically they think that it should possibly have a different classification. Hoisted on own petard. What a joke. ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:38 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know neither relation is semantic. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: ml David and Jeroen, I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my following arXiv posting: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine Authors: Stephen J. Bensman (Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other. Subjects: Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] (or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this version) You will see that Garfield???s theory of citation indexing is based upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. Our new paper is entitled ???POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,??? and here is its abstract: ???This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates??? works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ???tail??? to the right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the laureates??? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a siignature feature of the economists??? distributions?are not random events but related by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.??? This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites wwere on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Stephen, Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. Best regards, Jeroen Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: ml Jeoren, This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Stephen, Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. Best, Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: ml Jeroen Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: ???Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.??? Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that t was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu??a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman <notsjb at lsu.edu> wrote: Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos?? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos?? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ?? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ?? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ?? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos?? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci??n de avast! Antivirus est?? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Sun Oct 12 08:19:14 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:19:14 +0000 Subject: [***SPAM***] Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeroen and David, These are complex issues, and, being a simpleton writing for library practitioners, I try to keep everything as simple as possible. I will stick with idea-association and semantics. Librarians will only become confused about hair-splitting between semantics and logical propositions. I know that I am. To really understand how Google Scholar works, you should really read the section on Jon M. Kleinberg of my arXiv article about Garfield, Narin, and PageRank. Then read the stuff by Kleinberg on his Clever project and his collaboration with Page, who was developing Google at the time. Here you will find a clear exposition of the Google search engine and the structure of the Web. He writes in terminology and at a level that you will like. Page always kept his cards close to his chest, but Kleinberg had him figured out. It is always interesting to me that Page never cited the sources--Garfield, Narin, etc.--from where he was taking his ideas in his working and conference papers on the development of Google. He only laid his cards down on the table in his patent application for his search engine. It is there that he was honest about his sources and clear about his ideas, because he was ready to close the deal and make it his commercial property. He was after the buck and not academic fame like Kleinberg. Respectfully, Stephen J. Bensman ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:36 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [***SPAM***] Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines I agree with Davids position and elaboration. They clear things up for me. It is interesting to note here that the scholarly search engine that provides better guidance in understanding the nature/logic of the citation is MAS, by at least providing some citation context. The chance of a paper to receive a citation is determined by dozens of factors. These factors may be grouped into those having to do with awareness of the existence of papers and those having to do with evaluation of the value of a papers. Though I have not researched this, from experience I think that at least in social science papers related to a paper because they are similar (in terms of word occurance) are at least as interesting as papers that are related because they are linked to it by citations. Now Googe Scholar does a good job in determining papers that show similarity to your query in terms of word occurence, and does that in a smart way. But actually I wish they would diminish the effect of citations in their ranking of the results. As it currently is I get overwhelmed with books and classics. It also strengthens the Matthew effect too much in my opinion. But first I will have to read your paper now! Jeroen @jeroenbosman Op 11 okt. 2014 om 20:22 heeft "David Wojick" > het volgende geschreven: of work on the logic of citation) consider the simple case where a paper uses a single number and cites another paper as the source of that number. The logic of the citation is "I got this number here" or perhaps "I got this number here and I accept their results" or some such. One of the deep problems with citation is that the logic of the citation is often quite vague. That is, just what a citation is saying is not always clear. But in no case is this citation relation semantic in nature. It is part of the reasoning presented in the citing paper, which makes it subject to logical analysis, not just semantic analysis. I hope this helps. The logic of citation is an interesting field. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 09:50 AM 10/11/2014, you wrote: Stephen, It looks like there is some of the usual confusion here but they do say this: "In semantic search the idea is to search for what you really mean by that phrase and find words and concepts that are associated with your phrase. For instance, when you search for a phrase containing "java," are you talking about coffee, an island, or a programming language?" http://google.about.com/od/s/g/semantic_search.htm Finding other words or phrases is indeed a semantic effort. A thesaurus is good here. So is term vector similarity, for that matter, because it looks at all the words in the document. There is a lot of semantics in search technology. But the nature of the relations presented in links and citations is logical, not semantic. David On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: David, You are probably right in your analysis below, but the term I keep running across particularly in respect to Google is "semantic." I am posting the URL for an example below: http://davidamerland.com/google-semantic-search.html Google is trying to make its program more "semantically" capable. The basic premise is that citations/hyperlinks link similar ideas and therefore construct relevant subject sets. The contribution of Francis Narin is discussed on pp. 16-18 of that article. Here it is shown the cites from documents with many inlinks themselves create sets that more accord with human judgment. Page built this concept into Google. Garfield solved it by restricting coverage only to the most highly cited journals. All these people are helped by the fact that citations/hyperlinks follow power-law distributions, and Google consciously takes this into account, whereas others do not. Kleinberg points this out. Google does a good job in creating order out of the chaos of the WWW, where there is no authority structure to guide you. It is really a wonder. What am I particularly interested to learn from Jose is how does Microsoft operate. It is a failure. If I can better understand its operation, I can better understand why Google works so well. Respectfully, Steve B. Google Semantic Search Google Semantic Search book page resource, summary plus where to buy paper book or eBook. Read more... ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:33 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Stephen, Ideas are expressed as propositions, not individual words. The science of the relations between propositions is logic, not semantics. For example, many years ago I discovered a basic way in which the sentences in a document, or a group of documents on a given topic, are related. I called it the issue tree. This structure is a logical form, not semantic. For example, one sentence may offer evidence for a claim made by another sentence. Or it may provide an example (as this sentence does) or an explanation, etc. These are not semantic relations. The same is true for citations and other referential links. The meaning of the relation is not like the meaning of a word, rather it is a relation between whole thoughts. In fact a lot of what is called the semantic web is not semantic, rather it is propositional, hence a matter of logic. There is much confusion about this. David On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: David, It is in the first paragraph, where I discuss Garfield's concept of citation indexing. I quote: "Eugene Garfield is the creator of citation indexing. In his landmark book on the subject Garfield (1983) gave the following conceptual definition of citation indexing: The concept of citation indexing is simple?. Citations are the foormal, explicit linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A citation index is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been cited and identifies the sources of the citations. Anyone conducting a literature search can find from one to dozens of additional papers on a subject just by knowing one that has been cited. And every paper that is found provides a list of new citations with which to continue the search. (p. 1) In an article entitled "Citation Indexes for Science" published in the journal Science Garfield (1955) set forth the basic reasons for developing a citation index. Later in life Garfield (1987a) deemed this article "my most important paper" (p. 16). In his Science article Garfield (1955) stated that a primary advantage of a citation index over conventional alphabetical and subject indexes was that its different construction allowed it to bring together material that would never be collated by the usual subject indexing. Garfield here described a citation index as "an association-of-ideas index" (p. 108) that allowed the reader as much leeway as he needed. In his opinion, conventional indexes were inadequate, because scientists were often concerned with a particular idea rather than a complete concept, and the basic problem was to build subject indexes that can anticipate the infinite number of possible approaches that scientists may require in order to bridge the gap between the subject approach of those who create the documents and the subject approach of those who seek the information. Garfield stated that the utility of a citation index had to be considered from the viewpoint of the transmission of ideas. Thus, Garfield justified citation indexing as better able to deliver a set of relevant documents in response to a scientist???s search query." Thus, citations and hyperlinks connect ideas to form relevant document sets. Semantics is the science of meaning, and, if this is not semantics, then what is. We found that the economists' papers highest in GS cites were precisely the ones for which they were awarded the prize. In other words, GS had defined the economists perfectly by subject. Respectfully, SB PS arXiv still has our article on hold. Ironically they think that it should possibly have a different classification. Hoisted on own petard. What a joke. ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:38 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know neither relation is semantic. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: ml David and Jeroen, I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my following arXiv posting: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine Authors: Stephen J. Bensman (Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other. Subjects: Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] (or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this version) You will see that Garfield???s theory of citation indexing is based upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. Our new paper is entitled ???POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,??? and here is its abstract: ???This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates??? works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ???tail??? to the right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the laureates??? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a siignature feature of the economists??? distributions?are not random events but related by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.??? This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites wwere on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Stephen, Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. Best regards, Jeroen Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: ml Jeoren, This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Stephen, Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. Best, Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: ml Jeroen Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: ???Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.??? Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that t was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu??a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman <notsjb at lsu.edu> wrote: Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos?? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos?? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ?? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ?? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ?? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos?? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci??n de avast! Antivirus est?? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Sun Oct 12 09:26:17 2014 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 09:26:17 -0400 Subject: [***SPAM***] Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <1413116353389.86952@lsu.edu> Message-ID: Stephen, I think most librarians can grasp the difference between logic and semantics, especially if they can follow Kleinberg's math. However, that math is strictly about network topology, so it involves neither logic nor semantics. Authority of a website is first defined and measured by the number of in-links, then used to weight the out-links, which are other site's in-links. Authority is a system wide attribute, calculated for all sites simultaneously. It is mathematical elegance personified. I followed its development closely. My basic point is that links express content. To link is to make a statement, which can be analyzed. David On Oct 12, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Jeroen and David, > > These are complex issues, and, being a simpleton writing for library practitioners, I try to keep everything as simple as possible. I will stick with idea-association and semantics. Librarians will only become confused about hair-splitting between semantics and logical propositions. I know that I am. > > > > To really understand how Google Scholar works, you should really read the section on Jon M. Kleinberg of my arXiv article about Garfield, Narin, and PageRank. Then read the stuff by Kleinberg on his Clever project and his collaboration with Page, who was developing Google at the time. Here you will find a clear exposition of the Google search engine and the structure of the Web. He writes in terminology and at a level that you will like. Page always kept his cards close to his chest, but Kleinberg had him figured out. It is always interesting to me that Page never cited the sources--Garfield, Narin, etc.--from where he was taking his ideas in his working and conference papers on the development of Google. He only laid his cards down on the table in his patent application for his search engine. It is there that he was honest about his sources and clear about his ideas, because he was ready to close the deal and make it his commercial property. He was after the buck and not academic fame like Kleinberg. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Stephen J. Bensman > > > > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:36 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [***SPAM***] Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > I agree with Davids position and elaboration. They clear things up for me. It is interesting to note here that the scholarly search engine that provides better guidance in understanding the nature/logic of the citation is MAS, by at least providing some citation context. > > The chance of a paper to receive a citation is determined by dozens of factors. These factors may be grouped into those having to do with awareness of the existence of papers and those having to do with evaluation of the value of a papers. > > Though I have not researched this, from experience I think that at least in social science papers related to a paper because they are similar (in terms of word occurance) are at least as interesting as papers that are related because they are linked to it by citations. > > Now Googe Scholar does a good job in determining papers that show similarity to your query in terms of word occurence, and does that in a smart way. But actually I wish they would diminish the effect of citations in their ranking of the results. As it currently is I get overwhelmed with books and classics. It also strengthens the Matthew effect too much in my opinion. > > But first I will have to read your paper now! > > Jeroen > @jeroenbosman > > > Op 11 okt. 2014 om 20:22 heeft "David Wojick" het volgende geschreven: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Just to elaborate (because I have done a lot of work on the logic of citation) consider the simple case where a paper uses a single number and cites another paper as the source of that number. The logic of the citation is "I got this number here" or perhaps "I got this number here and I accept their results" or some such. One of the deep problems with citation is that the logic of the citation is often quite vague. That is, just what a citation is saying is not always clear. But in no case is this citation relation semantic in nature. It is part of the reasoning presented in the citing paper, which makes it subject to logical analysis, not just semantic analysis. >> >> I hope this helps. The logic of citation is an interesting field. >> >> David >> >> David Wojick >> http://insidepublicaccess.com/ >> >> At 09:50 AM 10/11/2014, you wrote: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Stephen, >>> >>> It looks like there is some of the usual confusion here but they do say this: >>> "In semantic search the idea is to search for what you really mean by that phrase and find words and concepts that are associated with your phrase. For instance, when you search for a phrase containing "java," are you talking about coffee, an island, or a programming language?" >>> http://google.about.com/od/s/g/semantic_search.htm >>> >>> Finding other words or phrases is indeed a semantic effort. A thesaurus is good here. So is term vector similarity, for that matter, because it looks at all the words in the document. There is a lot of semantics in search technology. But the nature of the relations presented in links and citations is logical, not semantic. >>> >>> David >>> >>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> >>>> David, >>>> >>>> You are probably right in your analysis below, but the term I keep running across particularly in respect to Google is "semantic." I am posting the URL for an example below: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://davidamerland.com/google-semantic-search.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Google is trying to make its program more "semantically" capable. The basic premise is that citations/hyperlinks link similar ideas and therefore construct relevant subject sets. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The contribution of Francis Narin is discussed on pp. 16-18 of that article. Here it is shown the cites from documents with many inlinks themselves create sets that more accord with human judgment. Page built this concept into Google. Garfield solved it by restricting coverage only to the most highly cited journals. All these people are helped by the fact that citations/hyperlinks follow power-law distributions, and Google consciously takes this into account, whereas others do not. Kleinberg points this out. Google does a good job in creating order out of the chaos of the WWW, where there is no authority structure to guide you. It is really a wonder. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What am I particularly interested to learn from Jose is how does Microsoft operate. It is a failure. If I can better understand its operation, I can better understand why Google works so well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Respectfully, >>>> >>>> Steve B. >>>> >>>> Google Semantic Search >>>> Google Semantic Search book page resource, summary plus where to buy paper book or eBook. >>>> Read more... >>>> >>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick >>>> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:33 AM >>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>> >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> Stephen, >>>> >>>> Ideas are expressed as propositions, not individual words. The science of the relations between propositions is logic, not semantics. For example, many years ago I discovered a basic way in which the sentences in a document, or a group of documents on a given topic, are related. I called it the issue tree. This structure is a logical form, not semantic. >>>> >>>> For example, one sentence may offer evidence for a claim made by another sentence. Or it may provide an example (as this sentence does) or an explanation, etc. These are not semantic relations. The same is true for citations and other referential links. The meaning of the relation is not like the meaning of a word, rather it is a relation between whole thoughts. >>>> >>>> In fact a lot of what is called the semantic web is not semantic, rather it is propositional, hence a matter of logic. There is much confusion about this. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> >>>>> David, >>>>> >>>>> It is in the first paragraph, where I discuss Garfield's concept of citation indexing. I quote: >>>>> >>>>> "Eugene Garfield is the creator of citation indexing. In his landmark book on the subject Garfield (1983) gave the following conceptual definition of citation indexing: >>>>> >>>>> The concept of citation indexing is simple?. Citations are the foormal, explicit >>>>> >>>>> linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A citation index >>>>> >>>>> is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been cited and identifies >>>>> >>>>> the sources of the citations. Anyone conducting a literature search can find from >>>>> >>>>> one to dozens of additional papers on a subject just by knowing one that has been cited. >>>>> >>>>> And every paper that is found provides a list of new citations with which to continue >>>>> >>>>> the search. (p. 1) >>>>> >>>>> In an article entitled "Citation Indexes for Science" published in the journal Science Garfield (1955) set forth the basic reasons for developing a citation index. Later in life Garfield (1987a) deemed this article "my most important paper" (p. 16). In his Science article Garfield (1955) stated that a primary advantage of a citation index over conventional alphabetical and subject indexes was that its different construction allowed it to bring together material that would never be collated by the usual subject indexing. Garfield here described a citation index as "an association-of-ideas index" (p. 108) that allowed the reader as much leeway as he needed. In his opinion, conventional indexes were inadequate, because scientists were often concerned with a particular idea rather than a complete concept, and the basic problem was to build subject indexes that can anticipate the infinite number of possible approaches that scientists may require in order to bridge the gap between the subject approach of those who create the documents and the subject approach of those who seek the information. Garfield stated that the utility of a citation index had to be considered from the viewpoint of the transmission of ideas. Thus, Garfield justified citation indexing as better able to deliver a set of relevant documents in response to a scientist???s search query." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thus, citations and hyperlinks connect ideas to form relevant document sets. Semantics is the science of meaning, and, if this is not semantics, then what is. We found that the economists' papers highest in GS cites were precisely the ones for which they were awarded the prize. In other words, GS had defined the economists perfectly by subject. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Respectfully, >>>>> >>>>> SB >>>>> >>>>> PS arXiv still has our article on hold. Ironically they think that it should possibly have a different classification. Hoisted on own petard. What a joke. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick >>>>> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:38 PM >>>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>>> >>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Stephen, >>>>> >>>>> Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know neither relation is semantic. >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> David Wojick >>>>> http://insidepublicaccess.com/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: >>>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> David and Jeroen, >>>>>> I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my following arXiv posting: >>>>>> >>>>>> Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine >>>>>> Authors: Stephen J. Bensman >>>>>> (Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) >>>>>> Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other. >>>>>> Subjects: >>>>>> Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) >>>>>> Cite as: >>>>>> arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] >>>>>> >>>>>> (or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this version) >>>>>> >>>>>> You will see that Garfield???s theory of citation indexing is based upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. >>>>>> >>>>>> Our new paper is entitled ???POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,??? and here is its abstract: >>>>>> ???This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates??? works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ???tail??? to the right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the laureates??? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a siignature feature of the economists??? distributions?are not random events but related by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.??? >>>>>> This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites wwere on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. >>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>> >>>>>> Stephen J Bensman >>>>>> LSU Libraries >>>>>> Lousiana State University >>>>>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM >>>>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>>>> >>>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> Stephen, >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Jeroen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >>>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> Jeoren, >>>>>> This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. >>>>>> >>>>>> The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. >>>>>> >>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>> >>>>>> Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >>>>>> LSU Libraries >>>>>> Lousiana State University >>>>>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>>> >>>>>> PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. >>>>>> >>>>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM >>>>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>>>> >>>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> Stephen, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. >>>>>> >>>>>> On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Jeroen Bosman >>>>>> @jeroenbosman >>>>>> >>>>>> Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >>>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> Jeroen >>>>>> Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: >>>>>> >>>>>> ???Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.??? >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that t was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>> >>>>>> Stephen J Bensman >>>>>> LSU Libraries >>>>>> Lousiana State University >>>>>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>>> USA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM >>>>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>>>> >>>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Jeroen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" het volgende geschreven: >>>>>> Enrique, >>>>>> Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard >>>>>> >>>>>> SB. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu??a >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM >>>>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>>>> >>>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> Dear friends, >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) >>>>>> >>>>>> As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. >>>>>> >>>>>> As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Enrique >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >>>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> Isidro, >>>>>> Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. >>>>>> You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. >>>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>> Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D >>>>>> LSU Libraries >>>>>> Lousiana State University >>>>>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>>> USA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM >>>>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines >>>>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> Dear Stephen, >>>>>> Ooops! >>>>>> Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos?? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. >>>>>> But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. >>>>>> Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. >>>>>> Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. >>>>>> Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university >>>>>> >>>>>> site:lsu.edu >>>>>> This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: >>>>>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>>> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Isidro, >>>>>> > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Respectfully, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. >>>>>> > LSU Libraries >>>>>> > Lousiana State University >>>>>> > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 >>>>>> > USA >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>> > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >>>>>> > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo >>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM >>>>>> > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >>>>>> > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic >>>>>> > search engines >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>>>> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Jos?? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. >>>>>> > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN >>>>>> > 1780634722, 9781780634722 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb >>>>>> > n-9781843347910/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Key Features: >>>>>> > ?? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. >>>>>> > ?? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. >>>>>> > ?? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Jos?? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ************************************ >>>>>> Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. >>>>>> The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC >>>>>> Grupo Scimago >>>>>> Madrid. SPAIN >>>>>> >>>>>> isidro.aguillo at csic.es >>>>>> ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 >>>>>> ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 >>>>>> Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ >>>>>> Twitter @isidroaguillo >>>>>> Rankings Web webometrics.info >>>>>> ************************************ >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci??n de avast! Antivirus est?? activa. >>>>>> http://www.avast.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From de_Ghloucester at NINTHFLOOR.ORG Mon Oct 13 06:47:48 2014 From: de_Ghloucester at NINTHFLOOR.ORG (Colin Paul Gloster) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:47:48 +0000 Subject: Peer Review Scandals In-Reply-To: <1440921C-86CC-4CD6-854D-B39848C45750@auckland.ac.nz> Message-ID: Dear Dr. Wilson, Unfortunately almost all of what you intended to type for this thread except the letter "S" might have been deleted accidentally. Could you attempt to submit again? Yours sincerely, Paul Colin de Glouce?ter From de_Ghloucester at NINTHFLOOR.ORG Mon Oct 13 07:43:55 2014 From: de_Ghloucester at NINTHFLOOR.ORG (=?UTF-8?Q?Paul_Colin_de_Glouce=C5=BFter?=) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:43:55 +0000 Subject: STI conference Leiden--Quality standards for evaluation indicators In-Reply-To: <5405BF56.90104@indiana.edu> Message-ID: On September 2nd, 2014, Katy Boerner submitted: |--------------------------------------------------------------------| |"Dear all, | |I very much like to see that there will be a discussion about | |quality standards for evaluation indicators at STI. | |The development of validated data analysis and visualization | |workflows/tools and the generation of replicable results is at the | |core of any scientific effort that aims to convert data into | |actionable insights. Good to see the background material provided | |(you might also like to review results from the below workshops) and| |hope results of the special session will be shared widely. | |Best regards, | |k | | | |Recent Standards Workshops | |OECD-experts dialogue on scientometrics: Improving the use of | |bibliometric indicators and analysis for policy-making. | |March 25, 2014 | OECD, Paris, France | | | |Science Mapping Standards Workshop | |November 04-05, 2013 | Bloomington, Indiana | | | |Standards for Science Mapping and Classifications | |July 15, 2013 | ISSI, Vienna, Austria | | | |JSMF Workshop on Standards for Science Metrics, Classifications, and| |Mapping | |August 11-12, 2011 | Bloomington, IN" | |--------------------------------------------------------------------| Dear all: I agree that validation and replication are good things. With best regards, Paul Colin de Glouce?ter From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Mon Oct 13 08:05:12 2014 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:05:12 +0000 Subject: Paper Message-ID: Measuring impact in research evaluations Lutz Bornmann Governments all over the world are contemplating the question of where they should distribute public money (to education or to defence, for example). Distribution of money over a number of different areas always makes an issue, implicitly or explicitly, of the impact which can be achieved with investment in any one of them. Science is also affected by this governmental interest in impact; the issue is not only the impact of research on research itself, but on other areas of society. Citations are traditionally used to measure the impact of research on research. It is as yet unclear how the impact of research on other areas of society can be measured. It appears that alternative metrics (altmetrics, such as Twitter counts) might play a key role in this. This paper is concerned with the measurement of citation impact and societal impact, and looks at the basis, the effects and the problems of impact measurement. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.1895 --------------------------------------- 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 ResearchGate: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lutz_Bornmann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From notsjb at LSU.EDU Mon Oct 13 12:47:07 2014 From: notsjb at LSU.EDU (Stephen J Bensman) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:47:07 +0000 Subject: [***SPAM***] Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines In-Reply-To: <83ACDD57-B00A-4AF2-9619-2C0156FD2136@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: David, I do agree with your statement the links do express "content," but the content , which interests me most, is content of the human mind or ideas. I do not think that any measure of quality in scientometrics is worth anything unless it correlates with human judgment or peer ratings. Here is where I think that Page had it right. Basically he thought that the higher the number of links, the better the expression of consent of human judgment. Narin really pioneered this aspect of it with his influence method. Page through Kleinberg adopted it. Here is where the power-law structure of the Web comes into play. There seems to be a critical citation point above it is measuring judgmental consent, and below which it is random, irrelevant. This point is the x-min of the asymptote of a power-law distribution. With economists this point was approximately their h-index--why I do not know. But there is no one-size fits all. It does not work that way in math, because the field is so fractured they do not understand each other. Therefore there can never be a broad enough consensus for power-law type distributions. Respectfully, Stephen J. Bensman. ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of David Wojick Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 8:26 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [***SPAM***] Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines Stephen, I think most librarians can grasp the difference between logic and semantics, especially if they can follow Kleinberg's math. However, that math is strictly about network topology, so it involves neither logic nor semantics. Authority of a website is first defined and measured by the number of in-links, then used to weight the out-links, which are other site's in-links. Authority is a system wide attribute, calculated for all sites simultaneously. It is mathematical elegance personified. I followed its development closely. My basic point is that links express content. To link is to make a statement, which can be analyzed. David On Oct 12, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Stephen J Bensman > wrote: Jeroen and David, These are complex issues, and, being a simpleton writing for library practitioners, I try to keep everything as simple as possible. I will stick with idea-association and semantics. Librarians will only become confused about hair-splitting between semantics and logical propositions. I know that I am. To really understand how Google Scholar works, you should really read the section on Jon M. Kleinberg of my arXiv article about Garfield, Narin, and PageRank. Then read the stuff by Kleinberg on his Clever project and his collaboration with Page, who was developing Google at the time. Here you will find a clear exposition of the Google search engine and the structure of the Web. He writes in terminology and at a level that you will like. Page always kept his cards close to his chest, but Kleinberg had him figured out. It is always interesting to me that Page never cited the sources--Garfield, Narin, etc.--from where he was taking his ideas in his working and conference papers on the development of Google. He only laid his cards down on the table in his patent application for his search engine. It is there that he was honest about his sources and clear about his ideas, because he was ready to close the deal and make it his commercial property. He was after the buck and not academic fame like Kleinberg. Respectfully, Stephen J. Bensman ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > on behalf of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:36 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] [***SPAM***] Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines I agree with Davids position and elaboration. They clear things up for me. It is interesting to note here that the scholarly search engine that provides better guidance in understanding the nature/logic of the citation is MAS, by at least providing some citation context. The chance of a paper to receive a citation is determined by dozens of factors. These factors may be grouped into those having to do with awareness of the existence of papers and those having to do with evaluation of the value of a papers. Though I have not researched this, from experience I think that at least in social science papers related to a paper because they are similar (in terms of word occurance) are at least as interesting as papers that are related because they are linked to it by citations. Now Googe Scholar does a good job in determining papers that show similarity to your query in terms of word occurence, and does that in a smart way. But actually I wish they would diminish the effect of citations in their ranking of the results. As it currently is I get overwhelmed with books and classics. It also strengthens the Matthew effect too much in my opinion. But first I will have to read your paper now! Jeroen @jeroenbosman Op 11 okt. 2014 om 20:22 heeft "David Wojick" <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US> het volgende geschreven: ml Just to elaborate (because I have done a lot of work on the logic of citation) consider the simple case where a paper uses a single number and cites another paper as the source of that number. The logic of the citation is "I got this number here" or perhaps "I got this number here and I accept their results" or some such. One of the deep problems with citation is that the logic of the citation is often quite vague. That is, just what a citation is saying is not always clear. But in no case is this citation relation semantic in nature. It is part of the reasoning presented in the citing paper, which makes it subject to logical analysis, not just semantic analysis. I hope this helps. The logic of citation is an interesting field. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 09:50 AM 10/11/2014, you wrote: ml Stephen, It looks like there is some of the usual confusion here but they do say this: "In semantic search the idea is to search for what you really mean by that phrase and find words and concepts that are associated with your phrase. For instance, when you search for a phrase containing "java," are you talking about coffee, an island, or a programming language?" http://google.about.com/od/s/g/semantic_search.htm Finding other words or phrases is indeed a semantic effort. A thesaurus is good here. So is term vector similarity, for that matter, because it looks at all the words in the document. There is a lot of semantics in search technology. But the nature of the relations presented in links and citations is logical, not semantic. David On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Stephen J Bensman <notsjb at LSU.EDU> wrote: ml David, You are probably right in your analysis below, but the term I keep running across particularly in respect to Google is "semantic." I am posting the URL for an example below: http://davidamerland.com/google-semantic-search.html Google is trying to make its program more "semantically" capable. The basic premise is that citations/hyperlinks link similar ideas and therefore construct relevant subject sets. The contribution of Francis Narin is discussed on pp. 16-18 of that article. Here it is shown the cites from documents with many inlinks themselves create sets that more accord with human judgment. Page built this concept into Google. Garfield solved it by restricting coverage only to the most highly cited journals. All these people are helped by the fact that citations/hyperlinks follow power-law distributions, and Google consciously takes this into account, whereas others do not. Kleinberg points this out. Google does a good job in creating order out of the chaos of the WWW, where there is no authority structure to guide you. It is really a wonder. What am I particularly interested to learn from Jose is how does Microsoft operate. It is a failure. If I can better understand its operation, I can better understand why Google works so well. Respectfully, Steve B. Google Semantic Search Google Semantic Search book page resource, summary plus where to buy paper book or eBook. Read more... ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:33 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Stephen, Ideas are expressed as propositions, not individual words. The science of the relations between propositions is logic, not semantics. For example, many years ago I discovered a basic way in which the sentences in a document, or a group of documents on a given topic, are related. I called it the issue tree. This structure is a logical form, not semantic. For example, one sentence may offer evidence for a claim made by another sentence. Or it may provide an example (as this sentence does) or an explanation, etc. These are not semantic relations. The same is true for citations and other referential links. The meaning of the relation is not like the meaning of a word, rather it is a relation between whole thoughts. In fact a lot of what is called the semantic web is not semantic, rather it is propositional, hence a matter of logic. There is much confusion about this. David On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Stephen J Bensman <notsjb at LSU.EDU> wrote: ml David, It is in the first paragraph, where I discuss Garfield's concept of citation indexing. I quote: "Eugene Garfield is the creator of citation indexing. In his landmark book on the subject Garfield (1983) gave the following conceptual definition of citation indexing: The concept of citation indexing is simple?. Citations are the foormal, explicit linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A citation index is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been cited and identifies the sources of the citations. Anyone conducting a literature search can find from one to dozens of additional papers on a subject just by knowing one that has been cited. And every paper that is found provides a list of new citations with which to continue the search. (p. 1) In an article entitled "Citation Indexes for Science" published in the journal Science Garfield (1955) set forth the basic reasons for developing a citation index. Later in life Garfield (1987a) deemed this article "my most important paper" (p. 16). In his Science article Garfield (1955) stated that a primary advantage of a citation index over conventional alphabetical and subject indexes was that its different construction allowed it to bring together material that would never be collated by the usual subject indexing. Garfield here described a citation index as "an association-of-ideas index" (p. 108) that allowed the reader as much leeway as he needed. In his opinion, conventional indexes were inadequate, because scientists were often concerned with a particular idea rather than a complete concept, and the basic problem was to build subject indexes that can anticipate the infinite number of possible approaches that scientists may require in order to bridge the gap between the subject approach of those who create the documents and the subject approach of those who seek the information. Garfield stated that the utility of a citation index had to be considered from the viewpoint of the transmission of ideas. Thus, Garfield justified citation indexing as better able to deliver a set of relevant documents in response to a scientist???s search query." Thus, citations and hyperlinks connect ideas to form relevant document sets. Semantics is the science of meaning, and, if this is not semantics, then what is. We found that the economists' papers highest in GS cites were precisely the ones for which they were awarded the prize. In other words, GS had defined the economists perfectly by subject. Respectfully, SB PS arXiv still has our article on hold. Ironically they think that it should possibly have a different classification. Hoisted on own petard. What a joke. ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics < SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on behalf of David Wojick <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:38 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines ml Dear Stephen, Your paper is 42 pages long. Can you point to the section where you explain the semantic nature of linking and citation? So far as I know neither relation is semantic. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 11:26 AM 10/10/2014, you wrote: tml> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html David and Jeroen, I explain the bases of how Google works semantically by links in my following arXiv posting: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank: The Theoretical Bases of the Google Search Engine Authors: Stephen J. Bensman (Submitted on 13 Dec 2013) Abstract: This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other. Subjects: Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1312.3872 [cs.IR] (or arXiv:1312.3872v1 [cs.IR] for this version) You will see that Garfield???s theory of citation indexing is based upon the premise that subject sets are better defined by links than by words. This is the same bases on which the Google search engine operates. Our new paper is entitled ???POWER-LAW DISTRIBUTIONS, THE H-INDEX, AND GOOGLE SCHOLAR (GS) CITATIONS: A TEST OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMICS NOBELISTS,??? and here is its abstract: ???This paper comprises an analysis of whether Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for the evaluation of the works of researchers. The researchers analyzed were two samples of Nobelists in economics: an original sample of five laureates downloaded in September, 2011; and a validating sample of laureates downloaded in October, 2013. Two methods were utilized to conduct this analysis. The first is distributional. Here it is shown that the distributions of the laureates??? works by total GS citations belong within the Lotkaian or power-law domain, whose major characteristic is asymptote or ???tail??? to the right. It also proves that this asymptote is conterminous with the laureates??? h-indexes, which demarcate their core ?uvre. This overlap is proof of both the ability of GS to form relevant documentary sets and the validity of the h-index. The second method is semantic. This method shows that the extreme outliers at the right tip of the tail?a siignature feature of the economists??? distributions?are not random events but related by subject to contributions to the discipline for which the laureates were awarded this prize. Another interesting finding is the important role played by working papers in the dissemination of new economic knowledge.??? This is what I mean by semantic?the works with the highest GS cites wwere on topics and contributions for which the laureates were awarded the prize. Semantically that is dead on. When this paper is finally posted on arXiv, I would appreciate it, if you would vet it, before we submit to a journal with dictatorial referees. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:57 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines tml> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Stephen, Maybe I should just have patience and wait for your paper. But do you mean by that it "works semantically by links" that it takes citations into account for its hybrid ranking? That is a fact and something MAS does as well. Or are you suggesting that GS also looks at links pointing to the web pages of the articles? The latter would be new(s) for me. One of the differences between G and GS is btw that G has years ago stopped interpreting each space as a Boolean AND, but GS still does, as far as I can tell. Best regards, Jeroen Op 10 okt. 2014 om 16:37 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: tml> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Jeoren, This is a revolution with deep roots. Garfield laid out the main premise of the Google search engine in an article he published in Science in 1955 on citation indexing. It is an accelerating revolution that now is reaching warp speed. The main reason Google delivers more relevant sets than Microsoft is that it semantically works by links and not words. This enables it to take advantage of the power-law linkage structure of the WWW to zero in on the most important and relevant documents. I wish to hell that arXiv would finally post our working paper, where we prove all this with economics Nobelists. Then I can vet our theories. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 PS I am a historian by training, and there is nothing that is outdated for me. Older, highly cited stuff is of the greatest interest, for we may be looking at the influence of time and the degree of incorporation. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:41 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines tml> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Stephen, Thanks for your insightful elaboration. The ideas stem from about 1935 (Otlet), 1945 (Bush) and 1955 (Garfield), the implementation from the early sixties in SCI, futher ideas in 1976 (Narin) and 1989 (Berners-Lee) and Google elaborated on that in 1996 with PageRank and a hydrid . So I doubt that the revolution takes a just a decade. It already has taken some decades and will take some more decades, for the change is not restricted to discovery but includes distribution as well, just as with the printing press and scholarly journal. So probably the 'revolution' will only be complete when at some point in the future the academic book, journal and paper are replaced by instant production/publication/discovery, for instance in a smart nanopublications type of way? Also I think that for the system to collapse Google Scholar is not a conditio sine qua non. ArXiv (1991) and Citeseer (1998) are way older than GS and together they have revolutionized search and distribution more than GS has done, albeit in a much more restricted field of physics and information science. On a less theoretical note, you say that MAS has been proven wrong and Google Scholar may be wright. But every other day I have to tell my students that in order to get relevant stuff they need to use GS pubyear filters, because if they don't they will end up using highly cited but outdated stuff. Over 95% of my students (>500 each year) had never realised this! By the way, I am not saying that MAS does a better job in this respect and I am a fan of Google Scholar. Best, Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman Op 9 okt. 2014 om 22:27 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: tml> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Jeroen Here is summary of what I think that we are involved in with academic search engines: ???Academic search engines are an extremely complex topic, since we are now engaged in an information revolution on the same scale as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century and the scientific journal in the 17th century, except what was accomplished took centuries then, and we will do it in a decade or so now. One facet of this information revolution is that what was once semantically defined by words is now semantically defined by linkages. On top of it, this information revolution is entwined with a scientific revolution on the power-law distributional structure of nature and society that was launched as a result of the development of the World Wide Web.??? Given the complexity of this thing, we need some sort of standardization, so we can better deal with it. There has to be some sort of agreement on what is right and what is wrong. MAS seems to be based on a system?number of word tokens in given document?that t was proven wrong and ineffective in semantically defining relevant document sets. For me it is very hard to grasp that a Googlebot crawled out of a garage in Palo Alto in 2004, and suddenly an entire system began to collapse and be replaced by something else. This took less than 10 years. The Chinese have a curse about living in interesting times, and our times are sure interesting in this sense. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:40 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines tml> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Isidro, Stephen, Enrique, Thanks. I already downloaded the book and started reading. Hoewever I do not applaud the fact that MAS is coming to a standstill. I think it offers some very nice options and even unique things (ASAIK) such as the citation contexts. I also do not understand why it is necessary to have a single standard in order to be able to assess how the WWW revolutionizes the scholarly information system. Stephen, could you elaborate on why you think that is necassary? Could that assessment not include various parallel lines of development of these systems? And perhaps we already need an addendum to the book with today's news of the launch of Paperity. Best, Jeroen Op 9 okt. 2014 om 18:23 heeft "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at LSU.EDU> het volgende geschreven: Enrique, Thank you for this information. It simplifies matters. At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar. If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google. The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems. Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard SB. From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique Ordu??a Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines tml> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear friends, Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :) As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals. Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright. Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs. As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage. Best, Enrique On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman <notsjb at lsu.edu> wrote: sigmetrics.html Isidro, Thanks for the information. I am looking forward to hearing from Jose. He and I are already in close contact on these matters. I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done. It should be ready soon. I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing. You have already answered one of my questions. The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words. It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets. Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages. He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method. Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista. Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words. If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue. I hope to get the book and hear from Jose. Respectfully, Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D LSU Libraries Lousiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines sigmetrics.html Dear Stephen, Ooops! Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend Jos?? Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon. But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria. Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account. Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked. Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university site:lsu.edu This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar. Best regards, On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Isidro, > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one. I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate. I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates. All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new. I have tested them both. > > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar. Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft. You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself. At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker. > > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects? You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these. The Web has no authority structure whatever. You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat. It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that. > > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates. I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready. > > Respectfully, > > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D. > LSU Libraries > Lousiana State University > Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic > search engines > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Jos?? Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN > 1780634722, 9781780634722 > > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb > n-9781843347910/ > > > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web. > > Key Features: > ?? This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook. > ?? This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations. > ?? This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working. > > Jos?? Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists. > -- ************************************ Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr. The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC Grupo Scimago Madrid. SPAIN isidro.aguillo at csic.es ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings Web webometrics.info ************************************ --- Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecci??n de avast! Antivirus est?? activa. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amsciforum at GMAIL.COM Mon Oct 13 22:06:54 2014 From: amsciforum at GMAIL.COM (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 22:06:54 -0400 Subject: Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score Message-ID: Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score Philippe Vincent-Lamarre , Jade Boivin , Yassine Gargouri , Vincent Lariviere , Stevan Harnad ABSTRACT: MELIBEA is a Spanish database that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the effectiveness of Open Access mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed 68 mandated institutions for publication years 2011-2013 to determine how well the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of published articles indexed by Web of Knowledge is deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when. We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between MELIBEA score and deposit percentage. We also found that for three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or deposit latency (immediate deposit required, deposit required for performance evaluation, unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula for mandate effectiveness to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power doubled (.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but these findings already suggest that it would be useful for future mandates to adopt these three conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Wed Oct 15 02:20:34 2014 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:20:34 +0000 Subject: New paper Message-ID: Philosophy of science viewed through the lense of "References Publication Years spectrosopy" (RPYS) K. Brad Wray, Lutz Bornmann (Submitted on 13 Oct 2014) We examine the sub-field of philosophy of science using a new method developed in information science, Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy (RPYS). RPYS allows us to identify peak years in citations in a field, which promises to help scholars identify the key contributions to a field, and revolutionary discoveries in a field. We discovered that philosophy of science, a sub-field in the humanities, differs significantly from other fields examined with this method. Books play a more important role in philosophy of science than in the sciences. Further, Einstein's famous 1905 papers created a citation peak in the philosophy of science literature. But rather than being a contribution to the philosophy of science, their importance lies in the fact that they are revolutionary contributions to physics with important implications for philosophy of science. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3461 Von meinem iPad gesendet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL Wed Oct 15 12:57:50 2014 From: andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL (Andrea Scharnhorst) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 18:57:50 +0200 Subject: paper from arxiv 1410.2840 Message-ID: arXiv:1410.2840 (cross-list from stat.AP) [pdf, other] Title: Coauthorship and Citation Networks for Statisticians Authors: Pengsheng Ji, Jiashun Jin Subjects: Applications (stat.AP); Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph); Methodology (stat.ME) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL Wed Oct 15 15:43:03 2014 From: andrea.scharnhorst at DANS.KNAW.NL (Andrea Scharnhorst) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:43:03 +0200 Subject: CfP special issue of Scienotmetrics on "Simulating the Social Processes of Science" - deadline April 30, 2015 Message-ID: Please apologise for cross posting Submission Deadline April 30th 2015 Details at: http://simsocsci.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/cfp-special-issue-of-scietometrics-on.html Regards Bruce and Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CfP - SI of Scientometrics on SSPOS.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 218627 bytes Desc: CfP - SI of Scientometrics on SSPOS.pdf URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Wed Oct 15 16:16:04 2014 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:16:04 +0000 Subject: Papers of possible interest to readers of the SIG-Metrics List - October 15, 2014 Message-ID: . Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTOR(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341632300001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Opportunities and challenges presented by a leap in *impact factor* Authors: Aydingoz, U Author Full Names: Aydingoz, Ustun Source: DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 20 (5):365-367; 10.5152/dir.2014.001 SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Addresses: Hacettepe Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, TR-06100 Ankara, Turkey. E-mail Addresses: ustunaydingoz at yahoo.com Cited Reference Count: 7 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AVES, IBRAHIM KARA, KIZILELMA CAD 5-3, FINDIKZADE, ISTANBUL 34096, TURKEY ISSN: 1305-3825 eISSN: 1305-3612 Web of Science Categories: Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging Research Areas: Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging IDS Number: AO8VE Unique ID: WOS:000341632300001 Cited References: [Anonymous], 2014, 2014 Journal Citation Reports®, Aydingoz Ustun, 2010, DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, V16, P255 [Anonymous], 2014, Journal Citation Reports® Notices, Ha Tam Cam, 2006, ANNALS ACADEMY OF MEDICINE SINGAPORE, V35, P911 Rylands-Monk F., 2014, Turkish radiology prepares to step into spotlight, Karcaaltincaba Musturay, 2007, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, V189, P1283 [Anonymous], 2014, Personal communication with Professor Nevzat Karabulut, ======================================================================== Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTOR(2) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341983100006 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Citation Parameters of Contact Lens-Related Articles Published in the Ophthalmic Literature Authors: Cardona, G; Sanz, JP Author Full Names: Cardona, Genis; Sanz, Joan P. Source: EYE & CONTACT LENS-SCIENCE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE, 40 (5):301-304; 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000053 SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis, Contact lenses, Impact factor, Journal citation reports, Ophthalmology KeyWords Plus: IMPACT FACTOR; JOURNALS; SCIENCE; PUBLICATION Abstract: Objective: This study aimed at exploring the citation parameters of contact lenses articles published in the Ophthalmology thematic category of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Methods: The Thompson Reuters Web of Science database was accessed to record bibliometric information and citation parameters of all journals listed under the Ophthalmology area of the 2011 JCR edition, including the journals with main publication interests in the contact lens field. In addition, the same database was used to unveil all contact lens-related articles published in 2011 in the same thematic area, whereupon differences in citation parameters between those articles published in contact lens and non-contact lens-related journals were explored. Results: Significant differences in some bibliometric indicators such as half-life and overall citation count were found between contact lens-related journals (shorter half-life and fewer citations) and the median values for the Ophthalmology thematic area of the JCR. Visual examination of all Ophthalmology journals uncovered a total of 156 contact lens-related articles, published in 28 different journals, with 27 articles each for Contact Lens & Anterior Eye, Eye & Contact Lens, and Optometry and Vision Science. Significant differences in citation parameters were encountered between those articles published in contact lens and non-contact lens source journals. Conclusions: These findings, which disclosed contact lenses to be a fertile area of research, may be of interest to researchers and institutions. Differences in bibliometric indicators are of relevance to avoid unwanted bias when conducting between-and within-discipline comparisons of articles, journals, and researchers. Addresses: [Cardona, Genis; Sanz, Joan P.] Tech Univ Catalonia, Opt & Optometry Dept, Barcelona, Spain. E-mail Addresses: gcardona at oo.upc.edu Cited Reference Count: 17 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 530 WALNUT ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3621 USA ISSN: 1542-2321 eISSN: 1542-233X Web of Science Categories: Ophthalmology Research Areas: Ophthalmology IDS Number: AP3NP Unique ID: WOS:000341983100006 Cited References: Cagan Ross, 2013, DISEASE MODELS & MECHANISMS, V6, P869 GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Kirchhof B., 2007, GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, V245, P925 van Eck Nees Jan, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, Lansingh Van C., 2009, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V116, P1425 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Chen Haoyu, 2013, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V120, P1697 Chen Haoyu, 2012, BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, V96, P896 Efron Nathan, 2012, OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, V89, P70 Murphy Eric J., 2013, LIPIDS, V48, P431 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 Sims JL, 2003, CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, V31, P14 The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2006, PLoS Med, V3, Pe291 Misteli Tom, 2013, JOURNAL OF CELL BIOLOGY, V201, P651 Alberts Bruce, 2013, SCIENCE, V340, P787 Collin H. Barry, 2009, CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPTOMETRY, V92, P410 Saxena Alok, 2013, Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics, V4, P125 ======================================================================== Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTOR(2) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341554900009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Bit *Impact Factor*: Towards making fair vulnerability comparison Authors: Can, SZ; Yalcin, G; Ergin, O; Unsal, OS; Cristal, A Author Full Names: Can, Serdar Zafer; Yalcin, Gulay; Ergin, Oguz; Sabri Unsal, Osman; Cristal, Adrian Source: MICROPROCESSORS AND MICROSYSTEMS, 38 (6):598-604; 10.1016/j.micpro.2014.04.009 AUG 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Architectural vulnerability factor, Soft errors, Vulnerability, Fault injection KeyWords Plus: ARCHITECTURAL VULNERABILITY; SOFT ERRORS; PREDICTION; SYSTEMS Abstract: Reliability is becoming a major design concern in contemporary microprocessors since soft error rate is increasing due to technology scaling. Therefore, design time system vulnerability estimation is of paramount importance. Architectural Vulnerability Factor (AVF) is an early vulnerability estimation methodology. However, AVF considers that the value of a bit in a clock cycle is either required for Architecturally Correct Execution (i.e. ACE-bit) or not (i.e. unACE-bit); therefore, AVF cannot distinguish the vulnerability impact level of an ACE-bit. In this study, we present a new dimension which takes into account the vulnerability impact level of a bit. We introduce Bit *Impact Factor* metric which, we believe, will be helpful for extending AVF evaluation to provide a more accurate vulnerability analysis. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Can, Serdar Zafer; Ergin, Oguz] TOBB Univ Econ & Technol, TR-06560 Ankara, Turkey. [Yalcin, Gulay; Sabri Unsal, Osman; Cristal, Adrian] Barcelona Supercomp Ctr, Barcelona 08034, Spain. [Cristal, Adrian] IIIA CSIC Spain Natl Res Council, E-08193 Bellaterra, Catalonia, Spain. E-mail Addresses: szcan at etu.edu.tr; gyalcin at bsc.es; oergin at etu.edu.tr; ounsal at bsc.es; acristal at bsc.es Funding Acknowledgement: Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [112E004] Funding Text: This work was partially supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under research Grants 112E004. The work is performed in the framework of COST ICT Action 1103 "Manufacturable and Dependable Multicore Architectures at Nanoscale". Cited Reference Count: 24 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0141-9331 eISSN: 1872-9436 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Hardware & Architecture; Computer Science, Theory & Methods; Engineering, Electrical & Electronic Research Areas: Computer Science; Engineering IDS Number: AO7TG Unique ID: WOS:000341554900009 Cited References: Baumann R, 2005, IEEE DESIGN & TEST OF COMPUTERS, V22, P258 Cho H., 2013, Proceedings of the 50th Annual Design Automation Conference, Fu Xin, 2009, HPCA-15 2009: FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE, PROCEEDINGS15th International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, FEB 14-18, 2009, Raleigh, NC, P93 Duan Lide, 2009, HPCA-15 2009: FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE, PROCEEDINGS15th International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, FEB 14-18, 2009, Raleigh, NC, P129 LI ML, 2009, INT S HIGH PERF COMP, P105 Nair A.A., 2010, Proceedings 2010 43rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO 2010)2010 43rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO 2010), 4-8 Dec. 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA, Sheaffer J.W., 2006, Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Graphics Hardware, P9 Biswas A, 2005, 32nd International Symposium on Computer Architecture, Proceedings32nd International Symposium on Computer Architecture, JUN 04-08, 2005, Madison, WI, P532 Sridharan Vilas, 2010, ISCA 2010: THE 37TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE37th International Symposium on Computer Architecture, JUN 19-23, 2010, St Malo, FRANCE, P461 Li Xiaodong, 2007, 37TH ANNUAL IEEE/IFIP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DEPENDABLE SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS, PROCEEDINGS37th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, JUN 25-28, 2007, Edinburgh, SCOTLAND, P266 Nair Arun Arvind, 2012, 2012 39TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE (ISCA)39th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), JUN 09-13, 2012, Portland, OR, P273 Wang Nicholas J., 2007, ISCA'07: 34TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE, CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS34th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, JUN 09-09, 2007, San Diego, CA, P460 Sridharan Vilas, 2009, HPCA-15 2009: FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE, PROCEEDINGS15th International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, FEB 14-18, 2009, Raleigh, NC, P117 Ziegler JF, 1996, IBM JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, V40, P3 Sharkey J.J., 2005, Technical Report CS-TR-05-DP01, Mukherjee SS, 2003, 36TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MICROARCHITECTURE, PROCEEDINGS36th International Symposium on Microarchitecture, DEC 03-05, 2003, SAN DIEGO, CA, P29 Borkar S, 2005, IEEE MICRO, V25, P10 Walcott Kristen R., 2007, ISCA'07: 34TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE, CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS34th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, JUN 09-09, 2007, San Diego, CA, P516 Li Xiaodong, 2008, ISCA 2008 PROCEEDINGS: 35TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE35th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, JUN 21-25, 2008, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, P341 Biswas A., 2008, IEEE Computer Architecture Letters, V7, Henning J. L., 2006, SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News, V34, P1 Lee Jongeun, 2009, DATE: 2009 DESIGN, AUTOMATION & TEST IN EUROPE CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION, VOLS 1-3Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition, APR 20-24, 2009, Nice, FRANCE, P1367 Biswas A., 2010, International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture, P1 Wang NJ, 2004, 2004 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DEPENDABLE SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS, PROCEEDINGSInternational Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, JUN 28-JUL 01, 2004, Florence, ITALY, P61 ======================================================================== Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTOR(1); RESEARCH(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341574700042 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Evaluation of *Research* Capacity in Nigeria Authors: Okorie, PN; Bockarie, MJ; Molyneux, DH; Kelly-Hope, LA Author Full Names: Okorie, Patricia N.; Bockarie, Moses J.; Molyneux, David H.; Kelly-Hope, Louise A. Source: PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES, 8 (8):10.1371/journal.pntd.0003078 AUG 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA; LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS; INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION; WUCHERERIA-BANCROFTI; NATIONAL SCALE; PROGRAMS; HEALTH; IMPACT; COUNTRIES; MALARIA Abstract: Background: Nigeria carries the highest burden and diversity of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) in sub-Saharan Africa and is preparing to scale up its efforts to control/eliminate these diseases. To achieve this it will require a range of internal technical support and expertise for mapping, monitoring and evaluating, operational research and documenting its success. In order to begin to evaluate this potential in Nigeria, this study collated and analysed information for lymphatic filariasis (LF), onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths (STH), which are currently being targeted with preventive chemotherapy through mass drug administration (MDA). Methodology/Principal Findings: Information from 299 scientific articles published on the selected NTDs in 179 journals between January 2008 and September 2013 was extracted and systematically compiled into a geo-referenced database for analysis and mapping. The highest number of articles was from the southern geo-political zones of the country. The majority of articles focused on one specific disease, and schistosomiasis and STH were found to have the highest and most wide ranging research output. The main type of study was parasitological, and the least was biotechnological. Nigerian authors were mostly affiliated with universities, and there was a wide range of international co-authors from Africa and other regions, especially the USA and UK. The majority of articles were published in journals with no known *impact factor*. Conclusions/Significance: The extensive database and series of maps on the research capacity within Nigeria produced in this study highlights the current potential that exists, and needs to be fully maximized for the control/elimination of NTDs in the country. This study provides an important model approach that can be applied to other low and middle income countries where NTDs are endemic, and NTD programmes require support from the expertise within their own country, as well as internationally, to help raise their profile and importance. Addresses: [Okorie, Patricia N.] Univ Ibadan, Coll Med, Inst Adv Med Res & Training, Ibadan, Nigeria. [Bockarie, Moses J.; Molyneux, David H.; Kelly-Hope, Louise A.] Univ Liverpool, Liverpool Sch Trop Med, Dept Parasitol, Ctr Neglected Trop Dis, Liverpool L3 5QA, Merseyside, England. E-mail Addresses: pnokorie at comui.edu.ng Funding Acknowledgement: Department for International Development (DFID); GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Funding Text: The study was supported by a grant from the Department for International Development (DFID) and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for research on the elimination of lymphatic filariasis. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Cited Reference Count: 38 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 1160 BATTERY STREET, STE 100, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 USA ISSN: 1935-2735 Article Number: e3078 Web of Science Categories: Infectious Diseases; Parasitology; Tropical Medicine Research Areas: Infectious Diseases; Parasitology; Tropical Medicine IDS Number: AO8AN Unique ID: WOS:000341574700042 Cited References: World Health Organization (WHO), 2012, Guide for preparing a master plan for national neglected tropical diseases programmes in the African region, Salaam M, 2009, Libr Philos Pract, V2009, P1 Nantulya Florence N., 2007, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, V77, P303 Institute of Medicine, 2011, The Causes and Impacts of Neglected Tropical and Zoonotic Diseases: Opportunities for Integrated Intervention Strategies, Njelesani Janet, 2014, PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES, V8, The Carter Center, 2014, Nigeria Launches Africa's First Nationwide Malaria and Lymphatic Filariasis (Elephantiasis) Elimination Co-Implementation Plan, SciDevNet, 2014, Experts to map Nigeria's neglected tropical diseases, Zheng Mei-Ling, 2011, MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, V17, PSR21 Kyelem D, 2005, TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH, V10, P1002 Mohammed Khalfan A., 2012, PARASITES & VECTORS, V5, Hotez Peter J., 2012, PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES, V6, World Health Assembly, 2013, Sixty-sixth World Health Assembly WHA66, V12, P1 Federal Ministry of Health, 2013, Nigeria Master Plan for Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) 2013-2017, Zoure Honorat Gustave Marie, 2011, PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES, V5, Kariuki Thomas, 2011, PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES, V5, Hanson Christy, 2012, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, V86, P508 Linehan Mary, 2011, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, V84, P5 Zhang Yaobi, 2010, BMC MEDICINE, V8, Nakpodia E, 2011, African J Educ Technol, V1, P53 Stanton Michelle C., 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, Anijaobi-Idem F, 2012, J Res Peace Gend Dev, V2, P171 Okorie Patricia Nkem, 2011, PLOS ONE, V6, Kyelem D, 2003, ANNALS OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND PARASITOLOGY, V97, P827 Kelly-Hope Louise A., 2013, PARASITES & VECTORS, V6, Okorie Patricia N., 2013, PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES, V7, Beyrer Chris, 2007, LANCET, V370, P619 Minja Happiness, 2011, PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES, V5, Anyadike N, 2013, J Econ Sustain Dev, V4, P12 World Health Organization, 2014, Wkly Epidemiol Rec, V89, P153 Molyneux David H., 2009, LANCET, V373, P296 Masanza Monica Musenero, 2010, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V10, Molyneux David H., 2011, PARASITES & VECTORS, V4, Brady Molly A., 2006, TRENDS IN PARASITOLOGY, V22, P285 Peretomode V, 2012, Eur Sci J, V8, P16 Collins F, 2013, Lancet Glob Heal, V24, P1 Kabatereine Narcis B., 2010, PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES, V4, Bockarie Moses J., 2013, PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, V368, Beattie P, 1999, Strengthening Health Research in the Developing World Malaria Research Capacity in Africa, ======================================================================== Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTOR(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341576900027 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: IEEE Latin America Transactions Volume 12 Issue 4 June 2014 Authors: Notare, MSMA Author Full Names: Notare, M. S. M. A. Source: IEEE LATIN AMERICA TRANSACTIONS, 12 (4):735-739; JUN 2014 Language: Portuguese Document Type: Article Author Keywords: IEEE Xplore, IEEE Latin America Transactions, Region 9, Special Issue, Impact Factor, ISI, DOI, Qualis, Volume 12, Issue 4, June 2014 Abstract: This is the 2st regular issue of the IEEE Latin America Transactions of the year 2014. The special issues are out of the months of the regular issues (March, June, September and December of each year). Addresses: IEEE South Brazil, Sao Paulo, Brazil. E-mail Addresses: mirela at ieee.org Cited Reference Count: 3 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC, 445 HOES LANE, PISCATAWAY, NJ 08855-4141 USA ISSN: 1548-0992 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Engineering, Electrical & Electronic Research Areas: Computer Science; Engineering IDS Number: AO8BI Unique ID: WOS:000341576900027 Cited References: SLP] THOMSON REUTERS, 2011, Scientific List Publications, [JCR] THOMSON REUTERS, 2010, JCR-Journal Citations Report, ISO - International Organization for Standardization, 2012, ISO 26324 Information and documentation-Digital object identifier, ======================================================================== Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTOR(4) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000342047500005 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Methods for recommending and predicting Nobel Prize candidates A case study of HIV/AIDS subject area Authors: Guo, GM; Chen, HS Author Full Names: Guo Gen-Ming; Chen Hui-Shan Source: PROGRAM-ELECTRONIC LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 48 (2):185-205; 10.1108/PROG-12-2012-0064 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis, Nobel Prize, Prediction method, Recommendation method, Research award KeyWords Plus: CRIMINAL-JUSTICE TEXTBOOKS; MOST-CITED SCHOLARS; LAW Abstract: Purpose - In the twenty-first century, technology and information are continuously being changed and rapidly updated. Many new innovations and discoveries emerge daily. This study aims to identify significant pioneers and milestones in academic research through utilizing bibliometric methods and heterogeneous data, including textbook citations, citations of theses and dissertations, and journal citations. Design/methodology/approach - This study proposes several methods and formulas for recommending Nobel prizes candidates. Through utilizing bibliometric methods and heterogeneous data, including textbook citations, citations of theses and dissertations, and journal article citations, this research facilitates the collection of numerous significant research results. The authors propose several new, useful formulae, including a pioneer paper *impact factor*, a popular classical paper *impact factor*, a ranking factor of specific fields, a groundbreaking author *impact factor*, and a frequently cited author *impact factor*. Findings - This study utilizes historical information on the Nobel Prize to examine, revise, and verify existing methods for recommending and predicting candidates, in order to enhance the accuracy and availability of the approach presented by this study. The experimental results show that the approach designed in this study had a rate of successful prediction exceeding 50 percent. The major reason for producing reasonable results is that the milestone paper and pioneer paper are filtered first, and then the important candidate authors from the most pioneer paper are filtered. Therefore, the results indicated the feasibility of the methods developed by this study. Originality/value - The purpose of the Nobel Prize is to reward original research findings or inventions that significantly and positively influence human life. However, due to budget limitations, only five fields are included in the academic domains for which Nobel prizes are awarded. The authors develop one useful new way to identify milestone papers and authors. Young students can choose, read and learn from these milestone papers. The pioneer authors identified by this research could be the recommended candidate list for some academic awards. Addresses: [Guo Gen-Ming; Chen Hui-Shan] Southern Taiwan Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Informat Management, Tainan, Taiwan. E-mail Addresses: sambuela at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 28 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, HOWARD HOUSE, WAGON LANE, BINGLEY BD16 1WA, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 0033-0337 eISSN: 1758-7301 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AP4LF Unique ID: WOS:000342047500005 Cited References: GARFIELD E, 1992, THEORETICAL MEDICINE, V13, P117 Ostergard Jr R. L., 2007, HIV/AIDS and the Threat to National and International Security, Pincock Stephen, 2008, LANCET, V372, P1377 Twigg J. L., 2006, HIV/AIDS in Russia and Eurasia, VI, Peek Richard, 2008, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V134, P5 Wright RA, 1996, JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, V24, P459 2005, NANOFABRICATION TOWARDS BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS: TECHNIQUES, TOOLS, APPLICATIONS, AND IMPACT, P1 ASHTON SV, 1978, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V8, P341 Garfield E., 1986, Essays of an Information Scientist, V9, P182 Cho Wendy K. Tam, 2007, AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, V61, P218 Gingras Yves, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V82, P401 Chen P., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P8 el Sehity T, 2005, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN MARKETING, V22, P471 Primrose S. B., 2006, Principles of Gene Manipulation and Genomics, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 2007, HIV Treatment Adherence: Challenges for Social Services, Fernandez F., 2006, Psychiatric Aspects of HIV/AIDS, Grant Gunnar, 2007, BRAIN RESEARCH REVIEWSMeeting of the Cajal-Club 2006, JUN 11-13, 2006, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V55, P490 Web of Knowledge, 2013, Web of Knowledge Journal Database, Macchia Richard J., 2007, JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, V178, P783 Twigg J. L., 2006, HIV/AIDS in Russia and Eurasia, VII, Falola T., 2007, HIV/AIDS, Illness, and African Well-Being, Weaver R. F., 2008, Molecular Biology, Charlton Bruce G., 2007, MEDICAL HYPOTHESES, V68, P931 Lewin B., 2008, Genes IX, Wright RA, 2002, JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, V30, P183 Garfield E., 1981, Essays of an Information Scientist, V4, P609 Geddes A., 2008, International Journal of Antimicobial Agents, V33, P3 ======================================================================== Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTOR(3) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341648900002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A multidimensional analysis of Aslib proceedings - using everything but the *impact factor* Authors: Haustein, S; Lariviere, V Author Full Names: Haustein, Stefanie; Lariviere, Vincent Source: ASLIB JOURNAL OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, 66 (4):358-380; 10.1108/AJIM-11-2013-0127 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Citation analysis, Scholarly communication, Usage statistics, Impact factor, Journal evaluation, Mendeley KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; JOURNAL EVALUATION; SCIENCE; IDENTIFICATION; CITATIONS; SYSTEM Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to show that the journal *impact factor* (IF) is not able to reflect the full impact of scholarly journals and provides an overview of alternative and complementary methods in journal evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - Aslib Proceedings (AP) is exemplarily analyzed with a set of indicators from five dimensions of journal evaluation, i.e. journal output, content, perception and usage, citations and management to accurately reflect its various strengths and weaknesses beyond the IF. Findings - AP has become more international in terms of authors and more diverse regarding its topics. Citation impact is generally low and, with the exception of a special issue on blogs, remains world average. However, an evaluation of downloads and Mendeley readers reveals that the journal is an important source of information for professionals and students and certain topics are frequently read but not cited. Research limitations/implications - The study is limited to one journal. Practical implications - An overview of various indicators and methods is provided that can be applied in the quantitative evaluation of scholarly journals (and also to articles, authors and institutions). Originality/value - After a publication history of more than 60 years, this analysis takes stock of AP, highlighting strengths and weaknesses and developments over time. The case study provides an example and overview of the possibilities of multidimensional journal evaluation. Addresses: [Haustein, Stefanie; Lariviere, Vincent] Univ Montreal, Ecole Bibliothecon & Sci Informat, Montreal, PQ, Canada. E-mail Addresses: stefanie.haustein at umontreal.ca Funding Acknowledgement: Canada Research Chair program Funding Text: Vincent Lariviere acknowledges funding from the Canada Research Chair program. Cited Reference Count: 54 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, HOWARD HOUSE, WAGON LANE, BINGLEY BD16 1WA, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 2050-3806 eISSN: 1758-3748 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO9AW Unique ID: WOS:000341648900002 Cited References: SCImago Research Group, 2007, Description of SCImago Journal Rank Indicator, Van Leeuwen TN, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 17, 2001, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, V53, P249 Haustein S., 2014, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, V65, P113 Mabe MA, 2002, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V54, P149 Zitt M., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P329 Coleman Anita, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1148 Archambault Eric, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V79, P635 Schmid H., 1994, Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester, UK, V12, P44 Gunn W., 2013, Information Standards Quarterly, V25, P33 van Eck Nees Jan, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 17-20, 2008, Vienna, AUSTRIA, V82, P581 Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P644 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P2623 Rousseau R, 2002, LIBRARY TRENDS, V50, P418 Haustein S., 2012, Multidimensional Journal Evaluation. Analyzing Scientific Periodicals Beyond the Impact Factor, Schlogl C., 2006, Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis, V57, P31 Gonzalez-Pereira Borja, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P379 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Moed HF, 1998, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V54, P387 Mohammadi Ehsan, 2014, JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V65, P1627 Glanzel W, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 17, 2001, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, V53, P171 MOED HF, 1995, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V46, P461 Haustein S., Bibliometrics and Beyond: Metrics-Based Evaluation of Scholarly Research, P327 TODOROV R, 1988, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V14, P47 Haustein S., IT-Information Technology, Li Xue Feng, 2011, SPINE, V36, PE1245 Bradford S. C., 1934, Engineering, V137, P85 Brin S, 1998, COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS7th International World Wide Web Conference, APR 14-18, 1998, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, V30, P107 Salton G., 1987, Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Schlogl C., 2013, Proceedings of the 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, V1, P626 Mohammadi E., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Nisonger TE, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P1004 Wouters P., 2013, PLoS ALM Workshop 2013, San Francisco, CA, Nicholas D., 2008, Aslib Proceedings, V60, Waltman Ludo, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1476 GARFIELD E, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P195 Adam D, 2002, NATURE, V415, P726 Rowlands Ian, 2007, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V59, P222 Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Gross P L, 1927, Science (New York, N.Y.), V66, P385 Haustein S., 2012, First Monday, V17, van Eck Nees Jan, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1635 The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2006, PLoS Med, V3, Pe291 PINSKI G, 1976, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V12, P297 Colonia Grazia, 2002, Informationswissenschaftliche Zeitschriften in szientometrischer Anlayse, V33, Zitt Michel, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P392 Moed H. F., 2005, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Nicholas David, 2008, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V60, P185 GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 DORA, 2013, San Francisco declaration on research assessment, SMALL H, 1985, SCIENTOMETRICS, V7, P391 van Eck Nees Jan, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P523 BONACICH P, 1972, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY, V2, P113 Project COUNTER, 2008, The COUNTER code of practice. Journals and databases release 3, ======================================================================== Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTOR(1); TO(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000342001700002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A Borda count approach *to* combine subjective and objective based MIS journal rankings Authors: Tsai, CF; Hu, YH; Ke, SWG Author Full Names: Tsai, Chih-Fong; Hu, Ya-Han; Ke, Shih-Wen George Source: ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, 38 (4):469-483; 10.1108/OIR-11-2013-0253 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: h-index, Borda count, Journal ranking, MIS journals KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; IMPACT FACTOR; BUSINESS; MANAGEMENT; QUALITY Abstract: Purpose - Ranking relevant journals is very critical for researchers to choose their publication outlets, which can affect their research performance. In the management information systems (MIS) subject, many related studies conducted surveys as the subjective method for identifying MIS journal rankings. However, very few consider other objective methods, such as journals' impact factors and h-indexes. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - In this paper, top 50 ranked journals identified by researchers' perceptions are examined in terms of the correlation to the rankings by their impact factors and h-indexes. Moreover, a hybrid method to combine these different rankings based on Borda count is used to produce new MIS journal rankings. Findings - The results show that there are low correlations between the subjective and objective based MIS journal rankings. In addition, the new MIS journal rankings by the Borda count approach can also be considered for future researches. Originality/value - The contribution of this paper is to apply the Borda count approach to combine different MIS journal rankings produced by subjective and objective methods. The new MIS journal rankings and previous studies can be complementary to allow researchers to determine the top-ranked journals for their publication outlets. Addresses: [Tsai, Chih-Fong] Natl Cent Univ, Dept Informat Management, Jhongli, Taiwan. [Hu, Ya-Han] Natl Chung Cheng Univ, Dept Informat Management, Chiayi, Taiwan. [Ke, Shih-Wen George] Chung Yuan Christian Univ, Dept Informat & Comp Engn, Jhongli, Taiwan. E-mail Addresses: cftsai at mgt.ncu.edu.tw Cited Reference Count: 18 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, HOWARD HOUSE, WAGON LANE, BINGLEY BD16 1WA, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 1468-4527 eISSN: 1468-4535 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AP3TX Unique ID: WOS:000342001700002 Cited References: Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Nuray R, 2006, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V42, P595 Harzing Anne-Wil, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P41 Mylonopoulos NA, 2001, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, V44, P29 Bador Pascal, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P65 WALSTROM KA, 1995, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, V38, P93 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Pagano R.R., 2001, Understanding Statistics in the Behavioral Sciences, Peffers K., 2003, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, V5, P63 Rainer RK, 2005, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, V48, P91 Katerattanakul P, 2003, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, V46, P111 Harzing A.W., 2010, The Publish or Perish Book, Egghe Leo, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P131 Holsapple C.W., 1994, Journal of Management Information Systems, V11, HOLSAPPLE CW, 1993, INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT, V25, P231 Whitman ME, 1999, INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH, V10, P99 Lee JH, 1997, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL ACM SIGIR CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN INFORMATION RETRIEVAL20th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, JUL 27-31, 1997, PHILADELPHIA, PA, P267 Mingers John, 2012, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V48, P234 ======================================================================== Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTOR(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341633700068 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A New Method for Calculating Core Attributes Authors: Huang, SL; Wu, ZJ; Cheng, JM; Wang, Q Author Full Names: Huang, Shunliang; Wu, Zongjie; Cheng, Junmo; Wang, Qi Edited by: Chen J; Wang X; Wang L; Sun J; Meng X Source: 2013 10TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FUZZY SYSTEMS AND KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY (FSKD), 417-421; 2013 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: 10th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD) Conference Date: JUL 23-25, 2013 Conference Location: Shenyang, PEOPLES R CHINA Conference Sponsors: IEEE, IEEE Circuits & Syst Soc Author Keywords: rough sets, attribute reduct, core attributes, decision table, relative reduct KeyWords Plus: ROUGH SETS; ALGORITHMS Abstract: A new method for calculating core attributes of a decision table is proposed. In particular, this method is better than other methods for inconsistent decision tables. In this paper, the concept of condition-decision *impact factor* is proposed, some characteristics are studied as well. An important theorem for judging core attributes is given. Based on the theorem, an algorithm for calculating core attributes is presented and is followed by an example to illustrate the validity of the algorithm. Addresses: [Huang, Shunliang; Cheng, Junmo; Wang, Qi] Shandong Univ Technol, Sch Business, Zibo 255000, Peoples R China. Cited Reference Count: 19 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE, 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10017 USA ISBN: 978-1-4673-5253-6 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence; Computer Science, Information Systems Research Areas: Computer Science IDS Number: BB2BZ Unique ID: WOS:000341633700068 Cited References: Wang Guo-Yin, 2009, Chinese Journal of Computers, V32, PAWLAK Z, 1982, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER & INFORMATION SCIENCES, V11, P341 SLEZAK D, 2000, ROUGH SET METHODS AP, V56, P235 Swiniarski R.W., 2001, International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, V11, Pawlak Z., 1991, Rough Sets. Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Data, ???, 2008, ?????????Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, V28, P81 Wang Guo-Yin, 2002, Chinese Journal of Computers, V25, Skowron A., 1992, Wong S.K.M., 1985, J Bullet in of Polish Academy of Sciences, V33, P693 Pawlak Zdzislaw, 2007, INFORMATION SCIENCES, V177, P28 Rauszer C.M., 1991, Fundamenta Informaticae, V15, Hu X. H., 1995, International Journal of Computational Intelligence, V11, P323 Wang Guo-Yin, 2003, Chinese Journal of Computers, V26, Mi JS, 2004, INFORMATION SCIENCES, V159, P255 Wang J, 2001, JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V16, P489 Yao Yiyu, 2008, TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE II, V5150, P100 Ye Dong-yi, 2002, Acta Electronica Sinica, V30, Pawlak Zdzislaw, 2007, INFORMATION SCIENCES, V177, P3 Chen F.J., 2011, IEEE 14thConference on Computational Science and Engineering, Dalian, P618 *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341681800057 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A comparative bibliometric analysis of the top 150 cited papers in hypospadiology (1945-2013) Authors: O'Kelly, F; Nason, GJ; McLoughlin, LC; Flood, HD; Thornhill, JA Author Full Names: O'Kelly, F.; Nason, G. J.; McLoughlin, L. C.; Flood, H. D.; Thornhill, J. A. Source: BJU INTERNATIONAL, 114 39-39; 2 SI SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Meeting Abstract Conference Title: Annual Scientific Meeting of the Irish-Society-of-Urology Conference Date: SEP 25-26, 2014 Conference Location: Killarney, IRELAND Conference Sponsors: Irish Soc Urol Addresses: [O'Kelly, F.; McLoughlin, L. C.; Thornhill, J. A.] Tallaght Hosp, Dept Urol Surg, Dublin, Ireland. [Nason, G. J.; Flood, H. D.] Univ Hosp, Dept Urol Surg, Limerick, Ireland. Cited Reference Count: 3 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 1464-4096 eISSN: 1464-410X Web of Science Categories: Urology & Nephrology Research Areas: Urology & Nephrology IDS Number: AO9NG Unique ID: WOS:000341681800057 Cited References: Paulozzi LJ, 1999, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, V107, P297 Weale Andy R, 2004, BMC medical research methodology, V4, P14 Li Juan, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341924600009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Analysis on research activity and impact of authors in Chinese information science based on citation relationship Authors: Wang, FF; Jayroe, TJ; Qiu, JP; Yu, HQ Author Full Names: Wang, Feifei; Jayroe, Tina J.; Qiu, Junping; Yu, Houqiang Source: JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, 70 (3):461-477; 10.1108/JD-03-2012-0030 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: China, Factor analysis, Communication, Information Science, Social network analysis, Author co-citation analysis, Author bibliographic-coupling analysis, Research activity and impact KeyWords Plus: COCITATION ANALYSIS Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to further explore the co-citation and bibliographic-coupling relationship among the core authors in the field of Chinese information science (IS), to expose research activity and author impact, and to make induction analyses about Chinese IS research patterns and theme evolution. Design/methodology/approach - The research data include 8,567 papers and 70,947 cited articles in the IS field indexed by Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index from 2000 to 2009. Author co-citation analysis, author bibliographic-coupling analysis, social network analysis, and factor analysis were combined to explore co-citation and bibliographic-coupling relationships and to identify research groups and subjects. Findings - Scholars with greatest impact are different from the most active scholars of Chinese IS; there is no uniform impact pattern forming since authors' impact subjects are scattered and not steady; while authors' research activities present higher independence and concentration, there is still no steady research pattern due to no deep research existing. Furthermore, Chinese IS studies can be delineated by: foundation or extension. The research subjects of these two parts, as well as their corresponding/contributing authors, are different under different views. The general research status of core authors is concentrated, while their impact is broad. Originality/value - The combined use of some related methods could enrich the development and methodology research of the discipline, and the results establish a reference point on the development of IS research. Addresses: [Wang, Feifei; Yu, Houqiang] Wuhan Univ, Sch Informat Management, Wuhan 430072, Peoples R China. [Jayroe, Tina J.] Univ Wisconsin Milwaukee, Sch Informat Studies, Milwaukee, WI USA. [Qiu, Junping] Wuhan Univ, Res Ctr Sci Evaluat, Wuhan 430072, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: wangfeifei at whu.edu.cn Cited Reference Count: 26 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, HOWARD HOUSE, WAGON LANE, BINGLEY BD16 1WA, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 0022-0418 eISSN: 1758-7379 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AP2SI Unique ID: WOS:000341924600009 Cited References: Yang J. X., 2005, Rising and developing of knowledge management science, Boyack Kevin W., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2389 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Li Y. T., 1992, Information Studies: Theory & Application, V92, P5 Wang F. F., 2010, Wuhan Daxue Xuebao (Xinxi Kexue Ban), V35, P123 Wang Feifei, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P1011 Xu Y. Y., 2008, Information Studies: Theory & Application, V31, P184 Qiu Junping, 2008, Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, V27, Marion LS, 2003, ASIST 2003: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 66TH ASIST ANNUAL MEETING, VOL 40, 200366th Annual Meeting of the American-Society-for-Information-Science-and-Technology, OCT 19-22, 2003, Long Beach, CA, V40, P486 White HD, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V49, P327 Diodato V. P., 1994, Dictionary of Bibliometrics, Bar-Ilan Judit, 2006, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V42, P1553 Hair J. F., 1998, Multivariate Data Analysis, Zhao Dangzhi, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P916 MCCAIN KW, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P433 Zhao Dangzhi, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P2070 WHITE HD, 1981, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V32, P163 Kuhn T., 1996, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Price D. J. d. S., 1963, Little Science, Big Science, White HD, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P423 KESSLER MM, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P10 Qiu J. P., 2007, Informetrics, Wolfram D., 2003, Applied Informetrics for Information Retrieval Research, White HD, 2001, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V52, P87 Swarna T., 2008, MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE, V13, P49 White HD, 2000, WEB OF KNOWLEDGE - A FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF EUGENE GARFIELD, P475 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341648900005 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: An overview of knowledge management research viewed through the web of science (1993-2012) Authors: Qiu, JP; Lv, H Author Full Names: Qiu, Junping; Lv, Hong Source: ASLIB JOURNAL OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, 66 (4):424-442; 10.1108/AJIM-12-2013-0133 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Knowledge management, Publications, Information visualization, Web of science, Research work, Bibliometric analysis KeyWords Plus: CAPITAL ACADEMIC JOURNALS; SOLID-WASTE RESEARCH; BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; CITATION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH TRENDS; BETWEENNESS CENTRALITY; INTELLECTUAL STRUCTURE; SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS; EMERGING TRENDS; GLOBAL RANKING Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a bibliometric analysis of scientific output of the knowledge management (KM), the aim being to offer an overview of research activity in this field and characterize its most significant aspects. In addition, this study aims to quantitatively analyze KM research trends, forecasts, and citations from 1993 to 2012 in Web of Science (WOS). Design/methodology/approach - A total of 12,925 documents related to KM research were collected from following databases: Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. These documents were carefully reviewed and subjected to bibliometric data analysis techniques. Findings - A number of research questions pertaining to patterns in scientific outputs, subject categories and major journals, author keywords frequencies, characteristics of the international collaboration, most cited papers and significant papers distribution of KM research were proposed and answered. In addition, there are five research sights on KM research are as follows: management science, computer science, information science, business, and engineering. Based on these findings, many implications emerged that improve one's understanding of the identity of KM as a distinct multi-discipline scientific field. Research limitations/implications - Comprehensiveness and inclusiveness of the analyzed KM-related data set in WOS because of some KM-centric journals are not indexed by Thomson Reuters. Originality/value - The paper offers an overview and evaluation of research activity into the KM viewed through the WOS during 1993-2012. Addresses: [Qiu, Junping] Wuhan Univ, Res Ctr Chinese Sci Evaluat, Wuhan 430072, Peoples R China. [Lv, Hong] Wuhan Univ, Sch Informat Management, Wuhan 430072, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: lvhongcn at 163.com Funding Acknowledgement: National Social Science Foundation Major Project of China [11ZD152] Funding Text: The research reported here was supported by the National Social Science Foundation Major Project of China (11&ZD152). Comments from the anonymous referees and the editor are also gratefully appreciated. Cited Reference Count: 61 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, HOWARD HOUSE, WAGON LANE, BINGLEY BD16 1WA, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 2050-3806 eISSN: 1758-3748 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AO9AW Unique ID: WOS:000341648900005 Cited References: Zhen Lu, 2013, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V49, P884 Ding Ying, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P187 Li Jinfeng, 2009, CROATICA CHEMICA ACTA, V82, P695 Harman K, 2005, JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS, V46, P64 Garfield E., 2009, Scientometrics, V78, P355 Huang Chun-Ping, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE CHINESE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V72, P117 Serenko Alexander, 2010, JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, V14, P3 Dattero R., 2006, Knowledge and Process Management, V13, P264 Cao Yang, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V96, P717 Zhao Rongying, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P593 Serenko Alexander, 2013, JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, V17, P773 Du Yan, 2012, NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH, V7, P2392 Ringel-Bickelmaier Claudia, 2010, JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, V14, P524 Iqbal J., 2012, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, V4, P1005 Li Tao, 2008, NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS, V441, P248 Leydesdorff Loet, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V58, P1303 Zhu Qilun, 2011, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V63, P101 Serenko Alexander, 2013, JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, V17, P137 Fu Hui-zhen, 2010, WASTE MANAGEMENT, V30, P2410 Zhang Liang, 2010, ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, V36, P973 Liu Shih-Hwa, 2013, COMPUTERS & EDUCATION, V68, P105 Zhuang Yanhua, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V96, P203 Chen Chaomei, 2012, EXPERT OPINION ON BIOLOGICAL THERAPY, V12, P593 Tsay Ming-yueh, 2013, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V65, P203 Ma Zhenzhong, 2010, JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, V14, P175 Sin Sei-Ching Joanna, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1770 Serenko A., 2004, Knowledge and Process Management, V11, P185 Cantos-Mateos G., 2012, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V64, P561 Chen C., 2008, Data and Knowledge Engineering, V67, P234 Serenko Alexander, 2009, JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, V13, P4 Bontis Nick, 2009, JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, V13, P16 Braun Tibor, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P207 Fu Hui-Zhen, 2013, SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, V443, P757 Nonaka I., 2006, Knowledge and Process Management, V13, P73 Gisvold SE, 1999, ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, V43, P971 Wang H. J., 2013, Scientometrics, V95, P35 Yang Lie, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V96, P133 Liu Guifeng, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P1037 Serenko Alexander, 2013, JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, V17, P307 Tsai Hsu-Hao, 2013, EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, V40, P3160 Willett Peter, 2008, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V60, P4 Lee Maria R., 2012, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V28, P47 FREEMAN LC, 1977, SOCIOMETRY, V40, P35 Brandes U, 2001, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY, V25, P163 Chen Chaomei, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1386 Liu Xingjian, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P747 Ponzi LJ, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V55, P259 Chen Chaomei, 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P191 Zhao Rong-ying, 2013, JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, V17, P416 Cronin B, 2001, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCEConference on Freedom of Information: The Impact of Open Access on Biomedical Science, JUL 06-07, 2000, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, V27, P1 Khan Moonis Ali, 2012, SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, V431, P122 Guchait Priyanko, 2011, JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, V15, P513 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Xu Yang, 2013, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V45, P41 Orduna-Malea Enrique, 2010, INVESTIGACION BIBLIOTECOLOGICA, V24, P69 Ghosh Biswadip, 2007, INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT, V24, P73 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Rorissa Abebe, 2012, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V48, P120 Chiu Wen-Ta, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P3 Chen CM, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P359 Zhang Weiwei, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V80, P305 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000342048100002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Relationship between authors' structural position in the collaboration network and research productivity Case of Indian earth scientists Authors: Kumar, S; Jan, JM Author Full Names: Kumar, Sameer; Jan, Jariah Mohd. Source: PROGRAM-ELECTRONIC LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 48 (4):355-369; 10.1108/PROG-01-2013-0002 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: India, Digital libraries, Social Network Analysis, Co-authorship networks, Earth science, Research collaborations KeyWords Plus: CO-AUTHORSHIP; SOCIAL NETWORK; COMPLEX NETWORKS; COAUTHORSHIP NETWORKS; KNOWLEDGE; LIBRARY Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to compute and analyze the topological properties of co-authorship network formed between earth scientists in India. As a case study, the authors evaluate bibliographic data of authors who have contributed research articles in the Journal of the Geological Society of India, a premier earth science journal in India. Design/methodology/approach - Research articles totaling 3,903 records from 1970 to 2011 were harvested from the ISI Web of Science SCI database and analyzed using Social Network Analysis. Findings - The author productivity in terms of number of papers published followed Lotka's law with beta = 2.1027. A dense giant component was detected that spanned 73 percent of the network with a density of 0.0017 and clustering coefficient of 0.631, suggesting high level of knowledge diffusion and a rapid flow of information and creativity in this network. Local metrics were calculated using degree, betweenness and closeness centralities. A strong correlation was seen between degree and author productivity (number of works) and betweenness centrality and author productivity, suggesting that author's number of connections and controlling "in-between" position in the network may be providing the authors' with the knowledge and resources to be more productive. Originality/value - The impact of human actions on the earth systems is a hot topic of research in India. This is one of the first works that investigates co-authorship networks of Indian earth science researchers. Addresses: [Kumar, Sameer] Univ Malaya, Asia Europe Inst, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. [Jan, Jariah Mohd.] Univ Malaya, Dept English Language, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. E-mail Addresses: sameer at um.edu.my Cited Reference Count: 49 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, HOWARD HOUSE, WAGON LANE, BINGLEY BD16 1WA, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 0033-0337 eISSN: 1758-7301 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AP4LK Unique ID: WOS:000342048100002 Cited References: Morel Carlos Medicis, 2009, PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES, V3, GRANOVET.MS, 1973, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V78, P1360 Liu XM, 2005, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V41, P1462 Olmeda-Gomez Carlos, 2009, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V61, P83 Hu Clark, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, V27, P302 Newman MEJ, 2003, SIAM REVIEW, V45, P167 Strogatz SH, 2001, NATURE, V410, P268 Reuters T., 2012, Melin G, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P363 Albert R, 2002, REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS, V74, P47 Sci2 T., 2009, Adamic L.A., 2000, Lee D., 2010, Physical Review E, V82, P9 Katz JS, 1997, RESEARCH POLICY, V26, P1 Gonzalez-Alcaide Gregorio, 2010, ARCHIVOS DE BRONCONEUMOLOGIA, V46, P78 Smalheiser N. R., 2009, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, V43, P1 Talukdar Debabrata, 2011, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V98, P137 Tang Li, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P763 Nijagunappa R., 1996, P237 Parvathamma N., 1993, Library Science with a Slant to Documentation and Information Studies, V30, P54 Newman M.E.J., 2001, Physical Review E, V64, MILGRAM S, 1967, PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, V1, P61 Smith M.A., 2009, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies, P255 Kretschmer H, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P409 Cronin B, 2001, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V52, P558 Lotka A.J., 1926, Journal of Washington Academy Sciences, V16, Yan Erjia, 2009, PROCEEDINGS OF ISSI 2009 - 12TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMETRICS, VOL 212th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUL 14-17, 2009, Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL, V2, P561 Fatt Choong Kwai, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P849 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 Wasserman S., 1994, Social Network Analysis, Methods and Applications, Hou Haiyan, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P189 Barabasi AL, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P509 Maia Maria de Fatima S., 2008, PERSPECTIVAS EM CIENCIA DA INFORMACAO, V13, P18 Yan Erjia, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P115 Rousseau Brendan, 2000, Cybermetrics, V4, P1 Barabasi AL, 2002, PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, V311, P590 Lewison G, 2003, ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, V55, P379 Quatman Catherine, 2008, JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT, V22, P651 Racherla Pradeep, 2010, ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH, V37, P1012 GARFIELD E, 1969, NATURE, V223, P763 Newman MEJ, 2004, COMPLEX NETWORKS, V650, P337 Otte E, 2002, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V28, P441 Knowles Jacqueline, 2010, PROGRAM-ELECTRONIC LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, V44, P98 Watts DJ, 1998, NATURE, V393, P440 Glanzel W., 2005, P257 Newman MEJ, 2001, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V98, P404 Barabasi AL, 2003, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, V288, P60 PRICE DJD, 1966, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, V21, P1011 Newman M., 2008, The New Palgrave Encyclopedia of Economics, V2, P1 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341913300001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Why are journals from less-developed countries constrained to low impact factors? Authors: Bredan, A; Benamer, HTS; Bakoush, O Author Full Names: Bredan, Amin; Benamer, Hani T. S.; Bakoush, Omran Source: LIBYAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 9 10.3402/ljm.v9.25774 2014 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Addresses: [Bredan, Amin] Univ Ghent, Dept Biomed Mol Biol, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. [Bredan, Amin] VIB, Inflammat Res Ctr, Ghent, Belgium. [Benamer, Hani T. S.] New Cross Hosp, Dept Neurol, Wolverhampton, England. [Bakoush, Omran] UAE Univ, Dept Internal Med, Al Ain, U Arab Emirates. [Bakoush, Omran] Lund Univ, Dept Nephrol, S-22100 Lund, Sweden. Cited Reference Count: 3 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: CO-ACTION PUBLISHING, RIPVAGEN 7, JARFALLA, SE-175 64, SWEDEN ISSN: 1993-2820 eISSN: 1819-6357 Article Number: 25774 Web of Science Categories: Medicine, General & Internal Research Areas: General & Internal Medicine IDS Number: AP2OS Unique ID: WOS:000341913300001 Cited References: Chew M, 2005, J R Soc, Public Library of Science, 2002, Public Library of Science to launch new free-access biomedical journals with $9 million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, PLOSONE, About History of Public Library of Science, ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000342047300009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Research on policing in East Asia: a review of SSCI policing specialty journals Authors: Kim, B; Lin, AWC; Lambert, E Author Full Names: Kim, Bitna; Lin, Arizona Wan-Chun; Lambert, Eric Source: POLICING-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLICE STRATEGIES & MANAGEMENT, 37 (3):612-629; 10.1108/PIJPSM-01-2014-0009 2014 Language: English Document Type: Review Author Keywords: Content analysis, East Asia, Policing journals Abstract: Purpose - Little information on dissemination of publications on policing issues in East Asia in which one-fifth of the world's population lives is available. The research questions for the paper are: how extensive is the coverage of papers focussing on policing in East Asia; on which East Asian countries have the papers covered during the 14-year period from 2000 to 2013; what are the topics/primary issues of policing in East Asia covered across the journals; and what are the affiliations represented of authors who have published papers on policing in East Asia. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - This study is a content analysis of major policing specialty journals listed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) in terms of the number and focus of studies on East Asian police papers. Data came from 1,123 papers published in three policing journals of Police Quarterly, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, and Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy during the period of 2000-2013. Findings - Only 3.4 percent (n = 38) of the 1,123 articles published in the three journals were on policing issues in East Asia nations. The vast majority (76.3 percent) were published in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management. Staff issue was the most frequently researched topic. In total, 42 percent of the papers were on South Korean policing issues, followed by 31 percent on Chinese policing topics. Finally, about 45 percent of the papers were written by only US-affiliated authors, 40 percent by authors affiliated with institutions in East Asia, and only 16 percent were written in collaboration between authors associated with USA and East Asian institutions. Originality/value - The main intent of this study is to provide information seekers with a guide to what research on policing in East Asia is being published. Addresses: [Kim, Bitna; Lin, Arizona Wan-Chun] Indiana Univ Penn, Dept Criminol, Indiana, PA 15705 USA. [Lambert, Eric] Wayne State Univ, Detroit, MI USA. E-mail Addresses: bitna.kim at iup.edu Cited Reference Count: 27 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, HOWARD HOUSE, WAGON LANE, BINGLEY BD16 1WA, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 1363-951X eISSN: 1758-695X Web of Science Categories: Criminology & Penology Research Areas: Criminology & Penology IDS Number: AP4LD Unique ID: WOS:000342047300009 Cited References: Police Quarterly, 2013, Police Quarterly, Tewksbury R., 2001, Prison Journal, V81, P419 vanWormer K., 2013, Women and the Criminal Justice System, Donmoyer R., 1996, Educational Researcher, V25, P19 Liu J., 2009, Asian Journal of Criminology, V4, P1 United Nations Statistics Division, 2013, World Factbook, 2013, Bayley D., 1976, Forces of Order: Police Behavior in Japan and the US, Wikipedia, 2013, Nations Online, 2013, Countries by Continents: Countries of Asia, Wells E., 2009, Justice Quarterly, V26, P265 Bennett RR, 2004, JUSTICE QUARTERLY, V21, P1 World Factbook, 2013, [Anonymous], 2013, Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, Zhang S, 2002, CRIMINOLOGY, V40, P737 Ross J., 2012, Asian Journal of Criminology, V7, P225 Cohn E., 2011, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, V22, P493 Cohn E., 2011, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, V22, P5 Jennings W., 2011, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, V22, P1 Broadhurst R., 2006, Asian Journal of Criminology, V1, P1 Jiang S., 2012, Asian Journal of Criminology, V7, P101 Klein Daniel B., 2004, ECON JOURNAL WATCH, V1, P134 [Anonymous], 2013, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Zimring F., 2006, Criminology and Public Policy., V5, P615 Kim B., 2013, International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, V2, P1 Tatum B., 2002, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, V13, P201 Barberet R., 2007, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, V18, P406 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341982400007 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Electronic theses and dissertations Differences in behavior for local and non-local users Authors: Coates, M Author Full Names: Coates, Mildred Source: LIBRARY HI TECH, 32 (2):285-299; SI 10.1108/LHT-08-2013-0102 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Digital collections, Web metrics, ETDs, Google Analytics, User behaviour Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine two research questions: first, How do users in different locations find Auburn University Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs)? Second, do users in different locations interact differently with the collection and, if so, how? Design/methodology/approach - Google Analytics data for user visits, landing pages, and page views were separated into groups based on user location. Visits data were also correlated with source (referring web site), and landing pages and page views were grouped by type. Findings - Most local users came to the repository via Auburn University web pages. This group usually landed on the collection home page and used internal navigation pages to find what they needed. Submission page views showed that most ETD depositors were local. Most out-of-state users came to the repository via web search engines. This group usually landed directly on bibliographic information pages for individual ETDs. They used internal navigation pages less frequently than local users. Users located within the state but outside of the local area interacted with the collection in a way that was intermediate between these two groups. Practical implications - Institutions interested in improving repository access for depositors will probably find it helpful to focus on in-state usage reports, while institutions seeking to improve access for end-users should exclude in-state users from their assessments. Originality/value - This is the first detailed examination of ETDs usage published since 2001 and shows how filtering tools available in Google Analytics allow comparisons of user behavior based on location and source (referring web site). Addresses: Auburn Univ, Univ Lib, Auburn, AL 36849 USA. E-mail Addresses: coatemi at auburn.edu Cited Reference Count: 17 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, HOWARD HOUSE, WAGON LANE, BINGLEY BD16 1WA, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 0737-8831 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AP3NI Unique ID: WOS:000341982400007 Cited References: Alemneh D.G., 2011, Texas ETDAssociation Annual Conference, March 31, Arlington, TX, Ismail Maizatul Akmar, 2011, MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE, V16, P67 Lee-Smeltzer J., 1995, Technical Services Quarterly, V12, P25 McKay D., 2007, Ariadne, Wikipedia, 2013, Lynch C. A., 2005, D-Lib Magazine, V11, Ware M, 2004, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V17, P115 Google, 2013, Yiotis K., 2008, OCLC Systems & Services, V24, Phillips M. E., 2011, Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Electronic Theses and Dissertations, September 13-17, Cape Town, St Jean Beth, 2011, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V72, P21 Mukherjee B., 2011, DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, V31, Schmitz D., 2008, Zhang Y, 2001, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V25, P370 Organ M. K., 2006, D-Lib Magazine, V12, Connaway L. S., 2010, Armbruster C., 2010, International Journal of Digital Library Systems, V1, =================================================================== * 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:000341602200001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Characteristics of randomized controlled trials of yoga: a *bibliometric* analysis Authors: Cramer, H; Lauche, R; Dobos, G Author Full Names: Cramer, Holger; Lauche, Romy; Dobos, Gustav Source: BMC COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, 14 10.1186/1472-6882-14-328 SEP 2 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Yoga, Complementary therapies, Randomized controlled trials, Bibliometrics, Review KeyWords Plus: QUALITY-OF-LIFE; LOW-BACK-PAIN; BREAST-CANCER PATIENTS; HEART-RATE-VARIABILITY; CHRONIC NECK PAIN; STYLE MODIFICATION PROGRAM; CORONARY-ARTERY-DISEASE; CONTROLLED PILOT TRIAL; PROGRESSIVE MUSCLE-RELAXATION; PROFESSIONAL COMPUTER USERS Abstract: Background: A growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the therapeutic value of yoga interventions. This bibliometric analysis aimed to provide a comprehensive review of the characteristics of the totality of available randomized yoga trials. Methods: All RCTs of yoga were eligible. Medline/PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, IndMED, and the tables of content of yoga specialty journals not listed in medical databases were screened through February 2014. Bibliometric data, data on participants, and intervention were extracted and analyzed descriptively. Results: Published between 1975 and 2014, a total of 366 papers were included, reporting 312 RCTs from 23 different countries with 22,548 participants. The median study sample size was 59 (range 8-410, interquartile range = 31, 93). Two hundred sixty-four RCTs (84.6%) were conducted with adults, 105 (33.7%) with older adults and 31 (9.9%) with children. Eighty-four RCTs (26.9%) were conducted with healthy participants. Other trials enrolled patients with one of 63 varied medical conditions; the most common being breast cancer (17 RCTs, 5.4%), depression (14 RCTs, 4.5%), asthma (14 RCTs, 4.5%) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (13 RCTs, 4.2%). Whilst 119 RCTs (38.1%) did not define the style of yoga used, 35 RCTs (11.2%) used Hatha yoga and 30 RCTs (9.6%) yoga breathing. The remaining 128 RCTs (41.0%) used 46 varied yoga styles, with a median intervention length of 9 weeks (range 1 day to 1 year; interquartile range = 5, 12). Two hundred and forty-four RCTs (78.2%) used yoga postures, 232 RCTs (74.4%) used breath control, 153 RCTs (49.0%) used meditation and 32 RCTs (10.3%) used philosophy lectures. One hundred and seventy-four RCTs (55.6%) compared yoga with no specific treatment; 21 varied control interventions were used in the remaining RCTs. Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis presents the most complete up-to-date overview on published randomized yoga trials. While the available research evidence is sparse for most conditions, there was a marked increase in published RCTs in recent years. Addresses: [Cramer, Holger; Lauche, Romy; Dobos, Gustav] Univ Duisburg Essen, Dept Internal & Integrat Med, Kliniken Essen Mitte, Fac Med, D-45276 Essen, Germany. E-mail Addresses: h.cramer at kliniken-essen-mitte.de Cited Reference Count: 521 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 236 GRAYS INN RD, FLOOR 6, LONDON WC1X 8HL, ENGLAND ISSN: 1472-6882 Article Number: 328 Web of Science Categories: Integrative & Complementary Medicine Research Areas: Integrative & Complementary Medicine IDS Number: AO8KB Unique ID: WOS:000341602200001 Cited References: Kligler Benjamin, 2011, ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES IN HEALTH AND MEDICINE, V17, P10 Annapoorna K, 2011, Asian J Psychiatry, V4, PS45 Telles Shirley, 2007, PERCEPTUAL AND MOTOR SKILLS, V104, P1289 Khalsa Sat Bir S., 2012, JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES & RESEARCH, V39, P80 Chaya Mayasandra S., 2012, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V18, P1161 Butler Lisa D., 2008, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, V64, P806 Chen Kuei-Min, 2008, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, V17, P2634 Doulatabad Shahla Najafi, 2012, African journal of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicines : AJTCAM / African Networks on Ethnomedicines, V10, P49 Telles Shirley, 2012, International journal of yoga, V5, P37 Mustian Karen M., 2013, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, V31, P3233 Mitchell Karen S., 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EATING DISORDERS, V40, P120 Ghasemi Gholam A, 2013, International journal of preventive medicine, V4, PS133 Narendran Shamanthakamani, 2005, Journal of the Indian Medical Association, V103, P12 Moadel Alyson B., 2007, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY7th World Congress of Psycho-Oncology, AUG 25-28, 2004, Copenhagen, DENMARK, V25, P4387 Field T, 2012, J Yoga Phys Ther, V2, P124 Jayashree R, 2013, International journal of yoga, V6, P39 Fl?ge T, 1994, Pneumologie (Stuttgart, Germany), V48, P484 Umadevi P, 2013, Indian journal of psychiatry, V55, PS385 Field Tiffany, 2012, Journal of bodywork and movement therapies, V16, P204 Blom K., 2012, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, V28, PS418 McIver Shane, 2009, COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE, V17, P196 Panjwani Usha, 1995, Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, V39, P111 Cramer Holger, 2014, American journal of hypertension, V27, P1146 Lansky Ephraim Philip, 2006, EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR, V9, P394 Huang A, 2012, Lessening Incontinence by Learning Yoga (LILY) (Trials registry number: NCT01672190), Pruthi S, 2012, Global Advances In Health and Medicine, V1, P30 Telles S, 1997, PERCEPTUAL AND MOTOR SKILLS, V84, P251 Aljasir Badr, 2010, EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, V7, P399 Chattha Ritu, 2008, MENOPAUSE-THE JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN MENOPAUSE SOCIETY, V15, P862 Gordon Lorenzo, 2013, International journal of yoga, V6, P31 Deshpande Sudheer, 2008, International journal of yoga, V1, P2 Cramer Holger, 2013, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V19, P536 Yogitha Bali, 2010, International journal of yoga, V3, P18 Krishna Bandi Hari, 2014, Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, V8, P14 RAWAL SB, 1994, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOMETEOROLOGY, V38, P44 Zhuang Shu-mei, 2013, NURSING RESEARCH, V62, P260 Ray U. S., 2001, Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, V45, P37 do Ros?rio Jos? Lu?s Pimentel, 2013, Journal of bodywork and movement therapies, V17, P469 Singh Savita, 2012, Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, V56, P63 Dhananjai S, 2013, International journal of yoga, V6, P66 Manjunath NK, 2012, SENSE, V2, P32 Nambi Gopal S, 2013, International journal of yoga, V6, P123 Kanojia Sarita, 2013, Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, V7, P2133 Franzblau Susan H., 2008, JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE, V23, P1800 Hartfiel N., 2012, OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD, V62, P606 Vandana B, 2011, Int J Yoga, V2011, P2 Rao Raghavendra M, 2008, International journal of yoga, V1, P11 Wolever Ruth Q., 2012, JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, V17, P246 Deshpande Sudheer, 2008, International journal of yoga, V1, P76 Carlson Linda E., 2013, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, V31, P3119 Kjellgren Anette, 2007, BMC complementary and alternative medicine, V7, P43 Bilderbeck Amy C., 2013, JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, V47, P1438 Ahmadi Azra, 2010, JOURNAL OF HUMAN KINETICS, V23, P71 Paikkatt Babu, 2012, Industrial psychiatry journal, V21, P109 Narendran S, 2005, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V11, P237 Cramer Holger, 2013, BMC PSYCHIATRY, V13, Garfinkel MS, 1998, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V280, P1601 Gordon Lorenzo, 2008, ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, V4, P427 Daleprane Bernardi Marina Lima, 2013, CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA, V18, P3621 Tharion Elizabeth, 2012, Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, V56, P80 Aslan UB, 2002, Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon, V13, P24 Culos-Reed S. Nicole, 2006, PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, V15, P891 Telles Shirley, 2006, MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, V12, PLE21 Joshi Meesha, 2008, Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, V52, P197 Naveen KV, 1997, PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS, V81, P555 NAGARATHNA R, 1985, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V291, P1077 MALATHI A, 1989, Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, V33, P110 Shahidi Mahvash, 2011, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY, V26, P322 Sun Yi-Chin, 2010, MIDWIFERY, V26, PE31 Bernardi L, 2001, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V323, P1446 Avis Nancy E., 2014, MENOPAUSE-THE JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN MENOPAUSE SOCIETY, V21, P846 Khatri Deepali, 2007, Diabetes research and clinical practice, V78, Pe9 Elavsky Steriani, 2007, ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, V33, P132 Amita S, 2009, Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, V53, P97 Choudhary A, 2013, International J Pharma and Bio Sci, V4, PB207 Hagins M, 2013, Evid Based Complement Alternat Med, V2013, Matsumoto M, 2001, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, V57, P1551 RANJBAR F, 2013, LIFE SCI J, V10, P565 Cade W. T., 2010, HIV MEDICINE, V11, P379 Manjunath NK, 2005, INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, V121, P683 Agrawal RP, 2003, International J Diabetes in Developing Countries, V23, P130 Bedekar Nilima, 2012, International journal of yoga, V5, P118 Janakiramaiah N, 2000, JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS, V57, P255 Visweswaraiah NK, 2004, RESPIROLOGY, V9, P96 Fraser Y.T, 2008, BMC. Complement. Altern. Med., V13, P8 Wolff Moa, 2013, BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS, V13, DiPietro L, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETYSports Medicine Annual Meeting, MAY, 1996, CINCINNATI, OHIO, V46, P875 Stein KM, 2014, J Yoga Phys Ther, V4, P151 Chen Kuei-Min, 2010, JOURNAL OF NURSING RESEARCH, V18, P53 Sharma VK, 2008, Biomedicine, V28, P139 Yang K, 2011, Evid Based Complement Alternat Med, V2011, Vadiraja H. S., 2009, COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE, V17, P274 Telles Shirley, 2012, International journal of yoga, V5, P102 Toise Stefanie C. F., 2014, PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, V37, P48 Skoro-Kondza Lana, 2009, BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, V9, Siedentopf F., 2013, GEBURTSHILFE UND FRAUENHEILKUNDE, V73, P311 Kinser Patricia Anne, 2013, ARCHIVES OF PSYCHIATRIC NURSING, V27, P137 Chan Weili, 2012, ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES IN HEALTH AND MEDICINE, V18, P34 McIver S, 2010, Focus Altern Complement Ther, V15, P43 Duraiswamy G., 2007, ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA, V116, P226 Manjunath N K, 2004, Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, V48, P353 Dhruva Anand, 2012, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V18, P473 Manjunath N. K., 2007, MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, V13, PLE19 Agarwal BB, 2012, J International Medical Sciences Academy, V25, P43 Vaishali K, 2012, Physical Occupat Ther Geriatrics, V30, P22 Dhikav Vikas, 2007, JOURNAL OF SEXUAL MEDICINE, V4, P1726 Fields KB, 2006, Br J Sports Med, V40, P63 de Godoy Dagoberto Vanoni, 2006, Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publica?a?o oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia, V32, P130 Bera T. K., 1993, Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, V37, P225 Sathyaprabha T. N., 2008, EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR, V12, P245 Littman Alyson J., 2012, SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER, V20, P267 Telles Shirley, 2011, PERCEPTUAL AND MOTOR SKILLS, V112, P981 Jayaram N, 2013, Indian journal of psychiatry, V55, PS409 Strijk Jorien E., 2013, SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH, V39, P66 Ahmadi Azra, 2013, IRANIAN RED CRESCENT MEDICAL JOURNAL, V15, P449 Danhauer Suzanne C., 2009, PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, V18, P360 Kyizom Tenzin, 2010, INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, V131, P636 Telles Shirley, 2013, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V19, P35 DATEY KK, 1969, ANGIOLOGY, V20, P325 White Laura Santangelo, 2012, JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC HEALTH CARE, V26, P45 Joshi Vidya S, 2011, Indian journal of medical sciences, V65, P424 Kinser Patricia Anne, 2013, EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, Jatuporn S, 2003, CLINICAL HEMORHEOLOGY AND MICROCIRCULATION5th Asian Congress for Microcirculation, FEB 20-22, 2003, MANILA, PHILIPPINES, V29, P429 Vadiraja HS, 2009, Int J Yoga, V2, P73 Rahnama N, 2011, J Isfahan Medical School, V29, P1 Kohn Monica, 2013, EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, Malhotra Varun, 2002, Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, V46, P298 Sharma Vivek Kumar, 2014, Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, V8, P10 Williams Kimberly, 2009, SPINE, V34, P2066 Markil Nina, 2012, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V18, P953 Ebnezar J, 2012, Yoga & Physical Therapy, V2, P114 Schell F J, 1994, International journal of psychosomatics : official publication of the International Psychosomatics Institute, V41, P46 Raghavendra R. M., 2007, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE, V16, P462 Afonso Rui Ferreira, 2012, MENOPAUSE-THE JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN MENOPAUSE SOCIETY, V19, P186 Kalayil JA, 1989, Diss Abstr Int, V49, P3626 BLUMENTHAL JA, 1991, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, V67, P633 Narendran S, 2005, J Indian Med Assoc, V103, P16 Jyotsna Viveka P, 2013, Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism, V17, P480 Harinath K, 2004, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V10, P261 HABER D, 1983, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGING & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, V17, P169 Park Juyoung, 2012, JOURNAL OF GERONTOLOGICAL NURSING, V38, P12 RAY US, 1986, INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, V83, P343 Cramer Holger, 2012, ACTA ONCOLOGICA, V51, P559 Iyengar BKS, 1966, Light on Yoga, Fan Jue-Ting, 2011, INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS, V23, P1222 Naveen G H, 2013, Indian journal of psychiatry, V55, PS400 Vogler J, 2011, Int J Yoga Therap, V21, P61 Malathi A., 1999, Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, V43, P218 Cox Helen, 2010, Complementary therapies in clinical practice, V16, P187 NHS, 2013, Your health, your choices. A guide to yoga, Kuttner Leora, 2006, Pain research & management : the journal of the Canadian Pain Society = journal de la soci?t? canadienne pour le traitement de la douleur, V11, P217 Pomykala KL, 2012, Aging Health, V8, P509 Nemati Azadeh, 2013, International journal of yoga, V6, P55 Evans Subhadra, 2013, CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN, V29, P988 Cohen DL, 2011, Evid Based Complement Alternat Med, V2011, Schulz LH, 2011, J Yoga Phys Ther, V1, Pe103 Biswas D, 2012, J Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University, V7, P247 Cramer Holger, 2014, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, V173, P170 Kauts Amit, 2009, International journal of yoga, V2, P39 Ornish Dean, 2013, LANCET ONCOLOGY, V14, P1112 Chung Sheng-Chia, 2012, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V18, P589 Saper Robert B., 2013, EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, Seo Dae Yun, 2012, KOREAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY & PHARMACOLOGY, V16, P175 Cebria IIMD, 2013, J Geriatr Phys Ther, V37, P65 Blank SE, 2003, Int J Yoga Ther, V13, P51 Cebria IIMD, 2014, Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol, Manjunath N. K., 2001, Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, V45, P351 Carter JJ, 2013, J Traumat Stress Disord Treat, V2, P57 Kim Ha-Na, 2013, JOURNAL OF SEXUAL MEDICINE, V10, P2741 Cramer Holger, 2013, PAIN MEDICINE, V14, P541 Field Tiffany, 2013, Journal of bodywork and movement therapies, V17, P397 Kerr D, 2002, Practical Diabetes International, V19, P164 Sharma Bhawana, 2013, Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, V57, P384 Saper Robert B., 2009, ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES IN HEALTH AND MEDICINE, V15, P18 Uebelacker Lisa A., 2010, JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC PRACTICE, V16, P22 Saxena Tarun, 2009, International journal of yoga, V2, P22 Ades PA, 2005, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY, V98, P1280 Bankar Mangesh A, 2013, Journal of Ayurveda and integrative medicine, V4, P28 Chen Kuei-Min, 2009, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, V46, P154 Manchanda SC, 2013, J Yoga Phys Ther, V3, P132 Sendhilkumar Ragupathy, 2013, DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION, V35, P57 Cheema Birinder S., 2013, BMC COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, V13, Deshpande Sudheer, 2009, International journal of yoga, V2, P13 Kovacic Tine, 2011, INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES, V10, P16 Cardozo B, 2006, Ayu, V27, P94 Singh S, 2001, Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB, V16, P216 Wolfgang WJ, 2010, Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil, V17, PS58 Telles Shirley, 2013, MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, V19, P61 Reed SD, 2014, Am J Obstet Gynecol, V210, P244 Nidhi Ram, 2012, International journal of yoga, V5, P112 Jensen Pauline S, 2004, Journal of attention disorders, V7, P205 John P. J., 2007, HEADACHE, V47, P654 Smith J. Andy, 2011, ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES IN HEALTH AND MEDICINE, V17, P22 Shankarapillai Rajesh, 2012, International journal of yoga, V5, P48 Khasky AD, 1999, PERCEPTUAL AND MOTOR SKILLS, V88, P409 Xie J, 2006, J Nursing (China), V13, P9 Posadzki Paul, 2014, COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE, V22, P511 Sodhi Candy, 2009, Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, V53, P169 Bellad AS, 2012, Biomedicine (India), V32, P222 Feuerstein G, 1998, The Yoga Tradition, KRONERHERWIG B, 1995, JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH, V39, P153 Kandula Namratha R., 2013, CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, V36, P479 Donesky D, 2012, Int J Yoga Therap, V22, P23 Javnbakht M, 2009, Complementary therapies in clinical practice, V15, P102 Madanmohan Udupa K, 2005, Indian J Physiol Pharmacol, V49, P313 Rao Raghavendra M, 2008, International journal of yoga, V1, P33 VANMONTFRANS GA, 1990, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V300, P1368 Galantino ML, 2004, ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES IN HEALTH AND MEDICINE, V10, P56 Raghavendra BR, 2008, Med Sci Monit, V14, PLE3 Nidhi Ram, 2012, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, V118, P37 Gopal Aravind, 2011, International journal of yoga, V4, P26 Moemeni M, 2012, Life Science J, V9, P1133 Soni Ritu, 2012, International journal of yoga, V5, P123 Tekur Padmini, 2008, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V14, P637 Innes Kim E., 2011, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V17, P453 Rani Khushbu, 2012, International journal of yoga, V5, P52 Subramanian Swapna, 2012, International journal of yoga, V5, P21 Katzman Martin A, 2012, International journal of yoga, V5, P57 Phoosuwan Manop, 2009, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet, V92 Suppl5, PS102 Mourya Monika, 2009, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V15, P711 Culos-Reed SN ECL, 2004, Int J Yoga Therap, V14, P45 Field Tiffany, 2013, Complementary therapies in clinical practice, V19, P6 Vempati Ramaprabhu, 2009, BMC pulmonary medicine, V9, P37 Monro R, 1992, Complementary Medical Research, V6, P66 Yogendra J, 2004, The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, V52, P283 Greendale Gail A., 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, V57, P1569 Yogitha B, 2012, J Yoga Phys Ther, V2, P108 Goncalves Leila Castro, 2011, ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS, V53, P158 Telles Shirley, 2009, WORK-A JOURNAL OF PREVENTION ASSESSMENT & REHABILITATION, V33, P297 Kochupillai V, 2005, NATURAL PRODUCTS AND MOLECULAR THERAPY1st International Conference on Natural Products and Molecular Medicine, JAN 13-15, 2005, Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA, V1056, P242 Taneja I, 2004, APPLIED PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY AND BIOFEEDBACK, V29, P19 Sanjay US, 2012, SENSE, V2, P79 Lavretsky H., 2013, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY, V28, P57 Mendelson Tamar, 2010, JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY, V38, P985 Nidhi Ram, 2013, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V19, P153 Kozasa Elisa Harumi, 2008, PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS, V103, P271 Black DS, 2012, Psychoneuroendocrinology, V38, P348 Tilbrook Helen E., 2011, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V155, P569 Cohen L, 2008, J Clinical Oncol: ASCO annual meeting proceedings, V26, P9639 Pal Ajay, 2011, COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE, V19, P122 Burkhart J, 2012, J Yoga Phys Ther, V2, P116 Ebnezar John, 2012, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V18, P463 Nidhi R, 2012, Appl Res Qual Life, V8, P373 Ide Maiza Ritomy, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES, V11, P131 Turankar A. V., 2013, INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, V137, P916 Higgins JJ, 2008, Elavsky Steriani, 2009, PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, V46, P123 Bock Beth C., 2012, JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH, V21, P240 Pullen Paula R., 2010, MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE, V42, P651 Mizuno Julio, 2013, Journal of bodywork and movement therapies, V17, P35 Rohini V., 2000, NIMHANS, V18, P53 Mandanmohan JL, 2003, Indian J Physiol Pharmacol, V47, P387 Rakhshaee Zahra, 2011, JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC AND ADOLESCENT GYNECOLOGY, V24, P192 Tekur Padmini, 2010, International journal of yoga, V3, P10 MADDEN DJ, 1989, PSYCHOLOGY AND AGING, V4, P307 Dhameja Kanupriya, 2013, JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, V19, P243 Gopinathan G, 2012, Ayu, V33, P543 Bowden Deborah, 2012, EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, Vadiraja H S, 2009, Integrative cancer therapies, V8, P37 Katiyar SK, 2006, Indian J Allergy Asthma Immunol, V20, P98 Murugesan R., 2000, Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, V44, P207 Joshi Sulabha, 2011, Menopause international, V17, P78 Van Puymbroeck Marieke, 2007, EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, V4, P519 Cohen L, 2004, CANCER6th World Congress of Psycho-Oncology, APR 23-27, 2003, Banff, CANADA, V100, P2253 Shelov Danielle V., 2009, BEHAVIOURAL AND COGNITIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY, V37, P595 Rao M. Raghavendra, 2009, COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE, V17, P1 Telles Shirley, 2006, Head & face medicine, V2, P46 Ray US, 2001, INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, V114, P215 Donohue B, 2006, BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, V40, P60 Lakkireddy Dhanunjaya, 2013, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, V61, P1177 Baker J, 2011, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Techniques and Yoga for treatment of urinary urge incontinence (MBSR-Yoga) (Trials Registry number: NCT01470560), West J, 2004, ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, V28, P114 Goering A., 2013, DEUTSCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SPORTMEDIZIN, V64, P280 Manocha R, 2011, Evid Based Complement Alternat Med, V2011, Michalsen Andreas, 2012, EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, Noggle Jessica J., 2012, JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL PEDIATRICS, V33, P193 NORTON GR, 1983, JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR THERAPY AND EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHIATRY, V14, P209 Sharma Vivek Kumar, 2013, International journal of yoga, V6, P104 Ebnezar John, 2011, International journal of yoga, V4, P55 HASLOCK I, 1994, BRITISH JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, V33, P787 Hartfiel Ned, 2011, SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH, V37, P70 Attanayake AMP, 2010, Ayu, V31, P245 Ikai Saeko, 2013, JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, V47, P1744 Barnes PM, 2008, National Health Statistics Reports, V10, P1 Rakhshani A., 2012, PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, V55, P333 Trakroo Madanmohan, 2013, International journal of yoga, V6, P96 Yurtkuran M., 2007, COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE, V15, P164 Stachenfeld NS, 1998, MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE, V30, P92 Schmid Arlene A., 2012, STROKE, V43, P2402 Tracy Brian L., 2013, JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH, V27, P822 Innes Kim E., 2012, EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, Kumar Neeta, 2013, Indian journal of palliative care, V19, P180 Hariprasad V R, 2013, Indian journal of psychiatry, V55, PS357 Kovacic T, 2013, J Complement Integr Med, V10, P153 Mustian KM, 2011, J Clin Oncol, Dangerfield A, 2009, BBC news magazine, YUILLE JC, 1980, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, V65, P333 GARFINKEL MS, 1994, JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, V21, P2341 Sharma VK, 2007, Biomedicine, V27, P95 Pal A., 2013, EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN HEALTH JOURNAL, V19, P452 ======================================================================== 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:000341681800057 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A comparative *bibliometric* analysis of the top 150 cited papers in hypospadiology (1945-2013) Authors: O'Kelly, F; Nason, GJ; McLoughlin, LC; Flood, HD; Thornhill, JA Author Full Names: O'Kelly, F.; Nason, G. J.; McLoughlin, L. C.; Flood, H. D.; Thornhill, J. A. Source: BJU INTERNATIONAL, 114 39-39; 2 SI SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Meeting Abstract Conference Title: Annual Scientific Meeting of the Irish-Society-of-Urology Conference Date: SEP 25-26, 2014 Conference Location: Killarney, IRELAND Conference Sponsors: Irish Soc Urol Addresses: [O'Kelly, F.; McLoughlin, L. C.; Thornhill, J. A.] Tallaght Hosp, Dept Urol Surg, Dublin, Ireland. [Nason, G. J.; Flood, H. D.] Univ Hosp, Dept Urol Surg, Limerick, Ireland. Cited Reference Count: 3 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 1464-4096 eISSN: 1464-410X Web of Science Categories: Urology & Nephrology Research Areas: Urology & Nephrology IDS Number: AO9NG Unique ID: WOS:000341681800057 Cited References: Paulozzi LJ, 1999, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, V107, P297 Weale Andy R, 2004, BMC medical research methodology, V4, P14 Li Juan, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, ========================================================================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:000341681800009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Is *citation* index a good indicator of landmark papers in Urology? Authors: McLoughlin, LC; O'Kelly, F; Thornhill, JA Author Full Names: McLoughlin, L. C.; O'Kelly, F.; Thornhill, J. A. Source: BJU INTERNATIONAL, 114 20-20; 2 SI SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Meeting Abstract Conference Title: Annual Scientific Meeting of the Irish-Society-of-Urology Conference Date: SEP 25-26, 2014 Conference Location: Killarney, IRELAND Conference Sponsors: Irish Soc Urol Addresses: [McLoughlin, L. C.; O'Kelly, F.; Thornhill, J. A.] Tallaght Hosp, Dept Urol, Dublin, Ireland. Cited Reference Count: 1 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 1464-4096 eISSN: 1464-410X Web of Science Categories: Urology & Nephrology Research Areas: Urology & Nephrology IDS Number: AO9NG Unique ID: WOS:000341681800009 Cited References: Baltussen A, 2004, ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, V98, P443 ======================================================================== 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:000341355400016 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The derivatives of the evaluation of the research. The good use of *bibliometrics* Authors: Torny, D Author Full Names: Torny, Didier Source: SOCIOLOGIE DU TRAVAIL, 56 (3):404-406; 10.1016/j.soctra.2014.06.003 JUL-SEP 2014 Language: French Document Type: Book Review Addresses: [Torny, Didier] UR INRA 1323, Risques Travail Marche Etat RiTME, F-94205 Ivry, France. E-mail Addresses: didier.torny at ivry.inra.fr Cited Reference Count: 3 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER, 23 RUE LINOIS, 75724 PARIS, FRANCE ISSN: 0038-0296 Web of Science Categories: Sociology Research Areas: Sociology IDS Number: AO5BJ Unique ID: WOS:000341355400016 Cited References: Wouters P. F., 1999, The Citation Culture, GINGRAS Y, 2014, DERIVES EVALUATION R, P122 Pontille D., 2013, Reseaux, V177, P23 ======================================================================== 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:000341924600009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Analysis on research activity and impact of authors in Chinese information science based on *citation* relationship Authors: Wang, FF; Jayroe, TJ; Qiu, JP; Yu, HQ Author Full Names: Wang, Feifei; Jayroe, Tina J.; Qiu, Junping; Yu, Houqiang Source: JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, 70 (3):461-477; 10.1108/JD-03-2012-0030 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: China, Factor analysis, Communication, Information Science, Social network analysis, Author co-citation analysis, Author bibliographic-coupling analysis, Research activity and impact KeyWords Plus: COCITATION ANALYSIS Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to further explore the co-citation and bibliographic-coupling relationship among the core authors in the field of Chinese information science (IS), to expose research activity and author impact, and to make induction analyses about Chinese IS research patterns and theme evolution. Design/methodology/approach - The research data include 8,567 papers and 70,947 cited articles in the IS field indexed by Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index from 2000 to 2009. Author co-citation analysis, author bibliographic-coupling analysis, social network analysis, and factor analysis were combined to explore co-citation and bibliographic-coupling relationships and to identify research groups and subjects. Findings - Scholars with greatest impact are different from the most active scholars of Chinese IS; there is no uniform impact pattern forming since authors' impact subjects are scattered and not steady; while authors' research activities present higher independence and concentration, there is still no steady research pattern due to no deep research existing. Furthermore, Chinese IS studies can be delineated by: foundation or extension. The research subjects of these two parts, as well as their corresponding/contributing authors, are different under different views. The general research status of core authors is concentrated, while their impact is broad. Originality/value - The combined use of some related methods could enrich the development and methodology research of the discipline, and the results establish a reference point on the development of IS research. Addresses: [Wang, Feifei; Yu, Houqiang] Wuhan Univ, Sch Informat Management, Wuhan 430072, Peoples R China. [Jayroe, Tina J.] Univ Wisconsin Milwaukee, Sch Informat Studies, Milwaukee, WI USA. [Qiu, Junping] Wuhan Univ, Res Ctr Sci Evaluat, Wuhan 430072, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: wangfeifei at whu.edu.cn Cited Reference Count: 26 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED, HOWARD HOUSE, WAGON LANE, BINGLEY BD16 1WA, W YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 0022-0418 eISSN: 1758-7379 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: AP2SI Unique ID: WOS:000341924600009 Cited References: Yang J. X., 2005, Rising and developing of knowledge management science, Boyack Kevin W., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P2389 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Li Y. T., 1992, Information Studies: Theory & Application, V92, P5 Wang F. F., 2010, Wuhan Daxue Xuebao (Xinxi Kexue Ban), V35, P123 Wang Feifei, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P1011 Xu Y. Y., 2008, Information Studies: Theory & Application, V31, P184 Qiu Junping, 2008, Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, V27, Marion LS, 2003, ASIST 2003: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 66TH ASIST ANNUAL MEETING, VOL 40, 200366th Annual Meeting of the American-Society-for-Information-Science-and-Technology, OCT 19-22, 2003, Long Beach, CA, V40, P486 White HD, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V49, P327 Diodato V. P., 1994, Dictionary of Bibliometrics, Bar-Ilan Judit, 2006, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V42, P1553 Hair J. F., 1998, Multivariate Data Analysis, Zhao Dangzhi, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P916 MCCAIN KW, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P433 Zhao Dangzhi, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P2070 WHITE HD, 1981, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V32, P163 Kuhn T., 1996, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Price D. J. d. S., 1963, Little Science, Big Science, White HD, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P423 KESSLER MM, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P10 Qiu J. P., 2007, Informetrics, Wolfram D., 2003, Applied Informetrics for Information Retrieval Research, White HD, 2001, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V52, P87 Swarna T., 2008, MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE, V13, P49 White HD, 2000, WEB OF KNOWLEDGE - A FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF EUGENE GARFIELD, P475 ======================================================================== 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:000341256300004 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Technology in family business studies. A *bibliometric* analysis (1991-2012) Authors: Dessi, C; Floris, M; Sanna, A Author Full Names: Dessi, Cinzia; Floris, Michela; Sanna, Alessia Edited by: Therin F Source: HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH ON TECHNO-ENTREPRENEURSHIP: HOW TECHNOLOGY AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP ARE SHAPING THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMPANIES, 2ND EDITION, 39-59; 2013 Language: English Document Type: Article; Book Chapter KeyWords Plus: FIRMS Addresses: [Dessi, Cinzia; Floris, Michela; Sanna, Alessia] Univ Cagliari, I-09124 Cagliari, Italy. E-mail Addresses: cdessi at unica.it; micfloris at unica.it Cited Reference Count: 23 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EDWARD ELGAR PUBLISHING LTD, GLENSANDA HOUSE, MONTPELLIER PARADE, CHELTENHAM GL50 1UA, GLOS, ENGLAND ISBN: 978-1-78195-182-8; 978-1-78195-181-1 Web of Science Categories: Business; Management Research Areas: Business & Economics IDS Number: BB1PY Unique ID: WOS:000341256300004 Cited References: Swanson EB, 2005, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, V20, P20 Microsoft Corp, 2007, Microsoft family business survey, Upton N., 2000, Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, V2, P27 Astrachan J. H., 2003, First Annual Global Entrepreneurship Symposium: The Entrepreneurial Advantage of Nations, 29 April, New York, Shepherd D, 2003, From conservatism to entrepreneurialism: The case of Swedish family firms, Aronoff C.E., 1998, Family Business Review, V11, P181 Zahra S. A., 1993, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, V18, P47 Wortman M. S., 1995, Proceedings of the 40th International Council for Small Business Research Conference, Sydney, NSW, van Leeuwen T, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 23-25, 2004, Leiden, NETHERLANDS, V66, P133 SHARMA P., 1997, J. of Family Business Review, V10, P1 Koberg CS, 1996, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS VENTURING, V11, P133 Barney J. B., 2003, Theories of the Family Enterprise Conference, Philadelphia, SHANKER M.C., 1996, Family Business Review, V9, P107 Bradford S. C., 1934, Engineering, V137, P85 MILLER D, 1993, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V18, P116 Morris M. H., 1998, Entrepreneurial Intensity: Sustainable Advantages for Individuals, Organizations, and Societies, Poza E. J., 2004, Family Business, Zahra SA, 2005, FAMILY BUSINESS REVIEW, V18, P23 Handler W. C., 1989, Family Business Review, V2, P257 Zahra SA, 2004, ENTREPRENEURSHIP-THEORY AND PRACTICE, V28, P363 Chua JH, 2002, INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN WESTERN CANADA: FROM FAMILY BUSINESSES TO MULTINATIONALS3rd InnoCom Conference, APR 27-28, 2000, CALGARY, CANADA, P299 Littunen H., 2000, Family Business Review, V13, P14 Aldrich H. E., 2003, Journal of Business Venturing, V18, P507 ======================================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Wed Oct 15 16:49:21 2014 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:49:21 +0000 Subject: New paper on Philosophy of Science In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Lutz I enjoyed reading your paper. I am sending your email to several friends who may be interested as well. Gene Garfield ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:21 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] New paper on Philosophy of Science Philosophy of science viewed through the lense of "References Publication Years spectrosopy" (RPYS) K. Brad Wray, Lutz Bornmann (Submitted on 13 Oct 2014) We examine the sub-field of philosophy of science using a new method developed in information science, Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy (RPYS). RPYS allows us to identify peak years in citations in a field, which promises to help scholars identify the key contributions to a field, and revolutionary discoveries in a field. We discovered that philosophy of science, a sub-field in the humanities, differs significantly from other fields examined with this method. Books play a more important role in philosophy of science than in the sciences. Further, Einstein's famous 1905 papers created a citation peak in the philosophy of science literature. But rather than being a contribution to the philosophy of science, their importance lies in the fact that they are revolutionary contributions to physics with important implications for philosophy of science. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3461 Von meinem iPad gesendet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Thu Oct 16 00:30:34 2014 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:30:34 +0000 Subject: New paper on Philosophy of Science In-Reply-To: <1654640A36FE964C936514B2FD0B2CB406A89C25@EAGH-ERFPMBX40.ERF.thomson.com> Message-ID: Thank you, Gene! Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 15.10.2014 um 22:51 schrieb Eugene Garfield >: Dear Lutz I enjoyed reading your paper. I am sending your email to several friends who may be interested as well. Gene Garfield ________________________________ From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:21 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] New paper on Philosophy of Science Philosophy of science viewed through the lense of "References Publication Years spectrosopy" (RPYS) K. Brad Wray, Lutz Bornmann (Submitted on 13 Oct 2014) We examine the sub-field of philosophy of science using a new method developed in information science, Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy (RPYS). RPYS allows us to identify peak years in citations in a field, which promises to help scholars identify the key contributions to a field, and revolutionary discoveries in a field. We discovered that philosophy of science, a sub-field in the humanities, differs significantly from other fields examined with this method. Books play a more important role in philosophy of science than in the sciences. Further, Einstein's famous 1905 papers created a citation peak in the philosophy of science literature. But rather than being a contribution to the philosophy of science, their importance lies in the fact that they are revolutionary contributions to physics with important implications for philosophy of science. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3461 Von meinem iPad gesendet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Thu Oct 16 02:53:20 2014 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:53:20 +0000 Subject: new paper Message-ID: Bornmann, L. & Mutz, R. (in press). How well does a university perform in comparison with other universities? The use of odds, and odds ratios, for the comparison of institutional citation impact using the example of the Leiden Rankings. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1203569 --------------------------------------- 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 ResearchGate: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lutz_Bornmann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vincent.lariviere at UMONTREAL.CA Fri Oct 17 12:59:54 2014 From: vincent.lariviere at UMONTREAL.CA (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Larivi=E8re_Vincent?=) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:59:54 +0000 Subject: ASIST Workshop on Metrics Message-ID: *********** Apologies for cross-posting *********** Dear Colleagues, The program of the ASIST Workshop on Metrics, to be held on Nov 5 at the ASIST meeting in Seattle, is now available: http://www.asis.org/SIG/SIGMET/activities/metrics-2014-program/ Cheers, VL ________________________ Vincent Larivi?re, Ph.D. Canada Research Chair on the Transformations of Scholarly Communication ?cole de biblioth?conomie et des sciences de l'information (EBSI) Universit? de Montr?al Associate Scientific Director Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) Universit? du Qu?bec ? Montr?al T?l: +1.514.343.5600 Fax: +1.514.343.5753 http://crc.ebsi.umontreal.ca vincent.lariviere at umontreal.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bazrafshan.a.83 at GMAIL.COM Sat Oct 18 00:14:28 2014 From: bazrafshan.a.83 at GMAIL.COM (azam bazrafshan) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 07:44:28 +0330 Subject: How variable are the journal impact measures? Message-ID: How variable are the journal impact measures? Aliakbar Haghdoost , Morteza Zare , Azam Bazrafshan , (2014) "How variable are the journal impact measures?", Online Information Review, Vol. 38 Iss: 6, pp.723 - 737 Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2014-0102 Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the variability of the impact factor (IF) and additional metrics in biomedical journals to provide some clues to the reliability of journal citation indicators. Design/methodology/approach - Having used ISI Journal Citation Reports, from 2005 to 2011, the authors extracted 62 subject categories related to biomedical sciences. The category lists and citation profile for each journal were then downloaded and extracted. Coefficient of variation was applied to estimate the overall variability of the journal citation indicators. Findings - Total citation indicators for 3,411 journals were extracted and examined. The overall variability of IFs and other journal citation measures in basic, clinical or translational, open access or subscription journals decreased while the quality and prestige of those journals developed. Interestingly, journal citation measures produced dissimilar variability trends and thus highlighted the importance of using multiple instead of just one measure in evaluating the performance and influence of biomedical journals. Eigenfactor(tm), Article's Influence and Cited Half Life proposed as more reliable indicators. Originality/value - The relative variability of the journal citation measures in biomedical journals would decrease with a development in the impact and quality of journals. Eigenfactor(tm) and Cited Half Life are suggested as more reliable measures indicating few changes during the study period and across different impact level journals. These findings will be useful for librarians, researchers and decision makers who need to use citation measures as evaluative tools. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Sun Oct 19 16:36:21 2014 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 20:36:21 +0000 Subject: Papers of possible interest to readers of the SIG-Metrics List October 19, 2014 Message-ID: *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000342209200001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Disclosure of Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in Phase III Surgical Trials: Survey of Ten General Surgery *Journals* Authors: Bridoux, V; Moutel, G; Schwarz, L; Michot, F; Herve, C; Tuech, JJ Author Full Names: Bridoux, Valerie; Moutel, Gregoire; Schwarz, Lilian; Michot, Francis; Herve, Christian; Tuech, Jean-Jacques Source: WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 38 (10):2487-2493; 10.1007/s00268-014-2580-5 OCT 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: FINANCIAL COMPETING INTERESTS; RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIAL; DOUBLE-BLIND; INTRAABDOMINAL INFECTIONS; PHARMACEUTICAL-INDUSTRY; LONG-TERM; ASSOCIATION; CONCLUSIONS; AUTHORSHIP; PHYSICIANS Abstract: Discussions regarding disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest (COI) in published peer-reviewed journal articles are becoming increasingly more common and intense. The aim of the present study was to examine whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in leading surgery journals report funding sources and COI. All articles reporting randomized controlled phase III trials published January 2005 through December 2010 were chosen for review from ten international journals. We evaluated the number of disclosed funding sources and COI, and the factors associated with such disclosures. >From a review of 657 RCT from the ten journals, we discovered that presence or absence of a funding source and COI was disclosed by 47 % (309) and 25.1 % (165), respectively. Most articles in "International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-affiliated journals" did not disclose COI. Disclosure of funding was associated with a journal *impact factor* > 3 (51.7 vs 41.6 %; p < 0.01), statistician/epidemiologist involvement (64.2 vs 43.7 %; p < 0.001), publication after 2008 (52.9 vs 41.1 %; p < 0.01), and the journal being ICMJE-affiliated (49.3 vs 40 %; p < 0.05). Conflict of interest disclosure was associated with publication after 2008 (38.7 vs 11.3 %; p < 0.001), and with the journal not being affiliated with ICMJE (36.9 vs 21.3 %; p < 0.001). Of the published studies we investigated, over half did not disclose funding sources (i.e., whether or not there was a funding source), and almost three quarters did not disclose whether COI existed. Our findings suggest the need to adopt best current practices regarding disclosure of competing interests to fulfill responsibilities to readers and, ultimately, to patients. Addresses: [Bridoux, Valerie; Schwarz, Lilian; Michot, Francis; Tuech, Jean-Jacques] Rouen Univ Hosp, Dept Digest Surg, F-76031 Rouen, France. [Bridoux, Valerie; Moutel, Gregoire; Herve, Christian; Tuech, Jean-Jacques] Lab Med Eth, F-75006 Paris, France. E-mail Addresses: Jean-jacques.tuech at chu-rouen.fr Cited Reference Count: 42 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA ISSN: 0364-2313 eISSN: 1432-2323 Web of Science Categories: Surgery Research Areas: Surgery IDS Number: AP6SY Unique ID: WOS:000342209200001 Cited References: Okike Kanu, 2009, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V361, P1466 Jagsi Reshma, 2009, CANCER, V115, P2783 Sismondo Sergio, 2008, CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, V29, P109 Dellinger E. Patchen, 2007, ANNALS OF SURGERY45th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, DEC 16-19, 2005, Washington, DC, V245, P674 Kumara H. M. C. Shantha, 2009, EJSO, V35, P295 Moher David, 2010, BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V340, Woodle E. Steve, 2008, ANNALS OF SURGERY, V248, P564 Schroter S, 2004, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V328, P742 Duvall David G., 2006, CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, V22, P1807 Chan AW, 2005, LANCET, V365, P1159 Hussain A, 2001, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V323, P263 Clifford TJ, 2002, BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, V2, Bhattacharyya Neil, 2009, OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, V141, P311 Ross Joseph S., 2008, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V299, P1800 Agnelli G, 2005, BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, V92, P1212 Als-Nielsen B, 2003, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V290, P921 Malangoni Mark A., 2006, ANNALS OF SURGERY44th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, OCT 30-NOV 02, 2004, Washington, DC, V244, P204 Bero Lisa, 2007, PLOS MEDICINE, V4, P1001 Riechelmann Rachel P., 2007, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, V25, P4642 Chaudhry S, 2002, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V325, P1391 Cookson R, 2005, BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERYMeeting of the Association-of-Endoscopic-Surgeons-of-Great-Britain-and-Ireland, NOV 29, 2002, Hull, ENGLAND, V92, P700 Wassenaar Eelco, 2010, SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, V24, P1296 Gross CP, 2003, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V326, P526 Yellin Albert E., 2007, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, V194, P367 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2012, Biomedical Journals, Kjaergard LL, 2002, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V325, P249 Bodenheimer T, 2000, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V342, P1539 Drazen Jeffrey M., 2010, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V303, P75 Bekelman JE, 2003, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V289, P454 Gayral Francois, 2009, ANNALS OF SURGERY, V250, P872 THOMPSON DF, 1993, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V329, P573 Stossel Thomas P., 2008, SURGERY, V143, P193 Tuech JJ, 2005, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V41, P2237 Lerut Jan, 2008, ANNALS OF SURGERY15th Annual Meeting of the European-Surgical-Association, APR, 2007, Venice, ITALY, V248, P956 Lexchin J, 2003, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V326, P1167 Chemla E. S., 2009, BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, V96, P34 Friedman LS, 2004, JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, V19, P51 Weinfurt Kevin P., 2008, PLOS ONE, V3, Bhandari M, 2004, CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, V170, P477 Klitzman Robert, 2010, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, V36, P505 Khan S. N., 2008, Am J Orthop, V37, PE205 Mack Michael J., 2009, ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, V87, P1334 =================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341994400002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Too Much Impact? Scientific *Journals* and the "*Impact Factor*" Authors: Zietman, AL Author Full Names: Zietman, Anthony L. Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 90 (2):246-248; 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.018 OCT 1 2014 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Addresses: Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Boston, MA 02114 USA. E-mail Addresses: azietman at partners.org Cited Reference Count: 14 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010-1710 USA ISSN: 0360-3016 eISSN: 1879-355X Web of Science Categories: Oncology; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging Research Areas: Oncology; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging IDS Number: AP3RI Unique ID: WOS:000341994400002 Cited References: Committee on Publication Ethics, Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors, Fontanarosa Phil B., 2014, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V311, P2179 Roberts William Clifford, 2011, The American journal of cardiology, V108, P896 Web of Science, Journal self-citation in the journal citation reports-science edition 2002, Zietman Anthony L., 2013, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, V86, P218 Heffner Mary, 2014, personal communication, Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Zietman Anthony, 2013, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, V87, P7 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Cox James D, 2011, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, V81, P1206 McVeigh Marie E., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P1107 Thelwall Mike, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, Zietman AL, 2013, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, V89, P937 Davis P, The emergence of a citation cartel, ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341884900003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A quantitative analysis of authors, schools and themes in virtue ethics articles in business ethics and management *journals* (1980-2011) Authors: Ferrero, I; Sison, AJG Author Full Names: Ferrero, Ignacio; Sison, Alejo Jose G. Source: BUSINESS ETHICS-A EUROPEAN REVIEW, 23 (4):375-400; 10.1111/beer.12057 OCT 2014 Language: English Document Type: Review KeyWords Plus: CORPORATE CRISIS MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATIONAL VIRTUE; INTELLECTUAL STRUCTURE; STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS; SOCIAL-RESPONSIBILITY; DECISION-MAKING; IMPACT FACTOR; MORAL AGENCY; CHARACTER; LEADERSHIP Abstract: Virtue ethics is generally recognized as one of the three major schools of ethics, but is often waylaid by utilitarianism and deontology in business and management literature. EBSCO and ABI databases were used to look for articles in the Journal of Citation Reports publications between 1980 and 2011 containing the keywords virtue ethics', virtue theory', or virtuousness' in the abstract and business' or management' in the text. The search was refined to draw lists of the most prolific authors, the most cited authors, the most cited articles, and the journals with the most virtue ethics publications. This information allows one to chart how virtue ethics articles have evolved through the decades and to establish schools' or clusters of authors as well as clusters of themes. The results of this quantitative analysis of authors, schools', themes, and publications provide a foundation for the future study of virtue ethics in business and management, identifying its achievements and potentials. Addresses: [Ferrero, Ignacio] Univ Navarra, Fac Econ, Navarra, Spain. [Sison, Alejo Jose G.] Univ Navarra, Fac Philosophy, Navarra, Spain. Cited Reference Count: 170 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 0962-8770 eISSN: 1467-8608 Web of Science Categories: Business; Ethics Research Areas: Business & Economics; Social Sciences - Other Topics IDS Number: AP2EI Unique ID: WOS:000341884900003 Cited References: Solomon RC, 2003, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V13, P43 Fort T., 2000, Business Ethics Quarterly, V10, P725 FURMAN FK, 1990, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V9, P31 Solomon R. C., 1992, Business Ethics Quarterly, V2, P317 Gowri Aditi, 2007, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V70, P391 Collier J., 1995, Business Ethics: A European Review, V4, P143 Swanton C., 2003, Virtue Ethics. A Pluralistic Approach, Whetstone JT, 2003, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V44, P343 Roca Esther, 2008, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V82, P607 Limbs EC, 2000, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V26, P169 Moore G, 1999, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V21, P329 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Neron Pierre-Yves, 2008, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V18, P1 Koehn D., 1998, Business Ethics Quarterly, V8, P497 Moore G, 2005, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V15, P237 DONALDSON T, 1994, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V19, P252 Shaw B., 1996, Business Ethics Quarterly, V6, P373 MACDONALD JE, 1994, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V13, P615 Ma Zhenzhong, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT, V19, P234 Moberg D. J., 2000, Business Ethics Quarterly, V10, P675 Simola S, 2003, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V46, P351 Bright DS, 2006, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V64, P249 MCCAIN KW, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P433 Robertson CJ, 2003, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V24, P385 Lahdesmaki M, 2005, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V61, P55 Aranzadi Javier, 2011, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS16th International Symposium on Ethics, Business-and-Society, MAY 13-15, 2010, Barcelona, SPAIN, V99, P87 Giovanola Benedetta, 2009, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS15th IESE International Symposium on Ethics, Business and Society, MAY 16-17, 2008, Barcelona, SPAIN, V88, P431 Hartman E. M., 1998, Business Ethics Quarterly, V8, P547 Stieb J, 2006, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V63, P75 Vogt CP, 2005, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS10th Annual International Conference on Promoting Business Ethics, OCT, 2003, Garden City, NY, V58, P111 Koehn D., 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly, V5, P533 Bowie N. E., 1991, Business Ethics Quarterly, V1, P1 KAHN WA, 1990, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V15, P311 Sandin Per, 2009, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V87, P109 Graafland J. J., 2010, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V91, P1 Shanahan KJ, 2003, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V42, P197 Shaw B., 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly, V5, P843 Newton L., 1992, Business Ethics Quarterly, V2, P357 Drake Matthew J., 2008, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V82, P851 Lau Victor P., 2009, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V90, P279 Moberg D. J., 1999, Business Ethics Quarterly, V9, P245 Biemans Wim, 2007, JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, V24, P193 Gotsis George N., 2010, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V93, P497 Brewer KB, 1997, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V16, P825 Dobson J., 1997, Business Ethics Quarterly, V7, P125 MacLellan C, 1997, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V16, P1201 Dawson David, 2009, BUSINESS ETHICS-A EUROPEAN REVIEW, V18, P95 Calkins M, 2002, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V12, P305 Libby T, 2004, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V14, P479 Morrell Kevin, 2010, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V96, P249 Peterson Christopher, 2006, JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, V27, P1149 Wicks A. C., 1997, Business Ethics Quarterly, V7, P133 McCracken J, 1998, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V17, P25 Arjoon S, 2000, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V28, P159 COSTA PT, 1992, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, V6, P85 Crockett C, 2005, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V62, P191 Horvath C., 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly, V5, P499 Whetstone JT, 2001, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V33, P101 Adler R., 2008, Citation statistics: a report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS), Moore Geoff, 2008, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V18, P483 BARRICK MR, 1991, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, V44, P1 Weisband Edward, 2009, AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTISTSymposium on Democracy in an Age of Network Governance, MAR 01-03, 2007, Blacksburg, VA, V52, P905 Werhane P. H., 1994, Business Ethics Quarterly, V4, P287 Moore G, 2005, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V15, P659 Mele Domenec, 2009, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS21st Annual Conference of the European-Business-Ethics-Network, OCT 17-19, 2008, Antalya, TURKEY, V88, P227 Hartman Edwin M., 2008, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS14th International Symposium on Ethics, Business and Society, MAY 18-19, 2006, Barcelona, SPAIN, V78, P313 Alzola Miguel, 2008, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS14th International Symposium on Ethics, Business and Society, MAY 18-19, 2006, Barcelona, SPAIN, V78, P343 Bertland Alexander, 2009, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V84, P25 Weaver GR, 2006, ORGANIZATION STUDIES, V27, P341 Collins D, 2000, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V26, P1 Mintz SM, 1996, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V15, P827 Maitland I., 1997, Business Ethics Quarterly, V7, P17 Seeger MW, 2001, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V31, P369 McCracken J., 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly, V5, P297 Colle S., 2008, Journal of Business Ethics, V81, P751 ISI, 1993, SCI Journal Citation Reports: A Bibliometric Analysis of Science Journals in the ISI Database, Mahoney J., 1998, Business Ethics: A European Review, V7, P187 Rego Armenio, 2010, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V93, P215 Moore G, 2002, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V12, P19 Hartman CL, 1999, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V20, P249 Cowton C. J., 1998, Business Ethics: Perspectives on the Practice of Theory, P97 Williams O. F., 1990, Journal of Macromarketing, V10, P19 Radin Tara J., 2006, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS11th Annual International Conference Promoting Business Ethics, OCT 21-23, 2004, Chicago, IL, V66, P261 Chun R, 2005, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V57, P269 Duska R. F., 1993, Business Ethics Quarterly, V3, P227 Zheng Qinqin, 2010, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V91, P137 Mele Domenec, 2009, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V90, P487 Hartman Edwin M., 2008, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V18, P253 Weaver G., 1994, Business Ethics Quarterly, V4, P129 Valentine S, 2005, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V61, P45 Cameron KS, 2004, AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, V47, P766 Ewin R. E., 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly, V5, P833 Murphy Patrick E., 2007, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MARKETING, V41, P37 Halliday J., 2009, Management Learning, V41, P37 Bhuyan Nisigandha, 2007, JOURNAL OF VALUE INQUIRY, V41, P45 Corvino John, 2006, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V67, P1 Solomon RC, 2004, ORGANIZATION STUDIES, V25, P1021 Heugens PPMAR, 2006, ORGANIZATION STUDIES, V27, P391 Murphy PE, 1999, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V18, P107 Dawson D, 2003, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V48, P127 Caza A, 2004, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS1st Annual Conference on Ethical Dimensions in Business, NOV 20-21, 2003, Notre Dame, IN, V52, P169 Hartman Edwin M., 2011, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS16th International Symposium on Ethics, Business-and-Society, MAY 13-15, 2010, Barcelona, SPAIN, V99, P5 Libby T., 2007, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V71, P89 Bull Christopher, 2011, BUSINESS ETHICS-A EUROPEAN REVIEW, V20, P121 ANSCOMBE GEM, 1958, PHILOSOPHY, V33, P1 ROBIN DP, 1987, JOURNAL OF MARKETING, V51, P44 Hosmer L. T., 1994, Business Ethics Quarterly, V4, P191 Arnold Denis G., 2010, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V20, P559 Dobson J., 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly, V5, P463 Solomon R. C., 1993, Ethics and Excellence, Gilligan C., 1982, In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development, Amin M., 2000, Perspectives in Publishing, V1, P1 Cavanagh GF, 2002, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICSConference on At Our Best - Moral Lives in a Moral Community, FEB, 2001, SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, V38, P109 Tahai A, 1999, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V20, P279 Hartman Edwin M., 2006, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, V5, P68 Maguire S, 1997, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS2nd Annual International Conference Promoting Business Ethics, NOV 02-04, 1995, MANHATTAN, NY, V16, P1411 Mele D, 2003, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS11th Symposium on Ethics, Business and Society, JUL, 2001, BARCELONA, SPAIN, V44, P77 Dobson John, 2009, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V86, P43 Ma Z., 2005, International Journal of Electronic Business, V3, Gotsis George, 2008, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V78, P575 Sen A., 1999, Development as freedom, Shaw B., 1997, Business Ethics Quarterly, V7, P33 Boatright J., 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly, V5, P353 Pincoff E. L., 1986, Quandaries and Virtues: Against Reductivism in Ethics, Hartman E. M., 1994, Business Ethics Quarterly, V4, P253 Solomon R. C., 1998, Business Ethics Quarterly, V8, P515 Beadle R, 2006, ORGANIZATION STUDIES, V27, P323 Wicks A. C., 1996, Business Ethics Quarterly, V6, P523 Flynn Gabriel, 2008, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS14th International Symposium on Ethics, Business and Society, MAY 18-19, 2006, Barcelona, SPAIN, V78, P359 Sundman P, 2000, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V27, P247 Knights David, 2006, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V67, P125 TAKALA T, 1995, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V14, P893 Heugens Pursey P. M. A. R., 2008, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, V45, P100 Pastoriza David, 2008, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS14th International Symposium on Ethics, Business and Society, MAY 18-19, 2006, Barcelona, SPAIN, V78, P329 Palanski Michael E., 2011, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V99, P201 Shaw WH, 1996, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS3rd Annual Conference on Management and Philosophy, JUN, 1994, TAIPEI, TAIWAN, V15, P489 Donaldson T., 1994, Business Ethics Quarterly, V4, P157 Ketola T., 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, V13, Ma Zhenzhong, 2012, BUSINESS ETHICS-A EUROPEAN REVIEW, V21, P286 Schudt K., 2000, Business Ethics Quarterly, V10, P711 Hursthouse R., 1999, On Virtue Ethics, Slote M., 1992, From Morality to Virtue, Csikszentmihalyi M., 1990, Flow: The psychology of optimal experience, Nesteruk J., 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly, V5, P361 Derry R., 1996, Business Ethics Quarterly, V6, P101 Provis Chris, 2010, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V91, P3 Payne G. Tyge, 2011, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V21, P257 Arjoon Surendra, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, V10, P221 Aristotle, 1985, Nicomachean Ethics, STARK A, 1993, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, V71, P38 Naughton MJ, 2006, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V16, P69 Solomon R. C., 1994, Business Ethics Quarterly, V4, P271 Koehn D., 1992, Business Ethics Quarterly, V2, P341 Calabretta Giulia, 2011, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V104, P499 BeckDudley CL, 1996, AMERICAN BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL, V34, P117 Harman G, 2003, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V13, P87 Dyck B, 2001, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLYAnnual Meeting of the Administrative-Sciences-Association-of-Canada, JUN, 1998, SASKATOON, CANADA, V11, P561 Garfield E., 1979, Citation Indexing. Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanity, Bauman David C., 2011, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V98, P281 Moore G, 2006, ORGANIZATION STUDIES, V27, P369 Bastons Miquel, 2008, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS14th International Symposium on Ethics, Business and Society, MAY 18-19, 2006, Barcelona, SPAIN, V78, P389 Marchese MC, 2002, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V40, P145 Fersht Alan, 2009, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V106, P6883 Wright Thomas A., 2007, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, V33, P928 Everett J, 2006, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V65, P1 Von Wright G. H., 1993, The Varieties of Goodness, Nussbaum M., 2000, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Guillen M, 2001, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS13th Annual Conference of European Business Ethics Network (EBEN), SEP 12-14, 2000, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, V34, P175 Athanassoulis Nafsika, 2010, JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH, V13, P217 Ven B., 2008, Journal of Business Ethics, V82, P339 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000342076700009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Prior Publication Productivity, Grant Percentile Ranking, and Topic-Normalized *Citation* Impact of NHLBI Cardiovascular R01 Grants Authors: Kaltman, JR; Evans, FJ; Danthi, NS; Wu, CO; DiMichele, DM; Lauer, MS Author Full Names: Kaltman, Jonathan R.; Evans, Frank J.; Danthi, Narasimhan S.; Wu, Colin O.; DiMichele, Donna M.; Lauer, Michael S. Source: CIRCULATION RESEARCH, 115 (7):617-624; 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.304766 SEP 12 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: bibliometrics, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (US) Abstract: Rationale: We previously demonstrated absence of association between peer-review-derived percentile ranking and raw citation impact in a large cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute cardiovascular R01 grants, but we did not consider pregrant investigator publication productivity. We also did not normalize citation counts for scientific field, type of article, and year of publication. Objective: To determine whether measures of investigator prior productivity predict a grant's subsequent scientific impact as measured by normalized citation metrics. Methods and Results: We identified 1492 investigator-initiated de novo National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 grant applications funded between 2001 and 2008 and linked the publications from these grants to their InCites (Thompson Reuters) citation record. InCites provides a normalized citation count for each publication stratifying by year of publication, type of publication, and field of science. The coprimary end points for this analysis were the normalized citation impact per million dollars allocated and the number of publications per grant that has normalized citation rate in the top decile per million dollars allocated (top 10% articles). Prior productivity measures included the number of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-supported publications each principal investigator published in the 5 years before grant review and the corresponding prior normalized citation impact score. After accounting for potential confounders, there was no association between peer-review percentile ranking and bibliometric end points (all adjusted P>0.5). However, prior productivity was predictive (P<0.0001). Conclusions: Even after normalizing citation counts, we confirmed a lack of association between peer-review grant percentile ranking and grant citation impact. However, prior investigator publication productivity was predictive of grant-specific citation impact. Addresses: [Kaltman, Jonathan R.; Evans, Frank J.] NHLBI, Heart Dev & Struct Dis Branch, Div Cardiovasc Sci, Bethesda, MD 20817 USA. [Danthi, Narasimhan S.] NHLBI, Adv Technol & Surg Branch, Div Cardiovasc Sci, Bethesda, MD 20817 USA. [Wu, Colin O.] NHLBI, Off Biostat Res, Div Cardiovasc Sci, Bethesda, MD 20817 USA. [Lauer, Michael S.] NHLBI, Off Director, Div Cardiovasc Sci, Bethesda, MD 20817 USA. [DiMichele, Donna M.] NHLBI, Off Director, Div Blood Dis & Resources, Bethesda, MD 20817 USA. E-mail Addresses: lauerm at nhlbi.nih.gov Cited Reference Count: 12 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 530 WALNUT ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3621 USA ISSN: 0009-7330 eISSN: 1524-4571 Web of Science Categories: Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems; Hematology; Peripheral Vascular Disease Research Areas: Cardiovascular System & Cardiology; Hematology IDS Number: AP4VI Unique ID: WOS:000342076700009 Cited References: Ioannidis John P. A., 2011, NATURE, V477, P529 Langer James S., 2012, SCIENCE, V338, P171 Mazloumian Amin, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Harrell FE, 2001, Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis, Acuna Daniel E., 2012, NATURE, V489, P201 Ioannidis John P. A., 2014, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V312, P483 Demicheli V, 2007, COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, Bornmann Lutz, 2013, EMBO REPORTS, V14, P226 Penner Orion, 2013, SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, V3, Ishwaran Hemant, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, V105, P205 The Expert Panel on Science Performance and Research Funding, 2012, Informing Research Choices: Indicators and Judgment, Danthi Narasimhan, 2014, CIRCULATION RESEARCH, V114, P600 ======================================================================== * *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000342075400002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Appropriate Use of *Bibliometric* Indicators for the Assessment of *Journals*, Research Proposals, and Individuals Authors: [Anonymous] Author Full Names: [Anonymous] Source: IEEE MICROWAVE MAGAZINE, 15 (6):8-14; SEP-OCT 2014 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material KeyWords Plus: IMPACT; SCIENCE Cited Reference Count: 26 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC, 445 HOES LANE, PISCATAWAY, NJ 08855-4141 USA ISSN: 1527-3342 eISSN: 1557-9581 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Electrical & Electronic; Telecommunications Research Areas: Engineering; Telecommunications IDS Number: AP4UX Unique ID: WOS:000342075400002 Cited References: Gonzalez-Pereira Borja, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P379 Waltman L., 2012, arXiv:1202.3941, Institut de France. Academie des Sciences, 2011, On the proper use of bibliometrics to evaluate individual researchers, Neylon C., 2009, PLoS Biol., V7, P1 European Physics Society, 2012, On the use of bibliometric indices during assessment, National Health and Medical Research Council, 2010, NHMRC removes journal impact factor from peer review of individual research grant and fellowship applications, Guilak Farshid, 2011, JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, V44, P208 House of Commons, 2011, Peer review in scientific publications, science and technology committee, Lawrence Peter A., 2007, CURRENT BIOLOGY, V17, PR583 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 GAETANI GF, 1991, NATURE, V353, P10 SEGLEN PO, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V45, P1 Swedish Research Council, 2009, Quality assessment in peer review, West Jevin D., 2010, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V71, P236 Abbott Alison, 2010, NATURE, V465, P860 Leydesdorff L., 2008, J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., V60, P1327 European Science Foundation, 2011, European peer review guide, integrating policies and practices for coherent procedures, Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Acuna Daniel E., 2012, NATURE, V489, P201 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Lawrence PA, 2003, NATURE, V422, P259 Campbell P., 2008, Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit., V8, P5 Shao Jufang, 2011, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V24, P95 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Bollen Johan, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, Lehmann Sune, 2006, NATURE, V444, P1003 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000342164300041 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The 50 Highest *Cited* Papers in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Reply Authors: Holzer, LA; Holzer, G Author Full Names: Holzer, Lukas A.; Holzer, Gerold Source: JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 29 (9):1878-1878; 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.017 SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Letter Addresses: [Holzer, Lukas A.] Med Univ Graz, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Graz, Austria. [Holzer, Gerold] Med Univ Vienna, Dept Orthopaed, Vienna, Austria. Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS, CURTIS CENTER, INDEPENDENCE SQUARE WEST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3399 USA ISSN: 0883-5403 eISSN: 1532-8406 Web of Science Categories: Orthopedics Research Areas: Orthopedics IDS Number: AP6CE Unique ID: WOS:000342164300041 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341857900003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Citations* for the Human Rights and Nursing Awards 2014 Authors: [Anonymous] Author Full Names: [Anonymous] Source: NURSING ETHICS, 21 (6):639-641; 10.1177/0969733014543884 SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND ISSN: 0969-7330 eISSN: 1477-0989 Web of Science Categories: Nursing Research Areas: Nursing IDS Number: AP1UT Unique ID: WOS:000341857900003 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341959500009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: An audit of the statistical validity of conclusions of clinical superiority in anaesthesia *journals* Authors: Gibbs, NM; Weightman, WM Author Full Names: Gibbs, N. M.; Weightman, W. M. Source: ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, 42 (5):599-607; SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: anaesthesia, statistics, superiority, validity KeyWords Plus: ABDOMINIS PLANE BLOCK; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; SURGERY; EFFICACY; PAIN; ANALGESIA; AIRWAY; LARYNGOSCOPE; MANAGEMENT; MORPHINE Abstract: Making a statistically valid conclusion of the superiority of a clinical intervention in a clinical trial requires not only a statistically significant P value, but also adequate a priori power and an observed effect size larger than the clinically important value specified in the sample size calculation. We scrutinised the five most highly cited clinical trials reporting one or more conclusions of clinical superiority published in Anesthesiology, the British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anaesthesia, Anesthesia and Analgesia and Anaesthesia and Intensive Care in 2011 or 2012 to determine how many met all three requisite criteria. In the 25 articles, there were a total of 36 unconditional conclusions of the superiority of a clinical intervention. All were supported by a statistically significant P value. However, only 15 (41.6%) met all three requisite statistical criteria to support clinical superiority. The remainder included secondary outcomes without specific reference to their observational nature, and primary outcomes whose observed effect size was smaller than the clinically important value specified in the sample size calculation. These findings indicate that clinicians should closely scrutinise conclusions of clinical superiority in anaesthesia journals. Many will be 'hypothesis-generating observations' without adequate statistical support for a conclusion of clinical superiority in their own right. Addresses: [Gibbs, N. M.; Weightman, W. M.] Sir Charles Gairdner Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia. E-mail Addresses: neville.gibbs at uwa.edu.au Cited Reference Count: 41 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: AUSTRALIAN SOC ANAESTHETISTS, P O BOX 600, EDGECLIFF, NSW 2027, AUSTRALIA ISSN: 0310-057X eISSN: 1448-0271 Web of Science Categories: Anesthesiology; Critical Care Medicine Research Areas: Anesthesiology; General & Internal Medicine IDS Number: AP3EX Unique ID: WOS:000341959500009 Cited References: GOODMAN SN, 1994, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V121, P200 ONeill RT, 1997, CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS8th International Symposium on Long-Term Clinical Trials, SEP 28-29, 1995, TORONTO, CANADA, V18, P550 Husler J, 2001, Conducting Research in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, P97 Dadure Christophe, 2011, ANESTHESIOLOGY, V114, P856 Karanikolas Menelaos, 2011, ANESTHESIOLOGY, V114, P1144 Houle Timothy T, 2008, Seminars in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia, V12, P5 Erdogan KG, 2012, Anaesth Intensive Care, V40, P305 Flood Pamela, 2009, ANESTHESIOLOGY, V111, P704 Houle Timothy T., 2007, ANESTHESIOLOGY, V107, P193 Katz MH, 2006, Study Design and Statistical Analysis. A. Practical Guide for Clinicians, P127 Kusuoka H, 2002, CIRCULATION RESEARCH, V91, P662 Goobie Susan M., 2011, ANESTHESIOLOGY, V114, P862 James M. F. M., 2011, BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, V107, P693 Weber Christian Friedrich, 2012, ANESTHESIOLOGY, V117, P531 Shafer Steven L., 2012, ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, V114, P931 Hoenig J.M., 2001, Am. Stat., V55, P1 McMorrow R. C. N., 2011, BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, V106, P706 Moore Albert, 2011, ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, V112, P167 Weber U., 2011, ANAESTHESIA, V66, P481 Koyama Y., 2011, ANAESTHESIA, V66, P895 Gibbs Neville M., 2012, ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, V114, P471 Aziz Michael F., 2012, ANESTHESIOLOGY, V116, P629 Meng L., 2011, BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, V107, P209 Marotti S. B., 2011, ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, V39, P1064 Bazin M., 2011, ANAESTHESIA, V66, P769 Bharti Neerja, 2011, ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, V112, P1504 Song J. W., 2011, ANAESTHESIA, V66, P263 Daly LE, 2000, Statistics with Confidence, P139 Ashburn Michael A., 2011, ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, V112, P693 Myles PS, 2000, Statistical Methods for Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, P19 McNaught A., 2011, BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, V106, P124 van der Westhuizen J., 2011, ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, V39, P242 Atim A., 2011, ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, V39, P630 [Anonymous], 2013, ISI Web of knowledge, Andrews D. T., 2012, ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, V40, P99 Zhuang P. J., 2011, ANAESTHESIA, V66, P989 Liu Ngai, 2011, ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, V112, P546 Challand C, 2011, Br J Anaesth, V108, P53 Gottschalk Antje, 2011, ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, V112, P218 Houle Timothy T., 2007, ANESTHESIOLOGY, V106, P415 GOODMAN SN, 1992, STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, V11, P875 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000342063300032 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The scientific literature on Limnoperna fortunei (Dunker 1857) from 1982 to 2012 Authors: Barbosa, FG Author Full Names: Barbosa, Fabiana G. Source: ANAIS DA ACADEMIA BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIAS, 86 (3):1373-1383; 10.1590/0001-3765201420130281 SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: biological invasions, golden mussel, scientific production, scientometric analysis KeyWords Plus: DE-LA-PLATA; GOLDEN MUSSEL; SOUTH-AMERICA; POTENTIAL SPREAD; INVASION ECOLOGY; NUISANCE MUSSEL; PARAGUAY RIVER; MYTILIDAE; JOURNALS; BIVALVIA Abstract: Limnoperna fortunei (golden mussel) is a freshwater bivalve native to Southeast Asia, but is becoming an invasive species in several aquatic ecosystems in the world. In this study, a scientometric analysis was performed to identify the patterns, trends and gaps of knowledge for this invasive species. A survey of the published literature was conducted using the database of the Thomson Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). A total of 107 papers were surveyed that were published between 1982 and 2012 in 60 journals. The number of papers on L. fortunei over the years has increased, especially within the last eight years of the study period. Argentina, Brazil, and Japan are the countries that contributed the most papers to the literature on invasive bivalve. The majority of papers were field-observational studies. Among some important gaps that need to be addressed are the relatively small number and/or lack of studies conducted in the native countries and in countries invaded by L. fortunei, the lack of internationally collaborative publications in these countries, as well as a low number of internationally collaborative studies. Addresses: CSIC, Natl Museum Nat Sci, Madrid 2806, Spain. E-mail Addresses: fabibarbos at gmail.com Funding Acknowledgement: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [246048/2012-3] Funding Text: The research was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) (Post-Doc scholarship #246048/2012-3). Cited Reference Count: 63 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ACAD BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIAS, RUA ANFILOFIO DE CARVALHO, 29, 3 ANDAR, 20030-060 RIO JANEIRO, BRAZIL ISSN: 0001-3765 eISSN: 1678-2690 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: AP4QP Unique ID: WOS:000342063300032 Cited References: May RM, 1997, SCIENCE, V275, P793 DARRIGRAN G, 1995, VELIGER, V38, P171 Richardson David M., 2008, DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTIONS, V14, P161 Leta J, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P325 World Bank, 2013, JOBS, P1 Fazey I, 2005, BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, V14, P917 Ruiz Milton A., 2009, Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia, V31, P355 Darrigran G, 2006, Bioinvasion del mejillon dorado en el continente americano, P93 Elliott P, 2005, WATER AND ENVIRONMENT JOURNAL, V19, P367 Sainte-Marie Bernard, 2010, JOURNAL OF CRUSTACEAN BIOLOGY, V30, P541 Boltovskoy Demetrio, 2009, HYDROBIOLOGIA, V636, P271 Liu Xingjian, 2011, BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, V20, P807 Pastorino G, 1993, Neotropica, V39, P171 KATZ JS, 1994, SCIENTOMETRICS, V31, P31 Crawley M.J., 2007, The R Book, Darrigran G, 1998, HYDROBIOLOGIA, V367, P223 Barbosa F. G., 2012, BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY, V72, P821 OLIVEIRA MD, 2006, Biol Invasions, V8, P97 Padial A. A., 2008, BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY, V68, P1051 SOKAL RR, 1994, Biometry - The principles and pratice of statistics in biological research, Hood WW, 2001, Scientometrics, V52, P921 MORTON B, 1977, Malacologia, V16, P165 Hendriks Iris E., 2008, JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MARINE BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY, V360, P15 Pimentel D, 2001, AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, V84, P1 Jimenez-Valverde A., 2011, BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS, V13, P2785 Gotelli NJ, 2012, A Primer of Ecological Statistics, Darrigran G, 2009, Introducao a Biologia das Invasoes. O mexilhao dourado na America do Sul: biologia, dispersao, impacto, prevencao e controle, P89 Qiu Hao, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P601 Sousa R, 2013, Hydrobiologia, V735, P233 Kluza DA, 2005, Aquat Invaders, V16, P1 De'ath G, 2000, ECOLOGY, V81, P3178 Matsui Y, 2002, BIOFOULING, V18, P137 Cao Xiaofeng, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P735 VanRaan AFJ, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICSProceedings of the Erasmus Workshop on Quantitative Approaches to Science and Technology Studies, MAY 21-24, 1996, AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS, V38, P205 Ricciardi A, 1998, BIOFOULING, V13, P97 Mansur Maria Cristina Dreher, 2003, Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, V20, P75 Pysek Petr, 2008, TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, V23, P237 Darrigran G, 2005, AMERICAN MALACOLOGICAL BULLETINAnnual Meeting of the American-Malacological-Society, JUN 25-29, 2003, Ann Arbor, MI, V20, P105 Capitoli Ricardo Roberto, 2008, Atlantica, V30, P35 Abt Helmut A., 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P353 Villela IV, 2006, MUTATION RESEARCH-GENETIC TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MUTAGENESIS, V605, P78 Brugnoli E, 2005, ANAIS DA ACADEMIA BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIAS, V77, P235 Magara Y, 2001, JOURNAL OF WATER SUPPLY RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY-AQUA, V50, P113 Karatayev Alexander Y., 2007, BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS, V9, P161 Lucy Frances E., 2012, AQUATIC INVASIONS, V7, P465 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Speziale Karina L., 2012, BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS, V14, P1609 Porter Alan L., 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P719 Barbosa Fabiana Goncalves, 2009, Biota Neotropica, V9, P407 Darrigran Gustavo, 2007, AMBIO, V36, P575 Boltovskoy D, 2006, BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS, V8, P947 Therneau T, 2012, rpart: Recursive Partitioning. R package version 4.1-0, Oliveira Marcia D., 2010, AQUATIC INVASIONS, V5, P59 Clavero M, 2005, TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, V20, P110 Kimura Taeko, 1994, Chiribotan, V25, P34 Oliveira M. D., 2010, BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY, V70, P831 R Development Core Team, 2013, R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Melo AS, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V67, P187 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Lowry Edward, 2013, ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, V3, P182 Pejchar Liba, 2009, TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, V24, P497 Karatayev Alexander Y., 2007, JOURNAL OF SHELLFISH RESEARCH, V26, P205 Strayer David L., 2010, FRESHWATER BIOLOGY, V55, P152 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341564400015 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Matrix Support: a *bibliographical* study Authors: Iglesias, A; Avellar, LZ Author Full Names: Iglesias, Alexandra; Avellar, Luziane Zacche Source: CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA, 19 (9):3791-3798; 10.1590/1413-81232014199.00322013 SEP 2014 Language: Portuguese Document Type: Review Author Keywords: Matrix support, Mental health, Bibliographical review, Primary health care KeyWords Plus: MENTAL-HEALTH Abstract: This article presents a bibliographical review of matrix support in mental health. A search was conducted in the Virtual Health Library and the LILACS, SciELO and Google Scholar databases using the key words: "matrix support in mental health." Fourteen articles were located with the desired characteristics, which indicates that only a restricted number of publications are in circulation. The articles were analyzed with respect to their structural and methodological aspects, which revealed the absolute predominance of the use of qualitative methods and health professionals as the target research population. The same articles were then analyzed for their theoretical discussions. Among other issues, the importance of matrix support to enhance the primary health care teams provided to people suffering from psychic distress is highlighted. However, there is still considerable confusion regarding the proposal of the matrix support and shared responsibilities between teams of reference and mental health professionals, which emphasizes the need for training of these professionals, as well as better coordination and organization of the mental health care network. Addresses: [Iglesias, Alexandra] Univ Fed Espirito Santo, Programa Posgrad Psicol, BR-29075910 Vitoria, ES, Brazil. [Avellar, Luziane Zacche] Univ Fed Espirito Santo, Programa Pos Grad, Dept Psicol Social Desenvolvimento, BR-29075910 Vitoria, ES, Brazil. E-mail Addresses: leiglesias at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 25 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ABRASCO, RUA HESPERIA, 16-PARTE MANGUINHOS, RIO DE JANEIRO, 21050-040, BRAZIL ISSN: 1413-8123 eISSN: 1678-4561 Web of Science Categories: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Research Areas: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health IDS Number: AO7WX Unique ID: WOS:000341564400015 Cited References: Campos FCB, 2007, Cad IPUB, V13, P57 Barreto M, 2010, Rev Tempus Actas Saude Colet, V4, P39 Tofoli LF, 2007, Sanare, V6, P34 Figueiredo MD, 2009, Saude Debate, V32, P143 de Sousa Campos Gastao Wagner, 2007, CADERNOS DE SAUDE PUBLICA, V23, P399 Dimenstein Magda, 2009, SAUDE E SOCIEDADE, V18, P63 Gama CAP, 2009, Cad Bras Saude Mental, V1, P112 Ferreira Neto JL, 2008, Saude Debate, V32, P18 Bezerra Edilane, 2008, Psicologia: Ci?ncia e Profiss?o, V28, P632 Gil AC, 1991, Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa, Arona Elizaete da Costa, 2009, SAUDE E SOCIEDADE, V18, P26 Harada OL, 2010, SMAD Rev. Eletronica Saude Mental Alcool Drogas, V6, P315 Soares MH, 2008, Rev. Eletronica Saude Mental Alcool Drogas, V4, P1 Bardin L., 1988, Analise de conteudo, P70 B?ing Elisangela, 2010, Psicologia: Ci?ncia e Profiss?o, V30, P634 Mielke FB, 2010, SMAD Rev. Eletronica Saude Mental Alcool Drogas, V63, P900 Carneiro AC, 2009, Rev. Brasileira em Promocao da Saude., V22, P264 Brasil. Ministerio da Saude, 2005, Reforma Psiquiatrica e Politica de Saude Mental no Brasil-Conferencia Regional de Reforma dos Servicos de Saude Mental: 15 anos Depois de Caracas, 07 a 10 de novembro de, 2005, Brasilia, Figueiredo Mariana Dorsa, 2009, CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA, V14, P129 CAMPOS G. W. S., 1999, Ciencia & Saude Coletiva, V4, P393 Delgado PGG, 2007, Jornal do CONASEMS, P8 Brasil. Ministerio da Saude (MS), 2003, Saude Mental no SUS: os centros de atencao psicossocial, P77 Barban EG, 2007, Arq Cienc Saude, V14, P54 Minayo MCS, 2006, O Desafio do Conhecimento: Pesquisa Qualitativa em saude, Gunther H, 2006, Revista psicologia: teoria e pesquisa, V22, P201 ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000342164300039 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The 50 Highest *Cited* Papers in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Authors: Eom, SH; Bamne, AB Author Full Names: Eom, Sang Hwa; Bamne, Ankur B. Source: JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 29 (9):1877-1877; 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.018 SEP 2014 Language: English Document Type: Letter Addresses: [Eom, Sang Hwa; Bamne, Ankur B.] Seoul Natl Univ, Joint Reconstruct Ctr, Bundang Hosp, Gyeonggi Do, South Korea. Cited Reference Count: 0 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS, CURTIS CENTER, INDEPENDENCE SQUARE WEST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3399 USA ISSN: 0883-5403 eISSN: 1532-8406 Web of Science Categories: Orthopedics Research Areas: Orthopedics IDS Number: AP6CE Unique ID: WOS:000342164300039 =================================================================== ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341851000006 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Natural products against cancer: A comprehensive *bibliometric* study of the research projects, publications, patents and drugs Authors: Du, J; Tang, XLL Author Full Names: Du, Jian; Tang, Xiaoli L. Source: JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 10 (5):27-37; 1 10.4103/0973-1482.139750 AUG 2014 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Natural products, anti-neoplastic, drugs, bibliometric analysis KeyWords Plus: TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL-TRIALS; DISCOVERY Abstract: Objectives: To analyze multi-source data including awards, publications, patents and drugs, and try to draw the whole landscape of the research and development community in the area of natural products (NPs) against cancer. Materials and Methods: Awards, publications, patents and drugs data from National Institute of Health/Natural Science Foundation of China (NIH/NSFC), PubMed, Derwent Innovation Index and Cortellis were collected. Bibliometric methodologies and technology are used to investigate publications/patents/drugs, their contents and relationships. Results: NIH and NSFC respectively demonstrated a stable and sustained expenditure growth in this area. The number of publications is continuously increasing. Yet the annual patent applications worldwide and FDA drug approvals were little changed or not obviously fluctuated in 2003-2013. USA and several Asia-pacific countries/territories are important contributing powers. We described the evolution of major research topics by those MeSH Major Topics indexed in PubMed with the largest growth range in three intervals, and analyzed hot research topics in the recent 10 years which include NPs or NPs derivatives, cell line/animal model, laboratory technologies and activation mechanisms. Conclusions: China published the most publications and received the most patent applications, but drug discovery performance is no better than USA and Japan. Research on anti-neoplastic structures and compounds originated from Chinese traditional medicine (TCM), medicinal plants, herbal medicine and marine NPs are major research topics in the recent 10 years. There still exits translational gap between basic research and drug discovery. Translational research should be undertaken to strengthen the applicability of NPs. Addresses: [Tang, Xiaoli L.] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Inst Med Informat & Lib, Beijing 10005, Peoples R China. [Tang, Xiaoli L.] Peking Union Med Coll, Beijing 10005, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: tang.xiaoli at imicams.ac.cn Funding Acknowledgement: National Science and Technology Library, NSTL [2012XM25, 2012XM26] Funding Text: We are grateful to Ting Gong from Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences her help with the interpretational labeling of the clusters of NPs or NPs derivatives, and activation mechanisms. This study was supported by the National Science and Technology Library, NSTL (Grant No. 2012XM25, 2012XM26). Cited Reference Count: 20 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA PVT LTD, B-9, KANARA BUSINESS CENTRE, OFF LINK RD, GHAKTOPAR-E, MUMBAI, 400075, INDIA ISSN: 0973-1482 eISSN: 1998-4138 Web of Science Categories: Oncology Research Areas: Oncology IDS Number: AP1SG Unique ID: WOS:000341851000006 Cited References: Butler MS, 2005, NATURAL PRODUCT REPORTS, V22, P162 Newman DJ, 2003, JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS, V66, P1022 Cragg GM, 1997, JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS, V60, P52 Boyack KW, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P351 Ding Z, 2012, Wuhan Daxue Xuebao (Xinxi Kexue Ban)/Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, V37, P100 Chen Hsinchun, 2013, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V15, Basmadjian Christine, 2014, Frontiers in chemistry, V2, P20 Newman David J., 2012, JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS, V75, P311 Mina A., 2007, RESEARCH POLICY, V36, P789 Butler Declan, 2008, NATURE, V453, P840 LI X, 2009, J NANOPART RES, V11, P529 Mishra Bhuwan B., 2011, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, V46, P4769 Nastrucci Candida, 2012, RECENT PATENTS ON ANTI-CANCER DRUG DISCOVERY, V7, P218 Swinney David C., 2011, NATURE REVIEWS DRUG DISCOVERY, V10, P507 Jones David S., 2011, JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, V9, Newman David J., 2007, JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS, V70, P461 Cragg Gordon M., 2013, BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-GENERAL SUBJECTS, V1830, P3670 Butler Mark S., 2008, NATURAL PRODUCT REPORTS, V25, P475 Mogoutov Andrei, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V2, P341 Garcia-Garcia P., 2008, PHYTOMEDICINE, V15, P566 *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341994400002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Too Much Impact? Scientific *Journals* and the "*Impact Factor*" Authors: Zietman, AL Author Full Names: Zietman, Anthony L. Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 90 (2):246-248; 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.018 OCT 1 2014 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Addresses: Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Boston, MA 02114 USA. E-mail Addresses: azietman at partners.org Cited Reference Count: 14 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010-1710 USA ISSN: 0360-3016 eISSN: 1879-355X Web of Science Categories: Oncology; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging Research Areas: Oncology; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging IDS Number: AP3RI Unique ID: WOS:000341994400002 Cited References: Committee on Publication Ethics, Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors, Fontanarosa Phil B., 2014, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V311, P2179 Roberts William Clifford, 2011, The American journal of cardiology, V108, P896 Web of Science, Journal self-citation in the journal citation reports-science edition 2002, Zietman Anthony L., 2013, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, V86, P218 Heffner Mary, 2014, personal communication, Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Zietman Anthony, 2013, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, V87, P7 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Cox James D, 2011, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, V81, P1206 McVeigh Marie E., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P1107 Thelwall Mike, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, Zietman AL, 2013, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, V89, P937 Davis P, The emergence of a citation cartel, ======================================================================== http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000341884900003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A quantitative analysis of authors, schools and themes in virtue ethics articles in business ethics and management *journals* (1980-2011) Authors: Ferrero, I; Sison, AJG Author Full Names: Ferrero, Ignacio; Sison, Alejo Jose G. Source: BUSINESS ETHICS-A EUROPEAN REVIEW, 23 (4):375-400; 10.1111/beer.12057 OCT 2014 Language: English Document Type: Review KeyWords Plus: CORPORATE CRISIS MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATIONAL VIRTUE; INTELLECTUAL STRUCTURE; STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS; SOCIAL-RESPONSIBILITY; DECISION-MAKING; IMPACT FACTOR; MORAL AGENCY; CHARACTER; LEADERSHIP Abstract: Virtue ethics is generally recognized as one of the three major schools of ethics, but is often waylaid by utilitarianism and deontology in business and management literature. EBSCO and ABI databases were used to look for articles in the Journal of Citation Reports publications between 1980 and 2011 containing the keywords virtue ethics', virtue theory', or virtuousness' in the abstract and business' or management' in the text. The search was refined to draw lists of the most prolific authors, the most cited authors, the most cited articles, and the journals with the most virtue ethics publications. This information allows one to chart how virtue ethics articles have evolved through the decades and to establish schools' or clusters of authors as well as clusters of themes. The results of this quantitative analysis of authors, schools', themes, and publications provide a foundation for the future study of virtue ethics in business and management, identifying its achievements and potentials. Addresses: [Ferrero, Ignacio] Univ Navarra, Fac Econ, Navarra, Spain. [Sison, Alejo Jose G.] Univ Navarra, Fac Philosophy, Navarra, Spain. Cited Reference Count: 170 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 0962-8770 eISSN: 1467-8608 Web of Science Categories: Business; Ethics Research Areas: Business & Economics; Social Sciences - Other Topics IDS Number: AP2EI Unique ID: WOS:000341884900003 Cited References: Solomon RC, 2003, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V13, P43 Fort T., 2000, Business Ethics Quarterly, V10, P725 FURMAN FK, 1990, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V9, P31 Solomon R. C., 1992, Business Ethics Quarterly, V2, P317 Gowri Aditi, 2007, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V70, P391 Collier J., 1995, Business Ethics: A European Review, V4, P143 Swanton C., 2003, Virtue Ethics. A Pluralistic Approach, Whetstone JT, 2003, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V44, P343 Roca Esther, 2008, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V82, P607 Limbs EC, 2000, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V26, P169 Moore G, 1999, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V21, P329 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Neron Pierre-Yves, 2008, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V18, P1 Koehn D., 1998, Business Ethics Quarterly, V8, P497 Moore G, 2005, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V15, P237 DONALDSON T, 1994, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V19, P252 Shaw B., 1996, Business Ethics Quarterly, V6, P373 MACDONALD JE, 1994, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V13, P615 Ma Zhenzhong, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT, V19, P234 Moberg D. J., 2000, Business Ethics Quarterly, V10, P675 Simola S, 2003, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V46, P351 Bright DS, 2006, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V64, P249 MCCAIN KW, 1990, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V41, P433 Robertson CJ, 2003, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V24, P385 Lahdesmaki M, 2005, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V61, P55 Aranzadi Javier, 2011, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS16th International Symposium on Ethics, Business-and-Society, MAY 13-15, 2010, Barcelona, SPAIN, V99, P87 Giovanola Benedetta, 2009, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS15th IESE International Symposium on Ethics, Business and Society, MAY 16-17, 2008, Barcelona, SPAIN, V88, P431 Hartman E. M., 1998, Business Ethics Quarterly, V8, P547 Stieb J, 2006, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V63, P75 Vogt CP, 2005, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS10th Annual International Conference on Promoting Business Ethics, OCT, 2003, Garden City, NY, V58, P111 Koehn D., 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly, V5, P533 Bowie N. E., 1991, Business Ethics Quarterly, V1, P1 KAHN WA, 1990, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V15, P311 Sandin Per, 2009, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V87, P109 Graafland J. J., 2010, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V91, P1 Shanahan KJ, 2003, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V42, P197 Shaw B., 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly, V5, P843 Newton L., 1992, Business Ethics Quarterly, V2, P357 Drake Matthew J., 2008, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V82, P851 Lau Victor P., 2009, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V90, P279 Moberg D. J., 1999, Business Ethics Quarterly, V9, P245 Biemans Wim, 2007, JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, V24, P193 Gotsis George N., 2010, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V93, P497 Brewer KB, 1997, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V16, P825 Dobson J., 1997, Business Ethics Quarterly, V7, P125 MacLellan C, 1997, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V16, P1201 Dawson David, 2009, BUSINESS ETHICS-A EUROPEAN REVIEW, V18, P95 Calkins M, 2002, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V12, P305 Libby T, 2004, BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY, V14, P479 Morrell Kevin, 2010, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V96, P249 Peterson Christopher, 2006, JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, V27, P1149 Wicks A. C., 1997, Business Ethics Quarterly, V7, P133 McCracken J, 1998, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V17, P25 Arjoon S, 2000, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V28, P159 COSTA PT, 1992, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, V6, P85 Crockett C, 2005, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V62, P191 Horvath C., 1995, Business Ethics Quarterly, V5, P499 Whetstone JT, 2001, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V33, P101 Adler R., 2008, Citation statistics: a report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and