From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Mon May 4 14:42:19 2015 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 18:42:19 +0000 Subject: Papers of possible interest to readers of the SIG-Metrics List - May 4, 2015 Message-ID: ======================================================================= Cited Article: Pudovkin, A. Rank-normalized impact factor: A way to compare journal performance across subject categories *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000348983100011 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Journals ranking and impact factors: how the performance of journals is measured Authors: Craig, ID; Ferguson, L; Finch, AT Author Full Names: Craig, Iain D.; Ferguson, Liz; Finch, Adam T. Edited by: Cope B; Phillips A Source: FUTURE OF THE ACADEMIC JOURNAL, SECOND EDITION, 259-298; 2014 Book Series: Chandos Information Professional Series Language: English Document Type: Article; Book Chapter Author Keywords: Journal Impact factor, journals ranking, alternative bibliometrics KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; CITATION; SCIENCE Abstract: This chapter investigates measures of journal performance and ranking. It begins by exploring the principal conventional sources of citation data, Web of Science and Scopus, and compares these with alternatives such as Google Scholar. Critical variables in citation analyses include coverage by discipline and different article types, such as review articles compared to articles documenting new research. The chapter concludes with an exploration of alternative metrics. Addresses: [Craig, Iain D.] Market & Publishing Analyt Dept, Oxford, England. [Finch, Adam T.] Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, England. [Finch, Adam T.] Flinders Univ S Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Cited Reference Count: 67 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: CHANDOS PUBL, 80 HIGH ST, SAWSTON, CAMBRIDGE CB22 3HJ, ENGLAND ISBN: 978-1-78063-464-7 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: BC0EA Unique ID: WOS:000348983100011 Cited References: McVeigh Marie E., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P1107 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P338 [Anonymous], 2008, Journal Citation Report Notices, [Anonymous], 2012, Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions, Jin BiHui, 2007, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V52, P855 PETERS HPF, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V45, P39 Rowlands I., 2005, New journal publishing models: the 2005 CIBER survey of journal author behaviour and attitudes, SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Tsay MY, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P17 [Anonymous], 2008, Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI), Excellence in Research for Australia, 2008, In Australian Research Council, PINSKI G, 1976, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V12, P297 Potter CV, 2004, ORGANIC & BIOMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY, V2, P3535 Testa J., 2012, The Thomson Scientific journal selection process, Nicholas David, 2006, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V62, P482 ERIH, 2013, Sombatsompop N, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P217 Davis P., 2012, The Scholarly Kitchen, ERA, 2012, Harnad S, 2007, Proceedings of ISSI 2007: 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics I, 25-7 June, Madrid, Spain, P27 [Anonymous], Technology Overview, Case DO, 2000, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V51, P635 Morrison H. G., 2012, Freedom for scholarship in the Internet age, Moed H. F., 2005, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, P126 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P830 Egghe L., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P8 Pudovkin AI, 2004, ASIST 2004: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 67TH ASIS&T ANNUAL MEETING, VOL 41, 200467th Annual Meeting of the American-Society-for-Information-Science-and-Technology, NOV 12-17, 2004, Providence, RI, V41, P507 MOED HF, 1995, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V46, P461 Morris Sally, 2007, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V20, P299 Felt U., 2012, Journal of Scientometric Research, V1, P28 [Anonymous], 2011, Journal Citation Report Notices, Monastersky R., 2005, Chron. High. Educ., V52, PA12 Schubert Andras, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P179 Price J., 2007, 30th UKSG Annual Conference: Plenary Sessions, Creagh S., 2011, The Conversation, Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2006, PLoS Medicine, V3, Pe291 Bensman Stephen J., 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P93 ERIH, 2008, Context and Background of ERIH, Cameron BD, 2005, PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY, V5, P105 KESSLER MM, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P10 Moed Henk F., 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P153 Campbell P., 2008, Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit., V8, P5 [Anonymous], 2008, A Joint Response from History of Science, SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Weale Andy R, 2004, BMC medical research methodology, V4, P14 [Anonymous], Bibliometrics Pilot Exercise, Kosmulski M., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P4 Lehmann Sune, 2006, NATURE, V444, P1003 [Anonymous], ERIH Summary Guidelines, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Ewing J., 2006, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, V53, P1049 [Anonymous], 2011, Journal Usage Factor, Moed HF, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V37, P105 Bollen J., 2008, Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, P231 Reedijk Jan, 2008, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V64, P183 McVeigh M. E., 2002, Journal self-citation in the Journal Citation Reports-Science Edition, Marshakova I., 1973, Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya Seriya, V2, P3 Newman D., 2005, Thomson Reuters, [Anonymous], Results, recommendations and next steps, Research Excellence Framework, 2007, Consultation on the assessment and funding of higher education research post-2008, Ketcham Catherine M., 2007, LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, V87, P1174 Schonfeld R., 2004, The Nonsubscription Side of Periodicals: Changes in Library Operations and Cost between Print and Electronic Formats, Butkovich NJ, 1996, LIBRARY RESOURCES & TECHNICAL SERVICES, V40, P359 Costas Rodrigo, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P193 [Anonymous], Bibliometrics and the Research Excellence Framework, ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352194100014 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Can scientific journals be classified based on their 'citation profiles'? Authors: Marashi, SA; Pandi, A; Shariati, H; Zamani-Nasab, H; Damavandi, N; Heidari, M; Sohrabi-Jahromi, S; Asghari, A; Aslani, S; Nakhaee, N; Moteallehi-Ardakani, MH Author Full Names: Marashi, Sayed-Amir; Pandi, Amir; Shariati, Hossein; Zamani-Nasab, Hossein; Damavandi, Narges; Heidari, Mahshid; Sohrabi-Jahromi, Salma; Asghari, Arvand; Aslani, Saba; Nakhaee, Narjes; Moteallehi-Ardakani, Mohammad Hossein Source: SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, 111 (3-4):83-85; MAR-APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: scientific journals, journal classification, journal type, citation analysis, citation profiles KeyWords Plus: NORMALIZED IMPACT FACTOR; SUBJECT CATEGORIES; HEALTH-SCIENCES; INTERDISCIPLINARY; PERFORMANCE; FIELDS Abstract: Classification of scientific publications is of great importance in biomedical research evaluation. However, accurate classification of research publications is challenging and normally is performed in a rather subjective way. In the present paper, we propose to classify biomedical publications into superfamilies, by analysing their citation profiles, i.e. the location of citations in the structure of citing articles. Such a classification may help authors to find the appropriate biomedical journal for publication, may make journal comparisons more rational, and may even help planners to better track the consequences of their policies on biomedical research. Addresses: [Marashi, Sayed-Amir; Zamani-Nasab, Hossein; Damavandi, Narges; Heidari, Mahshid; Sohrabi-Jahromi, Salma; Asghari, Arvand; Aslani, Saba; Nakhaee, Narjes; Moteallehi-Ardakani, Mohammad Hossein] Univ Tehran, Coll Sci, Dept Biotechnol, Tehran, Iran. [Pandi, Amir] Univ Tehran, Coll Sci, Sch Biol, Tehran, Iran. [Shariati, Hossein] Univ Tehran, Coll Sci, Sch Math Stat & Comp Sci, Tehran, Iran. E-mail Addresses: marashi at ut.ac.ir Cited Reference Count: 28 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ACAD SCIENCE SOUTH AFRICA A S S AF, PO BOX 72135, LYNWOOD RIDGE 0040, SOUTH AFRICA ISSN: 0038-2353 eISSN: 1996-7489 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: CE9WM Unique ID: WOS:000352194100014 Cited References: Marashi SA, 2005, MEDICAL HYPOTHESES, V65, P822 Patsopoulos NA, 2005, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V293, P2362 Voos H, 1976, J Acad Lib., V1, P19 Sombatsompop N, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V65, P293 [Anonymous], 2013, Chem World., V10, P12 Glanzel W, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P357 Porter Alan L., 2008, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V17, P273 Bornmann L., 2008, European Science Editing, V34, P35 Nieminen Pentti, 2006, BMC medical research methodology, V6, P42 GARFIELD E, 1992, THEORETICAL MEDICINE, V13, P117 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Hanney SR, 2006, DIABETIC MEDICINE, V23, P176 Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P348 Derkatch C., 2012, Tech Commun Quart., V21, P210 FANG MLE, 1989, BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V77, P205 Glanzel W, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS5th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, JUN 04-06, 1998, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, V44, P427 Marashi Sayed-Amir, 2013, EXCLI JOURNAL, V12, P15 Leydesdorff Loet, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P589 Porter Alan L., 2009, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V11, P1023 Lewison G, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P145 Pudovkin AI, 2004, ASIST 2004: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 67TH ASIS&T ANNUAL MEETING, VOL 41, 200467th Annual Meeting of the American-Society-for-Information-Science-and-Technology, NOV 12-17, 2004, Providence, RI, V41, P507 CANO V, 1989, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V40, P284 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V56, P223 Nicolaisen Jeppe, 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P609 Dorta-Gonzalez P., 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P645 Maricic S, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V49, P530 Garfield E, 1996, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V313, P411 Bird Steven B, 2008, Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology, V4, P261 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000351965500009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Green supply chain management: A review and *bibliometric* analysis Authors: Fahimnia, B; Sarkis, J; Davarzani, H Author Full Names: Fahimnia, Behnam; Sarkis, Joseph; Davarzani, Hoda Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, 162 101-114; 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003 APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Review Author Keywords: Green supply chain, Environmental sustainability, Bibliometrics, Literature review, Network analysis KeyWords Plus: LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; ELECTRONIC INDUSTRY; DECISION FRAMEWORK; PERFORMANCE; SUSTAINABILITY; LOGISTICS; PRESSURES; SELECTION; MODEL Abstract: The emergent field of green supply chain management has been rapidly evolving with a geometric growth in the number of academic publications in this field. A number of literature reviews have been published focusing on specific aspects of green supply chain management such as performance measurement, supplier selection/evaluation, analytical modeling efforts, and some others with broader areas of focus. This paper presents a thorough bibliometric and network analysis that provides insights not previously fully grasped or evaluated by other reviews on this topic. The analysis begins by identifying over 1000 published studies, which are then distilled down to works of proven influence and those authored by influential investigators. Using rigorous bibliometric tools, established and emergent research clusters are identified for topological analysis, identification of key research topics, interrelations, and collaboration patterns. This systematic mapping of the field helps graphically illustrate the publications evolution over time and identify areas of current research interests and potential directions for future research. The findings provide a robust roadmap for further investigation in this field. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Fahimnia, Behnam] Univ Sydney, Sch Business, Inst Transport & Logist Studies, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. [Sarkis, Joseph] Worcester Polytech Inst, Foisie Sch Business, Worcester, MA 01609 USA. [Davarzani, Hoda] Univ Sydney, Sch Business, Discipline Business Analyt, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail Addresses: behnam.fahimnia at sydney.edu.au; jsarkis at wpi.edu; hoda.davarzani at sydney.edu.au Cited Reference Count: 105 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0925-5273 eISSN: 1873-7579 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Industrial; Engineering, Manufacturing; Operations Research & Management Science Research Areas: Engineering; Operations Research & Management Science IDS Number: CE6RK Unique ID: WOS:000351965500009 Cited References: Govindan K., 2015, J. Clean. Prod., Vachon Stephan, 2008, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V16, P1552 Holt D., 2009, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, V20, Tang Christopher S., 2012, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V223, P585 Georgiadis Patroklos, 2010, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, V47, P475 Guillen-Gosalbez Gonzalo, 2009, AICHE JOURNAL, V55, P99 US Census Bureau, 2013, Census Bureau Regions and Divisions with State FIPS Codes, Preuss L., 2005, Bus. Strategy Environ., V14, P123 Sarkis Joseph, 2010, CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, V17, P337 Georgiadis Patroklos, 2008, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V16, P1665 Taticchi P., 2013, International Journal of Productivity & Performance Management, V62, Green K, 1998, Supply Chain Management, V3, P89 Bastian M., 2009, Proceedings of the Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Seuring Stefan, 2013, DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, V54, P1513 Seuring Stefan, 2008, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V16, P1699 Walker H., 2008, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, V14, Hsu C. W., 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V5, P205 Sarkis J, 2003, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V11, P397 Ahi Payman, 2013, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V52, P329 Persson O., 2009, Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies, Rowley J., 2004, Manag. Res. News, V27, P31 Vachon Stephan, 2006, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, V26, P795 Fahimnia B., 2015, Int J. Prod. Res., Curkovic Sime, 2011, BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, V20, P71 United Nations Global Compact, 2013, Global Corporate Sustainability Report, Zhu QH, 2006, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V14, P472 Veleva V., 2003, Benchmarking, V10, P107 Seuring S, 2004, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V12, P1059 Tranfield D, 2003, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, V14, P207 Ding Ying, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P2229 Saunders M., 2009, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Wolf Christina, 2010, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL DISTRIBUTION & LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT, V40, P84 Kuo R. J., 2010, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V18, P1161 Bai Chunguang, 2010, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V18, P1200 Leydesdorff L., 2011, Encyclopedia of Social Networks, Benjaafar Saif, 2013, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, V10, P99 Fahimnia B., 2015, Omega, Zhu Qinghua, 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH, V45, P4333 Zhu Qinghua, 2007, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V15, P1041 Brandenburg Marcus, 2014, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V233, P299 Brin S, 1998, COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS7th International World Wide Web Conference, APR 14-18, 1998, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, V30, P107 Giarola Sara, 2011, COMPUTERS & CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, V35, P1782 Corsano Gabriela, 2011, COMPUTERS & CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, V35, P1384 Linton Jonathan D., 2007, JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, V25, P1075 Kainuma Y, 2006, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS17th International Conference on Production Research, AUG, 2003, Blacksburg, VA, V101, P99 Tsoulfas Giannis T., 2006, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V14, P1593 Pampel F.C., 2004, Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Chicksand Daniel, 2012, SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, V17, P454 David Bojarski Aaron, 2009, COMPUTERS & CHEMICAL ENGINEERING18th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering (ESCAPE-18), JUN 01-04, 2008, Lyon, FRANCE, V33, P1747 Srivastava Samir K., 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, V9, P53 Yong-Hak J., 2013, Web of Science, Chen P., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P8 Fiksel Joseph, 2010, CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRESS, V106, P28 Rao P, 2002, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, V22, P632 Wiedmann Thomas, 2009, ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICSEcological Footprint Conference, 2007, Cardiff, WALES, V68, P1975 Zhu Qinghua, 2008, OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, V36, P577 Barari Sikhar, 2012, EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, V39, P2965 Wiedmann Thomas, 2011, ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, V70, P1937 Green K., 1996, Bus. Strat Environ., V5, P188 Cronin B., 2011, Inf. Process. Manag., V47, P80 van Eck N.J., 2013, Manual for VOSviewer Version 1.5.4, Abdallah Tarek, 2012, APPLIED MATHEMATICAL MODELLING, V36, P4271 Zhu QH, 2004, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V12, P1025 Paloviita A., 2009, World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, V5, Zhu QH, 2005, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, V25, P449 Sarkis Joseph, 2012, SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, V17, P202 Gephi, 2013, Gephi - Makes Graphs Handy, Radicchi F, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V101, P2658 Ciliberti Francesco, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, V113, P88 Wu Zhaohui, 2011, JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, V29, P577 Olugu E.U., 2010, Sustainability, V2, Sarkis Joseph, 2011, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, V130, P1 Grossmann Ignacio E., 2010, COMPUTERS & CHEMICAL ENGINEERING7th International Conference on the Foundations of Computer-Aided Process Design, JUN 07-12, 2009, Breckenridge, CO, V34, P1365 Vachon Stephan, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, V111, P299 Yu Yang, 2010, ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, V69, P1140 Zhu Qinghua, 2011, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART E-LOGISTICS AND TRANSPORTATION REVIEW, V47, P808 Clauset A, 2004, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V70, Larsen Peder Olesen, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P575 Mele Fernando D., 2011, INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH, V50, P4939 Vachon Stephan, 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH, V45, P4357 Chien M. K., 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V4, P383 Olugu Ezutah Udoncy, 2011, RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, V55, P567 Chaabane A., 2012, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, V135, P37 Arimura Toshi H., 2011, JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, V61, P170 Fahimnia Behnam, 2013, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT, V18, P78 Lu Louis Y. Y., 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH, V45, P4317 Fahimnia Behnam, 2013, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V59, P210 Igarashi Mieko, 2013, JOURNAL OF PURCHASING AND SUPPLY MANAGEMENT, V19, P247 Batagelj V., 2011, Pajek: Program for Analysis and Visualization of Large Networks - Reference Manual, Creasey S., 2007, How going green helps you clean up, P66 Zhu Qinghua, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, V111, P261 Testa Francesco, 2010, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V18, P953 Hervani A.A., 2005, Benchmarking, V12, P330 Zhu QH, 2004, JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, V22, P265 Yan Erjia, 2011, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V47, P125 Blondel Vincent D., 2008, JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL MECHANICS-THEORY AND EXPERIMENT, Simpson Dayna, 2010, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH, V48, P227 United Nations, 2013, Composition of Macro Geographical (Continental) Regions, Geographical Sub-regions, and Selected Economic and Other Groupings, Hjorland Birger, 2013, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V49, P1313 Varsei Mohsen, 2014, SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, V19, P242 Azapagic A, 1999, COMPUTERS & CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, V23, P1509 Diabat Ali, 2013, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, V60, P398 Stoughton M, 2003, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V11, P839 Guillen-Gosalbez Gonzalo, 2010, COMPUTERS & CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, V34, P42 Pinto-Varela T., 2015, Comput Chem. Eng., ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352253000021 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Bibliometric* Analysis of the Top 100 *Cited* Cardiovascular Articles Authors: Shuaib, W; Khan, MS; Shahid, H; Valdes, EA; Alweis, R Author Full Names: Shuaib, Waqas; Khan, Muhammad S.; Shahid, Hassan; Valdes, Emilio A.; Alweis, Richard Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 115 (7):972-981; 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.01.029 APR 1 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: JOURNAL IMPACT FACTORS; CITATION-CLASSICS; RADIOLOGY; SCIENCE; DISEASE Abstract: The number of citations an article receives is an important indication of its impact and contribution to the clinical world. There is a paucity of literature concerning top article citations in cardiology. The main objective of this investigation was to bridge this gap and to provide readers a practical guide in evaluating the cardiovascular literature. Scopus Library database was searched to determine the citations of all published cardiovascular articles. One hundred two journals were included in our investigation under the Institute of Science Information Web of Science subject category "cardiology, cardiovascular, and heart." We did not apply any time or study-type restriction in our search. The top 100 cited articles were selected and analyzed by 2 independent investigators. The journal with the highest number of top 100 cited articles was Circulation with 36, followed by 28 in the European Heart Journal. A statistically significant association was found between the journal *impact factor* and the number of top 100 cited articles (p < 0.005). United States had the highest number of articles (49). Contrary to bibliometric analyses published in other medical fields, the largest subset of the cardiology articles (n = 42) was published in the 5-year period from 2006 to 2010. General medical journals such as The Lancet (n = 4) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 1) contributed only 5 articles to the list despite their extremely high impact factors. In conclusion, our analysis provides an insight on the citation frequency of top cited articles published in cardiovascular medicine to help recognize the quality of the works, discoveries, and the trends steering cardiology. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Shuaib, Waqas] Emory Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA. [Khan, Muhammad S.] Dow Univ Hlth Sci, Dow Med Coll, Karachi, Pakistan. [Shahid, Hassan; Alweis, Richard] Reading Hlth Syst, Dept Med, W Reading, PA USA. [Valdes, Emilio A.] Jairo D Libreros Neurol & Pain Management Clin, Tampa, FL USA. E-mail Addresses: waqas.shuaib at emory.edu Cited Reference Count: 19 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 685 ROUTE 202-206 STE 3, BRIDGEWATER, NJ 08807 USA ISSN: 0002-9149 eISSN: 1879-1913 Web of Science Categories: Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems Research Areas: Cardiovascular System & Cardiology IDS Number: CF0RX Unique ID: WOS:000352253000021 PubMed ID: 25670637 Cited References: Lefaivre Kelly A., 2011, CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, V469, P1487 Gisvold SE, 1999, ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, V43, P971 Loomes Dustin Edward, 2013, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V144, P673 Moed Henk F., 2009, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V57, P13 Ponce Francisco A., 2010, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V112, P223 van der Linde Denise, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, V58, P2241 Baltussen A, 2004, ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, V98, P443 SIEGELMAN SS, 1988, RADIOLOGY, V168, P414 Paladugu R, 2002, WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, V26, P1099 Lim Kyoung Ja, 2012, RADIOLOGY, V264, P796 BROOKES BC, 1969, NATURE, V224, P953 World Heart Federation, Cardiovascular health, Seglen PO, 1998, ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA, V69, P224 Bakkalbasi N, 2006, Biomed Digit Libr, V29, P3 World Health Organization, World Health Day: a global brief on hypertension, Hennessey Kiara, 2009, CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, V3, P293 Brandt JS, 2010, Am J Obstet Gynecol, V203, Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P338 Moed HF, 2002, NATURE, V415, P731 ======================================================================= *Record 14 of 92. 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:000352147300001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Landslides: review of achievements in the second 5-year period (2009-2013) Authors: Sassa, K; Tsuchiya, S; Fukuoka, H; Mikos, M; Doan, L Author Full Names: Sassa, Kyoji; Tsuchiya, Satoshi; Fukuoka, Hiroshi; Mikos, Matjaz; Doan, Loi Source: LANDSLIDES, 12 (2):213-223; 10.1007/s10346-015-0567-4 APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Review Author Keywords: Landslides, Impact factor, Citation, Classification KeyWords Plus: SUSCEPTIBILITY; RAINFALL; PREDICTION; REGRESSION; MODEL Abstract: The international journal Landslides: Journal of International Consortium on Landslides was established in April 2004. The aims of Landslides are to promote landslide science, technology, and capacity building, and to strengthen global cooperation for landslide risk reduction within the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (ISDR). The achievements of the first 5 years from the beginning of 2004 (Vol. 1, No. 1) to the mid-2009 (Vol. 6, No. 2) were reviewed in 2009 (Landslides 6: 275-286, 2009). This article presents the review for the second 5-year period from mid-2009 (Vol. 6, No. 3) to the end of 2013 (Vol. 10, No. 6), focusing on the journal's significance and its impact. We include an analysis of the classifications of articles in Landslides. Addresses: [Sassa, Kyoji] Int Consortium Landslides, Kyoto 6068226, Japan. [Tsuchiya, Satoshi] Shizuoka Univ, Fac Agr, Suruga Ku, Shizuoka 4228017, Japan. [Fukuoka, Hiroshi] Niigata Univ, Res Inst Nat Hazards & Disaster Recovery, Niigata 9502181, Japan. [Mikos, Matjaz] Univ Ljubljana, Fac Civil & Geodet Engn, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. [Doan, Loi] Kyoto Univ, Grad Sch Engn, Kyoto 6158530, Japan. E-mail Addresses: sassa at iclhq.org Cited Reference Count: 40 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER HEIDELBERG, TIERGARTENSTRASSE 17, D-69121 HEIDELBERG, GERMANY ISSN: 1612-510X eISSN: 1612-5118 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Geological; Geosciences, Multidisciplinary Research Areas: Engineering; Geology IDS Number: CE9ES Unique ID: WOS:000352147300001 Cited References: Ravanel Ludovic, 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P493 Mansour Mohamed Farouk, 2011, LANDSLIDES, V8, P117 Do Minh Duc, 2013, LANDSLIDES, V10, P219 Fanti Riccardo, 2013, LANDSLIDES, V10, P409 Gigli Giovanni, 2014, LANDSLIDES, V11, P1 Allen Simon K., 2011, LANDSLIDES, V8, P33 Yin Yueping, 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P339 Pagano Luca, 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P273 Pradhan Biswajeet, 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P13 Highland LM, 2008, U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1325, P129 Cigna Francesca, 2013, LANDSLIDES, V10, P267 Capparelli Giovanna, 2011, LANDSLIDES, V8, P67 Sassa Kyoji, 2014, LANDSLIDES, V11, P827 Capparelli Giovanna, 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P401 Cruden D.M., 1996, Landslides: Investigation and MitigationSpec Rep 247, P36 Schulz William H., 2009, LANDSLIDES, V6, P181 Cervi Federico, 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P433 Xu Chong, 2013, LANDSLIDES, V10, P421 Herrera Gerardo, 2011, LANDSLIDES, V8, P195 Chang D. S., 2011, LANDSLIDES, V8, P321 Furumura Takashi, 2011, LANDSLIDES, V8, P333 Martelloni G., 2012, LANDSLIDES, V9, P485 Baum Rex L., 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P259 Akgun Aykut, 2012, LANDSLIDES, V9, P93 Yagi Hiroshi, 2009, LANDSLIDES, V6, P335 Casagli Nicola, 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P291 Guzzetti G, 2008, Landslides, V5, P3 Xu Chong, 2014, LANDSLIDES, V11, P441 Neuhaeuser Bettina, 2012, LANDSLIDES, V9, P511 Tang Chuan, 2011, LANDSLIDES, V8, P485 Sassa Kyoji, 2009, LANDSLIDES, V6, P275 Sassa K, 2014, Proc. International Forum Urbanization and Landslide Disasters- Hiroshima landslide disaster in August, 2014 and Japan's contribution to post- 2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, P85 Peng M., 2012, LANDSLIDES, V9, P13 Li Zhihong, 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P125 Erener Arzu, 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P55 Chauhan Shivani, 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P411 Cui Peng, 2009, LANDSLIDES, V6, P209 Yin Yueping, 2009, LANDSLIDES, V6, P139 Wu Chun-Hung, 2014, LANDSLIDES, V11, P357 Trigila Alessandro, 2010, LANDSLIDES, V7, P455 ======================================================================= *Record 15 of 92. Search terms matched: JOURNALS(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352518800017 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The Role of Neurosurgery *Journals* in Evidence-Based Neurosurgical Care Authors: Amadio, JP; Oyesiku, NM Author Full Names: Amadio, Jordan P.; Oyesiku, Nelson M. Source: NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 26 (2):283-+; 10.1016/j.nec.2014.11.001 APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Review, Evidence-based medicine, Neurosurgery publishing, Reporting guidelines, Meta-analysis, Clinical-practice guidelines, Peer review KeyWords Plus: RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; ASSOCIATION/AMERICAN STROKE ASSOCIATION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST; HIGHLY CITED WORKS; CLINICAL-PRACTICE; NEUROLOGICAL-SURGEONS; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; AMERICAN-ASSOCIATION; REPORTING STANDARDS Abstract: Neurosurgery journals have played an active role in improving the quality of the neurosurgical literature. This role has expanded to improve the quality of care by incorporating an evidence-based view of neurosurgery practice. Neurosurgery journals have facilitated the organization of knowledge into clinically useful forms via the publication of meta-analyses and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. Peer review continues to be a core feature of neurosurgery publishing, with attendant ethical and procedural safeguards. Finally, neurosurgery journals have spearheaded innovative responses to cultural and technological changes, including initiatives to deliver high-quality research in electronic formats and support the education of future neurosurgery investigators. Addresses: [Amadio, Jordan P.] Emory Univ, Sch Med, Dept Neurosurg, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA. [Oyesiku, Nelson M.] Emory Univ, Sch Med, Neurosurg Residency Program, Dept Neurosurg,Emory Pituitary Ctr, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA. E-mail Addresses: jamadio at emory.edu Cited Reference Count: 89 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC, 1600 JOHN F KENNEDY BOULEVARD, STE 1800, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2899 USA ISSN: 1042-3680 eISSN: 1558-1349 Web of Science Categories: Clinical Neurology; Surgery Research Areas: Neurosciences & Neurology; Surgery IDS Number: CF4KU Unique ID: WOS:000352518800017 Cited References: Oyesiku N., 2013, Neurosurgery, V73, P2013 Nesvick Cody L., 2014, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V121, P285 Stroup DF, 2000, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V283, P2008 Schumacher H. Christian, 2010, JOURNAL OF NEUROINTERVENTIONAL SURGERY, V2, P324 von Elm Erik, 2007, PLOS MEDICINE, V4, P1623 Curfman Gregory D., 2008, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V358, P2276 Connolly E. Sander, Jr., 2012, STROKE, V43, P1711 Brott TG, 2011, Circulation, V124, P54 Gnanalingham KK, 2005, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V103, P439 Kane Robert L., 2007, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, V60, P241 Sacco Ralph L., 2013, STROKE, V44, P2064 Ragel Brian T., 2006, NEUROSURGERY, V59, P759 loannidis JP, 2005, PLoS Med, V2, Pe124 Page Matthew J., 2014, COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, Bullock M., 2007, J. Neurotrauma, V24, P1 LAWS ER, 1994, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V81, P317 Kalkanis Steven N., 2010, JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY, V96, P7 Barker Fred G., II, 2011, NEUROSURGERY, V68, P1 Linskey Mark E., 2014, JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY, V119, P557 Vanclay Jerome K., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P211 Rajpal Sharad, 2007, NEUROSURGERY, V61, P397 Marmarou A, 2005, Neurosurgery, V57, Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Kaiser Michael G., 2014, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, V21, P2 Chan AW, 2004, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V291, P2457 Schulz Kenneth F., 2010, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V340, Shea BJ, 2007, BMC Med Res Methodol, V15, P7 Apuzzo Michael L. J., 2014, WORLD NEUROSURGERY, V81, P443 Bandopadhayay Prateek, 2008, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, V15, P373 Firlik KS, 1999, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V90, P364 Apuzzo Michael L. J., 2013, WORLD NEUROSURGERY, V79, P595 Knuth T, 2005, Guidelines for the field management of combat-related head trauma, Apuzzo Michael L. J., 2008, NEUROSURGERY, V63, P821 Klimo Paul, Jr., 2014, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V120, P794 Saposnik Gustavo, 2011, STROKE, V42, P1158 Devereaux PJ, 2002, CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, V23, P380 Hadley Mark N., 2013, NEUROSURGERY, V72, P5 Bossuyt PM, 2003, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V326, P41 Haines SJ, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, V197, P285 Olson Jeffrey J., 2008, JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY, V89, P255 Keith Michael Warren, 2010, JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, V92A, P218 Yarascavitch Blake A., 2012, NEUROSURGERY, V71, P1131 Lundh A, 2010, PLoS Med, V7, Schoeller K., 2009, ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, V151, P519 Ponce Francisco A., 2010, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V112, P233 Ponce Francisco A., 2010, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V112, P223 Sampson John H., 2014, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V120, P791 Morgenstern Lewis B., 2010, STROKE, V41, P2108 Edlow Jonathan A., 2008, ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, V52, P407 Horton R, 1996, LANCET, V347, P984 Frank Martin, 2013, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V368, P787 Montori VM, 2002, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, V55, P787 Beall Jeffrey, 2012, NATURE, V489, P179 Matz Paul G., 2009, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, V11, P101 Cushing H, 1929, Science (New York, N.Y.), V70, P485 Patsopoulos NA, 2005, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V293, P2362 Adler John R Jr, 2012, Surgical neurology international, V3, P145 Amadio Jordan, 2012, NEUROSURGERY, V71, P907 Bullock MR, 2006, Neurosurgery, V58, Vranos G, 2004, NEUROSURGERY, V55, P18 Burneo J. G., 2007, CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY, V109, P418 Kochanek Patrick M, 2012, Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies, V13 Suppl 1, PS1 Tiruvoipati Ravindranath, 2006, JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, V132, P233 Carney Nancy, 2014, NEUROSURGERY, V75, PS1 Sanchez-Thorin JC, 2001, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V108, P410 Meyers Philip M., 2009, STROKE, V40, PE366 Haines SJ, 2003, NEUROSURGERY, V52, P36 Kreiner D. Scott, 2014, SPINE JOURNAL, V14, P180 Budd JM, 2011, Assoc Coll, P390 Jensen Mary E., 2007, JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, V18, P325 Atkins D, 2004, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V328, P1490 Hewitt C, 2005, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V330, P1057 Ahmadi Negar, 2012, JOURNAL OF SURGICAL EDUCATION, V69, P91 Moher David, 2009, PLOS MEDICINE, V6, Sheehan Jason, 2012, WORLD NEUROSURGERY, V78, P592 Hamani Clement, 2014, NEUROSURGERY, V75, P327 Kernan Walter N., 2014, STROKE, V45, P2160 Madhugiri Venkatesh S., 2013, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V119, P1274 Esses Stephen I., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, V19, P176 Rothoerl RD, 2003, NEUROSURGICAL REVIEW, V26, P257 Ferris Lorraine E., 2010, NEUROSURGERY, V66, P629 Wilkins R H, 1982, Neurosurgery, V10, P820 Badjatia N, 2007, Prehosp Emerg Care, V12, PS1 Feindel W, 2003, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V99, P188 Hill CL, 2002, ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM, V46, P779 Patel Alpesh A., 2011, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V114, P21 Mobbs RJ, 2004, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, V11, P57 Plint Amy C., 2006, MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, V185, P263 Moher D, 2001, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V285, P1992 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352179300008 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Citation* searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments Authors: Linder, SK; Kamath, GR; Pratt, GF; Saraykar, SS; Volk, RJ Author Full Names: Linder, Suzanne K.; Kamath, Geetanjali R.; Pratt, Gregory F.; Saraykar, Smita S.; Volk, Robert J. Source: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 68 (4):412-417; 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.10.008 APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Search methods, Information sources, Meta-analyses, Systematic reviews, Instruments, Methodology KeyWords Plus: TREATMENT DECISION-MAKING; PATIENT PREFERENCES; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; GOOGLE-SCHOLAR; CANCER; INTERVENTIONS; INFORMATION; DATABASES; BEHAVIOR; MEDLINE Abstract: Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of two search methods in identifying studies that used the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), a health care decision-making instrument commonly used in clinical settings. Study Design and Setting: We searched the literature using two methods: (1) keyword searching using variations of "Control Preferences Scale" and (2) cited reference searching using two seminal CPS publications. We searched three bibliographic databases [PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS)] and one full-text database (Google Scholar). We report precision and sensitivity as measures of effectiveness. Results: Keyword searches in bibliographic databases yielded high average precision (90%) but low average sensitivity (16%). PubMed was the most precise, followed closely by Scopus and WOS. The Google Scholar keyword search had low precision (54%) but provided the highest sensitivity (70%). Cited reference searches in all databases yielded moderate sensitivity (45-54%), but precision ranged from 35% to 75% with Scopus being the most precise. Conclusion: Cited reference searches were more sensitive than keyword searches, making it a more comprehensive strategy to identify all studies that use a particular instrument. Keyword searches provide a quick way of finding some but not all relevant articles. Goals, time, and resources should dictate the combination of which methods and databases are used. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Linder, Suzanne K.] Univ Texas Med Branch, Sealy Ctr Aging, Dept Rehabil Sci, Galveston, TX 77555 USA. [Kamath, Geetanjali R.; Saraykar, Smita S.; Volk, Robert J.] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Hlth Serv Res, Houston, TX 77030 USA. [Pratt, Gregory F.] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Res Med Library, Houston, TX 77030 USA. E-mail Addresses: bvolk at mdanderson.org Funding Acknowledgement: National Institute of Health/National Cancer Institute [R21 CA132669]; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [R24 HS022134] Funding Text: This project was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute of Health/National Cancer Institute (#R21 CA132669) and by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (#R24 HS022134). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the National Institute of Health or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Cited Reference Count: 30 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010-1710 USA ISSN: 0895-4356 eISSN: 1878-5921 Web of Science Categories: Health Care Sciences & Services; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Research Areas: Health Care Sciences & Services; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health IDS Number: CE9QU Unique ID: WOS:000352179300008 PubMed ID: 25554521 Cited References: Gehanno IF, 2013, BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, V13, P7 Reitz JM, 2014, Online dictionary for library and information science, Egan M, 2012, BMJ Open, P2 Lemeshow AR, 2005, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, V58, P867 Papaioannou Diana, 2010, HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL, V27, P114 Giustini Dean, 2013, Online journal of public health informatics, V5, P214 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P338 Lefebvre Carol, 2013, Systematic reviews, V2, P78 Singh Jasvinder A., 2010, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MANAGED CARE, V16, P688 Boeker Martin, 2013, BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, V13, Higgins JPT, 2011, McKibbon K. Ann, 2012, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, V65, P651 Kiesler DJ, 2006, PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, V61, P319 Degner L F, 1997, The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmi?res, V29, P21 Chewning Betty, 2012, PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, V86, P9 Gorecki Claudia A., 2010, JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, V66, P645 Tariman J. D., 2010, ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, V21, P1145 Whiting Penny, 2008, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, V61, P357 DEGNER LF, 1992, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, V45, P941 Gray JAM, 1997, Evidence-based healthcare: how to make health policy and management decisions, Cooper Chris, 2014, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, V67, P554 Stacey Dawn, 2014, COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, Jenuwine ES, 2004, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V92, P349 Hubbard Gill, 2008, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING, V12, P299 Terwee Caroline B., 2009, QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, V18, P1115 Bramer Wichor M, 2013, Systematic reviews, V2, P115 Wright Kath, 2014, BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, V14, Gaston CM, 2005, SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, V61, P2252 Sackett David L., 2007, CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, P3 Shaw Rachel L, 2004, BMC medical research methodology, V4, P5 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000351880000096 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Modeling the *Citation* Network by Network Cosmology Authors: Xie, Z; Ouyang, ZZ; Zhang, PY; Yi, DY; Kong, DX Author Full Names: Xie, Zheng; Ouyang, Zhenzheng; Zhang, Pengyuan; Yi, Dongyun; Kong, Dexing Source: PLOS ONE, 10 (3):10.1371/journal.pone.0120687 MAR 25 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: EVOLUTION; PAPER Abstract: Citation between papers can be treated as a causal relationship. In addition, some citation networks have a number of similarities to the causal networks in network cosmology, e.g., the similar in-and out-degree distributions. Hence, it is possible to model the citation network using network cosmology. The casual network models built on homogenous space-times have some restrictions when describing some phenomena in citation networks, e.g., the hot papers receive more citations than other simultaneously published papers. We propose an inhomogenous causal network model to model the citation network, the connection mechanism of which well expresses some features of citation. The node growth trend and degree distributions of the generated networks also fit those of some citation networks well. Addresses: [Xie, Zheng; Ouyang, Zhenzheng; Zhang, Pengyuan] Natl Univ Def Technol, Coll Sci, Changsha, Hunan, Peoples R China. [Yi, Dongyun] Natl Univ Def Technol, State Key Lab High Performance Comp, Changsha, Hunan, Peoples R China. [Kong, Dexing] Zhejiang Univ, Dept Math, Hangzhou 310003, Zhejiang, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: xiezheng81 at nudt.edu.cn Funding Acknowledgement: open fund from key laboratory of high performance computing [201403-01]; national university of defense technology graduate teaching reform project [201406-01] Funding Text: This work was supported by the open fund from key laboratory of high performance computing (No. 201403-01), and the national university of defense technology graduate teaching reform project (No. 201406-01). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Cited Reference Count: 37 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 1160 BATTERY STREET, STE 100, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 USA ISSN: 1932-6203 Article Number: e0120687 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: CE5MO Unique ID: WOS:000351880000096 PubMed ID: 25807397 Cited References: Gehrke J., 2003, SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, V5, P149 Ahmed Maqbool, 2010, PHYSICAL REVIEW D, V81, Krioukov Dmitri, 2012, SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, V2, Karrer Brian, 2009, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V80, Boguna M, 2013, arXiv:abs/1310.6272, Chen P., 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P8 Borner K, 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, P5266 Kong De-Xing, 2009, COMMUNICATIONS IN PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS, V34, P553 Tang Jie, 2011, MACHINE LEARNINGInternational Conference on Machine Learning/ Workshop on Machine Learning and Graphs, 2008, Helsinki, FINLAND, V82, P211 Hajra KB, 2004, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V70, Dorogovtsev SN, 2003, Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW, Papadopoulos F., 2012, Performance Evaluation Review, V40, Kong De-Xing, 2007, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS, V48, Clauset Aaron, 2009, SIAM REVIEW, V51, P661 Hajra Kamalika Basu, 2006, PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, V368, P575 Dorogovtsev SN, 2000, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V62, P1842 Karrer Brian, 2009, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, V102, Krioukov Dmitri, 2010, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V82, Groff Ruth, 2008, REVITALIZING CAUSALITY, V18, P1 Wang Mingyang, 2008, PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, V387, P4692 Eom Young-Ho, 2011, PLOS ONE, V6, Redner S, 1998, EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B, V4, P131 Kenneth DB, 2005, Syst Res Behav Sci, V22, P355 Zhu H, 2003, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V68, PRICE DJD, 1976, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V27, P292 Rideout D, 1999, Phys Rev D, V61, Krapivsky PL, 2005, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V71, Redner S, 2004, arXiv:physics/0407137, Leskovec J., 2007, ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, V1, P2 Milo R, 2002, SCIENCE, V298, P824 Wu Zhi-Xi, 2009, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V80, Wang Dashun, 2013, SCIENCE, V342, P127 BOMBELLI L, 1987, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, V59, P521 DESOLLA PDJ, 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 CONSUL PC, 1973, TECHNOMETRICS, V15, P791 Papadopoulos Fragkiskos, 2012, NATURE, V489, P537 Radicchi Filippo, 2012, MODELS OF SCIENCE DYNAMICS: ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN COMPLEXITY THEORY AND INFORMATION SCIENCES, P233 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352194100006 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: An assessment of South Africa's research *journals*: *Impact factors*, Eigenfactors and structure of editorial boards Authors: Pouris, AEM; Pouris, A Author Full Names: Pouris, Androniki E. M.; Pouris, Anastassios Source: SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, 111 (3-4):26-33; MAR-APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Journal Citation Reports, journal performance, South Africa, citation analysis KeyWords Plus: CITATION ANALYSIS; UNIVERSITIES; VISIBILITY; RANKING Abstract: Scientific journals play an important role in academic information exchange and their assessment is of interest to science authorities, editors and researchers. The assessment of journals is of particular interest to South African authorities as the country's universities are partially funded according to the number of publications they produce in accredited journals, such as the Thomson Reuters indexed journals. Scientific publishing in South Africa has experienced a revolution during the last 10 years. Our objective here is to report the performance of the country's journals during 2009 and 2010 according to a number of metrics (i.e. impact factors, Eigenfactors (R) and the international character of editorial boards); to identify and compare the impact of the South African journals that have been recently added to the Thomson Reuters' Journal Citation Reports (R); and to elaborate on issues related to science policy. Addresses: [Pouris, Androniki E. M.] Tshwane Univ Technol, Fac Sci, Pretoria, South Africa. [Pouris, Anastassios] Univ Pretoria, Inst Technol Innovat, ZA-0002 Pretoria, South Africa. E-mail Addresses: apouris at icon.co.za Cited Reference Count: 21 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ACAD SCIENCE SOUTH AFRICA A S S AF, PO BOX 72135, LYNWOOD RIDGE 0040, SOUTH AFRICA ISSN: 0038-2353 eISSN: 1996-7489 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: CE9WM Unique ID: WOS:000352194100006 Cited References: Pouris A, 2000, SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, V96, P98 Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), 2008, National code of best practice in editorial discretion and peer review for South African scholarly journals, Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), 2006, Report on a strategic approach to research publishing in South Africa, Pouris Anthipi, 2010, INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION2nd World Conference on Educational Sciences (WCES-2010), FEB 04-08, 2010, Istanbul, TURKEY, V2, P515 Weingart P, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICSConference on Bibliometric Analysis in Science and Research, NOV 05-07, 2003, Julich, GERMANY, V62, P117 Pouris A, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V62, P213 POURIS A, 1988, R & D MANAGEMENT, V18, P333 Brendenkamp CL, 2008, S Afr J Sci, V104, P473 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P93 Zhou DN, 2002, FUZZY SETS AND SYSTEMS, V131, P63 Andreis Mladen, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P263 Monastersky R., 2005, Chron. High. Educ., V52, PA12 Ren SL, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V53, P389 Jennings C, 1998, Nat Neurosci, V1, P641 Van Raan AFJ, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICSConference on Bibliometric Analysis in Science and Research, NOV 05-07, 2003, Julich, GERMANY, V62, P133 Vanclay KJ, 2012, Scientometrics, V92, P211 Onyancha Omwoyo Bosire, 2009, AFRICAN JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ARCHIVES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, V19, P101 Bensman JS, 2012, Scientometrics, V92, P263 Bergstrom Carl T., 2008, NEUROLOGY, V71, P1850 Nkomo Stella M., 2009, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, V8, P106 Fersht Alan, 2009, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V106, P6883 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352194100014 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Can scientific *journals* be classified based on their '*citation* profiles'? Authors: Marashi, SA; Pandi, A; Shariati, H; Zamani-Nasab, H; Damavandi, N; Heidari, M; Sohrabi-Jahromi, S; Asghari, A; Aslani, S; Nakhaee, N; Moteallehi-Ardakani, MH Author Full Names: Marashi, Sayed-Amir; Pandi, Amir; Shariati, Hossein; Zamani-Nasab, Hossein; Damavandi, Narges; Heidari, Mahshid; Sohrabi-Jahromi, Salma; Asghari, Arvand; Aslani, Saba; Nakhaee, Narjes; Moteallehi-Ardakani, Mohammad Hossein Source: SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, 111 (3-4):83-85; MAR-APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: scientific journals, journal classification, journal type, citation analysis, citation profiles KeyWords Plus: NORMALIZED IMPACT FACTOR; SUBJECT CATEGORIES; HEALTH-SCIENCES; INTERDISCIPLINARY; PERFORMANCE; FIELDS Abstract: Classification of scientific publications is of great importance in biomedical research evaluation. However, accurate classification of research publications is challenging and normally is performed in a rather subjective way. In the present paper, we propose to classify biomedical publications into superfamilies, by analysing their citation profiles, i.e. the location of citations in the structure of citing articles. Such a classification may help authors to find the appropriate biomedical journal for publication, may make journal comparisons more rational, and may even help planners to better track the consequences of their policies on biomedical research. Addresses: [Marashi, Sayed-Amir; Zamani-Nasab, Hossein; Damavandi, Narges; Heidari, Mahshid; Sohrabi-Jahromi, Salma; Asghari, Arvand; Aslani, Saba; Nakhaee, Narjes; Moteallehi-Ardakani, Mohammad Hossein] Univ Tehran, Coll Sci, Dept Biotechnol, Tehran, Iran. [Pandi, Amir] Univ Tehran, Coll Sci, Sch Biol, Tehran, Iran. [Shariati, Hossein] Univ Tehran, Coll Sci, Sch Math Stat & Comp Sci, Tehran, Iran. E-mail Addresses: marashi at ut.ac.ir Cited Reference Count: 28 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ACAD SCIENCE SOUTH AFRICA A S S AF, PO BOX 72135, LYNWOOD RIDGE 0040, SOUTH AFRICA ISSN: 0038-2353 eISSN: 1996-7489 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: CE9WM Unique ID: WOS:000352194100014 Cited References: Marashi SA, 2005, MEDICAL HYPOTHESES, V65, P822 Patsopoulos NA, 2005, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V293, P2362 Voos H, 1976, J Acad Lib., V1, P19 Sombatsompop N, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V65, P293 [Anonymous], 2013, Chem World., V10, P12 Glanzel W, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P357 Porter Alan L., 2008, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V17, P273 Bornmann L., 2008, European Science Editing, V34, P35 Nieminen Pentti, 2006, BMC medical research methodology, V6, P42 GARFIELD E, 1992, THEORETICAL MEDICINE, V13, P117 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Hanney SR, 2006, DIABETIC MEDICINE, V23, P176 Leydesdorff Loet, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P348 Derkatch C., 2012, Tech Commun Quart., V21, P210 FANG MLE, 1989, BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V77, P205 Glanzel W, 1999, SCIENTOMETRICS5th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, JUN 04-06, 1998, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, V44, P427 Marashi Sayed-Amir, 2013, EXCLI JOURNAL, V12, P15 Leydesdorff Loet, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P589 Porter Alan L., 2009, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V11, P1023 Lewison G, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P145 Pudovkin AI, 2004, ASIST 2004: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 67TH ASIS&T ANNUAL MEETING, VOL 41, 200467th Annual Meeting of the American-Society-for-Information-Science-and-Technology, NOV 12-17, 2004, Providence, RI, V41, P507 CANO V, 1989, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V40, P284 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, ARCHIVUM IMMUNOLOGIAE ET THERAPIAE EXPERIMENTALIS, V56, P223 Nicolaisen Jeppe, 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P609 Dorta-Gonzalez P., 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P645 Maricic S, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V49, P530 Garfield E, 1996, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V313, P411 Bird Steven B, 2008, Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology, V4, P261 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352233000003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Nanoscience and nanotechnology in the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences: *bibliometric* analysis and evaluation Authors: Lavrik, OL; Busygina, TV; Shaburova, NN; Zibareva, IV Author Full Names: Lavrik, Olga L.; Busygina, Tatyana V.; Shaburova, Natalya N.; Zibareva, Inna V. Source: JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, 17 (2):10.1007/s11051-015-2900-1 FEB 13 2015 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Author Keywords: Bibliometric analysis, Databases, Information retrieval systems, Nanoscience, Nanotechnology, The Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences KeyWords Plus: SCIENTOMETRIC WEIGHT; SEARCH STRATEGY; 50 NATIONS; TECHNOLOGY; AREAS Abstract: The multidimensional bibliometric analysis of publications on nanoscience and nanotechnology (NS& NT) produced by the researchers of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SB RAS) in 2007-2012 has shown their growing publication activity and international visibility in the field and the main objects of research such as nanoparticles, nanostructures (nanostructured materials), nanotubes (especially carbon ones), nanocomposites, nanocrystals, nanotechnology, and nanoelectronics and identified the most productive authors and institutes, as well as the most cited publications. It was made using the data from multidisciplinary (Web of Science, Scopus, and Russian Index of Scientific Citation) and specialized (Chemical Abstracts Plus and Inspec) information resources, that is from international (WoS, Scopus, CAPlus, and Inspec) and national (RISC) data bases. The analysis has shown that most of the SB RAS research works on NS& NT are concentrated in Novosibirsk Scientific Centre. Addresses: [Lavrik, Olga L.; Busygina, Tatyana V.] Russian Acad Sci, Siberian Branch, State Publ Sci & Technol Lib, Novosibirsk 630200, Russia. [Shaburova, Natalya N.] Russian Acad Sci, Siberian Branch, Rzhanov Inst Semicond Phys, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia. [Zibareva, Inna V.] Russian Acad Sci, Boreskov Inst Catalysis, Siberian Branch, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia. [Zibareva, Inna V.] Novosibirsk State Univ, Natl Res Univ, Sci & Educ Ctr Energy Effect Catalysis, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia. E-mail Addresses: lisa at spsl.nsc.ru; zibareva at catalysis.ru Cited Reference Count: 24 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1388-0764 eISSN: 1572-896X Article Number: 90 Web of Science Categories: Chemistry, Multidisciplinary; Nanoscience & Nanotechnology; Materials Science, Multidisciplinary Research Areas: Chemistry; Science & Technology - Other Topics; Materials Science IDS Number: CF0KO Unique ID: WOS:000352233000003 Cited References: Shevchenko LB, 2012, Bibliosphere, P46 Mogoutov Andrei, 2007, RESEARCH POLICY, V36, P893 BRAUN T, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V34, P207 Reiss T, 2010, Nanotechnol Law Bus, V7, P387 Zibareva IV, 2010, Khimiya v Interesakh Ustoichivogo Razvitiya (Chem Sustain Dev), V18, P201 Huang Can, 2011, JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, V36, P145 Markusova V. A., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS13th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 04-07, 2011, Durban, SOUTH AFRICA, V91, P513 Braun T, 1997, SCIENTOMETRICS, V38, P321 Grieneisen Michael L., 2011, SMALL, V7, P2836 Milojevic S, 2012, J Nanopart Res, V14, P1 Arora Sanjay K., 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P351 Busygina TV, 2013, Khimiya v Interesakh Ustoichivogo Razvitiya (Chem Sustain Dev), V21, P463 Maghrebi Morteza, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P15 BRAUN T, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P263 Andrievski Rostislav A., 2011, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V13, P6221 Roco Mihail C., 2011, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V13, P427 Markusova VA, 2009, Naukovedcheskie issledovaniyaSociology of Scientific Research, P40 Porter Alan L., 2009, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V11, P1023 Zibareva IV, 2012, Bibliosphere, V4, P39 Shaburova NN, 2012, Brand New Research Aspects in the Beginning of the XXI Century, P9 Busygina TV, 2009, Bibliosphere, V4, P31 Shaburova NN, 2012, Bibliosphere, V4, P67 Zibareva I.V., 2011, Scientific and Technical Information Processing, V38, Busygina TV, 2010, Bibliosphere, V4, P53 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352232300001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: R & D on carbon nanostructures in Russia: *scientometric* analysis, 1990-2011 Authors: Terekhov, AI Author Full Names: Terekhov, Alexander I. Source: JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, 17 (2):10.1007/s11051-015-2897-5 FEB 8 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Nanotechnology, Carbon nanostructures, Bibliometric analysis, Research collaboration, Patent analysis, Commercialization KeyWords Plus: NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH; FULLERENE RESEARCH; COLLABORATION; NANOSCIENCE; TECHNOLOGY; GRAPHENE Abstract: The analysis, based on scientific publications and patents, was conducted to form an understanding of the overall scientific and technology landscape in the field of carbon nanostructures and determine Russia's place on it. The scientific publications came from the Science Citation Index Expanded database (DB SCIE); the patent information was extracted from databases of the United States Patent and Trade Office (USPTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent). We used also data about research projects, obtained via information systems of the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR). Bibliometric methods are used to rank countries, institutions, and scientists, contributing to the carbon nanostructures research. We analyze the current state and trends of the research in Russia as compared to other countries, and the contribution and impact of its institutions, especially research of the "highest quality.'' Considerable focus is on research collaboration and its relationship with citation impact. Patent datasets are used to determine the composition of participants of innovative processes and international patent activity of Russian inventors in the field, and to identify the most active representatives of small and medium business and some technological developments ripe for commercialization. The article contains a critical analysis of the findings, including a policy discussion of the country's scientific authorities. Addresses: Russian Acad Sci, Cent Econ & Math Inst, Moscow 117418, Russia. E-mail Addresses: a.i.terekhov at mail.ru Cited Reference Count: 47 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1388-0764 eISSN: 1572-896X Article Number: 81 Web of Science Categories: Chemistry, Multidisciplinary; Nanoscience & Nanotechnology; Materials Science, Multidisciplinary Research Areas: Chemistry; Science & Technology - Other Topics; Materials Science IDS Number: CF0KI Unique ID: WOS:000352232300001 Cited References: Milanez D. H., 2013, MATERIALS RESEARCH-IBERO-AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MATERIALS, V16, P1282 RVC (Russian Venture Company), 2013, Public analytical report on the implementation of the Strategy for Innovative Development of the Russian Federation for the period until the year 2020, Volder M., 2013, Science, V339, P535 BOCHVAR DA, 1973, DOKLADY AKADEMII NAUK SSSR, V209, P610 Beaudry Catherine, 2011, JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, V36, P665 Costas R, 2012, On the relationship between author collaboration and impact of scientific publications, Vul' A, 2009, Nanotechnol. Russia, V4, P397 Radushkevich LV, 1952, Russ J Phys Chem, V26, P88 IIJIMA S, 1991, NATURE, V354, P56 Braun T, 2000, CHEMICAL REVIEWS, V100, P23 Lucio-Arias Diana, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P603 Novoselov KS, 2004, SCIENCE, V306, P666 Terekhov AI, 2006, FULLERENES NANOTUBES AND CARBON NANOSTRUCTURES7th Biennial International Workshop on Fullerenes and Atomic Clusters, JUN 27-JUL 01, 2005, St Petersburg, RUSSIA, V14, P579 Novoselov K. S., 2012, NATURE, V490, P192 Terekhov AI, 2007, Russ Nanotechnol, V2, P11 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development), 2009, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard, Shapira P, 2010, Graphene research profile: UK and US publications, 2000-2010, Karpagam R., 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V89, P501 BRAUN T, 1992, ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE-INTERNATIONAL EDITION IN ENGLISH, V31, P588 Noorden R. V., 2011, Nature, V469, P14 Barth A, 2008, Graphene- a rising star in view scientometrics, Miller JC, 2006, Nanotechnol Law Bus, V3, P427 Terekhov A. I., 2009, HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, V79, P412 European Union, 2010, Patent System in Russia, Plume A, 2010, Researchtrends, V18, P5 Katz JS, 1997, RESEARCH POLICY, V26, P1 Arora Sanjay K., 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P351 Pham CH, 2011, Nanotechnol Law Bus, V8, P10 Ozawa Masaki, 2006, CARBON NANOTECHNOLOGY: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS, MATERIALS SCIENCE AND DEVICE APPLICATIONS, P127 Huang Can, 2011, JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, V36, P145 Begum S, 2013, &POUND;5 m US tech firm deal with graphene centre, Waltman Ludo, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P37 Mochalin Vadym N., 2012, NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY, V7, P11 Kostoff RN, 2000, JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES, V40, P19 CHERNOZATONSKII LA, 1992, PHYSICS LETTERS A, V166, P55 Lv Peng Hui, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P399 McDermot Will & Emery, 2014, Special report, Porter Alan L., 2008, JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, V10, P715 AJIFERUKE I, 1988, SCIENTOMETRICS, V14, P421 Kostoff RN, 2006, Report, KROTO HW, 1985, NATURE, V318, P162 King C, 2012, Multiauthor papers: onward and upward, Michalitsch R, 2008, Nanotechnol Law Bus, V5, P85 Marx W., 2010, Carbon Nanotubes, Kroto HW, 2014, Carbon in nano and outer space, Cientifica, 2013, Investing in graphene, Terekhov AI, 2013, Bull Sci Technol Soc, V33, P96 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352107800011 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A *bibliometric* study of international scientific productivity in giardiasis covering the period 1971-2010 Authors: Escobedo, AA; Arencibia, R; Vega, RL; Rodriguez-Morales, AJ; Almirall, P; Alfonso, M Author Full Names: Escobedo, Angel A.; Arencibia, Ricardo; Vega, Rosa L.; Rodriguez-Morales, Alfonso J.; Almirall, Pedro; Alfonso, Maydel Source: JOURNAL OF INFECTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 9 (1):76-86; 10.3855/jidc.5785 JAN 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: giardiasis, Giardia, bibliometric KeyWords Plus: TROPICAL-MEDICINE; DISEASE; PARASITOLOGY; TRENDS Abstract: Introduction: Despite years of relative neglect, interest in Giardia infection seems to be recently growing, perhaps in part due to its inclusion into the World Health Organization's Neglected Diseases Initiative since 2004. The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of Giardia and giardiasis research over time, as represented by the quantity of published papers. Methodology: Data for this study were collected from the electronic PubMed/Medline database of National Library of Medicine's (NLM), due to it is easily accessibility and wide use. It was accessed online between April and December 2011. Data for the period 1971-2010 were obtained and information was downloaded using the EndNote program developed by Thomson Reuters. Results: During the study period, a total of 6,964 references (articles, reviews, editorials, letter to the editor, etc.) covering different aspects of Giardia and giardiasis were located in the PubMed database after applying the search strategy reported above. Most papers were original articles and published in English. Conclusions: In this first effort to explore the development and research productivity on giardiasis over time (no previously published bibliometric studies on giardiasis exist), two interesting characteristics of the Giardia and giardiasis literature were discovered: the concentration of papers over journals disseminating the research results, and that research in this field is growing and will likely continue to grow in the coming years. Addresses: [Escobedo, Angel A.] Acad Paediat Hosp Pedro Borras, Havana, Cuba. [Escobedo, Angel A.; Almirall, Pedro] Panamer Assoc Infectol, Comm Clin Parasitol, Havana, Cuba. [Arencibia, Ricardo] Natl Ctr Sci Res, Network Scientometr Studies Higher Educ, Havana 6880, Cuba. [Vega, Rosa L.] Placental Histotherapy Ctr, Havana, Cuba. [Rodriguez-Morales, Alfonso J.] Univ Tecnol Pereira, Fac Hlth Sci, Res Grp Publ Hlth & Infect, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia. [Rodriguez-Morales, Alfonso J.] Fdn Cenit Colombia, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia. [Almirall, Pedro; Alfonso, Maydel] Municipal Ctr Hyg Epidemiol & Microbiol, Havana, Cuba. [Alfonso, Maydel] Fac Med Comandante Manuel Fajardo, Havana, Cuba. E-mail Addresses: arodriguezm at utp.edu.co Cited Reference Count: 20 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: J INFECTION DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, JIDC CENT OFF PORTO CONTE RICERCHE RES CTR, S P 55, PORTO CONTE CAPO CACCIA KM 8.400 LOC, TRAMANIGLIO, 07041, ITALY ISSN: 1972-2680 Web of Science Categories: Infectious Diseases Research Areas: Infectious Diseases IDS Number: CE8QE Unique ID: WOS:000352107800011 PubMed ID: 25596575 Cited References: Costa Lima JA, 1985, Educ Med Salud, V19, P209 Savioli L, 2006, TRENDS IN PARASITOLOGY, V22, P203 Falagas ME, 2006, BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES, V6, BOREHAM PFL, 1990, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V20, P479 PRITCHAR.A, 1969, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V25, P348 Lee Choon Shil, 2009, KOREAN JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY, V47, PS155 Ramos Jose M., 2013, PARASITES & VECTORS, V6, Morch K., 2008, JOURNAL OF INFECTION, V56, P268 Thompson RCA, 2000, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY, V30, P1259 National Science and Technology Council, 1995, Infectious Disease-A global Health Threat ( Report of the National Science and Technology Council on emerging and re- emerging infectious diseases), Glover SW, 2004, TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH, V9, P1327 Rashidi A., 2013, IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY, V8, P313 Falagas Matthew E., 2006, ACTA TROPICA, V99, P155 Caccio Simone M., 2011, GIARDIA: A MODEL ORGANISM, P17 Mellingen KM, 2010, BMC Public Health, V26, P163 Keiser J, 2004, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V328, P1229 Escobedo Angel A., 2010, Infectious Disorders - Drug Targets, V10, P329 Keiser J, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V62, P351 Sorell L, 2004, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, V99, P1330 Meneghini Rogerio, 2007, EMBO REPORTS, V8, P112 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000351849000049 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The Publication Activity of University in China: A *Bibliometric* Analysis Authors: Wen, Y Author Full Names: Wen, Yang Edited by: Anonymous Source: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SCIENCE (MESS 2015), 243-248; 2015 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: International Conference on Modern Education and Social Science (MESS) Conference Date: JAN 23-25, 2015 Conference Location: Wuhan, PEOPLES R CHINA Author Keywords: Bibliometric Analysis, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E), Publication Activity, University KeyWords Plus: JOURNALS; TRENDS Abstract: Publications have been regarded as the most significant output of science and technology(S&T) indicating research performance of universities, especially in research-oriented universities. This paper takes University of Electronic Science and Technology of China(UESTC) as example and analyze the growth and development of research activity of the university as reflected in publications output covered by Science Citation Index Expanded(SCI-E) database with the help of bibliometric indicators. This paper presents the analysis of 7882 publications that were published in different SCI-E periodicals during the period of time from 2010 to 2014, focusing on five aspects of the SCI-E publications, thus, the annual distribution of publications, authorship pattern, collaborative country, source journals and scientific disciplines. From the paper, it hopes to provide a reference for S&T research management and S&T research work. Addresses: Univ Elect Sci & Technol China, Lib, Chengdu 611731, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: weny at uestc.edu.cn Cited Reference Count: 9 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: DESTECH PUBLICATIONS, INC, 439 DUKE STREET, LANCASTER, PA 17602-4967 USA ISBN: 978-1-60595-217-8 Web of Science Categories: Education & Educational Research; Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary Research Areas: Education & Educational Research; Social Sciences - Other Topics IDS Number: BC3PR Unique ID: WOS:000351849000049 Cited References: SCHUBERT A, 1989, SCIENTOMETRICS, V16, P3 MOED HF, 1985, RESEARCH POLICY, V14, P131 Almind TC, 1997, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V53, P404 Price D. J., 1963, Little Science, Big Science, Glanzel W, 2002, LIBRARY TRENDS, V50, P461 Huang Ningyan, 2007, Studies in Science of Science, V06, P604 Miguel Campanario Juan, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P37 Vergidis PI, 2005, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY & INFECTIOUS DISEASES, V24, P342 Bihui Jin, 2007, Science Focus., V06, P20 ======================================================================= ================================================ *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000348983100011 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Journals* ranking and *impact factors*: how the performance of *journals* is measured Authors: Craig, ID; Ferguson, L; Finch, AT Author Full Names: Craig, Iain D.; Ferguson, Liz; Finch, Adam T. Edited by: Cope B; Phillips A Source: FUTURE OF THE ACADEMIC JOURNAL, SECOND EDITION, 259-298; 2014 Book Series: Chandos Information Professional Series Language: English Document Type: Article; Book Chapter Author Keywords: Journal Impact factor, journals ranking, alternative bibliometrics KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; CITATION; SCIENCE Abstract: This chapter investigates measures of journal performance and ranking. It begins by exploring the principal conventional sources of citation data, Web of Science and Scopus, and compares these with alternatives such as Google Scholar. Critical variables in citation analyses include coverage by discipline and different article types, such as review articles compared to articles documenting new research. The chapter concludes with an exploration of alternative metrics. Addresses: [Craig, Iain D.] Market & Publishing Analyt Dept, Oxford, England. [Finch, Adam T.] Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, England. [Finch, Adam T.] Flinders Univ S Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Cited Reference Count: 67 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: CHANDOS PUBL, 80 HIGH ST, SAWSTON, CAMBRIDGE CB22 3HJ, ENGLAND ISBN: 978-1-78063-464-7 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: BC0EA Unique ID: WOS:000348983100011 Cited References: McVeigh Marie E., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P1107 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P338 [Anonymous], 2008, Journal Citation Report Notices, [Anonymous], 2012, Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions, Jin BiHui, 2007, CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, V52, P855 PETERS HPF, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V45, P39 Rowlands I., 2005, New journal publishing models: the 2005 CIBER survey of journal author behaviour and attitudes, SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Tsay MY, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P17 [Anonymous], 2008, Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI), Excellence in Research for Australia, 2008, In Australian Research Council, PINSKI G, 1976, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V12, P297 Potter CV, 2004, ORGANIC & BIOMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY, V2, P3535 Testa J., 2012, The Thomson Scientific journal selection process, Nicholas David, 2006, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V62, P482 ERIH, 2013, Sombatsompop N, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS, V60, P217 Davis P., 2012, The Scholarly Kitchen, ERA, 2012, Harnad S, 2007, Proceedings of ISSI 2007: 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics I, 25-7 June, Madrid, Spain, P27 [Anonymous], Technology Overview, Case DO, 2000, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V51, P635 Morrison H. G., 2012, Freedom for scholarship in the Internet age, Moed H. F., 2005, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, P126 Bornmann Lutz, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P830 Egghe L., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P8 Pudovkin AI, 2004, ASIST 2004: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 67TH ASIS&T ANNUAL MEETING, VOL 41, 200467th Annual Meeting of the American-Society-for-Information-Science-and-Technology, NOV 12-17, 2004, Providence, RI, V41, P507 MOED HF, 1995, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V46, P461 Morris Sally, 2007, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V20, P299 Felt U., 2012, Journal of Scientometric Research, V1, P28 [Anonymous], 2011, Journal Citation Report Notices, Monastersky R., 2005, Chron. High. Educ., V52, PA12 Schubert Andras, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P179 Price J., 2007, 30th UKSG Annual Conference: Plenary Sessions, Creagh S., 2011, The Conversation, Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2006, PLoS Medicine, V3, Pe291 Bensman Stephen J., 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V41, P93 ERIH, 2008, Context and Background of ERIH, Cameron BD, 2005, PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY, V5, P105 KESSLER MM, 1963, AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION, V14, P10 Moed Henk F., 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P153 Campbell P., 2008, Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit., V8, P5 [Anonymous], 2008, A Joint Response from History of Science, SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Weale Andy R, 2004, BMC medical research methodology, V4, P14 [Anonymous], Bibliometrics Pilot Exercise, Kosmulski M., 2006, ISSI Newsletter, V2, P4 Lehmann Sune, 2006, NATURE, V444, P1003 [Anonymous], ERIH Summary Guidelines, Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 GARFIELD E, 1955, SCIENCE, V122, P108 Ewing J., 2006, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, V53, P1049 [Anonymous], 2011, Journal Usage Factor, Moed HF, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V37, P105 Bollen J., 2008, Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, P231 Reedijk Jan, 2008, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V64, P183 McVeigh M. E., 2002, Journal self-citation in the Journal Citation Reports-Science Edition, Marshakova I., 1973, Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya Seriya, V2, P3 Newman D., 2005, Thomson Reuters, [Anonymous], Results, recommendations and next steps, Research Excellence Framework, 2007, Consultation on the assessment and funding of higher education research post-2008, Ketcham Catherine M., 2007, LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, V87, P1174 Schonfeld R., 2004, The Nonsubscription Side of Periodicals: Changes in Library Operations and Cost between Print and Electronic Formats, Butkovich NJ, 1996, LIBRARY RESOURCES & TECHNICAL SERVICES, V40, P359 Costas Rodrigo, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V1, P193 [Anonymous], Bibliometrics and the Research Excellence Framework, ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352006800008 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The impact of foreign-born scientists and engineers on American nanoscience research Authors: Walsh, JP Author Full Names: Walsh, James P. Source: SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY, 42 (1):107-120; 10.1093/scipol/sct084 FEB 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: innovation, globalization, immigration, science and engineering, nanoscience and nanotechnology KeyWords Plus: NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH; SCIENCE; MIGRATION; KNOWLEDGE; PATTERNS; BIOTECHNOLOGY; PRODUCTIVITY; INDICATORS; INNOVATION; NETWORKS Abstract: This paper assesses the contribution of foreign-born scientists and engineers to nanoscience innovation. While studies have assessed immigrants' general contributions to American science and engineering, less is known about their presence within emergent, cutting-edge, and multidisciplinary fields. Multiple sources are utilized to determine the nativity of researchers within nanotechnology, a platform technology with important implications for economic growth, industrial competitiveness, and numerous fields of scientific research. Specifically, it examines the authors of the most highly-cited articles published in the period 1999-2009. Based on comparisons with the prevalence of foreign-born in the scientific and engineering community and general population, the study's findings reveal that researchers were disproportionally foreign-born, a trend that has grown over time. Additionally, although over-represented among high-impact researchers, there were no significant differences between the institutional locations (academia versus industry) and research activities (productivity and patterns of collaboration) of foreign and native scientists and engineers. Addresses: Univ Penn, Social Sci & Policy Forum, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. E-mail Addresses: jawalsh at sas.penn.edu Funding Acknowledgement: National Science Foundation [SES 0531184] Funding Text: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES 0531184. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. It was conducted under the auspices of the University of California Santa Barbara's Center for Nanotechnology in Society (www.cns.ucsb.edu). Cited Reference Count: 79 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS, GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND ISSN: 0302-3427 eISSN: 1471-5430 Web of Science Categories: Management; Planning & Development; Public Administration Research Areas: Business & Economics; Public Administration IDS Number: CE7GO Unique ID: WOS:000352006800008 Cited References: Kapur D., 2001, Journal of Human Development, V2, P265 Skeldon Ronald, 2009, INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION, V47, P3 Seely Brown J., 2012, The Social Life of Nanotechnology, Pxi Cornelius W., 2001, The International Migration of the Highly-Skilled, P1 National Academy of Sciences, 2005, Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States, Tijssen RJW, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS, V54, P381 Aksnes DW, 2003, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V12, P159 National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2013, What is nanotechnology, Zucker L. G., 2007, NBER Working Paper No. 12172, Strange K., 2008, American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology, V295, P567 National Science Foundation, 2012, Science and Engineering Labor Force, Brown S., 2009, Immigration Policy and Security, P66 Saxenian A., 2002, The Bookings Review, V20, P28 Garfield E., 1979, Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Sciences, Technology and Humanities, Islam Nazrul, 2010, TECHNOVATION, V30, P229 Simon DF, 2009, CHINA'S EMERGING TECHNOLOGICAL EDGE: ASSESSING THE ROLE OF HIGH-END TALENT, P1 Parker R., 2012, The Social Life of Nanotechnology, P111 McKneally M, 2006, JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, V131, P517 Matloff N., 2006, Best? Brightest? A Green Card giveaway for foreign grads would be unwarranted, Zuckerman H., 1977, Scientific Elite, Zucker LG, 1996, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAColloquium on Science, Technology, and the Economy, OCT 20-22, 1995, IRVINE, CA, V93, P12709 Coe NM, 2003, GLOBAL NETWORKS-A JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL AFFAIRS, V3, P437 Baruffaldi Stefano H., 2012, RESEARCH POLICY, V41, P1655 Rumbaut RG, 2004, INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEWConference on Conceptual and Methodological Development in the Study of International Migration, MAY 23-25, 2003, Princeton, NJ, V38, P1160 Franchignoni Franco, 2011, JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, V43, P471 Shachar A, 2006, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, V81, P148 Roco M., 2002, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, V5, P181 Di Gregorio D, 2003, RESEARCH POLICY, V32, P209 ZUCKERMAN HA, 1968, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V74, P276 Baerlocher Mark Otto, 2007, JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE MEDICINE, V55, P174 Lee S., 2004, Foreign-born scientists in the United States-do they perform differently than native-born scientists?, Williams Allan M., 2007, GLOBAL NETWORKS-A JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL AFFAIRS, V7, P29 National Science Foundation, 2010, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, Larner Wendy, 2007, TRANSACTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE OF BRITISH GEOGRAPHERS, V32, P331 Hart D. M., 2007, Science and Public Policy, V34, P45 Levine L., 2010, Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, P95 Espenshade TJ, 2001, POPULATION RESEARCH AND POLICY REVIEW, V20, P135 Walsh J., 2012, Technology and Society, V34, P127 Cho E., 2008, Immigrant Rights in the Shadows of Citizenship, P94 Michelson E. S., 2008, Technology in Society, V30, P405 Bhagwati J., 2009, Skilled Immigration Today, P3 Mehta Aashish, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V93, P439 2008, The International Mobility of Talent, Guan Jiancheng, 2007, RESEARCH POLICY, V36, P880 Briggs V., 2001, Immigration and American Unionism, Tscharntke T., 2007, PLoS Biology, V5, Lotka A. J., 1926, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, V16, P317 Chakravartty P., 2001, The International Migration of the Highly-Skilled, P325 Dauvergne C, 2008, MAKING PEOPLE ILLEGAL: WHAT GLOBALIZATION MEANS FOR MIGRATION AND LAW, P1 Kostoff Ronald N., 2007, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V74, P1733 CHUNG KH, 1990, JOURNAL OF FINANCE, V45, P301 Wadwha V., 2007, America's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Aksnes D. W., 2009, Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, V41, P155 Ilakovac Vesna, 2007, CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL5th International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, SEP 16-18, 2005, Chicago, IL, V176, P41 Florida Richard, 2002, The Rise of the Creative Class:... And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, and Everyday Life, Stine D., 2009, The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce, SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Stephan PE, 2001, POPULATION RESEARCH AND POLICY REVIEW, V20, P59 Manning P., 2005, Migration in World History, Wadwha V., 2012, The Immigrant Exodus: Why America is Losing the Global Race to Capture Entrepreneurial Talent, Beaudry Catherine, 2013, INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION, V20, P241 Mahroum S, 2000, R & D MANAGEMENT, V30, P23 Huang Can, 2012, WORLD DEVELOPMENT, V40, P970 Nye JS, 2004, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, V83, P16 Trippl Michaela, 2010, PAPERS IN REGIONAL SCIENCE, V89, P229 Schummer Joachim, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P669 Wagner C. S., 2009, The New Invisible College: Science for Development, Persson O, 2004, SCIENTOMETRICS9th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informatics, AUG, 2003, Beijing, PEOPLES R CHINA, V60, P421 MERTON RK, 1968, SCIENCE, V159, P56 Saxenian A., 2006, The New Argonauts, Espenshade T., 2001, The International Migration of the Highly-Skilled, P55 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012, Report to the President and Congress on the Fourth Assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Bach R., 2001, The International Migration of the Highly-Skilled, P113 Harthorn B., 2012, The Social Life of Nanotechnology, P1 Laudel G, 2005, MINERVA, V43, P377 Gittelman M, 2003, MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, V49, P366 Borjas G., 2007, Heaven's Door, Anderson Melissa S., 2007, ACADEMIC MEDICINE, V82, P853 Hess A., 2012, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, V59, P65 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= From anupdas2072 at GMAIL.COM Wed May 6 09:33:32 2015 From: anupdas2072 at GMAIL.COM (anup kumar das) Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 19:03:32 +0530 Subject: United Nations UNCTAD releases report "Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Urbanization" Message-ID: UNCTAD releases report "*Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Urbanization*" In recent years, sustainable urbanization has become a very popular topic. Several conferences at international, regional and local levels have periodically discussed urbanization issues in detail. Debate on the topic has already reached a level of maturity whereby tools, resources and applications are abundant worldwide. Innovation on sustainable urbanization is happening everywhere, in both developed and developing countries. This report aims to contribute to the sustainable urbanization discourse by addressing the specific role of science, technology and innovation. It is based on literature review and an analysis of cities in developed and developing countries that provide examples that can be reapplied elsewhere. The report provides a fresh perspective on the discussion on sustainable urbanization, drawing on current research and case studies from around the world. The report identifies key sectoral planning challenges posed by rapid urbanization, particularly in developing countries, and proposes practical guidelines to city planners and other decision makers for addressing these challenges through the use of science, technology and innovation. Download -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From edelgado at UGR.ES Thu May 7 05:02:15 2015 From: edelgado at UGR.ES (=?UTF-8?Q?Emilio_Delgado_L=C3=B3pez-C=C3=B3zar?=) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 11:02:15 +0200 Subject: A ranking of scientific book publishers according to the catalogues of Spanish academic libraries Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the release of Book Publishers Library Metrics, a product that offers indicators on the circulation and visibility of academic publishers by counting the number of books included in the catalogues of Spanish academic and university libraries. The product can be accessed from the following URL: http://www.librarymetricsforbookpublishers.infoec3.es These rankings have been assembled from a sample of 368,884 academic books, included in one or more of the 93 libraries that are part of the network of Spanish academic and university libraries (Rebiun). The rankings are presented by scientific fields. The details about the methodology we have followed and the indicators presented in the rankings can be found at http://www.librarymetricsforbookpublishers.infoec3.es/layout.php?id=metodologia . The two main objectives of this product are: ? To identify the core of scientific publishers in the Social Sciences and Humanities with a wider circulation according to their presence in the catalogues of Spanish academic libraries. ? To test the reliability, viability and feasibility of library catalogue analysis on a large scale, with the aim of producing bibliometric indicators for the assessment of scientific publications in the areas of the Humanities and Social Sciences. The product we are now presenting is a supplement to the one we announced a few months ago: Publishers Scholar Metrics (http://www.publishers-scholarmetrics.info), which measured the impact of book publishers based on citation counts extracted from the books published by researchers and professors of Spanish universities in the areas of the Humanities and the Social Sciences that were indexed on Google Scholar as of 2012. The experimental nature of this action was also aimed at verifying the degree of acceptance of products of this kind in the Humanities and Social Sciences communities, which are not as of yet familiar with this sort of bibliometric practices. And the best way to do this is to display the results obtained in each area of study in order to analyse and assess the reactions. Kind regards, Emilio Delgado L?pez-C?zar EC3 Research Group: Evaluaci?n de la Ciencia y de la Comunicaci?n Cient?fica Universidad de Granada ec3.ugr.es http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=es&user=kyTHOh0AAAAJ From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Fri May 8 18:46:10 2015 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 22:46:10 +0000 Subject: Papers of interest to readers of the SIG-Metrics List - May 8, 2015 Message-ID: Cited Article: Garfield, E. Mapping the output of topical searches in the Web of Knowledge and the case of Watson-Crick ======================================================================= *Record 1 of 1. *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353082200016 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Centrality and Flow Vergence gradient based Path analysis of scientific literature: A case study of Biotechnology for Engineering Authors: Lathabai, HH; Prabhakaran, T; Changat, M Author Full Names: Lathabai, Hiran H.; Prabhakaran, Thara; Changat, Manoj Source: PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, 429 157-168; 10.1016/j.physa.2015.01.085 JUL 1 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Biotechnology, Engineering, Complex network analysis, Paradigm shifts, Path analysis, FV gradient KeyWords Plus: CITATION NETWORK; INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY; CONNECTIVITY; DIFFUSION; PATTERNS Abstract: Biotechnology, ever since its inception has had a huge impact on the society and its various applications have been intricately woven into the human web of life. Its evolution amidst all the other research realms vital to mankind is remarkable. In this paper, we intend to identify the radical innovations in Biotechnology for Engineering using network analyses. Centrality analysis and Path analysis are used for identifying important works. Existence of Flow Vergence effect in the scientific literature is revealed. Flow Vergence gradient, an arc metric derived from FV model, is utilised for Path analysis which detects pivotal papers of paradigm shift more accurately. A major paradigm shift has been identified in the business models of Biotechnology for Engineering - 'Capability to Connectivity' model. Evidence towards the adoption of business practices in BT firms by nanotechnology start-ups is also identified. The notion of critical divergence is introduced and the exhibition of interdisciplinary interaction in emerging fields due to critical divergence is discussed. Implications of above analyses which target: (i) Science and technology policy makers, (ii) industrialists and investors, (iii) researchers in academia as well as industry, are also discussed. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Lathabai, Hiran H.; Prabhakaran, Thara; Changat, Manoj] Univ Kerala, Dept Futures Studies, Thiruvananthapuram 695034, Kerala, India. E-mail Addresses: hiranhl007 at gmail.com; thara.dfs at gmail.com; mchangat at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 41 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0378-4371 eISSN: 1873-2119 Web of Science Categories: Physics, Multidisciplinary Research Areas: Physics IDS Number: CG2CJ Unique ID: WOS:000353082200016 Cited References: Xia Tianjiao, 2008, TECHNOVATION, V28, P776 Bastian M., 2009, International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Bonacich Phillip, 2007, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V29, P555 Chang Shann-Bin, 2009, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V76, P107 Rafols Ismael, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P633 Deo N., 2004, Graph Theory with Applications to Engineering and Computer Science, Lotka A.J., 1926, J. Wash. Acad. Sci., Whitley R., 1984, The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Dankelmann P, 2004, UTILITAS MATHEMATICA, V65, P41 Coccia M., 2010, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, V6, Batagelj V., 2004, Islands, Slides from Sunbelt XXIV, P12 Chung F.R.K., 2006, Complex Graphs and Networks, V107, Chen CM, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P359 Allarakhia Minna, 2012, TECHNOVATION, V32, P216 Pantin V., 2012, 3G: Globalistics, Global Studies, Globalization Studies, P150 Newman M.E.J., 2008, The New Palgrave Encyclopedia of Economics., V2, P1 Batagelj V, 1998, Connections, V21, P47 Dorogovtsev SN, 2006, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, V96, HUMMON NP, 1989, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V11, P39 PRICE DJD, 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 Kejiar N., 2010, Classification as a Tool for Research, P525 Garfield E., 1992, Sci. Public Policy, V19, P321 Kuhn T.S., 2012, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, VXII, SEIDMAN SB, 1983, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V5, P269 Batagelj V., 2003, Efficient algorithms for citation network analysis, Scardoni G., 2012, New Frontiers in Graph Theory, Chiaroni Davide, 2006, TECHNOVATION, V26, P1064 CHIDAMBER SR, 1994, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, V9, P94 Wasserman S., 1994, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, V8, Perry CA, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V49, P151 Teng JTC, 2002, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, V49, P13 Garfield E, 2003, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES, V22, P183 Garfield E., 1979, Citation Indexing: its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities, V8, Prabhakaran Thara, 2015, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V91, P124 ZASLAVSKY T, 1982, DISCRETE APPLIED MATHEMATICS, V4, P47 GARFIELD E, 1979, SCIENTOMETRICS, V1, P359 Barabasi AL, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P509 Daim Tugrul U., 2006, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V73, P981 Shibata Naoki, 2011, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, V78, P274 FREEMAN LC, 1977, SOCIOMETRY, V40, P35 MULKAY MJ, 1975, SOCIOLOGY-THE JOURNAL OF THE BRITISH SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, V9, P187 ======================================================================= ======================================================================== *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352636300001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Reflections on impact issues Authors: Schweinberger, SR; Edwards, MG; Neyer, FJ Author Full Names: Schweinberger, Stefan R.; Edwards, Martin G.; Neyer, Franz J. Source: BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 106 (2):183-185; 10.1111/bjop.12129 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Addresses: [Schweinberger, Stefan R.; Neyer, Franz J.] Univ Jena, Inst Psychol, Jena, Germany. [Edwards, Martin G.] Catholic Univ Louvain, Psychol Sci Res Inst, Louvain, Belgium. Cited Reference Count: 16 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 0007-1269 eISSN: 2044-8295 Web of Science Categories: Psychology, Multidisciplinary Research Areas: Psychology IDS Number: CF5ZO Unique ID: WOS:000352636300001 PubMed ID: 25850857 Cited References: SEGLEN PO, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V45, P1 Haslam Catherine, 2014, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V105, P17 Leder Helmut, 2014, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V105, P443 Kovacs-Balint Zsofia, 2013, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V104, P563 Jolley Daniel, 2014, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V105, P35 Lehmann Sune, 2006, NATURE, V444, P1003 Alrajih Shuaa, 2014, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V105, P153 O'Neill Sarah, 2013, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V104, P14 Tinlin Rowan M., 2013, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V104, P235 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Baddeley Alan, 2013, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V104, P443 Della Sala Sergio, 2013, CORTEX, V49, P2601 Dunn Thomas J., 2014, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V105, P399 Moed Henk F., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P265 Gelade Garry A., 2013, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V104, P69 Morgan Kate, 2014, BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V105, P214 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352995000015 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The happiness turn? Mapping the emergence of "happiness studies" using *cited* references Authors: Kullenberg, C; Nelhans, G Author Full Names: Kullenberg, Christopher; Nelhans, Gustaf Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 103 (2):615-630; 10.1007/s11192-015-1536-3 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Happiness studies, Cited references, Bibliographic coupling, Multidisciplinary, Citation analysis KeyWords Plus: LIFE SATISFACTION Abstract: This article analyzes "happiness studies" as an emerging field of inquiry throughout various scientific disciplines and research areas. Utilizing four operationalized search terms in the Web of Science; "happiness", "subjective well-being", "life satisfaction" and "positive affect", a dataset was created for empirical citation analysis. Combined with qualitative interpretations of the publications, our results show how happiness studies has developed over time, in what journals the citing papers have been published, and which authors and researchers are the most productive within this set. We also trace various trends in happiness studies, such as the social indicators movement, the introduction of positive psychology and various medical and clinical applications of happiness studies. We conclude that "happiness studies" has emerged in many different disciplinary contexts and progressively been integrated and standardized. Moreover, beginning at the turn of the millennium, happiness studies has even begun to shape an autonomous field of inquiry, in which happiness becomes a key research problem for itself. Thus, rather than speaking of a distinct "happiness turn", our study shows that there have been many heterogeneous turns to happiness, departing in a number of different disciplines. Addresses: [Kullenberg, Christopher; Nelhans, Gustaf] Univ Gothenburg, Dept Philosophy Linguist & Theory Sci, S-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden. [Nelhans, Gustaf] Univ Boras, SSLIS, Boras, Sweden. E-mail Addresses: christopher.kullenberg at gu.se; gustaf.nelhans at gu.se Cited Reference Count: 52 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 eISSN: 1588-2861 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: CG0WW Unique ID: WOS:000352995000015 Cited References: Latour B., 1999, Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies, Nederhof AJ, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP 23-25, 2004, Leiden, NETHERLANDS, V66, P81 EDWARDS JN, 1973, JOURNALS OF GERONTOLOGY, V28, P497 Bradburn N., 1969, The structure of psychological well-being, DIENER E, 1984, PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, V95, P542 Rafols Ismael, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1871 WATSON D, 1988, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, V54, P1063 BARON RM, 1986, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, V51, P1173 Helliwell J., 2012, World happiness report, WILSON W, 1967, PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, V67, P294 Burgess E. W., 1939, Predicting success or failure in marriage, WATSON D, 1985, PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, V98, P219 Diener E, 1999, PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, V125, P276 Latour B., 2013, An inquiry into modes of existence-An anthropology of the moderns, PALMORE EB, 1968, GERONTOLOGIST, V8, P259 Andrews F. M., 1976, Social indicators of well-being: Americans' perceptions of life quality, Cantril H., 1965, The pattern of human concerns, Knox D., 1971, Marriage happiness: A behavioral approach to counseling, NEUGARTEN BL, 1961, JOURNALS OF GERONTOLOGY, V16, P134 Aristotle, 1991, Nichomachean ethics, Ahmed S., 2007, New Formations, V63, P7 DIENER E, 1985, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, V49, P71 Powell T., 2014, National well-being measures, RYFF CD, 1989, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, V57, P1069 Locke H. J., 1951, Predicting adjustments in marriage: A comparison of a divorced and a happily married group, Cumming E., 1961, Growing old: The process of disengagement, Campbell A., 1976, The quality of American life, SPREITZE.E, 1974, JOURNALS OF GERONTOLOGY, V29, P454 Seligman MEP, 2000, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, V55, P5 Lyubomirsky S., 2007, The how of happiness: A practical guide to getting the life you want, Easterlin R. A., 1974, Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz, RADLOFF L S, 1977, Applied Psychological Measurement, V1, P385 American Psychiatric Association, 1994, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, SMALL HG, 1978, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V8, P327 LARSON R, 1978, JOURNALS OF GERONTOLOGY, V33, P109 Ahmed S., 2010, The promise of happiness, Lyubomirsky S, 2005, PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, V131, P803 Layard R., 2005, Happiness-Lessons from a new science, Terman L. M., 1938, Psychological factors in marital happiness, Aiken L. S., 1991, Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions, Emmons R. A., 2006, Journal of Positive Psychology, V1, P1 GILBERT GN, 1977, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V7, P113 Ryan RM, 2001, ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, V52, P141 Gurin G., 1960, Americans view their mental health: A nationwide interview survey, Van Heur B., 2012, Social Studies of Science, V43, P341 Bradburn N. M., 1965, Reports on happiness, UNDP, 2013, Human Development Report 2013. The rise of the south: Human progress in a diverse world, PAVOT W, 1993, SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, V28, P1 PALMORE E, 1972, JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, V13, P68 Latour B, 1987, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Rosenberg M., 1965, Society and the adolescent self-image, van Eck Nees Jan, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P523 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352995000009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: What can university administrators do to increase the publication and *citation* scores of their faculty members? Authors: Amara, N; Landry, R; Halilem, N Author Full Names: Amara, Nabil; Landry, Rejean; Halilem, Norrin Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 103 (2):489-530; 10.1007/s11192-015-1537-2 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Publications, Citations, Fields, Time allocation, Academic rank, Survey KeyWords Plus: RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY; KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER; H-INDEX; SCIENCE; DETERMINANTS; IMPACT; RESEARCHERS; SCIENTISTS; ACADEMICS; RANKINGS Abstract: Studies on publication and citation scores tend to focus mostly on frequently published and cited scholars. This paper contributes to advancing knowledge by simultaneously looking into both high and low performing scholars, including non-publishing scholars, and by focusing on factors increasing or impeding scholarly performances. To this end, two complementary sources of data are used: (1) data from ISI web of science on publications and citations of scholars from 35 Canadian business schools and, and (2) survey data on factors explaining the productivity and impact performances of these scholars. The analysis of the data reveals five scholar profiles: (i) non-publishing scholars; (ii) low performing scholars; (iii) frequently publishing scholars; (iv) frequently cited scholars and; (v) high-impact frequently publishing scholars. Statistical modeling is then used to look into factors that explain why scholars are any of these performance configuration rather another. Two major results emerge: first, scholars in the low performing profile differ from those in the non-publishing profile only by being in top tier universities and by having high levels of funding from research councils. Second, scholars who publish frequently and are frequently cited differ from those in the low performing profile in many ways: they are full professors, they dedicate more time to their research activities, they receive all their research funding from research councils, and, finally, they are located in top tier universities. The last part of the paper discusses policy implications for the development of research skills by university managers willing to increase the publication and citation scores of their faculty members. Addresses: [Amara, Nabil; Landry, Rejean; Halilem, Norrin] Univ Laval, Fac Business, Dept Management, Quebec City, PQ G1V 0A6, Canada. E-mail Addresses: nabil.amara at mng.ulaval.ca Cited Reference Count: 80 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 eISSN: 1588-2861 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: CG0WW Unique ID: WOS:000352995000009 Cited References: Harzing A. W., 2007, Publish or perish, HAUSMAN J, 1984, ECONOMETRICA, V52, P909 Amara N., 2012, Scientometrics, V65, P359 Gonzalez-Brambila Claudia, 2007, RESEARCH POLICY, V36, P1035 Mingers John, 2010, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, V205, P422 Merigo-Lindahl J. M., 2012, Soft computing in management and business economics, V2, P3 Gaddis SE, 1998, TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT, V52, P67 Nelson R. R., 2001, Journal of Technology Transfer, V26, P13 Sabharwal Meghna, 2013, JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLICY ANALYSIS, V15, P141 Dietz JS, 2005, RESEARCH POLICY, V34, P349 Bowman Nicholas A., 2011, HIGHER EDUCATION, V61, P431 Huang Mu-Hsuan, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V37, P453 Dillman D. A., 2000, Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method, Chen Kuang-hua, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P89 Lissoni Francesco, 2011, INDUSTRIAL AND CORPORATE CHANGE, V20, P253 Carayol N, 2006, INFORMATION ECONOMICS AND POLICY, V18, P55 Miller J. Corey, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V97, P519 Cohen Joshua G., 2012, GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, V125, P8 Johnson D., 1997, American Economist, V41, P43 Reid Mark B., 2012, JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, V27, P23 Stephan P. E., 2007, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, V61, P71 Blumenthal D, 1996, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V335, P1734 Carayol N., 2004, Research Policy, V33, P1008 Basu Aparna, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P361 Conner KR, 1996, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V7, P477 Adler Nancy J., 2009, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, V8, P72 Mishra Vinod, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V96, P411 Petersen Alexander M., 2010, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V81, Radicchi Filippo, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P121 Van Raan AFJ, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICSConference on Bibliometric Analysis in Science and Research, NOV 05-07, 2003, Julich, GERMANY, V62, P133 Bergh DD, 2006, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V27, P81 Marginson S., 2007, Journal of Studies in International Education, V11, P306 Ibanez Alfonso, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P689 Costas Rodrigo, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1564 Lukman Rebeka, 2010, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V18, P619 ALLISON PD, 1990, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V55, P469 Turner L., 2002, Individual productivity differences in scientific research: An econometric exploration of French physicists' publications, Grant RM, 1996, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V17, P109 Abramo Giovanni, 2014, SCIENTOMETRICS, V101, P1129 Nesta L., 2006, Research Policy, V35, P843 Lelievre J., 2011, American Journal of pharmaceutical education, V75, P71 Talukdar Debabrata, 2011, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN MARKETING, V28, P248 Mingers J. C., 2014, Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Parker John N., 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P469 Bosquet Clement, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V97, P831 Docampo Domingo, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P567 Hemmings B., 2010, International Journal of Educational Management, V24, P562 Dey EL, 1997, SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION, V70, P308 Vieira Pedro Cosme, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P627 Reis N. R., 2011, Working paper no. 76/2011, Landry Rejean, 2010, RESEARCH POLICY, V39, P1387 Hemmings Brian C., 2007, HIGHER EDUCATION, V54, P307 SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Abramo Giovanni, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P915 Lariviere Vincent, 2010, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V19, P45 Bartneck Christoph, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P85 Krampen Guenter, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V76, P3 Van Looy B, 2004, RESEARCH POLICY, V33, P425 Field A, 2009, Discovering statistics using SPSS, Gulbrandsen M, 2005, RESEARCH POLICY, V34, P932 Zukerman H., 1967, American Sociological Review, V32, P391 Clarke M., 2005, Higher Education in Europe, V30, P183 Young B., 2014, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, D'Este Pablo, 2011, JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, V36, P316 Mingers John, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V85, P613 Kern Scott, 2011, CANCER BIOLOGY & THERAPY, V12, P949 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1146 Brusa J., 2010, Journal of Economics and Finance, V34, P46 Talukdar Debabrata, 2011, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, V98, P137 KOGUT B, 1992, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V3, P383 Amara Nabil, 2013, HIGHER EDUCATION, V65, P359 D'Este Pablo, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P481 Safon Vicente, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V97, P223 Saad Gad, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P117 Finkelstein Martin J., 2013, HIGHER EDUCATION, V66, P325 Menard S., 1995, Applied logistic regression analysis, V07-106, Puuska Hanna-Mari, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V82, P419 Cole J. R., 1973, Current Contents, V40, P5 Long Rebecca, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P231 Lortie Christopher J., 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P675 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353053000006 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Impact factor* - benefits and limitations Authors: Grzybowski, A Author Full Names: Grzybowski, Andrzej Source: ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 93 (3):201-202; 10.1111/aos.12579 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material KeyWords Plus: JOURNAL IMPACT; SCIENCE Addresses: Univ Warmia & Mazury, Chair Ophthalmol, Olsztyn, Poland. Cited Reference Count: 9 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 1755-375X eISSN: 1755-3768 Web of Science Categories: Ophthalmology Research Areas: Ophthalmology IDS Number: CG1SA Unique ID: WOS:000353053000006 PubMed ID: 25873277 Cited References: McGarty C, 2000, Curr Res Soc Psychol, V5, P1 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Ha Tam Cam, 2006, ANNALS ACADEMY OF MEDICINE SINGAPORE, V35, P911 Seglen PO, 1997, BMJ, V314, P497 Brown Hannah, 2007, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V334, P561 Williams Gareth, 2007, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V334, P568 Grzybowski Andrzej, 2009, MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, V15, PSR1 Testa J, 2012, The Thomson Scientific Journal Selection Process, Garfield E, 1996, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V313, P411 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352995000012 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The open access advantage considering *citation*, article usage and social media attention Authors: Wang, XW; Liu, C; Mao, WL; Fang, Z Author Full Names: Wang, Xianwen; Liu, Chen; Mao, Wenli; Fang, Zhichao Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 103 (2):555-564; 10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Article-level metrics, Usage metrics, Altmetrics, Open access, Social media attention, Open access advantage KeyWords Plus: IMPACT Abstract: In this study, we compare the difference in the impact between open access (OA) and non-open access (non-OA) articles. 1761 Nature Communications articles published from 1 January 2012 to 31 August 2013 are selected as our research objects, including 587 OA articles and 1174 non-OA articles. Citation data and daily updated article-level metrics data are harvested directly from the platform of nature.com. Data is analyzed from the static versus temporal-dynamic perspectives. The OA citation advantage is confirmed, and the OA advantage is also applicable when extending the comparing from citation to article views and social media attention. More important, we find that OA papers not only have the great advantage of total downloads, but also have the feature of keeping sustained and steady downloads for a long time. For article downloads, non-OA papers only have a short period of attention, when the advantage of OA papers exists for a much longer time. Addresses: [Wang, Xianwen; Liu, Chen; Mao, Wenli; Fang, Zhichao] Dalian Univ Technol, WISE Lab, Fac Humanities & Social Sci, Dalian 116085, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: xwang.dlut at gmail.com Funding Acknowledgement: National Natural Science Foundation of China [61301227]; Growth Plan of Distinguished Young Scholar in Liaoning Province [WJQ2014009] Funding Text: This work was supported by the project of "National Natural Science Foundation of China'' (61301227), and the project of "Growth Plan of Distinguished Young Scholar in Liaoning Province'' (WJQ2014009). We really appreciate the suggestions from the anonymous reviewers. Cited Reference Count: 25 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 eISSN: 1588-2861 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: CG0WW Unique ID: WOS:000352995000012 Cited References: Piwowar Heather, 2013, NATURE, V493, P159 Wang Xianwen, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P665 Moed Henk F., 2007, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYOpen Scholarship Conference 2006, OCT 18-20, 2006, Glasgow, SCOTLAND, V58, P2047 Harnad S., 2004, D-lib Magazine, V10, Davis PM, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P1062 Greyson D., 2009, Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, V30, P51 Lawrence S, 2001, NATURE, V411, P521 Priem J., 2012, arXiv preprintarXiv:1203.4745, Garfield E., 2004, What is the threshold for open access Nirvana?, Norris Michael, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1963 Gargouri Yassine, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, Wang Xianwen, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P717 Joint N., 2009, Library Review, V58, Akre O., 2009, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, V65, P119 Wang Xianwen, 2014, SCIENTOMETRICS, V98, P1923 Thelwall Mike, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, Davis P. M., 2008, BMJ: British Medical Journal, V337, P343 Priem J., 2010, Altmetrics: A manifesto, Wang Xianwen, 2014, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V8, P562 Mounce R., 2013, Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V39, P14 Wang Xianwen, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P655 Kurtz M. J., 2010, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, V44, P1 Duy Joanna, 2006, JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, V32, P512 Kwok Roberta, 2013, Nature, V500, P491 Antelman K, 2004, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V65, P372 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352995000016 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Inventor team size as a predictor of the future *citation* impact of patents Authors: Breitzman, A; Thomas, P Author Full Names: Breitzman, Anthony; Thomas, Patrick Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 103 (2):631-647; 10.1007/s11192-015-1550-5 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Inventor teams, Patents, Citations, Prospective indicators KeyWords Plus: INDICATORS Abstract: Forward citations are widely recognized as a useful measure of the impact of patents upon subsequent technological developments. However, an inherent characteristic of forward citations is that they take time to accumulate. This makes them valuable for retrospective impact evaluations, but less helpful for prospective forecasting exercises. To overcome this, it would be desirable to have indicators that forecast future citations at the time a patent is issued. In this paper, we outline one such indicator, based on the size of the inventor teams associated with patents. We demonstrate that, on average, patents with eight or more co-inventors are cited significantly more frequently in their first 5 years than peer patents with fewer inventors. This result holds true across technologies, assignee type, citation source (examiner versus applicant), and after self-citations are accounted for. We hypothesize that inventor team size may be a reflection of the amount of resources committed by an organization to a given innovation, with more researchers attached to innovations regarded as having particular promise or value. Addresses: [Breitzman, Anthony; Thomas, Patrick] 1790 Analyt LLC, Haddonfield, NJ 08033 USA. E-mail Addresses: abreitzman at 1790analytics.com Funding Acknowledgement: Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) via Department of Interior National Business Center [D11PC20154] Funding Text: Supported by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) via Department of Interior National Business Center contract number D11PC20154. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon. Disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of IARPA, DoI/NBC, or the U.S. Government. Cited Reference Count: 22 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 eISSN: 1588-2861 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: CG0WW Unique ID: WOS:000352995000016 Cited References: Barbera-Tomas D., 2011, Research Policy, V40, P473 Ashcraft C., 2007, Who invents IT? An analysis of women's participation in information technology patenting, TRAJTENBERG M, 1990, RAND JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, V21, P172 Thomas Patrick, 2006, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V15, P145 ALBERT MB, 1991, RESEARCH POLICY, V20, P251 Breitzman A., 2007, The Emerging Clusters Project Final Report, Harhoff D, 1999, REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, V81, P511 Wang Shyh-Jen, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V71, P509 Chang Connie K. N., 2009, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V18, P357 Hall B., 2000, NBER Working Paper No. 7741, Breitzman AF, 2002, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V28, P187 Breitzman Anthony, 2015, RESEARCH POLICY, V44, P195 Alcacer Juan, 2009, RESEARCH POLICY, V38, P415 Aksnes DW, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P235 Carpenter M., 1981, World Patent Information, V4, P160 Sampat B., 2004, Ashcraft C., 2012, Who Invents IT? Women's participation in information technology patenting, Hsieh Chihmao, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V86, P381 Deng Z., 1999, Financial Analysts Journal, V55, P20 Ruegg Rosalie, 2009, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V18, P387 Blind Knut, 2009, RESEARCH POLICY, V38, P428 NARIN F, 1987, RESEARCH POLICY, V16, P143 ======================================================================= *Record 12 of 68. *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353007000014 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Schistosomiasis in a migrating population in the lake region of China and its potential impact on control operation Authors: Cao, CL; Bao, ZP; Li, SZ; Wei, WY; Yi, P; Yu, Q; Zhu, HQ; Xu, J; Guo, JG; Feng, Z Author Full Names: Cao, Chun-li; Bao, Zi-ping; Li, Shi-zhu; Wei, Wang-yuan; Yi, Ping; Yu, Qing; Zhu, Hong-qing; Xu, Jing; Guo, Jia-gang; Feng, Zheng Source: ACTA TROPICA, 145 88-92; 10.1016/j.actatropica.2015.02.009 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Schistosomiasis japonica, Migrant population, Knowledge of schistosomiasis, Impact factor, China KeyWords Plus: JAPONICUM; TRANSMISSION Abstract: Coverage of migrating people in schistosomiasis control program is a growing concern in China. Schistosomiasis caused by Schistosoma japonicum is still one of the major infectious diseases of public health importance in China though tremendous efforts have been made to control the transmission over the past decades. Along with the rapid social-economic development, migrant population has been remarkably increasing across the country. The infected migrants may introduce a new souse of infection to endemic areas or the areas where the transmission had been controlled or interrupted but the intermediate host Oncomelania snail is still present. Preliminary studies for surveillance on schistosomiasis prevalence in migrants were reported, but there is little basic information provided. We carried out an investigation on the prevalence in immigrants, emigrants and permanent residents in three villages of Hunan province located in the main endemic area of lake region, and analyzed the potential impact of migration on control practice. In the study villages, the migrant population accounts for 53.6% of the total. Schistosoma infection was detected by modified Kato-Katz method and miracidium hatching test. Questionnaire survey was conducted comprising knowledge of disease and its transmission, water contact, personal protective measures, and whether examined and treated after water contact. The survey indicated that the migrants and permanent residents had similar life style, and the majority of them experienced water contact in agricultural work or routine life activities. However, the infection rate in immigrants was significantly higher than that in permanent residents. It was also found that the migrants had significantly less knowledge about the disease than the permanent residents, and took no personal protective measures. This is due to that the control program could not cover the migrants when they were absent at the time the program being implemented. The present study suggested that the surveillance and intervention for migrants, immigrants in particular, should be included and strengthened in schistosomiasis control program and a feasible scheme be developed. (C) 2015 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. Addresses: [Cao, Chun-li; Bao, Zi-ping; Li, Shi-zhu; Yu, Qing; Zhu, Hong-qing; Xu, Jing; Guo, Jia-gang; Feng, Zheng] Minist Hlth, Key Lab Parasite & Vector Biol, WHO Collaborating Ctr Malaria Schistosomiasis & F, Natl Inst Parasit Dis,Chinese Ctr Dis Control & P, Shanghai 200025, Peoples R China. [Wei, Wang-yuan; Yi, Ping] Hunan Inst Schistosomiasis Control, Yueyang, Hunan, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: caoc1889 at 163.com; zfeng0909 at 163.com Funding Acknowledgement: National Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention Funding Text: We would like to thank the staff of Yue Yang County Station of Schistosomiasis Control, Hunan Province, China, He Zhong, Wang Yihong and Huang XiaoSue for their efforts in the field survey. This work was supported by the National Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Cited Reference Count: 26 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0001-706X eISSN: 1873-6254 Web of Science Categories: Parasitology; Tropical Medicine Research Areas: Parasitology; Tropical Medicine IDS Number: CG1BC Unique ID: WOS:000353007000014 PubMed ID: 25700711 Cited References: Teng X.M, 2010, Occup. Health, V26, P687 Ostroff SM, 1998, INFECTIOUS DISEASE CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, V12, P231 Duan C.R., 2009, J. Nanjing Coll. Popul. Program. Manage, V25, P5 ???, 2010, ??????????Chinese Journal of Schistosomiasis Control, V22, P74 Cao ChunLi, 2008, Chinese Journal of Schistosomiasis Control, V20, P443 Cai ShunXiang, 2007, Chinese Journal of Schistosomiasis Control, V19, P389 Zhou Xiao-Nong, 2007, EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES, V13, P1470 Gray Darren J., 2008, PLOS ONE, V3, BELLA H, 1980, TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, V74, P36 Bureau of Disease Control Ministry of Health China, 2000, Manual of Schistosomiasis Control and Prevention, P72 LI YS, 1991, TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, V85, P623 Zhou XiaoNong, 2007, Chinese Journal of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, V25, P180 Li ShiZhu, 2013, Chinese Journal of Schistosomiasis Control, V25, P557 Wang Longde, 2008, LANCET, V372, P1793 Zhen Jiang, 2003, Chinese Journal of Schistosomiasis Control, V15, P1 Guo J.G., 2005, Chin.J. Schisto. Control, V17, P321 Wang Long-De, 2009, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V360, P121 Chen L, 2008, Parasitoses Infect. Dis, V6, P121 ???, 2006, ????????Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine, V40, P223 Huang S.Y., 2008, South China J. Prey. Med, V34, P6 Ross Allen G. P., 2013, MICROBES AND INFECTION, V15, P858 Chen HongGen, 2011, Chinese Journal of Schistosomiasis Control, V23, P5 Gautret P., 2012, EUROSURVEILLANCE, V17, P16 Liu Qing, 2010, Chinese Journal of Schistosomiasis Control, V22, P144 Zhou XiaoNong, 2011, Chinese Journal of Schistosomiasis Control, V23, P1 Yang J.L., 2007, Chin. J. Schisto. Control., V19, P427 ======================================================================= *Record 13 of 68. 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:000353056900001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Report on World Workshops on Oral Medicine (WWOM) IV and V: research themes and *citation* impact Authors: Peterson, DE; Lodi, G; Jensen, SB; Greenberg, MS; Hodgson, T; Kerr, AR; Wray, D; Lockhart, PB Author Full Names: Peterson, D. E.; Lodi, G.; Jensen, S. Beier; Greenberg, M. S.; Hodgson, T.; Kerr, A. R.; Wray, D.; Lockhart, P. B. Source: ORAL DISEASES, 21 (4):409-416; 10.1111/odi.12260 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Review Author Keywords: World Workshop on Oral Medicine IV, World Workshop on Oral Medicine V, World Workshop on Oral Medicine VI, oral medicine KeyWords Plus: MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS; INTERNATIONAL SURVEY; FUTURE-RESEARCH; DRUG-DELIVERY; OPPORTUNITIES; LESIONS; PAIN Abstract: The first World Workshop on Oral Medicine (WWOM) was held in 1988. The portfolio has continued to expand in scope and impact over the past 26years. Five World Workshops were conducted between 1988 and 2010, focusing on creation of systematic reviews in biomedicine and health care of importance to the international oral medicine community. WWOM VI was conducted in April 2014 and further extended this modeling. This most recent Workshop also fostered creation of the inaugural joint meeting between the American Academy of Oral Medicine and the European Association of Oral Medicine, together with The British Society for Oral Medicine and the Oral Medicine Academy of Australasia. The goal of the WWOM portfolio is to strategically enhance international oral medicine research, education, and clinical practice. To this end, this report summarizes subject areas for WWOM IV (2004) and research recommendations for WWOM V (2010), as well as citation metrics relative to publications from these two conferences. The information is designed to provide research and clinical context for key issues in oral medicine as delineated by the WWOM portfolio over the past 10years, as well as for projected outcomes of WWOM VI over the next 12months. Addresses: [Peterson, D. E.] Univ Connecticut, Ctr Hlth, Sch Dent Med, Farmington, CT 06030 USA. [Peterson, D. E.] Univ Connecticut, Ctr Hlth, Neag Comprehens Canc Ctr, Farmington, CT USA. [Lodi, G.] Univ Milan, Milan, Italy. [Jensen, S. Beier] Univ Copenhagen, Fac Hlth & Med Sci, Copenhagen, Denmark. [Greenberg, M. S.] Univ Penn, Sch Dent Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. [Hodgson, T.] UCLH Fdn Trust, Eastman Dent Hosp, London, England. [Kerr, A. R.] NYU, Coll Dent, New York, NY USA. [Wray, D.] Dubai Sch Dent Med, Dubai, U Arab Emirates. [Lockhart, P. B.] Carolinas Med Ctr, Charlotte, NC 28203 USA. E-mail Addresses: depeterson at uchc.edu Funding Acknowledgement: National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research; American Academy of Oral Medicine; Dr. Robert Schattner of Sporocidin; MGI Pharma Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; Daiichi Sankyo Inc.; Pfizer U.S. Pharmaceutical; Oral Cancer Foundation; Johnson Johnson; European Association of Oral Medicine; Robert Schattner Foundation; Biocosmetics; Unilever/Denmark; Elsevier Funding Text: The following sponsors kindly provided unrestricted funding for WWOM IV, WWOM V, and WWOM VI. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.WWOM IV: NIDCR (R13 DE016480). Funding from the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research allowed for a resident trainee from each of nine oral medicine programs in the United States to attend the Workshop. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Unrestricted funding was also provided by: American Academy of Oral Medicine; Dr. Robert Schattner of Sporocidin; MGI Pharma Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; Daiichi Sankyo Inc.; Pfizer U.S. Pharmaceutical.WWOM V: Unrestricted funding was provided by: Premier Sponsors: Oral Cancer Foundation, http://www.oralcancer.org; Johnson & Johnson, http: www.compeed.com.Contributing Sponsors: European! Association of Oral Medicine; American Academy of Oral Medicine; Anonymous donations from patients of Dr. David Sirois; Robert Schattner Foundation; GlaxoSmithKline.WWOM VI: Unrestricted funding was provided by: American Academy of Oral Medicine; European Association of Oral Medicine; Biocosmetics; Anonymous donations from patients of Dr. David Sirois; Johnson & Johnson; The Oral Cancer Foundation; Unilever/Denmark; Elsevier. Cited Reference Count: 25 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 1354-523X eISSN: 1601-0825 Web of Science Categories: Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine Research Areas: Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine IDS Number: CG1TJ Unique ID: WOS:000353056900001 PubMed ID: 24844316 Cited References: Hearnden Vanessa, 2012, ADVANCED DRUG DELIVERY REVIEWS, V64, P16 Shiboski Caroline H., 2007, ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTOLOGY4th World Workshop on Oral Medicine, APR 30-MAY 03, 2006, San Juan, PR, V103, PS66 Benoliel R., 2011, ORAL DISEASES, V17, P23 Lewis Michael A. O., 2007, ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS4th World Workshop on Oral Medicine, APR 30-MAY 03, 2006, San Juan, PR, V103, PS32 Lockhart Peter B., 2007, ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS, V103, PS1 Brennan Michael, 2007, ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS4th World Workshop on Oral Medicine, APR 30-MAY 03, 2006, San Juan, PR, V103, PS19 Baccaglini Lorena, 2007, ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS4th World Workshop on Oral Medicine, APR 30-MAY 03, 2006, San Juan, PR, V103, PS50 Patton Lauren L., 2007, ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS4th World Workshop on Oral Medicine, APR 30-MAY 03, 2006, San Juan, PR, V103, PS39 Aframian Doron J., 2007, ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS4th World Workshop on Oral Medicine, APR 30-MAY 03, 2006, San Juan, PR, V103, PS45 Ship Jonathan A., 2007, ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS4th World Workshop on Oral Medicine, APR 30-MAY 03, 2006, San Juan, PR, V103, PS6 Lingen M. W., 2011, ORAL DISEASES, V17, P7 Baccaglini Loretta, 2007, ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS, V103, PS3 Sankar V., 2011, ORAL DISEASES, V17, P73 Stoopler E. T., 2011, ORAL DISEASES, V17, P99 vonsBultzingslowen I, 2007, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, V103, P1 Greenberg Martin S., 2011, ORAL DISEASES, V17, P1 Schleyer T., 2011, ORAL DISEASES, V17, P85 1999, Perspectives on 1998 3rd World Workshop on Oral Medicine e, Rogers H., 2011, ORAL DISEASES, V17, P95 1995, Perspectives on 1993 2nd World Workshop on Oral Medicine e, 1989, Perspectives on 1988 World Workshop on Oral Medicine, Al-Hashimi Ibtisam, 2007, ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS4th World Workshop on Oral Medicine, APR 30-MAY 03, 2006, San Juan, PR, V103, PS25 Kerr A. R., 2011, ORAL DISEASES, V17, P42 Woo Sook-Bin, 2007, ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS4th World Workshop on Oral Medicine, APR 30-MAY 03, 2006, San Juan, PR, V103, PS12 Syrjanen S., 2011, ORAL DISEASES, V17, P58 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352995000019 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Mapping recent information behavior research: an analysis of co-authorship and *co-citation* networks Authors: Gonzalez-Teruel, A; Gonzalez-Alcaide, G; Barrios, M; Abad-Garcia, MF Author Full Names: Gonzalez-Teruel, Aurora; Gonzalez-Alcaide, Gregorio; Barrios, Maite; Abad-Garcia, Maria-Francisca Source: SCIENTOMETRICS, 103 (2):687-705; 10.1007/s11192-015-1548-z MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Information behavior, Research fields, Co-authorships, Co-citation analysis KeyWords Plus: SEARCHING BEHAVIOR; SEEKING; WEB; SCIENCE; NEEDS; LIFE; CENTRALITY; LIBRARY; USER; COAUTHORSHIP Abstract: There has been an increase in research published on information behavior in recent years, and this has been accompanied by an increase in its diversity and interaction with other fields, particularly information retrieval. The aims of this study are to determine which researchers have contributed to producing the current body of knowledge on this subject, and to describe its intellectual basis. A bibliometric and network analysis was applied to authorship and co-authorship as well as citation and co-citation. According to these analyses, there is a small number of authors who can be considered to be the most productive and who publish regularly, and a large number of transient ones. Other findings reveal a marked predominance of theoretical works, some examples of qualitative methodology that originate in other areas of social science, and a high incidence of research focused on the user interaction with information retrieval systems and the information behavior of doctors. Addresses: [Gonzalez-Teruel, Aurora; Gonzalez-Alcaide, Gregorio; Abad-Garcia, Maria-Francisca] Univ Valencia, Hist Sci & Documentat Dept, Valencia 46010, Spain. [Barrios, Maite] Univ Barcelona, Dept Methodol Behav Sci, Barcelona 08035, Spain. E-mail Addresses: agonzal at uv.es; gregorio.Gonzalez at uv.es; mbarrios at ub.edu; abad at uv.es Cited Reference Count: 91 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0138-9130 eISSN: 1588-2861 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: CG0WW Unique ID: WOS:000352995000019 Cited References: Tuominen K, 1997, LIBRARY QUARTERLY, V67, P350 Mizzaro S, 1997, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V48, P810 Li-Ping K., 2010, Chinese Journal of Library and Information Science, V3, P65 Olsson M. R., 2012, Social information research, V5, P17 Fidel R, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P24 Case D. O., 2012, Looking for information. A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior, Ingwersen P, 1996, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V52, P3 Lazonder AW, 2000, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V51, P576 Bandura A., 1986, Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, Strauss A., 1990, Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, Batagelj V., 2003, Graph drawing software, P77 McKechnie L. E., 2001, The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, V2, P47 McKechnie L.E.F., 2002, New Review of Information Behaviour Research, V3, KUHLTHAU CC, 1991, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V42, P361 GORMAN PN, 1995, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V46, P729 Lariviere Vincent, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P997 2013, Theory in information behaviour research, Taylor R. S., 1991, Progress in communication sciences, P217 Yan Erjia, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P2107 Gmur M., 2003, Scientometrics, V57, P27 COVELL DG, 1985, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V103, P596 Rieh SY, 2002, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V53, P145 Fishbein M., 1975, Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research, Wilson TD, 1999, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V55, P249 Wang PL, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V49, P115 Julien H, 2000, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V22, P291 Kelly Diane, 2013, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V64, P745 Pirolli P., 1999, Psychological Review, V106, P642 2005, Theories of information behavior, Pxix Rasmussen J., 1994, Cognitive systems engineering, Gonzalez-Teruel Aurora, 2012, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V34, P31 Bilal D, 2000, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V51, P646 Newman MEJ, 2004, COMPLEX NETWORKS, V650, P337 FREEMAN LC, 1979, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V1, P215 Abbasi Alireza, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P403 Alhaji T., 2012, Exploring the relationship between research in information retrieval and information seeking behavior, 1979-2008, Broder A., 2002, SIGIR Forum, V36, P3 McKenzie PJ, 2003, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V59, P19 Pettigrew KE, 1999, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V35, P801 BORGMAN CL, 1995, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V46, P663 Case DO, 2000, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V51, P635 Persson O., 2009, Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday, Kuhlthau C. C., 1993, Seeking Meaning: A process approach to library and information services, Julien Heidi, 2011, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V33, P19 BARRY CL, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V45, P149 McKechnie L. E., 2005, Information Research, V10, Kuhlthau C. C., 2004, Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services, MARCHIONINI G, 1989, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V40, P54 Milojevic Stasa, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1933 Julien H, 1996, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V18, P53 Houston R. D., 2009, A model of compelled nonuser of information, BATES MJ, 1989, ONLINE REVIEW, V13, P407 KRIKELAS J, 1983, DREXEL LIBRARY QUARTERLY, V19, P5 Jamali H. R., 2013, Webology, V10, Knoke D., 2008, Social network analysis, Wenger E., 1998, Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, Wang PL, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V54, P743 Vakkari P., 2008, Information Research, V13, Ioannidis John P. A., 2014, PLOS ONE, V9, Cox Andrew M., 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V38, P176 Wuchty Stefan, 2007, SCIENCE, V316, P1036 Ellis David, 2011, NEW DIRECTIONS IN INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR, V1, P17 Sin Sei-Ching Joanna, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1770 Williamson K, 1998, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V20, P23 Wilson Tom, 2008, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V34, P457 Fisher K. E., 2011, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, V43, P1 Spink A., 2004, Web search: Public searching of the web, Lee Deokjae, 2010, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, V82, Talja S, 2005, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V61, P79 Palmquist RA, 2000, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V51, P558 FORNELL C, 1981, JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, V18, P39 GRANOVET.MS, 1973, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V78, P1360 Liu XM, 2005, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V41, P1462 Badar Kamal, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P755 Chatman EA, 1996, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V47, P193 SARACEVIC T, 1975, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V26, P321 Davenport Elisabeth, 2010, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V44, P533 Olsson M. R., 2006, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V42, P43 Wilson P., 1983, Second-hand knowledge. An inquiry into cognitive authority, Wilson T.D., 2000, Informing Science, V3, DERVIN B, 1986, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V21, P3 Julien Heidi, 2013, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V35, P257 Chatman EA, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P207 Chang Y.-W., 2011, Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences, V48, P347 SCHUBERT A, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICS, V20, P317 DAVIS FD, 1989, MIS QUARTERLY, V13, P319 INGWERSEN P, 2005, KLUW S INF, V18, P1 PERSSON O, 1994, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V45, P31 Choo C. W., 2000, First Monday, V5, Glaser B., 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, SAVOLAINEN R, 1995, LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, V17, P259 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352651200010 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Mapping the scientific research on life cycle assessment: a *bibliometric* analysis Authors: Hou, Q; Mao, GZ; Zhao, L; Du, HB; Zuo, J Author Full Names: Hou, Qian; Mao, Guozhu; Zhao, Lin; Du, Huibin; Zuo, Jian Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 20 (4):541-555; 10.1007/s11367-015-0846-2 APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometric, Co-word analysis, H-index, Impact factor, Life cycle assessment, Social network analysis KeyWords Plus: CROPPING SYSTEMS; SCIENCE; LCA; BIODIESEL; EVOLUTION; BIOFUELS; FUTURE; WEB Abstract: A bibliometric analysis of life cycle assessment (LCA)-related research literature is reported in this study. Based on databases of Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH), this study aims to evaluate the research trends of LCA-related research literature from 1998 to 2013 by using bibliometric techniques. The documents were analyzed according to their type, language(s), subject(s), journal(s), citation analysis of articles, authors' address information, and keyword distribution, etc. H-index and impact factor (IF) were applied to characterize the LCA publications. Furthermore, co-word analysis and social network analysis (SNA) were employed to evaluate the interactions in this research field. The findings showed that the pace of publishing in this field increased exponentially over past 16 years. A total of 6616 records were obtained from the four databases. Journal articles are the most frequently used document type representing 74.33 % (4918) of the records, and English is the dominant language with 5914 records (97.53 %). The most common subject category is environmental sciences, and the most productive journal is International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. The USA, focusing on "energy," "industrial ecology," and "greenhouse gas emissions," is the most productive country in the research field of LCA. Technology University of Denmark is the most productive institute all over the world over the past 16 years. According to the ranking of keywords, "greenhouse gas," "energy", and "biofuel" are the hotspots of LCA research. The main purpose of LCA is sustainability assessment whereas climate change is one of the most outstanding environmental issues. By identifying global hotspots in the LCA research, this study provides a useful reference to researchers for the future research directions. Addresses: [Hou, Qian; Mao, Guozhu; Zhao, Lin] Tianjin Univ, Sch Environm Sci & Engn, Tianjin 300072, Peoples R China. [Du, Huibin] Tianjin Univ, Coll Management & Econ, Tianjin 300072, Peoples R China. [Zuo, Jian] Univ S Australia, Sch Nat & Built Environm, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. E-mail Addresses: maoguozhu at tju.edu.cn Funding Acknowledgement: National Natural Sciences Foundation of China [71273185, 71431005]; Post-doctoral Science Foundation of China [2013M540145]; National Major Science and Technology Program of China-Water Body Pollution Control and Remediation [2014ZX07504-005] Funding Text: The authors would like to thank anonymous referees and editors for their helpful comments and valuable suggestions, which substantially improved the content and composition of the present article. This study was financially supported by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China under Grant 71273185, 71431005, Post-doctoral Science Foundation of China under Grant 2013M540145 and National Major Science and Technology Program of China-Water Body Pollution Control and Remediationunder Grant 2014ZX07504-005. Cited Reference Count: 52 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER HEIDELBERG, TIERGARTENSTRASSE 17, D-69121 HEIDELBERG, GERMANY ISSN: 0948-3349 eISSN: 1614-7502 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Environmental; Environmental Sciences Research Areas: Engineering; Environmental Sciences & Ecology IDS Number: CF6FA Unique ID: WOS:000352651200010 Cited References: Ming HW, 2010, Scientometrics, V84, P813 Craig D, 2010, For Ecol Manag, V259, P660 Hendrickson C., 1998, Environ. Sci. Technol., V32, P184 Adisa A., 1999, Chem. Eng. J., V73, P1 Serrat O, 2009, Social network analysis, Gelfand Ilya, 2013, NATURE, V493, P514 Joshi SV, 2004, COMPOSITES PART A-APPLIED SCIENCE AND MANUFACTURINGAnnual Meeting of the American-Institute-of-Chemical-Engineers, NOV 03-08, 2002, INDIANAPOLIS, IN, V35, P371 Lardon Laurent, 2009, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V43, P6475 Sebastien H, 2009, Int J Life Cycle Assess, V14, P95 Robert HC, 2008, J Environ Manage, V88, P496 David A, 2013, Int J Life Cycle Assess, V18, P77 ISO, 2000, ISO14042: 2000(E), Noyons ECM, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P115 Moss Richard H., 2010, NATURE, V463, P747 Hui ZF, 2010, Waste Manag, V30, P2410 Azapagic A, 1999, COMPUTERS & CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, V23, P1509 Baumann H, 2002, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, V7, P2 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P338 Demirbas Ayhan, 2011, APPLIED ENERGY, V88, P17 ISO, 1998, AS/NZS ISO 14040, Kim S, 2005, BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, V29, P426 de Souza Cristina Gomes, 2011, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, V16, P561 Cobo M. J., 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P146 Serenella S, 2013, Int J Life Cycle Assess, V18, P1686 Chen Haibin, 2014, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, V19, P1674 Goran F, 2009, J Environ Manag, V91, P1 Tsay Ming-Yueh, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P421 Boner K, 2003, Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol, V37, P179 Bettencourt Luis M. A., 2011, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V108, P19540 Nilsson M, 2007, Environmental policy integration in practice. Shaping institutions for learning, Robert KH, 2002, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V10, P197 Meho LI, 2007, J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol, V58, P2015 Adler Paul R., 2007, ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, V17, P675 Hellweg Stefanie, 2014, SCIENCE, V344, P1109 CALLON M, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICS, V22, P155 Vink ETH, 2003, POLYMER DEGRADATION AND STABILITY, V80, P403 Von BH, 2007, J Clean Prod, V15, P607 Oscar O, 2009, Constr Build Mater, V23, P28 Huijbregts MAJ, 2000, CHEMOSPHERE, V41, P541 Rebitzer G, 2004, ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, V30, P701 Crutzen P. J., 2008, ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, V8, P389 Serenella S, 2013, Int J Life Cycle Assess, V18, P1653 Pehnt M, 2006, RENEWABLE ENERGY, V31, P55 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 ISO, 2000, ISO 14043: 2000(E), Zuo Jian, 2014, RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, V30, P271 Martin C., 2010, ANIMALInternational Conference on Livestock and Global Climate Change, MAY, 2008, Hammamet, TUNISIA, V4, P351 Chiu Wen-Ta, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P3 Van RAFJ, 2005, Meas Interdisc Res Perspect, V3, P50 Espinosa Nieves, 2012, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, V5, P5117 ISO, 1999, AS/NZS ISO 14041, Haas G, 2001, AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, V83, P43 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352747400007 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The *citation* evolution law of papers published in the same year but different month Authors: Gai, SS; Liu, XL; Zhang, SL; Liu, RY Author Full Names: Gai Shuang-Shuang; Liu Xue-Li; Zhang Shi-Le; Liu Rui-Yuan Source: LEARNED PUBLISHING, 28 (2):132-139; 10.1087/20150207 APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: IMPACT FACTOR Abstract: To explore the citation evolution of papers published in the same year but different month, we selected papers from a discipline (physical geography), a subject (diabetes: endocrine and metabolism) and a journal (Journal of Biological Chemistry) published in 2005 as research objects. These papers were divided into six groups according to the difference in publication month, and we analyzed citations to these papers for the 9 years after publication. The results showed that within 5 years after papers from physical geography were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); after that, the differences were not statistically significant. Within 5 years after papers from diabetes (endocrine and metabolism) were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); thereafter, the differences were not statistically significant. Within 7 years after papers from the Journal of Biological Chemistry were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); thereafter, the differences were not statistically significant. Citations of papers followed the same pattern irrespective of discipline, subject or journal: citations of papers published in the same year but different month were obviously different in the first few publishing years, but as time went on, only the difference in publication month in a calendar year did not affect the papers' longer-term citation. Addresses: [Gai Shuang-Shuang; Liu Xue-Li; Zhang Shi-Le; Liu Rui-Yuan] Xinxiang Med Univ, Henan Res Ctr Sci Journals, Xinxiang 453003, Henan Province, Peoples R China. [Gai Shuang-Shuang; Zhang Shi-Le; Liu Rui-Yuan] Xinxiang Med Univ, Management Inst, Xinxiang 453003, Henan Province, Peoples R China. [Liu Xue-Li] Xinxiang Med Univ, Xinxiang 453003, Henan Province, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: hrcsj2009 at 163.com Cited Reference Count: 13 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ASSOC LEARNED PROFESSIONAL SOC PUBL, SOUTH HOUSE, THE STREET WORTHING, W SUSSEX BN13 3UU, ENGLAND ISSN: 0953-1513 eISSN: 1741-4857 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: CF7OY Unique ID: WOS:000352747400007 Cited References: Henneken E. A., 2006, Journal of Electronic Publishing, V9, P1 Hu Yao, 2013, Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Social Sciences Edition), V26, P116 Xue-Li Liu, 2014, Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, V25, P1509 Tort A. B. L., 2012, Plos One, V7, P1 Vanday J. K., 2012, Scientometrics, V92, P211 Yan-Hou Cai, 2009, Journal of Chongqing University (Social Science Edition), V15, P59 Huang Mu-Hsuan, 2012, ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, V36, P639 Cheng Xiao-Juan, 2012, Library and Information Service, V56, P6 Wang Jian, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P851 van Nierop Erjen, 2010, STATISTICA NEERLANDICA, V64, P71 Adams J, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V63, P567 Wang Yue-Chun, 2011, Library and Information Service Online, V12, P28 Zhang Yan-Xia, 2011, Journal of Beijing Polytechnic College, V10, P116 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352802600015 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Bibliometric* benchmarking of Himalayan studies in India Authors: Gupta, BM; Prathap, G Author Full Names: Gupta, B. M.; Prathap, Gangan Source: CURRENT SCIENCE, 108 (6):1053-1054; MAR 25 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Addresses: [Gupta, B. M.] CSIR, Natl Inst Sci Technol & Dev Studies, New Delhi 110012, India. [Prathap, Gangan] CSIR, Natl Inst Interdisciplinary Sci & Technol, Thiruvananthapuram 695019, Kerala, India. E-mail Addresses: gp at niist.res.in Cited Reference Count: 4 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: INDIAN ACAD SCIENCES, C V RAMAN AVENUE, SADASHIVANAGAR, P B #8005, BANGALORE 560 080, INDIA ISSN: 0011-3891 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: CF8JA Unique ID: WOS:000352802600015 Cited References: Dimri V. P., 2014, CURRENT SCIENCE, V107, P1647 Nishy P., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V91, P245 Prathap Gangan, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V87, P515 Prathap Gangan, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V95, P563 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352849600003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The Intellectual Link Between Management Research and Popularization Media: A *Bibliometric* Analysis of the Harvard Business Review Authors: Schulz, AC; Nicolai, AT Author Full Names: Schulz, Ann-Christine; Nicolai, Alexander T. Source: ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, 14 (1):31-49; 10.5465/amle.2012.0397 MAR 1 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: HUMAN-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; CITATION ANALYSIS; SEPARATE WORLDS; SCIENCE; KNOWLEDGE; JOURNALS; VIEW; EVOLUTION; COMMUNITY; EDUCATION Abstract: We explore the intellectual link between management research and popularization media. In the "dominant view" of popularization in the sociology of science, the process of popularization is understood as a one-way movement of ideas from the field of science to the general public. Thus, it is seen as unlikely to influence management research. However, more recent research has challenged the assumptions of this view and has offered an alternative perspective, which can be termed the "revised view" of popularization. In this view, interactions between science and popularization media are much more complex, and relevant feedback effects from popularization media to scholarly journals are possible. Against this theoretical background, we investigate the role played by an important example of popularization media in the field of management, the Harvard Business Review, in management discourse. Using a bibliometric analysis of 231 Harvard Business Review articles, we analyze the degree, direction, and type of intellectual influence of the publication. Our findings suggest that this magazine's role differs significantly from the traditional view of popularization. According to our results, the Harvard Business Review is not only a widely quoted scientific source, but it also has a significant impact on the scientific discourse in management research.. Addresses: [Schulz, Ann-Christine] Free Univ Berlin, Management, Dept Management, Berlin, Germany. [Nicolai, Alexander T.] Carl von Ossietzky Univ Oldenburg, Entrepreneurship, D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany. Cited Reference Count: 77 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ACAD MANAGEMENT, PACE UNIV, PO BOX 3020, 235 ELM RD, BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510-8020 USA ISSN: 1537-260X Web of Science Categories: Education & Educational Research; Management Research Areas: Education & Educational Research; Business & Economics IDS Number: CF8ZA Unique ID: WOS:000352849600003 Cited References: COZZENS SE, 1989, SCIENTOMETRICS, V15, P437 Abrahamson E, 1999, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V44, P708 Paul D, 2004, WRITTEN COMMUNICATION, V21, P32 Wren Daniel A., 2007, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, V6, P484 PRAHALAD CK, 1990, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, V68, P79 Deadrick D.L., 2007, Human Resource Management Review, V17, ZUCKERMAN H, 1987, SCIENTOMETRICS, V12, P329 MERTON RK, 1968, SCIENCE, V159, P56 Zell D, 2001, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, V10, P324 Albers Soenke, 2009, GERMAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V10, P352 Whitley R., 1985, Expository science: Forms and functions of popularizationSociology of the sciences, V9, P3 Moed H. F., 2005, Citation analysis in research evaluation, Nicolai Alexander T., 2010, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, V47, P162 Bornmann Luti, 2008, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V64, P45 Baum J. A. C., 2011, Organization, V18, P447 DUNWOODY S, 1985, JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION, V35, P26 Bornmann L., 2008, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, V8, P93 Samiee Saeed, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE, V40, P364 HBR, 2011, Guidelines for authors, Pearce Jone L., 2012, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, V11, P247 Porter ME, 1996, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, V74, P61 WERNERFELT B, 1995, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V16, P171 LEWENSTEIN BV, 1995, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V25, P403 Leisenring J. J., 1994, Accounting Horizons, V8, P74 Crook T. R., 2006, Journal of Managerial Issues, V18, P409 Barney J. B., 2001, P124 BRAUNSTE.D, 1974, INTERFACES, V4, P39 Starkey K, 2001, British Journal of Management, V12, P3 Thelwall Mike, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P805 Kelemen M, 2002, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, V13, P97 BARLEY SR, 1988, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V33, P24 Fox Keller E, 1983, A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock, Peters Hans Peter, 2008, COMMUNICATING SCIENCE IN SOCIAL CONTEXTS: NEW MODELS, NEW PRACTICES, P71 Mintzberg H., 1999, Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management., Harnad S, 1998, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V11, P283 Free C., 2011, Journal of Accounting and Organization Change, V7, Van Campenhout Geert, 2010, EUROPEAN ACCOUNTING REVIEW, V19, P837 Schulze W. S., 1994, V10A, P127 DUNBAR RLM, 1983, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V28, P129 Cabell's, 2001, Cabell's directories of publishing opportunities, Weingart P, 1998, RESEARCH POLICYConference on Linking Theory and Practice, NOV, 1997, COLOGNE, GERMANY, V27, P869 Spell CS, 2001, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, V10, P358 Winkelmann R., 2008, Econometric analysis of count data., Judge Timothy A., 2007, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V50, P491 Charan R., 1979, Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning, P504 Trank Christine Quinn, 2003, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, V2, P189 Rousseau DM, 2006, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V31, P256 Hambrick D. C., 1990, Perspectives on strategic management, P237 Podsakoff PM, 2005, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V26, P473 Rynes Sara L., 2007, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V50, P987 Greene W., 2003, Econometric analysis, Bettis Richard A., 1991, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V2, P315 Myers G, 2003, DISCOURSE STUDIESConference on Scientific Knowledge in Public Communication: Discourse Strategies, JUL, 2000, BUDAPEST, HUNGARY, V5, P265 Wiersema Margarethe F., 2009, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V30, P679 Baumgartner H, 2003, JOURNAL OF MARKETING, V67, P123 Cameron C., 1998, Regression analysis of count data, Augier M, 2005, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V16, P85 March JG, 1997, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V8, P698 Shafique Muhammad, 2013, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V34, P62 REICHHELD FF, 1990, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, V68, P105 Abrahamson E, 1996, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V21, P254 PERREAULT WD, 1989, JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, V26, P135 PHILLIPS DP, 1991, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V325, P1180 MACMILLAN IC, 1991, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V12, P161 MILLER A, 1993, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, V30, P553 Buckley M. R., 1998, Business Horizons, V41, P31 Cascio Wayne F., 2008, JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, V29, P455 Abrahamson E., 2000, The entrepreneurship dynamic in industry evolution, P147 HILGARTNER S, 1990, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V20, P519 Abrahamson E, 2001, HUMAN RELATIONS, V54, P67 Stremersch Stefan, 2007, JOURNAL OF MARKETING, V71, P171 Cohen Debra J., 2007, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V50, P1013 WERNERFELT B, 1984, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V5, P171 Brennan R., 2004, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, V22, P511 Nicolai Alexander T., 2011, JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, V47, P53 HAMMER M, 1990, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, V68, P104 KIDD JS, 1988, SCIENTOMETRICS, V14, P127 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352982100003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Cite Globally, Analyze Locally: *Citation Analysis* from a Local Latin American Studies Perspective Authors: Schadl, SM; Todeschini, M Author Full Names: Schadl, Suzanne M.; Todeschini, Marina Source: COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, 76 (2):136-149; 10.5860/crl.76.2.136 MAR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: ART; PHILOSOPHY; HISTORY; SPANISH Abstract: This citation analysis examines the use of Spanish- and Portuguese-language books and articles in PhD dissertations on Latin America at the University of New Mexico between 2000 and 2009. Two sets of data are presented: The first identifies the use of Spanish- and Portuguese-language books and articles across 17 academic departments; and the second analyzes how well local holdings meet demands for a select geographical area-Mexico. These local data contradict conclusions in general citation studies of the humanities, social sciences and foreign languages. They prove that preconceived ideas about foreign language usage from general citation studies do not provide reliable templates for local acquisition decisions. Librarians need to look at their research communities and local usage habits instead of relying on general studies for answers. Addresses: [Todeschini, Marina] Univ New Mexico, Inter Amer Studies, Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA. [Todeschini, Marina] Univ New Mexico, Latin Amer Iberian Inst, Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA. E-mail Addresses: schadl at unm.edu; marinat at unm.edu Funding Acknowledgement: Latin American and Iberian Institute; Research Allocations Committee at the University of New Mexico Funding Text: We thank the Latin American and Iberian Institute as well as the Research Allocations Committee at the University of New Mexico for funding elements of this research. Questions, comments, and suggestions from the Editor at College and Research Libraries and several reviewers have challenged us to express the complexity of area studies more clearly, and we are grateful for the experience. Cited Reference Count: 37 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ASSOC COLL RESEARCH LIBRARIES, 50 E HURON ST, CHICAGO, IL 60611 USA ISSN: 0010-0870 eISSN: 2150-6701 Web of Science Categories: Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: CG0TH Unique ID: WOS:000352982100003 Cited References: Sullivan Margaret A., 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P127 Delpar Helen, 2008, Looking South: The Evolution of Latin Americanist Scholarship in the United States, 1850-1975, Mendez Meiyolet, 2006, Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, V7, Shirey Lynn, 2007, Building Area Studies Collections, P108 Knievel Jennifer E., 2004, College & Research Libraries, V65, P194 Schroder Anne L., 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P150 Davidson Russ, 2004, Latin American Holdings in the University of New Mexico Library: An Illustrated History and Guide, P8 Nolen David S., 2010, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V71, P9 Freund Amy, 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P325 Mazurkiewicz Orchid, 2007, LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH REVIEW, V42, P161 Drake Paul W., 2004, The Politics of Knowledge, P1 2007, Building Area Studies Collections, Hazen Dan C., 1999, Collection Management, V24, P185 Hong Jeehee, 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P60 Sharf Robert H., 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P38 Nolen David S., 2014, COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, V75, P34 Gaiger Jason, 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P178 Hazen Dan C., 1997, ARL Bimonthly Report, V191, P1 Moseman Eleanor, 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P79 Lifkin Robert, 2011, Art Bulletin, V93, P220 Molholt Rebecca, 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P287 Szanton David L., 2004, The Politics of Knowledge, P1 Guth Christine M. E., 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P468 Hanke Lewis, 1947, The Americas, V4, P32 Knievel JE, 2005, LIBRARY QUARTERLY, V75, P142 Stoenescu Livia, 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P423 Cordova James M., 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P449 Barry Fabio, 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P7 Keizer Joost, 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P304 Seminar on the Acquisition of Latin American Library Materials, Schadl Suzanne M., 2014, SALALM #57 Preserving Memory: Documenting and Archiving Latin American Popular Culture, P65 Mattos Ana Maria, 2009, Perspectivas em Ciencia da Informacao, V14, P1 Dombrowski Andre, 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P195 Rudolph Conrad, 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P399 Schadl Suzanne M., 2015, Journal of Learning Spaces, V4, BUCHANAN AL, 1993, BEHAVIORAL & SOCIAL SCIENCES LIBRARIAN, V12, P63 Lobel Michael, 2011, ART BULLETIN, V93, P345 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352704700041 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Correlation between Networking and *Citation* in Scientific Publishing Authors: Lukic, M; Markovic, G; Matic, I; Pavlovic, D; Todorovic, I; Komazec, S Author Full Names: Lukic, Marija; Markovic, Golub; Matic, Ivan; Pavlovic, Dejana; Todorovic, Ivan; Komazec, Stefan Edited by: Anonymous Source: 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCE (AETMS 2014), 203-207; 2015 Language: English Document Type: Proceedings Paper Conference Title: 2nd International Conference on Advanced Education Technology and Management Science (AETMS) Conference Date: DEC 25-26, 2014 Conference Location: Hong Kong, PEOPLES R CHINA Author Keywords: Network Theory, Node Degree, Authors, Publishing, Citation, Collaboration, Research KeyWords Plus: COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES; INFORMATION Abstract: The network theory was originally applied to describe relations between individuals. The network theory has grown to be a very popular filed among the researchers all over the world. This paper will show the overview of research using the network theory model in scientific authorship network. We used a database provided by the National Library of Serbia which consisted of a number of published papers during the period 2010-2014, 2132 authors and number of citations. We aim to introduce a complex network of authors and to question whether a positive correlation between the number of first neighbors of each author and his total citation can be identified. Addresses: [Lukic, Marija; Todorovic, Ivan; Komazec, Stefan] Fac Org Sci, Belgrade 11000, Serbia. [Markovic, Golub] Kappa Star, Belgrade, Serbia. [Matic, Ivan] PricewaterhouseCoopers, Belgrade, Serbia. [Pavlovic, Dejana] Inst Econ, Belgrade 11000, Serbia. Cited Reference Count: 18 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: DESTECH PUBLICATIONS, INC, 439 DUKE STREET, LANCASTER, PA 17602-4967 USA ISBN: 978-1-60595-212-3 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Education & Educational Research; Education, Scientific Disciplines Research Areas: Computer Science; Education & Educational Research IDS Number: BC4MK Unique ID: WOS:000352704700041 Cited References: De Nooy W., 2005, Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek (Structural analysis in the social science), Ghosh Saptarshi, 2011, 2ND SUMMER SOLSTICE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DISCRETE MODELS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS2nd Summer Solstice International Conference on Discrete Models of Complex Systems, JUN 16-18, 2010, Nancy, FRANCE, V4, P123 Namba T., 2010, Ecol. Complex., V3, P73 Strogatz SH, 2001, NATURE, V410, P268 Borgatti Stephen P., 2011, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V22, P1168 Anderson P., 2013, Informs, P216 Cudanov Mladen, 2012, AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC, V14, P680 Gross N., 2013, A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual mowement, Kolasa J, 2005, ECOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY, V2, P431 Borgatti S., 2009, Network Theory, McNamara H., 2013, Social Ties to Social Capital: Class Differences in the Relations between Schools & Parent Networks, Cudanov M., 2012, Computer Science and Information Systems Journal, V9, Ravasz E., 2003, Phys. Rev. E., V67, Cudanov M., 2012, BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, V31, P509 Griffith S., 2008, Emerging Technologies Conference, P75 Cudanov Mladen, 2009, COMPUTER SCIENCE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, V6, P93 Zaidieh J., 2012, World of Computer Science and Information Technology Journal (WCSIT), P18 Almaas E., 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., V88.9, P982 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352716700013 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Review of Beyond *Bibliometrics*: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact Authors: Hammarfelt, B Author Full Names: Hammarfelt, Bjorn Source: JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, 71 (2):416-418; 10.1108/JD-09-2014-0132 2015 Language: English Document Type: Book Review Author Keywords: Bibliographic systems, Information science and documentation Addresses: [Hammarfelt, Bjorn] Univ Boras, Swedish Sch Lib & Informat Sci, Boras, Sweden. Cited Reference Count: 3 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: CF7DP Unique ID: WOS:000352716700013 Cited References: Wouters P., 2012, Users, Narcissism and Control - Tracking the Impact of Scholarly Publications in the 21st Century, Nicolaisen J., 2014, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, CRONIN B, 2014, REVIEW BIBLIOMETRICS, ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352716700005 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Setting our *bibliographic* references free: towards open *citation* data Authors: Peroni, S; Dutton, A; Gray, T; Shotton, D Author Full Names: Peroni, Silvio; Dutton, Alexander; Gray, Tanya; Shotton, David Source: JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, 71 (2):253-277; 10.1108/JD-12-2013-0166 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Semantic publishing, Open access, Citations, Open citation corpus, References, SPAR ontologies KeyWords Plus: COMPUTER-SCIENCE; DOCUMENTS; IMPACT; REUSE Abstract: Purpose - Citation data needs to be recognised as a part of the Commons - those works that are freely and legally available for sharing - and placed in an open repository. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach - The Open Citation Corpus is a new open repository of scholarly citation data, made available under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 public domain dedication and encoded as Open Linked Data using the SPAR Ontologies. Findings - The Open Citation Corpus presently provides open access (OA) to reference lists from 204,637 articles from the OA Subset of PubMed Central, containing 6,325,178 individual references to 3,373,961 unique papers. Originality/value - Scholars, publishers and institutions may freely build upon, enhance and reuse the open citation data for any purpose, without restriction under copyright or database law. Keywords Semantic publishing, Open access, Citations, Open Addresses: [Peroni, Silvio] Univ Bologna, Dept Comp Sci & Engn, Bologna, Italy. [Dutton, Alexander] Univ Oxford, IT Serv, Oxford, England. [Gray, Tanya] Univ Oxford, Bodleian Lib, Oxford, England. [Shotton, David] Univ Oxford, Oxford E Res Ctr, Oxford, England. E-mail Addresses: essepuntato at cs.unibo.it Funding Acknowledgement: Jisc Funding Text: This paper has been developed from the same textual source material from which was distilled a short Comment piece entitled "Open Citations" recently published by David Shotton in Nature (Shotton, 2013). It thus has substantial textual elements in common with that publication. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Jisc, which provided two small grants to David Shotton that, in addition to enabling the creation of the OCC of which he is the Director, in part also made possible his development of the SPAR ontologies in collaboration with Silvio Peroni, and of the CiTO Reference Annotation Tools in collaboration with Tanya Gray. The software development of the first public prototype of OCC was primarily undertaken by Alexander Dutton during the first Jisc grant. Work currently in progress on revising the data model, infrastructure and ingest pipeline of the OCC was initiated during the second Jisc grant, in collaboration with Richard Jones, Mark Macgillivr! ay and Martyn Whitwell of Cottage Labs, acting as development consultants, who are sincerely thanked for their excellent work. Silvio Peroni would like to thank Angelo Di Iorio and Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese, who co-authored CiTalO, and Paolo Ciancarini and Fabio Vitali for their help and for many fruitful and proactive discussions about citations, citation functions and citation metrics. Cited Reference Count: 71 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: CF7DP Unique ID: WOS:000352716700005 Cited References: Hahnel Mark, 2013, NATURE, V502, P298 Di Iorio A., 2013, Proceedings of 3rd Workshop on Semantic Publishing (SePublica 2013), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Aachen, V994, P63 PRICE DJD, 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 Di Iorio Angelo, 2013, SEMANTIC WEB: ESWC 2013 SATELLITE EVENTSESWC Conference, MAY 26-30, 2013, Montpellier, FRANCE, V7955, P66 Attwood T. K., 2010, BIOINFORMATICS9th European Conference on Computational Biology, SEP 26-29, 2010, Ghent, BELGIUM, V26, Pi568 Teufel S., 2009, Proceedings of the 7th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Stroudsburg, PA, P80 Shotton David, 2009, PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY, V5, Wouters P, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS6th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUN 16-19, 1997, JERUSALEM, ISRAEL, V41, P225 Constantin A., 2013, DocEng, V13, P177 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Priem Jason, 2013, NATURE, V495, P437 MORAVCSIK MJ, 1975, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V5, P86 Baker Thomas, 2013, JOURNAL OF WEB SEMANTICS, V20, P35 MACROBERTS MH, 1989, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V40, P342 Franceschet Massimo, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V83, P243 Lawrence D., 2001, Nature, V411, P521 Harris S., 2013, SPARQL 1.1 query language, Aghaei Chadegani A, 2013, Asian Soc. Sci., V9, P18 Motik B., 2012, OWL 2 web ontology language: structural specification and functional-style syntax, Priem J., 2010, Altmetrics: a manifesto, Miles A., 2009, SKOS simple knowledge organization system, reference, Hammond T., 2008, RDF site summary 1.0 modules: PRISM, New South Wales Government, 2013, Open Data Policy, Version 1.0, Swan A., 2009, The open access citation advantages: studies and results to date, Reis Renato B., 2008, PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES, V2, SMALL H, 1974, SCIENCE STUDIES, V4, P17 Giles CL, 2004, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V101, P17599 Aksnes DW, 2003, SCIENTOMETRICS, V56, P235 Peroni Silvio, 2012, JOURNAL OF WEB SEMANTICS, V17, P33 Research Councils UK, 2013, RCUK policy on open access, Davis Philip M., 2008, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V337, DCMI Usage Board, 2012, Version 1.1. DCMI Recommendation, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, Baez M., 2010, Proceedings of the 10th annual Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL10), V395, Cronin B, 2000, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V56, P440 Liu Yuxian, 2013, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V69, P580 Ciancarini P., 2013, Proceedings of 13th International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AI*IA 2013), V8249, P336 Brinkac L.M., 2009, Nucleic Acids Research, V38, PD408 Teufel S., 2006, Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 06), Stroudsburg, PA, P103 Vision Todd J., 2010, BIOSCIENCE, V60, P330 Beckett D., 2004, RDF/XML syntax specification (revised), IFLA Study Group on the FRBR, 2009, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, DCMI Usage Board, 2012, DCMI Recommendation, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, Finch J., 2012, report of the UK Government Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research, P20 Carpenter P., 2012, Nature publishing group releases linked data platform, Duncan E., 1982, Proceedings of 3rd 1982 National Online Meeting, Learned Information, Medford, NJ, P77 Ciancarini P., 2013, Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Cognition (AIC 2013), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Aachen, V1100, P124 Meyer Bertrand, 2009, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, V52, P31 Boulton G., 2012, Royal Society Report, 6-9, Burwell S.M., 2013, Memorandum M-13-13, Peroni S., 2012, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Semantic Systems (i-Semantics 2012), P9 Wellcome Trust, 2013, Open access policy statement, Piwowar Heather A., 2013, PEERJ, V1, Roemer R. C., 2012, College & Research Libraries News, V73, P596 Jorg B., 2008, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2008), Bergstrom Carl T., 2008, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, V28, P11433 Peroni S., 2008, Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Semantic Web Conference (ASWC 2008), V5367, P242 Radev Dragomir R., 2013, LANGUAGE RESOURCES AND EVALUATION, V47, P919 Piwowar Heather, 2013, NATURE, V493, P159 Shotton D M, 1972, Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology, V36, P91 Cameron R.D., 1997, First Monday, V2, Piwowar Heather A., 2007, PLOS ONE, V2, Attwood Teresa K., 2009, BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL, V424, P317 Shotton David, 2009, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V22, P85 American Meteorological Society, 2013, Full and open access to data, Harnad S., 2004, D-Lib Magazine, V10, Greenberg Steven A., 2009, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V339, Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Agarwal S., 2010, AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, V2010, P11 Casati F., 2007, Liquid publications: scientific publications meet the web, Shotton David, 2013, NATURE, V502, P295 Bourne PE, 2005, PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY, V1, P1 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352651200010 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Mapping the scientific research on life cycle assessment: a bibliometric analysis Authors: Hou, Q; Mao, GZ; Zhao, L; Du, HB; Zuo, J Author Full Names: Hou, Qian; Mao, Guozhu; Zhao, Lin; Du, Huibin; Zuo, Jian Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 20 (4):541-555; 10.1007/s11367-015-0846-2 APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometric, Co-word analysis, H-index, Impact factor, Life cycle assessment, Social network analysis KeyWords Plus: CROPPING SYSTEMS; SCIENCE; LCA; BIODIESEL; EVOLUTION; BIOFUELS; FUTURE; WEB Abstract: A bibliometric analysis of life cycle assessment (LCA)-related research literature is reported in this study. Based on databases of Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH), this study aims to evaluate the research trends of LCA-related research literature from 1998 to 2013 by using bibliometric techniques. The documents were analyzed according to their type, language(s), subject(s), journal(s), citation analysis of articles, authors' address information, and keyword distribution, etc. H-index and impact factor (IF) were applied to characterize the LCA publications. Furthermore, co-word analysis and social network analysis (SNA) were employed to evaluate the interactions in this research field. The findings showed that the pace of publishing in this field increased exponentially over past 16 years. A total of 6616 records were obtained from the four databases. Journal articles are the most frequently used document type representing 74.33 % (4918) of the records, and English is the dominant language with 5914 records (97.53 %). The most common subject category is environmental sciences, and the most productive journal is International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. The USA, focusing on "energy," "industrial ecology," and "greenhouse gas emissions," is the most productive country in the research field of LCA. Technology University of Denmark is the most productive institute all over the world over the past 16 years. According to the ranking of keywords, "greenhouse gas," "energy", and "biofuel" are the hotspots of LCA research. The main purpose of LCA is sustainability assessment whereas climate change is one of the most outstanding environmental issues. By identifying global hotspots in the LCA research, this study provides a useful reference to researchers for the future research directions. Addresses: [Hou, Qian; Mao, Guozhu; Zhao, Lin] Tianjin Univ, Sch Environm Sci & Engn, Tianjin 300072, Peoples R China. [Du, Huibin] Tianjin Univ, Coll Management & Econ, Tianjin 300072, Peoples R China. [Zuo, Jian] Univ S Australia, Sch Nat & Built Environm, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. E-mail Addresses: maoguozhu at tju.edu.cn Funding Acknowledgement: National Natural Sciences Foundation of China [71273185, 71431005]; Post-doctoral Science Foundation of China [2013M540145]; National Major Science and Technology Program of China-Water Body Pollution Control and Remediation [2014ZX07504-005] Funding Text: The authors would like to thank anonymous referees and editors for their helpful comments and valuable suggestions, which substantially improved the content and composition of the present article. This study was financially supported by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China under Grant 71273185, 71431005, Post-doctoral Science Foundation of China under Grant 2013M540145 and National Major Science and Technology Program of China-Water Body Pollution Control and Remediationunder Grant 2014ZX07504-005. Cited Reference Count: 52 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER HEIDELBERG, TIERGARTENSTRASSE 17, D-69121 HEIDELBERG, GERMANY ISSN: 0948-3349 eISSN: 1614-7502 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Environmental; Environmental Sciences Research Areas: Engineering; Environmental Sciences & Ecology IDS Number: CF6FA Unique ID: WOS:000352651200010 Cited References: Ming HW, 2010, Scientometrics, V84, P813 Craig D, 2010, For Ecol Manag, V259, P660 Hendrickson C., 1998, Environ. Sci. Technol., V32, P184 Adisa A., 1999, Chem. Eng. J., V73, P1 Serrat O, 2009, Social network analysis, Gelfand Ilya, 2013, NATURE, V493, P514 Joshi SV, 2004, COMPOSITES PART A-APPLIED SCIENCE AND MANUFACTURINGAnnual Meeting of the American-Institute-of-Chemical-Engineers, NOV 03-08, 2002, INDIANAPOLIS, IN, V35, P371 Lardon Laurent, 2009, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V43, P6475 Sebastien H, 2009, Int J Life Cycle Assess, V14, P95 Robert HC, 2008, J Environ Manage, V88, P496 David A, 2013, Int J Life Cycle Assess, V18, P77 ISO, 2000, ISO14042: 2000(E), Noyons ECM, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P115 Moss Richard H., 2010, NATURE, V463, P747 Hui ZF, 2010, Waste Manag, V30, P2410 Azapagic A, 1999, COMPUTERS & CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, V23, P1509 Baumann H, 2002, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, V7, P2 Falagas Matthew E., 2008, FASEB JOURNAL, V22, P338 Demirbas Ayhan, 2011, APPLIED ENERGY, V88, P17 ISO, 1998, AS/NZS ISO 14040, Kim S, 2005, BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, V29, P426 de Souza Cristina Gomes, 2011, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, V16, P561 Cobo M. J., 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P146 Serenella S, 2013, Int J Life Cycle Assess, V18, P1686 Chen Haibin, 2014, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, V19, P1674 Goran F, 2009, J Environ Manag, V91, P1 Tsay Ming-Yueh, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P421 Boner K, 2003, Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol, V37, P179 Bettencourt Luis M. A., 2011, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V108, P19540 Nilsson M, 2007, Environmental policy integration in practice. Shaping institutions for learning, Robert KH, 2002, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V10, P197 Meho LI, 2007, J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol, V58, P2015 Adler Paul R., 2007, ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, V17, P675 Hellweg Stefanie, 2014, SCIENCE, V344, P1109 CALLON M, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICS, V22, P155 Vink ETH, 2003, POLYMER DEGRADATION AND STABILITY, V80, P403 Von BH, 2007, J Clean Prod, V15, P607 Oscar O, 2009, Constr Build Mater, V23, P28 Huijbregts MAJ, 2000, CHEMOSPHERE, V41, P541 Rebitzer G, 2004, ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, V30, P701 Crutzen P. J., 2008, ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, V8, P389 Serenella S, 2013, Int J Life Cycle Assess, V18, P1653 Pehnt M, 2006, RENEWABLE ENERGY, V31, P55 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 ISO, 2000, ISO 14043: 2000(E), Zuo Jian, 2014, RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, V30, P271 Martin C., 2010, ANIMALInternational Conference on Livestock and Global Climate Change, MAY, 2008, Hammamet, TUNISIA, V4, P351 Chiu Wen-Ta, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V73, P3 Van RAFJ, 2005, Meas Interdisc Res Perspect, V3, P50 Espinosa Nieves, 2012, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, V5, P5117 ISO, 1999, AS/NZS ISO 14041, Haas G, 2001, AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, V83, P43 ======================================================================= *Record 10 of 12. *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352134700188 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Long-Distance Interdisciplinarity Leads to Higher Scientific Impact Authors: Lariviere, V; Haustein, S; Borner, K Author Full Names: Lariviere, Vincent; Haustein, Stefanie; Boerner, Katy Source: PLOS ONE, 10 (3):10.1371/journal.pone.0122565 MAR 30 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: SCIENCE Abstract: Scholarly collaborations across disparate scientific disciplines are challenging. Collaborators are likely to have their offices in another building, attend different conferences, and publish in other venues; they might speak a different scientific language and value an alien scientific culture. This paper presents a detailed analysis of success and failure of interdisciplinary papers-as manifested in the citations they receive. For 9.2 million interdisciplinary research papers published between 2000 and 2012 we show that the majority (69.9%) of co-cited interdisciplinary pairs are "win-win" relationships, i.e., papers that cite them have higher citation impact and there are as few as 3.3% "lose-lose" relationships. Papers citing references from subdisciplines positioned far apart (in the conceptual space of the UCSD map of science) attract the highest relative citation counts. The findings support the assumption that interdisciplinary research is more successful and leads to results greater than the sum of its disciplinary parts. Addresses: [Lariviere, Vincent; Haustein, Stefanie] Univ Montreal, Ecole Bibliothecon & Sci Informat, Montreal, PQ, Canada. [Lariviere, Vincent] Univ Quebec, Ctr Interuniv Rech Sci & Technol, Observ Sci & Technol, Montreal, PQ H3C 3P8, Canada. [Boerner, Katy] Indiana Univ, Sch Informat & Comp, Cyberinfrastruct Network Sci Ctr, Bloomington, IN USA. E-mail Addresses: vincent.lariviere at umontreal.ca Funding Acknowledgement: Fonds Recherche Quebec - Societe et Culture; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Canada Research Chairs program Funding Text: This research was funded by the Fonds Recherche Quebec - Societe et Culture, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canada Research Chairs program. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Cited Reference Count: 22 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 1160 BATTERY STREET, STE 100, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 USA ISSN: 1932-6203 Article Number: e0122565 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: CE9AD Unique ID: WOS:000352134700188 PubMed ID: 25822658 Cited References: Gibbons M, 1994, The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies., Boyack KW, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P351 Borner K, 2003, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V37, P179 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Lariviere Vincent, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P126 Weingart P, 2000, Practicing Interdisciplinarity, Rinia EJ, 2002, SCIENTOMETRICS8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 17, 2001, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, V53, P241 Boerner Katy, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Levitt Jonathan M., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1973 Lariviere Vincent, 2014, BEYOND BIBLIOMETRICS: HARNESSING MULTIDIMENSIONAL INDICATORS OF SCHOLARLY IMPACT, P187 Adams J, 2007, Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Moed H. F., 2005, Citation analysis in research evaluation, OECD, 1972, Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities, COSEPUP, 2004, Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, Wagner CS, 2010, J. Informetrics, V5, P14 Klavans R, 2013, Proc. STI 2013, P185 Lariviere Vincent, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P997 Uzzi Brian, 2013, SCIENCE, V342, P468 Lariviere Vincent, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P392 Klavans Richard, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P455 Yegros-Yegros A, 2010, Book of abstracts of the 11th STI conference, P304 Frodeman R, 2010, The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, ======================================================================= ======================================================================= ======================================================================= From katy at INDIANA.EDU Wed May 13 03:00:37 2015 From: katy at INDIANA.EDU (Katy Borner) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 03:00:37 -0400 Subject: ISSI WS on "Forecasting Science: Models of Science and Technology Dynamics for Innovation Policy" on June 29, 5-7p Message-ID: Dear all, we are looking forward to see many of you at the ISSI Workshop on "/Forecasting Science: Models of Science and Technology Dynamics for Innovation Policy/" on June 29, 5-7p. More information is provided below. In preparation of the workshop--independent of your ability to join us in Istanbul--please complete the Online Questionnaire at http://goo.gl/forms/Ko7Z9xEQYP by *May 20 *so that we all gain a more comprehensive understanding of existing STI models developed in research and used in practice. Those of you interested in computational models and maps of science might be interested to check out * May 11-12, European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment Conference on ?Planning, Prediction, Scenarios--Using Simulations and Maps ?, Bonn, Germany. It was a very productive conference and all slides will become available online shortly. Best regards, k -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Forecasting Science: Models of Science and Technology Dynamics for Innovation Policy* *Organizers: * Katy B?rner, Indiana University, USA Andrea Scharnhorst, KNAW, The Netherlands Stasa Milojevic, Indiana University, USA Petra Ahrweiler, Director and CEO, EA European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment GmbH, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany David Chavalarias, Centre d'Analyses de Math?matiques Sociales (CAMS), Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), Director of the Complex Systems Institute of Paris Ile-de-France, Paris, France Santo Fortunato, Professor of Complex Systems of the Department of Biomedical Engineering and Computational Science (BECS) of the School of Science of Aalto University in Espoo, Finland *Advisor: *Nicolay Vitanov, Professor, Institute of Mechanics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Alexander von Humboldt Fellow In a knowledge-based economy, science and technology are omnipresent and their importance is undisputed. Equally evident is the need to allocate resources (both monetary and labor) in an effective way to foster innovation. In the last decades, science policy has embraced scientometrics to gain insights into the structure and evolution of science and devised diverse metrics and indicators. However, it has not invested significant efforts into modelling the dynamics of science, technology, and/or innovation (STI) (mathematically, statistically, and computationally). While it may not be possible to predict the nature and essence of the next scientific or technological innovation, it is often possible to predict the circumstances leading to it, i.e., where it is most likely to happen and under which conditions. Some examples are: Which career paths are more likely to lead to high impact works? Which funding system has the highest return on investments? Which institutions will be most productive over the next years? This workshop invites the community of researchers working on models of STI to both share their latest research and collectively create a roadmap to foster future modeling efforts. Extended abstracts are solicited for presentation and will be**reviewed by the workshop organizing committee. We specifically seek models which predict/forecast the structure and/or dynamics of STI. The focus of the workshop is on mathematical, statistical, and computational models, but we do not exclude qualitative models as long as they can be used to develop scenarios of future STI dynamics. *References* * Ahrweiler, Petra, Nigel Gilbert and Andreas Pyka, eds. 2015. /Joining Complexity Science and Social Simulation for Innovation Policy/. Cambridge Publishers. * Scharnhorst, Andrea, Katy B?rner, and Peter van den Besselaar, eds. 2012. /Models of Science Dynamics: Encounters Between Complexity Theory and Information Science/ . Springer Verlag. * Watts, Christopher and Nigel Gilbert. 2014. /Simulating Innovation. Computer-based Tools for Re-Thinking Innovation/. London: Edward Elgar. -- Katy Borner Victor H. Yngve Professor of Information Science Director, CI for Network Science Center, http://cns.iu.edu Curator, Mapping Science exhibit, http://scimaps.org ILS, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University Wells Library 021, 1320 E. Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA Phone: (812) 855-3256 Fax: -6166 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Gemma.Derrick at BRUNEL.AC.UK Wed May 13 07:31:20 2015 From: Gemma.Derrick at BRUNEL.AC.UK (Gemma Derrick) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 11:31:20 +0000 Subject: Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Policy (QMM2015) Workshop, London (UK), 1-2 October 2015 Message-ID: (Apologies for cross posting) We are happy to announce the first ever, Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Policy (QMM2015) Workshop Exploring Qualitative and Mixed Methodological Approaches in the Evaluation and Research Policy Field 1-2 October, 2015 Brunel University London London, United Kingdom. http://www.brunel.ac.uk/herg/qual-and-mm-workshop Current and future challenges in the field of Research and Evaluation Policy require researchers to embrace broader methodological approaches. This includes moving beyond strong quantitative tools such as bibliometrics, network analysis and econometrics, towards adopting sophisticated qualitative and/or mixed methodological research designs. Supported by the British Academy, this workshop aims to showcase current research involving qualitative or mixed methodological research designs in the research evaluation and innovation policy field. We also aim to work towards establishing an international network of researchers interested in strengthening the quality and reputation of qualitative and mixed methodological research studies in the field. To this end, through presentation of submissions, and related discussion, participants will work together to establish clear guidelines of good practice for qualitative and mixed methodological studies in the field. Submissions We invite researchers in the field to submit an extended abstract (max 1000 words) by Friday 31 July 2015 of research that utilises or explores qualitative and/or mixed methods approaches to address research or evaluation policy issues. Submissions should draw attention to the qualitative or mixed methodological approach adopted, as well as any unique perspectives that adopting such a methodological design brings to the field. All submissions are to be made via the Easychair platform https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=qmm2015 Who should attend? Both researchers in the field as well as EU and UK policymakers would benefit from the research presentations, discussions and networking opportunities offered at the workshop. Please note: A ?50 participation fee will be charged to cover catering costs. We look forward to welcoming you to London in October. For any questions or queries, please contact Gemma Derrick on gemma.derrick at brunel.ac.uk [cid:image003.jpg at 01D08D78.063F5470] Dr Gemma E. Derrick ESRC Future Research Leader Fellow T +44(0)1895 265454 | E gemma.derrick at brunel.ac.uk Health Economics Research Group (HERG) Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom T +44(0)1895 274000 | F +44 (0)1895 232806 www.brunel.ac.uk Connect with the University on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, Instagram -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17181 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Wed May 13 15:15:40 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 21:15:40 +0200 Subject: "The Interaction of 'Supply', 'Demand', and 'Technology' in Terms of Medical Subject Headings: A Triple Helix Model of Medical Innovations" -- preprint Message-ID: The Interaction of 'Supply', 'Demand', and 'Technology' in Terms of Medical Subject Headings: A Triple Helix Model of Medical Innovations Alexander M. Petersen,1* Daniele Rotolo,2 and Loet Leydesdorff3 Abstract: The present paper explores the use of the branches of the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) classification of MEDLINE/PubMed for operationalizing demand for innovation, supply, and technological contexts in terms of "Diseases" (branch C), "Drugs and Chemicals" (branch D), "Analytic, Diagnostic, and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment" (branch E), respectively. Using a triple-helix model, synergy among these three interacting knowledge spaces can be measured as reduction of uncertainty (mutual redundancy) among the co-evolutions. We analyze three biomedical research areas that have gone through breakthrough discoveries and technological developments (also honored with Nobel Prizes): (i) Human Papilloma Virus (HPV - identified as the main cause of cervical cancer), (ii) RNA interference (RNAi - a biological process involved with gene expression), and (iii) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI - a diagnostic technology). Periods of (statistically significant) synergy among demand, supply, and technological context can be indicated in each of these research areas. We found these to be associated with historical transitions in their respective trajectories. Among the pairwise configurations, the demand-technology provides the strongest link, followed by supply-demand, and with the supply-technology channel being the weakest. Preprint version available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2604702 ** apologies for cross-postings _____ 1 IMT Lucca Institute for Advanced Studies; Boston University 2SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit), University of Sussex 3University of Amsterdam - Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anupdas2072 at GMAIL.COM Fri May 15 07:51:58 2015 From: anupdas2072 at GMAIL.COM (anup kumar das) Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 17:21:58 +0530 Subject: Innovation Report "Understanding Innovation: Indian National Innovation Survey with Special Focus on MSMEs" Message-ID: *Understanding Innovation: Indian National Innovation Survey with Special Focus on MSMEsEdited by Pradosh Nath, N. Mrinalini and G.D. Sandhya; CSIR-NISTADS, New Delhi, 2014.* *Foreword *(by K. VijayRaghavan, Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India, New Delhi) National Science Technology Management Information System (NSTMIS), Department of Science and Technology (DST) has been continuously engaged in the evidence generation and analysis on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) resources for evidence based policy planning for S&T sector in the country. As a part of the new initiative Science, Technology, Innovation and Creation of Knowledge (STICK), a National Innovation Survey framework has been conceptualized and designed through in-depth discussions with the national and international experts for launching the National Innovation Survey. As a step forward, a national report entitled "Understanding Innovation: Indian National Innovation Survey" with special focus on MSMEs has been brought out recently by DST. The national report, first of its kind, benchmarks innovation potentiality of Indian firms in terms of innovation activities, sources of innovation, linkages, human resource, effects and factors affecting innovation activities. The report is based on the analysis of sample survey of 9001 firms, largely MSMEs, spread across 26 states and 5 Union Territories across various industrial sectors in the country. A commendable effort has been made by the DST and CSIR-NISTADS project team to put together fundamental issues related to innovations in the context of developing economies to make this report useful to policy makers, planners and the scientific community. I hope the report, as a unique initiative, would provide required impetus in devising evidence based policy prescriptions or recommendations for strengthening the innovation infrastructure and growth of MSMEs in the country. *About the survey* Over the last few years NSTMIS, DST had involved various stakeholders in evolving an appropriate framework to measure the innovation and knowledge creation capabilities in Indian context. The NSTMIS framework draws upon the inputs of the pilot innovation survey, sectoral innovation studies, and interactions with the national and international experts while adapting the internationally accepted concepts and definitions on the measurement of innovation to launch the National Innovation Survey. The survey is not about identification of innovations that is happening in Indian industries. It is about understanding the process that makes innovation happen or constraints innovation from happening. The understanding is through developing and examining a set of indicators that would help promoting and monitoring innovation in Indian production system. *Download Full-Text Report* -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Dr. Anup Kumar Das* Web: www.anupkumardas.blogspot.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From krichel at OPENLIB.ORG Sat May 16 05:11:43 2015 From: krichel at OPENLIB.ORG (Thomas Krichel) Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 09:11:43 +0000 Subject: OAI9 registrations close on 30 May Message-ID: The OAI9 Workshop on Current Developments in Scholarly Communication, 17-19 June 2015, is fast approaching. For a detailed view of the Tutorials and Programme for the event, see https://indico.cern.ch/event/332370/timetable/#20150617 Applicants for the poster session have now been confirmed and over 30 posters will be available for viewing and discussion with the poster submitters in Geneva. Registration for the Workshop closes on 30 May. The OAI Workshops are well known for providing a setting where developments in the world of scholarly communication are displayed and discussed. Do join us if you would like to be part of this conversation by registering to attend the Workshop at https://indico.cern.ch/event/332370/registration/ Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel skype:thomaskrichel From guledaduzyol at GMAIL.COM Mon May 18 07:53:43 2015 From: guledaduzyol at GMAIL.COM (=?UTF-8?B?R8O8bGVkYSBEb8SfYW4=?=) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 14:53:43 +0300 Subject: ***Final Call and Deadline Extension (http://imcw2015.bilgiyonetimi.net/documents/imcw2015_final_call.pdf)*** IMCW2015, Nov. 25-27, 2015, Guangzhou, China Message-ID: (Apologies for cross posting) Dear Colleagues: This is the final call for papers for *IMCW2015: 6th International Conference on Information Management in a Changing World* to be held in Guangzhou, China, from November 25-27, 2015. *Please note that the last day to submit extended abstracts, posters, and workshop proposals has been extended to* *June 1, 2015*. *Theme: "**Information Management in the Big Data Era: For a Better World** "* *For more information: *http://imcw2015.bilgiyonetimi.net ****For submission please use **http://openconf.bilgiyonetimi.net * The online registration will be open soon. Looking forward to meeting you in China. *Ya?ar Tonta, Serap Kurbano?lu, **Changzhu Huang and Feichang Ma* *General Co-chairs, IMCW2015 * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pmd8 at CORNELL.EDU Mon May 18 08:03:57 2015 From: pmd8 at CORNELL.EDU (Philip Davis) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 08:03:57 -0400 Subject: Citation Boost or Bad Data? Academia.edu Research Under Scrutiny Message-ID: If a free website claimed that you could double citations to your papers simply by uploading them to their file sharing network, would you believe it? Or would you check their data? see: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/05/18/citation-boost-or-bad-data-academia-edu-research-under-scrutiny/ From fredrik.astrom at UB.LU.SE Wed May 20 06:27:05 2015 From: fredrik.astrom at UB.LU.SE (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fredrik_=C5str=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:27:05 +0000 Subject: Call for Papers: Special Issue on "The Influence of Search Engines on Knowledge Production" Message-ID: Apologies for cross posting! Information also available at: http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/call_for_papers.htm?id=6186 The influence of search engines on knowledge production Special issue call for papers from Aslib Journal of Information Management The influence of search engines on knowledge production This special issue, to be published in 2016, is edited by Fredrik ?str?m, Lund University (Sweden) and Dirk Lewandowski, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (Germany). What is the focus of this special issue? Search engines are nowadays the major means for finding information. They are not only the predominant type of search tool on the Web, but Web search has also substituted other forms of searching for information outside the Web. However, search engines are not only ways of finding information, but also shape the production of both information content and knowledge. This influence can be seen at least at two levels: (1) in the process of researching information needed for producing content, (2) in producing content in a way that it intended to increase its visibility in search engines. For this special issue, we invite research papers focusing on search engines' influence on the production of both information content and knowledge, as well as content management in areas like civil society, libraries, education, scholarly communication, news, research data, knowledge organization, encyclopedias and cultural heritage. Potential topics include but are not limited to: * Visibility as a requirement for successful content * Qualitative and quantitative methods to analyse search engines' influence on knowledge production; the use of digital methods * Theoretical approaches to search engines' role in knowledge production * Knowledge production in different professional contexts (e.g., news, libraries, cultural heritage) * Gender issues related to knowledge production * Search Engine Optimization (SEO) * Making collections visible * Visibility of collections in specialized search engines (e.g., Google Scholar) * Gaming ranking systems (e.g., search engines) * Manipulation of search engine ranking criteria * Changing roles of knowledge-creating professionals (e.g., journalists) and organizations * Ethical issues related to knowledge and information content production activities adapting to search engines and SEO Submissions 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 Fredrik ?str?m (fredrik.astrom at ub.lu.se) or Dirk Lewandowski (dirk.lewandowski at haw-hamburg.de). Please submit to Aslib Journal of Information Management using ScholarOne Manuscripts, our online submission and peer review system. Visit the author guidelines for more information. 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 here. Schedule dates and submission deadlines Paper submission: 15 September 2015 Notice of review results: 15 November 2015 Revisions due: 15 January 2016 Publication: Aslib Journal of Information Management, volume 68, issue 3, 2016 (June 2016) _______________________________________________________ Fredrik ?str?m, PhD Docent (Reader/Associate Professor) in Library and Information Science Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics specialist Lund University Libraries P.O. Box 3 SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden Phone: +46 (0)46-222 7325 (Office), +46 (0)70-494 3346 (Mobile) E-mail: fredrik.astrom at ub.lu.se Fax: +46 (0)46-222 3682 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katy at INDIANA.EDU Wed May 20 11:25:51 2015 From: katy at INDIANA.EDU (Katy Borner) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:25:51 -0400 Subject: Reminder: 11th: Call for Macroscope Tools for the Places & Spaces: Mapping Science Exhibit (2015) In-Reply-To: <55475E17.80207@indiana.edu> Message-ID: Deadline for submission is May 31, 2015. Call for Macroscope Tools for the /Places & Spaces: Mapping Science/ Exhibit (2015) The complete call with more detailed information can be found at http://scimaps.org/call *Background and Goals* The /Places & Spaces: Mapping Science/ exhibit was created to inspire cross-disciplinary discussion on how to best track and communicate human activity and scientific progress on a global scale. It will soon have three components: (1) physical exhibits that enable the close inspection of large-scale maps in public places such as science museums and libraries as well as at conferences; (2) novel, interactive macroscope tools that let the layperson explore the structure, dynamics, and beauty of science and (3) the online counterpart (http://scimaps.org ), which provides easy access to zoomable maps and online interactive visualizations, their descriptions and their references, and information on their makers. While *Phase I* of Places & Spaces introduced the power and utility of science mapping to many, it has also raised new questions: How can we demonstrate the power of data analysis and visualization techniques not only to plot static data but to monitor and support science as it evolves over time? How can we improve data visualization literacy globally and for all ages? How can we empower individuals to make their very own maps? *Phase II *of the exhibit aims to address these questions by shifting the focus of the exhibit from maps to macroscope tools that anyone can use to explore data to gain insights. The ?Macroscope Phase? of the exhibit is devoted to tools that * demonstrate the power of data analysis and visualization techniques not only to plot static data but to interact with science, * empower individuals to make their very own science maps, and * help improve data visualization literacy globally and for all ages. *Submission Details* Interactive online and desktop tools designed for small (e.g., handheld) and large (tiled wall) devices are welcome. Web based tools are preferable. Each macroscope should be fully functional for at least two years. For each macroscope in the exhibit, a video will be recorded to document and archive its unique interactivity and utility?even after the original code does not run any more. Each entry must be submitted by *May 31st, 2015*, and needs to include: * Title of macroscope tool * Author(s) name, email address, affiliation, mailing address * Copyright holder (if different from authors) * Link to online site that features the macroscope tool or to executable code. Both should come with detailed instructions on how to read, analyze, visualize data and how to interact with the user interface * Description of work: insight needs addressed, data used, data analysis, visualization techniques applied, and main insights gained (100-300 words) * References to relevant publications or online sites that should be cited * Links to related projects/works Entries should be submitted via EasyChair by clicking here . Enter author info, a title, and submit all other information via the ?Abstract? field. *Important Dates* * Submit initial entries: May 31st, 2015 * Notification to mapmakers: June 20th, 2015 * Submit final entries: August 31st, 2015. * Iteration ready for display: October 20, 2015 *Exhibit Advisory Board * * Gary Berg-Cross, Spatial Ontology Community of Practice (SOCoP) * Bob Bishop, ICES Foundation * Kevin W. Boyack, SciTech Strategies, Inc. * Donna Cox, Illinois eDream Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign * Bonnie DeVarco, Media X, Stanford University * Sara Irina Fabrikant, Geography Department, University of Z?rich, Switzerland * Marjorie Hlava, Access Innovations * Peter A. Hook, Doctoral Candidate, Indiana University * Manuel Lima, Royal Society of Arts, Microsoft Bing, VisualComplexity.com * Deborah MacPherson, Accuracy&Aesthetics * Lev Manovich, Computer Science, The Graduate Center, City University of New York * Carlo Ratti, Professor and Director of SENSEable City Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology * Eric Rodenbeck, Stamen Design * Andr? Skupin, Professor of Geography, San Diego State University * Moritz Stefaner, Freelance Designer * Stephen Uzzo, New York Hall of Science * Caroline Wagner, Battelle Center for Science and Technology Policy and John Glenn School for Public Affairs, Ohio State University * Benjamin Wiederkehr, Founder, InteractiveThings.com Please feel free to send any questions you might have regarding the judging process to Katy Borner (katy at indiana.edu ) and use the subject heading ?Macroscope Inquiry.? Follow us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/mappingscience. -- Katy Borner Victor H. Yngve Professor of Information Science Director, CI for Network Science Center,http://cns.iu.edu Curator, Mapping Science exhibit,http://scimaps.org ILS, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University Wells Library 021, 1320 E. Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA Phone: (812) 855-3256 Fax: -6166 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Wed May 20 14:26:37 2015 From: ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Eck, N.J.P. van) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 18:26:37 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Message-ID: Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities' involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010-2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010-2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Wed May 20 15:28:14 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 21:28:14 +0200 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo's previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn't it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities' involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010-2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010-2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Wed May 20 16:06:34 2015 From: ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Eck, N.J.P. van) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 20:06:34 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: <003401d09333$1e38f9d0$5aaaed70$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo's previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn't it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities' involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010-2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010-2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Wed May 20 17:23:07 2015 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:23:07 -0400 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >Dear Loet, > >Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), >and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields >for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories >are not used. > >Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are >defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal >level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something >that hopefully can be improved in the future. > >We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses >indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in >citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of >performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is >reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: >http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. >In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities >field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of >an aggregation level. > >Best regards, >Nees Jan > > >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff >Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Dear Nees Jan, > >As always impressive! Thank you. > >Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do >I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 >fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the >fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel >sheet? > >I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how >the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, >and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the >discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? > >Best wishes, >Loet > > >Loet Leydesdorff >Emeritus University of Amsterdam >Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) >loet at leydesdorff.net ; >http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of >Sussex; >Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; >Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; >Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; >http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > >From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics >[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] >On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van >Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM >To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU >Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 >Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS >Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of >750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric >indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities >and on universities? involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS >Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from >the period 2010?2013. > >Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition >Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition >includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers >the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are >available not only for the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. >Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact >indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top >50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the >presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a >more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page >overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. > >Differences with other university rankings >Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more >advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more >transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly >subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by >universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from >aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single >overall indicator. > >Website >The Leiden Ranking is available at >www.leidenranking.com. > > >======================================================== >Nees Jan van Eck PhD >Researcher >Head of ICT > >Centre for Science and Technology Studies >Leiden University >P.O. Box 905 >2300 AX Leiden >The Netherlands > >Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 >Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 >Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 >E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl >Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl >VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com >CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl >======================================================== > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Thu May 21 01:51:21 2015 From: ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Eck, N.J.P. van) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 05:51:21 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20150520171944.0436c6f0@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo's previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn't it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities' involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010-2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010-2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu May 21 02:25:37 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 08:25:37 +0200 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Nees Jan, Yes, I know the paper of Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman in JoI (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010). Let me provide the highlights: . We study algorithmically constructed classification systems for field normalization purposes. . It is argued that working with a few thousand fields may be an optimal choice. . University citation indicators are relatively insensitive to the classification system choice. . For individual universities, this choice may have a substantial effect. My points/questions: 1. The algorithmic definition of a "field": Let's assume that the number of papers (articles + reviews) is of the order of 10^6 each year. 4000 clusters are then of an average size of 250. Are these fields? Perhaps specialties? An individual paper can often be classified in more than a single specialty even more than in different disciplines. Note that with 800+ clusters (Rankings 2014), we have clusters of a very different size (~ 1250). 2. How can one validate 4000 clusters? Perhaps, one can enumerate them. Any decomposition (clustering) algorithm leads, among other things, to a tail. Decomposition algorithms are not deterministic; but of course you may run them hundred or more times in order to get rid of this effect. Nevertheless, the distribution is probably heavily skewed and you may have many small clusters? I tried once to run the Blondel et al. (2008) algorithm using different years of JCR data (in collaboration with Renault Lambiotte), but the random effect was prohibitive on making comparisons among years. We could not solve it at the time; it is not obvious that you have solved it. Or did you develop a deterministic algorithm which allows you to make comparisons over time? You still will have to smoothen the curves in that case (taking decisions by using parameters). Without solving this problem, one would not be able to say that the rank of a university improved or worsened between rankings for different years? Are comparisons between years yet legitimate and if so why? 3. In a study of content-based versus algorithmic classifications of journals (!), Ismael and I found a dismatch (Rafols & Leydesdorff, 2009; http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21086 ). Thus, the expectation of the validity of the clusters is low, in my opinion. I assume that you are testing this. Are you planning to fine-tune parameter choices so that 4000 "valid" clusters are obtained? 4. The argument that indicators are robust across scales may hold at the aggregated level (for example, r > 0.9), but 10% mistakes in the ranks is not trivial for universities and the science policy implications. For example, among the 13 Dutch universities, one of them would then probably be misclassified. J 5. "Construct-normalized" indicators instead of "field-normalized"? In terms of the citation distribution, the normalization would remain valid, but the metaphor of "field-normalized" may have to be left behind. Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: Eck, N.J.P. van [mailto:ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10:07 PM To: 'loet at leydesdorff.net'; SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: RE: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo's previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn't it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities' involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010-2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010-2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Thu May 21 03:09:01 2015 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 07:09:01 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Nees, Thank you for further explanation of your method! I appreciate the new possibility to take a detailed look at single institutions. Well done! I followed the publications on your clustering methods. It is an interesting alternative to the journals sets. However, it has several disadvantages, as pointed out by Loet in his previous emails. Loet mentioned another alternative to the journal sets and clustering based on citation relations: field classifications from experts in the field (e.g. sections from Chemical Abstracts, https://www.cas.org/content/ca-sections). These classifications do not change over time for the same publication (as citation relations will do) and the rate of miss-classifications is rather low. We already used the sections for field normalization in several studies, which works well. I would be delighted if you would publish a Leiden Ranking variant based on the use of WoS journal sets. Then, the user could compare the results (based on journal sets and citation relations) and ? another important point ? the user could compare own results for an institution with those of the Leiden Ranking. Since your clustering algorithm cannot simply be installed in an in-house solution of the WoS, your Leiden Ranking results can no longer be directly compared with own results (based on WoS journal sets). Best, Lutz From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:51 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities? involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010?2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu May 21 04:02:24 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:02:24 +0200 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: <26D4503C9B0C8B43A20B92EF238B98AE22D48FF8@UM-EXCDAG-A04.um.gwdg.de> Message-ID: Dear Lutz, Nees Jan, and colleagues, Medical Subject Headings (PubMed/Medline) are available in WoS. One could perhaps test the Leiden clustering against the MeSH tree for the bio-medical part of the database. The three most interesting dimensions of MeSH classifications (C: Diseases; D: Drugs and Chemicals; E: Analytic, Diagnostic, and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment) are almost orthogonal (Leydesdorff, Rotolo & Rafols, 2012). Thus, one would obtain three different fits. This would inform us about what is being clustered substantially by the algorithm (Petersen et al ., under submission). The LoC classification could be another benchmark, but perhaps more difficult to match. Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:09 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Hi Nees, Thank you for further explanation of your method! I appreciate the new possibility to take a detailed look at single institutions. Well done! I followed the publications on your clustering methods. It is an interesting alternative to the journals sets. However, it has several disadvantages, as pointed out by Loet in his previous emails. Loet mentioned another alternative to the journal sets and clustering based on citation relations: field classifications from experts in the field (e.g. sections from Chemical Abstracts, https://www.cas.org/content/ca-sections). These classifications do not change over time for the same publication (as citation relations will do) and the rate of miss-classifications is rather low. We already used the sections for field normalization in several studies, which works well. I would be delighted if you would publish a Leiden Ranking variant based on the use of WoS journal sets. Then, the user could compare the results (based on journal sets and citation relations) and - another important point - the user could compare own results for an institution with those of the Leiden Ranking. Since your clustering algorithm cannot simply be installed in an in-house solution of the WoS, your Leiden Ranking results can no longer be directly compared with own results (based on WoS journal sets). Best, Lutz From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:51 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo's previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn't it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck , University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ &hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities' involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010-2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010-2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Catharina.Rehn at KI.SE Thu May 21 04:52:06 2015 From: Catharina.Rehn at KI.SE (Catharina Rehn) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 08:52:06 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: <003d01d0939c$79b23dd0$6d16b970$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, We have for some years been working with data from both MeSH and the NLM classification system (for journal classes), in addition to the traditional ISI categories, in our analyses. Since our unit is based at a medical university (Karolinska Institutet), our bibliometric system is founded on a combination of data from the Web of Science and Medline/NLM. Please feel free to contact us if you are interested in our experiences or input to specific research projects. Best regards, Catharina Rehn Catharina Rehn Karolinska Institutet 171 77 | Box 200 +46 (0)8 524 84054 catharina.rehn at ki.se | ki.se ______________________________________ Karolinska Institutet - a medical university From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: den 21 maj 2015 10:02 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Lutz, Nees Jan, and colleagues, Medical Subject Headings (PubMed/Medline) are available in WoS. One could perhaps test the Leiden clustering against the MeSH tree for the bio-medical part of the database. The three most interesting dimensions of MeSH classifications (C: Diseases; D: Drugs and Chemicals; E: Analytic, Diagnostic, and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment) are almost orthogonal (Leydesdorff, Rotolo & Rafols, 2012). Thus, one would obtain three different fits. This would inform us about what is being clustered substantially by the algorithm (Petersen et al., under submission). The LoC classification could be another benchmark, but perhaps more difficult to match. Best, Loet ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:09 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Hi Nees, Thank you for further explanation of your method! I appreciate the new possibility to take a detailed look at single institutions. Well done! I followed the publications on your clustering methods. It is an interesting alternative to the journals sets. However, it has several disadvantages, as pointed out by Loet in his previous emails. Loet mentioned another alternative to the journal sets and clustering based on citation relations: field classifications from experts in the field (e.g. sections from Chemical Abstracts, https://www.cas.org/content/ca-sections). These classifications do not change over time for the same publication (as citation relations will do) and the rate of miss-classifications is rather low. We already used the sections for field normalization in several studies, which works well. I would be delighted if you would publish a Leiden Ranking variant based on the use of WoS journal sets. Then, the user could compare the results (based on journal sets and citation relations) and - another important point - the user could compare own results for an institution with those of the Leiden Ranking. Since your clustering algorithm cannot simply be installed in an in-house solution of the WoS, your Leiden Ranking results can no longer be directly compared with own results (based on WoS journal sets). Best, Lutz From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:51 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo's previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn't it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities' involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010-2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010-2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Thu May 21 07:13:49 2015 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:13:49 +0000 Subject: reference publication year spectroscopy Message-ID: We have extended our toolbox for doing a reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS). A description of the programs using some examples can be found in our paper (see also http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/rpys/). You can use these programs to analyze the historical roots of a research field or to analyze the impact of a single publication on different research fields. Bornmann, Lutz; Thor, Andreas; Marx, Werner; Leydesdorff, Loet (2015): Identifying seminal works most important for research fields: Software for the Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS). figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1422015 --------------------------------------- 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 ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Thu May 21 09:10:36 2015 From: ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Eck, N.J.P. van) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 13:10:36 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Thank you all for your suggestions regarding the field normalization issue. Let me give a response to some of your comments: 1. Loet's remark on our use of the term 'field': On the Leiden Ranking website, we use the term 'micro-level field' (see www.leidenranking.com/methodology/fields), which is perhaps more appropriate than just 'field'. 2. Loet's remark on the size of the fields in the Leiden Ranking: The fields are indeed quite small, but this is exactly what we want. For instance, consider scientometric research. With how many publications per year do we believe that our own publications as scientometricians can be compared in terms of citation counts? Probably a few hundred and at most about one thousand publications. In the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, there were 800 fields and scientometrics was part of a larger field that also included for instance library science. This leads to questionable comparisons between publications dealing with quite different research topics. In the 2015 edition of the ranking, one of the 4000 fields is focused entirely on research on scientometrics (and closely related topics). This field includes somewhat more than 1000 publications per year in the period 2010-2013 (so it's one of the larger fields among the 4000 fields). We believe that this is approximately the right level of aggregation to perform citation-based comparisons. It could even be argued that a scientometrics field that includes about 1000 publications per year is still a bit large (so in fact we may need to have even more than 4000 fields). 3. Loet's remark on the validity of year-to-year comparisons: This is a good point. The Leiden Ranking micro-level fields cover the period 2000-2014. The Leiden Ranking 2015 offers a retrospective perspective. The 2015 edition of the ranking provides statistics not only for the period 2010-2013, but also for the periods 2009-2012, 2008-2011, 2007-2010, and 2006-2009. Statistics for all periods have been calculated in a fully consistent way and, importantly, based on the same underlying micro-level fields. So year-to-year comparisons can be made in a proper way. 4. Loet's remark on the low validity of algorithmically constructed fields: Please note that we construct fields at the level of individual publications, not at the level of entire journals. So the findings of http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21086, which is a journal-level analysis, don't need to generalize to our publication-level analysis. In our own experience (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748), algorithmically constructed fields at the level of individual publications have a quite high validity. 5. Loet's remark on science policy implications: Indeed, even if the results are relatively insensitive to methodological choices, still for individual universities there may be significant differences that may have policy implications. This is exactly why in the Leiden Ranking we have moved away from use of the Web of Science journal subject categories for field normalization. Their accuracy for field normalization purposes is limited, as shown in various studies, such as http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062395 and http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23408. 6. Lutz's remark on using field classifications constructed by experts: This is definitely a sensible approach, but it is not feasible in the context of the Leiden Ranking. This is because the Leiden Ranking covers all scientific disciplines, and many disciplines don't have an expert-based classification. In analyses focusing on a specific discipline (e.g., chemistry), it may indeed be preferable to use an expert-based classification (e.g., Chemical Abstracts sections), although even then it cannot be assumed a priori that an expert-based classification is always more accurate than an algorithmically constructed one. Expert-based classifications do have the advantage of being openly available and therefore being more transparent. 7. Lutz's remark on comparing the current normalization approach implemented in the Leiden Ranking with an approach based on the Web of Science subject categories: Such a comparison is reported in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. Thanks again for everyone's comments and suggestions! Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Catharina Rehn Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:52 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear colleagues, We have for some years been working with data from both MeSH and the NLM classification system (for journal classes), in addition to the traditional ISI categories, in our analyses. Since our unit is based at a medical university (Karolinska Institutet), our bibliometric system is founded on a combination of data from the Web of Science and Medline/NLM. Please feel free to contact us if you are interested in our experiences or input to specific research projects. Best regards, Catharina Rehn Catharina Rehn Karolinska Institutet 171 77 | Box 200 +46 (0)8 524 84054 catharina.rehn at ki.se | ki.se ______________________________________ Karolinska Institutet - a medical university From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: den 21 maj 2015 10:02 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Lutz, Nees Jan, and colleagues, Medical Subject Headings (PubMed/Medline) are available in WoS. One could perhaps test the Leiden clustering against the MeSH tree for the bio-medical part of the database. The three most interesting dimensions of MeSH classifications (C: Diseases; D: Drugs and Chemicals; E: Analytic, Diagnostic, and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment) are almost orthogonal (Leydesdorff, Rotolo & Rafols, 2012). Thus, one would obtain three different fits. This would inform us about what is being clustered substantially by the algorithm (Petersen et al., under submission). The LoC classification could be another benchmark, but perhaps more difficult to match. Best, Loet ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:09 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Hi Nees, Thank you for further explanation of your method! I appreciate the new possibility to take a detailed look at single institutions. Well done! I followed the publications on your clustering methods. It is an interesting alternative to the journals sets. However, it has several disadvantages, as pointed out by Loet in his previous emails. Loet mentioned another alternative to the journal sets and clustering based on citation relations: field classifications from experts in the field (e.g. sections from Chemical Abstracts, https://www.cas.org/content/ca-sections). These classifications do not change over time for the same publication (as citation relations will do) and the rate of miss-classifications is rather low. We already used the sections for field normalization in several studies, which works well. I would be delighted if you would publish a Leiden Ranking variant based on the use of WoS journal sets. Then, the user could compare the results (based on journal sets and citation relations) and - another important point - the user could compare own results for an institution with those of the Leiden Ranking. Since your clustering algorithm cannot simply be installed in an in-house solution of the WoS, your Leiden Ranking results can no longer be directly compared with own results (based on WoS journal sets). Best, Lutz From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:51 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo's previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn't it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities' involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010-2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010-2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Thu May 21 11:59:12 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 17:59:12 +0200 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Nees Jan, Thank you for these clarifying answers. Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:11 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear colleagues, Thank you all for your suggestions regarding the field normalization issue. Let me give a response to some of your comments: 1. Loet's remark on our use of the term 'field': On the Leiden Ranking website, we use the term 'micro-level field' (see www.leidenranking.com/methodology/fields), which is perhaps more appropriate than just 'field'. 2. Loet's remark on the size of the fields in the Leiden Ranking: The fields are indeed quite small, but this is exactly what we want. For instance, consider scientometric research. With how many publications per year do we believe that our own publications as scientometricians can be compared in terms of citation counts? Probably a few hundred and at most about one thousand publications. In the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, there were 800 fields and scientometrics was part of a larger field that also included for instance library science. This leads to questionable comparisons between publications dealing with quite different research topics. In the 2015 edition of the ranking, one of the 4000 fields is focused entirely on research on scientometrics (and closely related topics). This field includes somewhat more than 1000 publications per year in the period 2010-2013 (so it's one of the larger fields among the 4000 fields). We believe that this is approximately the right level of aggregation to perform citation-based comparisons. It could even be argued that a scientometrics field that includes about 1000 publications per year is still a bit large (so in fact we may need to have even more than 4000 fields). 3. Loet's remark on the validity of year-to-year comparisons: This is a good point. The Leiden Ranking micro-level fields cover the period 2000-2014. The Leiden Ranking 2015 offers a retrospective perspective. The 2015 edition of the ranking provides statistics not only for the period 2010-2013, but also for the periods 2009-2012, 2008-2011, 2007-2010, and 2006-2009. Statistics for all periods have been calculated in a fully consistent way and, importantly, based on the same underlying micro-level fields. So year-to-year comparisons can be made in a proper way. 4. Loet's remark on the low validity of algorithmically constructed fields: Please note that we construct fields at the level of individual publications, not at the level of entire journals. So the findings of http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21086, which is a journal-level analysis, don't need to generalize to our publication-level analysis. In our own experience (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748), algorithmically constructed fields at the level of individual publications have a quite high validity. 5. Loet's remark on science policy implications: Indeed, even if the results are relatively insensitive to methodological choices, still for individual universities there may be significant differences that may have policy implications. This is exactly why in the Leiden Ranking we have moved away from use of the Web of Science journal subject categories for field normalization. Their accuracy for field normalization purposes is limited, as shown in various studies, such as http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062395 and http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23408. 6. Lutz's remark on using field classifications constructed by experts: This is definitely a sensible approach, but it is not feasible in the context of the Leiden Ranking. This is because the Leiden Ranking covers all scientific disciplines, and many disciplines don't have an expert-based classification. In analyses focusing on a specific discipline (e.g., chemistry), it may indeed be preferable to use an expert-based classification (e.g., Chemical Abstracts sections), although even then it cannot be assumed a priori that an expert-based classification is always more accurate than an algorithmically constructed one. Expert-based classifications do have the advantage of being openly available and therefore being more transparent. 7. Lutz's remark on comparing the current normalization approach implemented in the Leiden Ranking with an approach based on the Web of Science subject categories: Such a comparison is reported in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. Thanks again for everyone's comments and suggestions! Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Catharina Rehn Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:52 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear colleagues, We have for some years been working with data from both MeSH and the NLM classification system (for journal classes), in addition to the traditional ISI categories, in our analyses. Since our unit is based at a medical university (Karolinska Institutet), our bibliometric system is founded on a combination of data from the Web of Science and Medline/NLM. Please feel free to contact us if you are interested in our experiences or input to specific research projects. Best regards, Catharina Rehn Catharina Rehn Karolinska Institutet 171 77 | Box 200 +46 (0)8 524 84054 catharina.rehn at ki.se | ki.se ______________________________________ Karolinska Institutet - a medical university From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: den 21 maj 2015 10:02 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Lutz, Nees Jan, and colleagues, Medical Subject Headings (PubMed/Medline) are available in WoS. One could perhaps test the Leiden clustering against the MeSH tree for the bio-medical part of the database. The three most interesting dimensions of MeSH classifications (C: Diseases; D: Drugs and Chemicals; E: Analytic, Diagnostic, and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment) are almost orthogonal (Leydesdorff, Rotolo & Rafols, 2012). Thus, one would obtain three different fits. This would inform us about what is being clustered substantially by the algorithm (Petersen et al ., under submission). The LoC classification could be another benchmark, but perhaps more difficult to match. Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:09 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Hi Nees, Thank you for further explanation of your method! I appreciate the new possibility to take a detailed look at single institutions. Well done! I followed the publications on your clustering methods. It is an interesting alternative to the journals sets. However, it has several disadvantages, as pointed out by Loet in his previous emails. Loet mentioned another alternative to the journal sets and clustering based on citation relations: field classifications from experts in the field (e.g. sections from Chemical Abstracts, https://www.cas.org/content/ca-sections). These classifications do not change over time for the same publication (as citation relations will do) and the rate of miss-classifications is rather low. We already used the sections for field normalization in several studies, which works well. I would be delighted if you would publish a Leiden Ranking variant based on the use of WoS journal sets. Then, the user could compare the results (based on journal sets and citation relations) and - another important point - the user could compare own results for an institution with those of the Leiden Ranking. Since your clustering algorithm cannot simply be installed in an in-house solution of the WoS, your Leiden Ranking results can no longer be directly compared with own results (based on WoS journal sets). Best, Lutz From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:51 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo's previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn't it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck , University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ &hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities' involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010-2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010-2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE Thu May 21 12:50:43 2015 From: lutz.bornmann at GV.MPG.DE (Bornmann, Lutz) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 16:50:43 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: <00c501d093df$17615830$46240890$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Yes, thank you Nees Jan. However, it would be great if you could also report results based on the WoS subject categories. It would be very interesting to have these numbers for comparison. Best, Lutz Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 21.05.2015 um 18:10 schrieb Loet Leydesdorff >: Dear Nees Jan, Thank you for these clarifying answers. Best, Loet From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:11 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear colleagues, Thank you all for your suggestions regarding the field normalization issue. Let me give a response to some of your comments: 1. Loet?s remark on our use of the term ?field?: On the Leiden Ranking website, we use the term ?micro-level field? (see www.leidenranking.com/methodology/fields), which is perhaps more appropriate than just ?field?. 2. Loet?s remark on the size of the fields in the Leiden Ranking: The fields are indeed quite small, but this is exactly what we want. For instance, consider scientometric research. With how many publications per year do we believe that our own publications as scientometricians can be compared in terms of citation counts? Probably a few hundred and at most about one thousand publications. In the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, there were 800 fields and scientometrics was part of a larger field that also included for instance library science. This leads to questionable comparisons between publications dealing with quite different research topics. In the 2015 edition of the ranking, one of the 4000 fields is focused entirely on research on scientometrics (and closely related topics). This field includes somewhat more than 1000 publications per year in the period 2010-2013 (so it?s one of the larger fields among the 4000 fields). We believe that this is approximately the right level of aggregation to perform citation-based comparisons. It could even be argued that a scientometrics field that includes about 1000 publications per year is still a bit large (so in fact we may need to have even more than 4000 fields). 3. Loet?s remark on the validity of year-to-year comparisons: This is a good point. The Leiden Ranking micro-level fields cover the period 2000-2014. The Leiden Ranking 2015 offers a retrospective perspective. The 2015 edition of the ranking provides statistics not only for the period 2010-2013, but also for the periods 2009-2012, 2008-2011, 2007-2010, and 2006-2009. Statistics for all periods have been calculated in a fully consistent way and, importantly, based on the same underlying micro-level fields. So year-to-year comparisons can be made in a proper way. 4. Loet?s remark on the low validity of algorithmically constructed fields: Please note that we construct fields at the level of individual publications, not at the level of entire journals. So the findings of http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21086, which is a journal-level analysis, don?t need to generalize to our publication-level analysis. In our own experience (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748), algorithmically constructed fields at the level of individual publications have a quite high validity. 5. Loet?s remark on science policy implications: Indeed, even if the results are relatively insensitive to methodological choices, still for individual universities there may be significant differences that may have policy implications. This is exactly why in the Leiden Ranking we have moved away from use of the Web of Science journal subject categories for field normalization. Their accuracy for field normalization purposes is limited, as shown in various studies, such as http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062395 and http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23408. 6. Lutz?s remark on using field classifications constructed by experts: This is definitely a sensible approach, but it is not feasible in the context of the Leiden Ranking. This is because the Leiden Ranking covers all scientific disciplines, and many disciplines don?t have an expert-based classification. In analyses focusing on a specific discipline (e.g., chemistry), it may indeed be preferable to use an expert-based classification (e.g., Chemical Abstracts sections), although even then it cannot be assumed a priori that an expert-based classification is always more accurate than an algorithmically constructed one. Expert-based classifications do have the advantage of being openly available and therefore being more transparent. 7. Lutz?s remark on comparing the current normalization approach implemented in the Leiden Ranking with an approach based on the Web of Science subject categories: Such a comparison is reported in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. Thanks again for everyone?s comments and suggestions! Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Catharina Rehn Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:52 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear colleagues, We have for some years been working with data from both MeSH and the NLM classification system (for journal classes), in addition to the traditional ISI categories, in our analyses. Since our unit is based at a medical university (Karolinska Institutet), our bibliometric system is founded on a combination of data from the Web of Science and Medline/NLM. Please feel free to contact us if you are interested in our experiences or input to specific research projects. Best regards, Catharina Rehn Catharina Rehn Karolinska Institutet 171 77 | Box 200 +46 (0)8 524 84054 catharina.rehn at ki.se | ki.se ______________________________________ Karolinska Institutet - a medical university From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: den 21 maj 2015 10:02 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Lutz, Nees Jan, and colleagues, Medical Subject Headings (PubMed/Medline) are available in WoS. One could perhaps test the Leiden clustering against the MeSH tree for the bio-medical part of the database. The three most interesting dimensions of MeSH classifications (C: Diseases; D: Drugs and Chemicals; E: Analytic, Diagnostic, and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment) are almost orthogonal (Leydesdorff, Rotolo & Rafols, 2012). Thus, one would obtain three different fits. This would inform us about what is being clustered substantially by the algorithm (Petersen et al., under submission). The LoC classification could be another benchmark, but perhaps more difficult to match. Best, Loet ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:09 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Hi Nees, Thank you for further explanation of your method! I appreciate the new possibility to take a detailed look at single institutions. Well done! I followed the publications on your clustering methods. It is an interesting alternative to the journals sets. However, it has several disadvantages, as pointed out by Loet in his previous emails. Loet mentioned another alternative to the journal sets and clustering based on citation relations: field classifications from experts in the field (e.g. sections from Chemical Abstracts, https://www.cas.org/content/ca-sections). These classifications do not change over time for the same publication (as citation relations will do) and the rate of miss-classifications is rather low. We already used the sections for field normalization in several studies, which works well. I would be delighted if you would publish a Leiden Ranking variant based on the use of WoS journal sets. Then, the user could compare the results (based on journal sets and citation relations) and ? another important point ? the user could compare own results for an institution with those of the Leiden Ranking. Since your clustering algorithm cannot simply be installed in an in-house solution of the WoS, your Leiden Ranking results can no longer be directly compared with own results (based on WoS journal sets). Best, Lutz From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:51 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities? involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010?2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Thu May 21 18:56:13 2015 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:56:13 -0400 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you, Nees Jan, but the paper is behind pay wall. Perhaps you could send me a copy, to dwojick at craigellachie.us. In any case my thinking is this. The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so. That is, there are few,if any, cases where there occurs a cluster such that all the authors therein cite each other and no one else. Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. One wonders, therefore, to what extent the university rankings are sensitive to the specific assumptions made in order to cluster the citation network and create the fields? Have you tested this sensitivity? I suggest a test. Change the algorithm such that it creates 2000 micro fields instead of 4000. Then rank the universities and see what difference it makes. Mind you this is just a crude first thought and better tests may be possible. I do not question the value of the work, but as you know using metrics in this way is itself a sensitive issue. My best regards, David On May 21, 2015, at 1:51 AM, "Eck, N.J.P. van" wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear David, > > > > The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. > > > > The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. > > > > Best regards, > > Nees Jan > > > > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Nees Jan, > > How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. > > Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? > > My best wishes, > > David > http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Loet, > > Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. > > Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. > > We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. > > Best regards, > Nees Jan > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Nees Jan, > > As always impressive! Thank you. > > Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? > > I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? > > Best wishes, > Loet > > > > > Loet Leydesdorff > Emeritus University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; > Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities? involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010?2013. > > Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition > Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. > > Differences with other university rankings > Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. > > Website > The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. > > > ======================================================== > Nees Jan van Eck PhD > Researcher > Head of ICT > > Centre for Science and Technology Studies > Leiden University > P.O. Box 905 > 2300 AX Leiden > The Netherlands > > Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 > Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 > Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 > E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl > Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl > VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com > CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl > ======================================================== > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU Thu May 21 19:08:54 2015 From: Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU (Pikas, Christina K.) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 23:08:54 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: <36F39BFD-7036-4F7A-B3DC-7F9E8913F1B7@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: ?The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so? There are definitely components - parts of the graph that are not connected to other parts. ?Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. ? There are well-known and accepted community detection techniques and clustering techniques that work on networks where there is only one component. In community detection techniques, you typically maximize modularity, a measure of the extent nodes connect more to each other than to nodes not in the group. There are metrics for the other techniques, too. This is not new science at all. (fwiw, my paper using community detection for science blogs is OA archived here: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~cpikas/ScienceBlogging/PikasEScience08.pdf - remainder of site is horribly out of date ? don?t recommend reading it!) The paper discusses how they used 12 (I think?) different levels of clustering before they decided on the one with 4000. I was at a meeting today (hi Chris, hi Nancy) so didn?t see these as they were sent so maybe someone has sent the paper already. 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 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:56 PM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Thank you, Nees Jan, but the paper is behind pay wall. Perhaps you could send me a copy, to dwojick at craigellachie.us. In any case my thinking is this. The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so. That is, there are few,if any, cases where there occurs a cluster such that all the authors therein cite each other and no one else. Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. One wonders, therefore, to what extent the university rankings are sensitive to the specific assumptions made in order to cluster the citation network and create the fields? Have you tested this sensitivity? I suggest a test. Change the algorithm such that it creates 2000 micro fields instead of 4000. Then rank the universities and see what difference it makes. Mind you this is just a crude first thought and better tests may be possible. I do not question the value of the work, but as you know using metrics in this way is itself a sensitive issue. My best regards, David On May 21, 2015, at 1:51 AM, "Eck, N.J.P. van" > wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities? involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010?2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Thu May 21 22:02:08 2015 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 22:02:08 -0400 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: <81ebf6ec504840a4aff14659dd952af4@APLEX09.dom1.jhuapl.edu> Message-ID: Yes, Christina, there obviously are distant parts of the graph of science that that are not connected to other parts. But we are talking about drawing local lines. That is, saying that some local citation connections are part of a cluster while others are not. My point is merely that there are lots of ways of drawing these local lines. All clusters are in that sense artificial constructs, based on algorithmic assumptions. My question is how sensitive are the university rankings to this particular construct? I have even suggested an alternative construct as a sensitivity test. Mind you, I am assuming that the 4000 fields are a construct, not an empirical claim. If it is being claimed that it has been discovered that science actually consists of precisely 4000 micro fields then we have a very different discussion. My best wishes, David Sent from my IPad On May 21, 2015, at 7:08 PM, "Pikas, Christina K." wrote: > ?The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so? > > There are definitely components - parts of the graph that are not connected to other parts. > > > > ?Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. ? > > There are well-known and accepted community detection techniques and clustering techniques that work on networks where there is only one component. In community detection techniques, you typically maximize modularity, a measure of the extent nodes connect more to each other than to nodes not in the group. There are metrics for the other techniques, too. This is not new science at all. (fwiw, my paper using community detection for science blogs is OA archived here: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~cpikas/ScienceBlogging/PikasEScience08.pdf - remainder of site is horribly out of date ? don?t recommend reading it!) > > > > The paper discusses how they used 12 (I think?) different levels of clustering before they decided on the one with 4000. I was at a meeting today (hi Chris, hi Nancy) so didn?t see these as they were sent so maybe someone has sent the paper already. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:56 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Thank you, Nees Jan, but the paper is behind pay wall. Perhaps you could send me a copy, to dwojick at craigellachie.us. > > > > In any case my thinking is this. The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so. That is, there are few,if any, cases where there occurs a cluster such that all the authors therein cite each other and no one else. Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. > > > > One wonders, therefore, to what extent the university rankings are sensitive to the specific assumptions made in order to cluster the citation network and create the fields? Have you tested this sensitivity? > > > > I suggest a test. Change the algorithm such that it creates 2000 micro fields instead of 4000. Then rank the universities and see what difference it makes. Mind you this is just a crude first thought and better tests may be possible. > > > > I do not question the value of the work, but as you know using metrics in this way is itself a sensitive issue. > > > > My best regards, > > > > David > > > On May 21, 2015, at 1:51 AM, "Eck, N.J.P. van" wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear David, > > > > The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. > > > > The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. > > > > Best regards, > > Nees Jan > > > > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Nees Jan, > > How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. > > Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? > > My best wishes, > > David > http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Loet, > > Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. > > Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. > > We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. > > Best regards, > Nees Jan > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Nees Jan, > > As always impressive! Thank you. > > Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? > > I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? > > Best wishes, > Loet > > > > > Loet Leydesdorff > Emeritus University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; > Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities? involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010?2013. > > Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition > Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. > > Differences with other university rankings > Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. > > Website > The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. > > > ======================================================== > Nees Jan van Eck PhD > Researcher > Head of ICT > > Centre for Science and Technology Studies > Leiden University > P.O. Box 905 > 2300 AX Leiden > The Netherlands > > Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 > Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 > Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 > E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl > Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl > VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com > CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl > ======================================================== > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri May 22 01:09:55 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 07:09:55 +0200 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear David and colleagues, The time series provides an impression of the stability. Since I happen to be most familiar with this system, I chose ?Social Science and Humanities? for the 13 Dutch universities, PP(top-10%), fractional counting, etc. (default values). Size-independent ranking; that is, normalized over the 4,000 clusters or micro-fields. SSH 2006-2009 2007-2010 2008-2011 2009-2012 2010-2013 Delft Univ Technol 13 12 13 11 12 Eindhoven Univ Technol 2 3 11 12 13 Erasmus Univ Rotterdam 1 2 5 6 8 Leiden Univ 7 10 7 1 3 Maastricht Univ 9 8 6 8 5 Radboud Univ Nijmegen 10 7 4 5 6 Tilburg Univ 11 11 8 7 7 Univ Amsterdam 3 4 2 4 1 Univ Groningen 8 6 9 10 9 Univ Twente 12 13 12 13 10 Utrecht Univ 5 5 3 2 4 VU Univ Amsterdam 4 1 1 3 2 Wageningen Univ & Res Ctr 6 9 10 9 11 cid:image002.png at 01D0945D.7631D0F0 Correlations v06t09 v07t10 v08t11 v09t12 v10t13 Kendall's tau_b v06t09 Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .718** .359 .205 .282 Sig. (2-tailed) . .001 .088 .329 .180 N 13 13 13 13 13 v07t10 Correlation Coefficient .718** 1.000 .538* .282 .256 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 . .010 .180 .222 N 13 13 13 13 13 v08t11 Correlation Coefficient .359 .538* 1.000 .692** .718** Sig. (2-tailed) .088 .010 . .001 .001 N 13 13 13 13 13 v09t12 Correlation Coefficient .205 .282 .692** 1.000 .667** Sig. (2-tailed) .329 .180 .001 . .002 N 13 13 13 13 13 v10t13 Correlation Coefficient .282 .256 .718** .667** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .180 .222 .001 .002 . N 13 13 13 13 13 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Thus, the system is very dynamic. J As can be expected, the size-dependent ranking with the same parameters is much more stable. (Univ. Amsterdam 1, Utrecht and VU following at the second and third place, with the exception of EUR in the second place in 2006-2009). Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:02 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Yes, Christina, there obviously are distant parts of the graph of science that that are not connected to other parts. But we are talking about drawing local lines. That is, saying that some local citation connections are part of a cluster while others are not. My point is merely that there are lots of ways of drawing these local lines. All clusters are in that sense artificial constructs, based on algorithmic assumptions. My question is how sensitive are the university rankings to this particular construct? I have even suggested an alternative construct as a sensitivity test. Mind you, I am assuming that the 4000 fields are a construct, not an empirical claim. If it is being claimed that it has been discovered that science actually consists of precisely 4000 micro fields then we have a very different discussion. My best wishes, David Sent from my IPad On May 21, 2015, at 7:08 PM, "Pikas, Christina K." wrote: ?The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so? There are definitely components - parts of the graph that are not connected to other parts. ?Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. ? There are well-known and accepted community detection techniques and clustering techniques that work on networks where there is only one component. In community detection techniques, you typically maximize modularity, a measure of the extent nodes connect more to each other than to nodes not in the group. There are metrics for the other techniques, too. This is not new science at all. (fwiw, my paper using community detection for science blogs is OA archived here: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~cpikas/ScienceBlogging/PikasEScience08.pdf - remainder of site is horribly out of date ? don?t recommend reading it!) The paper discusses how they used 12 (I think?) different levels of clustering before they decided on the one with 4000. I was at a meeting today (hi Chris, hi Nancy) so didn?t see these as they were sent so maybe someone has sent the paper already. 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 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:56 PM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Thank you, Nees Jan, but the paper is behind pay wall. Perhaps you could send me a copy, to dwojick at craigellachie.us. In any case my thinking is this. The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so. That is, there are few,if any, cases where there occurs a cluster such that all the authors therein cite each other and no one else. Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. One wonders, therefore, to what extent the university rankings are sensitive to the specific assumptions made in order to cluster the citation network and create the fields? Have you tested this sensitivity? I suggest a test. Change the algorithm such that it creates 2000 micro fields instead of 4000. Then rank the universities and see what difference it makes. Mind you this is just a crude first thought and better tests may be possible. I do not question the value of the work, but as you know using metrics in this way is itself a sensitive issue. My best regards, David On May 21, 2015, at 1:51 AM, "Eck, N.J.P. van" wrote: Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck , University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ &hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities? involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010?2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 134073 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri May 22 02:02:10 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:02:10 +0200 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Nees Jan, Would it be possible to make the cluster "scientometrics" available for this community? For instance, consider scientometric research. With how many publications per year do we believe that our own publications as scientometricians can be compared in terms of citation counts? Probably a few hundred and at most about one thousand publications. In the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, there were 800 fields and scientometrics was part of a larger field that also included for instance library science. This leads to questionable comparisons between publications dealing with quite different research topics. In the 2015 edition of the ranking, one of the 4000 fields is focused entirely on research on scientometrics (and closely related topics). This field includes somewhat more than 1000 publications per year in the period 2010-2013 (so it's one of the larger fields among the 4000 fields). Perhaps, as a single Excel sheet. You can also provide the UT numbers and we can find them ourselves. (Please, include the UT numbers). Thanks in advance. Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gohar.feroz at GMAIL.COM Fri May 22 02:57:39 2015 From: gohar.feroz at GMAIL.COM (Gohar F. Khan) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 15:57:39 +0900 Subject: Collaboration network puzzle Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: Please help me solve the following puzzle. Using the Web of Science publication data, I have constructed two networks, 1) author level collaboration network, and 2) institutional level collaboration networks. The publications are in a particular research field. The problem is that the author network is composed of several small disconnected clusters with largest component consisting of only 43 nodes or authors. However, the institutional level collaboration network is well connected with 326 institutions in a single component. I just wonder what could explain these differences? Normally, when I construct such networks, the institutional network is sparse as compared to the authors network, as all the publications (or nodes) from a particular institute are merged into a single node when creating an institutional level collaboration network. But, here it is the opposite. What could cause this to happen? Any ideas? Regards, -- Gohar Feroz Khan, PhD Assistant Professor Korea University of Technology & Education (KoreaTECH) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stay tuned for my new book on 7 Layers of s ocial media analytics to be available soon... . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri May 22 02:53:18 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:53:18 +0200 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Message-ID: PS. Size-dependent is rather stable. This is also normalized at the micro-cluster level! These results also accord with my intuition. The problem must thus be that the denominators fluctuate. Is this correct, Nees Jan? Would this be an argument for using P(10%) rather than PP(10%)? Or is this field-specific? (This is SSH). Best, Loet size dependent 2006-2009 2007-2010 2008-2011 2009-2012 2010-2013 Delft Univ Technol 13 12 11 11 12 Eindhoven Univ Technol 11 11 13 13 13 Erasmus Univ Rotterdam 2 4 4 4 4 Leiden Univ 8 9 9 8 8 Maastricht Univ 7 7 8 9 9 Radboud Univ Nijmegen 6 6 6 6 6 Tilburg Univ 9 8 7 7 7 Univ Amsterdam 1 1 1 1 1 Univ Groningen 5 5 5 5 5 Univ Twente 12 13 12 12 10 Utrecht Univ 3 3 3 3 2 VU Univ Amsterdam 4 2 2 2 3 Wageningen Univ & Res Ctr 10 10 10 10 11 _____ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: Loet Leydesdorff [mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:10 AM To: 'ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics' Subject: RE: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear David and colleagues, The time series provides an impression of the stability. Since I happen to be most familiar with this system, I chose ?Social Science and Humanities? for the 13 Dutch universities, PP(top-10%), fractional counting, etc. (default values). Size-independent ranking; that is, normalized over the 4,000 clusters or micro-fields. SSH 2006-2009 2007-2010 2008-2011 2009-2012 2010-2013 Delft Univ Technol 13 12 13 11 12 Eindhoven Univ Technol 2 3 11 12 13 Erasmus Univ Rotterdam 1 2 5 6 8 Leiden Univ 7 10 7 1 3 Maastricht Univ 9 8 6 8 5 Radboud Univ Nijmegen 10 7 4 5 6 Tilburg Univ 11 11 8 7 7 Univ Amsterdam 3 4 2 4 1 Univ Groningen 8 6 9 10 9 Univ Twente 12 13 12 13 10 Utrecht Univ 5 5 3 2 4 VU Univ Amsterdam 4 1 1 3 2 Wageningen Univ & Res Ctr 6 9 10 9 11 cid:image002.png at 01D0945D.7631D0F0 Correlations v06t09 v07t10 v08t11 v09t12 v10t13 Kendall's tau_b v06t09 Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .718** .359 .205 .282 Sig. (2-tailed) . .001 .088 .329 .180 N 13 13 13 13 13 v07t10 Correlation Coefficient .718** 1.000 .538* .282 .256 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 . .010 .180 .222 N 13 13 13 13 13 v08t11 Correlation Coefficient .359 .538* 1.000 .692** .718** Sig. (2-tailed) .088 .010 . .001 .001 N 13 13 13 13 13 v09t12 Correlation Coefficient .205 .282 .692** 1.000 .667** Sig. (2-tailed) .329 .180 .001 . .002 N 13 13 13 13 13 v10t13 Correlation Coefficient .282 .256 .718** .667** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .180 .222 .001 .002 . N 13 13 13 13 13 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Thus, the system is very dynamic. J As can be expected, the size-dependent ranking with the same parameters is much more stable. (Univ. Amsterdam 1, Utrecht and VU following at the second and third place, with the exception of EUR in the second place in 2006-2009). Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:02 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Yes, Christina, there obviously are distant parts of the graph of science that that are not connected to other parts. But we are talking about drawing local lines. That is, saying that some local citation connections are part of a cluster while others are not. My point is merely that there are lots of ways of drawing these local lines. All clusters are in that sense artificial constructs, based on algorithmic assumptions. My question is how sensitive are the university rankings to this particular construct? I have even suggested an alternative construct as a sensitivity test. Mind you, I am assuming that the 4000 fields are a construct, not an empirical claim. If it is being claimed that it has been discovered that science actually consists of precisely 4000 micro fields then we have a very different discussion. My best wishes, David Sent from my IPad On May 21, 2015, at 7:08 PM, "Pikas, Christina K." wrote: ?The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so? There are definitely components - parts of the graph that are not connected to other parts. ?Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. ? There are well-known and accepted community detection techniques and clustering techniques that work on networks where there is only one component. In community detection techniques, you typically maximize modularity, a measure of the extent nodes connect more to each other than to nodes not in the group. There are metrics for the other techniques, too. This is not new science at all. (fwiw, my paper using community detection for science blogs is OA archived here: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~cpikas/ScienceBlogging/PikasEScience08.pdf - remainder of site is horribly out of date ? don?t recommend reading it!) The paper discusses how they used 12 (I think?) different levels of clustering before they decided on the one with 4000. I was at a meeting today (hi Chris, hi Nancy) so didn?t see these as they were sent so maybe someone has sent the paper already. 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 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:56 PM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Thank you, Nees Jan, but the paper is behind pay wall. Perhaps you could send me a copy, to dwojick at craigellachie.us. In any case my thinking is this. The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so. That is, there are few,if any, cases where there occurs a cluster such that all the authors therein cite each other and no one else. Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. One wonders, therefore, to what extent the university rankings are sensitive to the specific assumptions made in order to cluster the citation network and create the fields? Have you tested this sensitivity? I suggest a test. Change the algorithm such that it creates 2000 micro fields instead of 4000. Then rank the universities and see what difference it makes. Mind you this is just a crude first thought and better tests may be possible. I do not question the value of the work, but as you know using metrics in this way is itself a sensitive issue. My best regards, David On May 21, 2015, at 1:51 AM, "Eck, N.J.P. van" wrote: Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck , University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ &hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities? involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010?2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 134073 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 191799 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri May 22 05:20:24 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:20:24 +0200 Subject: Collaboration network puzzle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Gohar Feroz, We don?t know the subject, but if you have such a large cluster of 326 institutions, the network may be very globalized. Individuals can then team up within this internationalized and networked domain? Just a hypothesis. Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Gohar F. Khan Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:58 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Collaboration network puzzle Dear Colleagues: Please help me solve the following puzzle. Using the Web of Science publication data, I have constructed two networks, 1) author level collaboration network, and 2) institutional level collaboration networks. The publications are in a particular research field. The problem is that the author network is composed of several small disconnected clusters with largest component consisting of only 43 nodes or authors. However, the institutional level collaboration network is well connected with 326 institutions in a single component. I just wonder what could explain these differences? Normally, when I construct such networks, the institutional network is sparse as compared to the authors network, as all the publications (or nodes) from a particular institute are merged into a single node when creating an institutional level collaboration network. But, here it is the opposite. What could cause this to happen? Any ideas? Regards, -- Gohar Feroz Khan, PhD Assistant Professor Korea University of Technology & Education (KoreaTECH) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stay tuned for my new book on 7 Layers of s ocial media analytics to be available soon.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saeedulhassan at GMAIL.COM Fri May 22 05:51:06 2015 From: saeedulhassan at GMAIL.COM (Saeed Ul Hassan) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 14:51:06 +0500 Subject: Collaboration network puzzle In-Reply-To: <000601d09470$89e55320$9daff960$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Dear Dr. Gohar Khan, It could be due to author's name ambiguity issue. As there could be different name variations in different clusters. I guess you have taken care of it already? Best Regards, *Dr. Saeed Ul Hassan (Ph.D.)*Director ITU Scientometrics Lab HEC Approved Supervisor | Assistant Professor Information Technology University - Punjab 6th Floor, Arfa Software Technology Park,346-B, Ferozepur Road, Lahore Phone: +92-42-35880062 ext: 6023 | Cell: +92-322-2289756 URL: http://itu.edu.pk/faculty-itu/dr-saeed-ul-hassan/ On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Gohar Feroz, > > > > We don?t know the subject, but if you have such a large cluster of 326 > institutions, the network may be very globalized. > > Individuals can then team up within this internationalized and networked > domain? > > > > Just a hypothesis. > > > > Best, > > Loet > > > ------------------------------ > > Loet Leydesdorff > > *Emeritus* University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of > Sussex; > > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , > Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > Beijing; > > Visiting Professor, Birkbeck , University of > London; > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto: > SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Gohar F. Khan > *Sent:* Friday, May 22, 2015 8:58 AM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* [SIGMETRICS] Collaboration network puzzle > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Colleagues: > > > > Please help me solve the following puzzle. > > > > Using the Web of Science publication data, I have constructed two > networks, 1) author level collaboration network, and 2) institutional level > collaboration networks. The publications are in a particular research > field. > > > > The problem is that the author network is composed of several small > disconnected clusters with largest component consisting of only 43 nodes or > authors. However, the institutional level collaboration network is well > connected with 326 institutions in a single component. > > > > I just wonder what could explain these differences? Normally, when I > construct such networks, the institutional network is sparse as compared to > the authors network, as all the publications (or nodes) from a particular > institute are merged into a single node when creating an institutional > level collaboration network. But, here it is the opposite. > > > > What could cause this to happen? Any ideas? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Gohar Feroz Khan, PhD > Assistant Professor > Korea University of Technology & Education (KoreaTECH) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Stay tuned for my new book on 7 Layers of s > ocial > media analytics to be available soon... > . > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From krichel at OPENLIB.ORG Fri May 22 06:11:23 2015 From: krichel at OPENLIB.ORG (Thomas Krichel) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 10:11:23 +0000 Subject: Collaboration network puzzle In-Reply-To: <000601d09470$89e55320$9daff960$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Gohar Feroz Khan, PhD writes > Using the Web of Science publication data, I have constructed two > networks, 1) author level collaboration network, and 2) > institutional level collaboration networks. The publications are in > a particular research field. What's the field? > I just wonder what could explain these differences? Normally, when > I construct such networks, the institutional network is sparse as > compared to the authors network, as all the publications (or nodes) > from a particular institute are merged into a single node when > creating an institutional level collaboration network. But, here it > is the opposite. Possibly you have bad data, with author names spelled out differently thus Identified author and institution data is avaible from RePEc. I have done work the the collaboration of authors at http://collec.repec.org but no work on institutional collaboration. -- Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel skype:thomaskrichel From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Fri May 22 07:27:24 2015 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 07:27:24 -0400 Subject: Collaboration network puzzle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Gohar, Perhaps (1) there are several distinct subfields, which do not collaborate, but which are often found in the same department or institution. Either that or (2) there are several distinct schools of thought, pursuing different hypotheses, but again often found in the same department. Option (2) can be a characteristic of an emerging field that has yet to settle on a paradigm. David On May 22, 2015, at 2:57 AM, "Gohar F. Khan" wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Colleagues: > > Please help me solve the following puzzle. > > Using the Web of Science publication data, I have constructed two networks, 1) author level collaboration network, and 2) institutional level collaboration networks. The publications are in a particular research field. > > The problem is that the author network is composed of several small disconnected clusters with largest component consisting of only 43 nodes or authors. However, the institutional level collaboration network is well connected with 326 institutions in a single component. > > I just wonder what could explain these differences? Normally, when I construct such networks, the institutional network is sparse as compared to the authors network, as all the publications (or nodes) from a particular institute are merged into a single node when creating an institutional level collaboration network. But, here it is the opposite. > > What could cause this to happen? Any ideas? > > > Regards, > > -- > Gohar Feroz Khan, PhD > Assistant Professor > Korea University of Technology & Education (KoreaTECH) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Stay tuned for my new book on 7 Layers of social media analytics to be available soon.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Fri May 22 16:13:49 2015 From: ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Eck, N.J.P. van) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 20:13:49 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: <002801d0945b$fccc3300$f6649900$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Thank you again for the additional thoughts and suggestions. This is much appreciated! I will give a response to a number of the points raised in the discussion: 1. A preprint of the paper by Ruiz-Castillo and Waltman is freely available at http://hdl.handle.net/10016/18385. All other papers that I mentioned in my earlier message are also freely available online, most of them in the arXiv. 2. The test suggested by David is performed in the above-mentioned paper. 3. Loet?s stability analysis shows that the ranking of Dutch universities relative to each changes quite significantly over time, at least when the size-independent PP(top 10%) indicator is considered, so when the focus is on the proportion of the publications of a university belonging to the top 10% most cited publications in their field. Please keep in mind that the Dutch universities almost all have a quite similar performance in terms of the PP(top 10%) indicator, so even small changes in the indicator may lead to a change in the ranking of the universities relative to each other. It might therefore be informative to take a look at the time trend in the PP(top 10%) values themselves instead of the time trend in the ranking derived from the PP(top 10%) values. 4. Loet is right that size-dependent indicators, such as the number (rather than the proportion) of top 10% publications of a university, yield a more stable outcome. I don?t think this should be seen as an argument for using size-dependent instead of size-independent indicators. The two types of indicators answer different questions, so depending on what you are interested in you should use one or the other. If you want to know which Dutch universities contribute most to the top cited publications worldwide, then use the size-dependent P(top 10%) or P(top 1%) indicator. If you want to know which Dutch universities have the largest share of high-impact work within their overall publication output, then use the size-independent PP(top 10%) or PP(top 1%) indicator. 5. It is clear from the different contributions to the discussion that there is a need in the community to have a more detailed insight into the consequences of performing field normalization at the level of 4000 algorithmically constructed fields. At CWTS, we are currently thinking about the best way in which we can offer more detailed information to the community. It is a busy time for us at the moment, with many people responding to our ranking. However, as soon as I have more information, I will inform you about this on the mailing list. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:53 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html PS. Size-dependent is rather stable. This is also normalized at the micro-cluster level! [cid:image001.png at 01D094DC.93B65360] These results also accord with my intuition. The problem must thus be that the denominators fluctuate. Is this correct, Nees Jan? Would this be an argument for using P(10%) rather than PP(10%)? Or is this field-specific? (This is SSH). Best, Loet size dependent 2006-2009 2007-2010 2008-2011 2009-2012 2010-2013 Delft Univ Technol 13 12 11 11 12 Eindhoven Univ Technol 11 11 13 13 13 Erasmus Univ Rotterdam 2 4 4 4 4 Leiden Univ 8 9 9 8 8 Maastricht Univ 7 7 8 9 9 Radboud Univ Nijmegen 6 6 6 6 6 Tilburg Univ 9 8 7 7 7 Univ Amsterdam 1 1 1 1 1 Univ Groningen 5 5 5 5 5 Univ Twente 12 13 12 12 10 Utrecht Univ 3 3 3 3 2 VU Univ Amsterdam 4 2 2 2 3 Wageningen Univ & Res Ctr 10 10 10 10 11 ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: Loet Leydesdorff [mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:10 AM To: 'ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics' Subject: RE: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear David and colleagues, The time series provides an impression of the stability. Since I happen to be most familiar with this system, I chose ?Social Science and Humanities? for the 13 Dutch universities, PP(top-10%), fractional counting, etc. (default values). Size-independent ranking; that is, normalized over the 4,000 clusters or micro-fields. SSH 2006-2009 2007-2010 2008-2011 2009-2012 2010-2013 Delft Univ Technol 13 12 13 11 12 Eindhoven Univ Technol 2 3 11 12 13 Erasmus Univ Rotterdam 1 2 5 6 8 Leiden Univ 7 10 7 1 3 Maastricht Univ 9 8 6 8 5 Radboud Univ Nijmegen 10 7 4 5 6 Tilburg Univ 11 11 8 7 7 Univ Amsterdam 3 4 2 4 1 Univ Groningen 8 6 9 10 9 Univ Twente 12 13 12 13 10 Utrecht Univ 5 5 3 2 4 VU Univ Amsterdam 4 1 1 3 2 Wageningen Univ & Res Ctr 6 9 10 9 11 [cid:image002.png at 01D0945D.7631D0F0] Correlations v06t09 v07t10 v08t11 v09t12 v10t13 Kendall's tau_b v06t09 Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .718** .359 .205 .282 Sig. (2-tailed) . .001 .088 .329 .180 N 13 13 13 13 13 v07t10 Correlation Coefficient .718** 1.000 .538* .282 .256 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 . .010 .180 .222 N 13 13 13 13 13 v08t11 Correlation Coefficient .359 .538* 1.000 .692** .718** Sig. (2-tailed) .088 .010 . .001 .001 N 13 13 13 13 13 v09t12 Correlation Coefficient .205 .282 .692** 1.000 .667** Sig. (2-tailed) .329 .180 .001 . .002 N 13 13 13 13 13 v10t13 Correlation Coefficient .282 .256 .718** .667** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .180 .222 .001 .002 . N 13 13 13 13 13 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Thus, the system is very dynamic. ? As can be expected, the size-dependent ranking with the same parameters is much more stable. (Univ. Amsterdam 1, Utrecht and VU following at the second and third place, with the exception of EUR in the second place in 2006-2009). Best, Loet ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:02 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Yes, Christina, there obviously are distant parts of the graph of science that that are not connected to other parts. But we are talking about drawing local lines. That is, saying that some local citation connections are part of a cluster while others are not. My point is merely that there are lots of ways of drawing these local lines. All clusters are in that sense artificial constructs, based on algorithmic assumptions. My question is how sensitive are the university rankings to this particular construct? I have even suggested an alternative construct as a sensitivity test. Mind you, I am assuming that the 4000 fields are a construct, not an empirical claim. If it is being claimed that it has been discovered that science actually consists of precisely 4000 micro fields then we have a very different discussion. My best wishes, David Sent from my IPad On May 21, 2015, at 7:08 PM, "Pikas, Christina K." > wrote: ?The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so? There are definitely components - parts of the graph that are not connected to other parts. ?Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. ? There are well-known and accepted community detection techniques and clustering techniques that work on networks where there is only one component. In community detection techniques, you typically maximize modularity, a measure of the extent nodes connect more to each other than to nodes not in the group. There are metrics for the other techniques, too. This is not new science at all. (fwiw, my paper using community detection for science blogs is OA archived here: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~cpikas/ScienceBlogging/PikasEScience08.pdf - remainder of site is horribly out of date ? don?t recommend reading it!) The paper discusses how they used 12 (I think?) different levels of clustering before they decided on the one with 4000. I was at a meeting today (hi Chris, hi Nancy) so didn?t see these as they were sent so maybe someone has sent the paper already. 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 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:56 PM To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Thank you, Nees Jan, but the paper is behind pay wall. Perhaps you could send me a copy, to dwojick at craigellachie.us. In any case my thinking is this. The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so. That is, there are few,if any, cases where there occurs a cluster such that all the authors therein cite each other and no one else. Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. One wonders, therefore, to what extent the university rankings are sensitive to the specific assumptions made in order to cluster the citation network and create the fields? Have you tested this sensitivity? I suggest a test. Change the algorithm such that it creates 2000 micro fields instead of 4000. Then rank the universities and see what difference it makes. Mind you this is just a crude first thought and better tests may be possible. I do not question the value of the work, but as you know using metrics in this way is itself a sensitive issue. My best regards, David On May 21, 2015, at 1:51 AM, "Eck, N.J.P. van" > wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities? involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010?2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 191799 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 134073 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US Fri May 22 17:24:05 2015 From: dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US (David Wojick) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 17:24:05 -0400 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Nees Jan, One of the list members kindly sent me your paper this morning and I have read it with great interest. The work is very impressive and your WVE method seems clearly superior to WoS. I did not know when I proposed the sensitivity test that WVE scales to different numbers of micro fields, or levels as you call them. This in itself is impressive. I think your 8th level is the one with 4000 fields, while your 7th has 2000 (my number) by coincidence. However, running the same algorithm or method of clustering at different levels is not the test I was talking about. What I have in mind is running different clustering algorithms, to see how sensitive the rankings are to the assumptions in your algorithm. This has not been done, as far as I can tell. There are, after all, many ways to cluster a network. My best wishes, David On May 22, 2015, at 4:13 PM, "Eck, N.J.P. van" wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > > Thank you again for the additional thoughts and suggestions. This is much appreciated! > > > > I will give a response to a number of the points raised in the discussion: > > > > 1. A preprint of the paper by Ruiz-Castillo and Waltman is freely available at http://hdl.handle.net/10016/18385. All other papers that I mentioned in my earlier message are also freely available online, most of them in the arXiv. > > > > 2. The test suggested by David is performed in the above-mentioned paper. > > > > 3. Loet?s stability analysis shows that the ranking of Dutch universities relative to each changes quite significantly over time, at least when the size-independent PP(top 10%) indicator is considered, so when the focus is on the proportion of the publications of a university belonging to the top 10% most cited publications in their field. Please keep in mind that the Dutch universities almost all have a quite similar performance in terms of the PP(top 10%) indicator, so even small changes in the indicator may lead to a change in the ranking of the universities relative to each other. It might therefore be informative to take a look at the time trend in the PP(top 10%) values themselves instead of the time trend in the ranking derived from the PP(top 10%) values. > > > > 4. Loet is right that size-dependent indicators, such as the number (rather than the proportion) of top 10% publications of a university, yield a more stable outcome. I don?t think this should be seen as an argument for using size-dependent instead of size-independent indicators. The two types of indicators answer different questions, so depending on what you are interested in you should use one or the other. If you want to know which Dutch universities contribute most to the top cited publications worldwide, then use the size-dependent P(top 10%) or P(top 1%) indicator. If you want to know which Dutch universities have the largest share of high-impact work within their overall publication output, then use the size-independent PP(top 10%) or PP(top 1%) indicator. > > > > 5. It is clear from the different contributions to the discussion that there is a need in the community to have a more detailed insight into the consequences of performing field normalization at the level of 4000 algorithmically constructed fields. At CWTS, we are currently thinking about the best way in which we can offer more detailed information to the community. It is a busy time for us at the moment, with many people responding to our ranking. However, as soon as I have more information, I will inform you about this on the mailing list. > > > > Best regards, > > Nees Jan > > > > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:53 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > PS. Size-dependent is rather stable. This is also normalized at the micro-cluster level! > > > > > > These results also accord with my intuition. > > The problem must thus be that the denominators fluctuate. Is this correct, Nees Jan? > > > > Would this be an argument for using P(10%) rather than PP(10%)? Or is this field-specific? (This is SSH). > > > > Best, > > Loet > > > > size dependent > > 2006-2009 > > 2007-2010 > > 2008-2011 > > 2009-2012 > > 2010-2013 > > Delft Univ Technol > > 13 > > 12 > > 11 > > 11 > > 12 > > Eindhoven Univ Technol > > 11 > > 11 > > 13 > > 13 > > 13 > > Erasmus Univ Rotterdam > > 2 > > 4 > > 4 > > 4 > > 4 > > Leiden Univ > > 8 > > 9 > > 9 > > 8 > > 8 > > Maastricht Univ > > 7 > > 7 > > 8 > > 9 > > 9 > > Radboud Univ Nijmegen > > 6 > > 6 > > 6 > > 6 > > 6 > > Tilburg Univ > > 9 > > 8 > > 7 > > 7 > > 7 > > Univ Amsterdam > > 1 > > 1 > > 1 > > 1 > > 1 > > Univ Groningen > > 5 > > 5 > > 5 > > 5 > > 5 > > Univ Twente > > 12 > > 13 > > 12 > > 12 > > 10 > > Utrecht Univ > > 3 > > 3 > > 3 > > 3 > > 2 > > VU Univ Amsterdam > > 4 > > 2 > > 2 > > 2 > > 3 > > Wageningen Univ & Res Ctr > > 10 > > 10 > > 10 > > 10 > > 11 > > > > Loet Leydesdorff > > Emeritus University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; > > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; > > Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > > From: Loet Leydesdorff [mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net] > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:10 AM > To: 'ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics' > Subject: RE: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Dear David and colleagues, > > > > The time series provides an impression of the stability. > > > > Since I happen to be most familiar with this system, I chose ?Social Science and Humanities? for the 13 Dutch universities, > > PP(top-10%), fractional counting, etc. (default values). Size-independent ranking; that is, normalized over the 4,000 clusters or micro-fields. > > > > SSH > > 2006-2009 > > 2007-2010 > > 2008-2011 > > 2009-2012 > > 2010-2013 > > Delft Univ Technol > > 13 > > 12 > > 13 > > 11 > > 12 > > Eindhoven Univ Technol > > 2 > > 3 > > 11 > > 12 > > 13 > > Erasmus Univ Rotterdam > > 1 > > 2 > > 5 > > 6 > > 8 > > Leiden Univ > > 7 > > 10 > > 7 > > 1 > > 3 > > Maastricht Univ > > 9 > > 8 > > 6 > > 8 > > 5 > > Radboud Univ Nijmegen > > 10 > > 7 > > 4 > > 5 > > 6 > > Tilburg Univ > > 11 > > 11 > > 8 > > 7 > > 7 > > Univ Amsterdam > > 3 > > 4 > > 2 > > 4 > > 1 > > Univ Groningen > > 8 > > 6 > > 9 > > 10 > > 9 > > Univ Twente > > 12 > > 13 > > 12 > > 13 > > 10 > > Utrecht Univ > > 5 > > 5 > > 3 > > 2 > > 4 > > VU Univ Amsterdam > > 4 > > 1 > > 1 > > 3 > > 2 > > Wageningen Univ & Res Ctr > > 6 > > 9 > > 10 > > 9 > > 11 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correlations > > > v06t09 > v07t10 > v08t11 > v09t12 > v10t13 > Kendall's tau_b > v06t09 > Correlation Coefficient > 1.000 > .718** > .359 > .205 > .282 > Sig. (2-tailed) > . > .001 > .088 > .329 > .180 > N > 13 > 13 > 13 > 13 > 13 > v07t10 > Correlation Coefficient > .718** > 1.000 > .538* > .282 > .256 > Sig. (2-tailed) > .001 > . > .010 > .180 > .222 > N > 13 > 13 > 13 > 13 > 13 > v08t11 > Correlation Coefficient > .359 > .538* > 1.000 > .692** > .718** > Sig. (2-tailed) > .088 > .010 > . > .001 > .001 > N > 13 > 13 > 13 > 13 > 13 > v09t12 > Correlation Coefficient > .205 > .282 > .692** > 1.000 > .667** > Sig. (2-tailed) > .329 > .180 > .001 > . > .002 > N > 13 > 13 > 13 > 13 > 13 > v10t13 > Correlation Coefficient > .282 > .256 > .718** > .667** > 1.000 > Sig. (2-tailed) > .180 > .222 > .001 > .002 > . > N > 13 > 13 > 13 > 13 > 13 > **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). > *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). > > > Thus, the system is very dynamic. J > > > > As can be expected, the size-dependent ranking with the same parameters is much more stable. (Univ. Amsterdam 1, Utrecht and VU following at the second and third place, with the exception of EUR in the second place in 2006-2009). > > > > Best, > > Loet > > > > Loet Leydesdorff > > Emeritus University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; > > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; > > Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:02 AM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Yes, Christina, there obviously are distant parts of the graph of science that that are not connected to other parts. But we are talking about drawing local lines. That is, saying that some local citation connections are part of a cluster while others are not. > > > > My point is merely that there are lots of ways of drawing these local lines. All clusters are in that sense artificial constructs, based on algorithmic assumptions. My question is how sensitive are the university rankings to this particular construct? I have even suggested an alternative construct as a sensitivity test. > > > > Mind you, I am assuming that the 4000 fields are a construct, not an empirical claim. If it is being claimed that it has been discovered that science actually consists of precisely 4000 micro fields then we have a very different discussion. > > > > My best wishes, > > > > David > > Sent from my IPad > > > On May 21, 2015, at 7:08 PM, "Pikas, Christina K." wrote: > > ?The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so? > > There are definitely components - parts of the graph that are not connected to other parts. > > > > ?Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. ? > > There are well-known and accepted community detection techniques and clustering techniques that work on networks where there is only one component. In community detection techniques, you typically maximize modularity, a measure of the extent nodes connect more to each other than to nodes not in the group. There are metrics for the other techniques, too. This is not new science at all. (fwiw, my paper using community detection for science blogs is OA archived here: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~cpikas/ScienceBlogging/PikasEScience08.pdf - remainder of site is horribly out of date ? don?t recommend reading it!) > > > > The paper discusses how they used 12 (I think?) different levels of clustering before they decided on the one with 4000. I was at a meeting today (hi Chris, hi Nancy) so didn?t see these as they were sent so maybe someone has sent the paper already. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:56 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Thank you, Nees Jan, but the paper is behind pay wall. Perhaps you could send me a copy, to dwojick at craigellachie.us. > > > > In any case my thinking is this. The citation network of science is seamless, or mostly so. That is, there are few,if any, cases where there occurs a cluster such that all the authors therein cite each other and no one else. Thus any segmentation of this seamless network into clusters must require algorithmic assumptions that are more or less arbitrary, in the sense that alternative assumptions are available. > > > > One wonders, therefore, to what extent the university rankings are sensitive to the specific assumptions made in order to cluster the citation network and create the fields? Have you tested this sensitivity? > > > > I suggest a test. Change the algorithm such that it creates 2000 micro fields instead of 4000. Then rank the universities and see what difference it makes. Mind you this is just a crude first thought and better tests may be possible. > > > > I do not question the value of the work, but as you know using metrics in this way is itself a sensitive issue. > > > > My best regards, > > > > David > > > On May 21, 2015, at 1:51 AM, "Eck, N.J.P. van" wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear David, > > > > The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. > > > > The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. > > > > Best regards, > > Nees Jan > > > > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Nees Jan, > > How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. > > Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? > > My best wishes, > > David > http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Loet, > > Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. > > Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. > > We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. > > Best regards, > Nees Jan > > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Nees Jan, > > As always impressive! Thank you. > > Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? > > I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? > > Best wishes, > Loet > > > > > Loet Leydesdorff > Emeritus University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; > Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities? involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010?2013. > > Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition > Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. > > Differences with other university rankings > Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. > > Website > The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. > > > ======================================================== > Nees Jan van Eck PhD > Researcher > Head of ICT > > Centre for Science and Technology Studies > Leiden University > P.O. Box 905 > 2300 AX Leiden > The Netherlands > > Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 > Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 > Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 > E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl > Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl > VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com > CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl > ======================================================== > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gohar.feroz at GMAIL.COM Fri May 22 20:32:26 2015 From: gohar.feroz at GMAIL.COM (Gohar F. Khan) Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 09:32:26 +0900 Subject: Collaboration network puzzle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: The field is Information Technology Management. And thank you for the interesting insights. I will further dig down into the data to check if it is due to name ambiguities (as Saeed and Thomas suggested) or network and field related dynamics (as suggested by Loet and David). Or perhaps both. Regards, On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 8:27 PM, David Wojick wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Gohar, > > Perhaps (1) there are several distinct subfields, which do not > collaborate, but which are often found in the same department or > institution. Either that or (2) there are several distinct schools of > thought, pursuing different hypotheses, but again often found in the same > department. Option (2) can be a characteristic of an emerging field that > has yet to settle on a paradigm. > > David > > On May 22, 2015, at 2:57 AM, "Gohar F. Khan" > wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Colleagues: > > Please help me solve the following puzzle. > > Using the Web of Science publication data, I have constructed two > networks, 1) author level collaboration network, and 2) institutional level > collaboration networks. The publications are in a particular research > field. > > The problem is that the author network is composed of several small > disconnected clusters with largest component consisting of only 43 nodes or > authors. However, the institutional level collaboration network is well > connected with 326 institutions in a single component. > > I just wonder what could explain these differences? Normally, when I > construct such networks, the institutional network is sparse as compared to > the authors network, as all the publications (or nodes) from a particular > institute are merged into a single node when creating an institutional > level collaboration network. But, here it is the opposite. > > What could cause this to happen? Any ideas? > > > Regards, > > -- > > Gohar Feroz Khan, PhD > Assistant Professor > Korea University of Technology & Education (KoreaTECH) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Stay tuned for my new book on 7 Layers of s > ocial > media analytics to be available soon... > . > > -- Gohar Feroz Khan, PhD Assistant Professor Korea University of Technology & Education (KoreaTECH) 1600 Chungjol-ro Byungcheon-myun Cheonan city, 330-708, South Korea Office: 82-41-560-1415; Mobile: +82-10-5510-8071 email: gohar.feroz at kut.ac.kr ------------------------------------------------------- Director Centre for Social Technologies Associate Editor Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia I blog here --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stay tuned for my new book on 7 Layers of s ocial media analytics to be available soon... . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Sat May 23 02:36:36 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 08:36:36 +0200 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ? It might therefore be informative to take a look at the time trend in the PP(top 10%) values themselves instead of the time trend in the ranking derived from the PP(top 10%) values. Dear Nees Jan: In Dutch one says ?Wie A zegt, moet ook B zeggen.? (?Who says A, also says B.?) Indeed, this is somewhat more convincing. Most universities are increasing their share in terms of this indicator (http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.05.002 ) . Note that this is SSH. Leiden is doing very good! (That includes CWTS; Congratulations.) I assume that the fluctuations are often within the confidence levels; these could be plotted additionally. Indeed, the system is dynamic: Correlations v06t09 v07t10 v08t11 v09t12 v10t13 v06t09 Pearson Correlation 1 .914** .575* .385 .269 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .040 .194 .375 N 13 13 13 13 13 v07t10 Pearson Correlation .914** 1 .748** .464 .393 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .003 .110 .184 N 13 13 13 13 13 v08t11 Pearson Correlation .575* .748** 1 .833** .828** Sig. (2-tailed) .040 .003 .000 .000 N 13 13 13 13 13 v09t12 Pearson Correlation .385 .464 .833** 1 .910** Sig. (2-tailed) .194 .110 .000 .000 N 13 13 13 13 13 v10t13 Pearson Correlation .269 .393 .828** .910** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .375 .184 .000 .000 N 13 13 13 13 13 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The last column (or equivalently the bottom line) is convincing. (Continuous increase in the values of r.) Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 156964 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From andreas.strotmann at GMAIL.COM Sun May 24 09:04:53 2015 From: andreas.strotmann at GMAIL.COM (Andreas Strotmann) Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 15:04:53 +0200 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: If 1000 papers are a large micro-field at the 4000 micro-fields level, then rounding cut-offs will introduce a major source of arbitrariness into all the top-1% measures: In micro-fields of roughly 400 papers each, say, are there 3 or 4 top-1% publications? Or should there perhaps be even 5 or 6, as the fifth and sixth-ranked are too close to the third to matter? I therefore suspect that while you may be getting better results with 4000 micro-fields for the 10% or 50% based metrics, for the top-1% metrics, finite-size-effects will introduce enough noise to destroy a lot (if not all) of their advantage over the 800-level. Best, -- Andreas On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Eck, N.J.P. van < ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl> wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Thank you all for your suggestions regarding the field normalization > issue. Let me give a response to some of your comments: > > > > 1. Loet?s remark on our use of the term ?field?: On the Leiden > Ranking website, we use the term ?micro-level field? (see > www.leidenranking.com/methodology/fields), which is perhaps more > appropriate than just ?field?. > > > > 2. Loet?s remark on the size of the fields in the Leiden Ranking: > The fields are indeed quite small, but this is exactly what we want. For > instance, consider scientometric research. With how many publications per > year do we believe that our own publications as scientometricians can be > compared in terms of citation counts? Probably a few hundred and at most > about one thousand publications. In the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, > there were 800 fields and scientometrics was part of a larger field that > also included for instance library science. This leads to questionable > comparisons between publications dealing with quite different research > topics. In the 2015 edition of the ranking, one of the 4000 fields is > focused entirely on research on scientometrics (and closely related > topics). This field includes somewhat more than 1000 publications per year > in the period 2010-2013 (so it?s one of the larger fields among the 4000 > fields). We believe that this is approximately the right level of > aggregation to perform citation-based comparisons. It could even be argued > that a scientometrics field that includes about 1000 publications per year > is still a bit large (so in fact we may need to have even more than 4000 > fields). > > > > 3. Loet?s remark on the validity of year-to-year comparisons: This > is a good point. The Leiden Ranking micro-level fields cover the period > 2000-2014. The Leiden Ranking 2015 offers a retrospective perspective. The > 2015 edition of the ranking provides statistics not only for the period > 2010-2013, but also for the periods 2009-2012, 2008-2011, 2007-2010, and > 2006-2009. Statistics for all periods have been calculated in a fully > consistent way and, importantly, based on the same underlying micro-level > fields. So year-to-year comparisons can be made in a proper way. > > > > 4. Loet?s remark on the low validity of algorithmically constructed > fields: Please note that we construct fields at the level of individual > publications, not at the level of entire journals. So the findings of > http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21086, which is a journal-level analysis, > don?t need to generalize to our publication-level analysis. In our own > experience (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748), algorithmically > constructed fields at the level of individual publications have a quite > high validity. > > > > 5. Loet?s remark on science policy implications: Indeed, even if > the results are relatively insensitive to methodological choices, still for > individual universities there may be significant differences that may have > policy implications. This is exactly why in the Leiden Ranking we have > moved away from use of the Web of Science journal subject categories for > field normalization. Their accuracy for field normalization purposes is > limited, as shown in various studies, such as > http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062395 and > http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23408. > > > > 6. Lutz?s remark on using field classifications constructed by > experts: This is definitely a sensible approach, but it is not feasible in > the context of the Leiden Ranking. This is because the Leiden Ranking > covers all scientific disciplines, and many disciplines don?t have an > expert-based classification. In analyses focusing on a specific discipline > (e.g., chemistry), it may indeed be preferable to use an expert-based > classification (e.g., Chemical Abstracts sections), although even then it > cannot be assumed a priori that an expert-based classification is always > more accurate than an algorithmically constructed one. Expert-based > classifications do have the advantage of being openly available and > therefore being more transparent. > > > > 7. Lutz?s remark on comparing the current normalization approach > implemented in the Leiden Ranking with an approach based on the Web of > Science subject categories: Such a comparison is reported in > http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. > > > > Thanks again for everyone?s comments and suggestions! > > > > Best regards, > > Nees Jan > > > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto: > SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Catharina Rehn > *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:52 AM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear colleagues, > > > > We have for some years been working with data from both MeSH and the NLM > classification system (for journal classes), in addition to the traditional > ISI categories, in our analyses. Since our unit is based at a medical > university (Karolinska Institutet), our bibliometric system is founded on a > combination of data from the Web of Science and Medline/NLM. > > > > Please feel free to contact us if you are interested in our experiences or > input to specific research projects. > > > > Best regards, > > Catharina Rehn > > > > Catharina Rehn > > Karolinska Institutet > > 171 77 | Box 200 > > +46 (0)8 524 84054 > > catharina.rehn at ki.se | ki.se > > ______________________________________ > > Karolinska Institutet - a medical university > > > > > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] *On > Behalf Of *Loet Leydesdorff > *Sent:* den 21 maj 2015 10:02 > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Lutz, Nees Jan, and colleagues, > > > > Medical Subject Headings (PubMed/Medline) are available in WoS. One could > perhaps test the Leiden clustering against the MeSH tree for the > bio-medical part of the database. > > > > The three most interesting dimensions of MeSH classifications (C: > Diseases; D: Drugs and Chemicals; E: Analytic, Diagnostic, and Therapeutic > Techniques and Equipment) are almost orthogonal (Leydesdorff, Rotolo & > Rafols, 2012 ). Thus, one would obtain > three different fits. This would inform us about what is being clustered > substantially by the algorithm (Petersen et al > ., under > submission). > > > > The LoC classification could be another benchmark, but perhaps more > difficult to match. > > > > Best, > > Loet > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Loet Leydesdorff > > *Emeritus* University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of > Sussex; > > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , > Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > Beijing; > > Visiting Professor, Birkbeck , University of > London; > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] *On > Behalf Of *Bornmann, Lutz > *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:09 AM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Hi Nees, > > > > Thank you for further explanation of your method! I appreciate the new > possibility to take a detailed look at single institutions. Well done! > > > > I followed the publications on your clustering methods. It is an > interesting alternative to the journals sets. However, it has several > disadvantages, as pointed out by Loet in his previous emails. Loet > mentioned another alternative to the journal sets and clustering based on > citation relations: field classifications from experts in the field (e.g. > sections from Chemical Abstracts, https://www.cas.org/content/ca-sections). > These classifications do not change over time for the same publication (as > citation relations will do) and the rate of miss-classifications is rather > low. We already used the sections for field normalization in several > studies, which works well. > > > > I would be delighted if you would publish a Leiden Ranking variant based > on the use of WoS journal sets. Then, the user could compare the results > (based on journal sets and citation relations) and ? another important > point ? the user could compare own results for an institution with those of > the Leiden Ranking. Since your clustering algorithm cannot simply be > installed in an in-house solution of the WoS, your Leiden Ranking results > can no longer be directly compared with own results (based on WoS journal > sets). > > > > Best, > > > > Lutz > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] *On > Behalf Of *Eck, N.J.P. van > *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:51 AM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear David, > > > > The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on > citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided > in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. > > > > The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully > transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, > and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is > freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true > that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not > transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields > is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can > be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing > consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject > categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is > unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The > normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more > accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science > subject categories is lost. > > > > Best regards, > > Nees Jan > > > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] *On > Behalf Of *David Wojick > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Nees Jan, > > How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic > algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. > > Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? > > My best wishes, > > David > http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Loet, > > Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), > and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields > for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are > not used. > > Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are > defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal > level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something > that hopefully can be improved in the future. > > We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses > indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in > citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of > performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is > reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: > http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also > shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact > indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. > > Best regards, > Nees Jan > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] *On > Behalf Of *Loet Leydesdorff > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear Nees Jan, > > As always impressive! Thank you. > > Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do > I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 > fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the > fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel > sheet? > > I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how > the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, > and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the > discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? > > Best wishes, > Loet > > > > > Loet Leydesdorff > *Emeritus* University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of > Sussex; > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , > Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > Beijing; > Visiting Professor, Birkbeck , University of > London; > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ > mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU ] *On > Behalf Of *Eck, N.J.P. van > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > *Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 *Today CWTS has released the > 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key > insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities > worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides > statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities? > involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is > based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010?2013. > > > *Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition *Compared with the > 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of > enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to > perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for > the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition > of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting > publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And > third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. > Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is > possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric > statistics for a particular university. > > > *Differences with other university rankings *Compared with other > university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of > scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent > methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data > obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities > themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different > dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. > > > *Website *The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. > > > ======================================================== > Nees Jan van Eck PhD > Researcher > Head of ICT > > Centre for Science and Technology Studies > Leiden University > P.O. Box 905 > 2300 AX Leiden > The Netherlands > > Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 > Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 > Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 > E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl > Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl > VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com > CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl > ======================================================== > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From prabirgd11 at GMAIL.COM Wed May 27 02:24:39 2015 From: prabirgd11 at GMAIL.COM (Prabir G. Dastidar) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 11:54:39 +0530 Subject: SNIP Message-ID: Dear All, It will be of help if you kindly let me know the formula for determining SNIP. Thank you for cooperation. Prabir -- *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* *Dr.Prabir G.DastidarScientist/DirectorMinistry of Earth sciencesPrithvi Bhavan (Opposite to India Habitat Centre)Lodi RoadNew Delhi- 110003INDIA.* *E-mail:* prabirgd11 at gmail.com *(Alternate mail)* prabirgd11 at rediffmail.com *Telephone:* 91-11-24669520(O), 0120-2481046 (R) *FAX:* 011-24629779 *Mobile:* 91-9868543999. ***************************************************************************** *Confidentiality Notice: *This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ***************************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editor at JSCIRES.ORG Wed May 27 03:04:10 2015 From: editor at JSCIRES.ORG (Editor/ J Scientometric Res.) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 12:34:10 +0530 Subject: SNIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ?Hi, The Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is explained in this web page http://www.journalmetrics.com/snip.php and also explained in a paper by Moed in *Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals *, Journal of Informetrics, 4 (2010), pp 256-277. With Best Regards -- *Dr. Sujit Bhattacharya* *Editor-in-Chief*, *Journal of Scientometric Research* [An Official Publication of Wolters Kluwer Health - Medknow, and SciBiolMed.Org] Professor AcSIR| Academy of Scientific Research & Innovation Senior Principal Scientist (NISTADS) Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012, INDIA Landline: +91-11-25843024 Mobile: +91-9999020157 *Email*: editor at jscires.org *Website*: www.jscires.org *Twitter*: @JSCIRES http://twitter.com/JSCIRES *Online manuscript submission*: http://www.journalonweb.com/jscires/ On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Prabir G. Dastidar wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > Dear All, > It will be of help if you kindly let me know the formula for determining > SNIP. > > Thank you for cooperation. > > Prabir > > -- > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > > > > *Dr.Prabir G.DastidarScientist/DirectorMinistry of Earth sciencesPrithvi > Bhavan (Opposite to India Habitat Centre)Lodi RoadNew Delhi- 110003INDIA.* > > *E-mail:* prabirgd11 at gmail.com > *(Alternate mail)* prabirgd11 at rediffmail.com > > *Telephone:* 91-11-24669520(O), > 0120-2481046 (R) > *FAX:* 011-24629779 > *Mobile:* 91-9868543999. > > > ***************************************************************************** > *Confidentiality Notice: *This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, > use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > > ***************************************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From prabirgd11 at GMAIL.COM Wed May 27 03:23:14 2015 From: prabirgd11 at GMAIL.COM (Prabir G. Dastidar) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 12:53:14 +0530 Subject: SNIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: How citation potential is calculated? Thank you for cooperation. PGD On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Editor/ J Scientometric Res. < editor at jscires.org> wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > ?Hi, > > The Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is explained in this web > page http://www.journalmetrics.com/snip.php and also explained in a paper > by Moed in *Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals > *, > Journal of Informetrics, 4 (2010), pp 256-277. > > With Best Regards > > > -- > *Dr. Sujit Bhattacharya* > *Editor-in-Chief*, *Journal of Scientometric Research* > [An Official Publication of Wolters Kluwer Health - Medknow, and > SciBiolMed.Org] > Professor AcSIR| Academy of Scientific Research & Innovation > Senior Principal Scientist (NISTADS) > Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, Pusa Campus, > New Delhi-110012, INDIA > Landline: +91-11-25843024 > Mobile: +91-9999020157 > *Email*: editor at jscires.org > *Website*: > www.jscires.org > *Twitter*: @JSCIRES http://twitter.com/JSCIRES > *Online manuscript submission*: http://www.journalonweb.com/jscires/ > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Prabir G. Dastidar > wrote: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> Dear All, >> It will be of help if you kindly let me know the formula for determining >> SNIP. >> >> Thank you for cooperation. >> >> Prabir >> >> -- >> >> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Dr.Prabir G.DastidarScientist/DirectorMinistry of Earth sciencesPrithvi >> Bhavan (Opposite to India Habitat Centre)Lodi RoadNew Delhi- 110003INDIA.* >> >> *E-mail:* prabirgd11 at gmail.com >> *(Alternate mail)* prabirgd11 at rediffmail.com >> >> *Telephone:* 91-11-24669520(O), >> 0120-2481046 (R) >> *FAX:* 011-24629779 >> *Mobile:* 91-9868543999. >> >> >> ***************************************************************************** >> *Confidentiality Notice: *This e-mail message, including any >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, >> use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the >> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy >> all copies of the original message. >> >> ***************************************************************************** >> > > -- *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* *Dr.Prabir G.DastidarScientist/DirectorMinistry of Earth sciencesPrithvi Bhavan (Opposite to India Habitat Centre)Lodi RoadNew Delhi- 110003INDIA.* *E-mail:* prabirgd11 at gmail.com *(Alternate mail)* prabirgd11 at rediffmail.com *Telephone:* 91-11-24669520(O), 0120-2481046 (R) *FAX:* 011-24629779 *Mobile:* 91-9868543999. ***************************************************************************** *Confidentiality Notice: *This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ***************************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saeedulhassan at GMAIL.COM Wed May 27 03:33:26 2015 From: saeedulhassan at GMAIL.COM (Saeed Ul Hassan) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 12:33:26 +0500 Subject: SNIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Prof. Prabir, Citation potential is the average length of references list. For exact calculation, please see slide 10 at : http://www.slideshare.net/fkersten/scopus-journal-metrics-snip-sjr Best Regards, *Dr. Saeed Ul Hassan (Ph.D.)*Director ITU Scientometrics Lab HEC Approved Supervisor | Assistant Professor Information Technology University - Punjab 6th Floor, Arfa Software Technology Park,346-B, Ferozepur Road, Lahore Phone: +92-42-35880062 ext: 6023 | Cell: +92-322-2289756 URL: http://itu.edu.pk/faculty-itu/dr-saeed-ul-hassan/ On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Prabir G. Dastidar wrote: > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > How citation potential is calculated? > > Thank you for cooperation. > > PGD > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Editor/ J Scientometric Res. < > editor at jscires.org> wrote: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> ?Hi, >> >> The Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is explained in this web >> page http://www.journalmetrics.com/snip.php and also explained in a >> paper by Moed in *Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific >> journals >> *, >> Journal of Informetrics, 4 (2010), pp 256-277. >> >> With Best Regards >> >> >> -- >> *Dr. Sujit Bhattacharya* >> *Editor-in-Chief*, *Journal of Scientometric Research* >> [An Official Publication of Wolters Kluwer Health - Medknow, and >> SciBiolMed.Org] >> Professor AcSIR| Academy of Scientific Research & Innovation >> Senior Principal Scientist (NISTADS) >> Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, Pusa Campus, >> New Delhi-110012, INDIA >> Landline: +91-11-25843024 >> Mobile: +91-9999020157 >> *Email*: editor at jscires.org >> *Website*: >> www.jscires.org >> *Twitter*: @JSCIRES http://twitter.com/JSCIRES >> *Online manuscript submission*: http://www.journalonweb.com/jscires/ >> >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Prabir G. Dastidar < >> prabirgd11 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> Dear All, >>> It will be of help if you kindly let me know the formula for determining >>> SNIP. >>> >>> Thank you for cooperation. >>> >>> Prabir >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Dr.Prabir G.DastidarScientist/DirectorMinistry of Earth sciencesPrithvi >>> Bhavan (Opposite to India Habitat Centre)Lodi RoadNew Delhi- 110003INDIA.* >>> >>> *E-mail:* prabirgd11 at gmail.com >>> *(Alternate mail)* prabirgd11 at rediffmail.com >>> >>> *Telephone:* 91-11-24669520(O), >>> 0120-2481046 (R) >>> *FAX:* 011-24629779 >>> *Mobile:* 91-9868543999. >>> >>> >>> ***************************************************************************** >>> *Confidentiality Notice: *This e-mail message, including any >>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, >>> use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the >>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy >>> all copies of the original message. >>> >>> ***************************************************************************** >>> >> >> > > > -- > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > > > > *Dr.Prabir G.DastidarScientist/DirectorMinistry of Earth sciencesPrithvi > Bhavan (Opposite to India Habitat Centre)Lodi RoadNew Delhi- 110003INDIA.* > > *E-mail:* prabirgd11 at gmail.com > *(Alternate mail)* prabirgd11 at rediffmail.com > > *Telephone:* 91-11-24669520(O), > 0120-2481046 (R) > *FAX:* 011-24629779 > *Mobile:* 91-9868543999. > > > ***************************************************************************** > *Confidentiality Notice: *This e-mail message, including any attachments, > is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain > confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all > copies of the original message. > > ***************************************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Philipp.Mayr-Schlegel at GESIS.ORG Wed May 27 08:11:04 2015 From: Philipp.Mayr-Schlegel at GESIS.ORG (Mayr-Schlegel, Philipp) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 12:11:04 +0000 Subject: Call for Participation: Workshop on Mining Scientific Papers: Computational Linguistics and Bibliometrics @ISSI2015 Message-ID: == Call for Participation== You are invited to participate in the upcoming workshop on Mining Scientific Papers: Computational Linguistics and Bibliometrics, to be held as part of thed 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (ISSI-2015, http://www.issi2015.org). All accepted papers are listed on the workshop page: http://www.gesis.org/en/events/conferences/issi-workshop-2015/ === Important Dates === - Workshop: 29 June 2015, Istanbul, Turkey === Scope and Aim of the Workshop === The open access movement in scientific publishing and search engines like Google Scholar have made scientific articles more broadly accessible. During the last decade, the availability of scientific papers in full text has become more and more widespread thanks to the growing number of publications on online platforms such as ArXiv and CiteSeer. The efforts to provide articles in machine-readable formats and the rise of Open Access publishing have resulted in a number of standardized formats for scientific papers (such as NLM-JATS, TEI, DocBook), full-text datasets for research experiments (PubMed, JSTOR, etc.) and corpora (iSearch, etc.). At the same time, research in the field of Natural Language Processing have provided a number of open source tools for versatile text processing (e.g. NLTK, Mallet, OpenNLP, CoreNLP, Gate, CiteSpace). Scientific papers are highly structured texts and display specific properties related to their references but also argumentative and rhetorical structure. Recent research in this field has concentrated on the construction of ontologies for citations and scientific articles (e.g. CiTO, LinkedScience1) and studies of the distribution of references . However, up to now full-text mining efforts are rarely used to provide data for bibliometric analyses. While bibliometrics traditionally relies on the analysis of metadata of scientific papers (see e.g. a recent special issue on Combining Bibliometrics and Information Retrieval, Mayr & Scharnhorst, 2015), we will explore the ways full-text processing of scientific papers and linguistic analyses can play. With this workshop we like to discuss novel approaches and provide insights into scientific writing that can bring new perspectives to understand both the nature of citations and the nature of scientific articles. The possibility to enrich metadata by the full-text processing of papers offers new fields of application to bibliometrics studies. Working with full text allows us to go beyond metadata used in bibliometrics. Full text offers a new field of investigation, where the major problems arise around the organization and structure of text, the extraction of information and its representation on the level of metadata. Furthermore, the study of contexts around in-text citations offers new perspectives related to the semantic dimension of citations. The analyses of citation contexts and the semantic categorization of publications will allow us to rethink co-citation networks, bibliographic coupling and other bibliometric techniques. The workshop aims to bring together researchers in bibliometrics and computational linguistics in order to study the ways bibliometrics can benefit from large-scale text analytics and sense mining of scientific papers, thus exploring the interdisciplinarity of Bibliometrics and Natural Language Processing. How can we enhance author network analysis and bibliometrics using data obtained by text analytics? What insights can NLP provide on the structure of scientific writing, on citation networks, and on in-text citation analysis? === Workshop Topics === Topics include (but are not limited to) the following: - Linguistic modeling and discourse analysis for scientific texts - User interfaces, text representations and visualizations - Structure of scientific articles (discourse / argumentative / rhetorical / social) - Scientific corpora and paper standards - Act of citations, in-text citations and Content Citation Analysis - Co-citation and bibliographic coupling - Text enhanced bibliographic coupling - Terminology extraction - Text mining and information extraction - Scientific information retrieval - Ontological descriptions of scientific content - Knowledge extraction Workshop proceedings will be deposited online in the CEUR workshop proceedings publication service (ISSN 1613-0073) - This way the proceedings will be permanently available and citable (digital persistent identifiers and long term preservation). === Organizers === Iana Atanassova, Centre Tesni?re, Universit? de Franche-Comt?, France Marc Bertin, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Concordia University, Canada Philipp Mayr, GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Germany === Programm Committee=== Lee Giles (College of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University, USA) Yves Gingras (CIRST, Universit? du Qu?bec ? Montr?al, Canada) Vincent Lariviere (EBSI, Universite de Montreal, Canada) Stefanie Haustein (EBSI, Universite de Montreal, Canada) Timothy Bowman (EBSI, Universite de Montreal, Canada) Izabella Thomas (Centre Tesniere, Universite de Franche-Comte, France) Sylviane Cardey (Centre Tesniere, Universit? de Franche-Comte, France) Beatrice Milard (Universit? de Toulouse 2, France) Ruslan Mitkov (University of Wolverhampton, England) Hitoshi Isahara (Toyohashi University of Technology, Japan) Tomi Kauppinen (Aalto University, Finland) Roman Kern (Know-Center, Austria) Angelo Di Iorio (Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Bologna, Italy) Become a sowiport user! Register here: http://sowiport.gesis.org/ -- Dr. Philipp Mayr Team Leader GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences Unter Sachsenhausen 6-8, D-50667 K?ln, Germany Tel: + 49 (0) 221 / 476 94 -533 Email: philipp.mayr at gesis.org Web: http://www.gesis.org New: sowiport search engine on VuFind http://sowiport.gesis.org/ New: SSOAR fulltext repository on DSpace http://ssoar.info/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Wed May 27 09:43:57 2015 From: ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Eck, N.J.P. van) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:43:57 +0000 Subject: SNIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Please note that the 2010 paper by Henk Moed describes the original version of SNIP, which is different from the revised version that is currently being reported in Scopus. The revised version of SNIP is documented in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.011 or http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0785. Best regards, Nees Jan ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Saeed Ul Hassan Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:33 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] SNIP Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Prof. Prabir, Citation potential is the average length of references list. For exact calculation, please see slide 10 at : http://www.slideshare.net/fkersten/scopus-journal-metrics-snip-sjr Best Regards, Dr. Saeed Ul Hassan (Ph.D.) Director ITU Scientometrics Lab HEC Approved Supervisor | Assistant Professor Information Technology University - Punjab 6th Floor, Arfa Software Technology Park,346-B, Ferozepur Road, Lahore Phone: +92-42-35880062 ext: 6023 | Cell: +92-322-2289756 URL: http://itu.edu.pk/faculty-itu/dr-saeed-ul-hassan/ On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Prabir G. Dastidar > wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html How citation potential is calculated? Thank you for cooperation. PGD On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Editor/ J Scientometric Res. > wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html ?Hi, The Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is explained in this web page http://www.journalmetrics.com/snip.php and also explained in a paper by Moed in Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals, Journal of Informetrics, 4 (2010), pp 256-277. With Best Regards -- Dr. Sujit Bhattacharya Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Scientometric Research [An Official Publication of Wolters Kluwer Health - Medknow, and SciBiolMed.Org] Professor AcSIR| Academy of Scientific Research & Innovation Senior Principal Scientist (NISTADS) Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012, INDIA Landline: +91-11-25843024 Mobile: +91-9999020157 Email: editor at jscires.org Website: www.jscires.org Twitter: @JSCIRES http://twitter.com/JSCIRES Online manuscript submission: http://www.journalonweb.com/jscires/ On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Prabir G. Dastidar > wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear All, It will be of help if you kindly let me know the formula for determining SNIP. Thank you for cooperation. Prabir -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr.Prabir G.Dastidar Scientist/Director Ministry of Earth sciences Prithvi Bhavan (Opposite to India Habitat Centre) Lodi Road New Delhi- 110003 INDIA. E-mail: prabirgd11 at gmail.com (Alternate mail) prabirgd11 at rediffmail.com Telephone: 91-11-24669520(O), 0120-2481046 (R) FAX: 011-24629779 Mobile: 91-9868543999. ***************************************************************************** Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ***************************************************************************** -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr.Prabir G.Dastidar Scientist/Director Ministry of Earth sciences Prithvi Bhavan (Opposite to India Habitat Centre) Lodi Road New Delhi- 110003 INDIA. E-mail: prabirgd11 at gmail.com (Alternate mail) prabirgd11 at rediffmail.com Telephone: 91-11-24669520(O), 0120-2481046 (R) FAX: 011-24629779 Mobile: 91-9868543999. ***************************************************************************** Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ***************************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From prabirgd11 at GMAIL.COM Wed May 27 11:25:38 2015 From: prabirgd11 at GMAIL.COM (Prabir G. Dastidar) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 20:55:38 +0530 Subject: SNIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you. Prabir. On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Eck, N.J.P. van < ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > > Please note that the 2010 paper by Henk Moed describes the original > version of SNIP, which is different from the revised version that is > currently being reported in Scopus. The revised version of SNIP is > documented in the following paper: > http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.011 or > http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0785. > > > > Best regards, > > Nees Jan > > > > ======================================================== > > Nees Jan van Eck PhD > > Researcher > > Head of ICT > > > > Centre for Science and Technology Studies > > Leiden University > > P.O. Box 905 > > 2300 AX Leiden > > The Netherlands > > > > Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 > > Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 > > Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 > > E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl > > Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl > > VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com > > CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl > > ======================================================== > > > > > > > > *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto: > SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Saeed Ul Hassan > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:33 AM > *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] SNIP > > > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear Prof. Prabir, > > > > Citation potential is the average length of references list. > > > > For exact calculation, please see slide 10 at : > http://www.slideshare.net/fkersten/scopus-journal-metrics-snip-sjr > > > > Best Regards, > > > *Dr. Saeed Ul Hassan (Ph.D.) *Director ITU Scientometrics Lab > HEC Approved Supervisor | Assistant Professor > Information Technology University - Punjab > 6th Floor, Arfa Software Technology Park,346-B, Ferozepur Road, Lahore > Phone: +92-42-35880062 ext: 6023 | Cell: +92-322-2289756 > URL: http://itu.edu.pk/faculty-itu/dr-saeed-ul-hassan/ > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Prabir G. Dastidar > wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > How citation potential is calculated? > > > > Thank you for cooperation. > > > > PGD > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Editor/ J Scientometric Res. < > editor at jscires.org> wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > ?Hi, > > The Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is explained in this web > page http://www.journalmetrics.com/snip.php and also explained in a paper > by Moed in *Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals > *, > Journal of Informetrics, 4 (2010), pp 256-277. > > With Best Regards > > -- > *Dr. Sujit Bhattacharya* > *Editor-in-Chief*, *Journal of Scientometric Research* > [An Official Publication of Wolters Kluwer Health - Medknow, and > SciBiolMed.Org] > Professor AcSIR| Academy of Scientific Research & Innovation > Senior Principal Scientist (NISTADS) > Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, Pusa Campus, > New Delhi-110012, INDIA > Landline: +91-11-25843024 > Mobile: +91-9999020157 > *Email*: editor at jscires.org > > *Website*: > > www.jscires.org > > *Twitter*: @JSCIRES http://twitter.com/JSCIRES > > *Online manuscript submission*: http://www.journalonweb.com/jscires/ > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Prabir G. Dastidar > wrote: > > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > Dear All, > > It will be of help if you kindly let me know the formula for determining > > SNIP. > > > > Thank you for cooperation. > > > > Prabir > > > > -- > > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > > > > > *Dr.Prabir G.Dastidar Scientist/Director Ministry of Earth sciences > Prithvi Bhavan (Opposite to India Habitat Centre) Lodi Road New Delhi- > 110003 INDIA.* > > > > *E-mail:* prabirgd11 at gmail.com > *(Alternate mail)* prabirgd11 at rediffmail.com > > > *Telephone:* 91-11-24669520(O), > 0120-2481046 (R) > > *FAX:* 011-24629779 > *Mobile:* 91-9868543999. > > > > > ***************************************************************************** > *Confidentiality Notice: *This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, > use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > > ***************************************************************************** > > > > > > > > -- > > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > > > > > *Dr.Prabir G.Dastidar Scientist/Director Ministry of Earth sciences > Prithvi Bhavan (Opposite to India Habitat Centre) Lodi Road New Delhi- > 110003 INDIA.* > > > > *E-mail:* prabirgd11 at gmail.com > *(Alternate mail)* prabirgd11 at rediffmail.com > > > *Telephone:* 91-11-24669520(O), > 0120-2481046 (R) > > *FAX:* 011-24629779 > *Mobile:* 91-9868543999. > > > > > ***************************************************************************** > *Confidentiality Notice: *This e-mail message, including any attachments, > is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain > confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all > copies of the original message. > > ***************************************************************************** > > > -- *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* *Dr.Prabir G.DastidarScientist/DirectorMinistry of Earth sciencesPrithvi Bhavan (Opposite to India Habitat Centre)Lodi RoadNew Delhi- 110003INDIA.* *E-mail:* prabirgd11 at gmail.com *(Alternate mail)* prabirgd11 at rediffmail.com *Telephone:* 91-11-24669520(O), 0120-2481046 (R) *FAX:* 011-24629779 *Mobile:* 91-9868543999. ***************************************************************************** *Confidentiality Notice: *This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ***************************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Wed May 27 14:29:14 2015 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:29:14 +0000 Subject: Papers of possible interest to readers of the SIG-Metrics List (May 27, 2015) Message-ID: Web of Science Search Alert ======================================================================= *Record 1 of 11. *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353006700013 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Scientific yield from collaboration with industry: The relevance of researchers' strategic approaches Authors: Callaert, J; Landoni, P; Van Looy, B; Verganti, R Author Full Names: Callaert, Julie; Landoni, Paolo; Van Looy, Bart; Verganti, Roberto Source: RESEARCH POLICY, 44 (4):990-998; 10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.003 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Knowledge and technology transfer, Industry collaboration, Academia, University, Researchers KeyWords Plus: ABSORPTIVE-CAPACITY; PERFORMANCE; INNOVATION; SCIENCE; TECHNOLOGY; PUBLICATION; PROFESSORS; BEHAVIOR; PATENT; FIRMS Abstract: While recent research indicates that combining scientific and entrepreneurial activities at the level of academic scientists is feasible, the literature has remained muted on the dynamics behind such successful combinations. Indeed, little is known about how researchers avoid conflicts of commitment and conflicts of interest as well as the so-called 'skewing' of research agendas. This study, in seeking to address this gap in the literature, analyses the relevance of academics' strategic approaches to collaborative projects with industry. Based on survey data collected from engineering professors at two European universities (Politecnico di Milano, Italy: n = 117; and KU Leuven, Belgium: n = 70), we analyze whether the scientific yield from collaborative projects with industry depends on the degree of proactiveness, selectiveness and novelty of research topics. We observe that the scientific leverage of collaborating with industrial partners is higher when academics pursue a more proactive strategy and are selective. At the same time, our findings reveal that this impact is indirect: selectiveness and pro-activeness influence the amount of financial resources obtained from industrial partners, while the scientific yield itself is contingent on these resources. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Callaert, Julie; Van Looy, Bart] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Managerial Econ Strategy & Innovat, Leuven, Belgium. [Landoni, Paolo; Verganti, Roberto] Politecn Milan, Dept Management Econ & Ind Engn, Milan, Italy. E-mail Addresses: Julie.Callaert at kuleuven.be; Paolo.Landoni at polimi.it; Bart.Vanlooy at kuleuven.be; Roberto.Verganti at polimi.it Cited Reference Count: 40 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0048-7333 eISSN: 1873-7625 Web of Science Categories: Management; Planning & Development Research Areas: Business & Economics; Public Administration IDS Number: CG1AZ Unique ID: WOS:000353006700013 Cited References: Noble D., 1977, America by Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism, COHEN WM, 1990, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V35, P128 Garcia-Morales Victor J., 2007, TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, V19, P527 Leydesdorff L., 1998, Sci. Public Policy, V25, P358 Tidd Joe, 2006, NEW TECHNOLOGY WORK AND EMPLOYMENT, V21, P139 Callaert J., 2008, European Universities in Transition: Issues, Models and Cases, Azoulay Pierre, 2009, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, V57, P637 Sull DN, 2003, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, V81, P82 Rothaermel Frank T., 2007, INDUSTRIAL AND CORPORATE CHANGEAnnual Conference of the Technology-Transfer-Society, 2006, Atlanta, GA, V16, P691 Nelson R. R., 1982, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Azoulay Pierre, 2007, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATIONConference on Academic Science and Entrepreneurship, APR 01-02, 2005, Santa Fe, NM, V63, P599 FIOL CM, 1985, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, V10, P803 Klingebiel Ronald, 2010, STRATEGIC RECONFIGURATIONS: BUILDING DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES IN RAPID INNOVATION-BASED INDUSTRIES, P192 Etzkowitz H., 1998, Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia, Seibert SE, 1999, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGYAcademy-of-Management Meeting, AUG, 1998, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, V84, P416 Stephan P E, 2007, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, V16, P71 Meyer Martin, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS10th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL, 2005, Stockholm, SWEDEN, V68, P545 MERTON RK, 1988, ISIS, V79, P606 Belschak Frank D., 2010, JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, V83, P267 Dussauge P, 2000, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, V21, P99 Joly PB, 1996, RESEARCH POLICYEUNETIC Conference, 1994, STRASBOURG, FRANCE, V25, P901 Baer M, 2003, JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, V24, P45 Boudreau Kevin J., 2011, MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, V57, P843 Montobbio F., 2005, Revue d'Economie Industrielle, V120, P75 MERTON RK, 1968, SCIENCE, V159, P56 Leten Bart, 2007, JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT13th International Product Development Conference, JUN, 2006, Milan, ITALY, V24, P567 Dasgupta P., 1987, Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory, P519 Florida R, 1999, INDUSTRIALIZING KNOWLEDGE, P589 Dosi G., 1982, Research Policy, V29, P497 Jensen RA, 2003, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, V21, P1271 Van Looy B, 2006, RESEARCH POLICY, V35, P596 Laursen K, 2006, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL64th Annual Meeting of the Academy-of-Management, AUG 06-11, 2004, New Orleans, LA, V27, P131 Fabrizio Kira R., 2008, RESEARCH POLICY, V37, P914 Gulbrandsen M, 2005, RESEARCH POLICY, V34, P932 Bozeman B, 2000, RESEARCH POLICY, V29, P627 D'Este P., 2007, RESEARCH POLICY5th Triple Helix International Conference, 2005, Turin, ITALY, V36, P1295 Perkmann Markus, 2013, RESEARCH POLICY, V42, P423 Van Looy B, 2004, RESEARCH POLICY, V33, P425 Landoni P., 2012, Res. Policy, V41, Czarnitzki Dirk, 2007, RESEARCH EVALUATION9th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, SEP, 2006, Leuven, BELGIUM, V16, P311 ======================================================================= *Record 2 of 11. *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353204200006 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Heuristics, Interactions, and Status Hierarchies: An Agent-based Model of Deference Exchange Authors: Manzo, G; Baldassarri, D Author Full Names: Manzo, Gianluca; Baldassarri, Delia Source: SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS & RESEARCH, 44 (2):329-387; SI 10.1177/0049124114544225 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Review Author Keywords: asymmetric distributions, cumulative advantage, symmetry concern, reciprocity, status inequality, heuristics, homophily, interactions, agent-based modeling, model replication, sensitivity and robustness analysis KeyWords Plus: RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY; CUMULATIVE ADVANTAGE; SOCIAL DYNAMICS; FORMAL THEORY; DISTRIBUTIONS; LAW; STRATIFICATION; SIMULATIONS; DISTINCTION; RESOURCES Abstract: Since Merton's classical analysis of cumulative advantage in science, it has been observed that status hierarchies display a sizable disconnect between actors' quality and rank and that they become increasingly asymmetric over time, without, however, turning into winner-take-all structures. In recent years, formal models of status hierarchies tried to account for these facts by combining two micro-level, counterbalancing mechanisms: social influence (supposedly driving inequality) and the desire for reciprocation in deferential gestures (supposedly limiting inequality). In the article, we adopt as empirical benchmark basic features that are common to most distributions of status indicators (e.g., income, academic prestige, wealth, social ties) and argue that previous formal models were only partially able to reproduce such macro-level patterns. We then introduce a novel agent-based computational model of deferential gestures that improves on the realism of previous models by introducing heuristic-based decision making, actors' heterogeneity, and status homophily in social interactions. We systematically and extensively study the model's parameter space and consider a few variants to determine under which conditions the macroscopic patterns of interest are more likely to appear. We find that specific forms of status-based heterogeneity in actors' propensity to interact with status-dissimilar others are needed to generate status hierarchies that best approximate these macroscopic features. Addresses: [Manzo, Gianluca] CNRS, Paris, France. [Manzo, Gianluca] Univ Paris 04, Paris, France. [Baldassarri, Delia] NYU, Sociol, New York, NY USA. E-mail Addresses: gianluca.manzo at cnrs.fr Funding Acknowledgement: ERC Advanced Grant on Analytical Sociology; RJ program "Segregation: Micro mechanisms and macrolevel dynamics" Funding Text: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Part of the first author's preparatory work for this article benefited from the support of the "ERC Advanced Grant on Analytical Sociology'' and of the RJ program "Segregation: Micro mechanisms and macrolevel dynamics" both currently run at the Institute for Futures Studies (Stockholm) under the direction of Peter Hedstrom. Cited Reference Count: 131 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC, 2455 TELLER RD, THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91320 USA ISSN: 0049-1241 eISSN: 1552-8294 Web of Science Categories: Social Sciences, Mathematical Methods; Sociology Research Areas: Mathematical Methods In Social Sciences; Sociology IDS Number: CG3UD Unique ID: WOS:000353204200006 Cited References: 2010, Social Staus and Cultural Consumption, Podolny JM, 2005, STATUS SIGNALS: A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF MARKET COMPETITION, P1 Edward Shils, 1968, Social Stratification, P110 BIKHCHANDANI S, 1992, JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, V100, P992 Farmer J. D., 2008, Batty Michael, 2006, NATURE, V444, P592 Miller JH, 2004, COMPLEXITY, V9, P8 Yitzhaki S., 2013, The Gini Methodology: A Primer on a Statistical Methodology, HUANG G, 1990, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V12, P261 Van de Rijt Arnout, 2013, Robust Evidence for Cumulative Advantage, Simpson B., 2013, Sociological Theory, V30, P149 Cialdini R. B, 1984, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Ridgeway Cecilia L., 2006, SOCIAL FORCES, V85, P431 Buskens V., 2002, Trust and Solidarity, V19, P167 Gould RV, 2002, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V107, P1143 Muldoon Ryan, 2007, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE20th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy-of-Science-Association, NOV 02-04, 2006, Vancouver, CANADA, V74, P873 McPherson J. M., 2001, Annual Review of Sociology, V27, P415 van de Rijt Arnout, 2009, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V114, P1166 Salganik Matthew J., 2009, TOPICS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE, V1, P439 Hertwig Ralph, 2009, SOCIAL COGNITION, V27, P661 Shoham Y, 2009, MULTIAGENT SYSTEMS: ALGORITHMIC, GAME-THEORETIC, AND LOGICAL FOUNDATIONS, P1 Castellano Claudio, 2009, REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS, V81, P591 van de Rijt Arnout, 2013, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V78, P266 Max Weber, 1922, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Berger J, 2006, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V111, P1038 Boudon R, 2003, ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, V29, P1 Andriani Pierpaolo, 2009, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, V20, P1053 PRICE DJD, 1976, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V27, P292 Chan Tak Wing, 2007, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEWMeeting of the ISA Research Committee on Social Stratification and Mobility, AUG, 2005, Los Angeles, CA, V72, P512 Gigerenzer G., 2011, Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior, P2 Podolny Joel M., 2009, Ball B., 2013, Network Science, V1, P16 Pareto V, 1896, Cours d'economie politique, Bonabeau E, 1999, BULLETIN OF MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY, V61, P727 Tisue S., 2004, NetLogo: Design and Implementation of a Multi-agent Modeling Environment, Menger PM, 1999, ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, V25, P541 Ridgeway Cecilia L., 2009, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V74, P44 Manzo Gianluca, 2013, SOCIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION SUR LES SCIENCES SOCIALES, V52, P361 Bothner Matthew S., 2010, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY, V34, P80 Fagiolo G., 2007, Computational Economics, V30, Barabasi Albert-Laszlo, 2009, SCIENCE, V325, P412 LAUMANN EO, 1965, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V71, P26 Will Oliver, 2008, JASSS-THE JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL SOCIETIES AND SOCIAL SIMULATION, V11, Jon Elster, 2007, Explaining Social Behaviour: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences, Redner S, 1998, EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B, V4, P131 Fararo TJ, 1999, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY, V24, P1 Rigney D., 2010, The Matthew Effect-How Advantage Begets Further Advantage, SOrensen Aagen B., 1976, Social Science Information, V15, P71 Peter Hedstrom, 2005, Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology, Alexander JM, 2007, STRUCTURAL EVOLUTION OF MORALITY, P1 Eom Young-Ho, 2011, PLOS ONE, V6, Railsback SF, 2011, Agent-based and individual-based modeling: a practical introduction, Wilensky Uri, 2007, JASSS-THE JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL SOCIETIES AND SOCIAL SIMULATION, V10, Skvoretz J, 1996, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V101, P1366 Trost M., 1998, VII, P151 Ostrom E, 1998, AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, V92, P1 Robert Axtell, 2001, Social Dynamics, P191 Alani H., 2010, The 9th International Semantic Web Conference, Shanghai, China, Ivan Chase, 2009, P566 Macy MW, 1997, RATIONALITY AND SOCIETY, V9, P427 Clauset Aaron, 2009, SIAM REVIEW, V51, P661 Epstein J. M., 2006, Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-based Computational Modeling, Fiske S., 2011, Envy up, scorn down: How status divides us, Railsback S. F., 2012, The Evolution of Agent-based Simulation Platforms: A Review of NetLogo 5. 0 and ReLogo, Edmonds B., 2003, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, V6, P4 Kang S., 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Sauder Michael, 2012, ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, VOL 38, V38, P267 Barrera D., 2009, Trust and Reputation, P37 Anderson Cameron, 2012, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, V102, P1077 MACY MW, 1995, ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, V21, P73 Uri Wilensky, 1998, NetLogo Wealth Distribution Model, Barrera D., 2007, International Sociology, V22, P366 Shafir E, 2002, ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, V53, P491 Lai GN, 1998, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V20, P159 Denrell Jerker, 2012, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V109, P9331 Barabasi A.-L., 2003, Scientific American, V288, P62 CAMPBELL KE, 1986, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V8, P97 DiPrete Thomas A., 2006, ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, V32, P271 Gerd Gigerenzer, 2008, Rationality for Mortals. How People Cope with Uncertainty, Martin John Levi, 2009, SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY, V72, P241 Fiske Susan T., 2010, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, V65, P698 Atkinson Anthony B., 2011, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, V49, P3 Susan Fiske, 2010, V3, P26 Giorgi G., 2010, METRON-International Journal of Statistics, V68, P1 Troyer Lisa, 2003, POWER AND STATUS, V20, P149 Grabowicz P. A., 2012, EPL, V97, MERTON RK, 1968, SCIENCE, V159, P56 Gigerenzer Gerd, 2011, ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, VOL 62, V62, P451 Helbing D., 2012, Social Self-organization: Agent-based Simulations and Experiments to Study Emergent Social Behavior, P25 Bask M., 2013, Cumulative (Dis)advantage and the Matthew Mechanism, TODD P. M., 2005, Demography, V42, P5559 Wilensky U., 1999, NetLogo, Sen A., 2009, The Idea of Justice, BERGER J, 1972, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V37, P241 Camerer Colin F., 2004, ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS, P3 Soll Jack B., 2009, JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, V35, P780 Robert Axtell, 2000, Working Paper No. 17, Ivan Chase, 1980, American Sociological Review, V45, P905 Smith VL, 2008, RATIONALITY IN ECONOMICS: CONSTRUCTIVIST AND ECOLOGICAL FORMS, P1 Skopek Jan, 2011, EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V27, P180 Frank R., 1995, The winner-take-all society: Why the few at the top get so much more than the rest of us, Dragulescu A, 2001, EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B, V20, P585 Meadows Michael, 2012, JASSS-THE JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL SOCIETIES AND SOCIAL SIMULATION, V15, Block A., 1998, European Journal of Social Theory, V1, P33 Alper N. O., 2006, V1, P813 Lynn Freda B., 2009, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V115, P755 Radicchi Filippo, 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V105, P17268 Blossfeld Hans-Peter, 2009, ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, V35, P513 MERTON RK, 1988, ISIS, V79, P606 DiPrete Thomas A., 2010, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V115, P1671 Henrich J, 2001, EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR, V22, P165 ROSEN S, 1981, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V71, P845 SOrensen Aage B., 2001, Social Stratification: Class, Race and Gender in Sociological Perspective, V2nd, P287 Ridgeway C., 2011, Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World, Delia Baldassarri, 2012, The Simple Art of Voting, GALAN J. M., 2005, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, V8, P2 2000, Sensitivity Analysis, Elster Jon, 2009, Capitalism and Society, V4, P1 Wooldridge M., 2009, An Introduction to Multi-agent Systems, Webster M, 1998, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V63, P351 Leombruni R, 2005, PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS1st Bonzenfreies Colloquium on Market Dynamics and Quantitative Economics, SEP 09-10, 2004, Alessandria, ITALY, V355, P103 Mitzenmacher M, 2003, Internet Mathematics, V1, P226 Peter Hedstrom, 1998, Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, P306 Daniel Goldstein, 2009, P140 Newman MEJ, 2005, CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS, V46, P323 Banerjee Anand, 2010, NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, V12, Dragulescu A, 2001, PHYSICA ANATO Advanced Research Workshop on Application of Physics in Economic Modelling, FEB 08-10, 2001, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC, V299, P213 Macy Michael W., 2009, John Skvoretz, 2013, American Journal of Sociology, V119, P485 Chakrabarti B. K., 2013, Econophysics of Income and Wealth Distributions, Zuckerman H., 1977, Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States, ======================================================================= *Record 3 of 11. *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353204200003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Representing Micro-Macro Linkages by Actor-based Dynamic Network Models Authors: Snijders, TAB; Steglich, CEG Author Full Names: Snijders, Tom A. B.; Steglich, Christian E. G. Source: SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS & RESEARCH, 44 (2):222-271; SI 10.1177/0049124113494573 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: statistical inference, agent-based simulation, social networks, micro-macro link, emergence KeyWords Plus: RANDOM GRAPH MODELS; SOCIAL NETWORKS; SOCIOLOGY Abstract: Stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics have the primary aim of statistical inference about processes of network change, but may be regarded as a kind of agent-based models. Similar to many other agent-based models, they are based on local rules for actor behavior. Different from many other agent-based models, by including elements of generalized linear statistical models they aim to be realistic detailed representations of network dynamics in empirical data sets. Statistical parallels to micro-macro considerations can be found in the estimation of parameters determining local actor behavior from empirical data, and the assessment of goodness of fit from the correspondence with network-level descriptives. This article studies several network-level consequences of dynamic actor-based models applied to represent cross-sectional network data. Two examples illustrate how network-level characteristics can be obtained as emergent features implied by microspecifications of actor-based models. Addresses: [Snijders, Tom A. B.] Univ Oxford Nuffield Coll, Dept Stat, Oxford OX1 1NF, England. [Snijders, Tom A. B.] Univ Groningen, Stat & Methodol, Groningen, Netherlands. [Steglich, Christian E. G.] Univ Groningen, Dept Sociol, Groningen, Netherlands. [Steglich, Christian E. G.] Univ Groningen, Interuniv Ctr Social Sci Theory & Methodol, Groningen, Netherlands. E-mail Addresses: tom.snijders at nuffield.ox.ac.uk Funding Acknowledgement: NIH [1R01HD052887-01A2] Funding Text: The authors would like to thank Gianluca Manzo for comments on an earlier version. RSiena development was funded by the NIH (Grant Number 1R01HD052887-01A2, principal investigator: John Light, Oregon Research Institute). Cited Reference Count: 56 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC, 2455 TELLER RD, THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91320 USA ISSN: 0049-1241 eISSN: 1552-8294 Web of Science Categories: Social Sciences, Mathematical Methods; Sociology Research Areas: Mathematical Methods In Social Sciences; Sociology IDS Number: CG3UD Unique ID: WOS:000353204200003 Cited References: Snijders Tom A. B., 2010, ANNALS OF APPLIED STATISTICS, V4, P567 Steglich Christian, 2010, SOCIOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY, VOL 40, V40, P329 Boero Riccardo, 2005, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulations, V8, P6 Faust K., 1994, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Krackhardt D., 1994, Computational Organization Theory, P89 Hintze JL, 1998, AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, V52, P181 SNIJDERS TAB, 1981, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V3, P163 Raub Werner, 2011, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY, V35, P1 Pattison P., 2011, 27th EGOS Colloquium, July 6-9, Gothenburg, Sweden, Michell L., 1996, P179 Newman M. E., 2002, Physical Review Letters, V89, P1 Lazega E, 1997, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V19, P375 Bowman K., 1985, Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, V5, P467 R Development Core Team, 2011, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Lazarsfeld P. F., 1954, Freedom and Control in Modern Society, P18 Hunter David R., 2007, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V29, P216 Blau P, 1955, The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, MERTON RK, 1968, SCIENCE, V159, P56 Pearson M. A., 2003, Connections, V25, P59 Steglich C. E. G., 2006, Methodology, V2, P48 Snijders TAB, 2001, SOCIOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY 2001, VOL 31, V31, P361 de Solla Price D., 1976, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, V27, P292 Holland P. W., 1976, Sociological Methodology, V6, P1 Train K. E., 2003, Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Hedstrom P., 2009, P3 Koskinen Johan H., 2007, JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL PLANNING AND INFERENCE5th St Petersburg Workshop on Simulation, JUN 26-JUL 02, 2005, St Petersburg, RUSSIA, V137, P3930 Snijders Tom A. B., 2010, SOCIAL NETWORKS, V32, P44 Snijders Tom A. B., 2006, SOCIOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY 2006, VOL 36, V36, P99 SIMON HA, 1956, PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, V63, P129 Snijders T. A., 2005, Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, Snijders TAB, 1996, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY, V21, P149 Barabasi AL, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P509 Macy MW, 2002, ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, V28, P143 Moss Scott, 2008, JASSS-THE JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL SOCIETIES AND SOCIAL SIMULATION, V11, BARTON AH, 1968, AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, V12, P1 Michell L, 1997, SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, V44, P1861 Ripley R. M., 2012, Technical report, Goodreau Steven M., 2009, DEMOGRAPHY, V46, P103 Milo R, 2002, SCIENCE, V298, P824 Manzo Gianluca, 2007, REVUE FRANCAISE DE SOCIOLOGIE, V48, P35 Robins G, 2005, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY22nd Annual International Sunbelt Social Network Conference, FEB 13-17, 2002, NEW ORLEANS, LA, V110, P894 McPherson J. M., 2001, Annual Review of Sociology, V27, P415 Steglich C., 2007, XXVII Sunbelt Social Networks conference, May 1-6, Corfu, Greece, Hunter David R., 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, V103, P248 Wasserman S, 1996, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V61, P401 Watts DJ, 1999, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V105, P493 Degenne A., 1999, Introducing Social Networks, Erdos P., 1960, Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutato Int. Kozl, V5, P17 DAVIS JA, 1970, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V35, P843 McFadden DL, 1974, Frontiers in econometrics, P105 FRANK O, 1980, JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SOCIOLOGY, V7, P199 Nassi I., 1973, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, V8, P12 Lazega E., 2001, The Collegial Phenomenon: The Social Mechanisms of Cooperation among Peers in a Corporate Law Partnership, Snijders T. A. B., 2011, Presentation at the XXXI Sunbelt Social Networks conference, February 8-13, St. Pete's Beach, Florida, Helbing D., 2011, V11-06-024, Steglich C., 2006, XXVI Sunbelt Social Networks conference, April 24-30, Vancouver, Canada, ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353006700009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Impact-oriented science policies and scientific publication practices: The case of life sciences in Japan Authors: Shibayama, S; Baba, Y Author Full Names: Shibayama, Sotaro; Baba, Yasunori Source: RESEARCH POLICY, 44 (4):936-950; 10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.012 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Scientific production, Publication, Impact factor, Science policy, Evaluation KeyWords Plus: COERCIVE CITATION; JOURNALS; PERFORMANCE; UNIVERSITY; INNOVATION; CONSEQUENCES; PRODUCTIVITY; RESEARCHERS; COMPETITION; PATTERNS Abstract: The modern science system relies on intense evaluation of scientific publication, in which scientific impact is highly emphasized, but its contribution to the progress of science has been controversial. Focusing on two aspects of the science system, resource allocation and academic career design, this study explores whether these policies, presumably aiming at high-impact research, actually achieve the goal. Drawing on in-depth interviews and econometric analyses of Japanese biology professors, this study first shows that merit-based resource allocation can result in biased resource allocation, and that excessive resource concentration can facilitate low-impact publications. Second, results show that a lack of mobility, in particular inbreeding, increases low-impact publications, while international mobility decreases it. The latter effect is found to be mediated by fewer publications in low-impact journals, and thus, internationally mobile academics seem to decide the publication destination more strategically. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Shibayama, Sotaro; Baba, Yasunori] Univ Tokyo, Res Ctr Adv Sci & Technol, Meguro Ku, Tokyo 1538904, Japan. [Shibayama, Sotaro] Univ Tokyo, Dept Technol Management Innovat, Bunkyo Ku, Tokyo 1138656, Japan. E-mail Addresses: shibayama at 00.alumni.u-tokyo.ac.jp Funding Acknowledgement: Konosuke Matsushita Memorial Foundation; Inamori Foundation; Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [24710160]; Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan [23330121] Funding Text: We acknowledge Paul David, Miho Funamori, David N. Laband, John P. Walsh, and three anonymous referees for constructive comments. We also acknowledge Noriyuki Morichika and Naohiro Shichijo for technical support. Funding for this research was provided by the Konosuke Matsushita Memorial Foundation, Inamori Foundation, Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (#24710160), and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) Program (#23330121) form the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan. Cited Reference Count: 74 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0048-7333 eISSN: 1873-7625 Web of Science Categories: Management; Planning & Development Research Areas: Business & Economics; Public Administration IDS Number: CG1AZ Unique ID: WOS:000353006700009 Cited References: Geuna A., 2014, Global Mobility of Research Scientists: The Economics of Who Goes Where and Why, EC, 2010, Europe 2020. A European Strategy for Smart: Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, COLE JR, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P368 Inanc Ozlem, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P885 Mervis Jeffrey, 2014, SCIENCE, V344, P1328 Zhao Dangzhi, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P293 Bhattacharjee Yudhijit, 2011, SCIENCE, V334, P1344 Agrawal Ajay, 2011, JOURNAL OF URBAN ECONOMICS, V69, P43 Horta Hugo, 2011, ASIA PACIFIC EDUCATION REVIEW, V12, P35 MERTON RK, 1968, SCIENCE, V159, P56 Fortin Jean-Michel, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, Wilhite Allen W., 2012, SCIENCE, V335, P542 Stephan P., 2012, How Economics Shapes Science, Merton R. K., 1973, Sociology of Science, Shibayama Sotaro, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P43 Fanelli Daniele, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, Baruffaldi Stefano H., 2012, RESEARCH POLICY, V41, P1655 GORDON MD, 1984, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V14, P27 David PA, 2004, INDUSTRIAL AND CORPORATE CHANGE, V13, P571 Yamanoi A, 2007, Academic Marketplace in Japan, Jacob Brian A., 2011, RESEARCH POLICY, V40, P864 Crespi Gustavo A., 2008, RESEARCH POLICY, V37, P565 FRANK E, 1994, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION2nd International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, SEP 09-11, 1993, CHICAGO, IL, V272, P163 Adams J., 2010, Global Research Report Japan, Hand Eric, 2008, NATURE, V452, P258 Van Raan AFJ, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICSConference on Bibliometric Analysis in Science and Research, NOV 05-07, 2003, Julich, GERMANY, V62, P133 Salonius A., 2008, Working in the Lab: Social Organization of Research and Training in Biomedical Research Labs in Canada and its Relationship to Research Funding, GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Franzoni Chiara, 2012, NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY, V30, P1250 Merton RK, 2004, TRAVELS AND ADVENTURES OF SERENDIPITY: A STUDY IN SOCIOLOGICAL SEMANTICS AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE, P1 Calcagno V., 2012, SCIENCE, V338, P1065 Narin F, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P293 OECD, 2008, The global competition for talent mobility of the highly skilled, DASGUPTA P, 1994, RESEARCH POLICY, V23, P487 Hamermesh Daniel S., 2012, ECONOMIC INQUIRY, V50, P1 HAGSTROM WO, 1974, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V39, P1 Laband DN, 2003, KYKLOS, V56, P161 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Saha S, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V91, P42 MEXT, 2009, For the Development of Human Resources as the Driving Force of Knowledge-based Society, MCALLISTER PR, 1980, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V31, P147 HOLUB HW, 1991, SOUTHERN ECONOMIC JOURNAL, V58, P317 Cyranoski David, 2011, NATURE, V472, P276 Redner S, 1998, EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B, V4, P131 Hargadon A, 1997, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V42, P716 Kneller R., 2007, Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, Anderson Melissa S., 2007, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, V13, P437 Clawson Dan, 2009, SCIENCE, V324, P1147 Hicks Diana, 2012, RESEARCH POLICY, V41, P251 SEGLEN PO, 1992, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V43, P628 Geuna A, 2003, MINERVA, V41, P277 van Leeuwen TN, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS6th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, MAY 24-27, 2000, LEIDEN, NETHERLANDS, V51, P335 MacRoberts MH, 1996, SCIENTOMETRICS, V36, P435 Cruz-Castro Laura, 2010, RESEARCH POLICY, V39, P27 Martin Ben R., 2013, RESEARCH POLICY, V42, P1005 CARD D, 1994, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V84, P772 Bornmann Luti, 2008, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V64, P45 Rockwell S., 2009, Res. Manage. Rev., V61, P29 CNUFM, 2009, Research on Tuition and Expenses for Basic Education and Research at National Universities, Franzoni Chiara, 2014, ECONOMICS LETTERS, V122, P89 Tijssen Robert J. W., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1842 BROAD WJ, 1981, SCIENCE, V211, P1137 Etzkowitz H, 2000, RESEARCH POLICY, V29, P109 Bohannon John, 2013, SCIENCE, V342, P60 Reich Eugenie Samuel, 2013, NATURE, V502, P291 Shibayama S., 2015, Research Evaluation, Horta Hugo, 2010, MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, V56, P414 Butler L, 2003, RESEARCH POLICY8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 16-20, 2001, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, V32, P143 Gillum Leslie A., 2011, PLOS ONE, V6, NARIN F, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICSINTERNATIONAL CONF ON OUTPUT INDICATORS FOR EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY RESEARCH PROGRAM, JUN 14-15, 1990, PARIS, FRANCE, V21, P313 Sousa Rui, 2008, SCIENCE, V322, P1324 Weingart P, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICSConference on Bibliometric Analysis in Science and Research, NOV 05-07, 2003, Julich, GERMANY, V62, P117 Shibayama S., 2015, Science and Public Policy, Grieneisen Michael L., 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:000353654600015 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Bibliometric Evolution: Is the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology Transforming Into a Specialty Journal? Authors: Nicolaisen, J; Frandsen, TF Author Full Names: Nicolaisen, Jeppe; Frandsen, Tove Faber Source: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66 (5):1082-1085; 10.1002/asi.23224 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: scholarly publishing, bibliometrics, bibliographic coupling Abstract: Applying a recently developed method for measuring the level of specialization over time for a selection of library and information science (LIS)-core journals seems to reveal that Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) is slowly transforming into a specialty journal. The transformation seems to originate from a growing interest in bibliometric topics. This is evident from a longitudinal study (1990-2012) of the bibliometric coupling strength between Scientometrics and other LIS-core journals (including JASIST). The cause of this gradual transformation is discussed, and possible explanations are analyzed. Addresses: [Nicolaisen, Jeppe] Univ Copenhagen, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark. [Frandsen, Tove Faber] Odense Univ Hosp, DK-5000 Odense, Denmark. E-mail Addresses: jni at iva.dk; t.faber at videncentret.sdu.dk Cited Reference Count: 9 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 2330-1635 eISSN: 2330-1643 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: CG9RC Unique ID: WOS:000353654600015 Cited References: COLE S, 1983, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V89, P111 Cole S., 1978, Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators, P209 Nicolaisen Jeppe, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P276 Price D. J. S, 1970, Communication among scientists and engineers, P3 Hjorland Birger, 2012, JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, V68, P299 Nicolaisen J., 2013, Information ResearchPaper No. S05, V18, White HD, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V49, P327 Merton R. K., 1970, Science, technology, and society in seventeenth-century England, Schneider Jesper W., 2009, PROCEEDINGS OF ISSI 2009 - 12TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMETRICS, VOL 112th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics, JUL 14-17, 2009, Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL, V1, P443 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353060800004 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: >From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review Authors: Pontille, D; Torny, D Author Full Names: Pontille, David; Torny, Didier Source: HUMAN STUDIES, 38 (1):57-79; SI 10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z MAR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Anonymity, Academic journals, Evaluation, Peer review, Valuation studies KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC IMPACT; SCIENCE; QUALITY; SOCIOLOGY; CONSENSUS; ANONYMITY; METRICS; BIAS Abstract: Born in the 17th century, journal peer review is an extremely diverse technology, constantly torn between two often incompatible goals: the validation of manuscripts conceived as a collective industrial-like reproducible process performed to assert scientific statements, and the dissemination of articles considered as a means to spur scientific discussion, raising controversies, and civically challenging a state of knowledge. Such a situation is particularly conducive to clarifying the processes of valuation and evaluation in journal peer review. In this article, such processes are considered as specific tests in order to emphasize the uncertain properties of pre-tests manuscripts. On the one hand, evaluation tests are examined at the core of the validation of manuscripts, such as defining the coordination of judging instances (editor-in-chief, editorial committee, outside reviewers) or controlling the modalities of inter-knowledge between reviewers and authors. They are also studied regarding the dissemination of articles, notably through the contemporary conception of a continuing evaluation test termed "post publication peer review". On the other hand, valuation tests are both part of the validation of manuscripts, such as the weighting of different judgments of the same manuscript and the tensions that these hierarchies cause, and of the dissemination of articles, such as attention metrics recording the uses of articles. The conclusion sketches out how the articulation of these different tests has recently empowered readers as a new key judging instance for dissemination and for validation, potentially transforming the definition of peers, and thus the whole process of journal peer review. Addresses: [Pontille, David] Mines ParisTech, Ctr Sociol Innovat, CNRS, UMR7185, F-75006 Paris, France. [Torny, Didier] INRA, RiTME, UR 1323, Risques,Travail,Marches,Etat, F-94205 Ivry, France. E-mail Addresses: david.pontille at mines-paristech.fr; didier.torny at ivry.inra.fr Cited Reference Count: 78 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0163-8548 eISSN: 1572-851X Web of Science Categories: Ethics; Sociology Research Areas: Social Sciences - Other Topics; Sociology IDS Number: CG1UR Unique ID: WOS:000353060800004 Cited References: Priem J., 2010, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, V47, P1 PETERS DP, 1982, BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, V5, P187 Lamont M., 2009, How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment, Merton R. K., 1942, Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, V1, P115 LANCASTER FW, 1995, LIBRARY TRENDS, V43, P741 Torny D., 2013, Reseaux, V177, P25 CICCHETTI DV, 1976, YALE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, V49, P373 Schroter Sara, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, V101, P507 Boltanski L., 2006, On justification: Economies of worth, Eysenbach Gunther, 2011, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, V13, 2008, Opening the black box of editorship, Kronick D. A., 1962, A history of scientific and technical periodicals: the origins and development of the scientific and technical press, 1665-1790, Bornmann Lutz, 2011, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V45, P199 Smith R, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, V99, P178 Campanario JM, 1998, SCIENCE COMMUNICATION, V19, P181 HARGENS LL, 1988, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V53, P139 Berg LD, 2001, PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHERInternational Conference of Critical Geographers, AUG, 1997, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON, V53, P511 CRANE D, 1967, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGIST, V2, P195 Espeland WN, 1998, ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, V24, P313 Archambault E., 2013, Proportion of open access peer-reviewed papers at the European and world levels-2004-2011, Douglas-Wilson I., 1974, British Medical Journal, V3, P326 Ware M., 2008, Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community-an international study, Pontille D., 2012, REVUE D EPIDEMIOLOGIE ET DE SANTE PUBLIQUE, V60, P247 Bollen Johan, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, WILSON JD, 1978, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION, V61, P1697 CICCHETTI DV, 1991, BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, V14, P119 BLANK RM, 1991, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, V81, P1041 Erikson Martin G., 2014, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V44, P625 Knox F. G., 1981, Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, V97, P1 Lee Carole J., 2013, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V64, P2 [Anonymous], 1955, American Sociological Review, V20, P341 PORTER JR, 1964, BACTERIOLOGICAL REVIEWS, V28, P211 Weller A., 2001, Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses, Pontille David, 2010, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V19, P347 MORGAN PP, 1984, CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, V131, P1007 GLENN ND, 1976, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGIST, V11, P179 Broad W., 1982, Betrayers of the truth. Fraud and deceit in the hall of science, WARD WD, 1967, PHYSICS TODAY, V20, P12 Wilhite Allen W., 2012, SCIENCE, V335, P542 Frey BS, 2003, PUBLIC CHOICE, V116, P205 Macdonald Stuart, 2007, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V33, P702 ZUCKERMA.H, 1971, MINERVA, V9, P66 COLE S, 1981, SCIENCE, V214, P881 Schaffer S., 1985, Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life, Kennefick D, 2005, PHYSICS TODAY, V58, P43 van Rooyen S, 1999, JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, V14, P622 Cronin Blaise, 2014, BEYOND BIBLIOMETRICS: HARNESSING MULTIDIMENSIONAL INDICATORS OF SCHOLARLY IMPACT, P3 Gunnarsdottir K, 2005, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V35, P549 BENEDEK EP, 1976, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, V133, P89 American Psychological Association, 1965, American Psychologist, V20, P711 Bohlin I, 2004, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V34, P365 Butler Linda, 2009, POLITICAL STUDIES REVIEW, V7, P3 Lamont Michele, 2012, ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, VOL 38, V38, P201 BURNHAM JC, 1990, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION1ST INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON PEER REVIEW IN BIOMEDICAL PUBLICATION, MAY 10-12, 1989, CHICAGO, IL, V263, P1323 [Anonymous], 1974, Nature, V249, P601f Hirschauer Stefan, 2010, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V40, P71 LATOUR B., 1987, Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society, Lowry R. P., 1967, The American Sociologist, V2, P220 Shapiro B. J, 2000, A culture of fact: England, 1550-1720, Bazerman Charles, 1988, Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science, DeBakey L., 1976, The scientific journal: editorial policies and practices: guidelines for editors, reviewers, and authors, Hicks Diana, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P284 Jones R, 1974, New Scientist, V61, P758 Latour B., 1979, Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts, 2013, Benchmarking: L'E L'Etat sous pression statistique, Helgesson C.-F., 2013, Valuation Studies, V1, P1 Mahoney M. J., 1977, Cognitive Therapy and Research, V1, P161 Costas R., 2012, Users, narcissism and control-tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century, P50 Ingelfinger F. J., 1969, New England Journal of Medicine, V281, P676 Auranen Otto, 2010, RESEARCH POLICY, V39, P822 HARNAD S, 1979, SCIENCES-NEW YORK, V19, P18 Donovan C, 2007, Science and Public Policy, V34, P538 Wouters P., 1999, The citation culture, Godlee F, 1998, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION3rd International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, SEP, 1997, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC, V280, P237 Torny D., 2014, Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, V4, Speck B. W., 1993, Publication peer review: An annotated bibliography, Van Noorden Richard, 2011, NATURE, V478, P26 Chubin D. E., 1990, Peerless science: Peer review and U. S. science policy, ======================================================================= ======================================================================= ======================================================================= Search terms matched: ZIPF(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353465200003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Zipf*'s law for randomly generated frequencies: explicit tests for the goodness-of-fit Authors: Zornig, P Author Full Names: Zoernig, Peter Source: JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL COMPUTATION AND SIMULATION, 85 (11):2202-2213; 10.1080/00949655.2014.925113 JUL 24 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: power laws, multinomial distribution, rank-frequency vector, random numbers, Zipf's law, random sequences KeyWords Plus: RANDOM TEXTS; DISTRIBUTIONS; EXHIBIT Abstract: The question, whether Zipf's law arises only in consequence of interactions in a complex system or if it is also valid for random structures, has been controversially discussed in the literature over several decades. We show by means of simulations that the frequency distributions of simple random sequences usually obey this regularity. For tens of thousands of cases the goodness-of-fit is explicitly demonstrated by estimating the parameter and calculating the corresponding chi-square value. From the study it becomes clear that some existing results in the literature should be revised, and some ideas concerning the explanation of Zipf's law are provided. Addresses: Univ Brasilia, Dept Stat, Inst Exact Sci, BR-70910900 Brasilia, DF, Brazil. E-mail Addresses: peter at unb.br Cited Reference Count: 34 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXON, ENGLAND ISSN: 0094-9655 eISSN: 1563-5163 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications; Statistics & Probability Research Areas: Computer Science; Mathematics IDS Number: CG7EM Unique ID: WOS:000353465200003 Cited References: Pinto Carla M. A., 2012, COMMUNICATIONS IN NONLINEAR SCIENCE AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION, V17, P3558 Aksenov SV, 2003, COMPUTER PHYSICS COMMUNICATIONS, V150, P1 Montemurro MA, 2001, PHYSICA A, V300, P567 MILLER GA, 1957, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V70, P311 Powers DMW, 1998, P151 Palmitesta P, 1996, Computer generation of random vectors from continuous multivariate distributions, Zornig Peter, 2010, COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS, V54, P2317 Slomson A., 1991, An introduction to combinatorics, Mitzenmacher M, 2003, Internet Mathematics, V1, P226 2002, Glottometrics 3-5: To honor G. K. Zipf, Skinner BF, 1941, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, V54, P64 Baayen H., 2001, Word frequency distributions, Ferrer-i-Cancho Ramon, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, Popescu Ioan-Iovitz, 2010, QUALITY & QUANTITY, V44, P713 Miller GA, 1963, V2, P419 Baek Seung Ki, 2011, NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, V13, Ferrer i Cancho R., 2005, European Physical Journal B, V44, Gabaix X, 1999, QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, V114, P739 Naumis G. G., 2008, PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, V387, P84 SIMON HA, 1955, BIOMETRIKA, V42, P425 Perkins W, 2013, Appl Comput Harmon Anal, LI WT, 1992, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, V38, P1842 Newman MEJ, 2005, CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS, V46, P323 Biemann C., 2007, Proc. HLT-NAACL, New York, P105 Zanette DH, 2001, PHYSICA AIUPAP International Conference on New Trends in the Fractal Aspects of Complex Systems, OCT 16-20, 2000, MACEIO AL, BRAZIL, V295, P1 Zipf GK, 1935, The psychology of language, Orlov JK, 1982, Studies on Zipf's law, P154 ZORNIG P, 1995, COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS, V19, P461 Mandelbrot BB, 1953, Communication Theory, P486 Zipf GK, 1949, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort, Shan S, 2005, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V41, P1369 Gunther R, 1996, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS, V35, P395 Bochkarev VV, 2012, arXiv:1205.0796v1, Shreider YA, 1967, Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, V3, P57 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353654600010 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Journal Maps, Interactive Overlays, and the Measurement of Interdisciplinarity on the Basis of Scopus Data (1996-2012) Authors: Leydesdorff, L; de Moya-Anegon, F; Guerrero-Bote, VP Author Full Names: Leydesdorff, Loet; de Moya-Anegon, Felix; Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. Source: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66 (5):1001-1016; 10.1002/asi.23243 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: SCIENCE; INDICATORS; CITATIONS; DIVERSITY Abstract: Using Scopus data, we construct a global map of science based on aggregated journal-journal citations from 1996-2012 (N of journals=20,554). This base map enables users to overlay downloads from Scopus interactively. Using a single year (e.g., 2012), results can be compared with mappings based on the Journal Citation Reports at the Web of Science (N=10,936). The Scopus maps are more detailed at both the local and global levels because of their greater coverage, including, for example, the arts and humanities. The base maps can be interactively overlaid with journal distributions in sets downloaded from Scopus, for example, for the purpose of portfolio analysis. Rao-Stirling diversity can be used as a measure of interdisciplinarity in the sets under study. Maps at the global and the local level, however, can be very different because of the different levels of aggregation involved. Two journals, for example, can both belong to the humanities in the global map, but participate in different specialty structures locally. The base map and interactive tools are available online (with instructions) at http://www.leydesdorff.net/scopus_ovl. Addresses: [Leydesdorff, Loet] Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Sch Commun Res ASCoR, NL-1012 CX Amsterdam, Netherlands. [de Moya-Anegon, Felix] CSIC, SCImago Res Grp, Ctr Ciencias Sociales & Humanas, Inst Polit & Bienes Publ, Madrid 28037, Spain. [Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P.] Univ Extremadura, Informat & Commun Sci Dept, SCImago Res Grp, E-06071 Badajoz, Spain. E-mail Addresses: loet at leydesdorff.net; felix.moya at scimago.es; guerrero at unex.es Funding Acknowledgement: SURF Foundation Funding Text: We are grateful to Lykle Voort of the Amsterdam computer center SARA for his support. Some of this work was carried out on the Dutch national e-infrastructure with the support of the SURF Foundation. We are grateful to Thomson Reuters for the JCR data. We also thank two anonymous referees for their constructive comments. Cited Reference Count: 41 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 2330-1635 eISSN: 2330-1643 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Information Systems; Information Science & Library Science Research Areas: Computer Science; Information Science & Library Science IDS Number: CG9RC Unique ID: WOS:000353654600010 Cited References: Fortunato Santo, 2010, PHYSICS REPORTS-REVIEW SECTION OF PHYSICS LETTERS, V486, P75 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P87 Porter Alan L., 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V72, P117 Rafols Ismael, 2012, RESEARCH POLICY, V41, P1262 Moya-Anegon F., 2007, Scientometrics, V73, P53 KAMADA T, 1989, INFORMATION PROCESSING LETTERS, V31, P7 Blondel V. D., 2008, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, V8, P10008 Leydesdorff Loet, 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P2414 Leydesdorff Loet, 2012, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V6, P318 Rao C. R., 1982, The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A, V44, P1 KRUSKAL JB, 1964, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V29, P1 Zitt M, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V63, P373 Boyack Kevin W., 2014, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V8, P1 Klavans Richard, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P455 Leydesdorff L., 1993, Scientometrics, V26, P133 Rafols Ismael, 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V82, P263 Guerrero-Bote V. P., 2013, Journal of Informetrics, V6, P674 Leydesdorff Loet, 2014, SCIENTOMETRICS, V98, P1583 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P2378 FRUCHTERMAN TMJ, 1991, SOFTWARE-PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE, V21, P1129 Leydesdorff Loet, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V59, P1810 Waltman L., 2013, The European Physical Journal B, V86, P1 Leydesdorff Loet, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P352 Boyack KW, 2005, SCIENTOMETRICS, V64, P351 Rafols Ismael, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1823 Zhou Qiuju, 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V93, P787 Leydesdorff Loet, 2013, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V64, P2573 Lancho-Barrantes Barbara S., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, V36, P371 Waltman Ludo, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P629 Wyatt S., 2014, the Digital Humanities: Critical Views and Experiences workshop, Royal Dutch Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, Schiffman S. S., 1981, Introduction to multidimensional scaling: Theory, methods, and applications, Leydesdorff Loet, 2014, BEYOND BIBLIOMETRICS: HARNESSING MULTIDIMENSIONAL INDICATORS OF SCHOLARLY IMPACT, P167 Gonzalez-Pereira F. B., 2010, Journal of Informetrics, V4, P379 Wagner Caroline S., 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P14 Stirling Andy, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE, V4, P707 Rafols Ismael, 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1871 Newman M, 2004, Physical Review E, V69, P26113 Waltman Ludo, 2013, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V7, P833 RAO CR, 1982, THEORETICAL POPULATION BIOLOGY, V21, P24 vansEck N J., 2010, Scientometrics, V84, P523 Bollen Johan, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353349900003 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Where Art Thou Diabetic Foot Disease Literature? A *Bibliometric* Inquiry Into Publication Patterns Authors: Nolan, CK; Spiess, KE; Meyr, AJ Author Full Names: Nolan, Christine K.; Spiess, Kerianne E.; Meyr, Andrew J. Source: Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery, 54 (3):295-297; 10.1053/j.jfas.2014.04.010 MAY-JUN 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: amputation, diabetes, limb salvage, multidisciplinary team, peripheral vascular disease, prevention KeyWords Plus: AMPUTATION PREVENTION; TEAM-APPROACH; VASCULAR-SURGERY; LIMB SALVAGE; OUTCOMES Abstract: The objective of the present investigation was to evaluate the published scientific data with respect to the diabetic foot. We specifically aimed to assess the quantity published and the specific location of the published reports. A standard PubMed (R) search was performed, and the returned abstracts were evaluated by a 2-person panel for their relevance to medical professionals working within the field of diabetic foot disease. We identified 1286 relevant studies published in 659 different journals in 2012. We also found a 6.94-fold increase in returned abstracts meeting our search criteria from January 1988 to December 2012. The results of our investigation provide unique information regarding the high volume and variety of published information pertaining to diabetic foot disease and perhaps highlights a need for multidisciplinary thinking with respect to publishing and data organization, in addition to patient care. (C) 2015 by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Nolan, Christine K.; Spiess, Kerianne E.] Temple Univ Hosp & Med Sch, Podiatr Surg Residency Program, Philadelphia, PA 19140 USA. [Meyr, Andrew J.] Temple Univ, Sch Podiatr Med, Dept Podiatr Surg, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA. E-mail Addresses: ajmeyr at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 11 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010-1710 USA ISSN: 1067-2516 eISSN: 1542-2224 Web of Science Categories: Orthopedics; Surgery Research Areas: Orthopedics; Surgery IDS Number: CG5QX Unique ID: WOS:000353349900003 PubMed ID: 24846159 Cited References: Rogers Lee C., 2010, JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, V52, P23S Kim Paul J., 2012, JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, V56, P1168 Frykberg RG, 1997, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PODIATRIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V87, P305 Armstrong David G., 2012, DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, V28, P514 Sanders Lee J., 2010, JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, V52, P3S Scatena Alessia, 2012, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOWER EXTREMITY WOUNDS, V11, P113 Driver Vickie R., 2010, JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, V52, P17S Sumpio Bauer E., 2010, JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, V51, P1504 Hellingman A A, 2008, Journal of wound care, V17, P541 Hamonet J., 2010, Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, V53, P306 Williams Dean T., 2012, ANNALS OF VASCULAR SURGERY, V26, P700 ======================================================================= Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTOR(2); IMPACT FACTORS(1); PUBLISH OR PERISH(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353369000002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: *Publish or perish* ... but where? What is the value of *impact factors*? Authors: Link, JM Author Full Names: Link, Jeanne M. Source: NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 42 (5):426-427; 10.1016/j.nucmedblo.2015.01.004 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Impact factor Abstract: The *impact factor* (IF) of a journal is often used beyond the intent for which it was developed. Other metrics have been developed to address biases associated with IF and are described. However, the question that needs to be addressed is whether impact factors are overused to evaluate the scientifc competency and productivity of individuals or institutions. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Addresses: Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Diagnost Radiol, Portland, OR 97239 USA. E-mail Addresses: lijea at ohsu.edu Cited Reference Count: 5 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010-1710 USA ISSN: 0969-8051 eISSN: 1872-9614 Web of Science Categories: Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging Research Areas: Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging IDS Number: CG5XK Unique ID: WOS:000353369000002 Cited References: Moed H, 2000, ArXiv arXiv.org/abs/0911.2632, Amin M., 2000, Perspectives in Publishing, V1, P1 [Anonymous], 2011, The evolution of journal assessment snip and SJR new perspectives in journal metrics, Saha S, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V91, P42 De Moya F, 2009, aXiv.org/abs/0912.4141; 2009. [ArXiv], ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353208800029 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A portrait of JASA: the History of Statistics through analysis of keyword counts in an early scientific journal Authors: Trevisani, M; Tuzzi, A Author Full Names: Trevisani, Matilde; Tuzzi, Arjuna Source: QUALITY & QUANTITY, 49 (3):1287-1304; 10.1007/s11135-014-0050-7 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Chronological corpora, Correspondence analysis, Functional data analysis, Model-based curve clustering, Textual data KeyWords Plus: FUNCTIONAL MIXED MODELS Abstract: The words that occur in papers published by the journals of an old and prestigious scientific society like the American Statistical Association portray the most relevant research interests of a discipline and the recurrence of words over time show fashions, forgotten topics and new emerging subjects, that is, the history of a discipline at a glance. In this study a set of keywords occurred in the titles of papers published in the period 1888-2012 by the Journal of the American Statistical Association and its predecessors are examined over time in order to retrieve those which appeared in the past and which are today the research fields covered by Statistics, from the viewpoints of both methods and application domains. The existence of a latent temporal pattern in keywords' occurrences is explored by means of (lexical) correspondence analysis and clusters of keywords portraying similar temporal patterns are identified by functional (textual) data analysis and model-based curve clustering. The analyses reveal a definite time dimension in topics and show that much of the History of Statistics may be gleaned by simply reading the titles of papers through an explorative correspondence analysis. However, the functional approach and model-based curve clustering turn out to be better in tracing and comparing the individual temporal evolution of keywords, despite some computational and theoretical limitations. Addresses: [Trevisani, Matilde] Univ Trieste, Dept Econ Business Math & Stat DEAMS, I-34127 Trieste, Italy. [Tuzzi, Arjuna] Univ Padua, Dept Philosophy Sociol Educ & Appl Psychol FISPPA, I-35123 Padua, Italy. E-mail Addresses: arjuna.tuzzi at unipd.it Cited Reference Count: 45 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0033-5177 eISSN: 1573-7845 Web of Science Categories: Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary; Statistics & Probability Research Areas: Social Sciences - Other Topics; Mathematics IDS Number: CG3VX Unique ID: WOS:000353208800029 Cited References: Cortelazzo M., 1990, Lingue speciali, La dimensione verticale, Tuzzi A., 2012, Synergetic Linguistics Text and Language as Dynamic Systems, P223 Coseriu E., 1973, Lezioni di linguistica generale, BARTHOLOMEW DJ, 1995, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, V158, P1 Coseriu E., 1988, Einfuhrung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. UTB fur Wissenschaft / UTB fur Wissenschaft, Giacofci M., 2013, BIOMETRICS, V69, P31 James GM, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, V98, P397 STIGLER SM, 1988, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, V83, P583 Altmann G., 1978, Glottometrika, V1, P91 Giacofci M., 2012, Curvclust: curve clustering, Stamatatos Efstathios, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P538 Popescu I., 2009, Aspects of Word Frequencies, Murtagh F., 2005, Correspondence analysis and data coding with Java and R. Chapman & Hall/CRC Computer Science & Data Analysis, Morris JS, 2006, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES B-STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY, V68, P179 Bolasco S., 2013, L'analisi automatica dei testi. Fare ricerca con il text mining, Scheaffer RL, 2002, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, V97, P1 Greenacre M., 2007, Correspondence Analysis in Practice, R Core Team, 2013, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Reithinger Florian, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES C-APPLIED STATISTICS, V57, P127 HEALY MJR, 1978, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, V141, P385 Sen P., 2002, J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods, V1, P2 Tuzzi A., 2013, Proceedings of the 28th International Workshop on Statistical Modelling, V1, P417 Lebart L., 1998, Exploring textual data, Popescu II, 2009, WORD FREQUENCY STUDIES, V64, P1 Brunet E., 1988, Strum. Crit., V3, P367 Galle M., 1993, Quantitative Text Analysis, P46 Berruto G., 1987, Sociolinguistica dell'italiano contemporaneo, Tuzzi A., 2010, Ital. J. Appl. Stat. Stat. Appl., V22, P77 Biernacki C, 2000, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE, V22, P719 Tuzzi A., 2012, Proceedings of the XLVI Scientific Meeting, P1 Ogburn WF, 1940, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, V35, P252 Migliorini B., 1960, Storia della lingua italiana, PORTER MF, 1980, PROGRAM-AUTOMATED LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, V14, P130 Greenacre M., 1984, Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis, Trevisani M., 2013, Methods and Applications of Quantitative LinguisticsVIIIth International Conference on Quantitative Linguistics, P84 Altmann G., 1988, SociolinguisticsSoziolinguistik, P1026 Morrone A., 1996, L'attivita dei governi della Repubblica italiana (1948-1994), P351 Straf ML, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATIONMeeting of the American-Statistical-Association, AUG 13, 2002, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, V98, P1 Lebart L., 1984, Multivariate Descriptive Statistical Analysis: Correspondence Analysis and Related Techniques for Large Matrices, Johnstone I. M., 2009, Philos. Transact. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., V13, P4237 Sparck Jones K., 1997, Readings in Information Retrieval, Morris Jeffrey S., 2008, BIOMETRICS, V64, P479 Wimmer G., 1999, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, V6, P1 Maggioni M. A., 2009, Mapping the evolution of ''clusters'': a meta-analysis, V2009.74, Brown Emery N., 2009, AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, V63, P105 ======================================================================= Search terms matched: CITATION(2); 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:000353208900002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: An Analysis of the *Citation* Climate in Neurosurgical Literature and Description of an Interfield *Citation* Metric Authors: Madhugiri, VS; Sasidharan, GM; Subeikshanan, V; Dutt, A; Ambekar, S; Strom, SF Author Full Names: Madhugiri, Venkatesh S.; Sasidharan, Gopalakrishnan M.; Subeikshanan, Venkatesan; Dutt, Akshat; Ambekar, Sudheer; Strom, Shane F. Source: NEUROSURGERY, 76 (5):505-513; 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000656 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Review Author Keywords: Citations, H index, Impact factor, Interfield variations, Metrics, Neurosurgery KeyWords Plus: SCIENTIFIC IMPACT; TOP 100; DISTRIBUTIONS; UNIVERSALITY; VALIDATION Abstract: BACKGROUND:The citation climate in neurosurgical literature is largely undefined.OBJECTIVE:To study the patterns of citation of articles in neurosurgery as a scientific field and to evaluate the performance of neurosurgery journals vis-a-vis journals in other fields.METHODS:References cited in articles published in neurosurgery journals during a specified time period were analyzed to determine the age of articles cited in neurosurgical literature. In the next analysis, articles published in neurosurgical journals were followed up for 13 years after publication. The postpublication citation patterns were analyzed to determine the time taken to reach the maximally cited state and the time when articles stopped being cited. The final part of the study dealt with the evolution of a new interfield citation metric, which was then compared with other standardized citation indexes.RESULTS:The mean SD age of articles cited in neurosurgical literature was 11.6 11.7 years (median, 8 years). Citations received by articles gradually increased to a peak (at 6.25 years after publication in neurosurgery) and then reached a steady state; articles were still cited well into the late postpublication period. Neurosurgical articles published in nonneurosurgical high-impact journals were cited more highly than those in neurosurgical journals, although they took approximately the same time to reach the maximally cited state (7.2 years). The most cited pure neurosurgery journal was Neurosurgery.CONCLUSION:The citation climate for neurosurgery was adequately described. The interfield citation metric was able to ensure cross-field comparability of journal performance.ABBREVIATIONS:G1, group 1G2, group 2G3, group 3G4, group 4IFCM, interfield citation metric Addresses: [Madhugiri, Venkatesh S.; Sasidharan, Gopalakrishnan M.] Jawaharlal Inst Postgrad Med Educ & Res, Dept Neurosurg, Pondicherry 605006, India. [Subeikshanan, Venkatesan; Dutt, Akshat] Jawaharlal Inst Postgrad Med Educ & Res, Pondicherry 605006, India. [Ambekar, Sudheer] Louisiana State Univ, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Neurosurg, Shreveport, LA 71105 USA. [Strom, Shane F.] Louisiana State Univ, Hlth Sci Ctr, Shreveport, LA 71105 USA. E-mail Addresses: vensmad at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 19 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, TWO COMMERCE SQ, 2001 MARKET ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 USA ISSN: 0148-396X Web of Science Categories: Clinical Neurology; Surgery Research Areas: Neurosciences & Neurology; Surgery IDS Number: CG3VY Unique ID: WOS:000353208900002 PubMed ID: 25635885 Cited References: Wren Jonathan D., 2008, BIOINFORMATICS, V24, P1381 Wu Xiu-fang, 2008, JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY-SCIENCE B, V9, P582 Van Noorden Richard, 2014, NATURE, V514, P550 Stringer Michael J., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V61, P1377 Eysenbach Gunther, 2011, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, V13, Radicchi Filippo, 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V105, P17268 Madhugiri Venkatesh S., 2013, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V119, P1274 PRICE DJD, 1965, SCIENCE, V149, P510 SCImago, 2007, SJR: SCImago Journal and Country Rank, Groneberg-Kloft Beatrix, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH GEOGRAPHICS, V7, Lipsman Nir, 2012, STEREOTACTIC AND FUNCTIONAL NEUROSURGERY, V90, P201 Tenopir C, 2004, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V92, P233 Force Megan M., 2014, JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN, V28, P1043 NCBI, 2009, NLM Catalog: Journals Referenced in the NCBI Databases, Bornmann Lutz, 2009, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V60, P1664 Greenberg Steven A., 2009, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V339, J?rgensen H L, 1999, Ugeskrift for laeger, V161, P6339 Khan Nickalus R., 2014, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V120, P746 Tenopir Carol, 2007, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V95, P56 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000352906000024 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The Hundred Most *Cited Articles* in Bariatric Surgery Authors: Ahmad, SS; Ahmad, SS; Kohl, S; Ahmad, S; Ahmed, AR Author Full Names: Ahmad, Suhaib S.; Ahmad, Sufian S.; Kohl, Sandro; Ahmad, Sami; Ahmed, Ahmed R. Source: OBESITY SURGERY, 25 (5):900-909; 10.1007/s11695-014-1542-1 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometric study, Top 100 most cited articles, Obesity, Bariatric surgery, Citation classics KeyWords Plus: 100 CITATION-CLASSICS; ORTHOPEDIC-SURGERY; JOURNALS; HISTORY; IMPACT; BIAS Abstract: Many studies quantitatively analyzing scientific papers have appeared in the last 2 years. Citation analysis is a commonly used bibliometric method. In spite of some limitations, it remains a good measure of the impact an article has on a specific field, specialty, or a journal. The aim of this study was to analyze the qualities and characteristics of the 100 most cited articles in the field of bariatric surgery. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge was used to list all bariatric surgery-related articles (BSRA) published from 1945 to 2014. The top 100 most cited BSRA in 354 surgical and high impact general journals were selected for further analysis. Most of the articles were published in the 2000s (60 %). The top 100 most cited were published in 17 of the 354 journals. Leading countries were USA followed by Canada and Australia. Most of the articles published (76 %) were clinical experience articles. The most common level of evidence was IV (42 %). Many of the milestone papers in bariatric surgery have been included in this bibliometric study. A huge increase in research activity during the last decade is clearly visible in the field. It is apparent that the number of citations of an article is not related to its level of evidence; a fact that is increasingly being emphasized in surgical research. Addresses: [Ahmad, Suhaib S.] Univ Buckingham, Buckingham Inst Translat Med, Buckingham, England. [Ahmad, Sufian S.; Kohl, Sandro] Univ Bern, Inselspital, Dept Orthopaed Surg & Traumatol, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. [Ahmad, Sami] Jordan Hosp, Bariatr Surg, Amman, Jordan. [Ahmed, Ahmed R.] Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Dept Bariatr & Metab Surg, London, England. E-mail Addresses: sufiansamy at gmail.com Cited Reference Count: 27 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SPRINGER, 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA ISSN: 0960-8923 eISSN: 1708-0428 Web of Science Categories: Surgery Research Areas: Surgery IDS Number: CF9SF Unique ID: WOS:000352906000024 PubMed ID: 25720513 Cited References: Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Tao Tianzhu, 2012, CRITICAL CARE, V16, Cassar Gheiti AJ, 2012, Arthroscopy, V28, P548 GARFIELD E, 1987, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V257, P52 Baker Matthew T., 2011, SURGICAL CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, V91, P1181 Cao Feng, 2012, PANCREATOLOGY, V12, P325 Puzziferri N, 2006, ANNALS OF SURGERY21st Annual Meeting of the American-Society-for-Bariatric-Surgery, JUN 12-17, 2004, San Diego, CA, V243, P181 Rosenberg Andrew L., 2010, JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, V25, P157 Bhandari M, 2004, JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, V86A, P1717 Tsai Yi-Lun, 2006, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, V24, P647 Namdari Surena, 2012, JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, V21, P1796 Ahmad Sufian S., 2014, JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, V96A, GARFIELD E, 1977, CURRENT CONTENTS, P5 CAMPBELL FM, 1990, BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V78, P376 Lefaivre Kelly A., 2011, CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, V469, P1487 Murray Michael R., 2012, EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, V21, P2059 Garfield E, 1998, SCIENTOMETRICS, V43, P69 GARFIELD E, 1972, SCIENCE, V178, P471 Buchwald Henry, 2010, SURGERY FOR OBESITY AND RELATED DISEASES, V6, P221 Link AM, 1998, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION3rd International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, SEP, 1997, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC, V280, P246 Fendrich V., 2010, CHIRURG, V81, P328 Sjostrom Lars, 2007, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, V357, P741 Himpens Jacques, 2010, ANNALS OF SURGERY, V252, P319 Baldwin Keith D., 2012, JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS-PART B, V21, P463 Paladugu R, 2002, WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, V26, P1099 Mattar SG, 2005, Ann Surg, V242, P618 Hennessey Kiara, 2009, CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, V3, P293 ======================================================================= Search terms matched: CITATION(1); 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:000353337300018 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Association Between Journal *Citation* Distribution and *Impact Factor* Authors: Nuti, SV; Ranasinghe, I; Murugiah, K; Shojaee, A; Li, SX; Krumholz, HM Author Full Names: Nuti, Sudhakar V.; Ranasinghe, Isuru; Murugiah, Karthik; Shojaee, Abbas; Li, Shu-Xia; Krumholz, Harlan M. Source: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 65 (16):1711-1712; 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.071 APR 28 2015 Language: English Document Type: Letter Addresses: [Nuti, Sudhakar V.; Ranasinghe, Isuru; Murugiah, Karthik; Shojaee, Abbas; Li, Shu-Xia; Krumholz, Harlan M.] Yale New Haven Med Ctr, Ctr Outcomes Res & Evaluat, New Haven, CT 06510 USA. E-mail Addresses: harlan.krumholz at yale.edu Cited Reference Count: 5 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 360 PARK AVE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010-1710 USA ISSN: 0735-1097 eISSN: 1558-3597 Web of Science Categories: Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems Research Areas: Cardiovascular System & Cardiology IDS Number: CG5MZ Unique ID: WOS:000353337300018 PubMed ID: 25908079 Cited References: Thomson Reuters, 2014, Journal Citation Reports, Catalano GD, 2007, Synthesis Lectures on Engineering, Technology, and Society, V2, P34 Gini CW, 1912, Studi Economico-Giuricici della R, Deltas G, 2003, REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, V85, P226 Kulkarni Abhaya V., 2009, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V302, P1092 ======================================================================= 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:000353334500013 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics Authors: Hicks, D; Wouters, P; Waltman, L; de Rijcke, S; Rafols, I Author Full Names: Hicks, Diana; Wouters, Paul; Waltman, Ludo; de Rijcke, Sarah; Rafols, Ismael Source: NATURE, 520 (7548):429-431; APR 23 2015 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material KeyWords Plus: IMPACT FACTOR; INDEX Addresses: [Hicks, Diana] Georgia Inst Technol, Publ Policy, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA. [Wouters, Paul] Leiden Univ, Ctr Sci & Technol Studies, Scientometr, NL-2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands. [Wouters, Paul; Waltman, Ludo; de Rijcke, Sarah] Leiden Univ, Ctr Sci & Technol Studies, NL-2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands. [Rafols, Ismael] Spanish Natl Res Council, Valencia, Spain. [Rafols, Ismael] Univ Politecn Valencia, Valencia, Spain. E-mail Addresses: diana.hicks at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Cited Reference Count: 10 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP, MACMILLAN BUILDING, 4 CRINAN ST, LONDON N1 9XW, ENGLAND ISSN: 0028-0836 eISSN: 1476-4687 Web of Science Categories: Multidisciplinary Sciences Research Areas: Science & Technology - Other Topics IDS Number: CG5LX Unique ID: WOS:000353334500013 PubMed ID: 25903611 Cited References: Wouters Paul, 2014, BEYOND BIBLIOMETRICS: HARNESSING MULTIDIMENSIONAL INDICATORS OF SCHOLARLY IMPACT, P47 Waltman Ludo, 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P2419 Shao Jufang, 2011, LEARNED PUBLISHING, V24, P95 Lopez Pineiro Carla, 2015, RESEARCH EVALUATION, V24, P78 van Raan Anthony F. J., 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P431 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Bar-Ilan Judit, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V74, P257 Butler L, 2003, RESEARCH POLICY8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, JUL 16-20, 2001, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, V32, P143 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353233300001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: The practice of strategic journal self-*citation*: It exists, and should stop Authors: Chorus, CG Author Full Names: Chorus, Caspar G. Source: European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 15 (3):274-281; APR 20 2015 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Addresses: Delft Univ Technol, Transport & Logist Grp, NL-2628 BX Delft, Netherlands. E-mail Addresses: c.g.chorus at tudelft.nl Cited Reference Count: 1 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: EDITORIAL BOARD EJTIR, SECTION TRANSPORT POLICY-TLO, JAFFALAAN 5, JAFFALAAN 5, 2628 BX, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 1567-7133 eISSN: 1567-7141 Web of Science Categories: Transportation Research Areas: Transportation IDS Number: CG4DP Unique ID: WOS:000353233300001 Cited References: Han L. D., 2015, 2015 meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, ======================================================================= . 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:000353536500001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination Authors: Helfer, B; Prosser, A; Samara, MT; Geddes, JR; Cipriani, A; Davis, JM; Mavridis, D; Salanti, G; Leucht, S Author Full Names: Helfer, Bartosz; Prosser, Aaron; Samara, Myrto T.; Geddes, John R.; Cipriani, Andrea; Davis, John M.; Mavridis, Dimitris; Salanti, Georgia; Leucht, Stefan Source: BMC Medicine, 13 10.1186/s12916-015-0317-4 APR 14 2015 Language: English Document Type: Review Author Keywords: Meta-analysis, Methodology, PRISMA statement, Research waste, Systematic review KeyWords Plus: ANTIBIOTIC-ASSOCIATED DIARRHEA; RENIN-ANGIOTENSIN SYSTEM; RANDOMIZED-TRIALS; HEALTH-CARE; VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM; PRISMA STATEMENT; REDUCING WASTE; IMPACT FACTOR; PREVENTION; ELABORATION Abstract: Background: As the number of systematic reviews is growing rapidly, we systematically investigate whether meta-analyses published in leading medical journals present an outline of available evidence by referring to previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Methods: We searched PubMed for recent meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high *impact factor* journals. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified with electronic searches of keywords and by searching reference sections. We analyzed the number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that were cited, described and discussed in each recent meta-analysis. Moreover, we investigated publication characteristics that potentially influence the referencing practices. Results: We identified 52 recent meta-analyses and 242 previous meta-analyses on the same topics. Of these, 66% of identified previous meta-analyses were cited, 36% described, and only 20% discussed by recent meta-analyses. The probability of citing a previous meta-analysis was positively associated with its publication in a journal with a higher *impact factor* (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.10) and more recent publication year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.37). Additionally, the probability of a previous study being described by the recent meta-analysis was inversely associated with the concordance of results (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.88), and the probability of being discussed was increased for previous studies that employed meta-analytic methods (odds ratio, 32.36; 95% confidence interval, 2.00 to 522.85). Conclusions: Meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments do not consistently refer to and discuss findings of previous meta-analyses on the same topic. Such neglect can lead to research waste and be confusing for readers. Journals should make the discussion of related meta-analyses mandatory. Addresses: [Helfer, Bartosz; Samara, Myrto T.; Leucht, Stefan] Tech Univ Munich, Klinikum Rechts Isar, Dept Psychiat & Psychotherapy, D-81675 Munich, Germany. [Prosser, Aaron] Ctr Addict & Mental Hlth, Complex Mental Illness Program, Toronto, ON, Canada. [Geddes, John R.; Cipriani, Andrea] Univ Oxford, Warneford Hosp, Dept Psychiat, Oxford, England. [Davis, John M.] Univ Illinois, Dept Psychiat, Chicago, IL 60612 USA. [Mavridis, Dimitris; Salanti, Georgia] Univ Ioannina, Sch Med, Dept Hyg & Epidemiol, GR-45110 Ioannina, Greece. [Mavridis, Dimitris] Univ Ioannina, Dept Primary Educ, GR-45110 Ioannina, Greece. E-mail Addresses: bartosz.helfer at gmail.com Funding Acknowledgement: NIHR Oxford cognitive health Clinical Research Facility Funding Text: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. AC acknowledges support from the NIHR Oxford cognitive health Clinical Research Facility. JRG is an NIHR Senior Investigator. Cited Reference Count: 37 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 236 GRAYS INN RD, FLOOR 6, LONDON WC1X 8HL, ENGLAND ISSN: 1741-7015 Article Number: 82 Web of Science Categories: Medicine, General & Internal Research Areas: General & Internal Medicine IDS Number: CG8DD Unique ID: WOS:000353536500001 PubMed ID: 25889502 Cited References: Clarke Mike, 2010, LANCET, V376, P20 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Bastian Hilda, 2010, PLOS MEDICINE, V7, Moher David, 2009, BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V339, Greenberg SA, 2009, BMJ, V339, Pb2680 Moher David, 2010, BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V340, Centre TNC, 2012, Review Manager (RevMan), Schardt Connie, 2007, BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, V7, Hempel Susanne, 2012, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V307, P1959 GUYATT GH, 1995, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V274, P1800 Jones Ashley P., 2013, BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, V13, Fox Benjamin D., 2012, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V345, Loke Y. K., 2011, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS, V36, P111 Shea Beverley J., 2007, BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, V7, Booth Alison, 2012, Systematic reviews, V1, P2 Glasziou Paul, 2014, LANCET, V383, P267 Editorial, 2006, PLoS Med, V3, Pe291 Cooper NJ, 2005, CLINICAL TRIALS, V2, P260 D'Souza AL, 2002, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V324, P1361 Clarke M., 2013, Journal of the Bahrain Medical Society, V24, P145 Chang Stephanie M., 2012, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V157, P439 Siontis Konstantinos C., 2013, BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V347, Huang X, 2006, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, V2006, P359 LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159 OXMAN AD, 1993, DOING MORE GOOD THAN HARM: THE EVALUATION OF HEALTH CARE INTERVENTIONSConference on Doing More Good Than Harm: The Evaluation of Health Care Interventions, MAR 22-25, 1993, NEW YORK, NY, V703, P125 Robinson Karen A., 2011, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V154, P50 Ioannidis John P. A., 2014, LANCET, V383, P166 Liberati Alessandro, 2009, BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V339, Chalmers Iain, 2009, Lancet, V374, P86 Garg Amit X., 2008, CLINICAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, V3, P253 Saha S, 2003, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V91, P42 Chalmers I, 2007, Treating Individuals: from Randomised Trials to Personalised Medicine, P37 Chalmers Iain, 2014, LANCET, V383, P156 Bertamini Marco, 2012, PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, V7, P67 Terry Robert F., 2014, SCIENCE, V345, P1302 Makani Harikrishna, 2013, BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V346, Kunz Regina, 2008, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, V148, P30 ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: CITED ARTICLES(1); 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:000353347700009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Fifty Most-*Cited Articles* in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Research Authors: Voleti, PB; Tjoumakaris, FP; Rotmil, G; Freedman, KB Author Full Names: Voleti, Pramod B.; Tjoumakaris, Fotios P.; Rotmil, Gayle; Freedman, Kevin B. Source: ORTHOPEDICS, 38 (4):E297-E304; 10.3928/01477447-20150402-58 APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article KeyWords Plus: CITATION-CLASSICS; ORTHOPEDIC JOURNALS; IMPACT FACTOR; SURGERY; SHOULDER; MEDICINE Abstract: The number of times an article has been cited in the peer-reviewed literature is indicative of its impact on its respective medical specialty. No study has used citation analysis to determine the most influential studies pertaining to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). The primary aims of this study were to identify the classic works in ACL research using citation analysis and to characterize these articles to determine which types of studies have had the most influence on the field. A systematic query of ISI Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) was performed for articles pertaining to the ACL, and the 50 mostcited articles were selected for evaluation. The following characteristics were determined for each article: number of citations, citation density, journal, publication year, country of origin, language, article type, article subtype, and level of evidence. The number of citations ranged from 219 to 1073 (mean, 326), and the citation densities ranged from 4.9 to 55.6 citations per year (mean, 18.2). All articles were published in 1 of 11 journals, with the most being published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (46%) and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American (30%). The most common decades of publication were the 1990s (34%), 1980s (28%), and 2000s (26%). The majority (68%) of articles originated from the United States, and all were written in English. By article type, 42% were basic science, and 58% were clinical. Of the clinical articles, 3% were Level I, 17% were Level II, 28% were Level III, and 52% were Level IV. The articles were heterogeneous with regard to article type, article subtype, and level of evidence and tended to have the following characteristics: high-impact journal of publication, recent publication year, US origin, English language, and low level of evidence. These works represent some of the most popular scientific contributions to ACL research. This list may aid residency and fellowship programs in the compilation of articles for trainee reading curriculums. Addresses: [Voleti, Pramod B.] Univ Penn, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Philadelphia, PA USA. [Rotmil, Gayle] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Jefferson Med Coll, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA. [Freedman, Kevin B.] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Rothman Inst, Bryn Mawr, PA USA. [Tjoumakaris, Fotios P.] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Rothman Inst, Egg Harbor Township, NJ USA. E-mail Addresses: kevin.freedman at rothmaninstitute.com Cited Reference Count: 27 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: SLACK INC, 6900 GROVE RD, THOROFARE, NJ 08086 USA ISSN: 0147-7447 eISSN: 1938-2367 Web of Science Categories: Orthopedics Research Areas: Orthopedics IDS Number: CG5QH Unique ID: WOS:000353347700009 PubMed ID: 25901623 Cited References: Ponce Francisco A., 2010, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V112, P223 Siebelt Michiel, 2010, BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, V11, Ohba Norio, 2007, ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, V125, P952 Hakkalamani S, 2006, JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, V88B, P159 Samuelsson Kristian, 2013, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, V41, P924 Brandt JS, 2010, Am J Obstet Gynecol, V203, Baltussen A, 2004, ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, V98, P443 TEGNER Y, 1985, CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, P43 Ollerton JE, 2005, JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE, V58, P364 Tsai Yi-Lun, 2006, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, V24, P647 Namdari Surena, 2012, JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, V21, P1796 Thomson Reuters, 2012, Journal Citation Reports, CONSTANT CR, 1987, CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, P160 Fenton JE, 2002, JOURNAL OF LARYNGOLOGY AND OTOLOGY9th Meeting of the British-Society-of-History-of-ENT, SEP, 2001, BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND, V116, P494 DUBIN D, 1993, ARCHIVES OF DERMATOLOGY, V129, P1121 Lefaivre Kelly A., 2011, CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, V469, P1487 Baldwin Keith D., 2012, JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS-PART B, V21, P463 HARRIS WH, 1969, JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, VA 51, P737 Garfield E, 1996, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V313, P411 Paladugu R, 2002, WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, V26, P1099 Wright JG, 2003, JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, V85A, P1 Hewett TE, 2005, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, V33, P492 Loonen MP, 2008, Plast Reconstr Surg, V121, P320 Baltussen A, 2004, INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, V30, P902 LYSHOLM J, 1982, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, V10, P150 Adam D, 2002, NATURE, V415, P726 Baldwin Keith, 2013, American journal of orthopedics (Belle Mead, N.J.), V42, P547 ======================================================================= 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:000353243300009 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Resilience and Complexity A *Bibliometric* Review and Prospects for Industrial Ecology Authors: Meerow, S; Newell, JP Author Full Names: Meerow, Sara; Newell, Joshua P. Source: JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 19 (2):236-251; SI 10.1111/jiec.12252 APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Review Author Keywords: bibliometrics, complex systems, complexity, industrial ecology, resilience, sustainability KeyWords Plus: LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; CORAL-REEF; CLIMATE-CHANGE; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; ADAPTIVE COMANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL-CHANGE; PHASE-SHIFTS; SYSTEMS; ECOSYSTEMS; NETWORKS Abstract: Resilience is an increasingly popular concept in academic research and public discourse and is closely connected to complex systems theory. This article reviews research on resilience and complexity in industrial ecology and the broader academy by conducting a bibliometric analysis of the academic literature over a 40-year period (1973-2014). The review revealed a large body of scholarship composed of five clearly identifiable intellectual communities, with resilience theory from ecology especially influential. Based on the study of ecosystems, these scholars conceptualize resilience as a dynamic and adaptive property of systems with multiple stable states that evolve over time. In comparison, resilience research in industrial ecology is limited and underdeveloped. Bibliometric analysis of this literature yielded just 37 publications and a scholarly network with no well-formulated research communities. This contrasts with industrial ecology scholarship on sustainability; a similar search yielded 1,581 publications. Given the emerging importance of the resilience concept and its relevance for sustainability issues, industrial ecology should expand research efforts in this area. The growing body of industrial ecology scholarship on complex systems provides a foundation to do so, as does the field's long-standing practice of using ecological principles to inform the study and design of industrial ecosystems. The article concludes by discussing how industrial ecology would benefit from incorporating principles of dynamic resilience and, conversely, how industrial ecology approaches could advance broader resilience scholarship. Addresses: [Meerow, Sara; Newell, Joshua P.] Univ Michigan, Sch Nat Resources & Environm, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA. E-mail Addresses: sameerow at umich.edu Cited Reference Count: 193 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 1088-1980 eISSN: 1530-9290 Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Environmental; Environmental Sciences Research Areas: Engineering; Environmental Sciences & Ecology IDS Number: CG4GK Unique ID: WOS:000353243300009 Cited References: 1998, Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience, Beichler Simone A., 2014, ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, V19, Holling C.S., 1973, Annual Rev Ecol Syst, V4, P1 Newman M. E. J., 2006, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V103, P8577 Klein R. J. T., 2003, Environmental Hazards, V5, P35 MacKillop Fionn, 2012, CITIES, V29, P244 Holling C. S, 1996, Engineering within ecological constraints, Hughes TP, 2003, SCIENCE, V301, P929 Dietz T, 2003, SCIENCE, V302, P1907 Allenby Braden, 2009, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, V13, P168 Dorogovtsev SN, 2002, ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, V51, P1079 Chang Ni-Bin, 2012, JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, V110, P194 Miller JH, 2007, COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS: AN INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF SOCIAL LIFE: AN INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF SOCIAL LIFE, P1 Vaughan D., 1996, The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA, Ostrom E, 2005, UNDERSTANDING INSTITUTIONAL DIVERSITY, P1 Gunderson LH, 2000, ANNUAL REVIEW OF ECOLOGY AND SYSTEMATICS, V31, P425 Luthans F., 2006, Human Resource Development Review, V5, P25 Ehrenfeld John R., 2007, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, V11, P73 Carpenter S, 2001, ECOSYSTEMS, V4, P765 FROSCH RA, 1989, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, V261, P144 O'Hare P, 2013, Planning Practice and Research, V28, P275 Zhu Junming, 2013, JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, V122, P65 Elmqvist T, 2003, FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, V1, P488 Little RG, 2002, JOURNAL OF URBAN TECHNOLOGY, V9, P109 Koellner Thomas, 2008, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, V13, P32 Olsson Per, 2006, ECOLOGY AND SOCIETYWorkshop of Resilience Alliance, MAY, 2004, Nagambie, AUSTRALIA, V11, Rose A.Z., 2007, Environmental Hazards, V7, P383 Ostrom E., 1990, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Barabasi AL, 1999, SCIENCE, V286, P509 Chertow Marian, 2012, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, V16, P13 Eakin Hallie, 2006, ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, V31, P365 Perrings Charles, 2006, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS, V11, P417 Ostrom Elinor, 2007, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V104, P15181 Baas Leo W., 2008, Bus. Strategy Environ, V17, P330 Janssen MA, 2004, JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, V47, P140 Martin C., 2010, ANIMALInternational Conference on Livestock and Global Climate Change, MAY, 2008, Hammamet, TUNISIA, V4, P351 Bellwood DR, 2004, NATURE, V429, P827 Walker B., 2006, Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world, Kennedy Christopher, 2007, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGYConference on Urban Transformation and Reform for Sustainability, OCT, 2005, Bonn, GERMANY, V11, P43 Pickett STA, 2004, LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, V69, P369 Spiegelman J., 2003, Journal of Industrial Ecology, V7, P17 Lundie S, 2004, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V38, P3465 Shi Xiaoqing, 2014, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V64, P437 Coaffee Jon, 2008, ENERGY POLICY, V36, P4633 Coats Erik R., 2013, BIOFUELS BIOPRODUCTS & BIOREFINING-BIOFPR, V7, P459 Tyler Stephen, 2012, CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT, V4, P311 Clements FE, 1936, JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, V24, P252 Kauffman SA, 1993, The origins of order: self organization and selection in evolution, Fiksel J, 2006, Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, V2, P14 Gaillard J. C., 2010, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, V22, P218 PIMM SL, 1984, NATURE, V307, P321 Walker B, 2004, ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, V9, Anderies JM, 2002, ECOSYSTEMS, V5, P23 Kates RW, 2001, SCIENCE, V292, P641 Ouyang Min, 2014, RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, V121, P43 Davis Chris, 2009, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, V13, P306 Christopher M., 2004, International Journal of Logistics Management, V15, P1 Zeng Y., 2013, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, V2013, P1 BrandAo M., 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, V18, P1243 Diamond J., 2005, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jabareen Yosef, 2013, CITIES, V31, P220 Erdos P, 1960, Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci., V5, P17 Ottino JM, 2004, NATURE, V427, P399 Noyons E, 2001, SCIENTOMETRICS, V50, P83 Weick K. E., 2001, Managing the unexpected, Zhang Yi, 2010, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V44, P2624 Korhonen Jouni, 2008, Bus. Strategy Environ., V419, P411 Nystrom M., 2008, CORAL REEFS, V27, P795 Davoudi S., 2012, Planning Theory and Practice, V13, P299 Persson O., 2009, Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th birthday, P339 Tanner T., 2009, Working paper, Geng Yong, 2007, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WORLD ECOLOGY, V14, P329 Agudelo-Vera Claudia M., 2011, JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, V92, P2295 Godschalk David R., 2003, NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW, V4, P136 Li Preston, 2011, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, V15, P743 Brown Katrina, 2011, ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, VOL 36, V36, P321 Csete ME, 2002, SCIENCE, V295, P1664 Cooper Joyce Smith, 2003, Journal of Industrial Ecology, V7, P12 Garcia-Serna J., 2007, CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL, V133, P7 Cutter Susan L., 2008, GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, V18, P598 Georgiadou Maria Christina, 2012, ENERGY POLICY, V47, P145 Persson O., 2014, BibExcel, Vale L. J., 2014, Building Research & Information, V42, P37 Fiksel J, 2003, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V37, P5330 Layton J, 2008, Do wind turbines kill birds? How Stuff Works, Molyneaux Lynette, 2012, ENERGY POLICY, V47, P188 2003, Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change, Rotmans Jan, 2009, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, V13, P184 Graham Nicholas A. J., 2007, CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, V21, P1291 Albert R, 2000, NATURE, V406, P378 Persson Olle, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P415 Gunderson L. H., 2002, Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature, Folke C, 2004, ANNUAL REVIEW OF ECOLOGY EVOLUTION AND SYSTEMATICS, V35, P557 SMALL H, 1973, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V24, P265 Ahern Jack, 2011, LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, V100, P341 Ashton Weslynne S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, V13, P228 Haberl H, 2004, LAND USE POLICY, V21, P199 Blondel Vincent D., 2008, JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL MECHANICS-THEORY AND EXPERIMENT, Seitzinger Sybil P., 2012, AMBIO, V41, P787 Vansder Werf H. M. G., 2014, Journal of Cleaner Production, V73, P1 Zhang R, 2000, IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, V18, P966 Lebel Louis, 2006, ECOLOGY AND SOCIETYWorkshop of Resilience Alliance, MAY, 2004, Nagambie, AUSTRALIA, V11, Dangerman A. T. C. J, 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, V110, P549 Golubiewski Nancy, 2012, AMBIO, V41, P767 Meerow S., 2015, Defining urban resilience, Yu Chang, 2014, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, V18, P280 Agudelo-Vera Claudia M., 2012, RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, V64, P3 Bristow David N., 2013, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, V17, P656 Graedel TE, 1996, ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, V21, P69 Vitousek PM, 1997, SCIENCE, V277, P494 Bonanno GA, 2004, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, V59, P20 2006, Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts, Anderies John M., 2013, ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, V18, Nelson Donald R., 2007, ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, V32, P395 Brand Fridolin Simon, 2007, ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, V12, Mitchell M., 2009, Complexity: A Guided Tour, Evans J. P., 2011, TRANSACTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE OF BRITISH GEOGRAPHERS, V36, P223 Bastian M., 2009, Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Weblogs Social Media (ICWSM), V8, P361 WEICK KE, 1993, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V38, P357 Crowther Kenneth G., 2010, SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, V13, P28 Olsson P, 2004, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, V34, P75 Levin SA, 1998, ECOSYSTEMS, V1, P431 Levin Simon A., 2008, BIOSCIENCE, V58, P27 STAR SL, 1989, SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, V19, P387 Phong L. T., 2011, LIVESTOCK SCIENCE, V139, P80 McEvoy D, 2013, Planning Practice and Research, V28, P280 Strogatz SH, 2001, NATURE, V410, P268 Folke C, 1996, ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, V6, P1018 Shaw K., 2012, Public Policy and Administration, V28, P43 Graham NAJ, 2006, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V103, P8425 Alberti M, 2003, BIOSCIENCE, V53, P1169 Norgaard R. B., 1994, Development betrayed: The end of progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of the future, Newman MEJ, 2003, SIAM REVIEW, V45, P167 Weichselgartner J., 2014, Progress in Human Geography, P1 Holling CS, 2001, ECOSYSTEMS, V4, P390 Plummer Ryan, 2007, ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, V61, P62 Reason J., 1997, Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, Cutter SL, 2003, SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, V84, P242 Cousins Joshua J., 2015, GEOFORUM, V58, P38 Wood R., 2009, Journal of Industrial Ecology, V13, Resilience Alliance, 2007, Urban resilience: Research prospectus. A resilience alliance initiative for transmitting urban systems towards sustainable futures, Grimm V, 1997, OECOLOGIA, V109, P323 Wilkinson C, 2011, Planning Theory, V11, P148 Dijkema Gerard P. J., 2009, JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, V13, P157 Hodson Mike, 2010, RESEARCH POLICY, V39, P477 Folke Carl, 2006, GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONSWorkshop on Vulnerability, Resilience and Adaptation, FEB, 2005, Tempe, AZ, V16, P253 GRANOVET.MS, 1973, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, V78, P1360 Walters C., 1997, Conserv. Ecol., V1, P1 Anderson C.W., 2007, Economic Systems Research, V19, P183 The Gephi Consortium, 2014, Gephi, Leichenko Robin, 2011, CURRENT OPINION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, V3, P164 Nystrom M, 2000, TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, V15, P413 Thomson Reuters, 2014, Web of Science TM, 2007, Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance, Hammond G. P., 2008, APPLIED ENERGY, V85, P506 Newell J., 2015, Progress in Human Geography, P1 Cote M., 2011, Progress in Human Geography, V36, P475 Daily Gretchen C., 2009, FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, V7, P21 Turner BL, 2003, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V100, P8074 Pelling M, 2003, The vulnerability of cities: Natural disasters and social resilience, Adger W. Neil, 2006, GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONSWorkshop on Vulnerability, Resilience and Adaptation, FEB, 2005, Tempe, AZ, V16, P268 Xu Ming, 2011, ADVANCES IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS, V14, P649 Hughes TP, 2005, TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, V20, P380 Chertow MR, 2000, ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, V25, P313 Pickett Steward T. A., 2014, BUILDING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION, V42, P143 Bahadur A. V., 2010, Ehrenfeld J.R., 2004, Journal of Industrial Ecology, V8, P1 McLellan B, 2012, Energy, V3, P153 Cascio J., 2009, Foreign Policy, V172, P92 Lhomme S., 2013, NATURAL HAZARDS AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, V13, P221 Biggs Reinette, 2009, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V106, P826 Dunne JA, 2002, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V99, P12917 Lundin M., 2002, Urban Water, V4, P145 Callaway DS, 2000, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, V85, P5468 Smit Barry, 2006, GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONSWorkshop on Vulnerability, Resilience and Adaptation, FEB, 2005, Tempe, AZ, V16, P282 Scheffer M, 2001, NATURE, V413, P591 Blaikie P., 1994, At risknatural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters, V2nd, Derissen Sandra, 2011, ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, V70, P1121 Snook S., 2000, Friendly fire: The accidental shootdown of U. S. Black Hawks over northern Iraq, Firbank Les G., 2008, PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, V363, P777 Adger WN, 2000, PROGRESS IN HUMAN GEOGRAPHY3rd Open Science Meeting of Land Ocean Interface in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ-IGBP), OCT 10-13, 1997, NOORDWIJKERHOUT, NETHERLANDS, V24, P347 Graedel T. E, 1997, Journal of Industrial Ecology, V1, P57 HUGHES TP, 1994, SCIENCE, V265, P1547 Jackson JBC, 2001, SCIENCE, V293, P629 Pendall Rolf, 2010, CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF REGIONS ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, V3, P71 Hendrickson C., 1998, Environ. Sci. Technol., V32, P184 Folke C, 2002, AMBIO, V31, P437 Vogt K. A., 2010, Energy science, engineering and technology, Hughes Terence P., 2007, CURRENT BIOLOGY, V17, P360 Wilson Shaun K., 2006, GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, V12, P2220 Swim Janet K., 2011, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, V66, P241 Moore Samuel B., 2009, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, V17, P276 Watts DJ, 1998, NATURE, V393, P440 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= From eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM Wed May 27 14:52:08 2015 From: eugene.garfield at THOMSONREUTERS.COM (Eugene Garfield) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:52:08 +0000 Subject: Papers of interest to readers of the SIG-Metrics List #2 (May 27, 2015) Message-ID: *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000354003500002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Observations on *Citation* Practices in Mathematics Education Research Authors: Leatham, KR Author Full Names: Leatham, Keith R. Source: JOURNAL FOR RESEARCH IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION, 46 (3):253-269; MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material Author Keywords: Citation practices, Researcher development Abstract: In this research commentary, I argue that the field of mathematics education, as a whole can and should improve its citation practices. I begin by discussing 4 forms of citation practice and considering how they vary with respect to transparency of voice. I then discuss several ways our citation practices may misrepresent cited authors' ideas, providing examples to illustrate the errors. I conclude by suggesting ways that we as writers (but also as reviewers and as graduate faculty) might jointly work toward improving our citation practices. Addresses: Brigham Young Univ, Dept Math Educ, Provo, UT 84602 USA. E-mail Addresses: kleatham at mathed.byu.edu Cited Reference Count: 26 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: NATL COUNCIL TEACHERS MATHEMATICS-NCTM, 1906 ASSOCIATION DRIVE, RESTON, VA 22091 USA ISSN: 0021-8251 eISSN: 1945-2306 Web of Science Categories: Education & Educational Research Research Areas: Education & Educational Research IDS Number: CH4KX Unique ID: WOS:000354003500002 Cited References: Yackel E., 2002, Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education?, P313 Erlwanger S. H., 1973, Journal of Children's Mathematical Behavior, V1, P7 Hyland K, 1999, APPLIED LINGUISTICS, V20, P341 Erlwanger S. H., 1974, Case studies of children's conceptions of mathematics, Erlwanger S. H., 2004, Classics in mathematics education research, P49 Rose S. K., 1996, Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, V1, P34 Kilpatrick J., 2013, Vital directions for mathematics. education research, P173 Leatham K. R., 2014, Journal of Mathematical Behavior, V35, P101 Erlwanger S. H., 1975, Journal of Children's Mathematical Behavior, V1, P157 Heid M. Kathleen, 2011, JOURNAL FOR RESEARCH IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION, V42, P306 Campione J. C., 1988, Research agenda for mathematics education: The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving, V3, P93 Cooney T. J., 1999, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, V2, P1 Wheatley G. H., 1992, Educational Studies in Mathematics, V23, P529 Skemp R. R., 2006, Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, V12, P88 Schoenfeld A. H., 2007, V1, P69 Welch W. W., 1978, Case studies in science education, V1, P5 Carpenter T. P., 2004, Classics in mathematics education research, P1 Clements M. A., 1982, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, V13, P136 American Psychological Association, 2010, Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, Henige D, 2006, JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING, V37, P99 Bennett N., 1984, The quality of pupil learning experiences, van Wynsberghe R., 2007, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, V6, P1 Asimov I., 1959, Nine tomorrows, Cobb P., 1983, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, V14, P83 Clements M. A., 1980, Educational Studies in Mathematics, VII, P1 Baturo A. R., 1999, Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Haifa, Israel, V2, P73 ======================================================================= . Search terms matched: IMPACT FACTORS(1) *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353911200005 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Spurious alternative *impact factors*: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective Authors: Gutierrez, FRS; Beall, J; Forero, DA Author Full Names: Gutierrez, Fredy R. S.; Beall, Jeffrey; Forero, Diego A. Source: BIOESSAYS, 37 (5):474-476; 10.1002/bies.201500011 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: bibliometrics, science metrics, scientific publishing Addresses: [Gutierrez, Fredy R. S.; Forero, Diego A.] Univ Antonio Narino, Sch Med, Biomed Sci Res Grp, Bogota, Colombia. [Beall, Jeffrey] Univ Colorado, Auraria Lib, Denver, CO 80202 USA. E-mail Addresses: fredsalazar at uan.edu.co; diego.forero at uan.edu.co Funding Acknowledgement: VCTI-UAN Funding Text: Work in the laboratories of F.R.S.G. and D.A.F. is supported by research grants from VCTI-UAN. Cited Reference Count: 10 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 0265-9247 eISSN: 1521-1878 Web of Science Categories: Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Biology Research Areas: Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine - Other Topics IDS Number: CH3ET Unique ID: WOS:000353911200005 PubMed ID: 25731149 Cited References: Butler Declan, 2013, NATURE, V495, P433 Saxena A, 2012, J Pharmacol Pharmacother, V4, P125 Laakso Mikael, 2011, PLOS ONE, V6, Priem Jason, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Beall Jeffrey, 2012, NATURE, V489, P179 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Xia J, 2014, J Assoc Inf Sci Technol, Bohannon John, 2013, SCIENCE, V342, P60 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Wager E, 2013, J Global Health, V3, ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353803600014 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A *bibliometric* analysis of global research progress on pharmaceutical wastewater treatment during 1994-2013 Authors: Qian, F; He, MC; Song, YH; Tysklind, M; Wu, JY Author Full Names: Qian, Feng; He, Mengchang; Song, Yonghui; Tysklind, Mats; Wu, Jieyun Source: ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES, 73 (9):4995-5005; 10.1007/s12665-015-4183-3 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Pharmaceutical wastewater, Bibliometric, Global research trend, SCI-expanded KeyWords Plus: ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESSES; SEWAGE-TREATMENT PLANTS; SCIENCE-CITATION-INDEX; PHOTOCATALYTIC DEGRADATION; ACTIVATED CARBON; CLOFIBRIC ACID; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; AQUEOUS-SOLUTION; EMERGING CONTAMINANTS; MACROLIDE ANTIBIOTICS Abstract: Pharmaceutical wastewater contains large amounts of high concentration refractory organic intermediates, which have got potential hazards to human health and the environment. It has attracted great attention from the governments, the public and the researchers. In this context, understanding current state of pharmaceutical wastewater treatment research can help guide future research. A bibliometric analysis based on the science citation index expanded from web of science (WoS) was carried out to assess the research pattern and tendencies of pharmaceutical wastewater treatment from 1994 to 2013. Study emphases herein included performance of publication covering annual outputs, mainstream journals, WoS categories, leading countries, institutions, research tendencies and hotspots. The results showed that the annual output of related scientific articles had increased steadily, with approximately 88 % of all articles on pharmaceutical wastewater treatment during 1994-2013 published since 2003. Water research, chemosphere and environmental science and technology were the three most common journals in pharmaceutical wastewater treatment research. The United States takes the dominant position in this field, followed by Spain and Germany. A summary of the most frequently used keywords obtained from words in paper title analysis, author keyword analysis and keywords plus analysis provided the clues to discover current research emphases. The mainstream research related to pharmaceutical wastewater was on wastewater treatment methods and the related contaminants. Adsorption, ozonation and photocatalysis were common treatment techniques and are getting popular. The commonly researched pharmaceutical wastewater contaminants were carbamazepine, diclofenac, ibuprofen, clofibric acid, and triclosan, which have emerged as the frequently studied contaminants in recent years. Addresses: [Qian, Feng; He, Mengchang] Beijing Normal Univ, Sch Environm, State Key Lab Water Environm Simulat, Beijing 100875, Peoples R China. [Qian, Feng; Song, Yonghui] Chinese Res Inst Environm Sci, State Key Lab Environm Criteria & Risk Assessment, Beijing 100012, Peoples R China. [Qian, Feng; Song, Yonghui] Chinese Res Inst Environm Sci, Dept Urban Water Environm Res, Beijing 100012, Peoples R China. [Tysklind, Mats] Umea Univ, Dept Chem, S-90187 Umea, Sweden. [Wu, Jieyun] Chinese Res Inst Environm Sci, Int Cooperat Ctr, Beijing 100012, Peoples R China. E-mail Addresses: hemc at bnu.edu.cn; songyh at craes.org.cn Funding Acknowledgement: National Key Scientific and Technological Project for Water Pollution Control and Management [2012ZX07202-005, 2012ZX07202-002] Funding Text: The study was supported by the National Key Scientific and Technological Project for Water Pollution Control and Management (No. 2012ZX07202-005, No. 2012ZX07202-002). Cited Reference Count: 91 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: SPRINGER, 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA ISSN: 1866-6280 eISSN: 1866-6299 Web of Science Categories: Environmental Sciences; Geosciences, Multidisciplinary; Water Resources Research Areas: Environmental Sciences & Ecology; Geology; Water Resources IDS Number: CH1TE Unique ID: WOS:000353803600014 Cited References: Doll TE, 2005, WATER RESEARCH, V39, P403 Daghrir R., 2013, CHEMOSPHERE, V93, P2756 Li Jinfeng, 2011, GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE, V77, P13 Joss A, 2006, WATER RESEARCH, V40, P1686 Jelic A., 2013, JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, V263, P177 Irmak S, 2005, JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, V126, P54 Monteagudo J. M., 2013, JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, V128, P210 Tixier C, 2003, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V37, P1061 Urtiaga A. M., 2013, DESALINATION, V331, P26 Coleman HM, 2000, Appl Catal B Environ, V24, P1 Kanakaraju Devagi, 2014, ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS, V12, P27 Cho Hyun-Hee, 2011, LANGMUIR, V27, P12960 Kim I. H., 2008, WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V57, P195 Fuerhacker M, 2001, CHEMOSPHERE, V44, P1573 NARIN F, 1988, RESEARCH POLICY, V17, P139 De Witte Bavo, 2009, JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, V161, P701 Doll TE, 2005, WATER RESEARCH, V39, P847 Ho Yuh-Shan, 2010, INTERNAL MEDICINE, V49, P2219 Tijssen Robert J. W., 2009, TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, V21, P859 Rosenfeldt EJ, 2004, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V38, P5476 Sui Qian, 2010, WATER RESEARCH, V44, P417 Beltran Fernando J., 2009, JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, V163, P768 Rivera-Utrilla Jose, 2013, CHEMOSPHERE, V93, P1268 Klavarioti Maria, 2009, ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, V35, P402 Yang Liming, 2008, WATER RESEARCH, V42, P3480 Snyder Shane A., 2007, DESALINATION56th Annual Meeting of the Society-for-Range-Management, FEB 02-07, 2003, Casper, WY, V202, P156 Xie Shaodong, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V77, P113 Burke Victoria, 2014, ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES, V71, P3685 McMillan GS, 2000, TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, V12, P465 Gros Meritxell, 2007, ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY, V26, P1553 Mendez-Arriaga Fabiola, 2008, WATER RESEARCH, V42, P585 Dutta M, 1999, SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY, V16, P213 Belter Christopher W., 2013, WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-CLIMATE CHANGE, V4, P417 Goebel Anke, 2007, SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, V372, P361 Joss A, 2005, WATER RESEARCH, V39, P3139 Doll TE, 2004, WATER RESEARCH, V38, P955 Ternes TA, 2002, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V36, P3855 Rojas-Sola Jose Ignacio, 2010, MATERIALES DE CONSTRUCCION, V60, P143 Collado Sergio, 2013, CHEMOSPHERE, V92, P207 Choi Keun-Joo, 2008, JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, V151, P38 Ho YS, 2007, J Environ Prot Sci., V1, P1 Andreozzi R, 2003, CHEMOSPHERE, V50, P1319 Miao XS, 2004, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V38, P3533 KOENIG MED, 1983, RESEARCH POLICY, V12, P15 Awad Yasser M., 2014, ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES, V71, P1433 Ng Kok Kwang, 2014, BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, V171, P265 Naddeo V, 2012, Int J Photoenergy, V2012, P1 Sein Myint Myint, 2008, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V42, P6656 Lindstrom A, 2002, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V36, P2322 Chatzitakis A., 2008, WATER RESEARCH, V42, P386 Pascual Aguilar Juan Antonio, 2014, ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES, V71, P31 Kolpin DW, 2002, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V36, P1202 Zwiener C, 2000, WATER RESEARCH, V34, P1881 Ritz Lindsay Sarah, 2010, Southern med review, V3, P2 Ternes TA, 2000, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V34, P2741 Peng Xianzhi, 2006, SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, V371, P314 Mela GS, 1999, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, V35, P1182 Kunkel Uwe, 2012, WATER RESEARCH, V46, P5551 Huber MM, 2005, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V39, P4290 Andreozzi R, 2003, JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, V103, P233 Chelliapan S, 2006, WATER RESEARCH, V40, P507 Huber MM, 2003, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V37, P1016 Mestre Ana S., 2011, BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, V102, P8253 Carballa M, 2005, WATER RESEARCH, V39, P4790 Ravina M, 2002, WATER RESEARCH, V36, P3553 Malarvizhi R., 2010, World Applied Sciences Journal, V8, P930 Lapara TM, 2001, WATER RESEARCH, V35, P4417 Sirtori C., 2009, WATER RESEARCH, V43, P661 McArdell CS, 2003, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V37, P5479 Ternes TA, 2003, WATER RESEARCH, V37, P1976 Skoumal M, 2006, APPLIED CATALYSIS B-ENVIRONMENTAL, V66, P228 Lam MW, 2005, AQUATIC SCIENCES, V67, P177 Heberer T, 2002, TOXICOLOGY LETTERS, V131, P5 Clara M, 2005, WATER RESEARCH, V39, P4797 Hua Wenyi, 2006, WATER RESEARCH, V40, P2259 Yuan Shengliu, 2013, CHEMOSPHERE, V90, P2520 Riedl J, 2013, Environ Earth Sci, V71, P1433 Segura Y., 2013, APPLIED CATALYSIS B-ENVIRONMENTAL, V136, P64 Mao Ning, 2010, HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, V16, P801 GARFIELD E, 1970, NATURE, V227, P669 Li Jinfeng, 2009, CROATICA CHEMICA ACTA, V82, P695 Lajeunesse A., 2012, WATER RESEARCH, V46, P5600 Rodriguez I, 2003, JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A25th International Symposium on Capillary Chromatography, MAY 13-17, 2002, RIVA DEL GARDA, ITALY, V985, P265 Sirtori C., 2009, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, V43, P1185 Zheng B. G., 2011, DESALINATION, V276, P379 Long Edward R., 2013, ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY, V32, P1701 Kraigher Barbara, 2008, WATER RESEARCH, V42, P4578 Cabrita I., 2010, CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL, V163, P249 Fu Hui-Zhen, 2013, SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, V443, P757 Gomez-Pacheco C. V., 2011, CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL, V178, P115 Ternes TA, 1998, WATER RESEARCH, V32, P3245 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353741200018 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: A *bibliometric* analysis of global Ebola research Authors: Cruz-Calderon, S; Nasner-Posso, KM; Alfaro-Toloza, P; Paniz-Mondolfi, AE; Rodriguez-Morales, AJ Author Full Names: Cruz-Calderon, Stefania; Melissa Nasner-Posso, Katherinn; Alfaro-Toloza, Patricio; Paniz-Mondolfi, Alberto E.; Rodriguez-Morales, Alfonso J. Source: TRAVEL MEDICINE AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 13 (2):202-204; 10.1016/j.tmaid.2015.02.007 MAR-APR 2015 Language: English Document Type: Letter Author Keywords: Ebola, Bibliometrics, Research, Global Addresses: [Cruz-Calderon, Stefania; Melissa Nasner-Posso, Katherinn] Univ Tecnol Pereira, Publ Hlth & Infect Res & Incubator Grp, Fac Hlth Sci, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia. [Alfaro-Toloza, Patricio] Asociac Chilena Seguridad, Chillan, Chile. [Paniz-Mondolfi, Alberto E.] Hosp Internacl, Dept Pathol & Lab Med, Barquisimeto, Venezuela. [Paniz-Mondolfi, Alberto E.] Inst Biomed IVSS, Biochem Lab, Caracas, Venezuela. [Rodriguez-Morales, Alfonso J.] Univ Tecnol Pereira, Publ Hlth & Infect Grp Res, Fac Hlth Sci, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia. E-mail Addresses: arodriguezm at utp.edu.co Cited Reference Count: 6 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCI LTD, THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND ISSN: 1477-8939 eISSN: 1873-0442 Web of Science Categories: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Infectious Diseases Research Areas: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Infectious Diseases IDS Number: CH0VT Unique ID: WOS:000353741200018 PubMed ID: 25791567 Cited References: Rodriguez-Morales Alfonso J., 2013, TRAVEL MEDICINE AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, V11, P201 [Anonymous], 1977, Lancet, V1, P581 ter Meulen J., 2015, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY, V64, P107 Rodriguez-Morales Alfonso J., 2009, TRAVEL MEDICINE AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, V7, P323 Chevalier Michelle S., 2014, MMWR-MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT, V63, P1087 Escobedo Angel A., 2015, JOURNAL OF INFECTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, V9, P76 ======================================================================= ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353853200002 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: 25 years at Knowledge-Based Systems: A bibliometric analysis Authors: Cobo, MJ; Martinez, MA; Gutierrez-Salcedo, M; Fujita, H; Herrera-Viedma, E Author Full Names: Cobo, M. J.; Martinez, M. A.; Gutierrez-Salcedo, M.; Fujita, H.; Herrera-Viedma, E. Source: KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, 80 3-13; SI 10.1016/j.knosys.2014.12.035 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: Bibliometrics, Science mapping, Citations, Co-word analysis, h-index KeyWords Plus: CO-WORD ANALYSIS; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL-NETWORKS; ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING; SCIENCE MAPPING ANALYSIS; RESEARCH PERFORMANCE; FEATURE-SELECTION; INFORMATION; PREDICTION; OPERATORS; EVOLUTION Abstract: In commemoration of the Anniversary 25th of KnoSys we present a bibliometric analysis of the scientific content of the journal during the period 1991-2014. This analysis shows the conceptual evolution of the journal and some of its performance bibliometric indicators based on citations, as the evolution of its impact factor, its h-index, and its most cited authors/documents. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Addresses: [Cobo, M. J.] Univ Cadiz, Dept Comp Sci, Cadiz, Spain. [Martinez, M. A.] UNIR Res, Dept Social Work, La Rioja, Spain. [Gutierrez-Salcedo, M.] Univ Jaen, Dept Management & Mkt, Jaen, Spain. [Fujita, H.] Iwate Prefectural Univ, Intelligent Software Syst Lab, Takizawa, Iwate, Japan. [Herrera-Viedma, E.] Univ Granada, Dept Comp Sci & Artificial Intelligence, E-18071 Granada, Spain. E-mail Addresses: manueljesus.cobo at uca.es; mundodesilencio at hotmail.com; msalcedo at ujaen.es; HFujita-799 at acm.org; viedma at decsai.ugr.es Funding Acknowledgement: Excellence Andalusian Projects [TIC-5299, TIC-5991]; National Project [TIN2010-17876, TIN2013-40658-P] Funding Text: This work has been supported by the Excellence Andalusian Projects TIC-5299 and TIC-5991, and National Project TIN2010-17876 and TIN2013-40658-P. Cited Reference Count: 74 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS ISSN: 0950-7051 eISSN: 1872-7409 Web of Science Categories: Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence Research Areas: Computer Science IDS Number: CH2KD Unique ID: WOS:000353853200002 Cited References: Gao-Yong L., 2012, Scientometrics, V91, P203 Small H, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P799 Xu Zeshui, 2011, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V24, P197 Yue Zhongliang, 2011, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V24, P146 Cabrerizo F. J., 2010, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V23, P169 CALLON M, 1983, SOCIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION SUR LES SCIENCES SOCIALES, V22, P191 DAHLBACK N, 1993, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMSINTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON INTELLIGENT USER INTERFACES, 1993, ORLANDO, FL, V6, P258 Borner K, 2003, ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V37, P179 Porcel C., 2010, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS8th International FLINS Conference on Computational Intelligence in Decision and Control, SEP 21-24, 2008, Madrid, SPAIN, V23, P32 Haque BU, 2000, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS19th SGES International Conference on Knowledge-Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence (ES99), DEC 13-15, 1999, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, V13, P101 Xu Zeshui, 2007, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V20, P719 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Van Raan A.F.J., 2005, P19 Choy KL, 2005, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V18, P1 Hadavandi Esmaeil, 2010, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V23, P800 Huang M.-H., 2014, Scientometrics, V98, Tsai Chih-Fong, 2009, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V22, P120 Chapman CB, 1999, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS18th SGES International Conference on Knowledge-Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence (ES98), DEC 14-16, 1998, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, V12, P257 Norman TJ, 2004, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V17, P103 Bobadilla J., 2009, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V22, P261 Noyons ECM, 1999, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V50, P115 Watson I, 1999, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS18th SGES International Conference on Knowledge-Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence (ES98), DEC 14-16, 1998, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, V12, P303 Wang Jian, 2013, SCIENTOMETRICS, V94, P851 Cobo M. J., 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P146 Guan Jiancheng, 2008, SCIENTOMETRICS, V75, P357 Alonso S., 2009, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V3, P273 Freitas AA, 1999, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS18th SGES International Conference on Knowledge-Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence (ES98), DEC 14-16, 1998, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, V12, P309 Coulter N, 1998, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, V49, P1206 Zeng Shouzhen, 2011, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V24, P1224 Tang Li, 2011, SCIENTOMETRICS, V88, P1 Martinez-Sanchez M.A., 2014, Res. Soc. Work Pract, Lin FY, 2001, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS20th SGES International Conference on Knowledge Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence (ES2000), DEC 11-13, 2000, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, V14, P189 Cobo M. J., 2014, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, V15, P901 Rodriguez-Ledesma A., 2014, J. Anim. Breed. Genet., Wheeler R, 2000, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS19th SGES International Conference on Knowledge-Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence (ES99), DEC 13-15, 1999, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, V13, P93 Andrews R, 1995, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V8, P373 Li YF, 2004, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V17, P207 Fenton Norman, 2006, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V19, P430 Cobo M. J., 2012, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V63, P1609 Xu Zeshui, 2011, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V24, P749 Garfield E., 1972, Science, V178, P417 GARFIELD E, 1977, CURRENT CONTENTS, P5 Cobo M. J., 2011, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, V62, P1382 Braun Tibor, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V69, P169 Cobo Manolo J., 2012, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, V13, P413 Lopez-Herrera A. G., 2012, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & DECISION MAKING, V11, P247 Yang BA, 2001, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V14, P303 Wei Guiwu, 2012, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V31, P176 Li Hui, 2008, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V21, P868 Sternitzke Christian, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V78, P113 Budzik J, 2001, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS4th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI2000), JAN 09-12, 2000, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, V14, P37 Martinez M. A., 2014, SCIENTOMETRICS, V98, P1971 Wei Gui-Wu, 2010, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V23, P243 Timmis J, 2001, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS20th SGES International Conference on Knowledge Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence (ES2000), DEC 11-13, 2000, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, V14, P121 CALLON M, 1991, SCIENTOMETRICS, V22, P155 Hu Qinghua, 2008, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V21, P294 Ponce Francisco A., 2011, MOVEMENT DISORDERS, V26, P380 Delany SJ, 2005, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMSAI-2004 Conference/24th SGAI International Conference on Innovative Techniques and Applications of Artificial Intell igence, DEC 12-15, 2004, Cambridge, ENGLAND, V18, P187 Li Tianrui, 2007, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMSInternational Conference on Intelligent Systems and Knowledge Engineering, APR 06-07, 2006, Shanghai, PEOPLES R CHINA, V20, P485 Aha DW, 1998, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS17th SGES International Conference on Knowledge-Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence (Expert Systems 97), DEC 15-17, 1997, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, V11, P261 Zou Yan, 2008, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V21, P941 Chung PWH, 2003, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V16, P149 MOED HF, 1995, SCIENTOMETRICS, V33, P381 Schubert Andras, 2007, SCIENTOMETRICS, V70, P201 Jung Jason J., 2008, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V21, P573 Gero JS, 1996, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V9, P435 Misevicius A, 2004, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V17, P65 Ma Jun, 2010, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS8th International FLINS Conference on Computational Intelligence in Decision and Control, SEP 21-24, 2008, Madrid, SPAIN, V23, P23 Cartes-Velasquez Ricardo, 2014, SCIENTOMETRICS, V98, P2223 Li Y, 2000, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V13, P285 He Q, 1999, LIBRARY TRENDS, V48, P133 Shen Wei, 2011, KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, V24, P378 Martinez M.A., 2014, Scientometrics, Murgado-Armenteros E. M., 2015, SCIENTOMETRICS, V102, P519 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353911200005 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective Authors: Gutierrez, FRS; Beall, J; Forero, DA Author Full Names: Gutierrez, Fredy R. S.; Beall, Jeffrey; Forero, Diego A. Source: BIOESSAYS, 37 (5):474-476; 10.1002/bies.201500011 MAY 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: bibliometrics, science metrics, scientific publishing Addresses: [Gutierrez, Fredy R. S.; Forero, Diego A.] Univ Antonio Narino, Sch Med, Biomed Sci Res Grp, Bogota, Colombia. [Beall, Jeffrey] Univ Colorado, Auraria Lib, Denver, CO 80202 USA. E-mail Addresses: fredsalazar at uan.edu.co; diego.forero at uan.edu.co Funding Acknowledgement: VCTI-UAN Funding Text: Work in the laboratories of F.R.S.G. and D.A.F. is supported by research grants from VCTI-UAN. Cited Reference Count: 10 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA ISSN: 0265-9247 eISSN: 1521-1878 Web of Science Categories: Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Biology Research Areas: Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine - Other Topics IDS Number: CH3ET Unique ID: WOS:000353911200005 PubMed ID: 25731149 Cited References: Butler Declan, 2013, NATURE, V495, P433 Saxena A, 2012, J Pharmacol Pharmacother, V4, P125 Laakso Mikael, 2011, PLOS ONE, V6, Priem Jason, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, Beall Jeffrey, 2012, NATURE, V489, P179 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Xia J, 2014, J Assoc Inf Sci Technol, Bohannon John, 2013, SCIENCE, V342, P60 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Wager E, 2013, J Global Health, V3, ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353772000001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: Scientific Research of Senior Italian Academics of Occupational Medicine: A Citation Analysis of Products Published During the Decade 2001-2010 Authors: Franco, G Author Full Names: Franco, Giuliano Source: ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, 70 (2):110-115; 10.1080/19338244.2013.845136 MAR 4 2015 Language: English Document Type: Article Author Keywords: impact factor, citation analysis, evaluation, occupational medicine, academics KeyWords Plus: H-INDEX; IMPACT FACTOR; GENERAL MEDICINE; CORE JOURNALS; HEALTH; ASSOCIATION; RADIOLOGY; OUTPUT Abstract: This article analyzes 10years of scientific publications among senior Italian academics in occupational medicine by means of citation analysis. Articles published during the decade 2001-2010 were analyzed by means of Elsevier's Scopus. Scientific performance was assessed by means of 9 different indices (including total number of papers, total citations, h-index). Most papers were submitted to journals of allergy and respiratory medicine, biochemistry, and toxicology. Only 11.9% of the 1,689 papers were published in journals of occupational medicine. The authors' h-index was 10.1 (mean) and 9.5 (median) for the overall production. Productivity was associated with number of contributing authors. Most papers cover topics in the mainstream of other disciplines, evidencing that journals of occupational medicine do not play a primary role in the scientific panorama of medical sciences. This could imply consequences for the discipline. Addresses: [Franco, Giuliano] Univ Modena & Reggio Emilia, Dept Med & Surg Sci, Sch Med, I-41100 Modena, Italy. E-mail Addresses: franco at unimo.it Cited Reference Count: 37 Times Cited: 1 Publisher: ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 1933-8244 eISSN: 2154-4700 Web of Science Categories: Environmental Sciences; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Research Areas: Environmental Sciences & Ecology; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health IDS Number: CH1HL Unique ID: WOS:000353772000001 PubMed ID: 24219596 Cited References: Thompson Dennis F., 2009, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION, V73, Hendrix Dean, 2008, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V96, P324 Adler Robert, 2009, STATISTICAL SCIENCE, V24, P1 Rad Arash Ehteshami, 2010, ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, V17, P817 Smith Derek R., 2009, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V64, P32 Fuller Clifton D, 2009, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, V6, P112 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), 2009, Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research, Abbott Alison, 2010, NATURE, V465, P860 Van Noorden Richard, 2010, NATURE, V465, P864 Tscharntke Teja, 2007, PLOS BIOLOGY, V5, P13 Gingras Yves, 2008, PLOS ONE, V3, Smith Derek R., 2008, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V63, P114 MCCUNNEY RJ, 1992, JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE, V34, P279 Gehanno Jean-Francois, 2012, OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE, V69, P603 Sarli Cathy C., 2010, JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, V98, P17 Hirsch J. E., 2007, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V104, P19193 Garfield E, 2006, JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, V295, P90 Viikari-Juntura Eira, 2007, SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH, V33, P241 Benway Brian M., 2009, UROLOGY, V74, P30 Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del sistema Universitario e della Ricerca (ANVUR), Documento 1/2011, Shaban Sami, 2009, Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), V4, P3 Hunt Glenn E., 2010, HARVARD REVIEW OF PSYCHIATRY, V18, P207 Zemlo TR, 2000, FASEB JOURNAL, V14, P221 Franco G., 2012, MEDICINA DEL LAVORO, V103, P72 Smith Derek R., 2010, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V65, P173 Wren Jonathan D., 2007, EMBO REPORTS, V8, P988 Franco G., 2009, MEDICINA DEL LAVORO, V100, P163 Lee Janet, 2009, JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, V111, P387 Seglen PO, 1997, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V314, P498 Wislar Joseph S., 2011, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, V343, Itagaki MW, 2005, RADIOLOGY, V237, P774 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Lane Julia, 2011, SCIENCE, V331, P678 Gehanno Jean-Francois, 2007, SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH, V33, P245 Opthof T., 2009, NETHERLANDS HEART JOURNAL, V17, P145 Lehmann Sune, 2006, NATURE, V444, P1003 Franco Giuliano, 2013, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V68, P123 ======================================================================= *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS&DestLinkType=FullRecord;UT=WOS:000353771800001 *Order Full Text [ ] Title: "Platinum H": Refining the H-Index to More Realistically Assess Career Trajectory and Scientific Publications Authors: Smith, DR Author Full Names: Smith, Derek R. Source: ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, 70 (2):67-69; 10.1080/19338244.2015.1016833 MAR 4 2015 Language: English Document Type: Editorial Material KeyWords Plus: OCCUPATIONAL-HEALTH; IMPACT; SCIENTOMETRICS; OUTPUT Cited Reference Count: 27 Times Cited: 0 Publisher: ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OX14 4RN, OXFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND ISSN: 1933-8244 eISSN: 2154-4700 Web of Science Categories: Environmental Sciences; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Research Areas: Environmental Sciences & Ecology; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health IDS Number: CH1HJ Unique ID: WOS:000353771800001 PubMed ID: 25692208 Cited References: Franco Giuliano, 2015, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V70, P110 Bornmann Lutz, 2014, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V8, P749 Gagolewski Marek, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P617 Bornmann Lutz, 2014, EMBO REPORTS, V15, P1228 Zhang Chun-Ting, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, Smith Derek R., 2009, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V64, P32 Smith Derek R., 2010, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V65, P176 Panaretos John, 2009, SCIENTOMETRICS, V81, P635 Smith Derek R., 2007, INDUSTRIAL HEALTH, V45, P730 Schubert Andras, 2015, SCIENTOMETRICS, V102, P1647 Glanzel W, 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS33rd Annual Conference of the Canadian-Association-for-Information-Science, JUN 02-04, 2005, London, CANADA, V67, P315 COLE S, 1967, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, V32, P377 Hirsch JE, 2005, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V102, P16569 Wildgaard Lorna, 2014, SCIENTOMETRICS, V101, P125 Crawford S, 1984, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, V72, P238 PINSKI G, 1976, INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, V12, P297 Bornmann Lutz, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P346 Smith Derek R., 2012, SCIENTOMETRICS, V92, P419 RAISIG LM, 1960, SCIENCE, V131, P1417 Batista Pablo D., 2006, SCIENTOMETRICS, V68, P179 Ye Fred Y., 2010, SCIENTOMETRICS, V84, P431 Smith Derek R., 2015, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V70, P1 Lariviere Vincent, 2011, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V5, P392 Zhang Chun-Ting, 2013, SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, V3, Bornmann Lutz, 2010, JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, V4, P407 Zhang Chun-Ting, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, Franco Giuliano, 2013, ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, V68, P123 ======================================================================= From ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Thu May 28 16:16:27 2015 From: ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Eck, N.J.P. van) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 20:16:27 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Let me respond to some of your comments: 1. David?s comment on the need to compare rankings obtained based on different clustering techniques: Indeed such comparisons have not been performed. More generally, there is only limited knowledge on the consequences of using different classification systems (e.g., journal-based vs. publication-based or expert-based vs. algorithmic) in the calculation of field normalized impact indicators. In their research, bibliometricians tend to focus their attention mainly on studying and discussing the mathematical definitions of indicators, while they tend to pay less attention to the important issue of the definition of the fields used in the calculation of field normalized impact indicators. In fact, it may well be that in practice the definition of fields has more significant effects on the outcomes of a bibliometric analysis than the choice between different indicators. So more research is clearly needed on the issue of the definition of fields. However, at the level of entire universities, which is the relevant level for the Leiden Ranking, I expect that results will turn out to be relatively insensitive to the way in which fields are defined. 2. Andreas? comment on finite-size effects: This is a good point. However, we use a somewhat special approach for identifying top 1% or top 10% publications. In our approach, some publications are considered to belong fractionally to the top 1% or top 10% of their field. In this way, we always end up with exactly 1% or 10% of the publications in a field belonging to the top, even in the case of small fields. So therefore we do not suffer from finite-size effects. Our approach is documented in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22775. 3. Some of you have commented on the lack of transparency in the definition of the micro-level fields used in the calculation of the field-normalized impact indicators included in the Leiden Ranking, such as P(top 10%), PP(top 10%), P(top 1%), and PP(top 1%). We have decided to make the complete assignment of publications to micro-level fields available online. It can be found at www.leidenranking.com/methodology/fields. You need to fill out the form at the bottom of the page, after which you can download the data. The data includes almost 10 million publications from the period 2006-2013. For each publication, the Web of Science accession number (UT code) and the micro-level field to which the publication belongs are indicated. Also, it is indicated whether a publication is a core or a non-core publication. Only core-publications are considered in the Leiden Ranking. No further bibliographic data on the 10 million publications can be made available, so you need to have your own Web of Science access to obtain further bibliographic details on the 10 million publications. In addition to the assignment of individual publications to micro-level fields, we have also made available some further information on the micro-level fields. An Excel file is provided that for each of the 3822 micro-level fields reports the number of publications, the most important journals, and a set of characteristic terms. Furthermore, an interactive VOSviewer visualization is available that can be used to visually explore the 3822 micro-level fields. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Andreas Strotmann Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:05 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html If 1000 papers are a large micro-field at the 4000 micro-fields level, then rounding cut-offs will introduce a major source of arbitrariness into all the top-1% measures: In micro-fields of roughly 400 papers each, say, are there 3 or 4 top-1% publications? Or should there perhaps be even 5 or 6, as the fifth and sixth-ranked are too close to the third to matter? I therefore suspect that while you may be getting better results with 4000 micro-fields for the 10% or 50% based metrics, for the top-1% metrics, finite-size-effects will introduce enough noise to destroy a lot (if not all) of their advantage over the 800-level. Best, -- Andreas On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Eck, N.J.P. van > wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear colleagues, Thank you all for your suggestions regarding the field normalization issue. Let me give a response to some of your comments: 1. Loet?s remark on our use of the term ?field?: On the Leiden Ranking website, we use the term ?micro-level field? (see www.leidenranking.com/methodology/fields), which is perhaps more appropriate than just ?field?. 2. Loet?s remark on the size of the fields in the Leiden Ranking: The fields are indeed quite small, but this is exactly what we want. For instance, consider scientometric research. With how many publications per year do we believe that our own publications as scientometricians can be compared in terms of citation counts? Probably a few hundred and at most about one thousand publications. In the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, there were 800 fields and scientometrics was part of a larger field that also included for instance library science. This leads to questionable comparisons between publications dealing with quite different research topics. In the 2015 edition of the ranking, one of the 4000 fields is focused entirely on research on scientometrics (and closely related topics). This field includes somewhat more than 1000 publications per year in the period 2010-2013 (so it?s one of the larger fields among the 4000 fields). We believe that this is approximately the right level of aggregation to perform citation-based comparisons. It could even be argued that a scientometrics field that includes about 1000 publications per year is still a bit large (so in fact we may need to have even more than 4000 fields). 3. Loet?s remark on the validity of year-to-year comparisons: This is a good point. The Leiden Ranking micro-level fields cover the period 2000-2014. The Leiden Ranking 2015 offers a retrospective perspective. The 2015 edition of the ranking provides statistics not only for the period 2010-2013, but also for the periods 2009-2012, 2008-2011, 2007-2010, and 2006-2009. Statistics for all periods have been calculated in a fully consistent way and, importantly, based on the same underlying micro-level fields. So year-to-year comparisons can be made in a proper way. 4. Loet?s remark on the low validity of algorithmically constructed fields: Please note that we construct fields at the level of individual publications, not at the level of entire journals. So the findings of http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21086, which is a journal-level analysis, don?t need to generalize to our publication-level analysis. In our own experience (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748), algorithmically constructed fields at the level of individual publications have a quite high validity. 5. Loet?s remark on science policy implications: Indeed, even if the results are relatively insensitive to methodological choices, still for individual universities there may be significant differences that may have policy implications. This is exactly why in the Leiden Ranking we have moved away from use of the Web of Science journal subject categories for field normalization. Their accuracy for field normalization purposes is limited, as shown in various studies, such as http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062395 and http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23408. 6. Lutz?s remark on using field classifications constructed by experts: This is definitely a sensible approach, but it is not feasible in the context of the Leiden Ranking. This is because the Leiden Ranking covers all scientific disciplines, and many disciplines don?t have an expert-based classification. In analyses focusing on a specific discipline (e.g., chemistry), it may indeed be preferable to use an expert-based classification (e.g., Chemical Abstracts sections), although even then it cannot be assumed a priori that an expert-based classification is always more accurate than an algorithmically constructed one. Expert-based classifications do have the advantage of being openly available and therefore being more transparent. 7. Lutz?s remark on comparing the current normalization approach implemented in the Leiden Ranking with an approach based on the Web of Science subject categories: Such a comparison is reported in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. Thanks again for everyone?s comments and suggestions! Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Catharina Rehn Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:52 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear colleagues, We have for some years been working with data from both MeSH and the NLM classification system (for journal classes), in addition to the traditional ISI categories, in our analyses. Since our unit is based at a medical university (Karolinska Institutet), our bibliometric system is founded on a combination of data from the Web of Science and Medline/NLM. Please feel free to contact us if you are interested in our experiences or input to specific research projects. Best regards, Catharina Rehn Catharina Rehn Karolinska Institutet 171 77 | Box 200 +46 (0)8 524 84054 catharina.rehn at ki.se | ki.se ______________________________________ Karolinska Institutet - a medical university From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: den 21 maj 2015 10:02 To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Lutz, Nees Jan, and colleagues, Medical Subject Headings (PubMed/Medline) are available in WoS. One could perhaps test the Leiden clustering against the MeSH tree for the bio-medical part of the database. The three most interesting dimensions of MeSH classifications (C: Diseases; D: Drugs and Chemicals; E: Analytic, Diagnostic, and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment) are almost orthogonal (Leydesdorff, Rotolo & Rafols, 2012). Thus, one would obtain three different fits. This would inform us about what is being clustered substantially by the algorithm (Petersen et al., under submission). The LoC classification could be another benchmark, but perhaps more difficult to match. Best, Loet ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Bornmann, Lutz Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:09 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Hi Nees, Thank you for further explanation of your method! I appreciate the new possibility to take a detailed look at single institutions. Well done! I followed the publications on your clustering methods. It is an interesting alternative to the journals sets. However, it has several disadvantages, as pointed out by Loet in his previous emails. Loet mentioned another alternative to the journal sets and clustering based on citation relations: field classifications from experts in the field (e.g. sections from Chemical Abstracts, https://www.cas.org/content/ca-sections). These classifications do not change over time for the same publication (as citation relations will do) and the rate of miss-classifications is rather low. We already used the sections for field normalization in several studies, which works well. I would be delighted if you would publish a Leiden Ranking variant based on the use of WoS journal sets. Then, the user could compare the results (based on journal sets and citation relations) and ? another important point ? the user could compare own results for an institution with those of the Leiden Ranking. Since your clustering algorithm cannot simply be installed in an in-house solution of the WoS, your Leiden Ranking results can no longer be directly compared with own results (based on WoS journal sets). Best, Lutz From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:51 AM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear David, The 4000 fields are constructed using a clustering algorithm based on citation relations between publications. A detailed explanation is provided in the following paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748. The clustering methodology for constructing the fields is fully transparent. The methodology is documented in the above-mentioned paper, and the computer software that is required to implement the methodology is freely available (open source) at www.ludowaltman.nl/slm/. It is true that the results produced by the clustering methodology are not transparent. The assignment of individual publications to the 4000 fields is not visible. As already mentioned, this is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. Please keep in mind that there is a growing consensus among bibliometricians that the use of the Web of Science subject categories for field normalization of bibliometric indicators is unsatisfactory and does not yield sufficiently accurate results. The normalization approach that is taken in the Leiden Ranking offers a more accurate alternative, but indeed the transparency of the Web of Science subject categories is lost. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Nees Jan, How do you apply 4000 field categories to individual papers? A semantic algorithm? Is this explained on the website? It sounds very difficult. Also if the categories are not visible how is the methodology transparent? My best wishes, David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:06 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Loet, Yes, your understanding is correct. MNCS, TNCS, PP(top 10%), P(top 10%), and the other field-normalized impact indicators all use the 4000 fields for the purpose of normalization. The Web of Science subject categories are not used. Unfortunately, the 4000 fields are not visible. Because these fields are defined at the level of individual publications rather than at the journal level, there is no easy way to make the fields visible. This is something that hopefully can be improved in the future. We have decided to move from 800 to 4000 fields because our analyses indicate that with 800 fields there still is too much heterogeneity in citation density within fields. A detailed analysis of the effect of performing field normalization at different levels of aggregation is reported in the following paper by Javier Ruiz-Castillo and Ludo Waltman: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.010. In this paper, it is also shown that at the level of entire universities field-normalized impact indicators are quite insensitive to the choice of an aggregation level. Best regards, Nees Jan From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:28 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Dear Nees Jan, As always impressive! Thank you. Are the approximately 4,000 fields also visible in one way or another? Do I correctly understand that MNCS is defined in relation to these 4,000 fields and not to the 251 WCs? Is there a concordance table between the fields and WCs as there is between WCs and five broad fields in the Excel sheet? I think that I understand from your and Ludo?s previous publications how the 4,000 fields are generated. Why are there 4,000 such fields in 2015, and 800+ in 2014? Isn?t it amazing that trends can despite the discontinuities be smooth? Or are indicators robust across these scales? Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Eck, N.J.P. van Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:27 PM To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html Release of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Today CWTS has released the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 offers key insights into the scientific performance of 750 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities? involvement in scientific collaboration. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 is based on Web of Science indexed publications from the period 2010?2013. Improvements and new features in the 2015 edition Compared with the 2014 edition of the Leiden Ranking, the 2015 edition includes a number of enhancements. First of all, the 2015 edition offers the possibility to perform trend analyses. Bibliometric statistics are available not only for the period 2010?2013 but also for earlier periods. Second, the 2015 edition of the Leiden Ranking provides new impact indicators based on counting publications that belong to the top 1% or top 50% of their field. And third, improvements have been made to the presentation of the ranking. Size-dependent indicators are presented in a more prominent way, and it is possible to obtain a convenient one-page overview of all bibliometric statistics for a particular university. Differences with other university rankings Compared with other university rankings, the Leiden Ranking offers more advanced indicators of scientific impact and collaboration and uses a more transparent methodology. The Leiden Ranking does not rely on highly subjective data obtained from reputational surveys or on data provided by universities themselves. Also, the Leiden Ranking refrains from aggregating different dimensions of university performance into a single overall indicator. Website The Leiden Ranking is available at www.leidenranking.com. ======================================================== Nees Jan van Eck PhD Researcher Head of ICT Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden The Netherlands Willem Einthoven Building, Room B5-35 Tel: +31 (0)71 527 6445 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3911 E-mail: ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Homepage: www.neesjanvaneck.nl VOSviewer: www.vosviewer.com CitNetExplorer: www.citnetexplorer.nl ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri May 29 00:57:15 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 06:57:15 +0200 Subject: FW: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An Excel file is provided that for each of the 3822 micro-level fields reports the number of publications, the most important journals, and a set of characteristic terms. Furthermore, an interactive VOSviewer visualization is available that can be used to visually explore the 3822 micro-level fields. Dear Nees Jan, Thank you for doing this. Can you, please, indicate where to pick up the Excel file? I got the zip-file. It is a great service! Best, Loet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL Fri May 29 07:01:30 2015 From: ecknjpvan at CWTS.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Eck, N.J.P. van) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 11:01:30 +0000 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: <000d01d099cb$ef8f2150$cead63f0$@leydesdorff.net> Message-ID: Dear Loet, The link to the Excel file can be found on www.leidenranking.com/methodology/fields in the first sentence of the section ?Overview of micro-level fields?. Best regards, Nees Jan From: loet at leydesdorff.net [mailto:leydesdorff at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:57 AM To: Eck, N.J.P. van; SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: FW: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 An Excel file is provided that for each of the 3822 micro-level fields reports the number of publications, the most important journals, and a set of characteristic terms. Furthermore, an interactive VOSviewer visualization is available that can be used to visually explore the 3822 micro-level fields. Dear Nees Jan, Thank you for doing this. Can you, please, indicate where to pick up the Excel file? I got the zip-file. It is a great service! Best, Loet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET Fri May 29 09:26:21 2015 From: loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:26:21 +0200 Subject: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you so much. Best, Loet From: Eck, N.J.P. van [mailto:ecknjpvan at cwts.leidenuniv.nl] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:02 PM To: 'loet at leydesdorff.net'; SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: RE: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 Dear Loet, The link to the Excel file can be found on www.leidenranking.com/methodology/fields in the first sentence of the section ?Overview of micro-level fields?. Best regards, Nees Jan From: loet at leydesdorff.net [mailto:leydesdorff at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:57 AM To: Eck, N.J.P. van; SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: FW: [SIGMETRICS] CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015 An Excel file is provided that for each of the 3822 micro-level fields reports the number of publications, the most important journals, and a set of characteristic terms. Furthermore, an interactive VOSviewer visualization is available that can be used to visually explore the 3822 micro-level fields. Dear Nees Jan, Thank you for doing this. Can you, please, indicate where to pick up the Excel file? I got the zip-file. It is a great service! Best, Loet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: