Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015)
0.04
0.04079377 = product of:
0.06119065 = sum of:
0.008849299 = product of:
0.035397194 = sum of:
0.035397194 = weight(_text_:authors in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035397194 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23425597 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.051385287 = queryNorm
0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.05234135 = sum of:
0.03145536 = weight(_text_:de in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03145536 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22082771 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.051385287 = queryNorm
0.14244299 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.020885991 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020885991 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17994252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051385287 = queryNorm
0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This year marks 350 years since the inaugural publications of both the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665 and considered the birth of the peer-reviewed journal article. This form of scholarly communication has not only remained the dominant model for disseminating new knowledge (particularly for science and medicine), but has also increased substantially in volume. Derek de Solla Price - the "father of scientometrics" (Merton and Garfield, 1986, p. vii) - was the first to document the exponential increase in scientific journals and showed that "scientists have always felt themselves to be awash in a sea of the scientific literature" (Price, 1963, p. 15), as, for example, expressed at the 1948 Royal Society's Scientific Information Conference: Not for the first time in history, but more acutely than ever before, there was a fear that scientists would be overwhelmed, that they would be no longer able to control the vast amounts of potentially relevant material that were pouring forth from the world's presses, that science itself was under threat (Bawden and Robinson, 2008, p. 183).
One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
