Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021114388 = product of:
  0.042228777 = sum of:
    0.042228777 = product of:
      0.16891511 = sum of:
        0.16891511 = weight(_text_:authors in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16891511 = score(doc=2769,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05201693 = queryNorm
            0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the past few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for more than half of those retractions. It is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their colleagues' misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors' research careers. Using data from the Web of Science, we measured the productivity, impact, and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted articles for a period of 5 years before and after the retraction. We found clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues' misconduct and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors, with the impact is less important for middle authors.

0.01952944 = sum of:
  0.008958076 = product of:
    0.035832305 = sum of:
      0.035832305 = weight(_text_:authors in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035832305 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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)
  0.010571363 = product of:
    0.021142727 = sum of:
      0.021142727 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021142727 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05201693 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

0.014950166 = product of:
  0.029900333 = sum of:
    0.029900333 = product of:
      0.059800666 = sum of:
        0.059800666 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059800666 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18215442 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05201693 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.012929871 = product of:
  0.025859741 = sum of:
    0.025859741 = product of:
      0.103438966 = sum of:
        0.103438966 = weight(_text_:authors in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103438966 = score(doc=244,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05201693 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.012668633 = product of:
  0.025337266 = sum of:
    0.025337266 = product of:
      0.10134906 = sum of:
        0.10134906 = weight(_text_:authors in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10134906 = score(doc=2035,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05201693 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 2035, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2035)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article provides the first historical analysis of the relationship between collaboration and scientific impact using three indicators of collaboration (number of authors, number of addresses, and number of countries) derived from articles published between 1900 and 2011. The results demonstrate that an increase in the number of authors leads to an increase in impact, from the beginning of the last century onward, and that this is not due simply to self-citations. A similar trend is also observed for the number of addresses and number of countries represented in the byline of an article. However, the constant inflation of collaboration since 1900 has resulted in diminishing citation returns: Larger and more diverse (in terms of institutional and country affiliation) teams are necessary to realize higher impact. The article concludes with a discussion of the potential causes of the impact gain in citations of collaborative papers.

0.012668633 = product of:
  0.025337266 = sum of:
    0.025337266 = product of:
      0.10134906 = sum of:
        0.10134906 = weight(_text_:authors in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10134906 = score(doc=5388,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05201693 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 5388, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5388)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the significant development of China's economy and scientific activity, its scientific publication activity is experiencing a period of rapid growth. However, measuring China's research output remains a challenge because Chinese scholars may publish their research in either international or national journals, yet no bibliometric database covers both the Chinese and English scientific literature. The purpose of this study is to compare Web of Science (WoS) with a Chinese bibliometric database in terms of authors and their performance, demonstrate the extent of the overlap between the two groups of Chinese most productive authors in both international and Chinese bibliometric databases, and determine how different disciplines may affect this overlap. The results of this study indicate that Chinese bibliometric databases, or a combination of WoS and Chinese bibliometric databases, should be used to evaluate Chinese research performance except in the few disciplines in which Chinese research performance could be assessed using WoS only.

0.010557194 = product of:
  0.021114388 = sum of:
    0.021114388 = product of:
      0.084457554 = sum of:
        0.084457554 = weight(_text_:authors in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084457554 = score(doc=5107,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05201693 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Journal articles constitute the core documents for the diffusion of knowledge in the natural sciences. It has been argued that the same is not true for the social sciences and humanities where knowledge is more often disseminated in monographs that are not indexed in the journal-based databases used for bibliometric analysis. Previous studies have made only partial assessments of the role played by both serials and other types of literature. The importance of journal literature in the various scientific fields has therefore not been systematically characterized. The authors address this issue by providing a systematic measurement of the role played by journal literature in the building of knowledge in both the natural sciences and engineering and the social sciences and humanities. Using citation data from the CD-ROM versions of the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) databases from 1981 to 2000 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), the authors quantify the share of citations to both serials and other types of literature. Variations in time and between fields are also analyzed. The results show that journal literature is increasingly important in the natural and social sciences, but that its role in the humanities is stagnant and has even tended to diminish slightly in the 1990s. Journal literature accounts for less than 50% of the citations in several disciplines of the social sciences and humanities; hence, special care should be used when using bibliometric indicators that rely only on journal literature.

0.0074650636 = product of:
  0.014930127 = sum of:
    0.014930127 = product of:
      0.05972051 = sum of:
        0.05972051 = weight(_text_:authors in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05972051 = score(doc=2356,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05201693 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2356, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2356)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While several authors have argued that conference proceedings are an important source of scientific knowledge, the extent of their importance has not been measured in a systematic manner. This article examines the scientific impact and aging of conference proceedings compared to those of scientific literature in general. It shows that the relative importance of proceedings is diminishing over time and currently represents only 1.7% of references made in the natural sciences and engineering, and 2.5% in the social sciences and humanities. Although the scientific impact of proceedings is losing ground to other types of scientific literature in nearly all fields, it has grown from 8% of the references in engineering papers in the early 1980s to its current 10%. Proceedings play a particularly important role in computer sciences, where they account for close to 20% of the references. This article also shows that not unexpectedly, proceedings age faster than cited scientific literature in general. The evidence thus shows that proceedings have a relatively limited scientific impact, on average representing only about 2% of total citations, that their relative importance is shrinking, and that they become obsolete faster than the scientific literature in general.

0.0074650636 = product of:
  0.014930127 = sum of:
    0.014930127 = product of:
      0.05972051 = sum of:
        0.05972051 = weight(_text_:authors in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05972051 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05201693 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article analyzes the effects of publication language on the international scientific visibility of Russia using the Web of Science (WoS). Like other developing and transition countries, it is subject to a growing pressure to "internationalize" its scientific activities, which primarily means a shift to English as a language of scientific communication. But to what extent does the transition to English improve the impact of research? The case of Russia is of interest in this respect as the existence of many combinations of national journals and languages of publications (namely, Russian and English, including translated journals) provide a kind of natural I experiment to test the effects of language and publisher's country on the international visibility of research through citations as well as on the referencing practices of authors. Our analysis points to the conclusion that the production of original English-language papers in foreign journals is a more efficient strategy of internationalization than the mere translation of domestic journals. If the objective of a country is to maximize the international visibility of its scientific work, then the efforts should go into the promotion of publication in reputed English-language journals to profit from the added effect provided by the Matthew effect of these venues.

0.0074650636 = product of:
  0.014930127 = sum of:
    0.014930127 = product of:
      0.05972051 = sum of:
        0.05972051 = weight(_text_:authors in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05972051 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05201693 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of Clinical Medicine, Engineering and Technology, Social Science, Physics, and Chemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many Clinical Medicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub-disciplines. This suggests that Mendeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, Mendeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.