Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.018916009 = product of:
  0.11349605 = sum of:
    0.11349605 = sum of:
      0.080573544 = weight(_text_:countries in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.080573544 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22186631 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04049921 = queryNorm
          0.36316258 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
      0.032922503 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032922503 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04049921 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The paper attempts to provide an alternative method for measuring the importance of scientific papers based on the Google's PageRank. The method is a meaningful extension of the common integer counting of citations and is then experimented for bringing PageRank to the citation analysis in a large citation network. It offers a more integrated picture of the publications' influence in a specific field. We firstly calculate the PageRanks of scientific papers. The distributional characteristics and comparison with the traditionally used number of citations are then analyzed in detail. Furthermore, the PageRank is implemented in the evaluation of research influence for several countries in the field of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology during the time period of 2000-2005. Finally, some advantages of bringing PageRank to the citation analysis are concluded.

Date

31. 7.2008 14:22:05

0.012950047 = product of:
  0.07770028 = sum of:
    0.07770028 = weight(_text_:english in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07770028 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21787451 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3797226 = idf(docFreq=553, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049921 = queryNorm
        0.3566286 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3797226 = idf(docFreq=553, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Methods developed for mapping the journal structure contained in aggregated journal-journal citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson ISI, 2002) are applied to the Chinese Science Citation Database of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This database covered 991 journals in 2001, of which only 37 originally had English titles; only 31 of which were covered by the SCI. Using factor-analytical and graph-analytical techniques, the authors show that the journal relations are dually structured. The main structure is the intellectual organization of the journals in journal groups (as in the international SCI), but the university-based journals provide an institutional layer that orients this structure towards practical ends (e.g., agriculture). This mechanism of integration is further distinguished from the role of general science journals. The Chinese Science Citation Database thus exhibits the characteristics of "Mode 2" or transdisciplinary science in the production of scientific knowledge more than its Western counterpart does. The contexts of application lead to correlation among the components.

0.012950047 = product of:
  0.07770028 = sum of:
    0.07770028 = weight(_text_:english in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07770028 = score(doc=1361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21787451 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3797226 = idf(docFreq=553, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049921 = queryNorm
        0.3566286 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3797226 = idf(docFreq=553, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Aging of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) journals are increasingly cornered into transdisciplinary Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An externally cited impact factor can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.

0.012950047 = product of:
  0.07770028 = sum of:
    0.07770028 = weight(_text_:english in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07770028 = score(doc=1015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21787451 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3797226 = idf(docFreq=553, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049921 = queryNorm
        0.3566286 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3797226 = idf(docFreq=553, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article provides an overview of studies that have used citation analysis in the field of humanities in the period 1951 to 2010. The work is based on an exhaustive search in databases-particularly those in library and information science-and on citation chaining from papers on citation analysis. The results confirm that use of this technique in the humanities is limited, and although there was some growth in the 1970s and 1980s, it has stagnated in the past 2 decades. Most of the work has been done by research staff, but almost one third involves library staff, and 15% has been done by students. The study also showed that less than one fourth of the works used a citation database such as the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and that 21% of the works were in publications other than library and information science journals. The United States has the greatest output, and English is by far the most frequently used language, and 13.9% of the studies are in other languages.

0.011078297 = product of:
  0.06646978 = sum of:
    0.06646978 = product of:
      0.13293956 = sum of:
        0.13293956 = weight(_text_:countries in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13293956 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22186631 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.5991877 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Attempts some new approaches to the presentation of bibliometric macro level indicators. Mathematics, engineering, physics and chemistry subfields are assigned to 13 science areas. Each science area then appears on 1 table (left page) and 2 graphs (right page). The 1st graph shows the main citation rates with respect to the world average on a relational chart. The countries are represented by letter codes that can be found in the corresponding table on the facing page. The 2nd graph visualizes the countries' relative research activity in the given science areas as compared to the world standard

0.010791706 = product of:
  0.06475023 = sum of:
    0.06475023 = weight(_text_:english in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06475023 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21787451 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3797226 = idf(docFreq=553, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04049921 = queryNorm
        0.2971905 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3797226 = idf(docFreq=553, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.

0.007316112 = product of:
  0.04389667 = sum of:
    0.04389667 = product of:
      0.08779334 = sum of:
        0.08779334 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08779334 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.007316112 = product of:
  0.04389667 = sum of:
    0.04389667 = product of:
      0.08779334 = sum of:
        0.08779334 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08779334 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.0067144623 = product of:
  0.040286772 = sum of:
    0.040286772 = product of:
      0.080573544 = sum of:
        0.080573544 = weight(_text_:countries in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080573544 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22186631 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.36316258 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

To test feasibility of cybermetric indicators for describing and ranking university activities as shown in their Web sites, a large set of 9,330 institutions worldwide was compiled and analyzed. Using search engines' advanced features, size (number of pages), visibility (number of external inlinks), and number of rich files (pdf, ps, doc, ppt, and As formats) were obtained for each of the institutional domains of the universities. We found a statistically significant correlation between a Web ranking built on a combination of Webometric data and other university rankings based on bibliometric and other indicators. Results show that cybermetric measures could be useful for reflecting the contribution of technologically oriented institutions, increasing the visibility of developing countries, and improving the rankings based on Science Citation Index (SCI) data with known biases.

0.006466591 = product of:
  0.038799543 = sum of:
    0.038799543 = product of:
      0.077599086 = sum of:
        0.077599086 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.077599086 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.005595384 = product of:
  0.033572305 = sum of:
    0.033572305 = product of:
      0.06714461 = sum of:
        0.06714461 = weight(_text_:countries in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06714461 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22186631 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.30263546 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

References from publications are at the same time citations to other publications. This entry introduces some of the practical uses of citation data in science and scholarship. At the individual level citations identify and permit the retrieval of specific editions of works, while also suggesting their subject matter, authority, and age. Through citation indexes, retrievals may include not only the earlier items referred to by a given work, but also the later items that cite that given work in turn. Some technical notes on retrieval are included here. Counts of citations received over time, and measures derived from them, reveal the varying impacts of works, authors, journals, organizations, and countries. This has obvious implications for the evaluation of, e.g., library collections, academics, research teams, and science policies. When treated as linkages between pairs of publications, references and citations reveal intellectual ties. Several kinds of links have been defined, such as cocitation, bibliographic coupling, and intercitation. In the aggregate, these links form networks that compactly suggest the intellectual histories of research specialties and disciplines, especially when the networks are visualized through mapping software. Citation analysis is of course not without critics, who have long pointed out imperfections in the data or in analytical techniques. However, the criticisms have generally been met by strong counterarguments from proponents.

0.005595384 = product of:
  0.033572305 = sum of:
    0.033572305 = product of:
      0.06714461 = sum of:
        0.06714461 = weight(_text_:countries in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06714461 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22186631 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.30263546 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Previous analyses identified research on environmental tobacco smoke to be subject to strong fluctuations as measured by both quantitative and qualitative indicators. The evolution of search algorithms (based on the Web of Science and Web of Knowledge database platforms) was used to show the impact of errors of omission and commission in the outcomes of scientometric research. Optimization of the search algorithm led to the complete reassessment of previously published findings on the performance of environmental tobacco smoke research. Instead of strong continuous growth, the field of environmental tobacco smoke research was shown to experience stagnation or slow growth since mid-1990s when evaluated quantitatively. Qualitative analysis revealed steady but slow increase in the citation rate and decrease in uncitedness. Country analysis revealed the North-European countries as leaders in environmental tobacco smoke research (when the normalized results were evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively), whereas the United States ranked first only when assessing the total number of papers produced. Scientometric research artifacts, including both errors of omission and commission, were shown to be capable of completely obscuring the real output of the chosen research field.

0.0045725703 = product of:
  0.027435422 = sum of:
    0.027435422 = product of:
      0.054870844 = sum of:
        0.054870844 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054870844 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.004476308 = product of:
  0.026857845 = sum of:
    0.026857845 = product of:
      0.05371569 = sum of:
        0.05371569 = weight(_text_:countries in 6850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05371569 = score(doc=6850,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22186631 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.24210837 = fieldWeight in 6850, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.478287 = idf(docFreq=501, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6850)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Identifying the users and impact of research is important for research performers, managers, evaluators, and sponsors. It is important to know whether the audience reached is the audience desired. It is useful to understand the technical characteristics of the other research/development/applications impacted by the originating research, and to understand other characteristics (names, organizations, countries) of the users impacted by the research. Because of the many indirect pathways through which fundamental research can impact applications, identifying the user audience and the research impacts can be very complex and time consuming. The purpose of this article is to describe a novel approach for identifying the pathways through which research can impact other research, technology development, and applications, and to identify the technical and infrastructure characteristics of the user population. A novel literature-based approach was developed to identify the user community and its characteristics. The research performed is characterized by one or more articles accessed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) database, beccause the SCI's citation-based structure enables the capability to perform citation studies easily. The user community is characterized by the articles in the SCI that cite the original research articles, and that cite the succeeding generations of these articles as well. Text mining is performed on the citing articles to identify the technical areas impacted by the research, the relationships among these technical areas, and relationships among the technical areas and the infrastructure (authors, journals, organizations). A key component of text mining, concept clustering, was used to provide both a taxonomy of the citing articles' technical themes and further technical insights based on theme relationships arising from the grouping process. Bibliometrics is performed on the citing articles to profile the user characteristics. Citation Mining, this integration of citation bibliometrics and text mining, is applied to the 307 first generation citing articles of a fundamental physics article on the dynamics of vibrating sand-piles. Most of the 307 citing articles were basic research whose main themes were aligned with those of the cited article. However, about 20% of the citing articles were research or development in other disciplines, or development within the same discipline. The text mining alone identified the intradiscipline applications and extradiscipline impacts and applications; this was confirmed by detailed reading of the 307 abstracts. The combination of citation bibliometrics and text mining provides a synergy unavailable with each approach taken independently. Furthermore, text mining is a REQUIREMENT for a feasible comprehensive research impact determination. The integrated multigeneration citation analysis required for broad research impact determination of highly cited articles will produce thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of citing article Abstracts.

0.0038799548 = product of:
  0.023279728 = sum of:
    0.023279728 = product of:
      0.046559457 = sum of:
        0.046559457 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046559457 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.003658056 = product of:
  0.021948336 = sum of:
    0.021948336 = product of:
      0.04389667 = sum of:
        0.04389667 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04389667 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

0.003200799 = product of:
  0.019204793 = sum of:
    0.019204793 = product of:
      0.038409587 = sum of:
        0.038409587 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038409587 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22

0.003200799 = product of:
  0.019204793 = sum of:
    0.019204793 = product of:
      0.038409587 = sum of:
        0.038409587 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038409587 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:20:01

0.003200799 = product of:
  0.019204793 = sum of:
    0.019204793 = product of:
      0.038409587 = sum of:
        0.038409587 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038409587 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

0.002743542 = product of:
  0.016461251 = sum of:
    0.016461251 = product of:
      0.032922503 = sum of:
        0.032922503 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032922503 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14182134 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04049921 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles