Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Gingras, Y."
  1. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01
    0.012016232 = product of:
      0.06008116 = sum of:
        0.06008116 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06008116 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052260913 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  2. Wallace, M.L.; Gingras, Y.; Duhon, R.: ¬A new approach for detecting scientific specialties from raw cocitation networks (2009) 0.01
    0.006830811 = product of:
      0.034154054 = sum of:
        0.034154054 = weight(_text_:it in 2709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034154054 = score(doc=2709,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052260913 = queryNorm
            0.22595796 = fieldWeight in 2709, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2709)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    We use a technique recently developed by V. Blondel, J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre (2008) to detect scientific specialties from author cocitation networks. This algorithm has distinct advantages over most previous methods used to obtain cocitation clusters since it avoids the use of similarity measures, relies entirely on the topology of the weighted network, and can be applied to relatively large networks. Most importantly, it requires no subjective interpretation of the cocitation data or of the communities found. Using two examples, we show that the resulting specialties are the smallest coherent groups of researchers (within a hierarchy of cluster sizes) and can thus be identified unambiguously. Furthermore, we confirm that these communities are indeed representative of what we know about the structure of a given scientific discipline and that as specialties, they can be accurately characterized by a few keywords (from the publication titles). We argue that this robust and efficient algorithm is particularly well-suited to cocitation networks and that the results generated can be of great use to researchers studying various facets of the structure and evolution of science.
  3. Bertin, M.; Atanassova, I.; Gingras, Y.; Larivière, V.: ¬The invariant distribution of references in scientific articles (2016) 0.01
    0.005796136 = product of:
      0.028980678 = sum of:
        0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028980678 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052260913 = queryNorm
            0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    The organization of scientific papers typically follows a standardized pattern, the well-known IMRaD structure (introduction, methods, results, and discussion). Using the full text of 45,000 papers published in the PLoS series of journals as a case study, this paper investigates, from the viewpoint of bibliometrics, how references are distributed along the structure of scientific papers as well as the age of these cited references. Once the sections of articles are realigned to follow the IMRaD sequence, the position of cited references along the text of articles is invariant across all PLoS journals, with the introduction and discussion accounting for most of the references. It also provides evidence that the age of cited references varies by section, with older references being found in the methods and more recent references in the discussion. These results provide insight into the different roles citations have in the scholarly communication process.
  4. Larivière, V.; Archambault, V.; Gingras, Y.; Vignola-Gagné, E.: ¬The place of serials in referencing practices : comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities (2006) 0.00
    0.004830113 = product of:
      0.024150565 = sum of:
        0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024150565 = score(doc=5107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052260913 = queryNorm
            0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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.
  5. Larivière, V.; Archambault, E.; Gingras, Y.: Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature : from exponential growth to steady-state science (1900-2004) (2008) 0.00
    0.004830113 = product of:
      0.024150565 = sum of:
        0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 1357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024150565 = score(doc=1357,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052260913 = queryNorm
            0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 1357, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1357)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Despite a very large number of studies on the aging and obsolescence of scientific literature, no study has yet measured, over a very long time period, the changes in the rates at which scientific literature becomes obsolete. This article studies the evolution of the aging phenomenon and, in particular, how the age of cited literature has changed over more than 100 years of scientific activity. It shows that the average and median ages of cited literature have undergone several changes over the period. Specifically, both World War I and World War II had the effect of significantly increasing the age of the cited literature. The major finding of this article is that contrary to a widely held belief, the age of cited material has risen continuously since the mid-1960s. In other words, during that period, researchers were relying on an increasingly old body of literature. Our data suggest that this phenomenon is a direct response to the steady-state dynamics of modern science that followed its exponential growth; however, we also have observed that online preprint archives such as arXiv have had the opposite effect in some subfields.
  6. Archambault, E.; Campbell, D; Gingras, Y.; Larivière, V.: Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus (2009) 0.00
    0.004830113 = product of:
      0.024150565 = sum of:
        0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024150565 = score(doc=2933,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052260913 = queryNorm
            0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 2933, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2933)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    For more than 40 years, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now part of Thomson Reuters) produced the only available bibliographic databases from which bibliometricians could compile large-scale bibliometric indicators. ISI's citation indexes, now regrouped under the Web of Science (WoS), were the major sources of bibliometric data until 2004, when Scopus was launched by the publisher Reed Elsevier. For those who perform bibliometric analyses and comparisons of countries or institutions, the existence of these two major databases raises the important question of the comparability and stability of statistics obtained from different data sources. This paper uses macrolevel bibliometric indicators to compare results obtained from the WoS and Scopus. It shows that the correlations between the measures obtained with both databases for the number of papers and the number of citations received by countries, as well as for their ranks, are extremely high. There is also a very high correlation when countries' papers are broken down by field. The paper thus provides evidence that indicators of scientific production and citations at the country level are stable and largely independent of the database.
  7. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.: On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact (2009) 0.00
    0.004830113 = product of:
      0.024150565 = sum of:
        0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 3316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024150565 = score(doc=3316,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052260913 = queryNorm
            0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 3316, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3316)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    This article analyzes the effect of interdisciplinarity on the scientific impact of individual articles. Using all the articles published in Web of Science in 2000, we define the degree of interdisciplinarity of a given article as the percentage of its cited references made to journals of other disciplines. We show that although for all disciplines combined there is no clear correlation between the level of interdisciplinarity of articles and their citation rates, there are nonetheless some disciplines in which a higher level of interdisciplinarity is related to a higher citation rates. For other disciplines, citations decline as interdisciplinarity grows. One characteristic is visible in all disciplines: Highly disciplinary and highly interdisciplinary articles have a low scientific impact. This suggests that there might be an optimum of interdisciplinarity beyond which the research is too dispersed to find its niche and under which it is too mainstream to have high impact. Finally, the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact is highly determined by the citation characteristics of the disciplines involved: Articles citing citation-intensive disciplines are more likely to be cited by those disciplines and, hence, obtain higher citation scores than would articles citing non-citation-intensive disciplines.
  8. Kirchik, O.; Gingras, Y.; Larivière, V.: Changes in publication languages and citation practices and their effect on the scientific impact of Russian science (1993-2010) (2012) 0.00
    0.004830113 = product of:
      0.024150565 = sum of:
        0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024150565 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052260913 = queryNorm
            0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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.
  9. Lozano, G.A.; Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.: ¬The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age (2012) 0.00
    0.004830113 = product of:
      0.024150565 = sum of:
        0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024150565 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052260913 = queryNorm
            0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.