Search (57 results, page 1 of 3)

0.045016415 = product of:
  0.13504924 = sum of:
    0.10929954 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10929954 = score(doc=3271,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.47678837 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
    0.025749695 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025749695 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the scattering of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in more than 137,000 document delivery requests submitted to a national document delivery service. We first summarize the major findings of the study with regards to the performance of the service. We then identify the "core" journals from which article requests were satisfied and address the following research questions: (a) Does the distribution of (core) journals conform to the Bradford's Law of Scattering? (b) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and impact factors, journals with high impact factors being used more often than the rest? (c) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being used more often than the rest? (d) What is the median age of use (half-life) of requested articles in general? (e) Do requested articles that appear in core journals get obsolete more slowly? (f) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and journal impact factors, journals with high impact factors being obsolete more slowly? (g) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being obsolete more slowly? Based an the analysis of findings, we found that the distribution of highly and moderately used journal titles conform to Bradford's Law. The median age of use was 8 years for all requested articles. Ninety percent of the articles requested were 21 years of age or younger. Articles that appeared in 168 core journal titles seem to get obsolete slightly more slowly than those of all titles. We observed no statistically significant correlations between the frequency of journal use and ISI journal impact factors, and between the frequency of journal use and ISI- (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) cited half-lives for the most heavily used 168 core journal titles. There was a weak correlation between usage of journals and ISI-reported total citation counts. No statistically significant relationship was found between median age of use and journal impact factors and between median age of use and total citation counts. There was a weak negative correlation between ISI journal impact factors and cited half-lives of 168 core journals, and a weak correlation between ISI citation halflives and use half-lives of core journals. No correlation was found between cited half-lives of 168 core journals and their corresponding total citation counts as reported by ISI. Findings of the current study are discussed along with those of other studies.

Date

20. 3.2005 10:54:22

0.024693392 = product of:
  0.14816035 = sum of:
    0.14816035 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14816035 = score(doc=1066,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6463077 = fieldWeight in 1066, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1066)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Previous studies of academic web interlinking have tended to hypothesise that the relationship between the research of a university and links to or from its web site should follow a linear trend, yet the typical distribution of web data, in general, seems to be a non-linear power law. This paper assesses whether a linear trend or a power law is the most appropriate method with which to model the relationship between research and web site size or outlinks. Following linear regression, analysis of the confidence intervals for the logarithmic graphs, and analysis of the outliers, the results suggest that a linear trend is more appropriate than a non-linear power law.

0.023042366 = product of:
  0.1382542 = sum of:
    0.1382542 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1382542 = score(doc=2859,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6030949 = fieldWeight in 2859, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2859)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

We analyze the publication output of 119 Chilean ecologists and find strong evidence that self-citations significantly affect the h-index increase. Furthermore, we show that the relationship between the increase in the h-index and the proportion of self-citations differs between high and low h-index researchers. In particular, our results show that it is in the low h-index group where self-citations cause the greater impact.

0.020366766 = product of:
  0.12220059 = sum of:
    0.12220059 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12220059 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.53306556 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Continues a series on topics in research methodology, statistics and data analysis techniques for the library and information sciences. Discusses the chi-square test for relationship between two categorical variables.

0.020366766 = product of:
  0.12220059 = sum of:
    0.12220059 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12220059 = score(doc=4542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.53306556 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The reciprocal relationship between bibliographic references and citations in the context of the scholarly communication system is examined. Semiotic analysis of referencing behaviours and citation counting reveals the complexity of prevailing sign systems and associated symbolic practices.

0.01763814 = product of:
  0.10582883 = sum of:
    0.10582883 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10582883 = score(doc=1738,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.46164837 = fieldWeight in 1738, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1738)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The present study aims to investigate how textual features, depth of citation treatment, reasons for citation, and relationships between citers and citees predict author-rated citation importance. Design/methodology/approach - A total of 49 biology and 50 psychology authors assessed the importance, reason for citation, and relationship to the cited author for each cited reference in his or her own recently published empirical article. Participants performed their evaluations on individualized web-based surveys. Findings - The paper finds that certain textual features, such as citation frequency, citation length, and citation location, as well as author-stated reasons for citation predicted ratings of importance, but the strength of the relationship often depended on citation features in the article as a whole. The relationship between objective citation features and author-rated importance also tended to be weaker for self-citations. Research limitations/implications - The study sample included authors of relatively long empirical articles with a minimum of 35 cited references. There were relatively few disciplinary differences, which suggests that citation behavior in psychology may be similar to that in natural science disciplines. Future studies should involve authors from other disciplines employing diverse referencing patterns in articles of varying lengths and types. Originality/value - Findings of the study have enabled a comprehensive, profound level of understanding of citation behaviors of biology and psychology authors. It uncovered a number of unique characteristics in authors' citation evaluations, such as article-level context effects and rule- versus affective-based judgments. The paper suggests possible implications for developing retrieval algorithms based on automatically predicted importance of cited references.

0.017281776 = product of:
  0.103690654 = sum of:
    0.103690654 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103690654 = score(doc=5685,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.45232117 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A problem, raised by Wallace (JASIS, 37,136-145,1986), on the relation between the journal's median citation age and its number of articles is studied. Leaving open the problem as such, we give a statistical explanation of this relationship, when replacing "median" by "mean" in Wallace's problem. The cloud of points, found by Wallace, is explained in this sense that the points are scattered over the area in first quadrant, limited by a curve of the form y=1 + E/x**2 where E is a constant. This curve is obtained by using the Central Limit Theorem in statistics and, hence, has no intrinsic informetric foundation. The article closes with some reflections on explanations of regularities in informetrics, based on statistical, probabilistic or informetric results, or on a combination thereof

0.017166464 = product of:
  0.10299878 = sum of:
    0.10299878 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10299878 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J-shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.

0.015173154 = product of:
  0.09103892 = sum of:
    0.09103892 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09103892 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.014256737 = product of:
  0.08554042 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=3680,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 3680, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3680)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.014110511 = product of:
  0.08466306 = sum of:
    0.08466306 = weight(_text_:relationship in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08466306 = score(doc=73,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3693187 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In recent years, a considerable body of Webometric research has used hyperlinks to generate indicators for the impact of Web documents and the organizations that created them. The relationship between this Web impact and other, offline impact indicators has been explored for entire universities, departments, countries, and scientific journals, but not yet for individual scientists-an important omission. The present research closes this gap by investigating factors that may influence the Web impact (i.e., inlink counts) of scientists' personal homepages. Data concerning 456 scientists from five scientific disciplines in six European countries were analyzed, showing that both homepage content and personal and institutional characteristics of the homepage owners had significant relationships with inlink counts. A multivariate statistical analysis confirmed that full-text articles are the most linked-to content in homepages. At the individual homepage level, hyperlinks are related to several offline characteristics. Notable differences regarding total inlinks to scientists' homepages exist between the scientific disciplines and the countries in the sample. There also are both gender and age effects: fewer external inlinks (i.e., links from other Web domains) to the homepages of female and of older scientists. There is only a weak relationship between a scientist's recognition and homepage inlinks and, surprisingly, no relationship between research productivity and inlink counts. Contrary to expectations, the size of collaboration networks is negatively related to hyperlink counts. Some of the relationships between hyperlinks to homepages and the properties of their owners can be explained by the content that the homepage owners put on their homepage and their level of Internet use; however, the findings about productivity and collaborations do not seem to have a simple, intuitive explanation. Overall, the results emphasize the complexity of the phenomenon of Web linking, when analyzed at the level of individual pages.

0.012874847 = product of:
  0.07724908 = sum of:
    0.07724908 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07724908 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=4592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 4592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4592)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research has been identified as a critical means of addressing some of our planet's most urgent environmental problems. Yet relatively little is known about the processes and impact of interdisciplinary approaches to environmental sciences. This study used citation analysis and ordinary least squares regression to investigate the relationship between an article's citation rate and its degree of interdisciplinarity in one area of environmental science; viz., forestry. 3 types of interdisciplinarity were recognized - authorspip, subject matter, and cited literature - and each was quantified using Brillouin's diversity index. Data consisted of more than 750 articles published in the journal 'Forest Science' during the 10year period 1985-1994. The results indicate that borrowing was the most influencial method of interdisciplinary information transfer. Articles that drew information from a diverse set of journals were cited with greater frequency than articles having smaller or more narrowly focused bibliographies. This finding provides empirical evidence that interdisciplinary methods have made a measurable and positive impact on the forestry literature

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=5223,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 5223, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5223)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 83) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=83,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 83, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=83)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between print journal use, online journal use, and online journal discovery tools with local journal citations. Local use measures were collected from 1997 to 2004, and negative binomial regression models were designed to test the effect that local use, online availability, and access enhancements have on citation behaviors of academic research authors. Models are proposed and tested to determine whether multiple locally recorded usage measures can predict citations and if locally controlled access enhancements influence citation. The regression results indicated that print journal use was a significant predictor of local journal citations prior to the adoption of online journals. Publisher-provided and locally recorded online journal use measures were also significant predictors of local citations. Online availability of a journal was found to significantly increase local citations, and, for some disciplines, a new access tool like an OpenURL resolver significantly impacts citations and publisherprovided journal usage measures.

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=1725,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 1725, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1725)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article focuses on why academic writers in computer science and sociology sometimes supply the reader with more details of citees' names than they need to: Why do citers name citees when using the Footnote System, and why do citers include citees' first names when using the Harvard System? These questions were investigated as part of a qualitative, interview-based study of citation behavior. A number of motivations were advanced by informants, including the desire for stylistic elegance, for informality, to make the text accessible to less informed readers, to mark a close relationship between citer and citee, to alert readers to a little known citee, and to acknowledge seminal sources. In a number of cases, however, informants were unable to offer any motivation, reporting that their behavior had been unconscious or accidental. The study underlines B. Cronin's (1984, 2005) argument that citation is a private and subjective process, and shows that interview-based studies afford the analyst insights into writers' citing practices which alternative methodologies cannot.

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=1959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 1959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1959)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study utilized bibliometric tools to analyze the relationship between two separate, but related, fields: Library and Information Science (LIS) and Management Information Systems (MIS). The top-ranked 48 journals in each field were used as the unit of analysis. Using these journals, field cocitation was introduced as a method for evaluating the relationships between the two fields. The three-phased study evaluated (a) the knowledge imported/exported between LIS and MIS, (b) the body of knowledge influenced by both fields, and (c) the overlap in fields as demonstrated by multidimensional scaling. Data collection and analysis were performed using DIALOG and SPSS programs. The primary findings from this study indicate that (a) the MIS impact on LIS is greater than the reverse, (b) there is a growing trend for shared impact between the two disciplines, and (c) the area of overlap between the two fields is predominately those journals focusing on technology systems and digital information. Additionally, this study validated field cocitation as a method by which to evaluate relationships between fields.

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=2003,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 2003, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2003)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Developed countries have an even distribution of published papers on the seventeen model organisms. Developing countries have biased preferences for a few model organisms which are associated with endemic human diseases. A variant of the Hirsch-index, that we call the mean moh-index (model organism h-index), shows an exponential relationship with the amount of papers published in each country on the selected model organisms. Developing countries cluster together with low mean moh-indexes, even those with high number of publications. The growth curves of publications on the recent model Caenorhabditis elegans in developed countries shows different formats. We also analyzed the growth curves of indexed publications originating from developing countries. Brazil and South Korea were selected for this comparison. The most prevalent model organisms in those countries show different growth curves when compared to a global analysis, reflecting the size and composition of their research communities.