-
Heneberg, P.: Supposedly uncited articles of Nobel laureates and Fields medalists can be prevalently attributed to the errors of omission and commission (2013)
0.03
0.03297302 = product of:
0.06594604 = sum of:
0.06594604 = sum of:
0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030652853 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.052098576 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03529319 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052098576 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Several independent authors reported a high share of uncited publications, which include those produced by top scientists. This share was repeatedly reported to exceed 10% of the total papers produced, without any explanation of this phenomenon and the lack of difference in uncitedness between average and successful researchers. In this report, we analyze the uncitedness among two independent groups of highly visible scientists (mathematicians represented by Fields medalists, and researchers in physiology or medicine represented by Nobel Prize laureates in the respective field). Analysis of both groups led to the identical conclusion: over 90% of the uncited database records of highly visible scientists can be explained by the inclusion of editorial materials progress reports presented at international meetings (meeting abstracts), discussion items (letters to the editor, discussion), personalia (biographic items), and by errors of omission and commission of the Web of Science (WoS) database and of the citing documents. Only a marginal amount of original articles and reviews were found to be uncited (0.9 and 0.3%, respectively), which is in strong contrast with the previously reported data, which never addressed the document types among the uncited records.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:21:46
-
Heneberg, P.: Lifting the fog of scientometric research artifacts : on the scientometric analysis of environmental tobacco smoke research (2013)
0.01
0.01083742 = product of:
0.02167484 = sum of:
0.02167484 = product of:
0.04334968 = sum of:
0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04334968 = score(doc=613,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.052098576 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Heneberg, P.: Parallel worlds of citable documents and others : inflated commissioned opinion articles enhance scientometric indicators (2014)
0.01
0.007663213 = product of:
0.015326426 = sum of:
0.015326426 = product of:
0.030652853 = sum of:
0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 1227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030652853 = score(doc=1227,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.052098576 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1227, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1227)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Scientometric indicators influence the standing of journals among peers, thus affecting decisions regarding manuscript submissions, scholars' careers, and funding. Here we hypothesize that impact-factor boosting (unethical behavior documented previously in several underperforming journals) should not be considered as exceptional, but that it affects even the top-tier journals. We performed a citation analysis of documents recently published in 11 prominent general science and biomedical journals. In these journals, only 12 to 79% of what they publish was considered original research, whereas editorial materials alone constituted 11 to 44% of the total document types published. Citations to commissioned opinion articles comprised 3 to 15% of the total citations to the journals within 3 postpublication years, with even a higher share occurring during the first postpublication year. An additional 4 to 15% of the citations were received by the journals from commissioned opinion articles published in other journals. Combined, the parallel world of uncitable documents was responsible for up to 30% of the total citations to the top-tier journals, with the highest values found for medical science journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and the Lancet) and lower values found for the Science, Nature, and Cell series journals. Self-citations to some of the top-tier journals reach values higher than the total citation counts accumulated by papers in most of the Web of Science-indexed journals. Most of the self-citations were generated by commissioned opinion articles. The parallel world of supposedly uncitable documents flourishes and severely distorts the commonly used scientometric indicators.
