Title: Traité de documentation: le livre sur le livre, théorie et pratique

Title: Traité de documentation: le livre sur le livre, théorie et pratique

Full Text: -1959\P. Otlet.pdf

Title: Trames-Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences

ISO Abbreviated Title:

JCR Abbreviated Title:

ISSN:

Journal Country/Territory:

Language:

Publisher:

Publisher Address:

Subject Categories:

: Impact Factor

? Allik, J. (2013), Factors affecting bibliometric indicators of scientific quality. Trames-Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 17 (3), 199-214.

Full Text: 2013\Tra-J Hum Soc Sci17, 199.pdf

Abstract: the High Quality Science Index (HQSI) was constructed on the basis of the release of the Essential Science Indicators (Thomson Reuters) for the period from January 1, 2002 to August 31, 2012. The HQSI was computed for a country or territory as a sum of normalised scores of the mean impact (citations per paper) and the percentage of papers that reach the top-1% citation ranking. Expectedly, countries or territories that are producing larger Gross National Income per capita and allocate higher percentage of the produced economic wealth for the research and development (R&D) were more likely to achieve prominence in the scientific publications. The size of the country and its population were not important factors to excel in scientific research. Since economic and socio-demographic factors only partly predicted the quality of science in a given country or territory, there is considerable space for historical and science policy factors that could affect the quality of science in a given country. Several countries being in almost identical starting positions twenty years ago have developed on completely different trajectories dependent on policies and decisions made by their policy makers. Possibilities of how to improve reliability of measures of scientific quality have been discussed.

Keywords: Bibliometric, Bibliometric Analysis, Bibliometric Indicators, Citation, Citations, Constructed, Country, Country Self-Citation Bias, Development, Economic, Excellence, High Quality Science, Impact, Impact Factor, Indicators, Mediocrity Index, Nations, Normalization, Papers, Percentage of Highly Cited Papers, Policies, Policy, Population, Publications, Quality, Quality Of, R&D, Ranking, Release, Reliability, Research, Research and Development, Science, Science Policy, Scientific Publications, Scientific Research, Size, Socio-Demographic Factors, Territories, Thomson Reuters, Thomson-Reuters, Wealth

? Matcharashvili, T., Tsveraidze, Z., Sborshchikovi, A. and Matcharashvili, T. (2014), The importance of bibliometric indicators for the analysis of research performance in Georgia. Trames-Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 18 (4), 345-356.

Full Text: 2014\Tra-J Hum Soc Sci18, 345.pdf

Abstract: The present analysis of research productivity of scholars in Georgia was motivated by the disadvantageous position of Georgia in international listings of the most cited scientific articles. We used official databases provided by governmental Shota Rustaveli National Scientific Foundation (SRNSF) from 2007 to 2013. In this research we have restricted our analysis by the consideration of bibliometric indicators of the leaders of the awarded projects. Three bibliometric characteristics: the number of publications and citations, as well as H-index of project leaders was obtained from SCOPUS database. According to our results, just 58% of all leaders of awarded projects in SRNSF grant competition, have an article (at least one) in the Scopus database for the entire period of their scholarly activity. From our analysis it follows that the quality of reviewing of the projects, presented to the SRNSF grant competition, does not promote a selection of the most productive project teams; there is no correlation between values of SRNSF reviewer’s evaluation scores and the bibliometric data of project leaders in the Scopus database. As a result, in 2007-2012 in spite of large enough (for Georgia) funding, the problem of the low productivity and quality of scientific research in Georgia has not been resolved. We conclude that, in order to improve the situation with the low productivity of research in Georgia, the governmental programs of science support should be based on the new system of evaluation of the quality of presented projects; namely, peer-review approach should be combined with the bibliometric methodology. Besides local interest, for Georgian researchers and governmental authorities, the results of presented research have general importance in the light of ongoing international discussions about the necessity of inclusion of bibliometric data in evaluation procedures of research productivity. Presented results and discussions will be especially helpful for scholars and research administrators from countries in transition and could facilitate in elaboration of effective research funding policy.

Keywords: Activity, Analysis, Approach, Article, Articles, Bibliometric, Bibliometric Data, Bibliometric Indicators, Bibliometric Methodology, Bibliometrics, Characteristics, Citations, Competition, Correlation, Data, Database, Databases, Evaluation, From, Funding, General, Georgia, H Index, H-Index, Impact, Index, Indicators, International, Local, Methodology, Peer Review, Peer-Review, Performance, Policy, Position, Procedures, Productivity, Publication, Publications, Quality, Quality Of, Research, Research Funding, Research Funding Policy, Research Performance, Research Productivity, Researchers, Science, Scientific Research, Scopus, Scopus, Scopus Database, Selection, Support, Web

Title: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers

ISO Abbreviated Title:

JCR Abbreviated Title:

ISSN:

Journal Country/Territory:

Language:

Publisher:

Publisher Address:

Subject Categories:

: Impact Factor

? Levins, D.M. and Glastonburg, J.R. (2003), Mark Melton’s geomorphology and geography’s quantitative revolution Christopher J Keylock. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28 (2), 142-157.

Full Text: Tra Ins Bri Geo28, 142

Abstract: Mark Melton published some important papers in the late 1950s that have had a significant influence upon the subsequent development of geomorphology. Two of these papers were published in the same journal in the same year, and have a similar number of total citations, and these are compared in this study. Although both papers present novel empirical findings and discuss innovative conceptual frameworks, the extent and manner to which they have been used within geography and geology differs quite markedly. This reveals marked differences in the conceptual frameworks and research priorities of the two groups of scientists, which may help explain why geomorphology has proceeded differently on the two sides of the Atlantic since the quantitative revolution.