Personal Research Database

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics86, 785.pdf

Abstract: In the assessment of success of new analgesic drugs over the past 50 years (Kissin, Anesth Analg 110:780-789, 2010) we observed a difference in the publication response to a new drug between biomedical journals in general and top journals: number of published articles on a drug increased (and declined) more rapidly in the top journals. Based on this phenomenon we present a new publication indicator-the Top Journal Selectivity Index (TJSI). It represents the ratio between the number of all types of articles in the top 20 biomedical journals and the number of articles in all (> 5,000) journals covered by Medline, over 5 years after a drug’s introduction. Ten analgesics developed during the period 1986-2009 were selected for analysis. Three publication indices were used for assessment: the number of all types of articles presented in Medline, the number of articles covering only randomized controlled trials (RCT), and the Top Journal Selectivity Index. We also assessed the success score in the development of these analgesics based on the following criteria: novelty of molecular target, analgesic efficacy, and response by the pharmaceutical market. The relationships between the publication indices and analgesic’s success score were determined with the use of the Pearson correlation coefficient. Positive relationship was found only with the Top Journal Selectivity Index (r = 0.876, p < 0.001). We suggest that this index can predict success in drug development at least in the field of analgesics.

Keywords: Analgesic, Analgesics, Analysis, Assessment, Bibliometric, Bibliometric Indicator, Bibliometrics, Biomedical, Biomedical Journals, Correlation, Correlation Coefficient, Criteria, Development, Drug, Drug Development, Drugs, Efficacy, Field, General, Impact Factor, Index, Indicator, Indices, Journal, Journals, Mar, Market, Metaanalysis, Migraine, New Drugs, Novelty, Pain, Publication, Randomized, Randomized Controlled Trials, RCT, Topic-Specific Publications, Trials

? Cocosila, M., Serenko, A. and Turel, O. (2011), Exploring the management information systems discipline: A scientometric study of ICIS, PACIS and ASAC. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 1-16.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 1.pdf

Abstract: This study examines the identity and development of the management information systems (MIS) field through a scientometric lens applied to three major global, regional and national conferences: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) and Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Annual Conference (ASAC). It adapts the conference stakeholder approach to the construction of the identity of the MIS discipline and analyzes the proceedings of these three conferences. The findings suggest that the MIS field has been evolving in terms of collaborative research and scholarly output and has been gradually moving towards academic maturity. The leading MIS conference contributors tend to establish loyalty to a limited number of academic meetings. At the same time, relatively low levels of repeat publication in the proceedings of ICIS, PACIS and ASAC were observed. It was suggested that Lotka’s and Yule-Simon’s bibliometric laws may be applied to measure and predict the degree of conference delegate loyalty.

Keywords: Approach, Asac, Asia, Authorship, Bibliometric, Canada, Citation, Collaborative Research, Conference, Conferences, Construction, Development, Diversity, Field, ICIS, Identity Crisis, Impact, Information, Information Systems, Laws, Lotka’s Law, Lotkas Law, Loyalty, Management, Management Information, Management Information Systems, Measure, MIS, Pacis, Patterns, Productivity, Productivity, Publication, Regional, Research, Scholarly Output, Science, Scientific Collaboration, Scientometric, Systems, Yule-Simon’S Law

? Chang, C.L., McAleer, M. and Oxley, L. (2011), What makes a great journal great in the sciences? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Scientometrics, 87 (1), 17-40.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 14.pdf

Abstract: The paper is concerned with analysing what makes a great journal great in the sciences, based on quantifiable Research Assessment Measures (RAM). Alternative RAM are discussed, with an emphasis on the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science database (hereafter ISI). Various ISI RAM that are calculated annually or updated daily are defined and analysed, including the classic 2-year impact factor (2YIF), 5-year impact factor (5YIF), Immediacy (or 0-year impact factor (0YIF)), Eigenfactor, Article Influence, C3PO (Citation Performance Per Paper Online), h-index, Zinfluence, PI-BETA (Papers Ignored-By Even The Authors), Impact Factor Inflation (IFI), and three new RAM, namely Historical Self-citation Threshold Approval Rating (H-STAR), 2 Year Self-citation Threshold Approval Rating (2Y-STAR), and Cited Article Influence (CAI). The RAM data are analysed for the 6 most highly cited journals in 20 highly-varied and well-known ISI categories in the sciences, where the journals are chosen on the basis of 2YIF. The application to these 20 ISI categories could be used as a template for other ISI categories in the sciences and social sciences, and as a benchmark for newer journals in a range of ISI disciplines. In addition to evaluating the 6 most highly cited journals in each of 20 ISI categories, the paper also highlights the similarities and differences in alternative RAM, finds that several RAM capture similar performance characteristics for the most highly cited scientific journals, determines that PI-BETA is not highly correlated with the other RAM, and hence conveys additional information regarding research performance. In order to provide a meta analysis summary of the RAM, which are predominantly ratios, harmonic mean rankings are presented of the 13 RAM for the 6 most highly cited journals in each of the 20 ISI categories. It is shown that emphasizing THE impact factor, specifically the 2-year impact factor, of a journal to the exclusion of other informative RAM can lead to a distorted evaluation of journal performance and influence on different disciplines, especially in view of inflated journal self citations.

Keywords: 2Y-Star, Alternative, Analysis, Application, Article Influence, C3PO, Characteristics, Citation, Citations, Cited Article Influence, Data, Database, Eigenfactor, Eigenfactor(TM) Metrics, Evaluation, First, h Index, h-Index, H-Star, IFI, Immediacy, Impact, Impact Factor, Impact Factors, Indexes, Information, ISI, ISI Web of Science, Journal, Journals, Lead, Meta-Analysis, Performance, Pi-Beta, Rankings, Research, Research Assessment Measures (RAM), Research Performance, Science, Sciences, Scientific Journals, Self, Self-Citations, Social, Social Sciences, Template, Web of Science, Zinfluence

? Nasir, A., Ali, T.M., Shahdin, S. and Rahman, T.U. (2011), Technology achievement index 2009: Ranking and comparative study of nations. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 41-62.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 41.pdf

Abstract: Ranking of 91 countries based on the Technology Achievement Index 2009 (TAI-09) (2009 refers to the year in which most of data collection was carried out.) is reported. Originally proposed in 2002, the TAI is a composite indicator which aggregates national technological capabilities and performance in terms of creation/diffusion of new technologies, diffusion of old technologies and development of human skills. In addition to the overall ranking of 91 countries, rankings in each sub-dimension of the Index are also reported. Comparative analysis of TAI ranking of 56 countries, common to the present and previous study of 2002 under similar conditions, is quite instructive and indicates shifts in technological scenario of these countries even over a relatively short period of 5-6 years. A simple concept based on Standard Deviation approach, as an indication of the technological spread or otherwise, is proposed for the first time. Application of this concept to 56 common countries is reported.

Keywords: Achievement, Aggregates, Analysis, Approach, Collection, Comparative Study, Composite, Data, Data Collection, Development, Diffusion, First, Human, Human Skills, Index, Indication, Indicator, Nations, Performance, Ranking, Rankings, Scenario, Technologies, Technology Achievement Index, Technology Capability, Technology Capability Spread, Technology Creation, Technology Development, Technology Diffusion

? Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Ferrandiz, E. and Leon, M.D. (2011), Factors affecting inter-regional academic scientific collaboration within Europe: The role of economic distance. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 63-74.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 63.pdf

Abstract: This paper offers some insights into scientific collaboration (SC) at the regional level by drawing upon two lines of inquiry. The first involves examining the spatial patterns of university SC across the EU-15 (all countries belonging to the European Union between 1995 and 2004). The second consists of extending the current empirical analysis on regional SC collaboration by including the economic distance between regions in the model along with other variables suggested by the extant literature. The methodology relies on co-publications as a proxy for academic collaboration, and in order to test the relevance of economic distance for the intensity of collaboration between regions, we put forward a gravity equation. The descriptive results show that there are significant differences in the production of academic scientific papers between less-favoured regions and core regions. However, the intensity of collaboration is similar in both types of regions. Our econometric findings suggest that differences in scientific resources (as measured by R&D expenditure) between regions are relevant in explaining academic scientific collaborations, while distance in the level of development (as measured by per capita GDP) does not appear to play any significant role. Nevertheless, other variables in the analysis, including geographical distance, specialization and cultural factors, do yield significant estimated coefficients, and this is consistent with the previous literature on regional SC.

Keywords: Academic Scientific Collaboration, Analysis, Center-Periphery, Co-Authorship, Co-Authorships, Collaboration, Collaborations, Cultural, Development, Economic, Economic Distance, Europe, European Union, First, Gravity Equation, International Collaboration, Literature, Methodology, Model, Papers, Patterns, Proximity, Regional, Relevance, Resources, Role, Science, Scientific Collaboration, University

? Campanario, J.M., Carretero, J., Marangon, V., Molina, A. and Ros, G. (2011), Effect on the journal impact factor of the number and document type of citing records: A wide-scale study. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 75-84.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 75.pdf

Abstract: We studied the effect on journal impact factors (JIF) of citations from documents labeled as articles and reviews (usually peer reviewed) versus citations coming from other documents. In addition, we studied the effect on JIF of the number of citing records. This number is usually different from the number of citations. We selected a set of 700 journals indexed in the SCI section of JCR that receive a low number of citations. The reason for this choice is that in these instances some citations may have a greater impact on the JIF than in more highly-cited journals. After excluding some journals for different reasons, our sample consisted of 674 journals. We obtained data on citations that contributed to the JIF for the years 1998-2006. In general, we found that most journals obtained citations that contribute to the impact factor from documents labeled as articles and reviews. In addition, in most of journals the ratio between citations that contributed to the impact factor and citing records was greater than 80% in all years. Thus, in general, we did not find evidence that citations that contributed to the impact factor were dependent on non-peer reviewed documents or only a few citing records.

Keywords: Choice, Citation-Index, Citations, Citing Records, Data, Evidence, General, Impact, Impact Factor, Impact Factors, Journal, Journal Impact, Journal Impact Factor, Journal Impact Factors, Journals, Labeled Editorial Material, Peer-Reviewed, Records, Reviews, SCI

? Bartneck, C. and Kokkelmans, S. (2011), Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 85-98.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 85.pdf

Abstract: The h-index has received an enormous attention for being an indicator that measures the quality of researchers and organizations. We investigate to what degree authors can inflate their h-index through strategic self-citations with the help of a simulation. We extended Burrell’s publication model with a procedure for placing self-citations, following three different strategies: random self-citation, recent self-citations and h-manipulating self-citations. The results show that authors can considerably inflate their h-index through self-citations. We propose the q-index as an indicator for how strategically an author has placed self-citations, and which serves as a tool to detect possible manipulation of the h-index. The results also show that the best strategy for an high h-index is publishing papers that are highly cited by others. The productivity has also a positive effect on the h-index.

Keywords: Analysis, Authors, h Index, h-Index, Indicator, Manipulation, Model, Papers, Procedure, Productivity, Publication, Publishing, q-Index, Quality, Quality of, Recent, Science, Self-Citation, Self-Citations, Simulation, Stochastic-Model, Strategic, Strategy

? Mattsson, P., Sundberg, C.J. and Laget, P. (2011), Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 99-105.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 99.pdf

Abstract: Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used to fund and evaluate scientific research. Since the number of authors in a paper and the number of has increased it is difficult to determine the individual contribution of authors. Suggested approaches include the study of author position or the corresponding author. Our findings show that the corresponding author is most likely to appear first and then last in the byline. The results are dependent on number of authors in a paper and national differences exist. This underscores the need to take into account both the number of authors on a paper and their position in the byline to be accurate when measuring author contribution.

Keywords: Author Impact, Author Position, Authors, Bibliometric, Bibliometric Indicators, Bibliometric Study, Co-Authorship, Corresponding Author, First, Indicators, Research, Scientific Research, Senior Authors

? Quesada, A. (2011), Further characterizations of the Hirsch index. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 107-114.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 107.pdf

Abstract: The Hirsch index is a number that synthesizes a researcher’s output. It is defined as the maximum number h such that the researcher has h papers with at least h citations each. Four characterizations of the Hirsch index are suggested. The most compact one relies on the interpretation of the index as providing the number of valuable papers in an output and postulates three axioms. One, only cited papers can be valuable. Two, the index is strongly monotonic: if output x has more papers than output y and each paper in x has more citations than the most cited paper in y, then x has more valuable papers than y. And three, the minimum amount of citations under which a paper becomes valuable is different for each paper.

Keywords: Axiomatic Characterization, Characterizations, Citations, Hirsch, Hirsch Index, Index, Minimum, Papers, Publications, Scientific Productivity Index

? Zhao, D.Z. and Strotmann, A. (2011), Intellectual structure of stem cell research: A comprehensive author co-citation analysis of a highly collaborative and multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 115-131.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 115.pdf

Abstract: This study is an attempt to approach the intellectual structure of the stem cell research field 2004-2009 through a comprehensive author co-citation analysis (ACA), and to contribute to a better understanding of a field that has been brought to the forefront of research, therapy and political and public debates, which, hopefully, will in turn better inform research and policy. Based on a nearly complete and clean dataset of stem cell literature compiled from PubMed and Scopus, and using automatic author disambiguation to further improve results, we perform an exclusive all-author ACA of the 200 top-ranked researchers of the field by fractional citation count. We find that, despite the theoretically highly interdisciplinary nature of the field, stem cell research has been dominated by a few central medical research areas-cancer and regenerative medicine of the brain, the blood, the skin, and the heart-and a core of cell biologists trying to understand the nature and the molecular biology of stem cells along with biotechnology researchers investigating the practical identification, isolation, creation, and culturing of stem cells. It is also remarkably self-contained, drawing only on a few related areas of cell biology. This study also serves as a baseline against which the effectiveness of a range of author-based bibliometric methods and indicators can be tested, especially when based on less comprehensive datasets using less optimal analysis methods.

Keywords: All Author Aca, All-Author, Analysis, Approach, Author Co-Citation Analysis, Author Cocitation Analysis, Bibliometric, Bibliometric Methods, Bibliometrics, Biology, Biomedical Research, Biotechnology, Blood, Brain, Citation, Citation Analysis, Co-Citation, Co-Citation Analysis, Cocitation, Effectiveness, Field, Identification, Indicators, Information-Science, Intellectual Structure, Interdisciplinary, Literature, Medical, Medical Research, Medicine, Methods, Molecular Biology, Multidisciplinary, Policy, Public, Publications, Pubmed, Regenerative Medicine, Research, Research Policy, Scholarly Communication, Scholarly Communication, Scientific Collaboration, Scopus, Skin, Stem Cell, Stem Cell Research, Stem Cells, Structure, Therapy, Understanding, Web

? Guns, R., Liu, Y.X. and Mahbuba, D. (2011), Q-measures and betweenness centrality in a collaboration network: A case study of the field of informetrics. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 133-147.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 133.pdf

Abstract: We study global and local Q-measures, as well as betweenness centrality, as indicators of international collaboration in research. After a brief review of their definitions, we introduce the concepts of external and internal inter-group geodesics. These concepts are applied to a collaboration network of 1129 researchers from different countries, which is based on publications in bibliometrics, informetrics, webometrics, and scientometrics (BIWS in short) from the period 1990-2009. It is thus illustrated how international collaboration (among authors from different countries) in BIWS is carried out. Our results suggest that average scores for local Q-measures are typically higher, indicating a relatively low degree of international collaboration in BIWS. The dominating form of international collaboration is bilateral, whereas multilateral collaboration is relatively rare in the field of BIWS. We also identify and visualize the most important global and local actors. Dividing the entire period in four 5-year periods, it is found that most international collaboration in the field has happened in the last time slice (2005-2009). A comparison of the different time slices reveals the non-linear growth of the indicators studied and the international expansion of the field.

Keywords: Authors, Betweenness, Bibliometrics, Case Study, Co-Author Collaborative Network, Collaboration, Comparison, Disambiguation, Evolvement Of Network, External Inter-Group Geodesic, Field, Global Q-Measure, Globalization, Growth, Indicators, Informetrics, Internal Inter-Group Geodesic, International, Local, Local Q-Measure, Network, Publications, Research, Review, Scientometrics, Webometrics

? Kliegl, R. and Bates, D. (2011), International collaboration in psychology is on the rise. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 149-158.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 149.pdf

Abstract: There has been a substantial increase in the percentage for publications with co-authors located in departments from different countries in 12 major journals of psychology. The results are evidence for a remarkable internationalization of psychological research, starting in the mid 1970s and increasing in rate at the beginning of the 1990s. This growth occurs against a constant number of articles with authors from the same country, it is not due to a concomitant increase in the number of co-authors per article. Thus, international collaboration in psychology is obviously on the rise.

Keywords: Authors, Co-Authors, Collaboration, Country, Evidence, Growth, Historical Trend, International, International Collaboration, Internationalization, Journals, Linear Mixed Model, Psychological Publications, Psychology, Publications, Research

? Zhao, Q.J. and Guan, J.C. (2011), International collaboration of three ‘giants’ with the G7 countries in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 159-170.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 159.pdf

Abstract: Nanobiopharmaceuticals is a hopeful research domain from recent scientific advances with massive marketable potential. Although some researchers have studied international collaboration from some aspects, few articles are as comprehensive as this article to consider international cooperation from so many different aspects. We lay more emphasis on international collaboration in the field of nanobiopharmaceuticals involving China. Incremental citation impact values show that in order to move forward and improve the overall competitiveness in the field, China requires to carry out more international collaboration in the field, especially with USA, Germany, and England. Startlingly, multinational collaboration does not sway Chinese citation impact as much as we anticipate in the field. China has reached the first rank in the world in terms of publication amount per year in the field in 2009. Few papers about international collaboration compare small world phenomenon. We use small world quotient to find that it is important for Chinese international co-authors to strengthen to cultivate a cooperation networks in which a node’s partners are also buddies to each other.

Keywords: Advances, China, Chinese, Citation, Citation Impact, Co-Authors, Co-Authorship, Collaboration, Cooperation, Disciplinary, England, Field, First, Germany, Impact, International, International Collaboration, International Cooperation, Nanobiopharmaceuticals, Nanotechnology, Networks, Papers, Potential, Publication, Publications, Rank, Recent, Research, Small, Small World, USA, World

? Rousseau, R. (2011), Comments on the modified collaborative coefficient. Scientometrics, 87 (1), 171-174.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics87, 171.pdf

Abstract: It is shown that the observations made in a recent contribution by Savanur and Srikanth (Scientometrics 84:365-371, 2010) are not new. On the contrary much more refined collaboration measures have been proposed already in 1991 by Egghe.

Keywords: Collaboration, Collaborative Coefficient, Egghe’s Requirements for Collaboration Measures, Modified, Recent, Scale Invariance, Scientometrics

? Zheng, J., Zhao, Z.Y., Zhang, X., Chen, D.Z., Huang, M.H., Lei, X.P., Zhang, Z.Y., Zhao, Y.H. and Liu, R.S. (2011), Industry evolution and key technologies in China based on patent analysis. Scientometrics,