Personal Research Database

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 245.pdf

Abstract: This article defines different perspectives for citations and introduces four concepts: Self-expected Citations, Received Citations, Expected Citations, and Deserved Citations. When comparing permutations of these four classes of perspectives, there are up to 145 kinds of equality/inequality relations. From these numerous relations, we analyze the difference between the Matthew Effect and the Matthew Phenomenon. We provide a precise definition and point out that many previous empirical research studies on the Matthew Effect based on citations belong primarily to the Matthew Phenomenon, and not the true meaning of the Matthew Effect. Due to the difficulty in determining the Deserved Citations, the Matthew Effect is in itself difficult to measure, although it is commonly believed to influence citation counts. Furthermore, from the theoretical facts, we outline four new effects/phenomena: the Self-confidence Effect/Phenomenon, the Narcissus Effect/Phenomenon, the Other-confidence Effect/Phenomenon, and the Flattery Effect/Phenomenon, and we discuss additional influencing factors.

Keywords: Analysis, Article, Authorship, Citation, Citation Analysis, Citation Counts, Citations, Citing Behavior, Counts, Impact, Index, Lotka Law, Matthew Core Journals, Matthew Effect, Property, Research, Scholarly Communication, Science

? Jang, S.L., Yu, Y.C. and Wang, T.Y. (2011), Emerging firms in an emerging field: An analysis of patent citations in electronic-paper display technology. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 259-272.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 259.pdf

Abstract: USPTO patent data covering the years 1994-2008 is used in this study to examine the citation networks of electronic-paper display technology. Our primary aim is to provide a better understanding of the ways in which emerging firms interact with, and learn from, technology diffusers. Two implications can be drawn from our analysis. Firstly, emerging firms within an emerging industry can enhance their technological capabilities through positive external learning activity. Secondly, despite the fact that technology diffusers have clear technological advantages, with the emergence of a new field, their influence within the network could potentially be decayed if they fail to remain proactive in terms of the absorption of available external knowledge.

Keywords: Absorption, Analysis, Centrality, Citation, Citation Networks, Citations, Electronic-Paper Display Technology, Emerging Field, Industry, Innovation, Knowledge, Knowledge Spillovers, Learning, Networks, Patent, Patent Citation, Primary, Research-And-Development

? Kissin, I. (2011), A surname-based bibliometric indicator: Publications in biomedical journal. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 273-280.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 273.pdf

Abstract: Surnames have been used as a proxy in studies on health care for various ethnic groups and also applied to ascribe ethnicity in studies on the genetic structure of a population. The aim of this study was to use a surname-based bibliometric indicator to assess the representation of Jewish authors in US biomedical journals. The other aim was to test the hypothesis that the representation of Jewish authors in US biomedical journals corresponds to their representation among US Nobel Prize winners in Medicine, 1960-2009. From among articles published 1960-2009 in all journals covered by Medline (> 5,000), and in the top 10 US biomedical journals we counted articles by authors from the following three groups: Kohenic-Levitic surnames, other common Jewish surnames, and the most frequent non-Jewish surnames in the USA. The frequency of a surname in the US population (1990 US Census) was used to calculate the expected number of scientific publications: the total number of published articles multiplied by a surname’s frequency. The actual number of articles with that surname was also determined. The ratio of actual to expected number of articles was used as a measure of representation proportionality. It was found that the ratio of actual to expected number of articles in both Jewish groups is close to 10 among all (> 5,000) journals, and close to 20 in the top 10 journals. The ratio of actual to expected numbers of Jewish Nobel Laureates in the USA is also close to 20. In conclusion, the representation of Jewish authors in top 10 US biomedical journals corresponds to the representation of Jewish Nobel Laureates among US laureates. We hypothesize that disproportional representation of Jewish scientists as authors in top biomedical journals and among Nobel Prize laureates in Medicine is mostly due to their overrepresentation as research participants, not because of the increased chances for reward for a Jewish researcher per se.

Keywords: Authors, Bibliometric, Bibliometrics, Biomedical, Biomedical Journals, Care, Databases, Ethnicity, Frequency, Genetic, Health Care, Impact Factor, Journal, Journals, Medline, Names, Nobel Prize, Publication Productivity, Publications, Ratio, Research, Scientific Publications, Surnames, US, USA

? Trimble, V. and Ceja, J.A. (2011), Are American astrophysics papers accepted more quickly than others? Part I. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 281-289.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 281.pdf

Abstract: It has been shown that papers in stem cell research submitted from institutions in the USA are accepted faster than those submitted from elsewhere and that the cause might at least partly be some bias in the refereeing process. We investigate whether there is a similar difference in time scale for papers in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology and look briefly at some of the possible causes. We find a publication time lag of 3.8 days (out of a median time of 105 days) while in the stem cell case it is 24 days out of a median of 83 days. One of many possible causes is a difference in how useful the papers are to the community, and we will assess this in a second paper making use of citation analysis.

Keywords: Analysis, Astronomical Journals, Bias, Citation, Citation Analysis, Citations, Einstein, Papers, Publication, Publications, Research, Space, USA

? Tol, R.S.J. (2011), Credit where credit’s due: accounting for co-authorship in citation counts. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 291-299.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 291.pdf

Abstract: I propose a new method (Pareto weights) to objectively attribute citations to co-authors. Previous methods either profess ignorance about the seniority of co-authors (egalitarian weights) or are based in an ad hoc way on the order of authors (rank weights). Pareto weights are based on the respective citation records of the co-authors. Pareto weights are proportional to the probability of observing the number of citations obtained. Assuming a Pareto distribution, such weights can be computed with a simple, closed-form equation but require a few iterations and data on a scholar, her co-authors, and her co-authors’ co-authors. The use of Pareto weights is illustrated with a group of prominent economists. In this case, Pareto weights are very different from rank weights. Pareto weights are more similar to egalitarian weights but can deviate up to a quarter in either direction (for reasons that are intuitive).

Keywords: Authors, Citation, Citation Counts, Citations, Co-Authors, Co-Authorship, Coauthorship, Index, Law, Lotka, Pareto Distribution

? Waltman, L., Yan, E. and van Eck, N.J. (2011), A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: An application to the field of library and information science. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 301-314.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 301.pdf

Abstract: Two commonly used ideas in the development of citation-based research performance indicators are the idea of normalizing citation counts based on a field classification scheme and the idea of recursive citation weighing (like in PageRank-inspired indicators). We combine these two ideas in a single indicator, referred to as the recursive mean normalized citation score indicator, and we study the validity of this indicator. Our empirical analysis shows that the proposed indicator is highly sensitive to the field classification scheme that is used. The indicator also has a strong tendency to reinforce biases caused by the classification scheme. Based on these observations, we advise against the use of indicators in which the idea of normalization based on a field classification scheme and the idea of recursive citation weighing are combined.

Keywords: Analysis, Audience Factor, Bibliometric, Bibliometric Indicator, Citation, Citation Analysis, Citation Counts, Citation Impact, Development, Eigenfactor, Excellence, Field Normalization, Information, Information Science, Pagerank, Performance Indicators, Recursive Indicator, Research, Research Performance, Science, Search, Tools, Validity

? Franceschini, F. and Maisano, D. (2011), On the analogy between the evolution of thermodynamic and bibliometric systems: A breakthrough or just a bubble? Scientometrics, 89 (1), 315-327.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 315.pdf

Abstract: This paper presents an in depth study of an interesting analogy, recently proposed by Prathap (Scientometrics 87(3):515-524, 2011a), between the evolution of thermodynamic and bibliometric systems. The goal is to highlight some weaknesses and clarify some “dark sides” in the conceptual framework of this analogy, discussing the formal validity and practical meaning of the concepts of Energy, Exergy and Entropy in bibliometrics. Specifically, this analogy highlights the following major criticalities: (1) the definitions of E and X are controversial, (2) the equivalence classes of E and X are questionable, (3) the parallel between the evolution of thermodynamic and bibliometric systems is forced, (4) X is a non-monotonic performance indicator, and (5) in bibliometrics the condition of “thermodynamic perfection” is questionable. Argument is supported by many analytical demonstrations and practical examples.

Keywords: Bibliometric, Bibliometrics, Composite Indicators, Definitions, Depth, Energy, Entropy, Evolution, Exergy, h-Index, Journals, P-Index, S = E - X, Scientometrics, Thermodynamic, Thermodynamics, Validity

? Zitt, M. (2011), Behind citing-side normalization of citations: Some properties of the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 329-344.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 329.pdf

Abstract: A new family of citation normalization methods appeared recently, in addition to the classical methods of “cited-side” normalization and the iterative measures of intellectual influence in the wake of Pinski and Narin influence weights. These methods have a quite global scope in citation analysis but were first applied to the journal impact, in the experimental Audience Factor (AF) and the Scopus Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP). Analyzing some properties of the Garfield’s Journal Impact Factor, this note highlights the rationale of citing-side (or source-level, fractional citation, ex ante) normalization.

Keywords: Analysis, Citation, Citation Analysis, Citation Normalization, Citations, Citing-Side Normalization, Experimental, Family, Impact, Impact Factor, Indicators, Journal, Journal Impact Factor, Performance, Scopus, Source-Level Normalization

? Borner, K., Glänzel, W., Scharnhorst, A. and van den Besselaar, P. (2011), Modeling science: Studying the structure and dynamics of science. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 347-348.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 347.pdf

Keywords: Modeling, Science

? Mutschke, P., Mayr, P., Schaer, P. and Sure, Y. (2011), Science models as value-added services for scholarly information systems. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 349-364.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 349.pdf

Abstract: The paper introduces scholarly Information Retrieval (IR) as a further dimension that should be considered in the science modeling debate. The IR use case is seen as a validation model of the adequacy of science models in representing and predicting structure and dynamics in science. Particular conceptualizations of scholarly activity and structures in science are used as value-added search services to improve retrieval quality: a co-word model depicting the cognitive structure of a field (used for query expansion), the Bradford law of information concentration, and a model of co-authorship networks (both used for re-ranking search results). An evaluation of the retrieval quality when science model driven services are used turned out that the models proposed actually provide beneficial effects to retrieval quality. From an IR perspective, the models studied are therefore verified as expressive conceptualizations of central phenomena in science. Thus, it could be shown that the IR perspective can significantly contribute to a better understanding of scholarly structures and activities.

Keywords: Activities, Bradford Law, Centrality, Citation, Co-Authorship, Co-Authorship Networks, Coauthorship, Evaluation, Information, Information Systems, International Collaboration, IR, Model, Modeling, Networks, Query Expansion, Re-Ranking, Retrieval, Retrieval System, Science, Science Models, Scientific Collaboration, Validation, Value-Added Services

? Galam, S. (2011), Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 365-379.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 365.pdf

Abstract: A quantitative modification to keep the number of published papers invariant under multiple authorship is suggested. In those cases, fractional allocations are attributed to each co-author with a summation equal to one. These allocations are tailored on the basis of each author contribution. It is denoted “Tailor Based Allocations (TBA)” for multiple authorship. Several protocols to TBA are suggested. The choice of a specific TBA may vary from one discipline to another. In addition, TBA is applied to the number of citations of a multiple author paper to have also this number conserved. Each author gets only a specific fraction of the total number of citations according to its fractional paper allocation. The equivalent of the h-index obtained by using TBA is denoted the gh-index. It yields values which differ drastically from those given by the h-index. The gh-index departs also from (h) over bar recently proposed by Hirsh to account for multiple authorship. Contrary to the h-index, the gh-index is a function of the total number of citations of each paper. A highly cited paper allows a better allocation for all co-authors while a less cited paper contributes essentially to one or two of the co-authors. The scheme produces a substantial redistribution of the ranking of scientists in terms of quantitative records. A few illustrations are provided.

Keywords: Author, Authorship, Citations, Consequences, Contribution, Fractional Allocations, h Index, h-Index, h-Index, Highly-Cited, Hirsch-Index, Impact, Modification, Multiauthored Publications, Multiple Authorship, Papers, Quantitative, Ranking, TBA

? Evans, T.S., Lambiotte, R. and Panzarasa, P. (2011), Community structure and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 381-396.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 381.pdf

Abstract: This paper investigates the role of homophily and focus constraint in shaping collaborative scientific research. First, homophily structures collaboration when scientists adhere to a norm of exclusivity in selecting similar partners at a higher rate than dissimilar ones. Two dimensions on which similarity between scientists can be assessed are their research specialties and status positions. Second, focus constraint shapes collaboration when connections among scientists depend on opportunities for social contact. Constraint comes in two forms, depending on whether it originates in institutional or geographic space. Institutional constraint refers to the tendency of scientists to select collaborators within rather than across institutional boundaries. Geographic constraint is the principle that, when collaborations span different institutions, they are more likely to involve scientists that are geographically co-located than dispersed. To study homophily and focus constraint, the paper will argue in favour of an idea of collaboration that moves beyond formal co-authorship to include also other forms of informal intellectual exchange that do not translate into the publication of joint work. A community-detection algorithm for formalising this perspective will be proposed and applied to the co-authorship network of the scientists that submitted to the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in Business and Management in the UK. While results only partially support research-based homophily, they indicate that scientists use status positions for discriminating between potential partners by selecting collaborators from institutions with a rating similar to their own. Strong support is provided in favour of institutional and geographic constraints. Scientists tend to forge intra-institutional collaborations; yet, when they seek collaborators outside their own institutions, they tend to select those who are in geographic proximity. The implications of this analysis for tie creation in joint scientific endeavours are discussed.

Keywords: Analysis, Assessment, Co-Authorship, Coauthorship, Collaboration, Collaboration Networks, Community Structure, Complex Networks, Exercise, Geographic, Geographic Distance, Geography, Intra- and Inter-Institutional Collaborations, Joint, Knowledge, Management, Publication, Research, Research Specialty, Science, Scientific Collaboration, Scientific Research, Social, Social Network, Teams, UK

? Frigotto, M.L. and Riccaboni, M. (2011), A few special cases: Scientific creativity and network dynamics in the field of rare diseases. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 397-420.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 397.pdf

Abstract: We develop a model of scientific creativity and test it in the field of rare diseases. Our model is based on the results of an in-depth case study of the Rett Syndrome. Archival analysis, bibliometric techniques and expert surveys are combined with network analysis to identify the most creative scientists. First, we compare alternative measures of generative and combinatorial creativity. Then, we generalize our results in a stochastic model of socio-semantic network evolution. The model predictions are tested with an extended set of rare diseases. We find that new scientific collaborations among experts in a field enhance combinatorial creativity. Instead, high entry rates of novices are negatively related to generative creativity. By expanding the set of useful concepts, creative scientists gain in centrality. At the same time, by increasing their centrality in the scientific community, scientists can replicate and generalize their results, thus contributing to a scientific paradigm.

Keywords: Analysis, Bibliometric, Bibliometric Indicators, Biomedical Research, Brokerage, Centrality, Co-Authorship Network, Collaboration, Creativity, Emergence, Evolution, Ideas, Industry, Innovation, Mathematical Approach, Model, Performance, Perspective, Qualitative And Quantitative Method, Scientific Collaboration

? Guo, H.N., Weingart, S. and Borner, K. (2011), Mixed-indicators model for identifying emerging research areas. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 421-435.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 421.pdf

Abstract: This study presents a mixed model that combines different indicators to describe and predict key structural and dynamic features of emerging research areas. Three indicators are combined: sudden increases in the frequency of specific words; the number and speed by which new authors are attracted to an emerging research area, and changes in the interdisciplinarity of cited references. The mixed model is applied to four emerging research areas: RNAi, Nano, h-Index, and Impact Factor research using papers published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (1982-2009) and in Scientometrics (1978-2009). Results are compared in terms of strengths and temporal dynamics. Results show that the indicators are indicative of emerging areas and they exhibit interesting temporal correlations: new authors enter the area first, then the interdisciplinarity of paper references increases, then word bursts occur. All workflows are reported in a manner that supports replication and extension by others.

Keywords: Authors, Burst Detection, Communication, Discovery, Emergence, Emerging Trend, Facts, Figures, Frequency, h Index, h-Index, Impact, Impact Factor, Interdisciplinarity, Model, Nano, Papers, Prediction, Publication Output, Relative Citation Impact, Research, Science, Science of Science (SCI(2)) Tool, Scientometrics, Technology, Temporal Dynamics, Tracking

? Watts, C. and Gilbert, N. (2011), Does cumulative advantage affect collective learning in science? An agent-based simulation. Scientometrics, 89 (1), 437-463.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 437.pdf

Abstract: Agent-based simulation can model simple micro-level mechanisms capable of generating macro-level patterns, such as frequency distributions and network structures found in bibliometric data. Agent-based simulations of organisational learning have provided analogies for collective problem solving by boundedly rational agents employing heuristics. This paper brings these two areas together in one model of knowledge seeking through scientific publication. It describes a computer simulation in which academic papers are generated with authors, references, contents, and an extrinsic value, and must pass through peer review to become published. We demonstrate that the model can fit bibliometric data for a token journal, Research Policy. Different practices for generating authors and references produce different distributions of papers per author and citations per paper, including the scale-free distributions typical of cumulative advantage processes. We also demonstrate the model’s ability to simulate collective learning or problem solving, for which we use Kauffman’s NK fitness landscape. The model provides evidence that those practices leading to cumulative advantage in citations, that is, papers with many citations becoming even more cited, do not improve scientists’ ability to find good solutions to scientific problems, compared to those practices that ignore past citations. By contrast, what does make a difference is referring only to publications that have successfully passed peer review. Citation practice is one of many issues that a simulation model of science can address when the data-rich literature on scientometrics is connected to the analogy-rich literature on organisations and heuristic search.

Keywords: Author, Authors, Bibliometric, Citation, Citation Distribution, Citations, Computer, Computer Simulation, Cumulative Advantage, Frequency, Journal, Knowledge, Landscape Search, Learning, Literature, Mechanisms, Model, Networks, Optimization, Papers, Peer Review, Peer-Review, Policy, Practice, Publication, Publications, Research, Review, Rugged Landscapes, Science, Science Models, Science Policy, Scientific Publication, Scientometrics, Simulation, Strategies

? Lee, L.C., Lin, P.H., Chuang, Y.W. and Lee, Y.Y. (2011), Research output and economic productivity: A Granger causality test. Scientometrics, 89 (2), 465-478.

Full Text: 2011\Scientometrics89, 564.pdf

Abstract: The correlation between GDP and research publications is an important issue in scientometrics. This article provides further empirical evidence connecting revealed comparative advantage in national research with effects on economic productivity. Using quantitative time series analysis, this study attempts to determine the nature of causal relationships between research output and economic productivity. One empirical result is that there is mutual causality between research and economic growth in Asia, whereas in Western countries the causality is much less clear. The results may be of use to underdeveloped nations deciding how to direct their academic investment and industry policy.

Keywords: Analysis, Asia, Autoregressive Time-Series, Causality, Countries, Economic Productivity, GDP, Granger Causality, Growth, Industry, Policy, Productivity, Publications, Quantitative, Research, Research Output, Scientometric Indicators, Scientometrics, Time Series Analysis, Unit-Root

? Niazi, M. and Hussain, A. (2011), Agent-based computing from multi-agent systems to agent-based models: A visual survey. Scientometrics,