Search

Despite the growing interest of geographers in the sociology of science, no work has been done on the structure analysis of a community of geographers engaged in a particular research specialty. The paper sketches the set-theoretic foundations for such work and reviews the literature on research specialties. Particular attention is focused upon the descriptions of social and cognitive structures yielded from citation analysis. Citations are used to explore the structure of one research specialty, spatial diffusion modeling, this is accomplished using multidimensional scaling (MDS) and Q-analysis. The graphical description yielded by MDS does not prove illuminating, but the algebraic, structural description provided by Q-analysis, whereby both citing and cited papers are considered, offers a more useful interpretation. Q-analysis is suggested as a natural language in which to investigate further the structure and dynamics of research specialties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays, for those working in the academic field, the list of publications has become an essential condition in justifying the research activity. "To be or not to be" published in high-ranking journals and indexed in databases is a criterion in the evaluation of any researcher. In some cases, originality is a sine qua non condition for acceptance or publication. And yet sometimes the definition of the concept of "originality" is confusing in some cases. The novice researcher (and not only) needs some terminological clarifications and contextualization in the daily practice. In this sense, this paper offers possible answers to the questions: what is considered to be research? what is originality in research and why is it important? who and how evaluates originality in research? This last interrogation is the key question of the article, and the answer is presented on two main coordinates: the prepublication evaluation (performed by the author himself followed by the peerreviewer) and the post-publication evaluation (performed by Altmetrics and again by the author). Therefore, the whole process of evaluation is viewed from the perspective of a cycle that begins and ends with the author. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The results from four studies are reported separately to test the idea that influential articles in psychology will be more readable than less influential ones. This idea is upheld when the papers involved are ones that have been highly rated by fellow colleagues (Studies 1 and 2) but it is not supported when the papers involved are highly-cited journal articles (Studies 3 and 4). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Featured Application: An author-level metric for evaluating a researcher's cumulative scholarly output is presented which can be effectively utilized by abstract and citation databases and search engines. As the academic world yields an ever-increasing research output in terms of journal papers, conference proceedings, and books, the rating of published works and authors becomes imperative. All the big citation databases and search engines are currently using cumulative output indices, such as h-index, i10-index, and g-index, which do not consider the number of co-authors or the researcher's sequence number in the authors list of a publication. In this context, the article presents a novel computational approach for evaluating a researcher's scholarly output by taking into account the total number of co-authors, the sequence number of the researcher in the authors list, and the number of citations received per year by an article. Arithmetic progression is applied to quantify the credit for each co-author of a publication. The respective credits of a researcher are then accumulated for all their publications to obtain the rating. The method yields a truer value of the researcher's impact in terms of their scholarly activities. A global implementation of the metric presented in this work will curb the unethical practice of including the names of non-contributing researchers in the authors list and expecting reciprocity in return. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper estimates the process of diffusion and decay of knowledge from university, public laboratories and corporate patents in six countries and tests the differences across countries and across technological fields using data from the European Patent Office. It finds that university and public research patents are more cited relatively to companies’ patents. However these results are mainly driven by the Chemical, Drugs & Medical, and Mechanical fields and US universities. In Europe and Japan, where the great majority of patents from public research come from national agencies, there is no evidence of a superior fertility of university and public laboratory patents vis à vis corporate patents. The distribution of the citation lags shows that knowledge embedded in university and public research patents tends to diffuse more rapidly relative to corporate ones in particular in the US, Germany, France and Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Higher School's Pulse is the property of Public Higher Medical Professional School in Opole and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper suggests differential metrics for estimation of change dynamics of major ICT fields using the bibliometric indicators (publication and citation count). It refers to research areas such as big data, computational biology, cloud computing, cyber-physical systems, embedded systems, information security, internet of things, human-machine systems, mobile computing, machine learning, machine-to-machine, multi-agent systems, neural networks, robotics, visualization, augmented reality, SDN, 5G, e-Governance, smart city and smart grid. As supplements to the known indicators, two kinds of integrated derivative-based indicators are suggested. The calculation of indicators is made and their time curve is given. The suggested indicators allow evidently expressing the changes in the dynamics of bibliometric indicators, which can be useful in prospectivity estimation of areas of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Joint replacement surgery is becoming increasingly popular globally and recently,​in India. The phenomenon of medical tourism has also contributed to increasing number of arthroplasty surgeries being done every year in our country. The surgeons who work in this highly specialized field of orthopedic surgery, have been publishing their research work in reputed journals. In this paper, we have discussed the most cited Indian papers in the field of arthroplasty. It was observed that publications in high impact and reputed journals attract more citations and therefore it is recommended that the ‘good’ scientific research work should preferably be submitted to these journals to create greater impact and awareness about ones’ research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study uses bibliometric indicators to show the evolution of Romanian research in the 2007-2015 interval. It focuses on the number of published citable items, citations received by these items and the relationship between these two indicators in order to highlight the trends that define Romanian research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is based on a study that aimed at examining and interrogating the extent of faculty productivity in Zambia in terms of research, publication and citation with specific reference to the University of Zambia (UNZA). The paper invokes the Network Theory of Internationalisation of Higher Education founded by Johanson & Mattsson (1988).The research design used in this article is a convergent parallel mixed-methods design. The sample size total was 254, of which 244 were academic staff and 10 were key informants from management. Qualitative data was analysed according to emerging themes, while quantitative data was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The findings of this paper seem to suggest that faculties at UNZA were highly involved in research (applied and basic) at 75%, but with poor incidences of transforming research into publication and innovation. Only 38% of respondents published articles annually (increasing to 62% within two years) in local and international journals. While respondents who had published books in the last two years was as low as 19.5%. UNZA productivity output in terms of citation was relatively poor, below the expected standard of h-index and citation index of a flagship university which has a track record of more than 40 years of operation as a fully-fledged comprehensive university. Results primarily showed that the UNZA had an average h-index of 4.50 and a citation index of 156.87 which are significantly lower than the world averages of 17.50 and 971, respectively. The paper finally argues that, UNZA like most of the flagship and comprehensive universities in Africa, are quickly transforming from a teaching university into a research university based on the influence of the global North whose research agenda is central – at the expense of teaching. In order to improve on research productivity, this paper recommends that UNZA deliberately identify relevant industries, and global and regional partners to genuinely collaborate with as a way of leveraging resources and expertise. There is also a growing desire by universities in the global South to work closely together as way of improving their own productivity capacity in terms of research, publication, citation and redefine the concept of internationalization to fit the global South.

Number of citations is a basic bibliometric index for evaluating academic articles and assessing researchers, research groups, institutions, and journals. It has several derivative indices which typically assume all citations to have the same importance. Recent research has shown that this is not always true. In this paper, a theoretical relationship between the scientific impact of a research paper and the citations it receives is established. The mathematical model considers the following factors: the number of citations it has received, the role it plays in the papers citing it, and the scientific impact of the papers citing it. This theoretical model depends on the citation matrix and a content-based citation analysis. Limited by current technology, a simplified model referring to normalized citation is provided. The paper further discusses how to apply the method to estimate the scientific impact of researchers, research groups, institutions, and journals. The intended future work for this model is also presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an increasing emphasis on the use of metrics for assessing the research contribution of academics, departments, journals or conferences. Contribution has two dimensions: quantity which can be measured by number/size of the outputs, and quality which is most easily measured by the number of citations. Recently, Hirsch proposed a new metric which is simple, combines both quality and quantity in one number, and is robust to measurement problems. This paper applies the Hirsch-index (h-index) to three groups of management academics—BAM Fellows, INFORMS Fellows and members of COPIOR—in order to evaluate the extent to which the h-index would serve as a reliable measure of the contribution of researchers in the management field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I propose the index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number ≥h, as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Anales de Documentación is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Crowdsourcing engages the help of large numbers of people in tasks, activities or projects, usually via the internet. One application of crowdsourcing is the screening of citations for inclusion in a systematic review. There is evidence that a 'Crowd' of non-specialists can reliably identify quantitative studies, such as randomized controlled trials, through the assessment of study titles and abstracts. In this feasibility study, we investigated crowd performance of an online, topic-based citation-screening task, assessing titles and abstracts for inclusion in a single mixed-studies systematic review.Methods: This study was embedded within a mixed studies systematic review of maternity care, exploring the effects of training healthcare professionals in intrapartum cardiotocography. Citation-screening was undertaken via Cochrane Crowd, an online citizen science platform enabling volunteers to contribute to a range of tasks identifying evidence in health and healthcare. Contributors were recruited from users registered with Cochrane Crowd. Following completion of task-specific online training, the crowd and the review team independently screened 9546 titles and abstracts. The screening task was subsequently repeated with a new crowd following minor changes to the crowd agreement algorithm based on findings from the first screening task. We assessed the crowd decisions against the review team categorizations (the 'gold standard'), measuring sensitivity, specificity, time and task engagement.Results: Seventy-eight crowd contributors completed the first screening task. Sensitivity (the crowd's ability to correctly identify studies included within the review) was 84% (N = 42/50), and specificity (the crowd's ability to correctly identify excluded studies) was 99% (N = 9373/9493). Task completion was 33 h for the crowd and 410 h for the review team; mean time to classify each record was 6.06 s for each crowd participant and 3.96 s for review team members. Replicating this task with 85 new contributors and an altered agreement algorithm found 94% sensitivity (N = 48/50) and 98% specificity (N = 9348/9493). Contributors reported positive experiences of the task.Conclusion: It might be feasible to recruit and train a crowd to accurately perform topic-based citation-screening for mixed studies systematic reviews, though resource expended on the necessary customised training required should be factored in. In the face of long review production times, crowd screening may enable a more time-efficient conduct of reviews, with minimal reduction of citation-screening accuracy, but further research is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the academic world yields an ever-increasing research output in terms of journal papers, conference proceedings, and books, the rating of published works and authors becomes imperative. All the big citation databases and search engines are currently using cumulative output indices, such as h-index, i10-index, and g-index, which do not consider the number of co-authors or the researcher’s sequence number in the authors list of a publication. In this context, the article presents a novel computational approach for evaluating a researcher’s scholarly output by taking into account the total number of co-authors, the sequence number of the researcher in the authors list, and the number of citations received per year by an article. Arithmetic progression is applied to quantify the credit for each co-author of a publication. The respective credits of a researcher are then accumulated for all their publications to obtain the rating. The method yields a truer value of the researcher’s impact in terms of their scholarly activities. A global implementation of the metric presented in this work will curb the unethical practice of including the names of non-contributing researchers in the authors list and expecting reciprocity in return.

Addressing a suspicion that the field of Operations Management (OM) draws substantially more knowledge from non-OM journals than those journals draw from OM journals in return, we studied the citations of the top 30 research journals of interest to our field. We conducted citation analyses of the three oldest OM journals over three decades in comparison to the 27 other journals representing the fields of Management, Operations Research/Management Science (OR/MS), Marketing, Practice, and Engineering. We examined both the entire 30-year period and then each decade separately. Our suspicions were confirmed—although citations from these 27 journals to these three OM journals have increased by a factor of 7 over the three decades, we in OM still cite these journals about twenty-five times more often than they cite our journals, giving an indication of the knowledge development and flows among these fields. We then describe some challenges for the field of OM in providing more research knowledge to other fields but also some opportunities that OM should be able to capitalize on, such as our historic ties to practice and our escalating research in strategic and organizational issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: West Nile virus (WNV) is an emerging infectious disease which is most commonly transmitted to humans through mosquito, and is considered a major public-health problem worldwide. The aim of the current study is to bibliometrically analyze the quantity and quality of publications indexed in Scopus from different countries to reveal the characteristics of global research output regarding WNV.Methods: This study is a bibliometric analysis based on the Scopus database. This study focused on identifying WNV publication trends with regard to publication year, publication type, prolific countries, language of publication, as well as, prolific journals, citations, and collaboration patterns.Results: A total of 4729 publications were considered in this study, which were published between 1943 and 2016. The annual quantity of literature published before 2000 followed a low rate of research growth; while the quantity of publications after 2000 were published in a stage of rapid development. The country with the greatest number of publications in WNV research field was the USA with 2304 (48.7%) publications, followed by France with 224 (4.7%) publications, and Canada with 222 (4.7%) publications. Contributions from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) were considerably small, that is, (n = 519 publications; 11%). All publications related to WNV achieved h-index of 140 and were cited 124,222 times. The median [interquartile range] number of citations per article thus amounts to 9 [2-28]. The USA had the highest h-index of 131. Emerging Infectious Diseases is the most productive journal with 227 articles, followed by Journal of Virology with 162 publications. The result designated that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was ranked the first in terms of publication output, followed by National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases.Conclusions: There is an obvious trend of WNV research after 2000, and countries with high income have more contributions in WNV research field. The research output is low among LMIC. The USA produced the largest number of publications. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention obtained the leading position of the institutions in terms of publication output. In general, this study not only presents a full view of global WNV research, but also can contribute for future further research in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The great development experienced by material research in Spain during the last 30 years has been, in great part, a consequence of the initiative of the National Research Council of Spain (CSIC) of including Material Science as a priority area in its Scientific Programme in the years 1980. Four new institutes for research in advanced materials were created in 1985-1986 in Barcelona, Madrid, Sevilla and Zaragoza , the last two in cooperation with the respective universities. A Scientific Advisory Committee, whose members were scientists of great prestige at the international level, was nominated by the CSIC in order to guarantee a high standard in the research activities of the new centres. Sources for funding material research projects existed at three levels: a) the Framework Programme of the European Unión; b) the National Programme for Scientific Research and Tchnological development of the Spanish Governement and c) the Institutional Research Programme of the CSIC. An important increase of the research activity has taken place during the last 30 years, as indicated by the number of papers published in international journals, Finally, an análiysis of the actual situation of research activities in material research concerning the public sector (universities and research organisms) and the industrial sector, is presented.El desarrollo de la investigación en Ciencia de Materiales que ha tenido lugar en España durante los últimos 30 años, se ha debido, en gran parte, a la iniciativa del CSIC de incluir la Ciencia de Materiales como área prioritario en su programación científica en los años 1980. El CSIC creó, en 1985-1986, cuatro institutos de Ciencia de Materiales en Barcelona, Madrid, Sevilla y Zaragoza, los dos últimos como centros mixtos Universidad-CSIC. Para el desarrollo de la labor científica de estos centros, el CSIC creó un Comité Científico Asesor formado por científicos de gran prestigio internacional en esta área. La financiación de proyectos de investigación en Ciencia de Materiales quedó establecida a tres niveles: a) El Programa Marco de la Unión Europea, b) El Programa Nacional de Investigación Científica y Desarrollo Tecnológico, y c) El Programa Sectorial del CSIC. En los últimos 30 años se ha producido un importante aumento en la actividad científica del área, como lo prueba el numero de artículos publicados en revistas internacionales. Finalmente se hace un análisis y evaluación de la situación actual de esta área en el sector público (universidades y organismos de investigación) y en el sector industrial.

Articles in high-prestige journals receive more citations and more applause than articles in less-prestigious journals, but how much more do these articles contribute to knowledge? This article uses a statistical theory of review processes to draw inferences about differences value between articles in more prestigious versus less-prestigious journals.This analysis indicates that there is much overlap in articles in different prestige strata. Indeed, theory implies that about half of the articles published are not among the best ones submitted to those journals, and some of the manuscripts that belong in the highest-value 20% have the misfortune to elicit rejections from as many as five journals. Some social science departments and business schools strongly emphasize publication in prestigious journals. Although one can draw inferences about an author's average manuscript from the percentage in top-tier journals, the confidence limits for such inferences are wide. A focus on prestigious journals may benefit the most prestigious departments or schools but add randomness to the decisions of departments or schools that are not at the very top. Such a focus may also impede the development of knowledge when mediocre research receives the endorsement of high visibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]