Search

We evaluate author impact indicators and ranking algorithms on two publication databases using large test data sets of well-established researchers. The test data consists of (1) ACM fellowship and (2) various life-time achievement awards. We also evaluate different approaches of dividing credit of papers among co-authors and analyse the impact of self-citations. Furthermore, we evaluate different graph normalisation approaches for when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs. We find that PageRank outperforms citation counts in identifying well-established researchers. This holds true when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs but also when PageRank is computed on paper graphs and paper scores are divided among co-authors. In general, the best results are obtained when co-authors receive an equal share of a paper's score, independent of which impact indicator is used to compute paper scores. The results also show that removing author self-citations improves the results of most ranking metrics. Lastly, we find that it is more important to personalise the PageRank algorithm appropriately on the paper level than deciding whether to include or exclude self-citations. However, on the author level, we find that author graph normalisation is more important than personalisation.

The factors influencing academic citations have been extensively discussed in the literature. However, few studies have investigated whether atypical recombinations of references, topics, and keywords, and academic-network factors (e.g., author citation network-related factors, co-author network-related factors, and institution citation network-related factors) are correlated with paper citation counts. Also, most previous studies have only focused on one discipline. Twenty-four factors were classified into three main categories, including the novelty of the paper, bibliometric indicators, and the influence of the academic network of authors and institutions, which have not yet been simultaneously considered. To fill this gap in the literature, a neural network model was constructed to measure the influence of these 24 factors on citation counts using the weight product of connecting neurons. The results demonstrated that the influence of novelty, bibliometric, and academic-network-related factors on citation counts vary significantly among the four studied disciplines (library & information science, nuclear science & technology, computer science & software engineering, and history). It was found that the influence of multiple factors in the novelty category on citation counts is higher than the bibliometric and academic-network categories, while the individual factor in the novelty category is not always the most influential factor (median z-score, recombination topic pairs, and recombination keyword pairs).

This paper proposes a simple, flexible, axiom-based mechanism for facilitating the comparison between a scholar's citation count and the visibility of the journals wherein the scholar's articles were published. The goal is to help research review bodies easily grasp the distinction these two forms of scholarly accomplishment and to provide a transparent way to articulate expectations about them to scholars. The approach is demonstrated using a widely applied and cooperative functional form that can reflect, via different parameter values, a wide range of possible beliefs about the relative merits of citation counts and journal visibility.

A review of the genus Stephania in southern Africa is presented. Stephania is represented by one species (Stephania abyssinica) and two infraspecific taxa in this region. A key to the infraspecific taxa, the complete synonymy and the formal descriptions are given. Taxon accounts are supplemented with geographical distribution records, notes on the ecology and known traditional uses. The two varieties of S. abyssinica can easily be distinguished as the stems and leaves of S. abyssinica var. abyssinica are glabrous while those of S. abyssinica var. tomentella are pubescent. The correct author citation of the varietal name (var. tomentella) is also provided.

Ethnopharmacological relevance Medical research on plant-derived compounds requires a breadth of expertise from field to laboratory and clinical skills. Too often basic botanical skills are evidently lacking, especially with respect to plant taxonomy and botanical nomenclature. Binomial and familial names, synonyms and author citations are often misconstrued. The correct botanical name, linked to a vouchered specimen, is the sine qua non of phytomedical research. Without the unique identifier of a proper binomial, research cannot accurately be linked to the existing literature. Perhaps more significant, is the ambiguity of species determinations that ensues of from poor taxonomic practices. This uncertainty, not surprisingly, obstructs reproducibility of results—the cornerstone of science. Materials and methods Based on our combined six decades of experience with medicinal plants, we discuss the problems of inaccurate taxonomy and botanical nomenclature in biomedical research. This problems appear all too frequently in manuscripts and grant applications that we review and they extend to the published literature. We also review the literature on the importance of taxonomy in other disciplines that relate to medicinal plant research. Results and discussion In most cases, questions regarding orthography, synonymy, author citations, and current family designations of most plant binomials can be resolved using widely-available online databases and other electronic resources. Some complex problems require consultation with a professional plant taxonomist, which also is important for accurate identification of voucher specimens. Researchers should provide the currently accepted binomial and complete author citation, provide relevant synonyms, and employ the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group III family name. Taxonomy is a vital adjunct not only to plant-medicine research but to virtually every field of science. Conclusions Medicinal plant researchers can increase the precision and utility of their investigations by following sound practices with respect to botanical nomenclature. Correct spellings, accepted binomials, author citations, synonyms, and current family designations can readily be found on reliable online databases. When questions arise, researcher should consult plant taxonomists.

Most networks in information science appear as weighted networks, while many of them (e.g. author citation networks, web link networks and knowledge flow networks) are directed networks. Based on the definition of the h -degree, the directed h -degree is introduced for measuring both weighted networks and directed networks. After analyzing the properties and derived measures of the directed h -degree an actual application of LIS journals citation network is worked out.

A systematic view of terrorism research to reveal the intellectual structure of the field and empirically discern the distinct set of core researchers, institutional affiliations, publications, and conceptual areas can help us gain a deeper understanding of approaches to terrorism. This paper responds to this need by using an integrated knowledge-mapping framework that we developed to identify the core researchers and knowledge creation approaches in terrorism. The framework uses three types of analysis: (a) basic analysis of scientific output using citation, bibliometric, and social network analyses, (b) content map analysis of large corpora of literature, and (c) co-citation analysis to analyse linkages among pairs of researchers. We applied domain visualization techniques such as content map analysis, block-modeling, and co-citation analysis to the literature and author citation data from the years 1965 to 2003. The data were gathered from ten databases such as the ISI Web of Science. The results reveal: (1) the names of the top 42 core terrorism researchers (e.g., Brian Jenkins, Bruce Hoffman, and Paul Wilkinson) as well as their institutional affiliations; (2) their influential publications; (3) clusters of terrorism researchers who work in similar areas; and (4) that the research focus has shifted from terrorism as a low-intensity conflict to a strategic threat to world powers with increased focus on Osama Bin Laden.

A brief biographical sketch of Nicolas-Marie-Therese Jolyclerc (1746–1817), the French naturalist and adherent of C. Linnaeus, is presented. The publication history of his Systeme sexuel des vegetaux, the first French version of the Linnaean sexual system of the plants is outlined. Apart from the well-known editions of this work of 1797, 1798 and 1810, a neglected edition of 1803 is described, and it is shown that this is not a pirated edition as has been suggested. A list of fourteen new combinations in mosses proposed by N. Jolyclerc in the 1803 edition of Systeme sexuel des vegetaux is presented and some names are briefly annotated. Additionally, it is shown that Mnium triquetrum, basionym of the well-known moss species Meesia triquetra, was validly published for the first time by N. Jolyclerc in 1803, not by H. E. Richter in 1839 as is commonly accepted. Accordingly, the correct author citation for Meesia triquetra should be ‘(L. ex Jolycl.) Angstr.’, not ‘(L. ex Richt.) Angstr.’ The lectotype of Mnium triquetrum L. ex Jolycl. is selected from the Linnaean herbarium (LINN).

The identity of the type of Tanacetum burchellii DC. is re-assessed. The original material cited by Augustin P. de Candolle represents two different species. When compared to the protologue, it is clear that only one of the two specimens fits the description and is therefore here designated as lectotype. However, the selected lectotype is clearly conspecific with Foveolina albidiformis (Thell.) Kallersjo and as a result the new combination Foveolina burchellii (DC.) Magee is proposed as the correct name for this taxon. The correct author citations, typifications and synonyms for both Foveolina burchellii and Pentzia punctata Harv. ex Hutch. are provided.