Search

This article statistically analyzes how the citation impact of articles deposited in the Condensed Matter section of the preprint server ArXiv (hosted by Cornell University), and subsequently published in a scientific journal, compares to that of articles in the same journal that were not deposited in the archive. Its principal aim is to further illustrate and roughly estimate the effect of two factors, 'early view' and 'quality bias,' on differences in citation impact between these two sets of papers, using citation data from Thomson Scientific's Web of Science. It presents estimates for a number of journals in the field of condensed matter physics. To discriminate between an 'open access' effect and an early view effect, longitudinal citation data were analyzed covering a time period as long as 7 years. Quality bias was measured by calculating ArXiv citation impact differentials at the level of individual authors publishing in a journal, taking into account coauthorship. The analysis provided evidence of a strong quality bias and early view effect. Correcting for these effects, there is in a sample of six condensed matter physics journals studied in detail no sign of a general 'open access advantage' of papers deposited in ArXiv. The study does provide evidence that ArXiv accelerates citation due to the fact that ArXiv makes papers available earlier rather than makes them freely available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The starting point of this paper is a desktop research assessment model that does not take properly into account the complexities of research assessment, but rather bases itself on a series of highly simplifying, questionable assumptions related to the availability, validity and evaluative significance of research performance indicators, and to funding policy criteria. The paper presents a critique of this model, and proposes alternative assessment approaches, based on an explicit evaluative framework, focusing on preconditions to performance or communication effectiveness rather than on performance itself, combining metrics and expert knowledge and using metrics primarily to set minimum standards. Giving special attention to early career scientists in emerging research groups, the paper discusses the limits of classical bibliometric indicators and altmetrics. It proposes alternative funding formula of research institutions aimed to support emerging research groups.

This paper presents an overview of research assessment methodologies developed in the field of evaluative bibliometrics, a subfield of quantitative science and technology studies, aimed to construct indicators of research performance from a quantitative statistical analysis of scientific-scholarly documents. Citation analysis is one of its key methodologies. The paper illustrates the potentialities and limitations of the use of bibliometric indicators in research assessment. It discusses the relationship between metrics and peer review; databases used as sources of bibliometric analysis; the pros and cons of indicators often applied, including journal impact factors, Hirsch indices, and normalized indicators of citation impact; and approaches to the bibliometric measurement of institutional research performance.

This study provides an overview of the research performance of major European countries in the field Oncology, the most important journals in which they published their research articles, and the most important academic institutions publishing them. The analysis was based on Thomson Scientific's Web of Science (WoS) and calculated bibliometric indicators of publication activity and actual citation impact. Studying the time period 2000-2006, it gives an update of earlier studies, but at the same time it expands their methodologies, using a broader definition of the field, calculating indicators of actual citation impact, and analysing new and policy relevant aspects. Findings suggest that the emergence of Asian countries in the field Oncology has displaced European articles more strongly than articles from the USA; that oncologists who have published their articles in important, more general journals or in journals covering other specialties, rather than in their own specialist journals, have generated a relatively high actual citation impact; and that universities from Germany, and--to a lesser extent--those from Italy, the Netherlands, UK, and Sweden, dominate a ranking of European universities based on number of articles in oncology. The outcomes illustrate that different bibliometric methodologies may lead to different outcomes, and that outcomes should be interpreted with care.