Browse

You are looking at 61 - 70 of 76 items for :

  • Mathematics and Statistics x
  • Refine by Access: Content accessible to me x
Clear All

Abstract  

Many investigations of scientific collaboration are based on statistical analyses of large networks constructed from bibliographic repositories. These investigations often rely on a wealth of bibliographic data, but very little or no other information about the individuals in the network, and thus, fail to illustrate the broader social and academic landscape in which collaboration takes place. In this article, we perform an in-depth longitudinal analysis of a relatively small network of scientific collaboration (N = 291) constructed from the bibliographic record of a research centerin the development and application of wireless and sensor network technologies. We perform a preliminary analysis of selected structural properties of the network, computing its range, configuration and topology. We then support our preliminary statistical analysis with an in-depth temporal investigation of the assortative mixing of selected node characteristics, unveiling the researchers’ propensity to collaborate preferentially with others with a similar academic profile. Our qualitative analysis of mixing patterns offers clues as to the nature of the scientific community being modeled in relation to its organizational, disciplinary, institutional, and international arrangements of collaboration.

Open access

Abstract  

We present VOSviewer, a freely available computer program that we have developed for constructing and viewing bibliometric maps. Unlike most computer programs that are used for bibliometric mapping, VOSviewer pays special attention to the graphical representation of bibliometric maps. The functionality of VOSviewer is especially useful for displaying large bibliometric maps in an easy-to-interpret way. The paper consists of three parts. In the first part, an overview of VOSviewer’s functionality for displaying bibliometric maps is provided. In the second part, the technical implementation of specific parts of the program is discussed. Finally, in the third part, VOSviewer’s ability to handle large maps is demonstrated by using the program to construct and display a co-citation map of 5,000 major scientific journals.

Open access

Abstract  

Bibliometric counting methods need to be validated against perceived notions of authorship credit allocation, and standardized by rejecting methods with poor fit or questionable ethical implications. Harmonic counting meets these concerns by exhibiting a robust fit to previously published empirical data from medicine, psychology and chemistry, and by complying with three basic ethical criteria for the equitable sharing of authorship credit. Harmonic counting can also incorporate additional byline information about equal contribution, or the elevated status of a corresponding last author. By contrast, several previously proposed counting schemes from the bibliometric literature including arithmetic, geometric and fractional counting, do not fit the empirical data as well and do not consistently meet the ethical criteria. In conclusion, harmonic counting would seem to provide unrivalled accuracy, fairness and flexibility to the long overdue task of standardizing bibliometric allocation of publication and citation credit.

Open access

Abstract  

In this study the amount of “informal” citations (i.e. those mentioning only author names or their initials instead of the complete references) in comparison to the “formal” (full reference based) citations is analyzed using some pioneers of chemistry and physics as examples. The data reveal that the formal citations often measure only a small fraction of the overall impact of seminal publications. Furthermore, informal citations are mainly given instead of (and not in addition to) formal citations. As a major consequence, the overall impact of pioneering articles and researchers cannot be entirely determined by merely counting the full reference based citations.

Open access

Abstract  

An individual’s h-index corresponds to the number h of his/her papers that each has at least h citations. When the citation count of an article exceeds h, however, as is the case for the hundreds or even thousands of citations that accompany the most highly cited papers, no additional credit is given (these citations falling outside the so-called “Durfee square”). We propose a new bibliometric index, the “tapered h-index” (h T), that positively enumerates all citations, yet scoring them on an equitable basis with h. The career progression of h T and h are compared for six eminent scientists in contrasting fields. Calculated h T for year 2006 ranged between 44.32 and 72.03, with a corresponding range in h of 26 to 44. We argue that the h T-index is superior to h, both theoretically (it scores all citations), and because it shows smooth increases from year to year as compared with the irregular jumps seen in h. Conversely, the original h-index has the benefit of being conceptually easy to visualise. Qualitatively, the two indices show remarkable similarity (they are closely correlated), such that either can be applied with confidence.

Open access

Abstract  

Consider the set
\documentclass{aastex} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{bm} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pifont} \usepackage{stmaryrd} \usepackage{textcomp} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{portland,xspace} \usepackage{amsmath,amsxtra} \usepackage{bbm} \pagestyle{empty} \DeclareMathSizes{10}{9}{7}{6} \begin{document} $${\mathcal{U}}$$ \end{document}
of real numbers q ≧ 1 for which only one sequence (c i) of integers 0 ≦ c iq satisfies the equality Σi=1 c i q i = 1. We show that the set of algebraic numbers in
\documentclass{aastex} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{bm} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pifont} \usepackage{stmaryrd} \usepackage{textcomp} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{portland,xspace} \usepackage{amsmath,amsxtra} \usepackage{bbm} \pagestyle{empty} \DeclareMathSizes{10}{9}{7}{6} \begin{document} $${\mathcal{U}}$$ \end{document}
is dense in the closure
\documentclass{aastex} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{bm} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pifont} \usepackage{stmaryrd} \usepackage{textcomp} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{portland,xspace} \usepackage{amsmath,amsxtra} \usepackage{bbm} \pagestyle{empty} \DeclareMathSizes{10}{9}{7}{6} \begin{document} $$\overline {\mathcal{U}}$$ \end{document}
of
\documentclass{aastex} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{bm} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pifont} \usepackage{stmaryrd} \usepackage{textcomp} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{portland,xspace} \usepackage{amsmath,amsxtra} \usepackage{bbm} \pagestyle{empty} \DeclareMathSizes{10}{9}{7}{6} \begin{document} $${\mathcal{U}}$$ \end{document}
.
Open access

Abstract  

This paper introduces a new approach to detecting scientists’ field mobility by focusing on an author’s self-citation network, and the co-authorships and keywords in self-citing articles. Contrary to much previous literature on self-citations, we will show that author’s self-citation patterns reveal important information on the development and emergence of new research topics over time. More specifically, we will discuss self-citations as a means to detect scientists’ field mobility. We introduce a network based definition of field mobility, using the Optimal Percolation Method (Lambiotte & Ausloos, 2005; 2006). The results of the study can be extended to selfcitation networks of groups of authors and, generally also for other types of networks.

Open access

Abstract  

Innovation research builds on the analysis of micro level data describing innovative behaviour of individual firms. One increasingly popular type of data are Literature-based Innovation Output (LBIO) data. These are compiled by screening specialist trade journals for new-product announcements. Notwithstanding the substantial advantages, the eligibility of LBIO data for innovation research remains controversial. In this paper the merits of LBIO data are examined by means of comparative analysis. A newly built LBIO database is systematically compared with the widely used Community Innovation Survey. It shows that both databases identify similar innovators in terms of firm size, distribution across industries and degree of innovativeness: LBIO data can be considered a fully fledged alternative to traditional innovation data, highly eligible for innovation research.

Open access

Abstract  

This paper examines general characteristics of African science from a quantitative ‘scientometric’ perspective. More specifically, that of research outputs of Africa-based authors published in the scientific literature during the years 1980–2004, either within the international journals representing ‘mainstream’ science, or within national and regional journals reflecting ‘indigenous science’. As for the international journals, the findings derived from Thomson Scientific’s Citation Indexes show that while Africa’s share in worldwide science has steadily declined, the share of international co-publications has increased very significantly, whereas low levels of international citation impact persist. A case study of South African journals reveals the existence of several journals that are not processed for these international databases but nonetheless show a distinctive citation impact on international research communities.

Open access

Abstract  

The two Journal Citation Reports of the Science Citation Index 2004 and the Social Science Citation Index 2004 were combined in order to analyze and map journals and specialties at the edges and in the overlap between the two databases. For journals which belong to the overlap (e.g., Scientometrics), the merger mainly enriches our insight into the structure which can be obtained from the two databases separately; but in the case of scientific journals which are more marginal in either database, the combination can provide a new perspective on the position and function of these journals (e.g., Environment and Planning B — Planning and Design). The combined database additionally enables us to map citation environments in terms of the various specialties comprehensively. Using the vector-space model, visualizations are provided for specialties that are parts of the overlap (information science, science & technology studies). On the basis of the resulting visualizations, “betweenness” — a measure from social network analysis — is suggested as an indicator for measuring the interdisciplinarity of journals.

Open access