Though there are many and diverse opinions as to the order in which the authors appear in research papers, the most accepted
is the one which gives more responsibility to the first and last author. In this work, a study is carried out of the order
in which the authors appear in research papers, in which at least one author affiliated to the University of Extremadura (Spain)
has collaborated in the 1990–2005 period. The objective is to determine the difference in the position of men and women, and
the resulting responsibility and visibility of female authors as opposed to male authors. In the University of Extremadura
these positions are principally occupied by men, since throughout the period studied, no more than 20% of the papers have
women either in the first or last position, while the percentage obtained by men is around 50%, the remaining percentage being
occupied by authors not belonging at present to the Uex. Nevertheless, the women of the University of Extremadura have both
a higher percentage than expected and a positive evolution in the more relevant positions in recent years.
This paper explores a methodology for delimitating scientific subfields by combining the use of (specialist) journal categories
from Thomson Scientific’s Web of Science (WoS) and reference analysis. In a first step it selects all articles in journals
included in a particular WoS journal category covering a subfield. These journals are labelled as a subfield’s specialist
journals. In a second step, this set of papers is expanded with papers published in other, additional journals and citing
a subfield’s specialist journals with a frequency exceeding a certain citation threshold. Data are presented for two medical subfields: Oncology and Cardiac & Cardiovascular System. A validation based on findings
from earlier studies, from an analysis of MESH descriptors from MEDLINE, and on expert opinion provides evidence that the
proposed methodology has a high precision, and that expansion substantially enhanced the recall, not merely in terms of the
number of retrieved papers, but also in terms of the number of research topics covered. The paper also examines how a bibliometric
ranking of countries and universities based on the citation impact of their papers published in a subfield’s specialist journals
compares to that of a ranking based on the impact of their articles in additional journals. Rather weak correlations especially
obtained at the level of universities underline the conclusion from earlier studies that an assessment of research groups
or universities in a scientific subfield that takes into account solely papers published in a subfield’s specialist journals
The capacity to attract citations from other disciplines — or knowledge export — has always been taken into account in evaluating
the quality of scientific papers or journals. Some of the JCR’s (ISI’s Journal Citation Report) Subject Categories have a greater exporting character than others because they are less isolated. This influences the rank/JIF
(ISI’s Journal Impact Factor) distribution of the category. While all the categories fit a negative power law fairly well,
those with a greater External JIF give distributions with a more sharply defined peak and a longer tail — something like an
iceberg. One also observes a major relationship between the rates of export and import of knowledge.
This study on research collaboration (RC) is an attempt to estimate the degree of internationalization of academic institutions and regions. Furthermore potential influences of RC on excellence initiatives of modern universities are investigated relying on source data obtained from SCImago Institutions Rankings. A positive correlation exists between the degree of collaboration and the normalized impact. However, in contrast to output the normalized impact increase progression is non-linear and fluctuating. Differences occur regarding output volume and normalized impact at geographical region level for the leading universities. Different patterns of the Brute force distribution for each collaboration type were also observed at region level as well as at subject area level. A continuously reduced percentage of the domestic (non-collaboration) academic output is a world trend, whereas a steady increase of “international + national” collaboration is observed globally, however, less distinctive in Asia than in the other regions. The impact of Latin American papers originating from domestic production as well as from national collaboration remains considerably below world average values.
The paper introduces the use of blockmodeling in the micro-level study of the internal structure of co-authorship networks over time. Variations in scientific productivity and researcher or research group visibility were determined by observing authors’ role in the core-periphery structure and crossing this information with bibliometric data. Three techniques were applied to represent the structure of collaborative science: (1) the blockmodeling; (2) the Kamada-Kawai algorithm based on the similarities in co-authorships present in the documents analysed; (3) bibliometrics to determine output volume, impact and degree of collaboration from the bibliographic data drawn from publications. The goal was to determine the extent to which the use of these two complementary approaches, in conjunction with bibliometric data, provides greater insight into the structure and characteristics of a given field of scientific endeavour. The paper describes certain features of Pajek software and how it can be used to study research group composition, structure and dynamics. The approach combines bibliometric and social network analysis to explore scientific collaboration networks and monitor individual and group careers from new perspectives. Its application on a small-scale case study is intended as an example and can be used in other disciplines. It may be very useful for the appraisal of scientific developments.
In order to re-categorize the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) journals based on Scopus, as well as improve the SJR subject classification scheme, an iterative process built upon reference analysis of citing journals was designed. The first step entailed construction of a matrix containing citing journals and cited categories obtained through the aggregation of cited journals. Assuming that the most representative categories in each journal would be represented by the highest citation values regarding categories, the matrix vectors were reduced using a threshold to discern and discard the weakest relations. The process was refined on the basis of different parameters of a heuristic nature, including (1) the development of several tests applying different thresholds, (2) the designation of a cutoff, (3) the number of iterations to execute, and (4) a manual review operation of a certain amount of multi-categorized journals. Despite certain shortcomings related with journal classification, the method showed a solid performance in grouping journals at a level higher than categories—that is, aggregating journals into subject areas. It also enabled us to redesign the SJR classification scheme, providing for a more cohesive one that covers a good proportion of re-categorized journals.
In a reply to Jerome K. Vanclay's manuscript “Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?” we discuss the value of journal metrics for the assessment of scientific-scholarly journals from a general bibliometric perspective, and from the point of view of creators of new journal metrics, journal editors and publishers. We conclude that citation-based indicators of journal performance are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate, and used with care and competence.
Our aim is to compare the coverage of the Scopus database with that of Ulrich, to determine just how homogenous it is in the
academic world. The variables taken into account were subject distribution, geographical distribution, distribution by publishers
and the language of publication. The analysis of the coverage of a product of this nature should be done in relation to an
accepted model, the optimal choice being Ulrich’s Directory, considered the international point of reference for the most
comprehensive information on journals published throughout the world. The results described here allow us to draw a profile
of Scopus in terms of its coverage by areas — geographic and thematic — and the significance of peer-review in its publications.
Both these aspects are highly pragmatic considerations for information retrieval, the evaluation of research, and the design
of policies for the use of scientific databases in scientific promotion.