The relation between philosophy of science and epistemology is studied using the author co-citation technique. Co-citation
links among 62 authors — a representative list of various styles and approaches to rationality — were established using the
Arts and Humanities Citation Index. Multidimensional scaling results in a two-dimensional map of authors, where the axes represent
the subject (philosophy of science to epistemology) and the method (qualitative to quantitative), respectively. The authors
on the map can be clustered into more or less coherent groups at different levels of resolution.
We describe the steps involved in constructing authors" citation identities (whom they cite) and citation images (who cites them). Familiarity with the intellectual, social, and institutional connections of these authors over time helps inform the analysis and augment the specificity of citation counts. Our study shows that authors" writing and referencing styles constitute a form of watermark for their scholarly output.
A comparison has been carried out between the scientific production of Turkish physicists in the periods 1961-1971 and 1994-2000,
by considering articles (written singly or in collaboration with scientists of different nationalities) which have received
at least ten citations. The results show that in 30 years, appreciable increases have occurred in the number of authors making
significant contributions and in the number of papers based on research carried out in Turkey.
The paper discusses the often lamented lack of a theory of citations, and the lack of a sociological theory in particular.
It draws attention to one proposed theory and discusses the potential reasons why it has not been generally accepted as the
theory of citations, despite its merits in explaining many phenomena in the citation behaviour of scientists. This theory
has been expounded by Latour and presented, in particular, in his book entitledScience in Action.
Authors:Henk F. Moed, Lisa Colledge, Jan Reedijk, Felix Moya-Anegon, Vicente Guerrero-Bote, Andrew Plume, and Mayur Amin
Scimago journal rank (SJR)
One criticism sometimes made of traditional citationanalysis is that all citations are considered ‘equal’. A citation from a widely-read, multidisciplinary journal counts as strongly as one from a more focused or local
Many studies have found that collaborative research is, in general, more highly cited than non-collaborative research. This
paper describes an investigation into the extent to which the association between high citation and collaboration for Economics
articles published in 2000 varies from region to region and depends on the choice of indicator of citation level. Using data
from the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) for 18 countries, 17 American states and four indicators of citation level the
citation levels of the collaborative articles are compared with the citation levels of the non-collaborative articles. The
main findings are that: (a) for every country and every indicator the mean citation level of the collaborative articles was
at least as high as that for the non-collaborative articles, but for five US states and for at least one other indicator the
citation level of collaborative articles was lower than that of non-collaborative articles, and (b) the extent to which collaborative
articles were more highly cited varied considerably from country to country, from state to state, and from indicator to indicator.
This indicates the importance of using multiple indicators when investigating citation advantage since the choice of indicator
can change the results.
Authors:Pablo Dorta-González and María-Isabel Dorta-González
The citation distribution of a researcher shows the impact of their production and determines the success of their scientific career. However, its application in scientific evaluation is difficult due to the bi-dimensional character of the distribution. Some bibliometric indexes that try to synthesize in a numerical value the principal characteristics of this distribution have been proposed recently. In contrast with other bibliometric measures, the biases that the distribution tails provoke, are reduced by the h-index. However, some limitations in the discrimination among researchers with different publication habits are presented in this index. This index penalizes selective researchers, distinguished by the large number of citations received, as compared to large producers. In this work, two original sets of indexes, the central area indexes and the central interval indexes, that complement the h-index to include the central shape of the citation distribution, are proposed and compared.
Citationanalysis as a mature quantitative research method in bibliometrics and scientometrics has been applied to many disciplines at home and abroad, especially in describing evolution of disciplines, evaluating
Budapest, Leiden, Leuven, Beijing, Shanghai, etc.) or as independent commercial enterprises (e.g., Science-Metrix in Montreal). Two major companies (Thomson Reuters and Elsevier) are also active in this market. In other words, citationanalysis has become
Authors:Waister Martins, Marcos Gonçalves, Alberto Laender, and Nivio Ziviani
Assessing the quality of scientific conferences is an important and useful service that can be provided by digital libraries
and similar systems. This is specially true for fields such as Computer Science and Electric Engineering, where conference
publications are crucial. However, the majority of the existing quality metrics, particularly those relying on bibliographic
citations, has been proposed for measuring the quality of journals. In this article we conduct a study about the relative
performance of existing journal metrics in assessing the quality of scientific conferences. More importantly, departing from
a deep analysis of the deficiencies of these metrics, we propose a new set of quality metrics especially designed to capture
intrinsic and important aspects related to conferences, such as longevity, popularity, prestige, and periodicity. To demonstrate
the effectiveness of the proposed metrics, we have conducted two sets of experiments that contrast their results against a
“gold standard” produced by a large group of specialists. Our metrics obtained gains of more than 12% when compared to the
most consistent journal quality metric and up to 58% when compared to standard metrics such as Thomson’s Impact Factor.