Search Results
Abstract
A comprehensive discussion on the use of citation analysis to rate scientific performance and the controversy surrounding it. The general adverse criticism that citation counts include an excessive number of negative citations (citations to incorrect results worthy of attack), self-citations (citations to the works of the citing authors), and citations to methodological papers is analyzed. Included are a discussion of measurement problems such as counting citations for multiauthored papers, distinguishing between more than one person with the same last name (homographs), and what it is that citation analysis actually measures. It is concluded that as the scientific enterprise becomes larger and more complex, and its role in society more critical, it will become more difficult, expensive and necessary to evaluate and identify the largest contributors. When properly used, citation analysis can introduce a useful measure of objectivity into the evaluation process at relatively low financial cost.
select journals for indexing in the Science Citation Index published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), has nowadays become the bibliometric construct most widely used for evaluation in the scholarly and publishing community. The
Abstract
Impact factors are a widely accepted means for the assessment of journal quality. However, journal editors have possibilities to influence the impact factor of their journals, for example, by requesting authors to cite additional papers published recently in that journal thus increasing the self-citation rate. I calculated self-citation rates of journals ranked in the Journal Citation Reports of ISI in the subject category “Ecology” (n = 107). On average, self citation was responsible for 16.2 � 1.3% (mean � SE) of the impact factor in 2004. The self-citation rates decrease with increasing journal impact, but even high impact journals show large variation. Six journals suspected to request for additional citations showed high self-citation rates, which increased over the last seven years. To avoid further deliberate increases in self-citation rates, I suggest to take journal-specific self-citation rates into account for journal rankings.
new equation, based on progressive nucleation mechanism (PNM) of a solid phase during its crystallization in a closed liquid system of fixed volume. Using the new equation, the author analyzed the growth of the number of citations per year
Abstract
The stochastic model proposed recently by the author to describe the citation process in the presence of obsolescence is further investigated to illustrate the nth-citation distribution and the distribution of the total number of citations. The particular case where the latent rate has a gamma distribution is analysed in detail and is shown to be able to agree well with empirical data.
Abstract
Citations in five leading environmental science journals were examined for accuracy. 24.41% of the 2,650 citations checked were found to contain errors. The largest category of errors was in the author field. Of the five journals Conservation Biology had the lowest percentage of citations with errors and Climatic Change had the highest. Of the citations with errors that could be checked in Web of Science, 18.18% of the errors caused a search for the cited article to fail. Citations containing electronic links had fewer errors than those without.
researchers to better set up their research directions and shape their research questions in further research on eutrophication. Materials and methods The data was based on the database of the Science Citation Index (SCI) published
interdisciplinarity and will also be applied in this study. Bibliometrics encompasses the most extensive quantitative analysis of science (Moed et al. 2004 ). Its main objective is to measure scientific activities using statistics based on citation index databases
Abstract
Based on the citation data of journals covered by the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD), we obtained aggregated journal-journal citation environments by applying routines developed specifically for this purpose. Local citation impact of journals is defined as the share of the total citations in a local citation environment, which is expressed as a ratio and can be visualized by the size of the nodes. The vertical size of the nodes varies proportionally to a journal’s total citation share, while the horizontal size of the nodes is used to provide citation information after correction for the within-journal (self-) citations. In the “citing” environment, the equivalent of the local citation performance can also be considered as a citation activity index. Using the “citing” patterns as variables one is able to map how the relevant journal environments are perceived by the collective of authors of a journal, while the “cited” environment reflects the impact of journals in a local environment. In this study, we analyze citation impacts of three Chinese journals in mathematics and compare local citation impacts with impact factors. Local citation impacts reflect a journal’s status and function better than (global) impact factors. We also found that authors in Chinese journals prefer international instead of domestic ones as sources for their citations.
Abstract
Based on the transfer function model of the observed citation distribution and the expression of the cumulative citation probability distribution, parameters of 12 citation distributions are identified from statistical data of age distributions of references of 10 journals in JCR using the parameter optimization fitting method. At same time, based on the steady state solution of differential equations of the publication delay process and data of publication delays of 10 journals, the publication delay parameters of every journal are identified using the fitting method. Identified parameters of every journal citation distribution are compared with the journal’s publication delay parameters and some valuable conclusions are deduced.
