Authors:Stanislaw Kosecki, Robbin Shoemaker, and Charlotte Kirk Baer
on three bibliometric approaches to provide an objective profile of USDA's intramural scientific research: (1) publication analysis, (2) citationanalysis, and (3) science mapping. In addition to these bibliometric analyses, we assessed the quality of
Hirsch’s concept of h-index was used to define a similarity measure for journals. The h-similarity is easy to calculate from
the publicly available data of the Journal Citation Reports, and allows for plausible interpretation. On the basis of h-similarity,
a relative eminence indicator of journals was determined: the ratio of the JCR impact factor to the weighted average of that
of similar journals. This standardization allows journals from disciplines with lower average citation level (mathematics,
engineering, etc.) to get into the top lists.
This paper reports on a bibliometric study of the characteristics and impact of research in the library and information science
(LIS) field which was funded through research grant programs, and compares it with research that received no extra funding.
Seven core LIS journals were examined to identify articles published in 1998 that acknowledge research grant funding. The
distribution of these articles by various criteria (e.g., topic, affiliation, funding agency) was determined. Their impact
as indicated by citation counts during 1998–2008 was evaluated against that of articles without acknowledging extra funding
and published in the same journals in the same year using citation data collected from Scopus’ Citation Tracker. The impact
of grant-funded research as measured by citation counts was substantially higher than that of other research, both overall
and in each journal individually. Scholars from outside LIS core institutions contributed heavily to grant-funded research.
The two highest-impact publications by far reported non-grant-based research, and grant-based funding of research reported
in core LIS journals was biased towards the information retrieval (IR) area, particularly towards research on IR systems.
The percentage of articles reporting grant-funded research was substantially higher in information-oriented journals than
in library-focused ones.
Scientometric analysis of the cognitive-epistemological structure of science is traditionally based whether on citation links (e.g., bibliographic coupling, cross-citation, co-citationanalysis) and textual links
analysis if each of the components causes specific problems in the application to long-term analysis. The inappropriateness of the application of both bibliographic coupling and co-citationanalysis over periods, say, longer than 10 years are caused by
made for simplicity, but do not alter the general findings.
A framework of citationanalysis involves a pair of subsets Z gt and Z ct respectively from W gt and W ct, under coupling constraints on the time frame. T(t) is a period of
Authors:Rodrigo Costas, Thed van Leeuwen, and María Bordons
This paper focuses on the study of self-citations at the meso and micro (individual) levels, on the basis of an analysis of
the production (1994–2004) of individual researchers working at the Spanish CSIC in the areas of Biology and Biomedicine and
Material Sciences. Two different types of self-citations are described: author self-citations (citations received from the
author him/herself) and co-author self-citations (citations received from the researchers’ co-authors but without his/her
participation). Self-citations do not play a decisive role in the high citation scores of documents either at the individual
or at the meso level, which are mainly due to external citations. At micro-level, the percentage of self-citations does not
change by professional rank or age, but differences in the relative weight of author and co-author self-citations have been
found. The percentage of co-author self-citations tends to decrease with age and professional rank while the percentage of
author self-citations shows the opposite trend. Suppressing author self-citations from citation counts to prevent overblown
self-citation practices may result in a higher reduction of citation numbers of old scientists and, particularly, of those
in the highest categories. Author and co-author self-citations provide valuable information on the scientific communication
process, but external citations are the most relevant for evaluative purposes. As a final recommendation, studies considering
self-citations at the individual level should make clear whether author or total self-citations are used as these can affect
Authors:Teresa H. Jones, Claire Donovan, and Steve Hanney
debates about the best approach to use to assess the academic quality of research. There is increasing discussion about how far citationanalysis can be used but traditionally, most citationanalysis that is used in research evaluation relies on simple