Search Results
Abstract
A method of grouping journals within a wide discipline area into clusters is proposed, based on a algorithm that attempts to re-order a citations matrix so that it is block diagonal, or block recursive. The algorithm is based on a penalty function which allows one to account for the level of citation, not just the distribution of citations between journals. A case study involving eight economics journals is presented which illustrates the principles involved, but which also highlights the computational problems associated with extending the analysis to larger numbers of journals.
Summary
The macro-level country-by-country co-authorship, cross-reference and cross-citation analysis started in our previous paper,1 continues with revealing the cross-national preference stucture of the 36 selected countries. Preference indicators of co-authorship, cross-reference and cross-citation are defined, presented and discussed. The study revealed that geopolitical location, cultural relations and language are determining factors in shaping preferences whether in co-authorship, cross-reference or cross-citation. Areas like Central Europe, Scandinavia, Latin America (supplemented with Spain and Portugal), the Far East or the Australia-New Zealand-South Africa triad form typical “clusters” with mutually strong preferences towards each other. The USA appears to have a distinguished role enjoying universal preference, which - in the cross-reference and cross-citation case - is asymmetric for the greater part of the countries under study.
Abstract
A recurring theme in the use of science and technology indicators, as well as in the construction of new ones, is the interpretation of these indicators. Given the dependence on citation data in the majority of interesting science and technology indicators, a general citation theory would make the meaning of S&T indicators more transparent. Hence the continuing call for a citation theory in scientometrics. So far, such a theory has not yet been accepted by the experts in the field. This paper suggests an explanation for this. It also tries to sketch the outline of a generalindicator theory by discussing new implications of an earlier proposal (Wouters, 1998) in relation to existing citation and indicator theories.
Abstract
Journal-to-journal citation matrices can be examined with a two-stage double-standardization and hierarchical clustering procedure that has been widely applied to other transaction flow tables. An illustration is given, using 1967–1975 citations between 22 mathematical journals. Groups oriented to analysis and to algebra are discerned. Certain journals, such as theProceedings of the American Mathematical Society, are shown to have broad, nonspecialized tjes with the other periodicals.
Abstract
Certain similarities between the types of data reported in retrospective citation analyses and lifetime/survival/reliability models are noted. Graphical techniques much used in reliability analyses are exploited to throw further light on observed citation age distributions and these are then compared and contrasted with previously reported studies. These simple techniques allow systematic departures of empirical data from assumed theoretical models to be highlighted and the models to be compared.
Abstract
The paper discusses techniques to emphasize patterns in citation data and to study their dynamics. In this context, the STATIS and the STATIS dual methods are presented. The methods are a generalization of the principal component analysis from a dynamical point of view. STATIS and its dual are applied in order to illustrate the dynamic of "citing-cited patterns" by using citation data of sixteen major journals from the statistics field.
Abstract
We investigated three rival hypotheses concerning scientific communication and recognition: the performance hypothesis and two alternative assumptions, the reputation hypothesis and the resource hypothesis. The performance hypothesis reflects the norm of universalism in the sense given byMerton, the reputation hypothesis predicts a Matthew Effect (scientists receive communications and recognition on the basis of their reputation), and the resource hypothesis assumes that communication with other scientitis is used as a form of asset to defend one's own research results. Using bibliometric methods, we assessed whether assuming an important scientific position enhances scientific impact and prestige. Specifically, we explored whether a person's assumption of editorship responsibilities of a psychology journal increases the frequency with which that person is cited in theSocial Sciences Citation Index. The data base consisted of ten psychology journals, seven premier American and three German journals, covering the years 1981 to 1995. Citation rates for the years prior to, during, and following periods of editorship were compared for three groups: editors cited in the journal they edited, editors cited in a journal they did not edit, and non-editors. The results showed that during their editorship, editors showed an increased citation rate in the journal edited; this result was found for American journals, but not for German journals. These findings indicate that, for American journals, assuming editorship responsibilities for a major psychology journal increases one's scientific impact, at least as reflected by a measure of citation rate. A careful examination of ages of the non-editors' citations reveals that the post-editorship citation rates of editors and comparable non-editors do not differ significantly. The reputation hypothesis (Matthew Effect) is therefore preferred for interpreting the results, because it shows the cumulative nature of prestige-oriented citations. The results contradict the convention of using citation rates as pure performance measures.
Abstract
It is argued that Leydesdorff's theory of citations mixes the ideal or pure case with complicating factors. Ideally, citations are used as shorthand and for ethical reasons. The social network between scientists should be seen as a second-order correction on the basic model or, sometimes, even as noise. Metaphorically speaking Leydesdorff's theory is not a theory about ideal gases, but about polluted air.
Abstract
After a brief discussion on the normalization factors allowing the quantitative comparison between various disciplines, a formula is proposed for taking into account the value of citations to papers published in journals with different impact factors.
Abstract
It can be shown that claims of a lack of theories of citation are also indicative of a grate need for a theory which links science dynamics and measurement. There is a wide gap between qualitative (science dynamics) and quantitative (measurement) approaches. To link them, the present study proposes the use of the citation system, that potentially bridges a gap between measurement and epistemology, by applying system theory to the publication system.
