Authors:Michel Zitt, Elise Bassecoulard, and Yoshiko Okubo
This article aims at a characterization of the cooperation behavior among five large scientific countries (France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and United States of America) from 1986 to 1996. It looks at the cooperation profiles of these countries using classical measures such as the Probabilistic Affinity. The results show the major influence which historical, cultural and linguistic proximities may have on patterns of cooperation, with few changes over the period of time studied.A lack of specific affinities among the three largest European countries is revealed, and this contrasts with the strong linkage demonstrated between United States and Japan. The ensuing discussion raises some questions as to the process of Europeanization in science. The intensity of bilateral cooperation linkages is then studied with regard to field specialization by country, and this analysis yields no general patterns at the scale studied. Specific bilateral behaviors are also analyzed.
Authors:Camille Prime, Elise Bassecoulard, and Michel Zitt
Like the citation network of scientific publications, the Web is also a graph where pages are connected together by hypertext
links or “sitations”. In the new research field Webometrics, scholars have investigated equivalencies between citationist
concepts established in bibliometrics and hyperlinks networks. This paper focuses on the possible analogy between co-citation
and co-sitation to structure Web universes. It reports an experiment in the field of bibliometrics and scientific indicators.
Several technical aspects that must be dealt with are reviewed. Co-sitation seems a promising way to delineate topics on the
Web. However, the analogy with traditional co-citation is deeply misleading: many precautions must be taken in the interpretation
of the results.
Authors:Michel Zitt, Suzy Ramanana-Rahary, and Elise Bassecoulard
The increasing use of bibliometric indicators in science policy calls for a reassessment of their robustness and limits. The
perimeter of journal inclusion within ISI databases will determine variations in the classic bibliometric indicators used
for international comparison, such as world shares of publications or relative impacts. We show in this article that when
this perimeter is adjusted using a natural criterion for inclusion of journals, the journal impact, the variation of the most
common country indicators (publication and citation shares; relative impacts) with the perimeter chosen depends on two phenomena.
The first one is a bibliometric regularity rooted in the main features of competition in the open space of science, that can
be modeled by bibliometric laws, the parameters of which are “coverage-independent” indicators. But this regularity is obscured
for many countries by a second phenomenon, the presence of a sub-population of journals that does not reflect the same international
openness, the nationally-oriented journals. As a result indicators based on standard SCI or SCISearch perimeters are jeopardized
to a certain extent by this sub-population which creates large irregularities. These irregularities often lead to an over-estimation
of share and an under-estimation of the impact, for countries with national editorial tradition, while the impact of a few
mainstream countries arguably benefits from the presence of this sub-population.
Authors:Patricia Laurens, Michel Zitt, and Elise Bassecoulard
In advanced methods of delineation and mapping of scientific fields, hybrid methods open a promising path to the capitalisation
of advantages of approaches based on words and citations. One way to validate the hybrid approaches is to work in cooperation
with experts of the fields under scrutiny. We report here an experiment in the field of genomics, where a corpus of documents
has been built by a hybrid citation-lexical method, and then clustered into research themes. Experts of the field were associated
in the various stages of the process: lexical queries for building the initial set of documents, the seed; citation-based
extension aiming at reducing silence; final clustering to identify noise and allow discussion on border areas. The analysis
of experts’ advices show a high level of validation of the process, which combines a high-precision and low-recall seed, obtained
by journal and lexical queries, and a citation-based extension enhancing the recall. This findings on the genomics field suggest
that hybrid methods can efficiently retrieve a corpus of relevant literature, even in complex and emerging fields.
Authors:Michel Zitt, Suzy Ramanana-Rahary, and Elise Bassecoulard
Summary As citation practices strongly depend on fields, field normalisation is recognised as necessary for fair comparison of figures in bibliometrics and evaluation studies. However fields may be defined at various levels, from small research areas to broad academic disciplines, and thus normalisation values are expected to vary. The aim of this project was to test the stability of citation ratings of articles as the level of observation - hence the basis of normalisation - changes. A conventional classification of science based on ISI subject categories and their aggregates at various scales was used, namely at five levels: all science, large academic discipline, sub-discipline, speciality and journal. Among various normalisation methods, we selected a simple ranking method (quantiles), based on the citation score of the article in each particular aggregate (journal, speciality, etc.) it belonged to at each level. The study was conducted on articles in the full SCI range, for publication year 1998 with a four-year citation window. Stability is measured in three ways: overall comparison of article rankings; individual trajectory of articles; survival of the top-cited class across levels. Overall rank correlations on the observed empirical structure are benchmarked against two fictitious sets that keep the same embedded structure of articles but reassign citation scores either in a totally ordered or in a totally random distribution. These sets act respectively as a 'worst case' and 'best case' for the stability of citation ratings. The results show that: (a) the average citation rankings of articles substantially change with the level of observation (b) observation at the journal level is very particular, and the results differ greatly in all test circumstances from all the other levels of observation (c) the lack of cross-scale stability is confirmed when looking at the distribution of individual trajectories of articles across the levels; (d) when considering the top-cited fractions, a standard measure of excellence, it is found that the contents of the 'top-cited' set is completely dependent on the level of observation. The instability of impact measures should not be interpreted in terms of lack of robustness but rather as the co-existence of various perspectives each having their own form of legitimacy. A follow-up study will focus on the micro levels of observation and will be based on a structure built around bibliometric groupings rather than conventional groupings based on ISI subject categories.
Authors:Elise Bassecoulard, Alain Lelu, and Michel Zitt
This article presents a citation-based mapping exercise in the nanosciences field and a first sketch of citation transactions
(a measure of cognitive dependences). Nanosciences are considered to be one of the “convergent” components shaping the future
of science and technology. Recurrent questions about the structure of the field concern its diversity and multi- or inter-disciplinarity.
Observations made from various points of view confirm a strong differentiation of the field, which is scattered in multiple
galaxies with moderate level of exchanges. The multi-disciplinarity of themes and super-themes detected by mapping also appears
moderate, most of the super-themes being based on physics and chemistry in various proportions. Structural analysis of the
list of references in articles suggests that the moderate multi-disciplinarity observed at the aggregate level partly stems
from an actual inter-disciplinarity at the article level.
Authors:Michel Zitt, Suzy Ramanana-Rahary, Elise Bassecoulard, and Françoise Laville
This article depicts some features of the geography of science and technology outputs in the EU, with a particular attention
to regional “co-location” of these two pillars of the “knowledge-based society”. Economists have, for a decade, paid great
attention to local “spillovers” stating that industrial firms often draw advantages from the presence of nearby academic centres.
The presence in the same areas of strong academic and technological resources is both a condition and a result of science-technology
interactions. Concentrating on publications and patents as proxies of the science and technology level in regions, we built
a typology of regions according to their commitment to the two knowledge-base activities and then analysed the co-locations
of science and technology from several points of view. A fine-grain lattice, mainly based on standard Nuts3 level, was used.
Co-location, at the EU level, is not a general rule. A strong potential for spillover/ interaction does exist in the top-class
regions which concentrate a high proportion of European S and T output. But for regions with a small/medium level of S&T activity,
a divergence of orientations appears between a science-oriented family and a technology-oriented family, indicating an imbalance
between local S and T resources. If we look at the S-oriented regions, whilst controlling for underlying factors, such as
population and regional economic product, a significant geographic linkage between T and S appears. This suggests a trajectory
of science-based technological development. A careful examination of S&T thematic alignments and specialisation is necessary
to develop the hypothesis that fostering academic resources could increase the technological power along a growth path.
Authors:Valentina A. Markusova, Vladimir A. Minin, Alexandr N. Libkind, C. N. Margriet Jansz, Michel Zitt, and Elise Bassecoulard-Zitt
The tremendous social and political changes that culminated in the Soviet Union's dissolution had a great impact on the Russian science community. Due to the Russian transformation to a market economy a new model of R&D emerged on the basis of the higher education system (R&D in universities). This paper is part of a project, the main goals of which were to analyse the impact of competitive funding on R&D in provincial universities, the distribution of funding by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, and the level of cross-sectoral and international collaboration. This paper gives a descriptive overview of R&D conducted at the 380 provincial universities, looking at 9,800 applications, 1,950 research projects, 19,981 individuals, and more than 29,600 publications for the period 1996–2001. Our data demonstrated a positive tendency in demographic statistics in the provinces. A map of intra-national collaboration taking place in 1995–2002 in provincial universities situated in different economic regions was designed. Our data show a strong collaboration within the regions, which is an important factor of sustainability. Publication output grew by a factor two or two-and half in six years. The share in output on mathematics was the highest at about 45%, physics and chemistry had equal shares of about 20% each. Researchers from the Ural and Povolzh'e regions were more active in knowledge dissemination than their colleagues from the other nine economic-geographic regions. Bibliometric analysis of more than 1,450 international collaborative publications for 1999–2001 demonstrated a strong shift in collaboration partners from Former East Block and former USSR countries to Western Europe, USA and Japan. Among the regions, Povolzh'e, Ural, Volgo-Vyatsky and Central Chernozem'e demonstrated a stronger tendency to collaborate. This collaboration depends heavily on financial support from foreign countries.