The construction of virtual science landscapes based on citation networks and the strategic use of the information therein
shed new light on the issues of the evolution of the science system and possibilities for control. Citations seem to have
a key position in the retrieval and valuation of information from scientific communication networks.Leydesdorff's approach to citation theory takes into account the dual-layered character of communication networks and the second-order
nature of the science system. This perspective may help to sharpen the awareness of scientists and science policy makers for
possible feedback loops within actions and activities in the science system, and probably nonlinear phenomena resulting therefrom.
In this paper an additional link to geometrically oriented evolutionary theories is sketched and a specific landscape concept
is used as a framework for some comments.
Publication and citation indicators of 26 countries in 5 major science fields are presented in the form of three-dimensional landscapes. These landscapes being an extension of relational charts by adding the dimension of publication size to the expected and observed citation rates, take us one step closer to the ideal of multidimensional assessments so passionately advocated byMoravcsik.
Authors:Eric Zimmerman, Wolfgang Glänzel, and Judit Bar-Ilan
In this paper we examine various aspects of the scientific collaboration between Europe and Israel, and show that the traditional
collaboration patterns of Israel (preference towards collaboration with the US) is changing, and the collaboration with the
EU countries is growing.
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.
and breakages if the science justifying them is in some sense wrong, or out of tune with reality. To simulate problem solving activities addressing this external reality we can borrow the notion of a fitness landscape , often used when discussing
In order to extend the scope to a broader science and technology landscape in biotechnology, the current study is conducted by addressing issues including international publication activities, national or regional publication
An objective assessment using bibliometric indicators of research productivity in education and psychology in the Philippines was conducted. Results were then benchmarked against its Southeast Asian neighbors’ research productivity in the same fields. Results showed that the Philippines ranked low in research productivity compared to Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia, particularly starting in the 1990s. Only a few researchers, mainly coming from a small number of higher education institutions, were publishing papers on a regular basis in a small range of journals. Those journals had either no or low impact factors and most papers had low citation counts. It also collaborated less with domestic and international institutions. This low research productivity was explained in terms of economic indicators, the local orientation of many social science research studies, funding, individual characteristics of researchers, and the epistemic culture of knowledge production in the country. However, the reforms initiated by the government, particularly in the higher education sector, would hopefully lead to a better research landscape and, consequently, improved research productivity in the near future.
The present study analyzes bibliometric characteristics of Taiwan's highly cited papers published from 2000 to 2009. During this period, Taiwan ranked within the top 30 countries by number of highly cited papers, defined in Thomson Reuters’ Essential Science Indicators (ESI) as those that rank in the top 1 % by citations for their category and year of publication. Taiwan made notable progress in world-class research in the two consecutive 5-year periods 2000–2004 and 2005–2009. For the group of highly cited papers from Taiwan, USA, China, Germany, and Japan were the top collaborating countries over the decade. In recent years, Taiwan has increasingly collaborated with European countries whose output of highly cited papers is relatively high and increasing, rather than with its neighboring countries in Asia. Overall, Taiwan produced highly cited papers in all the 22 ESI subject categories during the 10-year period. Taiwan's output of highly cited papers was greatest in the categories of Engineering, Clinical Medicine, and Physics, while those in Agricultural Sciences and Mathematics exceeded the expected output level in relative terms. More detailed analyses would be useful for a holistic understanding of Taiwan's research landscape and their progress in world-class research, combining both bibliometric and non-bibliometric data, such as researcher mobility, research grants, and output from internationally-collaborated research programs.