# Search Results

## Summary

Let **F** be a field, and α_{0},...,α_{k-1} be *k* distinct elements of **F**. Let λ =(λ_{1},...,λ_{k}) be a partition of *n* and *V*
_{λ} be the set of all vectors *v*=(*v*
_{1},...,*v*
_{n})∈ **F**
^{n} such that |{*j* ∈ [*n*] : *v*
_{j}=α_{i}}|=λ_{i+1} for 0≦ *i* ≦\ *k-1*. We describe the lexicographic standard monomials of the ideal of polynomials from **F**[*x*
_{1},...,*x*
_{n}] which vanish on the set *V*
_{λ}. In the proof we give a new description of the orthogonal complement (*S*
^{λ})^{⊥} (with respect to the James scalar product) of the Specht module *S*
^{λ}. As applications, a basis of (*S*
^{λ})^{⊥} is exhibited, and we obtain a combinatorial description of the Hilbert function of *V*
_{λ..} Our approach gives also the deglex standard monomials of *V*
_{λ}, and hence provides a new proof of a result of A. M. Garsia and C. Procesi [10].

. Debrecen 1995 46 89 95 Šemrl, P. , Ring derivations on standard operator algebras

## Abstract

Bibliometric standards are essential for comparative research. However, these standards can not be set by committee but must evolve through an on-going debate. Perhaps, the Scientometric community needs a refereed forum more dedicated to methodological issues than policy matters in which the standards debate can proceed in a focused and professional manner.

## Abstract

Bibliometric studies are mostly empirical nature and they are mostly centred arround presentation of facts and data. There are very few studies which are centred arround theoretical foundation. The facts are gathered either through surveys or from published bibliographies, indexes, data bases. Based on these facts, empirical models and principles are being developed. The normative principles and standards have to evolve from the logical analyses of the empirical models. The stage is set to integrate empirical models of bibliometrics into standards. Future, bibliometrics studies have to address this issue and reach the stage of normative principles.

A theory of “subalgebra basis” analogous to standard basis (the generalization of Gröbner bases to monomial orderings which are not necessarily well orderings [1]) for ideals in polynomial rings over a field is developed. We call these bases “SASBI Basis” for “Subalgebra Analogue to Standard Basis for Ideals”. The case of global orderings, here they are called “SAGBI Basis” for “Subalgebra Analogue to Gröbner Basis for Ideals”, is treated in [6]. Sasbi bases may be infinite. In this paper we consider subalgebras admitting a finite Sasbi basis and give algorithms to compute them.

## Abstract

One of the most crucial points of citation-based assessments is to find proper reference standards to which the otherwise meaningless plain citation counts can be compared. Using such standards, mere absolute numbers can be turned into relative indicators, suitable for cross-national and cross-field comparisons. In the present study, three possible choice of reference standards for citation assessments are discussed. Citation rates of publications under study can be compared to the average citation rates of the papers of the publishing journals to result in*Relative Citation Rate (RCR)*, an indicator successfully used in several comparative scientometric analyses (see, e.g. Refs 1–5). A more customized reference set is defined by the*related records* in the new CD Edition of the*Science Citation Index* database. Using the socalled bibliographic coupling technique, a set of papers with a high measure of similarity in their list of references is assigned to every single paper of the database. Beside of being an excellent retrieval tool, related records provide a suitable reference set to assess the relative standing of a given set of papers as measured by citation indicators. The third choice introduced in this study is specifically designed for assessing journals. For this purpose, the set of journals cited by the journal in question seems to be a useful basis to compare with. The pros and cons of the three choices are discussed and several examples are given.

## Abstract

*H*be a complex Hilbert space, let

*H*) be the algebra of all bounded linear operators on

*H*, and let

*H*) ⊂

*H*) be a standard operator algebra which is closed under the adjoint operation. Suppose that

*T*:

*H*) →

*H*) is a linear mapping satisfying

*T*(

*AA* A*) =

*T*(

*A*)

*A* A*−

*AT*(

*A**)

*A*+

*AA*T*(

*A*) for all

*A*∈

*H*). Then

*T*is of the form

*T*(

*A*) =

*AB*+

*BA*for all

*A*∈

*H*), where

*B*is a fixed operator from

*H*). A result concerning functional equations related to bicircular projections is proved

## Abstract

The need for standardisation in bibliometric research and technology is discussed in the context of failing communication within the scientific community, the unsatisfactory impact of bibliometric research outside the community and the observed incompatibility of bibliometric indicators produced by different institutes. The development of bibliometric standards is necessary to improve the reliability of bibliometric results, to guarantee the validity of bibliometric methods and to make bibliometric data compatible. Both conceptual and technical questions are raised. Consequences of lacking standards are illustrated by typical examples. Finally, particular topics of standardisation are proposed based on experiences made at ISSRU.

## Abstract

In recent years researchers in the Performance Indicators Project at the Australian National University have undertaken a number of projects involving collaboration with colleagues in England or attempts to replicate results obtained by others. All projects have necessitated close scrutiny of the methodologies previously used or to be used and have made clear the urgent need for comparable standards. In this paper we have focused on two projects: one, an analysis of Australia's shares of publications and citations, where we sought to learn from the debate on methodology that surrounded the question of decline in British science; the second, an analysis of astronomy publications in Australia where we sought to replicate methodology used in a previous European study.

## Abstract

The standard impact factor for particular fields of science (Ig) and the relative impact factor K for scientific journals are introduced. The technique of calculation of standard impact factor (Ig) for a field is an inherent part of a method which allows a cross-field evaluation of scientific journals. This method for evaluating scientific journals elaborated in 1988 was aimed at the analysis of Russian journals covered by the SCI database, it was also used for chemical journals (more that 300) and for journals in the Life sciences (more than 1000). The results are discussed.