Subject literature collections are typically formed by judgements which are inexplicit and imprecise. This seems to compromise
the worth of precise measurements made of their properties. In this paper an examination is made of how several commonly-measured
properties of subject literatures vary as an important factor in the compilation of subject collections is varied. The factor
is the amount which a document must ‘say’ about a subject for it to be included in such a collection. This document property
has been expressed in formal terms and given a simple measure for the one subject examined, the research topic of Bradford's
Law of Scattering. It is found that lowering the level of subject aboutness required for admission to a collection produces
a large increase in the size of the collection obtained, and an appreciable change in some size-related properties. For these
properties, the initial concern is warranted. However, other parameters are found to be invariant to such changes.
The online databases of the Dialog System retrieve only 26% of documents in an exhaustively compiled collection on the subject
of Bradford's Law of Scattering, with some documents being retrieved from many databases. However, when the Exhaustive Collection
is more stringently defined to include only those documents more about the subject, the retrieval rate of Dialog improves
to 61%, while its most productive database, LISA, alone retrieves 37%. Both of these ‘samples’ give good estimates of the
size-invariant properties of the Exhaustive Collection which are typically studied in Bradford and Growth Analyses—vindicating
this use of online searching. However, without additional information, online searches are of little use in determining size-related
properties of subject literature collections. Whether the analysis reported here—which relies on identical interpretations
of a ‘subject’—has secure foundations is briefly considered.
This study covers a ten-year period, 1990-1999, of the publishing careers of nine authors who appear in the top-20 most productive
authors in the field of ophthalmology. In this paper we discuss findings from a study of the publishing careers of elite researchers
in the field of ophthalmology. The paper highlights the extent and nature of the journals in which these elite researchers
publish their work. Data derived from the study include indications of multidisciplinary involvement or 'work-space' interests,
publication characteristics, and collaborative engagement with others. We provide insights into the workings of author productivity,
characteristics of papers such as numbers per paper of pages, references, and authors, and initial findings about their collaboration
patterns. These findings, showing (ir)regularities or patterns in publishing careers, may be of interest to researchers and
practitioners because they provide a view that might not otherwise be apparent to the field or to authors themselves.
This paper discusses the publications of Third World Countries (TWC) in theScience Citation Index by disciplines. TWC documents which were nationally cross-linked at least 20 times were identified and their citing documents
categorised into seven disciplines. The top 12 TWC are discussed vis--vis their population, Gross National Product, and the
extent of participation usingobserved rates of contribution in each discipline andexpected rates based on numbers of citations received. Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Chile, appeared most frequently in the top five ranks
in each of the seven disciplines; however, none of these countries had neither the largest population nor the highest GNP
per capita. Overall observed rates exceeded expected rates in all but two disciplines: Biomedicine and Agriculture. Physics
& Engineering had the highest overall observed rate with the top five TWC exceeding the overall and their individual expected
rates. Brazil and Venezuela led by exceeding their expected rates in four of the seven disciplines.
Knowing how records on a particular topic are distributed over databases is useful for both practical and theoretical reasons;
however little work in this area appears to have been done. This paper examines the distribution of records on the topic of
“Fuzzy Set Theory” in over 100 bibliographic databases and determines whether the distribution of records over databases is
similar to the traditional Bradford hyperbolic distribution of records over journals. Different methods for counting duplicate
records between and within databases have been developed. A comparison of the various distributions based on these counting
methods is presented; and the distributions are compared to results of earlier studies. The results also give an indication
of the number of databases necessary to search for coverage of a literature to specified percentages using the different counting
techniques developed in this study.
The topic of fuzzy set theory was examined using the occurrence of phrases in bibliographic records. Records containing the word fuzzy, were downloaded from over 100 databases, and from these records, phrases were extracted surrounding the word fuzzy. A methodology was developed to trim this list of phrases to a list of high frequency phrases relevant to fuzzy set theory. This list of phrases was in turn used to extract records from the original downloaded set, which were (algorithmically) relevant to fuzzy set theory. This set of records was then analysed to show the development of the topic of fuzzy set theory, the distribution of the fuzzy phrases over time and the frequency distribution of the fuzzy phrases. In addition, the field of the bibliographic record in which the phrase occurred was examined, as well as the first appearance of a particular fuzzy phrase.
This article introduces the Impact Factor squared or IF2-index, an h-like indicator of research performance. This indicator reflects the degree to which large entities such as countries and/or their
states participate in top-level research in a field or subfield. The IF2-index uses the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of research publications instead of the number of citations. This concept is applied
to other h-type indexes and their results compared to the IF2-index. These JIF-based indexes are then used to assess the overall performance of cancer research in Australia and its states
over 8 years from 1999 to 2006. The IF2-index has three advantages when evaluating larger research units: firstly, it provides a stable value that does not change
over time, reflecting the degree to which a research unit participated in top-level research in a given year; secondly, it
can be calculated closely approximating the publication date of yearly datasets; and finally, it provides an additional dimension
when a full article-based citation analysis is not feasible. As the index reflects the degree of participation in top-level
research it may favor larger units when units of different sizes are compared.
Iranian scientific publications in the Science Citation Index for two five-year periods, 1985–1989 and 1990–1994, were compared. Distributions of various attributes of the publication output for the two periods were obtained primarily through the Rank command of the Dialog Online System. Results include: productivity by publication year and by ranked order of the most productive Iranian authors; influence or impact of the most productive Iranian authors by ranking them as cited authors; collaboration of Iranian scientists with scientists from other countries; and the journals Iranian scientists published in and the journals they cite in their papers. The subject areas of Iran's scientific publications were examined vis-à-vis the world's publication output and that of the Third World Countries (TWC).