It is the objective of this article to examine in which aspects journal usage data differ from citation data. This comparison
is conducted both at journal level and on a paper by paper basis. At journal level, we define a so-called usage impact factor
and a usage half-life in analogy to the corresponding Thomson’s citation indicators. The usage data were provided from Science
Direct, subject category “oncology”. Citation indicators were obtained from JCR, article citations were retrieved from SCI
and Scopus. Our study shows that downloads and citations have different obsolescence patterns. While the average cited half-life
was 5.6 years, we computed a mean usage half-life of 1.7 years for the year 2006. We identified a strong correlation between
the citation frequencies and the number of downloads for our journal sample. The relationship was lower when performing the
analysis on a paper by paper basis because of existing variances in the citation-download-ratio among articles. Also the correlation
between the usage impact factor and Thomson’s journal impact factor was “only” moderate because of different obsolescence
patterns between downloads and citations.
Authors:Juan Gorraiz, Ralph Reimann, and Christian Gumpenberger
This bibliometric study on the collaboration of Austria and six target countries (Slovenia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Denmark, Switzerland and Israel) reveals the importance of differentiation between the bilateral and multilateral contingents in the assessment of international scientific collaboration. For this purpose a “degree of bilaterality” (DB) and a “citation degree of bilaterality” (CDB) are introduced. In our findings the DB and the CDB have values lower than 1/3 and 1/5, respectively. Therefore, the total collaboration is mostly shaped in its volume and impact by the multilateral contingent. Regarding the impact estimation of the collaboration publication output, a multi-faceted approach was used. It is recommended to separately analyze the following three aspects: the un-cited range, the average range and the excellence range. Considering different country specific parameters the total number of publications and citations were resized for each type of collaboration and the results discussed. Only a very weak correlation between ‘times cited’ and the number of affiliations or authors was observed at publication level. Neither the number of authors or affiliations determines impact increase. Rather internationalisation and cooperation seem to be the crucial factors.
Authors:Juan Gorraiz, Christian Gumpenberger, and Martin Wieland
Commemorating the 100th death anniversary of Francis Galton, this paper is a bibliometric impact analysis of the works of this outstanding scientist and predecessor of scientometrics. Citation analysis was done in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar (Publish or Perish) in order to retrieve the most cited books and journal articles. Additionally references were identified where Galton was rather mentioned than cited in order to analyze the phenomenon of obliteration by incorporation. Finally occurrence counts of Galton's works in obituaries, Festschrift, the website Galton.org, major encyclopaedias and biographical indexes were compared to citation counts. As an outcome Galton's works are increasingly cited or mentioned. Obliteration (use of eponyms) applies to one-third of Galton's works and seems to be typical for fields like mathematics or statistics, whereas citations are more common in psychology. The most cited books and journal articles are also the most mentioned with remarkable correlation. Overall citation analysis and occurrence counting are complementary useful methods for the impact analysis of the works of “giants”.
Authors:Christian Schloegl, Juan Gorraiz, Christoph Bart, and Monika Bargmann
This paper describes various problems which may occur in quantitative research evaluation. It is shown that problems already
arise when trying to define such seemingly simple scientometric elements as “personnel” or “budget”. This has major consequences
on the construction of indicators. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that different data sources as well as different data and
indicators result in different, sometimes even contradicting outcomes.
Authors:Maria Benavent-Pérez, Juan Gorraiz, Christian Gumpenberger, and Félix de Moya-Anegón
This study on research collaboration (RC) is an attempt to estimate the degree of internationalization of academic institutions and regions. Furthermore potential influences of RC on excellence initiatives of modern universities are investigated relying on source data obtained from SCImago Institutions Rankings. A positive correlation exists between the degree of collaboration and the normalized impact. However, in contrast to output the normalized impact increase progression is non-linear and fluctuating. Differences occur regarding output volume and normalized impact at geographical region level for the leading universities. Different patterns of the Brute force distribution for each collaboration type were also observed at region level as well as at subject area level. A continuously reduced percentage of the domestic (non-collaboration) academic output is a world trend, whereas a steady increase of “international + national” collaboration is observed globally, however, less distinctive in Asia than in the other regions. The impact of Latin American papers originating from domestic production as well as from national collaboration remains considerably below world average values.