Authors:Jordi Ardanuy, Cristóbal Urbano, and Lluís Quintana
A citation analysis was carried out on the most important research journals in the field of Catalan literature between 1974
and 2003. The indicators and qualitative parameters obtained show the value of performing citation analysis in cultural and
linguistic areas that are poorly covered by the A&HCI. Catalan literature shows a similar pattern to that of humanities in
general, but it could still be in a stage of consolidation because too little work has as yet been published.
by extreme minority, and might not reflect the majority. The average citation number to articles published in a journal can be related directly to the Impact Factor of the journal. However, with the wide spread of citation distribution, the average
Citation distributions are extremely skewed. This paper addresses the following question: To what extent are national citation indicators influenced by a small minority of highly cited articles? This question has not been studied before at the level of national indicators. Using the scientific production of Norway as a case, we find that the average citation rates in major subfields are highly determined by one or only a few highly cited papers. Furthermore, there are large annual variations in the influence of highly cited papers on the average citation rate of the subfields. We conclude that an analysis of the underlying data for national indicators may be useful in creating awareness towards the occurrence of particular articles with great influence on what is normally considered an indicator of “national performance”, and that the common interpretation of the indicator on research policy level needs to be informed by this fact.
analyze why some theories gain a lot of popularity in a short time, why some minority opinions are highly persistent (and how this may relate to experimental support—strong or weak) and finally what conditions should be met for a new theory to gain ground
The paper by Vanclay ( 2012 ) is a discussion of problems considered many times before. The author is right in admitting that “those who find the ThomsonReuters impact factor (TRIF) useful don‘t bother to publish, while a minority of vocal
Authors:Maria Benavent-Pérez, Juan Gorraiz, Christian Gumpenberger, and Félix de Moya-Anegón
-collaboration” output. Nevertheless the minority of collaboration papers result in normalized impact values comparable to the other analyzed subject areas. A&H national collaboration papers even produce the highest normalized impact in all fields
Authors:Alireza Isfandyari-Moghaddam, Mohammad Hasanzadeh, and Zainab Ghayoori
2003), which means they were in a low minority and this could have had an impact on their productivity…Women contributed in 13.4% (352 from the total of 2,626) of the articles published by Iranian scholars in 2003 and in this contribution they only
Authors:Peng Hui Lv, Gui-Fang Wang, Yong Wan, Jia Liu, Qing Liu, and Fei-cheng Ma
possible and necessary for the graphene research.
On the other hand, collaboration between one or two organizations is 76% as shown in Table 3 . Collaboration with authors from more than three institutes is in the minority, which covered lees