interdisciplinary contribution), partly to gauge the degree of reflection of the cross-disciplinary research output in the Web of Science (WoS) database. Our aim was to assess the potential of bibliometry as an analytical tool for analysis and interpretation of the
. Scientometrics 76 : 369 – 390 10.1007/s11192-007-1868-8 .
Lovegrove , BG , Johnson , SD 2008 Assessment of research performance in biology: How well do peer review and bibliometry correlate . BioScience 58
Bibliometric counting methods need to be validated against perceived notions of authorship credit allocation, and standardized
by rejecting methods with poor fit or questionable ethical implications. Harmonic counting meets these concerns by exhibiting
a robust fit to previously published empirical data from medicine, psychology and chemistry, and by complying with three basic
ethical criteria for the equitable sharing of authorship credit. Harmonic counting can also incorporate additional byline
information about equal contribution, or the elevated status of a corresponding last author. By contrast, several previously
proposed counting schemes from the bibliometric literature including arithmetic, geometric and fractional counting, do not
fit the empirical data as well and do not consistently meet the ethical criteria. In conclusion, harmonic counting would seem
to provide unrivalled accuracy, fairness and flexibility to the long overdue task of standardizing bibliometric allocation
of publication and citation credit.
Authors:Günter Krampen, Alexander von Eye, and Gabriel Schui
Bibliometric data on psychology publications from 1977 through 2008 are modeled and forecasted for the 10 years following 2008. Data refer to the raw frequencies of the PsycINFO (94% English-language, mainly Anglo-American publications) and the English-language documents of PSYNDEX (publications from the German-speaking countries). The series were modelled by way of exponential smoothing. In contrast to Single Moving Average methods which do not weigh observations, exponential smoothing assigns differential weights to observations. Weights reflect the distance from the most recent data point. Results suggest strongly expanding publication activities which can be represented by exponential functions. In addition, forecasted publication activities, estimated based on psychology publication frequencies in the past, show positive bibliometric trends in the Anglo-American research community. These trends go in parallel the bibliometric trends for the English-language publications of German-speaking authors. However, while positive trends were forecasted for all psychological subdisciplines of the Anglo-American publication database PsycINFO, negative bibliometric trends were estimated for English-language publications from German-speaking authors in 6 out of 20 subdisciplines.
A collection of coauthored papers is the new norm for doctoral dissertations in the natural and biomedical sciences, yet there
is no consensus on how to partition authorship credit between PhD candidates and their coauthors. Guidelines for PhD programs
vary but tend to specify only a suggested range for the number of papers to be submitted for evaluation, sometimes supplemented
with a requirement for the PhD candidate to be the principal author on the majority of submitted papers. Here I use harmonic
counting to quantify the actual amount of authorship credit attributable to individual PhD graduates from two Scandinavian
universities in 2008. Harmonic counting corrects for the inherent inflationary and equalizing biases of routine counting methods,
thereby allowing the bibliometrically identifiable amount of authorship credit in approved dissertations to be analyzed with
unprecedented accuracy. Unbiased partitioning of authorship credit between graduates and their coauthors provides a post hoc
bibliometric measure of current PhD requirements, and sets a de facto baseline for the requisite scientific productivity of
these contemporary PhD’s at a median value of approximately 1.6 undivided papers per dissertation. Comparison with previous
census data suggests that the baseline has shifted over the past two decades as a result of a decrease in the number of submitted
papers per candidate and an increase in the number of coauthors per paper. A simple solution to this shifting baseline syndrome
would be to benchmark the amount of unbiased authorship credit deemed necessary for successful completion of a specific PhD
program, and then monitor for departures from this level over time. Harmonic partitioning of authorship credit also facilitates
cross-disciplinary and inter-institutional analysis of the scientific output from different PhD programs. Juxtaposing bibliometric
benchmarks with current baselines may thus assist the development of harmonized guidelines and transparent transnational quality
assurance procedures for doctoral programs by providing a robust and meaningful standard for further exploration of the causes
of intra- and inter-institutional variation in the amount of unbiased authorship credit per dissertation.
Authors:Luka Kronegger, Franc Mali, Anuška Ferligoj, and Patrick Doreian
We combine two seemingly distinct perspectives regarding the modeling of network dynamics. One perspective is found in the work of physicists and mathematicians who formally introduced the small world model and the mechanism of preferential attachment. The other perspective is sociological and focuses on the process of cumulative advantage and considers the agency of individual actors in a network. We test hypotheses, based on work drawn from these perspectives, regarding the structure and dynamics of scientific collaboration networks. The data we use are for four scientific disciplines in the Slovene system of science. The results deal with the overall topology of these networks and specific processes that generate them. The two perspectives can be joined to mutual benefit. Within this combined approach, the presence of small-world structures was confirmed. However preferential attachment is far more complex than advocates of a single autonomous mechanism claim.
Sturgeon species are among the commercially most valuable and the most endangered groups of fish. To assess the existing literature published within the field of sturgeon research over the past 15 years (1996–2010) we applied a bibliometric approach, in order to identify patterns and trends of the published research in this field. The analysis was performed based upon articles obtained from the ISI Web of Knowledge online database. The results revealed that although all 27 sturgeon species have been objects of the research, species that are endangered or facing a high probability of extinction have received disproportionately less attention. White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) was the most frequently studied species, but it was recently surpassed by Persian sturgeon (A. persicus). Early life phases have been among the central objects of the research, and genetics, especially the use of microsatellite DNA, is becoming increasingly popular and had the highest impact. Research related to aquaculture was prominent, while the research related to hybrids (as a commodity of aquaculture production) was decreasing in popularity. Papers dealing with conservation issues were most frequently focused on European sturgeon (A. sturio). A steady increase in the number of published articles over time was observed. However, the overall citation rate declined significantly over time. During the period reviewed, the sturgeon research published in peer reviewed journals dominantly originated from the USA and EU. Nevertheless, considering the current trend in output, it is very likely that the Asian countries, mainly Iran and China, will surpass them within the next 5–10 years. International and inter-institutional collaboration both tended to increase the impact of the research. Stimulation and improvement of the international cooperation should be considered as future priorities.
Martin andIrvine believe that their bibliometric data indicates that British science is in decline. This paper shows that, in fact, their data points to a considerable expansion in British science. To account for different countries' scientific performance, this paper generates simple predictive formulae that correlate Gross National Product with research output.
Authors:Anna Sandström, Ingrid Pettersson, and Anna Nilsson
As a basis for policy decisions, governments are increasingly using analysis of systems of innovation. Fundamental to the systems of innovation approach is the recognition that innovation processes essentially are interactive activities.The present paper illustrates the use and limitations of bibliometries in analysing the knowledge production and knowledge flows in a section of an innovation system focusing on life science subject fields relevant to innovation processes in biotechnology. Bibliometrics can in this context be used to identify the actors in a research intensive innovation system, the scientific profiles of actors as well as identifying networks and collaboration patterns.
This paper rests upon a review of 15 evaluation reports of R & D programmes worked out during the 80's by the European Commission. The analysis aims at answering the main questions: Why did emerge the needs for output indicators in the middle of the 80's? What kind of output indicators were built up (or tentative)? With which methodology? What were their actual use in the evaluation reports? The linkage between EC R & D policies and evaluation is examined in order to discuss the relationships between the goals of R & D programmes and the criteria for evaluation. It is shown that the followed evaluation methodology and the evaluation goals at hand are paramount for the choice of output indicators; such goals encompass a.o. the description of the programmes, the assessment of the contractors opinion, the appraisal of the techno-economic effects of the programmes. As a result expected output indicators were developed (BRITE programme). On the other hand, one has called meta-evaluation, the indirect measurement of Scientific results by bibliometry (BEP_BAP programmes). Similarly, intermediate indicators were built up for evaluating the programmes management performance (ESPRIT programme). At last derived output indicators were used for techno-economic evaluation, (EURAM programmes) leading to the quantified global judgement of a before-after methodology, (SCIENCE-STIMULATION programmes).