Essays of an information Scientist (Book Review)

published or submitted for publicatio

A note on comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science

Citation distributions for 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2001, which were published in the 2004 report of the National Science Foundation, USA, are analyzed. It is shown that the ratio of the total number of citations of any two broad fields of science remains close to constant over the analyzed years. Based on this observation, normalization of total numbers of citations with respect to the number of citations in mathematics is suggested as a tool for comparing scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science.Comment: 5 pages, 1 tabl

A survey of digital information literacy of Faculty at Sambalpur University

Information now plays a vital part in the lives of individuals, organizations, and institutions, and information literacy is the key to the optimum use of information. Digital media pose new challenges for individuals in collecting, organizing, accessing, evaluating, and using it. This survey presents the results of a survey of faculty, who were asked about their use of digital resources and their knowledge of searching for and evaluating these resource

A bibliometric study of taxonomic botany

PURPOSE – The aims of this paper are to: investigate the citation-patterns of monograph books in taxonomic botany (looking mainly at publications and publishers, and the age of current literature); and make recommendations for collections management and reference services in libraries that hold botany materials. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH – In total, 454 citations were collected at random from 47 botanical monographs published in 2009; a Bradford distribution of cited journals was produced; age-distributions of citations were devised; and other bibliographical characteristics were tabulated. FINDINGS – A small Bradfordian core of highly-cited journals and important publishers of monograph books were identified; monographs are cited more often than journal articles; older materials are more important than in other sciences; monographs are used by botanists for current awareness purposes; coverage of botanical journals by citation indexes is poor. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS – The small size of the sample means that results were indicative. Further studies could: take larger samples; look at citations in journal articles, theses, conference proceeding; look at citations made over several years. PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS – Librarians should: note the core botanical journals identified here; continue to acquire botanical monographs and to retain older materials; display new botanical monographs prominently and include them in current awareness services. ORIGINALITY/VALUE – The bibliometrics of taxonomic botany have previously been little studied; likewise citations from monographs. This paper fills some of the gaps. Some of the bibliometric methods of J. M. Cullars were applied to botanical literature

Tracing scientific influence

Scientometrics is the field of quantitative studies of scholarly activity. It has been used for systematic studies of the fundamentals of scholarly practice as well as for evaluation purposes. Although advocated from the very beginning the use of scientometrics as an additional method for science history is still under explored. In this paper we show how a scientometric analysis can be used to shed light on the reception history of certain outstanding scholars. As a case, we look into citation patterns of a specific paper by the American sociologist Robert K. Merton.Comment: 25 pages LaTe

The structure of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: A mapping on the basis of aggregated citations among 1,157 journals

Using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) 2008, we apply mapping techniques previously developed for mapping journal structures in the Science and Social Science Citation Indices. Citation relations among the 110,718 records were aggregated at the level of 1,157 journals specific to the A&HCI, and the journal structures are questioned on whether a cognitive structure can be reconstructed and visualized. Both cosine-normalization (bottom up) and factor analysis (top down) suggest a division into approximately twelve subsets. The relations among these subsets are explored using various visualization techniques. However, we were not able to retrieve this structure using the ISI Subject Categories, including the 25 categories which are specific to the A&HCI. We discuss options for validation such as against the categories of the Humanities Indicators of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the panel structure of the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH), and compare our results with the curriculum organization of the Humanities Section of the College of Letters and Sciences of UCLA as an example of institutional organization

Dr. N. Rudraiah : a biobibliometric study

Dr. Rudraiah has worked in various fields in applied mathenlatics like fluid mechanics, magnetohydrodynamics, electrodynamics and smart materals of nanostructures. In his 43 pears of productive life, he has collaborated with 102 colleagues and students and has published 271 papers during 1962-2004. The collaboration co-efficient is 0.54. Highest collaborations were with M. Venkatachalappa (31), and B.C. Chandrasekhara (21). The core journals publishing his papers were: Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Current Science, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Acta Mechanica, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Proc. Royal Cambridge Society of London and Physics of Fluid

A bibliometric study of taxonomic botany

AIMS — The aims were: to investigate the citation-patterns of monograph books in taxonomic botany (looking mainly at publications and publishers, and the age of current literature); to provide information for collections management and reference services in libraries that hold botany materials. METHOD — 454 citations were collected from 47 botanical monographs; Impact Factors of journals based on these citations were calculated and compared with conventional Impact Factors from ISI Web of Science; age-distributions of citations were drawn up; other analyses were also carried out. RESULTS — A small Bradfordian core of highly-cited journals was established; monograph Impact Factors were not useable; the important publishers of monograph books were identified; monographs were more often cited than journal articles; older materials were more important than in other sciences; monographs were used by botanists for current awareness purposes; coverage of botanical journals by citation indexes was inadequate. CONCLUSIONS — Librarians should: note the core botanical journals identified here; note the importance of British journals to British botanists; continue to acquire botanical monographs and to retain older materials; display new botanical monographs prominently and include them in current awareness services. PROBLEMS — The small size of the sample means that results were merely indicative. Further studies should: take larger samples; look at citations in journal articles, theses, conference proceedings, etc.; look at citations made over several years. ORIGINALITY — The bibliometrics of taxonomic botany have previously been little studied; likewise citations from monographs. Some of the bibliometric methods of J. M. Cullars were applied to botanical literature