Критерії та процедура відбору журналів до Web of Science Core Collection

Наукометрична, реферативна база даних Web of Science Core Collection (WoS CC) складається з індексів наукового цитування періодичних видань з природничих і технічних наук — Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), з суспільних — Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) та з гуманітарних — Art and Humanities Ci tation Indeх (AHCI). З 2015 р. WoS CC розширена мультидисциплінарним індексом Emerging Source Citation Index (ESCI). Також в WoS CC представлено індекси цитувань кращих конференцій Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI) та монографій Book Citation Index BkCI і двох хімічних індексів: Current Chemical Reactions (CCR-EXPANDED) та Index Chemicus (IC). Відбір до трьох основних журнальних індексів SCIE, SSCI, AHCI здійснюється за чотирма параметрами: зміст; видавничі стандарти; міжнародний склад; аналіз цитування. У процесі оцінювання видання з метою внесення до ESCI цитування не беруть до уваги. Імпакт-фактор розраховують лише для видань SCIE та SSCI. На сьогодні 15 українських видань індексується в SCIE та 39 відібрано до ESCI. У статті описано процедуру подання заявки та критерії оцінки до індексів цитувань періодичних видань Web of Science Core Collection.Web of Science Core Collection (WoS CC) is a leading global scholarly literature bibliographic database and citation index. The main part of WoS CC consists of three main journal collections: Science of Science Citation Index (SCIE), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), and Art and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). Since 2015, the WoS CC has been expanded with the multidisciplinary Emerging Source Citation Index (ESCI). Additional Conference Proceedings Citation Index, the Book Citation Index and two chemical collections: Chemical Chemistry Reports (CCR-EXPANDED) and Index Chemicus (IC), are the part of WoS CC. The Journal Selection Process for the SCIE, SSCI AHCI is based on four main pillar criteria: Publishing Standards, Editorial Content, International Focus, and Citation Analysis. Journal citation analysis is not taken into account during the selection for the ESCI. Impact factors are calculated only for the SCI and SSCI publications. Today, 15 Ukrainian editions are indexed in SCIE and 39 are selected for ESCI. The submission procedure and selection criteria for Web of Science Core Collection are described

Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry: Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts

Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n = 1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the convergent validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of convergent validity of the citation analysis based on the GS data

Quantifying Scholarly Impact: IQp versus the Hirsch h

Hirsch's (2005) h index of scholarly output has generated substantial interest and wide acceptance because of its apparent ability to quantify scholarly impact simply and accurately. We show that the excitement surrounding h is premature for three reasons: h stagnates with increasing scientific age; it is highly dependent on publication quantity as well as field-specific citation rates. Thus, it is not useful for comparing scholars across disciplines. We propose the scholarly Index of Quality and Productivity (IQp) as an alternative to h. The new index takes into account a scholar's total impact and also corrects for field-specific citation rates, scholarly productivity, and scientific age. The IQp accurately predicts group membership on a common metric, as tested on a sample of 80 scholars from three populations: (a) Nobel winners in Physics (n=10), Chemistry (n=10), Medicine (n=10), and Economics (n=10), and towering Psychologists (n=10), and scholars who have made more modest contributions to science including randomly selected (b) fellows (n=15) and (c) members (n=15) of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The IQp also correlates better with expert ratings of greatness than does the h index

Application of Lotka’s Law and i10-Index with the Number of Authors of Articles in Chemistry in Iran Published between 2000 and 2020

The primary objective of the current research is to compare Lotka's law of author productivity and the Google Scholar i10-Index with the number of authors and their articles in the field of chemistry in Iran indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) from 2000 to 2020. This study is a descriptive-qualitative type of research that was carried out using the scientometric approach. The statistical population of the present study consisted of all Iranian articles published in the field of chemistry indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Some scientometric software packages were used to analyze the data with Lotka’s law and i10-index. The most prolific Iranian authors in chemistry were Mohamadreza Ganjali from the University of Tehran, Majid Heravi from Alzahra University, and Mojtaba Shamsipur from the Razi University of Kermanshah, all being acclaimed scientists in Iran. The results suggest that the validity of Lotka’s law was not confirmed in measuring Iranian authors' productivity in the field of chemistry. However, it is hard to draw a negative conclusion about the validity of Lotka’s law from a single experiment. Moreover, investigating the i10-index revealed that 85% of the Iranian authors with more than one publication have an i10-index. The results also indicated that the validity of Lotka’s law cannot be confirmed, considering the Iranian chemistry papers indexed in the WoS. Furthermore, the results imply that the i10-index closely follows the authors with over one published paper and presents a high capability application in this field as a credible index

Análisis de la pervivencia, difusión y productividad de la revista Ars Pharmaceutica

The primary objective of this work was to study the bibliometric indicators of survival, circulation and productivityof the pharmaceutical magazine Ars Pharmaceutica, up until the year 2003. Numerous revisions of periodical publicationdirectories ISSN (International Standard Serial Number, ULRICH’S (Periodicals Directory), and the UniversalClassifi cations Decimal, together with specialised national and international data bases were consulted. The data basesof an international nature included IPA (International Pharmaceutical Abstracts), SCI Expanded (Science Citation IndexExpanded), MEDLINE (Index Medicus), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica), BIOSIS PREVIEWS, ANALYTICAL ABSTRACTS,FSTA (Food Science and Technology Abstracts), SCIFINDER ACHOLAR and CITATION INDEX, while those fallingwithin a national sphere included the IME (Indice Medico Español) Spanish Medical Index and the ICYT, (ÍndiceEspañol de Ciencia y Tecnología) Spanish Science and Technology index. Appropriate search strategy techniques wereemployed in the retrieval of the data in all of the data bases consulted. According to the results obtained, analysis ofthe data base information available shows that Ars Pharmaceutica, with 43 years of existence can be considered asan well accepted journal of considerable dissemination, occupying a preferential position, in comparison with othersjournals of the same discipline.El objetivo principal de este trabajo es el estudio de algunos de los indicadores bibliométricos de la revista ArsPharmaceutica hasta el año 2003, tales como la pervivencia, circulación y productividad; para ello se han efectuadorevisiones en los directorios de publicaciones periódicas ISSN (International Standard Serial Number / Número InternacionalNormalizado de Publicaciones Seriadas), el ULRICH’S (Periodicals Directory), y la CDU (Clasifi cación DecimalUniversal), así como en bases de datos especializadas, nacionales e internacionales; como nacionales, el IME (Índice Médico Español) e ICYT (Índice Español de Ciencia y Tecnología) y como internacionales el IPA (InternationalPharmaceutical Abstracts), SCI Expanded (Science Citation Index Expanded), MEDLINE (Index Medicus), EMBASE (ExcerptaMedica), BIOSIS PREVIEWS, ANALYTICAL ABSTRACTS, FSTA (Food Science and Technology Abstracts),SCIFINDER SCHOLAR y CHEMISTRY CITATION INDEX, empleándose la adecuada estrategia de búsqueda pararecuperar la información en cada una de las bases de datos utilizada. Según los resultados obtenidos, se puede considerarque la Ars Pharmaceutica, con 43 años de vigencia y una notable difusión en las bases de datos analizadas,ocupa un lugar preferente entre las revistas científi cas de su misma disciplina

Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a progressive syndrome of global cognitive impairment with significant health and social care costs. Global prevalence is projected to increase, particularly in resource-limited settings. Recent policy changes in Western countries to increase detection mandates a careful examination of the diagnostic accuracy of neuropsychological tests for dementia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at various thresholds for dementia and its subtypes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, Science Citation Index, PsycINFO and LILACS databases to August 2012. In addition, we searched specialised sources containing diagnostic studies and reviews, including MEDION (Meta-analyses van Diagnostisch Onderzoek), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), HTA (Health Technology Assessment Database), ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility) and C-EBLM (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Committee for Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine) databases. We also searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group specialized register of diagnostic and intervention studies). We identified further relevant studies from the PubMed 'related articles' feature and by tracking key studies in Science Citation Index and Scopus. We also searched for relevant grey literature from the Web of Science Core Collection, including Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), PhD theses and contacted researchers with potential relevant data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional designs where all participants were recruited from the same sample were sought; case-control studies were excluded due to high chance of bias. We searched for studies from memory clinics, hospital clinics, primary care and community populations. We excluded studies of early onset dementia, dementia from a secondary cause, or studies where participants were selected on the basis of a specific disease type such as Parkinson's disease or specific settings such as nursing homes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted dementia study prevalence and dichotomised test positive/test negative results with thresholds used to diagnose dementia. This allowed calculation of sensitivity and specificity if not already reported in the study. Study authors were contacted where there was insufficient information to complete the 2x2 tables. We performed quality assessment according to the QUADAS-2 criteria.Methodological variation in selected studies precluded quantitative meta-analysis, therefore results from individual studies were presented with a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies were selected: three in memory clinics, two in hospital clinics, none in primary care and two in population-derived samples. There were 9422 participants in total, but most of studies recruited only small samples, with only one having more than 350 participants. The prevalence of dementia was 22% to 54% in the clinic-based studies, and 5% to 10% in population samples. In the four studies that used the recommended threshold score of 26 or over indicating normal cognition, the MoCA had high sensitivity of 0.94 or more but low specificity of 0.60 or less. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality and quantity of information is insufficient to make recommendations on the clinical utility of MoCA for detecting dementia in different settings. Further studies that do not recruit participants based on diagnoses already present (case-control design) but apply diagnostic tests and reference standards prospectively are required. Methodological clarity could be improved in subsequent DTA studies of MoCA by reporting findings using recommended guidelines (e.g. STARDdem). Thresholds lower than 26 are likely to be more useful for optimal diagnostic accuracy of MoCA in dementia, but this requires confirmation in further studies.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010775.pub

Proximity Dimensions and Scientific Collaboration among Academic Institutions in Europe: The Closer, the Better?

The main objective of this paper is to examine the effect of various proximity dimensions (geographical, cognitive, institutional, organizational, social and economic) on academic scientific collaborations (SC). The data to capture SC consists of a set of co-authored articles published between 2006 and 2010 by universities located in EU-15, indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI Expanded) of the ISI Web of Science database. We link this data to institution-level information provided by the EUMIDA dataset. Our final sample consists of 240,495 co-authored articles from 690 European universities that featured in both datasets. Additionally, we also retrieved data on regional R&D funding from Eurostat. Based on the gravital equation, we estimate several econometrics models using aggregated data from all disciplines as well as separated data for Chemistry & Chemical Engineering, Life Sciences and Physics & Astronomy. Our results provide evidence on the substantial role of geographical, cognitive, institutional, social and economic distance in shaping scientific collaboration, while the effect of organizational proximity seems to be weaker. Some differences on the relevance of these factors arise at discipline level

Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the detection of dementia

Background: Dementia is a progressive syndrome of global cognitive impairment with significant health and social care costs. Global prevalence is projected to increase, particularly in resource‐limited settings. Recent policy changes in Western countries to increase detection mandates a careful examination of the diagnostic accuracy of neuropsychological tests for dementia. Objectives: To determine the accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for the detection of dementia. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, Science Citation Index, PsycINFO and LILACS databases to August 2012. In addition, we searched specialised sources containing diagnostic studies and reviews, including MEDION (Meta‐analyses van Diagnostisch Onderzoek), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), HTA (Health Technology Assessment Database), ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility) and C‐EBLM (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Committee for Evidence‐based Laboratory Medicine) databases. We also searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group specialized register of diagnostic and intervention studies). We identified further relevant studies from the PubMed ‘related articles’ feature and by tracking key studies in Science Citation Index and Scopus. We also searched for relevant grey literature from the Web of Science Core Collection, including Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), PhD theses and contacted researchers with potential relevant data. // Selection criteria: Cross‐sectional designs where all participants were recruited from the same sample were sought; case‐control studies were excluded due to high chance of bias. We searched for studies from memory clinics, hospital clinics, primary care and community populations. We excluded studies of early onset dementia, dementia from a secondary cause, or studies where participants were selected on the basis of a specific disease type such as Parkinson’s disease or specific settings such as nursing homes. // Data collection and analysis: We extracted dementia study prevalence and dichotomised test positive/test negative results with thresholds used to diagnose dementia. This allowed calculation of sensitivity and specificity if not already reported in the study. Study authors were contacted where there was insufficient information to complete the 2x2 tables. We performed quality assessment according to the QUADAS‐2 criteria. Methodological variation in selected studies precluded quantitative meta‐analysis, therefore results from individual studies were presented with a narrative synthesis. // Main results: Seven studies were selected: three in memory clinics, two in hospital clinics, none in primary care and two in population‐derived samples. There were 9422 participants in total, but most of studies recruited only small samples, with only one having more than 350 participants. The prevalence of dementia was 22% to 54% in the clinic‐based studies, and 5% to 10% in population samples. In the four studies that used the recommended threshold score of 26 or over indicating normal cognition, the MoCA had high sensitivity of 0.94 or more but low specificity of 0.60 or less. // Authors' conclusions: The overall quality and quantity of information is insufficient to make recommendations on the clinical utility of MoCA for detecting dementia in different settings. Further studies that do not recruit participants based on diagnoses already present (case‐control design) but apply diagnostic tests and reference standards prospectively are required. Methodological clarity could be improved in subsequent DTA studies of MoCA by reporting findings using recommended guidelines (e.g. STARDdem). Thresholds lower than 26 are likely to be more useful for optimal diagnostic accuracy of MoCA in dementia, but this requires confirmation in further studies