7,529 research outputs found
A categorization of arguments for counting methods for publication and citation indicators
Most publication and citation indicators are based on datasets with
multi-authored publications and thus a change in counting method will often
change the value of an indicator. Therefore it is important to know why a
specific counting method has been applied. I have identified arguments for
counting methods in a sample of 32 bibliometric studies published in 2016 and
compared the result with discussions of arguments for counting methods in three
older studies. Based on the underlying logics of the arguments I have arranged
the arguments in four groups. Group 1 focuses on arguments related to what an
indicator measures, Group 2 on the additivity of a counting method, Group 3 on
pragmatic reasons for the choice of counting method, and Group 4 on an
indicator's influence on the research community or how it is perceived by
researchers. This categorization can be used to describe and discuss how
bibliometric studies with publication and citation indicators argue for
counting methods
Global Research Report – South and East Asia
Global Research Report – South and East Asia by Jonathan Adams, David Pendlebury, Gordon Rogers & Martin Szomszor. Published by Institute for Scientific Information, Web of Science Group
Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?
A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation
as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this
commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the
mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three
decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence
intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be
corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications
that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal
procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive
certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate
procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 table
Discovering Rehabilitation trends in Spain: A bibliometric analysis
The main purpose of this study is to offer an overview of the rehabilitation research area in Spain from 1970 to 2018 through a bibliometric analysis. Analysis of performance and a co-word science mapping analysis were conducted to highlight the topics covered. The software tool SciMAT was used to analyse the themes concerning their performance and impact measures. A total of 3,564 documents from the Web of Science were retrieved. Univ Deusto, Univ Rey Juan Carlos and Basque Foundation for Science are the institutions with highest relative priority. The most important research themes are IntellectualDisability, Neck-Pain and Pain
Citations: Indicators of Quality? The Impact Fallacy
We argue that citation is a composed indicator: short-term citations can be
considered as currency at the research front, whereas long-term citations can
contribute to the codification of knowledge claims into concept symbols.
Knowledge claims at the research front are more likely to be transitory and are
therefore problematic as indicators of quality. Citation impact studies focus
on short-term citation, and therefore tend to measure not epistemic quality,
but involvement in current discourses in which contributions are positioned by
referencing. We explore this argument using three case studies: (1) citations
of the journal Soziale Welt as an example of a venue that tends not to publish
papers at a research front, unlike, for example, JACS; (2) Robert Merton as a
concept symbol across theories of citation; and (3) the Multi-RPYS
("Multi-Referenced Publication Year Spectroscopy") of the journals
Scientometrics, Gene, and Soziale Welt. We show empirically that the
measurement of "quality" in terms of citations can further be qualified:
short-term citation currency at the research front can be distinguished from
longer-term processes of incorporation and codification of knowledge claims
into bodies of knowledge. The recently introduced Multi-RPYS can be used to
distinguish between short-term and long-term impacts.Comment: accepted for publication in Frontiers in Research Metrics and
Analysis; doi: 10.3389/frma.2016.0000
- …