Bibliometric studies on single journals: a review

This paper covers a total of 82 bibliometric studies on single journals (62 studies cover unique titles) published between 1998 and 2008 grouped into the following fields; Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (12 items); Medical and Health Sciences (19 items); Sciences and Technology (30 items) and Library and Information Sciences (21 items). Under each field the studies are described in accordance to their geographical location in the following order, United Kingdom, United States and Americana, Europe, Asia (India, Africa and Malaysia). For each study, elements described are (a) the journal’s publication characteristics and indexation information; (b) the objectives; (c) the sampling and bibliometric measures used; and (d) the results observed. A list of journal titles studied is appended. The results show that (a)bibliometric studies cover journals in various fields; (b) there are several revisits of some journals which are considered important; (c) Asian and African contributions is high (41.4 of total studies; 43.5 covering unique titles), United States (30.4 of total; 31.0 on unique titles), Europe (18.2 of total and 14.5 on unique titles) and the United Kingdom (10 of total and 11 on unique titles); (d) a high number of bibliometrists are Indians and as such coverage of Indian journals is high (28 of total studies; 30.6 of unique titles); and (e) the quality of the journals and their importance either nationally or internationally are inferred from their indexation status

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Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?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

The development of computer science research in the People's Republic of China 2000-2009: A bibliometric study

This paper reports a bibliometric study of the development of computer science research in the People's Republic of China in the 21st century, using data from the Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports and CORE databases. Focusing on the areas of data mining, operating systems and web design, it is shown that whilst the productivity of Chinese research has risen dramatically over the period under review, its impact is still low when compared with established scientific nations such as the USA, the UK and Japan. The publication and citation data for China are compared with corresponding data for the other three BRIC nations (Brazil, Russian and India). It is shown that China dominates the BRIC nations in terms of both publications and citations, but that Indian publications often have a greater individual impact. © The Author(s) 2012

The use of S&T indicators in science policy: Dutch experiences and theoretical perspectives from policy analysis

The relation between bibliometrics and science policy remains underdeveloped. Relevance of new methods to produce indicators is easily claimed, but often without real insight in the policy processes. Drawing on experiences with the use of S&T indicators in science policy in the Netherlands and on principal-agent theory, I develop an analytical perspective which enbles to assess the role of S&T indicators in science policy. It is argue that the use of S&T indicators can only be understood well if one takes the socio-political context with its specific dynamics and rationalities into account

Scholarly communication in transition: The use of question marks in the titles of scientific articles in medicine, life sciences and physics 1966–2005

The titles of scientific articles have a special significance. We examined nearly 20 million scientific articles and recorded the development of articles with a question mark at the end of their titles over the last 40 years. Our study was confined to the disciplines of physics, life sciences and medicine, where we found a significant increase from 50% to more than 200% in the number of articles with question-mark titles. We looked at the principle functions and structure of the titles of scientific papers, and we assume that marketing aspects are one of the decisive factors behind the growing usage of question-mark titles in scientific articles

Bibliometric Indicators of Young Authors in Astrophysics: Can Later Stars be Predicted?

We test 16 bibliometric indicators with respect to their validity at the level of the individual researcher by estimating their power to predict later successful researchers. We compare the indicators of a sample of astrophysics researchers who later co-authored highly cited papers before their first landmark paper with the distributions of these indicators over a random control group of young authors in astronomy and astrophysics. We find that field and citation-window normalisation substantially improves the predicting power of citation indicators. The two indicators of total influence based on citation numbers normalised with expected citation numbers are the only indicators which show differences between later stars and random authors significant on a 1% level. Indicators of paper output are not very useful to predict later stars. The famous $h$-index makes no difference at all between later stars and the random control group.Comment: 14 pages, 10 figure