The revised SNIP indicator of Elsevier's Scopus

The modified SNIP indicator of Elsevier, as recently explained by Waltman et al. (2013) in this journal, solves some of the problems which Leydesdorff & Opthof (2010 and 2011) indicated in relation to the original SNIP indicator (Moed, 2010 and 2011). The use of an arithmetic average, however, remains unfortunate in the case of scientometric distributions because these can be extremely skewed (Seglen, 1992 and 1997). The new indicator cannot (or hardly) be reproduced independently when used for evaluation purposes, and remains in this sense opaque from the perspective of evaluated units and scholars.Comment: Letter to the Editor of the Journal of Informetrics (2013; in press

Does the specification of uncertainty hurt the progress of scientometrics?

In "Caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessments,"--Journal of Informetrics 7(1)(2013) 50-62, available at arXiv:1112.2516 -- Schneider (2013) focuses on Opthof & Leydesdorff (2010) as an example of the misuse of statistics in the social sciences. However, our conclusions are theoretical since they are not dependent on the use of one statistics or another. We agree with Schneider insofar as he proposes to develop further statistical instruments (such as effect sizes). Schneider (2013), however, argues on meta-theoretical grounds against the specification of uncertainty because, in his opinion, the presence of statistics would legitimate decision-making. We disagree: uncertainty can also be used for opening a debate. Scientometric results in which error bars are suppressed for meta-theoretical reasons should not be trusted

What do we know about the disruption indicator in scientometrics? An overview of the literature

The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the literature on the original disruption indicator (DI1) and its variants in scientometrics. The DI1 has received much media attention and prompted a public debate about science policy implications, since a study published in Nature found that papers in all disciplines and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. This review explains in the first part the DI1 and its variants in detail by examining their technical and theoretical properties. The remaining parts of the review are devoted to studies that examine the validity and the limitations of the indicators. Particular focus is placed on (1) the time-sensitivity of disruption scores, (2) the convergent validity of disruption scores with expert judgments, and (3) the comparative performance of the DI1 and its variants. The review shows that, while the literature on convergent validity is not entirely conclusive, it is clear that some modified indicator variants, in particular DI5, show higher degrees of convergent validity than DI1. Limitations of the DI1 and its variants are summarized, and best practice guidelines are provided. The review encourages users of the indicator to inform about the variety of DI1 variants and to apply the most appropriate variant. More research on the convergent validity of the DI1 and its variants as well as on the time-sensitivity of disruption scores is needed before the indicators can be used in the research evaluation practice.Comment: 48 pages, 12 tables, 10 figures. Submitted to "Scientometrics

On arXiv moderation system

The advent of arXiv has revolutionized scientific communication. However, its cultural significance goes far beyond simply accelerating scholarly communication. The arXiv gave a powerful impetus to the democratization of science, freeing young scientists and not only, especially from totalitarian countries, from authoritarian oppression. Many of arXiv's innovative features have been blurred by the introduction of a moderation system. Without a doubt, a moderation system is essential to maintain the quality of arXiv content. However, I believe that it can be improved in line with arXiv's original intentions, using the very successful experience of the MathOverflow moderation system.Comment: 11 pages, no figures, version to be published in Journal of Informetric

Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication

Scientometrics have become an essential element in the practice and evaluation of science and research, including both the evaluation of individuals and national assessment exercises. Yet, researchers and practitioners in this field have lacked clear theories to guide their work. As early as 1981, then doctoral student Blaise Cronin published "The need for a theory of citing" —a call to arms for the fledgling scientometric community to produce foundational theories upon which the work of the field could be based. More than three decades later, the time has come to reach out the field again and ask how they have responded to this call. This book compiles the foundational theories that guide informetrics and scholarly communication research. It is a much needed compilation by leading scholars in the field that gathers together the theories that guide our understanding of authorship, citing, and impact

Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication

Scientometrics have become an essential element in the practice and evaluation of science and research, including both the evaluation of individuals and national assessment exercises. Yet, researchers and practitioners in this field have lacked clear theories to guide their work. As early as 1981, then doctoral student Blaise Cronin published The need for a theory of citing - a call to arms for the fledgling scientometric community to produce foundational theories upon which the work of the field could be based. More than three decades later, the time has come to reach out the field again and ask how they have responded to this call. This book compiles the foundational theories that guide informetrics and scholarly communication research. It is a much needed compilation by leading scholars in the field that gathers together the theories that guide our understanding of authorship, citing, and impact

Study on open science: The general state of the play in Open Science principles and practices at European life sciences institutes

Nowadays, open science is a hot topic on all levels and also is one of the priorities of the European Research Area. Components that are commonly associated with open science are open access, open data, open methodology, open source, open peer review, open science policies and citizen science. Open science may a great potential to connect and influence the practices of researchers, funding institutions and the public. In this paper, we evaluate the level of openness based on public surveys at four European life sciences institute

Revues prédatrices et mauvaises pratiques éditoriales : une menace croissante pour l’intégrité académique

Ce travail analyse le phénomène des « revues prédatrices », leurs caractéristiques, leurs processus de publication et pratiques éditoriales illicites, ainsi que l’impact et les conséquences de la soumission de manuscrits à ces revues pour les chercheurs. L’étude souligne également l’importance d’utiliser des stratégies et des ressources qui permettent de les identifier (listes noires et blanches, guides d’information, tutoriels, etc.), et l’impérative nécessité de mettre en œuvre des mesures de sensibilisation et d'information par les institutions universitaires afin d’éviter ces éditeurs de faire des profits sur la propriété intellectuelle d’un tiers. Parmi les conclusions principales de cette étude se trouve le manque de connaissances de la communauté universitaire sur ce phénomène qui menace la valeur de l’intégrité académique