What do we know from the literature on public e-services?.

Public e-services are a broad and growing research field in which scholars and practitioners from different domains are involved. However, the increasing attention devoted to public e-services only partially captures the extreme variety of aspects and implications of the diffusion of information and communication technologies at all levels of public administrations. The paper aims to develop a meta-analysis of the literature on the delivery, diffusion, adoption and impact of public e-services and examines current research trends in terms of differences in methodologies, approaches and key indicators across five service platforms: eGovernment, eEducation, eHealth, Infomobility and eProcurement. We examined 751 articles appeared in 2000-2010 in the top international academic journals listed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), as classified in the following fields: Communication, Economics, Education, Environmental Studies, Geography, Health Policy & Services, Information Science & Library Science, Law, Management, Planning & Development, Public Administration, Transportation and Urban Studies. We highlight a significant heterogeneity in scientific production across service domains, countries covered by empirical analyses, indicators used, and affiliation of authors. We also show an increasing diffusion of quantitative methods applied to different research fields which still appears to be constrained by data limitations. The overall picture emerging from the analysis is one characterized by largely unexplored service domains as well as scarcely analyzed issues both across and within individual service platforms (e.g. front vs. back office issues). Thus many research opportunities seem to emerge and need to be exploited from different disciplinary perspectives in this field of analysis.eGovernment, eEducation, eHealth, Infomobility, eProcurement, Bibliometrics, Metaanalysis, Innovation in services, Public e-services

An exploratory study of Google Scholar

Purpose – This paper discusses the new scientific search service Google Scholar (GS). This search engine, intended for searching exclusively scholarly documents, will be described with its most important functionality and then empirically tested. The focus is on an exploratory study which investigates the coverage of scientific serials in GS. Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on queries against different journal lists: international scientific journals from Thomson Scientific (SCI, SSCI, AH), Open Access journals from the DOAJ list and journals of the German social sciences literature database SOLIS as well as the analysis of result data from GS. All data gathering took place in August 2006. Findings – The study shows deficiencies in the coverage and up-to-dateness of the GS index. Furthermore, the study points up which web servers are the most important data providers for this search service and which information sources are highly represented. We can show that there is a relatively large gap in Google Scholar’s coverage of German literature as well as weaknesses in the accessibility of Open Access content. Major commercial academic publishers are currently the main data providers. Research limitations/implications – Five different journal lists were analyzed, including approximately 9,500 single titles. The lists are from different fields and of various sizes. This limits comparability. There were also some problems matching the journal titles of the original lists to the journal title data provided by Google Scholar. We were only able to analyze the top 100 Google Scholar hits per journal. Practical implications – We conclude that Google Scholar has some interesting pros (such as citation analysis and free materials) but the service can not be seen as a substitute for the use of special abstracting and indexing databases and library catalogues due to various weaknesses (such as transparency, coverage and up-to-dateness). Originality/value – We do not know of any other study using such a brute force approach and such a large empirical basis. Our study can be considered as using brute force in the sense that we gathered lots of data from Google, then analyzed the data in a macroscopic way

Socially Necessary Impact/Time: Notes on the Acceleration of Academic Labor, Metrics and the Transnational Association of Capitals

This article constitutes a contribution to the critique of the political economy of contemporary higher education. Its notes form, intended to open "windows" on the thorny issue of metrics permeating academia on both the local/national and global levels, facilitates a conceptualization of the academic law of value as a mechanism responsible for regulating the tempo and speed of academic labor in a higher education system subsumed under capital. First, it begins with a presentation of the Marxist approach to acceleration and measure. Second, it presents the academic law of value as a socially necessary impact/time. Third, it conceptualizes a figure of capital that operates in the contemporary global higher education system. Fourth, it describes the conditions of operation of merchant capital within higher education and explores the close links of global university rankings, metadata providers, and the academic publishing industry. As a fifth and final point, the analysis turns to Central Eastern Europe and the case study of Poland to demonstrate that, to function properly, the academic law of value needs to be imposed by political means, that is, through policy reforms that establish and legitimize the sets of parameters and criteria for the evaluation of academic labor. In conclusion, the argument suggests that the domination of merchant capital over academic labor, resulting in the latter's ongoing and uncontrolled acceleration, cannot be overcome without addressing not so much the issue of private property but, first and foremost, the politically and socially defined metrics

Anthropology and Open Access

While still largely ignored by many anthropologists, open access (OA) has been a confusing and volatile center around which a wide range of contentious debates and vexing leadership dilemmas orbit. Despite widespread misunderstandings and honest differences of perspective on how and why to move forward, OA frameworks for scholarly communication are now part of the publishing ecology in which all active anthropologists work. Cultural Anthropology is unambiguously a leading journal in the field. The move to transition it toward a gold OA model represents a milestone for the iterative transformation of how cultural anthropologists, along with diverse fellow travelers, communicate more ethically and sustainably with global and diverse publics. On the occasion of this significant shift, we build on the history of OA debates, position statements, and experiments taking place during the past decade to do three things. Using an interview format, we will offer a primer on OA practices in general and in cultural anthropology in particular. In doing so, we aim to highlight some of the special considerations that have animated arguments for OA in cultural anthropology and in neighboring fields built around ethnographic methods and representations. We then argue briefly for a critical anthropology of scholarly communication (including scholarly publishing), one that brings the kinds of engaged analysis for which Cultural Anthropology is particularly well known to bear on this vital aspect of knowledge production, circulation, and valuation. Our field’s distinctive knowledge of social, cultural, political, and economic phenomena should also—but often has not—inform our choices as both global actors and publishing scholars

The production and diffusion of policy knowledge

"The published works of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) represent the most immediate and tangible measure of the new policy-related knowledge attributable to the institute, its staff, and research partners. This study provides a quantitative assessment of the number, nature, form, and use of IFPRI's published products since 1979 and compares and contrasts that with the publication performance of several similar agencies, including the economics and social sciences programs of the Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) respectively, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), the Bangladesh Institute for Development Studies (BIDS), and the now defunct Stanford University Food Research Institute (SFRI). Overall, IFPRI's circulated output is extensive, published not only in a broad portfolio of leading scholarly journals, but also in a wide range of books, technical reports, and extension documents. The amount of published output has tended to increase throughout IFPRI's history, and it continues to do so. Going beyond counting and classifying IFPRI's published record, we report the results of a bibliometric assessment of IFPRI and the comparison institutes for the period 1981–96 using the publication and citation performance details recorded in the Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index data bases. Citations to published literature are not indicative of an impact on policy or the economy generally but on further research and analysis. An analysis of coauthorship patterns provides an indication of impact too (more directly through the conduct of joint research), as well as indications of the way the research is carried out. Our analysis reveals the role IFPRI plays as a knowledge intermediary between the scholarly community and policy clienteles, but that a high proportion of its research collaborations leading to formal publications (and especially publications in the leading journals covered in ISI's data bases) involve researchers in advanced agencies. This partly reflects the limited capacity to perform food policy research in many developing countries — itself a reflection of local priorities for education and limited, long-term international support to increase scientific capacity in developing countries — and also underscores the role IFPRI could, and arguably should, play in redressing this state of affairs." Authors' AbstractInternational Food Policy Research Institute History ,Research institutes Evaluation ,Communication in learning and scholarship ,Bibliometrics ,Information science Statistical methods ,Knowledge management ,International Food Policy Research Institute Communications systems Evaluation ,Food policy Research ,

Auditing scholarly journals published in Malaysia and assessing their visibility

The problem with the identification of Malaysian scholarly journals lies in the lack of a current and complete listing of journals published in Malaysia. As a result, librarians are deprived of a tool that can be used for journal selection and identification of gaps in their serials collection. This study describes the audit carried out on scholarly journals, with the objectives (a) to trace and characterized scholarly journal titles published in Malaysia, and (b) to determine their visibility in international and national indexing databases. A total of 464 titles were traced and their yearly trends, publisher and publishing characteristics, bibliometrics and indexation in national, international and subject-based indexes were described

The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index

The growth rate of scientific publication has been studied from 1907 to 2007 using available data from a number of literature databases, including Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Traditional scientific publishing, that is publication in peer-reviewed journals, is still increasing although there are big differences between fields. There are no indications that the growth rate has decreased in the last 50 years. At the same time publication using new channels, for example conference proceedings, open archives and home pages, is growing fast. The growth rate for SCI up to 2007 is smaller than for comparable databases. This means that SCI was covering a decreasing part of the traditional scientific literature. There are also clear indications that the coverage by SCI is especially low in some of the scientific areas with the highest growth rate, including computer science and engineering sciences. The role of conference proceedings, open access archives and publications published on the net is increasing, especially in scientific fields with high growth rates, but this has only partially been reflected in the databases. The new publication channels challenge the use of the big databases in measurements of scientific productivity or output and of the growth rate of science. Because of the declining coverage and this challenge it is problematic that SCI has been used and is used as the dominant source for science indicators based on publication and citation numbers. The limited data available for social sciences show that the growth rate in SSCI was remarkably low and indicate that the coverage by SSCI was declining over time. National Science Indicators from Thomson Reuters is based solely on SCI, SSCI and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). Therefore the declining coverage of the citation databases problematizes the use of this source

Checklist for the Publication of Open Access Journals at Research Institutions

Research institutions increasingly act as supporting organisations and service providers for scholarly publications. Professional publishing of Open Access journals is possible without recourse to commercial suppliers by means of the internet and free software. This requires basic know how which is presented in form of this checklist. Over the past few years many research institutions have begun to establish advisory services that may be consulted in addition to this checklist. Occasionally they even offer technical infrastructures that enable editors to focus on content and quality of their journals. At the same time this checklist may act as supplementary material for consulting sessions that research services (libraries, university publishers …) offer to editors

Information Transfer in Articles about Libraries and Student Success

Accepted manuscript version.Connecting academic libraries to the higher education environment is crucial for demonstrating the impact of libraries on student success. The purpose of this study is to examine the information transfer between the disciplines of library and information science (LIS) and higher education in order to evaluate the influence of ideas between the two disciplines. The methods of information transfer were analyzed in 39 articles focused on the library’s contributions to student success by examining the cited references, the author and collaborator affiliations, and the forward citations. The findings from the cited reference analysis suggest that LIS is borrowing concepts and methods through citations from the discipline of education. Authorship affiliations showed that some non-LIS authors are publishing in the field of LIS and that LIS authors are collaborating with non-LIS authors. Finally, based on the forward citations, other disciplines are rarely citing LIS research about student success. This article’s findings highlight the need to consider research and collaborators outside of the LIS field when researching the library’s contribution to student success

A Case Study Of Research Trends Of Internet Of Things

In recent years, the technologies of Internet of Things (IoT) have been catching the focus of researchers from academia, industry, and government. Applying bibliometric method, this paper begins to explore the status of IoT from 1992 to 2015 by locating heading “Internet of Things” as topic in the SSCI database. This paper surveys and classifies IoT articles using the following eight categories – publication year, citation, document type, country/territory, institute name, language, source title and research area – for different distribution status in order to find the difference and how IoT technologies and applications have developed in this period. Furthermore, the paper performs the K-S test to check whether the distribution of author article production of IoT follows Lotka’s law or not. Finally, conclusion and limitation of IoT will be addressed