Universality of citation distributions revisited

Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano [arXiv:0806.0974, PNAS 105(45), 17268] claim that, apart from a scaling factor, all fields of science are characterized by the same citation distribution. We present a large-scale validation study of this universality-of-citation-distributions claim. Our analysis shows that claiming citation distributions to be universal for all fields of science is not warranted. Although many fields indeed seem to have fairly similar citation distributions, there are quite some exceptions as well. We also briefly discuss the consequences of our findings for the measurement of scientific impact using citation-based bibliometric indicators

Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations

The crown indicator is a well-known bibliometric indicator of research performance developed by our institute. The indicator aims to normalize citation counts for differences among fields. We critically examine the theoretical basis of the normalization mechanism applied in the crown indicator. We also make a comparison with an alternative normalization mechanism. The alternative mechanism turns out to have more satisfactory properties than the mechanism applied in the crown indicator. In particular, the alternative mechanism has a so-called consistency property. The mechanism applied in the crown indicator lacks this important property. As a consequence of our findings, we are currently moving towards a new crown indicator, which relies on the alternative normalization mechanism

Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research

Background: Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research. Methodology: A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact. Results: Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research. Conclusions: Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research

Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff

We reply to the criticism of Opthof and Leydesdorff [arXiv:1002.2769] on the way in which our institute applies journal and field normalizations to citation counts. We point out why we believe most of the criticism is unjustified, but we also indicate where we think Opthof and Leydesdorff raise a valid point

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking, and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out

Splitting of the Dipole and Spin-Dipole Resonances

Cross sections for the 90,92,94Zr(p,n) reactions were measured at energies of 79.2 and 119.4 MeV. A phenomenological model was developed to describe the variation with bombarding energy of the position of the L=1 peak observed in these and other (p,n) reactions. The model yields the splitting between the giant dipole and giant spin dipole resonances. Values of these splittings are obtained for isotopes of Zr and Sn and for 208Pb.Comment: 14 pages, 4 figure

Nonlinear relativistic optics in the single cycle, single wavelength regime and kilohertz repetition rate

Pulses of few optical cycles, focused on one wavelength with relativistic intensities can be produced at a kilohertz repetition rate. By properly choosing the plasma and laser parameters, relativistic nonlinear effects, such as channeling and electron and ion acceleration to tens of megaelectronvolts are demonstrated. © 2002 American Institute of Physics.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/87926/2/138_1.pd

High-Flux Femtosecond X-Ray Emission from Controlled Generation of Annular Electron Beams in a Laser Wakefield Accelerator

Annular quasimonoenergetic electron beams with a mean energy in the range 200-400 MeV and charge on the order of several picocoulombs were generated in a laser wakefield accelerator and subsequently accelerated using a plasma afterburner in a two-stage gas cell. Generation of these beams is associated with injection occurring on the density down ramp between the stages. This well-localized injection produces a bunch of electrons performing coherent betatron oscillations in the wakefield, resulting in a significant increase in the x-ray yield. Annular electron distributions are detected in 40% of shots under optimal conditions. Simultaneous control of the pulse duration and frequency chirp enables optimization of both the energy and the energy spread of the annular beam and boosts the radiant energy per unit charge by almost an order of magnitude. These well-defined annular distributions of electrons are a promising source of high-brightness laser plasma-based x rays

Updated Report Acceleration of Polarized Protons to 120-150 GeV/c at Fermilab

The SPIN@FERMI collaboration has updated its 1991-95 Reports on the acceleration of polarized protons in Fermilab's Main Injector, which was commissioned by Fermilab. This Updated Report summarizes some updated Physics Goals for a 120-150 GeV/c polarized proton beam. It also contains an updated discussion of the Modifications and Hardware needed for a polarized beam in the Main Injector, along with an updated Schedule and Budget.Comment: 30 pages, 12 figure