Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists

Recently, the abundance of digital data enabled the implementation of graph based ranking algorithms that provide system level analysis for ranking publications and authors. Here we take advantage of the entire Physical Review publication archive (1893-2006) to construct authors' networks where weighted edges, as measured from opportunely normalized citation counts, define a proxy for the mechanism of scientific credit transfer. On this network we define a ranking method based on a diffusion algorithm that mimics the spreading of scientific credits on the network. We compare the results obtained with our algorithm with those obtained by local measures such as the citation count and provide a statistical analysis of the assignment of major career awards in the area of Physics. A web site where the algorithm is made available to perform customized rank analysis can be found at the address http://www.physauthorsrank.orgComment: Revised version. 11 pages, 10 figures, 1 table. The portal to compute the rankings of scientists is at http://www.physauthorsrank.or

How Conservative Justices Are Undertermining Our Democracy (or What\u27s at Stake in Choosing Justice Scalia

In this essay, Professor Garfield contends that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court have allowed elected officials to manipulate laws to entrench themselves in office and to disenfranchise voters who threaten their power. The justices’ unwillingness to curb these abuses has largely redounded to the benefit of the Republican Party because Republicans control the majority of state legislatures and have used this power to gerrymander legislative districts and to enact voter‑suppressive laws such as voter ID laws. With Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected passing during the administration of a Democratic president, the conservatives’ control of the Court has been put into play. While the media and presidential candidates have focused on the implications of a shifting Court majority for individual rights, it is likely that, behind the scenes, politicians are much more focused on the implications of a shifting majority for their ability to hold onto power

The First Amendment as a Check on Copyright Rights

Parties are increasingly raising the First Amendment as a potential limit on the scope of copyright rights. However, courts have traditionally found that copyright law already incorporates First Amendment interests, as it precludes protection of ideas and allows for the fair use of expression. This article addresses the issue of whether there needs to be additional First Amendment restraints. The author focuses on the broader principles of the First Amendment, and whether copyright law fully incorporates those principles. The author then discusses two recent cases, Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God and Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, which illustrate how First Amendment interests can be overlooked. Thus, the author recommends that there should be additional First Amendment restraints on copyright law to ensure that courts, as they keep one eye on protecting property rights, keep the other on protecting speech

To Swear or not to Swear: Using Foul Language During a Supreme Court Oral Argument

Swearing is not the first thing that comes to mind when preparing for a Supreme Court oral argument. But for lawyers arguing certain types of cases, it is something they must seriously consider. The issue comes up when a client claims his First Amendment rights were violated when the government punished him for using foul language. This doesn’t happen often because the government doesn’t usually police for the use of expletives. But there are rare instances when using foul language can get one into trouble. Public schools, for instance, can regulate students’ use of foul language during class time and at school functions. And the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) also enforces limits on indecent radio and television broadcasts. A lawyer representing a defendant in one of these cases inevitably confronts the question of whether to use his client’s offensive language when arguing before the Court. After all, if the lawyer doesn’t use the words, she might implicitly concede that the words are so horrid they warrant suppression. Yet her job as an advocate is to convince the Court of just the opposite

The meaning of the 'impact factor' in the case of an open-access journal

The dominant model of journal evaluation emerged at the time when there were no open-access journals, and nobody has assessed yet whether this model is able to cope with this modern reality. This commentary attempts to fill the gaps in the common understanding of the role that 'impact factor' should play in evaluation of open-access journals