A bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling

This paper reviews the articles published in Volumes 2-24 of the Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling (formerly the Journal of Molecular Graphics), focusing on the changes that have occurred in the subject over the years, and on the most productive and most cited authors and institutions. The most cited papers are those describing systems or algorithms, but the proportion of these types of article is decreasing as more applications of molecular graphics and molecular modelling are reported

Webometric analysis of departments of librarianship and information science: a follow-up study

This paper reports an analysis of the websites of UK departments of library and information science. Inlink counts of these websites revealed no statistically significant correlation with the quality of the research carried out by these departments, as quantified using departmental grades in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise and citations in Google Scholar to publications submitted for that Exercise. Reasons for this lack of correlation include: difficulties in disambiguating departmental websites from larger institutional structures; the relatively small amount of research-related material in departmental websites; and limitations in the ways that current Web search engines process linkages to URLs. It is concluded that departmental-level webometric analyses do not at present provide an appropriate technique for evaluating academic research quality, and, more generally, that standards are needed for the formatting of URLs if inlinks are to become firmly established as a tool for website analysis

Ranking of library and information science researchers: Comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgments

This paper studies the correlations between peer review and citation indicators when evaluating research quality in library and information science (LIS). Forty-two LIS experts provided judgments on a 5-point scale of the quality of research published by 101 scholars; the median rankings resulting from these judgments were then correlated with h-, g- and H-index values computed using three different sources of citation data: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar (GS). The two variants of the basic h-index correlated more strongly with peer judgment than did the h-index itself; citation data from Scopus was more strongly correlated with the expert judgments than was data from GS, which in turn was more strongly correlated than data from WoS; correlations from a carefully cleaned version of GS data were little different from those obtained using swiftly gathered GS data; the indices from the citation databases resulted in broadly similar rankings of the LIS academics; GS disadvantaged researchers in bibliometrics compared to the other two citation database while WoS disadvantaged researchers in the more technical aspects of information retrieval; and experts from the UK and other European countries rated UK academics with higher scores than did experts from the USA. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

The impact of Eugene Garfield through the prism of Web of Science

222-247The paper attempts to quantify the impact of the scholarly publishing activity of Dr. Eugene Garfield, the founder and Chairman Emeritus of the Institute for Scientific Information, the father of citation indexing of academic literature. In the project the most current version of the Web of Science system was used with five of its component databases. It provides the most comprehensive, but still not complete, set of cited reference enhanced bibliographic records for Garfield’s journal articles, conference papers, reviews, essays, commentaries, letters to the editors, and for the 6,500 citations that his publications received, and could be credited to a matching record in the master file of Web of Science. The paper also analyzes the effect of the fact that his books, book chapters, technical reports are not considered in calculating the impact measures reported by the informative Citation Report module of Web of Science, and the consequences of the approximately 7,000 “stray” and “orphan” references received by all his works that would more than double Garfield’s traditionally measured impact factor, the average rate of citations per publication, for his entire ouvre. There is a short discussion about improvements that should be made in the citation matching algorithm that –in his case- distorts the distribution of citations among his more than 1,000 essays and commentaries in Current Contents, Current Comments and The Scientist for reason of an exceptional bibliographic and chronological-numerical designation pattern. Suggestions are made to make the browsing, searching, sorting, and processing of the reference entries and cited reference counts in the separate index file of cited references of Web of Science, which in his case amount to a combination of more than 13,300 matching, orphan and stray references in the more than 3,300 reference entries to his publications that were cited at least once