1,651 research outputs found

    Open access increases citations of papers in ecology

    Get PDF
    Open access (OA) can effectively increase the accessibility and visibility of scientific articles and thus potentially confer them with citation advantages. Such an impact may be more pronounced in developing countries where the cost for journal subscription is comparably expensive and usually unaffordable. By comparing one OA article with one non‐OA article published in the same issue, we tested the impact of OA on citation advantages of articles published in 46 ecology journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). We compared OA to non‐OA articles published in the same issue of these journals, thereby controlling for potentially confounding effects of publication requirement and period. OA articles received significantly more citations than non‐OA articles, and this citation advantage of approximately one citation per year was sustained across publication years from 2009 to 2013. The OA citation advantage did not depend upon income of the country of origin of the citing scientists, and the OA citation advantage was found for citing scientists from North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania, but not for Latin America. A total of 10 countries contributed more than 1000 citations each, and the OA citation advantage was found in all the 10 countries except Canada. Therefore, in ecology journals OA confers articles with citation advantages and such an impact accumulates with years and independent of the economic status of the countries. This information may guide decisions of scientific societies, journals, and individual authors as they weigh the relative costs and benefits of open electronic accessibility of scientific research

    Universality of Performance Indicators based on Citation and Reference Counts

    Full text link
    We find evidence for the universality of two relative bibliometric indicators of the quality of individual scientific publications taken from different data sets. One of these is a new index that considers both citation and reference counts. We demonstrate this universality for relatively well cited publications from a single institute, grouped by year of publication and by faculty or by department. We show similar behaviour in publications submitted to the arXiv e-print archive, grouped by year of submission and by sub-archive. We also find that for reasonably well cited papers this distribution is well fitted by a lognormal with a variance of around 1.3 which is consistent with the results of Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano (2008). Our work demonstrates that comparisons can be made between publications from different disciplines and publication dates, regardless of their citation count and without expensive access to the whole world-wide citation graph. Further, it shows that averages of the logarithm of such relative bibliometric indices deal with the issue of long tails and avoid the need for statistics based on lengthy ranking procedures.Comment: 15 pages, 14 figures, 11 pages of supplementary material. Submitted to Scientometric

    Reviewing, indicating, and counting books for modern research evaluation systems

    Get PDF
    In this chapter, we focus on the specialists who have helped to improve the conditions for book assessments in research evaluation exercises, with empirically based data and insights supporting their greater integration. Our review highlights the research carried out by four types of expert communities, referred to as the monitors, the subject classifiers, the indexers and the indicator constructionists. Many challenges lie ahead for scholars affiliated with these communities, particularly the latter three. By acknowledging their unique, yet interrelated roles, we show where the greatest potential is for both quantitative and qualitative indicator advancements in book-inclusive evaluation systems.Comment: Forthcoming in Glanzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch U., Thelwall, M. (2018). Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Some corrections made in subsection 'Publisher prestige or quality

    The role of mentorship in protege performance

    Full text link
    The role of mentorship on protege performance is a matter of importance to academic, business, and governmental organizations. While the benefits of mentorship for proteges, mentors and their organizations are apparent, the extent to which proteges mimic their mentors' career choices and acquire their mentorship skills is unclear. Here, we investigate one aspect of mentor emulation by studying mentorship fecundity---the number of proteges a mentor trains---with data from the Mathematics Genealogy Project, which tracks the mentorship record of thousands of mathematicians over several centuries. We demonstrate that fecundity among academic mathematicians is correlated with other measures of academic success. We also find that the average fecundity of mentors remains stable over 60 years of recorded mentorship. We further uncover three significant correlations in mentorship fecundity. First, mentors with small mentorship fecundity train proteges that go on to have a 37% larger than expected mentorship fecundity. Second, in the first third of their career, mentors with large fecundity train proteges that go on to have a 29% larger than expected fecundity. Finally, in the last third of their career, mentors with large fecundity train proteges that go on to have a 31% smaller than expected fecundity.Comment: 23 pages double-spaced, 4 figure

    Advanced Ultrasonic Diagnosis of Extremity Trauma: The Faster Exam

    Get PDF
    Ultrasound is of prO)len accuracy in abdominal and thoracic trauma and may be useful to diagnose extremity injury in situations where radiography is not available such as military and space applications. We prospectively evaluated the utility of extremity , ultrasound performed by trained, non-physician personnel in patients with extremity trauma, to simulate remote aerospace or military applications . Methods: Patients with extremity trauma were identified by history, physical examination, and radiographic studies. Ultrasound examination was performed bilaterally by nonphysician personnel with a portable ultrasound device using a 10-5 MHz linear probe, Images were video-recorded for later analysis against radiography by Fisher's exact test. The average time of examination was 4 minutes. Ultrasound accurately diagnosed extremity, injury in 94% of patients with no false positive exams; accuracy was greater in mid-shaft locations and least in the metacarpa/metatarsals. Soft tissue/tendon injury was readily visualized . Extremity ultrasound can be performed quickly and accurately by nonphysician personnel with excellent accuracy. Blinded verification of the utility of ultrasound in patients with extremity injury should be done to determine if Extremity and Respiratory evaluation should be added to the FAST examination (the FASTER exam) and verify the technique in remote locations such as military and aerospace applications

    Open-access mega-journals: A bibliometric profile

    Get PDF
    In this paper we present the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of eleven open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and have been characterised as having four key characteristics: large size; broad disciplinary scope; a GoldOA business model; and a peer-review policy that seeks to determine only the scientific soundness of the research rather than evaluate the novelty or significance of the work. Our investigation focuses on four key modes of analysis: journal outputs (the number of articles published and changes in output over time); OAMJ author characteristics (nationalities and institutional affiliations); subject areas (the disciplinary scope of OAMJs, and variations in sub-disciplinary output); and citation profiles (the citation distributions of each OAMJ, and the impact of citing journals). We found that while the total output of the eleven megajournals grew by 14.9% between 2014 and 2015, this growth is largely attributable to the increased output of Scientific Reports and Medicine. We also found substantial variation in the geographical distribution of authors. Several journals have a relatively high proportion of Chinese authors, and we suggest this may be linked to these journals’ high Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). The mega-journals were also found to vary in subject scope, with several journals publishing disproportionately high numbers of articles in certain sub-disciplines. Our citation analsysis offers support for Björk & Catani’s suggestion that OAMJs’s citation distributions can be similar to those of traditional journals, while noting considerable variation in citation rates across the eleven titles. We conclude that while the OAMJ term is useful as a means of grouping journals which share a set of key characteristics, there is no such thing as a “typical” mega-journal, and we suggest several areas for additional research that might help us better understand the current and future role of OAMJs in scholarly communication

    EndCap Module Production for the ATLAS Silicon Tracker (SCT) at CERN and the University of Geneva

    Get PDF
    This note describes the infrastructure, procedure and quality assurance for the construction of approximately one third of the EndCap modules for the ATLAS Semiconductor Tracker (SCT) by groups at the University of Geneva and CERN

    A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: An application to the field of library and information science

    Get PDF
    Two commonly used ideas in the development of citation-based research performance indicators are the idea of normalizing citation counts based on a field classification scheme and the idea of recursive citation weighing (like in PageRank-inspired indicators). We combine these two ideas in a single indicator, referred to as the recursive mean normalized citation score indicator, and we study the validity of this indicator. Our empirical analysis shows that the proposed indicator is highly sensitive to the field classification scheme that is used. The indicator also has a strong tendency to reinforce biases caused by the classification scheme. Based on these observations, we advise against the use of indicators in which the idea of normalization based on a field classification scheme and the idea of recursive citation weighing are combined
    corecore