本文对国际科学计量学杂志《Ｓｃｉｅｎｔｏｍｅｔｒｉｃｓ》１９７９－１９９１年的研究论文内容、栏目、作者及国别和编委及国别作了计量分析，揭示出科学计量学研究的重点、活动的中心及发展趋势，说明了学科带头人在发展科学计量学这门新兴学科中的作用。

国际刊物《Scientometrics》文献计量研究

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of publications and citations to be included in the calculation of citation impact indicators. The second topic is the normalization of citation impact indicators, in particular normalization for field differences. Counting methods for dealing with co-authored publications are the third topic, and citation impact indicators for journals are the last topic. The paper concludes by offering some recommendations for future research.

Purpose – The research aim for this study was to compare three citation resources with one another to identify the citation resource with the most representative South African scholarly environmental sciences citation coverage. This paper focuses on the results of the content verification process which measured amongst others the citation counts, multiple copies and inconsistencies encountered across the three citation resources ISI Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Design/methodology/approach – The research, the first phase of a longitudinal study, used a comparative research design method with a purposive, non-probability sample. Data from the South African scholarly environmental sciences journals for the year range 2004-2008 (first phase) were extracted from the three citation resources and compared. Findings – It became evident during the verification process that the citation resources retrieved varied results. The total citation counts indicated that ISI Web of Science (WOS) retrieved the ...

Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison

Applied Informetrics for Information Retrieval Research

We compared general and specialized databases, by searching bibliographic information regarding journal articles in the computer science field, and by evaluating their bibliographic coverage and the quality of the bibliographic records retrieved. We selected a sample of computer science articles from an Italian university repository (AIR) to carry out our comparison. The databases selected were INSPEC, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and DBLP. We found that DBLP and Scopus indexed the highest number of unique articles (4.14 and 4.05 % respectively), that each of the four databases indexed a set of unique articles, that 12.95 % of the articles sampled were not indexed in any of the databases selected, that Scopus was better than WoS for identifying computer science publications, and that DBLP had a greater number of unique articles indexed (19.03 %), when compared to INSPEC (11.28 %). We also measured the quality of a set of bibliographic records, by comparing five databases: Scopus, WoS, INSPEC, DBLP and Google Scholar (GS). We found that WoS, INSPEC and Scopus provided better quality indexing and better bibliographic records in terms of accuracy, control and granularity of information, when compared to GS and DBLP. WoS and Scopus also provided more sophisticated tools for measuring trends of scholarly publications.

What is the best database for computer science journal articles

We compared the scientific output of 16 countries from the Middle East during the period 1996---2014 to 27 countries from West Europe and to the average world production, analyzing data year by year, in order to find trends. Overall, our data shows that during the period 1996---2014 Israel was the leading nation in the Middle East in terms of the total number of citations and of total citations per document, while Turkey and Iran were in the lead in terms of scientific documents produced and, together with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, were among the emerging countries in the Middle East in terms of scientific production. Israel has been slowing losing its relative (to the world) weight in terms of scientific production over the last years, following a trend that mirrors Western Europe countries, due to a rapid increase in scientific production and rising impact of new emerging countries. Also, while four emerging countries (Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt) have been rapidly rising, the bottom countries were still under-performing when compared to the world average. Our findings show that the Middle Eastern counties greatly differed in terms of scientific production over time, that no common trend could be found among them, and that there was a profound imbalance in terms of scientific performance, highlighting a big divide between the top 5 and the other countries of the Middle East.

Recent trends in Middle Eastern scientific production

The notations BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) are alternative notations for BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini). Over the last few years several public figures and authors of news articles claimed that the terms BC and AD remain in common usage, but the new terms BCE and CE are now the standard in academic and scientific publications. For example, the candidate for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination Newt Gingrich, addressing the annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in 2011, said that ‘‘There is now a convention in scientific publications to replace AD with CE... Factual honesty would lead the scientific community to revert to AD as their designator, but secular cultural pressure rejects recognition of the Christian calendar in favor of an artificial replacement’’ (Picket 2011). To the best of our knowledge, these claims were uncited, and no quantitative studies were carried out in the scholarly literature to support them. An argument that has been advanced against the use of the BC/AD notation is that the terms CE and BCE are less hurtful to non-Christians (Robinson 2009). In fact, ‘‘Anno Domini’’ means the year of our Lord, and ‘‘BC’’ means ‘‘Before Christ’’, therefore the notations BCE/CE have the advantage of not taking side in religious discussions, and they don’t refer to Jesus as ‘‘Lord’’ or ‘‘Christ’’. There is also a historical argument in favor of the BCE/CE notation. The AD/BC notation is factually wrong, because Christ was born, according to the best estimates, around 4 BC (Ostling 2009). Those who are in favour of keeping the BC/AD notation argue that the new notation BC/BCE yields to identical dates and is chronologically equivalent (for example, 2014 AD becomes 2014 CE) and implicitly Christian (as it uses the approximated birth of Jesus), therefore the new notation would be useless and confusing. Furthermore, the BC/AD notation is understood worldwide, and there are no unitary bodies that dictate the use of

Antonio Cavacini

Papers

What is the best database for computer science journal articles

Recent trends in Middle Eastern scientific production

Is the CE/BCE notation becoming a standard in scholarly literature?