Multidisciplinary bibliographic databases.
01 Sep 2013-Journal of Korean Medical Science (Korean Academy of Medical Sciences)-Vol. 28, Iss: 9, pp 1270-1275
TL;DR: The originator of the idea, Eugene Garfield, formulated several critical points in bibliometrics that have shaped citation indexes, for example, libraries with limited funding should be selective about the journals they acquire and a bibliography should selectively cover 'high quality' sources.
Abstract: The past five decades have witnessed the so-called data deluge and publication explosion across all branches of science (1). Numerous academic journals have been launched that use a systematic approach to the submission, peer review, and publishing of information. To facilitate the wide use of published sources, libraries across the world have expanded cataloguing and advanced literature search techniques.
The first major step towards indexing academic journals and helping libraries acquire the most influential sources was made by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in Philadelphia, USA, in 1960. The idea behind indexing and distributing information on published articles was to facilitate scientific communication between authors and readers (2). In other words, indexing was proposed as a tool for finding relevant sources of interest to the consumers. The originator of the idea, Eugene Garfield, also the founder of the ISI, formulated several critical points in bibliometrics that have shaped citation indexes, for example, libraries with limited funding should be selective about the journals they acquire; most read and highly cited journals constitute 'quality' sources; highly cited articles influence science; citations from highly-cited journals are weighed more than those from low-cited ones; and a bibliography should selectively cover 'high quality' sources.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Several quantitative indicators are currently available for evaluating research productivity as discussed by the authors, and no single metric is suitable for comprehensive evaluation of the author-level impact, the choice of particular metrics depends on the purpose and context of the evaluation.
Abstract: Numerous quantitative indicators are currently available for evaluating research productivity. No single metric is suitable for comprehensive evaluation of the author-level impact. The choice of particular metrics depends on the purpose and context of the evaluation. The aim of this article is to overview some of the widely employed author impact metrics and highlight perspectives of their optimal use. The h-index is one of the most popular metrics for research evaluation, which is easy to calculate and understandable for non-experts. It is automatically displayed on researcher and author profiles on citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. Its main advantage relates to the combined approach to the quantification of publication and citation counts. This index is increasingly cited globally. Being an appropriate indicator of publication and citation activity of highly productive and successfully promoted authors, the h-index has been criticized primarily for disadvantaging early career researchers and authors with a few indexed publications. Numerous variants of the index have been proposed to overcome its limitations. Alternative metrics have also emerged to highlight 'societal impact.' However, each of these traditional and alternative metrics has its own drawbacks, necessitating careful analyses of the context of social attention and value of publication and citation sets. Perspectives of the optimal use of researcher and author metrics is dependent on evaluation purposes and compounded by information sourced from various global, national, and specialist bibliographic databases.
56 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors systematically analyzed 65 conceptual and empirical articles identified in the Web of Science database to explore, analyze and discuss the main trends in the literature on the topic of entrepreneurial ecosystems and networks (EEsN).
Abstract: Entrepreneurial ecosystems have recently emerged as a central topic on the agenda of both researchers and political leaders. As a consequence of the multiple studies published in recent times, this promising avenue of research is currently disjointed, lacking both a systematic structure and a theoretical framework. Intrinsic to entrepreneurial ecosystems, the networks established among the diverse stakeholders impact on the configuration, the evolution and the outcomes of entrepreneurial ecosystems. This study systematically analyzes 65 conceptual and empirical articles identified in the Web of Science database to explore, analyze and discussing the main trends in the literature on the topic of entrepreneurial ecosystems and networks (EEsN (2) Established Networks; (3) Challenges to the Affirmation of Minorities; (4) Formal Structures. In turn, the analysis of keywords co-occurrence revealed the most important literature trends on this topic: (1) innovation and dynamics: actors and norms; (2) performance, knowledge, and entrepreneurship; (3) technology and firms. The systematization of these results allowed us to identify the institutional/contextual dimension, the relational dimension, and the organizational/structural dimension as the main approaches followed by the researchers on this topic. The conceptual framework advanced attests to the interdependencies among the research paths found on EEs&Ns. Finally, following the systematic literature review undertaken, we identify the promising paths and proposals for future research that may advance still further the academic understanding of EEs&Ns.
47 citations
TL;DR: This article overviews some of the widely used and emerging profiling platforms, highlighting their tools for sharing scholarly items, crediting individuals, and facilitating networking.
Abstract: Currently available online profiling platforms offer various services for researchers and authors. Opening an individual account and filling it with scholarly contents increase visibility of research output and boost its impact. This article overviews some of the widely used and emerging profiling platforms, highlighting their tools for sharing scholarly items, crediting individuals, and facilitating networking. Global bibliographic databases and search platforms, such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar, are widely used for profiling authors with indexed publications. Scholarly networking websites, such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, provide indispensable services for researchers poorly visible elsewhere on the Internet. Several specialized platforms are designed to offer profiling along with their main functionalities, such as reference management and archiving. The Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID) project has offered a solution to the author name disambiguation. It has been integrated with numerous bibliographic databases, platforms, and manuscript submission systems to help research managers and journal editors select and credit the best reviewers, and other scholarly contributors. Individuals with verifiable reviewer and editorial accomplishments are also covered by Publons, which is an increasingly recognized service for publicizing and awarding reviewer comments. Currently available profiling formats have numerous advantages and some limitations. The advantages are related to their openness and chances of boosting the researcher impact. Some of the profiling websites are complementary to each other. The underutilization of various profiling websites and their inappropriate uses for promotion of 'predatory' journals are among reported limitations. A combined approach to the profiling systems is advocated in this article.
42 citations
Cites background or methods from "Multidisciplinary bibliographic dat..."
...The main advantage of the PubMed/MEDLINE profile is its integration with the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) specialist keywords vocabulary and scientific prestige of the indexed items (17)....
[...]
...PubMed PubMed does not issue unique author identifiers, but biomedical and allied specialists often rely on this free and rapidly updated platform for literature searches and evaluations of individual profiles linked to MEDLINE-indexed and PubMed Central-archived articles (17)....
[...]
13 Feb 2017
TL;DR: The public sphere was both one of the most popular and most debated concepts in political philosophy in the 20th century as mentioned in this paper, and it has attracted attention from a wide range of disciplines.
Abstract: The public sphere was both one of the most popular and most debated concepts in political philosophy in the 20th century. It is one of the few concepts that has attracted attention from a wide range of disciplines. Despite the already rich intellectual history of the concept, many scholars still disagree over its proper use and definition. The purpose of this article is to review recent research into the public sphere with a co-citation analysis. A citation analysis helps to obtain a broader view of the development of the concept in different disciplines. Such an approach is of importance because the concept of the public sphere is neither fixed nor stable, as is typical for an essentially contested concept. Rather than finding the most prominent or even “right” interpretation of the concept, the primary goal of this study is to explore the evolvement and differentiation of the concept in different domains and disciplines over time. In such an analysis, the whole corpus of academic literature focusing on ...
37 citations
Cites background from "Multidisciplinary bibliographic dat..."
...Additionally, only publications published between 1996 and 2015 were included in the analysis because Scopus does not comprehensively cover publications before 1996 (Gasparyan et al., 2013)....
[...]
TL;DR: The involvement of scientific authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, indexers, and learned associations in the citing and referencing to preserve the integrity of science communication is overviewed.
Abstract: Citations to scholarly items are building bricks for multidisciplinary science communication. Citation analyses are currently influencing individual career advancement and ranking of academic and research institutions worldwide. This article overviews the involvement of scientific authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, indexers, and learned associations in the citing and referencing to preserve the integrity of science communication. Authors are responsible for thorough bibliographic searches to select relevant references for their articles, comprehend main points, and cite them in an ethical way. Reviewers and editors may perform additional searches and recommend missing essential references. Publishers, in turn, are in a position to instruct their authors over the citations and references, provide tools for validation of references, and open access to bibliographies. Publicly available reference lists bear important information about the novelty and relatedness of the scholarly items with the published literature. Few editorial associations have dealt with the issue of citations and properly managed references. As a prime example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued in December 2014 an updated set of recommendations on the need for citing primary literature and avoiding unethical references, which are applicable to the global scientific community. With the exponential growth of literature and related references, it is critically important to define functions of all stakeholders of science communication in curbing the issue of irrational and unethical citations and thereby improve the quality and indexability of scholarly journals.
37 citations
Cites background from "Multidisciplinary bibliographic dat..."
...Prestigious citationtracking databases, such as Scopus and Web of Science, rely heavily on the correctness of reference lists in the indexed items, which, in turn, influence the functionality of the bibliographic records and links between peerreviewed sources (10)....
[...]
References
More filters
ALFA1
TL;DR: The content coverage and practical utility of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar are compared and PubMed remains an optimal tool in biomedical electronic research.
Abstract: The evolution of the electronic age has led to the development of numerous medical databases on the World Wide Web, offering search facilities on a particular subject and the ability to perform citation analysis. We compared the content coverage and practical utility of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The official Web pages of the databases were used to extract information on the range of journals covered, search facilities and restrictions, and update frequency. We used the example of a keyword search to evaluate the usefulness of these databases in biomedical information retrieval and a specific published article to evaluate their utility in performing citation analysis. All databases were practical in use and offered numerous search facilities. PubMed and Google Scholar are accessed for free. The keyword search with PubMed offers optimal update frequency and includes online early articles; other databases can rate articles by number of citations, as an index of importance. For citation analysis, Scopus offers about 20% more coverage than Web of Science, whereas Google Scholar offers results of inconsistent accuracy. PubMed remains an optimal tool in biomedical electronic research. Scopus covers a wider journal range, of help both in keyword searching and citation analysis, but it is currently limited to recent articles (published after 1995) compared with Web of Science. Google Scholar, as for the Web in general, can help in the retrieval of even the most obscure information but its use is marred by inadequate, less often updated, citation information.
2,696 citations
"Multidisciplinary bibliographic dat..." refers background in this paper
...Scopus retrieves 20% more citations than WoS (11)....
[...]
TL;DR: ‘The uncritical citation of disputed data by a writer, whether it be deliberate or not, is a serious matter.
Abstract: Objectives To investigate whether longitudinal structural network efficiency is associated with cognitive decline and whether baseline network efficiency predicts mortality in cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). Methods A prospective, single-centre cohort consisting of 277 non-demented individuals with SVD was conducted. In 2011 and 2015, all participants were scanned with MRI and underwent neuropsychological assessment. We computed network properties using graph theory from probabilistic tractography and calculated changes in psychomotor speed and overall cognitive index. Multiple linear regressions were performed, while adjusting for potential confounders. We divided the group into mild-to-moderate white matter hyperintensities (WMH) and severe WMH group based on median split on WMH volume. Results The decline in global efficiency was significantly associated with a decline in psychomotor speed in the group with severe WMH (β=0.18, p=0.03) and a trend with change in cognitive index (β=0.14, p=0.068), which diminished after adjusting for imaging markers for SVD. Baseline global efficiency was associated with all-cause mortality (HR per decrease of 1 SD 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, p=0.008, C-statistic 0.76). Conclusion Disruption of the network efficiency, a metric assessing the efficiency of network information transfer, plays an important role in explaining cognitive decline in SVD, which was however not independent of imaging markers of SVD. Furthermore, baseline network efficiency predicts risk of mortality in SVD that may reflect the global health status of the brain in SVD. This emphasises the importance of structural network analysis in the context of SVD research and the use of network measures as surrogate markers in research setting.
1,822 citations
01 Jan 1955
TL;DR: The uncritical citation of disputed data by a writer, whether it be deliberate or not, is a serious matter as discussed by the authors, and many naive students may be swayed by unfounded assertions presented by a writers who is unaware of the criticisms.
Abstract: “The uncritical citation of disputed data by a writer, whether it be deliberate or not, is a serious matter. Of course, knowingly propagandizing unsubstantiated claims is particularly abhorrent, but just as many naive students may be swayed by unfounded assertions presented by a writer who is unaware of the criticisms. Buried in scholarly journals, critical notes are increasingly likely to be overlooked with the passage of time, while the studies to which they pertain, having been reported more widely, are apt to be rediscovered.” (I)
1,040 citations