Showing papers on "Citation impact published in 1999"

An assessment of social sciences coverage by four prominent full-text online aggregated journal packages

Abstract: The cost effectiveness and quality of full-text journals are analyzed for four prominent online aggregated journal packages: EBSCOhost Academic Search FullTEXT, UMI Proquest Direct Periodicals Research II, IAC’s Expanded Academic ASAP, and H.W. Wilson’s OmniFile. Price data from EBSCO’s Librarians’ Handbook are used to assess the total and average value of social sciences journals in each package. Quality of social sciences journals coverage is compared based on citation impact factors as recorded in Journal Citation Reports—Social Sciences Edition.

Publication behaviour and international impact: Scandinavian clinical and social medicine, 1988–96

Abstract: The paper presents the results of an empirical study of the Danish and Nordic publication behaviour and international impact in Clinical and Social Medicine covering the period 1988-96. As indicators are applied the international visibility of Scandinavian research output, the publication activity per capita in SCI journals, the development over time of the national citation impact in an OECD and World context, and the ratio of cited papers relative to the World. Compared to May's analysis (1997), covering 1981-94, the analysis shows that a certain reshuffle of national positions among the OECD countries in citation impact has occurred. UK and New Zealand as well as Denmark and Sweden have lost in ranking to Finland and Belgium, both countries coming up from behind. The most interesting results concern the opposite research policy strategies displayed by Finland and Denmark which result in similar impact patterns relative to the World impact. The implications are discussed.

On-line indicators of Danish biomedical publication behaviour 1988-96: international visibility, impact and co-operation in a Scandinavian and world context

Abstract: The development from 1988 to 1996 of research and publication patterns in Danish biomedical research is investigated in a Scandinavian and world context using on-line retrieval and the National Science Indicators. The aim is to demonstrate seven central publication indicators and determine changes in research behaviour and policy over time in a domain. Scandinavia's position is under pressure and weakening, in publication and citation impact levels. Only Finland demonstrates a steady increase in research activity. The Danish position is stable but the pattern of research publication is changing dramatically because of a continuous shift to publish in Science Citation Index journals and an intensive enhancement of international collaboration, in range of co-operating countries and in volume. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Eastern Europe's Research Gamble: The Czech Perspective

Abstract: At the beginning of 1999, the new Framework 5 research program of the European Union was launched. Ten formerly socialist European countries have been admitted as associated participants. On this occasion, Robert Koenig published an article (News Focus, 1 Jan. p. [22][1]) discussing the level and current problems of science in those countries. We would like to point out some problems with the treatment of the data on citation statistics and offer a few additional comments on the subject. Having analyzed in detail the data provided by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), we conclude that the table on citation impacts in Koenig's article is based on an option that allows the user to extract the citation impact for a 5-year period, 1993 to 1997. This particular choice seems unfair, specifically for the Czech and Slovak republics. Czechoslovakia split into two states, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, at the beginning of 1993. ISI provides independent statistics for the Czech and Slovak republics only from 1994 on. The split of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia occurred earlier. Therefore, the new states formed on these territories have had separate representations in the ISI database since 1993. Consequently, only the 4-year citation impact for the Czech and Slovak Republic was compared with the 5-year impact for the other countries in the table. We recalculated the citation impacts for all the countries listed in the table for the 4-year period 1994 to 1997 to make them directly comparable with the data available for the Czech and Slovak republics. After this recalculation, the Czech Republic becomes 22nd and the Slovak Republic 27th out of 33 European countries, instead of 29th and 33rd, as stated in Koenig's article. It may be useful to recall that the typical citation half-time of the journals followed by ISI is 4 to 10 years or even more. Therefore, the citation impact from a recent period may not be the most suitable measure of scientific output. Perhaps more interesting is the secular evolution of the citation impact for Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic. The acceleration, starting around 1991, that is, after the fall of the communist system, is notable. This acceleration started at the same time that the political barriers preventing free contacts of Czechoslovak scientists and their Western colleagues were removed, a promising indication for the future. No doubt the community of Czech scientists cannot be satisfied with their current citation impact. Even among ex-socialist countries, the Czech Republic falls behind Hungary, Estonia, and Poland. A more detailed study will be needed to find out how much this can directly be ascribed to a lower quality of Czech publications in comparison with those from other countries. Many of us still remember too well that especially in the period after the Soviet invasion in 1968, Czechoslovakia became one of the most isolated socialist countries. Many Czech and Slovak scientists who had been working abroad, often with remarkable success, were forced to sever contacts with science in their home country. The situation was better in Poland and Hungary. Polish and Hungarian scientists who decided to live abroad, even without the permission of their Soviet-controlled governments, did not lose the links to their home institutions. There were also other barriers that should be considered in a comprehensive study of the subject. Yet, we prefer to see positive signs of future development. For example, in 1991, Czechoslovak astronomers decided to be the first community from all the ex-socialist countries to join their national journal, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, with the largest European astronomical journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics. This change was followed by an increase in the number of their accepted and published papers. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.283.5398.22

How much do we value applied environmental research

Abstract: In a recent postscript, Olson1xOlson, M.H. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998; 13: 469Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (1)See all References1 highlighted that, in spite of potential benefits, few studies genuinely bridge the gap between pure and applied ecology. The explanation proposed was that basic and applied ecology tend to emphasize different aspects of the research process; the former placing emphasis on the question, the latter on finding answers.We think there is a further factor limiting the active linkage of these disciplines: applied research, and in particular applied empirical work, has a lower intellectual and scientific value placed on it than fundamental research (especially if the fundamental research includes mathematical modelling). Admittedly, this suggestion derives from some largely unquantifiable ‘gut feeling’. However, whether a cause or a symptom, some support is provided by the ISI/SCI Journal Citation Reports and the citation Impact Factors of various journals2xSee all References2.The highest impact journals accepting ecological research are Science and Nature. These journals aim to publish innovative science leading to fundamental advances in our understanding. These criteria tip the balance away from applied science, which, almost by definition, tends to utilize existing understanding, rather than generating new understanding. This is not a criticism of Science or Nature, or the quality of the work they publish. However, in an age when citation indices and impact factors are increasingly being used to judge the outputs of individuals, departments and even countries3xSee all References3, the fact that the highest profile journals do not lend themselves to applied ecological research does not help in motivating scientists to involve themselves in applied issues. Neither does it promote the scientific worth of applied environmental research to the community in general.This pattern is reinforced if we look at the ecology and evolution journals in particular. Examining equivalent ‘sister’ journals allows us to compare like with like and to correct for factors such as article style and publishing frequency. Take Ecology and its sister journal Ecological Applications; and Journal of Animal Ecology and Journal of Ecology and their applied sister publication, Journal of Applied Ecology. The citation impact factors and rankings of these journals are: Ecology, 3.139 (6th); J. Ecol., 2.837 (9th); J. Anim. Ecol., 2.801 (10th); Ecol. Appl., 2.180 (13th); and J. Appl. Ecol., 1.335 (29th). This reveals that applied research scores a poor second to fundamental research. This is even worse if one considers that the natural endpoint of fundamental work is a scientific publication, whereas in applied work the goals can be very different and a scientific paper might be a secondary output (and might not be produced at all).We are not saying that one discipline is better than the other, nor that we should all be doing applied research, nor that citation indices are the best indicators of achievement for ecology. However, we do believe that some bias exists against applied research and discourages the enthusiastic participation of all scientists. In a time when the challenges in applied ecology have never been greater and we are increasingly being asked by funding agencies and the public to be accountable, this seems a little bizarre. It is also a very different situation to the one that exists in, for example, the medical sciences. Here, the distinction between pure and applied research and researchers is far more blurred and few would question the value of orienting research effort to deal with the real problems. Wouldn't this be a better model for ecology?