Great expectations: The role of Open Access in improving countries’ recognition

Open Access movement has been proven to be capable to enhance the recognition of scientific outputs by improving their visibility. However, it is not clear how different entities benefit from the Open Access advantage; because, the recognition process is dominated by some psychological or realistic biases, resulting in an unequal distribution of citations between different entities. The biases may be exacerbated in Open Access world, e.g. due to the scientists uncertainty about the quality of Open Access materials, or quantitatively or qualitatively unequal presence of countries. Consequently, although, Open Access is able to achieve their potential citations, it is not unlikely that it increases the inequalities, depriving the already “have-nots”. Trying to illuminate how countries are benefiting from Open Access advantage, this study compares citation performances of the world’s countries in two journal sets, i.e. Open Access and non Open Access journals. The results of the analyses conducted at subject field level show that overall recognition gap between developed and less-developed blocks is widened by publishing in Open Access journals. The verification of individual countries’ performances confirms the finding by revealing that open-access-advantaged nations are mainly consisted of developed ones. However, some open-access-advantaged instances are from the less-developed block, which may promisingly suggest early heralds of Open Access potentialities to achieve the recognition of “lost sciences”, leading to relative reparation of the gap in future.     

Citation bias in medical journals

Multivariate statistical analysis of the citation profiles of urology and related journals (i.e. the relative extent to which each journal cites itself and other journals within a set) has highlighted hidden correlations. We reveal the existence of a ‘transatlantic’ rift in citation practice and of a confined discipline-oriented world which interfaces weakly with many other disciplines. We also interpret the results of our analyses in terms of basic and clinical research and examine whether there is a time-related selectivity in citation. Taken together, our results call for a serious appraisal of present-day research trends and of their evaluation. The open question is how to create a terrain that will foster original, possibly interdisciplinary, research in developed nations whilst maintaining cultural individuality.     

Reasons for and developments in international scientific collaboration: does an Asia–Pacific research area exist from a bibliometric point of view?

This paper describes the different forms of and tries to give reasons for international scientific collaboration in general. It focuses on eleven countries in the Asia–Pacific region by evaluating their national research output with the help of bibliometric indicators in particular. Over two million journal articles published by these countries between 1998 and 2007 in ISI-listed periodicals are analyzed. Discipline-specific publication and citation profiles reveal national strengths and weaknesses in the different research domains. The exponential increase in publication output by China over the last few years is astonishing, but in terms of visibility, i.e. citation rates, China cannot keep up with leading science nations, remaining below the world average. A discipline-specific analysis shows that Chinese authors took an active part in more than a quarter of all articles and reviews published in the field of materials science in 2007, while their contribution to medical research is very low. Co-publication networks among the eleven countries are generated to observe the development of cooperation bonds in the region. Applying Salton’s measure of international collaboration strength, an above-average strengthening of scientific collaboration in the Asia–Pacific region can be observed.     

Korean journals in the Science Citation Index: What do they reveal about the intellectual structure of S&T in Korea?

During the last decade, we have witnessed a sustained growth of South Korea’s research output in terms of the world share of publications in the Science Citation Index database. However, Korea’s citation performance is not yet as competitive as publication performance. In this study, the authors examine the intellectual structure of Korean S&T field based on social network analysis of journal-journal citation data using the ten Korean SCI journals as seed journals. The results reveal that Korean SCI journals function more like publication places, neither research channels nor information sources among national scientists. Thus, these journals may provide Korean scholars with access to international scientific communities by facilitating the respective entry barriers. However, there are no citation relations based on their Korean background. Furthermore, we intend to draw some policy implications which may be helpful to increase Korea’s research potential.     

Cardiovascular research in Spain. A comparative scientometric study

A bibliometric analysis of Spanish cardiovascular research is presented. The study focuses on the productivity, visibility and citation impact in an international, notably European context. Special attention is given to international collaboration. The underlying bibliographic data are collected from Thomson Reuters’s Web of Science on the basis of a ‘hybrid’ search strategy combining core journals, lexical terms and citation links especially developed for the field of cardiology.     

What makes a journal international? A case study using conservation biology journals

The qualitative label ‘international journal’ is used widely, including in national research quality assessments. We determined the practicability of analysing internationality quantitatively using 39 conservation biology journals, providing a single numeric index (IIJ) based on 10 variables covering the countries represented in the journals’ editorial boards, authors and authors citing the journals’ papers. A numerical taxonomic analysis refined the interpretation, revealing six categories of journals reflecting distinct international emphases not apparent from simple inspection of the IIJs alone. Categories correlated significantly with journals’ citation impact (measured by the Hirsch index), with their rankings under the Australian Commonwealth’s ‘Excellence in Research for Australia’ and with some countries of publication, but not with listing by ISI Web of Science. The assessments do not reflect on quality, but may aid editors planning distinctive journal profiles, or authors seeking appropriate outlets.     

Establishment of paper assessment system based on academic disciplinary benchmarks

An article assessment system based on both Tianjin University and nine key Chinese Universities’ academic disciplinary benchmarks was established to evaluate researcher’s published papers. With this scientific benchmarking system, the quality of a researcher’s papers could be easily located in a percentile scale in corresponding field within certain groups. Several factors, including total number of papers, order of authors, impact of journals, citation count, h-index, e-index, a-index, m-quotient, etc., were also utilized for both quantity and quality analysis. Furthermore, the novel proposed weighted citation analysis was introduced to judge a researcher’s contribution to his/her research outcomes. The convenient application and comprehensive evaluation property of this assessment system was thoroughly discussed via a given example.     

Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines

For practical reasons, bibliographic databases can only contain a subset of the scientific literature. The ISI citation databases are designed to cover the highest impact scientific research journals as well as a few other sources chosen by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Google Scholar also contains citation information, but includes a less quality controlled collection of publications from different types of web documents. We define Google Scholar unique citations as those retrieved by Google Scholar which are not in the ISI database. We took a sample of 882 articles from 39 open access ISI-indexed journals in 2001 from biology, chemistry, physics and computing and classified the type, language, publication year and accessibility of the Google Scholar unique citing sources. The majority of Google Scholar unique citations (70%) were from full-text sources and there were large disciplinary differences between types of citing documents, suggesting that a wide range of non-ISI citing sources, especially from non-journal documents, are accessible by Google Scholar. This might be considered to be an advantage of Google Scholar, since it could be useful for citation tracking in a wider range of open access scholarly documents and to give a broader type of citation impact. An important corollary from our study is that Google Scholar’s wider coverage of Open Access (OA) web documents is likely to give a boost to the impact of OA research and the OA movement.     

Africa’s contribution to the worldwide research literature: New analytical perspectives,trends, and performance indicators

This paper examines general characteristics of African science from a quantitative ‘scientometric’ perspective. More specifically, that of research outputs of Africa-based authors published in the scientific literature during the years 1980–2004, either within the international journals representing ‘mainstream’ science, or within national and regional journals reflecting ‘indigenous science’. As for the international journals, the findings derived from Thomson Scientific’s Citation Indexes show that while Africa’s share in worldwide science has steadily declined, the share of international co-publications has increased very significantly, whereas low levels of international citation impact persist. A case study of South African journals reveals the existence of several journals that are not processed for these international databases but nonetheless show a distinctive citation impact on international research communities.     

The representation of nationalities on the editorial boards of international journals and the promotion of the scientific output of the same countries

This paper analyses the nationalities of the editorial board members of the top 20 journals (according to their impact factor in the ISI Journal Citation Report, Science Edition 2005) serving 15 scientific disciplines. A total of 281 journals were analysed (some journals crossed disciplinary boundaries) and 10,055 of their editorial board members were identified. Some 53% of board members were from the United States. Europe provided 32%, with the United Kingdom making the greatest contribution (9.8%). The analysis of scientific output by nationality in these journals showed a significant correlation, in all disciplines, with the representation of the corresponding nations on the editorial boards. The composition of editorial boards may therefore provide a useful indicator for measuring a country’s international scientific visibility. The present results should be taken into account in the design of national policies with the aim of enhancing the presence of a country’s most prestigious scientists on the editorial boards of the main international journals.     

Comparison and evaluation of Chinese research performance in the field of bioinformatics

Bioinformatics is an emerging and rapidly evolving discipline. The bioinformatics literature is growing exponentially. This paper aims to provide an integrated bibliometric study of the knowledge base of Chinese research community, based on the bibliometric information in the field of bioinformatics from SCI-Expanded database during the period of 2000–2005. It is found that China is productive in bioinformatics as far as publication activity in international journals is concerned. For comparative purpose, the results are benchmarked against the findings from five other major nations in the field of bioinformatics: USA, UK, Germany, Japan and India. In terms of collaboration profile, the findings imply that the collaborative scope of China has gradually transcended boundaries of organizations, regions and nations as well. Finally, further analyses on the citation share and some surrogate scientometric indicators show that the publications of Chinese authors suffer from a lowest international visibility among the six countries. Strikingly, Japan has achieved most remarkable impact of publication when compared to research effort devoted to bioinformatics amongst the six countries. The policy implication of the findings lies in that Chinese scientific community needs much work on improving the research impact and pays more attention to strengthening the academic linkages between China and worldwide nations, particularly scientifically advanced countries.     

The citation impacts and citation environments of Chinese journals in mathematics

Based on the citation data of journals covered by the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD), we obtained aggregated journal-journal citation environments by applying routines developed specifically for this purpose. Local citation impact of journals is defined as the share of the total citations in a local citation environment, which is expressed as a ratio and can be visualized by the size of the nodes. The vertical size of the nodes varies proportionally to a journal’s total citation share, while the horizontal size of the nodes is used to provide citation information after correction for the within-journal (self-) citations. In the “citing” environment, the equivalent of the local citation performance can also be considered as a citation activity index. Using the “citing” patterns as variables one is able to map how the relevant journal environments are perceived by the collective of authors of a journal, while the “cited” environment reflects the impact of journals in a local environment. In this study, we analyze citation impacts of three Chinese journals in mathematics and compare local citation impacts with impact factors. Local citation impacts reflect a journal’s status and function better than (global) impact factors. We also found that authors in Chinese journals prefer international instead of domestic ones as sources for their citations.     

In-depth analysis on China’s international cooperation in science

It has been about 30 years since China adopted an open-up and reform policy for global competition and collaboration. This opening-up policy is accompanied by a spectacular growth of the country’s economy as well as visibility in the world’s scientific literature. Also China’ competitiveness in scientific research has grown, and is mirroring the development of the country’s economy. On the other hand, international collaboration of most countries dramatically increased during the last two decades and accompanied the growth of science in emerging economies. Thus the question arises of whether growth of competitiveness in research is accompanied by an intensification of collaboration in China as well. In the present study we analyse the dynamics and the national characteristics of China’s co-operation in a global context. We also study research profile and citation impact of international collaboration with respect to the corresponding domestic ‘standards’.     

Do lead articles signal higher quality in the digital age? Evidence from finance journals

Citations are regarded as measures of quality yet citation rates vary widely within each of the top finance journals. Since article ordering is at the discretion of editors, lead articles can be interpreted as signals of quality that academics can use to allocate their attention and assert the value of their publications. Advances in electronic journal access allow researchers to directly access articles, suggesting article ordering may be less relevant today. We confirm the past importance of lead articles by examining citation rates from published papers as well as the wider source of papers that are listed in Google Scholar. Our findings also confirm using Google Scholar as a citation source provides congruent results to using citations from articles published in ISI-listed journals, with the additional benefit of it potentially being more timely since it includes wider citation sources, inclusive of working and conference papers.     

A bibliometric study of China’s semiconductor literature compared with other major asian countries

In this paper we compare the scientific research in the semiconductor-related field in China with some other major nations in Asia. It is based on the bibliometric information from SCI-Expanded database during the time period of 1995–2004. We show that China has been developing fast in semiconductor research, and become the second productive country in Asia as reflected by the publication profile. The evidences indicate a significant increasing trend in the research efforts and readership among Asian countries. Similar to the scientists in Japan and South Korea, Chinese scientists were more inclined to work in larger groups, typically 4 or more authors. The assessment of research quality is further conducted based on citation-based measures. As benchmarks, two western countries, namely USA and Germany, have been compared in the citation analysis. It is revealed that the impacts of research outputs in the Asian countries, except for Japan, have been badly incommensurate with their devoted research efforts compared with USA and Germany. Like most of other Asian countries the research results of Chinese scientists in semiconductor have a low international visibility despite their strong research efforts and increasingly large domestic readership. The application of Leimkuhler curve illustrates vividly the inequality of citation times among the compared countries. Furthermore, the Gini Indices of each country and each pair of countries are calculated which illustrates again the inequality of informetric productivities.     

Core-periphery,new clusters,or rising stars?: international scientific collaboration among ‘advanced’ countries in the era of globalization

Assuming the OECD member states as ‘advanced’ nations equipped with basic scientific capacities, the present research addresses the network configuration of these countries in international scientific collaboration and the transformation of this network along with globalization. The result suggests that geographical, linguistic, and economic affinities did not have a meaningful impact on the formation of co-authorship network between ‘advanced’ nations, different from previous research results which claimed their importance on international cooperation. Globalization facilitated by the development of information and transportation technologies was found to influence the co-authorship link between countries, but not to accelerate centralization of the network in the past 15 years. Though the core-periphery pattern still persists, new rising stars, which are Korea and Turkey, have emerged in the co-authorship network among ‘advanced’ nations. These two countries, having a rapid increase in the share of degree centrality from 1995 to 2010, had strategic financial support from the government which stimulated the collaboration between universities and industries and emphasized the development of science and engineering fields.     

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

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 toMay'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.