The “own-language preference”: Measures of relative language self-citation

It has already been pointed out that the foreign language barrier is probably the greatest impediment to the free flow and transfer of information. This barrier is even growing as scientists of more and more countries publish in their own languages. Almost all studies addressing the language barrier problem were conducted from an Anglo-Saxon perspective, limiting their scope to English-language sources or English speakers. Little research has been devoted to studying and measuring language preference among non-English-speaking scholars. This article reviews measures proposed in former studies such as the “relative own-language preference” indicator, and the “straight odds ratio”, pointing out their advantages and drawbacks. Two new refined measures (in both “raw” and normalised versions) are offered, claiming to be free of these drawbacks, and thus enabling a better and more reliable comparison between journals of different languages. Practical use of the proposed measures is illustrated by applying them to findings of a former language-citation study done on nine sociology journals.     

Journal impact measures in bibliometric research

The Impact Factor introduced by Eugene Garfield is a fundamental citation-based measure for significance and performance of scientific journals. It is perhaps the most popular bibliometric product used in bibliometrics itself, as well as outside the scientific community. First, a concise review of the background and history of the ISI impact factor and the basic ideas underlying it are given. A cross-citation matrix is used to visualise the construction of the Impact Factor and several related journal citation measures.Both strengths and flaws of the impact factor are discussed. Several attempts made by different authors to introduce more sophisticated journal citation measures and the reasons why many indicators aiming at a correction of methodological limitations of the Impact Factor were not successful are described. The next section is devoted to the analysis of basic technical and methodological aspects. In this context, the most important sources of possible biases and distortions for calculation and use of journal citation measures are studied. Thereafter, main characteristics of application contexts are summarised. The last section is concerned with questions of statistical reliability of journal citation measures. It is shown that in contrast to a common misbelief statistical methods can be applied to discrete "skewed" distributions, and that the statistical reliability of these statistics can be used as a basis for application of journal impact measures in comparative analyses. Finally, the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of a single, howsoever complex measure for characterising the citation impact of scientific journals is discussed. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Introducing the Current Contribution Index for characterizing the recent,relevant impact of journals

The Garfield (Impact) Factor characterizes the measure of the up to date specific contribution of scientific journals to the total impact of the journals in a special field. A new indicator (Current Contribution Index, CCI) was introduced in order to characterize the relative contribution of journals to recent, relevant knowledge of a corresponding field. The CC Index relates the number of citations received by a journal in a given year to the total number of citations obtained by all journals of the corresponding field in that year. Mean Garfield Factors and mean Current Contribution Indexes were calculated for some fields and several journals. No significant correlation was found between the Garfield Factor (GF) and Current Contribution Index (CCI) of journals. The ratios of the GF to CCI referring to the corresponding top 10, 20 or 50 per cent of the journals ranked by decreasing GF and CCI, strongly differ by field.     

How the European Union writes about ophthalmology

This study evaluates the distribution of papers published by European Union (EU) authors in ophthalmological journals from 1995 to 1997. The impact of ophthalmological research in the EU is compared with that produced in other countries and trends of research are highlighted through the keywords analysis. Data of articles published in ophthalmological journals (ISI Subject Category) were downloaded. Mean Impact Factor, source country population and gross domestic product were analyzed. A special purpose software for keyword elaboration was utilized. 11,219 papers were published in the world in the ophthalmological journals: 34.8% came from the EU (UK, Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands ranking at the top) and 40.7% from the US. The mean Impact Factor of EU papers was 0.8 in comparison with 1.5 in the US. Despite the limitations of the existing methods, bibliometric findings are useful for the monitoring of research trends. The keywords analysis shows that the leading fields of research were retinal pathologies for diseases and keratoplasty for surgical procedures. It also suggests that keywords are overused, and urges minimization of this as well as standardization among journal editors. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Papers written by Nobel Prize winners in physics before they won the prize: an analysis of their language and journal of publication

In this paper, we analyzed data relating to the language of papers written by winners of Nobel Prizes in physics before they won the prize and their journals of publication, and we identified the change in scientific language corresponding with shifts of the center of the scientific world. Using the science citation index as the main data source, we also collected information on the distribution of prize-winning scientists by country, by each scientist’s number of published papers, and by language. We then analyzed their papers in terms of the different journals based in different countries. The results are presented in three parts: (1) the main languages used in the papers are English and German. The proportion of papers in English is gradually increasing, while that of papers in German is decreasing. (2) The prize winning scientists’ papers have been published mainly in journals in their own nation and in the United States. (3) Journals based in their own countries are very helpful to these scientists early in their careers.     

Institutionalization and internationalization of research on the applications of the geographical information systems in health planning

Recently, geographical information systems have been very intensively applied in social life and in public health in particular. A retrospective problem-oriented search on their use in health planning was performed in Web of Science of Web of Knowledge, three versions of MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and ProQuest Medical in 1990–2010. The annual dynamics of a set of scientometric parameters characterizing several aspects of the abstracted publications, authors’ scientific institutions, journals, authors, citations, and languages was comparatively analyzed. It was established that world publication output on such a relatively narrow topic was reflected to a different extent in these data-bases. MEDLINE (PubMed) presented with 484 papers published in 243 journals followed by MEDLINE (WoK) with 360 papers in 215 journals. The abstracted publications were mainly in English, but 14 other languages were present in significant numbers. Publications by authors from 44 countries were abstracted in WoS but from 29 countries in MEDLINE (Ebsco). The most productive authors and institutions as well as the ‘core’ journals were identified. The International Journal of Health Geography occupied the leading position. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) was one of the most productive research institutions in WoS and in Scopus. Scientific institutions and journals belonged to problem-oriented and to mono-, two- and three-disciplinary thematic profiles as well. Some essential peculiarities of the dynamics of research institutionalization and internationalization in this interdisciplinary field were illustrated. The constellation of specific semantically-loaded indicators could be applied for the purposes of problem-oriented analyses as it could timely identify the essential patterns of scientific advances in rapidly expanding interdisciplinary topics.     

The visibility of Italian journals

The main purpose of this study was to analyze the Italian journals indexed in the 2000 edition of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) (Philadelphia, USA). The performance and the visibility of these journals were evaluated in terms of Impact Factor (IF), mean IF from citing journals and cited journals, and self-citing and self-cited rates. Seventy-three Italian journals were indexed in the JCR, 14 of which achieved an IF equal to or higher than one. Most citing journals were European and American, thus showing a fairly good visibility of the articles published in the 14 journals analyzed. The self-citing and self-cited rates showed a wide variation. The journal that appeared to perform best was theJournal of High Energy Physics, an electronic publication whose success seemingly confirms Internet circulation as an effective means to enhance the visibility and consequently the quality, in term of citations, of a journal. Italy's low overall expenditure on research & development (R&D) and low number of researchers compared to countries with longstanding high publishing standards and traditions are no doubt partly to blame for its poor performance in scientific publishing. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Import-export of knowledge between scientific subject categories: The iceberg hypothesis

The capacity to attract citations from other disciplines — or knowledge export — has always been taken into account in evaluating the quality of scientific papers or journals. Some of the JCR’s (ISI’s Journal Citation Report) Subject Categories have a greater exporting character than others because they are less isolated. This influences the rank/JIF (ISI’s Journal Impact Factor) distribution of the category. While all the categories fit a negative power law fairly well, those with a greater External JIF give distributions with a more sharply defined peak and a longer tail — something like an iceberg. One also observes a major relationship between the rates of export and import of knowledge.     

Science publication indicators for India: Questions of interpretation

We comment on a letter toNature in 1996 on the long term decline of Indian science pointing out methodological reasons why the (SCI) data used by the authors do not unambiguously lead to their stated conclusions. Our arguments are based on the contention that no valid statement on change in a country's output may be made for a period in which the journal coverage from that country in SCI has changed significantly. We have suggested that for longitudinal comparisons of country level performance, it should be verified that the journals from that country in SCI remained constant within the period. This could be ensured if the country of publication of journals could be included as a field in the SCI database. We define a Visibility Index as the cumulated impact and derive a relation to estimate change in visibility combining changes in output and average impact. In the period during which Indian journal coverage remained unchanged, a detailed analysis of output for two years (1990–94) leads us to conclude that, with the exception of Agriculture, there has been an increase in publication in virtually every field, with significant increase in the overall mean Impact Factor. At least 25 subfields have been identified with statistically significant increase in mean Impact Factor and Visibility. The impact of foreign collaboration on visibility has also been considered. In conclusion we touch upon the question of citation as a performance indicator for Third World countries as high citation and relevance may be in conflict as objectives.     

Recent strategies for adding value to scientific journals in Latin America

A recent initiative in some Latin American countries, to define thebasic core of credited titles of domestic scientific journals in the different knowledge fields, is reviewed. The policy aim is to strengthen the best journals and to minimize the noise produced by the great number of journals that do a disservice to the authors who publish in them either because of their low quality or because even if they are reasonably good, have a very low impact. It is argued that if the exercise were carried out in a rigorous and systematic way in the countries of the region that publish scientific journals, one might eventually obtain a depurated list of Latin American periodical publications. Such list might be useful as a supplement to the catalogues of mainstream journals registered by ISI and other international databases, and could provide valid alternatives of publication of results for Latin American researchers and for authors of other regions active in subjects in which the countries of the region have significant scientific contributions. It might also help to provide a better indication of the total publishing activity of Latin American countries.     

Influence of publication languages on the citation rate of scientific articles: A case study of East German journals

In order to quantify the influence of publication languages on the rate of citation of scientific articles, such East German journals from the Science Citation Index database were selected which publish relevant shares of contributions in several languages, especially in English and German. For a fixed period of time (1988) the selective citation impact of both English- and German-language articles was calculated. The results of our investigation reveal a non-uniform picture: In some cases English-language papers exhibit a significantly higher citations-per-paper average than German-language articles, but in a few cases German-language publications achieve a higher mean citation rate. For the half of selected journals there does not exist a statistically significant difference of citation frequencies of publications in both languages. Possible causes of these phenomena (editorial practice of journals, native countries of authors) are considered.     

An investigation into diabetes researcher’s perceptions of the Journal Impact Factor — reconsidering evaluating research

Currently the Journal Impact Factors (JIF) attracts considerable attention as components in the evaluation of the quality of research in and between institutions. This paper reports on a questionnaire study of the publishing behaviour and researchers preferences for seeking new knowledge information and the possible influence of JIF on these variables. 54 Danish medical researchers active in the field of Diabetes research took part. We asked the researchers to prioritise a series of scientific journals with respect to which journals they prefer for publishing research and gaining new knowledge. In addition we requested the researchers to indicate whether or not the JIF of the prioritised journals has had any influence on these decisions. Furthermore we explored the perception of the researchers as to what degree the JIF could be considered a reliable, stable or objective measure for determining the scientific quality of journals. Moreover we asked the researchers to judge the applicability of JIF as a measure for doing research evaluations. One remarkable result is that app. 80% of the researchers share the opinion that JIF does indeed have an influence on which journals they would prefer for publishing. As such we found a statistically significant correlation between how the researchers ranked the journals and the JIF of the ranked journals. Another notable result is that no significant correlation exists between journals where the researchers actually have published papers and journals in which they would prefer to publish in the future measured by JIF. This could be taken as an indicator for the actual motivational influence on the publication behaviour of the researchers. That is, the impact factor actually works in our case. It seems that the researchers find it fair and reliable to use the Journal Impact Factor for research evaluation purposes.     

Journal citation identity, journal citation image and internationalisation: Methods for journal evaluation

Summary Journal Citation Identity, Journal Citation Image, and Internationalisation are methods for journal evaluation used for an analysis of the Journal of Documentation(JDOC) which is compared to JASIS(T) and the Journal of Information Science(JIS). The set of analyses contributes to portrait a journal and gives a multifaceted picture. For instance, the Journal Citation Image by the New Journal Diffusion Factor tells that JDOC reaches farther out into the scientific community than the JASIS(T) and JIS. Comparing New Journal Diffusion Factor and Journal Impact Factor illustrates how new information has been added by the new indicator. Furthermore, JDOC is characterised by a higher rate of journal diversity in the references and has a lower number of scientific publications. JDOC authors and citers are affiliated Western European institutions at an increasing rate.     

Dermatological scientific production from European Union authors (1987–2000)

To evaluate the contribution to international dermatological literature made by authors from European Union (EU) countries. Using MedLine, a selection was made of articles by EU authors published between 1987 and 2000 in 32 dermatological journals, classified as such by the Institute for Scientific Information. Overall 19,225 documents were published by European authors in the selected dermatological journals from 1987 to 2000. The leading countries in terms of output were the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and France. The leading countries in number of articles after taking into account the gross domestic product and the population were Denmark, Finland and Sweden. The main journals were the British Journal of Dermatology(14.5% of articles from European authors), Contact Dermatitis (13.7%), Journal of Investigative Dermatology (7.3%),Journal of American Academy of Dermatology (6.4%), andActa Dermato-Venereologica (6.1%). The country with the highest output of papers by journal was the United Kingdom (11 journals) followed by Germany (9 journals), Italy (6 journals), France (3 journals), Spain (2 journals) and Sweden (1 journal). In conclusions: the scientific production of European Union research on dermatology is highest in northern countries. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Stocktaking scientific publication on bi-regional collaboration between Europe 28 and Latin America and the Caribbean

Mapping bi-regional scientific collaboration demands multiple approaches to obtain a picture as complete as possible. Usually, the first approach is the measuring of the number and typology of scientific co-publications in the most visible indexes of journals and publications covered by databases like Web of Science or Scopus, among others. This paper analyzes scientific publications listed by Web of Science (WoS), which comprises authors from the 28 EU countries and Latin American and Caribbean countries (EULAC) between 2005 and 2016. The following questions have been addressed: How are bi-regional scientific relations between EULAC countries reflected by international collaboration? What effects does this scientific collaboration have in smaller or emerging countries? Which area of knowledge has more international collaborations? The study highlights the existence of a growing global network of researchers from several countries that collaborate on their research. EULAC scientific collaboration cannot be understood in isolation from this global network.

     

Scientific output in the third world

Although such indicators exhibit only certain aspects of the contribution of science to a country, the number of scientific authors in a given year is plotted for every year between 1971 and 1976, inclusive, and the number of scientific authors divided by the population of the country is also given for those years. The number of scientific authors is the number of scientists who published at least one article in a journal in that given year. The data were taken from a survey which, although it covers only about 4000 scientific journals, includes a large fraction of all articles published.The results are given in 43 graphs, the first 17 of which show the number of authors and the second 16 the authors per capita. The graphs are divided according to geographical areas: Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, and within each region countries with roughly comparable output or output per capita are grouped together.The last ten graphs show the growth rates of authors and of authors per capita, compared to the 1971 values, for groups of countries aggregated according to various parameters with which correlation is being investigated. Continent, size of population literacy rate about 25 years before, the percentage of gross national product spent on military expenditures, and colonial past.This article was first suggested by and submitted toInterciencia, but upon its completion Interciencia was hesitant to publish it because of the coverage by the ISI compilations of Latin American scientific journals. It was felt by Interciencia that the coverage was so skimpy as to fail to do adequate justice to the scientific output of Latin American countries. By implication, the same may be said about the coverage of other parts of the Third World.On the one hand, as explained in the article, this criticism does not invalidate the findings of this article if they are formulated in a sufficiently careful language. On the other hand, the criticism has merit since there is a great need for a much more complete coverage of the scientific publications, authors publications, and citations in the Third World. For reasons which are quite legitimate in their own right, it is unlikely that an organization like ISI can undertake a coverage of the thousands of journals published in the Third World. I have therefore been suggesting for some time to various appropriate people in the developing countries that these countries, singly or in groups, initiate their own computerized compilation of journals, authors, publications and perhaps even citations. Such a program would be of great value not only in an international context, but also in terms of national and regional science policies, in terms of studies in the science of science of efforts in the developing countries, in terms of evaluative, and assessing efforts in those countries, etc. I hope that this article and the reaction it may produce will accelerate the beginning of such an effort.     

On the impact of Gold Open Access journals

Gold Open Access (=Open Access publishing) is for many the preferred route to achieve unrestricted and immediate access to research output. However, true Gold Open Access journals are still outnumbered by traditional journals. Moreover availability of Gold OA journals differs from discipline to discipline and often leaves scientists concerned about the impact of these existent titles. This study identified the current set of Gold Open Access journals featuring a Journal Impact Factor (JIF) by means of Ulrichsweb, Directory of Open Access Journals and Journal Citation Reports (JCR). The results were analyzed regarding disciplines, countries, quartiles of the JIF distribution in JCR and publishers. Furthermore the temporal impact evolution was studied for a Top 50 titles list (according to JIF) by means of Journal Impact Factor, SJR and SNIP in the time interval 2000–2010. The identified top Gold Open Access journals proved to be well-established and their impact is generally increasing for all the analyzed indicators. The majority of JCR-indexed OA journals can be assigned to Life Sciences and Medicine. The success-rate for JCR inclusion differs from country to country and is often inversely proportional to the number of national OA journal titles. Compiling a list of JCR-indexed OA journals is a cumbersome task that can only be achieved with non-Thomson Reuters data sources. A corresponding automated feature to produce current lists “on the fly” would be desirable in JCR in order to conveniently track the impact evolution of Gold OA journals.