Distribution of physics literature

Percentage distributions of physics papers in 36 countries over ten subfields are compared. Factor and cluster analyses are applied to data from 1978Physics Abstracts. Countries load highly on seven factors. Their meaning is estimated by factor scores. Clusters of countries with similar publishing patterns are presented in a tree diagram.     

Scientometrics of laser research in India during 1970-1994

An analysis of 952 publications published by Indian scientists and abstracted by Journal of Current Laser Abstracts during 1970-1994 indicates that laser research in India picked up during 1978-1994 and reached its peak in 1980. The Indian output in the field of laser research forms an integral part of the mainstream science as reflected by the pattern of publications and their citations in the international literature. Laser research performed in India improved considerably during 1985-1994 as compared to 1970-1984 as seen by different impact indicators such as citation per paper, proportion of high quality papers, and publication effective index. The publication output is concentrated among few institutions and there is a similarity in the activity and attractively profile of the highly productive institutions. India"s citation rate per paper for highly productive authors is at par with the world citation rate per paper. The study indicates that the proportion of mega authored papers increased during 1990-1994 and the international collaboration is mainly with the USA.     

Scientometrics of laser research literature as viewed through the Journal of Current Laser Abstracts

An analysis of 4650 publications abstracted inJournal of Current Laser Abstracts Vol. 27 (April 1990-March 1991) indicates that 14 countries contributed about 94% of the research output with USA toping the list followed by Japan and the erstwhile USSR. Technical reports and patents, besides articles in scientific journals constitute an important source of information on laser science and technology. “Spectroscopy of laser output” is the sub-speciality which has received maximum emphasis. USA has paid almost equal emphasis for theoretical, experimental and applications of laser research, while such pattern is not applicable for other countries. For USSR, China, and India, the impact of research did not commensurate with the publication effort.     

Scientometrics of institutional productivity of laser science and technology

An analysis of 4650 publications abstracted inJournal of Current Laser Abstracts (JCLA) during April 1990–March 1991 indicates that 50 institutions located in 14 countries contributed about 39% of the S&T output. Twenty two of these institutions were from the USA, four each from Japan and the former USSR. Academic and research institutions were mainly concentrating their research efforts either in theoretical or experimental laser research. However, the industrial houses pursued their research in applications of the lasers. Most of these institutions published their output in scientific journals, but a few institutions had large amounts of technical reports and patents to their credit. Most of the institutions resembled in their activity and attractivity profiles. The values of normalized impact per paper, publication effectivity index and proportion of high quality papers for 12 institutions were less than average.     

Difference in the impact of open-access papers published by China and the USA

We analyze the impact of open-access (OA) articles published by China and the USA by using Web of Science (WoS) data covering a period of 5 years (2011–2015), five indexes (citation and four altmetric indexes), five disciplines, and three types of articles. With regard to article type, Type I papers are those wherein the authors are all from China or the USA. Type II are those in which the first author is from China or the USA. Type III includes those in which the first author is not from China or the USA. We found that the proportion of OA papers in WoS has been growing in recent years. In terms of citations and altmetric indexes, the mean value of the USA is larger than that of China in general; Type II articles possess the highest value among all papers in the USA, whereas Type III has the highest value in China. Compared with the scenario in citations, social sciences and humanities possess larger altmetric values in China and the USA. The correlation among indicators is similar for the OA papers from China and the USA. Generally, citations cannot effectively represent the altmetric indexes. The gap between China and the USA is the largest in the altmetric attention score and Type I, and the smallest in citations and Type III. Measuring the international impact of OA papers using only citations underestimates the gap between China and the USA.     

Scientometric analysis of the research activities of chemists from the “Rugjer Bošković” Institute (Yugoslavia), 1976–1985

The research activity of chemists from the Rugjer Bokovi Institute (RBI, Zagreb, Yugoslavia) was analyzed for the period 1976–1985, covering 2018 research years of scientific work, and 1149 SCI registered papers (0.57 publications per research year). At the average, one paper was published by 3.05 scientists. The papers were published in 235 different journals, most frequently is the nationalCroatica Chemica Acta (171 papers). The publications were divided into two groups: for the periods 1976–1980 and 1981–1985, and for each paper citations were collected in the respective time period. An average publication had 2.58 citations. Chemical papers from the second period had 2.73 citations per paper, which is 85% of the expected value, and this was considerably more than for Yugoslav papers (66%) in general. The papers were classified according to the subfields used in theJournal Citation Reports, and the results compared with the data published bySchubert, Glänzel andBraun. The distribution of citations was also analyzed.     

Research and citation impact of publications by the Chemistry Division at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre

The paper analyses the citations to 1733 publications published during 1970–1999 by the Chemistry Division at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, using Science Citation Index 1982–2003 as the source data. The extent of citations received, in terms of the number of citations per paper, yearwise break up of citations, domainwise citations, self-citations and citations by others, diachronous self-citation rate, citing authors, citing institutions, highly cited papers, the categories of citing documents, citing journals and distribution of citations among them etc. are determined. During 1982–2003 chemistry Division publications have received a total of 11041 citations. The average number of citations per year was 501.86. The average number of citations per publication was 6.37. The highest number of citations received were 877 in 2001. The citation rate was peaked during 1990–2003 as maximum 9145 (82.82%) citations were received during the period. Total self-citations were 3716 (33.66%) and citations by others were 7325 (66.34%). Mean diachronous self-citation rate was 36.16. Citation time lag was zero for 144 (15.52%) papers and one year for 350 (37.72%) papers. Single authored publications (168) have received 456 (4.13%) citations and 1565 multi-authored publications have received 10585 (95.87%) citations. The core citing authors were: J. P. Mittal (695) followed by V. K. Jain (524), H. Mohan (471), T. Mukherjee (307), R. M Iyer (253), H. Pal (251), J. V. Yakhmi (211), A. V. Sapre (174), D. K. Palit (161), N. M. Gupta (128), and S. K. Kulshrestha (116). Citation life cycles of four highly cited papers was discussed. The core journals citing Chemistry Division publications were: J. Phys. Chem.-A (436 citations), Chem. Phys. Lett. (372), J. Phys. Chem. (355), J. Chem. Phys. (353), J. Organomet. Chem. (285), J. Phys. Chem.-B (279), J. Photochem. Photobiol.-A (263), Langmuir (245), J. Am. Chem. Soc. (226), Physica-C (225), Radiat. Phys. Chem. (217), Inorg. Chem. (215) and Indian J. Chem.-A (207).     

The highly cited papers of professors as an indicator of a research group's scientific performance

In the first part of the paper the citations in 1986 and 1987 of 3938 papers published in 1985 by 324 research groups in the faculties of science and of medicine of eight universities in the Netherlands are analyzed. Because of the large statistical spread of (1) the number of short-term citations of papers cited equally frequently over a long period, and (2) the number of citations over a long period of papers by the same author, short-term citation scores appear to be an unreliable indicator of a research group's contribution to science. In the second part of the paper an alternative approach is presented, based on a subdivision of the 3938 papers in papers authored by professors with 0–2, 3–8, or 9 highly cited papers (HCPs, 25 citations) to their name. Very large citation score differences were found for the three categories. For example: for papers first-authored by a professor, the average number of citations per person in 1986 and 1987 for 1985 papers was for 161 professors with 9 HCPs a factor 14 larger than for 575 professors with only 0–2 HCPs; for papers co-authored by professors, this factor was 6.6. These findings justify the conclusion that the number of HCPs scored by the professors (and other senior scientists) during their entire career is a much more reliable predictor of the performance of a research group than the number of short-term citations of the articles published by the group within a short period. A research group's contribution to science is primarily determined by the individual scientifictalents of its members.     

A bibliometric analysis of physics publications in Korea, 1994-1998

This study examined research performance of Korean physicists, comparing Korean-authoredpapers versus internationally co-authored papers, indexed in SCI, 1994-1998, and using thenumber of citations received by internationally co-authored papers covered by the SCI CD-ROM.For the study, 4,665 papers published from the researchers affiliated with the physics departmentsor physics-associated laboratories at Korean universities and indexed by SCI were analyzed.Korean authored papers tended to be published in Korean, Japanese, and UK journals, whileinternationally co-authored papers were more likely to appear in German, Dutch, and Swissjournals. Among the 18 authorship countries (on the basis of first author), 93 internationally co-authored papers by U.S. researchers had the highest citation rate, an average 15.9 citations perpaper. Of the eight countries that published over 5 papers, there was no correlation between theaverage number of citations per paper and the total number of citations. However, an ANOVAindicated a significant difference between the average number of citations per paper according tocountry (F = 5.84, p < 0.0005). In other words, papers by the U.S. and French researchers tendedto be cited more frequently than papers by the Italian, Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Germanresearchers.     

Equalization,growth and integration of science

A study of the production of scientific papers, co-authorships, and R&D-expenditures shows that science is becoming more equally distributed among the OECD-countries. Papers in the journalScience are more unequally distributed than papers inScience Citation Index as a whole or the distribution of R&D-investments. Scientific collaboration, is a major factor affecting the distribution of scientific papers.     

Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of <Emphasis Type="Italic">h</Emphasis>-index and <Emphasis Type="Italic">g</Emphasis>-index

Except the alphabetic ordering authorship papers, the citations of multi-authored papers are allocated to the authors based on their contributions to the paper. For papers without clarification of contribution proportion, a function of author number and rank is presented to rightly determine the credit allocated proportion and allocated citations of each author. Our citation allocation scheme is between the equally fractional counting and the one using the inverse of author rank. It has a parameter to adjust the credit distribution among the different authors. The allocated citations can either be used alone to indicate one’s performance in a paper, or can be applied in the modification of h-index and g-index to represent the achievement of a scientist on the whole. The modified h-index and g-index of an author makes use of more papers in which he or she played important roles. Our method is suitable for the papers with wide range of author numbers.     

Citation frequency: A biased measure of research impact significantly influenced by the geographical origin of research articles

Context. The use of citation frequency and impact factor as measures of research quality and journal prestige is being criticized. Citation frequency is augmented by self-citation and for most journals the majority of citations originate from a minority of papers. We hypothesized that citation frequency is also associated with the geographical origin of the research publication. Objective. We determined whether citations originate more frequently from institutes that are located in the same country as the authors of the cited publication than would be expected by chance. Design. We screened citations referring to 1200 cardiovascular publications in the 7 years following their publication. For the 1200 citation recipient publications we documented the country where the research originated (9 countries/regions) and the total number of received citations. For a selection of 8864 citation donor papers we registered the country/region where the citing paper originated. Results. Self-citation was common in cardiovascular journals (n = 1534, 17.8%). After exclusion of self-citation, however, the number of citations that originated from the same country as the author of the citation recipient was found to be on average 31.6% higher than would be expected by chance (p<0.01 for all countries/regions). In absolute numbers, nation oriented citation bias was most pronounced in the USA, the country with the largest research output (p<0.001). Conclusion. Citation frequency was significantly augmented by nation oriented citation bias. This nation oriented citation behaviour seems to mainly influence the cumulative citation number for papers originating from the countries with a larger research output.     

Be known by the company you keep: Citations — quality or chance?

We examine the determinants of five year citations to papers published in the American Economic Review and the Economic Journal. Citations are positively related to page length and position in the journal. Both of these variables are consistent with the hypothesis that citations reflect paper quality, as is the number of subsequent self-citations. However, the publication of a major paper, as judged by subsequent citations, significantly increases the citations of other papers in an issue and this indicates the importance of chance in determining citations.     

Scientific production and citation impact: a bibliometric analysis in acupuncture over three decades

Acupuncture, the most important nonpharmacological therapy in traditional Chinese medicine, has attracted significant attention since its introduction to the Western world. This study employs bibliometric analysis to examine the profile of publication activity related to it. The data are retrieved from the database of Science Citation Index Expanded during 1980–2009, and 7,592 papers are identified for analysis. This study finds that almost 20 % of papers are published in CAM journals, and the average cited times per acupuncture paper is 8.69. While the most cited article has been cited 2,109 times, however, 38.15 % of total publications have never been cited. Europe has the largest amount of authored papers with high h-index values; the USA has the largest number of publications on and citations of acupuncture based on country distribution, and this has continued as a significant rising trend. The proportion of collaborative papers shows this upward trend on the worldwide scale while the percentage shares of national collaborations are the highest. The USA produces the most international collaborative documents, although South Korea occupies the highest percentage figure for international collaborative papers. International collaborative papers are the most frequently cited. The average number of authors per paper is 3.69 in the top eight countries/regions. Papers contributed by South Korea are authored by the most people. International collaboration papers are authored by more people, except in Taiwan. South Korea’s Kyung Hee University is ranked first in terms of number of papers while Harvard University in the USA accounts for the largest proportion of citations. The University of Exeter, Harvard University and Karolinska Institute have the highest h-index values.     

Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system

Based on the Science Citation Index-Expanded web-version, the USA is still by far the strongest nation in terms of scientific performance. Its relative decline in percentage share of publications is largely due to the emergence of China and other Asian nations. In 2006, China has become the second largest nation in terms of the number of publications within this database. In terms of citations, the competitive advantage of the American “domestic market” is diminished, while the European Union (EU) is profiting more from the enlargement of the database over time than the USA. However, the USA is still outperforming all other countries in terms of highly cited papers and citation/publication ratios, and it is more successful than the EU in coordinating its research efforts in strategic priority areas like nanotechnology. In this field, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has become second largest nation in both numbers of papers published and citations behind the USA.     

Superstring theory: Information transfer in an emerging field

This paper traced an individual paper through the literature as it garnered citations. This paper was chosen because of its seminal nature in a highly controversial area of theoretical physics. The distribution of citations was tested against models suggested byPrice andKuhn as well as compared to other studies which also examined benchmark papers. The results indicate that the paper chosen behaved in a significantly different way from most of the prior models. The suggestion is made that further study of this and papers like it will add much to the theory of information transfer in science.     

A generation of astronomical telescopes,their users,and publications

Research astronomers and the telescopes they use each have typical life spans of about 40 years. Most of their journals live a good deal longer, though the second most important one today is only 40 years old. This paper looks at numbers for productivity and impact of specific astronomical facilities, changes in equality of opportunities and achievements in observational astronomy, and some aspects of national contributions. The focus is on optical astronomy, though something is also said about radio telescopes and astronomy from space. In summary, nothing stays “best of class” for very long; the fraction of the community with access to the most valuable facilities has increased with time (more equality of opportunity); but the fraction of citations earned by the few super-star papers has also increased (less equality of achievement); and the USA remains the host of the most-cited journals and the most productive telescopes, though Europe (meaning in this context the member nations of the European Southern Observatory, the European Space Agency, and the supporters of the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics) are fast closing the gap, with the UK retaining its own journal and some observing facilities not shared with either the USA or other European countries. Detailed examination of specific facilities indicates that size (of telescope, community, and budget) are all of great importance, but that the most significant “focal plane instrument” is still the astronomer at the virtual eyepiece. The changes have happened against a background of enormous increases in numbers of astronomers, sizes of available facilities (but not total number), numbers of papers (but not of journals), and numbers of citations per paper. A significant subset of the conclusions on turnover of people and facilities accompanying major growth: opportunity versus achievement; Europe versus the USA; and the trade-off between community size and the influence of individual scientists undoubtedly apply in many other fields.     

Further characterizations of the Hirsch index

The Hirsch index is a number that synthesizes a researcher’s output. It is defined as the maximum number h such that the researcher has h papers with at least h citations each. Four characterizations of the Hirsch index are suggested. The most compact one relies on the interpretation of the index as providing the number of valuable papers in an output and postulates three axioms. One, only cited papers can be valuable. Two, the index is strongly monotonic: if output x has more papers than output y and each paper in x has more citations than the most cited paper in y, then x has more valuable papers than y. And three, the minimum amount of citations under which a paper becomes valuable is different for each paper.     

Emergence of basic research on the periphery: Organic chemistry in India, 1907–1926

This study is a quantitative survey of the emergence of organic chemistry in India during the first two decades covered byChemical Abstracts. Chemists that were conducting research in this country were separated in three distincts groups, on the basis of their cultural identity and of their educational background. Important disparities between these three groups have been stated, both in terms of research fields and in terms of publication outlets.