The validity of publication and citation counts for Sociology and other selected disciplines

The use of bibliometric data is a means of comparing. research productivity and scholarly. impact for individuals, work groups, institutions and nations within and between disciplines. Central to this debate is the notion that disciplines differ in the ways in which,they exchange ideas and disseminate information and therefore have diverse publishing and citation patterns. In this article we use two different approaches to compiling bibliometric data to compare publishing patterns of five different disciplines that encompass Molecular Biology; Administration/Political Science, Psychology,. Philosophy and Sociology/Anthropology. We find that the social sciences differ from each other as well as from the physical sciences in their publication and citation patterns. Further, while the different ways of organizing the data produce somewhat different results, the substantive findings for the general patterning of publications and citations of disciplines are consistent for both data sets. Sociology/Anthropology, when compared with the other disciplines, shows substantial differences across universities.

Three-feature model to reproduce the topology of citation networks and the effects from authors' visibility on their h-index

Various factors are believed to govern the selection of references in citation networks, but a precise, quantitative determination of their importance has remained elusive. In this paper, we show that three factors can account for the referencing pattern of citation networks for two topics, namely "graphenes" and "complex networks", thus allowing one to reproduce the topological features of the networks built with papers being the nodes and the edges established by citations. The most relevant factor was content similarity, while the other two - in-degree (i.e. citation counts) and age of publication - had varying importance depending on the topic studied. This dependence indicates that additional factors could play a role. Indeed, by intuition one should expect the reputation (or visibility) of authors and/or institutions to affect the referencing pattern, and this is only indirectly considered via the in-degree that should correlate with such reputation. Because information on reputation is not readily available, we simulated its effect on artificial citation networks considering two communities with distinct fitness (visibility) parameters. One community was assumed to have twice the fitness value of the other, which amounts to a double probability for a paper being cited. While the h-index for authors in the community with larger fitness evolved with time with slightly higher values than for the control network (no fitness considered), a drastic effect was noted for the community with smaller fitness. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Using incomplete citation data for MEDLINE results ranking.

Information overload is a significant problem for modern medicine. Searching MEDLINE for common topics often retrieves more relevant documents than users can review. Therefore, we must identify documents that are not only relevant, but also important. Our system ranks articles using citation counts and the PageRank algorithm, incorporating data from the Science Citation Index. However, citation data is usually incomplete. Therefore, we explore the relationship between the quantity of citation information available to the system and the quality of the result ranking. Specifically, we test the ability of citation count and PageRank to identify "important articles" as defined by experts from large result sets with decreasing citation information. We found that PageRank performs better than simple citation counts, but both algorithms are surprisingly robust to information loss. We conclude that even an incomplete citation database is likely to be effective for importance ranking.

Using incomplete citation data for MEDLINE results ranking.

Information overload is a significant problem for modern medicine. Searching MEDLINE for common topics often retrieves more relevant documents than users can review. Therefore, we must identify documents that are not only relevant, but also important. Our system ranks articles using citation counts and the PageRank algorithm, incorporating data from the Science Citation Index. However, citation data is usually incomplete. Therefore, we explore the relationship between the quantity of citation information available to the system and the quality of the result ranking. Specifically, we test the ability of citation count and PageRank to identify "important articles" as defined by experts from large result sets with decreasing citation information. We found that PageRank performs better than simple citation counts, but both algorithms are surprisingly robust to information loss. We conclude that even an incomplete citation database is likely to be effective for importance ranking.

Clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology: where we are

PURPOSE: To compare clinical trials published in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology and in foreign journals of ophthalmology with respect to the number of citations and the quality of reporting [by applying the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement writing standards]. METHODS: The sample of this systematic review comprised the two Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded and six of the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor® according ISI. All clinical trials (CTs) published from January 2009 to December 2010 at the Brazilians journals and a 1:1 randomized sample of the foreign journals were included. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of 2011. Subgroup analysis included language. The secondary outcome included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), and presence or absence of CONSORT statement indicators. RESULTS: The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (10.50) compared with the Brazilian Group (0.45). The likelihood citation was statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (20/20 - 100%) compared with the Brazilian Group (8/20 - 40%). The subgroup analysis of the language influence in Brazilian articles showed that the citation counts were statistically significantly higher in the papers published in English (P<0.04). Of 37 possible CONSORT items, the mean for the Foreign Group was 20.55 and for the Brazilian Group was 13.65 (P<0.003). CONCLUSION: The number of citations and the quality of reporting of clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology still are low when compared with the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor®.

Influence of English language in the number of citations of articles published in Brazilian journals of Ophthalmology

PURPOSE: To determine the association between language and number of citations of ophthalmology articles published in Brazilian journals. METHODS: This study was a systematic review. Original articles were identified by review of documents published at the two Brazilian ophthalmology journals indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded - SCIE [Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia (ABO) and Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (RBO)]. All document types (articles and reviews) listed at SCIE in English (English Group) or in Portuguese (Portuguese Group) from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 were included, except: editorial materials; corrections; letters; and biographical items. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of second year after publication date. Subgroup analysis included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), journal, and year of publication. RESULTS: The search at the web of science revealed 382 articles [107 (28%) in the English Group and 275 (72%) in the Portuguese Group]. Of those, 297 (77.7%) were published at the ABO and 85 (23.3%) at the RBO. The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (1.51 - SD 1.98 - range 0 to 11) compared with the Portuguese Group (0.57 - SD 1.06 - range 0 to 7). The likelihood citation was statistically significant higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (70/107 - 65.4%) compared with the Portuguese Group (89/275 - 32.7%). There were more articles published in English at the ABO (98/297 - 32.9%) than at the RBO (9/85 - 10.6%) [P<0.001]. There were no significant difference (P=0.967) at the proportion of articles published in English at the years 2008 (48/172 - 27.9%) and 2009 (59/210 - 28.1%). CONCLUSION: The number of citations of articles published in Portuguese at Brazilian ophthalmology journals is lower than the published in English. The results of this study suggest that the editorial boards should strongly encourage the authors to adopt English as the main language in their future articles.

Altmetrics in Institutional Repositories: New Perspectives for Assessing Research Impact

Poster (and extended abstract) presented at the 13th International Conference "Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA 2014)" held on 16-20th June, University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia

Under the veil of citations

Academics are often ranked on citation counts’, which is considered an adequate proxy for author's quality and reputation. This paper seeks to find what is behind a cited academic / a cited article. We constructed a rich dataset from Portuguese affiliated economists and use zero inflated negative binomial model. This procedure is appropriate for count outcomes, correcting for overdispersion and excess zeros. We also use a fixed effect poisson model to accomodate authors' unobserved heterogeneity. We analyze results in detail comparing with existing literature and making some theoretical considerations around.

Journal and country rankings in instrumentation and ocean engineering

The purpose of this paper is to highlight scientific information resources that list journal and country rankings. These databases usually focus on the use of citation counts and number of publications to evaluate the interest, visibility and impact of research performance. The exposed resources are platforms that provide added value to authors improving their knowledge about research trends and also where to submit their papers.

¿Favorece la publicación en abierto el impacto de los artículos científicos? Un estudio empírico en el ámbito de la medicina intensiva

Peer-reviewed

Enlighten: A suite of metrics and altmetrics

Presentation at Open Repositories 2014, Helsinki, Finland, June 9-13, 2014

INSPIRE: contributions to Invenio from the leading High Energy Physics (HEP) platform

Presentation at Open Repositories 2014, Helsinki, Finland, June 9-13, 2014

The research productivity of the AIB Farmer Award finalists

Purpose – This paper aims to analyze the research productivity and impact of the finalists of the AIB best dissertation award, now titled the Buckley and Casson Award, but from 1987 to 2012 the Farmer Award. Specifically, this paper examines whether there is a relationship between winning the best dissertation award and subsequent publication productivity and impact. Relationships between academic institution and institutional geographic location and finalists are also examined. Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines 25 years of citation counts and the number of publications in Google Scholar of Farmer Award winners and finalists of the AIB best dissertation award from inception in 1987 to 2009, with cited publications as a measure of productivity and citations as a measure of impact. Top performers in productivity and impact are identified, and the averages of winners and non-winners are analyzed in aggregate, over time and per year. Data on finalists' institution and geographic location of institution are analyzed to describe the importance of location and institution to the award. Findings – It is found that the overall average citations of the winners of the award is less than that of the non-winners, and that in the large majority of years the non-winners have an average citation count higher than that of the winners. However, taking averages in five year increments shows more mixed results, with non-winners performing better in two periods and winners performing better in two periods, with the remaining period being split as to research productivity and impact. Originality/value – Aggarwal et al. in this journal summarized a variety of data on Farmer Award finalists from the 1990s to gain insights on institutions represented by finalists, the publication record of finalists, and content of dissertations, among other characteristics. This paper updates some of the insights from that paper by examining data on award winners from 1987 to 2013, and adds further insight by examining for the first time cited publications and citation counts winners and non-winners for the same period excluding the last two years.

Publishing and impact criteria, and their bearing on Translation Studies: In search of comparability

This paper questions the current concept of quality as used in research assessment rankings and peer review, with special reference to the link often established between impact and the way this impact is measured in the form of citation counting. Taking translation studies as a case study, we will offer a two-level approach to reveal both the macro- and micro-level biases that exist in this regard. We will first review three key aspects related to the idea of the quality of publications, namely peer review, journal indexing, and journal impact factor. We will then pinpoint some of the main macro-level problems regarding current practices and criteria as applied to translation studies, such as Thomson Reuters World of Science's journal coverage, citation patterns, and publication format. Next we will provide a micro-textual and practical perspective, focusing on citation counts and suggesting a series of corrective measures to increase comparability.

Evolution Of The Deaths Registry System In Brazil: Associations With Changes In The Mortality Profile, Under-registration Of Death Counts, And Ill-defined Causes Of Death.

This paper examines the spatial pattern of ill-defined causes of death across Brazilian regions, and its relationship with the evolution of completeness of the deaths registry and changes in the mortality age profile. We make use of the Brazilian Health Informatics Department mortality database and population censuses from 1980 to 2010. We applied demographic methods to evaluate the quality of mortality data for 137 small areas and correct for under-registration of death counts when necessary. The second part of the analysis uses linear regression models to investigate the relationship between, on the one hand, changes in death counts coverage and age profile of mortality, and on the other, changes in the reporting of ill-defined causes of death. The completeness of death counts coverage increases from about 80% in 1980-1991 to over 95% in 2000-2010 at the same time the percentage of ill-defined causes of deaths reduced about 53% in the country. The analysis suggests that the government's efforts to improve data quality are proving successful, and they will allow for a better understanding of the dynamics of health and the mortality transition.