Formula predicts research papers’ future citations

Posted in Research on October 4th, 2013 by steve

“It sounds like a science administrator’s dream — or a scientist’s worst nightmare: a formula that predicts how often research papers will be cited. But a team of data scientists now says it could be possible …” (more)

[Richard Van Noorden, Nature, 3 October]

Tags:

The usefulness of citation counts depends heavily on the context of an individual’s publishing community

Posted in Research on September 26th, 2013 by steve

“Let me start with a confession. I like and use citations. Does this really make me a bad person? I don’t think so, for reasons that are fundamentally economic …” (more)

[David Laband, Impact of Social Sciences, 26 September]

Tags: ,

Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis

Posted in Research on September 13th, 2013 by steve

“Google Scholar, the academic bibliographic database provided free-of-charge by the search engine giant Google, has been suggested as an alternative or complementary resource to the commercial citation databases like Web of Knowledge (ISI/Thomson) or Scopus (Elsevier) …” (more)

[Ciaran Quinn, Research Support Librarian Blog, 13 September]

Tags: , , ,

A better way to track citations

Posted in Research on September 13th, 2013 by steve

“Over the years citations have become the key currency of academic reputation, helping to measure the degree of influence any one scholar’s works have had on the academic community …” (more)

[Paul Stokes, Research Blogs, 12 September]

Tags: ,

Citation Cartels

Posted in Governance and administration on June 22nd, 2013 by steve

International“… Surely it is now time for Thomson Reuters to stop counting self-citations for the Research Influence indicator in the THE World University Rankings …” (more)

[University Ranking Watch, 22 June]

Tags: , , ,

Journal citation cartels on the rise

Posted in Research on June 22nd, 2013 by steve

“According to the 2013 edition of Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports, published on Wednesday, 37 journals have been added to the banned list this year for having ‘anomalous citation patterns’ …” (more)

[Paul Jump, Times Higher Education, 21 June]

Tags: , ,

Ireland Punches above Its Weight in Scientific Research Impact

Posted in Research on May 7th, 2013 by steve

“The Intellectual Property & Science business of Thomson Reuters, the world’s leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals, today announced a renewed four-year commitment between the Irish Universities Association and Thomson Reuters to demonstrate the efficiency and global impact of Ireland’s scientific research …” (more)

[Stockhouse, 7 May]

Tags: , , ,

No One Really Reads Academic Papers

Posted in Research on February 25th, 2013 by steve

“Academics do a lot of research. The pressure to perform research in order to earn tenure generates, by some estimates, about 1.5 million new articles a year. Some scholars have critiqued the quality of this research …” (more)

[Daniel Luzer, Washington Monthly, 19 February]

Tags:

What’s In a (Journal) Name?

Posted in Research on December 18th, 2012 by steve

“… Name changes have consequences. In the short term, a name changes artificially depresses the journal’s impact factor as citations in the next two years are split between the old and new title names. Citing authors are also prone to making mistakes, attributing new articles to the old name or vise versa. As some authors are prone to reuse the erroneous citations of others, errors can persist years after a name change has been made …” (more)

[Phil Davis, The Scholarly Kitchen, 18 December]

Tags: , ,

Was Elsevier’s peer review system hacked to get more citations?

Posted in Legal issues on December 18th, 2012 by steve

“… It’s still unclear what motivated the hack, which others are referring to as ‘editorial spoofing’. While we don’t like to speculate, we’ve gathered some clues that point in a certain direction: The hacker doesn’t seem to have been working on behalf of the authors submitting manuscripts, but instead may have been trying to gain more citations for particular papers …” (more)

[Ivan Oransky, Retraction Watch, 18 December]

Tags: , , ,

Of Confections and Citations, Missteps and Marzipan

Posted in Research on November 26th, 2012 by steve

“Editors and publishers know how important the impact factor is, and can go to great lengths to generate more citations. Sometimes, such efforts can pay off handsomely …” (more)

[Kent Anderson, The Scholarly Kitchen, 26 November]

Tags: ,

Why Research Impact Is About Promotion, Not Impact Factors (and Why This Is Good News For Libraries)

Posted in Research on November 21st, 2012 by steve

“A paper published in the current issue of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (paywall, sorry 🙁 ) estimates that the proportion of highly cited papers published in high impact journals has declined substantially in recent decades …” (more)

[Michelle Dalton, libfocus, 21 November]

Tags: ,

Is the Relationship Between Journal Impact Factors and Article Citations Growing Weaker?

Posted in Research on November 13th, 2012 by steve

“Three information scientists at the Université du Québec à Montréal are claiming that digital journal publication has resulted in a weakening relationship between the article and the journal in which it is published …” (more)

[Phil Davis, The Scholarly Kitchen, 13 November]

Tags: ,

The Imp Act Factor strikes again

Posted in Research on September 4th, 2012 by steve

“Here’s a quick question, for what shape distribution does the mean convey the least useful information? Well, there are many answers, but a prime candidate is a one-sided long-tail distribution of the type exhibited by journal citations …” (more)

[Noel O’Blog, 4 September]

Tags: ,

Bury Your Writing – Why Do Academic Book Chapters Fail to Generate Citations?

Posted in Research on August 28th, 2012 by steve

“I recently wrote a chapter for an upcoming book about academic and professional publishing. I’ve also written chapters in the past for other academic books about publishing …” (more)

[Kent Anderson, The Scholarly Kitchen, 28 August]

Tags:

Damn footnotes

Posted in Research on July 27th, 2012 by steve

“I am spending the summer trying to crack my book on Roman Laughter – the Sather lectures I did a few years ago now. It’s going OK, but inevitably slower that I hoped. Part of the problems is the footnotes …” (more)

[Mary Beard, A Don’s Life, 26 July]

Tags: ,

A first? Papers retracted for citation manipulation

Posted in Research on July 5th, 2012 by steve

“In what appears to be a first, two papers have been retracted for including citations designed to help another journal improve its impact factor rankings. The articles in The Scientific World Journal cited papers in Cell Transplantation, which in turn appears to have cited to a high degree other journals with shared board members …” (more)

[Ivan Oransky, Retraction Watch, 5 July]

Tags:

The Most Cited Law Review Articles – and the Rise of the Nodal Scholar

Posted in Research on June 3rd, 2012 by steve

“Fred Shapiro and Michelle Pearse’s newest study of the most cited law reviews is here. In our 1996 essay How to Win Cites and Influence People, Sandy Levinson and I dubbed Shapiro the founding father of a new field of study, ‘legal citology’ …” (more)

[Balkinization, 2 June]

Tags: ,

Universal Citation Paper Lacks Universality

Posted in Research on April 24th, 2012 by steve

“What constitutes a high number of article citations? It often depends on the field. 100 citations to a paper in cancer biology — a field dense with researchers, huge grants, short papers, and fast publication times — may not necessarily have the same impact as an economics paper with the same number of citations. For this reason, comparing citation impact across disciplines is widely considered verboten. In 2008, three Italian researchers tried to change that …” (more)

[Phil Davis, The Scholarly Kitchen, 24 April]

Tags:

Citation Conspiracy

Posted in Research on February 9th, 2012 by steve

“Someone recently told me about this, and I was wondering if anyone has participated in something similar: A group of colleagues makes a specific effort to cite each other’s papers – those paper not involving the author/s doing the citing, so no self-citation is involved – to help each other get their citation numbers up. They don’t gratuitously cite a paper that is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but they proactively seek opportunities to cite each other’s papers …” (more)

[FemaleScienceProfessor, 9 February]

Tags: ,