CiteULike: amarois's citation

Que mesurent les indicateurs bibliométriques ?

AM Kermarrec — 2008-04-08T13:48:17-00:00

(September 2007)

Theory and practise of the g-index

Leo Egghe — 2008-02-21T10:22:39-00:00

Scientometrics, Vol. 69, No. 1. (12 April 2006), pp. 131-152.

The g-index is introduced as an improvement of the h-index of Hirsch to measure the global citation performance of a set of articles. If this set is ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations that they received, the g-index is the (unique) largest number such that the top g articles received (together) at least citations. We prove the unique existence of g for any set of articles and we have that . 2ggh≥ The general Lotkaian theory of the g-index is presented and we show that 111gT2ααααα−⎛⎞−⎟⎜=⎟⎜⎟⎜⎝⎠− (*) Permanent address. Key words and phrases: g-index, h-index, Lotka, citation performance, Price medallist. Acknowledgement: The author is grateful to Drs. M. Goovaerts for the preparation of the citation data of the Price medallists (January 2006). 2 where is the Lotkaian exponent and where T denotes the total number of sources. 2α> We then present the g-index of the (still active) Price medallists for their complete careers up to 1972 and compare it with the h-index. It is shown that the g-index inherits all the good properties of the h-index and, in addition, better takes into account the citation scores of the top articles. This yields a better

Challenging the tyranny of impact factors

David Colquhoun — 2008-04-08T08:22:36-00:00

Nature, Vol. 423, No. 6939. (29 May 2003), pp. 479-479.

The politics of publication

Peter Lawrence — 2008-04-08T08:16:31-00:00

Nature, Vol. 422, No. 6929. (20 March 2003), pp. 259-261.

Access, Usage and Citation Metrics: What Function for Digital Libraries and Repositories in Research Evaluation?

Chris Armbruster — 2008-02-07T15:31:24-00:00

Social Science Research Network Working Paper Series (29 January 2008)

The growth and increasing complexity of global science poses a grand challenge to scientists: How to organise the worldwide evaluation of research programmes and peers? For the 21st century we need not just information on science, but also meta-level scientific information that is delivered to the digital workbench of every researcher. Access, usage and citation metrics will be one major information service that researchers will need on an everyday basis to handle the complexity of science.Scientometrics has been built on centralised commercial databases of high functionality but restricted scope, mainly providing information that may be used for research assessment. Enter digital libraries and repositories: Can they collect reliable metadata at source, ensure universal metric coverage and defray costs? This systematic appraisal of the future role of digital libraries and repositories for metric research evaluation proceeds by investigating the practical inadequacies of current metric evaluation before defining the scope for libraries and repositories as new players. Subsequently the notion of metrics as research information services is developed. Finally, the future relationship between a) libraries and repositories and b) metrics databases, commercial or non-commercial, is addressed.Service reviewed include: Leiden Ranking, Webometrics Ranking of World Universities, COUNTER, MESUR, Harzing POP, CiteSeer, Citebase, RePEc LogEc and CitEc, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar.

Citation, Citation, Citation : Bibliometrics, the web and the Social Sciences and Humanities - Citation, Citation, Citation : la bibliométrie, Internet et les sciences humaines et sociales

Christine Kosmopoulos — 2008-01-10T08:47:51-00:00

Cybergeo (17 December 2007)

La numérisation des ressources documentaires et la généralisation des procédures de l'évaluation scientifique renouvellent la question des usages de la bibliométrie. L'article recense les principaux outils de référence et les indicateurs en vogue. Il démontre que ces outils ne restituent que très imparfaitement la réalité de la production de recherche en sciences humaines et sociales. Il analyse les stratégies de publication émergentes sur internet et préconise des solutions pour un accès libre et partagé à l'information scientifique.

Google Scholar : the new generation of citation indexes

Alireza Noruzi — 2007-12-12T20:58:46-00:00

LIBRI, Vol. 55, No. 4. (2005)

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/) provides a new method of locating potentially relevant articles on a given subject by identifying subsequent articles that cite a previously published article. An important feature of Google Scholar is that researchers can use it to trace interconnections among authors citing articles on the same topic and to determine the frequency with which a specific article is cited by others as it has a "cited by" feature. We will begin with an overview of how to use it for citation analysis, and then progress through advanced search techniques. This study also compares the citation counts provided by Web of Science and Google Scholar for articles in the field of Webometrics. We make several suggestions for improvement it. Finally, it concludes that Google Scholar provides a free alternative or complement to other citation indexes.

Journal impact factor: a brief review.

E Garfield — 2007-12-01T15:24:48-00:00

CMAJ, Vol. 161, No. 8. (19 October 1999), pp. 979-980.

The "impact factor" revisited

Peng Dong — 2005-12-12T21:09:54-00:00

Biomedical Digital Libraries, Vol. 2, No. 1. (05 December 2005), 7.

The number of scientific journals has become so large that individuals, institutions and institutional libraries cannot completely store their content physically, and much less so intellectually. In order to prioritize the choice of quality information sources, librarians and scientists are in need of reliable decision aids. The "impact factor" is the most commonly used assessment aid in the decision-making process of which journals to contribute to, or to retrieve knowledge from. It is also an often misunderstood tool. This narrative review explains how the impact factor is calculated, how bias is introduced into the calculation, which questions it can or cannot answer, and how different professional groups can benefit from the information that the impact factor provides.

The b index as a measure of scientific excellence. A promising supplement to the h index

L Bornmann — 2007-11-30T20:23:41-00:00

Cybermetrics, Vol. 11, No. 1. (2007)

We propose the b index as a measure of scientific excellence at the micro and meso levels, as a promising supplement to the h index and its variants (such as g index and R index)

Repositories for Institutional Open Access: Mandated Deposit Policies

Les Carr — 2007-11-28T13:35:48-00:00

(October 2006)

Only 15% of articles are currently being made Open Access (OA) through spontaneous self-archiving efforts by their authors. They average 25%-250% more citations in all 12 disciplines tested so far. Ninety-four percent of journals endorse immediate OA self-archiving. There is no evidence that self-archiving induces subscription cancellations. The ?OA advantage? consists of: Early Advantage (early self-archiving produces both earlier and more citations), Usage Advantage (more downloads for OA articles, correlated with later citations), Competitive Advantage (relative citation advantage of OA over non-OA articles: disappears at 100% OA), Quality Advantage (OA advantage is higher, the higher the quality of the article) and Quality Bias (authors selectively self-archiving their higher quality articles ? a non-causal component: disappears at 100% OA). We are currently comparing the OA advantage for mandated and spontaneous (self-selected) self-archiving. Deposit rates in Institutional Repositories (IRs) remain at 15% if unmandated, but climb toward 100% OA if mandated, confirming surveys that predicted 95% compliance. In the UK, 4 of the 8 research funding councils and the Wellcome Trust mandate self-archiving and it is being considered by the European Commission and the US federal FRPAA. There is no reason for universities to wait for the passage of the legislation. Five universities and two research institutions (including CERN) have already mandated it, with documented success. An Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access Mandate covers all cases and moots all legal issues: metadata are immediately visible webwide and, where needed, access to the postprint can be set as Closed Access instead of OA throughout any embargo period. Software to support this approach (that allows the author to email individual copies of non-Open Access papers to individual requesters) has been created for both EPrints and DSpace repository platforms.

The emergence of competitors to the Science Citation Index and the Web of Science

Dana Roth — 2005-12-06T12:11:47-00:00

Current Science, Vol. 89, No. 9. (10 November 2005), pp. 1531-1536.

Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar

Lokman Meho — 2007-10-27T17:22:18-00:00

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58, No. 13. (2007), pp. 2105-2125.

The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. The ISI databases (or Web of Science [WoS]), however, may no longer be sufficient because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Using citations to the work of 25 library and information science (LIS) faculty members as a case study, the authors examine the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. Results show that Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those scholars that appear in the middle of the rankings and that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors. The WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours.

Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles

Gunther Eysenbach — 2006-06-27T15:15:18-00:00

PLoS Biology, Vol. 4, No. 5. (1 May 2006)

Open access (OA) to the research literature has the potential to accelerate recognition and dissemination of research findings, but its actual effects are controversial. This was a longitudinal bibliometric analysis of a cohort of OA and non-OA articles published between June 8, 2004, and December 20, 2004, in the same journal (PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). Article characteristics were extracted, and citation data were compared between the two groups at three different points in time: at “quasi-baseline” (December 2004, 0–6 mo after publication), in April 2005 (4–10 mo after publication), and in October 2005 (10–16 mo after publication). Potentially confounding variables, including number of authors, authors' lifetime publication count and impact, submission track, country of corresponding author, funding organization, and discipline, were adjusted for in logistic and linear multiple regression models. A total of 1,492 original research articles were analyzed: 212 (14.2% of all articles) were OA articles paid by the author, and 1,280 (85.8%) were non-OA articles. In April 2005 (mean 206 d after publication), 627 (49.0%) of the non-OA articles versus 78 (36.8%) of the OA articles were not cited (relative risk = 1.3 [95% Confidence Interval: 1.1–1.6]; p = 0.001). 6 mo later (mean 288 d after publication), non-OA articles were still more likely to be uncited (non-OA: 172 [13.6%], OA: 11 [5.2%]; relative risk = 2.6 [1.4–4.7]; p < 0.001). The average number of citations of OA articles was higher compared to non-OA articles (April 2005: 1.5 [SD = 2.5] versus 1.2 [SD = 2.0]; Z = 3.123; p = 0.002; October 2005: 6.4 [SD = 10.4] versus 4.5 [SD = 4.9]; Z = 4.058; p < 0.001). In a logistic regression model, controlling for potential confounders, OA articles compared to non-OA articles remained twice as likely to be cited (odds ratio = 2.1 [1.5–2.9]) in the first 4–10 mo after publication (April 2005), with the odds ratio increasing to 2.9 (1.5–5.5) 10–16 mo after publication (October 2005). Articles published as an immediate OA article on the journal site have higher impact than self-archived or otherwise openly accessible OA articles. We found strong evidence that, even in a journal that is widely available in research libraries, OA articles are more immediately recognized and cited by peers than non-OA articles published in the same journal. OA is likely to benefit science by accelerating dissemination and uptake of research findings.

Who Cited This?

G Golderman — 2007-01-23T15:17:10-00:00

Library Journal, No. 15. (January 2007)

RoMEO studies 1: the impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving

E Gadd — 2004-12-30T19:51:35-00:00

Journal of Documentation, Vol. 59, No. 3. (7 May 2003), pp. 243-277.

This is the first of a series of studies emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving) which investigated the IPR issues relating to academic author self-archiving of research papers. It considers the claims for copyright ownership in research papers by universities, academics, and publishers by drawing on the literature, a survey of 542 academic authors and an analysis of 80 journal publisher copyright transfer agreements. The paper concludes that self-archiving is not best supported by copyright transfer to publishers. It recommends that universities assert their interest in copyright ownership in the long term, that academics retain rights in the short term, and that publishers consider new ways of protecting the value they add through journal publishing.

What Do We Know About the h Index?

Lutz Bornmann — 2007-09-14T10:34:20-00:00

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 58, No. 9. (2007), pp. 1381-1385.

Jorge Hirsch (2005a, 2005b) recently proposed the h index to quantify the research output of individual scientists. The new index has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific community. The claim that the h index in a single number provides a good representation of the scientific lifetime achievement of a scientist as well as the (supposed) simple calculation of the h index using common literature databases lead to the danger of improper use of the index. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the h index and summarize the studies on the convergent validity of this index. We also introduce corrections and complements as well as single-number alternatives to the h index.

Use Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science for Comprehensive Citation Tracking

Lorie Kloda — 2007-09-23T19:00:11-00:00

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, Vol. 3, No. 2. (2007), pp. 87-90.

Objective – To determine whether three competing citation tracking services result in differing citation counts for a known set of articles, and to assess the extent of any differences. Design – Citation analysis, observational study. Setting – Three citation tracking databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Subjects – Citations from eleven journals each from the disciplines of oncology and condensed matter physics for the years 1993 and 2003. Methods – The researchers selected eleven journals each from the list of journals from Journal Citation Reports 2004 for the categories “Oncology” and “Condensed Matter Physics” using a systematic sampling technique to ensure journals with varying impact factors were included. All references from these 22 journals were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003 by searching three databases: Web of Science, INSPEC, and PubMed. Only research articles were included for the purpose of the study. From these, a stratified random sample was created to proportionally represent the content of each journal (oncology 1993: 234 references, 2003: 259 references; condensed matter physics 1993: 358 references, 2003: 364 references). In November of 2005, citations counts were obtained for all articles from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Due to the small sample size and skewed distribution of data, non-parametric tests were conducted to determine whether significant differences existed between sets. Main results – For 1993, mean citation counts were highest in Web of Science for both oncology (mean = 45.3, SD = 77.4) and condensed matter physics (mean = 22.5, SD = 32.5). For 2003, mean citation counts were higher in Scopus for oncology (mean = 8.9, SD = 12.0), and in Web of Science for condensed matter physics (mean = 3.0, SD = 4.0). There was not enough data for the set of citations from Scopus for condensed matter physics for 1993 and it was therefore excluded from analysis. A Friedman test to measure for differences between all remaining groups suggested a significant difference existed, and so pairwise post-hoc comparisons were performed. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranked tests demonstrated significant differences “in citation counts between all pairs (p < 0.001) except between Google Scholar and Scopus for CM physics 2003 (p = 0.119).” The study also looked at the number of unique references from each database, as well as the proportion of overlap for the 2003 citations. In the area of oncology, there was found to be 31% overlap between databases, with Google Scholar including the most unique references (13%), followed by Scopus (12%) and Web of Science (7%). For condensed matter physics, the overlap was lower at 21% and the largest number of unique references was found in Web of Science (21%), with Google Scholar next largest (17%) and Scopus the least (9%). Citing references from Google Scholar were found to originate from not only journals, but online archives, academic repositories, government and non-government white papers and reports, commercial organizations, as well as other sources. Conclusion – The study does not confirm the authors’ hypothesis that differing scholarly coverage would result in different citation counts from the three databases. While there were significant differences in mean citation rates between all pairs of databases except for Google Scholar and Scopus in condensed matter physics for 2003, no one database performed better overall. Different databases performed better for different subjects, as well as for different years, especially Scopus, which only includes references starting in 1996. The results of this study suggest that the best citation database will depend on the years being searched as well as the subject area. For a complete picture of citation behaviour, the authors suggest all three be used.

@toread and Cool: Tagging for Time, Task and Emotion

Margaret Kipp — 2007-07-26T15:14:17-00:00

Proceedings 8th Information Architecture Summit (2007)

Social Bookmarking Tools (I): A General Review

Tony Hammond — 2007-07-17T10:02:28-00:00

Vol. 11

Collaborative Tagging as a Knowledge Organisation and Resource Discovery Tool

G Macgregor — 2007-07-17T09:42:56-00:00

Library Review, Vol. 55 (2006), pp. 291-300.

Experiments in academic social book marking with Unalog

Chudnov — 2005-12-11T22:54:10-00:00

Library Hi Tech, Vol. 23, No. 4. (January 2005), pp. 469-480.

Google Scholar Citations and Google Web/URL Citations: A Multi-Discipline Exploratory Analysis

K Kousha — 2006-06-14T07:54:33-00:00

(2006)

In this paper we introduce a new data gathering method “Web/URL Citation” and use it and Google Scholar as a basis to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines. For this, we built a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 Open Access (OA) journals published in 2001 in four science and four social science disciplines. We recorded the number of citations to the sample articles using several methods based upon the ISI Web of Science, Google Scholar and the Google search engine (Web/URL citations). For each discipline, we found significant correlations between ISI citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations; with similar results when using total or average citations, and when comparing within and across (most) journals. We also investigated disciplinary differences. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in our four social science disciplines as well as in computer science, suggesting that Google Scholar is a more comprehensive tool for citation tracking in the social sciences and perhaps also in fast-moving fields where conference papers are highly valued and published online. The results for Web/URL citations suggested that counting a maximum of one hit per site produces a better measure for assessing the impact of OA journals or articles, because replicated web citations are very common within individual sites. The results can be considered as additional evidence that there is some commonality between traditional and Web-extracted citations.

Open access citation index

Jean-Claude Guédon — 2007-06-10T10:40:25-00:00

CERN Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication : Implementing the benefits of OAI (OAI3) (2004)

Conclusions of the breakout session "Open access citation index". What’s wrong with the Science Citation Index? Because of it’s power it has some pernicious side effects: A relatively small group of people decides which journals are to be included. There are somewhere between 24.000 (Harnad) and 40.000 (Garfield) journals. 7.000 or 8.000 are included in SCI.

Visibilité de la production scientifique : une étude scientométrique au Pôle Universitaire Lyonnais

Camille Claverie — 2007-05-31T09:14:51-00:00

(May 2007)

L'infométrie joue un rôle important dans l'évaluation des organismes de recherche et de leur politique. Dans ce contexte, nous présentons les résultats d'une étude scientométrique sur la production des chercheurs des établissements scientifiques du Pôle Universitaire Lyonnais menée entre 2000 et 2005.

Google Scholar Citations and Google Web/URL Citations: A Multi-Discipline Exploratory Analysis

Kayvan Kousha — 2007-04-19T21:14:24-00:00

(2006)

In this paper we introduce a new data gathering method ?Web/URL Citation? and use it and Google Scholar as a basis to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines. For this, we built a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 Open Access (OA) journals published in 2001 in four science and four social science disciplines. We recorded the number of citations to the sample articles using several methods based upon the ISI Web of Science, Google Scholar and the Google search engine (Web/URL citations). For each discipline, we found significant correlations between ISI citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations; with similar results when using total or average citations, and when comparing within and across (most) journals. We also investigated disciplinary differences. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in our four social science disciplines as well as in computer science, suggesting that Google Scholar is a more comprehensive tool for citation tracking in the social sciences and perhaps also in fast-moving fields where conference papers are highly valued and published online. The results for Web/URL citations suggested that counting a maximum of one hit per site produces a better measure for assessing the impact of OA journals or articles, because replicated web citations are very common within individual sites. The results can be considered as additional evidence that there is some commonality between traditional and Web-extracted citations.

Evaluating Citebase, an open access Web-based citation-ranked search and impact discovery service

Steve Hitchcock — 2007-04-18T15:56:41-00:00

Citebase is a new citation-ranked search and impact discovery service that measures citations of scholarly research papers which are openly accessible on the Web, i.e. papers that are assessable continuously online. Other services, such as ResearchIndex, have emerged in recent years to offer citation indexing of Web research papers. In the first detailed user evaluation of an open access Web citation indexing service, Citebase has been evaluated by nearly 200 users from different backgrounds. The paper details the procedures used in the evaluation, and analyses the results of this study, which took place between June and October 2002. It was found that within the scope of its primary components, the search interface and services available from its rich bibliographic records, Citebase can be used simply and reliably for the purpose intended, and that it compares favourably with other bibliographic services. It is shown tasks can be accomplished efficiently with Citebase regardless of the background of the user. More data need to be collected and the process refined before it is as reliable for measuring citation impact of indexed papers. Better explanations and guidance are required for first-time users. Coverage is seen as a limiting factor, even though Citebase indexes over 200,000 papers from arXiv. Non-physicists were frustrated at the lack of papers from other sciences. The principle of citation searching of open access archives has thus been demonstrated and need not be restricted to current users. Since the evaluation, Citebase has become a featured service of the ArXiv physics eprint archives.

Impact of Data Sources on Citation Counts and Rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar

Lokman Meho — 2007-04-18T14:45:00-00:00

(2007)

The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. ISI databases (or Web of Science [WoS]), however, may no longer be sufficient because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Using citations to the work of 25 library and information science faculty members as a case study, this paper examines the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. Results show that Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those scholars that appear in the middle of the rankings and that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors. WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours.

A New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar

Lokman Meho — 2007-04-18T14:33:07-00:00

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (2006)

Academic institutions, federal agencies, publishers, editors, authors, and librarians increasingly rely on citation analysis for making hiring, promotion, tenure, funding, and/or reviewer and journal evaluation and selection decisions. The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. ISI databases (or Web of Science), however, may no longer be adequate as the only or even the main sources of citations because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Whether these new databases and tools complement or represent alternatives to Web of Science (WoS) is important to explore. Using a group of 15 library and information science faculty members as a case study, this paper examines the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of WoS, Scopus, and GS, their overlap and uniqueness, quality and language of the citations, and the implications of the findings for citation analysis. The project involved citation searching for approximately 1,100 scholarly works published by the study group and over 200 works by a test group (an additional 10 faculty members). Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours.

L'hypertexte comme mode d'exploitation des résultats d'outils et méthodes d'analyse de l'information scientifique et technique

Luc Grivel — 2007-04-15T14:41:40-00:00

(2000)

Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How it Increases Research Citation Impact

C Hajjem — 2007-04-05T13:36:01-00:00

IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 28. (2006), pp. 39-47.

Eléments de statistique et de mathématique de l'information: infométrie, bibliométrie, médiamétrie, scientométrie, muséométrie, webométrie: cours avec exemples et exercices corrigés

T Lafouge — 2007-04-05T13:13:29-00:00

(2002)

Open Access Citation Information

R Hardy — 2005-11-25T16:53:50-00:00

(2005)

Comparison and Analysis of the Citedness Scores in Web of Science and Google Scholar

P Jacso — 2007-03-30T10:25:33-00:00

LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, Vol. 3815 (2005)

Quelle bibliométrie, pour quelle évaluation - Dossier

L Buée — 2007-03-22T16:42:39-00:00

La lettre des neurosciences, No. 30. (2006), pp. 7-18.

Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science

Nisa Bakkalbasi — 2006-06-29T21:13:39-00:00

Biomedical Digital Libraries, Vol. 3 (29 June 2006), 7.

L'évaluation des publications scientifiques : du facteur d'impact à l'indice de notoriété

M Durand-Barthez — 2007-03-15T14:12:43-00:00

archivesic. (26 October 2006)

Les différentes modalités d'évaluation, «classiques» et en émergence, des publications scientifiques: les modalités traditionnelles de l'évaluation des revues : «facteur d'impact» du JCR, associé à l'évaluation individuelle du SCI (Science Citation Index)... ; mécanismes, acteurs, importance, enjeux... de l'évaluation standard de la littérature scientifique. les nouvelles modalités d'évaluation de l'impact des revues et publications : par les moteurs de recherche (Google Scholar), sur les entrepôts en Open Access (CiteBase et autres statistiques sur les archives ouvertes, revues en ligne...), les enquêtes et autres recensements disciplinaires (CNRS, Faculty of 1000) etc. ; les figures, les modalités, les enjeux, mais aussi les problèmes posés par ces nouvelles formes d'évaluation et par la généralisation de «l'indice de notoriété» comme critère dominant de l'évaluation