No description available.

This is a presentation (of 16 slides) in Session 3.1 - Contemporary Intellectual History: Reflections on the Work of Marcia J. Bates, on Wednesday, Jan. 12, at the 2005 ALISE Conference. The work of Marcia J. Bates is discussed by concentrating on 1) her research areas, and 2) her citation records. Bates' work is portrayed in four different ways: descriptors assigned to her works over time, her citation identity (authors whom she cites), her citation image-makers (authors who cite her), and her citation images (authors co-cited with her).

Aggregated journal-journal citation networks based on the Journal Citation Reports 2004 of the Science Citation Index (5968 journals) and the Social Science Citation Index (1712 journals) are made accessible from the perspective of any of these journals. A vector-space model is used for normalization, and the results are brought online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04 as input-files for the visualization program Pajek. The user is thus able to analyze the citation environment in terms of links and graphs. Furthermore, the local impact of a journal is defined as its share of the total citations in the specific journal's citation environments; the vertical size of the nodes is varied proportionally to this citation impact. The horizontal size of each node can be used to provide the same information after correction for within-journal (self )citations. In the "citing" environment, the equivalents of this measure can be considered as a citation activity index which maps how the relevant journal environment is perceived by the collective of authors of a given journal. As a policy application, the mechanism of interdisciplinary developments among the sciences is elaborated for the case of nanotechnology journals.

This article uses figures to compare the production of doctorates in three Asian countries: India, China, and Japan. It particularly compares doctorates in sciences and engineering. By comparison, this article finds that India produced less doctorates than other two countries.

Antelman et al. (2005) hand-tested the accuracy of the algorithm that Hajjem et al.'s (2005) software robot used to to trawl the web and automatically identify Open Access (OA) and Non-Open-Access (NOA) articles (references derived from the ISI database). Antelman et al. found much lower accuracy than Hajjem et al. Had reported. Hajjem et al. have now re-done the hand-testing on a larger sample (1000) in Biology, and demonstrated that Hajjem et al.'s original estimate of the robot's accuracy was much closer to the correct one. The discrepancy was because both Antelman et al. And Hajjem et al had hand-checked a sample other than the one the robot was sampling. Our present sample, identical with what the robot saw, yielded: d' 2.62, bias 0.68, true OA 93%, false OA 12%. We also checked whether the OA citation advantage (the ratio of the average citation counts for OA articles to the average citation counts for NOA articles in the same journal/issue) was an artifact of false OA: The robot-based OA citation Advantage of OA over NOA for this sample [(OA-NOA)/NOA x 100] was 70%. We partitioned this into the ratio of the citation counts for true (93%) OA articles to the NOA articles versus the ratio of the citation counts for the false (12%) "OA" articles. The "false OA" advantage for this 12% of the articles was 33%, so there is definitely a false OA Advantage bias component in our results. However, the true OA advantage, for 93% of the articles, was 77%. So in fact, we are underestimating the true OA advantage.

This is a presentation (22 slides) at the XXVI Annual Charleston Conference November 4-11, 2006 Charleston, South Carolina, of a study which examined how well three citation tracking tools (Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science) cover two subject areas (physics and oncology) in two years (1993 and 2003). In a previous study (data collected in November 2005), Web of Science returned the highest average number of citations for 1993 articles in both subjects. Scopus returned the highest number for 2003 articles in oncology and Web of Science in physics. Furthermore, the study examined the overlap as well as unique citations returned by the three tools. (See http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/3/1/7). Data were updated in September 2006, and these new results are reported.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.