Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2006. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file (viewed on May 6, 2009) Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

In this article, the author argues that the number of scientific research papers published from India is on the decline. The conclusions are drawn upon data on the number of papers indexed in MathSciNet, the web database of the American Mathematical Society, covering mathematics, statistics, operational research and related fields.

Chemical sciences research in India has been mapped with data collected from the CD-ROM version of Chemistry Citation Index [publication year : 2002]. Roughly, 4.5% of the global R&D output in chemical sciences was contributed by Indian in 2002. Indian researchers published 6186 papers from 569 journals and 12 non-journal sources. More than 45% of these papers appeared in journals with an impact factor less than 1.000. Around 2% of the papers were either published in journals with no impact factor or not indexed in JCR 2003. The average impact factor for journal articles during this period is 1.359. While 26% of papers published by Indians were in US journals, the percentages for Indian and UK journals were 21 and 20%, respectively. Among Indian journals, the Asian Journal of Chemistry (IF 0.211) took the major chunk of 269 papers, while the Journal of Indian Chemical Society (IF 0.275) and the Indian Journal of Chemistry B (IF 0.492) carried 224 and 209 papers, respectively. In all, 563 institutions contributed 6199 papers in 2002. Of these papers, 68% were contributed by 10% of Indian institutions. The Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore ranks first with 345 papers. This is followed by the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad with 263 papers. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai with 259 papers and the National Chemical Laboratory, Pune with 246 papers come in the third and fourth places, respectively. The largest contributions came from Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Kolkata. In terms of states, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal are major contributors. About 16% of the papers had international collaboration (with as many as 53 county ies). Major collaborating countries in chemical sciences were the US, Germany, Japan and Great Britain.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2000. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 159-165). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2000. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 159-165). Also available on the Internet.

The corresponding full paper was first published with the Proceedings of the 2006 ASIS&T Annual Meeting (http://www.asis.org/Conferences/AM06/index.html). A pre-print version is separately available via dLIST. / This is a presentation of 21 slides - the corresponding full paper was first published with the Proceedings of the 2006 ASIS&T Annual Meeting (http://www.asis.org/Conferences/AM06/index.html). A pre-print version of that paper is also separately available via dLIST (http;//dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1714). A new citation indexing paradigm is proposed: the cascading citation indexing framework (c2IF, for short). It improves the way research publications are assessed for their impact in promoting science and technology. Given a collection of articles and their citation graph, citations are considered at the (article, author) level. Each one article is uniquely identified by means of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI, http://www.doi.org). To identify each one author uniquely, a Universal Author Identifier (UAI) scheme is established. In addition to the citations directly made to a given (article, author) pair, citation paths that target each one citing article are also considered. The granularity of the paradigm is further increased by introducing the concept of the chord, whereby a citation path of length one co-exists with paths of length two or higher, involving the same source- and target- articles. The c2IF output emerges in the form of a medal standings table, analogous to the one that ranks teams at athletic events: when two (article, author) pairs receive the same number of (direct) citations, the one that is cited by more popular articles (i.e. articles that comprise targets to a larger number of paths in the citation graph), is assigned a higher rank value.

This is a correspondence generated by the article "Diabetes research in India" between the author, A. Subiah Arunachalam and Rosalind Marita.

In bibliometric data lie opportunities to develop indicators relevant to central concerns of new theories of innovation, specifically networks within and between national systems, and variety and diversity of capability. The data can make a unique contribution to pictures compiled from multiple sources, providing an unrivalled objective, disaggregated and internationally comparable time series signature of networks and capabilities. In this paper, we present what we call systemic bibliometric indicators to distinguish our disaggregated, network-focused, time series approach from classical bibliometrics. On average, the British innovation system participates in 9% of the publications produced by the global innovation system and 28.5% of those publications involving an EU institution. Its participation is approximately 20% greater than the German innovation system and 70% greater than the French system. UK innovation system papers have slightly less impact on the global innovation system than US innovation system papers but more impact than any of the other innovation systems we have examined. The growth in impact of UK research on the global world-wide research system is the same as the Germany system, less than the US system and greater than the remaining innovation systems. The distribution of the top twenty scientific subfields world-wide is quite different from the distribution in the global system and other innovation systems. Five of the worldâ s top twenty subfields (applied physics, condensed matter physics, analytical chemistry, physiology and cardiovascular systems) are not ranked in the top twenty UK subfields. The size distribution of scientific subfields suggests that the British innovation system has its own unique characteristics.

A new citation indexing paradigm is proposed: the cascading citation indexing framework (c2IF, for short). It improves the way research publications are assessed for their impact in promoting science and technology. Given a collection of articles and their citation graph, citations are considered at the (article, author) level. Each one article is uniquely identified by means of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI, http://www.doi.org). To identify each one author uniquely, a Universal Author Identifier (UAI) scheme is established. In addition to the citations directly made to a given (article, author) pair, citation paths that target each one citing article are also considered. The granularity of the paradigm is further increased by introducing the concept of the chord, whereby a citation path of length one co-exists with paths of length two or higher, involving the same source- and target- articles. The c2IF output emerges in the form of a medal standings table, analogous to the one that ranks teams at athletic events: when two (article, author) pairs receive the same number of (direct) citations, the one that is cited by more popular articles (i.e. articles that comprise targets to a larger number of paths in the citation graph), is assigned a higher rank value.

This brief communication argues about the criteria to be used in evaluating the trend of scientific research, in India, and as presented by other authors on the subject.