Text in Chinese, with English abstract / Practical and theoretical researches are equally important in the discipline of library and information science. For providing a better service to users, librarians need to continuously improve problem solving and decision making skills in their workplace. Significant improvement of library service could therefore be fulfilled by studies performed and published by librarians. Consequently, evaluations on research and publishing conducted by librarians could reveal how they contribute to individual career and to the whole field advancement. Contributions to the professional literature, in the perspective of publication patterns, productivity of librarian, article types, research methodologies employed, and research topics, through collaborative by Taiwan and China librarians in selected journals from 1998 to 2002 were examined in this research. Author characteristics, such as production of individual, institutional affiliation, and co-authorship were also statistical analyzed. Three major findings stand out from this study; first, percentage of Taiwan librarian author within the overall author population in selected journals was lower than that in China. Second, â Researchâ type of articles are surprisingly rare in China. And finally, collaborations between librarians or with other professions increased through the years but were not so popular in Taiwan until now. Based on these findings, this study suggests that librarians in Taiwan should constantly pursue working with fellow librarians or other professions, and for China, library and information education should improve training on methodology.

This is a correspondence on an article by Karandikar and Sunder and an article by Pichappan (both published in Current Science 2003, issue 85) that present some misgivings about the use of Science Citation Index-based publication counts. Arunachalam discusses why the stance taken, the total number of papers published from a country should not be used as a science indicator, is extreme.

Contribution of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) to the e-Print Archive services of Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in the field of High Energy Physics (HEP) on Internet is the main focus of the study. E-Print Archives where BARC is at least one of the affiliation of authors are downloaded from the site â http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/hep/â (297 records as on November 2002) and analysed based on some bibliometric parameters. The study lead to some of the results like most productive high energy physicists, author collaboration pattern, institutional collaboration pattern both international and national, preference of publication types by HEP scientists, core journals in which scientists preferred to publish their articles, inclusion of the records in two well known databases INIS and INSPEC where high energy physics related publications are likely to occur, citations received in Science Citation Index (SCI) of ISI and the HEP database itself and key areas of research through keyword analysis. In addition to that highlight the e-print archive services are additional bibliographic sources for HEP scientists.

We apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. We show how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholarâ s research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation content analysis and book review content analysis. Two main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews, and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valid evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? Citation data, book reviews, and peer ranking were compiled and examined for faculty members specializing in Kurdish studies. Analysis shows that normalized citation ranking and citation content analysis data yield identical ranking results. Analysis also shows that normalized citation ranking and citation content analysis, book reviews, and peer ranking perform similarly (i.e., are highly correlated) for high-ranked and low-ranked senior scholars. Additional evaluation methods and measures that take into account the context and content of research appear to be needed to effectively evaluate senior scholars whose performance ranks relatively in the middle. Citation content analysis data did appear to give some specific and important insights into the quality of research of these middle performers, however, further analysis and research is needed to validate this finding. This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance.

Can change in citation patterns among journals be used as an indicator of structural change in the organization of the sciences? Aggregated journal-journal citations for 1999 are compared with similar data in the Journal Citation Reports 1998 of the Science Citation Index. In addition to indicating local change, probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in distributions at different levels of aggregation. The results of various statistics are discussed and compared by elaborating the journal-journal mappings. The relevance of this indicator for science and technology policies is further specified.

The present item comprises an amended (post-print) version of: D.A. Dervos and T. Kalkanis, cc-IFF: A Cascading Citations Impact Factor Framework for the Automatic Ranking of Research Publications, Third IEEE International Workshop on Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS), Proceedings pp. 668-673, Sofia, Bulgaria, September 5-7, 2005 / A new framework is proposed for the calculation of impact factor ratings of research publications. Given a collection of research articles, the corresponding citations graph is constructed in the form of a relational table. The impact value is considered at the article level, and is calculated by considering not only the citations made directly to an article, but also citations made to the corresponding citing article(s). In this respect, an improved algorithm is utilized, namely one that traverses all the threads in the citations graph, in an attempt to improve the degree of fairness in assigning credit for the impact value of each one article. When two articles have an equal number of (direct) citations, the one that has triggered more research activity (i.e. its citing articles attract a larger number of citations at subsequent levels in the citations graph) is assigned a higher impact value and, consequently, is ranked to be better.

This paper examines the tagging practices evident on CiteULike, a research oriented social bookmarking site for journal articles. Tagging practices were examined using standard informetric measures for analysis of bibliographic information and term use. Additionally, tags were compared to author keywords and descriptors assigned to the same article.

Correspondence on an article by Satyanarayana and Jain's which appeared in the same issue (but is not included here). Includes a rather lengthy rejoinder with supporting tables of data.

Supplying users with literature by a seamless linking of media is the goal of (scientific) libraries. By the digitization of primary and secondary data and the convergence of products and providers, libraries have already come very close to achieving this ideal. A digital library is the realization of this goal. However, many librarians are in danger of running out of imagination. What will come after the digital library? Do we still need information professionals today? And, above all, what services are required? This paper identifies new fields of business for libraries with the example of bibliometric analysis. The discussion concerns the shape this service could take in practice, who needs it and what target groups exist in the scientific environment. Concrete examples of bibliometric analysis from the Central Library of Research Centre Jülich, the largest interdisciplinary research institution in Europe, round off the overview.