Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the â libcitation count.â This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world, e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers. From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a matchup between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had thehighest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000â 2006. We present each bookâ s raw libcitation count, its rank within its LC class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLCâ s WorldCat.

Life sciences research in India is mapped based on papers published in 1998 and indexed in Biosis Biological Abstracts. The findings are compared with those of an earlier study covering the years 1992-1994. There were 8352 papers in all, and these were published in more than 1080 journals. About 55% o'f life science papers were published in 75 Indian journals and more than 82% of papers were published in journals of impact factor less than 1.0. The two areas in which the largest numbers of papers were published are Agriculture and Biochemistry and molecular biophysics. While most agriculture papers had appeared in journals of impact factor zero or less than 1.0, many Biochemistry and molecular biophysics papers were published in journals of moderate to high impact factors. There has been a tendency over the years to publish papers in journals of higher impact factor. Close to 59% of papers were published by academic institutions, much less than the 64.5% in 1992-1994. This decline in research in academic institutions needs to be addressed. This report was prepared by the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and was submitted to NISSAT, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research Government of India, New Delhi in November 2001.

This investigation forms part of the author's doctoral research project and was intended as a preliminary and exploratory gauging of the area in order to establish the potential for further investigation of OA (publishing) as a peripheral practice. / The regional distribution of Open Access (OA) journals in the ISI citation databases differs significantly from the overall distribution of journals, namely in favour of peripheral areas and regions constituted predominantly of poorer countries. According to McVeigh (2004) in the ISI citation databases as a whole, North America and Western Europe account for 90% of the titles indexed, yet they account for only 40% of OA journals. Less than 2% of European and North American journals employ the OA model, yet 15% of those from the Asia-Pacific region and 40% from Central and South America are OA. This leads the author to conclude that "[for] many journals, providing free content online expands their access to an international readership" (McVeigh 2004, p.4). Departing from this assumption the study at hand addresses the following questions: Is the geographic distribution of OA journals in general more favourable towards peripheral publishing countries? How does it differ from the distribution of scholarly journals in general? Which proportions of scholarly journals and of scholarly online journals are OA in different regions and in groups of economically similar countries?* For this purpose, publishing data for active scholarly/academic journals from Ulrich's Periodicals Directory and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were gathered and analysed using descriptive statistical techniques. The data was gathered in May 2005. The results indicate interesting differences between the geographic distribution of scholarly journals in general and the subgroup of OA journals. To illustrate, among the top 25 publishing countries for all journals, 7 do not belong to the group of high income countries*, and only 6 in the case of scholarly online journals. Yet for OA journals this number increases to 11, with Brazil taking the 3rd and India the 5th spot. According to the DOAJ almost a fifth (18%) of OA journals in the Health Sciences and over a quarter (26%) of Biology and Life Science OA journals are published in the Latin American and Caribbean region. While the group of high income countries publishes 6% of its online journals as OA, 32% of those from upper middle income countries, 10% of those from lower middle income countries, and 34% of online journals emanating from low income countries are OA. Correspondingly, 5% of online journals published in Western Europe* and 6% of those from Canada and the USA are OA, yet 51% of online journals published in Latin America and the Caribbean are. (South Asia: 7%, Africa/Middle East: 8%, Eastern Europe/Central Asia: 15% East Asia/Pacific: 15%) This also has to be seen in the light of the fact that the USA, Canada, and the countries of Western Europe together account for 80% of all registered academic online journals, while their share of OA journals amounts to 59%. Due to the fast changing nature of the subject the results are meant to provide a snapshot as well as to be indicative and exploratory, and also to invite different interpretations. Yet at the same time they are also intended to instigate debate about the role OA is attributed and its significance as a peripheral practice. Notes: * see World Bank Classification of Economies. http://www.worldbank.org/data/countryclass/countryclass.html ** for the purpose of this study â Western Europeâ means pre-enlargement European Union, plus Switzerland, Iceland, and Norway.

Preprint - For final version, see Nicholson, S. (2006). The basis for bibliomining: Frameworks for bringing together usage-based data mining and bibliometrics through data warehousing in digital library services. Information Processing and Management 42(3), 785-804. Over the past few years, data mining has moved from corporations to other organizations. This paper looks at the integration of data mining in digital library services. First, bibliomining, or the combination of bibliometrics and data mining techniques to understand library services, is defined and the concept explored. Second, the conceptual frameworks for bibliomining from the viewpoint of the library decision-maker and the library researcher are presented and compared. Finally, a research agenda to resolve many of the common bibliomining issues and to move the field forward in a mindful manner is developed. The result is not only a roadmap for understanding the integration of data mining in digital library services, but also a template for other cross-discipline data mining researchers to follow for systematic exploration in their own subject domains.

Life sciences research carried out in India, as seen from the journal literature indexed in three years of BIOSIS Biological Abstracts (1992-1994), is quantified and mapped. The Indian institutions active in life sciences research, the journals and sub-fields in which they publish their work, and the impact factors of the journals as seen from Journal Citation Reports 1992 and 1994 are identified. In the three years studied researchers from over 1,400 institutions located in over 450 cities/ towns have authored 20,046 papers in 1,582 journals published from 52 countries. Over 54% of these papers have appeared in 18 Indian journals. While India has contributed papers to al 10 sub-fields, her contribution has exceeded 1,000 papers in three years in only four sub-fields, and 500 papers in seven other sub-fields. Only 49 institutions have published more than 100 papers each. The contribution made by different institutions to 26 sub-fields and to 36 often used journals is highlighted. More than 64% of Indian papers indexed in BIOSIS come from academic institutions. Among scientific agencies, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research have published more than 1,500 papers each. In all Indian researchers have published 188 papers (less than 1.0%) in journals with a 1994 impact factor greater than 4.0. More than 46.3% of Indian papers have appeared in non-5CY journals, and a further 37.5% of papers have been published in journals with impact factors less than 1.0. The analysis reveals the existence of two clusters: a large number of institutions devoted to agriculture and classical biology, publishing mostly in low-impact journals, often in Indian journals, and a smaller group of institutions publishing some papers in new biology and some areas of medicine in quality international journals of medium impact. The larger cluster includes the agricultural universities and many general universities, while the smaller cluster includes the Indian Institute of Science, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, National Institute of Immunology, and Indian Institute of Chemical Biology. While it would be desirable for Indian researchers to publish bulk of the agricultural research and a substantial part of medical research in Indian journals, they have no such constraint in new biology and can publish their work in high-impact international journals. Yet only a small proportion of Indian papers in biochemistry and molecular biology, general and internal medicine, microbiology, biophysics, immunology, and gastroenterology have appeared in such journals.

Fish and aquaculture research in India has been mapped using data from six databases. About 460 papers, roughly 5.5% of the world output, come from India every year, of which 82% are journal articles. Close to 70% of journal articles have appeared in 113 Indian journals. Less than a third of the journal articles are published in journals indexed in SCI. About 61% of publications are contributed by government laboratories and over 25% by academic institutions. Government laboratories publish most of their work in low impact and low visibility journals and academic institutions in journals of medium impact. However, even those papers appearing in better-rated journals are not cited well. Kochi, Chennai, Mumbai and Mangalore are the cities and Tamil Nadu and Kerala are the states contributing large number of papers.

Mathematics research in India, as reflected by papers indexed in Mathsci 1990 and 1994, is quantified and mapped. There were 1319 papers originating in India and indexed in the 1990 disc of Mathsci CD-ROM version, and 1391 papers indexed in 1994. Of these 2710 papers, 2549 had appeared in 467 journals, 221 of which were indexed in Journal Citation Reports 1994. Indian researchers had published 9 papers in these two years in 62 Indian journals, 503 papers in 108 US journals, 254 papers in 40 journals from the Netherlands, and 15 papers in 42 British journals. 18 institutions located in 10 cities/towns and 23 states/union territories had contributed to India's research output indexed in Mathsci, although only three have contributed more than a hundred papers in the two years, and another nine had contributed 50 or more papers. Academic institutions had published 87% of al papers and central government funded research councils and departments accounted for 12.6%. Four cities, viz. Calcutta, New Delhi, Bombay, and Madras had published more than 20 papers each in the two years. Five states, viz. West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Delhi had published more than 250 papers each. More than 53% of journal papers were published in journals not indexed in Journal Citation Reports. Only 81 papers had appeared in journals of impact factor greater than 2.000, and these are mostly physics journals. Of the 61 subfields in Mathsci, Indian researchers had been most active in Statistics, General topolgy, Quantum theory, and Special functions. India has a high activity index for Special functions and General topology and a moderately high activity index for Statistics, Integral transforms and Operational calculus, and Sequences, series and summability. The activity is low in Prtial differential equations, Ordinary differential equations, Numerical analysis, K-theory, and Computer science. The future of mathematics in India seems to rest with DAE, TIFR and ISI. Universities seem to be losing momentum.

CAB Abstracts 1998 had indexed 11,855 publications from India, including 10,412 journal articles, from more than 1280 institutions in 531 locations. These were classified into 21 major research fields and 243 subfields. â Plants of economic importanceâ (FF) is the leading area of research in India, followed by â Animal scienceâ (LL). The three subfields with the largest number of papers are: â Pests, pathogens and biogenic diseases of plantsâ , FF600 (1301 papers), â Plant breeding and geneticsâ , FF020 (1135 papers), and â Plant productionâ , FF100 (786 papers). In contrast, there were only 54 papers in â Biotechnologyâ (WW). Academic institutions accounted for a little over 59% of the papers in 1998, as against 63.4% in the five years 1990â 1994, and scientific agencies of the central government accounted for 22% of the papers. Agricultural universities had published 4039 papers and agricultural colleges 523 papers. Indian researchers had published over 78% of the 10,412 journal articles in 208 Indian journals, 587 papers in 180 UK journals, and 368 papers in 124 US journals. In no other field do Indian researchers publish such a large per cent of papers in Indian journals. Letters journals were used only infrequently: 317 papers in 40 letters journals. More than 8060 papers were published in non-SCI journals, and 1925 papers were published in journals of impact factor less than 1.0. Only 33 papers were published in journals of impact factor higher than 3.0. We have identified institutions publishing large number of papers in different subfields, in different journals, in journals of different impact factors, etc. This macroscopic analysis not only provides an inventory of Indiaâ s publications, but also gives an idea of endogenous research capacity. If appropriately linked with public policy, it can help restructure the nationâ s research priorities.

An overview of the journals used by scientists in post Cultural Revolution China is presented based on papers published by them in the 2649 journals indexed in Science Citation Index (SCI) for the period of 1981-85 as well as in journals covered by three editions of Current Contents (CC) for the second half of 1988. We have also looked at the frequency of citation of the papers indexed in SCI 1981-85, by way of cross-reference in other papers. Clearly, China's share of the world's journals literature and the share of Chinese language papers are increasing rapidly. However, Chinese work is infrequently cited. However, papers by Chinese scientists have rarely appeared in multidisciplinary journals such as Nature and Science. The data in the literature reinforce our conclusion that growth in China's share of the world's journal literature of science has not yet flattened off.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:26:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2012Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T18:30:28Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 pavanelli_ma_me_mar.pdf: 508568 bytes, checksum: 6e3ce7faa02e15b1588bfb167f6e71e0 (MD5) / Esta pesquisa objetiva identificar quantitativamente todas as patentes, quer sejam de invenção, modelos de utilidades, marcas, desenho industrial e criação de softwares, no âmbito da Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), procurando destacar os pesquisadores mais produtivos, suas temáticas e colaborações existentes, tanto no âmbito individual como no âmbito institucional. A partir dos dados quantitativos procura-se descrever e analisar os pesquisadores mais produtivos, as parcerias estabelecidas entre eles e as parcerias estabelecidas entre as instituições às quais pertencem. Justifica-se esta pesquisa, especialmente, pela necessidade de se conhecer e dar visibilidade aos registros de patentes no âmbito da UNESP, e, ainda, pela inexistência de trabalhos dessa natureza na referida universidade. Como procedimento de pesquisa, analisou-se o documento fornecido pela Agência UNESP de Inovação–AUIN, contendo a relação das patentes depositadas em nome da UNESP, de 1980 até 2010. Categorizou-se as mesmas segundo as seguintes tipologias: patentes de invenção (PI), modelos de utilidade (MU), marcas e desenho industrial (DI), todas distribuídas de acordo com a tabela de áreas do Conhecimento do CNPq (grande área e área): Ciências Agrárias (grande área) e Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia (áreas); Ciências Biológicas (grande área) e Botânica e Microbiologia (áreas); Ciências Exatas e da Terra (grande área) e Física, Química, Ciência da Computação, Probabilidade Estatística e Geociências (áreas); Ciências da Saúde (grande área) e Farmácia, Medicina e Odontologia (áreas); Engenharia (grande área) e Engenharia de Materiais e Metalúrgica e Engenharia Mecânica (áreas). Destacou-se os inventores mais produtivos e suas respectivas temáticas, segundo as unidades e/ou faculdades de origem. Como... / This research aims to quantitatively identify all patents, whether an invention, utility models, trademarks, industrial design and software design within UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista, seeking to highlight the most productive researchers, their themes and existing collaborations, both as individual as the institutional framework. From the quantitative data it is sought to describe and analyze the most productive researchers, the partnerships established between them and also the partnerships between the institutions to which they belong. This is appropriate for this research, especially by the needs of knowing and giving visibility to the records of patents at UNESP, considering the lack of such work at the University. As a research procedure, we analyzed the documents provided by UNESP Technology Transfer Office - AUIN, containing a list of patents filed on behalf of UNESP, from 1980 to 2010. They were categorized according to the following types: Patent (PI), utility models (MU), trademarks (TM) and industrial design (ID), all distributed according to the table of areas of Knowledge of CNPq (large area and area): Agricultural Sciences (large area) and Veterinary Medicine (areas), Biological Sciences (large area) and Botany and Microbiology (areas), Exact Sciences and Earth (large area) and Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Probability Statistics and Geosciences (areas); Health Sciences (large area) and Pharmacy, Medicine and Dentistry (areas), engineering (large area) and Metallurgical and Materials Engineering and Mechanical Engineering (areas). Stood out the most productive inventors and their respective themes, according to the units and/or college of origin. As search results, considering the total of 114 patent applications, IQ (Institute of Chemistry) at Araraquara had 29 records, the largest number... (Complete abstract click electronic access below)