No description available.

Habilitation-Schrift--Fakultät für Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft--Universität Mannheim, 1998. / Bibliogr. p. 193-208.

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.

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

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.

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.