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.

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.

Using data from SCI 1998, we have analysed international collaboration in science in 11 Asian countries. Papers resulting from collaboration among these countries and with G7, European Union, OECD and selected Latin American and African countries were classified under subject categories to characterize each countryâ s total and collaborated scientific literature output. Japan (16.4% of internationally collaborated papers), India (17.6%) and Taiwan (16.3%) recorded an internationalization index less than 30 whereas China (28.5%), South Korea (24.6%) and Hong Kong (36.2%) recorded an internationalization index greater than 40. India, China and South Korea have collaborated more in physics, whereas the other eight countries have collaborated more in life sciences. In almost all fields and for virtually all Asian countries, USA is the most preferred collaborating partner. All G7 countries collaborate more with China, which is emerging as a leader in regional collaboration, than with India.

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.

This is a submission to the 3rd Annual Social Informatics SIG Research Symposium: The Social Web, Social Computing and the Social Analysis of Computing. To date the no empirical research has been done to visualize the discipline of social informatics. This work presents the early stages of a domain analysis of social informatics in terms of its authors. The names of those most frequently cocited with Rob Kling from 1974 to 2007 were retrieved from Social Scisearch via Dialog. The top 48 authors were submitted to author cocitation analysis.

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.