The Challenge of Establishing a Recognized Interdisciplinary Journal

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geerten van de Kaa ◽  
Knut Blind ◽  
Henk J. de Vries
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Impact ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Interdisciplinary Journal

This paper examines the impact of interdisciplinary IT standardization research by analyzing the International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research (JITSR). Three issues will be addressed: (1) What is the scientific impact of IT standardization research published in JITSR? (2) Are JITSR publications on IT standardization interdisciplinary, and if so, to what extent do they cite publications in other disciplines? (3) Is IT standardization research recognized as an interdisciplinary discipline, and if so, to what extent do papers in other disciplines cite JITSR publications? The authors find that although the scientific impact of JITSR is comparatively low, it is recognized in different disciplines. The findings also show that research published in JITSR is, to some extent, interdisciplinary; papers published in JITSR refer to a number of different disciplines.

Information and scientific impact of Advanced Therapies in the age of mass media: an Altmetrics-based analysis of Tissue Engineering. (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Santisteban ◽  
Julia Moran ◽  
Miguel Ángel Martín Piedra ◽  
Antonio Campos Muñoz ◽  
José Antonio Moral Muñoz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tissue Engineering ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Prediction Equation ◽  
Factorial Analysis ◽  
Online Media ◽  
Research Groups ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Online Platforms ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Tissue engineering (TE) constitutes a multidisciplinary field aiming to construct artificial tissues to regenerate end-staged organs. Its development has taken placed since the last decade of the 20th century, entailing a clinical revolution. In this sense, TE research groups have worked and shared relevant information in the mass media era. Thus, it would be interesting to study the online dimension of TE research and to compare it with traditional measures of scientific impact. OBJECTIVE To evaluate TE online dimension from 2012 to 2018 by using metadata obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) and Altmetrics and to develop a prediction equation for the impact of TE documents from Almetrics scores. METHODS We have analyzed 23,719 TE documents through descriptive and statistical methods. First, TE temporal evolution was exposed for WoS and fifteen online platforms (News, Blogs, Policy, Twitter, Patents, Peer review, Weibo, Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, Reddit, F1000, Q&A, Video and Mendeley readers). The 10 most-cited TE original articles were ranked according to WoS citations and the Altmetric Attention Score. Second, in order to better comprehend TE online framework, a correlation and factorial analysis were performed based on the suitable results previously obtained for the Bartlett Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin tests. Finally, the liner regression model was applied to elucidate the relation between academy and online media and to construct a prediction equation for TE from Altmetrics data. RESULTS TE dynamic shows an upward trend in WoS citations, Twitter, Mendeley Readers and Altmetric Scores. However, WoS and Altmetrics rankings for the most cited documents clearly differs. When compared, the best correlation results were obtained for Mendeley readers and WoS (ρ=0.71). In addition, the factorial analysis identified six factors that could explain the previously observed differences between TE academy, and the online platforms evaluated. At this point, the mathematical model constructed is able to predict and explain more than the 40% of TE WoS citations from Altmetrics scores. CONCLUSIONS The scientific information related to the construction of bioartificial tissues increasingly reaches society through different online media. Because of the focus of TE research importantly differs when the academic institutions and online platforms are compared, it could be stated that basic and clinical research groups, academic institutions and health politicians should take it into account in a coordinated effort oriented to the design and implementation of adequate strategies for information diffusion and population health education.

Gender inequities in the online dissemination of scholars’ work

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (39) ◽  
pp. e2102945118
Author(s):  
Orsolya Vásárhelyi ◽  
Igor Zakhlebin ◽  
Staša Milojević ◽  
Emőke-Ágnes Horvát
Keyword(s):  
Gender Gap ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Gender Disparities ◽  
Female Representation ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Coauthorship Networks ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Unbiased science dissemination has the potential to alleviate some of the known gender disparities in academia by exposing female scholars’ work to other scientists and the public. And yet, we lack comprehensive understanding of the relationship between gender and science dissemination online. Our large-scale analyses, encompassing half a million scholars, revealed that female scholars’ work is mentioned less frequently than male scholars’ work in all research areas. When exploring the characteristics associated with online success, we found that the impact of prior work, social capital, and gendered tie formation in coauthorship networks are linked with online success for men, but not for women—even in the areas with the highest female representation. These results suggest that while men’s scientific impact and collaboration networks are associated with higher visibility online, there are no universally identifiable facets associated with success for women. Our comprehensive empirical evidence indicates that the gender gap in online science dissemination is coupled with a lack of understanding the characteristics that are linked with female scholars’ success, which might hinder efforts to close the gender gap in visibility.

scholarly journals AIRank: Author Impact Ranking through Positions in Collaboration Networks

Complexity ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Yan Hu ◽  
Zhaolong Ning ◽  
Amr Tolba ◽  
Elsayed Elashkar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Evaluation ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Interesting Phenomenon ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Academic Networks ◽  
Novel Method ◽  
Academic Information ◽  
The Impact ◽  
In Virtue Of ◽  
Scientific Collaborations

Citation is a universally acknowledged way for scientific impact evaluation. However, due to its easy manipulability, simply relying on citation cannot objectively reflect the actual impact of scholars. Instead of citation, we utilize the academic networks, in virtue of their available and abundant academic information, to evaluate the scientific impact of scholars in this paper. Through the collaboration among scholars in academic networks, we notice an interesting phenomenon that scholars in some special positions can access more kinds of information and connect researchers from different groups to promote the scientific collaborations. However, this important fact is generally ignored by the existing approaches. Motivated by the observations above, we propose the novel method AIRank to evaluate the scientific impact of scholars. Our method not only considers the impact of scholars through the mutual reinforcement process in heterogeneous academic networks, but also integrates the structural holes theory and information entropy theory to depict the benefit that scholars obtain via their positions in the network. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of AIRank in evaluating the impact of scholars more comprehensively and finding more top ranking scholars with interdisciplinary nature.

Celebrating Half a Century of Environment and Behavior: A Bibliometric Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 469-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taciano L. Milfont ◽  
Keivan Amirbagheri ◽  
Elena Hermanns ◽  
José M. Merigó
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Natural Environments ◽  
University Of Michigan ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Environment And Behavior ◽  
Bibliometric Review ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
The University ◽  
The Impact

Environment and Behavior is a leading international journal that publishes research examining the relationships between human behavior and the built and natural environments since 1969. Motivated by its half-century anniversary, the present article uses the Web of Science Core Collection database to provide a bibliometric overview of the leading trends that have occurred in the journal during the 1969-2018 period. The impact of the journal has increased over the years, Gary W. Evans is the author with most published papers, articles by Paul C. Stern and Thomas Dietz have made a notable scientific impact, the University of Michigan is the institution with the highest number of publications, and there is a growing trend in the number of women and international contributors to the journal. This bibliographic review provides strong evidence of the scientific impact of the journal, and the wider Environment-and-Behavior community should be proud of its story of success.

The Eigenfactor™ Score in Highly Specific Medical Fields

2012 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Sillet ◽  
S. Katsahian ◽  
H. Rangé ◽  
S. Czernichow ◽  
P. Bouchard
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Web Sites ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Poor Agreement ◽  
Altman Plot ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Thomson Reuters ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

We sought to compare the Eigenfactor Score™ journal rank with the journal Impact Factor over five years, and to identify variables that may influence the ranking differences between the two metrics. Datasets were retrieved from the Thomson Reuters® and Eigenfactor Score™ Web sites. Dentistry was identified as the most specific medical specialty. Variables were retrieved from the selected journals to be included in a regression linear model. Among the 46 dental journals included in the analysis, striking variations in ranks were observed according to the metric used. The Bland-Altman plot showed a poor agreement between the metrics. The multivariate analysis indicates that the number of original research articles, the number of reviews, the self-citations, and the citing time may explain the differences between ranks. The Eigenfactor Score™ seems to better capture the prestige of a journal than the Impact Factor. In medicine, the bibliometric indicators should focus not only on the overall medical field but also on specialized disciplinary fields. Distinct measures are needed to better describe the scientific impact of specialized medical publications.

scholarly journals Skill ranking of researchers via hypergraph

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. e182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiangjie Kong ◽  
Lei Liu ◽  
Shuo Yu ◽  
Andong Yang ◽  
Xiaomei Bai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Skills ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
H Index ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Ranking Model ◽  
Hypergraph Theory ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Researchers use various skills in their works, such as writing, data analysis and experiments design. These research skills have greatly influenced the quality of their research outputs, as well as their scientific impact. Although many indicators have been proposed to quantify the impact of researchers, studies of evaluating their scientific research skills are very rare. In this paper, we analyze the factors affecting researchers’ skill ranking and propose a new model based on hypergraph theory to evaluate the scientific research skills. To validate our skill ranking model, we perform experiments on the PLOS ONE dataset and compare the rank of researchers’ skills with their papers’ citation counts and h-index. Finally, we analyze the patterns about how researchers’ skill ranking increased over time. Our studies also show the change patterns of researchers between different skills.

scholarly journals Improving scientific impact: how to practice science that influences environmental policy and management

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Robert Brewster Fisher ◽  
Stephen Wood ◽  
Mark A. Bradford ◽  
T. Rodd Kelsey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Environmental Policy ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Valuable Resource ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Environmental Decision Making ◽  
The Impact

Scientists devote substantial time and resources to research intended to help solve environmental problems. Environmental managers and policymakers must decide how to use the best available research evidence to prioritize actions leading to desired environmental outcomes. Yet decision-makers can face barriers to using scientific evidence to inform action. They may be unaware of the evidence, lack access to it, not understand it, or view it as irrelevant. These barriers mean a valuable resource (evidence) is underused. We outline a set of practical steps for scientists who want to improve the impact their research has on decision-making,: (1) Identify and understand the audience; (2) Clarify the need for evidence; (3) Gather "just enough" evidence; and (4) Share and discuss the evidence. These are guidelines, not a strict recipe for success. But we believe that regularly following these recommendations should increase the chance of scientific evidence being considered and used in environmental decision-making. Our goal is for this paper to be accessible to anyone, rather than a comprehensive review of the topic.

scholarly journals The use of the term ‘limnology’ and its scientometrics consequences for limnologists

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Fontaneto ◽  
Alejandro Martínez ◽  
Stefano Mammola ◽  
Aldo Marchetto
Keyword(s):  
Publication Output ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Lake Ecology ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Do So ◽  
The Way

Jargon is the specialised vocabulary of any science: it allows the creation of new terms to define concepts and it removes ambiguity from scientific communication. Yet, it may also hinder understanding for a broader audience. Given that the Journal of Limnology has jargon in its title, we here investigate the impact of the term ‘limnology’ on the way limnologists work, publish their research, and attract the interest of other scientists. We do so by comparing scientometric features of papers published from 1965 to 2020 that used the term ‘limnology’ against papers on similar topics but that used the term ‘lake ecology’ or ‘hydrobiology’, and to the marine counterpart of papers that used the term ‘oceanography’. We found that papers using the term limnology score worse than those of the other topics in terms of both publication output and scientific impact. Limnologists may need to use other terms in addition to ‘limnology’ to reach a broader scientific audience.

scholarly journals Fragile Pluralism

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Hans-Georg Soeffner
Keyword(s):  
Social World ◽  
The Self ◽  
The Other ◽  
Language Games ◽  
Niklas Luhmann ◽  
The World ◽  
Human Tendency ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Interdisciplinary Journal

This essay first appeared in German in Magdalena Tzaneva, ed. Nachtflug der Eule: 150 Stimmen zum Werk von Niklas Luhmann. Gedenkbuch zum 15. Todestag von Niklas Luhmann (8. Dezember 1927 Lüneburg – 6. November 1998 Oerlinghausen). Berlin: LiDi EuropEdition (2013), 73–100. A shorter version of the essay was published in Hans-Georg Soeffner, and Thea D. Boldt, eds. Fragiler Pluralismus, Wiesbaden: VS Springer (2014), 207–24. The present translation for Entangled Religions – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Religious Contact and Transfer is by Nicola Morris.   The article describes the emergence of pluralism within the process of globalization and the impact of this development upon individuals communication and the definitions of the ‘self’ and the ‘Other’. The author illustrates the pitfalls of the human tendency to view the world from an ethnocentric perspective and with the corresponding attitude. He argues that in ‘open societies’, successful citizens will be capable of recognising and articulating distinctions between individuals, as well as between groups, beliefs, lifestyles and attitudes. These citizens must also be aware and capable of adapting for their purposes the full repertoire of language games and role games in their social world, in order to perceive and utilise comprehensive systems such as frameworks for cooperation. These skills will help them implement ‘maxims of communication’ and ‘existential hypotheses’.

scholarly journals An exploratory analysis of 4844 withdrawn articles and their retraction notes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catalin Toma ◽  
Liliana Padureanu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Geographical Location ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Structural Problems ◽  
Publication Practices ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis article looks at the dynamic of retractions and retraction notes, retraction reasons for questionable research and publication practices, countries producing retracted articles, and the scientific impact of retractions. Four thousand eight hundred forty-four retracted articles published between 2009 and 2020 and indexed in PubMed were analyzed.RESULTSMistakes/inconsistent data account for 32% of total retractions, followed by images(22,5%), plagiarism(13,7%) and overlap(11,5%).Thirty countries account for 94,79% of 4844 retractions. Top five are: China(32,78%), United States(18,84%), India(7,25%), Japan(4,37%) and Italy(3,75%).The total citations number for all articles is 140810(Google Scholar), 96000(Dimensions).Average exposure time(ET) is 28,89 months. Largest ET is for image retractions(49,3 months), lowest ET is for editorial errors(11,2 months).The impact of retracted research is higher for Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and other nine countries and lower for Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, and other six countries, including China.CONCLUSIONSMistakes and data inconsistencies represent the main retraction reason; images and ethical issues show a growing trend, while plagiarism and overlap still represent a significant problem. There is a steady increase in QRP and QPP article withdrawals. Retraction of articles seems to be a technology-dependent process.The number of citations of retracted articles shows a high impact of papers published by authors from certain countries. The number of retracted articles per country does not always accurately reflect the scientific impact of QRP/QPP articles.The country distribution of retraction reasons shows structural problems in the organization and quality control of scientific research, which have different images depending on geographical location, economic development, and cultural model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document