Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Lutz Bornmann

Publications and source records attributed to Lutz Bornmann.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
arXiv2015

Recent Developments in China-U.S. Cooperation in Science

China's remarkable gains in science over the past 25 years have been well documented (e.g., Jin and Rousseau, 2005a; Zhou and Leydesdorff, 2006; Shelton & Foland, 2009) but it is less well known that China and the United States have become each other's top collaborating country. Science and technology has been a primary vehicle for growing the bilateral relationship between China and the United States since the opening of relations between the two countries in the late 1970s. During the 2000s, the scientific relationship between China and the United States--as measured in coauthored papers--showed significant growth. Chinese scientists claim first authorship much more frequently than U.S. counterparts by the end of the decade. The sustained rate of increase of collaboration with one other country is unprecedented on the U.S. side. Even growth in relations with eastern European nations does not match the growth in the relationship between China and the United States. Both countries can benefit from the relationship, but for the U.S., greater benefit would come from a more targeted strategy.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2015

Highly-cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS): Authors, institutions, and network structures

As a follow-up to the highly-cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyze the top-1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." 798 authors contributed to 305 top-1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking, if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly-cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing four or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of co-authorship relations among the 798 highly-cited scientists shows that co-authorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (1) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices, (2) the use of internet in public communication and commerce, and (3) scientometrics.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2015

Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics

Alternative metrics are currently one of the most popular research topics in scientometric research. This paper provides an overview of research into three of the most important altmetrics: microblogging (Twitter), online reference managers (Mendeley and CiteULike) and blogging. The literature is discussed in relation to the possible use of altmetrics in research evaluation. Since the research was particularly interested in the correlation between altmetrics counts and citation counts, this overview focuses particularly on this correlation. For each altmetric, a meta-analysis is calculated for its correlation with traditional citation counts. As the results of the meta-analyses show, the correlation with traditional citations for micro-blogging counts is negligible (pooled r=0.003), for blog counts it is small (pooled r=0.12) and for bookmark counts from online reference managers, medium to large (CiteULike pooled r=0.23; Mendeley pooled r=0.51).

cs.DL↗
arXiv2015

Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime

Can altmetric data be validly used for the measurement of societal impact? The current study seeks to answer this question with a comprehensive dataset (about 100,000 records) from very disparate sources (F1000, Altmetric, and an in-house database based on Web of Science). In the F1000 peer review system, experts attach particular tags to scientific papers which indicate whether a paper could be of interest for science or rather for other segments of society. The results show that papers with the tag "good for teaching" do achieve higher altmetric counts than papers without this tag - if the quality of the papers is controlled. At the same time, a higher citation count is shown especially by papers with a tag that is specifically scientifically oriented ("new finding"). The findings indicate that papers tailored for a readership outside the area of research should lead to societal impact. If altmetric data is to be used for the measurement of societal impact, the question arises of its normalization. In bibliometrics, citations are normalized for the papers' subject area and publication year. This study has taken a second analytic step involving a possible normalization of altmetric data. As the results show there are particular scientific topics which are of especial interest for a wide audience. Since these more or less interesting topics are not completely reflected in Thomson Reuters' journal sets, a normalization of altmetric data should not be based on the level of subject categories, but on the level of topics.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2015

Usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader impact of research: A case study using data from PLOS (altmetrics) and F1000Prime (paper tags)

Purpose: Whereas citation counts allow the measurement of the impact of research on research itself, an important role in the measurement of the impact of research on other parts of society is ascribed to altmetrics. The present case study investigates the usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader impact of research. Methods: This case study is essentially based on a dataset with papers obtained from F1000. The dataset was augmented with altmetrics (such as Twitter counts) which were provided by PLOS (the Public Library of Science). In total, the case study covers a total of 1,082 papers. Findings: The F1000 dataset contains tags on papers which were assigned intellectually by experts and which can characterise a paper. The most interesting tag for altmetric research is "good for teaching". This tag is assigned to papers which could be of interest to a wider circle of readers than the peers in a specialist area. Particularly on Facebook and Twitter, one could expect papers with this tag to be mentioned more often than those without this tag. With respect to the "good for teaching" tag, the results from regression models were able to confirm these expectations: Papers with this tag show significantly higher Facebook and Twitter counts than papers without this tag. This association could not be seen with Mendeley or Figshare counts (that is with counts from platforms which are chiefly of interest in a scientific context). Conclusions: The results of the current study indicate that Facebook and Twitter, but not Figshare or Mendeley, can provide indications of papers which are of interest to a broader circle of readers (and not only for the peers in a specialist area), and seem therefore be useful for societal impact measurement.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?

Evaluative bibliometrics compares the citation impact of researchers, research groups and institutions with each other across time scales and disciplines. Both factors - discipline and period - have an influence on the citation count which is independent of the quality of the publication. Normalizing the citation impact of papers for these two factors started in the mid-1980s. Since then, a range of different methods have been presented for producing normalized citation impact scores. The current study uses a data set of over 50,000 records to test which of the methods so far presented correlate better with the assessment of papers by peers. The peer assessments come from F1000Prime - a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature. Of the normalized indicators, the current study involves not only cited-side indicators, such as the mean normalized citation score, but also citing-side indicators. As the results show, the correlations of the indicators with the peer assessments all turn out to be very similar. Since F1000 focuses on biomedicine, it is important that the results of this study are validated by other studies based on datasets from other disciplines or (ideally) based on multi-disciplinary datasets.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

Study of Citation Networks in Tribology Research

CitNetExplorer has been used to study the citation networks among the scientific publications on tribology during the 15 years period from 1998-2012. Three data sets from Web of Science have been analyzed: (1) Core publications of tribology research, (2) publications on nanotribology and (3) publications of Bharat Bhushan (a top-contributor to nanotribology research). Based on this study, some suggestions are made to improve the CitNetExplorer.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

Philosophy of science viewed through the lense of "References Publication Years spectrosopy" (RPYS)

We examine the sub-field of philosophy of science using a new method developed in information science, Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy (RPYS). RPYS allows us to identify peak years in citations in a field, which promises to help scholars identify the key contributions to a field, and revolutionary discoveries in a field. We discovered that philosophy of science, a sub-field in the humanities, differs significantly from other fields examined with this method. Books play a more important role in philosophy of science than in the sciences. Further, Einstein's famous 1905 papers created a citation peak in the philosophy of science literature. But rather than being a contribution to the philosophy of science, their importance lies in the fact that they are revolutionary contributions to physics with important implications for philosophy of science.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

A macro level scientometric analysis of world tribology research output (1998 - 2012)

Bibliographic records related to tribology research were extracted from SCOPUS and Web of Science databases for the period of 15 years from 1998 to 2012. Macro-level scientometric indicators such as growth rate, share of international collaborative papers, citations per paper, and share of non-cited papers were employed. Further, the Gini coefficient and Simpson Index of Diversity were used. Two new relative indicators : Relative International Collaboration Rate (RICR) and Relative Growth Index (RGI) are proposed in this study. The performance of top countries contributing more than 1000 papers across the study period was discussed. Contributions and share of continents and countries by income groups were examined. Further research contributions and citation impact of selected country groups such as the Developing Eight Countries (D8), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Emerging and Growth-Leading Economies (EAGLEs) countries were analyzed. High levels of interdisciplinarity exist in tribology research. Inequality of distribution between countries is highest for number of publications and citations. Asia outperforms the other world regions and China contributes most of the papers (25%), while the United States receives most of the citations (22%). 84% of total output was contributed by the Asiatic region, Western Europe and North America together. Publications from these three world regions received 88% of total citations. Around 50% of global research output was contributed by China, the United States and Japan.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

The Generation of Large Networks from Web-of-Science Data

During the 1990s, one of us developed a series of freeware routines (http://www.leydesdorff.net/indicators) that enable the user to organize downloads from the Web-of-Science (Thomson Reuters) into a relational database, and then to export matrices for further analysis in various formats (for example, for co-author analysis). The basic format of the matrices displays each document as a case in a row that can be attributed different variables in the columns. One limitation to this approach was hitherto that relational databases typically have an upper limit for the number of variables, such as 256 or 1024. In this brief communication, we report on a way to circumvent this limitation by using txt2Pajek.exe, available as freeware from http://www.pfeffer.at/txt2pajek/.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics

Today, it is not clear how the impact of research on other areas of society than science should be measured. While peer review and bibliometrics have become standard methods for measuring the impact of research in science, there is not yet an accepted framework within which to measure societal impact. Alternative metrics (called altmetrics to distinguish them from bibliometrics) are considered an interesting option for assessing the societal impact of research, as they offer new ways to measure (public) engagement with research output. Altmetrics is a term to describe web-based metrics for the impact of publications and other scholarly material by using data from social media platforms (e.g. Twitter or Mendeley). This overview of studies explores the potential of altmetrics for measuring societal impact. It deals with the definition and classification of altmetrics. Furthermore, their benefits and disadvantages for measuring impact are discussed.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

On the causes of subject-specific citation rates in Web of Science

It is well known in bibliometrics that the average number of citations per paper differs greatly between the various disciplines. The differing citation culture (in particular the different average number of references per paper and thereby the different probability of being cited) is widely seen as the cause of this variation. Based on all Web of Science (WoS) records published in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010 we demonstrate that almost all disciplines show similar numbers of references in the appendices of their papers. Our results suggest that the average citation rate is far more influenced by the extent to which the papers (cited as references) are included in WoS as linked database records. For example, the comparatively low citation rates in the humanities are not at all the result of a lower average number of references per paper but are caused by the low fraction of linked references which refer to papers published in the core journals covered by WoS.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

The Operationalization of "Fields" as WoS Subject Categories (WCs) in Evaluative Bibliometrics: The cases of "Library and Information Science" and "Science & Technology Studies"

Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web-of-Science Subject Categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

Which of the world's institutions employ the most highly cited researchers? An analysis of the data from highlycited.com

A few weeks ago, Thomson Reuters published a list of the highly cited researchers worldwide (highlycited.com). Since the data is freely available for downloading and includes the names of the researchers' institutions, we produced a ranking of the institutions on the basis of the number of highly cited researchers per institution. This ranking is intended to be a helpful amendment of other available institutional rankings.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

Inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review

Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on around 100,000 papers with recommendations from Faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between Faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies which have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the convergent validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the Faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores are also connected with better performance of the papers.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

The European Union, China, and the United States in the Top-1% and Top-10% Layers of Most-Frequently-Cited Publications: Competition and Collaborations

The percentages of shares of world publications of the European Union and its member states, China, and the United States have been represented differently as a result of using different databases. An analytical variant of the Web-of-Science (of Thomson Reuters) enables us to study the dynamics in the world publication system in terms of the field-normalized top-1% and top-10% most-frequently-cited publications. Comparing the EU28, USA, and China at the global level shows a top-level dynamics that is different from the analysis in terms of shares of publications: the United States remains far more productive in the top-1% of all papers; China drops out of the competition for elite status; and the EU28 increased its share among the top-cited papers from 2000-2010. Some of the EU28 member states overtook the U.S. during this decade, but a clear divide remains between EU15 (Western Europe) and the Accession Countries. Network analysis shows that internationally co-authored top-1% publications perform far above expectation and also above top-10% ones. In 2005, China was embedded in this top-layer of internationally co-authored publications. These publications often involve more than a single European nation.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2014

BRICS countries and scientific excellence: A bibliometric analysis of most frequently-cited papers

The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China, and South Africa) are noted for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players on the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently-cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. In a further step of analysis for this study, we generate co-authorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for four time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the USA.

cs.DL↗