In this paper, we examine the evolution of the impact of non-elite journals. We attempt to answer two questions. First, what fraction of the top-cited articles are published in non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. Second, what fraction of the total citations are to non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. We studied citations to articles published in 1995-2013. We computed the 10 most-cited journals and the 1000 most-cited articles each year for all 261 subject categories in Scholar Metrics. We marked the 10 most-cited journals in a category as the elite journals for the category and the rest as non-elite. There are two conclusions from our study. First, the fraction of top-cited articles published in non-elite journals increased steadily over 1995-2013. While the elite journals still publish a substantial fraction of high-impact articles, many more authors of well-regarded papers in diverse research fields are choosing other venues. The number of top-1000 papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category went from 149 in 1995 to 245 in 2013, a growth of 64 . Looking at broad research areas, 4 out of 9 areas saw at least one-third of the top-cited articles published in non-elite journals in 2013. For 6 out of 9 areas, the fraction of top-cited papers published in non-elite journals for the representative subject category grew by 45 or more. Second, now that finding and reading relevant articles in non-elite journals is about as easy as finding and reading articles in elite journals, researchers are increasingly building on and citing work published everywhere. Considering citations to all articles, the percentage of citations to articles in non-elite journals went from 27 in 1995 to 47 in 2013. Six out of nine broad areas had at least 50 of citations going to articles published in non-elite journals in 2013.
In a follow-up study @cite_4 , they took a closer look at 13 journals, seven traditionally top-ranked journals and six upcoming journals. They found that since around 1990, the fraction of most-cited papers published in the traditionally top-ranked journals has been dropping and the fraction of such papers published in the upcoming journals has been increasing.
@cite_4
2134548949 2019972219 2071195592 2125660293 2057954853 2521531306 1978868011 2159336657 1608828583 2060460295 2068557399 2017562693 1976829395 2109154616 2040906208 2091002342 2382843593 1972830890 2166463728 2062340319
Previous research indicates that during the past 20 years, the highest-quality work has been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In this article, we examine whether this diversification has also affected the handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We examine citation patterns during the past 40 years of seven long-standing traditionally elite journals and six journals that have been increasing in importance during the past 20 years. To be among the top 5 or 1 cited papers, papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, elite journals have been publishing a decreasing proportion of these top-cited papers. This also applies to the two journals that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric indicators of "excellence": Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of the most-cited papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties. Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences. Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in "elite" journals, journal hierarchies are in constant flux. This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20 , 50 , and 80 of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Online journals promise to serve more information to more dispersed audiences and are more efficiently searched and recalled. But because they are used differently than print—scientists and scholars tend to search electronically and follow hyperlinks rather than browse or peruse—electronically available journals may portend an ironic change for science. Using a database of 34 million articles, their citations (1945 to 2005), and online availability (1998 to 2005), I show that as more journal issues came online, the articles referenced tended to be more recent, fewer journals and articles were cited, and more of those citations were to fewer journals and articles. The forced browsing of print archives may have stretched scientists and scholars to anchor findings deeply into past and present scholarship. Searching online is more efficient and following hyperlinks quickly puts researchers in touch with prevailing opinion, but this may accelerate consensus and narrow the range of findings and ideas built upon. The growth rate of scientific publication has been studied from 1907 to 2007 using available data from a number of literature databases, including Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Traditional scientific publishing, that is publication in peer-reviewed journals, is still increasing although there are big differences between fields. There are no indications that the growth rate has decreased in the last 50 years. At the same time publication using new channels, for example conference proceedings, open archives and home pages, is growing fast. The growth rate for SCI up to 2007 is smaller than for comparable databases. This means that SCI was covering a decreasing part of the traditional scientific literature. There are also clear indications that the coverage by SCI is especially low in some of the scientific areas with the highest growth rate, including computer science and engineering sciences. The role of conference proceedings, open access archives and publications published on the net is increasing, especially in scientific fields with high growth rates, but this has only partially been reflected in the databases. The new publication channels challenge the use of the big databases in measurements of scientific productivity or output and of the growth rate of science. Because of the declining coverage and this challenge it is problematic that SCI has been used and is used as the dominant source for science indicators based on publication and citation numbers. The limited data available for social sciences show that the growth rate in SSCI was remarkably low and indicate that the coverage by SSCI was declining over time. National Science Indicators from Thomson Reuters is based solely on SCI, SSCI and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). Therefore the declining coverage of the citation databases problematizes the use of this source. Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze author and methodological characteristics in top-tier publications in higher education. As the importance of research in the professoriate continues to grow and faculty face ratcheted-up expectations for prestige in their research, such data are important contextually and historically. Design methodology approach This descriptive study examines 587 articles within four top-tier higher education research journals from 2008 to 2012. Data were open coded and analyzed with a research team, resulting in an intercoder reliability of 0.96. Findings Results show most authors are assistant professors, overwhelmingly received PhD’s from very high research institutions (Carnegie classification), and currently work in similar institutions. Five degree-granting institutions accounted for 29.0 percent of publications in top-tier journals. Additionally, quantitative research accounted for 60.6 percent of published articles, with regression as the most commonly used analytic technique (34.7 percent). Research limitations implications This study examined only higher education faculty and institutions based in the USA as well as first authors. Practical implications These results are meant to provide baseline data for top-tier journals within higher education and might inform conversations about methodological acceptability, respectability of qualitative research, graduate education research requirements, journal editor trainings, and tenure and promotion criteria. Originality value This paper provides an update to previous studies that examined publications in higher education within the last three decades. In addition, this study examines author characteristics, which previous studies have mostly excluded. This study offers empirical data to inform conversations about the state of research in top-tier publications within higher education. An analysis of three major problems in the application of bibliometric research performance indicators is made in three separate sections. In the first section, the influence of field-dependent citation practices is analysed. The results indicate that rankings of publications from different fields, based on citation counts, can be affected seriously by differences between citation characteristics in those fields. If certain assumptions hold, one should expect high (short term) citation levels in Biochemistry, Celbiology and Biophysics. Medium citation levels are to be expected in Experimental and Molecular Physics, Physical and Organic Chemistry, Pharmacology and Plant Physiology, and low citation levels in Mathematics, Taxonomy, Pharmacognosy and Inorganic Solid State Chemistry. In the second section time-dependent factors are studied. It is shown that trend-analyses of output and impact based on bibliometric scores can be disturbed by changes in theSCI-database and in publication and citation practices. One of the disturbing factors is shown to be the inclusion of so called Books into theSCI data-base in 1977. Finally, in the third section a case is presented which illustrates the consequences of operating on incomplete bibliometric data in the evaluation of scientific performance. A completeness percentage of 99 for publication data is proposed as a standard in evaluations of the performance of small university research groups). We analyze the online response to the preprint publication of a cohort of 4,606 scientific articles submitted to the preprint database arXiv.org between October 2010 and May 2011. We study three forms of responses to these preprints: downloads on the arXiv.org site, mentions on the social media site Twitter, and early citations in the scholarly record. We perform two analyses. First, we analyze the delay and time span of article downloads and Twitter mentions following submission, to understand the temporal configuration of these reactions and whether one precedes or follows the other. Second, we run regression and correlation tests to investigate the relationship between Twitter mentions, arXiv downloads, and article citations. We find that Twitter mentions and arXiv downloads of scholarly articles follow two distinct temporal patterns of activity, with Twitter mentions having shorter delays and narrower time spans than arXiv downloads. We also find that the volume of Twitter mentions is statistically correlated with arXiv downloads and early citations just months after the publication of a preprint, with a possible bias that favors highly mentioned articles. This article introduces a suite of approaches and measures to study the impact of co-authorship teams based on the number of publications and their citations on a local and global scale. In particular, we present a novel weighted graph representation that encodes coupled author-paper networks as a weighted co-authorship graph. This weighted graph representation is applied to a dataset that captures the emergence of a new field of science and comprises 614 articles published by 1036 unique authors between 1974 and 2004. To characterize the properties and evolution of this field, we first use four different measures of centrality to identify the impact of authors. A global statistical analysis is performed to characterize the distribution of paper production and paper citations and its correlation with the co-authorship team size. The size of co-authorship clusters over time is examined. Finally, a novel local, author-centered measure based on entropy is applied to determine the global evolution of the field and the identification of the contribution of a single author's impact across all of its co-authorship relations. A visualization of the growth of the weighted co-author network, and the results obtained from the statistical analysis indicate a drift toward a more cooperative, global collaboration process as the main drive in the production of scientific knowledge. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity 10: 57–67, 2005 This article reports findings from a study of the geographic distribution of foreign authors in the Journal of American Society for Information Science & Technology (JASIST) and Journal of Documentation (JDoc). Bibliographic data about foreign authors and their geographic locations from a 50-year publication period (1950-1999) are analyzed per 5-year period for both JASIST and JDoc. The distribution of foreign authors by geographic locations was analyzed for the overall trends in JASIST and JDoc. UK and Canadian authors are the most frequent foreign authors in JASIST. Authors from the United States and Canada are the most frequent foreign authors in JDoc. The top 10 geographic locations with highest number of foreign authors and the top 10 most productive foreign authors were also identified and compared for their characteristics and trends. As part of the celebration of twenty-five years of ACM SIGIR conferences we performed a content analysis of all papers published in the proceedings of SIGIR conferences, including those from 2002. From this we determined, using information retrieval approaches of course, which topics had come and gone over the last two and a half decades, and which topics are currently "hot". We also performed a co-authorship analysis among authors of the 853 SIGIR conference papers to determine which author is the most "central" in terms of a co-authorship graph and is our equivalent of Paul Erdos in Mathematics. In the first section we report on the content analysis, leading to our prediction as to the most topical paper likely to appear at SIGIR2003. In the second section we present details of our co-authorship analysis, revealing who is the "Christopher Lee" of SIGIR, and in the final section we give pointers to where readers who are SIGIR conference paper authors may find details of where they fit into the coauthorship graph. In the past several years studies have started to appear comparing the accuracies of various science mapping approaches. These studies primarily compare the cluster solutions resulting from different similarity approaches, and give varying results. In this study we compare the accuracies of cluster solutions of a large corpus of 2,153,769 recent articles from the biomedical literature (2004–2008) using four similarity approaches: co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, direct citation, and a bibliographic coupling-based citation-text hybrid approach. Each of the four approaches can be considered a way to represent the research front in biomedicine, and each is able to successfully cluster over 92p of the corpus. Accuracies are compared using two metrics—within-cluster textual coherence as defined by the Jensen-Shannon divergence, and a concentration measure based on the grant-to-article linkages indexed in MEDLINE. Of the three pure citation-based approaches, bibliographic coupling slightly outperforms co-citation analysis using both accuracy measures; direct citation is the least accurate mapping approach by far. The hybrid approach improves upon the bibliographic coupling results in all respects. We consider the results of this study to be robust given the very large size of the corpus, and the specificity of the accuracy measures used. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. How many scholarly research articles are there in existence? Journal articles first appeared in 1665, and the cumulative total is estimated here to have passed 50 million in 2009. This sum was arrived at based on published figures for global annual output for 2006, and analyses of annual output and growth rates published in the last decade. We propose a new unsupervised learning technique for extracting information from large text collections. We model documents as if they were generated by a two-stage stochastic process. Each author is represented by a probability distribution over topics, and each topic is represented as a probability distribution over words for that topic. The words in a multi-author paper are assumed to be the result of a mixture of each authors' topic mixture. The topic-word and author-topic distributions are learned from data in an unsupervised manner using a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. We apply the methodology to a large corpus of 160,000 abstracts and 85,000 authors from the well-known CiteSeer digital library, and learn a model with 300 topics. We discuss in detail the interpretation of the results discovered by the system including specific topic and author models, ranking of authors by topic and topics by author, significant trends in the computer science literature between 1990 and 2002, parsing of abstracts by topics and authors and detection of unusual papers by specific authors. An online query interface to the model is also discussed that allows interactive exploration of author-topic models for corpora such as CiteSeer. The paper attempts to provide an alternative method for measuring the importance of scientific papers based on the Google's PageRank. The method is a meaningful extension of the common integer counting of citations and is then experimented for bringing PageRank to the citation analysis in a large citation network. It offers a more integrated picture of the publications' influence in a specific field. We firstly calculate the PageRanks of scientific papers. The distributional characteristics and comparison with the traditionally used number of citations are then analyzed in detail. Furthermore, the PageRank is implemented in the evaluation of research influence for several countries in the field of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology during the time period of 2000-2005. Finally, some advantages of bringing PageRank to the citation analysis are concluded. The sheer volume of scholarly publications available online significantly challenges how scholars retrieve the new information available and locate the candidate reference papers. While classical text retrieval and pseudo relevance feedback (PRF) algorithms can assist scholars in accessing needed publications, in this study, we propose an innovative publication ranking method with PRF by leveraging a number of meta-paths on the heterogeneous bibliographic graph. Different meta-paths on the graph address different ranking hypotheses, whereas the pseudo-relevant papers (from the retrieval results) are used as the seed nodes on the graph. Meanwhile, unlike prior studies, we propose "restricted meta-path" facilitated by a new context-rich heterogeneous network extracted from full-text publication content along with citation context. By using learning-to-rank, we integrate 18 different meta-path-based ranking features to derive the final ranking scores for candidate cited papers. Experimental results with ACM full-text corpus show that meta-path-based ranking with PRF on the new graph significantly (p We present insights from a bibliometric analysis and scientific paper publication mining of 551 papers in Requirements Engineering (RE) series of conference (11 years from 2005 to 2015). We study cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of RE re- search by analyzing the cited disciplines in the reference section of each paper. We apply topic modeling on a corpus consisting of 551 abstracts and extract topics as frequently co-occurring and connected terms. We use topic modeling to study the structure and composition of RE research and analyze popular topics in industry as well as research track. Co-authorship in papers is an indicator of collaboration and interaction between scientists as well as institutions and we analyze co-authorship data to in- vestigate university-industry collaboration, internal and external collaborations. We present results on the distribution of the num- ber of co-authors in each paper as well as distribution of authors across world regions. We present our analysis on the public or proprietary dataset as well as the domain of the dataset used in studies published in Requirements Engineering (RE) series of conferences. Many studies on coauthorship networks focus on network topology and network statistical mechanics. This article takes a different approach by studying micro-level network properties with the aim of applying centrality measures to impact analysis. Using coauthorship data from 16 journals in the field of library and information science (LIS) with a time span of 20 years (1988–2007), we construct an evolving coauthorship network and calculate four centrality measures (closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and PageRank) for authors in this network. We find that the four centrality measures are significantly correlated with citation counts. We also discuss the usability of centrality measures in author ranking and suggest that centrality measures can be useful indicators for impact analysis. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. When browsing a digital library of research papers, it is natural to ask which authors are most influential in a particular topic. We present a probabilistic model that ranks authors based on their influence in particular areas of scientific research. This model combines several sources of information: citation information between documents as represented by PageRank scores, authorship data gathered through automatic information extraction, and the words in paper abstracts. We compare the performance of a topic model versus a smoothed language model by assessing the number of major award winners in the resulting ranked list of researchers. We examine the effect of modeling a researcher's past works in recommending scholarly papers to the researcher. Our hypothesis is that an author's published works constitute a clean signal of the latent interests of a researcher. A key part of our model is to enhance the profile derived directly from past works with information coming from the past works' referenced papers as well as papers that cite the work. In our experiments, we differentiate between junior researchers that have only published one paper and senior researchers that have multiple publications. We show that filtering these sources of information is advantageous -- when we additionally prune noisy citations, referenced papers and publication history, we achieve statistically significant higher levels of recommendation accuracy.