Tibor Braun

A Hirsch-type index for journals

SummaryWe suggest that a h-type index - equal to h if you have published h papers, each of which has at least h citations - would be a useful supplement to journal impact factors.

Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact

Cross-field comparison ofscientometric indicators1 is severely hindered by the differences in publication and citation habits of science fields. However, relating publication and citation indicators to proper field-specific reference standards,relative indicators can be built, which may prove rather useful in the comparative assessment of scientists, groups, institutions or countries. The use ofrelational charts in displaying the indicators broadens the scope of such assessments. Relative indicators of chemistry research in 25 countries are presented as an illustrative example.

Nanoscience and nanotecnology on the balance

A number of advantages of nanostructured materials over bulk materials and their potential applications in many scientific and technological fields have been revealed in recent years. To find out the main growth and trends of this exciting new scienence and technology fields the growth rate of the nano-prefixed terms in the title of journal papers has been measured. It has been shown that the investigations dealing with graphite nanotubes represent kinetically the most active field of research in the nanosciences.

International collaboration in the sciences 1981–1985

In a comprehensive study of scientific collaboration, Beaver and Rosen 1 have convincingly shown on the example of the 19th century French scientific community that collaborative scientific research, formally acknowledged by co-authorship of scientific apers, originated, developed, and continues to be practiced as a response to the professionalization of science. An extension to this type of inquiries to international collaboration has been made by Frame and Carpenter 2 in a study of world-wide coauthorship. International co-authorship data for the major countries are regularly reported also in NSFs renowned Science Indicators (more recently, Science & Engineering Indicators) series. 3 More recent research on the same topic came from the French LEPI (Laboratoire et de Prospective Internationales) as part of its MEV (Micro-Evaluation) programme 4 and from Moed and Tijssen 5-6 in exploratory case studies of international Dutch collaboration. As a sequel to the above-mentioned studies, in the present flash co-authorship data of science journal papers published in the 1981-1985 period are compiled and analysed. A similar investigation is focussed on international collaboration in analytical chemistry. 7

Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators

Comparative assessment of scientometric indicators is greatly hindered by the different standards valid in different science fields and subfields. Indicators concerning to different fields can be compared only after first gauging them against a properly chosen reference standard, and their relative standing can then be compared. Methods of selecting reference standards and scaling procedures are surveyed in this study, and examples are given to their practical application.

Publication and cooperation patterns of the authors of neuroscience journals

Characteristics of publication activity and co-authorship in neurosciences are analysed. The present study aims at describing the common, as well as the distinguishing features of productivity and co-publication patterns of four types of authors. For this purpose, authors are classified according to their anterior and posterior records. The role of the author types in the process of documented scientific communication, the relation between co-authorship and publication activity, as well as collaboration between the four types is studied.

The scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 science areas, 1989–1993. Part I. All fields combined, mathematics, engineering, chemistry and physics

The present aproach attempts some news approaches to the presentation of bibliometric macro-level indicators

Subject field characteristic citation scores and scales for assessing research performance

The total publication output of a given subject field can be arranged into groups according to its citation distribution.Characteristic scores are defined independently of any preconceived rule or law. The scores were used to group papers into five categories of citedness. Comparative assessments of reserach performance can be based on these citation scores.

A relational charting approach to the world of basic research in twelve science fields at the end of the second millennium

Etude bibliometrique de la production scientifique des 32 pays les plus prolifiques dans 12 domaines pour les annees 1990 a 1998 a partir des donnees du SCI (Science Citation Index)

World Flash on Basic Research

SummaryAn incomplete bibliography (or, more generally, an incomplete Information Production Process (IPP)) can be considered as a sample from a complete one. Sampling can be done in the sources or in the items. The simplest sampling technique is the systematic one where every kth source or kth item is taken (alternatively: deleted) (kÎû). In this paper we give a definition of systematic sampling in items and sources in the framework of an IPP in which we have continuous variables. We prove the theorem that in such IPPs we have a Lotkaian size-frequency function (i.e. a decreasing power function) if and only if systematic sampling in sources is the same as systematic sampling in items. In this proof we use the well-known characterization of power functions as scale-free functions.