[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamist/v52y2001i9p701-713.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of publications and citations from a geophysics research institute

Author

Listed:
  • Cliff Frohlich
  • Lynn Resler
Abstract
We here perform an analysis of all 1128 publications produced by scientists during their employment at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics, a geophysical research laboratory founded in 1972 that currently employs 23 Ph.D.‐level scientists. We thus assess research performance using as bibliometric indicators such statistics as publications per year, citations per paper, and cited half‐lives. To characterize the research style of individual scientists and to obtain insight into the origin of certain publication‐counting discrepancies, we classified the 1128 publications into four categories that differed significantly with respect to statistics such as lifetime citation rates, fraction of papers never‐cited after 10 years, and cited half‐life. The categories were: mainstream (prestige journal) publications—32.6 lifetime cit/pap, 2.4% never cited, and 6.9 year half‐life; archival (other refereed)—12.0 lifetime cit/pap. 21.5% never cited, and 9.5 years half‐life; articles published as proceedings of conferences—5.4 lifetime cit/pap, 26.6% never cited, and 5.4 years half‐life; and “other” publications (news articles, book reviews, etc.)—4.2 lifetime cit/pap, 57.1% never cited, and 1.9 years half‐life. Because determining cited half‐lives is highly similar to a well‐studied phenomenon in earthquake seismology, which was familiar to us, we thoroughly evaluate five different methods for determining the cited half‐life and discuss the robustness and limitations of the various methods. Unfortunately, even when data are numerous the various methods often obtain very different values for the half‐life. Our preferred method determines half‐life from the ratio of citations appearing in back‐to‐back 5‐year periods. We also evaluate the reliability of the citation count data used for these kinds of analysis and conclude that citation count data are often imprecise. All observations suggest that reported differences in cited half‐lives must be quite large to be significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Cliff Frohlich & Lynn Resler, 2001. "Analysis of publications and citations from a geophysics research institute," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(9), pages 701-713.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:52:y:2001:i:9:p:701-713
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.1121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1121
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.1121?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Pham, Tho & Talavera, Oleksandr, 2021. "Conference presentations and academic publishing," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 228-254.
    2. Copiello, Sergio, 2019. "Peer and neighborhood effects: Citation analysis using a spatial autoregressive model and pseudo-spatial data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 238-254.
    3. Johannes W. Fedderke, 2012. "The Objectivity of National Research Foundation Peer Review Based Ratings in South Africa," Working Papers 300, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    4. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2010. "Web of Science with the Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes: the case of computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(3), pages 809-824, June.
    5. B. S. Kademani & Vijai Kumar & Ganesh Surwase & Anil Sagar & Lalit Mohan & Anil Kumar & C. R. Gaderao, 2007. "Research and citation impact of publications by the Chemistry Division at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 25-57, April.
    6. Zhang, Lin & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2012. "Proceeding papers in journals versus the “regular” journal publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 88-96.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:52:y:2001:i:9:p:701-713. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.