Citation Flows in the Zones of Influence of Scientific

Lancho-Barrantes, Bárbara S., Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Zaida and De-Moya-Anegón, Félix Citation Flows in the Zones of Influence of Scientific. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, vol. 63, n. 3, pp. 481-489. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of jasist_citation_flow_collaboration1.pdf]
Preview
 PDF
jasist_citation_flow_collaboration1.pdf
Download (31kB) | Preview

English abstract

Domestic citation to papers from the same country and the greater citation impact of documents involving international collaboration are two phenomena that have been extensively studied and contrasted. Here, however, we showthat it is not somuch a national bias,but that papers have a greater impact on their immediate environments, an impact that is diluted as that environment grows. For this reason, the greatest biases are observed in countries with a limited production. Papers that involve international collaboration have a greater impact in general, on the one hand, because they have multiple “immediate environments,” and on the other because of their greater quality or prestige. In short, one can say that science knows no frontiers. Certainly there is a greater impact on the authors’ immediate environment, but this does not necessarily have to coincide with their national environments, which fade in importance as the collaborative environment expands.

Spanish abstract

Tanto la citación hacia la producción nacional dentro de un país como el mayor impacto de los documentos con colaboración internacional son fenómenos ampliamente estudiados y contrastados. Sin embargo aquí mostramos que no hay sesgo nacional, sino que los artículos tienen una mayor influencia en entornos cercanos. Influencia que se va diluyendo a medida que aumenta el entorno. Por esta razón los mayores sesgos se observan en países con producción limitada. Los trabajos con colaboración internacional presentan una mayor influencia en los distintos entornos. Por una parte esta mayor influencia se deberá a disponer de “varios” entornos cercanos, y por otra, a la mayor calidad o prestigio que se les supone. En definitiva podemos concluir que la ciencia no tiene fronteras. Ciertamente hay una mayor influencia en el entorno cercano de los autores, que no tiene por qué coincidir con los entornos nacionales, que se diluye a medida que se amplía dicho entorno.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Scientific Collaboration, Scopes, Citation analysis,Scientometrics, SCImago Journal Rank
Subjects: A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. > AA. Library and information science as a field.
B. Information use and sociology of information > BA. Use and impact of information.
B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez
Date deposited: 20 Sep 2012
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:23
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/17579

References

Aksnes, D. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DOI: 10.1002/asi

Alcaín, M., & Gálvez, M. (1998). Evolución de las revistas españolas de psicología. Papelesdel Psicólogo, 70, 35–42.

Bandyopadhyay, A.K. (2001). Authorship pattern in different disciplines. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 48(4), 139–147.

Bridgstock, M. (1991). The quality of single and multiple authored papers–An unresolved problem. Scientometrics, 21, 37–48.

Carpintero, H., & Peiró, J. (1983). The significance of the bibliometric methodology to the studies of the history of psychology. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 4(1), 21–32.

Chinchilla, Z., Vargas, B., Hassan, Y., González, A., & Moya, F. (2010).New approach to the visualization of international scientific collaboration. Information Visualization, 9(4), 277–287.

Glänzel, W. (2001). Domestic characteristics in international scientific coauthorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.

Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences: A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies, 1980-1998. Library Trends, 50(3), 461–473.

Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & De Roue, K. (2003). Science from the periphery: Collaboration network and ‘periphery effects’ in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1992–2000. Scientometrics, 57(3), 321–337.

Gómez, I., Fernández, M.T., & Sebastián, J. (1999). Analysis of the structure of international scientific cooperation networks through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 44(3), 441–457.

Hsu, J.W., & Huang, D.W. (2010). Correlation between impact and collaboration. Scientometrics, 86(2), 317–324.

Katz, J., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.

Lancho, B., Guerrero, V., & Moya, F. (2010a). The iceberg hypothesis revisited. Scientometrics, 85(2), 443–461.

Lancho, B., Guerrero,V., &Moya F. (2010b). What lies behind the averages and significance of citation indicators in different disciplines? Journal of Information Science, 36(3), 371–382.

Leimu, R.,&Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the

impact of ecological articles? Bio Science, 55, 438–443.

Lewinson, G., & Cunningham, P. (1991). Bibliometric studies for the evaluation of trans-domestic research. Scientometrics, 21(2), 223–244.

Moed, H., Bruin, R., Nederhof, A., & Tijssen, R. (1991). International scientific co-operation and awareness within the European Community: Problems and perspectives. Scientometrics, 21(3), 291–311.

Moya, F., Chinchilla, Z., Corera, E., González, A., Hassan, Y., & Vargas, B. (2008). Indicadores bibliométricos de la actividad científica española: 2002–2006. Madrid: Fecyt.

Moya, F., Chinchilla, Z.,Vargas, B., Corera, E., Muñoz, F., González, A., & Herrero, V. (2007). Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach. Scientometrics, 73(1), 53–78.

Narin, F., Stevens, K.,&Whitlow, E. (1991). Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citation of multidomestically authored papers. Scientometrics, 21(3), 313–323.

Narin, F., & Whitlow, E. (1990). Measurement of scientific cooperation and coauthorship in CEC-related areas of science. Luxembourg: European Community.

Persson, O., Glanzel,W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values:

The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.

Pichappan, P. (1995). A dual refinement of journal self-citation measures. Scientometrics, 33(1), 13–21.

Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2008). Are international co-publications an indicator for quality of scientific research?. Scientometrics, 74(3), 361–77.

Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009). Do types of collaboration change citation? Collaboration

and citation patterns of South African science publications. Scientometrics, 81(1), 177–193.

Stack, S. (2002). Gender and scholarly productivity: The case of criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(3), 175–182.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS