Re: Checking scientist's articles

In message <1180685832.692195.223980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Glenn <GlennSheldon@xxxxxxx> writes
On Jun 1, 1:04 am, ErikW <bryoph...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:09 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





> On May 31, 11:00 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > On 2007-06-01, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > On May 31, 3:57 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> On 31 May 2007 15:42:51 -0700, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > >> >As a result of Guillermo Gonzalez' denial of tenure, I found a
> > >> >software program that calculates articles that have been (and not
> > >> >been) cited by others, similar to the "ISI Web of Knowledge" or "Web
> > >> >of Science" that is not available for free use.

> > >> >The program makes it possible to get these "indexes" for people such
> > >> >as Guillermo Gonzalez, Hector Avalos (reportedly on the tenure
> > >> >committee), John Lajoie (a recently tenured associate proff also at
> > >> >Iowa) and others at Iowa State, PZ Myers and other > > >> >activists...for all
> > >> >stages of their careers, tenured or not.
> > >> >It is often necessary to filter out similar names, or to find the
> > >> >right name to search. But results appear to closely match the ADS
> > >> >database, for physics and astronomy of course.
> > >> >It enables one to see how many papers a person has published, where
> > >> >they were published, how many citations were made to the > > >> >articles (and
> > >> >clicking brings up the articles themselves, in google scholar, with
> > >> >the articles that cited the originals). It also allows one to see how
> > >> >many authors were on a paper, whether for instance the primary author
> > >> >was the sole author.

> > >> >The program downloaded quickly with DSL, and runs without problem.

> > >> >Here's the page to download from
> > >> >http://www.harzing.com/resources.htm#/pop.htm

> > >> >It's a real eye opener.

> > >> I have not looked at the citation indexing in this case so I can't
> > >> comment on the details of that particular situation. However I do
> > >> know that citations must be interpreted, not merely counted. One
> > >> paper making an outrageous claim, for example, may be highly
> > >> criticized by many others and thus garner a high citation index
> > >> "score". Also there are highly inbred groups which only cite each
> > >> others work, but do so with high frequency.

> > > I've seen these "inbred groups" as you call them. It appears that some
> > > programs filter some of that out of the "refereed citations", such as
> > > ADS, although I haven't seen the documentation, looking at the cite
> > > count and counting the actual sites vary when an author cites himself
> > > and so on. I don't know what to think about your claim of interpreting
> > > citations for the reason you give, however. Peer-reviewed articles
> > > don't go away because someone "criticized" them. Research or
> > > conclusions can be shown to be incorrect, yes. But that shouldn't mean
> > > those citations shouldn't be counted.

> > I'd admonish you not to be silly, but I forgot for a second to whom I
> > was speaking. Work which draws incorrect, unjustified or inaccurate
> > conclusions can be thought provoking, but most of the time they > >are simply
> > incorrect, unjustified and inaccurate. You seem to be saying > >that someone
> > who has lots of ideas is worthy of tenure, whether the ideas themselves
> > turn out to be reasonable or not.

> I'd say you were right, stinky one. Don't follow the rules, meet in
> secret, don't disclose your reasons...all good tricks.

> Hows this for tricks?

>http://www.las.iastate.edu/newnews/promotions07.shtml

> Joerg Schmalian was promoted this year to full professor.

> Peer reviewed scientist?

> Papers: 14 Cites/paper: 0.00 h-index: 0 AWCR: >0.00
> Citations: 0 Cites/author: 0.00 g-index: 0 >AW-index: 0.00
> Years: 8 Papers/author: 5.62 hc-index: 0 AWCRpA: >0.00
> Cites/year: 0.00 Authors/paper: 2.86 hI-index: 0.00
> hI,norm: 0

> Last 6 or 7 years?

> Papers: 10 Cites/paper: 0.00 h-index: 0 AWCR: >0.00
> Citations: 0 Cites/author: 0.00 g-index: 0 >AW-index: 0.00
> Years: 5 Papers/author: 4.12 hc-index: 0 AWCRpA: >0.00
> Cites/year: 0.00 Authors/paper: 2.90 hI-index: 0.00
> hI,norm: 0

> He's certainly productive.

There's something wrong with your program. A search for papers in
physics journals by J Schmalian in WoS give 15 papers since 2005, all
but two cited.-

Not the program, I didn't include arxiv articles. I don't for anyone,
they aren't peer reviewed.

If I understand your post correctly, you are giving a figure of 10 papers in the "last 6 or 7 years". If that is the case something appears to have gone wrong somewhere in the selection of papers.

If you excluded articles because there was a copy at arXiv that would be an error; a considerable proportion of Physics papers end up with copies at arXiv. You should only excluded articles *only* at arXiv.

You could also be misled by Google coming up with arXiv as a source, when the paper is published in a journal; it would be necessary to check the all versions links.

I've read where WoS made allowance for special searches that include
at least some arxiv articles.


If I've selected and counted correctly I found 32 papers, 1 book and 1 invited chapter from 2001-2006. I've admitted material only in arXiv, and I've admitted stuff from the American Physical Society meetings. The figure offered you of 15 papers since 2005 (inclusive) is confirmed.

Advances in Physics 52(3): 119-218 (2003)
Chem. phys. lett. 359(1-2): 1-7 (2002)
Europhys. Lett. 55: 369-375 (2001)
Europhys. Lett. 72: 1052-1053 (2005)
Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena (2001)
MRS Bulletin 30(6) (2005)
Nature Physics 2(3): 138-143 (2006)
Nature Physics 2: 268-274 (2006)
Physica B: Physics of Condensed Matter 378: 754-755 (2006)
Phys. Rev. B 63: 180510 (2001)
Phys. Rev. B 64: 174203 (2001)
Phys. Rev. B 66: 174433 (2002)
Phys. Rev. B 68: 134203 (2003)
Phys. Rev. B 70: 024207 (2004)
Phys. Rev. B 70: 235117 (2004)
Phys. Rev. B 72: 045438 (2005)
Phys. Rev. B 72: 174520 (2005)
Phys. Rev. B 72: 100201(R) (2005)
Phys. Rev. B 74, 104206 (2006)
Phys. Rev. E 69: 010501(R) (2004)
Phys. Rev. E 72: 011806 (2005)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3456 (2001)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167202 (2001)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89: 177002 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90: 216106 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93: 036405 (2004)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 94: 127003 (2005)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 94: 157003 (2005)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 95: 237206 (2005)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 95: 176408 (2005)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 97: 185701 (2006)

The Physics of Conventional and Unconventional Superconductors (book?)
The Physics of Superconductors, Vol I, Conventional and High-Tc
Superconductors (invited chapter?)
--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Light Speed "C"
    ... > Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College entitled Einstein’s Relativity ... Modern Physics for Non Scientist. ... Phys. ... Rev. Lett. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Checking scientists articles
    ... >> physics journals by J Schmalian in WoS give 15 papers since 2005, ... ISI doesn't list any of APS' journals: ... phys. ... lett. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Checking scientists articles
    ... software program that calculates articles that have been (and not ... for physics and astronomy of course. ... phys. ... lett. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
    ... Phys. ... Rev. Lett. ... Experimental constraints on General Relativity ... Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... >> be answering is not about dark matter, but about virtual particles and ... Phys. ... Rev. Lett. ... Experimental constraints on General Relativity ...
    (sci.physics.particle)