Re: Checking scientist's articles

On Jun 1, 2:18 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <1180685832.692195.223...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Glenn <GlennShel...@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.

I do exclude duplicates and those only at arxiv. I also excluded the
APS articles, since ADS does not show peer-reviewed citations and the
ISI doesn't list any of APS' journals:
http://www.thomsonscientific.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlsearch.cgi?PC=MASTER

"Physical Review", "American Physical Society" returns no journals
using either "title word" or "full journal title". Browsing the list
itself was done to ensure the journals weren't listed. Other journal
titles were searched to check whether the search feature worked, and
it does.
If the APS articles are left in, he has an overall high index rating.
Left out, he has next to nothing. And those nothings are in the
recognized peer-reviewed journals.


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.

True enough that I could be misled, and it appears sometimes it takes
more effort. In this case it appears pretty straightforward.

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?)
--
Even leaving everything in, he still shows an index and normalized
index of 1 after 2005 (even with nothing taken out). He's definitely
"slacked-off".
Why do you think it is, when the APS and arxiv articles are removed,
you see mostly 0 cited articles, no cited articles as sole author, 7
article with 1 cite, 3 articles with 2 cites, 1 with 5, 1 with 6, 1
with 13 in 2001, and 2 with 23 in 1996? Using only the APS articles as
I said gives him an h = 13 and norm = 8, and without them he gets a 1
and 1. Have physicists quit the journal game and gone to open access?
If so, why does he continue to publish in some of the traditional
journals, and why does he not get any citations in them, when he gets
good citation count in the ones that ISI do not list, and ADS doesn't
show citations for?

.

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: 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: Checking scientists articles
    ... 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. ... phys. ... lett. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • [ot] Articles
    ... Can someone send me this articles? ... S. Mandelstam, Phys. ... Lett. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)