Re: Checking scientist's articles
- From: Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 02:11:42 +0100
In message <1180740916.843720.72710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Glenn <GlennSheldon@xxxxxxx> writes
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 >> > > >> >
>> > > >> >as Guillermo Gonzalez, Hector Avalos (reportedly on the tenure
>> > > >> >committee), John Lajoie (a recently tenured associate >> > > >> >
>> > > >> >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 >> > > >> >
>> > > >> >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.
However, I found the APS Journals both with the search facility at the URL you give, and also in the master journal list (is that the list you browsed?) at http://scientific.thomson.com/mjl/
The title word search appears to work with single words only. If you search for "Physical" you should find them. It is also not surprising that you don't get any results from the full journal title search when you don't use the full journal title; if you had searched for "Physical Review B" you should have found it.
The title word search appears not to work with multiple words - if you search for "Physical" you'll find them
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.
Even leaving everything in, he still shows an index and normalized
>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?)
--
index of 1 after 2005 (even with nothing taken out). He's definitely
"slacked-off".
2001 - 6 papers
2002 - 3 papers
2003 - 3 papers
2004 - 4 papers
2005 - 10 papers
2006 - 5 papers
That doesn't look like slacking off to me.
Why do you think it is, when the APS and arxiv articles are removed,
I hope you don't mean that you've removed the Physical Review and Physical Review Letters articles.
you see mostly 0 cited articles, no cited articles as sole author, 7I'm not making sense of your figures. I see, from Google Scholar, 2003 articles with 77 and 18 citations, a 2002 article with 57 citations, and a 2005 article with 26 citations. (And the first of these isn't an APS journal.)
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?
ADS gives 61 citations for the first of those articles.
--
alias Ernest Major
.
- References:
- Checking scientist's articles
- From: Glenn
- Re: Checking scientist's articles
- From: r norman
- Re: Checking scientist's articles
- From: Glenn
- Re: Checking scientist's articles
- From: Mark VandeWettering
- Re: Checking scientist's articles
- From: Glenn
- Re: Checking scientist's articles
- From: ErikW
- Re: Checking scientist's articles
- From: Glenn
- Re: Checking scientist's articles
- From: Ernest Major
- Re: Checking scientist's articles
- From: Glenn
- Checking scientist's articles
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Coulter disses Bush. No, really.
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Coulter disses Bush. No, really.
- Previous by thread: Re: Checking scientist's articles
- Next by thread: Re: Checking scientist's articles
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
