35 years and 160,000 articles: A bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology

Neff, Mark W.; Corley, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2099-3

Cited by 137 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite certain shortcomings, objections and caveats (Seglen, 1997;Campbell, 2008;Reinstein et al, 2011), citations and citation-related indicators are regularly applied to assess the scientific impact of journals (Garfield, 1972), strengths of research groups (Schubert et al, 1989) and performance of individual scientists (Hirsch, 2005). Citations are also utilized together with other criteria to determine research priorities (Neff and Corley, 2009), allocate funding, and decide appointments, promotions and tenures (Reed, 1995;Ball, 2007). The main problem with using citations for evaluations is a large difference in the average number of citations received by papers in different research fields (Seglen, 1997;Iglesias and Pecharromán, 2007;Radicchi et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of bibliometric indicators to determine citation bias

Šimko

2015

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citations of research papers and citation-related indicators are frequently used factors in determining research priorities, allocating funding, and deciding appointments, promotions and tenures. The main problem with using citations for a variety of evaluations is a substantial difference in the average number of citations received by papers in different research fields and subfields. A large number of species are subjects of biological research, but the distributions of their citations have not been studied in detail. The key objective of the present work was to determine whether the choice of experimental subjects influence bias in citations. A case study was performed on papers from 108 plant species and five research fields. Funnel plot analyses and computer simulations identified species-related citation bias within all research fields. Relationships between bibliometric indicators imply that species with a fast growing number of publications in recent years (for example, new model organisms) generally have a higher average number of citations per paper than is the overall mean for the research field. In contrast, the average number of citations received by the five most prominent papers of the species was strongly correlated with the total number of published papers from laboratories working with the species. The current study indicates that despite the high frequency of cross-species citations, citations of species show a pattern similar to separate subfields. Although these analyses were performed on plant research papers, the findings have relevance for other areas of research where experimental subjects tend to form separate subfields. To reliably compare citations across subfields, a new type of bibliometric indicator is needed. In the meantime committees evaluating quality of research should take into consideration that citations of papers within a research field might be biased due to the experimental subjects used in the studies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of bibliometric indicators to determine citation bias

Šimko

2015

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dobbertin and Nobis (2010) reported a similar trend with article title lengths getting longer at a rate of 0.8% per year from a sample of six scientific forestry journals analyzed for the period 1979 to 2008. The phenomenon of longer titles in the scientific journals was also observed in the scholarly ecology literature between 1970 and 2005 (Neff and Corley 2009). The increased complexity of language in scientific journals is not the theme of this paper but can serve as a baseline for comparison with the forest practitioner journals.…”

Section: Trends In Article Title Lengthsmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…The longer titles may simply represent a maturing of a field of study. The integration of traditional forest research topics with newer fields not present in the past such as DNA analysis or climate change may lead to longer titles to differentiate the diversity of the topic (Neff and Corley 2009).…”

Section: Is It Language Creep or The New Normal Communication?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Creep: Is the language in forest practitioner journals getting more complicated?

D’EonSteve¹

2012

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language CreepCommunicating innovation and research results to operational managers, practitioners, and end users is one of the most important activities a forest researcher does. New knowledge is of little value to society if it is not put into practice. Researchers publish their results in scientific and applied journals as well as present their results at conferences, symposiums, workshops, and field days with the goal of communicating what they have found out and how it is a better way of doing something. When the audience is other researchers their common language does not impede the flow of information. When the audience is practitioners or operational managers, researchers should use the language of their audience to communicate effectively.Practitioner journals are published to provide information Language Creep: Is the language in forest practitioner journals getting more complicated?by Steve D'Eon 1 ABSTRACTAn examination of the length of titles for articles in scientific and practitioner forestry journals found that titles have become longer in the 35-year period from 1977 to present. The average title length in practitioner journals is approaching that of the scientific journals sampled. In comparison, titles of oral presentations targeted to practitioners have remained short. Using title length as an indicator of language there is a disjoint between oral presentations of research developments to practitioners and journal articles for the same audience. A common language is essential for effective knowledge exchange between researcher and practitioner for the new developments to be understood and applied in the correct context. Practitioner journals play an important role in knowledge exchange. Practitioner journal authors, reviewers, and editors should be leery of some potential factors impeding communication between researchers and practitioners in this media.

show abstract

“…There is no doubt that individual members continued to work and publish with reference to human ecology (e.g., Paul Ehrlich and Garrett Hardin; see Borden, this volume), but from the early 1960s, it ceased to be a term that ESA officially acknowledged. It is noteworthy that ecology itself was at this time fragmenting into numerous sub-disciplines with little agreement concerning the important and unifying themes across ecology (Neff & Corley, 2009). Such fragmentation would not sit well with the synthetic nature of human ecology.…”

Section: A Brief History Of Human Ecology Within the Ecological Sociementioning

confidence: 99%

A Brief History of Human Ecology within the Ecological Society of America and Speculation on Future Direction

Dyball¹

2017

HER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

35 years and 160,000 articles: A bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology

Cited by 137 publications

References 33 publications

Analysis of bibliometric indicators to determine citation bias

Analysis of bibliometric indicators to determine citation bias

Language Creep: Is the language in forest practitioner journals getting more complicated?

A Brief History of Human Ecology within the Ecological Society of America and Speculation on Future Direction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About