On the Possibilities of Evaluating Properties of Scientific Documents on the Basis of their Citations Count (or again: What Property is Reflected by Citations Count par excellence, after all?). Part 1: Value

Journal of Data and Information Science

2020

AbstractPurposeThis work aims to consider the role and some of the 42-year history of the discipline impact factor (DIF) in evaluation of serial publications. Also, the original “symmetric” indicator called the “discipline susceptibility factor” is to be presented.Design/methodology/approachIn accordance with the purpose of the work, the methods are analytical interpretation of the scientific literature related to this problem as well as speculative explanations. The information base of the research is bibliometric publications dealing with impact, impact factor, discipline impact factor, and discipline susceptibility factor.FindingsExamples of the DIF application and modification of the indicator are given. It is shown why research and university libraries need to use the DIF to evaluate serials in conditions of scarce funding for subscription to serial publications, even if open access is available. The role of the DIF for evaluating journals by authors of scientific papers when choosing a good and right journal for submitting a paper is also briefly discussed. An original indicator “symmetrical” to the DIF (the “discipline susceptibility factor”) and its differences from the DIF in terms of content and purpose of evaluation are also briefly presented.Research limitationsThe selection of publications for the information base of the research did not include those in which the DIF was only mentioned, used partially or not for its original purpose. Restrictions on the length of the article to be submitted in this special issue of the JDIS also caused exclusion even a number of completely relevant publications. Consideration of the DIF is not placed in the context of describing other derivatives from the Garfield impact factor.Practical implicationsAn underrated bibliometric indicator, viz. the discipline impact factor is being promoted for the practical application. An original indicator “symmetrical” to DIF has been proposed in order of searching serial publications representing the external research fields that might fit for potential applications of the results of scientific activities obtained within the framework of the specific research field represented by the cited specialized journals. Both can be useful in research and university libraries in their endeavors to improve scientific information services. Also, both can be used for evaluating journals by authors of scientific papers when choosing a journal to submit a paper.Originality/valueThe article substantiates the need to evaluate scientific serial publications in library activities—even in conditions of access to huge and convenient databases (subscription packages) and open access to a large number of serial publications. It gives a mini-survey of the history of one of the methods of such evaluation, and offers an original method for evaluating scientific serial publications.

Section: Research Papermentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Research Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

Discipline Impact Factor: Some of Its History, Some of the Author's Experience of Its Application, the Continuing Reasons for Its Use and… Next Beyond

Journal of Data and Information Science

2020

“…85-87) announced that it is possible that cited documents were "used but not valuable". But within the framework of the concept of value (Lazarev, 2017(Lazarev, , 2019a(Lazarev, , 2019b(Lazarev, , 2019c) (which was not the subject to any revision attempts by Krulev) the only comment to this statement is possible: it just never happens. It just never happens because in information science, the concept of value is defined as "a property of information determined by its suitability for practical use in various areas of purposeful human activity to achieve a certain goal" (Dictionary…, p. 464), so the use itself determines value of the used documents.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reasons for this interference, by the way, confirm the effectiveness of the "cited because used" principle: after all, an editor who requires English-language citations or citations to his own journal is concerned that its country (region) and its journal look better in terms of scientometric evaluation: he fakes the values which, if being natural, would indicate the demand for publications of a particular region and journal. At the same time, when submitting the initial manuscript, the author still cites what he used (Lazarev, 2017(Lazarev, , 2019a(Lazarev, , 2019b(Lazarev, , 2019c, and false citations are added to the list (or even replace part of the original list) not by his will or choice. However, the authors may not accept such ultimatums-although, since this practice exists, it is not always easy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On New Exotic Attempts to Question the Relationship Between Citedness Figures and the Use / Value of Cited Scientific Documents

2021

ULNSD

The objective of the present paper was to analyze a number of concepts related to the scientometric method "citation index". Some experts still interpret “negative citations” and “disproportionately large share of self-citations” as “shortcomings” of the “citation index” scientometric method. In the author’s opinion, the reason is an indelible belief in the “normative theory of citation”, which implies a conscious choice of citations, a conscientious selection of the best quality works for the reference-lists, and a “desire to return the intellectual debt” to the cited authors. But there are also new attempts to question the adequacy of the “citation index” method. For example, one of the publications of the year 2020 questions the causal relationship between the citations to the scientific documents and their use, and between their use and their value; the reason why this fundamental pattern is called into question is mainly based on the actions of some people who do not meet ethical standards and may be arbitrarily directed against its manifestation. The mentioned paper claims, in particular, that very common are the following phenomena: deliberate refusal to use the necessary scientific documents; refusal to cite the documents used (including plagiarism and restraint from citing for technical reasons); practice of evaluating little-known and inaccessible documentary sources as not valuable enough (value is confused with quality in this case); fake citing to unread works. The present article refutes the interpretation of these phenomena as indicating the absence of the considered causal relationship and tries to demonstrate that, on the contrary, some of them are involuntary confirmation of the adequacy of the “citation index” method.

Bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics. Part 4. Object

Science Management: Theory and Practice

2022

A simplified and sometimes vulgar understanding of the role of scientometrics in the management of science makes it necessary to better understand its essential characteristics. In this paper, scientometrics is considered in interrelations with bibliometrics and informetrics that are the fields of knowledge closest to it. In relation to the three mentioned “metrics”, this part discusses the representation of their methods. Consideration of the methodological “arsenal” of the three “metrics” made us possible to come to the conclusion that there are no such specific methods in any of them, the presence of which would be a distinctive feature of exactly and exclusively this “metrics”. The opinion is expressed that the high prevalenceof some methodological component in any of the “metrics”, the use of general scientific methods in them and the use of econometrics and sociometrics techniques in scientometric research cannot be treated as distinguishing features of this or that “metrics”, as the principle of delimitation of one “metrics” from another. As it follows from the very term “metrics”, the methods of bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics are methods of quantitative research. The emergence of new “metrics” methods was characteristic of the entire twentieth century, and, of course, there is no reason to believe that the list of these methods known today is final, complete.