10th Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics, Informetrics and Research Policy

Time: September 22-23, 2005

Place: Stockholm, Karlavägen 100

Call for papers and presentations

Workshop organizer: Dr Rickard Danell, Inforsk, Umeå university
Local host: Ingrid Pettersson, SCB,Stockholm

The workshop is sponsored by:

Swedish Research Council and Statistics Sweden

Bibliometric researchers in the Nordic countries have arranged annual Nordic workshops on bibliometrics since 1996:

- 1996 in Helsinki
- 1997 in Stockholm
- 1998 in Oslo
- 1999 in Copenhagen
- 2000 in Oulu
- 2001 in Stockholm
- 2002 in Oslo
- 2003 in Aalborg
- 2004 in Turku

The general scope of the workshops is to present recent bibliometric research in the Nordic countries and to create better linkages between the bibliometric research groups and their PhD students.

There are no fees for participating in the Nordic workshops on bibliometrics.

The workshop will start at about 12 on Thursday the 22th of September and end at about 16 on the 23rd. On Thursday evening there will be a dinner at the Ulla Winblad restaurant.

You will have to arrange travel and hotel all by yourself. It may be difficult to find a hotel room in Stockholm, so please book as soon as possible.

All participants are requested to make a presentation of a research paper or a research idea.

Please, let me know if you are coming and also submit a max 200 word abstract on what you would like to present as soon as possible and no later than August 22.

I will continually update the list of presentations on this site!

With best regards

Rickard Danell
Department of Sociology
Umeå university
SE-901 87 Umea
E-mail: Rickard Danell

Preliminary program
Thursday September 22
13.00-13.30 Opening of the workshop and presentation of participants
Rickard Danell
Inforsk, Department of Sociology, Umeå university, Sweden

Methodological questions of subject characteristics in long-term citation analysis.
An informetric study with implication for research evaluation
Wolfgang Glänzel
Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, K.U.Leuven, Belgium
Wolfgang.Glanzel at econ.kuleuven.ac.be

The classical studies of long-term citation impact by Helmut Abt and Eugene Garfield have shown that long observation periods are indispensable for obtaining reliable and stable results on citation processes. From the methodological viewpoint, such analyses are important in studying disciplinary citation impact, ageing-related issues, first-citation and citation-succession processes, the phenomenon of delayed recognition and in identifying highly cited papers. In the present paper all relevant impact and ageing related questions of subject characteristics are studied on basis of a 21-year citation window. All citable papers indexed in the 1980 volume of the Science Citation Index have been selected and assigned to subfields according to the Leuven classification scheme which is based on 12 major fields and 60 subfields in the sciences. Indicator sets including annual and cumulative mean citation rate, mean response time, obsolescence function, regression functions and characteristic scores and scales are used to characterise the citation history of each individual subject. The citation window proved to be sufficient to obtain stable patterns for each of the disciplines. The most important regularities found on basis of the long-term study are summarised and presented here. The value of long-term observation for informetrics is contrasted by serious limitations for possible application in research evaluation. Time series are used to illustrate that scientific communication in several fields has undergone considerable changes during the last two decades. Informetric long-term studies reveal regularities and provide tools that are nevertheless important for evaluative scientometrics, too. The predictive power of models for citation processes, the methodological foundation of finding optimum citation windows for evaluative purposes and the determination of subject-specific scores are only some of those policy-relevant applications.

Science in the Nordic countries – recent trends and developments
Dag W. Aksnes

NIFU STEP - Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Oslo, Norway
dag.w.aksnes at nifustep.no

Based on publication and citation data this presentation gives a broad overview of science in the Nordic countries. It explores some recent trends and developments in the bibliometric macro indicators for the Nordic countries. The different countries are compared to each other in terms of profile and changes. The presentation is based on the bibliometric database National Science Indicators provided by Thomson ISI.

Spiritualised Medicine? A Bibliometric Study of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)
Jenny-Ann Brodin, Rickard Danell
Inforsk, Dept Sociology, Umeå university, Umeå, Sweden
Jenny-Ann.Brodin at soc.umu.se, Rickard.Danell at soc.umu.se

Several studies, both American and European, indicate that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly popular – and frequently used by the general population. There are also indications on that many CAM-therapies is becoming more integrated into conventional medicine. This, however, could be seen as a huge paradox, since most CAM-therapies relies on spiritual and religious assumptions, often at odds with western scientific traditions. The general purpose of this paper is to study the development and establishment of CAM as a scientific field. With help from the Medline database, we will analyze the general publication activity during the period 1966-2003. For example, we will try to map out the content of CAM research, how different subfields of CAM develop, and where/in what journals publications occur.

A comparison between the former EU15 and new EU member countries in terms of quantitative characteristics of publication activities.
Balázs Schlemmer
Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, K.U.Leuven, Belgium
Balazs.Schlemmer at econ.kuleuven.be

At last year's Nordic Workshop in Turku, some subject field related differences (former socialist countries: relative predominance of natural sciences; the common tendency of less then average focus on bio- and lifesciences; and therefore more fragmented and more polarised publication profiles then those of Western Europe or world average) were introduced.
As a continuation of this research, the present work elaborates the comparison further between the former EU15 and new EU member countries in terms of quantitative characteristics of publication activities. Longitudinal analysis based on a 20-year long observation period has been conducted in order to show the situation before, during and after the political/economical transition. Amongst others, bibliometric indicators like publication productivity, citation attractivity, evolution of national citation impact and publication strategy will be investigated and compared, underlining the longstanding and still existing differences in approaches to scientific policies in the recently united Eastern and Western Europe.

19.00-21.00 Dinner at Ulla Winbladhs Restaurang at Djurgården

Friday September 23

One More Time: National Science Indicators and the Nordic Countries
Ulf Sandström and Daniel Wadskog
Swedish Research Council, Stockholm, Sweden
Ulf.Sandstrom at vr.se, Daniel.Wadskog at vr.se

Different methodologies and use of data have produced dissimilar pictures of the performance of the Nordic countries. This simple fact is illustrated by the last two governmental bills from Norway and Sweden. While Denmark has the strongest performance in the Norwegian version (St.meld nr. 20 2004-2005), in the Swedish version Sweden was the nation at the top (prop. 2004/05:80). The debate over method and interpretation has been quite intensive and is discussed in Aksnes dissertation (2005). In this paper we will use the full Web of Science database and the Leiden method with normalized Field Citation Scores (CPP/FCS) on the national level. From a comparison with three other countries and using other indicators (mainly from Geuna 2001) we will also try to explain the pattern of excellence in the Nordic countries.

A bibliometric study of Norway’s and South Africa’s research activities
Antje Klitkou
NIFU STEP - Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Oslo, Norway
antje.klitkou at nifustep.no

We will present a bibliometric study of Norway’s and South Africa’s research activities. We will investigate and compare the publication profiles for Norway and South Africa. We shall analyse levels of activity and impact for the different research fields for both countries. The analysis is based on the database National Science Indicators Standard Edition for 2003 from ISI. For the purpose of our analysis we used both activity and citation indicators from 1999 to 2003. By combining activity and impact index we compared the position of 24 different research fields in comparison to each other – both the level of activity and the level of international impact. The results of the activity and citation index were transformed into standardised indicators. We also intend to look into selected priority areas of scientific collaboration and present a co-authorship analysis. According to the bilateral programme for research co-operation between South Africa and Norway there are eight thematic areas given priority. Furthermore we will give results of an analysis of co-authorship between Norway and South Africa.

Sexism in peer review: Wennerås and Wold revisited
Ulf Sandström and Martin Hällsten
Swedish Research Council & Stockholm University
Ulf.Sandstrom at vr.se, Martin.Hallsten at vr.se

The article in Nature 1997 by Wennerås & Wold is among the ten most cited articles on peer review. "Our study", they said, "strongly suggests that peer reviewers cannot judge scientific merit independent of gender." (Nature p.341). As an argument as to why peer review need to be complemented by bibliometrics van Raan often cites Wennerås & Wold. To a large extent it is taken for granted that the results from this one article are comprehensive. Due to the lack of good empirical data from research councils replications have not been performed (Brouns 2000 is an exception). In this paper we will use a large data set from the Natural Science Research Council in Sweden during the period 1989-1998 to investigate the overall picture of applications and granting procedures. In addition, we will also use more recent data (2004) from the VR Scientific Council for Medicine. Gradings in the peer review of applications will be correlated to results from bibliometric analysis. A sample of 114 applications with 33 women and 81 men is taken from the VRAPS database.

Changing publication pattern and research collaboration of former Soviet Union states
Ülle Must
Archimedes Foundation, Tartu, Estonia
ylle at archimedes.ee
The year 1991 is year of independence not only for three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), but also for other 12 countries which now are involved in the Commonwealth of Independent States (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Republic of Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan) . Since independence most of these countries have passed through several economic and research reforms. The main aim of current paper is to follow differences and common characteristics in publication behavior of these countries. Data, derived from the ISI Web of Science will be used. Two periods will be analyzed: 1980-1985 and 1999-2004. Despite the notable decline in research staff, almost in all countries the numbers of publications have been increased in multiple times (the fastest growth in case of Estonia ­ 16 times). Only Turkmenistan has made several steps back (the number of publications have declined 0, 56 times). In the Soviet Union republics, Russian was used as the “lingua franca”, the language of scientific communication and the language that introduced research results to the world. Among 15 republics only in case of Estonia there was a domination of English journals (66%). Today a 180 degree move from the use of Russian to English in research papers is made. This did not mean that simultaneously there were draconian changes in the traditional collaboration partners. During the period 1980-1985 the circle of international collaboration partners was narrow. In most cases dominated co-authors from CEEC countries (German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, and Poland). At the same time it was symptomatic that the circle of authors inside Soviet Union was not wide either. The most collaboration contacts were held via Russian research centers. During the period 1999-2004 the circle of international collaboration partners is widened considerably. At the same Russian research institutes are still one of the biggest partners in most cases (except Estonia and Latvia). The special theme of investigation will be the survey on research migration, and influence of these factors to the geography of research collaboration. Many changes which took place are explained by global trends (the growth of number of publications, prevalence of English journals), but there are also specific indications which can be explained, knowing the background history and culture of current country.

Who are leading the field?

Olle Persson
Inforsk Dept of Sociology Umeå university, Sweden
Olle.Persson at soc.umu.se

Scientist's papers are cumulated over a long period of time, and citations will continue to grow after the scientist ceased to publish. In many instances we need to indentify the current leaders of a field, having some minimum of papers and citation impact. Based on a download of LIS-papers I will show how the leading authors, in terms of papers and citation impact, vary depending on citing-cited windows chosen.

12.30-13.30 Lunch

Does size matter?
Rickard Danell
Inforsk Dept of Sociology Umeå university, Umeå, Sweden
Rickard.Danell at soc.umu.se

The H-index - a new measure of citation impact
Wolfgang Glänzel and Olle Persson

Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, K.U.Leuven, Belgium
Inforsk Dept of Sociology Umeå university, Umeå, Sweden
In an recent paper J.E. Hirsch writes "I propose the index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number higher or equal to h, as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher." . What is the h-index, is it mathematically sound and empirically reasonable? See also: JE Hirsch paper: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output.

Closing discussion:
The Nordic Workshop in Bibliometrics - Looking back and ahead

Introduction: Olle Persson

Ten years have passed since the first workshop 1996 in Helsinki. Now is the time to reflect on its past and discuss its future: What have we achieved and which are the future roles and challenges?