Thank you Éric. Very nice examples. However, I still wonder if there is some intrinsic value in the concept of journal that one may miss. A journal is not just a collection of papers. Maybe when we count journals we somehow measure their review processes. El 30/4/2015 1:07, "Éric Archambault" <eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> escribió:
> If one wants to see how excluding foreign references can have adverse > effects on citation analysis, here the list of references for a randomly > picked up Japanese paper. > > > > Most, if not all, Japanese language references are currently ignored in > citation analysis, this science is considered non-existent. The paper, and > the references. > > > > https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jssp/30/1/30_30.1/_article/references > > > > - Gibb, R., Ercoline, B., & Scharff, L. (2011). Spatial > disorientation: Decades of pilot fatalities. *Aviation, Space, and > Environmental Medicine*, *82*, 717–724. > > <https://jlc.jst.go.jp/DN/JALC/10007449771?type=list&lang=en&from=J-STAGE&dispptn=1> > - Howard, I. P. (1982). *Human visual orientation*. John Wiley & Sons. > - 乾 敏郎・小川健二（2010）．認知発達の神経基盤―生後8ヶ月まで― 心理学評論，*52*, 576–608. > - 石井正則（1998）．神経・前庭系・空間識について 宇宙開発事業団（編） 宇宙医学・生理学（III-A） 社会保険出版社 pp. > 29–41. > - Kanas, N. & Manzey, D. (2008). *Space psychology and psychiatry (2nd > ed.)*. Springer. > - 木下冨雄（1993）．相対判断の理論―意味、基準系、動き― 京都大学定年退官記念講演録 > - 木下冨雄（2009）．宇宙問題への人文・社会科学からのアプローチ―高等研報告書0804― 国際高等研究所・宇宙航空研究開発機構（編） > 国際高等研究所 > - 古賀一男（2011）．知覚の正体 河出書房新社 > - Leonov, A. & Scott, D. (2006). *Two sides of the moon*. St. Marti's > Griffin. > - 中川久定（2009）．第3回インタビュー（対話） 木下冨雄（編著） 宇宙問題への人文・社会科学からのアプローチ―高等研報告書0804― > 国際高等研究所・宇宙航空研究開発機構 pp. 376–378. > - 牧野達郎・下條信輔・古賀一男（1998）．知覚の可塑性と行動適応 ブレーン出版 > - 宮辻和貴・田辺 智・金子公宥（2005）．宇宙船内「体操」のエネルギー消費量に関する研究 体育学研究，*50*, 201–206. > - Oman, C. M. (2003). Human visual orientation in weightlessness. In > L. Harris & M. Jenkin, (Eds.), *Levels of Perception*. New York, > Springer Verlag. pp. 375–398. > - Ross, H. E. (1974). *Behaviour and perception in strange > environments*. Allen and Unwin. > - Small, R. L., Oman, C. M., & Jones, T. D. (2012). Space shuttle > flight crew spatial orientation survey results. *Aviation, Space, and > Environmental Medicine*, *83*, 383–387. > > <https://jlc.jst.go.jp/DN/JALC/10011723096?type=list&lang=en&from=J-STAGE&dispptn=1> > - 立花正一（2009）．人類が宇宙に居住するための医学・精神心理の課題 木下冨雄（編著）宇宙問題への人文・社会科学からのアプローチ― > 高等研報告書0804― 国際高等研究所・宇宙航空研究開発機構 pp. 258–259. > - 立花 隆（1983）．宇宙からの帰還 中央公論社 > - Vakoch, D. A. (Ed.) (2011). *Psychology of space exploration, > contemporary research in historical perspective*. National Aeronautics > and Space Administration. pp. 85–86. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Éric Archambault > *Sent:* April-29-15 5:40 PM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals > > > > Paul > > > > I think librarians are still highly concerned about journals, as opposed > to papers. The reason is that this is how their invoices are structured – > they buy journals and now bunches of journals. But this is changing because > end-users increasingly do not see journals, they see results in the Web of > Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and universities’ discovery systems. These > results are usually smaller, more atomistic units - they are papers, > conference papers, book chapters, etc. > > > > Thus, the use of search engines, as opposed to browsing on the shelves of > libraries is progressively shifting the relevant unit towards papers as > opposed to journals. Still, journals will continue to play a very important > role as they confer prestige to papers, and guide authors’ and readers’ > decisions. > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Uhlir, Paul > *Sent:* April-29-15 4:09 PM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals > > > > Good question. And while we're at it, why after 20 years do we still use a > stovepiped, disaggregated, print model construct as the primary vehicle for > digitally networked scholarly communication? > > > > Paul F. Uhlir, J.D. > Scholar, National Academy of Sciences, and > Consultant, Data Policy and Management > 4643 Aspen Hill Court > Annandale, VA 22003 > USA > Tel. 703 941 0817; Cell +1 703 217 5143 > Skype: pfuhlir; Email: pfuh...@gmail.com > Web: http://www.paulfuhlir.com; Twitter: @paulfuhlir > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of > Jacinto Dávila [jacinto.dav...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:54 PM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals > > May I ask a couple of naïve questions? > > Why do we count journals? If we are all looking forward to a global, > hopefully distributed archive of knowledge, shouldn't we counting papers or > some other way of displaying solutions? > > El 29/4/2015 11:13, "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" <j.bos...@uu.nl> escribió: > > I’ve always been amazed how Thomson/ISI categorized English language > journals (mostly published in de US/UK) as “international journals” and all > other journals as “regional journals”. Should ask them. > > > > BTW Eric could you elaborate on what you say in your last sentence? Will > Science Metrix launch a bibliometrics service based on GS data or do I have > to interpret your words in another way? > > > > Jeroen > > > > [image: 101-innovations-icon-very-small] 101 innovations in scholarly > communication <http://innoscholcomm.silk.co/> > > ------------------------------------------------------ > *------------------------------* > > Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences > > Utrecht University Library <http://www.uu.nl/library> > > email: j.bos...@uu.nl > > telephone: +31.30.2536613 > > mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands > > visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht > > web: Jeroen Bosman > <http://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx> > > twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU > > profiles: : Academia <http://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman> / Google > Scholar <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IAAAAJ&hl=en> / > ISNI <http://www.isni.org/0000000028810209> / > > Mendeley <http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/> / > MicrosoftAcademic > <http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman> / > ORCID <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5796-2727> / ResearcherID > <http://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253D&Init=Yes&SrcApp=CR&returnCode=ROUTER.Success&SID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK> > / > > ResearchGate <http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/> / Scopus > <http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484> / > Slideshare <http://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero> / VIAF > <http://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/> / Worldcat > <http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619> > > blogging at: I&M 2.0 <http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/> / Ref4UU > <http://ref4uu.blogspot.com/> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Trees say printing is a thing of the past* > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Éric Archambault > *Sent:* woensdag 29 april 2015 0:08 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals > > > > Jean-Claude has an excellent point. > > > > Our current outlook is extremely Western-centric. When I was in SPRU, > professors (can’t remember if it was Pavitt or Ben Martin) used to joke > that bibliometric measurement was highly influenced by the linguistic > capacity of housewives in Philadelphia. Though today there might have been > a shift towards Manila for data entry, it remains that bibliographic > databases present a truncated view of the world, and bibliometrics a > distorted, pro-Western/Northern Hemisphere biased view of science. If one > can potentially advance the idea that all ground breaking science > eventually makes it to Western journals, and that this is what current > databases are reflecting, it would still remain that normal science follows > similar rules in Russia, Japan, and China and yet a huge part of that > content still goes unaccounted for. A normal US or UK paper is not any > better than a normal Brazilian, Chinese, or Russian paper yet the former > are frequently counted, the latter more frequently not. The low impact of > non-Western countries is in part a reflection of the exclusion of journals > published in non-English speaking countries, and Jean-Claude is right to > say there are thousands of them. > > > > The effect on measurement is poisonous because national level > self-citations are frequently excluded when journals are not published in > English-language journal. If one wants to see the effect of removing > national self-citation, try removing them altogether and you’ll see how > badly clobbered the US ends-up in terms of relate impact. Don’t get me > wrong, I’m not suggesting to measure that way as it would be unwise (I > always advocate the inclusion of self-citations at all levels even though > everyone knows some authors and journals are narcissistic and playing the > number game – self citations are an essential part of the > knowledge-building edifice and excluding them potentially create more > problems than it solves), but it is a valid experiment to show how bad the > situation currently is because we count only publications from half of the > journals published, and that half is anything but randomly selected. For > those who want to see the effect, I can send you a table – among countries > with 45,000 papers or more, and adjusted for scale, the US ranked 22nd > (after Japan, the Czech Republic and Mexico) if only citations from other > countries were included. We never published that paper as we thought it was > brain damaged to exclude national self-citation. Yet, by excluding many > many locally published journals from citation counts, this is what the > advanced analytics that come out of dominant bibliographic databases do, > and this is a sin that we, bibliometricians, commit every day. > > > > Hopefully open access will play a huge role in reducing the distortion > field. I can confirm there is more than 50,000 scholarly and scientific > journals the world over, not by any measure all open access, but all peer > or quality reviewed according to the norms of scholarly and scientific > communication in all fields of academia. Stay tuned, more neutral metrics > are going to be available in the near future. > > > > Eric Archambault > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org > <goal-boun...@eprints.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jean-Claude Guédon > *Sent:* April-28-15 9:07 AM > *To:* goal@eprints.org > *Subject:* [GOAL] Number of Open Access journals > > > > I have repeatedly criticized the numbers of journals used to describe > scientific and scholarly publishing in the world. I have also regularly > criticized the use of lists such as the Web of Science, Scopus and Ulrich's > as being largely centred on the North Atlantic and/or OECD countries.As a > counter to such numbers, I have pointed out that Latin America alone, as > indicated by the Latindex vetted list, can sport over 6,000 titles. > Presumably, if Asia and Africa did the same kind of work, numbers of > 25-27,000 titles for the whole world would look funny. > > Another way to look at this is through disciplines or study areas. No one, > I suspect, would argue that Classics (Latin and Greek) is a large > speciality in the world of learning. Typically, classics departments are > small and tend to disappear. Nonetheless, one can find a list of 1498 > journal in this field, *and that list is limited to open access journals*. > > > http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.ca/2012/07/alphabetical-list-of-open-access.html > > The list dates from the summer of 2012. There may be a few more or a few > less since, but the least one may add is that such a number reveals a > publishing activity that reaches well beyond expectations (at least mine). > > Conclusion: scholarly journal publishing is a lot more complex than what > is provided by most scientometric studies. > > And a final question: who is advantaged by the illusory simplicity of the > publishing landscape? > > -- > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > Professeur titulaire > > Littérature comparée > > Université de Montréal > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4331/9577 - Release Date: 04/19/15 > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4331/9577 - Release Date: 04/19/15 > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
