Re: [Fis] 11,359 journal maps in a hierarchical classification system; (my second penny for this week)

[Moisés André Nisenbaum]

Loet,
Thank you for your article with (as usual) excellent and beautiful maps and
explanation. And also the "open box" at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr15/
I think that this kind of output analysis is very important to understand
the dynamics of the connections between knowledge areas.
But what about the input and the process analysis of scientific
communication?
How to measure the interactivity of areas during the research (before
publishing)? I think it will be possible as soon as e-science became a
reality (and we are going this way - see http://en.unesco.org/iduai2016)
Also, it would be great if the informal scientific communications (like
FIS) was indexed so we could generate similar maps of the "process" :-)

Best
Moisés.



2016-10-16 8:00 GMT-02:00 Loet Leydesdorff :

> Clustered Journal Maps 
>
> *Loet Leydesdorff, Lutz Bornmann, and Caroline S. Wagner*
>
>
>
> Journal maps for 11,359 journals listed in the combined Journal Citation
> Reports 2015 of the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes are
> provided at www.leydesdorff.net/jcr15 . A routine using VOSviewer for
> integrating the journal mapping and their hierarchical clustering is also
> made available. In this short communication, we provide background on the
> journal mapping/clustering and an explanation and instructions about the
> routine.
>
>
>
> Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03779 ; maps at
> http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr15
>
>
> --
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
>
> Professor, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>
> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of
> Sussex;
>
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. ,
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
> Beijing;
>
> Visiting Professor, Birkbeck , University of
> London;
>
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>


-- 
Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Rio de Janeiro
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Fwd: Scientific communication (MARK)

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

 Mensaje reenviado 

Asunto: Re: Scientific communication
Fecha:  Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:07:25 +0100
De: Mark Johnson 
Para: 	Pedro C. Marijuan , fis 



---

Dear Pedro,

Thank you for bringing this pback down to earth again. I would like to
challenge something in your first comment - partly because contained
within it are issues which connect the science of information with the
politics of publishing and elite education.

Your 'bet' that "that oral exchange continues to be the central
vehicle. It is the "Brownian Motion" that keeps running and infuses
vitality to the entire edifice of science." is of course right.
However, there is a political/critical issue as to who has ACCESS to
the chamber with the Brownian motion.

It is common for elite private schools in the UK (and I'm sure
elsewhere) to say "exams aren't important to us. What matters are the
things around the edges of formal education... character-building
activities, contact with the elite, etc". What they mean is that they
don't worry about exams because their processes of pre-selection and
'hot-housing' mean that all their students will do well in exams
anyway. But nobody would argue that exams are not important for
personal advancement in today's society, would they?

Similarly, elite universities may say "published papers are not that
important - what happens face-to-face is what matters!". Those
universities do not have to worry so much about publishing in
high-quality journals because (often) the editors of those journals
are employed by those universities. But when, at least in the last 10
years or so, did anybody get an academic job in a university with no
publications?

I draw attention to this not because it seems like a stitch-up
(although it is). It is because it skews what you call the "Brownian
motion". At worst we end up with the kind of prejudice that was
expressed by Professor Tim Hunt last year
(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scientist-tim-hunt-female-scientists-cause-trouble-for-men-in-labs).
More fundamentally, the doubts and uncertainties of the many are very
important, and in this system, they are not only not heard, but in the
increasingly rarefied and and specialised exchanges in the "Brownian
motion chamber", as the elite scholars endlessly discuss ontological
arguments for the existence of information (!), everyone else is
effectively locked-out.

The economic crisis and the economists is a good example of this kind
of pathology. It was pretty obvious that the economic system was
heading for trouble quite some time before 2008; it was also obvious
to a few economists on the fringes (who became very unpopular) that
economics was in a mess many years before, concocted out of spurious
mathematical models and a published discourse which would admit little
else. As Tony Lawson says here (this is worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vMLHis5cE), after the crisis it's
easier to claim that economics is in a mess. But doing something about
it is a different matter.

As a side note about Brownian motion: Tony Lawson is based in
Cambridge as has, over the last 20 years, held a bi-weekly seminar
series open to all called the Cambridge Realist Workshop. Some of the
brightest minds in the University attend these. They all have deep
discussions about economics, ontology, society... basically, about
"everyone else". But "everyone else" isn't in the room.

This is the problem. Were "everyone else" to be there, for it to be
truly open, honest and democratic I think we would have a better
science of society, information, education, etc... A small step to
achieving this is to communicate our doubts in different, more open
and more creative ways.

Best wishes,

Mark

On 14 October 2016 at 13:25, Pedro C. Marijuan
 wrote:

Dear Mark and FIS Colleagues,

Apart from the very interesting "elevated" comments, let me refer to more
mundane aspects of scientific communication.

First, is really publishing the essential form of scientific communication?
Or is it complementary to other more basic form? My bet is that oral
exchange continues to be the central vehicle. It is the "Brownian Motion"
that keeps running and infuses vitality to the entire edifice of science.
The success of some new techs (eg, emails, discussion lists) is that they
share some curious characteristics with oral discussion groups.
"Publishing", is very old too (Plato, Aristotle, Alexandrian Library...),
and saves time and space constraints, and provides "textual" shared memories
as well, but without the face-to-face contact it does not mark efficiently
changes of thought. Learning Institutions carefully preserve the
infrastructure of lectures, seminars, conventions, conferences, congresses,
"casual" encounters... Otherwise the system languishes into bureaucracy and
stagnation.

Second, publications have had an important interference derived from
scientific massification (eve