RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
Hello! I'm really please to joint the powder diffraction mailing group. I have already recieved more than twenty mails within the short period of three days I have been with the group, but up to now I still more strange about the topic of discussion. I will greatly appreciate if somebody can give me a summary of what have been done before I sign up to this group, just to give me a possibility to follow the discussion and to give positive contribution. best regards On 28 Mar 2001, at 14:26, Radaelli, PG (Paolo) wrote: > Armil, > > the Jorgensen paper is mostly about powder diffraction, and I'm sure > the word is in the abstract, but unfortunately abstracts are not > available on WOS for older papers. For other papers like the one > mentioned by Alan, I'm a bit puzzled. There is more: the following > paper: > > SIMULTANEOUS STRUCTURAL, MAGNETIC, AND ELECTRONIC-TRANSITIONS IN > LA1-XCAXMNO3 WITH X=0.25 AND 0.50 > RADAELLI PG, COX DE, MAREZIO M, CHEONG SW, SCHIFFER PE, RAMIREZ AP > PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 75: (24) 4488-4491 DEC 11 1995 > > has 235 citations, and should be on your list, because the abstract > mentions powder diffraction and is listed on WOS (sorry for being > parochial, but it is my most cited work). > > Paolo poudeu ferdinand,PhD student Institut für Anorganische Chemie Technische Universität Dresden Deutschland MommsenStr.13, 01069 Dresden tel:(0049)351-463-3966 email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
you are absolutely right and it was not my aim to support it. But it is done in many institutions, unfortunately. daniel chateigner At 10:24 AM 3/28/01 -0500, you wrote: >Hello all: > >As an "amateur observer" of this mailing list, I have barely >participated >to any discussion in the past. However, when I read about ranking journals >for >more accurate evaluation of citations, I couldn't help to myself to comment. >I believe that an attempt of this kind is an ill-posed problem. Who >on earth >will rank the journals, and on what grounds? For instance, Philosophical >Magazine is >highly acclaimed journal in Europe, especially in the UK. However, it is not >as widely >read as Phys. Rev. in my opinion. To someone residing in US Phys. Rev B >might have >a much higher weight, whereas the opposite might be true for someone living >in the UK. >Similar examples can be given but I believe the situation is clear. >Furthermore, there are >numerous papers published in an array of "good" journals where powder >diffraction as the >"main tool", however, the emphasis is purely on science & engineering. Those >journals are >mostly not related to diffraction, e.g. Acta Materiala, J. Appl. Phys., Jpn. >J. Appl. Phys. etc etc. >As you may have realized, the example I gave is not from the diffraction >community per se. While >the efforts could be confined to powder diffraction journals only, such an >attempt would be more >a diservice than good-service to the diffraction community. It is clear to >me that ranking journals by >"weight" is a futile endeavor which will do no good to anyone. >Cordially submitted, > >E. K. Akdogan, Ph. D. >Research Associate > >Center for Ceramic Research >Rutgers University >607 Taylor Road >Piscataway, NJ 08854-8065 >Phone: (732)-445 5614 >Fax: (732)-445 5577 >E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >-----Original Message- >From: Daniel Chateigner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 9:55 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers > > >I agree on Alan's remark Armel, > >and also on superconductor-related papers that could have artificially high >levels of citation. It will be very hard however to satisfy everybody >without putting all the citations about crystallography ! There are so many >fields and so many interests. > >We may have a look at Cambridge (UK) Univ, before hiring someone they >consult (if I remember correctly, that's what I heard from Ekhard Salje), a >procedure that weights for the journal rank. Well, a beginning already ! > >daniel >
RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
Dear Powder friends, There appears to be a distinction in the arguments put forward between using powder diffraction as a tool and powder diffraction in itself as a science. I would put forward that some of the most elegant powder diffraction work that I have read or I am familiar with had to do with tackling a particularly scientific question. These elegant papers do not appear typically in IUCr journals, but in journal that address a wider scientific community. It is important that as users of powder diffraction we play a role in the wider scientific community. In that characterizing a superconductor or ferroelectric and uncovering interesting physics or chemistry using structure is good science. -- Dimitri N. Argyriou Materials Science Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Ave. Argonne, IL, 60439 Phone: (630) 252 3289 Fax: (630) 252 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
Hello all: As an "amateur observer" of this mailing list, I have barely participated to any discussion in the past. However, when I read about ranking journals for more accurate evaluation of citations, I couldn't help to myself to comment. I believe that an attempt of this kind is an ill-posed problem. Who on earth will rank the journals, and on what grounds? For instance, Philosophical Magazine is highly acclaimed journal in Europe, especially in the UK. However, it is not as widely read as Phys. Rev. in my opinion. To someone residing in US Phys. Rev B might have a much higher weight, whereas the opposite might be true for someone living in the UK. Similar examples can be given but I believe the situation is clear. Furthermore, there are numerous papers published in an array of "good" journals where powder diffraction as the "main tool", however, the emphasis is purely on science & engineering. Those journals are mostly not related to diffraction, e.g. Acta Materiala, J. Appl. Phys., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. etc etc. As you may have realized, the example I gave is not from the diffraction community per se. While the efforts could be confined to powder diffraction journals only, such an attempt would be more a diservice than good-service to the diffraction community. It is clear to me that ranking journals by "weight" is a futile endeavor which will do no good to anyone. Cordially submitted, E. K. Akdogan, Ph. D. Research Associate Center for Ceramic Research Rutgers University 607 Taylor Road Piscataway, NJ 08854-8065 Phone: (732)-445 5614 Fax: (732)-445 5577 E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Daniel Chateigner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 9:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers I agree on Alan's remark Armel, and also on superconductor-related papers that could have artificially high levels of citation. It will be very hard however to satisfy everybody without putting all the citations about crystallography ! There are so many fields and so many interests. We may have a look at Cambridge (UK) Univ, before hiring someone they consult (if I remember correctly, that's what I heard from Ekhard Salje), a procedure that weights for the journal rank. Well, a beginning already ! daniel
RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
I agree on Alan's remark Armel, and also on superconductor-related papers that could have artificially high levels of citation. It will be very hard however to satisfy everybody without putting all the citations about crystallography ! There are so many fields and so many interests. We may have a look at Cambridge (UK) Univ, before hiring someone they consult (if I remember correctly, that's what I heard from Ekhard Salje), a procedure that weights for the journal rank. Well, a beginning already ! daniel
RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
Armil, the Jorgensen paper is mostly about powder diffraction, and I'm sure the word is in the abstract, but unfortunately abstracts are not available on WOS for older papers. For other papers like the one mentioned by Alan, I'm a bit puzzled. There is more: the following paper: SIMULTANEOUS STRUCTURAL, MAGNETIC, AND ELECTRONIC-TRANSITIONS IN LA1-XCAXMNO3 WITH X=0.25 AND 0.50 RADAELLI PG, COX DE, MAREZIO M, CHEONG SW, SCHIFFER PE, RAMIREZ AP PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 75: (24) 4488-4491 DEC 11 1995 has 235 citations, and should be on your list, because the abstract mentions powder diffraction and is listed on WOS (sorry for being parochial, but it is my most cited work). Paolo
RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
>>The search was on two words : "powder" AND "diffraction", occuring >>either in the title or in the abstract, or in the keywords, or somewhere. > >Seems a pretty restrictive criterion, and likely to favour papers on technique rather >than science (though I note that Rietveld's paper's do not qualify by your criterion >:-) Yes, powder diffraction is a technique. So, do you put Hugo's paper among papers on technique rather than papers on science ?-). His papers do not qualify because they are anterior to 1975. Nevertheless, it is true that both words "powder" and "diffraction" do not appear simultaneously in the abstract nor in the title for the 1969 paper, but they do in the 1967 paper title (which would have qualified if the WoS was not starting in 1975). Science or technique is a distinction to be more discussed. Improving a technique is sometimes done by science. Birth of a new technique is frequently due to science. Is characterizing a superconductor by a technique new science ? We are starting an interesting discussion. I believe I have made really new (small) science only 2 or 3 times in my whole life ;-). Best regards, Armel
RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
At 14:14 28/03/2001, you wrote: >The search was on two words : "powder" AND "diffraction", occuring >either in the title or in the abstract, or in the keywords, or somewhere. Seems a pretty restrictive criterion, and likely to favour papers on technique rather than science (though I note that Rietveld's paper's do not qualify by your criterion :-) Indeed the Science Citation Index itself warns about over-weighting papers on technique. You have missed many other highly cited papers - for example: Cava, R. J., Hewat, A. W., Hewat, E. A., Batlogg, B., Marezio, M., Rabe, K. M., Krajewski, J. J., Peck, W. F. and Rupp, L. W. (1990) Physica C. 165, 419. Structural anomalies oxygen ordering and superconductivity in oxygen deficient Ba2YCu3Ox. Hwang, H. Y., Cheong, S. W., Radaelli, P. G., Marezio, M. and Batlogg, B. (1995) Physical Review Letters. 75, 914. Lattice effects on the magnetoresistance in doped LaMnO3. Seriously I think you need to work a little harder on this if it is to be meaningful. Alan. Dr Alan W. Hewat, Diffraction Group Leader. Institut Laue-Langevin Grenoble FRANCE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> fax (33)4.76.20.76.48 tel (33) 4.76.20.72.13 (or .26 Mme Guillermet) http://www.ill.fr/dif/AlanHewat.htm
RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
Paolo, >What criterion was adopted in the search? The following famous paper, >clearly of structural subject, is not on your list, but has 768 citations: The search was on two words : "powder" AND "diffraction", occuring either in the title or in the abstract, or in the keywords, or somewhere. This means for the paper you mention, that "powder" AND "Diffraction" were not in the title nor in the abstract (or the abstract is not in the Web of Science), nor in the keywords (or the keywords are not in the WoS). Anyway, this means that the authors did not considered powder diffraction as something to be underlined in their paper. The list of most cited papers in powder diffraction is not intended to be a list for most cited papers about superconductors ;-). Moveover, was the powder diffraction job difficult for all those highly cited papers on superconductors, or routine ? I wonder if I should not delete them all ;;;-))). Nevertheless, I have included that ancient hot paper you mentioned, thanks. Obviously, these papers on superconductors are generally cited for the specific sample studied more than for some brilliance in the powder diffraction methodology. Being local contact at a big instrument is a quite good place when fashion turns on new materials to be characterized. Have new neutron powder patterns been done on the magnesium diboride superconductor yet (or derivatives, if any), or B absorption will be a too big problem ? Best regards, Armel
RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
Armil: What criterion was adopted in the search? The following famous paper, clearly of structural subject, is not on your list, but has 768 citations: STRUCTURAL-PROPERTIES OF OXYGEN-DEFICIENT YBA2CU3O7-DELTA JORGENSEN JD, VEAL BW, PAULIKAS AP, NOWICKI LJ, CRABTREE GW, CLAUS H, KWOK WK PHYSICAL REVIEW B-CONDENSED MATTER 41: (4) 1863-1877 FEB 1 1990 Paolo
