How Scientometrics Became the Most Important Science for Researchers of All Specialties

Хохлов, А. Н.

doi:10.3103/s0096392520040057

Cited by 24 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Таким образом, для 2021 г. (последнего, для которого на сегодняшний день имеется статистика) формула расчета МПКС выглядит следующим образом: Что касается CiteScore, SNIP, SJR, Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, H-Index, Science Index, импакт-фактора РИНЦ и др., то методики их расчета неоднократно приводились и обсуждались в различных публикациях [3][4][5][6][7], включая наши собственные [8][9][10][11], так что нам показалось нецелесообразным останавливаться на этих вопросах в настоящей работе.…”

Section: некоторые определенияunclassified

“…Другой пример, на который мы часто ссылаемся, это статья одного из нас под названием «How scientometrics became the most important science for researchers of all specialties», опубликованная в 2020 г. [8]. Появившись на сайте Springer Nature, она привлекла внимание огромного количества читателей, ее очень интенсивно обсуждали в социальных сетях.…”

Section: таблица средние наукометрические показатели и индикаторы ска...unclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

And they try, and they praise, but they don’t marry: Once again about the connection between downloads, views and citations

Хохлов

Моргунова

2023

Naučnyj redaktor i izdatelʹ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of the possible influence of the number of views / downloads of scientific articles from journal websites, as well as the number of their mentions in social networks on the number of subsequent citations of these publications is considered. In particular, an analysis of some of such correlations is carried out on the example of 39 Russian translated journals of biological orientation distributed by the Springer Nature publishing house. Data from 2019–2021 was used regarding the number of article downloads, impact factors of editions, their SJR, CiteScore, SNIP, and usage factors. An analysis of the results obtained, as well as data available on the Internet, allowed the authors to conclude that the relationship between the number of downloads or altmetrics and the number of citations is not very strong, although it is quite reliable. It is emphasized that at present a large number of downloads / views of articles are carried out by users who are not engaged in science and, accordingly, do not write articles for academic journals. They are simply interested in scientific research results, and the Internet is now available to almost anyone. This also applies to the discussion of scientific publications in social networks. Apparently, the frequent mention of work in such networks really stimulates its downloads – however, this becomes obvious only if the article is an open access one, because the majority of “law-abiding” users of social networks do not have legal access to publications in subscription editions. The mentioned circumstances, according to the authors, will lead to a gradual weakening of the correlations considered in the article.

show abstract

Section: некоторые определенияunclassified

Section: таблица средние наукометрические показатели и индикаторы ска...unclassified

And they try, and they praise, but they don’t marry: Once again about the connection between downloads, views and citations

Хохлов

Моргунова

2023

Naučnyj redaktor i izdatelʹ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gloria Origgi has a phrase, “involuntary epistemic servitude” (Origgi 2018, 216), for the dependence of science on reputation and on metrics for purposes of evaluation. This is part of the demise of “scientific opinion” in the older sense: scientometrics becomes the discipline each scientist must pay attention to (see Kohlkov 2020). As Origgi shows, together with the dependence of science on peer-review and the role of peers in the grant system, the demand for impact, and a closer relation to policy and assertions of expertise, scientists in academic life are constrained in novel ways that are more serious in part because they are indirect, and appear not to be constraints at all.…”

Section: Present Science As Its Own Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science without the Romance

Turner

2022

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a commentary on William Lynch’s Minority Report, which is a synthesis of the last 75 years of STS writings with philosophical themes from Lakatos, Feyerabend, and others. The comment questions the continued relevance of older ideas of scientific opinion which rested on the supposed autonomy of scientists in the face of the present grant system and the bureaucracy of peer review. The magnitude of the funding of science, and its apparent biases, call the whole of the inherited view of science into question.

show abstract

“…Therefore, we conduct bibliometrics to systematically review the achievements and development directions of the field. Scientometrics is a cross-disciplinary science that uses mathematical and statistical methods to quantitatively analyze all knowledge domains ( 14 ). It integrates mathematics, statistics, and literature science, emphasizing quantitative and comprehensive knowledge system, which can explore the characteristics of scientific fields, understand the knowledge structure and emerging trends of research fields ( 14 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An academic achievements visualization research since the 21st century: research on salvage surgery for head and neck cancer

Zhou,

Cheng,

Deng

2024

Front. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHead and neck cancer is the 6th most common malignancy worldwide, and its incidence is still on the rise. The salvage surgery has been considered as an important treatment strategy for persistent or recurrent head and neck cancer. Therefore, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of salvage surgery for head and neck cancer since the 21st century.MethodsThe literature about salvage surgery of head and neck cancer in Web of Science was searched. CiteSpace and VOSviewer were used to analyze main countries, institutions, authors, journals, subject hotspots, trends, frontiers, etc.ResultsA total of 987 papers have been published since the 21st century. These publications were written by 705 authors from 425 institutions in 54 countries. The United States published 311 papers in this field and ranked first. Head & Neck was the most widely published journal. The main keyword clustering included terms such as #0 stereotactic radiotherapy (2012); #1 randomized multicenter (2007); #2 salvage surgery (2004); #3 functional outcomes (2014); #4 transoral robotic surgery (2013); #5 neck high-resolution computed tomography (2010); #6 complications (2008); #7 image guidance (2019). The current research frontiers that have been sustained are “recurrent”, “risk factors”, and “reirradiation”.ConclusionThe current situation of the salvage surgery for head and neck cancer in clinical treatments and basic scientific research were summarized, providing new perspectives for the development of salvage surgery for head and neck cancer in the future.

show abstract

How Scientometrics Became the Most Important Science for Researchers of All Specialties

Cited by 24 publications

References 11 publications

And they try, and they praise, but they don’t marry: Once again about the connection between downloads, views and citations

And they try, and they praise, but they don’t marry: Once again about the connection between downloads, views and citations

Science without the Romance

An academic achievements visualization research since the 21st century: research on salvage surgery for head and neck cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About