Mathematics 1868–2008: a bibliometric analysis

Behrens, H.; Luksch, Peter

doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0249-x

Cited by 32 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of the very well documented vast increase in the overall absolute number of psychological publications in the 20th century (which can be modeled by way of exponential smoothing [9]), the absolute frequencies found for professional comments and replies must be relativized by the total number of publications documented in the database for each year of publication. This is similar to findings in the other sciences: Behrens and Luksch [10], for example, showed a similar increase in literature published in the field of mathematics between 1868 and 2010, which can be modeled by exponential or linear functions. These increased rates reflect the growth of the research communities and resources and have been-in addition-strongly intensified in the last decades by digitalization technologies that enable more efficient submission, communication, and publication systems via the Internet, and shorter production times.…”

Section: Data Handlingsupporting

confidence: 87%

On the Scientific Discourse Practice in Psychology: Professional Comments and Replies in Different Subdisciplines of Psychology up to 2015

Krampen¹

2017

TOPSYJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Scientific communications—including criticisms, comments, and replies—are a significant foundation of scientific progress. Objective: To give an overview on the frequency of written professional comments and replies published in the subdisciplines of psychology till 2015. Method: Scientometric analyses refer to the psychological databases PsycINFO and PSYNDEX. Results: Firstly, the results show that 2.8% of PsycINFO and 2.2% of PSYNDEX documents refer to scientific discourse. However, time trends were different, which increased (up to 3.6% at the millennium) and then decreased (2.4% in 2013-2015) in PsycINFO, with an up-and-down trajectory in PSYNDEX (decreasing from 3.5% before 1982 to 2.2% in the 1990s, an increase up to 3.1% at the millennium, and a continuous decrease to 0.9% in 2013-2015). Secondly, distinct differences were observed between the subdisciplines of psychology and with reference to both databases: psychological/health personnel issues, psychology & the humanities, clinical psychology, history & systems, and personality psychology received the most comments and replies in PsycINFO, and educational psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, and intelligent systems the least. Most comments and replies related to PSYNDEX were found in sport psychology/leisure, personality psychology, consumer psychology, and experimental psychology, and the least are found in publications on intelligent systems, animal/comparative psychology, history & systems of psychology, and military psychology. Conclusion: The results are collectively discussed (1) with respect to other indicators of scientific discourse in psychology and other sciences and (2) with respect to the different cultures of scientific discourse between the subdisciplines of psychology in the Anglo-American vs. the German-speaking countries.

show abstract

Section: Data Handlingsupporting

confidence: 87%

On the Scientific Discourse Practice in Psychology: Professional Comments and Replies in Different Subdisciplines of Psychology up to 2015

Krampen¹

2017

TOPSYJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some subfields of mathematics may gain citations from their relationship to a higher citation field engaging in more generous citation practices. Citation counting in mathematics can pick out only certain subdisciplines and neglect others in a way that does not match any standard that mathematicians would recognize (Behrens and Luksch, 2011).…”

Section: Mathematicians and Citationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact Factor as a measuring tool of the prestige of the journals in research assessment in mathematics

Ferrer-Sapena

Pérez

Peset

et al. 2016

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The (2-year) Impact Factor of Thomson-Reuters (IF) has become the fundamental tool for analysing the scientific production of academic researchers in a lot of countries. In this paper we show that this index and the ordering criterion obtained by using it is highly unstable in the case of mathematics, to the extent that sometimes no reliability can be assigned to its use. We explain the reasons of this behaviour by the specific properties of the mathematical journals and publications, attending mainly the point of view of the researchers in pure mathematics. Using the Journal Citation Report list of journals as a source of information, we analyse the stability in the position of the mathematical journals-the so called rank-normalized impact factor-, compared with journals in applied physics and microbiology during the period 2002-2012. Due to the lack of stability of the position of the journals of mathematics in these lists, we propose a "cumulative index" that fits better the characteristics of mathematical journals. The computation of this index uses the values of the IF of the journals in previous years, providing in this way a more stable indicator.

show abstract

“…However, bibliometric data can be used prospectively too. The objective of such applications refers not only to the description of the past, but to the forecasting of future research and publication trends as well (for mathematics see, e. g., Behrens and Luksch 2011). These future trends are estimated mathematically from trends in past publication activities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forecasting trends of development of psychology from a bibliometric perspective

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bibliometric data on psychology publications from 1977 through 2008 are modeled and forecasted for the 10 years following 2008. Data refer to the raw frequencies of the PsycINFO (94% English-language, mainly Anglo-American publications) and the English-language documents of PSYNDEX (publications from the German-speaking countries). The series were modelled by way of exponential smoothing. In contrast to Single Moving Average methods which do not weigh observations, exponential smoothing assigns differential weights to observations. Weights reflect the distance from the most recent data point. Results suggest strongly expanding publication activities which can be represented by exponential functions. In addition, forecasted publication activities, estimated based on psychology publication frequencies in the past, show positive bibliometric trends in the Anglo-American research community. These trends go in parallel the bibliometric trends for the English-language publications of German-speaking authors. However, while positive trends were forecasted for all psychological subdisciplines of the Anglo-American publication database PsycINFO, negative bibliometric trends were estimated for English-language publications from German-speaking authors in 6 out of 20 subdisciplines.

show abstract

Mathematics 1868–2008: a bibliometric analysis

Cited by 32 publications

References 21 publications

On the Scientific Discourse Practice in Psychology: Professional Comments and Replies in Different Subdisciplines of Psychology up to 2015

On the Scientific Discourse Practice in Psychology: Professional Comments and Replies in Different Subdisciplines of Psychology up to 2015

The Impact Factor as a measuring tool of the prestige of the journals in research assessment in mathematics

Forecasting trends of development of psychology from a bibliometric perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About