MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1966005845 · doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00434.x

Citation Index Identifies Highly Cited Investigators in Food Science

2007· editorial· en· W1966005845 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.L. Greger

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Food Science · 2007
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
Thématiquescientometrics and bibliometrics research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCitationScience Citation IndexBibliometricsImpact factorCitation analysisIndex (typography)Citation indexLibrary scienceComputer scienceMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicineWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The number of “citations” generated by an investigator, article, or journal is increasingly used as a measure of impact of the investigator, article, or journal on a research topic and as a benchmark of research quality (Monastersky 2005, Greger 2006, Lund 2006). Many investigators consider the citation record of journals when they select where to submit their research manuscripts for publication. Journals are increasing soliciting review articles because they are cited more often and raise the journals’ citation indexes. The current National Research Council (NRC) Survey of Research Doctorate Programs (which will assess all doctoral programs in food science and nutrition as well as those in liberal arts and sciences and engineering) will use citations as an index to measure the impact of research in doctoral programs (Board on Higher Education and Workforce, National Research Council 2006). Increasingly citation indexes are used during merit evaluations of faculty members and departments by universities. These “citations” are based on the large databases (sometimes called the ISI Web of Knowledge) maintained by Thomson Scientific (2006). One of the subsets of this system is called ISIHighly Cited.comSM, which identifies the researchers whose total publications received the most citations in their fields during a twenty-year period (1981–1999) (Thomson ISI 2006). The methodology by which Thomson Scientific identifies the most citations is complicated and has limitations; thus an explanation of the methodology is included. Thomson Scientific (2006) uses computer algorithms to track the citations of all articles published in thousands of science (biological, physical, and social) journals annually. About 27 million citations were reviewed for the database in 2004 alone (Monastersky 2005). To create the ISI List of Highly Cited Investigators, Thomson Scientific identified 21 research categories in their citation databases for 1981–99: Agricultural Sciences, Biology & Biochemistry, Chemistry, Clinical Medicine, Computer Science, Ecology/Environment, Economics & Business, Engineering, Geosciences, Immunology, Material Science, Mathematics, Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Genetics, Neuroscience, Pharmacology, Physics, Plant & Animal Science, Psychology/Psychiatry, Social Sciences, general, and Space Sciences (Thomson Scientific 2006). Journals were classified as to their content into one or more these 21 categories. About 200 journals were indexed for the Agricultural Sciences category, including the Journal of Food Science and Food Technology. These food science journals were not included in any of the other categories besides Agricultural Sciences. A few “multidisciplinary” journals (for example, Nature, Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, and Science) were subject to more detailed analyses in which articles were assigned individually to one of the 21 categories. A record was created for every author of each indexed article. Each author of an article got credit for all the citations of the article. Citations were then summed by authors' names. Then investigators were assigned to categories in ISI's Highly Cited database based on the ISI categories assigned to the articles that they published. Self-citations were not considered. The most cited (about 250) researchers in each of the 21 categories were identified. Thomson ISI (2006) identified 5459 investigators as “highly cited” and classified 251 of these investigators as working in the Agricultural Sciences. Forty members of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) were identified as “highly cited” investigators and all were classified as working in the Agricultural Sciences (Table 1). An additional 13 “highly cited” investigators (who were not members of IFT) published in the Journal of Food Science and/or Food Technology. In comparison, ISI identified 29 members of the American Society of Nutrition (ASN) as “highly cited.” However, an additional 91 “highly cited” investigators published in the Journal of Nutrition and/or American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publications of ASN). Thirteen “highly cited” investigators were members of both IFT and ASN. Three (7.5%) of the “highly cited” IFT members worked in Canada; the rest worked in the United States. However, 6% and 42% of all the “highly cited” investigators in Agricultural Sciences worked in Canada and the United States, respectively. Although being included in the list of “highly cited” investigators by ISI Scientific can be considered an honor, the lists reflect several other factors. The number of citations necessary to be included as a “highly cited” investigator varied among categories. The number of citations necessary to be “highly cited” in Agricultural Sciences was less than for those in Biology & Biochemistry. The current list of “highly cited investigators” has not been updated since 2005 and considers only citations from 1981–1999. Highly cited investigators are often clustered in areas that are receiving large amounts of federal research funding, which generally is not true for food science. It is easy to criticize citation indexes as just “data mining” tools but these indexes are increasingly being used as a metric to judge the impact/quality of journals, graduate programs, departments, and individual researchers. Food scientists can use these citation indexes to their advantage if they understand the indexes. Moreover, Thomson ISI demonstrated the importance of food science as a research field when they identified 40 IFT members as “highly cited” investigators.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,210
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,484
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Bibliométrie, Études des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante, Science ouverte, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche, Bibliométrie
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,540
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,2100,484
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,3360,532
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,006
Communication savante0,0120,007
Science ouverte0,0170,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,367
Tête enseignante GPT0,537
Écart entre enseignants0,170 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Food ScienceMême sujetscientometrics and bibliometrics researchTravaux en français237 207