Créer un compteSe connecter

Recherches récentes

Aucune recherche récente

Options de recherche

Disponible uniquement lorsque vous êtes connecté.
mastouille.fr est l'un des nombreux serveurs Mastodon indépendants que vous pouvez utiliser pour participer au fédiverse.
Mastouille est une instance Mastodon durable, ouverte, et hébergée en France.

Administré par :

Statistiques du serveur :

582
comptes actifs

mastouille.fr: À proposAnnuaire des profilsPolitique de confidentialité

Mastodon: À proposTélécharger l’applicationRaccourcis clavierVoir le code sourcev4.3.4

#webofscience

0 message0 participant0 message aujourd’hui
Public
ndocist

Journal Article: “Data Sources Used in #Bibliometrics 1978–2022: From Proprietary Databases to the Great Wide Open”
Stable pattern with #webofscience and #Scopus
Current emphasis on #opensource
Are we entering the great wide open, or will established proprietary databases remain a dominating source?
infodocket.com/2025/05/16/jour

Library Journal infoDOCKETJournal Article: “Data Sources Used in Bibliometrics 1978–2022: From Proprietary Databases to the Great Wide Open”The article linked below was recently published by JASIST (Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology). Title Data Sources Used In Bibliometrics 1978–2022: From Proprietary Databases To The Great Wide Open Authors Camilla Hertil Lindelöw Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden Björn Hammarfelt Swedish School of Library […]
Public
Ludo Waltman

Earlier this week an opinion piece authored by me and a number of great colleagues was published on the @upstream blog. Our piece introduces criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases doi.org/10.54900/d3ck1-skq19.

We express our deep concerns about the treatment of @eLife by the #WebOfScience and #Scopus databases. We see this as an example of databases hindering rather than supporting innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.

@cwts

Upstream · Criteria for Bibliographic Databases in a Well-Functioning Scholarly Communication and Research Assessment EcosystemBibliographic databases should support innovation and experimentation. Here, we offer four criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases. We urge the global research community to use databases that support and do not hinder innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.
Public
Ludo Waltman

Good news at #CNRS Open Science Day:

"CNRS's cancellation of #Scopus subscription will help support its full transition to open, non-commercial model, a point reiterated by Antoine Petit ... 'We will eventually need to stop using commercial databases for bibliometrics and bibliography'. In the meantime CNRS has maintained subscription to Clarivate's #WebOfScience database while free bibliographic databases are being developed like open access not-for-profit solution @OpenAlex."

@BarcelonaDORI

Public
Ludo Waltman

Bodo Stern at #HHMI is spot on in his assessment of the decision by #WebOfScience to stop indexing @eLife articles: "Rather than helping move scholarly communication forward, Web of Science, by punishing a leader in the field, is in fact holding it back."

coalition-s.org/blog/how-the-w

@cOAlitionS_OA

www.coalition-s.orgHow the Web of Science takes a step back | Plan S<p>The Web of Science, a major commercial indexing service of scientific journals operated by Clarivate, recently announced that it had decided to stop indexing articles from the open access journal eLife. The justification offered for this decision is that eLife’s innovative publishing model was deemed to conflict with the Web of Science’s standards for assuring […]</p>
Public
Ludo Waltman

Important reflections by @eLife on #WebOfScience decision to discontinue full indexing of eLife elifesciences.org/inside-elife.

"As journals that are partially indexed are not given Impact Factor, we won't receive one when metric is updated in June 2025. This is despite fact that partial feed would only include papers that WoS judges above threshold for inclusion and despite fact that papers we deem below this threshold can subsequently be published in SCIE-indexed journals."

eLifeThe eLife Model: An update on progress following changes in Web of Science indexing statusFollowing the decision that eLife will not receive an Impact Factor in 2025, we share an update on how our model is doing since we were first placed “on hold” by Web of Science, and what we’re up to now.
Public
Ross Mounce

Does the African academy need its own citation index? by David Mills & Toluwase Asubiaro

"... journals published in the global peripheries, in small fields, or in languages other than English, struggle to get indexed. In 2023, if one excludes South Africa, only around 60 of the 30,000 plus journals indexed in Web of Science were published from Sub Saharan Africa."

globalafricasciences.org/issue

#OpenAccess#Bibliodiversity#WebOfScience
A répondu dans un fil de discussion
Public
Albert Cardona

@eric_normandeau @jonny @LudoWaltman @eLife

It's all too clear, isn't it. #WebOfScience would like the status quo to not change at all – they are profiting enormously from it. Whereas scientists would like the status quo to change – our grants are being drained dry from publishing fees, our libraries are also drained dry from subscription fees, and academic administrators spend countless moneys on bibliometrics supplied by Clarivate to "evaluate" academics for their "throughput" – in quotes because using these words for what they actually do (counting papers and citations) is a perversion.

By the way #Clarivate owns #EndNote, #Publons and #ScholarOne – we really ought to not use *any* of these. It's in our power.

#ScientificPublishing#academia
Public
Ludo Waltman

Stupid decision by #WebOfScience to pause indexing of @eLife articles elifesciences.org/inside-elife.

Fully agree with eLife that "this decision from Web of Science stifles attempts to show how publishing and peer review can be improved using open science principles, and instead gives the appearance of ongoing support for established and ineffective publishing models that have needed to change for so long".

In this way #WebOfScience is rapidly making itself irrelevant for the scientific community!

eLifeUpdate on eLife’s indexing status at Web of ScienceFollowing Web of Science’s decision to place eLife “on hold” while it reevaluates our review process, we explain what this means for authors and outline our next steps.
Public
petersuber

New study: "Journals published in Europe, Oceania and North America were more likely to be indexed in #Scopus and #WebOfScience compared to other world regions. Journals published in sub-Saharan #Africa were the most underrepresented and were four times less likely to be indexed than those published in #Europe."
link.springer.com/article/10.1

PS: I'm sorry that this comparison did not include @OpenAlex (#OpenAlex).

SpringerLinkRegional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage - ScientometricsThe two most important citation indexes used by the global science community contain marked regional disparities in their representation of academic journals. Existing work on the geographical coverage of Web of Science and Scopus citation indexes compared their coverage of journals in a small sample of ‘top’ countries. This paper offers the first regional analysis of journal representation in these two indexes across all eight UNESCO world regions, compared to the total number of active Ulrich’s directory academic journals in these regions. Journal lists from 239 countries/territories were collected from Ulrich’s periodical directory and analyzed by region. This enables a comparison of the regional distribution of journals within Web of Science (20,255 matched journals) and Scopus (23,348 matched journals) with those in Ulrich’s directory (83,429 journals). Journals published in Europe, Oceania and North America were more likely to be indexed in Scopus and Web of Science compared to other world regions. Journals published in sub-Saharan Africa were the most underrepresented and were four times less likely to be indexed than those published in Europe. The analysis also offers a quantitative breakdown of journal publication languages, highlighting how Scopus and Web of Science disproportionately index English language publications in all world regions. Finally, the analysis shows how field coverage by Web of Science and Scopus differs between the regions, with the Social Sciences and Humanities still under-represented, in comparison to Natural Sciences and Medical & Health Science.
ExplorerFlux en direct
À propos