AIM To analyze scientometrically the dynamic science internationalization on colorectal tumour markers as reflected in five information portals and to outline the significant journals, scientists and institutions.METH...AIM To analyze scientometrically the dynamic science internationalization on colorectal tumour markers as reflected in five information portals and to outline the significant journals, scientists and institutions.METHODS A retrospective problem-oriented search was performed in Web of Science Core Collection(Wo S), MEDLINE, BIOSIS Citation Index(BIOSIS) and Scopus for 1986-2015 as well as in Dervent Innovations Index(Derwent) for 1995-2015. Several specific scientometric parameters of the publication output and citation activity were comparatively analyzed. The following scientometric parameters were analyzed:(1) annual dynamics of publications;(2) scientific institutions;(3) journals;(4) authors;(5) scientific forums;(6) patents-number of patents, names and countries of inventors, and(7) citations(number of citations to publications by single authors received in WoS, BIOSIS Citation Index and Scopus).RESULTS There is a trend towards increasing publication output on colorectal tumour markers worldwide along with high citation rates. Authors from 70 countries have published their research results in journals and conference proceedings in 21 languages. There is considerable country stratification similar to that in most systematic investigations. The information provided to end users and scientometricians varies between these data-bases in terms of most parameters due to different journal coverage, indexing systems and editorial policy. The lists of the so-called "core" journals and most productive authors in Wo S, BIOSIS, MEDLINE and Scopus along with the list of the most productive authors-inventors in Derwent present a particular interest to the beginners in the field, the institutional and national science managers and the journal editorial board members. The role of the purposeful assessment of scientific forums and patents is emphasized. CONCLUSION Our results along with this problem-oriented collection containing the researchers' names, addresses and publications could contribute to a more effective international collaboration of the coloproctologists from smaller countries and thus improve their visibility on the world information market.展开更多
Purpose: To understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review(OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.Design/methodology/approach: This research collected and a...Purpose: To understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review(OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.Design/methodology/approach: This research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal Peer J over its first three years(2013–2016). Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers.Findings: Peer J, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal’s inception.Research limitations: This research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process. Practical implications: These findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles’ review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of Peer J review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves. Originality/value: This is the first study to closely examine Peer J as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this area must identify the best policies and paths towards a transparent and open peer review process for scientific communication.展开更多
Professor Duzheng YE＇s name has been familiar to me ever since my postdoctoral years at MIT with Professors Jule CHARNEY and Norman PHILLIPS, back in the late 1960 s. I had the enormous pleasure of meeting Professor ...Professor Duzheng YE＇s name has been familiar to me ever since my postdoctoral years at MIT with Professors Jule CHARNEY and Norman PHILLIPS, back in the late 1960 s. I had the enormous pleasure of meeting Professor YE personally in 1992 in Beijing. His concern to promote the very best science and to use it well, and his thinking on multi-level orderly human activities, reminds me not only of the communication skills we need as scientists but also of the multi-level nature of science itself. Here I want to say something（a） about what science is;（b） about why multi-level thinking—and taking more than one viewpoint—is so important for scientific as well as for other forms of understanding; and（c） about what is meant, at a deep level, by ＂scientific understanding＂ and trying to communicate it, not only with lay persons but also across professional disciplines. I hope that Professor YE would approve.展开更多
Polar science outreach is strongly needed, because besides promoting the utility of polar studies for society as a whole, it can generate public demand for new projects and expeditions. The dissemination of polar disc...Polar science outreach is strongly needed, because besides promoting the utility of polar studies for society as a whole, it can generate public demand for new projects and expeditions. The dissemination of polar discoveries should be reinforced in countries without polar territories and for which polar science might not be a priority. In this pilot study （N =182 participants） we have contrasted the opinions of polar scientists （French, Belgian, British, Canadian, Australian, German, Italian and Spanish researchers） with those of a potentially interested public （graduate students of pedagogy and biology）, in order to assess if the communication channels employed by polar researchers to make their results public align with those used by non-polar experts for learning about polar discoveries. The results revealed that scientific publications and presentations were considered a priority by the researchers, and these scientific communication channels were preferentially employed. Only a minority of researchers thought that non-scientific publications might be a good communication resource. In contrast, both groups of students, which considered polar research important but not a top priority, employed the Internet as their main channel for information about polar discoveries. Students assessed the use of polar discoveries as positive for educational purposes at both Primary and Secondary levels. The information presently received by students was perceived as being too generalist and the main suggestions to improve outreach in this field, in addition to the use of Internet, were more rapid dissemination of new discoveries.展开更多
文摘AIM To analyze scientometrically the dynamic science internationalization on colorectal tumour markers as reflected in five information portals and to outline the significant journals, scientists and institutions.METHODS A retrospective problem-oriented search was performed in Web of Science Core Collection(Wo S), MEDLINE, BIOSIS Citation Index(BIOSIS) and Scopus for 1986-2015 as well as in Dervent Innovations Index(Derwent) for 1995-2015. Several specific scientometric parameters of the publication output and citation activity were comparatively analyzed. The following scientometric parameters were analyzed:(1) annual dynamics of publications;(2) scientific institutions;(3) journals;(4) authors;(5) scientific forums;(6) patents-number of patents, names and countries of inventors, and(7) citations(number of citations to publications by single authors received in WoS, BIOSIS Citation Index and Scopus).RESULTS There is a trend towards increasing publication output on colorectal tumour markers worldwide along with high citation rates. Authors from 70 countries have published their research results in journals and conference proceedings in 21 languages. There is considerable country stratification similar to that in most systematic investigations. The information provided to end users and scientometricians varies between these data-bases in terms of most parameters due to different journal coverage, indexing systems and editorial policy. The lists of the so-called "core" journals and most productive authors in Wo S, BIOSIS, MEDLINE and Scopus along with the list of the most productive authors-inventors in Derwent present a particular interest to the beginners in the field, the institutional and national science managers and the journal editorial board members. The role of the purposeful assessment of scientific forums and patents is emphasized. CONCLUSION Our results along with this problem-oriented collection containing the researchers' names, addresses and publications could contribute to a more effective international collaboration of the coloproctologists from smaller countries and thus improve their visibility on the world information market.
文摘Purpose: To understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review(OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.Design/methodology/approach: This research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal Peer J over its first three years(2013–2016). Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers.Findings: Peer J, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal’s inception.Research limitations: This research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process. Practical implications: These findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles’ review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of Peer J review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves. Originality/value: This is the first study to closely examine Peer J as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this area must identify the best policies and paths towards a transparent and open peer review process for scientific communication.
文摘Professor Duzheng YE＇s name has been familiar to me ever since my postdoctoral years at MIT with Professors Jule CHARNEY and Norman PHILLIPS, back in the late 1960 s. I had the enormous pleasure of meeting Professor YE personally in 1992 in Beijing. His concern to promote the very best science and to use it well, and his thinking on multi-level orderly human activities, reminds me not only of the communication skills we need as scientists but also of the multi-level nature of science itself. Here I want to say something（a） about what science is;（b） about why multi-level thinking—and taking more than one viewpoint—is so important for scientific as well as for other forms of understanding; and（c） about what is meant, at a deep level, by ＂scientific understanding＂ and trying to communicate it, not only with lay persons but also across professional disciplines. I hope that Professor YE would approve.
基金supported by SALMEVOL (Salmonid Evolutionref.1041)
文摘Polar science outreach is strongly needed, because besides promoting the utility of polar studies for society as a whole, it can generate public demand for new projects and expeditions. The dissemination of polar discoveries should be reinforced in countries without polar territories and for which polar science might not be a priority. In this pilot study （N =182 participants） we have contrasted the opinions of polar scientists （French, Belgian, British, Canadian, Australian, German, Italian and Spanish researchers） with those of a potentially interested public （graduate students of pedagogy and biology）, in order to assess if the communication channels employed by polar researchers to make their results public align with those used by non-polar experts for learning about polar discoveries. The results revealed that scientific publications and presentations were considered a priority by the researchers, and these scientific communication channels were preferentially employed. Only a minority of researchers thought that non-scientific publications might be a good communication resource. In contrast, both groups of students, which considered polar research important but not a top priority, employed the Internet as their main channel for information about polar discoveries. Students assessed the use of polar discoveries as positive for educational purposes at both Primary and Secondary levels. The information presently received by students was perceived as being too generalist and the main suggestions to improve outreach in this field, in addition to the use of Internet, were more rapid dissemination of new discoveries.
