Category: Scholarly Communication

Categories
Meldonium buy usa

Buy meldonium online

Ciprofloxacin 100mg tablets, 10 mg and 50 tablets (see PRECAUTIONS). Patients should be advised to observe their condition carefully over the long-term since concomitant use of medications can decrease the serum half life of active drug. Oral rehydration solutions should not be administered for prolonged periods to patients taking concomitant antacids; oral antacids should be limited to 4 days and taken for at least 8 to 12 hours after any concomitant therapy. If the dosage of antacid, laxative, or antifungal therapy is changed abruptly, dosage adjustments should be made on the basis of patient's response. Concomitant use of medications with the concomitantly available antifungal agents do not result in an increased risk of contact Mildonium 2mg $86.95 - $0.97 Per pill dermatitis for the concomitantly administered antifungals unless antifungal Clomid prices uk used has similar activity to the antifungal being compared with. Hepatic Impairment and Cirrhosis Hepatic impairment is not considered in the evaluation and treatment of patients with cirrhosis. Narcotic Drug Interactions Pregnant women who are taking concomitant benzodiazepine and narcotic analgesic agents should be advised to use an alternative dose-adjustment regimen during pregnancy in order to avoid potential risk of developing withdrawal symptoms during pregnancy. Pregnancy category C. Proper use of antihypertensive drugs and aspirin during pregnancy may alter the risk of fetal malformations. The use or misuse of alcohol during pregnancy has been reported to cause teratogenic effects in the fetus. However, there has not been a clear epidemiological relationship between fetal alcohol syndrome and maternal consumption of alcohol on specific occasion. [See CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY.] Concomitant Administration of Antibiotics and Antiparasitic Agents Antimiotic and antiparasitic agents should be administered to patients concurrently (for example, at various times) in an individualized manner. Certain agents may induce fetal distress and antimalarials other antibiotics should not be administered to pregnant woman, because of their potential teratogenic effect. [See CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, Drug Interactions, PHARMACOLOGY (12.3)—Drug Interactions. Antibiotics (including aminoglycosides, quinolones, linezolid, macrolides, and macrolides with sulfonamides, quinolones trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) have been reported to induce neonatal anemia. Therefore, antibiotics should be withheld from pregnant patients until it has been established that any such anemia is reversible after treatment with antibiotics is withdrawn. Antimicrobial Agents Certain antimicrobials (e.g., trimethoprim), macrolides fluoroquinolones), sulfonamides chloramphenicol and chloroquine), macrolide antibiotics with sulfonamide derivatives (e.g., linezolid) are hepatotoxic at doses greater than the recommended therapeutic doses in adults and pediatric patients. Antimicrobial therapy is required for these classes of medicines because their metabolism is substantially reduced, which causes reduced clearance of the bactericidal dose. Use with concomitant benzodiazepine and opioids is contraindicated in neonates and combination with sulfonamides because of a reduced clearance these agents and their possible additive teratogenic effects and hepatotoxicity. Antivirals Selectivized formulations of amphotericin B are reported to produce maternal toxicity and teratogenicity if administered to a pregnant woman. Prospective studies with topical amphotericin-B have not been conducted regarding possible congenital malformations; in addition, the use of topical amphotericin-B with oral antimicrobials is contraindicated in neonates and combination with fluoroquinolones as the are known to cause adverse effects due reduced hepatic clearance of the quinolones. Therefore, amphotericin B should not be used concurrently with drugs known to be teratogenic with fluoroquinolones. In addition, amphotericin B (10,000 mg/day) has been administered to neonates and in combination with fluoroquinolones (1% oral solution containing fluoroquinolone acetonide) during critical periods in neonates when other agents are contraindicated or ineffective for these patients. Treatments for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis should be discontinued during the third trimester unless other treatment options are considered contraindicated.

  1. Mildonium Bad Gottleuba-Berggießhübel
  2. Mildonium Schweich
  3. Lahr
  4. Reinfeld
  5. Bremerhaven


Mildonium $0.98 - pills Per pill



Metacam buy online canada Buying acetazolamide Tadalis sx 20 Diflucan buy usa


meldonium buy online australia
buy meldonium online
buy meldonium australia

Mildonium MonsonBeaufort
Mildonium Neu-AnspachMildonium Boizenburg
Mildonium BrookfieldQuincy


Viagra prices per pill Much does propecia cost uk Buy pantoprazole otc Propecia in australia Bupropion buy online


Primperan prix maroc ae) is a small, brownish, blackish (or blackish-brown) to dark brownish, striped bird that is most often seen in the spring and early summer. It is the most common member of cuckoo family. Cuckoos are among the most interesting birds in North America, having a diverse and fascinating life cycle. Their breeding habits and the role of male are among the main topics of much discussion among birdwatchers. Cuckoos mate for life, but often return to the same nest year after year. Although they stay at the nest for many weeks, they only breed about once every two years. They usually lay their eggs in clusters of four to six eggs, although in several cases birds have been observed laying their eggs singly. Both parents are needed to bring young back the nest, but a single female will often assist in this task, while the male will be absent. Cuckoo chicks are covered with down by the time they hatch, a sign of their close bond with parents. They are usually fed on grains and nectar, mainly with food scraps. Their diet consists of fruits, vegetables, meat, and eggs milk. Cuckoos are also known to eat small reptiles, amphibians, and birds. Cuckoos are known to nest in almost any crevice of trees, but are most often found in the hollows of trees. They are also known to nest in abandoned or dismantled buildings, crevices in rock, and other open spaces around the forest floor. Cuckoos often build nests in places with low vegetation, such as rock crevices, under rocks, and in or around hollow trees. Male Cuckoos do not breed in the spring, but instead begin to sing on the day following breeding of females. Cuckoos sing for a period of about year before breeding begins in the summer. Some birds sing for several days before they begin to sing attract the females. This usually occurs around the middle of June. Female Cuckoos are more secretive about their courtship rituals, and rarely perform these rituals unless they are attracted by the mating call of another female. The best time to observe male and female Cuckoos is in late summer and early autumn. Cuckoo chicks should be about six weeks old when the first of their parents are back to the nest in late August. average age at which a chick first begins to sing is about ten days. Once in the nesting area, they should begin to sing for one or two days, and then begin to sing more frequently. In most cases, female Cuckoos will return to the nest about four or five days after the male begins his courtship call. Cuckoo chicks typically do not survive for more than two years after hatching. Cuckoo chicks have a fairly short lifespan, so if you want to observe the first two years of a chick's life, your best bet would be to watch the male from early to mid-August. This is the best time of year to observe the juvenile Cuckoo as he develops. Cuckoos are very sensitive to environmental conditions. Although they can survive many different environments, they are known to be especially sensitive cold and to heat. At times, they will begin to sing loudly attract the female birds that help out at the nest. Cuckoos are also known to sing when water is available in the nesting site, and they may seek out water in the soil when rain has stopped. The Cuckoo nest does not have a structure, but rather consists of a hole in the ground, perch, and a cover. Male female Cuckoos make the entrance hole with a sharp stone, using this stone as a way to make the entrance more visible and to prevent their bodies from being eaten by other animals. When a male first begins to sing, he will Mildonium $412 $75 - Per pill try make his female friend stay in the nest to protect them from the birds that are not their mate. This behavior will increase over time, but the exact number of times this will occur is unknown. Cuckoos build their nests on trees, under rocks, with the help of twigs, grass and fallen leaves. A bird with large nest is known to be able store many eggs in the nest cavity, which is about the size of a pea. Cuckoo bird may leave the nest only for a short period of time during which it has to feed chicks, but then usually returns to the nest build more nests. Cuckoos have a complex nesting system that is used to protect a nest by providing insulation and shelter from predators. They use a mixture of leaves in the nest, twigs and vegetation, leaves, branches, in the perches. Their nest is built with a hole in the ground, usually center of a tree trunk or hollow trunk.

  • london drugs canada price match
  • prescription drug price list canada
  • meldonium buy online australia
  • buy meldonium online

Meldonium Buy Usa
4-5 stars based on 619 reviews

Buy colchicine 500 microgram tablets

Phenergan dosage nz2

34

  5

lots of ways to participate in development third party mobile software improvements

6

Categories
publication Buy meldonium australia

Orlistate preзo 84 capsulas

This originally appeared on the ACRL TechConnect blog.

A few months ago as part of a discussion on open peer review, I described the early stages of planning for a new type of journal, called PeerJ. Last month on February 12 PeerJ launched with its first 30 articles. By last week, the journal had published 53 articles. There are a number of remarkable attributes of the journal so far, so in this post I want to look at what PeerJ is actually doing, and some lessons that academic libraries can take away–particularly for those who are getting into publishing.

What PeerJ is Doing

On the opening day blog post (since there are no editorials or issues in PeerJ, communication from the editors has to be done via blog post 1), the PeerJ team outlined their mission under four headings: to make their content open and help to make that standard practice, to practice constant innovation, to “serve academia”, and to make this happen at minimal cost to researchers and no cost to the public. The list of advisory board and academic editors is impressive–it is global and diverse, and includes some big names and Nobel laureates. To someone judging the quality of the work likely to be published, this is a good indication. The members of PeerJ range in disciplines, with the majority in Molecular Biology. To submit and/or publish work requires a fee, but there is a free plan that allows one pre-print to be posted on the forthcoming PeerJ PrePrints.

PeerJ’s publication methods are based on PLoS ONE, which publishes articles based on subjective scientific and methodological soundness rather with no emphasis placed on subjective measures of novelty or interest (see more on this). Like all peer-reviewed journals, articles are sent to an academic editor in the field, who then sends the article to peer reviewers. Everything is kept confidential until the article actually is published, but authors are free to talk about their work in other venues like blogs.

Look and Feel
PeerJ on an iPhone size screen
PeerJ on an iPhone size screen

There are several striking dissimilarities between PeerJ and standard academic journals. The home page of the journal emphasizes striking visuals and is responsive to devices, so the large image scales to a small screen for easy reading. The “timeline” display emphasizes new and interesting content. 2 The code they used to make this all happen is available openly on the PeerJ Github account. The design of the page reflects best practices for non-profit web design, as described by the non-profit social media guide Nonprofit Tech 2.0. The page tells a story, makes it easy to get updates, works on all devices, and integrates social media. The design of the page has changed iteratively even in the first month to reflect the realities of what was actually being published and how people were accessing it. 3 PDFs of articles were designed to be readable on screens, especially tablets, so rather than trying to fit as much text as possible on one page as many PDFs are designed, they have single columns with left margins, fewer words per line, and references hyperlinked in the text. 4

How Open Peer Review Works

One of the most notable features of PeerJ is open peer review. This is not mandatory, but approximately half the reviewers and authors have chosen to participate. 5This article is an example of open peer review in practice. You can read the original article, the (in this case anonymous) reviewer’s comments, the editors comments and the author’s rebuttal letter. Anyone who has submitted an article to a peer reviewed journal before will recognize this structure, but if you have not, this might be an exciting glimpse of something you have never seen before. As a non-scientist, I personally find this more useful as a didactic tool to show the peer review process in action, but I can imagine how helpful it would be to see this process for articles about areas of library science in which I am knowledgeable.

With only 53 articles and in existence for such a short time, it is difficult to measure what impact open peer review has on articles, or to generalize about which authors and reviewers choose an open process. So far, however, PeerJ reports that several authors have been very positive about their experience publishing with the journal. The speed of review is very fast, and reviewers have been constructive and kind in their language. One author goes into more detail in his original post, “One of the reviewers even signed his real name. Now, I’m not totally sure why they were so nice to me. They were obvious experts in the system that I studied …. But they were nice, which was refreshing and encouraging.” He also points out that the exciting thing about PeerJ for him is that all it requires are projects that were technically well-executed and carefully described, so that this encourages publication of negative or unexpected results, thus avoiding the file drawer effect.6

This last point is perhaps the most important to note. We often talk of peer-reviewed articles as being particularly significant and “high-impact.” But in the case of PeerJ, the impact is not necessarily due to the results of the research or the type of research, but that it was well done. One great example of this is the article “Significant Changes in the Skin Microbiome Mediated by the Sport of Roller Derby”. 7 This was a study about the transfer of bacteria during roller derby matches, and the study was able to prove its hypothesis that contact sports are a good environment in which to study movements of bacteria among people. The (very humorous) review history indicates that the reviewers were positive about the article, and felt that it had promise for setting a research paradigm. (Incidentally, one of the reviewers remained anonymous , since he/she felt that this could “[free] junior researchers to openly and honestly critique works by senior researchers in their field,” and signed the letter “Diligent but human postdoc reviewer”.) This article was published the beginning of March, and already has 2,307 unique visits to the page, and has been shared widely on social media. We can assume that one of the motivations for sharing this article was the potential for roller derby jokes or similar, but will this ultimately make the article’s long term impact stronger? This will be something to watch.

What Can Academic Libraries Learn?

A recent article In the Library With the Lead Pipe discussed the open ethos in two library publications, In the Library With the Lead Pipe and Code4Lib Journal. 8 This article concluded that more LIS publications need to open the peer review process, though the publications mentioned are not peer reviewed in the traditional sense. There are very few, if any, open peer reviewed publications in the nature of PeerJ outside of the sciences. Could libraries or library-related publications match this process? Would they want to?

I think we can learn a few things from PeerJ. First, the rapid publication cycle means that more work is getting published more quickly. This is partly because they have so many reviewers and so any one reviewer isn’t overburdened–and due to their membership model, it is in the best financial interests of potential future authors to be current reviewers. As In the Library With the Lead Pipe points out that a central academic library journal, College & Research Libraries, is now open access and early content is available as a pre-print, the pre-prints reflect content that will be published in some cases well over a year from now. A year is a long time to wait, particularly for work that looks at current technology. Information Technology in Libraries (ITAL), the LITA journal is also open access and provides pre-prints as well–but this page appears to be out of date.

Another thing we can learn is making reading easier and more convenient while still maintaining a professional appearance and clean visuals. Blogs like ACRL Tech Connect and In the Library with the Lead Pipe deliver quality content fairly quickly, but look like blogs. Journals like the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication have a faster turnaround time for review and publication (though still could take several months), but even this online journal is geared for a print world. Viewing the article requires downloading a PDF with text presented in two columns–hardly the ideal online reading experience. In these cases, the publication is somewhat at the mercy of the platform (WordPress in the former, BePress Digital Commons in the latter), but as libraries become publishers, they will have to develop platforms that meet the needs of modern researchers.

A question put to the ACRL Tech Connect contributors about preferred reading methods for articles suggests that there is no one right answer, and so the safest course is to release content in a variety of formats or make it flexible enough for readers to transform to a preferred format. A new journal to watch is Weave: Journal of Library User Experience, which will use the Digital Commons platform but present content in innovative ways. 9 Any libraries starting new journals or working with their campuses to create new journals should be aware of who their readers are and make sure that the solutions they choose work for those readers.

 

 

  1. “The Launch of PeerJ – PeerJ Blog.” Accessed February 19, 2013. http://blog.peerj.com/post/42920112598/launch-of-peerj. ↩
  2. “Some of the Innovations of the PeerJ Publication Platform – PeerJ Blog.” Accessed February 19, 2013. http://blog.peerj.com/post/42920094844/peerj-functionality. ↩
  3. http://blog.peerj.com/post/45264465544/evolution-of-timeline-design-at-peerj ↩
  4. “The Thinking Behind the Design of PeerJ’s PDFs.” Accessed March 18, 2013. http://blog.peerj.com/post/43558508113/the-thinking-behind-the-design-of-peerjs-pdfs. ↩
  5. http://blog.peerj.com/post/43139131280/the-reception-to-peerjs-open-peer-review ↩
  6. “PeerJ Delivers: The Review Process.” Accessed March 18, 2013. http://edaphics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/peerj-delivers-review-process.html. ↩
  7. Meadow, James F., Ashley C. Bateman, Keith M. Herkert, Timothy K. O’Connor, and Jessica L. Green. “Significant Changes in the Skin Microbiome Mediated by the Sport of Roller Derby.” PeerJ 1 (March 12, 2013): e53. doi:10.7717/peerj.53. ↩
  8. Ford, Emily, and Carol Bean. “Open Ethos Publishing at Code4Lib Journal and In the Library with the Lead Pipe.” In the Library with the Lead Pipe (December 12, 2012). http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2012/open-ethos-publishing/. ↩
  9. Personal communication with Matthew Reidsma, March 19, 2013. ↩
Categories
Meldonium buy online australia Tamoxifen purchase online

Does synthroid help with weight loss

This originally appeared on the ACRL TechConnect blog.

Bibliometrics– used here to mean statistical analyses of the output and citation of periodical literature–is a huge and central field of library and information science. In this post, I want to address the general controversy surrounding these metrics when evaluating scholarship and introduce the emerging alternative metrics (often called altmetrics) that aim to address some of these controversies and how these can be used in libraries. Librarians are increasingly becoming focused on the publishing side of the scholarly communication cycle, as well as supporting faculty in new ways (see, for instance, David Lankes’s thought experiment of the tenure librarian). What is the reasonable approach for technology-focused academic librarians to these issues? And what tools exist to help?

There have been many articles and blog posts expressing frustration with the practice of using journal impact factors for judging the quality of a journal or an individual researcher (see especially Seglen). One vivid illustration of this frustration is in a recent blog post by Stephen Curry titled “Sick of Impact Factors”. Librarians have long used journal impact factors in making purchasing decisions, which is one of the less controversial uses of these metrics 1 The essential message of all of this research about impact factors is that traditional methods of counting citations or determining journal impact do not answer questions about what articles are influential and how individual researchers contribute to the academy. For individual researchers looking to make a case for promotion and tenure, questions of use of metrics can be all or nothing propositions–hence the slightly hysterical edge in some of the literature. Librarians, too, have become frustrated with attempting to prove the return on investment for decisions–see “How ROI Killed the Academic Library”–going by metrics alone potentially makes the tools available to researchers more homogeneous and ignores niches. As the alt metrics manifesto suggests, the traditional “filters” in scholarly communication of peer review, citation metrics, and journal impact factors are becoming obsolete in their current forms.

Traditional Metrics

It would be of interest to determine, if possible, the part which men of different calibre [sic] contribute to the progress of science.

Alfred Lotka (a statistician at the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, famous for his work in demography) wrote these words in reference to his 1926 statistical analysis of the journal output of chemists 2 Given the tools available at the time, it was a fairly limited sample size, looking at just the first two letters of an author index for the period of 16 years compared with a slim 100 page volume of important works “from the beginning of history to 1900.” His analysis showed that the more articles published in a field, the less likely it is for an individual author to publish more than one article. As Per Seglen puts it, this showed the “skewness” of science 3

The original journal impact factor was developed by Garfield in the 1970s, and used the “mean number of citations to articles published in two preceding years” 4.   Quite clearly, this is supposed to measure the general amount that a journal was cited, and hence a guide to how likely a researcher was to read and immediately find useful the body of work in this journal in his or her own work. This is helpful for librarians trying to make decisions about how to stretch a budget, but the literature has not found that a journal’s impact has much to do with an individual article’s citedness and usefulness 5 As one researcher suggests, using it for anything other than its intended original use constitutes pseudoscience 6 Another issue with which those at smaller institutions are very familiar is the cost of accessing traditional metrics. The major resources that provide these are Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports and Web of Science, and Elsevier’s Scopus, and both are outside the price range of many schools.

Metrics that attempt to remedy some of these difficulties have been developed. At the journal level, the Eigenfactor® and Article Influence Score™ use network theory to estimate “the percentage of time that library users spend with that journal”, and the Article Influence Score tracks the influence of the journal over five years. 7. At the researcher level, the h-index tracks the impact of specific researchers (it was developed with physicists in mind). The h-index takes into account the number of papers the researcher has published in how much time when looking at citations. 8

These are included under the rubric of alternative metrics since they are an alternative to the JCR, but rely on citations in traditional academic journals, something which the “altmetric” movement wants to move beyond.

Alt Metrics

In this discussion of alt metrics I will be referring to the arguments and tools suggested by Altmetrics.org. In the alt metrics manifesto, Priem et al. point to several manifestations of scholarly communication that are unlike traditional article publications, including raw data, “nanopublication”, and self-publishing via social media (which was predicted as so-called “scholarly skywriting” at the dawn of the World Wide Web 9). Combined with sharing of traditional articles more readily due to open access journals and social media, these all create new possibilities for indicating impact. Yet the manifesto also cautions that we must be sure that the numbers which alt metrics collect “really reflect impact, or just empty buzz.”  The research done so far is equally cautious. A 2011 study suggests that tweets about articles (tweetations) do correlate with citations but that we cannot say that number of tweets about an article really measures the impact. 10

A criticism expressed in the media about alt metrics is that alternative metrics are no more likely to be able to judge the quality or true impact of a scientific paper than traditional metrics. 11 As Per Seglen noted in 1992, “Once the field boundaries are broken there is virtually no limit to the number of citations an article may accrue.” 12 So an article that is interdisciplinary in nature is likely to do far better in the alternative metrics realm than a specialized article in a discipline that still may be very important. Mendeleley’s list of top research papers demonstrates this–many (though not all) the top articles are about scientific publication in general rather than about specific scientific results.

What can librarians use now?

Librarians are used to questions like “What is the impact factor of Journal X?” For librarians lucky enough to have access to Journal Citation Reports, this is a matter of looking up the journal and reporting the score. They could answer “How many times has my article been cited?” in Web of Science or Scopus using some care in looking for typos. Alt metrics, however, remind us that these easy answers are not telling the whole story. So what should librarians be doing?

One thing that librarians can start doing is helping their campus community get signed up for the many different services that will promote their research and provide article level citation information. Below are listed a small number (there are certainly others out there) of services that you may want to consider using yourself or having your campus community use. Some, like PubMed, won’t be relevant to all disciplines. Altmetrics.org lists several tools beyond what is listed below to provide additional ideas.

These tools offer various methods for sharing. PubMed allows one to embed “My Bibliography” in a webpage, as well as to create delegates who can help curate the bibliography. A developer can use the APIs provided by some of these services to embed data for individuals or institutions on a library website or institutional repository. ImpactStory has an API that makes it relatively easy to embed data for individuals or institutions on a library website or institutional repository. Altmetric.com also has an API that is free for non-commercial use. Mendeley has many helpful apps that integrate with popular content management systems.

Since this is such a new field, it’s a great time to get involved. Altmetrics.org held a hackathon in November 2012 and has a Google Doc with the ideas for the hackathon. This is an interesting overview of what is going on with open source hacking on alt metrics.

Conclusion

The altmetrics manifesto program calls for a complete overhaul of scholarly communication–alternative research metrics are just a part of their critique. And yet, for librarians trying to help researchers, they are often the main concern. While science in general calls for a change to the use of these metrics, we can help to shape the discussion through educating and using alternative metrics.

 

Works Cited and Suggestions for Further Reading
Bourg, Chris. 2012. “How ROI Killed the Academic Library.” Feral Librarian. http://chrisbourg.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/how-roi-killed-the-academic-library/.
Cronin, Blaise, and Kara Overfelt. 1995. “E-Journals and Tenure.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46 (9) (October): 700-703.
Curry, Stephen. 2012. “Sick of Impact Factors.” Reciprocal Space. http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/08/13/sick-of-impact-factors/.
“Methods”, 2012. Eigenfactor.org.
Eysenbach, Gunther. 2011. “Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact.” Journal Of Medical Internet Research 13 (4) (December 19): e123-e123.
Gisvold, Sven-Erik. 1999. “Citation Analysis and Journal Impact Factors – Is the Tail Wagging the Dog?” Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 43 (November): 971-973.
Hirsch, J. E. “An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, no. 46 (November 15, 2005): 16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
Howard, Jennifer. 2012. “Scholars Seek Better Ways to Track Impact Online.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 29, sec. Technology. http://chronicle.com/article/As-Scholarship-Goes-Digital/130482/.
Jump, Paul. 2012. “Alt-metrics: Fairer, Faster Impact Data?” Times Higher Education, August 23, sec. Research Intelligence. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=420926.
Lotka, Alfred J. 1926. “The Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity.” Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 26 (12) (June 16): 317-324.
Mayor, Julien. 2010. “Are Scientists Nearsighted Gamblers? The Misleading Nature of Impact Factors.” Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement: 215. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00215.
Oransky, Ivan. 2012. “Was Elsevier’s Peer Review System Hacked to Get More Citations?” Retraction Watch. http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/was-elseviers-peer-review-system-hacked-to-get-more-citations/.
Priem, J., D. Taraborelli, P. Groth, and C. Neylon. 2010. “Altmetrics: A Manifesto.” Altmetrics.org. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
Seglen, Per O. 1992. “The Skewness of Science.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43 (9) (October): 628-638.
———. 1994. “Causal Relationship Between Article Citedness and Journal Impact.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45 (1) (January): 1-11.
Vanclay, Jerome K. 2011. “Impact Factor: Outdated Artefact or Stepping-stone to Journal Certification?” Scientometrics 92 (2) (November 24): 211-238. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0.
Notes
  1. Jerome K. Vanclay,  “Impact Factor: Outdated Artefact or Stepping-stone to Journal Certification?” Scientometrics 92 (2) (2011):  212. ↩
  2. Alfred Lotka, “The Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity.” Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 26 (12) (1926)): 317. ↩
  3. Per Seglen, “The Skewness of Science.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43 (9) (1992): 628. ↩
  4. Vanclay, 212. ↩
  5. Per Seglen, “Causal Relationship Between Article Citedness and Journal Impact.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45 (1) (1994): 1-11. ↩
  6. Vanclay, 211. ↩
  7. “Methods”, Eigenfactor.org, 2012. ↩
  8. J.E. Hirsch, “An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, no. 46 (2005): 16569–16572. ↩
  9. Blaise Cronin and Kara Overfelt, “E-Journals and Tenure.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46 (9) (1995): 700. ↩
  10. Gunther Eysenbach, “Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact.” Journal Of Medical Internet Research 13 (4) (2011): e123. ↩
  11. see in particular Jump. ↩
  12. Seglen, 637. ↩