Publication Habits Research Articles

Is scientists' publishing behaviour rewardseeking?

The use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation makes many hidden assumptions about scientists' publishing habits. This paper tests an assumption that scientists are reward oriented and attempt to publish in as prestigious channels as possible, seeking an optimal level in the hierarchy of publications. The data are based on interviews with teaching and research personnel in four university departments in the fields of zoology, biomedicine, and automation and control technology. The author concludes that in all studied fields scientists placed equal emphasis on the reward and communication functions of publishing. The actual publishing behaviour of biomedical scientists, nevertheless, accorded best with the assumption of seeking an optimal level of publishing in terms of prestige. By contrast, in zoology and technical fields, local and field-related publishing habits appeared strong.

Government Publications in Academic Science and Technology Libraries

There is a significant volume of scientific and technical documents, as opposed to report literature, available from federal and state government agencies. There is also a considerable number of government journals in the sciences containing research related information. Yet, there are not many studies available in library literature about the value of such materials to and their use by academic science and technology faculty in their teaching or research. The few surveys which have been conducted in the past point towards a lower minimal use of these documents. This, however, is not enough evidence to justify a generalization that scientific and technical documents fall under the low use category in academic libraries. Assuming that this is so, one needs to find out whether any programs like SDI by subject bibliographers can be instituted to augment user awareness. The article raises some pertinent questions relating to this topic, such as, how academic scientists become aware of the existence of these documents, what is their utility in academic teaching and research, how has the online and ondisc technology affected their use and finally, whether the publishing habits of academic scientists and technologists have any bearing on the library use patterns of these documents.

Federal Funding and Planetary Astronomy, 1950-75: A Case Study

Planetary astronomy offers an excellent opportunity to examine the effects of federal funding on scientific careers and specialties. Some scientists and historians have claimed that study of the moon and planets, once a major specialty in astronomy, became a minority specialty around the turn of the century, having been eclipsed by stellar and galactic agendas. According to this view, the space programme contributed to a renewal of planetary studies as plans were being made for exploratory voyages. NASA made available relatively large sums of money for new instruments, facilities, observations, theoretical work, and predoctoral training. Evidence that links investments in these programmes with renewed interest in the planets by astronomers (and also geophysicists) has been largely anecdotal. In this paper an attempt is made to measure this renewed activity in a more objective way, and to relate this activity to the infusion of money. The analyses reported here concentrate on the changing composition of the community of scientists who published on planetary topics before and during the NASA programmes, with special attention to career problems chosen for investigation. The analyses make use of an existing data base on publishing habits of American astronomers, combined with aggregate funding data.

Publication habits of psychologists in Canadian universities.

Publication habits of psychologists in Canadian universities.

Evaluación de la trayectoria investigadora a través de la distribución de citas: una aplicación a los Nobel de economía

La distribución de citas de un investigador refleja el impacto de su producción y determina el éxito de su carrera profesional. Sin embargo, resulta difícil su aplicación por el carácter bidimensional. En los últimos años, han aparecido algunos indicadores que tratan de sintetizar, en un valor numérico, las características principales de esta distribución. A diferencia de otros indicadores, el índice h elimina los sesgos provocados por las colas de la distribución. Sin embargo, este indicador presenta limitaciones a la hora de discriminar entre investigadores con diferentes hábitos de publicación, penalizando a aquellos más selectivos, que no destacan por el número de publicaciones pero sí por el alto número de citas recibidas, frente a los grandes productores. En este trabajo se aplican dos nuevos indicadores en la evaluación de los ganadores del Nobel de Economía.

The Future of Physics Publications. A Proposal.

A year or so after I had entered the University of Leiden as a student of physics I noticed one day an unusual excitement among my more advanced colleagues. Its cause was the appearance of a new book Atombau und Spektrallinien by Arnold Sommerfeld. This brilliant author made it possible to learn everything about the Bohr atom, including the latest refinements of the theory, without having to dig it out of numerous, often badly written original articles. The book soon became the most important physics text and was read by all who were interested in the frontier of physics at that time, atomic structure. Everyone admired its clarity, though some claimed that the book was not always fair in giving credit (for example, it contained several sections on radioactivity, but did not mention the Curies at all).I could not afford to buy the book, but studied it avidly in the library. It suddenly entered my mind that to have been mentioned in that book was a sign of great success. In my youthful enthusiasm and lack of insight I was convinced that a footnote reference in "Sommerfeld" was sufficient to acquire some sort of immortality since it would be seen by numerous future generations. I have forgotten whether I made the grade in a later edition. But I am not even interested in checking up on it. The book has long since been assigned to oblivion. Few, if any, of the contributors to Physical Review Letters know of its existence and even fewer know of the important contributions to atomic theory made by its great author, Arnold Sommerfeld.I tell this story because it illustrates an error in authors' thinking: They do not wish to admit that their articles are only ephemeral, even when their contributions to physics may be lasting. We publish in so-called "archive journals," implying that our writings will be consulted for centuries. Our shelves are filled to overflowing with years and years of The Physical Review; we dare not discard any of them.With the growth of physics, the number of articles and journals is now so large that a physicist can keep informed only about his own field of specialization. The amount of new material a scientist can learn each year is no more now than it was in the past, while the amount of new ideas and data produced on the average per active researcher has probably also changed little. The obvious result is that an expansion of physics forces each physicist towards narrower specialization. This causes a split into a number of loosely related branches and leads to the creation of many new specialized journals.The multiplication of journals is, however, not a good solution to the problem of communication among physicists. There is still much overlap between the various branches so that it is now often necessary even for a specialist to consult several journals. Similarly, the selection of the proper journal for publishing a specific article is often difficult. The existence of many journals each with a limited number of subscribers is also uneconomical since it requires a multiplication of costly editorial, printing, and distribution services.A drastic modification in the publishing habits of physicists is needed if we do not want our science to disintegrate into a number of minor disciplines, competing for attention. Many suggestions for changes have been made, most of them based on the theme, "Please send me only the articles I want." It is not realized that this would require very elaborate distribution services of prohibitive cost.We wish to suggest just the opposite. It is far more economical to let the subscriber do the selecting; in addition, he may even discover interesting articles which would not have reached him if the selections were made at the source. A less cumber some and less expensive printing method and a wider circulation should be the aim. We envisage that a number of the now existing journals could be merged into a single "pulp" magazine. It would appear five times per week and would be mailed to the combined subscribers of the present journals. The savings to both publishers and subscribers would be considerable. Such a magazine would still be divided into sections according to subject matter, but the precise classification of an article would not be as essential as when the sections reach different readers. The wide distribution may even encourage authors to compose their articles so that they can be appreciated outside their specialized circle. Since we believe these articles to have only a transient value, the subscriber can discard the magazine after a suitably short time. However, a high-grade paper should be used for authors' reprints. Libraries could subscribe to a special edition printed on durable paper, ensuring the availability of original articles in a distant future.