Do New SCI Journals Have a Different National Bias?

R. D. Shelton, Patricia Foland, and Roman Gorelskyy

Sponsored by a sabbatical from Loyola and NSF Grant ENG-0423742

Outline

What is the problem? Hypothesis Methodology Preliminary results Conclusions from preliminary data A way to refine data Final conclusions

What is the Problem?

Are new journals more favorable to Asian Tigers than EU and US?

It is a SCI a rubber ruler in measuring National Publications?

Asian Tigers = China, Taiwan, Singapore, and S. Korea.

Publication Shares

Whole Count Paper Shares

05

1015202530354045

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Pe

rce

nta

ge

US

EU15

AT

AT = China, Taiwan, Singapore and S. Korea

Cause of US declining available at http://itri2.org/Apaper/current.doc to appear in Scientometrics.

Hypothesis

In response to criticism that it is biased toward English language and the U.S., the Science Citation Index may have changed to be less favorable to the U.S. This could account for some of the rapid decline in U.S. publication since 1995.

Methodology

For a sample of eight fields, partition their journals into two sets: new journals added to the SCI after 1994, and old added before.

Then measure U.S. share of each journal to see if the difference between old and new is significant.

Discipline

Total Journals

Total Journals Searched

New Journals

Agricultural Sciences 462Biology & Biochemistry 596Chemistry 649Clinical Medicine 1991Computer Science 216 211 78Ecology/Environment 299Engineering 941 919 211Geosciences 370Immunology 119 118 11Materials Science 319 317 70Mathematics 245 240 73Microbiology 166 161 20Molecular Biology & Genetics 211Multidisciplinary 166Neurosciences & Behavior 240Pharmacology 178 178 31Physics 458Plant & Animal Science 857Psychology/Psychiatry 588Space Science 58 56 15Total 9129 2200 509

US Share of Space Science Papers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004

Per

cen

t US Share

Share Old Journals

Share New Journals

Example Analysis of U.S. Share in SCI

EU Share of Space Science Papers

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004

Perc

ent

Share Overall

Share Old

Share New

Asian Tiger Share of Space Science Papers

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

10.0

1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004

Perc

ent

Share Overall

Share Old

Share New

US Share of Journals

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.0

Per

cent

All Journals

Old Journals

New Journals

Sample of Eight Fields of Science

EU Journal Shares in 2004

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Space

Scie

nce

Imm

unolog

y

Mat

h

Engine

erin

g

Micr

oBio

logy

Mat

erials

Scienc

e

Compu

ter S

cienc

e

Pharm

acolo

gy

Total

s

Pe

rce

nta

ge

All Journals

Old Journals

New Journals

Asian Tigers Share of 2004 Journals

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Space

Scie

nce

Imm

unolog

y

Mat

h

Engine

erin

g

Micr

oBio

logy

Mat

erials

Scienc

e

Compu

ter S

cienc

e

Pharm

acolo

gy

Total

s

Per

cen

tag

e

All JournalsOld JournalsNew Journals

Conclusions from Bias Study

In some fields (space science, math, and microbiology) new journals were much less favorable to the U.S. But, in some fields the opposite was true. In aggregate over 8 fields the change in bias was too small to account for the sharp changes in national shares. Most share differences between old and new journals are not statistically significant.Therefore, hypothesis is not proven, and is unlikely to be proven in the 24 fields of the National Science Indicator CD. Thus, the shifts in national shares are real and are probably not an artifact of the SCI database.

A Way to Refine Data

Take the “new journals” and verify one by one if they are “truly new” by confirming the first publication date in other sources such as Google, Journalseek, Elsevier. Come back to SCI database and check if was added under a different name.

Then compare with the original data.

Results from Refinement Process

Pharmacology U.S. Share in 2004

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

31.0

Original Refined

Perc

enta

ge

ALL

OLD

NEW

Pharmacology EU Share in 2004

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Original Refined

ALL

OLD

NEW

Pharmacology AT Share in 2004

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Original Refined

ALL

OLD

NEW

Results from Refinement Process (continued)

Results from Refinement Process (continued)

US Share of 2004 Journals(from refined data)

0.010.020.030.040.050.0

Per

cen

tag

e All

Old

New

Conclusions from refined data

Even though there were many journals that were not “truly new” (because they had changed their names), it doesn’t affect the final results.

New journals are not significantly more favorable to AT.

This study confirms that SCI is an accurate method in measuring National Publications.

References

Also see review draft of text paper for complete list of citations at:

http://itri2.org/Bpaper/current.doc