Advertisement

Professional Value of Scientific Papers and Their Citation Responding

  • Jaroslav FialaEmail author
  • Jaroslav Šesták
Chapter
Part of the Hot Topics in Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry book series (HTTC, volume 11)

Abstract

In the course of the last thirty years, science enjoys a remarkable quantitative boom. For example, the total number of substances, registered in the Chemical Abstracts Service Registry File (CAS RF) at the end of the year 1985, was about 8 millions while at the end of the year 2015 it reached up to 104 millions. But, still more and more behind this quantitative boom of science are some of its qualitative aspects. So, e.g., the x–y–z coordinates of atoms in molecules are presently known for no more than 1 million of substances. For the majority of substances registered in CAS RF, we do not know much on their properties, how they react with other substances and to what purpose they could serve. Gmelin Institute for Inorganic Chemistry and Beilstein Institute for Organic Chemistry, which systematically gathered and extensively published such information since the nineteenth century, were canceled in 1997 (Gmelin) and 1998 (Beilstein). The number of scientific papers annually published increases, but the value of information they bring falls. The growth of sophisticated ‘push-and-button’ apparatuses allows easier preparation of publications while facilitating ready-to-publish data. Articles can thus be compiled by mere combination of different measurements usually without idea what it all is about and to what end this may serve. Driving force for the production of ever growing number of scientific papers is the need of authors to be distinguished in order to be well considered in seeing financial support. The money and fame are distributed to scientists according to their publication and citation scores. While the number of publications is clearly a quantitative criterion, much hopes have been placed on the citation, which promised to serve well as an adequate measure of the genuine scientific value, i.e., of quality of the scientific work. That, and why these hopes were not accomplished, is discussed in detail in our contribution. Special case of Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry is discussed in more particulars.

Keywords

Scientific Work Reference Spectrum Journal Citation Report Registered Substance Pattern Vector 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The present work was developed at the Join Research Laboratory of the Institute of Physics CAS and the New Technologies Centre of the University of West Bohemia in Pilzen (the CENTEM project, Reg. No. CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0088 that is cofunded from the ERDF as a part of the MEYS—Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports OP RDI Program and, in the follow-up sustainability stage supported through the CENTEM PLUS LO 1402). The paper is based on a long-lasting close letter friendship of J. Fiala with E. Garfield. Deep thanks are due to the shared efforts by J. Czarnecki (formerly with Chan, USA), I. Kraus Czech Technical University in Prague), J. Leitner (Institute of Chemical Technology in Prague), J.J. Mareš, P. Hubík, D. Kindl, V. Špička (Institute of Physics), P. Holba+, M. Holeček, P. Martinec (Westbohemian University), M. Liška (Vitrum Laugaricio, Dubček University in Trenčín), J. Málek (University of Pardubice), A. Kállay-Menyhárd, J. Simon (Budapest University of Technology and Economics), and P. Šimon (President of the Slovak Chemical Society, Technical University in Bratislava). Cartoons (adapted) by courtesy of M. Barták and J. Jurčák.

References

  1. 1.
    Šesták J (2012) Citation records and some forgotten anniversaries in thermal analysis. J Thermal Anal Calorim 108:511–518; and Šesták J, Fiala J, Gavrichev SK (2017) Evaluation of the professional worth of scientific papers, their citation responding and the publication authority of Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry. J Thermal Anal Calorim doi: 10.1007/s10973-017-6178-7
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Garfield E (1996) What is the primordial reference for the phrase ‘Publish or parish’? Scientist 10:11Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fiala J, Šesták J (2000) Databases in material science: contemporary state and future. J Thermal Anal Calorim 60:1101–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fiala J (1987) Information flood: fiction and reality. Thermochim Acta 110:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burnham JF (2006) SCOPUS database: a review. Biomed Digit Libr 3:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br Med J 314:498–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adam D (2002) Citation analysis: the counting house. Nature 415:726–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scully C, Lodge H (2005) Impact factors and their significance; overrated or misused? Br Dent J 198:391–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lehmann S, Jackson AD, Lautrup BE (2006) Measures for measures. Nature 444:1003–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Editorial (2008) Papers about papers. Nature Nanotechnol 3:633Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frey BS, Rost K (2010) Do rankings reflect research quality? J Appl Ecol 13:1–38Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Editorial (2013) Beware the impact factor. Nat Mater 12:89Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Editorial (2003) Deciphering impact factors. Nat Neurosci 6:783Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ylä-Herttuala S (2015) From the impact factor to DORA and the scientific content of articles. Mol Ther 23:609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/ and Beall J, Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. http://scholarlyva.com/
  18. 18.
    Garfield E (1955) A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122:108–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson AA, Davis RB (1975) The research productivity of academic materials scientists. J Met 27(6):28–29Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roy R (1976) Comments on citation study of materials science departments. J Met 28:29–30Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mannchen W (1965) Einführung in die Thermodynamik der Mischphasen. VEB Deutscher Verlag für Grundstoffindustrie, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garfiel E (1979) Citation indexing. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garfield E (1979) Perspective on citation analysis of scientists, Chap 10. In Garfield E (ed) Citation indexing. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cronin B, Atkins HB (eds) (2000) The web of knowledge. Information Today, MedfordGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16569–16572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eghe L (2006) Theory and practise of the G-index. Scientometrics 69:131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bornmann L, Mutz R, Hug SE, Daniel H-D (2011) A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the H-index and 37 different H-index variants. Informetrics 5:346–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goethe JW (1870) Faust a tragedy, translated by Bayard Taylor, Part I, Scene I. Night, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ketcham CM (2007) Predicting impact factor one year in advance. Lab Invest 87:520–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Garfield E (1999) Journal impact factor: a brief review. Can Med Assoc J 161:979–980Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    The Gospel according to St. John 8:12Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    The Gospel according to St. Matthew 12:25Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    The Book of the prophet Jeremiah 10:23Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kraus I (2015) Ženy v dějinách matematiky, fyziky a astronomie (Ladies in the history of mathematics and physics), Česká technika – nakladatelství ČVUT, Praha Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kraus I (1997) Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, dědic šťastné náhody (Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen: the heritage of lucky coincidence), Prometheus, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ozawa T (1970) Kinetic analysis of derivative curves in thermal analysis. J Thermal Anal 2:301–324Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kissinger HE (1957) Reaction kinetics in differential thermal analysis. Anal Chem 29:1702–1706Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Šesták J (2014) Is the original Kissinger equation obsolete today—not obsolete the entire non-isothermal kinetics? J Thermal Anal Calorim 117:1173–1177; and (2014) Imperfections of Kissinger evaluation method and crystallization kinetics. Glass Physics Chem 40:486–449Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Augis JA, Bennet JE (1978) Calculation of Avrami parameters for heterogeneous solid-state reactions using a modification of Kissinger method. J Thermal Anal 13:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reading M, Elliot D, Hill VL (1993) A new approach to the calorimetric investigations of physical and chemical transitions. J Thermal Anal Calor 40:949–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Šesták J, Berggren G (1971) Study of the kinetics of the mechanism of solid-state reactions at increasing temperatures. Thermochim Acta 3:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brun M, Lallemand A, Quinson JF, Eyraud C (1977) New method for simultaneous determination of size and shape of pores—thermoporometry. Thermochim Acta 21:59–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wunderlich B, Jin YM, Boller Y (1994) A mathematical description of DSC based on periodic temperature modulations. Thermochim Acta 238:277–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vyazovkin S, Burnham AK, Criado JN, Perez-Maqueda LA, Popescu C, Sbirrazzuoli N (2011) ICTAC Kinetics Committee recommendations for performing kinetic computations on thermal analysis data. Thermochim Acta 520(1–19)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Newton I (1701) Scale graduum Caloris. Calorum Descriptiones & Signa. Philosophical Trans 22:824–829Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tian A (1933) Recherches sue la calorimétrie. Généralisation de la méthode de compensation électrique: Microcalorimétrie. J de Chimie-Physiq 30:665–708Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Holba P, Šesták J (2015) Heat inertia and its role in thermal analysis. J Thermal Anal Calor 121:303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Davidovits J (1989) Geopolymers and geopolymeric materials. J Thermal Anal 35:429–441; and (1991) Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric materials. J Thermal Anal 37:1633–1656; and Šesták J, Foller B (2012) Some aspects of composite inorganic polysialates. J Thermal Anal Calor 109:1–5Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Davidovits J (2015) Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications. Institut Géopolymère, Saint-Quentin (previously 2008 and 2011). ISBN 9782951482098Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Šesták J, Chvoj Z (1987) Thermodynamics of kinetic phase diagrams. J Thermal Anal 32:325–333; and (1991) Nonequilibrium kinetic phase diagrams in the PbCl2-AgCl eutectic system. J Therm Anal 43:439–448Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chvoj Z, Šesták J, Tříska A (eds) (1991) Kinetic phase diagrams: non-equilibrium phase transitions. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mimkes J (1995) Binary alloys as a model for the multicultural society. J Thermal Anal 43:521; and (2000) Society as many particle system. J Thermal Anal Calor 60:1055Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Richmond P, Mimkes J, Hutzler S (2013) Econophysics and physical economics. Oxford University Press, Oxford; and Šesták J (2005) Thermodynamics, econophysics and societal behavior, Chap 8. In: Šesták J (ed) Science of heat and thermophysical studies: a generalized approach to thermal analysis. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Šesták J, Mareš JJ, Hubík P (eds) (2011) Glassy, amorphous and nano-crystalline materials: thermal physics, analysis, structure and properties, vol 8. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. ISBN 978-90-481-2881-5Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Šesták J, Šimon P (eds) (2013) Thermal analysis of micro-, nano- and non-crystalline materials: transformation, crystallization, kinetics and thermodynamics, vol 9. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. ISBN 978-90-481-3149-5Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fiala J (1972) Algebraic conception of the powder diffraction identification system. J Phys D: Appl Phys 5:1874–1876; and (1976) Optimization of powder-diffraction identification. J Appl Crystallogr 9:429–432Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fiala J (1980) Powder diffraction analysis of a three-component sample. Anal Chem 52:1300–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fiala J (1982) A new method for powder diffraction phase analysis. Cryst Res Technol 17:643–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fiala J, Říha J (2014) X-ray diffraction analysis of materials. Hutnické listy 67:2–7Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Malinowski ER, Howery DG (1980) Factor analysis in chemistry. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Martens H, Naes T (1989) Multivariate calibration. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New Technologies Research Centre (NTC-ZČU)University of West BohemiaPilsenCzech Republic
  2. 2.Division of Solid-State PhysicsInstitute of Physics, v.v.i., Czech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations