US NO LONGER “COLOSSUS OF SCIENCE”

by on ‎11-15-2010 12:11 PM

The 20th century was largely dominated by the US as a major powerhouse of scientific research and innovation, with 40% of the papers indexed in Web of Science fielded by US scientists in the 90’s for example. By 2009, that figure was down to 29 percent.

 

The US now struggles to keep pace with increased output from Europe and Asia. Yet research impact and the overall reputation of higher education institutions in the US remains strong. Why is the US lagging behind? And how might it leverage its remaining strengths to regain its previous position of research power?

 

Download the report here then share your thoughts below.

Comments
by
on ‎11-19-2010 04:52 PM

Both Science and Nature, among others, have provided coverage of our recently released Global Research Report on the US. Below is a compiled list of features, articles, and snippets in the news:

 

Nature, 18 November, "Seven Days" news summary  - Science Statistics

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101117/pdf/468350a.pdf

 

Science, 19 November, vol 330, "Handful of U.S. School Claim Larger Share of Output" (News of the Week - Research Metrics)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6007/1032.full.pdf (Full text PDF link - subscription required)

 

USA Today

http://content.usatoday.com/topics/quote/Places,+Geography/Countries/China/0dME6xs6bR7Jt/0gzP0d8g0N7...

 

AsiaNet (via PRNewswire)--

http://www.asianetnews.net/view-release?pr-id=42122

 

BioPortoflio--

http://www.bioportfolio.com/news/article/261443/Us-Dominance-In-Scientific-Research-Significantly-Ch...

by dongnu
on ‎01-23-2011 02:18 AM

The American Journal of Cardiology is a very famous journal in the area of cardiovascular diseases. However, we found the upcoming 2010 SCI impact factor of the American Journal of Cardiology will be exceeded by the International Journal of Cardiology, a third-rate cardiovascular journal. The upcoming 2010 SCI impact factor of the International Journal of Cardiology is likely to be more than 6.

 

With regard to this strange phenomenon, we found the international journal of cardiology improves its impact factor by an improper way. We would like to explain this as follows:

 

The JCR provides quantitative tools (impact factor) for ranking, evaluating, categorizing, and comparing journals. The impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the number of current year citations (numbers of citations of all document types published during the previous two years including article, review, letter, editorial, etc.) to the source items (numbers of only 2 document types [article or review]) published in that journal during the previous two years.

Calculation for journal impact factor. 

A= number of 2010 cites to all items (including article, review, letter, editorial, etc.) published in 2008-2009

B= number of items (only the article and review type) published in 2008-2009

C= A/B = 2010 impact factor

 

We performed the search work using the ISI Knowledge system in Jan 23, 2011.

For the International Journal of Cardiology

2010 cites to all items published in 2008-2009 were 3395.

    Among them,  2010 cites to article/reviews published in 2008-2009 were only 1495,

                   2010 cites to letters published in 2008-2009 were 938,

                   2010 cites to a special editorial published in 2008-2009 were 894, (This editorial entitled "Ethical authorship and publishing" (2009;131(2):149-150), which introduced the Principles of Ethical Publishing in the International Journal of Cardiology, was asked to be cited by all articles in the Guide for Authors of the International Journal of Cardiology. Thus, all the 894 cites were self-citing)

                   2010 cites to other items published in 2008-2009 were 68.

All items published in 2008-2009 were 1889 (not including the meeting abstract).

    Among them,  the number of article/reviews were only 644,

                   the number of letters were 1183, (Among them, only 26 letters were traditional corresponding letters to the editor commenting the previously published article or the reply, and other 1157 letters were actually research article but published as the type of ‘letter’ [‘pseudo-letter’ articles].)

                   the number of other items were 62.

The predicted value of 2010 impact factor = 2010 cites to all items published in 2008-2009/ number of article or review published in 2008-2009 = 3395/644 = 5.27

However, the actual cites per article or review = (2010 cites to article or review published in 2008-2009 + 2010 cites to ‘pseudo-letter’ articles published in 2008-2009 / (number of article or review published in 2008-2009 + number of ‘pseudo-letter’ articles published in 2008-2009) = (1495 + 938)/(644 + 1157) = 1.35 (the actual value reflecting academic influence)

 

By the improper means, the International Journal of Cardiology increases its 2010 impact factor from 1.35 to 5.27.

 

For the American Journal of Cardiology

2010 cites to all items published in 2008-2009 were 4337.

    Among them,  2010 cites to article/reviews published in 2008-2009 were 4150,

                   2010 cites to letters published in 2008-2009 were 32,

                   2010 cites to other items published in 2008-2009 were 155.

All items published in 2008-2009 were 1524 (not including the meeting abstract).

    Among them,  the number of article/reviews were 1300,

                   the number of letters were 115, (All the letters were traditional corresponding letters to the editor commenting the previously published article or the reply)

                   the number of other items were 109.

The predicted value of 2010 impact factor = 2010 cites to all items published in 2008-2009/ number of article/reviews published in 2008-2009 = 4337/1300 = 3.34

However, the actual cites per article/reviews = (2010 cites to article or review published in 2008-2009 + 2010 cites to ‘pseudo-letter’ articles published in 2008-2009 / (number of article or review published in 2008-2009 + number of ‘pseudo-letter’ articles published in 2008-2009) = (4150+0) / (1300+0) = 3.19 (the actual value reflecting academic influence)

 

Thus, we believe the 2010 impact factor of the American Journal of Cardiology will be exceeded by the International Journal of Cardiology (3.34 vs. 5.27). However, the actual academic influence of the American Journal of Cardiology is far more than the International Journal of Cardiology (3.19 vs. 1.35).

Announcements
Welcome to the Thomson Reuters community forums. Please refer to the usage guidelines before posting.