搜索结果：Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research

Webology is an international peer-reviewed journal in English devoted to the field of the World Wide Web and serves as a forum for discussion and experimentation. It serves as a forum for new research in information dissemination and communication processes in general, and in the context of the World Wide Web in particular. This paper presents a Scientometric analysis of the Webology Journal. The paper analyses the pattern of growth of the research output published in the journal, pattern of authorship, author productivity, and subjects covered to the papers over the period (2013-2017). It is found that 62 papers were published during the period of study (2013-2017). The maximum numbers of articles were collaborative in nature. The subject concentration of the journal noted was Social Networking/Web 2.0/Library 2.0 and Scientometrics or Bibliometrics. Iranian researchers contributed the maximum number of articles (37.10%). The study applied standard formula and statistical tools to bring out the factual result.

The history of information technology development has been characterized by consecutive waves of boom and bust, as new technologies come to market, fuel surges of investment, and then stabilize towards maturity. However, in recent decades, the acceleration of such technology hype cycles has resulted in the prioritization of massive capital generation at the expense of longterm sustainability, resulting in a cascade of negative social, political, and environmental consequences. Despite the negative impacts of this pattern, academic research, and in particular HCI research, is not immune from such hype cycles, often contributing substantial amounts of literature to the discourse surrounding a wave of hype. In this paper, we discuss the relationship between technology and capital, offer a critique of the technology hype cycle using generative AI as an example, and finally suggest an approach and a set of strategies for how we can counteract such cycles through research as resistance.

Rankings of scholarly journals based on citation data are often met with skepticism by the scientific community. Part of the skepticism is due to disparity between the common perception of journals' prestige and their ranking based on citation counts. A more serious concern is the inappropriate use of journal rankings to evaluate the scientific influence of authors. This paper focuses on analysis of the table of cross-citations among a selection of Statistics journals. Data are collected from the Web of Science database published by Thomson Reuters. Our results suggest that modelling the exchange of citations between journals is useful to highlight the most prestigious journals, but also that journal citation data are characterized by considerable heterogeneity, which needs to be properly summarized. Inferential conclusions require care in order to avoid potential over-interpretation of insignificant differences between journal ratings. Comparison with published ratings of institutions from the UK's Research Assessment Exercise shows strong correlation at aggregate level between assessed research quality and journal citation `export scores' within the discipline of Statistics.

We compare the network of aggregated journal-journal citation relations provided by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 of the Science and Social Science Citation Indexes (SCI and SSCI) with similar data based on Scopus 2012. First, global maps were developed for the two sets separately; sets of documents can then be compared using overlays to both maps. Using fuzzy-string matching and ISSN numbers, we were able to match 10,524 journal names between the two sets; that is, 96.4% of the 10,936 journals contained in JCR or 51.2% of the 20,554 journals covered by Scopus. Network analysis was then pursued on the set of journals shared between the two databases and the two sets of unique journals. Citations among the shared journals are more comprehensively covered in JCR than Scopus, so the network in JCR is denser and more connected than in Scopus. The ranking of shared journals in terms of indegree (that is, numbers of citing journals) or total citations is similar in both databases overall (Spearman's \r{ho} > 0.97), but some individual journals rank very differently. Journals that are unique to Scopus seem to be less important--they are citing shared journals rather than bein

This scientometric study analyzes Avian Influenza research from 2014 to 2023 using bibliographic data from the Web of Science database. We examined publication trends, sources, authorship, collaborative networks, document types, and geographical distribution to gain insights into the global research landscape. Results reveal a steady increase in publications, with high contributions from Chinese and American institutions. Journals such as PLoS One and the Journal of Virology published the highest number of studies, indicating their influence in this field. The most prolific institutions include the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Hong Kong, while the College of Veterinary Medicine at South China Agricultural University emerged as the most productive department. China and the USA lead in publication volume, though developed nations like the United Kingdom and Germany exhibit a higher rate of international collaboration. "Articles" are the most common document type, constituting 84.6% of the total, while "Reviews" account for 7.6%. This study provides a comprehensive view of global trends in Avian Influenza research, emphasizing the need for collaborative efforts ac

Italy lags quite behind vis-a'-vis other industrialized countries, in public to private technology transfer. One of the possible causes might be the mismatch between new knowledge supplied by public research and industry demand. We test this hypothesis through a survey of leading public research scientists in four high-tech sectors. The findings show that most research project results seem to be of immediate industrial interest, which contrasts with the low patent and licensing performances of Italian public research institutions. For one third of all the results of the research, there are no Italian companies able to exploit them. The same, however, is not true for the remaining results, which shows that the misalignment between public supply and industry demand alone cannot account for poor technology transfer. What emerges from our investigation is that a closer coordination of research policy and industrial policy is required, as well as closer attention to initiatives which may support the transfer of public research results to domestic industry.

The journal impact factor (JIF) is the average of the number of citations of the papers published in a journal, calculated according to a specific formula; it is extensively used for the evaluation of research and researchers. The method assumes that all papers in a journal have the same scientific merit, which is measured by the JIF of the publishing journal. This implies that the number of citations measures scientific merits but the JIF does not evaluate each individual paper by its own number of citations. Therefore, in the comparative evaluation of two papers, the use of the JIF implies a risk of failure, which occurs when a paper in the journal with the lower JIF is compared to another with fewer citations in the journal with the higher JIF. To quantify this risk of failure, this study calculates the failure probabilities, taking advantage of the lognormal distribution of citations. In two journals whose JIFs are ten-fold different, the failure probability is low. However, in most cases when two papers are compared, the JIFs of the journals are not so different. Then, the failure probability can be close to 0.5, which is equivalent to evaluating by coin flipping.

This study aims to present a scientometric analysis of the journal titled Cognition for a period of 20 years from 1999 to 2018. The present study was conducted with an aim to provide a summary of research activity in current journal and characterize its most aspects. The research coverage includes the year wise distribution of articles, authors, institutions, countries and citation analysis of the journal. The analysis showed that 2870 papers were published in journal of Cognition from 1999 to 2018. The study identified top 20 prolific authors, institutions and countries of the journal. Researchers from USA have been made the most percentage of contributions.

This study provides quantitative evidence on how the use of journal rankings can disadvantage interdisciplinary research in research evaluations. Using publication and citation data, it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of a number of Innovation Studies units with that of leading Business & Management schools in the UK. On the basis of various mappings and metrics, this study shows that: (i) Innovation Studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary in their research than Business & Management schools; (ii) the top journals in the Association of Business Schools' rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower-ranked journals; (iii) this results in a more favourable assessment of the performance of Business & Management schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. This citation-based analysis challenges the journal ranking-based assessment. In short, the investigation illustrates how ostensibly 'excellence-based' journal rankings exhibit a systematic bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of these phenomena, in particular how the bias is likely to affect

Ageing of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-ISI journals are increasingly cornered into "transdisciplinary" Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An "externally cited impact factor" can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.

This paper deals with the technology transfer activities of the main public research institution in Italy, the Italian Research Council, CNR. A comparative analysis on patenting and licensing performances between CNR and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT has been carried out. Findings show that: research expenses being equal, CNR patents are 26% of MIT's; and, patents being equal, CNR licenses are also 26% of MIT's. This means that CNR impact on domestic competitiveness, in terms of patent licenses, is less than 7% of MIT's. Moreover, while 83% of CNR patents are never licensed to domestic industry, the Italian technology balance of payments shows a perennial deficit. The paper concludes with the identification of the possible causes that may explain such a gap.

In most countries, basic research is supported by research councils that select, after peer review, the individuals or teams that are to receive funding. Unfortunately, the number of grants these research councils can allocate is not infinite and, in most cases, a minority of the researchers receive the majority of the funds. However, evidence as to whether this is an optimal way of distributing available funds is mixed. The purpose of this study is to measure the relation between the amount of funding provided to 12,720 researchers in Quebec over a fifteen year period (1998-2012) and their scientific output and impact from 2000 to 2013. Our results show that both in terms of the quantity of papers produced and of their scientific impact, the concentration of research funding in the hands of a so-called "elite" of researchers generally produces diminishing marginal returns. Also, we find that the most funded researchers do not stand out in terms of output and scientific impact.

With the increasing significance of Research, Technology, and Innovation (RTI) policies in recent years, the demand for detailed information about the performance of these sectors has surged. Many of the current tools are limited in their application purpose. To address these issues, we introduce a requirements engineering process to identify stakeholders and elicitate requirements to derive a system architecture, for a web-based interactive and open-access RTI system monitoring tool. Based on several core modules, we introduce a multi-tier software architecture of how such a tool is generally implemented from the perspective of software engineers. A cornerstone of this architecture is the user-facing dashboard module. We describe in detail the requirements for this module and additionally illustrate these requirements with the real example of the Austrian RTI Monitor.

This paper examines how pharmaceutical Artificial Intelligence advancements may affect the development of new drugs in the coming years. The question was answered by reviewing a rich body of source material, including industry literature, research journals, AI studies, market reports, market projections, discussion papers, press releases, and organizations' websites. The paper argues that continued innovation in pharmaceutical AI will enable rapid development of safe and effective therapies for previously untreatable diseases. A series of major points support this conclusion: The pharmaceutical industry is in a significant productivity crisis today, and AI-enabled research methods can be directly applied to reduce the time and cost of drug discovery projects. The industry already reported results such as a 10-fold reduction in drug molecule discovery times. Numerous AI alliances between industry, governments, and academia enabled utilizing proprietary data and led to outcomes such as the largest molecule toxicity database to date or more than 200 drug safety predictive models. The momentum was recently increased by the involvement of tech giants combined with record rounds of fundi

Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Since the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers also the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is due to (i) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (ii) the historical record of citations older than ten years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.

As part of its program of 'Excellence in Research for Australia' (ERA), the Australian Research Council ranked journals into four categories (A*, A, B, C) in preparation for their performance evaluation of Australian universities. The ranking is important because it likely to have a major impact on publication choices and research dissemination in Australia. The ranking is problematic because it is evident that some disciplines have been treated very differently than others. This paper reveals weaknesses in the ERA journal ranking and highlights the poor correlation between ERA rankings and other acknowledged metrics of journal standing. It highlights the need for a reasonable representation of journals ranked as A* in each scientific discipline.

This study examines the role of top-tier conference publications in Hungarian computer science research. We show that the national scientometric practice, which is currently journal-oriented, diverges from international norms, creating incentive distortions in researcher evaluation. By linking multiple databases (iCore, DBLP, MTMT, MTA-ATT), we mapped Hungarian-affiliated CORE A* and A conference papers, their temporal and thematic distribution, and author trajectories. Our results indicate that, in theoretical fields, publishing at international conferences became common earlier than in applied fields. At the same time, in applied fields, successful researchers are more likely to continue their careers in foreign institutions or in industry positions. Overall, a substantial share of the already established, internationally most successful researchers are now affiliated with institutions abroad. We recommend recognizing CORE A* papers as equivalent to D1 and CORE A papers as equivalent to Q1 journals in national evaluation systems.

Using three years of the Journal Citation Reports (2011, 2012, and 2013), indicators of transitions in 2012 (between 2011 and 2013) are studied using methodologies based on entropy statistics. Changes can be indicated at the level of journals using the margin totals of entropy production along the row or column vectors, but also at the level of links among journals by importing the transition matrices into network analysis and visualization programs (and using community-finding algorithms). Seventy-four journals are flagged in terms of discontinuous changes in their citations; but 3,114 journals are involved in "hot" links. Most of these links are embedded in a main component; 78 clusters (containing 172 journals) are flagged as potential "hot spots" emerging at the network level. An additional finding is that PLoS ONE introduced a new communication dynamics into the database. The limitations of the methodology are elaborated using an example. The results of the study indicate where developments in the citation dynamics can be considered as significantly unexpected. This can be used as heuristic information; but what a "hot spot" in terms of the entropy statistics of aggregated cit

A number of journal classification systems have been developed in bibliometrics since the launch of the Citation Indices by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) in the 1960s. These systems are used to normalize citation counts with respect to field-specific citation patterns. The best known system is the so-called "Web-of-Science Subject Categories" (WCs). In other systems papers are classified by algorithmic solutions. Using the Journal Citation Reports 2014 of the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index (n of journals = 11,149), we examine options for developing a new system based on journal classifications into subject categories using aggregated journal-journal citation data. Combining routines in VOSviewer and Pajek, a tree-like classification is developed. At each level one can generate a map of science for all the journals subsumed under a category. Nine major fields are distinguished at the top level. Further decomposition of the social sciences is pursued for the sake of example with a focus on journals in information science (LIS) and science studies (STS). The new classification system improves on alternative options by avoiding the problem