Aggregated journal-journal citation networks based on the Journal Citation Reports 2004 of the Science Citation Index (5968 journals) and the Social Science Citation Index (1712 journals) are made accessible from the perspective of any of these journals. The user is thus able to analyze the citation environment in terms of links and graphs. Furthermore, the local impact of a journal is defined as its share of the total citations in the specific journal's citation environments; the vertical size of the nodes is varied proportionally to this citation impact. The horizontal size of each node can be used to provide the same information after correction for within-journal (self)-citations. In the "citing" environment, the equivalents of this measure can be considered as a citation activity index which maps how the relevant journal environment is perceived by the collective of authors of a given journal. As a policy application, the mechanism of interdisciplinary developments among the sciences is elaborated for the case of nanotechnology journals.
This study examines the social media uptake of scientific journals on two different platforms - X and WeChat - by comparing the adoption of X among journals indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) with the adoption of WeChat among journals indexed in the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD). The findings reveal substantial differences in platform adoption and user engagement, shaped by local contexts. While only 22.7% of SCIE journals maintain an X account, 84.4% of CSCD journals have a WeChat official account. Journals in Life Sciences & Biomedicine lead in uptake on both platforms, whereas those in Technology and Physical Sciences show high WeChat uptake but comparatively lower presence on X. User engagement on both platforms is dominated by low-effort interactions rather than more conversational behaviors. Correlation analyses indicate weak-to-moderate relationships between bibliometric indicators and social media metrics, confirming that online engagement reflects a distinct dimension of journal impact, whether on an international or a local platform. These findings underscore the need for broader social media metric frameworks that incorporate locally dom
The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analysed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level and the institutional level (i.e., university journals versus journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index. The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones. However, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.
Nowadays impact factor is the significant indicator for journal evaluation. In impact factor calculation is used number of all citations to journal, regardless of the prestige of cited journals, however, scientific units (paper, researcher, journal or scientific organization) cited by journals with high impact factor or researchers with high Hirsch index are more important than objects cited by journals without impact factor or unknown researcher. In this paper was offered weighted impact factor for getting more accurate rankings for journals, which consider not only quantity of citations, but also quality of citing journals. Correlation coefficients among different indicators for journal evaluation: impact factors by Thomson Scientific, weighted impact factors offered by different researchers, average and medians of all citing journals impact factors and 5-year impact factors were analysed.
Defining and measuring internationality as a function of influence diffusion of scientific journals is an open problem. There exists no metric to rank journals based on the extent or scale of internationality. Measuring internationality is qualitative, vague, open to interpretation and is limited by vested interests. With the tremendous increase in the number of journals in various fields and the unflinching desire of academics across the globe to publish in "international" journals, it has become an absolute necessity to evaluate, rank and categorize journals based on internationality. Authors, in the current work have defined internationality as a measure of influence that transcends across geographic boundaries. There are concerns raised by the authors about unethical practices reflected in the process of journal publication whereby scholarly influence of a select few are artificially boosted, primarily by resorting to editorial maneuvres. To counter the impact of such tactics, authors have come up with a new method that defines and measures internationality by eliminating such local effects when computing the influence of journals. A new metric, Non-Local Influence Quotient(NLI
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.
Nationally oriented scientific-scholarly journals are considered from a methodological-informetric viewpoint, analysing data extracted from Scimago Journal Rank based on Scopus. An operational definition is proposed of a journal's degree of national orientation based on the geographical distribution of its publishing or citing authors, and the role of international collaboration and a country's total publication output. A comprehensive analysis is presented of trends up until 2019 in national orientation and citation impact of national journals entering Scopus, extending outcomes in earlier studies. A method to analyse national journals of given countries is applied to the set of former USSR republics and Eastern and Central European states which were under socialism, distinguishing between domestic and foreign national journals. The possible influence is highlighted of factors related to a journal's access status, publication language and subject field, international scientific migration and collaboration, database coverage policies, the size of a national research community, historical-political factors and national research assessment and funding policies.
Scientific publishing is facing an alarming proliferation of fraudulent practices that threaten the integrity of research communication. The production and dissemination of fake research have become a profitable business, undermining trust in scientific journals and distorting the evaluation processes that depend on them. This brief piece examines the problem of fake journals through a three-level typology. The first level concerns predatory journals, which prioritise financial gain over scholarly quality by charging authors publication fees while providing superficial or fabricated peer review. The second level analyses hijacked journals, in which counterfeit websites impersonate legitimate titles to deceive authors into submitting and paying for publication. The third level addresses hacked journals, where legitimate platforms are compromised through cyberattacks or internal manipulation, enabling the distortion of review and publication processes. Together, these forms of misconduct expose deep vulnerabilities in the scientific communication ecosystem, exacerbated by the pressure to publish and the marketisation of research outputs. The manuscript concludes that combating these
This report is a digest of the DOE/NSF Workshop on Correctness in Scientific Computing (CSC'23) held on June 17, 2023, as part of the Federated Computing Research Conference (FCRC) 2023. CSC was conceived by DOE and NSF to address the growing concerns about correctness among those who employ computational methods to perform large-scale scientific simulations. These concerns have escalated, given the complexity, scale, and heterogeneity of today's HPC software and hardware. If correctness is not proactively addressed, there is the risk of producing flawed science on top of unacceptable productivity losses faced by computational scientists and engineers. HPC systems are beginning to include data-driven methods, including machine learning and surrogate models, and their impact on overall HPC system correctness was also felt urgent to discuss. Stakeholders of correctness in this space were identified to belong to several sub-disciplines of computer science; from computer architecture researchers who design special-purpose hardware that offers high energy efficiencies; numerical algorithm designers who develop efficient computational schemes based on reduced precision as well as reduced
There is an overall perception of increased interdisciplinarity in science, but this is difficult to confirm quantitatively owing to the lack of adequate methods to evaluate subjective phenomena. This is no different from the difficulties in establishing quantitative relationships in human and social sciences. In this paper we quantified the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals and science fields by using an entropy measurement based on the diversity of the subject categories of journals citing a specific journal. The methodology consisted in building citation networks using the Journal Citation Reports database, in which the nodes were journals and edges were established based on citations among journals. The overall network for the 11-year period (1999-2009) studied was small-world and scale free with regard to the in-strength. Upon visualizing the network topology an overall structure of the various science fields could be inferred, especially their interconnections. We confirmed quantitatively that science fields are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, with the degree of interdisplinarity (i.e. entropy) correlating strongly with the in-strength of journals and with t
A new size-independent indicator of scientific journal prestige, the SJR2 indicator, is proposed. This indicator takes into account not only the prestige of the citing scientific journal but also its closeness to the cited journal using the cosine of the angle between the vectors of the two journals' cocitation profiles. To eliminate the size effect, the accumulated prestige is divided by the fraction of the journal's citable documents, thus eliminating the decreasing tendency of this type of indicator and giving meaning to the scores. Its method of computation is described, and the results of its implementation on the Scopus 2008 dataset is compared with those of an ad hoc Journal Impact Factor, JIF(3y), and SNIP, the comparison being made both overall and within specific scientific areas. All three, the SJR2 indicator, the SNIP indicator and the JIF distributions, were found to fit well to a logarithmic law. Although the three metrics were strongly correlated, there were major changes in rank. In addition, the SJR2 was distributed more equalized than the JIF by Subject Area and almost as equalized as the SNIP, and better than both at the lower level of Specific Subject Areas. The
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.
Scientific journals are the repositories of the gradually accumulating knowledge of mankind about the world surrounding us. Just as our knowledge is organised into classes ranging from major disciplines, subjects and fields to increasingly specific topics, journals can also be categorised into groups using various metrics. In addition to the set of topics characteristic for a journal, they can also be ranked regarding their relevance from the point of overall influence. One widespread measure is impact factor, but in the present paper we intend to reconstruct a much more detailed description by studying the hierarchical relations between the journals based on citation data. We use a measure related to the notion of m-reaching centrality and find a network which shows the level of influence of a journal from the point of the direction and efficiency with which information spreads through the network. We can also obtain an alternative network using a suitably modified nested hierarchy extraction method applied to the same data. The results are weakly methodology-dependent and reveal non-trivial relations among journals. The two alternative hierarchies show large similarity with some
Although Cloud computing emerged for business applications in industry, public Cloud services have been widely accepted and encouraged for scientific computing in academia. The recently available Google Compute Engine (GCE) is claimed to support high-performance and computationally intensive tasks, while little evaluation studies can be found to reveal GCE's scientific capabilities. Considering that fundamental performance benchmarking is the strategy of early-stage evaluation of new Cloud services, we followed the Cloud Evaluation Experiment Methodology (CEEM) to benchmark GCE and also compare it with Amazon EC2, to help understand the elementary capability of GCE for dealing with scientific problems. The experimental results and analyses show both potential advantages of, and possible threats to applying GCE to scientific computing. For example, compared to Amazon's EC2 service, GCE may better suit applications that require frequent disk operations, while it may not be ready yet for single VM-based parallel computing. Following the same evaluation methodology, different evaluators can replicate and/or supplement this fundamental evaluation of GCE. Based on the fundamental evaluat
Power efficiency is becoming an ever more important metric for both high performance and high throughput computing. Over the course of next decade it is expected that flops/watt will be a major driver for the evolution of computer architecture. Servers with large numbers of ARM processors, already ubiquitous in mobile computing, are a promising alternative to traditional x86-64 computing. We present the results of our initial investigations into the use of ARM processors for scientific computing applications. In particular we report the results from our work with a current generation ARMv7 development board to explore ARM-specific issues regarding the software development environment, operating system, performance benchmarks and issues for porting High Energy Physics software.
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
In his recent paper published in the European Journal of Scientific Research 44, 4, 610-611 (2010), the author, Arthur Boltcho, claims to have found a mathematical disproof of relative time dilatation of Special Relativity Theory (SRT). In this letter we show that the supposed mathematical disproof of relative time dilatation of SRT is totally wrong and that Arthur Boltcho demonstrated nothing. The errors by Boltcho arise from a strong misunderstanding and confusing the concept of "moments" and time intervals in the framework of SRT.
As the High Performance Computing world moves towards the Exa-Scale era, huge amounts of data should be analyzed, manipulated and stored. In the traditional storage/memory hierarchy, each compute node retains its data objects in its local volatile DRAM. Whenever the DRAM's capacity becomes insufficient for storing this data, the computation should either be distributed between several compute nodes, or some portion of these data objects must be stored in a non-volatile block device such as a hard disk drive or an SSD storage device. Optane DataCenter Persistent Memory Module (DCPMM), a new technology introduced by Intel, provides non-volatile memory that can be plugged into standard memory bus slots and therefore be accessed much faster than standard storage devices. In this work, we present and analyze the results of a comprehensive performance assessment of several ways in which DCPMM can 1) replace standard storage devices, and 2) replace or augment DRAM for improving the performance of HPC scientific computations. To achieve this goal, we have configured an HPC system such that DCPMM can service I/O operations of scientific applications, replace standard storage devices and fil
The increasing availability of cloud computing services for science has changed the way scientific code can be developed, deployed, and run. Many modern scientific workflows are capable of running on cloud computing resources. Consequently, there is an increasing interest in the scientific computing community in methods, tools, and implementations that enable moving an application to the cloud and simplifying the process, and decreasing the time to meaningful scientific results. In this paper, we have applied the concepts of containerization for portability and multi-cloud automated deployment with industry-standard tools to three scientific workflows. We show how our implementations provide reduced complexity to portability of both the applications themselves, and their deployment across private and public clouds. Each application has been packaged in a Docker container with its dependencies and necessary environment setup for production runs. Terraform and Ansible have been used to automate the provisioning of compute resources and the deployment of each scientific application in a Multi-VM cluster. Each application has been deployed on the AWS and Aristotle Cloud Federation plat
Quantum computing offers new ways to explore the theory of computation via the laws of quantum mechanics. Due to the rising demand for quantum computing resources, there is growing interest in developing cloud-based quantum resource sharing platforms that enable researchers to test and execute their algorithms on real quantum hardware. These cloud-based systems face a fundamental challenge in efficiently allocating quantum hardware resources to fulfill the growing computational demand of modern Internet of Things (IoT) applications. So far, attempts have been made in order to make efficient resource allocation, ranging from heuristic-based solutions to machine learning. In this work, we employ quantum reinforcement learning based on parameterized quantum circuits to address the resource allocation problem to support large IoT networks. We propose a python-based toolkit called QAISim for the simulation and modeling of Quantum Artificial Intelligence (QAI) models for designing resource management policies in quantum cloud environments. We have simulated policy gradient and Deep Q-Learning algorithms for reinforcement learning. QAISim exhibits a substantial reduction in model complexi