ABSTRACT
In June 2020 Elsevier announced that the CiteScore metric of journals underwent a change. This work examines the effect of these changes for 40 journals, chosen from the top five and middle five (ranked by CiteScore) journals in the subject areas of General Physics and Astronomy, Materials Science, Medicine, Social Sciences) and compares to the Journal Impact Factor. It is shown that in the data studied here, the new methodology is less susceptible to influence of the proportion of editorial material in a journal, but tends to favour journals in research fields that publish articles which get cited more quickly.
Subject(s)
Astronomy/standards , General Practice/standards , Journal Impact Factor , Materials Science/standards , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Physics/standards , Social Sciences/standards , Data MiningSubject(s)
Cities , Research/statistics & numerical data , Research/standards , Biological Science Disciplines/standards , Chemistry/standards , Competitive Behavior , Computational Biology , Cooperative Behavior , Humans , New South Wales , Physics/standards , Research/organization & administration , Research Personnel/organization & administration , Victoria , WorkforceSubject(s)
Internationality , Research/statistics & numerical data , Biological Science Disciplines/standards , Biological Science Disciplines/statistics & numerical data , Chemistry/standards , Chemistry/statistics & numerical data , Chile , Denmark , Ecology/standards , Ecology/statistics & numerical data , India , Physics/standards , Physics/statistics & numerical data , Poland , Research/standards , Research/trends , Russia , Saudi Arabia , Singapore , South Africa , Thailand , TurkeySubject(s)
Research/organization & administration , Research/standards , Academies and Institutes/economics , Academies and Institutes/standards , Germany , Physics/organization & administration , Physics/standards , Research/economics , Research Personnel , Research Support as Topic , Universities/economics , Universities/standards , WorkforceSubject(s)
Bias , Prejudice/prevention & control , Prejudice/psychology , Research Design/standards , Biological Science Disciplines/methods , Biological Science Disciplines/standards , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Motivation , Physics/methods , Physics/standards , Psychology/methods , Psychology/standards , Reproducibility of Results , Research Personnel/psychology , Social Sciences/methods , Social Sciences/standardsABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Health Physics/standards , Physics/standards , Natural Science Disciplines/standardsABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Self Concept , Physics/education , Physics/methods , Physics/standardsSubject(s)
Research/statistics & numerical data , Academies and Institutes/standards , Academies and Institutes/statistics & numerical data , Chemistry/standards , International Cooperation , Middle East , Physics/standards , Research/economics , Research/organization & administration , Research/standardsSubject(s)
Bibliometrics , Periodicals as Topic , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , Research/statistics & numerical data , Academies and Institutes/standards , Academies and Institutes/statistics & numerical data , Biological Science Disciplines/standards , Biological Science Disciplines/statistics & numerical data , Chemistry/standards , Chemistry/statistics & numerical data , Ecology/standards , Ecology/statistics & numerical data , Internationality , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Physics/standards , Physics/statistics & numerical data , Research/standardsABSTRACT
A case study is presented of a recent proposal by the major metrology institutes to redefine four of the physical base units, namely kilogram, ampere, mole, and kelvin. The episode shows a number of features that are unusual for progress in an objective science: for example, the progress is not triggered by experimental discoveries or theoretical innovations; also, the new definitions are eventually implemented by means of a voting process. In the philosophical analysis, I will first argue that the episode provides considerable evidence for confirmation holism, i.e. the claim that central statements in fundamental science cannot be tested in isolation; second, that the episode satisfies many of the criteria which Kuhn requires for scientific revolutions even though one would naturally classify it as normal science. These two observations are interrelated since holism can provide within normal science a possible source of future revolutionary periods.
