Globalization Footprint on Indices of Science and Technology Production

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

• farshid Danesh ¹
• Vera Rashidi ²
• Mansour Mirzaie ³

¹ PhD Candidate in Knowledge & Information Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad,Iran

² Msc of Knowledge & Information Science, NIOC Information Center and Central Library, Tehran, Iran

³ M.S. student of Knowledge & Information Science. Islamic Azad University. Hamedan Branch. Hamedan. Iran

10.22067/riis.v3i1.12082

Abstract

Abstract

Purpose: To many people, globalization means inversion and progress in science and technology. Issues like progress in production of new information technologies, production of science and collaboration among scientists and also creation of different universal, regional and national citation systems, and ranking methods of scientists, journals, universities and countries are all a good example to this idea. In addition, revolution in information and communication technology facilitates communication among people and different societies. In this regard, globalization is relates to scientific revolution.

Methodology: In writing this article the Review-analytic approach was applied which is; the method implemented in this study in library readings. So, in order to author different parts of the current article, Persian and as well as English resources were used in both electronic and print formats.

Findings: This article studies on globalization footprint on indices of science and technology production. The main subjects in related to this research were identified as: explanation of globalization with the aspect of science and technology, scientometrics: what and why, impacts of globalization on scientometrics, an observation on results of globalization on measurement indices of science and technology and its pathology.

Keywords

• Scientometrics
• Science and Technology
• Science Production
• Citation Systems
• Impact Factor
• Pathology

---

References

 

Amin, M., &Mabe, M. A. (2003). Impact factors: Use and abuse.Medicina, 63(4), 347-354.

Beck,U. (2000). What is Globalization? New York: Blackwell.

Bergstrom, Carl T. (2007), Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals, College and Research Libraries News, 68(5) : 314–316.

Brown, T. (2011). Journal quality metrics: Options to consider other than impact factors. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(3), 346-350

Castells, M. (1998).The network society. London: Blackwell.

Cross, J (2009). New Journal Metrics make an Impact. Editors' Bulletin. 5(1):22-29.

Dong, Peng; Loh, Marie; &Mondry, Adrian (2005). The impact factor revisited. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 2(7) available at: http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/pdf/1742-5581-2-7.pdf (20/12/2011).

Egghe, L., Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to Informetrics: Quantitive Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science. Amesterdam: Elsevier.

Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90-93.

Glanzel, W., &Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171–193.

Hood, W. W.; WILSON, C. S. (2001).The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics.Scientometrics, 52 (2), 291–314.

Leydesdorff, L., &Opthof, T. (2010). Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(11), 2365-2369.

Price, D.J.D. (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.

Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498-502.

Tamlinson,J.(1999). Globalization and Culture. Cambridge: Polity press.

Wikipedia Encyclopedia (2011). Impact factor. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor2011. (10/3/2012)