Open access to scientific knowledge. Who receives dividends?

Open access to scientific knowledge is considered as a new neo-liberal project in the globalized world. The advantages and disadvantages that members of the open access obtain are described. Open access greatly facilitates monitoring, analysis, and control of scientific research by global institutions and transnational corporations, and enables them to identify promising branches of knowledge on the periphery of the global science system that are obtained outside of the “mainstream” and use them for their interests. The link between open access to scientific knowledge and knowledge feudalism is developed.     

Dr. Garfield＇s Three Trips to China and SCI Influence in China

详细介绍加菲尔德博士1982年、2002年和2009年三次中国之行。加菲尔德博士的中国之行推动了SCI在中国的发展,使SCI由一个检索工具逐渐发展成为中国科研评价的标准甚至是惟一标准。SCI给中国科学界带来强烈的震动和深远的影响,促进了《中国科学引文索引》的发展及科研评价标准的制定。     

Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts?

Altmetrics from Altmetric.com are widely used by publishers and researchers to give earlier evidence of attention than citation counts. This article assesses whether Altmetric.com scores are reliable early indicators of likely future impact and whether they may also reflect non-scholarly impacts. A preliminary factor analysis suggests that the main altmetric indicator of scholarly impact is Mendeley reader counts, with weaker news, informational and social network discussion/promotion dimensions in some fields. Based on a regression analysis of Altmetric.com data from November 2015 and Scopus citation counts from October 2017 for articles in 30 narrow fields, only Mendeley reader counts are consistent predictors of future citation impact. Most other Altmetric.com scores can help predict future impact in some fields. Overall, the results confirm that early Altmetric.com scores can predict later citation counts, although less well than journal impact factors, and the optimal strategy is to consider both Altmetric.com scores and journal impact factors. Altmetric.com scores can also reflect dimensions of non-scholarly impact in some fields.     

Can't get to the library? Then we’ll come to you. A survey of library services to people in their own homes in the United Kingdom

Abstract Aims: To determine the current level of library service to people in their own homes in the United Kingdom and to compare it with results from previous surveys. It is many years since a similar survey has been undertaken or guidelines produced and it is hoped that this work will help fill the gap. Methods: A questionnaire was sent in January 2004 to all public library authorities in the UK, a total of 208; 72% (149) were returned in the timescale allowed. The questionnaire covered the criteria for eligibility to receive a home library service; service structure and delivery: who delivers the service (specialist librarians or specialist non‐professional staff, branch library staff or volunteers); training; range of material and services provided; reading aids; materials for reminiscence; information provision; transporting people to the library; services to people in residential homes, sheltered accommodation, nursing homes and day centres; reader development; lifelong learning; and publicity and promotion. The focus of the survey was on quality issues and good practice wherever possible. Results: The number of customers receiving a service to ‘housebound’ readers in the UK in 2001/2 was 123 407. In 1984 it was 43 807 people in England. This still bears little relation to the number of people who should be receiving the service. The majority used paid staff (88%). Volunteers supported 52% of the services, with most having links with staff. There were opportunities to improve and develop services under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The service was publicized and promoted by only 62% of the respondents. Of those that use paid staff and that answered this question, 73% provide disability equality training for staff. Only 21% provide disability equality training for volunteers. Only 36% are involved in reader development or lifelong learning and only 23% provide a newsletter in print, 11% on tape and 3% in Braille; 12% take laptops into people's homes. Conclusions: Many authorities were still providing a tokenistic service and were reluctant to publicize for fear of not coping with demand, which makes them vulnerable legally under the DDA. However, there were some excellent examples of good practice where the full range of services are provided to a high standard.