Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond Garfield’s Citation Index: an assessment of some issues in building a personal name Acknowledgments Index

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To study patterns of personal acknowledgments in life sciences research and assess the feasibility of a formal Personal Acknowledgments Index, two successive 5-year (1995–1999, 2000–2004) sets of original research articles on zebrafish (Danio rerio) were scanned for acknowledgment statements thanking individuals for various “gifts” of research materials, services, and interpersonal communication. Text areas mined included “Materials and Methods” (M&M) and various text locations of “Acknowledgments” (ACK). Acknowledgment statements were coded using a detailed Personal Acknowledgments Classification. Including the M&M sections increased the number of unique personal names, primarily in classes 1a (experimental animals) and 1b (research materials)—with a few highly acknowledged researchers adding substantially to their tallies. The challenges of locating personal acknowledgment statements, harvesting and disambiguating personal names, determining the level of detail useful in characterizing the nature of the “gifts,” and assessing the level of interest in the potential user community are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Interestingly, I have not been able to find any essay by Garfield that discusses the possibility of a personal names acknowledgments index or any attribution of interest to him about this topic by others (although Cronin 1991, mentions interest by the Institute for Scientific Information on a funding acknowledgments index). The early push for indexing personal acknowledgments appears to lie directly with Cronin and his collaborators at Indiana University (see Cronin 1994, for an early summary of his thoughts on acknowledgments).

References

  • CASRAI (Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information). (2017). CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy). http://docs.casrai.org/CRediT. Accessed on October 18, 2017.

  • CiteSeer. (2016). Overview. http://csxstatic.ist.psu.edu/about. Accessed on October 15, 2017.

  • Costas, R., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2012). Approaching the “reward triangle”: General analysis of the presence of funding acknowledgments and “Peer Interactive Communication” in scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1647–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Councill, I. G., Giles, C. L., Han, H., & Manavoglu, E. (2005). Automatic acknowledgment indexing: Expanding the semantics of contribution in the CiteSeer Digital Library. In K-CAP ‘05: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on knowledge capture (pp. 19–26).

  • Cronin, B. (1991). Let the credits roll: A preliminary examination of the role played by mentors and trusted assessors in disciplinary formation. Journal of Documentation, 47(3), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (1994). The scholar’s courtesy: The role of acknowledgment in the primary communication process. Los Angeles, CA: Taylor Graham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & Franks, S. (2006). Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article’s paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(4), 1909–1918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & Overfelt, K. (1994). The scholar’s courtesy: A survey of acknowledgment behavior. Journal of Documentation, 50(3), 165–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 855–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2004). Visible, less visible, and invisible work: Patterns of collaboration in 20th century chemistry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 160–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desroshers, N., Paul-Hus, A., & Pecoskie, J. (2017). Five decades of gratitude: A meta-synthesis of acknowledgments research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23903.

    Google Scholar 

  • DSHB (Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank). (2015). http://dshb.biology.uiowa.edu/. Accessed on October 15, 2017.

  • Giles, C. L., & Councill, I. G. (2004). Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(51), 17599–17604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khabsa, M., Koppman, S., & Giles, C. L. (2012a). Towards building and analyzing a social network of acknowledgments in scientific and academic documents. In: S. J. Yang, A. M. Greenberg, & M. Endsley (Eds.), International conference on social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling, and prediction SBP 2012: Social computing, behavioral—cultural modeling and prediction. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7227, pp. 357–364). Berlin: Springer.

  • Khabsa, M., Treeratpituk, P., & Giles, C. L. (2012b). AckSeer: A repository and search engine for automatically extracted acknowledgments from digital libraries. In JCDL ‘12: Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries (pp. 185–194).

  • Kinth, P., Mahesh, G., & Panwar, Y. (2013). Mapping of zebrafish research: A global outlook. Zebrafish, 10(4), 510–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W. (1991). Communication, competition and secrecy: The production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(4), 491–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W. (2013). Charting the rise of the zebrafish as a model organism: Persistent co-author networks, 1980–2004. Presented at METRICS 2013: Workshop on informetric and scientometric research, Montreal, Canada, November 2, 2013.

  • McCain, K. W. (2014). Obliteration by Incorporation. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 129–149). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W. (2015). Collaboration patterns in model organism research: Co-authorship, acknowledgment, and the starlet sea anemone (Nematostella vectensis). Presented at METRICS 2015: Workshop on informetric and scientometric research, St. Louis, MO, November 7, 2015.

  • McCain, K. W. (2017). Undercounting the gift givers: Issues when tallying acknowledgments in life sciences research. Presented at METRICS 2017: Workshop on informetrics and scientometric research, Washington, DC, October 27, 2017.

  • Müller, M.-C., Reitz, F., & Roy, N. (2017). Data sets for author name disambiguation: An empirical analysis and a new resource. Scientometrics, 111, 1467–1500.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Paul-Hus, A., Desrochers, N., & Costas, R. (2016). Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgment data in Web of Science. Scientometrics, 108(1), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul-Hus, A., Mongeon, P., Sainte-Marie, M., & Larivière, V. (2017). The sum of it all: Revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgments. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 80–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., & Berbesí, M. P. (2009). “Backstage solidarity” in Spanish- and English-written medical research papers: Publication context and the acknowledgment paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., Pabón, M., & Zambrano, N. (2012). Paying one’s intellectual debt: Acknowledgments in scientific/conventional and complementary/alternative medical research. In M. Gotti (Ed.), Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts (pp. 407–430). Bern, CH: Peer Lang A.G.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, N. M., & Thomer, A. K. (2014). Paratexts and documentary practices: Text mining authorship and acknowledgment from a bioinformatics corpus. In N. Desrochers & D. Apollon (Eds.), Examining paratextual theory and its applications in digital culture (pp. 84–109). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D. (2001). Authors as citers over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(20), 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D. (2007). Combining bibliometrics, information retrieval, and relevance theory. Part 1: First examples of a synthesis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(4), 536–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ZFIN (Zebrafish Information Network). (2017). https://zfin.org/. Accessed on October 15, 2017.

  • ZIRC (Zebrafish International Research Center). (2017a). https://zebrafish.org/home/guide.php. Accessed on October 15, 2017.

  • ZIRC (Zebrafish International Research Center). (2017b). http://zebrafish.org/home/guide.php and http://zebrafish.org/documents/faq.php. Accessed on October 16, 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Science, College of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Katherine W. McCain

Authors
  1. Katherine W. McCain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine W. McCain.

Appendix: Personal acknowledgments classification scheme

Appendix: Personal acknowledgments classification scheme

The focus of this classification scheme is the various forms that informal communication takes in Model Organism research-most specifically as the channel for transmitting experimental materials, unpublished protocols, and unpublished results; more generally, as the channel through which much valuable information is exchanged.

  • Category 1: Access to research-related information and other resources

    1. 1a.

      Experimental animals (living organisms, adult and embryo, wild-type and mutant lines).

    2. 1b.

      Research materials (living cells and tissues, cDNA libraries, monoclonal antibodies, DNA probes).

    3. 1c.

      Equipment and facilities (including technology, research facilities, databases).

    4. 1d.

      Unpublished data (research data and information, unpublished research protocols) [for “unpublished results” use 2a Unpublished results].

    5. 1e.

      Unpublished software.

    6. 1f.

      Genome information (e.g. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute).

  • Category 2: Access to unpublished results as stated in the acknowledgments text

    1. 2a.

      Unpublished results or manuscript (general statement).

  • Category 3: Peer interactive communication

    1. 3a

      Specific information or suggestion (e.g. thanked for specific information, made specific suggestion or taught research protocol).

    2. 3b.

      Comments on manuscript.

    3. 3c.

      Advice and discussion (more general than 3a and less focused than 3b).

    4. 3d.

      Special thanks, “inspiration,” valedictory statements.

    5. 3e.

      Peer support [includes thanks for “assistance,” “encouragement,” (non-specific) “collaboration” or “support” with no qualifiers, recipients are peers/faculty].

  • Category 4: Technical assistance in research

    1. 4a.

      Specific analyses (includes performing or assisting in specific procedures, specific technical assistance in doing analysis/procedure).

    2. 4b.

      Not used.

    3. 4c.

      Animal husbandry (maintaining experimental animals).

    4. 4d.

      Technical assistance (general statement as opposed to 4a).

    5. 4e.

      Collecting animals (but not providing animals from own stocks).

  • Category 5: Manuscript preparation (post-analysis assistance)

    1. 5a.

      Manuscript production (includes general editing, secretarial services).

    2. 5b.

      Graphics and images (used in the manuscript), also assistance in photography.

    3. 5c.

      English editing (includes translation into English, help with grammar, etc.).

  • Category 6: General administrative support

    1. 6a.

      Administrative support (as stated in acknowledgments text).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCain, K.W. Beyond Garfield’s Citation Index: an assessment of some issues in building a personal name Acknowledgments Index. Scientometrics 114, 605–631 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2598-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2598-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation