Refine your search
Co-Authors
Journals
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Sai Baba, M.
- Occurrence of Uranium in Metasedimentary Enclaves Within Basement Granite, Near Peddur and Kottur, Karimnagar District, Andhra Pradesh
Abstract Views :193 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 560 629, IN
2 Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research, North Eastern Region, Shillong - 793 011, IN
1 Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 560 629, IN
2 Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research, North Eastern Region, Shillong - 793 011, IN
Source
Journal of Geological Society of India (Online archive from Vol 1 to Vol 78), Vol 76, No 3 (2010), Pagination: 247-250Abstract
Several radioactive anomalies due to uranium and thorium, associated with the mesedimentary enclaves (Archaean) within granite (Archaean to Early-Proterozoic) have been recorded in parts of Karimnagar Granulite Terrain, Karimnagar Dist. At Peddur and Kottur, Uraninite has been identified in the samples of metasediments. The metasediment from these two places have been subjected to granulite facies of metamorphism and host high values of uranium with negligible thorium. In Peddur, samples of metasediments have assayed as high as 1.96% U3O8 with negligible thorium, and in Kottur up to 0.059% U3O8. Leaching studies on these samples have indicated that most of the U3O8 present is leachable. This discovery has opened up the possibility of finding uranium mineralisation in Archaean metasediments and thus provides a thrust for uranium exploration in similar geological environs in India. Further, the basement granite along with the metasedimentary enclaves has the potential to act as a provenance for a possible unconformity type or sandstone type U-deposit in the rocks of overlying Pakhal and Gondwana Supergroup, in Pranhita-Godavari Basin, situated to the east of this area.Keywords
Uraninite, Karimnagar Granulite Terrain, Metasediment, Peddur, Kottur, Andhra Pradesh.
- An Empirical Study on the Asymmetric Behavior of Scientometric Indicator for Journal: A Comparative Evaluation of SJR and H-Index
Abstract Views :306 |
PDF Views:123
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Library and Information Science, Gauhati University, Guwahati - 781014, IN
2 T. V. Raman Pai Chair Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bengaluru – 560012, IN
1 Department of Library and Information Science, Gauhati University, Guwahati - 781014, IN
2 T. V. Raman Pai Chair Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bengaluru – 560012, IN
Source
Journal of Information and Knowledge (Formerly SRELS Journal of Information Management), Vol 55, No 3 (2018), Pagination: 128-140Abstract
Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) is a size independent measure of journal evaluation where citation coming from quality journals carries more value than citations from ordinary journals and h-index, used as a metrics for author impact when initially introduced, is now a day’s used for journal evaluation in major citation databases like Scopus, Google scholar etc. Both the indicators follow different methods of calculation. SJR is a prestige based measure where the scholarly value of incoming citations matters most than its quantity, while h-index is a quantity based measure where the amount of incoming citations plus the number of published paper both matters. The current study tries to identify how the ranking value of journals changes when compared with the two indicators. The issue was addressed by taking the context of Indian journals indexed in Scopus. Even though the process of calculation for both the indicators is different, it is expected that their ultimate result is same i.e. ranking quality journals at top. The findings of ranking of quality journals represent strikingly different result given by both the indices. The dissimilarity in measure is tested using z-test for two sample means for median difference. Also the biasness of the indicators towards time and subject domains is tested on a raw count.Keywords
H-Index, Impact Metrics, Journal Evaluation, Scientometrics, SJR Indicator.Full Text
References
- Borgman, C.L. & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 36:3–72. https:// doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440360102.
- Bergstrom, M. (2007). Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News. 68:3146. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.68.5.7804.
- Braun T, Glänzel W & Schubert A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics. 69: 169–173. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0147-4.
- Falagas, M.E., Kouranos, V.D., Arencibia-Jorge, R. & Karageorgopoulos, Drosos E.(2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal. 22: 2623-2628. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.08-107938. PMid: 18408168.
- Franceschet, M. (2011). PageRank: standing on the shoulders of giants. ACM Communications. 54:92–101. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953122.1953146.
- Garfield, E. (1955). Citation Indexes for Science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122:108-111. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.122.3159.108. PMid: 14385826.
- Garfield, E. (2007). The evolution of the science citation index. International Microbiology. 10:65-69. PMid: 17407063.
- Garfield, E. (1979). Will ISI’s arts and humanities citation index revolutionize scholarship? Current Contents. 35:5-9.
- Garfield, E & Sher, I.H. (1963). New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation. 14:195–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140304.
- Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometric. 1: 359-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019306.
- González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote V.P. & MoyaAnegón F. (2010). A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics. 4: 379-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002.
- Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 102: 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102. PMid: 16275915, PMCid :PMC1283832.
- Klein, Daniel B. & Chiang, Eric. (2004). The Social Science Citation Index: A Black Box with an Ideological Bias?. Econ Journal Watch. 1:134-165.
- Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research methodology: methods and techniques. 2nd revised ed. New Delhi: New age international publishers.
- Leydesdorff, L. (2009). How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? Journal of American Society for Information Science & Technology. 60:1327–1336. https://doi.org/10.1002/ asi.21024.
- Merton, R.K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. 1st ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Moed, H. (2011). The Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is a valid and sophisticated indicator of journal citation impact. Journal of Association of Information Science and Technology. 62:211-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21424.
- Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research. 246:1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002.
- Pinski, G. & Narin, F.(1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publcations: Theory with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing & Management. 12:297–312. https://doi. org/10.1016/0306-4573(76)90048-0.
- Postma, E. (2007). Inflated impact factors? The true impact of evolutionary papers in non-evolutionary journals. PLoS One. 2: 999. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0000999. PMid: 17912376, PMCid: PMC1994586.
- Prathap G, Nishy P & Savithri, S. (2016). On the orthogonality of indicators of journal performance. Current Science. 111:876-881. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/ v111/i5/876-881.
- Prathap, G. & Nishy, P. (2016). An alternative size-independent journal performance indicator for science on the periphery. Current Science. 111: 1802-1810. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v111/i11/1802-1810.
- Roussea, Ronald. (2002). Journal Evaluation: Technical and practical issues. Library Trends. 50: 418-439.
- Thelwell, Mike. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science. 34: 605-621. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0165551507087238.
- Waltman L, Van Eck N.J., Leeuwen van T.M. & Visser, M.S. (2013). Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator. Journal of Informatrics, 7: 272-285. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.011.
- Waltman, L. & Van Eck, N.J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63: 406-415. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21678.