IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v7y2019i2p43-d239779.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eugene Garfield’s Ideas and Legacy and Their Impact on the Culture of Research

Author

Listed:
  • Svetla Baykoucheva

    (STEM Library, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA)

Abstract

Eugene Garfield advanced the theory and practice of information science and envisioned information systems that made the discovery of scientific information much more efficient. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), which he founded in Philadelphia in 1960, developed innovative information products that have revolutionized science. ISI provided current scientific information to researchers all over the world by publishing the table of contents of key scientific journals in the journal Current Contents (CC). Garfield introduced the citation as a qualitative measure of academic impact and propelled the concepts of “citation indexing” and “citation linking”, paving the way for today’s search engines. He created the Science Citation Index (SCI), which raised awareness about citations; triggered the development of new disciplines (scientometrics, infometrics, webometrics); and became the foundation for building new important products such as Web of Science. The journal impact factor (IF), originally designed to select journals for the SCI, became the most widely accepted tool for measuring academic impact. Garfield actively promoted English as the international language of science and became a powerful force in the globalization of research. His ideas changed how researchers gather scientific information, communicate their findings, and advance their careers. This article looks at the impact of Garfield’s ideas and legacy on the culture of research.

Suggested Citation

  • Svetla Baykoucheva, 2019. "Eugene Garfield’s Ideas and Legacy and Their Impact on the Culture of Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-12, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:2:p:43-:d:239779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/43/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/43/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    2. Adam Eyre-Walker & Nina Stoletzki, 2013. "The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-8, October.
    3. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    4. Gangan Prathap, 2018. "Eugene Garfield: from the metrics of science to the science of metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 637-650, February.
    5. M. M. Kessler, 1963. "Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 10-25, January.
    6. Ádám Kun, 2018. "Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Stuart Brody, 2013. "Impact factor: Imperfect but not yet replaceable," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 255-257, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pranpreya Sriwannawit & Ulf Sandström, 2015. "Large-scale bibliometric review of diffusion research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1615-1645, February.
    2. Peter Wittek & Sándor Darányi & Gustaf Nelhans, 2017. "Ruling out static latent homophily in citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 765-777, February.
    3. Guan-Can Yang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang & Tong Liu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2015. "Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1319-1346, December.
    4. Akinpelu, O.A. & Olaleye, O. & Fagbola, O., 2023. "The Soil Organic Matter Decomposers: A Bibliometric Analysis," International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research, Malwa International Journals Publication, vol. 9(4), August.
    5. Rey-Long Liu, 2017. "A new bibliographic coupling measure with descriptive capability," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 915-935, February.
    6. Yulei Xie & Ling Ji & Beibei Zhang & Gordon Huang, 2018. "Evolution of the Scientific Literature on Input–Output Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis of 1990–2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    7. Lilian Cervo Cabrera & Carlos Eduardo Caldarelli & Marcia Regina Gabardo Camara, 2020. "Mapping collaboration in international coffee certification research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2597-2618, September.
    8. Diana Floegel & Kaitlin L. Costello, 2022. "Methods for a feminist technoscience of information practice: Design justice and speculative futurities," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(4), pages 625-634, April.
    9. Gangan Prathap & Somenath Mukherjee, 2020. "Letter to the Editor: Comments on the paper of Batagelj—on fractional approach to analysis of linked networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2717-2722, September.
    10. Perez-Vega, Rodrigo & Hopkinson, Paul & Singhal, Aishwarya & Mariani, Marcello M., 2022. "From CRM to social CRM: A bibliometric review and research agenda for consumer research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1-16.
    11. Chris W. Belter, 2013. "A bibliometric analysis of NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 629-644, May.
    12. Ding, Ying, 2011. "Community detection: Topological vs. topical," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 498-514.
    13. Rickly, Jillian M., 2022. "A review of authenticity research in tourism: Launching the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on authenticity," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    14. Manta Eduard Mihai & Davidescu Adriana Ana Maria & Geambasu Maria Cristina & Florescu Margareta Stela, 2023. "Exploring the research area of direct taxation. An empirical analysis based on bibliometric analysis results," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 18(s1), pages 355-383, December.
    15. Yu-Wei Chang & Mu-Hsuan Huang & Chiao-Wen Lin, 2015. "Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2071-2087, December.
    16. Raymundo das Neves Machado & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada & Jacqueline Leta, 2016. "Intellectual structure in stem cell research: exploring Brazilian scientific articles from 2001 to 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 525-537, February.
    17. Ahmad, Farhan & Bask, Anu & Laari, Sini & Robinson, Craig V., 2023. "Business management perspectives on the circular economy: Present state and future directions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    18. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    19. Ali Najmi & Taha H. Rashidi & Alireza Abbasi & S. Travis Waller, 2017. "Reviewing the transport domain: an evolutionary bibliometrics and network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 843-865, February.
    20. Jan M. Gerken & Martin G. Moehrle, 2012. "A new instrument for technology monitoring: novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 645-670, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:2:p:43-:d:239779. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.