Search

This paper has two aims: (i) to introduce a novel method for measuring which part of overall citation inequality can be attributed to differences in citation practices across scientific fields, and (ii) to implement an empirical strategy for making meaningful comparisons between the number of citations received by articles in 22 broad fields. The number of citations received by any article is seen as a function of the article's scientific influence, and the field to which it belongs. A key assumption is that articles in the same quantile of any field citation distribution have the same degree of citation impact in their respective field. Using a dataset of 4.4 million articles published in 1998-2003 with a five-year citation window, we estimate that differences in citation practices between the 22 fields account for 14% of overall citation inequality. Our empirical strategy is based on the strong similarities found in the behavior of citation distributions. We obtain three main results. Firstly, we estimate a set of average-based indicators, called exchange rates, to express the citations received by any article in a large interval in terms of the citations received in a reference situation. Secondly, using our exchange rates as normalization factors of the raw citation data reduces the effect of differences in citation practices to, approximately, 2% of overall citation inequality in the normalized citation distributions. Thirdly, we provide an empirical explanation of why the usual normalization procedure based on the fields' mean citation rates is found to be equally successful.

One of the greatest challenges in the treatment of substance dependence is to reverse the control that drug-associated stimuli have gained over the addict's behavior, as these drug-associated memories increase the risk of relapse even after long periods of abstinence. We report here that inhibition of the atypical protein kinase C isoform PKCzeta and its constitutively active isoform PKMzeta with the pseudosubstrate inhibitor ZIP administered locally into the nucleus accumbens core reversibly inhibited the retrieval of drug-associated memory and drug (remifentanil) seeking, whereas a scrambled ZIP peptide or staurosporine, an effective inhibitor of c/nPKC-, CaMKII-, and PKA kinases that does not affect PKCzeta/PKMzeta activity, was without effect on these memory processes. Acquisition or extinction of drug-associated memory remained unaffected by PKCzeta- and PKMzeta inhibition.

We propose a new method to assess the merit of any set of scientific papers in a given field based on the citations they receive. Given a field and a citation impact indicator, such as the mean citation or the [Formula: see text]-index, the merit of a given set of [Formula: see text] articles is identified with the probability that a randomly drawn set of [Formula: see text] articles from a given pool of articles in that field has a lower citation impact according to the indicator in question. The method allows for comparisons between sets of articles of different sizes and fields. Using a dataset acquired from Thomson Scientific that contains the articles published in the periodical literature in the period 1998-2007, we show that the novel approach yields rankings of research units different from those obtained by a direct application of the mean citation or the [Formula: see text]-index.