abstract: After a brief review of the historical development and *CLASSICAL* properties of the BLACK HOLES, we discuss how our present knowledge of some of their *QUANTUM* properties shed light on the very concept of ELEMENTARY PARTICLE. As an illustration, we discuss in this context the decay of accelerated protons, which may be also relevant to astrophysics.
author: George E. A. Matsas
date: 2024-09-30
title: Elementary Particles under the Lens of the Black Holes

#   Black Holes: Historical developments

The first black hole solution was found in 1916 by the German astrophysicist Karl Schwarzschild few months after General Relativity was formulated (and little time before his death in the Russian front). It was a static and spherically symmetric solution of the vacuum Einstein Eqs. described by the line element $$ds^2 = (1-2 M/r) dt^2 - (1-2 M/r)^{-1} dr^2 -  r^2 d\Omega\;,$$ where $M$ is the black hole mass. Notwithstanding it took many decades before the scientific community accepted that black holes were physical solutions which could be indeed realized in nature. In 1939 we can still find A. Einstein stating in the conclusions of an article : "the Schwarzschild singularities do not exist in the physical reality". This was not what J. Oppenheimer and his student, H. Snyder, concluded in the same year , however, after analyzing the collapse of massive stars.

In 1938, J. Oppenheimer and G. Volkoff found that neutron stars had a limit for its mass beyond which they should collapse . In the year after, Oppenheimer and Snyder decided to analyze it in more detail. For technical reasons, they assumed some simplifications: spherical symmetry, constant density, no rotation and no shock waves with emission of matter or radiation. Under these conditions they concluded that the collapse would lead eventually to a black hole indeed, but there remained some unclear features to be understood. In contrast to the description made by observers at rest on the surface of the star who would witness a continuous collapse towards the singularity, asymptotic observers would see the star surface like "frozen" on the event horizon. These seemingly contradictory descriptions were only reconciled after D. Finkelstein found in 1958 a coordinate system which was able to cover smoothly the internal and external regions of the black hole . This conceptual step in addition with more precise numerical simulations, which were possible thanks to a better comprehension of the nuclear structure, ended up to corroborate Oppenheimer and Snyder's conclusion and bit most skepticism about the possible existence of black holes. J. Wheeler, in particular, evolved from criticizer to supporter of the black hole idea and in 1967 he introduced the denomination *black hole* to what was called *collapsed star* in the west and *frozen star* in the east. More than 40 years after the Schwarzschild solution was discovered, black holes were treated at least as a real possibility.

It is common to consider 1964 as the beginning of the *black hole golden era*. From the theoretical point of view, R. Penrose has introduced topological methods with which he was able to derive some quite general results. For example, he was able to show (under some natural assumptions in the classical realm) that black holes must have a singularity in their interior . Developments in the observational domain also took place. In 1966 I. Novikov and Ya. Zel'dovich raised the possibility that there should exist binary systems formed by an ordinary star and a black hole orbiting around each other. It would be natural, thus, to expect the combined emission of X-ray and visible light from such systems since as matter is attracted by the black hole its gravitational potential would be converted into thermal energy and eventually into X-ray . This turned out to be the most probable explanation for the spectrum associated with Cygnus X-1 as it became clear in 1971 with the collected data from the Uhuru satellite. It is worthwhile to notice that while the prediction that star-size black holes could be X-ray sources was confirmed only 5 years after its formulation, the explanation that radio galaxies (observed since the 30's) and quasars (observed since the 60's) were energized by the presence of super black holes had to wait more than 40 years.

Different evidences favoring the existence of black holes are mounting since then, and it is expected for soon some direct signal from a black hole event horizon. This may come as a shadow disc at the photograph plate of Sgr A$^*$ (at the center of the Milky Way, where a many-million-solar-mass black hole is believed to exist) \[when small enough wavelength observations become possible\] or in the form of gravitational wave signals to be detected up to the 10's by the Ligo and Virgo Earth-based gravitational wave detectors or in the 20's by the Lisa space gravitational wave detector, we do not know; but what we do know is that *it will be the confirmation of one of the greatest predictions of theoretical physics*.

#   Black Holes: CLASSICAL properties

A strongly asymptotically predictable spacetime $$({\cal M}, g)$$ is formally said to contain a black hole $B$ if $$B \equiv {\cal M} - J^- ({\cal J^+})$$ is not empty, i.e., if there is a region from where classical light rays cannot escape to infinity, where $J^-$ is the causal past and ${\cal J}^+$ is the future null infinity, . The event horizon of the black hole is defined as being the boundary of $B$: $$H \equiv \dot J^- ({\cal J}^+) \cap {\cal M}\;.$$ The solution discovered by Schwarzschild contains a particular kind of black hole which is static and spherically symmetric but could it exist other black holes with, let us say, more exotic forms and exquisite properties? In 1964, A. Doroshkevich, I. Novikov and Ya. Zel'dovich showed that quasi-spherically symmetric collapsing stars give rise to perfectly spherically symmetric black holes . This was the prelude of a series of far-reaching theorems known as *black hole no-hair theorems*.

In 1967 W. Israel derived what can be considered the first piece of this series of theorems, namely, *every rotationless black hole should be spherically symmetric* . As a next step, it was natural, thus, to extend the analysis to rotating black holes. A solution for a rotating black hole was unveiled by R. Kerr in 1963  (but only identified as so in 1965 by R. Boyer and R. Lindquist , B. Carter  and R. Penrose). At that time, it was not clear, however, if there would not exist other vacuum solutions of the Einstein Eqs. describing black holes with angular momentum. This quest was embraced by B. Carter in 1972 (with a contribution by D. Robinson) who showed that according to the vacuum Einstein Eqs. the most general black hole solution was the one given by Kerr. The event horizon of a Kerr black hole is more elongated at the equator than on the poles and the underlying geometry of a rotating black hole is richer than of a static one but still its structure remains quite simple since most properties of the original star are lost in the collapse. To put it in R. Price's words: In a star collapse process with a black hole formation, everything that can be radiated (i.e. does not satisfy some conservation law) will be radiated.

The most general formulation of the no-hair theorems associated with the electrovacuum solution of Einstein Eqs. states that black holes are completely characterized by their mass $M$, charge $Q$ and angular momentum $J$ and its geometry is described by the Kerr-Newman line element. For instance, the black hole area can be written as ($c=G=1$) $$A = 4\pi^2 \left[ 2 M^2 - Q^2 + 2 M \sqrt{M^2 - Q^2 - J^2/M^2\,} \right]\;.$$

Thus black holes not only are probably the most exotic structures at the heavens but also one of the simplest ones as well.

#   Black Holes: SEMICLASSICAL properties

The beginning of the black hole semiclassical era took place in 1974. This was the summit of a number of curious events which actually began in 1971 . In this year, S. Hawking showed that the total horizon area for any given set of black holes did not decrease with time. In particular, according to this theorem, black holes were indestructible. In order to derive this theorem, Hawking used some quite reasonable hypotheses (at least in the classical realm). In 1972, in analogy to the second law of thermodynamics, J. Bekenstein associated an entropy to each black hole proportional to the area of its event horizon . Hawking had a strong negative reaction at first but two years later, as he analyzed the collapse of stars in the context of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetimes (where positive energy conditions normally used in classical theorems are not valid), Hawking showed that black holes should radiate with a thermal spectrum  with temperature ($c=G=\hbar=k_B=1$) $$T = {\cal K}/ 2\pi\;,$$ (as measured by assymptotic observers), where $${\cal K} = 4 \pi \sqrt{M^2 - Q^2 - J^2/M^2\,}/A$$ is the surface gravity. Eventually, black holes could have associated an entropy proportional to its horizon area $$S = \frac{c^3 A}{4G \hbar}$$ as conjectured by Bekenstein (and precisely calculated by Hawking). This discovery opened a subarea denominated *Black Hole Thermodynamics*, which is presently very active because of some fundamental questions raised in connection with information theory and quantum mechanics but which will be hardly solved outside the context of a full quantum gravity theory. In Hawking´s words: *Holes may be black classically but are gray quantum-mechanically*.

In order to understand better the Hawking effect, let us make a detour through Quantum Field Theory. It became clear since the early times of Quantum Mechanics that the no-particle state, i.e. the vacuum, has a very rich structure. Most (if not all) of its exotic properties are connected with the concept of virtual particles. Virtual particles violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and, thus, cannot be directly observed. Notwithstanding, they do have indirect observable consequences. Probably the most paradigmatic example of the physical consequences of the virtual particles is given by the Casimir effect.

According to the Casimir effect , uncharged parallel metallic plates in the vacuum experience an attractive pressure given by (see Ref.  for a comprehensive review and Ref.  for a pedagogical introduction) $$|F|/A = 3 \pi^2  \hbar c/ 710 \, d^4 \;,$$ where $d$ is the distance between the plates and we are discounting any gravitational effects because of the plate masses. We note that this is intrinsically a quantum-relativistic effect which would vanish for $\hbar \to 0$ and lead to nonsense results in the nonrelativistic limit $c \to \infty$. Roughly speaking, the metal plates play the role of boundaries to the virtual photons diminishing the total vacuum energy $\langle 0 | \hat H | 0 \rangle$ as the plates get closer to each other, where $\hat H$ is the free Hamiltonian associated with the photon field.

We already know that virtual photons feel the presence of static metallic plates but what does it happen if we consider a (nonuniformly) accelerated metallic plate in the vacuum? The metal plate will transfer energy to the virtual particles letting them real. Indeed, a photon flux will be emitted opposite to the acceleration direction while negative energy fluxes will be emitted in the acceleration direction. This is known as dynamical Casimir effect (but could be fairly called Moore effect ). This effect is interesting in its own right and also for being a kind of flat-spacetime analog of the Hawking effect. Here the mirror plays the role of the star, the emitted photons correspond to the Hawking radiation and the inward flux of negative energy is responsible for the black hole evaporation. The main difference here is that contrary to the mirror case, where only photons are radiated, the star collapse leads to the emission of all kind of particles. This is so because, according to the equivalence principle, all particles are coupled to gravity in the same way. What would not be easy to anticipate is that the spectrum of the emitted particles as detected by asymptotic observers can be associated to a black body. In the particular case of a static chargeless black hole, the corresponding temperature is $$T= \hbar c^3 /  8 \pi k_B G M\;,$$ where $M$ is the black hole mass. Notice the appearance of the four universal constants $c,\hbar,G, k_B$.

The larger the black hole, the lower the temperature and only "small-mass" particles ($m c^2 \leq k_B T$) will be likely to escape. Large-mass particles will be scattered back to the hole by the scattering potential. Notwithstanding, it is worthwhile to notice that arbitrarily large mass particles could be, in principle, observed as follows. By assuming that the evaporation process is adiabatic, the radiation temperature as measured by static observers at different Schwarzschild radial coordinates $r$ outside the black hole will differ from the one at the infinity by a red-shift factor , namely, $$T(r)= T / \sqrt{1-2 GM/r c^2}\;.$$ Thus, the closer to the horizon the higher the temperature and the more likely to detect massive particles. However, there is no free lunch in nature: in order to probe particles with Planck mass one has to get as close to the horizon as the Planck length.

#   ELEMENTARY PARTICLES UNDER THE LENS OF THE BLACK HOLES

The Hawking effect connects in a nontrivial way Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Gravity and Thermodynamics and has raised a number of different questions, some of which are still opened. Notwithstanding it became clear since 1976 after W. Unruh  that although static observers outside black holes detect a thermal bath of particles, free falling observers close enough to the horizon would have their detectors basically unexcited. (Here one may think of a usual 2-level Unruh-DeWitt detector .) The explanation for this phenomenon is closely connected with previous works by S. Fulling  and P. Davies  which called attention to the fact that the particle content of a Quantum Field Theory is observer dependent. This conclusion has far-reaching implications even to Quantum Field Theory in flat spacetime. Indeed, the vacuum state as defined by inertial observers in the Minkowski space corresponds to a thermal state of all particles at temperature $$T = \hbar a/2 \pi c k_B$$ as detected by observers with constant proper acceleration $a$. It can be said that uniformly accelerated observers see as real those particles which inertial observers ascribe as being virtual.

It is also possible to figure out the opposite situation where particles which are unobservable to uniformly accelerated observers are observable to inertial ones. In 1991 A. Higuchi, D. Sudarsky and the author were analyzing the following problem associated with the radiation emitted from uniformly accelerated charges. It is well known that accelerated charges radiate with respect to inertial observers and the emitted power is given by the Larmor formula  as (see also Ref.  for a deep discussion on the radiation reaction problem) $$W = e^2 a^2 /6 \pi c^3 \;.$$

In spite of this, there was a consensus that co-accelerated observers with uniformly accelerated charges, i.e. charges with constant proper acceleration $a$, would not detect any radiation since the corresponding field is static with respect to them . According to Quantum Field Theory, however, the usual classical electromagnetic radiation can be interpreted in terms of photons. So, if the co-accelerated observers did not observe any radiation, "where had the photons observed by the inertial observers gone"? The answer to this question is directly related with the fact that the elementary particle concept is observer dependent. Indeed, the emission of a finite-energy photon as seen in the inertial frame corresponds to the emission to or absorption from the Fulling-Davies-Unruh (FDU) thermal bath (in which the electron is immersed according to co-accelerated observers) of a *zero-energy* Rindler photon. The emission rate of finite energy photons as defined by the inertial observers and the combined emission and absorption rate of zero-energy Rindler photons as defined by the co-accelerated observers can be both written as  ($c, \hbar = 1$) $$P_{k_\bot} (a) = \frac{e^2}{4 \pi^3 a} | K_1 (k_\bot/a)|^2$$ where $k_\bot$ is the photon transverse momentum (with respect to the acceleration direction). Zero-energy Rindler photons are perfectly well defined entities since they can carry non-zero transverse momentum but cannot be detected by physical observers because they concentrate on the horizon of the uniformly accelerated observers . From an epistemological point of view, zero-energy Rindler photons have much in common with virtual particles since although they cannot be observed they are indirectly important as a mean to explain some physical phenomena; in this case, the "disappearance" of the photons in the electron co-accelerated frame. Zero-energy particles are also important in analyzing other problems as, for instance, the response of static sources interacting with the Hawking radiation of a black hole .

Probably because of its non-intuitiveness the FDU effect was received with skepticism by part of the scientific community. Although the derivation of the effect is sound and the conclusion indisputable, part of the community took the position that only a "*direct*" observation of the effect would be convincing. Notwithstanding, this is not an easy task since no macroscopic body would resist to the typical accelerations $a$ necessary for this purpose: $$T/ (1 K) = a/ (2.5 \times 10^{22} cm/s^2)\;.$$ The strategy had to be otherwise, namely, a gedanken experiment able to make it clear that the FDU effect would be necessary for the consistency of the Quantum Field Theory itself. This was the strategy followed by D. Vanzella and the author  inspired by previous works .

According to the standard model, inertial protons are stable. But this is not so for accelerated ones because of the work transferred to the proton by the external accelerating agent. As far as the proton proper acceleration satisfies $a \ll m_n + m_e + m_\nu - m_p$ the decay process will be much suppressed but for $a > m_n + m_e + m_\nu - m_p$ the weak decay channel $$p^+ \to n^0 + e^+ + \nu
\label{pweakdecay}$$ will be favored up to $a \approx m_\pi$ after what the strong-decay channel $$p^+ \to n^0 + \pi^+
\label{pstrongdecay}$$ will dominate. Recent calculations show that high-energy protons with $E\approx 10^{14}$ eV under the influence of magnetic fields of $B \approx 10^{14}$ G found in some pulsars should decay in a fraction of a second in laboratory time .

The analysis above, however, is valid for inertial observers. But how can we understand the decay process from the point of view of co-moving observers with a uniformly accelerated proton? According to these observers, in order to decay the proton must remove energy from the particles of the thermal bath in which it is immersed in its rest frame. Thus, according to the co-moving observers, the decay processes will be seen quite differently. Indeed, in the regime where the proton/neutron can be considered as unexcited/excited states of a two-level quantum mechanical system, processes () and () will be interpreted according to coaccelerated observers as $$\label{pweakdecayac}
\begin{equation}
p^+ + e^- \to  n^0  + \nu
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
p^+ + \bar \nu  \to  n^0 + e^+
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
p^+ + \bar \nu + e^-  \to   n^0
\end{equation}$$ and $$p^+ + \pi^- \to n^0
\label{pstrongdecayac}$$ respectively. In particular, the correct mean lifetime is predicted in the co-accelerated frame by assuming the processes above in conjunction with the presence of the FDU thermal bath . Had we not taken into account the FDU thermal bath, the proton would be seemingly stable according to the co-accelerated observers (for sake of energy conservation) in contradiction with the inertial frame conclusion: *The FDU effect is necessary for the consistency of Quantum Field Theory.*

#   Concluding remarks

The overwhelming difficulty of constructing a quantum gravity theory can be illustrated by the fact that different people will give different answers to what such a theory should look like. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the rules of quantum mechanics which are tested up to scales of $10^{-15}$ cm would not be drastically modified in the quantum gravity domain. Assuming that $c$, $\hbar$, and $G$ are the only fundamental constants to the quantum gravity theory, we expect that its typical effects will become obvious at the Planck scale, i.e. as soon as we accelerate elementary particles at energies of $E > M_p c^2 = \sqrt{\hbar c^5/G}$, we are able to probe distances of $L_p < \sqrt{G \hbar/c^3}$, we look at processes with time scales of $T_p < \sqrt{G \hbar/c^5}$ or we observe structures with densities of $\rho_p = c^5/G^2 c^2$. In principle, these extreme situations would be likely to be realized only in singular regions, as e.g., close to the Big Bang and at black hole singularities. Unhappily the Big Bang is mostly screened by a number of effects associated with the primordial plasma (although it may be that gravitational wave detectors open a window to it) and black hole singularities are not naked. Thus, it might seem that we would be hopelessly lost from both sides: theoretically and observationally. But this is not so according to the Semiclassical Gravity theory!

If one is not allowed to visit the Chinese Imperial city, one should better wait for news just outside its limits. In our case, the Imperial city is the Quantum Gravity realm; it is forbidden to us because we do not fit into the Planck scale; and it is worthwhile to wait for news coming from it because quantum mechanical information should leak from the lock. The Hawking effect is probably the better example of how quantum gravity effects can escape towards the macroscopic domain. It might be difficult to observe the radiation emitted from large black holes since the associated temperature is very small: $$T/(1 K) = 10^{-7} M_\odot / M$$ but this is not so for the radiation emitted from smaller (primordial?) black holes. Even for large black holes, the situation is not that bad as soon as we may probe directly the region close to the horizon where the radiation temperature is very blue-shifted.

We do not know how far we will be able to go with this semiclassical approach as well as people did not know how far they were going to reach by using the semiclassical electromagnetic theory rather than QED in atomic physics; but what we do know is that every step forward in this down-up strategy will be (in principle) a long-lasting one because, after all, we are dealing with the safe side of our standard theories. Moreover because the Semiclassical Gravity is in the interface of General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, and Thermodynamics, unexpected effects which does not have to do directly with Quantum Gravity are being unveiled. Here we have focused on the contribution of the Semiclassical Gravity Theory to the concept of elementary particle but other contributions could also be cited. Recently, Unruh has raised the very interesting possibility of mimicking the Hawking effect through Condensed Matter laboratory experiments . For this purpose it is enough to arrange a compact region in a background medium (think of a spherical region in the middle of a pool) such that inside it the inward velocity of the medium is larger than the sound velocity. In this way, phonons would not be able to escape from this trapped region and we would have a sonic hole. Many (kinematical) classical and semiclassical properties of the black holes can be experimentally probed in this way. In particlular, Hawking phonon radiation is expected to be observed from sonic holes.

More embarassing than having not formulated yet the full quantum gravity theory is being aware of how much we still do not know about those theories which we thought to have mastered long ago. In this vein, quantum gravity can wait; the misteries hidden in our standard theories cannot. After all, we can always hold on V. Weisskopf words: *Is it really the end of theoretical physics to get the world formula? The greatest physicists have always thought that there was one, and that everything else could be derived from it. Einstein believed it, Heisenberg believed it. I am not such a great physicist, I do not believe it... This, I think, is because nature is inexhaustible.*


bibliography: PLoSOne_jbollen09.bib

|  |  |
|:---|:---|
| **Please cite as:** | Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, Chute R, 2009 A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures. PLoS ONE 4(6): e6022. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022 |
| URL | `http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006022` |

# Abstract

**Background**: The impact of scientific publications has traditionally been expressed in terms of citation counts. However, scientific activity has moved online over the past decade. To better capture scientific impact in the digital era, a variety of new impact measures has been proposed on the basis of social network analysis and usage log data. Here we investigate how these new measures relate to each other, and how accurately and completely they express scientific impact.

**Methodology**: We performed a principal component analysis of the rankings produced by 39 existing and proposed measures of scholarly impact that were calculated on the basis of both citation and usage log data.

**Conclusions**: Our results indicate that the notion of scientific impact is a multi-dimensional construct that can not be adequately measured by any single indicator, although some measures are more suitable than others. The commonly used citation Impact Factor is not positioned at the core of this construct, but at its periphery, and should thus be used with caution.

# Introduction

Science is a *gift economy*; value is defined as the degree to which one's ideas have freely contributed to knowledge and impacted the thinking of others. Since authors use citations to indicate which publications influenced their work, scientific impact can be measured as a function of the citations that a publication receives. Looking for quantitative measures of scientific impact, administrators and policy makers have thus often turned to citation data.
A variety of impact measures can be derived from raw citation data. It is however highly common to assess scientific impact in terms of average journal citation rates. In particular, the Thomson Scientific Journal Impact Factor (JIF) which is published yearly as part of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) is based on this very principle; it is calculated by dividing the total number of citations that a journal receives over a period of 2 years by the number of articles it published in that same period.
The JIF has achieved a dominant position among measures of scientific impact for two reasons. First, it is published as part of a well-known, commonly available citation database (Thomson Scientific's JCR). Second, it has a simple and intuitive definition. The JIF is now commonly used to measure the impact of journals and by extension the impact of the articles they have published, and by even further extension the authors of these articles, their departments, their universities and even entire countries. However, the JIF has a number of undesirable properties which have been extensively discussed in the literature . This had led to a situation in which most experts agree that the JIF is a far from perfect measure of scientific impact but it is still generally used because of the lack of accepted alternatives.
The shortcomings of the JIF as a simple citation statistic have led to the introduction of other measures of scientific impact. Modifications of the JIF have been proposed to cover longer periods of time and shorter periods of times (JCR's Citation Immediacy Index). Different distribution statistics have been proposed, e.g. Rousseau (2005) and the JCR Citation Half-life
(`http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/citationanalysis/citationrates/`).
The H-index was originally proposed to rank authors according to their rank-ordered citation distributions, but was extended to journals by Braun (2005) . Randar (2007) and Egghe (2006) propose the g-index as a modification of the H-index.
In addition, the success of Google's method of ranking web pages has inspired numerous measures of journal impact that apply social network analysis to citation networks. Pinski (1975) first proposed to rank journals according to their eigenvector centrality in a citation network. Bollen (2006) and Dellavalle (2007) proposed to rank journals according to their citation PageRank (an approximation of Pinski's eigenvector centrality), followed by the launch of `eigenfactor.org` that started publishing journal PageRank rankings in 2006. The Scimago group (`http://www.scimagojr.com/`) now publishes the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) that ranks journals based on a principle similar to that used to calculate citation PageRank. PageRank has also been proposed to rank individual articles . Using another social network measure, Leydesdorff (2007) proposes betweenness centrality as an indicator of a journal's interdisciplinary power.
Since scientific literature is now mostly published and accessed online, a number of initiatives have attempted to measure scientific impact from *usage log data*. The web portals of scientific publishers, aggregator services and institutional library services now consistently record usage at a scale that exceeds the total number of citations in existence. In fact, Elsevier announced 1 billion fulltext downloads in 2006, compared to approximately 600 million citations in the entire Web of Science database. The resulting usage data allows scientific activity to be observed immediately upon publication, rather than to wait for citations to emerge in the published literature and to be included in citation databases such as the JCR; a process that with average publication delays can easily take several years. Shepherd (2007) and Bollen (2008) propose a Usage Impact Factor which consists of average usage rates for the articles published in a journal, similar to the citation-based JIF. Several authors have proposed similar measures based on usage statistics . Parallel to the development of social network measures applied to citation networks, Bollen (2005, 2008) demonstrate the feasibility of a variety of social network measures calculated on the basis of usage networks extracted from the clickstream information contained in usage log data.
These developments have led to a plethora of new measures of scientific impact that can be derived from citation or usage log data, and/or rely on distribution statistics or more sophisticated social network analysis. However, which of these measures is most suitable for the measurement of scientific impact? This question is difficult to answer for two reasons. First, impact measures can be calculated for various citation and usage data sets, and it is thus difficult to distinguish the true characteristics of a measure from the peculiarities of the data set from which it was calculated. Second, we do not have a universally accepted, golden standard of impact to calibrate any new measures to. In fact, we do not even have a workable definition of the notion of "scientific impact" itself, unless we revert to the tautology of defining it as the number of citations received by a publication. As most abstract concepts "scientific impact" may be understood and measured in many different ways. The issue thus becomes which impact measures best express its various aspects and interpretations.
Here we report on a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the rankings produced by a total of 39 different, yet plausible measures of scholarly impact. 19 measures were calculated from the 2007 JCR citation data and 16 from the MESUR project's log usage data collection (`http://www.mesur.org/`). We included 4 measures of impact published by the Scimago (`http://www.scimagojr.com/`) group that were calculated from Scopus citation data. The resulting PCA shows the major dimensions along which the abstract notion of scientific impact can be understood and how clusters of measures correspond to similar aspects of scientific impact.

# Methods

The mentioned 39 scientific impact measures were derived from various sources. Our analysis included several existing measures that are published on a yearly basis by Thomson-Reuters and the Scimago project. Other measures were calculated on the basis of existing citation- and usage data. The following sections discuss the methodology by which each of these impact measures was either extracted or derived from various usage and citation sources.

## Data preparation and collection

As shown in Fig. , the following databases were used in this analysis:

Citation

:   The CDROM version of the 2007 Journal Citation Reports (JCR Science and Social Science Editions) published by Thomson-Reuters Scientific (formerly ISI)

Usage

:   The MESUR project's reference collection of usage log data: `http://www.mesur.org/`: a collection of 346,312,045 user interactions recorded by the web portals operated by Thomson Scientific (Web of Science), Elsevier (Scopus), JSTOR, Ingenta, University of Texas (9 campuses, 6 health institutions), and California State University (23 campuses) between March 1st 2006 and February 1st 2007.

Additional citation measures

:   A set of journal rankings published by the Scimago project that are based on Elsevier Scopus citation data:
    `http://www.scimagojr.com/`

In the following sections we detail the methodology that was used to retrieve and calculate 39 scientific impact measures from these data sets, and the subsequent analysis of the correlations between the rankings they produced. Throughout the article measures are identified by a unique identifier number that is listed in Table . We hope these identifiers will allow readers to more conveniently identify measures in subsequently provided diagrams and tables such as Fig. , and .

```latex
\begin{table*}
\begin{small}
\caption{\label{measure_loadings} Measure loadings after varimax rotation of first 2 components of PCA analysis of measure correlations (Spearman rank-order). Average Spearman rank-order correlations to all other measures are listed under $\bar{\rho}$ (five lowest values indicated by $\star$).}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllllrrl}
\hline\hline
ID      &   Type        &   Measure                 &       Source          &   Network parameters      &   PC1         &   PC2         &    $\bar{\rho}$\\\hline\hline
1           &   Citation    &   Scimago Journal Rank    &       Scimago/Scopus  &                       &   -0.974      &   -8.296      &   0.556$^\star$   \\
2           &   Citation    &   Immediacy Index     &       JCR 2007            &                       &   1.659       &   -7.046      &   0.508$^\star$   \\
3           &   Citation    &   Closeness Centrality    &       JCR 2007            &   Undirected, weighted    &       0.339   &   -6.284      &   0.565$^\star$   \\
4           &   Citaton &   Cites per doc           &       Scimago/Scopus  &                       &       -1.311  &   -6.192      &   0.588$^\star$   \\
5           &   Citation    &   Journal Impact Factor   &       JCR 2007            &                       &       -1.854  &   -5.937      &   0.592$^\star$   \\
6           &   Citation    &   Closeness centrality        &       JCR 2007            &   Undirected, unweighted  &       -1.388  &   -4.827      &   0.619       \\
7           &   Citation    &   Out-degree centrality   &       JCR 2007            &   Directed, weighted      &       -3.191  &   -4.215      &   0.642       \\
8           &   Citation    &   Out-degree centrality   &       JCR 2007            &   Directed, unweighted    &       -2.703  &   -4.015      &   0.640       \\
9           &   Citation    &   Degree Centrality       &       JCR 2007            &   Undirected, weighted    &       -4.850  &   -2.834      &   0.690       \\
10          &   Citation    &   Degree Centrality       &       JCR 2007            &   Undirected, unweighted  &       -4.398  &   -2.643      &   0.691       \\
11          &   Citation    &   H-Index             &       Scimago/Scopus  &                       &       -3.326  &   -2.003      &   0.681       \\
12          &   Citation    &   Scimago Total cites     &       Scimago/Scopus  &                       &       -4.926  &   -1.722      &   0.712       \\
13          &   Citation    &   Journal Cite Probability    &       JCR 2007            &                       &       -5.389  &   -1.647      &   0.710       \\
14          &   Citation    &   In-degree centrality        &       JCR 2007            &   Directed, unweighted    &       -5.302  &   -1.429      &   0.717       \\
15          &   Citation    &   In-degree   centrality      &       JCR 2007            &   Directed, weighted      &       -5.380  &   -1.554      &   0.712       \\
16          &   Citation    &   PageRank            &       JCR 2007            &   Directed, unweighted    &       -4.476  &   0.108       &   0.693       \\
17          &   Citation    &   PageRank            &       JCR 2007            &   Undirected, unweighted  &       -4.929  &   0.731       &   0.726       \\
18          &   Citation    &   PageRank            &       JCR 2007            &   Undirected, weighted    &       -4.160  &   0.864       &   0.696       \\
19          &   Citation    &   PageRank            &       JCR 2007            &   Directed, weighted      &       -3.103  &   0.333       &   0.659       \\
20          &   Citation    &   Y-factor                &       JCR 2007            &   Directed, weighted      &       -2.971  &   0.317       &   0.657       \\
21          &   Citation    &   Betweenness centrality  &       JCR 2007            &   Undirected, weighted    &       -0.462  &   0.872       &   0.643       \\
22          &   Citation    &   Betweenness centrality  &       JCR 2007            &   Undirected, unweighted  &       -0.474  &   1.609       &   0.642       \\
23          & {\it Citation}    &   {\it Citation Half-Life}        &       {\it JCR 2007}      &                       &       /       &   /           &   {\it 0.037}     \\\
%%
24          &   Usage   &   Closeness centrality        &       MESUR 2007      &   Undirected, weighted    &       3.130   &   2.683       &   0.703       \\
25          &   Usage   &   Closeness centrality        &       MESUR 2007      &   Undirected, unweighted  &       3.100   &   3.899       &   0.731       \\
26          &   Usage   &   Degree centrality       &       MESUR 2007      &   Undirected, unweighted  &       3.271   &   3.873       &   0.729       \\
27          &   Usage   &   PageRank            &       MESUR 2007      &   Undirected, unweighted  &       3.327   &   4.192       &   0.728       \\
28          &   Usage   &   PageRank            &       MESUR 2007      &   Directed, unweighted    &       3.463   &   4.336       &   0.727       \\
29          &   Usage   &   In-degree centrality        &       MESUR 2007      &   Directed, unweighted    &       3.463   &   4.015       &   0.728       \\
30          &   Usage   &   Out-degree centrality   &       MESUR 2007      &   Directed, unweighted    &       3.484   &   3.994       &   0.727       \\
31          &   Usage   &   PageRank            &       MESUR 2007      &   Directed, weighted      &       3.780   &   4.217       &   0.710       \\
32          &   Usage   &   PageRank            &       MESUR 2007      &   Undirected, weighted    &       3.813   &   4.223       &   0.710       \\
33          &   Usage   &   Betweenness centrality  &       MESUR 2007      &   Undirected, unweighted  &       3.988   &   4.271       &   0.699       \\
34          &   Usage   &   Betweenness centrality  &       MESUR 2007      &   Undirected, weighted    &       3.957   &   3.698       &   0.693       \\
35          &   Usage   &   Degree centrality       &       MESUR 2007      &   Undirected, weighted    &       5.293   &   3.528       &   0.683       \\
36          &   Usage   &   Out-degree centrality   &       MESUR 2007      &   Directed, weighted      &       5.302   &   3.518       &   0.683       \\
37          &   Usage   &   In-degree   centrality      &       MESUR 2007      &   Directed, weighted      &       5.286   &   3.531       &   0.683       \\
38          &   Usage   &   Journal Use Probability &       MESUR 2007      &                       &       8.914   &   1.833       &   0.593       \\
%%
39          & {\it Usage}   &   {\it Usage Impact Factor}   &       {\it MESUR 2007}    &                       &       /       &   /           &   {\it 0.279}     \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{small}
\end{table*}
```

## Retrieving existing measures

The 2007 JCR contains a table listing 4 citation-based impact measures for a set of approximately 7,500 selected journals, namely

2007 Immediacy Index

:   (Table , ID 2):The same year average citation rate, i.e. the average number of times articles that were published in a journal in 2006 were cited in 2006.

2007 Journal Impact Factor

:   (Table , ID 5): A 2 year average per-article citation rate of a journal, i.e. the average number of times articles that were published in a journal in 2004 and 2005 were cited in 2006.

Citation Half-life

:   (Table , ID 23):The median age of articles cited in a journal in 2006.

In addition, the Scimago project publishes several impact measures that are based on Elsevier's Scopus citation data. We retrieved the following 4 measures from its web site:

2007 Scimago Journal Rank

:   (Table , ID 1) The citation PageRank of a journal calculated on the basis of Elsevier Scopus citation data divided by the number of articles published by the journal in the citation period (3 years) (`http://www.scimagojr.com/SCImagoJournalRank.pdf`), i.e. an average per-article journal PageRank.

Cites per doc

:   (Table , ID 4) The average number of citations received by articles published in a year over a 2 year period in the Scopus database.

H-Index

:   (Table , ID 11) Journal citation h-index, i.e. the $h$ number of articles in a journal that received at least $h$ citations in the Scopus database.

Scimago Total cites

:   (Table , ID 12) The number of citations received by the articles published in a journal during the three previous years according to the Scopus database.

The Scimago journal rankings were downloaded from their web site in the form of an Excel spreadsheet and loaded into a MySQL database. This added 4 measures of journal impact to our data set bringing the total number of retrieved, existing measures to 8.

## Calculating social network measures of scientific impact.

In and we describe methods to rank journals on the basis of various social network measures of centrality , e.g. betweenness centrality that is calculated from journal citation- and usage graphs. These social network measures were shown to elucidate various aspects of a journal's scientific impact on the basis of its connections in citation- or usage-derived networks. In addition, this approach has led to innovative ranking services such as eigenfactor.org. We followed the same approach in this work by extracting citation- and usage-networks from our data and defining a set of well-studied social network measures on the basis of those networks as shown in Fig. . In the following sections, we therefore first describe the creation of the citation- and usage networks after which we describe the set of social network measures that were calculated on the basis of both.

### Citation network

The 2007 JCR contains a table that lists the number of citations that point from one journal to another. The number of citations is separated according to the publication year of both the origin and target of the citation. For example, from this table we could infer that 20 citations point from articles published in "Physica Review A" in 2006 to articles published in "Physica Review B" in 2004 and 2005. Each such data data point can thus be described as the n-tuple

$$a \in A=V^2 \times Y_s \times Y_e \times \mathbb{N}^+$$

where $V=\{v_1, \cdots, v_n\}$ is the set of $n$ journals for which we have recorded citation data, $Y_s=\{y_0, \cdots, y_m\}$ is the set of $m$ years for which outgoing were recorded, $Y_e=\{y_0, \cdots, y_k\}$ is the set of $k$ years for which incoming citations were recorded, and $\mathbb{N}^+$ denotes the set of positive integers including zero that represent the number of counted citations. For example, the journal citation tuplet $a=(1, 2, \{2006\}, \{2004,2005\}, 50)$ represents the observation that 20 citations point from articles published in journal 1 in the year 2006 to those published in journal 2 in 2004 and 2005.
$A$, the set of citation n-tuples, describes a citation network whose connections indicate the number of times that articles published in one journal cited the articles published in another journal for a particular time period. Such a network can be represented by the citation matrix $C_{Y_s,Y_e}$ of which each entry $c_{i,j}$ represents the number of observed citations that point from articles published in journal $v_i$ in the date range given by $Y_s$ to articles published in journal $v_j$ in the date range $Y_e$.
We attempted to ensure that our citation network conformed to the definition of the Journal Impact Factor rankings published in the 2007 JCR. We therefore extracted citations from the JCR that originated in 2006 publications and pointed to 2004 and 2005 publications. The resulting citation network contained 897,608 connections between 7,388 journals, resulting in a network density of 1.6% (ratio of non-zero connections over all possible non-reflexive connections). This citation network was represented as a $7,338 \times 7,338$ matrix labeled C whose entries $c_{i,j}$ were the number of 2006 citations pointing from journal $i$ to the 2004 and 2005 articles of journal $j$.

### Usage network

In we describe a methodology to derive journal relations from the session clickstreams in large-scale usage data. The same methodology has in this case been used to create a journal usage network on the basis of which a set of social network measures were calculated. This procedure, related to association rule learning , is described in more detail in Bollen (2006, 2008) with respect to the calculation of usage-based, social-network measures of scientific impact.
In short, the MESUR project's reference collection of usage log data consists of log files recorded by a variety of scholarly web portals (including some of the world's most significant publishers and aggregators) who donated their usage log data to the MESUR project in the course of 2006-2007. All MESUR usage log data consisted of a list of temporally sorted "requests". For each individual request the following data fields were recorded: (1) date/time of the request, (2) session identifier, (3) article identifier, and (4) request type. The session identifier grouped requests issued by the same (anonymous) user, from the same client, within the same session. This allowed the reconstruction of user "clickstreams", i.e. the sequences of requests by individual users within a session. Since each article for this investigation is assumed to be published in a journal, we can derive journal clickstreams from article clickstreams.
Over all clickstreams we can thus determine the transition probability

$$P(i,j) = \frac{N(v_i,v_j)}{\sum_j N(v_i,v_j)}$$

where $N(v_i,v_j)$ denotes the number of times that we observe journal $v_i$ being followed by $v_j$ in the journal clickstreams in MESUR's usage log data. The transition probability $P(i,j)$ thus expresses the probability by which we expect to observe $v_j$ after $v_i$ over all user clickstreams.
This analysis was applied to the MESUR reference data set, i.e. 346,312,045 user interactions recorded by the web portals operated by Thomson Scientific (Web of Science), Elsevier (Scopus), JSTOR, Ingenta, University of Texas (9 campuses, 6 health institutions), and California State University (23 campuses) between March 1st 2006 and February 1st 2007. To ensure that all subsequent metrics were calculated over the same set of journals, the resulting set of journal transition probabilities were trimmed to $7,575$ journals for which a JIF could be retrieved from the 2007 JCR. All usage transition probabilities combined thus resulted in the $7,575 \times 7,575$ matrix labeled $U$. Each entry $u_{i,j}$ of matrix $U$ was the transition probability $P(i,j)$ between two journals $i$ and $j$. Matrix $U$ contained 3,617,368 non-zero connections resulting in a network density of 6.3%. This procedure and the resulting usage network is explained in detail in .

### Social network measures

Four classes of social network measures were applied to both the citation and usage network represented respectively by matrix $C$ and matrix $U$, namely:

Degree centrality

:   (Table , IDs 7-10, 14, 15, 26, 29, 30, 35-37) Number of connections pointing to or emerging from a journal in the network.

Closeness centrality

:   (Table , IDs 3, 6, 24, 25) The average length of the geodesic connecting a specific journal to all other journals in the network.

Betweenness centrality

:   (Table , IDs 21, 22, 33, 34) The number of geodesics between all pairs of journals in the network that pass through the specific journal.

PageRank

:   (Table , IDs 16-19, 27, 28, 31, 32) As defined by Brin and Page (1998) and applied to citation networks by Bollen (2006) .

The definitions of each of the measures in these classes were varied according to the following network factors: (1) Weighted vs. unweighted connections, i.e. measures can be calculated by assuming that each non-zero connection valued 1 vs. taken into account the actual weight of the connection, (2) Directed vs. undirected connections, i.e. some measures can be calculated to take into account the directionality of journal relations or not, and finally (3) Citation vs. usage network data, i.e. any of these measure variations can be calculated for either the citation or the usage network.
These factors result in $2^3=8$ variations for each the above listed 4 classes of social network measures, i.e. 32 variants. However, not all permutations make equal sense. For example, in the case of Betweenness Centrality we calculated only two of these variants that both ignored connection directionality (irrelevant for betweenness) but one took into account connection weights (weighted geodesics) and another ignored connections weights (all connections weighted $>0$). Each of these variants were however calculated for the citation and usage-network. The final list of social network measures thus to some degree reflect our judgment on which of these permutations were meaningful.

## Hybrid Measures

In addition to the existing measures and the social network measure, we calculated, a number of measures that did not fit any the above outlined classes, namely

Y-Factor

:   (Table , ID 20) A measure that results from multiplying a journal's Impact Factor with its PageRank, described in Bollen (2006) .

Journal Cite Probability

:   (Table , ID 13) We calculated the Journal Cite Probability from the citation numbers listed in the 2007 JCR 2007.

Journal Use Probability

:   (Table , ID 38) The normalized frequency by which a journal will be used according to the MESUR usage log data.

Usage Impact Factor

:   (Table , ID 39) Same definition as the JIF, but expressing the 2-year "usage" average for articles published in a journal.

## Measures overview

In total, we calculated 32 citation- and usage-based impact measures; 16 social network measures on the basis of matrix $C$ (citation network) and 16 social network measures on the basis of matrix $U$ (usage network). 4 journal impact measures published by the Scimago group (`http://www.scimagojr.com/`) and 3 pre-calculated impact measures from the 2007 JCR were added, bringing the total to 39 measures. A list of measures is provided in Table along with information on the data they have been derived from and the various network factors that were applied in their calculation. A list of mathematical definitions is provided in Appendix S1.
The set of selected measures was intended to capture the major classes of statistics and social network measures presently proposed as alternatives to the JIF. In summary, the set of all measures can be categorized in 4 major classes. First, *citation and usage statistics* such as Citation Probability (number of one journal's citations over total citations), Usage Probability (amount of one journal's usage over total usage), the JIF, the Scimago Cites per Doc, and a Usage Impact Factor (UIF) whose definition follows that of the JIF but is based on usage counts. Second, *citation and usage social network measures* such as Closeness Centrality (the mean length of geodesics between a journal and all other journals), Betweenness Centrality (number of times that a journal sits on the geodesics between all pairs of journals) and PageRank (cf. Eigenvector Centrality). Third, a set of *citation and usage degree centrality* measures such as Out-Degree Centrality, In-Degree Centrality and Undirected Degree Centrality. Finally, we included a set of recently introduced measures such as the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), the Y-factor (Bollen, 2007) , the Scimago H-index and Scimago Total Cites.

## Analysis

Spearman rank-order correlations were then calculated for each pair of journal rankings. Because $C$, $U$ and the Scimago rankings pertained to slightly different sets of journals, correlation values were only calculated for the intersections of those sets, i.e. N=7,388, N=7,575 or N=6,913 journals. For 39 measures. this resulted in a $39 \times 39$ correlation matrix $R$ of which each entry $r_{i,j} \in [-1,1]$ is the Spearman rank-order correlation between the journal rankings produced by measure $i$ and measure $j$.
A sample of matrix R for 10 selected measures is shown below. For example, the Spearman rank-order correlation between the Citation H-index and Usage PageRank is 0.66. The IDs listed in Table precede each measure name.
$$R_{10\times10}=\begin{pmatrix}
1.00        &   0.71        &   0.77        &   0.52        &   0.79        &   0.55        &   0.69        &   0.63        &   0.60        &   0.18\\
0.71        &   0.99        &   0.52        &   0.69        &   0.79        &   0.85        &   0.49        &   0.44        &   0.49        &   0.22\\
0.77        &   0.52        &   1.00        &   0.62        &   0.63        &   0.39        &   0.70        &   0.73        &   0.68        &   0.20\\
0.52        &   0.69        &   0.62        &   1.00        &   0.68        &   0.78        &   0.49        &   0.56        &   0.65        &   0.06\\
0.79        &   0.79        &   0.63        &   0.68        &   1.00        &   0.82        &   0.66        &   0.62        &   0.66        &   0.15\\
0.55        &   0.85        &   0.39        &   0.78        &   0.82        &   1.00        &   0.40        &   0.40        &   0.50        &   0.13\\
0.69        &   0.49        &   0.70        &   0.49        &   0.66        &   0.40        &   1.00        &   0.89        &   0.85        &   0.53\\
0.63        &   0.44        &   0.73        &   0.56        &   0.62        &   0.40        &   0.89        &   1.00        &   0.97        &   0.45\\
0.60        &   0.49        &   0.68        &   0.65        &   0.66        &   0.50        &   0.85        &   0.97        &   1.00        &   0.42\\
0.18        &   0.22        &   0.20        &   0.06        &   0.15        &   0.13        &   0.53        &   0.45        &   0.42        &   1.00
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{array}{l}
\mbox{19: Citation PageRank}\\
\mbox{5: Journal Impact Factor}\\
\mbox{22: Citation Betweenness}\\
\mbox{6: Citation Closeness}\\
\mbox{11: Citation H-index}\\
\mbox{1: Citation Scimago Journal Rank}\\
\mbox{31: Usage PageRank}\\
\mbox{34: Usage Betweenness}\\
\mbox{24: Usage Closeness}\\
\mbox{39: Usage Impact Factor}\\
\end{array}$$

Not all pair-wise correlations were statistically significant. Two measures in particular lacked significant correlations ($N=39, p>0.05$) with any of the other measures, namely Citation Half-Life and the UIF. They were for that reason removed from the list of measures under consideration. All other Spearman rank-order correlations were statistically significant ($U$: $N=39, p<0.05$). The reduced $37 \times 37$ correlation matrix $R$ was subjected to a Principal Component Analysis which by means of an eigenvalue decomposition identified 37 orthogonal components of the original correlation matrix $R$.
The resulting PCA components were ranked according to the degree by which they explain the variances in $R$'s values (eigenvalues transformed to component loadings). The component loadings are listed in Table . The first component, PC1, represents 66.1% of the variance in measure correlations, with each successive component representing less variance, i.e. PC2 17%, PC3 9% and PC4 4%. Retention of the first 2 components will thus yield a model that covers 83.4% of variance in measure correlations. The addition of the third component will yield a model that covers 92.6% of variation in measure correlations.

```latex
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{PC_loadings} Component loadings of Principal Component Analysis of journal ranking correlations (37 measures).}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l||lllll}
                                &   PC1     &   PC2     &   PC3     &   PC4     &    PC5        \\\hline\hline
Proportion of Variance  &   66.1\%  &   17.3\%  &   9.2\%   &   4.8\%   &   0.9\%       \\
Cumulative Proportion   &   66.1\%  &   83.4\%  &   92.6\%  &   97.4\%  &   98.3\%      \\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
```

We projected all measures unto the first two components, PC1 and PC2, to create a 2-dimensional map of measures. A varimax rotation was applied to the measure loadings to arrive at a structure that was more amenable to interpretation. The measure loadings for each component are listed in Table ("PC1" and "PC2"). The resulting 2-dimensional map of measure similarities is shown in Fig. . Measures are identified in the map by their "ID" in Table . Black circles indicate citation-based measures. White circles indicate usage-based measures. The JIF is marked by a blue circle (ID 5). The hue of any map location indicates how strongly measures are concentrated in that particular area, i.e. red means highly clustered.

To cross-validate the PCA results, a hierarchical cluster analysis (single linkage, euclidean distances over $R$'s row vectors) and a k-means cluster analysis were applied to the measure correlations in $R$ to identify clusters of measures that produce similar journal rankings.

# Results and discussion

## Results

The map in Fig. reveals a number of clusters. First, we observe a cluster in the top right quadrant that contains all usage-based measures (IDs 24-37), with the exception of Usage Probability (ID 38). In the upper-left and bottom-left quadrants of the map we find most citation-based measures. The bottom-left quadrant contains the JIF that is among others surrounded by the Scimago Cites per Doc , the Scimago Journal Rank, the JCR immediacy index (IDs 1-8) and in the upper section the various permutations of citation degree centrality measures (IDs 9-10, 14-15), a group of Total Cite measures (IDs 12-13) and most prominently the H-index (ID 11). The arrangement of the H-index and Citation Total Cites is quite similar to that found by Leydesdorff (2007) . The upper-left quadrant nearly uniquely contains citation PageRank and Betweenness Centrality measures (IDs 16-22). The Y-factor (ID 20) is naturally positioned between the two clusters since it is defined as the product of citation PageRank and the JIF.
A complete linkage hierarchical cluster analysis based on the Euclidean distances of the measure $R$'s row vectors confirms these general distinctions. When we cut the dendrogram in Fig. at the $1.1$ distance level, we find 4 main clusters. First, at the top of Fig. we find the first cluster which contains the JIF, SJR and other related measures that express citation normalized per document. Followingly, a second cluster contains the Citation Betweenness Centrality and Pagerank measures that rely on the graph-properties of the citation network. The third cluster contains Total Citation rates, various degree centralities and the H-index that express various distribution parameters of total citation counts. At the bottom of Fig. , we find the fourth cluster that contains all usage measures.
Table lists the results of a 5 cluster k-means analysis of matrix $R$ that further corroborates the observed clustering in the PCA and hierarchical cluster analysis.

```latex
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{kmeans} Results of a k-means cluster analysis of measures.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c||l|l}
Cluster &   Measures                                        &   Interpretation                              \\\hline\hline
1       &   38                                          &   Journal Use Probability                         \\
2       &   24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,  34,  35, 36, 37        &   Usage measures                          \\
3       &   1, 2, 3, 4, 5                                   &   JIF, SJR, Cites per Document measures       \\
4       &   6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15                      &   Total Citation rates and distributions  \\
5       &   16, 17, 18, 19,  20, 21, 22                         &   Citation Betweenness and PageRank   \\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
```

The pattern of clusters indicate that some measures express a more distinct aspect of scientific impact and will thus be farther removed from all other measures. Table lists the $\bar{\rho}$ values of each measure, defined as the mean Spearman rank-order correlation of a measure to all other 38 measures in $R$. The $\bar{\rho}$ of Citation Half-Life (ID 23) and the Usage Impact Factor (ID 39) fell below the significance threshold of $p<0.05$ for $N=39$, further justifying their removal as outliers. Most $\bar{\rho}$ values range from 0.6 to 0.7 indicating a moderate but significant congruence in the rankings produced by a majority of measures. However, a cluster of five particular measures has low $\bar{\rho}$ values in the range 0.5-0.6. They form a separate, but poorly defined cluster in the lower bottom-left quadrant of Fig. (ID 1-5: SJR, Immediacy Index, Citation Undirected Weighted Closeness Centrality, Scimago Cites per Doc, and the 2007 JIF), indicating they produce rankings removed from the "mainstream" in Fig. .

## Discussion

To interprete the meaning of PC1 and PC2 we need to investigate the distribution of measures along either axis of the map in Fig. . Fig. shows a simplified schema of the distribution of impact measures along the PC1 and PC2 axes. Each of the observed cluster of measures has been given an intuitive "group" name to simplify the general pattern.

PC1 clearly separates usage measures from citation measures. On the positive end of PC1, we find a sharply demarcated cluster of all usage measures, with the exception of the Journal Use Probability (ID 38) which sits isolated on the extreme positive end of PC1. On the negative end of PC1, we find most citation measures. Surprisingly, some citation measures are positioned close to the cluster of usage measures in terms of their PC1 coordinates. Citation Closeness (ID 3) and in particular Citation Immediacy Index (ID 2) are located on the positive end of PC1, i.e. closest to the usage measures. Citation Betweenness Centrality (IDs 21 and 22) are also positioned closely to the cluster of usage measures according to PC1.
This particular distribution of citation measures along PC1 points to an interesting, alternative interpretation of PC1 simply separating the usage from the citation measures. In the center, we find Citation Immediacy Index (ID 2) positioned close to the cluster of usage measures in terms of its PC1 coordinates. The Citation Immediacy Index is intended to be a "rapid" indicator of scientific impact since it is based on same-year citations. Its proximity to the usage measures according to PC1 may thus indicate that the usage measures are equally rapid indicators, if not more so. The assumption that usage measures are "Rapid" indicators of scientific impact is furthermore warranted for the following reasons. First, usage log data is generally considered a more "rapid" indicator of scientific impact than citation data, since usage log data is nearly immediately affected by changes in scientific habits and interests whereas citation data is subject to extensive publication delays. It has in fact been shown that present usage rates predict future citation rates . Second, our usage log data was recorded slightly more recently (April 2006 through March 2007) than the 2007 JCR citation data (January 2006 through December 2007). It may therefore reflect more recent scientific activity. These observations combined lead to a speculative interpretation of PC1 in terms of "Rapid" vs. "Delayed" measures of impact. The "Rapid" indicators are mostly usage measures due to the nature of the usage log data that they have been calculated for. They are however approximated by the Citation Immediacy Index whose definition focuses on same-year citation statistics and two Citation Betweenness Centrality measures (IDs 21 and 22) that may, due to their focus on interdisciplinary power, anticipate emerging scientific activities.
PC2 separates citation statistics such as Scimago Total Cites (ID12), JIF (Table , ID 5) and Cites per Doc (ID 4) on its negative end from the social network measures such as Citation Betweenness centrality (IDs 21 and 22) and Citation PageRank (ID 16-19) including the Y-factor (ID 20) on its positive end. Measures such as the JIF (ID 5), Scimago Total Cites (ID 12), Journal Cite Probability (ID13), and Journal Use Probability (ID 38) express the rate at which journals indiscriminately receive citations or usage from a variety of sources, i.e. their Popularity, whereas the mentioned social network measures rely on network structure to express various facets of journal Prestige or interdisciplinary power . PC2 can thus plausibly be interpreted as separating impact measures according to whether they stress scientific Popularity vs. Prestige.
Consequently, the PCA results could be interpreted in terms of a separation of measures along two dimensions: "Rapid" vs."Delayed" (PC1) and "Popularity" vs. "Prestige" (PC2). Surprisingly, most usage-based measures would then fall in the "Rapid, "Prestige" quadrant, approximated in this aspect only by two Citation Betweenness Centrality measures. The majority of citation-based measures can then be classified as "Delayed", but with the social network measures being indicative of aspects of "Prestige" and the normalized citation measures such as the JIF, Scimago Journal Rank (ID 1) and Cites per Doc indicative of journal "Popularity". We also note that the Scimago Journal Rank is positioned among measures such as the JIF and Cites per Doc. This indicates it too expresses "Delayed" "Popularity", in spite of the fact that SJR rankings originate from 2007 citation data and that the SJR has been explicitly defined to "transfer(s) (of) prestige from a journal to another one" (<http://www.scimagojr.com/SCImagoJournalRank.pdf>).
Another interesting aspect of the distribution of measures along PC1 and PC2 relates to the determination of a "consensus" view of scientific impact. The $\bar{\rho}$ values indicate the average Spearman rank-order correlation of a particular measure to all other measures, i.e. the degree to which it approximates the results of all other measures. The measure which best succeeds in approximating the most general sense of scholarly impact will therefore have the highest $\bar{\rho}$ and will therefore be the best candidate for a "consensus" measure. As shown in Table that measure would be Usage Closeness Centrality (ID: 25) whose $\bar{\rho}=0.731$. Conversely, the Citation Scimago Journal Rank (ID1), Citation Immediacy Index (ID 2), Citation Closeness Centrality (ID 3), Citaton Cites per doc (ID 4) and Citation Journal Impact Factor (ID:5) have the lowest $\bar{\rho}$ values indicating that they represent the most particular view of scientific impact.

## Future research

The presented results pertain to what we believe to be the largest and most thorough survey of usage- and citation based measures of scientific impact. Nevertheless, a number of issues need to be addressed in future research efforts.
First, although an attempt was made to establish a representative sample of existing and plausible scientific impact measures, several other conceivable impact measures could have been included in this analysis. For example, the HITS algorithm has been successfully applied to web page rankings. Like Google's PageRank it could be calculated for our citation and usage journal networks. Other possible measures that should be considered for inclusion include the Eigenfactor.org measures, and various information-theoretical indexes. The addition of more measures may furthermore enable statistical significance to be achieved on the correlations with now-removed measures such as Citation Half-Life and the Usage Impact Factor, so that they could be included on the generated PCA map of measures.
Second, we projected measure correlations onto a space spanned by the 2 highest-ranked components, the first of which seems to make a rather superficial distinction between usage- and citation-derived impact measures and the second of which seems to make a meaningful distinction between "degree" and "quality" of endorsement. Future analysis should focus on including additional components, different combinations of lower-valued components and even the smallest-valued components to determine whether they reveal additional useful distinctions. In addition, non-linear dimensionality reduction methods could be leveraged to reveal non-linear patterns of measure correlations.
Third, a significant number of the measures surveyed in this article have been standard tools for decades in social network analysis, but they are not in common use in the domain of scientific impact assessment. To increase the "face-validity" of these rankings, all have been made available to the public on the MESUR web site and can be freely explored and interacted with by users at the following URL: <http://www.mesur.org/services>.
Fourth, the implemented MESUR services can be enhanced to support the development of novel measures by allowing users to submit their own rankings which can then automatically be placed in the context of existing measures. Such a service could foster the free and open exchange of scientific impact measures by allowing the public to evaluate where any newly proposed measure can be positioned among existing measures. If the measure is deemed to similar to existing measures, it need not be developed. If however, it covers a part of the measure space that was previously unsampled, the new measure may make a significant contribution and could therefore be considered for wider adoption by those involved in scientific assessment.

## Conclusion

Our results indicate that scientific impact is a multi-dimensional construct. The component loadings of a PCA indicate that 92% of the variances between the correlations of journal rankings produced by 37 impact measures can be explained by the first 3 components. To surpass the 95% limit, a 4-component model would have to be adopted.
A projection of measure correlations onto the first 2 components (83.4%) nevertheless reveals a number of useful distinctions. We found that the most salient distinction is made by PC1 which separates usage from citation measures with the exception of Citation Betweenness centrality and Citation Immediacy. The position of the latter and the time periods for which usage was recorded suggests an interpretation of PC1 as making a distinction between measures that provide a "rapid" vs "delayed" view of scientific impact.
PC2 seems to separate measures that express Popularity from those that express Prestige. Four general clusters of impact measures can be superimposed on this projection: (1) usage measures, (2) a group of distinctive yet dispersed measures expressing per document citation popularity, (3) measures based on total citation rates and distributions, and (4) finally a set of citation social network measures. These 4 clusters along with the PCA components allows us to quantitatively interpret the landscape of presently available impact measures and determine which aspects of scientific impact they represent. Future research will focus on determining whether these distinctions are stable across a greater variety of measures as well other usage and citation data sets.
Four more general conclusions can be drawn from these results; each has significant implications for the developing science of scientific assessment.
First, the set of usage measures is more strongly correlated (average Spearman rank-order correlation = 0.93, incl. Usage Probability) than the set of citation measures (average Spearman rank-order correlation = 0.65). This indicates a greater reliability of usage measures calculated from the same usage log data than between citation measures calculated from the same citation data. This effect is possibly caused by the significantly greater density of the usage matrix $U$ in comparison to the citation matrix $C$. As mentioned in the introduction, the amount of usage data that can be collected is much higher than the total amount of citation data in existence because papers can contain only a limited set of citations and once they are published that set is fixed in perpetuity. This limitation may place an upper bound on the reliability that can be achieved with citation measures, but it does not apply to usage measures.
Second, if our interpretation of PC2 is correct, usage-based measures are actually *stronger* indicators of scientific Prestige than many presently available citation measures. Contrary to expectations, the IF as well as the SJR most strongly express scientific Popularity.
Third, some citation measures are more closely related to their usage counterparts than they are to other citation measures such as the JIF. For example, the Spearman rank-order correlation between Citation Betweenness Centrality and Usage Betweenness Centrality is 0.747. In comparison, the Spearman rank-order correlation between the JIF and Citation Betweenness Centrality is only 0.52. This indicates that contrary to what would be expected, usage impact measures can be closer to a "consensus ranking" of journals than some common citation measures.
Fourth, and related, when we rank measures according to their average correlation to all other measures $\bar{\rho}$, i.e. how close they are to all other measures, we find that the JIF and SJR rank 34rd and 38th respectively among 39 measures, indicating their isolated position among the studied set of measures. The JCR Citation Immediacy Index and the Scimago Cites per Doc are in a similar position. On the other hand, Usage Closeness centrality (measure 25) is positioned closest to all other measures (max. $\bar{\rho}=0.731$). These results should give pause to those who consider the JIF the "golden standard" of scientific impact. Our results indicate that the JIF and SJR express a rather particular aspect of scientific impact that may not be at the core of the notion of scientific "impact". Usage-based measures such as Usage Closeness centrality may in fact be better "consensus" measures.

# Data files

The ranking data produced to support the discussed Principal Component Analysis is available upon request from the corresponding author with the exception of those that have been obtained under proprietary licenses.


abstract: Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here.
  .
  Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here. Type your abstract here.
address: Affiliation 1, Address, City and Postal Code, Country; Affiliation 2, Address, City and Postal Code, Country
author: Given-name ; Given-name ; Given-name
bibliography: refs.bib
title: Type the title of your paper, only capitalize first word and proper nouns

```latex
\begin{table*}[!th]

\begin{minipage}{.9\textwidth}
\baselineskip12pt
\ifpreprint
  \vspace*{1pc}
\else
  \vspace*{-6pc}
\fi

\noindent {\LARGE\itshape Computer Vision and Image Understanding}
\vskip6pt

\noindent {\Large\bfseries Authorship Confirmation}

\vskip1pc

{\bf Please save a copy of this file, complete and upload as the
``Confirmation of Authorship'' file.}

\vskip1pc

As corresponding author
I, \underline{\hphantom{\hspace*{7cm}}},
hereby confirm on behalf of all authors that:

\vskip1pc

\begin{enumerate}
\itemsep=3pt
\item This manuscript, or a large part of it, \underline {has not been
published,  was not, and is not being submitted to} any other journal.

\item If \underline {presented} at or \underline {submitted} to or
\underline  {published }at a conference(s), the conference(s) is (are)
identified and  substantial \underline {justification for
re-publication} is presented  below. A \underline {copy of
conference paper(s) }is(are) uploaded with the  manuscript.

\item If the manuscript appears as a preprint anywhere on the web, e.g.
arXiv,  etc., it is identified below. The \underline {preprint should
include a  statement that the paper is under consideration at Computer Vision and Image Understanding}.

\item All text and graphics, except for those marked with sources, are
\underline  {original works} of the authors, and all necessary
permissions for  publication were secured prior to submission of the
manuscript.

\item All authors each made a significant contribution to the research
reported  and have \underline {read} and \underline {approved} the
submitted  manuscript.
\end{enumerate}

Signature\underline{\hphantom{\hspace*{7cm}}} Date\underline{\hphantom{\hspace*{4cm}}}
\vskip1pc

\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}
\vskip1pc

{\bf List any pre-prints:}
\vskip5pc

\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}
\vskip1pc

{\bf Relevant Conference publication(s) (submitted, accepted, or
published):}
\vskip5pc

{\bf Justification for re-publication:}

\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
```

```latex
\begin{table*}[!th]\ifpreprint\else\vspace*{-5pc}\fi

\section*{Research Highlights (Required)}

To create your highlights, please type the highlights against each
\verb+\item+ command.

\vskip1pc

\fboxsep=6pt
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{.95\textwidth}
It should be short collection of bullet points that convey the core
findings of the article. It should  include 3 to 5 bullet points
(maximum 85 characters, including spaces, per bullet point.)
\vskip1pc
\begin{itemize}

 \item

 \item

 \item

 \item

 \item

\end{itemize}
\vskip1pc
\end{minipage}
}

\end{table*}
```

# Note

Please use `elsarticle.cls` for typesetting your paper. Additionally load the package `ycviu.sty` in the preamble using the following command:

      \usepackage{ycviu}

Following commands are defined for this journal which are not in `elsarticle.cls`.

      \received{}
      \finalform{}
      \accepted{}
      \availableonline{}
      \communicated{}

Any instructions relavant to the `elsarticle.cls` are applicable here as well. See the online instruction available on:

     http://support.river-valley.com/wiki/
     index.php?title=Elsarticle.cls

     http://support.river-valley.com/wiki/index.php?title=Elsarticle.cls

## Entering text

**Please note that Full Length Papers can have 7 pages (plus one page after revision) and Special Issue Papers can have 10 pages (plus one page after revision). The only exception is the review article that is submitted to a Special Issue. These limits include all materials e.g. narrative, figures, tables, references, etc.**

# The first page

Avoid using abbreviations in the title. Next, list all authors with their first names or initials and surnames (in that order). Indicate the author for correspondence (see elsarticle documentation).

Present addresses can be inserted as footnotes. After having listed all authors' names, you should list their respective affiliations. Link authors and affiliations using superscript lower case letters.

## The Abstract

An Abstract is required for every paper; it should succinctly summarize the reason for the work, the main findings, and the conclusions of the study. The abstract should be no longer than 200 words. Do not include artwork, tables, elaborate equations or references to other parts of the paper or to the reference listing at the end. "Comment" papers are exceptions, where the commented paper should be referenced in full in the Abstract.

The reason is that the Abstract should be understandable in itself to be suitable for storage in textual information retrieval systems.

*Example of an abstract: A biometric sample collected in an uncontrolled outdoor environment varies significantly from its indoor version. Sample variations due to outdoor environmental conditions degrade the performance of biometric systems that otherwise perform well with indoor samples. In this study, we quantitatively evaluate such performance degradation in the case of a face and a voice biometric system. We also investigate how elementary combination schemes involving min-max or z normalization followed by the sum or max fusion rule can improve performance of the multi-biometric system. We use commercial biometric systems to collect face and voice samples from the same subjects in an environment that closely mimics the operational scenario. This realistic evaluation on a dataset of 116 subjects shows that the system performance degrades in outdoor scenarios but by multimodal score fusion the performance is enhanced by 20%. We also find that max rule fusion performs better than sum rule fusion on this dataset. More interestingly, we see that by using multiple samples of the same biometric modality, the performance of a unimodal system can approach that of a multimodal system.*

# The main text

Please divide your article into (numbered) sections (You can find the information about the sections at <http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505619/authorinstructions>). Ensure that all tables, figures and schemes are cited in the text in numerical order. Trade names should have an initial capital letter, and trademark protection should be acknowledged in the standard fashion, using the superscripted characters for trademarks and registered trademarks respectively. All measurements and data should be given in SI units where possible, or other internationally accepted units. Abbreviations should be used consistently throughout the text, and all nonstandard abbreviations should be defined on first usage .

```latex
\begin{table*}[!t]\caption{\label{tab1}Summary of different works pertaining to face and
speech fusion}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|p{2.25cm}|p{2cm}|l|p{4cm}|p{3cm}|p{2cm}|}
\hline
Study & Algorithm used & DB Size & Covariates of interest &
Top individual performance & Fusion\newline Performance\\
\hline
UK-BWG
(Mansfield et al.,
2001) &
Face, voice:\newline
Commercial & 200 & Time: 1--2 month\newline
separation (indoor) &
TAR$^*$ at 1\% FAR$^{\#}$\newline
Face: 96.5\%\newline
Voice: 96\%
& --\\
\hline
Brunelli
(Brunelli and
Falavigna, 1995) &
Face:\newline
Hierarchical\newline
correlation\newline
Voice:\newline
MFCC &
87 &
Time: 3 sessions, time\newline
unknown (indoor) &
Face:\newline
TAR = 92\% at\newline
4.5\% FAR\newline
Voice:\newline
TAR = 63\% at\newline
15\% FAR
&
TAR =98.5\%\newline
at 0.5\% FAR\\
\hline
Jain
(Jain et al., 1999)
&
Face:\newline
Eigenface\newline
Voice:\newline
Cepstrum\newline
Coeff. Based
&
50
&
Time: Two weeks (indoor)
&
TAR at 1\% FAR\newline
Face: 43\%\newline
Voice: 96.5\%\newline
Fingerprint: 96\%
&
Face $+$ Voice $+$\newline
Fingerprint $=$\newline
98.5\%\\
\hline
Sanderson
(Sanderson and
Paliwal, 2002)
&
Face: PCA\newline
Voice: MFCC &
43
& Time: 3 sessions (indoor)\newline
Noise addition to voice &
Equal Error Rate\newline
Face: 10\%\newline
Voice: 12.41\%
&
Equal Error\newline
Rate 2.86\% \\
\hline
Proposed study &
Face, voice:\newline
Commercial & 116 &
Location: Indoor and\newline
Outdoor (same day)\newline
Noise addition to eye\newline
coordinates
&
TARs at 1\% FAR\newline
Indoor-Outdoor\newline
Face: 80\%\newline
Voice: 67.5\%
&
TAR = 98\%\newline
at 1\% FAR\\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{@{}l}{$^*$TAR--True Acceptance Rate\qquad
$^{\#}$ FAR--False Acceptance Rate}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
```

## Tables, figures and schemes

Graphics and tables may be positioned as they should appear in the final manuscript. Figures, Schemes, and Tables should be numbered. Structures in schemes should also be numbered consecutively, for ease of discussion and reference in the text.  **Figures should be maximum half a page size.** All numbers and letters in figures and diagrams should be at least of the same font size as that of the figure caption.

Depending on the amount of detail, you can choose to display artwork in one column (20 pica wide) or across the page (42 pica wide). Scale your artwork in your graphics program before incorporating it in your text. If the artwork turns out to be too large or too small, resize it again in your graphics program and re-import it. The text should not run along the sides of any figure. This is an example for citation .

You might find positioning your artwork within the text difficult anyway. In that case you may choose to place all artwork at the end of the text and insert a marker in the text at the desired place. In any case, please keep in mind that the placement of artwork may vary somewhat in relation to the page lay-out .

This can easily be achieved using `endfloat.sty` package. Please refer the following documentation to use this package.

      http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/
      endfloat/endfloat.pdf

      http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/endfloat/endfloat.pdf

**You should insert a caption for the figures below the figures and for the tables the caption should be above the tables.**

Please remember that we will always also need highresolution versions of your artwork for printing, submitted as separate files in standard format (i.e. TIFF or EPS), not included in the text document. Before preparing your artwork, please take a look at our Web page: <http://www.elsevier.com/locate/authorartwork>.

## Lists

For tabular summations that do not deserve to be presented as a table, lists are often used. Lists may be either numbered or bulleted. Below you see examples of both.

1.  The first entry in this list

2.  The second entry

    1.  A subentry

3.  The last entry

-   A bulleted list item

-   Another one

## Equations

Conventionally, in mathematical equations, variables and anything that represents a value appear in italics. All equations should be numbered for easy referencing. The number should appear at the right margin. $$S_{\rm pg}'=\frac{S_{\rm pg}-\min(S_{\rm pG})}
 {\max(S_{\rm pG}-\min(S_{\rm pG})}$$ In mathematical expressions in running text "/" should be used for division (not a horizontal line).

# Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments should be inserted at the end of the paper, before the references, not as a footnote to the title. Use the unnumbered Acknowledgements Head style for the Acknowledgments heading.

# References

Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and vice versa).

# *Reference style*

Text: All citations in the text should refer to:

1.  Single author: the author's name (without initials, unless there is ambiguity) and the year of publication;

2.  Two authors: both authors' names and the year of publication;

3.  Three or more authors: first author's name followed by 'et al.' and the year of publication.

Citations may be made directly (or parenthetically). Groups of references should be listed first alphabetically, then chronologically.

# Supplementary Material

Supplementary material that may be helpful in the review process should be prepared and provided as a separate electronic file. That file can then be transformed into PDF format and submitted along with the manuscript and graphic files to the appropriate editorial office.