Chairman Emeritus, ISI®
Publisher, The Scientist®
3501 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Home Page: http://eugenegarfield.org
Ninth Nasser Sharify Lecture
Pratt Institute, New York
April 30, 2000
Fifty years ago, I began a long odyssey in the ethereal world of information science and technology. In case you have forgotten, cybernetics was the rage in those early days. Today’s world of cyberspace is really not much different from what I described as the information nirvana.1
In early 1950, I was a laboratory assistant to Professor Louis P. Hammett at Columbia University. Within one year I had become the local information expert having gravitated to the use of Chemical Abstracts indexes and local chemical compound indexes. Combined with my fortuitous training as a chemical stenographer, I was primed for the world of chemical information. Having decided that the chemical laboratory was not my cup of tea, I attended a meeting here in New York City of the American Chemical Society where I met for the first time many information pioneers, but in particular, Professor James W. Perry,2 then of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he introduced me to Norbert Weiner.
One of Perry’s co-workers was Allen Kent who eventually became the Dean of the School of Library and Information Science at the University of Pittsburgh. His other colleague at MIT was Madeline Berry Hendersen, who later went to the NSF -- the three of them, Perry, Berry, and Kent -- took a detour through the library school at Case Western Reserve under Jesse H. Shera, a librarian-historian-philosopher who would influence my life in many ways.
At the ACS meeting, James Perry hoped to hire me for his MIT project on information retrieval, a term coined by Calvin Mooers.3 However, when his plans changed, he introduced me to Dr. Sanford W. Larkey, Director of the Welch Medical Library of the Johns Hopkins University, where I was hired as a chemist to help with a variety of tasks including the editing and revision of MESH – known to librarians everywhere as the Medical Subject Heading Authority List of the Index Medicus.
The details of the work at the Welch Medical Indexing Project have been described in considerable detail by me and others,4 so I will not take the time here to review them in detail. I have provided a selective bibliography for this talk.
I worked at Welch for just two years and marvel at the number of ideas and projects that began there and eventually were translated into various products including the most famous Current Contents® and Science Citation Index.® The peculiar circumstances of that project enabled me to conduct basic research essentially with complete freedom. Even though my employment there did not end in the happiest of circumstances, it was the two most productive years of my life. Through the Welch Project, the only one of its kind at the time, I was not only introduced to the world of mechanization and computers, but also every significant leader in the world of library and information science at the time. I described much of this at the recent Conference on the History and Heritage of Information Science Systems in Pittsburgh in 1998.5
Among the leaders I met at Welch were Frank Brad Rogers, Director of the then Armed Forces Medical Library, Verner W. Clapp, Chief Assistant Librarian, Library of Congress, and Ralph Shaw, Director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Library. These were the names I used as my references when I applied for the Grolier Society Bibliographical Fellowship during the summer of 1953 when my work at Welch ended. I had gone to attend the summer session at the Columbia University School of Library Service on the recommendation of several librarian friends. They felt that a library degree would enhance my CV and open the doors to many unforeseen possibilities. One of them was Samuel Lazerow who served at all three U.S. national libraries.6 He became my closest personal friend and co-worker until his death. The ISI® Lazerow Lectures are named after him.7 I am grateful to ISI that they have continued the series begun in 1983. The other person was Seymour Taine, still very much alive and thriving at 80, who was then the editor of the Current List of Medical Literature, the predecessor to today’s Index Medicus and Medline.
Since I was essentially penniless, and having exhausted all my G.I. Bill credits for my undergraduate degree, I had to earn some money to pay for summer school and to help support my son Stefan who was at that time six years old. I turned down the job of stack boy at the New York Public Library under Robert Kingery and went to work instead at the Old Hickory Bookshop where I personally cataloged the entire collection of rare books in the history of medicine and science. And to supplement this, I drove a taxi on Sunday and Monday, the two easiest days to get such part-time work.8
During the summer, I met the Dean, Carl White, a truly remarkable human being who immediately recognized in me the potential for an interesting career but also one who had the background for the then new Grolier Society Fellowship. Upon receipt of my letters of recommendation from Brad Rogers (also a Columbia Graduate), Verner Clapp, and Ralph Shaw nominating me for the Fellowship, I received the magnificent sum of $1500.
Having been accepted as a full-time student, I encountered a variety of courses and teachers. However, I gravitated towards the more experienced and foreign students. They possessed better than average qualifications than the younger U.S. students. Eventually, we organized the Documentation Club. The term itself was a radical symbol in the traditional library world, even though there already existed the Journal of Documentation in the U.K. and American Documentation in the USA. I myself was appointed Associate Editor of American Documentation by Jesse Shera and the Journal of Documentation is the journal where I published my first paper on “The Preparation of Subject Heading Lists.”9
At the Documentation Club, each student was asked to give a seminar on his or her field. This is where I first encountered the work of S. R. Ranganathan on Colon Classification – not in library classes. This is where I heard my first lecture on patent documentation by Robert Krupp who served not only in industry but also at the New York Public Library Science Division. Here is where I heard about patent and other scientific information activities in the pharmaceutical industry from Marge Courain of Merck Co. Anne McCann became my partner in publishing the primordial “Contents in Advance,” a listing of contents pages in the field of library science and documentation.
And here is where I first met Nasser Sharify with whom I would spend many lovely hours listening to him rhapsodize about his family in Iran. Once we graduated, our paths diverged and though we made occasional efforts to meet, we did not catch up until the end of last year. That contact led to this invitation to lecture for this series.
This now permits me to segue from where we have been to where we are going.
A sad part of this story is that Columbia University School of Library Service, where I began my formal education in library science continued to be resistant to change and eventually it closed. After I received the MS degree, I tried valiantly to obtain the doctorate at Columbia, but it proved impossible to find a faculty member who could supervise a dissertation on the subject of machine documentation in science. I tried to assemble a multi-disciplinary faculty committee but I was never even successful in getting them to meet even for 30 minutes. These included people like Professor Merrill Flood of industrial engineering, Professor George Kimball of chemical physics and affiliated with the IBM Watson Laboratory, Tom Fleming of Columbia University Medical Library, and Oliver Lilly from the library school. So I gave up that effort and eventually went to Philadelphia on a temporary consulting assignment, which lasted so to speak for 45 years. In Philadelphia, I eventually obtained my multi-disciplinary degree in chemical linguistics, nominally in the Department of Structural Linguistics under Zellig Harris but practically under Alan Day of the Chemistry Department.
My experience with the Current List of Medical Literature at NLM and my further experience with Contents in Advance were significant contributing elements to the eventual founding of Current Contents.
Most people today forget that the CLML was founded by the microfilm expert Atherton Seidel as a quick and dirty means of keeping war-time physicians up-to-date with the literature. After the war, this simple-minded contents page service, prepared by typing contents pages in one monotonous format, was modified and expanded to become the successor to the Surgeon General’s Index Catalogue.
Once the decision was made to transform this rapidly produced weekly publication into a large monthly with a standardized author and subject index, its functionality was completely changed. It was transformed from a timely current awareness service regularly used by physicians to a less timely retrieval-based indexing service used primarily by librarians. By expanding its coverage from a few hundred key medical journals to a comprehensive indexing service, its production problems made it impossible to be timely. And in those days there also already existed the AMA’s Quarterly Cumulative Index Medicus.
By the time I had begun Current Contents for Pharmaco-Medico, Chemical and Life Sciences, the Current List of Medical Literature had been changed to the Index Medicus, a title that was originally used by John Shaw Billings in the 1900’s (as described by Estelle Brodman in her 1954 Book.10 The new generation Index Medicus of NLM, by agreement with AMA displaced the 30-year old Quarterly Cumulative Index Medicus (QCIM). In making this transition, it sacrificed a most essential aspect of academic and industrial research – timeliness. Indexing lagged by about six months.
My personal awareness of time as a key element in scientific documentation led to a paper I wrote on a “relativistic theory of IR.”11
I observed this not only when I personally interviewed academic scientists at JHU, but especially when I became a documentation consultant to SK&F Labs in Philadelphia. This was true not only for medical science but also chemistry.
Imagine today the uproar that would ensue if suddenly researchers were told that they could not retrieve published papers for six months or if a group of chemists were told that they could not determine whether a specific chemical had been reported even past three years after publication in a journal or patent.
As an aside, this is one reason I have to look a gift horse in the mouth when I hear that the full text of several hundred thousand research articles has been made available free of charge but only if they are least six months old. This is like offering your child an ice cream cone, which he can eat next month.
Indeed, my greatest complaint with the historians and theoreticians in library and information science is this almost total lack of appreciation of the time dimension in information retrieval. It is not only what accounts in part for my commercial success. In fact, you will find that the literature is almost devoid of the significance and history of Current Contents. To my knowledge there has never been a serious scholarly discussion of the role of CC® in the information galaxy and how it has impacted the lives of researchers worldwide. I will never forget an article written by the editor Ethan Brown entitled “How I get the meat out of 700 journals.”12
Scientific Communication Component of Time Dimension
The information discovery process doesn’t end with the identification of a source. As I soon learned with Current Contents, it was often useless to inform readers that a journal article or book existed if we could not simultaneously permit them to access the document in question. What is the point of giving me contents in advance if I must wait weeks or months to read a relevant paper? Scientists are concerned with priority of discovery. In countless situations, the difference of a few weeks or months can be crucial.
That is why I like to repeat a story I’ve often told about the origin of ISI’s document delivery service. In 1958, we were already aware that researchers routinely exchanged reprints. Working in the invisible colleges it was important, in the spirit of friendly competition and the sense of priority of discovery, to mail out reprints even before they were requested. However, Current Contents exposed readers to a much larger universe of journals. So we were quickly urged to add author’s addresses to CC. We used to type them in miniprint as footnotes to the contents page. Later we created a computer-generated author reprint directory at the back of the issue since we were able to do so without losing a single day in the production cycle.
In 1959, I received a phone call from Professor Robert Woodward of Harvard. He would later receive the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. He asked me if I had a copy of a German article listed in CC that week. We were ordering journals by airmail at considerable cost. This was unheard of even at Harvard. So he asked me not only to read him the article in German but also to send him a xerox immediately by special delivery mail. He was in a race with his German cohort to identify the path of synthesis for an organic compound. His method proved to be shorter but he had to confirm what this report claimed.
From that moment on we declared that any CC reader could rely on us as the last resort and we would supply, when possible, original article tear sheets (OATS) to avoid copyright questions. And we obtained at least two copies of each journal – one by air and one by sea. This redundancy also helped assure quality control because as any experienced serials librarian and publisher know – journals often go astray.
The OATS series closed the loop and soon we had drug firms establishing accounts so that articles could be ordered by a simple-minded journal accession number, still in use today. The importance of timeliness was played out in yet another service for the chemical industry.
From personal experience in the lab and in my work at SK&F, I knew the frustration in not being able to determine if a chemical compound had been reported in the literature. In 1959, you often could not retrieve this information for a three-year period. So I launched the Index Chemicus which provided the unheard of timeliness of first monthly and then weekly retrieval of chemical formulas. That service has survived 40 years in spite of fierce government subsidized competition. But timeliness was not the only issue. Selectivity was another issue, which is also an important element in information science. I have described all of this in detail in a paper presented at the 1999 ASIS Annual Meeting which is up on my website.5
Index Chemicus did not attempt to index all of the literature. Rather it focused on novum organum which was precisely what industry was interested in. This question of selectivity was rationalized even further in a service that we offered which was to disseminate lists of specified types of chemicals and drugs on a weekly basis.
Later when the era of the Citation Index began, selectively was put on a level impossible by traditional indexing methods. Let me mention here the primordial SDI system (sometimes called push-pull technology) which combines timing and selectivity. It is called the ISI Research Alert ® System.
In contrast to CC which for all intents and purposes does not enter the consciousness of library historians, the Science Citation Index is yet another story. However, the history of the two services is inextricably combined.
There have been many accounts of the origins of the Science Citation Index. My textbook on Citation Indexing13 available in full-text on my website, and numerous other articles, show its historical connections with Shephard’s Citations, which was a New York creation (later moved to Colorado). I began experimental work on citation indexes in 1953 at Columbia University during that memorable summer after I left Baltimore. I later followed up with my experiments with Columbia student Marge Courain of Merck.14 However, it was not until my correspondence with Professor Joshua Lederberg in 1959 that the full SCI was able to come into existence. This correspondence is available on my website and also at NLM.15
Eventually, the Genetics Citation Index project was established with a grant from NIH to ISI in 1960. A by-product of that project, designed to produce a selective index to the “genetics” literature was the SCI itself.
What this project proved was that it was impossible to define genetics by any set of arbitrary subject headings, that science is in constant change. In 1958 “genetics” was evolving rapidly into molecular biology. While genetics has long been multi-disciplinary, including great dependence on mathematics and statistics, the new era of the double helix begun in 1953 had transformed all basic biology. To be useful, retrieval in such a fast moving domain needed new and unique starting points for selective literature search. This is how I expressed it in my 1955 Science paper.16
If one considers the book as the macro unit of thought and the periodical article the micro unit of thought, then the citation index in some respects deals in the submicro or molecular unit of thought. It is here that most indexes are inadequate, because the scientist is quite often concerned with a particular idea rather than with a complete concept. "Thought" indexes can be extremely useful if they are properly conceived and developed.
Several years later, I was quite surprised when Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, quoted the first sentence to illustrate the use of the term macro.17
Whereas librarians, as generalists, think in terms of subject headings and keywords, scientists think in terms of papers. Individual articles are the stepping stones of the history of an individual’s work in science. When scientists speak about basic discoveries they often codify these key references to the primordial papers on sometimes complex ideas. Most people know what I mean when I say Watson Crick 1953. Some might need an added hint, so we say Watson Crick Nature 1953. And yet others might add the rubric, double helix. But this short hand symbolism of science – this international language of research, transcends all natural languages and is universal for German, French, Chinese, Russian, and English journals.
It is the ability of a citation index search to lead a reader to those articles which have cited it as well as those articles it has cited, which gives it the selective-chronological dimension.
Indeed, the Citation Index was recognized early on as a huge network of published papers linked by cited reference (citations) to one another. These hyperlinked pages were the virtual world wide web of the literature while SCI was still only in print but as soon as it took electronic form, it became an actual hyperlinked service. This was true when the SCI first went online in 1972 and more explicitly in the first CD-ROM version in 1980. With one click you could go from the cited reference to the linked citing reference. And this process was iterable. In other words, you could traverse the entire literature following a citation path from one paper to another in an endless string from one paper to another. And this also could be done via bibliographic coupling, that is, related records.
I will not dwell today on the bibliometric dimension of citation indexing and analysis, but anyone who traces its history realizes that from the beginning, and especially in the early 1960’s, we were already aware of its potential use and abuse. A complete bibliography of citation analysis covering the past 40 years must exceed 5,000 papers and there are countless unpublished citation analyses.
Perhaps we can deal with the sociological and historical applications in the question period. However, it was the early recognized topological character of citation networks that inspired several of my papers on its potential for historical research. And I am very proud that my brother Ralph described some of these characteristics mathematically in his Master’s thesis at Drexel in 1967.18
With this historical background, let me make a huge leap forward to the world of full-text searching and what it means for the future of information science and technology.
Searching full texts of documents presents new and interesting problems.
Information scientists have been studying full-text searching for fifty years. John O'Connor was one of the pioneers.19 Early on he recognized the need to create artificially intelligent searching systems. Personal experience with large-scale files, including even my own, demonstrates the blessing and the dilemmas of full-text searching. For the rare word or phrase, it is extremely efficient. For the frequently occurring term, it can be highly frustrating. Twentieth-first century users will demand more sophisticated methods for refining such searches.
The speed of access to electronic files is an important factor in our ability to take advantage of full-text scanning. The ability to display groups of documents rapidly for scanning and weeding is essential to the process of information recovery. I experience the elation and frustration of full-text when I use the Verity system to search my own publications. The full-text is available on-line. However, to take full advantage of its word-for-word indexing, I need to be able to instantly pop up the context in which the term occurs, not just the title of the paper. Such systems need to display the context as is demonstrated in the autonomous citation index developed by Lawrence et al.20
SDI Profiling and Clipping Services
A few years ago, I wrote the following letter to the New York Times about push-pull technology and its predecessors. The letter was not published.21
In her article on "... how I came to hate push technology," (The New York Times, p. C5, March 24, 1997) Denise Caruso speculates whether "Push Technology" signals the doom of the Web browser.22 However, on March 23, 1997 in "Pushy, Pushy," New York Times Magazine (p.32), James Gleick provides a cogent response.23 My experience with "Push Pull" technology may be of interest.
In 1965 Irving H. Sher and I created Research Alert, the first commercially available computer-based system for selective dissemination of information (SDI).24 Since then the service has been operated continuously on a weekly basis by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). The key to its success is timing, comprehensiveness, and high degree of specificity. Since the early seventies DIALOG, Lexis-Nexis, and other on-line systems have also provided "Push Pull" technology. The success of SDI services is based on their highly selective profiling systems. Unless "Push Technology" or current Web "crawlers" do the same, they will frustrate most users. Significantly improved search engines will make Web browsers increasingly valuable, even while equally improved SDI (Push) systems gain popularity.
Pointcast and other broadly based systems are relatively useless to most users but they can become highly specific, as they are with individual stocks.
The needs of scientists, medical researchers, and scholars are quite varied and only systems that can provide the ability to customize literature searching will be used repeatedly. Broader dissemination is provided by such tools as Current Contents and Medline, and hundreds of leading specialty journals. Profiling systems are widely used in the information industry to follow patent, journal, and other literature. The level of specificity needed often involves complex combinations of descriptors, but also the ability to identify current publications that quote specific papers and people.
Existing Web "crawlers" do not provide an acceptable level of precision and convenience, but competition will force them to rediscover what the library and information community has known for over three decades.
The ASCA system developed by Irv Sher, myself, and others at ISI is often described as SDI -- selective dissemination of information, a special kind of current awareness. Clipping services have existed since the beginning of the last century but the ISI personal alert system (ASCA) for the first time dealt with the huge body of scientific and scholarly literature.24
Thirty-five years after launching the Automatic Subject Citation Alert, it is difficult to estimate the extent to which SDI is used. I see minimal evidence of this in academia. Certain institutions like Stanford have made it popular by using the ISI database in combination with SDI software developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory. Information professionals have an important educational task to make users "profile" conscious so that they will embrace these "push-pull" systems. In particular, they must learn to take full advantage of keyword and citation profiling. While not called citation profiling, this capability has been incorporated in the Highwire Press system.25 For each new article one encounters, the user can automatically include its citation as part of an alerting profile.
Foreign Language Translation
A significant amount of literature is still published in foreign languages. The ability to use translation dictionaries facilitates the ability to read foreign language material. Using pop-up windows to translate individual words or phrases, much as one uses a spell checker, can be extremely time saving. Given a real-time word-for-word look-up system, I can read most papers in German, Spanish, or French with minimum difficulty. As I've pointed out recently,26 a great deal of editorial comment is still expressed in vernacular languages so this translation capability is important to those who wish to take into account the opinions of foreign authors. Foreign editors should take advantage of these translation facilities to produce multi-lingual versions of their editorials and articles. Since the translations can appear on journal websites, the cost of publishing multi-lingual versions can be significantly reduced.27 Systran (www.systran.com) is one such system that often does a remarkable job of "quick and dirty" translation but does not yet provide the convenience of quick pop-up word-for-word translation as is done with RichLink Technology in www.babylon.com or www.sentius.com.
In the early days of my career, I referred to an information nirvana.1 This heavenly information state is yet another metaphor for the “World Brain” of H.G. Wells and the dreams of the early encyclopedists. Each new generation of information technology brings with it a need for new refinements. The notion of the automatic review of the literature has been in the minds of information scientists for a long time. Whether we can ever obtain artificially intelligent machines for creating reviews, remains to be seen. Displaying lists of citations surrounded by contextual text is just one obvious step.28
Research scientists, especially in the life sciences, need to parse scientific documents so that key phrases used in various combinations can lead to interesting correlations. Irv Sher used phrase analysis to create Keywords Plus.29 This sort of parsing is common to computational linguistic programs. It is unlikely that automation can replace the human intelligence necessary to make these correlations. It is possible to imagine that these new systems of artificial intelligence will facilitate the indexing needed in fields like evaluative medicine or bioinformatics. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are now dependent upon a whole new sub-industry involving structure-function determination and correlation.
The prototype for this type of aposteriori intelligence is John O'Connor's brilliant attempt to develop an automation for scanning the full text of a document which never mentions the word toxic or toxicity and yet the intelligent automation concludes that it does discuss toxicity.19
Another expression of the AI challenge is implicit in the distinction I made in 1965 between an automated system of citation indexing such as autonomous citation indexing,20 and a system which is able to read a text and supply the missing references.30 Experiments that I conducted with graduate students, demonstrated that the need for a cited reference in a text is perceived quite differently depending upon the reader's sophistication. Given a paper I had published In the Journal of Chemical Documentation,31students were asked to insert a mark wherever they thought a reference was needed. The number of references varied from 15 to 75, but averaged about 35, which in fact was close to what I had used.32
From the preceding remarks, it will not be surprising that I hold in high esteem the work of Don Swanson in attempting to create an artificially intelligent agent for generating correlations between disease elements and potential therapies. 33, 34
All such experiments emphasize the unique role played by the critical review in the progress of science. This role is needed increasingly even as we gain easier access to the primary literature. It is the aposteriori use of the literature that paves the way to discovery. That is what the IR game is all about. Information systems should facilitate the process of making new connections. In the meantime, human, mainly laboratory-based researchers, continue this creative process of reviewing. Organizations like Annual Reviews, Current Science, and others already provide a rich supply of such reviews. The huge output of review articles and their high impact demonstrates, I believe, their value to the scientific community. Twenty years ago, ISI and Annual Reviews established the National Academy of Sciences Award for Scientific Reviewing in recognition of this role.35
In Table 1 I’ve provided all the winners.
RECIPIENTS OF THE NAS AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN SCIENTIFIC REVIEWING
Year Recipient Discipline 2000 Charles F. Stevens Molecular Neuroscience 1999 James M. Poterba Economics 1998 James R. Holton Atmospheric Sciences 1997 Paul Harvey Evolutionary Biology 1996 Jeffrey S. Banks Economics / Political Science 1995 Robion Kirby Mathematics 1994 Thomas M. Jessell Developmental Neurobiology / Biology 1993 Janet T. Spence Psychology 1992 Robert T. Watson Atmospheric Chemistry 1991 Alexander N. Glazer Biochemistry / Molecular Biology 1990 James N. Spuhler Cultural and Biological Anthropology 1989 Sidney Coleman Theoretical Physics 1988 Eric K. Kandel Life Sciences 1987 Gardner Lindzey Psychology 1986 Virginia L. Trimble Astronomy / Astrophysics 1985 Ira Herskowitz Biochemistry / Biophysics 1984 Ernest R. Hilgard Psychology 1983 Michael E. Fisher Physics 1982 Victor A. McKusick Human Genetics 1981 John S. Chipman Economics 1980 Conyers Herring Solid State Physics 1979 G. Alan Robison Biochemistry
One of the most significant advances in reviewing and meta analysis has been made by the Cochrane Collaboration Centers which form the basis for modern evidence-based medicine.36, 37 The success of that enterprise may now be applied to other problems based on the formation of the new Campbell Collaboration.38 Electronic journals and databases will aid these systems of synthesis but should significantly reduce publication bias since space in printed journals will not be a limiting factor.39
Information Discovery and Recovery
This leads to a concluding observation. Information retrieval concerns both information discovery and information recovery.40, 41 While closely related, the process of information recovery should approach perfection in the years to come.
We should rarely have difficulty in recovering papers we have encountered in the past. Information discovery systems, however, will remain a daunting challenge for decades to come since they involve the injection of human intelligence difficult to match in AI systems. Recognizing how long it has taken to reach the present state of the art, I doubt that many of us will still be here when these breakthroughs occur.
1. a.) Garfield, E. "Research Nirvana -- Total Dissemination and Retrieval of Bio-medical Information? Paper presented at Sixth Annual Session, Medical Writers' Institute, New York City, October 5, 1963.
1. b.) Garfield, E. “The ideal library -- the Informatorium,” Current Contents No. 1 (June 19, 1962).
Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 1. Philadelphia: ISI Press, page 1 (1977).
2. Casey RS, Perry JW, Berry MM, and Kent A. Punched Cards: Their Application to Science and Industry. New York: Reinhold (1958).
3. Garfield, E. “A Tribute to Calvin N. Mooers, A Pioneer Of Information Retrieval,” The Scientist 11(6):.9 (March 17,1997)
4. a.) Himwich, W. A., Garfield, E., Field, H. G., Whittock, J. M., and Larkey, S. V. "Final report on machine methods for information searching ," Welch Medical Library Indexing Project, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. (Sponsored by the Armed Forces Medical Library), p.1-38 (1955)
4. b.) Himwich W. A., Field H.G., Garfield E., Whittock J.M., Larkey S.V. "Survey of World Medical Serials and Coverage by Indexing and Abstracting Services." Welch Medical Library Indexing Project (Sponsored by the Armed Forces Medical Library), The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. (1954).
4. c.) Garfield, E. " Machine Indexing, Machine Indexes, and the Preparation of Printed Indexes by Machines." Welch Symposium ( March 1953)
4. d.) Garfield, E. "Preliminary Report on the Mechanical Analysis of Information by Use of the 101 Statistical Punched Card Machine." American Documentation, 5(1):7-12 (1954)
5. Garfield, E. “From Laboratory to Information Explosions…the evolution of Chemical Information Services at ISI.” In: Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on the History and Heritage of Science Information Systems, eds. M. Bowden, T. Bellardo Hahn, and R.V. Williams. Medford, NJ: Information Today, pgs. 237-251 (1999).
6. Garfield, E. “Introducing Samuel Lazerow, ISI’s Vice President for Administration,” Current Contents No. 44, pg 5+ (November 1, 1972). Reprinted in Garfield, E. Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 1, pages 374-5. Philadelphia: ISI Press (1977)
7. Garfield E. “The New ISI Fellowships Honor Outstanding Librarians and Graduate Students in the Library and Information Sciences,” Current Contents No. 11, pgs. 5-10 (March 14, 1983). Reprinted in Garfield, E. Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 6, pages 74-9. Philadelphia: ISI Press (1984)
8. Garfield E. “Confessions of a Cab Driver,” Current Contents No. 20, pgs. 507 (May 16, 1977). Reprinted in Garfield, E. Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 3, pages 116-118 Philadelphia: ISI Press (1980)
9. Garfield, E. "The Preparation of Subject-Heading Lists by Automatic Punched-Card Techniques." The Journal of Documentation , 10(1):1-10 (March 1954)
10. Brodman E. The Development of medical bibliography. Chicago: MLA, 236 pgs. (1954).
11. Garfield, E. “Needed -- A Relativistic Theory of Information Science,” Automatic and Scientific Communication: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the American Documentation Institute,
6-1 October, 1963, Chicago, Ill. Part 3, pp. 419-420
12. Brown, E. A. “How I Get the Meat Out of 700 Journals a Month,” Medical Economics 39:128+ (1962).
13. Garfield, E. Citation Indexing -- Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities, Philadelphia: ISI Press, 274 pgs. (1979)
14. Garfield E. “Breaking the Subject Barrier A Citation Index for Chemical Patents," Journal of the Patent Office Society, 39(8):583-95 (August 1957). Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 6. Philadelphia: ISI Press, pgs 472-480 (1984).
16. Garfield, E. “Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas,” Science 122:108-11 (1955). Reprinted in Essays of An Information Scientist, Volume 7. Philadelphia: ISI Press, pgs. 525-535 (1985).
17. Gove P.B., et al, eds. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. Springfield, MA: Merriam Co., p. 1354 (1961).
18. Garner, R. "A computer oriented, graph theoretic analysis of Citation Index structures," In: Barbara Flood eds., “Three Drexel Information Research Studies by Ralph Garner, Louis Lunin, and Lois Baker.” Philadelphia: Drexel University Press(1967)
19. O’Connor, J. “Automatic Subject Recognition in Scientific Papers – an Empirical Study,” Journal of the ACM 12(4):490 (1965).
20. Lawrence, S. “Digital Libraries and Autonomous Citation Indexing,” Computer 32(6):67 (1999)
21. Garfield, E. “SDI and ‘Push Pull’ Technology,” Letter to the Editor, New York Times, April 14, 1997 (unpublished). http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/pushpull.html
22. Caruso, D. “Push Technology,” New York Times, page C5 (March 24, 1997).
23. Gleick, J. “Pushy, Pushy,” New York Times Magazine, page 32 (March 23, 1997).
24. Garfield, E. and Sher. I. "ASCA (Automatic Subject Citation Alert) -- A New Personalized Current Awareness Service for Scientists," American Behavioral Scientist, 10(5):29-32 (1967).
Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 6. Philadelphia: ISI Press, pages 514-517 (1984). http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p514y1983.pdf
26. Garfield, E. "Foreign Journal Editors Should Translate Their Editorials on the Web," The
Scientist (In press).
27. Watters PA and Patel M. “Semantic Processing Performance of Internet Machine Translation Systems,” Internet Research – Electronic Networking Applications and Policy,” 9(2):153-160 (1999).
28. Small, H. “Cited Documents as Concept Symbols,” Social Studies of Science, 8:327-340 (1978).
29. a.) Garfield, E. "KeyWords Plus: ISI's Break-through Retrieval Method. Part 1. Expanding Your Searching Power on Current Contents on Diskette," Current Contents, No. 32, pages 3-7 (August 6, 1990). Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 13. Philadelphia: ISI Press, pages 295-299 (1991)
29. b.) Garfield, E. "KeyWords Plus Takes You Beyond Title Words. Part 2. Expanded Journal Coverage for Current Contents on Diskette Includes Social and Behavioral Sciences," Current Contents No. 33, pages 5-9 (August 13, 1990). Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 13. Philadelphia: ISI Press, pages 300-304 (1991)
29. c.) Garfield, E. and Sher, I. H. " KeyWords Plus -- Algorithmic Derivative Indexing," Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 44 (5) p.298-299, 1993.
30. Garfield, E. "Can Citation Indexing Be Automated?" Mary Elizabeth Stevens, Vincent E. Giuliano, and Laurence B. Helprin, Eds. Statistical Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation, Symposium Proceedings, 1964. National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication 269, p.189-92 (December 1965). http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/V1p084y1962-73.pdf
31. Garfield, E. "Information Theory and Other Quantitative Factors in Code Design for Document Card Systems," Journal of Chemical Documentation 1(1):70-75 (1961). Reprinted in Current Contents No. 44, pages 8-19 (October 31, 1977) and in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 3. Philadelphia: ISI Press, pages274-285 (1980).
32. Garfield, E. "Information Theory and All That Jazz: A Lost Reference List Leads to a Pragmatic Assignment for Students," Current Contents No. 44, pages 5-19 (October 31, 1977). Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 3. Philadelphia: ISI Press, pages 271-273 (1980).
33. Swanson, DR. and Smalheiser, NR. "An Interactive System for Finding Complementary Literatures: A Stimulus to Scientific Discovery," Artificial Intelligence 91(2):183-203 (1997).
34. Swanson, DR. and Smalheiser NR. "Implicit Text Linkages between Medline Records: Using Arrowsmith as an Aid to Scientific Discovery," Library Trends 48(1):48-59 (1999).
35. Garfield, E. "The NAS James Murray Luck Award for Excellence in Scientific Reviewing: G. Alan Robison Receives the First Award for His work on Cyclic AMP," Current Contents No. 18, pages 5-9 (April 30, 1979). Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 4. Philadelphia: ISI Press, pages 127-131 (1981).
37. a.) Cochrane AL Effectiveness and Efficiency. Random Reflections on Health Services.” London: Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust, 103 pgs. (1971)
37. b.) Maynard A and Chalmers I, eds. Non-Random Reflections on Health Services Research: On the 25th Anniversary of Archie Cochrane’s ‘Effectiveness and Efficiency’,” London: BMJ Publishing Group, 303 pgs. (1997)
39. Song, F., Eastwood, A., Gilbody S., and Duley, L. “The Role of Electronic Journals in Reducing Publication Bias,” Medical Informatics and the Internet, 24(3):223-229 (1999).
40. Garfield, E. “ISI’s Comprehensive System of Information Services, Current Contents No. 3
(March 25, 1969). Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 1, Philadelphia: ISI Press, page 31 (1977). http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/V1p031y1962-73.pdf
41. Garfield, E. “ISI Eases Scientists’ Information Problems; Provides Convenient Orderly Access to Literature,’ Karger Gazette No. 13, p. 2 (March 1966). Reprinted as “The Who and Why of ISI,” Current Contents No. 13, pages 5-6 (March 5, 1969), which was reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 1. Philadelphia: ISI Press, pages 33-37 (1977). http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/V1p033y1962-73.pdf
1. a.) Garfield, E. "Research Nirvana -- Total Dissemination and Retrieval of Bio-medical Information? Paper presented at Sixth Annual Session, Medical Writers' Institute, New York City, October 5, 1963.
1. b.) Garfield, E. “The ideal library -- the
Current Contents No. 1 (June 19, 1962).
Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 1. Philadelphia: ISI Press, page 1 (1977).