Studies by Navarro ([21] - [23])
showed a decline in the German language since 1945 as the language
of medicine in German-speaking countries. In Germany, Austria and
German-speaking Switzerland, English became the dominant language
of science in the early 1970 s. A parallel development
was observed in France regarding the substitution of English for
French ([24]). As early as the 1950 s, English had gained
much terrain in the Netherlands ([26]), French-speaking Switzerland
([22]), Scandinavia ([5]) and Spain ([25]). Boettiger ([5]) found that in
1983, 74 % of the authors in the Deutsche Medizinische
Wochenschrift made reference to English-language works. In representative
Anglo-American journals, practically all the cited references were
articles in English. However, this Swedish author found in a MEDLINE
literature search, as a control, a verifiable share of only 54 % of
English-language articles regarding the corresponding article subjects.
Both scientists and editors of medical journals are equally concerned
with this development. Dietrich ([7]) found that authors focusing
on the reputation and international dissemination of journals lean
toward English as a language of publication. This was also true
of publishers who enter international
markets or who lack any support by national organizations. The readers are for the most part interested
in readily accessible documents also in terms of language, whereas
language barriers regarding research activities are non-existent.
Beller ([3]) came to the conclusion that German is now unnecessary
for the communication of scientific data. German-language journals
should therefore concentrate on continuing education and provide
opportunities for the original works of graduate students.
Finzen (9) warned, however, against the separation of research activity
and national languages. A developed territory with 100 million people
should be in a position to cultivate its own scientific language. [ M. Middeke
of the Dtsch
Med Wochenschr in a recent renowned newspaper - Frankfurter
Allgemeine Sonntags-Zeitung of 3rd Febr. 2002 - in this
context spoke of a needful ”conservation of the variety
of species”, as in environmental biology]. Haller
in Zurich repeatedly asked ([15], [16]): ’’Is the
Impact Factor killing the German language?’’
According to all the authors cited ([3], [7], [9], [15]), the predominance of
English in medicine and science in the age of information technology
can be attributed to tools developed
in the United States:
[One may add, in the area of chemistry/ biochemistry,
the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS).]
A secondary product of SCI is the Journal
Impact Factor ([13]). It has been used worldwide since the mid-1990s
to evaluate the quality of scientific journals and even individual
researchers and professor’s chairs applicants ([4], [10], [14], [18]
).
The impact factors ([12]) of life science journals are published
annually in the Journal Citation Reports/Science
Editions (JCR) of the Institute for Scientific
Information-Thomson Scientific. It measures the citation frequency
as represented by the cited references in the articles contained
in the 5,600 SCI source journals selected by ISI. The formula for
the year 2000 is presented in Fig. [1]:
Fig. 1 Journal Impact Factor ([11]):
formula for the year 2000.
*) as documented in
the bibliographic databases of ISI.
Citable works include original works, short communications from
studies as well as review articles. In some very exceptional cases
German-language journals received an IF above one. The procedure
for determining the IF has raised there is a series of critical
questions ([10], [15], [19], [27] - [31], [34]).
Some in the United States, too, are wondering about this procedure
([2], [11]).
As an indicator for the international visibility of German-language
journals, the level of worldwide citations can be useful; in that
light, the IF is one measure. Furthermore, Boettiger and Navarro
in their examination of articles from a series of volumes of representative
German ([5], [21]), Austrian ([23]) and Swiss ([22]) journals determined
in what language the cited references had been written.
As another visibility criterion, we consider the percentage of
citations of German-language medical journals in the English-language
literature as pertinent. In particular, the following questions
were asked:
-
What has been the contribution
of authors writing in English to the IF of German-language journals
since the mid-1990s?
-
Is there a correlation between the scale of citations
in English-language literature and the IF?
-
What percentage of English-language citing articles
comes from institutions in German-speaking countries?
-
How often, for example, are German medical journals
cited in articles that are (co-)authored in the United States?
Relative to question 2, J. Stegmann’s IF construction
method ([31]) was applied to those periodicals that did not obtain
an IF for the year 2000. So far no validation of this method has
been described in the literature. Hence, before applying it, for
example, to the 2000 data, the statistical correlation between the
ISI IF and the constructed IF should
be determined.
Methodology
Methodology
Twenty-five German, Austrian and Swiss medical journals with predominantly
German-language articles (over 85 %) for the publishing
period 1995-July 2001 were selected. The basic set was composed
using German-titled journals listed in Journal Citation Reports
1998 for Austria, Germany and Switzerland as well as German-titled
periodicals from an Internet list of non-JCR journals (33) with
a calculable (constructed) IF. Next,
forty-five journals were randomly selected from this set: 30 JCR
titles and 15 Internet titles. Using a combined search routine, SCISEARCH+MEDLINE+EMBASE,
at DIMDI (8), journals with up to 15 % content
devoted to English-language articles (i. e. >85 % German-language)
for the period 1995-July 2001were found. According to our specifications
for the subsequent selection, Austria and Switzerland should each
have two periodicals represented. The other 21 were randomly selected.
The constructed impact factors for
the year 2000 were calculated using the Stegmann method ([31], [32])
with SCI searches - for journals without an ISI IF with the help
of MEDLINE+EMBASE databases at DIMDI ([8]). The latter served
to retrieve citable 1998 and 1999 works not documented in the SCI,
in order to obtain a denominator value higher than zero in the IF
formula (Fig. [1]). Included
among the citable documents are original articles, short communications
and review articles - the so-called meaty articles. Citation frequencies
of non-SCI periodicals were determined by searching Referenced Journal/Referenced
Year data fields in DIMDI’s SCI version.
As a gauge of the relationship between the ISI IF and the constructed
IF (Stegmann IF), Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used. Where r = 1.00
, there is a 100 % positive
linear relationship; where r = -1.00
, there is 100 % negative
linear relationship. In the SCI, citations during 1995 - 2000
of the 1995 - 1999 meaty articles of
the selected journals were searched, and then the language distribution
of the citing articles was determined. Statistical relationships
between the language shares of the citing articles and the IF were
again determined using the correlation coefficient.
For each journal it was asked which country during 1995 - 2000 was
the source of the English-language citing articles for the 1995 - 1999
publications of the 25 sample journals. The bibliographic data in
SCISEARCH ([8]) with detailed and, in some cases, multiple entries
in the field corporate source (institutional addresses)
revealed how many were authored or co-authored in a German-speaking
country (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) or in the United States.
Such an approach could lead to the multiple counting of articles
as in the case of a collaborative project by a German and a United
States institution.
Results
Results
Impact Factors of German-Language Journals
Table [1] provides
an overview of the percentages of English-language contents as well
as three different IF parameters for the journals examined.
Table 1 Comparison
of Impact Factors (IF) taken from Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
1998 and 2000, and of ”constructed” IF 2000
([31]) regarding a sample of 25 mainly German-language medical journals.
|
Journal 1
|
% English-lang. works published
between 1995 - July 20012
|
IF 1998
(ISI)3
|
IF 2000
(ISI)
3
|
IF 2000
(constructed)4
|
|
1.Akt Ernährungsmed
|
5,3
|
ND 3)
|
ND
|
0,200
|
|
2.Akt Rheumatol
|
0,6
|
0,321
|
0,260
|
0,370
|
|
3.Anästhesist
|
1,6
|
0,977
|
0,829
|
0,838
|
|
4.Anästh Intensivmed.
|
2,9
|
0,575
|
0,646
|
0,605
|
|
5.Arbeitsmed Sozmed Umw
|
1,2
|
ND
|
ND
|
0,106
|
|
6.Chirurg
|
1,8
|
0,932
|
0,721
|
0,724
|
|
7.Dtsch Med Wochenschr
|
1,1
|
0,652
|
0,788
|
0,783
|
|
8.Hautarzt
|
0,9
|
0,479
|
0,535
|
0,550
|
|
9.HNO
|
1,7
|
0,675
|
0,722
|
0,700
|
|
10.Internist
|
2,3
|
0,329
|
0,277
|
0,268
|
|
11.Med Klin
|
1,5
|
0,380
|
0,390
|
0,380
|
|
12.Med Mon Pharmazeuten
|
0
|
ND
|
ND
|
0,033
|
|
13.Med Welt
|
1,0
|
0,075
|
0,061
|
0,061
|
|
14.Monatsschr Kinderheilk
|
1,2
|
0,191
|
0,140
|
0,168
|
|
15.Münch Med Wschr
|
0
|
ND
|
ND
|
0,039
|
|
16.Nervenarzt
|
3,6
|
0,696
|
0,641
|
0,594
|
|
17.Notfall-Med
|
0
|
ND
|
ND
|
0,005
|
|
18.ROFO -Fortschr Röntgen
|
3,4
|
0,901
|
1,005
|
0,980
|
|
19.Schmerz
|
0,3
|
0,443
|
0,500
|
0,524
|
|
20.Schweiz Med Wochenschr 5
|
11,8
|
0,296
|
0,258
|
0,294
|
|
21.Schweiz Rundschau Med Prax
|
0,2
|
ND
|
ND
|
0,034
|
|
22.Wien Med Wschr (WMW)
|
5,0
|
ND
|
ND
|
0,121
|
|
23.Wien Tierärztl MonSchr
|
10,7
|
0,236
|
0,287
|
0,262
|
|
24.Z ärztl Fortb Qualitätssich
|
0,5
|
ND
|
ND
|
0,144
|
|
25.Z Kardiol
|
15,3
|
0,760
|
0,874
|
0,859
|
|
Average
|
3,0
|
0,357
|
0,357
|
0,385
|
|
1=alphabetical order.
2= Values searched
in Science Citation Index (SCI) or, if not represented in SCI, in
a MEDLINE + EMBASE combination. All document types in the
period 1995- July 2001 were included.
3= Values
taken from JCRs 1998 and 2000 edited by the Institute for Scientific
Information (ISI). IF 1998 relates to 1996+1997 meaty articles
cited in 1998, and IF 2000 to contributions in 1998+1999
cited in 2000 - as documented by the ISI systems. ND = no
data present in ISI’s JCR.
4=Determination
from search results in SCI, or - in the case of ND - in the combined
SCI+MEDLINE+EMBASE according to J. Stegmann (31,
32). In the SCI data fields Referenced Journal vs. Referenced Year
at DIMDI, citations in year 2000 of meaty articles of Publication
Years 1998+1999 were evaluated.
5=Determination
from search results in SCI, or - in the case of ND - in the combined
SCI+MEDLINE+EMBASE according to J. Stegmann (31,
32). In the SCI data fields Referenced Journal vs. Referenced Year
at DIMDI, citations in year 2000 of meaty articles of Publication
Years 1998+1999 were evaluated.
|
Determination from search results in SCI, or - in the case of
ND - in the combined SCI+MEDLINE+EMBASE according
to J. Stegmann ([31], [32]). In the SCI data fields Referenced
Journal vs. Referenced Year at DIMDI,
citations in year 2000 of meaty articles of Publication
Years 1998 + 1999 were evaluated.
since Jan. 2001: Swiss Medical Weekly (100 % English-language)
The 25 journals with more than 85 % of their
articles in German for 1995-July 2001 were arranged alphabetically
in Table [1]. The proportion
of articles published in English had a negligible relationship to
the IF of the journals, as indicated by the correlation coefficient
of 0.234 between the series on English share and the ISI 2000 impact
factors.
Along with our constructed 2000 IF, the ISI IF for 2000 and 1998 were
used for comparison. In general, the table reveals large similarities
among the three IF parameters.
The journal Aktuelle Ernährungsmedizin,
not represented in the JCR, had a constructed 2000 IF of 0.2. The
constructed IF of the other non-JCR periodicals (no. 5, 12, 15,
17, 21, 22, and 24) were below 0.2. The value 0.2 was suggested
by Froemter (10) on behalf of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlich-Medizinischen
Fachgesellschaften (AMWF) as a ”lump sum” to assign
to German-language journals without an ISI IF. Comparison of the 1998
and the 2000 impact factors indicated that 10 of the journals (no.
4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19, 23, 25) in the last two years increased
their impact factors - DMW, RöFo and Z Kardiol by more than
0.1. In fact, RöFo broke the knowledge sound barrier for German
periodicals (IF = 1.0).
The comparison of 1998 and 2000 impact factors indicated a statistical
correlation of almost 98 % (r = 0.975; n = 17
). So
for these two years, the impact factors of German-language journals
seemed rather static.
The constructed impact factors are valid measures. The correlation
coefficient between the 25 ISI impact factors and the constructed
IF for 2000 was 0.987 (a 99 % correlation). If
the impact factors only of the 17 SCI source journals are used in
the comparison, a direct linear relationship is revealed: r = 0.9925 ! Hence,
the Stegmann method was considered reasonable.
Language of Articles Citing the Selected Journals
According to results listed in Table [2]
, the impact factor of the German-language
journals examined was related with an average of 44.8 % to
the references of authors writing in English for the specified time
period.
Table [2] Shares
and Origins of English-language Articles Citing during the Period
1995-2000 the ‚meaty’ Works published
between 1995 - 1999 in a sample of 25
mainly German-language Medical Journals.
|
Cited Journal1
|
Articles published
between 1995-2000 who cite the meaty works that appeared
between 1995 - 1999 in the listed 25
journals
|
|
|
% shares
in
German
|
% in
English
|
% in English from institutions
in D, A, CH 2, 3
(i. e.,
English share
= 100 %)
|
% of articles (co-)authored in
the USA 3
(English share
= 100 % )
|
|
1.Akt Ernährungsmed
|
66,7
|
33,3
|
83,3
|
13,3
|
|
2.Akt Rheumatol
|
75,7
|
23,1
|
79,5
|
7,7
|
|
3.Anästhesist
|
49,6
|
48,8
|
54,5
|
16,7
|
|
4.Anästh Intensivmed.
|
63,7
|
35,6
|
69,8
|
12,2
|
|
5.Arbeitsmed Sozmed Umw
|
34,0
|
66,0
|
89,1
|
4,7
|
|
6.Chirurg
|
54,0
|
44,2
|
59,8
|
11,1
|
|
7.Dtsch Med Wochenschr
|
57,0
|
41,4
|
60,0
|
13,7
|
|
8.Hautarzt
|
33,4
|
63,8
|
55,0
|
15,3
|
|
9.HNO
|
60,0
|
39,1
|
61,4
|
14,0
|
|
10.Internist
|
76,5
|
23,1
|
87,2
|
3,4
|
|
11.Med Klin
|
49,9
|
47,9
|
56,9
|
16,3
|
|
12.Med Mon Pharmazeuten
|
60,0
|
40,0
|
66,7
|
33,3
|
|
13.Med Welt
|
60,4
|
39,6
|
74,5
|
3,6
|
|
14.Monatsschr Kinderheilk
|
45,6
|
53,9
|
82,0
|
8,5
|
|
15.Münch Med Wschr
|
51,4
|
45,9
|
45,4
|
25,0
|
|
16.Nervenarzt
|
49,5
|
47,7
|
62,7
|
16,8
|
|
17.Notfall-Med
|
71,9
|
25,0
|
75,0
|
0
|
|
18.ROFO -Fortschr Röntgen
|
50,1
|
48,1
|
66,0
|
12,7
|
|
19.Schmerz
|
72,5
|
27,5
|
76,3
|
8,8
|
|
20.Schweiz Med Wochenschr4
|
32,3
|
62,2
|
45,0
|
19,4
|
|
21.Schweiz Rundschau Med Prax
|
37,1
|
55,6
|
35,7
|
15,5
|
|
22.Wien Med Wschr (WMW)
|
28,2
|
66,0
|
54,6
|
17,9
|
|
23.Wien Tierärztl MonSchr
|
48,2
|
48,5
|
37,8
|
12,6
|
|
24.Z ärztl Fortb Qualitätssich
|
61,4
|
37,0
|
58,8
|
17,6
|
|
25.Z Kardiol
|
42,4
|
55,9
|
60,5
|
16,9
|
|
Mittelwert
|
53,3
|
44,8
|
63,9
|
13,5
|
|
Standardabweichung
|
13,9
|
12,8
|
14,6
|
7,1
|
|
1=alphabetical
order.
2=D = Germany; A = Austria;
CH = Switzerland
3=Multiple
counting possible if multiple entries in SCI data field Corporate
Source (Author’s address) exist, as with collaborative
projects of US and German institutions
4= since
Jan. 2001: Swiss Medical Weekly (100% Engl)
|
During the period 1995 - 2000, eight
of the 25 journals (nos. 5, 8, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25) were cited
more often in English-language than in German-language articles
published in 1995 - 1999. The total of
citations in other languages, in French for example, played a minor
role with an average of 1.5 %.
Relationship Between Languge of Citing
Articles and Impact Factor
There was no relationship found between the various impact factor
measures in Table [1] and the
percentage of citations in English-language articles (Table [2]
): all the relevant correlation coefficients
were less than 0.1
Even the relationship between publication share in English (Table [1]
) and level of citation in English-language
articles (Table [2]) was extremely
weak: r = 0.355 .
These two findings were surprising and correlate possibly with the
overwhelming contribution of institutions in German-language countries
as providers of the English-language citing works (Table [2]).
Publication Countries of English-Language Citing Articles
Table [2] shows that, on
average, 64 % of the English-language 1995 - 2000
articles which cited articles from the German-language medical journals
published during 1995 - 1999 had institutional
addresses in Germany, Austria or Switzerland. The percentage of
United States institutions in English-language citing articles averaged
13.5 %. In other words, approximately 20 - 26 % of
the English-language citing articles were distributed over countries
not mentioned here. Samples indicate high percentages for EU countries.
Since possible double counting in publications with multiple institutional
addresses cannot be eliminated, only an estimate can be given here.
Discussion
Discussion
Impact Factor of German-Language Journals
Table [1] lends itself to
some speculation regarding the IF. If German-language journals,
such as nos. 1, 5, 12, 15, 17, 21, 22 and 24, were listed in the
SCI as well as in EMBASE or MEDLINE, they would have a JCR IF, since
there would be a value in the ISI literature documentation system
in order to form the denominator of the IF formula (Fig. [1]). Furthermore, the cited references
in the individual publications would be stored at ISI and could
be added to the numerators in the IF calculations processed there.
The appropriate Referenced Journal/Referenced
Year entries of the SCI records (RJ, Table [3] - showing one complete document in
SCI) form the numerator of the IF formula. Unlike the SCI, the databases
of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, etc., do not include cited
references (RF). The SCI is thus the only available citation analysis
instrument in medicine. If the article depicted in Table [3] had appeared hypothetically in the
journal Zeitschr ärztl Fortbild Qualsich (ZaeFQ), the references
under RF/RJ would not have shown up in the derivation of
the ISI IF. A value for the denominator of the formula is not available
at ISI since the SCI does not list ZaeFQ as a source (datafield
SO).
Table 3 One
example of a complete unit record (i. e. publication referral
to (7)) in the Science Citation Index (SCI).
|
1/1 of 1 DIMDI-SCISEARCH COPYRIGHT
ISI 2001
|
|
ND: 351VR005430001
|
|
AU: Dietrich GV; Hempelmann G
|
|
TI: How well-positioned is a German-worded
publication?
|
|
SO: ANASTHESIOLOGIE INTENSIVMEDIZIN NOTFALLMEDIZIN SCHMERZTHERAPIE
|
|
VOL.35 [N9],PG:543 - 544,2000
SEP
|
|
LA: GERMAN
|
|
CS: UNIV GIESSEN, ANASTHESIOL & OPERAT
INTENS MED ABT, RUDOLF BUCHHEIM STR 7;D-35385 GIESSEN; GERMANY
|
|
DT: EDITORIAL MATERIAL
|
|
JSC: BA ANESTHESIOLOGY; ...
|
|
RF: BOLDT J,1999,V34,P131
RJ: ANASTH INTENSIV NOTF
|
|
BOLDT J,1999,V34,P542
RJ: ANASTH INTENSIV NOTF
|
|
HALLER U,1999,V7,P39
RJ: CHIRURG S
|
|
HAUTEVILLE D,1995,V146,P29 RJ:
ANN MED INTERNE
|
|
LEHRL S,1999,V175,P141 RJ:
STRAHLENTHER ONKOL
|
|
MALECK WH,2000,V35,P559 RJ: ANASTHESIOL INTENSIV
|
|
SCISEARCH version at
DIMDI (8):
|
|
ND = Number of Document
|
|
AU = Authors
|
|
TI = Title
|
|
SO = Source
|
|
CS = Corporate Source
|
|
LA = Language
|
|
DT = Document Type
|
|
JSC = Journal
Section Code
|
|
RF = References
|
|
RJ = Referenced Journal
|
However, those non-SCI journals have entries throughout in the Referenced
Journal field in the SCI, especially if they are cited by SCI source
journals. With respect to the non-SCI non-JCR journals with recognizable
citations in the SCI field RF, Stegmann (31, 32) used the search
results from MEDLINE, EMBASE and other databases to the determine
the denominator of the IF formula. Here he strictly resorts to the
ISI methodology, however, on an enlarged and so more representative
basis. The Stegmann IF that we calculated in this work indicated
a 99 % statistical correlation to the corresponding
ISI IF. The method proves to be valid here. Slight differences in
the individual impact factors can be explained by the different
search results attributable to the (sometimes very) multiple codes
for one and the same journal in the SCI under RJ.
Periodicals such as ZaeFQ are considered by ISI as ’’cited-only-journals’’ in
constrast to ’’source journals’’ (’’citing
journals’’). In order to assess the quality of
a science article, its content, of course, must be assessed, i. e.,
in a journal of a given quality. The omission of an article cannot
automatically be based on the fact that the journal publishing it
does not show up in a particular database (namely here, in an ISI
product). Especially if the journal is indexed by the other recognized
information systems MEDLINE and EMBASE and if its articles have
been peer reviewed. Hence, the journal classification practice of ’’citing’’ and ’’cited
only’’ is fundamentally without merit in the derivation
of such a widely used quality assessment instrument as the IF. This was
already demonstrated for the area of emergency medicine (11, 19).
For the non-SCI journals from Germany, Austria and Switzerland,
general experience leads one to assume that the individual articles
cite a considerable amount of German-language publications as references,
notably those from the home or neighbour hospitals/ universities.
If German-language non-SCI journals indexed by MEDLINE or EMBASE
also showed up in the SCI there would be higher values in the IF
numerator presumably for all journals from German-speaking countries.
In fact, Table [1] suggests
the following. If the eight non-SCI journals were also listed by
ISI, then they would, at the moment, rarely have IF values greater
than 0.2. The AWMF suggestion mentioned earlier (10) seems at this
point realistic.
German As a Scientific Language
A moderate citation frequency at the international level was found
for the selected journals, which were mostly German-language medical
publications (over 85 %)s, including tradition
and distinguished periodicals. It is remarkable that, on average,
over 44 % of the citations of the journals examined
appeared in the English-language scientific literature. This rate
is independent of the IF in our selection.
Table [2] shows that in the
mid- and end-1990 s two-thirds of the English-language
citing articles come from institutions in German-speaking countries.
This also partially explains the weak correlation to the IF. So,
English has been the prevailing scientific language of communication
for quite some time in German-speaking areas. However, the results
are not so bad as they seem in light of the ubiquitousness of English
in this era of information technology. According to Dietrich (17),
the average IF of German-language journals is 0.367 higher that
the IF for languages other than English. We found an average ISI
IF of 0.357 for our sample for the years 1998 and 2000.
Our research also indicates that more than 13 % of
the English-language citing articles were authored or coauthored
in the United States. This is quite interesting, since Boettiger
(5) already established in 1983 that Americans quite rarely cite
works from abroad. This observation was
confirmed by Ojasoo (27) for international journals on urology with
a description of a ’’transatlantic rift’’:
United States publications tended to cite one another, while, on
the other hand, European journals cited one another somewhat more
frequently. Bookstein (6), proposing an augmented calculation for ”own-language
citation bias”, found that in the area of sociology two
German-language journals were top in this kind of bias.
Keul (17) reported on a dual phenomenon with respect to citation
behavior in German-language psychology. Data from the Social Science
Citation Index indicated that there were two equally large categories
of authors. One group wrote mainly in English and cited internationally.
The second group published in German, but tended to ignore research
by the first group. Our Table [2] shows
German, Austrian or Swiss institutional addresses for 64 % of
the English-language citing works. Without a doubt, this contributes
to the international visibility of the journals selected. In that
respect, physicians publishing in English in the three countries
regularly and eagerly refer to their colleagues who write in German.
Every era has had its dominant scientific language(s). The lingua franca
of today is indisputably English. German and French, equally important
national languages since the 19th century, have suffered a tremendous
decline since World War II - or least since the 1970 s.
Ammon (1) noted: ’’The German
language has lost rank during the course of the century. English
is making headway everywhere, so in science...French colleagues
are sensing the same thing. For them, this turn of events is even
more troublesome because of the active language policy of the French
Academy...’’
Scientific journals such as those reviewed here can guarantee, however,
that researchers and practitioners will not turn their backs on
the national language. Through presentation of what is ascertained
and what is new, such journals are still eminently significant for
professional training and continuing education. Our findings suggest
that they still have an distinct international readership.
Translation in English by M. Smith and E.
Garfield, Chairman Emeritus of ISI, for purposes of ASIS&T, SIG-Metrics.
Authorized by G. Winkmann (egwinkmann@aol.com), with kind assistance of Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart (volker.hirschel@thieme.de , andrea.hartmann@thieme.de).
