Talk:Institute for Scientific Information
|WikiProject Academic Journals||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Science||(Rated Start-class)|
ISI past or present?
According to the article ISI is now called Thomson Scientific for which there is a separate article. So this article could be about the organisation prior to it becoming Thomson Scientific, yet it is mostly written in the present tense. Should this article be merged with Thomson Scientific or should it be rewritten about ISI as it used to exist? Nurg (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This article definitely needs a history section if it is to remain a separate article. Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) were pioneering projects, although it took the further advancement of computer technology to realize their full utility. It is difficult to believe that there are not a number of scholarly articles discussing this. Otherwise this article should be folded into Thomson Scientific, as Nurg has suggested as well as into Science Citation Index, et al. --Bejnar (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC). I do believe that both pages should be merged. The ISI highly cited is probably the most comprehensive writeup about the topic. The highly cited page now in wikipedia is rather skimpy. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
From "insitiute of" redirect
The Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), today known as Thomson Scientific, was established by Eugene Garfield, who devised a means of using citation analysis to identify the top experts in all social science and science field. The Institute publishes the Social Science Citation Index and the Science Citation Index. Both are available via DIALOG. Using these tools, it is possible to create a living directory of the top published experts, and through them, of the top unpublished experts.
Both articles are really short, and their "Highly Cited" database is just one of their products. Merge here per WP:CORP. This was also suggested by User:Tony1 in this discussion. Pcap ping 10:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support merge. The other article is short and is a content fork from this one.—Finell 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely. No need for a separate article. --Crusio (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support This makes sense to me. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)