Archive for the 'Scholarly Metrics' Category

"What Makes Papers Visible on Social Media? An Analysis of Various Document Characteristics"

Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Scholarly Metrics on March 21st, 2017

Zohreh Zahedi et al. have self-archived "What Makes Papers Visible on Social Media? An Analysis of Various Document Characteristics."

Here's an excerpt:

In this study we have investigated the relationship between different document characteristics and the number of Mendeley readership counts, tweets, Facebook posts, mentions in blogs and mainstream media for 1.3 million papers published in journals covered by the Web of Science (WoS). It aims to demonstrate that how factors affecting various social media-based indicators differ from those influencing citations and which document types are more popular across different platforms. Our results highlight the heterogeneous nature of altmetrics, which encompasses different types of uses and user groups engaging with research on social media.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"The Coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the Publication Output of a University"

Posted in Google and Other Search Engines, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Scholarly Metrics on March 21st, 2017

Sven E. Hug and Martin P. Braendle have self-archived "The Coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the Publication Output of a University."

Here's an excerpt:

This is the first in-depth study on the coverage of Microsoft Academic (MA). The coverage of a verified publication list of a university was analyzed on the level of individual publications in MA, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS). Citation counts were analyzed and issues related to data retrieval and data quality were examined. . . . MA surpasses Scopus and WoS clearly with respect to book-related document types and conference items but falls slightly behind Scopus with regard to journal articles. MA shows the same biases as Scopus and WoS with regard to the coverage of the social sciences and humanities, non-English publications, and open-access publications. Rank correlations of citation counts are high between MA and the benchmark databases. . . .Given the fast and ongoing development of MA, we conclude that MA is on the verge of becoming a bibliometric superpower. However, comprehensive studies on the quality of MA data are still lacking.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"A Data Citation Roadmap for Scientific Publishers"

Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Scholarly Metrics on January 26th, 2017

Helena Cousijn et al. have self-archived "A Data Citation Roadmap for Scientific Publishers."

Here's an excerpt:

This article presents a practical roadmap for scholarly publishers to implement data citation in accordance with the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (JDDCP), a synopsis and harmonization of the recommendations of major science policy bodies. It was developed by the Publishers Early Adopters Expert Group as part of the Data Citation Implementation Pilot (DCIP) project, an initiative of FORCE11.org and the NIH BioCADDIE program. The structure of the roadmap presented here follows the 'life of a paper' workflow and includes the categories Pre-submission, Submission, Production, and Publication. The roadmap is intended to be publisher-agnostic so that all publishers can use this as a starting point when implementing JDDCP-compliant data citation.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"CiteScore—Flawed but Still A Game Changer"

Posted in Scholarly Metrics on December 13th, 2016

Phil Davis has published "CiteScore—Flawed but Still A Game Change" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

Here's an excerpt:

The CiteScore metric is controversial because of its overt biases against journals that publish a lot of front-matter. Nevertheless, for most academic journals, CiteScore will provide rankings that are similar to the Impact Factor.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Does Evaluative Scientometrics Lose Its Main Focus on Scientific Quality by the New Orientation towards Societal Impact?"

Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Scholarly Metrics on December 9th, 2016

Lutz Bornmann and Robin Haunschild have published "Does Evaluative Scientometrics Lose Its Main Focus on Scientific Quality by the New Orientation towards Societal Impact?" in Scientometrics.

Here's an excerpt:

In this Short Communication, we have outlined that the current revolution in scientometrics does not only imply a broadening of the impact perspective, but also the devaluation of quality considerations in evaluative contexts. Impact might no longer be seen as a proxy for quality, but in its original sense: the simple resonance in some sectors of society. This is an alarming development, because fraudulent research is definitely of low quality, but is expected to have great resonance if measured in terms of altmetrics.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Altmetrics and Grey Literature: Perspectives and Challenges"

Posted in E-Prints, Open Access, Scholarly Metrics, Self-Archiving on December 2nd, 2016

Joachim Schöpfel and Hêlêne Prost have self-archived "Altmetrics and Grey Literature: Perspectives and Challenges."

Here's an excerpt:

The topic of our paper is the connection between altmetrics and grey literature. Do altmetrics offer new opportunities for the development and impact of grey literature? In particular, the paper explores how altmetrics could add value to grey literature, in particular how reference managers, repositories, academic search engines and social networks can produce altmetrics of dissertations, reports, conference papers etc. We explore, too, how new altmetric tools incorporate grey literature as source for impact assessment, and if they do. The discussion analyses the potential but also the limits of the actual application of altmetrics to grey literatures and highlights the importance of unique identifiers, above all the DOI.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Undercounting File Downloads from Institutional Repositories"

Posted in Digital Repositories, Institutional Repositories, Open Access, Scholarly Metrics, Self-Archiving on October 13th, 2016

Patrick Obrien et al. have published "Undercounting File Downloads from Institutional Repositories" in the Journal of Library Administration.

Here's an excerpt:

A primary impact metric for institutional repositories (IR) is the number of file downloads, which are commonly measured through third-party Web analytics software. Google Analytics, a free service used by most academic libraries, relies on HTML page tagging to log visitor activity on Google's servers. However, Web aggregators such as Google Scholar link directly to high value content (usually PDF files), bypassing the HTML page and failing to register these direct access events. This article presents evidence of a study of four institutions demonstrating that the majority of IR activity is not counted by page tagging Web analytics software, and proposes a practical solution for significantly improving the reporting relevancy and accuracy of IR performance metrics using Google Analytics.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

Outputs of the NISO Alternative Assessment Project

Posted in Scholarly Metrics, Standards on September 23rd, 2016

NISO has released Outputs of the NISO Alternative Assessment Project.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

The National Information Standards Organization has published NISO RP-25-2016, Outputs of the NISO Alternative Assessment Project. This recommended practice on altmetrics, an expansion of the tools available for measuring the scholarly impact of research in the knowledge environment, was developed by working groups that were part of NISO's Altmetrics Initiative, a project funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The document outlines altmetrics definitions and use cases, alternative outputs in scholarly communications, data metrics, and persistent identifiers in scholarly communications. This guidance was necessary because, before the project began, scholars had long expressed dissatisfaction with traditional measures of success, such as the Impact Factor, but needed standards relating to other viable assessment methods.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Citation Analysis with Microsoft Academic"

Posted in Google and Other Search Engines, Scholarly Metrics on September 21st, 2016

Sven E. Hug, Michael Ochsner, and Martin P. Braendle have self-archived "Citation Analysis with Microsoft Academic."

Here's an excerpt:

We explored if and how Microsoft Academic (MA) could be used for bibliometric analyses. First, we examined the Academic Knowledge API (AK API), an interface to access MA data. Second, we performed a comparative citation analysis of researchers by normalizing data from MA and Scopus. We found that MA offers structured and rich metadata, which facilitates data retrieval, handling and processing. In addition, the AK API allows retrieving histograms. These features have to be considered a major advantage of MA over Google Scholar. However, there are two serious limitations regarding the available metadata. First, MA does not provide the document type of a publication and, second, the 'fields of study' are dynamic, too fine-grained and field-hierarchies are incoherent. Nevertheless, we showed that average-based indicators as well as distribution-based indicators can be calculated with MA data. We postulate that MA has the potential to be used for fully-fledged bibliometric analyses.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Measuring Scientific Impact Beyond Citation Counts"

Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Scholarly Metrics on September 16th, 2016

Robert M. Patton, Christopher G. Stahl and Jack C. Wells have published "Measuring Scientific Impact Beyond Citation Counts" in D-Lib Magazine.

Here's an excerpt:

The measurement of scientific progress remains a significant challenge exasperated by the use of multiple different types of metrics that are often incorrectly used, overused, or even explicitly abused. Several metrics such as h-index or journal impact factor (JIF) are often used as a means to assess whether an author, article, or journal creates an "impact" on science. Unfortunately, external forces can be used to manipulate these metrics thereby diluting the value of their intended, original purpose. This work highlights these issues and the need to more clearly define "impact" as well as emphasize the need for better metrics that leverage full content analysis of publications.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level"

Posted in Scholarly Journals, Scholarly Metrics on September 8th, 2016

B. Ian Hutchins et al. have published "Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level" in PLoS Biology.

Here's an excerpt:

Despite their recognized limitations, bibliometric assessments of scientific productivity have been widely adopted. We describe here an improved method to quantify the influence of a research article by making novel use of its co-citation network to field-normalize the number of citations it has received. Article citation rates are divided by an expected citation rate that is derived from performance of articles in the same field and benchmarked to a peer comparison group. The resulting Relative Citation Ratio is article level and field independent and provides an alternative to the invalid practice of using journal impact factors to identify influential papers. To illustrate one application of our method, we analyzed 88,835 articles published between 2003 and 2010 and found that the National Institutes of Health awardees who authored those papers occupy relatively stable positions of influence across all disciplines. We demonstrate that the values generated by this method strongly correlate with the opinions of subject matter experts in biomedical research and suggest that the same approach should be generally applicable to articles published in all areas of science. A beta version of iCite, our web tool for calculating Relative Citation Ratios of articles listed in PubMed, is available at https://icite.od.nih.gov.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Scholarly Use of Social Media and Altmetrics: A Review of the Literature"

Posted in Scholarly Communication, Scholarly Journals, Scholarly Metrics, Social Media/Web 2.0 on August 31st, 2016

Cassidy R. Sugimoto et al. have self-archived "Scholarly Use of Social Media and Altmetrics: A Review of the Literature."

Here's an excerpt:

This review provides an extensive account of the state-of-the art in both scholarly use of social media and altmetrics. The review consists of two main parts: the first examines the use of social media in academia, examining the various functions these platforms have in the scholarly communication process and the factors that affect this use. The second part reviews empirical studies of altmetrics, discussing the various interpretations of altmetrics, data collection and methodological limitations, and differences according to platform. The review ends with a critical discussion of the implications of this transformation in the scholarly communication system.

Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works | Open Access Works | Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap


Page 1 of 612345...Last »

DigitalKoans

DigitalKoans

Digital Scholarship

Copyright © 2005-2017 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license.