Tag Archives: bibliometric indicators

F1000 Mendeley and Traditional Bibliometric Indicators This…

F1000, Mendeley and Traditional Bibliometric Indicators :

« This article compares the Faculty of 1000 (F1000) quality filtering results and Mendeley usage data with traditional bibliometric indicators, using a sample of 1397 Genomics and Genetics articles published in 2008 selected by F1000 Faculty Members (FMs). Both Mendeley user counts and F1000 article factors (FFas) correlate significantly with citation counts and associated Journal Impact Factors. However, the correlations for Mendeley user counts are much larger than those for FFas. It may be that F1000 is good at disclosing the merit of an article from an expert practitioner point of view while Mendeley user counts may be more closely related to traditional citation impact. Articles that attract exceptionally many citations are generally disorder or disease related, while those with extremely high social bookmark user counts are mainly historical or introductory. »

URL : http://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Li_F1000_541.pdf

Commentaires fermés sur F1000 Mendeley and Traditional Bibliometric Indicators This…

23 novembre 2012 · 18 h 05 min

Google Scholar Metrics an unreliable tool for assessing…

Google Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals :

« We introduce Google Scholar Metrics (GSM), a new bibliometric product of Google that aims at providing the H-index for scientific journals and other information sources. We conduct a critical review of GSM showing its main characteristics and possibilities as a tool for scientific evaluation. We discuss its coverage along with the inclusion of repositories, bibliographic control, and its options for browsing and searching. We conclude that, despite Google Scholar’s value as a source for scien- tific assessment, GSM is an immature product with many shortcomings, and therefore we advise against its use for evalu- ation purposes. However, the improvement of these shortcomings would place GSM as a serious competitor to the other existing products for evaluating scientific journals. »

URL : http://digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/21540

Commentaires fermés sur Google Scholar Metrics an unreliable tool for assessing…

18 juillet 2012 · 18 h 02 min

Le classement de Leiden environnement scientifique et configuration…

Le classement de Leiden: environnement scientifique et configuration :

« Le classement de Leiden s’impose aujourd’hui comme une alternative pertinente et valable vis-à-vis de celui de Shanghai. De nombreux indicateurs font intervenir les caractéristiques propres aux champs disciplinaires et des calculs fondés sur le principe de distribution. Il est conçu par le centre CWTS de l’université néerlandaise de Leiden. »

« The Leiden Ranking is considered today as quite a pertinent and valuable alternative vs. the Shanghai Ranking. A significant number of indicators involve for instance Fields Citation Scores and data distribution. It is conceived by the CWTS of the University of Leiden – The Netherlands. »

URL : http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00696098

1 Comment

27 mai 2012 · 17 h 20 min

Which alternative tools for bibliometrics in an research…

Which alternative tools for bibliometrics in an research institute ? :

« Nowadays, bibliometrics is a frequently used tool in scientific and technical information, it can be useful to quantify scientific production and for collective or individual evaluations. Web of Science (Thomson ISI) and impact factor calculated by JCR are the better known references. We will underline the limits and setbacks of these overused indicators, especially the bias factor h. Other alternative tools are emerging today. Our presentation will focus on comparing all these products, and we will study their interests for librarians and researchers. »

« Aujourd’hui la bibliométrie est un outil fréquemment utilisé pour quantifier la production scientifique et aussi pour les évaluations des chercheurs et des institutions. Le WoK et le JCR pour le facteur d’impact sont des outils de référence. Nous voudrions souligner les limites de ces indicateurs, nous soulignerons les biais du facteur h. D’autres outils alternatifs émergent aujourd’hui. Cette communication analysera d’autres outils qui peuvent être utilisés en bibliométrie, nous en verrons les avantages et les inconvénients pour les documentalistes et les chercheurs. »

URL : http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00668741

Commentaires fermés sur Which alternative tools for bibliometrics in an research…

Filed under status

The visibility of Wikipedia in scholarly publications …

The visibility of Wikipedia in scholarly publications :

« Publications in the Institute of Scientific Information’s (ISI, currently Thomson Reuters) Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier’s Scopus databases were utilized to collect data about Wikipedia research and citations to Wikipedia. The growth of publications on Wikipedia research, the most active researchers, their associated institutions, academic fields and their geographic distribution are treated in this paper. The impact and influence of Wikipedia were identified, utilizing cited work found in (WoS) and Scopus. Additionally, leading authors, affiliated institutions, countries, academic fields, and publications that frequently cite Wikipedia are identified. »

URL : http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3492/3031

Commentaires fermés sur The visibility of Wikipedia in scholarly publications …

Filed under status