Mots-clefs: Bibliometrics Afficher/masquer les discussions | Raccourcis clavier

  • Hans Dillaerts le 20 June 2013 à 21 h 56 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Bibliometrics, cross-disciplinary research,   

    Using bibliometrics to support the facilitation of cross-disciplinary communication :

    « Given the importance of cross-disciplinary research (CDR), facilitating CDR effectiveness is a priority for many institutions and funding agencies. There are a number of CDR types, however, and the effectiveness of facilitation efforts will require sensitivity to that diversity. This article presents a method characterizing a spectrum of CDR designed to inform facilitation efforts that relies on bibliometric techniques and citation data. We illustrate its use by the Toolbox Project, an ongoing effort to enhance cross-disciplinary communication in CDR teams through structured, philosophical dialogue about research assumptions in a workshop setting. Toolbox Project workshops have been conducted with more than 85 research teams, but the project’s extensibility to an objectively characterized range of CDR collaborations has not been examined. To guide wider application of the Toolbox Project, we have developed a method that uses multivariate statistical analyses of transformed citation proportions from published manuscripts to identify candidate areas of CDR, and then overlays information from previous Toolbox participant groups on these areas to determine candidate areas for future application. The approach supplies 3 results of general interest:
    1) A way to employ small data sets and familiar statistical techniques to characterize CDR spectra as a guide to scholarship on CDR patterns and trends.
    2) A model for using bibliometric techniques to guide broadly applicable interventions similar to the Toolbox.
    3) A method for identifying the location of collaborative CDR teams on a map of scientific activity, of use to research administrators, research teams, and other efforts to enhance CDR projects. »

    URL : http://www.cals.uidaho.edu/toolbox/pres/WilliamsEtAl-UsingBiblioToFacilitateCDC-JASIST-2013.pdf

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 28 September 2012 à 12 h 27 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , Bibliometrics, ,   

    Analysis and visualization of the dynamics of research groups in terms of projects and co-authored publications. A case study of library and information science in Argentina :

    « Objective: The present study offers a novel methodological contribution to the study of the configuration and dynamics of research groups, through a comparative perspective of the projects funded (inputs) and publication co-authorships (output).

    Method: A combination of bibliometric techniques and social network analysis was applied to a case study: the Departmento de Bibliotecología (DHUBI), Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, for the period 2000-2009. The results were interpreted statistically and staff members of the department, were interviewed.

    Results: The method makes it possible to distinguish groups, identify their members and reflect group make-up through an analytical strategy that involves the categorization of actors and the interdisciplinary and national or international projection of the networks that they configure. The integration of these two aspects (input and output) at different points in time over the analyzed period leads to inferences about group profiles and the roles of actors.

    Conclusions: The methodology presented is conducive to micro-level interpretations in a given area of study, regarding individual researchers or research groups. Because the comparative input-output analysis broadens the base of information and makes it possible to follow up, over time, individual and group trends, it may prove very useful for the management, promotion and evaluation of science. »

    URL : http://hdl.handle.net/10760/17694

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 19 July 2012 à 21 h 00 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Bibliometrics, , , , ,   

    Article-level metrics at PLOS and beyond :

    SPARC Europe’s Webcast: Jennifer Lin on Article Level Metrics from SPARC on Vimeo.

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 18 July 2012 à 18 h 02 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , Bibliometrics   

    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

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 29 May 2012 à 18 h 41 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Bibliometrics, , , ,   

    Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web :

    « Traditionally, scholarly impact and visibility have been measured by counting publications and citations in the scholarly literature. However, increasingly scholars are also visible on the Web, establishing presences in a growing variety of social ecosystems. But how wide and established is this presence, and how do measures of social Web impact relate to their more traditional counterparts? To answer this, we sampled 57 presenters from the 2010 Leiden STI Conference, gathering publication and citations counts as well as data from the presenters’ Web « footprints. » We found Web presence widespread and diverse: 84% of scholars had homepages, 70% were on LinkedIn, 23% had public Google Scholar profiles, and 16% were on Twitter. For sampled scholars’ publications, social reference manager bookmarks were compared to Scopus and Web of Science citations; we found that Mendeley covers more than 80% of sampled articles, and that Mendeley bookmarks are significantly correlated (r=.45) to Scopus citation counts. »

    URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5611

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 27 May 2012 à 17 h 20 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , Bibliometrics, ,   

    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

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 14 May 2012 à 14 h 02 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Bibliometrics, Biblographic coupling, Clustering, Collaboration networks, Core documents, Countries, Emerging fields, Emerging topics, Hybrid clustering, International collaboration, Research topics,   

    Bibliometric methods for detecting and analysing emerging research topics :

    « This study gives an overview of the process of clustering scientific disciplines using hybrid methods, detecting and labelling emerging topics and analysing the results using bibliometrics methods. The hybrid clustering techniques are based on biblographic coupling and text-mining and ‘core documents’, and cross-citation links are used to identify emerging fields. The collaboration network of those countries that proved to be most active in the underlying disciplines, in combination with a set of standard indicators, form the groundwork for the bibliometric analysis of the detected emerging research topics. »

    URL : http://hdl.handle.net/10760/16947

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 3 May 2012 à 15 h 16 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Bibliometrics, research librarianship, social network analysis   

    Trends in Research Librarianship Literature: A Social Network Analysis of Articles :

    « The purpose of this article is to identify the bibliometric characteristics of research librarianship literature and to visualize relationships in research librarianship by means of social network analysis. It was found out that the majority (66%) of the articles had single authorship and College & Research Libraries is the prominent actor among the research librarianship journals. It was also observed that Peter Hernon is the most productive and cited author in the field. The findings of this study can be used by the research librarianship community to better understand their core literature. »

    URL : http://liber.library.uu.nl/publish/issues/2011-3_4/index.html?000554

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 6 March 2012 à 22 h 13 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , Bibliometrics,   

    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

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 19 December 2011 à 17 h 44 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Bibliometrics, , infodemiology, infometrics, medicine 2.0, , periodicals as topic, power law, , , , social media analytic,   

    Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact :

    « Background: Citations in peer-reviewed articles and the impact factor are generally accepted measures of scientific impact. Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter, blogs or social bookmarking tools provide the possibility to construct innovative article-level or journal-level metrics to gauge impact and influence. However, the relationship of the these new metrics to traditional metrics such as citations is not known.

    Objective: (1) To explore the feasibility of measuring social impact of and public attention to scholarly articles by analyzing buzz in social media, (2) to explore the dynamics, content, and timing of tweets relative to the publication of a scholarly article, and (3) to explore whether these metrics are sensitive and specific enough to predict highly cited articles.

    Methods: Between July 2008 and November 2011, all tweets containing links to articles in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) were mined. For a subset of 1573 tweets about 55 articles published between issues 3/2009 and 2/2010, different metrics of social media impact were calculated and compared against subsequent citation data from Scopus and Google Scholar 17 to 29 months later. A heuristic to predict the top-cited articles in each issue through tweet metrics was validated.

    Results: A total of 4208 tweets cited 286 distinct JMIR articles. The distribution of tweets over the first 30 days after article publication followed a power law (Zipf, Bradford, or Pareto distribution), with most tweets sent on the day when an article was published (1458/3318, 43.94% of all tweets in a 60-day period) or on the following day (528/3318, 15.9%), followed by a rapid decay. The Pearson correlations between tweetations and citations were moderate and statistically significant, with correlation coefficients ranging from .42 to .72 for the log-transformed Google Scholar citations, but were less clear for Scopus citations and rank correlations. A linear multivariate model with time and tweets as significant predictors (P < .001) could explain 27% of the variation of citations. Highly tweeted articles were 11 times more likely to be highly cited than less-tweeted articles (9/12 or 75% of highly tweeted article were highly cited, while only 3/43 or 7% of less-tweeted articles were highly cited; rate ratio 0.75/0.07 = 10.75, 95% confidence interval, 3.4–33.6). Top-cited articles can be predicted from top-tweeted articles with 93% specificity and 75% sensitivity.

    Conclusions: Tweets can predict highly cited articles within the first 3 days of article publication. Social media activity either increases citations or reflects the underlying qualities of the article that also predict citations, but the true use of these metrics is to measure the distinct concept of social impact. Social impact measures based on tweets are proposed to complement traditional citation metrics. The proposed twimpact factor may be a useful and timely metric to measure uptake of research findings and to filter research findings resonating with the public in real time. »

    URL : http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
c
Écrire un nouvel article
j
Prochain article/commentaire
k
Article/commentaire précédent
r
répondre
e
modifier
o
Afficher/masquer les commentaires
t
haut de page
l
se connecter
h
Afficher/masquer l'aide
shift + esc
Annuler