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

  • Hans Dillaerts le 1 August 2012 à 12 h 29 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: Book Citation Index, Books, , Journal Citation Reports, , Rankings, , , Social Sciences and Humanities, Thomson Reuters   

    Towards a Book Publishers Citation Reports. First approach using the Book Citation Index :

    « The absence of books and book chapters in the Web of Science Citation Indexes (SCI, SSCI and A&HCI) has always been considered an important flaw but the Thomson Reuters ‘Book Citation Index’ database was finally available in October of 2010 indexing 29,618 books and 379,082 book chapters. The Book Citation Index opens a new window of opportunities for analyzing these fields from a bibliometric point of view. The main objective of this article is to analyze different impact indicators referred to the scientific publishers included in the Book Citation Index for the Social Sciences and Humanities fields during 2006-2011. This way we construct what we have called the ‘Book Publishers Citation Reports’. For this, we present a total of 19 rankings according to the different disciplines in Humanities & Arts and Social Sciences & Law with six indicators for scientific publishers »

    URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7067

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 30 September 2010 à 17 h 38 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , Open Access Preprint Repository, , Peer-to-Peer Review, Quality Metric, Rankings, Reviewer Impact., , ,   

    Towards Scholarly Communication 2.0: Peer-to-Peer Review & Ranking in Open Access Preprint Repositories :

    « In this paper we present our unified peer-to-peer review model for Open Access preprint repositories. Its objective is to improve the efficiency and effectivity of digital scholarly communication. The key elements of this model are standardized quality assessment instruments, public and private communication channels, special rankings and novel incentives. The model allows scholars to proficiently evaluate both the manuscripts and their peer reviews. These scrutinized manuscripts and peer reviews will then be made available to the relevant parties. These standardized quality assessments allow for new quality metrics for papers and peer reviews. The Reviewer Impact, which represents the peer review proficiency and peer review output of scholars, is one such metric. The model includes diverse rankings for scholars to appear in to receive better odds of having their own manuscripts noticed, read, peer reviewed and cited. Their specific ranking is proportional to their Reviewer Impact and the overall quality of their manuscripts. The Open Access preprint repository model is a suitable foundation for our model because of its high degree of accessibility, but little to no certification of its deposited manuscripts. With this combination we envision a novel, Open Access, peer-to-peer scholarly communication model that functions independently of, but not incompatibly with, the traditional journal publishing model: Scholarly Communication 2.0. »

    URL : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1681478

    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