Article-level metrics at PLOS and beyond :
SPARC Europe’s Webcast: Jennifer Lin on Article Level Metrics from SPARC on Vimeo.
Étiquette : 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
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
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
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.
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
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