Veille dédiée aux Sciences de l'Information et des Bibliothèques // Collecting and Sharing research papers in Library and Information science ISSN 2429-3938
Universality of scholarly impact metrics:
“We present a method to quantify the disciplinary bias of any scholarly impact metric, and introduce a simple universal metric that allows to compare the impact of scholars across scientific disciplines.”
URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6339
Repositories in Google Scholar Metrics or what is this document type doing in a place as such? :
“The present paper analyzes GS Metrics, Google’s newest product aiming at ranking journals according to their H-Index. Specifically, we analyze GS Metrics’ decision of considering journals and repositories as equal and therefore, including them in the product. In this sense, the authors position themselves against this decision and provide several arguments of different nature warning against the shortcomings this product has. The first one is of a conceptual nature and is related to the definition of journal and repository. Secondly, they refer at the methodological issues mixing repositories and journals can bring out. Then, they deepen on many other flaws GS Metrics presents. Finally, GS Metrics and its possible use as an evaluation tool are discussed and possible solutions to its shortcomings are provided.”
URL : http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v16i1p4.html
Article-level metrics at PLOS and beyond :
SPARC Europe’s Webcast: Jennifer Lin on Article Level Metrics from SPARC on Vimeo.
Open Metrics for Open Repositories :
“Increasingly there is a need for quantitative evidence in order to help demonstrate the value of online services. Such evidence can also help to detect emerging patterns of usage and identify associated operational best practice. This paper seeks to initiate a discussion on approaches to metrics for institutional repositories by providing a high-level overview of the benefits of metrics for a variety of stakeholders. The paper outlines the potential benefits which can be gained from providing richer statistics related to the use of institutional repositories and also reviews related work in this area. The authors describe a JISC-funded project which harvested a large number of repositories in order to identify patterns of use of metadata attributes and summarise the key findings. The paper provides a case study which reviews plans to provide a richer set of statistics within one institutional repository as well as requirements from the researcher community. An example of how third-party aggregation services may provide metrics on behalf of the repository community is given. The authors conclude with a call for repository managers, developers and policy makers to be pro-active in providing open access to metrics for open repositories.”
URL : http://opus.bath.ac.uk/30226/
Creating and Curating the Cognitive Commons: Southampton’s Contribution :
“The Web is becoming humankind’s Cognitive Commons, where knowledge is created and curated collaboratively. We trace its origins from the advent of language around 300,000 years ago to a recent series of milestones to which the University of Southampton has contributed, helping Open Access (OA) Institutional Repositories (IRs), OA IR contents, and OA mandates to grow through the posting of the Subversive Proposal in 1994, the creation of CogPrints in 1997, the OpCit citation-linking project in 1999, the creation of the Eprints IR software in 2000, the Citebase citation-linking engine in 2001, the ROAR repository in 2002, the adoption and promotion of OA mandates (beginning with the ECS Southampton mandate, the world’s first, in 2002), the creation or the ROARMAP mandates registry in 2003, and the ongoing bibliography of the Open Access Impact Advantage since 2004.”
URL : http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21844/
Combining peer review and metrics to assess journals for inclusion in Scopus :
“Peer review has been in place for centuries as an accepted process to validate manuscripts submitted for publication in scientific journals. Yet a similarly rigorous assessment of content also happens a level up, when looking at the quality of journals that apply for indexing in bibliographic databases. Scopus, an abstract & citation database provided by Elsevier, indexing 18,000 scientific titles, is receiving an increasing number of title suggestions; in 2009 this grew to almost 5,000 in that year alone. Some of the suggested journals are dedicated to niche areas and/or are published in other languages than English. To ensure a fair and transparent evaluation of these titles and to address the rising interest in being indexed, Scopus redesigned its entire title evaluation process – basing it on a metrical scorecard and on the principles of peer review. By developing an online editorial system – the Scopus Title Evaluation Platform (STEP) – Scopus also created the prerequisite of an improved communication with publishers and editors about their journals.”
URL : http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2010/00000023/00000004/art00011