Étiquette : research impact

Publié le

EU FP7 Research in Open Access Repositories …

EU FP7 Research in Open Access Repositories :

“Open access repositories are a reliable source of academic items that can be used for testing the capabilities of the webometric analysis. This paper deals with actions needed for extracting web indicators from bibliographic records in open access repositories, provides guidelines to support a further webometric study and presents the results of a preliminary web impact evaluation carried out over a sample of 1,386 EU FP7 output papers available from the OpenAIRE database. The European Commission project OpenAIRE aims, among other objectives, to provide impact measures to assess the research performance from repositories contents and, especially, of Special Clause 39 project participants within EU FP7. Using URL citations, title mentions and copies of titles as main web impact indicators, this study suggests that a priori the implementation of the mandatory clause SC39 to encourage open access to European research may be resulted indeed in a greater and more immediate web visibility of these papers.”

URL : http://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol1/Alvarez_EU_58.pdf

Publié le

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://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol1/Bar-Ilan_Beyond_98.pdf

Publié le

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

Publié le

La visibilité des revues scientifiques francophones sur le plan international : le cas des SIC et d’Études de Communication

“Les Sciences de l’Information et de la Communication sont une discipline spécifiquement française. Les anglo-saxons ont maintenus la différence entre, d’une part, la Library and Information Science et les Communication and Media Studies. Appartenant au champ des SIC la revue Études de Communication aborde à la fois des thématiques propres au champ de la LIS et au champ des media studies. La visibilité des revues francophones à l’international, dans un monde qui s’anglicise de plus en plus, est problématique. Quand le champ scientifique dans lequel s’inscrit une revue n’existe pas en-dehors de la francophonie cette problématique s’intensifie. Il s’agit ici de définir la notion de visibilité et ses enjeux, en général et dans le champ plus spécifique des SIC, de s’interroger sur la place du français dans le monde scientifique et d’envisager un cas pratique, celui d’Études de Communication, avec ses caractéristiques et ses solutions.”

URL : http://memsic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/mem_00741376

Publié le

In science “there is no bad publicity”: Papers criticized in technical comments have high scientific impact

Technical comments are special types of scientific publications whose aim is to correct or criticize previously published papers. Often, comments are negatively perceived by the authors of the criticized articles because believed to make the commented papers less worthy or trusty to the eyes of the scientific community.

Thus, there is a tendency to think that criticized papers are predestined to have low scientific impact. We show here that such belief is not supported by empirical evidence. We consider thirteen major publication outlets in science and perform a large-scale analysis of the citation patterns of criticized publications.

We find that commented papers have not only average citation rates much higher than those of non commented articles, but also unexpectedly over-populate the set of the most cited publications within a journal. Since comments are published soon after criticized papers, comments can be viewed as early indicators of the future impact of criticized papers.

Our results represent one the most clear observations of the popular wisdom of “any publicity is good publicity”, according to which success might follow from negative criticisms, but for which there have been very few empirical validations so far.

Our results go also beyond, touching core topics of research in philosophy of science, because they emphasize the fundamental importance of scientific disputes for the production and dissemination of knowledge.

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4997

Publié le

A measure of total research impact independent of…

A measure of total research impact independent of time and discipline :

“Authorship and citation practices evolve with time and differ by academic discipline. As such, indicators of research productivity based on citation records are naturally subject to historical and disciplinary effects. We observe these effects on a corpus of astronomer career data constructed from a database of refereed publications. We employ a simple mechanism to measure research output using author and reference counts available in bibliographic databases to develop a citation-based indicator of research productivity. The total research impact (tori) quantifies, for an individual, the total amount of scholarly work that others have devoted to his/her work, measured in the volume of research papers. A derived measure, the research impact quotient (riq), is an age independent measure of an individual’s research ability. We demonstrate that these measures are substantially less vulnerable to temporal debasement and cross-disciplinary bias than the most popular current measures. The proposed measures of research impact, tori and riq, have been implemented in the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System.”

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.2124

Publié le

Web Impact Factor WIF and Link Analysis of…

Web Impact Factor (WIF) and Link Analysis of Indian Institute of Technologies (IITs): A Webometric Study :

“This paper examines and explores the web impact factor through a webometric study of the present 16 Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) of India. Identifies the domain systems of the websites; analyzes the number of web pages and link pages, and calculates the simple web impact factor (WIF), self link web impact factor and external web impact factor of all the IIT. Also reflects that some IIT have higher number of web pages, but correspondingly their link pages are very small in number and websites fall behind in their simple, self link and external link web impact factor.”

URL : http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/789/