DOCSLIB.ORG

The Altmetrics Collection

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Altmetrics Collection Overview The Altmetrics Collection Jason Priem1, Paul Groth2*, Dario Taraborelli3 1 School of Information & Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America, 2 Department of Computer Science and The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 3 The Wikimedia Foundation, San Francisco, California, United States of America Introduction methods to gather evidence of broader them–tracks with potential to show infor- impacts and provide more detail about the mal paths of influence with unprecedented What paper should I read next? Who science system: tracking acknowledge- speed and resolution. Many of these tools should I talk to at a conference? Which ments [10], patents [11], mentorships offer open APIs, supporting large-scale, research group should get this grant? [12], news articles [8], usage in syllabuses automated mining of online activities and Researchers and funders alike must make [13], and many others, separately and in conversations around research objects daily judgments on how to best spend their various combinations [14]. The emer- [21]. limited time and money–judgments that gence of the Web, a ‘‘nutrient-rich space Altmetrics [22,23] is the study and use are becoming increasingly difficult as the for scholars’’ [15], has held particular of scholarly impact measures based on volume of scholarly communication in- promise for new filters and lenses on activity in online tools and environments. creases. Not only does the number of scholarly output. Webometrics researchers The term has also been used to describe scholarly papers continue to grow, it is have uncovered evidence of informal the metrics themselves–one could propose joined by new forms of communication impact by examining networks of hyper- in plural a ‘‘set of new altmetrics.’’ from data publications to microblog posts. links and mentions on the broader Web Altmetrics is in most cases a subset of To deal with incoming information, [16–18]. An important strand of webo- both scientometrics and webometrics; it is scholars have always relied upon filters. metrics has also examined the properties a subset of the latter in that it focuses more At first these filters were manually com- of article download data [7,19,20]. narrowly on scholarly influence as mea- piled compendia and corpora of the The last several years, however, have sured in online tools and environments, rather literature. But by the mid-20th century, presented a promising new approach to than on the Web more generally. filters built on manual indexing began to gathering fine-grained impact data: track- Altmetrics may support finer-grained break under the weight of booming maps of science, broader and more postwar science production. Garfield [1] ing large-scale activity around scholarly products in online tools and environments. equitable evaluations, and improvements and others pioneered a solution: automat- to the peer-review system [24]. On the ed filters that leveraged scientists own These tools and environments include, among others: other hand, the use and development of impact judgments, aggregating citations altmetrics should be pursued with appro- as ‘‘pellets of peer recognition.’’ [2]. N social media like Twitter and Facebook priate scientific caution. Altmetrics may These citation-based filters have dra- face attempts at manipulation similar to matically grown in importance and have N online reference managers like CiteU- Like, Zotero, and Mendeley what Google must deal with in web search become the tenet of how research impact ranking. Addressing such manipulation is measured. But, like manual indexing 60 N collaborative encyclopedias like Wiki- may, in-turn, impact the transparency of years ago, they may today be failing to pedia altmetrics. New and complex measures keep up with the literature’s growing N blogs, both scholarly and general- may distort our picture of the science volume, velocity, and diversity [3]. audience system if not rigorously assessed and Citations are heavily gamed [4–6] and N scholarly social networks, like Research- correctly understood. Finally, altmetrics are painfully slow to accumulate [7], and Gate or Academia.edu may promote an evaluation system for overlook increasingly important societal N conference organization sites like La- scholarship that many argue has become and clinical impacts [8]. Most importantly, overly focused on metrics. they overlook new scholarly forms like nyrd.com datasets, software, and research blogs that Growing numbers of scholars are using Scope of this Collection fall outside of the scope of citable research these and similar tools to mediate their The goal of this collection is to gather an objects. In sum, citations only reflect formal interaction with the literature. In doing so, emerging body of research for the further acknowledgment and thus they provide only a they are leaving valuable tracks behind study and use of altmetrics. We believe it is partial picture of the science system [9]. Scholars may discuss, annotate, recom- mend, refute, comment, read, and teach a Citation: Priem J, Groth P, Taraborelli D (2012) The Altmetrics Collection. PLoS ONE 7(11): e48753. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0048753 new finding before it ever appears in the formal citation registry. We need new Editor: Christos A. Ouzounis, The Centre for Research and Technology, Hellas, Greece mechanisms to create a subtler, higher- Received October 1, 2012; Accepted October 4, 2012; Published November 1, 2012 resolution picture of the science system. Copyright: ß 2012 Priem et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, The Quest for Better Filters provided the original author and source are credited. The scientometrics community has not Funding: These authors have no support or funding to report. been blind to the limitations of citation Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. measures, and has collectively proposed * E-mail: [email protected] PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 November 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 11 | e48753 The Altmetrics Collection greatly needed, as important questions N Validation of models of scientific The current collection includes articles regarding altmetrics’ prevalence, validity, discovery/recommendation based on that address many of these areas. It will distribution, and reliability remain incom- altmetrics publish new research on an ongoing basis, pletely answered. Importantly, the present N Qualitative research describing the and we hope to see additional contribu- collection, which has the virtue of being scholarly use of online tools and tions appear in the coming months. We online and open access, allows altmetrics environments look forward to building a foundation of researchers to experiment on themselves. N Empirically-supported theory guiding early research to support this new field. The collection’s scope includes: altmetrics’ use Author Contributions N Statistical analysis of altmetrics data N Other research relating to scholarly sources, and comparisons to estab- impact in online tools and environ- Wrote the paper: PG JP DT. lished sources ments. N Metric validation, and identification of biases in measurements References 1. Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes to science: a iour. Journal of Documentation 50: 165–196. 18. Vaughan L, Shaw D (2005) Web citation data for new dimension in documentation through asso- doi:10.1108/eb026929. impact assessment: a comparison of four science ciation of ideas. Science 123: 108–111. 11. Pavitt K (1985) Patent statistics as indicators of disciplines. Journal of the American Society for 2. Merton RK (1988) The Matthew Effect in innovative activities: Possibilities and prob- Information Science 56: 1075–1087. Science, II. ISIS 79: 606–623. lems. Scientometrics 7: 77–99. doi:10.1007/ 19. Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, Chute R 3. Tenopir C, King D (2008) Electronic journals and BF02020142. (2009) A principal component analysis of 39 changes in scholarly article seeking and reading 12. Marchionini G, Solomon P, Davis C, Russell T scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE 4. patterns. DLib Magazine 14. Available: http:// (2006) Information and library science MPACT: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022. www.dlib.org/dlib/november08/tenopir/ A preliminary analysis. Library and Information 20. Kurtz MJ, Eichhorn G, Accomazzi A, Grant CS, 11tenopir.html. Science Research 28: 480–500. Demleitner M, et al. (2005) The bibliometric 4. Falagas M, Alexiou V (2008) The top-ten in 13. Kousha K, Thelwall M (2008) Assessing the properties of article readership information. journal impact factor manipulation. Archivum impact of disciplinary research on teaching: An Journal of the American Society for Information Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 56: automatic analysis of online syllabuses. Journal of Science 56: 111–128. 223–226. doi:10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5. the American Society for Information Science 21. Priem J, Hemminger BH (2010) Scientometrics 5. Wilhite AW, Fong EA (2012) Coercive Citation in and Technology 59: 2060–2069. doi:10.1002/ 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on Academic Publishing. Science 335: 542–543. asi.20920. the social Web. First Monday 15. Availa- doi:10.1126/science.1212540. 14. Martin BR, Irvine J (1983) Assessing basic ble:http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ 6. The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The Impact research?: Some partial indicators of scientific ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874/2570. Factor Game. PLoS Med 3: e291. doi:10.1371/ # journal.pmed.0030291. progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy 12: 22. jasonpriem (2010) I like the term articlelevelmetrics, 7. Brody T, Harnad S, Carr L (2006) Earlier Web 61–90. doi:16/0048-7333(83)90005-7. but it fails to imply *diversity* of measures. Lately, I’m usage statistics as predictors of later citation 15. Cronin B, Snyder HW, Rosenbaum H, Martin- liking #altmetrics. Available: https://twitter.com/#!/ impact. Journal of the American Society for son A, Callahan E (1998) Invoked on the Web. jasonpriem/status/25844968813.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Altmetrics” Using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook
    Pre-Print Version Altmetrics of “altmetrics” using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google-plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki Saeed-Ul Hassan, Uzair Ahmed Gillani [email protected] Information Technology University, 346-B Ferozepur Road, Lahore (Pakistan) Abstract: We measure the impact of “altmetrics” field by deploying altmetrics indicators using the data from Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google- plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki during 2010- 2014. To capture the social impact of scientific publications, we propose an index called alt-index, analogues to h-index. Across the deployed indices, our results have shown high correlation among the indicators that capture social impact. While we observe medium Pearson’s correlation (ρ= .247) among the alt-index and h-index, a relatively high correlation is observed between social citations and scholarly citations (ρ= .646). Interestingly, we find high turnover of social citations in the field compared with the traditional scholarly citations, i.e. social citations are 42.2% more than traditional citations. The social mediums such as Twitter and Mendeley appear to be the most effective channels of social impact followed by Facebook and Google-plus. Overall, altmetrics appears to be working well in the field of “altmetrics”. Keywords: Altmetrics, Social Media, Usage Indicators, Alt-index Pre-Print Version Introduction In scholarly world, altmetrics are getting popularity as to support and/or alternative to traditional citation-based evaluation metrics such as impact factor, h-index etc. (Priem et. al., 2010). The concept of altmetrics was initially proposed in 2010 as a generalization of article level metrics and has its roots in the #altmetrics hashtag (McIntyre et al, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Publish Or Perish: a Dilemma for Academic Librarians? W
    Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern Library Faculty Publications Faculty Research and Publications 5-1999 Publish or Perish: A Dilemma for Academic Librarians? W. Bede Mitchell Georgia Southern University, [email protected] Mary Reichel Appalachian State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/lib-facpubs Part of the Higher Education Commons, and the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Mitchell, W. Bede, Mary Reichel. 1999. "Publish or Perish: A Dilemma for Academic Librarians?." College and Research Libraries, 60 (3): 232-243. doi: 10.5860/crl.60.3.232 https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/lib-facpubs/7 This article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Research and Publications at Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Library Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 232 College & Research Libraries May 1999 Publish or Perish: A Dilemma For Academic Librarians? W. Bede Mitchell and Mary Reichel This study examines the influence of scholarly requirements on librar­ ians’ ability to earn tenure or continuous employment. After a literature review, the authors present the results of a survey of research, doctoral, and master’s-level institutions. Of the 690 responding institutions, 54.3 percent employ tenure-track librarians. Of these, more than 60 percent require some scholarship and 34.6 percent encourage it. At these 374 institutions, 92.2 percent of librarians who underwent tenure review dur­ ing a three-year period were approved. The authors summarize survey information on librarians not granted tenure as well as those believed by directors to have resigned to avoid tenure review.
    [Show full text]
  • The Opencitations Data Model
    The OpenCitations Data Model Marilena Daquino1;2[0000−0002−1113−7550], Silvio Peroni1;2[0000−0003−0530−4305], David Shotton2;3[0000−0001−5506−523X], Giovanni Colavizza4[0000−0002−9806−084X], Behnam Ghavimi5[0000−0002−4627−5371], Anne Lauscher6[0000−0001−8590−9827], Philipp Mayr5[0000−0002−6656−1658], Matteo Romanello7[0000−0002−7406−6286], and Philipp Zumstein8[0000−0002−6485−9434]? 1 Digital Humanities Advanced research Centre (/DH.arc), Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna fmarilena.daquino2,[email protected] 2 Research Centre for Open Scholarly Metadata, Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna 3 Oxford e-Research Centre, University of Oxford [email protected] 4 Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam [email protected] 5 Department of Knowledge Technologies for the Social Sciences, GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences [email protected], [email protected] 6 Data and Web Science Group, University of Mannheim [email protected] 7 cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne [email protected] 8 Mannheim University Library, University of Mannheim [email protected] Abstract. A variety of schemas and ontologies are currently used for the machine-readable description of bibliographic entities and citations. This diversity, and the reuse of the same ontology terms with differ- ent nuances, generates inconsistencies in data. Adoption of a single data model would facilitate data integration tasks regardless of the data sup- plier or context application. In this paper we present the OpenCitations Data Model (OCDM), a generic data model for describing bibliographic entities and citations, developed using Semantic Web technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract and Index and Web Discovery Services IEEE Partners
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract and Index and Web Discovery Services IEEE Partners Introduction This document is intended to provide a general overview of the abstract and indexing services and web discovery services that take in IEEE content. While this report is intended to provide readers with information on IEEE content indexed and in what service, there are several things to keep in mind: Services identified in this report do not cover everything in IEEE’s Xplore Digital Library either because IEEE does not provide all content to these services, or because only certain content was selected by a partner. Some services add and delete titles regularly, or include only select articles, in order to maintain a database that is relevant to their audience. While IEEE may provide a data feed for a particular subscription package (noted in the tables below), partners are not required to index all content. Most partners update their products at varying intervals and many Abstract and Indexing Services do not include corrected or updated article information. As a result, and given that these services and our agreements with these partners can and do change, readers of this report are encouraged to contact Krista Thom, Publishing Relations Program Specialist at [email protected] with specific questions. Abstract & Indexing Services Abstract and indexing services maintain databases, often subject-specific, which users can search to find relevant content. The data included in these services may be peer-reviewed journals, books, reports, and other types of content. Unlike web scale discovery services, these services collect metadata (including abstracts) from publishers and other organizations into large repositories or indexes.
    [Show full text]
  • 445 Publishing Trends of Journals with Manuscripts in Pubmed Central
    445 ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION DOI: dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.457 Publishing trends of journals with manuscripts in PubMed Central: changes from 2008–2009 to 2015–2016 Lauren Topper, PhD; Diane Boehr, MLS See end of article for authors’ affiliations. Objective: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy mandates that all articles containing NIH-funded research must be deposited into PubMed Central (PMC). The aim of this study was to assess publishing trends of journals that were not selected for the National Library of Medicine (NLM) collection but contain NIH-funded articles submitted to PMC in compliance with the public access policy. In addition, the authors investigated the degree to which NIH-funded research is published in journals that NLM does not collect due to concerns with the publishers. Methods: We analyzed bibliographic data from the NIH Manuscript Submission system for journals that were not selected for the NLM collection from August 2015 to August 2016. Publications (n=738) were analyzed by language, publishing country, publishing format, and subject, and the results were compared to a similar study of 2008–2009 data. In addition, publications were analyzed by whether their publishers are collected by NLM, as determined by transparency and adherence to publishing best practices. Results: Only a few differences were found between the studies. Most notably, while both studies revealed that most journals were not selected for the NLM collection because they were out of scope (i.e., not biomedical), we noted an increase in 2015–2016 in biomedical journals containing NIH-funded articles that were not added to the collection due to concerns with the publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Disagreements and Pernicious Pragmatism: Pluralism, Value Argumentation, and the U.S
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 9 May 18th, 9:00 AM - May 21st, 5:00 PM Moral disagreements and pernicious pragmatism: Pluralism, value argumentation, and the U.S. health care debate John Rief University of Pittsburgh Matthew Paul Brigham James Madison University Bill Balthrop Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Rief, John; Brigham, Matthew Paul; and Balthrop, Bill, "Moral disagreements and pernicious pragmatism: Pluralism, value argumentation, and the U.S. health care debate" (2011). OSSA Conference Archive. 53. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA9/papersandcommentaries/53 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Moral disagreements and pernicious pragmatism: Pluralism, value argumentation, and the U.S. health care debate JOHN JOSEPH RIEF Department of Communication, Institute for Clinical Research Education University of Pittsburgh 4200 5th Avenue, Cathedral of Learning 1117, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 United States of America [email protected] MATTHEW PAUL BRIGHAM Department of Communication Studies James Madison University 54 Bluestone Drive, MSC 2106, Harrisonburg, VA 22807-001 United States of America [email protected] ABSTRACT: This paper suggests some important revisions to Perelman’s approach to resolving major value-based disagreements in pluralist political cultures by analyzing a critical exemplar—the national health care debate in the United States—in which political and economic expediency have justified with- holding rights from citizens despite their recognition by government officials.
    [Show full text]
  • Tipping Points: Cancelling Journals When Arxiv Access Is Good Enough
    Tipping points: cancelling journals when arXiv access is good enough Tony Aponte Sciences Collection Coordinator UCLA Library ASEE ELD Lightning Talk June 17, 2019 Preprint explosion! Brian Resnick and Julia Belluz. (2019). The war to free science. Vox https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/3/18271538/open- access-elsevier-california-sci-hub-academic-paywalls Preprint explosion! arXiv. (2019). arXiv submission rate statistics https://arxiv.org/help/stats/2018_by_area/index 2018 Case Study: two physics journals and arXiv ● UCLA: heavy users of arXiv. Not so heavy users of version of record ● Decent UC authorship ● No UC editorial board members 2017 Usage Annual cost Cost per use 2017 Impact Factor Journal A 103 $8,315 ~$80 1.291 Journal B 72 $6,344 ~$88 0.769 Just how many of these articles are OA? OAISSN.py - Enter a Journal ISSN and a year and this python program will tell you how many DOIs from that year have an open access version2 Ryan Regier. (2018). OAISSN.py https://github.com/ryregier/OAcounts. Just how many of these articles are OA? Ryan Regier. (2018). OAISSN.py https://github.com/ryregier/OAcounts. Just how many of these articles are OA? % OA articles from 2017 % OA articles from 2018 Journal A 68% 64% Journal B 11% 8% Ryan Regier. (2018). OAISSN.py https://github.com/ryregier/OAcounts. arXiv e-prints becoming closer to publisher versions of record according to UCLA similarity study of arXiv articles vs versions of record Martin Klein, Peter Broadwell, Sharon E. Farb, Todd Grappone. 2018. Comparing Published Scientific Journal Articles to Their Pre-Print Versions -- Extended Version.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Scholar Document Analysis at Scale
    Semantic Scholar Document Analysis at Scale Miles Crawford, Director of Engineering Outline ● Introduction to the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Semantic Scholar ● Research at Semantic Scholar ● Creating www.semanticscholar.org ● Other resources for researchers Introduction to AI2 and S2 “AI for the common good” Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence Mosaic Aristo Euclid Common Sense Knowledge Machine Reading and Math and Geometry and Reasoning Question Answering Comprehension AllenNLP PRIOR Semantic Scholar Deep Semantic NLP Visual Reasoning AI-Based Academic Platform Knowledge Semantic Scholar: Vision & Strategy Semantic Scholar makes the world's scholarly knowledge easy to survey and consume. Semantic Scholar: Vision & Strategy Differentiation: S2 is dramatically better at surveying, extracting, and helping researchers consume the most relevant information from the world's research Scale: Attract and retain a significant and sustainable share of academic search traffic Impact on research with AI: Work towards a “Wright Brothers” moment for research through research on novel AI techniques that are prototyped with millions of active users semanticscholar.org Research at Semantic Scholar Research at S2: Three Levels of Analysis Paper Relationships Macro Paper: Extract meaningful structures Figures Tables Topics Relations Neural Networks Omniglot Backpropagation Results C-peptide [contraindicated with] Diabetes Mellitus The addition of MbPA reaches a test perplexity of 29.2 which is, to the authors’ knowledge, state-of-the-art at time of writing. Peters et al. ACL 2017 -- Semi-supervised Sequence Tagging with Bidirectional Langua… Ammar et al. SemEval 2017 -- Semi-supervised End-to-end Entity and Relation Extrac… Siegel et al. JCDL 2018 -- Extracting Scientific Figures with Distantly Supervised Neural… Paper: Extract meaningful structures Relationships: Establishing Connections Ontology Matching uses method should cite UMLS Discovered KB Ammar et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientometrics As an Important Tool for the Growth of the Field of Learning Analytics
    (2014). Scientometrics as an Important Tool for the Growth of the Field of Learning Analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(2), 1‐4. Scientometrics as an Important Tool for the Growth of the Field of Learning Analytics Negin Mirriahi, Dragan Gasevic, Phil Long and Shane Dawson Editors, Journal of Learning Analytics ABSTRACT: This article introduces the special issue from SoLAR’s Learning Analytics and Knowledge conference. Learning analytics is an emerging field incorporating theory and practice from numerous disciplines to investigate how learner interactions with digital artefacts can provide actionable data to the learner herself, and educators about the learning process. As the field continues to expand there is a timely opportunity to evaluate its ongoing maturation. This evaluation could be in part informed by regular scientometric analyses from both the Journal and Conference publications. These analyses can collectively provide insight into the development of learning analytics more broadly and assist with the allocation of resources to under‐represented areas for example. KEYWORDS: Special issue, learning analytics, research, practice, Society for Learning Analytics Research, SoLAR, LAK’13 1 EDITORIAL We would like to dedicate this issue to our dear colleague and friend Erik Duval from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. Erik has been key figure in the development of the Society for Learning Analytics Research as both executive member and prominent researcher advancing the field. At LAK’14 Indianapolis, USA, Erik informed us that he was unable to attend the conference as he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma1. Despite undergoing a difficult medical treatment, Erik has maintained his unfailing level of energy, sense of humour and passion – traits which capture the hearts of those he interacts with2.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonprofit Policy Forum
    NONPROFIT POLICY FORUM EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Dennis R. Young, Atlanta, GA MANAGING EDITOR Linda Serra SENIOR EDITORIAL BOARD Alan J. Abramson, Fairfax, VA Helmut Anheier, Berlin Andrea Bassi, Bologna Elizabeth T. Boris, Washington, D.C. Gemma Donnelly-Cox, Dublin Philippe Eynaud, Paris James Ferris, Los Angeles, CA Robert Fischer, Cleveland, OH Benjamin Gidron, Rishon LeZion Virginia A. Hodgkinson, Washington, D.C. Kevin Kearns, Pittsburgh, PA Michael Layton, Grand Rapids, MI Eliza Lee, Hong Kong Michael Meyer, Vienna Myles McGregor-Lowndes, Brisbane Mariko Nishimura, Tokyo Marta Reuter, Stockholm Mark Rosenman, Cincinnati, OH James Allen Smith, New York, NY Melissa Stone, Minneapolis, MN Simon Teasdale, Glasgow Isabel Vidal, Barcelona Filip Wijkström, Stockholm Naoto Yamauchi, Suita Dennis R. Young, Atlanta, GA ABSTRACTED/INDEXED IN Baidu Scholar · Cabells Journalytics · Chronos Hub · CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) · CNPIEC: cnpLINKer · Dimensions · DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) · EBSCO (relevant databases) · EBSCO Discovery Service · EconBiz · ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences) · Genamics JournalSeek · Google Scholar · IBR (International Bibliography of Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humani- ties and Social Sciences) · IBZ (International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences) · J-Gate · JournalTOCs · KESLI-NDSL (Korean National Discovery for Science Leaders) · Microsoft Academic · MyScienceWork · Naver Academic · Naviga (Softweco) · Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers · Primo Central (ExLibris) · ProQuest (relevant databases) · Publons · QOAM (Quality Open Access Market) · ReadCube · Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) · SCImago (SJR) · SCOPUS · Semantic Scholar · Sherpa/RoMEO · Summon (ProQuest) · TDNet · Ulrich‘s Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb · WanFang Data · Web of Science: Emerging Sources Citation Index · WorldCat (OCLC) · Yewno Discover.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1803.10713V2 [Cs.DL] 6 Apr 2021 the Impact of Those Authors That Cite It
    CERN-TH-2018-066 Biblioranking fundamental physics (updated to 2021/1/1) Alessandro Strumiaa, Riccardo Torreb;c a Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Universit`adi Pisa, Italy b CERN, Theory Division, Geneva, Switzerland c INFN, sezione di Genova, Italy Abstract Counting of number of papers, of citations and the h-index are the simplest bibliometric indices of the impact of research. We discuss some improvements. First, we replace citations with individual ci- tations, fractionally shared among co-authors, to take into account that different papers and different fields have largely different average number of co-authors and of references. Next, we improve on citation counting applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among papers. Being time-ordered, this reduces to a weighted counting of citation de- scendants that we call PaperRank. We compute a related AuthorRank applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among authors. These metrics quantify the impact of an author or paper taking into account arXiv:1803.10713v2 [cs.DL] 6 Apr 2021 the impact of those authors that cite it. Finally, we show how self- and circular- citations can be eliminated by defining a closed market of Citation-coins. We apply these metrics to the InSpire database that covers fundamental physics, presenting results for papers, authors, journals, institutes, towns, countries, and continents, for all-time and in recent time periods. Contents 1 Introduction2 2 Ranking papers7 2.1 PaperRank . .7 2.2 PaperRank of papers: results . .8 2.3 PaperRank as the number of citations-of-citations . 10 2.4 Top-referred (recent) papers . 11 2.5 Paper metrics: correlations .
    [Show full text]
  • Visualizing Citation and Authorship Relations for Finding Reviewers
    1 ReviewerNet: Visualizing Citation and Authorship Relations for Finding Reviewers Mario Salinas, Daniela Giorgi, and Paolo Cignoni Abstract—We propose ReviewerNet, an online, interactive visualization system aimed to improve the reviewer selection process in the academic domain. Given a paper submitted for publication, we assume that good candidate reviewers can be chosen among the authors of a small set of relevant and pertinent papers; ReviewerNet supports the construction of such set of papers, by visualizing and exploring a literature citation network. Then, the system helps to select reviewers that are both well distributed in the scientific community and that do not have any conflict-of-interest, by visualising the careers and co-authorship relations of candidate reviewers. The system is publicly available, and it has been evaluated by a set of experienced researchers in the field of Computer Graphics. Index Terms—Scholarly data visualization, bibliometric networks, expert finding. F 1 INTRODUCTION HE number of digital academic documents, either newly laborations. Every member of the community has its own T published papers or documents resulting from digitiza- approach to reviewer finding, which usually involves bibli- tion efforts, grows at a very fast pace: the Scopus digital ographic research, and frequent visits to public repositories repository counts more than 70 million documents and like DBLP [8] and researchers’ home pages. In any case, one 16 million author profiles [1]; the Web of Science plat- has to confront possibly large collections of data to make form has more than 155 million records from over 34,000 decisions, and a user may easily get lost after following a journals [2]; Microsoft Academic collects about 210 million few links.
    [Show full text]