DOCSLIB.ORG

Using a Researcher Profile and Understanding the Impact of the Author’S Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Using a Researcher Profile and Understanding the Impact of the Author’S Research Using a Researcher Profile and Understanding the Impact of the Author’s Research Dju-Lyn Chng 11th May 2021 Importance of showcasing your research Discovery • Get noticed by potential collaborators • Enhance the reputation of yourself, your Assessment Analysis department and your institution • Demonstrate the breadth of your research to: • Hiring committees • Funding agencies • Tenure evaluators Outreach Publication • Identify researchers for mentorship or collaboration 2 Making sure you are noticed and not mixed up with someone else 3 What is Author disambiguation? Name ambiguity is a frequently encountered problem in the scholarly community: Also published as: • Avram Noam Chomsky • Different researchers • N. Chomsky ﻧﻌﻮم ي�ﺸﻮﻣﺴ� • publish under the same נועם חומסקי • .name • Individual researchers FACT: A mere hundred surnames still make up over 85% of China's 1.3 billion citizens. publish under many names. The top three—Wang, Li , and Zhang—cover more than 20% of the population. • Languages and cultural naming conventions introduce additional Author disambiguation is a process that aims challenges. to find all publications that belong to a given author and distinguish them from publications of other authors who share the same name. 4 What drives the need for author profiling systems? INDIVIDUALS RESEARCH PRODUCING INSTITUTIONS RESEARCH FUNDERS SCHOLARLY PUBLISHERS • Learn (e.g. get familiar • Showcase faculty expertise • Recruit grant • Recruit manuscript with someone else’s − Attract the attention of funders, reviewers reviewers work) industry, and media • Identify subject • Vet the publications • Find mentors − Demonstrate ROI to the public matter experts for record of submitting • Vet collaborators − Promote collaboration across board/advisory authors • Gain exposure, build a departments positions • Identify & vet career • Recruit the “best” candidates • Vet the publications editors/editorial board • Own their scholarly • See and assess the research activity record of grant members identity that is occurring within. applicants DISCOVERY Librarians support all of these stakeholders and often bear the burden of wrestling with ambiguous author data in systems. EVALUATION 5 Correctly getting noticed 6 Correctly getting noticed 7 8 9 10 Bringing it all together A unique experience for An easier way to unique author identifiers. manage profiles. Web of Science / Publons has a Web of Science Update your ORCID and corrections will will automatically unique Identifying number. Core Collection sync with Web of Science. Author Records Web of Science ResearcherID links (powered by Distinct Author Identification System) the disambiguated data across systems in a bidirectional relationship. Web of Science ResearcherID Creating a Publons profile will generate a Web of Science ResearcherID. Publons Update your Publons profile and Authors can adjust which Web of changes can be sent to ORCiD Science publications are theirs in - or - Publons and those changes are Update your ORCiD and changes automatically reflected in Web of can be sent to Publons. Science. 11 Is a set of output better than another? Insert footer 12 Current Forms of Assessing Impact: Bibliometrics Absolute Like for Like Normalization Measure of productivity Allow limited comparisons Put data in context & allow comparisons Number of Documents H-index Normalized Citation Impact Times cited Citation Impact Percentile Indicators Percent Cited Journal Impact Factor ESI Highly Cited Papers 13 Publication Level Metrics Our InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool provides many indicators based around citational analysis. The “Percentile in Subject Area” is one of these and it is now also providing context to the citations received by publications in the Web of Science. The “Percentile in Subject Area” will change on 28th May 2021. Current Definition: 0 is best, 100 is worst (lower the value, the better it is) DetailsRevised Are Definition Static (in May 28 release): 0 is worst, 100 is best (higherMetrics the value, Are the better Dynamic it is) Percentile This example is for publications in 2015, in the research field of Organic Chemistry. Calculation Each document is compared to their YEAR, CATEGORY (research field) and document type. Using this comparison, they are each given a set of normalised metrics. This figure is from a white paper ISI produced recently, which can be downloaded here. Additional information on how we use normalized indictors can be found here. The highest number of citations received by a publication was 462, lowest 0. The figure demonstrates how skewed the distribution is and how useful a percentile is. 16 Each purple node represents an article or group of articles. Its position Author Record Beamplot shows its year of publication (y-axis) and its citation percentile (x-axis). A beamplot is a type of graph that plots an author’s publications citation percentile values on a ‘beam’. The default time period shown is the last 10 years, this can be change to their whole career. They were proposed by Lutz Bornmann and Robin Haunschild of the Max Planck Institute and were supported by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in the Profiles, not Metrics (2018) report, as an alternative indicator to the H-index, as a measure of a researcher’s citation profile. We have now introduced them into Author Records in the Web of Science. They allow you to: View article performance in appropriate context See performance change over time The Median for all their publications is shown as a dotted vertical line. In Web of Science, a higher percentile value means better performance. A paper with a percentile of value of 99, is in the top 1% of ‘like’ publications. 17 Author Profiles Each document is compared to their YEAR and CATEGORY of A single records percentile publication. Using this comparison, they are each given a set of normalised Median percentile for the year metrics. A Beamplot allows one to visualise in a single figure Median percentile for the career the normalised percentile of every document a researcher has produced over the course of their career. Author Profiles Each document is compared to their YEAR and CATEGORY of publication. Using this comparison, they are each given a set of normalised metrics. A Beamplot allows one to visualise in a single figure the normalised percentile of every document a researcher has produced over the course of their career. Author Record Beamplot THINGS TO KNOW . Percentile values are sourced from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics (including ESCI data). Beamplots only include publications with the Web of Science document type, Article or Review. Percentiles are calculated for publications back to 1980. Current and previous year publications are excluded from the beamplot (due to low number of citations). Publications may be assigned more than one subject category. The category displayed is the highest performing. 20 Blog posts https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/blog/ A researcher’s complete guide to open access papers The literature review | your definitive guide Research paper search tips you'll wish you knew Three tips to save hundreds of hours writing research papers How to write a peer review How to find the right journal for your research (using actual data) Find top journals in a research field: a step-by-step guide Find and advance the hottest new research in your field, step-by-step Find the top authors in a research field: What you need to know Systematic review tips every librarian should know 21 Additional resources Web of Science Learning > Web of Science Academy > Events & Webinars > LibGuides > Videos > Web of Science Blog > Web of Science news hub > Researcher Recognition > 22 Thank you Dju-Lyn Chng, Regional Solution Consultant [email protected] clarivate.com © 2020 Clarivate. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Clarivate content, including by framing or similar means, is prohibited without the prior written consent of Clarivate. Clarivate and its logo, as well as all other trademarks used herein are trademarks of their respective owners and used under license..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Critical Reviews and Literature Reviews
    UMKC Writing Studio 816.235.1146 [email protected] www.umkc.edu/writingstudio Critical Reviews and Literature Reviews What does a critical review include? ◘ The main ideas or arguments in the book or article. Don’t feel you have to mention everything: part of being an effective evaluator is A critical being able to extract the most important ideas from a source. review is not just a ◘ Your own evaluation of the book or article. Don’t just accept the summary. author’s statements without question. Ask yourself such questions as: How effective is the author’s argument? Is it clearly presented and explained? Is it biased in any way? Reading a book or article for a critical review: 1. First, read the assignment carefully. Your instructor may ask, for instance, that you read the book/article in the context of concepts you have covered in class, or that you focus on specific aspects of the book in your critical review. You can use this information to help guide your reading. 2. Before you begin reading, look at the title, as well as the chapter titles or article subheadings, to get an idea of what the author will focus on. You might start forming ideas about what you expect the book/article will say, and then, as you read, decide whether the book/article fulfills your expectations, or whether it leaves important questions unanswered. 3. Read actively. You might want to skim the book/article first, and then go back and take notes (remember to copy down page numbers!). You’ll have two main purposes in your reading.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Framework to Reinforce Evidence Synthesis Features in Cloud-Based Systematic Review Tools
    applied sciences Article A Comprehensive Framework to Reinforce Evidence Synthesis Features in Cloud-Based Systematic Review Tools Tatiana Person 1,* , Iván Ruiz-Rube 1 , José Miguel Mota 1 , Manuel Jesús Cobo 1 , Alexey Tselykh 2 and Juan Manuel Dodero 1 1 Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Cadiz, 11519 Puerto Real, Spain; [email protected] (I.R.-R.); [email protected] (J.M.M.); [email protected] (M.J.C.); [email protected] (J.M.D.) 2 Department of Information and Analytical Security Systems, Institute of Computer Technologies and Information Security, Southern Federal University, 347922 Taganrog, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Systematic reviews are powerful methods used to determine the state-of-the-art in a given field from existing studies and literature. They are critical but time-consuming in research and decision making for various disciplines. When conducting a review, a large volume of data is usually generated from relevant studies. Computer-based tools are often used to manage such data and to support the systematic review process. This paper describes a comprehensive analysis to gather the required features of a systematic review tool, in order to support the complete evidence synthesis process. We propose a framework, elaborated by consulting experts in different knowledge areas, to evaluate significant features and thus reinforce existing tool capabilities. The framework will be used to enhance the currently available functionality of CloudSERA, a cloud-based systematic review Citation: Person, T.; Ruiz-Rube, I.; Mota, J.M.; Cobo, M.J.; Tselykh, A.; tool focused on Computer Science, to implement evidence-based systematic review processes in Dodero, J.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Including Grey Literature and Conducting Multivocal Literature Reviews in Software Engineering
    This is a pre-print of the paper that has been accepted for publication in the Information and Software Technology (IST) journal: www.journals.elsevier.com/information-and-software-technology Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering Vahid Garousi Michael Felderer Mika V. Mäntylä Information Technology Group University of Innsbruck, Austria & M3S, Faculty of Information Technology Wageningen University, Netherlands Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden and Electrical Engineering [email protected] [email protected] University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland [email protected] Abstract: Context: A Multivocal Literature Review (MLR) is a form of a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) which includes the grey literature (e.g., blog posts, videos and white papers) in addition to the published (formal) literature (e.g., journal and conference papers). MLRs are useful for both researchers and practitioners since they provide summaries both the state-of-the art and –practice in a given area. MLRs are popular in other fields and have recently started to appear in software engineering (SE). As more MLR studies are conducted and reported, it is important to have a set of guidelines to ensure high quality of MLR processes and their results. Objective: There are several guidelines to conduct SLR studies in SE. However, several phases of MLRs differ from those of traditional SLRs, for instance with respect to the search process and source quality assessment. Therefore, SLR guidelines are only partially useful for conducting MLR studies. Our goal in this paper is to present guidelines on how to conduct MLR studies in SE.
    [Show full text]
  • Researcher ID/Publons – 2019 Instructions
    Researcher ID/Publons – 2019 Instructions ResearcherID is has now been integrated into the Publons platform: https://publons.com/account/login/. Publons is similar to researcher ID and is a platform which records, verifies, and showcases peer review contributions of researchers. Publons information integrates with Web of Science or records imported from ORCID, EndNote or manual uploads and allows you to track citations to your research outputs that are indexed in Web of Science. Please note that publications that have been manually entered into your Publons from journals outside of Web of Science will not track your citation metrics. Your Account Existing Account If you already have an account for ResearcherID, or Web of Science, you can login at https://publons.com/account/login/ using the same username and password. The publications you previously added into ResearcherID have automatically be added into your Publons account. Create a New Account If you do not already have a ResearcherID, create a Publons account here: https://publons.com/account/register/. You will receive a ResearcherID overnight from Publons that you will be able to use to attach to your publications in Web of Science. Adding Publications Once logged into your account you can load your publications by importing them from Web of Science, ORCID account, EndNote Library or manually using identifiers such as DOI numbers. (Note that citation metrics won't be tracked for records that do not appear in Web of Science). Loading Web of Science publications Select “Publications” under My Records then select “Import Publications” Publons will automatically search Web of Science when you select “Import Publications” for publications that match the email addresses and publishing names you listed in your profile.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploratory Analysis of Publons Metrics and Their Relationship with Bibliometric and Altmetric Impact
    Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact José Luis Ortega Institute for Advanced Social Studies (IESA-CSIC), Córdoba, Spain, [email protected] Abstract Purpose: This study aims to analyse the metrics provided by Publons about the scoring of publications and their relationship with impact measurements (bibliometric and altmetric indicators). Design/methodology/approach: In January 2018, 45,819 research articles were extracted from Publons, including all their metrics (scores, number of pre and post reviews, reviewers, etc.). Using the DOI identifier, other metrics from altmetric providers were gathered to compare the scores of those publications in Publons with their bibliometric and altmetric impact in PlumX, Altmetric.com and Crossref Event Data (CED). Findings: The results show that (1) there are important biases in the coverage of Publons according to disciplines and publishers; (2) metrics from Publons present several problems as research evaluation indicators; and (3) correlations between bibliometric and altmetric counts and the Publons metrics are very weak (r<.2) and not significant. Originality/value: This is the first study about the Publons metrics at article level and their relationship with other quantitative measures such as bibliometric and altmetric indicators. Keywords: Publons, Altmetrics, Bibliometrics, Peer-review 1. Introduction Traditionally, peer-review has been the most appropriate way to validate scientific advances. Since the first beginning of the scientific revolution, scientific theories and discoveries were discussed and agreed by the research community, as a way to confirm and accept new knowledge. This validation process has arrived until our days as a suitable tool for accepting the most relevant manuscripts to academic journals, allocating research funds or selecting and promoting scientific staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Aflati Cum Sa Creat I Și Să Consolidați Un Profil Author ID Researcherid
    Aflați cum să creați și să consolidați un profil autor ResearcherID & ORCID Adriana FILIP Solutions Consultant EMEA [email protected] Februarie 2017 2 Search Discovery Web of Science ResearcherID Promote Research Write & EndNote Scientific Publish EndNote Online Publons Production Cycle ScholarOne Essential Science Indicators Evaluate Journal Citation Reports Results InCites Web Services Web of Science Core Collection 4 34,000+ reviste unice Web of Science Core Collection Science Citation Index Expanded Social Biological Abstracts 147 MILIOANE de înregistrări unice Sciences Citation Index Arts & Humanities Citation Index Emerging Sources Citation Index într-o rețea de mai mult de Book Citation Index Conference Proceedings Citation Index 1.3 MILIARDE de referințe citate 5 Prioritate pentru calitatea datelor ARTICOL DOMENII DE CERCETARE INDEXAREA REVISTELOR CLASIFICARE, EX. 252 DE DE LA UN CAPĂT LA ALTUL CATEGORII WOS REFERINȚE CITATE FINANȚARE AFILIERI CAPTURATE & UNIFICATE CAPTURATE PENTRU TOȚI AUTORI AGENȚII DE TOȚI ORGANIZAȚII REGIUNI FINANȚARE AUTORII 6 Web of Science data quality Indexes in the Web of Science Core Collection include: • Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) --1900-present • Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) --1900-present • Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) --1975-present • Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) --1990-present • Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH) --1990-present • Book Citation Index– Science (BKCI-S) --2005-present
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Reviews: a Guide
    Literature Reviews: A Guide The purpose of a literature review is to, as the name suggests, “review” the literature surrounding a certain topic area. The word “literature” means “sources of information” or “research.” The literature will inform you about the research that has already been conducted on your chosen subject. If you are going to propose your own study, as when writing a thesis, dissertation, or research proposal, your literature review must be relevant to the work you plan to do. A literature review is NOT an annotated bibliography. You will not start a new section each time you talk about a new work. Several works can and probably will be mentioned in the same paragraph. While an annotated bibliography only demonstrates how particular sources will be used in a study, a literature review also shows how the sources interact with each other. At the end of your literature review, you will provide a works cited, bibliography, or references page. The format will depend on your field. Tasks you may want to accomplish in your literature review: --Show where you think previous research has left gaps --Distinguish various theoretical strains, and specify which theory your work will be in line with, if you are proposing a study. --Define terms that will be important for your study, if you will be proposing. While specific requirements may differ depending on your discipline, professor, and assignment, there are some general guidelines that usually apply. As with any assignment, always check with your professor for you own specific requirements. A few general rules: • Do not procrastinate! Start working as early as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Coreviewing and Ghostwriting by Early Career Researchers in the Peer Review of Manuscripts Gary S. Mcdowell
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/617373; this version posted April 26, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. Co­reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts Gary S. McDowell 1,* , John Knutsen 2 , June Graham 3 , Sarah K. Oelker 3 and Rebeccah S. Lijek 3,* Author affiliations: 1 The Future of Research, Inc., Abington, MA 02351 2 Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 3 Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA 01075 Correspondence: *Email: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/617373; this version posted April 26, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. Abstract The goal of this study is to shed light on the involvement of early career researchers (ECRs) during peer review of manuscripts for publication in journals. In particular, we sought to better understand how commonly ECRs contribute ideas and/or text to peer review reports when they are not the invited reviewer (“co­review”), and how commonly ECRs do not receive named credit to the journal editorial staff for these scholarly efforts (“ghostwrite”). First, we evaluated 1,952 publications in the peer­reviewed literature generated by exhaustive search terms that combined synonyms of “early career researcher” and “peer re view” and found no previous studies about ECRs ghostwriting peer review reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Author Records and Author Search in Web of Science
    New Author Records and Author Search in Web of Science Pioneering the world of research for more than 50 years Bob Green Solution Specialist October 2019 Agenda 1. Why the Change? 2. What has Changed? 3. Features and Functionality 4. Workflows/Scenarios 5. FAQs 6. Additional Resources 2 Why the change? The Power of the Group “The Web of Science ✓ Help researchers track more of their impact and Group is on a journey own their online identity. of transformation and innovation to support ✓ Deliver the highest-quality disambiguated author a more holistic and data in Web of Science… and the world. researcher-centric workflow.” ✓ Bring the highest-quality author data into the Web of Science Group’s other solutions. ✓ Make the Web of Science Group’s solutions the most trusted resources for confident discovery of an author’s published work, as well as assessment of their output and associated impact. 4 What has changed? What has changed? Features will release in BETA We are enhancing the quality of • A fully re-imagined Author Search. author disambiguation and accessibility of author data in • A new Author Record view. Web of Science, while giving researchers ownership of their • Ability for Web of Science users to submit feedback Author Record via Publons. to correct publication records. • An enhanced author disambiguation algorithm that suggests author records and learns from user feedback. • Give researchers ability to claim ownership of their ‘Web of Science Author Record’ via Publons. 6 What is author disambiguation? Also published as: • Avram Noam Name ambiguity is a frequently encountered problem Chomsky in the scholarly community: • N.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating and Managing a Researcherid Account
    Creating and Managing a ResearcherID Account Fernando Torres Creating and Managing a ResearcherID Account As previously discussed, the rapid growth of scientific publications has led to an overload of information in specialized search engines. The problem with this rapid growth is the vast number of documents available for a particular topic and the authors' names. It is not strange that many authors can have the same name as an everyday occurrence, and there is also the problem of identity theft on platforms such as ResearchGate or Google Scholar. Thus, platforms such as ResearcherID have emerged to provide a unique identification number for researchers regardless of their current affiliation or name. 2 of 34 Creating and Managing a ResearcherID Account ResearcherID is a freely available resource for the global, multi-disciplinary scholarly research community. After registering, authors are assigned an individual ID number that stays with them throughout their careers, regardless of name changes or changes in institution affiliations. This system is used on Web of Science and other platforms with compatible IDs. ResearcherID differentiates authors with similar names and provides author profiles that further distinguish the authors and their professional and academic careers. 3 of 34 Creating and Managing a ResearcherID Account The platform allows creating an online profile to showcase the author's publication history and scholarly work, thus assuring an accurate record of output and attribution. It also provides a gateway for colleagues to quickly locate published work and identify a potential collaborator. To make the ResearcherID more inclusive globally, it includes ORCID in its system. ORCID provides a profile that helps solve author name ambiguity like ResearcherID and retrieves research products from university repositories, allowing integration with other profiles such as Scopus.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Literature Review
    Running head: LITERATURE REVIEW 1 A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources that provides an overview of a particular topic. It generally follows a discussion of the paper’s thesis statement or the study’s goals or purpose. Format your title page according to your university guidelines. *This sample paper was adapted by the Writing Center from Key, K.L., Rich, C., DeCristofaro, C., Collins, S. (2010). Use of Propofol and emergence agitation in children: A literature review. AANA Journal, 78(6). Retrieved from www.aana.com. Used by permission. LITERATURE REVIEW 2 Use of Propofol and Emergence Agitation in Children: A Literature Review In 1961, Eckenhoff, Kneale, and Dripps described the phenomenon of emergence agitation (EA), reporting signs of hyperexcitation in patients emerging from ether, cyclopropane, or ketamine anesthesia. EA during recovery from general anesthesia has been identified as a frequent problem in the pediatric population. In children, EA has been described as a mental disturbance that consists of confusion, hallucinations, and delusions manifested by moaning, restlessness, involuntary physical activity, and thrashing about in bed (Sikich & Lerman, 2004). The overall rate for EA in children is in the range of 10% to 67% (Aouad & Nasr, 2005), which includes a period of severe restlessness, disorientation, and/or inconsolable crying during anesthesia emergence (Cole, Murray, McAllister, & Hirschberg, 2002). EA was reported as a problem in general anesthesia recovery before the development of the modern inhalational agents (sevoflurane and desflurane), and EA has been shown to occur with the use of all anesthetic gases. The increased use of sevoflurane and desflurane in recent years has been associated with a higher incidence of EA compared with isoflurane and halothane.
    [Show full text]
  • Elevating the Impacts of Research in Agricultural Education
    Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2), 249-262 https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02249 Elevating the Impacts of Research in Agricultural Education James R. Lindner,1 Amy Harder2, and T. Grady Roberts3 Abstract Dissemination of research is a critical part of the research process. Researchers in agricultural education have long embraced this process. However, the Internet has changed the ways in which research is disseminated, with the potential for much broader impacts around the world. The purpose of this study was to provide a benchmark of the current impact of research in agricultural education by examining how journals and researchers in the field fare on commonly used research metrics. It was concluded that many of the common journals in agricultural education are not even listed in the indices that provide metrics to assess journals. It was also concluded that many researchers in agricultural education are not taking steps to provide public profiles of their research and thus do not have individual researcher metrics. In some ways, we are invisible to the broader scientific community. Practical suggestions are provided to elevate the reputations of our journals and the reputations of our researchers. Keywords: research; journals; metrics; impacts; academics Author Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James Lindner, Professor Agriscience Education, Auburn University, AL 36849; email: [email protected] Introduction There is perhaps nothing that defines and ties together the agricultural education discipline more than the concept of change. For our purposes, we are using agricultural education as an inclusive term to describe our broader discipline that includes faculty in teacher education, extension education, agricultural communications, and agricultural leadership.
    [Show full text]