Open Access: Redefining Research Impact

USQ International Open Access Week Event

Open Access and Research Conference 2013 Day 1

Author Profile Tools

 The following are essential for ensuring that you can accurately measure and demonstrate your impact.

 

 

 

• Provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher.
• Link your ORCID to your other identifiers (such as Scopus or ResearcherID or LinkedIn).

 

• Harzing's Publish or Perish Software searches Google Scholar for publications. Make sure all your work is indexed there!
• Check who is citing your publications, graph citations over time, and check several citation metrics.
• You can also make your profile public, so that it may appear in Google Scholar results when people search for your name
• Particularly useful for those researchers in the humanities, business, or Social Sciences 

 

•  Create a profile to display citation metrics and show relationship between and among disciplines, content & authors.

 

• Good for Scientists (if your work is indexed in Web of Science)
• You must register for a ReseacherID 
•  you are assigned a unique identifier mean you can manage your publication lists, track citation counts and h-index, identify potential collaborators and avoid author misidentification /duplication.

•  Scopus automatically generates an author ID. All the documents in Scopus belonging to an author will be listed in the author's details (including numbers of citations received, affiliations, h-index).

Scholarly Reputation

Kim Williams, Librarian and general artistic awesome, on Enhancing scholarly reputation using metrics & name management for good, not evil

My absolute fave slide reads "Don't be Evil!"

Enhancing scholarly reputation (using metrics and name management for good, not evil) from Kim Williams

An Alphabet of Indexes

Bibliometric indices
  
A-index

- the average number of citations received by those publications in an author's Hirsch core

AR-index

- the square root of the sum of all age-weighted citation counts over all papers that contribute to the h-index

AWCR, AWCRpA and AW-index

-  the number of citations to an entire body of work, adjusted for the age of each individual paper

c-index


- Measures the quality of papers by the distance between the author and anyone who cites his/her paper. The considered pool is a pool of citations, regardless of the paper to which those citations refer the quality function is given by the collaboration distance between the citing and the cited papers

g-index

- aims to improve on the h-index by giving more weight to highly-cited articles. 

If you rank an authors articles by citation counts, the g-index is the (unique) largest number so that the top g articles received (together) at least g² citations.

h-index

- A scientist has index h if h of his/her Np papers have at least h citations each, and the other (Np − h) papers have no more than h citations each

h2-index 

- if the maximal n is n = 5 then at least 5 papers have attracted 25
citations each, or more, while fewer than 6 have attracted at least 36 citations each


hc-index (contemporary h-index)


- adds an age-related weighting to each cited article, giving less weight to older articles

hI-index

- divides the standard h-index by the average number of authors in the articles that contribute to the h-index, in order to reduce the effects of co-authorship

hI,norm

-  first normalizes the number of citations for each paper by dividing the number of citations by the number of authors for that paper, then calculates h_I,norm as the h-index of the normalized citation counts

hI,annual

- average annual increase in the individual h-index

hmindex

-uses fractional paper counts instead of reduced citation counts to account for shared 
authorship of papers, and then determines the multi-authored h_m index based on the resulting effective rank of the papers using undiluted citation counts.

m-index

- h/n, where n is the number of years since the first published paper of the researcher

s-index

- accounting for the non-entropic distribution of citations


Thanks to Wikipedia and Harzing's Publish or Perish
 Also:

Bras-Amor os, Maria & Domingo-Ferrer, Josep & Torra, Vencenc. A Bibliometric Index Based on the Collaboration Distance between Cited and Citing Authors, http://crises2-deim.urv.cat/docs/publications/journals/555.pdf

Burrell,Quentin L. On the h-index, the size of the Hirsch core and Jin's A-index, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 1, No. 2, April 2007, Pages 170-177, ISSN 1751-1577, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.01.003. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157707000314)

Burrell, Quentin L. On Hirsch’s h, Egghe’s g and Kosmulski’s h(2), Scientometrics, Vol. 79, No. 1 (2009) Pages 79–91, ISSN  DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0405-3

Egghe, Leo. Theory and practice of the g-index, Scientometrics, Vol. 69, No 1 (2006), pp. 131-152.

Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508025 , v5 29 Sep 2005

H-index explained

We hear a lot about the H-index, sometimes called the Hirsch index or Hirsch number after Jorge E. Hirsch, the guy who made it up.

The h-index attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of the published work of a scholar. So, quality and quantity.

It is sometimes applied to the productivity and impact of a group of scientists (such as a department,  university or country), and sometimes to a scholarly journal.

How is it calculated and what does it actually mean?
 
The h-index:

A scientist has index h if h of his/her N_p papers have at least h citations each, and the other (N_p-h) papers have no more than h citations each.

Well, if you list all of an author's publications from most cited to least cited, and number them, there will be a point where the number in the list is greater than the number of citations for that article, like this:

Paper 6 only has 4 citations, so this researcher's h-index is 5.

There are about a million problems with the h-index. It is still regarded as the single best measure for scholarly impact.
Some of the many things that can make the h-index misleading are:

• It doesn't take into account very highly cited papers. For example, another scholar could have a h-index of five, but have each of their top 5 papers cited only 5 times!
• The h-index does not account for the number of authors of a paper. It gets counted as your paper even if you are one of 10 authors.
• The h-index does not account for the typical number of citations in different fields.
• The h-index means that scientists with a short career (fewer publications) are at a disadvantage, no matter how influential one paper might be
• The h-index does not consider the context of citations
• The h-index can be manipulated through self-citations

To compensate for these flaws (and more) a whole alphabet of indexes have been introduced to take into account things like very highly cited papers, early career researchers' impact, etc.

Next time we will look at some of these, and how they might be useful to researchers whose h-index is not so flash on its own.

Journal Impact Metrics for Dummies...

Before I even start -  Journal level metrics are not an accurate measure of journal quality.
What they, are, though, is a useful measure of journal impact and prestige... so we need to take them into account when considering publishing anything.

JIF - Journal Impact Factor – “measures” how often articles in journals are cited.

Or, the average number of citations in that year that a paper published in a particular journal in the previous two years receives.

E.g. the 2010 IF is the average number of citations received in 2010 for 2008 and 2009 papers

• JIF  can be found using Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports

 

SNIP - Source Normalised Impact per Paper – “measures” contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field

Citation potential is shown to vary not only between subject categories or disciplines but also between different “types” of journals within the same subject category.

E.g. basic journals vs. applied/clinical journals

• SNIP can be found using Scopus Journal Analyzer

And my personal favourite...

SJR - Scientific Journal Ranking– “measures” the prestige of a journal based on which journals have cited from it, and which journals it cites (and how many times this occurs)

“…based on the transfer of prestige from a journal to another one; such prestige is transferred through the references that a journal do to the rest of the journals and to itself.”

• SJR can be found using Scopus Journal Analyzer, or going directly to the SCImago journal ranking webpage

Stay tuned for more Basic Bibliometrics for Librarians! Baby-steps, baby-steps...

Next post... "H-index for Dummies"

Beginners' Bibliometrics?

Are you wondering how bibliometrics affect academics and institutions? Would you like to help create publication plans, impact reports, and more?
Introducing the new series...

Basic Bibliometrics for Librarians! (or Bibliometrics in baby-steps)

There are so many people wanting to know more about Bibliometrics, Impact, and other research support services, that I thought I would start a series of posts with some very short quick  intros to, well, some stuff.

I have learned so much over the past few months I just thought I'd put a few things out there for others. Let me know if there is actually any interest... If you have suggested topics, post them in the comments and I'll start scheduling some future posts.

So, what are Bibliometrics? 

Bibliometrics are methods of statistically analysing information. That's all.

Increasingly, bibliometrics are being used as a measure of research impact or research influence. This can affect ranking and funding of authors and of institutions. That's why we need to know about it.


A common example of bibliometrics is the use of citation analysis - for example - how many times a researcher's work has been cited in key literature.  
Citation analysis is used in searching for materials and judging its quality. 

Some data that is used for citation measurement includes:

• Number of times an author is cited
• Number of times an article is cited
• Number of articles published
• Number of articles published in a journal each year
• Number of journals in a subject area
• Half-life of journals
• Cited half-life of journals

Citation measurement is not perfect because:

• No single data source is comprehensive. 
• Publication dates can affect results.
• Frequency of a journal can also affect results.
• An article may be cited because it is really dodgy.
• Commercial products used for citation counts do not consider website sources, repositories or open source resources.
• Some articles might be widely read by individuals who never publish.
• Only a small number of articles are highly cited and these are found in a small number of journals (and fields)

Thanks to Macquarie University Library for some of this info...

Next post will be.... Journal Impact for Dummies.

Politics

The following was actually a much longer conversation:

Anonymous co-worker 'a': "So-and-so did such-and-such and then we all had to do the whole thing again"
Me: "Really? Oh dear."
Anonymous onlooker 'x': "Oh my God. I never knew the Library had so much politics. It's like Game of Thrones."
Me: "Yeah, except without be-headings and boobs"
Anonymous co-worker 'a': "Well we have boobs."
Me: "Just not naked."

So, basically, nowhere near as much fun.

It got me thinking, though, about the politics in our workplaces, and how they affect what we do. At the end of my last post I mentioned the need for strong leadership. My thoughts keep coming back to the idea of "library leadership" as a theme.

Recently I moved from a very hierarchical workplace. Now I am working in a comparatively flat structure where people seem to be clambering all over one another.

In my previous workplace, I had the pleasure of having an incredibly wonderful boss. He listened to our ideas, supported staff to do the best they could, and encouraged me to fulfill my dreams both personally and professionally. He was a natural leader. He also did not play politics.

How do I create this in my current workplace? How can we become leaders without stabbing someone else in the back? How can I create a truly supportive workplace culture?

Changes and Role Ambiguity

I realise that it has been an issue for awhile, but as it has raised it's head again, I felt I needed to sit down on the edge of your bed and have a talk with you.
There appears to be some changes happening, and I just don't want you to be unprepared for the future.

So, obviously I'm talking about the changing role of Librarians and Libraries and the uncertainty that comes a long with that.
I am going to quote the abstract of a research article here:
"Survey of 547 public library reference librarians compared to a similar study of teachers indicates that: 35% of librarians experienced burnout; burnout was high where role ambiguity and role conflict were present; role variable use in predicting burnout was statistically significant"

Sound familiar? ' you feeling like being a librarian in the digital age is wearing you down?
Now, like a good librarian should, I am going to give you the bibliographic information of the article...
Birch, Nancy. Perceived Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and Reference Librarian Burnout in Public Libraries. Library and Information Science Research, v8 n1 p53-65 Jan-Mar 1986

I'm sorry... what was the year published? 1986? You read it right.

What about this one by Liz Burke:
The future role of librarians in the virtual library environment. - Published in the Australian Library Journal over 11 years ago.

It's worth a read, by the way.

Librarians have always done the same thing, and will continue to do it into the future: Connect people with information. What librarians need is good learning networks and strong leadership. They need to have the discussions about what they are doing and how they do it best, and why.

New Librarians' Symposium 6

In February I went to NLS6 to talk about Social Media. Not just to say that "all the cool kids are doing it and so should we", but to show how to do it so that it has maximum effect. It is not enough to just have an account. The tool is not effective without super social media mastery.
So, how do you get support to invest time (and therefore money) in creating and maintaining relationships and networks via social media? Creating "the willing" is the first step.

More importantly: 
In a world where anyone can post anything online, libraries cannot participate in social media without letting go of the idea that they can control everything that is said about them. Often, libraries are part of larger institutions and bound by their rules. 

 How do we push the boundaries? 
How do we let go of the idea of the library as a "dispenser of knowledge" and join the dialogue?

View presentation here
Audio of the presentation is available here

Librarian in Limbo

Where are we when we are not working?

Librarians are people who often identify strongly with their profession. What do you identify with that is not your profession? Please leave comments below.