EASE

Tag: RESEARCH EVALUATION

  • B – Data authorship

    Bierer BE, Crosas M, Pierce HH. Data authorship as an incentive to data sharing. New England Journal of Medicine 2017;376:1684-1687
    (doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb1616595)

    The use of research data by persons other than those who originally gathered the data is termed “data sharing”. Data sharing creates an obligation for the original investigators who obtain funding, design studies, collect and analyze data, and publish results to make their curated data and associated metadata available to third parties. The authors believe that both as a matter of fairness and as a matter of providing an incentive for data sharing, the persons who initially gathered the data should receive appropriate and standardized credit that can be used for academic advancement, for grant applications, and in broader situations.
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb1616595

  • B – Review of altmetrics

    Gonzalez-Valiente CL, Pacheco-Mendoza J, Arencibia-Jorge R. A review of altmetrics as an emerging discipline for research evaluation. Learned Publishing 2016;29(4).229-238
    (doi: 10.1002/leap.1043)

    This article analyses the scientific production of publications on altmetrics as an emergent discipline for research evaluation with the aim to identify the investigative tendencies that characterize the subject. About 253 documents indexed by Web of Science and Scopus databases were retrieved, showing a growth in articles 2005–2015. Half of the publications come from the USA and the UK.

    The highest co-occurrence of terms was social media-altmetrics, followed by Twitter-altmetrics.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1043/full

  • B – Evolution of impact and productivity

    Sinatra R, Wang D, Deville P, et al. Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science 2016;354(6312)
    doi: 10.1126/science.aaf5239

    Are there quantifiable patterns behind a successful scientific career? Sinatra et al. analyzed the publications of 2,887 physicists, as well as data on scientists publishing in a variety of fields. They quantified the changes in impact and productivity throughout a career in science, finding that impact, as measured by influential publications, is distributed randomly within a scientist’s sequence of publications.
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239

  • B – ResearchGate

    Nicholas D, Clark D, Herman E. ResearchGate: reputation uncovered. Learned Publishing 2016;29(3):173-82
    (10.1002/leap.1035)

    ResearchGate (RG) is a scholarly social network possessing, probably, the most comprehensive set of reputational metrics and has the potential to supplant publishers as the prime deliverer of scholarly reputation. This study aims to assess RG’s reputational facilities and its conclusions are: RG provides a rich, albeit confusing, amount of reputational data; struggles with the deployment of alternative, engagement metrics, such as Q&A and follower data, which can lead to reputational anomalies; employs usage data in an especially effective manner; and leads the field in the way it engages with the scholar.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1035/full

  • B – If I tweet will you cite?

    Tonia T, Van Oyen H, Berger A, et al. If I tweet will you cite? The effect of social media exposure of articles on downloads and citations. International Journal of Public Health 2016;61(4):513-20
    (doi: 10.1007/s00038-016-0831-y)

    The authors investigated whether exposing scientific papers to social media (blog post, Twitter and Facebook) has an effect on article downloads and citations. Social media exposure did not have a significant effect on traditional impact metrics. However, other metrics may measure the added value that social media might offer to a scientific journal, such as wider dissemination.
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00038-016-0831-y

  • B – Quantity and/or quality?

    Sandström U, van den Besselaar P. Quantity and/or quality? The importance of publishing many papers. PLoS One 2016;11(11):e0166149
    (doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166149)

    Do highly productive researchers have significantly higher probability to produce top cited papers? Or do high productive researchers mainly produce a sea of irrelevant papers? This study investigates the relation between productivity and production of highly cited papers. Results show that there is not a strong correlation between productivity (number of papers) and impact (number of citations), that also holds for the production of high impact papers: the more papers, the more high impact papers.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5117611/

  • B – Citation analysis

    Foz CW, Paine CET, Sauterey B. Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals. Ecology and Evolution 2016;1-10
    (doi: 10.1002/ece3.2505)

    The authors examined the relationship between citations received and manuscript length, number of authors, and number of references cited for papers published in 32 ecology journals between 2009 and 2012. They found that longer papers, those with more authors, and those that cite more references are cited more. This is likely because longer papers contain more data and ideas and thus have more citable elements. There is also a perception among ecologists that shorter papers are more impactful.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.2505/full

  • B – Challenges in altmetrics

    Haustein, S. Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics 2016;108(1):413-423

    (doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9)

    This paper focuses on the current challenges for altmetrics. Heterogeneity, data quality and particular dependencies are identified as the three major issues and discussed in detail with an emphasis on past developments in bibliometrics. The heterogeneity of altmetrics reflects the diversity of the acts and online events, most of which take place on social media platforms. Data quality issues become apparent in the lack of accuracy, consistency and replicability of various altmetrics, which is largely affected by the dynamic nature of social media events. Furthermore altmetrics are shaped by technical possibilities.
    http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-016-1910-9

  • B – Publishing elite against impact factor

    Callaway E. Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature 2016;535(7611):210-211

    Senior staff at societies and leading journals want to end inappropriate use of impact factor. They say that the measure is a broad-brush indicator of a journal’s output and it should not be used as a proxy for the quality of any single article or its authors.
    http://www.nature.com/news/beat-it-impact-factor-publishing-elite-turns-against-controversial-metric-1.20224



     

  • B – Self-citation rates higher for men

    Singh Chawla D. Self-citation rates higher for men. Nature 2016;535:212

    Men cite their own papers 56% more than women on average, according to an analysis of 1.5 million studies published between 1779 and 2011. The analysis looked at papers across disciplines in the digital library JSTOR and found that men’s self-citation rate had risen to 70% more than women’s over the past two decades, despite an increase of women in academia in recent years. According to the study authors, men view their abilities more positively than women do and face fewer societal penalties for self-promotion than do women.
    http://www.nature.com/news/men-cite-themselves-more-than-women-do-1.20176

  • Badges for books

    Altmetric has enabled Badges for Books, for displaying how much attention a published book and its individual chapters have received. The badges are linked to ISBNs and record mentions in mainstream media, policy documents, reference managers, blogs, social media, and peer review platforms. The service launched on the Routledge Handbooks Online platform.

  • N – Badges for books

    Altmetric has enabled Badges for Books, for displaying how much attention a published book and its individual chapters have received. The badges are linked to ISBNs and record mentions in mainstream media, policy documents, reference managers, blogs, social media, and peer review platforms. The service launched on the Routledge Handbooks Online platform.