Bibliometrics in the library

  • 3,433 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
3,433
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5

Actions

Shares
Downloads
35
Comments
0
Likes
5

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Bibliometrics in the libraryChances and pitfallsWouter Gerritsma, Wageningen UR
  • 2. Evaluation cycle at universities Supervised by VSNU/QANU ● 6 year cycle for external peer reviews ● After 3 years midterm review ● Unit of analysis (in Wageningen): Graduate schools Citation analyses are not stipulated in the current Standard Evaluation Protocol. But have become mandatory at Wageningen UR, also at the social sciences department and for the research institutes
  • 3. SEP criteria quality (including international academic reputation and PhD training) productivity (the relationship between input and output) societal relevance (including valorisation) vitality and feasibility (the ability to react adequately to important changes in the environment).
  • 4. Current Research Information Systems Metis is a current research information system (CRIS) ● Information on all labour relations of all faculty and staff ● Information on all projects ● Information on all outputs (metadata of publications) ● Data entry at the chair group level ● Quality control by the library (inclusion of DOI)
  • 5. Repository or Institutional Bibliography? Wageningen Yield (WaY) is the repository of Wageningen UR ● Synchronized overnight with the updates from Metis ● WaY contains metadata descriptions of all Wageningen UR publication output ● WaY is our OA repository
  • 6. Repository or Institutional Bibliography? Wageningen Yield (WaY) is the repository of Wageningen UR ● Synchronized overnight with the updates from Metis ● WaY contains metadata descriptions of all Wageningen UR publication output ● WaY is our OA repository ● WaY is our tool for citation analyses
  • 7. Full screen image with title
  • 8. How do we compare numbers Scientist Z. Math has a publication from 2001 with 17 citations Scientist M. Biology has a publication from 2007 with 32 citations
  • 9. Baselines for Mathematics
  • 10. Baselines for Molecular Biology
  • 11. For a single publication Zee, F.P.v.d., G. Lettinga & J.A. Field (2001) Azo dye decolourisation by anaerobic granular sludge. Chemosphere 44:1169-1176. ● Citations from WoS: 94 Journal: Chemosphere Categorised by ESI in Environment/Ecology Baseline data for Environment/Ecology. ● Article from 2001 in Environment/ecology: ● On average: 19.36 citations; ● Top 10%: 44 citations; Top1%: 141 citations Relative Impact: 94 / 19.36 = 4.9
  • 12. Advanced bibliometric indicators Follow Moed (1995) as closely as possible; but..... Web of Science is used for citation data ● We can’t make corrections for self citations Essential Science Indicators for baseline data (World average, Top 10% and Top 1%) ● Limited number of research fields (22) We can determine the representativeness of the citation analysis!
  • 13. Representativeness
  • 14. Representativeness
  • 15. How to aggregate from a single publicationto an oeuvre? "CI" like indicator "MNCS" like indicator
  • 16. Sources of citation data Web of Science Scopus Google Scholar Microsoft Academic SciFinder; Psychinfo ArXiv; Citeseer other open access repositories Other altmetrics initiatives
  • 17. Web of Science Citation data (includes also citations from other databases on Wok) API to download citation data Baselines from ESI "New" product InCites ● Nijmegen has licensed InCites
  • 18. Scopus Citation data obtainable through an API Benchmarking with SciVal Strata Not yet fully developed
  • 19. Google Scholar Give them a few more years Coverage? Ghost citations Content duplication Benchmarking?
  • 20. Benchmarking in GS? Wouters, P. & R. Costas (2012). Users, narcissism and control. Utrecht, NL: SURFfoundation. http://www.surffoundation.nl/en/publicaties/Pages/Users_narcissism_control.aspx.
  • 21. Comment on GS by Jacsó Jacsó, P. (2011). Google Scholar duped and deduped – the aura of “robometrics”. Online Information Review, 35(1): 154-160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521111113632
  • 22. Altmetrics Quickly developing ● ScienceCard Wouters, P. & R. Costas (2012). Users, narcissism and control. ● Total-Impact Utrecht, NL: SURFfoundation. http://www.surffoundation.nl/ en/publicaties/Pages/Users_narcissism_control.aspx. ● Readermeter ● Microsoft Academic Search ● etc.
  • 23. Why in the library? Library is the functional manager of Metis / WaY because of wide experience with bibliographic metadata Library manages contracts with publisher(s) of external databases that are being used Library has experience in developing and maintaining large databases Library has ample experience in searching complicated databases such as Web of Science
  • 24. Advantage of using Metis / WaY Improvements in publication lists, etc. recorded Knowledge of, and experience with bibliometric analyses is better institutionalized Clarity / transparency for researchers Analysis of a single unit of the institute offers advantages for whole institute Better understanding of our own researchers ● We know where they publish ● We know what they cite ● We know something about their impact
  • 25. Library outreach Improvement of the (meta)data quality in the repository Many presentations for research groups during the preparation for peer reviews Presentations based on detailed studies of single groups Library gives advice on publication strategies for groups and individuals ● there is a huge demand for these presentations Developed writing & citing courses with graduate schools
  • 26. Closing the circle: Collection analysis With the coupling of publications with WoS We have gained insight in the relation ● Research group – Researchers – Publications – Reference list ● It is feasible to assign journal usage at faculty level, or more detailed (chair groups)
  • 27. Lessons learned Start small, gain experience Show you can pull it off How much is your university spending on CWTS? Invest those resources in your own systems
  • 28. Thank you!On the Web:@wowterwowter.netwww.slideshare.net/wowter