Publishing for impact, VLAG phd week
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Publishing for impact, VLAG phd week

on

  • 1,684 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,684
Views on SlideShare
1,620
Embed Views
64

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
26
Comments
0

3 Embeds 64

http://www.scoop.it 52
http://www.linkedin.com 10
https://twitter.com 2

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Publishing for impact, VLAG phd week Publishing for impact, VLAG phd week Presentation Transcript

  • Publishing for impact Wouter Gerritsma, Wageningen UR Library Elements for a publication strategy
  • Publishing tips about:
  • Roadmap  Introduction  Why publish?  Where to publish?  Citation impact  Publishing tips
  • Introducing myself http://wowter.net http://twitter.com/wowter http://nl.linkedin.com/in/wowter wouter.gerritsma@wur.nl
  • Why do scientists publish? Source: Philippe MAB Terheggen. How to Publish Your Manuscript From title to references From submission to revision, Wageningen University and Research Center, 26 October 2010
  • What do scientists publish  Reports  Conference proceedings  Journal articles ● Scholarly journals (peer reviewed) ● Trade journals  Books ● Book chapters
  • Peer review  Editorial peer review  Single blind peer review  Double blind peer review  Open peer review Not only for publications, but also for funding or grant applications and above all research assessments exercises. Peer review is one of the corner stones of scientific progress. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/peer-review-guide-researchers
  • Where to publish?  Appropriate target journal? ● Journal scope ● Intended audience ● The speed of reviewing and publication
  • Where to publish?  A valued journal? ● Editorial board ● Acceptance rate ● Time to publication ● Journal circulation ● Visibility ● Journal performance
  • Journal performance measures (indicators)  Journal Citation Reports (JCR) ● a.o. standard Journal Impact Factors and 5-year Impact Factors  Scopus Journal Analyzer (SJA) ● Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) prestige metric based on the idea that „all citations are not created equal‟ ● Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) Measures contextual citation impact by „normalizing‟ citation values
  • IF in 2010 for Agricultural Systems
  • 50% of articles generate 90% of all cites Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314(7079): 497-502. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497
  • Database Coverage WoS/JCR/ESI Excellent Good Moderate Molecular biology & Biochemistry Applied physics & Chemistry Other Social Sciences Biological Sciences related to humans Biological Sciences related to plants & animals Humanities Clinical medicine Psychology & psychiatry Physics & Astronomy Social sciences related to medicine & health Mathematics / Engineering / Economics Source: Moed (2005)
  • Full screen image with title
  • How are we able to compare numbers?  Scientist Z. Math has a publication from 2003 with 17 citations  Scientist M. Biology has a publication from 2009 with 32 citations
  • Baselines for Mathematics
  • Baselines for Molecular Biology
  • Bibliometric indicators: An example 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
  • Baseline data to normalize citation data? Citations data source Baselines Web of Science ESI or InCites Scopus SciVal Strata Google Scholar none Propriatary A&I database none
  • H-index  Balance between productivity and citedness  To rule out the effect of one or two highly cited papers  Applicable to authors, journals, research groups, compounds, subjects etc…  But there are some serious doubts about robustness Waltman, L. & N. J. van Eck (2011). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(2):406-415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21678
  • Omnipresent h-index
  • In practice
  • Bibliometric reports
  • The actual publications and their impact are provided
  • Publications VLAG (Wageningen)
  • VLAG WoS publications 2007-2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Refereed articles390 367 402 446 513 530 593 WoS 369 345 385 424 489 501 552 95% 94% 96% 95% 95% 95% 93%
  • After excellent research, where should you publish?
  • Document type and article impact 2003- 2009, for Wageningen UR Document type Pubs RI T10(%T10) T1(%T1) Article 11212 1.62 2777(25%) 437( 4%) Review 705 4.45 418 (59%) 145(21%) Aggregate 11917 1.79 3195(27%) 582(5%) Source: Wageningen Yield, Feb. 2012
  • Journal selection and impact universities globally
  • Journal selection and impact universities globally
  • Increase in share of Q1 articles at WageningenUR
  • Journal selection affects Relative Impact
  • Journal selection affects Relative Impact 2010 2011 2003
  • Trends for VLAG (WUR) Py N %Q1 RI %T10 (T10) 2003 343 60% 1.7 18% (59) 2004 334 64% 1.63 16% (52) 2005 360 59% 1.61 23% (80) 2006 355 60% 1.59 18% (63) 2007 390 57% 1.85 26% (97) 2008 367 61% 1.72 22% (77) 2009 402 67% 2.24 30% (117) 2010 446 67% 2.68 30% (126) 2011 513 64% 2.6 28% (141) 2012 530 70% 2.89 35% (175) 2013 593 69%
  • Journal selection VLAG 2007-2012
  • Top journals for VLAG 2002-2009 Journal IMPACT Count NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 34.833 4 CELL 31.253 1 SCIENCE 29.162 2 NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY 22.672 2 JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 21.455 7 ENDOCRINE REVIEWS 18.562 1 LANCET 18.316 11 CELL METABOLISM 16.107 1 ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 15.516 2 TRENDS IN BIOCHEMICAL SCIENCES 14.273 2 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION 14.204 2 NATURE REVIEWS MICROBIOLOGY 13.989 2 GASTROENTEROLOGY 12.591 3 CIRCULATION 11.632 3 ARCHIVES OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY 11.207 1 ANNUAL REVIEW OF MICROBIOLOGY 10.902 1 EMBO JOURNAL 10.492 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 10.272 9 More journals at: http://edepot.wur.nl/163565
  • The impact factor Matthew effect The journal in which papers are published have a strong influence on their citation rates, as duplicate papers published in high-impact journals obtain, on average, twice as many citations as their identical counterparts published in journals with lower impact factors.. Larivière, V. and Y. Gingras (2010). The impact factor's Matthew Effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(2): 424-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21232
  • Where you publish matters most "Where you publish is the primary determinant of how many citations your work will receive in the future" Peng, T.-Q. & J.J.H. Zhu (2012). Where you publish matters most: A multilevel analysis of factors affecting citations of internet studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9): 1789-1803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22649
  • Final word on journal quality It is better to publish one paper in a quality journal than multiple papers in lesser journals. [...]. Try to publish in journals that have high impact factors; chances are your paper will have high impact, too, if accepted. Bourne, P. E. (2005). Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published. PLoS Computational Biology 1(5): e57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057
  • Networking
  • Cooperation is effective WTI2 report 2011 UNIV. Single Author address National copublication International copublication EUR 1.16 1.23 1.92 RUG 1.15 1.19 1.62 RUN 1.14 1.18 1.81 TUD 1.27 1.12 1.36 TUE 1.27 1.30 1.49 LEI 1.18 1.26 1.72 MAA 0.91 1.19 1.51 TUT 1.20 1.32 1.42 UU 1.83 1.28 1.74 UVA 0.98 1.20 1.67 TIU 1.09 0.98 1.19 VU 1.21 1.26 1.66 WUR 1.19 1.43 1.49 Avg 1.20 1.23 1.58
  • Research collaboration in Europe & USA Kamalski, J., & Plume, A. (2013). Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V. http://info.scival.com/research- initiatives/science-europe
  • Collaboration with corporate very effective Kamalski, J., & Aisati, M. h. (2013). International comparative benchmark of Dutch research performance in TKI themes: Food Safety research. A report prepared by Elsevier for Agentschap NL.
  • Cooperation... Teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge. Research is increasingly done in teams across nearly all fields. Teams typically produce more frequently cited research than individuals do, and this advantage has been increasing over time. Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact research, even where that distinction was once the domain of solo authors. Wuchty, S., B. F. Jones, et al. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827): 1036-1039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
  • University-industry collaboration and impact "The average scientific impact of university- industry papers is significantly above that of both university-only papers and industry-only papers" Lebeau, L. M., Laframboise, M. C., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2008). The effect of university-industry collaboration on the scientific impact of publications: The Canadian case, 1980-2005. Research Evaluation, 17(3), 227-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/095820208x331685
  • Collaboration leads to more authors per paper King, C. (2012). Multiauthor Papers: Onward and Upward. ScienceWatch Newsletter, July 2012. http://archive.sciencewatch.com/newsletter/2012/201207/multiauthor_papers/
  • Increasing no. of authors per publication Wageningen Graduate Schools Authors
  • Networking is important Start early, make use of Social Networking tools ● Facebook ● LinkedIn ● Social networks for scientists ● Academia.edu, Researchgate.net
  • Imagine what happens when Michael Müller tweets about his latest article
  • On using social media Melissa Terras' Blog
  • Consider the Wikipedia  For better or worse, people are guided to Wikipedia when searching the Web for biomedical information. So there is an increasing need for the scientific community to engage with Wikipedia to ensure that the information it contains is accurate and current. Logan, D.W., M. Sandal, P.P. Gardner, M. Manske & A. Bateman (2010). Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia. PLoS Comput Biol, 6(9): e1000941 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941
  • Self citations and more
  • Self citations The model [...] implies that external citations are enhanced by self-citations, so that we have the “chain reaction:” Larger size leads to more self- citations, which lead to more external citations. 11/28 van Raan, A. F. J. (2008). Self-citation as an impact-reinforcing mechanism in the science system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(10): 1631-1643.
  • More on references Articles that cite more references are in turn cited more themselves Webster, G. D., P. K. Jonason, et al. (2009). Hot Topics and Popular Papers in Evolutionary Psychology: Analyses of Title Words and Citation Counts in Evolution and Human Behavior, 1979 – 2008. Evolutionary Psychology 7(3): 348-362. http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep07348362.pdf To be the best, cite the best Borrowed from: Corbyn, Z. (2010). "To be the best, cite the best." Nature News, 13 October 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/news.2010.539 Reporting on the publication of Bornmann, L., F. de Moya Anegón, et al. (2010). Do Scientific Advancements Lean on the Shoulders of Giants? A Bibliometric Investigation of the Ortega Hypothesis. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13327 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013327.
  • More articles per research project?  Publishing more articles results in higher citation counts if the articles provide sufficient substantive content to other researchers. ● Beware of the ethical standards ● Bornmann looked at total citations, not to relative impact Bornmann, L. & H.-D. Daniel (2007). Multiple publication on a single research study: Does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8): 1100-1107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20531
  • PhD theses produced at Wageningen UR 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
  • PhD theses produced at Wageningen UR 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
  • What do PhD theses mean for Open Access at Wageningen UR  VLAG PhD students set out to publish 5.5 article per thesis  Finally 4.5 article per thesis gets published This represent  Preprints of 4.5 * 200 = 900 articles/year  ca. 36% of all peer reviewed Wageningen UR articles
  • Open Access publishing  Golden Road e.g. PLoS, BMC, SpringerOpen, Sage Open ● Directory of open access journals DOAJ (currently 9957 journals) ● Often author pays model; many society publishers for free  Delayed OA publishing ● Cambridge UP, Highwire press, many society publishers  Green Road : self-archiving in repositories e.g. Wageningen Yield (WaY)
  • Green Road: Deposit author versions to WaY See: http://edepot.wur.nl/169331 Send your final version of the article to: way.libray@wur.nl
  • Open Access Publishing  Open Access leads to more citations! ● Open access increases societal relevance ● Vital for Wageningen's international collaborators  Be aware of predatory publishers! ● Have a look at Beall's list
  • Publish your data!  Henneken et al. (2011) "articles with links to data result in higher citation rates than articles without such links" http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3618  Piwowar et al. (2007) "Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308  Also relevant in the view of the latest developments (KNAW)  Library assists in curating datasets
  • Wageningen UR Data Management Proof
  • Why is data management important  Good data management improves thinking and writing up your results  Data should be reproducible 5 years after publication (code of conduct)  It facilitates sharing of data with other researchers
  • Why is data management important  Good data management improves thinking and writing up your results  Data should be reproducible 5 years after publication (code of conduct)  It facilitates sharing of data with other researchers  As of April 2014, a Data Management Plan is mandatory for new PhD students
  • Sharing data increases impact "Publicly available data was significantly associated with a 69% increase in citations, independently of journal impact factor, date of publication, and author country of origin" Piwowar, H. A., Day, R. S., & Fridsma, D. B. (2007). Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate. PLoS ONE, 2(3), e308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308
  • More info on Data Management Plan  http://www.wageningenur.nl/library/dmp  Template for DMP
  • What is in a name?
  • Advertise yourself!
  • Omnipresent h-index 54 47 57
  • Claim your publications  ResearcherID (Web of Science)  Scopus Author ID (Scopus)  Google Scholar Citations  Mendeley Enserink, M. (2009). Scientific Publishing: Are You Ready to Become a Number? Science, 323(5922): 1662-1664 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.323.5922.1662  ORCID ● http://orcid.scopusfeedback.com/
  • Who is the author of this thesis?
  • On the inside
  • On her own publication list
  • Notable examples  A. Voragen,  A.G. Voragen,  A.G.J. Voragen,  F.G.J. Voragen,  F.G. Voragen  B.M.L. van Kemenade  L. van Kemenade  B.M.L. Verburg van Kemenade  L. Verburg van Kemenade
  • Use maximally 2 institutional names!
  • Science groups are not of interest
  • Get your affiliation right For the university: Chair group + Wageningen University Plant Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, P.O. box ..., 6700 HA Wageningen, The Netherlands For the institutes: Institute + Wageningen University & Research Centre Alterra, Wageningen University & Research Centre, P.O. box ..., 6700 HA Wageningen, The Netherlands
  • Thank you! http://viaf.org/viaf/285392263/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7274-0698 http://www.isni.org/0000000391572292 http://wu.academia.edu/WouterGerritsma http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-4161-2008 http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/wouter-gerritsma http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wouter_Gerritsma http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3iDBE-MAAAAJ http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/34373815 http://www.narcis.nl/person/info:eu-repo/dai/nl/33714253X http://tinyurl.com/7r67fmm http://www.slideshare.net/Wowter/ publishing-for-impact-vlag-phd-week-oct-2011