• Save
Finding the future ACS National Meeting 3 28 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Finding the future ACS National Meeting 3 28 2012






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NoDerivs License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

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

Finding the future ACS National Meeting 3 28 2012 Finding the future ACS National Meeting 3 28 2012 Presentation Transcript

  • Using research analytical tools with journal article databases and social media data to identify high-impact research leaders and programs Elizabeth Brown Scholarly Communications and Library Grants Officer Binghamton University Libraries March 28, 2012 ebrown@binghamton.eduSpring 2012 ACS National MeetingDivision of Chemical Information (CINF)Libraries and Institutional Research Evaluation
  • Knowledge is always evolvingSource: Map Maker: Guilllaume De LIsle; Title: LAmerique Septentrionale Dressee sur les Observations de Mrs. de lAcademie Royale des Sciences . . . Rue des Canettes prez de St. Sulspice Avec Privilege du Roy pur 20. ans 1700; Place: Paris / 1700URL: http://www.raremaps.com/
  • Islands of analytical data sources Library journal indexes/databases Article citations, references and co-authors; Subject coverage Research analytical tools Program, research and individual researcher/faculty strengths Informal scholarship Readership, contacts, outreach and discussion of work
  • Recent Projects at Binghamton SciVal Spotlight subscription (2010-2011) Review of Web of Science and Scopus coverage (2011) Library peer analysis (2012-date) Social Media metrics and scholarly communications speakers/practitioners (2011-date): Where are the disruptors?
  • Data Collection Levels Individual Academic Department University/Institution Academic Discipline/ProgramNot all tools collect data for all of these groups!
  • Who needs this information? Researchers/Faculty members Librarians Publishers/Library Vendors Higher Education Administration Social, Technology, News media companies Non-profit academic groups Federal and other funding agencies
  • Source: Antique Maps of the World, Joanne Hevel (c.1696), Changhua Coast Conservation Action, Flickr, January 7, 2009.URL: http://www.flickr.com/photos/waders/3177090710/ (CC at-nc-sa)
  • What they collect Article citations and references Subject coverage, terminology Author, co-author addresses, department information Grant funding information (sometimes) Some alternative metrics
  • Web of ScienceSource: Web of Science , March 2012
  • ScopusData Source: Scopus, January 2011.
  • Scifinder Scholar & Reaxys  Very limited citation count sorting (500 references or less) Get cited documents  Analyze by name, institutionSource: Scifinder Scholar, March 2012
  • SciImago (University of Granada)Source: SciImago web site, March 2012. URL: http://www.scimagojr.com/
  • Reviewing WOS and Scopus (2011) Scopus content  more STEM-focused  more conference proceedings  less robust data (more later…) Web of Science  Better social science coverage Can measure people, departments, subjects Limited capacity for institutional data analysis
  • Source: Made in China, stvcr, Flckr, December 11, 2005. URL: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stvcr/72369341/ (CC sa-by)
  • What they Collect Institutional demographic data Student performance data Library collections, service data Faculty productivity data Budget data Research funding data
  • How data can be used  Assess productivity  Benchmarks for awards, recognition, curricula, scholarship  Assess faculty workload levels, promotion and tenure processes  Identify project and research funding  Identify aspirational and institutional peers
  • SciVal Spotlight gives a visual image of research output Identifies: Current campus research strengths Emerging research areas Interdisciplinary Research groups Unmet collections needs Potential collaborators and peers Uses: Clustered Scopus citation data to create research profile groupings and summaries Collexis’ semantic technology purchased by Elsevier Data Source: SciVal Spotlight Global Data (2006-2010); Scopus citation data (2006-2010) 17
  • Aggregate publication lists identify journals, proceedings and books tostrategically build the Libraries’ collectionsPublication totals show activity from a small set of journals/publishers Ave #pub/5 Library Journal (Proceeding) years Availability Lecture Notes in Computer Science 57 Print Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering 48 No Materials Research Society Symposium - Proceedings 26 Print Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 24 Print/Elec Proceedings - Electronic Components and Technology Conference 24 No ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Proceedings 17 No Langmuir 16 Print/Elec Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 15 Print/Elec Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 15 Print/Elec Developmental Psychobiology 13 Print/Elec 2006 IIE Annual Conference and Exhibition 13 No Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 13 Print/Elec Journal of Electronic Packaging, Transactions of the ASME 12 Print/Elec 2010 12th IEEE Intersociety Conference, ITherm 2010 12 ElecData Sources: SciVal Spotlight Global Data (2006-2010); Scopus Citation Data (2006-2010);Library Catalog Holdings, 1/2012 18
  • •Ranked listing of distinctive, established, productive research groups and teams •Supporting data on the global and regional impact of their workRank Authors Department(s) Research Area(s) # pubs # cites Signal Processing; Fuzzy Sets; Computer-Aided Process 1 Wu N.E.; Klir G.J.; Zacks S. EE; SSIE; Math Planning 44 178.8 2 Spear N.E.; Miller R.R.; Arias C.M. Psych Psychopharmacology; Consciousness; Neurotoxicology 134 671.3 5 Meng W.; Zhao H.; Gupta C. Comp Sci Data Mining 14 32.6 Sensors & Actuators; Semiconducting Materials; 7 Younis M.I.; Alsaleem F.M. ME Nanotechnology 48 137 9 Fridrich J.; Filler T.; Kodovský J. EE Data Mining; Image Processing 39 214.2 10 Yammarino F.J.; Dionne S.D.; Gooty J. SOM Leadership & Organizational Behavior; Strategic Management 22 37.3 11 Zhong C.J.; Luo J.P.; Wang L. Chem Sensors & Actuators; Nanotechnology; Electrochemistry 56 426.1 14 Fordham B.O.; Cingranelli D.L.; Clark D.H. Poli Sci International Conflict; Political Studies 12 10.9 19 Zhou J.; Zhang Y.; Braiotta L.B SOM Financial Accounting 10 28.7 22 Wilson D.S.; Dlugos M.J. Biol, EVoS Molecular Ecology; Consciousness; Bioethics 15 126.4 25 Long B.; Zhang Z.M. Comp Sci Machine Learning; Data Mining 15 40.7 Data Sources: SciVal Spotlight Global Data (2006-2010), Scopus Citation Data (2006-2010) 19
  • •Emerging research areas and smaller research groups are profiled •Publication history helps predict anticipated future collections needs •Quantity of research generally valued over quality (citations)Rank Authors Dept(s) Research Area(s) # pubs # cites 3 Gibb B.E.; Lenzenweger M.F.; Benas J.S. Psych Behavioral Research Therapy; Eating Disorders; Sex Roles 35 205.9 Fault Tolerant Computing; Heat Transfer; Integrated Circuit 4 Ponomarev D.V.; Ghose K.; Farnam D. Comp Sci Design 32 19.9 6 Zaslavsky T.; Bowlin G.; Bowlin C Math Discrete Applied Math 13 10.7 Behavioral Research Therapy; Clinical Psychiatry; Affective 8 Coles M.E.; Pietrefesa A.S. Psych Disorders 26 194.7 12 Regan P.M.; Clark D.H.; Frank R.W. Poli Sci International Conflict 9 21.2 13 Westgate C.R. EE Antenna 43 283.4 15 Deak T.; Blandino P.; Barnum C.J. Psych Psychopharmacology; Neuroscience; Neuroimmunology 14 40 16 McDonald M.D.; Heller W.B.; Shvetsova O.V. Poli Sci Political Studies; Political Science 9 11 17 Meng W. Comp Sci Data Mining; Fuzzy Sets; Database Design & Management 33 40.4 18 Wu N.E.; Srihari K.; Ramakrishnan S. SSIE Computer-Aided Process Planning; Automatic Control 17 0.2 Data Sources: SciVal Spotlight Global Data (2006-2010), Scopus Citation Data (2006-2010) 20
  • SciVal Spotlight Representation in Scopus and SciVal competencies did not correlate to library budget program allocations2005-2009 SciVal Subject Categories % of Binghamton Collections Budget (2008-2009) Biology 11% Earth Sciences 6% Engineering 8% Chemistry 9% Math + Physics 14% Computer Science 4.1% Social Studies 26% Brain Research 7% Health Sciences 5% Medical Specialties Humanities 10.5% Source: SciVal Spotlight Data, (2005-2009), BU Libraries Collections Budget Data (2009)
  • SciVal Spotlight Faculty Authors Faculty rank, productivity and representation in the competencies showed impact of research groups A mature department with fewer A younger, growing academic program with junior faculty more active junior faculty Avg Pub/Date Avg % of art in Avg Pub/DateRank Range comp. Rank Range Avg % of art in comp.Professor 57 78% Associate 34 90%Professor 16 34% Assistant 13 85%Professor 30 25% Distinguished 18 51%Associate 40 24% Distinguished 65 51%Professor 37 21% Research 12 43%Associate 29 17% Assistant 16 39%Professor 13 8% Distinguished Teaching 14 29%Professor 15 2% Associate 34 22%Distinguished 21 0% Associate 21 11% Associate 35 3% Professor 18 0% Sources: SciVal Spotlight (2004-2010), Binghamton University Campus Directory and Department Web Site data, July 2011
  • InCites (Thomson Reuters) Web of Science data used to generate institutional and personal analytical dataSource: Thomson Reuters, Supporting your Strategic Research Vision in New York (program announcement),September 2010. URL: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/ny_agenda/
  • Academic AnalyticsSource: Copyright © 2012, Academic Analytics, LLC
  • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Peer Analysis of Libraries is possible: ARL 1. Volumes held 16. Total Library 21. Total Library 27. Total StaffLocation member? (June 30 rep. yr) 2. Titles Held Materials Expenditures (FTE)University of Manitoba Yes 2,306,410 1,592,516 $8,405,158 $22,586,369 195.00University of Waterloo Yes 2,364,347 1,842,827 $7,052,562 $15,476,851 124.00Colorado State University Yes 2,385,266 2,348,841 $7,021,010 $14,264,719 94.00Virginia Polytechnic Institute & YesState University 2,634,115 1,799,403 $8,428,572 $15,164,519 120.00Washington State University Yes 2,450,409 1,883,552 $5,935,225 $13,943,581 123.00SUNY at Binghamton 2,444,112 1,872,915 $5,049,039 $10,472,977 87.16Northern Illinois University 2,100,623 2,100,623 $4,812,133 $11,249,002 152.00Kansas State University 2,614,274 2,290,738 $6,511,674 $13,118,904 140.00Boston College Yes 2,602,677 2,149,945 $9,529,516 $20,338,858 140.00Purdue University Yes 2,566,521 2,183,032 $11,244,162 $24,201,236 172.00Iowa State University Yes 2,626,074 1,655,685 $9,078,625 $17,132,300 138.00Rice University Yes 2,667,111 2,149,601 $10,015,546 $15,767,079 105.00 Source: ACRLMetrics, IPEDs data integration, February 2012
  • National Research Council (NRC) Doctoral Program Rankings Report (2011):Binghamton’s Doctoral Program Strengths Which doctoral programs are strengths within SUNY? Impacted library collections budgets for new and existing programs affected by campus growth include: Avg. National Collection Family Doctoral Program Avg pub/Fac cites/Pub Strength SUNY Rank Humanities/Fine Arts Art History 10.24 N/A 2 (2) Humanities/Fine Arts Comparative Literature 17.43 N/A 2 (3) Humanities/Fine Arts English 8.14 N/A yes 3 (4) Humanities/Fine Arts Philosophy 10.24 N/A yes 3 (4) Science/Eng/Nursing Behavioral Neuroscience 2.18 1.41 yes 2/3 (4) Science/Eng/Nursing Biology/Integrated Biology/Integrated Biomedical Sciences 0.98 1.64 3 (4) Science/Eng/Nursing Chemistry 2.3 1.61 3 (4) Science/Eng/Nursing Computer Science 1.64 N/A 3 (4) Science/Eng/Nursing Earth Science 0.89 1.77 3 (4) Science/Eng/Nursing Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 1.24 1.61 2 (2) Science/Eng/Nursing Electrical and Computer Engineering 0.36 0.56 3 (3) Science/Eng/Nursing Mathematics 0.88 0.45 yes 2 (4) Science/Eng/Nursing Mechanical Engineering 0.46 1.63 yes 3 (3) Science/Eng/Nursing Nursing 0.16 1.74 1 (1) Science/Eng/Nursing Systems Science 0.42 0.53 2 (2) Social Science Anthropology 0.36 2.13 yes 2 (4) Social Science Economics 0.44 0.86 3 (4) Social Science History 12.6 N/A yes 2 (4) Social Science Political Science 0.57 1.11 yes 1 (4) Social Science Sociology 0.07 0.4 4 (4) Data Source: National Research Council Doctoral Program rankings (2011) URL: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/Resdoc/index.htm 26
  • How would Binghamton rank with existing SUNY Doctoral Center Peers? Proj. ARL Rank Ranked Category Binghamton (n=116) Albany Buffalo Stony BrookLibrary Volumes 2,444,112 105 2,293,745 4,029,865 2,637,270Unique Library Volumes 1,872,915 86 1,492,130 2,558,204 1,376,686Microforms 1,875,133 104 2,922,357 6,187,843 3,851,230Expenditures – Books $977,994 98 $706,526 $1,074,840 $189,034Expenditures - Current Journals $4,031,518 109 $4,201,389 $6,920,542 $5,893,269Total Expenditures - Library Materials $5,049,039 112 $5,193,274 $8,214,014 $6,634,380Books Purchased (volumes) 12,090 97 18,475 20,059 5,903Current Journals (total) 82,258 55 67,417 87,997 87,737Current Journals Purchased (titles) 52,400 61 51,804 60,532 62,163Total Items Loaned (ILL) 26,545 75 15,401 32,793 21,379Total Items Borrowed (ILL) 15,736 94 27,325 26,530 12,304Total Expenditures – Salaries and Wages $4,571,605 115 $6,328,585 $10,467,039 $6,288,060Total Staff (FTE) 87 * 149 204 140Other Operating Expenses $837,587 104 $36,554 $1,338,010 $695,341Total Library Expenditures $10,472,977 115 $11,597,750 $20,062,539 $13,640,247 Data Sources: ARL Statistics 2009-2010, ACRL Statistics 2009-2010 URLS: 27 http://www.acrlmetrics.com/; http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/arlstats/preveds.shtml
  • Peer Data Analysis – some advice Know the source of the numbers The quality of the analysis is as important as the data Identifying patterns can take time Look for tools that collect data from multiple sources
  • Source: No Wall Maps or Globes?, Scott McLeod, Flckr, August 13, 2009. URL:http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcleod/3819787122/lightbox/ (CC BY)
  • Academic profile sites are everywhere Social networks  ResearchGate  Epernicus  Academia.edu  LinkedIn Campus-based systems  VIVO  Proquest Community of Scholars  Department, School web sites Closed networks  ACS Network  Campus Learning Management System: Blackboard, etc.
  • What they measure Discussion levels Readership levels Extent of sharing among peers Relationships between peers
  • Are researchers using social media?Discipline % using social media toolsEarth Sciences 95.0Environmental Sciences 90.0Physics 88.6Pharmacology, Toxicology 87.5Neuroscience 87.0Life Sciences 84.2Social Sciences 84.0Mathematics, Computer Science 83.7Chemistry, Chemical Engineering 82.2Materials Science and Engineering 82.1Arts and Humanities 79.2Biological Sciences 78.3Health Sciences 74.8Business and Management 73.7All disciplines 79.7 Source: Social media and research workflow, CIBER, University College London, December 14, 2010. URL: www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/research/ciber/social-media-report.pdf
  • Social media types 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 % Activity Source: Social media and research workflow, CIBER, University College London, December 14, 2010. URL: www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/research/ciber/social-media-report.pdf
  • Source: On Government Trail looking across to Wizard Island, Flickr, OSU Special Collections and Archives, July 1, 2009. URL:http://www.flickr.com/photos/osucommons/3679412273/. (Public Domain)
  • Some examples PLoS ONE Almetrics Total-Impact Mendeley Microsoft Academic Search Google Scholar Citations Allow individuals to access more analytical data Use library bibliometric data principlesMore examples at: Wolters, Paul and Rodrigo Costas, Users, Narcissism and Control-tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century, SURF Foundation, February 2012. URL: http://www.surffoundation.nl/nl/publicaties/Documents/Users%20narcissism%20and% 20control.pdf
  • PLoS ONE AltmetricsSource: PLoS website, March 2012, URL:http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001216
  • total-impactSource: total-impact website, March 2012, URL: http://total-impact.org/collection/bBreoC
  • MendeleySource: Mendeley website, March 2012, URL: http://total-impact.org/collection/bBreoC
  • Microsoft Academic SearchAnalytical data comparisons are possible, plus author comparisons and conferenceadvisory toolsSource: Microsoft Academic Search website, March 2012, URL:http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Comparison?entitytype=7&id1=16846&id2=5302&topdomainid=5
  • Google Scholar CitationsSource: Google Scholar Citations, March 2012, URL:http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xmQS420AAAAJ
  • Where are the Disruptors? Using: •Analytical research data •Institutional Rankings •Participation in social networks •Non-traditional conference presence and activity Determine: •Who’s driving change •Where are they located?Is this activity challenging or complementing the current ranking/academic culture ofinfluence? Source: Social Disruption website, URL: http://www.science3point0.com/socialdisruption/2011/02/14/where-are-the-disruptors-in- academe-part-2/
  • Source: In the Maze, a Wild Area in the Western Part of the Park Hikers Must Navigate by Map andCompass, 05/1972, Flickr, The National Archive. URL: http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/3857069260/ (Public
  • What do these newer tools have in common? Growing need for reputation management tools beyond administrative offices Integrating multiple sources/networks Recognizing the increasing influence of web and social network activity on research dissemination Use or need bibliographic library or vendor data
  • What’s limiting exploration? Data privacy concerns Interoperability of systems, formats and data fields Lack of reliable, consistent author and institutional identifiers (ORCID) Some sources not available to all
  • How are libraries central to this work? Workflow organized around  Standardized data fields and retrieval formats  Authority Control (clean data) Culture of sharing  interlibrary loan  cataloging records  course reserves
  • Sources Where is the library in the digital workflow of research? Research in the age of Social Media, Swets/Mendeley, 2012. URL: http://www.swets.com/Research-in-the-age-of-social-media-whitepaper Angela van Barneveld, Kimberly E. Arnold and John Campbell, Analytics in Higher Education: Establishing a Common Language, ELI Paper 1: January 2012, URL: http://www.educause.edu/Resources/AnalyticsinHigherEducationEsta/245405 Using Bibliometrics: A Guide to Evaluating Research Performance with Citation Data, Thomson Reuters, 2008. URL: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/news/2008-07/8465001/ Co-Citation Analysis: The Methodology of SciVal Spotlight, Elsevier, June 2009. URL: http://www.info.scival.com/resource-library/white-paper-co-citation-analysis-methodology-scival-spotlight Kristen Fisher Ratan, Metrics: The New Black?, PLoS, NFAIS 2012. URL: http://www.slideshare.net/kristenratan/metrics-the-new-black. Jennifer Howard, Tracking Scholarly Influence Beyond the Impact Factor, Chronicle of Higher Education, February 28, 2012. URL: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/tracking-scholarly-influence- beyond-the-impact-factor/35565 Advanced Computing Infrastructure: Vision and Strategic Plan, National Science Foundation Cyberinfrastructure for 21st Century Science and Engineering (CIF21), February 2012. URL: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf12051 Paul Wouters and Rodrigo Costas, Users, Narcissism and Control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st Century, SURFfoundation, February 2012. URL: http://www.cni.org/news/surf-report- users-narcissism-and-control/. Social Media and research workflow, CIBER, University College London, December 14, 2010. URL: www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/research/ciber/social-media-report.pdf.
  • Thank YouBinghamton University Libraries (Scopus/WOS Review Task Force Members, Dean John M. Meador. Jr.)Binghamton University Graduate School (Dean Nancy Stamp)Binghamton University Research DivisionMark Hahnel (founder, Science 3.0)Source: Two skiers atop the summit of Mt. Baker standing next to a U.S. flag, Flickr, UW Digital Collections, February1, 2010. URL: http://www.flickr.com/photos/uw_digital_images/4323204494/. (Public Domain)