Vieira and Gomes (2011) are two researchers who have considered the difficulty with assessing scientific performance at the individual level. They developed an indicator that considers both quantity and impact that can be used to measure researcher performance broadly and also predict future researcher behavior.
There are ways networked researchers can optimize scholarship, and this will be addressed in two sub-sections: Researcher Impact Tools and Social Academic Tools. As scholarship is readily accessible online and digitalized in new forums, it is critical to consider research channels appropriate to showcase this information. Although there are a number of potential spaces to curate citation and publication information.
Scholarly work can be shared over various publisher platforms, and with this fact also comes the potential to have similar author names and authoring identity issues. ORCID, short for Open Researcher and Contributor ID, assigns a unique identifier to individual research output and this ID may be added to publications, grants, as well as patents for identification purposes. When setting up a free account on ORCID users can customize author information, such as keeping this identifier private or public and also synchronizing their ORCID with other platforms such as Researcher ID, Scopus, Web of Science, and Web of Science Core Collection. Publishers such as Elsevier work together with ORCID allowing authors submitting proposals to journals linking the submissions with the ID and profile.
Having a researcher distinction, a unique identifier, ensures that publications are accurately defined to an author, avoiding ambiguity issues. ResearcherID is a free tool from Thomson Reuters that generates this ID number. The account may be synched with ORCID and with Scopus ensuring the ID a researcher has on these other platforms is connected and pointing to same individual’s scholarly work. Researcher ID is also connected to Web of Knowledge. Publication lists can be imported between the accounts facilitating maintenance of an author’s work, a listing of works cited by others may be generated, and h-index presented to visualize researcher impact.
Scopus claims to be “the world’s largest abstract and citation database.” It is specifically developed for use within institutions and requires access through such as a university library. Once logged in, the system allows for automatic searches and addition of publications to the profile, in-depth searches to find information about who is citing your work, and statistics on how many times an author or article has been cited. The system also let’s researchers review and determine where to publish to make the largest impact, etc. Scopus uses what is called an h-index which assesses productivity as well as researcher impact of published work. The h-index is a fluid number that changed as the data changes, that is, as more citations occur the number changes. The h-index is a determinant of publications as well as citations for an individual researcher’s publications and work starting 1996. It is a number score to show the individual’s impact. The Scopus Author identifier can be linked to ORCID allowing for the researcher’s profile and publications to look the same over multiple platforms.
A simplified way to search for research and publication status, specifically that has cited relevant work is through Google Scholar Citations. This feature allows for Internet query searches through the Google Scholar publication database for an individual researcher’s portfolio of scholarship. Google uses a statistical authorship model in the process. There are a few options to individualize the Google Scholar profile, such as updating an article, connecting to co-authors, and confirming citations not automatically imported. Google Scholar Citations shares the number of citations to each article as a number but also with a graph including citations per year. It further shares the Scopus h-index as well as the i10-index values for a researcher’s articles. These numbers are conveniently displayed on the Google Scholar profile page.
Academia offers a place where researchers can publish their work, as well as find others who are in their field of interest. What perhaps is one of their main attractions is that they connect users in a similar manner that social media does. This allows users to pick whom and what they prefer to follow. Users are notified when a member of their circle updates or publishes new research on the platform. Academia also allows the user to search their database for specific publications. There is no synching to other accounts and no impact factor involved.
Mendeley advertises their service as “a free reference manager and academic social network that can help you organize your research, collaborate with others online, and discover the latest research.” Mendeley provides a user-friendly tool that allows researchers the ability to search across seemingly endless amounts of research, as well as deliver the option of searching open access articles only. The researcher is not only able to gather information—Mendeley also gives the user the ability to maintain a bibliography database that they can access from anywhere. A profile can be set up that allows the researcher to publish his or her work. At this point Mendeley uses the social media aspect of their network to post that the researcher has a new publication to the researcher’s timeline. If used to its full potential this feature may serve to increase researcher visibility.
“The students’ individually-owned blogs were specifically used as their research diaries in which they logged in their work in progress, they then received input from both the teacher and fellow students. Based on the researcher’s self-evaluation of the teaching-supervising process, an analysis of the students’ blog discourse, and students’ survey feedback, this article offers useful insights and suggestions for educators interested in either using or researching on blogging as a means to develop students’ research skills and understanding.” Chong, 2010
Tweeting published findings can communicate research to a broader audience of scholars, decision makers, media, and the public with the potential to amplify the impact for society and the research community (Darling, Shiffman, Côté, & Drew, 2013).
Unlike publications that remain dormant in an online database, scholars are now encouraged to become curators and broadcasters of research findings. Scholarship circulation is growing on a number of virtual platforms, which creates social peer connections and connected knowledge in academia.
As our networked spheres mature, scholars and scholar-practitioners need to consider how to operate in this attention economy and participate in these shared research spaces. A unique outcome of this sharing has been the impact to interdisciplinary research and transformation of practice as scholars grow their peer research network and collaborate on research outside the scope of their domain (Weller, 2011).
As the evolution of education occurs, so does the publishing and citation aspect of research. Scholars are entering into an arena that is becoming increasingly networked and connected. The definition of scholarship has been broadened to include a variety of teaching, research, and service activities (Weller, 2011), which are heavily influenced with technical advances. The changing landscape of technology, citation sharing, and scholarly distribution is presenting traditional avenues for publication and research distribution.
As researchers become digital contributors to the academic canon, these online spaces for citations and impact allow for effective methods to share and significant impacts to the scholarly community.
Through research identity management and citation tracking, scholars are able to specifically identify influence of their findings, publication access, and potential academic peers to collaborate.
#ELearn14 Digital Scholarship
Digital Scholarship and
Methods and Tools to
Connect Your Research
Laura A. Pasquini, Jenny S. Wakefield, Adalheidur Reed & Jeff M. Allen
2014 AACE E-Learn #elearn14
Virtual Brief Paper New Orleans, LA
Department of Learning Technologies
University of North Texas, USA
AACE E-Learn #elearn14 October 27-30, 2014
Virtual Brief Paper New Orleans, LA
How can the scholarly field
research impact with
regards to their
Digital footprints emerge as
we communicate and interact
online over social media,
content sharing platforms,
and by using and subscribing
to tools and services
Will you be “Googled well?” asks Richardson
(2008). Let’s find out.
How well will Google
represent the researcher?
The Digital Scholar
… The Ed Techie
The Digital Scholar
• Impacts for digital scholarship include the quantity
of peer-reviewed online information sources, the
growth of social, peer academic networks, and
the variety and range of content to draw upon for
research that has broadened to include drafts of
publications, conference presentations, blog
posts, video and audio (Weller, 2011).
• What is shared through networks may not always
be the true story. (Latour, 1986)
• Challenge with assessing scientific performance
at the individual level (Vieira & Gomes, 2011)
• “move the evaluation from the power of the
scientific journals to the quality of the single
researcher (Castelnuovo, Limonata, Sarmiento &
Molinari, 2010, p. 111)
The Platforms and Social
ORCID: Connecting Research and Researchers
The Social (Media) Scholar
Beyond these specific
scholarly platforms, we
have seen an increase in
social networking use,
academic blogging or
Twitter), and online
sharing of images,
videos, and audio for
both data and research
“Academics should utilize these emerging
platforms to increase their influence and reach
beyond traditional publishing forums. These
researcher identification and citation tools are
not “just for geeks,” but rather a growing
expectation for scholarship development and
publication notation. It is a critical time to rethink
how research is produced, distributed, and
(Pasquini, Wakefield, Reed & Allen, 2014)
How will you
Flickr photo c/o furiousgeorge81
Bodhani, A. (2012). Digital footprints step up. Engineering & Technology, Feb2012. Retrieved from
Brey, P. (1997). Social constructivism for philosophers of technology: A shopper’s guide. Techne:
Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology, 2(3-4), 56-78. [Web version] Available from:
Castelnuovo, G. (2008). Ditching impact factors: Time for the single researcher impact factor. British
Medical Journal, 336(7648), 789.
Castelnuovo, G., Limonta, D., Sarmiento, L., & Molinari, E. (2010). A more comprehensive index in the
evaluation of scientific research: The single researcher impact factor proposal. Clinical Practice &
Epidemiology in Mental Health, 6(2010), 1745-0179.
Chong, E. K. (2010). Using blogging to enhance the initiation of students into academic
research. Computers & Education, 55(2), 798-807.
Darling, E. S., Shiffman, D., Côté, I. M., & Drew, J. A. (2013) The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a
scientific publication. PeerJ PrePrints 1:16(1) http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.16v1
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hewson, K. (2013). What size is your digital footprint. Kappan, 94(7), 14-15.
Richardson, W. (2008). Footprints in the digital age. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 16-19.
Viera, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2011). An impact indicator for researchers. Scientometrics, 89,
Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism ad the
philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(3), 362-378.
Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How technology is transforming academic practice. A&C