This document discusses the use of bibliometrics and citation analysis at Wageningen University. It provides context about the university's evaluation cycle and criteria. It then describes the current research information system (Metis) and institutional repository (Wageningen Yield) that provide publication data. The document discusses challenges in comparing citation metrics across fields and researchers. It also considers sources of citation data and developing altmetric tools. Finally, it argues that the university library is well-positioned to conduct bibliometric analyses using these local data systems.

1. Bibliometrics in the library
Chances and pitfalls
Wouter 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 publication
to 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:
@wowter
wowter.net
www.slideshare.net/wowter