Haustein, S. (2017, February). The evolution of scholarly communication and the reward system of science. Fourth Annual KnoweScape Conference 2017, 22–24 February 2017, Sofia (Bulgaria). keynote
http://knowescape.org/knowescape2017/
Haustein, S., Smith, E., Mongeon, P., Shu, F., & Larivière, V. (2016): Access...Stefanie Haustein
Conference presentation
Haustein, S., Smith, E., Mongeon, P., Shu, F., & Larivière, V. (2016). Access to global health research. Prevalence and cost of gold and hybrid open access. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (p. 410–418). Valencia, Spain.
Rodrigo Costas & Stefanie Haustein: Citation theories and their application t...Stefanie Haustein
Presentation at #2AMconf
Rodrigo Costas, (CWTS-Leiden University, the Netherlands) & Stefanie Haustein (Université de Montréal, Canada)
Related paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05701
Scholarly communicationand evaluation: from bibliometrics to altmetricsStefanie Haustein
presentation at COAR-SPARC Conference 2015, Porto, Portugal, 16 April 2015
Session 4: Assessing Value
Chair: Lars Björnshauge
https://www.coar-repositories.org/community/events/annual-meeting-2015/programme/
Identifying Twitter audiences: Who is tweeting about scientific papers?Stefanie Haustein
Haustein, S. & Costas, R. (2015). Identifying Twitter audiences: Who is tweeting about scientific papers?
Presentation at METRICS2015 ASIS&T SIG/MET Workshop
https://www.asist.org/SIG/SIGMET/
Interpreting social media acts. The various meanings of altmetricsStefanie Haustein
Haustein, S. (2015). "Interpreting social media acts. The various meanings of altmetrics"
Presentation at #ASIST2015 #SIGMET15 panel "Self-Presentation in Academia Today: From Peer-Reviewed Publications to Social Media"
https://www.asist.org/SIG/SIGMET/2015/11/09/panel2015/
I apply Ranganathan's 5 laws of library science to altmetrics, as part of a holistic research impact support service. I discuss what altmetrics are, what they measure, their uses throughout the research lifecycle, and where you can get them. I then apply Ranganathan's 4th law, saving the time of the user, to the harvesting of altmetrics by research information systems, embedding them at the point of need. The challenge of altmetrics is to change our concept of what an institutional repository is, from a simple container of research outputs to a smart system that harvests and catalogs a much broader range of output and impact data elements.
This presentation is about Scholarly Communications and how it works, what are ways through one can identify right journals for publications and also briefly discusses preprints as an alternative publications space for making the research more open and visible.
Haustein, S., Smith, E., Mongeon, P., Shu, F., & Larivière, V. (2016): Access...Stefanie Haustein
Conference presentation
Haustein, S., Smith, E., Mongeon, P., Shu, F., & Larivière, V. (2016). Access to global health research. Prevalence and cost of gold and hybrid open access. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (p. 410–418). Valencia, Spain.
Rodrigo Costas & Stefanie Haustein: Citation theories and their application t...Stefanie Haustein
Presentation at #2AMconf
Rodrigo Costas, (CWTS-Leiden University, the Netherlands) & Stefanie Haustein (Université de Montréal, Canada)
Related paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05701
Scholarly communicationand evaluation: from bibliometrics to altmetricsStefanie Haustein
presentation at COAR-SPARC Conference 2015, Porto, Portugal, 16 April 2015
Session 4: Assessing Value
Chair: Lars Björnshauge
https://www.coar-repositories.org/community/events/annual-meeting-2015/programme/
Identifying Twitter audiences: Who is tweeting about scientific papers?Stefanie Haustein
Haustein, S. & Costas, R. (2015). Identifying Twitter audiences: Who is tweeting about scientific papers?
Presentation at METRICS2015 ASIS&T SIG/MET Workshop
https://www.asist.org/SIG/SIGMET/
Interpreting social media acts. The various meanings of altmetricsStefanie Haustein
Haustein, S. (2015). "Interpreting social media acts. The various meanings of altmetrics"
Presentation at #ASIST2015 #SIGMET15 panel "Self-Presentation in Academia Today: From Peer-Reviewed Publications to Social Media"
https://www.asist.org/SIG/SIGMET/2015/11/09/panel2015/
I apply Ranganathan's 5 laws of library science to altmetrics, as part of a holistic research impact support service. I discuss what altmetrics are, what they measure, their uses throughout the research lifecycle, and where you can get them. I then apply Ranganathan's 4th law, saving the time of the user, to the harvesting of altmetrics by research information systems, embedding them at the point of need. The challenge of altmetrics is to change our concept of what an institutional repository is, from a simple container of research outputs to a smart system that harvests and catalogs a much broader range of output and impact data elements.
This presentation is about Scholarly Communications and how it works, what are ways through one can identify right journals for publications and also briefly discusses preprints as an alternative publications space for making the research more open and visible.
Presented by Dom Mitchell, Community Manager for DOAJ to 35th Conference of International Association of Scientific and Technological University Libraries (IATUL).
A presentation exploring how DOAJ is using crowdsourcing to evaluate the ~9700 journals currently in DOAJ. Using a network of volunteers, every journals will be reassessed and evaluated based on the new criteria.
This version contains a handful of extra slides that were originally removed due to time restrictions.
Automated arXiv feeds on Twitter:On the role of bots in scholarly communicationStefanie Haustein
Stefanie Haustein, Kim Holmberg, Timothy D. Bowman, Andrew Tsou, Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière (2014).
Automated arXiv feeds on Twitter: On the role of bots in scholarly communication
Presentation at 19th Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy, Reykjavik, 25. September 2014
http://www.rannis.is/bibliometrics/workshop-programme/
Communities of attention' around journal papers: Who is tweeting about scient...Stefanie Haustein
Work-in-progress presentation at Social Media & Society 2015
Haustein, S., Bowman, T.D. & Costas, R. (2015). Communities of attention' around journal papers: Who is tweeting about scientific publications?
https://socialmediaandsociety.com/
http://smsociety15.sched.org/event/91e44f025248a9f40e64302c12ce567d/edit#.VbfKfBNViko
Background:
‘Altmetrics’ have been introduced as a way to capture scientific output and impact beyond papers and citations based on traces on various social media platforms (Priem, Taraborelli, Groth, & Neylon, 2010), of which Twitter is believed to have a particular potential to reflect societal impact of research. The analysis and application of various altmetrics such as tweets to scientific papers, however, still lack adequate interpretative frameworks mainly because the processes behind the metrics are not yet fully understood. Currently each tweet is counted equally on platforms such as Altmetric.com or ImpactStory and studies tend to ignore user type and tweet content, although tweets have been shown to range from serious discussions to humour and self-promotion to automated mentions (Haustein et al., 2015).
Objective:
Communities of attention around scientific publications on Twitter are identified based on engagement and exposure of users. Engagement is measured as the degree to which the tweet text differs from the title of the tweeted paper. Exposure refers to the potential audience of the tweet as measured by the number of the user’s followers.
Methods:
Publications from 2012 covered by Web of Science were matched to tweets (until June 2014, excluding retweets) recorded by Altmetric.com via DOI resulting in 660,149 tweets, 237,222 tweeted papers, and 125,083 Twitter users. Engagement was calculated based on the dissimilarity between the tweet text (excluding user names and URLs) and the title of the tweeted document. User data (including the number of followers representing exposure) was collected from Altmetric.com and the Twitter API.
Four user categories were defined, classifying users into four quadrants A, B, C and D according to engagement and exposure values above and below the median of the whole dataset (Figure 1). Statistics based on the tweeting behaviour of users were calculated for each of the categories. The connections between 708 users with more than 100 publications based on co-mentions of the same papers were visualized in a network graph in Figure 1.
Results:
Users in the four categories differ according to tweeting behavior (Figure 1). Users in A have the highest mean tweets per day (based on all tweets) and those in D tweet more about scientific papers (typical for bots identified by Haustein et al. (2015)), while users in A and B discuss publications with slightly higher relative citation rates.
Open access for researchers, policy makers and research managers - Short ver...Iryna Kuchma
Presented at Open Access: Maximising Research Impact, April 23 2009, New Bulgarian University Library, Sofia. Open access for researchers: enlarged audience, citation impact, tenure and promotion. Open access for policy makers and research managers:
new tools to manage a university’s image and impact. How to maximize the visibility of research publications, improve the impact and influence of the work, disseminate the results of the research, showcase the quality of the research in the Universities and research institutions, better measure and manage the research in the institution, collect and curate the digital outputs, generate new knowledge from existing findings, enable and encourage collaboration, bring savings to the higher education sector and better return on investment. What are the key functions for research libraries?
Presented at the University of Canterbury Gradfest, "Where to publish" is a short presentation designed to help new postgraduate students think about new and non-traditional modes of publishing, such as Institutional and disciplinary repositories, the difference between gold and green Open Access, and other ways to make research more visible.
Brace for Impact: New Means for Measuring Research MetricsMary Ellen Sloane
As open access journals and repositories gain a foothold in scholarly communication, researchers are finding that the traditional impact factor and citation count metrics only reflect a portion of the dissemination of scholarly works.
New technology, research, and citation tools aid our ability to measure the influence of research. A matrix of tools and initiatives, like PLoS Article-Level Metrics, BePress’ Author Dashboard, Mendeley, Altmetrics, and ImpactStory are providing a more robust picture of scholarly communication today.
This presentation provides an overview of the impact factor system and new tools for gathering metrics and their relevance for librarians and researchers.
Presentation given at the Library Information Technology Association (LITA) Forum in Louisville, KY, in November 2013.
Presentation at the Workshop on Open Citations, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, September 4, 2018.
I will demonstrate the use of the VOSviewer software (www.vosviewer.com), of which I am one of the developers, for creating bibliometric visualizations of science based on openly available bibliographic data sources. Both the use of Crossref data and the use of data from the OpenCitations Corpus will be demonstrated. In addition, I will show how data from Dimensions can be used. The possibilities and limitations of the currently available open data sources will be discussed, also in comparison with more established data sources such as Web of Science and Scopus. Finally, I will provide my perspective on future developments, focusing especially on the integration of open data sources and visual analysis tools.
Publish or Perish - Realising Google Scholar's potential to democratise citat...Anne-Wil Harzing
I discuss five key topics:
* Brief historical overview of “citizen bibliometrics”, i.e. use of bibliometrics by non-experts
* How Publish or Perish and Google Scholar have democratised citation analysis
* Publish or Perish users: who are they and how do they use PoP?
* Publish or Perish version 5: key new features
* What’s next for citizen bibliometrics?
Citation metrics across disciplines - Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Web of ...Anne-Wil Harzing
Key conclusions:
1. Will the use of citation metrics disadvantage the Social Sciences and Humanities?
* Not, if you use a database that includes publications important in those disciplines (e.g. books, national journals)
* Not, if you correct for differences in co-authorships
2. Is peer review better than metrics for the Social Sciences and Humanities?
* Yes, in a way…. The ideal version of peer review (informed, dedicated, and unbiased experts) is better than a reductionist version of metrics
* However, an inclusive version of metrics is probably better than the likely reality of peer review (hurried semi-experts, potentially influenced by journal outlet and affiliation)
Lés médias sociaux dans la communication et l'évaluation scientifique : résul...Stefanie Haustein
Les médias sociaux et leur introduction dans un contexte académique ont généré de nouvelles opportunités pour les chercheurs de diffuser leur recherche plus rapidement et à une audience plus grande. Twitter, Facebook, ainsi que les plateformes spécialisées comme ResearchGate et Academia.edu, offrent plusieurs possibilités aux chercheurs d’augmenter leur visibilité et celle de leur recherche. Ces plateformes constituent aussi certains défis pour les chercheurs : leur multiplication fait en sorte qu’ils peuvent s’y perdre et entraîner des pertes de temps. Dans certains cas extrêmes, des commentaires inappropriés émis par les chercheurs sur les médias sociaux ont même mené à des licenciements.
Dans un contexte où l’évaluation de la recherche prend une place de plus en plus importante, les activités associées aux contenus savants partagés sur les médias sociaux ont été proposées par certains comme étant des indicateurs de l’impact de ces contenus. Ces indicateurs, appelés «altmetrics» incluent, par exemple, le nombre de tweets, de liens Facebook, de lecteurs sur Mendeley, de mentions dans les blogs, d’évaluations d’experts sur F1000, de vues sur figshare ainsi que de nombreux autres événements en ligne qui se réfèrent aux documents ou acteurs scientifiques. L’idée derrière les altmetrics était de rendre l’évaluation de la recherche plus englobante, d’aller au-delà du nombre de publications et de citations, afin de capturer l’impact social sur le grand public. Ce lien entre médias sociaux et impact social demeure toutefois à prouver.
Cette formation fournira un aperçu des résultats de recherche récents sur les altmetrics et donnera quelques conseils sur l’utilisation professionnelle des médias sociaux dans un contexte académique.
Is Fire Door Testing mandatory? How often are these doors to be tested? This general overview will help you understand why proper maintenance is critical to the safety of staff and property. More information available on our blog: wilcoxdoorserviceinc.blogspot.ca
Presented by Dom Mitchell, Community Manager for DOAJ to 35th Conference of International Association of Scientific and Technological University Libraries (IATUL).
A presentation exploring how DOAJ is using crowdsourcing to evaluate the ~9700 journals currently in DOAJ. Using a network of volunteers, every journals will be reassessed and evaluated based on the new criteria.
This version contains a handful of extra slides that were originally removed due to time restrictions.
Automated arXiv feeds on Twitter:On the role of bots in scholarly communicationStefanie Haustein
Stefanie Haustein, Kim Holmberg, Timothy D. Bowman, Andrew Tsou, Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière (2014).
Automated arXiv feeds on Twitter: On the role of bots in scholarly communication
Presentation at 19th Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy, Reykjavik, 25. September 2014
http://www.rannis.is/bibliometrics/workshop-programme/
Communities of attention' around journal papers: Who is tweeting about scient...Stefanie Haustein
Work-in-progress presentation at Social Media & Society 2015
Haustein, S., Bowman, T.D. & Costas, R. (2015). Communities of attention' around journal papers: Who is tweeting about scientific publications?
https://socialmediaandsociety.com/
http://smsociety15.sched.org/event/91e44f025248a9f40e64302c12ce567d/edit#.VbfKfBNViko
Background:
‘Altmetrics’ have been introduced as a way to capture scientific output and impact beyond papers and citations based on traces on various social media platforms (Priem, Taraborelli, Groth, & Neylon, 2010), of which Twitter is believed to have a particular potential to reflect societal impact of research. The analysis and application of various altmetrics such as tweets to scientific papers, however, still lack adequate interpretative frameworks mainly because the processes behind the metrics are not yet fully understood. Currently each tweet is counted equally on platforms such as Altmetric.com or ImpactStory and studies tend to ignore user type and tweet content, although tweets have been shown to range from serious discussions to humour and self-promotion to automated mentions (Haustein et al., 2015).
Objective:
Communities of attention around scientific publications on Twitter are identified based on engagement and exposure of users. Engagement is measured as the degree to which the tweet text differs from the title of the tweeted paper. Exposure refers to the potential audience of the tweet as measured by the number of the user’s followers.
Methods:
Publications from 2012 covered by Web of Science were matched to tweets (until June 2014, excluding retweets) recorded by Altmetric.com via DOI resulting in 660,149 tweets, 237,222 tweeted papers, and 125,083 Twitter users. Engagement was calculated based on the dissimilarity between the tweet text (excluding user names and URLs) and the title of the tweeted document. User data (including the number of followers representing exposure) was collected from Altmetric.com and the Twitter API.
Four user categories were defined, classifying users into four quadrants A, B, C and D according to engagement and exposure values above and below the median of the whole dataset (Figure 1). Statistics based on the tweeting behaviour of users were calculated for each of the categories. The connections between 708 users with more than 100 publications based on co-mentions of the same papers were visualized in a network graph in Figure 1.
Results:
Users in the four categories differ according to tweeting behavior (Figure 1). Users in A have the highest mean tweets per day (based on all tweets) and those in D tweet more about scientific papers (typical for bots identified by Haustein et al. (2015)), while users in A and B discuss publications with slightly higher relative citation rates.
Open access for researchers, policy makers and research managers - Short ver...Iryna Kuchma
Presented at Open Access: Maximising Research Impact, April 23 2009, New Bulgarian University Library, Sofia. Open access for researchers: enlarged audience, citation impact, tenure and promotion. Open access for policy makers and research managers:
new tools to manage a university’s image and impact. How to maximize the visibility of research publications, improve the impact and influence of the work, disseminate the results of the research, showcase the quality of the research in the Universities and research institutions, better measure and manage the research in the institution, collect and curate the digital outputs, generate new knowledge from existing findings, enable and encourage collaboration, bring savings to the higher education sector and better return on investment. What are the key functions for research libraries?
Presented at the University of Canterbury Gradfest, "Where to publish" is a short presentation designed to help new postgraduate students think about new and non-traditional modes of publishing, such as Institutional and disciplinary repositories, the difference between gold and green Open Access, and other ways to make research more visible.
Brace for Impact: New Means for Measuring Research MetricsMary Ellen Sloane
As open access journals and repositories gain a foothold in scholarly communication, researchers are finding that the traditional impact factor and citation count metrics only reflect a portion of the dissemination of scholarly works.
New technology, research, and citation tools aid our ability to measure the influence of research. A matrix of tools and initiatives, like PLoS Article-Level Metrics, BePress’ Author Dashboard, Mendeley, Altmetrics, and ImpactStory are providing a more robust picture of scholarly communication today.
This presentation provides an overview of the impact factor system and new tools for gathering metrics and their relevance for librarians and researchers.
Presentation given at the Library Information Technology Association (LITA) Forum in Louisville, KY, in November 2013.
Presentation at the Workshop on Open Citations, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, September 4, 2018.
I will demonstrate the use of the VOSviewer software (www.vosviewer.com), of which I am one of the developers, for creating bibliometric visualizations of science based on openly available bibliographic data sources. Both the use of Crossref data and the use of data from the OpenCitations Corpus will be demonstrated. In addition, I will show how data from Dimensions can be used. The possibilities and limitations of the currently available open data sources will be discussed, also in comparison with more established data sources such as Web of Science and Scopus. Finally, I will provide my perspective on future developments, focusing especially on the integration of open data sources and visual analysis tools.
Publish or Perish - Realising Google Scholar's potential to democratise citat...Anne-Wil Harzing
I discuss five key topics:
* Brief historical overview of “citizen bibliometrics”, i.e. use of bibliometrics by non-experts
* How Publish or Perish and Google Scholar have democratised citation analysis
* Publish or Perish users: who are they and how do they use PoP?
* Publish or Perish version 5: key new features
* What’s next for citizen bibliometrics?
Citation metrics across disciplines - Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Web of ...Anne-Wil Harzing
Key conclusions:
1. Will the use of citation metrics disadvantage the Social Sciences and Humanities?
* Not, if you use a database that includes publications important in those disciplines (e.g. books, national journals)
* Not, if you correct for differences in co-authorships
2. Is peer review better than metrics for the Social Sciences and Humanities?
* Yes, in a way…. The ideal version of peer review (informed, dedicated, and unbiased experts) is better than a reductionist version of metrics
* However, an inclusive version of metrics is probably better than the likely reality of peer review (hurried semi-experts, potentially influenced by journal outlet and affiliation)
Lés médias sociaux dans la communication et l'évaluation scientifique : résul...Stefanie Haustein
Les médias sociaux et leur introduction dans un contexte académique ont généré de nouvelles opportunités pour les chercheurs de diffuser leur recherche plus rapidement et à une audience plus grande. Twitter, Facebook, ainsi que les plateformes spécialisées comme ResearchGate et Academia.edu, offrent plusieurs possibilités aux chercheurs d’augmenter leur visibilité et celle de leur recherche. Ces plateformes constituent aussi certains défis pour les chercheurs : leur multiplication fait en sorte qu’ils peuvent s’y perdre et entraîner des pertes de temps. Dans certains cas extrêmes, des commentaires inappropriés émis par les chercheurs sur les médias sociaux ont même mené à des licenciements.
Dans un contexte où l’évaluation de la recherche prend une place de plus en plus importante, les activités associées aux contenus savants partagés sur les médias sociaux ont été proposées par certains comme étant des indicateurs de l’impact de ces contenus. Ces indicateurs, appelés «altmetrics» incluent, par exemple, le nombre de tweets, de liens Facebook, de lecteurs sur Mendeley, de mentions dans les blogs, d’évaluations d’experts sur F1000, de vues sur figshare ainsi que de nombreux autres événements en ligne qui se réfèrent aux documents ou acteurs scientifiques. L’idée derrière les altmetrics était de rendre l’évaluation de la recherche plus englobante, d’aller au-delà du nombre de publications et de citations, afin de capturer l’impact social sur le grand public. Ce lien entre médias sociaux et impact social demeure toutefois à prouver.
Cette formation fournira un aperçu des résultats de recherche récents sur les altmetrics et donnera quelques conseils sur l’utilisation professionnelle des médias sociaux dans un contexte académique.
Is Fire Door Testing mandatory? How often are these doors to be tested? This general overview will help you understand why proper maintenance is critical to the safety of staff and property. More information available on our blog: wilcoxdoorserviceinc.blogspot.ca
La communication scientifique via les réseaux sociaux Etude de cas : l’Ateli...Atelier des Arkéonautes
Présentation pour l'Atelier "La circulation des savoirs en anthropologie visuelle. Cyberanthropologie et Humanités numériques
Connaissances No(s) Limit(es), Congrès d’ethnologie et d’anthropologie
EHESS, Paris, 21-24 septembre 2011
Jirasri DESLIS ( jirasri@hotmail.com )
In today’s competitive world, every business has to fight huge competition to achieve success. So it is necessary for every business organization to collect large amount of information like employee’s data, Sales data, customer’s information, market analysis reports, etc.
Opening Scholarly Communication in Social Sciences by Connecting Collaborativ...GESIS
The objective of the OSCOSS research project on "Opening Scholarly Communication in the Social Sciences" is to build a coherent collaboration environment that facilitates scholarly communication workflows of social scientists in the roles of authors, reviewers, editors and readers. This paper presents the implementation of the core of this environment: the integration of the Fidus Writer academic word processor with the Open Journal Systems (OJS) submission and review management system.
HBase and Drill: How Loosely Typed SQL is Ideal for NoSQLMapR Technologies
From the Hadoop Summit 2015 Session with Ted Dunning:
The Apache HBase approach to data has a huge potential for expressing NoSQL-y, non-relational programs. Apache Drill supports SQL for non-relational data. Paradoxically, combining this NoSQL with this SQL tool results in something even better. I will show and explain how to combine HBase and Drill to access time series data and to support high performance secondary indexing.
Scientific Interactions and Research Evaluation: From Bibliometrics to Altmet...Stefanie Haustein
Haustein, S. (2015). Scientific Interactions and Research Evaluation: From Bibliometrics to Altmetrics
Keynote at ISI2015 in Zadar, Croatia
http://isi2015.de/?session=keynote-c-i
Abstract. Since its creation 350 years ago, the scientific peer-reviewed journal has become the central and most important form of scholarly communication in the natural sciences and medicine. Although the digital revolution has facilitated and accelerated the publishing process by moving from print to online, it has not changed the scientific journal and scholarly communication as such. Today publications and citations in peer-reviewed journals are considered as indicators of scientific productivity and impact and used and misused in research evaluation. As scholarly communication is becoming more open and diverse and manuscripts, data, presentations and code are shared online, the altmetrics and open science movement demand the adaption of evaluation practices. Parallels are drawn between the early days of bibliometrics and current altmetrics research highlighting possibilities and limitations of various metrics and warning against adverse effects.
Creation, Transformation, Dissemination and Preservation: Advocating for Scho...NASIG
As the fight for research grants intensifies and the pot of money decreases, librarians need to ensure that the topic of scholarly communication remains on the forefront, regardless of funding. Affording researchers avenues to widely share and publish their work to make it widely available should be a mission both in the library and at the highest levels of the institution. How can libraries make an impact? In this presentation two librarians, a consortia officer and vendor, will discuss how consortia have and continue to play a primary role in advocating for dissemination of information and scholarly communication. Additionally, they will discuss other tools that libraries/researchers can use as a method of collaboration, whether regional or international, and why it is essential for libraries to become part of the solution before they are left out in the cold. Please come prepared to discuss how your library is making an impact on this topic.
Anne McKee
Program Officer for Resource Sharing, Greater Western Library Alliance
McKee received her M.L.S. from Indiana University, Bloomington and has had a very diverse career in librarianship. She has been an academic librarian, a sales rep for two subscription agencies and now a consortium officer for the past 13 years. A former President of NASIG, McKee is on the Serials Review Editorial Board, 3 publisher/vendor library advisory boards and strives to balance a busy career with an even busier family including a husband, 1 high schooler, 1 middle schooler, 2 dogs while being a first year newbie [and admittedly a rather bewildered] club volleyball mom: all this including wearing orthodontia! McKee is probably the only person you’ll meet with both an undergrad AND MLS in Library Science.
Christine M. Stamison
Senior Customer Relations Manager, Swets
Addison, IL
Christine Stamison, Senior Customer Relations Manager for Swets, has worked in various positions in the subscription agent industry for the past 20 years. Previously, she worked for 13 years in academic libraries, primarily in Serials, at both the University of Illinois at Chicago and at the University of Chicago Libraries. Christine received her Masters in Library and Information Services from Rosary College (now Dominican University) and is a regular lecturer for serials, collection development and technical services classes. When not working you can find Christine in the gym working with her trainer trying to get in shape for her upcoming vacation hiking up Machu Picchu and trekking around Easter Island.
Analysis of Bibliometrics information for select the best field of studyNader Ale Ebrahim
Bibliometrics can be defined as the statistical analysis of publications. Bibliometrics has focused on the quantitative analysis of citations and citation counts which is complex. It is so complex and specialized that personal knowledge and experience are insufficient tools for understanding trends for making decisions. We need tools for analysis of Bibliometrics information for select the best field of study with promising enough attention. This presentation will provide tools to discover the new trends in our field of study in order to select an area for research and publication which promising the highest research impact.
Invited Talk: Open Access: Promises and Reality
Speakers: Mr. Peter E SIDORKO, University Librarian, HKU; Mr. Fred CHAN, Research and Data Services Librarian, HKU
Time: 10:00-10:30, 29 May 2015 (Friday)
Venue: Room 408A, 409A & 410, 4/F, Meng Wah Complex, The University of Hong Kong
http://citers2015.cite.hku.hk/program-highlights/talk-sidorko/
Philosophical Transactions to the Finch report: the events that have defined ...Nick Sheppard
Throughout history the creation and dissemination of knowledge has been influenced by innumerable ‘events’, cultural, technological and political in nature; from the invention of Cuneiform to the rise and fall of Classical civilizations and cultural incubation by the Catholic Church through the European Dark Ages to the Enlightenment. The invention of the printing press is obviously pivotal and in 1665 Henry Oldenburg inaugurated the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (Phil Trans), utilising print technology to establish the principles of scientific priority and peer review that have defined scientific discourse ever since.
In the 20th Century scholarly publishing became exploited by commercial academic publishers and, as journal prices began to outstrip inflation, ultimately resulted in the “serials crisis” of the 1970s. These unsustainable price rises coincided with emergence of the internet and in 1990 Stevan Harnad introduced Psycoloquy, the first peer-reviewed online scientific journal which paved the way for free academic publishing on the web after 1993. In spite of this, and with the World Wide Web over 2 decades old, the traditional subscription model persists, dominated by multinational corporations that generate huge profits and restrict access to scholarly material.
The Open Access movement is a worldwide effort to make scholarly work available online to everyone regardless of their ability to pay for access and in 2011 David Willetts set up a Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings, chaired by Dame Janet Finch and publishing the so called “Finch report” in 2012. The HEFCE policy on OA that comes into effect in 2016 perhaps represents the most recent cultural and political event in this space.
This paper will explore the events that continue to influence academic dissemination and examine how Universities and academics themselves, particularly early career researchers, can utilise modern technology to be part of their own open knowledge event.
Institutionalisation of an open access – a new possibility for research. A s...Birute Railiene
Birute Railiene. Institutionalisation of an open access – a new possibility for research : a survey of perception and demand
Paper for the 5th International Conference of the European Society of History of Science, Athens, 1-3 November 2012
Abstract: Assessment is an integral part of the life-cycle of research and innovation carried out by any credible research institution including universities. Research assessment has traditionally been based on peer review, which is a somewhat subjective process by its very nature and has been under close scrutiny. Bibliometric and scientometric measures such as journal impact factor, article influence score and h index that are readily available through commercial companies make such measures extremely attractive for researchers and funders because of ease of use. However, these measures were originally developed to help librarians manage their collections rather than to assess the quality of individual papers, authors or research institutions. Such metrics would seem less subjective, yet they may not necessarily measure what academic administrators and research funders want them to measure (i.e., the quality). This paper reviews the use and misuse of bibliometric and scientometric measures and offers some recommendations.
This presentation considers the changing nature of the scholarly record and applies the findings of NMC Horizons Report Library Edition 2014 to the Claremont Colleges Library's institutional repository.
"From Reading Rooms to Research Commons" Sheila Corrall, DARTS4ARLGSW
The research environment is challenging libraries to raise their game by providing higher-end services in response to technological change and policy developments. Librarians are being urged to move from service-as-support to a partnership model involving “deep collaboration” across the whole knowledge lifecycle. But libraries are no longer the “go-to” place for researchers. Perceived as dispensers of goods, more geared to students and education, they struggle to gain take-up for research offerings. Innovative practitioners are using various strategies to reposition themselves as key players in the research arena, notably space-as-service strategies, which can bring researchers back to the physical library and improve visibility of virtual services.
Haustein, S. (2017). Temporalité et publication savante : le cycle de vie des...Stefanie Haustein
Haustein, S. (2017, May). Temporalité et publication savante : le cycle de vie des articles en ligne et sur les médias sociaux. Paper presented at the 85e Congrès de l’Acfas, Colloque 16 – Production et transmission des savoirs scientifiques à l’ère du numérique : acteurs, pratiques et outils, 9 May 2017, Montréal (Canada).
http://www.acfas.ca/evenements/congres/programme/85/enjeux-recherche/16/c
Haustein, Paul-Hus, Sugimoto & Larivière (2016). Is the gender gap in science...Stefanie Haustein
Presentation of Work in Progress (WiP) research at Social Media & Society, 13 July 2016
https://socialmediaandsociety.org
http://sched.co/7G8u
http://sched.co/7G8u
When is an article actually published? An analysis of online availability, pu...Stefanie Haustein
Presentation at ISSI2015
Haustein, S., Bowman, T.D. & Costas, R. (2015). When is an article actually published? An analysis of online availability, publication, and indexation dates
Abstract. With the acceleration of scholarly communication in the digital era, the publication year is no longer a sufficient level of time aggregation for bibliometric and social media indicators. Papers are increasingly cited before they have been officially published in a journal issue and mentioned on Twitter within days of online availability. In order to find a suitable proxy for the day of online publication allowing for the computation of more accurate benchmarks and fine-grained citation and social media event windows, various dates are compared for a set of 58,896 papers published by Nature Publishing Group, PLOS, Springer and Wiley-Blackwell in 2012. Dates include the online date provided by the publishers, the month of the journal issue, the Web of Science indexing date, the date of the first tweet mentioning the paper as well as the Altmetric.com publication and first-seen dates. Comparing these dates, the analysis reveals that large differences exist between publishers, leading to the conclusion that more transparency and standardization is needed in the reporting of publication dates. The date on which the fixed journal article (Version of Record) is first made available on the publisher's website is proposed as a consistent definition of the online date.
Altmetrics: opportunités et défis associés à l’usage des médias sociaux dans ...Stefanie Haustein
350 ans après sa création, la revue savante demeure le principal moyen de diffusion des connaissances savantes, et les citations reçues par les articles constituent la mesure principale de leur impact scientifique. Les médias sociaux et leur introduction dans un contexte académique ont généré de nouvelles opportunités pour capturer l’impact sur un public potentiellement plus large—pas simplement les auteurs qui citent—et plus rapide, compte tenu de la vitesse avec laquelle l’activité dans les médias sociaux peut être mesurée. Le nombre de tweets, de publications Facebook, de lecteurs sur Mendeley, d’évaluations d’experts sur F1000, et de vues sur Slideshare sont des exemples d’indicateurs considérés comme des «altmetrics». De nombreuses revues fournissent également les «altmetrics» associées à chacun de leurs articles, certains chercheurs les présentent sur leurs CVs, et certains organismes subventionnaires commencent à envisager leur utilisation. Même s’il est devenu évident que ces nouvelles mesures sont très hétérogènes et ne peuvent remplacer les citations, on sait encore peu de choses sur leur signification et le type d’impact qu’ils reflètent. Cette communication fera un tour d’horizon des opportunités et des défis associés à l’utilisation de médias sociaux dans la communication savante.
Mendeley as a Source of Readership by Students and Postdocs? Evaluating Ar...Stefanie Haustein
Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière (2014). Mendeley as a Source of Readership by Students and Postdocs? Evaluating Article Usage by Academic Status. Presentation at IATUL 2014. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2033&context=iatul
The heterogeneity of social media metrics and its effects on statisticsStefanie Haustein
Rodrigo Costas, Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière (2014). The heterogeneity of social media metrics and its effects on statistics.
Presentation at 19th Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy, Reykjavik, 25. September 2014
http://www.rannis.is/bibliometrics/workshop-programme/
Empirical analyses of scientific papers and researchers on Twitter: Results...Stefanie Haustein
presentation held at PLoS ALM Workshop 2013 in San Francisco
http://article-level-metrics.plos.org/alm-workshop-2013-preliminary-program/
presenting results of two Twitter studies: 1.4 PubMed papers and 37 astrophysicists on Twitter
Introduction:
RNA interference (RNAi) or Post-Transcriptional Gene Silencing (PTGS) is an important biological process for modulating eukaryotic gene expression.
It is highly conserved process of posttranscriptional gene silencing by which double stranded RNA (dsRNA) causes sequence-specific degradation of mRNA sequences.
dsRNA-induced gene silencing (RNAi) is reported in a wide range of eukaryotes ranging from worms, insects, mammals and plants.
This process mediates resistance to both endogenous parasitic and exogenous pathogenic nucleic acids, and regulates the expression of protein-coding genes.
What are small ncRNAs?
micro RNA (miRNA)
short interfering RNA (siRNA)
Properties of small non-coding RNA:
Involved in silencing mRNA transcripts.
Called “small” because they are usually only about 21-24 nucleotides long.
Synthesized by first cutting up longer precursor sequences (like the 61nt one that Lee discovered).
Silence an mRNA by base pairing with some sequence on the mRNA.
Discovery of siRNA?
The first small RNA:
In 1993 Rosalind Lee (Victor Ambros lab) was studying a non- coding gene in C. elegans, lin-4, that was involved in silencing of another gene, lin-14, at the appropriate time in the
development of the worm C. elegans.
Two small transcripts of lin-4 (22nt and 61nt) were found to be complementary to a sequence in the 3' UTR of lin-14.
Because lin-4 encoded no protein, she deduced that it must be these transcripts that are causing the silencing by RNA-RNA interactions.
Types of RNAi ( non coding RNA)
MiRNA
Length (23-25 nt)
Trans acting
Binds with target MRNA in mismatch
Translation inhibition
Si RNA
Length 21 nt.
Cis acting
Bind with target Mrna in perfect complementary sequence
Piwi-RNA
Length ; 25 to 36 nt.
Expressed in Germ Cells
Regulates trnasposomes activity
MECHANISM OF RNAI:
First the double-stranded RNA teams up with a protein complex named Dicer, which cuts the long RNA into short pieces.
Then another protein complex called RISC (RNA-induced silencing complex) discards one of the two RNA strands.
The RISC-docked, single-stranded RNA then pairs with the homologous mRNA and destroys it.
THE RISC COMPLEX:
RISC is large(>500kD) RNA multi- protein Binding complex which triggers MRNA degradation in response to MRNA
Unwinding of double stranded Si RNA by ATP independent Helicase
Active component of RISC is Ago proteins( ENDONUCLEASE) which cleave target MRNA.
DICER: endonuclease (RNase Family III)
Argonaute: Central Component of the RNA-Induced Silencing Complex (RISC)
One strand of the dsRNA produced by Dicer is retained in the RISC complex in association with Argonaute
ARGONAUTE PROTEIN :
1.PAZ(PIWI/Argonaute/ Zwille)- Recognition of target MRNA
2.PIWI (p-element induced wimpy Testis)- breaks Phosphodiester bond of mRNA.)RNAse H activity.
MiRNA:
The Double-stranded RNAs are naturally produced in eukaryotic cells during development, and they have a key role in regulating gene expression .
(May 29th, 2024) Advancements in Intravital Microscopy- Insights for Preclini...Scintica Instrumentation
Intravital microscopy (IVM) is a powerful tool utilized to study cellular behavior over time and space in vivo. Much of our understanding of cell biology has been accomplished using various in vitro and ex vivo methods; however, these studies do not necessarily reflect the natural dynamics of biological processes. Unlike traditional cell culture or fixed tissue imaging, IVM allows for the ultra-fast high-resolution imaging of cellular processes over time and space and were studied in its natural environment. Real-time visualization of biological processes in the context of an intact organism helps maintain physiological relevance and provide insights into the progression of disease, response to treatments or developmental processes.
In this webinar we give an overview of advanced applications of the IVM system in preclinical research. IVIM technology is a provider of all-in-one intravital microscopy systems and solutions optimized for in vivo imaging of live animal models at sub-micron resolution. The system’s unique features and user-friendly software enables researchers to probe fast dynamic biological processes such as immune cell tracking, cell-cell interaction as well as vascularization and tumor metastasis with exceptional detail. This webinar will also give an overview of IVM being utilized in drug development, offering a view into the intricate interaction between drugs/nanoparticles and tissues in vivo and allows for the evaluation of therapeutic intervention in a variety of tissues and organs. This interdisciplinary collaboration continues to drive the advancements of novel therapeutic strategies.
Multi-source connectivity as the driver of solar wind variability in the heli...Sérgio Sacani
The ambient solar wind that flls the heliosphere originates from multiple
sources in the solar corona and is highly structured. It is often described
as high-speed, relatively homogeneous, plasma streams from coronal
holes and slow-speed, highly variable, streams whose source regions are
under debate. A key goal of ESA/NASA’s Solar Orbiter mission is to identify
solar wind sources and understand what drives the complexity seen in the
heliosphere. By combining magnetic feld modelling and spectroscopic
techniques with high-resolution observations and measurements, we show
that the solar wind variability detected in situ by Solar Orbiter in March
2022 is driven by spatio-temporal changes in the magnetic connectivity to
multiple sources in the solar atmosphere. The magnetic feld footpoints
connected to the spacecraft moved from the boundaries of a coronal hole
to one active region (12961) and then across to another region (12957). This
is refected in the in situ measurements, which show the transition from fast
to highly Alfvénic then to slow solar wind that is disrupted by the arrival of
a coronal mass ejection. Our results describe solar wind variability at 0.5 au
but are applicable to near-Earth observatories.
Richard's aventures in two entangled wonderlandsRichard Gill
Since the loophole-free Bell experiments of 2020 and the Nobel prizes in physics of 2022, critics of Bell's work have retreated to the fortress of super-determinism. Now, super-determinism is a derogatory word - it just means "determinism". Palmer, Hance and Hossenfelder argue that quantum mechanics and determinism are not incompatible, using a sophisticated mathematical construction based on a subtle thinning of allowed states and measurements in quantum mechanics, such that what is left appears to make Bell's argument fail, without altering the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. I think however that it is a smoke screen, and the slogan "lost in math" comes to my mind. I will discuss some other recent disproofs of Bell's theorem using the language of causality based on causal graphs. Causal thinking is also central to law and justice. I will mention surprising connections to my work on serial killer nurse cases, in particular the Dutch case of Lucia de Berk and the current UK case of Lucy Letby.
Seminar of U.V. Spectroscopy by SAMIR PANDASAMIR PANDA
Spectroscopy is a branch of science dealing the study of interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter.
Ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy refers to absorption spectroscopy or reflect spectroscopy in the UV-VIS spectral region.
Ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy is an analytical method that can measure the amount of light received by the analyte.
Professional air quality monitoring systems provide immediate, on-site data for analysis, compliance, and decision-making.
Monitor common gases, weather parameters, particulates.
Haustein, S. (2017). The evolution of scholarly communication and the reward system of science
1. The
evolution of
scholarly communication
and
the
reward system
of
science
Stefanie
Haustein
@stefhaustein
2. Outline
Scholarly
communication
From
the
16th century
to
Open
Science
Bibliometrics
From
library
management
to
research
evaluation
Altmetrics
Opportunities
and
challenges
Conclusions
and
Outlook
7. Scientific
Articles
Harmon,
J.E.
&
Gross,
A.G.
(2007).
The
Scientific
Literature.
A
Guided
Tour.
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
• Experiments
and
descriptions
of
the
natural
world
• Avoiding
“fine
speaking”
• Various
styles
of
arguing
• Qualitative
and
personal
judgements
8. Proportion
of
IMRaDadoption
in
medicaljournalsNumberof
references1900
to
2004
Scientific
Articles
Larivière,
V.,
Archambault,
É.
&
Gingras,
Y.
(2008).
Long-‐term
variations
in
the
aging
of
scientific
literature:
From
exponential
growth
to
steady-‐state
science
(1900-‐2004).
Journal
of
the
American
Society
for
Information
Science
and
Technology,
59(2),
288-‐296.
Sollaci,
L.B.
&
Pereira,
M.G.
(2004).
The
introduction,
methods,
results,
and
discussion
(IMRAD)
structure:
a
fifty-‐year
survey.
Journal
of
the
Medical
Library
Association,
92(3),
364-‐371
• Professionalized
and
highly
specialized
• Increased
focus
on
data,
graphs,
tables
and
theory
• Impersonal,
technical
and
codified
• Style
guides
and
gatekeeping
• Citations
• Introduction,
Methods,
Results
and
Discussion
9. Digital
Revolution
arXiv submission
statistics
from
http://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions
Larivière,
V.,
Lozano,
G.A.
&
Gingras,
Y.
(2014).
Are
elite
journals
declining?
Journal
of
the
Association
for
Information
Science
and
Technology,
65(4),
649-‐655.
• Improved access
• Acceleration
• Collaboration
• Peer
review
• Distribution
of
preprints
• Decreasing importance
of
scientific journal
• Journal
functions
• Diversification
of
publication
venues
• Symbolic capital
of
journals unchanged
Submissionsto
arXiv
Share
of
top
1%
mostcitedpapers
10. Academic Publishing Market
Larivière,
V.,
Haustein,
S.,
&
Mongeon,
P.
(2015).
The
oligopoly
of
academic
publishers
in
the
digital
era.
PLoS ONE,
10(6),
e0127502.
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
• Aggravation
of
serials
crisis
• Elsevier:
30%
increase
of
subscription
price
• Profit
margins
of
commercial
publishers
up
to
40%
• Decline
of
scientific
societies
as
publishers
• >50%
of
papers
owned
by
five
major
publishers
11. Open
Access
Archambault,
É.,
Amyot,
D.,
Deschamps,
P.,
Nicol,
A.,
Rebout,
L.
&
Roberge,
G.
(2013).
Proportion
of
Open
Access
Peer-‐Reviewed
Papers
at
the
European
and
World
Levels
2004-‐2011.
Report
for
the
European
Commission.
http://www.science-‐metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Availability_2004-‐2011.pdf
Budapest
Open
Access
Initiative
“immediate,
free
availability
on
the
public
internet,
permitting
any
users
to
read,
download,
copy,
distribute,
print,
search
or
link
to
the
full
text
of
these
articles”
• Gold
and
Green
• Libre
and
Gratis
• Hybrid
• Elsevier:
$500
to
5,000
• Springer:
$3,000
• Wiley:
$3,000
Freelyavailablejournal
papers2004
to
2011
Budapest
Open
Access
Initiative
(2002)
12. Open
Science
Kraker,
P.,
Leony,
D.,
Reinhardt,
W.
&
Beham,
G.
(2011).
The
case
for
an
open
science
in
technology
enhanced
learning.
International
Journal
of
Technology
Enhanced
Learning,
3(6),
643-‐654.
“opening
up
the
research
process
by
making
all
of
its
outcomes,
and
the
way
in
which
these
outcomes
were
achieved,
publicly
available
on
the
World
Wide
Web”
• Open
Data
• Open
Source
• Open
Methodology
• Open
Access
• Open
Peer
Review
Krakeret
al.
(2011,
p.
645)
13.
14. Bibliometrics
Gross,
P.L.K.
&
Gross,
E.M.
(1927).
College
libraries
and
chemical
education.
Science,
66(1713),
385-‐389.
Library
collection
management
Journalscitedin
the
Journal
of
the
American
Chemical
Society1926
15. Bibliometrics
Garfield,
E.
(1955).
Citation
indexes
for
science.
A
new
dimension
in
documentation
through
association
of
ideas.
Science,
122,
108-‐111.
Information
retrieval
•
“It
would
not
be
excessive
to
demand
that
the
thorough
scholar
check
all
papers
that
have
cited
or
criticized
such
papers,
if
they
could
be
located
quickly.
The
citation
index
makes
this
check
practicable.”
• Institute
for
Scientific
Information
• Science
Citation
Index
• Source
Author Index
• Citation
Index
Garfield
(1955,
p.
108)
16. Bibliometrics
Price,
D.
J.
d.
S.
(1961).
Science
Since
Babylon.
New
Haven
/
London:
Yale
University
Press,
Price,
D.
J.
d.
S.
(1963).
Little
Science,
Big
Science.
New
York:
Columbia
University
Press.
Sociology
of
science
Derek
J.
de
Solla Price
Science
since
Babylon
(1961)
Little
Science
– Big
Science
(1963)
17. Bibliometrics
Merton,
R.
K.
(1988).
The
Matthew
effect
in
science,
II:
Cumulative
advantage
and
the
symbolism
of
intellectual
property.
Isis,
79,
606–623.
Sociology
of
science
Robert
K.
Merton
• Social
norms of
science
• Communalism
• Universalism
• Disinterestedness
• Organized skepticism
• Matthew
effect
“symbolically,
[the
reference]
registers
in
the
enduring
archives
the
intellectual
property
of
the
acknowledged
source
by
providing
a
pellet
of
peer
recognition
of
the
knowledge
claim”
Merton
(1988,
p.
621)
18. Bibliometrics
Moed,
H.F.,
Burger,
W.J.M.,
Frankfort,
J.G,
van
Raan,
A.F.J.
(1985).
The
use
of
bibliometric
data
for
the
measurement
of
university
research
performance.
Research
Policy,
14(3),
131-‐149.
Research
evaluation
• Performance
measurement and
policy instrument
“When
used
properly,
bibliometric
indicators
can
provide
a
‘monitoring
device’
for
university
research-‐management
and
science
policy.
They
enable
research
policy-‐makers
to
ask
relevant
questions
of
researchers
on
their
scientific
performance,
in
order
to
find
explanations
of
the
bibliometric
results
in
terms
of
factors
relevant
to
policy.”
• Commercialization
Moedet
al.
(1985,
p.
131)
20. Bibliometrics
Hvistendahl,
M.
(2013).
China’s
publication
bazaar.
Science,
342(6162),
1035-‐1039.
van
Noorden,
R.
(2013).
Brazilian
citation
scheme
outed:
Thomson
Reuters
suspends
journals
from
its
rankings
for
‘citation
stacking’,
Nature,
500(7464),
510-‐511.
Research
evaluation
• Oversimplification
• Publications
=
productivity
• Citations
=
impact
• Uninformed
use
and
misuse
• Impact
factor
• h-‐index
• Adverse
effects
• “Salami”
publishing
• Honorary
authorship
• Self-‐citations
• Citation
cartels
21. Scholarly metrics
Björneborn,
L.
&
Ingwersen,
P.
(2004),
Toward
a
basic
framework
for
webometrics.
Journal
of
the
American
Society
for
Information
Science
and
Technology,
55(14),
1216–1227.
Definitions
informetrics
scientometrics
bibliometrics
cybermetrics
webometrics
adaptedfrom:
Björneborn&
Ingwersen(2004,
p.
1217)
22. Scholarly metrics
Otlet,
P.
(1934).
Traité
de
documentation:
le
livre
sur
le
livre,
théorie
et
pratique.
Pritchard,
P.
(1927).
Statistical bibliography or
bibliometrics?
Journal
of
Documentation,
25,
348-‐349..
Bibliometrics
informetrics
scientometrics
bibliometrics
cybermetrics
webometrics
“La
«Bibliometrie»
sera
la
partie
définie
de
la
Bibliologie
qui
s'occupe
de
la
mesure
ou
quantité
appliquée
aux
livres.”
“the
application
of
mathematics
and
statistical
methods
to
books
and
other
media
of
communication”
Pritchard
(1969,
p.
348)
Otlet
(1934,
p.
14)
23. Scholarly metrics
Altmetrics
adaptedfrom:
Björneborn&
Ingwersen(2004,
p.
1217)
informetrics
scientometrics
bibliometrics
cybermetrics
webometrics altmetrics
Björneborn,
L.
&
Ingwersen,
P.
(2004),
Toward
a
basic
framework
for
webometrics.
Journal
of
the
American
Society
for
Information
Science
and
Technology,
55(14),
1216–1227.
24. Scholarly metrics
Priem,
J.
(2014).
Altmetrics.
In
B.
Cronin
&
C.
R.
Sugimoto (Eds.),
Beyond
bibliometrics:
harnessing multidimensional indicators of
performance
(pp.
263–287).
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press.
Rousseau,
R.
&
Ye,
F.
(2013).
A
multi-‐metric approach for
research evaluation.
Chinese Science
Bulletin,
3288–3290.
doi:10.1007/s11434-‐013-‐5939-‐3
Altmetrics
informetrics
scientometrics
bibliometrics
cybermetrics
webometrics altmetrics
“study
and
use
of
scholarly
impact
measures
based
on
activity
in
online
tools
and
environments”
“a
good
idea
but
a
bad
name”
Rousseau
&
Ye(2013,
p.
3289)
Priem(2014,
p.
266)
26. Scholarly metrics
Haustein,
S.,
(2016).
Grand
challenges
in
altmetrics:
heterogeneity,
data
quality
and
dependencies.
Scientometrics,
108(1),
413–423.
altmetrics
informetrics
scientometrics
bibliometrics
cybermetrics
webometrics
Scholarly
metrics
Acts: viewing, reading,
saving, diffusing,
mentioning, citing,
reusing, modifying, etc.
Scholarly documents:
papers, books, blog posts,
datasets, code, etc.
Scholarly agents:
researchers, universities,
funders, journals, etc.
“[S]cholarly metrics
are
thus
defined
as
indicators
based
on
recorded
events
of
acts
[…]
related
to
scholarly
documents
[…]
or
scholarly
agents
[…].”
Haustein
(2016,
p.
348)
27.
28. Altmetrics
Priem,
J.,
Taraborelli,
D.,
Groth,
P.,
&
Neylon,
C.
(2010).
Alt-‐metrics:
a
manifesto.
October.
Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
• Information
overload
“We
rely
on
filters
to
make
sense
of
the
scholarly
literature,
but
the
narrow,
traditional
filters
are
being
swamped.
However,
the
growth
of
new,
online
scholarly
tools
allows
us
to
make
new
filters;
these
altmetrics
reflect
the
broad,
rapid
impact
of
scholarship
in
this
burgeoning
ecosystem.”
• Criticism
against
current
form
of
research
evaluation
• Alternative
forms
of
research
output
• Alternative
use
and
visibility
of
publications
Priem et al. (2010)
29. Altmetrics
Coverage per
platform
Haustein,
S.,
Costas,
R.,
&
Larivière,
V.
(2015).
Characterizing
social
media
metrics
of
scholarly
papers:
The
effect
of
document
properties
and
collaboration
patterns.
PLoS ONE,
10(5),
e0127830.
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
Zahedi,
Z.,
&
Haustein,
S.
(in
preparation).
Which
document
features
attract
users
in
Mendeley?
An
analysis
of
bibliographic
characteristics
of
Web
of
Science
publications
and
Mendeley
readership
counts.
30. Mathematics
&
Computer
Science
Natural
Sciences
&
Engineering
Life
&
Earth Sciences
Biomedical &
Health Sciences
Social
Sciences
&
Humanities
76,4
%
83,7
%
91,4
%
86,5
%
81,7
%
Mendeley
7,5
%
12,9
%
21,6
%
31,7
%
26,0
%
Twitter
Altmetrics
Coverage per
discipline
Haustein,
S.,
Costas,
R.,
&
Larivière,
V.
(2015).
Characterizing
social
media
metrics
of
scholarly
papers:
The
effect
of
document
properties
and
collaboration
patterns.
PLoS ONE,
10(5),
e0127830.
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
Zahedi,
Z.,
&
Haustein,
S.
(in
preparation).
Which
document
features
attract
users
in
Mendeley?
An
analysis
of
bibliographic
characteristics
of
Web
of
Science
publications
and
Mendeley
readership
counts.
31. Altmetrics
Density and
intensity per
platform
Intensity
Haustein,
S.,
Costas,
R.,
&
Larivière,
V.
(2015).
Characterizing
social
media
metrics
of
scholarly
papers:
The
effect
of
document
properties
and
collaboration
patterns.
PLoS ONE,
10(5),
e0127830.
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
Zahedi,
Z.,
&
Haustein,
S.
(in
preparation).
Which
document
features
attract
users
in
Mendeley?
An
analysis
of
bibliographic
characteristics
of
Web
of
Science
publications
and
Mendeley
readership
counts.
32. Altmetrics
Spearman
correlations with citations
Perfectnegativecorrelation
Perfectpositive
correlation
Haustein,
S.,
Larivière,
V.,
Thelwall,
M.,
Amyot,
D.,
&
Peters,
I.
(2014).
Tweets
vs.
Mendeley
readers:
How
do
these two social
media
metrics differ.
Information
Technology,
56(5),
207–215.
doi:
10.1515/itit-‐2014-‐1048
Haustein,
S.,
Costas,
R.,
&
Larivière,
V.
(2015).
Characterizing
social
media
metrics
of
scholarly
papers:
The
effect
of
document
properties
and
collaboration
patterns.
PLoS ONE,
10(5),
e0127830.
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
33. Altmetrics
Spearman
correlations with citations
NSF
Subdiscipline General
Biomedical Research 2011
Size of data points represents number of Mendeley readers in Twitter graph (left) and number of tweets
in Mendeley graph (right).
Haustein,
S.,
Larivière,
V.,
Thelwall,
M.,
Amyot,
D.,
&
Peters,
I.
(2014).
Tweets
vs.
Mendeley
readers:
How
do
these two social
media
metrics differ.
Information
Technology,
56(5),
207–215.
doi:
10.1515/itit-‐2014-‐1048
34. Altmetrics
Document
types
Haustein,
S.,
Costas,
R.,
&
Larivière,
V.
(2015).
Characterizing
social
media
metrics
of
scholarly
papers:
The
effect
of
document
properties
and
collaboration
patterns.
PLoS ONE,
10(5),
e0127830.
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
41. Opportunities
• Different acts
• Diverse
motivations
Ø Diverse
impact
Challenges
• Understanding underlying processes
Ø Determining the
meaning of
metrics
Heterogeneity of
Altmetrics
44. Heterogeneity
Bertin,
M.,
Atanassova,
I.,
Gingras,
Y.,
&
Larivière,
V.
(2015).
The
invariant
distribution
of
references
in
scientific
articles.
Journal
of
the
Association
for
Information
Science
and
Technology, 67(1),
164-‐177.
doi:
10.1002/asi.23367
Distribution
of
referencesalongthe
IMRaDstructure
Citing in
a
journal
article
45. Heterogeneity
Acts referring to
research objects
Haustein,
S.,
Bowman,
T.
D.,
&
Costas,
R.
(2016).
Interpreting “altmetrics”:
Viewing acts on
social
media
through the
lens of
citation
and
social
theories.
Dans
C.
R.
Sugimoto (dir.),
Theories of
Informetrics and
Scholarly Communication
(p.
372–405).
Berlin:
De
Gruyter Mouton.
doi:
10.1515/9783110308464-‐022
RESEARCH OBJECT
46. Time
and
Timing
Opportunities
• Detailed life
cycle
of
scientific output
Ø Fine-‐grained indicators and
adequate benchmarks
Challenges
• Versions
of
research output
• Publication
dates
47. Time
and
Timing
Journal
article
• Submitted manuscript
• Revised manuscript
• Accepted manuscript
• Version
of
Record
• Online
publication
• Journal
issue
• Online
date
• Issue
month
Ø Adjusting indicators
3
March
2014
15
July
2014
21
January2015
February2015
50. Time
and
Timing
Weekday effects on
Twitter
weekday of
online publication:
based on:
8,765 Springer papers with
online publication date
19,010 tweets received within one year
of online publication date
51. Audiences
and
User
Groups
Opportunities
• Differentiating between types
of
users
• Measuring societal impact
Challenges
• Identifying users and
user
groups
• Determining engagement
52. Audiences
and
User
Groups
Alperin,
J.
P.
(2015).
Moving
beyond
counts:
A
method
for
surveying
Twitter
users.
In
altmetrics15:
5
years
in,
what
do
we
know?
Amsterdam,
The
Netherlands.
Retrieved
from:
http://altmetrics.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2015/09/altmetrics15_paper_3.pdf
Tsou,
A.,
Bowman,
T.
D.,
Ghazinejad,
A.,
&
Sugimoto,
C.
R.
(2015).
Who tweets
about
science?
In
Proceedings of
the
2015
International
Society
for
Scientometrics and
Informetrics (pp.
95–100).
Istanbul,
Turkey.
Identifying Twitter
users
• Altmetric.com
classification
• Among
a
random
sample
of
2,000
accounts
tweeting
papers,
34%
of
individuals
identified
as
having
PhD
• Of
286
users
linking
to
SciELO articles,
24%
employed
at
university,
23%
students,
36%
not
university
affiliated
*based on
Altmetric.com
data
06/2015
(Tsou, Bowman, Ghazinejad, & Sugimoto, 2010)
(Alperin, 2015)
53. 1
2
3
Audiences
and
User
Groups
Haustein,
S.,
&
Costas,
R.,
(2015).
Identifying Twitter
audiences:
who is tweeting about
scientific papers?
Communication
présentée
au
SIG/MET
Workshop,
ASIS&T
2015
Annual Meeting,
7
novembre
2015,
Saint-‐Louis,
MO
(USA).
topics and
collectives
academic
personal
Node size
number of
accounts
associated with term
Node color
cluster
affiliation
Terms
in
Twitter
bio
54. Audiences
and
User
Groups
Engagement
with scientific papers on
Twitter
Haustein,
S.,
Bowman,
T.
D.,
Holmberg,
K.,
Tsou,
A.,
Sugimoto,
C.
R.,
&
Larivière,
V.
(2016).
Tweets
as
impact
indicators:
Examining
the
implications
of
automated
bot
accounts
on
Twitter.
Journal
of
the
Association
for
Information
Science
and
Technology,
67(1),
232–238.
doi:
10.1002/asi.23456
58. Conclusions
• Scholarly communication
and
the
reward system
of
science
are
changing
• Potential to
become more
transparent
and
diverse
• Open
Science
• Scholarly metrics
• Fundamental difference between posting on
social
media
and
academic publishing
• More
metrics =
more
complexity