E-Learn 2014 Abstract: Today digital footprints are left all over the Internet for others to find. This article reviews the means through which scholars can organize research and connect digital scholarship for increased visibility and impact. A survey of the literature on scholarship tools to provide connections for publishing records, academic citations, and digital identity management was done. The authors reviewed Researcher ID, ORCID, and Google Scholar Citations. The numbers of portals for synthesizing research output and related identity management platforms are increasing; however, understanding what this research impact might look like in the digital age can provide questions for assessment for understanding these traces of scholarship online.

1. Digital Scholarship and
Impact Factors:
Methods and Tools to
Connect Your Research
Laura A. Pasquini, Jenny S. Wakefield, Adalheidur Reed & Jeff M. Allen
2014 AACE E-Learn #elearn14
Virtual Department of Brief Paper Learning New Orleans, LA
Technologies
University of North Texas, USA
AACE E-Learn #elearn14 October 27-30, 2014
Virtual Brief Paper New Orleans, LA

2. How can the scholarly field
measure individual
research impact with
regards to their
publications and
presentations?

3. Digital
Footprints
Digital footprints emerge as
we communicate and interact
online over social media,
content sharing platforms,
and by using and subscribing
to tools and services
(Bodhani, 2012).

4. Will you be “Googled well?” asks Richardson
(2008). Let’s find out.

5. How well will Google
represent the researcher?
{Good question.}

6. The Digital Scholar
Movement
Martin Weller
a.k.a. @mweller
… The Ed Techie
6

7. 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).

8. Assessment of Research
Performanace

9. Literature Review
• 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)

10. Research Identity
Development –
The Platforms and Social
Spaces

11. ORCID
ORCID: Connecting Research and Researchers
http://orcid.org

12. Researcher ID
http://www.researcherid.com/

13. Scopus
http://www.scopus.com

14. Google Scholar Citations
http://scholar.google.com/intl/en-
US/scholar/citations.html

15. Academia.edu
http://www.academica.edu

16. Mendeley
http://www.mendeley.com

17. The Social (Media) Scholar
Beyond these specific
scholarly platforms, we
have seen an increase in
social networking use,
academic blogging or
microblogging (e.g.
Twitter), and online
sharing of images,
videos, and audio for
both data and research
distribution.

18. (Chong, 2010)

19. (Darling, Shiffman, Côté, & Drew, 2013)

20. Networked Research
Collaborations & Opportunities

21. Academic research silos BE GONE!
Flickr photo c/o dsearls

22. Flickr photo c/o vickel_n

23. “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
acknowledged.”
(Pasquini, Wakefield, Reed & Allen, 2014)

24. How will you
manage
your
research
identity?
Flickr photo c/o furiousgeorge81

25. Want to follow our research?
Laura: @laurapasquini + ORCID: 0000-0002-0145-9070
Jenny: @jenny_wakefield + ORCID: 0000-0002-4740-0314
Adalheidur: @heidareed + ORCID: 0000-0002-7010-1531
Jeff: @drjeffallen + ORCID: 0000-0003-0551-0539
Thanks!

26. References
Bodhani, A. (2012). Digital footprints step up. Engineering & Technology, Feb2012. Retrieved from
www.EandTmagazine.com.
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:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v2_n3n4html/brey.html
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

27. References (con’t)
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,
607-629.
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
Black.