This document provides tips for publishing research to maximize impact, including citation analysis, journal impact factors, networking, and additional best practices. It discusses comparing citation numbers over time, baseline metrics for different fields, bibliometric indicators, RIKILT's publication and citation data, the relationship between journal impact factors and article citations, international collaboration increasing impact, and the benefits of social networking and open access publishing.

1. Publishing for impact by RIKILT
Wouter Gerritsma
Wageningen UR Library

2. Contents
 Introduction
 Citation analysis
 Journal Impact
 Networking
 Additional tips
 Affiliation

3. Not your average publishing tips

4. My article has been cited 22 times!
But was does it mean?
Image: www.rcac.net.au

5. How do we compare numbers?
 Scientist Z. Math has a publication from 1999 with
17 citations
 Scientist M. Biology has a publication from 2006
with 24 citations

6. Baselines for Mathematics

7. Baseline Molecular Biology
0
100
200
300
400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Years after publication
Cumulativeno.citations
Baseline
top 10%
top 1%

8. Bibliometric indicators: An example
 Branderhorst, H.M., Liskamp, R.M.J., Visser, G.M.,
Pieters, R.J. (2007) Strong inhibition of cholera toxin
binding by galactose dendrimers. Chemical
Communications 47: 5043 - 5045.
 Times cited: 19 times
 Chemical Communications (from journals menu ESI)
 Chemistry
 Baseline data (from ESI)
 Article from 2007 in Chemistry: Average: 7.05 citations, 10%: 17 citations,
1%: 54 citations
 RI= 19 / 7.05 = 2.7

9. Advanced bibliometric indicators
 Follow van Raan (1996) 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)
 Same baseline data used for selected document types
• (articles, reviews, notes and letters (and selected proceedings))
 We can determine the representativeness of the
citation analysis

10. Data aggregation in Wageningen Yield
“Crown Indicator” like“MNCS” like

11. RIKILT SEP table 2002-2009

12. RIKILT WoS publications 2002-2009
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Total
refereed
journal articles 34 44 46 53 50 71 79 90 467
WoS 28 40 42 52 48 69 75 86 440
WoS
coverage 82% 91% 91% 98% 96% 97% 95% 96% 94%

13. RIKILT impact by category 2002-2009

14. RIKILT impact by year

15. Some Wageningen UR Institutes 2002-2007
N C Wavg CPP CI RI %T10 (T10) %T1 (T1)
%NC
(NC)
A&F 345 4212 3325.71 12.21 1.27 1.40 16% (55) 1% (5) 4% (15)
Alterra 671 10032 6797.97 14.95 1.48 1.59 19% (129) 3% (17) 6% (42)
ASG 312 3146 2905.42 10.08 1.08 1.19 13% (42) 1% (4) 7% (21)
LEI 89 665 730.53 7.47 0.91 1.11 9% (8) 0% (0) 13% (12)
PRI 867 16864 9925.7 19.45 1.70 1.90 22% (194) 5% (40) 4% (36)
RIKILT 272 5478 3085.4 20.14 1.78 2.08 26% (70) 7% (20) 4% (11)

16. Journal selection and article impact
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ArticleRelativeImpact
Journal Impact Factor

17. JIF quartiles and article impact for RIKILT
P RI St.Dev.
Q1 204 2.39 2.69
Q2 48 1.18 1.07
Q3 9 1.03 0.90
Q4 3 0.61 0.58
Avg 264 1.70 2.47

18. Selected Quartile 1 journals for RIKILT
Articles Journal JIF
27 ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA 3.186
13 FOOD ADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS 1.610
12 FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY 2.341
11 JOURNAL OF NUTRITION 3.689
8 JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY 2.327
6 RISK ANALYSIS 1.510
4 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 5.450
4 JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A 3.096
4 ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY 2.370
4 JOURNAL OF AOAC INTERNATIONAL 1.147
3 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 5.853
3 DIABETOLOGIA 5.247
3 CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR LIFE SCIENCES 4.812
3 ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 2.867
3 CHEMOSPHERE 2.739
3 FOOD CHEMISTRY 2.433
3 ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 1.290

19. Journal selection and impact of Dutch Univ.
NOWT (2008). Wetenschaps- en Technologie- Indicatoren 2008. Maastricht, Nederlands
Observatorium van Wetenschap en Technologie (NOWT).

20. Journal selection at EPS
EPS Annual Report 2009. http://www.graduateschool-eps.info/

21. Journal selection and impact at EPS
JIF Pubs RI St. Dev.
> 10 55 8.73 8.73
5 < 10 156 4.07 3.64
2 < 5 444 1.93 2.08
0 < 2 326 1.35 3.51

22. Other journal quality information sources
 Essential Science Indicators (WoK platform)
 ScimagoJR (based on Scopus)
 Journalmetrics.com (based on Scopus)

23. The impact factor Matthew effect
The journal in which papers are published have a strong
influence on their citation rates, as duplicate papers
published in high-impact journals obtain, on average, twice
as many citations as their identical counterparts published
in journals with lower impact factors..
Larivière, V. and Y. Gingras (2010). The impact factor's Matthew Effect: A natural
experiment in bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology 61(2): 424-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21232

24. Final word on journal quality
It is better to publish one paper in a quality journal than
multiple papers in lesser journals. [...]. Try to publish in
journals that have high impact factors; chances are your
paper will have high impact, too, if accepted.
Bourne, P. E. (2005). Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published.
PLoS Comput Biol 1(5): e57.

25. Networking

26. International cooperation
NOWT (2008). Wetenschaps- en Technologie- Indicatoren 2008. Maastricht, Nederlands
Observatorium van Wetenschap en Technologie (NOWT).
No Cooperation International Cooperation
University % output Impact % output Impact
EUR 16 1.13 40 2.00
RUG 23 1.07 39 1.43
RUN 20 0.94 39 1.46
TUD 33 1.24 43 1.52
TUE 29 1.50 41 1.52
UL 20 0.90 46 1.38
UM 16 0.90 42 1.48
UT 33 1.33 37 1.36
UU 21 1.54 39 1.61
UvA 20 1.15 43 1.64
UvT 25 1.15 42 1.21
VUA 18 1.15 43 1.68
WUR 21 1.12 49 1.27
Total 25 1.15 44 1.53

27. Cooperation is effective
NOWT (2010). Wetenschaps- en Technologie- Indicatoren 2010. Maastricht,
Nederlands Observatorium van Wetenschap en Technologie (NOWT).
Field Normalized Article Impact
University
Single author
address
National Co-
publication
International Co-
publication
EUR 1.09 1.16 1.91
TUE 1.51 1.47 1.37
VUA 1.17 1.13 1.68
UvA 1.19 1.16 1.63
TUD 1.52 1.13 1.41
LEI 0.99 1.15 1.59
UT 1.25 1.35 1.41
UU 1.09 1.14 1.61
RU 1.03 1.06 1.66
RUG 1.12 1.08 1.51
WUR 1.02 1.23 1.37
UM 0.87 1.07 1.50
UvT 0.91 0.89 1.02

28. Cooperation...
Wuchty, S., B. F. Jones, et al. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in
production of knowledge. Science 316(5827): 1036-1039.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
Teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the
production of knowledge. Research is increasingly done
in teams across nearly all fields.
Teams typically produce more frequently cited research
than individuals do, and this advantage has been
increasing over time.
Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact
research, even where that distinction was once the
domain of solo authors.

29. Networking is important!
Start early, make use of social networking tools
 LinkedIn
 You can include publication lists!
 Facebook
 Social networks for scientists
 Academics.edu, Nature networks, Labmeeting

30. Social networking for Scientists

31. Social networking for Scientists

32. Social networking for Scientists

33. Social networking for Scientists

34. Social networking for Scientists

35. Self citations and more

36. Self citations
The model [...] implies that external citations are
enhanced by self-citations, so that we have the “chain
reaction:” Larger size leads to more self-citations,
which lead to more external citations.
11/28
van Raan, A. F. J. (2008). Self-citation as an impact-reinforcing
mechanism in the science system. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 59(10): 1631-1643.

37. More on references
Articles that cite more references are in turn cited
more themselves
Webster, G. D., P. K. Jonason, et al. (2009). Hot Topics and Popular Papers in Evolutionary Psychology:
Analyses of Title Words and Citation Counts in Evolution and Human Behavior, 1979 – 2008. Evolutionary
Psychology 7(3): 348-362. http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep07348362.pdf
Citing across disciplines, risky but rewarding
Shi, X., J. Leskovec, et al. (2010). Citing for high impact. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on
Digital Libraries. p.49-58 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1816123.1816131

38. Make your pubications OA available
 Be aware of the copyrights agreement at the
moment of publishing
 Golden Road
 PloS Journals, BMC, etc
Green Road
 Self archived copies
 Wageningen Yield, RePec, ArXiv etc.
Open Choice
 Hybrid system, author pays and library pays
 Springer journals are a favourable exception

39. Is there a citation advantage for OA?
 Evidence is not entirely conclusive, but mounting
 van Raan has started to self archive his preprints
 OA is important for developing countries
Evans, J.A., Reimer, J., 2009. Open access and global participation in science.
Science. 323, 1025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1154562

40. What’s in a name?

41. Is RIKILT part of Wageningen UR?

42. Is RIKILT part of Wageningen UR?

43. Is RIKILT part of Wageningen UR?

44. Is RIKILT part of Wageningen UR?

45. Wagenignen UR Top researchers

46. Thank you!
http://wowter.net
http://www.slideshare.net/wowter