This document provides guidance on developing an effective publication strategy. It discusses factors like choosing high impact journals, international collaboration, networking, open access publishing, and ensuring accurate author attribution and affiliations. Metrics like the h-index and citation baselines are also examined. Overall, the document emphasizes publishing in top journals to maximize impact, working with others through collaboration and teams, and using tools like social media and databases to promote one's research and connect with others in their field.

1. Publishing for impact
Elements for a publication strategy
Wouter Gerritsma, Wageningen UR Library

2. Publishing tips about:

3. IF in 2010 for Agricultural Systems

4. 50% of articles generate 90% of all cites
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ
314(7079): 497-502. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497

5. Full screen image with title

6. How are we able to compare numbers?
 Scientist Z. Math has a publication from 2001 with 17 citations
 Scientist M. Biology has a publication from 2007 with 32 citations

7. Baselines for Mathematics

8. Baselines for Molecular Biology

9. Bibliometric indicators: An example
 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

10. Baseline data to normalize citation data?
Citations data source Baselines
Web of Science ESI or InCites
Scopus SciVal Strata
Google Scholar none
Propriatary A&I database none

11. H-index
 Balance between productivity
and citedness
 To rule out the effect of one
or two highly cited papers
 Applicable to
authors, journals, research
groups, compounds, subjects
etc…
 But there are some serious
doubts about robustness
Waltman, L. & N. J. van Eck (2011). The inconsistency of
the h-index. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 63(2):406-415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21678

12. In practice

13. Omnipresent h-index

14. Wageningen Yield: all information at hand

15. Select WoS table

16. Strong growth of publications, high impact

17. There is still room for optimization

18. The actual publications, categorization and
their impact are provided

19. Research credits report (partly)

20. And view the publications

21. After excellent research,
where should you publish?

22. Look at the IF in a different way

23. Journal quality and article impact 2003-
2009, for Wageningen UR
Journal
Quartile Pubs RI T10(%T10) T1(%T1)
Q1 7170 2.26 2444(34%) 505(7%)
Q2 2919 1.26 578 (20%) 61 (2%)
Q3 1303 0.93 143 (11%) 10 (1%)
Q4 587 0.66 30 (5%) 6 (1%)
Aggregate 11917 1.79 3195(27%) 582(5%)
Source: Wageningen Yield, Feb. 2012

24. Journal quality and impact global universities

25. Highlighting Dutch Universities

26. But where is Wageningen UR? And TIFN?

27. Journal selection and impact @WUR

28. Document type and article impact 2003-
2009, for Wageningen UR
Document
type Pubs RI T10(%T10) T1(%T1)
Article 11212 1.62 2777(25%) 437( 4%)
Review 705 4.45 418 (59%) 145(21%)
Aggregate 11917 1.79 3195(27%) 582(5%)
Source: Wageningen Yield, Feb. 2012

29. Journal IF Articles
PLoS One 4.092 12
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 6.669 8
BMC Genomics 4.073 8
The Journal of Nutrition 3.916 7
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. Molecular and Cell Biology
of Lipids 5.269 6
Journal of Biological Chemistry 4.773 5
Cell Metabolism 13.668 4
Hepatology 11.665 4
Arteriosclerosis Thrombosis and Vascular Biology 6.368 3
Diabetes 8.286 3
Endocrinology 4.459 3
Gut 10.111 3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 9.681 3

30. 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

31. 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 Computational Biology 1(5): e57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057

32. Networking

33. International cooperation
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
Aggregate 25 1.15 44 1.53
NOWT (2008). Wetenschaps- en Technologie- Indicatoren 2008. Maastricht,
Nederlands Observatorium van Wetenschap en Technologie (NOWT).

34. Cooperation is effective
WTI2 report 2011

35. Cooperation...
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.
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

36. Networking is important
 Start early, make use of Social Networking tools
● Facebook
● LinkedIn
● Social networks for scientists
● Academia.edu, Researchgate.net

37. On social networking

38. On using social media
Melissa Terras' Blog

39. Consider the Wikipedia
 For better or worse, people are guided to Wikipedia
when searching the Web for biomedical information. So
there is an increasing need for the scientific community
to engage with Wikipedia to ensure that the information
it contains is accurate and current.
Logan, D.W., M. Sandal, P.P. Gardner, M. Manske & A. Bateman
(2010). Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia. PLoS Comput
Biol, 6(9): e1000941 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941

40. Self citations and more

41. 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.
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.
11/28

42. 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
To be the best, cite the best
Borrowed from: Corbyn, Z. (2010). "To be the best, cite the best." Nature News, 13 October
2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/news.2010.539 Reporting on the publication of Bornmann, L., F.
de Moya Anegón, et al. (2010). Do Scientific Advancements Lean on the Shoulders of Giants? A
Bibliometric Investigation of the Ortega Hypothesis. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13327 DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013327.

44. More articles per research project?
 Publishing more articles results in higher citation counts
if the articles provide sufficient substantive content to
other researchers.
● Beware of the ethical standards
● Bornmann looked at total citations, not to relative
impact
Bornmann, L. & H.-D. Daniel (2007). Multiple publication on a single research study:
Does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in
biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 58(8): 1100-1107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20531

45. Journal selection and referencing with
multidisciplinary research
 Higher citations are linked to the citation-intensive
disciplines.
 Articles citing citation-intensive disciplines are more
likely to be cited by those disciplines and, hence, obtain
higher citation scores than would articles citing non-
citation-intensive disciplines.
Larivière, V. & Y. Gingras (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific
impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1): 126-131
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21226
 Larivière looked at citations per article but not relative to
the field

46. Citations
Avg
Social Sciences Clinical Medicine

47. Consider Open Access publishing
 Be aware of your copyrights when publishing
 Golden Road
● PloS Journals, BMC, etc.
 Green Road
● Self archived copies (final author’s version)
● Wageningen Yield, PMC, etc.
 Open Choice
● Hybrid system, author pays and library pays
● Sage model (only 10% of standard fees)

48. Other useful information - WaY
 http://library.wur.nl/way/ - Information for authors
 Publishing dissertations
● http://library.wur.nl/way/authors/dissertations.html
 Copyright Information (copyright transfer – license to publish)
● http://library.wur.nl/way/authors/policies.html
 Open Access
● http://library.wur.nl/way/authors/open_access.html

49. Is there a citation advantage for OA?
 Evidence is mounting
● There is certainly no dis-advantange
● Van Raan has started to self archive his preprints
● Publishers allow self archiving of the final peer
reviewed authors version
● Open Citation Project
 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

50. Deposit author versions to WaY
http://edepot.wur.nl/169331

51. Publish your data!
 Henneken et al. (2011) "articles with links to data result
in higher citation rates than articles without such links"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3618
 Piwowar et al. (2007) "Sharing detailed research data is
associated with increased citation rate
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308
 Also relevant in the view of the latest developments
(KNAW)
 Library assists in curating datasets
● mailto:data.library@wur.nl

52. What is in a name?

53. Claim your publications
 ResearcherID (Web of Science)
 Scopus Author ID (Scopus)
 Google Scholar Citations
 AuthorClaim
 Mendeley
Enserink, M. (2009). Scientific Publishing: Are You Ready to Become a Number? Science,
323(5922): 1662-1664 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.323.5922.1662
 ORCID

54. Who is the author of this thesis?

55. On the inside

56. On her own publication list

57. Get your affiliation right
For the university:
Chair group + Wageningen University
Plant Production Systems Group, Wageningen
University, P.O. box ..., 6700 HA Wageningen, The
Netherlands
For the institutes:
Institute + Wageningen University & Research Centre
Alterra, Wageningen University & Research Centre, P.O.
box ..., 6700 HA Wageningen, The Netherlands

58. Thank you!
http://tinyurl.com/7r67fmm
http://viaf.org/viaf/285392263/
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7274-0698
http://wu.academia.edu/WouterGerritsma
http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-4161-2008
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/wouter-gerritsma
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wouter_Gerritsma
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3iDBE-MAAAAJ
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/34373815
http://www.narcis.nl/person/info:eu-repo/dai/nl/33714253X