scholarly journals Study in Grey and White: Measuring the Impact of the 8Rs Canadian Library Human Resources Study

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Allison Sivak
Keyword(s):  
Human Resources ◽  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Test Case ◽  
Manual Method ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
Google Search ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Published Research

Objective – To use the 8Rs Canadian Library Human Resources Study (the 8Rs Study) as a test case to develop a model for assessing research impact in LIS. Methods – Three different methods of citation analysis which take into account the changing environment of scholarly communications. These include a ‚manual‛ method of locating citations to the 8Rs Study through a major LIS database, an enhanced-citation tool Google Scholar, and a general Google search to locate Study references in non-scholarly documents Results – The majority of references (82%) were found using Google or Google Scholar; the remainder were located via LISA. Each method had strengths and limitations. Conclusion - In-depth citation analysis provides a promising method of understanding the reach of published research. This investigation’s findings suggest the need for improvements in LIS citation tools, as well as digital archiving practices to improve the accessibility of references for measuring research impact. The findings also suggest the merit of researchers and practitioners defining levels of research impact, which will assist researchers in the dissemination of their work.

scholarly journals Numbers that tell a story: Measuring the impact of open access books

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Emery ◽  
Mithu Lucraft ◽  
Agata Morka ◽  
Matteo Prandi ◽  
Ros Pyne
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Book Publishing ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Career Progression ◽  
Book Publisher ◽  
Central Theme ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
The Impact

Open access book publishing is gaining momentum, with more than 10,000 titles published worldwide. But compared to the overall number of academic books that are produced, this is still a small percentage. With much research on the benefits to society from open access publication, what can we do to encourage more book authors to choose open access?Springer Nature is a leading academic book publisher – to date, we have published more than 550 open access books since launching OA book options in 2012. Feedback from our OA book authors has shown that metrics are important to them, as the data helps demonstrate the impact of their research to funders, and also supports conversations with their institutions for career progression. However, as highlighted in our white paper ‘The OA effect: How does open access affect the usage of scholarly books?’, some authors feel that there is a lack of information around metrics and book performance. This information may be critically important in helping authors consider the benefits of choosing to publish their book open access.Authors also state that one of the main obstacles to publishing more OA books through the gold route is funding; access to which varies globally and by discipline – a central theme that emerged at our researcher event during Academic Book Week 2018.Meanwhile, funders interviewed for ‘The OA Effect’ told us that they were keen to understand the impact of the OA books they had supported, but few had actually done so; many commented on the difficulties of measuring the impact of research.  In light of these findings, in 2018 we piloted a new “impact report”, based on metrics for an individual funder of OA books. The outcomes of this pilot impact report project will help the scholarly communications community to better understand how publishers can inform funders, authors and their institutions about the impact of their research, and on a wider scale. What are the challenges of sharing the benefits of OA book publishing with researchers across different disciplines, and how can we overcome these challenges?Our poster shows excerpts from the pilot impact report, quotes from authors and funders about research impact, and considers next steps.

Altmetrics: “big data” that map the influence of New Zealand research

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy Konkiel ◽  
Stephanie Guichard
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mainstream Media ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Altmetrics can offer organizations a unique opportunity to understand the non-traditional scholarly and public influence of their institutions’ research. This paper aims to look at bibliometrics and altmetrics for New Zealand research published in 2016 to understand the country’s research’s reach in social media, mainstream media and public policy, as well as more traditional measures of research impact such as university rankings, citations and publications. Design/methodology/approach Research insights platform Dimensions was searched for author affiliations and publication dates for papers published in 2016 by New Zealand researchers (n = 10,934). The study then used Dimensions to perform citation analysis and Altmetric Explorer to find altmetrics for these journal articles, and to generate visualizations to better interrogate the data set. Findings Of the 10,934 papers published in 2016 by New Zealand (2016 NZ) researchers, 5,413 (49.5 per cent) were mentioned 86,915 times in one of the 16 sources that Altmetric tracks. Twitter, news outlets and Facebook were among the sources that showed the most engagement with New Zealand 2016 research. Citation analysis tools in Dimensions showed that New Zealand 2016 research had a higher than average Field Citation Ratio (1.51) and Relative Citation Ratio (1.29). Originality/value This study combines traditional bibliometric analysis with altmetrics to find new insights into the impact of recent New Zealand research. It suggests new means for organizations to demonstrate the value of the research they produce.

JTPE: A 30-Year Retrospective of Published Research

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse L. Rhoades ◽  
Amelia Mays Woods ◽  
David Newman Daum ◽  
Douglas Ellison ◽  
Thomas N. Trendowski
Keyword(s):  
Physical Education ◽  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Phylogenic Analysis ◽  
Network Analyses ◽  
Retrospective View ◽  
Published Research

This case study presents an examination of 30 years of Journal of Teaching in Physical Education (JTPE) research. The purpose of this study was to provide a retrospective view of JTPE and its contribution to the field of physical education. In this effort the current study employed citation analysis, coauthor network analyses and thematic coding based phylogenic analysis. Data were collected through an online repository of JTPE articles and through google scholar examination of citation counts. Results indicated that JTPE has undergone subtle changes during the course of its existence. Further, thematic analysis revealed that the topical content of the journal has remained consistent over the course of its operation.

scholarly journals Citational politics: Quantifying the influence of gender on citation in Digital Scholarship in the Humanities

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy E Earhart ◽  
Roopika Risam ◽  
Matthew Bruno
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Gender Inequalities ◽  
Scholarly Community ◽  
Digital Scholarship ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
Citation Practices ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Using citation analysis, we consider the role of gender in citation practices in conference special issues of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. Our examination of citations in Digital Humanities conference special issues from 2006 to 2015 demonstrates gender bias in citational practices. This bias is consistent with broader trends in citational politics across the academy more broadly but is a threat to equity and justice within the scholarly community. We further offer proposals for improving citational practices to resist gender bias. Quantifying the impact of gender on citations, we argue, is one approach to understanding gender inequalities within digital humanities communities and to generating solutions to promote the broadest representation of digital humanities scholarship in scholarly communications.

REVIEW: Measuring impact and the most influential works in Migration Studies

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 336-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Sirkeci ◽  
Jeffrey H. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Google Scholar ◽  
Migration Studies ◽  
Independent Measure ◽  
Fast Growing ◽  
Citation Database ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Published Research

The aim of this paper is to offer an independent measure of the impact of published research in migration studies field. Using the Google Scholar citation database and Ann Harzing ranking software, we have created a long list of most cited works in migration studies and drew a list of 100 top articles and books and 100 most cited authors who appeared in periodicals and books. Like any lists, this one also has some drawbacks but yet it reflects somewhat the influence of the work our colleagues in this fast growing field produce.   

Enhancing Role and Impact of Librarians in Research Output through Internet Tools: A Case Study Based on Google Scholar Profiles of Engineering Colleges in and around Madurai

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (S1) ◽  
pp. 72-74
Author(s):  
M. Muthumani ◽  
K. Chinnasamy
Keyword(s):  
Research Output ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Academic Institution ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Research Network ◽  
User Profiles ◽  
The Impact

A librarian in an academic institution plays a potentially very crucial role in the research output of the institution. Digital literacy of the librarian will be of immense help for the researchers and the institution with the ever increasing availability of internet and mobile tools. The wealth of information contained in the publicly accessible Google Scholar profiles is one such useful tool. A case study is carried out by analysing the profiles of research faculty in 12 (twelve) engineering colleges located in Madurai district. The user profiles having verified email IDs with the domain names of these institutions form part of this study. It has been demonstrated that the librarians can play an enhanced role in research output and its impact by effectively using such readily available information in a myriad ways. With the citation indicators viz. citations, h-index and i10-index for different researchers in the institution, the librarian can help the researcher and the institution compare the productivity and impact of research work. The librarian will be able to find out the publications with higher research impact and make informed decisions on subscriptions etc. Such bench marking will also help the institution to attract research talent; to identify and reward impactful works; and to publicize achievements. By creating a tag cloud of research areas in an engineering college derived through Google Scholar profiles it is illustrated how librarian can plan the library resources to be made available to the users. (S)he can further probe the above labels and find out the highly acclaimed journals in the field, post latest developments in the research field, help the users connect with the other leading researchers in the field etc. Similarly, a study of co-authors of a researcher in one of the colleges in Madurai reveals that the collaborative research network extends beyond district / state borders and comprises institutions of countries such as Australia, China and Korea. Having known this, a librarian can understand the research network – physical and virtual – and facilitate further collaboration. The readily available Google Scholar user profiles of researchers of an academic institution give a good deal of information that covers many of the impact indicators used in frameworks such as Becker Medical Library Model for Research Impact. Such possibilities are elaborated using a case study of the profiles of researchers in twelve Madurai based Engineering Colleges.

scholarly journals Cross-sectional analysis of bibliometrics and altmetrics: comparing the impact of qualitative and quantitative articles in the British Medical Journal

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e040950
Author(s):  
Helene Retrouvey ◽  
Fiona Webster ◽  
Toni Zhong ◽  
Anna R Gagliardi ◽  
Nancy N Baxter
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Plum Analytics

ObjectivesIn comparison to quantitative research, the impact of qualitative articles in the medical literature has been questioned by the BMJ; to explore this, we compared the impact of quantitative and qualitative articles published in BMJ.DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingArticles published in the BMJ between 2007 and 2017.Main outcome measuresBibliometric and altmetric measures of research impact were collected using Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, Plum Analytics and ProQuest Altmetric. Bibliometric measures consisted of citation numbers, field weighted citation impact and citation percentile. Altmetric measures consisted of article usage, captures, mentions, readers, altmetric attention score and score percentile. Scores were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank-sum test.ResultsWe screened a total of 7777 articles and identified 42 qualitative articles. Each qualitative article was matched to 3 quantitative articles published during the same year (126 quantitative articles). Citation numbers were not statistically different between the two research types; the median number of citations (google scholar) per quantitative article was 62 (IQR 38–111) versus 58 (IQR 36–85) per qualitative article (p=0.47). Using Plum Analytics, qualitative articles were found to have a significantly higher usage, with a median of 984 (IQR 581–1351) versus 379 (IQR 177–763) for quantitative (p<0.001). The Altmetric Attention Score was higher for quantitative articles at 16 (IQR 7–37) versus qualitative articles at 9 (IQR 5–23, p=0.05), as was the Altmetric Score percentile 93 (IQR 87–96) versus 88 (IQR 76–95; p=0.02).ConclusionQualitative and quantitative articles published in the BMJ between 2007 and 2017 both have a high impact. No article type was consistently superior in terms of bibliometric or altmetric measures, suggesting that type of article is not the major driver of impact.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document