Towards a common model of citation: some thoughts on merging altmetrics and bibliometrics
The increasing visibility of scholarly communication and discussion has led to a dramatic increase in the complexity of understanding its academic impact and social reach.
Although the nature of the communication has many different forms, with radically different attributes, it is generally treated as a singular entity: that of altmetrics.
In fact, it is arguable that the creation of altmetrics as a singular entity was technocratic (driven by what is technically possible) and thus pragmatic (built from what is available), rather than rooted in a theoretical discipline, and, had the different sources emerged at different times, or been accessed via different technical solutions, they would have been kept discrete.
The peculiar persistence of medical myths: how to counter and discourage misinformation
Medical misinformation is unusually persistent in society. Despite the withdrawal of the paper that provoked the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine scandal, countless studies rebutting the findings, and the professional disgracing of the principal author, the level of vaccination has not yet returned to pre-publication levels. Scientific and pseudo-scientific communication carries with it a certain weight of authority and responsibility. As access to research grows, and with it the potential for wide-spread social reach, the scholarly community needs to maintain and develop the caliber of its publishing, and develop more robust and authoritative methods of countering misinformation and overturned findings.
Exploring the Boundaries: How Altmetrics Can Expand Our Vision of Scholarly Communication and Social Impact
The ability to detect sharing and recommendation events that enabled the creation of the altmetrics movement also offers to enrich our understanding of how scholarly communication is used in education and governance, and how research outcomes may influence society as a whole. As the trend towards open science and open access publishing continues, it will become critical for funding agencies, publishers, and researchers to understand these communication pathways and how to accommodate and adapt to these increasingly important usage scenarios.
ORCID identifier system gaining traction and new features: Nearly 200,000 people have registered for an ORCID, and organizations worldwide are integrating the academic identifiers into their systems
Since its launch in October, ORCID.org — the Open Researcher and Contributors ID repository — has issued nearly 200,000 unique digital identifiers to researchers and scholars from around the world, and universities, professional associations, libraries, publishers and funding agencies are adopting and integrating the unique academic identifiers into their systems. It’s a truly international project, and you can witness its global reach by visiting www.ORCIDlive.org, which shows near real-time changes being made to ORCID profiles.
Should research data be publicly available?: At symposium, participants ask: Are researchers ready to publish their data? Is the community ready to re-use experimental data?
The case for making experimental data available seems to be indisputable (with some exceptions for data including medical records): it allows for verification of findings and experimental reuse, it lowers the barriers to meta-studies and enables web-scale analysis. Furthermore, when data has been paid for by grants, it may be seen as a public asset.
The Challenges of Measuring Social Impact Using Altmetrics
Altmetrics gives us novel ways of detecting the use and consumption of scholarly publishing beyond formal citation, and it is tempting to treat these measurements as proxies for social impact. However, altmetrics is still too shallow and too narrow, and needs to increase its scope and reach before it can make a significant contribution to computing relative values for social impact. Furthermore, in order to go beyond limited comparisons of like-for-like and to become generally useful, computation models must take into account different socio-economic characteristics and legal frameworks. However, much of the necessary work can be borrowed from other fields, and the author concludes that – with certain extensions and added sophistication – altmetrics will be a valuable element in calculating social reach and impact.
Recordings, presentations and further information from the Elsevier Labs and Research Trends virtual seminar
The Individual and Scholarly Networks was a two-part seminar organized by Research Trends and Elsevier Labs on January 22, 2013. Webcast live from Oxford, Amsterdam and New York, the presentations were recorded and are available here, along with links to slides and additional questions and answers. The seminar was led by Michael Taylor, Research Specialist at Elsevier Labs with additional contributions from Dr Henk Moed and Dr Gali Halevi of Research Trends.
Fixing authorship – towards a practical model of contributorship
As we near the completion of the metamorphosis of paper-based scholarly publishing to a medium entirely based on the Internet, so there is increasing need to enrich the environment with a connected network, unfettered by the legacy of putting ink onto paper. One of the more recent areas to come under consideration is issues and concepts of authorship, and how these can be represented in a wholly digital world. For legal and copyright reasons, the concept of ‘an author’ of a scholarly work is likely to persist for some time. However, the idea that a simple list of authors is the optimum way of recording scholarly achievement has reached the end of its shelf life. It’s time to move on.
The Changing Face of Journal Metrics
For several decades now, a principal measure of an article’s impact1 on the scholarly world has been the number of citations it has received. An increasing focus on using these citation counts as a proxy for scientific quality provided the catalyst for the development of journal metrics
New ORCID ID Aims to Resolve Authorship Confusion
An innovative new scheme launched this month could signal the end of concerns over author ambiguity. Since October 16, academics, researchers and contributors can register for a unique ID with ORCID (the Open Researcher and Contributors ID repository)
The new scholarly universe: are we there yet?: Based on a paper presented at the UKSG One-Day Conference, London: ‘A Problem Shared? Understanding shared services and the drive for efficiency in scholarly communications’, on 16 November 2011
Despite long-standing threats of disruption to scholarly publishing, the community has remained remarkably unchanged over the last two decades.
However, underlying this apparent inertia, there is an alternative approach that may emerge over the next few years as known problems move into the foreground, and a number of key social and technical issues are resolved. Furthermore, the industry of science and scientific communication are not isolated from the current economic epoch: collaboration and cost-effectiveness are strong drivers for change.
The technological components of this new scholarly universe – natural language processing, semantic technologies such as taxonomies, ontologies and linking – will come together with collaborative innovations inspired by Web 2.0 social media.
The final components in recreating a new publishing model are identity and reward, and these are being resolved by the forthcoming Open Research and Contributor ID (ORCID) project and the altmetrics movement respectively.
Query Analytics Workbench
ORCID and Elsevier, Denmark 2013
The Individual and Scholarly Networks: Building Networks - Discussion
The Individual and Scholarly Networks: Evaluating Network Connections - Discussion