- From article about SNIP – “Across a subject field as broad as scholarly communication, assessing journal impact by citations to a journal in a two-year time frame is obviously going to favor those subjects that cite heavily, and rapidly. Some fields, particularly those in the life sciences, tend to conform to this citation pattern better than others, leading to some widely recognized distortions.”
- From article: “Prestige measured by quantity of citations is one thing, but when it is based on the quality of those citations, you get a better sense of the real value of research to a community. Research Trends talks to Prof. Félix de Moya about SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), which ranks journals based on where their citations originate.”
- From article :Bibliometric indicators are not without their own controversies (1, 2) and recently there has been an explosion of new metrics, accompanying a shift in the mindset of the scientific community towards a multidimensional view of journal evaluation.”
Archive for the 'scholarly publishing' Category
Page 2 of 4
- Elsevier’s Scopus Partners with CWTS and SCImago to Offer Multidimensional Evaluation of Research JournalsFrom press release: “Elsevier… announced that its flagship product Scopus has successfully partnered with the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) and the SCImago Research Group, endorsing two complementary journal metrics, SNIP and SJR. The metrics will be freely available online at www.journalmetrics.com, and integrated into Scopus, allowing researchers around the world to analyze journals within the abstract and citation database. The indicators will offer a greater currency and flexibility in journal performance measurement than any single-metric method currently available.”
- Download SNIP and SJR values for Scopus journals.
- “How do SJR and SNIP compare to the Impact Factor? They offer new perspectives in Journal Evaluation that look at the context in which a journal is performing and normalize for citation behaviour. Find more information at www.journalmetrics.com”
- Video
- “This short video explains how SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) are calculated. SJR and SNIP are considering in which context in which a Journal is performing looking at differences in research areas with different citation behaviours. “
- Looks like an interesting introductory course to the various concepts of scientific publishing and Science 2.0. (found because it linked to my Identity 2.0 post)
- “His presentation on scholarly identity 2.0 reminds me that academic libraries’ strategic planning should include a line item about assisting faculty with managing their digital reputation and identity (even promoting it).”
- Cornelius Puschmann’s Blog “…after which I went on a long but practically-oriented rant on scholarly communication in the digital age. “
- Belgrade lecture blog post.
The videos of the Belgrade lectures are now loaded on the University of Belgrade Library’s YouTube channel.
The second day’s presentation was the more interesting topic and a better presentation overall, so I am going to highlight it first. A written overview of the highlights, key diagrams, and slides is here and the playlist for the second lecture is embedded below:
The first day’s presentation was titled From Academic Library 2.0 to (Literature) Research 2.0. A written overview of the highlights, key diagrams, and slides is located here and the playlist is embedded below:
I look forward to any feedback you might have on either presentation.
As mentioned in my previous post, my first Belgrade lecture focused on the concept of Research 2.0. The second lecture focused on Scholarly Identity 2.0, which is increasingly important because of the wealth of online identity information created by Research 2.0.
The Scholarly Identity Matrix below is adapted from a general identity matrix concept pioneered by the founders of ClaimID. It is meant to display the different types and components of a researcher’s online identity.
The Scholarly Identity 2.0 Concept Model below displays how the different components from the Matrix fit together.
The black text is content types. The blue are the characteristics of identity these content types best represent. The green is who is responsible for managing this information. The Scholarly Identity 2.0 Concept Model takes the series of concept models one step farther, but with a slightly different twist.
The spectrum is more specific than in past models with one end being entirely user-generated content (UGC) and the other traditional scholarly communication. My hypothesis is that scholarly identity online, or Scholarly Identity 2.0, is a combination of these two information types held together by a unique identifier. For example, the combination verifies not just topical expertise through peer-review of articles, but also personality verified by LinkedIn recommendations.
Please share your thoughts on the accuracy of this model in the comments below or on FriendFeed.
The below presentation covers each quadrant of the Matrix culminating in the Concept Model as a summary.
Scholarly Identity 2.0:
What does the Web say about your research
What does the Web say about your research
View more presentations from Michael Habib.
(Update: The videos of the lecture are now available here.)
I would like to give special thanks to Adam Sofronijevic, at the University of Belgrade Libraries for all his hard work in arranging the lectures and for his hospitality during my visit.
The above is an evolution of the Academic Library 2.0 Concept Models developed for my Master’s Paper. While the original model primarily focused on academic library services for students, the new model focuses on services for researchers.
Like in the original models, the top represents communication spaces grounded in physical space, while the bottom mirrors this in the online realm.
Two ends of the spectrum are informal communications and formal communications. My argument is that Research 2.0 falls somewhere between these extremes. I developed the model for the presentation below.
(Update: A video of the presentation is located here.)
This model is meant to capture Research 2.0 as concerns scholarly communication and not research conducted through 2.0 methods such as Galaxy Zoo.
I am eager to receive feedback on how well this model represents the concept of Research 2.0.
- Where is it limited?
- Where is it right? Wrong?
- Please feel free to leave comments below (or on FriendFeed)
I had the opportunity to revisit my concept models and develop this variation when preparing for recent lectures hosted by the University of Belgrade Libraries with support from the Serbian Ministry of Science and Technological Development and the Serbian library consortium KoBSON. While there, I also had the opportunity to visit the Institute of Technical Sciences Library and the National Library of Serbia; both of which are working on a number of interesting projects.
The first of these lectures is above, the second lecture (and another new model) will follow in a separate post that explores the concept of Scholarly Identity 2.0.
I would like to give special thanks to Adam Sofronijevic, at the University of Belgrade Libraries for all his hard work in arranging the lectures and for his hospitality during my visit.
- “OK, so this has nothing to do with any CrossRef projects- but there is an interesting new PRC report out by Mark Ware in which he explores how SMEs (small/medium-sized enterprises) make use of scholarly articles and whether the scholarly publishing industry is doing anything to make their lives easier.”
- “Over a year ago I made one of the biggest decisions of my life. I packed up all my worldly belongings and moved to San Diego to begin working full-time for a small biotech startup.”
