- RT @jasonpriem: Solid @insidehighered piece summarizing research on Twitter as means of scholarly dissemination. http://t.co/Vvo7PEpO #a … 2012-03-09
- RT @jasonpriem: total-impact gets £17,000 support from OSF: http://t.co/kQVsGwYK #epicwin #altmetrics 2012-03-09
- RT @daveyp: Deleting 10,000 MARC records. One of the few simple pleasures in life. DIE, MARC DIE! #ManiacalLaugh 2012-03-08
- RT @TAC_NISO: Library of Congress has announced that they will fully implement RDA: Resource Description and Access by 3/31/13 http://t. … 2012-03-08
- RT @jgold85: Important research: Beards augment perceptions of men’s age, social status, & aggressiveness, but not attractiveness http:/ … 2012-03-08
- RT @miriamkp: Opening for digital scholarship coordinator at Columbia U Library. http://t.co/bFYBTtJQ #altac 2012-03-08
- RT @mfenner: New blog post: Why I still like FriendFeed, why Twitter is important and other thoughts about #Altmetrics http://t.co/zvkxbtfM 2012-03-06
- RT @researchremix: New post: Talking text mining with Elsevier http://t.co/kSe9iryC 2012-03-06
- RT @totalimpactdev: feedback wanted: updated api spec http://t.co/kyBqBQPX 2012-03-04
Tag Archive for 'elsevier'
The primary feature in last Sunday’s Scopus release is the new “Analyze results“ tool previewed in my last post. This builds directly on the “Export refine” functionality launched last May. ”Export refine” enabled much of the same analysis, but required a user to manipulate raw data in a CSV file. By adding this directly into Scopus, “Analyze results” expands the reach of this functionality to less advanced users.
“Analyze results” is also a descendant of the Documents section of the Author Evaluator launched in August 2010. Essentially “Analyze results” expands the ability of the Author Evaluator from visualizing information about a single author’s publications to visualizing aggregate publication information on any arbitrary set of results. Thus, the power of “Analyze results” is proportionate to the care and complexity of the query being examined.
Worth noting is that, “Analyze results” is different from the existing “View Citation Overview” function in that it evaluates quantity rather than quality. Another difference is that “Analyze results” examines the whole set of results, while “View Citation Overview” looks only at a selected subset of results. However, there are links within “Analyze Results” to the appropriate quality analysis tools in Scopus including the Journal Analyzer and Author Evaluator.
I am most excited about the “Source Title” tab of “Analyze Results” because it takes analysis one step deeper than a simple “Export refine”. Furthermore, I believe the link to “Compare Source Titles in Journal Analyzer” is the true killer feature of ”Analyze Results” as it will enable a user to compare journals on both subject matter and quality. An example of this is described in both the training desk video and my previous post.
Please feel free to share feedback or comments on “Analyze results” or other enhancements from this release.
- EContent article I was interviewed for: One Book, Many Covers: Meeting the Challenges of Multiplatform Publishing http://t.co/AYKjm29 #li #
- 1Night.me: Renting (text)books a day at a time. #launch http://t.co/2TgThH0 via @1nightMe #
- BMJ Group blogs: BMJ Web Development Blog » Blog Archive » Scopus citation links, topic collection.. http://bit.ly/j1Jd0x #
- Scopus Alerts for BlackBerry now available – http://bit.ly/kCqoRU (for subscribers) alongside existing iPhone and Android versions. #
- Liked “Another win 4 #openscience Elsevier launches new SciVerse app store w/ Mendeley data APIs http://bit.ly/dRPmrY" http://ff.im/-unKUl #
- Liked “http://developer.sciverse.com/sdk An eclipse plugin for the SciVerse Applications software development kit” http://ff.im/-u2lkB #
- Liked “browsing the sciverse app gallery http://www.applications.sciverse.com/action/gallery – more here than i…” http://ff.im/-tME82 #
- I just learned my colleague sent a response earlier today. We are brainstorming on how to get around this. re: http://ff.im/tAVIf #
- Liked “Rankings: WoS vs Scopus” http://ff.im/-cvWAc #
- Liked “Kein Link? RT @Scopus JAMA article says: Scopus has 22% more citations than WoS” http://ff.im/-8vvlr #
- Article by Rafael: “Offering their content through open APIs, publishers and platform providers can present researchers with application building tools based on more comprehensive content. In fact, publishers and platform providers have an opportunity to serve as the host of the new scientific knowledge ecosystem that is evolving.”
- Lengthy and detailed interview with Cameron Neylon touching on just about everything related to Open Science.
- 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.”
- 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)
