- Journal metrics… more meaningful + easier to understand http://t.co/VMyWXnTOmc @ElsevierConnect @Scopus @cwtsleiden #SNIP @scimago #SJR 2013-03-28
- RT @jokrausdu: [tag] Publishing frontiers: The library reboot : Nature News & Comment – As scientific publishing moves to… http:// … 2013-03-27
- RT @bmcmatt: “How to hasten open access” Specifically, what can we learn from the eLife/ PubMed Central controversy… http://t.co/GUo6Q … 2013-03-27
- RT @LouWoodley: This week’s special issue of @NatureMagazine on #scipublishing RT @NatureNews: The future of publishing: A new page http … 2013-03-27
- RT @researchremix: .@jasonpriem rebukes the criticism that the very idea of quantifying scientific impact is misguided: http://t.co/k6ik … 2013-03-27
- RT @mbreeding: Updated infographic on the history of library automation companies on Library Technology Guides: http://t.co/G13VuGcBBe 2013-03-24
Tag Archive for 'scholarly communication'
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.
UPDATE – The video of the presentation is now available.
This past weekend, I had the opportunity to visit Belgrade as a speaker at the 11th International Conference on Scientific Digitalization of Cultural and Scientific Heritage, University Repositories and Distance Learning. It was an excellent conference with even better hosts. My presentation discussed different ways that finished publications can be connected with related data. The below matrix summarizes the different options and the examples covered in the presentation:
The full presentation is below along with my notes:
View more documents from Michael Habib
Abstract: Connecting locally hosted data repositories to internationally hosted related articles has never been easier. With APIs and other web services becoming standardized at the same time that new linking standards, such as Datacite DOIs, are being adopted, new ways to distribute and mashup content are now possible. This presentation will explore emerging trends in linking scholarly literature to data. Both entity linking and data linking will be discussed. Examples will be presented demonstrating how these technologies are being employed by publishers and A&I vendors in cooperation with local data repositories.
-
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.”
-
“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. “
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.
