- 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 '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.
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.
