Best Practices In Bibliometrics Bibliometric Services

This study presents data from 20 predominantly research universities in the USA, continental Europe, the UK, Canada and Australia/New Zealand. Among the survey participants are: Carnegie Mellon, Cambridge University, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya the University at Albany, the University of Melbourne, Florida State University, the University of Alberta and Victoria University of Wellington. The report gives detailed data on the use of various bibliometric and altmetric tools such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scimago, Plum Analytics, and many, many others. The 114-page report presents detailed information on staffing, budgets, marketing, sources of demand, technology and other factors in bibliometric and altmetric service development. Just a few of the report's many findings are that: · Institutions cited by survey participants for excellence in bibliometrics or altmetrics were: Georgia State University, Yale University, the University of New South Wales, the National Library of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh, among others.· 50% of the institutions sampled help their researchers to obtain a Thomsen/Reuters Researcher ID.· A 60 percent majority said demand for bibliometric services increased slightly, 10 percent said it increased considerably, and 5 percent said demand fell somewhat. A quarter of the participants said demand for bibliometric services at their institution remained about the same over the past two years. · Academic department heads accounted for a mean of 24.38% of the demand for bibliometric services from the libraries sampled.· Just 5% of those surveyed use Facebook Insights in their altmetrics efforts.

An Introduction to Bibliometrics: New Development and Trends provides a comprehensible, readable and easy to read introduction to bibliometrics. Importantly, the book surveys the latest developments of bibliometrics (such as altmetrics, etc.) and how the field is likely to change over the next decade. In the literature, bibliometrics is generally discussed from one of two perspectives: (1) Purely mathematical/statistical or (2) Its sociological implications. Both approaches are very far from how most users want to apply bibliometrics. This book fills that need by providing tactics on how bibliometrics can be applied to their sphere of scientific activity. Provides readers with an understanding of bibliometric indicators, including their background and significance, classification in quantitative performance, and an evaluation of science and research Includes an overview of the most important indicators, their areas of application, and where and when they should and should not be used Discusses future trends in the quantitative performance evaluation of scientific research

The study presents data from 30 college and university libraries in the USA, the UK, Canada, Germany, Ireland and other countries, about their use of bibliometrics. Participants include: the University of Cambridge, Cornell University, University College Dublin, the Rockefeller University, the University of Seville, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Newcastle, SUNY Buffalo, Technische Universität München and many others. The study helps its readers to answer questions such as: How well used are indicia such as the Web of Science, Scimago or Scopus? How are Google Scholar and JSTOR used in bibliometrics? What has been the impact of google Scholar or of digital repositories? How strong is demand for bibliometrics services? What are the centers of demand? How fast is demand growing? Is funding keeping up with demand? How are bibliometrics services promoted within the college or university? What has been the impact of altmetrics? What are favored altmetrics techniques? What role are bibliometrics playing in tenure decisions? In hiring decisions? How much library staff time is spent on bibliometrics?

Research libraries have engaged in publishing activities in the past, but recently there has been intense growth in the number of library publishing services supporting faculty and students. Unified by a commitment to both access and service, library publishing programs have grown from an early focus on backlist digitization to publication of student works, textbooks, and research data. This growing engagement with publishing is a natural and research data. This growing engagement with publishing is a natural extension of the academic library's commitment to support the creation of and access to scholarship. Getting the Word Out examines the growing trend in library publishing with 11 chapters by some of the most talented thinkers in the field. Edited by library publishing experts Maria Bonn, of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Graduate School of Library and Information Science, and Mike Furlough, HathiTrust Digital Library, this book deepens current discussions in the field, and provides decision makers and practitioners with an introduction to the state of the field with an eye towards future prospects. -- from back cover.

‘Represents the culmination of an 18-month-long project that aims to be the definitive review of this important topic. Accompanied by a scholarly literature review, some new analysis, and a wealth of evidence and insight... the report is a tour de force; a once-in-a-generation opportunity to take stock.’ – Dr Steven Hill, Head of Policy, HEFCE, LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog ‘A must-read if you are interested in having a deeper understanding of research culture, management issues and the range of information we have on this field. It should be disseminated and discussed within institutions, disciplines and other sites of research collaboration.’ – Dr Meera Sabaratnam, Lecturer in International Relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog Metrics evoke a mixed reaction from the research community. A commitment to using data and evidence to inform decisions makes many of us sympathetic, even enthusiastic, about the prospect of granular, real-time analysis of our own activities. Yet we only have to look around us at the blunt use of metrics to be reminded of the pitfalls. Metrics hold real power: they are constitutive of values, identities and livelihoods. How to exercise that power to positive ends is the focus of this book. Using extensive evidence-gathering, analysis and consultation, the authors take a thorough look at potential uses and limitations of research metrics and indicators. They explore the use of metrics across different disciplines, assess their potential contribution to the development of research excellence and impact and consider the changing ways in which universities are using quantitative indicators in their management systems. Finally, they consider the negative or unintended effects of metrics on various aspects of research culture. Including an updated introduction from James Wilsdon, the book proposes a framework for responsible metrics and makes a series of targeted recommendations to show how responsible metrics can be applied in research management, by funders, and in the next cycle of the Research Excellence Framework. The metric tide is certainly rising. Unlike King Canute, we have the agency and opportunity – and in this book, a serious body of evidence – to influence how it washes through higher education and research.

Bibliometrics and altmetrics are increasingly becoming the focus of interest in the context of research evaluation. The Handbook Bibliometrics provides a comprehensive introduction to quantifying scientific output in addition to a historical derivation, individual indicators, institutions, application perspectives and data bases. Furthermore, application scenarios, training and qualification on bibliometrics and their implications are considered.

Why bibliometrics is useful for understanding the global dynamics of science but generate perverse effects when applied inappropriately in research evaluation and university rankings. The research evaluation market is booming. “Ranking,” “metrics,” “h-index,” and “impact factors” are reigning buzzwords. Government and research administrators want to evaluate everything—teachers, professors, training programs, universities—using quantitative indicators. Among the tools used to measure “research excellence,” bibliometrics—aggregate data on publications and citations—has become dominant. Bibliometrics is hailed as an “objective” measure of research quality, a quantitative measure more useful than “subjective” and intuitive evaluation methods such as peer review that have been used since scientific papers were first published in the seventeenth century. In this book, Yves Gingras offers a spirited argument against an unquestioning reliance on bibliometrics as an indicator of research quality. Gingras shows that bibliometric rankings have no real scientific validity, rarely measuring what they pretend to. Although the study of publication and citation patterns, at the proper scales, can yield insights on the global dynamics of science over time, ill-defined quantitative indicators often generate perverse and unintended effects on the direction of research. Moreover, abuse of bibliometrics occurs when data is manipulated to boost rankings. Gingras looks at the politics of evaluation and argues that using numbers can be a way to control scientists and diminish their autonomy in the evaluation process. Proposing precise criteria for establishing the validity of indicators at a given scale of analysis, Gingras questions why universities are so eager to let invalid indicators influence their research strategy.