1. Google Scholar is a serious alternative to Web of Science
Many bibliometricians and university administrators remain wary of Google Scholar citation data, preferring "the gold standard" of Web of Science instead. In her post in The Impact Blog, Anne-Wil Harzing, who developed the Publish or Perish software that uses Google Scholar data, sets out to challenge some of the misconceptions about this data source and explains why it offers a serious alternative to Web of Science.
The blog post says (quote): Some non-scholarly citations, such as student handbooks, library guides or editorial notes slip through. However, incidental problems in this regard are unlikely to distort citation metrics, especially robust ones such as the h-index. Hence, although there might be some overestimation of the number of non-scholarly citations in Google Scholar, for many disciplines this is preferable to the very significant and systematic underestimation of scholarly citations in ISI or Scopus. Moreover, as long as one compares like with like, i.e. compares citation records for the same data source, this should not be a problem at all……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Black lists, white lists and the evidence: exploring the features of 'predatory' journals
New research in BMC Medicine looks to identify the features of potentially 'predatory' journals: online journals that charge publications fees without providing editorial services or robust peer review. In their post in the BioMed Central Blog, David Moher and Larissa Shamseer, two authors of the research, discuss about their work and how it can help authors.
The blog post says (quote): A few years ago the (now defunct) Scholarly Open Access website listed journals and publishers presumed to be bad, a 'black list'. To get on the black list, its curator, Jeffrey Beall, used a number of criteria, such as comprehensive instructions for authors that are easily identified on the journal's website, from the Committee on Publication Ethics and the Open Access Scholarly Publisher's Association. If he felt the journal and/or publisher did not meet these criteria he added it to his list. He coined the term 'predatory' journals and publishers to describe these entities...……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. The Danger of Face Validity
Hypotheses that flatter our own preconceptions and biases are incredibly seductive, and the temptation to accept them at face value can be nearly irresistible. But in a world that seems to be drifting away from analytical rigor and fact-based decision-making, the ability to resist that temptation is more essential than ever, notes Rick Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The face validity of any hypothesis is a poor guide to its actual validity. Some hypotheses with high face validity (like the OA citation advantage) start to buckle under rigorous examination; some (like the impact of Green OA on library subscriptions) may turn out to be valid and may not, but there’s no way to know for certain based on currently-available evidence; for others (like the impact of funder and institutional mandates on authors’ rates of article and data deposit) the supporting data is somewhat mixed. This suggests that deep caution is called for when one encounters a hypothesis that sounds really good - and even more caution is indicated if the hypothesis happens to flatter one's own biases and preferences……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Three Challenges for Corporate Institutional Repositories - Answered
Companies that conduct in-depth research for their products or services (think pharmaceuticals, technology and automotive) will have information that they want to centralise and preserve via institutional repositories. Like their academic counter-parts, there is real value to the intellectual capital produced from a company, but also challenges when it comes to institutional repositories. A post in the EBSCOpost Blog discusses the three most common challenges for companies.
The blog post says (quote): There are significant differences in metadata between paid content and the internal content. Users will have difficulty exploring the content if they cannot select and limit by content type. Having a service that understands this and can allow users to select and limit to one type, optimises the individual discovery experience. Time, effort and money went into the company's research and it is a valuable asset. Like all valuable assets, the companies want to ensure that it is protected and has zero chance of being exposed outside of the firewall. EBSCO Discovery Service only indexes the metadata, which means internal content stays safe and guarded……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Using altmetrics to deliver value to authors and editors
The verdict about the quality of a piece of research has been left to the researcher's peers, assuming that they are the only ones qualified enough to judge. Although the general public can quickly find scientific content on the web these days, many authors still look only towards their peers for evaluation. In her guest post in the Altmetric Blog, Kornelia Junge notes the importance to make the authors aware of the "public impact" of their work, and help them make sure that their data are not misinterpreted, and advise how they might want to engage with the parties who comment on it.
The blog post says (quote): The "Altmetric Alert" has been active for over two years. Out of the daily mentions to the content, it filters out those articles where the Altmetric Attention Score increased by more than a given value or percentage in a single day. The editors and marketers of the journals then receive an email with links to the article and to the report on Altmetric.com. They all have access to the Altmetric Explorer for Publishers, and can drill into the details. They can then immediately notify the authors and make recommendations whether any of the comments need a public response, or whether the author should privately reach out to one or more of the people who posted. The general advice is that any communication should come from the author, not from the publisher, and, of course - NO SPAMMING……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply