Download to read offline
![Citation analysis – differences between tools?
• Web of Science should not be used alone for locating citations to an author
or title.
• Scopus and Google Scholar can help identify a considerable number of
valuable citations not found in Web of Science;
• Scopus and Google Scholar can help identify a considerable number of
citations in document types not covered by ISI citation databases;
• Scopus and Google Scholar may assist in providing a more comprehensive
picture of the extent of international and interdisciplinary nature of
scholarly communication of and among researchers; and
• Google Scholar has several technical problems that users should be aware
of in order to accurately and effectively locate citations.
• The selection of the database(s) for locating citation is field-dependent.
g,KidukandMeho,LokmanI.CitationAnalysis:AComparisonofGoogle
olar,Scopus,andWebofScience.,2006.In69thAnnualMeetingofthe
ericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology(ASIST),Austin
),3-8November2006.[Conferencepaper],
://eprints.rclis.org/8605/](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/lernjune2016digitalmediaslides-160616120837/75/Lern-june-2016-digital-media-slides-25-2048.jpg)
Lern, june 2016, digital media slides
The document discusses the importance of new media and digital research literacies for legal educators, emphasizing the role of digital platforms in scholarly communication and dissemination. It highlights both the opportunities and challenges presented by digital tools, including altmetrics, and the impact they have on research visibility and academic reputation. Finally, it urges legal educators to embrace technology and foster collaboration within their communities.
Law◦
More Related Content
Similar to Lern, june 2016, digital media slides
More from Osgoode Professional Development, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Lern, june 2016, digital media slides
- 1. New media & digitalresearch literacies for legal educators Professor Paul Maharg paulmaharg.com/slides
- 2. preview 1. Digital researchliteracies 2. Scholarly peer networks: SSRN, Academia, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, LinkedIn, CarbonMade 3. Publishing platforms: blogs, Slideshare, Twitter, Buzzfeed 4. Bibliometrics > altmetrics 5. Some research… 6. Some personal conclusions
- 3. digital media Pro Con Widedissemination, remains at a more or less fixed place for readers to return & download, etc Can be time-consuming & addictive; are you getting to the people you want to read your stuff? Gathering, sorting, archiving of digital information very useful Apps disappear or go corporate Builds academic profile through altmetrics Can encourage narcissism & grandiosity if used as vanity projects Facilitates the Open – open access, open education, OE resources Privacy can be an issue (cf Facebook) Supports knowledge as a public good Do we want that? Should knowledge always be public? 1
- 4. deeper issues 1. What’sdigital? Specific devices, networks, assemblages? Technical, educational, research affordances, modes of text and search, specific skills, competences, practices, environments? 2. How does digital alter social? Eg distributed communities, socio-material understandings, means of production & modes of use 3. How does digital (+ social) alter literacies? Eg artefacts and practices, formal and informal contexts of research, visual artefacts, digital curation. 4. How does digital encourage metricization of our working lives, and what can we do about it? 1
- 5. transforming features ofdigital… • Replicability • Mutability • Connectivity • Instantaneity (& the ‘nearly now’) • Portability • Identity (Jones 2013, 162-65) 1
- 6. so what aboutour staff pages? • Almost no social sharing • Static pages • No reference to academic tools or modes of communication • Social media-free • Occasionally useful for linking to repositories to view ‘versions of record’. Or email addresses… 1
- 7. scholarly peer networks •SSRN • Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/1umHCmP • Academia: bit.ly/1oaK9hj • ResearchGate: http://bit.ly/10k3dyE • LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/1DSQvnn • Carbonmade: http://bit.ly/1GfMZY4 • Zotero • Evernote 2
- 8. publishing platforms: blogging http://paulmaharg.com 17.3.2005> present. Used for: •Dissemination of ideas & research •Construction yard for sections of papers & articles •Sky-writing (Steven Harnard) •Identity formation •On Blawg 3
- 9.
- 10. publishing platforms: slidedecks& Twitter http://slideshare.net/paulmaharg Used for: •Dissemination of slidedecks •Set alerts for others’ presentations •Re Twitter, use third-party apps & aggregators, eg TweetDeck to manage the dataflow 3
- 11. 3 publishing platforms:slidedecks & Twitter
- 12. 3 publishing platforms:slidedecks & Twitter
- 13.
- 14.
- 15. publishing platforms: Buzzfeed (surelynot Buzzfeed?)3
- 16.
- 17. altmetrics See altmetrics.org: ‘the creationand study of new metrics based on the Social Web for analyzing and informing scholarship’ 4
- 18. existing impact: howwe are judged Existing filters: •Peer-review •Citation counting eg h-index •Journal Impact Factor (JIF) 4
- 19. existing impact: howwe are judged • … of a journal: A measure of the average number of citations to articles published in science & social science journals in a 3- year period (Eugene Garfield, ISI). Calculated annually for the journals indexed in Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports. • Calculation: number of times articles were cited in indexed journals divided by number of items published in journals. • Pressure on authors to enter high-ranked journals • Pressure on journals to stay high-ranked 4
- 20. existing impact: howwe are judged… BUT… •JIF is easily gamed: http://bit.ly/1uYDPgE •And gives inaccurate views of journal quality: http://bit.ly/1Ddo8Be 4
- 21. … hence altmetrics ‘Withaltmetrics, we can crowdsource peer-review. Instead of waiting months for two opinions, an article’s impact might be assessed by thousands of conversations and bookmarks in a week. In the short term, this is likely to supplement traditional peer- review, perhaps augmenting rapid review in journals like PLoS ONE, BMC Research Notes or BMJ Open. In the future, greater participation and better systems for identifying expert contributors may allow peer review to be performed entirely from altmetrics. Unlike the JIF, altmetrics reflect the impact of the article itself, not its venue. Unlike citation metrics, altmetrics will track impact outside the academy, impact of influential but uncited work, and impact from sources that aren’t peer-reviewed. Some have suggested altmetrics would be too easy to game; we argue the opposite.’ altmetrics: a manifesto -- http://bit.ly/1tldeJA 4
- 22. what might altmetricslook like?5 Altmetrics: a manifesto – http://bit.ly/1tldeJA
- 23. ANU page –‘Increasing your research impact’ http://libguides.anu.edu.au/content.php?pid=499217&sid=4105636
- 24. ResearchGate stats forweek ending Jul 12 2015 Publication Publication Citations Views downloads views
- 25. Citation analysis –differences between tools? • Web of Science should not be used alone for locating citations to an author or title. • Scopus and Google Scholar can help identify a considerable number of valuable citations not found in Web of Science; • Scopus and Google Scholar can help identify a considerable number of citations in document types not covered by ISI citation databases; • Scopus and Google Scholar may assist in providing a more comprehensive picture of the extent of international and interdisciplinary nature of scholarly communication of and among researchers; and • Google Scholar has several technical problems that users should be aware of in order to accurately and effectively locate citations. • The selection of the database(s) for locating citation is field-dependent. g,KidukandMeho,LokmanI.CitationAnalysis:AComparisonofGoogle olar,Scopus,andWebofScience.,2006.In69thAnnualMeetingofthe ericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology(ASIST),Austin ),3-8November2006.[Conferencepaper], ://eprints.rclis.org/8605/
- 26. …which is alsorelated to the Open movement, in data & scholarship Eg •Datacite •DASH (Harvard) •Caselaw •Ravel Law Further reading: http://bit.ly/1LgPtbo
- 27.
- 28. So why digitalresearch literacy? For all these reasons & more… • Quantify and document research impact • Justify future requests for funding • Quantify return on research investment • Discover how research findings are being used • Identify similar research projects • Identify possible collaborators • Determine if research findings are duplicated, confirmed, corrected, improved or repudiated • Determine if research findings were extended • Confirm that research findings were properly attributed/credited • Demonstrate that research findings are resulting in meaningful health outcomes • Discover community benefit as a result of research findings • Progress reports • Promotion dossiers AdaptedfromtheBeckerModel,@ https://becker.wustl.edu/impact- assessment/model 5
- 29. results from analyticalliterature? • ‘Social network analysis revealed that discipline was influential in defining community structure, while academic seniority was linked to the position of nodes within the network.’ • ‘The survey revealed a contradiction between academics use of the sites and their position within the networks the sites foster. Junior academics were found to be more active users of the sites, agreeing to a greater extent with the perceived benefits, yet having fewer connections and occupying a more peripheral position in the network.’ Jordan (2014) 5
- 30. • ‘Using datafrom the Teaching, Research, and International Policy project on peer- reviewed publications between 1980 and 2006, we show that women are systematically cited less than men after controlling for a large number of variables including year of publication, venue of publication, substantive focus, theoretical perspective, methodology, tenure status, and institutional affiliation.’ • ‘Articles authored by women are systematically less central than articles authored by men, all else equal. This is likely because (1) women tend to cite themselves less than men, and (2) men (who make up a disproportionate share of IR scholars) tend to cite men more than women. This is the first study in political science to reveal significant gender differences in citation patterns and is especially meaningful because citation counts are increasingly used as a key measure of research's quality and impact.’ Maliniak et al 2013 results from analytical literature?5
- 31. metrics and REF? ‘Theaim of this work was to assess the extent to which bibliometric indicators correlated or predicted the outcome of the REF peer review assessment.’ Result…? 5
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35. what can legaleducation researchers do? • Acknowledge the ceaseless emergence of technology, and engage with it as widely as our time & energy allows • Base our practices on community and collaboration • Be open to diverse, global voices • Be Open in teaching and research 6
- 36. references BIALL Legal InformationLiteracy Statement, http://www.biall.org.uk/data/files/BIALL_Legal_Information_Literacy_Statement_July_2012.pdf Cheston, C.C., Flickinger, T.E., Chisholm, M.S. (2013). Social media use in medical education: A systematic review, Academic Medicine. 88, 6, 893-901. Holmes, K. (2014). Going beyond bibliometric and altmetric counts to understand impact. http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/2014-05/going-beyond-bibliometric-and-altmetric-counts-understand- impact#sthash.4stanFFN.dpuf Jones, C. (2013). The digital university: a concept in need of definition. In R. Goodfellow, M.R.Lea, eds, Literacy in the Digital University. Critical Perspectives on Learning, Scholarship and Technology. SRHE, Routledge, London, 162-172. Jordan, K. (2014). Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites. Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4937/4159 Konkiel, S. (2014) Playing with altmetrics. http://theresearchwhisperer.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/altmetrics-services/#more- 3175 Maliniak, D., Powers, R., Walter, B.F. (2013). The gender citation gap in International Relations. International Organization, 67, 4, 889-922. http://bit.ly/1yYFxym SCONUL Seven Pillars of Information Literacy (2011). The Core Model.http://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/coremodel.pdf Veletsianos, G. (2013). Open practices and identity: Evidence from researchers and educators’ social media participation. British Journal of Education Technology, 44, 4, 639-51.
- 37.