Group items tagged

Abstract: "Traditionally, scholarly impact and visibility have been measured by counting publications and citations in the scholarly literature. However, increasingly scholars are also visible on the Web, establishing presences in a growing variety of social ecosystems. But how wide and established is this presence, and how do measures of social Web impact relate to their more traditional counterparts? To answer this, we sampled 57 presenters from the 2010 Leiden STI Conference, gathering publication and citations counts as well as data from the presenters' Web "footprints." We found Web presence widespread and diverse: 84% of scholars had homepages, 70% were on LinkedIn, 23% had public Google Scholar profiles, and 16% were on Twitter. For sampled scholars' publications, social reference manager bookmarks were compared to Scopus and Web of Science citations; we found that Mendeley covers more than 80% of sampled articles, and that Mendeley bookmarks are significantly correlated (r=.45) to Scopus citation counts. " "Accepted to 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Montreal, Canada, 5-8 Sept. 2012."

Review all for understandign the user behavior in the context of DPLA

Attempts at gaming Google Scholar's metrics with fake papers, but frustrations reported with Scholar's lack of transparency

In the June 4 issue, The Chronicle published an article on what Google Books could mean for researchers. We asked some leading scholars to comment on how "big data" will change the humanities. Here are their responses:

Publish or Perish is a software program that retrieves and analyzes academic citations from Google Scholar

One of the many comparative studies in the field of business and management which point to the conclusion that to see the full impact of HBS faculty article output (as judged by citations) needs to take into account GS (Harzing's), WoS and Scopus.

Consists of three reports, "Can a New Research Library Be All-Digital," "On the Cost of Keeping a Book" "Ghostlier Demarcations" (latter discusses large text databases such as Google Books and their impact on scholars)

We used the databases of ISI and Ulrich's as our primary sources and estimate that the total number of articles published in 2006 by 23 750 journals was approximately 1 350 000.\nUsing this number as denominator it was also possible to estimate the number of articles which are openly available on the web in primary OA journals (gold OA). This share turned out to be 4.6 % for the year 2006. In addition at least a further 3.5 % was available after an embargo period of usually one year, bringing the total share of gold OA to 8.1%\nUsing a random sample of articles, we also tried to estimate the proportion of the articles published which are available as copies deposited in e-print repositories or homepages (green OA). Based on the article title a web search engine was used to search for a freely downloadable full-text version. For 11.3 % a usable copy was found. Combining these two figures we estimate that 19.4 % of the total yearly output can be accessed freely.

A review of four bibliographic utility studies on library catalogs points out that the library catalog is no longer the starting point for students and researchers and that it has been eclipsed by easier-to-use and more convenient tools such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and LibraryThing. The author suggests that catalog developers learn from these tools and draw on their metadata; include "social" enhancements such as tagging, comments, and reviews; develop systems that are user-focused rather than librarian-focused; forsake the local catalog for the union catalog to reduce duplication of effort