3,411 research outputs found
Utilising content marketing metrics and social networks for academic visibility
There are numerous assumptions on research evaluation in terms of quality and relevance of academic contributions. Researchers are becoming increasingly acquainted with bibliometric indicators, including; citation analysis, impact factor, h-index, webometrics and academic social networking sites. In this light, this chapter presents a review of these concepts as it considers relevant theoretical underpinnings that are related to the content marketing of scholars. Therefore, this contribution critically evaluates previous papers that revolve on the subject of academic reputation as it deliberates on the individual researchersâ personal branding. It also explains how metrics are currently being used to rank the academic standing of journals as well as higher educational institutions. In a nutshell, this chapter implies that the scholarly impact depends on a number of factors including accessibility of publications, peer review of academic work as well as social networking among scholars.peer-reviewe
A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics
Scientometrics is the study of the quantitative aspects of the process of science as a communication system. It is centrally, but not only, concerned with the analysis of citations in the academic literature. In recent years it has come to play a major role in the measurement and evaluation of research performance. In this review we consider: the historical development of scientometrics, sources of citation data, citation metrics and the âlaws" of scientometrics, normalisation, journal impact factors and other journal metrics, visualising and mapping science, evaluation and policy, and future developments
The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics
Activity of modern scholarship creates online footprints galore. Along with
traditional metrics of research quality, such as citation counts, online images
of researchers and institutions increasingly matter in evaluating academic
impact, decisions about grant allocation, and promotion. We examined 400
biographical Wikipedia articles on academics from four scientific fields to
test if being featured in the world's largest online encyclopedia is correlated
with higher academic notability (assessed through citation counts). We found no
statistically significant correlation between Wikipedia articles metrics
(length, number of edits, number of incoming links from other articles, etc.)
and academic notability of the mentioned researchers. We also did not find any
evidence that the scientists with better WP representation are necessarily more
prominent in their fields. In addition, we inspected the Wikipedia coverage of
notable scientists sampled from Thomson Reuters list of "highly cited
researchers". In each of the examined fields, Wikipedia failed in covering
notable scholars properly. Both findings imply that Wikipedia might be
producing an inaccurate image of academics on the front end of science. By
shedding light on how public perception of academic progress is formed, this
study alerts that a subjective element might have been introduced into the
hitherto structured system of academic evaluation.Comment: To appear in EPJ Data Science. To have the Additional Files and
Datasets e-mail the corresponding autho
Reviewing, indicating, and counting books for modern research evaluation systems
In this chapter, we focus on the specialists who have helped to improve the
conditions for book assessments in research evaluation exercises, with
empirically based data and insights supporting their greater integration. Our
review highlights the research carried out by four types of expert communities,
referred to as the monitors, the subject classifiers, the indexers and the
indicator constructionists. Many challenges lie ahead for scholars affiliated
with these communities, particularly the latter three. By acknowledging their
unique, yet interrelated roles, we show where the greatest potential is for
both quantitative and qualitative indicator advancements in book-inclusive
evaluation systems.Comment: Forthcoming in Glanzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch U., Thelwall, M.
(2018). Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Some
corrections made in subsection 'Publisher prestige or quality
- âŠ