Applied Evaluative Informetrics: Part 1

This manuscript is a preprint version of Part 1 (General Introduction and Synopsis) of the book Applied Evaluative Informetrics, to be published by Springer in the summer of 2017. This book presents an introduction to the field of applied evaluative informetrics, and is written for interested scholars and students from all domains of science and scholarship. It sketches the field's history, recent achievements, and its potential and limits. It explains the notion of multi-dimensional research performance, and discusses the pros and cons of 28 citation-, patent-, reputation- and altmetrics-based indicators. In addition, it presents quantitative research assessment as an evaluation science, and focuses on the role of extra-informetric factors in the development of indicators, and on the policy context of their application. It also discusses the way forward, both for users and for developers of informetric tools.Comment: The posted version is a preprint (author copy) of Part 1 (General Introduction and Synopsis) of a book entitled Applied Evaluative Bibliometrics, to be published by Springer in the summer of 201

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of publications and citations to be included in the calculation of citation impact indicators. The second topic is the normalization of citation impact indicators, in particular normalization for field differences. Counting methods for dealing with co-authored publications are the third topic, and citation impact indicators for journals are the last topic. The paper concludes by offering some recommendations for future research

Evolutionary Subject Tagging in the Humanities; Supporting Discovery and Examination in Digital Cultural Landscapes

In this paper, the authors attempt to identify problematic issues for subject tagging in the humanities, particularly those associated with information objects in digital formats. In the third major section, the authors identify a number of assumptions that lie behind the current practice of subject classification that we think should be challenged. We move then to propose features of classification systems that could increase their effectiveness. These emerged as recurrent themes in many of the conversations with scholars, consultants, and colleagues. Finally, we suggest next steps that we believe will help scholars and librarians develop better subject classification systems to support research in the humanities.NEH Office of Digital Humanities: Digital Humanities Start-Up Grant (HD-51166-10

The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. The review was chaired by Professor James Wilsdon, supported by an independent and multidisciplinary group of experts in scientometrics, research funding, research policy, publishing, university management and administration. This review has gone beyond earlier studies to take a deeper look at potential uses and limitations of research metrics and indicators. It has explored the use of metrics across different disciplines, and assessed their potential contribution to the development of research excellence and impact. It has analysed their role in processes of research assessment, including the next cycle of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). It has considered the changing ways in which universities are using quantitative indicators in their management systems, and the growing power of league tables and rankings. And it has considered the negative or unintended effects of metrics on various aspects of research culture. The report starts by tracing the history of metrics in research management and assessment, in the UK and internationally. It looks at the applicability of metrics within different research cultures, compares the peer review system with metric-based alternatives, and considers what balance might be struck between the two. It charts the development of research management systems within institutions, and examines the effects of the growing use of quantitative indicators on different aspects of research culture, including performance management, equality, diversity, interdisciplinarity, and the ‘gaming’ of assessment systems. The review looks at how different funders are using quantitative indicators, and considers their potential role in research and innovation policy. Finally, it examines the role that metrics played in REF2014, and outlines scenarios for their contribution to future exercises

Documentation Style as Rhetorical Device: A Comparative Analysis of Two Bibliographic Systems

The documentation styles developed by the Modern Language Association and the American Psychological Association reflect divergent assumptions regarding the apprehension and communication of knowledge. Each system expresses its rhetorical character through the aims it articulates, the sources it values, and the formats it prescribes for in-text citations and bibliographic references. Like other scholarly writing conventions, documentation styles are not arbitrary, but both shape and are shaped by the discourse communities that they serve. Emerging scholars need to be acculturated purposively to the conventions of their respective communities, while authors should consciously select bibliographic systems that support their rhetorical aims

Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 table