Successfully reported this slideshow.
Upcoming SlideShare
×

# Bibliometric indicators of quality?

471 views

Published on

Introduction to bibliometric and altmetric indicators for the bachelor course in source criticism

Published in: Social Media
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• My friend sent me a link to to tis site. This awesome company. They wrote my entire research paper for me, and it turned out brilliantly. I highly recommend this service to anyone in my shoes. ⇒ www.HelpWriting.net ⇐.

Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
• Very nice tips on this. In case you need help on any kind of academic writing visit website ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐ and place your order

Are you sure you want to  Yes  No

### Bibliometric indicators of quality?

1. 1. INDICATORSOFQUALITY??
2. 2. OUTLINE INDICATORS OF QUALITY?? • Methods of quantitative evaluation • University level – Macro bibliometric analysis • Individual level – Micro bibliometric analysis Lorna Wildgaard Royal School of Library and Information Science Lorna.wildgaard@hum.ku.dk Kildekritik, F2016
3. 3. STUDY OF QUANTITATIVE ASPECTS OF: informetrics bibliometrics scientometrics webometrics cybermetrics © Björneborn altmetrics Information in any form by any social group Production, dissemination & use of recorded information Science as a discipline or economic activity Politico-economical aspects. Construction & use of information resources & tech. on the internet Web documents, text & multi-media, blogs, tags, wikis.. Dissemination, use & online activity of scholarly content
4. 4. SO METRICS ARE: ”The application of mathematical and statistical methods to books and other media of communication.” Pritchard, A (1969), Journal of Documentation, 25(4):348-9
5. 5. e=18 h=8 m=1 𝑿=3 CPP=18 t=4
6. 6. PERCENT DISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION C= Nm Nm+Ns Nm = Number of multi-authored papers in the discipline, eg. 22929 Ns=Number of single authored papers in the discipline, eg. 9325 C= 22929 22929+9325 = 0.71 * 100 = 71%
7. 7. S c (i) = γ ∗ (Y (now) − Y (i) + 1)−δ ∗ |C(i)| Weighted citation score of an article Actual Year minus publication year Citation count Coefficient set at 4, i.e. for an article published during the current year, its citations account four times
8. 8. WHAT IS A PUBLICATION? A scholarly publication is a an expression of the state of the researcher at a particular time (Price 1970)….the product of scientific research (Cawkell 1976; Lazarev 1996)….what consitutes a publication is different in the scientific disciplines (Castellini 2014; Hicks 2012; Tinkler 2011; Frandsen & Nicolaisen 2011)….different publication types indicate different methodologies (Grant & Booth 2009;Dzombak 2013)….Publications should be conceptualized as a discrete set of objects so they can be counted in aggregate (Skupin 2009)….output in a citation index (Antonakis & Lalive (2008). What constitutes a ”publication” should be clearly defined to ensure representative operationalization in the indicator and the extraction of meaningful relationships (Wouters 1999; Skupin 2009; Colledge 2012)
9. 9. WHAT IS A CITATION? Citations reflect som sort of cognitive influence (Moed 2005)….the strength of the influence is not known (Martyn 1964)….income or reward (Ravetz 1971)….meaning of citation is governed by paradigmatic & social norms (MacRoberts & MacRoberts 1996; Cronin 2000)….acknowledgement of intellecual debt to other works (Merton 1971)…. Markers or symbols of influence in the aggregate (Small 1978;1987)….citation impact (Martin & Irvine 1983)….rhetorical devices (Luukkonen 1997; Latour 1987)….authority (Gilbert) quality sensor mechanisms (Lindsey 1978)….A manipulable measure of something or other (Singleton 1976)….influence on average (Nicolaisen 2004)…citations are arbitrary (Leimu & Korcheva 2005)… markers (footprints) of scientific communication (Garfield 1979)….income (Albarrán 2011)…… The concept of citation is open for interpretation, of which there are numerous, and it is impossible to exclusively link citations to quality
10. 10. WHAT IS A RESEARCHER? Dias 10 21/02/2016
11. 11. WARM UP EXERCISE https://todaysmeet.com/Warm_Up Handout: Researcher evaluation 1. Suggest indicators that could measure attributes, skills, interests and achievements. 2. Consider how to indicate the quality of these attributes, skills, interests & achievements.
12. 12. EVALUATION OUTPUT DATA MODEL MOTIVATION TO PUBLISH MOTIVATION TO CITE INTERPRETATION OF ALI LEGITIMATE LINK TO REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE OF RESEARCHER IN SYSTEM REDEFINES WHAT SUCCESS IS EXOGENOUS VARIABLES WHAT IS MISSING INDEXING POLICY THE PROBLEM
13. 13. COFFEE BREAK: Meet back here in 10 minutes
14. 14. UNIVERSITY LEVEL
15. 15. RESEARCH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS -Register the amount & type of a scholar’s publications. REF (UK): Panel-based evaluation every 6th year. Quality=peer review. BFO (Flanders): Citation-based Quality=reception & use ERA (Aus)=Publication-based (udifferentiated). The number of publications dictates the amount of funds given to the university & the assessment of a researcher’s productivity. Quality= not assessed
16. 16. Norwegian indicator 2004 (differentiated) Tiered system of publication types and sources. Aim: increase publications in international journals and establish a registration system in which institutes can validate & verify publications as well as see other institutions publications Quality=not addressed BACKGROUND FOR BFI BFI (DK) 2009-2012 (differentiated) Tiered system of publication types and sources Aim: Distribute funding based on the quality of research results (UFM 2015a). Universities are judged based on published research. Quality= explicit assumption: the journal's status is assumed to say something about the individual publication’s quality (UFM 2015a). 16
17. 17. BFI Norge Quality indicator Publications indicator 25% of a sub-pool of basic funds, amount changes each year 2% of all university funds each year Domain neutral Normalised. Benchmarked against total publication points and domain share Unclear, complicated Clear, simple Publication performance Stimulate publication in international resources Accountability model, aimed at distributing funds, production measured in Danish Crowns and legitimacy Registration model Fractionalised count ”Whole” counting International/eksternal collaboration rewarded with more points Points normalised to the domain w.r.t. speed of publication, collaboration traditions and publication type Book publishers on level 1 & 2 Book publishers on Level 1
18. 18. TEACHING 40% FACULTY WORK 23% ADMIN. 18% RESEARCH & PUBLICATION 12% NETWORK 7% WHAT IS THE BFI MEASURING? HOW RESEARCHERS SPEND THEIR TIME: WEEKLY AVERAGE Ziker (2014) https://thebluereview.org/faculty-time-allocation/18 BFI
19. 19. GROUP AREA FIELD COVERAGE 1-19 HUM Language, Culture, History, Linguistics & Semiotics, Literature, Dance, Music, Theater, Art History And Art, Cultural Studies, Media & Communication, Film, Rhetoric, Theology, Philosophy, Archeology, Pedagogy, Education, Anthropology, IT & Humanities 20-27 SOC. SCI Law, Sociology, Social Work, Political Science, Geography, Social Economics, Psychology, Library & Information Science 28-46 SCI/TEK Geo-physics, Physics, Astronomy, Math, Chemistry, Biology, Environmental Science, Agriculture, Molecular Science, Pharmacology, Civil Engineering, Transport, Electronics, Energy, Chemical Engineering, Nanoscience, Medical Technology, System Development And Entrepreneurship, Food Science 47-62 SUND Medicine, Surgery, Anesthesiology, Neurology, Ear-nose-throat, Eye Disease, Gynecology, Dermatology, Pediatrics, Pharmacology, Dentistry, Nursing, Public Health, Veterinary, Pathology, General Medicine 63-68 OTHER Gender Studies, Architecture, Town Planning, Sport, Digital Communication, Information Systems & IT Management, Science Studies And Research Analysis 19
20. 20. BFI STRUCTURE: PUBLICATION TYPES Publication types N. 1 N.2 Monography in ISBN title (inc. reports, ex. Text books) 5 8 Monography in book series 5 8 Contribution to anthology, ISBN title (inc. introductory & final chapters; book chapters; ex., abstracts, lecture manuscripts, PPTs, encyclopedia, preface/afterword, commentaries, editorial work) 0.5 2 Contribution to anthology, bookseries 1 3 Contribution to a conference, series 1 3 Contribution to a conference 0.5 2 Article (inc. letter, review ex., abstracts, editorial letter, commentary, book review) 1 3 Doctorate 5 Patent 1 Publication types registered in PURE, PURE4 42 basic publishing types: http://bibliotek.science.ku.dk/forskdok/docs/metadatamodel_P4_LIFE_GR_270312.pdf20
21. 21. CALCULATION OF BFI POINTS Points are shared between universities dependent on how many authors belonging to the university are listed on the publication: A book on level 2 gives 8 points. There are 3 authors from AU, 2 from CPU & 1 from a foreign university. AU = 3/6 points CPU=2/6 points 8/6 = 1.3 points to each author Collaboration with authors from other universities, Danish or foreign, is rewarded, The total number of points are multiplied by 1.25. AU total points= 1.3 * 3 =3.9 * 1.25 = 4.87 points CPU total points = 1.3 * 2 =2.6 * 1.25 = 3.25 points BFI is domain neutral (funds are shared within domain and not across domains) 21
22. 22. DISTRIBUTION KEY (fordelingsnøglen) 2009 45% STÅ INCOME 20% EKSTERNAL 10% PhD 25% BFI 2015 2008 50% STÅ INCOME 40% EKSTERNAL 10% PhD 2000 Tax catalogue: http://ufm.dk/uddannelse-og-institutioner/videregaende- uddannelse/universiteter/okonomi/uddannelsesbevillinger 22
23. 23. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER 2015? BFI must only distribute new funds and not alter the existing taxometer for distribution of basic university funds (DU 2009) • New funds = globalization pool • The globalization pool is expected to be emptied in 2015 • Suggested 25% BFI distributions parametre is supplemented by taking funds from external grants • Basis funding is grouped together with other funding and therefore effects distribution and share. fx: HUM greatest operational costs, greatest number of students, lowest STÅ tax and lowest amount of funds invested in researcher education, researcher support, administration and traditionally the lowest number of publications. http://www.altinget.dk/forskning/artikel/basismidler-fylder- mindre-paa-universiteterne 23
24. 24. COLLABORATION PARAMETER Publications Level Total Points % National points Collaborative publications % Collaborative publications 1 2 NAT/TEK 2921 1596 1325 2973.99 24 2406 82 SUND 3437 2379 1058 2851.26 42 3056 88 HUM 963 625 338 1502.72 34 185 19 SAM 739 448 291 1141.47 21 225 30 I ALT 8060 5048 3012 8469.44 30% 5872 72% *Universities share of the total number of national points, given in percent https://bfi.fi.dk/Publication/NationalAnalysis 24
25. 25. PUBLICATION POINTS (UFM 2015) % diff. i p.p 2013-2014 % diff. antal p. 2013-2014 Aalborg U +35.3 +37 Aarhus U +4.1 +2.6 CBS +20.2 +11.6 DTU -0.3 +3.7 ITU +19.5 +12.5 KU +0.3 -3.7 RUC +7.7 -4.9 SDU +16.1 -16.4 DOMAIN % diff. 2013-2014 NAT/TEK -0.5 SUND +16.9 HUM +15.3 SAMF +12.5 25
26. 26. EVALUATION OF BFI Good focus on strategic publishing. BFI works as an incitement to publish in certain resources. Yet, the development of longterm, dialogue based communication forms with public society could be ignored in a quest to fulfill the requirement of selling science through an unidirectional intemediatory (red.: journals). (Schneider, 2015) 26
27. 27. VISIBILITY OF HUM IN CITATION INDICES 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Numberofpublications Publication year HUM i WOS HUM i Scopus BFI P=963 BFI P=813 BFI 27
28. 28. EVALUATION OF BFI UFM(2015) 1. BFI lacks transparancy 2. Need for better communication between stakeholders 3. Citation indicators could be advantages in some domains. This will enable analysis of international competition. The performance of BFI in the model to distribute funds was not assessed 28
29. 29. CONSIDERATIONS BFI results in an increase of research publications in level 1 and 2 sources, and increased collaboration (Ingwersen & Larsen, 2014) BFI results in an increased attention on the researcher employment promotion funding applications Under contract to publish in BFI resources and produce publication points(AAU Bestyrelse, 2014; FOU., 2013; Strandskov, 2011) 29
30. 30. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE… Does BFI prioritize what is measurable over what should be measured but is difficult to quanitify? (Aagaard 2012) • Leiden manifesto: http://www.leidenmanifesto.org/ • Snowball Metrics: http://www.snowballmetrics.com/ • Responsible Metrics https://responsiblemetrics.org/
31. 31. COFFEE BREAK: Meet back here in 10 minutes
32. 32. INDIVIDUAL LEVEL SCIENTOMETRICS
33. 33. TYPES OF INDICATORS Hybrid metrics PUBLICATION METRICS count production, collaboration, & contribution CITATION METRICS count citations, self- citations, adjust for collaboration Table of indicators: http://tinyurl.com/nj4mvca Ranking, growth, proxy for excellence, effect, field comparisons & quality
34. 34. INTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ALI Wildgaard et al (2014) A review of the characteristics of 108 author- level indicators. Scientometrics, 101(1):125-158
35. 35. Age: years since first publication (WoS) = 2016-2009 = 7 Papers: all publications (WoS)=13 Citations: total citations (WoS)= 190 1st subject area=Anesthesiology 2nd subject area=Neuroscience 3rd subject area=Surgery INDEX OF QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY http://tinyurl.com/zlxzyz9 Antonakis, J. and Lalive, R. (2008), Quantifying Scholarly Impact: IQp Versus the Hirsch h. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 59: 956–969. doi: 10.1002/asi.20802 http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis/IQp%20calculator%20version %202008.xls
36. 36. INDEX OF QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY 190 Cited 1.44 times more than average paper in the specialty Number of papers performing above average for the specialty JIF of 3 subject categories
37. 37. ANOTHER ASPECT OF QUALITY? WEB/ALTMETRICS
38. 38. WEB 2.0 = PARTICIPATIVE WEB ”… supports, extends, or derives added value from human social behaviour …”
39. 39. TWO ELEMENTS IN NETWORKS Node Nodes represent things that relate somehow to one another Tie Tie represents relations between nodes © James Cook https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCerAw4EfTOnYYxLLPZAzMxQ
40. 40. TWO KINDS OF NETWORKS DIRECTED NETWORKS Networks in which the tie has a driection (digraphs), eg. Linking to a webpage, downloading a document, citation networks UNDIRECTED NETWORKS Networks in which the tie has no direction eg. friends on Facebook, © James Cook
41. 41. INDUCED HOMOPHILY Tendency for ties to form similar others because similar others present the social environments (group, community, society) No wonder blues are mostly tied to blues…there are hardly any reds out there! © James Cook
42. 42. CHOICE HOMOPHILY A tendency to choose to form ties with similar others even when different others are available in the social environment (group, community, society) © James Cook
43. 43. PRINCIPLES OF NETWORKS • Ties should be straight • Ties should not be far from each other • Ties should not cross or touch • Ties should be easy to follow from node to node • Nodes that connect should be close • Similar nodes should be close to one another • Central nodes should be in the center © James Cook
44. 44. http://noduslabs.com/research/knowledge-graphs-type-document/
46. 46. Quick-Diverse-Broad A record of attention: how many people have been exposed to and engaged with a scholarly output in the news, blogs, and on Twitter; article pageviews and downloads; GitHub repository watchers. A measure of dissemination: where and why a piece of research is being discussed and shared, both among other scholars and in the public sphere. An indicator of influence and impact: Some altmetrics can signal that research is changing a field of study, the public’s health, or having any other number of tangible effects upon larger society, eg. references in public policy documents; or commentary from experts and practitioners.
47. 47. An output • Journal Article • Dataset • Poster An identifier attached to the output • DOI • PubMedID Mention in a source • Social media • Blogs • Wikipedia • Media API stands for Application Programming Interface
48. 48. ALTMETRIC.COM The colours of the donut each represent a different source of information. The attention score is a weighted count of all of the attention a research output has received. http://tinyurl.com/z7zozr5
49. 49. Demographic breakdown Count % Members of the public 153 18 Scientists 31 16 Science communicators (bloggers, journalists, editors) 5 3 Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) 3 2
50. 50. Indicators are designed to measure particular aspects of the effect of a researcher’s work – over time, to field, as quality, ranking all or selected works, co-authorship etc. Judgements based on indicators can lead to assumptions about the productivity and impact of a researcher, which can be unsubstantiated, and affect the psychological character of the individual. ALI have to be methodologically sound WHAT WE HAVE TO BE AWARE OF
51. 51. 51 ALI GIVE A SNAP-SHOT OF SELF IMAGE AND CORE PERSONALITY TRAITS COMPARING RESEARCHERS CAN EXPOSE THE INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUALS USE ANY DATA TO INCREASE ALI SCORES, TO INCREASE THEIR SUBJECT VALIDITY & SELF- WORTH ALI BRING OBJECTIVITY TO THE EVALUATION & REDUCE GENDER; CULTURAL AND RACIAL BIAS DOCUMENTING BEING OUT- PERFORMED IS DETRIMENTAL TO A RESEARCHER’S SELF-DEFINITION ALI DO NOT ADD CONTEXT BUT CAN ADD REDUNDANT INFORMATION SUCCESS IS DEFINED AS WELL IN THE SYSTEM EXTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ALI
52. 52. 1. Transparency Know which data is used to compute the indicator Understand the math and the inferences 2. Demographics Be aware if demographics affect the indicator 3. Motive Indicators must fit the objectives of the evaluation 4. Diversity Choose indicators that fit the discipline/publication 5. Openess Make the limitations of indicator explicit, use supplementary indicators APPROPRIATE INDICATORS
53. 53. “CAN WE ASSESS THE BEAUTY OF THE MONA LISA BY COUNTING THE NUMBER OF VISITORS TO THE LOUVRE?” GROUP DISCUSSION. WRITE YOUR IDEAS AT https://todaysmeet.com/Indicators_of_Quality
54. 54. statistics 5,074,920
55. 55. www.wikimindmap.org
56. 56. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics
57. 57. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm STATISTICS up to 2009/2010
58. 58. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports
59. 59. REFERENCES Aagaard, K & Mejlgaard, N (2012) Dansk forskningspolitik efter årstusinskiftet. Aarhus Universitetsforlag AAU (2013). Newsletter from the Rectorate, October 2013. Retrieved 23-6-2015 from: http://www.intern.aau.dk/ansatte/ledelsen-AAU/aau- rektoratet/rektoratets-nyhedsbrev/vis-nyhedsbrev//nyt-fra-rektoratet-oktober- 2013---newsletter-from-the-rectorate-october-2013.cid97315#bfi Barbulescu, Roxana. 2011. European Research Council’s Grant for Advanced Investigators in Social and Political Sciences. European University Institute. DS 2014: Svagtfald I statens forskningsbudget (Nyt fra Danmarks statistik, 28 jan 2014) http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2014/NR039_1.pdf DU. (2009). Politikpapir om model for fordeling af basismidler. Faggruppe 68. Retrieved 23-6-2015, from: http://faggruppe68.pbworks.com/f/Politikpapir_170409__til_hjemmesiden_.pdf59
60. 60. REFERENCES DU. (2012). Overblik over finanslovforslaget for 2013. Retrieved 23-6-2015, from: http://www.dkuni.dk/Politik/~/media/Files/Politiknotater/notat%20om%20ffl13%20(3 ).ashx Emmeche, C. (2014). Den Bibliometriske Forskningsindikator - fordele og ulemper. Faggruppe68. Retrieved 23-6-2015, from: http://faggruppe68.pbworks.com/w/page/6015700/Den%20Bibliometriske%20Forskn ingsindikator%20-%20fordele%20og%20ulemper FOU. (2013). Publiceringsstrategi for Rosklide Universitet 2015-2018. RUC Hearing. Retrieved 23-6-2015, from: www.ruc.dk/?eID=minute&m=1948&t=179&docID=30986 Hansen, L. (2009) ‖Hvorfor er en humanistisk artikel mere værd end en sundhedsvidenskabelig?‖ Indlæg på bloggen ‘Forskningsfrihed‘ 12/10-2009. Ingwersen & Larsen (2014) Influence of a performance indicator on Danish research production and citation impact 2000–12. Scientometrics, Online 19/4 2014; DOI 10.1007/s11192-014-1291-x. 60
61. 61. REFERENCES Meo, Sultan A., Abeer A. Al Masri, Adnan M. Usmani, Almas N. Memon, and Syed Z. Zaidi. 2013. Impact of GDP, spending on R&D, number of universities and scientific journals on research publications among Asian countries. PloS One, 8(6), e66449. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066449 Podlubny, I (2005) A note on comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science http://arxiv.org/ftp/math/papers/0410/0410574.pdf Schneider, J (2015) Publications or Citations – Does it matter? Beneficiaries in two different versions of a national bibliometric performance model, an existing publication-based and a suggested citation-based model. ISSI, Bogaziçi University Printhouse, (2015), from: http://www.issi2015.org/files/downloads/all- papers/0477.pdf Sivertsen, G. (2009). A Bibliometric Funding Model based on a National Research Information System. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education. Retrieved 23-6-0015, from: http://www.issi2009.org/agendas/issiprogram/public/documents/ISSI%202009%20Sivertsen%20Vista- 094456.pdf Strandskov, J. (2011). Referat af Institutledermøde den 6. december 2011, Syddansk Universitet. Retrieved 21- 04-2015, from: board.sam.sdu.dk/Download.mvc/2889 UFM (2015a). Basismidler efter kvalitet. Retrieved 22-6-2015, from: http://ufm.dk/uddannelse-og- institutioner/videregaende-uddannelse/universiteter/okonomi/basismidler-efter-kvalitet 61
62. 62. LINKS The Ref indicator explained: http://www.ref.ac.uk/ Sherpa/Romeo. Publisher Copyright policies & self-archiving http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php Higher Education Funding council for England: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2015/Name,103785,en.html The BOF indicator explained (Dutch): http://data- onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/edulex/document.aspx?docid=14492 The Norwegian Indicator: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/helse-og- omsorg/sykehus/nasjonalt-system-for-maling-av-forskning/id446980/#Ind BFI: http://ufm.dk/forskning-og-innovation/statistik-og-analyser/den- bibliometriske-forskningsindikator 62