arXiv subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Jonathan Adams.
We propose the use of beamplots - which can be produced by using the R package BibPlots and WoS downloads - as a preferred alternative to h index values for assessing single researchers.
We propose the I3* indicator as a non-parametric alternative to the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and h-index. We apply I3* to more than 10,000 journals. The results can be compared with other journal metrics. I3* is a promising variant within the general scheme of non-parametric indicators I3 introduced previously: it provides a single metric which correlates with both impact in terms of citations (c) and output in terms of publications (p). We argue for weighting using four percentile classes: the top-1% and top-10% as excellence indicators; the top-50% and bottom-50% as output indicators. Like the h-index, which also incorporates both c and p, I3*-values are size-dependent; however, division of I3* by the number of publications (I3*/N) provides a size-independent indicator which correlates strongly with the two- and five-year Journal Impact Factors (JIF2 and JIF5). Unlike the h-index, I3* correlates significantly with both the total number of citations and publications. The values of I3* and I3*/N can be statistically tested against the expectation or against one another using chi-square tests or effect sizes. A template (in Excel) is provided online for relevant tests.
Altmetrics have been proposed as a way to assess the societal impact of research. Although altmetrics are already in use as impact or attention metrics in different contexts, it is still not clear whether they really capture or reflect societal impact. This study is based on altmetrics, citation counts, research output and case study data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF), and peers' REF assessments of research output and societal impact. We investigated the convergent validity of altmetrics by using two REF datasets: publications submitted as research output (PRO) to the REF and publications referenced in case studies (PCS). Case studies, which are intended to demonstrate societal impact, should cite the most relevant research papers. We used the MHq' indicator for assessing impact - an indicator which has been introduced for count data with many zeros. The results of the first part of the analysis show that news media as well as mentions on Facebook, in blogs, in Wikipedia, and in policy-related documents have higher MHq' values for PCS than for PRO. Thus, the altmetric indicators seem to have convergent validity for these data. In the second part of the analysis, altmetrics have been correlated with REF reviewers' average scores on PCS. The negative or close to zero correlations question the convergent validity of altmetrics in that context. We suggest that they may capture a different aspect of societal impact (which can be called unknown attention) to that seen by reviewers (who are interested in the causal link between research and action in society).
Nations can be distinguished in terms of whether domestic or international research is cited. We analyzed the research output in natural sciences of three leading European research economies (Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK) and ask where their researchers look for the knowledge that underpins their most highly-cited papers. Is one internationally oriented or is citation limited to national resources? Do the citation patterns reflect a growing differentiation between the domestic and international research enterprise? To evaluate change over time, we include natural-sciences papers published in the countries from three publication years: 2004, 2009, and 2014. The results show that articles co-authored by researchers from Germany or the Netherlands are less likely to be among the globally most highly-cited articles if they also cite "domestic" research (i.e. research authored by authors from the same country). To put this another way, less well-cited research is more likely to stand on domestic shoulders and research that becomes more highly-cited is more likely to stand on international shoulders. A possible reason for the results is that researchers "over-cite" the papers from their own country - lacking the focus on quality in citing. However, these differences between domestic and international shoulders are not visible for the UK.
The network of international co-authorship relations has been dominated by certain European nations and the USA, but this network is rapidly expanding at the global level. Between 40 and 50 countries appear in the center of the international network in 2011, and almost all (201) nations are nowadays involved in international collaboration. In this brief communication, we present both a global map with the functionality of a Google Map (zooming, etc.) and network maps based on normalized relations. These maps reveal complementary aspects of the network. International collaboration in the generation of knowledge claims (that is, the context of discovery) changes the structural layering of the sciences. Previously, validation was at the global level and discovery more dependent on local contexts. This changing relationship between the geographical and intellectual dimensions of the sciences also has implications for national science policies.
Recent discussion about the increase in international research collaboration suggests a comprehensive global network centred around a group of core countries and driven by generic socio-economic factors where the global system influences all national and institutional outcomes. In counterpoint, we demonstrate that the collaboration pattern for countries in Africa is far from universal. Instead, it exhibits layers of internal clusters and external links that are explained not by monotypic global influences but by regional geography and, perhaps even more strongly, by history, culture and language. Analysis of these bottom-up, subjective, human factors is required in order to provide the fuller explanation useful for policy and management purposes.