No citation advantage for monograph-based collaborations?

It is widely believed that collaboration is advantageous in science, for example, with collaboratively written articles tending to attract more citations than solo articles and strong arguments for the value of interdisciplinary collaboration. Nevertheless, it is not known whether the same is true for research that produces books. This article tests whether co-authored scholarly monographs attract more citations than solo monographs using books published before 2011 from 30 categories in the Web of Science. The results show that solo monographs numerically dominate collaborative monographs, but give no evidence of a citation advantage for collaboration on monographs. In contrast, for nearly all these subjects (28 out of 30) there was a citation advantage for collaboratively produced journal articles. As a result, research managers and funders should not incentivise collaborative research in book-based subjects or in research that aims to produce monographs, but should allow the researchers themselves to freely decide whether to collaborate or not.     

Does research using qualitative methods (grounded theory,ethnography, and phenomenology) have more impact?

In spite of the increasing use of qualitative research methods in library and information studies, it is unclear whether using qualitative methods (grounded theory, ethnography, and phenomenology) results in an above average impact in library and information science (LIS). Articles using any of the three qualitative methods published from 2003 to 2013 and indexed in Web of Science in the category of “Information Science & Library Science” (N?=?299) were studied. The number of citations and Mendeley readers for each article was compared to the other articles published in the same journal and same volume using mean normalised rank (rank-1/articles-1). The results showed no statistically significant difference between the citation rates of qualitative articles with those of other articles. Qualitative articles on average had a smaller Mendeley readership than the other articles did and the difference was statistically significant. Given the increasing interest in qualitative methods, it is suggested that LIS schools in their education programs and journals in their editorial policies should put more emphasis on issues related to the rigour of qualitative research.     

MPACT and citation impact: Two sides of the same scholarly coin?

This article provides the first comparison of citation counts and mentoring impact (MPACT) indicators — indicators that serve to quantify the process of doctoral mentoring. Using a dataset of 120 library and information science (LIS) faculty members in North America, this article examines the correlation between MPACT indicators and citation counts. Results suggest that MPACT indicators measure something distinct from citation counts. The article discusses these distinctions, with emphasis on differences between faculty ranks. It considers possible explanations for weak correlations between citations and mentoring at the full professor rank as well as implications for faculty activity analysis and broader institutional evolution.     

Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?

Despite recent evidence that Microsoft Academic is an extensive source of citation counts for journal articles, it is not known if the same is true for academic books. This paper fills this gap by comparing citations to 16,463 books from 2013 to 2016 in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from Microsoft Academic and Google Books in 17 fields. About 60% of the BKCI books had records in Microsoft Academic, varying by year and field. Citation counts from Microsoft Academic were 1.5 to 3.6 times higher than from BKCI in nine subject areas across all years for books indexed by both. Microsoft Academic found more citations than BKCI because it indexes more scholarly publications and combines citations to different editions and chapters. In contrast, BKCI only found more citations than Microsoft Academic for books in three fields from 2013-2014. Microsoft Academic also found more citations than Google Books in six fields for all years. Thus, Microsoft Academic may be a useful source for the impact assessment of books when comprehensive coverage is not essential.     

Do we have any theories of group communication?

The essay presents criteria for a “good theory” and then reviews advances in small group communication research during the 1980s. The fact that comparatively few scholars are dedicated to such research is then related to the criteria for good theory in discussions of, first, metaphors and imagination; second, puzzles and problems; and third, real‐world significance and outcomes. A call is made for the kind of research that will result in better small group theory.     

Do Article Influence scores overestimate the citation impact of social science journals in subfields that are related to higher-impact natural science disciplines?

Unlike Impact Factors (IF), Article Influence (AI) scores assign greater weight to citations that appear in highly cited journals. The natural sciences tend to have higher citation rates than the social sciences. We might therefore expect that relative to IF, AI overestimates the citation impact of social science journals in subfields that are related to (and presumably cited in) higher-impact natural science disciplines. This study evaluates that assertion through a set of simple and multiple regressions covering seven social science disciplines: anthropology, communication, economics, education, library and information science, psychology, and sociology. Contrary to expectations, AI underestimates 5IF (five-year Impact Factor) for journals in science-related subfields such as scientific communication, science education, scientometrics, biopsychology, and medical sociology. Journals in these subfields have low AI scores relative to their 5IF values. Moreover, the effect of science-related status is considerable—typically 0.60 5IF units or 0.50 SD. This effect is independent of the more general finding that AI scores underestimate 5IF for higher-impact journals. It is also independent of the very modest curvilinearity in the relationship between AI and 5IF.     

Can Microsoft Academic assess the early citation impact of in-press articles? A multi-discipline exploratory analysis

Many journals post accepted articles online before they are formally published in an issue. Early citation impact evidence for these articles could be helpful for timely research evaluation and to identify potentially important articles that quickly attract many citations. This article investigates whether Microsoft Academic can help with this task. For over 65,000 Scopus in-press articles from 2016 and 2017 across 26 fields, Microsoft Academic found 2–5 times as many citations as Scopus, depending on year and field. From manual checks of 1122 Microsoft Academic citations not found in Scopus, Microsoft Academic’s citation indexing was faster but not much wider than Scopus for journals. It achieved this by associating citations to preprints with their subsequent in-press versions and by extracting citations from in-press articles. In some fields its coverage of scholarly digital libraries, such as arXiv.org, was also an advantage. Thus, Microsoft Academic seems to be a more comprehensive automatic source of citation counts for in-press articles than Scopus.     

The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions

Scientific research is increasingly relying on collaborations to address complex real-world problems. Many researchers, policymakers, and administrators consider a multidisciplinary environment an important factor for fostering research collaborations, especially interdisciplinary ones that involve researchers from different disciplines. However, it remains unknown whether a higher level of multidisciplinarity within an academic institution is associated with internal collaborations that are more prevalent and more interdisciplinary. Analyzing 90,000 publications by 2500 faculty members in over 100 academic institutions from three multidisciplinary areas, information, public policy, and neuroscience, we investigated the connection between multidisciplinarity and research collaborations. Based on social network analysis and text mining, our analysis suggests that more multidisciplinary institutions are not necessarily more collaborative, although they do feature collaborations that are more interdisciplinary. Our findings provide implications for academic administrators and policymakers to promote research collaborations and interdisciplinarity in academic institutions.     

Do you have a broken link in your accessibility chain?

Key points

• Accessibility of publications in academia is a non‐negotiable legal requirement.
• The accessibility of your journal or other scholarly publication is the most important design consideration in your workflow.
• EPUB Accessibility 1.0 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 provide a clear publishing pathway.
• Consider the readability chain: Any link can result in accessibility failure but an unbroken chain will benefit all readers.

     

How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date?

The findings of Bornmann, Leydesdorff, and Wang (2013b) revealed that the consideration of journal impact improves the prediction of long-term citation impact. This paper further explores the possibility of improving citation impact measurements on the base of a short citation window by the consideration of journal impact and other variables, such as the number of authors, the number of cited references, and the number of pages. The dataset contains 475,391 journal papers published in 1980 and indexed in Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters), and all annual citation counts (from 1980 to 2010) for these papers. As an indicator of citation impact, we used percentiles of citations calculated using the approach of Hazen (1914). Our results show that citation impact measurement can really be improved: If factors generally influencing citation impact are considered in the statistical analysis, the explained variance in the long-term citation impact can be much increased. However, this increase is only visible when using the years shortly after publication but not when using later years.     

Do Demographics Matter?

This study examines individual differences in perceived news media corruption (PNMC), by conducting a face-to-face survey on a representative sample of the Serbian population (N?=?544). Extremely high levels of PNMC were found, as well as significant differences in PNMC scores for gender, education level, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, and membership in majority ethnic and religious groups. Corruption perception persona types are created and results are discussed in terms of importance of societal integration for PNMC.     

Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries

There are known gender imbalances in participation in scientific fields, from female dominance of nursing to male dominance of mathematics. It is not clear whether there is also a citation imbalance, with some claiming that male-authored research tends to be more cited. No previous study has assessed gender differences in the readers of academic research on a large scale, however. In response, this article assesses whether there are gender differences in the average citations and/or Mendeley readers of academic publications. Field normalised logged Scopus citations and Mendeley readers from mid-2018 for articles published in 2014 were investigated for articles with first authors from India, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the USA in up to 251 fields with at least 50 male and female authors. Although female-authored research is less cited in Turkey (?4.0%) and India (?3.6%), it is marginally more cited in Spain (0.4%), the UK (0.4%), and the USA (0.2%). Female-authored research has fewer Mendeley readers in India (?1.1%) but more in Spain (1.4%), Turkey (1.1%), the UK (2.7%) and the USA (3.0%). Thus, whilst there may be little practical gender difference in citation impact in countries with mature science systems, the higher female readership impact suggests a wider audience for female-authored research. The results also show that the conclusions from a gender analysis depend on the field normalisation method. A theoretically informed decision must therefore be made about which normalisation to use. The results also suggest that arithmetic mean-based field normalisation is favourable to males.     

Do journalists believe in gender specificities of news topics? The impact of professionalism and family status

While women have made significant progress in gaining access to the field of journalism over the few past decades, some scholars have noted a persistent tendency for men and women journalists to be assigned to different types of news work, as if some news topics are gender specific, i.e., some news topics can be better handled by men, whereas others can be better handled by women. But do professional journalists themselves perceive news topics to be gender specific? What individual level factors may explain beliefs in the gender specificities of news topics? Drawing on a representative survey of 459 professional journalists in Hong Kong, this article showed that journalists did not treat many types of news stories as gender specific. Women, journalists with a stronger commitment to professional ethics, and single journalists were less likely to believe in gender specificities of news topics. Among women journalists, educational level was related to beliefs in gender specificities. Implications of the findings were also discussed.     

How to calculate the practical significance of citation impact differences? An empirical example from evaluative institutional bibliometrics using adjusted predictions and marginal effects

Evaluative bibliometrics is concerned with comparing research units by using statistical procedures. According to Williams (2012) an empirical study should be concerned with the substantive and practical significance of the findings as well as the sign and statistical significance of effects. In this study we will explain what adjusted predictions and marginal effects are and how useful they are for institutional evaluative bibliometrics. As an illustration, we will calculate a regression model using publications (and citation data) produced by four universities in German-speaking countries from 1980 to 2010. We will show how these predictions and effects can be estimated and plotted, and how this makes it far easier to get a practical feel for the substantive meaning of results in evaluative bibliometric studies. An added benefit of this approach is that it makes it far easier to explain results obtained via sophisticated statistical techniques to a broader and sometimes non-technical audience. We will focus particularly on Average Adjusted Predictions (AAPs), Average Marginal Effects (AMEs), Adjusted Predictions at Representative Values (APRVs) and Marginal Effects at Representative Values (MERVs).     

Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics

Today, it is not clear how the impact of research on other areas of society than science should be measured. While peer review and bibliometrics have become standard methods for measuring the impact of research in science, there is not yet an accepted framework within which to measure societal impact. Alternative metrics (called altmetrics to distinguish them from bibliometrics) are considered an interesting option for assessing the societal impact of research, as they offer new ways to measure (public) engagement with research output. Altmetrics is a term to describe web-based metrics for the impact of publications and other scholarly material by using data from social media platforms (e.g. Twitter or Mendeley). This overview of studies explores the potential of altmetrics for measuring societal impact. It deals with the definition and classification of altmetrics. Furthermore, their benefits and disadvantages for measuring impact are discussed.     

Where Do Facts Matter?

Print magazines are unique among nonfiction media in their dedication of staff and resources to in-depth, word-by-word verification of stories. Over time, this practice has established magazines’ reputation for reliability, helped them retain loyal readers amid a glut of information sources, and protected them from litigation. But during the past decade, websites, mobile platforms, and social media have expanded the types of stories and other content that magazines provide for readers. Doing so has shortened the time between the creation and dissemination of content, challenging and in some cases squeezing out fact-checkers’ participation. This study examines the procedures applied to stories in magazines and their non-print platforms, seeking to discern what decisions were made in response to the speed of digital publication, what effects these decisions have had, what lessons have been learned and what changes have been made over time. The results suggest that fact-checking practices for print content remain solidly in place at most magazines, if executed with diminished resources; however, magazine media are also exploring new processes to ensure accuracy and protect their reputations in an accelerated media environment.