Evaluating research and researchers by the journal impact factor: Is it better than coin flipping?

The journal impact factor (JIF) is the average of the number of citations of the papers published in a journal, calculated according to a specific formula; it is extensively used for the evaluation of research and researchers. The method assumes that all papers in a journal have the same scientific merit, which is measured by the JIF of the publishing journal. This implies that the number of citations measures scientific merits but the JIF does not evaluate each individual paper by its own number of citations. Therefore, in the comparative evaluation of two papers, the use of the JIF implies a risk of failure, which occurs when a paper in the journal with the lower JIF is compared to another with fewer citations in the journal with the higher JIF. To quantify this risk of failure, this study calculates the failure probabilities, taking advantage of the lognormal distribution of citations. In two journals whose JIFs are ten-fold different, the failure probability is low. However, in most cases when two papers are compared, the JIFs of the journals are not so different. Then, the failure probability can be close to 0.5, which is equivalent to evaluating by coin flipping.     

Librarian-initiated publications discovery: How do digital depository librarians discover and select web-based government publications for state digital depositories?

This paper reports on a study of librarian initiated publications discovery (LIPD) in U.S. state digital depository programs using the OCLC Digital Archive to preserve web-based government publications for permanent public access. This paper describes a model of LIPD processes based on empirical investigations of four OCLC DA-based digital depositories. The model is composed of stages including site visit, site scan, selection, re-conceptualization, and two bibliographic verification steps; action strategies at each stage and the observed practices at each site are reported. This paper also describes how librarian perceptions of web publications as discrete objects and bibliographic objects influence the selection and retention of government web content. Finally, the paper discusses several problems associated with the observed LIPD methodologies and technologies.     

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.     

Is research with qualitative data more prevalent and impactful now? Interviews,case studies,focus groups and ethnographies

With qualitative research apparently threatened by big data, researchers, editors, educators, librarians, and publishers need to understand the mix of research methods used in their field to guide decision making. In response, this study assesses the prevalence and citation impact of academic research between 1996 and 2019 that reports one of four common methods to gather qualitative data: interviews, focus groups, case studies, and ethnography. With minor exceptions, the prevalence of qualitative data has increased, often substantially, since 1996. In addition, all 27 broad fields (as classified by Scopus) now publish some qualitative research, with interviewing being by far the most common approach. The citation impact of interview and focus group research mostly decreased over time, whereas of case study citation impact increased, and ethnography was above average in its two core subject areas. This suggests that methods teachers, researchers, editors, librarians, and publishers should be increasingly open to the value of qualitative data.     

Are NIH-funded publications fulfilling the proposed research? An examination of concept-matchedness between NIH research grants and their supported publications

The conceptual connections between scientific grants and publications are important, yet often overlooked in quantitative studies of science. An analysis of such connections could offer important insights into how science is conducted by individual researchers and research teams under the social and economic conditions of science. This study aims to offer the first piece of evidence towards this endeavor by analyzing the ratio of keyword matchedness between accepted NIH research grants from 2008 to 2015 and their funded publications. By applying linear regression method, we identified and examined three identified predictors of the outcome: 1) the funding rate of an NIH research program in a specific year, 2) the year difference between grant and publication, and 3) the funding size of a grant. Our findings suggest that these three factors contribute to the outcome in different capacities. Moreover, all of them may have different performances in individual funding programs, which highlights the importance of understanding the differences among individual funding mechanisms.     

The US and UNESCO: Is it time to rejoin?

After a brief analysis of the founding and history of UNESCO, “The US and UNESCO: Is It Time to Rejoin?” examines the political, administrative and budgetary reasons why the United States withdrew from UNESCO in 1984, the several reforms undertaken by Director General Mayor in the last 2 years and whether the changes to date warrant US re-entry.After considering the arguments of both proponents and opponents, the paper sets forth three major criteria for rejoining: (1) budgetary and financial reform of UNESCO; (2) thorough reform of the secretariat; and (3) major programmatic changes with the intention of “returning UNESCO to the original ideals of its Charter”.While giving high marks to the personal integrity and remarkable energy of Director General Mayor, the paper questions whether he can persuade the organization to accept the radical reform he is proposing, noting the negative and even hostile response of the Executive Board and the General Conference to his Mid-term Plan.The paper concludes that it is premature for the US to make any definitive decision at this time, but predicts that the US will rejoin if the organization returns to its roots and concentrates on “practical achieveable projects”, not the “pretentious unrealistic goals” that have too often attracted UNESCO members and management.     

What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice

We conducted a literature review of best practice in peer review. Following this research, we identified five principles for better peer review: Content Integrity, Content Ethics, Fairness, Usefulness, and Timeliness. For each of these principles, we have developed a set of recommendations to improve peer review standards. In this article, we describe the role of peer review and how our five principles support that goal. This article is intended to continue the conversation about improving peer review standards and provide guidance to journal teams looking to improve their standards. It is accompanied by a detailed checklist, which could be used by journal teams to assess their current peer review standards.     

How to detect the sleeping beauty papers and princes in technology considering indirect citations?

In science-technology research, papers and patents are used to represent science and technology, respectively. Detecting sleeping beauty papers and their princes in technology (patent field) could uncover dynamic knowledge contributions from science (paper field) to technology (patent field). However, previous studies have mainly focused on sleeping beauty in science. Some studies have examined SB patents in technology, but SB papers in patents are rarely studied and need to be further discussed. In addition, knowledge could flow along citations. Thus, if one paper is cited by one patent's reference (indirect citation), it also contributes to the patent, even though the patent does not directly cite it. At the same time, indirect citations are rarely discussed in sleeping beauty studies. This could lead to a loss of significant information. Therefore, to reveal the dynamic knowledge contribution from science to technology considering indirect citations, this study proposed a new method of mining sleeping beauty papers in technology and their princes. The lithium-ion battery domain is selected as a case study. The findings are as follows: (1) Most papers do not contribute knowledge to technology continuously, even when considering indirect citations, and the time-varying knowledge contribution strength changes significantly overtime. (2) The knowledge contribution strength with a time delay of more than 11 years occupies 80% of the total knowledge contribution strength. It is suggested that the window period of paper publication evaluation be extended. (3) 22 sleeping beauty papers in technology are detected. Nine papers are among the top 10 regarding the total knowledge contribution strength. (4) The princes of 9 typical sleeping beauty papers in technology are all papers. This implies that the awakening of these papers in technology was all provoked by scientific development.     

Propaganda and rush Limbaugh: Is the label the last word?

A content analysis measured the performance of much‐labeled talk show host Rush Limbaugh against traditional and modem standards of propaganda. A month of Limbaugh's syndicated radio program was recorded off air. The tapes were randomly sampled for topic segments defined as the units of analysis. Trained coders working in pairs rated each sampled segment on 40 questions, grouped to test seven hypotheses about Rush Limbaugh's performance, and t‐tests were used to test the variance of scores from the neutral median. Although Limbaugh was not found to use the majority of traditional and modem propaganda techniques or to conceal the source and purpose of the ideas he presented, he was found to have a political agenda, to espouse that agenda openly, and to employ a minority of propaganda techniques. The findings support the notion that analysis of the message source, individual techniques of presentation, and the totality of the message may be more important to effective understanding than the assigning of labels.     

Would it be possible to increase the Hirsch-index, π-index or CDS-index by increasing the number of publications or citations only by unity?

The aim of the study is to explore the effects of the increase in the number of publications or citations on several impact indicators by a single journal paper or citation. The possible change of the h-index, A-index, R-index, π-index, π-rate, Journal Paper Citedness (JPC), and Citation Distribution Score (CDS) is followed by models. Particular attention is given to the increase of the indices by a single plus citation. The results obtained by the “successively built-up indicator” model show that with increasing number of citations or self-citations the indices may increase substantially.     

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.     

Verbal Aggression,Race, and Sex on Reality TV: Is This Really the Way It Is?

This content analysis examines verbal aggression, race, and gender presented in a composite week of popular reality TV programming on cable and broadcast television. Results show that African Americans were found to be overrepresented and depicted disproportionately as more verbally aggressive and more likely to be victims of verbal aggression than other races/ethnicities. African American women were more likely than men to be involved in verbal aggression, both as aggressor and victim. The results are discussed in terms of the potential effects of exposure to verbal aggression and the accompanying contextual factors found in reality TV programming.     

LibGuides and Web-Based Library Guides in Comparison: Is There a Pedagogical Advantage?

This study investigates whether the platform used to deliver a tutorial matters in online information literacy instruction and assesses the overall quality of an information literacy tutorial assignment given to an undergraduate survey class. The study asks whether there is any pedagogical advantage between information literacy tutorials created in the LibGuides library guide creation software and tutorials created as Web pages. This research question is relevant to current studies of online information literacy tutorials, particularly given the increasingly dominant but under-researched position of LibGuides in the academic library world for delivering guides and tutorials. Two separate groups of students completed LibGuides and Web page versions of the same information literacy tutorial assignment in a university undergraduate communication course. Survey results of these 89 students indicated that both the LibGuides and Web page platforms deliver online instruction content effectively and achieve learning objectives almost equally well. Results also indicated content areas within the assignment that could be strengthened.     

Is e-reading environmentally more sustainable than conventional reading? Evidence from a systematic literature review

With the increasing dominance of digital reading over traditional reading, gaining an understanding of the environmental impacts of the formats has become critical. This systematic literature review synthesizes and integrates the findings of studies comparing print reading with on-screen reading. The results reveal that the environmental impacts of printed and digital media depend on the usage rates and number of readers of both types of media as well as user behaviors and other parameters, and digital reading also has its own negative environmental impacts. Finally, research gaps are identified and a research agenda is proposed, including considering environmental performance in comparison studies, empirical investigations of actual user behaviors, and environmental savings for lending and sharing materials from libraries. This study aims to clear the misconception and change the popular stereotype that “e-reading is environmentally more sustainable than conventional reading,” and to provide stakeholders with more valuable information that is necessary to make environmentally informed decisions.