Bibliometric Tools

Which Bibliometric tools to use to answer your questions - provided by UCT Libraries

1. Bibliometric TOOLS: UCT Libraries

2. Bibliometrics – quantitative analysis of scholarly literature “ Quantitative analysis of literature of a subject domain as represented by bibliographic entities such as keywords, classification codes, authors and citations.” (Willet, 2008)

3. Individual Researchers can use Bibliometrics to determine: Research impact of published work: Various indices to measure and or track one’s own or other’s research. Collaboration : Identify research partners / potential for cross-disciplinary work / potential for national or international collaboration Dissemination: Journal analytics - Where to publish for maximum visibility / analyze and compare journal information / track how research is received by others Bibliometric evaluation may be required for: Advancement: Grant proposals, NRF Rating Applications, Curriculum Vitae, Performance Reviews

4. Institutions can use Bibliometric tools to make informed decisions: Hiring or promotional purposes Allocate funding appropriately Policy decisions Track emerging trends and find niche research areas Compare and benchmark impact of research with other institutions Find collaborating partner institutions nationally, internationally, within an institution Track corporate / academic collaboration How can I find an institutions’ disciplinary focus? How can I see how institutions collaborate geographically? What are my institutions research strengths? Who are the most productive authors and institutions in a particular discipline?

5. Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) Includes Journal Citation Reports for journal metrics Scopus (Elsevier) Includes SCImago journal analytics / rankings SciVal (Elsevier) High level Overview of research performance, Benchmarking & Collaboration Google Scholar U ses citation information for bibliometric reporting The main databases with multi-disciplinary coverage that can be used to track bibliometric data :

6. UCT Libraries subscribes to databases that can help you determine : Journal Impact factor – a metric that reflects the impact of a journal over a number of years - use the database ‘ Journal Citation Reports ’ ( Web of Science ) Journal Rank – a metric that reflects the prestige value of a journal relative to discipline - use ‘ SCImago ’ (Scopus SNIP & SJR.) or ‘ Journal Citation Reports’ Comparison of Journals – use ‘ Journal Citation Reports ’ or ‘ SCImago ’ Citations per paper – use Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar

7. Bibliometric tools also offer Productivity metrics - Author metrics, Scholarly output, h-Indices (h, m, g) Determine my H-index (Citation based ranking) Web of Science – productivity indicators, h-index Scopus – productivity indicators, h-index SciVal – productivity indicators, h,m,g indices and also offers Comparison of indices – e.g. Scholarly Output vs Citation Count vs h-indices Google Scholar – h-index A word of caution: Do not compare h-index across disciplines – always compare apples with apples – different disciplines have different citation behaviours . Besides informed peer review, scholarly impact can partly be determined by using bibliometric indices (Norris and Oppenheim, 2010)

8. Attention metrics Look at the quantitative measures of the amount of attention someone’s work is getting. The impact of work is tracked using social media, twitter, blogs, related news outlets, downloads into Reference Managers Examples of Alternative metrics: Altmetrics.com PlumAnalytics.com Altmetrics is also available in Scopus search results

9. What questions you can ask Which journal titles are available to publish in in my field? Which journals are publishing the ‘hottest’ papers within a discipline? Will a journal with a higher impact factor attract more citations (and reach a larger audience) than a journal with a lower JIF?

10. Citation reports  - for a variety of statistics relating to an author

11. C ount citations  - how many others have cited a particular work Cited references – view all articles that have cited a particular work Citation alerts  - receive an alert when someone cites a chosen work Citation maps  -find related material and shared citations Related records – view other records that share references with a chosen work

12. Provides Journal metrics

13. SJR is weighted by the prestige of a journal . SCImago Journal Rank is a prestige metric based on the idea that not all citations are the same. Subject field, quality, and reputation of the journal have a direct effect on the value of a citation. SJR also normalizes for differences in citation behavior between subject fields. See: http://www.journalmetrics.com /

14. ‘ Field weighted citation impact ’ adjusts for the differences in citation behaviour across disciplines and puts everything on the same level. The Field-Weighted Citation Impact is the number of total citations received divided by the total citations expected, based on the global average for the field. • More than 1.00 means that citations are more than expected. • Less than 1.00 means the citations are less than expected. The value of the world citation impact is 1. So this is showing you that over a 5 year period UCT’s citation impact was 1.74. Citations are 74% more than expected based on the global average. SciVal Overview module Citations tab – highlights institutions citation impact.

15. Scopus & Web of science offer author disambiguation and allows you to search by unique identifiers Create your own Researcher ID (Web of Science) Create your own ORCID ID - Open Researcher & Contributor ID Find this at: http://orcid.org Tips for researchers: Create a Unique researcher identifier - to distinguish you from every other researcher

16. Limitations of Bibliometric indicators Understanding how the metrics were constructed is essential before making an interpretation. Citation analysis should always be considered in conjunction with the views of scholarly peers Citation behavior varies across disciplines so it is unwise to compare metrics across disciplines . Compare apples with apples . Always consider the context when applying metrics. Publication behavior & Self citation behaviour differs across disciplines Never use only one metric to answer a question – triangulate Some citation databases allow for comparisons – e.g. SCImago Journal Rank normalizes for differences in citation behavior between subject fields. Field Weighted Citation impact allows for differences in citation behavior across disciplines.

17. Bibliography Egghe , L. 2006. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics . 69(1): 131-152. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7 . Falagas , M.E., Pitsouni , E.I., Malietzis , G.A. & Pappas, G. 2008. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. Faseb Journal. 22(2): 338-342. Gumpenberger , C., Wieland, M. & Gorraiz , J. 2012. Bibliometric practices and activities at the University of Vienna. Library Management. 33(3): 174-183. Available: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/10.1108/01435121211217199 . Harzing , A. 2010. The publish or perish book: your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. 1st ed. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd. Jan, M.N. 2013. The special librarian and personalized meta-services. Library Review. 62(8): 508-524. Available: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/10.1108/LR-02-2013-0015 . Moed , H.F. 2005. Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer. Norris, M. & Oppenheim, C. 2010. The h‐index: a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator. Journal of Documentation. 66(5): 681-705. Available: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/10.1108/00220411011066790 . Péter Jacsó 2012. Google Scholar Metrics for Publications. Online Information Review. 36(4): 604-619. Available: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/10.1108/14684521211254121 . Shari, S., Haddow , G. & Genoni , P. 2012. Bibliometric and webometric methods for assessing research collaboration. Library Review. 61(8): 592-607. Available: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/10.1108/00242531211292097 . Skelly, L. 2014. How to draw up a bibliometric report: a guide for academic librarians. (Unpublished). Sidiropoulos , A., Katsaros , D. & Manolopoulos , Y. 2007. Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics . 72(2): 253-280. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1722-z . Willett, P. 2008. A bibliometric analysis of the literature of chemoinformatics . Ap. 60(1): 4-17. Available: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/10.1108/00012530810847335 .

18. THANK YOU