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
•Uses 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

12. Count 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

13. Provides Journal metrics

14. 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/

16. ‘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.

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. THANK YOU