Presentation for Wageningen University PhD course

1. Publishing and ‘impact’
Information Literacy PhD students

2. Programme
 Publishing
 Metrics
● Article metrics
● Author metrics
● Journal metrics
● Research group metrics

3. Programme
 Publishing
 Metrics
● Article metrics
● Author metrics
● Journal metrics
● Research group metrics

4. Motives for publishing
Edge, P., Martin, F., Fao, S. R., & Manning, N. (2011).
Researcher Attitudes and Behaviour Towards the “ Openness ” of Research Outputs in
Agriculture and Related Fields.

5. Motives for publishing

6. Types of publications
 Reports
 Conference proceedings
 Books/book chapters
 Journals
● Professional journals
● Scholarly journals

7. (Scientific journals) Peer review
 Peer review is the corner stone of scholarly quality
control
● Publications
● Research proposals/grants
● Research institutions/universities
 More info
● http://www.rin.ac.uk/peer-review-guide
● Course on Peer Review organized by WGS

8. Choosing the right journal to publish
 Many factors influence journal selection
● Journal scope/Intended audience
● Editorial board/standing
● Open Access
● The speed of reviewing and publication
● Acceptance/Rejection rate
● Journal circulation
● Coverage in A&I databases (bibliographies)
● Journal performance

9. Information "about" journals

10. Open Access
 OA publishing e.g. PLoS, BMC and Sage Open
 Self-archiving in repositories e.g. Wageningen Yield
(WaY)
 SHERPA/RoMEO: Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/
 Directory of open access journals DOAJ (currently ca.
10,000 journals)
 Be aware of predatory OA publishers

11. “Predatory publishers”

12. “Green” open access: deposit author
versions to WaY
See: http://edepot.wur.nl/169331
Send your version of the article to: way.libray@wur.nl

13. Speed of publication
 PLoS One
 Euphytica

14. Rejection / acceptance rates
 Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., Ni, C., & Cronin, B. (2013). Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of
variability and relationships with journal measures. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 897–906. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.007

15. Rejection / acceptance rates

16. Rejection / acceptance rates

17. Journal circulation
 Compare e.g.
● “Agricultural Systems”
● "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America"

18. Coverage in A&I databases

19. Making your publicatns known: networking

20. Making your publications known:
cooperation
WTI2 report 2011
UNIV.
Single Author
address
National
copublication
International
copublication
EUR 1.16 1.23 1.92
RUG 1.15 1.19 1.62
RUN 1.14 1.18 1.81
TUD 1.27 1.12 1.36
TUE 1.27 1.30 1.49
LEI 1.18 1.26 1.72
MAA 0.91 1.19 1.51
TUT 1.20 1.32 1.42
UU 1.83 1.28 1.74
UVA 0.98 1.20 1.67
TIU 1.09 0.98 1.19
VU 1.21 1.26 1.66
WUR 1.19 1.43 1.49
Avg 1.20 1.23 1.58

21. Cooperation
 Teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the
production of knowledge. Research is increasingly done
in teams across nearly all fields.
 Teams typically produce more frequently cited research
than individuals do, and this advantage has been
increasing over time.
 Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact
research, even where that distinction was once the
domain of solo authors.
Wuchty, S., B. F. Jones, et al. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in
production of knowledge. Science 316(5827): 1036-1039.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099

22. Additional information
 http://wageningenur.nl/library
● Write & Cite a.o.
● Publishing and impact
● Copyright
● Open Access
● PhD theses submission

23. Advertise yourself
 Cite your previous articles!
 Be active at conferences
 Cooperate with other people/research groups
 Write, or expand, articles in the Wikipedia, refer to your
thesis.
 Blog or tweet about your research and thesis research
 Make use of social networking tools (LinkedIn,
Researchgate.net, Mendeley etc.)
 Create author’s identifiers (ScopusID, Researcher ID,
ORCID)

24. What's in a name
 On the cover:
● Arina Schrier
 First first title page:
● A.P. Schrier-Uyl
 Second title page:
● Adriana Pia Uyl
 In here own publication list
● A. Uyl
● A. Uijl
● A.P. Schrier Uyl

25. This also applies to the names of groups
Environmental Policy Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University
Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University
Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre
Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen UR

26. Get your affiliation right
For the university:
Chair group + Wageningen University
Plant Production Systems Group, Wageningen University,
P.O. box ..., 6700 HA Wageningen, The Netherlands
For the institutes:
Institute + Wageningen University & Research Centre
Alterra, Wageningen University & Research Centre, P.O.
box ..., 6700 HA Wageningen, The Netherlands

27. Exercises
 Manual Chapter 9.8
● Exercise 1

28. Programme
 Publishing
 Metrics
● Article metrics
● Author metrics
● Journal metrics
● Research group metrics

29. Web of Science
 Search:
● Articles are found based on Authors, Addresses,
etc.
● For each article Times cited is presented
 Cited reference search:
● Searches in the reference lists of records
● Not all of your articles are found. Non-cited articles
are missing

30. Beeldvullende foto met titel

31. How do we compare numbers
 Scientist Z. Math has a publication from 2003 with 17
citations
 Scientist M. Biology has a publication from 2009 with 24
citations

32. Baselines for Mathematics

33. Baselines for Molecular Biology
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Years after publication
Cumulative no. citations
Baseline
top 10%
top 1%

34. Citation enhanced A&I databases
 Web of Science
● Based on ± 12000 journals
● Metrics: Impact factor
● Baselines per ‘discipline’ (ESI)
● Analysis tools (Insight)
 Scopus
● Based on ± 19000 journals + other
publication types
● Metrics: SNIP and SJR
● Baselines + analysis tool (Scival)
 Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com)
● Based on unknown journals + many
other things
● No baselines
There are other citation
enhanced databases:
PsychInfo,
SciFinder (Chemical abstracts)
ArXiv (Physics)
Spires (high energy physics)
Citeseer (ICT)

35. Programme
 Publishing
 Metrics
● Article metrics
● Author metrics
● Research group metrics

36. Bibliometric indicators: An example
 Kroes-Nijboer, A; Venema, P; Bouman, J; van der Linden, E
(2009) The Critical Aggregation Concentration of beta-
Lactoglobulin-Based Fibril Formation. Food Biophysics 4(2):59-
63.
● Citations from WoS: 11
 Journal: Food Biophysics
● Categorised by ESI in Agricultural Sciences
 Baseline data for Agricultural Sciences.
● Article from 2009 in Agricultural Sciences:
● On average: 5.47 citations; top 10%: 14 citations; top
1%: 34 citations
 Relative Impact: 11/5.47 = 2.01 Values June 2013

37. Essential Science Indicators (ESI)
 Analytical database, covering 10 years + current year
building
 Comparisons between Countries, Institutes, Scientists
and Journals
 Hot papers / Highly cited papers
 Research fronts
 Baselines

38. ESI Baselines

39. Alternative to ESI: Scival (Elsevier)

40. Alternative to ESI: Scival (Elsevier)

41. Steps in a citation analysis
1. Look up the citation data (Web of Science)
2. Matching Journal(s) with appropriate research fields
(Essential Science Indicators)
3. Collect baseline data (Essential Science Indicators)
4. Calculate the relative impact

42. Exercises
 Manual Chapter 9.8
● Exercise 2: Number of publications and times cited
● Exercise 2.1
● Exercise 2.2 is optional

43. Exercises
 Manual Chapter 9.8
● Exercise 3: Citation impact and rankings (Essential
Science Indicators)
● Exercise 3.1a (3.1b optional)

44. Programme
 Publishing
 Metrics
● Article metrics
● Author metrics
● Journal metrics
● Research group metrics

45. H-index
 Balance between productivity
and citedness
 To rule out the effect of one
or two highly cited papers
 Applicable to authors,
journals, research groups,
compounds, subjects etc.
 But there are some serious
doubts about robustness
Waltman, L. & N. J. van Eck (2011). The inconsistency of
the h-index. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 63(2):406-415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21678

46. H-index

47. Omnipresent h-index
54 47
57

48. Programme
 Publishing
 Metrics
● Article metrics
● Author metrics
● Journal metrics
● Research group metrics

49. Journal Performance Indicators
 Journal performance indicators are based on citations to
articles
 Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
● a.o. standard Journal Impact Factors and 5-year
Impact Factors
 Scopus Journal Analyzer (SJA)
● a.o. SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Source
Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)
● Also available on http://journalmetrics.com/

50. Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
Reports three measures
 Impact factor
 Immediacy Index
 Cited half life
Adapted from: Amin, M and Mabe, M. (2000) Impact factors: use
and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing, No. 1, 6 pp.
http://www.elsevier.com/framework_editors/pdfs/Perspectives1.pdf

51. IF in 2011 for Agricultural Systems

52. Selecting journals on the basis of IF
 Word of warning
● Our opinion: Be careful when using Journal Impact
factors to judge the performance of a group or
individual scientist
● Used for NWO grant applications and Tenure track
at Wageningen UR
Opthof, T. (1997) Sense and nonsense about he impact factor. Cardiovascular Research,
33(1): 1-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6363(96)00215-5

53. Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

54. Exercises
 Manual Chapter 9.8
● Exercise 4: Journal Citation Reports (JCR)

55. Programme
 Publishing
 Metrics
● Article metrics
● Author metrics
● Journal metrics
● Research group metrics

56. Journal quality and article impact 2003-
2009, for Wageningen UR
Source: Wageningen Yield, Feb. 2012

57. Bibliometric analysis

58. Increase in share of Q1 articles at
WageningenUR

59. Journal selection affects Relative Impact

60. Journal selection affects Relative Impact
2010
2011
2003

61. Interpretation of RI for small groups
 With 10-50 publications per year
RI ≤ 0.8 : below world average impact
0.8 < RI ≤ 1.2 : world average impact
1.2 < RI ≤ 2.0 : above world average impact
2.0 < RI ≤ 3.0 : very good average impact
RI > 3.0 : excellent average impact

62. Exercises

● Exercise 5: (Group) Bibliometric analysis

63. Thank you!
http://www.slideshare.net/hugobesemer