Scival have recently introduced an Economic Impact measure which you can find in the Overview section of the tool. This uses information from around the world to find patents which cite publications from Swansea University, potentially showing an effect on industry. As there is an 18 month time lag between a patent being applied for and being published it won’t show an effect for very recent publications.
It is possible to filter by patent office so you can look at just the UK, Europe, Japan, US or worldwide.
This recorded webinar has more information about using this feature.
If Scival is new to you, our previous post has links to guides etc.
Did you know that Times Higher World rankings and QS World University rankings use citation data? QS World rankings gives 20% of its mark to a university’s citation count and Times World rankings gives 30%.
According to the Times ranking:
“The citations help to show us how much each university is contributing to the sum of human knowledge: they tell us whose research has stood out, has been picked up and built on by other scholars and, most importantly, has been shared around the global scholarly community to expand the boundaries of our understanding, irrespective of discipline”
Not everyone agrees about the worth of citations but it is clearly important to know how we are performing in this area. Swansea now subscribes to Scival – a tool which can analyse citations based on data from the Scopus database, used by both QS and the Times.
Resources for using Scival
Guide to using Scival to analyse your individual performance
Guide to analysing a department
Scival metrics guidebook
Snowball metrics – these are standard metrics being developed for universities independently of any one company
Your research librarians can give advice and help: email@example.com
A very interesting new article has just been published by researchers in Italy, who have analysed data from the first Italian national research evaluation to see whether there is a correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review.
The questions they posed were:
- Are peer review judgements and (article and journal) bibliometric indicators independent variables?
- What is the strength of the association?
- Is the association between peer judgement and article citation rating significantly stronger than the association between peer judgement and journal citation rating?
They found “a compelling body of evidence that judgements given by domain experts and bibliometric indicators are significantly positively correlated” and in their conclusions, they suggest:
Bibliometrics are not independent of peer review assessment. The correlation between peer assessment and bibliometric indicators is significant but not perfect. Peer review should be integrated with bibliometric indicators in national assessment exercises.
Franceschet, M & Constantini, A (2010) “The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective“, Journal of Informetrics, in press, corrected proof Science Direct [Online].
HEFCE have published “Analysis of data from the pilot exercise to develop bibliometric indicators for the REF – The effect of using normalised citation scores for particular staff characteristics”
The report analyses the data from the pilot exercise to develop bibliometric indicators for the REF. It analyses the effect of using bibliometrics (citation scores) in the REF upon certain types of research staff. For example, early career researchers will be less likely to have many citations. It also looks at age and sex, gender, ethnicity, disability of researchers as well as those who are part-time staff.
The report recommends:
If citation data are used then the four UK higher education funding bodies will need to ensure that institutions planning to make submissions to the REF are aware of the results of this analysis so that they can take them into account when selecting staff for inclusion. Further, panels will also need to account for the differences found and will require guidance as part of their equality briefing.
This session for academic staff and researchers will look at the ways you can monitor the impact your publications are having, especially when considering the REF. We will also look at Researcher ID as a way of raising your own profile, Journal Citation Reports, and Web of Science facilities such as cited reference searching, citation mapping, times cited, citation alerts and amending your author name if necessary.
The session will be held in the Library & Information Centre (Room – PC3) on 15th February 2011 from 12.30pm to 1.30pm.
To book a place, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
The ISI Journal Citation Reports are the source of impact factors for journals. However, there have long been concerns about how suitable these are for disciplines such as nursing and midwifery.
It is therefore interesting to look at research done in Australia. A new tool (JET – Journal Evaluation Tool) was designed to evaluate nursing and midwifery journals. Using this they have produced a ranking of some 52 titles.
You can see the rankings they produced in an article published in the July edition of Nurse Education Today. Details of some of their earlier research (and earlier rankings) are also available on the website of the Centre for Health Initiatives, University of Wollogong.
Making an impact: using Journal Citation Reports and other tools to measure the impact of your research
Wed. 21st July 10 – 11, PC Room 3 in the Library
This session will look at the ways you can monitor the impact your publications are having, especially when considering the REF. We will also look at Researcher ID as a way of raising your own profile, Journal citation reports, and Web of Science facilities such as cited reference searching, citation mapping, times cited, citation alerts and amending your author name if necessary. To book a place email email@example.com
There is also a new Library web page with further help and advice: Making an impact: using bibliometric tools to assess your research
The Research Information Network has released a new report which investigates the complexities of using bibliometrics to measure research output and impact. The report warns of the pitfalls and dangers of using this data without a full awareness of the significant variations in results where different data sources or different methodologies are used.
In fact, the RIN commissioned this report because “… figures provided in various reports for the UK’s share of the world’s production of scientific publications vary enormously. That a seemingly straightforward figure should show such volatility perplexed us …”.
The report is available to download from the RIN website.
An article published today in Nature discusses how the use of metrics could be improved to assess individuals more fairly. You can find it at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7300/full/465870a.html
A new federal project aims to provide evidence of return on US investment in science. Julia Lane, Director of the Science of Science and Innovation Programme believes manual reporting is inefficient and puts a burden on academics. The study will use citations and patents to monitor the impact of research in a similar way to that originally proposed for the UK REF.
The full story can be found at Chemistry World from the RSC http://22.214.171.124/chemistryworld/News/2010/June/04061002.asp