Emory University: Rollins Launches CoCites, a Radical New Scientific Search Tool

Emory University: Rollins Launches CoCites, a Radical New Scientific Search Tool. “Searching scientific literature is inefficient and ineffective. A complete search on a topic requires an extensive query that combines all relevant keywords and their synonyms. A simple search retrieves only part of the relevant literature depending on the keywords that are searched. With CoCites, users don’t enter keywords, they enter or select the title of the article for which they would like to find related content. The tool retrieves these other articles through co-citations. Articles that are frequently cited together with the selected paper appear at the top of the search results.”

Phys .org: Scholarly journals work together to disseminate knowledge in ob-gyn

Phys .org: Scholarly journals work together to disseminate knowledge in ob-gyn. “The researchers identified 3,767,874 articles in the journal Science’s Science Citation Index Expanded and profiled the top-cited 100 ob-gyn articles that were published in non-specialty journals, which includes general medicine and surgery journals, and the top-cited 100 ob-gyn articles that were published in specialty journals to see how academic journals work together to disseminate knowledge in the ob-gyn field.”

Nature: Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuse

Nature: Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuse. “A US-based biophysicist who is one of the world’s most highly cited researchers has been removed from the editorial board of one journal and barred as a reviewer for another, after repeatedly manipulating the peer-review process to amass citations to his own work.”

BuzzFeed News: This Website Will Turn Wikipedia Articles Into “Real” Academic Papers

BuzzFeed News: This Website Will Turn Wikipedia Articles Into “Real” Academic Papers. “The digital product agency MSCHF released a site called M-Journal on Tuesday that will turn any Wikipedia article into a ‘real’ academic article. You can screenshot it, you can cite it — and you can send a link to your teacher. What MSCHF did was republish the entirety of Wikipedia under its own academic journal. If you go over to the site, you can search any Wikipedia article or paste in a link, and it’ll generate a citation that refers to MSCHF’s M-Journal, not Wikipedia.”

Phys .org: Deaths of prominent life scientists tend to be followed by a surge in highly cited research by newcomers

Phys .org: Deaths of prominent life scientists tend to be followed by a surge in highly cited research by newcomers. “…when star scientists die, their subfields see a subsequent 8.6 percent increase, on average, of articles by researchers who have not previously collaborated with those star scientists. Moreover, those papers published by the newcomers to these fields are much more likely to be influential and highly cited than other pieces of research.”

Nature: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database

Nature: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database. “[Sundarapandian] Vaidyanathan, a computer scientist at the Vel Tech R&D Institute of Technology, a privately run institute, is an extreme example: he has received 94% of his citations from himself or his co-authors up to 2017, according to a study in PLoS Biology this month1. He is not alone. The data set, which lists around 100,000 researchers, shows that at least 250 scientists have amassed more than 50% of their citations from themselves or their co-authors, while the median self-citation rate is 12.7%.”

Google Scholar Blog: 2019 Scholar Metrics Released

Google Scholar Blog: 2019 Scholar Metrics Released. “Scholar Metrics provide an easy way for authors to quickly gauge the visibility and influence of recent articles in scholarly publications. Today, we are releasing the 2019 version of Scholar Metrics. This release covers articles published in 2014–2018 and includes citations from all articles that were indexed in Google Scholar as of July 2019.”

EurekAlert: Hyphens in paper titles harm citation counts and journal impact factors

EurekAlert: Hyphens in paper titles harm citation counts and journal impact factors. “According to the latest research results, the presence of simple hyphens in the titles of academic papers adversely affects the citation statistics, regardless of the quality of the articles. The phenomenon applies to all major subject areas. Thus, citation counts and journal impact factors, commonly used for professorial evaluations in universities worldwide, are unreliable.”

Make Tech Easier: Make Bibliographies Easier with These Citation Apps

Make Tech Easier: Make Bibliographies Easier with These Citation Apps. “If you are a high school or college student, you have undoubtedly been asked to use citations for your sources and to create a bibliography for your paper. This is not an easy task. It can be challenging to keep track of all the different formats and places to find information. Using a citation manager or citation builder will save you considerable time, freeing up more time for the actual writing of the paper. They will also reduce the number of errors.”

Slate: The Internet’s Dizzying Citogenesis Problem

Slate: The Internet’s Dizzying Citogenesis Problem. “Two weeks ago, Dr. James Heilman discovered something strange. The Canadian emergency room physician and avid Wikipedia contributor noticed that DrugBank, an online database for drug information, was copying text directly from Wikipedia. Although Heilman considers Wikipedia’s medical content to be of surprisingly good quality, he was concerned—because he didn’t just find DrugBank copying and citing Wikipedia; he had also found several examples of Wikipedia likewise copying and citing DrugBank.”

Chronicle of Higher Education: As Scholars Are Driven to Less Prestigious Journals, New Measures of Quality Emerge

Chronicle of Higher Education: As Scholars Are Driven to Less Prestigious Journals, New Measures of Quality Emerge. “As more scholars publish in less-recognized open-access journals, the search is on for other ways to measure the impact of their research. One potential measure of reach is in online sharing: posts on Twitter, blog links, and other engagement metrics of various kinds. HuMetricsHSS, a humanities and social-sciences project that tracks indicators in those fields, includes as another such metric ‘openness,’ including a researcher’s ‘transparency, candor, and accountability, in addition to the practice of making one’s research open access at all stages.'”

Understanding Great Works: a new research tool on JSTOR (JSTOR)

JSTOR: Understanding Great Works: a new research tool on JSTOR. “Understanding Great Works (Beta) is a free research tool from JSTOR Labs that fosters student engagement with classic literature by connecting passages in primary texts with journal articles and book chapters on JSTOR that cite those lines. Building on the success of the Understanding Shakespeare tool, Understanding Great Works encompasses several key works of British literature such as Frankenstein and Pride and Prejudice, the King James Bible, as well as all Shakespeare sonnets and plays.”

Open Science: Sharing Data Do Not Indicate Twitter Significantly Augments Article-Level Citation Impact of Recent Research Results

Open Science: Sharing Data Do Not Indicate Twitter Significantly Augments Article-Level Citation Impact of Recent Research Results. “Guest-authoring a post, published on June 12, 2018, for the Altmetric Blog, Stefanie Haustein, an information science scholar from the University of Ottawa and Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada, has drawn attention to the mixed findings on the connection between Twitter mentions and citation counts of recently published articles. While social media, such as Facebook, can be assumed to contribute to the visibility of scientific research results, the collection of essays on Internet-based indicators for the impact of science edited by Wolfgang Glänzel, Henk Moed, Ulrich Schmoch and Mike Thelwall, to be published later in 2018, incidentally opens the discussion on the degree to which altmetrics can be helpful for the assessment of article-level impact.”

VOX EU: Effects of copyrights on science

VOX EU: Effects of copyrights on science. “Copyrights grant publishers exclusive rights to content for almost a century. In science, this can involve substantial social costs by limiting who can access existing research. This column uses a unique WWII-era programme in the US, which allowed US publishers to reprint exact copies of German-owned science books, to explore how copyrights affect follow-on science. This artificial removal of copyright barriers led to a 25% decline in prices, and a 67% increase in citations. These results suggest that restrictive copyright policies slow down the progress of science considerably.”

LSE Impact Blog: The academic papers researchers regard as significant are not those that are highly cited

LSE Impact Blog: The academic papers researchers regard as significant are not those that are highly cited . “For many years, academia has relied on citation count as the main way to measure the impact or importance of research, informing metrics such as the Impact Factor and the h-index. But how well do these metrics actually align with researchers’ subjective evaluation of impact and significance? Rachel Borchardt and Matthew R. Hartings report on a study that compares researchers’ perceptions of significance, importance, and what is highly cited with actual citation data. The results reveal a strikingly large discrepancy between perceptions of impact and the metric we currently use to measure it.”