Search

Publications represent the most tangible products of research and scholarly communication. Growing pressures placed on researchers to increase their publication counts may encourage them to publish shorter papers, so that more publications may be generated from the same project and program. Is this the case? Furthermore, do shorter papers garner the same impact as longer papers as measured by the citations received? This research examines the relationship between article length and citations received by articles published in three prominent top biomedical research journals over the lifetime of the journals. The study reveals that instead of getting shorter, articles in these journals are getting longer over time. Longer articles in these journals, on average, attract more citations, and are therefore considered more impactful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This panel will present views and critical reflections on peer review, bibliometrics and altmetrics against the background of the latest developments and critique of the scientific system (e.g., replication crisis, DORA, open science, data manipulation). Peer review is the oldest form of monitoring the scientific process and research outcomes and is sometimes considered as the gold standard for evaluating quality. However, it also has its drawbacks; therefore, new forms of peer review are being explored. Bibliometrics, comparative statistics based on publication and citation counts, was introduced as a more objective evaluation method, which is applicable on meso and macro levels of research producing units but is not without problems either. Citation counts as a proxy of quality; the impact factor and the h‐index are some of the most controversial subjects of research evaluation today. The newest addition to the evaluation toolbox are altmetrics, impact measures based mainly on social media activity. Altmetrics have pros and cons as well. None of the measuring devices is perfect, and rather than replacing they complement each other. By drawing on indicators from all three aspects of research evaluation, negative and adverse effects are limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT This interactive panel session will introduce and debate the notion of Open Peer Review (OPR), an emerging approach to peer review that stems from the Open Science Movement. In essence, OPR makes all aspects of the peer review process transparent and open to authors, reviewers and readers. Audience members will be polled on their knowledge of and attitudes towards OPR at the beginning of the session and will have an opportunity to join the debate after the panelists have provided their perspectives on the issues related to peer review and the potential for OPR. We welcome remote attendees to join the panel at (audio & video or audio only; computer or mobile) [Please contact peilingw@utk.edu or dwolfram@uwm.edu to sign up] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT This panel brings together experts in bibliometrics and information retrieval to discuss how each of these two important areas of information science can help to inform the research of the other. There is a growing body of literature that capitalizes on the synergies created by combining methodological approaches of each to solve research problems and practical issues related to how information is created, stored, organized, retrieved and used. The session will begin with an overview of the common threads that exist between IR and metrics, followed by a summary of findings from the BIR workshops and examples of research projects that combine aspects of each area to benefit IR or metrics research areas, including search results ranking, semantic indexing and visualization. The panel will conclude with an engaging discussion with the audience to identify future areas of research and collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This panel continues an interactive discussion begun at the ALISE 2018 conference. Designed primarily to benefit new tenure track faculty, doctoral students, and academic librarians, the session looks to attract attendees seeking advice and those with expertise to share. Using the World Café Discussion format, the goals for the session are to develop further a conceptual framework and identify critical success factors for bridging teaching and research. Discussion themes will be the same as the ALISE special session with sub‐points informed by literature and by the discussion from ALISE 2018 conference: 1) How can research inform teaching? 2) How can teaching inform research? 3) What strategies can be applied in bridging teaching and research? The panelists facilitating the discussion are ALISE board members who are also active members of ASIS&T and the iSchools Organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Twitter popularity, which measures the total frequency of mentions on Twitter, is proposed as an altmetrics indicator to assess the social impact of a given journal. Based on the 2013 Journal Citation Report, 30 journals with high impact factors in the library and information science (LIS) field were identified as top-tier journals. Through the investigation, the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), College & Research Libraries (CRL), and Scientometrics are the most prevalent LIS journals with 2668, 1730, and 625 mentions, separately, on Twitter. To explore the association between the proposed altmetrics indicator and citation-based measures, Spearman's rho nonparametric correlation analysis was conducted to test the correlations between Twitter mentions and 8 citation-based measures (total cites, impact factor, 5-year impact factor, immediacy index, articles, cited half-life, Eigenfactor score, and article influence score). There is a significant and moderate correlation observed between the Twitter mentions and Eigenfactor score for the investigated journals. In conclusion, although the proposed altmetrics indicator, journal Twitter popularity, may not measure the scientific impact as the citation-based measurements do, this study puts forward the possibility of using journal Twitter popularity as a complementary indicator of journal impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT This panel pays tribute to Dr. Eugene Garfield, one of the 'fathers' of bibliometrics, former president of ASIS (1999-2000) and the founder of the ISI citation databases. Dr. Garfield passed away on February 25, 2017. In this panel, we will highlight his contributions to information science. The panelists are all well-known researchers who have known and worked with r. Garfield. Each panelist will highlight an aspect of Dr. Garfield's contributions that has transformed science and scholarship and how, in turn, their own work has been influenced by his contributions. The panel will be moderated by Judit Bar-Ilan and Dietmar Wolfram. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three months of clickstream transaction log data for an image-based digital library were analyzed for patterns in user session behavior. After extensive log cleaning of the data files, k-means cluster analysis was applied using selected session-related statistics. The outcomes reveal largely uniform session behaviors (97.37%) consisting of a limited number of actions, with a higher number of queries than other session types, but little browsing of individual results. Given the specialized nature of the digital collections within the studied system, most searchers appear to engage in purposeful, directed searching. The remaining session clusters represent higher degrees of browsing over a longer time with fewer queries per session. The session behaviors for this environment are markedly different than those revealed by transaction log studies of other information retrieval environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Data citation to reflect instances of data sharing and re-use is becoming more common, although it is not yet widely adopted. We investigate how common formal and informal data citation are in bioscience/biomedical research. We found that informal data citation (i.e., acknowledgments embedded in publications outside of formal references) is far more common than formal citations. Informal citations go unrecorded, and therefore authors of datasets largely do not receive credit for having informed or influenced the research of others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]