scholarly journals Researchgate.net crawler and a new contribution determines sequence (CDS) method.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hammook Zahra
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Computer Science ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Real Data ◽  
Java Language ◽  
Web Crawlers ◽  
Academic Social Network ◽  
Journal Impact

General and Focus crawlers are the main types of web crawlers used for different goals, with different crawling techniques and architecture. Our crawler was written in Java language using different software and libraries. To test the crawler, it has been run on the academic social network, Researchgate.net from 3 rd.April to 28th.June 2014 and retrieved real data. The crawler consists of three main algorithms to crawl information such as researchers details, publications details, questions/answers activity details. The retrieved data has been analyzed to highlight the performance of Canadian researchers, in the field of Computer Science on Researchgate.net. Data analysis has been done from the collaboration and (alt)metrics perspectives. Among other features Researchgate.net came with “Impact Points” and “RG Score” (alt)metrics. The former builds on ISI Journal Impact Factor, which disregards author’s contribution in its calculations. A new Contribution Determines Sequence (CDS) method has been developed and tested, with all required scripts which showed better performance than other methods.

scholarly journals Researchgate.net crawler and a new contribution determines sequence (CDS) method.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hammook Zahra
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Computer Science ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Real Data ◽  
Java Language ◽  
Web Crawlers ◽  
Academic Social Network ◽  
Journal Impact

General and Focus crawlers are the main types of web crawlers used for different goals, with different crawling techniques and architecture. Our crawler was written in Java language using different software and libraries. To test the crawler, it has been run on the academic social network, Researchgate.net from 3 rd.April to 28th.June 2014 and retrieved real data. The crawler consists of three main algorithms to crawl information such as researchers details, publications details, questions/answers activity details. The retrieved data has been analyzed to highlight the performance of Canadian researchers, in the field of Computer Science on Researchgate.net. Data analysis has been done from the collaboration and (alt)metrics perspectives. Among other features Researchgate.net came with “Impact Points” and “RG Score” (alt)metrics. The former builds on ISI Journal Impact Factor, which disregards author’s contribution in its calculations. A new Contribution Determines Sequence (CDS) method has been developed and tested, with all required scripts which showed better performance than other methods.

Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Metin Orbay ◽  
Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽  
Ruben Miranda
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Consistent Assessment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.

The TOP factor: An indicator of quality to complement journal impact factor

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-333
Author(s):  
Sven Kepes ◽  
George C. Banks ◽  
Sheila K. Keener
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact

scholarly journals Impact Factors Workgroup Report

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susie Allard ◽  
Ali Andalibi ◽  
Patty Baskin ◽  
Marilyn Billings ◽  
Eric Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Journal Impact

Following up on recommendations from OSI 2016, this team will dig deeper into the question of developing and recommending new tools to repair or replace the journal impact factor (and/or how it is used), and propose actions the OSI community can take between now and the next meeting. What’s needed? What change is realistic and how will we get there from here?

scholarly journals The Journal Impact Factor and its discontents: steps toward responsible metrics and better research assessment

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Roberto F. Arruda ◽  
Robin Champieux ◽  
Colleen Cook ◽  
Mary Ellen K. Davis ◽  
Richard Gedye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Alternative System ◽  
Practical Support ◽  
Journal Impact

A small, self-selected discussion group was convened to consider issues surrounding impact factors at the first meeting of the Open Scholarship Initiative in Fairfax, Virginia, USA, in April 2016, and focused on the uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), with a particular focus on research assessment. The group’s report notes that the widespread use, or perceived use, of the JIF in research assessment processes lends the metric a degree of influence that is not justified on the basis of its validity for those purposes, and retards moves to open scholarship in a number of ways. The report concludes that indicators, including those based on citation counts, can be combined with peer review to inform research assessment, but that the JIF is not one of those indicators. It also concludes that there is already sufficient information about the shortcomings of the JIF, and that instead actions should be pursued to build broad momentum away from its use in research assessment. These actions include practical support for the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) by research funders, higher education institutions, national academies, publishers and learned societies. They also include the creation of an international “metrics lab” to explore the potential of new indicators, and the wide sharing of information on this topic among stakeholders. Finally, the report acknowledges that the JIF may continue to be used as one indicator of the quality of journals, and makes recommendations how this should be improved.OSI2016 Workshop Question: Impact FactorsTracking the metrics of a more open publishing world will be key to selling “open” and encouraging broader adoption of open solutions. Will more openness mean lower impact, though (for whatever reason—less visibility, less readability, less press, etc.)? Why or why not? Perhaps more fundamentally, how useful are impact factors anyway? What are they really tracking, and what do they mean? What are the pros and cons of our current reliance on these measures? Would faculty be satisfied with an alternative system as long as it is recognized as reflecting meaningfully on the quality of their scholarship? What might such an alternative system look like?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document