JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES  December 2006

JISC-REPOSITORIES December 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Scientometric OAI Search Engines

From:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 9 Dec 2006 13:05:47 +0000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (183 lines)

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Yorick Wilks wrote:

> Stevan
> Now that the future of the RAE is going your way (!)for the sciences, 
> it would be very helpful--certainly for general fairness and for 
> disciplines like Computer Science in particular, if you could at the 
> right moment add your lobbying (probably on HEFCE) to try to stop the 
> metrics applying in science only through the narrow channel of the ISI 
> rated journals---but rather in some wider OA way like that below (just 
> open Google citations would be a lot better for CS than the ISI 
> constraint).

But, Dear Yorick, that's what I (and others) have been preaching all
along! The ISI Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is not only an incomplete but
a blunt instrument (not covering all journals, and not giving and exact
citation count for an article or author, but merely the average citation
count for the journals in which the article appeared: rather like not
giving a student a mark, but giving him the average mark for his school!).

    Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. and Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated
    online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives. Ariadne 35.
    http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7725/

    Shadbolt, N., Brody, T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2006) The Open
    Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable, in Jacobs,
    N., Eds. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects,
    chapter 20. Chandos.
    http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12453/

The JIF has its place, but only one among a large and rich battery of
metrics, to be derived from a 100% Open Access Corpus.

At Southampton, we are already building a provisional, approximate
para-ISI citation metric, triangulating from the citation counts
provided by Google Scholar, Citebase and Citeseer, exactly along the
lines you suggest! See the AmSci references at the end of this posting,
and stay tuned!

> The reason is simply that in CS/AI many of the best 
> publications are in the high-prestige strongly peer-reviewed 
> conferences, which are not ISI rated, and that there are probably too 
> few journals that are rated to carry any shift of publication 
> consequent upon any very tight citation strategy from HEFCE/Treasury. 

I agree completely (though ISI does cover some conferences!). So it's
Google-Scholar, Citeseer and Citebase for now, and once we approach 100%
OA, many more OA scientometric services will be spawned.

> This would simply mean that a great chunk of good CS publication would 
> then be ineligible for the metrics under the sort of ISI-based scheme 
> that many are expecting. 

OA metrics-based, not just ISI-based!

> This is quite different from many sciences of 
> course, where conferences are low-rated and journals are everything.

But OA metrics covers all forms of online performance indicators (which in
turn includes all performance indicators we choose to put online: funding,
student counts, awards, exhibits, -- plus those derived from the online
corpus itself: downloads, citations, co-citations, growth/decay rates,
endogamy/exogamy scores, hub/authority scores, book-citation counts,
reviews, comments, "semantic" metrics, etc. etc.)

    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/bookcite.htm

> The UK RAE sub-panel for computing know all this and, in 2008 ,as 
> previously, are agreed in treating all good forms of publication 
> equally. I am on that subpanel and hoping they will lobby in the same 
> way for what comes later.

I urge you to encourage the RAE panels (not just in CS but all
disciplines) to start testing and validating metrics as of now, in
advance of RAE 2008; the parallel panel/metric data in 2008 can then be
used to calibrate and customise the beta weights in the metric regression
equation discipline by discipline).

UK "RAE" Evaluations (began Nov 2000)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#1018

Digitometrics (May 2001)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1300.html

Scientometric OAI Search Engines (began Aug 2002)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2238

UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review (Oct 2002)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2326

Australia stirs on metrics (June 2006)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5417.html

Big Brother and Digitometrics (began May 2001)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#1298

UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review (began Oct 2002)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2326

Need for systematic scientometric analyses of open-access
data (began Dec 2002)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2522

Potential Metric Abuses (and their Potential Metric Antidotes)
(began Jan 2003)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#2643

Future UK RAEs to be Metrics-Based (began Mar 2006)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#5251

Australia stirs on metrics (Jun 2006)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5417.html

Let 1000 RAE Metric Flowers Bloom: Avoid Matthew Effect as
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Jun 2006)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5418.html

Australia's RQF (Nov 2006)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5806.html

Stevan Harnad


> On 9 Dec 2006, at 11:37, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Peter Suber wrote:
> >
> >>   If the metrics have a stronger OA connection, can you say something
> >>   short (by email or on the blog) that I could quote for readers who
> >>   aren't clued in, esp. readers outside the UK?
> >
> > Dear Peter,
> >
> > Sure (and I'll blog this too, hyperlinked):
> >
> > (1) In the UK (Research Assessment Exercise, RAE) and Australia 
> > (Research
> > Quality Framework, RQF) all researchers and institutions are evaluated 
> > for
> > "top-sliced" funding, over and above competitive research proposals.
> >
> > (2) Everywhere in the world, researchers and research institutions have
> > research performance evaluations, on which careers/salaries, research 
> > funding
> > and institutional/departmental ratings depend.
> >
> > (3) There is now a natural synergy growing between OA self-archiving,
> > Institutional Repositories (IRs), OA self-archiving mandates, and the
> > online "metrics" toward which both the RAE/RQF and research evaluation 
> > in
> > general are moving.
> >
> > (4) Each institution's IR is the natural place from which to derive and
> > display research performance indicators: publication counts, citation
> > counts, download counts, and many new metrics, rich and diverse ones,
> > that will be mined from the OA corpus, making research evaluation much
> > more open, sensitive to diversity, adapted to each discipline, 
> > predictive,
> > and equitable.
> >
> > (5) OA Self-Archiving not only allows performance indicators (metrics)
> > to be collected and displayed, and new metrics to be developed, but OA
> > also enhances metrics (research impact), both competitively (OA vs. 
> > NOA)
> > and absolutely (Quality Advantage: OA benefits the best work the most,
> > and Early Advantage), as well as making possible the data-mining of the
> > OA corpus for research purposes. (Research Evaluation, Research
> > Navigation, and Research Data-Mining are also very closely related.)
> >
> > (6) This powerful and promising synergy between Open Research and Open
> > Metrics is hence also a strong incentive for institutional and funder
> > OA mandates, which will in turn hasten 100% OA: Their connection needs
> > to be made clear, and the message needs to be spread to researchers,
> > their institutions, and their funders.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Stevan
> >
> > PS Needless to say, closed, internal, non-displayed metrics are also
> > feasible, where appropriate.
> 
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager