Untitled

Leroy, Gondy; Miller, Trudi; Rosemblat, Graciela; Browne, Allen C.

doi:10.1002/asi.v59:9

Cited by 39 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 420 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Academic librarians keep abreast of new advancements and technologies related to research, while researchers and librarians have both developed a keen interest in figures to quantify research. Several bibliometrics topics were covered by librarians and information specialists (Bar-Ilan et al, 2012;Cronin, 2001;De Groote, 2008;Hood & Wilson, 2001;Jacso, 2008;Leydesdorff, 1998), and scholars from a variety of fields have also published extensively on topics related to the issues in bibliometrics (Abt, 2000;Boyack, Klavans, & Börner, 2005;Hall, 2014;Hicks, 2005;Hirsch, 2005;Schreiber, 2008;Vinkler, 2010). Scientists and librarians working in conjunction on citation analysis agree that the output indicators are just as good as the data input (Cronin, 2001;De Bellis, 2009;Jacso, 2008;Meho & Yang, 2007;Noruzi, 2005;West & McIlwaine, 2002).…”

Section: Scholarly Performance Indicators In Academic Librariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the most commonly used indicators for authors, new metrics, such as the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), the g-index (Egghe, 2006), and further variations are also used to measure the researcher's scholarly output (Schreiber, 2008). Similarly, in the case of journals, in addition to the well-known impact factor, new metrics have evolved, such as the Eigenfactor or SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) based on the Google PageRank™ algorithm (Hajnal Ward, Stewart, Cox, Candon, & Cook, 2011;Moed, 2006;Vinkler, 2010 The third important bibliometrics tool, Google Scholar, is open and free to everyone, and as such, is widely used all over the world.…”

Section: Traditional Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scholarly social media profiles and libraries

Ward¹,

Bejarano²,

Dudás³

2021

LIBER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to point out emerging roles and responsibilities for academic librarians with the potential of better integrating the library in the research process. In order to find out how to enhance the online reputation and discoverability of individual faculty members as well as their affiliated institutions, the authors worked side-by-side with researchers in the United States and Europe to explore, create, revise, and disambiguate scholarly profiles in various software applications. In an attempt to understand and organize scholarly social media, including new, alternative metrics, the authors reviewed and classified the major academic profile platforms, highlighting the overlapping elements, benefits, and drawbacks inherent in each. The consensus is that it would be time-consuming to keep one's profile current and accurate on all of these platforms, given the plethora of underlying problems, also discussed in detail in the article. However, it came as a startling discovery that reluctance to engage with scholarly social Judit Ward et al. Liber Quarterly Volume 24 Issue 4 2015175 media may cause a misrepresentation of a researcher's academic achievements and may come with unforeseen consequences. The authors claim that current skills and competencies can secure an essential role for academic librarians in the research workflow by means of monitoring and navigating researcher profiles in scholarly social media in order to best represent the scholarship of their host institutions.

show abstract