Automatic generation of investigator bibliographies for institutional research networking systems

Johnson, Stephen B.; Bales, Michael E.; Dine, Daniel; Bakken, Suzanne; Albert, Paul; Weng, Chunhua

doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2014.03.013

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Automated tools have become valuable in responding to these requests efficiently. Identifying the publications of faculty, students, and postdoctoral researchers is assisted by ReCiter [ 14 , 15 ], a suite of automated tools developed at Weill Cornell for author name disambiguation. ReCiter leverages several types of institutionally maintained information about individuals to allow rapid and accurate assignment of publications to researcher profiles.…”

Section: Type and Scale Of Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries

Gutzman

Bales

Belter

et al. 2018

jmla

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe paper provides a review of current practices related to evaluation support services reported by seven biomedical and research libraries.MethodsA group of seven libraries from the United States and Canada described their experiences with establishing evaluation support services at their libraries. A questionnaire was distributed among the libraries to elicit information as to program development, service and staffing models, campus partnerships, training, products such as tools and reports, and resources used for evaluation support services. The libraries also reported interesting projects, lessons learned, and future plans.ResultsThe seven libraries profiled in this paper report a variety of service models in providing evaluation support services to meet the needs of campus stakeholders. The service models range from research center cores, partnerships with research groups, and library programs with staff dedicated to evaluation support services. A variety of products and services were described such as an automated tool to develop rank-based metrics, consultation on appropriate metrics to use for evaluation, customized publication and citation reports, resource guides, classes and training, and others. Implementing these services has allowed the libraries to expand their roles on campus and to contribute more directly to the research missions of their institutions.ConclusionsLibraries can leverage a variety of evaluation support services as an opportunity to successfully meet an array of challenges confronting the biomedical research community, including robust efforts to report and demonstrate tangible and meaningful outcomes of biomedical research and clinical care. These services represent a transformative direction that can be emulated by other biomedical and research libraries.

show abstract

Section: Type and Scale Of Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries

Gutzman

Bales

Belter

et al. 2018

jmla

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CUSP includes grants from institutional financial databases and publications from MEDLINE, along with job title, highest degree completed, and departmental affiliation from institutional human resource data. A core feature of CUSP is ReCiter [9], a method developed by the Columbia University CTSA for author name disambiguation for publications in scholarly databases. Researcher profiling systems often require investigators to populate their own publications manually.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associating co-authorship patterns with publications in high-impact journals

Bales

Dine

Merrill

et al. 2014

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To develop a method for investigating co-authorship patterns and author team characteristics associated with the publications in high-impact journals through the integration of public MEDLINE data and institutional scientific profile data. Methods For all current researchers at Columbia University Medical Center, we extracted their publications from MEDLINE authored between years 2007 and 2011 and associated journal impact factors, along with author academic ranks and departmental affiliations obtained from Columbia University Scientific Profiles (CUSP). Chi-square tests were performed on co-authorship patterns, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, to identify team composition characteristics associated with publication impact factors. We also developed co-authorship networks for the 25 most prolific departments between years 2002 and 2011 and counted the internal and external authors, inter-connectivity, and centrality of each department. Results Papers with at least one author from a basic science department are significantly more likely to appear in high-impact journals than papers authored by those from clinical departments alone. Inclusion of at least one professor on the author list is strongly associated with publication in high-impact journals, as is inclusion of at least one research scientist. Departmental and disciplinary differences in the ratios of within- to outside-department collaboration and overall network cohesion are also observed. Conclusions Enrichment of co-authorship patterns with author scientific profiles helps uncover associations between author team characteristics and appearance in high-impact journals. These results may offer implications for mentoring junior biomedical researchers to publish on high-impact journals, as well as for evaluating academic progress across disciplines in modern academic medical centers.

show abstract

“…This general framework for AND is illustrated in Figure 3. Three of the surveyed works, namely [30], [31] and [32], do not construct ‘LN-FI’ blocks: they simply take the name as it appears in the citation.…”

Section: Framework For and On Pubmed/medlinementioning

confidence: 99%

A review of author name disambiguation techniques for the PubMed bibliographic database

Sanyal

Bhowmick

Das

2019

Journal of Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Author names in bibliographic databases often suffer from ambiguity owing to the same author appearing under different names and multiple authors possessing similar names. It creates difficulty in associating a scholarly work with the person who wrote it, thereby introducing inaccuracy in credit attribution, bibliometric analysis, search-by-author in a digital library and expert discovery. A plethora of techniques for disambiguation of author names has been proposed in the literature. In this article, we focus on the research efforts targeted to disambiguate author names specifically in the PubMed bibliographic database. We believe this concentrated review will be useful to the research community because it discusses techniques applied to a very large real database that is actively used worldwide. We make a comprehensive survey of the existing author name disambiguation (AND) approaches that have been applied to the PubMed database: we organise the approaches into a taxonomy; describe the major characteristics of each approach including its performance, strengths, and limitations; and perform a comparative analysis of them. We also identify the datasets from PubMed that are publicly available for researchers to evaluate AND algorithms. Finally, we outline a few directions for future work.

show abstract

Automatic generation of investigator bibliographies for institutional research networking systems

Cited by 12 publications

References 14 publications

Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries

Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries

Associating co-authorship patterns with publications in high-impact journals

A review of author name disambiguation techniques for the PubMed bibliographic database

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About