Thursday, 22 June 2017

ORCID integration at ScienceOpen - ScienceOpen Blog

 Source: http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/06/orcid-integration-at-scienceopen/

In:  ORCID  

ORCID integration at ScienceOpen



ORCID integration has been at the heart
of our publishing system since our inception. We like to think that
this demonstrates that ScienceOpen was already thinking way ahead of the
curve for the future of publishing, and recognising the importance of
infrastructure and the value of unique identifiers. ORCID is now a major
part of the scholarly communications infrastructure, and becoming more
so with each passing day.
At ScienceOpen, registration with us
requires registration with ORCID. In fact, if you register with us, we
will automatically provide you the options for registering with ORCID.
Why is this important?
At ScienceOpen, we have always supported the use of ORCID within our services. Membership at ScienceOpen can be updated directly using your ORCID profile, providing seamless integration of the two.
To comment, review and rate articles,
we require an ORCID along with membership at ScienceOpen. If you have
more than 5 articles within your ORCID profile, you’ll gain Expert member status
with us, and free reign of services! We feel this is important to
maintain a high standard of quality for our peer review services. This
isn’t to say that those without ORCID wouldn’t be great referees, it’s
just that this is an explicit minimum standard.
Here’s a little table to help make this a
little easier to understand. We’re evolving all the time to adapt to
the needs of the research community, so please let us know if there’s
anything we can do to enhance our services!
Here’s a crash course in signing up for ORCID and integrating it into ScienceOpen:
1
Step 1. No publication history on ORCID? Sign in to ORCID!
2 3
Step 2: Click on “Add Works”, and follow steps to integrate works from various sources.
4 5
Step 3: Login to your ScienceOpen profile page, and click “Refresh from ORCID”.
6 7
Step 4: After clicking refresh, you
should see your publication record from ORCID integrated with your
ScienceOpen profile. If this doesn’t happen, try logging in and out, or
get in contact with us (jon.tennant@scienceopen.com)
Step 5: Enjoy contributing towards making science more open! 🙂


ORCID integration at ScienceOpen - ScienceOpen Blog

Tuesday, 20 June 2017

Effective Strategies for Increasing Citation Frequency – ScienceOpen

 Source: https://twitter.com/Science_Open/status/877382725904113664

Effective Strategies for Increasing Citation Frequency

Summary

Due
to the effect of citation impact on The Higher Education (THE) world
university ranking system, most of the researchers are looking for some
helpful techniques to increase their citation record. This paper by
reviewing the relevant articles extracts 33 different ways
for increasing the citations possibilities. The results show that the
article visibility has tended to receive more download and citations.
This is probably the first study to collect over 30 different ways to
improve the citation record. Further study is needed to explore and
expand these techniques in specific fields of study in order to make the
results more precisely.

Related collections

Author and article information


Journal

International Education Studies
IES
Canadian Center of Science and Education
1913-9039
1913-9020

October
11 2013

October
23 2013
: 6
: 11
©
2013
Keywords:

Comments



Effective Strategies for Increasing Citation Frequency – ScienceOpen

Evolution of connected health: a network perspective | SpringerLink

 Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2431-x



Scientometrics

pp 1–20

Evolution of connected health: a network perspective

  • Serhat Burmaoglu
  • Ozcan Saritas
  • Levent Bekir Kıdak
  • İpek Camuz Berber
  1. 1.Department of Healthcare ManagementIzmir Katip Celebi UniversityIzmirTurkey
  2. 2.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation
Article
DOI:
10.1007/s11192-017-2431-x

Cite this article as:
Burmaoglu, S., Saritas, O., Kıdak, L.B. et al. Scientometrics (2017). doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2431-x

Abstract

In
this study, the evolution of the connected health concept is analysed
and visualized to investigate the ever-tightening relationship between
health and technology as well as emerging possibilities regarding
delivery of healthcare services. A scientometric analysis was undertaken
to investigate the trends and evolutionary relations between health and
information systems through the queries in the Web of Science database
using terms related to health and information systems. To understand the
evolutionary relation between different concepts, scientometric
analyses were conducted within five-year intervals using the
VantagePoint, SciMAT, and CiteSpace II software. Consequently, the main
stream of publications related to the connected health concept matching
telemedicine cluster was determined. All other developments in health
and technologies were discussed around this main stream across years.
The trends obtained through the analysis provide insights about the
future of healthcare and technology relationship particularly with
rising importance of privacy, personalized care along with mobile
networks and mobile infrastructure.

Keywords

Connected health Electronic health record Health informatics Mobile health Telemedicine eHealth mHealth 

References

  1. Accenture (2012). Connected health: The drive to integrated healthcare delivery. www.accenture.com/connectedhealthstudy Accessed 18 Dec 2015.
  2. Aghaei
    Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M.,
    Farhadi, M., et al. (2013). A comparison between two main academic
    literature collections: Web of science and scopus databases. Asian Social Science,
    9(5), 18–26.Google Scholar


Evolution of connected health: a network perspective | SpringerLink

Sunday, 18 June 2017

Build your academic brand, because being brilliant doesn’t cut it any more | Times Higher Education (THE)

 Source: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/build-your-academic-brand-because-being-brilliant-doesnt-cut-it-any-more




Build your academic brand, because being brilliant doesn’t cut it any more




Selling
yourself can sometimes be quite difficult for academics, but as John
Tregoning argues, scientific salesmanship could be vital for career
progression



February 24, 2016







Salesman
Source: iStock



One of the recurring portrayals of academics is unworldliness. There was a mortifying episode of The Apprentice
when the token PhD candidate buckled in the boardroom because they
failed to meet their sales target. The ability to sell rubber dog turds
for an egocentric billionaire may not seem a core skill compared with
pipetting, coding or whatever research-specific thing you do; however,
salesmanship is central, and increasingly so as you progress away from
the bench.


This was re-emphasised when listening to a presentation recently. I
knew the work was brilliant, smartly executed and highly impactful, but
somehow the presenter lost the audience and failed to convey their
brilliance. It wasn’t that the presentation was poorly delivered or ill
rehearsed, far from it. The problem was the sales pitch. I have also
been to some extremely data-light presentations which have conveyed the
story brilliantly. Reluctantly, we need to accept that sales is a major
part of the job: demonstrably so when grant writing, but no less in
papers, seminars, blogs and even thesis writing.


Be the brand: you are the product


We have two things to sell, our ideas (more of which another time)
and ourselves. Of the two, and this may sound a bit “self-help seminar”,
the main product we sell is ourselves. This product is defined by our
CV: where we have worked, on what and with whom. But these strands need
to be pulled together into a single memorable “personal brand” – the
lung T cell expert, the insect neurobiologist, the DNA crystallographer.
This brand comes into play when meeting potential collaborators,
conference organisers and funders. Interactions with other academics
tend to have three levels: an entry-level overview of your work to check
you are in the same field, followed by a description of a specific
piece of work and, if you really click, detailed dissection of
experimental design. There is no space for English modesty: don’t say
“you know, this and that, some stuff on respiratory infections”. Do
define your brand and develop a snappy single-line pitch that summarises
what you do, backed up with an exciting case study. You are pitching
this brand so that when other academics need someone with a particular
skill set they think of you.


Develop the brand: publish or perish


Having crafted your academic brand, you need to generate brand
awareness. This can be achieved in a range of ways, but publishing is
central. One hurdle is the volume of academic material – 93 per cent of
humanities articles, 45 per cent of social sciences and 25 per cent of
science articles never get cited.
Yes, the ideal is the big “impact” (glossy, single-word title)
journals, but don’t get fixated on these to the detriment of getting
stuff out there. It can take some time to generate sufficient reputation
to overcome the editorial activation energy for the glossies (another
example where having a personal brand can open doors). Target the
journals that are most widely browsed in your field: high-volume, good
(but not superstar) quality output is as good as large gaps between
superstar papers and potentially better early in your career. And while
traditional publishing has to be the central strand to your brand, don’t
neglect blogging, tweeting and public engagement.


Sell the brand: break the bread


The final component is networking, which has to be face to face and
not just electronically. Get out there and meet people – you have to be
shameless, but not rude. Invite yourself to give talks in your friends’
departments, talk to people in lifts and in the departmental tearoom. Go
to conferences, consortia and congresses. I prefer small conferences
where you avoid that “total perspective vortex” moment – being exposed
to just how big your field is and how insignificant your place in it is.
Ask questions at meetings, and use the formula: “Hi, I am Dr X at
university Y, in our system we see Z which relates to your findings
because…have you seen the same?” Corner the speaker after talks, ask
them more questions, sit next to people at meals, go to the drinks. Any
(positive) way of getting yourself known is a good thing.


What you waiting for?


I am sure you are all brilliant, you are after all reading this
article! But brilliance in a vacuum is not going to get you a permanent
position or enable you to secure the funding to test your brilliant
theories. You have to sell your brilliance. So this year, get out there,
hone your personal brand to Kardashian levels and start selling
yourself.


John Tregoning is senior lecturer in the mucosal infection and immunity section of virology at Imperial College London. He runs a blog on academic life.
 Build your academic brand, because being brilliant doesn’t cut it any more | Times Higher Education (THE)

What’s in an Academic Name | Beki's Blog



 Source: https://beki70.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/whats-in-an-academic-name/



What’s in an Academic Name

In academia, academic management, discipline, research on February 1, 2010 at 12:31 pm


Pick the name you publish under wisely.


Why do I say that.


In the days of citation counts and impact factors it’s actually
relatively important that you can be “found” in publication searches.


I chose Rebecca E. Grinter to publish under. I chose it because it
was, and remains my legal name. When I married (the most likely time
that the name would change) I was detered by being a resident of one
country and a citizen of another, I decided that the pain of changing my
surname legally with multiple governments was not worth it (hmm, I
wonder whether I could legally be two different people, one in the U.S.
and one in the U.K. another interesting experiment with international
law…). I’m also rather attached to the name Grinter, not just because I
am a keen family historian, but because it’s relatively unusual. I am
frequently the only one in the phone book, and a Grinter event (i.e.
meeting another one) is quite rare so always fun.


I chose the E to avoid the problem that R. Grinter would create. That
would be the other Dr. R. Grinter, or as I know him, Dad. Of course, I
get extra publications if you search me as R. Grinter, so I encourage
everyone who is doing a citation count of me for any reason to search R.
Grinter. But, then of course, there are the times when my “E” gets
dropped, so I end up needing to search R. Grinter to find my own
citations. Initials, for all their distinctiveness, seem to create their
own problems.


And then there are the publications where I am B Grinter. I’m B
Grinter because I go colloquially by Beki (there is one person who calls
me Rebecca, I know her as Mum). So if someone writes up the results of a
workshop and (kindly) puts my name on it, then frequently it ends up as
B Grinter, unless I can intervene and switch it over. This also turns
out to matter for my H-index. I wish that my nickname started with the
same letter as my official publishing name.


I think now I wished I’d started with Beki Grinter as my non-de-plume
for academic publications. It took me a while to realise that it
doesn’t have to be your legal name… although I dunno why I thought it
had to be my legal name.


I think it’s better if its plausibly a name by which you are known.
For example, I think it would be a little odd if I switched to
publishing under the name Paul Erdös. Although I have some colleagues
whose Erdös number would improve. I think what matters more is that it’s
distinct and it’s consistent. Distinct helps people find you, and
that’s hugely useful (it’s an academic brand if I’m honest). Consistent
helps with time. An academic career is built over time, and having the
ability to find people’s earlier works if you find their later ones is
really useful. There are likely ways to mitigate this, I like how some
people move their former surname to their middle name, and others just
let people know on their websites what publications belong to them.


But names are not just academic brands, they are personal choices.
But I can imagine a variety of reasons to want to change your name,
particularly at marriage….


I guess this started out as a reflection on publishing name.
Distinct, consistent, and something plausibly connected to the author
seem like good criteria for deciding what name you want to publish
under.


If you'd like to share this (and thanks!)

What’s in an Academic Name | Beki's Blog