Sunday, 23 June 2019

ENHANCE YOUR RESEARCH VISIBILITY AND IMPACT

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8312597.v1

Tuesday, 18 June 2019

Postdoctoral Position in Sustainable Process Systems Engineering applied to Energy and the Environment

Source: https://www.myscience.de/jobs/id147263-postdoctoral_position_in_sustainable_process_systems_engineering_applied_to_energy_and_the_environment-eidgenossische_technische_hochschule_zuerich_ethz

Postdoctoral Position in Sustainable Process Systems Engineering applied to Energy and the Environment

Anbieter		Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zürich, ETHZ

Erschienen		13. Juni 2019

Arbeitsort		Zürich, Region Zürich, Schweiz

Kategorie		Umwelt

Funktion		Senior Researcher / Postdoc

Beschreibung ETH Zurich is one of the world’s leading universities specialising in science and technology. It is renowned for its excellent education, its cutting-edge fundamental research and its efforts to put new knowledge and innovations directly into practice. The group of Prof. Gonzalo Guillén-Gosálbez, at the Institute for Chemical and Bioengineering, is offering a position as a PostDoc to an outstanding researcher. Postdoctoral Position in Sustainable Process Systems Engineering applied to Energy and the Environment The main duties of this position are to undertake original research in the area of Sustainable Engineering, with applications in energy and the environment, and ideally with special focus on the chemical sector. It is expected that you will communicate the results through regular publications in high-impact journals and presentations at conferences. You should collaborate actively with researchers at ETH as well as with other institutions. The original length of the contract is one year, with potential annual extensions until a maximum of three years upon successful evaluation at the end of each period. It is essential that you have a PhD in a relevant area. You should have demonstrated expertise in Sustainable Engineering, as applied to energy and the environment, through the writing and dissemination of research results in papers and presentations. It is also essential that you can work in a team, as well as independently. A specific requirement for this position is to have published as main author or co-author (at least one journal article) in a high-impact journal (impact factor above ten, e.g., Nature, Science, Nature Communications, Nature Energy, Nature Sustainability, Nature Climate Change, PNAS, Energy & Environmental Science, etc.). Applications not fulfilling the latter requirement will get a rejection.

Web
Online bewerben



Bitte beziehen Sie sich bei Ihrer Bewerbung auf myScience.de und die Referenz JobID 147263.

Introduction to “Research Tools”: Tools for Collecting, Writing, Publishing, and Improving Research Visibility

Source:

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8258957.v1

Fact or Fiction? Hyphens in an article title negatively impact citation counts

Source: https://blog.scopus.com/posts/fact-or-fiction-hyphens-in-an-article-title-negatively-impact-citation-counts

Fact or Fiction? Hyphens in an article title negatively impact citation counts

Submitted by Rachel McCullough

on Wed, 06/12/2019 - 17:59

A recent article in the journal IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering by Zhi Quan Zhou, T.H. Tse, and Matt Witheridge, doi: 10.1109/TSE.2019.2915065, has drawn attention due to its claim that the number of hyphens in article titles negatively impacts the citation counts of such articles in abstract and citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science.
Hyphens do not play a role in Scopus reference linking. Scopus matching algorithms (e.g. those that match references to articles) cope with many kinds of variations of punctuation, because punctuation in an article title is where the most discrepancies occur when the article is cited. Missed reference matches are continually analyzed by the Scopus team and the occurrence of hyphens in article titles is not a reason for the missing citation links. Therefore we reject the claim made in the article.
In addition, we observe:

The dataset used in the article is very small: it contains 140,000 articles which is 0.19% of Scopus.
The dataset is comprised of the top 20,000 most cited articles for each year between 2007 and 2013, at the time of collection. Hyphens in titles in this dataset are actually more prevalent than in Scopus overall, which contradicts the point that hyphens negatively impact citation counts, as these are top-cited articles.
The Scopus reference matching algorithm makes use of a diversity of details in an article’s metadata and the metadata present in references pointing to the article in question. Critical datapoints are for instance (1) the names of the first author, and the name of the second author when present in the article; (2) volume/issue/page number/article number information; (3) publication year; (4) Journal name; (5) other metadata such as the DOI.
The algorithm only takes the article title itself into account as an extra confirmation step in case a match has not been made via the aforementioned metadata fields. For this extra confirmation step, text is ‘flattened’,i.e., hyphenation and punctuation are ignored.

Do hyphens in article titles harm citation counts?

Source: https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2x254

Do hyphens in article titles harm citation counts?

Ludo Waltman, Nees Jan van Eck

June 18th, 2019

No comments

hyphen, citation analysis, reference matching, Scopus, Web of Science

During the past few weeks, those of us with an interest in citation analysis may have stumbled upon catchy headlines such as Hyphens in paper titles harm citation counts and journal impact factors, One punctuation mark has been skewing our scientific ranking system, and One small hyphen in a title could diminish academic success. These are headlines of online reports covering the paper Metamorphic robustness testing: Exposing hidden defects in citation statistics and journal impact factors by Zhi Quan Zhou, T.H. Tse, and Matt Witheridge, which has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. The paper claims that citation statistics reported by Scopus and Web of Science are unreliable, “as they can be distorted simply by the presence of hyphens in paper titles”. According to the paper, the algorithms used by Scopus and Web of Science to match references with the corresponding cited articles do not work well when cited articles include hyphens in their titles.
If the authors are right, this could undermine the validity of all citation analyses carried out worldwide based on data from Scopus and Web of Science. However, are the authors right? Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics, the producers of Scopus and Web of Science, both claim that the IEEE paper is flawed. They state that their reference matching algorithms are insensitive to the presence of hyphens in article titles. Of course, the business interests of Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics are threatened by the paper, so they have an interest in rejecting the conclusions of the paper. This makes clear that there is a need for a more independent perspective on the IEEE paper, which we aim to offer in this blog post.

On average, the larger the number of hyphens in the title of an article, the lower the number of citations received by the article. (Source: University of Hong Kong)

Should we believe the IEEE paper?

The IEEE paper looks impressive. It has been accepted for publication in a journal that seems to have a good reputation. The paper presents many different analyses, apparently showing the robustness of the authors’ findings. Studies like this one may suffer from confusion of correlation and causality, but the authors explicitly discuss this point, suggesting that they are well aware of this important methodological issue.
Nevertheless, the IEEE paper is deeply flawed. The authors make basic mistakes in confusing correlation and causality, despite their claim not to make this error. They compare citation counts of articles with and without hyphens in the title. Based on the observation that articles with hyphens in the title on average receive fewer citations than articles without hyphens in the title, they conclude that the reference matching algorithms of Scopus and Web of Science do not handle hyphens properly. The authors analyze a few confounding factors (e.g., the field of research and the publication year of an article) and observe that these factors do not explain the observed differences in citation counts. However, many other confounding factors (e.g., the type of study, for instance methodological vs. empirical studies, or the level of experience of the authors) are not considered, and therefore the strong causal conclusions drawn by the authors are not justified.
Another deeply problematic element in the IEEE paper is the analysis of journal impact factors. The authors claim that journal impact factors are affected by the alleged shortcomings of the reference matching algorithm of Web of Science. However, anyone familiar with the calculation of journal impact factors will understand that this is impossible. To calculate journal impact factors, citations are counted directly at the level of journals, not at the level of the individual articles within a journal. Only the name of the cited journal and the publication year of the cited work matter when counting the number of references citing a particular journal. The approach taken by Clarivate Analytics to calculate journal impact factors is well known and has been subject of considerable debate. Apparently, the authors of the IEEE paper are completely unaware of this.

How to communicate about mistakes in a scientific paper?

In addition to the issues discussed above, there are various other reasons for rejecting the conclusions drawn in the IEEE paper. Before writing this blog post, we contacted the authors of the IEEE paper and we shared with them our criticism on their work. The comments that we sent to the authors can be found here. We offered to discuss the various comments either by e-mail or in phone call. Unfortunately, the authors declined to engage in any further discussion, indicating that they prefer the discussion to take place through formal channels (i.e., through papers published in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering). This is a disappointing response. Research should be a joint effort aimed at producing the highest quality scientific knowledge. Writing papers is one way in which researchers can communicate with each other and share new knowledge, but it should not be the only way. A direct personal discussion typically offers a more efficient and more effective way of identifying misunderstandings and correcting mistakes. We regret the unwillingness of the authors of the IEEE paper to engage in such a discussion.
We also shared our concerns with the Editor-in-Chief of IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. The editor has invited us to submit a paper to the journal in which we express our concerns. Although we see this as a somewhat inefficient way of addressing the fundamental mistakes made in the IEEE paper, we are indeed considering to submit such a paper. We hope this will lead to a deeper editorial investigation, eventually resulting in a correction or retraction of the paper.

Can we trust Scopus and Web of Science citation counts?

Does this mean we can blindly trust citation statistics provided by Scopus and Web of Science? No. In both databases, citation statistics suffer from problems. This is almost unavoidable. Algorithmic reference matching will never be perfect. However, some problems in the Scopus and Web of Science reference matching algorithms, which we studied in detail in a conference paper published in 2017, require careful attention from the database producers. These problems affect a small but not entirely insignificant share of the references in the two databases. The phenomenon of so-called phantom references in Web of Science, where a reference is replaced by a completely different reference, is perhaps the most important problem (see below for examples of such references). We hope that the renewed attention for the issue of reference matching will encourage database producers to further improve the quality of their algorithms.

Examples of phantom references in Web of Science. (Source: Van Eck & Waltman, 2017, Table 3)

0 30 0 029

About Ludo Waltman

Professor of Quantitative Science Studies and deputy director of CWTS. Ludo leads the Quantitative Science Studies (QSS) research group. He is coordinator of the CWTS Leiden Ranking and co-developer of the VOSviewer software for bibliometric visualization.

About Nees Jan van Eck

Senior researcher and head of ICT. Nees Jan's research focuses on the development of visualization tools and algorithms, mainly for analyzing the structure and development of science.

Sunday, 16 June 2019

Two bibliometrics studies

Source: https://www.inderscienceonline.com/author/Ebrahim%2C+Nader+Ale

A bibliometric analysis of m-learning from topic inception to 2015

Monther M. Elaish, Liyana Shuib, Norjihan Abdul Ghani, Ghulam Mujtaba, Nader Ale Ebrahim

International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation Jan 2019, Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 91-112

Abstract | PDF (544 KB) | Add to Favourites

Firms' sustainable practice research in developing countries: mapping the cited literature by bibliometric analysis approach

N. Norfarah, S. Mohd Ali, A.K. Siti-Nabiha, Nader Ale Ebrahim

International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management Jan 2019, Vol. 7, Issue 1-2, pp. 5-26

Abstract | PDF (361 KB) | Add to Favourites

Does a Long Reference List Guarantee More Citations? Analysis of Malaysian Highly Cited and Review Papers

Source: https://researchleap.com/does-a-long-reference-list-guarantee-more-citations-analysis-of-malaysian-highly-cited-and-review-papers/

Does a Long Reference List Guarantee More Citations? Analysis of Malaysian Highly Cited and Review Papers

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration
Volume 1, Issue 3, February 2015, Pages 6 -16

Does a Long Reference List Guarantee More Citations? Analysis of Malaysian Highly Cited and Review Papers

DOI: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.13.1001
URL: dx.doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.13.1001

¹Nader Ale Ebrahim, ²H. Ebrahimian, ³Maryam Mousavi, ⁴Farzad Tahriri

¹Research Support Unit, Centre of Research Services, Institute of Research Management and Monitoring (IPPP), University of Malaya, Malaysia
²Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty Science, University Malaya
^{3 4}Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Citation Download PDF

Abstract: Earlier publications have shown that the number of references as well as the number of received citations are field-dependent. Consequently, a long reference list may lead to more citations. The purpose of this article is to study the concrete relationship between number of references and citation counts. This article tries to find an answer for the concrete case of Malaysian highly cited papers and Malaysian review papers. Malaysian paper is a paper with at least one Malaysian affilation. A total of 2466 papers consisting of two sets, namely 1966 review papers and 500 highly-cited articles, are studied. The statistical analysis shows that an increase in the number of references leads to a slight increase in the number of citations. Yet, this increase is not statistically significant. Therefore, a researcher should not try to increase the number of received citations by artificially increasing the number of references.
Key words: H-index, Citation analysis, Bibliometrics, Impact factor, Performance evaluation, Relations between citations and references
Does a Long Reference List Guarantee More Citations – Analysis of Malaysian Highly Cited and Review Papers

1. Introduction

Researchers seeking citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited (Bakkalbasi et al. 2006). On the other hand universities are looking for citations because of its influence in the university ranking (Ale Ebrahim et al. 2013, Ioannidis 2010, Bornmann, Leydesdorff, and Wang 2014). A citation count is the number of times a research work such as a journal article is cited by other works. The citation per paper meaningfully influence a number of metrics, including total citation counts, citation speed, the ratio of external to internal cites, diffusion scores and h-index (Carley, Porter, and Youtie 2013). Citation counts still commonly use for the measure of research papers quality and reputation (Abt and Garfield 2002). The number of citations that an article receives measured its impact on a specific field (Lai, Darius, and Lerut 2012). Citation analysis is one of the most important tools to evaluate research performance (Bornmann et al. 2012). Citation indicator is important for scientists and universities in all over the world (Farhadi, Salehi, Yunus, et al. 2013). In the early stage, the relationship between the number of references and the number of the paper citation was investigated in the 1965 (UZUN 2006, de Solla Price 1965). A long reference list at the end of a research paper may be the key to ensuring that it is well cited (Corbyn 2010, Ball 2008). Hence, citation counts are correlated with reference frequencies (Abt and Garfield 2002). Webster, Jonason, and Schember (2009) raised the question “Does the number of references an article contains predict its citation count?” and found that reference counts explained 19% of the variance in the citation counts. Lancho-Barrantes, Guerrero-Bote, and Moya-Anegón (2010) found that not only the number, but also the citation impact of the cited references correlated with the citation counts for a paper. The higher the impact of the cited references, the higher the later impact of the citing paper (Bornmann et al. 2012). Review articles are usually highly cited compare to other types of papers (Meho 2007).
Review papers represent the existing knowledge in a given field and more likely to be cited (Alimohammadi and Sajjadi 2009). Several bibliometric studies highlighted that citation counts are a function of many factors besides the scientific quality (Bornmann et al. 2012), length of paper (Abt and Garfield 2002), visibility (Ale Ebrahim et al. 2014), optimize scholarly literature for academic search engines (Beel, Gipp, and Wilde 2010), add the name of study in the title of all publications (Sarli and Holmes 2011), publishing in a journal with higher impact factor (Vanclay 2013), internet usage (Farhadi, Salehi, Embi, et al. 2013), gross domestic product (GDP) (Gholizadeh et al. 2014), number of authors (Krause 2009), self-archiving (Gargouri et al. 2010), publish in an open access journal (Swan 2010), collaborate with international authors (Pislyakov and Shukshina 2012), write paper with a Nobel laureates (Ball 2011) and many other (Ale Ebrahim et al. 2013) including write a review paper (Vanclay 2013) and use more references (Corbyn 2010). In this study the relationship between number of references and citation counts is determined. Webster, Jonason, and Schember (2009) mentioned “On average, review articles actually showed less of the relationship than standard articles” (Corbyn 2010). So, in this research both review and standard articles (papers) were investigated. 2466 articles consist of 1966 Malaysian review and 500 highly cited papers were selected to examine the relationship between number of references and citation counts in the given article.

2. Materials and methods

All data were obtained through Web of Science online academic database provided by Thomson Scientific. This database included the necessary information to examine the relationship between reference and citation counts for every review and highly cited papers published in Malaysia since 1980 to October 2013. Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index, were searched for reviews and highly cited papers. For each paper, all Bibliometrics data, especially the number of references and the number of times the paper has been cited during the interval between the year of publication and the year 2013, have been collected.Two samples set were selected: 1- The sample number one consisted of 1966 review papers in all disciplines from Malaysia, according to the Web of Knowledge’s classification system. Citation statistics produced by shorter than three years’ time frame may not be sufficiently stable (Adams 2005, UZUN 2006). Because, papers appearing in the Web of Science databases over the last few years, have not had enough time to accumulate a stable number of citations (Webster, Jonason, and Schember 2009). Therefore, the time span limited from 1980 to November, 2010; yielding a subsample of 721 publications (37% of the original sample). Publications with zero citation were removed. In order to select the highly cited paper a threshold 10 times cited per year is considered. The association between the number of references (independent variable) and time cited per year (dependent variable) of highly cited review papers investigated with linear and non-linear models. 2- The sample number two comprises 500 highly cited publications from Malaysia. According to the Web Of Science classification, the results are obtained based on the article type and exclude the review articles, editorial material, conference papers and book review.

3. Results and discussion

Two sets of data 1- 1966 review papers and 2- 500 high cited papers, were investigated separately. The results and discussions are coming as follows.
Outliers for sample one (1966 review papers)
Due to the effect of the age of an article, the number of citations cannot be a reference of highly cited paper. Therefore, the citation per year selected as a reference for highly cited paper. Papers with 10 times cited per year is considered as highly cited paper. Figure 1 shows the number of times cited per year for 660 review papers. A threshold was visually determined on 50 times cited per year. Papers with more than 50 times cited yearly is called “extremely high cited paper” and detected as outliers. Papers with more than 300 listed references also detected as outliers (2).

Figure 1: Number of times cited per year vs number of review papers references

Figure 2: Number of times cited per year vs number of references in review paper

Correlation analysis for sample one (1966 review papers)

The correlation between variables was modeled with regression model, linear model
y = α x + β and exponential model, non-linear model y = α eβx. The goodness of both model was then measured with Spearman’s rho , Kendall’s tau and Pearson correlation coefficient . The result of correlation analysis is summarized in 1.

The association between variables is graphically illustrated with scatter plots. The trend of these associations was drawn with solid lines. Refer to Figure 3 and Figure 4, both linear and non-linear models are not significantly fitted, trends are positive which support the hypothesis “For a given review paper, increasing in the number of references may have result of increasing the times cited per year”.

Table 1: The result of correlation analysis of highly-cited review papers

Figure 3: Relationship between number of references andcitation counts in review papers (linear model)

Figure 4: Relationship between number ofreferences and citation counts in review papers (Exponential model)

Outlier detection for sample two (500 highly cited papers)

Papers with 10 times cited per year is considered as highly cited paper. Papers that cited more than 100 times per year is considered as extremely high cited paper and detected as an outlier. Figure 5 and Figure 6 are showing raw data and filtered data respectively.

Figure 5: Raw data – Number of times cited per year vs number of references 500 highly cited papers

Figure 6: Filtered data – Number of times citedper year vs number of references in 500 highly cited papers

Correlation analysis for sample two (500 highly cited papers)

The association between the number of references (independent variable) and time cited per year (dependent variable) of first 500 high cited papers investigated with linear and non-linear model correlation analysis. The correlation was modeled with regression model, linear model y = α x + β and exponential model, non-linear model y = α eβx. The goodness of fit was then measured with Spearman’s rho , Kendall’s tau and Pearson correlation coefficient . The result of correlation analysis is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: The result of correlation analysis of 500 highly cited papers.

The association between variables is graphically illustrated with scatter plots. The trend of these associations is shown by the solid lines. Figure 7 and Figure 8 shows, although both linear and non-linear models are not significantly fitted, positive values of correlation coefficients are still suggesting a positive trend (positive correlation) on the number of references and the number of times cited per year.

Figure 7: Relationship between number of references and citation counts in 500 highly cited (linear model)

Figure 8: Relationship between number of referencesand citation counts in 500 highly cited (Exponential Model)

4. Conclusion

This study shows that since the trend between the citation count and the number of references is not statistically significant, we cannot conclude that there is a significant association between the citation count of Malaysia review papers between the given period and number of references contained in the paper. The correlation coefficient is not statistically significant. However, r = 0.152 based on the population of 721 articles. Malaysian review papers get more citations than other types of papers. The number of references in the article has the lowest impact on the citation compares with review paper. As this study looked only Malaysia review papers and 500 highly-cited article, it would be necessary to conduct a similar study in the otherworld and types of papers. It would be important to examine whether in other types of papers the relationship investigated here have significant correlated or not. The research considered the general definition of citations. Therefore, future studies may make a diffrentianain between “perfunctory citations” and “organic citations” citations as Tang and Safer (2008) defined “perfunctory citations” is occurred only once and in the introduction, “organic citations” as references cited for “conceptual ideas” and “methodology and data” reasons.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Sincere thanks to Dr. Bojan Obrenović and the International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration’s board members for their useful advices.

References

Abt, Helmut A., and Eugene Garfield. 2002. “Is the relationship between numbers of references and paper lengths the same for all sciences?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 (13):1106-1112. doi: 10.1002/asi.10151, CrossRef
Adams, Jonathan. 2005. “Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact.” Scientometrics 63 (3):567-581. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0228-9, CrossRef
Ale Ebrahim, Nader, Hadi Salehi, Mohamed Amin Embi, Farid Habibi Tanha, Hossein Gholizadeh, and Seyed Mohammad Motahar. 2014. “Visibility and Citation Impact.” International Education Studies 7 (4):120-125. doi: 10.5539/ies.v7n4p120, CrossRef
Ale Ebrahim, Nader, Hadi Salehi, Mohamed Amin Embi, Farid Habibi Tanha, Hossein Gholizadeh, Seyed Mohammad Motahar, and Ali Ordi. 2013. “Effective Strategies for Increasing Citation Frequency.” International Education Studies 6 (11):93-99. doi: 10.5539/ies.v6n11p93, CrossRef
Alimohammadi, Dariush, and Mahshid Sajjadi. 2009. “Correlation between references and citations.” Webology 6 (2):a71.
Bakkalbasi, Nisa, Kathleen Bauer, Janis Glover, and Lei Wang. 2006. “Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science.” Biomedical Digital Libraries 3 (1):7. doi: 10.1186/1742-5581-3-7, CrossRef
Ball, Philip. 2008. “A longer paper gathers more citations.” Nature 455 (7211):274-275. doi: 10.1038/455274a, CrossRef
Ball, Philip. 2011. “Are scientific reputations boosted artificially?” Nature, 6 May, CrossRef
Beel, Jöran, Bela Gipp, and Erik Wilde. 2010. “Academic Search Engine Optimization (ASEO).” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 41 (2):176-190. doi: 10.3138/jsp.41.2.176, CrossRef
Bornmann, L., L. Leydesdorff, and J. Wang. 2014. “How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date?” Journal of Informetrics 8 (1):175-180. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.11.005, CrossRef
Bornmann, Lutz, Hermann Schier, Werner Marx, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2012. “What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality?” Journal of Informetrics 6 (1):11-18, CrossRef, CrossRef
Carley, S., A. L. Porter, and J. Youtie. 2013. “Toward a more precise definition of self-citation.” Scientometrics 94 (2):777-780. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0745-2, CrossRef
Corbyn, Zoë. 2010. “An easy way to boost a paper’s citations.” Nature 406. doi: 10.1038/news.2010.406, CrossRef
de Solla Price, Derek J. 1965. “Networks of Scientific Papers.” Science 149 (3683):510-515. doi: 10.1126/science.149.3683.510, CrossRef
Farhadi, Hadi, Hadi Salehi, Melor Md Yunus, Arezoo Aghaei Chadegani, Maryam Farhadi, Masood Fooladi, and Nader Ale Ebrahim. 2013. “Does it Matter Which Citation Tool is Used to Compare the h-index of a Group of Highly Cited Researchers?” Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 7 (4):198-202. doi: arXiv:1306.0727.
Farhadi, Maryam, Hadi Salehi, Mohamed Amin Embi, Masood Fooladi, Hadi Farhadi, Arezoo Aghaei Chadegani, and Nader Ale Ebrahim. 2013. “Contribution of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Country’S H-Index.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology 57 (1):122-127. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7715.
Gargouri, Yassine, Chawki Hajjem, Vincent Larivière, Yves Gingras, Les Carr, Tim Brody, and Stevan Harnad. 2010. “Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research.” PLoS ONE 5 (10):e13636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013636, CrossRef
Gholizadeh, Hossein, Hadi Salehi, Mohamed Amin Embi, Mahmoud Danaee, Seyed Mohammad Motahar, Nader Ale Ebrahim, Farid Habibi Tanha, and Noor Azuan Abu Osman. 2014. “Relationship among Economic Growth, Internet Usage and Publication Productivity: Comparison among ASEAN and World’s Best Countries.” Modern Applied Science 8 (2):160-170. doi: 10.5539/mas.v8n2p160, CrossRef
Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2010. “Is there a glass ceiling for highly cited scientists at the top of research universities?” Faseb Journal 24 (12):4635-4638. doi: 10.1096/fj.10-162974, CrossRef
Krause, Kate. 2009. Increasing your Article’s Citation Rates. Open Access Week. Accessed 28 May 2013.
Lai, Quirino, Tom Darius, and Jan Lerut. 2012. “The one hundred most frequently cited articles in the field of clinical liver transplantation.” Transplant International 25 (6):e76-e77, CrossRef
Lancho-Barrantes, Bárbara S., Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote, and Félix Moya-Anegón. 2010. “What lies behind the averages and significance of citation indicators in different disciplines?” Journal of Information Science 36 (3):371-382. doi: 10.1177/0165551510366077, CrossRef
Meho, Lokman I. 2007. “The rise and rise of citation analysis.” Physics World 20:32–36, CrossRef
Pislyakov, Vladimir, and Elena Shukshina. 2012. “Measuring Excellence in Russia: Highly Cited Papers, Leading Institutions, Patterns of National and International Collaboration.” Proceedings of STI 2012, Montréal.
Sarli, Cathy, and Kristi Holmes. 2011. “Strategies for Enhancing the Impact of Research.” Washington University School of Medicine, Accessed 9 May. https://becker.wustl.edu/impact-assessment/strategies.
Swan, Alma. 2010.
Tang, Rong, and Martin A. Safer. 2008. “Author-rated importance of cited references in biology and psychology publications.” Journal of Documentation 64 (2):246-272. doi: 10.1108/00220410810858047, CrossRef
Uzun, Ali. 2006. “Statistical relationship of some basic bibliometric indicators in scientometrics research.” International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Seventh COLLNET Meeting, Nancy (France), May 10 – 12, 2006.
Vanclay, Jerome K. 2013. “Factors affecting citation rates in environmental science.” Journal of Informetrics 7 (2):265-271, CrossRef, CrossRef
Webster, Gregory D, Peter K Jonason, and Tatiana Orozco Schember. 2009. “Hot topics and popular papers in evolutionary psychology: Analyses of title words and citation counts in Evolution and Human Behavior, 1979–2008.” Evolutionary Psychology 7 (3):348-362, CrossRef

New Articles about Research Visibility, Impact and Evaluation

Source: https://libraryguides.helsinki.fi/researchvisibility

New Articles about Research Visibility, Impact and Evaluation

Website | Feed

Visibility and Citation Impact

Source: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2419315

Visibility and Citation Impact

International Education Studies, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 120-125, 2014

6 Pages Posted: 3 Apr 2014

Nader Ale Ebrahim

Centre for Research Services, Institute of Management and Research Services (IPPP), University of Malaya (UM); University of Malaya (UM) - Department of Engineering Design and Manufacture

Hadi Salehi

Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch

Mohamed Amin Embi

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia - Faculty of Education

Farid Habibi

University of Economic Sciences

Hossein Gholizadeh

University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute

Seyed Mohammad Motahar

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia - Faculty of Information Science and Technology

Date Written: March 30, 2014

Abstract

The number of publications is the first criteria for assessing a researcher output. However, the main measurement for author productivity is the number of citations, and citations are typically related to the paper's visibility. In this paper, the relationship between article visibility and the number of citations is investigated. A case study of two researchers who are using publication marketing tools confirmed that the article visibility will greatly improve the citation impact. Some strategies to make the publications available to a larger audience have been presented at the end of this paper.

Keywords: H-index, research tools, increase citations, publication marketing, bibliometrics, improve citations, maximized research visibility, increase research impact
JEL Classification: L11, L1, L2, M11, M12, M1, M54, Q1, O1, O3, P42, P24, P29, Q31, Q32, L17
Suggested Citation:

Ale Ebrahim, Nader and Salehi, Hadi and Embi, Mohamed Amin and Habibi, Farid and Gholizadeh, Hossein and Motahar, Seyed Mohammad, Visibility and Citation Impact (March 30, 2014). International Education Studies, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 120-125, 2014. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2419315

Sunday, 23 June 2019

ENHANCE YOUR RESEARCH VISIBILITY AND IMPACT

Tuesday, 18 June 2019

Postdoctoral Position in Sustainable Process Systems Engineering applied to Energy and the Environment

Beschreibung

Fact or Fiction? Hyphens in an article title negatively impact citation counts

Do hyphens in article titles harm citation counts?

Should we believe the IEEE paper?

How to communicate about mistakes in a scientific paper?

Can we trust Scopus and Web of Science citation counts?

Sunday, 16 June 2019

Does a Long Reference List Guarantee More Citations? Analysis of Malaysian Highly Cited and Review Papers

1Nader Ale Ebrahim, 2H. Ebrahimian, 3Maryam Mousavi, 4Farzad Tahriri

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

3. Results and discussion

4. Conclusion

References

New Articles about Research Visibility, Impact and Evaluation

Visibility and Citation Impact

Abstract

100

31,711

Other Papers (4)

¹Nader Ale Ebrahim, ²H. Ebrahimian, ³Maryam Mousavi, ⁴Farzad Tahriri