Towards societal impact through open research | Springer Nature | For Researchers | Springer Nature

“Open research is fundamentally changing the way that researchers communicate and collaborate to advance the pace and quality of discovery. New and dynamic open research-driven workflows are emerging, thus increasing the findability, accessibility, and reusability of results. Distribution channels are changing too, enabling others — from patients to businesses, to teachers and policy makers — to increasingly benefit from new and critical insights. This in turn has dramatically increased the societal impact of open research. But what remains less clear is the exact nature and scope of this wider impact as well as the societal relevance of the underpinning research….”

 

Gold Open Access research has greater societal impact as used more outside of academia | Corporate Affairs Homepage | Springer Nature

“What impact does open research have on society and progressing global societal challenges?  The latest results of research carried out between Springer Nature, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) and the Dutch University Libraries and the National Library consortium (UKB), illustrates a substantial advantage for content published via the Gold OA route where research is immediately and freely accessible.

Since the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were launched in 2015, researchers, their funders and other collaborative partnerships have sought to explore the impact and contribution of open research on SDG development. However – until now – it has been challenging to map, and therefore identify, emerging trends and best practice for the research and wider community. Through a bibliometric analysis of nearly 360,000 documents published in 2017 and a survey of nearly 6,000 readers on Springer Nature websites, the new white paper, Open for All, Exploring the Reach of Open Access Content to Non-Academic Audiences shows not only the effects of content being published OA but more importantly who that research is reaching.”

[2011.09079] Do ‘altmetric mentions’ follow Power Laws? Evidence from social media mention data in Altmetric.com

Abstract:  Power laws are a characteristic distribution that are ubiquitous, in that they are found almost everywhere, in both natural as well as in man-made systems. They tend to emerge in large, connected and self-organizing systems, for example, scholarly publications. Citations to scientific papers have been found to follow a power law, i.e., the number of papers having a certain level of citation x are proportional to x raised to some negative power. The distributional character of altmetrics has not been studied yet as altmetrics are among the newest indicators related to scholarly publications. Here we select a data sample from the altmetrics aggregator this http URL containing records from the platforms Facebook, Twitter, News, Blogs, etc., and the composite variable Alt-score for the period 2016. The individual and the composite data series of ‘mentions’ on the various platforms are fit to a power law distribution, and the parameters and goodness of fit determined using least squares regression. The log-log plot of the data, ‘mentions’ vs. number of papers, falls on an approximately linear line, suggesting the plausibility of a power law distribution. The fit is not very good in all cases due to large fluctuations in the tail. We show that fit to the power law can be improved by truncating the data series to eliminate large fluctuations in the tail. We conclude that altmetric distributions also follow power laws with a fairly good fit over a wide range of values. More rigorous methods of determination may not be necessary at present.

 

Visualizing Altmetric data with VOSviewer – Altmetric

“Visualizations can make data come alive, uncover new insights and capture the imagination in a way that a spreadsheet never can.

Join Mike Taylor, Data Insights & Customer Analytics at Altmetric, and Fabio Gouveia, Public Health Technologist at Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Brazil, for a demonstration of the exciting ways in which you can create compelling stories to explain the broader impact of academic work using the free-to-download VOSviewer from CWTS Leiden and data from Altmetric.

This actionable webinar will include an introduction to creating network diagrams with VOSviewer with your own data, extracting data from Altmetric tools and adapting it to be imported….”

An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences | SpringerLink

Abstract:  The last decade has seen two significant phenomena emerge in research communication: the rise of open access (OA) publishing, and the easy availability of evidence of online sharing in the form of altmetrics. There has been limited examination of the effect of OA on online sharing for journal articles, and little for books. This paper examines the altmetrics of a set of 32,222 books (of which 5% are OA) and a set of 220,527 chapters (of which 7% are OA) indexed by the scholarly database Dimensions in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Both OA books and chapters have significantly higher use on social networks, higher coverage in the mass media and blogs, and evidence of higher rates of social impact in policy documents. OA chapters have higher rates of coverage on Wikipedia than their non-OA equivalents, and are more likely to be shared on Mendeley. Even within the Humanities and Social Sciences, disciplinary differences in altmetric activity are evident. The effect is confirmed for chapters, although sampling issues prevent the strong conclusion that OA facilitates extra attention at the whole book level, the apparent OA altmetrics advantage suggests that the move towards OA is increasing social sharing and broader impact.

 

Could early tweet counts predict later citation counts? A gender study in Life Sciences and Biomedicine (2014–2016)

Abstract:  In this study, it was investigated whether early tweets counts could differentially benefit female and male (first, last) authors in terms of the later citation counts received. The data for this study comprised 47,961 articles in the research area of Life Sciences & Biomedicine from 2014–2016, retrieved from Web of Science’s Medline. For each article, the number of received citations per year was downloaded from WOS, while the number of received tweets per year was obtained from PlumX. Using the hurdle regression model, I compared the number of received citations by female and male (first, last) authored papers and then I investigated whether early tweet counts could predict the later citation counts received by female and male (first, last) authored papers. In the regression models, I controlled for several important factors that were investigated in previous research in relation to citation counts, gender or Altmetrics. These included journal impact (SNIP), number of authors, open access, research funding, topic of an article, international collaboration, lay summary, F1000 Score and mega journal. The findings showed that the percentage of papers with male authors in first or last authorship positions was higher than that for female authors. However, female first and last-authored papers had a small but significant citation advantage of 4.7% and 5.5% compared to male-authored papers. The findings also showed that irrespective of whether the factors were included in regression models or not, early tweet counts had a weak positive and significant association with the later citations counts (3.3%) and the probability of a paper being cited (21.1%). Regarding gender, the findings showed that when all variables were controlled, female (first, last) authored papers had a small citation advantage of 3.7% and 4.2% in comparison to the male authored papers for the same number of tweets.

 

Want a better h-index? – All you need to know about copyright and open access – ScienceDirect

Abstract:  Introduction

Physicians, whether in the public or private sector, are increasingly bound to “publish or perish”. Although researchers have become aware of certain ethical concerns relating to the concept of authorship, clinicians still tend to neglect issues of copyright. The present study aims: 1) to explain to orthopedic surgeons what exactly is protected by copyright in a scientific article; 2) to assess the legal implications of publishing contracts; and 3) to specify the means of publication that best boost the author’s h-index.

Material and methods

The study was based on intellectual property legislation and jurisprudence and the underlying principles. The European and American medical and legal literature was analyzed.

Results

It is vital to understand the basic principles of copyright and the legal implications of publishing contracts. A scientific article is protected by copyright as soon as it has been written. This confers both moral and property rights. “Moral” rights protect the person of the author and are inalienable; unlike property rights, they cannot be transferred. Publishing contracts can only concern property and other derivative rights. Most scientific articles are published in open access via Creative Commons (CC) licenses. The greater the freedom of use provided for in the CC license, the more easily other authors can use the article, adding to it or altering it. As all CC licenses include an attribution clause, authors publishing under a relatively unrestrictive CC license increase the chances of boosting their h-index.

Conclusion

Forewarned is forearmed. Mastering the means of publication enables authors to make the most of their publications in boosting their h-index, and also to contribute to the new Open Science paradigm: abandoning some intellectual property in favor of innovation and knowledge sharing rather than clinging to data protection.

Making data open, accessible for researchers and scholars | University of Arizona Libraries

“A new service created by the University of Arizona Libraries is helping researchers and students amplify their individual or cross-departmental work, while taking the our commitment to open to the next level.

ReDATA—a free research data repository that stores and shares datasets produced by University of Arizona researchers—was recently launched by the Libraries’ Office of Innovation of Digital Innovation & Stewardship.

In addition to addressing the growing number of funding agencies and journal publishers that require open access to underlying research data, the team that developed ReDATA identified an opportunity to tackle a strategic gap on campus. …

The service, which aligns with the Libraries’ mission to reduce barriers to accessing and sharing information, also allows researchers to receive credit and track the impact of their work. The platform looks at embedded download and citation counts, as well as altmetrics, which counts all of the mentions tracked for an individual research output. 

Traditional scholarly outputs include journal articles, books, conference proceedings, and monographs. Over the last decade, there has been an increase in expectations from the research community to provide supporting data and software alongside the original publication.

ReDATA accepts and archives all types of data, including spreadsheets, binary files, software and scripts, audiovisual content, and presentations….”

Journal- or article-based citation measure? A study… | F1000Research

Abstract:  In academia, decisions on promotions are influenced by the citation impact of the works published by the candidates. The Medical Faculty of the University of Bern used a measure based on the journal impact factor (JIF) for this purpose: the JIF of the papers submitted for promotion should rank in the upper third of journals in the relevant discipline (JIF rank >0.66). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) aims to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics in academic promotion. We examined whether the JIF rank could be replaced with the relative citation ratio (RCR), an article-level measure of citation impact developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An RCR percentile >0.66 corresponds to the upper third of citation impact of articles from NIH-sponsored research. We examined 1525 publications submitted by 64 candidates for academic promotion at University of Bern. There was only a moderate correlation between the JIF rank and RCR percentile (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.34, 95% CI 0.29-0.38). Among the 1,199 articles (78.6%) published in journals ranking >0.66 for the JIF, less than half (509, 42.5%) were in the upper third of the RCR percentile. Conversely, among the 326 articles published in journals ranking <0.66 regarding the JIF, 72 (22.1%) ranked in the upper third of the RCR percentile. Our study demonstrates that the rank of the JIF is a bad proxy measure for the actual citation impact of individual articles. The Medical Faculty of University of Bern has signed DORA and replaced the JIF rank with the RCR percentile to assess the citation impact of papers submitted for academic promotion.