The Research Evaluation and Policy Project (REPP) was commissioned by the Australian Research Council (ARC) to update its previous 2004 analysis of the impact of publications resulting from ARC-funded research. The ARC has many diverse schemes for funding research, which target different aggregations of effort – the research group, cross-institutional programs, and the individual researcher. This current analysis, like that in the previous study, creates a series of publication sets that enable each of the ARC’s main research grant schemes to be evaluated on the basis of citation impact.

Abstract:
As the Internet has enhanced the collection and provision of citation, usage and access metrics, the challenge lies neither in the technology nor the method, but in constructing databases that deliver services of value to the scholar. However, the development of metrics has hitherto been driven by the needs of external research assessment (governments and funders), while publishers and libraries have focused on their own needs (e.g. journal impact and usage factors). Scholars often criticize research assessment and the use of particular metrics as a zero-sum game whose undesirable consequences far outweigh the benefits. However, this is not to be confused with a general prejudice against metrics, which are principally compatible with the scholarly recognition and rewards system. But it does indicate that current metric information services often do not serve the needs of scholars. The question everybody should be asking is: What kind of metric information services would serve scholars?

The argument proceeds in six steps. First, the problematic and controversial nature of assessment metrics is discussed. Second, the limited value of current metric information services is outlined. Third, the notion of metrics as research information services is clarified. Fourth, some examples of such services are offered. Fifth, the potential value is sketched from the perspective of a postdoc. Sixth, it is indicated that societies and publishers could begin building more metric information services since tried-and-tested technology and methods are available already.

Services mentioned: Journal impact factor, journal usage factor, GoPubMed, SSRN CiteReader, RePEc LogEc, RePEc CitEc, SPIRES, Harzing POP, Webometrics, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Google Scholar, Citebase, CiteSeer X, CERIF

Thomson have released an update to the online version of their Journal Citation Reports. This release includes official Impact Factors for BMC Systems Biology, Chemistry Central Journal, Diagnostic Pathology, Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Neural Development and Radiation Oncology (which had been omitted in error from the earlier release of the JCR in June 2009) and provides corrected Impact Factors for Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation and BMC Structural Biology (which had been understated in the initial release).

Posted on BMC Blog by Matthew Cockerill at 12:27

This report presents the work undertaken to develop the bibliometrics element of the Research Excellence Framework, the key part of which has been a pilot exercise to develop bibliometric indicators.

Learning from our mistakes
Critics have long held that only positive results (where the outcome fits the hypothesis) are published in journals. However, science has always progressed by learning from its mistakes as well as its successes. Research Trends investigates the impact of negative findings.

Analyzing the multidisciplinary landscape
Many of our most urgent scientific challenges require multidisciplinary approaches; however, research performance is typically measured on a unidisciplinary basis. Research Trends learns about a new study seeking to measure output in alternative-energy research in a novel way.

What’s leading the curve: research or policy?
Stem cell research often attracts headlines due to the controversial nature of human embryonic stem cell research, and most countries have strict rules governing what can and cannot be done with public funding in this field. Research Trends investigates the relationship between policy changes and publication rates in recent years.

Busting the open access myth
Open access has been touted as the future of scientific publishing, claiming benefits such as wider readership and, crucially, significantly higher citation rates. However, research carried out by Phil Davis at Cornell University suggests that the manner of publication may have very little to do with citations. He discusses his latest research.

…a classic paper?
Why do researchers continue to cite classic papers for many decades? Is it to formally acknowledge an intellectual debt or is it the ‘done thing’ in the field? We ask two researchers why they cited a classic paper.

As part of our ongoing article-level metrics program, we’re delighted to announce that all seven PLoS journals will now provide online usage data for published articles. With this addition, the suite of metrics on PLoS articles now includes measures of: online usage; citations from the scholarly literature; social bookmarks; blog coverage; and the Comments, Notes and ‘Star’ ratings that have been made on the article …..

A Google Scholar Universal Gadget which enables users to search for the total number of citations of author(s). It provides a total citation count, total number of cited publications and Jorge E. Hirsch’s H-Index.

source: Eve Young