CHALLENGES 1

SPECIAL CASE: ARTS & HUMANITIES Productivity

SPECIAL CASE: ARTS & HUMANITIES Citations per paper

SPECIAL CASE: ARTS & HUMANITIES Authors Per Paper, 1999-2007

SPECIAL CASE: “NEGATIVE” CITATIONS Negative citations are a tiny proportion of the citation activities

SPECIAL CASE: “NEGATIVE” CITATIONS http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/19/10scientific-frauds-that-rocked-the-world/

SPECIAL CASE: SELF-CITATIONS Should Self-citations be counted or removed? Journals whose rank in category is significantly distorted by self-citation are removed from JCR for 2 years, then re-evaluated

SPECIAL CASE: MUTUAL CITATIONS

SPECIAL CASE: MUTUAL CITATIONS Journal self-citations are concentrated in Journal Impact Factor years High-value citation partners show extreme concentration

SPECIAL CASE: MUTUAL CITATIONS 490 Cited References

SPECIAL CASE: MULTI-AUTHORED PAPERS ATLAS COLLABORATION is a group consisting of almost 3,000 authors

SPECIAL CASE: MULTI-AUTHORED PAPERS Author A Author B

AFILIATIONS DISAMBIGUATION VARIANTS There are 80+ different institutional name variants unified under London School Economics & Political Science 6,000+ Unified organizations in WoS

AUTHOR DISAMBIGUATION Common names can attract documents of multiple authors with the same name 2. Even if a name is unique enough, it might suffer from inaccuracies (e.g. typographical errors) Disambiguation Problems

AUTHOR DISAMBIGUATION AUTHOR-AFFILIATION LINK

AUTHOR DISAMBIGUATION ORCID

AUTHOR DISAMBIGUATION WEB OF SCIENCE DISTINCT AUTHOR SETS Records grouped together are likely written by the same person

AUTHOR DISAMBIGUATION AUTHOR PROFILES Clean, disambiguated profiles at the Author/Department/Faculty level Disambiguated profiles can be used to run accurate research performance reports at all organizational levels

Informed Use of Bibliometrics Ten Rules in Using Publication and Citation Analysis 1. Consider whether available data can address the question 2. Choose publication types, field definitions, and years of data 3. Decide on whole or fractional counting 4. Judge whether data require editing to remove “artifacts” 5. Compare like with like 6. Use relative measures, not just absolute counts 7. Obtain multiple measures 8. Recognize the skewed nature of citation data 9. Confirm that the data collected are relevant to the question 10. Ask whether the results are reasonable And, above all, present the results openly and honestly David Pendlebury (2008): “Using Bibliometrics in Evaluating Research”