Systematization of publications in the web. Part 1 of 3: Problem Statement
"The future is already here - it's just not very evenly distributed."
William Gibson
This cycle of articles includes 3 parts.
The first part was a review of articles on the topic of scientific work published on habrahabr.ru, considered the concept of citation index (h-index, Hirsch index) and concluded that it is necessary to have skills in working with scientometric databases for all who took the path of scientific career .
In the second part, we consider three tools for managing publications on the web: 1) Scopus; 2) Google Scholar (Google Academy); 3) Research Gate.
The third part discusses the choice of the strategy of scientific publications in order to promote a personal scientific brand. Examples in the article are considered for the scientific field that is familiar to the author - Computer Science.
This article is about how to systematize the list of your own publications using the available on-line services, and how you can benefit from this seemingly boring work. The article will be useful to those who have already written or are writing scientific articles in English, but do not know where to begin systematization and analysis of information about their publications on the Internet.
Since there are people involved in scientific research at Habré, I also decided to share my thoughts on this topic. Some publications on Habré have led me to these reflections (a brief analysis below). I read not so much technical as methodological articles on the topic of defending dissertations.
')
So, what do scientists write about?
On motivation: “Thesis writing. Instructions for use. A look from the other side of the barricades ” , “ GTD: write a dissertation and stay alive ” .
On the tools of scientific work: "Social network as a tool of scientific work" , "Seven practical methods and tools to optimize the work on the dissertation . " Moreover, of all the tools, most of the publications are written specifically about reference and quotation management systems: “Zotero: optimizing the storage and use of scientific literature” , “Automating the creation and editing of lists of used sources using Mendeley” , “Citavi: professional organizer of scientific work” , “ Some recommendations on the organization of autonumbering when writing scientific articles and dissertations using Microsoft Word . ”
I would like to dwell on the last topic, because, in my opinion, it is not always clear to people how to begin when creating a web-list of their own publications.
Why does it seem important to me that it is obvious to many scientists, including those who are taking the first steps in science (“set up Mendeley and Google Scholar, think binom Newton”)? Because I have full confidence that the majority of my colleagues, regardless of age and achieved results, do not pay enough attention to systematization and understanding of their own publications.
What is the reason for such inattention to this important component of scientific work?
First, the acceleration of changes in approaches to the accumulation, storage, and processing of scientometric information, which is already familiar to everyone, remains unnoticed in an academic environment. Technologies are changing rapidly, 15 years ago it was quite progressive to maintain a list of jobs in MS Word or Excel, and the local database of publications was the first aerobatics. Many pundits are quite conservative in nature, because the pursuit of the newfangled is not to their liking. The scientific foundation, which allows you to get away from the momentary, does not always allow you to determine the trend, for which the future and even the present.
Secondly, scholars should be busy and immersed in high research. There are lab technicians sitting at the computer who have mastered the basic functions of MS Office and are typing articles and department documents with one finger. A lack of time is pursued by scholars, it’s necessary to write articles, participate in research projects and projects, teach students and go to conferences, oppose dissertations ... But you never know how to sharpen a saw, you need to saw!
Thirdly, we still have not learned to integrate into world communities, and we are looking for our national way even where it leads to a dead end. It is possible that the comparison of own achievements with the achievements of colleagues on the basis of generally accepted indicators in the world has an unpleasant effect on the ego of “great” scientists. Well, this is a personal choice - to be unrecognized or recognized as a genius.
However, over the past 10 years, scientometric databases (first of all, the Web of Science and Scopus ) have begun to play an increasing role in terms of the influence of certain published scientific results on the world scientific community. Moreover, both individual and collective indicators of the contribution to these databases are estimated (on the citation index slightly lower). Collective indicators, in turn, significantly affect the position of the university in the world table of ranks.
The main motivation, which may lead to the reading and mastering of this material, in my opinion, is the following:
- Structured, centralized and accessible in the web materials of publications and scientific research are the calling card of the modern scientist, they save resources for finding information and sharing this information with colleagues;
- Modern means of managing scientific content have reached the level of maturity, when they really become the de facto standard and significantly increase the efficiency when working with information; thoughtful interfaces and “cloud” data storage systems minimize the risk of information loss, including due to personal confusion and disorganization of the user;
- Citation indices allow you to receive feedback from the scientific community and draw certain conclusions about the effectiveness of the dissemination of scientific results; ideally, a strategy of scientific publications can be developed or adjusted.
Perhaps still need to say about what you will not find in this article:
- there is no analysis of scientific content management systems (in order to avoid holivars, for example, between supporters of Mendeley and Zotero);
- there is no only right strategy for promoting scientific publications, since there is no universal strategy for this;
- there is no description of methods for working with Web of Science, since this database is closed and requires the purchase of licenses;
- there is no analysis of national non-English-speaking scientometric databases, since English is generally accepted in the international scientific community;
- there is no strict substantiation of the need for the existence of scientometric databases, since the hypothesis of some usefulness of such databases is deliberately accepted.
How to measure the citation index? If you were quoted 20 times, is it a lot or a little? Obviously, the citation intensity is important, since quoting a single article 20 times in one year is not so bad. But if a sample of 20 of your articles was quoted 20 times over a period of several years, then this is probably not so good.
Of course, all indicators are subjective and we must have inner confidence in our own right. In addition, it is believed that an excessive enthusiasm for publications is detrimental to scientific research. However, if there are statistics, why not rely on them?
The main such indicators is the h-index (Hirsch index). This index is h, if h publications are cited no less than h times. For example, you published one publication. As soon as someone mentioned it in his writings, h-index = 1. No matter how many times you quote this publication, it’s still h-index = 1. Now you make another publication. Until it has been quoted at least twice, it is still h-index = 1. By the way, only the second publication was quoted a second time, h-index = 2, and so on. It should be noted that many publications “dusting” in databases have a number of citations of 0. Therefore, the author’s h-index does not increase. Moreover, over time, the h-index over the past few years may even decline, if no new cited publications appear. But not everyone has it. For example, at one of the conferences I met a person who has as much as 50 h-index in Scopus. 50 publications, each of which was quoted at least 50 times, wow!
It should be noted that different search engines scan different sources. For example, something that pulls up through the Research Gate and through Google Scholar is different from each other, and all this differs from the Web of Science and Scopus bases, although there are naturally intersections of these sets. Accordingly, the h-index of the same author in different bases will have different meanings.
Projects in eLIBRARY.RU (Russian Science Citation Index, RISC), Scientific.ru , CyberLeninka , Mapofscience.ru (Map of Russian Science) are successfully developing in Russian-language content.
The problem with these platforms is their poor integration with the globally recognized Web of Science and Scopus databases . Unfortunately, the national magazines of the Russian segment do not seek to enter the Web of Science , Scopus or even Google Scholar .
Those who can create, create new knowledge, teaching are special people, with a special mission, and their responsibility is also special. This is, among other things, the responsibility for the preservation, use and distribution of the created scientific product (in any form). Science for the sake of science, discovery for the sake of discoveries, is only meaningless (and sometimes dangerous) mind games if they do not fulfill the mission of service — for the sake of developing science, for the sake of creation in a human sense. We are responsible for the ideas born by us, which is why it is so important to follow their path after we let them go to the “big life”. After all, they, like children, can get into bad company, get lost, they can be kidnapped, they can be manipulated to achieve the wrong goals. And we may not even know about it, busy with new constructions ...
Unfortunately, not everyone is aware of the importance of demonstrating their results to the scientific community. But, as they say, avoiding the problem does not save from responsibility.
There are few specialists in this field, and it seems to me that those who comprehend scientometry are in no hurry to share knowledge with their colleagues, because this creates a competitive advantage in the profession. Otherwise, how else can we explain the lack of information in the field so important to the scientific community?
Another aspect of the "conspiracy theory" is that the owners of large digital libraries are not profitable to distribute free copies of publications for which the same libraries charge a fee.
In my opinion, this topic is important and necessary. I could not find detailed and understandable publications. I would like to receive comments from readers. Maybe someone already has a “black belt” in scientometric databases and this person is ready to share sacred knowledge?
After describing the statement, in the second part of the publication we plan to proceed directly to solving the problem.
I consider only one of the possible approaches, and this approach may not be the only correct one. Hopefully, he can tell someone how to choose his OWN way to manage his own publications on the web. To do this, we consider only three tools that lead from chaos to a respectable scientific web-life:
1) Scopus ;
2) Google Scholar (Google Academy);
3) Research Gate .
In my opinion, one tool will not be enough, because, on the one hand, none of them fully covers the storage and indexing requirements of the list of publications, and, on the other hand, between the tools there is no complete duplication of each other in functions and a variety of indexed publications, t . each complement each other.
William Gibson
This cycle of articles includes 3 parts.
The first part was a review of articles on the topic of scientific work published on habrahabr.ru, considered the concept of citation index (h-index, Hirsch index) and concluded that it is necessary to have skills in working with scientometric databases for all who took the path of scientific career .
In the second part, we consider three tools for managing publications on the web: 1) Scopus; 2) Google Scholar (Google Academy); 3) Research Gate.
The third part discusses the choice of the strategy of scientific publications in order to promote a personal scientific brand. Examples in the article are considered for the scientific field that is familiar to the author - Computer Science.
This article is about how to systematize the list of your own publications using the available on-line services, and how you can benefit from this seemingly boring work. The article will be useful to those who have already written or are writing scientific articles in English, but do not know where to begin systematization and analysis of information about their publications on the Internet.
What can be studied on Habré
Since there are people involved in scientific research at Habré, I also decided to share my thoughts on this topic. Some publications on Habré have led me to these reflections (a brief analysis below). I read not so much technical as methodological articles on the topic of defending dissertations.
')
So, what do scientists write about?
On motivation: “Thesis writing. Instructions for use. A look from the other side of the barricades ” , “ GTD: write a dissertation and stay alive ” .
On the tools of scientific work: "Social network as a tool of scientific work" , "Seven practical methods and tools to optimize the work on the dissertation . " Moreover, of all the tools, most of the publications are written specifically about reference and quotation management systems: “Zotero: optimizing the storage and use of scientific literature” , “Automating the creation and editing of lists of used sources using Mendeley” , “Citavi: professional organizer of scientific work” , “ Some recommendations on the organization of autonumbering when writing scientific articles and dissertations using Microsoft Word . ”
I would like to dwell on the last topic, because, in my opinion, it is not always clear to people how to begin when creating a web-list of their own publications.
Why do we need scientometric (reference) databases?
Why does it seem important to me that it is obvious to many scientists, including those who are taking the first steps in science (“set up Mendeley and Google Scholar, think binom Newton”)? Because I have full confidence that the majority of my colleagues, regardless of age and achieved results, do not pay enough attention to systematization and understanding of their own publications.
What is the reason for such inattention to this important component of scientific work?
First, the acceleration of changes in approaches to the accumulation, storage, and processing of scientometric information, which is already familiar to everyone, remains unnoticed in an academic environment. Technologies are changing rapidly, 15 years ago it was quite progressive to maintain a list of jobs in MS Word or Excel, and the local database of publications was the first aerobatics. Many pundits are quite conservative in nature, because the pursuit of the newfangled is not to their liking. The scientific foundation, which allows you to get away from the momentary, does not always allow you to determine the trend, for which the future and even the present.
Secondly, scholars should be busy and immersed in high research. There are lab technicians sitting at the computer who have mastered the basic functions of MS Office and are typing articles and department documents with one finger. A lack of time is pursued by scholars, it’s necessary to write articles, participate in research projects and projects, teach students and go to conferences, oppose dissertations ... But you never know how to sharpen a saw, you need to saw!
Thirdly, we still have not learned to integrate into world communities, and we are looking for our national way even where it leads to a dead end. It is possible that the comparison of own achievements with the achievements of colleagues on the basis of generally accepted indicators in the world has an unpleasant effect on the ego of “great” scientists. Well, this is a personal choice - to be unrecognized or recognized as a genius.
However, over the past 10 years, scientometric databases (first of all, the Web of Science and Scopus ) have begun to play an increasing role in terms of the influence of certain published scientific results on the world scientific community. Moreover, both individual and collective indicators of the contribution to these databases are estimated (on the citation index slightly lower). Collective indicators, in turn, significantly affect the position of the university in the world table of ranks.
The main motivation, which may lead to the reading and mastering of this material, in my opinion, is the following:
- Structured, centralized and accessible in the web materials of publications and scientific research are the calling card of the modern scientist, they save resources for finding information and sharing this information with colleagues;
- Modern means of managing scientific content have reached the level of maturity, when they really become the de facto standard and significantly increase the efficiency when working with information; thoughtful interfaces and “cloud” data storage systems minimize the risk of information loss, including due to personal confusion and disorganization of the user;
- Citation indices allow you to receive feedback from the scientific community and draw certain conclusions about the effectiveness of the dissemination of scientific results; ideally, a strategy of scientific publications can be developed or adjusted.
Perhaps still need to say about what you will not find in this article:
- there is no analysis of scientific content management systems (in order to avoid holivars, for example, between supporters of Mendeley and Zotero);
- there is no only right strategy for promoting scientific publications, since there is no universal strategy for this;
- there is no description of methods for working with Web of Science, since this database is closed and requires the purchase of licenses;
- there is no analysis of national non-English-speaking scientometric databases, since English is generally accepted in the international scientific community;
- there is no strict substantiation of the need for the existence of scientometric databases, since the hypothesis of some usefulness of such databases is deliberately accepted.
Citation index
How to measure the citation index? If you were quoted 20 times, is it a lot or a little? Obviously, the citation intensity is important, since quoting a single article 20 times in one year is not so bad. But if a sample of 20 of your articles was quoted 20 times over a period of several years, then this is probably not so good.
Of course, all indicators are subjective and we must have inner confidence in our own right. In addition, it is believed that an excessive enthusiasm for publications is detrimental to scientific research. However, if there are statistics, why not rely on them?
The main such indicators is the h-index (Hirsch index). This index is h, if h publications are cited no less than h times. For example, you published one publication. As soon as someone mentioned it in his writings, h-index = 1. No matter how many times you quote this publication, it’s still h-index = 1. Now you make another publication. Until it has been quoted at least twice, it is still h-index = 1. By the way, only the second publication was quoted a second time, h-index = 2, and so on. It should be noted that many publications “dusting” in databases have a number of citations of 0. Therefore, the author’s h-index does not increase. Moreover, over time, the h-index over the past few years may even decline, if no new cited publications appear. But not everyone has it. For example, at one of the conferences I met a person who has as much as 50 h-index in Scopus. 50 publications, each of which was quoted at least 50 times, wow!
It should be noted that different search engines scan different sources. For example, something that pulls up through the Research Gate and through Google Scholar is different from each other, and all this differs from the Web of Science and Scopus bases, although there are naturally intersections of these sets. Accordingly, the h-index of the same author in different bases will have different meanings.
Projects in eLIBRARY.RU (Russian Science Citation Index, RISC), Scientific.ru , CyberLeninka , Mapofscience.ru (Map of Russian Science) are successfully developing in Russian-language content.
The problem with these platforms is their poor integration with the globally recognized Web of Science and Scopus databases . Unfortunately, the national magazines of the Russian segment do not seek to enter the Web of Science , Scopus or even Google Scholar .
Discussion
Those who can create, create new knowledge, teaching are special people, with a special mission, and their responsibility is also special. This is, among other things, the responsibility for the preservation, use and distribution of the created scientific product (in any form). Science for the sake of science, discovery for the sake of discoveries, is only meaningless (and sometimes dangerous) mind games if they do not fulfill the mission of service — for the sake of developing science, for the sake of creation in a human sense. We are responsible for the ideas born by us, which is why it is so important to follow their path after we let them go to the “big life”. After all, they, like children, can get into bad company, get lost, they can be kidnapped, they can be manipulated to achieve the wrong goals. And we may not even know about it, busy with new constructions ...
Unfortunately, not everyone is aware of the importance of demonstrating their results to the scientific community. But, as they say, avoiding the problem does not save from responsibility.
There are few specialists in this field, and it seems to me that those who comprehend scientometry are in no hurry to share knowledge with their colleagues, because this creates a competitive advantage in the profession. Otherwise, how else can we explain the lack of information in the field so important to the scientific community?
Another aspect of the "conspiracy theory" is that the owners of large digital libraries are not profitable to distribute free copies of publications for which the same libraries charge a fee.
In my opinion, this topic is important and necessary. I could not find detailed and understandable publications. I would like to receive comments from readers. Maybe someone already has a “black belt” in scientometric databases and this person is ready to share sacred knowledge?
After describing the statement, in the second part of the publication we plan to proceed directly to solving the problem.
I consider only one of the possible approaches, and this approach may not be the only correct one. Hopefully, he can tell someone how to choose his OWN way to manage his own publications on the web. To do this, we consider only three tools that lead from chaos to a respectable scientific web-life:
1) Scopus ;
2) Google Scholar (Google Academy);
3) Research Gate .
In my opinion, one tool will not be enough, because, on the one hand, none of them fully covers the storage and indexing requirements of the list of publications, and, on the other hand, between the tools there is no complete duplication of each other in functions and a variety of indexed publications, t . each complement each other.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/305994/
All Articles