Redefining Research Impact

1234f1a875369df95753efe40ee9471c?s=47 William Gunn
January 26, 2014

Redefining Research Impact

This talk was presented at the American Library Association Midwinter meeting in 2014.

1234f1a875369df95753efe40ee9471c?s=128

William Gunn

January 26, 2014
Tweet

Transcript

  1. Redefining research impact William Gunn Head of Academic Outreach, Mendeley

    @mrgunn https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3555-2054
  2. None
  3. Citations are too slow

  4. Google Analytics for research

  5. New data on research impact  Get better data on

    researcher engagement with research  Get it faster  Serve all the stakeholders in research
  6. ...and aggregates research data in the cloud Mendeley extracts research

    data… Mendeley is not just a reference manager! Install Mendeley Desktop Collecting rich signals from domain experts.
  7. Rich user profile data

  8. Instrumenting the research workflow • 2.6 Million users • 470

    M documents • 4-700K uploads per day • 90% coverage of Pubmed • Accessible alternative to citations
  9. Instrumenting the Research Workflow Search Read Annotate Organize Write Import

  10. http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745v1 altmetrics show broader impact

  11. http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr-13/AprMay13_Lin_Fenner.html altmetrics show broader impact

  12. What would people build if they could get the data?

    • Impact Story – get credit for all your work • PLOS ALM – article-level metrics for papers • Plum Analytics – bespoke analytics for libraries (EBSCO) • Altmetric.com – altmetrics for publishers. (Digital Science)
  13. New data on research impact  Get better data on

    researcher engagement with research  Get it faster  Serve all the stakeholders in research
  14. Personalized Impact

  15. New forms of discovery • Mendeley Suggest – personalized recommendations

    based on reading history • related articles – relatedness based on document similarity • third-party platforms – PubChase, ScienceScape, myScienceWork, Docphin
  16. Secondary literature Off-line • Correspondence to journals • peer review

    Online • peer review • comments at publishers website (PLOS, PeerJ) • third-party platforms – Pubmed Commons, Publons, Stack Exchange, Quora, blog posts
  17. Secondary publication

  18. Secondary publication

  19. How authors use Pubmed Commons • Went public on Dec

    19. • ~700 comments • 1 in 5 are from authors • Commenters must have a paper in Pubmed to comment, but they’re publicly viewable • Comments can be cited by PMID http://pubmedcommonsblog.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2013/12/13/expanding-and-updating-the-record-authors-using-pubmed- commons/
  20. • 50% of comments – add study data – link

    to full free text – give updates related specifically to that publication – link to newer publications • 10% used it to add errata or notify readers that the conclusions no longer hold • only 2 used it to talk about how great their own paper is How authors use Pubmed Commons
  21. How authors use Pubmed Commons

  22. Issues To Be Addressed • Identity • Privacy • Attribution

    • Gaming • Filtration
  23. Identity • Mendeley - http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jonathan-eisen/ • Scopus - http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=352 47902700

    • Pubmed - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/myncbi/jonathan.eisen@g mail.com/comments/ • ORCID - http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0159-2197
  24. Building a reproducibility dataset • Mendeley and Science Exchange have

    started the Reproducibility Initiative • working with Figshare & PLOS to host data & replication reports • building open datasets backing high-impact work • http://cos.io/cancerbiology
  25. www.mendeley.com william.gunn@mendeley.com @mrgunn