BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Rodrigo Costas

Rodrigo Costas appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Digital LibrariesSocial and Information Networkscs.CYInformation Retrieval

Catalog footprint

What is connected

24works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

24 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Evidence for studying interactions between science and policy: An exploration of scholarly and policy references in Overton-indexed policy documents

Overton, a global policy index, provides new opportunities to study the interactions between science and policy. This study aims to characterize the presence of scholarly and policy references in Overton-indexed policy documents and examine their distribution across key bibliographic dimensions, thereby assessing Overton's potential as a data source for policy metrics. We analyze a dataset of approximately 17.5 million policy documents from Overton, incorporating metadata such as publication year, policy source, country, language, subject area, and policy topic. Descriptive statistics are employed to assess the presence and distribution of reference data across these dimensions. Overton indexes a substantial volume of policy documents and identifies considerable reference data within them: 7.7% of documents contain scholarly references and 10.6% contain policy references. However, the presence of references varies significantly across publications years, source types, countries, languages, subject areas, and policy topics, indicating coverage biases that may affect interpretations of policy impact. The analysis is based on the Overton database as of June 2025. As Overton is regularly updated, the distribution patterns of indexed documents and references may evolve over time. The findings offer insights into the opportunities and constraints of using Overton for investigating evidence-based policymaking and for assessing the policy uptake of research outputs in the context of research evaluation. This is the first large-scale study to systematically examine the distribution of reference data in Overton. It contributes a foundational understanding of this emerging source for policy metrics, highlighting both its potential applications and limitations, and underlining the importance of addressing current coverage imbalances.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

An open dataset of scholars on Twitter

The role played by research scholars in the dissemination of scientific knowledge on social media has always been a central topic in social media metrics (altmetrics) research. Different approaches have been implemented to identify and characterize active scholars on social media platforms like Twitter. Some limitations of past approaches were their complexity and, most importantly, their reliance on licensed scientometric and altmetric data. The emergence of new open data sources like OpenAlex or Crossref Event Data provides opportunities to identify scholars on social media using only open data. This paper presents a novel and simple approach to match authors from OpenAlex with Twitter users identified in Crossref Event Data. The matching procedure is described and validated with ORCID data. The new approach matches nearly 500,000 matched scholars with their Twitter accounts with a level of high precision and moderate recall. The dataset of matched scholars is described and made openly available to the scientific community to empower more advanced studies of the interactions of research scholars on Twitter.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

WeChat uptake of Chinese scholarly journals: an analysis of CSSCI-indexed journals

The study of how science is discussed and how scholarly actors interact on social media has increasingly become popular in the field of scientometrics in recent years. While most prior studies focused on research outputs discussed on global platforms, such as Twitter or Facebook, the presence of scholarly journals on local platforms was seldom studied, especially in the Chinese social media context. To fill this gap, this study investigates the uptake of WeChat (a Chinese social network app) by the Chinese scholarly journals indexed by the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). The results show that 65.3% of CSSCI-indexed journals have created WeChat public accounts and posted over 193 thousand WeChat posts in total. At the journal level, bibliometric indicators (e.g., citations, downloads, and journal impact factors) and WeChat indicators (e.g., clicks, likes, replies, and recommendations) are weakly correlated with each other, reinforcing the idea of fundamentally differentiated dimensions of indicators between bibliometrics and social media metrics. Results also show that journals with WeChat public accounts slightly outperform those without WeChat public accounts in terms of citation impact, suggesting that the WeChat presence of scientific journals is mostly positively associated with their citation impact.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

The role of scientific output in public debates in times of crisis: A case study of the reopening of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic

Situations in which no scientific consensus has been reached due to either insufficient, inconclusive or contradicting findings place strain on governments and public organizations which are forced to take action under circumstances of uncertainty. In this chapter, we focus on the case of COVID-19, its effects on children and the public debate around the reopening of schools. The aim is to better understand the relationship between policy interventions in the face of an uncertain and rapidly changing knowledge landscape and the subsequent use of scientific information in public debates related to the policy interventions. Our approach is to combine scientific information from journal articles and preprints with their appearance in the popular media, including social media. First, we provide a picture of the different scientific areas and approaches, by which the effects of COVID-19 on children are being studied. Second, we identify news media and social media attention around the COVID-19 scientific output related to children and schools. We focus on policies and media responses in three countries: Spain, South Africa and the Netherlands. These countries have followed very different policy actions with regard to the reopening of schools and represent very different policy approaches to the same problem. We analyse the activity in (social) media around the debate between COVID-19, children and school closures by focusing on the use of references to scientific information in the debate. Finally, we analyse the dominant topics that emerge in the news outlets and the online debates. We draw attention to illustrative cases of miscommunication related to scientific output and conclude the chapter by discussing how information from scientific publication, the media and policy actions shape the public discussion in the context of a global health pandemic.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

An extensive analysis of the presence of altmetric data for Web of Science publications across subject fields and research topics

Sufficient data presence is one of the key preconditions for applying metrics in practice. Based on both Altmetric.com data and Mendeley data collected up to 2019, this paper presents a state-of-the-art analysis of the presence of 12 kinds of altmetric events for nearly 12.3 million Web of Science publications published between 2012 and 2018. Results show that even though an upward trend of data presence can be observed over time, except for Mendeley readers and Twitter mentions, the overall presence of most altmetric data is still low. The majority of altmetric events go to publications in the fields of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities, and Life and Earth Sciences. As to research topics, the level of attention received by research topics varies across altmetric data, and specific altmetric data show different preferences for research topics, on the basis of which a framework for identifying hot research topics is proposed and applied to detect research topics with higher levels of attention garnered on certain altmetric data source. Twitter mentions and policy document citations were selected as two examples to identify hot research topics of interest of Twitter users and policy-makers, respectively, shedding light on the potential of altmetric data in monitoring research trends of specific social attention.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

How do academic topics shift across altmetric sources? A case study of the research area of Big Data

Taking the research area of Big Data as a case study, we propose an approach for exploring how academic topics shift through the interactions among audiences across different altmetric sources. Data used is obtained from Web of Science (WoS) and Altmetric.com, with a focus on Blog, News, Policy, Wikipedia, and Twitter. Author keywords from publications and terms from online events are extracted as the main topics of the publications and the online discussion of their audiences at Altmetric. Different measures are applied to determine the (dis)similarities between the topics put forward by the publication authors and those by the online audiences. Results show that overall there are substantial differences between the two sets of topics around Big Data scientific research. The main exception is Twitter, where high-frequency hashtags in tweets have a stronger concordance with the author keywords in publications. Among the online communities, Blogs and News show a strong similarity in the terms commonly used, while Policy documents and Wikipedia articles exhibit the strongest dissimilarity in considering and interpreting Big Data related research. Specifically, the audiences not only focus on more easy-to-understand academic topics related to social or general issues, but also extend them to a broader range of topics in their online discussions. This study lays the foundations for further investigations about the role of online audiences in the transformation of academic topics across altmetric sources, and the degree of concern and reception of scholarly contents by online communities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Open Access uptake by universities worldwide

The implementation of policies promoting the adoption of an Open Science culture must be accompanied by indicators that allow monitoring the penetration of such policies and their potential effects on research publishing and sharing practices. This study presents indicators of Open Access (OA) penetration at the institutional level for universities worldwide. By combining data from Web of Science, Unpaywall and the Leiden Ranking disambiguation of institutions, we track OA coverage of universities' output for 963 institutions. This paper presents the methodological challenges, conceptual discrepancies and limitations and discusses further steps needed to move forward the discussion on fostering Open Access and Open Science practices and policies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The stability of Twitter metrics: A study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications

This paper investigates the stability of Twitter counts of scientific publications over time. For this, we conducted an analysis of the availability statuses of over 2.6 million Twitter mentions received by the 1,154 most tweeted scientific publications recorded by Altmetric.com up to October 2017. Results show that of the Twitter mentions for these highly tweeted publications, about 14.3% have become unavailable by April 2019. Deletion of tweets by users is the main reason for unavailability, followed by suspension and protection of Twitter user accounts. This study proposes two measures for describing the Twitter dissemination structures of publications: Degree of Originality (i.e., the proportion of original tweets received by a paper) and Degree of Concentration (i.e., the degree to which retweets concentrate on a single original tweet). Twitter metrics of publications with relatively low Degree of Originality and relatively high Degree of Concentration are observed to be at greater risk of becoming unstable due to the potential disappearance of their Twitter mentions. In light of these results, we emphasize the importance of paying attention to the potential risk of unstable Twitter counts, and the significance of identifying the different Twitter dissemination structures when studying the Twitter metrics of scientific publications.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Tracking the Twitter attention around the research efforts on the COVID-19 pandemic

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by a bulk of scientific research and related Twitter discussions. To unravel the public concerns about the COVID-19 crisis reflected in the science-based Twitter conversations, this study tracked the Twitter attention around the COVID-19 research efforts during the first three months of 2020. On the basis of nearly 1.4 million Twitter mentions of 6,162 COVID-19-related scientific publications, we investigated the temporal tweeting dynamic and the Twitter users involved in the online discussions around COVID-19-related research. The results show that the quantity of Twitter mentions of COVID-19-related publications was on rising. Scholarly-oriented Twitter users played an influential role in disseminating research outputs on COVID-19, with their tweets being frequently retweeted. Over time, a change in the focus of the Twitter discussions can be observed, from the initial attention to virological and clinical research to more practical topics, such as the potential treatments, the countermeasures by the governments, the healthcare measures, and the influences on the economy and society, in more recent times.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Unveiling the research landscape of Sustainable Development Goals and their inclusion in Higher Education Institutions and Research Centers: major trends in 2000-2017

Sustainable Development Goals are the blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for society. Its legacy is linked with the Millennium Development Goals, set up in 2000. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to 1) measure "core" research output from 2000-2017, with the aim to map the global research of sustainability goals, 2) describe thematic specialization based on keywords co-occurrence analysis and strongest citation burst, 3) present a methodology to classify scientific output (based on an ad-hoc glossary) and assess SDGs interconnections. Sustainability goals publications (core+expand based on direct citations) were identified in-house CWTS Web of Science by using search terms in titles, abstracts, and keywords. 25,299 bibliographic records were analyzed, from which 21,653 (85.59%) are from HEIs and research centres (RC). The purpose of this paper is to analyze the role of these organizations in sustainability research. The findings reveal the increasing participation of these organizations in this research (660 institutions in 2000-2005 to 1744 institutions involved in 2012-2017). In terms of specialization, some institutions present a higher production and specialization on the topic (e.g., London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and World Health Organization); however, others present less production but higher specialization (e.g., Stockholm Environment Institute). Regarding the topics, health (especially in developing countries), women and socio-economic aspects are the most prominent ones. Moreover, it is observed the interlinked nature of SDGs between some SDGs in research output (e.g., SDG11 and SDG3). This study provides important orientation for HEIs and RCs in terms of Research, Development and Innovation (R&D+i) to respond to major societal challenges and could be useful for the policymakers in order to promote the research agenda on this topic.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

The many faces of mobility: Using bibliometric data to measure the movement of scientists

This paper presents a methodological framework for developing scientific mobility indicators based on bibliometric data. We identify nearly 16 million individual authors from publications covered in the Web of Science for the 2008-2015 period. Based on the information provided across individuals' publication records, we propose a general classification for analyzing scientific mobility using institutional affiliation changes. We distinguish between migrants--authors who have ruptures with their country of origin--and travelers--authors who gain additional affiliations while maintaining affiliation with their country of origin. We find that 3.7 percent of researchers who have published at least one paper over the period are mobile. Travelers represent 72.7 percent of all mobile scholars, but migrants have higher scientific impact. We apply this classification at the country level, expanding the classification to incorporate the directionality of scientists' mobility (i.e., incoming and outgoing). We provide a brief analysis to highlight the utility of the proposed taxonomy to study scholarly mobility and discuss the implications for science policy.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science

Funding acknowledgements found in scientific publications have been used to study the impact of funding on research since the 1970s. However, no broad scale indexation of that paratextual element was done until 2008, when Thomson Reuters Web of Science started to add funding acknowledgement information to its bibliographic records. As this new information provides a new dimension to bibliometric data that can be systematically exploited, it is important to understand the characteristics of these data and the underlying implications for their use. This paper analyses the presence and distribution of funding acknowledgement data covered in Web of Science. Our results show that prior to 2009 funding acknowledgements coverage is extremely low and therefore not reliable. Since 2008, funding information has been collected mainly for publications indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE); more recently (2015), inclusion of funding texts for publications indexed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) has been implemented. Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) content is not indexed for funding acknowledgement data. Moreover, English-language publications are the most reliably covered. Finally, not all types of documents are equally covered for funding information indexation and only articles and reviews show consistent coverage. The characterization of the funding acknowledgement information collected by Thomson Reuters can therefore help understand the possibilities offered by the data but also their limitations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Towards a global scientific brain: Indicators of researcher mobility using co-affiliation data

This paper analyses the potential use of bibliometric data for mapping and applying network analysis to mobility flows. We show case mobility networks at three different levels of aggregation: at the country level, at the city level and at the institutional level. We reflect on the potential uses of bibliometric data to inform research policies with regard to scientific mobility.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Tracing scientific mobility of Early Career Researchers in Spain and The Netherlands through their publications

International scientific mobility is acknowledged to be a key mechanism for the diffusion of knowledge, particularly tacit or 'sticky' knowledge that cannot be transferred without geographical proximity and personal contact, for the incorporation of young researchers into elite transnational scientific networks, and for accessing additional resources or infrastructures that are essential to the research process but located in other places. The inadequacy and lack of appropriate data to assess the phenomenon of researcher mobility has been repeatedly pointed out by scholars and policy makers. This paper presents an exploratory analysis of different typologies of researchers according to their traceable mobility using scientific publications covered in the Web of Science (WoS). We compare two populations of researchers, of the same 'scientific age', based in Spain and The Netherlands. We observe differences in the degree of mobility of Spain and Netherlands based researchers. Factors associated with the different institutional conditions characterizing the two national systems need to be taken into account. First, the Spanish and Dutch university and research systems are different in many ways. Second, there may be very different institutional incentives for mobility in the two systems. More sophisticated bibliometric analyses and comparisons with different 'generations' of researchers, possibly combined with qualitative investigation, will be required to better understand the role and function of national institutional context in both research mobility and research careers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Can we track the geography of surnames based on bibliographic data?

In this paper we explore the possibility of using bibliographic databases for tracking the geographic origin of surnames. Surnames are used as a proxy to determine the ethnic, genetic or geographic origin of individuals in many fields such as Genetics or Demography; however they could also be used for bibliometric purposes such as the analysis of scientific migration flows. Here we present two relevant methodologies for determining the most probable country to which a surname could be assigned. The first methodology assigns surnames based on the most common country that can be assigned to a surname and the Kullback-Liebler divergence measure. The second method uses the Gini Index to evaluate the assignment of surnames to countries. We test both methodologies with control groups and conclude that, despite needing further analysis on its validity; these methodologies already show promising results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Do Mendeley readership counts help to filter highly cited WoS publications better than average citation impact of journals (JCS)?

In this study, the academic status of users of scientific publications in Mendeley is explored in order to analyse the usage pattern of Mendeley users in terms of subject fields, citation and readership impact. The main focus of this study is on studying the filtering capacity of Mendeley readership counts compared to journal citation scores in detecting highly cited WoS publications. Main finding suggests a faster reception of Mendeley readerships as compared to citations across 5 major field of science. The higher correlations of scientific users with citations indicate the similarity between reading and citation behaviour among these users. It is confirmed that Mendeley readership counts filter highly cited publications (PPtop 10%) better than journal citation scores in all subject fields and by most of user types. This result reinforces the potential role that Mendeley readerships could play for informing scientific and alternative impacts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

How well developed are Altmetrics? Cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of alternative metrics in scientific publications?

In this paper an analysis of the presence and possibilities of altmetrics for bibliometric and performance analysis is carried out. Using the web based tool Impact Story, we have collected metrics for 20,000 random publications from the Web of Science. We studied the presence and frequency of altmetrics in the set of publications, across fields, document types and also through the years. The main result of the study is that less than 50% of the publications have some kind of altmetrics. The source that provides most metrics is Mendeley, with metrics on readerships for around 37% of all the publications studied. Other sources only provide marginal information. Possibilities and limitations of these indicators are discussed and future research lines are outlined. We also assessed the accuracy of the data retrieved through Impact Story by focusing on the analysis of the accuracy of data from Mendeley; in a follow up study, the accuracy and validity of other data sources not included here will be assessed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Identifying potential breakthrough publications using refined citation analyses: Three related explorative approaches

The article presents three advanced citation-based methods used to detect potential breakthrough papers among very highly cited papers. We approach the detection of such papers from three different perspectives in order to provide different typologies of breakthrough papers. In all three cases we use the classification of scientific publications developed at CWTS based on direct citation relationships. This classification establishes clusters of papers at three levels of aggregation. Papers are clustered based on their similar citation orientations and it is assumed that they are focused on similar research interests. We use the clustering as the context for detecting potential breakthrough papers. We utilize the Characteristics Scores and Scales (CSS) approach to partition citation distributions and implement a specific filtering algorithm to sort out potential highly-cited followers, papers not considered breakthroughs in themselves. After invoking thresholds and filtering, three methods are explored: A very exclusive one where only the highest cited paper in a micro-cluster is considered as a potential breakthrough paper (M1); as well as two conceptually different methods, one that detects potential breakthrough papers among the two percent highest cited papers according to CSS (M2a), and finally a more restrictive version where, in addition to the CSS two percent filter, knowledge diffusion is also taken in as an extra parameter (M2b). The advance citation-based methods are explored and evaluated using specifically validated publication sets linked to different Danish funding instruments including centres of excellence.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Interpreting "altmetrics": viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories

More than 30 years after Cronin's seminal paper on "the need for a theory of citing" (Cronin, 1981), the metrics community is once again in need of a new theory, this time one for so-called "altmetrics". Altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics -- and as such a misnomer -- refers to a new group of metrics based (largely) on social media events relating to scholarly communication. As current definitions of altmetrics are shaped and limited by active platforms, technical possibilities, and business models of aggregators such as Altmetric.com, ImpactStory, PLOS, and Plum Analytics, and as such constantly changing, this work refrains from defining an umbrella term for these very heterogeneous new metrics. Instead a framework is presented that describes acts leading to (online) events on which the metrics are based. These activities occur in the context of social media, such as discussing on Twitter or saving to Mendeley, as well as downloading and citing. The framework groups various types of acts into three categories -- accessing, appraising, and applying -- and provides examples of actions that lead to visibility and traceability online. To improve the understanding of the acts, which result in online events from which metrics are collected, select citation and social theories are used to interpret the phenomena being measured. Citation theories are used because the new metrics based on these events are supposed to replace or complement citations as indicators of impact. Social theories, on the other hand, are discussed because there is an inherent social aspect to the measurements.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

When is an article actually published? An analysis of online availability, publication, and indexation dates

With the acceleration of scholarly communication in the digital era, the publication year is no longer a sufficient level of time aggregation for bibliometric and social media indicators. Papers are increasingly cited before they have been officially published in a journal issue and mentioned on Twitter within days of online availability. In order to find a suitable proxy for the day of online publication allowing for the computation of more accurate benchmarks and fine-grained citation and social media event windows, various dates are compared for a set of 58,896 papers published by Nature Publishing Group, PLOS, Springer and Wiley-Blackwell in 2012. Dates include the online date provided by the publishers, the month of the journal issue, the Web of Science indexing date, the date of the first tweet mentioning the paper as well as the Altmetric.com publication and first-seen dates. Comparing these dates, the analysis reveals that large differences exist between publishers, leading to the conclusion that more transparency and standardization is needed in the reporting of publication dates. The date on which the fixed journal article (Version of Record) is first made available on the publisher's website is proposed as a consistent definition of the online date.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective

An extensive analysis of the presence of different altmetric indicators provided by Altmetric.com across scientific fields is presented, particularly focusing on their relationship with citations. Our results confirm that the presence and density of social media altmetric counts are still very low and not very frequent among scientific publications, with 15%-24% of the publications presenting some altmetric activity and concentrating in the most recent publications, although their presence is increasing over time. Publications from the social sciences, humanities and the medical and life sciences show the highest presence of altmetrics, indicating their potential value and interest for these fields. The analysis of the relationships between altmetrics and citations confirms previous claims of positive correlations but relatively weak, thus supporting the idea that altmetrics do not reflect the same concept of impact as citations. Also, altmetric counts do not always present a better filtering of highly cited publications than journal citation scores. Altmetrics scores (particularly mentions in blogs) are able to identify highly cited publications with higher levels of precision than journal citation scores (JCS), but they have a lower level of recall. The value of altmetrics as a complementary tool of citation analysis is highlighted, although more research is suggested to disentangle the potential meaning and value of altmetric indicators for research evaluation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of 'alternative metrics' in scientific publications

In this paper an analysis of the presence and possibilities of altmetrics for bibliometric and performance analysis is carried out. Using the web based tool Impact Story, we collected metrics for 20,000 random publications from the Web of Science. We studied both the presence and distribution of altmetrics in the set of publications, across fields, document types and over publication years, as well as the extent to which altmetrics correlate with citation indicators. The main result of the study is that the altmetrics source that provides the most metrics is Mendeley, with metrics on readerships for 62.6% of all the publications studied, other sources only provide marginal information. In terms of relation with citations, a moderate spearman correlation (r=0.49) has been found between Mendeley readership counts and citation indicators. Other possibilities and limitations of these indicators are discussed and future research lines are outlined.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

"Seed+Expand": A validated methodology for creating high quality publication oeuvres of individual researchers

The study of science at the individual micro-level frequently requires the disambiguation of author names. The creation of author's publication oeuvres involves matching the list of unique author names to names used in publication databases. Despite recent progress in the development of unique author identifiers, e.g., ORCID, VIVO, or DAI, author disambiguation remains a key problem when it comes to large-scale bibliometric analysis using data from multiple databases. This study introduces and validates a new methodology called seed+expand for semi-automatic bibliographic data collection for a given set of individual authors. Specifically, we identify the oeuvre of a set of Dutch full professors during the period 1980-2011. In particular, we combine author records from the National Research Information System (NARCIS) with publication records from the Web of Science. Starting with an initial list of 8,378 names, we identify "seed publications" for each author using five different approaches. Subsequently, we "expand" the set of publication in three different approaches. The different approaches are compared and resulting oeuvres are evaluated on precision and recall using a "gold standard" dataset of authors for which verified publications in the period 2001-2010 are available.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

F1000 recommendations as a new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations

F1000 is a post-publication peer review service for biological and medical research. F1000 aims to recommend important publications in the biomedical literature, and from this perspective F1000 could be an interesting tool for research evaluation. By linking the complete database of F1000 recommendations to the Web of Science bibliographic database, we are able to make a comprehensive comparison between F1000 recommendations and citations. We find that about 2% of the publications in the biomedical literature receive at least one F1000 recommendation. Recommended publications on average receive 1.30 recommendations, and over 90% of the recommendations are given within half a year after a publication has appeared. There turns out to be a clear correlation between F1000 recommendations and citations. However, the correlation is relatively weak, at least weaker than the correlation between journal impact and citations. More research is needed to identify the main reasons for differences between recommendations and citations in assessing the impact of publications.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access