Economics & Sociology

ISSN: 2071-789X eISSN: 2306-3459 DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X
Index PUBMS: f5512f57-a601-11e7-8f0e-080027f4daa0
Article information
Title: Research functionality and academic publishing: Gaming with altmetrics in the digital age
Issue: Vol. 11, No 4, 2018
Published date: 12-2018 (print) / 12-2018 (online)
Journal: Economics & Sociology
ISSN: 2071-789X, eISSN: 2306-3459
Authors: Wadim Strielkowski
University of California, Berkeley

Oksana Chigisheva
Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don
Keywords: research productivity, career development, internationalization, efficiency, academic publishing
DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11-4/20
Index PUBMS: 24635872-18e6-11e9-82eb-fa163e6feac6
Language: English
Pages: 306-316 (11)
JEL classification: A12, B00, C02
Website: https://www.economics-sociology.eu/?636,en_research-functionality-and-academic-publishing-gaming-with-altmetrics-in-the-digital-age
Licenses:
Abstract

This paper aims at introducing and testing the novel measures of research functionality and efficiency from the point of view of internationalization of academic publishing and introduction of global research career paths in the digital epoch. We analyse the recent trends in research productivity and academic publishing and scrutinize the novelties such as PlumX and Publons. Moreover, we tackle the issue of gaming with altmetrics using new digital technologies. Apart from that, we focus on the world’s two most prestigious journal indexation databases, Scopus and Web of Science, and demonstrate how academic productivity might differ across academic fields and countries using their data and analytical tools. Our results might be helpful and useful in finding connections and links between research functionality, efficiency and classifications of academic productivity yielded in published research output (such as the number of papers, books, or book chapters calibrated by the impact factor (IF) or Scopus journal ranking (SJR)). The outcomes of our research would be of a special importance for bibliometricians, librarians, research policy specialists, and other global research, education, and academic stakeholders.

Bibliography

1. Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D., Tatagari, S., Esteves, S. C., Harlev, A., Henkel, R., ... & Majzoub, A. (2016). Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian journal of andrology, 18(2), 296-309. https://dx.doi.org

2. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2006). Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.10.003

3. Banks, D. (2018). Thoughts on publishing the research article over the centuries. Publications, 6(1), 10. doi: 10.3390/publications6010010

4. Borjas, G. J., & Doran, K. B. (2012). The collapse of the Soviet Union and the productivity of American mathematicians. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1143-1203. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs015

5. Brogaard, J., Engelberg, J., & Parsons, C. A. (2014). Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), 251-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.10.006

6. Brotherton, C. A., Naz, S., Zaidi, S. S. E. A., Dennis, A. F., Hämäläinen, A., Strielkowski, W., ... & Li, Y. (2018). NextGen VOICES: A postdoc's purpose. Science, 360(6384), 26-27. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6008

7. Ceci, S. J., & Peters, D. P. (1982). Peer review: A study of reliability. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 14(6), 44-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1982.10569910

8. Champieux, R. (2015). PlumX. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103(1), 63-64. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.1.019

9. Chigisheva, O., Soltovets, E., & Bondarenko, A. (2017). Functional foreign language literacy for global research career development: Analysis of standardized open-ended interview responses. XLinguae, 10(4), 138-153.

10. Dorsch, I., Askeridis, J. M., & Stock, W. G. (2017). Truebounded, Overbounded, or Underbounded? Scientists’ Personal Publication Lists versus Lists Generated through Bibliographic Information Services. Publications, 6(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/public

11. Flatt, J. W., Blasimme, A., & Vayena, E. (2017). Improving the measurement of scientific success by reporting a self-citation index. Publications, 5(3), 20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5030020

12. Grancay, M., Vveinhardt, J. & Sumilo, E. (2017). Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1813-1837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s111

13. Guskov, A.E., Kosyakov, D.V., & Selivanova, I.V. (2018). Boosting research productivity in top Russian universities: the circumstances of breakthrough. Scientometrics, 117(2), 1053-1028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2890-8

14. Han A. (2018). Judge order unmasking of anonymous peer reviewers. Science, 359(6375), 504-505. https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.359.6375.504

15. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D.; Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V. (2016). Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,

16. Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2018). Publishing and promotion in economics: the tyranny of the top five (No. w25093). National Bureau of Economic Research.

17. Himmelstein, D. S., Romero, A. R., Levernier, J. G., Munro, T. A., McLaughlin, S. R., Tzovaras, B. G., & Greene, C. S. (2018). Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature. eLife, 7, e32822. https://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32822

18. Jankurová, A., Ljudvigová, I., & Gubová, K. (2017). Research of the Nature of Leadership Activities 1. Economics & Sociology, 10(1), 135-151. DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X.2017/10-1/10

19. Kun, Á. (2018). Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science?. Publications, 6(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6020018

20. Lindsay, J. M. (2016). PlumX from plum analytics: not just altmetrics. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 13(1), 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2016.1142836

21. Lozano, G. A., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2140-2145. https://doi.org/1

22. Maras, M. H. (2014). Inside Darknet: the takedown of Silk Road: Marie-Helen Maras reports on the unexplored underworld of cyberspace. Criminal Justice Matters, 98(1), 22-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09627251.2014.984541

23. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/

24. Ortega, J. L. (2018). The life cycle of altmetric impact: A longitudinal study of six metrics from PlumX. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 579-589. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.001

25. Oswald, A. J. (2007). An examination of the reliability of prestigious scholarly journals: evidence and implications for decision‐makers. Economica, 74(293), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2006.00575.x

26. PlumX. (2017). How PlumX Metrics on Scopus help tell the story of your research. PlumX and Scopus webinar. Available online: https://www.brighttalk.com/service/player/en-US/theme/default/channel/13703/webcast/271407/play

27. Polyak, B. T. (2002). History of Mathematical Programming in the USSR: Analyzing the Phenomenon. Mathematical Programming, 91 (3), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101070100258

28. Publons. (2018). Available online: https://publons.com/home. Accessed 27 November 2018

29. Scopus (2018). Scopus journal indexation database. Available online: www.scopus.com.

30. Starbuck, E., & Purtee, S. (2017). Altmetric scores: short-term popularity or long-term scientific importance. Digital Library Perspectives, 33(4), 314-323. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-01-2017-0005

31. Strielkowski, W. (2017). Will the rise of Sci-Hub pave the road for the subscription-based access to publishing databases?. Information Development, 33(5), 540-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666917728674

32. Strielkowski, W., & Chigisheva, O. (2018). Social, Economic, and Academic Leadership for Sustainable Development of Business and Education in the Future: An Introduction. In Leadership for the Future Sustainable Development of Business and Education(pp. 3

33. Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037-2062. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.238

34. Tian, M., Su, Y., & Ru, X. (2016). Perish or publish in China: Pressures on young Chinese scholars to publish in internationally indexed journals. Publications, 4(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4020009

35. Valickas, A., Raišienė, A. G., & Arimavičiūtė, M. (2017). Leadership competences for the excellence of municipalities’ strategic management. Journal of International Studies, 10(4), 131-142. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-4/10

36. Van Noorden, R. (2013). Brazilian citation scheme outed. Nature, 500(7464), 510-511. https://doi.org/10.1038/500510a

37. Web of Science (2018). Web of Science journal indexation database. Retrieved from www.webofknowledge.com

38. Wong, E.Y., & Vital, S.M. (2017). PlumX: a tool to showcase academic profile and distinction. Digital Library Perspectives, 33(4), 305-313. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-12-2016-0047