Christian Gumpenberger

The identification of one’s own research strengths is of crucial importance for research administration at universities. In this case study, two different approaches were applied to the University of Vienna. The first relies on funding and rankings information as well as on other esteem indicators. The second is based on a bibliometric analysis of the publication output. We used two alternative clusterings for publications for the bibliometric analysis: Web of Science subject categories and lists of researchers associated with esteem-indicators. Both, esteem-indicators and bibliometric analysis proved to be useful in identifying research strengths, lead to similar results and are meant to be used together to complement each other. We found that the greatest hindrance in the bibliometric approach lies in the inherent limitations of journals-assignment-based classification systems and the considerable time and efforts for more accurate researcher-based publication analyses. Further investigation on this subject, including new and alternative metrics, is needed and will be conducted in the future. However, the preliminary results already demonstrate the benefits of using esteem-factors together with bibliometric analyses for research strengths definition of universities.

On the Issues of a “Corresponding Author” Field-Based Monitoring Approach for Gold Open Access Publications and Derivative Cost Calculations

The main purpose of this macro-study is to shed light on the broad impact of books. For this purpose, the impact a very large collection of books (more than 200,000) has been analysed by using PlumX, an analytical tool providing a great number of different metrics provided by various tools. Furthermore, the study focuses on the evolution of the most significant measures and indicators over time. The results show usage counts in comparison to the other metrics are quantitatively predominant. Catalogue holdings and reviews represent a book’s most characteristic measures deriving from its increased level of impact in relation to prior results. Our results also corroborate the long half-life of books within the scope of all metrics, excluding views and social media. Despite of some disadvantages, PlumX has proved to be a very helpful and promising tool for assessing the broad impact of books, especially because of how easy it is to enter the ISBN directly as well as its algorithm to aggregate all the data generated by the different ISBN variations.

Due to the unstoppable and exponential growth of the scientific publication output going hand in hand with the evolution of the social web, visibility has become one of the major concerns for all the stakeholders involved in the process of scholarly communication. Bibliometrics can take advantage of this development. It should not only be reduced to an evaluative instrument for reward or punishment, but rather be used as a guiding compass for young scientists in order to improve their publication strategies and thereby to increase their visibility. This article, based on the experiences gained at the University of Vienna, provides a solid terminology by defining the term visibility. It furthermore describes applicable bibliometric methods in order to assess the concept of visibility for evaluative purposes, and finally suggests basic recommendations for scientists and organizations to be taken into consideration for their publication strategies or policies.

Individual bibliometric assessment at University of Vienna: From numbers to multidimensional profiles

A quantitative analysis of the longitudinal research output development in the humanities and social sciences at the University of Vienna examined a six-year period (2007–12). According to target agreements between the rectorate and the faculties, the language requirement was met successfully with an increase of the non-German language (particularly English language) output, especially in the social sciences. The results also show an increasing trend line regarding the percentage of peer-reviewed articles and of publications indexed in highly regarded databases like Arts & Humanities Science Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index. The number of publications with a Digital Object Identifier or in gold open-access journals is lower in the humanities than in the social sciences. Social sciences have so far been moving faster in order to increase their dissemination and visibility in the new digital and internet era. Further strategies are recommended in order to increase the international visibility of the research output in the humanities and social sciences.

This paper shows how bibliometric assessment can be implemented at individual level. This has been successfully done at the University of Vienna carried out by the Bibliometrics and Publication Strategies Department of the Vienna University Library. According to the department's philosophy, bibliometrics is not only a helpful evaluation instrument in order to complement the peer review system. It is also meant as a compass for researchers in the "publish or perish" dilemma in order to increase general visibility and to optimize publication strategies. The individual assessment comprises of an interview with the researcher under evaluation, the elaboration of a bibliometric report of the researcher's publication output, the discussion and validation of the obtained results with the researcher under evaluation as well as further optional analyses. The produced bibliometric reports are provided to the researchers themselves and inform them about the quantitative aspects of their research output. They also serve as a basis for further discussion concerning their publication strategies. These reports are eventually intended for informed peer review practices, and are therefore forwarded to the quality assurance and the rector's office and finally sent to the peers. The most important feature of the generated bibliometric report is its multidimensional and individual character. It relies on a variety of basic indicators and further control parameters in order to foster comprehensibility. Researchers, administrative staff and peers alike have confirmed the usefulness of this bibliometric approach. An increasing demand is noticeable. In total, 33 bibliometric reports have been delivered so far. Moreover, similar reports have also been produced for the bibliometric assessment of two faculties with great success.

Der vorliegende Beitrag bringt Executive Summary und Empfehlungen aus „Forschende und ihre Daten: Ergebnisse einer österreichweiten Befragung. Report 2015“. Dieser Report gibt einen Überblick über die österreichweite Befragung zu Forschungsdaten, die im Rahmen des Projekts e-Infrastructures Austria 2015 durchgeführt wurde. Diese richtete sich an das wissenschaftliche und künstlerisch-wissenschaftliche Personal aller 21 öffentlichen Universitäten sowie an drei außeruniversitäre Forschungseinrichtungen in Österreich. Die Teilnehmenden wurden zu folgenden Themenbereichen befragt: Datentypen und Formate; Datenarchivierung, -sicherung und -verlust; ethische und rechtliche Aspekte; Zugänglichkeit und Nachnutzung; Infrastruktur und Services. Die in diesem Kontext erstmals auf nationaler Ebene durchgeführte Befragung diente der Erhebung des praktischen Umgangs mit Forschungsdaten in Österreich und ist somit die Basis für eine konsekutive Optimierung der zweckdienlichen Infrastruktur, für eine Anpassung der Serviceangebote sowie für eine Neuorientierung bei der Ermittlung von Ressourcen in diesem strategischen Bereich entsprechend der geäußerten Bedürfnisse der im Forschungsprozess Tätigen.

In this study, we explore the citedness of research data, its distribution over time and its relation to the availability of a digital object identifier (DOI) in the Thomson Reuters database Data Citation Index (DCI). We investigate if cited research data “impacts” the (social) web, reflected by altmetrics scores, and if there is any relationship between the number of citations and the sum of altmetrics scores from various social media platforms. Three tools are used to collect altmetrics scores, namely PlumX, ImpactStory, and Altmetric.com, and the corresponding results are compared. We found that out of the three altmetrics tools, PlumX has the best coverage. Our experiments revealed that research data remain mostly uncited (about 85 %), although there has been an increase in citing data sets published since 2008. The percentage of the number of cited research data with a DOI in DCI has decreased in the last years. Only nine repositories are responsible for research data with DOIs and two or more citations. The number of cited research data with altmetrics “foot-prints” is even lower (4–9 %) but shows a higher coverage of research data from the last decade. In our study, we also found no correlation between the number of citations and the total number of altmetrics scores. Yet, certain data types (i.e. survey, aggregate data, and sequence data) are more often cited and also receive higher altmetrics scores. Additionally, we performed citation and altmetric analyses of all research data published between 2011 and 2013 in four different disciplines covered by the DCI. In general, these results correspond very well with the ones obtained for research data cited at least twice and also show low numbers in citations and in altmetrics. Finally, we observed that there are disciplinary differences in the availability and extent of altmetrics scores.