Marta Lorenz

Many research and higher education institutions are interested in their contribution to achieving the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Commercial services from Elsevier and Times Higher Education are addressing this by developing bibliometric queries for measuring SDG-related publications and SDG university rankings. However, such services should be evaluated carefully before use due to the challenging nature of interpreting the SDGs, delimiting relevance, and building queries. The aim of this bibliometric study was to build independent queries to find scholarly publications related to SDG 1, SDG 2, SDG 3, SDG 7, SDG 13, and SDG 14 using a consistent method based on SDG targets and indicators (the Bergen approach), and compare sets of publications retrieved by the Bergen and Elsevier approaches. Our results show that approach made a large difference, with little overlap in publications retrieved by the two approaches. We further demonstrate that different approaches can alter resulting country rankings. Choice of search terms, how they are combined, and query structure play a role, related to differing interpretations of the SDGs and viewpoints on relevance. Our results suggest that currently available SDG rankings and tools should be used with caution at their current stage of development.

In this study we evaluate the social media uptake of Norwegian articles for the years 2011-2015. We analyse the difference regarding open availability, subject, gender and age. Our dataset consist of over 70000 publications taken from CERES the National Center for Systems and Services in Norway. The dataset from CERES provides a unique possibility to learn more about the differences in gender and age when it comes to social media uptake. It contains information about subject category, gender and age of contributing authors. Open availability is tested with Google Scholar and the information about social media uptake is taken from altmetric.com. We analyses the popular services Facebook and Twitter as well as blog posts and news outlets. We find that open availability increases social media uptake. Articles within Medicine and Health sciences receive by far the highest coverage in social media followed by Natural sciences and Technology. Publications authored by women seem to receive more social media coverage but with a lower intensity. Well-established scholars receive most media attention, the differences with regard to gender and age are however very small. Even though our study is limited to publications in Norway our study covers a wide range of fields, and we believe it is representative for other countries. Our results can be used to inform the research community on how to disseminate research findings, get visible and maximize research impact.

In this study we evaluate the social media uptake of Norwegian articles for the years 2011-2015. We analyse the difference regarding open availability, subject, gender and age. Our dataset consist of over 70000 publications taken from CERES the National Center for Systems and Services in Norway. The dataset from CERES provides a unique possibility to learn more about the differences in gender and age when it comes to social media uptake. It contains information about subject category, gender and age of contributing authors. Open availability is tested with Google Scholar and the information about social media uptake is taken from altmetric.com. We analyses the popular services Facebook and Twitter as well as blog posts and news outlets. We find that open availability increases social media uptake. Articles within Medicine and Health sciences receive by far the highest coverage in social media followed by Natural sciences and Technology. Publications authored by women seem to receive more social media coverage but with a lower intensity. Well-established scholars receive most media attention, the differences with regard to gender and age are however very small. Even though our study is limited to publications in Norway our study covers a wide range of fields, and we believe it is representative for other countries. Our results can be used to inform the research community on how to disseminate research findings, get visible and maximize research impact.