“Jisc has announced that it will be using Unsub, an analytics dashboard, to help evaluate journal agreements that UK universities hold with publishers.
The dashboard, created in 2019 by the not-for-profit software company Our Research, can produce forecasts of different journal subscription scenarios, giving Jisc insight into the costs and benefits of subscription packages for each university and across the consortium. …”
Abstract: Traditionally, Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most widely used databases for bibliometric analyses. However, during the last few years some new scholarly databases, such as Dimensions, have come up. Several previous studies have compared different databases, either through a direct comparison of article coverage or by comparing the citations across the databases. This article aims to present a comparative analysis of the journal coverage of the three databases (Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions), with the objective to describe, understand and visualize the differences in them. The most recent master journal lists of the three databases is used for analysis. The results indicate that the databases have significantly different journal coverage, with the Web of Science being most selective and Dimensions being the most exhaustive. About 99.11% and 96.61% of the journals indexed in Web of Science are also indexed in Scopus and Dimensions, respectively. Scopus has 96.42% of its indexed journals also covered by Dimensions. Dimensions database has the most exhaustive journal coverage, with 82.22% more journals than Web of Science and 48.17% more journals than Scopus. This article also analysed the research outputs for 20 selected countries for the 2010–2018 period, as indexed in the three databases, and identified database-induced variations in research output volume, rank, global share and subject area composition for different countries. It is found that there are clearly visible variations in the research output from different countries in the three databases, along with differential coverage of different subject areas by the three databases. The analytical study provides an informative and practically useful picture of the journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases.
“Furthermore, it appears that the turn toward open access in the scholarly communications landscape is increasingly facilitating the agendas of an oligopoly of for-profit data analytics companies. Perhaps realizing that “they’ve found something that is even more profitable than selling back to us academics the content that we have produced,”5 they venture ever further up the research stream, with every intent to colonize and canalize its entire flow.6 This poses a severe threat to the independence and quality of scholarly inquiry.7
In the light of these troubling developments, the expansion from Dotawo as a “diamond” open access to a common access journal represents a strong reaffirmation of the call that the late Aaron Swartz succinctly formulated in his “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto”: …
Swartz’s is a call to action that transcends the limitations of the open access movement as construed by the BOAI Declaration by plainly affirming that knowledge is a common good. His call goes beyond open access, because it specifically targets materials that linger on a paper or silicon substrate in academic libraries and digital repositories without being accessible to “fair use.” The deposition of the references from Dotawo contributions in a public library is a first and limited attempt to offer a remedy, heeding the “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use” of the www?Association of Research Libraries, which approvingly cites the late Supreme Court Justice Brandeis that “the noblest of human productions — knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas — become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use.”9 This approach also dovetails the interpretation of “folk law” recently propounded by Kenneth Goldsmith, the founder of public library www?Ubuweb….”
Abstract: Open Science is an umbrella term that encompasses many recommendations for possible changes in research practices, management, and publishing with the objective to increase transparency and accessibility. This has become an important science policy issue that all disciplines should consider. Many Open Science recommendations may be valuable for the further development of research and publishing but not all are relevant to all fields. This opinion paper considers the aspects of Open Science that are most relevant for scientometricians, discussing how they can be usefully applied.
“KNIME Analytics Platform is an open source software for working with all kinds of data. It uses visual workflows that are created with an intuitive, drag and drop style graphical interface, without the need for coding. The webinar will give an introduction to KNIME and focus on data blending and shaping. All data files and KNIME workflows used in the webinar will be made available after the webinar, so participants can reproduce the demonstrated steps on their own computers. 1) Attendees will be introduced to the KNIME Analytics Platform 2) Data cleaning techniques such as data blending and shaping will be demonstrated. 3) Attendees will learn about machine learning models and their role in optimizing workflow performance and application to validation metrics. Through the generosity of DCMI, this webinar is being offered complimentary to all registrants who attend the live presentation….”
From Google’s English: “What sounds like a success story has a dark backside, which was already visible last year when American librarians discovered that the leading scientific publishers, especially in the scientific, technical and medical fields, had equipped their online platforms with all the monitoring technologies for which are otherwise mainly the big Internet companies like Facebook and Google in the criticism. For example, if you take a closer look at the website of the renowned magazine “Nature”, you will come across dozens of corresponding tools: individual trackers that follow the page visitor, audience tools that combine data from many sources into profiles, finger printers that also identify users who want to prevent this through your browser settings….
The big science publishers have been turning away from the publishing industry for some time and towards the data analytics business. Similar to the Internet corporations, they use the big profits in their area to buy the market empty of alternatives and to incorporate more and more areas of the research cycle in the same way as they have already done with publications. A milestone in this was the contract that Elsevier-Verlag was able to secure in the Netherlands: all scientists should be able to publish Open Access without additional costs in the publication area if the universities in return license the publisher’s research information systems….
The embarrassment of the other publishers, the uncertainties in the libraries and the lack of foresight in the universities block solutions here. The thing is clear for a society that still wants to call itself an open society. The oligopoly of science publishers must be regulated just like that of other oligopolies. The upcoming Basic Platform Law offers a possibility for regulation at the European level. And at the national level, science organizations are called upon to stop the sell-off of science. Many good suggestions have long been on the table. It’s time to act.”
This study demonstrates that aggregated data from the Repository Analytics and Metrics Portal (RAMP) have significant potential to analyze visibility and use of institutional repositories (IR) as well as potential factors affecting their use, including repository size, platform, content, device and global location. The RAMP dataset is unique and public.
The webometrics methodology was followed to aggregate and analyze use and performance data from 35 institutional repositories in seven countries that were registered with the RAMP for a five-month period in 2019. The RAMP aggregates Google Search Console (GSC) data to show IR items that surfaced in search results from all Google properties.
The analyses demonstrate large performance variances across IR as well as low overall use. The findings also show that device use affects search behavior, that different content types such as electronic thesis and dissertation (ETD) may affect use and that searches originating in the Global South show much higher use of mobile devices than in the Global North.
The RAMP relies on GSC as its sole data source, resulting in somewhat conservative overall numbers. However, the data are also expected to be as robot free as can be hoped.
This may be the first analysis of aggregate use and performance data derived from a global set of IR, using an openly published dataset. RAMP data offer significant research potential with regard to quantifying and characterizing variances in the discoverability and use of IR content.
“EBSCO Information Services (EBSCO) will partner with University of Denver, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Chalmers University of Technology to develop a next-generation analytics platform. The platform will combine and streamline data sets from library and campus systems, allowing library staff to demonstrate a library’s impact while making informed decisions on collections and services….”
“The Public Library of Science (PLOS) and LibLynx announced a partnership today to develop ground-breaking analytics that better communicate the usage and impact of Open Access (OA) content.
A critical component in the development of sustainable funding models for OA is the ability to communicate impact in ways that are meaningful to a diverse range of internal and external stakeholders, including institutional partners, funders, and authors.
While traditional paywall publishers can take advantage of industry-standard COUNTER reports to communicate usage to subscribing libraries, no similar standard exists for OA content….”
“We help publishers and stakeholders in the scholarly communications space to understand their business better and sustainably improve performance. We are experts in strategic analysis and operational analytics, specialising in Open Access publishing and workflow systems. We turn raw data into insight, fast, accurately, and with clarity….
Assess the performance of your portfolio, and capture weak areas and trends….
Forecast accurately the future performance of your portfolio….
Track performance across various dimensions for day-to-day reporting and for executive-level reporting….
Devise a long-term strategy in line with a complex and shifting landscape in scholarly communications….”