70
Building a Scholarly Reputation

Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Page 2: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Prepared for

Fall IAP

November 2015

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

BUILDING A REPUTATION AS AN EARLY CAREER RESEARCHER

Dr. Micah Altman<[email protected]>

Director of Research, MIT LibrariesNon-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

Page 3: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

And now, a word from our sponsor…The Libraries @MIT

The MIT libraries provide support for all researchers at MIT:

• Research consulting, including:bibliographic information management; literature searches; subject-specific consultation

• Data management, including:data management plan consulting; data archiving; metadata creation

• Personal content management, including:researcher identifiers, bibliography management

• Data acquisition and analysis, including:database licensing; statistical software training; GIS consulting, analysis & data collection

• Scholarly publishing:open access publication & licensing

libraries.mit.edu

Page 4: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

DISCLAIMERThese opinions are my own, they are not the opinions of MIT, Brookings, any of the project funders, nor (with the exception of co-authored previously published work) my collaborators

Secondary disclaimer:

“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future!”-- Attributed to Woody Allen, Yogi Berra, Niels Bohr, Vint Cerf, Winston Churchill, Confucius, Disreali [sic], Freeman Dyson, Cecil B. Demille, Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Edgar R. Fiedler, Bob Fourer, Sam Goldwyn, Allan Lamport, Groucho Marx, Dan Quayle, George Bernard Shaw,

Casey Stengel, Will Rogers, M. Taub, Mark Twain, Kerr L. White, etc.

Page 5: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Related Publications• Smith, Yoshimura, Karen, M. Altman, et al, Registering Researchers in Authority Files, OCLC

[Forthcoming]• Allen, Liz, Amy Brand, Jo Scott, Micah Altman, and Marjorie Hlava. "Credit where credit is due." Nature

508 (2014): 312-313.• CODATA Data Citation Task Group (Altman M, Arnaud E, Borgman C, Callaghan S, Brase J, Carpenter T,

Chavan V, Cohen D, Hahnel M, Helly J.) Out of Cite, Out of Mind: The Current State of Practice, Policy and Technology for Data Citation. Data Science Journal . 2013;12:1–75

• Altman, Micah, and Mercè Crosas. "The Evolution of Data Citation: From Principles to Implementation." IASSIST Quarterly (2013): 63.

• IWCSA Report (2012). Report on the International Workshop on Contributorship and Scholarly Attribution, May 16, 2012. Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust.

• http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/attribution_workshop• Altman, Micah, and Gary King. "A proposed standard for the scholarly citation of quantitative data." D-

lib 13, no. 3 (2007): 5.• Altman Micah, Simon Jackman. Nineteen Ways of Looking at Statistical Software. Journal Of Statistical

Software . 2011;42:1–12.• Altman, Micah. "Funding, Funding." PS: Political Science & Politics 42, no. 03 (2009): 521-526.

Reprints available from:informatics.mit.edu

Page 6: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Perspectives

* Foundations *

--- Interlude ---

* Third Person ** Second Person *

* First Person ** Self-Experimentation *

Page 7: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Preview: Four Core Actions

• Establish your professional identity• Make your profile discoverable• Share your work• Monitor your reputation

Page 8: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

First Principles*for a successful career

as a researcher*

*Aka, building blocks .

Page 9: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

The Basics

Choice Chance

Heredity Environment

Page 10: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Particular things that help in general…

Positive affectivity skills/strengths Metacognition skills/strengths Executive function skills/strengths Character strengths Talents Social cognition skills/strengths Collaboration skills Negotiation skills People management skills Written communication Verbal communication Project management Marketing

Social & professional network support Personal resources Strategic planning Effortful practice Exercise Diet Sleep Personal relationships Stress management Internal motivation Iteration Feedback Self-monitoring

Page 11: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

A Sample of Specialize Academic SkillsInfluenced by General Strengths

• Giving a job talk• Giving an invited talk• Surviving in a job interview• Critiquing / reviewing scholarly

work• Contributing to university

committees• Teaching• Managing a research project• Preparing a grant proposal• Preparing a scientific article• Preparing a book proposal• Data management

• Responding to reviews• Mentoring postdocs• Scholarly communication skills and

approaches• Running a workshop• Starting a company• Leading a scientific community• Editing a journal• Chairing a panel• Co-authoring on a paper• Collaborating in a research group…

Page 12: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Many Skills are Not Taught• Success in research and the academy draws on a variety of

skills, traits and resources. • Some skills are explicitly taught and developed in academic

training, e.g.: domain skills, research methodology• Some skills, typically those that are particularly ‘academic’

but not part of a specific discipline, may be transmitted, implicitly through modeling, and mentorships

• Some academic skills neither taught nor modeled, and many valuable skills may be viewed as external to the research enterprise

Page 13: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Zooming In…

(Almost all) of the rest of the talk will focus on scholarly

communication & impact…

Page 14: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Interlude -- A First Step --

Page 15: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Why ORCID? Connects your work Eliminates name ambiguity Stays with you through your career Improves discoverability

What is ORCID? Unique, persistent identifier

for researchers & scholars Non-profit organization support Links authors, funders, publishing

Create an ORCID through MIT http://orcid.mit.edu/

@How is MIT used @ MIT? Automatically provided

– for faculty, staff, postdocs & grads Linked to your MIT ID Integrates with MIT Systems:

MIT Electronic Professional Record

DSPACE@MIT Reduced Paperwork Supports Open Access and

Accreditation

Page 16: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Grants

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2753-3881

Repositories

Researcher Information

Systems

Manuscript submission

Other identifiersSociety

membership

Use your ORCID iD! Manuscript submission Grant applications Professional society

membership Link with other

identifiers & profiles Display on your CV, web

page, and more

Questions?http://libguides.mit.edu/authorids

@

Page 17: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Try It!

1. Go to orcid.mit.edu– What’s your ORCID?

2. Login to orcid.org– What information are

you making public?

Page 18: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Third Person Perspective*:

Observations from Scientometrics

*Possibly objective, certainly not omniscient.

Page 19: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

What are bibliometrics?(simple definition)

Bibliometrics are measures of scholarly outputs.

Page 20: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Scholarly output effects reputation, ranking, and funding of the discipline, institution, and individual scholar

We initially use bibliometric analysis to look at the top institutions, by publications and citation count for the past ten years…

Universities are ranked by several indicators of academic or research performance, including… highly cited researchers…

Citations… are the best understood and most widely accepted measure of research strength.

Page 21: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Then

Clarke, Beverly L. "Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers." Science 143.3608 (1964): 822-824.

Page 22: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Now

Page 23: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Now is More

Page 24: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

What are bibliometrics?(Extended Definition)

• Analysis of characteristics of/relationships amongresearch/scholarly outputs/publications

– Analysis includes: lists, descriptive statistics, visualization, inference

– Outputs include:grants, articles, books, databases, software, patents

Page 25: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Which questions are bibliometrics being used to answer?

Some examples:

• What are the most influential journals in a particular field?

• How influential is this scholar?• Where is interdisciplinary research occurring?• Which groups of people effectively collaborate?• Which institutions are using funding most

productively?

Page 26: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

‘Impact’ Factors: Overview

What are impact factors?• Descriptive statistics • Usually based on citations• Commonly treated as a

proxy for the level of influence of an article, person, or journal

Common measures• ISI Journal Impact Factor:

The frequency with which the “average article” has been cited in a particular year. It is based on the most recent two years of citations. It is only supplied for journals indexed by ISI in the Web of Science.

• Article Citation Count:

Total number of citations received from other articles to target article.

• H-Index:

The maximum number of articles h such that each has received at least h citations

Building a Scholarly Reputation

libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/publishing/impact-factors/

Page 27: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Author Impact: Example – Google Scholar

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Page 28: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Author Impact: Example – Web of Science

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Page 29: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Author Impact: Example – Web of Science

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Page 30: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Same Question, Different Answer-- How H-Index Measures Differ

Google Scholar Web of Science

Documentation - Documented measures, undocumented database

- Documented measures, database

Journals - Many journals- Volumes/issues in last 20

years, primarily- English language,

primarily

- Many journals- Reasonably complete

historical coverage- English language,

primarilyPreprints - Many - None

Conference Proceedings - Many - Few

Books - Selected new publishers- Best (if not great)

historical coverage

- None

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Page 31: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Journal Impact: Example – Scopus

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Page 32: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Journal Impact: Database ComparisonGoogle Scholar Scopus Web of Science

Journals Covered Top 100 ranked in each language

Mostly english-language Many (selected) Journals

Metrics H5 Median Many Impact factor, Many others

Visualization No Yes Yes

Longitudinal analysis

No Yes Yes

Discipline Rankings No No Yes

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Page 33: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Sharing, Creativity, Collaboration, Clarity Likely Improve Impact

• Science Patterns– Collaboration/team science increases impact– Publishing regularly is associated with much higher impact– Creativity matters– Balance between risky innovation and incremental advances

• Communication details– Open access associated with substantially higher citations– Self citation in moderation is associated with reinforced impact– Sharing data is associated with higher citation rates– Use clear, titles, and meaningful keywords and abstracts– Citation reflects only one kind of use

you can measure other uses

Page 34: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Not-so-positive findings

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Daniel Schectman’s Lab Notebook

Providing Initial

Evidence of Quasi Crystals

• Null results are less likely to be submitted and published submit all your results

• Publication bias leads to overestimates of effects/significance in many fields

• Many data sharing and replication policies are not followed share even when you are not forced to

• Good science may not pass peer review be persistent

• Much research is not replicable make yours replicable

• Many publications are not cited; Multidisciplinary work less cited; Edited volumes are not well cited think carefully about publication venue, significance of research

• Retraction rates in scientific journals have substantially increased; Author order is overemphasized in evaluation discuss authorship early, use other ways of describing contributions and distributing credit

• Delays in peer-review, and publishing are frequent, and important track your submissions, and politely, but actively manage delays

• Not enough time spent on research develop a research habit, and build research in your schedule

Page 35: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Emerging Scholarly Reputation Tools and Practices

• Alt-metrics• Data citation• Attribution Standards• Open Science

Page 36: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Altmetrics

Types• Captures/bookmarks• Downloads• Mentions• Likes• Views• ReadersSources• Social media• Reference management

(e.g. citeulike, mendeley )• Indexes/searches

(e.g. Scopus)

Sources• PLOS article metrics

article-level-metrics.plos.org

• Plum Analyticsplumanalytics.com

• ImpactStoryimpactstory.org

Page 37: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Project CREDIT

• Develop taxonomy of contributorship roles

• Instrument into author attribution statements and manuscript submission system

credit.casrai.org

Page 38: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Data Citation and Publication

• Sound, reproducible scholarship rests upon a foundation of robust, accessible data.

• In scholarly literature, whenever and wherever a claim relies upon data, the corresponding data should be cited

• New information infrastructure is needed to make it easy for researchers, editors, and publishers to implement good reproducibility practice

• Citation and evaluation can provide incentives for good practice

• force11.org/node/4769• projects.iq.harvard.edu/ojs-dvn/• www.codata.org/task-groups

Page 39: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Open Science Reputation PracticesBecoming recognized as best practice• Replication data & code policies• Clinical trial preregistration

Emerging• Null result sharing• Retraction monitoring and assessment

Experimental• Open lab notebooks• Open science badges• Registered replications

Page 40: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Caveats: Limitations of Measures

1. Levels and change in measures vary across fields, disciplines – cross disciplinary comparison is difficult, normalization necessary.

2. Most measures are vulnerable to manipulation by groups of actors3. Measures are typically presented as is they were population descriptive

statistics -- without any estimate of uncertainty 4. Although self-stability of measures is relatively high [for H-index, see

Hirsch 2007], prediction validity of measures such as journal impact measure and h-index [Perez 2012; Penner et al 2013] is lower

5. Cross-predictive validity is much lower for h-index [Bollen et al 2009; Schreiber 2013], other measures

6. Most measures are descriptive estimates – they are not forecasting or causal inferences

7. Few studies of the external validity of measures 8. Rankings induced by indices may change in counterintuitive ways over

time when relative performance remains stable [Ludo & Eck 2012]9. Few studies on error and bias in estimators

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Page 41: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Caveats: Limitations of data

1. Citation differs systematically from sharing, reading, or ‘use’2. Relationships signaled by citation are heterogenous: citations may

indicate evidentiary support, definitions, disagreement, kudos,…3. Cited objects are heterogenous – e.g. journals include letters, comments,

reviews and original research4. Databases may have limited or inconsistent coverage of publishers,

fields, years, or types of publications (e.g. conference proceedings), types of objects (databases, software, books, articles), language, journal size

5. Some types of objects such as software and data, are often used without being cited

6. Much of the scientific research based on study of single field or scientific community

[See for a review CODATA 2013, Cameron 2005]

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Page 42: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Second Person* Perspectives

* Second person, but first rate -- we’ve read dozens of academic advice books, so you don’t have to.

Page 43: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

From 10 Simple Rules …Graduate Students• Share your scientific success with the world

Postdoctoral Positions• Negotiate first authorship before you start.

Getting Published• If you do not write well in the English

language, take lessons early• Become a reviewer early in your career.• Decide early on where to try to publish

your paper.• Quality (of journals) is everything.

Building Reputation• Think Before You Act• Do not ignore criticism• Do not ignore people• Diligently check everything you publish• Always declare conflicts of interest• Do your share for the community• Do not commit to tasks you cannot

complete• Do not write poor reviews• Do not write references for people who do

not deserve it• Never plagiarize, or doctor your data

Bourne, Philip E. "Ten simple rules for getting published." PLoS computational biology 1, no. 5 (2005): e57.; Gu, Jenny, and Philip E. Bourne. "Ten simple rules for graduate students." PLoS computational biology 3.11 (2007): e229.; Bourne, Philip E., and Virginia Barbour. "Ten simple rules for building and maintaining a scientific reputation." PLoS computational biology 7, no. 6 (2011): e1002108. Bourne, Philip E., and Iddo Friedberg. "Ten simple rules for selecting a postdoctoral position." PLoS

computational biology 2, no. 11 (2006): e121.

Page 44: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

From A Ph.D. is Not Enough!Establish a research program:

• “no technical skill is worth knowing how to select exciting research projects”

• Find a theme to your work that is compelling to you and interesting to others

• Timing is everything; consider what you will have finished, when, and its future value

• Finish some things• Make yourself useful

Peter J. Feibelman, A Ph.D. is Not Enough. Basic Books. 1993,

Page 45: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

From The Chicago Guide to Your Academic Career

• Divide your research into publishable segments• Aim for top journals in your field but be realistic

in matching the quality and impact of your work with journal standards

• Ensure that the title and abstract of your article provide an informative summary of the content of the manuscript

• Provide comprehensive and fair coverage of the relevant literature

• Pay attention to the ethics of authorship

Goldsmith, John A., John Komlos, and Penny Schine Gold. The Chicago guide to your academic career: A portable mentor for scholars from graduate school through tenure. University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Page 46: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

From Survive and Thrive• Overarching questions for building

reputation:• In what ways can you be strategic

about making yourself visible?• Have you identified strategies that you

are comfortable pursuing?• Can you work with your mentors to

identify ways to improve visibility in positive ways?

Crone, Wendy C. "Survive and thrive: A guide for untenured faculty." Synthesis Lectures on Engineering 5, no. 1 (2010): 1-125.

Page 47: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

From Marketing for Scientists• Everything you get from other people comes

because it satisfies their needs or desires• Marketing is the craft of seeing things from other

perspectives, understanding others’ wants and needs, finding ways to meet them

• Manage your marketing funnel – converting people who never heard of you -> know your work -> collaborators -> advocates

• Develop your brand & signature research idea• If you can’t be first in a category, set up a new

category you can be first in

Kuchner, Marc J. Marketing for scientists: how to shine in tough times. Island Press, 2011.

Page 48: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

From How to Succeed as a Scientist• When to publish?

– As soon as possible after main body of work is completed.

• Where to publish?– Target your preferred readers.– Consider impact factors.

• What to publish?– Be selective– Consider order of authorship

Langdale, Jane A. How to Succeed as a Scientist. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Page 49: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

First Person Perspective*

* First Person Voice: Stream of consciousness, possibly unreliable narrator

Page 50: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

First Person: Quasi-Academic Bona-Fides

• H-Index: 19 (by google-scholar)• Publications: 65+ (not all peer-reviewed)• Software packages: 6+ (0 patents)• Citations 1214 (generously inclusive)• Grant funding to date: > $10M (not all as PI)• Awards, honors: a few(for policy impact, not NAS, etc.)• Awards committees: some• Other committees: too many• Invited talks: dozens• Editorial boards: a few(not chief editor)• Grant review panels: lots (mostly NIH)• Wikipedia page edits: 58• External reviewer - # of journals: lots• Grad students advised: 5• Post-docs advised: 11 (quasi-officially)• Courses developed: 12+ (most short-courses)• Klout Score: 76 (500 Twitter followers, mostly wikipedia)• Erdos #: 4

Page 51: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Core Actions for Scholarly Reputation

• Establish a scholarly identity– Obtain an ORCID– Create a short bio and longer CV– Develop a research theme, and

signature ideas• Make your scholarly identity & work

discoverable– Create a domain name, twitter

handle, LinkedIn profile, Google Scholar profile

– Put your profile on-line• Share your work

– Share news and insights through social media

– Share articles through pre-prints, open-access

– Share data & software• Monitor your impact

– Monitor news, citation, social media metrics, and altmetrics that reflect the impact of your work

– Keep records– Do this systematically, regularly,

but not reactively or obsessively

Page 52: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Caution …Avoid…• … publishing in vanity presses

Consider: preprints review, post-publication review• … public professional criticism of individuals

Consider: criticize idea, expression, work• … making unqualified claims than cannot be readily substantiated by published

research findingsConsider: summarizing published work; and/or labeling speculative opinions as such

• … relying on obscurity of forum to limit audience– Consider: sharing under explicit license, access control, or norms (e.g. Chatham house)– Consider: recasting statements for a potentially larger audience– Consider: separate social media accounts rather than mixing professional and personal in

a single persona• … pitfalls of internet services

– Opt-in privacy and communication policies– Spamming and being spammed– Deletion doesn’t delete

Page 53: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Avoid

• Violating laws –privacy, security, intellectual property …

• Research misconduct• Lies and intentionally misleading statements• Racist / sexist / discriminatory remarks• Publishing in predatory publishers, and fake

conferences

Page 54: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Identifying Predatory Journals and Conferences• Known Predatory Publishers

– http://scholarlyoa.com/

• Safety Signs:– Journal:

• Entry in DOAJ• Well-known editorial board members• Listing in SCOPUS or ISI• Association with a valid publisher or scholarly association• Fees are made explicit

– Publisher• Membership in COPE• Membership in IASTM• Full contact information, including address, and phone

– Any• Meaningful peer review – multiple authors, adequate time for review (>3 weeks), substantive comments

• Danger signs– False impact metrics (validate via ISI, SCOPUS)– Imitation impact factors – No peer review, or guaranteed publication– Publishes abstract only– Accepts SCIGen generated papers

Page 55: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Idiosyncratic* Recommendations for Scholarly Communications

• Focus on Clarity and Significance– Do research that is important to you

and that you think is important to the world

– When writing about your research, work to maximize clarity – including in abstracts, titles, and citations

• Give credit generously– Cite software you use– Cite data on which your analyses rely– Don’t be afraid to cite your own work– Discuss authorship early, and

document contributions publicly• Identify and use opportunities to

communicate:– Accept invited talks, where practical– Announce when you will be speaking,

teaching– Share your presentations, writings, and data

• Communicate broadly– Publish writings as Open Access when

possible– Publish data and software as open data and

open source– Use social media (LinkedIN, Twitter) to

announce new publications, teaching, speaking

• Develop communications skills early– Take writing lessons early– Take public speaking lessons early

* Based in part on formal research, in part on experience…

Page 56: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

More Unsorted & Unsolicited Advice

• Do research that is important to you and that you think is important to the world (repeated, for emphasis)

• Manage your research program – find a core theme, a signature idea, and regularly review comparative strengths, comparative weaknesses, timely opportunities and future threats

• Collaborate with people you respect, and like working with, start with small steps• Take a positive and sustained interest in the work and career of others, this is the foundation

of professional networking• Make a moderate, but systematic effort to understand and monitor the institutions within

which your work is embedded. • Identify your core strengths. Build a career around those.• Identify the weaknesses that are continual stumbling blocks. Make them good enough.• Pay attention to your world: exercise, sleep, diet, stress, relationships• Don’t “manage your time” – manage your life: know your values, choose your priorities,

monitor your progress• But, do create a schedule with regular time for the highest priorities: research, writing, and

reputation management (and do these at every opportunity, even if not scheduled)• Align your career with your core values

Page 57: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Ask For Help, If You Need It

Some places to go for professional advising

• Peers• Your advisor / committee• Faculty in your discipline• Library department liaisons• Postdoctoral and student association• Disciplinary association• Online communities

Don’t forget… • Personal support: student services• Conflicts: MIT Ombuds Office

How to Prepare:1. Do not be afraid to ask2. Read what’s readily available first…3. State the question clearly4. Use a clear title5. Learn the customs6. Proofread7. Be courteous

Page 58: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Self-Experimentation:10+ Simple Steps*

*Question: How do you tell an extroverted researcher?Answer: When she talks, she looks down at your shoes.

Page 59: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Four Core Actions

• Establish your professional identity• Make your profile discoverable• Share your work• Monitor your reputation

Page 60: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Self Experimentation*: 10 Simple StepsIdentify yourself (part 2)-- register for:

2. Create personal Information hubs: ORCID; LinkedIN; your own domain name forward to LinkedIN ; Slideshare3. Communication channels: twitter, weibo, LinkedIN

Describe yourself

4. Write and share a 1-paragraph bio5. Describe your research program in 2 paragraph6. Create a CV

[Post these on your LinkedIn and ORCID profiles] *Question: How do you tell an extroverted researcher?

Answer: When she talks, she looks down at your shoes.

Page 61: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Self Experimentation*: 10 Simple Steps

Share

7. Share (on Twitter & LinkedIN) news about something you did or published; an upcoming event in which you will participate; interesting news and publications in your field

8. Make writing; data; publication; software available as Open Access (through your institutional repository, ArXiv, SSRN, SlideShare, FigShare, Dataverse)

Monitor…check and record these things regularly, but not too frequently (once a month) -- and no need to react or adjust immediately

9. Set up tracking– google scholar, google alert,10. Find your klout score, H-index, *Question: How do you tell an

extroverted researcher?Answer: When she talks, she looks

down at your shoes.

Page 62: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Recommended Tools (Metrics)• Scholar Citation Measures

– scholar.google.com– Also supports Profiles, H-Index, New

Publication Alerts– Choose: Create an account

Alternatives: Scopus, Web of Science, “Publish or Perish” (www.harzing.com)

• Author IdentifiersORCID:A persistent unique identifier for you; a place for your profile– orcid.org/register

• Scholarly Profiles

ORCID, Google Scholar

• AltmetricsAltmetric bookmarklet:

(Scholarly altmetrics on recent paper for free)– www.altmetric.com/bookmarklet.php

Alternatives: plum analytics, PLOS

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Page 63: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Recommended Tools (Sharing)• Preprints

– ArXiv -- sciences– SSRN – social sciences, law, humanities– PeerJ – low cost pre-print and post-

publishing review

• Open Access Articles– DSPACE@MIT – share your published

articles

Alternatives: – PLOS – The Open Access megajournal– DOAJ – Find an open Access Journal

• Data– Harvard Dataverse – virtual archiving– DSPACE@MIT – MIT research data– RE3Data -- Data Repository Registry

http://www.re3data.org/

See: http://libraries.mit.edu/data-management/share/find-repository/

• Software– Github: Sharing for use and collaboration– Journal of Statistical Software, Software

X – Peer review software publication– Zenodo: Permanent software archiving –

integrated with github

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Page 64: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Recommended Tools (General)• Tracking mentions on the web

– www.google.com/alerts

Alternatives: talkwalker, mention

• Microblogging– Twitter.com

Alternatives: Weibo

• Blogging– Wordpress.com

Alternatives: blogger, medium

• Social Media Metrics

Klout: klout.com

Alternatives: buffly, hootsuite

• Professional Profile

LinkedIN

Alternatives: ORCID, google scholar

• Public Speaking

ToastMasters International

Building a Scholarly Reputation

For more bibliometric tools and data see: informatics.mit.edu/classes/overview-citation-analysis

Page 65: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Seek Online AdviceWhere to go:

• Stack Exchange: academia.stackexchange.com• Quora: quora.com/Academia • Reddit: reddit.com/r/academia • Chronicle of Higher Ed. chronicle.com/forums/ • Ph.D. Comics phdcomics.com/

What to do:1. Do not be afraid to ask2. Do your homework first3. State the question clearly4. Use a clear title5. Learn the customs6. Proofread7. Be courteous

More:Dall'Olio GM, Marino J, Schubert M, Keys KL, Stefan MI, et al.

(2011) Ten Simple Rules for Getting Help from Online Scientific Communities. PLoS Comput Biol 7(9): e1002202.

doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002202

Page 66: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Try It!

If you don’t have one, create an:1. Orcid ID (ORCID.org)2. Google Scholar profile

(scholar.google.com)3. Twitter Handle

(twitter.org)

Bonus:Create a LinkedIn Profile (LinkedIn.com)

Page 67: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Recommended ReadingsAcademic Career Guidance

Crone, Wendy C. Survive and thrive: A guide for untenured faculty. Morgan Claypool, 2010.• Feibelman, Peter J., A Ph.D. is Not Enough. Basic Books. 1993,• Goldsmith, John A., J. Komlos, and P.S. Gold. The Chicago guide your

academic career. University of Chicago Press, 2010.• Kuchner, Marc J. Marketing for scientists: how to shine in tough times.

Island Press, 2011.• Langdale, Jane A. How to Succeed as a Scientist. Cambridge University

Press, 2011.• PLOS, Ten Simple Rules Collection: bit.ly/PLOSTEN

Scholarly writing and proposals

Yang, Otto Guide to Effective Grant Writing: How to Write a Successful NIH Grant Application, Springer 2005.Thompson, Waddy, Complete Idiot’s Guide to Grant Writing, Alpha 2007. • Altman, Micah. "Funding, Funding." PS: Political Science

& Politics 42, no. 03 (2009): 521-526.• Luey, Beth. Handbook for academic authors (5th ed). Cambridge

University Press, 2009.• Hartley, James. Academic writing and publishing: A practical

handbook. Routledge, 2008.

Communication

• Williams, Joseph M. 2009. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace,Longman

• Campbell, K., Huxman, S.S. Rhetorical Act: Thinking, Speaking and Writing Critically Cengage, 2014.

• Stone, Douglas, B. Patton, and S. Heen. Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. Penguin, 2010.

• Ury, William. Getting past no: negotiating your way from confrontation to cooperation. 1993.

•Life, People, and Project Management

• Cialdini, Robert B. "Influence: The psychology of persuasion." (1993).• Dixit, Avinash K. Thinking strategically: The competitive edge in

business, politics, and everyday life. WW Norton & Company, 1991.• Hale-Evans, Ron. 2006. Mind Performance Hacks, O’Reilly

Publications.• Highsmith, Jim. Agile Project Management,

Addison-Wesley, 2004.• Jain, Ravi , Triandis, H. C., & Weick, C. W. (2010). Managing research,

development and innovation: Managing the unmanageable (Vol. 35). John Wiley & Sons.

• Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan, 2011.• Nalebuff, Barry, and I. Ayres, 2003. Why Not?, Harvard Business

School Press.• Peterson, Christopher. A primer in positive psychology. Oxford

University Press, 2006.••••••••••••••••••••••••

Page 68: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

References • Allen, Liz, Amy Brand, Jo Scott, Micah Altman, and Marjorie Hlava. "Credit where credit is

due." Nature 508 (2014): 312-313.• Altman Micah, Simon Jackman. Nineteen Ways of Looking at Statistical Software. Journal

Of Statistical Software . 2011;42:1–12.• Altman, Micah, and Gary King. "A proposed standard for the scholarly citation of

quantitative data." D-lib 13, no. 3 (2007): 5.• Altman, Micah, and Mercè Crosas. "The Evolution of Data Citation: From Principles to

Implementation." IASSIST Quarterly (2013): 63.• Altman, Micah. "Funding, Funding." PS: Political Science & Politics 42, no. 03 (2009): 521-

526.• Bishop, D. (2012) 'How to Bury Your Academic Writing'.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2012/08/29/how-to-bury-your-academic-writing/

• Bollen, Johan, et al. "Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data." Information Processing & Management 41.6 (2005): 1419-1440.

• Bollen, Johan, Herbert Van de Sompel, Aric Hagberg, and Ryan Chute. "A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures." PloS one 4, no. 6 (2009): e6022.

• Bornmann, Lutz. "Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics." arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.8010 (2014).

• Bornmann, Lutz. "Which kind of papers has higher or lower altmetric counts? A study using article-level metrics from PLOS and F1000Prime." arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.2863 (2014).

• Brembs, Björn, Katherine Button, and Marcus Munafò. "Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank." Frontiers in human Neuroscience 7 (2013).

• Cameron, Brian D. "Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications." portal: Libraries and the Academy 5, no. 1 (2005): 105-125.

• CODATA Data Citation Task Group (Altman M, Arnaud E, Borgman C, Callaghan S, Brase J, Carpenter T, Chavan V, Cohen D, Hahnel M, Helly J.) Out of Cite, Out of Mind: The Current State of Practice, Policy and Technology for Data Citation. Data Science Journal . 2013;12:1–75

• CODATA Data Citation Task Group (Altman M, Arnaud E, Borgman C, Callaghan S, Brase J, Carpenter T, Chavan V, Cohen D, Hahnel M, Helly J.) Out of Cite, Out of Mind: The Current State of Practice, Policy and Technology for Data Citation. Data Science Journal . 2013;12:1–75

• David J. Samuels. The modal number of citations to political science articles is greater than zero: Accounting for citations in articles and books. PS: Political Science and Politics, 44:783–792, 2011

• Einav, Liran, and Leeat Yariv. "What's in a surname? The effects of surname initials on academic success." The Journal of Economic Perspectives (2006): 175-188.

• Eysenbach, Gunther. "Citation advantage of open access articles." PLoS biology 4, no. 5 (2006): e157.

• Fanelli, Daniele. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries." Scientometrics 90, no. 3 (2012): 891-904.

• Franco, Annie, Neil Malhotra, and Gabor Simonovits. 2014. "Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer." Science.

• Gans, Joshua S. and George B. Shepherd. How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1):165–179, 1994.

• García-Pérez, Miguel A. "Limited validity of equations to predict the future h index." Scientometrics 96, no. 3 (2013): 901-909.

• Ginther, Donna K., Walter T. Schaffer, Joshua Schnell, Beth Masimore, Faye Liu, Laurel L. Haak, and Raynard Kington. "Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards." Science 333, no. 6045 (2011): 1015-1019.

• Gorraiz, Juan, Christian Gumpenberger, and Christian Schlögl. "Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas." Scientometrics: 1-19. 2014.

• Greenberg D, Rosen AB, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Nadai J, Neumann PJ. Delays in publication of cost utility analyses conducted alongside clinical trials: registry analysis. BMJ 2004;328: 1536-7.

Page 69: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

References (Continued)• Hamilton, David P. Research papers: Who’s uncited now?”. Science, 251(25), 1991.• Hirsch, Jorge E. "Does the h index have predictive power?." Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences 104, no. 49 (2007): 19193-19198.• Hopewell, Sally, et al. "Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or

direction of trial results." Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1.1 (2009).• Hopewell, Sally, Kirsty Loudon, Mike J. Clarke, Andrew D. Oxman, and Kay Dickersin.

"Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results." Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1, no. 1 (2009).

• Hurtado, Sylvia, Kevin Eagan, John H. Pryor, Hannah Whang, and Serge Tran. "Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2010-2011 HERI faculty survey." Higher Education Research Institute: University of California, Los Angeles (2012).

• Ioannidis JPA. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998;279: 281-6.

• Ioannidis, John PA, Kevin W. Boyack, and Richard Klavans. "Estimates of the Continuously Publishing Core in the Scientific Workforce." PloS one 9, no. 7 (2014): e101698.

• Ioannidis, John PA, Kevin W. Boyack, and Richard Klavans. "Estimates of the Continuously Publishing Core in the Scientific Workforce." PloS one 9, no. 7 (2014): e101698.

• IWCSA Report (2012). Report on the International Workshop on Contributorship and Scholarly Attribution, May 16, 2012. Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust.

• Koler-Povh, Teja, Primož Južnič, and Goran Turk. "Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering." Scientometrics 98, no. 2 (2014): 1033-1045.

• Levitt, Jonathan M., and Mike Thelwall. "Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59, no. 12 (2008): 1973-1984.

• Norris, Michael, Charles Oppenheim, and Fytton Rowland. "The citation advantage of open‐access articles." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59, no. 12 (2008): 1963-1972.

• Penner, Orion, Raj K. Pan, Alexander M. Petersen, Kimmo Kaski, and Santo Fortunato. "On the predictability of future impact in science." Scientific reports 3 (2013).

• Peters, Douglas P., and Stephen J. Ceci. "Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again."Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no. 02 (1982):

187-195.• Rostami, Fatemeh, Asghar Mohammadpoorasl, and Mohammad Hajizadeh. "The effect of

characteristics of title on citation rates of articles." Scientometrics98, no. 3 (2014): 2007-2010.

• Sagi, Itay, and Eldad Yechiam. "Amusing titles in scientific journals and article citation." Journal of Information Science 34, no. 5 (2008): 680-687.

• Schreiber, Michael. "How relevant is the predictive power of the< i> h</i>-index? A case study of the time-dependent Hirsch index." Journal of Informetrics 7, no. 2 (2013): 325-329.

• Seamans, Nancy H. "Do Open Access Electronic Theses and Dissertations Diminish Publishing Opportunities in the Social Sciences and Humanities?." College & Research Libraries (2013).

• Smith, Yoshimura, Karen, M. Altman, et al, Registering Researchers in Authority Files, OCLC [Forthcoming]

• Sutherland, William J., David Goulson, Simon G. Potts, and Lynn V. Dicks. "Quantifying the impact and relevance of scientific research." PloS one 6, no. 11 (2011): e27537.

• van Raan, Anthony FJ. "Self citation as an impact reinforcing mechanism in the science ‐ ‐system." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59, no. 10 (2008): 1631-1643.

• Waltman, Ludo, and Nees Jan Van Eck. "The inconsistency of the h index."‐ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63.2 (2012): 406-415.

• Wuchty, Stefan, Benjamin F. Jones, and Brian Uzzi. "The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge." Science 316, no. 5827 (2007): 1036-1039.

Page 70: Reputation Management for Early Career Researchers

Building a Scholarly Reputation

Questions?E-mail: [email protected]:informatics.mit.edu