Upload
micah-altman
View
823
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Building a Scholarly Reputation
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
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
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.
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
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Perspectives
* Foundations *
--- Interlude ---
* Third Person ** Second Person *
* First Person ** Self-Experimentation *
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Preview: Four Core Actions
• Establish your professional identity• Make your profile discoverable• Share your work• Monitor your reputation
Building a Scholarly Reputation
First Principles*for a successful career
as a researcher*
*Aka, building blocks .
Building a Scholarly Reputation
The Basics
Choice Chance
Heredity Environment
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
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…
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
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Zooming In…
(Almost all) of the rest of the talk will focus on scholarly
communication & impact…
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Interlude -- A First Step --
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
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
@
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?
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Third Person Perspective*:
Observations from Scientometrics
*Possibly objective, certainly not omniscient.
Building a Scholarly Reputation
What are bibliometrics?(simple definition)
Bibliometrics are measures of scholarly outputs.
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.
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Then
Clarke, Beverly L. "Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers." Science 143.3608 (1964): 822-824.
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Now
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Now is More
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
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?
‘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/
Author Impact: Example – Google Scholar
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Author Impact: Example – Web of Science
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Author Impact: Example – Web of Science
Building a Scholarly Reputation
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
Journal Impact: Example – Scopus
Building a Scholarly Reputation
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
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
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
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Emerging Scholarly Reputation Tools and Practices
• Alt-metrics• Data citation• Attribution Standards• Open Science
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
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Project CREDIT
• Develop taxonomy of contributorship roles
• Instrument into author attribution statements and manuscript submission system
credit.casrai.org
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Building a Scholarly Reputation
First Person Perspective*
* First Person Voice: Stream of consciousness, possibly unreliable narrator
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
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
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
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
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
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…
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
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
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.
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Four Core Actions
• Establish your professional identity• Make your profile discoverable• Share your work• Monitor your reputation
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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.••••••••••••••••••••••••
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.
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.
Building a Scholarly Reputation
Questions?E-mail: [email protected]:informatics.mit.edu