Nicolas Robinson-Garcia

Incorporating data sharing to the reward system of science: Linking DataCite records to authors in the Web of Science

Purpose n n n n nIt is widely recognized that sharing data is beneficial not only for science but also for the common good, and researchers are increasingly expected to share their data. However, many researchers are still not making their data available, one of the reasons being that this activity is not adequately recognized in the current reward system of science. Since the attribution of data sets to individual researchers is necessary if we are to include them in research evaluation processes, the purpose of this paper is to explore the feasibility of linking data set records from DataCite to the authors of articles indexed in the Web of Science. n n n n nDesign/methodology/approach n n n n nDataCite and WoS records are linked together based on the similarity between the names of the data sets’ creators and the articles’ authors, as well as the similarity between the noun phrases in the titles of the data sets and the titles and abstract of the articles. n n n n nFindings n n n n nThe authors report that a large number of DataCite records can be attributed to specific authors in WoS, and the authors demonstrate that the prevalence of data sharing varies greatly depending on the research discipline. n n n n nOriginality/value n n n n nIt is yet unclear how data sharing can provide adequate recognition for individual researchers. Bibliometric indicators are commonly used for research evaluation, but to date no large-scale assessment of individual researchers’ data sharing activities has been carried out.

Travel bans and scientific mobility: utility of asymmetry and affinity indexes to inform science policy

This study explores the international profiles in collaboration and mobility of countries included in the so-called “travel bans” implemented by US President Trump as executive order in 2017. The objective of this research is to analyze the exchange of knowledge between countries and the relative importance of specific countries in order to inform evidence-based science policy. The work serves as a proof-of-concept of the utility of asymmetry and affinity indexes for collaboration and mobility. Comparative analyses of these indicators can be useful for informing immigration policies and motivating collaboration and mobility relationships—emphasizing the importance of geographic and cultural similarities. Egocentric and relational perspectives are analyzed to provide various lenses on the importance of countries. Our analysis suggests that comparisons of collaboration and mobility from an affinity perspective can identify discrepancies between levels of collaboration and mobility. This approach can inform international immigration policies and, if extended, demonstrate potential partnerships at several levels of analysis (e.g., institutional, sectoral, state/province).

The insoluble problems of books: What does Altmetric.com have to offer?

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. We perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions platform offers for books. We use two distinct datasets of books: the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com and the Clarivates Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.coms capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, we compare our findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, we find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. Our comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools.

A global comparison of scientific mobility and collaboration according to national scientific capacities

This study compares the flows of mobile researchers and the number of publications in international collaboration within the context of scientific and economic capacities. The goal is to identify the convergence or discrepancy of countries in mobility and collaboration and determine the positions and relative influence of countries in both processes. Using affiliation data from scientific publications, we analyze the distributions and networks of collaboration and mobility and their structural differences. The results show that there is a significant relationship between the flow of mobile researchers and the capacity for publishing with foreign partners in the more prolific countries, although mobility is always lower than collaboration. Size matters and scientific relationship are highly resource-dependent. The Advanced and Proficient countries accumulate the highest proportion of the mobile authors and international publications with an extremely low representation of mobility in Developing and Lagging countries. In addition, the placement of countries is not always consistent in both networks, revealing the distinct roles, with particular instability for lower income countries. The more resources available in a country (both scientific and economic) the greater the likelihood of attracting foreign partners and mobilizing human capital. The policy relevance of these structural differences are described and a brief description of the limitations and future research are provided.