FW: Libraries, repositories and metric research evaluation (pre-print, free download) (fwd)

[Eugene Garfield]

  From: Norman Horrocks [mailto:nhorrock at dal.ca] 
 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu,  7 Feb 2008 18:26:46 EST
From: "Armbruster, Chris" <Chris.Armbruster at EUI.eu>
Reply-To: liblicense-l at lists.yale.edu
To: liblicense-l at lists.yale.edu
Subject: Libraries, repositories and metric research evaluation
(pre-print,
     free download)

ACCESS, USAGE AND CITATION METRICS: WHAT FUNCTION FOR DIGITAL
LIBRARIES AND REPOSITORIES IN RESEARCH EVALUATION?

The growth and increasing complexity of global science poses a
grand challenge to scientists: How to organise the worldwide
evaluation of research programmes and peers? For the 21st century
we need not just information on science, but also meta-level
scientific information that is delivered to the digital workbench
of every researcher. Access, usage and citation metrics will be
one major information service that researchers will need on an
everyday basis to handle the complexity of science.

Scientometrics has been built on centralised commercial databases
of high functionality but restricted scope, mainly providing
information that may be used for research assessment.

Enter digital libraries and repositories: Can they collect
reliable metadata at source, ensure universal metric coverage and
defray costs? This systematic appraisal of the future role of
digital libraries and repositories for metric research evaluation
proceeds by investigating the practical inadequacies of current
metric evaluation before defining the scope for libraries and
repositories as new players. Subsequently the notion of metrics
as research information services is developed. Finally, the
future relationship between a) libraries and repositories and b)
metrics databases, commercial or non-commercial, is addressed.

Services reviewed include: Leiden Ranking, Webometrics Ranking of
World Universities, COUNTER, MESUR, Harzing POP, CiteSeer,
Citebase, RePEc LogEc and CitEc, Scopus, Web of Science and
Google Scholar.

         http://ssrn.com/abstract=1088453


I should be particularly grateful if readers could point out any errors
or misconceptions on my part.

Chris Armbruster