[Sigmetrics] New paper

[Bornmann, Lutz]

It would be definitely interesting to study empirically the quality of available publications lists. However, it is best practice in bibliometrics that publication lists of single researchers which are used for research evaluation purposes are validated by the researchers themselves. Thus, I expect higher quality lists from databases for which I know that researchers have produced/ controlled their lists.

Von meinem iPad gesendet

Am 26.06.2017 um 20:37 schrieb William Gunn <william.gunn at gmail.com<mailto:william.gunn at gmail.com>>:

Please see my comments below.

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Bornmann, Lutz <lutz.bornmann at gv.mpg.de<mailto:lutz.bornmann at gv.mpg.de>> wrote:
Comment by William: But I don't see any evidence for the assertion that the lists will probably be more reliable. I'm asking because it seems rather counterintuitive that an automatically generated list that can be edited by an author would be better than a list manually created by an author. Indeed, at Mendeley we have author profiles that are manually created & we're moving to automatically adding publications to them, using Scopus, because the lists are often incomplete.

Answer: The problem is that many Scopus profiles are not edited by the authors. In my opinion, it would be helpful if Elsevier provides the information whether a publication list had been manually (and continuously) edited or not.

Thanks for the response, but I'm asking what evidence there is that a collection of manually created profiles will be more accurate than an automatically generated one. Errors do exist in automatically generated profiles, but they also exist in manually created ones. The question is which has more errors per profile, and at the level of the entire collection, which are more complete and correct. It seems like you're assuming that manually created ones will be both more complete and correct, whereas at Mendeley we have evidence that that's not a valid assumption. Therefore, any evidence you have to justify your assumption would be appreciated.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20170627/611efed0/attachment.html>