From gopal at annauniv.edu Mon Apr 2 07:56:38 2018 From: gopal at annauniv.edu (gopal at annauniv.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 17:26:38 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Sigmetrics] Bilateral and Multilateral Coauthorship and Citation Impact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52720.10.5.3.191.1522670198.squirrel@mail.annauniv.edu> Dear All, I have been reading the posts and some of the papers have been very useful. The one in the trace and a paper by Prof. Loet Leydesdorff, Cyberneticist are my choice in the recent past. Quick questions: Is there a criteria to avoid the "Law of Fishes" i.e Big Fish swallows the Small Fish in the way we are evolving the metrics ? Please advise. Warmest Regards Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli PS: I hope citing posts by another member of this list is fine. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 Home Page : http://www.annauniv.edu/staff/gopal +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Dear colleagues > > We have recently published a paper on: "Bilateral and Multilateral > Coauthorship and Citation Impact: Patterns in UK and US International > Collaboration" in Frontiers in Research Metrics & Analytics > > International collaboration makes up an increasing, high citation-impact > share of research output, but the UK???s collaboration with key partners > is > threatened by its decision to leave the EU. Data show that about 85% of US > and UK international collaboration is with only one or two partners, > usually among other ???leading??? research economies. Although highly > multinational research (10 or more authors) is growing more rapidly than > total research output, it actually remains scarce (about 1% of all > collaboration) among the established research economies. Analysis also > shows that the ???citation bonus??? contributed by international > collaboration > is in fact both specific and limited; it should, therefore, be interpreted > with some care. For example, citation impact trends look different for > two-country and multi-country collaborations involving the same countries. > Impact also increases but then plateaus with increasing numbers of > partners. Further, we find that massively multinational papers are of such > a different kind that we suggest they should be excluded from standard > citation analysis. > > The paper is avalable at https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00012 > > Jonathan Adams > Director, ISI (a part of Clarivate Analytics) > Visitng Professor, King's College London > _______________________________________________ > SIGMETRICS mailing list > SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics > From loet at leydesdorff.net Thu Apr 5 00:41:52 2018 From: loet at leydesdorff.net (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 04:41:52 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] Fw: Re: [scisip] China surpassing US in publications PS Message-ID: ------ Forwarded Message ------ From: "Loet Leydesdorff" To: "Science of Science & Innovation Policy" Sent: 4/5/2018 6:32:30 AM Subject: Re: [scisip] China surpassing US in publications PS eu usa china world %eu %usa %china 2010 445,952 419982 139535 1250354 35.67 33.59 11.16 2011 468,831 418298 163023 1329652 35.26 31.46 12.26 2012 490,508 409466 188537 1398461 35.07 29.28 13.48 2013 514,218 401860 222521 1474621 34.87 27.25 15.09 2014 517,447 394778 256856 1516450 34.12 26.03 16.94 2015 532,609 380555 288048 1572913 33.86 24.19 18.31 2016 545,449 367597 316488 1619306 33.68 22.70 19.54 2017 546,719 351841 350182 1648515 33.16 21.34 21.24 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loet Leydesdorff Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pamsieving at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 00:59:17 2018 From: pamsieving at gmail.com (Pamela Sieving) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 21:59:17 -0700 Subject: [Sigmetrics] Fw: Re: [scisip] China surpassing US in publications PS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Loet. Can you tell us how the figures were determined? I'm working on a project looking at the output of Asian countries (in ophthalmic genetics, so a subset) and it's clear that Chinese vision researchers are dramatically increasing their productivity in recent years. However, most of the work is done by collaborative groups in more than one country, so I'm curious about your numbers. Thanks, Pam On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > ------ Forwarded Message ------ > From: "Loet Leydesdorff" > To: "Science of Science & Innovation Policy" > Sent: 4/5/2018 6:32:30 AM > Subject: Re: [scisip] China surpassing US in publications PS > > eu usa china world %eu %usa %china > 2010 445,952 419982 139535 1250354 35.67 33.59 11.16 > 2011 468,831 418298 163023 1329652 35.26 31.46 12.26 > 2012 490,508 409466 188537 1398461 35.07 29.28 13.48 > 2013 514,218 401860 222521 1474621 34.87 27.25 15.09 > 2014 517,447 394778 256856 1516450 34.12 26.03 16.94 > 2015 532,609 380555 288048 1572913 33.86 24.19 18.31 > 2016 545,449 367597 316488 1619306 33.68 22.70 19.54 > 2017 546,719 351841 350182 1648515 33.16 21.34 21.24 > > ------------------------------ > > Loet Leydesdorff > > Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > > loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of > Sussex; > > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , > Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > Beijing; > > Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London; > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > > _______________________________________________ > SIGMETRICS mailing list > SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics > > -- Pamela C. Sieving, MA, MS, AHIP Sieving Information Solutions 7309 Bannockburn Ridge Court Bethesda, Maryland 20817 pamsieving at gmail.com 301 263-9697 (h) 734 717-6006 (cell) ----- But yield who will to their separation, My object in living is to unite My avocation and my vocation As my two eyes make one in sight. Only where love and need are one, And the work is play for mortal stakes, Is the deed ever really done For Heaven and the future's sakes. (Robert Frost: Two Tramps in Mud Time) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at leydesdorff.net Thu Apr 5 00:44:19 2018 From: loet at leydesdorff.net (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 04:44:19 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] Fw: Re: [scisip] China surpassing US in publications Message-ID: ------ Forwarded Message ------ From: "Loet Leydesdorff" To: "SIGMetrics" Sent: 4/5/2018 6:40:57 AM Subject: Re: [scisip] China surpassing US in publications Dear Brooke, The database is also changing. In 2014, we published in JoI: (articles + reviews + letters; integer counting) This morning, I find: This is integer counting, WoS Core collection; articles + reviews. Indeed, China has overtaken the USA. Best, Loet References Leydesdorff, L. (2011). When can the cross-over between China and the USA be expected using Scopus data. Research Trends (25), November 2011. Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2014). The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 606-617. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.05.002 Moed, H. F., Plume, A., Aisati, M. h., & Bervkens, P. (2011). Is science in your country declining? Or is your country becoming a super power and when? Research Trends (25, November 2011), http://www.researchtrends.com/issue25-november-2011/is-science-in-your-country-declining-or-is-your-country-becoming-a-scientific-super-power-and-how-quickly/. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83-104. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Brooke Struck" To: SCISIP at listserv.nsf.gov Sent: 4/4/2018 5:09:47 PM Subject: [scisip] China surpassing US in publications >Hello all, > > > >Earlier this year, the following Nature headline grabbed a lot of >attention: ?China declared world?s largest producer of scientific >articles?. Speculation ramped up about factors driving global change in >research, how scientific communities in the West should respond, and so >forth. > > > >Along with these discussions were some questions about the approach to >measurement, what influence it might be having on the result, and how >we should interpret the finding. Specifically, people highlighted that >fractional rather than full counting was used. > > > >In this week?s blog post, we offer an accessible explanation of these >two methods, the differences between them, and what they mean: >http://www.sciencemetrics.org/publication-counts/ > > > >Over the coming weeks, we?ll explore the differences from a number of >angles, and this post really lays the foundation. We hope you enjoy the >read and that it?s useful to inform your reflections on this issue. > > > >Sincerely, > > > >Brooke > > > > > > > >Brooke Struck, Ph.D. > >Senior Policy Officer | Sp?cialiste des politiques > >Science-Metrix > >1335, Mont-Royal E > >Montr?al, QC H2J 1Y6 > >Canada > > > > > > >T. 1.514.495.6505 x.117 > >T. 1.800.994.4761 x.117 > >F. 1.514.495.6523 > >brooke.struck at science-metrix.com > >www.science-metrix.com > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: y1g31bix.png Type: image/png Size: 51475 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 3z33mei1.png Type: image/png Size: 52366 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 1068 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1109 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 13360 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rigic at excite.com Sat Apr 14 12:11:22 2018 From: rigic at excite.com (Rajko) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 12:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Sigmetrics] Letter to the Editor--published by the JBI Message-ID: <20180414121122.6106@web008.roc2.bluetie.com> Letter to the Editor Rajko Igi? r.igic at excite.com Department of Pharmacology, Medical Faculty, University of Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina Academy of Arts and Sciences, 7800 Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina To the Editor: As the complexity of biomedical research has expanded over the past fifty years, many papers have reflected the emergence of team science along with the increasing number of authors involved. Readers, editors, reviewers, and external stakeholders would like to know how each author contributed to the study [1]. Generally, this information assigns the appropriate credit, recognition, and responsibility for the published research to each individual author. When two and more authors are involved, this information is indicated by the order of the authors, (provided the authors are not listed alphabetically), offering as well the corresponding author, contribution disclosers, and conflict of interest disclosures. This information also designates who is primarily responsible for the validity of the reported research. Yet, not all journals follow the desired pattern of reporting author participation, and the prominent author positions can vary greatly [2]. If the author order and contribution statements are not associated, and fail to provide information on the authors? level of participation, a standardized author order may improve compliance. Scientometrics, a discipline that seeks to measure research contributions of individual scientists, scientific institutions and individual countries, could determine how various factors influence scientific research [3]. A recent commentary in the Journal of Biomedical Informatics (JBI) has described a new system [4] that provides a metric (Z-score) for individual scientists that is based on the order of coauthors in the byline and as well as the corresponding author. This ranking of scientists, based on citations, may be further improved if a consistent order of authors in all biomedical journals is established. At a symposium in Banja Luka (September 2018), journal editors, scientists, reviewers, and scientometrists will consider whether this recommendation for coherent order of the authors in biomedical journals is feasible and likely to be adopted by scientific publishers and editors. If the meeting results in a broad consensus, such an agreement will be published as a recommendation in a peer-reviewed journal, and separately submitted to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). References [1] P. Fontanarosa, H. Bauchner and A. Flanagin, Authorship and team science, JAMA 318, 2017, 2433?2437. [2] H. Sauermann and C. Haeusser, Authorship and contribution disclosures, Sci. Adv. 3, 2017, e1700404. [3] R. Igi?, The influence of the civil war in Yugoslavia on publishing in peer-reviewed journals, Scientometrics 53, 2002, 47?52. [4] E. Zerem, The ranking of scientists based on scientific publications assessment, J. Biomed. Inf. 75, 2017, 107?109. From p.f.wouters at cwts.leidenuniv.nl Wed Apr 18 07:13:13 2018 From: p.f.wouters at cwts.leidenuniv.nl (Wouters, P.F.) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:13:13 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] Book review Applied Evaluative Informetrics Message-ID: Dear colleagues, You may be interested in the following discussion about Henk Moed new book Applied Evaluative Informetrics in the Journal of Informetrics: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157718300932 and Henk?s reponse: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157718300944 Enjoy reading, Paul Wouters Professor of Scientometrics Director Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University Visiting address: Willem Einthoven Building Kolffpad 1 2333 BN Leiden Mail address: P.O. Box 905 2300 AX Leiden T: +31 71 5273909 (secr.) F: +31 71 5273911 E: p.f.wouters at cwts.leidenuniv.nl NEW: CWTS blog: http://www.cwts.nl/blog# CWTS home page: www.cwts.nl Research Dreams: www.researchdreams.nl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjorn.hammarfelt at hb.se Thu Apr 19 03:50:20 2018 From: bjorn.hammarfelt at hb.se (=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn=20Hammarfelt?=) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 09:50:20 +0200 Subject: [Sigmetrics] CfP: 23rd Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy Message-ID: <5AD84A3C020000AA00027174@gwis1.adm.hb.se> 23rd Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy, 7-9 November, Bor?s, Sweden Call for presentations www.hb.se/nwb2018 Twitter: #nwb2018 You are invited to participate in the 23rd Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy, November 8-9 with an adjoining pre-workshop on the theme of ?Bibliometrics in the Library? taking place on November 7 at the University of Bor?s, Bor?s, Sweden. Participants who wish to present a research paper or a poster are kindly asked to submit a 250-word abstract of their presentation. We welcome novel ideas or work-in-progress of interest to a Nordic audience and this year we especially encourage papers with a research policy perspective. You can offer either a paper or a poster. Due to limitations in the program the scientific committee may suggest that paper submissions should be given as posters. Papers will be presented orally at the workshop (ca. 20 min.), while posters will be showcased in a poster booster session followed by a free-form discussion. The posters will be on display in the hallways of the workshop site. We also welcome scholarly and professional papers on the pre-workshop topic ?Bibliometrics in the Library?. Please indicate if you are interested in presenting at the thematic workshop. Deadline for submission of abstracts is the 1st of September 2018. The authors will be notified of acceptance by the 30th of September 2018. Send your abstracts (in word or rtf format) to: nwb2018 at hb.se. Participation to the workshop is free. Travel and accommodation have to be arranged and financed by the participants themselves. ABOUT THE WORKSHOP Keynote speakers Thematic-workshop: ?Libraries and bibliometrics: institutional and professional perspectives? Fredrik ?str?m, Associate professor and bibliometric specialist at Lund University Library Main workshop: Merle Jacob, Professor in Research Policy, Lund University, Title TBA Location Bor?s is located in the western part of Sweden about 60 kilometres east of Gothenburg. The university of Bor?s is a modern university with a campus in the middle of the city (The All?gatan 1, Bor?s). The auditorium, Sparbankssalen is located in the adjoining building at J?rnv?gsgatan 1. Organization The workshop is organized by Swedish School of Library and Information Science (SSLIS), University of Bor?s, in collaboration with the university libraries at Chalmers University of Technology and University of Bor?s. Workshop chairs ? Bj?rn Hammarfelt, SSLIS, University of Bor?s, ? Gustaf Nelhans, SSLIS, University of Bor?s, The event is organised with support from the workshop series steering group ? Birger Larsen, Aalborg University ? Camilla Hertil Lindel?w, National Library of Sweden ? Susanna Nykyri, University of Helsinki ? Sigur?ur ?li Sigur?sson, RANNIS, The Icelandic Center for Research ? Gunnar Sivertsen, NIFU ? Daniel Wadskog, Uppsala University Library Bj?rn Hammarfelt, PhD Universitetslektor / Senior lecturer Biblioteksh?gskolan / Swedish School of Library and Information Science H?gskolan i Bor?s / University of Bor?s www.bibliometri.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gillian.elliot at otago.ac.nz Thu Apr 19 16:39:50 2018 From: gillian.elliot at otago.ac.nz (Gillian Elliot) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 20:39:50 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] UNSUBSCRIBE Message-ID: <86ff4a68e58541eca1795b0b06af97b3@its-mail-p08.registry.otago.ac.nz> From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of Bj?rn Hammarfelt Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 7:50 p.m. To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: [Sigmetrics] CfP: 23rd Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy 23rd Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy, 7-9 November, Bor?s, Sweden Call for presentations www.hb.se/nwb2018 Twitter: #nwb2018 You are invited to participate in the 23rd Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy, November 8-9 with an adjoining pre-workshop on the theme of ?Bibliometrics in the Library? taking place on November 7 at the University of Bor?s, Bor?s, Sweden. Participants who wish to present a research paper or a poster are kindly asked to submit a 250-word abstract of their presentation. We welcome novel ideas or work-in-progress of interest to a Nordic audience and this year we especially encourage papers with a research policy perspective. You can offer either a paper or a poster. Due to limitations in the program the scientific committee may suggest that paper submissions should be given as posters. Papers will be presented orally at the workshop (ca. 20 min.), while posters will be showcased in a poster booster session followed by a free-form discussion. The posters will be on display in the hallways of the workshop site. We also welcome scholarly and professional papers on the pre-workshop topic ?Bibliometrics in the Library?. Please indicate if you are interested in presenting at the thematic workshop. Deadline for submission of abstracts is the 1st of September 2018. The authors will be notified of acceptance by the 30th of September 2018. Send your abstracts (in word or rtf format) to: nwb2018 at hb.se. Participation to the workshop is free. Travel and accommodation have to be arranged and financed by the participants themselves. ABOUT THE WORKSHOP Keynote speakers Thematic-workshop: ?Libraries and bibliometrics: institutional and professional perspectives? Fredrik ?str?m, Associate professor and bibliometric specialist at Lund University Library Main workshop: Merle Jacob, Professor in Research Policy, Lund University, Title TBA Location Bor?s is located in the western part of Sweden about 60 kilometres east of Gothenburg. The university of Bor?s is a modern university with a campus in the middle of the city (The All?gatan 1, Bor?s). The auditorium, Sparbankssalen is located in the adjoining building at J?rnv?gsgatan 1. Organization The workshop is organized by Swedish School of Library and Information Science (SSLIS), University of Bor?s, in collaboration with the university libraries at Chalmers University of Technology and University of Bor?s. Workshop chairs ? Bj?rn Hammarfelt, SSLIS, University of Bor?s, ? Gustaf Nelhans, SSLIS, University of Bor?s, The event is organised with support from the workshop series steering group ? Birger Larsen, Aalborg University ? Camilla Hertil Lindel?w, National Library of Sweden ? Susanna Nykyri, University of Helsinki ? Sigur?ur ?li Sigur?sson, RANNIS, The Icelandic Center for Research ? Gunnar Sivertsen, NIFU ? Daniel Wadskog, Uppsala University Library Bj?rn Hammarfelt, PhD Universitetslektor / Senior lecturer Biblioteksh?gskolan / Swedish School of Library and Information Science H?gskolan i Bor?s / University of Bor?s www.bibliometri.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com Tue Apr 24 08:00:31 2018 From: gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Gr=E9goire_C=F4t=E9?=) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:31 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform Message-ID: Greetings everyone, Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles-of which 27 million are available in OA-it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. Here are a few resources if you're interested in learning more: * Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com * Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr * Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com * See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch Sincerely, Gr?goire Gr?goire C?t? President | Pr?sident Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr?al, QC H2J 1Y6 Canada [cid:image001.png at 01D2DAC6.B5A0CDC0][cid:image002.png at 01D2DAC6.B5A0CDC0] T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 T. 1.800.994.4761 F. 1.514.495.6523 gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com www.science-metrix.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 1068 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1109 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From dwojick at craigellachie.us Tue Apr 24 14:16:08 2018 From: dwojick at craigellachie.us (David Wojick) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:16:08 -0400 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. David David Wojick, Ph.D. Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/related; > type="multipart/alternative"; > boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" > >Greetings everyone, > >Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for >research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles?of which 27 >million are available in OA?it represents the largest curated collection >worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles >published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all >languages and from every country. > >Here are a few resources if you?re interested in learning more: > >? Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com >? Visit the 1findr website: >www.1science.com/1findr >? Send in your questions: >1findr at 1science.com >? See the press release: >www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch > > >Sincerely, > >Gr?goire > >Gr?goire C?t? >President | Pr?sident >Science-Metrix >1335, Mont-Royal E >Montr?al, QC H2J 1Y6 >Canada > > >cid:image001.png at 01D2DAC6.B5A0CDC0 > >cid:image002.png at 01D2DAC6.B5A0CDC0 > >T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 >T. 1.800.994.4761 >F. 1.514.495.6523 >gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com >www.science-metrix.com > > > > >Content-Type: image/png; > name="image001.png" >Content-Description: image001.png >Content-Disposition: inline; > creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > filename="image001.png"; > size=1068 >Content-ID: > >Content-Type: image/png; > name="image002.png" >Content-Description: image002.png >Content-Disposition: inline; > creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > filename="image002.png"; > size=1109 >Content-ID: > > >_______________________________________________ >SIGMETRICS mailing list >SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org >http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 16bac2d.png Type: image/png Size: 1068 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 16bac3d.png Type: image/png Size: 1109 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mc.wilson at auckland.ac.nz Tue Apr 24 14:34:18 2018 From: mc.wilson at auckland.ac.nz (Mark C. Wilson) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:34:18 +1200 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Searching for my own papers I obtained some wrong records and the link to arXiv was broken. It does return results very quickly and many are useful. I am not sure whether 1science intended to use everyone in the world as beta-testers. > On 25/04/2018, at 06:16, David Wojick wrote: > > It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. > > But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. > > David > > David Wojick, Ph.D. > Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation > DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ > > > At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: >> Content-Language: en-US >> Content-Type: multipart/related; >> type="multipart/alternative"; >> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" >> >> Greetings everyone, >> >> Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles?of which 27 million are available in OA?it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. >> >> Here are a few resources if you?re interested in learning more: >> >> ? Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com >> ? Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr >> ? Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com >> ? See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Gr?goire >> >> Gr?goire C?t? >> President | Pr?sident >> Science-Metrix >> 1335, Mont-Royal E >> Montr?al, QC H2J 1Y6 >> Canada >> >> <16bac2d.png> <16bac3d.png> >> T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 >> T. 1.800.994.4761 >> F. 1.514.495.6523 >> gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com >> www.science-metrix.com >> >> >> >> >> Content-Type: image/png; >> name="image001.png" >> Content-Description: image001.png >> Content-Disposition: inline; >> creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >> modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >> filename="image001.png"; >> size=1068 >> Content-ID: >> >> Content-Type: image/png; >> name="image002.png" >> Content-Description: image002.png >> Content-Disposition: inline; >> creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >> modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >> filename="image002.png"; >> size=1109 >> Content-ID: >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SIGMETRICS mailing list >> SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org >> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics _______________________________________________ > SIGMETRICS mailing list > SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at craigellachie.us Tue Apr 24 14:59:49 2018 From: dwojick at craigellachie.us (David Wojick) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424145409.0480acd0@pop.craigellachie.us> There is a joke that what is called "rapid prototyping" actually means fielding the beta version. In that case every user is a beta tester. It is fast and the filter numbers are useful in themselves. Some of the hits are a bit mysterious. It may have unique metric capabilities. Too bad that advanced search is not available for free. David At 02:34 PM 4/24/2018, Mark C. Wilson wrote: >Searching for my own papers I obtained some wrong records and the link to >arXiv was broken. It does return results very quickly and many are useful. >I am not sure whether 1science intended to use everyone in the world as >beta-testers. > >>On 25/04/2018, at 06:16, David Wojick >><dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote: >> >>It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant >>limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost >>all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in >>the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the >>text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of >>magnitude more. >> >>But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. >> >>David >> >>David Wojick, Ph.D. >>Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation >>DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ >> >> >>At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: >>>Content-Language: en-US >>>Content-Type: multipart/related; >>> type="multipart/alternative"; >>> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" >>> >>>Greetings everyone, >>> >>>Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform >>>for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles??of >>>which 27 million are available in OA??it represents the largest curated >>>collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include >>>all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of >>>research, in all languages and from every country. >>> >>>Here are a few resources if you???re interested in learning more: >>> >>>? p; Access 1findr platform: >>>www.1findr.com >>>? p; Visit the 1findr website: >>>www.1science.com/1findr >>>? p; Send in your questions: >>>1findr at 1science.com >>>? p; See the press release: >>>www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch >>> >>> >>>Sincerely, >>> >>>Gr??goire >>> >>>Gr??goire C??t?? >>>President | Pr??sident >>>Science-Metrix >>>1335, Mont-Royal E >>>Montr??al, QC H2J 1Y6 >>>Canada >>> >>><16bac2d.png> >>><16bac3d.png> >>>T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 >>>T. 1.800.994.4761 >>>F. 1.514.495.6523 >>>gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com >>>www.science-metrix.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Content-Type: image/png; >>> name="image001.png" >>>Content-Description: image001.png >>>Content-Disposition: inline; >>> creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>> modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>> filename="image001.png"; >>> size=1068 >>>Content-ID: >>> >>>Content-Type: image/png; >>> name="image002.png" >>>Content-Description: image002.png >>>Content-Disposition: inline; >>> creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>> modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>> filename="image002.png"; >>> size=1109 >>>Content-ID: >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>SIGMETRICS mailing list >>>SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org >>>http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics >>_______________________________________________ >>SIGMETRICS mailing list >>SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org >>http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From j.bosman at uu.nl Tue Apr 24 16:51:00 2018 From: j.bosman at uu.nl (Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:51:00 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424145409.0480acd0@pop.craigellachie.us> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> , <6.2.0.14.2.20180424145409.0480acd0@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: <53EF71F4C5E22941A70899881A35FAEB86080D94@WP0045.soliscom.uu.nl> Of course there is much more to say about 1Findr. What I have seen so far is that the coverage back to 1944 is very much akin to Dimensions, probably because both are deriving the bulk of their records from Crossref. Full text search is relatively rare among these systems. Google Scholar does it. Dimensions does it on a subset. And some publisher platform support it, as do some OA aggragators. Apart from these two aspects (coverage and full text search support), there are a lot of aspects and (forthcoming) 1Findr functionalities that deserve scrutiny, not least the exact method of OA detection (and version priority) of course. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library ________________________________ From: SIGMETRICS [sigmetrics-bounces at asist.org] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at craigellachie.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:59 PM To: Mark C. Wilson Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform There is a joke that what is called "rapid prototyping" actually means fielding the beta version. In that case every user is a beta tester. It is fast and the filter numbers are useful in themselves. Some of the hits are a bit mysterious. It may have unique metric capabilities. Too bad that advanced search is not available for free. David At 02:34 PM 4/24/2018, Mark C. Wilson wrote: Searching for my own papers I obtained some wrong records and the link to arXiv was broken. It does return results very quickly and many are useful. I am not sure whether 1science intended to use everyone in the world as beta-testers. On 25/04/2018, at 06:16, David Wojick > wrote: It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. David David Wojick, Ph.D. Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" Greetings everyone, Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles??of which 27 million are available in OA??it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. Here are a few resources if you???re interested in learning more: ? p; Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com ? p; Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr ? p; Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com ? p; See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch Sincerely, Gr??goire Gr??goire C??t?? President | Pr??sident Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr??al, QC H2J 1Y6 Canada <16bac2d.png> <16bac3d.png> T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 T. 1.800.994.4761 F. 1.514.495.6523 gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com www.science-metrix.com Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image001.png"; size=1068 Content-ID: Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" Content-Description: image002.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image002.png"; size=1109 Content-ID: _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eric.archambault at science-metrix.com Tue Apr 24 17:03:44 2018 From: eric.archambault at science-metrix.com (=?utf-8?B?w4lyaWMgQXJjaGFtYmF1bHQ=?=) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 21:03:44 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424145409.0480acd0@pop.craigellachie.us> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <6.2.0.14.2.20180424145409.0480acd0@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Mark, David It hasn?t been rapid, nor are we in beta. We started the project in 2011 at Science-Metrix. If you go on Science-Metrix? site and look on our ?old? reports, you?ll see that one produced for the European Commission. In that project for the EC, we had to answer that seemingly easy question: what is the percentage of papers published in peer-reviewed journals. We found counting OA papers wasn?t easy (the numerator), and that no one had a comprehensive database with all the peer-reviewed journals (the denominator). We started working on OA at the time, and to do this we also started constructing the denominator in the equation ? the full database of articles in peer-reviewed journals. We have 400 million raw bibliographic records entering our system. The 1science data processing pipeline cluster, mashup, enrich and filter that mess to get those 90 million metadata records, including the direct links to 27 million open access articles. All of this is available publicly for all to search and OA papers can easily be discovered and downloaded with a single click from 1findr. That technology is complex, please be a tad forgiving here, we?re working as fast as we can and we really care about what we do. Most cordially ?ric Eric Archambault C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: April 24, 2018 3:00 PM To: Mark C. Wilson Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform There is a joke that what is called "rapid prototyping" actually means fielding the beta version. In that case every user is a beta tester. It is fast and the filter numbers are useful in themselves. Some of the hits are a bit mysterious. It may have unique metric capabilities. Too bad that advanced search is not available for free. David At 02:34 PM 4/24/2018, Mark C. Wilson wrote: Searching for my own papers I obtained some wrong records and the link to arXiv was broken. It does return results very quickly and many are useful. I am not sure whether 1science intended to use everyone in the world as beta-testers. On 25/04/2018, at 06:16, David Wojick > wrote: It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. David David Wojick, Ph.D. Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" Greetings everyone, Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles??of which 27 million are available in OA??it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. Here are a few resources if you???re interested in learning more: ? p; Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com ? p; Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr ? p; Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com ? p; See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch Sincerely, Gr??goire Gr??goire C??t?? President | Pr??sident Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr??al, QC H2J 1Y6 Canada <16bac2d.png> <16bac3d.png> T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 T. 1.800.994.4761 F. 1.514.495.6523 gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com www.science-metrix.com Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image001.png"; size=1068 Content-ID: > Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" Content-Description: image002.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image002.png"; size=1109 Content-ID: > _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at craigellachie.us Tue Apr 24 17:40:33 2018 From: dwojick at craigellachie.us (David Wojick) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:40:33 -0400 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: <3185D4E5-97F7-4AB0-BEBB-F2A9767D8298@craigellachie.us> I agree up to a point, Eric. Metadata (especially including an abstract) is usually sufficient for what we might call a standard search. This is one where what we are looking for is the central topic of the article. But there are many other sorts of search, where the thing sought is relatively secondary to the article and here only full text search works. Examples might include those climate change articles that rely on a specific model, or nuclear physics that uses the Monte Carlo method. A great many questions of this form can arise, in research and in science metrics. Then too there is the powerful "more like this" (MLT) function which requires full text. This finds closely related research that does not use the same language. An example is author disambiguation versus name identity. Google Scholar's version of MLT is very useful. In fact I developed an algorithm for DOE OSTI that uses "more like this" technology to find all and only those articles closely related to a given topic, ranked by closeness. When you get full text will be happy to show it to you. But the fact that your system does not do everything now is not a criticism, merely a direction for possible progress. Best of luck, David On Apr 24, 2018, at 4:18 PM, ?ric Archambault wrote: > David, > > > > Thanks for your encouraging comments. You are right, we don?t do full text indexing search ? yet. We want to get there though as a bibliometrician I have always been a tad skeptical about the need to go much beyond high quality metadata. When you can?t find a paper and you have title, journal, abstract, references/citations, chances are the paper won?t be all that sharp for most of the mainstream applications. Probably the term is not that key if it can?t be found anywhere in the metadata. I?m not saying there are absolutely no cases for searching in the metadata but most of the people want sharp results, and though we are all impressed by zillions of results, we rarely if ever use the long tail. This only became stronger with Google that made us lazy, na?ve, and not curious enough. 1findr is not perfect as it is, but it presents a nice compromise being sharp and being extensive enough. But duly noted we may miss a few diamonds, and have a shorter tail in our results. > > > > Over time, we hope to have more publishers helping us built a high quality full-text. We?ve started with Karger who likes to think outside the box. We?ve started experimenting with the Frontiers corpus as well. This is still small scale but we are careful and reflective about our development. Once we?ll have determined the investments in technical complexity and index size is worth our while to improve the user experience, we?ll start deploying full-text indexing on a larger but progressive scale, at least for those publishers who want their material to be discoverable to the maximum extent. > > > > > > ?ric > > > > > > Eric Archambault, PhD > > CEO | Chef de la direction > > 1335, Mont-Royal E > > Montr?al QC Canada H2J 1Y6 > > > > T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111 > > C. 1.514.518.0823 > > eric.archambault at science-metrix.com > > science-metrix.com & 1science.com > > > > > > From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of David Wojick > Sent: April 24, 2018 2:16 PM > To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org > Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform > > > > It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. > > But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. > > David > > David Wojick, Ph.D. > Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation > DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ > > > At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: > > > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: multipart/related; > type="multipart/alternative"; > boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" > > Greetings everyone, > > Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles of which 27 million are available in OA it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. > > Here are a few resources if you?re interested in learning more: > > ? Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com > ? Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr > ? Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com > ? See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch > > Sincerely, > > Gr?goire > > Gr?goire C?t? > President | Pr?sident > Science-Metrix > 1335, Mont-Royal E > Montr?al, QC H2J 1Y6 > Canada > > > T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 > T. 1.800.994.4761 > F. 1.514.495.6523 > gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com > www.science-metrix.com > > > > > Content-Type: image/png; > name="image001.png" > Content-Description: image001.png > Content-Disposition: inline; > creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > filename="image001.png"; > size=1068 > Content-ID: > > Content-Type: image/png; > name="image002.png" > Content-Description: image002.png > Content-Disposition: inline; > creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > filename="image002.png"; > size=1109 > Content-ID: > > > _______________________________________________ > SIGMETRICS mailing list > SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eric.archambault at science-metrix.com Tue Apr 24 16:18:22 2018 From: eric.archambault at science-metrix.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=C9ric_Archambault?=) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:18:22 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: David, Thanks for your encouraging comments. You are right, we don't do full text indexing search - yet. We want to get there though as a bibliometrician I have always been a tad skeptical about the need to go much beyond high quality metadata. When you can't find a paper and you have title, journal, abstract, references/citations, chances are the paper won't be all that sharp for most of the mainstream applications. Probably the term is not that key if it can't be found anywhere in the metadata. I'm not saying there are absolutely no cases for searching in the metadata but most of the people want sharp results, and though we are all impressed by zillions of results, we rarely if ever use the long tail. This only became stronger with Google that made us lazy, na?ve, and not curious enough. 1findr is not perfect as it is, but it presents a nice compromise being sharp and being extensive enough. But duly noted we may miss a few diamonds, and have a shorter tail in our results. Over time, we hope to have more publishers helping us built a high quality full-text. We've started with Karger who likes to think outside the box. We've started experimenting with the Frontiers corpus as well. This is still small scale but we are careful and reflective about our development. Once we'll have determined the investments in technical complexity and index size is worth our while to improve the user experience, we'll start deploying full-text indexing on a larger but progressive scale, at least for those publishers who want their material to be discoverable to the maximum extent. ?ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr?al QC Canada H2J 1Y6 T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111 C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com [cid:image003.png at 01D3DBE7.DB812A80] [cid:image004.png at 01D3DBE7.DB812A80] From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: April 24, 2018 2:16 PM To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. David David Wojick, Ph.D. Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" Greetings everyone, Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles?of which 27 million are available in OA?it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. Here are a few resources if you're interested in learning more: * Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com * Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr * Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com * See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch Sincerely, Gr?goire Gr?goire C?t? President | Pr?sident Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr?al, QC H2J 1Y6 Canada [cid:image001.png at 01D2DAC6.B5A0CDC0][cid:image002.png at 01D2DAC6.B5A0CDC0] T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 T. 1.800.994.4761 F. 1.514.495.6523 gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com www.science-metrix.com Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image001.png"; size=1068 Content-ID: > Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" Content-Description: image002.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image002.png"; size=1109 Content-ID: > _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 1068 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1109 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 12482 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 17721 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From anne at harzing.com Tue Apr 24 17:11:29 2018 From: anne at harzing.com (Anne-Wil Harzing) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 22:11:29 +0100 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <53EF71F4C5E22941A70899881A35FAEB86080D94@WP0045.soliscom.uu.nl> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <6.2.0.14.2.20180424145409.0480acd0@pop.craigellachie.us> <53EF71F4C5E22941A70899881A35FAEB86080D94@WP0045.soliscom.uu.nl> Message-ID: <51f4d480-7c01-3187-bb6e-385e50c9e370@harzing.com> Dear all, I was asked (with a _very short time-frame_) to comment on 1Findr for an article in Nature (which I am not sure has actually appeared). I was given temporary login details for the Advanced interface. As "per normal" with these kind of requests only one of my comments was actually used. So I am posting all of them here in case they are of use to anyone (and to Eric and his team in fine-tuning the system). ================ As I had a very limited amount of time to provide my comments, I tried out 1Findr by searching for my own name (I have about 150 publications including journal articles, books, book chapters, software, web publications and white papers) and some key terms in my own field (international management). What I like Simple and intuitive user interface with fast response to search requests, much faster than with some competitor products where the website takes can take ages to load. The flexibility of the available search options clearly reflects the fact that this is an offering built by people with a background in Scientometrics. A search for my own name showed that coverage at the author level is good, it finds more of my publications than both the Web of Science and Scopus, but fewer than Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic. It is approximately on par with CrossRef and Dimensions though all three services (CR, Dimensions and Findr) have unique publications that the other service doesn?t cover. As far as I could assess, topic searches worked well with flexible options to search in title, keywords and abstracts. However, I have not tried these in detail. Provides a very good set of subjects for filtering searches that ? for the disciplines I can evaluate ? shows much better knowledge of academic disciplines and disciplinary boundaries than is reflected in some competitor products. I particularly like the fact that there is more differentiation in the Applied Sciences, the Economic and Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities than in some other databases. This was sorely needed. There is a quick summary of Altmetrics such as tweets, Facebook postings and Mendeley readers. Again I like the fact that a simple presentation is used, rather than the ?bells & whistle? approach with the flashy graphics of some other providers. This keeps the website snappy and provides an instant overview. There is good access to OA versions and a ?1-click? download of all available OA versions [for a maximum of 40 publications at once as this is the upper limit of the number of records on a page]. I like the fact that it finds OA versions from my personal website (www.harzing.com ) as well as OA versions in university repositories and gold OA versions. However, it doesn?t find all OA versions of my papers (see dislike below). What I dislike Although I like the fact that Findr doesn?t try to be anything and everything leading to a cluttered user interface, for me the fact that it doesn?t offer citation metrics limits its usefulness. Although I understand its focus is on finding literature (which is fair enough) many academics ? rightly or wrongly ? use citations scores to assess which articles to prioritize articles for downloading and reading. The fact that it doesn?t yet find all Open Access versions that Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic do. All my publications are available in OA on my website, but Findr does not seem to find all of them. Findr also doesn?t seem to source OA versions from ResearchGate. Also several OA versions resulted in a /?//404. The requested resource is not found.?/ The fact that it only seems to cover journal articles. None of my books, book chapters, software, white papers or web publications were found. Although a focus on peer-reviewed work is understandable I think coverage of books and book chapters is essential and services like Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic and CrossRef do cover books. Niggles There are duplicate results for quite a few of my articles, usually ?poorer? versions (i.e. without full text/abstract/altmetric scores) it would be good if the duplicates could be removed and only the ?best? version kept Automatic stemming of searches is awkward if you try to search for author names in the ?general? search (as many users will do). In my case (Harzing) it results in hundreds of articles on the Harz mountains obscuring all of my output. Preferred search syntax should be clearer as many users will search authors with initials only (as this is what works best in other databases). In Findr this provides very few results as there are ?exact? matches only, whereas in other databases initial searches are interpreted as initial + wildcard. More generally needs better author disambiguation. Some of my articles can only be found when searching for a-w harzing, a very specific rendition of my name. When Exporting Citations the order seems to reverts to alphabetical order of the first author, not the order that was on the screen. Best wishes, Anne-Wil *Prof. Anne-Wil Harzing* Professor of International Management Middlesex University London, Business School *Web:* Harzing.com - *Twitter:* @awharzing - *Google Scholar: *Citation Profile *New:* Latest blog post - *Surprise:* Random blog post - *Finally:* Support Publish or Perish On 24/04/2018 21:51, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) wrote: > Of course there is much more to say about 1Findr. What I have seen so > far is that the coverage back to 1944 is very much akin to Dimensions, > probably because both are deriving the bulk of their records from > Crossref. > > Full text search is relatively rare among these systems. Google > Scholar does it. Dimensions does it on a subset. And some publisher > platform support it, as do some OA aggragators. > > Apart from these two aspects (coverage and full text search support), > there are a lot of aspects and (forthcoming) 1Findr functionalities > that deserve scrutiny, not least the exact method of OA detection (and > version priority) of course. > > Jeroen Bosman > Utrecht University Library > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* SIGMETRICS [sigmetrics-bounces at asist.org] on behalf of David > Wojick [dwojick at craigellachie.us] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:59 PM > *To:* Mark C. Wilson > *Cc:* sigmetrics at mail.asis.org > *Subject:* Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics > platform > > There is a joke that what is called "rapid prototyping" actually means > fielding the beta version. In that case every user is a beta tester. > > It is fast and the filter numbers are useful in themselves. Some of > the hits are a bit mysterious. It may have unique metric capabilities. > Too bad that advanced search is not available for free. > > David > > At 02:34 PM 4/24/2018, Mark C. Wilson wrote: >> Searching for my own papers I obtained some wrong records and the >> link to arXiv was broken. It does return results very quickly and >> many are useful. I am not sure whether 1science intended to use >> everyone in the world as beta-testers. >> >>> On 25/04/2018, at 06:16, David Wojick >> > wrote: >>> >>> It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant >>> limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. >>> Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder >>> had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term >>> only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, >>> often orders of magnitude more. >>> >>> But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. >>> >>> David >>> >>> David Wojick, Ph.D. >>> Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation >>> DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ >>> >>> >>> At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: >>>> Content-Language: en-US >>>> Content-Type: multipart/related; >>>> ???????? type="multipart/alternative"; >>>> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" >>>> >>>> Greetings everyone, >>>> >>>> Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its >>>> platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million >>>> articles??of which 27 million are available in OA??it represents >>>> the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The >>>> platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed >>>> journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from >>>> every country. >>>> >>>> Here are a few resources if you???re interested in learning more: >>>> >>>> ??????????? p;? Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com >>>> >>>> ??????????? p;? Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr >>>> >>>> ??????????? p;? Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com >>>> >>>> ??????????? p;? See the press release: >>>> www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch >>>> >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> Gr??goire >>>> >>>> *Gr??goire C??t?? >>>> *President | Pr??sident >>>> *Science-Metrix >>>> *1335, Mont-Royal E >>>> Montr??al, QC? H2J 1Y6 >>>> Canada >>>> >>>> <16bac2d.png> >>>> <16bac3d.png> >>>> >>>> T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 >>>> T. 1.800.994.4761 >>>> F. 1.514.495.6523 >>>> _gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com >>>> >>>> _www.science-metrix.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Content-Type: image/png; >>>> ???????? name="image001.png" >>>> Content-Description: image001.png >>>> Content-Disposition: inline; >>>> ???????? creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>>> ???????? modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>>> ???????? filename="image001.png"; >>>> ???????? size=1068 >>>> Content-ID: >>>> >>>> Content-Type: image/png; >>>> ???????? name="image002.png" >>>> Content-Description: image002.png >>>> Content-Disposition: inline; >>>> ???????? creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>>> ???????? modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>>> ???????? filename="image002.png"; >>>> ???????? size=1109 >>>> Content-ID: >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SIGMETRICS mailing list >>>> SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org >>>> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SIGMETRICS mailing list >>> SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org >>> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics > > > _______________________________________________ > SIGMETRICS mailing list > SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eric.archambault at science-metrix.com Wed Apr 25 06:49:36 2018 From: eric.archambault at science-metrix.com (=?utf-8?B?w4lyaWMgQXJjaGFtYmF1bHQ=?=) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <3185D4E5-97F7-4AB0-BEBB-F2A9767D8298@craigellachie.us> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <3185D4E5-97F7-4AB0-BEBB-F2A9767D8298@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Good points David. For recommenders, using bibliographic coupling is among the most powerful tools and articles need not use the same vocabulary. There has been much emphasis placed on co-citation in the bibliometric/scientometric community but bibliographic coupling is extremely powerful and way more convenient (stable and no lag contrary to co-citation analysis which needs to way for citations to materialize and then is always evolving as the citation graph builds up). Again, I don?t mean to say you?re not right to emphasize the need for full-text searching, but in many cases there are workaround. One case where full-text is more particularly useful is corpus building for e.g. text/data mining and literature related discovery (LRD) studies. ?ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: David Wojick Sent: April-24-18 5:41 PM To: ?ric Archambault Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform I agree up to a point, Eric. Metadata (especially including an abstract) is usually sufficient for what we might call a standard search. This is one where what we are looking for is the central topic of the article. But there are many other sorts of search, where the thing sought is relatively secondary to the article and here only full text search works. Examples might include those climate change articles that rely on a specific model, or nuclear physics that uses the Monte Carlo method. A great many questions of this form can arise, in research and in science metrics. Then too there is the powerful "more like this" (MLT) function which requires full text. This finds closely related research that does not use the same language. An example is author disambiguation versus name identity. Google Scholar's version of MLT is very useful. In fact I developed an algorithm for DOE OSTI that uses "more like this" technology to find all and only those articles closely related to a given topic, ranked by closeness. When you get full text will be happy to show it to you. But the fact that your system does not do everything now is not a criticism, merely a direction for possible progress. Best of luck, David On Apr 24, 2018, at 4:18 PM, ?ric Archambault> wrote: David, Thanks for your encouraging comments. You are right, we don?t do full text indexing search ? yet. We want to get there though as a bibliometrician I have always been a tad skeptical about the need to go much beyond high quality metadata. When you can?t find a paper and you have title, journal, abstract, references/citations, chances are the paper won?t be all that sharp for most of the mainstream applications. Probably the term is not that key if it can?t be found anywhere in the metadata. I?m not saying there are absolutely no cases for searching in the metadata but most of the people want sharp results, and though we are all impressed by zillions of results, we rarely if ever use the long tail. This only became stronger with Google that made us lazy, na?ve, and not curious enough. 1findr is not perfect as it is, but it presents a nice compromise being sharp and being extensive enough. But duly noted we may miss a few diamonds, and have a shorter tail in our results. Over time, we hope to have more publishers helping us built a high quality full-text. We?ve started with Karger who likes to think outside the box. We?ve started experimenting with the Frontiers corpus as well. This is still small scale but we are careful and reflective about our development. Once we?ll have determined the investments in technical complexity and index size is worth our while to improve the user experience, we?ll start deploying full-text indexing on a larger but progressive scale, at least for those publishers who want their material to be discoverable to the maximum extent. ?ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr?al QC Canada H2J 1Y6 T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111 C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: SIGMETRICS > On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: April 24, 2018 2:16 PM To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. David David Wojick, Ph.D. Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" Greetings everyone, Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles?of which 27 million are available in OA?it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. Here are a few resources if you?re interested in learning more: ? Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com ? Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr ? Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com ? See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch Sincerely, Gr?goire Gr?goire C?t? President | Pr?sident Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr?al, QC H2J 1Y6 Canada T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 T. 1.800.994.4761 F. 1.514.495.6523 gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com www.science-metrix.com Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image001.png"; size=1068 Content-ID: > Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" Content-Description: image002.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image002.png"; size=1109 Content-ID: > _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at craigellachie.us Wed Apr 25 07:14:08 2018 From: dwojick at craigellachie.us (David Wojick) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 07:14:08 -0400 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <3185D4E5-97F7-4AB0-BEBB-F2A9767D8298@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: <8E34664A-6143-4225-9B7E-411019CE0FBB@craigellachie.us> Yes, Eric, I think that language analysis is potentially far superior to citation analysis, now that full text is available. Citations were great when they were all we had. In addition to no lag, language is more objective than citations. Authors can often choose who to cite or not, but specific language is necessary in order to state their results. By the same token, language use is probably a better indicator of the extent and evolution of research areas than subjectively defined and applied discipline categories. New ideas almost always require new language, new phrases at least, sometimes even new words. As I like to put it, the science frontier is a language frontier. The words we use have the meanings they do because we are trying to say what is true. Much follows from this. David On Apr 25, 2018, at 6:49 AM, ?ric Archambault wrote: > Good points David. > > > > For recommenders, using bibliographic coupling is among the most powerful tools and articles need not use the same vocabulary. There has been much emphasis placed on co-citation in the bibliometric/scientometric community but bibliographic coupling is extremely powerful and way more convenient (stable and no lag contrary to co-citation analysis which needs to way for citations to materialize and then is always evolving as the citation graph builds up). > > > > Again, I don?t mean to say you?re not right to emphasize the need for full-text searching, but in many cases there are workaround. One case where full-text is more particularly useful is corpus building for e.g. text/data mining and literature related discovery (LRD) studies. > > > > ?ric > > > > Eric Archambault, PhD > > CEO | Chef de la direction > > C. 1.514.518.0823 > > eric.archambault at science-metrix.com > > science-metrix.com & 1science.com > > > > From: David Wojick > Sent: April-24-18 5:41 PM > To: ?ric Archambault > Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org > Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform > > > > I agree up to a point, Eric. Metadata (especially including an abstract) is usually sufficient for what we might call a standard search. This is one where what we are looking for is the central topic of the article. > > > > But there are many other sorts of search, where the thing sought is relatively secondary to the article and here only full text search works. Examples might include those climate change articles that rely on a specific model, or nuclear physics that uses the Monte Carlo method. A great many questions of this form can arise, in research and in science metrics. > > > > > Then too there is the powerful "more like this" (MLT) function which requires full text. This finds closely related research that does not use the same language. An example is author disambiguation versus name identity. Google Scholar's version of MLT is very useful. > > > > > In fact I developed an algorithm for DOE OSTI that uses "more like this" technology to find all and only those articles closely related to a given topic, ranked by closeness. When you get full text will be happy to show it to you. > > > > > But the fact that your system does not do everything now is not a criticism, merely a direction for possible progress. > > > > > Best of luck, > > > > > David > > > On Apr 24, 2018, at 4:18 PM, ?ric Archambault wrote: > > David, > > > > Thanks for your encouraging comments. You are right, we don?t do full text indexing search ? yet. We want to get there though as a bibliometrician I have always been a tad skeptical about the need to go much beyond high quality metadata. When you can?t find a paper and you have title, journal, abstract, references/citations, chances are the paper won?t be all that sharp for most of the mainstream applications. Probably the term is not that key if it can?t be found anywhere in the metadata. I?m not saying there are absolutely no cases for searching in the metadata but most of the people want sharp results, and though we are all impressed by zillions of results, we rarely if ever use the long tail. This only became stronger with Google that made us lazy, na?ve, and not curious enough. 1findr is not perfect as it is, but it presents a nice compromise being sharp and being extensive enough. But duly noted we may miss a few diamonds, and have a shorter tail in our results. > > > > Over time, we hope to have more publishers helping us built a high quality full-text. We?ve started with Karger who likes to think outside the box. We?ve started experimenting with the Frontiers corpus as well. This is still small scale but we are careful and reflective about our development. Once we?ll have determined the investments in technical complexity and index size is worth our while to improve the user experience, we?ll start deploying full-text indexing on a larger but progressive scale, at least for those publishers who want their material to be discoverable to the maximum extent. > > > > > > ?ric > > > > > > Eric Archambault, PhD > > CEO | Chef de la direction > > 1335, Mont-Royal E > > Montr?al QC Canada H2J 1Y6 > > > > T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111 > > C. 1.514.518.0823 > > eric.archambault at science-metrix.com > > science-metrix.com & 1science.com > > > > > > From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of David Wojick > Sent: April 24, 2018 2:16 PM > To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org > Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform > > > > It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. > > But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. > > David > > David Wojick, Ph.D. > Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation > DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ > > > At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: > > > > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Type: multipart/related; > type="multipart/alternative"; > boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" > > Greetings everyone, > > Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles of which 27 million are available in OA it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. > > Here are a few resources if you?re interested in learning more: > > ? Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com > ? Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr > ? Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com > ? See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch > > Sincerely, > > Gr?goire > > Gr?goire C?t? > President | Pr?sident > Science-Metrix > 1335, Mont-Royal E > Montr?al, QC H2J 1Y6 > Canada > > > T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 > T. 1.800.994.4761 > F. 1.514.495.6523 > gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com > www.science-metrix.com > > > > > Content-Type: image/png; > name="image001.png" > Content-Description: image001.png > Content-Disposition: inline; > creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > filename="image001.png"; > size=1068 > Content-ID: > > Content-Type: image/png; > name="image002.png" > Content-Description: image002.png > Content-Disposition: inline; > creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > filename="image002.png"; > size=1109 > Content-ID: > > > _______________________________________________ > SIGMETRICS mailing list > SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kboyack at mapofscience.com Wed Apr 25 10:48:36 2018 From: kboyack at mapofscience.com (Kevin Boyack) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 08:48:36 -0600 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <8E34664A-6143-4225-9B7E-411019CE0FBB@craigellachie.us> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <3185D4E5-97F7-4AB0-BEBB-F2A9767D8298@craigellachie.us> <8E34664A-6143-4225-9B7E-411019CE0FBB@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: <0f4f01d3dca4$7e0d3b60$7a27b220$@mapofscience.com> Hi David, I think you state ideals here that do not reflect the current reality. Language is not more objective than citations; it is just as ambiguous. Authors choose the words they use just as much as they do the papers they cite. Specific language is an ideal that is not met often enough, particularly when we consider that over half of the scientific literature written in English is authored by non-native English speakers. Having said that, I do think that full text is a potential gold mine (despite the fact that the FUSE program didn?t find the silver bullet with tens of millions of dollars), and that we will ultimately use it to learn things that we can?t learn from citation analysis. I view it as complementary and very valuable, but not ?far superior? to citation analysis. Cheers! Kevin From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:14 AM To: ?ric Archambault Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform Yes, Eric, I think that language analysis is potentially far superior to citation analysis, now that full text is available. Citations were great when they were all we had. In addition to no lag, language is more objective than citations. Authors can often choose who to cite or not, but specific language is necessary in order to state their results. By the same token, language use is probably a better indicator of the extent and evolution of research areas than subjectively defined and applied discipline categories. New ideas almost always require new language, new phrases at least, sometimes even new words. As I like to put it, the science frontier is a language frontier. The words we use have the meanings they do because we are trying to say what is true. Much follows from this. David On Apr 25, 2018, at 6:49 AM, ?ric Archambault > wrote: Good points David. For recommenders, using bibliographic coupling is among the most powerful tools and articles need not use the same vocabulary. There has been much emphasis placed on co-citation in the bibliometric/scientometric community but bibliographic coupling is extremely powerful and way more convenient (stable and no lag contrary to co-citation analysis which needs to way for citations to materialize and then is always evolving as the citation graph builds up). Again, I don?t mean to say you?re not right to emphasize the need for full-text searching, but in many cases there are workaround. One case where full-text is more particularly useful is corpus building for e.g. text/data mining and literature related discovery (LRD) studies. ?ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: David Wojick > Sent: April-24-18 5:41 PM To: ?ric Archambault Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform I agree up to a point, Eric. Metadata (especially including an abstract) is usually sufficient for what we might call a standard search. This is one where what we are looking for is the central topic of the article. But there are many other sorts of search, where the thing sought is relatively secondary to the article and here only full text search works. Examples might include those climate change articles that rely on a specific model, or nuclear physics that uses the Monte Carlo method. A great many questions of this form can arise, in research and in science metrics. Then too there is the powerful "more like this" (MLT) function which requires full text. This finds closely related research that does not use the same language. An example is author disambiguation versus name identity. Google Scholar's version of MLT is very useful. In fact I developed an algorithm for DOE OSTI that uses "more like this" technology to find all and only those articles closely related to a given topic, ranked by closeness. When you get full text will be happy to show it to you. But the fact that your system does not do everything now is not a criticism, merely a direction for possible progress. Best of luck, David On Apr 24, 2018, at 4:18 PM, ?ric Archambault > wrote: David, Thanks for your encouraging comments. You are right, we don?t do full text indexing search ? yet. We want to get there though as a bibliometrician I have always been a tad skeptical about the need to go much beyond high quality metadata. When you can?t find a paper and you have title, journal, abstract, references/citations, chances are the paper won?t be all that sharp for most of the mainstream applications. Probably the term is not that key if it can?t be found anywhere in the metadata. I?m not saying there are absolutely no cases for searching in the metadata but most of the people want sharp results, and though we are all impressed by zillions of results, we rarely if ever use the long tail. This only became stronger with Google that made us lazy, na?ve, and not curious enough. 1findr is not perfect as it is, but it presents a nice compromise being sharp and being extensive enough. But duly noted we may miss a few diamonds, and have a shorter tail in our results. Over time, we hope to have more publishers helping us built a high quality full-text. We?ve started with Karger who likes to think outside the box. We?ve started experimenting with the Frontiers corpus as well. This is still small scale but we are careful and reflective about our development. Once we?ll have determined the investments in technical complexity and index size is worth our while to improve the user experience, we?ll start deploying full-text indexing on a larger but progressive scale, at least for those publishers who want their material to be discoverable to the maximum extent. ?ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr?al QC Canada H2J 1Y6 T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111 C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: SIGMETRICS > On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: April 24, 2018 2:16 PM To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. David David Wojick, Ph.D. Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" Greetings everyone, Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles?of which 27 million are available in OA?it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. Here are a few resources if you?re interested in learning more: ? Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com ? Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr ? Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com ? See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch Sincerely, Gr?goire Gr?goire C?t? President | Pr?sident Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr?al, QC H2J 1Y6 Canada T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 T. 1.800.994.4761 F. 1.514.495.6523 gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com www.science-metrix.com Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image001.png"; size=1068 Content-ID: > Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" Content-Description: image002.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image002.png"; size=1109 Content-ID: > _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eric.archambault at science-metrix.com Wed Apr 25 11:09:27 2018 From: eric.archambault at science-metrix.com (=?utf-8?B?w4lyaWMgQXJjaGFtYmF1bHQ=?=) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:09:27 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <53EF71F4C5E22941A70899881A35FAEB86080D94@WP0045.soliscom.uu.nl> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> , <6.2.0.14.2.20180424145409.0480acd0@pop.craigellachie.us> <53EF71F4C5E22941A70899881A35FAEB86080D94@WP0045.soliscom.uu.nl> Message-ID: Thanks Jeroen, Just a quick note. All comparisons done solely on the ?article? subset of Dimensions as 1findr doesn?t do the other content. Dimensions has more records between 1665 and 1970 than 1findr, and then 1fidr starts having more. I will post figures on Figshare the moment I find a few seconds. Best ?ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) Sent: April-24-18 4:51 PM To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform Of course there is much more to say about 1Findr. What I have seen so far is that the coverage back to 1944 is very much akin to Dimensions, probably because both are deriving the bulk of their records from Crossref. Full text search is relatively rare among these systems. Google Scholar does it. Dimensions does it on a subset. And some publisher platform support it, as do some OA aggragators. Apart from these two aspects (coverage and full text search support), there are a lot of aspects and (forthcoming) 1Findr functionalities that deserve scrutiny, not least the exact method of OA detection (and version priority) of course. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library ________________________________ From: SIGMETRICS [sigmetrics-bounces at asist.org] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at craigellachie.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:59 PM To: Mark C. Wilson Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform There is a joke that what is called "rapid prototyping" actually means fielding the beta version. In that case every user is a beta tester. It is fast and the filter numbers are useful in themselves. Some of the hits are a bit mysterious. It may have unique metric capabilities. Too bad that advanced search is not available for free. David At 02:34 PM 4/24/2018, Mark C. Wilson wrote: Searching for my own papers I obtained some wrong records and the link to arXiv was broken. It does return results very quickly and many are useful. I am not sure whether 1science intended to use everyone in the world as beta-testers. On 25/04/2018, at 06:16, David Wojick > wrote: It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. David David Wojick, Ph.D. Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" Greetings everyone, Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles??of which 27 million are available in OA??it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. Here are a few resources if you???re interested in learning more: ? p; Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com ? p; Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr ? p; Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com ? p; See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch Sincerely, Gr??goire Gr??goire C??t?? President | Pr??sident Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr??al, QC H2J 1Y6 Canada <16bac2d.png> <16bac3d.png> T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 T. 1.800.994.4761 F. 1.514.495.6523 gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com www.science-metrix.com Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image001.png"; size=1068 Content-ID: > Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" Content-Description: image002.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image002.png"; size=1109 Content-ID: > _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwojick at craigellachie.us Wed Apr 25 11:28:16 2018 From: dwojick at craigellachie.us (David Wojick) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <0f4f01d3dca4$7e0d3b60$7a27b220$@mapofscience.com> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <3185D4E5-97F7-4AB0-BEBB-F2A9767D8298@craigellachie.us> <8E34664A-6143-4225-9B7E-411019CE0FBB@craigellachie.us> <0f4f01d3dca4$7e0d3b60$7a27b220$@mapofscience.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20180425112123.04883270@pop.craigellachie.us> Well, Kevin, having done quite a bit of research on this issue, I stand by my claim. It is almost impossible to write a research report on X without using the language that describes X. In fact this is why search works. Moreover, language provides a lot more information than citations. Say 1000 words versus 20 citations. David At 10:48 AM 4/25/2018, Kevin Boyack wrote: >Hi David, > >I think you state ideals here that do not reflect the current reality. >Language is not more objective than citations; it is just as ambiguous. >Authors choose the words they use just as much as they do the papers they >cite. Specific language is an ideal that is not met often enough, >particularly when we consider that over half of the scientific literature >written in English is authored by non-native English speakers. > >Having said that, I do think that full text is a potential gold mine >(despite the fact that the FUSE program didn???t find the silver bullet >with tens of millions of dollars), and that we will ultimately use it to >learn things that we can???t learn from citation analysis. I view it as >complementary and very valuable, but not ???far superior??? to citation >analysis. > >Cheers! >Kevin > > > >From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of David Wojick >Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:14 AM >To: ??ric Archambault >Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org >Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform > >Yes, Eric, I think that language analysis is potentially far superior to >citation analysis, now that full text is available. Citations were great >when they were all we had. In addition to no lag, language is more >objective than citations. Authors can often choose who to cite or not, but >specific language is necessary in order to state their results. > >By the same token, language use is probably a better indicator of the >extent and evolution of research areas than subjectively defined and >applied discipline categories. New ideas almost always require new >language, new phrases at least, sometimes even new words. As I like to put >it, the science frontier is a language frontier. The words we use have the >meanings they do because we are trying to say what is true. Much follows >from this. > >David > >On Apr 25, 2018, at 6:49 AM, ??ric >Archambault<eric.archambault at science-metrix.com> >wrote: >Good points David. > >For recommenders, using bibliographic coupling is among the most powerful >tools and articles need not use the same vocabulary. There has been much >emphasis placed on co-citation in the bibliometric/scientometric community >but bibliographic coupling is extremely powerful and way more convenient >(stable and no lag contrary to co-citation analysis which needs to way for >citations to materialize and then is always evolving as the citation graph >builds up). > >Again, I don???t mean to say you???re not right to emphasize the need for >full-text searching, but in many cases there are workaround. One case >where full-text is more particularly useful is corpus building for e.g. >text/data mining and literature related discovery (LRD) studies. > >??ric > >Eric Archambault, PhD >CEO | Chef de la direction >C. 1.514.518.0823 >eric.archambault at science-metrix.com >science-metrix.com & >1science.com > >From: David Wojick ><dwojick at craigellachie.us> >Sent: April-24-18 5:41 PM >To: ??ric Archambault ><eric.archambault at science-metrix.com> >Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org >Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform > >I agree up to a point, Eric. Metadata (especially including an abstract) >is usually sufficient for what we might call a standard search. This is >one where what we are looking for is the central topic of the article. > >But there are many other sorts of search, where the thing sought is >relatively secondary to the article and here only full text search works. >Examples might include those climate change articles that rely on a >specific model, or nuclear physics that uses the Monte Carlo method. A >great many questions of this form can arise, in research and in science >metrics. > > > >Then too there is the powerful "more like this" (MLT) function which >requires full text. This finds closely related research that does not use >the same language. An example is author disambiguation versus name >identity. Google Scholar's version of MLT is very useful. > > > >In fact I developed an algorithm for DOE OSTI that uses "more like this" >technology to find all and only those articles closely related to a given >topic, ranked by closeness. When you get full text will be happy to show >it to you. > > > >But the fact that your system does not do everything now is not a >criticism, merely a direction for possible progress. > > > >Best of luck, > > > >David > >On Apr 24, 2018, at 4:18 PM, ??ric >Archambault<eric.archambault at science-metrix.com> >wrote: >David, > >Thanks for your encouraging comments. You are right, we don???t do full >text indexing search ? yet. We want to get there though as a >bibliometrician I have always been a tad skeptical about the need to go >much beyond high quality metadata. When you can???t find a paper and you >have title, journal, abstract, references/citations, chances are the paper >won???t be all that sharp for most of the mainstream applications. >Probably the term is not that key if it can???t be found anywhere in the >metadata. I???m not saying there are absolutely no cases for searching in >the metadata but most of the people want sharp results, and though we are >all impressed by zillions of results, we rarely if ever use the long tail. >This only became stronger with Google that made us lazy, na??ve, and not >curious enough. 1findr is not perfect as it is, but it presents a nice >compromise being sharp and being extensive enough. But duly noted we may >miss a few diamonds, and have a shorter tail in our results. > >Over time, we hope to have more publishers helping us built a high quality >full-text. We???ve started with Karger who likes to think outside the box. >We???ve started experimenting with the Frontiers corpus as well. This is >still small scale but we are careful and reflective about our development. >Once we???ll have determined the investments in technical complexity and >index size is worth our while to improve the user experience, we???ll >start deploying full-text indexing on a larger but progressive scale, at >least for those publishers who want their material to be discoverable to >the maximum extent. > > >??ric > > >Eric Archambault, PhD >CEO | Chef de la direction >1335, Mont-Royal E >Montr??al QC Canada H2J 1Y6 > >T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111 >C. 1.514.518.0823 >eric.archambault at science-metrix.com >science-metrix.com & >1science.com > > >From: SIGMETRICS ><sigmetrics-bounces at asist.org> On >Behalf Of David Wojick >Sent: April 24, 2018 2:16 PM >To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org >Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform > >It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant >limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost >all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in >the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the >text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of >magnitude more. > >But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. > >David > >David Wojick, Ph.D. >Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation >DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ > > >At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: > > > >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/related; > type="multipart/alternative"; > boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" > >Greetings everyone, > >Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for >research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles??of which >27 million are available in OA??it represents the largest curated >collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include >all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of >research, in all languages and from every country. > >Here are a few resources if you???re interested in learning more: > >? Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com >? p; Visit the 1findr website: >www.1science.com/1findr >??? Send in your questions: >1findr at 1science.com >? See the press release: >www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch > > >Sincerely, > >Gr??goire > >Gr??goire C??t?? >President | Pr??sident >Science-Metrix >1335, Mont-Royal E >Montr??al, QC H2J 1Y6 >Canada > > > >T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 >T. 1.800.994.4761 >F. 1.514.495.6523 >gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com >www.science-metrix.com > > > > >Content-Type: image/png; > name="image001.png" >Content-Description: image001.png >Content-Disposition: inline; > creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > filename="image001.png"; > size=1068 >Content-ID: ><image001.png at 01D3DB57.02A76980> > >Content-Type: image/png; > name="image002.png" >Content-Description: image002.png >Content-Disposition: inline; > creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; > filename="image002.png"; > size=1109 >Content-ID: ><image002.png at 01D3DB57.02A76980> > > >_______________________________________________ >SIGMETRICS mailing list >SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org >http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kboyack at mapofscience.com Wed Apr 25 11:42:16 2018 From: kboyack at mapofscience.com (Kevin Boyack) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 09:42:16 -0600 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20180425112123.04883270@pop.craigellachie.us> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <3185D4E5-97F7-4AB0-BEBB-F2A9767D8298@craigellachie.us> <8E34664A-6143-4225-9B7E-411019CE0FBB@craigellachie.us> <0f4f01d3dca4$7e0d3b60$7a27b220$@mapofscience.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20180425112123.04883270@pop.craigellachie.us> Message-ID: <0fa501d3dcab$fda47c10$f8ed7430$@mapofscience.com> Hi David, I think we?ll have to agree to (partially) disagree. I understand your claim in the context of search, and won?t argue with you there. But in other contexts, such as identifying and understanding the structure of science, identifying emerging topics, etc. (where I have done extensive research), text is not better than citation (nor is it worse, just different). In fact, hybrids are likely to be best, but we have yet to pull that off at scale. 1000 words vs. 20 citations. There?s no real way to compare numbers here, but the text associated with 20 citations forms quite a corpus, well over 1000 words any way you slice it. The bottom line is that we need both. Cheers! Kevin From: David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:28 AM To: Kevin Boyack Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: RE: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform Well, Kevin, having done quite a bit of research on this issue, I stand by my claim. It is almost impossible to write a research report on X without using the language that describes X. In fact this is why search works. Moreover, language provides a lot more information than citations. Say 1000 words versus 20 citations. David At 10:48 AM 4/25/2018, Kevin Boyack wrote: Hi David, I think you state ideals here that do not reflect the current reality. Language is not more objective than citations; it is just as ambiguous. Authors choose the words they use just as much as they do the papers they cite. Specific language is an ideal that is not met often enough, particularly when we consider that over half of the scientific literature written in English is authored by non-native English speakers. Having said that, I do think that full text is a potential gold mine (despite the fact that the FUSE program didn???t find the silver bullet with tens of millions of dollars), and that we will ultimately use it to learn things that we can???t learn from citation analysis. I view it as complementary and very valuable, but not ???far superior??? to citation analysis. Cheers! Kevin From: SIGMETRICS > On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:14 AM To: ??ric Archambault > Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform Yes, Eric, I think that language analysis is potentially far superior to citation analysis, now that full text is available. Citations were great when they were all we had. In addition to no lag, language is more objective than citations. Authors can often choose who to cite or not, but specific language is necessary in order to state their results. By the same token, language use is probably a better indicator of the extent and evolution of research areas than subjectively defined and applied discipline categories. New ideas almost always require new language, new phrases at least, sometimes even new words. As I like to put it, the science frontier is a language frontier. The words we use have the meanings they do because we are trying to say what is true. Much follows from this. David On Apr 25, 2018, at 6:49 AM, ??ric Archambault< eric.archambault at science-metrix.com > wrote: Good points David. For recommenders, using bibliographic coupling is among the most powerful tools and articles need not use the same vocabulary. There has been much emphasis placed on co-citation in the bibliometric/scientometric community but bibliographic coupling is extremely powerful and way more convenient (stable and no lag contrary to co-citation analysis which needs to way for citations to materialize and then is always evolving as the citation graph builds up). Again, I don???t mean to say you???re not right to emphasize the need for full-text searching, but in many cases there are workaround. One case where full-text is more particularly useful is corpus building for e.g. text/data mining and literature related discovery (LRD) studies. ??ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: David Wojick > Sent: April-24-18 5:41 PM To: ??ric Archambault < eric.archambault at science-metrix.com > Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform I agree up to a point, Eric. Metadata (especially including an abstract) is usually sufficient for what we might call a standard search. This is one where what we are looking for is the central topic of the article. But there are many other sorts of search, where the thing sought is relatively secondary to the article and here only full text search works. Examples might include those climate change articles that rely on a specific model, or nuclear physics that uses the Monte Carlo method. A great many questions of this form can arise, in research and in science metrics. Then too there is the powerful "more like this" (MLT) function which requires full text. This finds closely related research that does not use the same language. An example is author disambiguation versus name identity. Google Scholar's version of MLT is very useful. In fact I developed an algorithm for DOE OSTI that uses "more like this" technology to find all and only those articles closely related to a given topic, ranked by closeness. When you get full text will be happy to show it to you. But the fact that your system does not do everything now is not a criticism, merely a direction for possible progress. Best of luck, David On Apr 24, 2018, at 4:18 PM, ??ric Archambault< eric.archambault at science-metrix.com > wrote: David, Thanks for your encouraging comments. You are right, we don???t do full text indexing search ? yet. We want to get there though as a bibliometrician I have always been a tad skeptical about the need to go much beyond high quality metadata. When you can???t find a paper and you have title, journal, abstract, references/citations, chances are the paper won???t be all that sharp for most of the mainstream applications. Probably the term is not that key if it can???t be found anywhere in the metadata. I???m not saying there are absolutely no cases for searching in the metadata but most of the people want sharp results, and though we are all impressed by zillions of results, we rarely if ever use the long tail. This only became stronger with Google that made us lazy, na??ve, and not curious enough. 1findr is not perfect as it is, but it presents a nice compromise being sharp and being extensive enough. But duly noted we may miss a few diamonds, and have a shorter tail in our results. Over time, we hope to have more publishers helping us built a high quality full-text. We???ve started with Karger who likes to think outside the box. We???ve started experimenting with the Frontiers corpus as well. This is still small scale but we are careful and reflective about our development. Once we???ll have determined the investments in technical complexity and index size is worth our while to improve the user experience, we???ll start deploying full-text indexing on a larger but progressive scale, at least for those publishers who want their material to be discoverable to the maximum extent. ??ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr??al QC Canada H2J 1Y6 T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111 C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: SIGMETRICS < sigmetrics-bounces at asist.org > On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: April 24, 2018 2:16 PM To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. David David Wojick, Ph.D. Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" Greetings everyone, Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles??of which 27 million are available in OA??it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. Here are a few resources if you???re interested in learning more: ? Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com ? p; Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr ??? Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com ? See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch Sincerely, Gr??goire Gr??goire C??t?? President | Pr??sident Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr??al, QC H2J 1Y6 Canada T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 T. 1.800.994.4761 F. 1.514.495.6523 gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com www.science-metrix.com Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image001.png"; size=1068 Content-ID: < image001.png at 01D3DB57.02A76980 > Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" Content-Description: image002.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image002.png"; size=1109 Content-ID: < image002.png at 01D3DB57.02A76980 > _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eric.archambault at science-metrix.com Wed Apr 25 11:05:25 2018 From: eric.archambault at science-metrix.com (=?utf-8?B?w4lyaWMgQXJjaGFtYmF1bHQ=?=) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:05:25 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <51f4d480-7c01-3187-bb6e-385e50c9e370@harzing.com> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <6.2.0.14.2.20180424145409.0480acd0@pop.craigellachie.us> <53EF71F4C5E22941A70899881A35FAEB86080D94@WP0045.soliscom.uu.nl> <51f4d480-7c01-3187-bb6e-385e50c9e370@harzing.com> Message-ID: Anne-Wil, Thank you so much for this review. We need that kind of feedback to prioritize development. Thanks a lot for the positive comments. We are happy that they reflect our design decisions. Now, onto the niggles (all fair points in current version). An important distinction of our system ? at this stage of development ? is that our emphasis is on scholarly/scientific/research work published in peer-reviewed/quality controlled journals (e.g. we don?t index trade journals and popular science magazines such as New Scientist ? not a judgment on quality, many of them are stunningly good, they are just not the type we focus on for now). This stems from work conducted several years ago for the European Commission. We got a contract at Science-Metrix to measure the proportion of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. We discovered (discovery being a big term considering what follows) that 1) OA articles were hard to find and count (numerator in the percentage), and 2) there wasn?t a database that comprised all peer-reviewed journals (denominator in the percentage). Consequently, we had to work by sampling, but hard core bibliometricians like the ones we are at Science-Metrix like the idea of working on population level measurement. At Science-Metrix, our bibliometric company, we have been using licensed bibliometric versions of the Web of Science and Scopus. Great tools, very high quality data (obvious to anyone who has worked on big bibliographic metadata), extensive coverage and loads of high quality, expensive to implement smart enrichment. However, when measuring, we noticed, as did many others, that the databases emphasized Western production to the detriment of the Global South, emerging countries, especially in Asia, and even the old Cold War foe in which the West lost interest after the fall of the wall. 1findr is addressing this ? it aims to find as much OA as possible and to index everything peer-reviewed and academic level published in journals. We aim to expand to other types of content with a rationally designed indexing strategy, but this is what we are obstinately focusing on for now. -We are working on linking all the papers within 1findr with references/citations. This will create the first rationally designed citation network: from all peer-reviewed journals to all peer-reviewed journals, regardless of language, country, field of research (we won?t get there easily or soon). We feel this is scientifically a sound way to measure. Conferences and books are also important, but currently when we take them into account in citations, we have extremely non-random lumps of indexed material, and no one can say what the effect on measured citations is. My educated guess is that this is extremely biased ? book coverage is extremely linguistically biased, conference proceedings indexing is extremely field biased (proportionately way more computer and engineering than other fields). If we want to turn scientometrics into a proper science we need proper measurement tools. This is the long-term direction of 1findr. It won?t remain solely in the discovery field, it will become a scientifically designed tool to measure research, with clearly documented strengths and weaknesses. -We still need to improve our coverage of OA. Though we find twice as many freely downloadable papers in journals than Dimensions, Impact Story finds about 8% OA for papers with a DOI for which we haven?t found a copy yet (one reason we have more OA as a percentage of journal articles is that in 1findr we find much OA for articles without DOIs). We are working on characterizing a sample of papers which are not OA on the 1findr side, but which ImpactStory finds in OA. A glimpse at the data reveals some of these are false positives, but some of them reflect approaches used by ImpactStory that we have not yet implemented (Heather and Jason are smart, and we can all learn from them - thanks to their generosity). There are also transient problems we experienced while building 1findr. For example, at the moment, we have challenges with our existing Wiley dataset and we need to update our harvester for Wiley?s site. Would be nice to have their collaboration, but they have been ignoring my emails for the last two months? Shame, we?re only making their papers more discoverable and helping world users find papers for which article processing charges were paid for. We need the cooperation of publishers to do justice to the wealth of their content, especially hybrid OA papers. -We know we have several papers displaying a ?404?. We are improving the oaFindr link resolver built in 1findr to reduce this. Also we need to scan more frequently for change (we have to be careful there as we don?t want to overwhelm servers; many of the servers we harvest from are truly slow and we want to be nice guys), and we need to continue to implement smarter mechanisms to avoid 404. Transiency of OA is a huge challenge. We have addressed several of the issues, but this takes time and our team has a finite size, and as you note, several challenges, and big ambitions at the same time. -We are rewriting our ?help? center. Please be aware that using no quote does full stemming, using single quote does stemming, but words need be in the same order in the results. Double quotes should be used for non-stemmed, exact matches. This is a really powerful way of searching. Fuel cell = finds articles with fuel and cell(s) 'fuel cell' = finds articles with both fuel cell and fuel cells "fuel cell" = finds articles strictly with fuel cell (won?t return fuel cells only articles) Once again, thanks for the review, and apologies for the lengthy reply. ?ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of Anne-Wil Harzing Sent: April-24-18 5:11 PM To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform Dear all, I was asked (with a very short time-frame) to comment on 1Findr for an article in Nature (which I am not sure has actually appeared). I was given temporary login details for the Advanced interface. As "per normal" with these kind of requests only one of my comments was actually used. So I am posting all of them here in case they are of use to anyone (and to Eric and his team in fine-tuning the system). ================ As I had a very limited amount of time to provide my comments, I tried out 1Findr by searching for my own name (I have about 150 publications including journal articles, books, book chapters, software, web publications and white papers) and some key terms in my own field (international management). What I like Simple and intuitive user interface with fast response to search requests, much faster than with some competitor products where the website takes can take ages to load. The flexibility of the available search options clearly reflects the fact that this is an offering built by people with a background in Scientometrics. A search for my own name showed that coverage at the author level is good, it finds more of my publications than both the Web of Science and Scopus, but fewer than Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic. It is approximately on par with CrossRef and Dimensions though all three services (CR, Dimensions and Findr) have unique publications that the other service doesn?t cover. As far as I could assess, topic searches worked well with flexible options to search in title, keywords and abstracts. However, I have not tried these in detail. Provides a very good set of subjects for filtering searches that ? for the disciplines I can evaluate ? shows much better knowledge of academic disciplines and disciplinary boundaries than is reflected in some competitor products. I particularly like the fact that there is more differentiation in the Applied Sciences, the Economic and Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities than in some other databases. This was sorely needed. There is a quick summary of Altmetrics such as tweets, Facebook postings and Mendeley readers. Again I like the fact that a simple presentation is used, rather than the ?bells & whistle? approach with the flashy graphics of some other providers. This keeps the website snappy and provides an instant overview. There is good access to OA versions and a ?1-click? download of all available OA versions [for a maximum of 40 publications at once as this is the upper limit of the number of records on a page]. I like the fact that it finds OA versions from my personal website (www.harzing.com) as well as OA versions in university repositories and gold OA versions. However, it doesn?t find all OA versions of my papers (see dislike below). What I dislike Although I like the fact that Findr doesn?t try to be anything and everything leading to a cluttered user interface, for me the fact that it doesn?t offer citation metrics limits its usefulness. Although I understand its focus is on finding literature (which is fair enough) many academics ? rightly or wrongly ? use citations scores to assess which articles to prioritize articles for downloading and reading. The fact that it doesn?t yet find all Open Access versions that Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic do. All my publications are available in OA on my website, but Findr does not seem to find all of them. Findr also doesn?t seem to source OA versions from ResearchGate. Also several OA versions resulted in a ?404. The requested resource is not found.? The fact that it only seems to cover journal articles. None of my books, book chapters, software, white papers or web publications were found. Although a focus on peer-reviewed work is understandable I think coverage of books and book chapters is essential and services like Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic and CrossRef do cover books. Niggles There are duplicate results for quite a few of my articles, usually ?poorer? versions (i.e. without full text/abstract/altmetric scores) it would be good if the duplicates could be removed and only the ?best? version kept Automatic stemming of searches is awkward if you try to search for author names in the ?general? search (as many users will do). In my case (Harzing) it results in hundreds of articles on the Harz mountains obscuring all of my output. Preferred search syntax should be clearer as many users will search authors with initials only (as this is what works best in other databases). In Findr this provides very few results as there are ?exact? matches only, whereas in other databases initial searches are interpreted as initial + wildcard. More generally needs better author disambiguation. Some of my articles can only be found when searching for a-w harzing, a very specific rendition of my name. When Exporting Citations the order seems to reverts to alphabetical order of the first author, not the order that was on the screen. Best wishes, Anne-Wil Prof. Anne-Wil Harzing Professor of International Management Middlesex University London, Business School Web: Harzing.com - Twitter: @awharzing - Google Scholar: Citation Profile New: Latest blog post - Surprise: Random blog post - Finally: Support Publish or Perish On 24/04/2018 21:51, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) wrote: Of course there is much more to say about 1Findr. What I have seen so far is that the coverage back to 1944 is very much akin to Dimensions, probably because both are deriving the bulk of their records from Crossref. Full text search is relatively rare among these systems. Google Scholar does it. Dimensions does it on a subset. And some publisher platform support it, as do some OA aggragators. Apart from these two aspects (coverage and full text search support), there are a lot of aspects and (forthcoming) 1Findr functionalities that deserve scrutiny, not least the exact method of OA detection (and version priority) of course. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library ________________________________ From: SIGMETRICS [sigmetrics-bounces at asist.org] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at craigellachie.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:59 PM To: Mark C. Wilson Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform There is a joke that what is called "rapid prototyping" actually means fielding the beta version. In that case every user is a beta tester. It is fast and the filter numbers are useful in themselves. Some of the hits are a bit mysterious. It may have unique metric capabilities. Too bad that advanced search is not available for free. David At 02:34 PM 4/24/2018, Mark C. Wilson wrote: Searching for my own papers I obtained some wrong records and the link to arXiv was broken. It does return results very quickly and many are useful. I am not sure whether 1science intended to use everyone in the world as beta-testers. On 25/04/2018, at 06:16, David Wojick > wrote: It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. David David Wojick, Ph.D. Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" Greetings everyone, Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles??of which 27 million are available in OA??it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. Here are a few resources if you???re interested in learning more: ? p; Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com ? p; Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr ? p; Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com ? p; See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch Sincerely, Gr??goire Gr??goire C??t?? President | Pr??sident Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr??al, QC H2J 1Y6 Canada <16bac2d.png> <16bac3d.png> T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 T. 1.800.994.4761 F. 1.514.495.6523 gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com www.science-metrix.com Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image001.png"; size=1068 Content-ID: Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" Content-Description: image002.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image002.png"; size=1109 Content-ID: _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From loet at leydesdorff.net Thu Apr 26 02:35:09 2018 From: loet at leydesdorff.net (Loet Leydesdorff) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:35:09 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <3185D4E5-97F7-4AB0-BEBB-F2A9767D8298@craigellachie.us> Message-ID: Dear Eric, >For recommenders, using bibliographic coupling is among the most >powerful tools and articles need not use the same vocabulary. There has >been much emphasis placed on co-citation in the >bibliometric/scientometric community but bibliographic coupling is >extremely powerful and way more convenient (stable and no lag contrary >to co-citation analysis which needs to way for citations to materialize >and then is always evolving as the citation graph builds up). > I agree. This is much more codified than word usage. Best (and congratulations), Loet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kboyack at mapofscience.com Wed Apr 25 16:50:01 2018 From: kboyack at mapofscience.com (Kevin Boyack) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:50:01 -0600 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <6.2.0.14.2.20180424145409.0480acd0@pop.craigellachie.us> <53EF71F4C5E22941A70899881A35FAEB86080D94@WP0045.soliscom.uu.nl> <51f4d480-7c01-3187-bb6e-385e50c9e370@harzing.com> Message-ID: <10de01d3dcd6$fb951580$f2bf4080$@mapofscience.com> ?ric, ? and thanks to you for being so transparent about what you?re doing! Kevin From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of ?ric Archambault Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:05 AM To: Anne-Wil Harzing ; sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform Anne-Wil, Thank you so much for this review. We need that kind of feedback to prioritize development. Thanks a lot for the positive comments. We are happy that they reflect our design decisions. Now, onto the niggles (all fair points in current version). An important distinction of our system ? at this stage of development ? is that our emphasis is on scholarly/scientific/research work published in peer-reviewed/quality controlled journals (e.g. we don?t index trade journals and popular science magazines such as New Scientist ? not a judgment on quality, many of them are stunningly good, they are just not the type we focus on for now). This stems from work conducted several years ago for the European Commission. We got a contract at Science-Metrix to measure the proportion of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. We discovered (discovery being a big term considering what follows) that 1) OA articles were hard to find and count (numerator in the percentage), and 2) there wasn?t a database that comprised all peer-reviewed journals (denominator in the percentage). Consequently, we had to work by sampling, but hard core bibliometricians like the ones we are at Science-Metrix like the idea of working on population level measurement. At Science-Metrix, our bibliometric company, we have been using licensed bibliometric versions of the Web of Science and Scopus. Great tools, very high quality data (obvious to anyone who has worked on big bibliographic metadata), extensive coverage and loads of high quality, expensive to implement smart enrichment. However, when measuring, we noticed, as did many others, that the databases emphasized Western production to the detriment of the Global South, emerging countries, especially in Asia, and even the old Cold War foe in which the West lost interest after the fall of the wall. 1findr is addressing this ? it aims to find as much OA as possible and to index everything peer-reviewed and academic level published in journals. We aim to expand to other types of content with a rationally designed indexing strategy, but this is what we are obstinately focusing on for now. -We are working on linking all the papers within 1findr with references/citations. This will create the first rationally designed citation network: from all peer-reviewed journals to all peer-reviewed journals, regardless of language, country, field of research (we won?t get there easily or soon). We feel this is scientifically a sound way to measure. Conferences and books are also important, but currently when we take them into account in citations, we have extremely non-random lumps of indexed material, and no one can say what the effect on measured citations is. My educated guess is that this is extremely biased ? book coverage is extremely linguistically biased, conference proceedings indexing is extremely field biased (proportionately way more computer and engineering than other fields). If we want to turn scientometrics into a proper science we need proper measurement tools. This is the long-term direction of 1findr. It won?t remain solely in the discovery field, it will become a scientifically designed tool to measure research, with clearly documented strengths and weaknesses. -We still need to improve our coverage of OA. Though we find twice as many freely downloadable papers in journals than Dimensions, Impact Story finds about 8% OA for papers with a DOI for which we haven?t found a copy yet (one reason we have more OA as a percentage of journal articles is that in 1findr we find much OA for articles without DOIs). We are working on characterizing a sample of papers which are not OA on the 1findr side, but which ImpactStory finds in OA. A glimpse at the data reveals some of these are false positives, but some of them reflect approaches used by ImpactStory that we have not yet implemented (Heather and Jason are smart, and we can all learn from them - thanks to their generosity). There are also transient problems we experienced while building 1findr. For example, at the moment, we have challenges with our existing Wiley dataset and we need to update our harvester for Wiley?s site. Would be nice to have their collaboration, but they have been ignoring my emails for the last two months? Shame, we?re only making their papers more discoverable and helping world users find papers for which article processing charges were paid for. We need the cooperation of publishers to do justice to the wealth of their content, especially hybrid OA papers. -We know we have several papers displaying a ?404?. We are improving the oaFindr link resolver built in 1findr to reduce this. Also we need to scan more frequently for change (we have to be careful there as we don?t want to overwhelm servers; many of the servers we harvest from are truly slow and we want to be nice guys), and we need to continue to implement smarter mechanisms to avoid 404. Transiency of OA is a huge challenge. We have addressed several of the issues, but this takes time and our team has a finite size, and as you note, several challenges, and big ambitions at the same time. -We are rewriting our ?help? center. Please be aware that using no quote does full stemming, using single quote does stemming, but words need be in the same order in the results. Double quotes should be used for non-stemmed, exact matches. This is a really powerful way of searching. Fuel cell = finds articles with fuel and cell(s) 'fuel cell' = finds articles with both fuel cell and fuel cells "fuel cell" = finds articles strictly with fuel cell (won?t return fuel cells only articles) Once again, thanks for the review, and apologies for the lengthy reply. ?ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: SIGMETRICS > On Behalf Of Anne-Wil Harzing Sent: April-24-18 5:11 PM To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform Dear all, I was asked (with a very short time-frame) to comment on 1Findr for an article in Nature (which I am not sure has actually appeared). I was given temporary login details for the Advanced interface. As "per normal" with these kind of requests only one of my comments was actually used. So I am posting all of them here in case they are of use to anyone (and to Eric and his team in fine-tuning the system). ================ As I had a very limited amount of time to provide my comments, I tried out 1Findr by searching for my own name (I have about 150 publications including journal articles, books, book chapters, software, web publications and white papers) and some key terms in my own field (international management). What I like Simple and intuitive user interface with fast response to search requests, much faster than with some competitor products where the website takes can take ages to load. The flexibility of the available search options clearly reflects the fact that this is an offering built by people with a background in Scientometrics. A search for my own name showed that coverage at the author level is good, it finds more of my publications than both the Web of Science and Scopus, but fewer than Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic. It is approximately on par with CrossRef and Dimensions though all three services (CR, Dimensions and Findr) have unique publications that the other service doesn?t cover. As far as I could assess, topic searches worked well with flexible options to search in title, keywords and abstracts. However, I have not tried these in detail. Provides a very good set of subjects for filtering searches that ? for the disciplines I can evaluate ? shows much better knowledge of academic disciplines and disciplinary boundaries than is reflected in some competitor products. I particularly like the fact that there is more differentiation in the Applied Sciences, the Economic and Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities than in some other databases. This was sorely needed. There is a quick summary of Altmetrics such as tweets, Facebook postings and Mendeley readers. Again I like the fact that a simple presentation is used, rather than the ?bells & whistle? approach with the flashy graphics of some other providers. This keeps the website snappy and provides an instant overview. There is good access to OA versions and a ?1-click? download of all available OA versions [for a maximum of 40 publications at once as this is the upper limit of the number of records on a page]. I like the fact that it finds OA versions from my personal website (www.harzing.com ) as well as OA versions in university repositories and gold OA versions. However, it doesn?t find all OA versions of my papers (see dislike below). What I dislike Although I like the fact that Findr doesn?t try to be anything and everything leading to a cluttered user interface, for me the fact that it doesn?t offer citation metrics limits its usefulness. Although I understand its focus is on finding literature (which is fair enough) many academics ? rightly or wrongly ? use citations scores to assess which articles to prioritize articles for downloading and reading. The fact that it doesn?t yet find all Open Access versions that Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic do. All my publications are available in OA on my website, but Findr does not seem to find all of them. Findr also doesn?t seem to source OA versions from ResearchGate. Also several OA versions resulted in a ?404. The requested resource is not found.? The fact that it only seems to cover journal articles. None of my books, book chapters, software, white papers or web publications were found. Although a focus on peer-reviewed work is understandable I think coverage of books and book chapters is essential and services like Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic and CrossRef do cover books. Niggles There are duplicate results for quite a few of my articles, usually ?poorer? versions (i.e. without full text/abstract/altmetric scores) it would be good if the duplicates could be removed and only the ?best? version kept Automatic stemming of searches is awkward if you try to search for author names in the ?general? search (as many users will do). In my case (Harzing) it results in hundreds of articles on the Harz mountains obscuring all of my output. Preferred search syntax should be clearer as many users will search authors with initials only (as this is what works best in other databases). In Findr this provides very few results as there are ?exact? matches only, whereas in other databases initial searches are interpreted as initial + wildcard. More generally needs better author disambiguation. Some of my articles can only be found when searching for a-w harzing, a very specific rendition of my name. When Exporting Citations the order seems to reverts to alphabetical order of the first author, not the order that was on the screen. Best wishes, Anne-Wil Prof. Anne-Wil Harzing Professor of International Management Middlesex University London, Business School Web: Harzing.com - Twitter: @awharzing - Google Scholar: Citation Profile New: Latest blog post - Surprise: Random blog post - Finally: Support Publish or Perish On 24/04/2018 21:51, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) wrote: Of course there is much more to say about 1Findr. What I have seen so far is that the coverage back to 1944 is very much akin to Dimensions, probably because both are deriving the bulk of their records from Crossref. Full text search is relatively rare among these systems. Google Scholar does it. Dimensions does it on a subset. And some publisher platform support it, as do some OA aggragators. Apart from these two aspects (coverage and full text search support), there are a lot of aspects and (forthcoming) 1Findr functionalities that deserve scrutiny, not least the exact method of OA detection (and version priority) of course. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library _____ From: SIGMETRICS [sigmetrics-bounces at asist.org ] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at craigellachie.us ] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:59 PM To: Mark C. Wilson Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform There is a joke that what is called "rapid prototyping" actually means fielding the beta version. In that case every user is a beta tester. It is fast and the filter numbers are useful in themselves. Some of the hits are a bit mysterious. It may have unique metric capabilities. Too bad that advanced search is not available for free. David At 02:34 PM 4/24/2018, Mark C. Wilson wrote: Searching for my own papers I obtained some wrong records and the link to arXiv was broken. It does return results very quickly and many are useful. I am not sure whether 1science intended to use everyone in the world as beta-testers. On 25/04/2018, at 06:16, David Wojick > wrote: It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. David David Wojick, Ph.D. Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" Greetings everyone, Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles??of which 27 million are available in OA??it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. Here are a few resources if you???re interested in learning more: ? p; Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com ? p; Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr ? p; Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com ? p; See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch Sincerely, Gr??goire Gr??goire C??t?? President | Pr??sident Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr??al, QC H2J 1Y6 Canada <16bac2d.png> <16bac3d.png> T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 T. 1.800.994.4761 F. 1.514.495.6523 gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com www.science-metrix.com Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image001.png"; size=1068 Content-ID: Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" Content-Description: image002.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image002.png"; size=1109 Content-ID: _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefanie.haustein at uottawa.ca Thu Apr 26 12:12:11 2018 From: stefanie.haustein at uottawa.ca (Stefanie Haustein) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 16:12:11 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] altmetrics18 workshop: Call for contributions Message-ID: <69f2190c1feb4c658c0834989caa330e@uottawa.ca> ***Apologies for cross-posting*** altmetrics18. The dependencies of altmetrics altmetrics18 is part of the altmetrics workshop series organized since 2011 and will take place in conjunction with the 5th Altmetrics Conference (5:AM) at the School of Advanced Studies in London on 25 September 2018. Given the main goal of altmetrics that science should be also beneficial to a broader community and help inform changes in various aspects of society, the workshop will have a focus on public interactions with science through social media platforms. ? How can societal impact altmetrics may reflect be characterized? ? Which actors are involved? ? Which limitations are posed through platforms and their functionalities? The workshop particularly invites contributions that address the workshop's theme directly or indirectly, study how the general public interacts with research outputs, and use different methods including sentiment analysis, network analysis or content analysis and also propose new qualitative and quantitative approaches and sources (e.g., YouTube or Instagram) to explore these interactions. Call for contributions We are soliciting empirical and theoretical contributions for short presentations and as a basis for discussions, which will be the main focus of the altmetrics18 workshop. Submissions can focus on empirical analyses, novel theoretical frameworks, original datasets or represent a position paper. The goal of the workshop is to discuss, exchange, and foster collaboration on social media metrics in general and public interactions with science in particular. While a short paper is not a requirement to attend the workshop, we strongly encourage prospective participants to submit a contribution to seed the discussions. The organizers will give priority to submissions linking to original research artifacts and focusing on the theme of this year's workshop. All accepted submissions will be made available via the workshop website prior to the workshop. How to submit Please provide short papers in the format of a research-in-progress (between 1,500-3,000 words) presenting research results or research in progress. The objectives, questions, methods and (preliminary) results of the research should be presented in any case. Please also briefly include particular issues and questions you would like to discuss with other workshop participants. Abstracts need to be submitted via EasyChair by 15 June 2018. Please include a link to any relevant artifact (e.g., a dataset, plots, slidedeck) you wish to present and discuss, after archiving it via an appropriate repository (e.g., Dryad, figshare, GitHub, SlideShare, etc.). Important dates 15.06.2018: Submission Deadline 30.06.2018: Acceptance Notification 25.09.2018: altmetrics18 workshop Kind regards, The altmetrics18 organizing committee (Judit Bar-Ilan, Rodrigo Costas, Fereshteh Didegah, Isabella Peters & Stefanie Haustein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stefanie Haustein Assistant Professor | Professeure adjointe School of Information Studies | ?cole des sciences de l'information University of Ottawa | Universit? d'Ottawa e-mail: stefanie.haustein at uottawa.ca web: stefaniehaustein.com | arts.uottawa.ca/esi phone: 613-562-5800 (1986) Twitter: @stefhaustein Co-director | Codirectrice #ScholCommLab web: scholcommlab.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefanie.haustein at uottawa.ca Thu Apr 26 13:28:10 2018 From: stefanie.haustein at uottawa.ca (Stefanie Haustein) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:28:10 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] altmetrics18 workshop: Call for contributions Message-ID: I apologize for sending the previous year's workshop title. Below you'll find the corrected version of the CfP: altmetrics18. Science & The Public: Public Interactions with Science through the Lens of Social Media altmetrics18 is part of the altmetrics workshop series organized since 2011 and will take place in conjunction with the 5th Altmetrics Conference (5:AM) at the School of Advanced Studies in London on 25 September 2018. Given the main goal of altmetrics that science should be also beneficial to a broader community and help inform changes in various aspects of society, the workshop will have a focus on public interactions with science through social media platforms. ? How can societal impact be characterized through altmetrics? ? Which actors are involved? ? Which limitations are posed through platforms and their functionalities? The workshop particularly invites contributions that address the workshop's theme directly or indirectly, study how the general public interacts with research outputs, and use different methods including sentiment analysis, network analysis or content analysis and also propose new qualitative and quantitative approaches and sources (e.g., YouTube or Instagram) to explore these interactions. Call for contributions We are soliciting empirical and theoretical contributions for short presentations and as a basis for discussions, which will be the main focus of the altmetrics18 workshop. Submissions can focus on empirical analyses, novel theoretical frameworks, original datasets or represent a position paper. The goal of the workshop is to discuss, exchange, and foster collaboration on social media metrics in general and public interactions with science in particular. While a short paper is not a requirement to attend the workshop, we strongly encourage prospective participants to submit a contribution to seed the discussions. The organizers will give priority to submissions linking to original research artifacts and focusing on the theme of this year's workshop. All accepted submissions will be made available via the workshop website prior to the workshop. How to submit Please provide short papers in the format of a research-in-progress (between 1,500-3,000 words) presenting research results or research in progress. The objectives, questions, methods and (preliminary) results of the research should be presented in any case. Please also briefly include particular issues and questions you would like to discuss with other workshop participants. Abstracts need to be submitted via EasyChair by 15 June 2018. Please include a link to any relevant artifact (e.g., a dataset, plots, slidedeck) you wish to present and discuss, after archiving it via an appropriate repository (e.g., Dryad, figshare, GitHub, SlideShare, etc.). Important dates 15.06.2018: Submission Deadline 30.06.2018: Acceptance Notification 25.09.2018: altmetrics18 workshop Kind regards, The altmetrics18 organizing committee (Judit Bar-Ilan, Rodrigo Costas, Fereshteh Didegah, Isabella Peters & Stefanie Haustein) From: Stefanie Haustein Sent: April-26-18 12:12 PM To: 'sigmetrics at mail.asis.org' Subject: altmetrics18 workshop: Call for contributions ***Apologies for cross-posting*** altmetrics18. The dependencies of altmetrics altmetrics18 is part of the altmetrics workshop series organized since 2011 and will take place in conjunction with the 5th Altmetrics Conference (5:AM) at the School of Advanced Studies in London on 25 September 2018. Given the main goal of altmetrics that science should be also beneficial to a broader community and help inform changes in various aspects of society, the workshop will have a focus on public interactions with science through social media platforms. ? How can societal impact altmetrics may reflect be characterized? ? Which actors are involved? ? Which limitations are posed through platforms and their functionalities? The workshop particularly invites contributions that address the workshop's theme directly or indirectly, study how the general public interacts with research outputs, and use different methods including sentiment analysis, network analysis or content analysis and also propose new qualitative and quantitative approaches and sources (e.g., YouTube or Instagram) to explore these interactions. Call for contributions We are soliciting empirical and theoretical contributions for short presentations and as a basis for discussions, which will be the main focus of the altmetrics18 workshop. Submissions can focus on empirical analyses, novel theoretical frameworks, original datasets or represent a position paper. The goal of the workshop is to discuss, exchange, and foster collaboration on social media metrics in general and public interactions with science in particular. While a short paper is not a requirement to attend the workshop, we strongly encourage prospective participants to submit a contribution to seed the discussions. The organizers will give priority to submissions linking to original research artifacts and focusing on the theme of this year's workshop. All accepted submissions will be made available via the workshop website prior to the workshop. How to submit Please provide short papers in the format of a research-in-progress (between 1,500-3,000 words) presenting research results or research in progress. The objectives, questions, methods and (preliminary) results of the research should be presented in any case. Please also briefly include particular issues and questions you would like to discuss with other workshop participants. Abstracts need to be submitted via EasyChair by 15 June 2018. Please include a link to any relevant artifact (e.g., a dataset, plots, slidedeck) you wish to present and discuss, after archiving it via an appropriate repository (e.g., Dryad, figshare, GitHub, SlideShare, etc.). Important dates 15.06.2018: Submission Deadline 30.06.2018: Acceptance Notification 25.09.2018: altmetrics18 workshop Kind regards, The altmetrics18 organizing committee (Judit Bar-Ilan, Rodrigo Costas, Fereshteh Didegah, Isabella Peters & Stefanie Haustein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stefanie Haustein Assistant Professor | Professeure adjointe School of Information Studies | ?cole des sciences de l'information University of Ottawa | Universit? d'Ottawa e-mail: stefanie.haustein at uottawa.ca web: stefaniehaustein.com | arts.uottawa.ca/esi phone: 613-562-5800 (1986) Twitter: @stefhaustein Co-director | Codirectrice #ScholCommLab web: scholcommlab.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From edelgado at ugr.es Thu Apr 26 14:51:42 2018 From: edelgado at ugr.es (=?UTF-8?Q?Emilio_Delgado_L=C3=B3pez-C=C3=B3zar?=) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 20:51:42 +0200 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <10de01d3dcd6$fb951580$f2bf4080$@mapofscience.com> References: "\" <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <6.2.0.14.2.20180424145409.0480acd0@pop.craigellachie.us>" <53EF71F4C5E22941A70899881A35FAEB86080D94@WP0045.soliscom.uu.nl>" <51f4d480-7c01-3187-bb6e-385e50c9e370@harzing.com> <10de01d3dcd6$fb951580$f2bf4080$@mapofscience.com> Message-ID: <16933bfda903a7a55a7955cb02b9472a@ugr.es> First of all, I would like to congratulate the team behind _1FINDR_ for releasing this new product. New scientific information systems with an open approach that make their resources available to the scientific community are always welcome. A few days ago another system was launched (_LENS_ https://www.lens.org), and not many weeks ago _DIMENSIONS_ was launched (https://app.dimensions.ai). The landscape of scientific information systems is becoming increasingly more populated. Everyone is moving: new platforms with new features, new actors with new ideas, and old actors trying to adapt rather than die... In order to be able to build a solid idea of what _1FINDR_ is and how it has been constructed, I woul like to formulate some questions, since I haven't found their answer in the website: What is the main source of the metadata to those 89,561,005 articles? Is it perhaps _CROSSREF_? How have peer-reviewed journals been identified? Are all document types in these journals covered? Editorial material, news, comments, book reviews... How have OA versions of the documents been identified? How have articles been categorised in subjects? To what extent has _GOOGLE SCHOLAR_ data been used to build _1FINDR_? We think this information will help assess exactly what 1findr offers that is not offered by other platforms. Kind regards, --- Emilio Delgado L?pez-C?zar Facultad de Comunicaci?n y Documentaci?n Universidad de Granada http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=es&user=kyTHOh0AAAAJ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emilio_Delgado_Lopez-Cozar http://googlescholardigest.blogspot.com.es Dubitando ad veritatem pervenimus (Cicer?n, De officiis. A. 451...) Contra facta non argumenta A fructibus eorum cognoscitis eos (San Mateo 7, 16) El 2018-04-25 22:50, Kevin Boyack escribi?: > ?ric, > > ? and thanks to you for being so transparent about what you're doing! > > Kevin > > FROM: SIGMETRICS ON BEHALF OF ?ric Archambault > SENT: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:05 AM > TO: Anne-Wil Harzing ; sigmetrics at mail.asis.org > SUBJECT: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform > > Anne-Wil, > > Thank you so much for this review. We need that kind of feedback to prioritize development. > > Thanks a lot for the positive comments. We are happy that they reflect our design decisions. Now, onto the niggles (all fair points in current version). > > An important distinction of our system - at this stage of development - is that our emphasis is on scholarly/scientific/research work published in peer-reviewed/quality controlled journals (e.g. we don't index trade journals and popular science magazines such as New Scientist - not a judgment on quality, many of them are stunningly good, they are just not the type we focus on for now). This stems from work conducted several years ago for the European Commission. We got a contract at Science-Metrix to measure the proportion of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. We discovered (discovery being a big term considering what follows) that 1) OA articles were hard to find and count (numerator in the percentage), and 2) there wasn't a database that comprised all peer-reviewed journals (denominator in the percentage). Consequently, we had to work by sampling, but hard core bibliometricians like the ones we are at Science-Metrix like the idea of working on population level measurement. At Science-Metrix, our bibliometric company, we have been using licensed bibliometric versions of the Web of Science and Scopus. Great tools, very high quality data (obvious to anyone who has worked on big bibliographic metadata), extensive coverage and loads of high quality, expensive to implement smart enrichment. However, when measuring, we noticed, as did many others, that the databases emphasized Western production to the detriment of the Global South, emerging countries, especially in Asia, and even the old Cold War foe in which the West lost interest after the fall of the wall. 1findr is addressing this - it aims to find as much OA as possible and to index everything peer-reviewed and academic level published in journals. We aim to expand to other types of content with a rationally designed indexing strategy, but this is what we are obstinately focusing on for now. > > -We are working on linking all the papers within 1findr with references/citations. This will create the first rationally designed citation network: from all peer-reviewed journals to all peer-reviewed journals, regardless of language, country, field of research (we won't get there easily or soon). We feel this is scientifically a sound way to measure. Conferences and books are also important, but currently when we take them into account in citations, we have extremely non-random lumps of indexed material, and no one can say what the effect on measured citations is. My educated guess is that this is extremely biased - book coverage is extremely linguistically biased, conference proceedings indexing is extremely field biased (proportionately way more computer and engineering than other fields). If we want to turn scientometrics into a proper science we need proper measurement tools. This is the long-term direction of 1findr. It won't remain solely in the discovery field, it will become a scientifically designed tool to measure research, with clearly documented strengths and weaknesses. > > -We still need to improve our coverage of OA. Though we find twice as many freely downloadable papers in journals than Dimensions, Impact Story finds about 8% OA for papers with a DOI for which we haven't found a copy yet (one reason we have more OA as a percentage of journal articles is that in 1findr we find much OA for articles without DOIs). We are working on characterizing a sample of papers which are not OA on the 1findr side, but which ImpactStory finds in OA. A glimpse at the data reveals some of these are false positives, but some of them reflect approaches used by ImpactStory that we have not yet implemented (Heather and Jason are smart, and we can all learn from them - thanks to their generosity). There are also transient problems we experienced while building 1findr. For example, at the moment, we have challenges with our existing Wiley dataset and we need to update our harvester for Wiley's site. Would be nice to have their collaboration, but they have been ignoring my emails for the last two months? Shame, we're only making their papers more discoverable and helping world users find papers for which article processing charges were paid for. We need the cooperation of publishers to do justice to the wealth of their content, especially hybrid OA papers. > > -We know we have several papers displaying a "404". We are improving the oaFindr link resolver built in 1findr to reduce this. Also we need to scan more frequently for change (we have to be careful there as we don't want to overwhelm servers; many of the servers we harvest from are truly slow and we want to be nice guys), and we need to continue to implement smarter mechanisms to avoid 404. Transiency of OA is a huge challenge. We have addressed several of the issues, but this takes time and our team has a finite size, and as you note, several challenges, and big ambitions at the same time. > > -We are rewriting our "help" center. Please be aware that using no quote does full stemming, using single quote does stemming, but words need be in the same order in the results. Double quotes should be used for non-stemmed, exact matches. This is a really powerful way of searching. > > Fuel cell = finds articles with fuel and cell(s) > > 'fuel cell' = finds articles with both fuel cell and fuel cells > > "fuel cell" = finds articles strictly with fuel cell (won't return fuel cells only articles) > > Once again, thanks for the review, and apologies for the lengthy reply. > > ?ric > > ERIC ARCHAMBAULT, PHD > > CEO | Chef de la direction > > C. 1.514.518.0823 > > eric.archambault at science-metrix.com [16] > > science-metrix.com [17] & 1science.com [18] > > FROM: SIGMETRICS ON BEHALF OF Anne-Wil Harzing > SENT: April-24-18 5:11 PM > TO: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org [20] > SUBJECT: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform > > Dear all, > > I was asked (with a very short time-frame) to comment on 1Findr for an article in Nature (which I am not sure has actually appeared). I was given temporary login details for the Advanced interface. > > As "per normal" with these kind of requests only one of my comments was actually used. So I am posting all of them here in case they are of use to anyone (and to Eric and his team in fine-tuning the system). > > ================ > > As I had a very limited amount of time to provide my comments, I tried out 1Findr by searching for my own name (I have about 150 publications including journal articles, books, book chapters, software, web publications and white papers) and some key terms in my own field (international management). > > WHAT I LIKE > > Simple and intuitive user interface with fast response to search requests, much faster than with some competitor products where the website takes can take ages to load. The flexibility of the available search options clearly reflects the fact that this is an offering built by people with a background in Scientometrics. > > A search for my own name showed that coverage at the author level is good, it finds more of my publications than both the Web of Science and Scopus, but fewer than Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic. It is approximately on par with CrossRef and Dimensions though all three services (CR, Dimensions and Findr) have unique publications that the other service doesn't cover. > > As far as I could assess, topic searches worked well with flexible options to search in title, keywords and abstracts. However, I have not tried these in detail. > > Provides a very good set of subjects for filtering searches that - for the disciplines I can evaluate - shows much better knowledge of academic disciplines and disciplinary boundaries than is reflected in some competitor products. I particularly like the fact that there is more differentiation in the Applied Sciences, the Economic and Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities than in some other databases. This was sorely needed. > > There is a quick summary of Altmetrics such as tweets, Facebook postings and Mendeley readers. Again I like the fact that a simple presentation is used, rather than the "bells & whistle" approach with the flashy graphics of some other providers. This keeps the website snappy and provides an instant overview. > > There is good access to OA versions and a "1-click" download of all available OA versions [for a maximum of 40 publications at once as this is the upper limit of the number of records on a page]. I like the fact that it finds OA versions from my personal website (www.harzing.com [21]) as well as OA versions in university repositories and gold OA versions. However, it doesn't find all OA versions of my papers (see dislike below). > > WHAT I DISLIKE > > Although I like the fact that Findr doesn't try to be anything and everything leading to a cluttered user interface, for me the fact that it doesn't offer citation metrics limits its usefulness. Although I understand its focus is on finding literature (which is fair enough) many academics - rightly or wrongly - use citations scores to assess which articles to prioritize articles for downloading and reading. > > The fact that it doesn't yet find all Open Access versions that Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic do. All my publications are available in OA on my website, but Findr does not seem to find all of them. Findr also doesn't seem to source OA versions from ResearchGate. Also several OA versions resulted in a _"404. The requested resource is not found."_ > > The fact that it only seems to cover journal articles. None of my books, book chapters, software, white papers or web publications were found. Although a focus on peer-reviewed work is understandable I think coverage of books and book chapters is essential and services like Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic and CrossRef do cover books. > > NIGGLES > > There are duplicate results for quite a few of my articles, usually "poorer" versions (i.e. without full text/abstract/altmetric scores) it would be good if the duplicates could be removed and only the "best" version kept > > Automatic stemming of searches is awkward if you try to search for author names in the "general" search (as many users will do). In my case (Harzing) it results in hundreds of articles on the Harz mountains obscuring all of my output. > > Preferred search syntax should be clearer as many users will search authors with initials only (as this is what works best in other databases). In Findr this provides very few results as there are "exact" matches only, whereas in other databases initial searches are interpreted as initial + wildcard. > > More generally needs better author disambiguation. Some of my articles can only be found when searching for a-w harzing, a very specific rendition of my name. > > When Exporting Citations the order seems to reverts to alphabetical order of the first author, not the order that was on the screen. > > Best wishes, > Anne-Wil > > PROF. ANNE-WIL HARZING > > Professor of International Management > Middlesex University London, Business School > > WEB: Harzing.com [22] - TWITTER: @awharzing [23] - GOOGLE SCHOLAR: Citation Profile [24] > NEW: Latest blog post [25] - SURPRISE: Random blog post [26] - FINALLY: Support Publish or Perish [27] > > On 24/04/2018 21:51, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) wrote: > >> Of course there is much more to say about 1Findr. What I have seen so far is that the coverage back to 1944 is very much akin to Dimensions, probably because both are deriving the bulk of their records from Crossref. >> >> Full text search is relatively rare among these systems. Google Scholar does it. Dimensions does it on a subset. And some publisher platform support it, as do some OA aggragators. >> >> Apart from these two aspects (coverage and full text search support), there are a lot of aspects and (forthcoming) 1Findr functionalities that deserve scrutiny, not least the exact method of OA detection (and version priority) of course. >> >> Jeroen Bosman >> >> Utrecht University Library >> >> ------------------------- >> >> FROM: SIGMETRICS [sigmetrics-bounces at asist.org [13]] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at craigellachie.us [14]] >> SENT: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:59 PM >> TO: Mark C. Wilson >> CC: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org [15] >> SUBJECT: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform >> >> There is a joke that what is called "rapid prototyping" actually means fielding the beta version. In that case every user is a beta tester. >> >> It is fast and the filter numbers are useful in themselves. Some of the hits are a bit mysterious. It may have unique metric capabilities. Too bad that advanced search is not available for free. >> >> David >> >> At 02:34 PM 4/24/2018, Mark C. Wilson wrote: >> >>> Searching for my own papers I obtained some wrong records and the link to arXiv was broken. It does return results very quickly and many are useful. I am not sure whether 1science intended to use everyone in the world as beta-testers. >>> >>>> On 25/04/2018, at 06:16, David Wojick wrote: >>>> >>>> It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. >>>> >>>> But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> David Wojick, Ph.D. >>>> Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation >>>> DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ [10] >>>> >>>> At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: >>>> >>>>> Content-Language: en-US >>>>> Content-Type: multipart/related; >>>>> type="multipart/alternative"; >>>>> boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" >>>>> >>>>> Greetings everyone, >>>>> >>>>> Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles??of which 27 million are available in OA??it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. >>>>> >>>>> Here are a few resources if you?EUR(tm)re interested in learning more: >>>>> >>>>> * p; Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com [1] >>>>> * p; Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr [2] >>>>> * p; Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com [3] >>>>> * p; See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch [4] >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> Gr?(c)goire >>>>> >>>>> Gr?(c)goire C??t?(c) >>>>> President | Pr?(c)sident >>>>> Science-Metrix >>>>> 1335, Mont-Royal E >>>>> Montr?(c)al, QC H2J 1Y6 >>>>> Canada >>>>> >>>>> T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 >>>>> T. 1.800.994.4761 >>>>> F. 1.514.495.6523 >>>>> gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com [5] >>>>> www.science-metrix.com [6] >>>>> >>>>> Content-Type: image/png; >>>>> name="image001.png" >>>>> Content-Description: image001.png >>>>> Content-Disposition: inline; >>>>> creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>>>> modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>>>> filename="image001.png"; >>>>> size=1068 >>>>> Content-ID: >>>>> >>>>> Content-Type: image/png; >>>>> name="image002.png" >>>>> Content-Description: image002.png >>>>> Content-Disposition: inline; >>>>> creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>>>> modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; >>>>> filename="image002.png"; >>>>> size=1109 >>>>> Content-ID: >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> SIGMETRICS mailing list >>>>> SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org [7] >>>>> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics [8] >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SIGMETRICS mailing list >>>> SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org [11] >>>> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics [12] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> SIGMETRICS mailing list >> >> SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org >> >> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics Links: ------ [1] http://www.1findr.com/ [2] http://www.1science.com/1findr [3] mailto:1findr at 1science.com [4] http://www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch [5] mailto:gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com [6] http://www.science-metrix.com/ [7] mailto:SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org [8] http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics [9] mailto:dwojick at craigellachie.us [10] https://www.osti.gov/ [11] mailto:SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org [12] http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics [13] mailto:sigmetrics-bounces at asist.org [14] mailto:dwojick at craigellachie.us [15] mailto:sigmetrics at mail.asis.org [16] mailto:eric.archambault at science-metrix.com [17] http://www.science-metrix.com/ [18] http://www.science-metrix.com/ [19] mailto:sigmetrics-bounces at asist.org [20] mailto:sigmetrics at mail.asis.org [21] http://www.harzing.com [22] https://harzing.com [23] https://twitter.com/awharzing [24] https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=v0sDYGsAAAAJ [25] https://harzing.com/blog/.latest?redirect [26] https://harzing.com/blog/.random [27] https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish/donations -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eric.archambault at science-metrix.com Mon Apr 30 18:53:11 2018 From: eric.archambault at science-metrix.com (=?utf-8?B?w4lyaWMgQXJjaGFtYmF1bHQ=?=) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 22:53:11 +0000 Subject: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform In-Reply-To: <16933bfda903a7a55a7955cb02b9472a@ugr.es> References: "\" <6.2.0.14.2.20180424141436.047f29e0@pop.craigellachie.us> <6.2.0.14.2.20180424145409.0480acd0@pop.craigellachie.us>" <53EF71F4C5E22941A70899881A35FAEB86080D94@WP0045.soliscom.uu.nl>" <51f4d480-7c01-3187-bb6e-385e50c9e370@harzing.com> <10de01d3dcd6$fb951580$f2bf4080$@mapofscience.com> <16933bfda903a7a55a7955cb02b9472a@ugr.es> Message-ID: Thank you very much Emilio. Please find out answers to your questions: 1. What is the main source of the metadata to those 89,561,005 articles? Is it perhaps Crossref? Yes, we do use Crossref, which is one of the best sources of data around. 1findr is built with the help of an enrichment/clustering/mashup/filtering data processing pipeline. There are currently 75 million records from Crossref out of the total 450 million records entering the pipeline (17%). This doesn?t mean that 17% of the records are straight from Crossref, it means that Crossref currently represents 17% of the ingredients used to produce 1findr. In the next few months, we?ll add content of BASE https://www.base-search.net/ and CORE https://core.ac.uk/ as these organizations have accepted to share the fruits of their labour. This will certainly help to fill gaps in 1findr and further increase quality, help us produce complete records, and generally increase depth and breadth. Please encourage BASE and CORE; they are providing an extremely useful public service. We are examining the best way to add these sources to our datastore, which will then increase to close to 700 million bibliographic records. We think 1findr will then be able to add 5-10 million records we may not have yet, and using these sources and others we will likely surpass 100 million records this year, which will help users be assured that they search closer to the full population of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. 1. How have peer-reviewed journals been identified? In a nutshell, through a long learning curve and an expensive self-financed compilation process. We have been building a list of peer-reviewed journals since about 2002 with the first efforts being initiated at Science-Metrix when we started the company. We pursued and intensified the efforts at 1science starting as soon as we spun off the company in 2014, and we now use tens of methods to acquire candidate journals and we are always adding new ones. We are constantly honing the list, adding journals, withdrawing journals we find do not meet our criteria and for which we have evidence of quality-reviewing avoidance. In short, the journals included in 1findr need to be scholarly/scientific/research journals and be peer-reviewed/refereed, which most of the time means having references, and this is to the exclusion of trade journals and popular science magazines. This working definition works really well in the health and natural sciences and in most of the arts, humanities and social sciences, and is somewhat more challenged in architecture, the most un-typical field in academia. Currently, the white list that contributes to building 1findr contains more than 85,000 journals, and 1findr already has content for close to 80,000 of them. This journal list is itself curated, clustered, enriched, and filtered from a larger dataset stored in a system containing more than 300,000 entries. We feel we are converging on an exhaustive inventory of the contemporary active journals, but we still have work to do to identify the whole retrospective list of relevant journals as far back as 1665. 1. Are all document types in these journals covered? Editorial material, news, comments, book reviews... The bibliographic database that powers 1findr is presently mostly used as a specialized discovery system for documents published in peer-reviewed journals. However, this datastore has been built from the ground up to evolve into a powerful bibliometric database. As such, we have concentrated our efforts on the types of documents considered to be ?original contributions to knowledge?. These are the document types that are usually counted in bibliometric studies, e.g. ?articles?, ?notes?, and ?reviews?. 1findr is positively biased towards these. That said, for most of the journals, we have been collecting material from cover-to-cover, but many items with no author currently stay in the datastore, and have not made their way to 1findr yet. We will change our clustering/filtering rules in the next few months to include more material types, and 1findr will grow in size by several million records as a consequence of adding more news, comments, and similar types of documents. 1. How have OA versions of the documents been identified? Using focused harvesters, 1findr scrutinizes the web in search of metadata sources which are likely to correspond to scholarly publications. To reduce the amount of upstream curation required, our system harvests only relevant metadata, which is used to build the datastore with its 450 million metadata records. When the system clusters documents and freely finds downloadable versions of the papers, it takes note of this. At 1science, we use the definition of ?gratis? open access suggested by Peter Suber. This means that articles are freely downloadable, readable, printable, but may or may not have rights attached. For example, disembargoed gold open access (gold open access means made available either directly or in a mediated manner by publishers) made available through a moving pay wall/free access model are frequently associated with residual rights, whereas green open access (green OA means archived by a party other than a publisher or other than a publisher?s mediator ? Scielo and PubMedCentral being examples of such mediators) are more frequently without. We code OA versions based on these definitions of green and gold. The OA colouring scheme has nothing to do with usage rights, or with the fact that a paper is a preprint, a postprint (author?s final peer-reviewed manuscript) or a version of record. Who makes the paper available, what rights there are, and what version of the manuscript is made available are three dimensions we are careful not to conflate. Most of the operational definitions we use in 1findr find their root in the study Science-Metrix conducted for the European Commission on the measurement of the percentage of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. http://science-metrix.com/sites/default/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf You can also find other reports on OA for this and more recent projects on Science-Metrix? selected reports list: http://science-metrix.com/en/publications/reports 1. How have articles been categorized in subjects? To classify articles, we use the CC BY classification created by Science-Metrix and used in its bibliometric studies: http://www.science-metrix.com/en/classification http://science-metrix.com/sites/default/files/science-metrix/sm_journal_classification_106_1.xls This classification is available in more than 20 languages, and we are currently working on version 2.0. For the time being, 1findr uses the Science-Metrix classification to perform a journal-level classification of articles, but stay tuned for article-level classification of articles. 1. To what extent has Google Scholar data been used to build 1findr? We have used Google Scholar for tactical purposes, to do cross-checks and for benchmarking. We do not scrape Google Scholar or use Google Scholar metadata. There are vestigial traces of Google Scholar in our system and between 1.8% and 4.4% of the hyperlinks to gratis OA papers which are used in 1findr could come from that source. These are progressively being replaced with refreshed links secured from other sources. What really distinguishes 1findr from all other sources of data we know of is that we really care about global research. We haven?t seen anyone else doing as much work as we?ve done to make accessible the extraordinarily interesting activity that can be found in the long tail of science and academia. Just like most researchers, we care to have access to the material from the top tier publishers and we?re really open to working with them to make their articles more discoverable and more useful for them and for the whole world. But we do not focus solely on the top tiers. The focus of 1science is on the big picture in the scholarly publishing world. Our research in the last 10 years has revealed that thousands of journals have emerged with the global transition to open access, and there are thousands of journals in the eastern part of the world and the Global South that were traditionally ignored and saw their journals unfairly being shunned by the mainstream indexes. We are not creating a product that isolates Eastern or Southern contents from a core package centered on the West. There is 1 science, and it should be conveniently accessible in 1 place and this is why we created 1findr. Cordially ?ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of Emilio Delgado L?pez-C?zar Sent: April-26-18 2:52 PM To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform First of all, I would like to congratulate the team behind 1findr for releasing this new product. New scientific information systems with an open approach that make their resources available to the scientific community are always welcome. A few days ago another system was launched (Lens https://www.lens.org), and not many weeks ago Dimensions was launched (https://app.dimensions.ai). The landscape of scientific information systems is becoming increasingly more populated. Everyone is moving: new platforms with new features, new actors with new ideas, and old actors trying to adapt rather than die... In order to be able to build a solid idea of what 1findr is and how it has been constructed, I woul like to formulate some questions, since I haven't found their answer in the website: What is the main source of the metadata to those 89,561,005 articles? Is it perhaps Crossref? How have peer-reviewed journals been identified? Are all document types in these journals covered? Editorial material, news, comments, book reviews... How have OA versions of the documents been identified? How have articles been categorised in subjects? To what extent has Google Scholar data been used to build 1findr? We think this information will help assess exactly what 1findr offers that is not offered by other platforms. Kind regards, --- Emilio Delgado L?pez-C?zar Facultad de Comunicaci?n y Documentaci?n Universidad de Granada http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=es&user=kyTHOh0AAAAJ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emilio_Delgado_Lopez-Cozar http://googlescholardigest.blogspot.com.es Dubitando ad veritatem pervenimus (Cicer?n, De officiis. A. 451...) Contra facta non argumenta A fructibus eorum cognoscitis eos (San Mateo 7, 16) El 2018-04-25 22:50, Kevin Boyack escribi?: ?ric, ? and thanks to you for being so transparent about what you?re doing! Kevin From: SIGMETRICS On Behalf Of ?ric Archambault Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:05 AM To: Anne-Wil Harzing ; sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform Anne-Wil, Thank you so much for this review. We need that kind of feedback to prioritize development. Thanks a lot for the positive comments. We are happy that they reflect our design decisions. Now, onto the niggles (all fair points in current version). An important distinction of our system ? at this stage of development ? is that our emphasis is on scholarly/scientific/research work published in peer-reviewed/quality controlled journals (e.g. we don?t index trade journals and popular science magazines such as New Scientist ? not a judgment on quality, many of them are stunningly good, they are just not the type we focus on for now). This stems from work conducted several years ago for the European Commission. We got a contract at Science-Metrix to measure the proportion of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. We discovered (discovery being a big term considering what follows) that 1) OA articles were hard to find and count (numerator in the percentage), and 2) there wasn?t a database that comprised all peer-reviewed journals (denominator in the percentage). Consequently, we had to work by sampling, but hard core bibliometricians like the ones we are at Science-Metrix like the idea of working on population level measurement. At Science-Metrix, our bibliometric company, we have been using licensed bibliometric versions of the Web of Science and Scopus. Great tools, very high quality data (obvious to anyone who has worked on big bibliographic metadata), extensive coverage and loads of high quality, expensive to implement smart enrichment. However, when measuring, we noticed, as did many others, that the databases emphasized Western production to the detriment of the Global South, emerging countries, especially in Asia, and even the old Cold War foe in which the West lost interest after the fall of the wall. 1findr is addressing this ? it aims to find as much OA as possible and to index everything peer-reviewed and academic level published in journals. We aim to expand to other types of content with a rationally designed indexing strategy, but this is what we are obstinately focusing on for now. -We are working on linking all the papers within 1findr with references/citations. This will create the first rationally designed citation network: from all peer-reviewed journals to all peer-reviewed journals, regardless of language, country, field of research (we won?t get there easily or soon). We feel this is scientifically a sound way to measure. Conferences and books are also important, but currently when we take them into account in citations, we have extremely non-random lumps of indexed material, and no one can say what the effect on measured citations is. My educated guess is that this is extremely biased ? book coverage is extremely linguistically biased, conference proceedings indexing is extremely field biased (proportionately way more computer and engineering than other fields). If we want to turn scientometrics into a proper science we need proper measurement tools. This is the long-term direction of 1findr. It won?t remain solely in the discovery field, it will become a scientifically designed tool to measure research, with clearly documented strengths and weaknesses. -We still need to improve our coverage of OA. Though we find twice as many freely downloadable papers in journals than Dimensions, Impact Story finds about 8% OA for papers with a DOI for which we haven?t found a copy yet (one reason we have more OA as a percentage of journal articles is that in 1findr we find much OA for articles without DOIs). We are working on characterizing a sample of papers which are not OA on the 1findr side, but which ImpactStory finds in OA. A glimpse at the data reveals some of these are false positives, but some of them reflect approaches used by ImpactStory that we have not yet implemented (Heather and Jason are smart, and we can all learn from them - thanks to their generosity). There are also transient problems we experienced while building 1findr. For example, at the moment, we have challenges with our existing Wiley dataset and we need to update our harvester for Wiley?s site. Would be nice to have their collaboration, but they have been ignoring my emails for the last two months? Shame, we?re only making their papers more discoverable and helping world users find papers for which article processing charges were paid for. We need the cooperation of publishers to do justice to the wealth of their content, especially hybrid OA papers. -We know we have several papers displaying a ?404?. We are improving the oaFindr link resolver built in 1findr to reduce this. Also we need to scan more frequently for change (we have to be careful there as we don?t want to overwhelm servers; many of the servers we harvest from are truly slow and we want to be nice guys), and we need to continue to implement smarter mechanisms to avoid 404. Transiency of OA is a huge challenge. We have addressed several of the issues, but this takes time and our team has a finite size, and as you note, several challenges, and big ambitions at the same time. -We are rewriting our ?help? center. Please be aware that using no quote does full stemming, using single quote does stemming, but words need be in the same order in the results. Double quotes should be used for non-stemmed, exact matches. This is a really powerful way of searching. Fuel cell = finds articles with fuel and cell(s) 'fuel cell' = finds articles with both fuel cell and fuel cells "fuel cell" = finds articles strictly with fuel cell (won?t return fuel cells only articles) Once again, thanks for the review, and apologies for the lengthy reply. ?ric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archambault at science-metrix.com science-metrix.com & 1science.com From: SIGMETRICS > On Behalf Of Anne-Wil Harzing Sent: April-24-18 5:11 PM To: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform Dear all, I was asked (with a very short time-frame) to comment on 1Findr for an article in Nature (which I am not sure has actually appeared). I was given temporary login details for the Advanced interface. As "per normal" with these kind of requests only one of my comments was actually used. So I am posting all of them here in case they are of use to anyone (and to Eric and his team in fine-tuning the system). ================ As I had a very limited amount of time to provide my comments, I tried out 1Findr by searching for my own name (I have about 150 publications including journal articles, books, book chapters, software, web publications and white papers) and some key terms in my own field (international management). What I like Simple and intuitive user interface with fast response to search requests, much faster than with some competitor products where the website takes can take ages to load. The flexibility of the available search options clearly reflects the fact that this is an offering built by people with a background in Scientometrics. A search for my own name showed that coverage at the author level is good, it finds more of my publications than both the Web of Science and Scopus, but fewer than Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic. It is approximately on par with CrossRef and Dimensions though all three services (CR, Dimensions and Findr) have unique publications that the other service doesn?t cover. As far as I could assess, topic searches worked well with flexible options to search in title, keywords and abstracts. However, I have not tried these in detail. Provides a very good set of subjects for filtering searches that ? for the disciplines I can evaluate ? shows much better knowledge of academic disciplines and disciplinary boundaries than is reflected in some competitor products. I particularly like the fact that there is more differentiation in the Applied Sciences, the Economic and Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities than in some other databases. This was sorely needed. There is a quick summary of Altmetrics such as tweets, Facebook postings and Mendeley readers. Again I like the fact that a simple presentation is used, rather than the ?bells & whistle? approach with the flashy graphics of some other providers. This keeps the website snappy and provides an instant overview. There is good access to OA versions and a ?1-click? download of all available OA versions [for a maximum of 40 publications at once as this is the upper limit of the number of records on a page]. I like the fact that it finds OA versions from my personal website (www.harzing.com) as well as OA versions in university repositories and gold OA versions. However, it doesn?t find all OA versions of my papers (see dislike below). What I dislike Although I like the fact that Findr doesn?t try to be anything and everything leading to a cluttered user interface, for me the fact that it doesn?t offer citation metrics limits its usefulness. Although I understand its focus is on finding literature (which is fair enough) many academics ? rightly or wrongly ? use citations scores to assess which articles to prioritize articles for downloading and reading. The fact that it doesn?t yet find all Open Access versions that Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic do. All my publications are available in OA on my website, but Findr does not seem to find all of them. Findr also doesn?t seem to source OA versions from ResearchGate. Also several OA versions resulted in a ?404. The requested resource is not found.? The fact that it only seems to cover journal articles. None of my books, book chapters, software, white papers or web publications were found. Although a focus on peer-reviewed work is understandable I think coverage of books and book chapters is essential and services like Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic and CrossRef do cover books. Niggles There are duplicate results for quite a few of my articles, usually ?poorer? versions (i.e. without full text/abstract/altmetric scores) it would be good if the duplicates could be removed and only the ?best? version kept Automatic stemming of searches is awkward if you try to search for author names in the ?general? search (as many users will do). In my case (Harzing) it results in hundreds of articles on the Harz mountains obscuring all of my output. Preferred search syntax should be clearer as many users will search authors with initials only (as this is what works best in other databases). In Findr this provides very few results as there are ?exact? matches only, whereas in other databases initial searches are interpreted as initial + wildcard. More generally needs better author disambiguation. Some of my articles can only be found when searching for a-w harzing, a very specific rendition of my name. When Exporting Citations the order seems to reverts to alphabetical order of the first author, not the order that was on the screen. Best wishes, Anne-Wil Prof. Anne-Wil Harzing Professor of International Management Middlesex University London, Business School Web: Harzing.com - Twitter: @awharzing - Google Scholar: Citation Profile New: Latest blog post - Surprise: Random blog post - Finally: Support Publish or Perish On 24/04/2018 21:51, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) wrote: Of course there is much more to say about 1Findr. What I have seen so far is that the coverage back to 1944 is very much akin to Dimensions, probably because both are deriving the bulk of their records from Crossref. Full text search is relatively rare among these systems. Google Scholar does it. Dimensions does it on a subset. And some publisher platform support it, as do some OA aggragators. Apart from these two aspects (coverage and full text search support), there are a lot of aspects and (forthcoming) 1Findr functionalities that deserve scrutiny, not least the exact method of OA detection (and version priority) of course. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library ________________________________ From: SIGMETRICS [sigmetrics-bounces at asist.org] on behalf of David Wojick [dwojick at craigellachie.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:59 PM To: Mark C. Wilson Cc: sigmetrics at mail.asis.org Subject: Re: [Sigmetrics] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform There is a joke that what is called "rapid prototyping" actually means fielding the beta version. In that case every user is a beta tester. It is fast and the filter numbers are useful in themselves. Some of the hits are a bit mysterious. It may have unique metric capabilities. Too bad that advanced search is not available for free. David At 02:34 PM 4/24/2018, Mark C. Wilson wrote: Searching for my own papers I obtained some wrong records and the link to arXiv was broken. It does return results very quickly and many are useful. I am not sure whether 1science intended to use everyone in the world as beta-testers. On 25/04/2018, at 06:16, David Wojick > wrote: It appears not to be doing full text search, which is a significant limitation. I did a search on "chaotic" for 2018 and got 527 hits. Almost all had the term in the title and almost all of the remainder had it in the abstract. Normally with full text, those with the term only in the text are many times more than those with it in title, often orders of magnitude more. But the scope is impressive, as is the ability to filter for OA. David David Wojick, Ph.D. Formerly Senior Consultant for Innovation DOE OSTI https://www.osti.gov/ At 08:00 AM 4/24/2018, you wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00EE_01D3DBBD.BC977220" Greetings everyone, Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles??of which 27 million are available in OA??it represents the largest curated collection worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all languages and from every country. Here are a few resources if you???re interested in learning more: ? p; Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com ? p; Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr ? p; Send in your questions: 1findr at 1science.com ? p; See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch Sincerely, Gr??goire Gr??goire C??t?? President | Pr??sident Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montr??al, QC H2J 1Y6 Canada T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 T. 1.800.994.4761 F. 1.514.495.6523 gregoire.cote at science-metrix.com www.science-metrix.com Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image001.png"; size=1068 Content-ID: Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" Content-Description: image002.png Content-Disposition: inline; creation-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:00:30 GMT; filename="image002.png"; size=1109 Content-ID: _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics _______________________________________________ SIGMETRICS mailing list SIGMETRICS at mail.asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmetrics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: