Science Intelligence and InfoPros

Little things about Scientitic Watch and Information Professionnals

Posts Tagged ‘CiteULike

Reading: Social bookmarking helps with Journal evaluation

with 2 comments

Haustein, Stefanie and Siebenlist, Tobias.
Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics. Article in Press, Corrected Proof.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002

It has been shown that bookmarks of journal articles can be analyzed to measure journal usage independently from publishers. Data can be extracted about how often journal articles are used on a global scale. Tags assigned by users can give a new perspective on journal content and visualize trends of journal perception from the readers’ point of view.
By bookmarking and tagging articles, academic prosumers generate new information about resources, i.e. usage statistics and content description of scientific journals.
Given the lack of global download statistics, the authors propose the application of social bookmarking data to journal evaluation.

For a set of 45 physics journals all 13,608 bookmarks from CiteULike, Connotea and BibSonomy to documents published between 2004 and 2008 were analyzed.
This article explores bookmarking data in STM and examines in how far it can be used to describe the perception of periodicals by the readership.

Four basic indicators are defined, which analyze different aspects of usage: Usage Ratio, Usage Diffusion, Article Usage Intensity and Journal Usage Intensity. Tags are analyzed to describe a reader-specific view on journal content.

Social bookmarking in academics is however still in its infancy. Inconsistent and incomplete entries made retrieval cumbersome and a matching to other bibliographic data necessary. Metadata quality is crucial for the services to successfully keep old and gain new customers. So it was surprising to discover, that the entries were of bad quality

 CiteULike also had the largest retrieval functionality and most complete metadata…
Mendeley looks like a suitable and applicable source for future usage-based journal evaluations.

Written by hbasset

May 10, 2011 at 7:59 pm

STM Social bookmarking and Journal evaluation

leave a comment »

To complete previous posts (see 13th and 15th of December), look at this nice presentation that Stefanie Haustein and Sabrina Reher have presented at Science and Technology Indicators Conference in Leiden last September.

They applied social bookmarking data to evaluate the usage of scientific journals.

Written by hbasset

December 23, 2010 at 12:16 pm

Mendeley: soon more popular than WoS and Scopus?

If the Mendeley’s founder claimed in the Guardian last summer that it will overtake the size of Web of Science (40 millions of records)  by the end of 2010, but it seems that there are a lot of duplicates into, said an estimation in last September…

How many unique papers are there in Mendeley?
http://duncan.hull.name/2010/09/01/mendeley/#more-3374

Written by hbasset

December 17, 2010 at 9:52 pm

Social bookmarking for Scientists: CiteUlike…

leave a comment »

.. is more adapted than its competitors if you work on Medicine and biology fields.

Sabrina Reher (see below previous post on Dec. 13) has gently sent me her recent dissertation.

It is in German but the figure below is enough demonstrative I think

Written by hbasset

December 15, 2010 at 8:16 pm

Posted in Science 2.0

Tagged with ,

Social Bookmarking tools for scientists: a test

with 4 comments

Social bookmarking tools enable people to bookmark interesting resources on the web, tag them, and share the information with other users.

Scientists want to store, search, and share professional, scholarly literature.  Today there are four established social bookmarking tools serving academic purposes:

  1. CiteULike (www.citeulike.org),
  2. Connotea (www.connotea.org),
  3. BibSonomy (www.bibsonomy.org),
  4. and 2collab (www.2collab.com).

 In social bookmarking, users play the key role. The whole idea is to profit from content created by a large number of users.

The competition among BibSonomy, CiteULike, and Connotea raises the question of whether one service will be able to gain an edge over its competitors.

Results of the test:

The road testing was to create 10 references from various publishers to see how often bookmark was successfullty created without subsequent manual correction

  • CITEULIKE:
    • 480,000 visits per month
    • +++: Citegeist (most popular articles)
    • Road testing: 8/10
  • CONNOTEA:
    • 690,000 visits:per month
    • +++: My Library toolbox
    • +++: target the medical community
    • Road testing: 3/10
  • BIBSONOMY:
    • 620,000 visits per month
    • Road testing: 4/10
  • 2COLLAB:
    • 44,000 visits per month
    • Road testing: 1/10

Because of its poor abilities (except with ScienceDirect references) 2collab is renamed “2collapse” by authors of the article!

Sabrina Reher; Stefanie Haustein. Social Bookmarking in STM: PUTTING SERVICES TO THE ACID TEST. ONLINE, Vol.34, N°6, Nov-Dec 2010, pp. 34-42

Written by hbasset

December 13, 2010 at 8:50 pm

Social Bookmarking

leave a comment »

David Crotty already said that there are too many redundant services on Science 2.0… Indeed, look at this page where an article can be collected in different online services:

from left to right: CiteULike, Complore, Connotea, Del.icio.us, Digg, Facebook, Reddit, Technorati, Twitter

Written by hbasset

November 23, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Science 2.0: sources

leave a comment »

A nice list of useful (obviously done by a Librarian!) sources to start a review on Science 2.0:

Source: Emerging Technologies Librarian: http://etechlib.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/science-20-getting-started/

Written by hbasset

November 17, 2009 at 7:15 pm

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers