260 likes | 279 Views
Explore ORCID, Scopus Author Identifier, ResearcherID, PubMed profile, Google Scholar Citations, ResearchGate, Mendeley, IDEAS/RePEc, Publons, and ReviewerCredits. Learn about their features, benefits, and impact on academic research. Find the best tools for author identification and validation.
E N D
Profiling Armen Yuri Gasparyan, MD, PhD, FESC Associate Professor of Medicine Member, World Association of Medical Editors
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5209927/pdf/CroatMedJ_57_0527.pdfhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5209927/pdf/CroatMedJ_57_0527.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639053/pdf/jkms-32-1749.pdfhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639053/pdf/jkms-32-1749.pdf
ORCID • Launched in 2012 • Free profile • Uniform Record Locators (URLs) or in a short form of 16 characters • 4,682,649 iDs • Universal profile for authors, reviewers, editors and other scholars • Useful for name disambiguation (especially for non-Anglophone authors) • Integrated with Scopus • Includes biographical note, list of articles, links to Publons https://orcid.org/
Scopus Author Identifier • Automatic profiling platform of the largest bibliographic database • Integrated with ORCID • Linked to article-level altmetrics (PlumX) • H-index, total cites, total docs, annual papers/cites • Allows analyses within predefined timeframe (3-5 years)
ResearcherID • Since 2008 (as a name disambiguation solution) • Profile for authors visible on Web of Science • Integrated with ORCID • Includes biographical note, list of articles • Inappropriately used by ‘predatory’ press • Lost its popularity
https://www.emeraldcityjournal.com/2016/12/is-it-time-to-retire-researcherid/https://www.emeraldcityjournal.com/2016/12/is-it-time-to-retire-researcherid/
Analysis of 4,307 Norwegian researchers' profiles • ResearcherID was the least popular platform, with 130 ID holders (3%) • 1,307 with ResearchGate (30%) • 333 with Google Scholar (8%) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4643921/pdf/pone.0142709.pdf
PubMed profile • Free, rapidly updated, primary research tool for biomedics • Based on MEDLINE and PubMed Central items • MEDLINE linked to MeSH vocabulary of NLM • No unique author identifiers • Profiling depends on correct author names and their affiliations • Helps to find peer reviewers • PubMed Central and ORCID are integrated • Assessing article-level Altmetrics through Bookmarklet
Google Scholar Citations • Free alternative to other global citation-tracking services • No validation • Tool for authors with at least 1 article, book, and non-reviewed sources • Helpful for authors poorly visible on Scopus and WoS (social scientists, non-Anglophone authors) • Profiles of deceased available • Profiles filled with photos, links to profiles of co-authors, h-indices • ‘Predatory’ items is a big issue
ResearchGate • Largest social networking sites for researchers (>4.5 mln users) • Platform for sharing articles and interacting with potential collaborators, and discussion forum • Profiles incorporate photos, keywords, links to published articles • Individual archiving (CC lincenses considered) and citation tracking • RG score available for ranking • ResearchGate and Google Scholar cover the same items, with early archiving of pre-published articles on ResearchGate
55 highly cited papers (from ESI) • 107 researchers • 64.5% were found in RG
Mendeley • Since 2008 • Owned by Elsevier (since 2013) • Reference management platform • Social networking for 6 mln users • Import documents from PubMed, ArXiv, Google • Linked to Altmetrics
IDEAS/RePEc • Since 1997 • Linked to AmEconAssoc EconLit database https://ideas.repec.org/
Publons • Launched in 2012 • Acquired by Clarivate Analytics in 2017 • >350,000 users, >25,000 journals covered • Free platform for users • Business model - partnership with publishers • Integrated with ORCID • Credits for reviewers who list their accomplishments (official responses from publishers are required for each post) • Helps editors to find best reviewers
ReviewerCredits activities • Since 2016 • 5818 active users (32 from Russia) • Certification of reviewer activities • Certification of conference talks • Editing services through Enago https://www.reviewercredits.com/ https://www.unimib.it/
Conclusions • Several profiles linked to different databases are advisable • Profiling depends on users’ validation skills • Validation tools are required to avoid ‘predatory’ items • Profiles are used to choose peer reviewers