mastodon.world is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Generic Mastodon server for anyone to use.

Server stats:

9K
active users

#webofscience

1 post1 participant0 posts today

📢 Seminar: Quantitative Auswertung von Daten

📅 4. + 6. März, 9:30-13:00
📍 Online mit Dr. Dirk Tunger

🔍 Lernen Sie, Publikationsdaten mit #WebofScience + #Scopus auszuwerten – auch ohne eigene Lizenzen. Fokus auf praktische Übungen mit bereitgestellten Datensätzen und Vergleich zu kostenfreien Alternativen wie #googlescholar Ideal für Bibliotheksmitarbeiter*innen, die häufige Anfragen zu Publikationsanalysen bearbeiten.

🔗 Anmeldung + Infos: dgi-info.de/event/quantitative

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Information & Wissen e.V.Quantitative Auswertung von Daten - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Information & Wissen e.V.Datenauswertungen von Publikationsdaten aus Web of Science bzw. Scopus mithilfe von Excel und Access werden für Bibliotheken immer wichtiger.

Earlier this week an opinion piece authored by me and a number of great colleagues was published on the @upstream blog. Our piece introduces criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases doi.org/10.54900/d3ck1-skq19.

We express our deep concerns about the treatment of @eLife by the #WebOfScience and #Scopus databases. We see this as an example of databases hindering rather than supporting innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.

@cwts

Upstream · Criteria for Bibliographic Databases in a Well-Functioning Scholarly Communication and Research Assessment EcosystemBibliographic databases should support innovation and experimentation. Here, we offer four criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases. We urge the global research community to use databases that support and do not hinder innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.

Good news at #CNRS Open Science Day:

"CNRS's cancellation of #Scopus subscription will help support its full transition to open, non-commercial model, a point reiterated by Antoine Petit ... 'We will eventually need to stop using commercial databases for bibliometrics and bibliography'. In the meantime CNRS has maintained subscription to Clarivate's #WebOfScience database while free bibliographic databases are being developed like open access not-for-profit solution @OpenAlex."

@BarcelonaDORI

Several researchers contacted us with the question if IRRJ will get an impact factor. We understand that some universities require young researchers to publish in journals with an impact factor, for instance for tenure tracks and other career advancements. IRRJ plans to become a appealing journal for young researchers at such universities too, and we will do our best of be assigned an impact factor. #JIF #WebOfScience

Important reflections by @eLife on #WebOfScience decision to discontinue full indexing of eLife elifesciences.org/inside-elife.

"As journals that are partially indexed are not given Impact Factor, we won't receive one when metric is updated in June 2025. This is despite fact that partial feed would only include papers that WoS judges above threshold for inclusion and despite fact that papers we deem below this threshold can subsequently be published in SCIE-indexed journals."

eLifeThe eLife Model: An update on progress following changes in Web of Science indexing statusFollowing the decision that eLife will not receive an Impact Factor in 2025, we share an update on how our model is doing since we were first placed “on hold” by Web of Science, and what we’re up to now.

Does the African academy need its own citation index? by David Mills & Toluwase Asubiaro

"... journals published in the global peripheries, in small fields, or in languages other than English, struggle to get indexed. In 2023, if one excludes South Africa, only around 60 of the 30,000 plus journals indexed in Web of Science were published from Sub Saharan Africa."

globalafricasciences.org/issue

GA Sciencesart-07-05-en | GA Sciences
Replied in thread

@eric_normandeau @jonny @LudoWaltman @eLife

It's all too clear, isn't it. #WebOfScience would like the status quo to not change at all – they are profiting enormously from it. Whereas scientists would like the status quo to change – our grants are being drained dry from publishing fees, our libraries are also drained dry from subscription fees, and academic administrators spend countless moneys on bibliometrics supplied by Clarivate to "evaluate" academics for their "throughput" – in quotes because using these words for what they actually do (counting papers and citations) is a perversion.

By the way #Clarivate owns #EndNote, #Publons and #ScholarOne – we really ought to not use *any* of these. It's in our power.