1 / 75

InCites TM

InCites TM. rachel.mangan@thomsonreuters.com http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/incites/. Workshop Objectives:. After this work shop you can: Understand the basic components of Incites ( slide 3 )

courtney-rogers
Download Presentation

InCites TM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. InCites TM rachel.mangan@thomsonreuters.com http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/incites/

  2. Workshop Objectives: After this work shop you can: • Understand the basic components of Incites (slide 3) • Navigate the two principal modules :Research Performance Profile and Global Comparisons (RPP=slide 20, GC = slide 48) • Understand the normalised indicators and how to use them (slide 11) • Perform analysis of authors/institutions/subject areas/ collaborations using standard and normalised indicators (slide 28) • Understand the Preset reports and what they inform on • Create custom reports (slide 40) • Save and share reports with colleagues (slide 42) • Understand the use of citation data for the 2014 Research Excellence Frame Work and how Incites may be used to inform universities on submissions (slide 67) 2

  3. Objective: Understand the basic components of Incites • Incites is a customised, citation-based research evaluation tool on the web that enables you to analyse institutional productivity and benchmark your output against peers worldwide. • All bibliographic and citation data is drawn from the Web of Science • Incites platform offers 3 modules • Research Performance Profiles (RPP) • Global Comparisons (GC) • Institutional Profiles (not covered by workshop) 3

  4. Research Performance Profiles A custom-built dataset created by Thomson Reuters to match customer specifications Datasets can be compiled using the following search criteria: Address (extracting from WOS records that contain at least one occurrence of an address e.g. Univ Manchester and variants as identified by the customer) Author (extracting from WOS records that contain specific authors/ or papers as identified by the customer) Other datasets are available for topic and journal Updated quarterly from date of issue. Customers can work with Incites team to request changes for better unification to improve further updates Incites can include source articles published between 1981 and 2012 as indexed in the Web of Science 4

  5. Research Performance Profiles RPP can be used to inform on.. • The overall performance of research at an institution • The performance of authors • The performance of departments • The performance of collaborations • The performance of areas of research • The performance of individual papers • The performance of papers in specific journals • The impact/influence of published research • The performance of papers funded by a funding agency 5

  6. RPP- Web of Science data • All document types included that match customer specification (articles, reviews, editorials letters, etc..) • All authors indexed • Last name + initials • Variants included • Name as published 2007 forward • Full author name display in Author Ranking report in Author based dataset • All address indexed • Author affiliation as published • Main organisation (e.g. Univ Manchester) displayed in RPP • Funding information from 2008 onwards • Funding Agency as published Grant numbers in the Funding Acknowledgement • Web of Science Subject Area applied at journal level • 249 WOS/JCR subject categories • Source records inherit all journal level categories (an article published in the Journal of Dental Research will inherit the categories Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine) • Multidisciplinary journals categorised as ‘Multidisciplinary Sciences’ • For some multidisciplinary journals (Science, Nature, British Medical Journal etc..) articles reassigned a new WOS category based on analysis of citing/cited relationships • Journal Impact Factor from 2010 JCR • Author Keywords and Key Words Plus 6

  7. RPP- Web of Science Data 2 6 1 7 6 3 4 5 7

  8. RPP Key Metrics • Journal Expected Citation Rate • Average citations for records of the same type, from same journal, published in the same year • Category Expected Citation Rate • Average citations for records of same type, from same category, published in the same year • Percentile in Field • Citation performance relative to records of same document type, from same category, published in the same year. Most cited paper awarded lowest percentile (0%) and least to non-cited awarded highest percentile (100%) • H Index • Journal Actual/ Journal Expected • Ratio of the actual citation count (of a paper) to the expected count of papers published in same journal, year and document type • Category Actual/ Category Expected • Ratio of the actual citation count (of a paper) to the expected count for papers from same category , year and document type 8

  9. Global Comparisons (GC) • Global Comparisons contains aggregated comparative statistics for institutions, countries and fields of research • Built by Thomson Reuters. Common to all customers. All customers see the same data in GC • Bibliographic and Citation data drawn from Web of Science • File depth from 1981-2010 • Updated annually • Data for Articles, Reviews and Research Notes • Use Institutional Comparisons to compare performance of an institution or groups of institutions overall, across fields or within fields • Institutional name variant unification (main organisation) • Use National Comparisons to compare the performance of more than 180 countries and 9 geopolitical regions overall, across fields or within fields. • Multiple Subject Categories • WOS- 249 subject categories • Essential Science Indicators – 22 broad categories • Regional Categories (UK, Australia, Brazil) • OECD 9

  10. Global Comparison Key Metrics Web of Science documents Times Cited Cites per document (Average Impact) % Documents Cited (at least 1 citation) Impact Relative to Subject Area (average cites of an institution in a subject area compared to the expected impact in the subject area) Impact Relative to Institution (average cites of papers in a field compared to the average cites overall for the institution) % Documents in Subject Area (market share) % Documents in Institution % Documents Cited Relative to Subject Area % Documents Cited to Relative to Institution Aggregate Performance Indicator: this metric normalises for period, document type and subject area and is a useful indicator to compare institutions of different age, size and subject focus. 10

  11. Objective: Understand the normalised indicators and how to use them The number of times that papers are cited is not in itself an informative indicator; citation counts need to be benchmarked or normalised against similar research. In particular: citations accumulate over time, so the year of publication needs to be taken into account; citation patterns differ greatly in different disciplines, so the field of research needs to be taken into account; and citations to review papers tend to be higher than for articlesand this also needs to be taken into account.’ Source REF Pilot Study 11

  12. NORMALISATION • It is necessary to normalise absolute citation counts for: • Document type (reviews cited more than articles, some document types cited less readily) • Journal where published • Year of publication (citations accumulate over time) • Category (there is a marked difference in citation activity between categories) • Golden rule: Compare like with like 12

  13. Is this a high citation count? • This paper has been cited 4148 times. • How does this citation count compare to the expected citation count of other articles published in the same journal, in the same year? • It is necessary to normalise for: • Journal = Nature Materials • Year = 2007 • Document type = article 13

  14. Create a benchmark- the expected citations Search for papers that match the criteria Run the Citation Report on the results page 14

  15. Create a benchmark- the expected citations Articles published in ‘Nature Materials’ published in 2007 have been cited on average 137.75 times. This is the Expected Count We compare the total citations received to a paper to what is expected 4148 (Journal Actual) / 137.75 (Journal Expected) = 30.11 The paper has been cited 30.11 times more than expected. We call this Journal Actual/Journal Expected 15

  16. Percentile in Field. How many papers in the dataset are in the top 1%, 5% or 10% in their respective fields? This is an example of the citation frequency distribution of a set of papers in a given category,database year and document type. The papers are ordered none/least cited on the left, moving to the highest cited papers in the set on the right. We can assign each paper to a Percentile in the set. In any given set, there are always many low cited/ none cited papers (bottom 100%) In any given set, there are always few highly cited papers (top 1%) 100% 50% 0% Only document types article, note, and revieware used to determine the percentile distribution, and only those same article types receive a percentile value. If a journal is classified into more than one subject area, the percentile is based on the subject area in which the paper performs the best, i.e. lowest value 16

  17. No All Purpose Indicator This is a list of a number of different purposes a university might have for evaluating its research performance. Each purpose calls for particular kinds of information. Identify the question the results will help to answer and collect the data accordingly 17

  18. Incites Access • http://incites.isiknowledge.com • Enter username and password • or • IP Authentication 18

  19. Incites Start Page These are the two principal modules. Click on ‘Get Started’ to open a module 19

  20. Objective: Navigate the two principal modules:1. Research Performance Profiles Create a custom report to analyse a subset of papers Run a preset report on the whole dataset • RPP is custom built for each institution • Article level statistics • Aggregations as a whole dataset or create custom subsets 20

  21. Executive Summary- an overall synopsis • 107, 781 source papers • 1979-2011 timespan • 949,293 citing papers • Green bar = papers published per year, scale on left side • Blue bar = citations received to papers published in that year, scale on right side • Tables to highlight frequently occurring authors, subject areas and most cited authors 21

  22. Source Article Listing-paper level metrics Article citation data and normalised metrics Article bibliographic information Click on article title to navigate to the record in Web of Science • Order the papers by the metrics available in drop down menu • Times Cited • Percentile in Field • 2nd Generation Citations 22

  23. Source Article Listing Key Metrics- for individual paper evaluation 23

  24. Summary Metrics- a dashboard of indicators Citation data and normalised metrics which give an overview of the overall performance of the papers in the data set Percentile Graph For each percentile range, the “expected” number of papers (article, review & notes) in each would be equal to that same “Percentile”, meaning… We’d expect 5% of this institutions papers to rank in the 5th Percentile. However, 6.79% of this institution’s papers rank in the 5th Percentile. 6.79% - 5% = 1.79% Therefore, the number of papers this institution has placed in the top 5% of all papers published exceeds what is expected by 1.79% This 1.79% is what is presented on the graph, in Green because it exceeded the expected. Below-expected would be presented in Red 24

  25. Summary Metrics Key Indicators (for an author, institution, department..) 25

  26. Funding Agency Listing Click on the WOS document column to view the papers funded by the agency Order the Funding Agencies by the indicators in the drop down menu 26

  27. Article Type Listing Use the Article Type Listing to examine the weighting of each document type in the dataset and differences in performance/ impact between the document types 27

  28. Objective: Perform analysis of authors/collaborations/subject areas using citation data and normalised metrics 28

  29. Author Ranking Report • Order authors using the citation and normalised metrics in the menu • It may be necessary to establish thresholds to focus on authors who achieve a minimum parameter such as: • Papers published • Citations received • Create an ‘Author Ranking Report’ in Custom Reports and establish the thresholds required. 29

  30. Author Ranking Report 30

  31. Author Ranking Report for Author Dataset • Full author names • Only authors who have been identified by the customer appear in this report • Less contamination from co-authors from other institutions as viewed in an Address Dataset 31

  32. Author Ranking Key Metrics 32

  33. Time Series and Trend Report • Total citations received to papers published in an individual year. • E.g. Papers published in 1981 have received 23,789 citations. Raw data in table below • Papers published per year. • 1981= 1833 documents. Raw data in table below • Average citations to papers published in an individual year. • Papers published in 1981 have been cited an average of 12.98 times. • Raw data in table below. • Use this indicator to identify the year/s in which the research had the highest average impact. 33

  34. Collaborating Institutions Report • Order the collaborations using the indicators in the menu. • The Collaborating Institutions report is extremely important in not only identifying most frequent collaborating institutions, but those collaborations producing the most influential research. In practical terms, one can identify collaborations that produce the most return on investment . • Sorting by Category Actual/Expected Cites is an easy way to identify this. • Customise this report to focus on collaborations that meet a minimum threshold. 34

  35. Collaborating Countries Report • Order the country level collaborations using the indicators in the menu. • Customise this report to focus on collaborations that meet a minimum threshold. 35

  36. Collaboration Reports Key Metrics 36

  37. Subject Area Ranking Report • Order the subject areas using the indicators in the menu. • Use this report to determine the intensity of publication output for each subject area and compare the performance of papers across disciplines. 37

  38. Journal Ranking Report • Order the journals using the indicators in the menu. • Use this report to identify the journals in which the source papers are published and compare the performance of papers in these journals using the standard and normalised metrics. 38

  39. Impact and Citation Ranking Reports • 949,293 Citing Papers in dataset • Examine the citing papers to determine: • Who is influenced (authors, institutions) • Where is the influence (countries) • What is influenced (fields, journals and article type) 39

  40. Objective: Create Custom Reports 1. Specify a report type from the menu 2. Select the metrics to be included in the report 4. Use the delimiters to create a custom dataset 3. Set the time period 5. You can preview the papers that match the parameters specified, run the report or save the selections 40

  41. Create Custom Reports- Preview Documents Save your Refined Collection to ‘Folders’ Use the Refine Document Collection to refine your custom dataset 41

  42. Objective: Save and share reports with colleagues 42

  43. Folders • My Saved Reports • Save reports you generate • My Saved Custom Report Selections • Save selections for the report you frequently run • My Saved Document Collections • Save collections (subset) of the documents • Shared Reports • Shared Custom Report Selections • Shared Document Collections 43

  44. Save Selections Provide a title for your saved selection Save your selection to ‘My Folders’ 44

  45. Open a Custom Report Create a folder, share the report or delete Click on the title of report to open it 45

  46. Shared Reports Click on the title of any report in the ‘Shared Reports’ folder to open it 46

  47. Create PDF’s You can print, export to excel, or create a PDF of any report 47

  48. Objective: Navigate the two principal modules2. Global Comparisons • Institutional Comparisons • Compare output and impact for institutions • National Comparisons • Compare output and impact for countries • Updated on an annual basis. 2010 is the current file • WOS documents include articles, reviews and notes only 48

  49. Institutional Comparisons • Compare the overall impact and productivity of a single UK institution for period 1981-2010 • Select Comparison Tab • Select UK • Select Univ Manchester • Select All Years (cumulative graph) 49

  50. Institutional Profiles- a single institution • View standard citation data and the accompanying normalised metrics: • 85.37% of the papers have been cited • The impact of documents from Univ Manchester relative to the world is greater than 1. This indicates that documents from this institution have a higher ratio of cites per documents than the world average. • The percentage of documents cited relative to world is greater than 1, indicating that documents from this institution received more citations per document than the world average. • The aggregate performance indicator (API) measures the impact of an institution or country relative to an expected citation rate for the institution or country.  The indicator is normalized for field differences in citation rates as well as size differences among entities and time periods. • According to the current definition of API: in a given time period the total citations accrued for all papers, in all fields, is divided by the sum of the average citation rates for each paper, respective to their fields and time periods • The API for Univ Manchester is greater than 1, indicating that the papers are performing above expected. 50

More Related