Scholarly success is traditionally measured in terms of citations to publications. With the advent of publication man- agement and digital libraries on the web, scholarly usage data has become a target of investigation and new impact metrics computed on such usage data have been proposed – so called altmetrics. In scholarly social bookmarking sys- tems, scientists collect and manage publication meta data and thus reveal their interest in these publications. In this work, we investigate connections between usage metrics and citations, and find posts, exports, and page views of publications to be correlated to citations.

<sec> <title></title> <p>In a 2005 paper that has been accessed more than a million times, John Ioannidis explained why most published research findings were false. Here he revisits the topic, this time to address how to improve matters.</p> <p><italic>Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary</italic></p> </sec>

The number of scholarly documents available on the web is estimated using capture/recapture methods by studying the coverage of two major academic search engines: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search. Our estimates show that at least 114 million English-language scholarly documents are accessible on the web, of which Google Scholar has nearly 100 million. Of these, we estimate that at least 27 million (24%) are freely available since they do not require a subscription or payment of any kind. In addition, at a finer scale, we also estimate the number of scholarly documents on the web for fifteen fields: Agricultural Science, Arts and Humanities, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics and Business, Engineering, Environmental Sciences, Geosciences, Material Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Physics, Social Sciences, and Multidisciplinary, as defined by Microsoft Academic Search. In addition, we show that among these fields the percentage of documents defined as freely available varies significantly, i.e., from 12 to 50%.

Keeping up with rapidly growing research fields, especially when there are multiple interdisciplinary sources, requires substantial effort for researchers, program managers, or venture capital investors. Current theories and tools are directed at finding a paper or website, not gaining an understanding of the key papers, authors, controversies, and hypotheses. This report presents an effort to integrate statistics, text analytics, and visualization in a multiple coordinated window environment that supports exploration. Our prototype system, Action Science Explorer (ASE), provides an environment for demonstrating principles of coordination and conducting iterative usability tests of them with interested and knowledgeable users. We developed an understanding of the value of reference management, statistics, citation text extraction, natural language summarization for single and multiple documents, filters to interactively select key papers, and network visualization to see citation patterns and identify clusters. A three-phase usability study guided our revisions to ASE and led us to improve the testing methods.

Universität und wissenschaftliches Publizieren gehören zusammen. Dabei kommt dem Publikationsmanagement an Hochschulen immer mehr an Bedeutung zu. Die Interessenlage ist vielschichtig. Autoren wünschen komfortable Arbeitsumgebungen, die Hochschulpräsidien benötigen Forschungsinformationen, und Bibliotheken stellen mit Reposi-torien Infrastrukturen zur Verfügung. Neue Trends im Bibliothekswesen bringen weitreichende Veränderungen technologischer und organisatorischer Art. Ausgehend von den Bedürfnissen von Autoren wurde an der Universität von Kassel ein Projekt namens PUMA aufgesetzt, um die verschiedenen Interessen in einer modernen Umgebung zusam-menzuführen. Innerhalb von PUMA finden Autoren neben einem Social-Bookmarking- und Bibliographie-System eine automatische Weitergabe ihrer Metadaten an Forschungs-informationssysteme, Repositorien und E-Learning-Systeme.

The PUMA project fosters the Open Access movement und aims at a better support of the researcher’s publication work. PUMA stands for an integrated solution, where the upload of a publication results automatically in an update of both the personal and institutional homepage, the creation of an entry in a social bookmarking systems like BibSonomy, an entry in the academic reporting system of the university, and its publication in the institutional repository. In this poster, we present the main features of our solution.

The PUMA project fosters the Open Access movement und aims at a better support of the researcher’s publication work. PUMA stands for an integrated solution, where the upload of a publication results automatically in an update of both the personal and institutional homepage, the creation of an entry in a social bookmarking systems like BibSonomy, an entry in the academic reporting system of the university, and its publication in the institutional repository. In this poster, we present the main features of our solution.

The PUMA project fosters the Open Access movement und aims at a better support of the researcher’s publication work. PUMA stands for an integrated solution, where the upload of a publication results automatically in an update of both the personal and institutional homepage, the creation of an entry in a social bookmarking systems like BibSonomy, an entry in the academic reporting system of the university, and its publication in the institutional repository. In this poster, we present the main features of our solution.

The PUMA project fosters the Open Access movement und aims at a better support of the researcher’s publication work. PUMA stands for an integrated solution, where the upload of a publication results automatically in an update of both the personal and institutional homepage, the creation of an entry in a social bookmarking systems like BibSonomy, an entry in the academic reporting system of the university, and its publication in the institutional repository. In this poster, we present the main features of our solution.

The PUMA project fosters the Open Access movement und aims at a better support of the researcher’s publication work. PUMA stands for an integrated solution, where the upload of a publication results automatically in an update of both the personal and institutional homepage, the creation of an entry in a social bookmarking systems like BibSonomy, an entry in the academic reporting system of the university, and its publication in the institutional repository. In this poster, we present the main features of our solution.

The PUMA project fosters the Open Access movement und aims at a better support of the researcher’s publication work. PUMA stands for an integrated solution, where the upload of a publication results automatically in an update of both the personal and institutional homepage, the creation of an entry in a social bookmarking systems like BibSonomy, an entry in the academic reporting system of the university, and its publication in the institutional repository. In this poster, we present the main features of our solution.

Social resource sharing systems are central elements of the Web 2.0 and use the same kind of lightweight knowledge representation, called folksonomy. Their large user communities and ever-growing networks of user-generated content have made them an attractive object of investigation for researchers from different disciplines like Social Network Analysis, Data Mining, Information Retrieval or Knowledge Discovery. In this paper, we summarize and extend our work on different aspects of this branch of Web 2.0 research, demonstrated and evaluated within our own social bookmark and publication sharing system BibSonomy, which is currently among the three most popular systems of its kind. We structure this presentation along the different interaction phases of a user with our system, coupling the relevant research questions of each phase with the corresponding implementation issues. This approach reveals in a systematic fashion important aspects and results of the broad bandwidth of folksonomy research like capturing of emergent semantics, spam detection, ranking algorithms, analogies to search engine log data, personalized tag recommendations and information extraction techniques. We conclude that when integrating a real-life application like BibSonomy into research, certain constraints have to be considered; but in general, the tight interplay between our scientific work and the running system has made BibSonomy a valuable platform for demonstrating and evaluating Web 2.0 research.

Social resource sharing systems are central elements of the Web 2.0 and use the same kind of lightweight knowledge representation, called folksonomy. Their large user communities and ever-growing networks of user-generated content have made them an attractive object of investigation for researchers from different disciplines like Social Network Analysis, Data Mining, Information Retrieval or Knowledge Discovery. In this paper, we summarize and extend our work on different aspects of this branch of Web 2.0 research, demonstrated and evaluated within our own social bookmark and publication sharing system BibSonomy, which is currently among the three most popular systems of its kind. We structure this presentation along the different interaction phases of a user with our system, coupling the relevant research questions of each phase with the corresponding implementation issues. This approach reveals in a systematic fashion important aspects and results of the broad bandwidth of folksonomy research like capturing of emergent semantics, spam detection, ranking algorithms, analogies to search engine log data, personalized tag recommendations and information extraction techniques. We conclude that when integrating a real-life application like BibSonomy into research, certain constraints have to be considered; but in general, the tight interplay between our scientific work and the running system has made BibSonomy a valuable platform for demonstrating and evaluating Web 2.0 research.

The growth rate of scientific publication has been studied from 1907 to 2007 using available data from a number of literature databases, including Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Traditional scientific publishing, that is publication in peer-reviewed journals, is still increasing although there are big differences between fields. There are no indications that the growth rate has decreased in the last 50 years. At the same time publication using new channels, for example conference proceedings, open archives and home pages, is growing fast. The growth rate for SCI up to 2007 is smaller than for comparable databases. This means that SCI was covering a decreasing part of the traditional scientific literature. There are also clear indications that the coverage by SCI is especially low in some of the scientific areas with the highest growth rate, including computer science and engineering sciences. The role of conference proceedings, open access archives and publications published on the net is increasing, especially in scientific fields with high growth rates, but this has only partially been reflected in the databases. The new publication channels challenge the use of the big databases in measurements of scientific productivity or output and of the growth rate of science. Because of the declining coverage and this challenge it is problematic that SCI has been used and is used as the dominant source for science indicators based on publication and citation numbers. The limited data available for social sciences show that the growth rate in SSCI was remarkably low and indicate that the coverage by SSCI was declining over time. National Science Indicators from Thomson Reuters is based solely on SCI, SSCI and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). Therefore the declining coverage of the citation databases problematizes the use of this source.

Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird die Notwendigkeit einer eindeutigen Autorenidentifikation (Persistant Author Identification - PAI) diskutiert und die bisher vorhandenen fachlichen, nationalen, überregionalen und kommerziellen Ansätze vorgestellt und erläutert. Es zeigt sich, dass die Entwicklung auf dem Sektor der Personennormdateien (authorithy records) mittels VIAF und ISNI auf einem guten Wege ist. Bei der notwendigen Zusammenführung der bisherigen Autoren-Identifikatoren in einem übergeordneten System könnte der neuen ORCID-Initiative große Bedeutung zukommen.

Dieser Beitrag untersucht, in welchem Umfang Dokumente von Dokumentenservern wissenschaftlicher Institutionen in den allgemeinen Suchmaschinen Google und Yahoo nachgewiesen sind und inwieweit wissenschaftliche Suchmaschinen für die Suche nach solchen Dokumenten besser geeignet sind. Dazu werden die fünf Suchmaschinen BASE, Google Scholar, OAIster, Scientific Commons und Scirus überblickartig beschrieben und miteinander verglichen. Hauptaugenmerk wird dabei auf die unterschiedlichen Inhalte, Suchfunktionen und Ausgabemöglichkeiten gelegt, mit Hilfe eines Retrievaltests wird speziell die Leistungsfähigkeit der Suchmaschinen beim Auffinden von Dokumenten, deren Volltexte im Sinne des Open Access direkt und ohne Beschränkungen aufrufbar sind, untersucht.