L’editoria scientifica internazionale. Le regole per pubblicare efficacemente

Alcuni approfondimenti

Ruolo e compiti dei publishers, modelli di pubblicazione tradizionale e Open-Access

Come evitare una desk rejection e strutturare la risposta ai peer reviewers

Come evitare di essere preda dei “predatory publishers”

Come aumentare la visibilità del vostro articolo

Alcuni indici bibliometrici e/o alternativi

Costruire il vostro ruolo di peer reviewers

What is a publisher?

A publisher is the organization whose aim is to support the dissemination of the results of research in the fields of science, technology and medicine and to educate a global community.

2.5 million articles per year

6,450 non-english peer-

reviewed journals

28,000 active scholarly peer-

reviewed english journals

10,000 journal publishers

globally

Data source: The STM Report, Fourth Edition - March 2015

110,000 people employed

globally in STM industry

40% in Europe

30,000 FTE indirectly

supported by the STM industry

• In the traditional publishing model a publisher will charge authors no or minimal fees (extra page or colour charges) and acquires ownership of the content, gaining revenues for example from print subscriptions, reprints or advertising

• Authors sign a Copyright Transfer statement to the Publisher legally transferring content ownership from the author to the journal. A copyright restricts all forms of use of your article, and anybody who wishes to use it will have to seek permission from the publisher.

• Access to content is subscription-based or through large aggregators.

Publishing models - Traditional

In the Open access publishing model publication fees are paid entirely by the authors or funders/sponsors. There are different types of licenses which cover different levels or “protection”. Access to content is free for all, therefore your article will gain a higher visibility. Commercial exploitation of the contents depends on the license signed.

Publishing models – Open Access

Open access is usually defined as

Green Open Access, which refers to self-archiving generally of the pre or post-print in repositories;

Gold Open Access, which refers to articles published in fully accessible open access journals

Data source: The STM Report, Fourth Edition - March 2015

Open Access - licenses

Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)Share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format)

Open access publication is governed by different types of licenses, which grant different rights and

entitle different uses. Read carefully the licenses offered to you:

Creative Commons Licences are becoming widely used and they come in a vast range. The two most typical publisher’s license types are:

Attribution-4.0 International (CC BY 4.0): Share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and Adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any

purpose, even commercially

• Most publishers are now considered hybrid: in this publishing model, both traditional and open access options are available and the authors can decide which one to choose.

• The author will then have the option to publish his work under open access terms in a traditional journal, where not all contents are freely available.

• Often this option will allow a more rapid publication.

Publishing models – Hybrid

Come evitare una desk rejection e strutturare la risposta ai peer reviewers: alcuni concetti importanti

A manuscript if often first evaluated by the Journal office. A handful of hints can help you to go past the technical evaluation and they are usually clearly outlined in the Instructions to Authors:

Conform to the journal you are submitting to, regardless of how your manuscriptwas initially drafted by you and your co-authors;

Make sure you are familiar (and use) an ethical approach;

Pay attention to consistency and details, like you would in your research: Editors and journal offices do not like to waste time on badly presented manuscripts, with typos or inconsistencies.

How to avoid desk rejection

Submit when fully ready!

• Once your submission package is complete, you are ready to submit.

• Most publications now use online submission systems. They guide you through a journal-specific submission flow, which will ensure that all information will be available for your article exactly as the journal requires it.

• Read carefully the submission instructions, submission tutorials and, if available, use a checklist: once you have all items ready, go for it.

Falls within the journal’s aims and scope Follows the journal’s instructions to authors Adheres to publication ethics Reports new or emerging research A good balance between quality research and good

writing Has good chances of being highly cited They’re from new geographical areas

A publisher’s dream submission…

Publication ethics are becoming increasingly important for today’s authors and represent a big challenge. The most relevant issues you should consider are:

PlagiarismTo steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one’s own without crediting the source.

Self‐plagiarism To reuse significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one’s own previously published works without citing the earlier publications or without citing the original papers.

Duplicate submission To simultaneously submit the same paper to two or more journals to increase the probability that it will be accepted for publication and/or to decrease the time required for the editorial processing of the manuscript.

Falsification/Fabrication of data To selectively revise the results of scientific studies to fit preconceived expectations of the outcomes of investigations.

Ethical issues/violations

Image manipulation To falsify images employed in papers such that they no longer accurately reflect the authors’ observations.

Authorship attributionAuthorship is the currency by which academics are paid and thus is essential for tenure, promotion, and grant funding. Authorship is a fluid, evolving concept and as it evolves so will the ethical challenges associated with it.

• The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends that an author should meet all four of the following criteria:

☑Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;

☑Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

☑Final approval of the version to be published;

☑Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Authorship

Plagiarism is the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another’s work. (ORI)

It is also the use of others’ published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. (WAME)

An example:Moreover, writing is, to quote Miguel Roig, an expert on plagiarism in science writing, “an arduous task even for experienced scientists who do have English as their mother tongue” (1). [Direct citation, correctly attributed to the original source]

Moreover, writing is an arduous task even for experienced scientists who do have English as their mother tongue. [Inappropriate citation]

Plagiarism

Avoid accidental plagiarism:

Always acknowledge the work of others in your references (ideas, methods, concepts, findings, etc.). Do not fabricate or falsify data;

Always use quotation marks when citing work of others;

Re-phrase sentences with great care and include reference to the original source;

When writing your paper take notes carefully to avoid searching for sources;

Acknowledge “common scientific knowledge”.

Guidance on plagiarism

• Most institutions and publishers offer ethical policies on their websites. Authoritative advice can be found in some major organizations:

COPE provides advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. It provides a forum for its members to discuss individual cases and several resources to support the culture of ethical behaviors.

www.publicationethics.org

Similarity check tools

• Easy access to content online makes it easier than ever to reuse copy, whetherintentionally or accidentally. However, increasingly sophisticated search technologies- for example Google - along with plagiarism detection software, are leading to fasterand more complete discovery of acts of duplication.

• Many publishers and Journals screen manuscripts for potential plagiarism with powerful tools. Your manuscript will be screened against millions of sources available worldwide in databases and on the web. Plagiarism detection software is accessible, affordable and effective.

Real example of plagiarism check

Identifying matched content is only part of theprocess of detecting plagiarism. The remainderrequires a critical human element - a thoroughinterpretation of the scan’s results todetermine whether the matched contentconstitutes an act of plagiarism or is simply a quote or excerpt.

The likelihood of a document being checked at some point in the publishing process hasincreased significantly. Running a scan beforesubmission or publication allows authors toremedy any errors without risking thereputation costs of plagiarism.

Real example of plagiarism check

Furthermore, with plagiarism detectors becoming more widely used, the likelihood of a document being checked at some point in the publishing process has increased significantly. Running a scan before submission or publication allows authors to remedy any errors withoutrisking the reputation costs of plagiarism.

Identifying matched content is only partof the process of detecting plagiarism. The remainder requires a criticalhuman element - a thoroughinterpretation of the scan’s results todetermine whether the matchedcontent constitutes an act of plagiarismor is simply a quote or excerpt.

Article Year of retractionCiting Articles before

retractionCiting Articles after

retraction

1. Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet. N Engl J Med April 4, 2013

2018 1792 79Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvado J, Covas MI, Corella, D, Aros F, Gomez-Gracia E, Ruiz-Gutiérrez V, Fiol M, Lapetra J, Lamuela-Raventos RM, Serra-Majem L, Pinto X, Basora J, Munoz MA, Sorli JV, Martinez JA, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, et al., for the PREDIMED Study Investigators

2. Visfatin: A protein secreted by visceral fat that mimics the effects of insulin. SCIENCE, JAN 21 2005

2007 224 977Fukuhara A, Matsuda M, Nishizawa M, Segawa K, Tanaka M, Kishimoto K, Matsuki Y, Murakami M, Ichisaka T, Murakami H, Watanabe E, Takagi T, Akiyoshi M, Ohtsubo T, Kihara S, Yamashita S, Makishima M, Funahashi T, Yamanaka S, Hiramatsu R, Matsuzawa Y, Shimomura I.

3. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. LANCET, FEB 28 1998

2010 647 512

Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA

4. An enhanced transient expression system in plants based on suppression of gene silencing by the p19 protein of tomato bushy stunt virus. PLANT JOURNAL, MAR 2003

2015 900 201

Voinnet O, Rivas S, Mestre P, Baulcombe D.

5. Purification and ex vivo expansion of postnatal human marrow mesodermal progenitor cells. BLOOD, NOV 1 2001

2009 578 289

Reyes M, Lund T, Lenvik T, Aguiar D, Koodie L, Verfaillie CM.

I top five articoli retratti più citati

Il processo di peer reviewing “standardizzato” inizia ad essere utilizzatoin modo sistematico solo negli anni Settanta.

In precedenza, perfino riviste prestigiose come Nature potevano pubblicare lavoriche non venivano sottoposti ad un processo di peer reviewing formale!

Autore Publisher

Invio del manoscritto Valutazione da parte dell’editor

Invio ai reviewer

Revisione del manoscritto

Re-invio del manoscritto

Invio del manoscritto all’autore

Accettato/ulteriori revisioni

Editing

Invio bozze all’autore

Pubblicazione dell’articolo5-7 mesi

Presa in carico delle richieste o della decisione

Rifiutato

Il processo è molto simile in tutte le riviste ed è rimasto invariato per molti anni

SINGLE-BLIND REVIEWThe reviewers know who the authors are, but the authors do not know who the reviewers are. The most common system in science disciplines. This allows reviewers to provide honest, critical reviews and

opinions without fear of reprisal from the authors.X Lack of accountability, allows unscrupulous reviewers to submit

unwarranted negative reviews, delay the review process and steal ideas.

DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEWThe reviewers do not know who the authors are, and the authors do not know who the reviewers are. Main form of peer review used in the humanities and social sciences.

Reduces possible bias resulting from knowing who the authors are or where they come from, work assessed on its own merits.

X Involves some effort to make sure manuscripts are anonimised, reviewers can often guess who the authors are (particularly if the authors have cited many of their own papers), information important for a complete critical appraisal is missing.

OPEN REVIEWAt its most basic, reviewers know who the authors are and the authors know who the reviewers are. It can also mean inclusion of the reviewers’ names and/or reports alongside the published paper, comments from others at pre-publication stage, or various combinations of these.

Greater accountability and reduced opportunity for bias or inappropriate actions. Reviewers can be given public credit for theirwork.

X Potential reviewers may be more likely to decline to review. Revealing reviewer identity may lead to animosity from authors, damaged relationships and repercussions for job prospects, promotion and grant funding.

Tipi di pre-publication review

In today’s age of online publication, sharing reviews on published research has become easy. Experts in the field can cite a paper and share their viewpoints on it on their personal blogs. In recent times, post-publication peer review has been redesigned by some third parties. Some of the available platforms are:

Peer Review Evaluation (PRE) is a transparency service from AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) that showcases the strength of a publisher’s peer review process.

PRE integrates with any submission workflow to analyze manuscript tracking system data and tag qualifying articles with a PRE award badge to show readers which articles have been peer reviewed.

Open Review: This tool is built by the academic social network ResearchGate. It encourages authors to publish open feedback to papers published on the network. The feature combines a structured feedback mechanism with commenting facilities.

PubMed Commons: This platform is built into PubMed for using comments. Currently in a pilot phase, PubMed Commons invites authors of PubMed papers to join and comment on papers. The review is not anonymous

PubPeer: It allows users to make comments on almost any article that has a DOI, but the site is separate from publishers’ web pages.

Post-publication review

Monitorate la situazione del vostro articolo e se ci sono ritardi ingiustificatiscrivete all’Editorial Office. Se siete cortesi ma “visibili” il Vostro articoloverrà seguito con maggiore attenzione…

Ma non esagerate…

L’attesa del parere da parte dei peer reviewers

La risposta ai peer reviewers

Three golden rules

1. Answer completely

2. Answer politely

3. Answer with evidence

Spell it out

The editors and reviewers don't have time to check the new draft line by line and find the author's changes

Copy paste each reviewer comment, and type your response below it

Make it clear to the editor what you have changed, and when it goes back to the reviewer, the reviewer sees it immediately and you create a win-win situation.

Be very specific i.e The original sentence was: «…»; it now reads as follows: «…»

La risposta ai peer reviewers

Pay attention to detail

Don't forget to make the changes

Watch your tone

Appreciate the reviewers’ work

Consult your coauthors or a colleague who is familiar with your work

La risposta ai peer reviewers

You can disagree, as long as you explain

help the reviewer and editor understand your point of view and make an informed decision

don't write to the editor to say that the reviewer is crazy, or incompetent: make it a factual response.

a complete, solid and polite rebuttal to the editor.

Do not agree with a reviewer just for the sake of agreeing or with the mistaken impression that the journal editor expects you to incorporate all of the reviewers’ suggestions. At the end of the day, it is your study and reputation at stake.

La risposta ai peer reviewers

La risposta ai peer reviewers

Consider withdrawing and submitting elsewhere

La risposta ai peer reviewers

Come evitare di essere preda dei “predatory publishers”

La progressiva e rapida crescita del modello Open Access ha consentito di aumentare in modo netto la visibilità degli articoli scientifici al di fuori dellacomunità scientifica ma ha portato con sè un effettocollaterale molto grave: la proliferazione dei cosiddettiPredatory Journals

The dark side of Open Access

“Although it may seem relatively easy to spot a spam e-mail, or protect yourself from a “snake-oil salesman” or “scam artist,” the truth is that in the world of global academic publishing, predatory or pseudo journals are actually thriving: a study estimated 8,000 active predatory journals with over 400,000 total articles in 2014.”

“PREDATORY JOURNALS: A WORLDWIDE EPIDEMIC”

• Predatory open access publishing is an exploitative publishing business model that involves charging publication fees without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals.

The "wonder drug paper”: submitted to 304, peer review by 255, accepted by 157 journals and rejected by 98…

Source: Retraction Watch

Publisher charged of little to no peer review, editors who never agreed to be affiliated with journals, does not allow to withdraw articlefrom submission….

Source: RetractionWatch

He told us: “So, I decided to troll this journal–called the Urology & Nephrology Open Access Journal–and see if they would agree to publish a Seinfeld-themed “case report” that I would write about a man who develops “uromycitisis” poisoning. The disease was inspired by an episode of Seinfeld when Jerry had to pee urgently and went against the wall of a parking garage. When a security guard busted him, Jerry claimed he suffered from a condition called “uromycitisis,” and could die if he didn’t pee whenever he needed to (Hint: It’s not a real disease). The journal is published by MedCrave, included on librarian Jeffrey Beall’s now-defunct list of possible predatory publishers and this article is no longer available.

Source: RetractionWatch

John McCool is neither a researcher nor a urologist. He received an unsolicited invitation to submit a paper to an open-access urology journal and he just couldn’t resist: He is the owner of a freelance scientific editing company, long been concerned about so-called predatory journals and he loves the TV show “Seinfeld.” Like many others before him, McCool decided to punk the journal by submitting a fake paper.

TOP WAYS TO SPOT A PREDATOR – the invitation letter

APC payment is required upon submission

Offers Editorial Board membership with few or no criteria; may not actually list an Editor or Editorial Board at all

Does not follow standard policies advocated by ICMJE, COPE etc

May claim to offer peer-review, but no valid reviews are offered and/or no revisions are requested and all articles are accepted

Sends frequent mass e-mails soliciting articles and promoting fast, inexpensive APCs

No physical address or valid phone number is provided for the publisher and/or editorial office

TOP WAYS TO SPOT A PREDATOR - 1

Website has a proliferation of broken links and/or grammatical errors

Not listed or falsely claims to be listed in SCOPUS, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Web of Science, and so on

Solicits articles on topics that are not close to the recipient’s areas of study

Difficult to stop receiving e-mails from the journal, even after attempts to unsubscribe

If it seems too good to be true, it just might be!

TOP WAYS TO SPOT A PREDATOR - 2

If an Editorial Board is listed, and you recognize a person you know, reach out to that person and ask more about the journal. If that person was not aware that he or she was on the Editorial Board of this journal, it is a good indicator that they’re illegitimate.

Check their references. If the journal says it’s listed or indexed in SCOPUS or PubMed Central or DOAJ, check those lists out and verify. This should be rather simple.

“If it seems too good to be true …” If you’ve ever peer reviewed an article, you’ll know that it is not an instantaneous process. If your proof is delivered within days of submission, that should be a sign that the peer review process did not occur.

Don’t pay up front. Open access publishing is not “pay to play.” APC fees should only be collected after review, revision, and acceptance of an article.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK

Alla fine del 2016, il sito web che riportava la “Beall’s list” è stato improvvisamentechiuso.

https://predatoryjournals.com/about/

Fortunatamente, un gruppo anonimo di ricercatori ha voluto “prendere iltestimone” e ha creato un sito dove sono disponibili informazioni aggiornate ed un elenco di queste riviste

Increasing the reach and impact of published research

The Publisher will promote your article extensive, but you should also take an active approach to help increase its readership:

Share your new article, or a link to it, on your social networks;

Alert colleagues of your new article;

Inform your Institution;

Join ResearchGate, Kudos or the researcher portal most common in your community to increase visibility to your article

If you chose an OA journal, include a link to your article for example in your emails to colleagues and peers;

Promote yourself

Explain the publication in plain language

• simple title

• “what’s it about?”

• “why is it important?”

• personal “perspective”

• links to related materials that further explain the work or help to set it in context

Sharethe publication with own networkks using email,, blogs, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and more

Kudos: benefits for authors

Broaden the readership of your research Explaining your work in plain language and sharing it to your network will increase its audience. In a pilot program, publications that were explained and shared through the Kudos tools received on average 19% more downloads than those in a control group.

Keep track of all your outreach Kudos links can be shared via any of your existing networks (Twitter, ResearchGate, LinkedIn etc); its central dashboard maps any clicks on these links against changes in numbers of downloads, altmetrics and citations.

Manage all your outputs in one place Kudos can be used to explain and share publications from any publisher that provides CrossRef DOIs. You can also add links to related resources that further help to explain the research, set it in context or connect it to more recent activity in the field.

Make the most of your time Centralizing your outreach and mapping it against meaningful metrics not only helps you understand which activities are worth doing, but also gives your institution and publishers visibility of your efforts so we can help to amplify them with outreach of our own.

Indici bibliometrici e innovativi di riviste, autori e articoli

Ci sono tre ʺelementiʺ fondamentali su cui si basa la letteratura scientifica

Authors Articles Journals

Gli indici di performance sono sviluppati ed utilizzati per ciascuno di questi elementi

Author Article Journal

MedlineWeb of Science Scopus

Ci sono tre database fondamentali dove le riviste sono indicizzate, una di gestione «statale», l’altra invece da società private

Journal

Solo le companies private hanno sviluppato degli indicatori di performance analizzando i dati dei loro databases

Impact Factor

Citescore

Journal

Web of Science

Scopus

L’IF non è un indice molto recente….

Eugene Garfield è il fondatore dell’ Institute of Scientific Information, conosciuto dai “vecchi” ricercatori come ISI

Journal

L’IF comunemente utilizzato è il 2-YR IF

E’ definito come il numero complessivo di citazioni ricevute durante l’anno analizzatoriferite agli articoli citabili pubblicati durante i due anni precedenti (il numeratore) , diviso il numero totale degli articoli citabili pubblicati nei due anni precedenti (ildenominatore).

Le self citations (citazioni della rivista sulla stessa rivista) contano per il calcolo dell’IF

Journal

Gli articoli citabili includono original research papers, reviews, clinical practice guidelines, scientific statements, advisories, position papers, e materiali simili.

C’è un area grigia di articoli potenzialmente citabili che include case reports, perspectives, commentaries, essays, highlights e point of views.

Il calcolo dell’IF è una combinazione di calcoli automatici del numero delle citazioni e di una valutazione manuale degli articoli possono insorgere degli errori o comunque delle inconsistenze dovute all’elevato numero di articoli/riviste valutate ogni anno dal JCR staff

L’IF senza self citations è sempre calcolato, ma raramente è riportato.Il fatto che l’IF si riferisca sempre ad articoli pubblicati da 2 a 3 anni prima

della valutazione la rende in qualche modo poco “attuale”

Importanti fattori da tener presente Journal

Journal

Art LArt A

Art B

Art C

Art DArt E

Art F

Art G

Art H

Art I5 articoli nel 2016

5 articoli nel 2015

Immaginiamo che la rivista abbia pubblicato…Journal

Journal

Art L

2Art A

2Art B

2

Art C

2Art D

2Art E

2

Art F

2

Art G

2

Art H

2

Art I

22016

2015

Immaginiamo ora che ciascun articolo abbia avuto due citazioni nel 2017. Quale sarà l’IF? Journal

Journal

Art L

2Art A

2Art B

2

Art C

2Art D

2Art E

2

Art F

2

Art G

2

Art H

2

Art I

22016

2015

2017 IF = (10+10)/(5+5)= 2Journal

Journal

Art L

0Art A

0Art B

0

Art C

0Art D

0Art E

20

Art F

0

Art G

0

Art H

0

Art I

02016

2015

Immaginiamo ora che quasi tutti gli articoli non abbiano avuto citazioni nel 2017 tranne uno che ne ha avute venti. Quale sarà l’IF?

Journal

Journal

Art L

0Art A

0Art B

0

Art C

0Art D

0Art E

20

Art F

0

Art G

0

Art H

0

Art I

02016

2015

2017 IF = (20+0)/(5+5)= 2

L’autore X dell’articolo A, con zero citazioni, ha lo stesso IF….

…dell’autore Y dell’articolo E, con venti citazioni.

Journal

Quindi, un autore può avere un articolo “impattato” senza avere neancheuna citazione.

Addirittura, l’autore X può aver pubblicato un case report su una rivistamolto “impattata” e non ricevere nemmeno una citazione, e d’altra parte l’autore Y può aver pubblicato una review molto citata su una rivista meno“impattata” e paradossalmente “avere” un IF più basso dell’autore X!

Quindi L’IF è un indicatore (con notevoli limiti) della “bontà” di una rivistama sicuramente non degli autori che pubblicano sulla stessa.

Journal

La non chiara definizione di articolo citabile o non citabileLe problematiche relative alle self-citations della rivista ed al citation stacking

(citazione reciproca)Le problematiche relative alla Advance Online Publication (spesso l’articolo è

pubblicato online molto prima di essere “ufficialmente” pubblicato)Per gli autori, l’IF computato è spesso l’ultimo disponibile e non quello dell’anno

in cui l’articolo è stato pubblicato (esempio, valutazione grant AIRC)

Il problema è che non abbiamo niente di veramente meglio….

JournalAltri importanti limiti nell’obiettività dell’ IF

I Competitori dell‘IF: CiteScore

Ci sono tre differenze fondamentali con l’ Impact Factor• I dati sono disponibili a tutti, non soltanto agli “abbonati al Journal Citation

Report di Clarivate Analytics dove si trovano i dati di IF”

• Il CiteScore include tutti i tipi di articolo: non solo articles e reviews ma anche letters, notes, editorials, conference papers etc

• Vengono conteggiati 3 anni invece di 2

Journal

Cosmos Impact Factor

Directory of Indexing and Impact Factor

General Impact Factor

Global Impact Factor

Global Science Citation Impact Factor

Impact Factor Services for International Journals

International Impact Factor Services

International Innovative Journal Impact Factor

International Journal Impact Factor

Int. Services for Impact Factor and Indexing

Journal Impact Factor

Journals Impact Factor

Research Journal Impact Factor

Science Impact Factor

Scientific Journal Impact Factor

Systematic Impact Factor

Technical Impact Factor

Universal Impact Factor

I Competitori dell‘IF: Le bufaleJournal

Author

Diversi databases, tra cui Web of Science e Google Scholar, calcolano automaticamente l’h-index

L’h-index è un indicatore sia della quantità che della qualità dei lavori, inteso sempre come numero delle citazioni.

Un h-index di 10 significa che un ricercatore ha pubblicato almeno 10 lavori che hanno avuto almeno 10 citazioni.

Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 2005;102(46):16569-16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102.

AuthorH-index

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20

N o

f ci

tati

on

sRank of manuscripts

Hirsch (H) index : 10

Ms CitationsA 18B 25C 9D 35E 2F 6G 3H 50I 15L 40M 7N 2O 1P 33Q 8R 27S 21T 10U 5V 2

Ms Rank CitationsH 1 50L 2 40D 3 35P 4 33R 5 27B 6 25S 7 21A 8 18I 9 15T 10 10C 11 9Q 12 8M 13 7F 14 6U 15 5G 16 3E 17 2N 18 2V 19 2O 20 1

H-index

Non è un indice per giovani, è evidente che se un autore ha pubblicato pochi articoli non potrà avere un h-index alto

L’ h-index non viene aggiustato per il numero o la posizione degli autori (il primo o l’ultimo contano come il quarto o il terz’ultimo)

Tante Self-citations possono influenzare il risultato.

.

Difetti dell’H-index Author

Article

A livello di articolo, ovviamente l’indicatore più semplice è il numero di citazioni totali per quell’articolo. Tuttavia, recentemente sono stati sviluppati indici chiamati Altmetricsche utilizzano i Social Media come indice di “qualità” dell’articolo (ma non dell’autore o della rivista)

Article

I colori che formano i “donuts” riflettono il mix delle fonti che determinano lo score, azzurro per Twitter, giallo per i blog etc etc

AltmetricsArticle

Il numero al centro è lo score di Altmetrics, una misura dell’attenzioneche deriva da tre fattori principali:

Volume: Più un articolo è menzionatopiù aumenta lo score

Fonti: più la fonte è “importante” piùlo score si alza

Autori: le menzioni “self” valgonomolto meno di quelle da parte di altrisoggetti .

Article

Sono stati pubblicati articoli che hanno valutato la correlazione tra Altmetrics ed indici “classici” con risultati interessanti

TIF: Calcolo basato sui retweets dei tweets originali.

Secondo gli autori cè un’assonanza con l’IF nel senso che i retweets stanno allecitazioni come i tweet originali agli articoli pubblicati

Article…alcuni propongono addirittura un Twitter Impact Factor

Take home message: ci sono due standard di riferimento per le metriche di riviste ed autori: non sono «gold» ma sono ancora i più usati

Author

Non ci sono gold standard per gli Articoli, ma gli Altmetrics stanno destando crescente interesse.

Article

Impact factor

H-Index

N di citazioni, Altmetrics

Journal

Costruire il vostro ruolo di peer reviewers

Si stanno sviluppando communities di peer reviewers

La più nota è quella di Publons che ora è stato acquisito da Clarivate Analytics

Una Start Up italiana, ReviewerCredits, sta sviluppando una community con caratteristiche simili a Publons ma con un maggiore focus sulle potenzialiricadute sulla carriera accademica dei Peer Reviewers

Communities di peer reviewers

Considerazioni conclusive

Ruolo e compiti dei publishers, modelli di pubblicazione tradizionale e Open-Access

Come evitare una desk rejection e strutturare la risposta ai peer reviewers

Come evitare di essere preda dei “predatory publishers”

Come aumentare la visibilità del vostro articolo

Alcuni indici bibliometrici e/o alternativi

Costruire il vostro ruolo di peer reviewers