Résumés
Abstract
While bibliometrics have been used for years in academia, recent conversations into their responsible use have driven a need for greater understanding of bibliometrics and research impact within the academic community. Academic librarians are ideal individuals to contribute to instruction on bibliometrics, as they are already embedded within their academic community’s scholarly processes and are often familiar with relevant tools and their functions. The purpose of this environmental scan was to evaluate the current state of open instructional materials for bibliometrics and research impact at the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) academic member institutions. An environmental scan of research guides was chosen as a methodology for this study. Results of this scan identify that 97% (28/29) of CARL academic member institutions held at least one research guide related to bibliometrics and research impact, in a total of 56 guides reviewed. A keyword analysis revealed that of the guides reviewed, keywords related to tools and methodologies of bibliometrics and research impact were discussed at the highest frequency (present within 96% of guides), while keywords related to responsible and alternative metrics were discussed at lowest frequency (present within 38% of guides). Results of this article will benefit 1) practicing librarians who are creating or updating their own bibliometrics and research impact guides or developing library instruction on related topics and 2) strategic planning and governance within academic institutions and more broadly at the national level by revealing trends in bibliometrics and research impact services and resources in the Canadian context.
Keywords:
- alternative metrics,
- bibliometrics,
- library instruction,
- research guides,
- research impact
Résumé
Alors que la bibliométrie est utilisée depuis des années dans le milieu universitaire, de récentes conversations sur son utilisation responsable ont suscité un besoin de mieux comprendre la bibliométrie et l'impact de la recherche au sein de la communauté universitaire. Les bibliothécaires universitaires sont des personnes idéales pour contribuer à l'enseignement de la bibliométrie, car iels sont déjà intégré.e.s au processus scientifique de leur communauté universitaire et connaissent souvent les outils pertinents et leurs fonctions. Le but de cette analyse contextuelle était d'évaluer l'état actuel du matériel pédagogique ouvert pour la bibliométrie et l'impact de la recherche dans les établissements universitaires membres de l'Association des bibliothèques de recherche du Canada (ABRC). Une analyse contextuelle des guides de recherche a été choisie comme méthodologie pour cette étude. Les résultats de cette analyse indiquent que 97 % (28/29) des établissements universitaires membres de l'ABRC détenaient au moins un guide de recherche lié à la bibliométrie et l'impact de la recherche sur un total de 56 guides étudiés. Une analyse des mots clés a révélé que parmi les guides étudiés, les mots clés liés aux outils et méthodologies de bibliométrie et l'impact de la recherche étaient discutés à la fréquence la plus élevée (présents dans 96 % des guides), tandis que les mots clés liés aux indicateurs responsables et alternatifs étaient discutés à la fréquence la plus faible (présents dans 38 % des guides). Les résultats de cet article profiteront 1) aux bibliothécaires en exercice qui créent ou mettent à jour leurs propres guides de bibliométrie et d'impact de la recherche ou développent des formations en bibliothèque sur des sujets connexes et 2) à la planification stratégique et à la gouvernance au sein des établissements universitaires et plus largement au niveau national en révélant les tendances des services et ressources de bibliométrie et d'impact de la recherche dans le contexte canadien.
Mots-clés :
- bibliométrie,
- enseignement en bibliothèque,
- guides de recherche,
- impact de la recherche,
- indicateurs alternatifs
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Association of Research Libraries. n.d. “List of ARL Members.” Accessed March 31, 2023. https://www.arl.org/list-of-arl-members/.
- Bergstrom-Lynch, Yolanda. 2019. “LibGuides by Design: Using Instructional Design Principles and User-Centered Studies to Develop Best Practices.” Public Services Quarterly 15: 205–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2019.1632245.
- Braun, Steven. 2017. “Supporting Research Impact Metrics in Academic Libraries: A Case Study.” Portal 17, no. 1: 111–27. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0007.
- Bredahl, Laura. 2022. “Introduction to Bibliometrics and Current Data Sources.” In The Current and Evolving Landscape of Bibliometric Tools and Technologies, edited by Samantha Kundert, 5–11. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. https://doi.org/10.5860/ltr.58n8.
- Byl, Lauren, Jana Carson, Annamaria Feltracco, Susie Gooch, Shannon Gordon, Tim Kenyon, Bruce Muirhead, Daniela Seskar-Hencic, Kathy MacDonald, Tamer Özsu, Peter Stirling. 2016. “White Paper: Measuring Research Outputs Through Bibliometrics.” UWSpace. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3302.5680.
- Cabezas-Clavijo, Alvaro, and Daniel Torres-Salinas. 2021. “Bibliometric Reports for Institutions: Best Practices in a Responsible Metrics Scenario.” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 6: 1–8. https://doi/org/10.3389/frma.2021.696470.
- Canadian Association of Research Libraries. n.d. a. “Members.” Accessed March 17, 2023. https://www.carl-abrc.ca/about-carl/members/.
- Canadian Association of Research Libraries. n.d. b. “Membership Requirements.” Accessed October 9, 2023. https://www.carl-abrc.ca/about-carl/members/membership-requirements/.
- Charles, Leslin H. 2021. “Using a TeachMeet Model to Enhance Collaboration in an Information Literacy Instruction Program.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47, no. 5: 102393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102393.
- Clarivate. 2021. “Journal Impact Factor (JIF).” Clarivate InCites Help. https://incites.help.clarivate.com/Content/Indicators-Handbook/ih-journal-impact-factor.htm.
- Clarivate. 2023a. “Journal Citation Reports.” https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-analytics-evaluation-and-management-solutions/journal-citation-reports/.
- Clarivate. 2023b. “Web of Science ResearcherID.” Web of Science Help. https://webofscience.help.clarivate.com/en-us/Content/wos-researcher-id.htm.
- Coombs, Sarah K., and Isabella Peters. 2017. “The Leiden Manifesto Under Review: What Libraries Can Learn From It.” Digital Library Perspectives 33, no. 4: 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-01-2017-0004.
- Corrall, Sheila, Mary Anne Kennan, and Waseem Afzal. 2013. “Bibliometrics and Research Data Management Services: Emerging Trends in Library Support for Research.” Library Trends 61, no. 13: 636–74. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2013.0005.
- Cox, Andrew, Elizabeth Gadd, Sabrina Petersohn, and Laura Sbaffi. 2019. “Competencies for Bibliometrics.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 51, no. 3: 746–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617728111.
- Craft-Morgan, Sheila. 2023. “Why Don’t Research Impact LibGuides Include Bias-Related Resources?” Recorded July 25, 2023, in OCLC Works in Progress Webinar, hosted by Merrilee Proffitt and supported by Mercy Procaccini, webinar, 49 min., and 49 sec. https://www.oclc.org/research/events/2023/libguides-bias-related-resources.html.
- Elsevier. 2023a. “CiteScore Metrics You Can Verify and Trust.” Scopus. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/metrics/citescore.
- Elsevier. 2023b. “Scopus Author Profiles.” Scopus. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/author-profiles.
- Erickson, Norene, and Lisa Shamchuk. 2017. “Paraprofessional Library Education in Canada: An Environmental Scan / La formation paraprofessionnelle en bibliothéconomie: un portrait de la situation.” Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 41, no. 1: 18–41.
- Fühles-Ubach, Simone, Miriam Albers, and Mandy Neumann. 2021. “7.2 Bibliometrics in the Curriculum.” In Handbook Bibliometrics, edited by Rafael Ball, 475–84. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646610-043.
- Gumpenberger, Christian, Martin Wieland, Juan Gorraiz. 2012. “Bibliometric Practices and Activities at the University of Vienna.” Library Management 33, no. 3: 174–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121211217199.
- Hicks, Diana, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke, and Ismael Rafols. 2015. “Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics.” Nature 520: 429–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a.
- Hjørland, Birger. 2002. “Domain Analysis in Information Science: Eleven Approaches–Traditional as well as Innovative.” Journal of Documentation 58, no. 4: 422–62. https://doi.10.1108/00220410210431136.
- INORMS Research Evaluation Group. n.d. “The SCOPE Framework: A Five-Stage Process for Evaluating Research Responsibly.” INORMS. https://inorms.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/21655-scope-guide-v10.pdf.
- Kennan, Mary A., Sheila Corrall, and Waseem Afzal, W. 2014. “‘Making Space’ in Practice and Education: Research Support Services in Academic Libraries.” Library Management 35, no. 8/9: 666–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-03-2014-0037.
- Lewis, Ruth, Cathy C. Sarli, and Amy M. Suiter. 2015. “Scholarly Output Assessment Activities, SPEC Kit 346.” Association of Research Libraries. https://publications.arl.org/Scholarly-Output-Assessment-SPEC-Kit-346/.
- Malone, Tara, and Susan Burke. 2016. “Academic Librarians’ Knowledge of Bibliometrics and Altmetrics.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 11, no: 3: 34–49. https://doi.org/10.18438/B85G9J.
- Ninkov, Anton, Jason R. Frank, and Lauren A. Maggio. 2021. “Bibliometrics: Methods for Studying Academic Publishing.” Perspectives on Medical Education 11: 173–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00695-4.
- ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID). n.d. “About ORCID.” https://info.orcid.org/what-is-orcid/.
- OurResearch. n.d. “Our Projects.” http://ourresearch.org/projects#impactstory-profiles.
- San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). n.d. Accessed June 12, 2023. https://sfdora.org.
- Si, Li, Yueliang Zeng, Sicheng Guo, and Xiaozhe Zhuang. 2019. “Investigation and Analysis of Research Support Services in Academic Libraries.” Electronic Library 37, no. 2: 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2018-0125.
- Suiter, Amy M., and Heather Lea Moulaison. 2015. “Supporting Scholars: An Analysis of Academic Library Websites’ Documentation on Metrics and Impact.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41, no. 6: 814–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.09.004.
- Sutton, Sarah, Rachel Miles, and Stacy Konkiel. 2018. “Awareness of Altmetrics among LIS Scholars and Faculty.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 59, no. 1–2: 33–47. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.59.1-2.05.
- Nix, A. T., and Judith E. Smith. 2019. “Research Impact Core: A Research Impact Initiative at the University of Michigan.” Medical Reference Services Quarterly 38, no. 3: 260–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2019.1623618.
- U15 Group of Canadian Research Libraries. n.d. “Our Members.” Accessed on March 31, 2023. https://u15.ca/about-us/our-members/.
- Vaska, Marcus. & Rosvita Vaska. 2017. “Looking for Information that is Not Easy to Find: An Inventory of LibGuides in Canadian Post-Secondary Institutions Devoted to Grey Literature.” The Grey Journal 13, no. 2: 81–90.
- Vileno, Luigina. 2007. “From Paper to Electronic, the Evolution of Pathfinders: A Review of the Literature.” Reference Services Review 35, no. 3: 434–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320710774300.
- Wheatley, Amanda, and Sally Armstrong. 2021. “Entrepreneurship Research Guide Design at Canadian University Libraries.” Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 26, no. 1–2: 46–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2021.1916722.
- Wheatley, Amanda, and Sandy Hervieux. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence in Academic Libraries: An Environmental Scan.” Information Services & Use 39, no. 4: 347–356. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-190065.
- Wilburn, Amanda, Robin C. Vanderpool, and Jennifer R. Knight. 2016. “Environmental Scanning as a Public Health Tool: Kentucky’s Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Project.” Preventing Chronic Disease 13. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160165.
- Wilsdon, James. 2016a. “Responsible Metrics.” In The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473978782.
- Wilsdon, James. 2016b. The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473978782.