Search results

This study aims to develop a framework for applying performance management principles to implementing a pluralistic model of scholarly impact in business schools to increase the value and relevance scholarly research to multiple stakeholder groups.

Performance management principles were studied with case study data of scholarly impact that included bibliographic measures and altmetrics. An analytical model was built for a focal business school that provided benchmarks for managing scholarly impact by using data from three peer schools.

Bibliographic, scholarly output measures and altmetrics were consistent across the focal school and peer schools, thereby providing a solid foundation for establishing performance benchmarks for annual performance reviews, promotion and tenure decisions and organizational impact goals.

This paper provides guidance for designing, building and implementing performance management systems to foster scholarly impact.

This paper integrates pluralistic impact models and performance management systems to build faculty expertise and align it with multiple impact domains.

The purpose of this study is to examine scholarly impact which is critical to universities in their aspiration to create, disseminate and apply knowledge. However, scholarly impact is an elusive concept. First, the authors present a conceptual model to clarify different dimensions of scholarly impact (i.e. theory and research, education, organizations and society) and four key stakeholders (i.e. other researchers, students, practitioners and policy makers). Second, the authors provide actionable recommendations for university administrators, researchers and educators on how to enhance impact. The scholarly impact model is flexible, expandable, scalable and adaptable to universities in different regions of the world and with different strategic priorities.

The authors conducted a general review of the literature and offered a multidimensional and multistakeholder model of scholarly impact to guide future actions aimed at enhancing scholarly impact.

The authors describe the multidimensional and multistakeholder nature of the critical and yet elusive concept of scholarly impact. The authors delineate multiple dimensions of impact, different stakeholders involved and recommendations for enhancing scholarly impact in the future.

The authors offer practical and actionable recommendations on how to enhance scholarly impact. For university administrators, the authors recommend aligning scholarly impact goals with actions and resource-allocation decisions; ensuring that performance management and reward systems are consistent with impact goals; being strategic in selecting a journal list; developing a strong doctoral program; and promoting practical knowledge and applications. For researchers and educators, the authors recommend developing a personal scholarly impact plan; becoming an academic decathlete; finding ways to affect multiple impact dimensions simultaneously; and leveraging social media to broaden impact on external stakeholders. Implementing these recommendations will benefit other researchers, students, practitioners (e.g. managers, consultants) and policy makers.

The authors provide an innovative way of conceptualizing scholarly impact. In turn, the conceptual analysis results in actionable recommendations for university administrators, researchers and educators to enhance impact.

Whereas traditional book and journal publishing remain the gold standard for many post-secondary institutions, nontraditional publishing is just as prolific at the flagship university in Maine. The university has strong land and sea grant missions that drive a broad research agenda, with an emphasis on community outreach and engagement. However, the impact of researchers’ contributions outside of academe is unlikely to be accurately reflected in promotion, tenure or review processes. Thus, the authors designed a series of altmetrics workshops aimed at seeding conversations around novel ways to track the impact of researchers’ diverse scholarly and creative outputs.

This paper presents a case study of the instructional approach taken at the University of Maine library to facilitate discussions of alternative impact assessments that reach beyond traditional publications.

Evaluations revealed an increased awareness of, and interest in, impact tracking tools that capture both traditional scholarship, like journal articles, and nontraditional scholarly and creative outputs, such as videos, podcasts and newsletters. The authors learned that altmetrics provides an entry point into a broader conversation about scholarly impact, and was best received by those whose scholarly output is not always captured by traditional metrics.

Scholars are equipped with novel methods for describing the value of their work and discovering a broader audience for their research. Future initiatives will target the needs identified through initial conversations around altmetrics.

Altmetrics workshops provide spaces to explore the potential for new tools that capture a range of previously unconsidered measures of impact, and to discuss the implications of those measures.

This study aims to compare the impacts of proceedings papers in the fields of social science and humanities (SSH) and science.

This study involved not only citations but also altmetric indexes to compare the impacts of proceedings papers among multiple disciplines with 1,779,166 records from Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI) in the Web of Science (WoS) in the period of 2013–2017. The mean value, concentration ratio, Lorenz curves and correlation analysis are utilized into the comparative analysis.

(1) Proceedings papers in science fields had higher scholarly impacts than those in SSH fields. (2) As for societal impact, clinical, pre-clinical and health still ranked first, whereas physical science and engineering and technologies were transcended by SSH fields, which is different from the scholarly impact of proceedings papers. (3) As for proceedings papers, citations and altmetric indexes have weak or moderate correlations in all six fields, indicating that altmetrics can be supplemented when assessing proceedings papers.

This study is expected to enhance the understanding of proceedings papers and to promote accuracy of evaluation for them by exhibiting the multidisciplinary differences of their scholarly and societal impacts.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the educational value of prestigious and productive Spanish scholarly publishers based on mentions of their books in online scholarly syllabi.

Syllabus mentions of 15,117 books from 27 publishers were searched for, manually checked and compared with Microsoft Academic (MA) citations.

Most books published by Ariel, Síntesis, Tecnos and Cátedra have been mentioned in at least one online syllabus, indicating that their books have consistently high educational value. In contrast, few books published by the most productive publishers were mentioned in online syllabi. Prestigious publishers have both the highest educational impact based on syllabus mentions and the highest research impact based on MA citations.

The results might be different for other publishers. The online syllabus mentions found may be a small fraction of the syllabus mentions of the sampled books.

Authors of Spanish-language social sciences and humanities books should consider general prestige when selecting a publisher if they want educational uptake for their work.

This is the first study assessing book publishers based on syllabus mentions.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of open access institutional repositories (IR) in enhancing the global visibility and impact of Nigerian scholarly publication.

This is a literature‐based opinion paper which examines the problem of open access IR in Nigeria providing pragmatic suggestions that would address the challenges of making Nigerian scholarly publications accessible internationally.

While the paper acknowledges several problems that impede the building of open access IR, it equally highlights some necessary requirements for the building of IR with a road map for the development of functional IR in Nigeria.

The proliferation of universities and other higher institutions that are in one way or the other engaged in research activities suggests that Nigeria would have generated a lot of research to facilitate speedy development. Available evidence shows that in recent years scholarly publications in Nigeria lack viable means of global dissemination, which has reduced the global visibility of many publications from the country. This paper focuses on the current situation in scholarly publications in Nigeria and examines the need for building of institutional open access repositories and its influence in the dissemination of scholarly research from the country to the international scholarly community.

The originality of the paper is purely the proposal for the building of IR in Nigeria which includes creation of awareness on IR, government sponsorship of IR, development of information and communication technology infrastructure, use of effective advocacy, submission of electronic theses and dissertations, and self‐archiving mandate. The paper concludes that open access IR are the most viable means of ensuring the global visibility and impact of Nigerian scholarship.

The main purpose of this paper is to measure the scholarly impact of LIS (Library and Information Science) open access journals (OA journals), most of which are not indexed by the Web of Science (WoS). In addition, the paper seeks to discuss measurement methods beyond citation analysis.

The study selected 97 LIS OA journals as a sample and measured their scholarly impact on the basis of citations and links. The citation counts in WoS, coverage in LISA, Web links, WIFs and Page Rank of the journals are retrieved and calculated, and correlations between citation counts, links, pages, WIFs, and Page Rank are also analyzed.

The results indicate that LIS OA journals have become a significant component of the scholarly communication system. The Journal of the Medical Library Association enjoys the highest citation counts in WoS. This journal, together with D‐Lib Magazine, Information Research, Ariadne, Cybermetrics, and First Monday are the six most important LIS OA journals. With regard to coverage in LISA, Bulletin des Bibliothèques de France (2151) performs best. As a whole, the Page Rank is relatively high, mostly at 6, 7, or 8. The study finds that correlation between citation‐based measurements and link‐based measurements tends to be significant.

This paper uses the web as a global resource to measure the impact of LIS OA journals by analyzing citation, coverage, web links and Page Rank. The focus of this study is the value of the web as a source of impact indices, rather different from the traditional research methods. It contributes to the scholarly impact measurements of OA journals.

Webometric studies, using hyperlinks between websites as the basic data type, have been used to assess academic networks, the “impact factor” of academic communications and to analyse the impact of online digital libraries, and the impact of digital scholarly images. This study aims to be the first to use these methods to trace the impact, or success, of digitised scholarly resources in the Humanities. Running alongside a number of other methods of measuring impact online, the webometric study described here also aims to assess whether it is possible to measure a resource's impact using webometric analysis.

Link data were collected for five target project sites and a range of comparator sites.

The results show that digitised resources online can leave traces that can be identified and used to assess their impact. Where digitised resources are situated on shifting URLs, or amalgamated into larger online resources, their impact is difficult to measure with these methods, however.

This study is the first to use webometric methods to probe the impact of digitised scholarly resources in the Humanities.