Dataset Information

Using Google Scholar to track the scholarly output of research groups.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:It is often necessary to demonstrate the impact of a research program over time both within and beyond institutions. However, it is difficult to accurately track the publications of research groups over time without significant effort. A simple, scalable, and economical way to track publications from research groups and their metrics would address this challenge. METHODS:Google Scholar automatically tracks the scholarly output and citation counts of individual researchers. We created Google Scholar profiles to track the scholarly productivity of five research groups: an institutional educational research program, a division of emergency medicine, a department of emergency medicine, a national educational scholarship working group, and an international organization dedicated to online education. We added the publications of each group member to their respective group Google Scholar profile and a junior faculty member monitored the citations that were suggested. RESULTS:Google Scholar tracked a diverse collection of five research groups over 6-36 months. In addition to having different organizational structures and purposes, the groups varied in size, consisting of 8-60 researchers, and prolificacy, with group citation counts between 1006-58,380 and group h?indexes ranging from 19-101. DISCUSSION:We anticipate that as this innovation becomes better known it will increasingly be adopted by traditional and non-traditional research groups to easily track their productivity and impact. Additional initiatives will be needed to standardize reporting guidelines within and between institutions.

SUBMITTER: Thoma B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6565647 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Scientometrics enables scholars to assess and visualize emerging research trends and hot-spots in the scientific literature from a quantitative standpoint. In the last decades, Africa has nearly doubled its absolute count of scholarly output, even though its share in global knowledge production has dramatically decreased. The still-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted the way scholarly research is conducted, published, and disseminated. However, the COVID-19-related research focus, the scientific productivity, and the research collaborative network of African researchers during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic remain to be elucidated. This study aimed to clarify the COVID-19 research patterns among African researchers and estimate the strength of collaborations and partnerships between African researchers and scholars from the rest of the world during the COVID-19 pandemic, collecting data from electronic scholarly databases such as Web of Science (WoS), PubMed/MEDLINE and African Journals OnLine (AJOL), the largest and prominent platform of African-published scholarly journals. We found that COVID-19-related collaboration patterns varied among African regions. For instance, most of the scholarly partnerships occurred with formerly colonial countries (such as European or North-American countries). In other cases, scholarly ties of North African countries were above all with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In terms of number of publications, South Africa and Egypt were among the most productive countries. Bibliometrics and, in particular, scientometrics can help scholars identify research areas of particular interest, as well as emerging topics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. With a specific focus on the still-ongoing viral outbreak, they can assist decision- and policy-makers in allocating funding and economic-financial, logistic, organizational, and human resources, based on the specific gaps and needs of a given country or research area.

Project description:The National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) was founded in 2008 to lead a UK strategy for developing academic anaesthesia. We aimed to assess the distribution of applications and quantify the academic returns of NIAA-supported research grants, as this has hitherto not been analysed. We sought data on the baseline characteristics of all grant applicants and recipients. Every grant recipient from 2008 to 2015 was contacted to ascertain the status of their supported research projects. We also examined Google Scholar, Scopus® database and InCites Journal Citation Reports for citation, author and journal metrics, respectively. In total, 495 research project applications were made, with 150 grants being awarded. Data on 121 out of 150 (80.7%) grant awards, accounting for £3.5 million, were collected, of which 91 completed studies resulted in 140 publications and 2759 citations. The median (IQR [range]) time to first or only publication was 3 (2-4 [0-9]) years. The overall cost per publication was £14,970 (£7457-£24,998 [£2212-£73,755]) and the cost per citation was £1515 (£323-£3785 [£70-£36,182]), with 1 (0-2 [0-8]) publication and 4 (0-25 [0-265]) citations resulting per grant. The impact factor of journals in which publications arose was 4.7 (2.5-6.2 [0-47.8]), with the highest impact arising from clinical and basic science studies, particularly in the fields of pain and peri-operative medicine. Grants were most frequently awarded to clinical and basic science categories of study, but in terms of specialty, critical care medicine and peri-operative medicine received the greatest number of grants. Superficially, there seemed a geographical disparity, with 123 (82%) grants being awarded to researchers in England, London receiving 48 (32%) of these. However, this was in proportion to the number of grant applications received by country or city of application, such that there was no significant difference in overall success rates. There was no significant difference in productivity in terms of publications and citations from grants awarded to each city. The 150 grants were awarded to 107 recipients (identified as the most senior applicant for each grant), 27 of whom received ≥ two grants. Recipients had a median career total of 21 (8-76 [0-254]) publications and 302 (44-1320 [0-8167]) citations, with an h-index of 8 (3-22 [0-54]). We conclude that a key determinant of grant success is simply applying. This is the first study to report the distribution and scholarly output of individual anaesthesia research grants, particularly from a collaborative body such as the NIAA, and can be used as a benchmark to further develop academic anaesthesia in the UK and beyond.

Project description:Introduction: Ensuring high-quality scholarly output by graduate medical trainees can be a challenge. Within many specialties, including emergency medicine (EM), it is unclear what constitutes appropriate resident scholarly activity. We hypothesized that the quantity and quality of scholarly activity would improve with a clearer guideline, including a point system for eligible scholarly activities. Methods: A resident Scholarly Activity Guideline was implemented for EM residents in a university setting. The guideline consists of a point system in which point values, ranging from 1-10, are assigned to various types of scholarly activities. Residents must earn at least 10 points and present their work to meet their scholarly graduation requirement. We tracked scholarly activities for graduates from the classes of 2014-2020, with the guideline being implemented for the class of 2016. In a blind analysis, we compared median total points per resident, mean counts of the Boyer model of scholarship components per resident, and mean counts of significant scholarly output per resident before vs after the guideline was implemented. Significant scholarly output was defined as an implemented protocol, a research project with data collection and analysis, a research abstract presentation, or an oral abstract presentation. Results: Among 64 residents analyzed, 48 residents used the guideline. We found that median points per resident increased after the guideline was implemented (median, interquartile range: before 7 [7], after 11 [10, 13], P = 0.002). Post-guideline scholarly activities were found to represent more of Boyer's components of scholarship [mean before 0.81 [SD 0.40], mean after 1.52 [SD 0.71], mean difference 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.332 ± 1.09, P < 0.001. There was no difference in the mean significant scholarly output per resident (mean before 1.38 [SD 1.02], mean after 1.02 [SD 1.00], mean difference 0.35, 95% CI 0.93 ± 0.23, P = 0.23). Conclusion: Implementation of a Scholarly Activity Guideline point system significantly increased the quantity and, by one of two measures, increased the quality of scholarly output in our program. Our point-based guideline successfully incorporated traditional and modern forms of scholarship that can be tailored to resident interests.

Dataset Information

Using Google Scholar to track the scholarly output of research groups.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets