You are here:

Digital Scholarship and Impact Factors: Methods and Tools to Connect Your Research
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , University of North Texas, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in New Orleans, LA, USA ISBN 978-1-939797-12-4 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Abstract

Today digital footprints are left all over the Internet for others to find. This article reviews the means through which scholars can organize research and connect digital scholarship for increased visibility and impact. A survey of the literature on scholarship tools to provide connections for publishing records, academic citations, and digital identity management was done. The authors reviewed Researcher ID, ORCID, and Google Scholar Citations. The numbers of portals for synthesizing research output and related identity management platforms are increasing; however, understanding what this research impact might look like in the digital age can provide questions for assessment for understanding these traces of scholarship online.

Citation

Pasquini, L., Wakefield, J., Reed, A. & Allen, J. (2014). Digital Scholarship and Impact Factors: Methods and Tools to Connect Your Research. In T. Bastiaens (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning (pp. 1564-1569). New Orleans, LA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 25, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bodhani, A. (2012). Digital footprints step up. Engineering& Technology, Feb2012. Retrieved from www.EandTmagazine.com.
  2. Brey, P. (1997). Social constructivism for philosophers of technology: A shopper’s guide. Techne: Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology, 2(3-4), 56-78. [Web version] Available from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v2_n3n4html/brey.html
  3. Castelnuovo, G. (2008). Ditching impact factors: Time for the single researcher impact factor. British Medical Journal, 336(7648), 789.
  4. Castelnuovo, G., Limonta, D., Sarmiento, L., & Molinari, E. (2010). A more comprehensive index in the evaluation of scientific research: The single researcher impact factor proposal. Clinical Practice& Epidemiology in Mental Health, 6(2010), 1745-0179.
  5. Darling, E.S., Shiffman, D., Côté, I.M., & Drew, J.A. (2013) The role of Twitter in the lifecycle of a scientific publication. PeerJ PrePrints 1:16(1) http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.16v1Latour,B.(1987).Sciencein action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  6. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  7. Hewson, K. (2013). What size is your digital footprint. Kappan, 94(7), 14-15.
  8. Richardson, W. (2008). Footprints in the digital age. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 16-19.
  9. Viera, E.S., & Gomes, J.A.N.F. (2011). An impact indicator for researchers. Scientometrics, 89, 607-629.
  10. Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism ad the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(3), 362-378.
  11. Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How technology is transforming academic practice. A & C Black. NOTES: 1 ORCID: Connecting Research and Researchers. Http://orcid.org/ 2 Researcher ID. Http://www.researcherid.com/

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Slides