Archive for category Kudos

Add Altmetric and PlumX scores and Kudos Resources to your online CV

Over the weekend I spent a little time working to integrate Altmetric and PlumX scores to my online CV here on my blog. I also integrated my Kudos resources associated with an article directly into the CV.it’s a breeze and requires only that you have DOIs for your article. See below for how ONE article in my CV is represented.

154. Programmatic Conversion of Crystal Structures into 3D Printable Files, V.F. Scalfani, <strong>A.J. Williams</strong>, V. Tkachenko, K. Karapetyan, A. Pshenichnov, R.M. Hanson, J.M. Liddie and J.E. Bara, Journal of Cheminformatics, 2016, 8:66 Article Type: Methodology <a href=”http://jcheminf.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-016-0181-z”><strong>Link</strong> </a>
<strong>AltMetrics Analytics</strong>
<div class=”altmetric-embed” data-badge-type=”medium-donut” data-badge-details=”right” data-doi=”10.1186/s13321-016-0181-z“></div>
<strong>PLUMX Analytics</strong>
<a href=’https://plu.mx/plum/a?doi=10.1186/s13321-016-0181-z‘ class=’plumx-plum-print-popup’></a>
<strong>Kudos Resources</strong>
<script src=”//api.growkudos.com/widgets/resources/10.1186/s13321-016-0181-z“></script>

Literally all you have to do is copy these few lines and swap out the DOI and the scores and Kudos resources will show up in your CV. Simple.

Altmetric, PlumX and Kudos Embedded widgets

No Comments

PRESENTATION: Building an Online Profile Using Social Networking and Amplification Tools for Scientists

This presentation was given as a 2 hour hands-on training course at the Frontier Building in the Research Triangle Park in NC funded by an Industry Award Grant from the ACS and matching financial support from the Research Triangle Institute.

Abstract “Many of us nowadays invest significant amounts of time in sharing our activities and opinions with friends and family via social networking tools such as Facebook, Twitter or other related websites. However, despite the availability of many platforms for scientists to connect and share with their peers in the scientific community the majority do not make use of these tools, despite their promise and potential impact and influence on our careers. We are already being indexed and exposed on the internet via our publications, presentations and data and new “AltMetric scores” are being assigned to scientific publications as measures of popularity and, supposedly, of impact. We now have even more ways to contribute to science, to annotate and curate data, to “publish” in new ways, and many of these activities are as part of a growing crowdsourcing network. This presentation provides an overview of the various types of networking and collaborative sites available to scientists and ways to expose your scientific activities online. It will discuss the new world of AltMetrics that is in an explosive growth curve and will help you understand how to influence and leverage some of these new measures. Participating online, whether it be simply for career advancement or for wider exposure of your research, there are now a series of web applications that can provide a great opportunity to develop a scientific profile within the community.”

No Comments

Social Media Tools for Scientists and Building an Online Profile

This presentation will be given at the Janelia Farm Research Campus, a research campus of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The presentation abstract is below.

ABSTRACT
Despite the availability of many platforms for scientists to connect and share with their peers in the scientific community the majority do not make use of these tools, despite their promise and potential impact and influence on our careers. We are already being indexed and exposed on the internet via our publications, presentations and data and new “AltMetric scores” are being assigned to scientific publications as measures of popularity and, supposedly, of impact. We now have even more ways to contribute to science, to annotate and curate data, to “publish” in new ways, and many of these activities are as part of a growing crowdsourcing network. This presentation provides an overview of the various types of networking and collaborative sites available to scientists and ways to expose your scientific activities online. It will discuss the new world of AltMetrics that is in an explosive growth curve and will help you understand how to influence and leverage some of these new measures. Participating online, whether it be simply for career advancement or for wider exposure of your research, there are now a series of web applications that can provide a great opportunity to develop a scientific profile within the community.

No Comments

Investigating Impact Metrics for Performance for the US-EPA National Center for Computational Toxicology

This presentation was presented at the American Chemical Society in Philadelphia in August 2016

DAY & TIME OF PRESENTATION: Sunday, August, 21, 2016 from 4:10 PM – 4:30 PM
ROOM & LOCATION: Room 112B – Pennsylvania Convention Center

Title: Investigating Impact Metrics for Performance for the US-EPA National Center for Computational Toxicology

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Computational Toxicology Program integrates advances in biology, chemistry, and computer science to help prioritize chemicals for further research based on potential human health risks. This work involves computational and data driven approaches that integrate chemistry, exposure and biological data. We have delivered public access to terabytes of open data, as well to a large number of publicly accessible databases and applications, to support the research efforts for a large community of scientists. Many of our contributions to science are summarily described in research papers but  to date we have not optimized our contributions to  inform altmetrics statistics associated with our work. Critically missing from altmetrics is access to our numerous software applications and web service accesses, as well as the growing importance of our experimental data and models (e.g ToxCast, ExpoCast, DSSTox and others) to the scientific and regulatory communities.  This presentation will provide an overview of our efforts to more fully understand, and quantify, our impact on the environmental sciences using a combination of our measurement approaches and available altmetrics tools. This abstract does not reflect U.S. EPA policy.

No Comments

The confusing world of Altmetrics – A personal opinion, with confusing data

I am a fan of Altmetrics. At least in concept. But I starting to get very concerned with both the tools used to measure them and what the “numbers” are expected to indicate. We would expect that a high “number” in an Altmetric.com “donut” would be indicative, in some way, of the relative importance or “impact” of that article. One would hope it at least points to how well read the article is, whether the readers like the science and the potential for the article to, for example, move forward understanding or proliferate data into further usage. I am not sure this is true…at least for some of the articles I am involved with.

Let’s take for example the recent Zika Virus article that Sean Ekins led. The F1000 site gives us some stats in regards to Views and Downloads and the Metrics shows the Altmetric stats. I would assume that 48 DOWNLOADers would have at least some of them reading the article. Some of the VIEWers are likely to have read it and maybe printed it. For the Altmetric stats the 33 tweets are likely people pointing to the article and because of the way I use Twitter I am going to suggest that Tweets are less indicative of the number of readers of the article. There is a definition on the Altmetric site regarding how Twitter stats are compiled.

Metrics on the F1000 Zika Article Page

If we use the Altmetric Bookmarklet we can navigate to the page with a score

Altmetric page with score

The score of “41” is essentially the sum of bloggers, tweets, Facebook posts etc. summarized below (1+1+1+33+1+3+1 for being on Altmetric.com???)

Sum all networking posts to get 41

When I asked F1000Research via Twitter why they don’t show the “number” I appreciated their answer. I AGREE with their sentiment.

F1000 feedback on Twitter

 

Yesterday I received an email about our Journal of Cheminformatics article “Ambiguity of non-systematic chemical identifiers within and between small-molecule databases“, part of which is shown below.

Journal of Cheminformatics email

On the actual Journal of Cheminformatics page it says there have been 1444 accesses (not 2216 as cited in the email).

Journal of Cheminformatics Accesses

Also the Altmetric score is 8. So somewhere between 1400-2200 accesses (and it is safe to assume some proportion actual read it!). But it has a low Altmetric score of 8. This is versus an Altmetric score of >40 for the Zika Virus paper and a lot less accesses and probably a lot of the altmetrics for that article don’t necessarily indicate reads of the article as they are Tweets, many of them from the authors out to the world.

Using PlumX I am extremely disappointed regarding what it reflects about the JChemInf article! Only 10 HTML Views versus the 1400-2200 accesses reported above, and only 7 readers and 1 save! UGH. But 13 Tweets are noted so it seems so I would expect at least an Altmetric.com score of 13 or 14, instead of the 8 marked on the article?

PlumX stats

I also tried to sign into ImpactStory to check stats but got a “Uh oh, looks like we’ve got a system error…feel free to let us know, and we’ll fix it.” message so will report back on that.

Altmetrics should be maturing now to a point where the metrics of reads, accesses, downloads should be fed into some overall metric. I think that reads/accesses/downloads should carry more weight than a Tweet in terms of impact of an article? At least if someone read it, whether they agree with it or not they are MORE aware of the content than if someone simply shared the link to an article, that then didn’t get read? The platforms themselves are so desync’ed in terms of the various numbers themselves that we must wonder how are things so badly broken? I would imagine that stats gathered in someway through CrossRef or ORCID will ultimately help this to mature but until then treat them all with a level of suspicion. I believe that AltMetrics will be an important part of helping to define impact for an article. But there is still a long way to go I’m afraid….

, , ,

2 Comments

Give me kudos for taking responsibility for self-marketing my scientific publications and increase impact

This presentation was given at the ACS Denver meeting on March 22nd 2015 in a CINF Division symposium

Give me kudos for taking responsibility for self-marketing my scientific publications and increase impact.

Antony Williams, Will Russell, Melinda Kenneway and Louise Peck

The authoring of a scientific publication can represent the culmination of many tens if not 100s of hours of data collection and analysis. The authoring and peer-review process itself often represents a major undertaking in terms of assembling the publication and passing through review. Considering the amount of work invested in the production of a scientific article it is therefore quite surprising that authors, post-publication, invest very little effort in communicating the value and potential impact of their article to the community. Social networking has clearly demonstrated the ability to self-market and drive attention. At the same time, the increasing volume of literature (over a million new articles are published every year), requires authors to take on a more direct role in ensuring their work gets read and cited. This requirement may grow with the emergence of a range of metrics at the article level, shifting attention away from where a researcher publishes to the performance of their individual articles. Therefore, a separate platform to facilitate social networking and other discovery tools to communicate the value of published science to the community would be of value. In parallel the possibility to enhance an article by linking to additional information (presentations, videos, blog posts etc) allows for enrichment of the article post-publication, a capability not available via the publishers platform. This presentation will provide a personal overview of the experiences of using the Kudos Platform and how it ultimately benefits my ability to communicate an integrated view of my research to the community.

 

No Comments

Presentations at the ACS Meeting in Denver

Having just returned from Pittcon late last night I am now turning my attention to the next set of presentations to be given at the ACS Denver meeting. These are listed below. If any of the blog readers will be at the ACS meeting it would be great to catch-up. See you there.

PAPER TITLE: Importance of data standards for large scale data integration in chemistry (final paper number: CINF 39)
DAY & TIME OF PRESENTATION: Wednesday, March, 25, 2015 from 11:20 AM – 11:50 AM
ROOM & LOCATION: Room 110 – Colorado Convention Center

ABSTRACT
Increasingly online databases are being used for the purpose of structure identification. In many cases an unknown to an investigator is known in the chemical literature or online database and these “known unknowns” are commonly available in these aggregated internet resources. The identification of these types of compounds in commercial, environmental, forensic, and natural product samples can be identified by searching against these large aggregated databases querying by either elemental composition or monoisotopic mass. We will report on the search approaches that we offer on aggregated compound databases hosted by the Royal Society of Chemistry and how these resources can be used for the purpose of structure identification. We will also report on our progress in the area of hosting interactive spectral data, including assignments, on our data repository and how we are using our analytical data platform for the purpose of natural product dereplication.

 

PAPER TITLE: Give me kudos for taking responsibility for self-marketing my scientific publications and increase impact (final paper number: CINF 8)
DAY & TIME OF PRESENTATION: Sunday, March, 22, 2015 from 2:15 PM – 2:40 PM
ROOM & LOCATION: Room 110 – Colorado Convention Center

ABSTRACT
The authoring of a scientific publication can represent the culmination of many tens if not 100s of hours of data collection and analysis. The authoring and peer-review process itself often represents a major undertaking in terms of assembling the publication and passing through review. Considering the amount of work invested in the production of a scientific article it is therefore quite surprising that authors, post-publication, invest very little effort in communicating the value and potential impact of their article to the community. Social networking has clearly demonstrated the ability to self-market and drive attention. At the same time, the increasing volume of literature (over a million new articles are published every year), requires authors to take on a more direct role in ensuring their work gets read and cited. This requirement may grow with the emergence of a range of metrics at the article level, shifting attention away from where a researcher publishes to the performance of their individual articles. Therefore, a separate platform to facilitate social networking and other discovery tools to communicate the value of published science to the community would be of value. In parallel the possibility to enhance an article by linking to additional information (presentations, videos, blog posts etc) allows for enrichment of the article post-publication, a capability not available via the publishers platform. This presentation will provide a personal overview of the experiences of using the Kudos Platform and how it ultimately benefits my ability to communicate an integrated view of my research to the community.

 

 

PAPER TITLE: Providing access to a million NMR spectra via the web (final paper number: CHED 91)
SESSION: NMR Spectroscopy in the Undergraduate Curriculum
DAY & TIME OF PRESENTATION: Sunday, March, 22, 2015 from 4:15 PM – 4:35 PM
ROOM & LOCATION: Gold – Sheraton Denver Downtown Hotel

ABSTRACT
Access to large scale NMR collections of spectral data can be used for a number of purposes in terms of teaching spectroscopy to students. The data can be used for teaching purposes in lectures, as training data sets for spectral interpretation and structure elucidation, and to underpin educational resources such as the Royal Society of Chemistry’s SpectralGame (www.spectralgame.com). These resources have been available for a number of years but have been limited to rather small collections of spectral data and specifically only about 3000 spectra. In order to expand the data collection and provide richer resources for the community we have been gathering data from various laboratories and, as part of a research project, we have used text-mining approaches to extract spectral data from articles and patents in the form of textual strings and utilized algorithms to convert the data into spectral representations. While these spectra are reconstructions of text representations of the original spectral data we are investigating their value in terms of utilizing for the purpose of structure identification. This presentation will report on the processes of extracting structure-spectral pairs from text, approaches to performing automated spectral verification and our intention to assemble a spectral collection of a million NMR spectra and make them available online.

 

PAPER TITLE: Using online chemistry databases to facilitate structure identification in mass spectral data (final paper number: ANYL 45)
SESSION: Advances in Mass Spectrometry
DAY & TIME OF PRESENTATION: Tuesday, March, 24, 2015 from 8:45 AM – 9:05 AM
ROOM & LOCATION: Aspen Room A – Embassy Suites Denver – Downtown Convention Center

ABSTRACT
The Royal Society of Chemistry hosts large scale data collections and provides access to the data to the chemistry community. The largest RSC data set of wide scale interest to the community offers access to tens of millions of compounds. The host platform, ChemSpider, is limited as it is a structure centric hub only. A new architecture, the RSC data repository, has been developed that extends support to reactions, spectral data, crystallography data and related property data. It is also the architecture underlying a series of exemplar projects for managing data for a number of diverse laboratories. The adoption of data standards for the integration and distribution of data has been essential. Specific standards include molecular structure formats such as molfiles and InChIs, and spectral data formats such as JCAMP. This presentation will report on our development of the data repository, the importance of utilizing standards for data integration, the flexible nature of the architecture to deliver solutions for various laboratories and our efforts to develop new large data collections. This includes text-mining efforts to extract large spectrum-structure collections from large corpuses.

No Comments

A TERRIBLE implementation of Name Searching on ACS Journals

Yes, I am a Williams. And THAT is an incredibly common surname. But I am an Antony Williams, notice no H in the name, i.e. NOT Anthony. In the field of chemistry there are not many of us around…a couple I know of, but not many overall. Google Scholar does an extremely good job of automatically associating my newly published articles with my Citations profile here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=O2L8nh4AAAAJ

The last five articles automatically associated with my profile. I do NOT make any associations manually at this point.

The last five articles automatically associated with my profile. I do NOT make any associations manually at this point.

I am assuming that this is done by understanding the type of work I publish on, some of the co-author network maps that have been established as my profile has developed etc. I assume that there approach is very intelligent relative to some of the more commonplace searches that have been implemented….certainly the results are GOOD.

I noticed one disastrous example today when our article “ChemTrove: Enabling a Generic ELN to Support Chemistry Through the Use of Transferable Plug-ins and Online Data Sources” was published on the Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling here. Right there to the left of the abstract is an offer to look at other content by the authors.

Look for related content by the authors on JCIM

Look for related content by the authors on JCIM

I was interested to see what else ACS knew about my content so I clicked on my name…which performed this search: http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?ContribStored=Williams%2C+A  and provided me with 96 articles by Andrew Williams (mostly), by Aaron Williams, by Anthony Williams (not me) and Allan Williams (to name a few). Eventually I managed to find 3 that were associated with me by searching the list for Antony Williams but none of those I published as Antony J. Williams were recovered.

Also, my colleague Valery Tkachenko is listed as an author with a misspelling as Valery Tkachenkov. What is simply inappropriate in my opinion is how the process involved taking the list of our submitted names..copied below directly from the submitted manuscript and changing them to their own interpretation of how we would want to see our names listed.

From this:

Aileen E. Day*†, Simon J. Coles, Colin L. Bird, Jeremy G. Frey, Richard J. Whitby, Valery E. Tkachenko§, Antony J. Williams§

To This:

Names changed from the original manuscript to those produced at submission

Names changed from the original manuscript to those produced at submission

Notice that for Aileen and Jeremy the middle initials were expanded, Colin had his middle initial changed from L. to I.,  Richard, Valery and I had our middle initials dropped and Valery had a v added to his surname. Why not simply copy and paste the names from the manuscript?

I will point out that this is a “Just Accepted” manuscript and likely the changes in names will be caught and edited, especially now I have just pointed them out. “Just accepted” does have some disclaimers:

The disclaimers regarding Just Accepted manuscripts

The disclaimers regarding Just Accepted manuscripts

While they can edit the names to match what we originally provided I don’t think it will fix the issue regarding finding all of my articles on ACS journals as when  navigated to one of my other articles here, http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0713072, and did the search from my listed name it found exactly the same 96 hits.

Maybe a thought to use my ORCID profile http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2668-4821 to look for ACS journal articles associated with my name?

Unfortunately the data is already out in the wild as when I claimed the article on Kudos all of the name spelling issues had clearly spilled over via the DOI: https://www.growkudos.com/articles/10.1021%252Fci5005948

Names transferred via DOI to the Grow Kudos Platform

Names transferred via DOI to the Grow Kudos Platform

Ah…the things that surprise me….or not.

No Comments

My Royal Society of Chemistry Articles in the Kudos Dashboard

I publish with a lot of publishers including RSC, ACS, Wiley, Springer, Elsevier etc. as evidenced by the list on my CV. However, as I conduct more work on Kudos to play with the platform I am happy to say that RSC has a rather unique position in terms of how we are displayed. I know we are not the only ones with the cover art (as I recall)

As an example, for the RSC MedChemComm article here: https://www.growkudos.com/articles/10.1039/c0md00129e you see the cover art displayed which I believe is a nice touch.

Kudos_RSC_Cover

Also, and this I REALLY like, I can see the number of full text downloads. For the article below the number 550 is the number of full text downloads.

kudos_text_downloads

For completeness the last five columns are:

Share referrals Kudos views Click throughs Full text downloads Altmetric score

I am increasingly using Kudos as a one-stop shop dashboard to review activities around my articles so to be able to compare ACROSS publishers what the full text downloads are is of value. I should think it should be possible to include views from the publisher website also. While our PLoS article here has had 47 Saves it is about to hit 11,000 views. THAT I would like to see in the table also.

In any case …I am glad to see that we at RSC are contributing the data so I can see it in the Kudos dashboard….now, will other publishers be sharing their data soon too?

No Comments

Can I use Social Networking Tools to Awaken Old Articles?

I am running a number of experiments right now on behalf of my friend and colleague Will Russell to see what ammunition I can give him for a presentation later this week. I am already running the experiment detailed here “Running an Experiment Regarding Growing AltMetrics Using Kudos” and the data is clear…it’s working. But what I think is working is that I am simply claiming articles on Kudos, enriching them as appropriate and I am doing the work to push the info out to the social networks…sharing it via email, Facebook and Twitter. I ran some bland tweets and facebook posts about some articles and got the expected resulted..low altmetric scores. I got a little creative about our article on Fuzzy Structure Generation and some quips about pulling my hair out over the science etc. and boom Altmetrics score went up dramatically. I am about to spike it again I hope with another tweet. This is simply pushing up the Altmetric score with NO INDICATION that anyone read the article, cared about the science, or even looked at it. So this does beg the question whether or not an increase in the Altmetric score means anything but this is a different conversation and one that has happened many times. This experiment is simply showing how important my own involvement is is shifting things along…well that’s my interpretation at least.

Now what I want to do is to NOT use Kudos to push out the social networking posts etc but simply do the work away from the platform and see whether the Altmetric score grows, and how fast can I move it. I have a whole set of articles regarding Electron Paramagnetic Resonance that are hard to make exciting. But the one on eight carbon alkyl chains and molecular motions is a good one so I have chosen that one to shift. Notice LOW kudos views and no Altmetric score…last column.

 

Altmetrics_expt2_part1

It’s from 1990 and, from my point of view, this was MY breakthrough work in my thesis…I was able to learn a lot about what it means to be a scientist, to develop a hypothesis and analyze data. I am very proud of this work….

May the experiment begin….

 

No Comments

%d bloggers like this: