Archive for category ORCID
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>
<div class=”altmetric-embed” data-badge-type=”medium-donut” data-badge-details=”right” data-doi=”10.1186/s13321-016-0181-z“></div>
<a href=’https://plu.mx/plum/a?doi=10.1186/s13321-016-0181-z‘ class=’plumx-plum-print-popup’></a>
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.
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.
If we use the Altmetric Bookmarklet we can navigate to the page with a 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???)
When I asked F1000Research via Twitter why they don’t show the “number” I appreciated their answer. I AGREE with their sentiment.
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.
On the actual Journal of Cheminformatics page it says there have been 1444 accesses (not 2216 as cited in the email).
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?
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….
Those of you who follow my blog will know that I am a fan of ORCIDs and it is great to hear that there are now over a MILLION ORCIDS issued! The sooner the better as far as I am concerned that I can start claiming all of my books and book chapters against MY ORCID and then moving that information to other platforms. My Amazon Author Page is here: http://www.amazon.com/Antony-J.-Williams/e/B004YRPRV2 and I am glad to say that despite the fact that there is a book called “I Hate Sex” with the author Antony J. Williams, exactly the spelling of my name, is NOT associated with me. Phew…
If we could start to make sure, somehow, that ORCIDs, or at least some form of AUTHOR IDs were utilized by all publishers and associated with books that are published (and listed on Amazon and Google Books) then maybe we wouldn’t have this problem listed below….
My GREAT FRIEND Gary Martin (and often times mentor in NMR) and I are editing a two volume series with David Rovnyak. Volume 1 is listed on Amazon here and Volume 2 is here. Now then…Gary is rather well known in the world of NMR….his Wikipedia page is here. On Amazon his skill set is listed as under “About the Author” as:
“Gary E. Martin graduated with a B.S. in Pharmacy in 1972 from the University of Pittsburgh and a Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Sciences from the University of Kentucky in 1975, specializing in NMR spectroscopy. He was a Professor at the University of Houston from 1975 to 1989, assuming the position of Section Head responsible for US NMR spectroscopy at Burroughs Wellcome, Co. in Research Triangle Park, NC, eventually being promoted to the level of Principal Scientist. In 1996 he assumed a position at what was initially the Upjohn Company in Kalamazoo, MI and held several positions there through 2006 by which time he was a Senior Fellow at what was then Pfizer, Inc. In 2006 he assumed a position as a Distinguished Fellow at Schering-Plough responsible for the creation of the Rapid Structure Characterization Laboratory. He is presently a Distinguished Fellow at Merck Research Laboratories.”
So HOW interesting to see who Google Books thinks he is! See the link here… it reads as
“Gary Martin’s career as a freelance comic book artist spans over twenty years. He’s worked for all the major companies, including Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, Image, and Disney, and on such titles as, Spider-man, X-men, Batman, Star Wars, and Mickey Mouse. Gary is best known for his popular how-to books entitled, ‘The Art of Comic Book Inking’. Recently, Gary wrote a comic book series called ‘The Moth’, which he co-created with artist Steve Rude.”
I am not listed as an editor and for sure the information is out of date since David Rovnyak joined as an editor this year.
This is Gary Martin, the inker.
So…I am very interested in any hypotheses regarding how Google Books picked up a comic inker as an author when Amazon lists Gary as a scientist, clearly. By the way, Gary Martin, NMR spectroscopist extraordinaire is a brilliant photographer, especially of lighthouses…but manipulates light…not ink.
Imagine, if you would, the potential power of ORCIDs in keeping this clear, platform to platform, if the publisher used them, if Amazon adopted them and if Google Books used the data. With time…