Liaisons and other librarians working with faculty should be aware of Elsevier’s recent release of a new bibliometric, called the CiteScore Index (CSI). This metric will be a direct competitor to Thomson Reuters’ (now Clarivate Analytics’) ubiquitous Journal Impact Factor (JIF). The metrics are similar in that they both purport to measure the impact of academic journals based on the ratio between citable content published in the journal to citations to the journal.
While the JIF is based on content indexed in the Web of Science database, CSI will be based on the content in Scopus, which indexes a significantly larger number of titles (22,000 titles compared to 11,000).
If a journal’s impact is a consistent and measurable attribute, it stands to logic that its impact rank and score would be very similar regardless of who calculates the metric. However, preliminary analyses are showing that this is not the case. Librarians might wish to read the findings of early comparisons by Carl T. Bergstrom and Jevin West (developers of yet another metric, the EigenFactor). Surprising no one, they report that Elsevier journals seem to enjoy a boost in ranking using the new CiteScore, while the scores for Nature and Springer journals (now owned by the same company, and a major competitor to Elsevier journals in the space) are lower than what you might expect given their Impact Factors. Additionally, journals published by Emerald, which performed poorly compared to journals from other publishers in the same disciplines during our own analysis, have also seen a boost from the new metric.
These findings underscore the fact that reputational metrics are neither impartial nor objective and are subject to the influences of the entities that produce them. Librarians should be prepared to engage in critical evaluation of these metrics and to answer questions from faculty.
(Thank you to Klara Maidenberg, Assessment Librarian, for providing this information.)
The handout Best Practices for Designing Research Assignments was prepared for the CTSI Course Design Institute 2016.
Thank you to Courtney Lundrigan for providing the handout.
From Navroop Gill:
Yesterday [June 16] at our meeting, I shared a little about the speakers I had seen at WILU, David Brier & Vicky Lebbin who are at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Their approach to information literacy incorporates short stories and drawings which they have found to be highly engaging methods for students.
I’ve attached their handouts which provide ideas of how to structure lessons using these techniques ( just a note: they had read through hundreds of short stories to find ones that were suitable for IL!)
Their articles if you’re interested:
Brier, D. J., & Lebbin, V. K. (2015). Learning information literacy through drawing. Reference Services Review, 43(1), 45-67 http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/505223
Brier, D. J., & Lebbin, V. K. (2004). Teaching information literacy using the short story. Reference Services Review, 32(4), 381-385. doi:10.1108/00907320410569734 http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/505227
Links and materials from the June 14 2016 Liaison Update Forum to review methodologies and communications options related to the discontinuation of selected Proquest databases.
Scenario 1 (click to enlarge)
Scenario 2 (click to enlarge)
Scenario 3 (click to enlarge)
Scenario 4 Group 2 (click to enlarge)
Scenario 4 Group 1 (click to enlarge)
Scenario 5 (click to enlarge)
Now Online: SPARC-CARL Webinar on Supports for Tri-Agency Policy
The recording and slides of the SPARC-CARL Webinar, “Library and Research Services Supports for the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications,” are now available on the CARL website. / / L’enregistrement et les diapositives du webinaire de SPARC et de l’ABRC, « Politique des trois organismes sur le libre accès aux publications : Soutien offert aux chercheurs par les bibliothèques académiques et les services de recherche universitaire » sont maintenant disponibles sur le site web de l’ABRC. Session en français English-language session
Presentation to the Library by Professor Lori Ferris, Associate Vice-President, Research Oversight and Compliance:
Thank you to all of you who attended today’s webinar on research metrics, Research impact metrics for librarians: calculation & context | May 19, 2016. This was a great overview of the challenges of metrics. Although the presentation focused on sciences, the content of the slides may be helpful to all of us who need to become better acquainted with benefits and limitations of key metrics tools.
You can now view the presentation on demand at your convenience with audio.
The March 1 Liaison Update Forum featured a presentation from Professor Susan McCahan, Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education, on trends in undergraduate education that have impact on her portfolio at the U of T. The forum also showcased 3 additional lightning round presentations. Each presentation was followed by small group discussion and an open Q&A session. Presenters kept track of the questions and have kindly recorded and shared their responses for this post.
- Professor Susan McCahan, on Trends in Undergraduate Education Watch the video (best in IE – volume is a little low in the beginning)
- Laure Perrier, Gerstein Science Information Centre, on Research Data Management: UToronto Libraries Update Powerpoint || Q&A
- Erica Lenton, Gerstein Science Information Centre, on Creating a service through community & collaboration (Evidence Synthesis Service) Powerpoint || Q&A
- Courtney Lundigan, Graham Library, Trinity College, on Re-imagining Liaison at UTL (update on progress of the Liaison Future Directions Working Group) Powerpoint || Q&A
The December 4 Liaison Update Forum showcased 6 lightning round presentations. Each presentation was followed by small group discussion and an open Q&A session. Presenters kept track of the questions (which were submitted on index cards to preserve anonymity) and have kindly recorded and shared their responses for this post.
- Stephanie Orfano: Thinking beyond fair dealing: Questions facing the Scholarly Communications and Copyright Office (…and how you can help) Powerpoint || Q&A
- Caitlin Tillman: Talking to faculty about Downsview Powerpoint || Q&A
- Judith Logan: Choosing the right platform for your web content Powerpoint || Q&A
- Carey Toane: EntComp: Establishing an entrepreneurship community of practice at UTL Powerpoint ||Q&A
- Dylanne Dearborn: Research data management at the U of T Powerpoint ||Q&A
- Gail Nichol: I’ll follow you if you’ll follow me: How Scopus can track your research impact, connect you with others in your field and keep you up to date Powerpoint || Q&A
A message from Julie Hannaford:
Debrief Meeting with Cross-departmental Tri-agency Team, June 26 2015
One of the key recommendations from the external liaison report is the need to re-conceptualize how we respond to faculty and student needs. The reviewers suggest using nimble teams that can readily respond to requests as they arise from our various stakeholders.
Recently, a small group had to coalesce around university requirements related to the Tri-Council Open Access (OA) policy. We realized that we had formed a cross-departmental, responsive team, just as the report recommended and considered it to be both an excellent experiment and learning opportunity. While there is much discussion that needs to occur related to unpacking all of the recommendations from the report, we feel that this teamwork has lessons to share with everyone. We met recently to review our progress. What follows is a summary of our discussion.
Group: Bobby Glushko, Julie Hannaford, Mariya Maistrovskaya, Steve Marks, Sian Meikle, Rita Vine
Purpose: Lori Ferris, Associate Vice-President for Research Oversight and Compliance requested advice related to how the library could support faculty compliance with the Tri-Council OA policy
- Production of a one-pager that outlines the main services that the library offers to support faculty
- Production of a PPT presentation that can be tailored to different faculties, outlining the OA policy, key issues and library programs and services that support faculty with their compliance
- Delivery of two presentations: one to the Research Advisory Board and another to the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering
- Such teams need a leader – someone who is accountable for the completion of the project’s tasks and timelines to ensure project success. That person should have accountability, and be able to follow up legitimately with group participants. While that person may not be a supervisor in the official sense, he/she needs to be given the mandate/authority to lead and coordinate as required.
- If we move to a more team-based model, people will need training so that they have the skills they need to lead projects. This could take the form of a group session(s) on project management. Another idea would be to pair up a new team lead with a more experienced one to co-lead a project. The more experienced person could then provide mentorship, feedback and guidance.
- When a team disbands, there needs to be a plan in place, including how to archive content that we made, make it available to others and/or move any ongoing work into the workflows of existing units. There could be a role for a resurrected intranet to hold this kind of content when it leaves Confluence.
- There needs to be careful thought given to whether a team model makes sense for a given project and if so, who the right people are for the project’s requirements.
- To find the right people to bring to the table, we all have to know what everyone else is doing. Given our scale and complexity, this can be very hard. Is it worth reconstituting the idea of individual (non-public) optional profiles so that we could look up each other’s skills more easily? ACTION ITEM: Sian to provide options
- For a team to coalesce, everyone has to pull together. This team was very successful at ignoring boundaries and traditional structures; thinking more flexibly and openly about how the work could be done.
- Moving forward, if we establish more teams, we need to reconcile the role of a team with the role of a committee, to ensure no overlap. We need to be clear in our minds what committees do versus teams. In general, committees can be very good for obtaining feedback and input, which is very important and wanted across the libraries. Some of the larger committees may be less suited for actionable items because they are so large, but could have sub-committees/working groups form that report into them.
- There is an open question regarding who should constitute a team. A lot of impetus will come from Senior Staff and UTLExec but there are also great people making their own teams. There have been some small groups formed to fix problems on the fly (e.g. Libcal2 migration, training), which have a defined end. A cross-departmental team may be better for a longer, more complex project or initiative, part or all of which will continue over time. Small groups solve problems and don’t necessarily need management prior approval. Big groups implement new initiatives and projects and will likely require management approval.
- ITS often plays a role in projects, which puts many demands on their resourcing. Could ITS train staff in other departments so that they can contribute more to projects and free up ITS? An excellent example is the recent placement of Judith Logan in ITS who was able to contribute significantly to the recent website redesign and launch. Encouraging more cross-departmental placements in ITS (and other departments as well) is one mechanism that can help in this area. Such exchanges allow librarians to contribute to a defined project in new areas. ACTION ITEM: Julie to do a new call for expressions of interest for cross-departmental placements.