10 SIMPLE STEPS TO BUILDING A REPUTATION AS A RESEARCHER, IN YOUR EARLY CAREER

Prepared for Postdoctoral Association Invited Talk --MIT

September 2014 (Updated 9/17)

10 SIMPLE STEPS TO BUILDING A REPUTATION AS A RESEARCHER,

IN YOUR EARLY CAREER

Dr. Micah Altman<[email protected]>

Director of Research, MIT LibrariesNon-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

10 SIMPLE STEPS TO BUILDING A REPUTATION AS A RESEARCHER, IN YOUR EARLY CAREER

And now, a word from our sponsor…The Libraries @MIT

The MIT libraries provide support for all researchers at MIT:

• Research consulting, including:bibliographic information management; literature searches; subject-specific consultation

• Data management, including:data management plan consulting; data archiving; metadata creation

• Data acquisition and analysis, including:database licensing; statistical software training; GIS consulting, analysis & data collection

• Scholarly publishing:open access publication & licensing

libraries.mit.edu

http://libraries.mit.edu/


DISCLAIMERThese opinions are my own, they are not the opinions of MIT, Brookings, any of the project funders, nor (with the exception of co-authored previously published work) my collaborators

Secondary disclaimer:

“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future!”

-- Attributed to Woody Allen, Yogi Berra, Niels Bohr, Vint Cerf, Winston Churchill, Confucius, Disreali [sic], Freeman Dyson, Cecil B. Demille, Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Edgar R.

Fiedler, Bob Fourer, Sam Goldwyn, Allan Lamport, Groucho Marx, Dan Quayle, George Bernard Shaw, Casey Stengel, Will Rogers, M. Taub, Mark Twain, Kerr L. White, etc.


Related Publications• Smith, Yoshimura, Karen, M. Altman, et al, Registering Researchers in Authority Files, OCLC

[Forthcoming]

• Allen, Liz, Amy Brand, Jo Scott, Micah Altman, and Marjorie Hlava. "Credit where credit is due." Nature 508 (2014): 312-313.

• CODATA Data Citation Task Group (Altman M, Arnaud E, Borgman C, Callaghan S, Brase J, Carpenter T, Chavan V, Cohen D, Hahnel M, Helly J.) Out of Cite, Out of Mind: The Current State of Practice, Policy and Technology for Data Citation. Data Science Journal . 2013;12:1–75

• Altman, Micah, and Mercè Crosas. "The Evolution of Data Citation: From Principles to Implementation." IASSIST Quarterly (2013): 63.

• IWCSA Report (2012). Report on the International Workshop on Contributorship and Scholarly Attribution, May 16, 2012. Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust.

• http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/attribution_workshop

• Altman, Micah, and Gary King. "A proposed standard for the scholarly citation of quantitative data." D-lib 13, no. 3 (2007): 5.

• Altman Micah, Simon Jackman. Nineteen Ways of Looking at Statistical Software. Journal Of Statistical Software . 2011;42:1–12.

• Altman, Micah. "Funding, Funding." PS: Political Science & Politics 42, no. 03 (2009): 521-526.

Reprints available from:informatics.mit.edu

http://informatics.mit.edu/


Perspectives

* Foundations ** Third Person *

* Second Person * * First Person *

* Self-Experimentation *


First Principles*for a successful career

as a researcher*

*Aka, building blocks .


The Basics

Choice Chance

Heredity Environment


Particular things that help in general…

Positive affectivity skills/strengths Metacognition skills/strengths Executive function skills/strengths Character strengths Talents Social cognition skills/strengths Collaboration skills Negotiation skills People management skills Written communication Verbal communication Project management Marketing

Social & professional network support Personal resources Strategic planning Effortful practice Exercise Diet Sleep Personal relationships Stress management Internal motivation Iteration Feedback Self-monitoring


A Sample of Specialize Academic SkillsInfluenced by General Strengths

• Giving a job talk• Giving an invited talk• Surviving in a job interview• Critiquing / reviewing scholarly

work• Contributing to university

committees• Teaching• Managing a research project• Preparing a grant proposal• Preparing a scientific article• Preparing a book proposal• Data management

• Responding to reviews• Mentoring postdocs• Scholarly communication skills

and approaches• Running a workshop• Starting a company• Leading a scientific community• Editing a journal• Chairing a panel• Co-authoring on a paper• Collaborating in a research group…


Many Skills are Not Taught

• Success in research and the academy draws on a variety of skills, traits and resources.

• Some skills are explicitly taught and developed in academic training, e.g.: domain skills, research methodology

• Some skills, typically those that are particularly ‘academic’ but not part of a specific discipline, may be transmitted, implicitly through modeling, and mentorships

• Some academic skills neither taught nor modeled, and many valuable skills may be viewed as external to the research enterprise


Zooming In…

(Almost all) of the rest of the talk will focus on scholarly

communication & impact…


Third Person Perspective*:

Observations from Scientometrics

*Possibly objective, certainly not omniscient.

‘Impact’ Factors: Overview

What are impact factors?• Descriptive statistics • Usually based on citations• Commonly treated as a

proxy for the level of influence of an article, person, or journal

Common measures• ISI Journal Impact Factor:

The frequency with which the “average article” has been cited in a particular year. It is based on the most recent two years of citations. It is only supplied for journals indexed by ISI in the Web of Science.

• Article Citation Count:

Total number of citations received from other articles to target article.

• H-Index:

The maximum number of articles h such that each has received at least h citations


libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/publishing/impact-factors/

http://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/publishing/impact-factors/

Author Impact: Example – Google Scholar


Author Impact: Example – Web of Science


Author Impact: Example – Web of Science


Journal Impact: Example – Scopus


Journal Impact: Database Comparison

Google Scholar Scopus Web of Science

Journals Covered Top 100 ranked in each language

Mostly english-language Many (selected) Journals

Metrics H5 Median Many Impact factor, Many others

Visualization No Yes Yes

Longitudinal analysis

No Yes Yes

Discipline Rankings No No Yes



Sharing, Collaboration, Clarity Likely Improve Impact

• Collaboration/team science increases impact• Open access associated with substantially higher citations• Self Citation in moderation is associated with reinforced

impact• Sharing data is associated with higher citation rates• Publishing regularly is associated with much higher impact• Citation measures only one type of use

– you can collect evidence and measure others• Use clear, titles, and meaningful keywords and abstracts• Mainstream social media, especially twitter, can indicate

broader use

Not-so-positive findings


Daniel Schectman’s Lab Notebook

Providing Initial

Evidence of Quasi Crystals

• Null results are less likely to be submitted and published submit all your results

• Publication bias leads to overestimates of effects/significance in many fields

• Many data sharing and replication policies are not followed share even when you are not forced to

• Good science may not pass peer review be persistent

• Much research is not replicable make yours replicable

• Many publications are not cited• Multidisciplinary work less cited• Edited volumes are not well cited

think carefully about publication venue, significance of research• Retraction rates in scientific journals have substantially increased• Author order is overemphasized in evaluation

discuss authorship early, use other ways of describing contributions and distributing credit

• Delays in peer-review, and publishing are frequent, and important track your submissions, and politely, but actively manage delays

• Not enough time spent on research develop a research habit, and build research in your schedule

Limitations of data

1. Citation differs systematically from sharing, reading, or ‘use’

2. Relationships signaled by citation are heterogenous: citations may indicate evidentiary support, definitions, disagreement, kudos,…

3. Cited objects are heterogenous – e.g. journals include letters, comments, reviews and original research

4. Databases may have limited or inconsistent coverage of publishers, fields, years, or types of publications (e.g. conference proceedings), types of objects (databases, software, books, articles), language, journal size

5. Some types of objects such as software and data, are often used without being cited

6. Much of the scientific research based on study of single field or scientific community

{See for a review CODATA 2013, Cameron 2005]

Limitations of measures

6. Levels and change in measures vary across fields, disciplines – cross disciplinary comparison is difficult, normalization necessary.

7. Most measures are vulnerable to manipulation by groups of actors

8. Measures are typically presented as is they were population descriptive statistics -- without any estimate of uncertainty

9. Although self-stability of measures is relatively high [for H-index, see Hirsch 2007], prediction validity of measures such as journal impact measure and h-index [Perez 2012; Penner et al 2013] is lower

10. Cross-predictive validity is much lower for h-index [Bollen et al 2009; Schreiber 2013], other measures

11. Most measures are descriptive estimates – they are not forecasting or causal inferences

12. Few studies of the external validity of measures 12. Rankings induced by indices may change in

counterintuitive ways over time when relative performance remains stable [Ludo & Eck 2012]

13. Few studies on error and bias in estimators



Second Person* Perspectives

* Second person, but first rate -- we’ve read dozens of academic advice books, so you don’t have to.


From 10 Simple Rules …Graduate Students• Share your scientific success with the world

Postdoctoral Positions• Negotiate first authorship before you start.

Getting Published• If you do not write well in the English

language, take lessons early• Become a reviewer early in your career.• Decide early on where to try to publish

your paper.• Quality (of journals) is everything.

Building Reputation• Think Before You Act• Do not ignore criticism• Do not ignore people• Diligently check everything you publish• Always declare conflicts of interest• Do your share for the community• Do not commit to tasks you cannot

complete• Do not write poor reviews• Do not write references for people who do

not deserve it• Never plagiarize, or doctor your data

Bourne, Philip E. "Ten simple rules for getting published." PLoS computational biology 1, no. 5 (2005): e57.; Gu, Jenny, and Philip E. Bourne. "Ten simple rules for graduate students." PLoS computational biology 3.11 (2007): e229.; Bourne, Philip E., and Virginia Barbour. "Ten simple rules for building and maintaining a scientific reputation." PLoS computational biology 7, no. 6 (2011): e1002108. Bourne, Philip E., and Iddo Friedberg. "Ten simple rules for selecting a postdoctoral position." PLoS

computational biology 2, no. 11 (2006): e121.


From A Ph.D. is Not Enough!

Establish a research program:

• “no technical skill is worth knowing how to select exciting research projects”

• Find a theme to your work that is compelling to you and interesting to others

• Timing is everything; consider what you will have finished, when, and its future value

• Finish some things• Make yourself useful

Peter J. Feibelman, A Ph.D. is Not Enough. Basic Books. 1993,


From The Chicago Guide to Your Academic Career

• Divide your research into publishable segments• Aim for top journals in your field but be

realistic in matching the quality and impact of your work with journal standards

• Ensure that the title and abstract of your article provide an informative summary of the content of the manuscript

• Provide comprehensive and fair coverage of the relevant literature

• Pay attention to the ethics of authorshipGoldsmith, John A., John Komlos, and Penny Schine Gold. The Chicago guide to your academic career: A portable mentor for scholars from graduate school through tenure. University of Chicago Press, 2010.


From Survive and Thrive

• Overarching questions for building reputation:

• In what ways can you be strategic about making yourself visible?

• Have you identified strategies that you are comfortable pursuing?

• Can you work with your mentors to identify ways to improve visibility in positive ways?

Crone, Wendy C. "Survive and thrive: A guide for untenured faculty." Synthesis Lectures on Engineering 5, no. 1 (2010): 1-125.


From Marketing for Scientists• Everything you get from other people comes

because it satisfies their needs or desires• Marketing is the craft of seeing things from other

perspectives, understanding others’ wants and needs, finding ways to meet them

• Manage your marketing funnel – converting people who never heard of you -> know your work -> collaborators -> advocates

• Develop your brand & signature research idea• If you can’t be first in a category, set up a new

category you can be first in

Kuchner, Marc J. Marketing for scientists: how to shine in tough times. Island Press, 2011.


From How to Succeed as a Scientist

• When to publish? – As soon as possible after main body of work

is completed.• Where to publish?

– Target your preferred readers.– Consider impact factors.

• What to publish?– Be selective– Consider order of authorship

Langdale, Jane A. How to Succeed as a Scientist. Cambridge University Press, 2011.


First Person Perspective*

* First Person Voice: Stream of consciousness, possibly unreliable narrator


First Person: Quasi-Academic Bona-Fides

• H-Index: 18 (by google-scholar)• Publications: 65+ (not all peer-reviewed)• Software packages: 6+ (0 patents)• Citations 970 (generously inclusive)• Grant funding to date: > $10M (not all as PI)• Awards, honors: a few (for policy impact, not NAS, etc.)• Awards committees: some• Other committees: too many• Invited talks: dozens• Editorial boards: a few (not chief editor)• Grant review panels: tons (mostly NIH)• External reviewer - # of journals: tons• Grad students advised: 1• Post-docs advised: 11 (quasi-officially)• Courses developed: 12+ (most short-courses)• Klout Score: 76 (< 400 Twitter followers)• Erdos #: 4


Idiosyncratic* Recommendations for Scholarly Communications

• Identify and use opportunities to communicate:

– Accept invited talks, where practical– Announce when you will be speaking, teaching– Share your presentations, writings, and data

• Create a scholarly identity– Obtain an ORCID, domain name, twitter handle,

LinkeIn profile, Google Scholar profile– Create a short bio and longer CV– Develop a research theme, and signature idea

• Communicate broadly– Publish writings as Open Access when possible– Publish data and software as open data and open

source– Use social media (LinkedIN, Twitter) to announce

new publications, teaching, speaking

• Develop communications skills early– Take writing lessons early– Take public speaking lessons early

• Monitor your impact– Monitor news, citation, social media metrics, and

altmetrics that reflect the impact of your work– Keep records– Do this systematically, regularly, but not reactively or

obsessively

• Focus on Clarity and Significance– Do research that is important to you and that you

think is important to the world– When writing about your research, work to

maximize clarity – including in abstracts, titles, and citations

• Give credit generously– Cite software you use– Cite data on which your analyses rely– Don’t be afraid to cite your own work– Discuss authorship early, and document

contributions publicly

* Based in part on formal research, in part on experience…


Unsorted & Unsolicited Advice

• Do research that is important to you and that you think is important to the world (repeated, for emphasis)

• Manage your research program – find a core theme, a signature idea, and regularly review comparative strengths, comparative weaknesses, timely opportunities and future threats

• Collaborate with people you respect, and like working with, start with small steps• Take a positive and sustained interest in the work and career of others, this is the

foundation of professional networking• Make a moderate, but systematic effort to understand and monitor the institutions

within which your work is embedded. • Identify your core strengths. Build a career around those.• Identify the weaknesses that are continual stumbling blocks. Make them good enough.• Pay attention to your world: exercise, sleep, diet, stress, relationships• Don’t manage your time – manage your life: know your values, choose your priorities,

monitor your progress• Align your career with your core values


Self-Experimentation:10 Simple Steps*

*Question: How do you tell an extroverted researcher?Answer: When she talks, she looks down at your shoes.


Self Experimentation*: 10 Simple StepsIdentify yourself -- register for:

1. An identifier – ORCID2. Information hubs: ORCID; LinkedIN; your own domain name forward to LinkedIN ; Slideshare3. Communication channels: twitter, LinkedIN

Describe yourself

4. Write and share a 1-paragraph bio5. Describe your research program in 2 paragraph6. Create a CV

[Post these on your LinkedIn and ORCID profiles]

Share7. Share (on Twitter & LinkedIN) news about something you did or published; an upcoming event in which you will participate; interesting news and publications in your field8. Make writing; data; publication; software available as Open Access (through your institutional repository, SlideShare, FigShare, Dataverse)

Monitor…check and record these things regularly, but not too frequently (once a month) -- and no need to react or adjust immediately

9. Set up tracking– google scholar, google alert,10. Find your klout schore, H-index,

*Question: How do you tell an extroverted researcher?

Answer: When she talks, she looks down at your shoes.


Tools• Google Scholar:

Profiles, H-Index, New Publication Alerts– scholar.google.com– Choose: Create an account

• Google Alert: tracking mentions on the web

– www.google.com/alerts • ORCID:

A persistent unique identifier for you; a place for your profile– orcid.org/register

• Publish or perish:Personal impact metrics galore

– www.harzing.com/pop.htm • Klout:

Social impact measures– klout.com

• Altmetric bookmarklet:Scholarly altmetrics on recent paper for free– /www.altmetric.com/bookmarklet.php

For more bibliometric tools and data see: informatics.mit.edu/classes/overview-citation-analysis

http://scholar.google.com/

https://www.google.com/alerts



https://orcid.org/register



http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm



http://klout.com/

http://www.altmetric.com/bookmarklet.php



http://informatics.mit.edu/classes/overview-citation-analysis




Recommended ReadingsAcademic Career Guidance

Crone, Wendy C. Survive and thrive: A guide for untenured faculty. Morgan Claypool, 2010.• Feibelman, Peter J., A Ph.D. is Not Enough. Basic Books. 1993,• Goldsmith, John A., J. Komlos, and P.S. Gold. The Chicago guide your

academic career. University of Chicago Press, 2010.• Kuchner, Marc J. Marketing for scientists: how to shine in tough times.

Island Press, 2011.• Langdale, Jane A. How to Succeed as a Scientist. Cambridge University

Press, 2011.• PLOS, Ten Simple Rules Collection: bit.ly/PLOSTEN

Scholarly writing and proposals

Yang, Otto Guide to Effective Grant Writing: How to Write a Successful NIH Grant Application, Springer 2005.Thompson, Waddy, Complete Idiot’s Guide to Grant Writing, Alpha 2007. • Altman, Micah. "Funding, Funding." PS: Political Science

& Politics 42, no. 03 (2009): 521-526.• Luey, Beth. Handbook for academic authors (5th ed). Cambridge

University Press, 2009.• Hartley, James. Academic writing and publishing: A practical

handbook. Routledge, 2008.

Communication

• Williams, Joseph M. 2009. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace,Longman

• Campbell, K., Huxman, S.S. Rhetorical Act: Thinking, Speaking and Writing Critically Cengage, 2014.

• Stone, Douglas, B. Patton, and S. Heen. Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. Penguin, 2010.

• Ury, William. Getting past no: negotiating your way from confrontation to cooperation. 1993.

•

Life, People, and Project Management

• Cialdini, Robert B. "Influence: The psychology of persuasion." (1993).• Dixit, Avinash K. Thinking strategically: The competitive edge in

business, politics, and everyday life. WW Norton & Company, 1991.• Hale-Evans, Ron. 2006. Mind Performance Hacks, O’Reilly

Publications.• Highsmith, Jim. Agile Project Management,

Addison-Wesley, 2004.• Jain, Ravi , Triandis, H. C., & Weick, C. W. (2010). Managing research,

development and innovation: Managing the unmanageable (Vol. 35). John Wiley & Sons.

• Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan, 2011.• Nalebuff, Barry, and I. Ayres, 2003. Why Not?, Harvard Business

School Press.• Peterson, Christopher. A primer in positive psychology. Oxford

University Press, 2006.•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


References • Allen, Liz, Amy Brand, Jo Scott, Micah Altman, and Marjorie Hlava. "Credit where credit

is due." Nature 508 (2014): 312-313.• Altman Micah, Simon Jackman. Nineteen Ways of Looking at Statistical Software.

Journal Of Statistical Software . 2011;42:1–12.• Altman, Micah, and Gary King. "A proposed standard for the scholarly citation of

quantitative data." D-lib 13, no. 3 (2007): 5.• Altman, Micah, and Mercè Crosas. "The Evolution of Data Citation: From Principles to

Implementation." IASSIST Quarterly (2013): 63.• Altman, Micah. "Funding, Funding." PS: Political Science & Politics 42, no. 03 (2009):

521-526.• Bishop, D. (2012) 'How to Bury Your Academic Writing'.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2012/08/29/how-to-bury-your-academic-writing/

• Bollen, Johan, et al. "Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data." Information Processing & Management 41.6 (2005): 1419-1440.

• Bollen, Johan, Herbert Van de Sompel, Aric Hagberg, and Ryan Chute. "A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures." PloS one 4, no. 6 (2009): e6022.

• Bornmann, Lutz. "Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics." arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.8010 (2014).

• Bornmann, Lutz. "Which kind of papers has higher or lower altmetric counts? A study using article-level metrics from PLOS and F1000Prime." arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.2863 (2014).

• Brembs, Björn, Katherine Button, and Marcus Munafò. "Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank." Frontiers in human Neuroscience 7 (2013).

• Cameron, Brian D. "Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications." portal: Libraries and the Academy 5, no. 1 (2005): 105-125.

• CODATA Data Citation Task Group (Altman M, Arnaud E, Borgman C, Callaghan S, Brase J, Carpenter T, Chavan V, Cohen D, Hahnel M, Helly J.) Out of Cite, Out of Mind: The Current State of Practice, Policy and Technology for Data Citation. Data Science Journal . 2013;12:1–75

• CODATA Data Citation Task Group (Altman M, Arnaud E, Borgman C, Callaghan S, Brase J, Carpenter T, Chavan V, Cohen D, Hahnel M, Helly J.) Out of Cite, Out of Mind: The

Current State of Practice, Policy and Technology for Data Citation. Data Science Journal . 2013;12:1–75

• David J. Samuels. The modal number of citations to political science articles is greater than zero: Accounting for citations in articles and books. PS: Political Science and Politics, 44:783–792, 2011

• Einav, Liran, and Leeat Yariv. "What's in a surname? The effects of surname initials on academic success." The Journal of Economic Perspectives (2006): 175-188.

• Eysenbach, Gunther. "Citation advantage of open access articles." PLoS biology 4, no. 5 (2006): e157.

• Fanelli, Daniele. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries." Scientometrics 90, no. 3 (2012): 891-904.

• Franco, Annie, Neil Malhotra, and Gabor Simonovits. 2014. "Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer." Science.

• Gans, Joshua S. and George B. Shepherd. How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1):165–179, 1994.

• García-Pérez, Miguel A. "Limited validity of equations to predict the future h index." Scientometrics 96, no. 3 (2013): 901-909.

• Ginther, Donna K., Walter T. Schaffer, Joshua Schnell, Beth Masimore, Faye Liu, Laurel L. Haak, and Raynard Kington. "Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards." Science 333, no. 6045 (2011): 1015-1019.

• Gorraiz, Juan, Christian Gumpenberger, and Christian Schlögl. "Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas." Scientometrics: 1-19. 2014.

• Greenberg D, Rosen AB, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Nadai J, Neumann PJ. Delays in publication of cost utility analyses conducted alongside clinical trials: registry analysis. BMJ 2004;328: 1536-7.


References (Continued)• Hamilton, David P. Research papers: Who’s uncited now?”. Science, 251(25), 1991.• Hirsch, Jorge E. "Does the h index have predictive power?." Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences 104, no. 49 (2007): 19193-19198.• Hopewell, Sally, et al. "Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or

direction of trial results." Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1.1 (2009).• Hopewell, Sally, Kirsty Loudon, Mike J. Clarke, Andrew D. Oxman, and Kay Dickersin.

"Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results." Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1, no. 1 (2009).

• Hurtado, Sylvia, Kevin Eagan, John H. Pryor, Hannah Whang, and Serge Tran. "Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2010-2011 HERI faculty survey." Higher Education Research Institute: University of California, Los Angeles (2012).

• Ioannidis JPA. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998;279: 281-6.

• Ioannidis, John PA, Kevin W. Boyack, and Richard Klavans. "Estimates of the Continuously Publishing Core in the Scientific Workforce." PloS one 9, no. 7 (2014): e101698.

• Ioannidis, John PA, Kevin W. Boyack, and Richard Klavans. "Estimates of the Continuously Publishing Core in the Scientific Workforce." PloS one 9, no. 7 (2014): e101698.

• IWCSA Report (2012). Report on the International Workshop on Contributorship and Scholarly Attribution, May 16, 2012. Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust.

• Koler-Povh, Teja, Primož Južnič, and Goran Turk. "Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering." Scientometrics 98, no. 2 (2014): 1033-1045.

• Levitt, Jonathan M., and Mike Thelwall. "Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59, no. 12 (2008): 1973-1984.

• Norris, Michael, Charles Oppenheim, and Fytton Rowland. "The citation advantage of open access articles." ‐ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59, no. 12 (2008): 1963-1972.

• Penner, Orion, Raj K. Pan, Alexander M. Petersen, Kimmo Kaski, and Santo Fortunato. "On the predictability of future impact in science." Scientific reports 3 (2013).

• Peters, Douglas P., and Stephen J. Ceci. "Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again."Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no. 02

(1982): 187-195.• Rostami, Fatemeh, Asghar Mohammadpoorasl, and Mohammad Hajizadeh. "The effect of

characteristics of title on citation rates of articles." Scientometrics98, no. 3 (2014): 2007-2010.

• Sagi, Itay, and Eldad Yechiam. "Amusing titles in scientific journals and article citation." Journal of Information Science 34, no. 5 (2008): 680-687.

• Schreiber, Michael. "How relevant is the predictive power of the< i> h</i>-index? A case study of the time-dependent Hirsch index." Journal of Informetrics 7, no. 2 (2013): 325-329.

• Seamans, Nancy H. "Do Open Access Electronic Theses and Dissertations Diminish Publishing Opportunities in the Social Sciences and Humanities?." College & Research Libraries (2013).

• Smith, Yoshimura, Karen, M. Altman, et al, Registering Researchers in Authority Files, OCLC [Forthcoming]

• Sutherland, William J., David Goulson, Simon G. Potts, and Lynn V. Dicks. "Quantifying the impact and relevance of scientific research." PloS one 6, no. 11 (2011): e27537.

• van Raan, Anthony FJ. "Self citation as an impact reinforcing mechanism in the science ‐ ‐system." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59, no. 10 (2008): 1631-1643.

• Waltman, Ludo, and Nees Jan Van Eck. "The inconsistency of the h index."‐ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63.2 (2012): 406-415.

• Wuchty, Stefan, Benjamin F. Jones, and Brian Uzzi. "The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge." Science 316, no. 5827 (2007): 1036-1039.


Online AdviceWhere to go:

• Stack Exchange: academia.stackexchange.com• Quora: quora.com/Academia • Reddit: reddit.com/r/academia • Chronicle of Higher Ed. chronicle.com/forums/ • Ph.D. Comics phdcomics.com/

What to do:1. Do not be afraid to ask2. State the question clearly3. Use a clear title4. Learn the customs5. Do your homework6. Proofread7. Be courteous

More:Dall'Olio GM, Marino J, Schubert M, Keys KL, Stefan MI, et al.

(2011) Ten Simple Rules for Getting Help from Online Scientific Communities. PLoS Comput Biol 7(9): e1002202.

doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002202

http://academia.stackexchange.com/

http://www.quora.com/Academia



http://www.reddit.com/r/academia



http://chronicle.com/forums/

http://www.phdcomics.com/


Questions?E-mail: [email protected]: informatics.mit.edu

mailto:[email protected]

http://informatics.mit.edu/