| 1 | 1

SciVal Research Analytics Prince of Songkla University

prepared by Alexander van Servellen Consultant, Research Management, Elsevier

December 2016

| 2 | 2

Agenda

Part I

Part II

• Demonstrative analysis

• Research Metrics

• Non-Performance Variables

• CiteScore

• Hands on SciVal training

• Setting up organizational structure

• Analysis

• Excercises

| 3 | 3

Part I Demonstrative Analysis

| 4 | 4

Part I – Demonstrative Analysis

Demonstrate how analytics from SciVal can help Prince of Songkla University

achieve its goals.

1.) What are the key subject strengths & weaknesses of PSU?

2.) How well is our faculty of Science doing?

3.) Who are the top performing researchers of Faculty of Science?

4.) How much do the researchers in Faculty of Science publish in top quality journals?

5.) How has PSU’s research contributed to Innovation?

6.) How does PSU publication output compare to other Thai Institutions?

7.) Who are the key collaboration partners of PSU?

8.) How well does PSU perform in “Rubber” research?

9.) Who are the top performing institutions and researchers “Rubber” research in the

world?

Objective

Topics

| 5 | 5

1.) What are the key subject

strengths & weaknesses of PSU?

| 6 | 6

Overview Module Prince of Songkla University

PSU’s research cited same as

world average level

| 7 | 7

PSU Top Subject areas Overview Module

| 8 | 8

Output, Impact & Growth by Subject Bubble size = # publications X-axis = FWCI Y-axis = Growth (publications)

Engineering

Chemistry

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology

Materials Science

Physics and Astronomy

Chemical Engineering

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics

Computer Science

Environmental Science

Mathematics

Energy

Nursing

Arts and Humanities

Neuroscience

Medicine

Agricultural and Biological Sciences

Immunology and Microbiology Dentistry

Earth and Planetary Sciences

Veterinary

-50.0%

-30.0%

-10.0%

10.0%

30.0%

50.0%

70.0%

90.0%

110.0%

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

GR

OW

TH

Field Weighted Citation Impact

World Field Weighted Citation Impact = 1 High Growth –

High Impact

Low Growth – High Impact

High Growth – Low Impact

Low Growth – Low Impact Data from

Overview Module

| 9 | 9

2.) How well is PSU faculty of Science

doing?

| 10 | 10

PSU– Faculty of Science

Overview Module

| 11 | 11

PSU– Faculty of Science

Overview Module

| 12 | 12

3.) Who are Faculty of Science’s top

performing Researchers?

| 13 | 13

Highest Impact Researchers

Overview Module

| 14 | 14

Each Author has a Profile

Overview Module

| 15 | 15

4.) How much do the Departments

in Faculty of Science publish in top

quality journals?

| 16 | 16

Faculty of Science Departments ranked by

%papers in Top Quality Journals

Benchmarking Module

| 17 | 17

5.) How has PSU’s research

contributed to Innovation?

| 18 | 18

Patent to Article citations for PSU

Overview Module

| 19 | 19

Patents citing PSU scientific papers Overview Module

| 20 | 20

6.) How does PSU’s publication

output compare to other Thai

Institutions?

| 21 | 21

Top 15 Institutions in Thailand

| 22 | 22

7.) Who are the key collaboration

partners of PSU?

| 23 | 23

PSU top collaboration partners

| 24 | 24

8.) How much does PSU collaborate with

Industry?

| 25 | 25

PSU top corporate collaboration partners

| 26 | 26

8.) How well does PSU perform in

“Rubber” research?

| 27 | 27

PSU in “Rubber” Research

| 28 | 28

9.) Who are the top performing

institutions and researchers “Rubber”

research in the World?

| 29 | 29

Top Rubber Research Institutes in the World

| 30 | 30

Research Metrics

| 31 | 31

Elsevier’s metrics approach in a nutshell

Figure 1 of http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/research-intelligence/resource-library/resources/response-to-hefces-call-for-evidence-independent-review-of-the-role-of-metrics-in-research-assessment

| 32 | 32

Metrics

Productivity metrics Scholarly Output h-indices (h, g, m)

Citation Impact metrics Citation Count Citations per Publication Cited Publications h-indices (h, g, m) Field-Weighted Citation Impact Publications in Top Percentiles Publications in Top Journal Percentiles Collaboration Impact (geographical) Academic-Corporate Collaboration Impact

Views metrics Views Views per publication Field-Weighed Views Impact

Collaboration metrics Authorship Count Number of Citing Countries Collaboration (geographical) Academic-Corporate Collaboration Disciplinarity metrics Journal count Journal category count

Economic Impact metrics Citing Patents Patent-Cited Scholarly Output Patent-Citations Count Patent-Citations per Scholarly Output

Societal Impact metrics Mass Media Mentions Media Exposure Field-Weighted Mass Media Input metrics Awarded Grants

Journal Metrics CiteScore SJR SNIP

| 33 | 33

When used correctly, research metrics together with qualitative input give a balanced, multi-dimensional view for decision-making

Two Golden Rules for using research metrics

Always use both qualitative and quantitative input into

your decisions

Always use more than one research metric as the

quantitative input

| 35 | 35

Example: importance of using multiple metrics from

the basket - compensate for weaknesses

35

Field-Weighted Citation Impact = 2.53

Compensates for differences in field, type and age

Meaningful benchmark is “built in” – 1 is average for a subject area

× People may not like small numbers × Complicated; difficult to validate × No idea of magnitude: how many

citations does it represent?

Citations per Publication = 27.8

with

Large number Simple, easy to validate Communicates magnitude of

activity

× Affected by differences in field, type and age

× Meaningless without additional benchmarking

| 36 | 36

Non-Performance Variables

| 37 | 37

When making comparisons, we must take into

consideration “Non-performance variables”

Size

Discipline

Publication-type

Database coverage

Manipulation

Time

In some cases the difference in a metric value between two entities (authors for example) might not reflect a difference in performance. Instead the difference can be caused by non-performance variables.

| 38 | 38

Publications types receive differing levels of citations

Because some publication types are cited more often than others, we should not compare different types without applying normalization.

| 39 | 39

Citation practices differ between disciplines

Because some subject areas are cited more often than others, we should not compare papers from different fields without applying normalization.

| 40 | 40

Size and Time

Citation count is directly related to

volume

CPP normalizes for differences in

publication volume

FWCI normalizes for subject area,

document type, and time

Do you think the declining trend is indicative of a

decrease in quality or is it caused by a non-

performance variable?

| 41 | 41

Please don’t be shy…

| 42 | 42

CiteScore

| 43 | 43

Serial title metrics are important!

• Serial title metrics are still important complements to new and alternative metrics

• Many serial titles are missing transparent and replicable

metrics that are easy to access • SNIP & SJR are complex and difficult to replicate • We have introduced CiteScore to compliment them

| 44 | 44

Filling the gap in the Scopus basket of journal metrics

44

SNIP and SJR

Compensates for differences in field, type and age

Meaningful benchmark is “built in” – 1 is average for a subject area

× People may not like small numbers × Complicated; difficult to validate × No idea of magnitude: how many

citations does it represent?

CiteScore and associated metrics

with

Large number Simple, easy to validate Communicates magnitude of

activity

× Affected by differences in field, type and age

× Meaningless without additional benchmarking

| 45 | 45

A

CiteScore is a simple metric for all Scopus serial titles

B

CiteScore Impact Factor A = citations to 3 years of documents

A = citations to 2 or 5 years of documents

B = all documents indexed in Scopus, same as A

B = only citable items (articles and reviews), different from A

Note: at launch, all serial titles in the May 2016 title list, and with some documents indexed in 2016, will have CiteScore metrics

CiteScore 2015 value B

=

A

| 46 | 46

CiteScore is one of a family of related metrics,

available for FREE.

| 47 | 47

Journalmetrics.scopus.com website

Static values 2011-2015 for reporting, showcasing and exporting

| 48 | 48

| 49 | 49

CiteScore 2015 correlates 75% with Impact Factor

R² = 0.7524

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Im

pact

Fac

tor 2

015

CiteScore 2015

2015 Impact Factor and 2015 CiteScore

| 50 | 50

Serials with CiteScore only cover all levels of performance

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

All CS %iles JIF %iles Unique CS %iles HIGH LOW

Num

ber o

f doc

umen

ts

• 22,256 serial titles have CiteScore 2015 • 22,620 serial titles have CiteScore Tracker 2016

| 51 | 51

Comprehensive

• Based on Scopus, the

world’s broadest database

• A CiteScore will be available for all serials, not just journals

• CiteScore can be calculated for portfolios

Transparent

• CiteScore and

associated metrics will be available for free

• CiteScore is easy to calculate for yourself

• The underlying database is available for you to interrogate

Current

• CiteScore Tracker is

updated monthly

• New serial titles will have CiteScore metrics the year after they are indexed in Scopus

Main advantages of CiteScore

| 52 | 52

Part II Hands on SciVal Training

| 53 | 53

53

SciVal offers quick, easy access to the research performance of 220 nations and 7500 research institutions worldwide (including 774 corporate organizations)

SciVal is Elsevier’s Research Intelligence Tool.

Data updated weekly from Scopus

| 54 | 54

Scopus is the main data source for SciVal. It includes content from

more than 5,000 publishers and 105 different countries

21,568 peer-reviewed journals 361 trade journals • Full metadata, abstracts

and cited references (ref’s post-1995 only)

• Funding data from acknowledgements

• Citations back to 1970

Physical Sciences 7,443 Health Sciences 6,795 Social Sciences 8,086 Life Sciences 4,492

90K conference events 7.3M conference papers Mainly Engineering and Computer Sciences

531 book series 30K Volumes / 1.2M items 119,882 stand-alone books 974K items

Focus on Social Sciences and A&H

62M records from 22K serials, 90K conferences and 120K books • Updated daily • Records back to 1823 • “Articles in Press” from > 3,750 titles • 40 different languages covered • 3,715 active Gold Open Access journals indexed

BOOKS CONFERENCES

Source: November 2015 title list at https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/content

JOURNALS

27M patents From 5 major patent offices - WIPO - EPO - USPTO - JPO - UK IPO

PATENTS

| 55 | 55

| 56 | 56

Accessing SciVal

| 57 | 57

Accessing SciVal: go to www.scival.com

Who does not have access to SciVal? Please raise your hand.

If you do not have a username and password for SciVal, then please

register here.

| 58 | 58

Master List Creating Organization Structure in SciVal

| 59 | 59

Master List of Researchers

| 60 | 60

| 61 | 61

Quick Overview of SciVal

| 62 | 62

SciVal Modules

Overview module provides dashboard style reports based on a 3 or 5 year period. You can analyze countries, institutions, any researcher, group of researchers and research areas you have created. It gives a comprehensive overview of one entity at a time.

Benchmarking module is flexible, it allows you to select a time period anywhere from 1996 to one month ago. You can choose from over 17 metrics, and compare across different types of entities (i.e. you directly can compare researchers with departments, institutions, countries in one analysis)

Collaboration module looks at specifically at co-publication trends. It allows you to identify the top collaboration partners of an institution or country, as well as identify potential collaboration partners. Research areas can be applied here as a subject filter.

| 63 | 63

| 64 | 64

Assignments

| 65 | 65

Assignment 1

1.) What data is SciVal based on? a.) Custom dataset b.) Web of Science c.) Scopus 2.) How many papers did PSU produce in Medicine in 2011? a.) 105 b.) 159 c.) 125 3.) Who produced the most papers in “Energy” research in 2015: a.) Khon Kaen University b.) Prince of Songkla University c.) The both produced the same number of papers in Energy 4.) How many citations did Prince of Songkla receive in “Engineering” (2011-2015)? a.) 25% more than world average b.) 5% less than world average c.) same as world average 5.) Which GOVERNMENT institution did PSU co-author with most often (2011-2015)? a.) Armed Forced Research Institute of Medical Sciences, Thailand b.) National Cancer Institute, Thailand c.) Thailand Ministry of Public Health

| 66 | 66

Answers 1

1.) What data is SciVal based on? a.) Custom dataset b.) Web of Science c.) Scopus 2.) How many papers did PSU produce in Medicine in 2011? a.) 105 b.) 159 c.) 125 3.) Who produced the most papers in “Energy” research in 2015: a.) Khon Kaen University b.) Prince of Songkla University c.) The both produced the same number of papers in Energy 4.) How many citations did Prince of Songkla receive in “Engineering” (2011-2015)? a.) 25% more than world average b.) 5% less than world average c.) same as world average 5.) Which GOVERNMENT institution did PSU co-author with most often (2011-2015)? a.) Armed Forced Research Institute of Medical Sciences, Thailand b.) National Cancer Institute, Thailand c.) Thailand Ministry of Public Health

| 67 | 67

Assignment 2

1.) What percentage of PSU papers were published in the TOP 10% best journals based on CiteScore journal metric (2011-2015)? a.) 17.1% b.) 18.7% c.) 180 2.) How many research articles did PSU produce in Environmental Science in 2013? a.) 39 b.) 44 c.) 222 3.) What percentage of PSU papers published in 2011 in Medicine are cited often enough to belong to the top 1% highest cited papers world-wide, excluding self-citations? a.) 1.9% b.) 1.0% c.) 1.1%

| 68 | 68

Answers 2

1.) What percentage of PSU papers were published in the TOP 10% best journals based on CiteScore journal metric (2011-2015)? a.) 17.1% b.) 18.7% c.) 180 2.) How many research articles did PSU produce in Environmental Science in 2013? a.) 39 b.) 44 c.) 222 3.) What percentage of PSU papers published in 2011 in Medicine are cited often enough to belong to the top 1% highest cited papers world-wide, excluding self-citations? a.) 1.9% b.) 1.0% c.) 1.1%

| 69 | 69

Assignment 3

Create a Research Group for PSU Faculty of Engineering. You can download the sheet here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5f7sdnx0pnuyqcw/PSU%20Faculty%20of%20Engineering.xlsx?dl=0

| 70 | 70

www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence

Thanks for your attention Alexander van Servellen a.vanservellen@elsevier.com

| 71 | 71

Questions

1.) What data is SciVal based on? a.) Custom dataset b.) Web of Science c.) Scopus 2.) How many papers did UI produce in Medicine in 2011? a.) 105 b.) 95 c.) 125 3.) Who produced the most papers in “Materials Science” in 2014: a.) Universitas Indonesia b.) Institut Pertanian Bogor c.) Gadjah Mada University 4.) How many citations did Indonesia receive in Medicine (2011-2015)? a.) 43% more than world average b.) 5% less than world average c.) same as world average 5.) Which corporate institution did UI co-author with most often (2011-2015)? a.) Samsung b.) Unilever c.) RAND

| 72 | 72

Comparison with nearest peer

Scopus 22,245

Web of Science 12,140

Scopus 7,443 (+73%)

WoS 4,291

Scopus 6,795 (+96%)

WoS 3,472

Scopus 4,492 (+50%)

WoS 3,002

Scopus 8,086 (+99%)

WoS 4,060

Physical Sciences Health Sciences Life Sciences Social Sciences

~12K titles (Core Collection) 3,300 publishers Updated weekly

~22K titles >5,000 publishers Updated daily

Source: Web of Science Real Facts, Web of Science title list and Scopus’ own data (April 2015)

| 73 | 73 | 73

Scopus

Competitor

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

0

200

400

600

800

+160%

+266%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000 +168%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Asia Pacific

+333%

Eastern Europe incl Russia

0

500

1,000

1,500

0

200

400

600

800

1000

+305% Latin America

Middle East & Africa

Western Europe

0

100

200

300

400

500

+248%

+252%

North America

Australia/New Zealand

What does Scopus’s content advantage mean for

emerging countries?