Whose articles cite a body of work? Is this a high-impact journal? How might others assess my scholarly impact? Citation analysis is one of the primary methods used to answer these questions. Academics, publishers, and funders often study the patterns of citations in the academic literature in order to explore the relationships among researchers, topics, and publications, and to measure the impact of articles, journals, and individuals.
MIT has a wonderful tradition of offering a variety of short courses during the Winter hiatus, known as IAP. The MIT Libraries generally offers dozens of courses on data and information management (among other topics) during this time. Moreover, the Libraries also hold bonus IAP sessions in April and July.
For IAPril, the Program on Information Science has introduced a new course on citation and bibliometric analysis, this provides a review of and citation and altmetric data; best-of-class free/open tools for analysis; and classes of measures.
The full (and updated) slides are below:
In addition a short summary of MIT resources, as summarized in a presentation to library Liaisons is available here:
Registration is available on the class site:
I was honored to present some of our research at a panel on election reform at this year’s Harvard Law and Policy Review symposium .
As a summary of this the Harvard Law and Policy Review’s Notice and Comment Blog has published a concise summary of recommendation for redistricting reform by my collaborator Michael McDonald and I, entitled:
Create Real Redistricting Reform through Internet-Scale Independent Commissions
To quote from the HLPR summary:
Twenty-first century redistricting should incorporate transparency at internet speed and scale – open source, open data, open process (see here for in-depth recommendations) — and twenty-first century redistricting should incorporate internet technology for twenty-first century participation: direct access to the redistricting process; access to legal-strength mapping tools; and the integration of crowd-sourcing to create maps, identify communities and neighborhoods, collect and correct data, and gather and analyze public commentary.
There are few policy arenas where the public can fashion legitimate proposals that rival what their elected officials enact. Redistricting is among them, so why not enable greater public participation in this critical democratic process?
Read the rest of these recommendations on the Harvard Law and Policy Review — Notice and Comment site…
(And n a related topic this previous post summarizes some of our research on crowd sourced mapping for open government .)