But where’s Thing 12 and 13? I hear you cry. Don’t worry, you’ll be treated to that soon! I’m just not sure my colleagues would take too kindly to me swearing and crying in equal turns as I try to work out both how to do a screencast and how to use Prezi. That particular punishment can wait until I’m home.
So some of the many Things I’ve missed are about metrics. I like the idea of altmetrics but that may just be due to the photo of a doughnut rather than anything else. LinkedIn tells me that 53 people have viewed a post I made about a blog post I did for made2measure; a materials blog. That’s both a flattering and slightly alarming statistic; alarming because of how many other people must be distracted by LinkedIn at work and how much is it starting to resemble Facebook (note to self; no posts about how rubbish Interstellar is and how appalling the science is, no matter how distracted I am at work).
One of the tasks associated with Thing 16 is comparing Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar and SciVal in terms of citations associated with a paper. Unfortunately SciVal is currently refusing to work for me (I say unfortunately, it’s almost 5.30/home time so it’s not that unfortunate. I have The Good Wife to watch). Here’s a small table comparing a paper I particularly enjoy on coating titanium wire with boron paint for wire arc additive manufacture in order to improve the mechanical properties.
|Controlling the microstructure and properties of wire arc additive manufactured Ti–6Al–4V with trace boron additions by M.J. Bermingham, D. Kent, H. Zhan, D.H. StJohn and M.S. Dargusch. (2015) Acta Materialia. 91. pp. 289–303|
|Source||Number of Citations|
|Web of Science||1|
Google Scholar and Scopus shows a 100% increase in the number of citations (this is what’s known as bad statistics) compared to Web of Science. I probably should have chosen a more well known, well cited paper but I like this one too much and would thoroughly recommend reading it for anyone who wants to know what wonderful developments are happening with WAAM.
From this exercise, I’ve learned that when I tell people how many citations my papers have got (although I do need to write a paper, get it proof read, correct said paper, repeat several times, send it off to the publishers, repeat previous process and eventually, hopefully get it published), I will use Google Scholar or Scopus for the bibliometrics. If I come across an Interstellar fan (someone who thinks that there are no gaping plot holes and claim I just don’t understand the physics of it – No, the only things I don’t understand are how Anne Hathaway’s make up and hair stays perfect in every scene despite the fact she’s meant to be in space and also that I paid money and wasted about two and a half hours of my life watching it ) and I need to write about how many times their paper has been cited, I’ll use the other one.
Here, have a photo from Flickr that I have no idea how to reference (along with blog posts) although I’ve tried (and that’s what’s important). It’s a pile of cups because (a) I am in desperate need of a cup of tea and (b) it represents how I’ve let the Things build up and if I leave it any longer, they’ll form a huge pile and fall over and cause a huge mess of shattered hopes and dreams for completing 23 Things and I won’t know how to go about fixing it. I always did hate metaphors.
Let’s have a cuppa. by nessguide on Flickr