Article-Level Metrics

Gasparyan Armen Yuri,Yessirkepov Marlen,Voronov Alexander A.,Maksaev Artur A.,Kitas George D. 대한의학회 2021 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.36 No.11

In the era of digitization and Open Access, article-level metrics are increasingly employed to distinguish influential research works and adjust research management strategies. Tagging individual articles with digital object identifiers allows exposing them to numerous channels of scholarly communication and quantifying related activities. The aim of this article was to overview currently available article-level metrics and highlight their advantages and limitations. Article views and downloads, citations, and social media metrics are increasingly employed by publishers to move away from the dominance and inappropriate use of journal metrics. Quantitative article metrics are complementary to one another and often require qualitative expert evaluations. Expert evaluations may help to avoid manipulations with indiscriminate social media activities that artificially boost altmetrics. Values of article metrics should be interpreted in view of confounders such as patterns of citation and social media activities across countries and academic disciplines.

Bibliographic Databases: Some Critical Points

Armen Yuri Gasparyan 대한의학회 2013 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.28 No.6

Authorship and Contributorship in Scholarly Journals

Armen Yuri Gasparyan 대한의학회 2013 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.28 No.6

Researchers and Editors at the Heart of Science Communication

Armen Yuri Gasparyan 대한의학회 2014 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.29 No.2

Systematic and Open Identification of Researchers and Authors: Focus on Open Researcher and Contributor ID

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Nurbek A. Akazhanov,Alexander A. Voronov,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2014 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.29 No.11

Unique identifiers of researchers and authors can help all stakeholders of scientificcommunications improve their workflows. There have been several attempts to establishprofessional networks of scholars and list their scholarly achievements on digital platforms. Some of these platforms such as Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge and PubMed aresearched to pick relevant peer reviewers, assess authors’ publication history or choosesuitable candidates for research and academic projects. However, each of these hubs hasits specific applications, limiting the universal use for permanent tagging of researcherprofiles. The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) initiative, launched in 2012, isaimed at registering scholarly contributors and averting the persistent ambiguity ofrecorded author names. The ORCID registry is growing fast and integrating with other IDgeneratingplatforms, thereby increasing the functionality of the integrated systems. ORCID identifiers are increasingly used for selecting peer reviewers and acknowledgingvarious scholarly contributions (e.g. , published articles, reviewer comments, conferencepresentations). The initiative offers unique opportunities for transparent disclosures ofauthor contributions and competing interests and improving ethical standards of research,editing, and publishing.

Rewarding Peer Reviewers – Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Alexey N. Gerasimov,Alexander A. Voronov,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2015 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.30 No.4

This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards andincentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishersaround the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms forincentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategyof combined rewards and credits for the reviewers’ creative contributions seems a workablesolution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews isone of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networkingplatforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, helpdistinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorialposts.

Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Marlen Yessirkepov,Alexander A. Voronov,Sergey V. Gorin,Anna M. Koroleva,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2016 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.31 No.9

The digitization and related developments in journal editing and publishing necessitate increasing the awareness of all stakeholders of science communication in the emerging global problems and possible solutions. Journal editors and publishers are frequently encountered with the fast-growing problems of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, research misconduct, unethical citations, and inappropriate journal impact metrics. While the number of erroneous and unethical research papers and wasteful, or ‘predatory’, journals is increasing exponentially, responsible editors are urged to ‘clean’ the literature by correcting or retracting related articles. Indexers are advised to implement measures for accepting truly influential and ethical journals and delisting sources with predatory publishing practices. Updating knowledge and skills of authors, editors and publishers, developing and endorsing recommendations of global editorial associations, and (re) drafting journal instructions can be viewed as potential tools for improving ethics of academic journals. The aim of this Statement is to increase awareness of all stakeholders of science communication of the emerging ethical issues in journal editing and publishing and initiate a campaign of upgrading and enforcing related journal instructions.

The Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as an Inflammatory Marker in Rheumatic Diseases

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Lilit Ayvazyan,Ulzhan Mukanova,Marlen Yessirkepov,George D. Kitas 대한진단검사의학회 2019 Annals of Laboratory Medicine Vol.39 No.4

The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) has emerged as an informative marker revealing shifts in platelet and lymphocyte counts due to acute inflammatory and prothrombotic states. PLR has been extensively examined in neoplastic diseases accompanied by immune suppression and thrombosis, which can be predicted by combined blood cell counts and their ratios. Several large observational studies have demonstrated the value of shifts in PLR in evaluating the severity of systemic inflammation and predicting infections and other comorbidities, in inflammatory rheumatic diseases. The value of PLR as an inflammatory marker increases when its fluctuations are interpreted along with other complementary hematologic indices, particularly the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), which provides additional information about the disease activity, presence of neutrophilic inflammation, infectious complications, and severe organ damage in systemic lupus erythematosus. PLR and NLR have high predictive value in rheumatic diseases with predominantly neutrophilic inflammation (e.g., Behçet disease and familial Mediterranean fever). High PLR, along with elevated platelet count, is potentially useful in diagnosing some systemic vasculitides, particularly giant-cell arteritis. A few longitudinal studies on rheumatic diseases have demonstrated a decrease in PLR in response to anti-inflammatory therapies. The main limitations of PLR studies are preanalytical faults, inadequate standardization of laboratory measurements, and inappropriate subject selection. Nonetheless, accumulating evidence suggests that PLR can provide valuable information to clinicians who encounter multisystem manifestations of rheumatic diseases, which are reflected in shifts in platelet, lymphocyte, neutrophil, or monocyte counts. Interpretation of PLR combined with complementary hematologic indices is advisable to more accurately diagnose inflammatory rheumatic diseases and predict related comorbidities.

Specialist Bibliographic Databases

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Marlen Yessirkepov,Alexander A. Voronov,Vladimir I. Trukhachev,Elena I. Kostyukova,Alexey N. Gerasimov,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2016 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.31 No.5

Specialist bibliographic databases offer essential online tools for researchers and authors who work on specific subjects and perform comprehensive and systematic syntheses of evidence. This article presents examples of the established specialist databases, which may be of interest to those engaged in multidisciplinary science communication. Access to most specialist databases is through subscription schemes and membership in professional associations. Several aggregators of information and database vendors, such as EBSCOhost and ProQuest, facilitate advanced searches supported by specialist keyword thesauri. Searches of items through specialist databases are complementary to those through multidisciplinary research platforms, such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Familiarizing with the functional characteristics of biomedical and nonbiomedical bibliographic search tools is mandatory for researchers, authors, editors, and publishers. The database users are offered updates of the indexed journal lists, abstracts, author profiles, and links to other metadata. Editors and publishers may find particularly useful source selection criteria and apply for coverage of their peer-reviewed journals and grey literature sources. These criteria are aimed at accepting relevant sources with established editorial policies and quality controls.

Researcher and Author Profiles: Opportunities, Advantages, and Limitations

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Bekaidar Nurmashev,Marlen Yessirkepov,Dmitry A. Endovitskiy,Alexander A. Voronov,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2017 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.32 No.11

Currently available online profiling platforms offer various services for researchers and authors. Opening an individual account and filling it with scholarly contents increase visibility of research output and boost its impact. This article overviews some of the widely used and emerging profiling platforms, highlighting their tools for sharing scholarly items, crediting individuals, and facilitating networking. Global bibliographic databases and search platforms, such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar, are widely used for profiling authors with indexed publications. Scholarly networking websites, such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, provide indispensable services for researchers poorly visible elsewhere on the Internet. Several specialized platforms are designed to offer profiling along with their main functionalities, such as reference management and archiving. The Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID) project has offered a solution to the author name disambiguation. It has been integrated with numerous bibliographic databases, platforms, and manuscript submission systems to help research managers and journal editors select and credit the best reviewers, and other scholarly contributors. Individuals with verifiable reviewer and editorial accomplishments are also covered by Publons, which is an increasingly recognized service for publicizing and awarding reviewer comments. Currently available profiling formats have numerous advantages and some limitations. The advantages are related to their openness and chances of boosting the researcher impact. Some of the profiling websites are complementary to each other. The underutilization of various profiling websites and their inappropriate uses for promotion of ‘predatory’ journals are among reported limitations. A combined approach to the profiling systems is advocated in this article.