Scholarly Credentials Toolkit for TCNJ Faculty: Introduction

Navigate this libguide from the TOC below or the blue tabs (and sub-tabs) above.

Research metrics are quantitative measures intended to evaluate the product of research (e.g., a peer-reviewed journal article). In library and information science, metrics based on citation counts are a component of bibliometrics. The most well known of these is InCites proprietary and long-standing Impact Factor. Newer metics or "altmetrics," on the other hand, measure attention through indicators other than citation counts (e.g., Mendeley Readers, Facebook "likes").

Watch the video in the middle column of this page to learn more about Altmetrics. See the Altmetrics page of this guide for even more information.

Click on the link below to download a Periodic Table of Scientometric Indicators. It mimics a periodic table of the elements to visualize the full range of research metrics used to demonstrate scholarly impact.

Beyond the need to obtain data able to corroborate claims made in reappointment, tenure, and promotion applications, TCNJ faculty members at all stages of their careers are invited to use this guide to assess the impact of their scholarship in the disciplines.

With this guide you can:

• perform a citation analysis to see who has cited your work(s);
• discover the relative impact of the journals in which you have published;
• measure the reception and impact of your published book(s); and
• draw a more complete picture of your impact through Altmetrics.

I am available for consultations or group presentations to facilitate use of the tools described in this guide. If you have questions or comments, or wish to schedule a research consultation with me, please refer to the information in the Humanities Librarian box.

Featured e-book:

Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: Which is best for me? (London School of Economics and Political Science Impact Blog)

"In this post, Alberto Martín-Martín, Enrique Orduna-Malea , Mike Thelwall, Emilio Delgado-López-Cózar, analyse the relative coverage of the three main research databases, Google Scholar, Web of Science and Scopus, finding significant divergences in the social sciences and humanities and suggest that researchers face a trade-off when using different databases: between more comprehensive, but disorderly systems and orderly, but limited systems."