EDİTÖR ve YAZAR EĞİTİM SEMİNERLERİ - 1 Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nitelikli Bilimsel Makale Yazımı için İleri Teknikler   EDİTÖR ve YAZAR EĞİTİM SEMİNERLERİ - 1 4 Mart 2015 Hacettepe Üniversitesi Donna Wilson Elsevier Sosyal Bilgiler ve Ekonomi Dergileri İdari Yayıncısı 

Yayincilikta Dijital Cag Yayinciliktaki Yeni Egilimler Sunum Konuları Yayincilik Dongusu Yayincilikta Dijital Cag Yayinciliktaki Yeni Egilimler Hakem Degerlendirme Sureci Dogru Dergiyi nasil analiz edersiniz? Bibliometri (İçerikte kullanılan kısaltmalar bu alanda belirtilmelidir.)

Akademik Yayıncılık Çemberi Gönderilen yayınları yönetmek Hakemleri yönetmek Yayınların Basımı Yayınlamak ve Yaymak Yayınları duzenlemek ve hazırlamak Arşivlemek ve kullanımı teşvik etmek Yayınların %30-60 editörler (7000) tarafından reddediliyor. Yaklaşık 13 Milyon Makale 500,000+ hakem 180 ülkedeki 30 milyonu aşkın araştırmacının >480 milyon makale indirimi Yaklaşık ½ mılyon makale kabul ediliyor (NOTE TO SPEAKER: VIEW IN SLIDESHOW AND USE ANIMATIONS FOR BEST EFFECT TO TELL THE STORY) Let’s look at this illustration of the publishing cycle at Elsevier – and consider some staggering figures: For example, nearly 10 million articles are currently archived in our system. Depending on the journal, on average between 30 and 60% are rejected directly by one of the 7,000 editors we work with. Those articles that are not rejected upfront will undergo peer review and currently we work with around 500,000 reviewers to evaluate these articles. Of these, around half get accepted after minor or major revision. Overall nearly ½ million articles are in the end accepted by the editors each year and “produced”, which means typeset, posted online, linked to the various external platforms like PubMed, promoted to the appropriate audience and of course archived for future use. 9.8 million articles are now available and have been downloaded over 480 million times, by 30 million researchers, across more than 180 countries. 13 Milyon Makale

Yayincilikta Dijital Cag Author submission & Editorial systems Mobile content Solicit and manage submissions Archive and promote use Manage Peer Review Electronic platforms Edit and Prepare Publish and Disseminate eJournal Backfiles eReference Works Electronic warehousing Production Production tracking systems 4

Yayinciliktaki Yeni Egilimler Publication Process Peer Review Format of the Article Access Text Mining & Smart Content Combining Data 5

Addressing Presentation, Content and Context Gelecegin Makalesi Addressing Presentation, Content and Context 6

Yayinciliktaki Yeni Egilimler: Grafik Oz Redefine how a scientific article is presented online Individualized entry points and routes Take full advantage of online capabilities – graphical abstracts

Yayinciliktaki Yeni Egilimler: Ses / Video – Audio/Video

Yayinciliktaki Yeni Egilimler Google Maps – Google Maps

Yayinciliktaki Yeni Egilimler

Yayincilikta Egilimler– Sosyal Medya STM Digest is a collection of lay summaries published next to original research articles on ScienceDirect, provided free of charge, and accessible to everyone. https://twitter.com/STMDigest

Mendeley – Diger arastirmacilarla bulusun ve paylasin

Yayinciliktaki Yeni Egilimler

Yayinciliktaki Yeni Egilimler

Bilimsel arastirmanin kuresel buyume hizi

Yayincinin Rolu Yenilikcilik ve Teknoloji Kayit Sertifika Dagitim Koruma Kullanim Yayincilar akademik camiaya nasil katki saglarlar? Yenilikcilik ve Teknoloji

Hakem Degerlendirmesine Yenilikci Yaklasim Peer Review Grand Challenge Your Paper, Your Way The Reviewer Guidance Program 17

Hakem Degerlendirmesi Arastirmanin kalitesini, gecerliligini, onemini ve orijinalligini belirlemeye yardimci olur. Yayinlarin kalitesinin artmasina katki saglar. Yayincilar objektifligi korumak icin hakem surecinin disinda kalirlar. Yayincilar degerlendirme surecini yonetmeye yonelik sistemler ve araclar sunarlar. 18

Hakem Değerlendirmesinin Prensipleri İyi anlaşılmış konsept Hakem değerlendirilmesi olmadan bilimsel iletişimin kontrolü sağlanamaz. Dergi editöleri bir makaleyi hakemlerin değerlendirmesine göre kabul ederler ya da reddederler. We will now look at the principles of peer review. Peer review is a widely understood concept in the academic community requiring transparency, impartiality, confidentiality and timeliness. Reviewers make the process work by critically examining and commenting on manuscripts in a fair and unbiased manner. Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years and without peer review there would be no quality-control in scientific communication. In addition to the formal peer-review process, journal Editors will also evaluate and reject a number of articles prior to external peer review.

Neden hakemler bu işi yapar? Verilen Alınan Akademik Vazife Konu alanı hakkında genel bir bilgi En yeni gelişmelerle güncel kalmak. Diğerlerinin çalışmalarına ya da fikirlerine katkıda bulunmak. Dergi ve editörlerle ilişki kurmak Kariyer gelişimi Diğer araştırmacılardan önce yeni çalışmaların farkında olmak. Let’s take a moment to look at why researchers are willing to review. One of the main reasons is a sense of “duty” to the academic community of which they are part. Reviewing articles is often seen as giving something back to the community. Since reviewers are also authors, they understand the importance of playing their part as a reviewer within that community. More experienced reviewers see the value of mentoring younger researchers, and enjoy seeing them develop and improve over time. Many researchers also review articles simply because they enjoy doing so. In addition to this, reviewers also review articles for other reasons, for example reviewing articles enables them to keep ahead of current and cutting-edge research. It can also enhance their academic reputation, and help with their career development.

Hakem Değerlendirmesi -gerçekler 86% Hakem değerlendimesi yapmaktan mutlular ve yapmaya devam edecekler. 73% Teknolojik gelişmeler hakem değerlendirmesini kolaylaştırmıştır ve geliştirmişti. 68% Hakemlerin eğitimi hakem değerlendirmesinin kalitesini artırır. 56% Genel olarak bir derginin nasıl değerlendirileceğine dair bir bilgi eksikliği vardır. Elsevier regularly engages with the reviewer community, both to encourage and develop new reviewers, and to provide support for existing reviewers. As part of this, we collate feedback from reviewers through our Reviewer Feedback Program to find out why they agreed to act as reviewers. For some reviewers, it is simply a matter of playing their part as a member of the scientific community. For others, it is the opportunity to help improve a paper, or seeing new work ahead of publication. Others want to reciprocate the benefit gained when others review their papers. The Sense About Science 2009 report on peer review also identified that the majority of reviewers enjoy reviewing! This feedback is all very encouraging for the future of peer review and scholarly publishing. These final percentages were part of the Peer Review Survey conducted by Sense about Science in 2009. Many reviewers also felt that some formal training would improve the quality of reviews. This feedback has prompted Elsevier to develop this presentation and other presentations in the series, to help researchers such as you with the review process. Hakem Değerlendirmesi -gerçekler (Source: Peer Review Survey 2009)

Değerlendirmenin aldığı vakit Elsevier’in EES sistemiyle oldukça geliştirilmiştir. The time it takes reviewers to review a manuscripts can vary between disciplines, but the advent of electronic submission, including the Elsevier’s EES, has helped to greatly improve reviewing times. In a Peer Review Survey conducted by Sense about Science in 2009, half of the respondents said that it took them an average of 5 hours or less to complete their last review. The majority of those reviewers also returned their last review within one month (Source: Peer Review Survey 2009)

Hakem Degerlendirme Sureci

Makaleniz icin En Iyi Dergiyi Secin Referanslariniza bakin- secenekleri daraltmaniza yardimci olur. Her aday dergideki en son yayinlanan makaleleri kontrol edin. Kendinize asagidaki sorulari sorun: Dergi hakemli mi? Derginin hedef kitlesi kim? Derginin etki faktoru ne? Makalenizi birden fazla dergiye ayni anda gondermeyin Uluslararasi etik standartlar ayni anda coklu makale basvurularini yasaklamistir ve editorler bunu kolayca anlayabilirler.

Makaleniz icin En Iyi Dergiyi Secin Yayininizi hazirlarken hangi dergileri okudunuz? Alaninizdaki en prestijli dergiler hangileridir? Makalenizi Acik Erisimli olarak yayinlamak istiyor musunuz? Sizin alaninizla ilgilenen her hangi bir editor taniyor musunuz? Makalenizin kalitesi derginin etki faktoru ile ortusuyor mu? Ortak yazarlar, sponsorlar ve kurumunuzun sorumluluklari nelerdir? Danismaninizdan ve calisma arkadaslarinizdan gorus aldiniz mi?

Etki Faktörü Gösterge çeşitleri Eigenfactor H-Index SJR SNIP We will briefly survey some of the key indicators of journal citation impact, from the familiar Impact Factor, to the less familiar, including the Eigenfactor and Article Influence, SJR and SNIP, to an alternative application for the author-based metric, H-Index.

e.g. 600 citations = 2 150 + 150 articles Etki Faktoru nedir? Impact Factor Son iki yilda Bir derginin aldığı atıflar ve o dergideki atıf alabilir yayınlar arasındaki oran e.g. 600 citations = 2 150 + 150 articles

Etki faktoru ve Diger Bibliometrik veriler

Toplam Dergi Etkisine Atıfın Oranı Tek konu alanındaki en iyi 20 dergi This skew can also be seen at higher levels of aggregation in the main image here for the top 20 journals for a single subject category. The journals are sorted in descending order of their Impact Factor and the overlaid bars show these values graphically. It is easy to see the rapid tailing away of Impact Factor values across these journals and the dozens more beneath them that complete this category, in the same way that we saw a rapid tailing away of citations across articles published within a single journal on the previous slide. Etki Faktörü

Elsevier’in Etki Faktörü ile ilgili Politikası Elsevier Etki Faktörünü derginin performansını gösteren metriklerden yalnızca biri olarak görür. Elsevier Etki Faktörünün kullanımına ilişkin tüm uyarıları göz önünde bulundurarak yazarlar, editörler, okuyucular ve diğer kullanıcılarla en iyi yöntemi paylaşmaya gayret eder. . Elsevier Etki Faktörü ile ilgili tüm iletişimlerinde açıklığa ve şeffaflığa önem verir ve kendi yararı için Etki Faktörü ile ilgili manipülatif uygulamalara göz yummaz. Elsevier’s philosophy on the Impact Factor is that Elsevier uses the Impact Factor as one of a number of performance indicators for journals. It acknowledges the many caveats associated with its use and strives to share best practice with its authors, editors, readers and other stakeholders in scholarly communication. Elsevier seeks clarity and openness in all communications relating to the Impact Factor and does not condone the practice of manipulation of the Impact Factor for its own sake.

Google Page Rank benzeri bir hesaplama yöntemi vardır. Eigen Faktörü Sene 5 Sene 4 Sene 3 Sene 2 Sene 1 Atıf Senesi eigenfactor.org’ta ücretsiz olarak bulunur ve JCR’dedir. Etki faktörüne benzer ama son 5 yılı dikkate alır. Kendine atıflar çıkarılmıştır. EF’de atıflar atıf veren dergiye göre ağırlıklandırılır. Eigenfactor Moving now on to emerging alternatives to the traditional Impact Factor. We begin with the Eigenfactor and its derivative Article Influence. It was derived by Carl Bergstrom at the University of Washington (Seattle, USA), using the same data set from which the Impact Factor is derived and as is freely available online. Its calculation is similar to that of the Impact Factor, but it considers 5 years of publications, rather than just 2 and it does not account for journal size. Its derivative, Article Influence does do, in a manor to that of the Impact Factor by dividing the sum of those same articles published. The important advance that the Eigenfactor represents is that incoming citations to a journal are weighted by the Eigenfactor of the citing journal, in an iterative process, similar to that used by Google to calculate PageRank. The logic for doing so follows the premise that if important people have important friends, so important journals are cited by important journals. For this reason, Eigenfactor and Article Influence can be considered as prestige metrics, rather than simple popularity metrics like the Impact Factor, where all citations count equally. Google Page Rank benzeri bir hesaplama yöntemi vardır.

Scopus verisine dayalıdır. SCimago Journal Rank Sene 3 Sene 2 Sene 1 Atıf Yılı scimagojr.com’da ve Scopus’ta bulunabilir. Etki Faktörüne benzer ancak son 3 yılı dikkate alır. Kendine atıflar limitlidir. Atıflar atıfın geldiği derginin SJR’ına göre ağırlıklandırılır. SJR Another prestige metric is SCimago Journal Rank, from the SCimago Research Group. Its method of calculation is conceptually similar to that of the Article Influence metric we’ve just discussed, in so far as it takes a citation weighting approach. However, the metric is calculated on a different data set, that is Scopus, and considers 3 years of publications rather than 5, allowing it to represent a more current view of journal performance. It is freely available online. Scopus verisine dayalıdır.

Kaynağa Göre Normalize edilmiş Etki Değeri Sene 3 Sene 2 Sene 1 Atıf Yılı Scopus’ta bulunur. Etki Faktörüne benzer ancak son 3 yılı dikkate alır. İçeriksel atıf etkisini ölçer. Atıflar atıfın geldiği konu alanına göre ağırlıklandırılır. SNIP SNIP, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, was devised by Henk Moed while at the University of Leiden (Netherlands). Unlike the Eigenfactor or SCimago Journal Rank, SNIP is based on an entirely novel methodology, which simultaneously accounts for database coverage of cited papers and for field-specific differences in citation rates based on local citation context rather than any top-down journal classification scheme. Like the SCimago Journal Rank, it considers 3 years of publications and also gives a very up-to-date view of journal impact. This elegant metric is the most sophisticated journal performance indicator currently available and is freely available online. Leiden Üniversitesi tarafından geliştirilmiştir ve en sofistike performans metriği olarak bilinir ve manipülasyonu zordur.

H-Index Scopus’ta bulunur. Citations Hirsch, J. (August 2005) Kişilerin akademik üretimini ölçen bir indextir. h H-Index h Paper no. Scopus’ta bulunur. Kişileri yaptıkları yayınlara ve aldıkları atıflara göre sıralar. Niteliği ve niceliği aynı anda ölçer. Yaş kısıtı vardır. Finally, our survey of journal impact metrics turns to one that was never designed with journals in mind, but with individual authors instead. The H-Index was proposed in 2005 by physicist Jorge Hirsch as a single indicator of an author’s publication productivity and impact. The H-Index is calculated by sorting an author’s career publications by descending citations to date and finding the rank position, h, at which citations accrued to date is equal to or greater than h. This is shown graphically here, at the point at which the 45 degree line from the origin intersects the curve described by a plot of the author’s articles verses citations and dropped back to either axis. In plain words, an author with an h index of 8, has published at least 8 papers in their career, and each of these 8 papers has been cited 8 or more times to date. Since it was proposed, the conceptual underpinnings of the H-Index have been applied to groups of articles at many different levels of aggregation, including journals, research fields, research groups, institutes and whole countries. Variance of the H-Index may now account for highly cited outliers, self-citations, age affects and co-authorship. As an indicator the H-Index may be a blunt instrument, but its conceptual simplicity and ease of calculation have combined to make it a very popular metric.

TEŞEKKÜRLER TÜBİTAK-ULAKBİM YÖK Binası B5 Blk. 06539 Bilkent / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00 http://www.ulakbim.gov.tr/