On Wednesday afternoon Mike and I were finally able to sit down with Jon and…Gareth? (sorry, I’m terrible with names) from Thomson Reuters to discuss Bibliosight and the work we are doing with the WoS API, it probably goes without saying just how useful this was, especially so soon after our Tuesday meeting.
As we have come to appreciate, Thomson are still very much in an ongoing process of developing their suite of tools and commercial services around the extraction of data from WoS using their API and, overall, I was given the impression that the company are currently practising something of a balancing act to weigh their commercial interests against providing appropriate value added services to their subscribers under existing licensing agreement – which is, of course, entirely reasonable. Jon suggested that the Bibliosight project is something of a pioneer in using this technology and a useful case-study for the company, which certainly puts some of our early difficulties into context – though he did indicate that numerous other folk are also actively investigating the API; in particular he mentioned Queens College Belfast, an institution in Birmingham and R4R at Kings College London in collaboration with EPrints’ Les Carr at Soton. R4R is the only project that I was hitherto aware of and have had any contact with; it would be really useful if we were able to communicate with others also using the API.
Thomson Reuter’s flagship commercial product is called InCites and “supplies all the data and tools you need to easily produce targeted, customized reports… all in one place. You can conduct in-depth analyses of your institution’s role in research, as well as produce focused snapshots that showcase particular aspects of research performance.” We discussed how, though such a service will be invaluable for the research oriented Russell Group institutions, it is likely to be overkill for a million plus institution like Leeds Met; nevertheless we do require a certain level of functionality to help us analyse our research performance which, alongside our traditional strengths in teaching and learning, is increasingly important, especially in view of the REF. Hopefully this is where the developing ‘suite of tools’ comes in and our guests were keen to get a handle on precisely what we are hoping to achieve with Bibliosight (aren’t we all!). I outlined our preliminary use-cases for them as a foundation for our discussion and was also keen to ask some of the specific questions that had arisen during the previous day’s meeting. First of all I asked about the wording of the documentation that appears to suggest that it is only possible to return 100 records with a single query using the API – they weren’t aware of such an issue and agreed that the way it was expressed in the documentation was a little ambiguous; Jon will follow this up for us though Mike may also be able to elucidate the situation when he has investigated further. They were able to say that another user had discovered that the API could be called twice every second, however, so didn’t anticipate any problems with extracting all the data we need.
The major issue that came up at the meeting on Tuesday was how best to return all of the articles for a given institution with the most appropriate field to query apparently being the address field. It is not clear, however, how consistent the institutional address actually is and Jon confirmed that it is derived from information harvested from individual journals/papers which preliminary manual searching of WoS has already demonstrated to be idiosyncratic – at least in the case of Leeds Metropolitan University and almost certainly other institutions aswell (leeds metropolitan university; leeds met [uni]; lmu etc). Jon suggested that the safest and most effective method of returning all records would actually be by using ResearcherID though this would require all institutional authors to be registered and an additional paid subscription to ResearcherID download (as opposed to upload which is free) – in lieu of this, however, he did confirm that the address field was the only way and that it may be necessary to build a catch-all query to ensure that we don’t miss anything – precisely how we achieve this is still a little bit of a moot point, though he did indicate that some work has been done on disambiguating institutional address formats within WoS and will follow up on this for us in due course.
Through our discussion, Article Match Retrieval is finally beginning to make more sense to me now, and Jon confirmed that this is the method that would be used in conjunction with the API to provide numbers of citations to an individual article – AMR can be queried by numerous fields including DOI and UT Identifier (A unique identifier for a journal article assigned by Thomson Reuters.); in terms of the current project, I think it makes sense to focus initially on extracting bibliographic data first before worrying about citation metrics; via the API, we can also extract the UT identifier and then use this to query AMR.
We also touched on Terms & Conditions and Thomson, again reasonably, expect WoS as data source to be clearly acknowledged on each individual record – Mike wasn’t initially certain how this could easily be achieved from a technical perspective, at least in the case of bibliographic citation information (which may have been added manually); we have a few ideas on how this could actually be achieved but is really just something to be aware of at this stage.
All in all I now feel that the overall shape project is beginning to be resolved and, in addition to the technical work required to extract, store, parse, convert (XML) records and then pass them somewhere else (intraLibrary/EndNote), a large part of Bibliosight will necessarily focus on developing use-cases for our institutiona research administration which is likely to continue well beyond the designated 6 month life-cycle of the #jiscri project!
