One of the basic functions of the SciELO Publishing Model is to follow up the performance of journals, national collections, the network and the overall program. In the context of national collections, which in most cases are financed by public resources and are highly selective regarding indexing, the good performance of journals is expected in line with the specific objectives of SciELO to contribute to their sustainable increase of editorial quality, visibility, use and impact. In addition to the specific objectives that apply to the entire network, national collections are governed by priorities determined by national policies and conditions. The performance of journals and SciELO collections are evaluated by the following criteria: • Institutionality, which refers to institutions responsible for the journals and their respective research communities as indicators of credibility and operational sustainability of journals; • Good practices of editing and scholarly communication, which refers to the adherence to the SciELO indexing criteria that implies in adherence to the good practices of scholarly communication and adoption of innovations; • Visibility, Use and Impact, which refer to the following contexts: ◦ Access and downloads indicators to articles’ full text files in HTML and PDF formats; ◦ Citations indicators or metrics considering different journal indexes; ◦ Web presence indicators or altmetrics. The scope proposed for this working group encompasses the analysis of journals performance in accordance with the above criteria, taking into account the specificities of different thematic areas and different countries. The analysis and discussion of these three dimensions will be conducted by scholarly communication and bibliometrics experts with the support of representatives of national collections, journal editors and specialists.

1. Web Identity and positioning
Non-citation metrics for the
SciELO journals
Isidro F. Aguillo
isidro.aguillo@csic.es

2. 2
 JOURNAL IDENTITY
– The problem of individual identity in the Latin America Portals of journals:
Scielo, Redalyc, OJS (PKP)
 POSITIONING
– The problem with the URLs pseudo-hierarchy
– SEO major issues
– A proposal for increasing web visibility
 NON CITATION METRICS
– Full Picture
• Altmetrics
• Usagemetrics
• Webometrics
– Proposal for adding web indicators to Scielo
AGENDA

3. 3
Uniformity of the contents (OJS/PKP)
INDIVIDUAL JOURNAL
IDENTITY LOST

4. 4
Rich Hypertextual Contents
NO EXTRA CONTENTS

5. 5
Consequences: Journal identity lost in citations
INDIVIDUAL JOURNAL
IDENTITY LOST

6. 6
 Journal profile
– Journal unit at Scielo br
– Competitors: Homepage and mirrors
– Visibility in the search engines
 Positioning and SEO facts
– Structure of URLs: Confusing directory system
– Lack of semantic content
• URLs length. Not needed redirs
• Incomplete Titles
– Formal metadata y PDF properties
 Metrics
– Comments on the current scenario
– Adding webometrics indicators: Feasibility and options
Scielo.br

7. 7
Visibility in Google
1st
2nd
HIGHER PORTAL PR OR BETTER CONTENTS? …

8. 8
Homepage at Scielo.br
NO EXTRA CONTENTS

9. 9
Homepage of the Journal
http://www.revistaabcd.com.br/
NO EXTRA CONTENTS

10. 10
Homepage of the Editor
http://www.cbcd.org.br/publicacao_abcd_cbcd.html
NO EXTRA CONTENTS

11. 11
Competitors: Extra info at DOAJ
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_
serial&pid=0102-6720&lng=en&nrm=iso
https://doaj.org/toc/0102-6720
NO EXTRA CONTENTS

12. 12
Competitors: Mirror at PMC
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/2852/
NO EXTRA CONTENTS

13. 13
Visibility in Bing
1st
2nd
… HIGHER SCIELO PORTAL VISIBILITY

14. 14
Different indexing: Google vs Google Scholar
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0004-27302014000800802&script=sci_arttext&tlng=es
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0004-27302014000800802&script=sci_arttext
http://submission.scielo.br/index.php/abem/article/view/131251
pdf
NO
PDF

15. 15
Complex hierarchy in the scielo.br domain
DIFFERENT SUBDOMAINS
DIFFERENT DIRECTORIES

16. 16
Bad practices in Positioning URLs and <Title>
No semantic
content
34 useless
characters codes
12 useless characters
No mention to Scielo
WHY?

17. 17
Metadata of the Journals
NO METADATA

18. 18
Metadata of the papers (pdf version)
NO METADATA

19. 19
 Re-organize structure
– More hierarchical organized URL naming
– Shorter, semantic URLs for journals (URLs and Titles)
– Focus on paper information (URLs and Titles)
 Improve semantic scores
– More web pages
• Extra material
• Open (moderated) comments
– Metadata (rich properties in pdf)
 Improve hypertextual scores
– Larger density of internal links
– Analysis of the referring domains
– Glocal strategies
A Proposal

20. 20
 Preferred
– A integrated Dashboard
– Multiple sources, diversity of indicators
– Customizable by users
 Concerns about Metrics
– Bibliometrics: Low figures in the number of citations (minority or mediocrity)
– Altmetrics: Mostly ALM, extended citations meaning unclear
– Usagemetrics: Unreliable, lack of standards
 Webometrics (Cybermetrics)
– Problems with search engines
– Good practices in URL naming required
– High volatility
– Data manipulation is possible
A Personal Point of View about Metrics Options

21. 21
A full picture of Metrics
WEBOMETRICS
Number of times the URL of
a document/author webpage
is linked from another
webpage
ALTMETRICS
Number of times the
elements are mentioned
(shared) in websites, wikis,
blogs, social bookmarks
and networks (incl. Twitter)
or search engines
USAGEMETRICS
Number of times the
document is
read/visited/downloaded from
its publishing place (incl.
websites)
BIBLIOMETRICS
Number of times the
bibliographic record
(identifier) of a paper/book is
cited in another similar
formally published paper
Document-level metrics
Title
Source:Journal/Book/Patent
Publication Year
Citations
Identifier: URL/DOI/Handle
Subject/Tags
Author-level metrics
Author(s)
Institution (Affiliation)
Publication Year
Discipline/Tags
Web profiles
Web 2.0 profiles

22. 22
Bibliometrics
LOW FIGURES
ARE USELESS

23. 23
Dspace Modules for statistics. Is it reliable?
USAGE DATA ARE UNRELIABLE

24. 24
A few comparative figures: 2013 vs 2018
ALTMETRICS MEANING UNCLEAR

25. 25
Web indicators (according to Ahrefs)
A NEW RICH SOURCE

26. 26
Indicators for Journal and Papers (Ahrefs)
BAD PRACTICES IMPACT

27. 27
 Major revamping of the portal website
– Improving design and usability
• Attractive homepage: News
• Open for user customization
– Positioning (SEO) specific actions
• Kill codes
• More and better metadata
• More and better linked contents
 Adoption of new (supplementary) Metrics
– Usage metrics to both journal and paper-level
• Standard reliable transparent solution
– Web based metrics
• Ahrefs API for journals
– Visual integrated Dashboard
Recommendations

28. 28
Open forum
THANKS!
QUESTIONS?