The GLOBAL initiative - Contribute to improving the reporting of bibliometric analyses
The team of the GLOBAL initiative is looking for people with experience in bibliometric analyses to participate in a Delphi study to develop a reporting guideline for bibliometric analysis. This post introduces the GLOBAL initiative and invites colleagues with relevant experience to contribute.
Over the past decade, a growing number of bibliometric analyses of varying quality have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. Despite this growth, surprisingly few published articles provide guidance on how a bibliometric analysis ought to be reported. Moreover, to our knowledge, these articles have been written based on the opinions/experiences of different researchers, as opposed to best evidence-informed practices. This known uptick in the publication of bibliometric analyses in combination with a lack of evidence-based guidance suggests the need to develop such guidelines. As such, the Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL) aims to provide minimum guidelines for the reporting of bibliometric analyses.
We are working on developing the GLOBAL guideline through a staged consensus process, involving a literature review and expert consultation to generate a series of candidate items, which will then be assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a multi-stage Delphi survey and refined through a checklist pilot. The guideline will provide a framework for authors of bibliometric (and related) analyses to report methods and results. We hope this will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting bibliometric analyses. Applying the reporting guideline will assist editors and peer-reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically assess the quality of bibliometric methods and the risk of bias in the reported outcomes. To learn more about our study, we invite you to read our study protocol.
Delphi Round 1 involves completing an online survey to rate recommended items for inclusion in GLOBAL reporting guideline. This takes approximately 15 minutes. A subset of Round 1 participants will be invited to an in-person consensus meeting in Berlin, Germany on September 21, 2024, immediately following the STI 2024 conference. Participation in this meeting is optional. The tentative agenda of the meeting is presented in the box below.
If you would like to participate in the survey, please click here.
Tentative agenda of the consensus meeting in Berlin on September 21, 2024
Part 1
- Arrival (8:45-9:00)
- Introductions (30 minutes) 09:00-09:30
- Overview of agenda (5 minutes) 09:30-09:35
- Overview of scoping review (15 minutes) – 09:35-09:50
- Presentation of GLOBAL protocol/methodology & reporting guidelines (15 minutes) – 09:50-10:05
- Break (10 minutes) – 10:05-10:15
- Point-by-point GLOBAL checklist item review (90 minutes) – 10:15-11:45
- Lunch (45 minutes) – 11:45-12:30
Part 2
- Point-by-point GLOBAL checklist item review (80 minutes) – 12:30-13:50
- Break (10 minutes) – 13:50-14:00
- Point-by-point GLOBAL checklist item review (80 minutes) - 14:00-15:20
- Conclude (10 minutes) – 15:20-15:30
The meeting will take place at the Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft (IBI) at the Humboldt University in Berlin (Dorotheenstraße 26, room R121)
If you are interested in contributing, please complete the survey. At the end of the survey, there will be an option for you to express your interest in attending the in-person meeting and to leave your name and email address.
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the project, please do not hesitate to reach out to Jeremy Y. Ng or Stefanie Haustein.
1 Comment
Thaks for an interesting and potentially useful initiative. I tried clicking on that surveymonkey link bc I'm interested in the live session in Berlin, but alas:
The Amazon CloudFront distribution is configured to block access from your country.
GLOBAL except Russia, I guess. Well, the majority of bibliometricians left here do support government's actions, but I don't, for example.
As the survey advocates transparency of methods, it would be interesting to know what other countries are banned by geoIP?
Add a comment