For more information, call the Cline Library DDS Office at 928-523-6808.
OpenKnowledge@NAU is NAU's Institutional Repository, where faculty and students provide access to their pedagogical work, research, and other creative output. Having access to an Institutional repository can 1) extend NAU's global impact; 2) help researchers meet funding requirements; 3) advance interdispiclinary and public collaboration; 4) promote long-term preservation and access; 5) promote the value of open access to information.
NAU PBC faculty and students can publish posters, scholarly writing, curricular design, art, books, datasets, and reports, among other products!
The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association is the style manual of choice for writers, editors, students, and educators in the social and behavioural sciences. It provides invaluable guidance on all aspects of the writing process, from the ethics of authorship to the word choice that best reduces bias in language.
provides an overview of APA (American Psychological Association) style and where to find help with different APA resources. It provides an annotated list of links to APA materials and an APA overview. It is an excellent place to start to learn about APA format.
RefWorksis a data and citation management platform that allows researchers to generate, store, retrieve, and manipulate citations across a number of styles and formats. It is highly recommended that students and faculty learn how to use RefWorks, as it can save a significant amount of citation time. However, because students can only use RefWorks while enrolled at a university, there are a number of free citation management apps available as well. Please see the Citation Management Apps tab for more information.
For the most part, NAU students and faculty at PBC have access to two reference management platforms:
Refworks: a new way to collect, manage and organize research papers and documents. You can read annotate, organize, and cite your research as well as collaborate with friends and colleagues by sharing collections. RefWorks’ drag and drop capability along with our smart document recognition makes it easy and fast to upload documents and bibliographic metadata into your library and the Save to RefWorks feature allows you to capture research from websites with the click of a button. From simple bibliographies to papers formatted with in-text citations or footnotes, RefWorks handles it all.(Proquest.libguides.com)
NOTE: in order to access RefWorks on a phone or tablet, visit RefWorks Mobile at Refworks.com/mobile
Mendeley: A reference manager, academic collaboration network and crowd sourced database with a unique layer of social information research. Mendeley is available on Mac, Windows and Linux. Mendeley Web functions on all major browsers. Mobile versions of Mendeley are available for iPad, iPhone, and Android devices.
If you need help accessing and using either RefWorks or Mendeley, consult any of the following:
Rayyan is particularly useful when compiling research for a review (systematic or otherwise). It allows users to collaborate across institutions.
Systematic reviews are widely considered the highest level of evidence for researchers in biomedical and health science. Most of us are familiar with literature reviews, in which writers summarize the information relating to a specific topic. Systematic reviewers take this idea and go much farther by exhaustively searching the literature, assessing it, summarizing it, and making analytical and critical conclusions and/or statements based upon their findings.
NOTE: See hereand herefor two different visualizations comparing systematic reviews to other evidence-types.
Systematic reviews are complex, and full of moving parts. For that reason, it's good to know how they function--both for practitioners and for researchers interested in writing a systematic review.
Additionally, researchers should consider the many review types available before conducting a systematic review. Check out the following resources to learn about different review types, and when to leverage them:
In addition to understanding the components and workings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, evidence-based practitioners should also spend time learning about the criticism used to question and explore reliance on systematic reviews:
PBC Library launched a systematic reviews pilot service in Summer 2018. As part of this service, the NAU PBC librarian provides search coordination and review processes guidelines to teams working on different review types. For now, the service is freely available to all NAU faculty currently considering embarking on a review.
If you have any questions about this service, feel free to call, email, or schedule an appointment to learn more!
Bibliometrics & altmetrics
It is becoming increasingly common to take bibliometrics and altmetrics into consideration when performing research and preparing for publication.
Bibliometrics: statistical measures of research impact based upon citations by author, article, and journal depending on the measure used.
Altmetrics: statistical measures of impact based upon views, links out, and shares across social media platforms.
Typically, bibliometrics will inform decisions to publish work in specific journals; they also function to give insight into the common usage of specific articles within a discipline or field of study, They also provide insight into emerging lines of inquiry and research. The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and H- score are the most common measures; however, Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) is growing in popularity. They function as follows:
JIF: a measure which designates the overall impact of an entire journal, based on that journal's prestige, citations, and authorship.
a common problem with JIF is that it does not accurately provide counts for individual articles, and unfairly weights articles with minimal impact higher because of a journal's overall popularity while weighing articles with more citations unfairly low due to their being published in a journal with a low JIF.
H- score: provides a measure that is weighted in favor of the author rather than the journal. H- scores rise alongside the number of citations attributed to a specific author.
H- scores are weighted in favor of authors who have more publications in print. Authors who are at the early stages of their careers are unfairly impacted by this measure.
RCR: balances authorship, number of citations per article, and journal popularity according to discipline. By focusing on discipline-specific research methods, RCR attempts to negate the broad brushstroke techniques employed by other systems of bibliometric measurement.
Where to find metrics
Web of Science
Different databases employ different metrics; however, Web of Science includes complete readouts of different metrics (including H- score and JIF). Web of Science also includes its own in-house metrics scale that measures publications by number of views. This measure affects how results are loaded in response to a search query. Articles with more views tend to appear higher on the results list.
Scopus & Scimago
Scimago is an open access database that ranks journals according to prestige. Journals that are established, have more publications that get cited, and with more popular authors are listed higher in the rankings. Scimago allows users to search by discipline.
Scopus is similar to Web of Science, in that it places emphasis on citations and maps networks of citations across disciplines. Scopus relies on SNIP, a method that is similar to the NIH's RCR method mentioned above.
iCiteis a service developed and funded by the NIH. It ranks papers according to RCR. iCite has the potential to deliver more balanced measures than Web of Science or Scopus; however, iCite only includes papers published in MEDLINE from 1995 to present.