Puentes/Bridges: Highlights from DH2018

At the end of June, the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO) coordinated their annual international DH conference, Digital Humanities 2018, in Mexico City. DH2018 was the first conference in the organization’s history to be held in Latin America and in the global south. With a theme of Puentes/Bridges, DH2018 emphasized transnational discourse and inclusivity. Here are some highlights from the event!

Latin@ voices in the Midwest: Ohio Habla Podcast
Elena Foulis of Ohio State University discussed Ohio Habla, a podcast project that seeks to educate others on the Latin@ experience in the Midwest with interviews conducted in English and Spanish (and a mixture of the two).

Visualizing the Digital Humanities Community
What does the DH community look like? Researchers from University College London’s Centre for Digital Humanities visualized how authors of DH articles cite each other and interact with each other on Twitter, and compared the two networks.

Network Analysis of Javanese Traditional Theatre
How do characters in Javanese traditional theatre relate to one another? In an excellent example of non-traditional digital publishing, Miguel Escobar Varela of the National University of Singapore communicates his research findings on an interactive webpage.

Mayan hieroglyphs as a computer font

Mayan hieroglyphs as a computer font

Achieving Machine-Readable Mayan Text Via Unicode
Carlos Pallan Gayol of the University of Bonn and Deborah Anderson of UC Berkeley work to create Unicode equivalents of Mayan hieroglyphs to create a machine-readable version, ensuring reliable access to this language across devices.

Hurricane Memorial: Chronicling the Hurricane of 1928
A massive hurricane devastated Florida, Puerto Rico, and other parts of the Caribbean in 1928, but the story of this storm shifts depending on who you ask. Most of the storm’s victims were black migrant workers from Puerto Rico and Caribbean islands, whose deaths are minimized in most accounts. Christina Boyles of Trinity College seeks to “bring the stories of the storm’s underrepresented victims back into our cultural memory.”

Does “Late Style” Exist? New Stylometric Approaches to Variation in Single-Author Corpora
Jonathan Pearce Reeve presented some preliminary findings of his research on investigating whether or not an author has a true “late style.” Late style is a term most well-known from the works of Edward Said, alluding to an author’s shift to a writing style later in life that is unique from their “early” style. Read a review of his book, On Late Style. Code and other supplemental materials from Reeve’s research are available on GitHub.

screenshot from 4 rios webpage, shows drawings of people

4 Ríos: El Naya
A digital storytelling project about the impacts of armed conflict in Colombia, 4 Ríos is a transmedia project that includes a website, short film, and an interactive web-comic.

Researchers from our own University of Illinois participated in the conference, including Megan Senseney and Dan Tracy. Senseney, along with other Illinois researchers, presented “Audiences, Evidence, and Living Documents: Motivating Factors in Digital Humanities Monograph Publishing,” a survey of motivations behind humanities scholars digital publishing actions and needs. Megan also participated in a panel, “Unanticipated Afterlives: Resurrecting Dead Projects and Research Data for Pedagogical Use,” a discussion about how we might use unmaintained DH projects and data for learning purposes.

Tracy and other Illinois researchers presented a poster, Building a Bridge to Next Generation DH Services in Libraries with a Campus Needs Assessment, a report of results gathered while surveying the need for future DH services at research institutions, and how the library might facilitate this evolution. View Tracy’s poster in IDEALS.

ADHO gathered all resources tweeted out during the conference that you can view. You can also view a detailed schedule of presentations with descriptions here, or see paper abstracts here. Or, search #DH2018 on Twitter to see all the happenings!

European Union Parliament Rejects Copyright Law

The controversial bill, the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, was protested around the world, with websites sending up an alarm over one portion of the proposed law, Article 13.

Article 13 would require users to gain permission of copyright holders, likely through licensing, to upload anything that was copyrighted onto the internet. If they did not have permission, the website would have to block the content. This might seem like a good thing, and was argued by Paul McCartney and 1,300 other musicians that is would protect people from having their work stolen and uploaded illegally. Critics have argued that this law would be so strict it would prevent anyone on sites like YouTube from playing cover songs – which is how the Beatles got their start.

People argued that the article would also stifle fan creations – like fanart and fanfiction – because the law applies to not only music, but all audio, video, and text uploaded onto the internet. Including memes.

While the idea of protecting copyright is noble, to have everything uploaded onto the internet by a human being is literally impossible. The BBC notes that 400 hours of content are uploaded onto YouTube every 60 seconds. Because of this, YouTube has an automatic system that flags and demonetizes videos that thought to be in violation of copyright. Things as innocuous as birds chirping in the background of videos have flagged copyright claims, so to have such a policy not only beefed up, but spread across the entire internet, it is argued, would be detrimental.

In voting this bill down, EU policy-makers have given themselves more time to review and rework these proposed laws, as another vote will happen in September.

Understanding Creative Commons Licenses

It doesn’t matter if you’re a student, a scholar, or just someone with a blog: we all run into issues finding images that you’re allowed to use on your website, in your research, or in an advertisement. While copyright laws have avenues for use, it’s not guaranteed that you can use the image you want, and the process of getting access to that image may be slow. That’s why looking at images with a Creative Commons license are a great alternative to traditional copyrighted images.

A Creative Commons license is a more flexible option than copyright and can be used on images, or basically any other kind of shareable work. When a creator chooses a Creative Commons license, people do not need to ask for their explicit permission to use their work. However, that doesn’t mean that the creator gives up control of the image; rather, they choose one of six current options for their Creative Commons license:

  • Attribution: The most lenient license. The attribution license lets others do what they please with your work, so long as they credit the original creator.
  • Attribution-ShareAlike: Similar to the attribution license, though all derivatives of the original work must be licensed under identical terms to that original.
  • Attribution-NoDerivs: This allows others to use the work as they please, so long as they do not change or manipulate it, and credit the creator.
  • Attribution-NonCommercial: This license allows people to use and tweak the work freely, except for commercial enterprises. The derivative works do not have to be licensed under identical terms.
  • Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike: Same as above except derivative works must be licensed under identical terms.
  • Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs: The most restrictive license. Others may download the work, but they cannot change them or use them commercially.

All-in-all, most Creative Commons works have “some rights reserved.” As a consumer, you have the responsibility to look up license of any Creative Commons work you hope to use (which isn’t very hard – most of the time any limitations are listed).

Here are some examples of images with differing Creative Commons licenses:

The only stipulation on this image is that I must provide proper attribution. “Albert Cavalier King Charles Spaniel” was taken by Glen Bowman on July 21, 2013 and is hosted on flickr.com.

This image of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel only requires creator attribution. It can be used commercially so long as I acknowledge Glen Bowman, the photo’s creator. So if I so chose, I could hypothetically edit this photo to use as a welcome banner on my Cavalier King Charles Spaniel appreciation blog, include it in a PowerPoint I use for my veterinary school class, or copy it in an advertisement for my dog-walking business.

This Creative Commons licensed image requires proper attribution. “Cavalier King Charles Spaniel” was taken by James Watson (kingjimmy81) on August 17, 2013, and is hosted on Flickr.com.

This image of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel has a more restrictive license than the above image. You can share the image in any medium or format, but you must give appropriate credit to James Watson, the creator. You cannot use it commercially, and you cannot distribute derivatives of the photo. So I could include this on my Cavalier King Charles appreciation blog with proper attribution, but could not edit it to make it into a banner on the homepage. And while using it in my veterinary school PowerPoint is still okay, I could not use it in an advertisement for my dog-walking business.

If you’re interested in finding Creative Commons works, you can use the Creative Commons Search function, which links up to various search engines, including Google, Google Images, Wikimedia Commons, and Flickr. If you’re interested in learning more about Creative Commons licenses, check out the Scholarly Commons’ Creative Commons basics page, as well as our use/creation of Creative Commons licenses page. If you’re interested in learning more about intellectual property in general, visit the Main Library’s Intellectual Property LibGuide, or get in touch with the library’s copyright specialist, Sara Benson (srbenson@illinois.edu).

Using an Art Museum’s Open Data

*Edits on original idea and original piece by C. Berman by Billy Tringali

As a former art history student, I’m incredibly interested in the how the study of art history can be aided by the digital humanities. More and more museums have started allowing the public to access a portion of their data. When it comes to open data, museums seem to be lagging a bit behind other cultural heritage institutions, but many are providing great open data for humanists.

For art museums, the range of data provided ranges. Some museums are going the extra mile to give a lot of their metadata to the public. Others are picking and choosing aspects of their collection, such as the Museum of Modern Art’s Exhibition and Staff Histories.

Many museums, especially those that collect modern and contemporary art, can have their hands tied by copyright laws when it comes to the data they present. A few of the data sets currently available from art museums are the Cooper Hewitt’s Collection Data, the Minneapolis Institute of Arts metadata, the Rijksmuseum API, the Tate Collection metadata, and the Getty Vocabularies.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art has recently released all images of the museum’s public domain works under a Creative Commons Zero license.

More museum data can be found here!

Random Facts: Copyright Edition

Source: Openclipart

This post was guest authored by Scholarly Communication and Publishing Graduate Assistant Paige Kuester.


Just in case “Copyright” is one of the categories when you finally make it on Jeopardy!

  1. Facts aren’t copyrightable

Generally, unless there is some creativity in the expression associated with them, facts aren’t copyrightable. Even if you were the first person ever to know that particular fact, unless you express it in a creative fixed way, there’s no way that copyright can attach to facts.

  1. Monkeys have yet to successfully go to court and claim copyright

While this fact seems like a statement of the obvious, if you are not familiar with the Monkey Selfie case, you’ll be surprised to learn that accomplishing this was the goal of PETA recently. It’s probably a good thing that the case settled (though unsuccessfully in the eyes of monkeys that are garnering for copyright everywhere) with the owner of the camera agreeing to donate a percentage of proceeds gained from the picture to habitat protection, because how else would we have gotten access to some of these images? However, it is questionable if images taken by animals are even copyrightable at all.

  1. Just because you can’t find the © symbol, does not mean that a work does not have copyright.

Since 1989, works no longer require a copyright symbol to have copyright attached to them. Which makes having a copyright easier than in previous eras, but makes it less obvious that a work in copyrighted in general. Of course, there are benefits to including one.

  1. Plagiarism doesn’t just plague the lazy.

Apologies in advance.

  1. You own a copyright.

At least, if you have ever written anything creative down in a fixed medium that was your own idea, you own one. Probably more than one, including marker scribbles and grocery lists and papers that you wrote in high school. As long as you don’t transfer your rights, you will hold that copyright for your entire life plus seventy years.

Make sure you share your winnings with us.

For more information about copyright, check out this undergraduate journal library guide, this Author’s rights guide,  or contact our copyright librarian, Sara Benson.

Sources:

Bailey, Jonathan. (2010). 5 Things that Can’t Be Copyrighted. Plagiarism Today.  Retrieved from https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/01/08/5-things-that-cant-be-copyrighted/

Bailey, Jonathan. (2015). 5 Great People Who Plagiarized. Plagiarism Today.  Retrieved from https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/02/10/5-great-people-who-plagiarized/

New Media Rights. (2011). II. What Can and Can’t Be Copyrighted? New Media Rights. Retrieved from https://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/ii_what_can_and_can’t_be_copyrighted

Post, David. (2017). No Monkey Business Here: The Monkey Copyright Case is Over–For Now. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/17/no-monkey-business-here-the-monkey-selfie-copyright-case-is-over-for-now/?utm_term=.1624b07a5524

Open Access and… Animals?

Image of a blue and white bird flying over a lake with mountains in the background.

Source: Pixabay.

This post was guest authored by Scholarly Communication and Publishing Graduate Assistant Paige Kuester.


The modern research landscape is an asset for biologists, zoologists, conservationists, etc. They can track animals, check up on them, figure out what is helping or harming their environment, and report or adjust accordingly. They tag animals and create twitter handles for them to tweet out their location (source). They can also create crowdsourcing research methods in order to utilize the interest of the public. And with open access, researchers can easily pass this information on to the public, so that they can create even more awareness and participation, too.

Great, right?

Maybe not. Think about who else has access to that information.

Poachers. Yes, we are still living in an age of poachers. This isn’t just your Tarzan poachers tromping through the jungle, though there is still some of that. This is much more threatening.

Poachers don’t have to track animals anymore, because scientists are doing that for them. Poachers can just gather data posted online through open access sources, and plan out their trip. Crowd-sourced research and tourists apps can also provide this information. If poachers are really nifty, they can tap into radio signals and the like that are sending out locations from the animal tags to the researchers.

One way that researchers can combat this is to not post such specific locations and data on animals that are likely to be poached, especially when publishing with an open access journal. Those in charge of apps can not make information about endangered species publicly available. It is a little more difficult to deter signal hackers, but monitoring and adding more security to these is one way to curb this unfortunate trend.

Open access is great, spreading information about awesome and endangered animals is great, but leaving them vulnerable to exploitation is not so much. It is a bit like Facebook. Sharing your location and your Friday night plans may be fine when you know it is just your friends seeing this information, but when making it public, maybe don’t advertise that you are going to out of your apartment for weeks on end, leaving your valuables alone and unmonitored. While animal privacy rights are not yet a thing, a little courtesy can go a long way in protecting those who don’t have a say.

Sources:

Hewitt, Sarah. (2017, June 5). Scientists Are Debating Whether Animals have a Right to Privacy. Motherboard. Retrieved from: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43ydkb/animals-privacy-tracking-data-science-journals-open-access-banff-national-park

Scheele, Benjamin, and David Lindenmayer. (2017, May 25). Scientists Are Accidently Helping Poachers Drive Endangered Species to Extinction. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/scientists-are-accidentally-helping-poachers-drive-rare-species-to-extinction-78342

Welz, Adam. (2017, September 6). Unnatural Surveillance: How Online Data is Putting Species at Risk. Yale Environment 360. Retrieved from http://e360.yale.edu/features/unnatural-surveillance-how-online-data-is-putting-species-at-risk

Public Domain and Creativity

This post was guest authored by Scholarly Communication & Publishing Graduate Assistant Nicole Moriah Rhodes.


The first American copyright law protected works for fourteen years after they were published and gave the copyright owner the opportunity to renew the copyright for another fourteen years. Few did, and works passed quickly into the public domain.

The copyright term is much longer now–it varies, but you, a human, will likely own many copyrights until 70 years after you die. Some people argue that a long copyright term increases the incentive to make creative work.

However, despite the longer term, statistical analysis of the number of copyright registrations through changes in population, economy, US law, and available technology doesn’t find that increasing copyright protection increases the number of copyrighted works. Raymond Shih Ray Ku, Jiayang Sun, & Yiying Fan (2009) find that the people advocating for broader copyright laws probably aren’t advocating for an increase in the amount of creative work: the best indicator of the number of new creative works among the variables in their study is population. Their data suggest that “Laws that reduce or otherwise limit copyright protection are actually more likely to increase the number of new works” (1673) than laws granting more protection.

Such a long period of copyright protection leaves a lot of content unusable to other creators. This comic about documentary filmmakers demonstrates how stringent copyright protections can prevent creative remixing and impede the accurate representation of the world. Work in the public domain can be shared freely, but our real lives are full of content protected by copyright, and people trying to make documentaries can be inhibited by copyright even on incidental work. When they want to use copyrighted material under the fair use doctrine, the threat of lawsuits can have a chilling effect.

Lawrence Lessig (2004) uses the phrase “Walt Disney creativity” to describe “a form of expression and genius that builds upon the culture around us and makes it something different” (24). Disney’s Cinderella, Disney’s live-action Cinderella, fanfiction, and The Lizzie Bennet Diaries could all be considered examples of Walt Disney creativity. But Disney had access to fairly recent work in his time. As Lessig writes:

“Thus, most of the content from the nineteenth century was free for Disney to use and build upon in 1928. It was free for anyone— whether connected or not, whether rich or not, whether approved or not—to use and build upon.

“From 1790 until 1978, the average copyright term was never more than thirty-two years, meaning that most culture just a generation and a half old was free for anyone to build upon without the permission of anyone else. Today’s equivalent would be for creative work from the 1960s and 1970s to now be free for the next Walt Disney to build upon without permission. Yet today, the public domain is presumptive only for content from before the Great Depression.” (24-25)

Michael Hart, the creator of Project Gutenberg and a longtime Urbana resident, viewed copyright law as impeding the abundance that technology could create, beginning with the very first copyright laws after the invention of the Gutenberg Press. While Ku, Sun, & Fan (2009) do find that copyright law helps create and protect both wealth and jobs and allows creators to be rewarded for their work rather than requiring sponsorship, they advocate for reducing copyright protection where it impedes distribution or creativity.

“Because copyright law works in the negative—effectively saying ‘do not use this work, do not copy this work, do not imitate this work’—we are not sending a message that society values the creation of new works. We are only sending the message that we should stay away from those works already created” (1722).

Creative Commons is one venture designed to allow creators to share their work for other creators’ use while preserving the level of protection they choose. However, the default is still a system that restricts access to cultural works past the time when the creator might care, and can even keep works from being preserved so they will be usable when they enter the public domain. Creators should be able to benefit from the work they create, but increasing protections does not necessarily increase those benefits. Excessive copyright terms keep us from being able to discuss and rethink our common culture.

Copyright as a Tool for Censorship

This post was guest authored by Scholarly Communication & Publishing Graduate Assistant Nicole Moriah Rhodes.


Copyright should be used to encourage speech and not to silence it. The stories below demonstrate that copyright can be used to limit the rights of technology users and censor criticism.

“In practical terms, the DMCA legalized technical controls on access to electronic works; it renders obsolete traditional rules for reading and sharing print materials and, simultaneously, enables content owners to implement a pay-per-use system that controls who has access, when, how much and from where. So, for instance, you can lend a paperback to friends, but you aren’t allowed to do the same thing with an electronic book.”

“The database shows that Ares Rights has filed at least 186 complaints since 2011, with 87 made on behalf of politicians, political parties, state media, and state agencies in the Americas.” (CPJ)

“They were received by political commentators who used images of Correa, transmitted on Ecuadoran public television, in videos uploaded to YouTube, in order to make visible the resistance of local communities to the onslaught of mining communities in the country’s inland provinces. The same thing happened with videos that used stock footage to illustrate the inconsistencies of the President’s statements together with videos of protests against the exploitation of Yasuní national park, and images of repression against students.” (Derechos Digitales)

  • Electronic Frontier Foundation: To be eligible under the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions, companies must comply with legitimate takedown notices. But many hosts end up taking down content that can be legally shared. Copyright takedown notices can be used to hassle critics. Punishing bogus claims is difficult, and the damages for failing to comply can be severe.

“According to the latest numbers, Twitter does not comply with nearly 1 in 4 takedown notices it receives; Wikimedia complies with less than half; and WordPress complies with less than two-thirds. Each organization explains in its report that the notices with which they don’t comply are either incomplete or abusive.”

Closed Doors or Open Access?: Envisioning the Future of the United States Copyright Office

Copyright Librarian Sara Benson

It’s Copyright Week! For today’s theme of “transparency”, Copyright Librarian Sara Benson discusses her thoughts on the Copyright Office activities to review Section 108.


In 2005, the Copyright Office, under the guidance of the Register of Copyrights at the time, Mary Beth Peters, called for a Study Group to convene and review possible amendments to Section 108. A follow up meeting was held in 2012. These meetings were not unusual, but what followed them, was both strange and unsettling.

The procedures after the Study Group, which took place in the summer of 2016 under the guidance of Maria Pallante, were unusual in that they took place in face-to-face meetings between concerned citizens and members of the Copyright Office rather than in a call for online communications between citizens and the Office. On the one hand, this gave the members of the Office a chance to engage in a dialogue with the concerned citizens. On the other, it meant that generally only those with the resources to travel to Washington, D.C. were privileged with the ability to engage with the members of the Office. However, the Office did note that it would engage in telephone conversations, if necessary. In any event, none of these conversations were ever made public.

At that time, it seemed that the Copyright Office was making an intentional move away from a public debate about copyright to a cloistered room with a privileged few. In my view, that move was undemocratic and should be discouraged in the future. Indeed, although the Copyright Office did publish a list of individuals and organizations it met with to discuss Section 108, but the actual subject and content of those discussions remains a mystery.

Notably, shortly after taking office as the new Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden removed Maria Pallante from her position as Register of Copyrights. Does this signal a move away from the process that was undertaken to review Section 108? Likely it does, as Librarian of Congress Dr. Hayden has recently taken further steps towards listening to the views of the multitude by openly polling the public about what we would like to see in the next Register of Copyrights.

This is an exciting time to engage with the Copyright Office under Dr. Hayden’s leadership. I encourage everyone reading this essay to add your voice to the ongoing discussions about the changes to the Office, including the selection of the new Register of Copyrights and beyond.

(Baseball) Bibliometrics: The Final Inning

Man throwing a baseball.

This post was guest authored by Scholarly Communication and Publishing Graduate Assistant Paige Kuester. This is the third part of a three-part series. Read Part 1 and Part 2.


We’re almost there! We’ve just got to go over some of the newest ways of measuring impact, and then we can all go home with that win.

Altmetrics

This is one of the newer types of bibliometrics. Instead of traditional methods of just including citations to gain an understanding of an author’s work, this “alternative metric” takes into account different ways that people interact with articles, like bookmarking them, blogging about them, tweeting, and so much more in addition to regular citations.

Different companies have different ways that they establish their scores, but here are a few that provide this service, including the company Altmetric, ImpactStory, and Plum Analytics.

Of course, there is criticism for this method also, because it does not fall strictly within the scholarly realm, and some article topics are not inherently tweetable. The scores should not be used as the sole judge of the impact of an article because there are always various factors involved. Obviously, you can also game this metric and the h-index by talking and citing your own articles, and getting your friends to do it, too. However, it is one of the new ways that these measures are trying to keep up with the technological times, as papers are more widely available online and so may have a wider audience impact than previously.

I suppose this is a bit like picking your favorite baseball player. While altmetrics are clearly less subjective than that, there still are similarities. Other bibliometrics measures only look at how other scholars use the work, which would be just like only allowing other players on your team pick your favorite player. They probably have good judgement about the ability of the player, but they are not looking at outside factors, like how the player behaves on twitter.

This points to another downside of altmetrics, that a high score only indicates a high level of attention towards an article, though this could be negative press, just like players who get a lot of news coverage when they commit crimes. Nevertheless, altmetrics does not just seem to be a trend because scholars do want to see the impact of their articles outside of strict academia, but there may still be some wrinkles to iron out.

We have covered almost all of the bases now.

Now we enter the realm of proposed metrics.

S-index

The s-index, otherwise known as the self-citation index, is exactly what is sounds like. Flatt, Blasimme, and Vayena propose this in a 2017 paper, not to replace other indices, but just to be included with the h-index so that others can get an idea as to whether an author’s h-index is self-inflated. The authors present evidence that for every self-citation, that article tends to get an average of 2-3 more citations than they would have otherwise. Arguments against this are proposed by Phil Davis from the Scholarly Kitchen. He specifically points out that not all self-citations are bad, some are necessary if the field is small and/or the author is building on their own previous research. It is not yet clear if this will catch on or not.

One way to look at this would be if baseball players only hit the ball when other players were on base and about to score. It could be a specific strategy that the player only has a successful at-bat when they have a chance to improve their RBI. But who wouldn’t take that? It’s good for them, and it is good for other players who only get to score, or get exposed to home plate because of that player. Or it could be just the situation that the player is in.

Ok, not the best example, but I promise that’s it. We made it to the end!

Not all of the metrics here are perfect. They analyze different aspects of an article or an author’s impact and so should be used in conjunction with each other. As technology opens new doors to sharing work and assessing impact, we will probably be seeing new measures and new ways to measure old metrics. Just like baseball, there is not one single number that can tell you everything you need to know, but things are improving and changing every day.

Now you know enough about the metrics of scholarly publishing to score a home run.

Or something like that.


Sources:

Allard, R. J. (2017). Measuring Your Research Impact. Uniformed Services University. Retrieved September 21, 2017, from http://usuhs.libguides.com/c.php?g=184957&p=2506307

Davis, P. (2017, September 13). Do We Need a Self-Citation Index? Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved September 21, 2017, from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/09/13/need-self-citation-index/.

De Groot, S. (2017). Measuring Your Impact: Impact Factor, Citation Analysis, and other Metrics. UIC University Library. Retrieved September 21, 2017, from http://researchguides.uic.edu/if/impact

Flatt, J. W., Blasimme, A., & Vayena, E. (2017). Improving the Measurement of Scientific Success by Reporting a Self-Citation Index. Publications 5(3). Retrieved September 21, 2017, from http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/3/20/htm

Garfield, E. (2006). The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. JAMA 295(1). Retrieved September 21, 2017, from http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jamajif2006.pdf

Reuter, A. (2017, September 11). Baseball Standing Explained. Livestrong.com. Retrieved September 21, 2017, from http://www.livestrong.com/article/337911-baseball-standings-explained/