Article

Altmetrics: Value all research products

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

... Within this context, bibliometrics are now seen as the traditional way of measuring the impact of research merely through academic outlets, whereas altmetrics are considered as a new approach to assessing the societal reach and impact of research by tracking and measuring public engagement through the use of social media outlets (Bornmann 2014;Piwowar 2013). Although broadly referred to as the measurement of online activities and interactions relating to research output or scholarly content derived from social media or Web 2.0 platforms, the definition of altmetrics is unclear and changing with the emergence of new digital possibilities including those via application programming interfaces (APIs) (Haustein 2016). ...
... Third, altmetrics not only provide more diverse kinds of data from different sources; they also enable the evaluation of a richer variety of products, not merely publications. For example, the sharing of data, software, grey literature, protocols, and slides among other products of research can encourage increased communication and collaboration within and between disciplines, allowing new forms of analyses with the potential to accelerate advances in knowledge (Piwowar 2013;Wouters, Zahedi, and Costas 2019). In addition to the impact of these products, altmetrics can help universities illustrate their efforts to overcome any negative ivory tower image and engage the public by tracking the views, usage, or circulation of online open courses; community, radio, television, and public media presentations; outreach events; and public impact stories through university websites and social media (McKiernan 2017;Murphy and Costa 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
During the twenty-first century, for the first time, the volume of digital data has surpassed the amount of analog data. As academic practices increasingly become digital, opportunities arise to reshape the future of scholarly communication through more accessible, interactive, open, and transparent methods that engage a far broader and more diverse public. Yet despite these advances, the research performance of universities and public research institutes remains largely evaluated through publication and citation analysis rather than by public engagement and societal impact. This article reviews how changes to bibliometric evaluations toward greater use of altmetrics, including social media mentions, could enhance uptake of open scholarship in the humanities. In addition, the article highlights current challenges faced by the open scholarship movement, given the complexity of the humanities in terms of its sources and outputs that include monographs, book chapters, and journals in languages other than English; the use of popular media not considered as scholarly papers; the lack of time and energy to develop digital skills among research staff; problems of authority and trust regarding the scholarly or non-academic nature of social media platforms; the prestige of large academic publishing houses; and limited awareness of and familiarity with advanced digital applications. While peer review will continue to be a primary method for evaluating research in the humanities, a combination of altmetrics and other assessment of research impact through different data sources may provide a way forward to ensure the increased use, sustainability, and effectiveness of open scholarship in the humanities.
... With the development of information communication technologies, research outputs can be diffused promptly and widely to the whole society [3]. To measure researchers' societal impacts instantly, more recent studies have proposed altmetrics, which are indicators based on various user activities in social media environments [4,5,6,7]. However, the effectiveness of altmetrics differs across countries and regions [8,9,10]. ...
... In such a context, the concept of altmetrics has been developed and attracted much attention from academia. Altmetrics reflects the scholarly and societal impacts of research outputs in a timely manner by collecting online indicator data, such as links, articles, and blogs [4,5,18]. Some researchers believe that indicators and indicator frameworks based on altmetrics are new ways for evaluating the impact of researchers. ...
Article
Full-text available
Evaluating the impacts of researchers plays a role in identifying impactful researchers, cultivating talents, and promoting talent exchange. Traditional indicators emphasize researchers’ scholarly impacts and rely on bibliometric data, which take a long time to reveal the impacts. With the popularization of social networks, researchers have gone beyond academia and shown their impacts instantly on the general population. Although altmetrics have been proposed to measure the societal impacts of researchers, they show differences across countries and regions. A comprehensive indicator framework for evaluating the impacts of Chinese researchers is lacking. This study proposes a novel indicator framework based on bibliometrics and altmetrics and uses it to evaluate the impacts of researchers in China. Specifically, the proposed framework consists of 2, 3, and 17 first-level, second-level, and third-level indicators, respectively. We conduct a case study with data from various online platforms. Results demonstrate that the indicator framework can evaluate the scholarly and societal impacts of Chinese researchers. The results also show that researchers’ societal impacts are stronger than their scholarly impacts in China. According to the impacts, the indicator framework can categorize researchers into different groups, among which the largest group contains ordinary researchers with mediocre scholarly and societal impacts.
... Con el incremento de la presencia de la comunidad científica en las redes sociales, (Bornmann, 2015) . La investigación científica genera más que artículos y esos otros productos también deberían ser incluidos en las evaluaciones (Piwowar, 2013) , lo que quizá comience a cambiar con los OD a medida que se adopten políticas de OS. ...
Article
Full-text available
Uruguay, al igual que más de 190 países miembros, ha suscrito la Recomendación de Ciencia Abierta de Unesco que se ha aprobado en noviembre de 2021. La ciencia abierta es un ecosistema de procesos interconectados construido sobre distintos movimientos: acceso abierto, datos abiertos, código abierto e investigación abierta reproducible, entre otros, cuyo objetivo es hacer las investigaciones científicas, datos y divulgación accesibles e inclusivos para todos los niveles de la sociedad. La implementación de políticas de ciencia abierta requiere equilibrar cuidadosamente sus costos y beneficios. Las experiencias de algunos países parecen ser exitosas, aunque la factibilidad de algunos aspectos plantea dudas en la comunidad científica. Los países del Sur Global tienen una oportunidad para posicionarse y beneficiarse de esta transición, pero deben estar un paso adelante y ser parte de su construcción. En este trabajo se revisan los principales conceptos para la implementación de un sistema de ciencia abierta y se realizan algunas consideraciones sobre el sistema
... However, with the rise of the social web, scholars have explored alternates that may facilitate the measurement of research impact. Altmetrics has provided a way to reflect the impact of research by learning about the researchers' and readers' engagement with research on the social web (Piwowar, 2013;Bong and Ale Ebrahim, 2017). Despite the increasing number of studies that use altmetrics to measure research progress, GKMC altmetrics have reportedly been assessed for their applicability to research assessment as many studies have found that altmetrics may not be an indicator of research impact (O'Connor et al., 2017;Delli et al., 2017;. ...
Article
Purpose The rapid spread and severity of the coronavirus (COVID-19) virus have prompted a spate of scholarly research that deals with the pandemic. The purpose of this study is to measure and assess the coverage of COVID-19 research on social media and the engagement of readers with COVID-19 research on social media outlets. Design/methodology/approach An altmetric analysis was carried out in three phases. The first focused on retrieving all papers related to COVID-19. Phase two of the research aimed to measure the presence of the retrieved papers on social media using altmetric application programming interface (API). The third phase aimed to measure Mendeley readership categories using Mendeley API to extract data of readership from Mendeley for each paper. Findings The study suggests that while social media platforms do not give accurate measures of the impact as given by citations, they can be used to portray the social impact of the scholarly outputs and indicate the effectiveness of COVID-19 research. The results confirm a positive correlation between the number of citations to articles in databases such as Scopus and the number of views on social media sites such as Mendeley and Twitter. The results of the current study indicated that social media could serve as an indicator of the number of citations of scientific articles. Research limitations/implications This study’s limitation is that the studied articles’ altmetrics performance was examined using only one of the altmetrics data service providers (altmetrics database). Hence, future research should explore altmetrics on the topic using more than one platform. Another limitation of the current research is that it did not explore the academic social media role in spreading fake information as the scope was limited to scholarly outputs on social media. The practical contribution of the current research is that it informs scholars about the impact of social media platforms on the spread and visibility of COVID-19 research. Also, it can help researchers better understand the importance of published COVID-19 research using social media. Originality/value This paper provides insight into the impact of COVID-19 research on social media. The paper helps to provide an understanding of how people engage with health research using altmetrics scores, which can be used as indicators of research performance.
... Many researchers have argued the term and named it "influmetrics" or "webbased social influence" (Rousseau and Ye 2013) and "uses metrics" (Glänzel and Gorraiz 2015) instead. Beyond citations, altmetrics provide new possibilities for accessing not only academic impact but also broader impact of scholarly artifacts, including public engagement with research (Piwowar 2013). However, it measures digital scholarship on the Internet and how people interact with others in a given scientific work, particularly measured web-driven scholarly interactions, such as how often scholarly work is viewed, blogged, tweeted, re-tweetted about, or bookmarked (Howard 2012). ...
Article
Altmetrics is considered as an emerging field of research in metrics-based studies and related areas. The main objective of this study was to explore the Scopus database and discover the research publications made on altmetrics over the last eight years and quantify its performance on a global scale. Based on Scopus from 2012 to 2019, a scientometric analysis based on 724 scientific publications related to altmetrics research was done to characterize the scientific landscape by analyzing and identifying the global trends, research power, collaboration network , and core research areas in this field. The results show that the number of publications in altmetrics research has rapidly increased over time and the publication pattern in its developing stage; Scientometrics is the most productive journal and Thelwall, M. is the leading researcher. The maximum number of publications come from the USA and UK, with the University of Wolverhampton being the key organization that performed such research. Researchers mainly preferred journal articles to communicate their research findings with peers. Besides, the keyword analysis shows that "altmetrics," "bibliometrics," and "social media" are the frequently used terms used by scholars, which indicates a research focus on these topics.
... Research contributions are recognized in the age of OS by the way how technologies have changed [26]. For instance, scientific literature contains acknowledgments and comments that are a form of peer reviews on the cited work. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Presentation tools of academic content are increasing in popularity for educators in Higher Education Institutions (HEI) who want to share ideas and information in a more creative and interactive environment using more effective tools and demand to involve. Interactive Applications are becoming lot more common and is more integrated into our everyday activities, like using mobile apps. The features of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) began to emerge through Interactive Applications (IAs) such as the applications of Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), Mixed Reality (MR). Information resources development is no longer restricted and residing within the realm of speculative fiction. By using AR, VR and MR, academic libraries could already deliver a massive revolution in information retrieval. However, the biggest challenge that need to be tackled perhaps remains in how we could tune between these resources and the users so that the greatest possible benefit could be achieved in the light of accelerated technological development. This chapter uncovers the challenges and opportunities in using Interactive Applications (IAs) technologies and should be an eye opener for academic libraries that Interactive Applications technology are important to transform the use of traditional resources to interactive resources.
... Research by Costas et al. (2015), showed that academic work in general receives greater attention on Twitter than other media platforms. Piwowar (2013), also states that approximately 1 in 40 scholars have an active Twitter account. This finding gives dysphagia researchers an indication of the applicability and benefits of Twitter as a research tool for promoting and increasing engagement in their work. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed to (a) identify characteristics of dysphagia research receiving online attention; (b) determine associations between altmetric scores and traditional research metrics; (c) establish differences in altmetric scores between open access and closed access research and funded and non-funded research. Altmetric Explorer was searched on 7th October 2019 to identify contemporary (January 2014 to January 2019) articles with the keyword ‘dysphagia’. Data from 100 articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) were exported for analysis. Data extracted included journal name; first author profession; country; study design; population studied; publication year; journal impact factor; citations; downloads; funding and access status. Most of the 100 articles (AAS 19–317) focused on adult populations (95%). Nearly half of study designs were systematic reviews (27%) or randomized control trials (18%). The Dysphagia journal published the most articles (34%) and nearly one-third of first authors (31%) were based in USA. The most studied population was neurological (30%). There was no association between altmetric scores and traditional metrics. A significant difference in altmetric scores (U = 650.50, p = 0.045, p < 0.05) was found between the earlier time-period (2014–2016) (median AAS = 29) and later time-period (2016–2019) (median AAS=36). A significant difference in altmetric scores was identified between open (median = 33) and non-open access research (median = 29) (U = 1030.50, p = 0.048). Altmetric scores provide an innovative article level metric capturing public interest in dysphagia research. As altmetric scores do not correlate with traditional metrics, improved understanding of the type of dysphagia research that has social impact is imperative to guide researchers and clinicians.
... Traditional benchmarks such as citation counts fail to capture the authors' impact outside academic circles [2]. The ways in which research output is indexed, searched, located, read, and mentioned have significantly changed, and these ways do not describe the influence and impact that scholarly work may have outside core academic domains [3,4]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background The development of an author-level complementary metric could play a role in the process of academic promotion through objective evaluation of scholars’ influence and impact. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the Healthcare Social Graph (HSG) score, a novel social media influence and impact metric, and the h-index, a traditional author-level metric. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of health care stakeholders with a social media presence randomly sampled from the Symplur database in May 2020. We performed stratified random sampling to obtain a representative sample with all strata of HSG scores. We manually queried the h-index in two reference-based databases (Scopus and Google Scholar). Continuous features (HSG score and h-index) from the included profiles were summarized as the median and IQR. We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) to evaluate the correlation between the HSG scores and h-indexes obtained from Google Scholar and Scopus. ResultsA total of 286 (31.2%) of the 917 stakeholders had a Google Scholar h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 61.1 (IQR 48.2), and the median h-index was 14.5 (IQR 26.0). For the 286 subjects with the HSG score and Google Scholar h-index available, the Spearman correlation coefficient ρ was 0.1979 (P
... • The development of the "data publication", an article-like format for sharing descriptions of datasets; these may make datasets into more "citable" formats (Ingwersen & Chavan, 2011;Leitner et al., 2016). • The recent rise of altmetrics, a class of scientometric indicators that help evaluators understand the attention that research has received online (Moed, 2016), and new developments in citation-based metrics, have made it possible to understand the impacts of data among new audiences like the public and policymakers (Konkiel, 2013;Peters et al., 2016;Piwowar, 2013). ...
... This rising importance of software in the scientific process prompted the perception of scientific-purpose software as a research product of its own. Research funding agencies are increasingly funding the development of scientific-purpose software (Howison et al., 2015), as well as accepting software creation as an accepted outcome in some grant applications (Piwowar, 2013), like the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) 5 and the U.K. Research Excellence Framework (REF) 6 (Pan et al., 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Scientific software is a fundamental player in modern science, participating in all stages of scientific knowledge production. Software occasionally supports the development of trivial tasks, while at other instances it determines procedures, methods, protocols, results, or conclusions related with the scientific work. The growing relevance of scientific software as a research product with value of its own has triggered the development of quantitative science studies of scientific software. The main objective of this study is to illustrate a link-based webometric approach to characterize the online mentions to scientific software across different analytical frameworks. To do this, the bibliometric software VOSviewer is used as a case study. Considering VOSviewer’s official website as a baseline, online mentions to this website were counted in three different analytical frameworks: academic literature via Google Scholar (988 mentioning publications), webpages via Majestic (1,330 mentioning websites), and tweets via Twitter (267 mentioning tweets). Google scholar mentions shows how VOSviewer is used as a research resource, whilst mentions in webpages and tweets show the interest on VOSviewer’s website from an informational and a conversational point of view. Results evidence that URL mentions can be used to gather all sorts of online impacts related to non-traditional research objects, like software, thus expanding the analytical scientometric toolset by incorporating a novel digital dimension.
... Librarians are already engaging in the altmetrics conversation, outlining opportunities for engagement and issues to address (such as citation standardization), as well as situating altmetrics in well established fields of information science. 9,19,24,27 Many academic libraries stand to benefit from engaging with facets of altmetrics, either as a vehicle through which to survey faculty behaviors and needs, or as a way to connect well established library services and expertise to emerging academic needs and practices. ...
Article
Many people involved in the scholarly communications process – from academics, students, and researchers, to publishers, librarians, and learners – are participating in a dynamic digital context now more than ever; moreover, digital acts of communication and dissemination of scholarship leave traces of impact that can now be culled and quantified. Altmetrics, metrics based on the social web, provide an opportunity both to more acutely measure the propagation of this communication and to reconsider how we measure research impact in general. While the use of social media and analytics and the structure of tenure and promotion practices are not consistent across or even within disciplines, the practices and experimentation of early adopters, from researchers and institutions to industry, yield stories, lessons learned, and practices worth investigating. Researchers and academic librarians both face new opportunities to engage and support the use of altmetrics tools and methods and to re-examine how scholarship is defined, collected, preserved, used, and discussed. This report summarizes the major trends, opportunities and challenges of altmetrics to both researchers and academic research libraries and outlines ways in which research libraries can participate in shaping this emergent field. Also featured in this article is a micro-case study featuring a partnership between the University of Pittsburgh and Plum Analytics that illustrates how libraries can begin to map out their role on campus in this arena.
... Scientific impact Interest in new scientific impact metrics has grown in recent years, catalysed by government funding providers' increasing interest in scientific outputs beyond the scientific paper and subsequent citations (e.g. supporting datasets, software and subsequent social media activity (Piwowar, 2013), societal impact of scientific work (REF 2014(REF , 2011Lane and Bertuzzi, 2010)). Metrics aiming to quantify these alternative outputs via online activities ('altmetrics') are increasingly recognised tools (Warren et al., 2017), exhibiting specific strengths and weaknesses (Ortega, 2018) for measuring specific outputs. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
The impact made by a scientific paper on the work of other academics has many established metrics, including metrics based on citation counts and social media commenting. However, determination of the impact of a scientific paper on the wider society is less well established. For example, is it important for scientific work to be newsworthy? Here we present a new corpus of newspaper articles linked to the scientific papers that they describe. We find that Impact Case studies submitted to the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 that refer to scientific papers mentioned in newspaper articles were awarded a higher score in the REF assessment. The papers associated with these case studies also feature prominently in the newspaper articles. We hypothesise that such prominence can be a useful proxy for societal impact. We therefore provide a novel baseline approach for measuring the prominence of scientific papers mentioned within news articles. Our measurement of prominence is based on semantic similarity through a graph-based ranking algorithm. We find that scientific papers with an associated REF case study are more likely to have a stronger prominence score. This supports our hypothesis that linguistic prominence in news can be used to suggest the wider non-academic impact of scientific work.
... The Altmetric score is a web-driven metric that captures coverage and mentions on web-based media, including news, blogs, social media, and policy documents (Costas, Zahedi & Wouters, 2015). It is regarded as a complementary metric to citations, as it can capture attention from a more diverse readership (Piwowar, 2013;Bornmann, 2014 promoting biodiversity conservation and interacting with the general public through these channels (Parsons et al., 2014). In addition, there is a greater chance that a press release will be created by authors and their institutes for a cover story and sent to respective media outlets. ...
Article
Full-text available
• Freshwater ecosystems have a higher percentage of threatened and extinct species than terrestrial or marine realms, but remain under-represented in conservation research and actions arguably as a consequence of less popularity and promotion. • Cover images of conservation journals were used as a proxy of exposure and potential promotion opportunities provided for different ecosystems and species. To examine whether articles related to cover images received more attention, citations and Altmetric scores of cover-featured articles were compared with non-featured ones within the same host journal issue. • Freshwater ecosystems (10.4%) were featured less often than marine (15.2%) or terrestrial (74.4%) ecosystems on covers of 18 conservation journals from 1997 to 2016. All 15 most featured species are from terrestrial or marine ecosystems. • In addition, cover-featured studies showed higher citations and Altmetric scores than non-featured ones within the same host journal issue, indicating that cover-featured articles received more attention. Further investigations are needed to examine the relationship (i.e. whether there is a true causality) between being featured on the cover, and citations and Altmetric scores received by articles, as well as potentially resulting in greater conservation efforts. Nevertheless, we believe that providing exposure opportunities is likely to better inform the public about the continuing degradation of freshwater ecosystems and its impacts on human well-being, including economic loss and danger to public health. Journal editors can contribute by balancing their selection of featured ecosystems and species when opportunities arise. • Increasing exposure opportunities for freshwater ecosystems through various channels seems a promising approach to raise public awareness and appreciation of freshwater biodiversity. Scientists can play an active role and form an alliance with journal editors, conservation organizations, and media, to increase momentum in society for fresh waters to be experienced as essential ecosystems and prevent further degradation of freshwater habitats and biodiversity loss.
... CODECHECK however harbours the same limitations as peer review in general and is closely connected to larger disruptions and challenges in scholarly communication 7,107,108 , including the tensions between commercial publishing and reviewers' often free labour, and a global pandemic that has jumbled up academic publishing and exposed a broader general audience to preprints 109 . Establishing CODECHECK workflows must be seen as interconnected with much larger issues in research, such as broken metrics or malpractice triggered by publication pressure 110,111 . We certainly do not want the binary attribute of "code works" to become a factor in bibliometric approaches for performance assessments. ...
Article
Full-text available
The traditional scientific paper falls short of effectively communicating computational research. To help improve this situation, we propose a system by which the computational workflows underlying research articles are checked. The CODECHECK system uses open infrastructure and tools and can be integrated into review and publication processes in multiple ways. We describe these integrations along multiple dimensions (importance, who, openness, when). In collaboration with academic publishers and conferences, we demonstrate CODECHECK with 25 reproductions of diverse scientific publications. These CODECHECKs show that asking for reproducible workflows during a collaborative review can effectively improve executability. While CODECHECK has clear limitations, it may represent a building block in Open Science and publishing ecosystems for improving the reproducibility, appreciation, and, potentially, the quality of non-textual research artefacts. The CODECHECK website can be accessed here: https://codecheck.org.uk/.
... Different metrics such as usage, capture, mention and bookmarking are included in Altmetric indicators (Haustein, 2016), "so the impact can be evaluated quantitatively and even be predicted just after an article is published" (Batooli et al., 2021). Altmetrics measures the impact of research beyond citations in scholarly publications and is regarded as a valuable tool for determining the societal impact of research (Piwowar, 2013;Hammarfelt, 2014;Haustein et al., 2014). Altmetrics proponents point to a variety of factors that need the invention of new metrics. ...
Article
Purpose – The study aims to analyse the “Top 100” articles that were most discussed on social media in 2020. Design/methodology/approach – This study is based on the data retrieved from the Altmetric database. The data were tabulated in Microsoft Excel for further analysis. Moreover, articles were examined at an individual level to retrieve author affiliations for research collaboration analysis. Findings – The most discussed article on social media for the year 2020 has an Article Attention Score (AAS) of 34775. COVID-19 related studies have dominated the list and it comes as no surprise since COVID-19 became the focal point of many researchers and publishers ever since the pandemic started. These articles have been published across 63 journals with the highest contributions from reputed journals such as Nature, PLoS ONE and Science. The majority (46%) of articles has been published in open access. Finally, the majority of publications are a result of research collaboration. Originality/value – This study reflects the societal impact of research that could be used as an indicator of research performance
... We think that it is a problem that philosophy is isolated, regardless of whether there are other disciplines with the same problem. 2013; Piwowar, 2013). One study that analyzes the significance of the public dimension of faculty work based on 864 RPT documents, concludes that these documents "signal that faculty should focus on uptake within their specific academic fields" and that since "faculty careers are more closely scrutinized through metrics that seek to reflect research use and value within academia […], the ability for faculty to dedicate time and energy into activities that more directly serve the public good are not incentivized" (Alperin et al., 2019, p. 17). ...
Article
Full-text available
Various authors have recently expressed doubts about the public relevance of philosophy. These doubts target both academic philosophy in general and particular subfields of philosophy. This paper investigates whether these doubts are justified through two tests in which the lack of public relevance of a philosophical paper is operationalized as the degree to which that paper is isolated. Both tests suggest that academic philosophy in general is more isolated from the broader public than it should be, and confirm the hypothesis that some subfields of philosophy are more isolated than others. We argue that this lack of public relevance is caused by the incentive structure of academic philosophy and discuss a range of individual-level and incentive-level solutions.
... According to Bornmann 7 , Altmetric is considered a hot topic in scientometrics because funding agencies and policymakers want to measure the broader impact of research, particularly public engagement with research (Piwowar, 2013). However, existing studies have been analyzed and it has been found that there are subsequent coverage differences across different altmetric events for scientific literature. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Since the inception of social media, entire human society has dramatically changed. Nowadays, social media has become an essential component of human society. Researchers or academicians are no exceptions. Social media has opened up new possibilities for researchers and academicians to evaluate scientific research based on social media data. In this response, altmetric is introduced as an emerging research area in scientometrics, where social media data is applied as source data for the evaluation of scientific research. The sufficient presence of altmetric data across scholarly publications is a prerequisite for developing new metrics in practice. This article aimed to investigate the presence of altmetric data in Indian scholarly publications compared to the world data. It has also explored the relationship among altmetric events (individual or aggregated) with citation scores. The result indicates that around 32.70% of Indian EPS articles are covered in social media, while 35.75% of research articles present at least one altmetric event for world data. The presence of altmetric events is still meager, except for Mendeley. A strong positive correlation is observed between citations and readership in Mendeley
... However, altmetrics data aggregators do not "rank" online users that have mentioned a scholarly study, it just provides counts of mentions, views, or interactions. Further development of the uses of altmetrics is well-documented (Bornmann, 2014;CWTS, 2017;Holmberg, 2016;Liu & Adie, 2013;Piwowar, 2013;Priem et al., 2010;Robinson-García et al., 2014;Thelwall, Haustein, Larivière, Sugimoto, & Bornmann, 2013) with perhaps the most clear example being the possibility of it as a method for introducing Web mentions into researchers' biographies (see Aaltojarvi, Arminen, Auranen, & Pasanen, 2008). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Altmetrics are tools for measuring the impact of research beyond scientific communities. In general, they measure online mentions of scholarly outputs, such as on online social networks, blogs, and news sites. Some stakeholders in higher education have championed altmetrics as a new way to understand research impact and as an alternative or supplement to bibliometrics. Contrastingly, others have criticized altmetrics for being ill conceived and limited in their use. This chapter explores the values and limits of altmetrics, including their role in evaluating, promoting, and disseminating research.
... Yet, steps have been made to incorporate such scores into evaluation mechanisms (e.g. grant panels, tenure and promotion committees, award panels), how we value research outputs (Piwowar, 2013) and even the U.S. National Science Foundation has moved to 'value all research products', which includes altmetrics. This is not to say that your Twitter following, for example, should be part of your promotion package. ...
Article
Full-text available
The institutional review of interdisciplinary bodies of research lacks methods to systematically produce higher-level abstractions. Abstraction methods, like the “distant reading” of corpora, are increasingly important for knowledge discovery in the sciences and humanities. We demonstrate how abstraction methods complement the metrics on which research reviews currently rely. We model cross-disciplinary topics of research publications and projects emerging at multiple levels of detail in the context of an institutional review of the Earth Research Institute (ERI) at the University of California at Santa Barbara. From these, we design science maps that reveal the latent thematic structure of ERI's interdisciplinary research and enable reviewers to “read” a body of research at multiple levels of detail. We find that our approach provides decision support and reveals trends that strengthen the institutional review process by exposing regions of thematic expertise, distributions and clusters of work, and the evolution of these aspects.
Article
Many indicators derived from the web have been proposed to supplement citation-based indicators in support of research assessments. These indicators, often called altmetrics, are available commercially from Altmetric.com and Elsevier’s Plum Analytics or can be collected directly. These organisations can also deliver altmetrics to support institutional self-evaluations. The potential advantages of altmetrics for research evaluation are that they may reflect important non-academic impacts and may appear before citations when an article is published, thus providing earlier impact evidence. Their disadvantages often include susceptibility to gaming, data sparsity, and difficulties translating the evidence into specific types of impact. Despite these limitations, altmetrics have been widely adopted by publishers, apparently to give authors, editors and readers insights into the level of interest in recently published articles. This article summarises evidence for and against extending the adoption of altmetrics to research evaluations. It argues that whilst systematically-gathered altmetrics are inappropriate for important formal research evaluations, they can play a role in some other contexts. They can be informative when evaluating research units that rarely produce journal articles, when seeking to identify evidence of novel types of impact during institutional or other self-evaluations, and when selected by individuals or groups to support narrative-based non-academic claims. In addition, Mendeley reader counts are uniquely valuable as early (mainly) scholarly impact indicators to replace citations when gaming is not possible and early impact evidence is needed. Organisations using alternative indicators need recruit or develop in-house expertise to ensure that they are not misused, however. Policy highlights Altmetrics, or alternative indicators for research outputs, have been proposed as a partial solution to two research management problems: (a) assessing the societal impacts of research, and (b) obtaining early impact evidence. This article reviews the evidence and finds limited support for (a) but strong support for (b). Organisations will need to assess whether the value provided by alternative indicators in terms of helping to provide data so support research assessments is sufficient for their financial and time costs. Those using alternative indicators will deed to develop in-house expertise so that they can be used responsibly and interpreted effectively.
Article
Full-text available
ABSTRACT: The race to publish results during the outbreak of the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has highlighted the relevance of sharing data and research results more quickly and openly than the current scientific communication system, as well as the role of social media in this context. This paper aims to analyze the impact of open access on the production and dissemination of knowledge about COVID-19 in traditional scientific communication and on the social web. We analyzed 6,631 papers and reviews of PubMed and Scopus databases, published between January and April 2020, through bibliometric and altmetric indicators. The results showed that the volume of scientific open access publications related to COVID-19 increased by an average monthly rate of 166% in the period analyzed. The countries with the highest number of publications are those that had the most registered cases of COVID-19. In general, the scientific open access publications had greater attention from social media and more intense cooperation networks than compared to non-open access publications. The combination of bibliometric and altmetric indicators allowed us not only to characterize the evolution and diffusion of scientific production on COVID-19 but also to understand the relationship between the pandemic caused by the new coronavirus and the interaction of society around research products. Our findings reinforce the importance of open access practices to create and strengthen research collaboration networks and to stimulate publications on emerging themes of global interest.
Article
In the second half of the nineteenth century, the development of bibliographic tools increased: journals, catalogs, and classifications, which helped shape a world scientific order and the global colonialism that legitimized the canon of European science. Under this idea, the scientific production of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) registered in the Catalog of Scientific Papers of the Royal Society of London (CSP-RSL), during the nineteenth century, is reviewed. It seeks to document, through bibliographical sources, the historical process used to expand the European imperial science in America. A geohistoriometric proposal was used to develop geographic indicators of origin, trajectories, and training of the authors who wrote the LAC science. We also cross the information of these indicators of spatialization of human resources with historical scientometric measures of the scientific output of authors, languages, and journals. There is a proportion of just over two-thirds of authors, institutions, languages, and journals that are external to the countries of the LAC region. These geographic and scientometric indicators serve to document that both human and non-human actors have functioned as mechanisms of scientific communication to reproduce the ways of expanding imperial science to America. As a suggestion, we propose to continue the development of historical atlas of science in LAC.
Article
Full-text available
Assigning authorship and recognizing contributions to scholarly works is challenging on many levels. Here we discuss ethical, social, and technical challenges to the concept of authorship that may impede the recognition of contributions to a scholarly work. Recent work in the field of authorship shows that shifting to a more inclusive contributorship approach may address these challenges. Recent efforts to enable better recognition of contributions to scholarship include the development of the Contributor Role Ontology (CRO), which extends the CRediT taxonomy and can be used in information systems for structuring contributions. We also introduce the Contributor Attribution Model (CAM), which provides a simple data model that relates the contributor to research objects via the role that they played, as well as the provenance of the information. Finally, requirements for the adoption of a contributorship-based approach are discussed.
Article
Reproducible research is often perceived as a technological challenge, but it is rooted in the challenge to improve scholarly communication in an age of digitization. When computers become involved and researchers want to allow other scientists to inspect, understand, evaluate, and build on their work, they need to create a research compendium that includes the code, data, computing environment, and script-based workflows used. Here, we present the state of the art for approaches to reach this degree of computational reproducibility, addressing literate programming and containerization while paying attention to working with geospatial data (digital maps, geographic information systems). We argue that all researchers working with computers should understand these technologies to control their computing environment, and we present the benefits of reproducible workflows in practice. Example research compendia illustrate the presented concepts and are the basis for challenges specific to geography and geosciences. Based on existing surveys and best practices from different scientific domains, we conclude that researchers today can overcome many barriers and achieve a very high degree of reproducibility. If the geography and geosciences communities adopt reproducibility and the underlying technologies in practice and in policies, they can transform the way researchers conduct and communicate their work toward increased transparency, understandability, openness, trust, productivity, and innovation.
Article
Full-text available
Nature and Science are two major multidisciplinary journals, well-known among the general public and highly-cited by scholarly communities. This article presents Google Trends, a web service providing detailed information on the Google search behavior of Internet users from all countries during the period 2004–2019 and illustrates the preference between Nature and Science. The research shows a general decrease of the demand for both journals and reveals a substantial growth in demand for Nature in some geographic regions and a decline of the interest to Science in many regions. We also found a better affinity to Nature by the general audience and a better affinity to Science in former USSR scholarly allies. This situation is explained on one hand by the editorial policy of the two journals and on the other hand by the influence of the cold war and its aftermath on worldwide scientific societies and the ongoing interest in research areas in different geographic regions.
Article
Background Altmetrics (alternative metrics) has become one of the most commonly used metrics to track the impact of research articles across electronic and social media platforms. Objective The goal of this study is to identify whether the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a good proxy for citation counts and whether it can be used as an accurate measure to complement the current gold standard. Methods We conducted a citation analysis of all articles published in six plastic surgery journals during the 2016 calendar year. Citation counts and AAS were abstracted and analyzed. Results We identified a total of 1,420 articles. The mean AAS was 11 while the median AAS was 1. The journal with the highest mean AAS was Aesthetic Surgery Journal (31), followed by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (19). A weak positive correlation was identified (r=0.33, p<0.0001) between AAS and citations. Articles in the top 1% in terms of citation counts showed strong positive correlation between AAS and citation counts (r=0.64, p=0.01). On the contrary, articles in the top 1% of AAS had no significant correlation with citation counts (r=-0.31, p=0.29). Conclusion Overall correlation between citations and AAS was weak, and therefor AAS may not be an accurate early predictor of future citations. The two metrics seem to measure different aspects of the impact of scholarly work and should be used in tandem for determining the reach of a scientific article.
Article
Many institutions and governments grade academic journals for the evaluation of research. In this paper, we implement a multi‐bibliometric methodology for the evaluation of such a list of journal grades. We examine the grades assigned by the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC ) for over 750 journals in the fields of economics and statistics. Firstly, we generate up to 48 bibliometric‐based grades for each journal based on the grade distribution implied by the ABDC . Secondly, we categorize the bibliometrics employing a cluster analysis of an interrater agreement statistic. Thirdly, we present a visualization of the consistency of the grading by journal. Finally, we list those journals where the majority of the matched bibliometrics indicate a higher or lower grade than their ABDC grade.
Article
Abstract: This article investigates science dissemination practices on the Internet across the disciplinary spectrum and maps out the mono-/multilingual uptake of those practices. Results show that the production of traditional genres for expert-to-expert communication is mainly English-only, coerced by research policies and ‘genre regimes’ privileging publications in ISI-indexed journals, the majority of them English medium. New digital genres and generic innovations have little impact on the researchers' communication practices and are only associated with some discipline and language groupings. When it comes to communicating science to lay audiences, multilingual practices and the deployment of some digital genres, modes and media become prevalent. This is a Share Link providing 50 days' free access to this article until April 25, 2021. https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1chgNzlIu5tpX
Article
Data sharing anchors reproducible science, but expectations and best practices are often nebulous. Communities of funders, researchers and publishers continue to grapple with what should be required or encouraged. To illuminate the rationales for sharing data, the technical challenges and the social and cultural challenges, we consider the stakeholders in the scientific enterprise. In biomedical research, participants are key among those stakeholders. Ethical sharing requires considering both the value of research efforts and the privacy costs for participants. We discuss current best practices for various types of genomic data, as well as opportunities to promote ethical data sharing that accelerates science by aligning incentives.
Thesis
Full-text available
Bilimsel iletişimde akademisyenlerin görünürlük ve etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesi söz konusu olduğunda, mevcut değerlendirme ölçütlerine (geleneksel metrikler) günümüzde alternatif olarak ortaya çıkan ve sosyal etkinin boyutlarının ölçülmesini sağlayan altmetri (yeni nesil metrikler) alanı eşlik etmeye başlamıştır. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın konusunu, altmetri alanı ile altmetrik göstergeleri kullanan, bilimsel iletişime yeni bir boyut kazandıran akademik sosyal ağlar oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, altmetri ve altmetrik göstergeler açıklanmış, geleneksel metrikler ile altmetri ilişkisinin ortaya çıkarılması için bu göstergelerin karşılaştırılması yapılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda, Akademik Sosyal Ağ (ASA)'ların incelendiği çalışmada, bu ağların özellikleri ve yararları betimlenerek Ankara Üniversitesi (AÜ) akademisyenlerinin ASA kullanım düzeyleri, hangi ASA'ları kullanmakta oldukları ve bu ağları hangi amaçlar için kullandıkları gibi durumların tespit edilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Bu amaçlar doğrultusunda; araştırmada ilk olarak AÜ akademisyenlerinin ASA'ları kullanma düzeylerini belirlemek ve bu konuda farkındalık yaratmak için anket tekniğinden yararlanılmıştır. Anket uygulamasında; araştırma evrenini 3.164 akademisyen oluşturmaktadır. Asgari örneklem büyüklüğü ise 362 katılımcı olarak hesaplanmıştır. Anketi 560 akademisyen yanıtlamış olup bu örneklem büyüklüğünün araştırmanın evrenini oldukça yüksek düzeyde temsil ettiği ifade edilebilir. Uygulanan ankete ek olarak akademisyenlerin, ASA'lardan biri olan ResearchGate'i (RG) kullanım durumları ve platformun sunduğu hizmetleri kullanma oranları incelenmiştir. Son olarak RG atıf göstergesi ile altmetrik göstergelerinin korelasyon analizleri ve Scopus veri tabanından AÜ dokümanlarına ilişkin elde edilen atıflar ile altmetrik göstergeler arasında çeşitli korelasyon çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Uygulanan anket sonucunda AÜ akademisyenlerinin ASA'lara ilişkin tespit edilen tutumları aşağıda sunulmuştur: • AÜ akademisyenlerinin büyük çoğunluğunun ASA'ları kullandığı ve sırasıyla Google Scholar, RG ve Academia.edu ASA'larının en fazla oranda kullanıldığı tespit edilmiştir. • Akademisyenlerin ASA'ları en çok "Alanlarıyla ilgili yayınları takip etmek, Alanla ilgili yenilikleri takip etmek ve Akademik çalışmaları paylaşmak" amaçları için kullandıkları görülmektedir. • AÜ akademisyenleri altmetrik göstergelerden okunma sayısı ve indirilme sayılarını önemli olarak gördüklerini belirtmektedirler. Ancak geleneksel göstergelerden atıf sayıları akademisyenler için önem derecesi en yüksek gösterge olarak tespit edilmiştir. • Akademisyenlerin ASA'ları kullanmama nedenlerinin başında ise sırasıyla "ASA'lar hakkında bilgim yok ve ASA'ları kullanmam için bir zorunluluk bulunmuyor" nedenleri gelmektedir. • Akademisyenlerin ASA kullanım tercihleri unvanları bakımından büyük ölçüde benzerlik göstermektedir. ASA kullanımlarında yaşlara göre anlamlı fark bulunurken unvanlara göre bulunmamaktadır. • Akademisyenlerin ASA'ları kullanım durumlarının fakültelerine göre anlamlı düzeyde farklılaştığı tespit edilmiştir. ASA'ların kullanımına ilişkin ortaya çıkarılan bu sonuçlar ile "Görünürlük ve etkinin arttırılması ve değerlendirilmesinde ASA'lar incelendiğinde, AÜ akademisyenleri, çalışma alanlarına (sosyal ve beşeri bilimler, temel bilimler vb. alanlarda) göre ASA'ların kullanımı konusunda farklı davranışlara sahiptirler." şeklinde belirlenen temel hipotezlerden biri doğrulanmıştır. RG platformunda gerçekleştirilen analizlerde; sayısal/pozitif bilimler araştırmacılarının (Tıp, Mühendislik, Fen ve Veteriner Fakülteleri ve diğerleri) RG'de AÜ'yü daha fazla temsil ettiği ve AÜ üyelerinin %40'ının RG'yi aktif olarak kullanmadığı, sadece profil oluşturduğu ortaya çıkarılmıştır. RG göstergeleri üzerinden gerçekleştirilen korelasyon analizleri sonuçlarına göre atıf sayısı ile okunma sayısı (r = 0,482, p<0,01), Toplam Araştırma İlgi puanı (r = 0,950, p<0,01), takipçi sayısı (r = 0,371, p<0,01), yüklenen doküman sayısı (r = 0,492, p<0,01) ve RG Puanı (r = 0,438, p<0,01) arasında olumlu yönde anlamlı korelasyon olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Scopus göstergeleri (Scopus atıfları ve PlumX metrikleri) üzerinden yapılan korelasyon analizi sonuçlarına göre, atıf sayısı ile Mendeley okuyucu sayısı (rho = 0,609, p<0,01), tam metin görüntülenme sayısı (rho = 0,090, p<0,01) ve Tweet sayısı (rho = 0,262, p<0,01) arasında olumlu yönde anlamlı korelasyon olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Böylelikle her iki platformda da atıf göstergesi ile altmetrik göstergeler arasında olumlu ve anlamlı ilişkiler olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda, "ASA'lar ve diğer iletişim ortamlarının gelişmesiyle beraber, bilimsel iletişimde akademisyenlerin ve bilimsel çıktılarının görünürlüğünün ve etkisinin belirlenmesinde altmetri olarak adlandırılan ve sosyal etkiyi ölçen araç ve yöntemler geleneksel metrikleri tamamlayıcı bir nitelik taşımaktadır." şeklinde oluşturulan araştırmanın temel hipotezlerinden ikincisi de doğrulanmıştır. İlgili literatür ve elde edilen bulgulara dayalı olarak, çalışma kapsamında ulusal araştırma ağını tek bir platformda oluşturmaya ve geliştirmeye yönelik TR Dizin Ulusal Araştırma Çevresi Modeli (TR Akademi) tasarlanmıştır. Tasarlanan modelde ULAKBİM tarafından oluşturulan TR Dizin'in altmetrik verileri sistemine entegre etmesi ve ASA özelliklerini barındırması yönünde çeşitli öneriler sunulmaktadır.
Article
In this paper, we study the consistency of impact of preprints and their journal versions, with the impact being measured using altmetrics and bibliometric indicators. We found that, compared with preprints that have not been published in journals, preprints subsequently published in journals performed better in altmetrics statistically, which accords with the peer review system. There was a positive correlation between the altmetrics performance of preprints and the journal impact factor when the preprint had been published in a journal. We also found a positive correlation between the performance of preprints and their corresponding journal papers, which confirms the consistency in academic community evaluation (peer review and citation) and general public attention (measured by altmetrics indicators). The impact of research is driven by its value, which could be distinguished by both the general public and the academic community. Research evaluation refers to the evaluation of individual research instead of where it is published.
Article
Full-text available
This study analyses international student mobility (ISM) in Europe since the 1999 Bologna Declaration. International mobility of higher education students is both a driver and a consequence of the Bologna Process and emerges as a relevant issue in a wide range of research areas. This literature review develops a qualitative content analysis of the set of high-performance articles published between 2000 and 2018 and identified through a wide range of bibliometric tools: direct (first generation) citation counts; indirect or accumulated impact; early influence; adjusted impact with respect to year of publication, type of document, and discipline; and alternative metrics that measure interactions in the internet and social media. The content analysis focuses on the pending achievements and main challenges to ISM, among them: attracting non-European students to whole degree programs, the need for actual and further convergence in programs and systems to ensure real compatibility, the impact of HE ISM on the promotion of the European citizenship and consciousness, the sharp imbalance between credit and degree mobility, the need to strengthen the link between ISM and employability, the existing social selectivity in European ISM, the frequent social segregation problems faced by international students.
Article
In the field of bioinformatics, a large number of classical software becomes a necessary research tool. To measure the influence of scientific software as one kind of important intellectual products, a few strategies have been proposed to identify the software names from full texts of papers to collect the usage data of packages in bioinformatics research. However, the performance of these strategies is limited because of the highly imbalance of data in the full texts. This study proposes EnsembleSVMs-CRF, a two-step refinement strategy based on ensemble learning that gradually increases the sentences that contain software mentions to improve the performance of named entity recognition. The experiment on the bioinformatics corpus shows that the performance of EnsembleSVMs-CRF, in terms of the local F1 (78.81%) and the global F1-A (73.49%), is superior to the rule-based bootstrapping method and direct CRF. Application of this strategy to the articles published between 2013 and 2017 in 27 bioinformatics journals extracted 8,239 unique packages. The most popular 50 packages thus identified demonstrate that most of them are professional software which generally requires inter-discipline knowledge, rather than programming skill. Meanwhile, we found that researchers in bioinformatics tend to use free scientific software, and the application of general software is increasing compared with professional software.
Article
BJA Open is a new open access journal to complement British Journal of Anaesthesia. This editorial describes the rationale for the journal and the breadth of content it is seeking to attract. As with other BJA titles, BJA Open conforms to the highest standards of editorial and publication practice, and it aims to provide sector-leading author experience combined with reliable peer-reviewed content for the reader.
Article
Full-text available
Objetivo: Buscando explorar o potencial da altmetria e considerando que poucos estudos abordam o impacto alternativo da produção científica da América Latina, o objetivo deste trabalho é qualificar a atenção online recebida por periódicos e artigos latino-americanos. Metodologia: A partir de uma abordagem analítico-descritiva, são analisados, via Altmetric.com, os dados altmétricos de 1211 periódicos e 18.737 artigos da Rede SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online) em termos de fontes da menção, área de conhecimento, país e idioma. Conclusões: A penetração da altmetria na América Latina é caracterizada por 58% dos periódicos e por 13% dos artigos. As menções predominam em periódicos de Ciências da Saúde e Biológicas e em artigos publicados em inglês, sendo o Twitter o destaque dentre as fontes de menção. Com base em indicadores de inserção, penetração e internacionalização, foi possível identificar grupos de países com perfis diferenciados.
Article
Focusing on the dataset dissemination structure on Twitter, this study aims to investigate how users of two different identities, scholars and the public, participate in the dissemination process. We collected 2464 datasets from Altmetric.com and used social network analysis to plot the graphs. From a macroscopic viewpoint, most datasets were diffused by viral dissemination (structure II) and mixed dissemination (structure III), and the diffusion level was fundamentally one or two levels. Based on the topics clustering results of the datasets, the majority were about open access, research data, and Altmetrics, as well as astronomy, biology, medicine, and environmental engineering. The dataset dissemination structure shared a little relationship with the research topic. From the microscopic viewpoint of parent nodes and child nodes, during the dataset dissemination, there were only marginally more Twitter users with scholar status than non-scholar ones, suggesting that compared with traditional academic accomplishments such as journal papers. However, the dataset seems to be more professional and targeted; significant audience beyond academics are also involved. During disseminating datasets on Twitter, most tended to be diffused among users of the same identity. However, a few non-scholars played crucial roles, such as super users and intermediaries. Overall, a considerable part of tweets and tweets of parent nodes with the ability to spread is primarily the tweets commented simultaneously forwarded (type II) are posted at the same time commented. Hence, this study underlines the significance of research data-sharing and social media's role in public participation in science.
Chapter
Social-media use has not only become central in our daily lives but is also now a vital part of the practice of medicine. This trend reflects both the growing public consumption of all things digital including linkage to the Internet along with the slow demise of analog, physical, and stand-alone consumption products such as compact discs and the newspaper. The power to share and discover information anytime and anywhere whether at home, on the plane, or while shopping has led to innovative and new uses that the connectivity of the Internet brings to the health-care profession. Understanding social-media use in medicine, including both its benefits and risks, is key to improving access, education, and service delivery while minimizing the risk of boundary violations and privacy breaches.
Article
Full-text available
Despite the calls for change, there is significant consensus that when it comes to evaluating publications, review, promotion, and tenure processes should aim to reward research that is of high "quality," is published in "prestigious" journals, and has an "impact." Nevertheless, such terms are highly subjective and present challenges to ascertain precisely what such research looks like. Accordingly, this article responds to the question: how do faculty from universities in the United States and Canada define the terms quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals? We address this question by surveying 338 faculty members from 55 different institutions in the U.S. and Canada. While relying on self-reported definitions that are not linked to their behavior, this study’s findings highlight that faculty often describe these distinct terms in overlapping ways. Additionally, results show that marked variance in definitions across faculty does not correspond to demographic characteristics. This study’s results highlight the subjectivity of common research terms and the importance of implementing evaluation regimes that do not rely on ill-defined concepts and may be context specific.
Article
Purpose Altmetric carries the potential of highlighting scholarly content by measuring online interactions much before other forms of traditional metrics grow up. The aim of this paper is to be the single point of access for librarians, scientists, information specialists, researchers and other scholars in public to learn to embed the open-source embeddable badge provided by Altmetric in their websites and showcase their article altmetrics. Libraries can take advantage of this free and innovative tool by incorporating it in their own websites or digital repositories. Design/methodology/approach This paper elucidates steps for embedding altimetric institutional repository badges in personal websites or institutional repositories. Findings This open-source Altmetric tool tracks a range of sources to catch and collect the scholarly activity and assists in monitoring and reporting the attention surrounding an author’s work in a very timely manner. Originality/value This tool is freely available to libraries worldwide.
Preprint
Full-text available
Despite the calls for change, there is significant consensus that when it comes to evaluating publications, review, promotion, and tenure processes should aim to reward research that is of high “quality,” has an “impact,” and is published in “prestigious” journals. Nevertheless, such terms are highly subjective and present challenges to ascertain precisely what such research looks like. Accordingly, this article responds to the question: how do faculty from universities in the United States and Canada define the terms quality, prestige, and impact? We address this question by surveying 338 faculty members from 55 different institutions. This study’s findings highlight that, despite their highly varied definitions, faculty often describe these terms in overlapping ways. Additionally, results shown that marked variance in definitions across faculty does not correspond to demographic characteristics. This study’s results highlight the need to more clearly implement evaluation regimes that do not rely on ill-defined concepts. Financial Disclosure Funding for this project was provided to JPA, MTN, ECM, and LAS from the OpenSociety Foundations (OR2017-39637). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Related Materials Other publications related to this project, including a series of infographics summarizing findings, can be found at: https://www.scholcommlab.ca/research/rpt-project/ Survey responses can be found at the following publication: Niles, Meredith T.; Schimanski, Lesley A.; McKiernan, Erin C.; Alperin, Juan Pablo,2020, “Data for: Why we publish where we do”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MRLHNO , Harvard Dataverse, V1 Data regarding RPT documents can be found at the following data publication: Alperin, Juan Pablo; Muñoz Nieves, Carol; Schimanski, Lesley; McKiernan, Erin C.;Niles, Meredith T., 2018, “Terms and Concepts found in Tenure and Promotion Guidelines from the US and Canada”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VY4TJE , Harvard Dataverse , V3, UNF:6:PQC7QoilolhDrokzDPxxyQ== [fileUNF]
Article
Full-text available
Responding to calls to take a more active role in communicating their research findings, scientists are increasingly using open online platforms, such as Twitter, to engage in science communication or to publicize their work. Given the ease at which misinformation spreads on these platforms it is important for scientists to present their findings in a manner that appears credible. To examine the extent to which the online presentation of science information relates to its perceived credibility, we designed and conducted two surveys on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. In the first survey, participants rated the credibility of science information on Twitter compared with the same information other media, and in the second, participants rated the credibility of tweets with modified characteristics: presence of an image, text sentiment, and the number of likes/retweets. We find that similar information about scientific findings is perceived as less credible when presented on Twitter compared to other platforms, and that perceived credibility increases when presented with recognizable features of a scientific article. On a platform as widely distrusted as Twitter, use of these features may allow researchers who regularly use Twitter for research-related networking and communication to present their findings in the most credible formats. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00151
Article
Full-text available
RESUMO Objetivo: Buscando explorar o potencial da altmetria e considerando que poucos estudos abordam o impacto alternativo da produção científica da América Latina, o objetivo deste trabalho é qualificar a atenção online recebida por periódicos e artigos latino-americanos. Metodologia: A partir de uma abordagem analítico-descritiva, são analisados, via Altmetric.com, os dados altmétricos de 1211 periódicos e 18.737 artigos da Rede SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online) em termos de fontes da menção, área de conhecimento, país e idioma. Conclusões: A penetração da altmetria na América Latina é caracterizada por 58% dos periódicos e por 13% dos artigos. As menções predominam em periódicos de Ciências da Saúde e Biológicas e em artigos publicados em inglês, sendo o Twitter o destaque dentre as fontes de menção. Com base em indicadores de inserção, penetração e internacionalização, foi possível identificar grupos de países com perfis diferenciados.
Article
Purpose This paper takes the current COVID-19 pandemic raging around the world as a realistic background and uses the informal scientific communication mode in social media as the theoretical basis. It aims to explore the characteristics and rules of scientific communication in social media under emergency events, grasp the potential and risks of scientific communication in social media in special times and provide a perspective of academic communication for the scientific response. Design/methodology/approach The authors select the enumeration data of the early COVID-19 theme papers spread on social media networks as the research object, apply descriptive statistical analysis to the basic statistical distribution of variables and use factor analysis and visualization methods to explore the law and characteristics of the spread of scientific papers on social media platforms. Findings It was found that users of the COVID-19 paper are mainly in North America, Europe and South America, followed by those in East Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania. The users are mainly public figures, doctors and other practitioners, science communicators and scientists. The process of social media communication reflects three ways of knowledge construction, social interaction and academic communication, and there are three ways of communication law and changing trend of cross transition and integration. Originality/value This study observes the function and role of science communication in social media in a special period from a unique perspective of academic communication, so as to promote academic means to fight against the epidemic.
Article
Purpose This paper aims to conduct an analysis of management research based on impact measures, with a focus on the accounting discipline and the environment theme. Using author and journal data as units of analysis, this study seek to determine the representation of environmental accounting researchers among the most cited accounting authors and the consideration given to environmental issues in the impact assessment of management journals. Design/methodology/approach This study collects and quantitatively analyzes the publications and citations of the 50 most cited accounting authors and run a principal component analysis on a collection of journal-centered indicators and rankings. Findings This study finds that – among the most cited accounting authors – environmental accounting researchers hold a relatively influential position although their research is mainly published in non-top-tier accounting journals. This study also documents that some environment-themed journals suffer from significant disadvantages in peer-reviewed journal rankings. Practical implications Environmental accounting researchers are likely to disseminate their research in other media than in top-tier journals. This may have an impact on the academic viability of this field. Social implications Despite their strong connection to societal issues, some research themes could become understudied if journal rankings are not able to consider publication outlets in a more comprehensive way. There is a strong need for a broader consideration of scientific production, particularly in relation to its overall societal impact. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time an empirical analysis, combining author and journal data and documenting such findings, has been presented for publication. This study means to provide some descriptive insights into where environmental accounting researchers and environment-themed journals stand.
Article
Objectives To identify research articles related to cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) that generated the highest online attention. Methods Altmetric Explorer was used to identify the 100 articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Descriptive and correlation statistics were performed to study the characteristics of these articles in relation to their publication data, research type and domain, number of Mendeley readers, and dimensions citations. Citation counts were extracted from Scopus and Google Scholar. Results The median AAS for the top 100 outputs was 22 (range from 12 to 458). The outputs were mostly discussed on Twitter (median = 8; range = 0-131). Topics discussing treatment and care for patients with CL/P accounted for 38% of the articles with the highest AAS followed by etiology and risk factors (32%). The majority of articles originated from the USA (46%) followed by Europe (16%) and the United Kingdom (15%). No significant differences were observed in AAS among different study designs, topic domains, journals’ ranking and impact factor, and the number of citations in Scopus and Google Scholar. Conclusions Researchers should consider use of social platforms to disseminate their work among scholars and nonscholars. Altmetrics can be combined with traditional metrics for a more comprehensive assessment of research impact.
Article
We propose a new metric called ‘alt-index’, which is analagous to the h-index, but uses altmetrics data to measure both the volume and social media activity of scientific literature. The dataset includes over 1.1 million papers and their associated altmetrics score. A correlation analysis of the h-index and alt-index is conducted at three different levels: field level, source (journal) level, and author level. Our results show a strong positive correlation between the two indexes across all levels. We conclude that the alt-index can be adopted to measure the social activity of publications in situations where there is agreement amongst various social media channels.
Article
Full-text available
Increasing public interest in science information in a digital and 2.0 science era promotes a dramatically, rapid and deep change in science itself. The emergence and expansion of new technologies and internet-based tools is leading to new means to improve scientific methodology and communication, assessment, promotion and certification. It allows methods of acquisition, manipulation and storage, generating vast quantities of data that can further facilitate the research process. It also improves access to scientific results through information sharing and discussion. Content previously restricted only to specialists is now available to a wider audience. This context requires new management systems to make scientific knowledge more accessible and useable, including new measures to evaluate the reach of scientific information. The new science and research quality measures are strongly related to the new online technologies and services based in social media. Tools such as blogs, social bookmarks and
Article
Full-text available
Scientific research in the 21st century is more data intensive and collaborative than in the past. It is important to study the data practices of researchers--data accessibility, discovery, re-use, preservation and, particularly, data sharing. Data sharing is a valuable part of the scientific method allowing for verification of results and extending research from prior results. A total of 1329 scientists participated in this survey exploring current data sharing practices and perceptions of the barriers and enablers of data sharing. Scientists do not make their data electronically available to others for various reasons, including insufficient time and lack of funding. Most respondents are satisfied with their current processes for the initial and short-term parts of the data or research lifecycle (collecting their research data; searching for, describing or cataloging, analyzing, and short-term storage of their data) but are not satisfied with long-term data preservation. Many organizations do not provide support to their researchers for data management both in the short- and long-term. If certain conditions are met (such as formal citation and sharing reprints) respondents agree they are willing to share their data. There are also significant differences and approaches in data management practices based on primary funding agency, subject discipline, age, work focus, and world region. Barriers to effective data sharing and preservation are deeply rooted in the practices and culture of the research process as well as the researchers themselves. New mandates for data management plans from NSF and other federal agencies and world-wide attention to the need to share and preserve data could lead to changes. Large scale programs, such as the NSF-sponsored DataNET (including projects like DataONE) will both bring attention and resources to the issue and make it easier for scientists to apply sound data management principles.
Article
Alexander Oettl presents evidence that scientists who share advice and expertise enhance their colleagues' productivity.
  • C Tenopir
Tenopir, C. et al. PLoS ONE 6, e21101 (2011).
  • S Fausto
Fausto, S. et al. PLoS ONE 7, e50109 (2012).
  • J Priem
  • K Costello
  • T Dzuba
  • Figshare
Priem, J., Costello, K. & Dzuba, T. Figshare http:// dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.104629 (2012).
  • H A Piwowar
  • T J Vision
  • M C Whitlock
Piwowar, H. A., Vision, T. J. & Whitlock, M. C. Nature 473, 285 (2011).
  • H A Piwowar
  • T J Vision
  • M C Whitlock
Piwowar, H. A., Vision, T. J. & Whitlock, M. C. Dryad Digital Repository http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/ dryad.j1fd7 (2011).
  • J Priem
  • K Costello
  • T Dzuba