No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Altmetrics: Value all research products
... The results showed that about 80% of the articles published in PLOS ONE Journals were read in Mendeley; while the citation rate for these articles on Wikipedia was only five percent. [29] In a study, Bar-Ilan and et al. reviewed articles published in JASIST journal on the Mendeley social network. The results showed that there is a statistically significant relationship between the number of times the articles were marked in Mendeley and the number of citations received by those articles in the WoS. ...
... Examine in what period of time or how often authors of each citation talks about an article. [29] Also, descriptive statistics including mean and frequency were used to analyze the data and Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Mann-Whitney tests were used for inferential statistics. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to ensure the normality of the data distribution, and since the data distribution in this study was abnormal, the non-parametric Mann-whitney test was used to compare the medians, which is the nonparametric equivalent of the independent t-test. ...
... Wikipedia was created in 2001 and is less popular among academics, but it is growing. [29] This may indicate that Wikipedia articles rely heavily on academic and scientific research evidence, or that researchers and academics do not trust the scientific use of this social network. ...
... Recently, a huge increase has been seen in the software that is freely available for academic use [12]. With increasing recognition of the value of data and such software packages [13,14], some academics have argued that software should also be considered as an academic contribution [15,16]. Since 2013, the National Science Foundation has recognized software as a valid research tool. ...
... Software was also listed as an academic contribution by the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework. However, several funding agencies, policymakers, and managers do not regard software as an effective research tool [16]. Chen (2006) used CiteSpace to analyze and summarize related works in the literature with the aim of providing a reference for scholars and engineers. ...
In machine vision–based image processing, machine vision products are used to convert the image of an object into image signals and then into digital signals for subsequent processing on a computer. Image processing is widely applicable in research fields such as biomedicine, remote sensing, industrial production, military production, and aerospace. This paper provides a detailed overview of the research status of image processing in the mining field and makes a comparative evaluation of some technologies and research directions. First, the application of image processing in the mining field is discussed in detail in the paper. Second, a literature review is conducted, using keywords and citation counts to determine the overall distribution of the published literature on this subject in terms of journals, countries, institutes, and authors. Finally, we analyze this topic in detail, put forward our ideas and what we learned from our analysis, and provide a summary. The analysis shows that image-processing technology is a hot research topic for future development. In addition, this paper proposes future research challenges and directions. The latest progress, development characteristics, and research prospects discussed in this paper will provide a useful reference for scholars who deeply study image processing in the field of mining.
... An overview of the citations as performance measures and their relation to research quality can be found in [19]. The most Academic impact metrics Citations count [12] Mean Normalised Citation Score (MNCS) [13] Hirsch's h-Index [14] JIF [15] Altmetrics / Social based metrics Altmetric [16] Impact Story [17] Semantic Scholar [18] simple and yet widely-used strategy is counting the citations and comparing them with the total number of citations that their peers received. Besides that, several other metrics have been propose to tackle specific shortcomings; For instance, the MNCS (Mean Normalised Citation Score) is a metric that can normalise across different scientific sub-fields, in order to overcome the differences in speed and frequency of citation accumulation across different fields of science [13]. ...
... Besides the academic metrics, a number of recent attempts suggest the use of alternative metrics (i.e., altmetrics), based on evidence from the social web. Altmetric uses publications online footprint (such as mentions, posts and shares in online social networks) to score their impact [16]. Impact Story provides a combined view of academics' citations and social media footprint in order to try to provide meaningful context around a person or institution's academic impact [17]. ...
The scientific impact and rankings of individual persons, institutions, or nations are very important for their international recognition and prestige. At the same time, they are also vital for the governments, businesses and trusts which must decide scientific priorities and funding. In this paper we show that the ranking of a country changes significantly when we take into consideration its scientific personnel that has migrated abroad (i.e., brain-drain). Given that immigrant scientists are considered recoverable assets who can always return home, we believe that governments, businesses and trusts should anticipate immigrant scholars when deciding their scientific priorities, optimizing their research allocations, re-orienting their research support, or augmenting research productivity.
... Similarly, few articles directly addressed the dissemination of rapid evidence products. As such, we describe and discuss typical approaches for planning the dissemination of research using a rapid review lens [3,10,[34][35][36][37][38][39]. ...
... television interviews, social media, blogging) • Presenters can often be tailored to the audience (e.g. a policy-maker for health system audiences, a researcher for a large research meeting) • A health system stakeholder may be able to talk about your research (e.g. a patient representative, a member of the public or a funding agency spokesperson) 8. How will you measure success? • Number of reads or downloads • Citation metrics b • Altmetrics [36] c of dissemination activities or tools, or require permission for dissemination. In a sample of 29 rapid review programs, factors that appeared to influence the dissemination approach used for rapid evidence product were turnaround time to complete a report; resources available; complexity and sensitivity of the research topics; and permission from a knowledge user [17]. ...
Background
Transparent reporting of rapid reviews enables appropriate use of research findings and dissemination strategies can strengthen uptake and impact for the targeted knowledge users, including policy-makers and health system managers. The aim of this literature review was to understand reporting and dissemination approaches for rapid reviews and provide an overview in the context of health policy and systems research.
Methods
A literature review and descriptive summary of the reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews was conducted, focusing on available guidance and methods, considerations for engagement with knowledge users, and optimizing dissemination. MEDLINE, PubMed, Google scholar, as well as relevant websites and reference lists were searched from January 2017 to March 2021 to identify the relevant literature with no language restrictions. Content was abstracted and charted.
Results
The literature review found limited guidance specific to rapid reviews. Building on the barriers and facilitators to systematic review use, we provide practical recommendations on different approaches and methods for reporting and disseminating expedited knowledge synthesis considering the needs of health policy and systems knowledge users. Reporting should balance comprehensive accounting of the research process and findings with what is “good enough” or sufficient to meet the requirements of the knowledge users, while considering the time and resources available to conduct a review. Typical approaches may be used when planning the dissemination of rapid review findings; such as peer-reviewed publications or symposia and clear and ongoing engagement with knowledge users in crafting the messages is essential so they are appropriately tailored to the target audience. Consideration should be given to providing different products for different audiences. Dissemination measures and bibliometrics are also useful to gauge impact and reach.
Conclusions
Limited guidance specific to the reporting and dissemination of rapid reviews is available. Although approaches to expedited synthesis for health policy and systems research vary, considerations for the reporting and dissemination of findings are pertinent to all.
... 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. ...
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.
... 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). ...
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.
... The pioneering work of Eysenbach (2011) found that tweets about scientific papers reflect their social impact and citizen attention. Bormann (2014) and Piwowar (2013) share this view, highlighting the ability of digital platforms to engage different publics and audiences. However, recent discussions have questioned whether altmetric indicators are an accurate measure of social influence. ...
While not all researchers prioritize social impact, it is undeniably a crucial aspect that adds significance to their work. The objective of this paper is to explore potential gender differences in the social attention paid to researchers and to examine their association with specific fields of study. To achieve this goal, the paper analyzes four dimensions of social influence and examines three measures of social attention to researchers. The dimensions are media influence (mentions in mainstream news), political influence (mentions in public policy reports), social media influence (mentions in Twitter), and educational influence (mentions in Wikipedia). The measures of social attention to researchers are: proportion of publications with social mentions (social attention orientation), mentions per publication (level of social attention), and mentions per mentioned publication (intensity of social attention). By analyzing the rankings of authors-for the four dimensions with the three measures in the 22 research fields of the Web of Science database-and by using Spearman correlation coefficients, we conclude that: 1) significant differences are observed between fields; 2) the dimensions capture different and independent aspects of the social impact. Finally, we use non-parametric means comparison tests to detect gender bias in social attention. We conclude that for most fields and dimensions with enough non-zero alt-metrics data, gender differences in social attention are not predominant, but are still present and vary across fields.
... The pioneering work of Eysenbach (2011) found that tweets about scientific papers reflect their social impact and citizen attention. Bormann (2014) and Piwowar (2013) share this view, highlighting the ability of digital platforms to engage different publics and audiences. However, recent discussions have questioned whether altmetric indicators are an accurate measure of social influence. ...
While not all researchers prioritize social impact, it is undeniably a crucial aspect that adds significance to their work. The objective of this paper is to explore potential gender differences in the social attention paid to researchers and to examine their association with specific fields of study. To achieve this goal, the paper analyzes four dimensions of social influence and examines three measures of social attention to researchers. The dimensions are media influence (mentions in mainstream news), political influence (mentions in public policy reports), social media influence (mentions in Twitter), and educational influence (mentions in Wikipedia). The measures of social attention to researchers are: proportion of publications with social mentions (social attention orientation), mentions per publication (level of social attention), and mentions per mentioned publication (intensity of social attention). By analyzing the rankings of authors -- for the four dimensions with the three measures in the 22 research fields of the Web of Science database -- and by using Spearman correlation coefficients, we conclude that: 1) significant differences are observed between fields; 2) the dimensions capture different and independent aspects of the social impact. Finally, we use non-parametric means comparison tests to detect gender bias in social attention. We conclude that for most fields and dimensions with enough non-zero altmetrics data, gender differences in social attention are not predominant, but are still present and vary across fields.
... The indicators are useful for early impact evidence, particularly when large collections of publications are available to be assessed. Some academic institutions and grant-funding agencies now recognize Altmetrics as alternate forms of impact (Piwowar, 2013 ...
... There is also an opinion of Priem that citation is an effective way to trace the academic influence of an article (Priem, 2011). In 2013, Nature to track the research impact of the scientist rather than confining to the citations only published a note on the use of altmetrics (Piwowar, 2013). A study on the analysis of correlation with blogs and prediction of future citations was discovered considering blogs to be a source of alternative metrics. ...
Purpose-The purpose of this study is to assess the value of altmetrics or other indicators, showcasing the impact of academic output, which is seen too often correlated with the citation count. Design/methodology/approach-This study considered three reputed journals of Library and Information Science (LIS) published by Elsevier. A total of 1,164 articles were found in these journals from 2016 to 2020 and the relationships between altmetric attention scores (AAS) and citations were examined. The analysis was extended to compare the grouped data set based on percentile ranks of AAS like top 50%, top 25%, top 10% and top 1%. Findings-Using Spearman correlation analysis, the findings reveal a positive correlation between AAS and citations with different significant levels for all articles, and articles with AAS, as well as for normalized AAS in the top 50%, top 25%, top 10% and top 1% data set. For the three journals International Journal of Information Management (IJIM), Journal of Informetrics (JIF) and Library and Information Science Research (LISR), a significant positive correlation is observed across all data sets. But an unexpected result was observed: in the case of the top 50% of articles for the IJIM and JIF showed no significant correlation but the LISR journal showed a positive correlation for the whole data set. This journal though has fewer articles in comparison to the other two. Research limitations/implications-A source item that is highly cited may not be having high social media attention as reflected in the findings. This demarcates AAS with citations implying various factors on which these measurements are dependent. The study distinguishes these metrics lucidly. There is not a single guideline or uniformity in assessing the correlation found. But the problem is that the interpretation of the correlation strength affects the conclusion of the study. Moreover, this study will be a role model as a draft for librarians to select relevant journals for their libraries and will facilitate authors in the choice of the publication outlets for their papers, particularly concerning the journals that have both visibility and research impact. Originality/value-The study reported devising a comprehensive tool to validate AAS as a measure of scholarly impact to include appropriate social media sources and verify its relationship with other metrics. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this paper is the first attempt to discover the correlation between AAS and citations for the highly impactful LIS journal published by Elsevier. The empirical evidence lies in the citation and altmetric data extracted from the dimension database.
... While appreciating the issue's complexity, we support the implementation of more data-sharing mandates and recognitionbased incentives, such as alternative metrics to promote datasharing work, independent of journal of publication, as well as the inclusion of data generation and stewardship on researchers' CVs 29,30 . We also agree with other authors that the nature of increasingly large and more complex datasets will require improved training on data stewardship 13 . ...
Rates of sharing of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) summary statistics are historically low, limiting potential for scientific discovery. Here we show, using GWAS Catalog data, that GWAS papers that share data get on average 81.8% more citations, an effect that is sustained over time. A review of citation rates from genomic studies in the GWAS Catalog suggests that sharing summary statistics results, on average, in ~81.8% more citations, highlighting a benefit of publicly sharing GWAS summary statistics.
... Yet, in practice, this expectation has not been realised. Although argued to be transparent and timely (Galligan and Dyas-Correia 2013;Piwowar 2013), altmetrics are fleeting and unstable, can easily be 'gamed', are strongly influenced by their commercial provider, and rely on the 'wisdom of crowds' (Area and Pessoa 2012). In addition, there are key differences in online activity across research areas (e.g. ...
There is no singular way of measuring the value of research. There are multiple criteria of evaluation given by different fields, including academia but also others, such as policy, media, and application. One measure of value within the academy is citations, while indications of wider value are now offered by altmetrics. This study investigates research value using a novel design focusing on the World Bank, which illuminates the complex relationship between valuations given by metrics and by peer review. Three theoretical categories, representing the most extreme examples of value, were identified: ‘exceptionals’, highest in both citations and altmetrics; ‘scholars’, highest in citations and lowest in altmetrics; and ‘influencers’, highest in altmetrics and lowest in citations. Qualitative analysis of 18 interviews using abstracts from each category revealed key differences in ascribed characteristics and judgements. This article provides a novel conception of research value across fields.
... Altmetrics evolves alongside information technology, gaining indicators from online sources like social media platforms, blogs, Mendeley, and ResearchGate. Beyond academic communities, Altmetrics evaluates a broad range of research impacts on society (Piwowar 2013). Altmetrics responds quickly to quantify the impact of new products, and its data is easy to access (Bornmann 2014). ...
The ex-post assessment of institutional performance has been applied to allocate scientific and technological (S&T) resource to universities and public research institutes. However, over-emphasis on particular types of performance could lead to unintended results and harm the science system. This research assesses the performance of these universities and public research institutes using ‘technical efficiency’ and their potential using ‘capacity utilisation’, which are obtained by Data Envelopment Analysis methods. Moreover, a comprehensive S&T resource allocation framework is proposed, where the organisations can be classified into four groups according to their performance and potential assessment results. An empirical study is conducted using the data of 58 Chinese research institutes from 2011 to 2018. Results indicate different patterns in the distribution and evolution of the performance and potential of these research institutes. The approaches proposed by this research are expected to complement existing performance-based S&T resource allocations.
... Likewise, Egghe (2005) uses the term informetrics as a broad term consisting of all metrics studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (bibliographies, libraries, etc.), scientometrics (science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation, etc.), and webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks such as citation or collaboration networks). The most recently introduced informetrics-related concept of altmetrics (see Haustein et al. 2013 andPiwowar 2013;) is seen as an alternative means of measuring scholarly impact (Priem 2010;Priem et al. 2010). This metrics has emerged to gain popularity among the evaluators of research performance due to the shortcomings associated with the traditional methods of research evaluation such as peer-review, citation analysis and journal impact factor analysis . ...
... Research reproducibility-the extent to which consistent results are obtained when a scientific experiment or research workflow is repeated (Curating for Reproducibility Consortium 2017)is a key aspect of the advancement of science, as it constitutes a minimum standard that allows understanding research products, that is, methods, data, analysis, results, etc. (Piwowar 2013), to determine their reliability and generality, and eventually build up scientific knowledge and applications based on those products (King 1995;Peng 2011;Powers and Hampton 2019). In the natural sciences, rates of reproducibility are low (Ioannidis 2005;Prinz, Schlange, and Asadullah 2011), which has elicited concerns about a crisis in the field (Baker 2016). ...
Research reproducibility is essential for scientific development. Yet, rates of reproducibility are low. As increasingly more research relies on computers and software, efforts for improving reproducibility rates have focused on making research products digitally available, such as publishing analysis workflows as computer code, and raw and processed data in computer readable form. However, research products that are digitally available are not necessarily friendly for learners and interested parties with little to no experience in the field. This renders research products unapproachable, counteracts their availability, and hinders scientific reproducibility. To improve both short and long term adoption of reproducible scientific practices, research products need to be made approachable for learners, the researchers of the future. Using a case study within evolutionary biology, we identify aspects of research workflows that make them unapproachable to the general audience: use of highly specialized language; unclear goals and high cognitive load; and lack of trouble-shooting examples. We propose principles to improve the unapproachable aspects of research workflows, and illustrate their application using an online teaching resource. We elaborate on the general application of these principles for documenting research products and teaching materials, to provide present learners and future researchers with tools for successful scientific reproducibility.
... By virtue of the availability of social media platform data, using altmetrics indicators to evaluate has become the research focus. Scholars have conducted a series of exploratory research from different perspectives and dimensions with the idea of multi-indicators integration [17,19]. Applying altmetrics to journals evaluation has the advantages of rich information sources, wide coverage, transparent evaluation process, diversified evaluation indicators and real-time evaluation results. ...
In the open science environment, this article evaluates the discourse power of academic journals from the perspective of multiple integration. It is conducive to scientific research management and provides a reference for enriching and perfecting the evaluation theory and indicators system of academic journals. Based on the theory of evaluation science, discourse power theory and communication theory, first, this article discusses the basic issues of the discourse power evaluation for academic journals. It defines the academic discourse power and the discourse power of academic journals. It is proposed that the discourse power of academic journals is composed of discourse influence and discourse leading. Discourse influence is composed of discourse influence ability and discourse power, and discourse leading is composed of social media discourse, news and policy discourse, encyclopaedia discourse, peer-review discourse and video discourse leading. This article explores the formation process and operation mechanism of the discourse power for academic journals. Then, this article constructs the discourse power evaluation model of academic journals. Second, this article integrates multi-source heterogeneous data, then adopts correlation analysis, integrated factor analysis, entropy weight method, Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method and two-dimensional four-quadrant mapping method to conduct empirical research on the discourse power evaluation of Medicine, General and Internal journals from the perspectives of multi-dimensions, multi-factors, multi-indicators and multi-methods fusion. The results show that the research on the discourse power evaluation for academic journals based on the theory, method and application logic is practical, comprehensive and reliable.
... 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. ...
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
... 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. ...
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
... According to the literature in Turkey, it has been found that the studies on teachers' attitudes, skills, and experiences about classroom management have usually been done with teachers from elementary schools (Çubukçu & Girmen, 2008;Sadık & Doğanay, 2008;Yalçınkaya & Tonbul, 2002), and there are only a few studies on high school teachers (Akpınar & Özdaş, 2013;Siyez, 2009). There is an increasing tendency for adolescents to show negative behaviors due to their physical, social, and emotional changes and their changing needs are effective in their relationships with their peers and teachers (Piwowar et al., 2013). Therefore, classroom management behaviors of teachers in high schools are important not only for adolescents' academic but also psycho-social development (Wentzel, 1999). ...
One of the goals of today’s pre-service and in-service training of teachers is to promote teacher’s competencies. According to the Department of Education, it is a big factor in the academic achievement of the students. Included under teacher competencies are teaching effectiveness, professional recognition and awards, membership and participation in professional organizations, scholarly abilities, and creative productiveness, and university and community service. In the daily life of students, they encounter different kinds of teachers. The purpose of this study is to determine the teachers’ Instructional competence and the students’ MPS and quarterly grade performance involving 46 respondents in the City Schools Division of Laguna. The level of teachers’ instructional competence of the teachers and principals Competence in curriculum content, Competence in transmitting the content to the learners, Competence in preparation of lesson log/plan, Competence in preparation of students’ engagement, Competence in classroom management; and Competence in providing conducive learning environment are interpreted as very satisfactory. The level of learners’ quarterly grade and MPS were fairly satisfactory for the grade and low mastery level for MPS. There is a significant difference between learning environment competence and learners’ quarterly grade and MPS. But there is no significant difference between the four aforementioned variables between learners’ quarterly grades and MPS.
... 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. ...
... Reproducible research is often perceived as primarily a technological challenge, but is really rooted in the challenge to adjust scholarly communication to today's level of digitisation and diversity of scientific outputs. Common academic challenges, e.g., broken metrics and pressure to publish articles over other products (see, e.g., Piwowar 2013;Nosek et al. 2015), have a negative impact on reproducibility. The state of reproducibility in geosciences and GIScience was investigated by Konkol, Kray, and Pfeiffer (2018) and respectively, and both studies show that it needs to improve. ...
Reproducible research is often perceived as a technological challenge, but it is rooted in the challenge to improve scholarly communication in an age of digitisation. When computers become involved and researchers want to allow other scientists to inspect, understand, evaluate, and build upon 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 containerisation, while paying attention to working with geospatial data (digital maps, GIS). 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 and communities adopt reproducibility and the underlying technologies in practice and in policies, they can transform the way researchers conduct and communicate their work towards increased transparency, understandability, openness, trust, productivity, and innovation.
... 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). ...
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.
... 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. ...
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
... Publication of articles will be announced through the BJA journals social media channels (Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube). Article-level metrics 11,12 will be available alongside the article through PlumX metrics (https://plumanalytics. com/learn/about-metrics/). ...
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.
... 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). ...
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.
... 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. ...
• 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.
... 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. ...
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.
... 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). ...
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.
Esta pesquisa visa observar se o capital simbólico de visibilidade social advindo dos indicadores de citação e altmétricos pode estar associado com o capital científico institucional. Trata-se de uma pesquisa exploratória que tem como corpus amostral artigos científicos apoiados no referencial teórico bourdieusiano com alto escore altmétrico. Por meio da análise bibliométrica e da aplicação de teste de associação qui-quadrado pretende-se buscar elementos para fazer inferências a respeito do índice acadêmico e social, além do local de vínculo dos autores dos artigos. Os resultados obtidos com a aplicação do teste qui-quadrado para verificar se há associação entre o local de vínculo dos autores com maior índice de citação, maior número de menções em mídias e Attention Altmetric Score, demonstram que não há relação entre essas variáveis. Isso significa que, no contexto dessa amostra, o vínculo com instituições de elite não influenciou o impacto acadêmico e a atenção social. Sob outro prisma, o fato da amostra constituir-se de 48,7% das instituições classificadas entre as 200 melhores instituições no The World University Rankings já é um indicativo relevante da influência do capital institucional no impacto acadêmico (citações) e na atenção social (indicadores altmétricos) das publicações.
This applied altmetric study aimed to analyze the presence of highly-cited documents on diabetes mellitus in online social media and correlate their altmetric attention scores with their received citation counts. Twenty thousand highly-cited documents on diabetes mellitus were identified in Scopus and their altmetric attention scores (ASSs) were extracted from Altmetric Explorer (Altmetric LLP, London, UK). Received citation rates of the documents were extracted from Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science and Dimensions. Excell 2016 and SPSS 22 were used for data statistical description and analysis. Out of 19,383 DOI-owner highly-cited documents on diabetes mellitus, 16,076 (82.94%) were shared at least once in social media and had an altmetric attention score. Mendeley ranked first in sharing documents with 16,868 documents (87.02%). Six hundred forty-six thousand one hundred eighty-four tweets were tweeted on the studied documents from 222 countries, with the United States as first-ranked country (17,453 tweets, 18.2%). The highest-mentioned journal was the Lancet, and the highest-mentioned research institute was Harvard University. A significantly positive correlation was found between the altmetric attention scores of the studied documents and their citation counts in Google scholar (r= .842, p
Altmetrics are non-traditional metrics that can capture downloads, social media shares, and other modern measures of research impact and reach. Despite most of the altmetrics literature focusing on evaluating the relationship between research outputs and academic impact/influence, the perceived and actual value of altmetrics among academicians remains nebulous and inconsistent. This work proposes that ambiguities surrounding the value and use of altmetrics may be explained by a multiplicity of altmetrics definitions communicated by journal publishers. A root cause analysis was initiated to compare altmetrics definitions between anatomy and medical education journal publishers' websites, and to determine the comparability of the measurement and platform sources used for computing altmetrics values. A scoping content analysis of data from across eight publishers' websites revealed wide variability in definitions and heterogeneity among altmetrics measurement sources. The incongruencies among publishers' altmetrics definitions and their value demonstrates that publishers may be one root cause of ambiguity perpetuating confusion around the value and use of altmetrics. This review highlights the need to more deeply explore the root causes of altmetrics ambiguities within academia and makes a compelling argument for establishing a ubiquitous altmetrics definition that is concise, clear, and specific.
This study investigated scholarly research outputs and vulnerability of Nigerian lecturers to predatory journals. Five objectives were formulated to guide the study. A descriptive survey research design was adopted using the online Google Form to collect data/responses from lecturers across board in Nigeria. The population of the study comprised lecturers in Nigeria. The sampling technique used for the study was the total enumeration sampling technique (107) as the whole responses were analysed using frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation for easy appreciation and comprehension, with the aid of SPSS Version 23. It was found out that: The research outputs by Nigerian lecturers appear to be a little bit low, Nigerian lecturers obviously know the reputable journals that are available, many Nigerian authors and writers do not publish in high reputable journals, some of the challenges recorded are high cost/finance, problem of delayed review process, high rejection rate by reputable journal and rigorous online submission process. Also, the idea of compulsorily publishing in high impact journals rather than focus on the quality of the research output, before promoting lecturers is misplaced and should be reviewed. Recommendations were made in line with the findings of the study.
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/.
News mentions to academic papers has provided an important channel for research to yield impact on broad audience in the society, and is particularly useful in scholarly communication, scientific outreach and altmetrics. Unlike academic paper, news articles are often influenced by social factors such as culture, ideology and geography. It is therefore uncertain whether news mentions to academic paper is valid for evaluative purpose as expected by altmetrics studies. In response, this study has conducted large scale statistical analysis to explore country's preference over news mentions, based on the assumption that if news mentions to academic paper is not (or weakly) influenced by social factors, no obvious country's preference would be observed, and the vice versa. The major findings are: (1) From the macro perspective, overall distribution of news mentions is highly imbalanced, with several developed countries taking the dominant position. However, no obvious preference towards domestic papers was observed. (2) From the micro perspective, based on the ZINB test results, news from all countries have more positively mentioned domestic papers and simultaneously shown preference over papers from certain countries. (3) In terms of disciplinary comparison, disciplinary differences were observed in the impact strength and specific preference. These results suggest that in micro level country's preference exist for news mentions to academic papers, but in macro level, country's preference is insignificant. Therefore, it is suggested that news mentions can be used for assessing purpose in the macro level.
We use an altmetric aggregator, the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), to rank the influence of articles published in Criminology & Public Policy from the journal's inception through July 31, 2022. We also rank articles based on specific AAS components, namely, Twitter, news, and policy document mentions. Last, we regress AASs on article‐level predictors, including research category, funding, open access type, and time since publication. With few exceptions, policing scholarship far outweighs other categories of research in terms of AAS‐measured societal impact. In contrast to bibliometrics (e.g., citation counts), altmetrics measure scholarship's societal impact, including its influence on policy. Since Criminology & Public Policy was initially created with the intention of influencing crime‐related policy, it is important to gauge the extent to which that has occurred. Other policy‐oriented (or perhaps all) criminal justice/criminology journals should evaluate their influence via altmetrics.
University ranking systems use various single and multi-faceted methodologies. Despite being efficient and less biased, the former fails to cover all academic performance dimensions, requiring solutions to improve its effectiveness. Previous studies found universities’ ranks to be partly correlated to their social presence and activities via their official accounts. However, altmetrics have a comparatively more diversified and all-inclusive nature. Moreover, altmetrics are assumed to reflect various impact types and therefore represent different academic performance dimensions. This study attempted to discover if the altmetrics aggregated at the university level can bridge the gap between single and multi-faceted rankings. Focusing on Leiden and Nature Index as single-faceted, and Times Higher Education and Quacquarelli Symonds as multi-faceted rankings, it explored a sample of the universities jointly ranked by the systems in 2017 and 2020. Their overall scores in Times Higher Education and Quacquarelli Symonds were regressed against their Leiden crown indicator (PP top 10%), Article-Weighted Fractional Count in Nature Index, Altmetric Attention Score, tweets, and Mendeley readership. According to the results, the universities’ scores in Leiden and Nature Index predicted theirs in Quacquarelli Symonds (33.5% and 21.4%, respectively) and Times Higher Education (63.7% and 33.4%, respectively). Altmetric Attention Score, tweets, and Mendeley readership boosted the predictions, implying their ability to reflect academic performances. However, they differed in their effects’ strengths, importance, and directions, which may be resulted from their differences in the impact realms and values for different social sections, which are not necessarily proportional to the corresponding dimensions’ weights in the rankings.
Background
Sharing knowledge such as resources, research results, and scholarly documents, is of key importance to improving collaboration between researchers worldwide. Research results from the field of artificial intelligence (AI) are vital to share because of the extensive applicability of AI to several other fields of research. This has led to a significant increase in the number of AI publications over the past decade. The metadata of AI publications, including bibliometrics and altmetrics indicators, can be accessed by searching familiar bibliographical databases such as Web of Science (WoS), which enables the impact of research to be evaluated and identify rising researchers and trending topics in the field of AI.
Problem description
In general, bibliographical databases have two limitations in terms of the type and form of metadata we aim to improve. First, most bibliographical databases, such as WoS, are more concerned with bibliometric indicators and do not offer a wide range of altmetric indicators to complement traditional bibliometric indicators. Second, the traditional format in which data is downloaded from bibliographical databases limits users to keyword-based searches without considering the semantics of the data.
Proposed solution
To overcome these limitations, we developed a repository, named AI-SPedia. The repository contains semantic knowledge of scientific publications concerned with AI and considers both the bibliometric and altmetric indicators. Moreover, it uses semantic web technology to produce and store data to enable semantic-based searches. Furthermore, we devised related competency questions to be answered by posing smart queries against the AI-SPedia datasets.
Results
The results revealed that AI-SPedia can evaluate the impact of AI research by exploiting knowledge that is not explicitly mentioned but extracted using the power of semantics. Moreover, a simple analysis was performed based on the answered questions to help make research policy decisions in the AI domain. The end product, AI-SPedia, is considered the first attempt to evaluate the impacts of AI scientific publications using both bibliometric and altmetric indicators and the power of semantic web technology.
The wide adoption of online media for scholarly purposes triggered a rapid increase in the access to scientific information. This led to several outcomes, including considering internet as the main functional medium for disseminating knowledge. Here we briefly describe how this represented one of the foundations of the open access revolution and how this is connected to the development and circulation of alternative metrics for research outcomes. We then enumerate a list of practical suggestions on how to proceed when dealing with the online dissemination of research products, in order to build and maintain a scientific reputation on internet.
This article contributes to the discussion on the relationship between views, citations, number of references, number of authors, number of countries and the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). The aim is to identify the metric most likely to complement traditional citations in scholarly publishing in chemistry. We used the publications in a top multi-disciplinary chemistry journal, the Journal of the American Chemical Society, for a three-year period for this study. We identified whether materials that are highly viewed correlates with higher number of citations and higher Altmetric Attention Scores; high AAS correlates with higher number of views and higher number of citations; higher number of citations correlates with higher number of views and higher AAS; (multi-authored works correlate with higher AAS, higher number of views and/or higher number of citations; and authors from more than one country correlate with higher number of views, higher citations and higher AAS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Background: As a newly-emerged metric for evaluating scientific research, altmetrics captures the online activity regarding individual scientific items and is increasingly used in disseminating scientific information in a real-time span. This study aimed to conduct an altmetrics analysis of articles published in the Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI) during 1987-2020.
Methods: Using the archives of MJIRI's articles (during 1987-2020) and the four databases of Google Scholar, Scopus, Dimensions, and Altmetrics needed data on received citations as well as altmetric indicators and altmetric attention scores of these articles were extracted manually in December 2020. Data analysis was done in Excell and SPSS-25.
Results: Only 1274 MJIRI articles (about 51%) were present in the Altmetric Institute and had an altmetric attention score. Only 109 papers (8.5%) were shared at least once on online social media. Twitter was the most frequent social medium used for sharing the articles (n=91, 7.14%). These articles were twitted 171 times in total and the mean rate of twitting them was 1.88 per paper. Users from 21 countries in the world tweeted the articles. The top three twitting courtiers/regions were the United States (n=47), the United Kingdom (n=14) and India (n=3), respectively. Regarding twitters' membership status, the top three ranks were dedicated to the members of the public with 137 twits, practitioners (doctors and other healthcare professionals) with 18 twits and scientists with 16 twits. In Mendeley, the top three ranks were dedicated to master students (n=284), bachelor students (n=240) and Ph.D. students (n=155), respectively. The top three disciplines in this regard were medicine and dentistry (n=335), nursing and health profession (n=190), and biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology (n=68). Most of the highly-mentioned articles were review papers. The relationship between the altmetric attention score and citation performance of MJIR articles was not significant (p>0.05).
Conclusion: This study is one of the first studies to investigate the altmetrics indicators of articles published in an Iranian high-prestigious internationally-wide medical journal. Using social media tools can certainly promote medical scholars' scientific interactions and make added value for research published in medical journals. Editorial boards, including that of MJIRI can use altmetrics for detecting research trends and publishing approaches and consequently increased citation counts and research impact.
Keywords: Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Bibliometrics, Altmetrics, Social Media, Highly-Cited Articles, Highly-mentioned Articles
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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