• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Private Content
Habib NISO Altmetrics Dec 2013
 

Habib NISO Altmetrics Dec 2013

on

  • 613 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
613
Views on SlideShare
579
Embed Views
34

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

1 Embed 34

https://twitter.com 34

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Habib NISO Altmetrics Dec 2013 Habib NISO Altmetrics Dec 2013 Presentation Transcript

    • Researcher Awareness + Perception: A year in review NISO Altmetrics Project Meeting Washington, D.C. – December 11, 2013 Michael Habib, MSLS Sr. Product Manager, Scopus habib@elsevier.com Twitter: @habib http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8860-7565
    • About 1 year ago… October 2012 Background & approach: 54,442 individuals were randomly selected from Scopus 3,090 respondents completed Representative response by country and discipline. Error margin 1.5%, at 90% confidence levels Adrian Mulligan, Gemma Deakin and Rebekah Dutton Elsevier Research & Academic Relations 2
    • 10/12: Most widely known by researchers Impact Factor 82% H-Index 43% Journal Usage Factor 10% SJR 4% Altmetrics ??? Impact Factor is published by Thomson Reuters, Altmetrics were least well known 3
    • 10/12: Most widely known by researchers Impact Factor 82% H-Index 43% Journal Usage Factor 10% SJR 4% Altmetrics 1% 4
    • One year on? Most widely known by researchers in Q3 (n=326) Impact Factor 88% H-Index 70% Journal Usage Factor 14% SJR 14% Altmetrics ??? % Awareness of quality metrics (n=326, Q3 13) – From internal study by Elsevier Research & Academic Relations - Mingxin Zhou / Cat herine Fielding-Huda - October 2013 5
    • One year on? Most widely known by researchers in Q3 (n=326) Impact Factor 88% (+6) H-Index 70% (+27) Journal Usage Factor 14% (+4) SJR 14% (+10) Altmetrics 5% (+4) 6
    • Generally metrics with the highest awareness are also considered to be the most useful Percentage of aware respondents that chose the metric as one of the most useful 70% Impact factor 60% h-index 50% 40% 30% The trendline shows the linear trend for the relationship between awareness and usage of metrics R² = 0.697 Altmetrics Journal Usage Factor F1000 SJR Eigenfactor SNIP Metrics above the line have lower levels of awareness, but are more likely to be rated as useful than the typical awareness-usage relationship 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% -10% -20% Metrics below the line have higher levels of awareness, but are less likely to be rated as useful than the 80% 90% typical awareness-usage relationship Percentage of respondents that are aware of the metric * This is the 2012 data again See appendix for background and approach. Research by Elsevier Research & Academic Relations. Impact Factor is published by Thomson Reuters, 7
    • 32 (10%) Scopus users stated they know of Altmetric for Scopus. 25 of them think it very useful or somewhat useful. % Awareness of Altmetric for Scopus n = 326 (Q3 13) Yes 10% No 90%
    • Assessing the usefulness of potential quality   metrics: by age Significant difference between subset and total (subset higher) Significant difference between subset and total (subset lower) Q3 Thinking about possible new measures of research productivity, how useful do you think the below would be in assessing the quality of a researcher or a research article?(By age) % Think it would be extremely/very useful Under 36 (n=540) Article views/downloads (for articles) 43% Citations from materials that are in repositories Share in social network mentions (for articles) Number of readers (for articles) Number of followers (for researchers) 36-45 (n=920) 49% 44%   21%  Votes or ratings (for articles) 35%  A metric that measures the contribution an individual makes to peer review (for researchers) 34%  A score based on reviewer assessment (for articles) 33%  33% 24% 36%  43% 41% 15% 41% 37%  43%  12% 39% 28% 22% TOTAL (n=3,090) Over 65 (n=242) 44% 41%  18% 56-65 (n=507) 45% 45% 42% 38% 46-55 (n=819) 13% 16% 41%  30% 22% 29% 27% 26% 29% 27% 27% 35%  31% 30% 19% 24% 27% 40%  24% 28% 28% 9
    • Assessing the usefulness of potential quality metrics: by region (1 of 2)   Significant difference between subset and total (subset higher) Significant difference between subset and total (subset lower) Q3 Thinking about possible new measures of research productivity, how useful do you think the below would be in assessing the quality of a researcher or a research article? (By region, slide 1 of 2) % Think it would be extremely/very useful Africa (n=72) Article views/downloads (for articles) 56% Citations from materials that are in repositories Share in social network mentions (for articles) Votes or ratings (for articles) A metric that measures the contribution an individual makes to peer review (for researchers) A score based on reviewer assessment (for articles)  Eastern Europe (n=183) 50% 55% 51%  26% Number of readers (for articles) Number of followers (for researchers) APAC (n=803) 40% 44%  50%  43%  49%  49%  43%  16%  19%  21%  46% 36% 33% 50% 46% 49% 29% TOTAL (n=3,090)   27% Latin America (n=182) 45% 41%  30% 28%  35%   36%  26% 40% 45%   31% 34% 24% 24% 28% 32% 35%  28% 10
    • Assessing the usefulness of potential quality  metrics: by region (2 of 2) Significant difference between subset and total (subset higher) Significant difference between subset and total (subset lower) Q3 Thinking about possible new measures of research productivity, how useful do you think the below would be in assessing the quality of a researcher or a research article? (By region, slide 2 of 2) % Think it would be extremely/very useful Middle East (n=47) North America (n=770) Article views/downloads (for articles) 40% 40% 42% Share in social network mentions (for articles) 19% 43% Number of readers (for articles) Number of followers (for researchers) Votes or ratings (for articles) A metric that measures the contribution an individual makes to peer review (for researchers) A score based on reviewer assessment (for articles) 32% 28% 36% 32%  10% 36% 23% 19% TOTAL (n=3,090) 11%  36%  43%  43%  41% Citations from materials that are in repositories Western Europe (n=1,033) 16%  40%  23%  31%  22%  24% 32% 26% 23%  28% 34% 26% 22%  28% 11
    • Thank you! Michael Habib, MSLS Sr. Product Manager, Scopus habib@elsevier.com Twitter: @habib http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8860-7565
    • Background & approach Who & when: 54,442 individuals were randomly selected from Scopus. They were approached to complete the study in October 2012. To ensure an unbiased response Elsevier’s name was only revealed at the end of the survey. Responses: The online survey took around 15-20 minutes to complete. 3,090 respondents completed it, representing a response rate of 5.7%. Data has not been weighted. There was a representative response by country and discipline. Statistical testing: Error margin 1.5%, at 90% confidence levels. When comparing the score for main group and sub-groups we have used a Z test of proportion to identify differences between the overall average and the sub-group (90% confidence levels), when there are 30 or more responses. Adrian Mulligan, Gemma Deakin and Rebekah Dutton Elsevier Research & Academic Relations 13