Altmetrics culs 2014


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Most publishers (with the exception of PLoS, see above), rely on aggregators to provide article level data. PLoS collects its own article level metrics (rather than purchasing them from an aggregator).
  • Not all aggregators (or publishers) use the same data points or sources which allows them to compliment one another when used simultaneously but also has the potential for creating inconsistencies. "For example, PLOS, ImpactStory, Altmetric, and PlumAnalytics collect article-level metrics for some of the same data sources. But are the numbers they present to users consistent for the same paper or are they different due to different collection dates, data sources, or methods of collection? Each of the aggregate article-level metrics providers may collect and present article-level metrics as relevant for their target audience. Thus, as article-level metrics consumers and researchers, we need to have a clear understanding of the potential pitfalls when using article-level metrics data" (Chamberlain, 2013, p. 7).

    Some of these are free, some are paid.
  • (not to be confused with where you can download a free API that will (in theory) provide you with an altmetric score for any article you find on the web.
  • New insights: "The new metrics offer the possibility to discover new insights into impact that have been previously impossible to obtain” (Galligan & Dyas-Correia, 2013, p. 56)

    Open data: The difference between altmetrics and traditional metrics is that altmetrics "use mostly publically available data, making the process and calculations completely transparent" where as traditional metrics like the journal impact factor is made available only by subscription (from Thomson Reuters) and calculated using a less transparent algorithm (even though the equation has been published many times). Other traditional metrics are generally made available only to those libraries that subscribed to particular data sources and are, now, regulated by industry standards (Project Counter).

    Speed: nearly real-time metrics of scholarly impact; according to a study Jason Priem presented at ASIST in 2010, 15% of Twitter citations occurred on the same day an article was published, 39% in the same week, and 56% in the same month.

    Diversity: more than just citations, altmetrics include discussion by the media, mentions in the news, discussion by the public as well as importance to colleagues.

    (Galligan & Dyas-Correia, 2013, p. 56)
    (Chamberlain, 2013)

  • Altmetrics culs 2014

    1. 1. Altmetrics: What Good are They to Academic Libraries? Sarah W. Sutton Kanas Library Association – College & University Libraries Section Spring Conference 2014 Emporia State University May 21, 2014
    2. 2.  Transitions in scholarly communications  What are altmetrics?  Advantages and disadvantages  Uses in academic libraries Objectives
    3. 3. Transitions in scholarly communication
    4. 4.  Alternative metrics  Article-level  Alterative to Journal Impact Factor, H-Index  Proxy for importance? Impact? Attention?  Measure of quality? What are altmetrics?
    5. 5. Journal Impact Factor (JIF): 2008 2-year journal impact factor = the number of times the articles published in a journal in 2006 and 2007, were cited by journal articles during 2008 -- Divided by – the total number of "citable items" published by that journal in 2006 and 2007 What are altmetrics? H-Index:
    6. 6.  Publishers:  Wiley  Nature  PLoS  Frontiers  Biomed Central  Springer  Elsevier Where can I get them?
    7. 7.  Aggregators  PLoS  ImpactStory  Altmetric  PlumAnalytics  ResearchGate  CitedIn  ScienceCard  ReaderMeter  PaperCritic Where can I get them?
    8. 8. Where can I get them?
    9. 9. Advantages  New insights in impact  Based on open data  Speed  Diversity of sources Advantages & Disadvantages
    10. 10. Disadvantages  Too many variations; uncontrolled  “Gaming”  Bias  Establishing standards Advantages & Disadvantages
    11. 11.  Big data  Research impact  Collection development  Marketing  Return on investment (ROI)  Grants & funding  Ebooks  Open Access Use in academic libraries
    12. 12. …more research is needed  One size fits all?  Triangulation  Bridging the gap  Establishing standards A word of caution…
    13. 13. Questions? Comments? Sarah W. Sutton, Ph.D. School of Library and Information Management Emporia State University Slides:
    14. 14. Adie, E., & Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 11–17. Article-Level Metrics: An ill-conceived and meretricious Idea. (2013). Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved from Chamberlain, S. (2013). Consuming article-level metrics: Observations and lessons. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 4. doi:10.3789/isqv25no2.2013.02 Crotty, D. (2014). Altmetrics: Mistaking the means for the end. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from means-for-the-end/ Ebsco Information Sevices. (2014). PlumTM Analytics Becomes Part of EBSCO Information Services. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from information-services Bibliography
    15. 15. Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review, 39(1), 56–61. Luther, J. (2014). Altmetrics boosted by EBSCO’s acquisition of Plum Analytics. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from by-ebscos-acquisitions-of-plum-analytics/ Konkiel, S. (2013). Altmetrics: A 21st-century solution to determining research quality. (Online Searcher, 37(4), 11–15. Liu, J., & Adie, E. (2013). Five challenges in altmetrics: A toolmaker’s perspective. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 39(4), 31–34. NISO. (2014). NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics (Altmetrics) Project. NISO. Retrieved from Piwowar, H., 2. (2013). Introduction altmetrics: What, why and where? Bulletin of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 39(4), 8–9. References
    16. 16. Plum Analytics. (2014). Retrieved May 4, 2014, from Priem, J., & Costello, K. L. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Retrieved from rzQ/edit#slide=id.i0 Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from Project COUNTER Code of Practice for Electronic Resources: Release 4. (2012). Project COUNTER. Retrieved from ResearchGate. (2014). Retrieved May 9, 2014, from San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. (2014, April 15). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from Thomson Reuters Statement Regarding the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment - Research Analytics - Thomson Reuters. (n.d.). Retrieved May 4, 2014, from References