Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

3

Share

Download to read offline

Altmetrics for kla final

Download to read offline

Presentation of preliminary altmetrics research results at the 2015 joint conference of the Kansas Library Association and the Missouri Library Association

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Altmetrics for kla final

  1. 1. Altmetrics and their Influence on Collection Development Sarah Sutton Rachel Miles Stacy Konkiel Michael Levine-Clark
  2. 2. Outline • What are altmetrics? • Introduction to our research study • Study Results: –Subject liaison duties –Use of metrics for collection development • Questions
  3. 3. Alternative Metrics, or Altmetrics: What are they? •Altmetrics use a varied number of methods for measuring scholarly impact including: •Web-based references •Article views/downloads •Mentions in the news and on social media (Sutton, 2014). – Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Mainstream media & forums. – Evidence for LinkedIn & Pinterest, Q&A sites insufficient (Thelwall et al, 2013). • Social bookmarking services & social reference managers, like Mendeley. •Examples of shared media: •Videos •Conference presentations •Data sets •Infographics •Source code Image courtesy of altmetrics.org Image courtesy of theguardian.com
  4. 4. Bibliometrics vs. Altmetrics • Journal Impact Factor (JIF) – Average # of Citations to Articles Published in a Journal – Academic articles and reviews within a journal – Limitation: Impact measured within a single field of study Image courtesy of sciencetechblog.com
  5. 5. Bibliometrics vs. Almetrics • H-index – Individual Researcher’s # of Articles Published to the # of Citations – Ex of sources: Web of Science, Google Scholar Metrics, Microsoft Academic Search • Criticisms –Easily manipulated –Single field of study –Incapable of measuring online impact Example of an h-index. Image courtesy of Microsoft Academic Search.
  6. 6. Bibliometrics vs. Altmetrics • Citation counts – Google Scholar and many digital libraries • Sort search matches by most highly cited articles. • Offer other faceted search options, such as “most recent” or a specific year/range. – Citations accrue over months and years, and therefore are not an indication of recent research impact. – Researchers are interested in important and current research in their fields (Thelwall et al., 2013). Image courtesy of scholar.google.com
  7. 7. Advantages of Measuring Online Impact • Impact measured more rapidly than citation counts • Measures immediate impact of research & current trends – Social media mentions→directly after being published, or even before • Supports Open Access (OA) Initiatives – Encourages sharing research across news media platforms via social media and communicating research to the general public. – Most research measured by altmetrics uses nontechnical language – Could measure societal impact of research (Thelwall et al., 2013). Image courtesy of plos.org/open-access
  8. 8. Advantages of Measuring Online Impact • Rather than predicting future citations, altmetrics likely capture a different and unique “aspect of research visibility and impact” (Thelwall et al., 2013). – Bornmann (2015) found that the more tags an article had in the F1000Prime, the more likely the articles were to be used for instruction, rather than as scholarly citations. • Possible indicator of translating complicated research into unambiguous information for the public’s use and in the classroom (Bornmann, 2015). Image courtesy of humancapitalist.com
  9. 9. Advantages of Measuring Online Impact • Supports faculty in understanding the impact of their research. • Assists faculty in pursuing tenure or promotion. • Assists evaluation committees and administrators in measuring research and scholarly and creative achievements for tenure. Image courtesy of Texas Tech University
  10. 10. Disadvantages and controversies surrounding altmetrics • Gaming altmetrics: the potential to manipulate the popularity of an article (Roemer & Borchardt, 2015). –Can cause damage to the purpose and accuracy of altmetrics. –Publishers can provide funding to draw attention to articles. • Lacks standardization (Roemer & Borchardt, 2015). – NISO’s Altmetrics Assessment Initiative • Estimating future citations not a reality yet. – Correlations between citations and altmetrics scores is still weak, (Barnes, 2015). • However, this may not be the ultimate purpose of altmetrics. Image courtesy of jansimon.com
  11. 11. Preliminary Data: Subject/Liaison Librarians • 210 liaison librarians • 575 liaison areas identified • Most liaison librarians responsible for multiple liaison areas. • Some liaison librarians mentioned liaison areas in multiple disciplines, (e.g. humanities, engineering, and life sciences.) • However, most liaison librarians were responsible for liaison areas in the same or similar disciplines. – Ex: One survey participant was responsible for the liaison
  12. 12. The Survey Purposes: – Assess academic librarians’ current usage of research metrics in the course of their work – Gather information about how librarians who conduct their own research or read others’ research articles use such metrics
  13. 13. The Survey • Population: –13,000 academic librarians at 4 year college or university • Respondents –709 librarians –~ 5% response rate
  14. 14. The Survey: What We Asked • Title and job duties • Tenure status • Familiarity with evaluative research metrics (JIF, usage, altmetrics) • Uses for evaluative research metrics (JIF, usage, altmetrics) –for professional duties –when evaluating their own scholarly work
  15. 15. The Survey: Preliminary Results • Title: Liaison Librarian/Subject Specialist • Job duties: Collection Development • Familiarity with –Journal Impact Factors –Citation Counts, Usage Metrics, Altmetrics • Use of metrics for collection development –Journal Impact Factors
  16. 16. Percentage of Liaison Areas Identified
  17. 17. Percentage of Liaison Areas Identified in the Hard Sciences Health Sciences: 74 mentions: ● Medicine ● Veterinary Science ● Dentistry ● Dietics ● Food Science ● Surgery ● Human Sciences ● Nursing ● +36 Others! Applied Sciences, 47 mentions: ● Engineering (30) ● Architecture (9) ● Agronomy (6) ● Other (3) Formal Sciences, 37 mentions: ● Mathematics (17) ● Computer Science (13) ● Statistics (7) Physical Sciences, 39 mentions: ● Chemistry (17) ● Biochemistry (7) ● Physics (13) ● Physical Sciences, General (2) Life Sciences, 27 mentions: ● Biology (21) ● Plant Science (3) ● Other (2) Earth & Space Sci., 26 mentions: ● Earth & Environ. Sci. (19) ● Astronomy & Astrophysics (7) Science, unspecified, 3 mentions
  18. 18. Percentage of Liaison Areas Identified in the Humanities Cultural and Gender studies, with 53 mentions, had 30 different types of studies! Overall, the humanities had 174 mentions, or 30 percent of all mentions.
  19. 19. Percentage of Liaison Areas Identified in the Social Sciences Social sciences had the fewest mentions in the survey, with 60 mentions, or 30 percent. Political science had the most mentions, at 19 mentions, and also included world politics, global/international studies, global affairs, European Union studies, and peace studies.
  20. 20. Percentage of Liaison Areas Identified in the Professions Professional areas had 89 mentions, or 16 percent. Business had the most mentions but also included economics, finance, management, and marketing.
  21. 21. More about our respondents • Almost all (97.3%) work full time in academic libraries at a 4 year college or university. • Most (62.3%) have worked as a librarian for 11 or more years and almost half of those (49.1%) have been working as a librarian for more than 21 years. • More than 50% have collection development duties.
  22. 22. Those with Collection Development Responsibilities' Familiarity with Metrics
  23. 23. All Respondents' Familiarity with Metrics
  24. 24. Have you ever used journal impact factors for any of the following purposes?
  25. 25. How often do you evaluate materials using the following indicators of research impact in the context of your collection
  26. 26. What we still want to know... • Are there variances in use of altmetrics for collection development between liaison areas? • Are there variances in FAMILIARITY WITH altmetrics between librarians with duties other than collection development (e.g. reference, instruction, assessment, scholarly communication)? • Are there variances in THE USE OF altmetrics between librarians with duties other than collection development (e.g. reference, instruction, assessment, scholarly communication)?
  27. 27. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION! CAN WE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU NOW? LATER? Sarah Sutton: ssutton3@emporia.edu Rachel Miles: rmiles@emporia.edu
  • tammaroster

    Jun. 9, 2017
  • martijnroelandse

    Oct. 26, 2015
  • nickoal

    Oct. 2, 2015

Presentation of preliminary altmetrics research results at the 2015 joint conference of the Kansas Library Association and the Missouri Library Association

Views

Total views

370

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

2

Actions

Downloads

5

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

3

×