Usage impact factor: The effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 59, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 136-149

  Bollen, Johan ^a   Van De Sompel, Herbert ^a  

^a LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IMPACT METRICS; USAGE DATA; USAGE IMPACT FACTORS;

DATA ACQUISITION; INFORMATION SERVICES; METRIC SYSTEM; STUDENTS;

USABILITY ENGINEERING;

EID: 38349179600     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20746     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Analytic Studies Division. (2004). Statistical abstract 2004-2005 (Tech. Rep.). California State University, http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_ab stract/stat0405/
2. Bollen, J., & Luce, R. (2002). Evaluation of digital library impact and user communities by analysis of usage patterns. D-Lib Magazine, 8(6). http://www.dlib.org.
3. Bollen, J., Luce, R., Vemulapalli, S., & Xu, W. (2003). Detecting research trends in digital library readership. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Digital Libraries (LNCS 2769) (pp. 24-28). Trondheim, Norway: Springer-Verlag.
4. Bollen, J., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006a). Mapping the structure of science through usage. Scientometrics, 69(2), 227-258.
5. Bollen, J., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006b). An architecture for the aggregation and analysis of scholarly usage data. In Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL2006) (pp. 298-307). Chapel Hill, NC
6. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Smith, J., & Luce, R. (2005). Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1419-1440.
7. Brody, T., Harnad, S., & Carr, L. (2006). Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1060-1072.
8. Chandler, A., & Jewell, T. (2006). Standards-Libraries, data providers and SUSHI: The Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative. Against the Grain, 18(2), 82-83.
9. Darmoni, S.J., Roussel, F., Benichou, J., Thirion, B., & Pinhas, N. (2002). Reading factor: A new bibliometric criterion for managing digital libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(3), 323-327.
10. Davis, P.M., & Price, J.S. (2006). eJournal interface can influence usage statistics: Implications for libraries, publishers, and project COUNTER. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1243-1248.
11. Franklin, B., & Plum, T. (2004). Library usage patterns in the electronic information environment. Information Research, 9(4), Paper No. 187.
12. Gallagher, J., Bauer, K., & Dollar, D.M. (2005). Evidence-based librarianship: Utilizing data from all available sources to make judicious print cancellation decisions. Library Collections, Acquisitions and Technical Services, 29(2), 169-179.
13. Galvin, T.J., & Kent, A. ( 1977). Use of a university library collections progress report on a Pittsburgh study. Library Journal, 102(20), 2317-2320.
14. Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: Wiley.
15. Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161, 979-980.
16. Groote, S.L.D., & Dorsch, J.L. (2001). Online journals: Impact on print journal usage. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 89(4), 372-378.
17. King, D.W., Tenopir, C., & Clarke, M. (2006). Measuring total reading of journal articles. D-Lib Magazine, 12(10).
18. Kurtz, M.J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C.S., Demleitner, M., & Murray, S.S. (2004a). The bibliometric properties of article readership information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(2), 111-128.
19. Kurtz, M.J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C.S., Demleitner, M., & Murray, S.S. (2004b). Worldwide use and impact of the NASA Astrophysics Data System digital library. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 36-45.
20. Luther, J. (2006). White paper on electronic journal usage statistics. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 6(3). http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/ 06-03/luther.html
21. Luwel, M., & Moed, H.F. (1998). Publication delays in the science field and their relationship to the ageing of scientific literature. Scientometrics, 41(1-2), 29-40.
22. MacRoberts, M.H., & MacRoberts, B.R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342-349.
23. McDonald, J.D. (2006). Understanding online journal usage: A statistical analysis of citation and use. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 39-50.
24. Medicine (Eds.) PLoS. (2006). The impact factor game. PLoS Med, 3(6), DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.003029.
25. Moed, H.R (2005). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1088-1097.
26. Monastersky, R. (2005). The number that's devouring science. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52, A12.
27. Nature. (2005). Editorial: Not-so-deep impact. Nature, 435, 1003-1004.
28. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Dobrowolski, T., Rowlands, I., Jamali, M.H.R., & Polydoratou, P. (2005). Revisiting obsolescence and journal article decay through usage data: An analysis of digital journal use by year of publication. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1441-1461.
29. Opthof, T. ( 1997). Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovascular Research, 33, 1-7.
30. Perneger, T.V. (2004). Relation between online hit counts and subsequent citations: Prospective study of research papers in the BMJ. BMJ, 329(7465), 546-547.
31. Reedijk, J. (1998). Sense and nonsense of science citation analyses: Comments on the monopoly position of ISI and citation inaccuracies. Risks of possible misuse and biased citation and impact data. New Journal of Chemistry, 767-770.
32. Rinia, E.J., Leeuwen, T.N. van, Bruins, E.E.W., Vuren, H.G. van, & Raan, A.F.J, van. (2001). Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange. Scientometrics, 51(1), 293-309.
33. Saha, S., & Saint, S. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91(1), 42-46.
34. Scales, P.A. (1976). Citation analysis as indicators of use of serials-
35. Comparison of ranked title lists produced by citation counting and from use data. Journal of Documentation, 32(1), 17-25.
36. Shepherd, PT. (2004). Project COUNTER-Setting international standards for online usage statistics. Journal of Information Processing and Management, 47(4), 245-257.
37. Shepherd, P.T. (2007). The feasibility of developing and implementing journal usage factors: A research project sponsored by UKSG. Journal for the Serials Community, 20(2), 117-123. DOI: 10.1629/20117.
38. Tsay, M.Y. (1998). The relationship between journal use in a medical library and citation use. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 86(1), 31-39.
39. Van de Sompel, H. (1999a). Reference linking in a hybrid library environment (Part 1). D-Lib Magazine, 5(4).
40. Van de Sompel, H. (1999b). Reference linking in a hybrid library environment (Part 2). D-Lib Magazine, 5(4).
41. Van de Sompel, H., & Beit-Arie, O. (2001). Open linking in the scholarly information environment using the OpenURL framework. D-Lib Magazine, 7(3).
42. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131.
43. Winship, C., &Mare, R.D. (1992). Models of sample selection bias. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 237-350.