Altmetrics as a means of assessing scholarly output

Learned Publishing

Volumn 27, Issue , 2014, Pages S25-S32

  Khodiyar, Varsha K ^a   Rowlett, Karen A ^a   Lawrence, Rebecca N ^a  

^a Science Navigation Group   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84919420783     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: 17414857     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/20140505     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Aksnes, D.W. 2006. Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57: 169–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20262.
2. Allen, L. et al.2009. Looking for landmarks: the role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PloS one, 4(6): e5910. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005910.
3. Bergstrom, C.T., West, J.D., and Wiseman, M.A. 2008. The Eigenfactor metrics. Journal of Neuroscience, 28: 11433–11434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0003-08.2008.
4. Casadevall, A. and Fang, F.C. 2014. Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio, 5(2): e00064–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00064-14.
5. Costas, R. et al.2013. The Value of Research Data – Metrics for Datasets from a Cultural and Technical Point of View. A Knowledge Exchange Report, available from www.knowledge-exchange.info/datametrics
6. Ewing, B. and Green, P. 1998. Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using Phred. II. Error probabilities. Genome Research, 8(3): 186–194. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.8.3.175.
7. Ewing, B. et al.1998. Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using Phred. I. Accuracy assessment. Genome Research, 8(3): 175–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.8.3.175.
8. Eysenbach, G. 2012. Correction: can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14: e7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2041.
9. Fenner, M. 2013. What can article-level metrics do for you? PLOS Biology, 11: e1001687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001687.
10. Hansen, H.B. and Henriksen, J.H. 1997. How well does journal ‘impact’ work in the assessment of papers on clinical physiology and nuclear medicine? Clinical Physiology, 17: 409–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2281.1997.04545.x
11. Harley, D. 2013. Scholarly communication: cultural contexts, evolving models. Science, 342: 80–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1243622.
12. Hecht, F., Hecht, B.K., and Sandberg, A.A. 1998. The journal ‘impact factor’: a misnamed, misleading, misused measure. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics, 104: 77–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4608(97)00459-7.
13. Hirsch, J.E. 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102: 16569–16572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
14. Hirsch, J.E. 2007. Does the H index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104: 19193–19198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707962104.
15. Ingwersen, P. and Chavan, V. 2011. Indicators for the Data Usage Index (DUI): an incentive for publishing primary biodiversity data through global information infrastructure. BMC Bioinformatics, 12: S3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-S15-S3.
16. Lander, E.S. et al.2001. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409(6822): 860–921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35057062.
17. Lehmann, S., Jackson, A.D., and Lautrup, B.E. 2006. Measures for measures. Nature, 444: 1003–1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/4441003a
18. Liu, C.L. et al.2013. Correlation and interaction visualization of altmetric indicators extracted from scholarly social network activities: dimensions and structure. Journal of Medical Internet research, 15: e259. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2707.
19. Neylon, C. and Wu, S. 2009. Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLOS Biology, 7: e1000242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242.
20. NISO 2013. NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics (Altmetrics) Project. Available at: http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/altmetrics_initiative (accessed 31. July 2014).
21. Nokes, K.M. et al.2013. Faculty perceptions of how community- engaged research is valued in tenure, promotion, and retention decisions. Clinical and Translational Science, 6(4): 259–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cts.12077.
22. Penner, O. et al. 2013. On the predictability of future impact in science. Scientific Reports, 3: 3052. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep03052.
23. Priem, J. et al.2011. Altmetrics in the wild: An exploratory study of impact metrics based on social media. Metrics 2011: Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research. New Orleans, LA. Available at: http://jasonpriem.org/self-archived/PLoS-altmetrics-sigmetrics11-abstract.pdf.
24. Priem, J., Groth, P., and Taraborelli, D. 2012. The altmetrics collection. PLOS ONE, 7(11): e48753. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048753.
25. Rostami-Hodjegan, A. and Tucker, G.T. 2001. Journal impact factors: a ‘bioequivalence’ issue? British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 51(2): 111–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2001.01349.x
26. Sanberg, P.R. et al.2014. Changing the academic culture: valuing patents and commercialization toward tenure and career advancement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(18): 6542–6547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404094111.
27. Seglen, P.O. 1997. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314: 498–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497.
28. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., and Thelwall, M. 2013. Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65: 1018–1027. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23037.
29. Thelwall, M. et al.2013. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLOS ONE, 8(5): e64841. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.
30. Tort, A.B.L., Targino, Z.H., and Amaral, O.B. 2012. Rising publication delays infl ate journal impact factors. PLOS ONE, 7(12): e53374. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053374.
31. Waltman, L. and Costas, R. 2013. F1000 recommendations as a new data source for research evaluation: a comparison with citations. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3875.
32. Wouters, P. and Costas, R. 2012. Users, Narcissism and Control – Tracking the Impact of Scholarly Publications in the 21st Century. Image, Rochester, NY.