Exploring alternative metrics of scholarly performance in the social sciences and humanities in taiwan

Scientometrics

Volumn 102, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 97-112

  Chen, Kuang Hua ^a   Tang, Muh Chyun ^a   Wang, Chun Mei ^a   Hsiang, Jieh ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Altmetrics; Bibliometrics; Evaluation metrics; Research evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937786647     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1420-6     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Aguillo, I. F., Granadino, B., Ortega, J. L., & Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1296-1302.
2. Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., & Fernández, M. (2008). Webometric ranking of world universities: Introduction, methodology, and future developments. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2-3), 233-244
3. Allen, L., Jones, C., Dolby, K., Lynn, D., & Walport, M. (2009). Looking for landmarks: the role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PLoS One, 4(6), e5910
4. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.5611.
5. Bjorneborn, L., & Ingwersen, P. (2004). Toward a basic framework for webometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(14), 1216-1227
6. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE, 4(6), e6022.
7. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286-291.
8. Clemens, E. S., Powell, W. W., McIlwaine, K., & Okamoto, D. (1995). Careers in print: Books, journals, and scholarly reputations. American Journal of Sociology, 433-494.
9. Fry, J. (2006). Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic approach. Information Processing and Management, 42(1), 299-316.
10. Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2004). The cultural shaping of scholarly communication: Explaining e-journal use within and across academic fields. Proceedings of the American society for information science and technology, 41(1), 20-30
11. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446-457.
12. Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 1819-1828.
13. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of disciplinary research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2060-2069.
14. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461-471
15. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.
16. Must, U. (2012). Alone or together: Examples from history research. Scientometrics, 92(2), 527-537.
17. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100.
18. Nederhof, A., & Erlings, C. (1993). A bibliometric study of productivity and impact of modern language and literature research in the Netherlands, 1982-1991. Leiden: report CWTS-93-09.
19. Nederhof, A. J., Zwaan, R. A., De Bruin, R. E., & Dekker, P. J. (1988). Accessing the useful of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and behavioral sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics, 15(5-6), 423-435.
20. Nielsen, F. Å. (2007). Scientific citations in Wikipedia. First Monday, 12(8)
21. Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161-169.
22. Piwowar, H. (2013). Value all research products. Nature, 496, 159
23. Priem, J., & Costello, K. L. (2010). How and why scholars cite on twitter. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1-4.
24. Priem, J. & Hemminger, B. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 15(7).
25. Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Hemminger, B. (2011). Altmetrics in the wild: An exploratory study of impact metrics based on social media. Presented at Metrics 2011: Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research. New Orleans, LA, USA, October 12.
26. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P. & Neylon, C. (2010) Altmetrics: A manifesto. Rerieved from: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
27. Rousseau, R. & Ye, F. (2013). A multi-metrics approach for research evaluation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 10-12.
28. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1018-1027.
29. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131-1143.
30. Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of information science, 34(4), 605-621
31. Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2004). Do the Web sites of higher rated scholars have significantly more online impact? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 149-159
32. Van der Meulen, B., & Leydesdorff, L. (1991). Has the study of philosophy at Dutch universities changed under economic and political pressures? Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(3), 288-321.
33. Waltman, L., & Costas, R. (2014). F1000 Recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 433-445.
34. White, H. D., et al. (2009). Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1083-1096.
35. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, Advance online publication,. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0.