Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies

Scientometrics

Volumn 108, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 413-423

  Haustein, Stefanie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Big data; Comparability; Concordance tables; Data integration; Data quality; Interoperability; Modularization; Research and innovation policy; Research assessment; Standardization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84961182995     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Alperin, J. P. (2015). Geographic variation in social media metrics: An analysis of Latin American journal articles. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 289–304. doi:10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0176.
2. Bar-Ilan, J. (2014). JASIST@ Mendeley revisited. In altmetrics14: expanding impacts and metrics, workshop at web science conference 2014. Retrieved from http://files.figshare.com/1504021/JASIST_new_revised.pdf
3. Björneborn, L., & Ingwersen, P. (2004). Toward a basic framework for webometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(14), 1216–1227. doi:10.1002/asi.20077.
4. 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. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003.
5. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003–2019. doi:10.1002/asi.23309.
6. Cronin, B. (2016). The Incessant chattering of texts. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication. A Festschrift in Honor of Blaise Cronin (pp. 13–19). Berlin: De Gruyter.
7. Cronin, B., Snyder, H. W., Rosenbaum, H., Martinson, A., & Callahan, E. (1998). Invoked on the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(14), 1319–1328. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1998)49:14<1319:AID-ASI9>3.0.CO;2-W.
8. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2012). The evaluation society. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books, an imprint of Stanford University Press.
9. Dinsmore, A., Allen, L., & Dolby, K. (2014). Alternative perspectives on impact: The potential of ALMs and altmetrics to inform funders about research impact. PLoS Biology, 12(11), e1002003.
10. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108–111.
11. Gilbert, G. N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 113–122.
12. Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2015). Usage metrics versus altmetrics: Confusing terminology? Scientometrics, 102(3), 2161–2164. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1472-7.
13. Gross, P. L. K., & Gross, E. M. (1927). College libraries and chemical education. Science, 66(1713), 385–389.
14. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., & Costas, R. (2015a). When is an article actually published? An analysis of online availability, publication, and indexation dates. In Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference (pp. 1170–1179). Istanbul, Turkey.
15. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., & Costas, R. (2016a). Interpreting “altmetrics”: viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication. A Festschrift in Honor of Blaise Cronin (pp. 372–405). Berlin: De Gruyter. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05701
16. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2016b). Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 232–238. doi:10.1002/asi.23456.
17. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015b). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120495. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120495.
18. Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance: Governance of knowledge-intensive organizations (pp. 121–139). Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_8
19. Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? It—Information Technology, 56(5), 207–215. doi:10.1515/itit-2014-1048.
20. Haustein, S., Sugimoto, C., & Larivière, V. (2015c). Guest editorial: Social media in scholarly communication. Aslib Journal of Information Management,. doi:10.1108/AJIM-03-2015-0047.
21. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2011). Decisions on assessing research impact. Research Excellent Framework (REF) 2014 (Research Excellence Framework No. 01.2011). Retrieved from http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/decisionsonassessingresearchimpact/01_11.pdf
22. Jobmann, A., Hoffmann, C. P., Künne, S., Peters, I., Schmitz, J., & Wollnik-Korn, G. (2014). Altmetrics for large, multidisciplinary research groups: Comparison of current tools. Bibliometrie-Praxis Und Forschung, 3. Retrieved from http://www.bibliometrie-pf.de/index.php/bibliometrie/article/view/205
23. Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1993). On social research and its language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x.
25. Lin, J., & Fenner, M. (2013). Altmetrics in evolution: Defining and redefining the ontology of article-level metrics. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 20–26.
26. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, 101(1), 337–356. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1345-0.
27. Moed, H. F. (2016). Altmetrics as traces of the computerization of the research process. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication. A Festschrift in Honor of Blaise Cronin (pp. 360–371). Berlin: De Gruyter.
28. Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy, 14(3), 131–149. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(85)90012-5.
29. Piwowar, H. (2013). Value all research products. Nature, 493, 159. doi:10.1038/493159a.
30. Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of performance (pp. 263–287). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7). Retrieved from http://pear.accc.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/2874/2570
32. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv Print, 1–17.
33. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010, October 26). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
34. Rousseau, R., & Ye, F. Y. (2013). A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58(26), 3288–3290. doi:10.1007/s11434-013-5939-3.
35. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183–195. doi:10.1087/20110306.
36. Sugimoto, C. R. (Ed.). (2016). Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication. Berlin: De Gruyter.
37. Taylor, M. (2013). Towards a common model of citation: Some thoughts on merging altmetrics and bibliometrics. Research Trends, 35, 1–6.
38. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2015). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,. doi:10.1002/asi.23501.
39. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129. doi:10.1038/512126a.
40. 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. doi:10.1002/asi.23040.
41. Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., et al. (2015). The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management.,. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.
42. Zahedi, Z., Bowman, T. D., & Haustein, S. (2014a). Exploring data quality and retrieval strategies for Mendeley reader counts. Presented at the SIG/MET workshop, ASIS&T 2014 annual meeting, Seattle. Retrieved from http://www.asis.org/SIG/SIGMET/data/uploads/sigmet2014/zahedi.pdf
43. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014b). Assessing the impact of publications saved by Mendeley users: Is there any different pattern among users? In IATUL conference, Espoo, Finland, June 2–5 2014. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2014/altmetrics/4
44. Zahedi, Z., Fenner, M., & Costas, R. (2014c). How consistent are altmetrics providers? Study of 1000 PLOS ONE publications using the PLOS ALM, Mendeley and Altmetric. com APIs. In altmetrics 14. Workshop at the web science conference, Bloomington, USA. Retrieved from http://files.figshare.com/1945874/How_consistent_are_altmetrics_providers__5_.pdf
45. Zahedi, Z., Fenner, M., & Costas, R. (2015). Consistency among altmetrics data provider/aggregators: What are the challenges? In altmetrics15: 5 years in, what do we know? Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/altmetrics15_paper_14.pdf