Scientific revolution in scientometrics: The broadening of impact from citation to societal

Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 347-359

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011706845     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1515/9783110308464-020     Document Type: Chapter

References (58)

1. Bornmann, L. (2012). Measuring the societal impact of research. EMBO Reports, 13(8), 673-676.
2. Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217-233.
3. Bornmann, L. (2014). Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 647-648.
4. Bornmann, L. (2015a). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123-1144.
5. Bornmann, L. (2015b). Letter to the Editor: On the conceptualisation and theorisation of the impact caused by publications. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1145-1148. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1588-4.
6. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). What do we know about theh index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381-1385. doi:10.1002/asi.20609.
7. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80. doi: 10.1108/00220410810844150
8. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2013). How good is research really? Measuring the citation impact of publications with percentiles increases correct assessments and fair comparisons. EMBO reports, 14(3), 226-230. doi: 10.1038/embor.2013.9
9. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2014). How should the societal impact of research be generated and measured? A proposal for a simple and practicable approach to allow interdisciplinary comparisons. Scientometrics, 98(1), 211-219.
10. Colledge, L. (2014). Snowball Metrics Recipe Book. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Snowball Metrics program partners.
11. Collins, H. (2004). Gravity’s shadow: the search for gravitational waves. Chicago, IL, USA:The University of Chicago Press.
12. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2014). Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Retrieved February 11, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4321
13. Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. Oxford, UK: Taylor Graham.
14. Cronin, B., & Meho, L. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influtential information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(9), 1275-1278.
15. Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2014). Scholarly metrics under the microscope: from citation analysis to academic auditing. Medford, NJ, USA: Information Today Inc.
16. Donovan, C. (2011). State of the art in assessing research impact: introduction to a special issue. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 175-179.
17. European Commission. (2010). Assessing Europe’s university-based research. Expert group on assessment of university-based research. Brussels, Belgium: Publications Office of the European Union.
18. Garfield, E. (1962). Can citation indexing be automated? Essays of an information scientist, 1, 84-90.
19. Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2011). There are neither “king” nor “crown” in scientometrics: comments on a supposed “alternative” method of normalization. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 226-227. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.005
20. Godin, B., & Dore, C. (2005). Measuring the impacts of science; beyond the economic dimension, INRS Urbanisation, Culture et Société. Paper presented at the HIST Lecture, Helsinki Institute for Science and Technology Studies, Helsinki, Finland. http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/ Godin_Dore_Impacts.pdf
21. Grant, J., Brutscher, P.-B., Kirk, S., Butler, L., & Wooding, S. (2009). Capturing research impacts. Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe.
22. Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2014). Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 392-402. doi:10.1111/bjet.12150
23. Hanney, S., Packwood, T., & Buxton, M. (2000). Evaluating the benefits from health research and development centres: a categorization, a model and examples of application. Evaluation, 6(2), 137-160.
24. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine:An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 656-669. doi: 10.1002/ asi.23101
25. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102
26. Holbrook, J. B., & Frodeman, R. (2010). Comparative Assessment of Peer Review (CAPR). EU/US workshop on peer review: assessing “broader impact” in research grant applications. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
27. ImpactStory. (2014). A new framework for altmetrics. Retrieved September 1, from http://blog. impactstory.org/31524247207/
28. Kjellberg, S. (2010). I am a blogging researcher: Motivations for blogging in a scholarly context.
29. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: an essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
30. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1991). Merton sociology of science: the first and the last sociology of science. Contemporary Sociology, 20(4), 522-526.
31. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (2. ed.). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
32. Kurtz, M. J., & Bollen, J. (2010). Usage Bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, 3-64.
33. Kvasz, L. (2014). Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions between sociology and epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 46, 78-84.
34. Lähteenmäki-Smith, K., Hyytinen, K., Kutinlahti, P., & Konttinen, J. (2006). Research with an impact evaluation practises in public research organisations. Kemistintie, Finland: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.
35. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. London, UK: Sage.
36. Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Opthof, T. (2011). Turning the tables in citation analysis one more time: principles for comparing sets of documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1370-1381.
37. Martin, B. R. (2011). The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, 20(3), 247-254.
38. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-682.
39. Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635-659. doi: 10.2307/2089193.
40. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
41. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
42. Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79(4), 606-623.
43. Mostert, S., Ellenbroek, S., Meijer, I., van Ark, G., & Klasen, E. (2010). Societal output and use of research performed by health research groups. Health Research Policy and Systems, 8(1), 30.
44. Nightingale, P., & Scott, A. (2007). Peer review and the relevance gap: ten suggestions for policy-makers. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 543-553. doi: 10.3152/030234207x254396
45. NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics Project. (2014). NISO Altmetrics Standards Project White Paper. Retrieved July 8, 2014, from http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/document. php?document_id=13295&wg_abbrev=altmetrics
46. Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multi-dimensional indicators of performance. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
47. Rousseau, R., & Ye, F. Y. (2013). A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58. doi: 10.1007/s11434-013-5939-3
48. RQF development advisory group. (2006). Research quality framework: assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia. Research Impact (report by the RQF development advisory group). Canberra, Australia: Department of Education.
49. Rymer, L. (2011). Measuring the impact of research - the context for metric development. Turner, Australia: The Group of Eight.
50. Small, H. G. (1978). Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8(3), 327-340.
51. Small, H. G. (1982). Citation context analysis. In B. J. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 287-310). Norwood, NJ, USA: Ablex.
52. Taylor, M. (2013). Towards a common model of citation: some thoughts on merging altmetrics and bibliometrics. Research Trends(35), 19-22.
53. Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, A., & Jimenez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics: new indicators for scientific communication in Web 2.0. Comunicar, 41, 53-60.
54. van der Meulen, B., & Rip, A. (2000). Evaluation of societal quality of public sector research in the Netherlands. Research Evaluation, 9(1), 11-25.
55. Weller, K., & Peters, I. (2012). Citations in Web 2.0. In A. Tokar, M. Beurskens, S. Keuneke, M. Mahrt, I. Peters, C. Puschmann, T. van Treeck & K. Weller (Eds.), Science and the Internet (pp. 209-222). Düsseldorf. Germany: Düsseldorf University Press.
56. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control - tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Utrecht, The Netherlands: SURFfoundation.
57. Wray, K. B. (2011). Kuhn’s evolutionary social epistemology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.