Abstract

In recent years academic librarians have focussed their activities on supporting researchers in various aspects of their scientific activity. In this scenario of support for research and bibliometric studies, librarians increasingly need to know, test, experiment with, use and disseminate altmetrics (alternative metrics). A review of altmetrics indicators is presented, and the role of librarians is considered, particularly university librarians, who should be active and engaged in this area. Steps that librarians should take to incorporate almetrics into their daily work routine are proposed.

Abstract

Since September 2015, Web of Science has displayed an indicator of a non-bibliometric nature. The new indicator, called “usage count”, measures the number of times the full text of a document has been accessed, and the number of times the bibliographic reference of the document has been exported to a reference manager. The same indicator is computed for two different time frames: one is a rolling window that measures the number of times the document has been accessed in the last 180 days and the other measures all instances of access since 2013. In order to decipher the meaning of this new indicator, apart from reflecting on the actions we expect to measure, an exploratory study was conducted where the new indicators were compared to the traditional citation counts, by pulling two samples of documents: the most cited documents published in 2015 (so far), and the most used ones. The greatest difference found between the two samples indicates the two indicators reflect different types of impact. After all, citations and usage of documents are actions so different in nature that their counts can only offer divergent results. Moreover, a very low correlation was found between these usage counts and the most common altmetrics. However, given the size and bias of the sample (highly cited and highly used documents), the results should be considered with caution. Nonetheless, we can be sure that usage counts enrich the set of bibliometric indicators offered by Web of Science, and that they will provide new insights about previously disregarded documents. Empirical data available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1564716

Abstract

The peg of this report is the 14th edition of the International Society for Informetrics and Scientometrics (ISSI) Conference, which was held in Vienna in 2013 and was by far the biggest event in this field. Based on this conference the author discusses the hottest and most controversial topics, which bibliometricians and scientometricians will have to face within the next years and even beyond. These are, amongst others, the adjustment of the peer review process to the challenges of the digital era, the crucial role of research data, the rise and necessity of new metrics, as well as the reconsideration of our proxys. Furthermore it is pointed out to which degree all these novel possibilities in the dissemination and promotion of research output will inevitably influence the role of future scientists. Finally, a short reflection on the scientometric community during this crucial period of change is given.

Abstract

In 2012 there were many proposals for new indicators associated with social web tools. These indicators have been termed as altmetrics (or alternative metrics) and are presented as an alternative to the evaluation of scientific activity. In this paper some possible limitations of the new indicators are presented. More specifically these shortcomings are: 1) a large number of information sources and indicators that make it difficult to establish their classification and relevance; 2) some indicators that have no statistical validity because they generate poor results; 3) the difficulty of determining the meaning of the new metrics –what are we assessing, scientific or social impact?; and 4) the evanescent and ephemeral nature of these new sources and indicators.

Abstract

Recent development of online tools based on Web 2.0 are enabling the creation of metrics on the number of users who “read”, “comment”, “tweet”, “share” or “discuss” scientific and academic papers. All these metrics are commonly known as ‘altmetrics’. Altmetrics have gained importance recently because in the field of scientific communication and evaluation they are increasingly considered a key data source for studying the ‘social impact’ of science. This progress report presents an overview of the major conceptual advances, events and projects that have occurred around altmetrics in 2014, and also reflects on possible developments and practical applications that are expected in this area in the near future.

Abstract

Sleeping beauties (SB) is a term that is used to describe scientific articles that pass unnoticed in science for long periods of time until they are rediscovered. This phenomenon is little known in the scientific community and contradicts some of science’s basic presuppositions. At the same time, the current reality of scientific research is defined according to the quantity of information that is produced. Although the SB field of study is little known, it has very specific characteristics that generate a number of cross-cutting interpretations about the way that science reflects on itself. This article explores three problems that the SB spotlights which are conceptualized within the same epistemological approach. We concludes that the SB analysis and the expected increase in the occurrence of SBs offers a point upon which to reflect bout epistemological frameworks of scientific practice.

Abstract

After many years of relatively slow progress, the field of research assessment and discovery has begun to change rapidly. As scholars adopt the web for scholarly communication, more and more sources of information about research impact are becoming available, and at much greater global scale and coverage, and openness than before. This article discusses these trends, highlights the major players and ongoing work, and points at future directions.

Abstract

The reasons for the use of "alternative metrics" to measure the influence that the publication of a specific scientific work has on society are discussed. It is argued that altmetrics are complementary to the traditional system of counting citations, and can be used in much broader contexts.

Abstract

Altmetrics measure the impact of research by quantifying its presence on the social web. The use of this tool in research evaluation can supplement citation analysis. However, altmetric data sources suffer from biases similar to those of citation databases. Although altmetrics offer article-level metrics, it is necessary to normalize data collection in order to guarantee the consistency of altmetric indicators and to build a conceptual framework to interpret them. Altmetrics can be a source of information on researchers’ information behaviour and needs.