Evaluating altmetrics

被引:222
作者
Sud, Pardeep [1 ]
Thelwall, Mike [1 ]
机构
[1] Wolverhampton Univ, Sch Technol, Stat Cybermetr Res Grp, Wolverhampton WV1 1SB, W Midlands, England
关键词
Altmetrics; Indicators; Webometrics; IMPACT; CITATIONS; SCIENCE; REASONS;
D O I
10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
The rise of the social web and its uptake by scholars has led to the creation of altmetrics, which are social web metrics for academic publications. These new metrics can, in theory, be used in an evaluative role, to give early estimates of the impact of publications or to give estimates of non-traditional types of impact. They can also be used as an information seeking aid: to help draw a digital library user's attention to papers that have attracted social web mentions. If altmetrics are to be trusted then they must be evaluated to see if the claims made about them are reasonable. Drawing upon previous citation analysis debates and web citation analysis research, this article discusses altmetric evaluation strategies, including correlation tests, content analyses, interviews and pragmatic analyses. It recommends that a range of methods are needed for altmetric evaluations, that the methods should focus on identifying the relative strengths of influences on altmetric creation, and that such evaluations should be prioritised in a logical order.
引用
收藏
页码:1131 / 1143
页数:13
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2012, ALTMETRICS WILD USIN
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1974, The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations
[3]  
[Anonymous], CITATION ANAL RES EV
[4]  
[Anonymous], P 2 WEB SCI C WEBSCI
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2011, ALTMETRICS MANIFESTO
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2010, P AM SOC INFORM SCI, DOI DOI 10.1002/MEET.14504701201
[7]  
Bar-Ilan J., 2012, P 17 INT C SCI TECHN, P98
[8]   An examination of sources of peer-review bias [J].
Blackburn, JL ;
Hakel, MD .
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2006, 17 (05) :378-382
[9]   Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication [J].
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Nast, Irina ;
Daniel, Hans-Dieter .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2008, 77 (03) :415-432
[10]  
BROOKS TA, 1986, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V37, P34