1 / 17

Altmetrics for large, multidisciplinary research groups

Altmetrics for large, multidisciplinary research groups. A case study of the Leibniz Association. Alexandra Jobmann ( IPN ) & Isabella Peters (ZBW ) Anita Eppelin (ZB MED), Christian Hoffmann (Universität St. Gallen), Sylvia Künne ( IfW ), & Gabriele Wollnik-Korn (ZB MED ).

noble-valenzuela
Télécharger la présentation

Altmetrics for large, multidisciplinary research groups

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Altmetrics for large, multidisciplinary research groups A case study of the Leibniz Association Alexandra Jobmann (IPN) & Isabella Peters (ZBW) Anita Eppelin (ZB MED), Christian Hoffmann (Universität St. Gallen), Sylvia Künne (IfW), & Gabriele Wollnik-Korn (ZB MED)

  2. Bibliometrics 3 impact footprints

  3. Altmetrics 1 2 1 1 1 impact footprints

  4. Motivation forstudy • Initiatives that demand for new approaches in research evaluation (e.g., DORA) • Leibniz Association’s evaluation guidelines ask for appropriate public outreach and engagement in public discourse  how to measure? • Research showed significant disciplinary differences: coverage and impact (Haustein & Siebenlist, 2011; Haustein et al., 2013; Holmberg & Thelwall, 2013; Mohammadi& Thelwall, 2013)

  5. Research Questions • Whereandtowhatextentarethepublicationsoftheinstitutionsofthe Leibniz Associationcovered on socialmediaplatforms? • Whatimpact do publicationsofthemembersofthe Leibniz Associationhave on users (i.e., altmetrics)? • Whattoolscanbeusedtoassessresearchimpact? Whatchallengesmightoccur?

  6. Methods • WebometricAnalyst  forthecollectionofmissing DOIs via Crossref • Checked DOIs andretrieved DOIs • ImpactStory •  forthecollectionofDOI-based altmetricsdata(e.g., Twitter mentions, Mendeleyreaders)

  7. Data • Disciplinesofthe Leibniz Association • humanitiesandeducationalresearch • economics, socialsciences, spatialresearch • lifesciences • mathematics, naturalsciences, engineering • environmental sciences • 2-3 institutesofeachdiscipline • Articles in conferences/ journalsandbookchapters • Publicationyears: 2011, 2012

  8. Results • Mendeley attracts readers across disciplines • Enviromental Science reluctantly uses Twitter

  9. Results • Social media use is discipline-specific

  10. Results • Where do disciplines find their readers?

  11. Results • Altmetricscancomplementmissingdata (e.g., lifesciences) institute 1 institute 2

  12. Results • Institutes fromthesame discipline (e.g., lifesciences) find readers on different platforms

  13. LessonsLearned • Chosen toolsdeterminequalityofdata • Tools andaltmetricsproviderschangesettings • Chosen identifiersaffectdata • PubMedIDismorepopularthan DOI • Missingorerroneousidentfiers in socialmedia • Multiple identifiersforonepublication  Underestimationof real numbers • Collection ofpublicationdata • Missing DOIs on institutes‘ websites • Double-entryofpublication on websites • Carry out datadownload at the same time

  14. LessonsLearned • Aggregatednumbersmaygivewrongpicture (e.g., disciplinebasis) • Sum html views: 2,447 (n=2) - Sum readers: 921 (n=76)

  15. LessonsLearned • Mendeleyistheplatformwhichcovers a substantial amountofpapersandshowsreasonableuseractivity • Look forgoodcoverage/ usageratio • However, somedisciplinespreferotherplatforms • Gettoknowthe community preferences • Respectreader/ community choices • Altmetricsshould not substitute, but cancomplementcitationdata • Comparabilityofaltmetrics not given – same situationas in traditional citationanalysis

  16. Thankyou! Alexandra Jobmann, IPN jobmann@ipn.uni-kiel.de Prof. Dr. Isabella Peters, ZBW i.peters@zbw.eu

  17. References • Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446–457. • Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2013). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. In Proceedings of the 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Vienna, Austria, Vol. 1 (pp. 468-483). Retrieved from http://www.issi2013.org/Images/ISSI_Proceedings_Volume_I.pdf • Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. In Proceedings of the 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Vienna, Austria, Vol. 1 (pp. 567-582). Retrieved from http://www.issi2013.org/Images/ISSI_Proceedings_Volume_I.pdf • Mohammadi, E. & Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing the Mendeley readership of social sciences and humanities research. In Proceedings of the 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, Vienna, Austria, Vol. 1 (pp. 200-2014). Retrieved from http://www.issi2013.org/Images/ISSI_Proceedings_Volume_I.pdf

More Related