ape 2013 23012013
DESCRIPTION
The volume of scholarly literature is growing rapidly and mega-journals become more and more mainstream. Scholars therefore need (new) filters to select those articles most relevant for their work. Once published, the impact of their contribution to science is mostly assessed on the basis of out-of-date mechanisms such as the impact factor. However, the actual influence of their contribution on the journal's performance will only be visible for after another 2-3 years. At the same time, many funding bodies and universities still judge scholarly performance on the average impact factor of the journal they published in. A value they may not even have attributed to as a fraction of articles are never cited, ranging from only a few to up to 80%. A more accurate evaluation of scholarly performance would be to judge their work on a article level. Here metrics such as citations, usage, and those that track impact outside the academy, impact of influential but uncited work, and impact from sources that aren’t peer-reviewed - other important value metrics beyond the strength of a journal. Alternative metrics are still in their early stages; many questions are unanswered. But given the rapid evolution of scholarly communication, we will soon know their impact on the impact factor.TRANSCRIPT
ALTERNATIVE METRICS.
THE END OF THE IMPACT FACTOR AS WE KNOW IT?
http://about.me/martijnroelandse#APE2013
#APE20132
Who am I?
2000 – 2003 PhD Neurobiology Friedrich Miescher Institute, Basel
2003 – 2005 Postdoc Centre for Neurogenomics and Cognitive Research, Amsterdam
2005 – 2008 Postdoc Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam
2008 – 2010 Associate publisher B2B Springer Media BV, Houten
2010 - current Publishing Editor STM Springer Science+Business Media BV, Dordrecht
3 #APE2013
Research output per country
Sources: OECD MSTI: all population data 2010, all research data 2009, all GERD data 2010 except Germany (2009), with extrapolation where appropriate and where World totals are the sum of data for all countries with available data. WIPO Statistics Database: all patents data 2009. Scival Spotlight: all Competencies data 2010. Scopus: all Articles, Citations and Highly-cited articles data 2010.
ScienceDirect: all Usage data 2010.
articles0.0
500,000.0
1,000,000.0
1,500,000.0
2,000,000.0
20062010
citations0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
20062010
researchers0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
2005 2009
#APE20134
- Launched June 2006- Biology and Medicine- Rejection rate: 15%- Jan 2012: Article 30.000 published- 2010 Impact Factor: 4.351
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
#Articles
The rise of the mega-journals
5
#APE2013
Once published, the impact of their contribution to science
is mostly assessed on the basis of out-of-date mechanisms
such as the impact factor. However, the actual influence of
their contribution on the journal's performance will only
be visible for after another 2-3 years.
Impact Factor
A = the number of times that articles published in 2006 and 2007 were cited by indexed journals during 2008.B = the total number of "citable items" published by that journal in 2006 and 2007
2008 impact factor = A/B.
6
#APE2013
Article published in a top-tier journal with ‘0’ citations after 2 years
Article published in a lower impact journal with tens of citations
Which article made a bigger impact?
7 #APE2013
Research dissemination channels have changed
Scholarly citations Non-scholarly citation
News coverage Twitter, Facebook, Google+ Blogs, Wikipedia
Post-publication recommendations Faculty of 1000 Mendeley, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Papers
8 #APE2013
Growth of non-scholarly citations
Facebook twitter Blogs Google+ Pinterest Reddit Q&A sites
LinkedIn0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
24052
187408
2077 2195 471 833 73 174
absolute numbers Sept '12.
Facebook twitter Pinterest Reddit Q&A sites LinkedIn
-10-8-6-4-202468 7
4.4 3.72.63
-8
4.37
average monthly change, 1st Sep - 1st Dec '12
%
9
#APE2013
Article with tens of citations Article widely discussed in the social web Article with lots of downloads
Which article made a bigger impact?
10
#APE2013
Article Level Metrics
Article-Level Metrics (ALMs, altmetrics, alternative metrics) are
not just about citations and usage. The concept refers to a
whole range of measures which might provide insight into
‘impact’ or ‘reach’. Collectively as a suite, ALMs aims to measure
research impact in a transparent and comprehensive manner.
#APE201311
ALM @ PLoS
Key importance: Findability, sharability, citability, comments
Real-time listing: Citations Usage Social Impact Post-pub review
comments
12 #APE2013
Other ALM examples (I)
BioMed Central
IOP
NatureHighWire
13 #APE2013
Other ALM examples (II)
14 #APE2013
Scholarly vs non-scholarly citations
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4505
10152025303540
Social
Cited
Sources: Cited: Top 500 articles published in 2012 and cited in 2012 using Thompson Scientific Journal Citation Index for Springer journals in neuroscience. Social: Top 500 articles for Springer journals in neuroscience mentioned in the social web using Altmetrics. All data 01/12/2012. Eysenbach G Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation
with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact J Med Internet Res 2011;13(4):e123
“Tweets can predict highly cited articles
within the first 3 days of article publication
15 #APE2013
Concluding – Article Level Metrics
A more accurate evaluation of scholarly performance
Show dissemination of an article through scholarly and non-scholarly communication
A new benchmark for employers, funders, potential collaborators
Provide filters to select those articles most relevant for their work
QUESTIONS?http://about.me/martijnroelandse#APE2013