Library and Information Service >
Analysis on the Usability of Altmetrics Indicators Based on PLOS ALM
Received date: 2016-01-14
Revised date: 2016-02-03
Online published: 2016-02-20
[Purpose/significance] Altmetrics is the good supplement for the current academic evaluation system. But altmetrics has disadvantages of easy manipulated data, accidental users' behaviors and unstable data sources, so its usability is questioned. [Method/process] Based on the PLOS ALM dataset, this paper analyzes the coverage ratio, stability, timeliness and intersectionality of altmetrics indicators, to make a comprehensive and objective evaluation for its usability, and provide subjective and valuable information for its deep study and usage. [Result/conclusion] After the empirical analysis, it draws the conclusion that different indicators both have their own advantages and disadvantages. They perform differently in coverage ratio, stability, timeliness and continuity. Their reflections for scientific values vary and sometimes replicate. All the indicators should be used together as a system, to meet the needs of academic evaluation.
Key words： altmetrics; academic impact; PLOS; scientific evaluation; bibliometrics
Liu Xiaojuan , Song Wanzi . Analysis on the Usability of Altmetrics Indicators Based on PLOS ALM[J]. Library and Information Service, 2016 , 60(4) : 93 -101 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2016.04.013
[1] MOHAMMADI E, THELWALL M. Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: research evaluation and knowledge flows[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2014,65(8):1627-1638.
[2] KNIGHT S R. Social media and online attention as an early measure of the impact of research in solid organ transplantation[J].Transplantation,2014,98(5):490-496.
[3] 宋丽萍,王建芳,王树义. 科学评价视角下F1000、Mendeley与传统文献计量指标的比较[J]. 中国图书馆学报,2014(4):48-54.
[4] 刘晓娟,周建华,尤斌. 基于Mendeley与WoS的选择性计量指标与传统科学计量指标相关性研究[J]. 图书情报工作,2015,59(3):112-118.
[5] ORTEGA J L. Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: the case of CSIC's members[J]. Journal of informetrics,2015,9(1):39-49.
[6] 刘春丽. 基于PLOS API的论文影响力选择性计量指标研究[J]. 图书情报工作,2013,57(7):89-95.
[7] BOLLEN J, VAN DE SOMPEL H, HAGBERG A, et al. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures[J]. PlOS one,2009,4(6):e6022.
[8] CROTTY D. Altmetrics:finding meaningful needles in the data haystack[J]. Serials review,2014,40(3):141-146.
[9] 王贤文,方志超,王虹茵. 连续、动态和复合的单篇论文评价体系构建研究[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理,2015(8):37-48.
[10] HAUSTEIN S, PETERS I, BAR-LLAN J, et al. Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community[J]. Scientometrics,2014,101(2):1145-1163.
[11] PRIEM J, PIWOWAR H A, HEMMINGER B M. Altmetrics in the wild: using social media to explore scholarly impact[J/OL].[2015-11-20].http://arXiv-org/abs/1203.4745.
[12] THELWALL M, HAUSTEIN S, LARIVERE V, et al. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social Web services[J]. PlOS ONE,2013,8(5):e64841.
[13] FENNER M. Altmetrics and other novel measures for scientific impact[M] //BARTLING S,FRIESIKE S.Opening science. Springer international publishing, 2014:179-189.DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8.
[14] BORNMANN L. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2014,8(4):895-903.
[15] SHEMA H, BAR-LLAN J. Characteristics of Researchblogging.org science Blogs and Bloggers[v0] [EB/OL].[2015-11-01]. http://altmetrics.org/workshop2011/shema-v0/.
[16] ZAHEDI Z, COSTAS R, WOUTERS P. How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of 'alternative metrics' in scientific publications[J]. Scientometrics,2014,101(2):1491-1513.
[17] KURTZ M J, BOLLEN J. Usage bibliometrics[J]. Annual review of information science and technology, 2010,44(1): 1-64.
[18] 邱均平,余厚强. 论推动替代计量学发展的若干基本问题[J]. 中国图书馆学报,2015(1):4-15.
[19] WATSON A B. Comparing citations and downloads for individual articles at the Journal of Vision[J]. Journal of vision,2009,9(4):1-4.
[20] DE WINTER J C F. The relationship between Tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles[J]. Scientometrics,2015,102(2):1773-1779.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
