任胜利的编辑之家分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/rensl Email: silei10@sina.com

博文

Usage metrics versus altmetrics: confusing terminology?

已有 3668 次阅读 2015-5-18 21:23 |个人分类:论著分享|系统分类:论文交流|关键词:学者

Usage metrics versus altmetrics: confusing terminology? [Glänzel W, et al.]

Usagemetrics havealready been around much longer than altmetrics. In fact, usage metrics areeven older than citation metrics, because librarians have been tracking usagesince the beginning of their profession, ranging from basic user surveys to theusage tracking of physical journal issues and monographs to library loanstatistics to the sophisticated analysis of e-media usage (e-metrics).

With theadvent of electronic resources, particularly electronic journals, and theirincreasing acceptance, this resulted in a rapid change in the user preferenceespecially since 2002. Usage metrics have become increasingly popular inscientometric analyses beyond librarian practices. Analyses gradually shiftedfrom the local to the global level. As a result, usage metrics werereintroduced as an interesting alternative to traditional citation metrics,although they should rather be regarded as supplementary metrics.

The importanceof usage metrics has not only been stressed for journals, but new studies havealso suggested addressing not only views and downloads from e-books but alsoloan analyses for monographs.

The term ‘‘altmetrics’’was introduced later than ‘‘usage metrics’’.As the name suggests, they are also meant as an alternative to citationmetrics. In contrast to usage metrics they are based on the repercussion ofwhatsoever publications on the web, notably in social media, in contrast tousage metrics which, for so far, rely on e-content from publishers and otherinformation providers. The whole concept is still in its infancy, still lackingstandardization of what exactly and how this is all measured. Whereas usage metrics target downloadsand views, which are the most usual proxies for usage at present, evenif they rather measure the intention to use something than their actual usage, altmetrics comprise of anabundance of very heterogeneous indicators from mentions and captures,to links, bookmarks, storage, andconversations. Of course, many social media also include views anddownloads, but these are collected at different levels (often onlytool-specific) and have neither the same dimension nor the same relevance asglobal data from publishers and information providers or local data based onlibrary-licensed or archived e-content.

A cleardistinction between usage, citations and altmetrics is also made in the altmetricsmanifesto (http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/) or in the description of PLOSArticle-Level Metrics (ALMs; http://article-level-metrics.plos.org/).

One of thefuture challenges of scientometrics is to improve the quality and the extensionof the impact assessment when analyzing research performance. Citations are an acceptable andcorrect proxy for the measure of the publications impact, however, only for asubset of the scientific community, namely the ‘‘publish or perish’’ group andonly of the impact reflected by documented scholarly communication. Itis common knowledge that many disciplines address much broader audiences withinthe scholar community and even beyond (societal impact). Usage metrics andaltmetrics both allow the development of new indicators in order to gain a muchbroader and more complete picture of scientific communication.

Glänzel W, Gorraiz J. Usage metrics versus altmetrics: confusingterminology? Scientometrics, 2015, 102: 2161–2164

 

PDF全文:Scientometrics-usage-altmetrics-2015.pdf

 

 



http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-38899-891124.html

上一篇:学术期刊出版商:世界最大vs.世界最强
下一篇:NSFC关于受资助项目科研论文实行开放获取的政策声明

4 陈小润 许培扬 赵星 杜建

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (0 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2020-5-27 01:45

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部