The next bibliometricsALMetrics (Author Level Metrics) and the multiple faces of author impact

  1. Enrique Orduña-Malea 1
  2. Alberto Martín-Martín 2
  3. Emilio Delgado-López-Cózar 2
  1. 1 Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01460j859

  2. 2 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

Revue:
El profesional de la información

ISSN: 1386-6710,  1699-2407

Année de publication: 2016

Titre de la publication: Metamedios y audiencias

Volumen: 25

Número: 3

Pages: 485-496

Type: Article

DOI: 10.3145/EPI.2016.MAY.18 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: El profesional de la información

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Résumé

The main goal of this article is to describe the purpose and content of a new branch of bibliometrics: ALMetrics (Author Level Metrics). ALMetrics is focused on the quantitative analysis of an author’s performance by measuring the dimensions of their intellectual activity as shown through varied metric indicators. This article will list, define, and classify the different metrics that are offered in newer information portals that showcase the scientific activity of authors. These metrics are grouped into five sets: bibliometrics (publication and citation), usage, participation, rating, social connectivity, and composite indicators. This new bibliometric specialty is necessary because of new trends in scientific assessment, which have moved analysis away from old bibliometrics (based on journal analysis and Impact Factor) towards new bibliometrics that analyze both documents and authors via a mix of indicators. Most importantly, ALMetrics responds to the researchers’ desire for both knowledge and acknowledgement.

Références bibliographiques

  • Das, Anup-Kumar (2015). Research evaluation metrics (mod. 4). Unesco Publishing. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002322/232210E.pdf
  • Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2014). “La nueva bibliometría: nuevos horizontes, nuevas oportunidades, nuevos peligros. Vino viejo en odre nuevo”. EC3noticias, 11 abril. http://ec3noticias.blogspot.com.es/2014/04/la-nuevabibliometria-nuevos-horizontes.html
  • Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio; Martín-Martín, Alberto (2015). Thomson Reuters coquetea con las altmetrics: usage counts para los artículos indizados en la Web of Science. Granada: EC3 Working papers, 20. http://hdl.handle.net/10481/38281
  • DeSanto, Dan; Nichols, Aaron (in press). “Scholarly metrics baseline: A survey of faculty knowledge, use, and opinion about scholarly metrics”. College & research libraries. http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2016/02/25/crl16-868. abstract
  • Flenley, Neil (2016). Innovations in scholarly communication: results from the survey of Emerald authors. Emerald Group. http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/promo/pdf/ scholarly_communication.pdf
  • Gardner, Tracy; Inger, Simon (2013). How readers discover content in scholarly journals. Comparing the changing user behaviour between 2005 and 2012 and its impact on publisher web site design and function. Abingdon: Renew Training. ISBN: 978 0 9573920 4 5 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/13
  • Garfield, Eugene (2006). “The history and meaning of the journal impact factor”. JAMA, v. 295, n.1, pp. 90-93. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jamajif2006.pdf
  • Garfield, Eugene; Sher, Irving H. (1963). “New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing”. American documentation, v. 14, n. 3, pp. 195-201. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p492y1983. pdf
  • Habib, Michael C. (2013). Measure for measure: The role of metrics in assessing research performance. Society for Scholarly Publishing. http://www.slideshare.net/habibmi/ssp-metrics-mch2
  • Haustein, Stefanie; Peters, Isabella; Bar-Ilan, Judith; Priem, Jason; Shema, Hadas; Terliesner, Jens (2014). “Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community”. Scientometrics, v. 101, n. 2, pp. 1145-1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3
  • Hirsch, Jorge E. (2005). “An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 102, n. 46, pp. 16569-16572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
  • Kramer, Bianca; Bosman, Jeroen (2015). “101 innovations in scholarly communication the changing research workflow” [poster]. https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1286826.v1
  • Martín-Martín, Alberto; Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Ayllon, Juan M.; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2016). The counting house: measuring those who count. Presence of bibliometrics, scientometrics, informetrics, webometrics and altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter. EC3 Working papers, 21. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.02412
  • Martín-Martín, Alberto; Orduña-Malea, Enrique; DelgadoLópez-Cózar, Emilio (2016). The role of ego in academic profile services: Comparing Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Mendeley, and Researcherid. London School of Economics and Political Science, March 4. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/03/04/ academic-profile-services-many-mirrors-and-faces-for-asingle-ego
  • Mohammadi, Ehsan; Thelwall, Mike (2014). “Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows”. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 65, n. 8, pp. 1627-1638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23071
  • Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Ayllon, Juan M.; Martín-Martín, Alberto; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2014). “The silent fading of an academic search engine: the case of Microsoft Academic Search”. Online information review, v. 38, n. 7, pp. 936-953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/oir-07-2014-0169
  • Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Martín-Martín, Alberto; DelgadoLópez-Cózar, Emilio (2016). “ResearchGate como fuente de evaluación científica: desvelando sus aplicaciones bibliométricas”. El profesional de la información, v. 25, n. 2, pp. 303310. http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.mar.18
  • Priem, Jason; Piwowar, Heather A.; Hemminger, Bradley M. (2012). “Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact”. http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745
  • Robinson-García, Nicolás; Torres-Salinas, Daniel; Zahedi, Zohreh; Costas, Rodrigo (2014). “New data, new possibilities: Exploring the insides of Altmetric.com”. El profesional de la información, v. 23, n. 4, pp. 359-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2014.jul.03
  • Seglen, Per O. (1997). “Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research”. BMJ: British medical journal, v. 314, n. 7079, pp. 498-502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
  • Taylor & Francis (2014). Open access survey: examining the changing views of Taylor & Francis authors. http ://www.tandfon l ine .com/page/openaccess/ opensurvey/2014
  • Van-Noorden, Richard (2014). “Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network”. Nature, v. 512, n. 7513, pp. 126-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/512126a
  • Wildgaard, Lorna (2015). “A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in astronomy, environmental science, philosophy and public health in Web of science and Google scholar”. Scientometrics, v. 104, n. 3, pp. 873-906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1608-4
  • Wildgaard, Lorna; Schneider, Jesper W.; Larsen, Birger (2014). “A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators”. Scientometrics, v. 101, n. 1, pp. 125-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1423-3
La source de données: Dialnet